U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

79–010 

" ! SENATE 115TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2018

115–230 

Calendar No. 379 

BORDER SECURITY TECHNOLOGY 

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 146 

TO STRENGTHEN ACCOUNTABILITY FOR DEPLOYMENT OF 

BORDER SECURITY TECHNOLOGY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

APRIL 16, 2018.—Ordered to be printed 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, California 

DOUG JONES, Alabama 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel 

MELISSA EGRED, Research Assistant 

MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director 

STACIA M. CARDILLE, Minority Chief Counsel 

CHARLES A. MOSKOWITZ, Minority Senior Legislative Counsel 

SUBHASRI RAMANATHAN, Minority Counsel 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

1 In the 114th Congress the Committee approved S. 1873, the Border Security Technology Accountability Act of 2015. The bill did not pass the Senate. This committee report is substantially 

similar to Chairman Johnson’s committee report for S. 1873, S. Rep. No. 114–234. 

Calendar No. 379 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 115–230 

BORDER SECURITY TECHNOLOGY ACCOUNTABILITY 

ACT OF 2017 

APRIL 16, 2018.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. JOHNSON, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 146] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 146) to strengthen accountability 

for deployment of border security technology at the Department of 

Homeland Security, and for other purposes, having considered the 

same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1 

II. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................... 2 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 3 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 3 

V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 4 

VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 4 

VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 5 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

S. 146, the Border Security Technology Accountability Act of 

2017, codifies higher accountability standards for the deployment of 

technology with a nexus to border security.1 This bill requires the 

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS or the 

2 

2See, i.e., The Effects of Border Insecurity and Lax Immigration Enforcement on American 

Communities: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 115th 

Cong. (2017); Fencing Along the Southwest Border: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Homeland 

Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 115th Cong. (2017); Improving Border Security and Public Safety: 

Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 115th Cong. (2017); 

Border Insecurity: The Rise of MS–13 and Other Transnational Criminal Organizations: Hearing 

Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 115th Cong. (2017); Border Security and America’s Heroin Epidemic: The Impact of the Trafficking and Abuse of Heroin and 

Prescription Opioids in Wisconsin: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. (2016); America’s Heroin Epidemic at the Border: Local, State, and 

Federal Law Enforcement Efforts to Combat Illicit Narcotic Trafficking: Hearing Before the S. 

Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015); Securing the Border: 

Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Force Multipliers: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on 

Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015). 3Securing the Border: Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Force Multipliers: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015) (statement 

of Ronald Vitiello, Deputy Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs & Border Protection). 4 Id. (statement of Rebecca Gambler, Director, Homeland Sec. and Justice, Gov’t Accountability Office). 5 Id. (statement of Ronald Vitiello, Deputy Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs & Border 

Protection). 6 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–15–171SP, Homeland Security Acquisitions: Major 

Program Assessments Reveal Actions Needed to Improve Accountability 1 (2015), available at 

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO–15–171SP. 

Department) to submit a detailed report demonstrating that each 

major acquisition program—defined as a program with an eventual 

total expenditure of $300 million or more over its life cycle cost— 

is aligned with approved baseline cost, schedule, and performance 

thresholds. Further, S. 146 requires the Secretary to report to Congress on the use of independent verification and validation processes, adding a layer of audits that may help identify cost overruns 

or delays. 

II. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

During the 114th and 115th Congresses, the Committee has held 

a series of hearings designed to examine border security, with particular attention given to the unique challenges of securing our borders, present shortcomings in addressing border security, and the 

consequences of our unsecured borders.2 While testifying during a 

hearing, entitled Securing the Border: Fencing, Infrastructure, and 

Technology Force Multipliers, Ronald Vitiello, Deputy Chief of the 

U.S. Customs & Border Protection’s (CBP) Border Patrol, described 

how his component views border technology as a force multiplier 

helping frontline personnel accomplish their core mission.3 Further, 

in several reports, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has 

shed light on how technologies providing remote surveillance of unoccupied territories and advanced detection capabilities improve 

the Border Patrol’s situational awareness in between the ports of 

entry.4

However, CBP has faced challenges in procuring and managing 

technology used to implement its border security policy. For example, in 2011, the Department had to cancel CBP’s SBInet program, 

initially intended to be a comprehensive technological border surveillance program, due to significant cost overruns and schedule 

delays.5

According to GAO, until DHS and its components, like CBP, take 

necessary steps to mitigate existing accountability gaps, more acquisition projects are at risk of fraud, waste, and abuse.6

This bipartisan bill seeks to codify practices that DHS should already be implementing under its internal control standards. This 

bill requires the Secretary of DHS to ensure all acquisition proVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:37 Apr 17, 2018 Jkt 079010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR230.XXX SR230
3 

grams have an approved written baseline; all programs are meeting cost, schedule, and performance thresholds in compliance with 

departmental acquisition policies and the Federal Acquisition Regulation. In addition, this bill requires the Secretary to submit a 

plan for testing and evaluation for border security technology. The 

purpose of the plan is to ensure new border technologies are evaluated through a series of assessments, processes, and audits to ensure compliance and effectiveness of taxpayer dollars. Due to the 

amount of government resources and taxpayer money at stake, as 

well as the significance of border security to our homeland security, 

allotting greater oversight for the testing and evaluation of border 

security technologies is necessary to ensure their effective and efficient implementation. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senator John McCain (R–AZ) introduced S. 146, the Border Security Technology Accountability Act of 2017, on January 12, 2017. 

The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs. Senators Claire McCaskill (D–MO) and Margaret Hassan (D–NH) joined as cosponsors on October 3, 2017. 

The Committee considered S. 146 at a business meeting on October 4, 2017. The Committee ordered S. 146 reported favorably by 

voice vote en bloc with Senators Johnson, Lankford, Daines, 

McCaskill, Tester, Heitkamp, Hassan, and Harris present. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Section. 1. Short title 

This section provides the bill’s short title, the ‘‘Border Security 

Technology Accountability Act of 2017.’’ 

Section 2. Border security technology accountability 

Subsection (a) includes additional accountability standards to the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002 by requiring that each major acquisition program has a written baseline approved by proper supervising authorities, ensuring the required baselines comply with relevant Federal Acquisition Regulations, and setting a blueprint to 

meet implementation objectives. 

Subsection (b) requires the Secretary of DHS to ensure all major 

acquisition programs meet internal control standards certified by 

the Comptroller General of the United States. 

Subsection (c) requires the Secretary of DHS to submit a report 

to Congress on the use of independent verification and validation 

processes to ensure taxpayer’s dollars are being used effectively 

when deploying additional border security technology. 

Subsection (d) provides a definition for ‘‘major acquisition program.’’ 

Section 3. Prohibition on additional authorization of appropriations 

This section clarifies that Congress does not authorize new appropriations for DHS to implement the provisions included in this 

bill. 

4 

V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this bill and determined that the bill will 

have no regulatory impact within the meaning of the rules. The 

Committee agrees with the Congressional Budget Office’s statement that the bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, October 12, 2017. 

Hon. RON JOHNSON, Chairman, 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

U.S. Senate Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 146, the Border Security 

Technology Accountability Act of 2017. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

S. 146—Border Security Technology Accountability Act of 2017 

S. 146 would direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

to improve the planning, documentation, and management of certain programs to acquire border security technology. The bill also 

would require DHS to submit a plan to the Congress to ensure that 

such programs comply with federal acquisition policies. 

Based on the cost of similar activities, CBO estimates that implementing S. 146 would cost less than $500,000, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. There are ongoing efforts within DHS 

to carry out the actions required by the bill and improve the overall 

management of technology programs for border security. 

Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

CBO estimates that enacting S. 146 would not increase net direct 

spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10- 

year periods beginning in 2028. 

S. 146 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not 

affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz. The 

estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

5 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by S. 146, as reported, are shown as follows: (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in brackets, new matter is printed in italic, and existing 

law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 6—DOMESTIC SECURITY 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 1—HOMELAND SECURITY ORGANIZATION 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter IV—Border, Maritime, and Transportation 

Security 

* * * * * * * 

PART C—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 434. BORDER SECURITY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 

(a) PLANNING DOCUMENTATION.—For each border security technology acquisition program of the Department that is determined to 

be a major acquisition program, the Secretary shall— 

(1) ensure that each such program has a written acquisition 

program baseline approved by the relevant acquisition decision 

authority; 

(2) document that each such program is meeting cost, schedule, and performance thresholds as specified in such baseline, 

in compliance with relevant departmental acquisition policies 

and the Federal Acquisition Regulation; and 

(3) have a plan for meeting program implementation objectives by managing contractor performance. 

(b) ADHERENCE TO STANDARDS.—The Secretary, acting through 

the Under Secretary for Management and the Commissioner of U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, shall ensure that border security 

technology acquisition program managers who are responsible for 

carrying out this section adhere to relevant internal control standards identified by the Comptroller General of the United States. The 

Commissioner shall provide information, as needed, to assist the 

Under Secretary in monitoring proper program management of border security technology acquisition programs under this section. 

(c) PLAN.—The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for 

Management, and in coordination with the Under Secretary for 

Science and Technology and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, shall submit a plan to the appropriate congressional committees for testing and evaluation, and the use of independent verification and validation resources, for border security 

6 

technology so that new border security technologies are evaluated 

through a series of assessments, processes, and audits to ensure— 

(1) compliance with relevant departmental acquisition policies and the Federal Acquisition Regulation; and 

(2) the effectiveness of taxpayer dollars. 

(d) MAJOR ACQUISITION PROGRAM DEFINED.—In this section, the 

term ‘major acquisition program’ means a Department acquisition 

program that is estimated by the Secretary to require an eventual 

total expenditure of at least $300,000,00 (based on fiscal year 2017 

constant dollars) over its life cycle cost. 

Æ