```

[Senate Report 114-234]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                      Calendar No. 406
114th Congress     }                                     {      Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session        }                                     {     114-234
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                      

         BORDER SECURITY TECHNOLOGY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2015

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                   COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND

                          GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                              to accompany

                                S. 1873

             TO STRENGTHEN ACCOUNTABILITY FOR DEPLOYMENT OF
BORDER SECURITY TECHNOLOGY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, AND 
                           FOR OTHER PURPOSES

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                 April 4, 2016.--Ordered to be printed
                                    ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

59-010                         WASHINGTON : 2016                 
                 
                 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona                 THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire          CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa                     GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BEN SASSE, Nebraska

                  Christopher R. Hixon, Staff Director
                Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Chief Counsel
       William H.W. McKenna, Chief Counsel for Homeland Security
     Brooke N. Ericson, Deputy Chief Counsel for Homeland Security
              Gabrielle A. Batkin, Minority Staff Director
           John P. Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
               Mary Beth Schultz, Minority Chief Counsel
               Holly A. Idelson, Minority Senior Counsel
     Stephen R. Vina, Minority Chief Counsel for Homeland Security
                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                     

                     
                     
                     
                     
                                                      Calendar No. 406
114th Congress     }                                     {      Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session        }                                     {     114-234

======================================================================

 
         BORDER SECURITY TECHNOLOGY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2015

                                _______
                                

                 April 4, 2016.--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. 1873]

    The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 1873) 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 with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, 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

    The purpose of S. 1873, the Border Security Technology 
Accountability Act of 2015, is to strengthen accountability for 
the deployment of border security technology at the Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS or ``the Department''). This bill 
will enhance accountability by requiring managers at the 
Department to demonstrate that each major acquisition program 
for border security technology is meeting approved baseline 
cost, schedule, and performance thresholds. The bill also 
requires that the Department evaluate--internally and through 
the use of independent verification and validation resources--
the effectiveness of the technology in securing the border.

              II. Background and the Need for Legislation

    Earlier this Congress, the Committee received testimony on 
the importance of technology as a force multiplier in border 
security enforcement.\1\ For example, the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) testified that the United States 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ``has identified the 
mission benefits of its surveillance technologies, such as 
improved situational awareness and agent safety.''\2\ Those 
technologies include remote surveillance of unoccupied 
territory and advanced detection capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Securing 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, Office of Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Prot.).
    \2\Id. (statement of Rebecca Gambler, Director, Homeland Sec. and 
Justice, Gov't Accountability Office).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, CBP has struggled to procure technological 
capabilities for border security enforcement at an appropriate 
cost or on an appropriate schedule. Since 2005, the GAO has 
included DHS's acquisition management on their ``High Risk 
List,'' meaning it is at a high risk of fraud, waste, and 
abuse.\3\ As an example, in 2005, DHS attempted to deploy the 
Secure Border Initiative-network (SBInet)--a networked system 
of highly integrated sensors, radars, and tactical 
communications that would form a virtual border across the 
southwest border.\4\ However, in 2011, ``after repeated 
technical problems, cost overruns, and scheduled delays,'' 
then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano cancelled 
the program, except for the pre-existing deployment in 
Arizona.\5\ Today, after spending approximately $1 billion, 
SBInet covers only 53 miles of the 387-mile Mexico-Arizona 
border.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-15-171SP, Homeland Security 
Acquisitions: Major Program Assessments Reveal Actions Needed to 
Improve Accountability 1 (2015).
    \4\Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-14-411T, Arizona Border 
Surveillance Technology Plan Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen 
Management and Assess Effectiveness 1 (2014).
    \5\After SBInet- The Future of Technology on the Border: Hearing 
Before the House Subcomm. on Border and Maritime Sec. of the House 
Comm. on Homeland Sec., 112th Cong. (2011) (statement of Mark 
Borkowski, Michael Fisher, and Nicale Kostelnik, U.S. Dep't of Homeland 
Sec.).
    \6\Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-14-411T, Arizona Border 
Surveillance Technology Plan Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen 
Management and Assess Effectiveness 1 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Alternative [Southwest] Border Technology Plan, or 
Arizona Technology Plan, replaced SBInet in 2011.\7\ The plan 
called for seven technology capabilities across Arizona, 
including Integrated Fixed Towers (IFT), Remote Video 
Surveillance Systems (RVSS), Mobile Surveillance Capability 
(MSC), Mobile Video Surveillance Systems, Agent-Portable 
Surveillance Systems, Thermal Imaging Devices, and Unattended 
Ground Sensors.\8\ The IFT, RVSS, and MSC technologies 
constituted approximately 97 percent of the plan's estimated 
costs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-12-22, Arizona Border 
Surveillance Technology More Information on Plans and Costs is Needed 
Before Proceeding 7 (2011).
    \8\See id.
    \9\Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-15-595T, Border Security: 
Progress and Challenges in DHS's Efforts to Implement and Assess 
Infrastructure and Technology 3 (2015) in Securing the Border: Fencing, 
Infrastructure, and Technology Force Multipliers: Hearing Before the S. 
Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015) 
(statement of Rebecca Gambler, Director, Homeland Sec. and Justice, 
Gov't Accountability Office).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In March 2014, GAO reported that although CBP had a 
schedule for the seven technology capabilities within the 
Arizona Technology Plan, ``four of the programs would not meet 
their originally planned completion dates.''\10\ Additionally, 
the date for the IFT program to become operational moved from 
the end of fiscal year (FY) 2013 to the end of FY2015.\11\ Full 
operational capability for the Arizona Technology Plan, which 
was scheduled to occur by September 2015, is now slated to 
occur in March 2022, seven years after the originally projected 
date.\12\ These and other findings caused GAO to caution, in 
subsequent testimony, that, ``CBP needs to develop and 
implement performance measures and analyze data it is now 
collecting to be able to fully assess the contributions of its 
technologies to border security.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Id.
    \11\Id. at 4.
    \12\Id.
    \13\Securing the Border: Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology 
Force Multipliers: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & 
Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015) (statement of Rebecca Gambler, 
Director, Homeland Sec. and Justice, Gov't Accountability Office).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Border Security Technology Accountability Act of 2015 
would implement GAO's recommendation by ensuring cost control 
mechanisms for new border technology projects, safeguarding 
taxpayer dollars, and improving the oversight of major DHS 
acquisitions programs for border security technology. 
Specifically, S. 1873 requires that major acquisition programs 
for border security technologies have an acquisition program 
baseline before moving to the next phase of the acquisition 
lifecycle, adhere to internal control standards identified by 
the Comptroller General of the United States, and have a 
testing and evaluation plan and independent verification and 
validation.

                        III. Legislative History

    Representative Martha McSally introduced H.R. 1634, the 
Border Security Technology Accountability Act of 2015, on March 
25, 2015, which was referred to the House Committee on Homeland 
Security. The House Committee on Homeland Security considered 
the bill and reported it with amendments on July 27, 2015. The 
bill passed the House on the same day under suspension, by 
voice vote. The following day, July 28, 2015, the Senate 
received the engrossed act and referred it to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
    On the same day--July 28, 2015--Senator John McCain 
introduced S. 1873, the Senate companion to H.R. 1634, which 
was also referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs. The Committee considered S. 1873 at a 
business meeting on October 7, 2015.
    Senator McCain offered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, to conform it to H.R. 1634, as engrossed in the 
House. The Committee adopted the amendment and ordered the 
bill, as amended, reported favorably, both by voice vote. 
Senators present for both votes were: Johnson, Portman, 
Lankford, Enzi, Ernst, Sasse, Carper, McCaskill, Baldwin, 
Heitkamp, and Booker.

        IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Act, as Reported

Section 1. Short title

    This section provides the bill's short title, the ``Border 
Security Technology Accountability Act of 2015.''

Section 2. Border security technology accountability

    This section amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by 
creating a new section 434, ``Border Security Technology 
Program Management.''
    Subsection (a) requires that for each border security 
technology acquisition program that is determined to be a major 
acquisition program, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
ensure that the program has a written acquisition program 
baseline approved by the relevant acquisition decision 
authority; document that each program is meeting cost, 
schedule, and performance thresholds specified in the baseline; 
and create a plan for meeting implementation objectives.
    Subsection (b) requires the Secretary, acting through both 
the Under Secretary for Management and the Commissioner of CBP, 
to ensure border security managers adhere to relevant internal 
control standards.
    Subsection (c) requires the Secretary to submit to Congress 
a plan for testing and evaluation, as well as the use of 
independent verification and validation resources, for border 
security technology to ensure that all new border security 
technologies are evaluated through a series of assessments, 
processes, and audits.
    Subsection (d) defines ``Major Acquisition Program'' as an 
acquisition program that will require a life-cycle cost of at 
least $300,000,000 (based on fiscal year 2015 constant 
dollars).
    Subsection (e) provides a clerical amendment to the table 
of contents of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

Section 3. Prohibition of additional authorization of appropriations

    This section clarifies that no additional funds are 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out the requirements of 
this bill.

                   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 act and determined 
that the act will have no regulatory impact within the meaning 
of the rules. The Committee agrees with the Congressional 
Budget Office's statement that the act 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

                                                  October 19, 2015.
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. 1873, the Border 
Security Technology Accountability Act of 2015.
    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.
    Enclosure.

S. 1873--Border Security Technology Accountability Act of 2015

    S. 1873 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. 1873 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. Because enacting the legislation would not 
affect direct spending or revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures do 
not apply.
    CBO estimates that enacting S. 1873 would not increase net 
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2026.
    S. 1873 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.
    On July 24, 2015, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 
1634, the Border Security Technology Accountability Act of 
2015, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Homeland 
Security on June 25, 2015. The two bills are similar, and CBO's 
estimates of their budgetary effects are the same.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz. 
The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

       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. 1873 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):

                     HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
is as follows:
     * * * * * * *

       TITLE IV--DIRECTORATE OF BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

     * * * * * * *

                  Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 434. Border security technology program management.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE IV--DIRECTORATE OF BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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 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, in coordination with the Under 
Secretary for Science and Technology and the Commissioner of 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, shall submit to the 
appropriate congressional committees a plan for testing and 
evaluation, as well as the use of independent verification and 
validation resources, for border security technology so that 
new border security technologies are evaluated through a series 
of assessments, processes, and audits to ensure compliance with 
relevant departmental acquisition policies and the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation, as well as 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 $300,000,000 
(based on fiscal year 2015 constant dollars) over its life 
cycle cost.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                  [all]
```