U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–010 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2016

114–234 

Calendar No. 406 

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 

APRIL 4, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGcongress.#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 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

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. VIN ̃ A, Minority Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Calendar No. 406 

114TH CONGRESS SENATE REPORT " ! 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. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

1Securing 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). 3GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO–15–171SP, HOMELAND SECURITY ACQUISITIONS: MAJOR

PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS REVEAL ACTIONS NEEDED TO IMPROVE ACCOUNTABILITY 1 (2015). 4GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO–14–411T, ARIZONA BORDER SURVEILLANCE TECH- NOLOGY PLAN ADDITIONAL ACTIONS NEEDED TO STRENGTHEN MANAGEMENT AND ASSESS EFFEC- TIVENESS 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.). 6GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO–14–411T, ARIZONA BORDER SURVEILLANCE TECH- NOLOGY PLAN ADDITIONAL ACTIONS NEEDED TO STRENGTHEN MANAGEMENT AND ASSESS EFFEC- TIVENESS 1 (2014). 7GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO–12–22, ARIZONA BORDER SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY

MORE INFORMATION ON PLANS AND COSTS IS NEEDED BEFORE PROCEEDING 7 (2011). 8See id. 

9GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO–15–595T, BORDER SECURITY: PROGRESS AND CHAL- LENGES 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). 10 Id. 

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. 

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

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

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 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

11 Id. at 4. 12 Id. 13Securing 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). 

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

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.’’ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

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. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

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 imple- menting 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. 

* * * * * * * 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

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. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HEARING