[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]