[Senate Report 115-230]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 379
115th Congress } { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 115-230
_______________________________________________________________________
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
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
April 16, 2018.--Ordered to be printed
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
79-010 WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
RAND PAUL, Kentucky HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota KAMALA D. HARRIS, California
STEVE DAINES, Montana 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
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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\See, 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).
\3\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, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs & Border Protection).
\4\Id. (statement of Rebecca Gambler, Director, Homeland Sec. and
Justice, Gov't Accountability Office).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Id. (statement of Ronald Vitiello, Deputy Chief, U.S. Border
Patrol, U.S. Customs & Border Protection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 programs 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.
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.
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 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.
[all]