Report text available as:

(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?



114th Congress   }                                       {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session     }                                       {     114-226

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



 
         BORDER SECURITY TECHNOLOGY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2015

                                _______
                                

 July 27, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. McCaul, from the Committee on Homeland Security, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1634]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Homeland Security, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 1634) 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
      Purpose and Summary.............................................2
      Background and Need for Legislation.............................3
      Hearings........................................................3
      Committee Consideration.........................................3
      Committee Votes.................................................3
      Committee Oversight Findings....................................3
      New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditure4
      Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................4
      Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives...........4
      Duplicative Federal Programs....................................5
      Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff 
      Benefits........................................................5
      Federal Mandates Statement......................................5
      Preemption Clarification........................................5
      Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................5
      Advisory Committee Statement....................................5
      Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................5
      Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation..................6
      Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported...........7
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Border Security Technology 
Accountability Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. BORDER SECURITY TECHNOLOGY ACCOUNTABILITY.

  (a) In General.--Subtitle C of title IV of the Homeland Security Act 
of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 231 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new section:

``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.''.
  (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of the Homeland 
Security Act of 2002 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
section 433 the following new item:

``Sec. 434. Border security technology program management.''.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
this Act and the amendments made by this Act. This Act and such 
amendments shall be carried out using amounts otherwise available for 
such purposes.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 1634 requires that each border security technology 
program with a significant lifecycle cost estimate have an 
acquisition program baseline and that it be approved by the 
relevant acquisition decision authority. It also requires the 
Department of Homeland Security's Under Secretary for 
Management to work with the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) to implement internal control standards 
and best practices identified by the Comptroller General of the 
United States. In addition, this legislation requires the Under 
Secretary for Management and the Commissioner of CBP to work 
together to develop and submit to Congress a plan for testing 
and evaluation of border security technologies, as well as the 
use of independent verification and validation resources.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    Since 2005, the GAO has identified DHS's acquisition 
management as an activity on their ``High Risk List,'' which 
identifies programs highly susceptible to fraud, waste, abuse, 
and mismanagement or most in need of broad reform. The 
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Secure Border 
Initiative (SBInet) is a prime example of such mismanagement. 
Initial plans developed in 2005 and 2006 called for SBInet to 
extend across the entire U.S.-Mexico border. Major technical 
issues, delays, cost overruns and management problems cost 
taxpayers nearly $1 billion for minimal results. In January 
2011, DHS cancelled SBInet, and is currently focusing on 
smaller successor programs to help better secure the border.
    The Border Security Technology Accountability Act of 2015 
requires that DHS border security technology programs 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 as well as use independent 
verification and validation resources.

                                Hearings

    No hearings were held on H.R. 1634.

                        Committee Consideration

    The Committee met on June 23, 2015, to consider H.R. 1634, 
and ordered the measure to be reported to the House with a 
favorable recommendation, amended, by voice vote. The Committee 
took the following actions:
    The following amendments were offered:
 An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Ms. 
McSally (#1); was AGREED TO, as amended, by voice vote.


 An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 
offered by Mrs. Watson Coleman (#1A) consisting of an amendment 
by Ms. Jackson Lee; was AGREED TO by voice vote.
     Page 1, line 17, strike ``and''.
     Page 2, line 5, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
     Page 2, after line 5, insert the following:``(3) have a plan for 
meeting program implementation objectives by managing contractor 
performance.''.

                            Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the recorded 
votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments 
thereto.
    No recorded votes were requested during consideration of 
H.R. 1634.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee has held oversight 
hearings and made findings that are reflected in this report.

   New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 
1634, the Border Security Technology Accountability Act of 
2015, would result in no new or increased budget authority, 
entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues.

                  Congressional Budget Office Estimate

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 24, 2015.
Hon. Michael McCaul,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1634, 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,
                                         Robert A. Sunshine
                                        (For Keith Hall, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1634--Border Security Technology Accountability Act of 2015

    H.R. 1634 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 H.R. 1634 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 border security 
technology programs. Because enacting the legislation would not 
affect direct spending or revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures do 
not apply.
    H.R. 1634 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.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 1634 contains the following 
general performance goals and objectives, including outcome 
related goals and objectives authorized.
    The general performance goal of this bill is to ensure the 
DHS Under Secretary for Management works with the Commissioner 
of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to implement internal 
control standards and best practices identified by the 
Comptroller General of the United States to improve the 
management of CBP's border security technology programs.

                      Duplicative Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c) of Rule XIII, the Committee finds 
that H.R. 1634 does not contain any provision that establishes 
or reauthorizes a program known to be duplicative of another 
Federal program.

   Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff 
                                Benefits

    In compliance with Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of the Rule 
XXI.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                        Preemption Clarification

    In compliance with section 423 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, requiring the report of any Committee on a bill or 
joint resolution to include a statement on the extent to which 
the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt State, 
local, or Tribal law, the Committee finds that H.R. 1634 does 
not preempt any State, local, or Tribal law.

                  Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

    The Committee estimates that H.R. 1634 would require no 
directed rule makings.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation


Section 1.   Short Title.

    This section provides that bill may be cited as the 
``Border Security Technology Accountability Act of 2015''.

Section 2    Border Security Technology Accountability.

            Subsection (a)   Planning Documentation.
    This subsection requires that each border security 
technology program with a significant lifecycle cost estimate 
have an acquisition program baseline and that it be approved by 
the relevant acquisition decision authority. Significant 
lifecycle cost estimate is certainly anything defined as a 
level 2 program under DHS Management Directive 102, but perhaps 
programs as small as $100 million dollars in total lifecycle 
cost.
            Subsection (b)   Adherence to Standards.
    This subsection requires the DHS Under Secretary for 
Management to work with the Commissioner of CBP to implement 
internal control standards and best practices identified by the 
Comptroller General of the United States. The Committee is 
concerned that CBP's Arizona Border Surveillance Technology 
Plan does not have an integrated master schedule across the 
various programs as the GAO recommended in order to understand 
the interdependencies and sequencing of the deployed 
capabilities. CBP disagreed with this GAO recommendation.
    The Committee expects that all aspects of this bill will be 
implemented consistent with OMB's IT-management initiatives 
such as PortfolioStat, TechStat, and Federal Information 
Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) requirements [P.L. 
113-291, Title VIII, Subtitle D, section 831].
            Subsection (c)   Plan.
    This subsection states that the DHS Under Secretary for 
Management and the Commissioner of CBP shall work together to 
develop and submit to Congress a plan for testing and 
evaluation of border security technologies as well as the use 
of independent verification and validation (IV&V;) resources. In 
GAO Report GAO-15-171SP, auditors noted that DHS leadership 
would be better informed to make deployment decisions if it 
consistently received documentation clearly stating whether 
systems have met all of their key performance parameters 
(KPPs).
    Contracted IV&V; agents are able to independently test, 
verify, and evaluate solutions to ensure that all technology 
products and services meet federal government standards and are 
performing to their defined capabilities. IV&V; requirements 
ensure that new, expensive, and cutting-edge technologies are 
evaluated through a series of assessments, processes, and 
procedure audits. IV&V; also incorporates project and 
performance management, as well as systems analysis and design, 
in order to deliver maximum effectiveness of technology 
products. The Committee believes that taxpayer money should 
only be used for border security technology and infrastructure 
that performs as promised.
            Subsection (d)   Definition.
    This subsection defines the term ``major acquisition 
program'' as a Department acquisition program that is estimated 
by the Secretary to require at least $300,000,000 (in FY15 
dollars) over its entire life cycle.

Section 3.   Prohibition on Additional Authorization of Appropriations.

    This section established that no additional funding will be 
authorized to carry out the requirements of this bill.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italics 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) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Homeland 
Security Act of 2002''.
  (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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle 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 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]