PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 27, 2015
Border Security Technology Accountability Act of 2015
(Sec. 2) Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to: (1) ensure that each border security technology acquisition program that is determined to be a major acquisition program has an acquisition program baseline approved by the relevant acquisition decision authority; (2) document that each such program is meeting the cost, schedule, and performance thresholds specified in such baseline in compliance with relevant departmental acquisition policies and the Federal Acquisition Regulation; and (3) have a plan for each such program to meet program implementation objectives by managing contractor performance.
Directs: (1) the Under Secretary for Management and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to ensure that border security technology acquisition program managers adhere to relevant internal control standards identified by the Comptroller General, and (2) the Commissioner to provide information to assist the Under Secretary in monitoring proper program management of such acquisition programs.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Under Secretary for Management, in coordination with the Under Secretary for Science and Technology and the Commissioner, to submit 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.
Defines "major acquisition program" to mean a DHS acquisition program that is estimated by DHS to require an eventual total expenditure of at least $300 million over its life cycle cost.
People & committees
Rep. McSally, Martha [R-AZ-2] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5494)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5494)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1634.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5494-5495)
Ms. McSally moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 171.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 114-226.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 114-226.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1634 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1634 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1634 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1634 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.