[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 4, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H7811-H7813]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNITED STATES PORTS OF ENTRY THREAT AND OPERATIONAL REVIEW ACT
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 6400) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to
conduct a threat and operational analysis of ports of entry, and for
other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6400
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page H7812]]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``United States Ports of Entry
Threat and Operational Review Act''.
SEC. 2. PORTS OF ENTRY THREAT AND OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Requirement.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, acting through the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, shall submit to the Committee on Homeland
Security and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Finance of the
Senate a threat and operational analysis of ports of entry.
(2) Contents.--The threat and operational analysis required
under paragraph (1) shall include an assessment of the
following:
(A) Current and potential threats posed by individuals and
organized groups seeking--
(i) to exploit security vulnerabilities at ports of entry;
or
(ii) to unlawfully enter the United States through such
ports of entry.
(B) Methods and pathways used to exploit security
vulnerabilities at ports of entry.
(C) Improvements needed at ports of entry to prevent the
unlawful movement of people, illicit drugs, and other
contraband across the borders of the United States.
(D) Improvements needed to enhance travel and trade
facilitation and reduce wait times at ports of entry,
including--
(i) security vulnerabilities associated with prolonged wait
times;
(ii) current technology at ports of entry that can be
adapted to handle more volume, increase efficiency, and
improve accuracy of detection efforts; and
(iii) infrastructure additions and upgrades.
(E) Processes conducted at ports of entry that do not
require law enforcement training and could be--
(i) filled with--
(I) non-law enforcement staff; or
(II) the private sector, for processes or activities
determined to not be inherently governmental (as such term is
defined in section 5 of the Federal Activities Inventory
Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-270)); or
(ii) automated.
(3) Analysis requirements.--In compiling the threat and
operational analysis required under paragraph (1), the
Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, shall
consider and examine the following:
(A) Personnel needs, including K-9 Units, and estimated
costs, at each port of entry, including such needs and
challenges associated with recruitment and hiring.
(B) Technology needs, including radiation portal monitors
and non-intrusive inspection technology, and estimated costs
at each port of entry.
(C) Infrastructure needs and estimated costs at each port
of entry.
(b) Ports of Entry Strategy and Implementation Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 270 days after the
submission of the threat and operational analysis required
under subsection (a) and every five years thereafter for ten
years, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
shall provide to the Committee on Homeland Security and the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a ports of
entry strategy and implementation plan.
(2) Contents.--The ports of entry strategy and
implementation plan required under paragraph (1) shall
include a consideration of the following:
(A) The ports of entry threat and operational analysis
required under subsection (a), with an emphasis on efforts to
mitigate threats and challenges identified in such analysis.
(B) Efforts to reduce wait times at ports of entry and
standards against which the effectiveness of such efforts may
be determined.
(C) Efforts to prevent the unlawful movement of people,
illicit drugs, and other contraband across the borders of the
United States at the earliest possible point at ports of
entry and standards against which the effectiveness of such
efforts may be determined.
(D) Efforts to focus intelligence collection and
information analysis to disrupt transnational criminal
organizations attempting to exploit vulnerabilities at ports
of entry and standards against which the effectiveness of
such efforts may be determined.
(E) Efforts to verify that any new port of entry technology
acquisition can be operationally integrated with existing
technologies in use by the Department of Homeland Security.
(F) Lessons learned from reports on the business
transformation initiative under section 802(i)(1) of the
Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (Public
Law 114-125).
(G) CBP staffing requirements for all ports of entry.
(H) Efforts to identify and detect fraudulent documents at
ports of entry and standards against which the effectiveness
of such efforts may be determined.
(I) Efforts to prevent, detect, investigate, and mitigate
corruption at ports of entry and standards against which the
effectiveness of such efforts may be determined.
(c) Ports of Entry Described.--In this section, the term
``ports of entry'' means United States air, land, and sea
ports of entry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) and the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson
Coleman) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
General Leave
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the United States has over 300 official ports of entry,
ranging from land border ports along our southern and northern borders
to international airports in major metropolitan cities, to seaports
ranging from the Great Lakes to coastal cities. While each port
facilitates trade and travel that keeps our economy humming, each has
their own unique security challenges to prevent illicit activity. That
is why it is imperative that we know the vulnerabilities and
operational needs at each and every port in order to properly protect
our homeland from threats and exploitation.
I introduced this bill because our country's ports are long overdue
for a comprehensive review. My bill requires the Department of Homeland
Security to do a full threat and operational analysis of these
vulnerabilities and create a strategy and implementation plan to
prevent human trafficking, illicit drugs, illegal contraband, and
transnational criminal activity at our air, land, and sea ports of
entry.
The bill also works to improve the flow of commerce that is vital to
our economy. We need to not only think about the security of our ports,
but also the infrastructure and operational needs as well.
Ports of entry continue to be a preferred location for transnational
criminal organizations and drug smugglers to transport illicit drugs
and contraband into the United States. In fact, between October 1,
2010, and March 31, 2018, Customs and Border Protection conducted more
than 84 million nonintrusive inspection examinations, resulting in more
than 19,000 narcotics seizures and $79 million in currency seizures.
Many U.S. ports of entry were built 40 to 50 years ago. Therefore,
they were never designed for post-9/11 security measures, technology,
or increased volume of traffic. These infrastructure constraints
magnify the threats at our ports of entry and manifest themselves as
long lines and bottlenecks that strain Customs and Border Protection's
ability to properly vet all incoming traffic. In addition, long lines
and wait times delay trade and cost the U.S. economy millions of
dollars every year in lost productivity.
This is why my bill's required analysis will look over current and
potential threats, methods, and pathways used to exploit security
vulnerabilities and improvements needed to improve illicit drugs and
other contraband from crossing our border. Following the analysis, my
bill directs the Department of Homeland Security to create a strategy
and implementation plan to address the threats and operational
inefficiencies identified. We need to fix these problems. We need to
take action. Our ports must be brought into the 21st century.
I am pleased by the support I have received on this legislation, and
I specifically want to thank Chairman Brady of the House Ways and Means
Committee and Chairman McCaul of the House Homeland Security Committee
for working with me to bring this bill to the floor. Modernizing our
ports of entry is just one step in securing our border.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to join me in supporting H.R. 6400,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H7813]]
Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, August 31, 2018.
Hon. Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McCaul: I write to you regarding H.R. 6400,
the ``United States Ports of Entry Threat and Operational
Review Act.'' The Committee on Ways and Means has
jurisdiction over this bill and an additional referral was
granted to the Committee on Homeland Security. The Committee
on Homeland Security ordered this bill favorably reported.
Because of the extensive communication regarding the policies
contained in the bill, the Committee on Ways and Means is
willing to waive formal consideration of the bill so that it
may proceed expeditiously to the House Floor.
Please note that by waiving formal consideration of the
bill, the Committee on Ways and Means is in no way waiving
its jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in those
provisions of the bills that fall within your Rule X
jurisdiction.
I will include a copy of our letters in the Congressional
Record during consideration of this legislation on the House
floor and would support your effort to seek appointment of an
appropriate number of conferees on any House-Senate
conference involving this legislation.
Sincerely,
Kevin Brady,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, September 4, 2018.
Hon. Kevin Brady,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Brady: Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 6400, the ``United States Ports of Entry Threat and
Operational Review Act.'' I appreciate your support in
bringing this legislation before the House of
Representatives, and accordingly, understand that the
Committee on Ways and Means will not take further action on
this bill.
The Committee on Homeland Security concurs with the mutual
understanding that by foregoing consideration on this bill at
this time, the Committee on Ways and Means does not waive any
jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this bill
or similar legislation in the future. In addition, should a
conference on this bill be necessary, I would support a
request by the Committee on Ways and Means for conferees on
those provisions within your jurisdiction.
I will insert copies of this exchange in the report on the
bill for H.R. 6400. I thank you for your cooperation in this
matter.
Sincerely,
Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman.
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6400, the United States Ports
of Entry Threat and Operational Review Act.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6400 would require the Department of Homeland
Security to conduct an analysis of the threats and operations at all
United States air, land, and sea ports of entry.
Following the completion of the threat analysis, H.R. 6400 requires
the Department to produce a strategy and implementation plan to
mitigate such threats. The strategy and implementation plan must
include consideration of improvements needed at the ports of entry to
reduce wait times and facilitate the lawful movement of trade, travel,
and people.
This bill is modeled after the Northern Border Security Review Act,
which was signed into law in 2016. Most of what is required in this
measure is already being done by the Department. What H.R. 6400 would
do is bring together various mandated materials into one report. The
Department should be able to carry out this new mandate in a way that
is not duplicative of other efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 6400, a
measure that directs DHS to take a holistic approach to protecting our
ports of entry, vital gateways for trade and travel.
Speaking of the need for a holistic approach to homeland security, I
would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that the Department's
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review is 247 days overdue.
Pursuant to section 707 of the Homeland Security Act, the Department
is required to produce this overarching strategy every 4 years. As the
author of the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Technical
Corrections Act of 2017, a measure aimed at improving the quality of
future reviews that is pending in the Senate, I strongly believe that
DHS needs to do a better job of prioritizing its vast array of homeland
security mission areas.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues to support
H.R. 6400, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 6400, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________