House Report 113-87 - BORDER SECURITY RESULTS ACT OF 2013

[House Report 113-87]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

113th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 113-87

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

BORDER SECURITY RESULTS ACT OF 2013

_______

May 20, 2013.--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

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 1417]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Homeland Security, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 1417) to require the Secretary of Homeland
Security to develop a comprehensive strategy to gain and
maintain operational control of the international borders of
the United States, and for other purposes, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

CONTENTS

Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 7
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 7
Hearings......................................................... 8
Committee Consideration.......................................... 10
Committee Votes.................................................. 15
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 17
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 17
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 17
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 18
Duplicative Federal Programs..................................... 18
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits....................................................... 18
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 19
Preemption Clarification......................................... 19
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 19
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 19
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 19
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 19
Additional Views................................................. 31

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 Results Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. REPORTS ON CURRENT BORDER SECURITY STATUS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, every 180 days thereafter until the Comptroller
General of the United States reports on the results of the review
described in section 3(k)(2)(B), and every 365 days after the date of
such report, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees and the Government Accountability
Office a report that assesses and describes the state of situational
awareness and operational control. Such reports shall include an
identification of the high traffic areas and the illegal border
crossing effectiveness rate for each sector along the northern and
southern borders of the United States that are within the
responsibility of the Border Patrol.
(b) GAO Report.--Not later than 90 days after receiving the initial
report required under subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the
United States shall report to the appropriate congressional committees
regarding the verification of the data and methodology used to
determine high traffic areas and the illegal border crossing
effectiveness rate.

SEC. 3. STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS AND OPERATIONAL
CONTROL OF THE BORDER.

(a) Strategy to Secure the Border.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
comprehensive strategy for gaining and maintaining situational
awareness, and operational control of high traffic areas, by the date
that is not later than two years after the date of the submission of
the implementation plan required under subsection (c), and operational
control along the southwest border of the United States by the date
that is not later than five years after such date of submission.
(b) Contents of Strategy.--The strategy required under subsection (a)
shall include, at a minimum, a consideration of the following:
(1) An assessment of principal border security threats,
including threats relating to the smuggling and trafficking of
humans, weapons, and illicit drugs.
(2) Efforts to analyze and disseminate border security and
border threat information between Department of Homeland
Security border security components and with other appropriate
Federal departments and agencies with missions associated with
the border.
(3) Efforts to increase situational awareness, in accordance
with privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights protections,
including--
(A) surveillance capabilities developed or utilized
by the Department of Defense, including any technology
determined to be excess by the Department of Defense;
and
(B) use of manned aircraft and unmanned aerial
systems, including camera and sensor technology
deployed on such assets.
(4) Efforts to detect and prevent terrorists and instruments
of terrorism from entering the United States.
(5) Efforts to ensure that any new border security technology
can be operationally integrated with existing technologies in
use by the Department of Homeland Security.
(6) An assessment of existing efforts and technologies used
for border security and the effect of the use of such efforts
and technologies on civil rights, private property rights,
privacy rights, and civil liberties.
(7) Technology required to maintain, support, and enhance
security and facilitate trade at ports of entry, including
nonintrusive detection equipment, radiation detection
equipment, biometric technology, surveillance systems, and
other sensors and technology that the Secretary of Homeland
Security determines necessary.
(8) Operational coordination of Department of Homeland
Security border security components.
(9) Lessons learned from Operation Jumpstart and Operation
Phalanx.
(10) Cooperative agreements and information sharing with
State, local, tribal, territorial, and other Federal law
enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction on the northern or
southern borders, or in the maritime environment.
(11) Border security information received from consultation
with State, local, tribal, and Federal law enforcement agencies
that have jurisdiction on the northern or southern border, or
in the maritime environment, and from border community
stakeholders (including through public meetings with such
stakeholders), including representatives from border
agricultural and ranching organizations and representatives
from business and civic organizations along the northern or
southern border.
(12) Agreements with foreign governments that support the
border security efforts of the United States, including
coordinated installation of standardized land border inspection
technology, such as license plate readers and RFID readers.
(13) Staffing requirements for all border security functions.
(14) A prioritized list of research and development
objectives to enhance the security of the international land
and maritime borders of the United States.
(15) An assessment of training programs, including training
programs regarding--
(A) identifying and detecting fraudulent documents;
(B) protecting the civil, constitutional, human, and
privacy rights of individuals;
(C) understanding the scope of enforcement
authorities and the use of force policies;
(D) screening, identifying, and addressing vulnerable
populations, such as children and victims of human
trafficking; and
(E) social and cultural sensitivity toward border
communities.
(16) Local crime indices of municipalities and counties along
the Southern border.
(17) An assessment of how border security operations affect
crossing times.
(18) Metrics required under subsections (e), (f), and (g).
(c) Implementation Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the submission
of the strategy required under subsection (a), the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees and the Government Accountability Office an
implementation plan for each of the Department of Homeland
Security border security components to carry out such strategy.
Such implementation plan shall, at a minimum--
(A) specify what protections will be put in place to
ensure that staffing and resources necessary for the
maintenance of operations at ports of entry are not
diverted to the detriment of such operations in favor
of operations between ports of entry; and
(B) include--
(i) an integrated master schedule and cost
estimate, including lifecycle costs, for the
activities contained in such implementation
plan; and
(ii) a comprehensive border security
technology plan to improve surveillance
capabilities that includes--
(I) a documented justification and
rationale for technology choices;
(II) deployment locations;
(III) fixed versus mobile assets;
(IV) a timetable for procurement and
deployment;
(V) estimates of operation and
maintenance costs;
(VI) an identification of any
impediments to the deployment of such
technologies; and
(VII) estimates of the relative cost
effectiveness of various border
security strategies and operations,
including deployment of personnel and
technology, and construction of new
physical and virtual barriers.
(2) Government accountability office review.--Not later than
90 days after receiving the implementation plan in accordance
with paragraph (1), the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees
a report on such plan.
(d) Periodic Updates.--Not later than 180 days after the submission
of each Quadrennial Homeland Security Review required under section 707
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 347) beginning with the
first such Review that is due after the implementation plan is
submitted under subsection (c), the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees an updated--
(1) strategy under subsection (a); and
(2) implementation plan under subsection (c).
(e) Metrics for Securing the Border Between Ports of Entry.--Not
later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall implement metrics, informed by
situational awareness, to measure the effectiveness of security between
ports of entry, which shall include, at a minimum, the following:
(1) An illegal border crossing effectiveness rate, informed
by situational awareness.
(2) An illicit drugs seizure rate which measures the amount
and type of illicit drugs seized by the Border Patrol in any
fiscal year compared to an average of the amount and type of
illicit drugs seized by the Border Patrol for the immediately
preceding five fiscal years.
(3) A cocaine seizure effectiveness rate measured as a
percentage that results from dividing the amount of cocaine
seized by the Border Patrol by the total documented cocaine
flow rate as contained in Federal drug databases.
(4) Estimates, using alternative methodologies, including
recidivism data, survey data, known-flow data, and
technologically-measured data, of total attempted illegal
border crossings, total deaths and injuries resulting from such
attempted illegal border crossings, the rate of apprehension of
attempted illegal border crossers, and the inflow into the
United States of illegal border crossers who evade
apprehension.
(5) Estimates of the impact of the Border Patrol's
Consequence Delivery System on the rate of recidivism of
illegal border crossers.
(f) Metrics for Securing the Border at Ports of Entry.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall implement metrics, informed by situational awareness, to
measure the effectiveness of security at ports of entry, which
shall include, at a minimum, the following:
(A) An inadmissible border crossing rate which
measures the number of known inadmissible border
crossers who are apprehended, excluding those border
crossers who voluntarily withdraw their applications
for admission, against the total estimated number of
inadmissible border crossers U.S. Customs and Border
Protection fails to apprehend.
(B) An illicit drugs seizure rate which measures the
amount and type of illicit drugs seized by U.S. Customs
and Border Protection in any fiscal year compared to an
average of the amount and type of illicit drugs seized
by U.S. Customs and Border Protection for the
immediately preceding five fiscal years.
(C) A cocaine seizure effectiveness rate measured as
a percentage that results from dividing the amount of
cocaine seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection by
the total documented cocaine flow rate as contained in
Federal drug databases.
(D) Estimates, using alternative methodologies,
including survey data and randomized secondary
screening data, of total attempted inadmissible border
crossers, the rate of apprehension of attempted
inadmissible border crossers, and the inflow into the
United States of inadmissible border crossers who evade
apprehension.
(E) The number of infractions related to personnel
and cargo committed by major violators who are
apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at
ports of entry, and the estimated number of such
infractions committed by major violators who are not so
apprehended.
(F) A measurement of how border security operations
affect crossing times.
(2) Covert testing.--The Inspector General of the Department
of Homeland Security shall carry out covert testing at ports of
entry and submit to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the
appropriate congressional committees a report that contains the
results of such testing. The Secretary shall use such results
to inform activities under this subsection.
(g) Metrics for Securing the Maritime Border.--Not later than 120
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall implement metrics, informed by situational
awareness, to measure the effectiveness of security in the maritime
environment, which shall include, at a minimum, the following:
(1) An estimate of the total number of undocumented migrants
the Department of Homeland Security's maritime security
components fail to interdict.
(2) An undocumented migrant interdiction rate which measures
the number of undocumented migrants interdicted against the
total estimated number of undocumented migrants the Department
of Homeland Security's maritime security components fail to
interdict.
(3) An illicit drugs removal rate which measures the amount
and type of illicit drugs removed by the Department of Homeland
Security's maritime security components inside a transit zone
in any fiscal year compared to an average of the amount and
type of illicit drugs removed by the Department of Homeland
Security's maritime security components inside a transit zone
for the immediately preceding five fiscal years.
(4) An illicit drugs removal rate which measures the amount
of illicit drugs removed by the Department of Homeland
Security's maritime security components outside a transit zone
in any fiscal year compared to an average of the amount of
illicit drugs removed by the Department of Homeland Security's
maritime security components outside a transit zone for the
immediately preceding five fiscal years.
(5) A cocaine removal effectiveness rate inside a transit
zone.
(6) A cocaine removal effectiveness rate outside a transit
zone.
(7) A response rate which measures the Department of Homeland
Security's ability to respond to and resolve known maritime
threats, both inside and outside a transit zone, by placing
assets on-scene, compared to the total number of events with
respect to which the Department has known threat information.
(h) Collaboration.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
collaborate with the head of a national laboratory within the
Department of Homeland Security laboratory network with prior expertise
in border security and the head of a border security university-based
center within the Department of Homeland Security centers of excellence
network to develop the metrics required under subsections (e), (f), and
(g) to ensure the suitability and statistical validity of each such
metric. Such collaboration shall also include consultation by the
Secretary with the Governors of every border State and representatives
of the Border Patrol and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
(i) Recommendations Relating to Certain Other Metrics.--In carrying
out subsection (h), the head of the national laboratory and the head of
a border security university-based center referred to in such
subsection shall make recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland
Security for other suitable metrics that may be used to measure the
effectiveness of border security.
(j) Evaluation by the Government Accountability Office.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
make available to the Government Accountability Office the data
and methodology used to develop the metrics implemented under
subsections (e), (f), and (g).
(2) Report.--Not later than 270 days after receiving the data
and methodology referred to in paragraph (1), the Comptroller
General of the United States shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report on the suitability and
statistical validity of such data and methodology.
(k) Certifications and Reports Relating to Operational Control.--
(1) By the secretary of homeland security.--
(A) Two years.--If the Secretary of Homeland Security
determines that situational awareness and operational
control of high traffic areas have been achieved by the
date that is not later than two years after the date of
the submission of the implementation plan required
under subsection (c), the Secretary shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees and the
Comptroller General of the United States a
certification that so attests.
(B) Five years.--If the Secretary of Homeland
Security determines that operational control along the
southwest border of the United States has been achieved
by the date that is not later than five years after the
date of the submission of the implementation plan
required under subsection (c), the Secretary shall
submit to the appropriate congressional committees and
the Comptroller General of the United States a
certification that so attests.
(C) Annual updates.--Every year beginning with the
year after the Secretary of Homeland Security submits
the certification under subparagraph (B), if the
Secretary determines that operational control along the
southwest border of the United States is being
maintained, the Secretary shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees and the
Comptroller General of the United States a
certification that so attests.
(2) By the comptroller general.--
(A) Reviews.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall review the certifications of the Secretary
of Homeland Security under subparagraphs (A), (B), and
(C) of paragraph (1) to assess the certifications of
the Secretary relating to the achievement of
situational awareness, operational control, or both, as
the case may be, in accordance with such subparagraphs.
(B) Reports.--Not later than 120 days after
conducting the reviews described in subparagraph (A),
the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report on the results of each such review.
(l) Failure to Achieve Situational Awareness or Operational
Control.--If the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that
situational awareness, operational control, or both, as the case may
be, has not been achieved by the dates referred to in subparagraphs (A)
and (B) of subsection (k)(1), as the case may be, or if the Secretary
determines that operational control is not being annually maintained
pursuant to subparagraph (C) of such subsection, the Secretary shall,
not later than 60 days after such dates, submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report that describes why situational
awareness or operational control, or both, as the case may be, was not
achieved. Such report shall include, at a minimum, impediments
incurred, potential remedies, and recommendations to achieve
situational awareness, operational control, or both, as the case may
be.
(m) Government Accountability Office Report on Border Security
Duplication and Cost Effectiveness.--Not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees
a report addressing areas of overlap in responsibilities within the
border security functions of the Department of Homeland Security and
the relative cost effectiveness of border security strategies,
including deployment of additional personnel and technology, and
construction of virtual and physical barriers.
(n) Reports.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on
the following:
(1) A resource allocation model for current and future year
staffing requirements that includes optimal staffing levels at
all land, air, and sea ports of entry, and an explanation of
U.S. Customs and Border Protection methodology for aligning
staffing levels and workload to threats and vulnerabilities and
their effects on cross border trade and passenger travel across
all mission areas.
(2) Detailed information on the level of manpower available
at all land, air, and sea ports of entry and between ports of
entry, including the number of canine and agricultural
specialists assigned to each such port of entry.
(3) Detailed information that describes the difference
between the staffing the model suggests and the actual staffing
at each port of entry and between the ports of entry.
(4) Detailed information that examines both the security
impacts and competitive impacts of entering into a
reimbursement agreement with foreign governments for U.S.
Customs and Border Protection preclearance facilities.
(o) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee on
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the
Senate.
(2) Cocaine removal effectiveness rate.--The term ``cocaine
removal effectiveness rate'' means the percentage that results
from dividing the amount of cocaine removed by the Department
of Homeland Security's maritime security components inside or
outside a transit zone, as the case may be, by the total
documented cocaine flow rate as contained in Federal drug
databases.
(3) Consequence delivery system.--The term ``Consequence
Delivery System'' means the series of consequences applied to
persons illegally entering the United States by the Border
Patrol to prevent illegal border crossing recidivism.
(4) Got away.--The term ``got away'' means an illegal border
crosser who, after making an illegal entry into the United
States, is not turned back or apprehended.
(5) High traffic areas.--The term ``high traffic areas''
means sectors along the northern and southern borders of the
United States that are within the responsibility of the Border
Patrol that have the most illicit cross-border activity,
informed through situational awareness.
(6) Illegal border crossing effectiveness rate.-- The term
``illegal border crossing effectiveness rate'' means the
percentage that results from dividing the number of
apprehensions and turn backs by the number of apprehensions,
turn backs, and got aways. The data used by the Secretary of
Homeland Security to determine such rate shall be collected and
reported in a consistent and standardized manner across all
Border Patrol sectors.
(7) Major violator.--The term ``major violator'' means a
person or entity that has engaged in serious criminal
activities at any land, air, or sea port of entry, including
possession of illicit drugs, smuggling of prohibited products,
human smuggling, weapons possession, use of fraudulent United
States documents, or other offenses serious enough to result in
arrest.
(8) Operational control.--The term ``operational control''
means a condition in which there is a not lower than 90 percent
illegal border crossing effectiveness rate, informed by
situational awareness, and a significant reduction in the
movement of illicit drugs and other contraband through such
areas is being achieved.
(9) Situational awareness.--The term ``situational
awareness'' means knowledge and an understanding of current
illicit cross-border activity, including cross-border threats
and trends concerning illicit trafficking and unlawful
crossings along the international borders of the United States
and in the maritime environment, and the ability to forecast
future shifts in such threats and trends.
(10) Transit zone.--The term ``transit zone'' means the sea
corridors of the western Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico,
the Caribbean Sea, and the eastern Pacific Ocean through which
undocumented migrants and illicit drugs transit, either
directly or indirectly, to the United States.
(11) Turn back.--The term ``turn back'' means an illegal
border crosser who, after making an illegal entry into the
United States, returns to the country from which such crosser
entered.

SEC. 4. US-VISIT IMPLEMENTATION.

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a plan to implement immediately a biometric
exit capability at ports of entry under the US-VISIT program, in
accordance with the Enhanced Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-173). If the Secretary determines that development of
such a system is not feasible, the Secretary shall, not later than 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a plan to implement, not later
than two years after such date of enactment, an alternative program to
provide the same level of security.

SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON LAND BORDER CROSSING FEE STUDY.

The Secretary of Homeland Security may not conduct any study relating
to the imposition of a border crossing fee for pedestrians or passenger
vehicles at land ports of entry along the southern border or the
northern border of the United States.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 1417 is to require the Secretary of
Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive strategy to gain
and maintain operational control of the international borders
of the United States, and for other purposes.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Our homeland security hinges in part on how well we control
who and what comes into this country. A porous border is a
conduit for not only drug smugglers and human traffickers, but
is also a vulnerability that terrorists may exploit. Supporting
and overseeing the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to
secure the Nation's borders is one of the principal
responsibilities of the Congress.
Over ten years after the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), the Department still does not have a
National strategy to secure the borders or reliable metrics to
measure border security progress. Since the attacks of
September 11th, 2001, Congress has appropriated billions of
dollars to enhance border security, primarily through new
investments in personnel, technology, and infrastructure.
However, because those investments were made without the
benefit of a national border security strategy, the funds were
often expended in an ad hoc way, without well-defined goals in
mind.
The Committee believes that border security spending must
be informed by a strategic plan and assessed using robust
border security performance measures. The Border Security
Results Act (BSRA) requires a national strategy and
implementation plan to inform the Nation's border security
spending. The required implementation plan should be a roadmap
to enable the Department to achieve the 90 percent
effectiveness rate standard set forth in the legislation.
Achieving this standard must be based on a solid
understanding of the border landscape, particularly as relates
to illegal border crossings and trafficking of contraband.
Increases in situational awareness through the use of
sophisticated technologies and other means should give the
Department an ability to predict and identify changes in
illegal activity and respond accordingly. Gaining situational
awareness over the vast areas of the southern border will also
increase confidence in the effectiveness standard we expect the
Department to achieve.
The Committee believes that situational awareness of
illicit border activity is required before making a final
determination on the status of border security progress.
Situational awareness can help identify and account for the
level of ``unknown border crossers'' to refine effectiveness
rates. Achieving situational awareness can better inform
resource allocation, and provide a more comprehensive and
accurate measurement of the scope and magnitude of illicit
border crossing activity.
In the past, the Department has relied on incomplete or
inconsistent measures of border security progress, such as the
resources sent to the border or the number of people
apprehended. The Committee believes that, going forward,
progress must be assessed based on verifiable data, to the
extent possible. The development of border security metrics
at--and between--the ports of entry, and in the maritime
environment will increase confidence that the Nation's border
security efforts are based on measurable data.
The Committee believes that the reliability and suitability
of such metrics will be assured only after consultation with a
National Laboratory and DHS Centers of Excellence that
specializes in border security. Third-party verification of the
border security metrics and implementation plan required by
this bill will ensure that Congress is getting an independent
assessment of the state of border security.
Rather than continue the flawed approaches of the past,
this bill's emphasis on planning, measuring, and achieving
results will help ensure the Department is on the path to
gaining operational control of the borders.

HEARINGS

No hearings were held on H.R. 1417. However, the Committee
held oversight hearings relating to programs contained within
H.R. 1417, these hearings are listed below.

112th Congress

On February 15, 2011, the Subcommittee on Border and
Maritime Security held a hearing entitled ``Securing Our
Borders--Operational Control and the Path Forward.'' The
Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Michael J. Fisher,
Chief, Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Richard M. Stana,
Director, Homeland Security and Justice, Government
Accountability Office; and Hon. Raul G. Salinas, Mayor, City of
Laredo, Texas.
On March 15, 2011, the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime
Security held a hearing entitled ``Strengthening the Border--
Finding the Right Mix of Personnel, Infrastructure, and
Technology.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr.
Michael J. Fisher, Chief of the Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Mark
Borkowski, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Technology
Innovation and Acquisition, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Michael C. Kostelnik,
(Maj. Gen. Ret.) Assistant Commissioner, Office of CBP Air &
Marine, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of
Homeland Security; Major General Hugo E. Salazar, Adjutant
General, Arizona National Guard; and Mr. Richard M. Stana,
Director, Homeland Security and Justice, Government
Accountability Office.
On April 5, 2011, the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime
Security held a hearing entitled ``Using Resources Effectively
to Secure Our Border at Ports of Entry--Stopping the Illicit
Flow of Money, Guns, and Drugs.'' The Subcommittee received
testimony from Mr. Thomas Winkowski, Assistant Commissioner,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security; Mr. Stan Korosec, Vice President, Operations, Blue
Water Bridge Canada; Mr. Timothy J. Koerner, Vice President &
Chief Security Officer, Canadian National Railway Company; and
Hon. Richard F. Cortez, Mayor, City of McAllen, Texas.
On November 15, 2011, the Subcommittee on Border and
Maritime Security held a hearing entitled ``Protecting the
Homeland: How can DHS use DOD Technology to Secure the
Border?'' The Subcommittee received testimony from Hon. Paul N.
Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense
and Americas' Security Affairs, Office of Undersecretary of
Defense for Policy, Department of Defense; Mr. Mark Borkowski,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Technology Innovation and
Acquisition, Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
Department of Homeland Security; Dr. Adam Cox, Acting Deputy
Director, Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency,
Department of Homeland Security; and Mr. Michael Tangora,
Deputy Assistant Commandant & Director of Acquisition Services,
United States Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
On April 17, 2012, the Subcommittee held a hearing entitled
``Boots on the Ground or Eyes in the Sky: How Best to Utilize
the National Guard to Achieve Operational Control.'' The
Subcommittee received testimony from Hon. Paul N. Stockton,
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and
Americas' Security Affairs, Office of Undersecretary of Defense
for Policy, Department of Defense; Mr. Ronald D. Vitiello,
Deputy Chief of Border Patrol, U.S. Customs & Border
Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Martin
Vaughan, Executive Director, Southwest Region, Office of Air
and Marine, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, Department of
Homeland Security; Maj. Gen. John Nichols, Adjutant General,
Texas National Guard; and Mr. Brian J. Lepore, Director,
Defense Capabilities and Management, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.

113th Congress

On February 26, 2013, the Subcommittee on Border and
Maritime Security held a hearing entitled ``What Does a Secure
Border Look Like?'' The Subcommittee received testimony from
Mr. Michael J. Fisher, Chief, Border Patrol, Department of
Homeland Security; Mr. Kevin McAleenan, Acting Assistant
Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; RAdm
William D. Lee, Deputy For Operations Policy and Capabilities,
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security; Ms. Rebecca
Gambler, Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice,
Government Accountability Office; and Marc R. Rosenblum, PhD,
Specialist in Immigration Policy, Congressional Research
Service, The Library of Congress.
On March 20, 2013, the Subcommittee held a hearing entitled
``Measuring Outcomes to Understand the State of Border
Security.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr.
Michael J. Fisher, Chief, Border Patrol, Department of Homeland
Security; Mr. Kevin McAleenan, Acting Assistant Commissioner,
Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Mark Borkowski, Assistant
Commissioner, Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security; and Hon. Veronica Escobar, El Paso County Judge, El
Paso, Texas.

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Committee met on May 15, 2013, to consider H.R. 1417,
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 Committee adopted H.R. 1417, as amended, by voice vote.
The following amendments were offered:
An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1417 offered
by Mr. McCaul (#1); was AGREED TO, as amended, by voice vote.
A unanimous consent request by Mr. McCaul to consider the
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute as base text for
purposes of amendment was not objected to.
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. Thompson (#1A); was NOT AGREED TO by a
record vote of 14 yeas and 15 nays (Roll Call 1).
At the end of the bill add a new section entitled ``Sec. 4.
Authorization of Appropriations.''

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. Thompson (#1B); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
In paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of section 3, in the matter
preceding subparagraph (A), insert after the first sentence the
following: ``Such implementation plan shall include, at a
minimum, an integrated master schedule and cost estimate,
including lifecycle costs, for the activities contained in such
plan.''.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. Smith (#1C); was AGREED TO, as
amended, by voice vote.
In subsection (a) of section 3, strike ``situational awareness
and operational control by the date that is not later than two
years after the date of the submission of the implementation
plan required under subsection (c)'' and insert ``situational
awareness, and operational control of high traffic areas, by
the date that is not later than two years after the date of the
submission of the implementation plan required under subsection
(c) and operational control along the southwest border of the
United States by the date that is not less than five years
after such date of submission.''.
Amend paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (k) of section 3 to
new sections entitled:
(1) By The Secretary of Homeland Security.''
(2) By The Comptroller General.''
In subsection (l) of section 3, strike If the Secretary of
Homeland Security determines that situational awareness or
operational control, or both, has not been achieved by the date
referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary shall, not later
than 60 days after such date,'' and insert If the Secretary of
Homeland Security determines that situational awareness,
operational control, or both, as the case may be, has not been
achieved by the dates referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B)
of subsection (k)(1), as the case may be, the Secretary shall,
not later than 60 days after such dates,''.
Amend paragraph (8) of subsection (o) of section 3, strike in
high traffic areas''.

An amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. Smith to the
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1417 offered by
Ms. Jackson Lee (#1C1); was AGREED TO by voice vote.
Page 2, beginning line 17, insert a new section (C) Annual
Updates.''
Page 2, line 21, strike subparagraphs (A) and (B)'' and insert
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C)''.
Page 3, in the matter proposed to be inserted in subsection (l)
of section 3, insert or if the Secretary determined that
operational control is not being annually maintained pursuant
to subparagraph (C) of such subsection,' '' before ```the
Secretary shall,' ''.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. Smith (#1D); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
In paragraph (6) of subsection (o) of section 3, add at the end
the following: The data used by the Secretary of Homeland
Security to determine such rate shall be collected and reported
in a consistent and standardized manner across all Border
Patrol sectors.''

A unanimous consent request that Mr. Barber be listed as a
cosponsor of the amendment offered by Mr. Smith (#1D), was not
objected to.
An en bloc amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute to H.R. 1417 offered by Ms. Sanchez (#1E); was
AGREED TO by voice vote.
Consisting of the following amendments:
In paragraph (4) of subsection (e) of section 3, insert total
deaths and injuries resulting from such attempted illegal
border crossings,'' before the rate of apprehension''.
In paragraph (11) of section 3(b), insert before the period at
the end the following: including coordinated installation of
standardized land border inspection technology, such as license
plate readers and RFID readers''.
In subsection (b) of section 3, add at the end the following:
(15) An assessment of how border security operations affect
crossing times.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Ms. Sanchez (#1F); was AGREED TO by a
record vote of 29 yeas and 0 nays (Rollcall 2).
At the end of the bill, add a new section entitled Sec. 4. US--
VISIT Implementation.''

An en bloc amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute to H.R. 1417 offered by Ms. Sanchez (#1G); was
WITHDRAWN.
Consisting of the following amendments: In paragraph (7) of
section 3(b), insert ``under carriage cameras, high resolution
license plate readers,'' ``after surveillance systems,''.
In subparagraph (E) of section 3(c)(1), strike and'' at the
end.
In Subparagraph (F) of section 3(c)(1), strike the period at
the end and insert ; and''.

In section 3(c)(1), add at the end the following:
(G) a description on how the Secretary shall consult with
border communities in the development of such plan;
(H) an assessment of existing and proposed new surveillance
technology and infrastructure used for land and maritime
security to evaluate and analyze the environmental, social,
economic, and cultural impacts; and (I) a detailed estimate of
personnel needed to operate and maintain such technologies.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Ms. Sanchez (#1H); was WITHDRAWN.
Add at the end of the bill a new section entitled Sec. 4.
Department of Homeland Security Border Oversight Task Force.''

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. Marino (#1I); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
In section (l) of section 3, add at the end the following: Such
report shall include, at a minimum, impediments incurred,
potential remedies, and recommendations to achieve situational
awareness, operational control, or both, as the case may be.''.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Ms. Jackson Lee (#1J); was AGREED TO by
voice vote.
In paragraph (2) of section 3(b), insert before the period at
the end the following: and with other appropriate Federal
departments and agencies with missions associated with the
border''. In paragraph (9) of section 3(b), insert and
information sharing'' after Cooperative agreements''.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Ms. Jackson Lee (#1K); was AGREED TO by a
record vote of 28 yeas and 0 nays (Roll Call 3).
In paragraph (1) of section 3(b), insert before the period at
the end the following: , including threats relating to the
smuggling and trafficking of humans, weapons, and illicit
drugs''.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. Higgins (#1L); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
At the end of the bill add a new section entitled Sec. 4.
Prohibition on Land Border Crossing Fee Study.''

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. Palazzo (#1M); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
In subsection (b) of section 3, redesignate paragraphs (9)
through (14) as paragraphs (10) through (15), respectively.
In subsection (b) of section 3, insert after paragraph (8) the
following:
(9) Lessons learned from operation Jumpstart and Operation
Phalanx.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. Barber (#1N); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
In paragraph (10) of section 3(b), insert (including through
public meetings with such stakeholders)'' after border
community stakeholders''.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. Stewart (#1O); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
Amend section 2, insert a new section entitled Sec. 2. Reports
on Current Border Security Status.''

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. Payne (#1P); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
In paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of section 3, in the matter
preceding subparagraph (A), insert after the first sentence the
following: ``Such implementation plan shall specify what
protections will be put in place to ensure that staffing and
resources necessary for the maintenance of operations at ports
of entry are not diverted to the detriment of such operations
in favor of operations between ports of entry.''

An en bloc amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute to H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. O'Rourke (#1Q); was
AGREED TO by voice vote.
In paragraph (10) of section 3(b), insert ``and civic'' after
``business''.

In paragraph (2) of section 3(e), insert ``and type'' after
``the amount'' each place it appears.
In subparagraph (B) of section 3(f)(1), insert ``and type''
after ``the amount'' each place it appears.
In paragraph (3) of section 3(g), insert ``and type'' after
``the amount'' each place it appears.

In subparagraph (E) of section 3(c)(1), strike ``and'' at the
end.
In subparagraph (F) of section 3(c)(1), strike the period at
the end and insert ``; and ''.
In subsection (c) of section 3, add at the end the following:
(G) estimates of the relative cost effectiveness of various
border security strategies and operations, including deployment
of personnel and technology, and construction of new physical
and virtual barriers.

In subsection (m) of section 3, in the heading, add at the end
the following: ``and Cost Effectiveness''.
In subsection (m) of section 3, insert before the period at the
end the following: ``and the relative cost effectiveness of
border security strategies, including deployment of additional
personnel and technology, and construction of virtual and
physical barriers''.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. O'Rourke (#1R); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
In subsection (b) of section 3, add at the end the following:
(15) An assessment of training programs, including
training programs regarding--
(A) identifying and detecting fraudulent documents;
(B) protecting the civil, constitutional, human, and
privacy rights of individuals;
(C) understanding the scope of enforcement
authorities and the use of force policies;
(D) screening, identifying, and addressing vulnerable
populations, such as children and victims of human
trafficking; and
(E) social and cultural sensitivity toward border
communities.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. O'Rourke (#1S); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
In subsection (b) of section 3, add at the end the following:
(15) Local crime indices of municipalities and counties along
the Southern border.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. Meehan (#1T); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
In subsection (n) of section 3, add at the end the following:
(4) Detailed information that examines both the security
impacts and competitive impacts of entering into a
reimbursement agreement with foreign governments for U.S.
Customs and Border Protection preclearance facilities.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. Barletta (#1U); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
In subsection (h) of section 3, add at the end the following:
``Such collaboration shall also include consultation by the
Secretary with the Governors of every border State and
representatives of the Border Patrol and U.S. Customs and
Border Protection.''

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. Barletta (#1V); was WITHDRAWN.
In paragraph (2) of section 3(k), add at the end a new
subparagraph ``(C) Congressional Resolution of Approval.'' In
subsection (l) of section 3, insert ``, in consultation with
the Comptroller General of the United States,'' after
``Secretary of Homeland Security''.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. Perry (#1W); was WITHDRAWN.
In paragraph (8) of section 3(o), insert ``, with a goal of a
100 percent illegal border crossing effectiveness rate'' before
``, informed by situational awareness''.

Subcommittee consideration

The Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security met on
April 24 2013, to consider H.R. 1417, and ordered the measure
reported to the Full Committee with a favorable recommendation,
amended, by voice vote. The Committee took the following
actions:
The Subcommittee agreed to H.R. 1417, as amended, by voice
vote.
The following amendments were offered:
An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1417 offered
by Mrs. Miller (#1); was AGREED TO, as amended, by voice vote.
An en bloc amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute to H.R. 1417 offered by Ms. Jackson Lee (#1A); was
AGREED TO by voice vote.
In section 3(b)(3), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A),
insert ``in accordance with privacy, civil liberties, and civil
rights protections,'' before ``including''.;

In section 3(b), redesignate paragraphs (7) through (9) as
paragraphs (8) through (10), respectively.
In section 3(b), insert after paragraph (6) a new paragraph
(7).; and

In section 3, insert a new subsection (h) entitled ``(h)
Collaboration''.
In section 3(i)(1), strike ``and the independent assessment
under subsection (h)''.
In section 3(i)(2),. Strike ``and the independent assessment''.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. Duncan (#1B); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
In subsection (f), redesignate paragraphs (1) through (4) as
subparagraphs (A) through (D), respectively, and move such
subparagraphs, as so redesignated, two ems to the right.
In subsection (f), strike ``Not later than 120 days'' and
insert the following new paragraph:
``(1) In General.''
In subsection (f), add at the end the following: ``(2) Covert
Testing.''

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Ms. Sanchez (#1C); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
In section 3(c)(1), strike ``detection technology
capabilities'' and insert ``for continuous and systematic
surveillance of the international borders of the United
States.''

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Ms. Sanchez (#1D); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
Add at the end of section 3(b) the following: (10) An
assessment of existing efforts and technologies used for border
security and the effect of the use of such efforts and
technologies on civil rights, private property rights, privacy
rights, and civil liberties. (11) A prioritized list of
research and development objectives to enhance the security of
the international land and maritime borders of the United
States.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Ms. Sanchez (#1E); was WITHDRAWN.
Add at the end of the bill a new section entitled ``Sec. 4.
Border Community Liaison.''

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. Marino (#1F); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
In section 3, redesignate subsections (k), (1), and (m) as
subsections (1), (m), and (n), respectively. In section 3,
insert after subsection (j) a new subsection entitled ``(k)
Failure to Achieve Situational Awareness or Operational
Control.''

An en bloc amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute to H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. O'Rourke (#1G); was
AGREED TO by voice vote.
In section 3(b)(4), insert strike ``enhanced security'' and
insert ``both enhance security and facilitate trade''.;

In section 3(f), add at the end the following: (5) A
measurement system of how the border security apparatus affects
crossing times.

In section 3(l)(1), insert ``and their effect on cross-border
trade and passenger travel'' after ``vulnerabilities''.

An en bloc amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute to H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. Palazzo (#1H); was
AGREED TO by voice vote.
In section (b) of section (3), redesignate paragraphs (8) and
(9) as paragraphs (9) and (10), respectively, and insert after
paragraph (7) a new paragraph (8).
In section 3(m)(5), insert ``not lower than'' before ``90
percent''.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Mr. Barletta (#1I); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
In section 3(b)(6), insert ``territorial,'' after ``tribal,''.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 1417 offered by Ms. Gabbard (#1J); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
In section 3(b)(5), insert before the period at the end the
following: ``, including efforts to ensure that a new border
security technology can be operationally integrated with
existing technologies in use by the Department''.

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.

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

ROLL CALL 1

H.R. 1417

Amendment offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi (#1A), on
agreeing to the amendment
Not Agreed to: 14 yeas and 15 nays.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Yea Nay Representative Yea Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCaul, Chairman...................... ........ X Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, X
Ranking Member.
Mr. Smith of Texas........................ ........ ........ Ms. Loretta Sanchez of X
California.
Mr. King of New York...................... ........ X Ms. Jackson Lee............. X
Mr. Rogers of Alabama..................... ........ X Ms. Clarke.................. X
Mr. Broun of Georgia...................... ........ X Mr. Higgins................. X
Mrs. Miller of Michigan................... ........ X Mr. Richmond................ X
Mr. Meehan................................ ........ X Mr. Keating................. X
Mr. Duncan of South Carolina.............. ........ X Mr. Barber.................. X
Mr. Marino................................ ........ ........ Mr. Payne................... X
Mr. Chaffetz.............................. ........ X Mr. O'Rourke................ X
Mr. Palazzo............................... ........ X Ms. Gabbard................. X
Mr. Barletta.............................. ........ X Mr. Vela.................... X
Mr. Stewart............................... ........ X Mr. Horsford................ X
Mr. Hudson................................ ........ X Mr. Swalwell of California.. X
Mr. Daines................................ ........ X
Mrs. Brooks of Indiana.................... ........ X
Mr. Perry................................. ........ X
-------------------
Vote Total:................. 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

ROLL CALL 2

H.R. 1417

Amendment offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California
(#1F), on agreeing to the amendment.
Agreed to: 29 yeas and 0 nays.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Yea Nay Representative Yea Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCaul, Chairman...................... X ........ Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, X
Ranking Member.
Mr. Smith of Texas........................ ........ ........ Ms. Loretta Sanchez of X
California.
Mr. King of New York...................... X ........ Ms. Jackson Lee............. X
Mr. Rogers of Alabama..................... X ........ Ms. Clarke.................. X
Mr. Broun of Georgia...................... X ........ Mr. Higgins................. X
Mrs. Miller of Michigan................... X ........ Mr. Richmond................ X
Mr. Meehan................................ X ........ Mr. Keating................. X
Mr. Duncan of South Carolina.............. X ........ Mr. Barber.................. X
Mr. Marino................................ ........ ........ Mr. Payne................... X
Mr. Chaffetz.............................. X ........ Mr. O'Rourke................ X
Mr. Palazzo............................... X ........ Ms. Gabbard................. X
Mr. Barletta.............................. X ........ Mr. Vela.................... X
Mr. Stewart............................... X ........ Mr. Horsford................ X
Mr. Hudson................................ X ........ Mr. Swalwell of California.. X
Mr. Daines................................ X
Mrs. Brooks of Indiana.................... X
Mr. Perry................................. X
-------------------
Vote Total:................. 29 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

ROLL CALL 3

H.R. 1417

Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee (#1K), on agreeing to
the amendment.
Agreed to: 28 yeas and 0 nays.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Yea Nay Representative Yea Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCaul, Chairman...................... X ........ Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, X
Ranking Member.
Mr. Smith of Texas........................ ........ ........ Ms. Loretta Sanchez of X
California.
Mr. King of New York...................... X ........ Ms. Jackson Lee............. X
Mr. Rogers of Alabama..................... X ........ Ms. Clarke.................. X
Mr. Broun of Georgia...................... X ........ Mr. Higgins................. X
Mrs. Miller of Michigan................... X ........ Mr. Richmond................ X
Mr. Meehan................................ X ........ Mr. Keating................. X
Mr. Duncan of South Carolina.............. ........ ........ Mr. Barber.................. X
Mr. Marino................................ ........ ........ Mr. Payne................... X
Mr. Chaffetz.............................. X ........ Mr. O'Rourke................ X
Mr. Palazzo............................... X ........ Ms. Gabbard................. X
Mr. Barletta.............................. X ........ Mr. Vela.................... X
Mr. Stewart............................... X ........ Mr. Horsford................ X
Mr. Hudson................................ X ........ Mr. Swalwell of California.. X
Mr. Daines................................ X
Mrs. Brooks of Indiana.................... X
Mr. Perry................................. X
-------------------
Vote Total:................. 28 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
1417, the Border Security Results Act of 2013, 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.
The Committee believes that the de minimis costs associated
with development of a strategy, implementation plan, and
metrics required by H.R. 1417 should be supported using
existing funds appropriated for border security.

U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 20, 2013.
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. 1417, the Border
Security Results Act of 2013.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark
Grabowicz.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.
Enclosure.

H.R. 1417--Border Security Results Act of 2013

H.R. 1417 would require the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) to measure the effectiveness of the department's border
security strategy at U.S. ports of entry and along U.S. borders
(including maritime borders). The legislation would direct the
Inspector General of DHS to carry out covert testing of
security at ports of entry and report the results to the
Congress. In addition, H.R. 1417 would require DHS and the
Government Accountability Office to prepare several reports on
various aspects of the DHS border security program.
Based on information from the affected agencies and the
costs of similar activities, CBO estimates that implementing
H.R. 1417 would cost about $5 million from appropriated funds
over the 2014-2018 period. Enacting the legislation would not
affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures do not apply.
H.R. 1417 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz
and Matthew Pickford. The estimate was approved by Theresa
Gullo, 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. 1417 contains the following
general performance goals, and objectives, including outcome
related goals and objectives authorized.
The performance goals and objectives of H.R. 1417 are the
development of a National strategy and implementation plan to
secure the Nation's borders to a standard where the Department
is able to identify, apprehend, or turn back 90 percent of
individuals who illegally attempt to cross our southern land
border.
Additionally, the development of associated measurements or
metrics both at and between the ports of entry and in the
maritime environment will inform and guide future investments
in border security and allow the Congress to hold the
Department accountable for the success or failure of border
security operations.

DUPLICATIVE FEDERAL PROGRAMS

The Committee finds that H.R. 1417 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. 1417 does
not preempt any State, local, or Tribal law.

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that H.R. 1417 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 the bill may be cited as the
Border Security Results Act of 2013.''

Sec. 2. Reports on current border security status

(a) In general
This subsection requires the Secretary of Homeland Security
to issue a baseline report describing the current state of
situational awareness and operational control of the border not
later than 90 days of enactment. The Secretary is also required
to update this report every 180 days until the border is deemed
to be under operational control as defined in the act, and
annually thereafter. The report must be submitted to the
appropriate Congressional committees and the Government
Accountability Office (GAO). This section also requires the
report to include an identification of all Border Patrol
sectors the Secretary deems to be a ''high traffic area'' and
the illegal border crossing effectiveness rate for each Border
Patrol sector along the Northern and Southern Borders.
(b) GAO report
This subsection requires the GAO to review the report
required under subsection (a) and verify the data and
methodology used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to
determine high traffic areas and the illegal border crossing
effectiveness rate. While the Committee understands the
challenges inherent in calculating an accurate number of
individuals who are ''turn backs'' and ''got aways,'' the
Committee expects these metrics to be informed by situational
awareness to help ensure accuracy in calculating the illegal
border crossing effectiveness rate.
The Committee expects the Secretary's determination of high
traffic area may not be limited to only one area along the
Northern or Southern Border, and may consist of multiple areas
along each border. The Committee also believes that the GAO
review of data and methodology used to calculate the illegal
border crossing effectiveness rate is necessary to increase
transparency and confidence in the illegal border crossing
effectiveness rates reported by the Department.

Sec. 3. Strategy to achieve situational awareness and operational
control of the border

(a) Strategy to secure the border
This subsection requires the Secretary of Homeland Security
to submit a comprehensive strategy not later than 180 days
after enactment to gain and maintain operational control of
high traffic areas within two years after submission of the
implementation plan described in Section 3(c), and to obtain
operational control along the southwest border within five
years.
In recent years, the Department has measured border
security effectiveness in terms of the number of individuals
apprehended as well as the additional resources deployed to the
border, including a doubling of the Border Patrol, miles of
fence built, Unmanned Aerial Systems, and other border security
technologies. Congress provided these resources as a tactical
means necessary to achieving a strategic end, but, without
objective and reliable metrics, does not know the extent to
which our borders are secure. The Committee does not believe
that the border is secure simply because there are
approximately 21,000 agents on the border, nor is it
necessarily secure because apprehensions are the lowest they
have been since the 1970s.
In previous Committee hearings, DHS officials have
testified that the Department lacks a comprehensive strategy to
secure the borders and, as a result of ad hoc efforts to secure
the border, illicit cross-border activity shifted from one
geographic area to another, adapting and shifting to where
detection or interdiction is less likely. The Committee
believes that a comprehensive national strategy is needed to
better align border security goals, and coordinate efforts with
other countries. These actions should be done to promote
efficiency and, where practicable, unify, prioritize, and
integrate border security efforts.
The Committee believes situational awareness of illicit
border activity is required to be used to inform metrics and
the data used to calculate illicit border crossing
effectiveness rate. An understanding of cross border activity
identifies smuggling trends and helps predict future shifts in
illicit activity. Situational awareness is required to help
refine the scope and magnitude of illicit border crossing
activity and will be the basis for: (1) determining high
traffic areas; (2) outcome based metrics such as illegal border
crossing effectiveness; and (3) developing responsible
technology and resource allocation plans.
The Committee believes that regular deployment of
technologies, such as the Vehicle Dismount and Exploitation
Radar (VADER) system, will be used to refine the effectiveness
rate. The Committee believes deploying technologies to increase
situational awareness, will be essential to provide greater
confidence in the effectiveness rates required by BSRA.
(b) Contents of strategy
The strategy required in subsection (a) must include, at a
minimum, the following:
A consideration of efforts to analyze and
disseminate border security and border threat information
between DHS border security components and with other
appropriate Federal departments and agencies with missions
associated with the border. The Committee is concerned that
information obtained by the various and disparate departments
and agencies with border security responsibilities may not be
shared and disseminated in a manner that creates a common
understanding of border security threats. It is the Committee's
belief that accurate and timely sharing of information will
increase the efficacy of border security operations, foster
efficiency, and reduce risk.
Efforts to increase situational awareness through
the use of surveillance capabilities developed or utilized by
the Department of Defense, including any technology determined
to be excess by the Department of Defense, and the use of
manned aircraft and unmanned aerial systems, including camera
and sensor technology.
Efforts to detect and prevent terrorists and
instruments of terrorism from entering the United States. The
Committee expects that the strategy will address the changing
and evolving nature of all terrorist threats, including but not
limited to, improvised nuclear devices, ``dirty bombs,'' and
pandemic disease.
Efforts to ensure that any new border security
technology can be operationally integrated with existing
technologies in use by the Department of Homeland Security. The
Committee expects that resources previously provided by
Congress should be leveraged, and that new technologies will,
to the extent possible, be developed and integrated into
existing border security system networks in a complementary
manner.
An assessment of existing efforts and technologies
used for border security and the effect of the use of such
efforts and technologies on civil rights, private property
rights, privacy rights, and civil liberties.
Technology required to maintain, support, and
enhance security and facilitate trade at ports of entry,
including nonintrusive detection equipment, radiation detection
equipment, biometric technology, surveillance systems, and
other sensors and technology that the Secretary of Homeland
Security determines necessary.
Operational coordination of Department of Homeland
Security border security components. The Committee believes
that enhanced coordination between the Department's border
security components could improve efficiency of border security
operations. It is expected that the Department's strategy will
identify areas for coordination across the Department's
components, including but not limited to information sharing,
operations planning and execution, and systems integration.
A consideration of lessons learned from Operation
Jumpstart and Operation Phalanx. Operations Jumpstart and
Phalanx were conducted to provide personnel in support of the
Department's border security mission to allow the Border Patrol
time to recruit, hire, train, and field additional Border
Patrol Agents. The Department has achieved that objective. The
Committee expects a review of these two operations to include
analysis of lessons learned regarding interagency operations
planning, identification of the Department of Homeland
Security's border security capability gaps, and the long-term
plans to close those gaps.
Cooperative agreements and information sharing
with Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial, law
enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction on the Northern or
Southern Borders, or in the maritime environment. Maintaining
agreements and sharing border related information with them can
be utilized as a significant force multiplier and thus needs to
be addressed in the strategy.
Border security information received from
consultation with Federal, State, local, and Tribal law
enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction on the Northern or
Southern Border, or the maritime environment, and from border
community stakeholders (including through public meetings with
such stake holders), including representatives from border
agricultural and ranching organizations and representatives
from business and civic organizations along the Northern or
Southern Border. The Committee intends for the consultation to
include ongoing, two-way dialogue between border security
elements of the Department and the groups listed to better
inform all stakeholders of border security developments.
Agreements with foreign governments that support
the border security efforts of the United States, including
coordinated installation of standardized land border inspection
technology, such as license plate readers and radio-frequency
identification (RFID) readers.
Staffing requirements for all border security
functions. The President's Fiscal Year 2014 budget identified
significant staffing shortages within CBP's Office of Field
Operations. The Committee intends to ensure the staffing
requirements identified in the strategy required by this
section are adequate to secure our nation's borders and to
facilitate legitimate trade and travel.
A prioritized list of research and development
objectives to enhance the security of the international land
and maritime borders of the United States. The Committee
intends the strategy to address needs not met by existing
technology in a prioritized fashion to ensure the Department's
research and development needs are incorporated into the
strategy.
An assessment of training programs, including
those aimed at identifying and detecting fraudulent documents;
protecting the civil, constitutional, human, and privacy rights
of individuals; understanding the scope of enforcement
authorities and the use of force policies; screening,
identifying, and addressing vulnerable populations, such as
children and victims of human trafficking; and social and
cultural sensitivity toward border communities.
Local crime indices of municipalities and counties
along the Southern Border.
An assessment of how border security operations
affect crossing times. The Committee understands that the
Nation should ensure border security while recognizing that
legitimate trade and travel must continue in order to prevent
negative economic impacts both in border areas and across the
United States.
Metrics required under subsections (e), (f), and
(g). The Committee believes the Department should be more
forthcoming with reporting metrics and expects the metrics
developed for each domain to emphasize the importance of
outcome-based assessments.
(c) Implementation plan
This subsection requires the Secretary of Homeland Security
to submit a detailed plan to implement the Strategy required
under subsection (a). This plan shall include an implementation
plan for each of the border security components and specify
what protections will be put in place to ensure that staffing
and other resources will not be diverted from the ports of
entry to areas between the ports of entry.
Additionally, the implementation plan shall include an
integrated master schedule and cost estimates, including
lifecycle costs, and a comprehensive border security technology
plan that includes the following elements: A justification for
technology choices, deployment locations, a timetable for
procurement and deployment, estimates of operation and
maintenance costs, identification of impediments to deployment
of such technology, and estimates of the cost effectiveness of
various border security strategies and operations.
This subsection also requires a review of the Secretary's
implementation plan by the GAO, which is to submit findings
within 90 days after receiving the plan.
The Committee believes that when combined with the strategy
in subsection (a), the implementation plan will provide an
operational roadmap to achieve both situational awareness and
operational control of the border. The Committee expects that
the implementation plan will contain subsections for each of
the major operational components of the Department with border
security responsibilities and that each of those sections will
be designed to guide operational planning. The required
technology plan should be thorough and detailed to help avoid
the costly technology mistakes of the past and provide the
Committee with sufficient justification and rationale for the
Department's border security technology choices.
The Department, with support from Congress, has made
unprecedented investments in border security over the last
decade. Many of these investments have included complex
acquisitions or initiatives that required significant resources
or proved difficult to achieve. While progress has been made, a
great deal remains to be done to achieve operational control of
our borders; the Committee recognizes that requiring the
Department to achieve operational control will require
additional resources in terms of border security personnel,
technology, and infrastructure.
This will include additional funding for Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) and other Department components with a border
security mission. This bill does not authorize funding for
these new resources.
However, the Committee is prepared to support the resource
needs as informed through the development of the strategy and
implementation plan required under the bill. The Committee
believes that it is imperative that as the legislative and
implementation processes move forward, necessary funds be
provided to ensure the Department has the appropriate resources
necessary to achieve operational control. The Committee
recognizes that without such funding, the new requirements set
forth in this bill may not be achievable in the mandated
timeframe.
(d) Periodic updates
This subsection requires the strategy and implementation
plans be updated no later than 180 days after the submission of
each Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR).
By requiring the update to follow the delivery of the QHSR,
the Committee believes the Department can better coordinate the
strategy and implementation plans with other Department-level
guidance.
(e) Metrics for securing the border between ports of entry
This subsection requires the Secretary of Homeland Security
to implement metrics to measure the effectiveness of security
between ports of entry within 120 days. These metrics include:
An illegal border crossing effectiveness rate; an illicit
drug seizure rate; a cocaine seizure effectiveness rate;
estimates using alternative methodologies of inadmissible
border crossers attempting to enter the U.S., and their rate of
apprehension determined by alternative methodologies such as
recidivism data, survey data, and known flow data. This
subsection also requires estimates of the impacts of the Border
Patrol's Consequence Delivery System on the rate of recidivism
of illegal border crossers.
The Committee believes the Department should be more
forthcoming and transparent with reporting metrics regarding
border security and this provision ensures the Department will
be reporting such metrics to the Committee.
Many of the metrics included in subsections (e), (f), and
(g), such as the illegal border crossing effectiveness rate,
would provide this Committee more informative outcome-based
metrics to supplement the Border Patrol's current Government
Performance Results Act measurement of apprehensions. The GAO
has previously stated that performance metrics, like
apprehensions, bear little relationship to effectiveness as
such figures cannot be compared to a total amount of undetected
illegal activity on the border. In 2010, the GAO warned that
the ``absence of measures for border security may reduce
oversight and DHS accountability.''
This section ensures greater accountability and oversight
of the Department by requiring robust metrics to be reported to
Congress. The Committee believes the reporting of such metrics
is necessary since the Administration has failed to replace
``Operational Control'' with a more ``holistic'' measurement of
border security known as the Border Condition Index (BCI),
nearly three years after efforts to develop the BCI were
announced.
Furthermore, according to testimony before the Subcommittee
in March 2013, CBP Assistant Commissioner Mark Borkowski stated
that the BCI, when completed, would not provide the border
security information in the manner that Members had previously
expected as a replacement for Operational Control.
(f) Metrics for securing the border at ports of entry
This subsection requires the Secretary of Homeland Security
to implement metrics to measure the effectiveness of security
at ports of entry within 120 days, including: An inadmissible
border crossing rate, an illicit drug seizure rate, a cocaine
seizure effectiveness rate, estimates of the total attempted
inadmissible border crossers, their rate of apprehension, and
the rate of inflow of inadmissible border crossers who evade
apprehension.
Unique to this subsection are the required metrics that
measure the number of personnel and cargo infractions committed
by individuals apprehended at ports of entry, and the estimated
number of infractions by major violators not apprehended by
CBP. This subsection also requires a measurement of how border
security operations affect crossing times at ports of entry.
This subsection also requires the Department's Inspector
General to conduct covert testing at ports of entry and use the
results to further inform metrics of this section. Covert
testing is already used to identify security vulnerabilities at
our nation's airports and our federal facilities, and has been
used at certain areas between ports of entry.
This section is intended to apply the same principle to
enhance our border security efforts at ports of entry by
leveraging the Department's Office of Inspector General to
probe the security at our ports of entry for any weaknesses.
(g) Metrics for securing the maritime border
This subsection requires the Secretary of Homeland Security
to implement outcome-based metrics to measure the effectiveness
of border security in the maritime environment. These include:
An estimate of the total number of undocumented migrants, as
identified by the United States Coast Guard and CBP Office of
Air and Marine; an undocumented interdiction rate; an illicit
drug seizure rate, for both in and out of the transit zone; a
cocaine removal effectiveness rate, for both in and out of the
transit zone; and a response rate which measures response to
known maritime threats by placing assets on scene, compared to
the total number of known threats.
The Committee believes the Department should be forthcoming
with reporting metrics for the maritime environment. While the
Committee understands there is no current estimate of the
number of undocumented migrants attempting to enter the country
in the maritime environment, we expect the Department to
estimate such a number to develop a rate at which undocumented
migrants are interdicted.
It is the Committee's intent to have the Department report
to the Committee the effectiveness of its maritime components
in interdicting illicit drug flow into the United States. The
illicit drug seizure rate is meant to better demonstrate the
Department's success by comparing annual amounts seized to a
five-year rolling average of the total amounts seized. The
Committee understands the Consolidated Counterdrug Data Base
(CCDB) provides agreed-upon estimates for total cocaine
movement toward the United States.
This data should be used as a baseline to compare cocaine
seizures to provide a cocaine removal effectiveness rate. The
Committee expects as reliability of data for other illicit drug
further matures within the CCDB, a similar effectiveness rate
can be reported. BSRA is distinct in requiring illicit drug and
cocaine metrics for both in and out of the transit zone because
the vast majority of cocaine entering the country travels
through a known maritime transit zone. The distinction between
the two will better illustrate developing trends and better
inform resource needs.
The Committee intends that a rate measuring the
Department's ability to respond to known maritime threats by
placing assets on scene, compared to the total number of known
threats, will better demonstrate the effectiveness and capacity
of the Department's maritime components.
The Committee has been briefed by the Department's maritime
components that there is a significant number of known maritime
threats which the Department does not have the capacity to
respond. Providing this metric is designed to identify the
number and type of resources necessary in the maritime
environment to better respond to known threats not previously
pursued due to current resource constraints.
(h) Collaboration
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall collaborate with
the head of a national laboratory within the Department's
laboratory network with prior demonstrated border security
expertise and the head of a University-based Center of
Excellence to evaluate the metrics required under subsections
(e), (f), and (g) to ensure their suitability and statistical
validity for each metric. The Secretary must also consult with
border State Governors and appropriate representatives of the
Border Patrol and CBP as part of this collaboration.
The Committee believes that development of metrics for
measuring border security should be done in an objective,
scientific fashion to provide for the quantifiable, transparent
reporting of the border security progress to the extent
practicable. Measurements, such as apprehensions, have been
used to indicate success when both increasing and decreasing.
While this legislation gives the Secretary flexibility in
determining which national laboratory to collaborate with, the
Committee notes that the national labratory with expertise in
border security include Sandia National Laboratories and Los
Alamos National Laboratory.
The Committee also notes that among the Department's
Centers of Excellence with expertise in border security are the
National Center for Border Security and Immigration (NCBSI),
led by the University of Arizona in Tucson and the University
of Texas at El Paso and the Center for Maritime, Island and
Remote and Extreme Environment Security (MIREES), led by the
University of Hawaii and Stevens Institute of Technology.
(i) Recommendations relating to certain other metrics
This subsection ensures that the heads of the national lab
and the border security center of excellence will make
recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security on
metrics that may be used to measure the effectiveness of border
security, as part of the collaboration process in subsection
(h). While many metrics are prescribed in this legislation, the
Committee expects the independent experts involved will offer
additional metrics that will help the Department more
accurately measure success, or failure.
(j) Evaluation by the Government Accountability Office
This subsection requires the Secretary of Homeland Security
to provide the Government Accountability Office (GAO) with all
data and methodology used to develop the metrics required under
subsections (e), (f), and (g). This information shall be
utilized by the Comptroller General of the United States to
provide a report, within 270 days, on the suitability and
statistical validity of such data and methodology.
The Committee believes an independent review of the metrics
by the GAO will ensure greater transparency and confidence in
the suitability and statistical validity of the metrics created
by the Department.
(k) Certifications and reports relating to operational
control
This subsection requires the Secretary of Homeland Security
to submit a report to the Committee and GAO if situational
awareness and operational control of high traffic areas is
achieved within two years and within five years if the
Secretary determines operational control has been achieved
along the entire southwest border. Additionally, the Secretary
must submit an annual certification once operational control
has been achieved along the entire southwest border.
The GAO must then submit a report to Congress assessing the
Secretary's certifications.
The Committee believes that the Secretary should certify to
the Congress once operational control has been achieved so that
the Congress can scrutinize the certification to ensure that
operational control, as defined by the text has actually been
achieved. The Committee requires a GAO review for the two- and
five-year benchmarks to assess the methodology and data
certification and because the Committee believes such a third-
party verification is necessary to remove politics from the
decision to certify operational control of the border.
An independent, non-partisan assessment of whether the data
and methodology used to make sure the certification is accurate
and in accordance with the bill. Annual updates to the
certification ensure that once operational control has been
achieved, it is maintained in accordance with the definition in
the bill.
(l) Failure to achieve situational awareness or operational
control
This subsection requires the Secretary of Homeland Security
to submit a report to the appropriate Congressional committees
if situational awareness and operational control have not been
achieved in high traffic areas within two years and along the
southwest border in five years. The report must include reasons
for failure and recommendations on additional steps needed to
achieve situational awareness and operational control.
The Secretary is also required to issue this report if
operational control is not annually maintained. This addition
is necessary to ensure that efforts to secure the border
continue past the five-year operational control requirement and
to further ensure that the Department will maintain operational
control once achieved. The Committee intends to hold the
Department responsible to meet the requirements of this
legislation.
(m) Government Accountability Office report on border
security duplication and cost effectiveness
This subsection requires the GAO to submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report addressing areas
of overlap in responsibilities within the border security
functions of the Department.
Additionally, this report must address the cost
effectiveness of the various border security strategies. This
would include considering the relative cost of strategies such
as deploying additional personnel and technology, or the
construction of virtual or physical barriers.
The Committee intends for this section to assist the
Committee in first identifying and then eliminating unnecessary
duplication and overlap.
(n) Reports
This subsection requires the Secretary of Homeland Security
to submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees
on the resource allocation model for current and future year
staffing requirements at all land, air, and sea ports of entry
and an explanation of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP)
methodology for aligning staffing levels to workload and
threats. Additionally, the Secretary shall submit detailed
information on the level of manpower available at all land,
air, and sea ports of entry, as well as information describing
differences between the staffing model and actual staffing
levels. Also, the Secretary must submit detailed information
that examines both the security and competitive impacts of
entering into reimbursable agreements with foreign governments
for preclearance facilities.
The Committee is troubled that CBP has heretofore refused
to provide the items contained in paragraphs one through three
of this subsection. This is despite the fact that they have
been the subject of numerous bipartisan letters over several
Congresses.
In the Committee's view these provisions constitute simple
oversight requests and CBP's explanation for its failure to
provide them thus far to the Committee is unsatisfactory. The
Committee expects that CBP provide these documents promptly in
accordance with the Act, and that they provide the data
requested for each of the 329 current ports of entry.
Additionally, CBP's recent preclearance agreement with Abu
Dhabi gives the Committee cause for concern. We are troubled by
the prospect that an inherently governmental function--border
security--would be paid for, in large measure, by another
government.
We expect that the report in this section provide clear and
compelling justification for this preclearance operation.
Further, the Committee believes that CBP should also describe,
in great detail, how this agreement will affect the ability of
U.S. companies to fairly compete in the region, as well as its
impacts to CBP operations in the continental United States.
(o) Definitions
This subsection defines certain terminology used in the
legislation, including definitions for appropriate
congressional committees, cocaine removal effectiveness rate,
consequence delivery system, got away, high traffic areas,
illegal border crossing effectiveness rate, major violator,
operational control, situational awareness, transit zone, and
turn backs.
The Committee believes that high traffic areas may be, at a
minimum, several sectors along both the northern and southern
border, respectively, and that the use of situational awareness
and annual intelligence assessments should inform the locations
of such areas. Additionally, the Committee expects that over
time, those areas may change based on the volume of illicit
cross-border traffic.
Consistent with the Government Accountability Office's
report GAO-13-25, ``BORDER PATROL Key Elements of New Strategic
Plan Not Yet in Place to Inform Border Security Status and
Resource Needs,'' the Committee requires the U.S. Border Patrol
to standardize the collection and reporting methods of turn
backs and got aways that will enable consistent calculations of
the overall effectiveness rate across sectors of the border.
The Committee believes that DHS should be held accountable
for no less than 90 percent effectiveness; however, the
Committee also believes that 90 percent should not represent
the ceiling of our border security efforts. To that end, the
Majority believes that striving to stop 100 percent of all
illicit cross-border activity should be the attitude of every
Department employee with a border security mission.

Sec. 4. US-VISIT implementation

This section requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to
submit to the appropriate congressional committees, a plan to
implement a biometric exit capability at ports of entry under
the US-VISIT program, in accordance with the Enhanced Security
and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. If the Secretary determines
that development of such a system is not feasible, the
Secretary shall submit a separate plan for implementing, not
later than two years after the date of enactment, an
alternative program to provide the same level of security.
The Committee believes the Department must seriously
addresses one of the critical remaining recommendations of the
9/11 Commission, that ``DHS, properly supported by the
Congress, should complete, as quickly as possible, a biometric
entry-exit screening system.''
While the Committee recognizes the significant challenges
to implementation of a biometric exit capability, the Committee
believes such a system remains a valuable counterterrorism tool
and a strong immigration control mechanism. For example, the 9/
11 Commission stated that such a capability could have assisted
law enforcement and intelligence officials in August and
September 2001 with conducting a search for two of the 9/11
hijackers that were in the U.S. on expired visas.
Congress mandated the creation of a fully functioning
biometric entry and exit system in the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub. Law 108-458), and the
implementation of an integrated entry and exit data system in
the Enhanced Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (Pub.
Law 107-173).
The creation of an automated entry and exit system that
would track the arrival and departure of every alien was first
established in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996. However, 17 years after Congress
first passed legislation requiring an entry and exit system,
the United States government still does not have a fully
functioning exit system, and has failed to implement a
functioning biometric exit system.
The Committee understands the Department is making some
progress in further automating airline manifest information to
serve as a record of exit and matching with entry records,
referred to as ``enhanced biographic exit,'' the Committee does
not view this as a substitute for implementing a biometric exit
system as required by Congress.
The Committee also supports ongoing efforts associated with
the Beyond the Border Agreement with Canada, including the
sharing of Canadian entry data to serve as records of exit from
the United States. However, absent such biometric capability,
DHS lacks sufficient knowledge to know who is in the country at
any given time.

Sec. 5. Prohibition on land border crossing fee study

This section prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security
from conducting studies relating to imposing a border crossing
fee for any passenger vehicles or pedestrian border crossers.
This would apply for all land ports of entry on both the
southern or northern borders. The President's Fiscal Year 2014
budget request included a request for funds to conduct this
study. The Committee is strongly opposed to this study and to
the imposition of such fees.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

----------

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON (D-MS) ON BEHALF
OF DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Democratic Members of the Committee recognize that H.R.
1417 sets forth ambitious border security benchmarks for the
Department to achieve in a relatively short timeframe.
Specifically, the bill calls for full situational awareness and
operational control in high traffic areas in two years, and
operational control of the entire southwest border in five
years. Democratic Members recognize that significant new
investments in border security personnel, technology, and
resources will be necessary for DHS to be able to apprehend or
turn back 90 percent of the people who illegally cross the
border. Indeed, the Secretary of Homeland Security has
acknowledged in congressional testimony that to achieve
operational control in just high traffic areas, it would cost
$3 billion. This Committee conducted oversight of the SBInet
program--a modest initiative compared to gaining operational
control of the entire southwest border--that cost approximately
$1 billion and yielded disappointing results. So, the magnitude
and potential cost of gaining operational control must not be
underestimated. Yet, H.R. 1417 provides no additional funding
authorized for DHS to achieve the requirements set forth in the
bill.
Democratic Members unanimously supported an amendment I
offered to authorize $3 billion to the Department for
activities under the bill. During robust debate of the
amendment, which was ultimately defeated in a party-line vote,
we were pleased that Chairman McCaul stated that once the
implementation plan required under this Act is submitted to
Congress, he stands prepared to support a funding request.
However, we are concerned that this approach to authorizing
necessary resources runs the risk that funding will not be
forthcoming in a timely manner to ensure that the ambitious
benchmarks in this bill can be achieved on or before schedule.
As this legislation moves through the legislative process, we
strongly believe that new appropriations will need to be
authorized.
We are pleased that during the Full Committee mark up,
seventeen amendments authored by Democratic Members were
accepted, on a strong bipartisan basis. With respect to the
resources question, the Committee approved an amendment,
offered by Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY), that barred the Secretary
from pursuing a feasibility study of whether to establish new
cross-border transit fees to fund security activities and an
amendment, offered by Rep. Donald Payne, Jr., (D-NJ), against
allowing the Department to divert staffing and resources to
operations between ports of entry from ports of entry,
including airports, if doing so is to the detriment of security
at ports of entry.
In general, Democratic Members of the Committee support the
substance of the underlying Committee report; however, we do
not share the view of the Majority that ``striving to stop 100
percent of all illicit cross-border activity should be the
attitude of every Department employee with a border security
mission.'' Democratic Members of the Committee, particularly
Democrats who represent border communities, were outspoken in
their opposition to a similar proposal submitted by Rep. Scott
Perry (R-PA) at the mark up. We are concerned that this
language sends the wrong message to the Department about
Congress' expectations. Specifically, we are concerned that
asking DHS to interdict 100 percent of illicit cross-border
activity between the ports of entry would unduly divert limited
resources from other border security efforts, potentially
undermining our Nation's homeland security or economic
security. Instead, Democratic Members strongly support a
comprehensive, risk-based approach to border security that
would maximize our enforcement efforts both at and between the
ports of entry, while facilitating the legitimate flow of
cross-border trade and travel.

Bennie G. Thompson.