[Senate Report 116-322]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                  Calendar No. 625

116th Congress}                                           { Report
                                 SENATE
  2d Session  }                                           { 116-322

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

      SOUTHWEST BORDER SECURITY TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2020

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                   COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND

                          GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                              to accompany

                                S. 4224

            TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO
    ASSESS TECHNOLOGY NEEDS ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER AND DEVELOP A 
                    STRATEGY FOR BRIDGING SUCH GAPS

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


               December 14, 2020.--Ordered to be printed
               
                              __________
               
               
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
                           WASHINGTON : 2020                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------               
               
               
               
        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
MITT ROMNEY, Utah                    KAMALA D. HARRIS, California
RICK SCOTT, Florida                  KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri

                Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Staff Director
                   Joseph C. Folio III, Chief Counsel
                 Caroline K. Bender, Research Assistant
               David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director
               Zachary I. Schram, Minority Chief Counsel
         Samuel Rodarte Jr., Minority Professional Staff Member
                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                     
                     
                     
                                                  Calendar No. 625

116th Congress}                                           { Report
                                 SENATE
  2d Session  }                                           { 116-322

======================================================================      
 
      SOUTHWEST BORDER SECURITY TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2020

                                _______
                                

               December 14, 2020.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Johnson, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
                    Affairs, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 4224]

    The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 4224) to require 
the Secretary of Homeland Security to assess technology needs 
along the Southern border and develop a strategy for bridging 
such gaps, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and 
recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Purpose and Summary.............................................1
  II. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................2
 III. Legislative History.............................................4
  IV. Section-by-Section Analysis.....................................4
   V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact.................................5
  VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.......................5
 VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported...........5

                         I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    The purpose of S. 4224, the Southwest Border Security 
Technology Improvement Act of 2020, is to analyze the 
technology used along the southwest border and provide Congress 
a better understanding of how the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS or Department) makes technology decisions and 
what other technological solutions may be needed to improve 
border security, both at ports of entry and between ports of 
entry. If enacted, this bill will provide a comprehensive 
assessment of available technological advancements and how they 
can be better leveraged to address DHS' needs with respect to 
combating illegal activity and facilitating lawful trade and 
travel.

              II. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    The nation's border with Mexico spans almost 2,000 miles, 
and is protected by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP), which oversees nine U.S. Border Patrol sectors and four 
Office of Field Operations offices along the varied and rugged 
terrain of the southwest border.1A\1\ In 1993, Sandia National 
Laboratories identified at least ten distinct terrain 
categories along the southwest border.1A\2\ Each area of 
terrain requires a different enforcement strategy, including 
surveillance technology, physical barriers, and personnel.1A\3\ 
According to CBP Division Chief Raleigh Leonard, ``We have yet 
to discover that one piece of technology [sic] is a one-size-
fits-all solution.''\4\ Instead, the U.S. government must 
determine which technologies work best along each area of the 
diverse terrain, as well as at ports of entries, which provide 
CBP unique challenges with the need to manage the flow of trade 
while combatting drug smuggling and other crimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Border Wall System--Frequently Asked Questions, U.S. Customs & 
Border Prot., https://www.cbp.gov/border- security/ border- wall/
border- wall-system- frequently-asked- questions#text= What%20is%20the 
%20length%20of, Mexico%20is%20approximately %201%2C954%20miles.; Border 
Patrol Sectors, U.S. Customs & Border Prot., https://www.cbp.gov/
border-security/along-us-borders/border-patrol-sectors; Southwest 
Border Inadmissibles by Field Office Fiscal Year 2020, U.S. Customs & 
Border Prot., https://www.cbp.gov/ newsroom/stats/ sw-border-migration/ 
ofo-sw-border-inadmissibles.
    \2\Sandia Nat'l Laboratories, Systematic Analysis of the Southwest 
Border, Volume 1 at 14 (1993), https://www.dhs.gov/ sites/default/
files/publications/ systematic-analysis- of-southwest-border-vol-1.pdf.
    \3\Dep't of Homeland Sec., Office of Inspector Gen., OIG 09-56, 
Progress in Addressing Secure Border Initiative Operational 
Requirements and Constructing the Southwest Border Fence (2009), 
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/ assets/Mgmt/OIGApr09.pdf.
    \4\Eric Blum, Further Reflection, U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 
https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/ frontline-june- az-technology; (last 
visited July 27, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Previous CBP commissioners have acknowledged that the key 
to securing any segment of the southwest border requires 
solutions comprised of the appropriate mix of personnel, 
infrastructure, and technology. In April 2017, then-Acting 
Commissioner David Aguilar told the Committee that, 
``[i]nfrastructure, technology and personnel are critical 
aspects of the solution that will ensure enhanced control over 
the entire border.''\5\ S. 4224 focuses on one key aspect of 
this three-pronged border security solution: technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Fencing Along the Southwest Border: Hearing Before the S. Comm. 
on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 115th Cong. 2 (2017) 
(statement of David Aguilar, Former Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CBP Deputy Commissioner Robert Perez recently stated that 
CBP processes more than a million travelers per day on average 
and ``technology is on the front line with our agents and 
officers 24/7, so it is critical that we have the latest and 
greatest tools in our toolbox.''\6\ In recognition of the need 
to ensure that CBP has the necessary resources to execute its 
border security mission and acquire additional technological 
capabilities, the President's Fiscal Year 2021 Budget request 
included ``$2.3 billion in high priority investments in border 
security technology, infrastructure, and equipment to help CBP 
prevent, detect, and interdict illegal border crossings.''\7\ 
In March 2020, Acting Commissioner Mark Morgan stated that 
``everyday more miles of new border wall system and 
technologies are being deployed to the border.''\8\ As CBP 
increases its investments in technological solutions along the 
southwest border, it is also important that DHS analyze the 
gaps and identify the needs along our southwest border and 
share that information with Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Newsroom Spotlight, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, CBP 
Leaders Talk Technology at Texas Border Security Expo (Mar. 13, 2020), 
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/spotlights/cbp-leaders-talk-technology-
texas-border-security-expo.
    \7\Strengthening Border Security and Immigration Enforcement, White 
House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/FY21-Fact-
Sheet-Immigration-Border-Security.pdf (last visited July 27, 2020).
    \8\Telephonic Press Briefing with Mark A. Morgan, Acting 
Commissioner of U.S. Customs & Border Protection, U.S. Dep't of State 
(Mar. 12, 2020), https://www.state.gov/telephonic-press-briefing-with-
mark-a-morgan-acting-commissioner-of-u-s-customs-and-border-
protection/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is also demonstrated by several DHS Office of 
Inspector General (OIG) and Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) reports that suggest DHS could improve its technology 
development and deployment.\9\ According to one report from DHS 
OIG, ``[The Science & Technology Directorate] S&T did not fully 
comply with requirements of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 
as amended, by not effectively coordinating and integrating 
department-wide [research and development] R&D 
activities.''\10\ The report also stated, ``S&T did not 
effectively gather, track, and manage data on the Department's 
R&D gaps and activities because the tools it had to capture the 
data were redundant, and S&T had not developed policies and 
procedures for integrating the data from them into a single, 
comprehensive database.''\11\ This legislation will assist DHS 
leadership in tackling such challenges by improving their 
ability to prioritize technology gaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\See e.g., Dep't of Homeland Sec., Office of Inspector General, 
OIG-19-59, S&T Is Not Effectively Coordinating Research & Development 
Efforts Across DHS (Sept. 18, 2019), https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/
default/files/assets/2019-09/OIG-19-59-Sep19.pdf; U.S. Gov. 
Accountability Office, GAO-14-368, Arizona Border Surveillance 
Technology Plan: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen Management and 
Assess Effectiveness (Mar. 3, 2014), https://www.gao.gov/mobile/
products/GAO-14-368; U.S. Gov. Accountability Office, GAO-20-48G, 
Technology Readiness Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Evaluating 
the Readiness of Technology for Use in Acquisition Programs and 
Projects (Jan. 7, 2020), https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-20-
48G; U.S. Gov. Accountability Office, GAO-17-177, Bioforensics: DHS 
Needs to Conduct a Formal Capability Gap Analysis to Better Identify 
and Address Gaps (Jan. 11, 2017), https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/
GAO-17-177; U.S. Gov. Accountability Office, GAO-14-865T, Department of 
Homeland Security: Actions Needed to Strengthen Management of Research 
and Development (Sept. 9, 2014), https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/
GAO-14-865T.
    \10\OIG-19-59, What We Found, supra note 9.
    \11\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CBP's increased investments in technological solutions to 
enhance its border security operations along the southwest 
border demonstrate the need for a thorough assessment of the 
current and future technological needs. S. 4224 requires DHS to 
conduct an analysis of technology gaps and needs along the 
southwest border, including an assessment of technology used to 
preventing terrorism, combatting illegal activity, and 
facilitating legal trade and travel, and report on the findings 
of this analysis to Congress. The bill also requires DHS to 
analyze technology used at ports of entry and between the ports 
including manned and unmanned aerial systems, surveillance 
technology, non-intrusive inspection technology, tunnel 
detection technology, and communications equipment. As part of 
this analysis, DHS is required to assess its ongoing border 
security technology development efforts at CBP, the S&T, and 
other operational components, and consider formal departmental 
requirements that examine border security threats and 
challenges. Additionally, the bill requires DHS to consider 
migration trends, projected staffing needs, challenges faced by 
DHS employees, cooperation needs among border communities and 
Mexican partners, privacy implications in the deployment of 
technology, the needs to assist with search and rescue efforts 
of individuals in distress along the southwest border, and 
recent technological advancements that could improve border 
security. The report will help Congress better understand how 
DHS makes decisions related to border security and associated 
technology investments.

                        III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) introduced S. 4224, the 
Southwest Border Security Technology Improvement Act of 2020, 
on July 20, 2020, with Senator John Cornyn (R-TX). Senator 
James Lankford (R-OK) joined as a co-sponsor on July 21, 2020. 
The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
    The Committee considered S. 4224 at a business meeting on 
July 22, 2020. During the business meeting, a substitute 
amendment was offered by Senator Sinema and adopted by 
unanimous consent. The substitute amendment includes minor 
technical changes, including changing the frequency of reports 
to Congress. The bill, as amended, was ordered reported 
favorably en bloc by voice vote. Senators present for the en 
bloc vote on the amendment and bill as amended were: Johnson, 
Portman, Paul, Lankford, Romney, Scott, Enzi, Hawley, Peters, 
Carper, Hassan, Harris and Rosen.

        IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Section 1. Short title

    This section established that the bill may be cited as the 
``Southwest Border Security Technology Improvement Act of 
2020.''

Section 2. Definitions

    This section provides definitions for the terms 
``Appropriate Congressional Committee,'' ``Department,'' 
``Secretary,'' and ``Southwest Border''.

Section 3. Southern border technology needs analysis and updates

    Subsection (a) requires DHS to submit a technology needs 
analysis to Congress within one year of enactment of the bill.
    Subsection (b) lays out the contents required to be 
analyzed by DHS in the report required under subsection (a). 
This includes technology to prevent terrorism, combat illegal 
cross-border activity, and to facilitate trade and travel. This 
subsection requires DHS to analyze specific technologies such 
as manned aircraft systems, unmanned aerial systems, 
surveillance technology, non-intrusive inspection technology, 
tunnel detection technology, communications equipment, and 
other technologies. Additionally, this subsection provides that 
DHS is to assess how new technologies will interact with the 
Department's mission, enhance the safety of personnel, improve 
border security, and reduce technology gaps. The analysis is 
also to include an evaluation of ongoing border security 
technology efforts by component, information technology, 
barriers and infrastructure, and any currently deployed or new 
technologies that would reasonably allow DHS to achieve 
operational control and situational awareness of the southwest 
border.
    Subsection (c) requires that DHS update its analysis and 
submit a report on the updated analysis to appropriate 
congressional committees biannually for 6 years, beginning two 
years following the initial report. Additionally, this 
subsection requires that each update include a plan for how DHS 
will meet the border security technology needs and gaps it 
identified.
    Subsection (d) lays out specific requirements for what DHS 
must consider in its analysis and updates. This includes 
examining the sufficiency of deployed and necessary 
technologies, department requirements, trends in migration, 
projected staffing, documentation examining current border 
security threats and challenges, cooperation with other 
government and international partners, privacy implications, 
the effect of any public health emergencies that impact DHS 
operations, and the Department's search and rescue humanitarian 
mission.
    Subsection (e) provides that the analysis and updates 
should be unclassified but may also include classified portions 
if necessary.

                   V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

    Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule 
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has 
considered the regulatory impact of this bill and determined 
that the bill will have no regulatory impact within the meaning 
of the rules. The Committee agrees with the Congressional 
Budget Office's statement that the bill contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs 
on state, local, or tribal governments.

             VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

    CBO failed to provide the Committee with a cost estimate in 
time for the final reporting deadline of the 116th Congress.

       VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    Because S. 4224 would not repeal or amend any provision of 
current law, it would make no changes in existing law within 
the meaning of clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI 
of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

                                  [all]