```

[Senate Report 114-152]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                      Calendar No. 255
114th Congress    }                                      {      Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session      }                                      {     114-152

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

      DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BORDER SECURITY METRICS ACT

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                   COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND

                          GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                              to accompany

                                S. 1864

         TO IMPROVE NATIONAL SECURITY BY DEVELOPING METRICS TO
             MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SECURITY BETWEEN
   PORTS OF ENTRY, AT POINTS OF ENTRY, AND ALONG THE MARITIME BORDER

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                October 8, 2015.--Ordered to be printed
                                  ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

59-010                         WASHINGTON : 2015                 
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona                 THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire          CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa                     GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BEN SASSE, Nebraska

                    Keith B. Ashdown, Staff Director
                  Christopher R. Hixon, Chief Counsel
             David S. Luckey, Director of Homeland Security
       William H.W. McKenna, Chief Counsel for Homeland Security
     Brooke N. Ericson, Deputy Chief Counsel for Homeland Security
              Gabrielle A. Batkin, Minority Staff Director
           John P. Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
               Mary Beth Schultz, Minority Chief Counsel
               Holly A. Idelson, Minority Senior Counsel
     Stephen R. Vina, Minority Chief Counsel for Homeland Security
                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                                                      Calendar No. 255
114th Congress    }                                      (      Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session      }                                      (     114-152

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

 
      DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BORDER SECURITY METRICS ACT

                                _______
                                

                October 8, 2015.--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. 1864]

    The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 1864), to improve 
national security by developing metrics to measure the 
effectiveness of security between ports of entry, at ports of 
entry, and along the maritime border, having considered the 
same, reports favorably with an amendment and an amendment to 
the title 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..............................................3
 IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................4
  V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................6
 VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................6
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............7

                         I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    The purpose of S. 1864, the Department of Homeland Security 
Border Security Metrics Act of 2015, is to enhance the ability 
of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) to 
assess its progress in securing the border by using consistent, 
regular, and robust border security performance measures across 
all of our borders--between the ports of entry, at ports of 
entry, and along the maritime border. The bill directs the 
Department to work with other agencies when developing its 
metrics and requires DHS to make its data available to the 
public and academic research and law enforcement communities, 
subject to applicable privacy laws. The Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) will biennially evaluate the 
suitability and statistical validity of the data and 
methodology of the metrics. Finally, the Department will 
provide Congress with an annual ``State of the Border'' report 
that provides trends for each metric.

              II. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    More than ten years after the creation of DHS, the 
Department still lacks reliable metrics to measure the status 
of border security. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, 
Congress has appropriated billions of dollars to enhance border 
security, primarily through new investments in personnel, 
technology, and infrastructure.\1\ Despite billions of dollars 
and decades of policy debates, the border is not secure.\2\ 
Illegal entries into this country persist and criminal 
enterprises have continued to exploit our weaknesses to get 
drugs, weapons, and other illicit goods into our 
communities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See, e.g., Jeh Johnson, Sec'y, Dep't of Homeland Sec., Address 
at the Center for Strategic and International Studies: Border Security 
in the 21st Century (Oct. 9, 2014), available at http://www.dhs.gov/
news/2014/10/09/remarks-secretary-homeland-security-jeh-johnson-border-
security-21st-century; Jeh Johnson, Sec'y, Dep't of Homeland Sec., 
Address at Rice University: Immigration: Perception Versus Reality 
(June 8, 2015), available at http://www.dhs.gov/news/2015/06/08/
remarks-secretary-johnson-immigration-perception-versus-reality.
    \2\See, e.g., Securing the Southwest Border: Perspectives from 
Beyond the Beltway: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & 
Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015); Securing the Border: 
Assessing the Impact of Transnational Crime: Hearing Before the S. 
Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015); 
Securing the Border: Understanding and Addressing the Root Causes of 
Central American Migration to the United States: Hearing Before the S. 
Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015); 
Securing the Border: Defining the Current Population Living in the 
Shadows and Addressing Future Flows: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on 
Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015); Securing the 
Border: Understanding Threats and Strategies for the Northern Border: 
Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 
114th Cong. (2015); Securing the Border: Fencing, Infrastructure, and 
Technology Force Multipliers: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Homeland 
Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015); The 2014 Humanitarian 
Crisis at our Border: A Review of the Government's Response to 
Unaccompanied Minors One Year Later: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on 
Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015); Securing the 
Border: Understanding Threats and Strategies for the Maritime Border: 
Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 
114th Cong. (2015).
    \3\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For example, the Committee has heard testimony that the 
U.S. is only interdicting 5 to 10 percent of drugs crossing our 
land borders.\4\ As to our sea borders, the U.S. Coast Guard 
has testified that it is only able to interdict 11 to 18 
percent of the estimated drug flow entering the U.S. from our 
maritime borders.\5\ At another Committee hearing on the 
northern border, the Committee heard that ecstasy and high-
potency marijuana move south while cocaine, firearms, and cash 
move north, crossing the border without detection.\6\ As to 
people, at a Committee hearing examining transnational crime on 
the southwest border, a Border Patrol agent estimated 
apprehension rates of only 30 to 40 percent.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Securing the Border: Assessing the Impact of Transnational 
Crime: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental 
Affairs, 114th Cong. 17 (2015) (statement of General Barry R. 
McCaffrey, USA (RET.), Former Director, Office of National Drug Control 
Policy).
    \5\Securing the Border: Understanding Threats and Strategies for 
the Maritime Border: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & 
Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. 31 (2015) (statement of Rear Admiral 
Peter J. Brown, Assistant Commander for Response Policy, U.S. Coast 
Guard).
    \6\Securing the Border: Understanding Threats and Strategies for 
the Northern Border: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & 
Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. 33 (2015) (statement of Richard S. 
Hartunian, United States Attorney, Northern District of New York, U.S. 
Department of Justice).
    \7\Securing the Southwest Border: Perspectives from Beyond the 
Beltway: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Security & 
Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. 15-16 (2015) (statement of Chris 
Cabrera, Border Patrol Agent, Rio Grande Valley Sector, U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the investments made across our borders, the 
Federal Government has also failed to develop performance 
indicators to measures the effectiveness of its efforts.\8\ In 
the past, DHS 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.\9\ Over time, 
agencies have adopted and then dropped various measures to 
track border security, failing to settle on one consistent 
framework that can measure long term trends.\10\ Moreover, 
government data has not always been publicly reported or made 
available to the academic community for their independent 
research and examination.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\See Bipartisan Policy Center, Measuring the Metrics: Grading the 
Government on Immigration Enforcement 1 (2015).
    \9\See U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, Remarks by Secretary 
Johnson, supra note 1.
    \10\Bipartisan Policy Center, Measuring the Metrics, supra note 4 
at 10-13 (citing at least four different core measures agencies have 
utilized in the context of border control for the southwest border in 
the past fifteen years).
    \11\See id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Border security progress must be assessed based on 
consistent, reliable, verifiable data.\12\ 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. 
Because metrics and methodologies can be subject to various 
interpretations, this data must also be made available to third 
parties, including the academic and law enforcement 
communities. While the metrics prescribed in this bill are 
designed to be objective and outcome-based, an evaluation by 
the GAO of their statistical validity as well as 
recommendations for improvements to the metrics will provide 
additional oversight and transparency. Finally, an annual DHS 
``State of the Border'' report to Congress will ensure that the 
Department is developing a consistent framework to measure 
year-to-year security performance trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\See S. Rep. No. 114-68, at 10, 31 (2015) (noting that the 
``Border Patrol must move away from solely using input measures--such 
as the amount of funding spent, the number of agents deployed, and the 
numbers of miles of fencing--and begin to use outcome measures to 
determine the overall efficacy of enforcement efforts and to identify 
the most effective mix of resources.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The metrics required in the bill reflect input from 
Committee hearings, employees of the Department, and assistance 
from academia to provide an objective, outcome-based 
perspective of the state of security along the border. While 
there is no single metric that can show the totality of border 
security, each of these metrics provides a different data point 
to develop a more holistic picture of the state of border 
security. The Committee intends that these metrics be used as 
an objective way to measure border security efforts.

                        III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    Senators Ron Johnson and John McCain introduced S. 1864 on 
July 27, 2015, which was referred to the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs. The Committee considered S. 
1864 at a business meeting on July 29, 2015, and ordered the 
bill reported favorably by voice vote. Senator Ben Sasse was 
recorded for the record as voting ``no.'' Senators present for 
the vote were: Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Ernst, Sasse, 
Carper, Baldwin, Heitkamp, and Peters. Consistent with the 
Committee's order on technical and conforming changes at the 
meeting, the Committee reports the bill with a technical 
amendment and a technical amendment to the title by mutual 
agreement of the full Committee majority and minority staff.

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

Section 1. Short title

    This section provides the bill's short title, the 
``Department of Homeland Security Border Security Metrics Act 
of 2015.''

Section 2. Definitions

    This section defines several terms, including ``appropriate 
congressional committees,'' ``consequence delivery system,'' 
``got away,'' ``known migrant flow,'' ``major violator,'' 
``situational awareness,'' ``transit zone,'' ``turn back,'' and 
``unlawful entry.''

Section 3. Metrics for securing the border between ports of entry

    The Secretary of Homeland Security is required to submit 
and implement eight separate metrics for securing the border 
between the ports of entry not later than 120 days after 
enactment. These metrics include: estimates, using alternative 
methodologies, of total attempted unlawful border crossings, 
the rate of apprehension, and the inflow of inadmissible border 
crossers who evade apprehension; a situational awareness 
achievement metric; an unlawful border crossing effectiveness 
rate; a probability of detection; an illicit drugs seizure 
rate; a weight-to-frequency rate; estimates of the impact the 
Border Patrol's Consequence Delivery System has on the rate of 
unlawful border crossing recidivism; and an individual 
examination of each consequence. All data shall be collected 
and reported in a consistent and standardized manner.
    In developing the metrics required in this section, the 
Secretary shall consult with appropriate DHS components. The 
Committee understands that offices within the Department have 
significant expertise developing and calculating valid 
performance metrics. The Committee expects that the metrics 
implemented by the Secretary shall include all available data 
developed through coordination and consultation among 
applicable government agencies, particularly the Office of 
Refugee Resettlement of the Department of Health and Human 
Services and the Executive Office for Immigration Review of the 
Department of Justice.

Section 4. Metrics for securing the border at ports of entry

    The Secretary of Homeland Security is required to develop 
and submit seven separate metrics for securing the border at 
the ports of entry not later than 120 days after enactment. 
These metrics include: estimates, using alternative 
methodologies, of total attempted inadmissible border 
crossings, the rate of apprehension, and the inflow of 
inadmissible border crossers who evade apprehension; the amount 
and type of illicit drugs seized by the Office of Field 
Operations at each land, air, and sea port; an illicit drugs 
seizure rate; a cocaine seizure effectiveness rate; the number 
of infractions related to personnel and cargo committed by 
major violators at ports of entry; a measurement of how border 
security operations affect crossing times; and a cargo scanning 
rate. All data shall be collected and reported in a consistent 
and standardized manner.
    In developing the metrics required in this section, the 
Secretary shall consult with appropriate DHS components. The 
Committee expects that the metrics implemented by the Secretary 
shall include all available data developed through coordination 
and consultation among applicable government agencies.

Section 5. Metrics for securing the maritime border

    The Secretary of Homeland Security is required to develop 
and submit six separate metrics for securing the border in the 
maritime environment not later than 120 days after enactment. 
These metrics include: situational awareness achieved in the 
maritime environment; an undocumented migrant interdiction 
rate; an illicit drugs removal rate inside and outside a 
transit zone; a cocaine removal effectiveness rate inside and 
outside a transit zone; a maritime security response rate; and 
an intergovernmental response rate. All data shall be collected 
and reported in a consistent and standardized manner.
    In developing the metrics required in this section, the 
Secretary shall consult with appropriate DHS components. The 
Committee expects that the metrics implemented by the Secretary 
shall include all available data developed through coordination 
and consultation among applicable government agencies, 
including the Drug Enforcement Agency, Department of Defense, 
and Department of Justice.

Section 6. Air and marine security metrics in the land domain

    The Secretary of Homeland Security is required to develop 
and submit eight separate metrics for securing the border 
through the use of air assets not later than 120 days after 
enactment. These metrics include: an effectiveness rate; a 
funded flight hours effectiveness rate; an aviation mission 
readiness rate; the number of missions cancelled due to 
weather; the number of subjects detected through the use of 
unmanned and manned aircraft; the number of apprehensions 
assisted through the use of unmanned and manned aircraft; the 
number and quantity of illicit drugs seizures assisted through 
the use of unmanned and manned aircraft; and the number of 
times that useable intelligence related to border security was 
obtained through the use of unmanned and manned aircraft. All 
data shall be collected and reported in a consistent and 
standardized manner.
    In developing the metrics required in this section, the 
Secretary shall consult with appropriate DHS components. The 
Committee expects that the metrics implemented by the Secretary 
shall include all available data developed through coordination 
and consultation among applicable government agencies.

Section 7. Data transparency

    The Secretary of Homeland Security shall make data related 
to the metrics outlined above available to the public, academic 
research, and law enforcement communities, subject to 
applicable privacy laws. The DHS Office of Immigration 
Statistics shall have unfettered access to this data. Nothing 
in this section is intended to restrict access to this data by 
Members of Congress.

Section 8. Evaluation by the Government Accountability Office and the 
        Secretary of Homeland Security

    The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit an annual 
report containing all metrics listed above to Congress and the 
Comptroller General of the United States. The Secretary may 
also submit the annual report to the National Center for Border 
Security and Immigration; the head of a national laboratory 
within the DHS laboratory network, including the Department of 
Energy national laboratories, with prior expertise in border 
security; or a Federally Funded Research and Development Center 
sponsored by DHS.
    GAO is required to submit a report to Congress, not later 
than 270 days after receiving the data, and biennially 
thereafter for 10 years, on the statistical validity of the 
metrics submitted by DHS, as well as make recommendations to 
the Secretary on the feasibility of other suitable metrics to 
measure border security effectiveness and any necessary 
improvements to the metrics.
    Not later than sixty days after the end of each fiscal 
year, through fiscal year 2025, the Secretary shall submit a 
``State of the Border'' report to Congress that provides trends 
for each metric, provides selected analysis into related 
aspects of illegal flow rates, as well as other information.
    After submitting the final report to GAO, the Secretary may 
reevaluate and update any of the required metrics. The 
Secretary shall notify Congress not later than 30 days before 
updating its metrics, to ensure that the metrics meet DHS's 
performance management needs and are suitable to measure the 
effectiveness of border security.

                   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

                                                   August 24, 2015.
Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. 
        Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1864, the Department 
of Homeland Security Border Security Metrics Act of 2015.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz.
            Sincerely,
                                                        Keith Hall.
    Enclosure.

S. 1864--Department of Homeland Security Border Security Metrics Act of 
        2015

    S. 1864 would require the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS), within 120 days of the bill's enactment, to develop and 
use various metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of security 
measures at the United States border and to evaluate the 
operations of the Office of Air and Marine in DHS. The bill 
would direct the department to submit annual reports to the 
Congress on the new measurement methods and would require the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to submit biannual 
reports to the Congress on the suitability and validity of the 
metrics used by DHS.
    In recent years, DHS has made considerable planning and 
operational efforts to secure U.S. borders, including the use 
of selected metrics to gauge the success of those efforts. 
Based on information from DHS, CBO estimates that it would cost 
less than $500,000 annually for the department to meet the 
bill's reporting requirements and deadlines. Based on the cost 
of similar activities, we estimate that it would cost GAO less 
than $500,000 every other year (beginning in 2017) to prepare 
reports as required by the bill. Thus, CBO estimates that 
implementing S. 1864 would cost a total of about $2 million 
over the 2016-2020 period; such spending would be subject to 
the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting the bill would 
not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-
go procedures do not apply.
    S. 1864 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz. 
The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

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

    Because S. 1864 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]
```