U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–010 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2015

114–152 

Calendar No. 255 

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 

OCTOBER 8, 2015.—Ordered to be printed 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGcongress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

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. VIN ̃ A, Minority Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

1See, 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-security21st-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. 2See, 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. 

4Securing 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). 5Securing 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). 6Securing 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). 7Securing 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 

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

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


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

Chris Cabrera, Border Patrol Agent, Rio Grande Valley Sector, U.S. Customs and Border Protection). 8See Bipartisan Policy Center, Measuring the Metrics: Grading the Government on Immigration Enforcement 1 (2015). 9See 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). 11See id. at 1. 12See 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.’’). 

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

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. 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

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. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING