29–006 

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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

(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). 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

(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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

(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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

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 DUPLI- CATION 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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

(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 secuVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:52 May 28, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR087.XXX HR087

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

rity 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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

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 implementaVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:52 May 28, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR087.XXX HR087

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

tion 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’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

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.’’ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

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, Ranking 

Member.

X 

Mr. Smith of Texas .................................. ........... ........... Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California .......... X 

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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

Representative Yea Nay Representative Yea Nay 

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, Ranking 

Member.

X 

Mr. Smith of Texas .................................. ........... ........... Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California .......... X 

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, Ranking 

Member.

X 

Mr. Smith of Texas .................................. ........... ........... Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California .......... X 

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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

Representative Yea Nay Representative Yea Nay 

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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

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 ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:52 May 28, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR087.XXX HR087

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

mittee 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 crossVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:52 May 28, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR087.XXX HR087

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

ing 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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

• 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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

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 secuVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:52 May 28, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR087.XXX HR087

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

rity 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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

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 colVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:52 May 28, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR087.XXX HR087

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

laboration 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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

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 fairVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:52 May 28, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR087.XXX HR087

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

ly 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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(31) 

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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
32 

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 crossborder 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. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS