H.R. 399, the Secure Our Borders First Act of 2015: Report in Brief

Congressional research reportJan 27, 2015

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

H.R. 399, the Secure Our Borders First Act of

2015: Report in Brief

-name redactedSection Research Manager

-name redactedSpecialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism

January 27, 2015

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R43879

H.R. 399, the Secure Our Borders First Act of 2015: Report in Brief

Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

Operational Control of the Borders ................................................................................................. 1

Border Technology, Infrastructure, and Fencing ....................................................................... 1

Operational Plan ........................................................................................................................ 4

Border Metrics ........................................................................................................................... 4

Border Security Verification Commission ................................................................................. 4

Biometric Entry-Exit System ........................................................................................................... 4

CBP Agents and Officers, and Federal Land ................................................................................... 6

CBP Agents and Officers ........................................................................................................... 6

Federal Land .............................................................................................................................. 7

Figures

Figure 1. Sketch of Select Provisions in H.R. 399—Operational Control of the Border ................ 3

Figure 2. Biometric Exit Data System Implementation Timeline.................................................... 6

Tables

Table A-1. Select Reporting Requirements in H.R. 399 .................................................................. 8

Appendixes

Appendix. Reporting Requirements ................................................................................................ 8

Contacts

Author Contact Information............................................................................................................. 9

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................... 9

Congressional Research Service

H.R. 399, the Secure Our Borders First Act of 2015: Report in Brief

Introduction

The Secure Our Borders First Act of 2015 (H.R. 399) was introduced on January 16, 2015. On

January 21, 2015, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the bill was offered and marked

up.1 The bill was also reported out of the House Homeland Security Committee on January 21,

2015.

This report provides a summary of select provisions in the bill that fall under two major

headings—Operational Control of the Borders and Biometric Entry and Exit System. The report

concludes with a brief description of additional provisions collected under a third heading—CBP

Agents and Officers, and Federal Land. Figure 1 provides a brief sketch of select provisions in

H.R. 399 concerning operational control of the border, Figure 2 briefly sketches the

implementation timeline of the biometric exit data system, and the Appendix lists the reporting

requirements in the bill.

Operational Control of the Borders

One of the cornerstones of H.R. 399 is the requirement that the Secretary of Homeland Security

(Secretary) gains situational awareness and operational control over both the southern and

northern borders. For the southern border, H.R. 399 would require that certain elements be met

within a specified time period in order for the Secretary to attest2 that he has achieved operational

control over the border.

Border Technology, Infrastructure, and Fencing

Figure 1 provides an overview of the bill’s provisions that would require the Secretary to gain

situational awareness and operational control over the southern border. As indicated in Figure 1,

operational control3 is defined as the prevention of all unlawful entries.

Section 3(b-c) of the bill would require that certain elements be met as part of achieving

situational awareness and operational control of the border, including the following:

•

The deployment of certain types of technology in specified southern border

patrol sectors within one year of enactment.4

•

Section 7 of the bill would permit the Chief of the Border Patrol to alter the

deployment of such technology if he determines (after consultation with

Congress5) that the principal border security threats outlined in the Operational

Plan (see “Operational Plan”) necessitate such alteration.

Representative Candice Miller offered the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 399.

See the Appendix.

The bill would adopt the language found in the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (§2(b) of P.L. 109-367).

The bill specifies, at a minimum, which types of technology to be deployed and in which border patrol sector.

The appropriate congressional committees.

Congressional Research Service

H.R. 399, the Secure Our Borders First Act of 2015: Report in Brief

•

In addition to what has already has been constructed, the erection of fencing in

specified southern border patrol sectors within 18 months of enactment.6 The bill

makes a distinction between “fencing” and “vehicle fence.”7

•

In addition to what has already has been erected, the erection of vehicle fencing

in the Big Bend Sector within one year of enactment.8

•

The completion of road construction and road maintenance projects in specified

border patrol sectors within 18 months of enactment.9

•

In addition to what is already in existence, the construction of boat ramps in

specified border patrol sectors within 180 days of enactment.10

•

The construction of an access gate in the Rio Grande Valley sector within 180

days of enactment.

•

The construction of forward operating bases in specified border patrol sectors

within one year of enactment.11

Figure 1, below, depicts provisions in H.R. 399 that would require the Secretary to gain

situational awareness and operational control of the southern border.

The bill specifies, at a minimum, how many miles of fence and the type of fence to be erected and in which border

patrol sectors.

“Fencing” is erected to prevent pedestrians from unlawfully crossing the border, while the construction of “vehicle

fencing” provides a barrier to prevent vehicles from illegally crossing the border.

The bill specifies six miles of fencing.

The bill specifies, at a minimum, which types of projects to be completed and in which border patrol sectors.

The bill specifies, at a minimum, how many ramps to be constructed and in which border patrol sectors.

The bill specifies, at a minimum, how many bases to be constructed and in which border patrol sectors. It also

specifies the requirements for these bases.

Congressional Research Service

H.R. 399, the Secure Our Borders First Act of 2015: Report in Brief

Figure 1. Sketch of Select Provisions in H.R. 399—Operational Control of the Border

Source: CRS analysis of H.R. 399.

Congressional Research Service

H.R. 399, the Secure Our Borders First Act of 2015: Report in Brief

Although not a part of what would be required to gain situational awareness and operational

control of the border, Section 15(c) of H.R. 399 contains similar requirements for technological

deployments at the northern border.12 H.R. 399 would also permit the Chief of the Border Patrol

to alter the deployment if he determines (after consultation with Congress13) that the principal

border security threats outlined in the threat analysis necessitate such alteration.14

Operational Plan

As iterated in Figure 1, Section 3(f) of H.R. 399 would require the Secretary to submit an

operational plan. The bill would require the plan to include a variety of items such as an

assessment of principal border security threats, a description of the staffing requirements for all of

the border security functions of the border security components in the Department of Homeland

Security (DHS), a prioritized list of research and development objectives to enhance the security

of U.S. international borders, and identification of impediments to the deployment of

technologies (see “Border Technology, Infrastructure, and Fencing”).

Border Metrics

Section 3(h) of H.R. 399 would require the development of metrics for each of the four functional

zones along the border—land (at and between ports of entry), air, and sea ports of entry—within

120 days of enactment.15 Figure 1 provides a brief overview of such metrics. The bill specifies

what should be included in each metric for each functional zone along the border.

The bill would require that such metrics and their data and methodology be made available to the

appropriate congressional committees, the Border Security Verification Commission, and the

Comptroller General of the United States.

Border Security Verification Commission

Section 4 of H.R. 399 would create a Border Security Verification Commission (BSVC) to certify

whether DHS has established situational awareness and operational control of the border (see

Figure 1). The bill specifies the composition of the BSVC, among other things.

Biometric Entry-Exit System

Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

(IIRIRA, P.L. 104-208, Div. C) required the Attorney General, within two years of enactment

The bill specifies, at a minimum, which types of technology to be deployed and in which border patrol sectors along

the northern border. While such deployments at the southern border would need to be completed within one year of

enactment, the bill would require these deployments at the northern border to be completed within 18 months of

enactment.

The appropriate congressional committees.

Section 15(a) of the bill would require a threat assessment of the northern border.

After the submission of the first set of metrics (within 120 days of enactment of the act), H.R. 399 would require

metrics to be submitted annually.

Congressional Research Service

H.R. 399, the Secure Our Borders First Act of 2015: Report in Brief

(i.e., by September 30, 1998), to develop an automated entry and exit control system that would

collect records of alien arrivals and departures and allow the Attorney General, through online

searches, to match such arrivals and departures and thereby identify nonimmigrant aliens who

remain in the United States beyond the periods of their visas.

Congress has amended the system’s requirements and deadlines on several occasions since then,

including by adding an entry-exit requirement to legislation authorizing the Visa Waiver Program

and by requiring the entry-exit system to include biometric technology and be fully interoperable

with the Departments of State and Justice databases.16

Section 14 of H.R. 399 would require the Secretary to submit an implementation plan to execute a

biometric exit data system. The bill would create a six-month pilot program to test the biometric

exit system, which would precede the implementation of the roll out of the program. The bill sets

forth staggered deadlines for full implementation of the entry-exit system (see Figure 2). H.R.

399 would require the Secretary to submit an implementation plan to the relevant committees of

Congress. Similar to other provisions, the bill would establish penalties levied against DHS

political appointees for failing to meet the requirements by the deadline it mandates.

For additional information, see CRS Report R43356, Border Security: Immigration Inspections at Ports of Entry.

Congressional Research Service

H.R. 399, the Secure Our Borders First Act of 2015: Report in Brief

Figure 2. Biometric Exit Data System Implementation Timeline

Source: CRS analysis of H.R. 399.

CBP Agents and Officers, and Federal Land

This section briefly describes select provisions in H.R. 399 pertaining to Customs and Border

Protection (CBP) agents and officers, and a prohibition on acts that might impede border security

on federal land.

CBP Agents and Officers

Section 9 of H.R. 399 would require components of CBP to maintain a minimum number of

personnel:

•

The Border Patrol would be required to maintain at least 21,370 active duty

Border Patrol agents.

Congressional Research Service

H.R. 399, the Secure Our Borders First Act of 2015: Report in Brief

•

The Office of Field Operations (OFO)17 would be required to maintain at least

23,775 officers.

•

The Office of Air and Marine (OAM) would be required to maintain at least

1,675 agents.18

Section 12(a) of the bill would permit the Chief of the Border Patrol to transfer agents, who desire

such transfer, to high traffic areas; and, Section 12(b) would permit the Chief of the Border Patrol

to provide an incentive bonus to such agents.19

Federal Land

Section 13 of H.R. 399 would prohibit the Secretaries of Interior or Agriculture from impeding,

prohibiting, or restricting CBP activities on federal land (that is under their respective

jurisdictions) within 100 miles of the international border with Mexico or Canada. It also lists

activities that CBP would be authorized to engage in on federal land, among other things.

OFO staff the nation’s POEs.

The bill also specifies minimum flight hours for OAM and its unmanned aerial systems.

Section 12(c) would authorize $30 million in appropriations for each fiscal year to fund the incentive bonuses. (While

the provision does not specify which fiscal years, the last section in the bill, which authorizes appropriations for the

entire bill, specifies FY2016-FY2025.)

Congressional Research Service

H.R. 399, the Secure Our Borders First Act of 2015: Report in Brief

Appendix. Reporting Requirements

Table A-1 lists the various reports and plans H.R. 399 would require.

Table A-1. Select Reporting Requirements in H.R. 399

Responsible

Individual

Retriever of

Report

Assess and describe state

of situational awareness and

operational control along

both borders

Secretary of

Homeland Security

Congress, the BSVC,

and GAO

Initial report—within 30 days of

enactment; subsequent reports

every 180 days for the first two

years and annually thereafter

Verification of the data and

methodology used to

ascertain high-traffic areas

and unlawful border

crossing effectiveness rate

Comptroller

General (GAO)

Congress and the

BSVC

Within 90 days of receiving the

aforementioned initial report

Operational Plan (see

“Operational Plan”)

Secretary of

Homeland Security

Congress, the BSVC,

and GAO

Within 120 days of enactment

and 180 days after the

submission of each Quadrennial

Homeland Security review

Review of the Operational

Plan

GAO

Congress and the

BSVC

Within 90 days after receiving

the Operational Plan

Certification of the

accuracy of operational

control

BSVC

Congress

Within 120 days after

conducting a review of DHS’s

notification of achieving

operational control

Suitability and statistical

validity of the metrics data

and methodology

GAO

Congress and the

BSVC

Within 270 days after receiving

the metrics data and

methodology

Notification that

operational control is being

maintained

Secretary of

Homeland Security

Congress and the

BSVC

Annually, beginning with the

year after the Secretary first

submits notification that

operational control is being

maintained

A revised plan to achieve

situational awareness

and/or operational control

(In a case where one or both

has not been achieved by the

deadline)

Secretary of

Homeland Security

Congress and the

BSVC

Within 180 days (of deadline)

Results of metrics review

BSVC

Congress

Within 120 days after

conducting a review of the

metrics required by Sec. 3(h)

Various reports on the

entry-exit system from

DHS component agencies

Secretary of

Homeland Security

Congress

Within 90 days of enactment

A plan to establish a

biometric entry and exit

system

Secretary of

Homeland Security

Congress

Within 180 days of enactment

Report

Congressional Research Service

Deadline

H.R. 399, the Secure Our Borders First Act of 2015: Report in Brief

Responsible

Individual

Retriever of

Report

A plan for DHS to acquire

and deploy aviation

capabilities along the

southern border

Secretary of

Homeland Security

Congress and the

BSVC

Within 180 days of enactment

Operating hours of

unmanned aerial systems

Office of Air &

Marine

Congress

Annually

Resource allocation model

at all POEs and measures

that are necessary to

achieve reductions in wait

times at land POEs

Secretary of

Homeland Security

Congress

Within 60 days of enactment

and annually thereafter

Northern border threat

analysis

Secretary of

Homeland Security

Congress

Within six months of enactment

Expenditure of grants made

under the Operation

Stonegarden program

Administrator of the

program

Congress

Annually

Report

Deadline

Source: H.R. 399.

Notes: Congress—appropriate congressional committees; BSVC—Border Security Verification Commission;

GAO—Government Accountability Office.

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Section Research Manager

-redacted-@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism

-redacted-@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Acknowledgments

Amber Wilhelm, CRS Graphics Specialist, created Figure 2.

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.