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

January 27, 2015 (R43879)

Contents

Figures

Tables

Appendixes

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:

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.

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

Source: CRS analysis of H.R. 399.

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 (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.

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:

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.

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

Report

Responsible Individual

Retriever of Report

Deadline

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

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

Source: H.R. 399.

Notes: Congress—appropriate congressional committees; BSVC—Border Security Verification Commission; GAO—Government Accountability Office.

Acknowledgments

Amber Wilhelm, CRS Graphics Specialist, created Figure 2.

Footnotes

1.

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

2.

See the Appendix.
3.

The bill would adopt the language found in the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (§2(b) of P.L. 109-367).
4.

The bill specifies, at a minimum, which types of technology to be deployed and in which border patrol sector.
5.

The appropriate congressional committees.
6.

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.
7.

"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.
8.

The bill specifies six miles of fencing.
9.

The bill specifies, at a minimum, which types of projects to be completed and in which border patrol sectors.
10.

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

11.

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.

12.

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.
13.

The appropriate congressional committees.
14.

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

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.
16.

For additional information, see CRS Report R43356, Border Security: Immigration Inspections at Ports of Entry.
17.

OFO staff the nation's POEs.
18.

The bill also specifies minimum flight hours for OAM and its unmanned aerial systems.
19.

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.)