[Senate Report 116-322]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 625
116th Congress} { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 116-322
======================================================================
SOUTHWEST BORDER SECURITY TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2020
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 4224
TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO
ASSESS TECHNOLOGY NEEDS ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER AND DEVELOP A
STRATEGY FOR BRIDGING SUCH GAPS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
December 14, 2020.--Ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
RAND PAUL, Kentucky THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
MITT ROMNEY, Utah KAMALA D. HARRIS, California
RICK SCOTT, Florida KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Staff Director
Joseph C. Folio III, Chief Counsel
Caroline K. Bender, Research Assistant
David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director
Zachary I. Schram, Minority Chief Counsel
Samuel Rodarte Jr., Minority Professional Staff Member
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Calendar No. 625
116th Congress} { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 116-322
======================================================================
SOUTHWEST BORDER SECURITY TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2020
_______
December 14, 2020.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Johnson, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 4224]
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 4224) to require
the Secretary of Homeland Security to assess technology needs
along the Southern border and develop a strategy for bridging
such gaps, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and
recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose and Summary.............................................1
II. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................2
III. Legislative History.............................................4
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis.....................................4
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact.................................5
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.......................5
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported...........5
I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
The purpose of S. 4224, the Southwest Border Security
Technology Improvement Act of 2020, is to analyze the
technology used along the southwest border and provide Congress
a better understanding of how the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS or Department) makes technology decisions and
what other technological solutions may be needed to improve
border security, both at ports of entry and between ports of
entry. If enacted, this bill will provide a comprehensive
assessment of available technological advancements and how they
can be better leveraged to address DHS' needs with respect to
combating illegal activity and facilitating lawful trade and
travel.
II. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The nation's border with Mexico spans almost 2,000 miles,
and is protected by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP), which oversees nine U.S. Border Patrol sectors and four
Office of Field Operations offices along the varied and rugged
terrain of the southwest border.1A\1\ In 1993, Sandia National
Laboratories identified at least ten distinct terrain
categories along the southwest border.1A\2\ Each area of
terrain requires a different enforcement strategy, including
surveillance technology, physical barriers, and personnel.1A\3\
According to CBP Division Chief Raleigh Leonard, ``We have yet
to discover that one piece of technology [sic] is a one-size-
fits-all solution.''\4\ Instead, the U.S. government must
determine which technologies work best along each area of the
diverse terrain, as well as at ports of entries, which provide
CBP unique challenges with the need to manage the flow of trade
while combatting drug smuggling and other crimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Border Wall System--Frequently Asked Questions, U.S. Customs &
Border Prot., https://www.cbp.gov/border- security/ border- wall/
border- wall-system- frequently-asked- questions#text= What%20is%20the
%20length%20of, Mexico%20is%20approximately %201%2C954%20miles.; Border
Patrol Sectors, U.S. Customs & Border Prot., https://www.cbp.gov/
border-security/along-us-borders/border-patrol-sectors; Southwest
Border Inadmissibles by Field Office Fiscal Year 2020, U.S. Customs &
Border Prot., https://www.cbp.gov/ newsroom/stats/ sw-border-migration/
ofo-sw-border-inadmissibles.
\2\Sandia Nat'l Laboratories, Systematic Analysis of the Southwest
Border, Volume 1 at 14 (1993), https://www.dhs.gov/ sites/default/
files/publications/ systematic-analysis- of-southwest-border-vol-1.pdf.
\3\Dep't of Homeland Sec., Office of Inspector Gen., OIG 09-56,
Progress in Addressing Secure Border Initiative Operational
Requirements and Constructing the Southwest Border Fence (2009),
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/ assets/Mgmt/OIGApr09.pdf.
\4\Eric Blum, Further Reflection, U.S. Customs & Border Prot.,
https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/ frontline-june- az-technology; (last
visited July 27, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous CBP commissioners have acknowledged that the key
to securing any segment of the southwest border requires
solutions comprised of the appropriate mix of personnel,
infrastructure, and technology. In April 2017, then-Acting
Commissioner David Aguilar told the Committee that,
``[i]nfrastructure, technology and personnel are critical
aspects of the solution that will ensure enhanced control over
the entire border.''\5\ S. 4224 focuses on one key aspect of
this three-pronged border security solution: technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Fencing Along the Southwest Border: Hearing Before the S. Comm.
on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 115th Cong. 2 (2017)
(statement of David Aguilar, Former Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBP Deputy Commissioner Robert Perez recently stated that
CBP processes more than a million travelers per day on average
and ``technology is on the front line with our agents and
officers 24/7, so it is critical that we have the latest and
greatest tools in our toolbox.''\6\ In recognition of the need
to ensure that CBP has the necessary resources to execute its
border security mission and acquire additional technological
capabilities, the President's Fiscal Year 2021 Budget request
included ``$2.3 billion in high priority investments in border
security technology, infrastructure, and equipment to help CBP
prevent, detect, and interdict illegal border crossings.''\7\
In March 2020, Acting Commissioner Mark Morgan stated that
``everyday more miles of new border wall system and
technologies are being deployed to the border.''\8\ As CBP
increases its investments in technological solutions along the
southwest border, it is also important that DHS analyze the
gaps and identify the needs along our southwest border and
share that information with Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Newsroom Spotlight, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, CBP
Leaders Talk Technology at Texas Border Security Expo (Mar. 13, 2020),
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/spotlights/cbp-leaders-talk-technology-
texas-border-security-expo.
\7\Strengthening Border Security and Immigration Enforcement, White
House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/FY21-Fact-
Sheet-Immigration-Border-Security.pdf (last visited July 27, 2020).
\8\Telephonic Press Briefing with Mark A. Morgan, Acting
Commissioner of U.S. Customs & Border Protection, U.S. Dep't of State
(Mar. 12, 2020), https://www.state.gov/telephonic-press-briefing-with-
mark-a-morgan-acting-commissioner-of-u-s-customs-and-border-
protection/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is also demonstrated by several DHS Office of
Inspector General (OIG) and Government Accountability Office
(GAO) reports that suggest DHS could improve its technology
development and deployment.\9\ According to one report from DHS
OIG, ``[The Science & Technology Directorate] S&T did not fully
comply with requirements of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
as amended, by not effectively coordinating and integrating
department-wide [research and development] R&D
activities.''\10\ The report also stated, ``S&T did not
effectively gather, track, and manage data on the Department's
R&D gaps and activities because the tools it had to capture the
data were redundant, and S&T had not developed policies and
procedures for integrating the data from them into a single,
comprehensive database.''\11\ This legislation will assist DHS
leadership in tackling such challenges by improving their
ability to prioritize technology gaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\See e.g., Dep't of Homeland Sec., Office of Inspector General,
OIG-19-59, S&T Is Not Effectively Coordinating Research & Development
Efforts Across DHS (Sept. 18, 2019), https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/
default/files/assets/2019-09/OIG-19-59-Sep19.pdf; U.S. Gov.
Accountability Office, GAO-14-368, Arizona Border Surveillance
Technology Plan: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen Management and
Assess Effectiveness (Mar. 3, 2014), https://www.gao.gov/mobile/
products/GAO-14-368; U.S. Gov. Accountability Office, GAO-20-48G,
Technology Readiness Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Evaluating
the Readiness of Technology for Use in Acquisition Programs and
Projects (Jan. 7, 2020), https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-20-
48G; U.S. Gov. Accountability Office, GAO-17-177, Bioforensics: DHS
Needs to Conduct a Formal Capability Gap Analysis to Better Identify
and Address Gaps (Jan. 11, 2017), https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/
GAO-17-177; U.S. Gov. Accountability Office, GAO-14-865T, Department of
Homeland Security: Actions Needed to Strengthen Management of Research
and Development (Sept. 9, 2014), https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/
GAO-14-865T.
\10\OIG-19-59, What We Found, supra note 9.
\11\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBP's increased investments in technological solutions to
enhance its border security operations along the southwest
border demonstrate the need for a thorough assessment of the
current and future technological needs. S. 4224 requires DHS to
conduct an analysis of technology gaps and needs along the
southwest border, including an assessment of technology used to
preventing terrorism, combatting illegal activity, and
facilitating legal trade and travel, and report on the findings
of this analysis to Congress. The bill also requires DHS to
analyze technology used at ports of entry and between the ports
including manned and unmanned aerial systems, surveillance
technology, non-intrusive inspection technology, tunnel
detection technology, and communications equipment. As part of
this analysis, DHS is required to assess its ongoing border
security technology development efforts at CBP, the S&T, and
other operational components, and consider formal departmental
requirements that examine border security threats and
challenges. Additionally, the bill requires DHS to consider
migration trends, projected staffing needs, challenges faced by
DHS employees, cooperation needs among border communities and
Mexican partners, privacy implications in the deployment of
technology, the needs to assist with search and rescue efforts
of individuals in distress along the southwest border, and
recent technological advancements that could improve border
security. The report will help Congress better understand how
DHS makes decisions related to border security and associated
technology investments.
III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) introduced S. 4224, the
Southwest Border Security Technology Improvement Act of 2020,
on July 20, 2020, with Senator John Cornyn (R-TX). Senator
James Lankford (R-OK) joined as a co-sponsor on July 21, 2020.
The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
The Committee considered S. 4224 at a business meeting on
July 22, 2020. During the business meeting, a substitute
amendment was offered by Senator Sinema and adopted by
unanimous consent. The substitute amendment includes minor
technical changes, including changing the frequency of reports
to Congress. The bill, as amended, was ordered reported
favorably en bloc by voice vote. Senators present for the en
bloc vote on the amendment and bill as amended were: Johnson,
Portman, Paul, Lankford, Romney, Scott, Enzi, Hawley, Peters,
Carper, Hassan, Harris and Rosen.
IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED
Section 1. Short title
This section established that the bill may be cited as the
``Southwest Border Security Technology Improvement Act of
2020.''
Section 2. Definitions
This section provides definitions for the terms
``Appropriate Congressional Committee,'' ``Department,''
``Secretary,'' and ``Southwest Border''.
Section 3. Southern border technology needs analysis and updates
Subsection (a) requires DHS to submit a technology needs
analysis to Congress within one year of enactment of the bill.
Subsection (b) lays out the contents required to be
analyzed by DHS in the report required under subsection (a).
This includes technology to prevent terrorism, combat illegal
cross-border activity, and to facilitate trade and travel. This
subsection requires DHS to analyze specific technologies such
as manned aircraft systems, unmanned aerial systems,
surveillance technology, non-intrusive inspection technology,
tunnel detection technology, communications equipment, and
other technologies. Additionally, this subsection provides that
DHS is to assess how new technologies will interact with the
Department's mission, enhance the safety of personnel, improve
border security, and reduce technology gaps. The analysis is
also to include an evaluation of ongoing border security
technology efforts by component, information technology,
barriers and infrastructure, and any currently deployed or new
technologies that would reasonably allow DHS to achieve
operational control and situational awareness of the southwest
border.
Subsection (c) requires that DHS update its analysis and
submit a report on the updated analysis to appropriate
congressional committees biannually for 6 years, beginning two
years following the initial report. Additionally, this
subsection requires that each update include a plan for how DHS
will meet the border security technology needs and gaps it
identified.
Subsection (d) lays out specific requirements for what DHS
must consider in its analysis and updates. This includes
examining the sufficiency of deployed and necessary
technologies, department requirements, trends in migration,
projected staffing, documentation examining current border
security threats and challenges, cooperation with other
government and international partners, privacy implications,
the effect of any public health emergencies that impact DHS
operations, and the Department's search and rescue humanitarian
mission.
Subsection (e) provides that the analysis and updates
should be unclassified but may also include classified portions
if necessary.
V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT
Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has
considered the regulatory impact of this bill and determined
that the bill will have no regulatory impact within the meaning
of the rules. The Committee agrees with the Congressional
Budget Office's statement that the bill contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs
on state, local, or tribal governments.
VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
CBO failed to provide the Committee with a cost estimate in
time for the final reporting deadline of the 116th Congress.
VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
Because S. 4224 would not repeal or amend any provision of
current law, it would make no changes in existing law within
the meaning of clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI
of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
[all]