Senate Passes H.R. 2360. On July 14,2005, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 2360 , which had been reported as anamendment in the nature of a substitute, 96-1. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 recommendsa net appropriation of $31.9 billion for Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for FY2006. Thisamount includes $30.8 billion in discretionary budget authority. This amount represents an increaseof $1.3 billion or 4% compared to the FY2005 enacted level; and an increase of $1.2 billion or nearly4% compared to the FY2006 request. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 includes $21.3 billionfor Border and Transportation Security (BTS) agencies as identified in this report. This amountrepresents an increase of $1 billion, nearly 5%, as compared to the FY2005 enacted level; anadditional $300 million as compared to the $21.0 billion provided in the House-passed H.R. 2360;and an additional $1.7 billion as compared to the FY2006 request. House Passes H.R. 2360. On May 17,2005, the House passed H.R. 2360 424-1. The bill provides a net appropriation of $31.9billion for DHS. This amount includes $30.8 billion in discretionary budget authority, whichrepresents an increase of $1.3 billion, or 4%, compared to the baseline FY2005 enacted level(without advance or emergency appropriations); and an increase of $1.2 billion, or nearly 4%,compared to the FY2006 request. House-passed H.R. 2360 contains $21 billion for BTS asidentified in this report, representing an increase of $700 million or 3.4% as compared to the FY2005enacted level of $20.3 billion. President's FY2005 Budget Submitted. OnFebruary 7, 2005, the President submitted the FY2006 budget request to Congress, proposing a netappropriation of $30.6 billion for DHS. This represents a 7.7% increase over net enacted FY2004funding of $30.3 billion. (1) Of the $30.6 billion requested by the Administration for DHS in FY2006, $19.6 billion or 64% isfor BTS agencies as identified in this report. The requested $19.6 billion for BTS agencies inFY2006 represents a 3.4% decrease compared to the enacted FY2005 amount of $20.3 billion(including supplemental and emergency appropriations). Table 1 summarizes the legislative status of DHS appropriations for FY2005. (2) Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland SecurityAppropriations Note: vv = voice vote Increasing border and transportation security are essential strategies for improving andmaintaining homeland security. Border security entails regulating the flow of goods and peopleacross the nation's borders so that dangerous and unwanted goods or people are detected and deniedentry. Transportation security entails screening and protecting people and goods as they movebetween different locations within the country. Determining which goods and people are permitted and which are denied entry into theUnited States involves a system of sophisticated border management. This system must balance theneed for securing the nation's borders with facilitating the essential commerce and legitimate freeflow of citizens and authorized visitors. The system must be capable of a detailed examination ofthe goods and people seeking entry, but must still fit within budgetary constraints and beadministratively feasible. Improving transportation security has meant an expanded federal role in screening passengersand baggage traveling through airports and also increasing the presence of federal officers aboarddomestic and international flights. Plans exist to expand the presence of federal officers in othermodes of transportation. Finally, these management systems must accomplish their functions witha minimum of disruption of legitimate activities, and without unnecessary intrusion into the civilliberties of persons affected by them. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( P.L. 107-296 ) transferred the functions, relevantfunding, and most of the personnel of 22 separate agencies and offices to the newly createdDepartment of Homeland Security. DHS was organized into four major directorates: BTS;Emergency Preparedness and Response; Science and Technology; and Information Analysis andInfrastructure Protection. The BTS Directorate, along with the U.S. Coast Guard, is responsible for the first line ofdefense against terrorism and for securing and managing the nation's borders. Included in theseresponsibilities are the inspection, investigative and enforcement operations of the formerImmigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which had been responsible for managing andcoordinating the entry of people into the United States, and for enforcing immigration laws. DHSborder and transportation security objectives also include fulfilling the newly expandedresponsibilities of the TSA in protecting the nation's transportation systems, initially involving airlinepassengers, baggage, and freight. The Customs function, previously the responsibility of the Department of the Treasury's U.S.Customs Service, now also forms part of BTS. The Customs functions administered by DHS, inconjunction with the U.S. Coast Guard, are intended to effectively secure all commercial trafficentering the nation's ports. The Directorate also assumes responsibility for inspecting andmonitoring plants and animals entering the United States to minimize the risk that noxious pests anddiseases will be introduced into the country. The activities for which BTS has assumed responsibility are organized into three bureaus: the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP); the Bureau of Immigration and CustomsEnforcement (ICE); and the Transportation Security Agency (TSA). The inspection and borderpatrol functions of the legacy Customs, INS, and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service(APHIS), were merged into CBP. The investigative and interior enforcement functions of the legacyCustoms and INS were merged within ICE. The Federal Protective Service (FPS), the Federal LawEnforcement Training Center (FLETC), and the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) were alsoincluded under BTS by the Homeland Security Act. Subsequently, the Federal Air Marshals (FAMs)have been transferred from TSA to ICE; the US-VISIT program has been transferred from ICE tobe managed at the BTS directorate level; and ODP has been reconfigured and renamed the Officeof State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (OSLGCP) and is managed at theDHS level. The Coast Guard remains a direct report, or free standing agency, within DHS butoutside the BTS directorate. On July 13, 2005, the Secretary of DHS, Michael Chertoff, announced the results of themonths-long Second Stage Review (2SR) that he undertook upon being confirmed as DHSSecretary. (3) The proposedchanges affect many aspects of the Department. (4) The Secretary has designed a six-point agenda based upon theresults of the 2SR: increase overall preparedness, particularly for catastrophicevents; create better transportation security systems to move people and cargo moresecurely and efficiently; strengthen border security and interior enforcement and reform immigrationprocesses; enhance information sharing with our partners; improve DHS financial management, human resources development,procurement and information technology; and realign the DHS organization to maximize missionperformance. Specific new policy initiatives and proposed actions announced on July 13 by the Secretaryinclude several significant BTS changes, including the proposed elimination of the BTS Directorate. The Secretary announced the creation of a new Directorate of Policy (subject to legislative approval),which would, among other things, assume the policy coordination responsibilities of the BTSDirectorate. The operational agencies that comprise BTS (CBP, ICE, TSA) would report directlyto the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of DHS. Through this reorganization, DHS proposes tostreamline the policy creation process and ensure that the department's policies and regulations areconsistent across the department. In terms of immediate policy changes, the Secretary announced that the US-VISIT programwould be moving from the 2-print fingerprinting standard to a 10-print standard. (5) The Federal Air Marshals(FAMs) program will be moved out of ICE and back into TSA, to increase operational coordinationbetween all aviation security entities in the department. Regarding immigration, the Secretary statedthat the DHS would be looking at restructuring the immigration process, adding more personnel andtechnology to assist in gaining control of the border. Specific details on the nature of these changesare not currently available, however. In terms of cargo and supply chain security, the Secretaryannounced a new initiative called "Secure Freight." Though few details are currently available,presumably this initiative builds upon the concepts explored under the Advance Trade Data Initiative(ATDI). Through Secure Freight CBP would seek to obtain additional cargo and supply chain datato supplement the data they currently receive through the submission of advanced electronic cargomanifests. Secretary Chertoff also called for increasing the number of inspections carried out atforeign ports before cargo is loaded on U.S.-bound vessels, increasing the speed of cargo inspections,and for completing the deployment of radiation portal monitors to the nations ports. On July 22, 2005, the Administration also submitted a revised budget request for DHS toreflect the organizational and policy changes recommended by the 2SR. The only change ofrelevance to the BTS agencies identified in this report is the elimination of the Office of the UnderSecretary for BTS. The $10 million requested for this office in the original FY2006 budgetsubmission would be distributed among several accounts in the Departmental Management andOperations Bureau in DHS: $1.3 million for resources management would move to the Office of theChief Financial Officer; $1.3 million for administration, support and functional integration wouldmove to the Office of the Under Secretary for Management; $2.0 million would move to the newPreparedness Directorate for Preparedness Operations; and $3.2 million would move to the Officeof the Secretary and Executive Management for the Policy Office. March 1, 2003, was the effective date for shifting most of the responsibilities from formerdepartments and agencies to the new DHS. While the transfer of functional lines of authority andthe personnel to carry out those functions was relatively straightforward, problems arose with theinitial attempts to ascertain the exact amount of appropriated funds that were actually transferred tothe new department. Comparisons of responsibilities and analyses of requests for increased budgetauthority proved difficult to develop. This was due to the fact that the functions now performed byDHS were previously performed by predecessor agencies, and that some of these functions often hadnon-homeland security purposes prior to the creation of the department. As a result of this, thefunding lines between FY2003 and FY2004 were not identical to lines of functional responsibilitybefore and after the transfer. This reality, in turn, was exacerbated because the basic documentationof appropriations in the President's FY2004 Budget was prepared after the formation of DHS butbefore final enactment of appropriations for the remainder of FY2003. However, with thecompletion of appropriations for FY2004, a baseline has been established, making futureappropriations decisions more easily compared to the previous year's levels. It is too early to tell,however, what the just announced reorganization of the department will mean for next year'sappropriations cycle. The distinction between BTS functions and other functions funded through the same accountlines is somewhat arbitrary. Our analysis in this report attempts to identify a functional classificationfor "border and transportation security." This functional grouping includes the activities of the CoastGuard, a separate agency in DHS which is not part of the Directorate for BTS, but which has anessential role in providing "border and transportation security" as those words are commonlyunderstood. Additionally, some functions contained in other accounts within DHS that are relatedto border and transportation security, such as those aspects of the Science and Technology accountwhich are used to improve security, are excluded from this table because that is not the main functionof the account. We also exclude the grant programs available to localities through the Office forDomestic Preparedness and the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparation,despite the fact that some of these grants may be used to secure transportation assets, because thatis not necessarily the primary function of the grant programs and because they are not an operationalcomponent of border and transportation security within DHS. The tables presented throughout this report show an approximation of costs for border andtransportation security, based on identifying the accounts for which such security functions are theprimary function involved. They do not necessarily reflect DHS breakdowns as to estimatedamounts specifically associated with the Directorate for BTS, nor the absolute total of the fundsbeing spent directly and indirectly on border and transportation security by the department. (6) The Administration's FY2006request groups the requests for the Undersecretary for Border and Transportation; US-VISIT; CBP;ICE; the TSA; the U.S. Coast Guard; and the U.S. Secret Service in Title II Security, Enforcement,and Investigations . In sum, for the purposes of this report, we exclude appropriations for the U.S. Secret Service,the Federal Protective Services, the Office of Science and Technology, ODP, and the Office of Stateand Local Government Coordination and Preparation. Included in this report are CBP, ICE, TSA,the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Undersecretary for BTS within Title II, as well as the appropriationfor FLETC, which is located in Title IV. FLETC has been included because it trains most of the lawenforcement officers that are responsible for BTS within DHS and a compelling argument can thusbe made that they are an operational component of BTS. The Administration requested $30.6 billion for DHS in FY2005; of this amount $19.6 billion,or 64%, is for BTS functions identified in this report. Figure 1 illustrates the relative size of therequest for each of the border and transportation security agencies. Of the $19.6 billion requestedin FY2006, the Coast Guard (USCG) accounts for 40.6%; CBP for 28.5%; ICE for 18.6%; TSA for8.4%; Office of Screening Operations (SCO) for 2.7% and FLETC for 1.1%. Figure 1. FY2006 Request for Border and Transportation Security Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2006 President's Budget, DHS Budget in Brief , and HouseAppropriation Committee tables of Mar. 15, 2005. Notes: Figure 2 illustrates net budget authority, and the amount requested for TSA includes asignificant fee increase proposal that lowers TSA direct appropriation, and thus decreases TSA shareof direct appropriations for DHS. Without including the fee increase (which has been denied in boththe House and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 2360 ) TSA's requested net budgetauthority would be $3,321 million, or 16% of DHS total requested budget authority for FY2006. Figure 2 illustrates the relative size of the appropriation for each of the border andtransportation security agencies in FY2005. Of the $20.3 billion appropriated for FY2005 (includingsupplemental appropriations), USCG accounts for 36.7%; CBP for 27.0%; ICE for 17.7%; TSA for15.8%; US VISIT for 1.6% and FLETC for 1.1%. Figure 2. FY2005 Appropriation for Border andTransportation Security Source: CRS Analysis of P.L. 108-334 . Table 2 provides a basic summary of BTS appropriations for FY2005-FY2006, includingthe FY2005 enacted appropriation, the FY2006 request and the appropriations recommended by theHouse and Senate. Table 2. Summary of Border and Transportation SecurityAppropriations, Functional Presentation (budget authority in millions of dollars) Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President's Budget, and DHS Budget in Brief , HouseAppropriation Committee tables of May 20, 2005, House-passed H.R. 2360 and H.Rept.109-79 ; and Senate-reported H.R. 2360 and S.Rept. 109-83 . Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds. a. This amount includes a $63 million rescission of funds previously appropriated by P.L. 108-11 . b. Includes $390 million for US-VISIT in the SCO. c. The House-passed H.R. 2360 did not fund the SCO, but did place the US-VISIT,FAST, and NEXUS/SENTRI programs in a new Automation Modernization Office, and leftthe TSA fees proposed for transfer to the SCO in TSA. d. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 also did not approve the proposed SCO, butunlike the House, the Senate does not create a new Automation Modernization Office, andleaves all the programs proposed for transfer to the SCO in their current location: FAST andNEXUS/SENTRI remain in CBP, and several fee based programs remain in TSA. While most observers indicate the need for additional funding in the area of border andtransportation security, the issue for Congress is to determine the appropriate funding level in thecontext of the current budget situation and competing claims for resources. The following sectionsof the report provide detail concerning the operational components of border and transportationsecurity. These include selected appropriations data; issues of potential interest to the conferees; anda discussion of some of the challenges facing the different components of border and transportationsecurity. Securing the nation's borders and transportation systems includes the regulation of importsand exports; enforcement of laws pertaining to immigration and visitation; border-related inspectionof agriculture and livestock; oversight of the security of ports; federal inspection of airlinepassengers and baggage; achieving operational control over the international borders between portsof entry; and establishing comprehensive approaches to improving overall transportation security,including securing infrastructure such as roads and railways. Some observers might question theexclusion of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) from the discussion ofborder and transportation security. There is no question that homeland security is enhanced by thewell managed administration of routine immigration services. However, such services wouldcontinue to be provided even in absence of any threats to the homeland. Because these immigrationactivities would continue in any event, including the cost of these activities in this analysis woulddistort the true summary costs of border and transportation security. For this reason, we include theenforcement of immigration laws, but not the provision of immigration services, within the purviewof this report. Table 3 provides account level details for the various component border and transportationagencies as identified in this report. Table 3. BTS Appropriations: Select Detail,FY2005-FY2006 (budget authority in millions of dollars) Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President's Budget, and DHS Budget in Brief , HouseAppropriation Committee tables of May 20, 2005, House-passed H.R. 2360 and H.Rept.109-79 ; and Senate-reported H.R. 2360 and S.Rept. 109-83 . Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds. a. DHS is proposing to create this new office, which would combine the following programs andfees: US-VISIT; FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI from CBP; and Secure Flight, Crew Vetting,Credentialing Startup, TWIC, Registered Traveler, HAZMAT, and Alien Flight School fromTSA. The House Appropriation Committee denies the creation of the SCO. However, H.R. 2360 does move FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI from CBP to the BTSmanagement level, and combines these two programs with USVISIT in a new AutomationModernization office. Programs from TSA proposed for transfer to SCO would remain inTSA under H.R. 2360 . The Senate-reported version of H.R. 2360 would alsodeny the creation of the SCO, and would also leave funding for FAST and NEXUS/SENTRIin CBP, and funding for the TSA programs proposed for transfer to the SCO would remainin TSA. b. United States Visitor & Immigrant Status Indicator Project. c. Fees included TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks. Both the House-passed and Senate-reported versions of H.R. 2360 would leave theseprograms and their fees in TSA. d. Includes $124 million in funding provided by P.L.109-13 , the Emergency SupplementalAppropriations Act. e. Includes a $63 million rescission in P.L.108-11 and a $76 million rescission in P.L.109-13 from the CBP salaries and expenses account. f. Includes $52 million in supplemental funding provided by P.L.109-13 . g. Fees included COBRA, Land Border, Immigration Inspection, Immigration Enforcement, andPuerto Rico. h. Includes $454 million in supplemental funding provided by P.L.109-13 . i. Fees included Exam, Student Exchange and Visitor Fee, Breached Bond, Immigration User, LandBorder. j. Reflects the $85 million rescission from ICE in P.L.109-13 . k. Fees included TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks, whichwere included in the proposed SCO in the President's request, but would be retained in TSA as recommended by H.Rept. 109-79 . l. DHS is proposing to transfer the Research and Development account from TSA to the Directorateof S&T. m. Aviation Security Capital Fund, used for installation of Explosive Detection Systems at airports. n. In FY2006, DHS proposes a $3 increase in the passenger security fee for one-way and multi-legflights, generating $1.56 billion in new revenue. There is a discrepancy between theAdministration's budget documents and the committee tables concerning the aviation securityfee offset amount. The Administration's budget documents report the FY2005 enactedamount as $2,330 million, while the committee tables report the FY2005 enacted amount as$1,890 million. For FY2006, with the requested fee increase the Administration shows$3,889 million in offsetting aviation security fees, while the committee tables show $3,670million, as scored by CBO. The House Appropriations Committee did not approve theproposed fee increase, and recommends an offset of $1,990 million, and a net appropriationof $3,263 million for TSA. Table 3 reflects the amounts contained on the committee tables. o. Includes $112 million in supplemental funding provided by P.L.109-13 . p. Does not Include an additional $34 million transfer of funds from the Department of Defense tothe USCG pursuant to P.L. 108-287 . Includes $49 million in supplemental funding providedby P.L.109-13 . q. $16 million rescission pursuant to P.L. 108-334 . r. DHS is proposing to transfer the Research, Development, Tests and Evaluation account from theUSCG to the S&T Office. As a part of the FY2006 request, the Administration is proposing to create a new SCO whichwill coordinate DHS' efforts to screen people (and to some extent cargo) as they enter and movethroughout the country. Programs proposed to be moved to this office include the US Visitor andImmigrant Status Indicator Project (US-VISIT); Free and Secure Trade (FAST) andNEXUS/SENTRI, from CBP; Secure Flight, Transportation Worker Identification Credential(TWIC), Registered Traveler, Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) background checks, and the AlienFlight School background checks program from TSA. FY2006 Request for SCO. The Administrationhas requested $846 million in gross budget authority for SCO for FY2006. The request includes$390 million for the US-VISIT program (7) (an increase of $50 million over the enacted FY2005 amount), $94million for Secure Flight (8) (an increase of $49 million over the enacted FY2005 amount), $7 million for the driver registrationcomponent of FAST, $14 million for NEXUS/SENTRI, and $20 million for the stand up of theCredentialing coordination office. In addition to appropriated activities, SCO will oversee severalfee funded activities including $245 million for TWIC and other TSA credentialing activities; $23million for the Registered Traveler program; $44 million for HAZMAT checks; and $10 million forAlien Flight School background checks. The net requested appropriation for SCO is $525 million. House-Passed H.R. 2360. Thecommittee notes that while the SCO office "may have merit," a broader justification is required forit than what was given by the Department. The committee therefore denies this consolidation andappropriates no funds for SCO. Instead, the committee establishes a new Office of TransportationVetting and Credentialing within TSA to oversee the Secure Flight, Crew Vetting, RegisteredTraveler, TWIC, HAZMAT, and Alien Flight School programs. US-VISIT, FAST, andNEXUS/SENTRI are funded within a new BTS Automation Modernization office. (9) Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. TheSenate-passed version of H.R. 2360 would also deny the creation of the SCO. Incontrast to the House-passed version of H.R. 2360, the Senate-reported version would leave fundingfor the FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI programs within CBP rather than placing them within a newBTS Automation Modernization office. The Senate-passed version of the bill would, like theHouse-passed version, leave funding for the TSA programs proposed for transfer to the SCO, withinTSA. Table 4. SCO Detail, FY2005-FY2006 (budget authority in millions ofdollars) Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President's Budget, DHS Budget in Brief , HouseAppropriations Committee tables of May 20, 2005, and S.Rept. 109-83 . Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds. a. Includes $390 million for US-VISIT in the SCO. b. The House-passed H.R. 2360 did not fund the SCO, but did place the US-VISIT,FAST, and NEXUS/SENTRI programs in a new Automation Modernization Office, and leftthe TSA fees proposed for transfer to the SCO in TSA. c. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 also did not approve the proposed SCO, butunlike the House, the Senate does not create a new Automation Modernization Office, andleaves all the programs proposed for transfer to the SCO in their current location: FAST andNEXUS/SENTRI remain in CBP, and several fee based programs remain in TSA. Issues for Congress. The proposal for the creationof the SCO can be traced to Homeland Security Presidential Directive 11 (HSPD-11), which was oneof the Administration's responses to the 9/11 recommendations. HSPD-11 directed the improvedcoordination of "comprehensive terrorist-related screening procedures." (10) The goal of the SCO,according to the FY2006 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, is to leverage the unique aspectsof each of the screening programs chosen to be incorporated into the SCO in order to enhance anoverall screening policy which would be directed by the new credentialing office within the SCO. Both House and Senate appropriators have denied this consolidation in their Appropriation Reports. There is not a significant amount of detail in the request about the operations of the SCO. One potential issue concerns the operational aspects of each of the programs proposed for transferto the SCO. How much of the program would actually be transferred to SCO? Is it simply thefunding, the policy planning, or would the whole function (and the people who carry out thatfunction) be transferred as well? Recent testimony by CBP Commissioner Bonner, and USCISDirector Aguirre indicated that there remains some uncertainty concerning which operationalfunctions should remain at the agency level and which functions could be performed by theSCO. (11) Coordination would be a key challenge for the SCO, particularly coordination between theSCO and the other agencies of the BTS Directorate. Other challenges recently identified by theGovernment Accountability Office (GAO) include defining interrelationships and commonalitiesamong the programs proposed for transfer to the SCO; clearly delineating roles and responsibilities;and identifying data needs. In addition, existing issues and concerns confronting some of theprograms proposed for transfer to SCO (such as Secure Flight, and TWIC) would still have to beaddressed. (12) CBP is responsible for security at and between ports-of-entry along the U.S. border. Since9/11, CBP's primary mission is to prevent the entry of terrorists and the instruments of terrorism. CBP's on-going responsibilities include inspecting people and goods to determine if they areauthorized to enter the United States; interdicting terrorists and instruments of terrorism; interceptingillegal narcotics, firearms, and other types of contraband; interdicting unauthorized travelers andimmigrants; and enforcing more than 400 laws and regulations at the border on behalf of more than60 government agencies. CBP is comprised of the inspection functions of the legacy CustomsService, INS, and the APHIS; the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction; and the Border Patrol. President's Request. The Administration hasrequested an appropriation of $6,717 million in gross budget authority for CBP in FY2006. Thisrepresents a 4% increase over the enacted FY2005 level (including supplemental appropriations) of$6,450 million. The Administration is requesting an appropriation of $5,575 million in net budgetauthority for CBP, representing a 4% increase over the FY2005 enacted level of $5,371 million. Therequest includes the following program increases (which are discussed later in this report): $125 million for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) detectiontechnology; $37 million for Border Patrol staff; $31.7 million for long range radar for Air and MarineOperations; $20 million for Border Patrol aircraft replacement; $19.8 million for the America Shield Initiative; $8.2 million for the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism(C-TPAT); $5.4 million for the Container Security Initiative (CSI); $5.4 million for enhancements to the Automated Targeting System(ATS); $3.2 million for the Homeland Security Data Network; $3 million for Border Patrol's Automated Biometric Identification System(IDENT) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Integrated Automated Fingerprint IdentificationSystem (IAFIS); $2 million for the Immigration Advisory Program (IAP);and $1 million for the Arizona Border Control Initiative(ABCI). House-Passed H.R. 2360. The Houseappropriators added $210 million to both the gross and net budget authorities for CBP in order tocover a range of programs. The House-passed H.R. 2360 provides a net appropriationfor CBP of $5,785 billion, an 8% increase over the FY2005 enacted level and a 4% increase overthe President's FY2006 request. (13) House-passed H.R. 2360 fully funds all of the above listedrequested increases, and provides an additional $150 million above the request for Border Patrolstaffing. However, the House makes unavailable the $1 million requested increase for the IAP untilCBP submits the report on the program that has been overdue since January 1. Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. TheSenate-passed version of H.R. 2360 provides a net appropriation of $ 5,998 million forCBP, representing an increase of $213 million or nearly 4% compared to the amount provided bythe House in H.R. 2360; an increase of $423 million or nearly 8% as compared to the FY2006request; and an increase of $627 million or nearly 12% as compared to the FY2005 enacted level. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 funds the $125 million requested increase for radiationportal monitors (RPMs) under the S&T Directorate, rather than under CBP; and provides anadditional $241 million for Border Patrol staffing. Amounts provided for CBP in Senate-passedH.R. 2360 include $21 million in FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI funding that had been requested fortransfer to the Administration-proposed SCO (the House-passed version of H.R. 2360 placed thisfunding in a new BTS-level Automation Modernization Account). Table 5 presents account-level detail for CBP. CBP's appropriation is provided through fouraccounts: Salaries and Expenses; Air and Marine Operations; Automation Modernization; andConstruction. The bulk of CBP's appropriation is funded through the Salaries and Expenses account,which includes salaries and expenses for Air and Marine Operations. Table 5. CBP Account Detail,FY2005-FY2006 (budget authority in millions of dollars) Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President's Budget, and DHS Budget in Brief , HouseAppropriation Committee tables of May 20, 2005, House-passed H.R. 2360 and H.Rept.109-79 ; and Senate-reported H.R. 2360 and S.Rept. 109-83 . Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Table 6 provides sub-account level detail for the CBP Salaries and Expenses Account. Table 6. CBP Selected Sub-Account LevelDetail (budget authority in millions of dollars) Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President's Budget, and DHS Budget in Brief , HouseAppropriation Committee tables of May 20, 2005, House-passed H.R. 2360 and H.Rept.109-79 ; and Senate-reported H.R. 2360 and S.Rept. 109-83 . Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. The House and Senate versions of H.R. 2360 are very similar in terms of theamounts provided for CBP. The main differences are illustrated by Table 6 . They include amountsprovided for C-TPAT and FAST, for Inspection and Technology Investments, for Border ControlBetween Ports of Entry (Border Patrol), and for Air and Marine Operations S&E. The Senateversion of H.R. 2360 provides $75 million for C-TPAT and FAST in this account. However, while the House and Senate versions of the bill would actually provide the same amountfor C-TPAT and FAST, the House version funds the FAST program under a BTS-level AutomationModernization account, while the Senate funds FAST within CBP's S&E account. For Inspectiontechnology, the differences between the House and Senate can be accounted for by the fact that theSenate funds the research and development of new RPMs and other non-intrusive inspection (NII)technology within the research and development accounts of the S&T Directorate, while the Houseversion of H.R. 2360 funds this within CBP. Between Ports of Entry, both the House and Senateadded funding to the President's request to accommodate the hiring, training, and deployment of1,000 additional Border Patrol Agents. The Senate, however, added $136 million more for thispurpose than the House because it also included funding for support positions, relocation costs, andinformation technology costs. CBP Issues for Congress. Potential CBP issuesfor Congress include cargo and container security; targeting and risk assessments; cargo inspectiontechnology; air and marine operations; the number of border patrol agents; IDENT/IAFISintegration; ABCI; and the America Shield Initiative. Cargo and Container Security. CBP's cargo securitystrategy includes two significant programs: the CSI, and C-TPAT. CSI is a CBP program thatstations CBP officers in foreign sea ports to target marine containers for inspection before they areloaded onto U.S.-bound vessels. The FY2006 request includes an additional $5.4 million for CSIto support the expansion of CSI activities in seven new ports in seven countries. House-passed H.R. 2360 fully funds the requested increase, recommending a total of nearly $139million for CSI in FY2006. However, the House Committee notes that it has not yet received areport detailing the spending and planning projections for CSI for FY2005-FY2009, and directs CBPto submit the report as soon as possible. The committee also includes a provision in H.R. 2360 withholding $70 million until this report is submitted as directed by H.Rept.108-541 . House-passed H.R. 2360 fully funds the request for CSI. The SenateCommittee fully funds the request for CSI, but notes its concern about CSI host-country cooperationand directs CBP to submit a report to the committee no later than February 18, 2006, detailingspecific steps the Department is taking to address any reluctance on the part of foreign countries tofully cooperate. C-TPAT is a public-private partnership aimed at securing the supply chain from point oforigin through entry into the United States. The FY2006 request includes an increase of $8.2 millionfor C-TPAT to be used for travel and the purchase of equipment and supplies for Supply ChainSpecialists to conduct an increased number of C-TPAT security profile validations. House-passed H.R. 2360 fully funds the request for C-TPAT. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360fully funds the request for C-TPAT. S.Rept. 109-83 directs CBP to submit a report by February 18,2006, providing detailed performance measures, human capital plans, and any plans or actions takenthat would address the recommendations made by GAO's recent report on the program. The SenateCommittee voiced its concern over standards for both the CSI and C-TPAT programs. Thecommittee directs CBP to submit a report by February 18, 2006 detailing: (1) the most rigorousperformance measures and indicators for both the CSI and C-TPAT programs; (2) a human capitalplan; and (3) plans currently in place describing the goals, objectives, and detailed implementationstrategies of the programs. Finally, the report should include results of the programs for FY2004 andFY2005, and should address the implementation of the recommendations made by GAO in its March2005 report. (14) Cargo Inspection Technology. The FY2006Administration request for CBP includes an increase of $125 million for technology to detect WMD. This request includes $77 million for the purchase of additional RPMs, and the purchase of nextgeneration RPMs. House-passed H.R. 2360 fully funds the $188 million request forcargo inspection technology. H.Rept. 109-79 directs CBP to submit two reports no later thanJanuary 16, 2006: (1) the current status and investment plan for RPMs through FY2010; and (2) theprojected spending, maintenance and replacement of large-scale non-intrusive inspection (NII)equipment (for example, truck x-ray machines, and vehicle and cargo inspection systems) forFY2006-FY2010. Senate-passed H.R. 2360 fully funds the requested increase of $125million for RPMs, but funds the request under the S&T Directorate rather than under CBP, as thecommittee believes that S&T is the appropriate organization to test, pilot, and direct procurementof RPMs. Air and Marine Operations (AMO). With the FY2005Appropriation, AMO was transferred to CBP, where it is now located. The FY2006 request includesan increase of $31.7 million for long range radar (LRR) coverage for AMO. This increase isrequested to finance a 50% share of the cost (the other 50% share to be covered by the Departmentof Defense) of a primary Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) LRR feed that FAA intends todiscontinue using. House-passed H.R. 2360 fully funds the request for AMO, andprovides an additional $60 million above the request for AMO: $14 million for the acquisition ofmanned covert surveillance aircraft, $15 million for the acquisition and deployment of palletizedsensor packages for the P-3 Slick aircraft, $16 million for the P-3 service-life extension program, and$5 million for additional staff and equipment. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 would fullyfund the requested increase for AMO, and provide an additional $33 million in total for AMO: $5million for staff for the fourth Northern Border airwing base in Great Falls, Montana; $13 millionfor the operations of the fourth Northern Border airwing base; and $15 million for the P-3 Slickpalletized sensor packages. Increase in Border Patrol Agents. CBP is proposingto add 210 agents to the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) workforce in FY2006 to backfill positionsvacated along the Southwest border. These vacancies were the result of agents being transferred outfrom the Southwest border in order to fulfill the requirement enacted in the USA PATRIOT Act( P.L. 107-56 , Â§402) to triple the number of agents assigned to the Northern border. This increaseis well below the 2,000 additional agents authorized by the Intelligence Reform and TerrorismPrevention Act of 2004 ( P.L. 108-458 , Â§5202). Given the disparity between the authorization andthe President's request, a possible issue for Congress may be what the appropriate level of staffingfor the Border Patrol is in order to achieve its mission of detecting and interdicting the entry ofterrorists, WMD, and unauthorized aliens between ports of entry. House appropriators haveaddressed this issue by adding $150 million to the President's request, which, combined with the$124 million available in the FY2005 supplemental appropriation ( P.L. 109-13 ), will allow theBorder Patrol to hire, train and deploy 1,500 agents to its workforce by the end of FY2006. (15) The Senate AppropriationsCommittee concurs with the House in adding 1,500 agents to the USBP in FY2006 and increasesthe President's request by $241 million. However, the Senate also included funding for 220 missionsupport positions, relocation costs, and information technology costs in its appropriation, resultingin a $136 million increase over the appropriation proposed by the House. Additionally, the Senateincluded $20 million for upgrading and modernizing the Border Patrol's fleet of aircraft, includingthe purchase of 12 single engine helicopters. (16) IDENT/IAFIS. According to CBP, the integration ofthe Border Patrol's Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) and the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) is progressing andinteroperable IDENT/IAFIS workstations have been deployed to all USBP stations. This wouldseem to address some of the concerns about the slow pace of the integration project raised by Houseappropriators in FY2005. (17) The president's request includes an increase of $3 million for thesystem and notes that BTS has assumed ownership for the integration project. While the integrationof the two biometric databases has given USBP agents access to the FBI's criminal records, leadingto an 8.5% increase in the identification of criminal aliens, a possible issue for Congress may be theUSBP's apparent lack of access to the name-based Terrorist Watchlist at their stations. This may beof concern due to recent Congressional testimony by DHS then acting Secretary Admiral James Loythat Al-Qaeda is considering infiltrating the Southwest border due to a belief that "illegal entry ismore advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons." (18) House appropriatorsexpressed frustration with CBP that the report they requested in the FY2005 appropriation bill onthe IDENT/IAFIS integration project has not been delivered yet. They directed DHS to submit thereport by July 1, 2005. The Senate Appropriations Committee funds the President's request anddirects DHS to submit the report on the project that was requested in FY2005 which continues tobe outstanding. The Senate also included $3 million in its amount to allow CBP to reimburse theUS-VISIT program for its use of the IDENT/IAFIS system. (19) Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI). Inresponse to a continuing high level of apprehensions in the Tucson sector, the ABCI was launchedon March 16, 2004. ABCI is a multi-disciplinary initiative that seeks to coordinate federal, state,and local authorities to control the Arizona border. ABCI is specifically aimed at stoppingcross-border smuggling operations by detecting, arresting, and deterring all groups seeking to bringpeople, drugs, weapons, and other merchandise into the country illegally. Two hundred additionalpermanent border patrol agents and 60 special operations agents trained for search and rescueoperations were assigned to the Tucson sector over the summer of 2004, bringing the total numberof agents there to approximately 2,000. According to DHS, in the first six months of the ABCI,apprehension of unauthorized aliens increased 56% from apprehensions during the same period ofthe previous year. From March 16, 2004 to September 7, 2004, 351,700 unauthorized aliens wereapprehended compared to 225,108 unauthorized aliens during the same period in 2003. CBPproposes an increase of $1 million to continue this multi-disciplinary program in FY2006, thoughmost funding for the program will come from ICE. House appropriators support this multi-agencyapproach to protecting the border and fund the President's request and direct CBP to work closelywith the Tohono O'odham Nation along the Arizona border to ensure that the Nation is fully awareof CBP's actions on their territory. (20) The Senate Appropriations Committee fully funds the President'srequest. America Shield Initiative. CBP proposes an increaseof $19.8 million for the America Shield Initiative (ASI), formerly known as the IntegratedSurveillance Intelligence System (ISIS). ASI integrates Remote Video Surveillance camera systems,sensors, and the Integrated Computer Assisted Detection (ICAD) database into a multi-facetednetwork capable of detecting illegal entries in a wide range of climate conditions. The requestedFY2006 funding will be used to deploy surveillance assets to high-priority areas such as Tucson,Yuma, and El Paso on the southwest border, and Blaine, Spokane, Buffalo, and Swanton (Vermont)on the northern border. House appropriators fully fund the President's request. However, the Housecites its concern with the contracting problems identified in the ISIS program by the GeneralServices Administration Inspector General and requests a report by January 16, 2006 on theseproblems and the specific measures taken by CBP to address them. Additionally, the House expectsDHS to consult with the Appropriations Committee as it searches for a contractor to oversee theintegration of new technologies into the existing ASI system. The House also notes that it expectsthe ASI will permit the Border Patrol to gather, analyze, and share information regarding thenumbers and types of intrusions by creating a database. To this end, the House requests a report onthe specific performance metrics used by the ASI program by January 16, 2006. (21) The Senate AppropriationsCommittee fully funds the President's request and encourages program managers to exploreoff-the-shelf solutions as they develop the program. Construction. The President requested $93 millionfor this account, which covers the construction of the tactical infrastructure that provides physicalimpediments to illegal entry. Construction under this account includes the erection of lights, fences,and vehicle barriers, as well as the creation of access roads for immigration enforcement staff. TheHouse Appropriations Committee fully funds the President's request. The Senate AppropriationsCommittee increases the President's request by $218 million, to $311 million. Included in thisincrease is $82 million for the construction of facilities to accommodate the 1,500 additional USBPagents that are included in the bill, as well as $55 million to complete the fence in the San DiegoSector and $55 million to expand the USBP tactical infrastructure in the Tucson Sector. The Senatealso directs DHS to submit detailed spending plans for these construction projects. (22) ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the United States, aswell as investigations into such activities as fraud, forced labor, trade agreement noncompliance,smuggling and illegal transshipment of people and goods, as well as vehicle and cargo theft. Inaddition, this bureau oversees the building security activities of the Federal Protective Services(FPS), formerly of the General Services Administration; and the Federal Air Marshals Service(FAMS) transferred to ICE from TSA in August of 2003. The Office of Air and Marine Interdictionwas transferred from ICE to CBP. Therefore the totals for ICE do not include Air and MarineInterdiction funding now included under CBP. The bureau combined the investigations and intelligence functions of the U.S. CustomsService and the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, the air and marine interdictionfunctions of those agencies, and the immigration detention and removal programs, as well as theoperations of FPS. ICE conducts investigations to develop intelligence to reduce illegal entry intothe United States, and is responsible for locating and removing illegal aliens by inspecting places ofemployment for undocumented workers. ICE is responsible for identifying and finding persons whohave overstayed their visas, and the Bureau also develops intelligence to combat terrorist financingand money laundering, and to enforce export laws against smuggling and fraud. President's Request. The Administration hasrequested an appropriation of $4,364 million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2006. Thisrepresents a 4% increase over the enacted FY2005 level (including supplemental appropriations) of$4,215 million. The Administration is requesting an appropriation of $3,648 million in net budgetauthority for ICE in FY2006, representing a 3% increase over the FY2005 enacted level of $3,537million. The request includes the following program increases : $105 million for the Office of Investigations; $90 million for custody management and detentionbedspace; $43.7 million for ICE's Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force(OCDETF) activities; $25 million for ABCI and Interior Repatriation; $24 million for detention and removal; $18 million for temporary worker worksite enforcement; $11.3 million for the Homeland Security Data Network; $9.9 million for the Federal Air Marshals (FAMs); $8.8 million for Fugitive Operations; $5.6 million for Institutional Removal Program (IRP); $5.4 million for Alternatives to Detention; $5 million for Visa Security; and $3.5 million for legal resources. House-Passed H.R. 2360. House-passed H.R. 2360 provides $3,830 million for ICE, an increase of $182 million,or 5% over the President's FY2006 request and $243 million, or 8% above FY2005 enacted. Of theappropriated amount, $5 million is to be used to implement Â§287(g) of the Immigration andNationality Act (INA), (23) which allows the Attorney General (24) to enter into agreementswith states and local governments to allow their employees to perform functions of immigrationofficers; and $11.2 million is designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost ofcare, and repatriation of smuggled aliens. In addition, House-passed H.R. 2360 wouldwithhold $20 million of the money appropriated to DHS' Office of the Secretary and Executivemanagement until the Secretary of DHS submits a report to the Appropriations Committee outliningan immigration enforcement strategy to reduce the number of unauthorized aliens in the UnitedStates by 10% each year. Similarly, of the ICE salaries and expenses, House-passed H.R.2360 would withhold $50 million of the appropriated funds until the Assistance Secretaryof ICE submits to the Appropriations Committee a national detention management plan. Additionally, H.Rept. 109-79 recommends fully funding the President's requests andrecommends an additional : $90 million for 1,920 detention beds; $16 million for 60 fugitive operations team positions; (25) $18 million for 100 Institutional Removal Programagents; $10 million for 49 Alternatives to Detention positions; $19 million for 150 criminal investigators; $18 million for 200 Immigration Enforcement Agents;and $800,000 for the Cyber Crimes Center. Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. Senate-passed H.R. 2360 provides $3,808 million for ICE, an increase of $160 millionand 4% over the President's request. During floor debate, two amendments were agreed to thatimpact ICE funding directly. Amendment 1139 added $2 million to the Salaries and Expensesaccount and required that $1 million be spent on improving the information being entered into theNational Crime Information Center database. Amendment 1140 earmarks $5 million for thefacilitation of agreements between ICE and local law enforcement agencies under INA 287(g). Ofthe overall appropriated amount, $11.2 million is designated to fund or reimburse other federalagencies for the cost of care, and repatriation of smuggled aliens. Additionally, S.Rept. 109-83 recommends an increase of: $77.4 million for 32 positions (16 full-time equivalents (FTEs)) for CustodyManagement; $4.8 million for the Visa Security Program; $24.9 million for 60 fugitive operations team positions (30FTEs); $23.4 million for 136 Institutional Removal Program agents (69FTEs); $15.4 million for 62 Alternatives to Detention positions (31FTEs); $37 million for 300 investigator positions for immigration investigations (150FTEs); $18 million for 200 (100 FTEs) Immigration Enforcement Agents;and $25 million for the ABCI; $3.5 million for additional attorney personnel. Table 7. ICE Account Detail (budget authority in millions ofdollars) Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President's Budget, and DHS Budget in Brief , HouseAppropriation Committee tables of May 20, 2005, House-passed H.R. 2360 and H.Rept.109-79 ; and Senate-reported H.R. 2360 and S.Rept. 109-83 . Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Table 8. ICE Selected Sub-Account LevelDetail (budget authority in millions of dollars) Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President's Budget, and DHS Budget in Brief , HouseAppropriation Committee tables of May 20, 2005, House-passed H.R. 2360 and H.Rept.109-79 ; and Senate-reported H.R. 2360 and S.Rept. 109-83 . Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. ICE Issues for Congress. There are several issueswithin the ICE appropriation that may be of interest to Congress, including but not limited to thesevere financial management problems at the agency over the past several years which have led tohiring and training freezes; the lack of detention bedspace which has resulted in some unauthorizedaliens being released; and whether the agency has enough investigators to adequately pursue its manyvaried missions. The following sections outline the main issues identified within the President'srequest and the House and Senate Appropriations Committee Reports. Financial Management at ICE. ICE inherited itsfinancial organization and systems from the former INS. An independent audit of ICE's financialstatements concluded that the agency's accounting records were inadequately maintained duringFY2004. The situation was characterized as especially grave regarding intra-departmental andintra-governmental agreements and transactions, costs, and budgetary transactions. This requiredextensive reconciliation and adjustment at the end of the fiscal year, which ICE was unable tocomplete. The report noted that ICE had served as the accounting services provider for several otherDHS agencies (26) whilesimultaneously experiencing significant turnover among its financial management staff. This ledthe agency to fall "seriously behind in basic accounting functions, such as account reconciliations,analysis of material abnormal balances, and proper budgetary accounting." Additionally, serving asthe accounting provider for other agencies led ICE to experience budget shortfalls due to tardyreimbursements for expenses it provided to cover other agencies' costs. This budget shortfall forcedthe agency into a freeze on hiring and non-mission critical expenditures, including training. Theauditors concluded that DHS should immediately address the "void in ICE's financial managementinfrastructure" in order to fix the lack of oversight and controls that led ICE to become anti-deficientor that prevented DHS management from knowing whether ICE was anti-deficient. (27) ICE recently requesteda $500 million reprogramming for FY2005 to cover funding shortfalls within the agency. (28) House appropriatorsexpressed concern and disappointment over the continuing financial troubles at ICE. The committeenotes that the agency has been forced to employ drastic cost-cutting measures that the committeebelieves adversely limited ICE's operations. The committee directs DHS to provide monthly reportson ICE's financial condition. (29) Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions. TheOffice of Investigations (OI) in ICE focuses on a broad array of criminal and civil violationsaffecting national security such as illegal arms exports, financial crimes, commercial fraud, humantrafficking, narcotics smuggling, child pornography/exploitation, worksite enforcement, andimmigration fraud. ICE special agents also conduct investigations aimed at protecting criticalinfrastructure industries that are vulnerable to sabotage, attack or exploitation. (30) The Homeland SecurityAct of 2002 ( P.L. 107-296 ) abolished the INS and the U.S. Customs Service, and transferred mostof their investigative functions to ICE effective March 1, 2003. There are investigative advantagesto combining the INS and Customs Services as those who violate immigration laws often areengaged in other criminal enterprises (e.g., alien smuggling rings often launder money). Nonetheless, concerns have been raised that not enough resources have been focused oninvestigating civil violations of immigration law, and that ICE resources have beendisproportionately focused on terrorism and the types of investigations performed by the formerCustoms Service. (31) The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 ( P.L. 108-458 , Â§5203)authorized for FY2006, subject to appropriations, the addition of at least 800 new investigators toinvestigate violations of immigration law. The $1,496 million requested in the President's budgetfor the OI (32) includesincreases in the base funding for two groups responsible for immigration enforcement, the VisaSecurity Unit (VSU) (33) and Temporary Worker Worksite Enforcement, and includes a total of 148 new positions for theseunits. The President's budget requests an additional $18 million for temporary worker worksiteenforcement to add 143 positions responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations underexisting immigration law for hiring unauthorized aliens, and supporting and implementing theprovisions of possible temporary worker legislation. The President's request also includes anincrease of $5 million to add five new officers to the VSU, open a new overseas location, and expandtraining programs. H.Rept. 109-79 recommends $19 million to expand the Visa Security Program,and S.Rept. 109-83 recommends an additional $4.8 million for nine positions for an additional VSU. Furthermore, H.Rept. 109-79 recommends an additional $18 million over the President's request for200 new Immigration Enforcement Agents (IEAs). (34) H.Rept. 109-79 also recommends $19 million for an additional150 criminal investigators. (35) S.Rept. 109-83 recommends an additional $37 million for 300new immigration investigations positions, and $18 million for 200 IEAs, but does not provide afunding increase for temporary workers worksite enforcement. Detention and Removal Operations. Detention andRemoval Operations (DRO) in ICE provides custody management of aliens who are in removalproceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United States. (36) DRO is also responsiblefor ensuring that aliens ordered removed actually depart from the United States. Many contend thatDRO does not have enough detention space to house all those who should be detained. A study doneby DOJ's Inspector General found that almost 94% of those detained with final orders of removalwere deported while only 11% of those not detained who were issued final orders of removal left thecountry. (37) Concernshave been raised that decisions on which aliens to release and when to release them may be basedon the amount of detention space, not on the merits of individual cases, and that the amount of spacemay vary by area of the country leading to inequities and disparate policies in different geographicareas. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 ( P.L. 108-458 , Â§5204)authorized, subject to appropriations, an increase in DRO bed space of 8,000 beds for each year,FY2006-FY2010. The President's budget requests an increase for FY2006 of $90 million for 1,920new beds. H.Rept. 109-79 recommends $90 million for 1,920 new beds, (38) and House-passed H.R.2360 would withhold $50 million of the appropriated funds for ICE salaries and expenses until theAssistant Secretary of ICE submits to the Appropriations Committee a national detentionmanagement plan. S.Rept. 109-83 recommends $77.4 million for 32 positions for CustodyManagement, and 2,240 new beds. Alternatives to Detention. Due to the cost of detainingaliens, and the fact that many non-detained aliens with final orders of removal do not leave thecountry, there has been interest in developing alternatives to detention for certain types of aliens whodo not require a secure detention setting. In 2004, ICE began a pilot program, the IntensiveSupervision Appearance Program (ISAP), for low-risk, non-violent offenders. (39) The program, providesless restrictive alternatives to detention, using such tools as electronic monitoring devices (e.g., anklebracelets), home visits, work visits, and reporting by telephone, to monitor aliens who are out onbond while awaiting hearings during removal proceedings or the appeals process. (40) H.Rept. 109-79 recommends $10 million and 49 new positions for this program, and S.Rept. 109-83 recommends$15.4 million and 32 new positions. Interior Repatriation. ICE proposes a $25 millionincrease for the Interior Repatriation program. On June 9, 2004 the White House announced it hadreached agreement with the Mexican government to begin piloting the Interior Repatriation Program,which aims to reduce the number of aliens who immediately try to cross back into the United Statesby flying them into the interior of Mexico. Due to constitutional constraints in Mexico, theapprehended aliens' return to the interior must be strictly voluntary and the willingness of theirparticipation must be certified by Mexican consular officers. (41) In order to continue theprogram in FY2006, the Administration is requesting $39.3 million; $25 million for CustodyManagement and $14.3 for Transportation and Removal. This represents a $25 million increasefrom the $14 million spent on the pilot program in FY2005. H.Rept. 109-79 directs theCommissioner of CBP to report no later than January 16, 2006 on the performance of the InteriorRepatriation Program, including its cost, the number of agents required for its functioning, and therelevant statistics related to the number of aliens repatriated and any data on their recidivism. State and Local Law Enforcement. (42) Currently the INAprovides limited avenues for state enforcement of both its civil and criminal provisions. One of thebroadest grants of authority for state and local immigration enforcement activity stems from INAÂ§287(g), which authorizes the Attorney General to enter into a written agreement with a state, or anypolitical subdivision to allow an officer or employee of the state or subdivision, to perform a functionof an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in theUnited States. The enforcement of immigration by state and local officials has sparked debateamong many who question what the proper role of state and local law enforcement officials shouldbe in enforcing federal immigration laws. Many have expressed concern over proper training, finiteresources at the local level, possible civil rights violations, and the overall impact on communities. Some localities, for example, even provide "sanctuary" for illegal aliens and will generally promotepolicies that ensure such aliens will not be turned over to federal authorities. Nonetheless, someobservers contend that the federal government has scarce resources to enforce immigration law andthat state and local law enforcement entities should be utilized. Both Senate-passed H.R. 2360 and House-passed H.R. 2360 would appropriate $5 million toimplement INA Â§287(g). Student Exchange and Visitor Program (SEVP). TheStudent Exchange and Visitor Program (SEVP) in ICE is responsible for maintaining the web-basedforeign student monitoring system known as the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System(SEVIS). (43) Theoperating budget for SEVP comes from fees (44) collected from potential foreign students (i.e., those applying forstudent visas, or to change their nonimmigrant status to student), and from institutions seekingcertification to participate in SEVIS. (45) Schools have reported technical difficulties operating SEVIS,and the lack of consistent information and guidance from ICE. (46) The President is requestingan additional appropriation of $19.7 million for the SEVP in FY2006 to maintain staffing levels, andincrease spending on enhancements such as incorporating historical data, enhancing batch modeprocessing into SEVIS, and providing more training and outreach to the schools. This fee-basedincrease was included in H.R. 2360 as passed by the House or Senate. Office of Principal Legal Advisor. The Office ofPrincipal Legal Advisor (OPLA) is responsible for litigating alien custody and removal casesgenerated by ICE, CBP, and USCIS before DOJ's Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR). The OPLA also provides legal advice to operational components in ICE. The President's budgetrequests an increase of $3.5 million for OPLA to hire an additional 32 attorneys, and 16 legal supportstaff, arguing that the increase in the staff will increase OPLA's ability to complete matters in theimmigration courts, thereby reducing the number of backlogged cases. This increase was notincluded in H.R. 2360 as passed by the House or Senate. The TSA was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA, P.L. 107-71 ),and was charged with protecting U.S. air, land, and rail transportation systems to ensure freedom ofmovement for people and commerce. In 2002, the TSA was transferred to DHS with the passageof the Homeland Security Act ( P.L. 107-296 ). TSA's responsibilities include protecting the airtransportation system against terrorist threats, sabotage and other acts of violence through thedeployment of: passenger and baggage screeners; detection systems for explosives, weapons, andother contraband; and other security technologies. TSA also has responsibilities for marine and landmodes of transportation including assessing the risk of terrorist attacks to all non-aviationtransportation modes, issuing regulations to improve the security of the modes, and enforcing theseregulations to ensure the protection of the transportation system. TSA is further charged withserving as the primary liaison for transportation security to the law enforcement and intelligencecommunities, and with conducting research and development activities to improve securitytechnologies. FY2006 Request for TSA. The President hasrequested an appropriation of $5,562 million in gross budget authority for TSA in FY2006, a netincrease of $156 million, or 3%, over the enacted FY2005 level of $5,406 million. (47) However, in comparingthe FY2006 budget request to prior year levels, it is important to note that the President is requestingto transfer a large portion of TSA's research and development functions -- totaling $109 million inFY2005 appropriated amounts -- to the S&T Directorate, and a transfer of a variety of functions --totaling $142 million in FY2005 -- to the proposed Office of Screening Coordination and Operations(SCO). Functions that would be transferred to the SCO under the proposal include Secure Flight($35 million); Crew Vetting ($10 million); Credentialing Startup Costs ($10 million); TransportationWorker Identification Card (TWIC, $50 million); Registered Traveler ($15 million); HAZMATDriver Security Threat Assessments ($17 million); and Alien Flight School Applicant SecurityThreat Assessments ($5 million). Adjusting for these transfers and other miscellaneous factors, therequested increase to the TSA budget on a comparable basis totals $415 million, roughly a 7.7%increase over FY2005 enacted levels (see P.L. 108-334 ). Almost 90% of the TSA's proposed budget is designated for aviation security functions. Keyaviation security initiatives proposed include the following: Developing and testing emerging checkpoint explosives technologies; Realigning the screener workforce and providing funds needed to maintain anauthorized level of 45,000 full-time equivalents (FTEs); Deploying high-speed Internet connections at airport screening checkpoints andbaggage screening areas; Providing mandated training for flight and cabin crews and conductingsemiannual requalification for armed pilots; and Conducting mandated security inspections of foreign airline repair stations andinspections at domestic repair stations. In an effort to approach full cost recovery from user fees for aviation security screening, thePresident has proposed an increase in passenger security fees. The proposal would raise the fee fromits current level of $2.50 per flight segment, with a maximum fee of $5.00 per one-way trip, to $5.50per segment, with a maximum of $8.00 per one-way trip. The Administration anticipates that thisproposed fee increase coupled with a return to pre-9/11 passenger volume will result in an increasein fee collections from an estimated $2.652 billion in FY2005 to $4.1 billion in FY2006. Thisincrease is projected to offset roughly 82% of the proposed $4.985 billion budget for aviationsecurity. In contrast, aviation security fees collected in FY2004 offset only 41% of expenditures foraviation security. (48) For surface transportation security, the President requests $32 million, which includes $8million for hiring and deploying 100 rail and transit inspectors. These inspectors will be deployedat significant rail and mass transit points across the United States to perform compliance reviews,audits, and enforcement actions pertaining to security measures. Table 9. TSA Account Detail (budget authority in millions ofdollars) Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President's Budget, and DHS Budget in Brief , HouseAppropriation Committee tables of May 20, 2005, House-passed H.R. 2360 and H.Rept.109-79 ; and Senate-reported H.R. 2360 and S.Rept. 109-83 . Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. a. These activities were proposed for transfer to the SCO under the President's FY2006 request,including TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks. Both theHouse-passed and Senate-reported versions of H.R. 2360 would leave theseprograms and their fees in TSA. Table 10. TSA Selected Sub-Account LevelDetail (budget authority in millions of dollars)

Summary: A well-managed border is central to maintaining and improving the security of the UnitedStates against terrorist threats. Border security entails regulating the flow of goods and people acrossthe nation's borders so that dangerous and unwanted goods or people are denied entry. Transportation security entails screening and protecting people and goods as they move betweendifferent locations within the country. The overall appropriations over the past three years for Borderand Transportation Security, as defined in this report, are as follows: in FY2004, Congressappropriated $18,106 million; in FY2005, Congress appropriated $20,313 million; in FY2006, thePresident requested $19,586 million; House-passed H.R. 2360 provides $21,015million; and Senate-passed H.R. 2360 provides $21,283 million. Determining which goods and people are permitted and which are denied entry into theUnited States involves a system of sophisticated border management. This system must balance theneed for securing the nation's borders while facilitating the essential commerce and legitimate freeflow of citizens and authorized visitors. The system must be capable of a detailed examination ofthe goods and people seeking entry, but must still fit within budgetary constraints and beadministratively feasible. Improving transportation security has meant an expanded federal role inscreening passengers and baggage traveling through airports and also increasing the presence offederal officers aboard domestic and international flights. Plans exist to expand the presence offederal officers in other modes of transportation. Finally, these management systems mustaccomplish their functions with a minimum of disruption of legitimate activities, and withoutunnecessary intrusion into the civil liberties of persons affected by them. Within the federal government, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been givenprimary responsibility for securing the nation's borders and for increasing the security oftransportation, among other responsibilities. The locus of border and transportation security activitywithin DHS is in the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security, which houses the Bureauof Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE), and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The U.S. Coast Guard is a stand-aloneagency within DHS but plays an important role in border and transportation security, as does theFederal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). This report includes appropriations for thefunctions and agencies of BTS, the U.S. Coast Guard and FLETC. Major issues include the numberof available detention beds and investigators at ICE; the number of Border Patrol agents in CBP; theappropriate level of funding for the Deepwater program within the Coast Guard; and non-aviationsecurity spending within TSA. This report will be updated to reflect the Conference Agreement between the House and theSenate and final passage. Key Policy Staff: Border and Transportation Security