P.L. 108-334 Signed by the President. On October 18, 2004, the President signed into law P.L. 108-334 making appropriations for DHSfor FY2005. P.L. 108-334 provides $33.1 billion in new obligational budget authority for DHS, ofwhich $19.6 billion or 59% is for the border and transportation security-related activities identifiedin this report. The conference report to H.R. 4567 ( H.Rept. 108-774 ) was agreed to bythe House on October 9, 2004; and by the Senate on October 11, 2004. H.R. 4567 Passed in the Senate. On September 14, 2004, the Senate passed H.R. 4567 after striking the House-passedlanguage and inserting the language of S. 2537 . During floor debate, over 40amendments were added to the bill including 8 that directly impact funding. The Senate-passedversion of H.R. 4567 recommended a total appropriation of $33.8 billion for the Department ofHomeland Security (DHS); an increase of $1.3 billion over the Administration's request, and an11.5% increase over the enacted FY2004 level of $30.3 billion. H.R. 4567 Passed in the House. On June 18, 2004, H.R. 4567 was passed in the House by a vote of 400-5. The bill wouldhave provided a total appropriation of $33.1 billion for the DHS; an increase of $500 million overthe Administration's request, and a 9.2% increase over the enacted FY2004 level of $30.3 billion. S. 2537 Reported. On June 17, 2004, S. 2537 was introduced in the Senate. The bill would have provided a totalappropriation of $33.1 billion for DHS; an increase of $500 million over the Administration'srequest, and a 9.2% increase over the enacted FY2004 level. S. 2537 was accompaniedby S.Rept. 108-280 , which was reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 17, 2004,by a vote of 29-0. President's FY2005 Budget Submitted. On February 2, 2004, the President submitted the FY2005 budget request to Congress, proposing $32.6billion in appropriations for the DHS. This represents a 7.7% increase over net enacted FY2004funding of $30.3 billion. (1) Of the $32.6 billionrequested by the Administration for DHS in FY2005,$19 billion or 58% is for Border and Transportation Security agencies as identified in this report. Table 1 summarizes the legislative status of DHS appropriations for FY2005. (2) Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations Note: vv = voice vote a. House Appropriations Subcommittee for Homeland Security held a markup on June 3, 2004. b. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Homeland Security held a markup on June 16, 2004. c. House Appropriations Committee reported by voice vote the report ( H.Rept. 108-541 ) to theFY2005 DHS Appropriations bill ( H.R. 4567 ). d. The House passed H.R. 4567 June 18, 2004 by a vote of 400-5. e. Senate Appropriations Committee reported by a vote of 29-0, the report ( S.Rept. 108-280 ) to theFY2005 DHS Appropriations bill ( S. 2537 ). 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 inspecting people and goods as they move among differentlocations within the country to reduce the possibility of terrorist attacks or the incursion of unwantedpeople or goods. Determining which goods and people are permitted and which are denied entry into the U.S. involves a system of sophisticated border management. This system must balance the need forsecuring the nation's borders while facilitating the essential commerce and legitimate free flow ofcitizens and authorized visitors. The system must be capable of examining minute details of goodsand people seeking entry, but still fit within budgetary constraints and be administratively feasible. Improving transportation security has meant an expanded federal role in screening passengers and baggage traveling through airports and also increasing the presence of federal officers aboarddomestic and international flights. Plans exist to extend the presence of federal officers to othermodes of transportation more intensively in the future. 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. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( P.L. 107-296 ) transferred the functions, relevant funding,and most of the personnel of 22 agencies and offices to the newly created Department of HomelandSecurity (DHS). DHS was organized in four major directorates: Border and Transportation Security;Emergency Preparedness and Response; Science and Technology; and Information Analysis andInfrastructure Protection. The Border and Transportation Security Directorate (BTS), along with its close functional sibling, the U.S. Coast Guard, are responsible for the first line of defense against terrorism and forsecuring and managing the nation's borders. Included in these responsibilities are the inspection,investigative and enforcement operations of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service(INS), which had been responsible for managing and coordinating entry into the United States, andfor enforcing immigration laws. DHS border and transportation security objectives also includefulfilling the newly expanded federal role of the TSA in protecting the nation's transportationsystems, initially involving airline passengers, 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 expected 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 legacy Customs, INS, and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS),were merged into CBP. The investigative and interior enforcement functions of legacy Customs andINS were merged within ICE. The Federal Protective Service (FPS), the Federal Law EnforcementTraining Center (FLETC), and the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) were also included underBTS by the Homeland Security Act. Subsequently, the Federal Air Marshals have been transferredfrom TSA to ICE; the US-VISIT program has been transferred from ICE to be managed at the BTSdirectorate level; and ODP has been reconfigured and renamed the Office of State and LocalGovernment Coordination and Preparedness (OSLGCP) and is managed at the DHS level. TheCoast Guard remains a direct report, or free standing agency, within DHS but outside the BTSdirectorate. 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 initialattempts to ascertain the exact amount of appropriated funds actually transferred. Comparisons ofresponsibilities and analyses of requests for increased budget authority proved difficult to develop. This was due to the fact that functions now performed by DHS were previously performed bypredecessor agencies which often had somewhat different purposes than homeland security. Thefunding lines between FY2003 and FY2004 were not identical to lines of functional responsibilitybefore and after transfer, a problem made more difficult because the basic documentation ofappropriations in the President's FY2004 Budget was prepared after the formation of DHS but beforefinal enactment of appropriations for the remainder of FY2003. However, with the completion ofappropriations for FY2004, a baseline has been established, making future appropriations decisionsmore easily compared to the previous year's levels. The distinction between border and transportation security functions and other functions funded through the same account lines is somewhat arbitrary. In this sense, our analysis uses something akinto a functional classification for "border and transportation security." Consequently, it does notinclude activities in the Directorate for Border and Transportation Security that have no directbearing on that function (such as the Federal Protective Service). On the other hand, this functionalgrouping does include the activities of the Coast Guard, a separate agency in DHS which is not partof the Directorate for Border and Transportation Security, but which has an essential role inproviding "border and transportation security" as those words are commonly understood. Somefunctions contained in other accounts that are related to border and transportation security, such asthose aspects of the Science and Technology account which are used to improve security, areexcluded from this table. Tables in 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, and do not necessarily reflect DHS breakdowns as to estimated amountsspecifically associated with the Directorate for Border and Transportation Security. For FY2005, the Administration presented its request for DHS in an organization roughly akin to the Conference Committee in presenting the appropriated amounts for FY2004. The conferencereport to H.R. 2555 ( H.Rept.