RL33049 -- FY2006 Appropriations for Border and Transportation Security


August 24, 2005






CONTENTS

<font size="+1">List of Tables</font>




Summary

A well-managed border is central to maintaining and improving the security of the United States against terrorist threats. Border security entails regulating the flow of goods and people across the 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 between different locations within the country. The overall appropriations over the past three years for Border and Transportation Security, as defined in this report, are as follows: in FY2004, Congress appropriated $18,106 million; in FY2005, Congress appropriated $20,313 million; in FY2006, the President requested $19,586 million; House-passed H.R. 2360 provides $21,015 million; and Senate-passed H.R. 2360 provides $21,283 million.

Determining which goods and people are permitted and which are denied entry into the United States involves a system of sophisticated border management. This system must balance the need for securing the nation's borders while facilitating the essential commerce and legitimate free flow of citizens and authorized visitors. The system must be capable of a detailed examination of the goods and people seeking entry, but must 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 aboard domestic and international flights. Plans exist to expand the presence of federal officers in other modes of transportation. Finally, these management systems must accomplish their functions with a minimum of disruption of legitimate activities, and without unnecessary intrusion into the civil liberties of persons affected by them.

Within the federal government, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been given primary responsibility for securing the nation's borders and for increasing the security of transportation, among other responsibilities. The locus of border and transportation security activity within DHS is in the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security, which houses the Bureau of 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-alone agency within DHS but plays an important role in border and transportation security, as does the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). This report includes appropriations for the functions and agencies of BTS, the U.S. Coast Guard and FLETC. Major issues include the number of available detention beds and investigators at ICE; the number of Border Patrol agents in CBP; the appropriate level of funding for the Deepwater program within the Coast Guard; and non-aviation security spending within TSA.

This report will be updated to reflect the Conference Agreement between the House and the Senate and final passage.

Key Policy Staff: Border and Transportation Security

Area of Expertise Name  Phone  E-mail 
Co-Coordinator [author name scrubbed] [phone number scrubbed] [email address scrubbed]
Co-Coordinator Blas Nunez-Neto [phone number scrubbed] [email address scrubbed]
Customs Issues [author name scrubbed] [phone number scrubbed] [email address scrubbed]
Immigration Issues [author name scrubbed] [phone number scrubbed] [email address scrubbed]
Border Patrol Blas Nunez-Neto [phone number scrubbed] [email address scrubbed]
Federal Enforcement Training Center Blas Nunez-Neto [phone number scrubbed] [email address scrubbed]
Transportation Security Administration Bartholomew Elias [phone number scrubbed] [email address scrubbed]
Coast Guard [author name scrubbed] [phone number scrubbed] [email address scrubbed]
Port Security [author name scrubbed] [phone number scrubbed] [email address scrubbed]
Agricultural Quarantine Inspections James Monke [phone number scrubbed] [email address scrubbed]
US-VISIT [author name scrubbed] [phone number scrubbed] [email address scrubbed]




Most Recent Developments

Senate Passes H.R. 2360. On July 14, 2005, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 2360, which had been reported as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, 96-1. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 recommends a net appropriation of $31.9 billion for Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for FY2006. This amount includes $30.8 billion in discretionary budget authority. This amount represents an increase of $1.3 billion or 4% compared to the FY2005 enacted level; and an increase of $1.2 billion or nearly 4% compared to the FY2006 request. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 includes $21.3 billion for Border and Transportation Security (BTS) agencies as identified in this report. This amount represents an increase of $1 billion, nearly 5%, as compared to the FY2005 enacted level; an additional $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 $31.9 billion for DHS. This amount includes $30.8 billion in discretionary budget authority, which represents 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 as identified in this report, representing an increase of $700 million or 3.4% as compared to the FY2005 enacted level of $20.3 billion.

President's FY2005 Budget Submitted. On February 7, 2005, the President submitted the FY2006 budget request to Congress, proposing a net appropriation of $30.6 billion for DHS. This represents a 7.7% increase over net enacted FY2004 funding of $30.3 billion.(1) Of the $30.6 billion requested by the Administration for DHS in FY2006, $19.6 billion or 64% is for BTS agencies as identified in this report. The requested $19.6 billion for BTS agencies in FY2006 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 Security Appropriations

Subcommittee Markup House
Report
109-79 
House Passage Senate
Report
109-83 
Senate Passage Conf. Report Conference Report Approval Public Law
House  Senate  House  Senate 
05/04
(vv)
06/14
(vv)
05/10
(vv)
05/17
(424-1)
06/16
(28-0)
07/14
(96-1)
       

Note: vv = voice vote

Introduction

Increasing border and transportation security are essential strategies for improving and maintaining homeland security. Border security entails regulating the flow of goods and people across the nation's borders so that dangerous and unwanted goods or people are detected and denied entry. Transportation security entails screening and protecting people and goods as they move between different locations within the country.

Determining which goods and people are permitted and which are denied entry into the United States involves a system of sophisticated border management. This system must balance the need for securing the nation's borders with facilitating the essential commerce and legitimate free flow of citizens and authorized visitors. The system must be capable of a detailed examination of the goods and people seeking entry, but must 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 aboard domestic and international flights. Plans exist to expand the presence of federal officers in other modes of transportation. Finally, these management systems must accomplish their functions with a minimum of disruption of legitimate activities, and without unnecessary intrusion into the civil liberties of persons affected by them.

Background

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred the functions, relevant funding, and most of the personnel of 22 separate agencies and offices to the newly created Department of Homeland Security. DHS was organized into four major directorates: BTS; Emergency Preparedness and Response; Science and Technology; and Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.

The BTS Directorate, along with the U.S. Coast Guard, is responsible for the first line of defense against terrorism and for securing 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 the entry of people into the United States, and for enforcing immigration laws. DHS border and transportation security objectives also include fulfilling the newly expanded responsibilities of the TSA in protecting the nation's transportation systems, 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, in conjunction with the U.S. Coast Guard, are intended to effectively secure all commercial traffic entering the nation's ports. The Directorate also assumes responsibility for inspecting and monitoring plants and animals entering the United States to minimize the risk that noxious pests and diseases 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 Customs Enforcement (ICE); and the Transportation Security Agency (TSA). The inspection and border patrol 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 legacy Customs and INS were merged within ICE. The Federal Protective Service (FPS), the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), and the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) were also included 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 to be managed at the BTS directorate level; and ODP has been reconfigured and renamed the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (OSLGCP) and is managed at the DHS level. The Coast Guard remains a direct report, or free standing agency, within DHS but outside the BTS directorate.

Secretary Chertoff's Second Stage Review

On July 13, 2005, the Secretary of DHS, Michael Chertoff, announced the results of the months-long Second Stage Review (2SR) that he undertook upon being confirmed as DHS Secretary.(3) The proposed changes affect many aspects of the Department.(4) The Secretary has designed a six-point agenda based upon the results of the 2SR:

Specific new policy initiatives and proposed actions announced on July 13 by the Secretary include 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 BTS Directorate. The operational agencies that comprise BTS (CBP, ICE, TSA) would report directly to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of DHS. Through this reorganization, DHS proposes to streamline the policy creation process and ensure that the department's policies and regulations are consistent across the department.

In terms of immediate policy changes, the Secretary announced that the US-VISIT program would 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 coordination between all aviation security entities in the department. Regarding immigration, the Secretary stated that the DHS would be looking at restructuring the immigration process, adding more personnel and technology to assist in gaining control of the border. Specific details on the nature of these changes are not currently available, however. In terms of cargo and supply chain security, the Secretary announced 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 data to supplement the data they currently receive through the submission of advanced electronic cargo manifests. Secretary Chertoff also called for increasing the number of inspections carried out at foreign 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 to reflect the organizational and policy changes recommended by the 2SR. The only change of relevance to the BTS agencies identified in this report is the elimination of the Office of the Under Secretary for BTS. The $10 million requested for this office in the original FY2006 budget submission would be distributed among several accounts in the Departmental Management and Operations Bureau in DHS: $1.3 million for resources management would move to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer; $1.3 million for administration, support and functional integration would move to the Office of the Under Secretary for Management; $2.0 million would move to the new Preparedness Directorate for Preparedness Operations; and $3.2 million would move to the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management for the Policy Office.

Appropriations for Border and Transportation Security

March 1, 2003, was the effective date for shifting most of the responsibilities from former departments and agencies to the new DHS. While the transfer of functional lines of authority and the personnel to carry out those functions was relatively straightforward, problems arose with the initial attempts to ascertain the exact amount of appropriated funds that were actually transferred to the new department. Comparisons of responsibilities and analyses of requests for increased budget authority proved difficult to develop. This was due to the fact that the functions now performed by DHS were previously performed by predecessor agencies, and that some of these functions often had non-homeland security purposes prior to the creation of the department. As a result of this, the funding lines between FY2003 and FY2004 were not identical to lines of functional responsibility before and after the transfer. This reality, in turn, was exacerbated because the basic documentation of appropriations in the President's FY2004 Budget was prepared after the formation of DHS but before final enactment of appropriations for the remainder of FY2003. However, with the completion of appropriations for FY2004, a baseline has been established, making future appropriations 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's appropriations cycle.

The distinction between BTS functions and other functions funded through the same account lines is somewhat arbitrary. Our analysis in this report attempts to identify a functional classification for "border and transportation security." This functional grouping includes the activities of the Coast Guard, a separate agency in DHS which is not part of the Directorate for BTS, but which has an essential role in providing "border and transportation security" as those words are commonly understood. Additionally, some functions contained in other accounts within DHS that are related to border and transportation security, such as those aspects of the Science and Technology account which are used to improve security, are excluded from this table because that is not the main function of the account. We also exclude the grant programs available to localities through the Office for Domestic 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 that is not necessarily the primary function of the grant programs and because they are not an operational component of border and transportation security within DHS.

The tables presented throughout this report show an approximation of costs for border and transportation security, based on identifying the accounts for which such security functions are the primary function involved. They do not necessarily reflect DHS breakdowns as to estimated amounts specifically associated with the Directorate for BTS, nor the absolute total of the funds being spent directly and indirectly on border and transportation security by the department.(6) The Administration's FY2006 request 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 State and 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 appropriation for FLETC, which is located in Title IV. FLETC has been included because it trains most of the law enforcement officers that are responsible for BTS within DHS and a compelling argument can thus be 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 the request for each of the border and transportation security agencies. Of the $19.6 billion requested in FY2006, the Coast Guard (USCG) accounts for 40.6%; CBP for 28.5%; ICE for 18.6%; TSA for 8.4%; 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 House Appropriation Committee tables of Mar. 15, 2005.

Notes: Figure 2 illustrates net budget authority, and the amount requested for TSA includes a significant fee increase proposal that lowers TSA direct appropriation, and thus decreases TSA share of direct appropriations for DHS. Without including the fee increase (which has been denied in both the House and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 2360) TSA's requested net budget authority 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 and transportation security agencies in FY2005. Of the $20.3 billion appropriated for FY2005 (including supplemental appropriations), USCG accounts for 36.7%; CBP for 27.0%; ICE for 17.7%; TSA for 15.8%; US VISIT for 1.6% and FLETC for 1.1%.

Figure 2. FY2005 Appropriation for Border and Transportation Security

Source: CRS Analysis of P.L. 108-334.

Table 2 provides a basic summary of BTS appropriations for FY2005-FY2006, including the FY2005 enacted appropriation, the FY2006 request and the appropriations recommended by the House and Senate.

Table 2. Summary of Border and Transportation Security Appropriations, Functional Presentation

(budget authority in millions of dollars)

  FY2005 Enacted FY2006 Request FY2006 House FY2006 Senate FY2006 Conf.
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 6,450 6,717 6,927 7,140  
CBP Fee Accounts -1,079 -1,142 -1,142 -1,142  
CBP Direct Appropriation  5,371 a  5,575  5,785  5,998   
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 4,215 4,364 4,546 4,524  
Offsetting Federal Protective Service Receipts -478 -487 -487 -487  
ICE Fee Accounts -200 -229 -229 -229  
ICE Direct Appropriation  3,537  3,648  3,830  3,808   
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 5,401 5,562 5,683 5,484  
TSA Offsetting Fees -1,890 -3,670 -2,170 -2,170  
Aviation Security Capital Fund -250 -250 -250 -250  
TSA Direct Appropriation  3,260  1,641  3,263  3,065   
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 227  224  259  282   
U.S. Coast Guard  7,568  7,962  7,458  7,780   
Under Secretary of Border and Transportation Security 10  11  9  10   
Screening Operations Office  --   525 b  21 c  -- d    
US-VISIT  340  -- b   390  340   
Functional Total: Border and Transportation Security 20,313  19,586  21,015  21,283   

Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President's Budget, and DHS Budget in Brief, House Appropriation 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 left the 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, but unlike the House, the Senate does not create a new Automation Modernization Office, and leaves all the programs proposed for transfer to the SCO in their current location: FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI remain in CBP, and several fee based programs remain in TSA.

Operational Components of Border and Transportation Security

While most observers indicate the need for additional funding in the area of border and transportation security, the issue for Congress is to determine the appropriate funding level in the context of the current budget situation and competing claims for resources. The following sections of the report provide detail concerning the operational components of border and transportation security. These include selected appropriations data; issues of potential interest to the conferees; and a discussion of some of the challenges facing the different components of border and transportation security.

Securing the nation's borders and transportation systems includes the regulation of imports and exports; enforcement of laws pertaining to immigration and visitation; border-related inspection of agriculture and livestock; oversight of the security of ports; federal inspection of airline passengers and baggage; achieving operational control over the international borders between ports of entry; and establishing comprehensive approaches to improving overall transportation security, including securing infrastructure such as roads and railways. Some observers might question the exclusion of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) from the discussion of border and transportation security. There is no question that homeland security is enhanced by the well managed administration of routine immigration services. However, such services would continue to be provided even in absence of any threats to the homeland. Because these immigration activities would continue in any event, including the cost of these activities in this analysis would distort the true summary costs of border and transportation security. For this reason, we include the enforcement of immigration laws, but not the provision of immigration services, within the purview of this report.

Table 3 provides account level details for the various component border and transportation agencies as identified in this report.

Table 3. BTS Appropriations: Select Detail, FY2005-FY2006

(budget authority in millions of dollars)

Operational Component FY2005 Enacted FY2006 Request FY2006 House FY2006 Senate FY2006 Enacted
Office of the under secretary for border and transportation security 10  11  9   10   
Screening and operations officea           
  US-VISITb  340 390 390 340  
  Other programs -- 135 21 --  
  Fee accountsc  -- 321 -- --  
Gross total  340  846  411  340   
  Offsetting collections -- -321 -- --  
Net total  340  525  411  340   
Customs & border protectiona           
  Salaries and expensesd  4,658 4,730 4,886 4,922  
    rescissionse  -139 -- -- -14  
  Automation modernization 450 458 458 458  
  Air and Marine Operations 258 293 348 321  
  Constructionf  144 93 93 311  
  Fee accountsg  1,079 1,142 1,142 1,142  
Gross total   6,450  6,717  6,927  7,140   
  Offsetting collections -1,079 -1,142 -1,142 -1,142  
Net total  5,371  5,575  5,785  5,998   
Immigration & Customs Enforcement          
  Salaries and expenses 2,893 h  2,892 3,064 3,052  
  Federal Air Marshals 663 689 699 679  
  Federal Protective Services 478 487 487 487  
  Automation & infrastructure modernization 40 40 40 50  
  Construction 26 27 27 27  
  Fee accountsi  200 229 229 229  
  Rescissionj  -85 -- -- --  
Gross total  4,215  4,364  4,546  4,524   
  Offsetting FPS fees -478 -487 -487 -487  
  Offsetting collections -200 -229 -229 -229  
Net total  3,537  3,648  3,830  3,808   
Transportation Security Administrationa          
  Aviation security (gross funding) 4,324 4,735 4,592 4,452  
  Surface Transportation Security 48 32 36 36  
  Credentialing activities (appropriation)k -- -- 84 75  
  Credentialing/Fee accountsk  67 -- 180 180  
  Intelligence 14 21 21 21  
  Research and developmentl  178 -- -- --  
  Administration 520 524 520 470  
  Aviation security mandatory spendingm 250 250 250 250  
Gross total  5,401  5,562  5,683  5,484   
  Offsetting collectionsn  -1,823 -3,670 -1,990 -1,990  
  Credentialing/Fee accounts -67 -- -180 -180  
  Aviation security mandatory spending -250 -250 -250 -250  
Net total  3,260  1,641  3,263  3,065   
U.S. Coast Guard           
  Operating expenseso  5,303 5,547 5,500 5,459  
  Environmental compliance & restoration 17 12 12 12  
  Reserve training 113 119 119 119  
  Acquisition, construction, & improvements p 1,031 1,269 798 1,225  
    Recission q  -16 -- -- -83  
  Alteration of bridges 16 -- 15 15  
  Research, development, tests, & evaluation r 19 -- -- 19  
  Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement) 1,085 1,014 1,014 1,014  
Gross total  7,568  7,962  7,458  7,780   
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 227  224  259  282   
Gross Budget Authority: BTS  24,209  25,685  25,293  25,560   
  Total offsetting collections: BTS -3,897   -6,099  -4,278  -4,278   
Net Budget Authority: BTS  20,313  19,586  21,015  21,283   

Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President's Budget, and DHS Budget in Brief, House Appropriation 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 and fees: US-VISIT; FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI from CBP; and Secure Flight, Crew Vetting, Credentialing Startup, TWIC, Registered Traveler, HAZMAT, and Alien Flight School from TSA. The House Appropriation Committee denies the creation of the SCO. However, H.R. 2360 does move FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI from CBP to the BTS management level, and combines these two programs with USVISIT in a new Automation Modernization office. Programs from TSA proposed for transfer to SCO would remain in TSA under H.R. 2360. The Senate-reported version of H.R. 2360 would also deny the creation of the SCO, and would also leave funding for FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI in CBP, and funding for the TSA programs proposed for transfer to the SCO would remain in 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 these programs and their fees in TSA.

d. Includes $124 million in funding provided by P.L.109-13, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 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, and Puerto 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, Land Border.

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, which were 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 Directorate of 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-leg flights, generating $1.56 billion in new revenue. There is a discrepancy between the Administration's budget documents and the committee tables concerning the aviation security fee offset amount. The Administration's budget documents report the FY2005 enacted amount 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 $3,670 million, as scored by CBO. The House Appropriations Committee did not approve the proposed fee increase, and recommends an offset of $1,990 million, and a net appropriation of $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 to the USCG pursuant to P.L. 108-287. Includes $49 million in supplemental funding provided by 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 the USCG to the S&T Office.

Office of Screening Operations (SCO)

As a part of the FY2006 request, the Administration is proposing to create a new SCO which will coordinate DHS' efforts to screen people (and to some extent cargo) as they enter and move throughout the country. Programs proposed to be moved to this office include the US Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Project (US-VISIT); Free and Secure Trade (FAST) and NEXUS/SENTRI, from CBP; Secure Flight, Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC), Registered Traveler, Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) background checks, and the Alien Flight School background checks program from TSA.

FY2006 Request for SCO. The Administration has 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), $94 million for Secure Flight(8) (an increase of $49 million over the enacted FY2005 amount), $7 million for the driver registration component of FAST, $14 million for NEXUS/SENTRI, and $20 million for the stand up of the Credentialing coordination office. In addition to appropriated activities, SCO will oversee several fee funded activities including $245 million for TWIC and other TSA credentialing activities; $23 million for the Registered Traveler program; $44 million for HAZMAT checks; and $10 million for Alien Flight School background checks. The net requested appropriation for SCO is $525 million.

House-Passed H.R. 2360. The committee notes that while the SCO office "may have merit," a broader justification is required for it than what was given by the Department. The committee therefore denies this consolidation and appropriates no funds for SCO. Instead, the committee establishes a new Office of Transportation Vetting and Credentialing within TSA to oversee the Secure Flight, Crew Vetting, Registered Traveler, TWIC, HAZMAT, and Alien Flight School programs. US-VISIT, FAST, and NEXUS/SENTRI are funded within a new BTS Automation Modernization office.(9)

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 would also deny the creation of the SCO. In contrast to the House-passed version of H.R. 2360, the Senate-reported version would leave funding for the FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI programs within CBP rather than placing them within a new BTS Automation Modernization office. The Senate-passed version of the bill would, like the House-passed version, leave funding for the TSA programs proposed for transfer to the SCO, within TSA.

Table 4. SCO Detail, FY2005-FY2006

(budget authority in millions of dollars)

Budget Activity  FY2005 Enacted FY2006 Request FY2006 House FY2006 Senate FY2006 Conf.
Direct Appropriations 
US-VISIT 340 390 390 340  
Secure Flight 45 94 -- --  
FAST 7 7 7 --  
NEXUS/SENTRI 14 14 14 --  
Credentialing/Startup -- 20 -- --  
TWIC/TSA Credentialing 10 -- -- --  
Registered Traveler 15 -- -- --  
Subtotal
Direct Appropriation  
431  525  411  340   
Fee-funded programs 
TWIC/Credentialing 50 245 -- --  
Registered Traveller -- 23 -- --  
HAZMAT 17 44 -- --  
Alien Flight School 5 10 -- --  
Subtotal
Fee Funded Programs 
72  322  --   --    
Total SCO  503  847 a  411 b  340 c   

Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President's Budget, DHS Budget in Brief, House Appropriations 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 left the 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, but unlike the House, the Senate does not create a new Automation Modernization Office, and leaves all the programs proposed for transfer to the SCO in their current location: FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI remain in CBP, and several fee based programs remain in TSA.

Issues for Congress. The proposal for the creation of the SCO can be traced to Homeland Security Presidential Directive 11 (HSPD-11), which was one of the Administration's responses to the 9/11 recommendations. HSPD-11 directed the improved coordination 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 aspects of each of the screening programs chosen to be incorporated into the SCO in order to enhance an overall 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 transfer to the SCO. How much of the program would actually be transferred to SCO? Is it simply the funding, the policy planning, or would the whole function (and the people who carry out that function) be transferred as well? Recent testimony by CBP Commissioner Bonner, and USCIS Director Aguirre indicated that there remains some uncertainty concerning which operational functions should remain at the agency level and which functions could be performed by the SCO.(11)

Coordination would be a key challenge for the SCO, particularly coordination between the SCO and the other agencies of the BTS Directorate. Other challenges recently identified by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) include defining interrelationships and commonalities among 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 the programs proposed for transfer to SCO (such as Secure Flight, and TWIC) would still have to be addressed.(12)

Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

CBP is responsible for security at and between ports-of-entry along the U.S. border. Since 9/11, 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 are authorized to enter the United States; interdicting terrorists and instruments of terrorism; intercepting illegal narcotics, firearms, and other types of contraband; interdicting unauthorized travelers and immigrants; and enforcing more than 400 laws and regulations at the border on behalf of more than 60 government agencies. CBP is comprised of the inspection functions of the legacy Customs Service, INS, and the APHIS; the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction; and the Border Patrol.

President's Request. The Administration has requested an appropriation of $6,717 million in gross budget authority for CBP in FY2006. This represents 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 budget authority for CBP, representing a 4% increase over the FY2005 enacted level of $5,371 million. The request includes the following program increases (which are discussed later in this report):

House-Passed H.R. 2360. The House appropriators added $210 million to both the gross and net budget authorities for CBP in order to cover a range of programs. The House-passed H.R. 2360 provides a net appropriation for CBP of $5,785 billion, an 8% increase over the FY2005 enacted level and a 4% increase over the President's FY2006 request.(13) House-passed H.R. 2360 fully funds all of the above listed requested increases, and provides an additional $150 million above the request for Border Patrol staffing. However, the House makes unavailable the $1 million requested increase for the IAP until CBP submits the report on the program that has been overdue since January 1.

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 provides a net appropriation of $ 5,998 million for CBP, representing an increase of $213 million or nearly 4% compared to the amount provided by the House in H.R. 2360; an increase of $423 million or nearly 8% as compared to the FY2006 request; 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 radiation portal monitors (RPMs) under the S&T Directorate, rather than under CBP; and provides an additional $241 million for Border Patrol staffing. Amounts provided for CBP in Senate-passed H.R. 2360 include $21 million in FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI funding that had been requested for transfer to the Administration-proposed SCO (the House-passed version of H.R. 2360 placed this funding in a new BTS-level Automation Modernization Account).

Table 5 presents account-level detail for CBP. CBP's appropriation is provided through four accounts: Salaries and Expenses; Air and Marine Operations; Automation Modernization; and Construction. 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)

CBP Account  FY2005 Enacted FY2006 Request FY2006 House FY2006 Senate FY2006 Conf.
Salaries and Expenses 4,658 4,730 4,886 4,922  
  rescissions from S&E -139 -- -- -14  
Air and Marine Operations 258 293 348 321  
Automation Modernization 450 458 458 458  
Construction 144 93 93 311  
Total direct appropriations  5,371  5,575  5,785  5,998   
Offsetting fee receipts -1,079 -1,142 -1,142 -1,142  
Total budget authority  6,450  6,717  6,927  7,140   

Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President's Budget, and DHS Budget in Brief, House Appropriation 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 Level Detail

(budget authority in millions of dollars)

Salaries and Expenses FY2005 Enacted FY2006 Request FY2006 House FY2006 Senate FY2006 Conf.
Headquarters Management and Administration 1,173  1,250  1,250  1,250   
At Ports of Entry: 
  Inspection, trade and travel facilitation 1,243 1,275 1,275 1,275  
  Harbor Maintenance Fee 3 3 3 3  
  Container Security Initiative (CSI) 126 139 139 139  
  Other International Programs 57 9 9 9  
  C-TPAT, FAST 38 54 54 75  
  Inspection and detection technology investments 145 188 188 63  
  Systems for Targeting 30 28 28 28  
  National Targeting Center 16 17 17 17  
  Other technology investment 1 1 1 1  
  Training 23 24 24 24  
Subtotal At Ports of Entry  1,683  1,738  1,738  1,634   
Between Ports of Entry: 
  Border security and control 1,414 1,465 1,615 1,751  
  Air program operations and maintenance 37 58 58 58  
  Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 10 10 10 10  
  Integrated surveillance and intelligence system 64 51 51 51  
  Training 22 22 22 22  
Subtotal Between Ports of Entry  1,547  1,606  1,756  1,892   
Air and Marine Operations S&E  131  136  141  147   
Rescission  --   --   --   -14   
Rescission (P.L. 108-334)  -63  --   --   --    
Rescission (P.L. 109-13)  -76  --   --   --    
Supplemental Appropriations (P.L. 109-13) 124  --   --   --    
Total CBP salaries and expenses  4,520  4,731  4,886  4,908   

Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President's Budget, and DHS Budget in Brief, House Appropriation 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 the amounts provided for CBP. The main differences are illustrated by Table 6. They include amounts provided for C-TPAT and FAST, for Inspection and Technology Investments, for Border Control Between Ports of Entry (Border Patrol), and for Air and Marine Operations S&E. The Senate version 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 amount for C-TPAT and FAST, the House version funds the FAST program under a BTS-level Automation Modernization account, while the Senate funds FAST within CBP's S&E account. For Inspection technology, the differences between the House and Senate can be accounted for by the fact that the Senate 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 House version of H.R. 2360 funds this within CBP. Between Ports of Entry, both the House and Senate added funding to the President's request to accommodate the hiring, training, and deployment of 1,000 additional Border Patrol Agents. The Senate, however, added $136 million more for this purpose than the House because it also included funding for support positions, relocation costs, and information technology costs.

CBP Issues for Congress. Potential CBP issues for Congress include cargo and container security; targeting and risk assessments; cargo inspection technology; air and marine operations; the number of border patrol agents; IDENT/IAFIS integration; ABCI; and the America Shield Initiative.

Cargo and Container Security. CBP's cargo security strategy includes two significant programs: the CSI, and C-TPAT. CSI is a CBP program that stations CBP officers in foreign sea ports to target marine containers for inspection before they are loaded onto U.S.-bound vessels. The FY2006 request includes an additional $5.4 million for CSI to 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 $139 million for CSI in FY2006. However, the House Committee notes that it has not yet received a report detailing the spending and planning projections for CSI for FY2005-FY2009, and directs CBP to 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 Senate Committee fully funds the request for CSI, but notes its concern about CSI host-country cooperation and directs CBP to submit a report to the committee no later than February 18, 2006, detailing specific steps the Department is taking to address any reluctance on the part of foreign countries to fully cooperate.

C-TPAT is a public-private partnership aimed at securing the supply chain from point of origin through entry into the United States. The FY2006 request includes an increase of $8.2 million for C-TPAT to be used for travel and the purchase of equipment and supplies for Supply Chain Specialists 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. 2360 fully 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 taken that would address the recommendations made by GAO's recent report on the program. The Senate Committee voiced its concern over standards for both the CSI and C-TPAT programs. The committee directs CBP to submit a report by February 18, 2006 detailing: (1) the most rigorous performance measures and indicators for both the CSI and C-TPAT programs; (2) a human capital plan; and (3) plans currently in place describing the goals, objectives, and detailed implementation strategies of the programs. Finally, the report should include results of the programs for FY2004 and FY2005, and should address the implementation of the recommendations made by GAO in its March 2005 report.(14)

Cargo Inspection Technology. The FY2006 Administration 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 next generation RPMs. House-passed H.R. 2360 fully funds the $188 million request for cargo inspection technology. H.Rept. 109-79 directs CBP to submit two reports no later than January 16, 2006: (1) the current status and investment plan for RPMs through FY2010; and (2) the projected spending, maintenance and replacement of large-scale non-intrusive inspection (NII) equipment (for example, truck x-ray machines, and vehicle and cargo inspection systems) for FY2006-FY2010. Senate-passed H.R. 2360 fully funds the requested increase of $125 million for RPMs, but funds the request under the S&T Directorate rather than under CBP, as the committee believes that S&T is the appropriate organization to test, pilot, and direct procurement of RPMs.

Air and Marine Operations (AMO). With the FY2005 Appropriation, AMO was transferred to CBP, where it is now located. The FY2006 request includes an increase of $31.7 million for long range radar (LRR) coverage for AMO. This increase is requested to finance a 50% share of the cost (the other 50% share to be covered by the Department of Defense) of a primary Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) LRR feed that FAA intends to discontinue using. House-passed H.R. 2360 fully funds the request for AMO, and provides an additional $60 million above the request for AMO: $14 million for the acquisition of manned covert surveillance aircraft, $15 million for the acquisition and deployment of palletized sensor 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 fully fund the requested increase for AMO, and provide an additional $33 million in total for AMO: $5 million for staff for the fourth Northern Border airwing base in Great Falls, Montana; $13 million for the operations of the fourth Northern Border airwing base; and $15 million for the P-3 Slick palletized sensor packages.

Increase in Border Patrol Agents. CBP is proposing to add 210 agents to the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) workforce in FY2006 to backfill positions vacated along the Southwest border. These vacancies were the result of agents being transferred out from the Southwest border in order to fulfill the requirement enacted in the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56, §402) to triple the number of agents assigned to the Northern border. This increase is well below the 2,000 additional agents authorized by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458, §5202). Given the disparity between the authorization and the President's request, a possible issue for Congress may be what the appropriate level of staffing for the Border Patrol is in order to achieve its mission of detecting and interdicting the entry of terrorists, WMD, and unauthorized aliens between ports of entry. House appropriators have addressed 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 the Border Patrol to hire, train and deploy 1,500 agents to its workforce by the end of FY2006.(15) The Senate Appropriations Committee concurs with the House in adding 1,500 agents to the USBP in FY2006 and increases the President's request by $241 million. However, the Senate also included funding for 220 mission support positions, relocation costs, and information technology costs in its appropriation, resulting in a $136 million increase over the appropriation proposed by the House. Additionally, the Senate included $20 million for upgrading and modernizing the Border Patrol's fleet of aircraft, including the purchase of 12 single engine helicopters.(16)

IDENT/IAFIS. According to CBP, the integration of the Border Patrol's Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) is progressing and interoperable IDENT/IAFIS workstations have been deployed to all USBP stations. This would seem to address some of the concerns about the slow pace of the integration project raised by House appropriators in FY2005.(17) The president's request includes an increase of $3 million for the system and notes that BTS has assumed ownership for the integration project. While the integration of the two biometric databases has given USBP agents access to the FBI's criminal records, leading to an 8.5% increase in the identification of criminal aliens, a possible issue for Congress may be the USBP's apparent lack of access to the name-based Terrorist Watchlist at their stations. This may be of concern due to recent Congressional testimony by DHS then acting Secretary Admiral James Loy that Al-Qaeda is considering infiltrating the Southwest border due to a belief that "illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons."(18) House appropriators expressed frustration with CBP that the report they requested in the FY2005 appropriation bill on the IDENT/IAFIS integration project has not been delivered yet. They directed DHS to submit the report by July 1, 2005. The Senate Appropriations Committee funds the President's request and directs DHS to submit the report on the project that was requested in FY2005 which continues to be outstanding. The Senate also included $3 million in its amount to allow CBP to reimburse the US-VISIT program for its use of the IDENT/IAFIS system.(19)

Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI). In response to a continuing high level of apprehensions in the Tucson sector, the ABCI was launched on 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 stopping cross-border smuggling operations by detecting, arresting, and deterring all groups seeking to bring people, drugs, weapons, and other merchandise into the country illegally. Two hundred additional permanent border patrol agents and 60 special operations agents trained for search and rescue operations were assigned to the Tucson sector over the summer of 2004, bringing the total number of 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 of the previous year. From March 16, 2004 to September 7, 2004, 351,700 unauthorized aliens were apprehended compared to 225,108 unauthorized aliens during the same period in 2003. CBP proposes an increase of $1 million to continue this multi-disciplinary program in FY2006, though most funding for the program will come from ICE. House appropriators support this multi-agency approach to protecting the border and fund the President's request and direct CBP to work closely with the Tohono O'odham Nation along the Arizona border to ensure that the Nation is fully aware of CBP's actions on their territory.(20) The Senate Appropriations Committee fully funds the President's request.

America Shield Initiative. CBP proposes an increase of $19.8 million for the America Shield Initiative (ASI), formerly known as the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS). ASI integrates Remote Video Surveillance camera systems, sensors, and the Integrated Computer Assisted Detection (ICAD) database into a multi-faceted network capable of detecting illegal entries in a wide range of climate conditions. The requested FY2006 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 House cites its concern with the contracting problems identified in the ISIS program by the General Services Administration Inspector General and requests a report by January 16, 2006 on these problems and the specific measures taken by CBP to address them. Additionally, the House expects DHS to consult with the Appropriations Committee as it searches for a contractor to oversee the integration of new technologies into the existing ASI system. The House also notes that it expects the ASI will permit the Border Patrol to gather, analyze, and share information regarding the numbers and types of intrusions by creating a database. To this end, the House requests a report on the specific performance metrics used by the ASI program by January 16, 2006.(21) The Senate Appropriations Committee fully funds the President's request and encourages program managers to explore off-the-shelf solutions as they develop the program.

Construction. The President requested $93 million for this account, which covers the construction of the tactical infrastructure that provides physical impediments 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. The House Appropriations Committee fully funds the President's request. The Senate Appropriations Committee increases the President's request by $218 million, to $311 million. Included in this increase is $82 million for the construction of facilities to accommodate the 1,500 additional USBP agents that are included in the bill, as well as $55 million to complete the fence in the San Diego Sector and $55 million to expand the USBP tactical infrastructure in the Tucson Sector. The Senate also directs DHS to submit detailed spending plans for these construction projects.(22)

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the United States, as well 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. In addition, 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 Interdiction was transferred from ICE to CBP. Therefore the totals for ICE do not include Air and Marine Interdiction funding now included under CBP.

The bureau combined the investigations and intelligence functions of the U.S. Customs Service and the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, the air and marine interdiction functions of those agencies, and the immigration detention and removal programs, as well as the operations of FPS. ICE conducts investigations to develop intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the United States, and is responsible for locating and removing illegal aliens by inspecting places of employment for undocumented workers. ICE is responsible for identifying and finding persons who have overstayed their visas, and the Bureau also develops intelligence to combat terrorist financing and money laundering, and to enforce export laws against smuggling and fraud.

President's Request. The Administration has requested an appropriation of $4,364 million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2006. This represents 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 budget authority for ICE in FY2006, representing a 3% increase over the FY2005 enacted level of $3,537 million. The request includes the following program increases:

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 the appropriated amount, $5 million is to be used to implement §287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),(23) which allows the Attorney General(24) to enter into agreements with states and local governments to allow their employees to perform functions of immigration officers; and $11.2 million is designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care, and repatriation of smuggled aliens. In addition, House-passed H.R. 2360 would withhold $20 million of the money appropriated to DHS' Office of the Secretary and Executive management until the Secretary of DHS submits a report to the Appropriations Committee outlining an immigration enforcement strategy to reduce the number of unauthorized aliens in the United States 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 Secretary of ICE submits to the Appropriations Committee a national detention management plan.

Additionally, H.Rept. 109-79 recommends fully funding the President's requests and recommends an additional:

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. Senate-passed H.R. 2360 provides $3,808 million for ICE, an increase of $160 million and 4% over the President's request. During floor debate, two amendments were agreed to that impact ICE funding directly. Amendment 1139 added $2 million to the Salaries and Expenses account and required that $1 million be spent on improving the information being entered into the National Crime Information Center database. Amendment 1140 earmarks $5 million for the facilitation of agreements between ICE and local law enforcement agencies under INA 287(g). Of the overall appropriated amount, $11.2 million is designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care, and repatriation of smuggled aliens. Additionally, S.Rept. 109-83 recommends an increase of:

Table 7. ICE Account Detail

(budget authority in millions of dollars)


ICE Account
FY2005 Enacted FY2006 Request FY2006 House FY2006 Senate FY2006 Conf.
Salaries and Expenses 2,808 2,892 3,064 3,052  
Federal Protective Service 478 487 487 487  
  offsetting FPS fee receipts -478 -487 -487 -487  
Federal Air Marshals 663 689 699 679  
Automation Modernization 40 40 40 50  
Construction 26 27 27 27  
Fee receipts 200 229 229 229  
Subtotal ICE:  3,737  3,877  4,059  4,037   
Offsetting Fee Receipts -200 -229 -229 -229  
Net Budget Authority ICE:  3,537  3,648  3,830  3,808   

Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President's Budget, and DHS Budget in Brief, House Appropriation 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 Level Detail

(budget authority in millions of dollars)

Salaries and Expenses  FY2005 Enacted FY2006 Request FY2006 House FY2006 Senate FY2006 Conf.
Headquarters Management and Administration 216  412  412  327   
Investigations 
  Operations 1,055 1,216 1,254 1,281  
  Training 16 18 18 14  
Subtotal Investigations  1,071  1,234  1,272  1,295   
Intelligence 
  Headquarters Reporting Center 5 5 5 5  
  Operations/Operations Center 55 57 57 44  
Subtotal Intelligence  60  62  62  49   
Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) 
  Custody Management   600 690 842  
  Case Management   166 166 178  
  Fugitive Operations   103 119 70  
  Institutional Removal Program   70 88 63  
  Alternatives to Detention   33 43 28  
  Transportation and Removal Operations   211 211 200  
Subtotal DRO:  1,091  1,184  1,318  1,381   
Supplemental Appropriations (P.L. 109-13) 454  --   --   --    
Rescission (P.L. 109-13)  -85  --   --   --    
Subtotal salaries and expenses:  2,808  2,892  3,064  3,052   

Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President's Budget, and DHS Budget in Brief, House Appropriation 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 issues within the ICE appropriation that may be of interest to Congress, including but not limited to the severe financial management problems at the agency over the past several years which have led to hiring and training freezes; the lack of detention bedspace which has resulted in some unauthorized aliens being released; and whether the agency has enough investigators to adequately pursue its many varied missions. The following sections outline the main issues identified within the President's request and the House and Senate Appropriations Committee Reports.

Financial Management at ICE. ICE inherited its financial organization and systems from the former INS. An independent audit of ICE's financial statements concluded that the agency's accounting records were inadequately maintained during FY2004. The situation was characterized as especially grave regarding intra-departmental and intra-governmental agreements and transactions, costs, and budgetary transactions. This required extensive reconciliation and adjustment at the end of the fiscal year, which ICE was unable to complete. The report noted that ICE had served as the accounting services provider for several other DHS agencies(26) while simultaneously experiencing significant turnover among its financial management staff. This led the agency to fall "seriously behind in basic accounting functions, such as account reconciliations, analysis of material abnormal balances, and proper budgetary accounting." Additionally, serving as the accounting provider for other agencies led ICE to experience budget shortfalls due to tardy reimbursements for expenses it provided to cover other agencies' costs. This budget shortfall forced the agency into a freeze on hiring and non-mission critical expenditures, including training. The auditors concluded that DHS should immediately address the "void in ICE's financial management infrastructure" in order to fix the lack of oversight and controls that led ICE to become anti-deficient or that prevented DHS management from knowing whether ICE was anti-deficient.(27) ICE recently requested a $500 million reprogramming for FY2005 to cover funding shortfalls within the agency.(28) House appropriators expressed concern and disappointment over the continuing financial troubles at ICE. The committee notes that the agency has been forced to employ drastic cost-cutting measures that the committee believes adversely limited ICE's operations. The committee directs DHS to provide monthly reports on ICE's financial condition.(29)

Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions. The Office of Investigations (OI) in ICE focuses on a broad array of criminal and civil violations affecting national security such as illegal arms exports, financial crimes, commercial fraud, human trafficking, narcotics smuggling, child pornography/exploitation, worksite enforcement, and immigration fraud. ICE special agents also conduct investigations aimed at protecting critical infrastructure industries that are vulnerable to sabotage, attack or exploitation.(30) The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) abolished the INS and the U.S. Customs Service, and transferred most of their investigative functions to ICE effective March 1, 2003. There are investigative advantages to combining the INS and Customs Services as those who violate immigration laws often are engaged in other criminal enterprises (e.g., alien smuggling rings often launder money). Nonetheless, concerns have been raised that not enough resources have been focused on investigating civil violations of immigration law, and that ICE resources have been disproportionately focused on terrorism and the types of investigations performed by the former Customs Service.(31)

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458, §5203) authorized for FY2006, subject to appropriations, the addition of at least 800 new investigators to investigate violations of immigration law. The $1,496 million requested in the President's budget for the OI(32) includes increases in the base funding for two groups responsible for immigration enforcement, the Visa Security Unit (VSU)(33) and Temporary Worker Worksite Enforcement, and includes a total of 148 new positions for these units. The President's budget requests an additional $18 million for temporary worker worksite enforcement to add 143 positions responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations under existing immigration law for hiring unauthorized aliens, and supporting and implementing the provisions of possible temporary worker legislation. The President's request also includes an increase of $5 million to add five new officers to the VSU, open a new overseas location, and expand training 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 for 200 new Immigration Enforcement Agents (IEAs).(34) H.Rept. 109-79 also recommends $19 million for an additional 150 criminal investigators.(35) S.Rept. 109-83 recommends an additional $37 million for 300 new immigration investigations positions, and $18 million for 200 IEAs, but does not provide a funding increase for temporary workers worksite enforcement.

Detention and Removal Operations. Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) in ICE provides custody management of aliens who are in removal proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United States.(36) DRO is also responsible for ensuring that aliens ordered removed actually depart from the United States. Many contend that DRO does not have enough detention space to house all those who should be detained. A study done by DOJ's Inspector General found that almost 94% of those detained with final orders of removal were deported while only 11% of those not detained who were issued final orders of removal left the country.(37) Concerns have been raised that decisions on which aliens to release and when to release them may be based on the amount of detention space, not on the merits of individual cases, and that the amount of space may vary by area of the country leading to inequities and disparate policies in different geographic areas. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458, §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 1,920 new 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 the Assistant Secretary of ICE submits to the Appropriations Committee a national detention management plan. S.Rept. 109-83 recommends $77.4 million for 32 positions for Custody Management, and 2,240 new beds.

Alternatives to Detention. Due to the cost of detaining aliens, and the fact that many non-detained aliens with final orders of removal do not leave the country, there has been interest in developing alternatives to detention for certain types of aliens who do not require a secure detention setting. In 2004, ICE began a pilot program, the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP), for low-risk, non-violent offenders.(39) The program, provides less restrictive alternatives to detention, using such tools as electronic monitoring devices (e.g., ankle bracelets), home visits, work visits, and reporting by telephone, to monitor aliens who are out on bond 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 million increase for the Interior Repatriation program. On June 9, 2004 the White House announced it had reached 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 States by flying them into the interior of Mexico. Due to constitutional constraints in Mexico, the apprehended aliens' return to the interior must be strictly voluntary and the willingness of their participation must be certified by Mexican consular officers.(41) In order to continue the program in FY2006, the Administration is requesting $39.3 million; $25 million for Custody Management and $14.3 for Transportation and Removal. This represents a $25 million increase from the $14 million spent on the pilot program in FY2005. H.Rept. 109-79 directs the Commissioner of CBP to report no later than January 16, 2006 on the performance of the Interior Repatriation Program, including its cost, the number of agents required for its functioning, and the relevant statistics related to the number of aliens repatriated and any data on their recidivism.

State and Local Law Enforcement.(42) Currently the INA provides limited avenues for state enforcement of both its civil and criminal provisions. One of the broadest grants of authority for state and local immigration enforcement activity stems from INA §287(g), which authorizes the Attorney General to enter into a written agreement with a state, or any political subdivision to allow an officer or employee of the state or subdivision, to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States. The enforcement of immigration by state and local officials has sparked debate among many who question what the proper role of state and local law enforcement officials should be in enforcing federal immigration laws. Many have expressed concern over proper training, finite resources 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 promote policies that ensure such aliens will not be turned over to federal authorities. Nonetheless, some observers contend that the federal government has scarce resources to enforce immigration law and that 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 to implement INA §287(g).

Student Exchange and Visitor Program (SEVP). The Student Exchange and Visitor Program (SEVP) in ICE is responsible for maintaining the web-based foreign student monitoring system known as the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS).(43) The operating budget for SEVP comes from fees(44) collected from potential foreign students (i.e., those applying for student visas, or to change their nonimmigrant status to student), and from institutions seeking certification 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 requesting an additional appropriation of $19.7 million for the SEVP in FY2006 to maintain staffing levels, and increase spending on enhancements such as incorporating historical data, enhancing batch mode processing into SEVIS, and providing more training and outreach to the schools. This fee-based increase was included in H.R. 2360 as passed by the House or Senate.

Office of Principal Legal Advisor. The Office of Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) is responsible for litigating alien custody and removal cases generated 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 budget requests an increase of $3.5 million for OPLA to hire an additional 32 attorneys, and 16 legal support staff, arguing that the increase in the staff will increase OPLA's ability to complete matters in the immigration courts, thereby reducing the number of backlogged cases. This increase was not included in H.R. 2360 as passed by the House or Senate.

Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

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 of movement for people and commerce. In 2002, the TSA was transferred to DHS with the passage of the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296). TSA's responsibilities include protecting the air transportation system against terrorist threats, sabotage and other acts of violence through the deployment of: passenger and baggage screeners; detection systems for explosives, weapons, and other contraband; and other security technologies. TSA also has responsibilities for marine and land modes of transportation including assessing the risk of terrorist attacks to all non-aviation transportation modes, issuing regulations to improve the security of the modes, and enforcing these regulations to ensure the protection of the transportation system. TSA is further charged with serving as the primary liaison for transportation security to the law enforcement and intelligence communities, and with conducting research and development activities to improve security technologies.

FY2006 Request for TSA. The President has requested an appropriation of $5,562 million in gross budget authority for TSA in FY2006, a net increase of $156 million, or 3%, over the enacted FY2005 level of $5,406 million.(47) However, in comparing the FY2006 budget request to prior year levels, it is important to note that the President is requesting to transfer a large portion of TSA's research and development functions -- totaling $109 million in FY2005 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); Transportation Worker Identification Card (TWIC, $50 million); Registered Traveler ($15 million); HAZMAT Driver Security Threat Assessments ($17 million); and Alien Flight School Applicant Security Threat Assessments ($5 million). Adjusting for these transfers and other miscellaneous factors, the requested 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. Key aviation security initiatives proposed include the following:

In an effort to approach full cost recovery from user fees for aviation security screening, the President has proposed an increase in passenger security fees. The proposal would raise the fee from its current level of $2.50 per flight segment, with a maximum fee of $5.00 per one-way trip, to $5.50 per segment, with a maximum of $8.00 per one-way trip. The Administration anticipates that this proposed fee increase coupled with a return to pre-9/11 passenger volume will result in an increase in fee collections from an estimated $2.652 billion in FY2005 to $4.1 billion in FY2006. This increase is projected to offset roughly 82% of the proposed $4.985 billion budget for aviation security. In contrast, aviation security fees collected in FY2004 offset only 41% of expenditures for aviation security.(48)

For surface transportation security, the President requests $32 million, which includes $8 million for hiring and deploying 100 rail and transit inspectors. These inspectors will be deployed at 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 of dollars)

SA Activity  FY2005 Enacted FY2006 Request FY2006 House FY2006 Senate FY2006 Conf.
Aviation Security 4,324 4,735 4,592 4,452  
Surface Transportation Security 48 32 36 36  
Credentialing Activities Appropriation -- -- a  85 75  
Credentialing Activities 67 -- a  180 180  
Intelligence 14 21 21 21  
Research and Development 178 -- -- --  
Administration 520 524 520 471  
Aviation Security Capital Fund 250 250 250 250  
Subtotal TSA  5,401  5,562  5,684  5,485   
Offsetting Fee Collections
  Aviation Security Fees  -1,823  -3,670  -1,990  -1,990   
  Credentialing Fees  -67  --   -180  -180   
  Aviation Security Capital Fund  -250  -250  -250  -250   
Total TSA  3,260  1,642  3,264  3,065   

Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President's Budget, and DHS Budget in Brief, House Appropriation 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 the House-passed and Senate-reported versions of H.R. 2360 would leave these programs and their fees in TSA.

Table 10. TSA Selected Sub-Account Level Detail

(budget authority in millions of dollars)

Aviation Security  FY2005 Enacted FY2006 Request FY2006 House FY2006 Senate FY2006 Conf.
Screener Operations 
  Screener Workforce 
  Privatized screening   145 140 146  
  Passenger screener personnel,
compensation and benefits
  1,591 1,520 1,375  
  Baggage screener personnel,
compensation and benefits
  932 884 813  
Subtotal Screener Workforce:  2,424  2,669  2,544  2,334   
  Screening Training and other 
  Passenger screeners, other     21 27  
  Baggage screeners, other     -- 127  
  Screener training     85 91  
  Screener, other     126 16  
Subtotal Screening, Training, and other: 344  261  232  261   
  Human Resources Services    207  207  207   
  CAPPS II/Secure Flight    --   (66) a  (57) a   
  Crew Vetting    --   (13) a  (13) a   
  Registered Traveler    --   --   --    
  Checkpoint Support    158  158   172   
  EDS/ETD Systems b 
  Purchase 180
130 170 180  
  Installation 45 14 75 14  
  Maintenance 175 200 200 200  
  Operation Integration -- 23 23 23  
Subtotal EDS/ETD Systems:  400  367  468  417   
Subtotal Screening Operations  3,502  3,662  3,609  3,392