FY2006 Appropriations for Border and Transportation Security
Congressional research reportAug 24, 2005
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Order Code RL33049
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
FY2006 Appropriations for Border and
Transportation Security
August 24, 2005
(name redacted) and Blas Nunez-Neto, Coordinators
Domestic Social Policy Division
Lisa M. Seghetti and (name redacted)
Domestic Social Policy Division
(name redacted), (name redacted), and (name
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
FY2006 Appropriations for Border and
Transportation Security
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 standalone 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
Co-Coordinator
(name redacted)
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Co-Coordinator
Blas Nunez-Neto
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Customs Issues
(name redacted)
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Immigration Issues
(name redacted)
Border Patrol
Blas Nunez-Neto
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Federal Enforcement
Training Center
Blas Nunez-Neto
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Transportation
Security
Administration
Bartholomew Elias
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Coast Guard
(name redacted)
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Port Security
(name redacted)
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Agricultural
Quarantine
Inspections
James Monke
US-VISIT
(name redacted)
7-....
7-....
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Senate Passes H.R. 2360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
House Passes H.R. 2360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
President’s FY2005 Budget Submitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Appropriations for Border and Transportation Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Operational Components of Border and Transportation Security . . . . . . . . . 9
Office of Screening Operations (SCO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
FY2006 Request for SCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
House-Passed H.R. 2360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
House-Passed H.R. 2360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
CBP Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
House-Passed H.R. 2360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
ICE Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
FY2006 Request for TSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
House-Passed H.R. 2360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
TSA Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
U.S. Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
House-Passed H.R. 2360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Coast Guard Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
House-Passed H.R. 2360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Appendix I — Federal Spending on Border and Transportation Security . . . . . . 45
List of Figures
Figure 1. FY2006 Request for Border and Transportation Security . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 2. FY2005 Appropriation for Border and Transportation Security . . . . . . 7
List of Tables
Key Policy Staff: Border and Transportation Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Summary of Border and Transportation Security Appropriations,
Functional Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 3. BTS Appropriations: Select Detail, FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 4. SCO Detail, FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 5. CBP Account Detail, FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 6. CBP Selected Sub-Account Level Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 7. ICE Account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 8. ICE Selected Sub-Account Level Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 9. TSA Account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 10. TSA Selected Sub-Account Level Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table 11. Coast Guard Account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 12. Coast Guard — Select Sub-Account Level Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 13. FLETC Account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 14. Federal Spending on Border and Transportation Security
FY2003-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
FY2006 Appropriations for Border and
Transportation Security
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
1
The FY2004 amount does not include $4.8 billion in scorekeeping adjustments,
rescissions, and advance appropriations.
2
For more information on DHS Appropriations, see CRS Report RL32863, Homeland
(continued...)
CRS-2
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security
Appropriations
Conference
House
Senate
House
Senate Conf. Report Approval
Report
Report
Passage
Passage Report
109-79
109-83
House Senate
House Senate
Subcommittee
Markup
05/04
(vv)
06/14
(vv)
05/10
(vv)
05/17
(424-1)
06/16
(28-0)
Public
Law
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
2
(...continued)
Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations, coordinated by Jennifer Lake and (nam
e redacted).
CRS-3
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
3
For text of the Secretary’s speech, see DHS, Remarks by Secretary Michael Chertoff on
the Second Stage Review of the Department of Homeland Security, July 13, 2005,
Washington, DC, at [http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/speech/speech_0255.xml]. For
an overview of the proposed changes, see DHS, Homeland Security Secretary Michael
Chertoff announces Six-Point Agenda for Department of Homeland Security, July 13, 2005,
(continued...)
CRS-4
Department.4 The Secretary has designed a six-point agenda based upon the results
of the 2SR:
!
!
!
!
!
!
increase overall preparedness, particularly for catastrophic events;
create better transportation security systems to move people and
cargo more securely and efficiently;
strengthen border security and interior enforcement and reform
immigration processes;
enhance information sharing with our partners;
improve DHS financial management, human resources development,
procurement and information technology; and
realign the DHS organization to maximize mission performance.
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 USVISIT program would be moving from the 2-print fingerprinting standard to a 10print 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
3
(...continued)
at [http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0703.xml]. See
[http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/DHSOrgCharts0705.pdf] for the proposed
organizational chart.
4
This report will only discuss those relating to the BTS mission and agencies. This section
will discuss the proposed changes in general; while more specific changes and their
implications will be discussed throughout the report along with the discussion of issues
relating to the specific agencies discussed in this report.
5
For more information on US-VISIT, see CRS Report RL32234, U.S. Visitor and Immigrant
Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program, by Lisa M. Seghetti, and (name reda
cted).
CRS-5
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
CRS-6
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%.
6
Identifying the exact dollar amount being spent on border and transportation security is not
possible from the documentation available due to the fact that many of these distinctions
occur at the sub-account level and are thus not identifiable.
CRS-7
Figure 1. FY2006 Request for Border and Transportation
Security
TSA 8.4%
SCO (Includes US-VISIT) 2.7%
ICE 18.6%
USCG 40.6%
Under Secretary 0.1%
CBP 28.5%
FLETC 1.1%
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
US-VISIT 1.6%
TSA 15.8%
ICE 17.7%
USCG 36.7%
CBP 27.0%
FLETC 1.1%
Source: CRS Analysis of P.L. 108-334.
CRS-8
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 FY2006
Enacted Request
Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection (CBP)
CBP Fee Accounts
CBP Direct Appropriation
Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Offsetting Federal Protective
Service Receipts
ICE Fee Accounts
ICE Direct Appropriation
Transportation Security
Administration (TSA)
TSA Offsetting Fees
Aviation Security Capital Fund
TSA Direct Appropriation
Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center
U.S. Coast Guard
Under Secretary of Border
and Transportation Security
Screening Operations Office
US-VISIT
Functional Total: Border
and Transportation Security
FY2006
House
FY2006
Senate
6,450
-1,079
5,371 a
6,717
-1,142
5,575
6,927
-1,142
5,785
7,140
-1,142
5,998
4,215
4,364
4,546
4,524
-478
-200
3,537
-487
-229
3,648
-487
-229
3,830
-487
-229
3,808
5,401
-1,890
-250
3,260
5,562
-3,670
-250
1,641
5,683
-2,170
-250
3,263
5,484
-2,170
-250
3,065
227
7,568
224
7,962
259
7,458
282
7,780
10
—
340
11
525 b
—b
9
c
21
390
10
—d
340
20,313
19,586
21,015
21,283
FY2006
Conf.
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.
CRS-9
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.
CRS-10
Table 3. BTS Appropriations: Select Detail, FY2005-FY2006
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Operational Component
Office of the under secretary for border
and transportation security
FY2005 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006
Enacted Request House
Senate Enacted
10
11
9
10
340
390
390
340
—
135
21
—
—
321
—
—
340
846
411
340
—
-321
—
—
340
525
411
340
Salaries and expensesd
rescissionse
4,658
4,730
4,886
4,922
-139
—
—
-14
Automation modernization
Air and Marine Operations
Constructionf
Fee accountsg
Gross total
Offsetting collections
Net total
450
258
144
1,079
6,450
-1,079
5,371
458
293
93
1,142
6,717
-1,142
5,575
458
348
93
1,142
6,927
-1,142
5,785
458
321
311
1,142
7,140
-1,142
5,998
2,893 h
663
478
2,892
689
487
3,064
699
487
3,052
679
487
40
40
40
50
26
200
-85
4,215
-478
-200
3,537
27
229
—
4,364
-487
-229
3,648
27
229
—
4,546
-487
-229
3,830
27
229
—
4,524
-487
-229
3,808
4,324
48
—
67
14
178
520
4,735
32
—
—
21
—
524
4,592
36
84
180
21
—
520
4,452
36
75
180
21
—
470
Screening and operations officea
US-VISITb
Other programs
c
Fee accounts
Gross total
Offsetting collections
Net total
a
Customs & border protection
Immigration & Customs Enforcement
Salaries and expenses
Federal Air Marshals
Federal Protective Services
Automation & infrastructure
modernization
Construction
Fee accountsi
Rescissionj
Gross total
Offsetting FPS fees
Offsetting collections
Net total
Transportation Security Administrationa
Aviation security (gross funding)
Surface Transportation Security
Credentialing activities (appropriation)k
Credentialing/Fee accountsk
Intelligence
Research and developmentl
Administration
CRS-11
Operational Component
FY2005 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006
Enacted Request House
Senate Enacted
Aviation security mandatory spendingm
Gross total
Offsetting collectionsn
250
5,401
-1,823
250
5,562
-3,670
250
5,683
-1,990
250
5,484
-1,990
Credentialing/Fee accounts
Aviation security mandatory spending
Net total
U.S. Coast Guard
Operating expenseso
Environmental compliance &
restoration
Reserve training
Acquisition, construction, &
improvements p
Recission q
Alteration of bridges
Research, development, tests, &
evaluation r
Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement)
Gross total
-67
-250
3,260
—
-250
1,641
-180
-250
3,263
-180
-250
3,065
5,303
5,547
5,500
5,459
17
113
12
119
12
119
12
119
1,031
-16
16
1,269
—
—
798
—
15
1,225
-83
15
Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center
Gross Budget Authority: BTS
Total offsetting collections: BTS
Net Budget Authority: BTS
—
19
1,085
7,568
1,014
7,962
—
1,014
7,458
19
1,014
7,780
227
224
259
282
24,209
25,685
25,293
25,560
-3,897
-6,099
-4,278
-4,278
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.
CRS-12
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 (USVISIT); 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 program7 (an increase of $50 million over the enacted FY2005
amount), $94 million for Secure Flight8 (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
7
For more information on US-VISIT, see CRS Report RL32234, U.S. Visitor and Immigrant
Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program, by (name redacted) and Stephen R. Viña.
8
See CRS Report RL32802, Homeland Security: Air Passenger Prescreening and
Counterterrorism, by (name redacted), and William Krouse.
CRS-13
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. USVISIT, 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.
9
H.Rept. 109-79, pp. 23 and 52.
CRS-14
Table 4. SCO Detail, FY2005-FY2006
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2005
Enacted
FY2006
Request
FY2006
House
FY2006
Senate
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
—
—
—
431
525
411
340
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
Budget Activity
FY2006
Conf.
Direct Appropriations
Subtotal
Direct Appropriation
Fee-funded programs
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President’s Budget, DHS Budget in Brief,
Appropriations Committee tables of May 20, 2005, and S.Rept. 109-83.
House
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
CRS-15
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.
10
U.S. President George W. Bush, Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-11,
Aug. 27, 2004, at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040827-7.html].
11
U.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Homeland Security Subcommittee,
Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriations for Citizenship and Immigration Services, and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mar. 2, 2005.
12
GAO, Transportation Security: Systematic Planning Needed to Optimize Resources,
GAO-05-357T, Feb. 15, 2005, p. 23.
CRS-16
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):
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
$125 million for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) detection
technology;
$37 million for Border Patrol staff;
$31.7 million for long range radar for Air and Marine Operations;
$20 million for Border Patrol aircraft replacement;
$19.8 million for the America Shield Initiative;
$8.2 million for the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism
(C-TPAT);
$5.4 million for the Container Security Initiative (CSI);
$5.4 million for enhancements to the Automated Targeting System
(ATS);
$3.2 million for the Homeland Security Data Network;
$3 million for Border Patrol’s Automated Biometric Identification
System (IDENT) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s
Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS);
$2 million for the Immigration Advisory Program (IAP); and
$1 million for the Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI).
House-Passed H.R. 2360. The 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
13
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2006, 109th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 109-79, p. 142.
CRS-17
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
Salaries and Expenses
rescissions from S&E
Air and Marine Operations
Automation Modernization
Construction
Total direct appropriations
Offsetting fee receipts
Total budget authority
FY2005
Enacted
4,658
-139
258
450
144
5,371
-1,079
6,450
FY2006
Request
4,730
—
293
458
93
5,575
-1,142
6,717
FY2006
House
4,886
—
348
458
93
5,785
-1,142
6,927
FY2006
Senate
4,922
-14
321
458
311
5,998
-1,142
7,140
FY2006
Conf.
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.
CRS-18
Table 6. CBP Selected Sub-Account Level Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2005 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006
Salaries and Expenses
Enacted Request House Senate
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. 10913)
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
CRS-19
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
CRS-20
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 FY2006FY2010. 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
14
GAO, Partnership Program Grants Importers Reduced Scrutiny with Limited Assurance
of Improved Security, GAO-05-404.
CRS-21
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
15
H.Rept. 109-79, p. 24.
16
S.Rept. 109-83, p. 24.
17
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2005, report to accompany H.R. 4567, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept.
108-541 (Washington, GPO, 2004), pp. 18-19.
18
U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, National Security Threats to the
United States, 109th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 16, 2005.
19
S.Rept. 109-83, p. 19.
CRS-22
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-theshelf 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
20
H.Rept. 109-79, p. 28.
21
Ibid., pp. 27-28.
CRS-23
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:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
22
$105 million for the Office of Investigations;
$90 million for custody management and detention bedspace;
$43.7 million for ICE’s Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement
Task Force (OCDETF) activities;
$25 million for ABCI and Interior Repatriation;
$24 million for detention and removal;
$18 million for temporary worker worksite enforcement;
$11.3 million for the Homeland Security Data Network;
$9.9 million for the Federal Air Marshals (FAMs);
$8.8 million for Fugitive Operations;
$5.6 million for Institutional Removal Program (IRP);
S.Rept. 109-83, p. 30.
CRS-24
!
!
!
$5.4 million for Alternatives to Detention;
$5 million for Visa Security; and
$3.5 million for legal resources.
House-Passed H.R. 2360. House-passed H.R. 2360 provides $3,830 million
for ICE, an increase of $182 million, or 5% over the President’s FY2006 request and
$243 million, or 8% above FY2005 enacted. Of 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 General24 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:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
$90 million for 1,920 detention beds;
$16 million for 60 fugitive operations team positions;25
$18 million for 100 Institutional Removal Program agents;
$10 million for 49 Alternatives to Detention positions;
$19 million for 150 criminal investigators;
$18 million for 200 Immigration Enforcement Agents; and
$800,000 for the Cyber Crimes Center.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. Senate-passed H.R. 2360 provides $3,808
million for ICE, an increase of $160 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:
23
8 U.S.C. §§1101 et seq. 8 U.S.C. §1357(g).
24
This provision is now being administered by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
25
The Office of Detention and Removal’s National Fugitive Operations Program seeks to
apprehend, process, and remove aliens who have failed to comply with removal orders,
giving priority to apprehending aliens convicted of crimes.
CRS-25
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
$77.4 million for 32 positions (16 full-time equivalents (FTEs)) for
Custody Management;
$4.8 million for the Visa Security Program;
$24.9 million for 60 fugitive operations team positions (30 FTEs);
$23.4 million for 136 Institutional Removal Program agents (69
FTEs);
$15.4 million for 62 Alternatives to Detention positions (31 FTEs);
$37 million for 300 investigator positions for immigration
investigations (150 FTEs);
$18 million for 200 (100 FTEs) Immigration Enforcement Agents;
and
$25 million for the ABCI;
$3.5 million for additional attorney personnel.
Table 7. ICE Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
ICE Account
FY2005
Enacted
FY2006
Request
FY2006
House
FY2006
Senate
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
3,737
3,877
4,059
4,037
-200
-229
-229
-229
3,537
3,648
3,830
3,808
Subtotal ICE:
Offsetting Fee Receipts
Net Budget Authority
ICE:
FY2006
Conf.
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.
CRS-26
Table 8. ICE Selected Sub-Account Level Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2005 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006
Salaries and Expenses
Enacted Request House Senate 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. 10913)
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 intradepartmental and intra-governmental agreements and transactions, costs, and
budgetary transactions. This required extensive reconciliation and adjustment at the
CRS-27
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 agencies26
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. 107296) 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
26
Among others, ICE serves as the accounting service provider for CIS, S&T, IAIP, DHS
Management, and BTS Headquarters. These agencies include parts of 10 of the 22 legacy
agencies that were transferred to DHS and account for roughly 20% of total DHS FY2004
budget authority.
27
DHS, Office of the Inspector General, Independent Auditors’ Report on DHS FY2004
Financial Statements, OIG-05-05, Dec. 2004, pp. 320-333. According to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-11 (2005) the “Antideficiency Act consists
of provisions of law that were passed by Congress (beginning in the nineteenth century and
later codified in Title 31 of the United States Code) to prevent departments and agencies
from spending their entire appropriations during the first few months of the year.” The act
prohibits federal employees from “entering into contracts that exceed the enacted
appropriations for the year,” or from “purchasing services and merchandise before
appropriations are enacted”.
28
U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
Fiscal Year 2006 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations, Mar. 15, 2005.
29
H.Rept. 109-79, pp. 33-34.
30
For more information see [http://www.ice.gov/graphics/investigations/index.htm].
CRS-28
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 OI32 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
31
Based on CRS discussions with ICE personnel in New York City, Aug. 27, 2003.
32
This number is the overall funding for Investigations within ICE and includes funding
from various accounts within the agency’s appropriation, including Salaries and Expenses;
Intelligence; Headquarters Management, Administration, and Information Technology;
Automation Modernization; Immigration User Fee; and Student Exchange Visitor Program.
33
Officers of the VSU are assigned to consular posts to conduct law-enforcement reviews
of visa applications, and provide advice and training to consular officers. The Homeland
Security Act transferred to DHS the authority to issue regulations regarding visa issuances,
and to assign staff to consular posts abroad. The Department of State’s Bureau of Consular
Affairs remains the agency responsible for issuing visas. For more information on visa
issuance see CRS Report RL31512, Visa Issuance: Policy, Issues, and Legislation, by (nam
e redacted).
34
The Conference Report (H.Rept. 109-72) for the Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L.
109-13) provides funding for an additional 168 IEAs and detention officers.
35
The Conference Report (H.Rept. 109-72) for the Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L.
109-13) contains funding for 50 new criminal investigators. Nonetheless, it is unknown to
which types of cases the new criminal investigators will be assigned.
CRS-29
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, nonviolent 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. 10979 recommends $10 million and 49 new positions for this program, and S.Rept. 10983 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
36
For more information on detention issues see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related
Detention: Current Legislative Issues, by (name redacted). Under the INA aliens can be
removed for reasons of health, criminal status, economic well-being, national security risks
and others that are specifically defined in the act.
37
Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, The Immigration and
Naturalization Service’s Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders, Report I-2003-004, Feb.
2003.
38
The Conference Report (H.Rept. 109-72) for the Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L.
109-13) contains funding for an additional 1950 beds.
39
DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Public Security: ICE Unveils New
Alternative to Detention,” Inside ICE, vol. 1, no. 5, June 21, 2004. Available at
[http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/newsreleases/insideice/insideice_062104_web3.htm].
40
Ibid.
CRS-30
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
41
U.S. DHS, CBP, Office of the Press Secretary, “Department of Homeland Security to
Begin Pilot Program for Voluntary Interior Repatriation of Mexican Nationals,” press
release, June 29, 2004.
42
This section adapted from CRS Report RL32270, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role
of State and Local Law Enforcement, by Lisa M. Seghetti, Stephen R. Viña, and (name
redacted).
CRS-31
Information System (SEVIS).43 The operating budget for SEVP comes from fees44
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. 107296). 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
43
For more information on SEVIS see CRS Report RL32188, Monitoring Foreign Students
in the United States: The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), by
(name redacted).
44
Collection of the student fee began on Sept. 1, 2004. Prior to the student fee collection,
the operating budget for SEVIS came from fees collected from the schools for SEVIS
enrollment and from the general DHS/INS appropriations. Congress only appropriated
funds specifically for SEVIS in FY2002.
45
46
Only institutions certified (i.e., enrolled) in SEVIS may admit foreign students.
Conversation with Victor Johnson, of National Association of Foreign Student Advisors,
Association of International Educators, Nov. 20, 2003.
CRS-32
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:
!
!
!
!
!
Developing and testing emerging checkpoint explosives
technologies;
Realigning the screener workforce and providing funds needed to
maintain an authorized level of 45,000 full-time equivalents (FTEs);
Deploying high-speed Internet connections at airport screening
checkpoints and baggage screening areas;
Providing mandated training for flight and cabin crews and
conducting semiannual requalification for armed pilots; and
Conducting mandated security inspections of foreign airline repair
stations and inspections at domestic repair stations.
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
47
The amount for FY2005 listed here includes $250 million for the Aviation Security
Capital Fund, and $5 million for Alien Flight School Background Checks; and the amount
for FY2006 includes $250 million for the Aviation Security Capital Fund. These amounts
are listed as non-adds in Table 5, and are not included in the Committee Tables.
CRS-33
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)
FY2005 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006
Enacted Request House Senate
Conf.
Aviation Security
4,324
4,735
4,592
4,452
Surface Transportation Security
48
32
36
36
85
75
Credentialing Activities Appropriation
—
—a
180
180
Credentialing Activities
67
—a
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
SA Activity
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.
48
U.S. DHS, Transportation Security Administration, Statement of David M. Stone,
Assistant Secretary Before the Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, United
States Senate, Feb. 15, 2005. (Hereafter cited as Statement of David M. Stone.)
CRS-34
Table 10. TSA Selected Sub-Account Level Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2005 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006
Aviation Security
Enacted Request House Senate
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
Screener, other
Subtotal Screening, Training, and
other:
Human Resources Services
CAPPS II/Secure Flight
Crew Vetting
Registered Traveler
Checkpoint Support
EDS/ETD Systems b
Purchase
Installation
Maintenance
Operation Integration
Subtotal EDS/ETD Systems:
Subtotal Screening Operations
85
126
91
16
344
261
207
—
—
—
158
232
207
(66) a
(13) a
—
158
261
207
(57) a
(13) a
—
172
180
45
175
—
400
3,502
130
14
200
23
367
3,662
170
75
200
23
468
3,609
180
14
200
23
417
3,392
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. FY2006 House and Senate recommended amounts shown in Table 10 for CAPPS II/Secure Flight
and Crew Vetting are listed here for comparison only. These amounts are shown as non-adds
in Table 10 because both the House and Senate provide funding for both programs under a
different sub-account called “Transportation Vetting and Credentialing.”
b. Explosive Detection System (EDS)/Explosive Trace Detection (ETD).
House-Passed H.R. 2360. House-passed H.R. 2360 provides a gross total
of $5,684 million (net total of $3,263 million) for the TSA. This total includes
$264.3 million appropriation for Transportation Vetting and Credentialing which the
President’s request proposed to transfer to the SCO.
CRS-35
For aviation security activities the House-passed H.R. 2360 provides $143.2
million less than the President’s request but is $268.1 million more than FY2005
enacted levels.49 There are several key differences between H.R. 2360 and the
President’s request regarding aviation security. Funding for private screening
contracts at airports is $6.5 million less than the requested level. The House
Committee on Appropriations found that the full request was not justified because
of a lack of interest in the federal screening opt-out program due to lingering
concerns over airport liability and other aspects of the program. The committee also
found a lack of justification for the proposed increases in aviation regulation and law
enforcement, recommending that the TSA trim staffing levels in this program
element, and the House agreed to a funding level $9.8 million below the President’s
request. Similarly, the committee expressed concerns over staffing levels in airport
management, information technology and support, and the House agreed to fund this
component of the TSA budget at a level $108.2 million below the President’s
request. The committee also did not agree with the President’s request for increased
funding for the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program, citing high unobligated
balances as evidence that this program does not need additional funds. The House
agreed to $25 million for this program, the same as what was appropriated in FY2004
and FY2005.
In keeping with previous year trends, the House agreed to larger funding
amounts for air cargo security, providing $60 million, $20 million more than the
President’s request. This includes an additional $10 million to hire 100 new air cargo
inspectors, plus increased funding for travel for inspectors, enhancements to the
known-shipper database, and security threat assessments. Additionally, the House
passed two general provisions calling for more thorough screening of shipments on
all-cargo and passenger aircraft by March 1, 2006 (§522), and requiring the TSA, to
the greatest extent practicable, to use checked baggage equipment and screeners to
screen cargo carried on passenger aircraft (§523).
Consistent with the President’s request and prior year appropriations language,
the House agreed to keep screener staffing at or below the 45,000 full-timeequivalent (FTE) cap. The committee believes that efficiencies gained through new
technologies and increased use of in-line explosives detection systems (EDS) can
greatly reduce the need for baggage screeners. The House agreed to additional
funding of in-line EDS, proposing a total of $75 million for this purpose — $61
million above President’s request — in addition to the $250 million mandatory
deposit into the Aviation Security Capital Fund. While the committee agreed with
the President’s request to limit the federal share at the eight existing airports with
letters of intent (LOIs) to 75% , rather than the 90% authorized for large airports in
Vision 100 (P.L. 108-176), this measure was stricken by a point of order because it
sought to modify existing law in an appropriation act. H.R. 2360 provides additional
funding for the purchase of EDS and explosive trace detection (ETD) equipment,
providing $40 million above the $130 million included in the President’s request for
this purpose. In an effort to further increase the availability of funds for EDS, the
House agreed to language directing the TSA to spend any recovered or deobligated
49
H.Rept. 109-79, p. 42.
CRS-36
funds appropriated for aviation security or TSA administration exclusively on EDS
procurement and installation (§530).
For surface transportation security, the House agreed to $36 million, which is
$4 million more than the President’s request. The House agreed with the President’s
request that $8 million of this total be designated for federal rail security inspectors.
The House also provided $4 million for a HAZMAT truck tracking program.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. The Senate agreed to a gross total of $5,055
million (net total of $3,065 million) for the TSA, not including the $250 million in
direct funding to the Aviation Security Capital Fund. This total includes $255
million for Transportation Vetting and Credentialing which the President’s request
proposed to transfer to the SCO.
For aviation security, the Senate agreed to $4,452 million, $129 million more
than the FY2005 appropriation, but $283 million less than the budget request and
$139 million less than the House-passed bill. Unlike the budget request and the
House-passed bill, the Senate language contains no specific cap on the number of
screeners but, like the House bill, increases funding for screening technologies in a
move to rapidly shift away from a workforce-intensive use of resources. The Senate
bill endeavors to do this, in part, by increasing the TSA’s flexibility to transfer
monies from screener workforce accounts to accounts for procuring screening
equipment. The Senate bill would provide $180 million for EDS and ETD
procurement with the stipulation that at least $50 million be used for acquiring nextgeneration EDS equipment.
The Senate-passed bill makes more modest reductions in the budget request for
airport management, staff, information technology, and support, recommending $748
million for this function, $10 million less than the budget request but $103 million
above the House-passed amount. In contrast to the fiscal concerns expressed by the
House committee, Senate report language argued that increased funding for
information technology is imperative for maintaining real-time intelligence and
operational effectiveness and efficiency.
The Senate provision of $50 million for air cargo security lies directly between
the budget request of $40 million and the House-passed level of $60 million. The
additional $10 million above the request offered in the Senate-passed bill includes
$7 million for hiring additional inspectors and $3 million for increased inspections
of both international flights and domestic passenger flights. The Senate bill would
also direct the TSA to continue coordination of “known-shipper” and Customs-Trade
Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) programs and move toward the goal of
screening 100% of cargo carried on passenger airplanes.
With regard to surface transportation security, the Senate bill is in full
agreement with the House-passed amount and use of funds. Also, the Senate bill is
in agreement with the House-passed plan to keep transportation vetting and
credentialing functions within the TSA, but recommends direct funding for
credentialing activities at a level $9 million less than the House-passed amount.
Senate floor debate on the appropriations bill occurred shortly after the terrorist
bombings of London’s transit system. However, three amendments that would have
CRS-37
substantially increased security funding for U.S. transit and intercity rail systems
were defeated during Senate floor debate.
TSA Issues for Congress. The President’s proposal to increase airline
passenger security fees has been a contentious issue. Financially strapped airlines —
still recovering from the economic impact of the 9/11 attacks and now facing rising
fuel costs — argue that they will likely have to absorb some of the cost of these fee
increases by reducing ticket prices.50 Some Members of Congress have also voiced
concern that the proposed fee increase could cut into the revenues of the airlines, and
could have a greater impact on rural airline customers who would pay proportionately
more in per-segment fees because fewer direct flights are available to these
customers.51 The Administration, on the other hand, argues that increased fees could
help reduce a funding deficit by generating additional revenue to offset expenditures
for aviation security, or could free up general tax revenues for spending on broader
homeland security needs. The Administration also contends that increasing fees to
offset costs is in line with long-standing transportation infrastructure policy to fund
these services largely through user fees, as well as its assessment of the original
intent of these passenger security fees established under ATSA (P.L. 107-71).52
However, some opponents of aviation security fees contend that aviation security,
particularly since September 11, 2001, is vital to national security, and therefore, like
defense spending, is the responsibility of all taxpayers. The House Committee on
Appropriations noted that amending the statutory fee structure falls under the
jurisdiction of the Homeland Security Committee and did not include the proposed
fee increases in its bill. An amendment to the FY2006 DHS Authorization Act (H.R.
1817) prohibiting an increase in airline ticket taxes for aviation security was agreed
to by a large majority in the House, despite opposition by Aviation Subcommittee
Chairman John Mica. While the Senate committee also did not recommend any
passenger fee increases, language in S.Rept. 109-83 directs the TSA to use its
available authority to collect about $448 million from aviation security infrastructure
fees paid directly by the airlines. This is the amount determined by a GAO audit that
TSA should be collecting annually. However, the TSA has been collecting only
about $318 million in these fees, despite assuming that collections would total $750
million for FY2005 — thus creating a projected shortfall of more than $400 million.
While both the House and the Senate have indicated support in report language
for investment in advanced screening technologies and practices to decrease the need
for screeners, particularly baggage screeners, only the House went along with the
Administration’s request to formally keep in place an identified cap of 45,000 FTE
screeners. The principal means for reducing screener requirements identified by both
the House and the Senate is investment in in-line explosive detection systems (EDS)
which may be capable of processing baggage at two to three times the rate of standalone EDS equipment. However, while the House recommended $75 million in
50
Air Transport Association of America, Inc., Statement for the Record to the Committee
on Commerce, Science & Transportation, United States Senate Hearing on Fiscal Year
2006 Budget Transportation Security Administration, Feb. 15, 2005.
51
Sara Kehaulani Goo, “Senate Turbulence Greets Plan to Raise Airline Ticket Security
Fees,” The Washington Post, Feb. 16, 2005, p. A2.
52
See Statement of David M. Stone.
CRS-38
addition to the $250 million from the Aviation Security Capital Fund for this
purpose, the Senate concurred with the Administration request of just $14 million in
additional funds. Citing budgetary constraints, the House concurred with the
Administration request to limit the federal share to 75% of program cost, waiving the
distribution formula in P.L. 108-176 (Vision 100) that would have set the federal
share at 90% for large airports. Recent GAO testimony highlighted the potential
benefits of investing in in-line EDS installation, concluding that the federal
government could realize a return on investment in terms of operational costs savings
in little more than a year at airports with existing letter-of-intent agreements in place
with the TSA, and the overall savings to the federal government from in-line EDS
installations would be about $1 billion over seven years.53 Both the House and the
Senate bills seek to increase funding for the purchase of explosives detection
equipment with the House approving an additional $40 million and the Senate
approving $50 million more than the requested level of $130 million.
Both the House and the Senate expressed concerns over the Administration’s
progress in air cargo security. The House agreed to $20 million above the $40
million requested, while the Senate agreed to $10 million more than the requested
level. The House also formally recommended pilot programs in air cargo screening
and, like the Senate, provided for hiring additional regulatory inspectors and
increased oversight of cargo security.
Another key issue for the TSA is the proposed creation of SCO. With the
proposed transfer of programs related to credentialing and vetting of passengers and
transportation workers, several potential issues regarding coordination of effort
between the TSA and the proposed SCO arise. The Administration has offered few
details regarding how the proposed SCO would interface with the TSA on several
high-profile programs such as Secure Flight and the TWIC program. Citing concerns
over disrupting work on these key programs, the House language has taken a
different tack that would integrate these various programs, but keep them within the
TSA under a new Office of Transportation Vetting and Credentialing. The Senate
also favored a plan merging vetting and credentialing programs but retaining them
under the direction of the TSA.
Another potential issue that may arise during the appropriations process is
coordination between TSA and S&T in light of the proposal to transfer the TSA’s
research and development activities. One particular issue would be how aviation
security research needs will be prioritized given that S&T is more broadly focused
on all homeland security research and development activities. There may be some
concern that aviation security projects could take a back seat to other high-profile
initiatives — such as nuclear, biological, and chemical weapon countermeasures —
that have been the primary focus of S&T to date. Also, while consolidating research
and development on explosives and chemical weapons detection — the primary focus
of aviation security-related research and development — may help leverage resources
for other DHS components, these projects could potentially lose some of the aviation
security-specific focus that they currently have under the auspices of the TSA.
53
GAO, Aviation Security: Better Planning Needed to Optimize Deployment of Checked
Baggage Screening Systems, July 13, 2005, GAO-05-896T.
CRS-39
Consequently, Congress may focus on what coordination and interaction between
TSA and S&T will be established under the proposed transfer to ensure that aviation
security research and development needs are adequately addressed.54 The House
Committee on Appropriations has proposed to task the S&T Directorate with
carrying out air cargo research and development pilot programs initiated by the TSA,
but expressed frustration over the lack of progress in this area commenting that
“...high unobligated balances give the impression that the TSA does not view air
cargo as a serious aviation security vulnerability.”55 Consequently, the committee
directed the TSA to develop protocols and standards for emerging new technologies
to screen cargo, noting past deployment delays because such coordination was
lacking.
Appropriations to the TSA for surface transportation modes raise the issue of
determining TSA’s role, and in a broader context, the federal government’s role, in
the security of the non-aviation modes of transportation. While ATSA made TSA
responsible for the security of all modes of transportation, it did not direct the TSA
to take specific actions to address security needs in modes other than aviation. One
view is that the federal government, and TSA in particular, should assume a more
dominant, or at least a more prominent role, in the security of surface modes.
Proponents of this view hold that the federal government should fund most of the
security needs of surface modes. Another view is that the federal role in securing
surface modes should reflect or parallel its existing role in financing the
infrastructure or operations of surface modes. This view holds that federal funding
for the security needs of surface modes should be in partnership with state and local
governments or the private sector. For instance, because freight railways are
predominantly privately owned and financed, some believe that the freight railroad
companies should pay for their security needs. Likewise, in the case of mass transit,
in which state and local governments have primary responsibility for infrastructure
financing and operations, some believe the federal government’s role in securing
mass transit should be in partnership with state and local governments rather than
having a dominant role, as it does in aviation.
U.S. Coast Guard
The Coast Guard (USCG) is the lead federal agency for the maritime component
of homeland security. As such, it is the lead agency responsible for BTS as it applies
to U.S. ports, coastal and inland waterways, and territorial waters. The USCG also
performs missions that are not related to homeland security, such as maritime search
and rescue, marine environmental protection, fisheries enforcement, and aids to
navigation.
The USCG was transferred from the Department of Transportation to the DHS
on March 1, 2003. The law that created the DHS (P.L. 107-296) directed that the
USCG be maintained as a distinct entity within DHS and that the Commandant of the
USCG report directly to the Secretary of DHS. Accordingly, the USCG exists as a
54
Further information and analysis of transportation security issues before Congress are
provided in CRS reports at [http://www.congress.gov/erp/legissues/html/istrn5.html].
55
H.Rept. 109-79, p. 48.
CRS-40
distinct agency within DHS and is not part of DHS’s BTS, although it does work
closely with that directorate.
President’s Request. For FY2006 the President requested an appropriation
of $7,961 million in net budget authority for the USCG, which is a 5% increase over
the enacted FY2005 level of $7,567 million. The USCG’s budget is divided into
seven categories. The President requested increases in three of these categories and
decreases or zero funding in the four remaining categories. Among the categories
with increased funding, the largest increase in percentage terms is in acquisition,
construction, and improvements (the agency’s physical equipment), which would
increase by over 23% to $1,269.2 million. Operating expenses would increase by 4%
to $5,547.4 million and reserve training would increase by 5% to $119.0 million.
The President requested zero funds for the USCG’s bridge alteration program which
funds alterations to the understructure of bridges that are obstructing navigational
waterways. Congress provided $15.9 for this program in FY2005. The President
also requested zero funds for USCG research and development; transferring and
consolidating this account under the DHS S&T Directorate. Congress provided
$18.5 million for USCG R&D in FY2005. The two other budget categories that the
President would reduce funding for are USCG environmental compliance and
restoration, which would decrease by over 29% to $12 million and retired pay, which
would decrease by almost 7% to $1,014.1 million.
House-Passed H.R. 2360. House-passed H.R. 2360 provides $7,458
million, $503 million or 6% less than the President’s request and $109 million or 1%
less than FY2005 enacted. H.R. 2360 provides $798 million for acquisitions,
construction, and improvements, which is about $471 million less than the President
requested. Most of this difference has to do with the USCG’s Deepwater program,
which is explained further below. For operating expenses, the House bill provides
$5,500 million which is $47 million less than the President’s request. For alteration
of bridges, the House bill provides $15 million versus the President’s request of no
funds. For environmental compliance and restoration, reserve training, and retired
pay, the House bill would provide the same amounts that the President requested.
The House bill also agrees with the President’s request to transfer the USCG’s
research and development funds to the DHS S&T Directorate. The House
Committee on Appropriations’ report states that the committee “is extremely
frustrated in the USCG’s apparent disregard for Congressional direction” and cites
the Deepwater plan and other reprogramming submissions as examples.56
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. Senate-passed H.R. 2360 provides $7,780
million, $322 million or 4% more than the House. The Senate provided $1,225
million for acquisitions, construction, and improvements, which is $427 million
more than the House. As indicated below, most of the $427 million difference
between the House and Senate concerns the Deepwater program. The Senate
provided $5,459 million for operating expenses, which is $41 million less than the
House. For environmental compliance and restoration, reserve training, and
alteration of bridges, the Senate provided the same amount as the House. Senatepassed H.R. 2360 does not agree with the House and the President’s request to
56
H.Rept. 109-79, p. 57.
CRS-41
transfer the USCG’s R&D funds to the DHS S&T Directorate; it provides $19
million to the USCG for R&D.
Table 11. Coast Guard Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Coast Guard Account
Operating Expenses
Environmental Compliance and
Restoration
Reserve Training
Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements
Rescission
Alteration of Bridges
Research, Development, Test,
and Evaluation
Retired Pay (mandatory)
Total Coast Guard
FY2005
Enacted
5,303
FY2006
Request
5,547
FY2006
House
5,500
FY2006
Senate
5,459
17
12
12
12
113
119
119
119
982
1,269
798
1,225
(-16)
16
—
—
—
15
-83
15
19
—
—
19
1,085
1,014
1,014
1,014
7,568
7,962
7,458
7,780
FY2006
Conf.
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President’s Budget, and DHS Budget in Brief, House
Appropriations 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 12. Coast Guard — Select Sub-Account Level Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Coast Guard Account
FY2005
Enacted
FY2006
Request
FY2006
House
FY2006
Senate
2,808
456
1,547
345
146
5,303
3,011
536
1,628
372
—
5,547
3,010
532
1,610
348
—
5,500
3,001
531
1,582
345
—
5,459
764
966
500
906
251
303
298
236
Operating Expenses
Military Pay
Civilian Pay
Maintenance
Other Expenses
Emergency Appropriations
Subtotal: Operating Expenses
Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements
Deepwater
Non-Deepwater
FY2006
Conf.
Subtotal: Acquisition,
1,015
1,269
798
1,142
Construction, and Improvements
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.
CRS-42
Coast Guard Issues for Congress. Increased duties in the maritime realm
related to homeland security have added to the USCG’s obligations and increased the
complexity of the issues it faces. Congress is concerned with how the agency is
operationally responding to these demands, including its plans to replace many of its
aging vessels and aircraft.
Deepwater Program.57 The Deepwater program is a planned 22-year, multibillion dollar project to replace or modernize 93 aging USCG ships and 207 aging
USCG aircraft. It is the largest and most complex acquisition ever undertaken by the
USCG. The Deepwater program is a subset of the agency’s acquisition, construction,
and improvements budget category. For FY2006, the President requested $966
million for the Deepwater program which is $242 million more than Congress
provided in FY2005. The House bill provides $500 million for the Deepwater
program, which is $466 million less than the President’s request. The House bill also
would withhold $50 million of this amount until the Appropriations Committee
receives a new Deepwater program baseline that reflects revised, post September 11
mission requirements. Senate-passed H.R. 2360 provides $906 million for
Deepwater and the Senate Committee’s report states that it “is extremely
disappointed with the poor congressional justifications accompanying the President’s
budget request,” and directs the USCG to update the Deepwater plan the agency
submitted to congress on May 31, 2005.
Maritime Security Mission. The Deepwater program will help the USCG
achieve its many missions, including maritime security, which is another USCG issue
of keen interest to Congress. The President’s FY2006 request includes $2,219.4
million for port waterways and coastal security, an increase of $127.9 million from
FY2005. Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) is a central element of the USCG’s
security mission. MDA can be described as the USCG’s ability to know all that is
happening in the maritime environment — to understand normal activity, in order to
spot suspicious activity. One objective of MDA is to increase the transparency of
ship movements in U.S. coastal areas. Using Automatic Identification Systems (AIS)
technology, the USCG expects to be able to track ships in coastal waters. For
FY2006, the President requested $29.1 million for AIS which is $5.1 million more
than Congress provided in FY2005. In FY2005, Congress expressed disappointment
that only nine seaports would be able to receive AIS signals and therefore increased
funding from the requested $5 million to $24 million to achieve nationwide coverage.
The President’s FY2006 request indicates that nationwide implementation of AIS is
the Administration’s objective.
Another area of maritime security that congress has expressed particular interest
in is the security of liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers. The President’s FY2006
request includes $11 million for additional boat crews and screening personnel at
U.S. LNG shoreside facilities. Rising natural gas prices are expected to increase the
demand for imported natural gas, most of which will be transported by LNG tankers.
57
Further information and analysis of the Deepwater program is provided in CRS Report
RS21019, Coast Guard Deepwater Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by
Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS-43
For the security mission, the House Appropriations Committee report
recommends $20 million for area security maritime exercises, and $5 million for
enhanced radiological and nuclear detection. The committee also directs that the
USCG take action regarding credentialing of merchant mariners, and submit a plan
regarding Maritime Safety and Security Teams (MSSTs). MSSTs consist of
approximately 100 active duty and reserve personnel that provide a surge presence
at specific ports in response to terrorist threats or incidents, in support of special
events, to protect military load-outs, or to enforce security zones around high interest
vessels.
Senate-passed H.R. 2360 provides $12 million for restructuring the merchant
marine credentialing program, $22 million for MDA, and provides no additional
funds for AIS, noting that this program has significant unobligated funds from prior
years.
Non-Homeland Security Missions. A key issue is whether the USCG’s
resources are adequate to perform both its maritime security and non-security
missions. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, increased USCG requirements
for homeland security missions without obviously reducing the requirements for
other missions. After September 11, 2001, the USCG significantly increased
homeland security operations while reducing operations in other missions. GAO, in
reports and testimony on this topic, noted a reduced number of USCG operating
hours devoted to non-security missions. For FY2006, the President requested the
following amounts for the USCG’s non-security missions:
!
!
!
$1,589.8 million for maritime safety, an increase of $63.5 million
over FY2005;
$1,257.6 million for maritime mobility, an increase of $53.4 million
over FY2005; and
$1,385.3 million for marine environmental protection, an increase
of $146.3 million over FY2005.58
Efficient and Effective Resource Allocation. While Congress is
concerned with whether the USCG has sufficient resources to fulfill its multiple
missions, since September 11, 2001 the USCG’s budget has increased substantially,
which raises the issue of whether the agency has the systems in place to make the
best use of these additional resources. GAO has concluded that the agency needs to
be able to better track how its personnel spend their time as well as establish a clearer
link between where resources are spent and what results are achieved. The House
Appropriations report directs the USCG to take more expedited action with respect
to implementing a new financial management plan.59
58
For further information on the Coast Guard’s environmental protection activities, see CRS
Report RS22145, Environmental Activities of the U.S. Coast Guard, by (name redacted).
59
H.Rept. 109-79, p. 57.
CRS-44
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) provides training on
all phases of law enforcement instruction, from firearms and high speed vehicle
pursuit to legal case instruction and defendant interview techniques, for 81 federal
entities with law enforcement responsibilities, state and local law enforcement
agencies, and international law enforcement agencies. Training policies, programs,
and standards are developed by an interagency Board of Directors, and focus on
providing training that develops the skills and knowledge needed to perform law
enforcement functions safely, effectively, and professionally.
FLETC is
headquartered in Glynco, GA and has sister facilities in Artesia, NM and Charleston,
SC, as well as a training facility in Cheltenham, MD, which provides in-service and
re-qualification training for federal law enforcement personnel in the Washington,
DC area. Overall, FLETC has a workforce of over 900 employees. In FY2004,
FLETC trained almost 44,781 law enforcement students.
President’s Request. The FY2006 request for FLETC is $224 million, an
decrease of $3 million, and 1%, from the FY2005 enacted appropriation (including
supplemental appropriations). FLETC’s FY2006 request includes only one program
change, an increase of $2.7 million for Simulation Training Technology. This
technology will be used to simulate weather, light, urban, and traffic conditions
during high-speed pursuits, allowing the agency to increase their students’
proficiency at making rapid decisions during critical law enforcement situations.
House-Passed H.R. 2360. House-passed H.R. 2360 allots $259 million for
FLETC in FY2006, $35 million, or 16%, more than the President’s request and $32
million, or 14% more than the agency’s FY2005 appropriation. The House adds $11
million to the salaries and expense account to compensate FLETC for the increased
training needs that will result from the increase in Border Patrol and ICE agents.
Additionally, the House provides FLETC with $24 million more than the President’s
Request in the Construction account to finance the increased facility needs of the
incoming Border Patrol and ICE agents.60
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $282 million for FLETC in FY2006, $58 million more than the
President’s request and $55 million, or 24% more than the agency’s FY2005
appropriation. The Senate concurs with the House in providing $11 million above
the President’s request for the salaries and expenses account and includes language
in the bill which requires the FLETC director to ensure that all training centers are
operated at the highest level possible throughout the year. The committee also notes
it believes that the Cheltenham, MD location is not being used to its fullest capacity
because its indoor firing ranges are being used by less than 20% of the students. The
Senate Appropriation Committee directs DHS to submit a report by February 18,
2006 making recommendations for how it intends to increase the facility’s usage.
The Senate provides $47 million above the President’s request and $23 million above
the House recommendation in the Construction account for the expansion and
60
H.Rept. 109-79, pp. 100-101.
CRS-45
maintenance of FLETC facilities in order to accommodate the increase in Border
Patrol agents and ICE investigators.61
Table 13. FLETC Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FLETC Account
Salaries and Expenses
Acquisition, Construction,
Improvements
FY2005
Enacted
180
FY2006
Request
183
FY2006
House
194
FY2006
Senate
194
47
41
65
88
227
224
259
282
Total FLETC
FY2006
Conf.
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.
61
S.Rept. 109-83, pp. 81-82.
CRS-46
Appendix I. Federal Spending on Border and
Transportation Security
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there has been an increasing
interest in the levels of funding available for homeland security efforts. The Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) as originally directed by the FY1998 National
Defense Authorization Act, has published an annual report to Congress on combating
terrorism. Beginning with the June 24, 2002 edition of this report, homeland security
was included as a part of this analysis. In subsequent years, this homeland security
funding analysis has become more refined, as distinctions (and account lines) have
become more precise. This means that while Table 14 is presented in such a way as
to allow year to year comparisons, they may in fact not be strictly comparable due to
the increasing specificity of the analysis as outlined above. Beginning in FY2005,
the homeland security funding analysis has been included in the Analytical
Perspectives volume of the President’s Budget.
The definition of homeland security used by the OMB in its analysis comes
from the National Strategy for Homeland Security which states that homeland
security is “a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United
States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and
recover from attacks that do occur.”62 The National Strategy also divides homeland
security activities into six critical mission areas: Intelligence and Warning (IW);
Border and Transportation Security (BTS); Domestic Counterterrorism (DC);
Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets (PCI); Defense Against
Catastrophic Threats (DACT); and Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR).
This report is concerned with the BTS portion of this analysis.
As Table 14 illustrates, DHS accounts for nearly all, 94%, of federal funding
for BTS activities. This is unsurprising as one of the primary objectives of the design
of DHS was to have the missions, functions, and activities of the federal border
agencies combined under one agency. The Department of State (DOS) accounts for
the bulk of the remaining federal spending on BTS activities, at 5%; and the USDA
accounts for the final 1%.
62
Office of Homeland Security, National Strategy for Homeland Security, July 2002, p. 2.
CRS-47
Table 14. Federal Spending on Border and Transportation
Security FY2003-FY2006
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Agency
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
(req.)
FY2006
as % of
total
Department of Homeland Security
16,028a
15,033a
16,561a
18,207
94%
Department of State
592
664
778
878
5%
Department of Agriculture
143
148
163
164
1%
Department of Transportation
241
67
14
15
—
Department of Justice
25
20
35
21
—
17,029
15,932
17,551
19,286
100%
Total BTS:
Source: CRS analysis of data contained in “Section 3. Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” and
Appendix K of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2006 President’s Budget (for FY2004FY2006); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of the Analytical Perspective volume
of the FY2005 President’s Budget (for FY2003).
a. Includes supplemental funding
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.