Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

109th Congress                                            Rept. 109-329
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 1

======================================================================



 
          BORDER SECURITY AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2005

                                _______
                                

                December 6, 2005.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. King of New York, from the Committee on Homeland Security, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                    DISSENTING AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 4312]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Homeland Security, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 4312) to establish operational control over the 
international land and maritime borders of the United States, 
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill 
as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................    13
Background and Need for Legislation..............................    13
Hearings.........................................................    13
Committee Consideration..........................................    13
Committee Votes..................................................    14
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    38
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............    39
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures    40
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................    40
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................    43
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................    43
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................    43
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................    44
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................    44
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    66
Committee Jurisdiction Letters...................................    70
Dissenting and Additional Views..................................    74
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Border Security and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005''.
  (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is as 
follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.

                TITLE I--SECURING UNITED STATES BORDERS

Sec. 101. Achieving operational control on the border.
Sec. 102. National strategy for border security.
Sec. 103. Implementation of cross-border security agreements.
Sec. 104. Biometric data enhancements.
Sec. 105. One face at the border initiative.
Sec. 106. Secure communication.
Sec. 107. Border patrol agents.
Sec. 108. Port of entry inspection personnel.
Sec. 109. Canine detection teams.
Sec. 110. Secure border initiative financial accountability.
Sec. 111. Border patrol training capacity review.
Sec. 112. Airspace security mission impact review.
Sec. 113. Repair of private infrastructure on border.
Sec. 114. Border Patrol unit for Virgin Islands.
Sec. 115. Report on progress in tracking travel of Central American 
gangs along international border.
Sec. 116. Collection of data.
Sec. 117. Deployment of radiation detection portal equipment at United 
States ports of entry.
Sec. 118. Sense of Congress regarding the Secure Border Initiative.

         TITLE II--BORDER SECURITY COOPERATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 201. Joint strategic plan for United States border surveillance 
and support.
Sec. 202. Border security on protected land.
Sec. 203. Border security threat assessment and information sharing 
test and evaluation exercise.
Sec. 204. Border Security Advisory Committee.
Sec. 205. Permitted use of Homeland Security grant funds for border 
security activities.
Sec. 206. Center of excellence for border security.
Sec. 207. Sense of Congress regarding cooperation with Indian Nations.

                    TITLE III--DETENTION AND REMOVAL

Sec. 301. Mandatory detention for aliens apprehended at or between 
ports of entry.
Sec. 302. Enhanced detention capacity.
Sec. 303. Expansion and effective management of detention facilities.
Sec. 304. Enhancing transportation capacity for unlawful aliens.
Sec. 305. Denial of admission to nationals of country denying or 
delaying accepting alien.
Sec. 306. Report on financial burden of repatriation.
Sec. 307. Training program.
Sec. 308. Expedited removal.

      TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATION OF BORDER SECURITY AGENCIES

Sec. 401. Enhanced border security coordination and management.
Sec. 402. Office of Air and Marine Operations.
Sec. 403. Shadow Wolves transfer.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

  In this Act:
          (1) Appropriate congressional committee.--The term 
        ``appropriate congressional committee'' has the meaning given 
        it in section 2(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
        U.S.C. 101(2)).
          (2) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given it in 
        section 2(14) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
        101(14)).

                TITLE I--SECURING UNITED STATES BORDERS

SEC. 101. ACHIEVING OPERATIONAL CONTROL ON THE BORDER.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all 
actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve 
and maintain operational control over the entire international land and 
maritime borders of the United States, to include the following--
          (1) systematic surveillance of the international land and 
        maritime borders of the United States through more effective 
        use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial 
        vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and 
        cameras;
          (2) physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful 
        entry by aliens into the United States and facilitate access to 
        the international land and maritime borders by United States 
        Customs and Border Protection, such as additional checkpoints, 
        all weather access roads, and vehicle barriers;
          (3) hiring and training as expeditiously as possible 
        additional Border Patrol agents authorized under section 5202 
        of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 
        (Public Law 108-458); and
          (4) increasing deployment of United States Customs and Border 
        Protection personnel to areas along the international land and 
        maritime borders of the United States where there are high 
        levels of unlawful entry by aliens and other areas likely to be 
        impacted by such increased deployment.
  (b) Operational Control Defined.--In this section, the term 
``operational control'' means the prevention of the entry into the 
United States of terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of 
terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.

SEC. 102. NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR BORDER SECURITY.

  (a) Surveillance Plan.--Not later than six months after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a comprehensive plan 
for the systematic surveillance of the international land and maritime 
borders of the United States. The plan shall include the following:
          (1) An assessment of existing technologies employed on such 
        borders.
          (2) A description of whether and how new surveillance 
        technologies will be compatible with existing surveillance 
        technologies.
          (3) A description of how the United States Customs and Border 
        Protection is working, or is expected to work, with the 
        Directorate of Science and Technology of the Department of 
        Homeland Security to identify and test surveillance technology.
          (4) A description of the specific surveillance technology to 
        be deployed.
          (5) The identification of any obstacles that may impede full 
        implementation of such deployment.
          (6) A detailed estimate of all costs associated with the 
        implementation of such deployment and continued maintenance of 
        such technologies.
          (7) A description of how the Department of Homeland Security 
        is working with the Federal Aviation Administration on safety 
        and airspace control issues associated with the use of unmanned 
        aerial vehicles in the National Airspace System.
  (b) National Strategy for Border Security.--Not later than one year 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, in consultation with the heads of other appropriate Federal 
agencies, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
National Strategy for Border Security to achieve operational control 
over all ports of entry into the United States and the international 
land and maritime borders of the United States. The Secretary shall 
update the Strategy as needed and shall submit to the Committee, not 
later than 30 days after each such update, the updated Strategy. The 
National Strategy for Border Security shall include the following:
          (1) The implementation timeline for the surveillance plan 
        described in subsection (a).
          (2) An assessment of the threat posed by terrorists and 
        terrorist groups that may try to infiltrate the United States 
        at points along the international land and maritime borders of 
        the United States.
          (3) A risk assessment of all ports of entry to the United 
        States and all portions of the international land and maritime 
        borders of the United States with respect to--
                  (A) preventing the entry of terrorists, other 
                unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, 
                and other contraband into the United States; and
                  (B) protecting critical infrastructure at or near 
                such ports of entry or borders.
          (4) An assessment of the most appropriate, practical, and 
        cost-effective means of defending the international land and 
        maritime borders of the United States against threats to 
        security and illegal transit, including intelligence 
        capacities, technology, equipment, personnel, and training 
        needed to address security vulnerabilities.
          (5) An assessment of staffing needs for all border security 
        functions, taking into account threat and vulnerability 
        information pertaining to the borders and the impact of new 
        security programs, policies, and technologies.
          (6) A description of the border security roles and missions 
        of Federal, State, regional, local, and tribal authorities, and 
        recommendations with respect to how the Department of Homeland 
        Security can improve coordination with such authorities, to 
        enable border security enforcement to be carried out in an 
        efficient and effective manner.
          (7) A prioritization of research and development objectives 
        to enhance the security of the international land and maritime 
        borders of the United States.
          (8) A description of ways to ensure that the free flow of 
        legitimate travel and commerce of the United States is not 
        diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at 
        securing the international land and maritime borders of the 
        United States.
          (9) An assessment of additional detention facilities and bed 
        space needed to detain unlawful aliens apprehended at United 
        States ports of entry or along the international land borders 
        of the United States in accordance with the National Strategy 
        for Border Security required under this subsection and the 
        mandatory detention requirement described in section 301 of 
        this Act.
          (10) A description of how the Secretary shall ensure 
        accountability and performance metrics within the appropriate 
        agencies of the Department of Homeland Security responsible for 
        implementing the border security measures determined necessary 
        upon completion of the National Strategy for Border Security.
          (11) A timeline for the implementation of the additional 
        security measures determined necessary as part of the National 
        Strategy for Border Security, including a prioritization of 
        security measures, realistic deadlines for addressing the 
        security and enforcement needs, and resource estimates and 
        allocations.
  (c) Consultation.--In creating the National Strategy for Border 
Security described in subsection (b), the Secretary shall consult 
with--
          (1) State, local, and tribal authorities along the 
        international land and maritime borders of the United States; 
        and
          (2) an appropriate cross-section of private sector and 
        nongovernmental organizations with relevant expertise.
  (d) Priority of National Strategy.--The National Strategy for Border 
Security described in subsection (b) shall be the controlling document 
for security and enforcement efforts related to securing the 
international land and maritime borders of the United States.
  (e) Immediate Action.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
relieve the Secretary of the responsibility to take all actions 
necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control 
over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United 
States pursuant to section 101 of this Act or any other provision of 
law.
  (f) Reporting of Implementing Legislation.--After submittal of the 
National Strategy for Border Security described in subsection (b) to 
the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives, 
such Committee shall promptly report to the House legislation 
authorizing necessary security measures based on its evaluation of the 
National Strategy for Border Security.

SEC. 103. IMPLEMENTATION OF CROSS-BORDER SECURITY AGREEMENTS.

  (a) In General.--Not later than six months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit 
to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the 
implementation of the cross-border security agreements signed by the 
United States with Mexico and Canada, including recommendations on 
improving cooperation with such countries to enhance border security.
  (b) Updates.--The Secretary shall regularly update the Committee 
concerning such implementation.

SEC. 104. BIOMETRIC DATA ENHANCEMENTS.

  Not later than October 1, 2006, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
shall--
          (1) in consultation with the Attorney General, enhance 
        connectivity between the IDENT and IAFIS fingerprint databases 
        to ensure more expeditious data searches; and
          (2) in consultation with the Secretary of State, collect ten 
        fingerprints from each alien required to provide fingerprints 
        during the alien's initial enrollment in the integrated entry 
        and exit data system described in section 110 of the Illegal 
        Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 
        U.S.C. 1221 note).

SEC. 105. ONE FACE AT THE BORDER INITIATIVE.

  Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to Congress a report--
          (1) describing the tangible and quantifiable benefits of the 
        One Face at the Border Initiative established by the Department 
        of Homeland Security;
          (2) identifying goals for and challenges to increased 
        effectiveness of the One Face at the Border Initiative;
          (3) providing a breakdown of the number of inspectors who 
        were--
                  (A) personnel of the United States Customs Service 
                before the date of the establishment of the Department 
                of Homeland Security;
                  (B) personnel of the Immigration and Naturalization 
                Service before the date of the establishment of the 
                Department;
                  (C) personnel of the Department of Agriculture before 
                the date of the establishment of the Department; or
                  (D) hired after the date of the establishment of the 
                Department;
          (4) describing the training time provided to each employee on 
        an annual basis for the various training components of the One 
        Face at the Border Initiative; and
          (5) outlining the steps taken by the Department to ensure 
        that expertise is retained with respect to customs, 
        immigration, and agriculture inspection functions under the One 
        Face at the Border Initiative.

SEC. 106. SECURE COMMUNICATION.

  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall, as expeditiously as 
practicable, develop and implement a plan to ensure clear and secure 
two-way communication capabilities--
          (1) among all Border Patrol agents conducting operations 
        between ports of entry;
          (2) between Border Patrol agents and their respective Border 
        Patrol stations;
          (3) between Border Patrol agents and residents in remote 
        areas along the international land border who do not have 
        mobile communications, as the Secretary determines necessary; 
        and
          (4) between all appropriate Department of Homeland Security 
        border security agencies and State, local, and tribal law 
        enforcement agencies.

SEC. 107. BORDER PATROL AGENTS.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2007 
through 2010 to carry out section 5202 of the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (requiring the Secretary to increase 
by not less than 2,000 the number of positions for full-time active-
duty Border Patrol agents within the Department of Homeland Security 
above the number of such positions for which funds were allotted for 
the preceding fiscal year) (Public Law 108-458;118 Stat. 3734).

SEC. 108. PORT OF ENTRY INSPECTION PERSONNEL.

  In each of fiscal years 2007 through 2010, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, increase 
by not less than 250 the number of positions for full-time active duty 
port of entry inspectors. There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Secretary such sums as may be necessary for each such fiscal year 
to hire, train, equip, and support such additional inspectors under 
this section.

SEC. 109. CANINE DETECTION TEAMS.

  In each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, increase 
by not less than 25 percent above the number of such positions for 
which funds were allotted for the preceding fiscal year the number of 
trained detection canines for use at United States ports of entry and 
along the international land and maritime borders of the United States.

SEC. 110. SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

  (a) In General.--The Inspector General of the Department of Homeland 
Security shall review each contract action related to the Department's 
Secure Border Initiative having a value greater than $20,000,000, to 
determine whether each such action fully complies with applicable cost 
requirements, performance objectives, program milestones, inclusion of 
small, minority, and women-owned business, and timelines. The Inspector 
General shall complete a review under this subsection with respect to a 
contract action--
          (1) not later than 60 days after the date of the initiation 
        of the action; and
          (2) upon the conclusion of the performance of the contract.
  (b) Report by Inspector General.--Upon completion of each review 
described in subsection (a), the Inspector General shall submit to the 
Secretary of Homeland Security a report containing the findings of the 
review, including findings regarding any cost overruns, significant 
delays in contract execution, lack of rigorous departmental contract 
management, insufficient departmental financial oversight, bundling 
that limits the ability of small business to compete, or other high 
risk business practices.
  (c) Report by Secretary.--Not later than 30 days after the receipt of 
each report required under subsection (b), the Secretary of Homeland 
Security shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
report on the findings of the report by the Inspector General and the 
steps the Secretary has taken, or plans to take, to address the 
problems identified in such report.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to amounts that are 
otherwise authorized to be appropriated to the Office of the Inspector 
General, an additional amount equal to at least five percent for fiscal 
year 2007, at least six percent for fiscal year 2008, and at least 
seven percent for fiscal year 2009 of the overall budget of the Office 
for each such fiscal year is authorized to be appropriated to the 
Office to enable the Office to carry out this section.

SEC. 111. BORDER PATROL TRAINING CAPACITY REVIEW.

  (a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United States shall 
conduct a review of the basic training provided to Border Patrol agents 
by the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that such training is 
provided as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible.
  (b) Components of Review.--The review under subsection (a) shall 
include the following components:
          (1) An evaluation of the length and content of the basic 
        training curriculum provided to new Border Patrol agents by the 
        Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, including a 
        description of how the curriculum has changed since September 
        11, 2001.
          (2) A review and a detailed breakdown of the costs incurred 
        by United States Customs and Border Protection and the Federal 
        Law Enforcement Training Center to train one new Border Patrol 
        agent.
          (3) A comparison, based on the review and breakdown under 
        paragraph (2) of the costs, effectiveness, scope, and quality, 
        including geographic characteristics, with other similar law 
        enforcement training programs provided by State and local 
        agencies, non-profit organizations, universities, and the 
        private sector.
          (4) An evaluation of whether and how utilizing comparable 
        non-Federal training programs, proficiency testing to 
        streamline training, and long-distance learning programs may 
        affect--
                  (A) the cost-effectiveness of increasing the number 
                of Border Patrol agents trained per year and reducing 
                the per agent costs of basic training; and
                  (B) the scope and quality of basic training needed to 
                fulfill the mission and duties of a Border Patrol 
                agent.

SEC. 112. AIRSPACE SECURITY MISSION IMPACT REVIEW.

  Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee on 
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives a report detailing 
the impact the airspace security mission in the National Capital Region 
(in this section referred to as the ``NCR'') will have on the ability 
of the Department of Homeland Security to protect the international 
land and maritime borders of the United States. Specifically, the 
report shall address:
          (1) The specific resources, including personnel, assets, and 
        facilities, devoted or planned to be devoted to the NCR 
        airspace security mission, and from where those resources were 
        obtained or are planned to be obtained.
          (2) An assessment of the impact that diverting resources to 
        support the NCR mission has or is expected to have on the 
        traditional missions in and around the international land and 
        maritime borders of the United States.

SEC. 113. REPAIR OF PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE ON BORDER.

  (a) In General.--Subject to the amount appropriated in subsection (d) 
of this section, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall reimburse 
property owners for costs associated with repairing damages to the 
property owners' private infrastructure constructed on a United States 
Government right-of-way delineating the international land border when 
such damages are--
          (1) the result of unlawful entry of aliens; and
          (2) confirmed by the appropriate personnel of the Department 
        of Homeland Security and submitted to the Secretary for 
        reimbursement.
  (b) Value of Reimbursements.--Reimbursements for submitted damages as 
outlined in subsection (a) shall not exceed the value of the private 
infrastructure prior to damage.
  (c) Reports.--Not later than six months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act and every subsequent six months until the amount 
appropriated for this section is expended in its entirety, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee on 
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives a report that details 
the expenditures and circumstances in which those expenditures were 
made pursuant to this section.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There shall be authorized to be 
appropriated an initial $50,000 for each fiscal year to carry out this 
section.

SEC. 114. BORDER PATROL UNIT FOR VIRGIN ISLANDS.

   Not later than September 30, 2006, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security shall establish at least one Border Patrol unit for the Virgin 
Islands of the United States.

SEC. 115. REPORT ON PROGRESS IN TRACKING TRAVEL OF CENTRAL AMERICAN 
                    GANGS ALONG INTERNATIONAL BORDER.

  Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall report to the Committee on 
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives on the progress of 
the Department of Homeland Security in tracking the travel of Central 
American gangs across the international land border of the United 
States and Mexico.

SEC. 116. COLLECTION OF DATA.

  Beginning on October 1, 2006, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
shall annually compile data on the following categories of information:
          (1) The number of unauthorized aliens who require medical 
        care taken into custody by Border Patrol officials.
          (2) The number of unauthorized aliens with serious injuries 
        or medical conditions Border Patrol officials encounter, and 
        refer to local hospitals or other health facilities.
          (3) The number of unauthorized aliens with serious injuries 
        or medical conditions who arrive at United States ports of 
        entry and subsequently are admitted into the United States for 
        emergency medical care, as reported by United States Customs 
        and Border Protection.
          (4) The number of unauthorized aliens described in paragraphs 
        (2) and (3) who subsequently are taken into custody by the 
        Department of Homeland Security after receiving medical 
        treatment.

SEC. 117. DEPLOYMENT OF RADIATION DETECTION PORTAL EQUIPMENT AT UNITED 
                    STATES PORTS OF ENTRY.

  (a) Deployment.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall deploy 
radiation portal monitors at all United States ports of entry and 
facilities as determined by the Secretary to facilitate the screening 
of all inbound cargo for nuclear and radiological material.
  (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Homeland 
Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the 
Department's progress toward carrying out the deployment described in 
subsection (a).
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out subsection (a) such sums as 
may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007.

SEC. 118. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE.

  It is the sense of Congress that--
          (1) as the Secretary of Homeland Security develops and 
        implements the Secure Border Initiative and other initiatives 
        to strengthen security along the Nation's borders, the 
        Secretary shall conduct extensive outreach to the private 
        sector, including small, minority-owned, women-owned, and 
        disadvantaged businesses; and
          (2) the Secretary also shall consult with firms that are 
        practitioners of mission effectiveness at the Department of 
        Homeland Security, homeland security business councils, and 
        associations to identify existing and emerging technologies and 
        best practices and business processes, to maximize economies of 
        scale, cost-effectiveness, systems integration, and resource 
        allocation, and to identify the most appropriate contract 
        mechanisms to enhance financial accountability and mission 
        effectiveness of border security programs.

         TITLE II--BORDER SECURITY COOPERATION AND ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 201. JOINT STRATEGIC PLAN FOR UNITED STATES BORDER SURVEILLANCE 
                    AND SUPPORT.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary 
of Defense shall develop a joint strategic plan to use the authorities 
provided to the Secretary of Defense under chapter 18 of title 10, 
United States Code, to increase the availability and use of Department 
of Defense equipment, including unmanned aerial vehicles, tethered 
aerostat radars, and other surveillance equipment, to assist with the 
surveillance activities of the Department of Homeland Security 
conducted at or near the international land and maritime borders of the 
United States.
  (b) Report.--Not later than six months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the 
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report containing--
          (1) a description of the use of Department of Defense 
        equipment to assist with the surveillance by the Department of 
        Homeland Security of the international land and maritime 
        borders of the United States;
          (2) the joint strategic plan developed pursuant to subsection 
        (a);
          (3) a description of the types of equipment and other support 
        to be provided by the Department of Defense under the joint 
        strategic plan during the one-year period beginning after 
        submission of the report under this subsection; and
          (4) a description of how the Department of Homeland Security 
        and the Department of Defense are working with the Department 
        of Transportation on safety and airspace control issues 
        associated with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in the 
        National Airspace System.
  (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
as altering or amending the prohibition on the use of any part of the 
Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus under section 1385 of title 
18, United States Code.

SEC. 202. BORDER SECURITY ON PROTECTED LAND.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation 
with the Secretary of the Interior, shall evaluate border security 
vulnerabilities on land directly adjacent to the international land 
border of the United States under the jurisdiction of the Department of 
the Interior related to the prevention of the entry of terrorists, 
other unlawful aliens, narcotics, and other contraband into the United 
States.
  (b) Support for Border Security Needs.--Based on the evaluation 
conducted pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland 
Security shall provide appropriate border security assistance on land 
directly adjacent to the international land border of the United States 
under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, its bureaus, 
and tribal entities.

SEC. 203. BORDER SECURITY THREAT ASSESSMENT AND INFORMATION SHARING 
                    TEST AND EVALUATION EXERCISE.

  Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall design and carry out a 
national border security exercise for the purposes of--
          (1) involving officials from Federal, State, territorial, 
        local, tribal, and international governments and 
        representatives from the private sector;
          (2) testing and evaluating the capacity of the United States 
        to anticipate, detect, and disrupt threats to the integrity of 
        United States borders; and
          (3) testing and evaluating the information sharing capability 
        among Federal, State, territorial, local, tribal, and 
        international governments.

SEC. 204. BORDER SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

  (a) Establishment of Committee.--Not later than one year after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
shall establish an advisory committee to be known as the Border 
Security Advisory Committee (in this section referred to as the 
``Committee'').
  (b) Duties.--The Committee shall advise the Secretary on issues 
relating to border security and enforcement along the international 
land and maritime border of the United States.
  (c) Membership.--The Secretary shall appoint members to the Committee 
from the following:
          (1) State and local government representatives from States 
        located along the international land and maritime borders of 
        the United States.
          (2) Community representatives from such States.
          (3) Tribal authorities in such States.

SEC. 205. PERMITTED USE OF HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDS FOR BORDER 
                    SECURITY ACTIVITIES.

  (a) Reimbursement.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may allow the 
recipient of amounts under a covered grant to use those amounts to 
reimburse itself for costs it incurs in carrying out any activity 
that--
          (1) relates to the enforcement of Federal laws aimed at 
        preventing the unlawful entry of persons or things into the 
        United States, including activities such as detecting or 
        responding to such an unlawful entry or providing support to 
        another entity relating to preventing such an unlawful entry;
          (2) is usually a Federal duty carried out by a Federal 
        agency; and
          (3) is carried out under agreement with a Federal agency.
  (b) Use of Prior Year Funds.--Subsection (a) shall apply to all 
covered grant funds received by a State, local government, or Indian 
tribe at any time on or after October 1, 2001.
  (c) Covered Grants.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term 
``covered grant'' means grants provided by the Department of Homeland 
Security to States, local governments, or Indian tribes administered 
under the following programs:
          (1) State homeland security grant program.--The State 
        Homeland Security Grant Program of the Department, or any 
        successor to such grant program.
          (2) Urban area security initiative.--The Urban Area Security 
        Initiative of the Department, or any successor to such grant 
        program.
          (3) Law enforcement terrorism prevention program.--The Law 
        Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program of the Department, or 
        any successor to such grant program.

SEC. 206. CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR BORDER SECURITY.

  (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
establish a university-based Center of Excellence for Border Security 
following the merit-review processes and procedures and other 
limitations that have been established for selecting and supporting 
University Programs Centers of Excellence.
  (b) Activities of the Center.--The Center shall prioritize its 
activities on the basis of risk to address the most significant 
threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences posed by United States 
borders and border control systems. The activities shall include the 
conduct of research, the examination of existing and emerging border 
security technology and systems, and the provision of education, 
technical, and analytical assistance for the Department of Homeland 
Security to effectively secure the borders.

SEC. 207. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COOPERATION WITH INDIAN NATIONS.

  It is the sense of Congress that--
          (1) the Department of Homeland Security should strive to 
        include as part of a National Strategy for Border Security 
        recommendations on how to enhance Department cooperation with 
        sovereign Indian Nations on securing our borders and preventing 
        terrorist entry, including, specifically, the Department should 
        consider whether a Tribal Smart Border working group is 
        necessary and whether further expansion of cultural sensitivity 
        training, as exists in Arizona with the Tohono O'odham Nation, 
        should be expanded elsewhere; and
          (2) as the Department of Homeland Security develops a 
        National Strategy for Border Security, it should take into 
        account the needs and missions of each agency that has a stake 
        in border security and strive to ensure that these agencies 
        work together cooperatively on issues involving Tribal lands.

                    TITLE III--DETENTION AND REMOVAL

SEC. 301. MANDATORY DETENTION FOR ALIENS APPREHENDED AT OR BETWEEN 
                    PORTS OF ENTRY.

  (a) In General.--Beginning on October 1, 2006, an alien who is 
attempting to illegally enter the United States and who is apprehended 
at a United States port of entry or along the international land and 
maritime border of the United States shall be detained until removed or 
a final decision granting admission has been determined, unless the 
alien--
          (1) is permitted to withdraw an application for admission 
        under section 235(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
        (8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(4)) and immediately departs from the United 
        States pursuant to such section; or
          (2) is paroled into the United States by the Secretary of 
        Homeland Security for urgent humanitarian reasons or 
        significant public benefit in accordance with section 
        212(d)(5)(A) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A)).
  (b) Requirements During Interim Period.--Beginning 60 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act and before October 1, 2006, an alien 
described in subsection (a) may be released with a notice to appear 
only if--
          (1) the Secretary of Homeland Security determines, after 
        conducting all appropriate background and security checks on 
        the alien, that the alien does not pose a national security 
        risk; and
          (2) the alien provides a bond of not less than $5,000.
  (c) Rules of Construction.--
          (1) Asylum and removal.--Nothing in this section shall be 
        construed as limiting the right of an alien to apply for asylum 
        or for relief or deferral of removal based on a fear of 
        persecution.
          (2) Treatment of certain aliens.--Nothing in this section 
        shall be construed to change or alter any provision of the 
        Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) 
        relating to an alien who is a native or citizen of a country in 
        the Western Hemisphere with whose government the United States 
        does not have full diplomatic relations.

SEC. 302. ENHANCED DETENTION CAPACITY.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2007 
through 2010 to carry out Section 5204 of the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (related to an increase in the number 
of beds by not less than 8,000 each fiscal year available for 
immigration detention and removal operations of the Department of 
Homeland Security) (Public Law 108-458; 118 Stat. 3734).

SEC. 303. EXPANSION AND EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF DETENTION FACILITIES.

  Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security shall fully utilize--
          (1) all available detention facilities operated or contracted 
        by the Department of Homeland Security; and
          (2) all possible options to cost effectively increase 
        available detention capacities, including the use of temporary 
        detention facilities, the use of State and local correctional 
        facilities, private space, and secure alternatives to 
        detention.

SEC. 304. ENHANCING TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY FOR UNLAWFUL ALIENS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to 
enter into contracts with private entities for the purpose of providing 
secure domestic transport of aliens who are apprehended at or along the 
international land or maritime borders from the custody of United 
States Customs and Border Protection to detention facilities and other 
locations as necessary.
  (b) Criteria for Selection.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, to enter into a contract under paragraph (1), a private entity 
shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such 
manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require. 
The Secretary shall select from such applications those entities which 
offer, in the determination of the Secretary, the best combination of 
service, cost, and security.

SEC. 305. DENIAL OF ADMISSION TO NATIONALS OF COUNTRY DENYING OR 
                    DELAYING ACCEPTING ALIEN.

  Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1253(d)) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(d) Denial of Admission to Nationals of Country Denying or Delaying 
Accepting Alien.--Whenever the Secretary of Homeland Security 
determines that the government of a foreign country has denied or 
unreasonably delayed accepting an alien who is a citizen, subject, 
national, or resident of that country after the alien has been ordered 
removed, the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of State, 
may deny admission to any citizen, subject, national, or resident of 
that country until the country accepts the alien who was ordered 
removed.''.

SEC. 306. REPORT ON FINANCIAL BURDEN OF REPATRIATION.

  Not later than October 31 of each year, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security shall submit to the Secretary of State and Congress a report 
that details the cost to the Department of Homeland Security of 
repatriation of unlawful aliens to their countries of nationality or 
last habitual residence, including details relating to cost per 
country. The Secretary shall include in each such report the 
recommendations of the Secretary to more cost effectively repatriate 
such aliens.

SEC. 307. TRAINING PROGRAM.

  Not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security--
          (1) review and evaluate the training provided to Border 
        Patrol agents and port of entry inspectors regarding the 
        inspection of aliens to determine whether an alien is referred 
        for an interview by an asylum officer for a determination of 
        credible fear;
          (2) based on the review and evaluation described in paragraph 
        (1), take necessary and appropriate measures to ensure 
        consistency in referrals by Border Patrol agents and port of 
        entry inspectors to asylum officers for determinations of 
        credible fear.

SEC. 308. EXPEDITED REMOVAL.

  (a) In General.--Section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)) is amended--
          (1) in subclause (I), by striking ``Attorney General'' and 
        inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security'' each place it 
        appears; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following new subclause:
                                  ``(III) Exception.--Notwithstanding 
                                subclauses (I) and (II), the Secretary 
                                of Homeland Security shall apply 
                                clauses (i) and (ii) of this 
                                subparagraph to any alien (other than 
                                an alien described in subparagraph (F)) 
                                who is not a national of a country 
                                contiguous to the United States, who 
                                has not been admitted or paroled into 
                                the United States, and who is 
                                apprehended within 100 miles of an 
                                international land border of the United 
                                States and within 14 days of entry.''.
  (b) Exceptions.--Section 235(b)(1)(F) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(F)) is amended by inserting before 
the period at the end the following: ``or in any manner at or between a 
land border port of entry''.
  (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to all 
aliens apprehended on or after such date.

      TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATION OF BORDER SECURITY AGENCIES

SEC. 401. ENHANCED BORDER SECURITY COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT.

  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure full coordination of 
border security efforts among agencies within the Department of 
Homeland Security, including United States Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, United States Customs and Border Protection, and United 
States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and shall identify and 
remedy any failure of coordination or integration in a prompt and 
efficient manner. In particular, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
shall--
          (1) oversee and ensure the coordinated execution of border 
        security operations and policy;
          (2) establish a mechanism for sharing and coordinating 
        intelligence information and analysis at the headquarters and 
        field office levels pertaining to counter-terrorism, border 
        enforcement, customs and trade, immigration, human smuggling, 
        human trafficking, and other issues of concern to both United 
        States Immigration and Customs Enforcement and United States 
        Customs and Border Protection;
          (3) establish Department of Homeland Security task forces (to 
        include other Federal, State, Tribal and local law enforcement 
        agencies as appropriate) as necessary to better coordinate 
        border enforcement and the disruption and dismantling of 
        criminal organizations engaged in cross-border smuggling, money 
        laundering, and immigration violations;
          (4) enhance coordination between the border security and 
        investigations missions within the Department by requiring 
        that, with respect to cases involving violations of the customs 
        and immigration laws of the United States, United States 
        Customs and Border Protection coordinate with and refer all 
        such cases to United States Immigration and Customs 
        Enforcement;
          (5) examine comprehensively the proper allocation of the 
        Department's border security related resources, and analyze 
        budget issues on the basis of Department-wide border 
        enforcement goals, plans, and processes;
          (6) establish measures and metrics for determining the 
        effectiveness of coordinated border enforcement efforts; and
          (7) develop and implement a comprehensive plan to protect the 
        northern and southern land borders of the United States and 
        address the different challenges each border faces by--
                  (A) coordinating all Federal border security 
                activities;
                  (B) improving communications and data sharing 
                capabilities within the Department and with other 
                Federal, State, local, tribal, and foreign law 
                enforcement agencies on matters relating to border 
                security; and
                  (C) providing input to relevant bilateral agreements 
                to improve border functions, including ensuring 
                security and promoting trade and tourism.

SEC. 402. OFFICE OF AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS.

  (a) Establishment.--Subtitle C of title IV of the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new section:

``SEC. 431. OFFICE OF AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS.

  ``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department an 
Office of Air and Marine Operations (referred to in this section as the 
`Office').
  ``(b) Assistant Secretary.--The Office shall be headed by an 
Assistant Secretary for Air and Marine Operations who shall be 
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
Senate, and who shall report directly to the Secretary. The Assistant 
Secretary shall be responsible for all functions and operations of the 
Office.
  ``(c) Missions.--
          ``(1) Primary mission.--The primary mission of the Office 
        shall be the prevention of the entry of terrorists, other 
        unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other 
        contraband into the United States.
          ``(2) Secondary mission.--The secondary mission of the Office 
        shall be to assist other agencies to prevent the entry of 
        terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, 
        narcotics, and other contraband into the United States.
  ``(d) Air and Marine Operations Center.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Office shall operate and maintain the 
        Air and Marine Operations Center in Riverside, California, or 
        at such other facility of the Office as is designated by the 
        Secretary.
          ``(2) Duties.--The Center shall provide comprehensive radar, 
        communications, and control services to the Office and to 
        eligible Federal, State, or local agencies (as determined by 
        the Assistant Secretary for Air and Marine Operations), in 
        order to identify, track, and support the interdiction and 
        apprehension of individuals attempting to enter United States 
        airspace or coastal waters for the purpose of narcotics 
        trafficking, trafficking of persons, or other terrorist or 
        criminal activity.
  ``(e) Access to Information.--The Office shall ensure that other 
agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of 
Defense, the Department of Justice, and such other Federal, State, or 
local agencies, as may be determined by the Secretary, shall have 
access to the information gathered and analyzed by the Center.
  ``(f) Requirement.--Beginning not later than 180 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall require that all 
information concerning all aviation activities, including all airplane, 
helicopter, or other aircraft flights, that are undertaken by the 
either the Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 
United States Customs and Border Protection, or any subdivisions 
thereof, be provided to the Air and Marine Operations Center. Such 
information shall include the identifiable transponder, radar, and 
electronic emissions and codes originating and resident aboard the 
aircraft or similar asset used in the aviation activity.
  ``(g) Timing.--The Secretary shall require the information described 
in subsection (f) to be provided to the Air and Marine Operations 
Center in advance of the aviation activity whenever practicable for the 
purpose of timely coordination and conflict resolution of air missions 
by the Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and 
United States Customs and Border Protection.
  ``(h) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to alter, impact, diminish, or in any way undermine the 
authority of the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
to oversee, regulate, and control the safe and efficient use of the 
airspace of the United States.''.
  (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
          (1) Additional assistant secretary.--Section 103(a)(9) of the 
        Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113(a)(9)) is amended 
        by striking ``12'' and inserting ``13''.
          (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents in section 
        1(b) of such Act (6 U.S.C. 101) is amended by inserting after 
        the item relating to section 430 the following new item:

``Sec. 431. Office of Air and Marine Operations.''.

SEC. 403. SHADOW WOLVES TRANSFER.

  (a) Transfer of Existing Unit.--Not later that 90 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
transfer to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement all 
functions (including the personnel, assets, and liabilities 
attributable to such functions) of the Customs Patrol Officers unit 
operating on the Tohono O'odham Indian reservation (commonly known as 
the ``Shadow Wolves'' unit).
  (b) Establishment of New Units.--The Secretary is authorized to 
establish within United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
additional units of Customs Patrol Officers in accordance with this 
section, as appropriate.
  (c) Duties.--The Customs Patrol Officer unit transferred pursuant to 
subsection (a), and additional units established pursuant to subsection 
(b), shall operate on Indian lands by preventing the entry of 
terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, 
and other contraband into the United States.
  (d) Basic Pay for Journeyman Officers.--A Customs Patrol Officer in a 
unit described in this section shall receive equivalent pay as a 
special agent with similar competencies within United States 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement pursuant to the Department of 
Homeland Security's Human Resources Management System established under 
section 841 of the Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. 411).
  (e) Supervisors.--Each unit described in this section shall be 
supervised by a Chief Customs Patrol Officer, who shall have the same 
rank as a resident agent-in-charge of the Office of Investigations 
within United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 4312 is to establish operational 
control over the international land and maritime borders of the 
United States, and for other purposes.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    The international land borders of the United States span 
more than 6,000 miles of mostly open territory, not including 
the thousands of miles of coastland. The porous nature of the 
border has long been exploited by individuals seeking to 
circumvent United States immigration laws, as well as smugglers 
transporting narcotics and other contraband. Terrorists could 
also exploit these vulnerabilities to bring individuals and 
instrumentalities of terrorism into the United States 
undetected.
    While the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, made it 
clear that our Nation must be more aggressive in preventing 
terrorists from entering the United States, the number of 
illegal aliens apprehended along the United States border has 
grown significantly over the past few years, reaching 1.2 
million in Fiscal Year 2005. Border experts say that well over 
that number succeeded in making it past our current border 
defenses disappearing into United States communities. 
Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security released over 
120,000 non-Mexican aliens into the United States due to a lack 
of available detention beds; the majority of these individuals 
will never appear for their hearing dates.
    A series of hearings, site visits, and oversight work by 
the Committee on Homeland Security led to the conclusion that 
the Department of Homeland Security needs to bolster its border 
security capabilities. Therefore, the Committee on Homeland 
Security developed this legislation which will expand the use 
of surveillance equipment along the entire border; enhance 
coordination of border security efforts not only within the 
Department of Homeland Security, but also with other Federal 
agencies, and State, tribal, and local authorities; and ensure 
that all aliens apprehended attempting to cross a United States 
land or maritime border illegally, will be detained and quickly 
removed in order to gain control of our borders.

                                Hearings

    No legislative hearings were held on H.R. 4312.

                        Committee Consideration

    H.R. 4312 was introduced by Mr. King of New York, Mr. 
Daniel E. Lungren of California, and Ms. Loretta Sanchez of 
California on November 14, 2004, and referred to the Committee 
on Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the 
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Armed Services. 
Within the Committee on Homeland Security, H.R. 4312 was 
retained at the Full Committee.
    On November 16 and November 17, 2005, the Full Committee 
met in open markup session, and on November 17, 2005, ordered 
H.R. 4312 favorably reported to the House of Representatives, 
amended, by voice vote.

                            Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes 
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto.
    H.R. 4312, to establish operational control over the 
international land and maritime borders of the United States, 
and for other purposes; was ordered favorably reported to the 
House, amended, by voice vote. The following amendments were 
offered:
    An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. 
King (#1); was Agreed to, as amended, by voice vote.
    A Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Thompson (#1A) to the 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; 
was Not Agreed to by a recorded vote of 14 yeas and 15 nays 
(Rollcall Vote No. 12). The vote was as follows:


    An en bloc amendment offered by Mr. King (#1B) to the 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; on 
page 8, after line 23, to insert a new subsection (f) entitled 
``Reporting of Implementing Legislation''; a Sense of Congress 
relating to the Secure Border Initiative; to insert a new 
section entitled ``Border Patrol Unit for Virgin Islands''; to 
insert a new section entitled ``Report on Progress in Tracking 
Travel of Central American Gangs Along International Border''; 
a Sense of Congress relating to cooperation with the sovereign 
Indian Nations on securing our borders; to insert a new section 
entitled ``Border Security Advisory Committee''; and to make 
conforming corrections on pages 25 and 26, and to insert a new 
section relating coordination; to make conforming changes and 
to insert a new paragraph in section 102(b) relating to an 
assessment to infiltration along borders; was Agreed to by 
voice vote.
    An amendment offered by Mr. McCaul (#1C) to the Amendment 
in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; to insert a 
new section entitled ``Permitted Use of Homeland Security Grant 
Funds for Border Security Activities''; was Agreed to by a 
recorded vote of 15 yeas and 12 nays (Rollcall Vote No. 13). 
The vote was as follows:


    An amendment offered by Mr. Markey (#1D) to the Amendment 
in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; to insert a 
new section entitled ``Verification of Security Measures under 
the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) 
Program and the Free and Secure Trade (FAST) Program''; was Not 
Agreed to by a recorded vote of 14 yeas and 15 nays (Rollcall 
Vote No. 14). The vote was as follows:


    An amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio (#1E) to the Amendment 
in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; to insert a 
new section entitled ``Visa Waiver Program and Immediate 
International Passenger Pre-Screening Pilot Program''; was 
Withdrawn by Unanimous Consent.
    An amendment offered by Mr. Pearce (#1F) to the Amendment 
in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; on page 16, 
line 8 insert a new section 113 entitled ``Repair of Private 
Border Fencing''; was Withdrawn by Unanimous Consent.
    An amendment offered by Mr. Thompson (#1G) to the Amendment 
in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; on page 13, 
line 4; Page 13, line 18 and page 14, line 2 make conforming 
corrections and insert a new section entitled ``Authorization 
of Appropriations''; was Agreed to by voice vote.
    An amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee (#1H) to the 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; to 
insert new sections entitled ``Authorization for Appropriations 
for Increased Border Resources''; ``Study to Determined 
Appropriate Level and Allocation of Personnel at Ports of Entry 
and Border Patrol Sectors''; ``Assessment of Study by 
Comptroller General''; ``Additional and Continuous Training for 
Inspectors''; ``Radio Communications''; ``Hand-held Global 
Positioning System Devices''; ``Night Vision Equipment''; 
``Border Armor''; ``Weapons''; ``Maximum Student Loan 
Repayments for United States Border Patrol Agents''; 
``Recruitment and Relocation Bonuses and Retention Allowances 
for Personnel of the Department of Homeland Security''; ``Law 
Enforcement Retirement Coverage for Inspection Officers and 
Other Employees''; ``Increase United State Border Patrol Agent 
and Inspector Pay''; ``Compensation for Training at Federal Law 
Enforcement Training Center''; and ``Foreign Language Awards''; 
was Not Agreed to by a recorded vote of 12 yeas and 15 nays 
(Rollcall Vote No. 16). The vote was as follows:


    An amendment offered by Mr. Langevin (#1I) to the Amendment 
in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; to insert a 
new section entitled ``Deployment of Radiation Detection Portal 
Equipment at United States Ports of Entry''; was Agreed to by a 
recorded vote of 15 yeas and 12 nays (Rollcall Vote No. 17). 
The vote was as follows:


    An amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren (#1J) to the Amendment 
in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; to strike 
line 18 on page 22 through line 7 on page 23 and insert a new 
section 305 entitled ``Ensuring Return of Removed Aliens''. The 
Chair sustained a point of order that the amendment was not 
germane, and the amendment thus fell.
    An amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren (#1K) to the Amendment 
in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; on page 19, 
line 15, make a conforming change; and page 20, line 3 through 
12 insert a new subsection (b) entitled ``Ensuring Appearance 
of Aliens Apprehended at or Between Ports of Entry''. A point 
of order by Mr. Smith on germaneness was overruled by the 
Chair. The amendment by Ms. Lofgren was Not Agreed to by voice 
vote.
    An amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren (#1L) to the Amendment 
in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; on page 20, 
line 25 insert a new subsection (d) entitled ``Exceptions for 
Vulnerable Populations''; A point of order by Mr. Smith on 
germaneness was overruled by the Chair. The amendment by Ms. 
Lofgren was Not Agreed to by a recorded vote of 12 yeas and 16 
nays (Rollcall Vote No. 18). The vote was as follows:


    An amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren (#1M) to the Amendment 
in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; on page 21, 
line 2, insert a new subsection (e) entitled ``Appropriate 
Conditions for Detention of Vulnerable Populations''. The Chair 
sustained a point of order that the amendment was not germane, 
and the amendment thus fell.
    An amendment offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez (#1N) to the 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; on 
page 23, line 4, insert after the first period the following: 
``The previous sentence shall not apply to admission of an 
alien as a refugee or to the granting of asylum to an alien.'' 
The Chair sustained a point of order that the amendment was not 
germane, and the amendment thus fell.
    An amendment offered by Mr. Meek (#1O) to the Amendment in 
the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; on page 29, 
strike line 7 through page 3, line 15. Page 29, after line 6, 
insert a new title entitled ``Reorganization of Border Security 
Enforcement Agencies''; was Withdrawn by Unanimous Consent.
    An amendment offered by Mr. Thompson (#1P) to the Amendment 
in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; to insert a 
new section entitled ``9/11 Commission Full Funding''; was Not 
Agreed to by a recorded vote of 12 yeas and 14 nays (Rollcall 
Vote No. 15). The vote was as follows:


    An amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee (#1Q) to the 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; on 
page 19, line 21, strike: ``or''. Page 19, after line 21, 
insert a new paragraph (2) relating to the Immigration and 
Nationality Act; was Withdrawn by Unanimous Consent.
    An amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee (#1R) to the 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; 
make conforming changes and on page 19, line 21, insert a new 
paragraph (2) relating to trafficking in persons; was Not 
Agreed to by a recorded vote of 14 yeas and 18 nays (Rollcall 
Vote No. 19). The vote was as follows:


    An amendment offered by Mr. Meek (#1S) to the Amendment in 
the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; to insert a new 
section entitled ``Enhanced Information-Sharing, Coordination 
and Oversight Immigration Detention Policies, Practices and 
Operations within the Department of Homeland Security''; was 
Not Agreed to by a recorded vote of 15 yeas and 18 nays 
(Rollcall Vote No. 20). The vote was as follows:


    An amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren (#1T) to the Amendment 
in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; to strike 
Sec. 305; was Not Agreed to by a recorded vote of 16 yeas and 
17 nays (Rollcall Vote No. 21). The vote was as follows:


    An amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee (#1U) to the 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; to 
insert a new section entitled ``Establishment of a Special Task 
Force for Coordinating and Distributing Information on 
Fraudulent Immigration Documents''; was Not Agreed to by a 
recorded vote of 15 yeas and 18 nays (Rollcall Vote No. 22). 
The vote was as follows:


    An amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee (#1V) to the 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; to 
insert a new title entitled ``Rapid Response Measures''; was 
Not Agreed to by voice vote.
    An amendment offered by Mr. Lungren (#1W) to the Amendment 
in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; to insert a 
new section entitled ``Expedited Removal''; was Agreed to by a 
recorded vote of 18 yeas and 14 nays (Rollcall Vote No. 23). 
The vote was as follows:


    An amendment offered by Ms. Harris (#1X) to the Amendment 
in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; to insert a 
new section entitled ``Plan for Combating Human Smuggling and 
Trafficking''; was Withdrawn by Unanimous Consent.
    An amendment offered by Mr. Pearce (#1Y) to the Amendment 
in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. King; on page 16, 
line 8 insert a new section 113 entitled ``Repair of Private 
Infrastructure on Border''; was Agreed to by voice vote.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee has held oversight 
hearings and made findings that are reflected in this report.
    On March 2, 2005, the Subcommittee on Economic Security, 
Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity held a hearing 
entitled ``Proposed FY 2006 Budget: Integrating Homeland 
Security Screening Operations.'' The Subcommittee received 
testimony from Mr. Jim Williams, Director, US-VISIT Program, 
Border and Transportation Security Directorate, U.S. Department 
of Homeland Security; Ms. Carol DiBattiste, Deputy 
Administrator, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security; and Ms. Deborah J. Spero, 
Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
    On March 9, 2005, the Subcommittee on Management, 
Integration, and Oversight held a hearing entitled ``CBP and 
ICE: Does the Current Organizational Structure Best Serve U.S. 
Homeland Security Interests?'' The Subcommittee received 
testimony from Dr. James Carafano, Senior Research Fellow, The 
Heritage Foundation; Mr. Michael Cutler, Former Senior Special 
Agent, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service; Mr. David 
Venturella, Former Director, Office of Detention and Removal 
Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security; Mr. T.J. Bonner, President, 
National Border Patrol Council; Mr. Randy Allen Callahan, 
Executive Vice President, American Federation of Government 
Employees, AFL-CIO; and Mr. Kenneth C. Klug, Former Special 
Agent in Charge, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security.
    On April 20, 2005, the Subcommittee on Management, 
Integration, and Oversight held a hearing entitled ``Management 
Challenges Facing the Department of Homeland Security.'' The 
Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Richard L. Skinner, 
Acting Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, 
Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Norman Rabkin, Managing 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice, Government 
Accountability Office; the Honorable Asa Hutchison, Chairman of 
the Homeland Security Practice, Veneble, LLC; the Honorable 
James S. Gilmore, III, Chairman, National Council on Readiness 
and Preparedness; and the Honorable Clark Kent Ervin, Director, 
Homeland Security Initiative, The Aspen Institute.
    On May 24, 2005, the Subcommittee on Management, 
Integration, and Oversight held a hearing entitled ``Training 
More Border Agents: How the Department of Homeland Security Can 
Increase Training Capacity More Effectively.'' The Subcommittee 
received testimony from Chief Thomas Walters, Assistant 
Commissioner for Training and Development, Bureau of Customs 
and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Mrs. 
Connie Patrick, Director, Federal Law Enforcement Training 
Center, Department of Homeland Security; Mr. T.J. Bonner, 
President, National Border Patrol Council; and Mr. Gary 
Jackson, President, Blackwater USA.
    On September 28, 2005, the Subcommittee on Management, 
Integration, and Oversight received a Member briefing and 
demonstration on canine units. The Committee also held a 
hearing entitled ``Sniffing Out Terrorism: The Use of Dogs in 
Homeland Security.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from 
Mr. Lee Titus, Director of Canine Programs, U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Mr. David 
Kontny, Director, National Explosives Detection Canine Team 
Program, Transportation Security Administration, Department of 
Homeland Security; Special Agent Terry Bohan, Chief, National 
Canine Training and Operations Support Branch, Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of 
Justice; Chief Ralph Eugene Wilson, Jr., Chief of Police, 
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA); Dr. C. 
Michael Moriarty, Associate Provost and Vice President for 
Research, Auburn University; and Ms. Terri Recknor, President, 
Garrison and Sloan Canine Detection.
    On September 28, 2005, the Subcommittee on Economic 
Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity held a 
hearing entitled ``Solving the OTM Undocumented Alien Problem: 
Expedited Removal for Apprehensions along the U.S. Border.'' 
The Subcommittee received testimony from Chief David V. 
Aguilar, Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 
Department of Homeland Security; Mr. John Torres, Acting 
Director, Office of Detention and Removal Operations, 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland 
Security; and Mr. Daniel W. Fisk, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 
Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State.
    On October 27, 2005, the Subcommittee on Management, 
Integration, and Oversight held a hearing entitled ``The 
Department of Homeland Security Second-Stage Review: The Role 
of the Chief Medical Officer.'' Testimony was received from Dr. 
Jeffrey W. Runge, Chief Medical Officer, Department of Homeland 
Security; Mr. Timothy Moore, Director of Federal Programs, 
National Agricultural Biosecurity Center, Kansas State 
University; Dr. Jeffrey A. Lowell, Professor of Surgery and 
Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine; and Mr. 
David Heyman, Director and Senior Fellow, Homeland Security 
Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies.
    On November 14, 2005, the Subcommittee on Management, 
Integration, and Oversight held a hearing entitled ``CBP and 
ICE: Does the Current Organizational Structure Best Serve U.S. 
Homeland Security Interests? Part 2.'' Testimony was received 
from Mr. Robert L. Ashbaugh, Assistant Inspector General for 
Inspections and Special Reviews, Office of Inspector General, 
Department of Homeland Security; and the Honorable Stewart A. 
Baker, Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    The purpose of H.R. 4312, the ``Border Security and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005,'' is to provide the Secretary 
of Homeland Security with necessary tools and authority to gain 
operational control over the international land and maritime 
borders of the United States through enhancing border security, 
detaining and removing all aliens ineligible to enter the 
United States, and provide greater organizational efficiencies 
within the Department of Homeland Security.

   New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its 
own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement 
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the 
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.

                  Congressional Budget Office Estimate

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, December 6, 2005.
Hon. Peter T. King,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
completed the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4312, the Border 
Security and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz.
            Sincerely,
                                           Donald B. Marron
                               (For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 4312--Border Security and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005

    Summary: H.R. 4312 would direct the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) to increase the number of border inspection 
personnel, deploy radiation portal monitors at ports of entry, 
and establish an Office of Air and Marine Operations within 
DHS. The bill also would make many other amendments to current 
law and changes to existing DHS procedures that aim to increase 
the security of U.S. borders.
    Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 4312 would cost about $870 
million over the 2006-2010 period. Enacting the bill would not 
affect direct spending or receipts.
    H.R. 4312 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on state, local, and tribal 
governments.
    Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 4312 is shown in the following table. 
The cost of this legislation falls within budget function 750 
(administration of justice).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      By fiscal year, in millions of
                                                 dollars--
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                   2006    2007    2008    2009    2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Additional Port of Entry
 Inspectors and Canine Detection
 Teams:
    Estimated Authorization            0      24      73     128     193
     Level......................
    Estimated Outlays...........       0      22      70     126     190
Radiation Portal Monitors at
 Ports of Entry:
    Estimated Authorization          277      20      20      20      20
     Level......................
    Estimated Outlays...........     139     158      20      20      20
Office of Air and Marine
 Operations:
    Estimated Authorization            0      20      16      17      17
     Level......................
    Estimated Outlays...........       0      19      17      17      17
Additional Funding for Inspector
 General:
    Estimated Authorization            0       4       5       6       0
     Level......................
    Estimated Outlays...........       0       4       5       6       0
Other Programs:
    Estimated Authorization            0       6       5       5       5
     Level......................
    Estimated Outlays...........       0       4       5       5       5
    Total Changes:
        Estimated Authorization      277      74     119     177     235
         Level..................
        Estimated Outlays.......     139     207     117     174     233
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
bill will be enacted in 2006. CBO estimates that implementing 
H.R. 4312 would cost about $870 million over the 2006-2010 
period, assuming appropriation of the necessary funds. We 
assume that the necessary amounts will be appropriated by the 
start of each fiscal year after 2006 and that spending will 
follow the historical spending patterns for these or similar 
activities.

Additional port of entry inspectors and canine detection teams

    H.R. 4312 would direct DHS to increase the number of port-
of-entry inspectors by 250 for each of fiscal years 2007 
through 2010. Currently, there are about 19,000 inspectors, so 
this would represent an increase of just over 1 percent 
annually. In addition, for each of fiscal years 2007 through 
2011, the bill would require DHS to increase the number of 
canine detection teams by at least 25 percent over the number 
of such positions for the preceding year. (Currently, there are 
a total of 647 canine detection teams, each consisting of one 
officer and one dog.)
    Based on information from DHS, CBO estimates that it costs 
about $100,000 a year to hire an additional inspector and 
$130,000 a year for each new canine detection team, including 
salaries, benefits, training, and support costs. Assuming that 
each annual cohort required by the bill would be hired over the 
course of a year, we estimate that implementing this provision 
would cost $400 million over the 2007-2010 period, with 
spending split evenly between the inspectors and the canine 
detection teams.

Radiation portal monitors at ports of entry

    H.R. 4312 would direct DHS, within one year of the bill's 
enactment, to deploy radiation portal monitors at U.S. ports of 
entry selected by the agency to facilitate the screening of 
inbound cargo for concealed nuclear and radiological material. 
Based on information from DHS, we expect that the agency would 
implement the bill by deploying such monitors at all U.S. 
ports.
    According to DHS, there are 613 radiation portal monitors 
currently deployed at 110 points of entry in 85 U.S. ports, 
leaving a total of 270 points of entry that lack these devices. 
Because the unmonitored ports generally experience lesser 
volumes of inbound cargo, CBO assumes that remaining points of 
entry would need, on average, four monitors. The radiation 
portal monitors that are currently used cost $280,000 each, but 
a more effective device is now available at a cost of $470,000 
per unit.
    Assuming that the roughly 1,000 additional monitors 
required to implement H.R. 4312 would include approximately 
equal numbers of monitors of each type ($280,000 and $470,000 
models), the costs to deploy the monitors at the remaining 
ports would be about $400 million. However, because $125 
million has already been appropriated for fiscal year 2006 for 
monitors, we estimate that implementing H.R. 4312 would cost 
about $280 million over the 2006-2007 period.
    In addition, we expect that there would be some maintenance 
and replacement costs for those monitors in subsequent years. 
CBO estimates that such costs would probably be no more than 10 
percent of the initial cost of the new monitors, or about $20 
million annually.

Office of Air and Marine Operations

    H.R. 4312 would establish an Office of Air and Marine 
Operations within DHS that would be headed by an Assistant 
Secretary who would report directly to the Secretary of 
Homeland Security. We expect that this office would consist of 
about 1,200 personnel currently in the Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection who direct and carry out aviation and marine 
operations.
    As a new agency within DHS, the Office of Air and Marine 
Operations would need its own human resources, legal, finance, 
technical support, and other administrative offices. Based on 
the number of support personnel at other federal agencies that 
employ between 1,000 and 2,000 persons, CBO estimates that it 
would cost about $16 million annually for these functions, 
beginning in fiscal year 2007. This estimated annual cost 
represents about 10 percent of current spending for the 
transferred personnel and assumes that some existing 
administrative staff would be transferred to the new office. In 
addition, we estimate that there would be one-time costs of 
about $4 million to relocate personnel and carry out other 
activities necessary to establish a new agency within DHS.

Additional funding for inspector general

    H.R. 4312 would authorize the appropriation of sums 
necessary to increase funding above the current level for the 
DHS Office of the Inspector General (IG) by 5 percent for 
fiscal year 2007, 6 percent for 2008, and 7 percent for 2009. 
For fiscal year 2006, $83 million was appropriated for the IG. 
We estimate that implementing this provision for increases in 
IG funding would cost $4 million in 2007, $5 million in 2008, 
and $6 million in 2009.

Other programs

    H.R. 4312 would direct DHS to establish a university-based 
Center of Excellence for Border Security. Based on spending for 
similar university programs already established by DHS, we 
estimate that implementing this provision would require funding 
of about $5 million annually, beginning in fiscal year 2007.
    In addition, the bill would require DHS and the Government 
Accountability Office to prepare various reports relating to 
improving border security. CBO estimates that the costs to 
prepare these reports would total about $1 million.

Border patrol in Virgin Islands

    H.R. 4312 would direct DHS, by September 30, 2006, to 
establish at least one border patrol unit for the U.S. Virgin 
Islands. However, the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-90) already directs 
DHS to determine whether or not a border patrol unit in the 
Virgin Islands is necessary and, if deemed necessary, to 
establish such a unit by March 1, 2006. CBO cannot predict 
whether this unit will be established under Public Law 109-90. 
Based on information from DHS, however, CBO expects that a unit 
in the Virgin Islands would probably cost no more than $1 
million annually.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 4312 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, and 
tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz; Impact 
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell; 
Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    An advisory committee within the meaning of section 5(b) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act is created by this 
legislation. H.R. 4312 establishes the Border Security Advisory 
Committee. Members of the advisory committee shall be appointed 
by the Secretary of Homeland Security consisting of 
representatives from State, local, Tribal, and community 
representatives from States located along international land 
and maritime borders of the United States. The advisory 
committee shall advise the Secretary on issues relating to 
border security and enforcement in such areas.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that the 
Constitutional authority for this legislation is provided in 
Article I, section 8, clause 1, which grants Congress the power 
to provide for the common Defense of the United States.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation


                Title I--Securing United States Borders


Sec. 101. Achieving operational control on the border

    While the United States relies heavily upon global commerce 
and tourism--our prosperity and way of life depend upon it--the 
same openness that has enabled our country to flourish in the 
global economy has also facilitated the unlawful entry of 
millions of aliens into our country. And as such, the United 
States is more vulnerable to attacks by terrorists and 
increasingly sophisticated global criminal networks.
    The Committee on Homeland Security (Committee) believes 
that the issue of border security presents urgent national 
security implications, and efforts to secure the border from 
the entry of terrorists and terrorist weapons should not be 
preformed in an ad-hoc manner. The National Commission on 
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) 
report cited that as early as March of 2000, government 
officials recognized the threat from Al-Qa'ida and identified 
immediate steps needed to protect and prepare against a 
possible attack, including the need to secure our ``porous 
borders and weak enforcement of immigration laws'' within the 
United States (page 186). The Committee believes that the 
urgency with which this task was imparted, and the urgency with 
which it was addressed in the months following the attacks of 
September 11, 2001, must not be lost.
    Therefore, this section directs the Secretary of Homeland 
Security (Secretary) to immediately take all actions necessary 
and appropriate to achieve and maintain full operational 
control over the entire land and maritime borders of the United 
States. Operational control will require gaining a 
comprehensive domain awareness of the Nation's borders so that 
enforcement efforts and resources can be directed most 
effectively and appropriately. To accomplish this, this section 
identifies several actions necessary, including but not limited 
to the following: systematic surveillance coverage, additional 
physical infrastructure, additional Border Patrol agents as 
authorized in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 
Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458), and deployment of Border Patrol 
agents to high risk areas as well as other impacted border 
areas.
    Prior to the creation of the Department of Homeland 
Security (Department), efforts to improve surveillance along 
the border were initiated, but inadequate contract management 
and oversight lead to cost overruns and ineffective use of 
border security technology. The Secretary is directed to 
provide systematic surveillance over the entire land and 
maritime borders of the United States using multiple layers of 
technology integrated into a systems architecture. 
Additionally, the Secretary is directed to enhance physical 
infrastructure and procure necessary and appropriate all-
terrain vehicles, air assets, and other equipment to provide 
border security personnel within the Department with the 
resources necessary to gain operational control along the 
entire international land and maritime borders of the United 
States.
    The Committee recognizes that achieving full operational 
control may take several years and considerable resources. 
However, the Committee believes that the Secretary should be 
continually working towards this goal and requires that the 
Committee be provided with regular updates on progress made 
towards achieving this goal and the personnel, resources, and 
legislative authority that may still be needed.

Sec. 102. National strategy for border security

    This section requires the Secretary of Homeland Security 
(Secretary) to submit to the Committee on Homeland Security 
(Committee) a two-phase National Strategy for Border Security. 
However, the Committee cautions the Department of Homeland 
Security (Department) that nothing in this section shall be 
construed by the Department, or any agency within the 
Department, as a reason for not taking immediate action as 
proscribed by section 101 of this Act or any other section of 
this Act.
    Subsection (a) requires the Secretary to submit a plan, 
within six months after enactment of this Act, to provide 
systematic surveillance coverage of the United States land 
borders by: integrating current capabilities with new 
surveillance technology; coordinating with the Science and 
Technology Directorate within the Department to identify and 
test new technology; outlining specific technology that will be 
added to the current surveillance infrastructure; and 
identifying obstacles to deployment, including detailed costs.
    Prior to the creation of the Department, the former 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was responsible 
for development of the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence 
System (ISIS). ISIS was purported to provide surveillance 
coverage of the United States land borders through use of 
cameras and ground sensors. The Committee conducted oversight 
hearings in the 109th Congress and concluded that contract 
management deficiencies has resulted in only two to four 
percent of the United States' land borders being monitored by 
ISIS. The Committee believes, however, that a robust 
surveillance system is essential to gaining operational control 
and maintaining domain awareness of the United States land and 
maritime borders, including the ability to rapidly detect and 
respond to threats.
    In developing this plan for such systematic surveillance, 
the Secretary must develop the overarching systems architecture 
necessary to support resource capabilities and emerging 
technology to ensure installation of the technology is not 
indiscriminate but rather is connected to the larger 
architecture. The plan shall include input from the Privacy 
Officer of the Department.
    The Committee believes that the use of Unmanned Aerial 
Vehicles (UAVs) will increase efforts to control access to the 
borders of the United States. The Committee recognizes that 
there are airspace safety issues that must be addressed with 
the application and deployment of these assets. Moreover, the 
Committee also recognizes that the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) hasauthority over the National Airspace 
System (NAS) and that every effort should be taken to make certain that 
safety within the NAS remains unchanged by implementation of this 
section.
    Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the 
Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) current authority to 
oversee, regulate, and control the safe and efficient use of 
the airspace over the United States. Moreover, in order to 
carry out this section U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
shall coordinate with the Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA) in order to resolve all issues related to 
UAV security, including but not limited to UAV piracy, prior to 
the operation of any UAV within United States civilian 
airspace.
    Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to submit a 
comprehensive plan for border security within one year that 
will outline how the Department will achieve operational 
control of United States land and maritime borders. The plan 
must include the following: an implementation timeline for the 
surveillance plan in subsection (a), an assessment of the 
threat posed by terrorists that may try to illegally enter the 
United States; a risk assessment of ports of entry and the 
entire border relating to the prevention of unauthorized entry 
by terrorists and illicit materials; an outline of additional 
staffing and resources necessary; a description of the border 
security roles and missions of Federal, State, and local 
authorities; prioritization of research; a description of 
methods to ensure the flow of legitimate trade and travel 
across the borders; an assessment of necessary detention space; 
a plan for personnel accountability; and a timeline for 
completion of all parts of the plan.
    In implementing Section 102(b)(2) of the National Strategy 
for Border Security, the Secretary shall designate the Chief 
Intelligence Officer of the Department of Homeland Security as 
the primary coordinator of this threat assessment.
    In conducting the risk assessment the Secretary shall 
include an analysis of threat, vulnerability, and consequence 
analysis. Additionally, the Secretary shall utilize the risk 
assessments previously conducted by the United States Coast 
Guard under the Maritime Transportation Security Act (P.L. 107-
295) and those conducted as part of the National Infrastructure 
Protection Plan.
    It is essential that the Department develop unambiguous 
milestones and performance metrics as part of the National 
Strategy in order to ensure that border security programs and 
initiatives are successful and achieve the goal of gaining 
operational control over the borders. DHS must establish a 
mechanism to ensure accountability at all levels within the 
Department and in developing the National Strategy, the 
Secretary must ensure that border security agencies and 
missions are fully coordinated with the interior customs and 
immigration enforcement efforts of the Department.
    The Committee is concerned that the methodology used by the 
Department to determine appropriate staffing levels for border 
security agencies, as well as the risk assessment used to 
determine the optimal locations for additional personnel is not 
transparent or understandable. Therefore, the Secretary must 
update existing or develop new methodologies used to determine 
the best utilization of personnel authorized in sections 107 
and 108 of this Act and provide patent evidence of whether and 
levels of additional staffing.
    Subsection (c) requires that in developing the National 
Strategy for Border Security in subsection (b) that the 
Secretary shall consult with State, local, and tribal 
authorities along the border, as well as an appropriate cross-
section of private sector and non-governmental organizations. 
The Committee believes that the Secretary, in carrying out this 
subsection, should consult with relevant organizations with 
national security, privacy, agriculture, immigration, customs, 
transportation, technology, legal, and commercial expertise. As 
well, participants from the trade community must include an 
appropriate cross section of United States importers and 
exporters.
    Subsection (d) reiterates the importance of the National 
Strategy for Border Security as described in subsection (b), as 
the leading document for the Department on border security. 
Moreover, through the consultation process with other Federal 
agencies, other government authorities, and the private sector, 
the Secretary must ensure that the National Strategy 
coordinates all border security efforts and responsibilities at 
all levels.
    Subsection (e) reinforces that immediate action is 
necessary and nothing in subsection (b) shall relieve the 
Secretary of the responsibility of taking all actions necessary 
to gain and maintain operational control over the land and 
maritime borders of the United States.

Sec. 103. Implementation of cross-border security agreements

    This section requires the Secretary of Homeland Security 
(Secretary) to report within six months after the enactment of 
this Act, on the implementation of cross-border security 
agreements with Canada and the United Mexican States (Mexico). 
Included among these agreements are the Smart Border Accord and 
the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
    These important partnerships establish a cooperative, 
international approach to establishing common prosperity and 
security. While the Committee on Homeland Security (Committee) 
supports the efforts of these agreements and recognizes they 
are integral to achieving operational control of our borders, 
the Committee is concerned about the availability of 
information on the progress of these partnerships and therefore 
directs the Secretary to provide the Committee with regular 
reports for the next 18 months after enactment of this Act and 
thereafter as appropriate.

Sec. 104. Biometric data enhancement

    This section requires that by October 1, 2006, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to enhance the 
connectivity between the Automated Biometric Identification 
System (IDENT) and Integrated Automated Fingerprint 
Identification System (IAFIS) biometric databases. The IAFIS 
system is maintained by the Department of Justice's Federal 
Bureau of Investigations (FBI), while the IDENT system is 
maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. Each system 
was developed to support different mission needs. IAFIS serves 
as the FBI's national fingerprint and criminal history 
repository, and is based on ten rolled fingerprints. IDENT 
performs watch list checks against biometric identified records 
for immigration violators, persons of interest to law 
enforcement, and individuals who may be a threat to national 
security and is based on two fingerprints.
    Since September 11, 2001, several pieces of legislation 
have called for an interoperable electronic data system for 
such biometric checks, among them are the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 
107-56), the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act 
of 2002 (P.L. 107-173), the Fiscal Year 2004 Department of 
Homeland Security Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-90), and the 
Fiscal Year 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-
447). The Congressional concern with the security gap created 
by the lack of IDENT/IAFIS interoperability is obvious and this 
section is intended to reiterate the importance of such 
interoperability.
    This section also directs the Secretary, in consultation 
with the Secretary of State, to transition to a ten fingerprint 
standard for each alien required to provide fingerprints during 
initial enrollment in the integrated entry and exit data system 
also know as the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status 
Indicator Technology (US-VISIT). Both the importance of 
connecting the IAFIS and IDENT databases and increasing the 
number of fingerprints captured at the point of entry are based 
on a single objective--to increase the accuracy and reliability 
of the biometric searches conducted under the US-VISIT program.

Sec. 105. One face at the border initiative

    This Section directs that the Secretary of Homeland 
Security (Secretary) shall, not later than October 1, 2007, 
submit to Congress a report on the quantifiable benefits, 
improvements planned, and statistics related to the ``One Face 
at the Border'' initiative at United States ports of entry. 
Under this initiative, the duties of legacy inspectors from 
U.S. Customs, the Immigration and Nationalization Service (INS) 
and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) were 
unified under one primary inspector at the border.
    The Committee on Homeland Security (Committee) recognizes 
that the benefits of streamlining the inspections process 
include maximizing use of personnel, enhanced security, and 
cost efficiencies. However, the Committee also recognizes that 
it is essential that current levels of expertise must be 
maintained in each of the three critical areas of enforcement, 
especially in the secondary inspection process. While the 
Committee supports consolidating responsibilities is order to 
provide for greater efficiency, doing so must not be 
detrimental to critical homeland security enforcement efforts.

Sec. 106. Secure communication

    This section directs the Secretary of Homeland Security 
(Secretary) to immediately develop plans for secure, two-way 
communications between Border Patrol agents in the field. 
Through the Committee on Homeland Security's (Committee) 
oversight efforts, the Committee identified the problem that 
Border Patrol communications are often not encrypted and are 
therefore easily intercepted by smugglers and alien traffickers 
seeking to thwart Border Patrol's efforts. Although the Border 
Patrol has the capability to encrypt its communications, 
outdated technology creates a disincentive for encryption as it 
significantly reduces communications capabilities. A widespread 
upgrade of radio systems will allow for encrypted 
communications, irrespective of geography and distance. It is 
imperative that the Border Patrol be given the necessary 
resources to enable them to fulfill their responsibility of 
fortifying our borders against intrusion by illegal people and 
cargo.
    The Secretary shall provide the Committee with information 
on the status of current communications infrastructure within 
the Department of Homeland Security, including the capabilities 
and limitations.

Sec. 107. Border patrol agents

    In each of the Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall, subject to 
the availability of appropriations for such purpose, increase 
by not less than 2,000, the number of positions for full-time, 
active-duty border patrol agents within the Department of 
Homeland Security (Department) above the number of such 
positions for which funds were allotted for the preceding 
fiscal year. In each of the Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010, in 
addition to the border patrol assigned along the northern 
border of the United States during the previous fiscal year.
    This increase was mandated in the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458) and Committee 
on Homeland Security (Committee) supports increased staffing at 
the authorized level. The Secretary is directed under Section 
102 of this Act to develop a staffing methodology to determine 
necessary border security staffing levels and the Committee 
will revisit the issue of necessary and appropriate staffing 
levels once the Secretary provides additional information based 
on the Department's assessment.

Sec. 108. Port of entry inspection personnel

    This section increases in each of the Fiscal Years 2007 
through 2010, subject to the availability of appropriations, 
the number of positions for full-time, active-duty, port of 
entry personnel within the Department of Homeland Security 
(Department) by 250 above the number of such positions for 
which funds were allotted for the preceding fiscal year. There 
are currently over 17,000 inspectors to cover 317 ports of 
entry, 14 pre-clearance stations, and assigned to the 36 
foreign ports under the Container Security Initiative (CSI). 
While other border security positions in the Department of 
Homeland Security were enhanced in the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458), U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection inspectors at ports of entry were not 
increased. The Committee on Homeland Security supports 
additional staffing at ports of entry to ensure that thorough 
security screening for individuals and cargo is maintained 
without disrupting the flow of legitimate goods.
    As required in the accompanying report to the Homeland 
Security Act (P.L. 107-296), the Secretary of Homeland Security 
shall not decrease the funding or staffing for specific Customs 
revenue functions, including Import Specialists, Entry 
Specialists, Drawback Specialists, National Import Specialists, 
Fines and Penalties Specialists, attorneys of the Office of 
Regulations and Rulings, Customs Auditors, International Trade 
Specialists, and Financial System Specialists.

Sec. 109. Canine detection teams

    This section increases the number of trained detection 
canines for use in border security activities by 25 percent 
each year for the next five years. Congress has addressed a 
shortage of trained personnel to protect the nation's borders 
against illegal activities--such as illegal immigration, drug 
trafficking, and smuggling of counterfeit currency--by 
authorizing the Department of Homeland Security (Department) to 
hire, train, and deploy 2,000 new Border Patrol agents each 
year for the next five years (P.L. 108-458). It is essential 
that the number of trained detection canines also increase in 
order to support their activities.
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel and trained 
canines work together at and between the Nation's ports of 
entry and are an important component of a layered approach to 
border protection and defense against terrorist threats. 
Canines support the law enforcement and anti-terrorism missions 
of the Department and help Border Patrol agents detect such 
things as concealed humans, narcotics, explosives, currency, 
and harmful agricultural pests and products.
    On September 28, 2005, the Subcommittee on Management, 
Integration, and Oversight held a hearing entitled, ``Sniffing 
Out Terrorism: The Use of Dogs in Homeland Security.'' At this 
hearing, the Committee on Homeland Security received testimony 
from several Federal agencies that train and deploy canines, 
including U.S. Customs and Border Protection, all of which 
indicated that there is a need for more trained detection 
canines.

Sec. 110. Secure Border Initiative financial accountability

    This section requires the Inspector General (IG) of the 
Department of Homeland Security (Department) to review all 
contract actions over $20,000,000 pertaining to the 
Department's new Secure Border Initiative. This review would 
begin within 60 days of a contract action--such as the award of 
a contract, subcontract, or blanket purchase agreement--as well 
as the conclusion of the contract in order to prevent waste, 
fraud, and abuse in contract awards and management. The 
findings of a review will include cost overruns, significant 
delays in contract execution, lack of adequate contract 
management, and insufficient financial oversight.
    Upon completion of the review, the IG is to submit the 
findings to the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary). 
Within 30 days of receiving the review, the Secretary shall 
report to Congress on the findings of the review and how the 
Department is addressing the issues raised by the IG.
    An urgent need exists for the installation of additional 
surveillance equipment, including cameras and ground sensors, 
to secure the Nation's borders. There is also an urgent need to 
ensure that Federal funds are used efficiently and effectively 
to acquire, install, and integrate these technologies into the 
new Secure Border Initiative, announced on November 2, 2005, by 
the Secretary.
    This provision ensures that the Department will take steps 
to address the financial and management weaknesses of previous 
border security initiatives, such as the Integrated 
Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS). ISIS was initiated in 
1998 by the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service to 
install cameras and ground sensors to monitor targeted expanses 
of the Nation's borders. A December 2004 audit conducted by the 
General Services Administration Office of Inspector General 
found that ISIS had a disturbing lack of management control 
over the project's procurement and contracting practices, which 
led to the spending of Federal funds to pay for work that was 
poor, incomplete, or never delivered. During a June 16, 2005, 
hearing held by the Subcommittee on Management, Integration, 
and Oversight, the Committee on Homeland Security received 
testimony regarding numerous improper task orders and contract 
awards, involving millions of dollars that failed to comply 
with procurement laws and regulations. As the Department 
implements its new Secure Border Initiative and expands the 
number of surveillance cameras and sensors along the Nation's 
borders, rigorous financial management procedures must be in 
place to ensure the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of this 
new multi-billion dollar program.

Sec. 111. Border Patrol training capacity review

    This section requires the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) to review the basic training provided to new Border 
Patrol agents, including: the length and content of the 
training curriculum and how the curriculum has changed since 
September 11, 2001; a detailed breakdown of the costs to U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection and the Federal Law Enforcement 
TrainingCenter to train one new Border Patrol agent; and a 
comparison of the costs, scope, and quality, including geographic 
characteristics, of current training provided to Border Patrol agents 
to other similar law enforcement training programs provided by State 
and local agencies, non-profit organizations, universities, and the 
private sector.
    The review will also include an evaluation of how Border 
Patrol agent basic training can be streamlined and made more 
cost-effective through the utilization of comparable non-
Federal training programs, and the use of proficiency testing, 
long-distance learning, and waivers for courses including 
physical fitness or language instruction.
    This Act authorizes 2,000 new Border Patrol agents each 
year from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2010 for 
deployment along our Nation's borders, in accordance with the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 
108-458). It is essential that training of these agents be 
conducted in the most effective and cost-efficient manner 
possible. Towards this end, the Committee on Homeland Security 
(Committee) has requested information from the Department of 
Homeland Security (Department) regarding the costs to hire and 
train one new Border Patrol agent. At a May 24, 2005, hearing 
held by the Management, Integration, and Oversight 
Subcommittee, the Committee was informed that U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection uses an estimate of $179,221 to train one new 
Border Patrol agent, of which $23,118 is for basic agent 
training. This figure, however, does not include the $8,734 in 
training costs borne by the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
Center. Multiple requests to the Department by the Committee 
for additional clarification of these costs have not yielded 
sufficient information. Therefore, the Committee is requesting 
the assistance of GAO to provide an independent analysis of 
Border Patrol training costs.

Sec. 112. Airspace security mission impact review

    This section instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security 
(Secretary) to report to the Committee on Homeland Security 
(Committee) the impact of the National Capitol Region (NCR) 
airspace security mission on border security missions, to 
evaluate the resources required to fulfill the mission, and the 
impact of transferring assets from the border to provide 
coverage for the NCR.
    The Department of Homeland Security (Department) is one of 
several agents that are collectively responsible for protecting 
the NCR against air intrusions. The Department is presently 
transferring responsibilities from the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection Office of Air and Marine Operations (AMO) to the 
United States Coast Guard. AMO pulled air and personnel assets 
from other stations in order to fulfill its responsibility in 
protecting the NCR, and it is likely that the Coast Guard will 
be forced to do the same. The Department is instructed to 
assess and report to the Committee on the potential affects of 
transferring these Coast Guard assets from current locations 
along the maritime border. This transition must not negatively 
impact the border security mission of the Department. The 
Department must plan accordingly for this transfer of 
resources.

Sec. 113. Repair of private infrastructure on border

    The Committee on Homeland Security (Committee) has learned 
through its oversight activities including trips to the border, 
one of the consequences of continued unlawful entry of aliens 
across the United States land borders is the damage and 
destruction they cause to private property along the 
international land borders. This section would authorize an 
initial $50,000 in funds to reimburse private property owners 
for costs associated with repairing damages to the property 
owner's private infrastructure constructed along the 
international border that is a United States government right-
of-way. This section also requires the Department of Homeland 
Security to submit to the Committee a report six months after 
enactment and every six months following detailing the 
expenditures under this section.

Sec. 114. Border Patrol unit for Virgin Islands

    In order to ensure that the U.S. Virgin Islands are not an 
entry point for illegal entrants and narcotics, this section 
authorizes the establishment of at least one Border Patrol unit 
for the U.S. Virgin Islands by September 30, 2006.
    In light of the additional 2,000 new Border Patrol agents 
authorized in this Act, the Committee on Homeland Security 
directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a 
permanent Border Patrol unit in the United States Virgin 
Islands. There currently is no Border Patrol station within the 
U.S. Virgin Islands territory and the station responsible for 
covering this area is the Ramey Sector, located in Puerto Rico. 
The United States Virgin Islands has 175 miles of coastal 
borders and is a gateway to the continental U.S. This region 
has been increasingly exploited by human and drug smugglers to 
move people and narcotics, undetected, into the U.S. mainland. 
A dedicated Border Patrol unit will assist the Department of 
Homeland Security in gaining operational control over the 
border.

Sec. 115. Report on progress in tracking travel of Central American 
        gangs along the international border

    Every criminal organization that can exploit the border is 
viewed as a potential national security threat. In the last 
decade, the United States has experienced a dramatic increase 
in the number and size of transnational street gangs such as 
Mara Salvatrucha (commonly know as MS-13). These gangs have 
significant foreign-born membership and are frequently involved 
in human and contraband smuggling, immigration violations, and 
other crimes with a nexus to the border. Their members have 
been connected to violent crimes such as robbery, extortion, 
assault, rape and murder once inside the United States.
    Currently, the Department of Homeland Security (Department) 
maintains a close working relationship with Mexico, Honduras, 
El Salvador and Guatemala in the exchange of intelligence 
pertaining to MS-13 and other gang activity. This section 
requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to report to the 
Committee on Homeland Security on the Department's efforts and 
progress in tracking such violent gangs through Central 
America, Mexico and across our borders into the United States.

Sec. 116. Collection of data

    This section requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
beginning on October 1, 2006, to annually compile data on the 
following categories of information: (1) the number of 
unauthorized aliens who require medical care taken into custody 
by Border Patrol officials; (2) the number of unauthorized 
aliens with serious injuries or medical conditions Border 
Patrol officials encounter, and refer to local hospitals or 
other health facilities; (3) the number of unauthorized aliens 
with serious injuries or medical conditions who arrive at 
United States ports of entry and subsequently are admitted into 
the United States for emergency medical care; and (4) the 
number of unauthorized aliens described in subsections (2) and 
(3) who subsequently are taken into custody by the Department 
of Homeland Security.
    The number of illegal aliens in the United States is 
estimated to be 11 million. In Fiscal Year 2004, the Border 
Patrol apprehended 1.16 million people who illegally crossed 
the Nation's border; however, this figure represents only one-
third of the estimated three million people who illegally cross 
the border each year.
    The local communities into which these unauthorized persons 
arrive bear the burden of providing social services, including 
emergency medical care, to these unauthorized individuals. In 
September 2002, the United States/Mexico Border Counties 
Coalition released a report reviewing the cost of medical care 
provided to unauthorized aliens in border counties in the 
States of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. This 
study found that southwest border counties incurred over $200 
million in uncompensated emergency medical costs that were 
provided to undocumented aliens. The study further noted that 
the $200 million did not include all costs borne by border 
counties and local medical providers.
    In May 2004, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
issued a report on the costs incurred by hospitals for treating 
undocumented aliens. The GAO, however, was unable to determine 
the total costs because of a lack of data collected by the 
Federal government and other entities.
    Therefore, this provision would require U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) to annually collect statistics on 
unauthorized persons whom CBP personnel encounter, or take into 
custody, and subsequently refer for medical treatment. The 
provision also would require CBP to collect statistics on the 
number of unauthorized persons arriving at ports of entry whom 
subsequently are admitted into the United States for emergency 
medical treatment, and how many of those individuals CBP 
ultimately takes into custody.

Sec. 117. Deployment of radiation detection portal equipment at United 
        States ports of entry

    This section requires the Secretary of Homeland Security 
(Secretary) to install radiation portal monitors at United 
States ports of entry and other facilities as determined 
necessary by the Secretary for the purpose of screening all 
inbound cargo for radioactive and nuclear material. The 
Secretary shall determine the appropriate locations based on a 
risk assessment. Deployment decisions should be made cognizant 
of the effectiveness of existing technologies and the near term 
availability of more effective detection systems. This effort 
should be consistent with the global detection architecture 
currently under development by the Department of Homeland 
Security (Department).
    The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) was 
established in March 2005, within the Department as an inter-
agency office to serve as the primary entity in the United 
States Government to develop a global nuclear detection 
architecture, and acquire and support the deployment of a 
domestic nuclear detection system. It is testing advanced 
spectroscopic portals which can better identify radioactive 
materials and reduce false alarm rates. Domestic deployments 
will begin in 2006. The DNDO also conducts advanced research 
and development programs for radiation detection systems.
    The DNDO has oversight over the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) Radiation Portal Monitor Project (RPMP), which 
has been installing radiation portal monitors at international 
mail handling and express consignment courier facilities, 
seaports, airports, and land border crossings throughout the 
United States, in an effort to screen cargo and packages that 
could be utilized by terrorists in an attempt to smuggle a 
nuclear device or radioactive materials into the United States.

Sec. 118. Sense of Congress regarding the Secure Border Initiative

    This section provides a Sense of Congress that recommends 
that as the Secretary of Homeland Security, implements the 
Secure Border Initiative and other Department of Homeland 
Security (Department) initiatives to strengthen security along 
the border, the Secretary shall conduct outreach to and consult 
with members of the private sector, including business 
councils, associations, and small, minority-owned, women-owned, 
and disadvantaged businesses. The purpose of such outreach and 
consultation shall be to: (1) identify existing and emerging 
technologies, best practices, and business processes; (2) 
maximize economies of scale, cost-effectiveness, systems 
integration, and resource allocation; and (3) identify the most 
appropriate contract mechanisms to enhance financial 
accountability and mission effectiveness of border security 
programs.
    The Committee on Homeland Security (Committee) continues to 
receive input from the private sector--ranging from large 
corporations to small, disadvantaged businesses--about the 
difficulties they encounter working with the Department. The 
Committee recognizes that the Department could benefit 
significantly from the expertise of companies in the areas of 
best practices, financial accountability, and mission 
effectiveness as it develops and implements border security 
programs. The Committee recognizes further that the Department 
should conduct outreach to small, minority-owned, women-owned, 
and disadvantaged businesses.
    Through this process, the Department will be able to 
identify existing and emerging technologies, best practices, 
and business processes, to maximize economies of scale, cost-
effectiveness, systems integration, and resource allocation, 
and to identify the most appropriate contract mechanisms to 
enhance the financial accountability and mission effectiveness 
of border security programs.

         Title II--Border Security Cooperation and Enforcement


Sec. 201. Joint strategic plan for United States border reconnaissance 
        and support

    Subsection (a) requires the Secretary of Homeland Security 
and the Secretary of Defense to develop a joint strategic plan 
to increase the availability of Department of Defense 
surveillance equipment using their current authority under 
chapter 18 of title 10 U.S.C., to assist the Department of 
Homeland Security's along the international land and maritime 
borders of the United States.
    Subsection (b) requires the Secretary of Homeland Security 
and the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Congress 
within six months describing the Department of Defense will 
assist with border security surveillance operations of the 
Department of Homeland Security, provide a copy of the joint 
strategic plan, and describe the type of equipment and support 
to be provided under the joint strategic plan. To ensure that 
safety with the National Airspace System (NAS) is not 
compromised by the use of surveillance technologies, especially 
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), this section requires the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense 
to work with the Department of Transportation and the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) to address safety and airspace 
control issues associated with the use of UAVs.
    Subsection (c) provides that this section will not alter or 
amend the prohibition on the use of the Army or the Air Force 
as a posse comitatus under section 1385 of title 18 U.S.C.
    The purpose of this section is to expand upon the current 
relationship between the Department of Homeland Security and 
the Department of Defense Joint Task Force North (JTF-North). 
JTF-North, formerly known as Joint Task Force Six, currently 
provides support along the order through the collection, 
fusions and disseminations of actionable intelligence, 
surveillance support, and coordination of military training 
exercises to provide enhanced domain awareness on the border. 
The Committee supports these efforts and believes that 
additional surveillance coordination and support is essential 
for gaining operational control along the international land 
and maritime borders of the United States.

Sec. 202. Border security on protected lands

    Subsection (a) requires the Secretary of Homeland Security 
(Secretary) to assess border security vulnerabilities on 
Department of Interior land directly adjacent to the 
international land border of the United States to prevent the 
entry of terrorists and illicit materials.
    Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to provide additional 
border security assistance as necessary based on the evaluation 
in subsection (a).
    The purpose of this section is to enhance security along 
the 45 percent of the northern and southern border combined 
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior; this 
land includes national parks and tribal land. In most cases 
there are sensitive environmental and cultural considerations 
that add to the border security challenges in these areas. The 
Committee on Homeland Security believes that a focused review 
of the 800-plus miles under the management of the Department of 
Interior will be beneficial to the Secretary in increasing and 
adapting security enhancements on this land.

Sec. 203. Border security threat assessment and information sharing 
        test and evaluation exercise

    This section requires the Secretary of Homeland Security 
(Secretary) to conduct a training exercise on border security 
information sharing within one year after the date of 
enactment. This exercise shall be led by the Chief Intelligence 
Officer of the Department of Homeland Security (Department) in 
consultation with relevant border authorities and other 
appropriate federal, state, and local officials. The exercise 
shall involve officials from all levels of government and 
representatives from the private sector to test the Nation's 
capacity to detect and disrupt threats to the integrity of the 
border, and evaluate information sharing capabilities between 
the participants. The Secretary is required to report to the 
Committee on Homeland Security (Committee) with an assessment 
of the exercise.
    The purpose of this section is to evaluate and strengthen 
the Department's capabilities to share, analyze and act on 
border intelligence information to detect and disrupt cross-
border terrorist and criminal-related activities that threaten 
the United States. The Committee intends that this border 
security exercise be designed and implemented similar to past 
TOPOFF (Top Officials) exercise carried out by the Department.

Sec. 204. Border Security Advisory Committee

    The section requires the Secretary of Homeland Security 
(Secretary) to establish a Border Security Advisory Committee 
to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of 
Homeland Security on issues relating to border security and 
enforcement along the international land and maritime borders 
of the United States.
    In order to ensure a broad cross-section of perspectives 
about border security, the members of the Advisory Committee 
will be comprised of state and local government representatives 
from States that are located along the international land and 
maritime borders of the United States, community 
representatives from such states, and tribal authorities of 
such States.

Sec. 205. Permitted use of Homeland Security grant funds for border 
        security activities

    This section gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the 
authority to permit a State, local government, or Indian tribe 
to use the Federal funds that they have received under the 
State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Area Security 
Initiative, and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention 
Program for border security activities usually performed by a 
Federal agency but that the State, local, or Tribal governments 
have performed on behalf of the Federal government pursuant to 
an agreement.
    Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, many States, 
local, and Tribal governments have increasingly assumed some of 
the Federal government's terrorism preparedness duties. The 
Federal government should encourage States, local governments, 
and Indian tribes to assist the Federal government in providing 
security where it would otherwise be lacking. This section 
supports and encourages such a policy.
    This section does not permit grant recipients to use their 
Federal funds to supplant State, local, or tribal expenses. It 
is also limited in scope. States, localities, and tribes may 
defray the costs of assumed duties only with the Secretary's 
consent. Moreover, only States, localities, and tribes that 
have assumed Federal border security duties pursuant to an 
agreement with a Federal agency would be eligible to use their 
Federal funds for such purposes.

Sec. 206. Center of Excellence for Border Security

    This section directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
establish a university-based Center for Excellence for Border 
Security (Center) utilizing the same merit-review processes and 
procedures that the Science and Technology Directorate within 
the Department of Homeland Security (Department) has 
established for selecting such centers. This Center shall 
prioritize its activities on the basis of risk to address the 
most significant threats, vulnerabilities and consequences 
posed by the Nation's borders and border control systems. Among 
other things, this Center should conduct research, examine 
border security technologies and systems, and provide 
educational, technical, and analytical assistance in order for 
the Department to effectively secure the Nation's borders. The 
Committee on Homeland Security (Committee) also believes that 
this Center should examine the need to secure our borders from 
terrorists in a cost-effective manner, as well as how to 
achieve security without impeding legitimate trade and travel, 
or adversely impacting the economic and social stability of 
surrounding communities.
    The Committee notes that the Homeland Security Centers of 
Excellence program, administered by the Department's Science 
and Technology Directorate, is establishing university-based 
centers for multi-disciplinary research to address critical 
homeland security missions. Centers of Excellence bring 
together leading researchers, scientists, and technical experts 
to focus on the most significant terrorist threats facing our 
country. To ensure the Centers include the broadest range of 
expertise available nationally, the Undersecretary for Science 
and Technology shall, to the maximum extent practicable, review 
on an ongoing basis the applicant pool for the Centers of 
Excellence program to ensure a diverse cross-section of our 
Nation's higher educational institutions is represented.

Sec. 207. Sense of Congress regarding cooperation with Indian Nations

    This section is a sense of Congress that in developing the 
National Strategy for Border Security, the Department of 
Homeland Security should include recommendations from sovereign 
Indian Nations, consider whether a Tribal Smart Border working 
group is necessary, and ensure that border security agencies 
work cooperatively on issues involving Tribal lands.

                    Title III--Detention and Removal


Sec. 301. Mandatory detention for aliens apprehended at or between 
        ports of entry

    The Committee on Homeland Security (Committee) believes 
that in order to secure our Nation from terrorist attacks, it 
is necessary to detain all illegal aliens who are apprehended 
by the Border Patrol or at a United States port of entry, until 
they are admitted into or removed from the United States. The 
Committee has determined that this shift in current border 
security policy is necessary to address the dramatic increase 
in non-Mexicans, commonly referred to as ``Other Than 
Mexicans'' or OTMs, apprehended illegally entering the United 
States. The numbers of OTMs illegally crossing the border has 
grown steadily over the past several years. In the first ten 
months of Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, 135,097 OTMs were apprehended 
out of the 1.02 million undocumented aliens arrested by the 
Border Patrol. By contrast, in FY 2004, the number of OTMs 
apprehended was 75,392. In FY 2003, the figure was only 49,545.
    Among such OTMs are those from special interest countries 
and state sponsors of terrorism. Due to limited detention bed 
space, most OTMs apprehended by the Border Patrol are not 
detained, but rather are released into the United States with a 
formal Notice to Appear (NTA) before an Immigration Judge at a 
future date. Some estimate as many as 75 percent of OTMs that 
are released, fail to appear for their immigration hearing. For 
example, in FY 2004, 54,261 aliens nationwide did not appear in 
court as required by their NTAs. This number includes 530 from 
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 206 from the Islamic Republic 
of Iran, 164 from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, 93 from the 
Republic of Iraq, 80 from the Republic of Yemen, and 29 from 
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
    This ``catch and release'' policy has been viewed as 
providing an incentive for other aliens to enter the United 
States illegally. This section requires the Department of 
Homeland Security (Department) to end the ``catch and release'' 
policy by October 1, 2006. Between enactment of this Act and 
October 1, 2006, aliens who are released prior to their 
immigration removal hearing will be required to post bond of 
not less than $5,000 before release. The Committee recommends 
that any bond money collected during this interim period that 
is forfeited by the alien be used for border security purposes.
    The Committee recognizes that the majority of Mexican 
nationals apprehended by the Border Patrol who are not eligible 
to be admitted into the United States will withdraw their 
application for admission and depart from the United States 
immediately, in accordance with section 235(a)(4) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA; P.L. 104-208). Therefore, 
subpart (1) of this section provides for an exception to the 
mandatory detention requirement in subsection (a) for such 
Mexicans. However, Mexicans who withdraw their application for 
admission under section 235(a)(4) of the INA but do not 
immediately depart from the United States will be detained 
according to this section.
    Subpart (2) of this section provides an exception for 
certain aliens who are paroled into the United States under 
authority already granted to the Secretary of Homeland Security 
(Secretary) in section 212(d)(5)(A) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 
1182(d)(5)(A)). This section of the INA provides that parole 
will be granted by the Secretary to certain aliens on a case-
by-case basis for urgenthumanitarian reasons or significant 
public benefit. The Committee strongly urges the Secretary to carefully 
consider the decision to release an alien into the United States and 
recommends that such authority should be exercised in very limited 
circumstances.
    One such circumstance pertains to unaccompanied alien 
juveniles. While the Committee recognizes that certain 
juveniles may be dangerous criminals or pose a threat to 
national security and should not be paroled into the United 
States under this authority, the Committee also urges the 
Secretary to exercise this discretionary parole authority, as 
appropriate, for unaccompanied alien juveniles who are not 
violent juveniles or deemed a national security threat. 
Additionally, the Committee intends this section to apply to 
those aliens requiring urgent medical care.
    Subpart (1) of subsection (c) is included in this section 
for the purpose of clarifying that this section is not intended 
to change, alter, or amend any current statutes, regulations, 
policies, and/or practices pertaining to the detention of those 
aliens who are citizens or nationals of the Republic of Cuba 
(Cuba) who are apprehended at a United States port of entry or 
along the international land and maritime borders of the United 
States. As well, this section is also not intended to change or 
alter the current detention statutes, regulations, policies, or 
practices pertaining to those aliens who are citizens or 
nationals of Cuba who may be detained on criminal and related 
grounds or national security grounds.
    The Committee recognizes certain aliens may have valid 
claims for asylum in the United States. Subpart (2) of 
subsection (c) clarifies that this section in not intended to 
change, alter, or amend existing law concerning those aliens 
who indicate an intention to apply for asylum under section 208 
of the INA or express a fear of persecution to U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection personnel.

Sec. 302. Enhanced detention capacity

    This section authorizes an increase of 8,000 beds over 
existing detention bed space from Fiscal Year 2007 through 
2010, for a total increase of 32,000 over existing capacity in 
accordance with the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-796), which called for an 
additional 40,000 detention beds incrementally added between 
fiscal year 2006 through 2010.
    The Fiscal Year 2005 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 
109-13) combined with the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-90) provides 
an additional 3,870 detention beds. In addition to the 
approximately 18,000 beds the U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement Detention and Removal Office (DRO) says that it has 
funding for, the additional funding should provide DRO a total 
detention capacity of nearly 22,000. This is a positive step in 
improving detention capacity, but the Committee supports the 
authorization of 8,000 additional beds.

Sec. 303. Expansion and effective management of detention facilities

    This section requires the Secretary of Homeland Security 
(Secretary), subject to the availability of appropriations, to 
fully utilize all bed space owned or contracted by the 
Department of Homeland Security (Department) to maximum 
capacity. This section also requires the Secretary to utilize 
all other possible options to cost effectively increase 
detention capacity including temporary facilities, contracting 
with state and local jails, and secure alternatives to 
detention.
    In order to carry out sections 301 and 302 of this Act, the 
Committee on Homeland Security recognizes that additional bed 
space is necessary. However it is anticipated that the shift in 
detention policy as proscribed by this legislation will provide 
a decrease in the number of aliens that must be detained. The 
Secretary is therefore directed to improve bed space management 
within the Department and to also utilize temporary facilities, 
including secure tent facilities, contracting additional space 
with existing correctional facilities, and non-permanent 
facilities such as those used by evacuees and the Department of 
Defense for military deployments.

Sec. 304. Enhancing transportation capacity for unlawful aliens

    This section permits the Secretary of Homeland Security 
(Secretary) to enter into contracts with private companies for 
the purpose of providing secure transportation of aliens from 
the site of their apprehension to a Department of Homeland 
Security (Department) detention facility and other locations as 
directed by the Secretary. This section seeks to expand 
necessary resources as demands for transportation increase 
under the mandatory detention requirements in Section 301 of 
this Act. This section will help alleviate the high burden of 
administrative duties performed by Border Patrol agents, 
allowing these individuals to more fully focus on patrolling 
and apprehending aliens illegally crossing between United 
States ports of entry.
    The Department should award contracts only to those vendors 
who will provide low cost, effective and efficient service, and 
who can ensure the secure transport of aliens to detention 
facilities.

Sec. 305. Denial of admission to nationals of country denying or 
        delaying accepting alien

    Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA; 
P.L. 104-208) currently provides authority for the United 
States to meet the challenges posed by non-cooperative foreign 
governments. This provision in the INA states that if a foreign 
country denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien who is 
a citizen, subject, national, or resident of that country after 
requested by the Secretary, the Secretary of State can 
discontinue granting immigrant or nonimmigrant visas, or both, 
for individuals seeking to travel from that country to the 
United States. Although this statutory sanction has only been 
threatened by the State Department in the past, it has proven 
useful to elicit cooperation from foreign governments from such 
countries as Guyana, Vietnam, and Cambodia.
    A September 30, 2005 oversight hearing of the Subcommittee 
on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection and 
Cybersecurity of the Committee on Homeland Security 
(Committee), found that the Department of State has not used 
their current statutory authority to deny admission to 
nationals of countries that cause delays in this process. The 
Committee believes that failure to use such authority is 
creating an unnecessary vulnerability in our border security 
system. Therefore, this section provides the Secretary of 
Homeland Security with similar authority to refuse visas to 
nationals of any foreign country not cooperating with United 
States repatriation procedures. The Department of Homeland 
Security is the primary agency in the Federal government 
responsible for apprehension, detention, and removal of illegal 
aliens, and cannot fully carry out their mission without such 
authority.

Sec. 306. Report on financial burden of repatriation

    This section requires that the Secretary of Homeland 
Security (Secretary) submit a report to the Congress and to the 
Secretary of State detailing the costs associated with the 
repatriation of foreign nationals and provide recommendations 
to make the process more cost-effective. The report should 
detail both repatriation costs to the United Mexican States and 
Canada, as well as to non-contiguous countries. This report 
should not only include costs of commercial and charter 
flights, but also include employee costs, as well as detention 
costs for delayed or denying repatriation.
    As outlined in section 305, the Committee on Homeland 
Security (Committee) is concerned that foreign countries are 
delaying or denying repatriation of their own nationals and as 
a result, the Federal government is incurring significant 
costs. It is the Committee's belief that greater cooperation is 
necessary from foreign nations and this report will provide 
further evidence that such cooperation is necessary. It will 
also assist the Secretary in identifying foreign countries that 
delay or deny repatriation of their own nationals and support 
the use of the Secretary's 243(d) sanction authority.

Sec. 307. Training program

    When an alien is seeking entry into the United States or is 
apprehended by Border Patrol, the immigration officer (either a 
port of entry inspector or a Border Patrol agent) is required 
to ask the alien a series of ``protection questions'' to 
identify individuals that are afraid to return to their 
homecountry. If the alien expresses a fear of return in response to 
this interview, current law states that the alien is to be detained and 
interviewed by a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Asylum 
Officer. According to the Report on Asylum Seekers in Expedited Removal 
(February 2005) by the U.S. Commission on International Religious 
Freedom (USCIRF), 93 percent of aliens referred by an immigration 
officer for a credible fear determination were approved in Fiscal Years 
2000 through 2003. In the same report, the USCIRF raises concerns about 
the initial interview process by an immigration officer. This section 
requires the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to ensure the 
integrity and consistency of the inspection process by evaluating the 
current training provided to Border Patrol agents and port of entry 
inspectors.
    The Committee on Homeland Security (Committee) recognizes 
that the results of this study may indicate one of two 
possibilities: (1) Border Patrol agents and port of entry 
inspectors need to exhibit additional sensitivity to those 
seeking asylum or (2) Border Patrol agents and port of entry 
inspectors do not show sufficient discretion in determining a 
fear to be credible. It is of concern to the Committee that of 
the 93 percent of asylum-seekers granted asylum (mentioned 
above), it is estimated that only 25 percent of this number had 
legitimate claims. While the Committee is committed to ensuring 
that legitimate fears are recognized and those individuals 
protected within the borders of the United States, it also 
recognizes that at least two of the September 11, 2001, 
hijackers were erroneously granted asylum and allowed entry in 
to the United States.

Sec. 308. Expedited removal

    This section will codify the policy announcement made by 
the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) on September 14, 
2005, to expand Expedited Removal (ER) authority along every 
sector of the southwest border of the United States.
    The Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
Act of 1996 (IIRIRA; P.L. 104-208), provided the Attorney 
General with new authority for dealing with aliens who attempt 
to enter the United States by engaging in fraud or 
misrepresentation (e.g., falsely claiming to be a United States 
citizen or misrepresenting a material fact) or who arrive with 
fraudulent, improper, or no documents. Expedited Removal 
provisions were drafted in IIRIRA to target perceived abuses of 
the asylum process. By restricting the hearing, review and 
appeals process for aliens arriving at ports of entry, 
immigration officers may deny admission and order aliens 
without proper documentation to be summarily removed from the 
United States. When ER is used to remove an alien from the 
United States, the removal has the same legal effect as a 
formal order of deportation.
    Until 2004, ER had been used by the former Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) and now--the Department of 
Homeland Security (Department) in only very limited 
circumstances--for those aliens with obviously fraudulent 
documents who were arriving at United States air or sea ports 
of entry. Thus, when the Department announced its new policy in 
the Federal Register on August 11, 2004, it represented a 
fundamental shift in removal policy. For the first time, 
expedited removal would be used by Border Patrol agents who 
apprehended aliens between United States ports of entry. The 
policy is limited to nationals who are not from the United 
Mexican States or Canada, unless they have histories of 
criminal activity or immigration violations, and requires that 
the aliens must be apprehended within 14 days of entry into the 
United States and within 100 miles of the border.
    According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the 
average detention time for those subject to ER is approximately 
30 days, compared with an average detention time of 89 days for 
those who go through the formal immigration court system. The 
Department reports that it has successfully implemented ER in 
three Border Patrol Sectors along the southwest border: Tucson, 
Arizona; McAllen, Texas; and Laredo, Texas. Since September of 
2004, of the 34,000 undocumented aliens apprehended by Border 
Patrol from these three sectors subject to expedited removal, 
20,000 have been returned to their country of origin. As of 
September 14, 2005, all Border Patrol agents along the 
southwest border had received the necessary training to begin 
using ER.
    In compliance with current policy guidelines, mandatory ER 
will be applied only to those aliens who have spent less than 
14 days in the United States and are apprehended within 100 
miles of the United States border by Border Patrol agents. 
However, nothing in this provision limits the Secretary's 
ability to expand the use of ER within the limits of IIRIRA.
    The Secretary stated that ``[e]xpanding Expedited Removal 
gives Border Patrol agents the ability to break the cycle of 
illegal migration.'' By substantially reducing the time from 
arrest to removal of undocumented OTM's, the Department 
anticipates that ER will disrupt human smuggling along the 
southwest border.
    Mandatory implementation of the ER authority along the 
southwest border will inevitably result in an immediate 
increase in detentions and thus the need for detention 
capacity. The Department has indicated that it will seek 
funding to increase detention capacity through funds that will 
be made available in the Fiscal Year 2006 budget.

      Title IV--Effective Organization of Border Security Agencies


Sec. 401. Enhanced border security coordination and management

    On March 9, 2005, the Subcommittee on Management, 
Integration, and Oversight of the Committee on Homeland 
Security (Committee) held an oversight hearing entitled, ``CBP 
and ICE: Does the Current Organizational Structure Best Serve 
U.S. Homeland Security Interests?'' at which Members received 
testimony from six non-governmental witnesses. The hearing 
revealed that the current organizational structure of U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement (ICE) has created ``bureaucratic walls'' 
and has resulted in poor cooperation and information sharing 
between the two agencies. On December 13, 2004, a joint report 
by The Heritage Foundation and the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies entitled, ``DHS 2.0: Rethinking the 
Department of Homeland Security,'' recommended the merger of 
the two agencies.
    Due to unrelated events, both the Commissioner of CBP, 
Robert Bonner, and the former Assistant Secretary of ICE, 
Michael Garcia, have since resigned. Many have urged the 
Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to take this 
opportunity to reorganize the agencies and eliminate the 
bureaucratic problems identified by Congress and outside think 
tanks. However, on July 13, 2005, the Secretary announced his 
reorganization plans based on his ``Second Stage Review'' 
(2SR), but did not include a provision to merge CBP and ICE. 
Instead the Secretary recommended, among other things, that the 
Border and Transportation Security Directorate within the 
Department of Homeland Security (Department), which previously 
oversaw and coordinated CBP and ICE, be eliminated in its 
entirety and that both CBP and ICE directly report to the 
Secretary.
    The DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated a 
review to examine both the merits and potential negative 
consequences of merging CBP and ICE. Throughout the review 
process, the OIG attempted to determine whether the 
organizational and management problems they discovered were due 
to pre-existing conditions carried over from legacy Immigration 
and Naturalization Service and legacy Customs or if they were 
new problems arising from the implementation of the new 
structure under the Department's reorganization plan of 
February 2003. The OIG also considered whether the financial 
management problems at ICE contributed to their findings. After 
eliminating these factors, the OIG concluded that the current 
organizational structure has resulted in challenges in three 
main areas:
          (1) Coordination between apprehension and detention 
        and removal efforts;
          (2) Coordination between interdiction and 
        investigative efforts; and
          (3) Coordination of intelligence activities.
    While this section recognizes that there may be problems 
with coordination of activities, the committee does not call 
for the merger of these two agencies at this time but rather 
requires the Department to immediately and directly address the 
problems created by the separation of border security and 
immigration enforcement personnel, assets and missions 
including the following:
          (1) Creating a Secure Borders Program Office;
          (2) Creating a mechanism for sharing and coordinating 
        intelligence information and analysisat the 
headquarters and field office levels pertaining to counter-terrorism, 
border enforcement, immigration, human smuggling, human trafficking;
          (3) Establishing task forces to better coordinate 
        border, customs and immigration enforcement;
          (4) Coordinating Border Patrol with ICE on all cases 
        involving violations of United States' customs and 
        immigration laws;
          (5) Examining border security and customs and 
        immigration related resources; and
          (6) Creating measures and metrics for determining the 
        effectiveness of coordinated border enforcement 
        efforts.
    The Committee will continue to monitor the progress of the 
Department in addressing these issues. If there are no tangible 
improvements from such measures, the Committee will revisit the 
possibility of merging the two agencies during the next session 
of the 109th Congress.

Sec. 402. Office of Air and Marine Operations

    Since 1969, the Office of Air and Marine Operations (AMO) 
has served to defend our Nation from the smuggling of narcotics 
and other contraband through the air or in the territorial 
waters of the United States, supported the illegal immigration 
interdiction missions of the Border Patrol, Coast Guard, and 
other agencies, as well as provided aerial and marine support 
for drug and migrant smuggling investigations by U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Prior to the merger 
of AMO with similar Border Patrol assets into one single, new 
agency--``CBP Air''--AMO served as an aviation resource for 
Department of Homeland Security (Department)-wide missions. The 
merger intended to unify the aviation and marine resources of 
the border under one operational Departmental force. Instead, 
the aviation organization has become a single-mission Border 
Patrol air force. More than 60 percent of its assets and 
personnel are now in the day-to-day chain of command of the 
Border Patrol sector chiefs. Additionally, one year after the 
transfer, there are still no decisions on consolidation of the 
marine force.
    The Committee of Homeland Security (Committee) recognizes 
that a robust and coordinated air program within the Department 
is essential to effective and improved security along our 
Nation's borders by providing surveillance, tracking, 
deterrence, rapid response capabilities, and investigative 
support. By placing AMO directly under the authority of the 
Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary), this section of the 
bill seeks to ensure that AMO will be an effective partner with 
other Department agencies, primarily ICE and U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP). Together, these agencies are 
responsible for keeping out terrorists, illegal narcotics, 
weapons of mass destruction, and eliminating human smuggling 
across our borders. This organizational change will eliminate 
the need for AMO to seek bureaucratic approvals and agreements 
prior to responding to immediate threats to the Nation's 
homeland security.
    It is the intention of the Committee that the new AMO 
established under this section be comprised of all legacy AMO 
personnel, facilities, resources, and training programs.
    In September 2005, the Chairman of the Committee sent a 
letter to the Department requesting information on how the 
break up of AMO would impact missions Department-wide. The 
Department has failed to present a clear plan ensuring that AMO 
assets will continue to be available for other important 
security missions. Terrorists do not acknowledge or respect the 
boundaries of Border Patrol Sectors. Assets must therefore be 
immediately deployable to meet threats.
    Through the operation of its Air and Marine Operations 
Center (AMOC), in Riverside, California, AMO supports its own 
air and marine operations and those of other Federal, State, 
and local law enforcement agencies. The Committee has become 
aware of instances where important flight operations 
information was either not provided to the AMOC or not provided 
in a timely manner, compromising the safety of all aircraft 
operating in the area of such operations. This section would 
require advance flight information to be filed with AMOC to 
prevent accidents and duplication. Required information shall 
include the identifiable transponder, radar, and electronic 
emissions and codes originating aboard such aircraft or similar 
assets used in the aviation activity.
    The Committee also directs the Secretary to conduct a 
review of the assets and personnel currently assigned to AMO, 
and then prepare a report describing the additional assets, 
personnel, and other resources necessary for AMO to carry out 
its responsibilities under this Act. This report shall be used 
to develop a separate line item budget request for AMO.

Sec. 403. Transfer of Shadow Wolves

    The ``Shadow Wolves'' are a specialized unit of Customs 
Patrol Officers (CPO) created by Congress in 1972, to patrol 
the international land border within the Tohono O'odham Nation, 
a sovereign Indian Nation, located in the State of Arizona. The 
Shadow Wolves officers are Native Americans who combine modern 
technology and ancient tracking techniques to identify, pursue, 
and arrest smugglers along the 76 miles and 2.8 million acres 
within the Tohono O'odham Nation. This unit has proven to be 
one of the Nation's most valuable assets against narcotics 
smuggling. Each year the Shadow Wolves unit has seized more 
than 100,000 pounds of illegal narcotics.
    After the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, 
the Shadow Wolves unit was transferred to U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection and placed under the administrative control 
of the Tucson Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol. This 
reorganization has produced uncertainty and a lack of clear 
direction for the unit, negatively impacting operations and 
retention of personnel.
    This section transfers the Shadow Wolves to U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as the unit's work 
most closely resembles that of ICE Special Agents who 
investigate and attempt to close down large drug smuggling 
operations. In addition, this section sets the pay scale of the 
Shadow Wolves at the same rate as ICE Special Agents and 
specifies that the Chief Customs Patrol Officer will have a 
rank that is equivalent to a resident agent-in-charge of the 
Office of Investigations with ICE.
    This section also authorizes new units, similar to the 
Shadow Wolves, to operate on other similarly situated Indian 
reservations--such as the Akwesasne (Mohawk) Reservation in 
upstate New York.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



TITLE II--IMMIGRATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



   Chapter 4--Inspection, Apprehension, Examination, Exclusion, and 
Removal

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



 INSPECTION BY IMMIGRATION OFFICERS; EXPEDITED REMOVAL OF INADMISSIBLE 
                 ARRIVING ALIENS; REFERRAL FOR HEARING

  Sec.  235. (a) * * *
  (b) Inspection of Applicants for Admission.--
          (1) Inspection of aliens arriving in the united 
        states and certain other aliens who have not been 
        admitted or paroled.--
                  (A) Screening.--
                          (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          (iii) Application to certain other 
                        aliens.--
                                  (I) In general.--The 
                                [Attorney General] Secretary of 
                                Homeland Security may apply 
                                clauses (i) and (ii) of this 
                                subparagraph to any or all 
                                aliens described in subclause 
                                (II) as designated by the 
                                [Attorney General] Secretary of 
                                Homeland Security. Such 
                                designation shall be in the 
                                sole and unreviewable 
                                discretion of the [Attorney 
                                General] Secretary of Homeland 
                                Security and may be modified at 
                                any time.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                  (III) Exception.--
                                Notwithstanding subclauses (I) 
                                and (II), the Secretary of 
                                Homeland Security shall apply 
                                clauses (i) and (ii) of this 
                                subparagraph to any alien 
                                (other than an alien described 
                                in subparagraph (F)) who is not 
                                a national of a country 
                                contiguous to the United 
                                States, who has not been 
                                admitted or paroled into the 
                                United States, and who is 
                                apprehended within 100 miles of 
                                an international land border of 
                                the United States and within 14 
                                days of entry.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (F) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not 
                apply to an alien who is a native or citizen of 
                a country in the Western Hemisphere with whose 
                government the United States does not have full 
                diplomatic relations and who arrives by 
                aircraft at a port of entry or in any manner at 
                or between a land border port of entry.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                      PENALTIES RELATED TO REMOVAL

  Sec.  243. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(d) Discontinuing Granting Visas to Nationals of Country 
Denying or Delaying Accepting Alien.--On being notified by the 
Attorney General that the government of a foreign country 
denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien who is a 
citizen, subject, national, or resident of that country after 
the Attorney General asks whether the government will accept 
the alien under this section, the Secretary of State shall 
order consular officers in that foreign country to discontinue 
granting immigrant visas or nonimmigrant visas, or both, to 
citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of that country 
until the Attorney General notifies the Secretary that the 
country has accepted the alien.]
  (d) Denial of Admission to Nationals of Country Denying or 
Delaying Accepting Alien.--Whenever the Secretary of Homeland 
Security determines that the government of a foreign country 
has denied or unreasonably delayed accepting an alien who is a 
citizen, subject, national, or resident of that country after 
the alien has been ordered removed, the Secretary, after 
consultation with the Secretary of State, may deny admission to 
any citizen, subject, national, or resident of that country 
until the country accepts the alien who was ordered removed.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                     HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is 
as follows:

Sec.  1. Short title; table of contents.
     * * * * * * *

       TITLE IV--DIRECTORATE OF BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

     * * * * * * *

                  Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec.  421. Transfer of certain agricultural inspection functions of the 
          Department of Agriculture.
     * * * * * * *
Sec.  431. Office of Air and Marine Operations.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 103. OTHER OFFICERS.

  (a) Deputy Secretary; Under Secretaries.--There are the 
following officers, appointed by the President, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (9) Not more than [12] 13 Assistant Secretaries.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE IV--DIRECTORATE OF BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 431. OFFICE OF AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS.

  (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department an 
Office of Air and Marine Operations (referred to in this 
section as the ``Office'').
  (b) Assistant Secretary.--The Office shall be headed by an 
Assistant Secretary for Air and Marine Operations who shall be 
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent 
of the Senate, and who shall report directly to the Secretary. 
The Assistant Secretary shall be responsible for all functions 
and operations of the Office.
  (c) Missions.--
          (1) Primary mission.--The primary mission of the 
        Office shall be the prevention of the entry of 
        terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of 
        terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband into the 
        United States.
          (2) Secondary mission.--The secondary mission of the 
        Office shall be to assist other agencies to prevent the 
        entry of terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments 
        of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband into the 
        United States.
  (d) Air and Marine Operations Center.--
          (1) In general.--The Office shall operate and 
        maintain the Air and Marine Operations Center in 
        Riverside, California, or at such other facility of the 
        Office as is designated by the Secretary.
          (2) Duties.--The Center shall provide comprehensive 
        radar, communications, and control services to the 
        Office and to eligible Federal, State, or local 
        agencies (as determined by the Assistant Secretary for 
        Air and Marine Operations), in order to identify, 
        track, and support the interdiction and apprehension of 
        individuals attempting to enter United States airspace 
        or coastal waters for the purpose of narcotics 
        trafficking, trafficking of persons, or other terrorist 
        or criminal activity.
  (e) Access to Information.--The Office shall ensure that 
other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, the 
Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, and such 
other Federal, State, or local agencies, as may be determined 
by the Secretary, shall have access to the information gathered 
and analyzed by the Center.
  (f) Requirement.--Beginning not later than 180 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall require 
that all information concerning all aviation activities, 
including all airplane, helicopter, or other aircraft flights, 
that are undertaken by either the Office, United States 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Customs and 
Border Protection, or any subdivisions thereof, be provided to 
the Air and Marine Operations Center. Such information shall 
include the identifiable transponder, radar, and electronic 
emissions and codes originating and resident aboard the 
aircraft or similar asset used in the aviation activity.
  (g) Timing.--The Secretary shall require the information 
described in subsection (f) to be provided to the Air and 
Marine Operations Center in advance of the aviation activity 
whenever practicable for the purpose of timely coordination and 
conflict resolution of air missions by the Office, United 
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and United States 
Customs and Border Protection.
  (h) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to alter, impact, diminish, or in any way undermine 
the authority of the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration to oversee, regulate, and control the safe and 
efficient use of the airspace of the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     Committee Jurisdiction Letters

                       Committee on Armed Services,
                                  House of Representatives,
                                  Washington, DC, December 6, 2005.
Hon. Peter King,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
Adams LOC, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: On November 17, 2005, the Committee on 
Homeland Security ordered H.R. 4312, the ``Border Security and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005'' to be reported. As you know 
certain provisions in H.R. 4312 fall within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Armed Services.
    Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4312 and 
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, 
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over these 
provisions the Committee on Armed Services will waive further 
consideration of H.R. 4312. In the event of a conference with 
the Senate on this bill, the Committee on Armed Services 
reserves the right to seek the appointment of conferees.
    I would appreciate the inclusion of this letter and a copy 
of the response in your Committee's report on H.R. 4312 and the 
Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the 
House floor.
    With best wishes.
            Sincerely,
                                             Duncan Hunter,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                            Committee on Homeland Security,
                                  Washington, DC, December 6, 2005.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
expressing the Armed Services Committee's jurisdictional 
interest in H.R. 4312, the ``Border Security and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2005.'' I appreciate your willingness to 
waive further consideration of the bill in order to expedite 
further proceedings. I agree that, by waiving further 
consideration, the Armed Services Committee does not waive any 
jurisdiction it may have over any provisions of the bill.
    As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
and this response as part of the Committee on Homeland 
Security's report and the Congressional Record during 
consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank you 
for your cooperation.
            Sincerely,
                                             Peter T. King,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Ways and Means,
                                  Washington, DC, December 6, 2005.
Hon. Peter T. King,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
Adams Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman King: I am writing concerning H.R. 4312, the 
``Border Security and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005,'' which 
the Committee on Homeland Security ordered reported on November 
17, 2005.
    As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has 
jurisdiction over trade and customs revenue functions. A range 
of provisions in H.R. 4312 and its report affect the 
Committee's jurisdiction, including: requiring reports and 
analyses covering these trade and revenue functions at the 
border; setting new requirements for inspectors and ensuring 
they retain customs revenue expertise; and establishing 
requirements related to the involvement of U.S. exporters and 
importers in setting policy recommendations. Additionally, the 
bill contains language that closely reflects that included in a 
customs authorization bill passed out of the Committee on Ways 
and Means last year (H.R. 4418). However, in order to expedite 
this bill for floor consideration, the Committee will forgo 
action. This is being done with the understanding that it does 
not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the 
appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on 
this bill or similar legislation.
    I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
this understanding with respect to H.R. 4312, and would ask 
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
included in your Committee Report to the bill.
            Best regards,
                                               Bill Thomas,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                            Committee on Homeland Security,
                                  Washington, DC, December 6, 2005.
Hon. William Thomas,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
expressing the Ways and Means Committee's jurisdictional 
interest in H.R. 4312, the ``Border Security and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2005.'' I appreciate your willingness to 
forgo action on the bill in order to expedite further 
proceedings, and agree that, by not seeking a sequential 
referral, the Ways and Means Committee does not waive any 
jurisdiction it may have over provisions of the bill.
    As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
and this response as part of the Committee on Homeland 
Security's report on H.R. 4312. Thank you for your cooperation.
            Sincerely,
                                             Peter T. King,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                  Washington, DC, December 6, 2005.
Hon. Peter T. King,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
Adams Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the 
jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R. 
4312, the Border Security and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005.
    Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4312 and 
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, 
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over a number of 
provisions of the bill, I do not intend to request referral. 
This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding 
that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego the 
referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction 
of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
    I appreciate your willingness to address several concerns 
that I have, from my committee's perspective, with the 
legislation. Some were addressed during your markup of the bill 
and I am pleased that you are agreeable to a manager's 
amendment when the bill is considered on the Floor to satisfy 
the remaining concerns.
    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also 
asks that you support our request to be conferees on the 
provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-
Senate conference. I would appreciate it if you would include a 
copy of this letter and of your response acknowledging our 
jurisdictional interest in the Committee Report and as part of 
the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill by 
the House.
    Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and your 
leadership in homeland security matters.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Don Young,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                            Committee on Homeland Security,
                                  Washington, DC, December 6, 2005.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
expressing the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's 
jurisdictional interest in H.R. 4312, the ``Border Security and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005.'' I appreciate your 
willingness not to request a sequential referral of the bill in 
order to expedite further proceedings, and acknowledge the 
agreement I made to work with you to address your Committee's 
remaining concerns. I agree that, by not requesting a referral, 
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee does not waive 
any jurisdiction it may have over any provisions of the bill. 
In addition, I agree to support representation for your 
Committee during the House-Senate conference on any provisions 
determined to be within your Committee's jurisdiction.
    As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
and this response as part of the Committee on Homeland 
Security's report and the Congressional Record during 
consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank you 
for your cooperation.
            Sincerely,
                                             Peter T. King,
                                                          Chairman.

                    DISSENTING AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                              Introduction

    The Committee reported H.R. 4312, the ``Border Security and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005,'' on Thursday, November 17, 
2005. This is the first significant piece of legislation before 
the Committee since Representative Peter King (R-NY) became 
Chairman of the Committee. While we commend the Chairman in his 
efforts to make this legislation bipartisan by working with 
Representative Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and including ideas of 
other Minority Members, the final legislation is lacking and 
contains some provisions that are problematic and do not 
contribute to the security of our nation.
    The effort of this Committee to address border security, 
one of the biggest homeland security challenges of our time, in 
a bipartisan and thoughtful way should be commended. We thank 
our colleagues across the aisle for working with us to maintain 
open dialogue in the Committee, beyond the rhetoric and 
partisanship that often accompanies discussion of this issue. 
Unfortunately, because of jurisdictional turf battles and the 
desire to rush a bill through Congress, the bill voted out of 
Committee is incomplete and does not address the toughest 
issues with border security. Albert Einstein once said, ``we 
can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used 
when we created them.'' Yet, that is what the Committee did 
this week. We talked about technology, fences, personnel, and 
equipment, but we ignored the biggest problem in the room--
comprehensive immigration reform. If our nation is to be 
secure, Congress must change our piece-meal approach and start 
solving the real problem at our borders.
    An estimated seven to twelve million undocumented 
immigrants reside illegally in the United States. Many seek to 
cross our borders in a desperate plight for economic survival. 
Others flee persecution. Others overstay their legal visas, 
sometimes to remain with family already in the United States. 
To ensure that our homeland security efforts focus on 
terrorists and those who come into our nation with criminal 
intent, action must be taken to address the presence of these 
millions of people. Legislation to ensure that these 
individuals do not remain hidden underground will help us focus 
on the few that are intent on doing harm to our nation.
    We realize that many citizens are concerned about the 
number of individuals who are entering this country illegally. 
Comprehensive immigration reform would allow us to address this 
issue. Such legislation, for example, could emphasize the use 
of automated employer verification systems that assist 
employers in their efforts to check the status of jobseekers. 
These systems would at least allow the nation to protect those 
employment sites most at-risk and vulnerable to attack--
critical infrastructure--from terrorists who might try to gain 
access to such sites under the guise of seeking employment. 
Lastly, it would be wrong for any border security bill to 
ignore the plight of vulnerable populations, such as 
unaccompanied undocumented immigrant minors, victims of 
trafficking, refugees and asylum seekers. These groups do not 
represent hotbeds for terrorism, but rather people in need of 
protection.
    Only when Congress addresses these key issues will we end 
the continuous immigration enforcement failures that we have 
experienced over the past two decades, despite the passage of 
several immigration enforcement measures. Lastly, while 
Congress can pass laws, it is up to the Administration to fully 
enforce the law. Members from both sides of the aisle agreed 
during debate that this was not happening.
    Before discussing the substance of the legislation that was 
before the Committee, we would like to note our concerns about 
narrow interpretations of the Committee's jurisdiction taken 
during the mark-up. The National Commission on Terrorist 
Attacks Upon the United States (``9/11 Commission'') 
specifically found that Congress'' fractured oversight of the 
various federal intelligence, law enforcement, and security 
agencies prior to September 11, 2001 prevented us from 
uncovering many of the systemic security problems that were 
exploited by al Qaeda. The Commission recommended that Congress 
designate a single committee with homeland security authority 
in the House and Senate. With the creation of the House 
Homeland Security Committee at the beginning of this year, we 
hoped this recommendation was fulfilled.
    Unfortunately, this mark-up demonstrated that homeland 
security jurisdiction remains fractured and subject to 
arbitrary interpretation. Points of order were sustained 
against several amendments offered by the Minority, while 
amendments addressing similar issues by the Majority were found 
in order. For example, an amendment offered by Representative 
Dan Lungren (R-CA) that would affect the expedited removal of 
undocumented immigrants in the U.S. caught as far as hundred 
miles away from the border was found to be within the 
Committee's jurisdiction. As both Representatives Lofgren and 
Sanchez noted during the mark-up, Disneyland is almost a 
hundred miles away from the California border. Very few people 
in this country would argue that Disneyland is on our nation's 
border. Yet the Chairman found Disneyland to be within our 
jurisdiction, while ruling out of our jurisdiction several 
amendments offered by Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) that 
would have affected the detention rights of undocumented 
immigrants in the U.S., including those at the border.
    The logic in the difference between these two rulings is 
difficult to uncover. At the very least, we believe many of 
these Democratic amendments were in the joint jurisdiction of 
the Homeland Security Committee and other committees. In the 
future, we hope the Majority will adhere to a more reasonable 
interpretation of the Committee's jurisdiction in the interests 
of preventing the kind of fractured authority the 9/11 
Commission condemned.
    H.R. 4312, even as amended during mark-up, does not contain 
many initiatives offered by the Minority that would have 
provided the Department of Homeland Security with the 
personnel, equipment, training, support, and authority needed 
to truly secure the border. In the end, this legislation 
requires extensive new planning, but gives little tangible 
assistance.
    Nonetheless, we applaud Chairman King for including 
Representative Sanchez' call for the Department to complete a 
National Strategy for Border Security. Beginning with H.R. 
5130, ``The Secure Border Act,'' introduced in the 108th 
Congress, Democrats on the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security urged the Republican Congress to force the 
Administration and the Department to produce a comprehensive 
border security plan, something it has yet to do. By producing 
a comprehensive plan, the Department will finally have to 
decide what mix of personnel, equipment, technology, and other 
assets are needed to secure the border. In April of this year, 
Ms. Sanchez and Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) 
offered an amendment to H.R. 1817, the Homeland Security 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, which would have 
required the development of a comprehensive land border 
security strategy. That amendment was rejected by the Majority. 
This Committee has finally done the right thing by requiring 
the Department to plan for a long-term approach to border 
security.
    The Minority also appreciates Chairman King's decision to 
include other provisions in H.R. 4312 that have been advocated 
by our Members for several years, including making 
interoperable the fingerprint databases used by the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation and the Customs and Border Patrol and 
creating a Center of Excellence to study border security.
    Additionally, we fully support the en bloc amendment 
offered by Chairman King. This amendment includes provisions 
advocated by the Minority including:
          (1) Creating a United States Border Patrol Unit in 
        the U.S. Virgin Islands;
          (2) Expressing the Sense of Congress that Tribal 
        governments should be involved in planning the National 
        Strategy for Border Security;
          (3) Creating an intelligence assessment of the threat 
        posed by terrorists that may try to infiltrate the 
        nation's borders;
          (4) Improving communications with state, local, and 
        tribal governments along the border; and
          (5) Directing the Secretary to develop and implement 
        a comprehensive plan to protect the northern and 
        southern land borders of the United States and address 
        the different challenges each border faces.
    The Minority also appreciates several amendments offered by 
the Majority that were included in the en bloc amendment, 
including the amendment offered by Representative Mike Rogers 
(R-AL) expressing the Sense of Congress that small, 
disadvantaged, minority-owned, and woman-owned businesses 
should be better involved in the Department's border security 
work.
    Despite these positive steps included in the legislation, 
it still does not address several key areas where the 
Department needs more resources and authority to secure the 
border, including the following:
           Dedicated funding to hire more Border Patrol 
        agents and customs inspectors and to obtain more beds 
        for detaining undocumented immigrants at risk of 
        flight;
           Better training for agents and inspectors 
        working at the border and incentives to keep them from 
        leaving public service;
           More high-tech equipment to monitor and 
        secure the borders and protect the people working 
        there;
           Strengthened programs to speed the passage 
        of frequent travelers going through land border 
        crossings; and
           More authority to penalize smuggling and 
        trafficking of undocumented immigrants that result in 
        death.
    Additionally, this legislation mandates the removal of some 
categories of undocumented individuals who are captured along 
the border without considering the need for exceptions for 
certain humane reasons. While we support the general principle 
that immigrants caught at the border entering our nation 
illegally should be swiftly removed, we recognize that the 
Secretary should have adequate authority in certain cases where 
removal can be inhumane, such as for victims of sex 
trafficking.
    Perhaps our greatest disappointment in H.R. 4312 is that it 
represents a failed opportunity to correct major flaws in the 
relationship between Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
and Customs and Border Enforcement (CBP), the Department's 
agencies primarily responsible for patrolling the border and 
conducting customs and immigration enforcement. The day before 
the mark-up of this legislation, the Subcommittee on 
Management, Integration, and Oversight held a hearing on the 
Office of Inspector General's new report finding a 
dysfunctional relationship between ICE and CBP. The report 
recommended the merger of ICE and CBP as the best solution to 
these problems. Despite having a draft copy of the Inspector 
General's report before he announced his recent reorganization 
of the Department, Secretary Chertoff chose not to merge ICE 
and CBP.
    At the markup, and consistent with the Inspector General's 
recommendation, Representative Kendrick B. Meek (D-PL) offered 
an amendment to correct the broken working relationship between 
these agencies by merging them. The Chairman indicated at mark-
up that he is not yet convinced a merger of ICE and CBP is 
necessary, and prefers to wait to observe the effect of the 
Secretary's efforts to reorganize their relationship. However, 
after holding two hearings on ICE and CBP's problems working 
together, reviewing the Inspector General's report, and reading 
numerous letters from frustrated ICE and CBP agents, we are not 
sure how much longer we should wait for the Department to fix 
these problems. We believe the Committee must keep this issue 
at the top of its agenda until these problems are resolved.

 ``Comprehensive Border Security Act of 2005''--Democratic Substitute 
                                  Bill

    The Democratic substitute to H.R. 4312, the ``Comprehensive 
Border Security Act of 2005,'' better secures the border by 
taking steps in three main areas insufficiently addressed in 
the base bill: (1) stronger planning and coordination; (2) more 
accountability for struggling efforts to screen travelers and 
speed commerce and travel; and (3) genuine commitments to 
provide the resources, training, and incentives needed by the 
people working everyday to secure the border.
    The Democratic substitute provides for stronger border 
security planning and coordination by requiring the development 
and implementation of a national border security strategy that 
includes specific information on the personnel, infrastructure, 
technology and other resources needed to secure the border, 
including surveillance equipment necessary to monitor the 
entire northern and southern borders. The substitute also 
strengthens planning and coordination by establishing an Office 
of Tribal Security to help the Department coordinate with 
tribes along the border who are overwhelmed by illegal border 
crossings. It also creates northern and southern border 
coordinators who can be held accountable for the security of 
the border in their respective geographic areas.
    The Democratic substitute strengthens accountability for 
programs designed to screen travelers and speed commerce and 
travel by requiring regular reports on Smart Border accords 
with Mexico; expanding expedited land border traveler programs 
by putting their enrollment systems in more locations and 
reducing fees, creating a North American travel card usable by 
certain low-risk American, Canadian, and Mexican travelers; 
creating a pilot of a system for prescreening of U.S.-bound 
passengers before they get on a plane; developing a new tool to 
replace the Department's antiquated method for checking names 
against terrorist databases; requiring on-site verification of 
the security measures taken by entities participating in the 
Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) program 
and the Free and Secure Trade (FAST) program; and requiring 
annual reporting on the implementation of the ``One Face at the 
Border'' initiative.
    Finally, the Democratic substitute makes genuine 
commitments to provide the tools and authority needed to better 
secure the border, including the following provisions not 
included in H.R. 4312:
           Authorizing an actual dollar figure to hire, 
        equip, and train the 2,000 new Border Patrol agents per 
        year recommended by the Intelligence Reform and 
        Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (a law also known as 
        the ``9/11 Act'' because it was passed to fulfill the 
        recommendations of the 9/11 Commission);
           Authorizing the exact amount needed to fund 
        the additional 1,600 border inspectors over the next 4 
        years called for in the 9/11 Act;
           Requiring the use of at least 1,080 full-
        time import specialists in fiscal year 2007 to put more 
        experienced inspectors on the front-lines of customs 
        inspections;
           Providing Border Patrol agents with the 
        modern radios, global positioning systems, night vision 
        equipment, body armor and weapons they need to do their 
        job and stay safe.
           Providing incentives to U.S. Customs and 
        Border Protection agents and inspectors to continue 
        their training after they leave the academy, especially 
        language training;
           Providing $1 billion a year to reimburse 
        states for the costs they incur in detaining and 
        incarcerating criminal undocumented immigrants in the 
        U.S.; and
           Creating a $1 billion trust fund for 
        renewing badly decaying infrastructure at ports of 
        entry which threaten security and slow commerce, such 
        as out-of-date narrow lanes and crossings.
    Finally, the Democratic substitute increased the penalties 
for smuggling and trafficking of undocumented immigrants that 
result in death.
    Despite the tangible impact the Democratic substitute would 
have on border security, it was rejected by the Majority. We 
then offered a number of amendments to each title of the bill, 
some of which were contained in the Democratic substitute and 
others that were only offered as stand-alone measures.

                Title I--Securing United States Borders


 LONG-SOUGHT DEMOCRATIC PROPOSAL ON A NATIONAL BORDER SECURITY STRATEGY

    As noted earlier, the Minority is pleased that H.R. 4312 
includes a provision directing the Department to establish a 
National Border Security Strategy. We have pushed this proposal 
since last Congress and were repeatedly rebuffed in our 
efforts. The inclusion of this provision in H.R. 4312 
demonstrates that the Majority finally appreciates the need for 
the Department to develop a comprehensive vision to execute the 
enormous task of securing the Nation's borders. Democrats 
strongly support this provision, and once the strategy is 
issued, this Committee should hold the Department accountable 
for implementing it.
    Democrats are pleased that the Majority accepted an 
amendment to Title I, offered by Ranking Member Thompson, to 
ensure that small, disadvantaged, women-owned, and minority-
owned businesses have access to future border security 
technology contracts. This amendment built on language in H.R. 
4312 directing the Office of Inspector General to review such 
border security contracts to ensure that financial management 
controls are in place.

 LOSS OF EXPERTISE AND LACK OF TRAINED PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT AT THE 
                                 BORDER

    The Minority is also pleased that H.R. 4312 directs the 
Department to report to Congress regularly on the status of the 
Administration's ``One Face at the Border Initiative.'' 
Democrats have long expressed concern that One Face at the 
Border has led to an erosion of specialized knowledge in 
customs, immigration and agriculture inspections at the border. 
With the inclusion of this reporting requirement, it appears 
that the Majority is finally recognizing this issue.
    It is essential that we develop and retain inspectors and 
Border Patrol agents with the expertise to make complicated 
judgments about which people and cargo should be permitted to 
enter the country. The Minority observes that this population 
of experts is dwindling and faces severe morale problems, as 
demonstrated in a recent poll of 1,000 Border Patrol Agents 
which revealed that two-thirds of the Border Patrol Agents did 
not believe that they had the ``tools, support, and training'' 
necessary ``to be effective in stopping potential terrorists 
and to protect the country from terrorist threats.''
    The Majority did address some of these concerns by 
including provisions that authorize hiring the number of Border 
Patrol agents called for in the 9/11 Act, but it did not 
provide a specific dollar figure to do so. Moreover, the 
Majority rejected other amendments that would have provided 
more of the tools, support, and training needed by the people 
trying to secure our border. For example, Representative 
Jackson-Lee and Ranking Member Thompson offered an amendment 
providing specific amounts to hire the inspectors and Border 
Patrol agents called for in the 9/11 Act and authorizes funding 
to give them the radios, night-vision equipment, and weapons 
that they need to safely do their job. The amendment also 
enhanced foreign language training for border agents and 
inspectors in order to give them the skills they need to 
communicate with the populations they encounter on a regular 
basis. Finally, the amendment provided incentives to improve 
the morale of border inspectors, such as new student loan 
payments and retirement incentives. The Minority is 
disappointed that this important amendment was rejected.

 SPREADING THIN HOMELAND SECURITY AND FIRST RESPONDER PROGRAMS TO MEET 
                         BORDER SECURITY NEEDS

    The Minority is deeply concerned with an amendment 
introduced by Representative McCaul (R-TX), which the Committee 
passed on a narrow vote, which allows states to divert their 
homeland security grant funds to pay for border security 
functions that would normally be carried out by federal 
agencies. While we share the concern that an increasing amount 
of local government funds in border states are having to be 
spent enforcing federal immigration laws, we do not support 
forcing states and local governments to forgo funding they need 
to meet their traditional law enforcement and first responder 
missions. We note that the State Homeland Security Grant 
program, one of the grants affected by the McCaul amendment, 
has already been cut in half, from $1.1 billion in FY 2005 to 
$550 million in FY 2006. Spreading thin the remaining dollars 
inthis program will only weaken state and local government 
first responder and homeland security preparedness. We note that the 
International Association of Fire Fighters opposed the McCaul amendment 
in a letter stating: ``If money is needed for immigration enforcement, 
then Congress should provide funding to the appropriate programs. 
Diverting funds from fire departments is not the solution.'' In 
addition, we also agree with the National Volunteer Fire Council, who 
also opposed the McCaul amendment in a letter stating that, ``using 
funds designated to strengthen first response preparedness to pay for 
border enforcement activities is not a solution.'' Both letters were 
included into the Committee record.

   DEMOCRATIC PROPOSAL TO FIX WATCH LIST DATABASES USED AT THE BORDER

    Other vital provisions in H.R. 4312 are very similar to 
proposals offered by the Minority in the past, such as a 
provision to require connectivity between the IAFIS and IDENT 
databases used for watch-listing purposes by the FBI and the 
Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), respectively. Right now the 
FBI's IAFIS system uses 10 fingerprints while the CBP's IDENT 
system uses two fingerprints, leading to a lack of 
interoperability between the two systems. Criminals or even 
terrorists could enter the country because although they are 
wanted by the FBI and listed in IAFIS, that data is not always 
searchable when they are screened at the border by CBP 
personnel using the IDENT system. Representative Norm Dicks (D-
WA) has argued for over two years that this security gap should 
be closed through a mandate that the IDENT database be made a 
10 print system interoperable with IAFIS. We are glad the 
Majority finally accepted this view. However, we are 
disappointed that funds were not authorized to cover the 
transition costs of moving the IDENT database from a two to 10 
fingerprint system.

   STOPPING TERRORISTS BEFORE THEY BOARD PLANES TO THE UNITED STATES

    In addition to ensuring that watch lists can actually work 
when they are used, the Minority remains concerned that watch 
lists are not always used when appropriate. Representative 
Peter DeFazio (D-OR) offered an amendment to ensure that the 
Department begins using technology to ensure that U.S.-bound 
passengers are checked against watch lists for admissibility 
before their flights depart. The Department's current policy of 
requiring passenger information to be transmitted no later than 
15-minutes after a flight departs is inadequate in the post-9/
11 era. Representative DeFazio withdrew his amendment after the 
Majority agreed to work with him to craft bipartisan language 
to close this security gap for inclusion in the Manager's 
amendment to be offered when H.R. 4312 is considered in the 
full House. We look forward to continued discussion on Mr. 
DeFazio's proposed amendment in the coming weeks.

STOPPING TERRORISTS FROM BRINGING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION INTO THE 
                             UNITED STATES

    Two amendments offered by Democrats addressed the risk that 
a terrorist will pass through a port of entry with a device 
that can inflict mass casualties, such as a chemical, 
biological, radiological or nuclear weapon.
    The first amendment, offered by Representative Edward 
Markey (D-MA), would require the Department to complete 
validations of companies that receive the benefit of expedited 
cargo clearance under the Free and Secure Trade Initiative 
(FAST) or the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism 
program (C-TPAT). Regrettably, this amendment failed narrowly. 
We remain concerned about the verification process in these 
programs, and hope the Majority will work with us to address 
this issue.
    We are extremely pleased that the second amendment, offered 
by Representative James Langevin (D-RI), Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attacks, 
was accepted during the markup. Congressman Langevin's 
amendment requires the Department to complete the deployment of 
radiation portal monitors one year after the date of enactment 
and authorizes the funds needed to complete this deployment. 
The Department already has a six-phase plan to deploy radiation 
portal monitors at U.S. border crossings, airports, and 
seaports to screen inbound cargo containers. The Department's 
six-phase plan has a total cost of $496 million, of which $404 
million has been appropriated through FY 2006. Jay Ahearn, 
Assistant Commissioner for Operations, Customs and Border 
Protection, testified before the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security on May 5, 2004 that if provided with the remaining $92 
million, CBP could complete the deployment of portal monitors 
within a year. Currently, many of the nation's major seaports, 
southern border crossings, airports, and other locations 
designated by the Department do not have these monitors. With 
the addition of Mr. Langevin's amendment, H.R. 4312 will close 
that security gap.

            ADDRESSING TRIBAL AND TERRITORY BORDER SECURITY

    Democrats are pleased that the Majority accepted two 
amendments offered by the Minority to address border security 
issues on Tribal lands and in territories. The Majority 
accepted an amendment offered by Representative Donna 
Christensen (D-VI) to provide the U.S. Virgin Islands with a 
Border Patrol Unit. It also accepted an amendment, offered by 
Ranking Member Thompson, expressing the Sense of Congress that 
Native Americans should be included in the process for 
developing and implementing the National Strategy for Border 
Security. Many Native American tribes along the border, such as 
the Tohono O'odham Nation in Arizona, are overwhelmed by 
thousands of immigrants illegally crossing their lands on a 
daily basis. On the Northern Border, the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe 
of New York has combated smugglers and other criminals crossing 
their borders.

         Title II--Border Security Cooperation and Enforcement


        BETTER COORDINATING MILITARY ACTIVITIES ALONG THE BORDER

    The Democratic Members of the Committee were generally 
satisfied with section 201 of H.R. 4312, which would require 
the Secretary of Homeland Security and Secretary of Defense to 
develop a joint strategic plan to increase the availability and 
use of Department of Defense equipment to assist with the 
surveillance activities along thenation's international and 
maritime borders. We recognize that such cooperation between the two 
agencies is already occurring, and that these provisions only require 
the development of an explicit plan to better coordinate these joint 
activities. We also take note of the provision in this section 
explicitly stating that no exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, which 
prohibits Department of Defense forces from engaging in domestic law 
enforcement, were made by this legislation.

              ASSESSING THE TERRORIST THREAT TO THE BORDER

    We were pleased that the Committee agreed to an amendment, 
introduced by Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) and Ranking 
Member Thompson, which would require the Department of Homeland 
Security and its new Office of Intelligence and Analysis (OIA) 
to conduct a detailed, specific assessment of the threat posed 
by terrorists who may attempt to infiltrate our country at 
points along our international land and maritime border. The 
OIA will play a critical role not only in promoting information 
sharing between federal intelligence agencies and their state, 
local, and tribal law enforcement partners, but also in 
developing terrorist threat assessments. It will oversee 
intelligence units within CBP, Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security Administration 
(TSA), and other agencies that maintain contact with 
undocumented immigrants seeking entry into the United States. 
Those threat assessments are critical to helping America 
prioritize where to spend its homeland security dollars in 
order to make our country more secure.

                    Title III--Detention and Removal


 MANDATORY DETENTION PROVISION FAILS TO EXEMPT VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING, 
       UNACCOMPANIED MINORS, ASYLEES, AND VULNERABLE POPULATIONS

    Section 301 of H.R. 4312, would, beginning on October 1, 
2006, require the mandatory detention of an undocumented 
immigrant ``who is attempting to enter the United States 
illegally and who is apprehended at a United States port of 
entry or along the international land and maritime border of 
the United States'' until he or she is removed from the United 
States or until a final decision has been rendered granting the 
undocumented immigrant admission to the United States. 
Undocumented immigrants who choose voluntary departure under 
section 235(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or are 
paroled into the United States for urgent humanitarian reasons 
in accordance with section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act would be excepted from mandatory detention.
    While mandatory detention is a vital part of any strategy 
to secure our borders, we do not have the physical capacity--
even with greatly increased numbers of beds and facilities--to 
hold all illegal entrants for months or years. The logical 
solution to this problem is to focus on expediting the judicial 
process for captured undocumented immigrants in the U.S. and 
detaining those who are a threat to our communities or at risk 
of flight. Representative Lofgren introduced an amendment that 
would have sped the judicial process by requiring the 
Department to make a determination of whether an individual 
should be detained within seven days of arrest. It also put in 
place better controls to ensure that an undocumented immigrant 
in the U.S. who has been released will appear at future 
proceedings. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated.
    Members of the Minority presented a number of amendments to 
section 301 that would interject more of a respect for 
humanitarian concern into the mandatory detention requirement. 
For example, Representative Jackson-Lee offered an amendment 
that would have exempted from mandatory detention asylum 
seekers found to have a credible fear of persecution, 
unaccompanied undocumented children, and victims of severe form 
of human trafficking. This amendment would not have taken away 
the Secretary's discretion to detain any of these populations, 
but would have instead clarified that he would not have to 
detain them unless he so desires. Section 301, as written, 
fails to provide this clarity. If this section is not adjusted 
to make the Secretary's discretion clear, members of these 
groups, such as unaccompanied minor children who have committed 
no offense and who are neither violent nor criminal, may be 
subject to mandatory detention for the first time in history. 
Unfortunately, the Majority rejected Ms. Jackson-Lee's 
clarifying amendment. We hope that the Majority will reconsider 
the effects the broad language in H.R. 4312 could have on these 
populations.
    Representative Jackson-Lee also offered two other 
amendments providing relief for asylum seekers and 
unaccompanied, nonviolent minor children. She withdrew her 
amendment after receiving assurances the Majority would work 
with her to clarify the language in H.R. 4312 with respect to 
these groups.
    Representative Lofgren introduced an amendment to exempt 
unaccompanied children, the elderly, asylum seekers, refugees, 
undocumented immigrants in the U.S. seeking protection under 
the United Nations Convention against Torture, and victims of 
trafficking from the blanket mandatory detention provision that 
this bill would introduce. Unfortunately, like the other 
humanitarian amendments that received votes, this amendment was 
defeated.
    Representative Kendrick B. Meek (D-FL) also called for 
protections for asylum seekers. He offered an amendment to 
address the ambiguity of Section 301 with respect to Cubans, 
Haitians, and other populations specifically fleeing 
persecution. Citing the cases of Reverend Joseph Dantica, an 
81-year-old Haitian asylum seeker who died in the Department's 
custody, and Ernso Joseph, a Haitian orphan who was in and out 
of the Department's custody for several years before being 
granted an adjustment of status, Mr. Meek called for codified 
detention regulations setting standards for treatment and 
clearly distinguishing criminals from asylum seekers.
    Mr. Meek's amendment also would have required the 
Department's policy officer to promote immigration policies 
that ensure fairness in immigration, asylum, and refugee 
policy, including for the treatment and detention of vulnerable 
populations who are at risk of abuse or other mistreatment that 
threaten their health and safety. The amendment also would have 
authorized the Immigration Ombudsman to inspect and monitor on-
site the treatment of detainees, including through the use of 
unscheduled inspections. Despite the fact the amendment did not 
affect the Secretary's authority to remove or 
detainundocumented immigrants in the U.S., but merely created more 
accountability for treatment and improved information sharing, the 
amendment was defeated.
    The Minority offered a number of other humanitarian 
amendments that the Chairman sustained points of order against, 
finding they were outside the Committee's jurisdiction or non-
germane, despite the fact that each of them addressed detention 
issues that would arise along the border. These unfortunate 
rulings only serve to emphasize the importance of Ranking 
Member Thompson's statement in his opening remarks that 
Congress' jurisdictional boundaries are being used as an excuse 
to slow progress on truly comprehensive border security and 
immigration reform. We hope a more expansive view of the 
Committee's jurisdiction will be adopted in the future.
    One of these amendments ruled non-germane, offered by 
Representative Lofgren, pressed for appropriate conditions for 
detention of vulnerable populations. Her amendment sought to 
keep unaccompanied children separate from adult detention 
facilities or facilities housing delinquent children; ensure 
that individuals with violent or criminal behavior are detained 
in appropriate facilities; and meet humanitarian needs, such as 
medical care and educational services for children.

   DENIAL OF ADMISSION TO NATIONALS OF A COUNTRY DENYING OR DELAYING 
       ACCEPTING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS THE U.S. WANTS RETURNED

    Section 305 of H.R. 4312 would repeal Section 243(d) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, which currently requires the 
Secretary of State to deny issuance of a visa to nationals of a 
foreign country on being notified by the Attorney General or 
the Secretary of Homeland Security that the foreign government 
has denied or unreasonably delayed accepting the return of an 
undocumented immigrant who is a citizen, subject, national, or 
resident of that country. H.R. 4312 would repeal the Secretary 
of State's authority and allow the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to deny admission to citizens or nationals of 
countries that deny or unreasonably delay return of a citizen 
removed from the United States. Because the Secretary of State 
is responsible for issuing visas while the Secretary of 
Homeland Security has the power to deny admission to those 
presenting themselves at our border for entry with visas, 
section 305 could create a serious conflict of power. If the 
Secretary of State grants a visa and the foreign national 
presents him/herself at a port of entry, pursuant to section 
305, the Secretary of Homeland Security could deny admission to 
the foreign national and force this person to return home. We 
are concerned about how this disjointed approach will affect 
visa seekers, including students and others who might find 
themselves stuck in governmental bureaucratic squabbles.
    The Minority expressed serious concerns about the impact 
this section could have on citizens from certain countries who 
will be completely unresponsive to the pressure on their 
citizens that this new requirement might exert. To address this 
problem, Representative Lofgren introduced an amendment 
requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to deny admission 
not to average citizens, but rather to government officials 
traveling to the United States on official government business. 
This amendment would put the pressure on the government 
officials causing the problem, rather than on innocent foreign 
nationals merely wanting to come to the U.S. for travel, trade 
and family visits. This amendment was found non-germane. We do 
not agree that the underlying language in section 305 could be 
within our Committee's jurisdiction while Representative 
Lofgren's amendment limiting the populations to which it would 
apply is not.
    Finally, Representative Sanchez introduced an amendment 
that would protect refugees and asylum seekers from being 
returned under section 305 to the countries where they suffered 
persecution. It was also ruled non-germane. Once again, we 
believe this amendment should have been found within our 
Committee's jurisdiction.

                       EXPEDITED REMOVAL CONCERNS

    The Minority is concerned about an amendment offered by 
Representative Dan Lungren (R-CA), which was accepted by the 
Committee, to give the Secretary the power to remove from the 
country, without hearing, any immigrant illegally in the United 
States caught within 100 miles of the border and within 2 weeks 
of the person crossing into the United States, unless the 
person is from Canada, Mexico, or Cuba.
    While we again note that we view the Committee's 
jurisdiction as far broader than the Chairman's ruling during 
mark-up, we do not understand how Mr. Lungren's amendment is 
within our Committee's jurisdiction when other amendments 
offered by the Minority are not. Imposing expedited removal on 
all undocumented immigrants in the U.S. apprehended at or 
between all land borders and within 100 miles of that border 
will apply expedited removal to thousands of people who are 
currently subject to regular immigration proceedings. Suddenly, 
thousands of people will go from having rights to appeal 
removal orders, rights of release from detention by immigration 
judges, and other due process rights in regular immigration 
proceedings to no appeal option and no opportunity for counsel. 
The only proceeding these individuals will receive is an on-
the-spot decision by a Border Patrol Agent as to whether they 
should be removed. Furthermore, these individuals will face 5-
year bars on reentering, all based on a very quick decision by 
a Border Patrol agent. If these types of changes are not 
immigration policy subject to the jurisdiction of the Judiciary 
Committee, then we are not sure what is. Indeed, imposing 
expedited removal within 100 miles of the land borders is not 
border security. We are certain that Disneyland and Southern 
Los Angeles County are not border communities.
    We also feel strongly that the rule of law must be 
paramount in our practices, and expedited removal should be a 
method of last resort. It is far preferable to hold a hearing 
to ascertain the status and intentions of a detained 
undocumented immigrant than to remove the person without trial 
for two reasons. First, security may be threatened by expedited 
removal as it may lead to the removal of an undocumented 
immigrant in the U.S. who, if detained for a longer period or 
subjected to a judicial hearing, may be discovered to be a 
terrorist. Second, removing individuals without at least some 
sort of hearing undermines the perception that the United 
States is a nation that believes in a fair judicial process 
governed by the rule of law. At a time when we are engaged in a 
War on Terror where our respect for fairness and the law is one 
of the most important principles we can export abroad, we 
should not take steps to eliminate these principles in our 
immigration enforcement process--even for those caught here 
illegally.

      Title IV--Effective Organization of Border Security Agencies


             TASK FORCE ON FRAUDULENT IMMIGRATION DOCUMENTS

    Representative Jackson-Lee offered an amendment to 
establish a task force for the coordination and distribution of 
fraudulent immigration documents. The proposed task force was 
meant to serve as a central clearing-house for Federal, State, 
and local coordination and guidance reports relating to the 
production, sale and distribution of fraudulent immigration 
documents. Similar to the responsibilities of the Forensic 
Document Laboratory (FDL) of ICE, which provides services such 
as document analyses and intergovernmental relations, the 
proposed task force would have ensured proactive collection of 
information and dissemination of analysis. Ms. Jackson-Lee 
withdrew the amendment after receiving assurances from the 
Majority that they will work with her to address the issue.

MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO STRENGTHEN BORDER SECURITY BY MERGING ICE AND CBP

    Representative Meek offered an amendment that would 
transfer CBP and ICE into a new Bureau of Border Security and 
Customs. The head of this Bureau, a Commissioner appointed by 
the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, would 
report directly to the Secretary. The Commissioner would be 
assisted by five Assistant Commissioners leading the offices of 
Immigration Enforcement, Customs Enforcement, Inspection, 
Border Patrol, and Mission Support.
    This amendment addressed the serious concerns raised by a 
number of experts from within the government, private sector, 
and academia, most notably, the Department of Homeland 
Security's own Inspector General, that ICE and CBP's 
relationship is a failure.
    In a report and at a hearing the day before the mark-up, 
the Inspector General discussed this dysfunctional relationship 
between ICE and CBP, especially in three areas:
           Lack of coordination between apprehension 
        and detention and removal operations;
           Insufficient coordination of investigative 
        operations; and
           Dysfunction in the coordination of 
        intelligence activities.
    At this same hearing, Assistant Secretary for Policy 
Stewart Baker could provide no explanation for why the two 
agencies were even originally separated during the formation of 
the Department.
    In addition to the Inspector General's report, proposals to 
merge ICE and CBP enjoy widespread support in the academic 
community and from agents in the field. In 2004, a joint study 
by the Heritage Foundation and the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies recommended that the two agencies be 
merged. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association 
supports the merger. Additionally, the Minority received 
letters and phone calls from numerous ICE and CBP agents who 
support the merger. The following is a representative sample of 
those letters:
           ``I remain convinced that Immigration and 
        Customs Enforcement was established as an entity apart 
        from CBP for the purpose of maintaining the 
        bureaucratic status quo.''
           ``From the outset, I, along with many of my 
        colleagues in the management ranks, have opposed the 
        arcane decision to separate the inspection and the 
        investigative personnel . . . [t]his is [an] absurd 
        division . . .''
           ``ICE inherited a broken-down administration 
        from the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
        which needed a home to avoid being reduced in force.''
    Unfortunately, although Secretary Chertoff had a draft copy 
of the Inspector General's report and knew of these problems 
and proposed solutions before he announced his recent 
reorganization of the Department, he chose not to merge ICE and 
CBP. Instead, Secretary Chertoff chose to require ICE and CBP 
to report directly to him, an option the Inspector General 
specifically stated was not the premier means of correcting 
their relationship.
    Despite the widespread support of a merger and the 
Secretary's failure to act, the Majority declined to support a 
merger of ICE and CBP. Instead, H.R. 4312 would only require 
the Secretary ``to ensure full coordination of border security 
efforts and agencies within the Department of Homeland 
Security, including United States Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, United States Customs and Border Protection, and 
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and shall 
identify and remedy any failure off coordination or integration 
in a prompt and efficient manner.'' This provision is an empty 
mandate. Representative Meek withdrew his amendment after 
receiving strong assurances from the Chairman that he intends 
to carefully monitor the Secretary's efforts to correct ICE and 
CBP's relationship. We will join in the Chairman's oversight, 
and we hope that if the Secretary's efforts do not reveal 
progress in the very near future, the Committee will act more 
firmly to resolve ICE and CBP's problems.

                               CONCLUSION

    Passing a comprehensive border security bill is an 
essential step in ensuring our national security. Democrats 
have long called for a comprehensive border security strategy, 
introducing several pieces of legislation over the past 2 years 
that would have created a national border initiative. While we 
commend the Chairman for introducing the ``Border Security and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005,'' it is not enough to 
protectAmerica. Too much has been left undone and we cannot say that 
the bill will provide comprehensive border security.
    H.R. 4312, even as amended during mark-up, does not contain 
many initiatives offered by the Minority that would have 
provided the Department of Homeland Security with the 
personnel, equipment, training, support, and authority needed 
to truly secure the border. The Democratic substitute would 
have provided the funding authorized by the 9/11 bill for more 
detention beds, more ICE investigators, and more Border Patrol 
agents. Instead, the Majority rejected full funding for these 
critical areas. The Democratic substitute would have held the 
Department accountable to Congress by requiring it to fulfill 
critical reporting obligations, which it has neglected to do in 
the past. These reporting requirements would have allowed the 
Congress to better respond to the challenges facing the 
Department; instead, Congress will remain reliant on the 
Department's self-reporting, which has been lacking in the 
past.
    We firmly believe that Congress must not continue to repeat 
the same steps in dealing with our porous borders and their 
security. We must give our border agents the tools and the 
technology to adequately protect our homeland. The governmental 
structure which they operate in must be responsive and 
accountable for its decisions. And Congress must engage in 
long-term solutions by finally taking up comprehensive 
immigration reform. The American people deserve no less.
                                   Bennie G. Thompson.
                                   Ed Markey.
                                   Jane Harman.
                                   Eleanor H. Norton.
                                   Loretta Sanchez.
                                   Norm Dicks.
                                   Nita Lowey.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Bill Pascrell, Jr.
                                   Bob Etheridge.
                                   Kendrick B. Meek.
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
                                   Donna M. Christensen.
                                   Jim Langevin.

          ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE EDWARD J. MARKEY

    During Committee mark-up of H.R. 4312, the Border Security 
and Terrorism Prevention Act, I offered an amendment to require 
Customs and Border Protection to ``trust and verify'' that 
shippers participating in CBP's Customs-Trade Partnership 
Against Terrorist (C-TPAT) and Free and Secure Trade (FAST) 
programs comply their security obligations under these 
programs. There are approximately 11,000 shippers who take part 
in C-TPAT and FAST and about 100 CBP inspectors responsible for 
validating that participants implement the required security 
measures in return for the expedited entry benefits they 
receive. Currently, only about 11 percent of the facilities 
operated by C-TPAT and FAST shippers have been validated for 
compliance by CBP. Nevertheless, the shippers still receive the 
benefits even in the absence of validation of their security 
obligations. This Bush Administration's ``trust but don't 
verify'' policy is unacceptable, and the Majority should have 
supported my amendment to resolve this dangerous security 
loophole.
    Seven million cargo containers arrive at U.S. ports every 
year. These containers represent an important component of our 
economy, providing consumers with an enormous array of choices. 
In Massachusetts, the port of Boston--which became an 
international cargo port in 1630 and is the oldest continually 
active major port in the Western Hemisphere--handles 1.3 
million tons of general cargo, 1.5 million tons of non-fuels 
bulk cargo and 12.8 million tons of bulk fuel cargos every 
year. Clearly, such global commerce is critical to the economic 
health of our country.
    At the same, however, cargo containers represent tempting 
targets for terrorists. Harvard University arms control expert 
Graham Allison has said that ``more likely than not'' there 
will be terrorist attack using a nuclear bomb in our country. 
He has described the detonation of a nuclear explosive device 
in a cargo container in one of our ports as a nightmare 
scenario for our country. Stephen Flynn, a senior fellow at the 
Council on Foreign Relations and former officer in the Coast 
Guard, wrote in his book America the Vulnerable about 
``catastrophic consequences of terror in a box'' delivered by a 
cargo ship to one of our ports.
    To balance the need to participate in the global economy 
and the security concerns associated with the millions of cargo 
containers entering our ports every year, the Department of 
Homeland Security's Customs and Border Security division 
developed the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorist (C-
TPAT). Under C-TPAT, shippers commit to improving the security 
of their cargo shipments, and in return, they receive a range 
of benefits from our government. Specifically, if shippers 
provide information about their operations to Customs and 
Border Protection, their goods are less likely to be inspected 
at the border. They basically receive an ``E-Z Pass'' from our 
government, sort of like drivers who speed right through toll 
booths without having to stop. The problem is that Customs and 
Border Protection grants these special benefits without 
verifying that the security information provided by the 
shippers is reliable, accurate and effective. That means that 
CBP is not routinely checking--or validating--that the security 
promises made the shippers are actually true.
    In its May 2005 report, the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) found that CBP has conducted validations at the 
facilities of only 11 percent of all the C-TPAT members. [``Key 
Cargo Security Programs Can be Improved,'' May 26, 2005] 
Furthermore, GAO determined thateven at facilities where CBP 
has conducted validations, ``the validation process is not rigorous, as 
the objectives, scope and methodology of validations are jointly agreed 
upon with the member (emphasis added), and CBP has no written 
guidelines to indicate what scope of effort is adequate for a 
validation.''
    Customs and Border Protection also has a related program, 
called ``FAST,'' which stands for Free and Secure Trade 
program. The FAST program requires that trucking companies 
subject their drivers to background checks and participate in 
C-TPAT program. Again, the problem is that the truckers get 
waved through the FAST lane, but the trucking companies' 
facilities are rarely, if ever, inspected to validate that the 
security policies they've promised to implement are fact or 
fiction.
    My amendment was very simple. It required that Customs and 
Border Protection verify the security measures at the 
facilities of each member of the C-TPAT and FAST programs 
within one year of the enactment of this bill. Moreover, the 
amendment would have required Customs and Border Protection to 
establish policies if members do not live up to their 
obligations under the C-TPAT and FAST programs.
    Some of my Republican colleagues argued that we simply do 
not have the resources to conduct these validations, and real 
validations would bring global commerce to a grinding halt.
    We have heard these arguments before. They were made before 
9/11 when it became clear that we should be inspecting the 
checked bags of airline passengers, not just their carry-on 
bags. Opponents of checked baggage screening were successful in 
blocking 100 percent checked-baggage screening until the 19 
hijackers perpetrated their deadly attack upon our country more 
than 4 years ago. Today, we require that your checked bags be 
screened. And the long lines a crippling blow to global trade 
never materialized.
    We must not wait until an attack before we close this 
dangerous loophole in the C-TPAT and FAST programs.
    I understand that CBP has only about 100 inspectors to 
conduct validations at approximately 11,000 C-TPAT and FAST 
members. The answer is NOT to give up on validations, but to 
back up the programs with resources devoted to these 
validations.
    The Bush Administration has been nickel-and-diming homeland 
security, while writing a blank check for the War in Iraq. This 
is unacceptable.
    Following the markup, I introduced H.R. 4374 along with my 
colleague Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) to require that 
validations are performed of all C-TPAT and FAST programs 
within one year of enactment and then twice a year thereafter. 
I will continue to work to close this dangerous loophole that 
leaves our country at risk.
                                   Edward J. Markey.