    [Senate Hearing 109-]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2005

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:34 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran presiding.
        Present: Senators Cochran, Byrd, and Leahy.

                        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

    STATEMENTS OF:
            MICHAEL J. GARCIA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
                ENFORCEMENT
            ROBERT C. BONNER, COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
            EDUARDO AGUIRRE, JR., DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND
                IMMIGRATION SERVICES

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. The hearing will please come to order.
    Today we begin our committee's review of the fiscal year 2006
    budget request for the Department of Homeland Security. We will
    consider specifically the request for programs and activities
    of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Customs and
    Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
        I am pleased to welcome the Director of U.S. Citizenship
    and Immigration Services, Eduardo Aguirre; the Commissioner of
    Customs and Border Protection, Robert Bonner; and the Assistant
    Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael
    Garcia.
        Our committee will work with you to help ensure that we
    provide the funds necessary for your agencies to carry out
    their responsibilities and missions. For fiscal year 2006, the
    President's budget requests $12.9 billion to fund the
    organizations appearing before us today. This includes
    mandatory and discretionary appropriations, user fee
    collections, and trust funds.
        We thank each of you for submitting to the committee copies
    of your statements in advance. These will be made a part of the
    record and we invite you to make any comments you think will be
    helpful to the committee's understanding of the budget request.
        Before hearing from the witnesses, I am pleased to yield to
    Senator Leahy or other Senators who may wish to make opening
    statements. Senator Leahy.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think these three agencies before us have the duty of
    keeping our Nation safe, but also keeping our historic
    commitment to legal immigration. I know I have to think about
    the fact that my grandparents came, my maternal grandparents,
    came to this country not speaking any English. If they had not
    been here, their grandson would not be here, and how proud and
    how happy they were to come.
        I remember talking with my grandparents as a child and how
    much it meant to them to be the first generations of Americans.
    It has left a mark in my own mind. You look around this room,
    look around anywhere else, look at your own backgrounds, and we
    know that we are a Nation of immigrants. We have to keep being
    able to do that.

         BUDGET SHORTFALLS AND INCREASED STAFFING FOR THE BORDER PATROL

        When we held hearings on these three agencies last year,
    Mr. Chairman, they were facing substantial budget shortfalls.
    They had imposed hiring freezes. I want to know where we stand
    today on these issues. I am concerned that the administration
    is ignoring Congress's clear and consistent call, call from
    both Republicans and Democrats, for substantial increases in
    staffing for the Border Patrol. The Border Patrol's presence on
    our northern border--and I want to remind everybody we have a
    northern border as well as a southern border; I live an hour's
    drive from it--it was minimal before the September 11th
    attacks. I think we had something like 300 agents stretched
    over 4,000 miles of border. There is no other place in the
    world similar to that.
        I authored a provision in the Patriot Act to triple that
    number. It has been achieved. A lot more needs to be done. The
    President signed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
    Prevention Act of 2004. That mandated increasing at least 2,000
    Border Patrol agents for fiscal year 2006, 20 percent of them
    for the northern border. But that is the good news and the
    President did sign that bill for the 2,000, but his budget
    provides only enough funding for 210. So he signed the bill
    with great fanfare for 2,000 and put the budget in for 10
    percent of it. And it appears none of them go to the northern
    border.
        So I hope Mr. Bonner will explain why the administration is
    not heeding this Congressional mandate and whether he now
    believes it is time to declare mission accomplished for the job
    of protecting our northern border.

                         LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT CENTER

        Assistant Secretary Garcia and I have spoken a number of
    times about the excellent work of the Law Enforcement Support
    Center. We have visited this. This is the place that stores
    information for State and local police. It provides immigration
    status and identities of aliens any time of the day or night,
    every day of the year.

        FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST FOR CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
                                    SERVICES

        Of course, Mr. Aguirre, we talked before, I am concerned
    about the President's proposed budget for Citizenship and
    Immigration Services. It calls for a 50 percent cut in the
    amount of directly appropriated funds for CIS. At the same time
    the President says he will achieve his goal of reducing the
    average wait time for applicants for immigration benefits to 6
    months.
        He has asked the Congress to enact a guest worker program
    that is going to significantly increase the CIS workload. That
    is fine, we can increase it, but if the administration is
    cutting the manpower for this substantially, but wanting to add
    to the workload, I do not know how you ever get here.

                                H2B VISA PROGRAM

        I hope--the last thing is I hope the CIS and the
    administration will support bipartisan efforts in Congress to
    increase the cap for the H2B visa program. The Department
    announced in January for the second straight year the statutory
    cap has been reached and that is causing tourism-related
    businesses across the country to go into justifiable panic and
    concern.
        We have a bipartisan group of 16 colleagues introducing S.
    352, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2005. It
    would allow aliens who obtained H2B visas in recent years to
    reenter under that program. I hope the administration would
    support it. It is a quick, easy, I think effective, cost
    effective way of handling this.
        So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are some of the concerns
    I have. I thought I would express them here because I know we
    are going to have votes in between and I may have to go back
    and forth.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Senator Byrd.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Excuse me, I am sorry.
        Senator Leahy. Any time you want.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you.
        Well, today, Mr. Commissioner and also Mr. Assistant
    Secretary and Director Aguirre, we hold the first hearing on
    the President's budget for the Department of Homeland Security.
    Chairman Cochran and I have worked together over the last 2
    years to produce bipartisan legislation to fill critical gaps
    in the security of our homeland. I commend Chairman Thad
    Cochran for his excellent leadership of this subcommittee and
    of any other committee or subcommittee that he chairs. I know
    how well it is going to be run.
        Today our witnesses will focus on issues related to border
    security, immigration, and trade. For the third year in a row,
    the President has submitted a budget for the Department of
    Homeland Security that ignores the stark reality of the
    resources needed to secure the homeland. The 9/11 Commission
    report concluded this:
        ``More than 500 million people annually cross U.S. borders
    at legal entry points, about 330 million of them non-
    citizens.'' What a flow of humanity. ``Another 500,000 or more
    enter illegally without inspection across America's thousands
    of miles of land borders or remain in the country past the
    expiration of their permitted stay.'' Now, that was the
    commission talking.
        The commission concluded that, quote: ``Two systemic
    weaknesses came together in our border system's inability to
    contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks:
    one, a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as a
    part of border security; and two, an immigration system not
    able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support
    counterterrorism.''

                INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT

        In response to the commission's findings, Congress enacted
    the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. In a
    December 6, 2004, letter to the Congress urging final passage
    of that Act, President Bush stated, ``I also believe the
    conference took an important step in strengthening our
    immigration laws by, among other items, increasing the number
    of Border Patrol agents and detention beds.'' Close of
    quotation.
        As enacted, the Act authorizes the hiring of 2,000 new
    Border Patrol agents and 800 new ICE investigators and the
    funding of 8,000 new detention beds for illegal alien
    immigrants. Yet, when the President submitted his budget
    request months after sending that letter, virtually no new
    funds were requested for any of these activities.
        At the same time, the President's own terrorism experts are
    extremely concerned about the threat posed by terrorists to our
    borders. In written testimony before the Senate Intelligence
    Committee on February 16, 2005, the Department's Deputy
    Secretary, Admiral James Loy, cited recently received
    information as the reason for his concern about the threat
    facing the Mexican border. He called it a ``very serious
    situation'' and added: ``Several Al Qaeda leaders believe
    operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico
    and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal
    entry.'' How about that, ``believe illegal entry is more
    advantageous than legal entry for operational security
    reasons.''

                                 FUNDING ISSUE

        Despite this testimony, there is virtually no funding in
    the budget to increase our border security. In addition to
    having a strong deterrent to illegal immigration at the border,
    it is critically important for the Department to have the
    resources to enforce our immigration laws. Therefore, I am very
    troubled by the fact that 6 months into the fiscal year we have
    not received a supplemental request or a reprogramming proposal
    to address a shortfall in funding for immigration and customs
    enforcement.
        Since last spring, the Congress has been ringing the alarm
    bell--ding-a-ling, ding-a-ling, ding-a-ling--that the
    Department's primary investigative arm, Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement, ICE, faced significant budget shortfalls. To
    partially address this problem, ICE last year instituted a
    hiring freeze, significantly reduced spending, and took other
    painful steps--bring on the aspirin--to cope with the
    shortfall. There were even media reports that some apprehended
    illegal aliens were being released because ICE could not afford
    to cover the costs associated with holding these individuals.
        Well, Congress stepped up to the plate. This man, Cochran,
    he is on the ball. Congress stepped up to the plate by
    providing ICE with $193 million more for the current fiscal
    year than requested by the President. However, the hiring
    freeze and other spending restraints remain in place halfway
    through the new fiscal year. We are being warned by the
    Department that ICE faces a funding gap of nearly $300 million
    for the rest of this year.
        Has the President found any room in his $81.9 billion
    supplemental spending request to address this gap? No. He is
    willing to request billions of dollars for foreign aid to build
    the most expensive U.S. embassy in the world in Baghdad. I do
    not plan to go there often. But he does not seem to be able to
    find the funds to hire and support the men and women fighting
    the war on terrorism here at home.
        Today I sent a letter to Secretary Chertoff raising these
    issues, and I hope that he will work with the White House to
    send to the Congress a request that would implement the
    recommendations of the 9/11 Commission contained in the
    Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
        [The information follows:]

                       Letter From Senator Robert C. Byrd

                                                   U.S. Senate,
                                         Washington, DC, March 2, 2005.
    Hon. Michael Chertoff,
    Secretary, Department of Homeland Security,
    Washington, DC.
        Dear Secretary Chertoff: Congratulations are in order as you assume
    the task of leading the Department of Homeland Security, an immense and
    important burden. Sadly, the President, in his fiscal year 2006 budget
    request for the Department, has not made your task any easier.
        For the third year in a row, the President has submitted a budget
    that ignores the stark reality of the steps needed to secure the
    homeland.
        The 9/11 Commission report concluded that:
        More than 500 million people annually cross U.S. borders at legal
    entry points, about 330 million of them noncitizens. Another 500,000 or
    more enter illegally without inspection across America's thousands of
    miles of land borders or remain in the country past the expiration of
    their permitted stay. The challenge for national security in an age of
    terrorism is to prevent the very few people who may pose overwhelming
    risks from entering or remaining in the United States undetected.
        Our investigation showed that two systemic weaknesses came together
    in our border system's inability to contribute to an effective defense
    against the 9/11 attacks: a lack of well-developed counterterrorism
    measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not
    able to deliver on it basic commitments, much less support
    counterterrorism.
        In response to the Commission's findings, Congress enacted the
    Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. In his December 6,
    2004, letter to Congress urging final passage of that Act, President
    Bush stated, ``I also believe the Conference took an important step in
    strengthening our immigration laws by, among other items, increasing
    the number of border patrol agents and detention beds.'' As enacted,
    the Act authorizes the hiring of 2,000 new Border Patrol agents and 800
    new ICE investigators, and the funding of 8,000 new detention beds for
    illegal aliens immigration. The President's letter called that ``an
    important step.'' Yet that letter appears to be another empty
    rhetorical gesture. When the President submitted his budget request 2
    months after sending that letter, virtually no new funds were requested
    for any of these activities.
        At the same time, the President's own terrorism experts are
    extremely concerned about the threat terrorists pose to our borders. In
    written testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on February
    16, 2005, the Department's Deputy Secretary, Admiral James Loy cited
    recently received information as the reason for his concern about the
    threat facing the Mexican border. He called it a ``very serious
    situation'' and added, ``several Al Qaeda leaders believe operatives
    can pay their way into the country through Mexico and also believe
    illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational
    security reasons.''
        Mr. Secretary, I know that this budget was completed prior to your
    coming onboard. I strongly encourage you to work with the White House
    to formally request additional resources to implement the Intelligence
    Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act authorization enacted to respond to
    the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
        In addition to having a strong deterrent to illegal immigration at
    the border, it is critically important for the Department to have the
    resources to enforce our immigration laws. Therefore, I am very
    troubled by the fact that, 6 months into the fiscal year, we have not
    received a supplemental request or reprogramming proposal to address a
    shortfall in funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Since
    last spring, the Congress has been ringing the alarm bells that the
    Department's primary investigative arm, Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement (ICE), faced significant budget shortfalls. To partially
    address this problem, ICE last year instituted a hiring freeze,
    significantly reduced spending, and took other painful steps to cope
    with the shortfall. There were even media reports that some apprehended
    illegal aliens were being released because ICE could not afford to
    cover the costs associated with holding these individuals.
        Congress stepped up to the plate by providing ICE with $193 million
    more for the current fiscal year than requested by the President.
    However, the hiring freeze and other spending restraints remain in
    place halfway through the new fiscal year. We are being warned by the
    Department that ICE faces a funding gap of nearly $300 million for the
    rest of this year. Has the President found any room in his $81 billion
    supplemental spending request to address this gap? No. He is willing to
    add to the deficit to provide hundreds of millions of dollars to build
    the most expensive U.S. embassy in the world in Baghdad, but he does
    not seem to be able to find the funds to hire and support the men and
    women fighting the war on terrorism here at home. To them, he suggests
    they carpool to work.
        Mr. Secretary, you really have your work cut out for you. Our
    repeated entreaties to the President and his representatives to provide
    the resources to meet these threats fall on deaf ears. I know that you
    will do all that you can to get this Administration to put its money
    where its rhetoric is. I wish for you success.
        With kind regards, I am.
                Sincerely yours,
                                                Robert C. Byrd,
                                                          U.S. Senator.

        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Byrd.

    STATUS OF SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES 2 YEARS AFTER THE ESTABLISHMENT
                     OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

        I am going to ask our witnesses, in view of the fact that
    it has been almost exactly 2 years--March 1, 2005, actually
    would have been the second anniversary of the establishment of
    the Department of Homeland Security--in your estimation from
    what you know as administrators of these important agencies at
    the Department, are we safer now 2 years later after the
    Department of Homeland Security has been created than we were 2
    years ago?
        Mr. Garcia, would you like to start?
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That is a
    question I often hear in many different forms, and everybody
    brings I think their own perspective.
        Senator Cochran. I am going to ask each one to answer that
    before you proceed with your statements. Tell us what you
    think?

                                  ICE RESPONSE

        Mr. Garcia. I think we are safer, yes, and I bring
    perspective I think that is somewhat unique to that answer. I
    was a prosecutor in New York in the 1990s. I prosecuted many of
    the terrorism cases before 9/11 and I saw terrible exploitation
    of our immigration systems and our border security in those
    cases. Now, as part of the Homeland Security Department, I am a
    piece of the Government's response to those attacks in a
    Department that was created to address the vulnerabilities that
    were exposed by the 9/11 attacks.
        From that vantage point, I can clearly say that we are
    safer, and I see evidence of that, Mr. Chairman, every day. I
    will speak mostly about the ICE contributions here and how my
    agency has responded with creativity, using these new combined
    authorities that we have been given in ICE. You look at the
    systems and we have created--and I think Senator Leahy and
    Senator Byrd may have mentioned--overstays and how there was no
    tracking. We have created a Compliance Enforcement Unit that
    sends out thousands of prioritized leads to look at deterrent
    effect, to look at enforcing our immigration rules and bringing
    integrity to the system as a whole.
        We work very hard in benefits fraud with Director Aguirre's
    folks to close those vulnerabilities that were exploited in the
    past. So we are improving the integrity of the system.
        Senator Cochran. Let me ask Mr. Bonner for his reaction to
    that question before you proceed with your full statement.

                                  CBP RESPONSE

        Mr. Bonner. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all,
    yes, America is absolutely unquestionably safer now than it was
    before the creation of the Department of Homeland Security on
    March 1, 2003. Our borders are more secure now than they were
    before 2001--excuse me, March 1, 2003. Part of that is that one
    of the truly big and important ideas of the Department of
    Homeland Security was to create one front-line border agency
    for our government that combined at our front line all of
    Customs' powers and personnel, Immigration powers and
    personnel, agriculture protection, and most importantly anti-
    terrorism as a focus and a priority mission.
        So as a result of that one step alone, unifying our border
    agencies, whereas before March 1, 2003, they had literally been
    fragmented at our borders, at our ports of entry, among four
    different agencies of government reporting to three different
    Departments, it is now one front-line border agency, that is
    Customs and Border Protection, within the Department of
    Homeland Security, with a priority mission which is nothing
    less than keeping terrorists and terrorist weapons out of our
    country.
        So are we totally safe? No, but we are safer and more
    secure because our borders are more secure.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Aguirre.

                                 USCIS RESPONSE

        Mr. Aguirre. Mr. Chairman, as the Director of the agency
    that is responsible for administering immigration services, I
    say unquestionably we are safer from the vantage point in which
    I sit. We process 6 to 7 million applications a year and we
    have implemented some national security components and fraud
    deterrent components that were simply not there 2 or 3 years
    ago. Therefore I think we have tightened the filter, if you
    will, to determine those who may do us harm or who wish to take
    advantage of our good nature. I think we are much better off.
        There is no finish line to this effort, but I think we are
    far, far beyond where we were a couple years ago.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
        Now you may proceed with your opening statements. Mr.
    Garcia?

                          STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GARCIA

        Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman, Senator Byrd, Senator Leahy, it
    is my pleasure to be with you today to discuss the President's
    fiscal year 2006 budget request for U.S. Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement, or ICE, the largest investigative arm of
    the Department of Homeland Security. The $4.36 billion request
    underscores the vital role that ICE plays in the Department's
    mission of ensuring the security of the American people.
        In order to provide a better understanding of the
    President's 2006 budget request for ICE, I would like to first
    provide you with the context in which the request is made.
    Specifically, I would like to share with you a few highlights
    of significant ICE achievements as well as some of the
    challenges we have faced.

                          SIGNIFICANT ICE ACHIEVEMENTS

        ICE removed a record number, 160,000, illegal aliens from
    the United States in 2004. More than half of those were
    criminal aliens. We also arrested a record number of fugitive
    aliens. In fact, that was an increase of more than 100 percent.
        ICE conducted 7,600 money-laundering and other financial
    investigations. ICE agents conducted more than 2,500
    investigations into illegal exports that would have sent
    sensitive technology and weapons components to Iran, Iraq,
    China, and other nations. ICE arrested more than 5,000 sexual
    predators since Operation Predator was launched and have
    removed almost half of them from the United States. ICE agents
    also made the first 11 arrests for child sex tourism, targeting
    U.S. citizens who attempt to exploit children overseas.
        ICE arrested more than 1,600 human smugglers and ICE's
    Federal Protective Service officers made more than 4,000
    arrests, a nearly 60 percent increase over the previous year.
    ICE Federal Air Marshals logged millions of miles on tens of
    thousands of flights and Air Marshals have completed advanced
    training, an important benchmark to ensure professionalism and
    peak performance.
        Senator Leahy mentioned the Law Enforcement Support Center
    in Vermont. That Center received more than 600,000 inquiries
    from Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials last
    fiscal year, a 12 percent increase over the year before. 15,000
    detainers with police agencies nationwide on aliens were lodged
    from Vermont alone.
        I could continue with many, many additional examples of
    achievements that ICE's employees have made. I would like to
    note that ICE's accomplishments over the last 2 years, which I
    believe are unprecedented in law enforcement, were brought
    about despite significant challenges. In addition to the
    challenges faced in creating a new law enforcement agency, ICE
    has faced severe budget issues related to resource allocations.
    During the organization of the new Department, the budgets for
    component agencies, including those for overhead, information
    technology support, legal support, and other administrative
    functions, were broken apart in ways that were not entirely
    consistent. As a result, in some cases ICE was paying for
    services when the funds for those services had been allocated
    to other agencies.

                                 BUDGET ISSUES

        When we realized the budget issues that would arise from
    these allocation errors, we took swift action. ICE placed a
    freeze on new hires. We limited expenditures to those deemed
    mission essential and we moved to set clear priorities for
    funding. We also worked with the Department to undertake a
    budget review to determine what money was appropriately due to
    ICE in return for shared services.
        These measures got results. Diligent and conscientious
    efforts on the part of our employees and field management
    helped us to realize tens of millions of dollars in short-term
    savings during fiscal year 2004. In addition, ICE identified
    and recouped more than $500 million from other agencies in the
    second half of 2004. ICE also bought services from other DHS
    components as part of the shared services concept, such as
    human resources, logistics, and fleet management.
        We are also in the process of systematically improving
    financial management throughout the entire agency. Some changes
    have been implemented and we expect to implement additional
    improvement in the coming months. These steps have been further
    outlined in a letter recently submitted to this committee.

                        COMMUNICATION WITH ICE EMPLOYEES

        While this has been a challenging time for ICE, we have
    made every effort to communicate the facts to our employees at
    every opportunity through such measures as town hall meetings,
    broadcast messages to all employees, and visits by myself and
    other senior members of the agency's leadership to all of our
    field offices.
        Over the past 2 years, ICE employees have refused to be
    defined by our challenges, but rather we have been defined by
    our achievements, which represent the true story of our agency.
    Our accomplishments represent the abiding commitment of all ICE
    employees to meeting these challenges head-on and accomplishing
    the critical mission with which we are charged.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST

        The proposed 2006 budget builds on the foundation of our
    accomplishments while addressing many of the challenges
    outlined above. The President's 2006 budget request seeks more
    than $4.36 billion for ICE, which represents an increase of
    more than 13 percent over fiscal year 2005. I would like to
    briefly address these enhancements.

                             DETENTION AND REMOVAL

        The President's 2006 budget proposal request seeks $176
    million in enhancements for Detention and Removal operations.
    These enhancements will be used to fund detention bed space and
    management, Alternatives to Detention, Fugitive Operations, the
    Institutional Removal Program and interior repatriation. This
    funding will help ICE to continue to build on the vigorous
    enforcement efforts we have developed in the last 2 years.

                        INVESTIGATIONS AND INTELLIGENCE

        The President's budget also seeks $171 million in
    enhancements for ICE investigations and intelligence.
    Specifically, the budget will replace funding for Organized
    Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force activities. This enhancement
    requests no additional positions or money, but proposes that
    346 positions currently on board be paid by direct
    appropriation instead of reimbursement from DOJ. In addition to
    a base increase, the enhancement allows for maintenance of Visa
    Security operations initiated in 2005 and support for one
    additional Visa Security Unit overseas. It funds 143 positions
    and training to successfully implement a worksite enforcement
    component for the proposed temporary worker program.

                          FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS SERVICE

        We are also seeking enhancements to increase staffing for
    the Federal Air Marshal Service, funding for additional
    attorneys required to improve the ability of ICE's legal
    program to complete matters in Immigration Court, and money for
    Department-wide secure classified and computer to computer
    connectivity.

                OVERVIEW OF ICE FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST

        The President's 2006 budget request for ICE is a solid step
    forward for this agency and ICE is dedicated to protecting the
    homeland by enforcing immigration and customs laws, restoring
    integrity to the immigration system, as we discussed before,
    and ensuring the sanctity of our financial and trade systems.
    We protect Federal property and we ensure the security in our
    civil aviation.
        That is a broad and diverse mission, but the men and women
    of ICE are dedicated to building this agency into a model for
    law enforcement in the 21st century. The 2006 budget request
    provides us with the resources that will make this goal a
    reality as we strive to secure the American homeland and
    protect the American people.

                               prepared statement

        I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Byrd,
    Senator Leahy, for the opportunity to testify before you today.
    I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Michael J. Garcia

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Mr. Chairman, Senator Byrd, and distinguished Members of the
    Subcommittee. It is my pleasure to be with you today to discuss the
    President's fiscal year 2006 budget request for U.S. Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement (ICE), the largest investigative arm of the
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This $4.36 billion request
    underscores the vital role that ICE plays in the Department's mission
    of ensuring the security of the American people.
        By integrating these various components in a single agency, ICE is
    able to more effectively meet the threats of the post-9/11 world,
    wherever these threats may arise--across our borders, within the
    Nation's interior, in our financial systems, at Federal facilities
    nationwide, in cyberspace, or civil aviation.
        With ICE's broad authorities and expertise, we are prepared to
    counter the threats posed by criminal and terrorist organizations in
    ways not possible before the creation of the Department of Homeland
    Security.

                         REVIEW OF ICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        In order to provide a better understanding of the President's
    fiscal year 2006 budget request for ICE, I would first like to provide
    you with the context in which the request is made. Specifically, I
    would like to share with you a few highlights of significant ICE
    achievements as well as some of the challenges we have faced.
      --Prioritizing Removals of Criminal and Fugitive Aliens.--As part of
            our mission to restore integrity to the Nation's immigration
            system, the Office of Detention and Removal Operations (DRO)
            removed a record number of illegal aliens from the United
            States, posting approximately 160,200 such removals. More than
            half of those were criminal aliens. 7,200 fugitive aliens were
            removed last fiscal year--an increase of 112 percent over the
            previous year.
      --Protecting U.S. Financial and Trade Systems.--The ICE Office of
            Investigations conducted 7,670 money laundering and other
            financial investigations in fiscal year 2004, resulting in more
            than 1,368 arrests, 895 indictments and the seizure of more
            than $202 million. These achievements stem from ICE's
            Cornerstone initiative, in which we direct our expertise in
            financial, trade, and intellectual property investigations
            toward shutting down the schemes that criminal or terrorist
            organizations use to earn, move, and store their assets.
      --Checking Illegal Flows of Weapons and Sensitive Technology.--ICE
            agents conducted more than 2,500 investigations into the
            illegal export of U.S. arms and technology in fiscal year 2004.
            These investigations protect national security by keeping
            sensitive technologies and weapons--whether it's missile
            components or night vision technology, laser scopes for
            military rifles or sensitive software--out of the hands of our
            Nation's adversary. In the last year, ICE investigated export
            violations that would have sent sensitive technology and
            weapons components to Iran, Iraq, China, and other nations.
            These investigations not only contribute to the security of the
            United States, but they serve to enhance the security of our
            troops and allies around the globe as well.
      --Protecting Children from Sexual Exploitation.--Under Operation
            Predator, ICE arrested more than 4,900 sexual predators since
            the program was launched in 2003. We have ensured that 2,100 of
            those predators were removed from the United States. ICE agents
            also made the first 11 arrests for child sex tourism, targeting
            U.S. citizens who attempt to exploit children overseas under
            the PROTECT Act. Leads developed out of ICE investigations into
            online child pornography have been provided to foreign law
            enforcement authorities through ICE's 54 International Attache
            offices. These leads have led to the arrest of approximately
            850 child pornography subscribers overseas. ICE Attaches also
            provided expertise and support to their law enforcement
            counterparts in areas ravaged by the tsunami waves in southeast
            Asia in December, to ensure that children were not victimized
            by sexual predators or trafficking networks.
      --Targeting Human Smuggling and Trafficking.--Another of ICE's top
            priorities is to dismantle criminal organizations that smuggle
            and traffic human beings for profit. In fiscal year 2004, ICE
            arrested more than 1,630 human smugglers. Operation ICE Storm,
            an initiative we launched in 2003 to target violent human
            smuggling networks in Arizona, has brought charges against more
            than 300 defendants and resulted in the seizure of more than $7
            million. This unprecedented seizure of alien smuggling proceeds
            is a direct result of the combination of our immigration and
            customs authorities (particularly customs financial crimes
            expertise). Law enforcement authorities in Arizona have
            credited Operation ICE Storm with a dramatic decrease in
            homicides and other violent crime in the Phoenix metropolitan
            area.
      --Improving Security at Federal Facilities.--ICE's Federal Protective
            Service (FPS) made 4,426 arrests in fiscal year 2004--a 58
            percent increase over the previous fiscal year. In addition,
            FPS officers prevented nearly 550,000 prohibited items and
            weapons from being carried into Federal facilities--a fourfold
            increase over the previous year. FPS officers also responded to
            430 bomb threats and more than 875 calls about suspicious
            packages and other items. All of these achievements are key
            components of the FPS mission to provide a safe and secure
            environment for Federal workers and the American public.
      --Enhancing Security in the Skies.--ICE's Federal Air Marshal Service
            (FAMS) once again logged millions of miles on tens of thousands
            of flights in fiscal year 2004, as part of the division's
            enhanced mission of providing security in the air since 9/11.
            All FAMS recruited and deployed since 9/11 have successfully
            completed advanced training--an important benchmark to ensure
            professionalism and peak performance.
      --Stopping the Flow of Drugs into the United States.--ICE plays a
            leading role in the Nation's war on drugs, with significant
            results. In fiscal year 2004, ICE agents, working in
            cooperation with our partners at other agencies, were involved
            in the seizure of roughly 3.1 million pounds of illegal drugs
            in fiscal year 2004--a 63 percent increase over the previous
            year. Another key achievement stemming from an ICE
            investigation was the extradition of one of the leaders of Cali
            drug cartel from Colombia, as well as the arrest of several
            leaders of the Norte Valle cartel.
      --Providing Support and Assistance to the Law Enforcement
            Community.--ICE's Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC)
            responded to more than 603,000 inquiries related to immigration
            status from Federal, State, and local authorities in fiscal
            year 2004--a 12 percent increase over the previous year. In
            addition, the LESC placed more than 15,000 immigration
            detainers with police agencies nationwide. These detainers
            allow ICE to more efficiently remove aliens from the United
            States once their jail term is expired.

                                   CHALLENGES

        I could continue with many, many additional examples. I would like
    to note that ICE's accomplishments of the last 2 years--which I believe
    are unprecedented in law enforcement--have taken place against a
    backdrop of significant challenges.
        First, we have faced the organizational and logistical challenges
    inherent in bringing our various divisions together into an integrated
    whole within the Department of Homeland Security. The challenges of the
    DHS reorganization have been likened to ``trying to change the engine
    in an airplane in mid-flight.'' We have certainly experienced those
    challenges at ICE, where we have had to build a new agency almost from
    the ground up--bringing together divisions from four separate agencies
    into a single functioning unit, and melding the cultures and missions
    of various units into a unified whole. This process was analogous to
    that of building a new start-up company while performing a large-scale
    merger and acquisition--with the notable difference that we had but a
    few weeks to accomplish our merger, compared to the months, or years,
    that would be devoted to a merger in the private sector. While the
    reorganization is still ongoing, I am pleased to report that the
    majority of these organizational and logistical challenges have been
    met and addressed, thanks to the commitment, and perseverance of ICE
    employees.
        Another significant challenge that ICE has faced has been budget
    issues related to resource allocations. During the reorganization of
    the new department, the budgets for component agencies--including those
    for overhead, information technology support, legal support, and other
    administrative functions--were broken apart in ways that were not
    entirely consistent. As a result, in some cases ICE was paying for
    services when the funds for those services had been allocated to other
    agencies. When we realized the budget issues that would arise from
    these allocation errors, we took swift action. ICE placed a temporary
    freeze on new hires; we limited expenditures to those deemed ``mission
    essential''; and we moved to set clear priorities for funding. We also
    worked with DHS to undertake a budget review to determine what money
    was appropriately due to ICE in return for shared services.
        These measures got results. Diligent and conscientious efforts on
    the part of our employees and field management helped us to realize
    $120 million in short-term savings during fiscal year 2004. In
    addition, ICE identified and recouped more than $500 million from other
    agencies in the second half of fiscal year 2004. ICE also bought
    services from other DHS components as part of the shared services
    concept such as HR, logistics and fleet management.
        We are also in the process of systematically improving financial
    management throughout the entire agency. Some changes have been
    implemented, and we expect to implement additional improvements in the
    coming months. We will update the Congress periodically with details on
    our reforms in reports requested by the Committees.
        While this has been a challenging time for ICE, we have made every
    effort to communicate the facts to our employees at every opportunity--
    through such measures as town hall meetings; broadcast messages to all
    employees; and visits by myself and other members of the agency's
    senior leadership to all of our field offices.
        Over the past 2 years ICE employees have refused to be defined by
    our challenges, but rather by our achievements, which represent the
    true story of our agency. Our accomplishments represent the abiding
    commitment of all ICE employees to meeting these challenges head-on and
    accomplishing the critical mission with which we are charged.

                      BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

        The proposed fiscal year 2006 budget builds on the foundation of
    our accomplishments while addressing many of the challenges outlined
    above. The President's fiscal year 2006 Budget request seeks more than
    $4.36 billion for ICE, which represents an increase of 13.5 percent
    over fiscal year 2005. This budget request will allow ICE to pursue our
    priority missions--including the apprehension, detention, and removal
    of illegal aliens; financial and trade investigations; protection of
    Federal infrastructure; and protection of the civil aviation system--
    with even greater effectiveness. In my testimony, I will address our
    major program areas--Investigations, Detention and Removal Operations,
    the Federal Air Marshal Service, and the Federal Protective Service--as
    well as issues related to management, administration, and information
    technology.

                         FISCAL YEAR 2006 ENHANCEMENTS

        The President's fiscal year 2006 budget proposal request for ICE
    Detention and Removal Operations will enhance public safety and
    national security by ensuring that those aliens who pose the most
    critical threats are removed from the United States first--a critical
    objective in ICE's long-term strategy to restore integrity to the
    Nation's immigration system. In addition, this funding will help ICE to
    meet its detention needs, which are growing every year as we move to
    aggressively enforce immigration laws. This funding will help ICE to
    continue building on the vigorous enforcement efforts we have developed
    in the last 2 years.
        Detention and Removal Operations.--The DHS Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement (ICE) fiscal year 2006 President's budget seeks $176.0
    million in enhancements for Detention and Removal Operations:
      --$90 million/16 Full-Time Employees (FTEs) for Custody Management/
            Bedspace. In many cases, apprehended aliens must be detained
            while they go through immigration proceedings and until they
            are removed. Custody Management provides safe, secure, and
            humane confinement for these aliens. It also ensures that
            aliens in ICE custody appear for their immigration hearings,
            and then for their subsequent removal. This request would
            provide $90 million to fund requirements of the Custody
            Management budget activity, adding 16 FTE and increasing funded
            bedspace by 1,920 beds. This enhancement will improve detention
            efforts that ensure public safety and national security.
      --$5.4 million/7 FTEs for the Alternatives to Detention program. The
            Alternatives to Detention program places low-risk aliens under
            close supervision, rather than into traditional detention,
            serving as a cost-effective way to ensure their appearance for
            an immigration hearing or for removal. ICE's Intensive
            Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) is a community-based case
            management program that is aimed at improving the appearance
            rate of aliens at immigration hearings. This request includes
            $5.4 million/7 FTE to expand the ISAP to two additional
            locations.
      --$8.9 million for Fugitive Operations. Approximately 465,000 aliens
            have received final orders of removal but are not confirmed to
            have departed the United States. This request includes $8.9
            million to enhance case management resources that enable the
            Fugitive Operations program to locate and apprehend fugitive
            aliens in the United States. This investment will serve to
            improve the integrity of the immigration enforcement process
            that is instrumental in deterring the efforts of potential
            absconders.
      --$5.4 million/19 FTEs for the Institutional Removal Program (IRP).
            Many removable aliens are currently incarcerated in Federal or
            State prisons for criminal convictions. If these aliens are
            released upon completion of their criminal sentence, they are
            likely to avoid immigration removal proceedings. The IRP
            ensures that these aliens are not released back into the
            community before they are removed from the United States. The
            $5.4 million requested would provide for Immigration
            Enforcement Agents to enhance the IRP with staff support needed
            to facilitate the removal of aliens following completion of
            criminal sentences.
      --$39.3 million for Interior Repatriation, as part of the Arizona
            Border Control multi-agency effort. One of the major components
            of enhanced border control is a focus on border safety through
            the removal of migrants from the dangers associated with
            crossing the border illegally. The United States, in
            cooperation with the government of Mexico, has focused on the
            use of every available tool to break the cycle of migrant
            deaths in the dangerous terrain where human smugglers value
            profits more than the human life they often sacrifice for
            personal gain. One of the major tools agreed to by both
            countries is the use of a voluntary interior repatriation
            program. The interior repatriation program allows for movement
            at the U.S. border of Mexican nationals who voluntarily return
            to selected cities within the interior of Mexico by means of
            commercial flights. Without this program, a significant number
            of persons who are apprehended and returned to Mexico at the
            border seek re-entry through dangerous border terrains, thus
            repeatedly risking injury or death in the process.
      --$24.0 million for the Office of Detention and Removal. This request
            provides that the base budget for Detention Removal Operations
            be adjusted by $24 million for salary costs and operating
            expenses. These funds will augment support for increased
            detention and removal activities to ensure the departure of
            removable aliens from the United States through the fair
            enforcement of immigration laws.
        ICE's Office of Investigations and Office of Intelligence play a
    vital role in advancing national security and homeland defense through
    aggressive investigations and cooperation with other agencies to share
    information on organized criminal activity and terrorist organizations.
    ICE's investigators have a long history of targeting money laundering
    networks; narcotics trafficking; criminal financial schemes;
    counterfeiting and piracy; trade fraud; export violations; and other
    financial and economic crimes. In addition, our investigators lead the
    way in targeting child sexual predators, human traffickers, and child
    labor violators. Our investigators are also at the forefront of
    combating immigration violations, including enforcement of immigration
    laws at worksites and shutting down organizations that provide
    fraudulent documentation for a price.
        Investigations and Intelligence.--The ICE fiscal year 2006
    President's budget seeks $171.7 million in enhancements for
    Investigations and Intelligence:
      --$43.7 million/346 FTEs for Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task
            Force (OCDETF) activities. This increase replaces funding
            previously received on a reimbursable basis from the Department
            of Justice (DOJ) for ICE's participation in the OCDETF program.
            OCDETF is a Federal drug enforcement program that focuses on
            the disruption and dismantling of major drug trafficking
            organizations. OCDETF has been in existence since 1982 and
            operates under the guidance and oversight of the Attorney
            General. Employing the resources and expertise of 11 member
            Federal agencies, along with support from State and local law
            enforcement agencies, OCDETF has contributed to the successful
            prosecution and conviction of more than 44,000 members of
            criminal organizations and resulted in the seizure of cash and
            property assets totaling more than $3.0 billion. This
            enhancement requests no additional FTEs but proposes that 346
            positions currently on board be paid by direct appropriation
            instead of by reimbursable funding.
      --$5.0 million/5 FTEs for Visa Security Program Expansion. The ICE
            Visa Security Program provides follow-up investigations on visa
            applicants seeking to enter the United States, for the purpose
            of denying visas to terrorists, criminals, and persons of
            special interest. Officers are assigned to posts to perform
            this law enforcement review of immigrant and nonimmigrant visa
            applications prior to visa issuance by consular officers of the
            Department of State. This enhancement would allow ICE to
            maintain operations initiated in fiscal year 2005 and support
            one additional Visa Security Unit overseas.
      --$18.0 million/72 FTEs for Temporary Worker Worksite Enforcement. As
            part of the President's proposed temporary worker program (TWP)
            to match willing foreign workers with willing U.S. employers,
            enforcement of immigration laws to ensure compliance is
            required. The requested resources would fund 143 positions and
            the required training to conduct employer audits, investigate
            possible violations, and prepare criminal employer case
            presentations. This funding more than doubles the resources
            dedicated to the worksite enforcement effort.
      --$105.0 million for the Office of Investigations. This request
            includes $105 million for salary and support costs, including
            vehicle and other equipment purchases.
      --$3.5 million/24 FTEs for Legal Proceedings. This enhancement would
            provide funding for additional attorneys and support staff
            required to improve the ability of ICE's legal program to
            complete matters in Immigration Court and help reduce the case
            backlog.
      --$11.3 million/1 FTE for the Homeland Secure Data Network (HSDN). A
            total of $37 million is required for the HSDN to provide for
            secure classified, computer-to-computer connectivity. The HSDN
            is expected to streamline and modernize the classified data
            capabilities of DHS to facilitate high-quality and high-value
            classified data communication and collaboration within DHS and
            with other Federal agencies and organizations, including the
            Department of Defense (DOD). Based on modern network and
            telecommunications designs, the HSDN will optimize both the
            classified data exchanges between DHS offices, and other
            networks of classified data such as the Anti-Drug Network
            (ADNET), Automatic Digital Network (AUTODIN), and Defense
            Message System (DMS). The HSDN will provide a scalable
            infrastructure, capable of supporting the growth and evolution
            of the DHS mission. ICE's allotted portion in support of the
            network is $11.3 million. Enhancement request includes one
            position to serve as a liaison between ICE and DHS.
        The Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) has been charged with
    providing security in the skies since 9/11. The President's budget
    request will help FAMS to continue in that mission as we continue the
    evolutionary process of integrating this key Homeland Security division
    into the agency.
        Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS).--The ICE fiscal year 2006
    President's budget seeks $14.8 million in The Federal Air Marshal
    Service (FAMS) has been charged with providing security in the skies
    since 9/11. The President's budget request will help FAMS to continue
    in that mission as we continue the evolutionary process of integrating
    this key Homeland Security division into the agency.
        Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS).--The ICE fiscal year 2006
    President's budget seeks $9.9 million in enhancements for the Federal
    Air Marshal Service (FAMS). This enhancement request would allow the
    FAMS to increase its staffing level to a level that will allow it to
    meet its mission objective through the risk-based deployment of Federal
    Air Marshals. In accomplishing this objective, FAMS works closely with
    DHS and other Federal, State and local agencies and private industry to
    develop, deploy and sustain a comprehensive intelligence-driven
    approach and response to terrorist and related criminal threats against
    the United States and its interests. FAMS provides critical support to
    the DHS mission to prevent terrorist acts within the United States,
    reduce vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize damage from potential
    attacks.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The President's fiscal year 2006 budget request for ICE is a solid
    step forward for the agency. ICE is dedicated to protecting the
    homeland by enforcing immigration and customs laws; restoring integrity
    to the immigration system; ensuring the sanctity of our financial and
    trade systems; protecting Federal property; and ensuring security in
    the air. That is a broad and diverse mission, but the men and women of
    ICE are dedicated to building this agency into a model for law
    enforcement in the 21st century. The fiscal year 2006 budget request
    provides us with the resources that will make this goal a reality as we
    strive to secure the American homeland and protect the American people.
    We look forward to continuing to work with you to accomplish these
    worthy objectives.
        I would like to thank you, Chairman Cochran, Senator Byrd, and
    Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify before you
    today. I look forward to answering any questions that you may have.

        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Mr. Garcia.
        Mr. Bonner, you may proceed.

                         STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. BONNER

        Mr. Bonner. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Byrd,
    Senator Leahy. I am very pleased to be here this morning to
    discuss the fiscal year 2006 budget request for U.S. Customs
    and Border Patrol, or CBP. I am also very pleased to be here
    with my colleagues from the Department of Homeland Security,
    both Director Aguirre of CIS and Mike Garcia, the Assistant
    Secretary for ICE.
        I particularly want to thank the members of this
    subcommittee for your strong support of the work that CBP does
    every day 24-7 to protect and defend the borders of our
    country. As you know, CBP's priority mission is homeland
    security and for a front-line border agency, which is what we
    are, that means that CBP's priority mission is keeping
    terrorists and terrorist weapons from getting into the United
    States.
        The budget request for 2006 in my view will provide
    resources to perform our all-important priority mission, our
    anti-terrorism mission, as well as our traditional missions,
    which go from everything from interdicting illegal drugs at our
    border to determining admissibility of people appearing at our
    ports of entry to apprehending people illegally entering the
    United States, protecting American agriculture, regulating
    trade, as well as collecting about $27 billion in duties and
    fees.

                      FISCAL YEAR 2004 WORKLOAD STATISTICS

        The magnitude of our border task is reflected by just a few
    statistics from fiscal year 2006, because in fiscal year 2004
    CBP through its Border Patrol agents apprehended over 1.1
    million people illegally entering our country or attempting to
    enter our country, 1.1 million. By the way, you want to
    translate that? It is about 3,000 each and every day of the
    year, day and night.
        CBP officers at our ports of entry and Border Patrol agents
    collectively seized slightly over 2 million pounds, nearly 1
    million kilograms, of illegal drugs attempting to be entered
    through our ports of entry. That is 56,000, by the way,
    separate seizures of illegal drugs at our borders last year.
        We seized almost $46 million in cash and currency that was
    leaving the United States, much of that of course is from the
    proceeds of illegal drug trafficking. We just seized about $1.7
    million in cash in a vehicle a couple of days ago that was
    going outbound in a vehicle through the Port of Laredo back to
    Mexico.
        There were 450,000 aliens that were turned around at our
    ports of entry. By that I mean they were not allowed to enter
    the United States because they were determined to be
    inadmissible. There were 78,000 fraudulent passports and other
    documents that were seized and intercepted by CBP at our
    borders.

                             ONE FACE AT THE BORDER

        So it gives you an idea of the magnitude of the task, but
    it also tells you what we are doing and that the job is getting
    done. We have unified our work force to create one unified
    front-line border agency for managing and securing and
    controlling the borders of our country. We have developed a
    comprehensive border strategy at our ports of entry for our CBP
    officers and Agriculture specialists and between our ports of
    entry, primarily our land borders with Mexico and Canada, with
    our CBP Border Patrol agents.
        The transfer of the air and marine operations to CBP last
    November I believe further strengthens our effort to secure our
    borders, to interdict drugs at and beyond our borders, and to
    support our homeland security mission.

                           TRADE/TRAVEL FACILITATION

        We have moved forward on important initiatives set in
    motion after 9/11 to secure the movement of goods and people
    across our border and our ports of entry without unduly
    impeding the legitimate flow of trade, the flow of legitimate
    trade and travel that is so important to our economy.

                WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DETECTION TECHNOLOGY

        We are also deploying more technology at our ports of entry
    and between them to help detect potential terrorists and
    terrorist weapons, including potentially weapons of mass
    destruction, and I am talking about nuclear devices and
    radiological weapons, at our borders. This includes, by the
    way, already the over 400 radiation portal monitors at many of
    our major ports of entry. We are in phases three and four of
    that project to deploy better radiation detection equipment at
    our borders.
        As I said, Mr. Chairman, because the personnel and
    functions from the front-line border agencies of our you have
    been unified into one border agency, our Nation's borders are
    more secure and our Nation is safer than it was when we were
    literally fragmented between four agencies and three different
    departments of government that were responsible for our border.
    With over 41,000 approximately FTE Customs and Border
    Protection, about one-fourth of all the employees of the
    Department of Homeland Security, is by far the largest actual
    merger of people and functions taking place in the Department.

                     COMPREHENSIVE BORDER CONTROL STRATEGY

        Having one border agency also allows us for the first time
    in the history of our country to implement a comprehensive
    border strategy, not just at our ports of entry but between our
    ports of entry as well. Between our ports of entry--along the
    Mexican border and the Canadian border--the strategic goal is
    clear. That goal is to establish operational control of our
    borders, which by the way I think was always an important goal
    for our country, but is absolutely essential, as Senator Byrd
    suggested in his comments. It is absolutely essential in the
    post-9/11 era, in the era of global terrorism.
        Now, to do this, by the way, it is not all about staffing.
    It is also about the better use and deployment of technology.
    It is about organizing ourselves better in terms of how we
    protect and secure our border. To do this, we have done a
    number of things that are not widely known. One is we have
    centralized the Border Patrol command structure and increased
    the use and deployment of technology, including remote camera
    system and sensoring devices. We are pioneering as the first
    law enforcement agency ever the use of unmanned aerial
    vehicles, or UAV's, to establish literally an aerial patrol
    over significant segments of our borders.
        But we recognize that technology alone, by the way, is not
    a substitute for well trained and dedicated Border Patrol
    Agents. One of our goals of our strategy to control the border
    is to increase our ability to more rapidly deploy Border Patrol
    Agents to respond to weak spots along our borders with Mexico
    and Canada.

                          CARGO/SUPPLY CHAIN SECURITY

        Let me just say one other thing. Just shortly after 9/11,
    U.S. Customs, now CBP, developed a strategy for securing the
    movement of cargo to the United States and we did that through
    essentially four interrelated initiatives: the 24-hour rule to
    get advance information on all cargo coming into the United
    States; the use of an automated targeting system to identify
    the high-risk cargo, particularly for the terrorist threat, and
    that is done at our National Targeting Center in Northern
    Virginia; the container security initiative, an initiative that
    partners with other governments to screen high-risk containers
    before they are loaded on board vessels for the United States.
    Currently there are 35 foreign seaports that are partnered with
    us in CIS, including ports like Singapore and Rotterdam, and
    most recently Shanghai, China.
        Through the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-
    TPAT), our partnership with the private sector, many major
    importers in the United States, oceangoing carriers and others,
    to improve the security of the supply chain literally back to
    the manufacturer, the foreign loading docks of manufacturers in
    foreign countries, all the way to U.S. ports of arrival, in
    exchange for benefits of faster processing that CBP can give to
    goods of companies that have better secured their supply chain.
        Those initiatives provide greater protection for our
    country against potential terrorist attack and not a one of
    those initiatives existed before 9/11.

                               prepared statement

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me make an opening
    statement and for this opportunity to appear, and I look
    forward to answering any questions you or the other members may
    have.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Robert C. Bonner

                           INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

        Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Byrd, Members of the Subcommittee,
    it is a privilege and an honor to appear before you today to discuss
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) fiscal year 2006 budget
    request.
        I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to the Committee for the
    support it provided for important initiatives implemented by CBP last
    year. That support enabled CBP to make significant progress in securing
    our borders and protecting our country against the terrorist threat. As
    the Commissioner of CBP, I look forward to working with you to build on
    these successes.
        As the frontline border agency, CBP's mission is to prevent
    terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States. That
    extraordinarily important priority mission means improving security at
    our physical borders and ports of entry, but it also means extending
    our zone of security beyond our physical borders--so that American
    borders are not our first line of defense.
        And we must do this while continuing to perform our traditional
    missions well. These missions include apprehending individuals
    attempting to enter the United States illegally, stemming the flow of
    illegal drugs and other contraband, protecting our agricultural and
    economic interests from harmful pests and diseases, protecting American
    businesses from theft of their intellectual property, regulating and
    facilitating international trade, collecting import duties, and
    enforcing U.S. trade laws. In fiscal year 2004, CBP processed almost 30
    million trade entries, collected $27 billion in revenue, seized 2.2
    million pounds of narcotics, processed 428 million pedestrians and
    passengers, 121 million privately owned vehicles, and processed and
    cleared 23.5 million sea, rail and truck containers.
        We must perform all of this important security and border-related
    work without stifling the flow of legitimate trade and travel that is
    so important to our Nation's economy. In other words, we have ``twin
    goals:'' Building more secure and more efficient borders.
        The fiscal year 2006 budget for CBP totals $6.7 billion, including
    $5.6 billion in appropriated resources and $1.1 billion from user fees.
    The total program increase request for fiscal year 2006 is $261
    million. This increase is paramount to help CBP fulfill its priority
    mission of preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering
    the United States. As Commissioner, I will continue to ensure funds are
    devoted to support the traditional missions for which CBP is
    responsible, including resources for the automation and information
    technology programs that will improve overall operations of the agency.
        Mr. Chairman, although I will touch on each of the priority
    programs and initiatives in my statement, I want to point out that in
    many cases, funds spent in one area have a direct and positive impact
    on other areas. For example, funds spent on automation and information
    technology provide invaluable assistance to our priority mission of
    preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United
    States. Also, funds spent on our priority anti-terrorism mission often
    result in improvements in our effectiveness and efficiency in carrying
    out our traditional missions, such as interdicting narcotics.
        By way of summary of the fiscal year 2006 budget for CBP, I can
    tell you that the program increases we are requesting include:
      --$125 million to continue the deployment and enhancement of Weapons
            of Mass Destruction Detection Technology to our Nation's ports
            of entry (POE);
      --$19.8 million for the continued deployment of surveillance and
            intrusion detection technology along our Nation's land borders
            through the America's Shield Initiative;
      --$36.9 million to hire 210 new Border Patrol Agents thereby
            increasing border security and enhancing control of the borders
            between the ports of entry;
      --$20 million to replace 12 of the Border Patrol's 58 Vietnam-era
            vintage helicopters ensuring that Agents on the ground have
            adequate and reliable air support;
      --$5.4 million to enhance and improve the efficiency our cargo,
            conveyance and passenger screening systems ensuring that
            legitimate trade and travel crosses our borders without delay
            and that terrorists and their weapons, criminals or contraband
            are intercepted before entering the United States;
      --$2.0 million for expansion of the Immigration Advisory Program to
            additional overseas locations ensuring that terrorists,
            criminals or persons traveling with fraudulent documents do not
            board aircraft bound for the United States;
      --$5.4 million to expand the Container Security Initiative to
            strategically important foreign seaports;
      --$8.2 million for the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism to
            increase supply chain security and expedite the clearance of
            legitimate trade;
      --$1.0 million for the operating expenses associated with the Arizona
            Border Control Initiative;
      --$3.0 million for the operation of the Automated Biometric
            Identification System (IDENT)/Integrated Automated Fingerprint
            System (IAFIS) so that CBP Officers and Border Patrol Agents
            can positively identify known terrorists and criminals
            attempting to enter the United States;
      --$31.7 million to operate and maintain the long range radar system
            in partnership with the Department of Defense, ensuring that
            aircraft are detected and tracked as they attempt to enter U.S.
            airspace; and
      --$3.2 million to contribute to the development of the DHS-wide
            Homeland Security Data Network.
        In my statement, I will discuss these programs and others that CBP
    has been working on during the past year, and outline the actions CBP
    is planning to take in each area. I would like to begin, though, with a
    brief update for the Subcommittee on the status of CBP after its second
    year of existence as a consolidated agency within DHS.

                 CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION--THE SECOND YEAR

        Fiscal year 2004 was the first full year that CBP operated as the
    single, unified border agency for the United States. From a strategic
    and operational standpoint, this consolidation has significantly
    increased our ability to execute our anti-terrorism and traditional
    missions at our Nation's borders more effectively than ever before,
    thereby enhancing the security of the United States, its citizens and
    the economy. I believe firmly that the United States is safer today
    than it was on September 11, 2001, because of the creation of CBP and
    the efforts and vigilance of CBP's personnel.

    Achieve One Face at the Border
        With the creation of CBP, one agency has the responsibility for the
    entirety of our country's borders, for all purposes, customs,
    immigration, agriculture protection and, importantly, terrorism. This
    means that for the first time in our Nation's history, we are able to
    design a comprehensive strategy for our borders.
        To create ``One Face at the Border,'' CBP had to unify and
    integrate its operations and workforce. CBP is the largest merger of
    people and functions taking place within the DHS. Nowhere was
    unification more critical than at the ports of entry (POEs) where
    19,000 legacy Customs, Immigration and Agriculture inspectors joined
    together to carry out CBP's priority and traditional missions. To unify
    the Inspector workforce at the POEs, CBP established a new frontline
    team--the CBP officer and CBP Agriculture Specialist. In March 2004,
    former Agriculture Inspectors became CBP Agriculture Specialists and in
    July, all former Customs and Immigration Inspectors were converted to
    the CBP Officer position with a new series, title and job description.
    The two occupational groups wear the same uniform and have been unified
    under a single compensation system for overtime and premium pay,
    ensuring efficient and equitable assignment of work and compensation.
    This consolidation was commemorated in August when the new CBP badges
    with the DHS seal were issued to our personnel. Today CBP Officers and
    CBP Agriculture Specialists are our frontline team at all of our
    Nation's ports of entry and overseas pre-clearance locations.

    Secure and Improve the Flow of Global Trade
        For the first time ever, on December 9, 2004, the World Customs
    Organization (WCO) Policy Committee endorsed a Framework of Standards
    to secure and facilitate global trade. The WCO represents 164 Customs
    administrations from around the world and accounts for 99 percent of
    all global trade. The framework is based in large part on principles
    designed and implemented by CBP in the aftermath of September 11,
    including: the 24-Hour Rule; the Advanced Targeting System located at
    the National Targeting Center; the Container Security Initiative, and
    the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). The WCO
    framework encourages cooperation among worldwide Customs
    administrations to secure international supply chains and facilitate
    the movement of legitimate trade and travel.

    Develop and Implement a Comprehensive Border Control Strategy
        As a sovereign Nation, it has always been important that we control
    our borders. In light of the terrorist attacks of September 11, and the
    continuing threat posed to our country by international terrorists, it
    is now absolutely essential that we do so. and it is likewise essential
    that we have a coherent and understood strategy for doing so. We are
    developing a new Border Patrol strategy designed to achieve the goal of
    operational control of the United States borders. This strategy will
    build on the previous Border Patrol strategies, but will be enhanced to
    reflect the current threat environment.
        CBP's Office of Border Patrol is a vital part of CBP, responsible
    for controlling the border between official ports of entry. In the last
    2 years, the Border Patrol has made significant strides in improving
    our ability to control our border and establish a substantial
    probability of apprehending terrorists and their weapons as they
    attempt to illegally enter the United States between the ports of
    entry. For example, CBP has tripled the number of Border Patrol Agents
    on the Northern Border since 9/11, centralized the Border Patrol's
    command structure, and deployed additional technology to improve border
    enforcement operations, including cameras, electronic sensors, and
    Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.
        As important as these milestones are, we cannot afford to become
    complacent or let down our guard. To meet the threat of global
    terrorism, we must implement a layered, defense in-depth strategy to
    protect our borders. New challenges and opportunities are on the
    horizon for CBP. Our achievements over the past year and the
    President's fiscal year 2006 budget will serve as the foundation to
    meet them.

    Integrate Air and Marine Operations
        The fiscal year 2005 Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
    Appropriations Act directed the transfer of missions and assets of the
    Air Marine Operations (AMO) from Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    (ICE) to CBP. The transfer will be completed in two phases. Phase One,
    which was completed on October 31, 2004, moved AMO intact from ICE to
    CBP. This included the transfer of operational responsibility and
    responsibility for all AMO personnel, missions, commitments,
    facilities, and assets to CBP.
        Phase Two, which commenced in late November, is the integration of
    all CBP air and marine personnel, missions, and assets. To accomplish
    this, CBP is using the Transition Management Office (TMO) process that
    was used successfully during the merger of the legacy CBP entities. CBP
    has made significant progress in Phase Two. I am confident that upon
    completion of this process, we will have a more integrated, effective
    and efficient aviation and marine program.

    Provide Assistance to the New Government of Iraq
        In August, teams of CBP Officers and Border Patrol Agents were
    deployed to the Jordanian International Police Training Center to train
    officers of the Iraqi Department of Border Enforcement. The Iraqis have
    been provided with courses on border security tactics, human rights,
    defensive tactics, weapons training, and vehicle searches; in addition
    to basic customs and immigration activities. To date, CBP personnel
    have assisted in the training of more than 2,100 Iraqi border control
    officers. The training provided by CBP personnel will continue in the
    aftermath of the recent elections and focuses on keeping saboteurs,
    terrorists and armaments from crossing into or out of Iraq. The Iraqi
    officials CBP trained are now putting these skills to use at their
    country's borders and ports of entry.
    meeting our twin goals: building more secure and more efficient borders
        As the single, unified border agency of the United States, CBP's
    mission is extraordinarily important to the protection of America and
    the American people. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of
    September 11th, CBP has developed numerous initiatives to meet our twin
    goals of improving security and facilitating the flow of legitimate
    trade and travel. The fiscal year 2006 budget will help us expand upon
    those initiatives to ensure further protection of both the American
    people and the American economy. Our strategy in implementing these
    initiatives involves a number of factors, including: (A) constant
    improvement of our targeting systems to better screen people and goods
    entering and departing the United States; (B) extending our zone of
    security outward by partnering with other countries; (C) extending our
    zone of security outward by partnering with the private sector; (D)
    deploying advanced inspection technology and equipment at our ports of
    entry to improve our ability to detect weapons of mass destruction; and
    (E) deploying advanced detection and monitoring equipment between our
    ports of entry to detect illegal crossings of our land borders with
    Mexico and Canada.

    Enhancing Our Ability to Identify High-Risk People and Cargo
        Information is one of the most important keys to our ability to
    increase security without stifling legitimate trade and travel. Good
    information enables us to more accurately identify--or target--what is
    ``high risk,'' defined as a potential threat, and what is low risk or
    absolutely no risk whatsoever. The separation of high risk from no risk
    is critical because searching and scrutinizing 100 percent of the cargo
    and people that enter the United States would cripple the flow of
    legitimate trade and travel to the United States. What is necessary and
    advisable is searching 100 percent of the high-risk cargo and people
    that enter our country. To do this, we need to be able to identify what
    is high risk, and do so as early in the process as possible. CBP has
    several programs and initiatives that help us accomplish that task.

                Automated Targeting System
        The Automated Targeting System (ATS), which is used by National
    Targeting Center (NTC) and field targeting units in the United States
    and overseas, is essential to our ability to target high-risk cargo and
    passengers entering the United States. ATS is the system through which
    we process advance manifest and passenger information to pick up
    anomalies and ``red flags'' and determine what passengers and cargo are
    ``high risk,'' and therefore scrutinized at the port of entry or, in
    some cases, overseas.
        The funding increases sought for ATS in the fiscal year 2006 budget
    will allow for the continued improvement of the system as well as
    provide it with the capacity to process the electronic data related to
    the ever-increasing number of people and goods entering the United
    States. For example, the funding will allow us to develop and implement
    a version of ATS that, for the first time, will be able to identify
    potentially high-risk travelers in passenger vehicles. It will also be
    used to upgrade our passenger targeting system by improving the amount
    of government data that the system can access and analyze as well as
    provide us with the capacity to train more people on the use of the
    system. On the cargo side, the funding will permit ATS to increase its
    capacity and upgrade its capabilities by utilizing cutting edge
    information analysis technologies developed by CBP and the private
    sector.

    Extending our Zone of Security Outward--Partnering with Other Countries
                Container Security Initiative (CSI)
        To meet our priority mission of preventing terrorists and terrorist
    weapons from entering the United States, CBP must extend our zone of
    security outward--so that our borders are not the first line of defense
    to keep terrorists and terrorist weapons out of the United States. We
    have done this by partnering with other countries on our Container
    Security Initiative (CSI), one of the most revolutionary and successful
    homeland security initiatives developed and implemented after September
    11, 2001.
        Almost 25,000 seagoing containers arrive and are off loaded at U.S.
    seaports each day. That equates to nine million cargo containers
    annually. Because of the sheer volume of sea container traffic and the
    opportunities it presents for terrorists, containerized shipping is
    uniquely vulnerable to terrorist attack. Under CSI, which is the first
    program of its kind, we are partnering with foreign governments to
    identify and inspect high-risk cargo containers at foreign ports,
    before they are shipped to our seaports and pose a threat to the United
    States and to global trade.
        The three core elements of CSI are:
      --First, identifying ``high-risk'' containers, using ATS and the 24-
            hour rule, before they set sail for the United States.
      --Second, performing security inspections of ``high risk'' containers
            at the foreign CSI port before they are shipped to the United
            States.
      --Third, using technology to perform security inspections of the
            high-risk containers, including both radiation detection
            equipment and large-scale imaging machines, to detect potential
            terrorist weapons.
        CSI continues to generate exceptional participation and support.
    Right now, CSI is operational in 35 foreign seaports, including:
    Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Le Havre and Marseilles, France;
    Bremerhaven and Hamburg, Germany; Antwerp and Zebrugee, Belgium;
    Singapore; Yokohama, Tokyo, Nagoya and Kobe Japan; Hong Kong;
    Gothenburg, Sweden; Felixstowe, Liverpool, Southampton, Thamesport, and
    Tilbury United Kingdom; Genoa, La Spezia, Naples, Gioia Tauro and
    Livorno Italy; Busan, Korea; Durban, South Africa; and Port Kelang and
    Tanjung Pelepas, Malaysia; Piraeus, Greece; Algericas, Spain; and Laem
    Chabang, Thailand; Halifax, Montreal and Vancouver, Canada; and most
    recently Shanghai, China.
        I want to express my gratitude to the Committee members for their
    support of CSI in fiscal year 2005. With the $5.4 million increase in
    funding requested for fiscal year 2006, we will continue expanding CSI
    capabilities to ports with strategic importance or ports through which
    containers from high risk areas are transshipped. The fiscal year 2006
    budget will allow for future expansion of the program to additional
    high-risk or strategic foreign ports.

                Immigration Advisory Program
        The Immigration Advisory Program (IAP) extends our zone of security
    outward by screening passengers before boarding aircraft destined for
    the United States. Immigration Advisory Program teams identify high
    risk and terrorist watchlisted passengers using the Automated Targeting
    System and are able to intervene by questioning high risk passengers at
    overseas boarding areas of foreign hub airports. They are able to check
    documentation of high-risk passengers prior to departure and make
    preliminary decisions whether the passenger will be admissible to the
    United States upon arrival. If potentially fraudulent identification or
    immigration documents are identified, or the individual's purpose poses
    a threat, the airline is advised not to board the passenger and the
    host country law enforcement is contacted. The IAP teams have access to
    the passenger screening information produced by CBP's NTC through the
    vetting of passenger manifests against terrorist watch lists and
    criminal databases. If a ``hit'' occurs or documents are found to be
    deficient or fraudulent, the passenger is not allowed to board the
    aircraft. There are two significant advantages to this approach. First,
    terrorists, criminals or inadmissible aliens are not allowed to board,
    thereby preventing their entry into the United States and/or the
    inconvenience and expense of an in flight diversion of the aircraft.
    Second, the United States Government avoids penalties and the costs of
    detaining the individual before being deported and the airline avoids
    the costs of transporting the individual back to the originating
    airport.
        IAP is currently operating on a pilot basis in Amsterdam's Schipol
    Airport in the Netherlands and at Chopin Airport in Warsaw, Poland. The
    fiscal year 2006 budget includes $2.0 million to expand IAP to two
    additional overseas locations. I thank the Committee for their support
    of this program in the fiscal year 2005 DHS Appropriations Act.

    Extending our Zone of Security--Partnering with the Trade
                Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT)
        The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) is a
    voluntary partnership between CBP and industry to secure international
    supply chains from end-to-end. C-TPAT importers secure supply chains
    from the foreign factory loading docks of their vendors to the port of
    arrival in the United States. CBP, in return, offers C-TPAT shipments
    expedited processing and provides C-TPAT participants with other
    benefits.
        As C-TPAT has evolved, we have steadily added to the rigor of the
    program. In order to join C-TPAT, a company must conduct a self-
    assessment of its current supply chain security procedures using C-TPAT
    security criteria and best practices developed in partnership with
    logistics and security experts from the trade. A participant must also
    commit to increasing its supply chain security to meet minimal supply
    chain security criteria. Perhaps most importantly, participants also
    make a commitment to work with their business partners and customers
    throughout their supply chains to ensure that those businesses also
    increase their supply chain security. By leveraging the influence of
    importers and others on different participants in the supply chain, C-
    TPAT is able to increase security of U.S. bound goods to the point of
    origin (i.e., to the point of container stuffing). This reach--to the
    foreign loading dock--which is beyond the regulatory reach of the
    United States Government, is critical to the goal of increasing supply
    chain security.
        C-TPAT is currently open to all importers, cross-border air, sea,
    truck, and rail carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, consolidators,
    non-vessel operating common carriers, and U.S. Marine and Terminal
    operators. We are currently enrolling certain foreign manufacturers in
    the C-TPAT program as well, and we will continue to develop ways to
    include this important element of the supply chain in the program. The
    intent is to increase point of origin to point of arrival security into
    the supply chain with active C-TPAT links at each point in the
    logistics process.
        Although C-TPAT is a partnership, the risk is too great to simply
    take participants at their word when it comes to their supply chain
    security. We have created a cadre of specially trained supply chain
    security specialists to validate the commitments made by C-TPAT
    participants--to ensure that they are increasing supply chain security
    as they have promised CBP. These specialists meet with personnel from
    C-TPAT participants and their business partners and observe the
    security of their supply chains, including security at overseas loading
    docks and manufacturing plants, as well as transportation links
    outbound to the United States. Through this process, we work with C-
    TPAT participants to identify ways that they can further increase their
    supply chain security and we ensure that companies that are not
    honoring their commitments lose their C-TPAT benefits. As of January
    12, 2005, C-TPAT had reviewed and verified the security profiles for
    4,460 companies; there are more than 3,500 company profiles pending
    acceptance. We have validated or are in the process of validating parts
    of the supply chain of over 1,200 of the 4,460 certified partners, or
    approximately 27 percent. Our fiscal year 2006 program increase request
    of $8.2 million will enable outreach activities and continue
    validations and verifications of C-TPAT certified partner profiles.

    Using Technology to Detect Weapons of Mass Destruction at our Ports of
            Entry
        As trade increases, CBP's reliance on Non-Intrusive Inspection
    (NII) technology to secure the borders becomes more and more critical.
    Only by using NII technology to speed the inspections process for
    weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and contraband can CBP meet its twin
    goals of increasing security and at the same time facilitating trade.
        CBP uses various technologies in different combinations to
    substantially increase the likelihood that a nuclear or radiological
    weapon or weapons grade material will be detected. In addition, CBP
    also uses NII technology to detect and interdict narcotics, currency
    and other contraband secreted in large containers and commercial
    shipments. Technologies deployed to our Nation's land, sea and air
    ports of entry include large-scale X-ray and gamma-imaging systems--
    systems that can image the contents of an entire container in minutes.
    These systems include the Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System (VACIS),
    Mobile VACIS, Truck X-ray, Mobile Truck X-ray, Rail VACIS, Mobile Sea
    Container Examinations Systems and the Pallet Gamma-ray System. In
    September 1996, our first large-scale NII system, a Truck X-ray, became
    operational in Otay Mesa, California. Today, we have 145 large-scale
    NII systems deployed.
        In addition, we have developed and are implementing a comprehensive
    radiation detection strategy at our ports of entry. Pursuant to that
    Strategy, we are deploying nuclear and radiological detection equipment
    to include personal radiation detectors (PRDs), radiation portal
    monitors (RPMs) and radiation isotope identifier devices (RIIDs). In
    combination with our layered detection strategy--working overseas to
    prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials and to detect them
    before they are shipped to the United States--and our use of multiple
    inspection technologies, these tools currently provide CBP with
    significant capacity to detect nuclear or radiological weapons and
    materials. We currently have over 400 RPMs deployed at our borders.
        The fiscal year 2006 request includes $125 million to continue the
    acquisition, deployment, and enhancement of Weapons of Mass Destruction
    Detection Technology at our Nations ports of entry. These actions will
    be coordinated with the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), which
    is being established to develop, acquire and support the deployment of
    the national nuclear detection architecture, including future
    acquisition issues. CBP's radiation detection strategy will be
    integrated into the overall strategy developed by DNDO.
        Our investment in WMD Detection technology is paying off as
    demonstrated by the following recent event. On January 26, 2005, at the
    Los Angeles seaport a PRD activated in proximity to a vessel from Kwan
    Yang, South Korea. A search of the vessel revealed that the source of
    the radiation was located in the ship's engine room. Subsequent
    screening with a Radiation Isotope Identifier and analysis by CBP
    Laboratory and Scientific Services Personnel stationed at the NTC
    revealed that the material was Cobalt 60, a material used in industrial
    and medical applications. Following coordination with the Science and
    Technology Directorate's Secondary Reachback Program, scientists were
    dispatched from the Department of Energy Radiation Assistance Program
    and it was confirmed that the radiation levels posed no threat to
    safety and that it was emanating from a gauge in the ship's fire
    extinguishing system. Although this alarm proved to be benign, the
    event demonstrates CBP's improving ability to detect sources of
    radiation in conveyances arriving at our borders and quickly take
    appropriate action to resolve any potential threats. Indeed, since CBP
    installed the first RPMs in May 2002, we have resolved over 10,000
    radiation hits of vehicles or cargo shipments crossing our borders.

    Detecting and Responding to Illegal Crossings Between our Ports of
            Entry
                America's Shield Initiative (ASI)
        The America's Shield Initiative, formerly known as the Integrated
    Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS), is an effort to develop a
    comprehensive and unified system of electronic surveillance of our
    entire land borders. ASI is a critical part of CBP's strategy to build
    smarter borders. This, in turn, is critical to the Border Patrol's
    ability to increase its apprehension capabilities along our borders,
    and thereby establish greater control of our borders. The deployment of
    ASI is critical to prevent terrorists from entering the United States
    and to achieve operational control of our Nation's borders.
        I thank the Committee for the $64.2 million provided for ASI in the
    fiscal year 2005 Appropriations Act. These resources are being used to
    solicit and award a contract for the nation-wide integration of legacy
    ISIS capabilities and to deploy additional systems along our borders.
    Nation-wide integrated ASI capabilities will provide the Border Patrol
    with a tactical, command and control, situational awareness and
    intelligence collection and management system. The $19.8 million
    requested for fiscal year 2006 would enable CBP to broaden
    substantially its ASI coverage of the northern and southern borders by
    deploying the system where no coverage currently exists. In addition,
    with the advent of ASI, system capabilities will be improved to enhance
    the sensor and video surveillance capabilities of currently installed
    components, integrate new, state of the market surveillance
    technologies and increase interoperability with other law enforcement
    agencies.
        ASI acts as an important force-multiplier that allows CBP's Border
    Patrol agents to remotely monitor the border and respond to specific
    illegal border crossings rather than having to exhaustively patrol an
    area adjacent to the border. By contrast, Border Patrol operations
    without ASI support are not only less effective, they are more
    resource-intensive and less safe for Border Patrol Agents. Expanding
    the portion of the border covered by electronic surveillance,
    integration of new components and technologies, and improved Agent
    support equipment via the ASI program will provide the Border Patrol
    with the increased ability to meet its and CBP's priority mission
    threats.

                Border Patrol Aircraft Modernization and Replacement
        Aviation is one of the most effective force multipliers used in
    securing our Nation's borders. Aircraft perform a multitude of missions
    in this environment, including border surveillance, operational patrol,
    personnel deployment to permit rapid response to intrusions, and
    medical evacuation. In fiscal year 2004, CBP Border Patrol Aircraft
    flew almost 46,000 hours, apprehending 96,341 persons and assisted in
    seizing $103.6 million in illegal narcotics. This equates to 2.1
    arrests and $2,259 in seized contraband for each flight hour. The
    largest segment of the Border Patrol fleet is its helicopters;
    including 58 that are Vietnam era vintage. The high level of fight time
    is taking its toll on these important assets. New parts are no longer
    manufactured, requiring that salvaged parts be used to repair broken or
    damaged aircraft. The $20.0 million requested will allow CBP to begin
    implementation of the fleet modernization and replacement plan through
    the acquisition of 12 new helicopters. This initiative will improve
    Border Patrol Agent safety and ensure that these valuable assets,
    essential to effective border control, continue to be available to our
    frontline personnel.

                Border Patrol Agent Staffing
        An increase of $36.9 million is included in the fiscal year 2006
    budget to enhance Border Patrol staffing by 210 Agents. The additional
    Agents will be deployed along the southwest border to areas with the
    highest concentration of illegal entry activity. To date in, fiscal
    year 2005, there has been a 15 percent increase in apprehensions along
    the southwest border when compared to the aliens from the same time
    period in fiscal year 2004. In addition, there has been an increase in
    the number of Special Interest Aliens (SIA) and High-Risk Other Than
    Mexican illegal entrant aliens that pose an increased threat to U.S.
    national security. CBP has experienced significant operational success
    in targeted areas. Additional Agents and supporting resources are
    necessary to sustain and expand the progress made in border control
    efforts.

                Arizona Border Control Initiative-ABCI
        This landmark program supporting the mission of CBP to detect and
    deter terrorist activities and cross-border illegal trafficking of
    people and drugs was initiated on March 16, 2004, in the Border
    Patrol's Tucson Sector. Working in partnership with Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement (ICE), the government of Mexico, state, local,
    tribal and Federal law enforcement organizations, the CBP Border
    Patrol-led ABCI was designed to produce a safer and more secure
    southwest border at one of the weakest segments of our border with
    Mexico.
        The goals of ABCI were and are to: (1) achieve operational control
    of the Arizona border (2) support CBP's priority antiterrorism mission;
    (3) significantly impair the ability of smuggling organizations to
    operate; and (4) decrease the rate of violent crime and reduce the need
    for social services in southern Arizona. In fiscal year 2004, as part
    of ABCI, CBP repatriated 14,058 Mexican nationals on a voluntary basis
    to the interior of Mexico by means of commercial flights. This is the
    first successful interior repatriation effort, and it is a result of
    cooperation of and coordination with the Government of Mexico. These
    flights decreased the incidence of border crossing recidivism and
    reduced the number of heat related exposure deaths in the Arizona
    desert by 69 percent--from 45 in fiscal year 2003, to 14 in fiscal year
    2004 (during the period of July 12th through September 30th). ICE will
    assume responsibility for the interior repatriation flights in fiscal
    year 2006. Our fiscal year 2006 budget request of $1.0 million will
    assist in offsetting the costs of CBP's continued participation in the
    ABCI. These resources will be used for Border Patrol Agent support
    costs and other operational expenses including fuel, vehicle
    maintenance, and overtime associated with increased border surveillance
    within the Arizona area of operation.

                Long Range Radar
        The fiscal year 2006 CBP budget includes a total of $44.2 million,
    an increase of $31.7 million over base resources for our share of the
    joint agreement with the Department of Defense (DOD) to assume
    financial responsibility for the operations and maintenance costs of
    the primary component of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
    long-range radar system. Beginning in fiscal year 2006, CBP and DOD
    will share these costs equally.
        Continued access to the primary component of the long-range radar
    system is essential to our ability protect the United States from acts
    of terrorism and drug smuggling via cross-border aviation. The FAA's
    primary radar system is used to track aircraft that either do not have
    transponders or have their transponders turned off in an attempt to
    avoid radar detection. Most small, non-commercial aircraft do not have
    transponders and these are the vehicle of choice for smugglers
    attempting to bring loads of cocaine, marijuana and heroin to the
    United States from Mexico and other source countries in Central and
    South America.

                IDENT/IAFIS
        The Automated Biometric Identification System/Integrated Automated
    Fingerprint Identification System otherwise known as IDENT/IAFIS, was
    established to merge the capabilities of the FBI's criminal master
    fingerprint file and the former Immigration and Naturalization
    Service's immigration violator database. These systems have been
    integrated into one system that captures biometric and biographical
    information through the use of a ``10 Print'' fingerprint machine and
    computer based facial imagery. The goals of the system are to identify
    repeat immigration offenders and identify criminals and previously
    deported aliens who should be detained. IDENT/IAFIS provides CBP's
    front line personnel with access to approximately 48 million criminal
    history records dating back to the 1920's. All Border Patrol field
    locations now have access to integrated IDENT/IAFIS and all CBP Ports
    of Entry will have access to the system by the end of this year.
    Previous studies indicate that combining IDENT and IAFIS checks
    increases the probability of identifying criminal aliens by almost 10
    percent. In addition, significant efficiencies are gained by being able
    to electronically scan fingerprints to and get a response back from the
    databases within ten minutes. From October 1, 2003, through August 31,
    2004, IDENT/IAFIS technology assisted Border Patrol Agents in the
    arrest of 138 homicide suspects; 67 kidnapping suspects; 226 sexual
    assault suspects 431 robbery suspects; 2,342 suspects for assaults of
    other types and 4,801 suspects involved with illegal drugs.
        The Directorate of Border and Transportation Security has assumed
    ownership of the IDENT/IAFIS system. The fiscal year 2006, $3.0 million
    budget initiative will offset CBP's share of IDENT/IAFIS operations and
    maintenance costs.

                       AUTOMATION/INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

        Mr. Chairman, no discussion of a successful strategy to protect the
    American people and the American economy in the 21st century would be
    complete without consideration of the central importance of automation
    and information technology to CBP's mission.

    Automated Commercial Environment
        The Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) is an important project
    for CBP, for the business community, for our country, and for the
    future of global trade. If done properly, it will reform the way we do
    business with the trade community. It will also greatly assist CBP in
    the advance collection of information for targeting high-risk cargo to
    better address the terrorist threat. And in doing so, it will help us
    expedite the vast majority of low-risk trade.
        The successful implementation of ACE has been and continues to be
    one of my top priorities as Commissioner. Increasing support from
    Congress and the Administration for ACE has been essential to the
    development of the new system. Funding of $321 million in fiscal year
    2005 has enabled us to continue development and begin to expand the
    first installment of ACE benefits to the trade community. Indeed, since
    my testimony last year, I can tell you that the development of ACE and
    the efforts to put its capabilities to work on America's borders have
    continued full throttle. We have over 350 importers, brokers, and
    carriers using the ACE Secure Data Portal and, since June 2004, have
    been collecting an increasing amount of duties and fees via the ACE
    Period Monthly Statement. CBP is also operating a pilot test of the ACE
    truck cargo release software in the port of Blaine, Washington, and
    plans to expand this new capability to ports across our northern and
    southern borders. In parallel with this development, CBP is working
    with the DHS Chief Information Officer and the US-VISIT program to
    ensure compliance with the DHS Enterprise Architecture and position the
    ACE architecture so that it can be leveraged to support the broad
    homeland security mission.
        Included within the $321 million for ACE is $16 million dedicated
    to continuing support of the International Trade Data System (ITDS).
    ITDS is our mechanism for coordinating intergovernmental support for
    ACE and ensuring that ACE meets the needs of government agencies with a
    need for trade data and a stake in border security. To that end, the
    ITDS Board of Directors has adopted a standard set of trade data as a
    step toward realizing the concept of using the ACE portal as the
    ``single window'' into government for the trade community. We are
    pleased to report that the original group of eight participating
    agencies in ITDS has now grown to twenty-six. Representatives from
    these agencies are actively involved in defining the releases of ACE
    software.
        I want to thank Congress again for its past support of ACE. The
    continued support of ACE with $321 million in funding for fiscal year
    2006 will enable us to keep pace with our schedule for future ACE
    releases including:

                Account Revenue and Secure Trade Data
        ACE Release 5, scheduled to be complete in fiscal year 2007 will
    leverage the inherent capabilities of CBP's core financial system, SAP.
    Release 5 will integrate the entry summary business process from
    manifest receipt to entry liquidation. Through this release, ACE will
    become the system of record for all entry summaries.

                Screening and Targeting Capabilities
        The Targeting Foundation scheduled for release during fiscal years
    2005 and 2006 will extend ACE capabilities to entry summary processing
    through enhanced links to the NTC and its systems. Advanced Targeting
    capabilities will be expanded providing risk assessment and modeling,
    data mining, link analysis and pattern recognition capabilities.

    Homeland Security Data Network--HSDN
        The Homeland Security Data Network addresses the Department of
    Homeland Security's requirement for a system capable of managing and
    disseminating sensitive and classified information in a secure
    environment. The HSDN effort will streamline and modernize the
    classified data transmission capabilities of DHS in order to facilitate
    communication and collaboration within DHS and with other Federal
    agencies including the Department of Defense. When implemented, the
    HSDN will facilitate transmission of data between DHS offices and other
    networks including the Anti-Drug Network (ADNET), Automatic Digital
    Network (AUTODIN) and the Defense Message System (DMS). HSDN will
    provide a scalable infrastructure, capable of supporting the growth and
    evolution of the DHS mission. CBP's share of this DHS-wide initiative
    is $3.2 million in fiscal year 2006.

                           OTHER TRADITIONAL MISSIONS

        Although CBP's priority mission is preventing terrorists and
    terrorist weapons from entering the United States, we know that we
    must--and will--accomplish that priority mission while continuing to
    perform our traditional missions well. Included among those missions
    are our responsibilities for interdicting drugs, apprehending
    individuals who enter the United States illegally, regulating and
    facilitating international trade, and protecting U.S. agricultural and
    economic interests from harmful pests and diseases.

    Drug Interdiction
        Our anti-terrorism and counter-narcotics missions are not mutually
    exclusive, and one does not necessarily come at the expense of the
    other. The initiatives we have put in place to prevent terrorists and
    terrorist weapons from entering the United States have enabled us to be
    more effective in seizing other illegal contraband, including illegal
    drugs. Indeed, one of the first results we saw after implementing ATS
    for commercial trucks on the land border was a large narcotics seizure
    from a targeted shipment. And, it is worth noting that the lessons we
    have learned in our battle against international drug trafficking will
    help us in the fight against international terrorism.
        It would be a grave mistake for drug traffickers and other
    criminals to misinterpret our focus on terrorism as a weakening of
    resolve on other fronts. If anything, we have made life even more
    miserable for drug smugglers as we have intensified our overall
    presence along America's borders. Our heightened state of security
    along America's borders has strengthened, not weakened, our
    counternarcotics mission. As we have added staffing for both inspectors
    at the ports of entry and Border Patrol Agents between the ports of
    entry, acquired more inspection technology, conducted more questioning
    of travelers, and carried out more inspections of passengers and goods
    in response to the terrorist threat, we have seized greater amounts of
    narcotics. In fiscal year 2004, for example, we seized almost 2.2
    million pounds of illegal drugs, and made some of the largest
    individual seizures ever recorded by officers safeguarding our borders.
        The CBP Office of Air and Marine Operations (AMO) protects the
    Nation's borders and the American people from the smuggling of
    narcotics and other contraband with an integrated, coordinated and
    highly trained air and marine interdiction force. To accomplish the
    mission, AMO's thoroughly trained interdiction assets are deployed
    throughout the Western Hemisphere. The Air and Marine Operations Center
    (AMOC) in Riverside California, provides command, control,
    communications, and intelligence for those assets by assimilating
    information from a wide array of sensors.
        Effective coordination between inspectors at the ports of entry and
    agents who carry out investigative activities is essential to the
    success of our counternarcotics mission. For that reason, CBP will
    continue to cooperate closely with special agents from ICE to carry out
    this mission.

    Apprehend Individuals Entering Illegally Between the Ports of Entry
        CBP's Office of the Border Patrol is specifically responsible for
    patrolling thousands of miles of Mexican and Canadian international
    land borders. Its primary task is securing America's borders between
    official ports of entry by preventing the illegal entry of people,
    goods, and contraband across our borders.
        The Border Patrol relies on agents, enforcement equipment (such as
    a fleet of specialized aircraft and vehicles of various types),
    technology (such as sensors and night vision cameras), tactical
    infrastructure (such as roads and vehicle barriers), and intelligence
    to carry out its mission. Applied in the correct combination, these
    resources can effectively deter, detect, monitor, and respond to
    illegal border crossings, as we have seen in locations such as the San
    Diego Sector and during operations such as Desert Safeguard.
        In fiscal year 2004, the Border Patrol played a key role in
    safeguarding the United States from the entry of terrorists, criminals,
    and illegal immigrants. Among the nearly 1.2 million people apprehended
    by the Border Patrol in fiscal year 2004 were 643 aliens from special
    interest countries.
        CBP will continue to work with other agencies and the Mexican
    Government to re-institute and increase the operational tempo of the
    Arizona Border Control Initiative this year. Under this initiative, CBP
    will aim to substantially reduce the number of illegal entries that
    occur in Arizona, and, as a result, will reduce the number of deaths
    that occur as aliens try to cross the Arizona desert. In turn, CBP will
    increase its ability to apprehend potential terrorists seeking to enter
    through the Arizona corridor.

    Prevent Individuals from Entering Illegally at the Ports of Entry
        With respect to preventing individuals from entering the country
    illegally at the ports of entry, CBP continues to stop hundreds of
    thousands of people a year who are inadmissible into the United States
    for a variety of reasons, including prior immigration violations,
    criminal history, or the possession of false or fraudulent documents,
    and potential terrorists.
        We are helped in this effort by our close work with the Department
    of State to ensure CBP inspectors have the tools they need to verify
    the identity of visa holders and the authenticity of visas issued by
    the Department of State. Data on holders of immigrant visas is
    transferred electronically to ports of entry. When the electronic
    record is updated to reflect an immigrant's admission at a port of
    entry, that data is transferred electronically to the Bureau of
    Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) for production of a
    permanent resident card and creation of the immigrant file.
      --In fiscal year 2004, CBP processed more than 262 million aliens
            attempting to enter the United States through the ports of
            entry; 643,091 were deemed inadmissible under U.S. law. CBP
            Officers also intercepted: 78,255 fraudulent immigration
            documents; recorded 1.8 million lookout intercepts; and,
            apprehended 399 travelers for terrorism or national security
            concerns. In addition, 19,740 criminal aliens attempting entry
            were not admitted and 566 stowaways were intercepted.

    Regulate and Facilitate International Trade
        CBP maintains responsibility for regulating and facilitating
    legitimate international trade. As I mentioned earlier, many of the
    initiatives CBP implements serve the twin goals of increasing security
    and facilitating trade. With the right level of industry partnership
    and the right combination of resources, we can develop innovative
    solutions that not only protect legitimate trade from being used by
    terrorists, but also create a better, faster, more productive system
    for moving goods and people across our borders and thus contributing to
    U.S. economic growth. The key to the success of this effort is
    partnerships, and we devote considerable time and effort to dialogue
    and interact with both large and small enterprises engaged in trade.
        We have two major venues for engaging the trade community on an
    ongoing basis. The Commercial Operations Advisory Committee, created
    under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, is the primary group that
    provides advice on the CBP issues. The Committee meets quarterly and
    holds lively discussions on the full range of critical issues on our
    common agenda. The COAC was particularly important in helping us
    implement the Trade Act, and they most recently have worked on a series
    of measures to implement the Maritime Trade Security Act and to improve
    the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT).
        Another key group of our private sector partners is the Trade
    Support Network (TSN), whose members work on developing specific
    requirements for the Automated Customs Environment to ensure ACE
    delivers the critical functionality required by both CBP, the trade and
    other government agencies. The TSN recently created a Supply Chain
    Security Committee, which will be the focal point for helping us
    identify information required to achieve the end-to-end view of the
    supply chain and identify the parties capable of reporting that data.
        As I have indicated, we have continued to work with the trade on
    these security and trade facilitation matters over the past year, and
    we will continue to do so in the year ahead. In fiscal year 2004, CBP
    processed 27.6 million entries of goods, a 7.9 percent increase over
    fiscal year 2003 levels and processed 23.5 million sea, truck and rail
    containers entering the United States, an increase of 5.5 percent over
    fiscal year 2003. CBP also collected more than $27 billion in revenue
    in fiscal year 2004: second only to the Internal Revenue Service in the
    Federal Government sector. CBP officers also completed 2,681 cargo
    merchandise seizures totaling almost $233 million and effected 8,586
    seizures of counterfeit commodities with a fair market value of $48.4
    million
        To increase our effectiveness and provide national direction over
    trade concerns, CBP has a National Trade Strategy that focuses on
    priority trade issues such as revenue collection, intellectual property
    rights, anti-dumping and countervailing duties, textile enforcement,
    and risks associated with intentional or unintentional contamination of
    agricultural products. The goals of the National Trade Strategy are to
    collect the appropriate duties, protect American businesses and our
    economic interests from theft of intellectual property and from unfair
    trade practices, and from the contamination of agricultural products by
    aggressively targeting high-risk shipments. In addition, CBP is
    responsible for key deliverables in the Administration's Strategy
    Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP) initiative, a multi-agency effort to
    improve protection of intellectual property rights, such as using state
    of the art analytical techniques to target suspect shipments and using
    post-entry audits.

    Protect U.S. Agricultural and Economic Interests and the Food Supply
        CBP also enforces the laws and regulations pertaining to the safe
    importation and entry of agricultural food commodities into the United
    States. The traditional goals of the Agriculture Inspections (AI)
    program have been to reduce the risk of introduction of invasive
    species into the United States, protect U.S. agricultural resources,
    maintain the marketability of agricultural products, and facilitate the
    movement of law-abiding people and commodities across the borders.
    Accordingly, inspecting potentially high-risk travelers and cargo is
    critical to keeping the prohibited items out of the United States,
    monitoring for significant agricultural health threats, encouraging
    compliance with regulations, and educating the public and importers
    about agricultural quarantine regulations. In August, 2004, CBP
    Agriculture Specialists at the Port of Miami, intercepted and
    quarantined a shipment of habanero peppers infested with Mediterranean
    Fruit Fly larvae at and the False Coddling Moth. This shipment was
    manifested as coming from the Netherlands but was suspected of
    originating elsewhere. The quick actions of the CBP Agriculture
    Specialists prevented an incident that could have created severe
    economic losses to Florida's burgeoning agricultural products industry.
        With the creation of CBP, the AI program has expanded its focus to
    include a new priority mission of preventing potential terrorist
    threats involving agriculture. Indeed, the threat of intentional
    introductions of pests or pathogens as a means of biological warfare or
    terrorism is an emerging concern. To address this threat and to enhance
    its traditional AI missions, CBP has already begun using the Automated
    Targeting System, and its collective expertise regarding terrorism and
    agriculture, to strengthen our ability to identify shipments that may
    pose a potential risk to our agricultural interests.
        In addition, CBP working closely with the Food and Drug
    Administration (FDA) to implement the Bioterrorism Act to guard against
    threats to the food supply. The implementation of Phase III of the Act
    requires that prior notice of importation or intent to import all food
    to be consumed by humans be provided to both CBP and the FDA. Under the
    BTA, food products shipped by truck require two hours advance notice,
    by rail and air four hours and by sea eight hours. Enforcement of the
    provisions of the BTA are designed to protect the food that is on every
    table of every American household and to detect potential incidents of
    bio- and agroterrorism involving food. These efforts have built on our
    priority and traditional missions to make the food supply more secure,
    and will be supported in part by the targeting funding sought in the
    fiscal year 2006 budget.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I have outlined a broad
    array of initiatives today that, with your assistance, will help CBP
    continue to protect America from the terrorist threat while fulfilling
    our other important traditional missions. Because of your support, we
    are far safer today than we were on September 11th. But our work is not
    complete. With the continued support of the President, DHS, and the
    Congress, CBP will succeed in meeting the challenges posed by the
    ongoing terrorist threat and the need to facilitate ever-increasing
    numbers of legitimate shipments and travelers.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I will be happy to
    answer any of your questions.

        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Mr. Bonner.
        Mr. Aguirre, you may proceed.

                          STATEMENT OF EDUARDO AGUIRRE

        Mr. Aguirre. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
    Chairman Cochran, ranking member Byrd, and Senator Leahy. My
    name is Eduardo Aguirre and I am the Director of USCIS. I
    appear before you to discuss the President's USCIS budget
    request for fiscal year 2006.

                           PROGRESS SINCE MARCH 2003

        Yesterday, as was noted, USCIS celebrated its second
    anniversary. Today I am looking forward to sharing with you our
    tremendous progress since March 2003. We are delivering on the
    President's promise to welcome immigrants with open arms, not
    endless lines. Our remarkable progress is not an anomaly, but
    rather a strong foundation and a new baseline from which to
    grow in the coming years. We secure America's promise as a
    Nation of immigrants by fundamentally reforming our tired
    system of immigration services.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST

        USCIS is one of the largest fee-funded agencies in the
    Federal Government. Our 15,000 employees and contractors serve
    applicants throughout our broad national and international
    network. The President's fiscal year 2006 budget will allow us
    to build upon the progress we have made. The budget includes a
    total for USCIS of $1.854 billion, $80 million in appropriated
    funds and $1.774 billion in fees. This budget will allow USCIS
    to process over 7 million immigration benefit applications.
        We note that fiscal year 2006 will be the final year of the
    President's 5-year plan for backlog elimination. Our budget
    includes a total of $100 million to support backlog elimination
    efforts as well as improvements in applications processing.
    This brings the 5-year total for this aggressive initiative to
    $560 million. We are on track to achieve the President's
    backlog elimination mandate.
        As Will Rogers eloquently stated, even if you are on the
    right track you will get run over if you just sit there. Thus,
    we have taken and continue to take a hard reengineering look at
    the way we currently conduct our business. Since my appointment
    and confirmation as Director of USCIS, our leadership team has
    continually reviewed our processes, identified opportunities
    for streamlining and further improvement, and implemented
    meaningful changes.
        Let me plainly state that as we improve our ways we are
    committed to never compromise national security in an effort to
    increase productivity. From day 1, USCIS established three
    crystal-clear priorities: One, eliminate the immigration
    benefit applications backlog; two, enhance national security;
    and three, improve customer service. Let me briefly touch upon
    progress made on each of these priorities.

                              BACKLOG ELIMINATION

        Eliminating the backlog. Operationally, fiscal year 2004
    was truly an outstanding year for USCIS and we continue the
    momentum so far in fiscal year 2005. We successfully reduced
    the backlog to 1.365 million cases, down from a high of 3.8
    million cases just a year ago in 2004. We increased overall
    completions by 21 percent processed, met, or exceeded cycle
    time targets in 15 of 16 major form types. We completed 109,000
    asylum cases in fiscal year 2004, a 20 percent increase, and
    also 53,000 refugees were admitted to the United States in
    fiscal year 2004, an 86 percent increase.

                           NATIONAL SECURITY MISSION

        Ensuring national security as well as preventing and
    detecting fraud are essential elements of our mission. Our
    newly created Fraud Detection and National Security Unit
    developed a joint anti-fraud strategy with ICE. We enhanced our
    background check process and we share information with key law
    enforcement and intelligence agencies.

                        IMPROVEMENT IN CUSTOMER SERVICE

        As an immigrant who once passed through the old INS system,
    I insist that we treat those who come before USCIS with dignity
    and respect. That brings me to improving customer service.
    Therefore, we have promoted a customer service culture and
    expanded many of the services available to customers online and
    by phone. Electronic filing now supports 50 percent of the
    total volume of benefit applications.
        InfoPass, our web-based system, enables applicants to go
    online in 12 different languages to schedule appointments. No
    more endless lines outside our immigration offices. We expanded
    phone services and access to customer's case status information
    via our website.
        Finally, in the past year USCIS has naturalized more than
    7,000 military service members. This past October, I personally
    led a USCIS team to Afghanistan and Iraq and launched overseas
    naturalizations to our military.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In summary, although we have a long ways to go before our
    destination, I note that we are on the right track and moving
    forward to make USCIS an exemplary United States Government
    agency. This concludes my opening remarks, prepared remarks. I
    thank you for your support and for the invitation to testify
    before this subcommittee, and of course would be happy to
    answer your questions. Thank you, sir.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Eduardo Aguirre, Jr.

        Good afternoon Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Byrd and Members
    of the Subcommittee. My name is Eduardo Aguirre and I have the honor of
    serving as the first Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
    Services, within the Department of Homeland Security.
        We are a welcoming Nation, and the hard work and patriotism of our
    immigrants has made our Nation prosperous. Since USCIS was established
    in March of 2003, we have made tremendous progress, which I will share
    with you today, to deliver the President's vision of ``welcoming
    immigrants with open arms . . . not endless lines.'' It is my sincere
    belief that the progress we have made in the past year is not an
    anomaly, but rather a strong foundation and a new baseline from which
    to grow.
        USCIS will continue to secure America's promise as a Nation of
    immigrants by providing accurate and useful information to our
    customers, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting an
    awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity
    of our immigration system. Our vision is to strengthen America's future
    by becoming a customer-focused innovator of benefits processing, a
    catalyst for citizenship education, instruction and outreach, a
    recognized and credible source of useful information, and a leading
    contributor to the security of the United States.
        USCIS has established three core values: integrity, respect, and
    ingenuity. We shall always strive for the highest level of integrity in
    our dealings with our customers, our fellow employees, and the citizens
    of the United States. We will also demonstrate respect in all our
    actions to ensure that everyone we affect will be treated with dignity
    and courtesy regardless of the outcome of the decision. And we will
    also use ingenuity, resourcefulness, creativity, and sound management
    principles to strive for world-class results.
        USCIS is one of the largest fee-funded agencies in the Federal
    Government--charging fees for a variety of immigration benefits from
    individuals seeking to enter, reside, or work in the United States.
    Therefore, the actual cash flow for our business operations, including
    a network of 250 local offices, Application Support Centers, Service
    Centers, Asylum Offices, National Customer Service Call (NCSC) Centers,
    Forms Centers, and Internet portals, varies from year to year with the
    number of immigration benefit applications received.
        In any typical work day, our workforce of 15,000 (one-third of whom
    are contractors) will:
      --Conduct 140,000 national security background checks.
      --Receive 100,000 hits to our Internet website (www.uscis.gov).
      --Answer phone inquiries from 80,000 callers at four National
            Customer Service Centers.
      --Process 30,000 applications for an immigration benefit.
      --Answer in-person inquiries from 25,000 visitors to information
            counters at 92 local offices.
      --Issue 7,000 green cards.
      --Capture 8,000 sets of fingerprints at 130 Application Support
            Centers.
      --Welcome 3,000 new citizens.
      --Welcome 3,000 new permanent residents.
      --Welcome nearly 200 refugees from around the world.
      --Help American parents adopt nearly 80 foreign-born orphans.
      --Process the naturalization application of 50 individuals serving in
            the U.S. military.
      --Grant asylum to 80 individuals already in the United States.
        USCIS has established three priorities: (1) enhancing national
    security, (2) eliminating the immigration benefit application backlog,
    and (3) improving customer service. In our second year of operations,
    we have successfully reduced the backlog to 1.5 million cases (down
    from a high of 3.8 million cases in January 2004), expanded electronic
    filing to support 50 percent of the total volume of benefit
    applications, expanded InfoPass (a USCIS Web-based system that enables
    the public to go online to schedule appointments), expanded phone
    services to allow round-the-clock access via automated means, expanded
    access to customers' case status information via the USCIS website, and
    created the Fraud Detection and National Security Unit to work closely
    with the appropriate law enforcement entities in responding to concerns
    relating to aliens who may pose a threat to national security or public
    safety.
        The President's fiscal year 2006 budget will allow us to build upon
    the progress we have made in the past year. The budget includes a total
    for USCIS of $1.854 billion, $80 million in appropriated funds and
    $1.774 billion in fees. The fiscal year 2006 budget will allow USCIS to
    process over 7 million immigration benefit applications and is the
    final year of the President's 5-year plan to achieve a 6-month cycle
    time standard or less for all immigration benefit applications at every
    USCIS office, including a total of $100 million to support backlog
    elimination efforts as well as improvements in application processing.
    This brings the 5-year total for this aggressive initiative to $560
    million.
        The USCIS fiscal year 2006 budget also includes two important fee-
    related legislative proposals. One proposal involves the removal of a
    statutory cap on the Temporary Protected Status processing fee. This
    proposal will allow the fee to be adjusted above the current $50 to
    recover full costs, subject to a fee review, similar to the way other
    immigration benefit application fees are currently set. The other
    proposal is a customer service enhancement that authorizes expansion of
    premium processing service to non-employment based applications and
    petitions. The Department is currently authorized to collect a $1,000
    premium processing fee, in addition to the normal processing fee, for
    employment-based applications and petitions. This proposal would
    authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to set the premium
    processing fee for certain non employment-based applications and
    petitions, such as travel documents, advance parole, employment
    authorization, re-entry permits, fiance adjudications, etc., not to
    exceed $1,000, and in excess of $1,000 for the investor visa (EB-5)
    program.

    Eliminating the Backlog
        Although we are on track to achieve the President's backlog
    elimination mandate, we fully realize that funding alone will not
    enable us to achieve this goal. As Will Rogers so simply stated, ``Even
    if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit
    there.'' Thus, we have taken, and continue to take, a hard look at the
    way we currently conduct our business. This commitment is not just one
    of words, but one of action. Since my appointment and confirmation as
    Director of USCIS, I have worked closely with the leaders in USCIS to
    continually review our processes, identify opportunities for
    streamlining and further improvement, and to implement meaningful
    change. Let me assure you that USCIS will never compromise national
    security in an effort to increase productivity.
        In the past year, USCIS forwarded to the Congress a Backlog
    Elimination Plan that outlines the roadmap to achieve the President's
    mandate. We will continue to provide the Congress with quarterly
    progress reports on our Backlog Elimination status and achievements.
        Fiscal year 2004 was truly an outstanding year for USCIS. USCIS
    increased overall completions by 17 percent over the fiscal year 2003
    volume and met and/or exceeded cycle time targets in fifteen of sixteen
    major form types. In addition, USCIS completed a total of 109,000
    asylum cases in fiscal year 2004, representing a 20 percent increase in
    productivity from the previous fiscal year, when it completed 91,000.
    USCIS also worked steadily with its refugee program partners to
    successfully meet refugee admissions levels designated by the President
    while ensuring that the integrity and security of the program remained
    intact. USCIS officers conducted refugee status interviews in 50
    countries around the world and interviewed more than 70,000 refugee
    applicants of at least 65 different nationalities. As a result of these
    efforts, almost 53,000 refugees were admitted to the United States
    during fiscal year 2004, an 86 percent increase over the previous
    year's admissions.
        USCIS will increase its focus on Information Technology through an
    enterprise-wide transformation effort to ensure that long-term backlog
    elimination goals are sustained, customer service is improved, fraud
    detection and national security capabilities are enhanced, and a
    technology environment is deployed to support new processes and
    workflow aligned with the DHS mission and the Presidential mandate for
    eGov standards. USCIS is currently undergoing an infrastructure upgrade
    of its District and Service Center operations, upgrading its web
    presence environment, and developing a new integrated case management
    system to ultimately operate in a paperless adjudication environment.

    Ensuring National Security
        USCIS understands that ensuring national security and preventing
    and detecting fraud are essential elements of its mission. As such, our
    newly established Fraud Detection and National Security Unit (FDNS)
    developed a joint anti-fraud strategy with Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement (ICE), hired and trained nearly 100 anti-fraud officers,
    and is in the midst of implementing an anti-fraud initiative throughout
    the United States. The FDNS is also leading the enhancement of USCIS'
    background check process, which is aimed at identifying applicants,
    beneficiaries, and petitioners who pose a threat to national security
    and public safety prior to granting them immigration benefits. The FDNS
    is also leading USCIS' information sharing initiative with key law
    enforcement and intelligence agencies.
        The establishment of a Refugee Corps with an expanded management
    support structure will provide a strong and effective overseas refugee
    processing program that will more efficiently identify inadmissible
    persons and those who are of national security interest without
    compromising the U.S. Refugee Program's (USRPs) humanitarian
    objectives. A Refugee Corps will ensure responsiveness to USRP
    commitments and goals, while greatly reducing the need to draw on
    scarce domestic program resources. It will also ensure the quality and
    consistency of refugee adjudications and improve the detection of
    refugee application fraud and the identification of security concerns
    relating to refugee admissions.
        USCIS also implemented the Safe Third Country Agreement on Asylum
    with Canada to help strengthen public confidence in the integrity of
    the immigration system and ensure that all asylum seekers will be
    heard, that they will receive procedural safeguards, and that they not
    be removed until either Canada or the United States has made a
    determination on the protection claim, in accordance with national laws
    implementing treaty obligations.

    Improving Customer Service
        The Office of Citizenship continues to focus on providing
    information to immigrants at two key points in their journey towards
    citizenship: when they first become Permanent Residents and later when
    they are ready and eligible to begin the formal naturalization process.
    In the past year, the Office of Citizenship introduced an orientation
    guide entitled ``Welcome to the United States: A Guide for New
    Immigrants.'' The guide, which will be available in 10 languages in
    fiscal year 2005, contains practical information to help immigrants get
    started in the United States, and provides information to assist
    immigrants in the civic integration process. The Office of Citizenship
    also held a series of focus groups across the United States during the
    spring of 2004 to hear directly from local communities about their
    strengths, gaps, and needs in the areas of immigrant integration and
    citizenship preparation. The results of these focus group discussions
    were published in a report called ``Helping Immigrants Become New
    Americans: Communities Discuss the Issues.''
        Additionally, we have been examining the standard of knowledge in
    the current citizenship test to ensure that prospective and new
    citizens know not only the facts of our Nation's history, but also the
    ideals that have shaped that history. We also are working to
    standardize testing procedures in an effort to ensure equitable and
    more uniform results. Currently, a candidate in Los Angeles is, in all
    likelihood, not tested the same way or asked the same questions as a
    candidate taking the same exam on the same day in Boston.
        We do not want to make the test more difficult. We do not want to
    make it less difficult. We want to make it more meaningful in a way
    that does not have an adverse impact on any particular group of
    applicants. Therefore, we will carefully pilot test the revised
    English, history, and government tests before implementing them. And we
    will consult with our stakeholders to solicit their input, as we have
    done throughout the process. Once the test development is done, the
    Office of Citizenship will coordinate the creation of educational
    materials to complement this important initiative.
        Our plan is to begin implementing the new test and testing process
    in 2007. Given the importance of the ultimate benefit for those
    tested--U.S. citizenship--this process is not one that can or should be
    rushed. We are committed to improving the current process and to
    improving it in the right way.
        In our commitment to modernize and enhance the delivery of
    immigration services, InfoPass was launched in Miami in June of 2003.
    InfoPass is a free, easy and convenient alternative to waiting in line.
    It allows USCIS customers to go on-line and use an Internet-based
    system to make an appointment to speak with an Immigration Information
    Officer at a time that is convenient for the customer. InfoPass is now
    available for customers at all USCIS District and sub offices.
        Other conveniences available on www.uscis.gov include ``E-Filing''
    for certain immigration applications, including the renewal and
    replacement of ``green cards,'' (Form I-90). E-Filing provides a quick,
    easy and convenient way for customers to complete, submit, and pay fees
    for petitions and applications at any time, from any computer with
    Internet access. As a further time saver, the USCIS Web site is now set
    up to accept credit cards for the payment of application fees. To date,
    USCIS has received more than 250,000 applications through its E-Filing
    system. E-Filing now supports form types that account for 50 percent of
    the total volume of benefits applications USCIS receives annually.
    During fiscal year 2005, USCIS plans to combine E-Filing with the
    Lockbox program to further streamline our internal processes. E-Filing
    will also play a key supporting role in implementing Premium Processing
    for additional form types; the newly enacted H1-B/L-1 Visa Reform Acts;
    and an electronic adjudication initiative.
        Additionally, the public is encouraged to use the Internet to check
    the status of applications filed with any of USCIS' Service Centers.
    Our Case Status Service Online, available in English and Spanish,
    allows customers who have a receipt number for an application or
    petition filed at a USCIS Service Center to check the status of their
    pending case online through the USCIS website (USCIS.gov), or by
    calling the toll-free telephone number of our National Customer Service
    Center. The Case Status Online system offers customers the option of
    establishing a portfolio of up to 100 cases that can be checked through
    a single login 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Customers can also elect
    to have USCIS automatically send an email informing them of any change
    in status of a pending case.
        In the past year, USCIS has responded to over 11,000,000 queries
    for verification of immigration status. USCIS provides immigration and
    employment authorization status information to over 126,000 government
    and private sector users. By providing the best possible verification
    services to thousands of agencies and employers, USCIS saves the
    Government money by ensuring that only eligible aliens receive public
    benefits. In addition, an employment verification pilot program
    authorized in 1996 and reauthorized in 2004, helps to ensure that jobs
    are available only to workers authorized to accept employment in the
    United States.
        As you are aware, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal
    year 2004 authorized overseas military naturalizations. In the past
    year, USCIS has naturalized more than 7,000 military service members
    both in the United States and overseas, and posthumously naturalized 39
    service members who died in service to the United States.
        Finally, USCIS committed itself to the global effort to recover
    from the earthquake and tsunami by announcing temporary relief measures
    for those individuals who are unable to return to their home country
    due to the destruction and humanitarian crisis in Southeast Asia. USCIS
    is expediting the processing of certain immigration benefit
    applications, including requests for advance parole and relative
    petitions for minor children from the affected areas. USCIS also is
    more readily approving applications from visitors from the tsunami-
    affected countries who requested a change or extension of their
    nonimmigrant status.
        This concludes my prepared remarks. I thank you for the invitation
    to testify before this committee and I would be happy to answer any
    questions.

        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Aguirre.

                           ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

        This morning National Public Radio did a report on
    Alternatives to Detention and the program run by the
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency using ankle
    bracelets to keep up with and track noncriminal aliens as they
    await the outcome of their immigration cases being considered
    and disposed of. What is the utility of this method and do you
    consider it more humane, more efficient, and less expensive
    than detaining through forcible imprisonment, or whatever other
    devices you have, those who you know may not be legally
    entitled to be in our country? Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A timely topic as
    there is a $5.4 million enhancement for that program in the
    2006 request. We right now have eight sites where we do
    Alternatives to Detention and we plan to expand that two more
    for a total of ten.
        This is a program, Mr. Chairman, that does exactly what it
    says. It is an alternative to detention. These are illegal
    aliens who would otherwise be subject to incarceration. The
    program is in three steps: a 30-day period with an ankle
    bracelet, a monitoring and reporting requirement. If the alien
    complies, the bracelet comes off and then it is telephonic
    interviews and home visits. After an additional period, it
    becomes only telephonic interviews.
        It is extremely cost-effective, estimated at a quarter of
    the cost of detention space. It provides assistance to the
    aliens in the process, linking them with pro bono services, et
    cetera. And it asks for responsibility on the part of the
    alien, who has voluntarily opted into this program, and that is
    an important point. This is a voluntary program. But it asks
    for responsibility on the part of the participants and if they
    show that, then the conditions become less onerous over time.

                           USE OF RADIATION MONITORS

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Bonner, we understand too the
    importance of upgrading technologies in the Border Patrol area,
    and you highlighted that in your statement. What is the success
    that you anticipate from using radiation monitors? Is this a
    technology that has been proven? I ask this in the context with
    our experience in Iraq, where the weapons inspectors were using
    radiation monitors there and David Kay made a point of saying
    you can deploy these monitors, but after the sand and the heat
    and the other influences of nature take place you might have a
    useless piece of equipment there in the desert. Have you had
    any experiences similar to that at CBP?
        Mr. Bonner. Well, first of all, the main thing that we have
    going in terms of detecting against a nuclear device or special
    nuclear materials is a combination of technology that we would
    deploy and we are deploying at our ports of entry principally.
    So there is where we have radiation portal monitors. We have
    completed the first two phases, which is the International Mail
    Facility, so every package that comes in is screened. The
    International Air Express Consignment Facilities are completed.
    We have substantially deployed well over 200 portal monitors on
    our northern border ports of entry with Canada. We are in the
    process of now deploying a significant number along our
    southern border ports of entry with Mexico, and we have started
    deployment at some of our major seaports.
        We have a long way to go here. But the question is are they
    effective. Well, you need a combination of technology.
    Radiation portal monitors are highly sensitive to both gamma
    and neutron detection. In other words, you can have, without
    getting into sort of the classified area here, you can have a
    fair degree of confidence in the fact that you are going to
    detect radiation. In fact, since we started deploying the
    radiation portal monitors--and these are large things at our
    ports of entry, through every--not just commercial truck, every
    passenger vehicle that comes through--since we have started
    deploying them, we have resolved over 10,000 radiation hits.
        The good news to tell you is that those radiation hits
    turned out to be negative. In other words, we resolved them to
    be naturally occurring radiation sources or radioactive
    material consistent with the shipment of goods. That might be,
    by the way, a shipment of tiles, which very frequently emits
    radiation that reads for thorium and so on.
        So this is not the only thing, though. We combine that with
    our targeting system, and our NII equipment, that is our large-
    scale X-ray scanning machines, as well as isotope identifiers
    and other personal radiation detector equipment, to give us a
    combination of resources that improves our ability to detect
    against a dirty bomb coming across our border and/or
    potentially a nuclear device, which is obviously of the most
    momentous consequence one can imagine.
        We have found them to be effective. Now, we are looking
    for--we are always looking for better technology to detect
    against this issue.

             SIX-MONTH AVERAGE FOR PROCESSING BENEFITS APPLICATIONS

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Aguirre, you mentioned reducing the
    backlog of your benefit application cases down to 1.3 million
    cases from a high of 3.8 million in January of 2004. I know you
    have devoted special funding in this area, too. Once you do not
    set aside dollars to bring down the backlog, are you going to
    be able to maintain this 6-month average of processing
    applications?
        Mr. Aguirre. Senator, I am certain of that. I am certain
    that we are going to meet the commitment to eliminate the
    backlog by September 2006. In fact, I will be surprised if we
    do not beat that by a little. And in the process, we have re-
    engineered all our processes so that not only are we
    eliminating the backlog and perhaps put it below a cycle time
    of 6 months, but also making sure that we are taking care of
    the applications that are coming in day in and day out.
        So once this 5-year commitment expires, I do not feel that
    we are going to need to go back to any appropriated funds for
    this particular endeavor.
        Senator Cochran. We have a vote that is occurring on the
    floor of the Senate right now. But before we cut off the right
    of any Senator to ask questions, I am going to proceed and
    recognize Senator Byrd and Senator Leahy both if they wanted to
    ask questions before we go vote.
        Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesies
    always.
        First, let me ask unanimous consent that a letter from me
    to the Honorable Michael Chertoff be included in the record
    following my earlier statement.
        Senator Cochran. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                  ANTIDUMPING/COUNTERVAILING DUTY COLLECTIONS

        Senator Byrd. Thank you.
        Commissioner Bonner, on December 17, 2004, Customs and
    Border Protection (CBP) issued its regular annual report on the
    Byrd Amendment trade law. The annual report describes how
    hundreds of millions of dollars in duties are not being
    collected by Customs, and the agency has been unable to explain
    why it cannot collect these funds.
        In fiscal year 2003, the agency failed to collect $130
    million in duties owed to the United States under the U.S.
    anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws, and CBP failed to
    collect an additional $260 million in fiscal year 2004. The
    majority of that $390 million is the result of uncollected
    duties on goods imported from China. The conference report
    accompanying the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
    Act for fiscal year 2005, which was enacted in October 2004,
    included language that directed Customs and Border Protection
    to submit a report to the House and Senate Appropriations
    Committees by January 15, 2005, on the implementation of
    recommendations that were made by the U.S. Treasury
    Department's Inspector General concerning the Customs and
    Border Protection's implementation of the Byrd Amendment trade
    law.
        The Senate Appropriations Committee has not yet received
    that report. Why is this problem of noncollection growing, and
    what are you doing to address it? Finally, do your efforts
    respond to the recommendations of the Treasury Inspector
    General?
        Mr. Bonner. Let me first of all say, Senator Byrd, that we
    are committed, I am personally committed, to improving our
    collection efforts. I am troubled that we used to say when we
    were settling cases that we were leaving too much money on the
    table here that is not collected. It is not accurate to say
    that we are unable to explain what the problem is. I think we
    have a pretty good understanding of the problems and we have
    taken some steps to improve our collections of antidumping and
    countervailing duty assessments. But let me just identify a
    couple of ways where we are moving forward. One of the problems
    in terms of collections was the insufficiency of continuous
    duty bonds for these kinds of high-risk shipments. These tend
    to be, by the way, agriculture and seafood products, a lot of
    it coming from China, but some other countries, and the
    continuous duty bonds were not nearly sufficient when the
    ultimate duty assessment was made by the Department of
    Commerce.
        So we have taken steps to raise the continuous duty bonds
    on goods that are particularly those types of goods that are or
    are very likely to be subject to antidumping duties, a final
    order.
        There were insufficient single entry bonds. In other words,
    we did not have recourse. So we are more diligent. We now have
    something that is very close to real-time monitoring of
    shipments that are subject to preliminary orders of commerce or
    potentially high-risk shipments of goods, and are raising the
    single entry duty bonds to higher levels that are more
    consistent with what we expect the ultimate duty assessment to
    be.
        By the way, just to let you know that we have taken not
    just those two steps to increase the bond coverage, but we have
    a better mechanism now for potentially identifying
    circumvention of the antidumping duties. By the way, as you can
    imagine, there is all sorts of circumvention. It is everything
    from fraudulent misdescribing of the goods, so that it is not a
    good that was subject to an antidumping order--we have had
    that, by the way, with respect to catfish shipments mislabeled
    as groupers. I know you are interested in this issue, Mr.
    Chairman. But we have had that.
        We have had sham companies that are set up and so forth. So
    we have ratcheted up our enforcement effort through our
    Commercial Enforcement Division and, frankly, are working very
    closely with ICE in nine significant and hopefully potential
    criminal prosecutions, but criminal investigation of fraud. We
    think that it would be very important to bring additional cases
    in this area for its deterrent value.
        We are better coordinating with the Department of Commerce
    so that we are actually in communication with them before even
    a preliminary order comes out and we can take some steps.

                          DEFAULT OF A SURETY COMPANY

        We have discussed with the Treasury Department one other
    issue, and that was actual default of a surety company, which
    was about $100 million of the total failure to collect. This
    was a surety company that had been approved by the Treasury
    Department and it defaulted on its surety bond obligations. So
    we are working with Treasury to make sure that the surety
    companies that are approved by the Treasury Department to write
    customs bonds are financially viable when payment time comes
    up.

                   INITIAL PRELIMINARY ORDERS IN LIQUIDATION

        So we have taken all these steps. Now, there is a lag time,
    as you know, between the initial preliminary orders in
    liquidation. So it is going to take some period of time before
    we see substantial results here, but I do think we have taken
    some very important steps to identify the problem and take
    concrete actions that are going to improve, and I hope
    substantially improve, our collection rate.
        Senator Byrd. Mr. Commissioner, I am heartened by your
    response. I know that you are very much alert to the problem.
    It is complex, it is difficult, and I compliment you on the way
    that you are working with other agencies and departments to
    deal with this problem. I thank you. I urge you to continue to
    work on it and to work even harder. I do appreciate your
    efforts.
        Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, let me close, because we are up
    against the voting situation over there. Incidentally, I have
    cast over 17,000 votes, but I do want to cast some today. I am
    going to submit the remainder of my questions, if I may, to be
    answered for the record.
        I thank all the witnesses.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator, for your contribution
    to the hearing.

                         ICE HIRING IN FISCAL YEAR 2006

        Senator Leahy. Just very quickly and I will put most of my
    questions in the record. To Assistant Secretary Garcia: When
    ICE was here last year it had severe budget problems, a hiring
    freeze. Does the fiscal year 2006 request bring ICE back to
    fiscal solvency? Will you be lifting the hiring freeze. If not,
    when?
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Senator Leahy. You are correct, we
    were here last year, we had a hiring freeze. We have taken a
    number of steps to address that. Working with the Department,
    we continue to do that. We need to take further steps.
    Secretary Loy testified a couple of weeks ago to that effect.
        The 2006 as we have proposed it will move us forward. We
    will be hiring in 2006.
        Senator Leahy. All these temporary people who have been
    there for 3 or 4 years, does that mean they can be looking for
    permanent positions now?
        Mr. Garcia. That is certainly our intention, Senator. I
    know that there are a number of those temporary positions at
    our Law Enforcement Support Center up in Burlington. As we have
    discussed, I only see the role of that Center expanding and
    becoming more important under our homeland security mission.
        Senator Leahy. Does the budget cover what you need or are
    you going to need reprogramming?
        Mr. Garcia. Hard to answer because, as we go along I will
    look at that. I have not been able to do that yet, obviously,
    because of the lack of clarity on some of the budget issues and
    the challenges we have been facing. But it is an issue that we
    consider a top priority.

                     BORDER PATROL AGENT STAFFING INCREASES

        Senator Leahy. Mr. Bonner, I mentioned before the budget
    only asks for 10 percent of the mandated agents. You think we
    need further agents on the northern border.
        Mr. Bonner. Well----
        Senator Leahy. Because you are only asking for 10 percent
    of what Congress mandated.
        Mr. Bonner. As you know, Senator, I am in full, violent
    support of the President's budget request, which requests 210
    Border Patrol agents in addition to, of course, replacing
    attrition.
        Senator Leahy. But none of them for the northern border?
        Mr. Bonner. Well, you know, you did note----
        Senator Leahy. We needed more.
        Mr. Bonner. You did note and let me note that we had 360
    Border Patrol agents on the northern border for the entire
    border with Canada on 9/11. On March 1, 2003, that was up to
    about 500.
        One of the first actions I took was to direct Border Patrol
    to meet the 1,000 goal, which they did actually in fiscal year
    2003.
        Senator Leahy. Do we need any more--this is what the bottom
    line is. Do we need any more on the northern border? Do we have
    enough on the northern border today?
        Mr. Bonner. You mean beyond what we have in the request?
        Senator Leahy. No, no. Do we have enough on the northern
    border with the number we have today. There is no request for
    the northern border. It is 210, 10 percent of what we mandated.
    But that is not for the northern border.
        Do we have enough on the northern border? It is an easy
    answer, yes or no.
        Mr. Bonner. We do not have enough agents. We do not have
    enough technology to give us the kind of security we need on
    the northern border.
        Senator Leahy. I am just a lawyer from a small town in
    Vermont. I do not understand. Is that a yes or a no?
        Mr. Bonner. I am just a lawyer from a small town in Kansas,
    so--
        That moved to California at some point.
        Senator Leahy. Here we are in the big city. Is it yes or
    no?
        Mr. Bonner. Well, we need more agents----
        Senator Leahy. Help me out here.
        Mr. Bonner. We need more agents. But look, I think it is
    the right combination of people and technology, and essential
    to this is the American Shield Initiative. The fiscal year 2006
    budget includes $81 million for technology, for more
    helicopters, and for UAV's for the Border Patrol. We need to do
    a smarter and a better job. I think we can do that. The
    President's request is for 210 more Agents. I do not know that
    they are necessarily earmarked all for the southern border. If
    you are asking me, I think probably most of them will go there.
        Senator Leahy. We should have this discussion in greater
    detail, because I am not happy. I do not think we are getting
    the number, we are certainly not getting anywhere near the
    number that the Congress mandated.

                                I-91 CHECKPOINT

        I also want to have your staff and mine talk about this
    checkpoint you have on Interstate 91 in Vermont, a long, long
    distance from the border, that just stops honest Vermonters
    that have been driving back and forth there forever and ever.
        You had people--aliens that have been there for ever and
    ever, they keep getting stopped over and over and over again.
    There is a real suspicion of some racial profiling people who
    have honestly, working in New Hampshire and Vermont for years
    and years, and just continuously get stopped. They continuously
    get asked the same questions as they got asked the day before.
        The irony is, of course, if anybody wanted to circumvent
    that they would just go out one of the back roads, and the
    agents would never find them.
        So let our staff talk about that. It is creating, both in
    the ``Live Free Or Die'' State of New Hampshire and the former
    independent republic of Vermont, it is creating a bit of a
    concern. It is not going to do anything to stop people from
    coming across the border, because they are not the ones getting
    stopped.
        Mr. Bonner. Could I briefly respond, though? That is that
    part of the strategy is not putting everything on the line
    itself. There has to be a second line of defense. It is not
    that the checkpoint is necessarily going to--that terrorists
    that might come across the Canadian border into the United
    States. Part of the strategy of a checkpoint is lateral
    enforcement from the checkpoint. It gives us a second line of
    defense.
        Senator Cochran. Senator, we have a vote.
        Mr. Bonner. It is going to be important. It is an important
    part of the overall strategy to get better control of our
    borders, something you and I have a common interest in.
        Senator Leahy. Yes. But when I have to stop and prove my
    identification and I am a U.S. citizen, I know this is helping
    somebody. It is sort of like security stopping Ted Kennedy a
    dozen times from going on a plane because he is seen on a
    terrorist list and the government does not know how the hell to
    get him off it.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Cochran. This Senate hearing will stand in recess
    until we go vote and we will return to resume our questioning
    of the witnesses. We appreciate your indulgence.

              NEW OFFICE OF SCREENING COORDINATION AND OPERATIONS

        Thank you very much for your patience. I apologize for
    having to go vote on the floor of the Senate during our
    hearing.
        The President's budget proposes to create the Office of
    Screening Coordination and Operations within the Border and
    Transportation Security Directorate. How do each of you see
    this new office contributing to the Department's ability to
    implement the 9/11 Commission recommendation? Mr. Bonner, let
    us start with you.
        Mr. Bonner. Well, I would say this, that certainly there
    will be some benefits from thinking through this issue of
    screening, particularly for the terrorist threat. So I expect
    that it will assist in terms of coordinating those efforts,
    understanding that there are fundamentally very different
    screening opportunities that are presented depending upon which
    homeland security agency you are talking about.
        We have the broadest law enforcement authority of any law
    enforcement agency in our country, Customs and Border
    Protection, and that is because we have the full authority to,
    without cause or suspicion, ask questions of anybody who is
    crossing our border or entering our country through our
    official entry points and certainly to arrest anybody who is
    not. Secondly, we have the broad customs search authority,
    which is the broadest search authority under the Fourth
    Amendment of our Constitution, which permits us to search and
    inspect luggage of everybody, by the way, U.S. citizens, non-
    citizens, without cause, warrant, or suspicion.
        So we have broad authorities, which we are using right now
    in terms of being as intelligent as we can to perform that
    priority mission of preventing terrorists from entering our
    country. But I think nonetheless the Screening Coordination
    Office should, I believe, play a helpful role.

                            VETTED TRAVELER PROGRAMS

        There is another area, just briefly let me touch on it, Mr.
    Chairman, where the Screening Coordination Office I think could
    play a valuable role. That is, there are in place right now
    essentially what I call trusted, vetted traveler programs.
    Customs and Border Protection vastly expanded the Nexus program
    at the Canadian border. We now have almost 80,000 people that
    we have vetted. That is not only taking biometrics from them;
    that is a personal interview to make sure that they pose no
    terrorist threat or smuggling threat. We have a similar program
    that we inherited from INS, the SENTRI program at the Mexican
    border. We have FAST, the FAST program for commercial truckers
    from both Mexico, coming from Mexico or Canada, and so forth.
        We have mature actual programs. They are not pilots. We
    have enrolled about 200,000 people into these programs. But on
    the other hand, TSA is piloting a registered passenger program
    and so forth. You need to look at the issue of what are the
    biometrics that should be collected from each person that is
    enrolled or is going to be considered to be a trusted or
    registered individual for receiving some benefits. You need to
    look at the biometric you use to identify them when they appear
    at the border port of entry or when they appear at the airport
    if it is a TSA issue and the like, and so forth.
        I think the Screening Coordination Office could play a very
    important role in getting those policy decisions, and they are
    policy decisions, made and implemented in the most visionary
    way possible, so that at the end of the day somebody that is
    vetted in for one of these programs, let us say for the Nexus
    program, would be cleared in for other kinds of trusted
    passenger programs.
        That is a big idea and I think the Screening Coordination
    Office can and I hope will play a valuable role in harmonizing,
    if you will, the technology issues for these different kinds of
    trusted, vetted, or registered passenger or traveler programs.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Garcia, this was part of the
    presidential commission, the National Commission on Terrorist
    attacks, the 9/11 Commission's, recommendations, that there be
    a centralized office created, designed to provide comprehensive
    screening across, addressing common problems and setting common
    standards in a systemwide operation. Do you see this office
    contributing to the Department's ability to implement this
    recommendation?
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, absolutely.
    Again, you tie it back to the 9/11 Commission report. I think
    you also look at the staff report on terrorist travel, the
    recommendations in there, incredibly important work, the
    conclusion that terrorist travel is at least as important an
    area or vulnerability as terrorist financing. This center
    certainly moves us forward in addressing those vulnerabilities.
    ICE will play a role, as we will CBP and CIS, in working with
    that center. For example, as we discussed, people who are
    screened who are turned back we now can follow through with
    associates present in the country by looking at our systems and
    our data.
        We can use our forensic document lab to examine their
    travel documents and provide bulletins and intelligence
    analysis to the front-line folks by analyzing that travel
    documentation that terrorists or other national security
    threats use to try to enter the country.
        So certainly centralization of the screening function, and
    as importantly I think what will flow from that within the
    Department and within the agencies.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Aguirre, does this affect your agency
    and how are you cooperating in this effort if so?
        Mr. Aguirre. Mr. Chairman, it does affect our agency
    because, of course, we are all in the immigration business to
    one extent or another. Even though we are not on the
    enforcement side, we are involved in the biometric of,
    capturing biometrics of millions of applicants year in and year
    out, and those biometrics of course are oftentimes being used
    for law enforcement purposes where necessary.
        I actually view the issue from a service standpoint, in
    contrast to the enforcement standpoint. Any time you can have
    consistency and coordination of the identification process and
    the biometrics and so on, it can be an expedited opportunity
    for those who do not have hits or do not have any reason to
    feel the need of scrutiny.
        So I think it would expedite the processing of the 97, 98
    percent of those individuals that cross in and out. As you
    probably know, USCIS is the organization that generates many of
    the cards that are being used today. For instance, the Green
    Cards are produced by us. We have put in those Green Cards--
    permanent residency card--any number of biometric data for our
    colleagues on the enforcement side to be able to work with.

            OFFICE OF SCREENING COORDINATION AND OPERATIONS MISSION

        Senator Cochran. Commissioner Bonner, should the Office of
    Screening Coordination and Operations have actual operational
    authority for various screening programs, as proposed, or
    should it focus on the integration and coordination function
    necessary across so many programs involved in the activity?
        Mr. Bonner. I would say with respect to operations, you are
    talking about the actual gathering of biometric data on
    potential enrollees. You are talking about the actual interview
    that we do and have done with a couple hundred thousand people.
    I think that probably should be an operational function left
    with the agency that is ultimately responsible for and going to
    be held accountable for whatever benefit is being given.
        If you took just the border issue in terms of our screening
    at our ports of entry, international airports, land border,
    ultimately CBP is operating these programs right now--the NEXUS
    program, the SENTRI program. It may well make sense to leave
    that operation at the agency level, in the agency that actually
    is responsible.
        Now, having said that, let me say we have a new Secretary
    of Homeland Security, Mike Chertoff. By the way, I think
    Secretary Chertoff is somebody who, based upon my past
    experience, is going to be an extraordinary Secretary. He
    ultimately makes the decision, not me, as to how you make this
    distinction between what operational functions should remain at
    the agency level and what, if any, systems functions should be
    performed by the Screening Coordination Office.
        I do not think that has been decided. Those are my views
    subject to, of course, further guidance from Secretary
    Chertoff.
        Senator Cochran. Director Aguirre, what is your take on
    that? Just from an opposite point of view, should the
    Citizenship and Immigration Services programs, screening
    programs, be moved to the Office of Screening Coordination and
    Operations?
        Mr. Aguirre. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that in the vacuum
    of this hearing I can give you an accurate answer. I think the
    issue of operations and the issue of ``who is responsible for
    what'' needs to be weighed in the context of is it working
    well/is it not working well/and how can it work better. So
    within Homeland Security I think we have a number of components
    that can always stand improvement, and to determine here and
    now what is better or worse, I would be ad libbing.

             INTELLIGENCE REFORM ACT/BORDER PATROL STAFF INCREASES

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Bonner, this request does not include
    resources to fulfill the new Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
    Prevention Act authorizations. Were the new authorizations
    considered or was the bill enacted into law too late to be
    considered when the fiscal year 2006 budget process was
    completed inside the administration?
        Mr. Bonner. That is a good question. I need to probe my
    memory on it in terms of the time line. Obviously, as you know,
    the process is that we did make a request that goes through the
    Department process, and ultimately ends up getting a lot of
    scrubbing and review. I actually participated in the
    Departmental Resources Review Board. I am not on that Board,
    but I was allowed to be present and to present the CBP budget
    request.
        I need to get back to you. I do not have the time line
    clearly in mind, but I do not remember as I was presenting the
    CBP budget to the Department that the intelligence bill I do
    not believe had passed with that authorization level. In fact,
    I am just reminded it was not signed until December 17, 2004.
    So it may have been one of those things where the budget was
    being put together before we even knew what the Congressional
    intent was in the intelligence bill.
        That said, by the way, let me say that--and I was
    addressing this a little bit with Senator Leahy--we have in the
    last 10 years or so, literally tripled the size of the Border
    Patrol, from about 4,000 Border Patrol Agents in the mid-90's
    to now, and with the President's request it will be just about
    11,000 Border Patrol Agents.
        There is a limit, by the way, in thinking of bringing new
    agent resources on board, there is a limit to how much a law
    enforcement organization like the Border Patrol can absorb.
    There are limits to how many agents the Border Control can
    recruit, hire, and train in a single year, and still maintain
    its cohesiveness as a law enforcement organization.
        But that is going beyond your question, Senator. I think
    the answer is I do not believe that the 2000 number was out
    there as the budget request was going forward.

                     IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VISA REFORM ACT

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Aguirre, the Visa Reform Act was
    passed as part of the fiscal year 2005 Consolidated
    Appropriations Act. That act tightens controls on the L1 visa
    and expands the cap on the H1B visas. What steps have been
    taken to begin implementation of that act?
        Mr. Aguirre. Well, Mr. Chairman, on the L1B visas there is
    a provision for additional resources, human resources, to be
    ensured that we can prevent fraudulent applications on the L1B.
    I think you are clearly aware that fraud is a major issue for
    Immigration Services, and L1B visas in particular are ones that
    we have felt, and I think the Congress has felt as well, that
    it is vulnerable to fraud. Therefore we are putting additional
    human resources and applying our fraud detection and national
    security unit to make sure that the applications are properly
    processed, and expedited in the normal process, but that we
    identify if there are any indices of fraud that we can identify
    appropriately.

                        L1 VISA INTER-AGENCY TASK FORCE

        Now, on the H1B applications, as you know, there is a
    provision for an additional 20,000 applications, or the cap is
    raised by 20,000. We are in the process of implementing that
    number and within the next few days, if not weeks, we will have
    an improved process to take advantage of that.
        Senator Cochran. Has the L1 Visa Inter-Agency Task Force
    been set up?
        Mr. Aguirre. Senator, I am not aware of that, no, sir.

                    UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES--CATFISH IMPORTS

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Bonner, this committee is interested
    in the progress to protect American industries from unfair
    competition. You mentioned the catfish and grouper issue a
    while ago. Of importance of course in our State and in the
    South is the catfish industry and the enforcement of
    antidumping orders in connection with Vietnamese tra and basa.
    What are ICE and CBP doing now to enforce this antidumping
    order?
        Mr. Bonner. Well, I can tell you, Senator, that going back
    to October of last year we began a special enforcement effort
    to essentially identify the misdescription, mislabeling of
    catfish, imported catfish that would be subject to antidumping
    duties. We do have a laboratory science and services branch
    where we were taking samples literally of imports that were
    coming into the port of L.A., Long Beach, Miami, and the Port
    of New York, and determining whether in fact they were what
    they were represented to be. We found that there was
    significant misdescription of a product that was being shipped
    from Vietnam.
        We have taken three important actions. One, based upon that
    identification at the port levels, we have raised the
    continuous duty bonds. We are requiring higher single entry
    duty bonds with respect to product that we believe in fact was
    subject to the countervailing duties, that is to say was in
    fact catfish. We have required payment of additional duties. We
    are actively pursuing what are called section 1592 penalty
    actions against those importers who imported mislabeled, I
    might say falsely and potentially fraudulently mislabeled
    product. We are working with ICE, as I indicated to Senator
    Byrd, to attempt to get further investigation through the ICE
    special agents, and potentially we are hopeful to get criminal
    prosecutions in at least some of these cases in conjunction
    with the Department of Justice and the relevant U.S. attorney's
    offices.
        Clearly, we have taken some steps. We are moving out on
    this issue because there is clearly some false labeling that is
    taking place here to essentially circumvent and fraudulently
    evade the antidumping duties.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Garcia, you have some responsibilities
    in this area as well, do you not?
        Mr. Garcia. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. ICE, as Commissioner
    Bonner indicated, is responsible for investigations in this
    area. We are committed to doing that. I know this crime has a
    very real impact on industries in this country. I have spoken
    with a number of members of Congress about those impacts in
    their particular districts and particular industries.
        I have seen a number of significant cases, and again
    Commissioner Bonner touched on them, that have come across my
    desk. I believe that we will be moving forward, again with the
    relevant U.S. attorney's office, to seek to bring criminal
    charges in a number of cases. We are using our overseas assets
    very aggressively to root out some of the fraud that has been
    going on in this area.
        So we have made progress and we are committed to continuing
    those enforcement efforts.

                       BORDER PATROL AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Bonner, the budget request includes
    some money, $20 million, to begin replacing Border Patrol
    helicopters. The plan calls for the full replacement of the air
    fleet to be completed in 2010. Is the request that is included
    in the budget sufficient to get you started in this direction?
    Would additional resources allow you to speed up the
    replacement of the fleet?
        Mr. Bonner. I am happy to get started on the
    recapitalization of the Border Patrol air assets. As I think
    you know, Mr. Chairman, out of the 110 or so air platforms that
    the Border Patrol has, roughly--this is a rough estimate as I
    do not have the exact number, about 40 to 50 of those are
    Vietnam vintage aircraft--the OH-6's, the small bubble
    surveillance helicopters, as well as about maybe 10 or 12
    Vietnam vintage Hueys.
        It is a good start. As we move forward with the integration
    of the Air and Marine Office in a better configuration with the
    Border Patrol air assets, we are going to find that there are
    some benefits there in terms of how we look at the air
    resources we need.
        But nonetheless, there is a significant amount of
    recapitalization that is going to need to be done and this is a
    start on it. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if there were more funding it
    would help us get there faster.

                    INTEGRATION OF CBP AIR AND MARINE ASSETS

        Senator Cochran. The integration of the air and marine
    resources has begun, as you point out. What progress is being
    made toward integrating the units with the Border Patrol?
        Mr. Bonner. There is some good progress. First of all, of
    course, the first phase of it was essentially the integration
    or the transfer. In some ways I see it as a transfer back to
    U.S. Customs, but anyway it was the transfer in November of
    last year of the Air and Marine Operations (AMO) office to CBP.
    That was phase one. That has been completed.
        We are now into phase two. In phase two, I am using the
    Transition Management Office process that we used very
    successfully to unify and integrate CBP. It is a process that
    essentially looks at the ways that we can now further integrate
    essentially the air assets and also the marine assets that are
    now all within CBP.
        By the way, there have already been some very important
    benefits from this, from the transfer of AMO to CBP in terms of
    better operational coordination between the Border Patrol and
    AMO and the like. But phase two will do this. It will better
    integrate one procurement, for not just the Border Patrol and
    not just for AMO, but for both. It will better integrate one
    maintenance system for all aviation air assets, one training
    system for all of our pilots, whether they are from the Border
    Patrol or whether they were AMO pilots. Ultimately, as part of
    this process, we are going to determine ways to better
    operationally integrate the efforts of both of these air and
    marine groups and assets.
        I have had several briefings on this already. I believe
    that we will be able to make some key decisions along the lines
    I have described certainly in the next couple of months or so,
    so that we are continuing to move forward with the best optimal
    organization, if you will, of the sum total of the air and
    marine assets that are now within CBP.
        Senator Cochran. I appreciate very much the cooperation of
    each of you and your agencies with our committee and the
    requests that we submit for information from time to time.
    Particularly, I appreciate your taking time to come here today
    and participate in this hearing, which is very important for us
    to have to get a full understanding of how you are allocating
    the resources under the budget request and what the priorities
    are.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        We want to help you succeed in your activities. So we thank
    you very much for your cooperation with our subcommittee.
    Senators may submit questions to you in writing and we ask you
    to respond to those within a reasonable time for our committee
    record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                       continued funding shortfalls--ice
        Question. In September of 2004, this Committee approved a request
    to transfer and reprogram $152 million in order to allow Immigration
    and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ``to effectively manage its financial
    position through year end''. In other words, the request was to move
    $152 million to ensure that ICE did not have a shortfall.
        This Committee worked with the Department to permanently move $193
    million in base resources from Customs and Border Protection to ICE in
    the fiscal year 2005 Appropriations Act. Admiral Loy recently testified
    to the House Appropriations Committee that he expects there to be a
    reprogramming request submitted soon to provide anywhere from an
    additional $250 to $300 million to ICE in order to finish out fiscal
    year 2005.
        The cycle of stopgap solutions needs to end. Too much time seems to
    have been spent trying to figure out how this situation came about--
    what is termed ``mapping''--rather than trying to make sure this
    problem is resolved so that we can move forward to ensure that an
    agency vital to combating terrorism is solvent.
        When will this Committee receive the transfer/reprogramming
    proposal to address the fiscal year 2005 shortfall?
        Answer. The notification of the proposed reprogramming was
    transmitted to the Appropriations Committees on March 12, 2005, in a
    letter dated March 11, 2005.
        Question. Have Congressional initiatives funded in the fiscal year
    2005 Appropriations Act been deferred until this problem is resolved?
        Answer. In the proposed reprogramming, ICE is proposing to defer
    $85.216 million of the $193.916 million in enhancements, i.e.,
    Congressional initiatives, funded in the fiscal year 2005
    Appropriations Act. Item 2, on page 5 of the Report of Proposed
    Reprogramming Action discusses, in detail, the enhancements which are
    being reduced from their original appropriated amounts. The
    enhancements that have been reduced are shown below:
    Fugitive Operations
        The enhancement is reduced to $9 million from the appropriated $50
    million level. This will allow funding of 42 positions instead of the
    236 positions originally planned. The reduction will mean that fewer
    Fugitive Operations teams can be deployed as originally planned.
    Institutional Removal Program
        The enhancement is reduced to $4 million from the appropriated $30
    million level. This will allow funding of 37 positions instead of the
    279 positions originally planned. Higher cost Special Agents will
    continue to perform some institutional removal duties, instead of
    replacing all of them with Immigration Enforcement Agents.
    Compliance Enforcement Units
        The enhancement is reduced to $11 million from the appropriated
    level of $16 million. This will permit funding of 89 positions instead
    of the 130 positions originally planned.
    Alternatives to Detention
        The enhancement is reduced to $2 million from the appropriated
    level of $11 million. This will permit funding of 11 positions instead
    of the 60 positions originally planned. Some capacity increases will
    occur at each of the current eight Intensive Supervision sites, though
    not to the anticipated levels.
    Guantanamo Migrant Operations Center
        The enhancement is reduced to $2 million from the appropriated
    level of $6.2 million. The level should be sufficient to support the
    Center's operations. (Note: remaining, fully-funded, enhancements
    include $26.5 million for Detention Bed Space; $25 million for Benefit
    Fraud; $14 million for the Visa Security Unit and the Office of
    International Affairs; $6 million for the Immigration Court Backlog; $5
    million for Worksite Enforcement; and, $4.2 million for the Cyber Crime
    Center.)
        Question. What assurance do we have that the fiscal year 2006
    request for ICE will solve this problem permanently?
        Answer. The full funding level requested in the President's Budget,
    internally realigned for the impact of the fiscal year 2005
    reprogramming request, will allow ICE to carry out its mission during
    fiscal year 2006. We do not foresee the need for further reprogramming
    or funding transfers among bureaus.
        Question. ICE has now lived under a hiring freeze for close to a
    calendar year. What impact is this having on the organization's ability
    to carry out its mission?
        Answer. ICE has had to implement several measures to ensure it
    operates within existing resources. It has had to prioritize funding
    requirements. In all cases, ICE has worked to ensure that mission
    critical requirements have been funded with the intent of minimizing
    any adverse impact on its national security related mission.
        Question. There are significant resources requested for fiscal year
    2006 to increase the base funding available to ICE: $105 million for
    the Office of Investigations, $24 million for the Office of Detention
    and Removals, and a significant portion of the $90 million for Custody
    Management. What method was used to come up with these estimates?
        Answer. Estimates were derived by looking at the entire operation
    and determining that the resources of these offices/programs needed
    increases in order to attain key operational goals.
        Question. Will the fiscal year 2006 request provide ICE with the
    funding necessary to enable it to lift the hiring freeze on October 1,
    2005?
        Answer. ICE continues to work closely with DHS, BTS, and OMB to
    identify solutions to address its financial issues. One of ICE's
    priorities is to implement financial solutions that will allow the
    lifting of the hiring freeze. This work is ongoing and as a result, it
    is too early to state whether the hiring freeze will be lifted on
    October 1, 2005. An alternative may be to implement solutions that
    would allow the freeze to be lifted later in the fiscal year.
        Question. According to the just delivered ``ICE Financial
    Management Overhaul'' report, ``The ICE Assistant Secretary brought in
    a team from other components of DHS on a 90-day detail to help identify
    solutions to ICE's financial issues. The team will make recommendations
    to the Assistant Secretary by later this Spring.'' Its charter
    includes: development of short-term recommendations to address fiscal
    year 2005 funding issues; an action plan with key recommendations to
    place ICE into a stable funding position for fiscal year 2006 and
    beyond; and recommendations for policies and procedures that will
    result in transparent budget and financial planning and execution. What
    potential is there that these recommendations could cause significant
    revisions to the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request?
        Answer. The President's Budget includes the necessary funding to
    ensure ICE can accomplish its mission to detect vulnerabilities and
    prevent violations that threaten national security. As mentioned in the
    ``ICE Financial Management Overhaul'' report, the team is developing
    recommendations to improve ICE's financial position in 2006.
        As noted in your question, the final report is due to the Assistant
    Secretary later this spring. The team's recommendations will be shared
    with the ICE's new CFO and Budget Director. ICE appreciates your
    interest in this effort and looks forward to working with you and your
    staff where necessary to implement any recommendations.
        Question. How is it that this organization is almost 2 years old
    and is just now looking to develop sound financial planning policies
    and procedures?
        Answer. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security
    represented a reorganization unprecedented in the Federal Government.
    2005 represents the first year that ICE has focused on issues other
    than transition and reconciliation. It is an opportune time to further
    refine financial policies and procedures previously implemented and to
    continue developing sound policies and processes as necessary.
        Question. ICE has two outsourcing competitions on going--labor
    management and intelligence support. Is this an area where ICE could
    see significant cost savings?
        Answer. Fiscal year 2005 would have been U.S. Immigration and
    Custom Enforcement's (ICE's) initial full year of participation in
    competitive sourcing since its inception. ICE intended to initiate its
    original studies on a relatively small scale in order to properly
    establish its competitive sourcing infrastructure. Significant cost
    savings were not expected to be realized based on the fiscal year 2005
    studies. More significant savings would be anticipated based on broader
    studies under consideration for fiscal year 2006. ICE expects to be an
    active participant in the initiative in fiscal year 2006.
        Question. Please provide a chart with the on-board staffing level
    for ICE, by position type, for September 30, 2004, and fiscal year 2005
    through January 31, 2005, both excluding Air and Marine Operations.
        Answer. Attached are the ICE on-board staffing charts for the end
    of fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005, through the pay period ending
    February 5, 2005. Federal Protective Service positions are included,
    but Federal Air Marshal Service positions are not included.
        Highlighted changes from 2004 to 2005 are:
      --An increase of 185 positions transferred from Customs and Border
            Protection to ICE for International Affairs
      --The movement of 112 Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force
            positions from reimbursable to direct
      --The movement of 138 positions from reimbursable to direct

        Question. Please provide updated fee projection charts for each fee
    account for fiscal year 2006 as compared to fiscal year 2005, with the
    chart for the Student Exchange Visitor Information System broken out by
    month.
        Answer. Attached are fee projection charts for ICE by fee account
    for fiscal year 2006 versus fiscal year 2005.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                  Fee accounts                     2005            2006
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Immigration User Fee....................        $100,000        $101,621
    Breached Bond Detention Fund............         114,000         115,260
    Student and Exchange Visitor Program:
        I-901 Revenues:
            October.........................       1,459,215       2,039,431
            November........................       2,636,660       2,166,852
            December........................       3,451,620       3,135,481
            January.........................       2,211,365       2,092,676
            February........................       1,970,220       1,485,072
            March...........................       2,661,321       2,661,321
            April...........................       4,452,487       4,452,487
            May.............................       6,211,727       6,311,727
            June............................       7,225,460       7,509,932
            July............................       7,149,570       7,441,213
            August..........................       4,515,573       4,524,954
            September.......................       2,072,375       2,072,375
                                             -------------------------------
              Total.........................      46,017,593      45,893,520
                                             ===============================
        I-17 Revenues:
            October.........................          30,659       1,050,960
            November........................          27,960         403,680
            December........................          38,416         187,920
            January.........................          28,540         231,420
            February........................          33,330         320,740
            March...........................          29,000         211,120
            April...........................          29,000         372,940
            May.............................          29,000         309,720
            June............................          29,000         161,240
            July............................          29,000         132,820
            August..........................          29,000          53,360
            September.......................          29,000          62,640
                                             -------------------------------
              Total.........................         361,905       3,498,560
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Please provide a chart with the fiscal year 2006
    annualization projections broken out by fiscal year 2005 initiative.
        Answer. Please see table below.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Enhancement                             Annualization   One-time costs        Net
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Compliance.....................................................         $13,743         ($9,710)          $4,033
    IRP............................................................          28,478         (11,420)          17,058
    Fugitive Ops...................................................          25,799         (11,543)          14,256
    Alternatives...................................................           4,925          (2,856)           2,069
    Bed Space......................................................           2,869          (1,326)           1,543
    Backlog........................................................          13,256          (2,222)          11,034
    Worksite.......................................................           3,044          (1,648)           1,396
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------
          Total....................................................          92,114         (40,725)          51,389
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Please provide detailed comprehensive justifications for
    each program increase requested in the fiscal year 2006 President's
    budget.
        Answer.
    Homeland Security Data Network (HSDN)

                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                         Program                        2004 budget     2005 budget     2006 budget     2006 change
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ICE's portion of HSDN \1\.......................  ..............  ..............          11,300          11,300
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Note: There is no base budget for HSDN. However, the Department's Working Capital Fund assessment for fiscal
      year 2005 is currently estimated to be $8.695 million. ICE contributed $3.2 million to the WCF in fiscal year
      2004 for HSDN.

        The fiscal year 2006 enhancement for HSDN totals $11.3 million and
    1 FTE.
        HSDN is a multi-agency, Department-wide project, funded from
    contributions from participating agencies. For fiscal year 2005, ICE's
    estimated contribution to HSDN is $8.7 million. In fiscal year 2004,
    ICE contributed $3.2 million to HSDN. Although ICE contributes funding
    for HSDN, the development, deployment, and management of the network is
    the direct responsibility of the HSDN Program Office which also manages
    all the funding for this ICE-sponsored initiative.
        The HSDN is a secure communication network for transmission of
    information classified up to SECRET. It has been designed to replace
    several disparate legacy systems. HSDN will provide connectivity to the
    Department of Defense (DOD) Secret Internet Protocol Router Network
    (SIPRNet) to all users. DOD has indicated that non-DOD agencies should
    not use the SIPRNet as their primary classified communications medium.
    HSDN will provide access to SIPRNet via controlled gateways, satisfying
    this DOD concern. There are more than 400 DHS sites requiring HSDN
    deployment. Funding of this initiative will provide access to as many
    as 700 users in fiscal year 2006.
        Funding for this request would support a HSDN coordinator to serve
    as a liaison between ICE program offices and the DHS's Science and
    Technology (S&T) Directorate, the HSDN program manager. The remaining
    resources would be provided to S&T for costs associated with the HSDN
    development process, including a survey of ICE locations, installation
    of equipment, set-up of terminals, and activation of service to
    terminals.
        HSDN implementation was designed to follow a phased schedule. The
    first phase--which included the design and approval of the overall
    network design--has been completed. The second phase proposes the
    installation of a limited number of terminals in 72 locations. Among
    these, 13 are ICE locations which include facilities within the Office
    of Intelligence and Office of Investigations. Equipment installation at
    these ICE locations is expected to continue through fiscal year 2005.
        The remaining HSDN implementation phases will encompass the
    installation of all remaining locations including State and local
    offices. ICE has identified an additional eighty-eight locations which
    will have the HSDN installed in these remaining phases. These include
    the remaining Special Agent in Charge Offices, most Resident Agent in
    Charge Offices, Intelligence Collection and Analysis Teams, and
    remaining Office of Intelligence locations.
        Performance Impact.--Funding of this initiative will provide access
    to HSDN as follows:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
          Performance increase         2006 request    2007 request    2008 request    2009 request    2010 request
                                           level           level           level           level           level
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total number of HSDN users......             700           1,000           1,000           1,000           1,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Visa Security Unit

                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                 Program                2004 budget     2005 budget      2006 base      2006 budget     2006 change
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Visa Security Unit..............  ..............          10,000          10,000          15,000           5,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The fiscal year 2006 enhancement for VSU totals $5 million and 5
    FTE.
        The ICE Visa Security Unit (VSU) conducts in-depth review of visa
    applicants wishing to enter the United States, with the goal of denying
    visas to terrorists, criminals, and persons of special interest. Visa
    Security Program officers are assigned to posts to perform this law
    enforcement review of immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applications
    prior to visa issuance by consular officers of the Department of State.
        For fiscal year 2005, the VSU's first year of funding, $10 million
    was provided to: (1) establish permanent operations in Saudi Arabia;
    (2) expand visa security operations to five additional high-risk
    locations (locations are not named here due to law enforcement
    sensitivity); and (3) hire 22 permanent positions (five at Headquarters
    and 17 at the overseas posts).
        The enhancement requested for fiscal year 2006 would support nine
    additional positions ($4.827 million) and provide $173,000 for
    Investigations Training. These resources would advance incremental
    progress toward program expansion.
        A $5 million enhancement to the base would:
      --fund new overseas visa security post (to be selected based on
            current risk), staffed by three permanent Visa Security
            Officers, to expand the scope of visa security operations.
            Overseas operations involve: conducting in-depth scrutiny of
            high risk visa applicants; providing advice and training to
            consular officers to enhance their ability to detect terrorist,
            criminal, and otherwise fraudulent visa applicants through the
            consular adjudication process; and initiating investigations
            under DHS authority;
      --hire two additional officers at Headquarters to provide operational
            and administrative support to the overseas operations;
      --hire four permanent officer positions to replace temporary duty
            personnel currently investigating Security Advisory Opinions
            (SAOs) and ``Section 306'' cases (visa applicants from a State
            Sponsor of Terrorism);
      --expand funding for Consular Training programs, including
            Headquarters consular training program development, Rapid
            Response Team capability, and consular evaluation program
            development.
        Performance Impact.--The Homeland Security Act authorizes the
    Secretary of Homeland Security to assign employees of the Department to
    diplomatic and consular posts at which visas are issued, unless the
    Secretary determines that such an assignment to a particular post would
    not promote homeland security. The Secretary must submit an annual
    report to Congress that describes the basis for each determination that
    the assignment of an employee of the Department at a particular post
    would not promote homeland security.
        Conducting the activities of the VSU in Saudi Arabia and expanding
    to the locations designated as highest risk by the Secretary are
    expected to generate an increase in homeland security outputs such as:
    recommendations to refuse individual visa applications, generation of
    investigative leads, additional lookouts and watch list entries,
    identification of visa fraud schemes (including fraudulent documents,
    businesses, organizations, and associates), delivery of formal and
    informal training to consular officers, and other enforcement actions.
    The outcomes associated with these outputs may include a decrease in
    the vulnerabilities in the visa issuance process, increased integrity
    of the immigration system, and a greater awareness of terrorist
    suspects and activity patterns.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year
                                        Fiscal year      2006         2007         2008         2009         2010
             Performance level           2005  est.    request      request      request      request      request
                                           level        level        level        level        level        level
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Percentage security review of all           100          100          100          100          100          100
     visa applications in Saudi Arabia
    Percentage of high risk visa                 NA
     applicants scrutinized at the non-
     Saudi posts......................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Legal Proceedings

                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Fiscal year
                 Program                Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year        2006
                                        2004 budget     2005 budget      2006 base      2006 budget    enhancements
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Principal Legal Advisor.........          86,423         113,105         119,514         123,014           3,500
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: Funding from the Salaries and Expense account only. Does not include reimbursable funding.

        The fiscal year 2006 enhancement for Legal Proceedings totals $3.5
    million and 24 FTE.
        Of the fiscal year 2005 enhancements, 16 attorney and 12 support
    positions are scheduled for Headquarters while 38 attorneys and 8
    support positions are targeted for the Field. The Headquarters
    positions will be distributed among existing Headquarters teams dealing
    with the following areas:
      --Commercial and Administrative Law Division (primarily working on
            Merit Systems Protection Board appeals, and defending Equal
            Employment Opportunity claims generated by ICE clients (Federal
            Protective Service (FPS) and Federal Air Marshals (FAMS)), and
            handling bid protests primarily generated by FPS contracts;
      --the National Security Law Division overseeing the litigation of
            national security cases, providing legal advice to the Office
            of Intelligence, and performing liaison activities with other
            law enforcement agencies;
      --the Customs Enforcement Law Division, dealing with policy issues,
            and day to day monitoring of undercover operations, and ongoing
            criminal investigations; the Enforcement Law Division, dealing
            with a wide range of issues generated by the Office of
            Detention and Removal, the Office of Investigations, FAMS, and
            FPS, including statutory authority, search and seizure, use of
            force, and parole and custody issues, and the Human Rights Law
            Division, coordinating the litigation and advices the field on
            human rights abuser and persecutor cases.
        The fiscal year 2005 field positions will be devoted to the
    following field areas:
      --increased time and efforts spent on national security, predator and
            persecutor cases at the field level;
      --increased training of staff on national security and persecutor
            issues;
      --increased review of Notices to Appear prior to issuance or the
            hearing date;
      --more timely movement of ``change of venue cases'' between district
            offices to cut down on adjournments because the agency
            representative does not have the file;
      --increased amount of time spent on preparing a case for hearing,
            with a particular focus on review of alien evidentiary
            submissions and investigation thereof so as to minimize the
            number of adjournments required for document checks (by the
            Forensic Document Laboratory, the Department of States, and
            ICE/CIS offices abroad);
      --increased emphasis on benefit and asylum fraud, including
            development of criminal prosecutions, so as to discourage the
            filing of fraudulent or frivolous applications;
      --increased emphasis on responding to motions to reopen and filing
            responses to alien briefs before the Board of Immigration
            Appeals so as to diminish the number of non-meritorious cases
            that are reopened, and to speed up appeal processing at the
            Board of Immigration Appeals level.
        These increased resources will also be used to assist the Office of
    Immigration Litigation (OIL) and the Offices of the United States
    Attorney (USAO) litigating Petitions of Review of removal orders and
    habeas challenges to custody and removal.
        Past, current, and planned deployment of resources (Attorneys/
    Support):

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Planned fiscal  Planned fiscal
                                                                          Current        year 2005       year 2006
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Arlington.......................................................            11/4            13/4            14/4
    Atlanta.........................................................             8/3             9/3            10/3
    Baltimore.......................................................            10/4            11/4            12/4
    Boston (Includes Hartford Office)...............................            19/6            21/6            23/7
    Buffalo.........................................................             8/3             8/3
    Chicago (Includes Kansas City Office)...........................            17/7            19/7
    Dallas..........................................................            10/4            10/4
    Denver (Includes Helena and Salt Lake City Offices).............            11/5            12/6            12/7
    Detroit (Includes Cleveland, Cincinnati Offices)................            12/4            14/5            16/6
    El Paso.........................................................            10/4            11/4            12/4
    Honolulu........................................................             2/1             2/1
    Houston.........................................................            18/7            19/7            20/7
    Los Angeles (Includes Las Vegas Office).........................           75/26           83/28           89/32
    Miami...........................................................           52/18           56/19           60/22
    Newark..........................................................            21/7            23/7            24/8
    New Orleans (Includes Memphis Office)...........................            14/5            16/5            17/5
    New York........................................................           75/26           77/27           80/29
    Orlando.........................................................            11/4            12/4
    Philadelphia....................................................            15/5            16/6            17/7
    Phoenix.........................................................            22/8            25/9            27/9
    St. Paul (Includes Omaha Office)................................             8/3            10/3            11/3
    San Antonio (Includes Harlingen Office).........................            22/8            23/8            23/9
    San Diego.......................................................            25/9            25/9
    San Francisco...................................................           41/14           43/14           45/15
    San Juan........................................................             3/2             3/2
    Seattle (Includes Portland and Anchorage Offices)...............            11/4            11/4
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        EOIR's statistical data demonstrates that the largest pending case
    load exists in descending order in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, San
    Antonio (including Harlingen), San Francisco, Chicago, Boston
    (including Hartford), Orlando, Arlington, and Philadelphia Many cases
    from Harlingen are ultimately transferred through a change of venue
    order to more urban locations.
        The specific results expected by the investment of resources and/or
    the impact of not providing the investment:
        At present, six different entities (CIS--Asylum Offices and
    Examinations; CBP--Inspections and Border Patrol; ICE--Investigations
    and Detention and Removal) create the Notices to Appear (charging
    documents) that form the basis for litigation before the immigration
    court. With these expanded resources, ICE legal staff will be able to
    review more ICE generated charging documents to ensure better quality.
    It can also take more proactive steps to review charging documents
    created by other offices prior to the first master calendar on these
    cases, amending those charges that are legally deficient and filing
    such amended charges with the court in advance of the hearing date.
    This will lead to a reduction in adjournments. In addition, it will
    also permit the ICE litigation staff to terminate any cases that may
    have been improvidently brought.
        Another source of adjournments (and hence backlog) stems from those
    cases where venue of the hearing has been transferred from one district
    to another. Frequently, because of a lack of support staffs, the needed
    files are not forwarded to the gaining office on a timely basis. With
    these added support resources, more focus can be made on those files,
    which are the subject of a change in venue, with either the losing
    office sending the file more expeditiously or the gaining office making
    more determined efforts to obtain the needed file in advance of the
    scheduled hearing date. These same support personnel can also more
    readily assist Assistant Chief Counsel in administrative tasks, which
    consume a great deal of attorney time best spent on moving a case
    forward.
        The nature of immigration court litigation case has grown
    exceedingly complex. In the larger city offices, the vast majority of
    cases before the court are asylum claims, which are very time intensive
    to litigate. Unfortunately, asylum claims are frequently fraudulent and
    can be used by unscrupulous individuals as a way to gain status in the
    country. As part of the application process, aliens normally provide a
    large number of documents in support of their claim, many of which may
    have been manufactured. To attempt to ensure the process is not abused,
    the Assistant Chief Counsel must conduct intensive alien file and
    document review. The Assistant Chief Counsel attempts to make full use
    of the Forensics Document Laboratory and other avenues of investigation
    to determine if the claim/documentation is bona fide. The Assistant
    Chief Counsel must also try to track down related alien files to
    determine if the alien has applied for a benefit under a different
    alien number/different name, locate alien files of relatives to
    determine consistency of the claim, and run extensive record checks.
    Assistant Chief Counsel also needs to contact victims in cases that are
    brought under the ICE Predator Initiative to assure that they are
    available to testify regarding the life long adverse impact these
    actions caused to them to assure alien sexual violators are removed and
    their relief applications are denied. With these additional attorney
    resources, Assistant Chief Counsel will be in a better position to do
    more complete and timely case review, and to request document checks,
    make record checks, and review related files in a timely manner. This
    in turn not only makes a better record on which the immigration judge
    can base his/her decision; it speeds up resolution of the case because
    all the crucial steps in the process are undertaken sooner.
        Agency lawyers also work closely with the Office of the United
    States Attorneys, and Office of Immigration Litigation litigators by
    preparing litigation reports, reviewing records where remands are
    proposed, preparing recommendations for further review where judicial
    decisions are adverse to DHS interests and by providing guidance,
    advice and assistance on complex immigration law issues.
        In a related vein, in larger city offices, ICE tries to have joint
    attorney-investigator focus on travel agencies and corrupt attorneys
    who actively encourage and assist in the filing of fraudulent or
    frivolous asylum cases. These cases clog the system and lead to
    additional court backlog. Currently, these joint attorney-investigator
    efforts have had to be more ad hoc and limited in nature. With these
    additional attorney resources, the staff would devote more time and
    effort to identifying the individuals who are the source of such
    claims, and work more closely with the criminal investigators in
    developing criminal prosecutions for the United States Attorneys
    Offices.
    Temporary Worker Worksite Enforcement (TWP/WSE)

                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year
                         Program                        2004 budget     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                                            \1\         2005 budget     2006 budget     2006 change
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TWA.............................................  ..............           5,000          23,000          18,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ No funding was devoted to ``Temporary Worker Worksite Enforcement'' in fiscal year 2004, but approximately
      $18 million was devoted to Worksite Enforcement in fiscal year 2004.

        The fiscal year 2006 enhancement for TWP totals $18 million and 72
    FTE
        As part of the President's proposed temporary worker program to
    match willing foreign workers with willing U.S. employers, enforcement
    of immigration laws to ensure compliance is required. Under the
    President's proposal, the temporary worker program would be open to new
    foreign workers, and to the undocumented men and women currently
    employed in the United States. The program would allow workers who
    currently hold jobs unlawfully to participate legally in America's
    economy, while not encouraging further illegal behavior.
        The spend plan for the $5 million enhancement in fiscal year 2005
    focuses on field training, employer outreach, and reconstituting the
    Worksite Enforcement Program infrastructure within the Office of
    Investigations in Headquarters in the final half of fiscal year 2005.
    Resources requested for fiscal year 2006 will primarily fund the
    deployment of FTEs to States (CA, TX, FL, NY, IL) having the greatest
    population of unauthorized workers.
        The $18 million enhancement (of which $16.216 million is required
    in the Investigations Operations activity and $1.784 million is
    required in the Investigations Training activity) would fund 140
    Special Agent and 3 support positions.
        Performance Impact.--The additional resources will broaden the
    scope of the worksite enforcement program's strategic goals to include
    protecting the jobs and wages of legal workers by identifying and
    removing unauthorized workers. ICE will increase its presence at
    worksites, concentrating on employers in specific industries and
    geographical areas who intentionally violate the law or who have
    historically hired large numbers of unauthorized workers. ICE will also
    coordinate with Citizenship and Immigration Services to improve and
    expand verification services (Basic Pilot Program) to employers
    nationwide pursuant to the Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion
    Act of 2003.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                  Performance measure                Fiscal year 2006 request level    2007 request    2008 request
                                                                                           level           level
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Administrative Worksite Case Completions......  Base............................    + 20 percent    + 30 percent
    Criminal Employer Case Presentations..........  Base............................    + 20 percent    + 30 percent
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF)

                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                         Program                        2004 budget     2005 budget     2006 budget     2006 change
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OCDETF..........................................          47,300          33,100          43,678          10,578
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: In fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005, OCDETF funding was reimbursable. In fiscal year 2006, funding
      proposed to be directly appropriated to ICE.

        The fiscal year 2006 enhancement for OCDETF totals $43.678 million
    and 346 FTE.
        Currently, funding for ICE OCDETF is provided on a reimbursable
    basis from the Department of Justice (DOJ). Beginning in fiscal year
    2006, funding is being requested via direct appropriations to ICE.
    Funding requested would cover salary costs for 332 Special Agents
    ($41.840 million) and 14 Intelligence Research Specialists ($1.838
    million) for a total of $43.678 million.
        The Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) program is
    a Federal drug enforcement program that focuses attention and resources
    on the disruption and dismantling of major drug trafficking
    organizations. OCDETF provides a framework for Federal, State, and
    local law enforcement agencies to work together to target well-
    established and complex organizations that direct, finance, or engage
    in illegal narcotics trafficking and related crimes. Related crimes
    include money laundering and tax violations, public corruption, illegal
    immigration, weapons violations, and violent crimes. The OCDETF program
    has been in existence since 1982 and operates under the guidance and
    oversight of the Attorney General. Utilizing the resources and
    expertise of 11 member Federal agencies, along with support from State
    and local law enforcement partners, OCDETF has contributed to the
    successful prosecution and conviction of more than 44,000 members of
    criminal organizations and resulted in the seizure of cash and property
    assets totaling more than $3.0 billion.
        No new FTEs are being requested. Rather, existing personnel will be
    paid by direct appropriation instead of by reimbursable funding.
        In fiscal year 2004, ICE was reimbursed $47.3 million for costs
    associated with OCDETF. The reimbursable agreement for fiscal year 2005
    provides for up to $33.1 million--a decrease of $14.2 million.
        Performance Impact.--This initiative is intended to restore funding
    that was cut in fiscal year 2005, to ensure a consistent and more
    reliable funding source for ICE OCDETF activities, and to establish an
    appropriated base in lieu of reimbursable funding. This initiative is
    intended to provide funding that supports dedicated resources engaged
    in OCDETF activities and to maintain priority status for the program.
    The impact resulting from the decrease in reimbursable funding in
    fiscal year 2005 has ICE OCDETF requirements competing for funding--
    including priority status--within the ICE operational base. As a
    result, there can be no assurance that prior year performance levels
    can be maintained or achieved. Direct appropriated base funding is
    expected to support out-year ICE operations' planning that promotes the
    continued collaboration with other OCDETF participating agencies to
    achieve OCDETF goals and objectives.

    $105 Million Base Increase for Investigations Operations

                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Fiscal year
                Program               Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     2006 budget   Fiscal year 2006
                                      2004 budget     2005 budget      2006 base          \1\       enhancements \1\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Investigations Operations.....         796,478       1,138,495       1,099,554       1,267,437          167,883
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Note: The President's budget proposes enhancements of $167.883 million to the Investigations Operations
      budget activity. Of that amount, $105 million is a base increase, $4.827 million is for the Visa Security
      Unit, $16.216 million is for Temporary Worker Worksite Enforcement, and $41.840 million is for OCDETF
      activities.

        The $105 million base increase will provide resources required to
    fund base requirements for the Office of Investigations, including
    salary costs, vehicle replacement, and other general expenses.
        Performance Impact.--Improved infrastructure on which to support
    continuation of investigative activities, both domestically and
    internationally.

    Detention Bed Space

                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Fiscal year
                Program               Fiscal year     fiscal year     Fiscal year     2006 budget   Fiscal year 2006
                                      2004 budget     2005 budget      2006 base          \1\       enhancements \1\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DRO-Custody Management \1\....         550,912         697,855         594,169         727,769          108,600
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Note: There are three enhancements to the Custody Management program, totaling $90.0 million, $25.0 million,
      and $18.6 million respectively. The $25.0 million for ABC/Interior Repatriation is excluded in this display,
      as it is described separately.

        The fiscal year 2006 enhancement for Detention Bed Space totals
    $108 million and 16 FTE.
        The President's Budget requests an additional $90 million for
    detention bed space and $18.6 million as a base increase for the
    Custody Management program. Approximately $63 million of the $90
    million is intended for the direct cost of providing an additional
    1,920 beds. The balance of the $90 million request is intended to fund
    32 new positions (16 FTE) to provide staff to support to those beds.
    This increase in bed space responds to increased demand for detention
    bed space generated by apprehending agencies (e.g., Border Patrol,
    Inspections, Investigations, etc.). The $18.6 million increase will
    provide resources required to fund base requirements for the Custody
    Management budget activity within the Office of Detention and Removal.
        The fiscal year 2005 appropriation provided an additional $26.5
    million for 1,216 new beds and 28 positions (14 FTE) above fiscal year
    2004 levels.
        Detention capacity and the necessary resources are fundamental
    components to the immigration enforcement mission. For the immigration
    enforcement mission to be successful, detention capacity must be
    considered at an appropriate ratio compared with resources provided for
    investigations and apprehensions. Increased detention capacity will
    improve the ability of ICE to verify alien identity, deter subsequent
    illegal entry, dramatically increase removal rates, prevent criminal
    aliens from returning to communities, and protect national security.
    Criminal aliens comprise more than half of the total detained
    population and we expect their numbers continue to rise due to enhanced
    enforcement efforts like IRP (Institutional Removal Program) and 287(g)
    expansion (local law enforcement authority to enforce immigration
    violations). Criminal aliens comprise a significant portion of our
    mandatory detention population (those individuals who have received
    final orders of removal and whose removal is imminent, those who are
    pending expedited removal activities, and those who are otherwise
    required by law or policy to be detained). In recent months, ICE's
    mandatory population has increased at a gradual, but steady rate due to
    increased enforcement activities (particularly from Expedited Removal
    initiative). As these targeted enforcement efforts continue, further
    growth in our mandatory detention population is likely. ICE continues
    to improve the efficiency of its detention program by consolidating
    populations and improving capacity management. These measures are
    anticipated to reduce costs by eliminating travel from detention
    facilities to proceedings, reducing average time in detention, and
    providing for more consistent and higher quality conditions of
    confinement for the detained population.
        ICE will continue to enforce its robust facility inspection program
    and coordinate with our governmental organizations and non-governmental
    organization partners in pursuit of maintaining acceptable and
    appropriate conditions of confinement for the detained population. We
    are committed to effectively enforcing our immigration laws and
    protecting our Nation's security in a manner that affords the rights
    and proper treatment obligated under our laws to detainees, including
    those claiming asylum.

    Fugitive Operations

                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Fiscal year
                 Program                Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year        2006
                                        2004 budget     2005 budget      2006 base      2006 budget     enhancement
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DRO-Fugitive Ops................          26,916          44,687          48,121          57,001           8,880
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The fiscal year 2006 enhancement for the Fugitive Operations is
    $8.88 million and 0 FTE.
        The President's Budget requests an additional $8.88 million to
    support increased efforts to apprehend fugitive aliens. While estimates
    vary, the alien absconder population is more than 465,000 and that it
    continues to grow at a rate of more than 40,000 absconders per year.
    Experience with the current fugitive operations teams suggests that
    each team yields at least 500 absconder apprehensions/case closures per
    year. This success is very encouraging and expanding these efforts will
    stem the growth of the alien absconder population and begin to reduce
    the overall numbers of alien absconders at large.
        ICE currently employs 16 fugitive operations nation-wide. Cities
    with fugitive operations teams include: Los Angles (2 teams), Boston,
    San Francisco, Miami, Houston, New York City (2 teams), Chicago, Newark
    (2 teams), Detroit, Atlanta, Baltimore, San Diego, and Seattle.
        The fiscal year 2005 reprogramming request reduced the $50 million
    appropriated enhancement to $9 million. For fiscal year 2005, $9
    million will support 42 full time positions (21 FTE) and additional
    funding for bed space and operating costs associated with increased
    apprehension activity.
        This proposed enhancement is aligned to Department of Homeland
    Security Strategic Objective 2.2, Enforce trade and immigration laws.
        All increases in removal rates increase the control DRO has over
    the removal alien population which contributes directly to national
    security.

    Institutional Removal Program (Criminal Alien Program)

                                                [In thousands of dollars
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Fiscal year
                 Program                Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year        2006
                                        2004 budget     2005 budget      2006 base      2006 budget     enhancement
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DRO-IRP.........................          17,467          31,512          33,706          39,041           5,335
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The fiscal year 2006 Institutional Removal Program (IRP)
    enhancement is $5.355 million and 19 FTE.
        The President's Budget requests an additional $5.355 million to
    expand the IPR program and to continue the transfer of the program from
    the Office of Investigation to the Office of Detention and Removal
    Operations. The fiscal year 2005 amount will complete the transition of
    the State of New York and a sizable portion of the State of California.
    The fiscal year 2006 amount will continue the staffing of California.
        IRP, now referred to as ICE's Criminal Alien Program (CAP),
    identifies aliens who are in criminal incarceration and processing them
    for removal prior to their incarceration release. This is an effective
    approach to preventing criminal recidivism and to ensure removable
    aliens are actually removed once so ordered by an immigration judge.
        Currently, the ICE Office of Investigations administers the IRP
    program with a variety of resources (including job series 1811 criminal
    investigators). The workload for each immigration enforcement agent
    (IEA) is 300 charging documents served per year. This figure
    encompasses the number of interviews and record checks of individuals
    that are not amenable to removal but are of foreign birth. The plan for
    CAP is to interview 90 percent or more of all foreign born inmates in
    Federal, State and mega-county (populations over 1 million) areas.
    287(g) (local law enforcement authority to enforce immigration
    violations) and video teleconferencing will serve the outlying areas.
        ICE has placed increased emphasis on complex criminal
    investigations for its 1811 job series. In recognition of this,
    Congress provided an additional $30 million in the fiscal year 2005
    appropriation to initiate the transfer of IRP from OI to DRO. The
    fiscal year 2005 reprogramming requests the enhancement be reduced to
    $4 million. This will allow for 37 positions and thus, Special Agents
    will continue to perform some institutional removal duties, instead of
    replacing all of them with Immigration Enforcement Agents (IEA).
    Criminal Alien Program (CAP) is the unification of the old
    Institutional Removal Program (IRP) and the Alien Criminal Apprehension
    Program (ACAP). All DRO activities in the incarcerated criminal alien
    arena will be referred to simply as CAP in the future.

                                 STAFFING MODEL

        Based on recent production numbers from New York State Department
    of Corrections (DOC) and Florida Department of Corrections, an IEA will
    in a year will do 600 interviews in Southern tier States and 500
    interviews in Northern tier States. The statistics from these two DOCs
    suggest a higher percentage of naturalized foreign-born individuals in
    southern tier States requiring more interviews to obtain the goal of
    300 charging documents issued per agent.
        The transition will focus on a state-by-state transition of
    responsibility from OI to DRO. The first States, in order, are New
    York, California, Texas, Florida and Illinois. The transition, to date,
    is limited to the New York City Jail of Riker's Island.
        New York.--The plan has been coordinated with NY State Department
    of Corrections and New York City Department of Corrections, the two
    largest non-Federal partners. Pre-existing system and partnerships with
    Executive Office for Immigration Review and Bureau of Prisons exist
    under legacy Institutional Hearing Program (IHP). Video
    teleconferencing will cover traditional ACAP locations at smaller
    county facilities. Equipment and staffing will be at newly completed
    Castle Point Facility which offers space for increased staffing.
        California.--Plans have been discussed to improve the efficiency of
    identifying and starting removal proceedings for amenable aliens with
    the California Department of Corrections. The system is currently in a
    number of locations. Pre-existing system and partnerships with EOIR and
    BOP exist under legacy IHP. Video teleconferencing will cover
    traditional ACAP locations at smaller county facilities. Equipment and
    staffing will be hired and located to meet the needs of the State of
    California stretch the capacity of the New York VTC center. Due to the
    costs of installing VTC equipment to local detention facilities, the
    need will be relatively small in the first years and will be built up
    as demand grows.
    Arizona Border Control (ABC)/Interior Repatriation

                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                         Program                        2004 budget     2005 budget     2006 budget     2006 change
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ABC.............................................  ..............  ..............          39,349          39,349
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This fiscal year 2006 enhancement is $39.349 million for the ABC/
    Interior Repatriation Program. With this funding, the Interior
    Repatriation program will transfer from Customs and Border Protection
    to ICE/DRO in fiscal year 2006. DRO is in the business of removals and
    will use its experience to build on previous successes.
        Interior repatriation (IR) is a component of the Arizona Border
    Control initiative (ABCI). ABCI is a multi-pronged approach to
    controlling the Arizona Border, which includes anti-smuggling
    investigations, fugitive arrests, as well as controlling and arresting
    illegal crossings. IR has a singular focus of the repatriating Mexican
    nationals. IR's aim is promoting deterrence, reducing recidivism of
    illegal crossings and thus reducing the number of deaths along the
    Arizona border.
        In fiscal year 2004, 14,058 undocumented immigrants were
    voluntarily flown from Tucson, AZ, to the interior of Mexico from July
    12 to September 30, 2004, after screening by DHS and a Mexican Consular
    Official. During the IR, Border Patrol Agents interviewed 96,793
    potential candidates.
        Of those interviewed, 82,735 refused to participate. Of those who
    declined to participate, 14,069 had been deemed ``at risk'' migrants.
    These migrants as well as the other migrants who refused to participate
    were processed either through voluntary return to the Arizona/Mexico
    border or other removal mechanisms.
        A total of 7 percent (1,008) of IRP participants were arrested
    attempting re-entry into the United States during the IRP operation
    dates. This is much lower than the Tucson sector's average recidivism
    rate of 37 percent.
        Interior repatriation can result in a dramatic reduction in the
    number of deaths in the desert suffered by intending immigrants.
    Interior repatriation efforts have resulted in strong U.S.-Mexico and
    cooperation. Since the IR pilot last year, DHS has also implemented
    expedited removal between ports of entry in the Tucson and Laredo
    sectors, resulting in additional apprehensions in the Tucson area.
    Alternatives to Detention

                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year   Fiscal year 2006
                Program               2004 budget     2005 budget      2006 base      2006 budget   enhancements \1\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DRO-Alternatives..............           8,659          12,202          12,733          23,533           10,800
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Note: There are two enhancements to the Alternatives to Detention program, each totaling $5.4 million.

        The fiscal year 2006 enhancement for Alternatives to Detention
    totals $10.8 million and 7 FTE.
        The President's Budget requests an additional $5.4 million to
    expand the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) and $5.4
    million increase for the Alternatives to Detention program, for a total
    of $10.8 million in enhancements. Alternatives to Detention include
    intensive supervision, electronic monitoring, and telephonic voice
    recognition. Currently, ICE (through the Office of Detention and
    Removal Operations--DRO) is piloting several alternatives to detention
    initiatives. Early indications are encouraging and suggest that these
    approaches to monitoring aliens who are not in physical custody may
    yield better appearance rates to immigration proceedings and better
    rates of removal once an alien has been ordered removed. The program is
    still too new to draw definitive conclusions. Over the next 6 to 12
    months ICE will be collecting data and evaluating the efficacy of
    various alternatives to detention strategies.
        ICE began piloting this initiative in fiscal year 2004 and has
    expanded the pilots in fiscal year 2005. Pilot cities include: Miami,
    Philadelphia, Baltimore, Portland, Denver, San Francisco, and others.
    The fiscal year 2005 Budget provided $11 million to expand the number
    of pilot locations and to fund 60 new full time positions (30 FTE). The
    fiscal year 2005 reprogramming reduces the funding to $2 million which
    permits funding for 11 new full time positions.
        DRO will measure the performance of the ISAP program on three
    levels: (1) Do aliens enrolled in ISAP have a greater rate of
    appearance at hearings than the rate of a control group of non-detained
    aliens not enrolled in ISAP? (2) If ordered removed or granted
    voluntary departure, do aliens enrolled in ISAP surrender/depart at a
    greater rate than a control group? (3) If the alien fails to surrender
    for removal or otherwise fails to depart, are absconding aliens in ISAP
    re-apprehended at a greater rate than that for a control group?
        DRO and its ISAP contractor are collecting certain data to test the
    hypothesis that the performance measures for aliens in ISAP will
    indicate a greater success rate than the performance measures for a
    control group of non-detained aliens. ``Success'' is defined as a
    statistically significant increase in the appearance rates, surrender
    rates, and re-apprehension rates. The hypothesis test will involve
    standard statistical tests (such as ``t tests'') and commonly accepted
    levels of statistical significance (generally the significance level in
    social science research is set to .05). DRO expects it will have gained
    a sufficiently large sample population to draw statistical inference
    within the next 6 to 12 months.
        DRO and its contractor will also collect data on the appearances at
    hearings, surrenders for removal, departure from the United States,
    number of re-apprehensions of absconders.
        The ISAP population is non-criminal aliens that are not mandatory
    detention, who live within a reasonable commuting distance of an ISAP
    office, and who agree to the conditions of the program. DRO will select
    a control group of non-detained aliens that are not participating in
    ISAP. These aliens will be selected from Docket Control Offices that
    have ISAP. The control group will closely match the ISAP group on such
    relevant characteristics as country of origin, gender, and length of
    stay in the United States.
        General Explanation and Justification for the Initiative.--
    Detention of all aliens that are apprehended and placed into removal
    proceedings is not the only way to ensure that aliens appear at their
    immigration hearings or for removal. Aliens who disappear from ICE
    supervision pose a potential threat to public safety and national
    security. To mitigate this flow of cases into the fugitive population,
    ICE's DRO seeks to further develop alternatives to detention in two
    ways. First, expansion of the ISAP to two additional locations in
    fiscal year 2006. Each site is intended to accommodate 200 participants
    daily. These additional resources would bring the total number of
    participants nationwide on any given day to 2,000. The ISAP is a
    community-based, case management program that provides close
    supervision of illegal aliens emphasizing compliance with Immigration
    Court requirements. Expansion of the program requires 14 positions (7
    FTEs). In order to properly execute the alternatives to detention
    program within DRO, positions must accompany program expansion. These
    positions will be used to manage the alternatives to detention docket
    including enrolling participants, managing the data, ensuring departure
    from the United States as required, and acting as the local Contracting
    Officer's Technical Representative.
        This proposed enhancement is aligned to Department of Homeland
    Security Strategic Objective 2.2, Enforce trade and immigration laws.
        Performance Impact.--This is a cost-effective way to ensure that
    aliens will appear for their immigration hearings or for removal. This
    program will increase the integrity of the immigration enforcement
    process by adding two additional ISAP locations, each intended to
    accommodate 200 participants daily. ICE is still analyzing the results
    of alternative to detention programs and will baseline the appearance
    rates in fiscal year 2006 to begin measuring the true outcome of ISAP.
    The goal of this program is in line with the strategic objective of
    removing all removable aliens. The anticipated increase in appearance
    rates will also mean fewer cases entering the fugitive population.
    Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS)

                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                 Program                Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     2006 budget        2006
                                        2004 budget     2005 budget      2006 base          \1\         enhancement
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FAMS............................         610,290         662,900         678,994         688,860           9,866
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This enhancement will allow the FAMS to increase its staffing level
    to a level that will allow it to meet its mission objective, the risk-
    based deployment of Federal Air Marshals. FAMS works closely with DHS
    and other Federal, State and local agencies and private industry to
    develop, deploy and sustain a comprehensive intelligence-driven
    approach and response to terrorist and related criminal threats against
    the United States and its interests. FAMS provides critical support to
    DHS' missions to prevent terrorist acts within the United States,
    reduce vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize damage from potential
    attacks.
        Additional information can be provided in a secure manner.
    Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)

                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                         Program                        2004 budget     2005 budget     2006 budget     2006 change
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SEVP............................................           1,465          40,000      \1\ 58,100      \1\ 18,100
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ These numbers have been revised since submission of the President's budget on February 7, 2005.

        DHS Strategic Objective Supported: 2.2 Enforce Trade and
    Immigration Laws
        The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) was created to
    restore integrity to the U.S. immigration system by ensuring that
    international students, scholars, and exchange visitors studying in the
    United States comply with the terms of their visas. One of SEVP's
    primary functions is to track the immigration status of foreign
    students and exchange visitors.
        In fiscal year 2004, SEVP operated with two separate streams of
    funding--a fee collection process for school certification and
    appropriated dollars from counter-terrorism funds. The Illegal
    Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 mandated
    the establishment and maintenance of a fee collection process to
    support the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) and
    SEVP. To become a fully fee funded program, SEVP implemented a fee
    collection process (the SEVIS I-901 Fee) on September 1, 2004. This fee
    is paid by all prospective students and exchange visitors ($100 for
    most and $35 for some exchange visitors) prior to seeking a visa at the
    consulates and embassies overseas. The I-901 fee and the fees collected
    from schools seeking certification to host nonimmigrant students (I-17
    Fee), provides the full funding for SEVP, portions of the Compliance
    Enforcement Unit (CEU), and the Department of State efforts.
        In fiscal year 2005, SEVP projects it will collect $46 million from
    the SEVIS I-901 fee and $362,000 from the I-17 school certification
    fees. In addition, SEVP had a carryover balance of $2.6 million from
    fiscal year 2004. Although SEVP projects to have total resources of
    $49.0 million for fiscal year 2005, the execution level will remain at
    $40 million to ensure continuity of funding for the program.
        In fiscal year 2006, SEVP projects to collect $45.9 million from
    the SEVIS I-901 fee and $3.5 million from the I-17 school certification
    fees. The increase in I-17 school certification fees is based on SEVP
    collecting initial fees as well as the re-certification fees whereas in
    fiscal year 2005 they will only collect initial fees. In fiscal year
    2006 SEVP will have a full cycle of SEVIS I-901 fees since its
    inception in September 2004. SEVP projects to have total resources of
    $58 million for fiscal year 2006 that includes a $9 million carryover
    balance from fiscal year 2005.

        The additional $18.1 million spending authority for fiscal year
    2006 will allow SEVP to:
      --Maintain staffing levels--the cost of salaries and benefits of
            newly hired employees
      --Continue to improve SEVIS with IT enhancements--allows SEVP to
            accelerate the implementation of planned enhancements to
            improve the batch and real time interface processing,
            incorporate historical data from the SEVIS predecessor (CIPRIS)
            and implement a user-friendly reporting tool. This increase in
            funding will also allow SEVP to develop a search tool for the
            historical data.
      --Conduct analysis of current fee structures (I-901 SEVIS fee and I-
            17 school certification)--fee studies for both the I-901 SEVIS
            fee and the I-17 school certification were conducted in early
            2000
        SEVP will continue to perform the following functions:
      --Certify schools desiring to participate in SEVIS
      --Provide law enforcement with current information on F, M and J
            nonimmigrants
      --Conduct outreach to the academic community
      --Accept and process fee payments
      --Enhance the functionality of the SEVIS system
      --Write policies and regulations to implement statutory requirements
      --Train users of the SEVIS system
      --Assist ports of entry, DoS consular officials, schools and program
            sponsors with the entry and stay of F, M and J nonimmigrants

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                          Performance Increase                         2006 request    2007 request    2008 request
                                                                           level           level           level
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Percent of F, M, and J nonimmigrant information maintained in                100             100             100
     SEVIS..........................................................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Are there any services that ICE is being assessed working
    capital fund charges for in fiscal year 2004 or fiscal year 2005 that
    are not directly utilized by ICE? Is ICE being charged for services on
    a basis proportionate to its usage?
        Answer. According to the DHS Working Capital Fund reimbursable
    agreements, ICE will only be billed for actual services received. This
    was true for fiscal year 2004 WCF billings, and is expected for fiscal
    year 2005 billing. DHS provided detailed proration guidance with the
    fiscal year 2005 anticipated WCF billings. ICE agrees with DHS
    proration of WCF costs.

       OFFICE OF SCREENING COORDINATION AND OPERATIONS (9/11 COMMISSION
                                RECOMMENDATION)

        Question. The President's Budget proposes to create the Office of
    Screening Coordination and Operations within the Border and
    Transportation Security Directorate. CIS has significant screening and
    identification capabilities and needs, yet the President's budget does
    not propose moving the operational responsibility for any of those
    programs out of CIS. In order to ensure that there is the closest
    possible coordination across screening programs, should CIS screening
    programs be moved to the Office of Screening Coordination and
    Operations?
        Answer. The Office of Screening Coordination and Operations (SCO)
    is the first step in implementing the requirements of HSPD-11, which
    directs DHS to review and integrate all screening requirements across
    the Federal government. USCIS operational requirements and other
    security elements are being reviewed within the Department, and where
    deemed appropriate, may be incorporated within the purview of the SCO.

                   TERRORIST TRAVEL (9/11 COMMISSION REPORT)

        Question. In addition to the formal 9/11 Commission Report, the
    Commission issued two staff monographs, one of them on Terrorist
    Travel. While no specific recommendations were made, the report reached
    interesting conclusions. One conclusion was that ``Border inspectors
    today still do not have basic intelligence and operational training to
    aid them in detecting and preventing terrorist entry.'' They are not
    talking about people who are on watchlists, but providing inspectors
    with training to detect terrorists not on the watchlist. What steps is
    CBP taking to incorporate the information uncovered by the 9/11
    Commission staff on terrorist travel into basic training for CBP
    officers?
        Answer. CBP has established anti-terrorism response protocols to
    more effectively handle potential terrorism threats identified by CBP
    personnel. These national-level CBP policies operate both for a CBP
    Officer questioning a person applying for admission at a port of entry
    and for a Border Patrol Agent processing an individual who's been
    apprehended after crossing the border illegally to ensure consistent
    application throughout the border. CBP has also developed specific
    anti-terrorism training for passenger processing that includes specific
    instruction in behavioral analysis, deception detection and eliciting
    information.
        The integrated curriculum for new CBP Officers includes three (3)
    specific components: Pre-Academy, Academy Basic training at Glynco, GA,
    and post-Academy training conducted at the Ports of Entry (In-port
    training). Academy Training courses for new CBP Officers include new
    anti-terrorism passenger training and fraudulent document detection.
    Most importantly, the role of an Officer in CBP's priority mission,
    anti-terrorism, is taught on day one and reiterated throughout the
    curriculum.
        Under our new curriculum, our basic trainees receive 16 hours in
    fraudulent document training at the Academy that culminates with a
    graded practical exercise during which trainees examine characteristics
    of unique documents and determine if the documents are genuine,
    counterfeit or altered. The course highlights fraud indicators that may
    be present in evaluating any document for authenticity. Security
    features of United States entry documents and imposter detection are
    emphasized as well. Trainees that fail to successfully complete the
    course are removed from training. All instructors teaching this course
    have received training from the Forensic Document Lab.
        With regard to questioning techniques, we use practical exercises
    throughout a trainee's 15 weeks at the Academy. With the help of role
    players, students are presented with scenarios based on primary
    inspection situations. During the labs and graded practical exercises,
    trainees review documents presented, question role players about their
    visit to the United States and make ``refer or release''
    recommendations. Interviewing labs require trainees to practice
    observational skills and questioning skills, while applying their job
    knowledge of documentation requirements, immigration issues, customs
    exemptions, prohibited and restricted articles, and agricultural
    issues.
        Question. Has CBP considered asking the 9/11 Commission staff to
    put together a seminar on its findings for all current inspectors,
    allowing them to sharpen their skills?
        Answer. CBP is open to new training concepts, and though we are not
    sure that using former Commission staff for training CBP inspectors is
    an optimal approach, we will keep such ideas in mind as we continue to
    refine training programs.
        Question. The report on Terrorist Travel also calls attention to
    the lack of ``viable options to prevent documents known to be
    fraudulent from being returned to travelers denied entry into the
    United States''. What additional authority would CBP need to be able to
    confiscate or in some way invalidate fraudulent documents prior to
    denying entry to someone?
        Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) implemented on
    January 1, 2005, under existing legal authority, a comprehensive
    program for the seizure and systematic processing of fraudulent travel
    documents presented for admission into the United States. Key parts of
    that program include the requirement that no fraudulent travel document
    be returned to the subject presenting the document and the mandatory
    forwarding of all seized documents to CBP's newly established
    Fraudulent Document Analysis Unit for intelligence collection and final
    disposition (return to issuing authority for destruction). Subjects
    from whom fraudulent documents have been seized are now issued a Single
    Journey Letter (SJL) to facilitate their return travel. The SJL
    conforms with all International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
    Annex 9 standards for issuance of such documents. It includes
    interdiction and biographic information as well as the subject's
    photograph and fingerprints from both right and left index fingers.
        Question. The report also states ``There is no programmatic effort
    to focus on terrorist travel facilitators, and special agents lack the
    resources and authority to pursue visitors for immigration violations
    associated with terrorist activity''. What is the Department's position
    on this statement? What can be done to change this?
        Answer. ICE has special agents assigned to CBP's National Targeting
    Center (NTC), the FBI's Foreign Terrorist Travel Task Force (FTTTF) and
    the FBI's Terrorist Financing Operations Section. All three locations
    have developed specialized databases to facilitate the investigation of
    terrorist travel and terrorist travel facilitators. ICE Attaches
    assigned to posts around the world, and the ICE special agent assigned
    to the Department of Defense Central Command, are also well-positioned
    to act upon information relating to terrorist travel facilitators.
        Question. One of the most interesting findings included in the
    report on Terrorist Travel, was related to the U.S. Department of
    Justice's Absconder Apprehension Initiative, started in 2001. Today,
    this initiative has become the responsibility of ICE's Fugitive
    Operations Program.
        Of the almost 6,000 aliens determined to be the highest priority to
    track down and remove, 5 percent had been granted U.S. citizenship or
    had become legal permanent residents after being ordered deported. Can
    ICE and CIS guarantee that this can never happen again? What steps have
    been taken to ensure that this cannot happen again?
        Answer. ICE works to ensure that data is shared and has developed
    and implemented agreements with CIS to share data. ICE also routinely
    runs CIS cases against the fugitive database. In addition, CIS has
    access to the Deportable Alien Computer System (DACS), which tracks all
    cases under removal proceedings.
        Question. Is all of the relevant information that each organization
    has in its records being shared today? Is the Department confident that
    someone who has been ordered deported from this country can not be
    granted U.S. citizenship while an absconder?
        Answer. The information regarding who is an absconder is readily
    available for queries and searches for CIS to determine if an applicant
    is considered an absconder or fugitive. An applicant for citizenship
    has the burden of establishing that he was lawfully admitted for
    permanent residency in the United States. The Naturalization
    application requires additional identity and security checks; a
    definitive response from the FBI background checks, and IBIS checks. In
    addition, all applications are processed in accordance with established
    Naturalization Quality Procedures (NQP).
        Question. When someone is found to be attempting to fraudulently
    obtain U.S. citizenship, through the use of a false name or some other
    method, why does it take so long to bring them to justice?
        On February 10, 2005, Mostofa Kamal, aka Shaheen Sardar, a native
    of Bangladesh, was arrested in New York. He entered this country in
    1994, over 10 years ago. He was ordered to leave the United States in
    1997. This individual made his first fraudulent request for benefits in
    1997. Mr. Kamal was interviewed by CIS in connection with his
    application for U.S. citizenship in November of 2004, an application
    that was received by CIS in August of 2003, but he was only arrested 3
    weeks ago. The Department has known for sometime where he was--employed
    by the New York City Police Department as a Traffic Enforcement Agent.
    What is the issue? Is it resources, priorities? Why do these cases drag
    on so long before ICE arrests someone?
        Answer. In the referenced case, the subject had previously entered
    the United States in 1993 under a false name and made claims to
    political asylum. His asylum claim was denied, and an Immigration Judge
    granted him Voluntary Departure with an alternate order of deportation
    should he not depart by the specified date in May of 1996. In 1997, he
    changed his name (name referenced in question), married a U.S. citizen,
    and applied for a benefit through that relationship. Based on that
    relationship, he left the United States, reentered, and was admitted to
    the United States as a Lawful Permanent Resident in 2000. He, in
    effect, caused an alternate order of deportation when he departed the
    United States to pick up his Visa. As a result of the name change, the
    fraud had not been detected. In continuance of this fraud, the subject
    applied for citizenship, for which he passed all stages in the process
    and was awaiting a naturalization date. The fraud was discovered. In
    February 2005, he was presented for criminal prosecution in the
    Southern District of New York for committing naturalization fraud.
        It may take many years for an individual to exhaust his legal
    administrative remedies. Normally, arrests would not take place while
    there is an adjudicative or administrative judicial process being
    pursued and would only take place if the subject were considered likely
    to abscond. Generally, single scheme frauds are not accepted for
    criminal prosecution unless there are extraordinary circumstances that
    would sway the U.S. Attorney's office to consider it.

                       ARIZONA BORDER CONTROL INITIATIVE

        Question. The Arizona Border Control (ABC) Initiative has been
    underway for almost a full 12 months. What are the results of this
    initiative so far? Has it been a success?
        Answer. The Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI) has been very
    successful. Initial successes have established a foundation to expand
    on during fiscal year 2005 in order to achieve operation control of the
    Arizona/Mexico Border under control. Intelligence and arrest trends
    collected through ABCI indicate that alien smugglers have been forced
    to change their operating procedures as a result of ABCI. Selected
    statistics associated with ABCI are as follows:
      --42 percent increase in arrests over the previous year
      --105 percent increase in narcotics seizures over the previous year
      --26 percent decrease in migrant deaths
      --22 percent increase in Immigration Felony Prosecutions
      --461 percent increases in vehicle seizures
      --350 percent increase in weapons seizures
        Question. What lessons from the ABC initiative can now be
    incorporated into the operations of CBP, ICE and others across the
    Nation?
        Answer. Lessons learned that can be incorporated throughout the
    Nation include:
      --Development of Planning Cell Committees of agency leadership
            personnel to coordinate the creation of operation plans to
            foster a seamless flow of information and to establish
            operating coalitions.
      --Establishing a coordinated leadership structure with an emphasis on
            information and intelligence sharing and ensuring that
            sufficient resources are deployed is a requirement for success.
      --Integrating operations between all BTS entities, State, local,
            tribal agencies and foreign governments achieve better results
            than working alone.
      --Integrating ground-based surveillance technology, air surveillance,
            and ground personnel creates a ``defense in depth'' posture,
            which inhibits the ability of criminal enterprises to operate
            freely along the U.S./Mexico Border.
        Question. Funding for this initiative has been requested in the
    fiscal year 2006 budget request. Should this initiative now be regarded
    as a permanent resource enhancement?
        Answer. The $1 million increase included in the fiscal year 2006
    President's Budget for the Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI)
    should be considered to be a permanent increase to CBP's base funding.
    These additional resources are required to meet the objectives of the
    ABCI.
        Question. The use of unmanned aerial vehicles as a part of the ABC
    initiative has been considered very successful. However, the contract
    vehicle that the Science and Technology Directorate was using to
    provide the UAVs has ended, and there is no UAV coverage while CBP
    evaluates how best to continue this project. When does CBP expect to
    have this issue resolved so that UAV coverage can be put back into
    place in the Tucson Sector?
        Answer. CBP is currently refining requirements to issue a request
    for proposals (RFP) to the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) industry. The
    contract will specify delivery of the system within 30 days of contract
    award, which will allow CBP to establish a UAV initial operating
    capability on the Southern Border in support of the Arizona Border
    Control Initiative. CBP expects to award a contract for UAV procurement
    in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2005.

                          ASYLUM AND EXPEDITED REMOVAL

        Question. The United States Commission on International Religious
    Freedom recently issued a report entitled ``Asylum Seekers in Expedited
    Removal''. The report contains a number of recommendations for the
    Department of Homeland Security. The report raised specific issues on
    the difficulty of applying the standards for asylum and credible fear
    in a consistent manner across the Department. Has a working group or
    other mechanism been put in place to look into how the standards are
    applied and ensure consistent treatment of asylum seekers?
        Answer. Since the inception of the expedited removal process in
    1997, a standing inter-agency working group has addressed expedited
    removal issues. The Expedited Removal Working Group is an established
    forum for discussing all issues relating to expedited removal and
    comprises experts from each of the affected DHS entities (U.S.
    Citizenship and Immigration Services, Customs and Border Protection,
    and Immigration and Customs Enforcement).
        Pursuant to former Deputy Secretary Admiral James Loy's concurrence
    with a joint memorandum from former Undersecretary of Border and
    Transportation Security Asa Hutchinson, USCIS Director Eduardo Aguirre,
    and Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Daniel Sutherland, the
    Expedited Removal Working Group has been tasked with coordinating
    review of the United States Commission on International Religious
    Freedom report, ``Asylum Seekers in Expedited Removal.'' The working
    group also will draft the Department's responses to the report's
    recommendations. The working group will report on its review and
    proposed responses to BTS, USCIS, and CRCL, and their report then will
    be forwarded to the Secretary.
        Question. The report also raised concerns about the detention
    policies and facilities used for the majority of asylum applicants.
    CBP, ICE, and CIS must all balance the national security needs of this
    country with the humanitarian needs of legitimate asylum applicants. In
    fact, almost at the same time that this report was made public, the
    11th defendant in a significant case ``Operation Jakarta'' involving
    asylum fraud and document fraud pleaded guilty in a Federal court in
    Virginia. What is being done to review these programs and evaluate the
    specific recommendations of the Commission?
        Answer. The Department of Homeland Security established a working
    group to review and respond to the recommendations suggested by the
    Commission. The working group will issue an evaluation on those
    recommendations this summer.
        Question. What steps have been taken as a result of ``Operation
    Jakarta'' to track down anyone who received benefits fraudulently
    because of this criminal enterprise and remove them from the United
    States?
        Answer. During the course of the criminal investigation, the USCIS
    Asylum Offices have reviewed 12,000 Indonesian asylum cases in order to
    identify all fraudulent cases related to ``Operation Jakarta.''
    Approximately 800 principal asylum cases were directly linked to the
    perpetrators of the fraud and will be processed for termination. Due to
    the high volume of fraud cases, the Asylum Offices have created teams
    of Asylum Officers to process the cases expeditiously. As the cases are
    terminated, the individuals will then be referred for judicial review
    to the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR). All of the
    individuals that applied for and/or received benefits associated with
    this fraud will be entered as ``lookouts'' in the Treasury Enforcement
    Communications Systems (TECS).

               USE OF STOLEN PASSPORTS--INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT

        Question. In December of 2004, the Department of Homeland
    Security's Office of Inspector General issued a report entitled ``A
    Review of the Use of Stolen Passports from Visa Waiver Countries to
    Enter the United States''. Both ICE and CBP concurred with the
    recommendations in this report. What progress has ICE and CBP made to
    implement those recommendations?
        Answer. ICE and CBP have implemented coordinated standard operating
    procedures to ensure ICE receives information on all individuals
    present in the United States who entered on a lost or stolen passport.
    On January 28, 2005, the Director of the National Targeting Center
    (NTC) sent the ICE Compliance Enforcement Unit (CEU) a letter
    confirming the agreement between ICE and CBP. CBP will ensure lookouts
    are placed on all lost or stolen passports, conduct appropriate
    database queries, and forward information to the CEU on anyone present
    in the United States who entered on a lost or stolen passport.
        Question. Please provide the Committee with a detailed, item by
    item, breakout of any fiscal year 2004 representation funds that were
    allocated to CBP, CIS, ICE, and the Under Secretary for Border and
    Transportation Security.
        Answer. The requested information has been provided in the tables
    below.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year
             Organizational element                2004         Fiscal year
                                               appropriated   2004 obligated
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Office of Under Secretary for BTS.......  ..............  ..............
    CBP.....................................         $40,000         $37,661
    ICE.....................................          15,000           6,837
    USCIS...................................           5,000           4,953
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

     FISCAL YEAR 2004 SUMMARY OF RECEPTION & REPRESENTATION FUND OBLIGATIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Date                       Event               Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
         U.S. Customs and Border
               Protection

    30-Oct-03.......................  Official luncheon              $381.14
                                       held in honor of
                                       U.S./Mexico Border
                                       Partnership
                                       Meeting.
    13-Nov-03.......................  Protocol Supplies..             170.98
    03-Nov-03.......................  Refreshments served              74.82
                                       at the Operation
                                       Safe Commerce
                                       Meeting.
    08-Nov-03.......................  Sponsor the                     150.00
                                       Ministers from
                                       Trinidad & Tobago
                                       at the Marine
                                       Corps Ball in
                                       Trinidad in
                                       furtherance of
                                       CMAA negotiations.
    12-Nov-03.......................  Refreshments for                 21.09
                                       meeting hosted by
                                       Deputy
                                       Commissioner with
                                       Mexican Delegation.
    17-Nov-04.......................  Official Dinner in              402.82
                                       honor of Lars
                                       Karlsson, 2nd
                                       Deputy Director
                                       General, Sweden
                                       Customs.
    19-Nov-03.......................  Official Dinner                 923.55
                                       with officials
                                       from New Zealand
                                       during CIS
                                       Discussions.
    02-Dec-04.......................  Official reception              326.97
                                       for the opening of
                                       the CSI Port in
                                       Durban, South
                                       Africa.
    12-Dec-03.......................  Protocol Supplies--           1,200.00
                                       Commissioner of
                                       Customs office.
    18-Dec-04.......................  Official Reception           10,523.50
                                       hosted by
                                       Commissioner of
                                       Customs in honor
                                       of foreign
                                       dignitaries and
                                       high level
                                       officials from
                                       various Embassies.
    21-Jan-04.......................  Honorary Award Item              95.00
                                       for WCO Regional
                                       Security
                                       Conference in
                                       Senegal.
    21-Jan-04.......................  Official luncheon               148.00
                                       hosted by Chief De
                                       La Vina in honor
                                       of Mexican
                                       Officials,
                                       Fernando Creixell
                                       and Agustin Caso.
    23-Jan-04.......................  Official luncheon               213.68
                                       in honor of Canada
                                       Border Security
                                       Agency, President
                                       Alain Jolicoeur
                                       and Director Greg
                                       Boatbe.
    28-Jan-04.......................  International                 3,473.00
                                       Customs Day
                                       Reception.
    29-Jan-04.......................  Official dinner               1,487.20
                                       hosted by
                                       Secretary Ridge in
                                       honor of Canadian
                                       Prime Minister and
                                       delegation.
    24-Feb-04.......................  Official Luncheon               608.00
                                       for Italian
                                       Delegation during
                                       CSI Program Review.
    03-Mar-04.......................  Flowers sent on                 219.06
                                       behalf of Customs
                                       and Border
                                       Protection upon
                                       the death of
                                       Comptroller of
                                       Customs, Robin
                                       Dare (New Zealand).
    24-Mar-04.......................  Official luncheon               125.13
                                       hosted by Acting
                                       Assistant
                                       Commissioner,
                                       International
                                       Affairs in honor
                                       of Mr. Kaci Abes,
                                       Director, External
                                       Cooperation &
                                       Relations.
    22-Apr-04.......................  Protocol Supplies               261.52
                                       for US/EU Signing.
    28-Apr-04.......................  Official Luncheon               379.10
                                       hosted in honor of
                                       US/EU signing and
                                       the Joint Customs
                                       Cooperation
                                       Committee.
    08-May-04.......................  Protocol Supplies--              10.60
                                       Office of Trade
                                       Relations.
    13-May-04.......................  Official luncheon               592.62
                                       hosted in honor of
                                       Mr. Mu Xin-Sheng,
                                       Minister, General
                                       Administration of
                                       China Customs and
                                       his delegation.
    24-May-04.......................  Refreshments during             616.92
                                       meetings held with
                                       the European
                                       Community & U.S.
                                       Expert Groups on
                                       Container Security.
    08-Jun-04.......................  Dinner hosted by                450.00
                                       Commissioner
                                       Bonner in honor of
                                       the U.S./Canada
                                       Shared Border
                                       meeting.
    08-Jun-04.......................  Official luncheon               514.30
                                       hosted by
                                       Commissioner
                                       Bonner in honor of
                                       U.S./Canada Shared
                                       Border meeting.
    08-Jun-04.......................  Official Reception            1,967.06
                                       hosted by
                                       Commissioner
                                       Bonner at the U.S./
                                       Canada Shared
                                       Border Meeting.
    14-Jun-04.......................  Official luncheon               216.25
                                       hosted by
                                       Commissioner
                                       Bonner in
                                       conjunction with
                                       the U.S./Mexico
                                       Bilateral Meeting.
    16-Jun-04.......................  Official luncheon               562.50
                                       hosted by Acting
                                       Assistant
                                       Commissioner,
                                       International
                                       Affairs in honor
                                       of high level
                                       Georgian Officials.
    22-Jun-04.......................  Official luncheon               323.01
                                       hosted by Acting
                                       Assistant
                                       Commissioner, INA
                                       for the New
                                       Zealand delegation
                                       attending the WCO
                                       Policy &
                                       Commission
                                       meetings..
    25-Jun-04.......................  Official luncheon               421.65
                                       and toast hosted
                                       by Commissioner
                                       Bonner at the
                                       signing of the CSI
                                       agreement with the
                                       Hellenic Republic.
    28-Jun-04.......................  Official Luncheon               495.00
                                       hosted by
                                       Commissioner
                                       Bonner for high
                                       level French
                                       Customs officials.
    14-Jul-04.......................  Refreshments for                297.01
                                       CSI Global
                                       Targeting Assembly
                                       of Technical
                                       Experts Conference.
    27-Jul-04.......................  Official luncheon               878.41
                                       hosted by Acting
                                       Deputy AC, INA for
                                       attendees of the
                                       U.S./Australia
                                       Regional Movement
                                       Alert List System
                                       Conference.
    04-Sep-04.......................  Protocol Supplies--              27.73
                                       Director, Trade
                                       Relations.
    15-Sep-04.......................  Refreshments during             106.60
                                       conference with
                                       Russian officials
                                       and CBP on
                                       Passenger Name
                                       Record
                                       connectivity.
    22-Sep-04.......................  Protocol Supplies--             290.76
                                       AC, INA and
                                       Commissioner
                                       Bonner's Office.
    22-Sep-04.......................  CSI PTP, Malaysia               301.62
                                       Luncheon.
    23-Sep-04.......................  Honorary Award                8,404.74
                                       Items for Foreign
                                       Officials.
                                                          ------------------
          Total Obligation..........  ...................          37,661.34
                                                          ==================
      U.S. Immigration and Customs
               Enforcement

    11-Dec-03.......................  Assistant Secretary           1,325.89
                                       Holiday Reception
                                       for members of
                                       Congress and other
                                       dignitaries.
    3-Feb-04........................  International                   717.75
                                       Attache briefing w/
                                       light refreshments
                                       hosted by the
                                       Federal Air
                                       Marshal Services.
                                       Dignitaries and
                                       honorable guests
                                       traveled from
                                       Netherlands,
                                       Austria, Japan,
                                       China, Belgium,
                                       Egypt,
                                       Philippines,
                                       Brazil, New
                                       Zealand, Hungary,
                                       et.al.
    2-Mar-04........................  Breakfast with                  205.53
                                       Danish Minister at
                                       ICE.
    3-Mar-04........................  ICE One Year                    299.06
                                       Anniversary Event
                                       attended by
                                       Captains, Chiefs
                                       of Police, State
                                       Police Officials,
                                       and
                                       representatives of
                                       other Federal
                                       Agencies.
    20-May-04.......................  Luncheon event for              416.75
                                       the Office of the
                                       Assistant
                                       Secretary with
                                       local officials
                                       and dignitaries
                                       who made
                                       substantial
                                       contribution to
                                       Nation or DHS.
    8-Jun-04........................  Detention and                   203.66
                                       Removal Operations
                                       Dinner during Four
                                       Country Conference
                                       in San Diego, CA
                                       to address mutual
                                       immigration and
                                       removal issues.
                                       Hosted by DRO;
                                       attendees included
                                       representatives
                                       from the Embassy
                                       of Australia;
                                       Canada Border
                                       Protection Agency;
                                       United Kingdom
                                       Immigration
                                       Service; and other
                                       foreign officials.
    20-Aug-04.......................  Opening ceremony                490.00
                                       for ICE Air and
                                       Marine Operations--
                                       Bellingham Branch;
                                       attended by U.S.
                                       Senator Patty
                                       Murray, U.S.
                                       Representative
                                       Rick Larsen, and
                                       other
                                       Congressional
                                       representatives.
                                      Purchase of food                476.08
                                       and beverage items
                                       for AMO ceremony.
    18-Sep-04.......................  ICE Air and Marine            2,702.13
                                       Operations
                                       briefing and site
                                       visit for
                                       Congresswoman Kay
                                       Granger and
                                       others. Includes
                                       purchase of
                                       refreshments for
                                       the event.
                                                          ------------------
          Total Obligation..........  ...................           6,836.85
                                                          ==================
    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
                Services

                                      Kitchenware                     389.07
                                       supplies for
                                       Director's suite,
                                       for hosting VIPs
                                       and dignitaries.
                                      Honorary award                  998.93
                                       items (coasters)
                                       for VIPs and
                                       dignitaries.
                                      Official luncheon                25.77
                                       with dignitary
                                       Eduardo Ibarolla
                                       and Director
                                       Aguirre.
                                      Official dinner                 220.96
                                       with incoming
                                       Mexican Ambassador
                                       Icaza and Director
                                       Aguirre to
                                       establish
                                       professional
                                       rapport.
                                      Honorary award item              79.95
                                       (Cufflinks) for
                                       guest speaker at
                                       USCIS 2004
                                       Director's
                                       Leadership
                                       Conference.
                                      Honorary Award                1,075.95
                                       Items (Cufflinks)
                                       for senior
                                       representative and
                                       foreign
                                       dignitaries during
                                       official travel
                                       and visits.
                                      Honorary Award                1,135.00
                                       Items (Lapel Pins)
                                       for distribution
                                       by Director
                                       Aguirre during
                                       official travel
                                       and visits.
                                      Honorary Award                1,000.00
                                       Items (Pewter
                                       bowls and
                                       platters) for high-
                                       level dignitaries.
                                      Official Luncheon                27.52
                                       with senior-level
                                       guest (Alecia
                                       Casteneda) to
                                       establish
                                       professional
                                       interagency
                                       rapport.
                                                          ------------------
          Total Obligation..........  ...................           4,953.15
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

       SECURE ELECTRONIC NETWORK FOR TRAVELERS RAPID INSPECTION PROGRAM
                                    (SENTRI)

        Question. In June of 2004 the Department of Homeland Security's
    Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report on the Secure
    Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection program, known as
    SENTRI. CBP agreed with the recommendations made by the Inspector
    General. Please provide an update on the progress that has been made in
    implementing each of the OIG's recommendations regarding the SENTRI
    program.
        Answer. On January 24, 2005, a new Standard Operating Procedure
    (SOP) Manual was sent to the San Diego, CA, and El Paso, TX, Field
    Offices for the administration of the SENTRI program that addressed the
    majority of the recommendations in the OIG's report, including stating
    clearly the program eligibility criteria, establishing procedures for
    background checks and their resolution, developing minimum documentary
    requirements, separation of duties between initial enrollment and final
    approval, monitoring continued eligibility, and recording SENTRI
    violations. Certain other recommendations, relating to the Global
    Enrollment System and integration with related information systems are
    awaiting technical upgrades to achieve completion.

                          IMMIGRATION ADVISORY PROGRAM

        Question. The Immigration Advisory Program is designed to improve
    border security against the threat of terrorism by enabling CBP to
    identify and intercept suspected terrorists and undocumented passengers
    before they board planes bound for the United States from overseas
    locations. The pilots established in Amsterdam and Warsaw in 2004
    appear very promising. The fiscal year 2006 request includes funds to
    expand this program to two additional airports. Can, or should, this
    program be expanded more quickly?
        Answer. Based on the results from Amsterdam and Warsaw through
    February 28, 2005, CBP believes the IAP should be expanded and has
    great potential for similar success at other large European, Latin
    American, and Asian hub airports. IAP expansion is dependent on
    reaching a bilateral agreement with the host country government and
    will be rolled out as expeditiously as possible while ensuring
    operational connectivity to port of entry operations.
        Question. Please provide any evaluations or reports on the
    effectiveness of the IAP pilots.
        Answer. Accomplishments for June 5, 2004, to February 28, 2005, for
    Amsterdam and September 5, 2004, to February 28, 2005, for Warsaw
    follow:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No Board Advisements....................................             222
    Fraud Intercepts........................................              34
    NTC Targets Confirmed...................................              16
    CBP Costs Avoided.......................................        $334,554
    Potential Carrier Savings...............................        $414,150
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  CUSTOMS-TRADE PARTNERSHIP AGAINST TERRORISM

        Question. The fiscal year 2006 budget requests an additional $8.2
    million to expand the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-
    TPAT). The fiscal year 2006 President's budget states that as of
    January 12, 2005, CBP had reviewed and accepted the security profiles
    of 4,460 companies, making these companies certified partners. The next
    step in the process is validation. According to information that was
    submitted for the record after last year's hearing, CBP planned to
    complete 400 validations of C-TPAT certified partners in fiscal year
    2004. Was that goal met last fiscal year (fiscal year 2004)?
        Answer. CBP initiated 500 validations and completed 287 during
    2004. As of March 25, 2005, over 540 validations have been completed,
    with an additional 400 underway or in various stages of completion. CBP
    anticipates that over 900 validations will be completed by the end of
    fiscal year 2005.
        In fiscal year 2004, CBP created a new position, Supply Chain
    Specialist (SCS), and sought to recruit qualified officers throughout
    the year. CBP continues to aggressively recruit permanent Supply Chain
    Specialists, and has trained field officers to help assist in the
    initiation of validations.
        Question. What is the target number of validations CBP plans to
    complete in fiscal year 2005?
        Answer. CBP will complete 500 validations in fiscal year 2005, for
    a total of 900 since the inception of program.
        The overwhelming response by the trade community (volume of
    applications) forced CBP to reconsider the original goal to validate
    all certified members within a 3-year period.
        CBP's strategy is for C-TPAT to determine and prioritize which
    sectors of membership will be selected for validations, selecting
    individual companies based upon a standardized risk assessment, and
    identifying ``company specific'' high-risk supply chains to better
    focus our efforts/resources.
        Question. How many more validations will CBP be able to complete
    each year with the new resources that have requested?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2006 request of $8.2 million will allow CBP
    to conduct as many as 600 more validation trips per year. Oftentimes,
    multiple validations are conducted on a single trip.
        CBP anticipates having 100 Supply Chain Specialists (SCSs) on board
    by the end of fiscal year 2005. Each SCS is expected to complete 17
    validation trips per year, with more than one validation conducted per
    trip. With 100 SCSs on board, CBP anticipates completing 1,700
    validation trips per year. When fully staffed with SCSs, CBP could
    complete 2,669 validation trips per year.
        Question. Last year, the Committee was informed that validations of
    foreign manufacturers would begin in calendar year 2004. Was that
    review of foreign manufacturers begun last year (calendar year 2004)?
        Answer. During calendar year 2004, CBP initiated 500 validations of
    importers' foreign supply chains, which includes foreign manufacturers,
    and completed 287.
        Validations of the Mexican manufacturer enrollment sector began in
    earnest in March 2005. Additional validations of Mexican manufacturers
    are being planned for June 2005.

                          AMERICA'S SHIELD INITIATIVE

        Question. The President's fiscal year 2006 Budget includes a
    request of $19.8 million for the America's Shield Initiative (ASI).
    These funds will allow CBP to begin deployment of next generation
    technology for electronic surveillance along our Nation's land borders.
        CBP is working on awarding a contract for the integration of ASI
    sometime this year. At the same time, CBP needs to operate and maintain
    the equipment that is in the field today. There are currently
    significant critical operational breakdowns, cameras with unusable
    pictures, cameras down due to lightening strikes, camera control
    problems, cameras that have been replaced but are missing enclosures.
    In fact, the maintenance contract for the current installations lapsed
    in September of 2004, and CBP is still working on finalizing the
    replacement of those services. What is the plan to get the maintenance
    backlog taken care of?
        Answer. As noted, CBP is moving ahead with plans to develop and
    implement the America's Shield Initiative (ASI), which will provide a
    more comprehensive, integrated solution to electronic surveillance the
    border. But simultaneously, CBP is still working to ensure that
    existing border surveillance infrastructure remains operational. For
    example, with regard to operational Remote Video System (RVS)
    installations in the field, activities are underway to address repair
    issues for operational sites. In addition, data and lessons learned
    from these current activities are being used to provide baseline data
    towards the development of an interim operations, maintenance, and
    repair program. This interim program will provide maintenance and
    repair support to existing field equipment pending the development and
    implementation of a maintenance and repair program that will support
    both existing and new field equipment.
        Currently within CBP, the ASI Program Management Office (PMO), the
    National Emergency Equipment Repair and Maintenance Program (NEEMR),
    and the Tactical Communications Organization (TCO) have partnered to
    address several of these repair issues. For example, NEEMR, TCO, and
    the ASI (PMO) partnered to address the lightning strike incident that
    occurred at the Douglas, AZ Border Patrol RVS site. A team consisting
    of these three components responded to repair this installation. That
    activity was initiated at the beginning of February and concluded at
    the beginning of March. The result of this activity was the repair of
    the installation to a pre-lightning strike state, an assessment of
    current installation issues, and a collection of significant amount of
    baseline data regarding how these components worked together.
        Question. When will the maintenance backlog be cleared up?
        Answer. Establishing the ASI Program Management Office and the
    partnership with the National Emergency Equipment Repair and
    Maintenance Program (NEEMR) and the Tactical Communications
    Organizations (TCO), and awarding contracts for parts and equipment
    repair to original equipment manufacturers has significantly reduced
    the maintenance backlog. CBP believes that the maintenance backlog will
    be completely eliminated during the summer of 2005.
        Question. This fiscal year, the plan for ASI calls for spending $10
    million on surge technology. Please provide an explanation of what this
    is and what the plans are for this surge technology?
        Answer. Surge technology is surveillance equipment that can be
    rapidly deployed in self-contained system packages that have the
    mobility and deployment capabilities to allow it to be positioned in a
    very short period of time to support changes in national operational
    needs. The plan at this time is to procure vehicle-mounted ground radar
    equipment that is co-mounted with a cooled, thermal imaging system that
    can sense and identify a vehicle as well as a human over 5 miles away.
    A system of this type will allow the detection and tracking of multiple
    items-of-interest and provides vectoring information to agents on the
    ground. By virtue of their mobility and transportability, CBP will be
    able to deploy these assets to the geographic regions or corridors that
    align with the current, nationally-assessed threat environment.
        Question. CBP also plans to spend $10.6 million for replacement/
    repair of ground sensors in fiscal year 2005. Given that plans are in
    place to possibly award an integration contract to upgrade all of this
    technology, why are we replacing ground sensors now? Is it possible we
    will be replacing these again with something new in just a year or two?
        Answer. In the early 1990's, the Federal Communications Commission
    (FCC) modified the spectrum range of commercial and government
    frequency usage. As such, CBP is required to change its systems to
    support the FCC frequency spectrum allocation requirements. CBP's
    Office of Border Patrol (OBP) is purchasing new unattended ground
    sensors to further augment its already deployed sensor fleet, to meet
    operational objectives, and to meet these FCC requirements.
        An objective of this procurement effort is to ensure compatibility
    with any future systems that are acquired. Replacement of newly
    procured unattended ground sensors in a year or two is not anticipated.
    An objective of this procurement is to ensure that these sensors will
    readily integrate with future systems.
        A cost analysis is being performed regarding the ability to upgrade
    our currently deployed unattended ground sensors that were procured and
    deployed prior to the FCC frequency spectrum allocation modification.
    This effort is also being undertaken in such a manner as to ensure that
    these upgrades are made to meet FCC requirements and future systems
    integration.
        Question. What is the timeline for initiating and completing all
    identified ground sensor repairs?
        Answer. A proposal has been developed to augment sensor
    capabilities in Tucson Sector with 1,240 new digital sensors. As these
    sensors are deployed, the ``old'' sensors that are replaced, or rotated
    in from the field will, be assessed for redeployment to other Sectors
    as needed and in alignment with current enforcement objectives and
    national threat assessments. The project is scheduled to begin June
    2005, with projected completion March 2008.

                        AUTOMATED COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT

        Question. CBP has been working on modernizing the information
    technology systems that it uses for some time. The most significant
    project is the Automated Commercial Environment, known as ACE. Last
    year, CBP released the re-baseline estimate for completion of the ACE
    system. The new schedule has ACE being fully deployed in 2011, and
    costing an additional $1 billion. How confident is CBP that this new
    timeline can be accomplished?
        Answer. CBP is confident the project can be completed in that time
    frame. That said, the new proposed baseline is presently under review.
    CBP will continue to strive to find ways to deliver ACE better, sooner,
    and at less cost. In addition, CBP has worked to improve ACE
    management. The staffs of legacy systems were merged into the CBP
    Modernization Office last December. The merger greatly increased the
    number of government staff on the program, as well as available subject
    matter expertise and IT project management skills. This will help keep
    the program on budget and schedule.
        CBP now also has the advantage of working with an operational
    system. Release 3, implemented in June 2004, is fully operational and
    has already increased the amount of duty collected via Periodic Monthly
    Statement from $80,000 in June to over $109 million in February 2005.
    The Release 4 pilot in Blaine, Washington although currently
    experiencing some technical problems, has processed over 40,000 trucks.
    Having these ACE systems operating in ``real-world'' CBP environments
    provides excellent experience and feedback for the program team, and
    provides a solid base on which to build future capabilities.
        Question. What is the status of the pilot in Blaine, Washington, of
    e-Manifest Trucks?
        Answer. The ACE truck cargo/eManifest pilot was initiated in
    Blaine, Washington, on December 12, 2004. The system was very well
    received by the CBP Officers in the port, demonstrating a number of
    improvements over previous systems. However, system issues were
    uncovered, which caused delays in the processing of trucks. This
    resulted in a temporary halt to the pilot in late December in order to
    implement necessary changes.
        The ACE pilot was re-started in mid-January with improved
    capabilities and significant streamlining of the cargo screening and
    release functions. With these changes, ACE has been processing trucks,
    on average, more quickly than the different release systems that had
    been in use prior to ACE. Average truck processing times were in the 70
    second range.
        Additional problems with the pilot were uncovered in early March.
    These problems were manifested as a result of the increased volume of
    trucks being processed (over 40,000 trucks had been processed with
    ACE). The problems have been corrected, and the revised system has been
    tested. Since the testing results were positive, CBP re-started the
    pilot April 4.
        Part of the reason for difficulties with the pilot has been the low
    volume of electronic manifests submitted by carriers and service
    providers. A combination of difficulties with the CBP eManifest
    certification process and the effort required by the trade participants
    to make changes to their systems have led to the low participation.
    However, for those eManifests that have been submitted, ACE has
    performed extremely well, demonstrating the full promise of the system.
    CBP is working closely with the carrier community to increase, as
    quickly as possible, their use of eManifests.
        CBP firmly believes that the current problems with the ACE pilot
    will be quickly corrected and the pilot will be operating successfully
    in the Port of Blaine. Plans have been developed to expand ACE to
    additional ports on the northern and southern land borders. Efforts are
    also underway to support 28 new carriers and service providers who have
    state their intentions to begin providing eManifests.

                  AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS--RECAPITALIZATION

        Question. A request for funding to begin the re-capitalization of
    the Border Patrol air fleet was included in the fiscal year 2006
    budget, but there is no request for the replacement of Air and Marine's
    fleet. When can we expect to see such a request?
        Answer. A program increase for re-capitalization of the Air and
    Marine Operations (AMO) fleet is not included in the fiscal year 2006
    President's Budget, however, the fiscal year 2006 AMO base budget does
    include approximately $55 million for the procurement of replacement
    aircraft and deployment of new aircraft to CBP air wings.
        Modernization of CBP air and marine assets is a priority in order
    to meet expanded missions in the areas of detection, surveillance,
    deterrence and apprehension, search and rescue, interdiction and
    Airspace Domain Security.
        CBP is currently conducting a review of AMO and Border Patrol air
    and marine missions, operations and assets with the objective of
    determining how best to allocate and manage resources. It is
    anticipated that areas of both integrated and distinct aviation and
    marine missions will be defined, and opportunities for combining fleet
    modernization requirements will be identified. The existing AMO and
    Border Patrol modernization plans will be reviewed in the context of
    supporting the updated mission needs resulting from the transition
    analysis. All opportunities for commonality of aircraft, vessels,
    facility locations, command and control, maintenance and procedural
    standards are being reviewed. Potential benefits include enhanced
    threat engagement, procurement cost efficiencies, reduced life cycle
    costs, increased mission readiness and operational performance.
        Development of a unified recapitalization plan for all CBP air and
    marine assets is will commence following completion of the integration.

                              WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT

        Question. The President's budget requests $18 million for
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to double the resources
    devoted to worksite enforcement. The President's budget does not
    request any additional investigators for this program. Are there a
    sufficient number of investigators to pursue any leads or cases that
    may be developed?
        Answer. ICE's fiscal year 2006 President's Budget requests $18
    million for the temporary worker program to fund 140 agents and
    investigations training. It is proposed that the agents be assigned to
    field offices nationwide primarily to conduct employer audits, examine
    and prioritize leads, prepare and deliver Notices of Inspection and
    Notices of Inspection Results, and develop employer cases involving
    administrative fines. Agents would be assigned to field offices in the
    States with the greatest number of unauthorized workers.
        The requested resources would enable ICE to increase its presence
    at worksites in specific industries and geographical areas,
    concentrating on employers who intentionally violate the law or who
    have historically hired large numbers of unauthorized workers.
        Question. Please provide the Committee with a description of ICE's
    current worksite enforcement program, including what authorities are
    being enforced and how the program is run.
        Answer. ICE worksite enforcement program activities focus primarily
    on removing unauthorized workers from critical infrastructure
    facilities to reduce the risk of terrorist attack from insiders. This
    may be accomplished through screening and arrest operations to identify
    and remove the unauthorized workers, as well as through strategic
    partnering with employers and the law enforcement entities controlling
    facility access. ICE worksite enforcement activities also target
    criminal employers whose violations have a nexus to human smuggling,
    immigration document or benefit fraud, and worker exploitation.
        The authorities being enforced generally include one or more of the
    civil and/or criminal provisions of INA 274A (Unlawful Employment of
    Aliens). Many criminal employer investigations also charge violations
    relating to harboring, smuggling, and document fraud.
        Question. Please provide the Committee with a breakout of worksite
    enforcement workload of administrative cases versus criminal
    investigations for fiscal years 1999 through 2004, including a breakout
    of the FTE devoted to this area by type of employee for those same
    years.
        Answer. Please see table below.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Fiscal year
             Performance category         --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               1999         2000         2001        2002        2003        2004
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Criminal Employer Cases..............      \1\ 182      \1\ 109      \1\ 239      \1\ 21       \1\ 4      \3\ 59
    Notices of Intent to Fine Issued.....      \1\ 443      \1\ 213      \1\ 141      \1\ 73      \1\ 16       \1\ 3
    Number of Fines Collected............      \4\ 890      \4\ 478      \4\ 292     \4\ 115      \4\ 54      \4\ 64
    Fine Amounts Collected...............  \4\ $3,690,  \4\ $2,234,  \4\ $1,599,  \4\ $509,8  \4\ $212,3  \4\ $118,5
                                                   575          181          323          35          22          28
    Worksite Arrests.....................    \5\ 2,849      \5\ 953      \5\ 418     \6\ 816     \6\ 505     \6\ 642
    Investigative Work Years (Work             \5\ 278      \5\ 202      \5\ 134     \5\ 152     \5\ 105      \5\ 90
     Year=1,695 hours)...................
    Case Completions.....................    \5\ 3,844    \5\ 1,966    \1\ 1,595   \1\ 2,061   \1\ 1,490     \7\ 523
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Source: LYNX.
    \2\ Source: TECS.
    \3\ Calculated utilizing Treasury Enforcement Comms System(TECS) records (criminal employer cases opened).
    \4\ Source: Debt Management Center.
    \5\ Source: PAS.
    \6\ Manually calculated utilizing internal reports submitted by field offices.
    \7\ Manually calculated based upon the number of completed cases in LYNX and the number of cases reported closed
      in TECS.

                               VISA SECURITY UNIT

        Question. The President's budget requests an increase of $5 million
    to expand the Visa Security Unit. The recently submitted ``Visa
    Security Program: Annual Report for 2003-2004'' talks about the
    critical need for coordination and training with the Department of
    State Consular Affairs and CBP. What mechanisms are in place to ensure
    that there is the closest possible cooperation in this program?
        Answer. The Visa Security Program (VSP) within ICE is responsible
    for implementing Section 428(e) of the Homeland Security Act, which
    calls for the deployment of DHS officers to visa-issuing posts, unless
    such a deployment would not benefit homeland security. One of their
    principal duties under Section 428(e)(1) is to provide advice and
    training to consular officers regarding specific security threats
    relating to the adjudication of individual visa applications or classes
    of applications. DHS Visa Security Officers in Saudi Arabia are
    currently providing this training, and upcoming deployments of Visa
    Security Officers will expand this activity to additional posts. In
    addition, ICE and the Department of State have designated points of
    contact at Headquarters who coordinate closely on issues including
    consular training. A representative from the Visa Security Program has
    briefed each graduating class of consular officers since October 2004.
        VSP also coordinates with CBP on several operational levels. Visa
    Security Officers regularly utilize the National Targeting Center as a
    supporting element in their in-depth review of visa applications. In
    addition, CBP officers have served temporary details at Headquarters
    and in the field. Finally, VSP has opened announcements for permanent
    positions to both ICE and CBP officers in order to recruit officers
    with a full range of immigration enforcement skills to serve overseas
    as Visa Security Officers.
        The President's requested increase of $5 million in fiscal year
    2006 will fund expanded VSP operations in the field and at
    Headquarters, to include its consular training responsibilities.
        Question. In August of 2004, the Department of Homeland Security's
    Office of Inspector General issued an evaluation of DHS activities to
    implement section 428 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. This
    evaluation included a number of recommendations to improve the workings
    of the Visa Security Officers. What is the status of implementing each
    of the recommendations in that report?
        Answer. Since the DHS Inspector General's (IG) evaluation in late
    2003, shortly after the initial deployment of officers to Saudi Arabia,
    Visa Security Program operations in Saudi Arabia have made significant
    progress. Of the IG's twelve recommendations, three had been closed at
    the time of the report's publication. The remaining nine
    recommendations were resolved, and remain open while they are
    implemented. Below is an update on each of the IG's recommendations.
        Recommendation 1.--Develop a curriculum of homeland security
    training for consular officers consistent with the requirement in
    Section 428(b)(1) of the Act.
        ICE is working to develop homeland security training for consular
    officers. A VSP's program development staff member has attended the
    Basic Consular Training Program at the Department of State's (DOS)
    National Foreign Affairs Training Center (NFATC) as a basis for ICE's
    recommendations to DOS about consular training. VSP staff also held a
    curriculum development conference with training experts from the
    Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) and ICE Academy to plan
    the development of the consular training program. Since October 2004,
    VSP leadership has been addressing each graduating class from the Basic
    Consular Training Program, to introduce them to the visa security
    mission and to prepare them to work with Visa Security Officers in the
    future.
        Recommendation 2.--Develop a training program for Visa Security
    Officers (VSOs) that includes foreign languages, country studies, and
    interview and fraud detection techniques.
        Working with the ICE Academy and FLETC, VSP developed a 4-week
    training curriculum for Visa Security Officers, incorporating the IG's
    content recommendations. With specific regard to language training,
    ICE's VSO selection criteria will continue to emphasize language
    ability, and VSP will continue to exercise best efforts to provide
    additional language training where necessary.
        Recommendation 3.--In coordination with DOS, develop performance
    standards to evaluate consular officers.
        ICE continues in an audit capacity, to advise DOS on consular
    performance evaluation. A VSP staff member recently attended Basic
    Consular Training to assess how consular officers currently are trained
    and evaluated.
        Recommendation 4.--Develop written criteria for assigning VSOs to
    other countries.
        Closed. ICE established such criteria in early 2004, and the OIG
    closed this recommendation as it published the report in August 2004.
        Recommendation 5.--Assign responsibility to develop and publish the
    report to Congress required by Section 428(e)(4).
        ICE/VSP will prepare the report, and BTS will submit the report to
    Congress.
        Recommendation 6.--Conduct a study of the personnel management
    techniques used by other agencies with a global workforce and evaluate
    ways to facilitate the overseas rotations of DHS employees.
        DHS is continuing to evaluate its international presence. No
    specific policy recommendations have yet been announced.
        Recommendation 7.--Discontinue the practice of filling the VSO
    positions with temporarily assigned officers and move toward filling
    the positions with permanently assigned officers.
        VSP has announced and selected positions for Saudi Arabia. VSP will
    announce permanent positions for all future offices.
        Recommendation 8.--Establish criteria for selecting VSOs based on
    required experience and skill sets to support the visa security
    operation.
        Closed. ICE established such criteria in early 2004, and the OIG
    closed this recommendation as it published the report in August 2004.
        Recommendation 9.--Establish a funding mechanism to ensure that the
    visa security operations receive all required support and that DOS is
    promptly reimbursed for the support that it provides.
        VSP has received funding in fiscal year 2005 for its existing posts
    in Saudi Arabia and for expansion to four additional locations. This
    will become the base for fiscal year 2006 and the out-years for all
    locations opened in or already in operation as of fiscal year 2005. To
    facilitate administrative coordination, DOS and VSP recently signed a
    Memorandum of Agreement that explains how reimbursements and other
    administrative matters will be handled.
        Recommendation 10.--Propose a technical correction to Section
    428(i) to align it with Section 428(e) and permit DHS to review only
    those applications with homeland security interest in Saudi Arabia.
        Closed. The OIG agreed with ICE's position that the legal
    requirement to review all visa applications in Saudi Arabia should not
    be modified. The OIG closed this recommendation as it published the
    report in August 2004.
        Recommendation 11.--Evaluate the possible benefit of analyzing the
    existing visa applications in DOS files of young Saudi males who were
    issued visas in the 2 year period prior to September 11, 2001. BTS
    should coordinate with DOS, the FBI, and other Federal agencies, as
    necessary, before making a determination about whether, or how, to
    proceed to analyze the applications.
        ICE agrees that there may be value in reviewing certain
    applications submitted in Saudi Arabia in the 2 years prior to
    September 11, 2001. DHS is still evaluating whether or how to proceed
    with such an analysis.
        Recommendation 12.--Develop an interface between BTS and DOS
    computer systems that permits a fast and efficient method to automate
    the visa security name check process and eliminate the duplicative data
    entry for database checks.
        ICE has been working with DOS to improve information sharing and
    access and has succeeded in virtually eliminating the manual data entry
    that the IG observed in late 2003/early 2004. VSP is working with DOS
    to further enhance regular information sharing and expects the new
    process to be in place in the third quarter of fiscal year 2005.

                             OVERHEAD COST SHARING

        Question. Last fiscal year and this fiscal year, ICE plans to
    charge a portion of the headquarters overhead costs to the Federal
    Protective Service (FPS) and the Federal Air Marshals (FAMS). On what
    basis were the overhead charges calculated to ensure that those
    organizations were paying for services they received on a basis
    proportionate to their usage?
        Answer. Early in the fiscal year, FPS and/or FAMS were expected to
    provide funding for overhead based for the actual costs for services.
    The headquarters (HQ) overhead costs are allocated to the ICE
    components using full-time equivalents (FTE), at the beginning of the
    fiscal year, to construct the proration percentages. Following a review
    of the overhead costing issue for the FAMS and FPS, a final decision
    was made that the FAMS and FPS would only pay for services actually
    being utilized. However, they will not be assessed an overhead charge
    in fiscal year 2005.
        Question. Will this become a permanent charge to FPS and FAMS? If
    so, why are no additional resources being requested to ensure that the
    funds are available to pay these bills?
        Answer. All ICE Programs, Projects and Activities (PPAs) should be
    expected to share HQ overhead costs for the overhead services that ICE
    provides. However, for fiscal year 2005 there will not be an assessment
    for FPS and FAMS.
        HQ overheads are covered out of base appropriated funds.
    Additionally, every new enhancement request includes funds for HQ
    overhead in the modular costs used to compute the enhancement.
        Question. Will this have an adverse impact on the ability of the
    FAMS to maintain its staffing levels?
        Answer. No, the FAMS are not being assessed an overhead charge.

                              FUGITIVE OPERATIONS

        Question. The President's budget requests an increase of $8.8
    million to expand the capabilities of the fugitive operations teams. In
    answer to questions submitted after last year's hearing, ICE stated
    that the strategic plan called for the elimination of the 400,000
    fugitive backlog within 10 years based on significant increases in the
    fugitive program.
        What impact are the continued funding shortfalls having on the
    Office of Detention and Removals' ability to implement that plan?
        Answer. ICE continues to track and apprehend fugitives and continue
    to surpass goals and previous year's statistics. However, some existing
    teams need additional staff that have not yet been hired, and no new
    teams have been deployed. When corrected later this year, this delay
    will have no effect in meeting the 10-year plan.
        Question. Does the fiscal year 2006 budget request include
    sufficient resources for ICE to continue making progress in locating
    and deporting absconders?
        Answer. Yes. The fiscal year 2006 Budget will allow ICE to show
    significant progress in locating, apprehending and removing absconders.
        Question. Has ICE been able to move ahead with the data integrity
    projects related to the absconder records despite the funding
    situation? What results have been seen from the data integrity
    projects?
        Answer. ICE has been investigating data integrity issues with the
    records of absconders. ICE drew random samples of records of aliens
    with an unexecuted order of removal that did not indicate that the
    alien was an absconder. There are approximately 130,000 such alien
    records (does not include aliens with an acceptable reason for an
    unexecuted order). The samples indicated that almost 70 percent of
    those aliens were absconders. The absconder statistics have been
    revised accordingly. DRO estimates that the absconder population on
    September 30, 2004, was 465,353 aliens.
        ICE believes that the new data system to track aliens in removal
    proceedings (EREM) will address many of the data integrity concerns.
    The data system will be easier to use which will encourage completeness
    and accuracy. It will also be more tightly integrated with the work
    process used in an alien's case.

                              FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS

        Question. On January 27, 2005, ICE announced the creation of the
    Federal Air Marshals (FAMS) Advisory Board. The advisory board will
    provide information and recommendations on key FAMS policy and
    operational issues. Some of the issues the FAMS Advisory Board will
    initially address are hiring, dress code, technology, the FAMS role in
    airport security and the FAMS career ladder within ICE. When does ICE
    expect that the advisory board will begin making recommendations on
    some of these issues?
        Answer. While it is difficult to predict with specificity when the
    FAMS Advisory Board will be prepared to make recommendations, the Board
    is currently meeting on a regular basis. One of the objectives of the
    Board is to increase the pace of the FAMS integration into ICE. To that
    end, the Board hopes to be in a position to make recommendations in the
    near future.

                         INSTITUTIONAL REMOVAL PROGRAM

        Question. What progress has been made in transitioning the
    Institutional Removal program from the Office of Investigations to the
    Office of Detention and Removals?
        Answer. In the planning for the transition of responsibility from
    the Office of Investigations (OI) to Detention and Removal Operations
    (DRO), a review of performance standards and available resources was
    completed.
        This review found less than 50 percent of criminal aliens were
    being identified and removed from the United States (comparing State
    Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) numbers to the Performance
    Analysis System (PAS)).
        The prior performance standard based on the number of aliens
    removed is not reflective of the function of the Criminal Alien Program
    (CAP). The performance standard for DRO will be the percentage of
    incarcerated foreign born screened for removal. A performance level of
    90 percent of all foreign-born incarcerated in Bureau of Prisons, State
    department of corrections and mega-counties (areas with populations
    over 1 million) will provide a high level of coverage throughout the
    United States. Smaller population areas would be encouraged to
    participate in 287(g) programs or video teleconferencing with newly
    established VTC centers.
        After careful consideration, DRO determined that a state-by-state
    approach would be the most effective way to ensure a successful
    transition. By approaching the transition on a State level, staffing
    plans and proactive communications with relevant State agencies can
    enhance the productivity and workflow.
        The State of New York was determined to be the first State to
    transition because of the existing work force available in DRO to
    assist in covering the City of New York. DRO assumed sole
    responsibility for the City of New York Department of Corrections (NYC
    DOC) on December 17, 2004. With ten facilities, one satellite facility
    in Bronx, 120,000-130,000 inmates admitted annually and with an average
    daily population of 15,000, NYC DOC is one of the largest detention
    programs in the United States.
        The transition at NYC DOC has been remarkably smooth and in the
    first quarter of fiscal year 2005, improvements have been substantial.
    In the last quarter of fiscal year 2003, prior to the transfer, 921 of
    3,542 incarcerated aliens were screened (26 percent). In the first
    quarter of fiscal year 2005, there were 1,866 of the 2,696 incarcerated
    aliens screened (69 percent). Though well below the stated performance
    level; significant progress has been made without additional staffing.
    As staffing becomes available, NYC DOC operations will achieve the
    target level of screening.
        The State of New York effort has provided an excellent blueprint
    for subsequent transfers, and using the lessons learned, DRO has
    completed transfer plans for California, Florida, Illinois, Arizona and
    New Mexico.
        Question. Are there other ways ICE could be working with State and
    local officials to improve communication in order to identify
    incarcerated aliens in a more timely manner?
        Answer. In the planning for the transition of responsibility from
    the Office of Investigations (OI) to Detention and Removal Operations
    (DRO), a number of possible communications enhancements have been
    explored by DRO.
        The most basic approach to improve communications is and continues
    to be open, face-to-face dialogue with the local and State officials to
    determine the needs and requirements of both parties, to establish an
    approach to accomplish the mutual goals, and to maintain an open line
    of communication between the parties.
        During the planning for the State of New York, ICE met with State
    officials that oversee the entire New York State Department of
    Corrections, Parole and Probation and the State Police. These
    discussion have led to an enhanced streamlined approach to processing
    aliens, centralized release of aliens to ICE custody, created a
    procedure for State of New York Parole to compare information and
    update their information based on removal information and opened the
    dialogue to continue improvements in the areas of conviction documents,
    appeal processes in State courts and new procedures for automated
    immigration status checks. Dialogue has already been started with the
    State of California and a meeting between ICE/DRO and the Assistant
    Chief of Staff of the Governor's office has been planned for the end of
    March.
        ICE has also investigated whether the 287(g) program by State and
    local governments is another opportunity to train local law enforcement
    in the authorities as well as what the information provided to them
    means. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and supportive data
    bases can be confusing to experienced officers, much less individuals
    that have not had years of experience in these issues. The formalized
    training allows for concise communication of status to ensure proper
    enforcement of the INA. Expansion of the 287(g) program has a direct
    impact on the DRO program through the additional identification of
    individuals amenable to removal.
        The PEGASUS program is operated under a COPS grant and allows a new
    venue to share information with local and State authorities. The
    program provides Sheriffs and municipal law enforcement with secure
    access to other participating law enforcement agency databases. Through
    recent presentations, DHS is considering how best to incorporate parts
    of our databases to assist identification of aliens amenable to removal
    as well assist DHS in our mission. The databases in question would
    definitely include the Deportable Alien Control System (DACS) and would
    allow an automatic data search system via a ``pointer system''. The
    possibilities of an automated system would greatly enhance the
    identification of aliens in removal proceedings and those already
    removed. The extent of the data sharing that DHS is willing to consider
    is still under review.
        The Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) continues to provide a
    one-stop location for searching several data systems. The LESC,
    currently operated by OI, accepts queries from a multitude of law
    enforcement agencies and sends responses back to the originating
    agency. In cases where the alien in question is identified as a
    removable alien, a detainer is placed by the LESC for the local DHS
    office to pursue appropriate removal action.

                           FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

        Question. The Federal Protective Service (FPS) has been in the
    midst of a very difficult transition from the General Services
    Administration's (GSA) financial management system to that of ICE.
        Given the financial problems of ICE, which extend to not having
    proper internal fund controls, why wasn't more consideration given to
    having FPS continue to use the GSA financial system for at least 1 more
    year, or until eMERGE2 was ready?
        Answer. The Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Under
    Secretary for Management, initially directed that the FPS transition
    from the GSA financial management system be completed by October 1,
    2003. Following the initial review of the unique financial management
    requirements needed to support the FPS offsetting collections program,
    the transition date was extended to October 1, 2004. At the time that
    this decision was made, ICE felt that the additional year for planning
    the transition would be sufficient to avoid any major problems. The GSA
    and ICE Financial Management staffs worked closely to plan for a smooth
    transition. However, the technical financial and accounting differences
    between the GSA and ICE financial systems proved to be much greater
    than either agency had anticipated. The ICE Financial management staff
    has been following an aggressive plan and timetable to complete the FPS
    transition by September 30, 2005.
        With regard to the specific financial situation, specific planning
    milestones called for a successful transition of FPS to ICE, as agreed
    with GSA, FPS and ICE. This plan was successful, with the only
    contributing factor being data transmission problems from GSA. That
    situation exacerbated payment problems in the ICE transition. Much of
    the data from the GSA financial system has had to be manually uploaded
    into the ICE system, requiring additional quality assurance steps to
    maintain the highest level of data integrity.
        Question. The current remediation plan for fixing the financial
    problems at FPS call for the reconciliation of payments to be finished
    by March 31, 2005. How will this plan solve all of the problems and
    ensure that contractors will get paid in a timely manner?
        Answer. In addition to a full reconciliation of FPS payments, ICE
    is convening a high level working group to address the financial
    problems at FPS. This group will evaluate and make appropriate changes
    in the business process flow to ensure that contractors are paid timely
    and that financial events are properly and timely recorded. ICE will
    continue to work with GSA to resolve any discrepancies in the balances
    transferred. A full reconciliation of financial activities is
    anticipated by September 30, 2005.

                                HUMAN SMUGGLING

        Question. What is ICE doing in the area human smuggling? What has
    happened in the Carreto case that was the subject of a recent CBS News
    report?
        Answer. Recognizing that global human smuggling is of the nature of
    organized crime, ICE has employed Task Force methodologies to attack
    and dismantle the operations and networks that profit from these
    crimes. An example of this methodology is Operation ICE Storm in
    Phoenix, Arizona. ICE, in conjunction with partners in the Federal,
    State, local and foreign law enforcement community, has initiated a
    task force to address widespread violence, kidnapping, extortion, and
    other crimes associated with human smuggling. By vigorously applying
    its money laundering authorities, ICE and our State and local and
    partners in Arizona have deprived human smuggling organizations of
    nearly $7.3 million of their criminal proceeds. Since the inception of
    ICE Storm in October 2003, over 320 persons have been prosecuted for
    human smuggling and related crimes and over 170 firearms have been
    seized. Over 6,700 smuggled aliens have also been arrested and removed
    from the United States.
        ICE is fully supporting the Arizona Border Control (ABC)
    Initiative, which was developed to focus on criminal organizations and
    supporting infrastructures that are currently exploiting the Arizona
    region. ICE's role in this initiative, which is being coordinated
    closely with other BTS components as well as State, local and foreign
    law enforcement agencies, focuses on interdiction and investigation
    efforts to target human and contraband smuggling organizations
    operating near the Arizona/Mexico border. To date, a total of 635
    individuals have been prosecuted as a direct result of those
    enforcement efforts. In addition to what has already been seized under
    ICE Storm, approximately $2.1 million in U.S. currency has been seized
    and 26 weapons have been removed from the streets.
        Since July 2004, ICE has implemented the LAX Initiative, which was
    developed to address the human smuggling organizations using the Los
    Angeles International Airport. This operation targets not only the
    vulnerabilities of airline and border security, but related financial
    institutions and support industries directly affected by the identified
    criminal activity. ICE has seized approximately $1.2 million in U.S.
    currency, 486 undocumented aliens have been arrested, and there have
    been 11 Federal prosecutions in connection with these enforcement
    efforts.
        At this time, we cannot comment on the Carreto case, since it is an
    ongoing criminal investigation.

                             BACKLOG REDUCTION PLAN

        Question. CIS has reduced the benefit application backlog to 1.5
    million cases, down from a high of 3.8 million cases in January of
    2004. What is the plan for maintaining a 6-month average processing
    time--once dollars are no longer specifically set aside for this
    purpose?
        Answer. USCIS is in the process of reengineering its business
    practices to ensure that it will be more efficient and effective. USCIS
    also plans to invest in IT transformation efforts, including a new case
    management system, to build the necessary infrastructure to ensure that
    backlogs do not return for the foreseeable future. Finally, USCIS has
    recently completed an in-depth staffing requirements analysis which
    will ensure that each USCIS office receives the appropriate amount of
    staff necessary to maintain the 6-month cycle time standard.
        Question. What assurances do we have that the productivity gains
    are not coming at the expense of quality, that the right decisions are
    still getting made by the adjudicators?
        Answer. Backlog elimination efforts will not come at the expense of
    national security or adjudicative integrity. USCIS has struck a solid
    balance in this area by ensuring that processes facilitate legal
    immigration, while preventing those who would misuse the system from
    entering or remaining in the United States. It is imperative that the
    integrity of the benefits process not be compromised in the effort to
    stimulate additional productivity.
        Efforts to benchmark and assure quality are at the heart of every
    production initiative. For example, USCIS is committed to attacking
    benefit fraud and has created an Office of Fraud Detection and National
    Security (FDNS) specifically to lead USCIS efforts in this area. FDNS
    will assist USCIS adjudicators in verifying applicant and petitioner
    information, and will work cooperatively with ICE to ensure that fraud
    schemes are identified and referred to ICE for criminal investigation
    and prosecution. USCIS field officers have been instructed to issue
    Notices to Appear for removal proceedings in instances where an
    applicant or beneficiary has attempted to defraud the government.

                                CUSTOMER SERVICE

        Question. In order to improve customer service, CIS is working on
    improving the ability of beneficiaries to interact with the Department
    of Homeland Security electronically. USCIS has now expanded electronic
    filing to support 50 percent of the total volume of benefit
    applications. When is the next expansion of the online filing of
    benefit applications planned?
        Answer. The e-filing system currently includes 8 application form
    types, which represent approximately 50 percent of the USCIS workload.
    The e-filing application volume has doubled each year since its
    inception. The current phase entails enhancing system functionality and
    capabilities, which will include accepting Premium Processing filings
    of the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140) in the third
    quarter of this fiscal year.
        Question. Which applications does CIS plan to add next?
        Answer. USCIS intends to expand e-filing, but has not yet
    determined which applications will be targeted for the next e-filing
    phase.
        Question. What are the current plans for re-designing and re-
    launching the CIS website?
        Answer. USCIS is creating a consolidated ``Customer Service
    Portal'' to integrate and align all public-facing USCIS websites. The
    current USCIS web configuration of ``core'' USCIS.gov content was
    completed in 1998. While the core content is continually refreshed, its
    underlying information architecture (IA) has never been refreshed.
    Moreover, three additional USCIS customer service websites, each adding
    a valuable new service, were appended onto USCIS.gov. However, their
    development was not integrated into the core website due to technical
    limitations at the time.
        This new project will enhance the ability to manage the USCIS.gov
    web content; enforce the DHS branding guidelines; standardize the
    presentation of all USCIS.gov web content as being part of ``One Voice,
    One Face, Many Channels,'' and help initiate the development of a
    comprehensive USCIS-wide web governance.
        The development of the USCIS customer service portal will be
    conducted in phases. The initial phase of the project seeks to enhance
    USCIS.gov content by developing a comprehensive information
    architecture (IA) within which all current and anticipated USCIS.gov
    web content and e-services may be organized. The initial phase includes
    standing up a refreshed, customer-oriented USCIS.gov in the newly
    developed environment, with emphasis placed on the requirements of the
    USCIS Office of Communications. Additional phases will concentrate on
    the development of the consolidated web portal, and the requirements of
    other organizations providing content to USCIS.gov and integrating, to
    the degree possible, content from the three service-oriented websites,
    InfoPASS, Customer Relationship Interface System (CRIS), and e-Filing
    into USCIS.gov. As of March 2005, the project has been funded by the
    USCIS Senior Review Board. A Statement of Work for all phases of the
    project is currently being drafted, and USCIS anticipates awarding the
    contract in fiscal year 2005.
        Question. What is the status of the initiative to begin electronic
    adjudication of Temporary Protected Status applications?
        Answer. The electronic adjudication of Temporary Protected Status
    (TPS) applications began with the re-registration of TPS applicants
    from Honduras and Nicaragua on November 6, 2004, and continued with
    applicants from El Salvador on January 5, 2005. The next designated TPS
    country eligible for electronic adjudication is unknown at this point
    in time.

                OFFICE OF FRAUD DETECTION AND NATIONAL SECURITY

        Question. Please provide a detailed update on the establishment and
    expansion plans for the Office of Fraud Detection and National Security
    (FDNS).
        Answer. USCIS Director Eduardo Aguirre created the Office of Fraud
    Detection and National Security (FDNS) to implement two high priorities
    that support the USCIS mission:
      --Conducting effective background checks on persons seeking
            immigration benefits, and;
      --Detecting and combating immigration benefit fraud.
        Background: In fiscal year 2004, FDNS developed and implemented a
    joint anti-fraud strategy and initiative with the Bureau of Immigration
    and Customs Enforcement (ICE). To support this effort, the FDNS
    developed the necessary policies, procedures, and organizational
    structure. This included incorporating the staffs of the Service Center
    Fraud Detection Units (FDU) with the allocation, deployment, hiring,
    and training of over 150 new employees at field and headquarters
    locations throughout the interior United States starting in fiscal year
    2004. The present staff of the FDNS is 222 permanent and term
    appointment employees. Of the new employees, 110 are field office
    Immigration Officers located within Districts, Sub-offices, Regional
    offices, and Headquarters. Within the FDUs and Headquarters, FDNS has
    61 Intelligence Research Specialists and 30-term appointment
    Investigative Assistants. The remaining staff provides administrative
    and management support to the field officers and are located within the
    FDUs and Headquarters offices. Utilizing fees generated from the H-1B
    and L Visa Reform Act of 2004, USCIS plans to fill 160 FDNS positions.
    These new positions will enable FDNS to make adjustments to current
    staffing and provide specific levels of support for both the anti-fraud
    and national security operations.

    Fraud
        The primary objective of the anti-fraud operation is to detect and
    combat immigration benefit fraud by referring articulated leads to ICE
    for criminal investigation, and conducting administrative inquiries
    when ICE rejects a request for investigation. The primary duty of an
    FDNS Immigration Officer (IO) is to review fraud-based leads referred
    by adjudicators and other sources. This review consists of performing a
    variety of system checks, including data mining; conducting field
    administrative inquiries, which includes interviewing various entities;
    and supporting criminal investigations conducted by ICE and
    prosecutions by U.S. Attorneys. It also includes placing individuals in
    removal proceedings when fraud is verified, collecting and analyzing a
    variety of intelligence data, and posting look-outs on individuals
    involved in fraud conspiracies. By removing cases containing elements
    of fraud from the mainstream adjudications process, adjudicators are
    able to concentrate their expertise on applicants and petitioners
    deserving of, and eligible for, the benefits sought. Thus, this anti-
    fraud effort will improve the quality of adjudications, increase
    productivity, and reduce cycle times. The 160 new positions will enable
    FDNS to:
      --Place FDNS IOs in the largest districts and each center, where the
            overwhelming majority of immigration benefit fraud exists, as
            well as in most of the sub-offices.
      --Put a position in the Department of State's Fraud Prevention
            Program Office in Washington, DC, to enhance inter-departmental
            fraud detection and planning efforts.

    National Security
        Shortly after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, USCIS
    implemented a policy requiring the completion of background checks on
    applicants, petitioners, beneficiaries, and other individuals seeking
    immigration benefits. The National Security Unit has developed, and is
    implementing, a new policy and process pertaining to the
    identification, reporting, and resolution of IBIS national security
    hits. The Interagency Border Information System (IBIS) is the primary
    tool used to conduct background checks on applicants, petitioners,
    beneficiaries, and other individuals seeking immigration benefits.
    Currently, FDNS is conducting a pilot to test the electronic/paperless
    resolution of background checks and the entry and check of all aliases
    at the front end of the adjudication process.
        Question. How are the relationships working with the Department of
    State and Immigration and Customs Enforcement?
        Answer. ICE and the Department of State (DOS) have a productive
    working relationship and coordinate on issues of visa security as well
    as critical law enforcement issues often involving foreign governments.
    For example, ICE is working closely with DOS to develop and implement a
    ``diplomatic'' strategy to encourage several countries to accept
    repatriation of their citizens when they are ordered removed from the
    United States. Additionally, ICE works closely with DOS and other
    agencies as members of the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center to
    synthesize intelligence, law enforcement and other information to bring
    effective international action against smugglers, traffickers of
    persons and criminals facilitating terrorists' clandestine travel. In
    U.S. embassies around the world, a network of ICE attaches, who with
    DOS, are working with their counterparts in foreign law enforcement
    agencies combating transnational crimes involving national security,
    financial, smuggling, illegal arms exports, forced child labor, child
    pornography, human trafficking, intellectual property rights,
    commercial and immigration fraud violations. ICE looks forward to
    continuing and expanding the collaborative relationship with DOS to
    further safeguard our borders and the American people.
        Question. Please explain what the FDNS fraud tracking system will
    be? Who will have access to this system? What are the timeline and
    major milestones for development of the system?
        Answer. FTS Requirements:
      --The ability to maintain and report on fraud lead and case data in a
            central repository that is available at a national level to all
            FDNS staff and authorized external agencies
      --The ability to reference benefits application data related to the
            subject of a case
      --The ability to share case and lead data on validated fraud cases
            with fraud investigators at ICE
      --The ability to perform reactive and ad-hoc data searches against
            benefits claims data
      --The ability to perform data mining analysis on benefits claim data
      --The ability to define fraud profiles and apply them against
            incoming application receipts
      --The ability to track fraud profile matches and analyze data
            commonalities
      --The ability to generate and report information for management use
      --The ability to generate and automatically report G22 statistics for
            FDNS
        Access.--FTS is being sized to accommodate up to 500 simultaneous
    users. This will accommodate the current 222 FDNS field staff,
    supervisors, managers and support staff located in geographically
    disparate locations nationwide, but also potential expansion. It will
    also accommodate information sharing with other agencies such as the
    FBI, CIA, Department of State, and other DHS and intelligence entities
    with need to access this information for national security and law
    enforcement purposes.

                                                MILESTONES AND TIMELINES
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Days            Start            End
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Discovery Stage.................................................               7         2/18/05         3/17/05
    Design Stage....................................................              13         2/18/05         3/25/05
    Configuration Stage.............................................              18         3/10/05         4/04/05
    Validation Stage................................................              15         3/22/05         4/11/05
    Deployment Stage................................................               4         4/12/05         4/15/05
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Please provide a detailed plan for the development and
    rollout of the benefit fraud assessment tool, including timelines and
    milestones.
        Answer. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service's (CIS) Fraud
    Detection and National Security (FDNS) Unit will implement a Benefit
    Fraud Assessment program (BFA). This program was approved in February
    2005, and will be implemented in various phases through October 2005.
    ICE supports FDNS conducting the BFA so that ICE can direct its
    resources to investigating/prosecuting actual benefit fraud violators.

                             OFFICE OF CITIZENSHIP

        Question. Please provide the following information regarding the
    Guide for New Immigrants: which languages will the guide be produced
    in; how many will be printed in each language in the initial run; how
    will the guides be distributed electronically and physically; what is
    the timeline for translating the guide into each of the planned
    languages; and what is the timeline for producing hard copies in each
    language.
        Answer. To ensure that immigrants from a variety of language groups
    have access to the Guide, the Office of Citizenship will translate the
    English version of the Guide into ten (10) languages--Spanish, Chinese,
    Vietnamese, Tagalog, Portuguese, Russian, French, Korean, Haitian
    Creole, and Arabic.
        Hard copies of the Spanish and English versions of the Guide will
    be available for purchase through the Government Printing Office (GPO),
    and all other versions will be accessible online. In order to initially
    market the product, the Office plans to print approximately 250,000
    copies of the English guide and 150,000 copies of the Spanish guide.
        In addition of the current availability of the English Guide online
    (additional languages to be posted as translations are completed) the
    Office is coordinating a national mailing list of community and faith-
    based organizations, immigration service providers, State and local
    contacts and adult educators in an effort to disseminate the Guide
    nationally. USCIS Community Liaison Officers and local field Directors
    will also receive copies of the Guide for additional local
    dissemination. GPO order forms will also be included as part of the
    dissemination effort. In addition to planned dissemination efforts, the
    Office also plans to implement a comprehensive outreach/public
    education effort in key communities. These events will be strategically
    located according to where the centers of the various foreign language
    communities are. Plans include high-profile events in: Los Angeles for
    the Spanish version (May); San Francisco for the Chinese, Tagalog, and
    Vietnamese versions (May); New York City for the Russian and Korean
    versions (July); and Detroit/Dearborn for the Arabic version (August).
        Spanish translation should be completed in April; Chinese, Tagalog
    and Vietnamese will be completed in May; Russian, Korean and Arabic
    will be completed in June; and Portuguese, Haitian Creole and French
    will be completed in July.
        Hard copies of the English and Spanish guides will be available in
    June. All other translation will be available online late summer. There
    are currently no plans to print hard copies of the additional
    languages.

                                    STAFFING

        Question. Please provide a complete FTE staffing plan for fiscal
    year 2005 and 2006, including but not limited to; location (i.e.,
    District Office, Service Processing Center, etc), position type (i.e.,
    Immigration Information Officer, Adjudicator, etc), and physical
    location (i.e., Burlington, VT; Dallas, TX; etc).
        Answer. Please see tables provided below.

        Question. Please provide a breakout of attrition rates for each of
    fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 by type of position and location.
        Answer. USCIS only has attrition rates for fiscal year 2004. For
    the major position types, they are:
      --Adjudications Officer: 2.3 percent
      --Asylum Officer: 6.1 percent
      --Asylum/Adjudications Clerk: 2.3 percent
      --Immigration Information Officer/Customer Service
                    Representative: 1.2 percent
        Data is not available by location.
        Question. Please provide a chart with the numbers and types of
    employees that have been trained at Glynco, GA for each of fiscal years
    2003, 2004, and 2005.
        Answer:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal year
                  Position type                 Fiscal year        2005
                                                   2004         (estimate)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Adjudication Officer....................             751           1,098
    Asylum Officer..........................             116             170
    Immigration Information Officer.........             142             207
    Other...................................              58              85
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................           1,067           1,560
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2003 data is not available.

                                  CALL CENTERS

        Question. Please provide a chart with the number of contractors
    assigned to each call center for fiscal years 2004 and 2005.
        Answer. USCIS does not determine the number of contractors assigned
    to each contract call center. Under our contract, the vendor is
    required to have sufficiently trained staff to meet our performance
    requirements, and is responsible for determining the placement and size
    of each of its operations.
        Question. Please provide a chart for each of fiscal years 2004 and
    2005 of the total number of calls received by call center, broken out
    by type of call.
        Answer. USCIS has two kinds of call centers. Contract call centers,
    which provide initial live assistance, and USCIS staffed call centers,
    which answer questions that cannot be answered by the contract staff.
        Our contract call centers operate as one. We do not route calls to
    our general customer service line based on the nature of the call, but
    based on agent availability. Calls are routed to the next available
    agent with the appropriate language skills regardless of location.
    Thus, staff scheduling, availability and performance affect call
    routing, not the nature of the call. USCIS, therefore, does not track
    information by type of call.
        The table below shows the volumes and percentage of live assistance
    calls handled by staff at each of the four (4) contract call centers
    for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 (through mid-March).

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2004                  2005 (through mid-March)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Volume          Percent         Volume          Percent
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phoenix, Arizona................................       1,269,059            16.0         531,867            17.1
    Lawrence, Kansas................................       1,534,164            19.3         636,945            20.4
    Corbin, Kentucky................................       4,800,717            60.5       1,809,688            58.1
    Arlington, Virginia.............................         334,911             4.2         138,153             4.4
    Total live assistance calls handled by contract        7,938,851  ..............       3,116,653  ..............
     call centers...................................
    Total calls received to USCIS...................      21,295,256  ..............       8,454,022  ..............
    Percent of total calls that were handled by       ..............            37.3  ..............            36.9
     contract call centers..........................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                            ICE--CYBER CRIME CENTER

        Question. Last year, $4.2 million was secured in the fiscal year
    2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Act to expand the ICE Cyber Crime
    Center to ICE field offices. Are these funds at risk of being diverted
    to address the base budget shortfall within ICE this fiscal year?
        Answer. At this time, it is ICE's intent to execute the entire $4.2
    million in fiscal year 2005 for the purpose for which it was
    appropriated.

                              IMMIGRATION SERVICES

        Question. With the split of immigration and enforcement functions
    precipitated by the creation of the Department of Homeland Security,
    Alaska's capitol, Juneau, was left with no personnel to provide
    immigration services. Without immigration services, immigrants are
    forced to fly to Anchorage to access services. What steps have been
    taken by the Homeland Security Department to ensure Juneau's need for
    immigration services will be met?
        Answer. Since the creation of USCIS, the agency has met the needs
    of Juneau and other distant communities of Alaska by sending an officer
    2 or 3 times each year on periodic circuit rides to conduct benefits
    interviews, naturalization ceremonies, and community outreach. USCIS
    has recently expanded the circuit rides to 4 times a year, even though
    there were only 400 Naturalization and Adjustment of Status cases in
    the entire District in the first quarter of this year. The most recent
    trip was in November 2004, and there are trips to Juneau scheduled for
    April, August, and October of 2005. The current cycle times are just
    over 6 months for naturalization, and just under 6 months in Adjustment
    of Status cases.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                               LAND PORT OF ENTRY

        Question. America has 197 land ports of entry, and it has been
    almost 20 years since we launched a major effort to upgrade
    infrastructure at those ports. That last effort occurred in 1986--
    almost 15 years prior September 11, 2001.
        Since September 11, we have placed increasing emphasis on upgrading
    protective measures for our airports, seaports, and critical
    infrastructure. It is imperative that we also improve land port
    security if we are going to be successful in the war on terror. To that
    end, I intend to introduce a bill which will authorize additional funds
    for investment in our Nation's border crossings.
        Have you considered what kinds of improvements are necessary at our
    land ports of entry and how much these upgrades might cost?
        Answer. CBP has initiated a Construction Master Planning Process
    that will allow for increased security at the Nation's borders by
    providing critical facility and infrastructure improvements that are
    prioritized using a rigorous capital investment planning process.
        The planning methodology and resulting allocation of construction
    projects will optimize available resources to support the expanded
    methods of CBP operations and comprehensive border enforcement
    strategy. The construction planning process aligns with the DHS mission
    and strategy, forecasted future growth, identify and justify required
    projects and estimate their associated costs. The CBP Construction
    Master Planning Process was developed in response to the reporting
    requirements included in House Report 108-774 and House Report 108-541.
        Question. Based on your experience at CBP, what do you believe are
    the three top priorities for securing our land ports?
        Answer. Since September 11, 2001, CBP has tightened procedures for
    entry into the United States at all ports of entry, based on three
    strategic priorities:
      --Advance Information and Risk-Targeting.--CBP has moved forward with
            programs that provide information regarding cargo and
            passengers as far in advance of arrival to the United States as
            possible, and systems to review this information and develop
            targeted response to high-risk cargo and individuals. These
            programs and systems include C-TPAT, CSI, advance cargo
            manifests, Advance Passenger Information Systems, all screened
            through our National Targeting Center.
      --State of the Art Technology.--CBP is investing in state-of-the-art
            technology, including non-intrusive radiation detection
            systems, making additional information systems available to
            inspectors at the ports of entry, and addition of biometric and
            other systems to enhance security.
      --Training.--CBP has significantly revised and reprioritized our
            training for CBP Officers based on operational priorities,
            beginning with the establishment of anti-terrorism protocols
            for all ports of entry and developing and implementing anti-
            terrorism training for all CBP Officers.
        Question. Specific improvements are needed at the Columbus port of
    entry in New Mexico, and I understand that the General Services
    Administration (GSA) has proposed that construction on the Columbus
    project begin in 2007 or 2008. Do you support GSA's recommendation and
    will you keep the project on track for construction?
        Answer. CBP has requested GSA to modernize and expand the border
    station in Columbus, NM. The existing facility constructed in 1987, is
    a full service port of entry with pedestrian, non-commercial and
    commercial traffic. It is the only 24-hour border crossing point for
    pedestrians and privately owned vehicles in New Mexico. The facility is
    in need of significant renovation and expansion to safely process the
    increased volume of traffic that has occurred since originally
    constructed.
        CBP has requested GSA to include this project at the earliest
    opportunity. If approved for design in fiscal year 2007, construction
    should begin in fiscal year 2009.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                               OPERATION PREDATOR

        Question. Mr. Secretary, first, let me thank you again this year
    for ICE's efforts to stop the exploitation of children. I understand
    that Operation Predator has had many successes and I am glad to hear of
    its achievements. I believe it is a critical program and I hope it
    continues to be successful. We should continue to do all within our
    power to ensure that children around the world are protected from those
    individuals that would harm them and shamelessly exploit them for
    simple pleasure and monetary gain.
        To that end, I ask that you share with the Committee some of ICE's
    other efforts to eliminate the abuse and exploitation of children. I
    know that you have many partners in this effort. I would appreciate you
    expounding on your opening statement as to what ICE is doing and who
    you are working with to accomplish these goals.
        Answer. In addition to Operation Predator, ICE attempts to
    eliminate the abuse and exploitation of children by enforcing the laws
    related to Forced Child Labor (FCL). ICE has implemented a proactive
    outreach schedule targeting an audience comprised of leaders in
    domestic industry and their employees/agents responsible for foreign
    purchases and related internal security procedures. Our goal is to
    educate this community, promote voluntary compliance, and encourage
    vigilance and reporting of suspected violators. The ICE FCL program
    staff regularly attends other United States Government agency, foreign
    government, and non-governmental organization functions related to
    forced or indentured child labor. In particular, FCL program staff
    attends and participates in monthly meetings with the National Child
    Labor Coalition, an organization that exists to serve as a national
    network for the exchange of information regarding children in an effort
    to end child labor exploitation by promoting progressive initiatives
    and legislation; established contacts with various domestic industry
    trade show representatives and coordinated participation in commodity
    specific events; and published the Forced Child Labor Advisory and
    accompanying pamphlet, produced in English and translated into 5
    foreign languages for distribution in training and outreach activities.
    ICE currently has 20 open investigations related to allegations of the
    importation of products manufactured or produced with forced or
    indentured child labor. During fiscal year 2005, three new
    investigations were opened, twelve were closed, and one investigation
    is in pending status.
        During 2004, ICE hosted two international symposiums on FCL and
    related child exploitation issues as defined in the International Labor
    Organization (ILO) Convention 182. These symposiums hosted in Singapore
    and Johannesburg, South Africa, were geared at educating foreign law
    enforcement partners on U.S. laws, promoting information sharing, and
    enhancing networking vital to successful investigations, and included
    presentations and training on: Forced Child Labor, the Protect Act and
    Operation Predator, Child Pornography, Basic Computer Forensics and
    Investigative Techniques, and Child Sex Tourism. In addition, at the
    Johannesburg, South Africa conference, a block of training was
    conducted by ICE on human smuggling and trafficking particularly with
    regard to children on the African continent.
        In regard to human smuggling and trafficking into the United
    States, ICE does not keep statistics delineating children versus
    adults. However, in terms of all human trafficking (men, women, and
    children), many of these victims are lured from their homes with false
    promises of well-paying jobs; instead, they are forced or coerced into
    prostitution, domestic servitude, or other types of forced labor. ICE,
    with its wide range of authorities, expertise and capabilities attacks
    human trafficking organizations through the aggressive use of human
    trafficking, smuggling and money laundering statutes, as well as
    identification and seizure of criminal proceeds and assets. Each and
    every allegation received by the ICE FCL program is researched,
    analyzed, and referred to the appropriate domestic or foreign office
    for further investigation. ICE's education and outreach process
    provides guidance to ICE agents in distinguishing the clear differences
    between human smuggling violations and human trafficking. This process
    has enabled ICE agents, our State and local law enforcement partners
    and community groups to better understand and identify trafficking
    violations and to better care for victims. ICE office of investigations
    has also conducted extensive outreach and training with our law
    enforcement partners abroad. Coordinating with the ICE Attaches in
    numerous countries, ICE works to combat trafficking organizations, in
    source and transit nations, as well as in the United States.

                               ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

        Question. Among each of your roles, is the charge to secure our
    borders and to control illegal immigration. Estimates of the number of
    illegal immigrants range greatly. Some say 8 million others say
    millions more. I believe that we all know that 8 million is an
    extremely conservative estimate.
        What is your best estimate on the number of illegal aliens
    currently residing in the country?
        Answer. It is estimated that the number of illegal aliens currently
    residing in the country is most likely between 11-12 million.
        Question. How many new illegal aliens entered the country last
    year?
        Answer. The total for ``first time'' illegal aliens, in fiscal year
    2004, making entry into the United States between the ports of entry is
    608,073. These numbers are derived from using the data provided in the
    Enforce Integrated Database (EID). This data is based on persons
    identified by biometric data (fingerprints) as first time
    apprehensions.
        Question. Is that an increase or a decrease from the previous year?
        Answer. There was a 20 percent increase in first-time
    apprehensions/entries into to the United States in fiscal year 2004
    compared to fiscal year 2003.
        Fiscal year 2004--608,073.
        Fiscal year 2003--504,889.
        Question. If we are so uncertain about the numbers, doesn't that
    seem to indicate that we are not doing enough to secure our borders and
    our homeland?
        Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection is enhancing and
    planning operations in areas along the borders which pose the greatest
    threat to national security. With the development and implementation of
    the Border Patrol's National Strategy, a measured but aggressive
    approach is being taken to increase border security. The guidelines and
    goals outlined in the National Strategy have been translated into the
    CBP/USBP implementation plan.

                                 VISA OVERSTAYS

        Question. Another major problem with our immigration system is the
    fact that many of those people currently counted as illegals actually
    entered the country legally, but have overstayed their visas.
        Does the Department have any recent numbers on visa overstays?
        Answer. The US-VISIT Program Office conducted an analysis of
    biometric entry and exit data for the first 9 months of the program
    (January 5, 2004 to September 30, 2004) and initially, the findings
    indicate that, for visa holders on whom biometrics are collected at
    both entry and exit, nearly 90 percent exit the country before their
    periods of admission expire. In addition, US-VISIT's preliminary
    findings show that there is no exit record for less than 1 percent of
    these visa holders. Due to current limitations in capabilities to
    capture complete entry and exit data on all visa holders, the small
    sample size, and the abbreviated period covered by the analysis, US-
    VISIT is unable to provide more detailed findings.
        Question. How many temporary visa holders never return to their
    home country?
        Answer. Except for the preliminary information mentioned in the
    previous question, US-VISIT does not yet contain all the technological
    elements that would readily provide this type of status information.
    However, according to a report from the Office Immigration Statistics
    using data from the Nonimmigrant Information System (NIIS), a total of
    23.6 million nonimmigrant departures were recorded by NIIS during 2003.
    Of those, 22.1 million or 94 percent were matched to an arrival and
    showed valid arrival and departure dates.
        The proportion of all admissions matched varies among the broad
    categories of admission. Short-term visitors had the highest match rate
    (95 percent), followed by diplomats and other representatives (93
    percent), students and temporary workers (88 percent), and expected
    long-term residents (87 percent). Records missing the category of
    admission have the highest non-match rate (48 percent) but as a group
    represented less than one percent.
        The report also gives length of visit estimates. Nonimmigrants
    included in NIIS who departed in 2003, remained in the United States an
    average, or mean, of 34 days, or just under 5 weeks, per visit. The
    median length of visit was 8 days, indicating half of all departing
    nonimmigrants remained in the country for 8 days or less. Over 95
    percent of departing nonimmigrants remained for less than 6 months per
    trip, with approximately 4 percent remaining between 6 months and 1
    year, and 1 percent remaining 1 year or more.
        Question. Can you tell us what percentage of the total illegal
    population is visa overstays?
        Answer. It is very difficult to accurately estimate either
    population. The fiscal year 2006 US-VISIT budget request includes $24
    million for the person-centric view that would begin the transformation
    of these systems so as to provide timely and accurate visibility to all
    DOS and DHS officers associated with the visa process regarding those
    who chronically overstay, or are overstaying for extended periods.
        Question. Given that these people make up a large percentage of our
    illegal population, has any consideration been given to strengthening
    the vetting process? What I mean by that is, if a large percentage of
    those people obtaining visas are not returning do you think there a
    breakdown somewhere in the process?
        Answer. Managing the entry, stay and departure of alien visitors is
    a major component of controlling our borders and requires collecting
    information regarding the movement of aliens in, through, and out of
    the United States. The information in the US-VISIT system is available
    to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers at ports of entry,
    special agents in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),
    adjudications staff at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)
    services offices, U.S. consular offices, and other law enforcement
    agencies. Such information allows these officers to identify and take
    action against those who violate the law, to locate individual aliens
    of interest to law enforcement entities, to validate the immigration
    status of aliens so that only eligible persons receive immigration
    benefits, and to intercept terrorists and other persons who should not
    be allowed into the country. Additionally, the United States Government
    (USG) will be able to use this data to make informed policy and
    management decisions regarding enforcement prioritization,
    participation in visa waiver programs, or immigration benefit programs.
        Collecting exit information through US-VISIT will strengthen the
    vetting process by giving officials who issue visas timely, accurate
    and comprehensive visibility into an applicant's compliance patterns,
    so that appropriate action can be taken on the visa request. Once all
    of the elements of the exit/entry system are in place (i.e., at all
    land, air and sea points of entry, including immigration status
    information capabilities), we will have the ability to accurately
    assess and investigate the overstay population.
        Question. Following-up on that what is your agency doing now and
    what are you planning to do in the future to ensure that this does not
    continue to be a problem?
        Answer. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 gave DHS the
    responsibility for several significant national security programs/
    initiatives to track nonimmigrant aliens' compliance with the terms and
    conditions of their admission to the United States. These programs/
    initiatives include: the Student and Exchange Visitor Information
    System (SEVIS), the National Security Entry/Exit Registration System
    (NSEERS), and the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
    Technology (US-VISIT) program. ICE formed the Compliance Enforcement
    Unit in June 2003, to investigate criminal and administrative
    violations identified through these programs. The CEU receives violator
    data from these programs/initiatives, analyzes the data and sends
    proactive investigation requests to field offices to locate and remove
    the violators. The CEU will continue to exploit the benefits of these
    programs/initiatives.
        Additionally, the fiscal year 2005 budget provides for the hiring
    of additional ICE criminal investigator positions to be assigned to
    compliance enforcement units across the country. ICE plans to staff
    these additional positions in field offices to support compliance
    enforcement investigations generated by the ICE Headquarters CEU. The
    positions will support compliance enforcement of the US-VISIT, NSEERS,
    and SEVIS programs based on current enforcement need projections.
        Question. I know that US-VISIT is slowly being implemented.
        What progress has been made to date and what assurances can you
    give us that we know who is legally entering the United States?
        Answer. The Department of Homeland Security has met the December
    31, 2003, and December 31, 2004, Congressional deadlines to deploy an
    entry-exit program that strengthens security and facilitates travel for
    legitimate visitors while protecting their privacy and ensuring the
    integrity of our immigration system. In conjunction with the Department
    of State's Biometric Visa Program, we are creating a continuum of
    security measures that begins before individuals enter the United
    States and continues through their arrival and departure from the
    country. US-VISIT also works with commercial carriers to receive
    notification of passenger lists before passengers arrive in and depart
    from the United States.
        Since its beginning on January 5, 2004, US-VISIT has implemented
    entry procedures at 115 airports, 14 seaports, and in the secondary
    inspection areas of the 50 busiest land ports of entry. In September
    2004, US-VISIT was expanded from individuals with visas to include
    processing of visitors traveling to the United States under the Visa
    Waiver program. US-VISIT processed over 20 million foreign travelers
    from January 5, 2004, to February 24, 2005, and has prevented 536
    criminals and immigration violators, including Federal and State prison
    escapees, from gaining admission to the United States.
        US-VISIT is protecting our visitors by making it virtually
    impossible for anyone else to claim their identity should their travel
    documents to be stolen or duplicated. Our fingerprint matching system
    has an accuracy rate (True Acceptance Rate or TAR) of 99.6 percent for
    one-to-one verification and a TAR of 96 percent for one-to-many
    identification. DHS is currently working with National Institute of
    Standards and Technology and industry leaders on several initiatives to
    examine mechanisms to increase the level of accuracy.
        Later this summer, US-VISIT will conduct tests using automatic
    identification (Radio Frequency Identification Technology or RFID) at
    land ports of entry to capture entry/exit information. US-VISIT is on
    track to deploy entry procedures to the remaining land ports of entry
    by December 31, 2005, meeting the Data Management Improvement Act
    (DMIA) mandate.
        The work of US-VISIT will extend far past these current efforts. In
    the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress
    included requirements and actions to be taken by DHS, the Department of
    State and US-VISIT with the goal of completing a biometric entry and
    exit data system as expeditiously as possible. US-VISIT is preparing a
    Strategic Plan that will describe how a single, unified approach to
    immigration and border management--a U.S. Immigration and Border
    Management Enterprise--will look and operate in the future. The Plan
    will include the overarching vision for how the United States
    Government will manage immigration and its borders, as well as how
    data, facilities, and information technology will contribute to the
    Enterprise mission.
        Question. Conversely, I believe it is important that we know who is
    leaving the country. Specifically, that ties directly into the visa
    overstays. If we know that people are leaving we will have a very good
    accounting of the number of folks that have chosen to stay here
    illegally. Can you tell us what progress has been made on implementing
    the exit portion of the program?
        Answer. In the air and sea environments, DHS is currently
    collecting biographic arrival and departure data through electronic
    manifests submitted by the transportation carriers and is using this
    data to identify alien travelers whose authorized periods of admission
    have expired and for whom no matching departure information is
    available. This information is already being shared with U.S.
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). US-VISIT is working
    collaboratively with the ICE Compliance Enforcement Unit (CEU) to
    research existing data limitations and develop protocols and procedures
    to effectively vet these records through additional data sources to
    develop more complete, accurate and actionable information.
    Additionally, US-VISIT is conducting pilots to determine the most
    effective means of capturing exit information.
        Airport and Seaport Pilots.--US-VISIT is currently piloting three
    alternative methods of biometric departure confirmation at one seaport
    (Miami International Cruise line Terminal) and eight airports (Chicago
    O'Hare; Baltimore Washington International; Denver International;
    Dallas/Fort Worth International; Newark Liberty International; Luis
    Munoz International in San Juan, Puerto Rico; San Francisco
    International; and Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County). DHS anticipates
    making a decision on the best method(s) to implement shortly, and
    determining a schedule to expand biometric exit.
        Automated Land Border Entry-Exit.--Later this spring, US-VISIT will
    begin testing Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology. Using
    an automatic identifier, RFID technology can detect a visitor at a
    distance and provide primary inspection with entry information as well
    as provide a mechanism for an accurate and timely record of exits. By
    July 31, 2005, testing will begin at the ports of Nogales East and
    Nogales West in Arizona, Alexandria Bay in New York, and the Pacific
    Highway and Peace Arch in Washington. Testing will continue through the
    spring of 2006.
        Question. When does the Department expect the entire program to be
    fully operational?
        Answer. DHS will complete deployment of an initial biometric-based
    entry and exit program at all U.S. ports of entry by the end of 2005,
    meeting the requirements established by legislation. It is important to
    note that the Data Management Improvement Act, which established the
    majority of initial deadlines, only required the integrating of
    existing arrival and departure information--it did not require the
    collection of new information, such as biometrics. The Enhanced Border
    Security and Visa Entry Reform Act contained a requirement to
    biometrically compare and authenticate certain travel documents by
    established dates. DHS, recognizing the importance of biometrics in the
    process, added the requirement to collect biometric information, and is
    establishing additional procedures, beyond those required by statute,
    to enhance security.
        Ultimately, US-VISIT will manage data on foreign nationals covering
    their interactions with U.S. officials before they enter, when they
    enter, while they are in the United States, and when they exit. This
    comprehensive view of immigration and border management will create a
    virtual border and will improve interactions with foreign nationals. In
    its strategic plan (required under the Intelligence Reform and
    Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004) US-VISIT will describe how the U.S.
    Immigration and Border Management Enterprise will look and operate in
    the future.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, can you tell me how many people were
    detained or deported for overstaying their visas last year? Does ICE
    take proactive measures towards apprehending overstays?
        Answer. Statistics obtained from ICE's administrative booking
    system, ENFORCE, revealed that in fiscal year 2004, 3,784 nonimmigrants
    were processed for removal from the United States under the charge of
    INA 237(a)(1)(C)(i), violation of nonimmigrant status or condition of
    entry. The INA does not have a specific charge for visa overstays. The
    above number will include individuals that violated their nonimmigrant
    status by overstaying their visa, as well as other nonimmigrant
    violators. These other nonimmigrant violators include: student visa
    violators, individuals found working without authorization, and
    nonimmigrants that have violated their status by committing a crime.
        The Compliance Enforcement Unit (CEU) receives violator data from
    NSEERS, US-VISIT, and SEVIS. The CEU analyzes the data and sends
    proactive investigation requests to field offices to locate and remove
    the violators. In fiscal year 2004, the CEU sent out over 2,050 visa
    overstay leads generated by NSEERS, US-VISIT, and SEVIS to ICE SAC
    offices throughout the country. The CEU will continue to receive and
    assign overstay leads to ICE SAC offices for investigation.
        Question. What are the ramifications and penalties for overstaying
    a visa? There must be a way to keep track of these folks.
        Answer. A nonimmigrant that has failed to maintain the status in
    which he/she was admitted, or fails to comply with the conditions of
    any such status, to include nonimmigrants that stay beyond their period
    of admission, is subject to removal from the United States under the
    charge of INA 237(a)(1)(C)(i), violation of nonimmigrant status or
    condition of entry.
        DHS implemented the US-VISIT program in January 2004, to address a
    Congressional mandate to implement a nationwide entry-exit tracking
    system. Once fully implemented, US-VISIT will biometrically document
    the entry and exit of all foreign visitors to the United States. The
    CEU works closely with the US-VISIT Program to identify potential visa
    overstay violators and to conduct the necessary follow up
    investigations.

                                BORDER SECURITY

        Question. Every year, I travel to every county in Alabama to hear
    the issues of my constituents and one of their greatest and most
    frequent concerns is immigration and more to the point illegal
    immigration. Every year I feel compelled to tell my constituents that
    while we are making progress we are nowhere near where we need to be.
        What is the Directorate doing to make our borders more secure and
    to eliminate the influx of illegal aliens?
        Answer. ICE is a key player--along with our partners at U.S.
    Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and
    Immigration Services (USCIS)--in the Department's mission to secure the
    borders and restore integrity to the Nation's immigration system. That
    is a mission ICE takes very seriously--as the tragic results that can
    follow when those wishing to do us harm breach the Nation's border
    security and exploit immigration laws. The key to this effort is
    prioritization--systematically attacking the most serious threats
    first. Specifically, ICE has made the apprehension and removal of
    dangerous criminal aliens and national security threats our top
    enforcement priority. This is not to suggest that ICE does not fully
    and consistently enforce the law in other situations but that ICE
    focuses on addressing the serious threats that individuals with
    possible terrorist associations, fugitive alien absconders, violent
    criminal aliens, sexual predators, and others pose to our communities,
    our families, and our Nation. ICE's objective is to strategically
    target our resources and authorities on the most dangerous aliens in
    order to remove them from the streets before they can do harm.
        It's a strategy that is getting results. In fiscal year 2004, ICE
    removed more than 160,200 aliens with more than half of them having
    prior criminal convictions and 18 fugitive absconder teams across the
    Nation who apprehended more than 11,000 fugitives last year. ICE
    created a ``Most Wanted'' list of the most dangerous criminal aliens,
    which has been a valuable tool for generating tips and leads. From the
    original list, nine of the ten were captured within a few weeks, and
    the tenth was determined to have already left the country. Under ICE's
    ``Operation Predator,'' which targets pedophiles, child sex tourists,
    and child pornographers we have arrested more than 5,000 child sex
    predators who exploit children for pleasure or profit. Approximately 40
    percent of the predators arrested under this program have been illegal
    aliens, and an additional 20 percent have been visitors to the United
    States who were ``out of status,'' meaning that they had overstayed or
    otherwise violated the terms of their admission.
        Another priority is to dismantle criminal organizations that
    smuggle and traffic human beings for profit. In fiscal year 2004, ICE
    arrested more than 1,630 human smugglers. Operation ICE Storm, an
    initiative launched in 2003 to target violent human smuggling networks
    in Arizona, has brought charges against more than 300 defendants and
    resulted in the seizure of more than $7 million. This unprecedented
    seizure of alien smuggling proceeds is a direct result of the
    combination of ICE's immigration and customs authorities (particularly
    customs expertise in financial crime investigation). Law enforcement
    authorities in Arizona have credited Operation ICE Storm with a
    dramatic decrease in alien-related kidnappings and other violent crime
    in the Phoenix metropolitan area.
        ICE's Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) responded to more than
    603,000 immigration status inquiries from Federal, State, and local
    authorities in fiscal year 2004 and placed more than 15,000 immigration
    detainers with police agencies nationwide allowing ICE to more
    efficiently remove aliens from the United States once their jail term
    has expired. ICE is also fostering innovative new relationships through
    our 287(g) program, which delegates authority for immigration
    enforcement to State and local law enforcement. Under the terms of
    Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Illegal
    Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Sec. 113, April
    30, 1996), State and local authorities can request this authority for
    their jurisdictions. Once this agreement is in place, ICE provides
    officers with a 5-week training program in immigration issues, and
    provides supervision and support for State and local officers engaged
    in immigration enforcement. These authorities are currently in effect
    in Florida and Alabama.
        The examples above are just a sampling of the critical immigration
    enforcement accomplishments of ICE. By aggressively enforcing our
    immigration laws and targeting criminals, ICE seeks to deter criminal
    and terrorist organizations that threaten our way of life. ICE will
    continue to work with its partners at the Federal, State, and local
    levels to secure the borders and protect the homeland.
        Question. How many aliens have been detained and deported in the
    last year?
        Answer. Based on data reported in the Deportable Alien Control
    System (DACS), as of January 2005, ICE removed/deported 161,090 aliens
    in fiscal year 2004. This number of final order removals is made up of
    criminals and non-criminals, detained and non-detained aliens. This
    does not include any voluntary removals, nor does it include any
    expedited removals, largely handled by the bureau of Customs and Border
    Protection. Virtually all of these removals were detained at least 1
    day prior to their removal.
        Based on data reported in DACS, as of January 2005, 235,449 aliens
    were detained at some point during fiscal year 2004. Some of these
    aliens were detained and then released to the community (bond,
    supervision, recognizance, etc). Others were granted voluntary
    departure, or transferred to other law enforcement agencies. Finally,
    some are still in detention for various reasons.
        Question. If a Mexican citizen looking for work can pay a fee to a
    coyote to traverse our border, what is to keep a terrorist that would
    do us harm from doing the same thing?
        Answer. ICE recognizes that criminal organizations operating
    worldwide are responsible for smuggling and trafficking tens of
    thousands of illegal aliens and thousands of pounds of illegal
    narcotics into the United States. These organizations generate millions
    of dollars in illicit profits that are moved through wire services,
    laundered through front businesses and transported out of the country.
    By exploiting vulnerabilities in border integrity, criminal
    organizations, whether they smuggle humans, illegal narcotics, illegal
    arms, or other contraband, are an unquestionable threat to the security
    of the United States.
        ICE has developed a full range of investigation and enforcement
    methodologies to confront the problem at every point--in source and
    transit countries, on the seas, at the Nation's borders and ports, and
    in the U.S. interior. In U.S. embassies throughout the world, ICE
    Attaches work with consular officials and with foreign law enforcement
    to better coordinate investigations, gather intelligence and follow the
    money trail to seize millions of dollars in profits from these
    organizations. ICE is also integrating intelligence and enforcement
    efforts and is mobilizing other governments and international
    organizations in the fight against human smuggling and trafficking.
        ICE has played a significant role in the newly established Human
    Smuggling and Trafficking Center (HSTC). The HSTC is a joint initiative
    between the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State,
    the Department of Justice, and members of the national Intelligence
    Community. The HSTC serves as an intelligence fusion center and
    information clearing-house, with the goal of converting intelligence
    into effective action.

            TEMPORARY WORKER PROGRAM AND BACKLOG ELIMINATION PROGRAM

        Question. I remain very concerned with the so called Temporary
    Worker Program that the President has proposed. Last January, we heard
    about this program and despite the claims to the contrary it seemed a
    lot like amnesty. The only difference I can see is that the illegals
    must have jobs in the United States. Beyond that, these people will be
    given permission to work and stay even if only temporarily, in the
    United States despite the fact that they are under the law, criminals.
    I told you last year that I do not believe in rewarding bad behavior
    and I still feel the same way today. Under this plan, over 8 million
    people would have an instant status adjustment. I find this
    particularly troubling considering the severe backlog of people who are
    following the law and waiting sometimes years to be allowed to come to
    the United States.
        Director, I know you spoke about the efforts to eliminate the
    backlog in your testimony and I do appreciate the progress made, but
    there is much more to be done.
        What are we going to do to rectify these problems?
        Answer. The President has stated a Temporary Worker Program (TWP)
    must be guided by four basic principles: that America must control its
    borders; that immigration laws should serve the economic needs of our
    country; that we must not give unfair rewards to illegal immigrants in
    the citizenship process or disadvantage those who came here lawfully,
    or hope to do so; and, that new laws should provide incentives for
    temporary, foreign workers to return permanently to their home
    countries. In designing such a program, we must remain mindful of these
    principles--and, in doing so, address the common and important concerns
    that you point out.
        The President is also committed to achieving our backlog
    elimination goals by the end of fiscal year 2006, which USCIS is on
    track to achieve. A well designed and managed and funded Temporary
    Worker Program would not adversely affect our backlog elimination
    efforts. To ensure this outcome, the TWP program design must be
    cognizant of a variety of factors, including current benefit
    authorities, options for cost recovery via fees, eligibility criteria,
    employer/government partnership opportunities, and application process
    requirements.
        Question. I understand that the backlog at different service
    centers varies, in some cases by months if not years, what is the
    problem and how do we fix it?
        Answer. USCIS has recently submitted a report to the Congress on
    this subject, which speaks to a staffing analysis recently completed
    that will help guide the distribution of resources to ensure that
    Service Centers can meet and maintain backlog elimination goals.
        Question. I am also painfully aware that my abilities to assist my
    constituents through casework has been greatly hindered since at least
    September of 2003 when the Alabama Delegation contacted the Secretary
    regarding staffing at your Atlanta office. To date, my staff has
    trouble receiving prompt replies to inquiries made in Atlanta. Often we
    can do little more than provide them the information they already have
    available to them through your website. What can we do to ensure that
    congressional inquiries to your service offices are acted on promptly?
        Answer. USCIS places a high priority on effectively serving its
    customers. Members of Congress and their staff often contact the agency
    in order to facilitate the resolution of constituent immigration
    casework. Many times, it is through a congressional inquiry that a case
    that has gone off track is identified and resolved. Often these
    inquiries can help us identify trends where changes in operational
    practices or policies would be appropriate.
        Each USCIS District Office and Service Center has staff dedicated
    to working with congressional staff. USCIS Congressional Relations has
    established national standards for responding to congressional
    inquiries. Telephonic inquiries should be acknowledged or resolved by
    close of business the next business day, written inquiries should be
    responded to within 30 days and email inquiries should be responded to
    within 10 days. Atlanta has been meeting these standards. Still, there
    are extenuating circumstances where the complete resolution may take
    longer or where there may be information identified in national
    security background checks that cannot be disclosed to congressional
    offices on individual applicants in order to ensure that ongoing
    investigations or national security are not compromised.
        When we identify a customer service or operational problem specific
    to a particular field office, a multi-programmatic Field Assessment
    Team is deployed to undertake a comprehensive assessment of operational
    effectiveness and responsiveness identifying areas needing improvement,
    action plans, and specific follow up. In the case of the Atlanta
    District, such a study was conducted and follow up takes place on a
    monthly basis. In addition, USCIS has conducted a field study to
    determine workload and workforce allocation. Through this study, many
    offices were identified as understaffed and new staff is being hired.
    As a result of this study, the Atlanta District will be hiring new
    adjudications staff this year. As new staff come on board and backlogs
    are reduced, the need for congressional inquires should likewise
    diminish. The Atlanta District has informed us that they are current
    with all congressional inquires. If there are any outstanding cases
    within your office we would be happy to work with your staff on
    resolving those cases.

                            IMPORTED SHRIMP INDUSTRY

        Question. I know actions are being taken against the imported
    shrimp industry in response to a dumping determination by the ITC and
    Dept. of Commerce. Can you tell me what efforts ICE and CBP are being
    taken in regards to the dumping of shrimp?
        Answer. Although the Department of Commerce (DOC) and U.S.
    International Trade Commission (ITC) share the joint responsibility for
    antidumping and/or countervailing duty (AD/CVD) orders, the
    responsibility for the administration and enforcement of these orders
    belongs to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement (ICE).
        In July 2004, CBP amended its continuous bond guidelines
    specifically for agriculture/aquaculture AD/CVD merchandise as a
    response to the high-risk nature of these imports. A significant number
    of shipments were found to have circumvented the AD/CVD cases through
    incorrect country declarations, undervaluation, and insufficient surety
    bond coverage, thereby preventing CBP to collect the appropriate duties
    and make the proper distributions.
        The first new case affected by these amended guidelines is shrimp
    from China, Vietnam, Thailand, India, Ecuador and Brazil. CBP has
    performed a risk-based analysis on the continuous bonds used by
    importers of this product to identify circumvention schemes and sham
    companies. To date this effort has been successful, with CBP revoking
    over 100 continuous bonds for failing to respond to requests for
    information. CBP has also worked closely with many importers who are
    willing to comply with the new bond guidelines to appropriately set new
    bond amounts to cover the potential financial risk associated with the
    AD/CVD entries. In addition, CBP is also monitoring imports associated
    with this case on a monthly basis to identify new importers, misuse of
    more favorable AD/CVD rates, misdescription of goods, all to avoid
    paying proper AD/CVD duties.
        CBP is also deploying field officers located at Southeast Asian
    attache offices to determine if the production capabilities exist for
    this commodity. When problems are discovered, CBP will make the
    appropriate referral to ICE for further investigation and action.

                             BORDER PATROL VEHICLES

        Question. As you know, the fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security
    Appropriations conference report calls for a comprehensive border
    patrol vehicle fleet management plan by February 8, 2005. Can you
    please inform the Committee of the status of this report, and
    specifically the findings with respect to extreme terrain border
    regions?
        Answer. CBP has developed a draft comprehensive plan that was
    delivered to the Committee on June 28, 2005. Field implementation of
    the extreme terrain program has begun. The Program consists of four
    steps: (1) terrain mapping; (2) the evaluation and development of an
    off-road vehicle fleet; driver training; and sector management
    orientation. The first step, terrain mapping, involves retrofitting
    severe and enhanced mobility vehicles with specialized equipment to
    measure and pinpoint terrain severity using a global positioning
    system. Agents who have received advanced off-road training operate the
    vehicles in performing their regular duties, and CBP thus obtains
    accurate information about terrain severity that will be used to
    develop the optimal off-road fleet. A total of 10 Border Patrol Sectors
    were selected for the terrain mapping step in this Program. Mapping
    started in San Diego Sector in June 2004, and has been expanded to
    include the El Centro, Yuma, and Tucson Sectors. The following
    additional Sectors are scheduled to begin mapping this fiscal year:
    Marfa, El Paso, El Rio, Laredo, McAllen, and Blaine.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd

                     VISA WAIVER PROGRAM: FURTHER EXTENSION

        Question. The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of
    2002, which President Bush signed into law on May 14, 2002, established
    October 26, 2004, as the deadline by which the 27 existing ``visa
    waiver'' countries must have machine readable passports in order for
    their citizens to enter the United States without a visa. The Congress
    passed legislation last year pushing back that deadline until October
    26, 2005.
        Does the Department believe that additional time is required for
    these visa waiver countries to come into compliance with the machine
    readable passport requirements? If so, has authorizing legislation to
    achieve this goal been introduced?
        Answer. The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act
    provisions are related to machine-readable passports that are tamper-
    resistant and incorporate biometric and document authentication
    identifiers that comply with applicable biometric and document
    identifying standards established by the International Civil Aviation
    Organization. Last year the Administration requested a 2-year extension
    of the deadline requiring Visa Waiver Program (VWP) nationals to
    present biometric passports. Congress provided a 12 month extension to
    give countries designated to participate in the VWP additional time to
    implement the required passport changes. Given that, DHS and DOS have
    continued to work closely with VWP participants to review the progress
    that has been made toward compliance with the new requirement and
    deadline. We will be able to report on this progress to Congress
    shortly, though there are still concerns with the current deadline. I
    look forward to working with you to determine the best solution to both
    enhance the security of the VWP and enable facilitation of legitimate
    travel.
        Question. Former Secretary Ridge stated in one of his departing
    interviews that the United States most likely should impose the same
    requirements regarding biometric identities on U.S. passports. Has the
    machine readable requirement imposed on foreign visas resulted in
    negative treatment of U.S. travelers abroad?
        Answer. The Visa Waiver Permanent Program (Public Law 106-396)
    imposed a requirement that VWP travelers have machine-readable
    passports (with the biographic, not biometric, data being available in
    a standard manner) for VWP entry on or after October 1, 2007, and that
    participating VWP countries certify that they are issuing machine-
    readable documents no later than October 1, 2003. Public Law 107-56,
    the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 advanced the deadline for use of machine-
    readable travel documents by VWP applicants from October 1, 2007, to
    October 1, 2003, but provided for the Secretary of State to waive the
    requirement until October 2007. In September 2003, the Secretary
    extended the deadline for individuals to present machine-readable
    documents to October 26, 2004. The requirement for nationals of VWP
    countries to present machine-readable passports to enter the United
    States under the VWP after October 26, 2004, has not resulted in any
    reported negative treatment of U.S. travelers abroad.
        Additionally, U.S. visas now contain biometrics (i.e. two
    fingerprints and a digital photograph). European Union nations are
    discussing options for implementing biometric visa programs as well.

              IMPACT OF BUSH AMNESTY ON BACKLOG REDUCTION/WORKLOAD

        Question. Your agency's budget request states that, if Congress
    provides the minimal discretionary funding you are requesting, you are
    on track to meet the goal of reducing to 6 months the processing
    backlog for immigration documents.
        The President continues to advocate for an amnesty for illegal
    aliens already resident in this country under the guise of an
    immigration reform proposal. I am concerned about the impact on your
    meeting these backlog reduction targets of any immigration proposal. We
    discussed this issue at last year's hearing, and you responded that any
    impacts on your agency's goals and operations would depend in large
    part on what Congress did in response to the President's immigration
    ``reform'' proposal. He raised the immigration issue again in his State
    of the Union address. However, we in the Congress continue to await his
    ``proposal''. When will Congress get the President's immigration reform
    proposal and what impact would his immigration ``proposal'' have on
    your backlog reduction proposal?
        Answer. The President has outlined his vision for a Temporary
    Worker Program (TWP) and said that it must be guided by four basic
    principles: that America must control its borders; that immigration
    laws should serve the economic needs of our country; that we must not
    give unfair rewards to illegal immigrants in the citizenship process or
    disadvantage those who came here lawfully, or hope to do so; and, that
    new laws should provide incentives for temporary, foreign workers to
    return permanently to their home countries. The key to processing
    temporary worker petitions quickly and efficiently is simplicity in the
    design. A well designed and managed Temporary Worker Program would not
    adversely affect our backlog elimination efforts. To ensure this
    outcome, the TWP program design must be cognizant of a variety of
    factors, including current benefit authorities, options for cost
    recovery via fees, eligibility criteria, employer/government
    partnership opportunities, and application process requirements.
        Question. Rep. Sensenbrenner has promised to attach his immigration
    bill (H.R. 418) to the Emergency Iraqi War Supplemental. This bill
    includes many of the provisions in the original House draft of the
    Intelligence Reform Act.
        Unlike some rhetorical Bush Administration amnesty, the specifics
    of this legislation are known. If the provisions of this bill are
    included in the Supplemental or some other piece of legislation, what
    impact would it have on your agency's abilities to meet your backlog
    reduction goals?
        Answer. This bill would not impact USCIS' ability to meet backlog
    elimination goals.

                              CIS LOCAL OMBUDSMAN

        Question. Section 452 of the Homeland Security Act called for the
    establishment of at least one CIS ombudsman's office in each state. Has
    CIS complied with the Act? If not, when does the Department plan to do
    so?
        Answer. HSA  452 establishes the Office of the Citizenship and
    Immigration Services Ombudsman (CISO), an entity independent of USCIS
    and reporting directly to the DHS Deputy Secretary. HSA  452(e)(1)(A)
    states that the Ombudsman shall have the responsibility and authority
    ``to appoint local ombudsmen and make available at least one (1) such
    ombudsman for each State.''
        For fiscal year 2005 the CISO is authorized a total of 24 full-time
    employees (FTE), and the majority of these employees are planned to be
    onboard during the third quarter of the fiscal year. For fiscal year
    2004 the CISO was authorized a total of eight (8) FTE. The fiscal year
    2006 Budget maintains the CISO at the 24 FTE level.
        The CISO has established a ``Local Ombudsman Pilot Program'' which
    is partially staffed at present but planned to be fully staffed by
    April 30, 2005. The pilot program is to design and develop a workable
    local ombudsman office which will have specific operational
    responsibilities over a defined geographic area. The pilot program will
    establish personnel certification and training requirements, determine
    liaison responsibilities and limitations, finalize facilities
    requirements and provide a controlled model for future local ombudsman
    office placements. The pilot program will commence upon the arrival to
    CISO of the new hire personnel to complete the staffing of the pilot
    local ombudsman office (``Beta Office''). The pilot program is
    estimated to last for a minimum of 9 months, however that time may
    expand or contract depending on the results attained. The following is
    a list of tasks to be accomplished during the pilot program:
      --Develop personnel job descriptions based on actual job
            requirements.
      --Conduct a task and skill analysis for each job position to
            determine the required skills and knowledge for incumbents, as
            well as to determine individual training requirements for
            incumbents.
      --Design and develop a local ombudsman training and certification
            program.
      --Determine the requisite support equipment necessary for local
            ombudsman operations.
      --Determine the most efficient data transfer arrangement between the
            Beta Office and the Ombudsman Information Management System
            (OIMS) to allow for: (1) inquiries and USCIS actions to be
            received by the Beta Office from OIMS; (2) Beta Office inputs
            to OIMS; (3) and statistical data and analyses provided in both
            directions.
      --Develop and establish inter-office and intra-office liaison
            methodologies and procedures, with particular emphasis on: (1)
            Beta Office to Analysis Branch; (2) Beta Office to Executive
            Officer staff; (3) Beta Office to OIMS staff; (4) Beta Office
            to USCIS office(s) in geographic area of responsibility; and
            (5) Beta Office to individuals/employers as appropriate.
      --Develop reporting vehicles for Beta Office operations and
            productivity.
      --Baseline Beta Office operations, duties and tasks under appropriate
            quality assurance standards.
      --Develop and produce procedural manuals to baseline Beta Office
            operations, duties and tasks.
      --Other tasks to be identified throughout the pilot program duration.

                      NATIONAL BORDER SECURITY ASSESSMENT

        Question. The Heritage Foundation issued a December 13, 2004 report
    entitled ``DHS 2.0: Rethinking the Department of Homeland Security,''
    which made a number of recommendations. One of them recommended that
    the Department of Homeland Security ``conduct a national assessment of
    the resources required for effective border security.''
        Given the comments by Deputy Secretary Loy and other about the
    threat facing our borders from a variety of groups, including Al Qaeda,
    is the Department actively conducting such an assessment and, if not,
    why not?
        Answer. Under the goal of Prevention within the United States
    Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan, one of the primary
    objectives is to: ``Secure our borders against terrorists, means of
    terrorism, illegal drugs and other illegal activity. We interdict
    terrorist activities by targeting unlawful migration of people, cargo,
    drugs and other contraband, while facilitating legitimate migration and
    commerce. The Department will enforce border security in an integrated
    fashion at ports of entry, on the borders, on the seas and before
    potential threats can reach our borders. Through the continued
    deployment of the appropriate balance of personnel, equipment and
    technology we will create ``smart borders.'' Not only will we create
    more secure United States borders, but in conjunction with
    international partners, we will extend our zones of security beyond our
    physical borders identifying, prioritizing and interdicting threats to
    our Nation before they arrive. We will develop and provide resources
    for a cohesive, unified enforcement capability that makes our border
    security effective, smarter and stronger.''
        DHS operating elements all share in this requirement and are
    conducting assessments within their area(s) of responsibility. For
    example, the Border Patrol has developed America's Shield Initiative,
    which will methodically assess the highest risk illegal border crossing
    corridors and, taking into account the topography and other natural
    barriers, allocate an efficient suite of aerial or ground sensors,
    personnel and equipment, to best secure the areas between the ports of
    entry. At the ports of entry, CBP is using and developing enhanced
    targeting systems and personnel to inspect the highest risk cargo,
    people and conveyances. In addition, radiation portal monitors are
    being deployed at our ports to screen cargo for potential weapons of
    mass effect. One of the tools enforcement officers at the border also
    employ is the United States--Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
    Technology (US-VISIT) program which incorporates biometrics (finger
    scans) into entry documentation to ensure we are only letting in those
    visitors with valid visas who have been cleared against terrorist
    watchlists and data bases holding fingerprints for criminals. Our
    national drug control strategy and related annual drug budget also
    contains information on the trans-national drug threat and resources
    devoted to combating this problem which complements our border security
    initiatives. These are a few examples of the family of plans, periodic
    reviews, acquisitions and programs that collectively contain the
    assessments and resource requirements for national border security.
    Annually, those requirements work their way through the budget process
    producing allocations to address the highest priority security
    concerns.

                            IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

        Question. Last year, Congress provided $5 million for a worksite
    enforcement program. For fiscal year 2006, you are requesting $18
    million for the same purpose. How have you used the fiscal year 2005
    funds? Please describe how the requested fiscal year 2006 funds will
    contribute to immigration enforcement.
        Answer. ICE will increase its presence at worksites, concentrating
    on employers in specific industries and geographical areas who
    intentionally violate the law or who have historically hired large
    numbers of unauthorized workers. ICE will also coordinate with
    Citizenship and Immigration Services to improve and expand verification
    services (Basic Pilot Program) to employers nationwide pursuant to the
    Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act of 2003.

                               DETENTION BEDSPACE

        Question. For the current fiscal year, Congress provided funding to
    fill 20,660 detention beds--yet the total beds that you are filling
    each week thus far is averaging 2,000 below the funded total. Why are
    these beds not being filled? What types or categories of aliens are not
    being held?
        Answer. ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) is detaining
    within its budget.
        National security cases and criminal aliens are ICE's priority in
    immigration enforcement. Daily, ICE is at 100 percent capacity of its
    available allocated funding for detention bed space, the majority of
    those detained being criminal aliens. This aggressive enforcement
    posture is reflected in last year's record 160,284 alien removals,
    including record 84,400 criminal aliens removed from the United States.
    ICE conducts case-by-case determinations on who will be processed for
    removal and who will be detained or released. ICE must also carefully
    consider the conditions of release and factor in community safety
    especially with regards to criminal aliens. ICE will continue to
    aggressively enforce immigration laws against criminal aliens and other
    aliens who pose security threats to the country and expects to continue
    to achieve increased removals.
        Question. Please provide the cost assumptions ICE would use
    regarding hiring the first year (fiscal year 2006) authorized level in
    the Intelligence Reform Act (800) for ICE investigators as well as the
    fiscal year 2007 annualization of those positions. Also, please provide
    the same information for the costs associated with meeting the first
    year authorized levels for detention bedspace (8,000).
        Answer. The fiscal year 2006 Budget includes substantial increases
    for increased detention and removal activities. The fiscal year 2006
    Budget includes $90 million for detention beds and additional detention
    and removal officers. This increase will fund 1,920 beds. In addition,
    the Budget provides $1.5 billion for detention and removal activities,
    $236 million (19 percent increase) over the 2005 enacted level. In
    addition, it also includes $39 million for the detention and
    repatriation costs of the Arizona Border Control Initiative. In
    addition, 140 new Special Agents will also be hired.

              INVESTIGATIONS OF ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT VIOLATIONS

        Question. The Department of Justice published revised regulations
    in the November 15, 2004 Federal Register that suggested that DOJ--not
    ICE--will have the lead role in investigations regarding illegal arms
    exports. I understand that in late December, you issued a message which
    stated, in part, ``In recent weeks some media reports have suggested
    that ICE may be ceding some of its authority to investigate violations
    of the Arms Export Control Act, and other export laws. I am writing
    today to inform you that nothing could be further from the truth.''
        This seems to be another troubling example of this new Department's
    willingness to cede authority to other Departments for some of the
    traditional roles played by its component parts over the years. The
    Secret Service had to assert its authority as the primary protector of
    the currency a few years ago and the Department lost some of its lead
    role in terrorist financing when former Secretary Ridge signed a
    Memorandum of Understanding with the former Attorney General. Even the
    Department's central role in coordinating terrorist threat information
    was lost--via Executive Order--almost before the ink was dry on the
    President's signature of the bill creating the Department.
        Please explain for the subcommittee the specific roles played by
    DHS--and ICE in particular--and DOJ in arms export investigations.
        Answer. For over 25 years, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    (ICE), has effectively investigated violations of U.S. export control
    laws. The export control laws enforced by ICE include the AECA, the EAR
    (concurrent jurisdiction with the Department of Commerce), the
    International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading with the
    Enemy Act. ICE uses its border search authority, certified undercover
    operations and U.S. money laundering statutes as additional tools to
    prosecute export violators and to assist in the identification and
    seizure of criminal proceeds of specified unlawful activities. As a
    result, ICE has successfully investigated hundreds of significant
    export violations.
        ICE will continue to vigorously pursue criminal violations of the
    export laws and will work jointly with the FBI in export investigations
    that have a nexus to FCI.

                       IMPACT OF THE ICE BUDGET SHORTFALL

        Question. In the fall of 2003, Congress began calling for the
    Department to respond to the fact that ICE had insufficient resources
    to perform its numerous immigration and other investigative duties. In
    both the fiscal year 2004 and 2005 Appropriations Acts, Congress
    stepped up to the plate and provided Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement with more funds than requested by the President to deal
    with the shortfall.
        Yet even with the full acknowledgement that ICE does not have
    sufficient funding, and that the shortfall has hampered its mission and
    damaged the morale of its agents, the President has refused to request
    supplemental funding to make ICE ``whole'' and to put it on a sound
    financial footing.
        Immigration and Customs Enforcement should be able to move forward,
    secure in the knowledge that it has the funds necessary to robustly
    investigate arms smugglers, terrorists, money launderers, child
    predators, as well as enforce existing immigration laws.
        However, ICE has been forced to take dramatic steps--including
    freezing hiring, stopping training, and limiting travel--for more than
    a year in order to live within its constrained budget. The hiring
    freeze and other spending restraints remain in place nearly 6 months
    into the new fiscal year. And now we are being warned that ICE faces a
    funding gap of nearly $300 million this year.
        Mr. Secretary, will you end fiscal year 2005 with fewer
    investigators than you started with at the beginning of Fiscal year
    2004? How has that reduction impacted your mission?
        Answer. The pending reprogramming will give ICE the ability to end
    fiscal year 2005 with at least the same, if not higher, level than
    fiscal year 2004. While ICE has been working through significant
    challenges during the past 2 years, at the same time, ICE has been
    achieving unparalleled success in its mission areas. During fiscal year
    2005, ICE will continue to work through its challenges and accomplish
    its critical mission.
        Question. Did you seek a supplemental to address the shortfall?
        Answer. The proposed reprogramming submitted on March 12, 2005, is
    sufficient to address the financial requirements of ICE.

          CONTAINER SECURITY INITIATIVE: EXPANSION AND REGULARIZATION

        Question. I have long been a supporter of the Container Security
    Initiative, or CSI. This program stations CBP personnel at
    participating foreign seaports to target and inspect ocean-going
    shipping containers prior to their being loaded on U.S.-bound vessels.
    While it was initially skeptical of the program, and reluctant to
    support the funds the Congress provided to begin its implementation, I
    am pleased that this Administration has embraced the CSI.
        The Administration seeks a modest increase of only $5.4 million for
    the CSI for a total fiscal year 2006 request of almost $139 million.
        During visits to some of these ports, my staff has been impressed
    with the generally cooperative relationships that have been formed
    between the CBP personnel and their host country counterparts. As they
    work together and develop increasing levels of trust, the mutually
    beneficial aspects of the CSI program to both our country and theirs
    become apparent. However, the one constant refrain we heard from both
    CBP and host-country officials was the fact that our people are
    generally sent over on a temporary basis. They are concerned that once
    the relationships have matured during the months that the CBP personnel
    are at a port, they are rotated out and the ``trust-building'' process
    must begin again.
        Could the effectiveness of the CSI be improved by resolving this
    temporary duty situation? What are you and the Department doing to
    ensure that CBP personnel based overseas for CSI implementation are
    able to stay at a port for a healthy period of time? Are there problems
    with our State Department representatives that need to be addressed? If
    so, has this been discussed by Secretary Chertoff with Secretary Rice?
        Answer. CBP is transitioning CSI temporary personnel to permanent
    status. This process requires DHS to coordinate with Department of
    State (DOS) as required by National Security Decision Directive 38
    (NSDD-38). DOS negotiates the placement of permanent personnel at
    foreign duty posts and also negotiates the appropriate level of
    Privileges and Immunities (P&I) that will be granted by the host
    government on behalf of all United States Government agencies.
        CBP is currently working with DOS to secure the placement of CSI
    personnel into a permanent status with the appropriate level of P&I.
    The DOS has placed a high level of priority on assisting CBP with this
    initiative.
        Question. Without naming any ports or countries, my staff has also
    heard that some participating ports are often very reluctant to
    cooperate with our requests for more robust inspection and screening of
    containers. If this is indeed the case, has consideration been given to
    lodging formal complaints with the host government--or even to
    suspending a specific port's participation in CSI?
        Answer. There are currently 35 operational CSI ports. The standard
    operating procedures for these CSI ports are in part governed by a
    jointly signed Declaration of Principles, in which the host government
    agrees to pre-screen containers that pose a risk for terrorism.
        It is also understood that due to host government sovereignty, the
    final decision on container examinations is at the discretion of the
    host government. However, CBP has authority to issue no load order for
    those who refused inspection.
        The CSI program has made significant progress in reaching agreement
    with host government agencies on what constitutes a high-risk container
    warranting an examination.
        Challenges still exist at one CSI location with regard to common
    and agreed upon definition/designation of high-risk containers
    warranting examination(s).
        CBP is confident that with the high percentage of CSI locations
    operating very effectively that continued progress will be made in this
    one location. CBP has, and continues to consult with State Department
    (including the U.S. Embassy in this location) to enhance the CSI
    operation.
        CBP has contemplated the alternatives and is receiving full support
    from all Departments and Agencies in making CSI efficient and
    effective.

              IMPACT OF LATE DUTY COLLECTION ON CRAWFISH INDUSTRY

        Question. As mentioned previously, in the past, U.S. industries
    like the U.S. crawfish industry have discovered only very late in the
    year that millions of dollars of antidumping duties for some reason
    have not been collected in their cases against Chinese imports as
    required by law. And, because CBP's failure to collect these duties has
    been discovered late in the year, the non-collection problem in these
    cases could not be addressed in time to enable the industries to obtain
    their yearly distribution of funds under the Byrd Amendment. As a
    consequence, the U.S. crawfish industry, for example, last year failed
    to receive at least $54.4 million it otherwise would have received in
    duties paid the United States Government by Chinese importers.
        It is my understanding that CBP's Office of Information Technology
    (OIT) is fully capable of running an already existing program much
    earlier in each calendar year, (meaning by the end of March at the
    latest), which would enable both CBP and U.S. industries to learn, much
    earlier, if millions of dollars in duties are not being collected by
    CBP from U.S. importers of foreign, dumped products.
        Why can't CBP's Office of information Technology determine by the
    end of this month if there are cases in which CBP is not collecting
    duties owed the United States Government and make that information
    publicly available as early as possible?
        Answer. CBP has responded to the revenue risk posed by the
    inability to collect certain AD/CVD duties through several means, one
    of which is the monitoring the AD/CVD bills and collections on a more
    regular basis. For the distribution of these funds to take place
    timely, it is necessary not only to monitor the timely collection of
    AD/CVD duties but also to ensure our revenue collection system is
    protected from possible circumvention and corporate solvency schemes
    designed to enter AD/CVD goods into the U.S. market with the intention
    of never paying the proper duties at time of liquidation.
        On a monthly basis, CBP is performing a risk-based review of
    outstanding bills for AD/CVD duties. The information has proven
    effective in identifying high-risk companies for AD/CVD evasion as well
    as improve the timeliness of our reviews. CBP is also focused on the
    long-term issue of the company's financial solvency and their ability
    to pay outstanding AD/CVD bills. The continuous bond guidelines for
    imports of certain agriculture/aquaculture imports were amended in July
    2004, to address just such an issue. Working with the Department of
    Commerce, we are addressing the AD/CVD issues that pose the greatest
    risk.

                     OVERTIME PAY WHILE RECEIVING TRAINING

        Question. I understand that since January 2, 2002, your bureau has
    not compensated CBP officers who train 6 days a week at the Federal Law
    Enforcement Training Center. In essence, this means that hundreds of
    newly trained CBP officers have had to work 6 days a week for up to 12
    weeks without any compensation for overtime.
        I support your ``One face at the Border'' initiative and
    acknowledge that the merging of certain legacy personnel into a new
    agency requires intensive training. But I think you would concur that
    this should not come at the expense of basic compensation for these
    professionals.
        How do you plan to correct the current overtime pay problem for
    these CBP officers who were trained between January 2002 and October
    2004?
        Answer. CBP is also concerned about equitable compensation for the
    employees who were engaged in training at the Federal Law Enforcement
    Training Center (FLETC) on a 6-day schedule. As you are aware, the
    Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) determined that the 6-
    day schedule was a necessity post-September 11 in order to accommodate
    the robust training needs of law enforcement personnel.
        The Government Employee Training Act prohibits the Federal agencies
    from compensating employees with overtime while its employees are
    engaged in training by, in or through government or non-government
    facilities (5 USC, 41). There are only a very few exceptions to this
    broad legislative prohibition, and the CBP has used these, where
    possible, to legally pay our employees so situated.
        Chief amongst these exceptions is a different set of regulations
    that applies to employees covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act
    (FLSA). Legacy INS inspectors, prior to conversion to the CBP Officer
    position and COPRA compensation, were covered by FLSA. We were
    therefore able to retroactively compensate them for the overtime worked
    on the 6 day during the FLETC training; these retroactive payments were
    made in December 2004. Because the agency determined that legacy
    Customs Inspectors were covered by COPRA and therefore exempt from
    FLSA, payment for the 6 day was not appropriate. The different outcomes
    regarding payment of overtime resulted from the fact that these groups
    of employees were covered by different laws at the time that the
    training occurred.
        The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) challenged the agency
    through arbitration concerning this issue, and the agency's legal
    interpretation was sustained by the arbitrator. This is a complex
    matter, and there is litigation still pending. It is also important to
    note that effective October 1, 2004, FLETC returned to a 5-day training
    week

                               CONTAINER SECURITY

        Question. In December 2004, the Department unveiled a draft cargo
    security strategy. This strategy stated that the Department proposes to
    adopt a ``zero-tolerance policy'' regarding the arrival of weapons of
    mass effect at our Nation's borders. I concur that preventing these
    weapons from entering the United States should be a priority. I always
    assumed that it was.
        The conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2005 Homeland
    Security Appropriations Act notes that over $200 million has been spent
    over the past 3 years on various projects designed to secure cargo
    containers entering this country. It also calls on the Under Secretary
    for Border and Transportation Security to--among other things--report
    to the Congress no later than February 8, 2005 on which DHS entity will
    have primary responsibility for cargo container security and the
    setting of shipping industry standards. To date we have not received
    this report. I assume your agency was closely involved in the drafting
    of this report.
        How closely were you involved in the drafting of the report and can
    you give us a sense of what it might recommend?
        Answer. In support of the Department's cargo security strategy
    proposal to adopt a ``zero-tolerance policy'' regarding the arrival of
    weapons of mass effect at our Nation's borders, CBP has deployed
    various types of radiation detection technology nationwide with the
    ultimate goal of screening 100 percent of containerized cargo for
    radiation.
        CBP has provided significant input to the draft report on Cargo
    Container Security, including information regarding the current status
    of major CBP initiatives addressing cargo security. In providing
    summary reporting, CBP outlined the desired end state; namely, securing
    and improving operations at existing ports; expanding operations to new
    critical international seaports and encouraging global efforts to
    enhance supply chain security.
        Question. Do you know when the Congress will receive the report
    which is now nearly 1 month overdue?
        Answer. The final report was submitted to the Committee on June 8,
    2005.

                          AMERICA'S SHIELD INITIATIVE

        Question. This Department seems obsessed with selling old wine in
    new bottles. The visa tracking program known for years as ``Entry-
    Exit'' became ``US-VISIT''. The Office for Domestic Preparedness became
    the Office for State and Local Government Coordination and
    Preparedness. Now the Border Patrol's Integrated Surveillance
    Information System, or ISIS, has been ``re-branded'' as ``America's
    Shield Initiative''--or ASI. Regardless of the new names for these old
    programs, the fact remains that our borders need to be protected.
        America's Shield Initiative is supposed to implement the Border
    Patrol National Strategy to strengthen U.S. borders to prevent the
    entry into the United States of terrorists and terrorist weapons,
    smugglers and illegal aliens, narcotics and other contraband.
        Our borders are under attack. The President's own experts know and
    are extremely concerned about the threat terrorists pose to our
    borders. In written testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee
    on February 16, Deputy Secretary Loy cited recently received
    information as the reason for his concern about the threat facing the
    Mexican border. He called it a ``very serious situation.''
        Given this threat, why does the request include only $20 million
    for improved technology on our borders, when CBP staff have estimated
    the full cost to be $250-300 million?
        Answer. The total funding for the ASI program in fiscal year 2006
    is $51 million, including $19.8 million for new investments. The fiscal
    year 2006 request for ASI when coupled with investments for additional
    Border Patrol Agents, helicopter replacements, enhancements to Border
    Patrol facilitates and tactical infrastructure will provide CBP with a
    complement of resources that will increase operational control of our
    Nation's borders.

                               IDENT/IAFIS UPDATE

        Question. The integration of the fingerprint databases created,
    maintained, and used by the Department of Homeland Security and the
    FBI--among other Federal agencies--continues to be a priority concern
    for the Congress and the members of this Subcommittee. It is critical
    that we know whether visitors to this country pose a risk to our
    citizens. As you know, the 9/11 hijackers came into the country on
    student and tourist visas.
        Your Border Patrol agents daily compare the fingerprints of illegal
    aliens apprehended at our borders against these databases. And it is
    your inspectors who--at a growing number of ports of entry--compare the
    fingerprints of visa holders and others wishing to enter this country
    against these same databases via the US-VISIT system.
        That is why I was concerned about the latest Department of Justice
    Inspector General report on this subject. It stated that of the 118,000
    visitors daily entering this country who are subject to US-VISIT, an
    average of about 22,350 individuals are referred for secondary
    inspection. According to DHS, by the end of this fiscal year, it
    expects to directly check only about 800 individuals each day against
    the full FBI fingerprint database known as the IAFIS Criminal Master
    File. This is less than 1 percent of the 118,000 daily visitors.
        Why are we checking less than 1 percent of visitors to this country
    against the FBI fingerprint data base?
        Answer. This response contains information considered Law
    Enforcement Sensitive and has been provided to the Committee under
    separate cover.
        Question. According to the Justice Inspector General report, the
    Justice Department will be increasing the FBI's capacity to handle
    fingerprint checks from 8,000 per day to 20,000 per day by October of
    this year. Will you be changing your policies so that CBP is fully
    utilizing that capacity to check the criminal backgrounds of visitors
    coming into this country?
        Answer. DHS and Department of State have found that IDENT achieves
    their counterterrorism, major law enforcement, and border management
    objectives in timeframes that meet operational needs for processing at
    ports of entry. Every day, DHS and DOS run checks on approximately
    115,000-120,000 individuals using IDENT. These checks are returned, on
    average, within 10 seconds at ports of entry for US-VISIT and within 15
    minutes for Department of State. Even if IAFIS increases its capacity
    to 20,000 fingerprint checks per day, it still cannot come close to the
    number of transactions currently generated by the US-VISIT program.
    Additionally, IAFIS returns results, on average, at best within 10
    minutes, most (such as those transmitted by State) within several
    hours. Currently, IAFIS does not have the capacity to meet our
    operational needs for inspecting visitors. However, we are continuing
    to work with the Department of Justice on finding ways to better
    integrate IAFIS with our existing systems, such as the successful
    integration at our Border Patrol stations.

                              COLLECTION OF DUTIES

        Question. Again, two of the problems that CBP has exhibited with
    respect to its administration of the Byrd Amendment are (1) Customs'
    failure to collect duties rightfully owed; and (2) its failure to pay
    duties already collected in a timely fashion to eligible U.S. companies
    and their workers.
        With respect to the second problem, Customs sometimes holds, in
    what are called ``clearing accounts,'' duties that are collected over
    many years--but for which the agency is awaiting final ``liquidation
    instructions'' from the Commerce Department prior to distribution.
    Often, the Commerce Department claims that such instructions have been
    sent, but CBP does not know they have been sent or never receives them.
        It has been proposed that one solution to this problem would be for
    CBP to publish the amount of funds held in CBP's clearing accounts, by
    administrative review period, so that CBP and Commerce can work
    together to determine which funds should have been liquidated and be
    available for distribution to eligible U.S. producers. CBP, in certain
    circumstances, has provided such information to Members of Congress
    upon request, but has refused to provide such information generally.
        Will you commit to identifying (i.e., publishing) the amount of
    funds held in clearing accounts by administrative review period?
        Answer. The CBP program is designed to generate a bill and collect
    the appropriate duties following the liquidation of each entry summary.
    However, importers are provided the opportunity to appeal these
    decisions, which may involve working with the Departments of Commerce
    and Justice to ultimately collect these AD/CVD duties. During this
    time, estimated duties collected on the entry summary are held pending
    the final liquidation and collection of these duties before they may be
    disbursed in accordance with the Continued Dumping Subsidy Offset Act.
        To ensure transactions are not inadvertently held and made
    available for disbursement, CBP initiated a plan to review and
    liquidate entries that may have been inadvertently held in clearing
    accounts. CBP provided extensive data to Commerce regarding entries by
    administrative review period that remain unliquidated. Feedback from
    Commerce on this analysis allowed CBP field offices to finalize 11,000
    old AD/CVD entries whose liquidation makes $12 million eligible for
    disbursement.
        This process also shed light on the cause of the backlog. Over two-
    thirds of old unliquidated entries (10 years old or more) resulted from
    a weakness in communicating liquidation instructions from Commerce to
    CBP. In most instances, CBP is holding old AD/CVD entries with import
    scenarios not covered by any published Commerce instructions. This is
    particularly true where instructions are contingent on a complex mix of
    importer, exporter and/or producer. In fiscal year 2005, CBP is
    concentrating on the liquidation of all remaining AD/CVD entries
    entered prior to 1995 that remain suspended.
        We are committed to working closely with Commerce to ensure that
    CBP promptly receives and acts upon all liquidation instructions
    issued. This will enable CBP to act as promptly as possible to initiate
    liquidation of the affected entries. This could potentially include a
    case-by-case comparison of orders.
        Question. Will you commit similarly to identifying the reasons for
    the lack of liquidation in cases where liquidation has not occurred for
    more than 4 years, and provide specific information with respect to
    those cases showing the amounts that remain unliquidated accompanied by
    an explanation of CBP's understanding of why the amounts have not been
    liquidated?
        Answer. The antidumping and/or countervailing duty (AD/CVD) modules
    within the Automated Commercial System (ACS) do not provide information
    by administrative review periods; therefore, CBP cannot track entries
    this way. Although one module exists to track liquidation instructions
    by review period--the Department of Commerce (DOC), who has sole
    responsibility for the AD/CVD modules, has not consistently provided
    this information.
        A liquidation clean-up project was initiated by CBP in response to
    the Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit on CBP's implementation and
    management of the Continued Dumping Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA). The OIG
    report expressed concern over CBP's unliquidated inventory of 1 million
    entries and states ``clearing up the liquidation backlog should be a
    priority given the substantial dollars involved.'' At present, CBP is
    holding an ``official'' inventory of 2.2 million suspended AD/CVD
    entries covering 593 cases. According to the AD/CVD duty module within
    ACS only 327 of those cases are current, the rest are either revoked
    (once open, but subsequently closed), terminated (investigated, but
    never issued), or in some stage of investigation (prior to a decision
    on issuance). CBP believes that many of these entries can be closed
    out.
        CBP provided extensive data to DOC regarding entries that remain
    unliquidated despite the fact that their associated AD/CVD cases were
    either terminated revoked or did not have instructions issued for a
    specific review period. Feedback from DOC on this analysis allowed CBP
    field offices to finalize 11,000 old AD/CVD entries whose liquidation
    makes $12 million eligible for disbursement pursuant to the Continued
    Dumping Offset Act of 2000.
        The liquidation clean-up project also shed light on the cause of
    the backlog. Over two-thirds of old unliquidated entries (10 years old
    or more) resulted from a breakdown in the liquidation instructions from
    DOC to CBP. In most instances, import specialists are holding old AD/
    CVD entries with import scenarios not covered by any published DOC
    instructions. This is particularly true where instructions are
    contingent on a complex mix of importer, exporter and/or producer. In
    fiscal year 2005, CBP is concentrating on the liquidation of all
    remaining AD/CVD entries entered prior to 1995 that remain suspended.
    Another reason that monies remain in the ``clearing accounts'' and are
    unavailable for distribution via CDSOA are the number of protests on
    bills issued by CBP. Payment of a protested bill is deferred until the
    protest decision is rendered. Currently many protests of AD/CVD
    liquidations are suspended pending the final decision by the Federal
    Appeals Court on International Trade.

                           TRAINING OF CBP INSPECTORS

        Question. With the creation of the CBP Officer position along with
    the ``One Face at the Border Initiative'', how does the CBP plan to
    make sure that one front-line employee can essentially perform job
    functions that were previously done by 3 different inspectors? Does DHS
    plan to create specialty experts for various legacy Customs and INS
    disciplines, or will every officer have to know every detail of both
    Customs and INS laws for both the primary and secondary inspections at
    the border?
        Answer. We are working towards creating an agency-wide law
    enforcement and national security culture, establishing unified primary
    inspections at all United States ports of entry and conducting
    secondary inspections focused primarily on combating terrorism and the
    traditional missions inherited by Customs and Border Protection. To do
    this efficiently and effectively, we have built a comprehensive
    training plan to guide our efforts.
        A very stringent 20-day pre-academy and 73-day basic academy
    training curriculum has been developed for the new CBP Officer. This
    training gives them the foundation needed to work in the primary
    setting upon their return to the port, while also giving them a basic
    understanding of what occurs in the secondary environments. The
    ultimate goal is to train the new CBP Officer to not only be equally
    competent in all of the former, individual areas of responsibility, but
    also to be better able to meet the expanded mission priority of anti-
    terrorism. Their Academy training is then followed by a rigorous 2-year
    on the job training program with approximately 40-45 weeks (depending
    on environment--air, land or sea) of structured training courses. They
    are given training in stages in order to absorb it and be afforded time
    on the job to perform the duties and become proficient.
        A comprehensive 37 module cross-training program has been built for
    those officers who previously performed an Agriculture, Customs or
    Immigration function at the ports. Training is being given to those
    officers on a ``just in time'' basis to perform the job they are being
    asked to do. Instead, CBP has created a curriculum that builds off of
    each previous module.
        CBP does have several courses which are considered to be advanced
    training and they would include those that involve analytical
    capabilities and the counter-terrorism response units in our secondary
    areas. CBP is currently exploring the possibility of having additional
    areas and courses designated as specialized training classes.
        Question. Explain how Customs cargo inspection expertise will not
    be lost in the transition to the new CBP officer position? Will the new
    CBP officer be required to thoroughly understand the massive harmonized
    tariff schedule for goods being imported into the United States as well
    as being responsible for thousands of pages that comprise the 400
    sections of Immigration and Nationality Act, hundreds of pages of INS
    Title 8 Federal Regulations and the full INS operations inspection
    manual?
        Answer. Currently, CBP's Office of Field Operations is developing,
    in conjunction with the Office of Training and Development, three
    separate Cargo cross-training modules for the air, land and sea
    environments. The primary recipients of this training will be the new
    CBP Officers and those legacy Immigration Officers new to the cargo
    environment. The training consists of both classroom instruction on
    cargo processing, and on-the-job cargo training under the supervision
    of an experienced CBP Officer. The training consists of reviewing bills
    of lading, processing all types of entries and conducting cargo
    examinations. Officers will receive this training on a ``just in time''
    basis as they are assigned to cargo primary.
        The expertise on classification using the harmonized schedule still
    resides with the Import Specialists. CBP Officers are introduced to the
    harmonized schedule in some of our Customs Secondary training as well
    as the cargo courses described above. We teach a basic understanding of
    the tariff, how to locate items, and how to do a basic classification/
    duty calculation. Final classification and duty calculations are done
    by the Import Specialist.
        It is expected that our training effort for the CBP Officer and CBP
    Agriculture Specialist will be conducted over the course of many years.
    CBP policy is that no officer may perform a function or a part of an
    assignment without having completed the appropriate training module,
    systems training and on the job training that are associated with those
    duties.
        Question. The Department's ``One Face at the Border Initiative''
    merged over 18,000 inspectors from the Customs Service, Immigration and
    Naturalization Service (INS), and the Animal Plant Health Inspection
    Service (APHIS), into one front line inspector position. As you know,
    current legacy Customs, legacy INS and the new CBP officers carry
    weapons and have arrest authority but are NOT considered Federal law
    enforcement officers. With the demands of the Federal law enforcement
    officer having evolved over the last decade, do you not believe that
    including Federal personnel such as Customs and Border Protection
    Officers, who not only protect our border from illegal drugs and
    facilitate lawful trade, but must now defend against weapons of mass
    destruction and terrorism and the risks that come with these added job
    responsibilities, deserve the recognition and benefits that go with
    Federal Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) status?
        Answer. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officers are, in many
    important respects, law enforcement officers, because they have the
    responsibility for enforcing laws, making arrests, and performing a
    critical enforcement and security mission. However, the position does
    not meet the current statutory definition for coverage under the
    special retirement provisions, which requires the primary duties to be
    either investigations of crimes or the apprehension and detention of
    criminals or individuals suspected of criminal activity.
        Question. The final personnel regulations greatly reduce the
    circumstances where collective bargaining will occur for CBP employees.
    Can you please tell the committee why the regulations prohibit
    collective bargaining over basic conditions of work, such as employees'
    rotation between different shifts or posts of duty, or scheduling of
    days off, including even post-implementation expedited bargaining? It
    appears the current procedures for bargaining over basic workplace
    matters such as scheduling have not hampered the agency's homeland
    security missions in any way.
        Answer. The successful assignment and deployment of the right
    employees and technology at precisely the right time is critical to the
    accomplishment of CBP's primary mission of preventing terrorists and
    implements of terror from entering the United States through and
    between our ports of entry. As a result, CBP must be able to assign and
    deploy employees, and to introduce the latest security technologies
    without delay. To assist in the facilitation of this requirement, the
    final DHS regulations provide CBP the flexibility to meet operational
    needs in these areas without subjecting such managerial decision to
    protracted negotiations and third party review by individuals or
    organizations who may not have a full understanding of the complexities
    of CBP's anti-terrorism mission and operational requirements.
        However, in order to balance these operational requirements with
    the interests of employees, the final regulations do provide an
    important mechanism for CBP to consult with employee representatives
    regarding the exercise of these flexibilities. Specifically, CBP will
    continue to inform labor organizations of its policies and procedures
    in these areas, to meet and discuss their views, concerns and
    recommendations with regard to the procedures by which these management
    flexibilities are exercised, and to attempt to reach agreement on such
    procedures where possible. Furthermore, where CBP institutes
    significant changes during the life of a collective bargaining
    agreement affecting the working conditions of employees, the final
    regulations provide for negotiations with labor organizations in those
    cases where the change is foreseeable, substantial and significant in
    terms of impact and duration on the whole or significant portion of the
    bargaining unit.
        This new framework for interacting with its labor organizations
    will better support and facilitate the accomplishment of CBP's critical
    national security mission, while providing a viable and streamlined
    avenue for the expression and consideration of employee interests and
    concerns.

                          BORDER PATROL--APPREHENSIONS

        Question. On average for the current fiscal year, how many illegal
    aliens is the Border Patrol apprehending each week? Of those, how many
    are considered to be criminal aliens or who require mandatory detention
    bedspace? Of the non-criminal/non-mandatory aliens, what is the average
    length of their stay in the United States in Border Patrol custody
    prior to be being removed/expelled?
        Answer. The Border Patrol has apprehended 457,900 illegal aliens to
    date in fiscal year 2005 thru March 11, 2005, approximately 19,908 per
    week.
        Of the total apprehensions to date in fiscal year 2005, 6,171 were
    determined to be criminal aliens (which equates to about 268 per week).
    The number of mandatory detention varies widely. Often the determining
    factor whether aliens are detained or released on their own
    recognizance depends on available bed space. The Border Patrol would
    like to detain all criminal aliens and non-Mexican apprehensions, but
    currently this is not feasible. The Border Patrol does not detain any
    aliens beyond 72 hours. Most detainees are turned over to Immigration
    and Customs Enforcement/Detention and Removal Office (ICE/DRO) before
    72 hours. ICE/DRO has advised us that aliens detained for Expedited
    Removal are routinely held for 30+ days. Criminal aliens and those
    required deportation hearings are held from 75-100 days.

                      BORDER PATROL--STATIONING OF AGENTS

        Question. On average, how long does it take to identify, hire,
    perform a background/suitability check and train a new Border Patrol
    agent prior to their being posted on the border?
        Answer. Advance recruitment for entry-level Border Patrol agents is
    done on a regular basis in order to have a nationwide standing
    inventory of eligible candidates who already have passed the written
    and oral exams, completed pre-appointment requirements (including
    background investigation, medical screenings, etc.), and are ready for
    final selection. It generally takes 6 to 8 months following tentative
    selection for a candidate to be added to the hiring queue for job
    placement. A candidate's position in the hiring queue is based on the
    written test score plus any applicable veterans preference points.
        When the Office of Border Patrol (OBP) identifies specific
    positions and locations to be filled, offers are extended to candidates
    in the hiring queue, their starting dates are established, and their
    training is scheduled. This process generally takes 2 to 4 weeks.
    Within a few days of their hire, the trainees are detailed to the
    Border Patrol Academy in Artesia, New Mexico for 19 weeks of basic
    training. Upon completion of basic training, the agents are returned to
    their home duty stations as certified, credentialed and armed agents.
    Formal post-Academy training continues on the job through the remainder
    of the first year.
        Question. How many Border patrol agents are currently stationed on
    the Southwest and Northern Borders? How many agents were stationed on
    each border on September 11, 2001? Prior to 9/11, what was the average
    placement of BP agents per mile on the Southwest and Northern Borders?
    What are those numbers today?
        Answer. There are currently 10,525 Border patrol agents stationed
    on the Southern and Northern borders with 9,501 on the Southern border
    and 1,024 on the Northern border. There were 9,459 Border patrol agents
    on the border on September 11, 2001, with 9,124 on the Southern border
    and 335 on the Northern border.
        The number of agents on duty per mile varies widely based on risk
    assessments, traffic patterns, deployed technology in an area and
    staffing and personnel changes. For example, the evening and night
    shifts typically have a higher staffing level than the day shift since
    most illegal intrusion attempts occur during the hours of darkness. As
    a result of these variables there is no standard average for agents on
    the border at any given moment.

                                 BORDER PATROL

        Question. Please provide the cost assumptions CBP would use
    regarding hiring the first year (fiscal year 2006) authorized level in
    the Intelligence Reform Act (2,000) for Border Patrol agents as well as
    the fiscal year 2007 annualization of those positions.
        Answer. The Intelligence Reform Act presents an ambitious and
    aggressive goal of doubling the size of the Border Patrol Agent cadre
    over 5 years. For fiscal year 2006, the Act authorizes an increase of
    almost 20 percent to the number of Agents now on-board. There are
    practical limitations to the number of Agents that the Border Patrol
    can efficiently and effectively absorb in a year. These limitations are
    the result of the existing Border Patrol infrastructure (including
    training facilities, Border Patrol stations, support personnel,
    communication systems and vehicle and equipment repair and maintenance
    facilities) and the numbers of agents that can be brought on annually
    without undermining the organizational cohesiveness needed for a law
    enforcement organization like the Border Patrol. Significant
    investments in the Border Patrol infrastructure are required as a
    prerequisite to, or at least concomitant with, the increase in the
    Agent cadre authorized by the Act.
        Assuming that the Border Patrol infrastructure receives
    corresponding budgetary increases, a $697.33 million would be required
    for fiscal year 2006 and $447.41 million will be required in fiscal
    year 2007. This includes to costs to effectively hire, train, equip and
    train each new border patrol agent. In addition, it includes costs for
    support personnel, infrastructure, relocations, and the IT support
    necessary to support such an increase.

                            WAR ON DRUGS--HISTORICAL

        Question. During the 1980s, there was a major focus on the ``War on
    Drugs'' on the Southwest Border. Additional resources were provided to
    the Border Patrol and then-Customs Service to engage in this fight.
    Please provide the total number of Border Patrol agents and Customs
    Service personnel (per year 1980-1990) as well as the number of those
    personnel in each agency who were dedicated to the Southwest Border.
        Answer. Shown below is a chart reflecting the number of Border
    Patrol agents and the number of those agents assigned to the southwest
    border.

                              BORDER PATROL AGENTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Fiscal year ending                       Nationwide
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1980....................................................           2,329
    1981....................................................           2,240
    1982....................................................           2,227
    1983....................................................           2,339
    1984....................................................           2,333
    1985....................................................           3,023
    1986....................................................           3,238
    1987....................................................           3,180
    1988....................................................           4,074
    1989....................................................           3,857
    1990....................................................           3,778
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        CBP does not have access to personnel data for the 1980-1990
    timeframe because the former U.S. Customs Service converted to the
    United States Department of Agriculture's Personnel System in 1992.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye

                  IMMIGRATION OFFICERS IN LOCAL USCIS OFFICES

        Question. Being able to talk to knowledgeable immigration officers
    in local USCIS offices is an important customer service, especially for
    elderly or illiterate USCIS customers. Although InfoPass provides a
    free, easy and convenient alternative to waiting in line, InfoPass has
    caused confusion for a number of Hawaii customers who were turned away
    at the local USCIS office because they did not know how to use
    InfoPass. The InfoPass program assumes that all immigrants are
    literate, have access to a computer, and are able to type on a computer
    keyboard. How is USCIS addressing this problem to enable access for
    elderly or illiterate customers with limited computer access and
    limited ability to use the Internet?
        Answer. USCIS encourages customers who need information about
    citizenship and immigration benefits and services to begin with our
    website, or call the toll-free customer service number. That is because
    many times they can get the information or assistance they need without
    having to make a trip to one of our offices.
        InfoPass is designed to let customers who do need in-person service
    make an appointment to reduce the time they may otherwise have to wait
    to be served once they arrive. USCIS prioritizes customers with
    appointments to try to ensure that they do not have to wait for
    service.
        However, we recognize that not all customers have access to the
    Internet. We do continue to offer very basic services, such as forms
    and standard materials, to customers who do not have an appointment. If
    it is determined that a customer needs a service that we provide by
    appointment, we will look to see if one is available that day. If not,
    and the customer indicates they simply do not have the Internet access
    to be able to make an appointment, we will help them make their
    appointment for another day.

                                    LIFE ACT

        Question. I am aware that the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act
    (LIFE Act) was enacted into law in 2001 to reduce the separation of
    immediate family members of U.S. citizens who are waiting abroad for an
    immigrant visa. The CIS Service Centers were taking approximately 8-12
    months to process immediate relative (form I-130) visa petitions. The
    LIFE Act created a new K nonimmigrant category that allows a spouse or
    child of a U.S. citizen to enter as a nonimmigrant on a K-3/K-4 visa to
    reunite with her family, and then apply for lawful permanent residency
    while in the United States.
        A U.S. citizen can file a K (form I-129F) visa petition for a
    spouse or child with the National Benefits Center once he files an
    immediate relative (form I-130) visa petition and receives a notice of
    receipt from a Service Center. In most cases, the U.S. citizen
    petitioner files both the I-130 and I-129F, assuming that the I-129F
    will be processed faster, due to the USCIS' announced policy to
    implement the LIFE Act. However, petitioners are finding that the
    National Benefits Center is slow to adjudicate K visa petitions and is
    taking approximately 7 months. Currently, three of the four Service
    Centers are processing immediate relative (form I-130) visa petitions
    faster than the National Benefits Center is taking to process the I-
    129F visa petitions (California Service Center=60 days; Vermont Service
    Center=3 months; Texas Service Center=6 months).
        The slowness of K-3 processing suggests that the K-3 program is not
    working as it was intended, which is to expeditiously reunite U.S.
    citizens with their spouses and minor children. Furthermore, U.S.
    citizens submitting K visa petitions waste valuable time and money
    ($165 for each petition) when the program fails to provide them with
    the service and benefits that were intended by Congress. What steps are
    being taken to effectively implement the K visa program?
        Answer. USCIS recently made a processing decision that caused the
    situation that we are now facing with Immediate Relative visa petitions
    and the processing of spousal nonimmigrant visa petitions.
        In reviewing our relative visa petition process, USCIS decided that
    the Service Centers should focus their efforts on relative visa
    petitions submitted by U.S. Citizens. As a result of these efforts, the
    Service Centers have done an outstanding job and have decreased
    processing times for this type of relative visa petitions dramatically.
        At the same time, the National Benefits Center (NBC), which
    processes the K-3 visa petitions, has continued to process K-3
    nonimmigrant spousal cases as quickly as resources will allow. The NBC
    is currently in the process of acquiring more adjudicative staff to
    focus on this workload. In the short term, NBC will realign existing
    staff, including utilization of overtime funds, to reduce the pending
    workload and achieve currency.
        Lastly, it has come to the attention of USCIS that if an applicant
    has both an approved I-130 petition and an approved K-3 petition at the
    same time, some local State Department Consulate offices make the
    decision to give the I-130 petition more weight than the K-3 petition.
    This decision has an impact on the Affidavit of Support and Medical
    requirements the petitioner must meet before State will issue an
    immediate relative visa associated with the I-130. USCIS will work with
    the Department of State to review this situation and identify a remedy
    to ensure that both types of visa categories are processed effectively.

                          F2B PREFERENCE VISA PETITION

        Question. When a petitioner, who originally filed an F2B preference
    visa petition, becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen, his petition is
    automatically given F1 status. For those who file petitions for
    relatives in the Philippines, they are penalized by becoming citizens
    because their beneficiaries' waiting period is extended by several
    years.
        Section 6 of the Child Status Protection Act allows a petitioner to
    opt out of converting to F1 status. The bill was enacted into law
    several years ago, but those individuals who applied to opt out are
    still waiting for the Attorney General to implement Section 6. The
    National Visa Center has informed petitioners that there is no
    timeframe for when this review will be completed. Can you please
    comment as to when can we expect this issue to be resolved?
        Answer. USCIS is in the process of writing a regulation to codify
    the Act. We hope it will be published by this summer. In the interim,
    USCIS has issued a policy memo to provide guidance on adjudicating
    requests tendered pursuant to Section 6 of the CSPA.

                         1-800 CUSTOMER SERVICE NUMBERS

        Question. I have heard from number of comments by USCIS customers
    that when they dialed the 1-800 customer service numbers, they received
    misinformation that led to sometimes fatal errors in their immigration
    application, because the customer service person is reading a script
    but is otherwise inexperienced in immigration procedures. Please
    comment on this customer service problem.
        Answer. All contract customer service representatives must take a
    USCIS approved course, and pass a USCIS approved exam, before they can
    answer phone calls. The course and exam are designed to ensure that
    representatives have an understanding of the terms and language of
    immigration, and can find the appropriate materials to convey
    information or offer services to a caller, before they assist
    customers.
        USCIS' commitment to the accuracy and quality of the assistance we
    offer is reflected in the fact that we require contractors to monitor
    each representative randomly twice a day to measure their performance
    against a set of customer service standards. We also have an
    independent company monitor calls against those standards. USCIS also
    uses a secret shopper program to test and evaluate performance against
    a set of future benchmarks for where we want to be in terms of service
    provision, and each month conduct a random phone survey of callers to
    get feedback about their experience.
        However, as with any verbal interchange we recognize that customers
    may not recall in its entirety a precise explanation or conversation,
    may misunderstand an explanation, or that, for all our controls, a
    representative may not convey the correct or complete answer. We also
    understand that customers searching for information about citizenship
    and immigration benefits, which can lead to life changing events, and
    work to improve our process to ensure that we are giving them all the
    options and information. One of USCIS' goals is to give each customer
    more control over the process, and to give them broader direct access
    to the scripts and other materials which we have available. Thus, we
    plan to put all of the scripts that we use to answer customer questions
    on our website so that customers can do their own research, and can
    print the information to be able to review it rather than just hearing
    it explained to them. In fiscal year 2005, USCIS plans to release
    additional standardized fact sheets and brochures, again to give
    customers direct access and something they can take with them. We plan
    to make this information available on our website, and in addition will
    make them available at our local offices, by phone, and through
    community partners.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy

                           PORTS OF ENTRY IN VERMONT

        Question. I understand there are a number of ports of entry in
    Vermont that will be overhauled in the next 5 years. What is the
    current schedule for construction at the each of the major ports in
    Vermont? What, if any, requests has DHS made to GSA for planning or
    construction projects in Vermont? Of all the border crossings
    nationwide, what is the typical length of highway before the actual
    border that is deemed part of the port? How far along the highway do
    the longest 5 extend into the United States?
        Answer. CBP has requested GSA to consider the Ports of Entry at
    Derby Line (I-91), Richford, and Norton, Vermont for construction in
    fiscal year 2007. In addition, CBP has requested GSA to begin design in
    fiscal year 2007 for Richford (Route 139) and Beebe Plain, Vermont with
    construction to follow in fiscal year 2009.
        In regards to the typical distance between the land ports of entry
    (LPOE) and the international boundary, there are several key factors
    carefully considered to ensure the safe passage of traffic and the
    trade while maintaining safety for CBP Officers and the public.
        Key factors used to determine the LPOE location relative to the
    international border are:
      --Line of Sight.--An adequate line of sight (direction, slope,
            elevation, and obstacles) must be maintained between
            operational functions at the LPOE. The distance between the
            LPOE and the international border should be minimized to ensure
            that activity in the area is effectively observable.
      --Alignment of Vehicles.--The alignment of passenger vehicles and
            commercial trucks preparing to enter through Radiation Portal
            Monitors (RPM) and License Plate Readers (LPR) on the way to
            the primary inspection booth is critical. The distance required
            for safe vehicular alignment leading up to the LPR/RPM is 40
            feet for passenger vehicles and 90 feet for commercial trucks.
      --Obstacles.--There should be no obstacles (buildings, vegetation)
            located between the LPOE and the international border that
            would impede the operational effectiveness of the port or
            degrade safety and security for the CBP Officers and traveling
            public.
        The vast majority of our LPOEs boundaries begin within 100 feet or
    less of the international border. We do have several locations where
    the distance is greater as a result of environmental wetlands or other
    considerations that precluded construction closer to the border. At one
    location in Minnesota we are planning to be approximately one-half mile
    from the border but will address security requirements through the use
    of video monitoring systems. It is standard CBP policy to maintain a
    clear line of sight between the operations within the LPOE and the
    international border to ensure that our officers monitor all traffic
    entering and departing the United States.

                           BORDER PATROL CHECKPOINTS

        Question. I have received many complaints and concerns from my
    constituents about the checkpoint that has been established on
    Interstate 91 in Vermont. One of my constituents, a naturalized citizen
    who lives in Vermont and works in New Hampshire, has been stopped
    repeatedly and questioned about his legal status. Other constituents
    have expressed concern that racial profiling is occurring at the
    checkpoint. (A) Is there anything you would be willing to do to prevent
    naturalized citizens from being stopped repeatedly at this checkpoint,
    such as offering a frequent traveler card? (B) What measures do your
    officers take to avoid racial profiling?
        Answer. Border Patrol traffic checkpoints are operated in
    accordance with the Constitution of the United States; governing
    judicial rulings; and the Immigration and Nationality Act, Section
    287(a) (8 U.S.C. Section 1357). The principal court case that affirmed
    Border Patrol authority to conduct traffic checkpoints was U.S. v.
    Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 556 (1976).\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Additional case law references: U.S. v. Gordo-Marin, 497
    F.Supp. 432 (S.D Fla. 1980), and U.S. v. Maxwell, 565 F.2d 596 (9th
    Cir. 1977).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Border Patrol traffic checkpoints, such as the proposed permanent
    facility on Interstate 91, are a critical component of CBP's
    multilayered border security strategy. The Border Patrol maintains over
    50 such traffic checkpoints nationwide. Traffic checkpoints have been
    established to restrict the criminal elements' ability to use our
    highway system to further their entry into the United States. In
    addition, enforcement operations around the checkpoints target those
    attempting to avoid inspection by circumventing the checkpoints
    themselves, further enhancing homeland security. CBP has had
    discussions regarding the integration frequent traveler technology like
    NEXUS and PALS into the design of the permanent Interstate 91
    checkpoint to ensure that regular highway users are impacted to the
    minimum extent possible.
        The Border Patrol does not condone racial profiling, in fact during
    basic training Agents are instructed on how to perform their duties
    without profiling certain classes of people. Any and all allegations of
    racial profiling are taken seriously and are reported to the Office of
    Inspector General for investigation.

                         LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT CENTER

        Question. In your testimony, you mention that the Law Enforcement
    Support Center's workload increased by 12 percent last year. A number
    of the employees who are making this increase in productivity possible
    are temporary employees who have worked for the LESC for up to 4 years,
    with the expectation they would have the opportunity to become
    permanent employees. What are your plans to convert these temporary
    employees to permanent positions?
        Answer. Law Enforcement Technicians (LETs) serving under term
    appointments have contributed significantly to the overall success of
    the ICE Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC). ICE recognizes that the
    workload of the LESC is a permanent one and shares the view that the
    staff should be permanent as well. It has been the practice of the LESC
    to convert term appointments to career appointments as permanent
    vacancies become available. It has also been the practice of the LESC
    to regularly extend term appointments up to their maximum duration.
    However, LESC term LETs are serving under term appointments that have a
    maximum duration of 4 years under Federal personnel rules and cannot be
    further extended. The majority of LETs serving under term appointments
    will not reach their 4-year limit until the spring and summer of
    calendar year 2006. Only one will reach the 4-year limit in calendar
    year 2005. The remainder will not reach their 4-year limit until
    calendar year 2007. As term appointments approach their expiration
    dates, ICE will explore all available options consistent with Federal
    personnel rules, budgetary considerations and good management to retain
    these valuable employees.

                             DEBT MANAGEMENT CENTER

        Question. The ICE Debt Management Center is an integral part of the
    financial stability of the bureau. Responsible for collecting debts
    owed to the agency, the center is an important part of balancing the
    books at ICE. Has the bureau wide hiring freeze affected the ability of
    this debt management center and all other financial offices perform
    their duties? Have you considered providing some flexibility from the
    hiring freeze for offices with financial responsibilities? As these
    offices loose individuals from normal attrition, it seems ironic that
    the offices with responsibilities to correct the financial situation
        Answer. As with all of ICE Financial Management operations, the
    Debt Management Center is committed to fully addressing all of its
    financial management responsibilities in a timely manner. If approved
    by Congress, the ICE reprogramming proposal will provide additional
    support to the Debt Management Center (DMC), and the DMC, along with
    ICE's Office of Financial Management is closely monitoring ongoing
    operations to ensure that essential and critical financial management
    requirements are completed in a timely manner.
        The ICE OFM has gone through a re-engineering process, finalized in
    December 2004. The re-engineering format allows the OFM to address
    audit and financial statement activities (abnormal balances, suspense,
    cash reconciliation, trading partners, reconciliation of unliquidated
    obligations, and analysis) as well as specific financial transactional
    activities for our customer base (Debt Management Center, Dallas
    Finance Center, financial system support of FFMS and Travel services).

                           LEGAL ORIENTATION PROGRAMS

        Question. I have supported and helped to obtain funding for Legal
    Orientation Programs for immigration detainees, with the view that the
    immigration system works better for all parties when detained aliens
    are informed as to whether they have a legitimate legal case to stay in
    the United States. Congress appropriated $1 million for orientation
    proceedings in fiscal year 2003, but DHS has still not transferred that
    money to the Executive Office for Immigration Review so the proceedings
    can take place. Can you tell me when that money will be transferred,
    and why it has taken so long?
        Answer. ICE has provided $3 million to the Executive Office of
    Immigration Review (EOIR) for the Legal Orientation Program covering
    services in fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005. The funding was
    provided in increments of $1million at the following times:
        $1 million to EOIR in late July 2002 (fiscal year 2002).
        $1 million to EOIR in February 2004 (fiscal year 2004).
        $1 million to EOIR in February 2005 (fiscal year 2005).
        As indicated above, the first $1 million was issued very late in
    fiscal year 2002. EOIR used this fiscal year 2002 funding to award a
    contract for legal orientation program services that were provided
    throughout fiscal year 2003. EOIR continued to provide legal
    orientation services based on funding provided in February 2004, and
    currently provides legal orientation program services with an
    additional $1 million provided in February 2005. There have been no
    gaps in providing legal orientation program services because of lack of
    funding.

                  CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES FUNDING

        Question. The President's budget proposes a 50 percent cut in the
    amount of directly appropriated funds for the Bureau of Citizenship and
    Immigration Services (CIS), from $160 million to $80 million. Congress
    has already substantially cut the direct appropriations you receive. At
    the same time, the President has proposed a guest worker program that
    would significantly increase the CIS workload. (A) Why is the President
    proposing a 50 percent cut in an agency whose workload he wants to
    increase dramatically? (B) Are you at all concerned that a system of
    immigration services that is supported almost entirely by user fees--
    including the expansion of ``premium processing'' fees paid to ensure
    faster processing--will be unfair to immigrants of lesser means?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2006 Budget includes $1.854 billion for
    USCIS ($80 million appropriated; $1.774 billion fees), an overall
    increase of $79 million, or 4 percent over the fiscal year 2005 level.
    The fiscal year 2006 Budget is the final year of the President's 5-year
    plan to achieve a 6-month cycle time standard for all immigration
    benefit applications, including a total of $100 million to support
    backlog elimination efforts as well as improvements in application
    processing. This would bring the 5-year total for this aggressive
    initiative to $560 million. Backlog elimination funds are reduced by a
    total of $80 million. $60 million associated with a one-time increase
    in the fiscal year 2005 USCIS budget, and $20 million for Digitization
    efforts appropriated by the Congress, but not specifically requested in
    the President's budget. The fiscal year 2006 Budget will allow USCIS to
    eliminate the backlog by the end of fiscal year 2006.
        USCIS is committed to meeting the President's backlog elimination
    goals. The key to processing temporary worker petitions quickly and
    efficiently is simplicity in the design. Establishing a program that
    involves a high degree of employer/government partnership, thorough
    background checks, and electronic registration and information sharing
    among participating Departments is critical. Based upon the legislation
    that Congress passes, USCIS will use fees to support applicant
    registration, processing and documentation.
        While Federal guidelines require full cost recovery of services
    provided, USCIS does have the ability to waive fees on a case-by-case
    basis. Any applicant or petitioner who has an ``inability to pay'' the
    fees may request a fee waiver. In determining ``inability to pay,''
    USCIS officers will consider all factors, circumstances, and evidence
    supplied by the applicant including age, disability, household income,
    and qualification within the past 180 days for a Federal means-tested
    benefit.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Cochran. We are going to continue to review the
    budget request for fiscal year 2006 for the Department of
    Homeland Security. Our next hearing will be on Wednesday, March
    9, in Room 124 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. At that
    time the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and
    Response, Mr. Michael Brown, and the Acting Director of the
    Office of State and Local Government Coordination and
    Preparedness, Mr. Matt Meyer, will be here to discuss the
    budget request for the programs under their jurisdictions.
        Until then, the subcommittee stands in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., Wednesday, March 2, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]