Immigration Related Border Security Legislation in the 109th Congress

CRS Report for Congress
Immigration Related Border Security Legislation
th
in the 109 Congress
Updated September 19, 2006
Blas Nuñez-Neto
Analyst in Domestic Security
Domestic Social Policy Division
Janice Cheryl Beaver
Information Research Specialist
Knowledge Services Group

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Immigration Related Border Security Legislation
in the 109^th Congress
Summary
Border security is considered a central aspect of the United States’ overall
homeland security. Securing the border involves controlling the official ports of
entry (POE) through which legitimate travelers and commerce enter the country, as
well as monitoring and patrolling the nation’s land and maritime borders to detect
and interdict the entry of illegal persons and contraband. The Department of
Homeland Security’s Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the lead
federal agency charged with securing our nation’s borders at and between POE.
In the 109^th Congress, there are a large number of bills currently pending that
would address some of the immigration issues associated with border security by
focusing on the movement of people into the country, both at POE and illegally
across the U.S. international land border. This report will focus on the main
legislative issues facing the 109^th Congress relating to the movement of people across
the border. It will not address interior enforcement issues or cargo security issues.
At POE, CBP officers screen travelers attempting to enter the country by air,
land, or sea to ensure that unwanted or dangerous people do not enter the country.
The main issues facing Congress at POE include expanding the biometric entry exit
system currently being used to screen entrants; and whether the resources currently
fielded by the agency (including personnel, technology, and infrastructure) are
adequate to the task at hand.
Between POE, United States Border Patrol (USBP) agents attempt to detect and
prevent the illegal entry of terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, unauthorized
aliens, and contraband. A number of issues between POE that would be addressed
by legislation are currently pending in the 109^th Congress, including whether DHS
has a viable border security strategy; whether the USBP has the adequate resources
to achieve operational control of the border; the expansion of fencing along the
border with Mexico; allowing the military to patrol or surveil the border; allowing
the states or civilians to patrol the border; expanding the expedited removal program
or requiring mandatory detention of aliens apprehended between POE; and removing
Air and Marine Operations from CBP and making it a separate office within DHS.
The following bills are included in this report: H.R. 98, H.R. 193, H.R. 255,
H.R. 418, H.R. 688, H.R. 780, H.R. 1196, H.R. 1320, H.R. 1502, H.R. 1805, H.R.

1815, H.R. 1817, H.R. 1912, H.R. 1986, H.R. 2092, H.R. 2330, H.R. 3137, H.R.

3333, H.R. 3622, H.R. 3693, H.R. 3704, H.R. 3938, H.R. 4009, H.R. 4083, H.R.

4099, H.R. 4238, H.R. 4240, H.R. 4283, H.R. 4284, H.R. 4285, H.R. 4312, H.R.

4313, H.R. 4412, H.R. 4437, H.R. 4830, H.R. 4871, H.R. 4958, H.R. 5017, H.R.

5067, H.R. 5122, H.R. 5456, H.R. 5631, H.R. 5813, H.R. 5814, H.R. 6061, H.R.

6091, S. 12, S. 1033, S. 1362, S. 1374, S. 1438, S. 1823, S. 1875, S. 1916, S. 2049,

S. 2061, S. 2117, S. 2368, S. 2377, S. 2391, S. 2394, S. 2454, S.Amdt. 3192, S.
2611, S. 2612, S. 3564, S. 2766, S.Amdt. 4788. This report will be updated
periodically as events warrant.

Contents
Current Legislative Developments.....................................1
Border Security Between Ports of Entry................................3
Border Security Strategy........................................3
Border Fencing and Other Barriers................................4
Military or Civilian Assistance for the Border Patrol..................6
U.S. Military at the Border...................................6
Civilian Patrols...........................................7
Border Resources..............................................8
Manpower ...............................................8
Surveillance ..............................................9
Infrastructure ............................................10
Other Resources..........................................11
Expedited Removal...........................................12
Expansion of the Program..................................12
Mandatory Detention......................................12
Air and Marine Operations/CBP Air..............................13
Organization .............................................13
National Capital Region (NCR) Airspace......................13
Miscellaneous Provisions.......................................13
Border Tunnels...........................................13
Coordination with Tribal Governments........................14
Shadow Wolves..........................................14
Using Homeland Security Grants for Border Security Activities....14
Border Grant Program.....................................14
Injured Alien Data Collection...............................15
Border Security Advisory Committee and Center of Excellence....15
Border Security Threat Assessment and Exercise................15
Border Security Coordination and Management.................15
Improving Homeland Security Information Exchange............15
Border Security on Federal Land.............................15
Border Security at Ports of Entry.....................................16
Biometric Entry Exit Program...................................16
US-VISIT ...............................................16
Other Technology Programs....................................17
POE Resources...............................................18
Manpower ..............................................18
Technology ..............................................18
Infrastructure ............................................19
Miscellaneous Issues..........................................19
Evasion of Inspection/Failure to Obey CBP Officers.............19
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.........................20
One Face at the Border.....................................20
CBP and ICE Organizational Division........................20
Canine Units............................................21

Appendix B. Immigration Related Border Security Legislation,
by Issue Area................................................26

Immigration Related Border Security
th
Legislation in the 109 Congress
Current Legislative Developments
On May 11, 2005, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act (P.L. 109-
13) was enacted with a provision relating to the construction of border fencing. This
provision originated in H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act, which was appended to H.R.
1268. H.R. 418 was also passed as a standalone measure in the House on February

10, 2005, and was referred to the Senate on February 17, 2005. On December 6,

2005, H.R. 4312, the Border Security and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005, was
reported out of the Homeland Security Committee. On December 16, 2005, H.R.
4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of

2005, was passed by the House; the bill was referred to the Senate on December 17,

2005. On March 16, 2006, S. 2454 was introduced by Senator Frist. On March 8,

the Senate Committee on the Judiciary began marking up Senator Specter’s draft
comprehensive immigration reform bill. Senator Specter’s draft bill was reported out
of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on March 27 and a modified version of the
bill was introduced as a substitute amendment, S.Amdt. 3192, to S. 2454 on March
30. On April 6, 2006, the Senate rejected a motion, by a vote of 39 to 60, to invoke
cloture on the Specter substitute. On April 7, 2006, the Senate rejected a motion to
invoke cloture on a motion to recommit S. 2454 to the Senate Judiciary Committee
with instructions that it be reported back with the Hagel amendment (Hagel-Martinez
compromise) on a 38 to 60 vote. That same day the Senate rejected, on a 36 to 62
vote, a motion to invoke cloture on S. 2454.¹ The Hagel-Martinez compromise, with
some modifications, was subsequently introduced in the Senate on April 24, 2006,
as the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611/S. 2612).² S. 2611,
the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, was passed by the Senate on
May 25, 2006.
H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006, was introduced in the House, referred
to the Homeland Security Committee, and reported out of the Committee on
September 13, 2006. H.R. 6061 was passed by the House on September 14, 2006
by a vote of 283-138. Senate Amendment 4788 was added to the Department of
Defense Appropriation Bill, H.R. 5631, on August 2, 2006, and would appropriate

¹ A list of Senate floor votes on S. 2454 is available at
[ ht t p: / / www.cq.com/ nar r owsear ch.do?dat a Sour ce=f l oor vot e &sear c hIndex=2] .
² S. 2611 and S. 2612 are identical. S. 2611, introduced by Senator Specter with Senators
Hagel and Martinez among its cosponsors, has been placed on the Senate legislative
calendar. S. 2612, introduced by Senator Hagel with the same cosponsors as S. 2611, has
been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

$1.8 billion to the National Guard for the construction of border fencing. H.R. 5631
was passed by the Senate on September 7, 2006, and is currently in Conference.
Introduction
Before September 11, 2001, border security fell piecemeal under the mandate
of many diverse federal departments, including but not limited to the Department of
Justice (the Immigration and Naturalization Service); the Department of the Treasury
(the Customs Service); the Department of Agriculture (the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service); and the Department of Transportation (the Coast Guard). In the
aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, policymakers have focused
a great deal of attention on securing America’s international borders. The Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) consolidated most federal agencies operating
along the U.S. borders within the newly formed Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), which was charged with securing the nation against a potential terrorist
attack.³ Most of these agencies were located in the Directorate of Border and⁴
Transportation Security (BTS), which was charged with securing the borders;
territorial waters; terminals; waterways; and air, land, and sea transportation systems
of the United States; and managing the nation’s ports of entries. The FY2006 DHS
Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-90) eliminated BTS and required the two of its
component agencies, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), to report directly to the Secretary’s office.⁵ The U.S.
Coast Guard was established as, and remains, a standalone division within DHS.
The concept of border security is an intricate part of overall homeland security.
Border security involves securing the many means by which people and things can
enter the country. Operationally, this means controlling the official ports of entry
(POE) through which legitimate travelers and commerce enter the country, and
patrolling the nation’s land and maritime borders to safeguard against and interdict
illegal entries. Within DHS, CBP is the agency charged with securing the nation’s
international border at and between POE.
At POE, CBP Officers screen the goods and travelers that are attempting to
enter the country to ensure that unwanted or dangerous people and things to do not
enter the country. Between POE, Border Patrol Agents attempt to detect and prevent
the illegal entry of terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, unauthorized aliens, and
contraband. Although the movement of goods into the country is clearly an
important aspect of the overall security of the U.S. borders, this report will focus on

³ For a more detailed information on DHS, see CRS Report RL31549, Department of
Homeland Security: Consolidation of Border and Transportation Security Agencies, by
Jennifer E. Lake.
⁴ For brief overview of the agencies involved in border security, please refer to CRS Report
RS21899, Border Security: Key Agencies and Their Missions, by Blas Nunez-Neto.
⁵ The other components of BTS are the Federal Protective Services, the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, and the Transportation Security Agency.

the movement of people into the country⁶ because that has been the main issue
addressed by most of the border security legislation currently being considered in the
109^th Congress. Cargo security issues are planned to be discussed in a forthcoming
report.
This report is organized to reflect the main border security issues relating to the
movement of people into the country, as indicated by the legislation currently
pending in the 109^th Congress. As such, it focuses on legislation with provisions
affecting the movement of people into the country between POE, and at POE.
Appendix A includes a table that tracks the status of the bills that are discussed in
this report. Appendix B includes a table that groups the bills discussed by issue area.
Border Security Between Ports of Entry⁷
The United States Border Patrol (USBP) within CBP is charged with securing
the U.S. international land border between POE, detecting and preventing the entry
of terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, and illegal aliens into the country, and
interdicting drug smugglers and other criminals along the border. As such, the USBP
patrols over 8,000 miles of the U.S. international borders, including the roughly
2,000 mile Southern and 4,000 mile Northern borders. In its efforts to secure the
border, the USBP deploys a wide range of resources, including technologies such as
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), sensors, and cameras; infrastructure, including
fences, vehicle barriers, and checkpoints; on-road and off-road vehicles, boats, fixed^th
wing aircraft, and helicopters. There has been much debate in the 109 Congress
concerning whether DHS has sufficient resources to adequately fulfill its border
security mission. Many of the issues identified between POE relate to resource
requirements and allocation strategies.
Border Security Strategy
Some bills include provisions that would require the Secretary of DHS to submit
a comprehensive plan for securing the United States’ borders. H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437,
H.R. 5067, S. 2454, S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611, S. 2612 and S. 3564 all include a similar
provision that would require the Secretary to submit a National Strategy for Border
Security within one year of enactment. The Strategy would include, among other
things, a surveillance plan for monitoring the border; an assessment of the threat
posed by terrorists who might attempt to infiltrate the U.S. along the border; a risk
assessment of all POE and all borders regarding the prevention of unlawful entry and
of contraband smuggling, including weapons of mass destruction; an assessment of
the best mix of technology, equipment, personnel, and training needed to address

⁶ For an expanded look at immigration related legislation, including interior enforcement,
please refer to CRS Report RL33125, Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th
Congress, by Andorra Bruno, Ruth Ellen Wasem, Alison Siskin, Blas Nunez-Neto, and
Stephen Vina.
⁷ For an extended discussion of the U.S. Border Patrol and border security between POE,
please refer to CRS Report RL32562, Border Security: The Role of the U.S. Border Patrol,
by Blas Nunez-Neto.

security vulnerabilities; an assessment of the staffing, resource, technology, and
detention needs for border security functions; an assessment of the effect of existing
efforts and technologies used for border security on civil rights, personal property,
privacy rights, civil liberties and vulnerable populations such as trafficking victims
and a timeline for implementation of the plan.
Border Fencing and Other Barriers
In the early 1990s, the USBP incorporated the construction of physical barriers
directly on the border into their National Strategic Plan as part of the “Prevention
Through Deterrence” strategy,⁸ which called for reducing unauthorized migration by
placing agents and resources directly on the border abutting population centers. In
1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration
Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996⁹ which, among other things, expanded an
existing fence in San Diego by authorizing the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) to construct a triple-layered fence along the same 14 miles of the US-
Mexico border near San Diego. Construction of the last 4.5 miles of the triple fence
stalled, however, due to environmental concerns raised by the California Coastal
Commission.¹⁰
A number of bills introduced in the 109^th Congress include provisions relating
to the construction of border fencing and other barriers. The REAL ID Act of 2005
(H.R. 418) was incorporated into the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
(H.R. 1268), which eventually became P.L. 109-13, enacting a provision expanding
the Secretary’s authority to waive legal requirements in order to ensure expeditious
construction of authorized barriers and roads. The Secretary recently announced that
he will use this new authority to complete construction of the San Diego fence. H.R.
4083 would amend the INA to direct the Secretary to construct a fence along the
entire southwest border and would authorize $2 billion for this purpose. S. 1916
includes a provision requiring the Secretary to study the feasibility and cost of
constructing a triple fence along the southwest border. S. 2049 would direct the
Secretary to construct whatever fencing and other infrastructure is necessary to
achieve operational control of the border. H.R. 5456 would authorize the Secretary
to construct fencing along portions of the southwest border as deemed necessary by
the Secretary. H.R. 4313, S. 2061, S. 2117, S. 2368, and S. 2377 would direct the
Secretary to construct a two layered reinforced fence along the southern international
land border, starting with high alien traffic and smuggling areas. H.R. 4313, S. 2117,
S.2368, and S. 2377 would also direct the Secretary to create a border zone within
100 yards of the land border and would require other agencies to transfer any land in
their jurisdiction that falls inside the border zone to DHS without reimbursement.

⁸ For an expanded discussion of the USBP, please refer to CRS Report RL32562, Border
Security: The Role of the U.S. Border Patrol, by Blas Nunez-Neto.
⁹ See P.L. 104-208, Div. C. IIRIRA was passed as part of the Omnibus Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 1997.
¹⁰ For an expanded discussion of the USBP’s border fence, please refer to CRS Report
RS22026, Border Security: Fences Along the U.S. International Border, by Blas Nunez-
Neto and Stephen Vina.

H.R. 4313 and S. 2117 would also direct the Secretary to undertake a review and
value assessment of all property in the border zone owned by private parties and state
and local governments, and to begin acquiring this property as soon as practicable.
S. 2394 would direct DHS to initiate a process for planning, constructing, and
maintaining a permanent barrier or wall along appropriate areas of the border.
H.R. 4437, as amended, and H.R. 6061, would direct DHS to construct two
layered reinforced fencing and additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras
and sensors along roughly 730 miles¹¹ of the southern border, including 20 miles
around Tecate, CA; from Calexico, CA to Douglas, AZ; from Columbus, NM to El
Paso, TX; from Del Rio, TX to Eagle Pass, TX; and from Laredo, TX to Brownsville,
TX. H.R. 4437 would designate the roughly 370 mile portion of the fence between
Calexico, CA and Douglas, AZ a priority area and would direct DHS to ensure that
“an interlocking surveillance camera system” is installed along this area by May 30,
2006, and that the fence is completed by May 30, 2007; H.R. 6061 would also
designate those areas as priority areas but would push back the deadlines by one year.
H.R. 4437 would also designate a 30 mile stretch around Laredo, TX as a priority
area and would direct DHS to complete this fencing by December 31, 2006; H.R.
6061 would also designate this stretch as a priority area but would push the deadline
for its completion back by two years to December 31, 2008.
S. 2454, S.Amdt. 3192, as amended, S. 2611, S. 2612, and S. 3564 would
replace the current border fencing in the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector with a
reinforced double layer fence and would direct DHS to construct 150 miles of vehicle
barriers in the Sector. S. 2454 would require that fencing be extended 25 miles west
of Naco, AZ; S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611, S. 2612 and S. 3564 would require that
fencing be extended at least 10 miles west of Naco. Each of the bills would also
expand the fencing in Yuma Sector, would require that the double or triple layer
fence constructed under its provisions be extended at least two miles beyond urban
areas, and would add 50 miles of vehicle barriers to the Sector. Lastly, S. 2454,
S.Amdt. 3192, as amended, S. 2611 and S. 2612 would direct DHS, in conjunction
with other federal agencies, to submit a study on the construction of a system of
barriers along the southern and northern borders, including information on the need
for such a system, the costs associated with constructing the system, the system’s
potential environmental impacts, and the system’s potential impact on trade or
tourism.
S. 2611, as amended, and S. 3564 would further direct DHS to construct 370
miles of triple-layered fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers in areas along the
southwest border most often used by smugglers or illegal aliens to enter the United
States within two years of enactment. S. 2611 would require Federal, State, and
Local authorities to consult with their counterparts in Mexico prior to the
construction of any border barriers in order to lessen tension, foster greater
understanding and stronger cooperation, and solicit the views of affected

¹¹ This is a conservative estimate generated by calculating the length of a straight line
between each of the locations outlined in the provision. Given the fact that the border is not
a straight line, the actual length of the fencing that would be required by this provision is
certain to be longer.

communities. The House-passed Defense Appropriations Bill for FY2007 (H.R.
5631), as amended by S.Amdt. 4788, would appropriate $1,829 million for the
National Guard to construct 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 500 miles of
vehicle barriers along the southwest border.
H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437, and H.R. 5067 would require DHS to reimburse
property owners for the costs incurred repairing private infrastructure along the
border damaged by aliens entering the country illegally. The bill would authorize
appropriations of $50,000 a year for this program.
Military or Civilian Assistance for the Border Patrol
A variety of bills have been introduced that would supplement DHS resources
by involving the military or civilians in patrolling the U.S. border. These bills vary
widely in scope, from some that would involve the states in the enforcement of
immigration law to others that would only authorize civilians to act as observers and
notify the USBP concerning any illegal activity they observed.
U.S. Military at the Border. The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-163) includes a provision (§1035) that requires a report
from the Secretary of Defense concerning the potential use of military air assets to
support DHS by surveilling the border. This language was inserted during
conference, and replaced prior language in the House-passed version of the bill (H.R.
1815) that would have authorized the U.S. military to be deployed to the border to
assist DHS in preventing the entry of terrorists, drug smugglers, and unauthorized
aliens at and between official ports of entry. Under the House-passed provision, U.S.
military personnel would have been deployed to the border only at the request of the
Secretary of Homeland Security and only after completing a training course on border
law enforcement. Military personnel would have to have been accompanied by DHS
law enforcement personnel once deployed, and would not have been authorized to
conduct searches, seizures, or other similar law enforcement activities, or to make
arrests. This provision would not have superseded the Posse Comitatus Act, which
prohibits the use of the U.S. military to perform civilian governmental tasks unless¹²
explicitly authorized to do so. This provision was also introduced as a standalone
bill, H.R. 1986. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R.

5122), as amended by the House, also contains a similar provision (§1026). H.R.

3938 contains similar language that would allow the Department of Defense (DOD)

to assign members of the armed forces to be deployed to the border to assist DHS in
preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens both at and
between POE. The bill would allow the military to inspect cargo, vehicles, and
aircraft. H.R. 688 and H.R. 3333 would amend the Posse Comitatus Act to allow the
military to undertake law enforcement activities at or near the border. S. 2049 would
allow the National Guard to be deployed to the border for support purposes,

¹² For a detailed explanation of the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. 1385), please see CRS
Report RS20590, The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: A Sketch, by Jennifer
Elsea; and CRS Report RS21012, Terrorism: Some Legal Restrictions on Military
Assistance to Domestic Authorities Following a Terrorist Attack, by Charles Doyle and
Jennifer Elsea.

including assisting in construction along the border and monitoring the border, but
would specifically exclude law enforcement activities. H.R. 4240 would amend the
Posse Comitatus Act to allow the Army and Air Force to execute laws “at or near the
border of the United States” in order to prevent unauthorized aliens and terrorists
from entering the country illegally. S. 2394 would direct DHS to study the feasibility
of using DOD personnel and assets to assist CBP.
Several bills would direct DHS to collaborate with DOD in surveilling the land
borders. H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437, H.R. 5067, S. 2454, S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611, S. 2612
and S. 3564 would require DHS and DOD to develop and submit a joint plan for
increasing the availability and use of military equipment to assist with the
surveillance of the border. H.R. 4313, S. 2061, S. 2368, S. 2377 would direct the
Secretary to develop and implement a plan to use DOD’s surveillance assets along
the southern border to assist DHS and to submit a report to Congress regarding this
plan no later than six months after enactment.
S. 2611, as amended, S. 2766, S. 3564 would allow state governors, with DOD
permission, to order National Guard personnel to discharge their annual training
duties along the southwest border with Mexico. The National Guard would be
authorized to assist the USBP by, among other things: performing surveillance
functions; providing logistical, technical, and administrative support; constructing
barriers and roadways; and providing emergency medical assistance. The National
Guard would be explicitly prohibited from directly participating in searches, seizures,
arrests, or other similar activities. S. 2611, as amended, would also direct DHS and
DOD to jointly submit a report on the feasibility of offering incentives to current and
former members of the Armed Forces in order to recruit them into CBP’s workforce.
Civilian Patrols. Several bills in the 109^th Congress would create civilian
border patrolling organizations. In the House, H.R. 3704 would create a Border
Patrol Auxiliary that would be deployed to the border and charged with notifying the
Border Patrol about unauthorized aliens attempting to cross into the United States.
These auxiliaries would be vested with the same powers as Border Patrol agents.
DHS would be charged with recompensing members of the Auxiliary for their travel,
subsistence, and vehicle operation expenses. H.R. 3622 would authorize state
governments to create a militia called the Border Protection Corps (BPC) in order to
prevent the illegal entry of individuals and to take individuals who have entered
illegally into custody. DHS would be responsible for recompensing the states for all
the expenses incurred in the establishment and operation of their BPCs. H.R. 4099
would establish a Citizen Corps within the USA Freedom Corps and charge the new
organization with coordinating homeland security volunteer activities. The bill
would also create the Border Corps as an organization within the Citizen Corps that
would be administered by CBP. Members of the Border Corps would be unpaid
volunteers and would be charged with assisting the USBP in carrying out its mission,
with a primary focus on helping with surveillance, communication, transportation,
and administrative support. The bill would also authorize annual appropriations of
$50 million for the Citizen Corps and $20 million for the Border Corps for FY2007-
FY2012. S. 2049 would establish a Deputy Border Patrol Agent Program that would
be made up of retired law enforcement officers. The bill would direct the Secretary
to utilize these deputies to provide whatever border security functions DHS deems

are appropriate. S. 2049 would authorize appropriations of $10 million from FY2007
to FY2011 for this program.
In the Senate, S. 1823 would establish a pilot Volunteer Border Marshal
Program. This program would use volunteer state peace officers who would be
assigned to the Border Patrol and charged with assisting in “identifying and
controlling illegal immigration and human and drug trafficking.” S. 2117 would
direct CBP to establish a National Border Neighborhood Watch (NBNW) Program,
which would allow civilians and retired federal law enforcement officers to assist the
USBP in patrolling the border. Within the NBNW, CBP would be directed to create
a Border Regiment Assisting in Valuable Enforcement (BRAVE) Force comprised
of retired local law enforcement officers hired by CBP. These retirees would be
considered rehired annuitants. Civilians participating in the NBNW Program would
report observed violations of Federal immigration law to a designated BRAVE Force
employee, and would be reimbursed for their expenses. BRAVE Force employees
would not be liable for the actions of a civilian volunteer, and those volunteers would
not be excused from personal liability resulting from their participation in the NBNW
Program.
Border Resources
Manpower. A number of bills include provisions directing the Secretary to
hire 2,000 additional USBP agents each year from FY2007 to FY2010 or FY2011,
as authorized by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act (IRTPA) of

2004, P.L.108-458.¹³ These bills include S. 1438, S. 1916, H.R. 3938, H.R. 4099,

H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437, and H.R. 5067. H.R. 4313, S. 2061, S. 2368, and S. 2377
would add 1,000 to the number of agents authorized in IRTPA each from FY2007
through FY2011. S. 2454, S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611, S. 2612, and S. 3564 would add
400 to the number of agents authorized in IRTPA each from FY2007 to FY2010 and
would authorize an increase of 2,400 agents in FY2011. All four bills would also
direct the Secretary to deploy not less than 20% of the increase in agent manpower
to the Northern border. S. 2611, as amended, also contains a provision that would
appear to add 3,000 additional agents from FY2007 to FY2011 and would direct
DHS to eliminate the fixed deployment of USBP agents in the field. The bill would
also direct DHS to provide border states with up to 1,000 additional agents if a
governor declares a state of emergency, to the extent that providing these additional
agents does not impair DHS ability to provide border security in other states. H.R.
1817 would authorize funding for 2,000 additional agents in FY2006. H.R. 4044
would increase the USBP by 2,500 agents in FY2006; 2,750 agents in FY2007; 3,000
agents in FY2008; 3,250 agents in FY2009; and 3,500 agents in FY2010. S. 2391
would direct DHS to increase the USBP by 4,000 agents each year from FY2007 to
FY2011. S. 2394 would direct DHS to increase the number of CBP agents by an
additional 1,500 agents, above and beyond the number authorized by IRTPA. H.R.
4044 contains provisions that would increase the maximum amounts of student loan
repayment programs for USBP agents; direct the Secretary to “exercise to the fullest
extent allowable” his authority to pay recruitment and relocation bonuses to USBP

¹³ Those bills authorizing additional agents in FY2011 would extend the IRTPA
authorization, which currently lasts through FY2010.

agents; reestablish the Anti-Smuggling Unit within the USBP and staff the unit with
at least 500 criminal investigators recruited from the USBP; and increase the pay for
journeyman USBP officers to the General Schedule (GS) 13 level. H.R. 5456 would
direct the Secretary to increase USBP recruitment incentives such as offering a
student loan repayment program and establishing an in-college training program that
would provide tuition reimbursement for full-time USBP service. H.R. 4312, H.R.
4283, H.R. 4437, H.R. 5067, S. 2454, S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611, and S. 2612 would
require the Comptroller General of the United States to undertake a review of the
USBP’s training practices to ascertain their efficiency and cost effectiveness. H.R.
4312, H.R. 4437, H.R. 5067, S. 2454, S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611, and S. 2612 would
also require a review of what the effects of utilizing nonfederal training programs to
train USBP agents would be. S. 2934 would direct DHS to study the feasibility of
hiring retired federal law enforcement officers to work on a part-time basis for CBP,
and to conduct a five year program to facilitate the recruitment and retention of CBP
agents. H.R. 5813 would direct DHS to take such steps as may be necessary to
control the costs of hiring, training, and deploying new USBP agents, including
permitting individuals already in the training program to waive certain course
requirements and conducting a competitive sourcing study to compare the costs of
training USBP agents at a non-profit or private training facility. DHS would be
directed to ensure that the per-agent cost of hiring, training, and deploying a new
USBP agent does not exceed $150,000 and to report to Congress if this limitation is
exceeded. H.R. 5814 would allow CPB to appoint 500 full-time Federal retirees to
any position to secure the U.S. borders for up to five years after the date of
enactment. The bill would further establish a plan to strengthen recruitment and
retention of Border Patrol agents. S. 2611, as amended, and S. 3564 would also
direct the CBP Commissioner to establish a program to actively recruit members of
the Armed Forces who have elected to separate from active duty. H.R. 5813 would
extend DHS’ authorization to appoint and maintain a cadre of federal annuitants at
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).
Surveillance. A number of bills include provisions directing the Secretary to
procure different kinds of surveillance technologies that may be necessary to enhance
DHS’ ability to monitor the border. H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437, H.R. 5067, and H.R.
6061 include a provision that would direct the Secretary of DHS to provide for the
systematic surveillance of the international land border through more efficient use of
its personnel and of technologies such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), sensors,
satellites, radars, and cameras. S. 2454, S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611, S. 2612 , S. 3564
would also include a provision that would require the Secretary to develop a
comprehensive plan to ensure systematic surveillance of the international and
maritime borders of the United States. S. 2391, S. 2454, S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611, S.
2612 and S. 3564 would also call for the creation of a “virtual fence” along the
border comprised of UAVs, cameras, sensors, and other technologies. S. 2391 would
also require this program to feature technologies that are fully integrated and do not
have to be manually operated. S. 1438, S. 1916, and H.R. 3938 would also call for
the procurement of UAVs, cameras, poles, sensors, and other technologies necessary
to achieve operational control of the borders of the United States and would also
authorize $500 million each year from FY2006 to FY2010 for this purpose. S. 2368
and S. 2377 have a similar provision that would authorize the funding each year from
FY2007 to FY2010. H.R. 1320 would require DHS to submit a comprehensive plan
to ensure continuous monitoring of every mile of the U.S.-Mexico border and would

require DHS to implement this plan one year after the plan’s submission, and would
authorize $200 million in FY2005 and FY2006 for this purpose. S. 1033, S. 2391,
and H.R. 2330 would require DHS to develop and implement a program to fully
integrate aerial surveillance technologies at the border, including UAVs. S. 2049
would authorize the Secretary to procure whatever assets are required to achieve
operational control of the border. H.R. 5456 would authorize the Secretary to deploy
cameras, motion detectors, and UAVs and other technologies to secure the border of
the U.S. S. 2394 would direct DHS to acquire UAVs, sensors, cameras, and lighting
for use at the border. H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437, H.R. 4284, H.R. 5067, H.R. 5813, H.R.
5814, S. 2454, S. 2611, S. 2612, S. 3564, would require the DHS Inspector General
(IG) to review and report on all the contracts greater than $20 million awarded under
the Secure Border Initiative.¹⁴ S. 2391 would require the IG to review each new
contract related to border surveillance with a value greater than $5 million.
Lastly, in addition to the “virtual fence” provision and the provision calling for
a comprehensive surveillance plan outlined above, S. 2611, S. 2612 and S. 3564
have several other provisions that touch on border surveillance. The bills would
direct DHS to establish an Aerial Surveillance Program and an Integrated and
Automated Surveillance Program, authorizing the necessary sums for these purposes.
The Aerial Surveillance Program would assess the use of aerial surveillance
technologies and implement and integrate such technologies to ensure the continuous
monitoring of each mile of the southern and northern borders. The program would
require consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration. A separate provision in the bills would authorize
funds in FY2007 and FY2008 for the acquisition and maintenance of MQ-9
unmanned aerial vehicles for use on the border. The Integrated and Automated
Surveillance Program would procure UAV’s, cameras, sensors and other
technologies to achieve operational control of the international border of the United
States and for the creation of a “virtual fence” along such borders. To the extent
possible, surveillance technologies would be fully integrated and function in an
automated fashion. DHS would be required to develop performance measures to
assess the effectiveness of the program and to create standards for the installation of
remote surveillance technologies and mobile surveillance platforms. The DHS IG
would be directed to review all contracts greater than $5 million awarded under the
Integrated and Automated Surveillance Program.
Infrastructure. H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437, H.R. 5067, H.R. 5456, H.R. 6061, S.
2454, S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611, S. 2612 and S. 3564 would direct the Secretary to
make the physical infrastructure enhancements needed to prevent unlawful entry and
achieve operational control of the border. H.R. 3938 and S. 1438 would direct DHS
to construct all-weather roads and acquire vehicle barriers, and would authorize
appropriations of $500 million each year from FY2006 to FY2010. H.R. 4313
includes similar language but would authorize the funding each year from FY2007

¹⁴ According to DHS, the Secure Border Initiative is a comprehensive multi-year plan to
secure America’s borders and reduce illegal migration through the deployment of additional
USBP agents, surveillance technology, and infrastructure along the border. For more
information, refer to the DHS Border Security Fact Sheet available at [http://www.dhs.gov/
dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0794.xml].

to FY2011. S. 1916 would direct the Secretary to construct all weather roads and
acquire vehicle barriers; S. 2049 would direct the Secretary to construct whatever
roads and vehicle barriers are necessary to achieve operational control of the border.
S. 2394 would authorize DHS to construct and maintain access roads to the border.
Additionally, as previously mentioned S. 2454, S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611 and S. 2612
would direct DHS to construct 200 miles of vehicle barriers in Arizona. S. 3564
would authorize the construction of 200 miles of vehicle barriers and all-weather
roads in the Tucson and Yuma Sectors at known areas of illegal cross-border traffic.
Other Resources. H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437, H.R. 5067, S. 2368, S. 2377, S.
2454, S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611, S. 2612 and S. 3564 would require DHS to consult
with the Attorney General in an effort to enhance the connectivity of DHS’s
Automated Biometrics Identification System (IDENT) and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS)¹⁵
fingerprint databases. H.R. 1320 would require DHS to integrate the IDENT and
IAFIS databases. H.R. 3137, H.R. 3333, H.R. 3938, H.R. 4172, H.R. 4313, H.R.

4437, S. 1362, S. 1438, S. 2049, S. 2061, S. 2368, S. 2377, S. 2394, S. 2454,

S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611, and S. 2612 would require DHS to provide the National
Crime Information Center (NCIC) at DOJ with information relating to aliens that
have been issued final orders of removal, that are departing voluntarily, that have
been released with a notice to appear before an immigration judge, and that have
overstayed their visa or had their visas revoked. This information is to be included
in the NCIC database. H.R. 4044 would provide a number of different types of
resources to the USBP, including no less than 100 helicopters, 250 powerboats, and
enough vehicles to ensure that there is one vehicle per three USBP agents. The bill
would also provide portable computers with access to law enforcement databases for
each vehicle, and encrypted two-way radios, GPS receivers, body armor, and night-
vision equipment to every USBP agent. H.R. 4437, as amended, would require
USBP uniforms to be made in the United States. Lastly, H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437, H.R.
5067, S. 2454, S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611, S. 2612, and S. 3564 would require DHS to
develop and implement a plan to ensure clear two-way communications for its agents
working along the border. S. 2611, as amended, and S. 3564 would direct DHS to
add 100 helicopters and 250 powerboats to the USBP and to implement training
programs for the agents who will use these assets. Additionally, the bills would
require DHS to ensure that there is one police-type vehicle equipped with a computer
with access to all necessary law enforcement databases for every three USBP agents,
and that these vehicles be replaced every three years. Additionally, the bills would
require that all USBP vehicles be appropriate for the agency’s mission and be
equipped with a panic button and a global positioning system (GPS). S. 2611 and S.
3564 would also direct DHS to issue a hand held GPS device, body armor, and
uniforms to every USBP agent and to supply night-vision equipment to each agent
working during night-time hours.

¹⁵ The IDENT biometric database is used by DHS to identify those aliens who are serial
border crossers and to identify criminal aliens. IAFIS is the FBI’s master biometric database
of criminal fingerprints. Congress has repeatedly directed that both databases be integrated.
For more information about this issue, refer to CRS Report RL32562, Border Security: The
Role of the U.S. Border Patrol, by Blas Nunez-Neto.

S. 2611, as amended, and S. 3564 would give the USBP complete and exclusive
administrative and operational control of all assets that are utilized in discharging its
mission, including aircraft, watercraft, vehicles, detention space, transportation, and
all the personnel associated with these assets. This provision might be interpreted
as giving the USBP control over some of the detention and transportation assets of
the Detention and Removal Office within ICE.
Expedited Removal
Non-Mexican and non-Canadian aliens apprehended by USBP agents cannot be
returned to Mexico or Canada. Instead, they must be returned to their nation of
origin, a process that typically takes several months and involves hearings before
immigration judges. Expedited removal is a DHS policy that streamlines the removal
process by allowing aliens to be removed without appearing before an immigration
judge, under certain conditions.¹⁶ Some bills in the 109^th Congress would make
changes to the current expedited removal procedures, in some cases expressly
authorizing what DHS is currently doing operationally.
Expansion of the Program. H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437, H.R. 4240, H.R. 5067,
S. 2368, S. 2377, S. 2454, S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611, S. 2612, S. 3564 would insert
language into the Immigration and Nationality Act requiring the Secretary to apply
expedited removal to all aliens apprehended within 100 miles of the border and
within 14 days of their entry.¹⁷ S. 1916 and S. 2049 would expand expedited removal
to all USBP sectors along the southwest border “as soon as operationally possible.”
S. 1916 would also prohibit the expeditious removal of an alien until the Director of
Field Operations certified in writing that the alien’s removal does not pose a security
risk to the United States. S. 1916 and S. 2049 would authorize an appropriation of
$20 million each year from FY2007 through FY2011. H.R. 3938 and S. 1438 would
also expand expedited removal to all border patrol sectors and would authorize
appropriations of $10 million for this purpose each year from FY2006 to FY2010.
Mandatory Detention. DHS currently releases many apprehended non-
Mexican aliens with notices to appear before an immigration judge for a deportation
hearing. This is done mainly due to a lack of detention bedspace, and has been called
by some critics a catch and release policy. H.R. 4238, H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437 and
H.R. 5067 would require that all aliens apprehended at POE or along the border be
detained until they are removed or admitted into the country. S. 2454, S.Amdt. 3192,
S. 2611, S. 2612 and S. 3564 would require that, by October 1, 2007, all aliens (other

¹⁶ For additional information on the apprehension of non-Mexican and non-Canadian aliens
and on expedited removal, please refer to CRS Report RL33097, Order Security:
Apprehensions of “Other Than Mexican” Aliens, by Blas Nunez-Neto, Alison Siskin, and
Stephen Vina, and CRS Report RL33109, Immigration Policy on Expedited Removal of
Aliens, by Alison Siskin and Ruth Ellen Wasem.
¹⁷ On September 14, 2005, DHS announced that it was expanding its use of “Expedited
Removal authority” to include aliens apprehended within 14 days of entry and 100 miles of
the border throughout the entire southwest border. Department of Homeland Security,
Public Affairs, “DHS Expands Expedited Removal Authority Along Southwest Border,”
Sept. 14, 2005.

than a national of Mexico) apprehended attempting to enter the U.S. illegally at or
between POE be subject to mandatory detention. All four bills would make an
exception for those aliens who immediately depart voluntarily and those who are
paroled into the United States for urgent humanitarian reasons. Until October 1,
2007, apprehended aliens could be released with a notice to appear only if DHS
decided the alien posed no security risk and after posting $5,000 bonds.
Air and Marine Operations/CBP Air¹⁸
The Legacy U.S. Customs Service had a group within it called the Air and
Marine Interdiction Division (AMID). The creation of the DHS, and subsequent
reorganization of legacy agencies within DHS, moved AMID from the U.S. Customs
Service’s Office of Investigation, and made it a stand alone office in ICE, under the
name Office of Air and Marine Operations (AMO). The FY2005 DHS
Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-334) effectively transferred AMO back to CBP.
Congress, for several years, has expressed concern over potential overlap between
the various agencies within DHS with air and marine assets (AMO, the Border
Patrol, and the Coast Guard). As a part of the effort to rationalize air and marine
assets within DHS, AMO was moved back to CBP and the Department proceeded
with a consolidation of AMO and Border Patrol assets, at least on the operational
level. However, issues have arisen with the potential ‘sectorization’ of AMO assets,
where AMO aircraft and personnel would be placed under the operational control of
the USBP sector chiefs; and with the differences of mission between the two units.
Organization. H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437, and H.R. 5067 would amend the
Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296) to establish an Office of Air and Marine
Operations as a separate entity within DHS that would report directly to the Secretary
and be headed by a presidentially appointed Assistant Secretary for Air and Marine
Operations. The bills would also codify the missions, duties and other aspects of the
new office.
National Capital Region (NCR) Airspace. H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437, and
H.R. 5067 would require the Secretary to submit within 120 days of enactment a
report describing the impact the NCR airspace security mission has on DHS’s ability
to protect the borders of the United States. The report would include details of the
resources devoted to the NCR airspace mission and an assessment of impact that the
diversion of these assets to the NCR airspace mission might have had or will have
on the traditional border security missions of DHS.
Miscellaneous Provisions
Border Tunnels. S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611, S. 2612, S. 3564, H.R. 4830, and
H.R. 6091 include a provision that would make the construction, and the financing,
of tunnels crossing the U.S. international border a crime subject to a fine and up to
20 years of imprisonment. Landowners who know about or recklessly disregard the
construction or use of a border tunnel would be subject to a fine and up to 10 years
of imprisonment. Persons using a border tunnel would be subject to twice the

¹⁸ This section was prepared by CRS Analyst Jennifer E. Lake.

maximum term of imprisonment that would otherwise be applicable had their
unlawful activity not made use of the tunnel. Lastly, the bills would direct the U.S.
Sentencing Commission to create sentencing guidelines for people guilty of border
tunnel offenses.
Coordination with Tribal Governments. A number of bills address the
issue of coordination between DHS and the various tribal governments along the U.S.
international border. H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437, and H.R. 5067 would advance a sense
of Congress that DHS should strive to include within its National Strategy for Border
Security recommendations on how to enhance cooperation with sovereign Indian
Nations. H.R. 1320, H.R. 4009 and H.R. 4871 would establish an “Office of Tribal
Security” within DHS charged with coordinating relations between the federal
government and Indian tribes on homeland security issues. H.R. 3938, H.R. 4871, S.
1438, S. 2611, and S. 2612 would establish a grant program for Indian Tribes with
lands adjacent to the border for law enforcement activities, health care services,
environmental restoration, and the preservation of cultural resources. The bills
would also require a report from DHS concerning the level of USBP access to tribal
lands, the extent to which immigration laws could be improved by enhanced access
to tribal lands, and the number of grants currently provided by DHS to Indian tribes
relating to border security. The report should also contain a strategy for improving
access to tribal lands through cooperation with tribal authorities.
Shadow Wolves. Prior to the creation of DHS, the Shadow Wolves were an
elite Customs Patrol investigative unit within the U.S. Customs Service charged with
enforcing customs laws and interdicting smugglers within the Tohono O’odham
reservation. The Shadow Wolves were created after years of negotiation between the
Customs Service and the Tribe, and members of the unit must be certified Native
American. The Shadow Wolves were originally placed within ICE when DHS was
created, but were subsequently moved into CBP where they are administratively
under the USBP. Because the USBP is not an investigative unit, this has created
some issues. A number of bills would require DHS to transfer the Shadow Wolves
from CBP to ICE in order to emphasize the unique unit’s investigative functions.
Bills with provisions like this include H.R. 1320, H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437, H.R. 5067,
and H.R. 5813.
Using Homeland Security Grants for Border Security Activities.
H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437, and H.R. 5067 would allow states and local governments to
enter into an agreement with DHS to use grant funding from the State Homeland
Security Grant Program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, and the Law
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, to reimburse the costs associated with
detecting and responding to the unlawful entry of aliens.
Border Grant Program. S. 2611, S. 2612 and S. 3564 would create a
Border Relief Grant Program, authorizing DHS to award grants to state, tribal, and
local law enforcement agencies in order to address border-related crime. These
grants would be competitive, with priority given to communities of less than 50,000
within 100 miles of the land border. The funds could be used for a variety of
purposes, including hiring additional personnel, acquiring equipment, and covering
operating costs. The program would be authorized at $50 million each year, FY2007
through FY2011; two-thirds of this funding would be allocated to the six states with

the largest number of undocumented alien apprehensions; and the remaining third
would be allocated to communities designated by the Secretary as High Impact
Areas.
Injured Alien Data Collection. Each year, hundreds of unauthorized aliens
die attempting to enter the United States illegally. Many aliens require medical
attention when they are apprehended. H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437, and H.R. 5067 would
require DHS to collect quantifiable data on the number of aliens apprehended by the
USBP and arriving at POE requiring medical attention, including the number of
aliens referred to local hospitals or other health care facilities. S. 2611, S. 2612 and
S. 3564 would require CBP to collect statistics on the number of deaths occurring at
the southwest border, including the causes of the deaths, and to submit a report to
Congress on this issue that includes recommendations for reducing the incidence of
death at the border.
Border Security Advisory Committee and Center of Excellence.
H.R. 4312, H.R 4437, and H.R. 5067 would establish a Border Security Advisory
Committee, with representatives from state, local, and tribal governments located
along the U.S. borders and community representatives from these states, to advise the
Secretary on border security and enforcement issues. H.R. 4312 and H.R 4437 would
also establish a university based Center of Excellence for Border Security to address
and research the threats and vulnerabilities of the U.S. border control systems.
Border Security Threat Assessment and Exercise. H.R. 4312, H.R.
4437, and H.R. 5067 would require DHS to design and carry out a border security
exercise within one year of the bills’ enactment. This exercise would include
officials from federal, state, local, tribal, and international governments as well as
representatives from the private sector, and would be used to test and evaluate the
ability to anticipate, detect, and disrupt threats to the U.S. borders and the
information sharing capability among these entities.
Border Security Coordination and Management. H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437,
and H.R. 5067 would require DHS to ensure the coordination between CBP, ICE,
and Citizenship and Immigration Services, including the formation of various
mechanisms and task-forces within DHS. The purpose of these entities would
include sharing information, intelligence, and analysis between immigration-related
agencies and better coordinating the federal efforts and the allocation of federal
resources in order to manage and control the border.
Improving Homeland Security Information Exchange. S.Amdt. 3192,
S. 2454, S. 2611, S. 2612 and S. 3564 would call for various reports from DHS and
other appropriate agencies on efforts underway to improve the exchange of homeland
security information between federal agencies, including, but not limited to the
progress made toward developing common standards for issuing security clearances
and secure documents; the progress made with respect to efforts to share information
on high risk individuals and identify immigration fraud trends; and the progress made
in developing terrorist watch lists.
Border Security on Federal Land. S. 2611, S. 2612 and S. 3564 would
direct DHS to cooperate with the Department of the Interior (DOI) in securing federal

land along the international land border. The bills would direct DHS to provide
increased enforcement personnel and surveillance technology, including UAVs and
other aerial assets, to federal land and units of the National Park Service along the
border. The bills would require that the DHS personnel receive federal land resource
training to minimize the adverse impact of enforcement activities on natural and
cultural resources. Additionally, the bills would direct DOI to develop an inventory
of costs incurred by the National Park Service relating to illegal border activity and
would direct DHS and DOI to develop joint recommendations concerning an
appropriate cost recovery mechanism. Lastly, the bills would direct DHS and DOI
to jointly develop a border protection strategy for federal lands along the border.
Border Security at Ports of Entry
There are currently 317 official POE into the United States,¹⁹ including 216²⁰
airports that are international POEs, 143 seaports, and 115 land POEs. CBP
officers assigned to these POE may be responsible for more than one mode of
transportation, even processing all three conveyance types: air, land, and sea. As
individuals attempt to enter the country through POE, CBP Officers must inspect
their documentation to ascertain whether they have legal authorization to enter. In
order to make their decision regarding whether to admit the individual, CBP Officers
must use a variety of different databases and must examine the traveler’s documents.
There are a number of issues relating to this process that are being considered in the^th
legislation currently pending in the 109 Congress.
Biometric Entry Exit Program
A number of different bills include provisions requiring DHS to implement a
biometric entry/exit program. The current biometric entry/exit system is the U.S.
Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program, which
requires selected foreign nationals attempting to enter the United States to submit two
fingerprints and a photograph when arriving to the country through an airport POE.
This information is used to verify their identity and administrative status. The
program is in the process of being expanded to all POE, but does not currently
feature an exit component.²¹
US-VISIT. Some bills call for enhancing the capabilities of the current US-
VISIT program. H.R. 4437, H.R. 4312, H.R. 5067, S. 2368, and S. 2377 would
direct DHS to collect 10 fingerprints from aliens currently required to register in US-
VISIT as they enter the country. S. 1438, S. 1916, and S. 2049 would expand the

¹⁹ For more information about inspections practices, please refer to CRS Report RL32399,
Border Security: Inspections Practices, Policies, and Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem, Lisa
Seghetti, Jennifer E. Lake, James Monke, and Stephen Vina.
²⁰ Data provided by CBP Office of Congressional Affairs, in e-mail dated Apr. 22, 2004.
²¹ For additional information regarding the US-VISIT program, please refer to CRS Report
RL32234, U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program,
by Lisa Seghetti and Stephen Vina.

current system by authorizing the Secretary to collect biometric data from visitors as
they exit the country and to collect data from alien crew members landing in the
United States. S. 1438 and S. 1916 would authorize such sums as may be necessary
to implement the automated entry exit biometric program at all land POE in FY2006
and FY2007; S. 2049 would authorize such sums as may be necessary to fund this
expansion each year from FY2008 to FY2010. S. 2368 and S. 2377 would require
the biometric entry and exit system to integrate arrival and departure information into
an electronic database that could be used by DHS and the Department of State, and
would require the system to be implemented at land POE by October 1, 2006. H.R.
1320 would create an Office of US-VISIT Outreach to inform local border officials
and residents about developments with the program. The bill would also require
DHS to digitize the collection of arrival and departure records. S. 1033 and H.R.
2033 would require DHS to collect biometric information from visiting aliens as they
enter and exit the country. H.R. 4313 would require DHS to implement an entry and
exit system at land POE no later than October 1, 2006.
H.R. 4437, as amended, would require DHS to submit timelines for deploying
the US-VISIT system to all land POE and for implementing the exit component at
all land POE. S. 2454, S.Amdt. 3192, S. 2611, S. 2612, S. 3564 would require DHS
to submit a schedule for deploying US-VISIT at all land POE, for developing and
deploying the system’s exit control component, and for making all immigration
screening systems interoperable. The bills would also authorize DHS to require
entering and departing aliens to provide information including biometric data, and
to collect biometric data from alien crewmen. Additionally, all four bills would add
withholding biometric data as a ground for inadmissibility. Lastly, H.R. 5017 would
require DHS to submit a report to Congress detailing its compliance to date with the
IRTPA requirements concerning implementation of an entry and exit system and the
steps that will be taken to fully implement the system. The bill would also require
the Government Accountability Office to certify whether the entry and exit system
has been fully implemented as per the IRTPA requirements.
Other Technology Programs
H.R. 1320 would make permanent the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers
Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) and the NEXUS program and would create remote
enrollment centers for these programs away from the borders of the United States.²²
The bill would also authorize appropriations for POE modifications to expand these
programs, and would require an annual report from DHS concerning the
implementation of these programs. H.R. 4437, as amended, would require DHS to
submit a timeline for making all the immigration screening systems operated by the
department interoperable. H.R. 4437, as amended, would also require DHS to
institute a pilot program to evaluate the use of automated systems at no fewer than
two foreign airports for pre-screening incoming travelers. Passenger information

²² SENTRI and NEXUS are programs used at land ports of entry to facilitate the speedy
passage of low-risk, frequent travelers. NEXUS is located at selected northern ports of entry
while SENTRI is located at selected southwest ports of entry. For more information on
these programs, refer to CRS Report RL32840, Border and Transportation Security:
Selected Programs and Policies, by Lisa Seghetti, Jennifer E. Lake, and William Robinson.

would be screened against the consolidated terrorist watchlist,²³ and the bill would
require that the program make use of the machine-readable data elements available
on passports. The bill would require the program to run for no fewer than 90 days,
and would require DHS to report to Congress on the program within 30 days of its
conclusion.
POE Resources
Manpower. A number of bills direct the Secretary to hire no less than 250
additional CBP officers at POE in each year from FY2006 to FY2010, including S.

1916; S. 1438; H.R. 688; H.R. 3938; H.R. 4312; H.R. 4437; H.R. 5067. H.R. 4313,

S. 2368, S. 2377, S. 2454, and S.Amdt. 3192 would add 250 CBP officers each year
from FY2007 to FY2011. S. 2454 and S.Amdt. 3192 would also add 250 POE
inspectors each year from FY2007 to FY2011. S. 2611, S. 2612, and H.R. 3564
would add no less than 500 POE inspectors each year authorized; S. 2611 and S.
2612 from FY2006 to FY2011; S. 3564 from FY2007 to FY2011. S. 12 would add
200 CBP officers each year from FY2005 to FY2008. H.R. 3333 would authorize
DHS to hire 2,000 additional CBP immigration inspectors, above the FY2006 level,
by FY2008. H.R. 4044. H.R. 2092, and S. 2049 would direct the Secretary to hire at
least 1,000 full time CBP officers each year from FY2007 to FY2011. H.R. 2391
would require DHS to hire 1,500 additional CBP officers each year from FY2007 to
FY2011. H.R. 2092 would extend law enforcement retirement benefits to CBP
officers and raise their maximum level of pay to the GS13 level. H.R. 1320 would
require DHS to double the number of CBP personnel and would authorize the
Secretary to waive any Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employee limitations to
accomplish this.
Technology. H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437, and H.R. 5067 would require DHS to
deploy radiation portal monitors to all POE and would authorize such sums as may
be necessary for this purpose in FY2006 and FY2007. H.R. 1320 would call for the
installation of radiation portal monitors at all southern POE and would authorize $49
million for this purpose. H.R. 4412 would require the Interagency Border Inspection
System (IBIS) to be integrated with all existing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration²⁴
Services databases. S. 2611, S. 2612 and S. 3564 would direct DHS to create a
POE technology demonstration program in order to test and evaluate new and
existing technologies relating to inspections, communications, port tracking,
identification of persons and cargo, sensory devices, personal detection, decision

²³ For more information about the terrorist watchlist, please refer to CRS Report RL32366,
Terrorist Identification, Screening, and Tracking Under Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 6, by William Krouse.
²⁴ IBIS is a broad system that interfaces with the FBI’s National Crime Information Center
(NCIC), the Treasury Department’s Enforcement and Communications System (TECS II),
the former INS’s National Automated Immigration Lookout System (NAILS) and
Non-immigrant Information System (NIIS) and the Department of State’s (DOS) Consular
Consolidated Database (CCD), Consular Lookout And Support System (CLASS) and
TIPOFF terrorist databases. Because of the numerous systems and databases that interface
with IBIS, the system is able to obtain such information as whether an alien is admissible,
an alien’s criminal information, and whether an alien is wanted by law enforcement.

support, and the detection and identification of weapons of mass destruction. DHS
would be authorized to implement the demonstration program at three to five POE,
and the bills would set forth some selection requirements for at least one of these
POEs. DHS would be required to submit a report to Congress on the activities
carried out at these demonstration sites within one year of enactment.
Infrastructure. A number of bills include provisions that would add funding
for POE infrastructure and resources. H.R. 1320 would authorize $1 billion for a
Land Border Infrastructure Improvement Fund to carry out infrastructure and
technology improvements at POE. H.R. 4313 would add 25 POE along the
international land border at locations to be determined by the Secretary, and would
authorize appropriations of $125 million for this purpose. S. 2061, S. 2368, and S.
2377 would authorize the Secretary to construct additional POE at whatever locations
he deems necessary, and would also authorize the Secretary to make necessary
improvements to existing POE. S. 2394 would require DHS to make an annual
report to Congress describing the status of POE infrastructure and identifies projects
to improve POE security. S. 2611, S. 2612, and S. 3564 would direct the General
Services Administration to update its existing Port of Entry Infrastructure
Assessment Study. This update should identify POE infrastructure and technology
improvement projects needed to enhance security and expedite commerce and
prioritize these projects based on their ability to fulfill immediate security
requirements and facilitate trade. Additionally, the bills would direct DHS, in
conjunction with other federal, state, local, and private entities involved in
international trade, to submit a National Land Border Security Plan to Congress that
would assess the vulnerability of each POE located along the land border. DHS
would also be authorized to designate one or more POE security coordinators at each
POE along the land border as part of this plan.
Miscellaneous Issues
Evasion of Inspection/Failure to Obey CBP Officers. S.Amdt. 3192,
S. 2611, and S.2612 include a provision that would create criminal penalties for those
aliens who attempt to elude or elude customs, immigration, or agriculture inspections
at POE, or who fail to stop at the command of a CBP officer. Offenders would be
subject to a prison term of not more than three years; not more than 10 years if they
inflicted or attempted to inflict bodily injury during their offense; and up to life in
prison or the death penalty if death results from their offense. All three bills would
also make failure to obey to CBP officers’ directives at a POE while driving a vehicle
or other conveyance prima facie evidence of smuggling. Lastly, all three bills would
make failure to obey the lawful orders of CBP officers, USBP agents, and ICE
investigators subject to a fine or a prison sentence of up to five years. H.R. 6061
would require DHS to evaluate the authority of Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) personnel to stop vehicles that enter the United States illegally and refuse to
stop when ordered to do so. It would require DHS to compare CBP’s authority to
stop vehicles with the Coast Guard’s authority to stop vessels and to assess whether
CBP’s authority should be expanded. The bill would also require DHS to review the
equipment and the technology available to CBP personnel to stop vehicles in order
to assess whether better equipment is available and should be deployed, and to
evaluate the training provided to CBP personnel to stop vehicles. Lastly, the bill

would require a report within 60 days of its enactment with the results of this
evaluation.
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2004 (P.L. 108-458 §7209) changed the
documentary requirements for citizens of Western Hemisphere countries. IRTPA
required all individuals for whom documentation requirements had previously been
waived under §212(d)(4)(B) of INA, including American and Canadian citizens, to
provide proof of citizenship in order to be admitted into the United States at POE by
January 1, 2007. S. 2611 would authorize DHS to develop a passport card that would
allow U.S. citizens to travel to Mexico, Canada, the Carribean, and Bermuda and
would extend the deadline for implementing the new documentary requirements to
the later of either June 1, 2009, or the date that is three months after the Secretary of
State and the Secretary of DHS certify that the process for applying and receiving
passport cards has met certain requirements outlined in the bill, that POE have been
equipped with the sufficient technologies to ensure that implementation will not
impede the flow of traffic into the United States, and that CBP officers have received
the training and infrastructure needed to properly implement the program. The bill,
among other things, would require the passport card be designed to provide a
platform for all registered traveler programs, would set a maximum fee of $34 for the
card, and would require this fee to be reduced if an individual applied for a passport
card and a passport at the same time. The bill would also direct DHS to enter into
a demonstration project with at least one state to allow that state to include
citizenship information on its driver’s licenses in order to meet the IRTPA
requirements. Lastly, the bill would require DHS to establish a program that would
allow U.S. citizens who do not have the IRTPA-required documentation to cross the
international border for a period of not more than 72 hours and would direct DHS to
establish a grace period for individuals unaware of the changes in documentary
requirements at the border. H.R. 5456 would require that, within one year of its
passage, no individual be admitted to the United States without presenting
appropriate documentation.
One Face at the Border. Prior to the formation of DHS, customs and
immigration inspections at POE were handled by different types of inspectors. After
DHS was created, however, the Department integrated the inspection duties through
the “One Face at the Border” initiative. This means that Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) inspectors are essentially interchangeable and responsible for all
primary inspections. H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437, and H.R. 5067 would require DHS to
submit a report: describing the goals, benefits, and challenges of the initiative;
providing a breakdown of the current numbers of inspectors and their pre-DHS
agency; and describing the current training given to inspectors and the steps taken to
ensure the maintenance of the expertise of customs, immigration, and agricultural
inspectors. H.R. 4044 would create three “distinct inspectional occupations:
immigrations, customs, and agriculture” within CBP that would coordinate closely
with each other but that would report to separate operational chains of command.
H.R. 1320 and H.R. 1817 would require DHS to submit a report to Congress on the
“One Face at the Border Initiative.”
CBP and ICE Organizational Division. In the 109^th Congress, there has
been some debate concerning whether the current organizational division between

CBP and ICE is justified due to the apparent lack of coordination and communication
between the two agencies. H.R. 1817 would require the Secretary to submit a report
outlining the rationale for and the benefits of the current organizational division of
CBP and ICE.
Canine Units.²⁵ H.R. 4312, H.R. 4437, H.R. 5067 and H.R. 5813 would
require, subject to the availability of appropriations, an increase of at least 25%
(above the number of positions funded in the previous fiscal year), of the number of
canine detection teams in use at U.S. ports of entry for each of the fiscal years 2007
to 2011. H.R. 4285 and H.R. 4958 would direct DHS to increase the number of
trained canine detection teams deployed at POE by not less than 25%, subject to the
availability of appropriations, each year from FY2007 to FY2011. H.R. 4285, H.R.
4958, H.R. 5813 and H.R. 5814 would require the Secretary to take the following
actions: to fully coordinate and maximize the use of DHS’ canine training facilities
and resources; to consider ways to utilize the canine teams trained by other public
and private entities; to prioritize the use of domestically bred canines; to consult
with other Federal agencies to encourage the domestic breeding of canines; to
consolidate procurement and reduce the cost of purchasing canines; and to require
DHS to submit a report to Congress within 120 days of enactment. H.R. 4958, H.R.
5813, and H.R. 5814 would establish and authorize funding for a competitive grant
program for domestic breeders of canines best suited for detection training purposes
for FY2007 through FY2011. These four bills would also establish a Homeland
Security Canine Detection Accreditation Board to implement a voluntary
accreditation process and require that canine detection teams acquired with DHS
grant funds be certified through this accreditation process. H.R. 1320 would
authorize necessary appropriations to increase the number of CBP canine units by
20% above the level in place at the end of FY2004. H.R. 1320 would also require
the proportionate distribution of the new units to both the northern and southern
borders, and would require that the new units be used only for bomb, passenger and
currency detection purposes.

²⁵ This section was prepared by CRS Analyst Jennifer E. Lake.

Appendix A.
Immigration Related Border Security Legislation
^B^ill^Spo^nso^r^Tit^l^e^La^st
^Num^b^er^Actioⁿ
^H^.^R^.⁹⁸^D^r^eⁱ^e^r^Illeg^a^l^I^m^mⁱ^gr^a^tion^En^f^o^rcem^en^{t an}^d^Social^IH
^S^ecu^ri^t^y^Prot^ectⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁵
^H.R^.¹⁹³^Lⁱⁿ^d^{a San}^c^h^e^z^T^{o am}^en^{d th}^e^INA^{to prov}^{ide f}^o^r^com^p^en^s^a^tion^to^IH
^St^atesⁱⁿ^carceratin^g^uⁿ^docu^m^en^{ted alien}^s^ch^arg^e^d
^wⁱ^t^h^{a f}^e^l^oⁿ^y^{or t}^w^{o or m}^o^{re m}ⁱ^s^d^em^ean^ors^.
^{H.R. 2}⁵⁵^J^ack^soⁿ^L^e^e^C^o^m^m^e^r^c^ial^A^lien^S^m^u^g^g^lⁱⁿ^g^E^l^imⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^A^c^{t o}^f^IH
²⁰⁰⁵
^H^.^R^.⁴¹⁸^S^eⁿ^s^en^brenⁿ^e^r^R^EA^L^ID^A^c^t^R^F^S
^H^.^R.⁶⁸⁸^B^a^r^r^e^t^t^S^e^c^u^rⁱⁿ^g^A^m^e^rⁱ^c^a^’^{s Fut}^u^r^e^t^h^r^o^ugh^Eⁿ^fo^r^c^e^m^eⁿ^t^IH
^R^e^f^o^rm^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁵
^H.R^.⁷⁸⁰^R^u^ppers^berg^er^T^o^am^en^{d Section}^{5202 of}^th^{e In}^tellig^en^ce^R^e^f^o^rm^IH
^an^{d T}^e^rrori^sm^P^r^ev^en^tⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^of^{2004 t}^o^provⁱ^d^e
^f^o^r^as^s^u^{red f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r m}^o^{re Border}^P^a^t^r^ol^ag^en^t^s^.
^H^.^R^.¹¹⁹⁶^O^r^tⁱ^z^T^oⁱ^m^p^r^o^v^e^t^h^e^se^cu^ri^t^y^cl^earan^{ce proces}^s^al^on^g^IH
^th^{e Un}^{ited States}^-^M^ex^ico^b^o^r^d^e^{r, to in}^creas^{e th}^e
ⁿ^u^m^{ber of}^det^eⁿ^tⁱ^oⁿ^beds^{, an}^{d f}^o^{r ot}^h^e^{r pu}^rpos^es^.
^H^.^R^.¹²⁶⁸^L^e^wⁱ^s^E^m^e^rg^en^cy^S^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^ons^A^c^t^for^P.^L^.
^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e, t}^h^{e G}^l^obal^{War on}^T^e^{rror, an}^{d T}^s^uⁿ^a^mⁱ^109-¹³
^R^e^lⁱ^e^f^,²⁰⁰⁵
^H^.^R^.¹³²⁰^R^e^y^e^s^S^ecu^{re Borders}^A^c^t^IH
^H^.^R^.¹⁵⁰²^Berm^an^Cⁱ^vⁱ^l^Lⁱ^bertⁱ^e^s^R^e^s^t^oratⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁵^IH
^H^.^R^.¹⁸⁰⁵^S^l^a^ught^e^r^T^o^e^s^t^a^b^lⁱ^s^h^t^h^e^p^o^s^itioⁿ^o^fⁿ^o^r^t^h^e^rⁿ^b^o^r^d^er^IH
^coordiⁿ^a^t^o^{r i}ⁿ^D^H^S
^H^.^R^.¹⁸¹⁵^H^uⁿ^t^er^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e A}^u^t^h^ori^zatⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^f^o^{r F}^Y²⁰⁰⁶^P.L^.
^109-
¹⁶³
^H^.^R^.¹⁸¹⁷^C^o^x^D^epart^m^ent^o^f^H^o^m^e^l^aⁿ^d^S^ecu^ri^t^y^A^u^t^h^ori^zatⁱ^oⁿ^RFS
^A^c^t^f^o^{r F}ⁱ^s^cal^Y^{ear 2006}
^H^.^R^.¹⁹¹²^G^r^av^es^Em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^Im^mⁱ^g^r^atⁱ^oⁿ^Work^l^o^{ad R}^e^du^ctⁱ^oⁿ^an^d^IH
^H^o^m^e^l^aⁿ^d^S^ecu^ri^t^y^En^h^aⁿ^cem^en^t^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁵
^H.R^.¹⁹⁸⁶^Goode^T^o^am^en^d^T^{itle 10, USC}^,^{to au}^th^{orize th}^e^s^ecretary^IH
^of^def^eⁿ^s^e^to^as^sⁱ^gⁿ^m^e^m^b^ers^of^th^{e arm}^y^{, n}^a^v^y^{, air}
^f^o^{rce, an}^{d m}^a^rin^e^corps^,^und^e^r^c^e^r^tain
^cir^c^u^m^stan^{ces an}^d^su^b^j^{ect to}^cer^tain^coⁿ^d^itioⁿ^s^{, to}
^as^sⁱ^s^t^D^H^Sⁱⁿ^t^h^{e perf}^orm^aⁿ^{ce of}^border^prot^ectⁱ^oⁿ
^func^tⁱ^o^ns
^H^.^R^.²⁰⁹²^Jack^s^oⁿ^-^L^e^e^S^av^{e A}^m^eri^ca^C^o^m^p^reh^eⁿ^sⁱ^v^{e Im}^mⁱ^g^r^atⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^of^IH
²⁰⁰⁵
^H^.^R^.²³³⁰^K^o^l^b^e^S^ecu^{re A}^m^eri^{ca an}^{d O}^r^derl^y^Im^mⁱ^g^r^atⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^IH

^B^ill^Spo^nso^r^Tit^l^e^La^st
^Num^b^er^Actioⁿ
^H^.^R^.³¹³⁷^N^o^rw^ood^C^L^EA^R^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁵^IH
^H^.^R^.³³³³^T^aⁿ^c^redo^R^E^A^L^G^U^E^S^T^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁵^IH
^H^.^R^.³⁶²²^C^u^l^b^ers^oⁿ^B^{order Prot}^ectⁱ^oⁿ^C^o^rps^A^c^t^IH
^H^.^R^.³⁶⁹³^Pri^c^e^S^ecu^{re t}^h^e^O^u^t^sⁱ^d^e^Peri^m^e^t^e^{r (S}^T^O^{P) A}^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁵^IH
^H^.^R^.³⁷⁰⁴^D^r^ak^e^P^rot^ectⁱⁿ^g^A^m^eri^{ca T}^o^g^e^t^h^{er A}^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁵^IH
^H^.^R^.³⁹³⁸^H^a^y^w^ort^h^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^Fⁱ^rs^t^Im^mⁱ^g^r^atⁱ^oⁿ^R^e^f^o^r^m^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁵^IH
^H^.^R^.⁴⁰⁰⁹^T^h^om^ps^on^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^H^o^m^e^l^aⁿ^d^S^ecu^ri^t^y^R^e^f^o^rm^A^c^t^of^IH
²⁰⁰⁵
^H^.^R^.⁴⁰⁸³^G^oode^{Border S}^ecu^ri^t^y^Im^prov^em^en^t^A^c^t^IH
^H^.^R^.⁴⁰⁹⁹^McC^a^u^l^H^o^m^e^l^aⁿ^d^S^ecu^ri^t^y^V^o^l^uⁿ^t^e^e^rⁱ^s^m^Eⁿ^h^aⁿ^c^e^m^eⁿ^t^A^c^t^IH
^of²⁰⁰⁵
^H^.^R^.⁴²³⁸^McC^a^u^l^{Border S}^ecu^ri^t^y^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^an^d^D^e^t^eⁿ^tⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^of^IH
²⁰⁰⁵
^H^.^R^.⁴²⁴⁰^H^o^s^t^et^l^e^r^S^ecu^{re A}^m^eri^{ca A}^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁵^IH
^H^.^R^.⁴²⁸³^R^o^g^e^rs^Re^vie^w^t^o^Eⁿ^s^u^re^Hⁱ^g^h^Q^u^a^lity^Co^st-E^ffe^c^tive^IH
^T^r^aiⁿⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r Border Pat}^r^ol^A^g^en^t^s^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁵
^H^.^R^.⁴²⁸⁴^R^o^g^e^rs^S^e^c^u^re^Borde^r^Iⁿ^itia^tive^A^c^c^o^unta^b^ility^A^c^t^of^IH
²⁰⁰⁵
^H^.^R^.⁴²⁸⁵^R^o^g^e^rs^D^e^t^ectⁱ^oⁿ^C^aⁿⁱⁿ^e^A^u^g^m^en^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁵^IH
^H^.^R^.⁴³¹²^Kⁱⁿ^g^{Border S}^ecu^ri^t^y^an^{d T}^e^rrori^s^m^P^r^e^v^eⁿ^tⁱ^on^A^c^t^of^RH
²⁰⁰⁵
^H^.^R^.⁴³¹³^H^uⁿ^t^er^T^R^U^E^Eⁿ^fo^r^c^e^m^eⁿ^t^aⁿ^d^{Border S}^ecu^ri^t^y^A^c^t^of^IH
²⁰⁰⁵
^H^.^R^.⁴⁴¹²^McH^eⁿ^r^y^C^o^m^p^r^eh^en^sⁱ^v^e^Im^mⁱ^g^r^atⁱ^oⁿ^D^a^t^a^Aⁿ^d^T^echⁿ^o^l^o^g^y^IH
^A^ccouⁿ^t^ability^A^c^{t of}²⁰⁰⁵
^H.R^.⁴⁴³⁷^Sen^s^en^brenⁿ^e^r^T^{o am}^en^{d th}^{e Im}^mⁱ^g^r^ation^aⁿ^d^N^a^tion^a^lity^A^c^t^to^IH
^str^eⁿ^g^t^h^eⁿ^en^f^o^r^cem^en^{t o}^f^th^e^im^mⁱ^g^r^atioⁿ^law^s^,^to
^en^h^aⁿ^{ce border s}^ecu^ri^t^y^{, an}^{d f}^o^{r ot}^h^e^{r pu}^rpos^es
^H^.^R^.⁴⁸³⁰^D^r^ei^er^{Border T}^unne^l^P^r^e^v^eⁿ^tⁱ^o^{n A}^c^t^o^f^{2006 IH}
^H^.^R^.⁴⁸⁷¹^Pal^l^oⁿ^e^T^rⁱ^b^a^l^G^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^H^o^m^e^l^aⁿ^d^S^e^c^u^rⁱ^t^y^IH
^Co^o^r^dⁱⁿ^a^tioⁿ^an^d^Iⁿ^teg^r^atioⁿ^A^c^t
^H^.^R^.⁴⁹⁵⁸^R^o^g^e^rs^Caⁿⁱ^ne^D^e^t^e^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^T^e^a^m^A^u^g^m^eⁿ^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^aⁿ^d^IH
^C^e^rtⁱ^fⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁶
^H^.^R^.⁵⁰¹⁷^S^h^ay^s^T^o^eⁿ^s^u^r^e^t^h^eⁱ^m^p^l^e^m^eⁿ^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^t^h^e^IH
^r^eco^m^m^eⁿ^d^atioⁿ^s^o^f^th^{e Natio}ⁿ^a^{l Co}^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^oⁿ
^T^e^r^r^o^r^{ist A}^ttack^{s Up}^oⁿ^th^{e Un}^ited^States.
^H^.^R^.⁵⁰⁶⁷^Pearce^{Border S}^ecu^ri^t^y^an^{d T}^e^rrori^s^m^Prev^en^tⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^I^H

^B^ill^Spo^nso^r^Tit^l^e^La^st
^Num^b^er^Actioⁿ
^H^.^R^.⁵¹²²^H^uⁿ^t^er^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e F}^Y^{2007 A}^u^t^h^ori^zatⁱ^oⁿ^PH^,^PS
^B^ill
^H^.^R^.⁵⁴⁵⁶^Bu^rt^on^Il^l^e^g^a^l^Im^mⁱ^g^r^atⁱ^oⁿ^C^rⁱ^sⁱ^s^R^e^s^pon^s^e^A^c^t^,²⁰⁰⁶^IH
^H^.^R^.⁵⁶³¹^Y^o^uⁿ^g^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^,²⁰⁰⁷^P^H
^H^.^R^.⁵⁸¹³^R^o^g^e^rs^D^e^p^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^of^H^o^m^e^l^aⁿ^d^S^ecu^ri^t^y^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^IH
^an^{d O}^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^s^Im^prov^em^en^t^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁶
^H^.^R^.⁵⁸¹⁴^Kⁱⁿ^g^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^H^o^m^e^l^a^nd^Se^c^u^rⁱ^t^y^A^u^t^h^ori^zatⁱ^oⁿ^IH
^A^c^t^f^o^{r F}ⁱ^s^cal^Y^{ear 2007}
^H^.^R^.⁶⁰⁶¹^Kⁱⁿ^g^S^ecu^{re F}^eⁿ^{ce A}^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁶^PH
^H^.^R^.⁶⁰⁹¹^S^eⁿ^s^en^brenⁿ^e^r^B^{order S}^ecu^ri^t^y^En^h^aⁿ^cem^en^t^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁶^IH
^S^.¹²^Bi^den^T^arg^e^tⁱⁿ^g^T^e^rrori^s^t^s^{More Ef}^f^ectⁱ^v^el^y^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁵IS
^S^.¹⁰³³^McC^aⁱⁿ^S^ecu^{re A}^m^eri^{ca an}^{d O}^r^derl^y^Im^mⁱ^g^r^atⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^IS
^S^.¹³⁶²^S^e^s^sⁱ^on^s^H^om^el^an^{d S}^ecu^ri^t^y^En^h^aⁿ^cem^en^t^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁵^IS
^{S. 1374}^McC^aⁱⁿ^A^{bill to}^am^en^d^th^e^Hom^e^lan^d^Secu^rity^A^c^{t of}²⁰⁰²^IS
^t^o^provⁱ^d^{e f}^o^{r a border preparedn}^e^s^s^pi^l^o^t^prog^ram
^on^In^di^an^l^aⁿ^d
^S^.¹⁴³⁸^C^o^rn^yⁿ^Co^m^p^r^e^he^nsi^v^e^Eⁿ^fo^r^c^e^m^eⁿ^t^aⁿ^d^I^m^mⁱ^gr^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^IS
^R^e^f^o^rm^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁵
^S^.¹⁸²³^H^u^t^c^hⁱ^s^oⁿ^I^l^l^e^g^a^l^I^m^mⁱ^g^r^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Eⁿ^f^o^r^c^e^m^eⁿ^t^aⁿ^d^IS
^Em^pow^erm^eⁿ^t^A^c^t
^S^.¹⁸⁷⁵^Biⁿ^g^a^m^aⁿ^B^{order L}^a^w^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^R^e^lⁱ^e^f^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁵^IS
^S^.¹⁹¹⁶^H^a^g^e^l^S^t^r^en^g^t^h^eⁿⁱⁿ^g^A^m^eri^ca’^s^S^ecu^ri^t^y^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁵^IS
^S^.²⁰⁴⁹^D^o^m^eⁿ^eci^{Border S}^ecu^ri^t^y^an^{d Modern}ⁱ^zatⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁵^IS
^S^.²⁰⁶¹^N^e^l^s^on^B^o^r^d^e^r^S^e^c^u^rⁱ^t^y^aⁿ^d^Iⁿ^t^e^rⁱ^o^r^Eⁿ^f^o^r^c^e^m^eⁿ^t^IS
^Im^prov^em^en^t^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁵
^S^.²¹¹⁷^In^h^o^f^e^EN^F^O^R^C^E^A^c^t^I^S
^S^.²³⁶⁸^N^e^l^s^on^B^o^r^d^e^r^S^e^c^u^rⁱ^t^y^aⁿ^d^Iⁿ^t^e^rⁱ^o^r^Eⁿ^f^o^r^c^e^m^eⁿ^t^IS
^Im^prov^em^en^t^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁶
^S^.²³⁷⁷^N^e^l^s^on^B^o^r^d^e^r^S^e^c^u^rⁱ^t^y^aⁿ^d^Iⁿ^t^e^rⁱ^o^r^Eⁿ^f^o^r^c^e^m^eⁿ^t^IS
^Im^prov^em^en^t^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁶
^S^.²³⁹¹^N^e^l^s^on^Borders^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁶^IS
^S^.²³⁹⁴^Is^ak^s^oⁿ^B^{order S}^ecu^ri^t^y^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁶^IS
^S^.²⁴⁵⁴^F^rⁱ^s^t^S^ecu^riⁿ^g^A^m^eri^ca’^s^Borders^A^c^t^I^S

^B^ill^Spo^nso^r^Tit^l^e^La^st
^Num^b^er^Actioⁿ
^S.A^m^d^t^.^S^p^e^c^t^e^r^To^a^m^eⁿ^d^t^h^e^I^m^mⁱ^g^r^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^aⁿ^d^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^lity^A^c^t^t^o^PO^C
^3192.^provⁱ^d^{e f}^o^r^com^p^reh^eⁿ^sⁱ^v^{e ref}^o^rm^an^{d t}^o^provⁱ^d^e
^coⁿ^d^itioⁿ^a^lⁿ^oⁿⁱ^m^mⁱ^g^r^an^{t au}^th^o^r^izatioⁿ^f^o^r
^em^pl^oy^m^eⁿ^t^t^o^uⁿ^docu^m^en^t^e^d^alⁱ^eⁿ^s^,^an^{d f}^o^{r ot}^h^e^r
^pu^rpos^es^.
^S^.²⁶¹¹^S^p^ect^er^C^o^m^p^reh^eⁿ^sⁱ^v^{e Im}^mⁱ^g^r^atⁱ^oⁿ^R^e^f^o^rm^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁶^PS
^S^.²⁶¹²^H^a^g^e^l^C^om^preh^en^sⁱ^v^e^Im^mⁱ^g^r^atⁱ^oⁿ^R^e^f^o^rm^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁶^IS
^S^.²⁷⁶⁶^Warn^er^Johⁿ^Warn^{er N}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e A}^u^t^hori^zatⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^PS
^f^o^{r F}ⁱ^s^cal^Y^{ear 2007}
^S.A^m^d^t^.^K^y^l^T^{o prov}ⁱ^d^{e $1,829,000,000 f}^o^{r t}^h^{e A}^r^m^y^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^PS
⁴⁷⁸⁸^G^u^ard^f^o^r^t^h^e^con^sⁱ^d^eratⁱ^oⁿ^of^{370 m}ⁱ^l^e^s^of^t^rⁱ^p^l^e^-
^l^a^y^e^red^fe^ndiⁿ^g^,^an^{d 500 m}ⁱ^l^e^s^of^v^e^hⁱ^cl^{e barri}^e^rs
^a^l^o^{ng t}^h^e^so^ut^hw^e^s^t^b^o^r^d^e^r^.
^S^.³⁵⁶⁴^S^aⁿ^t^oru^m^{Border S}^ecu^ri^t^y^Fⁱ^rs^t^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰⁶^IS
^No^te:^I^H^m^ean^{s in}^tr^o^d^u^cedⁱⁿ^Ho^u^s^e;^I^S^m^ean^{s in}^tr^o^d^u^cedⁱⁿ^Sen^a^{te; RH m}^ean^{s r}^e^p^o^r^tedⁱⁿ^th^e
^Hou^s^{e; R}^{FS m}^ean^s^ref^e^{rred to Sen}^a^{te C}^o^m^m^ittee^f^r^om^Hou^s^{e; P}^H^m^ean^s^P^a^s^s^e^d^Hou^s^{e; P}^S^m^ean^s
^P^a^s^s^e^{d Sen}^a^{te; P}^O^C^m^ean^s^{placed on}^th^{e calen}^dar.

Appendix B.
Immigration Related Border Security Legislation,
by Issue Area
^{Issue Area}^B^ills
^B^e^tw^een^P^o^r^t^{s o}^f^En^tr^y
^—^{Border S}^ecu^ri^t^y^S^t^rat^e^g^y^H^.^R^.^{4312, H}^.^R^.^{4437, H}^.^R^.^{5067, S}^.^2454,
^S^.^A^m^dt^{. 3192, S}^.^{2611, S}^.^{2612, S}^.³⁵⁶⁴
^—^{Border F}^eⁿ^cⁱⁿ^g^an^{d O}^t^h^e^{r Barri}^e^rs^P.L^.^109-^{13, H}^.^R^.^{418, H}^.^R^.^{1268, H}^.^R^.^4083,
^H^.^R^.^{4312, H}^.^R^.^{4313, H}^.^R^.^{4437, H}^.^R^.^5067,
^H^.^R^.^{5456, H}^.^R^.^{5631, H}^.^R^.^{6061, S}^.^{1916, S}^.
^{2049, S}^.^{2061, S}^.^{2117, S}^.^{2368, S}^.^{2377, S}^.
^{2454, S}^.^A^m^dt^{. 3192, S}^.^{2611, S}^.^{2612, S}^.
^{3564, S}^.^A^m^dt^{. 4788}
^{— Military}^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce at th}^{e B}^o^rder^H.R^.^{688, H.R}^.^{1815, H.A}^m^{dt. 206, H.R}^.^1986,
^H^.^R^.^{3938, H}^.^R^.^{4240, H}^.^R^.^{4312, H}^.^R^.^4313,
^H^.^R^.^{4437, H}^.^R^.^{5067, H}^.^R^.^{5122, H}^.^A^m^dt^.
^{814, S}^.^{2049, S}^.^{2061, S}^.^{2454, S}^.^A^m^dt^{. 3192,}
^S^.^{2611, S}^.^{2612, S}^.^{2766, S}^.³⁵⁶⁴
^{— C}ⁱ^v^ilian^P^a^trols^{at th}^{e B}^o^rder^H.R^.^{3622, H.R}^.^{3704, H.R}^.^{4099, H.R}^.^5067,
^S^.^{1823, S}^.^{2049, S}^.²¹¹⁷
^—^{Border R}^e^s^o^u^r^ces^:^Man^pow^er^H^.^R^.^{1817, H}^.^R^.^{3938, H}^.^R^.^{4044, H}^.^R^.^4099,
^H^.^R^.^{4312, H}^.^R^.^{4313, H}^.^R^.^{4437, H}^.^R^.^5067,
^H^.^R^.^{5456, H}^.^R^.^{5814, S}^.^{1438, S}^.^{1916, S}^.
^{2061, S}^.^{2368, S}^.^{2377, S}^.^{2391, S}^.^{2394, S}^.
^{2454, S}^.^A^m^dt^{. 3192, S}^.^{2611, S}^.^{2612, S}^.³⁵⁶⁴
^{— B}^o^{rder R}^e^s^o^u^r^ces^{: Su}^rv^eillan^c^e^H^.R^{. 1320, H.R}^.^{2330, H.R}^.^{3938, H.R}^.^4284,
^H^.^R^.^{4312, H}^.^R^.^{4438, H}^.^R^.^{5067, H}^.^R^.^5456,
^H^.^R^.^{6061, S}^.^{1033, S}^.^{1438, S}^.^{1916, S}^.^2049,
^S^.^{2368, S}^.^{2377, S}^.^{2391, S}^.^{2394, S}^.^2454,
^S^.^A^m^dt^{. 3192, S}^.^{2611, S}^.^{2612, S}^.³⁵⁶⁴
^—^{Border R}^e^s^o^u^r^ces^:^In^f^r^as^t^r^u^c^t^u^re^H^.^R^.^{3938, H}^.^R^.^{4312, H}^.^R^.^{4437, H}^.^R^.^5067,
^H^.^R^.^{6061, S}^.^{1438, S}^.^{1916, S}^.^{2049, S}^.^2454,
^S^.^A^m^dt^{. 3192, S}^.^{2611, S}^.^{2612, S}^.³⁵⁶⁴
^—^{Border R}^e^s^o^u^r^ces^:^O^t^h^e^{r R}^e^s^o^u^r^ces^H^.^R^.^{3938, H}^.^R^.^{4312, H}^.^R^.^{4437, H}^.^R^.^5067,
^S^.^{1438, S}^.^{1916, S}^.^{2049, S}^.^{2454, S}^.^A^m^dt^.
^{3192, S}^.^{2611, S}^.^{2612, an}^{d S}^.³⁵⁶⁴
^—^Ex^pedi^t^e^{d R}^e^m^o^v^a^l^Ex^pan^sⁱ^oⁿ^H^.R^{. 3938, H}^.^R^.^{4240, H}^.^R^.^{4312, H}^.^R^.^4437,
^H^.^R^.^{5067, S}^.^{1438, S}^.^{1916, S}^.^{2049. S}^.^2377,
^S^.^{2454, S}^.^A^m^dt^{. 3192, S}^.³⁵⁶⁴
^—^Man^d^at^ory^D^e^t^eⁿ^tⁱ^oⁿ^H^.R^{. 4238, H}^.^R^.^{4312, H}^.^R^.^{4437, H}^.^R^.^5067,
^S^.^{2377, S}^.^{2454, S}^.^A^m^dt^{. 3192, S}^.^{2611, S}^.
^{2612, S}^.³⁵⁶⁴
^—^B^o^r^d^e^r^T^unne^l^s^S.^A^m^d^t^.^{3192, S}^.^{2611, S}^.^{2612, S}^.^{3564, H}^.^R^.
^{4830, H}^.^R^.⁶⁰⁹¹
^—^C^oordiⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^wⁱ^t^h^T^rⁱ^b^al^G^o^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^s^H^.R^{. 1320, H}^.^R^.^{3938, H}^.^R^.^{4009, H}^.^R^.^4312,
^H^.^R^.^{4437, H}^.^R^.^{4871, H}^.^R^.^{5067, S}^.^{1438, S}^.
^{2454, S}^.^{2611, S}^.²⁶¹²

^{Issue Area}^B^ills
^—^S^h^adow^Wol^v^es^T^r^an^s^f^er^H^.^R^.^{1320, H}^.^R^.^{4312, H}^.^R^.^{4437, H}^.^R^.^5067,
^H^.^R^.⁵⁸¹³
^{— Usin}^g^Ho^m^e^lan^d^Secu^r^ity^Gr^an^{ts f}^o^r^H^.^R^.^{4312, H}^.^R^.^{4437, H}^.^R^.⁵⁰⁶⁷
^B^o^{rder Secu}^rity
^—^{Border G}^r^an^t^Prog^ram^S^{. 2611, S}^.^{2612, S}^.³⁵⁶⁴
^—^In^j^u^{red A}^lⁱ^eⁿ^D^a^t^a^C^o^l^l^ectⁱ^oⁿ^H^.R^{. 4312, H}^.^R^.^{4437, H}^.^R^.^{5067, S}^.^{2611, S}^.
^{2612, S}^.³⁵⁶⁴
^{— B}^o^{rder Secu}^rity^A^d^vⁱ^s^o^ry^C^o^m^m^{ittee an}^d^H^.^R^.^{4312, H}^.^R^.^{4437, H}^.^R^.⁵⁰⁶⁷
^C^eⁿ^t^{er of}^Ex^cellen^c^e
^{— B}^o^{rder Secu}^rity^T^h^{reat A}^s^s^e^s^s^m^en^{t an}^d^H^.^R^.^{4312, H}^.^R^.^{4437, H}^.^R^.⁵⁰⁶⁷
^Ex^ercis^e
^{— B}^o^{rder Secu}^rity^C^oordin^a^tion^an^d^H^.^R^.^{4312, H}^.^R^.^{4437, H}^.^R^.⁵⁰⁶⁷
^M^a^na^gm^eⁿ^t
^—^Aⁱ^{r an}^{d Mari}ⁿ^e^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^s^O^r^g^aⁿⁱ^zatⁱ^oⁿ^H^.R^{. 4312, H}^.^R^.^{4437, H}^.^R^.⁵⁰⁶⁷
^—^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^C^a^pi^t^a^l^R^e^gⁱ^on^Aⁱ^rs^pace^H^.^R^.^{4312, H}^.^R^.^{4437, H}^.^R^.⁵⁰⁶⁷
^{— I}^m^p^r^o^vⁱⁿ^g^Ho^m^e^lan^d^Secu^r^ity^S^.^{2454, S}^.^A^m^dt^{. 3192, S}^.^{2611, S}^.^{2612, S}^.
^Iⁿ^fo^r^m^a^tⁱ^o^{n E}^x^c^h^a^nge³⁵⁶⁴
^—^{Border S}^ecu^ri^t^y^on^F^e^deral^L^aⁿ^d^S^.^{2611, S}^.^{2612, S}^.³⁵⁶⁴
^At^P^o^r^t^s^o^f^Eⁿ^t^r^y
^—^Bi^om^et^ri^{c En}^t^r^y^Exⁱ^t^Prog^ram^H^.R^{. 1320, H}^.^R^.^{2033, H}^.^R^.^{4312, H}^.^R^.^4313,
^H^.^R^.^{4437, H}^.^R^.^{5017, H}^.^R^.^{5067, S}^.^{1033, S}^.
^{1438, S}^.^{1916, S}^.^{2049, S}^.^{2454, S}^.^A^m^dt^.
^{3192, S}^.^{2611, S}^.^{2612, S}^.³⁵⁶⁴
^—^O^t^h^e^{r PO}^{E dat}^a^bas^e^s^H^.R^{. 1320}
^—^PO^{E R}^e^s^o^u^r^ces^:^Man^pow^er^H^.^R^.^{688, H}^.^R^.^{2092, H}^.^R^.^{3938, H}^.^R^.^4044,
^H^.^R^.^{4312, H}^.^R^.^{4437, H}^.^R^.^{5067, S}^.^{1438, S}^.
^{1916, S}^.^{2049, S}^.^{2092, S}^.^A^m^dt^{. 3192, S}^.
^{2611, S}^.^{2612, S}^.³⁵⁶⁴
^—^PO^{E R}^e^s^o^u^r^ces^:^T^echⁿ^o^l^o^g^y^H^.^R^.^{1320, H}^.^R^.^{4312, H}^.^R^.^{4412, H}^.^R^.^4437,
^H^.^R^.^{5067, S}^.^{2611, S}^.^{2612, S}^.³⁵⁶⁴
^—^PO^{E R}^e^s^o^u^r^ces^:^In^f^r^as^t^r^u^c^t^u^re^H^.^R^.^{1320, H}^.^R^.^{4313, H}^.^R^.^{5067, S}^.^{2061, S}^.
^{2454, S}^.^A^m^dt^{. 3192, S}^.^{2611, S}^.^{2612, S}^.³⁵⁶⁴
^{— Ev}^asioⁿ^o^f^Iⁿ^sp^ectioⁿ^/^Failu^r^e^to^Ob^ey^S^.^A^m^dt^{. 3192, S}^.^{2611, S}^.²⁶¹²
^CB^P^O^ffi^c^e^r^s
^{— On}^{e F}^{ace at th}^{e Border}^H.R^.^{1320, H.R}^.^{1817, H.R}^.^{4044, H.R}^.^4312,
^H^.^R^.^{4437, H}^.^R^.⁵⁰⁶⁷
^{— W}^e^s^t^ern^Hemⁱ^s^p^h^e^{re T}^r^av^{el In}^itiativ^e^S^{. 2611}
^—^C^B^P/^IC^{E O}^r^g^aⁿⁱ^zatⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Dⁱ^vⁱ^sⁱ^on^H^.^R^.¹⁸¹⁷
^—^C^aⁿⁱⁿ^e^Uⁿⁱ^t^s^H^.^R^.^{1320, H}^.^R^.^{4285, H}^.^R^.^{4312, H}^.^R^.^4437,
^H^.^R^.^{4958, H}^.^R^.^{5067, H}^.^R^.⁵⁸¹³