Border and Transportation Security: Budget for FY2003 and FY2004

Congressional research reportJan 15, 2004

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Order Code RL32061

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Border and Transportation Security:

Budget for FY2003 and FY2004

Updated January 15, 2004

Dennis Snook

Specialist in Social Legislation

Domestic Social Policy Division

Jennifer Lake

Analyst in Social Legislation

Domestic Social Policy Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Border and Transportation Security:

Budget for FY2003 and FY2004

Summary

A well-managed border is central to maintaining and improving the security of

the homeland against terrorist threats. Although the Department of Defense (DOD)

will continue to provide an umbrella of protection against potential foreign threats

to national security from other nations, the new Department of Homeland Security

(DHS) has been given primary responsibility for securing the nation’s borders and

for increasing the security of transportation, among other responsibilities.

On September 24, 2003, both the House and Senate passed H.R. 2555 the first

ever appropriation for DHS. P.L. 108-90 was signed into law October 1, 2003, and

provides $17.8 billion for border and transportation security functions for FY2004.

The Administration requested $17.3 billion for these functions, while the House

provided $17.6 billion and the Senate $18.1 billion.

The Omnibus Appropriations Resolution for FY2003 (P.L. 108-7) funded

activities transferred to DHS to secure the borders and increase transportation

security, but the Administration’s request for FY2004 was the first attempt to submit

an explicit, integrated estimate of the funds needed by DHS for those activities. The

total amount provided for DHS for FY2003 was $29.7 billion, of which 64% was for

the operations of border and transportation security, as identified in this report.

Of the amounts appropriated for FY2003 and requested for FY2004 for these

activities, Administration documents suggest that 27% of the funding for the

accounts would be used for functions other than security. For instance, the U.S.

Coast Guard has responsibilities for boat safety programs, including expenses for

rescuing passengers of distressed watercraft. Customs administers trade laws, many

of which are concerned with import and export operations unrelated to security

issues.

Major issues in border and transportation security include determination of the

optimum number of Air Marshals and airport screeners, port security measures, cargo

security initiatives, implementation of the Visitor & Immigrant Status Indicator

project (US VISIT) alien tracking system, border security efforts at the Northern

border with Canada, extension of Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

security efforts to other forms of transportation (trains, buses, trucks, and pipelines),

and funding for the Coast Guard’s Deepwater effort to replace its aging ships and

planes. Of special concern to House and Senate Appropriations conferees were

differences of $50 million for the US VISIT program; the Coast Guard’s Deepwater

program ($172 million); and the TSA ($224 million), where both houses provide

additional funding for the procurement and installation of explosive detection

systems (EDS). P.L. 108-90 provides $330 million for US VISIT; $668 million for

the Coast Guard’s Deepwater program; and $475 million for the installation of EDS.

This report draws its data from the reports of the Committees on Appropriations

(H.Rept. 108-169; S.Rept. 108-86); and the conference report H.Rept. 108-280. The

report will be updated as further information on border and transportation security

funding becomes available.

Key Policy Staff: Border and Transportation Security

Area of expertise

Name

Phone

E-mail

Coauthor

Denny W. Snook

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Coauthor

(name redacted)

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Customs Issues

(name redacted)

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Immigration Issues

Lisa M. Seghetti

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Transportation

Security

Administration

Bartholomew Elias

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Coast Guard

Ronald O’Rourke

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Port Security

(name redacted)

Agricultural

Quarantine

Inspections

James Monke

7-....

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Operation Liberty Shield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Border Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Transportation Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Budget for Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

FY2004 Appropriations P.L. 108-90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

FY2004 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

FY2003 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Operational Components of Border and Transportation Security . . . . . . . . . 7

Directorate of Border and Transportation Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (BCBP) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Border Patrol Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Agriculture Quarantine Inspection (AQI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE) . . . . . 15

Immigration Enforcement Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Transportation Security Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

List of Tables

Key Policy Staff: Border and Transportation Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 1. Summary of Appropriations: Border and Transportation Security,

FY2003-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 2. Crosswalk to Border and Transportation Security

Functional Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 3. Selected Detail for Appropriations:

Border and Transportation Security, FY2003-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 4. BCBP Account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 5. Selected Detail on Accounts, Programs, and Activities of BCBP . . . . 11

Table 6. BICE Account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 7. TSA Account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 8. Selected Accounts, Programs, and Activities of TSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 9. Coast Guard Account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Border and Transportation Security:

Budget for FY2003 and FY2004

Introduction

Increasing border and transportation security are essential strategies for

improving and maintaining homeland security. Border security entails regulating the

flow of goods and people across the borders so that dangerous and unwanted goods

or people are denied entry. Transportation security entails inspecting people and

goods as they move among different locations within the country to reduce the

possibility of terrorist attacks or the incursion of unwanted people or goods.

Determining which goods and people are permitted and which are denied entry

into the U.S. involves a system of good border management so that the distinctions

are recognized without interfering with essential commerce and the legitimate free

flow of citizens and authorized visitors across the borders. The system must be

capable of examining minute details of goods and people seeking entry, but still fit

within budget constraints and be administratively feasible.

Improving transportation security has meant an expanded federal role in

screening passengers and baggage traveling through airports, and increasing the

presence of federal officers aboard domestic and international flights, with plans to

extend that presence to other modes of transportation more intensively in the future.

Finally, these management systems must accomplish their functions with a minimum

of disruption of legitimate activities, and without unnecessary intrusion into the civil

liberties of persons affected by them.

Major issues in border and transportation security include: determination of the

optimum number of Air Marshals and airport screeners; port security

implementation; airline cargo security measures; implementation of the Visitor &

Immigrant Status Indicator project (US VISIT) alien tracking system, border security

efforts at the Northern border with Canada, extension of Transportation Security

Administration (TSA) border security efforts beyond airline security to other forms

of transportation (trains, buses, trucks, and pipelines), and funding for the Coast

Guard’s Deepwater effort to replace its aging ships and planes.

Background

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred the functions,

relevant funding, and most of the personnel of 22 agencies and offices to the new

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) created by the Act. The DHS was

organized in four major directorates: Border and Transportation Security; Emergency

CRS-2

Preparedness and Response; Science and Technology; and Information Analysis and

Infrastructure Protection.

The first Directorate, Border and Transportation Security, along with its close

functional sibling, the U.S. Coast Guard, are responsible for the first line of defense

against terrorism, as well as remaining responsible for securing and managing the

nation’s borders. Included in this responsibility are the inspection, investigative and

enforcement operations of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS),

which had been responsible for managing and coordinating entry into the U.S., and

enforcing immigration laws. DHS border and transportation security objectives also

include fulfilling the newly expanded federal role of the TSA in protecting the

nation’s transportation systems, initially involving airline passengers, baggage, and

freight.

The Customs function, previously the responsibility of the Department of the

Treasury’s U.S. Customs Service,1 is now under the Directorate. The Customs

function administered by DHS, together with the U.S. Coast Guard, are expected to

effectively secure commercial traffic entering the nation’s ports. The Directorate

includes a planning office and a training activity to assist state and local entities with

homeland security objectives. The Directorate also assumes responsibility for

inspecting and monitoring plants and animals entering the U.S. to minimize the risk

that noxious pests and diseases will be introduced into the country.

On January 24, 2003 the Department of Homeland Security began operations

as a separate federal department. Web sites were launched, some employees given

different locations to report for duty, DHS managers began to issue directives to

employees, and preparations were made to begin the transfer of most functions,

including personnel and funds, on March 1, 2003. At the same time, federal officials

responsible for administering the new Department also had responsibility for

homeland security issues that could not await the full operations of an established

bureaucracy. Not only was there suspected evidence of terrorist plans against the

U.S. being developed around the world, but the U.S. was also preparing to use

military force to remove the existing rogue regime in the nation of Iraq, an effort that

some believed could lead to increased terrorist threats to the U.S. homeland.

Operation Liberty Shield. As the country anticipated the impending conflict

with Iraq, considerable attention inside and out of the Administration focused on the

possible increased terrorist threat that could be present as a result of the military

campaign. In response to the perceived increased threat, on March 17, 2003, the

Administration announced Operation Liberty Shield2 as a “comprehensive national

The U.S. Customs Service, among the first of federal functions at the origins of the

Republic, apparently remains in existence, but in name only. Official DHS documents

sometimes refer to operations pertaining to the Customs function and link them to the

bureaus of the Directorate. Some documents refer to the U.S. Customs Service, but without

reference to its location or operations. Some documents refer to DHS “inspectors,” without

distinguishing among their INS, Customs, or Animal and Plant Health responsibilities.

For more detail on Operation Liberty Shield, see CRS Report RS21475, Operation Liberty

(continued...)

CRS-3

plan to increase protections for America’s citizens and infrastructure while

maintaining the free flow of goods and people across our border with minimal

disruption to our economy and way of life.” Although some of its enhanced security

steps will continue indefinitely, Operation Liberty Shield terminated on April 17, as

the threat appeared to diminish as hostilities in Iraq wound down.

In spite of its short duration as a plan of heightened security, Operation Liberty

Shield served as an example of the activities that could accompany any such alert.

Furthermore, the program served as an explanation of funds requested for DHS in a

bill requesting supplemental appropriations for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Some of

the requested funds could be expected to accomplish purposes that would remain in

place after Operation Liberty Shield was ended, including those directed to border

and transportation security.

Border Security. Land border security was increased by adding agents to the

Northern and Southern Border regions, including additional numbers between major

ports of entry. Maritime security was increased by adding patrols of major ports and

waterways, more escorts of passenger ships, and more Sea Marshals on board “high

interest vessels” with cargoes, crewmembers, or other characteristics that warrant

closer scrutiny. In addition, the Coast Guard enforced published “security zones” in

close proximity to critical infrastructure sites in key ports.

Transportation Security. Operation Liberty Shield implemented additional

airport security measures, increasing the presence of law enforcement officers on

patrol in and around airports. New flight restrictions were established for the

airspace over Washington, D.C., and New York City. DHS requested states to

provide additional police or National Guard forces at specified bridges. Railroads

(including AMTRAK) were asked to increase security at facilities and rail hubs, and

to improve the monitoring of hazardous materials (HAZMAT) and the trains carrying

such materials. Shipping companies, as well as trucking companies, were

encouraged to improve employee identification checks, communications systems,

improved operator awareness, and coordination between the U.S. and Canada on

cross-border shipments of HAZMAT.

Budget for Homeland Security

The effective date for shifting most of the responsibilities from former

departments and agencies to the new DHS was March 1, 2003. While the transfer

of functional lines of authority, and the personnel to carry out those functions was

relatively straightforward, problems arose with initial attempts to ascertain the

amount of the appropriated funds actually transferred.

Because functions now performed by DHS were previously performed by

predecessor agencies with somewhat different purposes than homeland security,

comparisons of responsibilities and analyses of requests for increased budget

authority were difficult to develop. The funding lines between FY2003 and FY2004

(...continued)

Shield: Border, Transportation, and Domestic Security, updated by Jennifer Lake.

CRS-4

were not identical to lines of functional responsibility before and after transfer, a

problem made more difficult because the basic documentation of appropriations in

the President’s FY2004 Budget was prepared after the formation of DHS but before

final enactment of appropriations for the remainder of FY2003.

Furthermore, the FY2003 appropriations bill was developed using the pre-DHS

configuration of appropriations accounts and functions, while the President’s request

for FY2004 used DHS and its administrative layout as the basis for the requests in

the similar functional lines. The Administration’s request for additional

supplemental funds for Operation Liberty Shield also used the new configuration.

Given the different accounting purposes for appropriations lines before and after the

formation of DHS, amounts for the various functions of the new agency are not

always directly aligned with previous accounts from which those functions were

funded in their former agencies. With the completion of appropriations for FY2004,

a baseline will be established, making future appropriations decisions more easily

compared to the previous year’s levels. But at the moment, we have no comparable

numbers for FY2002, which would be the base for showing the large increase in

funding which has occurred in nearly all these programs for both 2003 and 2004.

Table 1 shows appropriations for various aspects of border and transportation

security for FY2003, requested amounts for FY2004, amounts approved by each

chamber and the Conference Committee as they completed work on H.R. 2555,

Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for FY2004. The

distinction between border and transportation security functions and other functions

funded through the same account lines is somewhat arbitrary. In this sense, our

analysis uses something akin to a functional classification for “border and

transportation security.” Consequently, it does not include activities in the

Directorate for Border and Transportation Security that have no direct bearing on that

function (such as the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP), Federal Building

Protection, and the Secret Service.)

On the other hand, this functional grouping does include the activities of the

Coast Guard, a separate agency in DHS not part of the Directorate for Border and

Transportation Security, but which has an essential role in providing “border and

transportation security” as those words are commonly understood.

As noted earlier, definitions are arbitrary, and some functions contained in other

accounts that are related to border and transportation security, such as those aspects

of the Science and Technology account which improve that security, are excluded

from this table. This table shows an approximation of costs for border and

transportation security, based on identifying the accounts for which such security

functions are the primary function involved, and do not reflect DHS breakdowns as

to estimated amounts specifically associated with the Directorate for Border and

Transportation Security.

CRS-5

Table 1. Summary of Appropriations: Border and

Transportation Security, FY2003-FY2004

($ in millions)

Functional authority

Bureau of Customs and Border

Protection (BCBP)

Bureau of Immigration &

Customs Enforcement (BICE)

Transportation Security

Administration (TSA)

Visitor & Immigrant Status

Indicator Project (US VISIT)b

FY2003 FY2004

enacted request

FY2004 FY2004 FY2004

House Senate

Conf.

5,237

5,647

5,081

4,900

4,928

2,444

2,487

2,997

2,888

3,425a

5,414

2,742

3,082

3,326

2,522a

—

380

330

6,254

6,655

6,681

6,815

6,776

Federal Law Enforcement

Training Center (FLETC)

170

146

169

201

193

Federal Protective Services

(FPS)

(408)

(424)

Total: Border and

Transportation Security

19,111

17,253

17,586

18,086

17,750

U.S. Coast Guard:

Source: CRS Analysis of H.Rept. 108-169; S. Rept.108-86; Conference Report H.Rept. 108-280.

Note: FY2004 conference amounts do not reflect the effects of the 0.59% across-the-board reduction

in most discretionary accounts, as called for in the conference version of H.R. 2763, passed by the

House on December 8, 2003.

The differences between the House and Senate recommendations for BICE and TSA, and the

amounts recommended by the Conference Report reflect the transfer of the Federal Air Marshals

from TSA to BICE.

The Administration’s request of $480 million for US Visit was made under BCBP; the House lists

$350 million in the Automation Modernization Account of BICE; the Senate created a separate

account for US VISIT, and recommended $380 million; the Conference Report follows the

Senate report and places US VISIT in a separate account directly under the Undersecretary for

Border and Transportation Security.

Table 2 illustrates how we arrived at the functional presentation contained in

Table 1. It also reflects the differing organization of both the Senate and House

recommendations; reconciles the different approaches and provides functional totals

which are comparable.

The conferees placed most border and transportation security functions into

Title II Security, Enforcement, and Investigations. Title II of the conference report

(H.Rept. 180-280) includes: the Under Secretary for DBTS, BCBP, BICE, TSA,

Coast Guard, and the Secret Service. Title II of the conference report does not

include FLETC, which is included in Title IV Research and Development, Training,

Assessments, and Services. The House offered its Border and Transportation

Security recommendations in Title II of H.Rept. 108-169. Title II includes: BCBP,

CRS-6

BICE, TSA, FLETC, and ODP. Title II of the House report does not include the

Coast Guard. In contrast, the Senate displayed its Border and Transportation Security

recommendations in Title III of S.Rept. 108-86. Title III includes: BCBP, BICE,

TSA, and the Coast Guard. Title III of the Senate report did not include FLETC.

Table 2 presents the information from the House, Senate, and conference reports in

a format that meets our functional approach and allows for comparison.

FY2004 Appropriations P.L. 108-90. On September 24, 2003 both the

House and Senate passed H.R. 2555, appropriations for FY2004 for the Department

of Homeland Security (DHS). P.L. 108-90 was signed into law October 1, 2003, and

provides $17.8 billion for the functions identified in this report as having a primary

function of providing for border and transportation security. On June 24, 2003, the

House passed its version of H.R. 2555 providing $17.6 billion; and on July 25, 2003,

the Senate approved its version of the bill providing $18.1 billion for these same

functions.

FY2004 Request. The Administration requested $17.3 billion for the

operations of border and transportation security as identified in this report.

FY2003 Appropriations. For FY2003, Congress provided $29.7 billion for

DHS activities, including $3.6 billion in supplemental appropriations, much of which

was used to fund the increased security measures entailed by Operation Liberty

Shield. Of the total provided to DHS, 64% funded accounts this report identifies as

primarily concerned with border and transportation security.

CRS-7

Table 2. Crosswalk to Border and Transportation Security

Functional Presentation

($ in millions)

FY2003 FY2004 FY2004 FY2004 FY2004

enacted request House Senate

Conf.

Bureau of Customs and Border

Protection (BCBP)

BCBP Fee Accounts

BCBP Appropriation

Bureau of Immigration and

Customs Enforcement (BICE)

BICE Fee Accounts

BICE Appropriation

Transportation Security

Administration

Federal Law Enforcement

Training Center

Office for Domestic

Preparedness

U.S. Coast Guard

Under Secretary of Border

and Transportation Security

U.S. VISIT f

Subtotal Border and

Transportation Security

Subtract Federal Building

Protection

Subtract Office for Domestic

Preparedness

Subtract Under Secretary

Border and Transportation

Security

Add Federal Law

Enforcement Training Center

Add U.S. Coast Guard

Functional Total: Border and

Transportation Security

6,054

6,468

5,902

5,745

5,773

(817)

5,237

(821)

5,647

(821)

5,081

(845)

4,900

(845)

4,928

2,799

2,784

3,294

3,161

3,698

(355)

2,444

(297)

2,487

(297)

2,997

(273)

2,888 a

(273)

3,425 a

5,414 g

2,742

3,082

3,326 a

2,522 a

170

146

169

3,236

3,558

3,503

6,254

6,655

6,815

6,776

—

380

330

22,755

21,258

14,852

18,318

17,989

(408)

(424)

(3,236)

(3,558)

(3,503)

—

(9)

(8)

—

201

193

—

6,681

—

19,111

17,253

17,586

18,086

17,750

Source: CRS Analysis of H.Rept. 108-169; S. Rept.108-86; conference report H.Rept. 108-280.

Note: FY2004 conference amounts do not reflect the effects of the 0.59% across-the-board reduction

in most discretionary accounts, as called for in the conference version of H.R. 2763, passed by the

House on December 8, 2003.

The differences between the House and Senate recommendations for BICE and TSA, and the

amounts recommended by the Conference Report reflect the transfer of the Federal Air Marshals from

TSA to BICE.

The Senate did not include FLETC in Title III, the conference report includes FLETC in Title IV.

The Senate did not include ODP in Title III, the conference report includes ODP in Title III.

CRS-8

The House did not include Coast Guard in Title II, Border and Transportation Security.

The Senate includes the Under Secretary of Border and Transportation Security in Title III.

The Administration’s request of $480 million for US VISIT was made under BCBP; the House lists

$350 million in the Automation Modernization Account of BICE; the Senate recommended

$380 million; the conference provided $330 million; both the Senate and conference created a

new account directly under the Under Secretary for DBTS.

Includes $2.4 billion in grants to air carriers provided by P.L. 108-11.

Operational Components of Border and Transportation

Security

While most observers indicate the need for additional funding in the area of

border and transportation security, the issue for Congress is to determine the

appropriate levels of such funding, in the context of the current budget situation and

competing claims for resources. The following sections of the report provide detail

concerning the operational components of border and transportation security. These

details include selected appropriation detail; issues of potential interest to the

conferees; and a discussion of some of the challenges facing the different

components of border and transportation security.

Securing the nation’s borders and transportation systems includes the regulation

of imports and exports; enforcement of laws pertaining to immigration and visitation;

border-related inspection of agriculture and livestock; oversight of the security of

ports; federal inspection of airline passengers and baggage; and comprehensive

approaches to improving overall transportation security. In addition to these explicit

activities associated with securing the borders are a set of disparate activities in

support of broader goals which have been collected under the title “border security.”

These ancillary activities include protection of federal buildings, training for law

enforcement personnel, and development of strategic plans and support assistance for

state and local first responders. This report excludes these ancillary activities from

both the numbers and discussion of border and transportation security that follows.3

Some observers might question the exclusion of the Bureau of Citizenship and

Immigration Services (BCIS) from the discussion of border and transportation

security. There is no question that homeland security is enhanced by the well

managed administration of routine immigration services. However, such services

would remain even in absence of any threats to the homeland. Immigration activities

would continue in any event, and including the cost of these activities would distort

the true summary costs of border and transportation security.4

For additional information on the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP), Secret Service

and the Federal Building Protection Service, see CRS Report RL31549, Department of

Homeland Security: Consolidation of Border and Transportation Security Agencies, by

Jennifer Lake. Additional information on ODP can be found in CRS Reports RL31490,

Department of Homeland Security: State and Local Preparedness Issues; and CRS Report

RL31475, First Responder Initiative: Policy Issues and Options, both by Ben Canada.

For more information on FY2004 funding for Immigration Activities please see CRS

Report RS21504 Immigration-Related Funding in the President’s FY2004 Budget Request,

by (name redacted).

CRS-9

Table 3 provides more detail on appropriations for border and transportation

security functions, for FY2003, as requested for FY2004, and House and Senate

versions of H.R. 2555, and the final appropriated amounts signed into law.

Directorate of Border and Transportation Security. The DBTS is

organized into two bureaus that reflect a distinction between direct border inspection

and interior enforcement requirements and those that are more contingent, that is they

entail more investigation and evaluation in advance of enforcement activities.

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (BCBP). Although border

security could be thought of as beginning with the procedures by which visas are

issued at consular posts around the world, border security functional responsibilities

are at their most vivid at the point at which goods or people are expected to cross

borders. The BCBP has responsibility for security at and between ports-of-entry

along the border. These responsibilities include inspecting people and goods to

determine that they are authorized entry, and maintaining border crossing stations to

process persons seeking entry to the U.S. The inspection and border-related

functions of the Customs Service; the border security functions of the former INS,

including the Border Patrol; and the inspection functions of the Agricultural

Quarantine Inspection (AQI) program are consolidated under the BCBP.

The Customs Function. In the past, the U.S. Customs Service processed

goods being imported into the U.S., and collected duties and tariffs. Upon passage

of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), the functions of the Customs

Service were transferred to Border and Transportation Security at DHS. The customs

function is the first line of defense against illegal drugs, contraband, and other illicit

goods entering the country, and administers export laws, including laws pertaining

to illegal currency transfers, exportation of sensitive and controlled commodities, and

other trans-border crimes, including those committed through use of the Internet.

Even before the events of September 11, 2001, the Customs Service was aware

of the difficulties inherent in performing its dual missions of enforcing laws to

protect U.S. borders against the illegal entry of goods and of regulating legitimate

commercial traffic. In FY2001, Customs officers processed 142 million

conveyances, 472 million land, sea, and air passengers, and over 23 million import

entries with a value of over $1 trillion, while collecting $23.8 billion in revenues.5

U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:

Department of Treasury, (Washington, D.C., Jan. 2003) GAO-03-109, p. 21.

CRS-10

Table 3. Selected Detail for Appropriations: Border and

Transportation Security, FY2003-2004

($ in millions)

Operational component

FY2003 FY2004 FY2004 FY2004 FY2004

enacted request House Senate Conf.

Customs and Border Protection

5,237

5,647

5,081

4,900

4,928

Automation modernization

433

—

494

441

Fee accounts

(817)

(821)

(845)

—

380

330

Visitor & Immigrant Status Indicator project

(US VISIT)

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

2,444

2,487

2,997

2,888

3,425

1,855

2,063

2,030

2,180

2,151

Rescission from salaries and expenses

—

(54)

Federal Protective Services

408

424

Automation & infrastructure modernization

—

368

—

Construction

—

Air and marine interdiction

181

—

175

257

210

Federal Air Marshals

—

626

(355)

(297)

(273)

5,414

2,742

3,082

3,326

2,522

4,486

3,597

3,679

4,524

3733

Salaries and expenses

Fee accounts

Transportation Security Administration

Aviation security (total funding)

Administration

427

Grants to airlines (one-time appropriation)

2,396

—

Offsetting collections (estimated)

(2,650)

(2,070)

-143

—

Federal Air Marshals

—

620

635

—

Maritime and land security

263

232

295

263

Intelligence

—

Reimburse. from DOT, FAA, fac. & equip.

Research and development

—

(2,070) (2,070)

109

126

130

155

6,254

6,655

6,681

6,815

6,776

4,503

4,838

4,704

4,719

4,642

Rescission

—

(71)

Environmental compliance & restoration

—

Reserve training

—

Acquisition, construction, & improvements

720

797

805

1,035

967

Alteration of bridges

—

Research, development, tests, & evaluation

—

Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement)

889

1,020

Administration

307

421

487

433

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

170

146

169

201

193

Federal Protective Services

(408)

(424)

Total: DHS funding for border and

transportation security functions

19,111

17,253

17,586

18,086

17,750

U.S. Coast Guard

Operating expenses

Source: CRS Analysis of H.Rept. 108-169; S.Rept. 108-86; Conference Rpt. H.Rept. 108-280.

CRS-11

Note: FY2004 conference amounts do not reflect the effects of the 0.59% across-the-board reduction

in most discretionary accounts, as called for in the conference version of H.R. 2763, passed by the

House on December 8, 2003.

FY2004 BCBP Appropriation. P.L. 108-90 provides a total appropriation of

$4.9 billion for BCBP. The appropriation is allocated into three accounts: Salaries

and Expenses; Automation Modernization; and Construction. P.L. 108-90 provides

$4.4 billion to the Salaries and Expenses Account, of which:

$100.8 million is to remain available until September 30, 2005 for

inspection technology;

! $1 million is to be used for compensation for informants;

! $12.7 million is to be used to enforce laws against forced child

labor;

! $4.75 million for textile transshipment enforcement;

! $41 million for an additional 570 Border Patrol Agents;

The conference report further allocates specific amounts in the Salaries and

Expenses account; some of these are highlighted in Table 4.

P.L. 108-90 provides $441.1 million for the Automation Modernization

Account, of which $318.6 million are to be used for the development of the

Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) (discussed below), subject to the

Appropriations Committees approval of an expenditure plan prepared by the Under

Secretary for Border and Transportation Security. P.L. 108-90 also provides $90.3

million in the Construction Account. Table 4 provides the details on the accounts.

Table 4. BCBP Account Detail

($ millions)

BCBP Account

Salaries and Expenses

Harbor Maintenance Fee

Automation Modernization

Construction

Total Direct Appropriations

FY2004

request

5,644

—

5,647

FY2004 FY2004

House

Senate

4,585

4,366

494

441

—

5,081

4,900

FY2004

Conf.

4,393

441

4,927

Source: CRS Analysis of H.Rept. 108-169; S. Rept.108-86; Conference Rept. H.Rept. 108-280.

Note: FY2004 conference amounts do not reflect the effects of the 0.59% across-the-board reduction

in most discretionary accounts, as called for in the conference version of H.R. 2763, passed by the

House on December 8, 2003.

Table 5 provides detail on selected programs and activities of BCBP. The

conferees fully funded the Administration’s request (after adjusting for some

realignment of funding), and also added $17.9 million to fully fund 2003 pay

adjustments; $4.8 million to fund textile transshipment enforcement; and $10 million

for additional non-intrusive inspection technology. The Senate fully funded the

CRS-12

Administration’s request for critical equipment and inspection technologies, while

the House provided an additional $10 million in addition to the base request of $119

million.

Table 5. Selected Detail on Accounts, Programs,

and Activities of BCBP

($ millions)

Select programs and activities

Inspection Technologies:

Treasury Enforcement Communications

System Wireless PDA’s

Radiation Detection System

(RDS)/Vehicle And Cargo Inspection

System (VACIS)/Isotope Identifiers

Fiber Optic Scopes

License Plate Readers

Customs Automated Operations System

(CAOS)

Chemical/Detector Dogs

Other, Including Inspector Staff

Total Inspection Technologies

Customs -Trade Partnership Against

Terrorism (C-TPAT)

Container Security Initiative (CSI)

Automation Modernization

FY2004

request

FY2004

House

FY2004

Senate

FY2004

Conf.

14.5

15.5

14.5

57.8

67.8

63.8

6.8

9.7

17.5

6.7

119

17.5

6.7

129

17.5

—

119

17.5

6.7

125

18.0

15.3

14.1

61.7

—

61.7

493.7

61.7

441.1

61.7

441

Source: CRS Analysis of H.Rept. 108-169; S. Rept.108-86; Conference Rpt. H.Rept. 108-280.

Note: FY2004 conference amounts do not reflect the effects of the 0.59% across-the-board reduction

in most discretionary accounts, as called for in the conference version of H.R. 2763, passed by the

House on December 8, 2003.

Both the Container Security Initiative (CSI) and the Customs-Trade Partnership

Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) are programs initiated by Customs as a part of the

effort to ‘push the borders outward’ from the physical land border of the United

States. P.L. 108-90 provides $14.1 million for C-TPAT, and $61.7 million for CSI.

For a full discussion of recent initiatives to address cargo container and seaport

security, including the Container Security Initiative (CSI) and the Customs-Trade

Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) see CRS Report RL31733, Port and

Maritime Security: Background and Issues for Congress.

BCBP, and the U.S. Customs Service before it, has been engaged in a long-term

effort to modernize its commercial processing systems. These efforts are discussed

in more detail in the next section below. The House has created a separate account

for Automation Modernization with $493 million recommended; while the Senate

has included their recommended appropriation of $441 million in the salaries and

CRS-13

expenses account. The House Automation Modernization account fully funds the

Administration’s request, and realigns funding requested under the salaries and

expenses account. P.L. 108-90 reflects the House realignment, and funds the

Automation Modernization Account at $441 million. The House request includes

$30.2 million for the homeland security information technology transformation and

transition reserve, which is not funded by the Senate, as the committee notes that

significant technology infrastructure updates are funded through the US VISIT

project; P.L. 108-90 does not include funding for this reserve.

Challenges Facing the Administration of the Customs Function. A recent

General Accounting Office (GAO) report projects that trade volume will more than

double from $1 trillion in 1999 to more than $2 trillion in 2006.6 In addition, Title

VI of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (P.L. 103-182)

shifted a portion of the responsibility for declaring the value, classifications, and rate

of duty on imports to importers. This system, known as “informed compliance” was

designed to expedite the processing of imports. Another GAO report found that the

customs function will entail a variety of challenges in carrying out its missions,

including improving differing international mail and package inspection processes;

ensuring that various illegal items, including weapons of mass destruction, do not

enter the country in cargo containers at seaports; and acquiring a new import

processing system.7

Shipping containers are a component of commerce that is potentially vulnerable

to terrorist interference. Moreover, two recent CRS Reports highlighted the serious

threats faced at seaports around the nation, including the possibility of the use of

weapons of mass destruction.8 Changes to international commerce to improve the

security of containers reflect the need to balance security objectives with expeditious

handling of containers to speed the flow of legitimate trade that fuels the world

economy. Eventually, international trade will be based on an automated importexport system that will expedite secure containers while requiring only one filing of

the appropriate documentation, potentially reducing the opportunities for tampering

with containers between origin and destination.

DHS is now responsible for the administration of the customs function, and is

continuing with an effort to acquire a new trade processing system known as the

Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). ACE is a strategy for developing

commercial automation protocols and procedures so that expeditious tracking and

effective screening and monitoring can improve over time. This program is expected

to cost approximately $1.7 billion to replace the current Automated Commercial

System (ACS) that GAO testimony characterized as “paper-intensive, error-prone,

and transaction based, and out of step with just-in-time inventory practices of the

Ibid., p. 23.

See, CRS Report RS21293, Terrorist Nuclear Attacks on Seaports, by John Medalia; and

CRS Report RL31733, Port and Maritime Security, by John F. Frittelli.

CRS-14

trade community.”9 A recent GAO report found that the Customs Service was

improving its operations as it moved toward an ACE alignment. However, GAO

cautions that many challenging tasks remain before the customs function will have

implemented full ACE capability.10 Improvements in the technology of detection are

being added to the trade process as they are developed. The International Trade Data

System (ITDS) is an interconnected database of all government agencies involved in

the trade process, and allows users to submit data to one agency database, and have

that data available to other agencies. ACE is the application of ITDS capability.

Container commerce is being streamlined to take advantage of more sophisticated

electronic capabilities, with the expectation that further changes will occur as new

technologies emerge.

In 1999, when the U.S. Customs Service was still at Treasury, GAO had

recommended that the Service initiate an evaluation of the effectiveness of the

informed compliance strategy, including its impact on compliance with trade laws.

The Customs’ Trade Compliance Strategy Study was completed on May 24, 2001.

According to GAO, the study concluded that while the informed compliance strategy

had proceeded logically, and its initiatives do improve compliance, the overall impact

on compliance rates remains small. GAO stressed that part of the challenge facing

the agency responsible for administering the customs functions is to not lose sight of

the trade compliance program in the midst of a continued focus on terrorism.11

The Border Patrol Function.12 Traditionally, the U.S. Border Patrol

enforced immigration and customs law at or along the borders. P.L. 107-296

transferred the function to DHS. Border Patrol agents often apprehend drug

smugglers and others engaged in criminal activities. The Border Patrol improves the

security of the border by diminishing illegal immigration between ports-of-entry, and

participates in ensuring that all goods and persons entering and exiting the country

do so legally.

Challenges Facing the Border Patrol. Recent GAO analyses continued to

express concern over the inability of the former INS (hereafter referred to simply as

INS) to fully implement a border control strategy.13 In August 2001, GAO reported

that INS was in the seventh year, and in the second of four phases of implementing

U.S. General Accounting Service, U.S. Customs Service: Observations on Selected

Operations and Program Issues, T-GGD/AIMD-00-150 (Washington, Apr. 20, 2000), p. 6.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:

Department of the Treasury, (Washington, D.C., Jan. 2003) GAO-03-109, pp. 25-26.

Ibid., p. 24.

This section prepared with the assistance of (name redacted). For more information see CRS

Report RL31727, Border Security: Immigration Issues in the 108th Congress, by Lisa M.

Seghetti.

U.S. General Accounting Office, INS’ Southwest Border Strategy: Resource and Impact

Issues Remain After Seven Years, (Washington: Aug. 2, 2001) GAO-01-842.; and

Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Justice, (Washington: Jan.

2003) GAO-03-105.

CRS-15

a border control strategy. This strategy was based on allocating resources first to

areas with the highest levels of illegal activity.

INS officials testified in 2001 that 334 border patrol agents and 498 inspectors

were assigned to the northern border, while over 9,500 border patrol agents and

inspectors were assigned to the smaller southwest border.14 A 2002 Department of

Justice (DOJ), Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report stated that a lack of

sufficient resources and staffing were creating significant enforcement challenges for

the border patrol along the northern border.15 The DOJ OIG report indicated that INS

had developed a northern border strategy, but that its implementation had been

delayed because of changes in INS administration and the events of September 11,

2001.

Moreover, according to GAO, INS’ preliminary estimate stated that it could take

an additional 5 years and a total of between 11,700 and 14,000 Border Patrol agents,

plus numerous other increases in support personnel and funding for technology and

infrastructure improvements to gain control of the southwest border. GAO reported

that the number of Border Patrol agents on the southwest border increased from

3,389 in FY1993 to 9,188 in FY2002; and the number of apprehensions increased

from 1.21 million in FY1993 to 1.64 million in FY2000. However, the number of

apprehensions declined to 0.93 million in FY2002.16

Staffing is a primary concern at both the northern and southern borders. P.L.

108-90 provides a total of $1.9 million for Border Patrol operations. P.L. 108-90 also

includes $6.7 million for additional staffing to support new inspection technology

and implement wireless personal data assistant database access; $41 million for an

additional 570 Border Patrol agents; and $9 million for additional inspectors. In an

effort to better understand the staffing needs of BCBP, the conference report to P.L.

108-90 directs CBP to submit a detailed staffing plan to the Committees on

Appropriations no later than December 1, 2003.

Both the House and Senate Committee reports expressed concern over the state

of the Northern Border. The Senate directs the Under Secretary of Border and

Transportation Security to provide a comprehensive report to the committee

describing the specific measures DHS has taken since September 11, 2001, to

increase security at the northern border, what Congressionally authorized

improvements have yet to be carried out, and which aspects of northern border

security require additional resources and focus.

Agriculture Quarantine Inspection (AQI). The AQI program, formerly

part of the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS), is the first point of inspection for USDA- and FDA-regulated food imports,

Senate Hearing, Northern Border Security, 107th Cong., 1st Sess., Oct. 3, Dec. 5, 2001.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Follow-Up Report on

the Border Patrol’s Efforts to Improve Northern Border Security. OIG report I-2002-004.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Management Challenges and Program Risks:

Department of Justice, (Washington: Jan. 2003), GAO-03-105, p. 14.

CRS-16

and is charged with determining the safety of agricultural products and livestock

entering the U.S. The mission of the AQI program is to “maintain the risk of

introduction of invasive species into the United States at acceptable levels to protect

American agricultural products, and to facilitate the movement of people and

commodities across the borders.”

Section 421 of P.L. 107-296 (the Homeland Security Act of 2002) authorized

the transfer of no more than 3,200 APHIS border inspection personnel to DHS out

of a staff of nearly 8,000. Although the AQI program has a federal appropriation, it

is primarily supported by user-fees collected from international air passengers and

aircraft, as well as commercial aircraft, vessels, trucks and railcars. Those user fees

support more than the border inspection functions transferred to DHS and will

continue to be collected by USDA to carry out those other activities. USDA will

transfer funds from the user fee account to cover DHS-related costs.

P.L. 108-90 provides a total of $42 million to fund AQI. Both the House and

Senate reports recommended fully funding the Administration’s request for an AQI

increase of $2.7 million for additional agricultural canine teams, and $2.8 million for

inspectors and x-ray machines for use in detecting the presence of agricultural pests

and diseases.

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE).17 BICE

focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the U.S., as well as

investigations into such activities as fraud, forced labor, trade agreement

noncompliance, smuggling and illegal transshipment of people and goods, and

vehicle and cargo theft. The Bureau will develop a nationwide anti-smuggling

program, and will enforce laws against money laundering, child pornography, and

trafficking in people. In addition, this bureau oversees the building security activities

of the Federal Protective Service, formerly of the General Services Administration.

The Bureau combined the investigations and intelligence functions of the U.S.

Customs Service and the former INS, the air and marine interdiction functions of

those agencies, and the immigration detention and removal programs (including the

operations of the Federal Protective Service). The BICE conducts investigations to

develop intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the U.S., and is responsible for

locating and removing illegal aliens by inspecting places of employment for

undocumented workers. BICE is responsible for identifying and finding persons who

have overstayed their visas, and the Bureau also develops intelligence to combat

terrorist financing and money laundering, and to enforce export laws against

smuggling and fraud. Table 6 provides account-level detail for BICE.

This section was prepared with the assistance of (name redacted).

CRS-17

Table 6. BICE Account Detail

($ millions)

BICE Account

Salaries and Expenses

Rescission a

Federal Protective Service

Federal Air Marshals b

Automation Modernization

Air and Marine Interdiction

Construction

Total Direct Appropriations

Total not Including FPS

FY2004

request

2,063

—

424

—

2,487

2,063

FY2004 FY2004

House

Senate

2,030

2,180

—

424

—

368

175

257

FY2004

Conf.

2,151

(54)

424

626

210

2,888

2,464

3,425

3,001

—

2,997

2,573

Source: CRS Analysis of H.Rept. 108-169, and S.Rept. 108-86; Conference Rpt. H.Rept. 108-280.

Note: FY2004 conference amounts do not reflect the effects of the 0.59% across-the-board reduction

in most discretionary accounts, as called for in the conference version of H.R. 2763, passed by the

House on December 8, 2003.

(a) The rescission is of funds originally provided by P.L. 108-11, for activities related to Operation

Liberty Shield, but which are no longer needed for such purposes.

(b) The conference report and P.L. 108-90 reflect the Administration’s moving the FAM from

TSA to ICE. The Administration had requested $600 million for FAM; the House had

recommended $635 million and the Senate $610 million.

FY2004 BICE Appropriation. P.L. 108-90 provides $3.4 billion for BICE

(including the rescission), or $3 billion not including $424 million appropriated for

FPS. The BICE appropriation is broken out into the following accounts: Salaries and

Expenses, Federal Air Marshals, Federal Protective Service, Automation

Modernization, Air and Marine Interdiction, and Construction.

The Salaries and Expenses account includes the following distributed amounts:

$1.09 billion for detention and removals;

$4.75 million for textile transshipment enforcement;

$3.0 million to enforce laws relating to forced or indentured child

labor;

! $6.7 million for additional investigators, particularly for compliance

monitoring;

! $5.4 million for personnel costs associated with establishing a

Northern Border Airwing; and

! $6.4 million for the Intellectual Property Rights Center.

The BICE Salaries and expenses account also includes a $54 million rescission of

funds originally made available by P.L. 108-11 for activities related to Operation

Liberty Shield.

CRS-18

P.L. 108-90 provides $40 million in the BICE Automation Modernization

account, to fund major technology improvements for ICE including Atlas/Chimera

data modernization and connectivity. Atlas/Chimera is a series of seven information

technology (IT) infrastructure projects designed to improve the interoperability and

connectivity of DHS IT systems.

The Federal Air Marshals (FAM) were transferred to BICE September and as

a result, P.L. 108-90 funds FAM as a separate account within BICE. P.L. 108-90

provides $626 million for FAM.

P.L. 108-90 provides $210 million for the Air and Marine Interdiction account,

including $35 million for the establishment of a Northern Border Airwing, of which

$12.8 million is to available for the procurement of aircraft.

Immigration Enforcement Programs. Immigration enforcement activities

include: detention and removal; investigations; and immigration intelligence

activities. Through these activities, the former INS and now BICE: reduce

immigration benefit fraud and the employment of illegal aliens; identify and remove

criminal aliens; and combat the smuggling of aliens into the U.S.

Immigration Benefit Fraud. While INS officials noted the “pervasive and

serious” nature of immigration benefit fraud, according to GAO evaluations, INS was

not positioned to adequately deal with it. According to GAO, immigration benefit

fraud had a comparatively low priority within INS, and thus it suffered from a lack

of resources. For example, in 2000 INS had 40 positions dedicated to fraud and

detection, while the four service centers received millions of applications for

immigration benefits.18

Previous GAO reports had concluded that INS also lacked a comprehensive plan

to coordinate benefit fraud investigations, guidance to ensure the prioritization of

cases, an agency-wide case tracking and management capability to maintain data on

investigations, and that adjudicating staff did not have access to appropriate data.19

In response to these GAO concerns, INS developed a strategic plan for combating

immigration fraud, mandated that all investigative components use the agency-wide

Criminal Investigative Reporting System to track and manage all criminal

investigations, and required that all applications be checked against a federal law

enforcement database.20

Reducing Employment of Illegal Aliens. GAO has reported that under the

former INS, resources allocated to work site enforcement were limited, and that as

a result employers who hired unauthorized workers were unlikely to be investigated.

The Census Bureau reported an estimated 8 million illegal aliens resided in the

Ibid.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Immigration Benefit Fraud: Focused Approach is

Needed to Address Problems, (Washington: Jan. 2002), GAO-02-66.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Management Challenges and Program Risks:

Department of Justice, (Washington: Jan. 2003), GAO-03-105, p. 17.

CRS-19

United States, and GAO testified in June of 2002 that hundreds of thousands of

unauthorized aliens used fraudulent documents to obtain employment.21

In 1998, INS devoted roughly 300 work-years to work-site enforcement, but that

number had declined to roughly 124 work years by FY2002. After the September 11,

2001 terrorist attacks, INS shifted its work site enforcement priorities. Rather than

focusing on industries that traditionally rely on undocumented workers, INS focused

its enforcement efforts on industries critical to the nation’s infrastructure, such as

nuclear plants, airports and municipal water supplies. Operation Tarmac was

launched by INS to focus investigations on companies with direct access to

commercial aircraft or who provide airport security. According to recent INS

testimony, Operation Tarmac has resulted in the arrest of over 500 unauthorized

aliens and the filing of more than 20 criminal charges.22

Identifying and Removing Criminal Aliens. GAO has reported on several

occasions that the former INS efforts to identify and remove criminal aliens required

improvement.23 A recent Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General

(OIG) report found that INS was not effectively managing the Institutional Removal

Program (IRP). The IRP is a national program that identifies removable criminal

aliens in federal and state correctional facilities, ensures they are not released into the

community, and deports them from the United States after they have completed their

sentences. GAO found that the INS had not determined the nationwide population

of foreign-born inmates, had not kept pace with an increasing workload, and that

staffing levels for the IRP actually decreased due to vacancies in the immigration

agent position.24

Efforts to Combat the Smuggling of Aliens. Alien smuggling is a significant

and growing enforcement problem, and GAO found that INS’ ability to implement

and evaluate its anti-smuggling program has been impeded by a lack of coordination,

lack of an automated agency-wide case tracking system, and limited performance

measures. The former INS implemented a case tracking and management system,

and mandated that all investigative components begin using the Automated Criminal

Investigative Reporting System to track and manage criminal investigations.25 The

former INS had also partially implemented or agreed to establish criteria for opening

Ibid.

Statement of Joseph R. Greene, Assistant Commissioner for Investigations, before the

House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, June 19, 2002.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and Remove

Imprisoned Aliens Need to be Improved, (Washington: July 15, 1997) GAO/T-GGD-97154; and U.S. General Accounting Office, Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and

Remove Imprisoned Aliens Continue to Need Improvement, (Washington: Feb. 25, 1999)

GAO/T-GGD-99-47.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General, Immigration and Naturalization

Service Institutional Removal Program, Audit Report No. 02-41 (Washington: Sept. 2002),

p. ii.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Management Challenges and Program Risks:

Department of Justice, (Washington: Jan. 2003), GAO-03-105, p. 20.

CRS-20

anti-smuggling cases to help focus resources on high priority cases, establish

performance measures, and examine coordination, program structure, and

communications issues.

Transportation Security Administration.26 The Transportation Security

Administration (TSA),27 created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act

(ATSA; P.L. 107-71), was established to increase the protection of people and

commerce as they traveled into and through the U.S.

Table 7. TSA Account Detail

($ millions)

TSA Account

Aviation Security

Federal Air Marshals

Maritime and Land Security

Intelligence

FY2004

request

3,617

FY2004 FY2004

House

Senate

3,659

3,914

600

635

Research and Development

Administration

421

4,813

(2,070)

2,743

5,153

(2,070)

3,082

Subtotal TSA:

Offsetting Fee Collections

Total TSA

610

295

263

130

155

433

427

5,396

(2,070)

3,326

4,592

(2,070)

2,522

232

126

487

FY2004

Conf.

3,733

Source: CRS Analysis of H.Rept. 108-169, and S.Rept. 108-86; Conference Rpt. H.Rept. 108-280.

(a) Federal Air Marshals have been transferred to BICE.

Note: FY2004 conference amounts do not reflect the effects of the 0.59% across-the-board reduction

in most discretionary accounts, as called for in the conference version of H.R. 2763, passed by the

House on December 8, 2003. Rounding may affect totals.

FY2004 TSA Appropriation. P.L. 108-90 provides TSA with a total of $2.522

billion. The administration requested a total appropriation of $2.743 billion for TSA.

The House Committee recommended $3.083 billion, while the Senate recommended

$3.326 billion. The remainder of TSA’s funding ($2 billion) will come from

offsetting fee collections. The main account for the TSA is the Aviation Security

Account. This account accounts for the bulk of the TSA’s activities. P.L. 108-90

provides $3.733 billion in the Aviation Security account including:

$1.8 billion for passenger screening;

$1.3 billion for baggage screening;

$700 million for security direction and enforcement.

This section was prepared with the assistance of Bartholomew Elias.

For more detailed information, see CRS Report RL31308, Appropriations for FY2003:

Transportation and Related Agencies, coordinated by David Randall Petersen and (nam

e redacted).

CRS-21

Table 9 illustrates selected differences, resolved in conference, between the

requested and recommended levels. Of interest to the conferees were the differences

in the amounts allocated for the procurement and installation of Explosive Detection

Systems (EDS). The Administration did not request funding for these items, and

differences between the House and Senate include: $50.5 million for EDS

procurement, and $74 million for installation and airport modifications. P.L. 108-90

provides $150 million for EDS procurement; $250 million for EDS installation; and

$75 million for EDS maintenance.

Recently, much attention has been focused on the Federal Air Marshals (FAM)

program. The FAM has been transferred to BICE. P.L. 108-90 provides a total

appropriation of $626 million for FAM, including $10 million for the requested Airto-Ground Communication System (AGCS). The House added an increase of $15

million to the administration’s request for the FAM program, for a total of $615

million for FAM itself; but did not fund the AGCS. The Senate, funded the FAM

program at the requested $600 million and funded the AGCS at $10 million.

Other issues resolved in conference include: port security grants funded at $125

million over the request; air cargo security funded at $35 million above the request;

Operation Safe Commerce funded at $14.5 million over the request; and intercity bus

funded at $10 million which was not requested.

The TSA was directed, by the end of calendar year 2002, to hire screeners and

purchase the necessary equipment to carry out its responsibilities. Initial estimates

projected a need for 25,000-35,000 screeners, and a total TSA workforce of 35,00040,000 employees. The FY2002 emergency supplemental capped TSA’s full-time

screener positions at 45,000 (this cap was extended for FY2003 by P.L. 108-7). In

deploying federal screeners to meet the mandate established under ATSA, the TSA

screener workforce grew to 54,600 employees despite the cap. TSA had initiated a

workforce realignment that resulted in a reduction of 6,000 screeners by the end of

FY2003. The conference report to P.L. 108-90 illustrates Congress’ continued

concern with the size of TSA’s workforce, and conferees direct TSA to have no more

than 45,000 full-time equivalent screeners on its rolls by the end of FY04.

The original TSA plan assumed that, for each checkpoint lane, seven screeners

would be required to screen passengers and carry-on baggage, plus one supervisor for

each checkpoint, and one manager for each airport, or in the case of larger airports,

each terminal. The staffing model has been adjusted down to an average of 6.5 per

lane at the larger airports, and three screeners per lane at the smaller airports, as

experience has yielded increases in efficiency.

CRS-22

Table 8. Selected Accounts, Programs, and Activities of TSA

($ millions)

Select programs and activities

Passenger Screening

Baggage Screening:

Baggage Screeners

Explosive Detection System (EDS):

EDS Procurement

EDS Installation

EDS Maintenance/Utilities

Total EDS

Next Generation EDS

Federal Air Marshals (FAM)

Port Security Grants

Air Cargo Security

Intercity Bus Security

Transportation Worker Identification

Card (TWIC)

Operation Safe Commerce (OSC)

Trucking Industry Grants

Hazardous Materials Permit Program

FY2004

request

1,801

944

774

FY2004 FY2004

House

Senate

1,672

1,807

1,285

1,378

780

774

FY2004

Conf.

1,806

1,319

774

—

100

150.5

150

—

100

620

—

235

100

335

635

100

309

535

625

150

250

475

626 a

125

2.5

—

2.5

—

Source: CRS Analysis of H.Rept. 108-169, and S.Rept. 108-86; Conference Rpt. H.Rept. 108-280.

(a) The Conference Report appropriates funding for FAM under ICE.

Note: FY2004 conference amounts do not reflect the effects of the 0.59% across-the-board reduction

in most discretionary accounts, as called for in the conference version of H.R. 2763, passed by the

House on December 8, 2003.

At the time of ATSA’s passage, considerable attention was directed to the

question of whether screening of passengers and checked baggage could best be

conducted with federal workers or private sector employees under contracts

supervised by the federal government. The ATSA required TSA to conduct pilot

programs at five airports, in which contract employees would conduct the screening

tasks, under the management authority of a Federal Security Director. Whether part

time employees under contract can perform the screening tasks to standards

established by the TSA could become an issue, as TSA undergoes scrutiny over the

number of employees it employs, and whether it could perform the required tasks

with fewer employees on the federal payroll.

H.Rept. 108-55, a report accompanying the House version of the supplemental,

includes language requiring TSA to submit an operating plan by May 1, 2003 that

would show how the agency would meet FY2003 funding requirements, including

meeting the staffing cap of 45,000 employees enacted through P.L. 107-206. The

report said that the “Committee is aware that TSA is still exceeding the staffing cap”

CRS-23

which the report said was “unacceptable.”

requirement’s specificity.

H. Rept 108-76 expands on the

TSA Progress on Improving Aviation Security.28 GAO reported recently

that while TSA has made “considerable progress” in addressing aviation security,

significant challenges remain.29 According to the GAO, TSA met the November

2002 deadline to hire and deploy more than 40,000 passenger screeners to screen

passengers at 429 airports nationwide.

GAO also reported that as of mid-December 2002, TSA had installed only 239

of the estimated 1,100 explosive detection machines, and only 1,951 of the estimated

6,000 trace detection machines needed to meet the requirements of ATSA. Many

airport operators need to redesign airport baggage handling systems to accommodate

and install inline EDS machines. In addition to the logistical challenges to

implementing inline EDS systems, funding for these projects remains a key issue.

Though ATSA authorized the use of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds for

airport security related projects, using these funds can have an impact on other airport

improvement projects. The Senate bill (S. 824) to reauthorize the Federal Aviation

Administration and related aviation programs contains a provision to establish a

separate Aviation Security Capital Fund that would use money derived from

passenger and air carrier security fees for these projects.

ATSA contains general provisions for the screening of cargo on passenger

aircraft, but does not specify how this objective is to be achieved. At, present,

security of cargo carried aboard passenger aircraft primarily relies on so-called

known shipper programs to detect and prevent the shipment of cargo from unknown

sources aboard passenger aircraft. To date, security of all-cargo operations has not

received much attention.30 GAO reported that although the TSA uses the “known

shipper” program to meet these ATSA requirements, TSA lacked a comprehensive

plan with long-term goals and performance targets for cargo security, time frames for

implementing security improvements, and risked-based criteria for achieving these

goals. GAO recommended that TSA develop such a plan, and the TSA agreed.31

GAO also noted that TSA lacked reliable statistical data to estimate the nature,

frequency, and risk of shipments of undeclared dangerous goods. GAO

recommended that TSA determine whether it needed additional inspection authority

to develop such data. GAO also estimated that revenues from the new passenger

security fee would fund only approximately one-third of TSA’s budget, with the

remainder of the requirements dependent on appropriations. GAO noted concerns

For more information see CRS Report RL31969, Aviation Security: Issues Before

Congress Since September 11, 2001, by Bartholomew Elias.

GAO, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Transportation.

Washington D.C., Jan. 2003, (GAO-03-108), p. 16.

See CRS Report RL31969, Aviation Security: Issues Before Congress Since September

11, 2001, by Bartholomew Elias.

For more information see CRS Report RL32022 Air Cargo Security, by Bartholomew

Elias.

CRS-24

regarding the funding and implementation of planned security improvements to other

transportation facilities including seaports and mass transit facilities, each of which

will require significant outlays for infrastructure, technology, and personnel.

U.S. Coast Guard.32 The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for the

maritime component of homeland security. As such, it is lead agency responsible for

border and transportation security as it applies to U.S. ports, coastal and inland

waterways, and territorial waters. The Coast Guard also performs other missions,

including some (such as fisheries enforcement) that are not related to homeland

security.

The Coast Guard was transferred from the Department of Transportation (DOT)

to the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on March 1, 2003. The law that

established DHS (P.L. 107-296) directed that the Coast Guard be maintained as a

distinct entity within DHS and that the Commandant of the Coast Guard report

directly to the Secretary of DHS. Accordingly, the Coast Guard exists as its own

agency with DHS and is not part of DHS’s border and transportation security

directorate. The Coast Guard does, however, work closely that directorate.33

Mission vs. Resources in General.34 A key issue for Congress regarding the

Coast Guard’s role in border and transportation security concerns the adequacy of the

Coast Guard’s resources for carrying out its various homeland and non-homeland

security missions. Even before September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard appeared hardpressed to perform all its missions at desired levels with available assets and

resources. In the 2 years prior to September 11, 2001, Coast Guard leaders and

supporters attempted repeatedly to draw attention to this missions vs. resources

situation.

Prior to September 11, 2001, both the Gilmore and the Hart-Rudman

commissions made specific recommendations regarding the Coast Guard. The HartRudman Commission noted that the Coast Guard’s ships and aircraft were “aging and

technologically obsolete” and that the Coast Guard cutter fleet was older than 39 of

the world’s other 41 coast-guard-like naval fleets.35 The commission noted that the

Coast Guard faced serious readiness issues because of increased operating and

maintenance costs, and a lack of essential capabilities in speed, sensors, and

This section was prepared with the assistance of Ronald O’Rourke.

For more on the Coast Guard’s role in homeland security, see CRS Report RS21125,

Homeland Security: Coast Guard Operations — Background and Issues for Congress, by

Ronald O’Rourke. Some of the discussion below is adapted from this report.

For a more detailed discussion of the issues surrounding the Coast Guard’s missions and

resources, see CRS Report RS21125 Homeland Security: Coast Guard Operations Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.

Hart-Rudman Commission Phase III, p. 17. The Hart-Rudman Commission (The U.S.

Commission on National Security/21st Century) cited in its analysis of the state of the Coast

Guard fleet the Report of the Interagency Task Force on U.S. Coast Guard Roles and

Missions. A Coast Guard for the Twenty-First Century. (Washington D.C., Dec. 1999).

CRS-25

interoperability of IT equipment and databases. The commission recommended

modernizing and rebuilding the Coast Guard.

The Gilmore Commission noted that the Coast Guard has taken on a number of

additional homeland security missions and that “Coast Guard resources to perform

its ordinary missions have been reduced in recent budget cycles, with no concomitant

reduction in mission.” As an example, the commission noted that the Coast Guard

lacked sufficient resources to conduct port vulnerability assessments at the more than

350 U.S. ports. The commission recommended increasing resources for the Coast

Guard’s homeland security missions, but did not suggest a level of appropriate

funding.36

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 increased Coast Guard requirements

for homeland-security missions, including border and transportation security, without

obviously reducing requirements for other missions. As a result, numerous observers

have expressed increased concern for the Coast Guard’s ability to perform all its

missions as desired levels. GAO testimony noted that levels of effort on homeland

security related functions remain at much higher levels than prior to September 11,

2001; while levels of efforts on missions including fisheries enforcement and drug

interdiction have dropped substantially. GAO also stated that the FY2004 budget

request for the Coast Guard “contains little that would substantially change levels of

effort for most missions,” and noted that if the FY2004 Coast Guard budget request

“is approved, about half of the agency’s operating expenses will be directed to

fulfilling homeland security responsibilities.”37

Few observers appear to oppose the general notion that the Coast Guard’s

resources will need to be increased to bring them into better alignment with the

service’s post-September 11, 2001 mission requirements. The issue appears to center

more on the question of the size of the increase that will be needed.

Funding for Deepwater Program. A more specific Coast Guard budget issue

concerns funding for the Deepwater program — the Coast Guard’s 20-year

acquisition program to replace and modernize its current aging fleet of deepwatercapable cutters, patrol boats, and aircraft. Among other things, these assets perform

the outermost portion of the Coast Guard’s border and transportation responsibilities

Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving

Weapons of Mass Destruction (popularly referred to as The Gilmore Commission), Third

Annual Report, p. 40.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Coast Guard[:] Comprehensive Blueprint Needed to

Balance and Monitor Resource Use and Measure Performance for All Missions.

Washington, 2003. (Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, and

Fisheries, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate, Mar. 12,

2003, GAO-03-544T) p. 1-3. Other recent GAO reports and testimony on the missions vs.

resources issue include GAO-03-467T, Feb. 12, 2003; GAO-03-155, Nov. 12, 2002; and

GAO-02-538T, Mar. 19, 2002.

CRS-26

and are also used closer to shore to perform close-in border and transportation

security missions.38

In June 2002, the Coast Guard awarded a $17-billion, 20-year contract for the

Deepwater program to an industry team led by Lockheed Martin and Northrop

Grumman’s Ship Systems. Prior to the contract-award announcement, the Coast

Guard estimated that equipment acquisition for the Deepwater program was

estimated to require, over a 20-year period, an annual average of $530 million in

constant (i.e., inflation-adjusted) FY1998 dollars — $500 million for the contractor

and $30 million for Coast Guard administration of the program — for a total

equipment acquisition cost of about $10.6 billion in FY1998 dollars. The program

has received a total of $914.2 million to date, including $42.3 million in FY2001,

$320.2 million in FY2002, and $478 million in FY2003.

Some observers have long been concerned about the Coast Guard’s ability to

secure adequate funding for the Deepwater program. Deepwater supporters are

concerned that the annual funding requirement of $500 million in constant FY1998

dollars for the contractor is being reinterpreted in budget requests to mean a flat

figure $500 million per year in nominal dollars, which will result in less and less

actual purchasing power for the program each year due to inflation. They are also

concerned that the $500 million figure is being interpreted as including the annual

$30-million cost for Coast Guard administration of the program. Deepwater

supporters argue that unless the program is funded at the equivalent of about $530

million per year in constant FY1998 dollars, the Deepwater program will become

increasingly underfunded each year.

The Coast Guard estimates that funding the program at $500 million per year

in nominal dollars would stretch the planned Deepwater acquisition period from 20

years to about 27 years. On March 12, 2003, GAO testified that “under current

funding plans, the Coast Guard faces significant potential delays and cost increases,”

and that “if appropriations hold steady at $500 million (in nominal dollars) through

fiscal year 2008, the Coast Guard estimates that the cumulative shortfall will reach

$626 million.”39

FY2004 Coast Guard Appropriation. The Administration’s proposed

FY2004 budget for DHS requests $6.655 billion for the Coast Guard. The House has

recommended an appropriation of $6.681 billion, or $26 million more than the

request, while the Senate has recommended an appropriation of $6.815 billion, or

$160 million more than the request.

For more on the Deepwater program, see CRS Report RS21019, Coast Guard Deepwater

Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke. Some of the above

discussion is adapted from this report.

For the full text of this discussion see, U.S. General Accounting Office, Coast Guard[:]

Comprehensive Blueprint Needed to Balance and Monitor Resource Use and Measure

Performance for All Missions, Washington, 2003. (Testimony Before the Subcommittee on

Oceans, Atmosphere, and Fisheries, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,

U.S. Senate, Mar. 12, 2003, GAO-03-544T) pp. 18-19.

CRS-27

Table 9. Coast Guard Account Detail

($ millions)

Coast Guard Account

Operating Expenses

Environmental Compliance and

Restoration

Reserve Training

Acquisition, Construction, and

Improvements

Alteration of Bridges

Research, Development, Test, and

Evaluation

Retired Pay (Mandatory)

Total Coast Guard

FY2004

request

4,838

FY2004 FY2004

House

Senate

4,704

4,648

797

FY2004

Conf.

4,642

1,035

967

805

-1,020

6,655

1,020

6,682

-1,020

6,815

1,020

6,776

Source: CRS Analysis of H.Rept. 108-169, and S.Rept. 108-86; Conference Rept. H.Rept. 108-280.

Note: FY2004 conference amounts do not reflect the effects of the 0.59% across-the-board reduction

in most discretionary accounts, as called for in the conference version of H.R. 2763, passed by the

House on December 8, 2003.

P.L. 108-90 provides $668 million for the Coast Guard’s Deepwater program,

in the Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements account. This is $168 million

above the $500 million request for the Deepwater program. The House

recommended an appropriation of $530 million, or $30 million more than the

request, while the Senate recommended an appropriation of $702 million, or $202

million more than the request. Of the $202 million increase recommended by the

Senate, $84 million is for unmanned surveillance aircraft. P.L. 108-90 provides $50

million for unmanned air vehicles. The Senate-recommended appropriation of $702

million matches the figure that House and Senate authorization committees have

recommended for the program as part of the Coast Guard reauthorization process.40

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee recommended an authorization

of $702 million in its markup of H.R. 2443. The Senate Commerce, Science, and

Transportation Committee recommended an authorization of $702 million in its markup of

S. 733.

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.