Border and Transportation Security: Appropriations for FY2005

Congressional research reportNov 5, 2004

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Order Code RL32566

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Border and Transportation Security:

Appropriations for FY2005

Updated November 5, 2004

-name redacted- and -name redactedCo-Coordinators

Domestic Social Policy Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget

resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and

budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is

bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment

Control Act of 1974 (as amended), and current program authorizations.

This report is a guide to a subset of one of the 13 regular appropriation bills that Congress

passes each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and

Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Homeland Security; and to supplement the

information provided in the CRS Department of Homeland Security Appropriations report

[http://www.congress.gov/erp/ra/html/RL32302.html]. This report summarizes the current

legislative status of the bill, major issues, funding levels, and legislative activity related to

border and transportation security and will be updated as events warrant.

Border and Transportation Security:

Appropriations for FY2005

Summary

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

the homeland against terrorist threats. Border security entails regulating the flow of

goods and people across the nation’s borders so that dangerous and unwanted goods

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

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. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been given primary

responsibility for securing the nation’s borders and for increasing the security of

transportation, among other responsibilities.

The locus of border and transportation security activity within DHS is in the

Directorate of Border and Transportation Security (BTS) which houses the Bureau

of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Bureau of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE), and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The U.S.

Coast Guard is a standalone agency within DHS but plays an important role in border

and transportation security, as does the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

(FLETC). This report includes appropriations for the functions and agencies of BTS,

the U.S. Coast Guard and FLETC.

On October 18, 2004, P.L. 108-334 was signed into law, making appropriations

for DHS for FY2005. P.L. 108-334 provides $33.1 billion in new obligational

budget authority for the activities of DHS. Of this amount, $19.6 billion or 59% is

for border and transportation activities as identified in this report. P.L. 108-334

includes $340 million for the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator

Technology (US-VISIT) program; $5.3 billion for CBP; $3.2 billion for ICE; $3.3

billion for TSA; $7.4 billion for the U.S. Coast Guard; and $200 million for FLETC.

Significant issues in border and transportation security include cargo and

container security; implementation of the US-VISIT program; organization of air and

marine assets; aviation security; and security of other transportation modes.

This report will not be updated.

Key Policy Staff: Border and Transportation Security

Area of expertise

Name

Phone

E-mail

Co-Coordinator

(name redacted)

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

Co-Coordinator

(name redacted)

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

Customs Issues

(name redacted)

7-....

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

Immigration Issues

(name redacted)

Border Patrol

(name redacte d)

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

Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

P.L. 108-334 Signed by the President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

H.R. 4567 Passed in the Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

H.R. 4567 Passed in the House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

S. 2537 Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

President’s FY2005 Budget Submitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Appropriations for Border and Transportation Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Operational Components of Border and Transportation Security . . . . . . . . . 8

Customs and Border Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

FY2005 CBP Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

CBP Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Biometric Screening Database Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

CBP Issues for Congress — At Ports of Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Cargo and Container Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Targeting and Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Inspections and Inspection Technology (NII) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Commercial Entry and Trade Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

CBP Issues — Between Points of Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Integrated Surveillance Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Fleet Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Arizona Border . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Immigration and Customs Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

FY2005 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

ICE Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Air and Marine Operations (AMO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Detention Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Examinations Fee and Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

SEVIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Transportation Security Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

FY2005 TSA Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

TSA Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Privatized Airport Screening Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Staffing Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-screening System

(CAPPS II) and “Secure Flight” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Checkpoint Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Crew Vetting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Explosive Detection Systems and Explosive Trace Detection . . 29

Airport Security Installations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Air Cargo Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Transportation Worker Identification Card . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Rail Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Other Reports/Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

U.S. Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

FY2005 Coast Guard Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Coast Guard Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Deepwater Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Legacy and Replacement Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Automatic Identification System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Non-Homeland Security Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Ballast Water Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Icebreakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Other Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Funding Implications of the 9/11 Commission Border and Transportation

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

List of Figures

Figure 1. FY2005 Request for Border and Transportation Security

Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 2. FY2005 Appropriation for Border and Transportation Security,

P.L. 108-344. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

List of Tables

Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Table 2. Summary of Border and Transportation Security Appropriations,

Functional Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 3. BTS Appropriations: Select Detail, FY2004-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 4. CBP Account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 5. CBP Selected Sub-Account Level Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 6. ICE Account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 7. ICE Selected Sub-Account Level Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 8. TSA Account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 9. TSA Selected Sub-Account Level Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 10. Coast Guard Account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Border and Transportation Security:

Appropriations for FY2005

Most Recent Developments

P.L. 108-334 Signed by the President. On October 18, 2004, the

President signed into law P.L. 108-334 making appropriations for DHS for FY2005.

P.L. 108-334 provides $33.1 billion in new obligational budget authority for DHS,

of which $19.6 billion or 59% is for the border and transportation security-related

activities identified in this report. The conference report to H.R. 4567 (H.Rept. 108774) was agreed to by the House on October 9, 2004; and by the Senate on October

11, 2004.

H.R. 4567 Passed in the Senate. On September 14, 2004, the Senate

passed H.R. 4567 after striking the House-passed language and inserting the language

of S. 2537. During floor debate, over 40 amendments were added to the bill

including 8 that directly impact funding. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 4567

recommended a total appropriation of $33.8 billion for the Department of Homeland

Security (DHS); an increase of $1.3 billion over the Administration’s request, and an

11.5% increase over the enacted FY2004 level of $30.3 billion.

H.R. 4567 Passed in the House. On June 18, 2004, H.R. 4567 was passed

in the House by a vote of 400-5. The bill would have provided a total appropriation

of $33.1 billion for the DHS; an increase of $500 million over the Administration’s

request, and a 9.2% increase over the enacted FY2004 level of $30.3 billion.

S. 2537 Reported. On June 17, 2004, S. 2537 was introduced in the Senate.

The bill would have provided a total appropriation of $33.1 billion for DHS; an

increase of $500 million over the Administration’s request, and a 9.2% increase over

the enacted FY2004 level. S. 2537 was accompanied by S.Rept. 108-280, which was

reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 17, 2004, by a vote of 290.

President’s FY2005 Budget Submitted. On February 2, 2004, the

President submitted the FY2005 budget request to Congress, proposing $32.6 billion

in appropriations for the DHS. This represents a 7.7% increase over net enacted

FY2004 funding of $30.3 billion.1 Of the $32.6 billion requested by the

Administration for DHS in FY2005, $19 billion or 58% is for Border and

Transportation Security agencies as identified in this report.

The FY2004 amount does not include $4.8 billion in scorekeeping adjustments,

rescissions, and advance appropriations.

CRS-2

Table 1 summarizes the legislative status of DHS appropriations for FY2005.2

Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations

Conference

Confer.

Public

Senate

House

Senate

report report approval

House

Law

Report

passage H.Rept.

passage

108-334

108-280

108-541

House Senate

108-774 House Senate

Subcommittee

markup

06/03

(vv)

06/16

(vv)

06/09 c

(vv)

H.Rept.

108-541

06/18

(400-5)

06/17 e

(29-0)

S.Rept.

108-280

09/14

(93-0)

10/09

H.Rept.

108-774

10/09

(368-0)

10/09

(vv)

10/18

108-334

Note: vv = voice vote

a. House Appropriations Subcommittee for Homeland Security held a markup on June 3, 2004.

b. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Homeland Security held a markup on June 16, 2004.

c. House Appropriations Committee reported by voice vote the report (H.Rept. 108-541) to the FY2005 DHS

Appropriations bill (H.R. 4567).

d. The House passed H.R. 4567 June 18, 2004 by a vote of 400-5.

e. Senate Appropriations Committee reported by a vote of 29-0, the report (S.Rept. 108-280) to the FY2005

DHS Appropriations bill (S. 2537).

Introduction

Increasing border and transportation security are essential strategies for

improving and maintaining homeland security. Border security entails regulating the

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

goods or people are detected and denied entry. Transportation security entails

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 sophisticated border management. This system

must balance the need for securing the nation’s borders while facilitating the essential

commerce and legitimate free flow of citizens and authorized visitors. The system

must be capable of examining minute details of goods and people seeking entry, but

still fit within budgetary constraints and be administratively feasible.

Improving transportation security has meant an expanded federal role in

screening passengers and baggage traveling through airports and also increasing the

presence of federal officers aboard domestic and international flights. Plans exist to

extend the presence of federal officers 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.

For more information on DHS Appropriations, see CRS Report RL32302, Appropriations

for FY2005: Department of Homeland Security, by Jennifer Lake and (name redacted).

CRS-3

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 newly

created Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS was organized in four major

directorates: Border and Transportation Security; Emergency Preparedness and

Response; Science and Technology; and Information Analysis and Infrastructure

Protection.

The Border and Transportation Security Directorate (BTS), along with its close

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

against terrorism and for securing and managing the nation’s borders. Included in

these responsibilities are the inspection, investigative and enforcement operations of

the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which had been

responsible for managing and coordinating entry into the United States, and for

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, now also forms part of BTS. The Customs

functions administered by DHS, in conjunction with the U.S. Coast Guard, are

expected to effectively secure all commercial traffic entering the nation’s ports. The

Directorate also assumes responsibility for inspecting and monitoring plants and

animals entering the United States to minimize the risk that noxious pests and

diseases will be introduced into the country.

The activities for which BTS has assumed responsibility are organized into three

bureaus: the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP); the Bureau of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); and the Transportation Security

Agency (TSA). The inspection and border patrol functions of legacy Customs, INS,

and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), were merged into CBP.

The investigative and interior enforcement functions of legacy Customs and INS

were merged within ICE. The Federal Protective Service (FPS), the Federal Law

Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), and the Office of Domestic Preparedness

(ODP) were also included under BTS by the Homeland Security Act. Subsequently,

the Federal Air Marshals have been transferred from TSA to ICE; the US-VISIT

program has been transferred from ICE to be managed at the BTS directorate level;

and ODP has been reconfigured and renamed the Office of State and Local

Government Coordination and Preparedness (OSLGCP) and is managed at the DHS

level. The Coast Guard remains a direct report, or free standing agency, within DHS

but outside the BTS directorate.

CRS-4

Appropriations for Border and

Transportation Security

March 1, 2003, was the effective date for shifting most of the responsibilities

from former departments and agencies to the new DHS. While the transfer of

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

relatively straightforward, problems arose with initial attempts to ascertain the exact

amount of appropriated funds actually transferred. Comparisons of responsibilities

and analyses of requests for increased budget authority proved difficult to develop.

This was due to the fact that functions now performed by DHS were previously

performed by predecessor agencies which often had somewhat different purposes

than homeland security. The funding lines between FY2003 and FY2004 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. However, with the

completion of appropriations for FY2004, a baseline has been established, making

future appropriations decisions more easily compared to the previous year’s levels.

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 Federal Protective Service). On the other hand, this functional

grouping does include the activities of the Coast Guard, a separate agency in DHS

which is 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. 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 are used to improve security, are excluded from this table.

Tables in this report show an approximation of costs for border and transportation

security, based on identifying the accounts for which such security functions are the

primary function involved, and do not necessarily reflect DHS breakdowns as to

estimated amounts specifically associated with the Directorate for Border and

Transportation Security.

For FY2005, the Administration presented its request for DHS in an

organization roughly akin to the Conference Committee in presenting the

appropriated amounts for FY2004. The conference report to H.R. 2555 (H.Rept.

108-280) presented appropriations in four titles, the second of which, Security,

Enforcement, and Investigations, contains most of the functions identified in this

report as related to border and transportation security. The Administration’s FY2005

request follows this structure and has grouped the requests for the Undersecretary

for Border and Transportation; US-VISIT; CBP; ICE; the TSA; the U.S. Coast

Guard; and the U.S. Secret Service in Title II Security, Enforcement, and

Investigations. For the purposes of this report, we exclude appropriations for the

U.S. Secret Service; but include appropriations for FLETC, which is located in Title

IV.

CRS-5

The Administration requested $32.6 billion for DHS in FY2005, of this amount

$19 billion or 58% is for Border and Transportation Security functions as identified

in the report. Figure 1 illustrates the relative size of the request for each of the

border and transportation security agencies. Of the $19 billion requested in FY2005,

the Coast Guard (USCG) accounts for 38%; CBP for 26.9%; ICE for 17.3%; TSA for

14.4%; US VISIT for 1.8% and FLETC for 1%.

Figure 1. FY2005 Request for Border and Transportation

Security Appropriation

Source: CRS Analysis of H.Rept. 108-541.

CRS-6

Figure 2 illustrates the relative size of the appropriation for each of the border

and transportation security agencies. Of the $19.6 billion appropriated by P.L. 108344, the Coast Guard (USCG) accounts for 37.6%; CBP for 26.8%; ICE for 16.1%;

TSA for 16.6%; US VISIT for 1.7% and FLETC for 1.1%. Table 2 provides

summary detail on appropriations for border and transportation security functions for

FY2004-FY2005.

Figure 2. FY2005 Appropriation for Border

and Transportation Security, P.L. 108-344.

Source: CRS Analysis of P.L. 108-344.

CRS-7

Table 2. Summary of Border and Transportation Security

Appropriations, Functional Presentation

($ in millions)

Bureau of Customs and

Border Protection (CBP)

CBP Fee Accounts a

CBP Direct Appropriation

Bureau of Immigration and

Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Rescission

ICE Fee Accounts

ICE Direct Appropriation

Transportation Security

Administration (TSA)

TSA Offsetting Fees c

TSA Direct Appropriation

Federal Law Enforcement

Training Center

U.S. Coast Guard

Under Secretary of Border

and Transportation Security

U.S. VISIT

Functional Total: Border

and Transportation Security

FY2004

Enacted

FY2005

Request

FY2005

House

FY2005

Senate

FY2005

Conf.

5,943

-1,044

4,899

6,223

-1,101

5,122

6,254

-1,101

5,154

6,232

-1,074

5,158

6,349

-1,079

5,270 b

3,680

-54

-273

3,407

3,533

—

-225

3,307

3,589

—

-225

3,363

3,760

—

-250

3,760

3,367

—

-200

3,167

4,578

-2,070

2,508

5,042

-2,290

2,752

5,048

-1,890

3,225

5,302

-1,890

3,412

5,151

-1,890

3,260

192

6,764

196

7,335

221

7,307

224

7,469

222

7,373

328

340

18,106

19,062

19,620

20,372

19,642

Source: P.L. 108-334, H.Rept. 108-541 to H.R. 4567 passed by the House June 18, 2004; S.Rept.

108-280 to S. 2537 reported by the Senate June 17, 2004.

Note: FY2004 amounts reflect the 0.59% across-the-board rescission enacted by P.L. 108-199.

Rounding may affect totals. Amounts in parentheses are not added to the total.

a. There is a discrepancy between the House and Senate reports regarding the amount of offsetting

fee collections for CBP for FY2004 enacted and FY2005 request. The way the offsetting fees

are applied for CBP, the difference in fee collections changes the total amount available for

obligation by CBP, but does not change the total amount directly appropriated by Congress for

CBP. Therefore, for the purposes of this paper, we use the amounts listed in the House report

tables for CBP offsetting fee collections for FY2004 enacted and the FY2005 request.

b. This amount includes a $63 million rescission of FY2004 funds previously appropriated by P.L.

108-11.

c. There is $400 million difference in TSA offsetting fee collections reported by the Administration,

and the House and Senate. The Administration included in its request a proposal to increase the

aviation security fee. Both the House and Senate denied this request and thus reflect $400

million less than the request in offsetting fee collections for TSA.

CRS-8

Operational Components of Border and Transportation

Security

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

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

appropriate funding level in the context of the current budget situation and competing

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

the operational components of border and transportation security. These include

selected: appropriations data; issues of potential interest to the conferees; and a

discussion of some of the challenges facing the different components of border and

transportation security.

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

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

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

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

approaches to improving overall transportation security. 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.

Table 3 provides account level details for the various component border and

transportation agencies as identified in this report.

CRS-9

Table 3. BTS Appropriations: Select Detail, FY2004-2005

($ in millions)

Operational Component

Office of the Under Secretary for Border

and & Transportation Security

FY2004 FY2005 FY2005 FY2005 FY2005

enacted request House Senate Conf.

Visitor & Immigrant Status Indicator

Project (US-VISIT)

328

340

Customs & Border Protection (net)

4,899

5,122

5,154

5,158

5,270

— Salaries and expenses; construction

— — rescission from S&E

— Air and Marine Operations a

— Automation modernization

— Fee accounts (offsetting collections)

4,460

—

439

(1,126)

4,672

—

450

(1,074)

4,704

—

450

(1,074)

4,708

4,626

—

-63

—

258

450

(1,074) (1,079)

Immigration & Customs Enforcement (net) b

3,407

3,307

3,363

3,760

3,167

— Salaries and expenses; construction

——rescission from S&E

— Federal Air Marshals

— Federal Protective Services

——offsetting FPS fees c

— Automation & infrastructure modernization

— Air and marine interdiction

— Fee accounts (offsetting collections)

Transportation Security Administration

(net)

— Aviation security (total funding)

— Maritime and land security d

— Credentialing Activities

— Intelligence

— Research and Development

— Administration

— Aviation Security Capital Funds

— Offsetting fee collections: Aviation

Security fees, Credentialing fees

U.S. Coast Guard

— Operating expenses

— Environmental compliance & restoration

— Reserve training

— Acquisition, construction, & improvements

— Rescission

— Alteration of bridges

— Research, development, tests, & evaluation

— Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement)

2,165

-54

623

424

—

209

(273)

2,397

—

613

478

-478

258

(225)

2,403

—

663

478

-478

258

(225)

2,539

—

713

478

-478

468

(250)

2,464

—

663

478

-478

—a

(200)

2,508

3,724

261

—

154

425

—

2,752

4,238

154

540

(250)

3,225

4,271

174

525

(250)

3,412

4,461

181

535

(250)

3,260

4,324

178

520

(250)

-2,070

6,764

4,637

961

—

1,020

-2,290

7,335

5,173

117

943

—

1,085

-1,890

7,307

5,171

113

937

-33

—

1,085

-1,890

7,469

5,153

117

1,063

—

18 d

1,085

-1,890

7,373

5,157

113

982

-16

1,085

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

192

196

221

224

222

18,106

19,062

19,620

20,372

19,642

Subtotal: BTS

CRS-10

Source: P.L. 108-334, H.Rept. 108-541 to H.R. 4567 passed by the House June 18, 2004; S.Rept. 108-280 to

S. 2537 reported by the Senate June 17, 2004.

Note: FY2004 amounts reflect the 0.59% across-the-board rescission enacted by P.L. 108-199. Rounding may

affect totals. Amounts in parentheses are not added to the total.

a. The Office of Air and Marine Operations was transferred from ICE to CBP by DHS, and P.L. 108-334 reflects

this transfer.

b. Though this table indicates that the FY2005 request for ICE represents a 2.9% decrease from FY2004, this

is due to a change in accounting for the fee receipts used to offset the expenses of Federal Protective

Service (FPS). If the FY2005 offsets are applied in the same way to the FY2004 enacted level for ICE,

(zeroing out FPS funding in FY2004) the agency actually receives an increase of nearly 11% from the

FY2004 level.

c. The direct offsetting of FPS funding with FPS fee collections in FY2005 is a change in the

accounting for the fees, and does not represent a new fee.

d. The decrease in Maritime and Land Security reflects a reorganization of grants (primarily port

security grants) that, pursuant to the Secretary’s Jan. 26, 2004 reorganization proposal, were

moved from TSA to the Office of Domestic Preparedness.

Customs and Border Protection

Border security functional responsibilities are at their most vivid at the point at

which goods or people are expected to cross borders. CBP 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 Immigration and Naturalization Service; the Border Patrol;

and the inspection functions of the APHIS program are consolidated under the CBP.

FY2005 CBP Request. The President’s budget requested a total of $5,122

million in direct appropriations for CBP, representing a 4.6% increase over the

enacted FY2004 level. CBP also receives funding from a set of user fees (transferred

from legacy Customs and INS agencies), as well as funding from APHIS user fees,

which are transferred from USDA to DHS. Table 6 provides account-level detail for

CBP. H.Rept. 108-541 would have provided a direct appropriation of $5,154

million, and Senate-passed H.R. 4567 would have provided $5,158 million. P.L.

108-334 provides a net appropriation of $5,270 million for CBP, including a

rescission of $63 million in funding previously appropriated by P.L. 108-11. This

amount also includes nearly $390 million in funding for the Office of Air and Marine

Interdiction which was transferred by DHS to CBP from ICE.

CRS-11

Table 4. CBP Account Detail

($ millions)

CBP Account

Salaries and Expenses

— rescission from S&E

Air and Marine Operations a

Automation Modernization

Construction

Total Direct Appropriations

Offsetting Fee Receipts

Total Budget Authority

FY2004

enacted

4,370

—

439

4,899

1,044

5,943

FY2005

request

4,580

—

450

5,122

1,101

6,222

FY2005

House

4,612

—

450

5,154

1,101

6,254

FY2005

Senate

4,616

—

450

5,158 b

1,074

6,232

FY2005

Conf.

4,534

-63

258

450

5,270

1,079

6,349

Source: P.L. 108-334, H.Rept. 108-541 to H.R. 4567 passed by the House June 18, 2004; S.Rept. 108-280 to

S. 2537 reported by the Senate June 17, 2004.

Note: FY2004 amounts reflect the 0.59% across-the-board rescission enacted by P.L. 108-199. Rounding may

affect totals. Amounts in parentheses are not added to the total.

a. The Office of Air and Marine Operations was transferred from ICE to CBP by DHS; the conference report

totals reflect this transfer.

b. Includes $50 for radiation detection technology adopted in S. AMDT. 3618 during Senate floor debate on

H.R. 4567.

As with the FY2004 appropriation, the CBP funding is provided through three

accounts: Salaries and Expenses; Automation Modernization; and Construction. The

bulk of CBP’s funding is provided through the Salaries and Expenses account. The

President’s budget request includes the following initiatives (increases over base

resources) for FY2005 which are fully funded by P.L. 108-334:

$25 million (49 Full-Time Equivalents3 or FTE) to expand the

Container Security Initiative (CSI), deploy additional CSI teams at

Phase I and II ports, and further implement CSI at Phase III ports;

! $15 million (60 FTE) to expand the Customs-Trade Partnership

Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) program, and hire additional C-TPAT

supply chain security officers specialists to conduct enrollment and

validations;

! $50 million for radiation detection and non-intrusive inspection

technology, including the purchase of 165 radiation portal monitors,

206 radiation isotope identifier devices, and 1,016 personal radiation

detectors (PRDs)( H.R. 4567 provides an additional $50 million

above the request);

! $21 (18 FTE) million to enhance targeting systems used to identify

high risk people and goods entering the country for inspection;

Civilian employment in the executive branch is measured in terms of full-time equivalents

(FTE). One FTE is equal to one work year or 2,080 non-overtime hours. For example, one

full-time employee equals one FTE, and two half-time employees equal one FTE.

CRS-12

$64 million to expand the Integrated Surveillance and Information

System (ISIS), a networked system of remote video cameras and

sensors used to patrol the northern and southern borders.

! $10 million for the purchase of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (funded

by S.Rept. 108-280 under ICE).

Table 5 provides selected sub-account level detail for CBP activities in the

Salaries and Expenses account. P.L. 108-334 provides an additional $30 million

above the request for radiation detection equipment, (H.Rept. 108-541, and the

Senate-passed H.R. 4567 had recommended an additional $50 million above the

request for radiation detection equipment), an additional $2 million for the

Immigration Security Initiative (H.Rept 108-541 had recommended an additional $3

million), and an additional $1 million to monitor ‘in-bond’4 cargo containers

(recommended by H.Rept. 108-541). The conference also transfers $23 million in

training funds to reflect the transfer of the Charleston Training Center to FLETC

(recommended by both the House and Senate). Both the House and Senate

Committees indicate that they fully fund the request for C-TPAT and Free and Secure

Trade (FAST) programs. As Table 5 illustrates however, there is a $4 million

difference between the amounts provided by the House and the Senate. This is

apparently a discrepancy in the amounts reported as requested by each.

The term ‘in-bond’ is used to describe cargo shipments that are either destined for deposit

in a bonded warehouse, or that are transiting the U.S. en route to another country, and which

are provisionally entered into the U.S. under a customs bond. Duties and tariffs are not due

on in-bond shipments until the time the merchandise leaves the bonded warehouse and

enters the commerce of the U.S. Brokers or importers take out customs bonds to cover the

potential duties and taxes on the shipments while the shipment is warehoused.

CRS-13

Table 5. CBP Selected Sub-Account Level Detail

($ millions)

Activity

Headquarters Management and

Administration

At Ports of Entry:

— Inspection, trade and travel facilitation

— Harbor Maintenance Fee

— Container Security Initiative

— Other International Programs

— C-TPAT, FAST

— Inspection and detection technology

investments

— Systems for Targeting

— National Targeting Center a

— Other technology investment

— Training

Subtotal At Ports of Entry

Between Ports of Entry:

— Border security and control

— Air program operations and

maintenance

— Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

— Integrated surveillance and intelligence

system

— Training

Subtotal Between Ports of Entry

Air and Marine Operations S&E

Total CBP Salaries and Expenses

FY2004 FY2005 FY2005 FY2005 FY2005

enacted request House Senate

Conf.

1,365

1,347

1,366

1,262

1,173

1,240

1,256

126

1,243

126

1,306

126

1,243

126

140

—

1,565

115

—

1,667

165

1,699

165

—

1,772

145

1,683

1,339

1,414

1,464

1,414

—

—b

1,441

—

4,370

1,566

—

4,580

1,547

—

4,612

1,583

—

4,616c

1,547

131

4,534

Source: P.L. 108-334, H.Rept. 108-541 to H.R. 4567 passed by the House June 18, 2004; S.Rept. 108-280 to

S. 2537 reported by the Senate June 17, 2004 and H.R. 4567 passed by the Senate on September 14, 2004.

Note: FY2004 amounts reflect the 0.59% across-the-board rescission enacted by P.L. 108-199. Rounding may

affect totals. Amounts in parentheses are not added to the total.

a. Both the House and Senate reports indicated that each house has fully funded the Administration’s request

for the National Targeting Center and the various targeting modules of the Automated Targeting System.

The discrepancy evidenced in the table appears to be a discrepancy between the amounts indicated as

requested — the House indicates that the request was for $16 million; while the Senate indicates the

request was for $19 million.

b. The Senate placed funding for the UAV program within the amount recommended in the “Air and Marine

Interdiction, Operation, Maintenance, and Procurement” account within ICE (funded under CBP by

Conference as the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction has been transferred to CBP from ICE).

c. The Senate adopted S.Amdt. 3611 during floor debate on H.R. 4567 which reduced total CBP Salaries and

Expenses by $1 million; however the amendment does not specify a sub-account.

CRS-14

CBP Issues for Congress. Both the House and Senate reports indicate

several areas of congressional concern. These issues have been generally grouped

according to whether or not the issue occurs at ports of entry; or between ports of

entry.

Staffing. Staffing of the primary border agency continues to be of concern to

Congress. The House report while indicating its support for the unified approach to

staffing, the ‘one face at the border initiative,’ directs CBP to submit a detailed

staffing plan no later than 90 days after enactment. The plan should include actual

on-board personnel for FY2004; projected staffing for FY2005; positions funded

through direct appropriations; positions funded through fee collections; and staffing

by position at each port of entry, Border Patrol station, or other border area location.

In the conference report to H.R. 4567 (H.Rept. 108-774), the conferees note that CBP

has not submitted the staffing report due December 1, 2003. The conferees require

CBP to submit that plan immediately, and to submit an updated plan no later than 90

days after enactment. H.Rept. 108-774 essentially adopts the language used in

H.Rept. 108-541 (noted above) regarding the required details of the updated report.

Biometric Screening Database Integration. Both the House and Senate

Committee reports highlight and offer support for the current project underway to

integrate CBP’s Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) and the

Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Integrated Automated Fingerprint

Identification System (IAFIS). The USBP uses IDENT to identify and track illegal

aliens. IDENT combines a digital photograph, two flat fingerprints, and biographical

data into two databases which can be used to track repeat entrants and better identify

criminal aliens. The FBI’s IAFIS is an automated 10 rolled fingerprint matching

system linked to a database that holds over 40 million records, including wanted

persons, stolen vehicles, deported felons, gang members, and terrorists.5 Integration

of the two systems is widely regarded as a vital component of tightening border

security, as it would allow CBP inspectors and USBP agents to access the FBI’s

criminal database in order to establish whether apprehended aliens have outstanding

warrants or criminal histories. However, integration has proved difficult for various

technical and organizational reasons. The House Committee notes that DHS had

testified that the integrated systems would be deployed by the end of calendar year

2004, but that the Committee understands that this deployment will only apply to air

and sea ports and the largest USBP stations and points of entry. The House report

expresses concern about the slow pace of the integration project, noting this delay

leaves a security gap along the border which allows individuals with criminal records

to pass through undetected. The House Committee directs DHS to fully fund its cost

for the integration project, and directs the Undersecretary for Border and

Transportation Security to submit a report by January 1, 2005 on the status of the

integration project. The report should include the extent of data sharing between

IDENT and IAFIS, the combined data’s real-time accessibility, and what technical

and policy issues are involved with allowing State and local law enforcement

officials to access the IDENT system. The Senate Committee report notes that it is

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, The Rafael Resendez-Ramirez

Case: A Review of the INS’s Actions and the Operation of Its IDENT Automated Fingerprint

Identification System, USDOJ/OIG Special Report, Mar. 2000, Appendix B.

CRS-15

essential that the FBI, State and local law enforcement officers have the ability to

retrieve information from the IDENT/US-VISIT6 database. The Senate Committee

directs DHS to submit a plan by February 8, 2005 that details the specific steps that

are needed to fully integrate the US-VISIT program and the IAFIS database,

including sources and funds needed and a timetable for full integration.

The conference report, H.Rept. 108-774, generally echoes the concerns

expressed in both the House and Senate Committee reports. The conferees adopt

reporting requirements from both committee reports: requiring DHS to fund the full

cost of achieving real time interoperability between the two systems using the USVISIT appropriation; directing the Under Secretary of BTS to report within 90 days

of enactment on the status of the integration effort including steps that will be taken

to integrate IAFIS into IDENT, needed funding, and a timetable for full integration.

CBP Issues for Congress — At Ports of Entry. CBP activities at ports

of entry include all screening and processing activities involved in entering people

and goods into the country.

Cargo and Container Security. Cargo and container security remains an

issue of concern. Both the House and Senate indicate their support for C-TPAT, and

the Container Security Initiative (CSI). C-TPAT is a public-private partnership

aimed at securing the supply chain from point of origin through entry into the U.S.

CSI is a CBP program stationing CBP officers in foreign sea ports to target and

inspect marine containers before they are loaded onto U.S.-bound vessels. The

House requests a report from CBP detailing the implementation plan for CSI, and

encourages CBP to develop an integrated network including “all relevant route,

inspection, shipment, and intrusion data.” The Government Accountability Office

(GAO) recently published a report concerning both the CSI and C-TPAT programs.

GAO credited CBP for quickly rolling out the two programs but noted that CBP

needs to develop: systematic human capital plans; performance measures for

accountability and program achievement; and a long-term strategic plan to

successfully manage the two programs.7

The Senate report notes that Congress has provided more than $200 million for

a variety of programs designed to enhance the security of shipments of containerized

goods from point of lading to point of destination in the United States. S.Rept. 108280 directs the Under Secretary of BTS to submit a report by February 8, 2005

detailing: the steps DHS has taken to enhance container security; the resources DHS

has expended in prior fiscal years and necessary future resources to maintain this

security; results of ongoing container security projects such as Operation Safe

Commerce, CSI, and C-TPAT; and which BTS entity has primary responsibility for

implementing cargo container security measures, and what steps this entity will take

to implement future cargo security standards, policies, procedures, or regulations.

The conferees adopted this Senate report language in H.Rept. 108-774, and indicate

The US-VISIT system is based on the IDENT system.

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Container Security: Expansion of Two

Key Programs will Require Greater Attention to Critical Success Factors, GAO-03-770,

July 2003, pp. 2-4.

CRS-16

that the report should also address the security of ‘in-bond’ shipments (which were

of concern for the House Committee, as noted below).

The House report indicated concern with the potential risks associated with ‘inbond’ shipments. The term “in-bond” is used to describe shipments which are being

provisionally admitted into the United States under CBP supervision without having

to immediately pay the duties associated with the shipment (the shipments are not

entered into the commerce of the United States). The shipment must be destined for

storage in a bonded warehouse or for transshipment. Duties on in-bond shipments

are collected when the merchandise is withdrawn from the bonded warehouse

(entered into the commerce of the United States). The importer or the broker must

put up a customs bond to cover the amount of duty that will eventually be due on the

shipment. The House report included $1 million to support the acquisition,

development, and testing of sensor and tracking technology to allow CBP to track intransit shipments from their port of entry in the United States to their final

destination.

Targeting and Risk Assessment. CBP uses a risk assessment tool, the

Automated Targeting System(ATS) to focus inspections on high-risk shipments. ATS

automatically sorts shipments according to risk based on specific weighted rule sets,

and assigns each shipment a risk score. The higher the score, the more attention a

shipment requires, and the greater the chance it will be targeted for inspection. As

noted above in note (a) to Table 5, both the House and Senate indicated full funding

for the National Targeting Center and the ATS; though there is an apparent

discrepancy as to how that requested amount is scored. While many observers note

the importance of developing sophisticated targeting mechanisms others have raised

concerns, including GAO which recently noted that while CBP’s targeting strategy

incorporated some elements of risk management, it lacked a comprehensive set of

criticality, vulnerability and risk assessments, and does not follow certain recognized

modeling practices.8 The House report notes these findings and directs CBP to report

to Congress no later than November 1, 2005, regarding its plan to respond to the

criticisms contained in the GAO report.

Inspections and Inspection Technology (NII). CBP uses a variety of

inspection technologies to assist inspectors in detecting and identifying suspicious

cargo. These technologies are referred to generally as non-intrusive inspection (NII)

technology, and include both gamma-ray (such as the Vehicle and Cargo Inspection

System), (VACIS) and x-ray systems, among others. CBP also uses radiation

detection devices both personal (PRDs) and large-scale radiation portal monitors

(RPMs). The conference report, H.Rept. 108-774, provides $145 million for

inspection and detection technology investments, of which $50 million is for

radiation detection technology, and up to an additional $30 million shall be available

for either radiation detection technology or NII. The House report had recommended

an additional $50 million above the request ($100 million total increase) for

additional detection and inspection equipment, noting the need for an additional

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: Preliminary Observations

on Efforts to Target Security Inspections of Cargo Containers, GAO-04-325T, Dec. 17,

2003.

CRS-17

1,000 RPMs, and that the request included funding for existing systems, but not for

replacement or acquisition of additional systems. The Senate initially provided $50

million for the “purchase and deployment of radiation detection equipment”9, but

during floor debate on H.R. 4567, adopted an amendment providing an additional

$50 million for radiation detection technology.

The House report also indicated its support for the Immigration Security

Initiative (ISI) and provided an additional $3 million above the request for the

program. The conferees provide an additional $2 million for ISI. The ISI is,

according to comments by CBP Commissioner Bonner, intended to be a CSI for

people. The program builds off the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service

program which stationed immigration control officers abroad, and will station small

teams of CBP officers at the world’s largest airports to target and intercept high-risk

and inadmissable travelers from continuing on to the United States. Like the CSI

program, ISI officers will have no legal authority in host countries, but will work in

an advisory capacity with host country authorities.

Finally, the conferees note that DHS should work with the Department of

Defense to allow the New Mexico National Guard to continue preforming vehicle

and cargo inspections in support of CBP and ICE missions, and that CBP should

submit a report no later than March 1, 2005 on what actions are planned.

Commercial Entry and Trade Enforcement. Both the House and Senate

reports continue to express concern regarding CBP’s development and deployment

of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). Legacy Customs and now CBP

have been engaged in a long-term effort to develop a trade processing system to

replace the current Automated Commercial System (ACS) which GAO testimony has

characterized as “paper-intensive, error-prone, and transaction based, and out of step

with just-in-time inventory practices of the trade community.”10 The House report

directs CBP to address the integration of CBP and ACE modernization with DHS

information systems; border security technologies; CSI; and the ATS; in the quarterly

reports sent to Congress. This House report language is adopted by the conferees in

H.Rept. 108-774. The Senate report also notes that funding for ACE is only available

upon the submission of a comprehensive expenditure plan that complies with various

capital planning and investment control requirements established by OMB; complies

with various acquisitions rules and requirements; is reviewed by GAO; and approved

by the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and the House.

CBP Issues — Between Points of Entry. Within CBP, the United States

Border Patrol (USBP) is the agency responsible for the enforcement of federal

immigration laws between points of entry. As currently comprised, the USBP’s

primary mission is to detect and prevent the entry of unauthorized aliens into the

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security

Appropriations Bill, 2005 , report to accompany S. 2537, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 108280, p. 18.

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

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

CRS-18

country, assist in the detection of possible terrorists, and interdict drug smugglers and

other criminals.

Integrated Surveillance Information Systems. Both reports also express

support for the expansion of the Integrated Surveillance Information System (ISIS),

a networked system of cameras and sensors used to patrol the borders. The House

report notes that it is aware that significant gaps exist in the integration of the remote

video surveillance systems and integrated computer assisted detection systems that

form ISIS’ base. The House report fully funds the request but believes that more

investment is necessary. The House Committee requests that CBP include a fiveyear capital acquisition plan for ISIS in its FY2006 budget request, and to submit a

report on ISIS integration with other DHS and CBP enterprise architecture and

technology standards within 90 days of the enactment of the Appropriations Act. The

Senate report requested that CBP submit a master plan for nationwide deployment

of the system by December 15, 2004. The master plan should include a breakout by

sector and installation type, plans for redundancies and digital records, an analysis

of the proper number of staff needed to operate the system, and a total cost estimate.

The conferees direct CBP to submit the five-year capital acquisition report and the

master plan for nationwide deployment with the FY2006 budget submission. The

conferees also direct the Under Secretary for BTS to report no later than February 8,

2005 on the status of the effort to integrate sub-systems that encompass ISIS.

Further, the conferees direct the GAO to undertake a study of ISIS project

management and spending plans for ISIS investment and operations for FY2006FY2010.

Fleet Management. Both reports address USBP vehicle acquisition policy,

with the Senate report noting it is aware that CBP is conducting a comprehensive

review of its vehicle management plan. Nevertheless, the Senate Committee voices

concern that the USBP may be facing a vehicle procurement and management crisis

in the long term and strongly supports efforts to incorporate the U.S. Border Patrol

(USBP) fleet into the CBP fleet management plan. The Senate directs CBP to submit

a detailed vehicle management plan by February 8, 2005. The House report notes it

is aware that the USBP needs Severe Off-Road Vehicles, among other types of

vehicles, and requests a detailed report on the USBP vehicle acquisition and fleet

management plan so they can better understand the agency’s needs. The report must

be submitted within 90 days of enactment and should include the USBP 2004 fleet

baseline and planned investments, by vehicle type, for FY2005- FY2009. The

conferees in H.Rept. 108-774, direct CBP to submit a detailed report no later than

February 8, 2005 as specified by the House and Senate reports.

Arizona Border. The House report voices concern over the continued high

level of illegal immigration within the USBP’s Tucson sector and strongly supports

the Arizona Border Control (ABC) initiative, an administrative initiative aimed at

concentrating more USBP resources along the Arizona border. However, the

committee expresses disappointment at the apparent lack of progress in ABC’s

implementation. The committee believes ABC will reduce the Arizona border’s

vulnerability, stop the violence associated with human traffickers, limit the cost and

danger to area residents, and ameliorate the risk of serious injury or loss of life faced

by aliens due the inhospitable terrain. In addition, the House Committee report

requires CBP to conduct a study of locations for permanent checkpoints within the

CRS-19

Tucson sector. Additionally, the committee includes restrictions that tactical

checkpoints must be relocated at least an average of once every 14 days, and that

funds may not be used for the construction of permanent checkpoints in the Tucson

Sector. Lastly, the House Committee directs CBP to submit a detailed staffing plan

that includes staffing by position at each port of entry, USBP station, or other border

location. The committee has also funded additional Northern Border staff, bringing

USBP staff levels there to those authorized in the USA PATRIOT Act.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

ICE 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. In addition, this bureau oversees the building security

activities of the Federal Protective Service, formerly of the General Services

Administration; the operations of the Air and Marine Operations unit; and the Federal

Air Marshals Service (FAMS) transferred to ICE from TSA in August of 2003. The

Office of Air and Marine Interdiction was transferred to CBP, and therefore the totals

for ICE do not include Air and Marine Interdiction funding, which is included under

CBP.

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, as well as the

operations of the Federal Protective Service. ICE conducts investigations to develop

intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the United States, and is responsible for

locating and removing illegal aliens by inspecting places of employment for

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

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

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

smuggling and fraud.

FY2005 Request. The President’s budget requested $3,499 million in direct

appropriations for ICE. The ICE budget is composed of several activities broken out

into several accounts. ICE budget accounts include Salaries and Expenses; Federal

Air Marshal Service (FAMS); Federal Protective Service (FPS); Air and Marine

Operations (AMO); Automation Modernization; and Construction. The Salaries and

Expenses includes funding for the following activities: Investigations/Intelligence;

Detention and Removal; and AMO. Table 6 presents the ICE request by account.

In addition to discretionary funding, ICE also receives funding from the following

offsetting fee receipt accounts: Breached Bond Detention Fund; User Fee account;

and the Student Exchange and Visitor Program (SEVIS).11 The President’s budget

requests funding increases for several program initiatives. The Administration

requested a total of $3,307 million for ICE in FY2005, representing a nearly 11%

increase over the FY2004 enacted level. H.Rept. 108-541 recommended $3,363

million, while the Senate passed H.R. 4567 recommended $3,760 million for ICE.

During floor debate, the Senate adopted amendments 3616, 3618, and 3578 which

The funding from these accounts is not included in Table 7.

CRS-20

would have increased ICE appropriations by $350 million over S.Rept. 108-280,

including $200 million for Air and Marine Operations, $50 million for additional ICE

investigators, $50 million for Detention and Removal, and $50 million for the

Federal Air Marshals. P.L. 108-334 provides $3,167 million for ICE, however, this

amount does not include amounts provided for AMO which, as noted earlier, has

been transferred to CBP.

Table 6. ICE Account Detail

($ millions)

Salaries and Expenses

Rescission a

Federal Protective Service b

offsetting fee receipts

Federal Air Marshals c

Automation Modernization

FY2004

enacted

2,138

(-54)

424

—

623

FY2005

request

2,371

—

478

(-478)

613

FY2005

House

2,377

—

478

(-478)

663

FY2005

Senate

2,513

—

478

(-478)

713

FY2005

Conf.

2,438

—

478

(-478)

663

Air and Marine Operations

209

258

468

—d

Construction

Total Direct Appropriations

not Including FPS

3,407

3,307

3,363

3,760

3,167

2,983

3,307

3,363

3,760

3,167

ICE Account

Source: P.L. 108-334, H.Rept. 108-541 to H.R. 4567 passed by the House June 18, 2004; S.Rept. 108-280 to

S. 2537 reported by the Senate June 17, 2004.

Note: FY2004 amounts reflect the 0.59% across-the-board rescission enacted by P.L. 108-199. Rounding may

affect totals. Amounts in parentheses are not added to the total.

a. Rescission of funds appropriated for Operation Liberty Shield activities which are no longer required.

b. Though this table indicates that the FY2005 request represents a 2.9% decrease from FY2004, this is due to

a change in accounting for the fee receipts used to offset the expenses of FPS. If the FY2005 offsets are

applied consistent with FY2004, ICE actually receives an increase of nearly 11% from the FY2004 level

as seen in the last line of the table.

c. The Federal Air Marshals were transferred to ICE from TSA in September of 2003.

d. The Office of Air and Marine Interdiction (AMO) was transferred from ICE to CBP, P.L. 108-334 and the

conference report (H.Rept. 108-774) reflect this transfer.

The Administration requested $78 million (355 FTE) over base resources for the

following Investigations program initiatives:

$16 million (65 FTE) for compliance teams to analyze data

generated from the Student Exchange and Visitor Information

System (SEVIS) and US-VISIT (fully funded by P.L. 108-334, and

the House and Senate reports);

! $14 million (90 FTE) for International Affairs of which $10 million

is to support the new Visa Security Unit, and the remaining $4

million is requested to replace funding previously provided through

the Examination Fee Account (fully funded by P.L. 108-334, and the

House and Senate reports);

CRS-21

$25 million to support benefit fraud operations, requested to replace

funding previously provided by the Examination Fee Account (fully

funded by P.L. 108-334, but not funded by the Senate); and

! $23 million for worksite enforcement (funded at $5 million by P.L.

108-334, funded by the House at $15.6 million, and not funded by

the Senate report).

The Administration requested, and P.L. 108-334 fully funds, $108.2 million (342

FTE) over base resources for the following Detention and Removal program

initiatives:

$30 million (140 FTE) to expand the Institutional Removal Program

nationally to all Federal, State, and local institutions housing

criminal aliens;

! $50 million (118 FTE) to continue implementation of the National

Fugitive Operations Program (NFOP) which seeks to reduce the

fugitive alien population over the next six years;

! $11 million (30 FTE) to establish alternatives to detention that

include additional non-traditional family and female-friendly

detention settings and establish community supervision operations

(the House report provides an additional $5 million above the

request which was not funded by P.L. 108-334);

! $6 million (40 FTE) for the Legal Program to eliminate the backlog

of matters pending in the Immigration Court;

! $6.2 million to fund DHS’s efforts to interdict illegal alien migrants

in the Caribbean region; and

! $5 million (14FTE) for additional detention bed space (P.L. 108-334

provides an additional $16.5 million above the House and Senate

recommendations for a total of $20.5 million above the request)(the

House and Senate reports both recommended an additional $5

million above the request).

The Administration requested, and P.L. 108-334 fully funds, $40.5 million for the

following AMO program initiatives that have been transferred to CBP:

$28 million to increase the number of P-3 flight hours from 200 to

600 hours per month, (the P-3 aircraft are used in interdiction

operations to provide radar coverage in areas where ground-based

radar have limited effectiveness);

! $12.5 million for long range radar to support drug interdiction

efforts along the southern border.

Table 7 provides a breakout of the activities in ICE.

CRS-22

Table 7. ICE Selected Sub-Account Level Detail

($ millions)

Activity

Salaries and Expenses

HQ Management and Administration

Investigations

Intelligence

Detention and Removal Operations

Air and Marine Operations, Personnel

Compensation, and Benefits

Total ICE Salaries and Expenses

FY2004 FY2005 FY2005 FY2005 FY2005

enacted request House Senate

Conf.

150

861

959

166

963

1,070

166

942

1,080

176

1,030

1,125

216

1,071

1,091

114

116

133

123

—a

2,138

2,371

2,377

2,513

2,438

Source: P.L. 108-334, H.Rept. 108-541 to H.R. 4567 passed by the House June 18, 2004; S.Rept. 108-280 to

S. 2537 reported by the Senate June 17, 2004.

Note: FY2004 amounts reflect the 0.59% across-the-board rescission enacted by P.L. 108-199. Rounding may

affect totals. Amounts in parentheses are not added to the total.

a. The Office of Air and Marine Interdiction (AMO) was transferred from ICE to CBP, P.L. 108-334 and the

conference report (H.Rept. 108-774) reflect this transfer.

ICE Issues for Congress.

Air and Marine Operations (AMO). There are several AMO issues

discussed in the House and Senate reports including the appropriate location of AMO

within BTS; possible mission overlap; resource allocation and utilization; and radar

coverage. Prior to the establishment of DHS, AMO was a part of the legacy Customs

Service and was called Air and Marine Interdiction. With the creation of CBP and

ICE, AMO became a stand alone unit within ICE. Both H.Rept. 108-541 and S.Rept.

108-280 express concern about the appropriate location for AMO within BTS.

AMO’s current mission includes “interdiction of smugglers and potential terrorists

crossing our borders, traffickers operating the source, transit and arrival zones of the

Western Hemisphere, providing airspace security for the nation’s capital and for

National Special Security Events (NSSEs), and providing support for investigative

and law enforcement operations.”12 The House report discusses several options:

leaving AMO in ICE; “bringing AMO under the umbrella of the BTS Directorate and

aligning its operations with the border security and interdiction missions of CBP”13;

and moving AMO to become a standalone agency reporting directly to the Under

Secretary of BTS. Both the House and Senate committees indicate a desire to

identify potential areas of overlap between the air and marine operations of AMO in

ICE, the Border Patrol in CBP, and the Coast Guard. DHS and BTS are currently

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security

Appropriations Bill, 2005, report to accompany H.R. 4567, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept.

108-541, p. 17.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security

Appropriations Bill, 2005, report to accompany H.R. 4567, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept.

108-541, p. 18.

CRS-23

undertaking a review of air and marine assets and operations in the department. Both

committees express keen interest in the findings of this review, and the Senate report

directs DHS to submit a report no later than February 15, 2005 detailing the findings

of the pending review.

AMO has been transferred from ICE to CBP. In H.Rept. 108-774, the conferees

strongly support the effort to rationalize air and marine assets and organization within

DHS. The conferees also reiterate concerns that BTS submit the AMO

modernization and capitalization plan, and direct AMO to include detailed multi-year

staffing plans in this report. Further, the conferees direct the Under Secretary of BTS

in coordination with the U.S. Interdiction Coordinator to submit a report no later than

February 15, 2004 on: (1) specific actions planned or taken to rationalize air and

marine efforts; (2) plans for modernizing air and marine assets including staffing

plans in the level of detail required in H.Rept. 108-541; (3) cost/benefit analysis of

retrofitting the existing P-3 fleet; and (4) the multiple air and marine missions of

CBP and their relation to the Coast Guard.

One of the radar systems utilized by AMO is the Tethered Aerostat Radar

System (TARS); a balloon-borne low altitude radar system that provides surveillance

coverage for homeland security, drug interdiction, and air defense missions. TARS

is currently managed by the Department of Defense. The House Committee notes no

realistic alternative to TARS will be available for the next decade. According to

AMO officials, at the height of the program, 14 TARS sites were operational.

H.Rept. 108-541 indicates that there are currently eight sites in operation. The report

also notes a discrepancy concerning the optimum number and location of TARS sites.

The committee directs the Under Secretary of BTS in coordination with DHS’ U.S.

Interdiction Coordinator to submit a joint report no later than 90 days after

enactment, detailing a threat analysis of the U.S. border including analyses of

attempted intrusions and similar threatening air and marine activity and relating this

activity to the current and proposed locations of TARS sites. Further, the report

should also outline the costs and benefits of maintaining current sites, re-opening or

commissioning new sites, and upgrading all sites with the most current surveillance

and monitoring equipment. Conferees in H.Rept. 108-774 echo the concern and

reporting detailed in H.Rept. 108-541.

Lastly, the Senate passed version of H.R. 4567 added $200 million for the

creation and maintenance of air bases in Michigan, Montana, New York, North

Dakota, and Washington, and would have authorized $5 million to fund a pilot

project to test interoperable communications between the first Northern Border Air

Wing and local law enforcement personnel.

Detention Issues. Many contend that DHS does not have enough detention

space to house all those who should be detained.14 There are reportedly 300,000

noncitizens in the United States who have been ordered deported who have not left

the country. Some argue that these 300,000 people would have been forced to leave

For more information on the issues surrounding the detention of noncitizens in the United

States, see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention: Current Legislative

Issues, by (name redacted).

CRS-24

the country if they had been detained once they were ordered deported. A study done

by DOJ’s Inspector General found that almost 94% of those detained with final

orders of removal were deported while only 11% of those not detained who were

issued final orders of removals left the country.15 Concerns have been raised that

decisions on which aliens to release and when to release the aliens may be based on

the amount of detention space, not on the merits of individual cases, and that the

amount of space may vary by area of the country leading to the disparate application

of policies in different geographic areas.16

Likewise, the overall increase in the number of noncitizens in DHS detention

has raised questions about the cost of detaining noncitizens, and whether ICE is using

their resources in the most efficient manner. For FY2004, DHS budgeted $80 a day

for each detainee held in detention.17 This cost does not include transportation or the

cost of deporting the alien. Due to the cost of detaining aliens, and the fact that many

non-detained aliens with final orders of removal do not leave the country, there has

been interest in developing alternatives to detention for certain types of aliens who

do not require a secure detention setting.18

Examinations Fee and Staffing. There are still some issues which remain

due to the dismantling of the former INS into three bureaus within DHS. For

example, previously certain immigration enforcement activities were partially funded

by fees from the Examination Fee Account, which now goes to U.S. Citizenship and

Immigration Services. Some have questioned whether appropriated funds will be

enough to compensate for activities previously provided though this account. In

addition, due to the increased responsibilities of DHS for visa security overseas,

concerns have been raised over whether ICE’s overseas attache offices are adequately

staffed.19

Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice. The Immigration and

Naturalization Service’s Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders, Report I-2003-004, Feb.

2003.

The decision does not usually apply to aliens who are under mandatory detention. A high

priority detainee may be released to make space for a mandatory detainee. Nonetheless,

DHS does have explicit procedures for choosing between two mandatory detainees if there

is not enough bed space. Pearson, INS Detention Guidelines, p. 1116.

Unpublished DHS data obtained from Betty Mills-Carilli, Bureau of Immigration and

Customs Enforcement Office of Congressional Affairs, Department of Homeland Security,

Apr. 8, 2004.

On June 21, 2004, ICE began a pilot program for low-risk, non-violent offenders in eight

locations. The program, the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP), provides

less restrictive alternatives to detention, using such tools as electronic monitoring devices

(e.g., ankle bracelets), home visits, work visits, and reporting by telephone, to monitor aliens

who are out on bond while awaiting hearings during removal proceedings or the appeals

process. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,

“Public Security: ICE Unveils New Alternative to Detention,” Inside ICE, vol. 1, no. 5, June

21, 2004. Available at

[http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/newsreleases/insideice/insideice_062104_web3.htm].

The attache offices are responsible for conducting and coordinating ICE investigations

(continued...)

CRS-25

SEVIS. Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) is the

foreign student monitoring system through which DHS collects information on

foreign students. SEVIS provides the electronic means to monitor and verify

information pertaining to the foreign student including the alien’s identity and

address; documentation of the student’s acceptance by an approved school; issuance

of the student’s nonimmigrant visa; admission of the student to the U.S.; notice to the

school that the foreign student has been admitted into the United States; and notice

from the school that the alien has attended classes. In addition, schools have reported

technical difficulties operating SEVIS, and reported discrepancies between

information received from different bureaus in DHS regarding SEVIS operations and

requirements. Moreover, prior to the implementation of SEVIS it was difficult to

know when foreign students overstayed their visas. Through SEVIS, DHS should be

able to identify students who have violated the terms of their visas; however, some

question whether DHS has sufficient compliance teams to locate all student visa

violators, and whether it is an effective use of DHS resources to do so.

Transportation Security Administration20

The TSA,21 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 United States.

FY2005 TSA Request. The Administration’s net FY2005 request for TSA

of $2,752 million represents a 9.7% increase over the enacted FY2004 level of

$2,508 million. According to TSA this increase does not include funding to expand

current programs, nor does it fund any new program initiatives.22 Instead, this

increase is comprised primarily of annualizations of prior year funding, and pay

inflation.

H.Rept. 108-541 recommended a net appropriation of $3,225 million for TSA.

While this appears to be a $473 million increase over the FY2005 request, and a 29%

increase over the enacted FY2004 level, H.Rept. 108-541 in fact provides increases

totaling $73 million. According to S.Rept. 108-280, the Administration budget

request included a $400 million increase in aviation security fees. However, neither

House nor Senate reports fund this request, instead they provide the $400 million in

appropriated funds. Table 8 reflects the amounts contained in H.Rept. 108-541 and

S.Rept. 108-280. S.Rept. 108-280 recommended a total appropriation of $3,337 for

TSA for FY2005. However, during floor debate for H.R. 4567, the Senate adopted

(...continued)

(including investigations of smuggling and trafficking) and supporting Detention and

Removal Operations (DRO).

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).

Department of Homeland Security, “Transportation Security Administration,” Department

of Homeland Security FY2005 Congressional Budget Justification, p. TSA-15.

CRS-26

amendment 3598 which added $75 million to TSA for baggage screening activities.

P.L. 108-334 provides a net appropriation of $3,260 million for TSA.

Table 8. TSA Account Detail

($ millions)

TSA Activity

Aviation Security

Maritime & Land Security a

Credentialing Activities

Intelligence

Research and Development

Administration

Aviation Security Capital

Fund

Subtotal TSA

Offsetting Fee Collections

— Aviation Security Fees

— Credentialing Fees

Total TSA

FY2004 FY2005 FY2005 FY2005 FY2005

enacted request

House

Senate

Conf.

3,724

4,238

4,271

4,461

4,324

261

—

154

174

181

178

425

540

525

535

520

—

(250)

4,578

5,042

5,114

5,302

5,151

-2,070

—

2,508

-2,223

-67

2,752

-1,823

-67

3,225

-1,823

-67

3,412

-1823

-67

3,260

Source: P.L. 108-334, H.Rept. 108-541 to H.R. 4567 passed by the House June 18, 2004; S.Rept.

108-280 to S. 2537 reported by the Senate June 17, 2004, and Senate passed H.R. 4567 on September

14, 2004.

Note: FY2004 amounts reflect the 0.59% across-the-board rescission enacted by P.L. 108-199.

Rounding may affect totals. Amounts in parentheses are not added to the total.

a. The apparent decrease in Maritime and Land Security reflects a reorganization of grants (primarily

port security grants) that, pursuant to the Secretary of DHS’ January 26, 2004 proposal, were

moved from TSA to the OSLGCP.

Table 9 provides selected sub-account level detail to illustrate the difference in

funding amounts recommended for passenger screening, baggage screening, and

airport security.

CRS-27

Table 9. TSA Selected Sub-Account Level Detail

($ millions)

Activity

Aviation Security

— Passenger Screening

— Baggage Screening

— Airport Security

— Use of Prior Year Balances

Total TSA Aviation Security

FY2004 FY2005 FY2005 FY2005 FY2005

enacted request House Senate

Conf.

1,802

1,316

702

-95

3,724

2,027

1,378

834

—

4,238

2,017

1,407

847

—

4,720

2,077

1,513

872

—

4,461

2,049

1,452

822

—

4,324

Source: P.L. 108-334, H.Rept. 108-541 to H.R. 4567 passed by the House June 18, 2004; S.Rept.

108-280 to S. 2537 reported by the Senate June 17, 2004, and Senate passed H.R. 4567 on September

14, 2004.

Note: FY2004 amounts reflect the 0.59% across-the-board rescission enacted by P.L. 108-199.

Rounding may affect totals. Amounts in parentheses are not added to the total.

As illustrated in Table 9, there are several differences in recommended

appropriations for Aviation Security. P.L. 108-334 provides $22 million over the

request for Passenger Screening, while the House recommended $10 million less than

requested and the Senate report recommended $50 million more than requested. For

Baggage Screening, P.L. 108-334 provides $75 million above the request; while the

House recommended $29 million above the Administration’s request and the Senate

in S.Rept. 108-280 recommended $60 million above the request for the purchase and

installation of EDS/ETD equipment. For Airport Security Direction and

Enforcement P.L. 108-334 provides $12 million less than requested, while the House

recommended an additional $3 million above the request for aviation regulation and

other enforcement, and an additional $10.4 million above the request for air cargo

security; and the Senate recommended $38 million above the administration’s

request, of which $25 million is for airport information technology and support, and

$13 million is for air cargo security activities.

TSA Issues for Congress.

Privatized Airport Screening Program. Both the House and Senate

Committee reports fully fund the budget request for the five pilot airports that have

privatized their baggage and passenger screeners. Both reports note that there is no

way for TSA or Congress to know how many airports will opt out of the federal

screener program beginning November 18, 2004. The Senate Committee noted that

if additional airports are awarded the ability to utilize private screeners TSA is

expected to adhere to the reprogramming requirements stipulated in section 502 of

Appropriations Act S. 2537. The House Committee declared that it has provided

TSA with the flexibility to cover passenger screening activities for federal screeners

as well as for any private contracts awarded under the opt out provision. The House

Committee cautions that it expects TSA to live within the funding provided for

personnel, compensation, and benefits, however, noting that screening costs for

airports opting out should not exceed the costs of retaining federal screeners —

CRS-28

indeed, the committee believes that there may be some cost savings associated with

privatization of screening.

Staffing Levels. The House Committee continues bill language limiting the

number of screeners to no more than 45,000 FTE employees at the end of 2005

because it believes that this provision is reasonable and has forced TSA to be more

disciplined in spending taxpayer dollars. The House Committee notes that when

TSA was first formed it over-hired and mismanaged millions of dollars as it labored

to federalize airport baggage screeners, resulting in staffing levels, especially at small

and medium sized airports, that became outrageously high. While the Committee

notes that TSA has made progress towards streamlining and reshaping its workforce

so that high-traffic airports receive more screening personnel, it also believes that

much more could be done regarding the development and installation of EDS that

reduce the number of FTEs needed. Until these advancements are in place, the

committee believes it would be too easy for TSA to revert back to hiring screeners

above the 45,000 cap; for this reason it is continuing the limitation.

The conferees include bill language capping the TSA FTE screener workforce

level at 45,000 by the end of FY2005. The conferees also note that TSA may need

to realign its workforce between airports throughout the year to maintain security and

customer service.

Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-screening System (CAPPS II)

and “Secure Flight”. Currently, air carriers are responsible for implementing the

CAPPS system at airports. TSA had been developing a more advanced passenger

pre-screening system called CAPPS-II; however, due to mounting privacy concerns

and operational problems, TSA recently announced it is scrapping its plans to

implement CAPPS-II this fall.23 Instead, TSA Administrator David M. Stone

recently testified that CAPPS-II is being “reshaped and repackaged” to address the

privacy issues.24 TSA recently announced the replacement program, entitled “Secure

Flight” which will differ from CAPPS II because it focuses on identifying terrorists

rather than on serving other law enforcement purposes.25 One of the 9/11

Commission Report recommendations suggests that TSA take over administration

of the existing CAPPS system from the airlines until whatever program replaces it

becomes operational. This would probably add to TSA screener workload and thus

result in an increased need for funds within TSA. Possible issues for Congress

include whether current appropriations levels are adequate for the “reshaping” of

CAPPS-II into the recently announced “Secure Flight” program, and whether more

funds should be appropriated for TSA if in fact the agency takes over the

implementation of the existing CAPPS system from air carriers.

Chris Strohm, “DHS Scraps Computer Pre-Screening System, Starts Over,” Government

Executive Online, July 15, 2004, at [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0704/071504c1.htm].

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,

Nominations, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., July 13, 2004.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, “TSA

to Test New Passenger Pre-Screening Program,” press release, Aug. 26, 2004.

CRS-29

The conferees agree to provide $35 million for Secure Flight and note that an

additional $10 million is provided under a separate TSA account for crew vetting.

The conferees note their concern that 90 days may not be sufficient to plan, test, and

analyze the system before its full implementation. Therefore, the conferees

encourage the TSA to focus first on getting watchlists operational and expect TSA

to cooperate with GAO in its review of Secure Flight. The conferees further note that

DHS is proposing to check all watchlists though the new Secure Flight system as

recommended by the 9/11 Commission.

Checkpoint Support. The Senate Committee recommends a $75 million

increase over the President’s request for the reconfiguration, purchase, installation,

and maintenance of airport checkpoint equipment and the electronic surveillance of

checkpoints. The committee notes that it is aware of TSA efforts to screen

passengers’ baggage but that current deficiencies in the ability to detect explosives

on passengers and their checked bags continue to warrant concerns. The Senate

Committee directs TSA to submit a detailed report by July 1, 2005 on TSA’s pilot

program to screen passengers and carry-on baggage for explosives. The conferees

adopted an increase of $35 million for checkpoint security, and adopted the Senate

reporting requirements.

Crew Vetting. The House Committee recommended $10 million for the

vetting of foreign air carrier crews that the TSA has been undertaking since

December 2003. The Committee is deeply troubled that in FY2004 TSA spent $20

million of funding provided for CAPPSII for this activity without notifying Congress.

The House Committee notes that it believes this activity is still necessary, and states

that it expects TSA to make a clear distinction between CAPPSII and any other

vetting activities it undertakes. The conferees provide $10 million for crew vetting.

Explosive Detection Systems and Explosive Trace Detection. The

House and Senate Committees both recommended additional funding for purchase

of EDS and ETD machines. The Senate Committee noted that its $60 million

increase over the President’s request would have allowed TSA to procure next

generation in-line EDS baggage screening machines. The House also directed that

the $20 million it would have provided over the President’s request be used to

purchase the next generation EDS machines, which it noted are far smaller and less

expensive than the current generation of screening units. The conferees provide $30

million over the request for EDS purchases. The House Committee also continues

to encourage competition among vendors so that a wide array of EDS technologies

can be made available to TSA (the conferees also adopt this language).

Both the House and Senate Committees support TSA efforts to design the next

generation of EDS machines. The House Committee notes it expects $10 million of

the $50 million it recommends to be spent initiating a “Manhattan Project II”

program which will attempt to achieve a quantum leap in next generation EDS

technology, as opposed to the incremental approach currently being taken. The

conferees provide $54 million for next generation EDS machines, and like the House,

allocate $10 million for a “Manhattan Project II” program. The Senate Committee

recommended $57 million for this research, and notes it is encouraged by the

progress being made by the Transportation Security Laboratory.

CRS-30

Airport Security Installations. Both the House and Senate Committee

reports support the Letter of Intent (LOI) program with airports for installing EDS

machines. The House Committee recommended an additional $19 million over the

statutory allocation of $250 million for the Aviation Security Capital Fund (ASCF)

to fulfill the federal commitment to the eight airports that have entered into LOI with

a 75% federal share. The conferees provide $45 million in addition to the $250

million statutory allocation of the ASCF. However, due to budgetary constraints the

House Committee notes that the federal government cannot provide a 90% federal

share to the eight LOI airports; as such the committee waives language in section 605

of the Vision 100 Act (P.L.108-176) that distributes the ASCF by formula. The

conferees fund the LOI commitment at a 75% federal share.

Air Cargo Security. Both the House and Senate Committee reports

recommended additional funding for air cargo security. The Senate Committee

recommended $13 million over the budget request, while the House Committee

recommended $10.4 million above the budget request. Both the House and Senate

noted that $10 million of their respective additional funding is provided for TSA to

hire 100 additional air cargo inspectors. The Senate Committee recommended that

the remaining $3 million in additional funding to expand the number of explosives

detection canine teams, while the House Committee’s additional $400,000 would

have been spent on continuing TSA’s participation in the C-TPAT program. The

Senate Committee also recommended some additional funding for developing

technologies to secure air cargo within the “Research and Development” account.

The conferees provide a total of $115 million for air cargo of which $40 million is

for 100 additional inspectors and enforcement activities, and $75 million for research

and development of technologies to more effectively detect air cargo threats.

The Senate Committee also recommended continued funding for maintaining

the “known shipper” database, which centralizes data provided by known shippers

and indirect air carriers in order to immediately verify the status of a specific shipper,

and encourages TSA to continue coordinating this program with CBP’s C-TPAT

program to develop the ability to better target domestic air cargo for inspection. The

House Committee notes that it is encouraged by TSA’s work to develop ETD system

protocols to inspect air cargo on passenger and cargo aircraft, and directs TSA to

issue the protocols as soon as possible. The House Committee also would have

continued and modified section 513 of P.L. 108-90, requiring the Secretary to

research, develop, and procure certified systems to inspect and screen air cargo on

passenger aircraft. Until these systems are developed, the House Committee directs

TSA to enhance the known shipper program to prohibit high-risk cargo from being

loaded on passenger planes. Additionally, the language added to section 513 requires

the TSA to, at a minimum, double the percentage of air cargo currently being

screened. The conferees direct TSA to work more aggressively to strengthen air

cargo security by: strengthening the known shipper program to include regular

checks; working with indirect carriers to ensure their compliance with security

directives; and validating indirect carriers’ security measures where the carriers

consolidate freight and transport it to passenger and all cargo aircraft.

Transportation Worker Identification Card. The conferees decreased

funding for this program because of delays in prototyping and evaluating credentials.

TSA is directed to report back to the House and Senate Committees on

CRS-31

Appropriations about the results of the prototyping before moving into the next

phase. The conferees provide $15 million for the program ($5 million in direct

appropriations, and $10 million offset through fees). Both the House and Senate

Committees supported this program and recommended additional funding over the

President’s request. The House Committee recommended $15 million above the

President’s request of $50 million and would have directed $15 million of the total

to developing and installing necessary hardware and software at the sites that produce

and personalize the ID cards. TSA is directed, as specified in FY2004, to develop

a centralized personalization system that uses an existing government card

production facility. The House committee expected the remaining $50 million which

is appropriated to be offset during the fiscal year through the fees people will pay for

applying for an ID card. The Senate Committee recommended $55 million for

infrastructure investments and for implementation of this program for targeted highrisk populations of transportation workers.

Rail Security. The conferees provide $12 million for rail security under TSA

to support the deployment of 100 federal rail compliance inspectors and includes $2

million for the deployment of explosive detection teams. The conferees also provide

$150 million through the Office of State and Local Government Preparedness’ Urban

Area Security Initiative for rail security grants; Science and Technology Directorate

for research and design of rail security requirements; and Information Analysis and

Infrastructure Protection to improve rail corridor security. The conferees also direct

TSA to implement projects that demonstrate and advance new train control

technology.

Both the Senate and House Committees recommended additional funding over

the President’s budget request for rail security. The Senate Committee recommended

$15 million, $10 million of which is to be spent on deploying 100 Federal

compliance inspectors for mass transit and passenger rail to conduct on-site

inspections in order to ensure compliance with minimum standards and recently

issued security directives. The remaining $5 million is would have been provided for

the deployment of canine explosives detection teams. The House Committee

recommended $11 million for rail security within TSA and would have added $100

million through the Urban Area Security Initiatives grant program. The House report

also recommended an additional $12 million for rail security available through the

Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate. The House

Committee voices concern about the vulnerability of the rail and transit systems and

directs TSA to work with other agencies such as the Office for State and Local

Government Coordination to develop a comprehensive rail and transit security

program. The Committee requires TSA to submit a report by March 1, 2005 on this

effort which will identify possible research and design requirements that could

enhance nationwide rail security. The House Committee would have required TSA

to spend $1 million on a prototype program to perform risk assessments on domestic

freight cargo; the remaining $10 million will be spent to accelerate the testing and

evaluation of technologies that will permit the TSA and transit operators to better

screen rail passengers and baggage.

Other Reports/Directions. In addition to the above mentioned reports, the

House and Senate Appropriations Committees request the following reports. The

House Committee requests TSA to provide a report on the merits and results of

CRS-32

various pilot programs underway which are testing remote off-site baggage screening

systems, noting that it is encouraged by TSA’s interest in developing efficient

baggage screening pilot programs. The House Committee also directs TSA to work

with the Federal Aviation Administration to evaluate whether requiring passenger

aircraft to incorporate deployable flight incident recorders would improve security

analysis in aviation accidents. The House Committee requires TSA to submit a

report by January 31, 2005 that contains plans for developing and implementing

uniform screening standards for vetting airport workers with access to secure areas;

presents an assessment of available technologies that may be applied to securing

airport perimeters; and develops and implements a standardized approach to

conducting airport vulnerability assessments and compliance inspections. The House

Committee directs TSA to report on the status of grants awarded for the evaluation

and procurement of portable nuclear radiation search tools by October 1, 2004.

The Senate passed version of H.R. 4567 includes amendment 3585, which

requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of

Transportation, to develop and maintain an integrated strategic transportation security

plan. This plan should identify and evaluate transportation assets that need to be

protected, and set risk-based priorities and select the most cost-effective ways of

defending them. The plan should be presented no later than February 1, 2005, and

future budget requests should be based upon it. Additionally, Senate H.R 4567

includes amendment 3642, requiring the secretary to present a comprehensive report

concerning how to best protect commercial airliners from man-portable air defense

systems (MANPADS). The MANPADS report should be submitted along with the

FY2006 TSA budget request.

U.S. Coast Guard26

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 and marine rescue operations) that are not related to

homeland security.

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

to the new 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 within DHS and is not part

of DHS’s border and transportation security directorate. The Coast Guard does,

however, work closely with that directorate.27

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.

CRS-33

FY2005 Coast Guard Request. The total FY2005 request for the Coast

Guard of $7,335 million represented an 8.5% increase over the enacted FY2004 level

of $6,764 million. H.Rept. 108-541 recommended $7,307 million for the Coast

Guard for FY2005 and included a rescission of $33 million in unexpended funds

appropriated in FY2003 and FY2004 for Maritime Patrol Aircraft under the

Deepwater Program. S.Rept. 108-280 recommended $7,469 million for the Coast

Guard in FY2005 (this amount does not include the $33 million rescission contained

in H.R. 4567). P.L. 108-334 provides $7,373 million for the Coast Guard for

FY2005. This amount includes a rescission of $16 million of funds appropriated in

FY2004 for Rescue 21 because of contract delays and high unobligated balances.

Table 10 provides account level detail for the Coast Guard’s appropriation.

Table 10. Coast Guard Account Detail

($ millions)

Coast Guard Account

Operating Expenses

Rescission

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 FY2005 FY2005 FY2005 FY2005

enacted request

House

Senate

Conf.

4,637

5,173

5,171

5,153

5,157

—

(-33)

—

(-16)

117

113

117

113

961

942

937

1,063

982

—

—a

1,020

1,085

6,764

7,335

7,307

7,469

7,373

Source: P.L. 108-334, H.Rept. 108-541 to H.R. 4567 passed by the House June 18, 2004; S.Rept.

108-280 to S. 2537 reported by the Senate June 17, 2004, and Senate passed H.R. 4567 on September

14, 2004.

Note: FY2004 amounts reflect the 0.59% across-the-board rescission enacted by P.L. 108-199.

Rounding may affect totals. Amounts in parentheses are not added to the total.

a. Both the Administration’s request and the House passed H.R. 4567 fund Research, Development,

Test, and Evaluation under the Science and Technology Directorate of DHS.

The Administration requested increased funding for several FY2005 Coast

Guard initiatives. The requested amounts and the funding levels provided by the

conferees in P.L. 108-334, H.Rept. 108-541 and S.Rept. 108-280 include (but are not

limited to) the following:

$102 million to facilitate the development, review, and approval of

port and maritime security plans required by the Maritime

CRS-34

Transportation Security Act (MTSA) (P.L. 108-334, H.Rept. 108541 and S.Rept. 108-280 fully fund this request);

! $27 million for the Rescue 21 Project, which is recapitalizing the

Coast Guard’s coastal zone communications network (not funded by

P.L. 108-334 or H.Rept. 108-541, but fully funded by S.Rept. 108280);

! $10 million for the Integrated Deepwater Program (fully funded by

P.L. 108-334, H.Rept. 108-541 and S.Rept. 108-280);28

! $6 million for the Great Lakes Icebreaker Project (fully funded by

P.L. 108-334, H.Rept. 108-541 and S.Rept. 108-280); and

! $2 million to arm existing helicopter assets at Air Station Cape Cod,

as prototypes for arming all Coast Guard helicopters (fully funded

by P.L. 108-334, H.Rept. 108-541, and S.Rept. 108-280).

Coast Guard Issues for Congress.

Deepwater Program. The Deepwater program is a planned 22-year,

multibillion-dollar project to replace or modernize 93 aging Coast Guard ships and

207 aging Coast Guard aircraft. The Deepwater program presents several potential

issues for Congress.

One potential issue concerns the mission requirements to be met by the program,

which were established in the late 1990s and reflect a pre-9/11 understanding of the

Coast Guard’s future mission requirements. A 2004 RAND Corporation report on

the Deepwater program states that the baseline Deepwater program “will not provide

the USCG with adequate assets and capabilities to fulfill demands for traditional

missions and emerging responsibilities. To satisfy these demands, the USCG will

need the capabilities of twice the number of cutters and 50% more air vehicles than

it has been planning to acquire over the next two decades.” The Coast Guard is

reassessing the program’s mission requirements to take post-9/11 mission demands

into account. Coast Guard officials have stated that existing deepwater-capable

assets are wearing out more quickly than anticipated, suggesting that new assets

might need to be procured sooner than planned.

The Senate Committee report fully funds the Deepwater program. The House

Committee is “deeply concerned” about the direction and focus of the Deepwater

program, given the number of studies that have concluded that massive changes to

the program are necessary and the fact that only a few aspects of the initial system

concept are still intact. The House Committee has therefore included bill language

requiring the Coast Guard to re-baseline the program and submit its findings as part

of the President’s FY2006 budget. The FY2006 budget submission should include

specific acquisition timetables for all previously identified assets the Coast Guard

believes are still necessary and a time-line for all new assets needed to fulfil

homeland security functions or multi-agency procurements. All funding levels in the

submission must be identified by fiscal year. The conferees adopt this House report

language. Additionally, the House Committee recommends less than the requested

For more information, see CRS Report RS21019, Coast Guard Deepwater Program:

Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.

CRS-35

sum for Maritime Patrol Aircraft due to questions about whether the aircraft meet the

air intercept and rapid cargo lift and deployment capabilities required by the revised

Deepwater proposal. Until the ongoing evaluations of these aircraft are completed

and clearly identify which aircraft the Coast Guard will need in the future, the

committee cannot fully support the budget request.

Legacy and Replacement Assets. Both the Senate and House Committee

reports voice concern over the condition of Coast Guard legacy assets. The Senate

cites a Governmental Accountability Office report which notes that Coast Guard

assets are being used 40% more than originally anticipated when the Deepwater

program was conceived, resulting in an accelerated deterioration. The Senate report

notes that the Coast Guard is expending more Deepwater funding on maintaining

legacy assets and less on acquiring replacement assets. The Senate Committee

directs the Coast Guard to submit a report on its increased operational requirements

post 9/11 and the impact that this is having on its legacy asset inventory by March 1,

2005. The report is expected to include the costs associated with sustaining each

legacy asset and a timetable of all Deepwater replacement assets. The House

Committee, conversely, is concerned that the Coast Guard is having problems

maintaining its legacy assets due to a perceived need to expend all available funding

on Deepwater procurement. The House Committee requires the Coast Guard to

report, within 30 days of enactment of the Appropriations Act, its plans for

maintenance of all legacy vessels and aircraft, including the entity responsible for the

maintenance and the estimated costs. Further, the Coast Guard is directed to submit

quarterly reports on its legacy maintenance plan beginning with the submission of the

President’s FY2006 budget. The conferees adopt this House Committee report

language.

Automatic Identification System. A potential issue for Congress concerns

the Automatic Identification System (AIS) — a vessel-tracking system that the Coast

Guard wants to implement as a key part of its strategy for achieving maritime domain

awareness (MDA). AIS is a system that will identify the ship, its size, and its cargo

before it enters an American seaport. Questions include the availability of a radio

frequency needed for AIS and whether the system as currently planned will

adequately cover all categories of ships that might pose a threat to U.S. homeland

security. Both the House and the Senate conference reports voice support for the AIS

program. The House committee is concerned that by the end of FY2004 only nine

seaports will be able to receive AIS signals from entering vessels and disappointed

that only $5 million was requested for this program even though a national plan to

outfit the 55 largest seaports with this technology is scheduled to be completed by the

end of the calendar year. The House Committee is therefore providing $24 million

to fund this effort in FY2005. The conference provides $24 million for AIS.

Non-Homeland Security Missions. A key potential issue is whether the

Coast Guard’s resources are sufficient to adequately perform both its homeland and

non-homeland security missions. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,

increased Coast Guard requirements for homeland-security missions without

obviously reducing requirements for other missions. After September 11, 2001, the

Coast Guard significantly increased homeland security operations while reducing

operations in other missions. GAO, in reports and testimony on this topic, have

noted reduced number of Coast Guard operating hours devoted to non-homeland

CRS-36

security missions, and have expressed concerns regarding the Coast Guard’s ability

to link application of resources to performance levels achieved for various missions.

The House and Senate reports support many non-homeland security Coast

Guard initiatives. The House Committee has included an extra $13 million for the

Coast Guard to hire additional staff to ensure that it is in compliance with the U.S.

Code [Title 14 sec. 676 (b)] watch standards at their Search and Rescue Command

Centers. According to the code, individuals on duty are not allowed, except in

emergencies, to work more than 12 hours in a 24-hour period, but staffing studies

have shown the Coast Guard is unable to meet the standard at all facilities at all

times. The Senate Committee encourages the Coast Guard to continue its cooperative

programs in the Marine Vessel and Cold Water Safety Education area which provides

education and outreach on maritime safety to fishermen and children. The Senate

Committee also recognizes the importance of the Rescue Swimmer program to Coast

Guard operations and supports the program.

Ballast Water Program. The Ballast Water Program aims to prevent the

introduction of alien nuisance species into American waters from the ballast tanks of

foreign ships. Both the House and Senate reports support this program. The Senate

Committee fully funds the request in order to assist the Coast Guard in transitioning

the program from a voluntary to a mandatory enforcement policy. The House

Committee also fully funds the request and notes that because invasive species spread

readily once they have entered U.S. water this program is of critical importance to all

states with water resources regardless of their proximity to commercial ports.

The committee believes that there is a void in the CG’s medium to short range

aerial surveillance assets which limits the CG’s ability to cost-effectively perform its

homeland security related aerial surveillance missions. The committee directs the

Coast Guard to procure, test, and evaluate aircraft that can perform MDA missions.

Icebreakers. The House Committee is very supportive of Coast Guard efforts

to renegotiate the memorandum of understanding with the National Science

Foundation (NSF) regarding the costs each agency shares for icebreaking, especially

in the Antarctic region. The House Committee continues to believe that the NSF is

not adequately reimbursing the Coast Guard for its icebreaking services in support

of scientific research and notes that the current fleet of icebreakers is approaching the

end of their service life. The House Committee directs the Coast Guard to evaluate

and determine the present and future needs for polar icebreakers. The Coast Guard

should consider all appropriate national defense, homeland security, scientific,

economic, and environmental interests of the United States. The review should be

completed and reported to the House Committee by March 1, 2005.

The Senate directs the Coast Guard to enter into an agreement with the national

Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the role Coast Guard

icebreakers play in supporting US operations in the Antarctic and Arctic. The study

should include different scenarios for continuing operations including the

replacement of current assets and alternative methods that do not involve the Coast

Guard. The study should also address possible changes in icebreaking missions due

to environmental change. The study should be submitted to the Senate Committee

by September 30, 2005. The conferees adopt this report language.

CRS-37

Other Reports. In addition to the reports requested above the House and

Senate Appropriations Committees request the Coast Guard to submit the following

reports. The House Committee is concerned that the Coast Guard has not presented

a report with the staffing and resource implications of the February, 2004 decision

to move to a sector command structure. They direct the Commandant to submit such

a report no less than 30 days prior to restructuring, including before and after staffing

levels, sector organizational structures, sector chains of command, and sector

infrastructure and other issues that may require additional resources to implement.

The conferees adopt this House report language and requirements concerning the

sector commands. The House Committee also directs the Coast Guard to submit a

report on the feasibility, practicality, and cost-effectiveness of establishing a

permanent West Coast helicopter squadron by October 1, 2004. Lastly, the House

Committee fully funds the budget request to aggressively implement the Maritime

Transportation Security Act of 2002. The committee is concerned, however, that the

Coast Guard plans to rely on foreign governments to review foreign vessel security

plans, especially in light of the fact that some of these plans may not even be

translated into English. The committee directs the Coast Guard to review all vessel

security plans and report their findings by October 15, 2004. The conferees express

similar concerns, and direct the Coast Guard to use the Port State Control Programs

to ensure that foreign vessel security plans are adhered to and in place. The conferees

direct the Coast Guard to report no later than March 1, 2005, on the progress of the

foreign vessel security oversight process including required resources.

The Senate Committee voiced concern that, based on quarterly reports, Coast

Guard hours dedicated to non-homeland security missions remain significantly below

pre 9/11 levels. The committee does note, however, that in most cases the Coast

Guard continues to meet or exceed its performance goals in these operational areas.

The committee directs the Coast Guard to submit a report on plans to develop a

system that can provide accurate representations of the costs necessary to meet

performance goals. Amendment 3633 to Senate passed H.R. 4567 requires DHS to

submit a report, no later than 90 days after the enactment of the act, on opportunities

to integrate the process by which the Coast Guard issues letters of recommendation

for liquefied gas marine terminals. The conferees adopt the this reporting

requirement.

Funding Implications of the 9/11 Commission

Border and Transportation Recommendations

In its final report, the 9/11 Commission makes several recommendations

relating to border and transportation security.29 Many of these recommendations

would have funding implications should they be adopted. However, it is important

to note that in none of the recommendations does the commission suggest specific

funding increases, decreases, or allocations. Instead, the commission points out the

following broad areas that it believes need more attention and resources:

For CRS reports related to 9/11 Commission and Transportation Security

recommendations, go to CRS at [http://www.congress.gov/erp/legissues/html/ister15.html].

CRS-38

Current transportation security efforts do not reflect a forwardlooking comprehensive strategic plan that systematically evaluates

all aspects of transportation security. A national plan for

transportation security, as the commission conceives it, would

identify the assets that need to be protected, create risk-based

priorities for their defense, select the most efficient and costeffective methods for securing them, and establish a budget and

funding streams.

The TSA is focused on aviation security at the expense of other

transportation modes. The commission notes that while commercial

aviation remains a potential target, “opportunities to do harm are as

great, or greater, in maritime or surface transportation.” In the

absence of the aforementioned national plan, the commission

concludes that transportation security funding may be better

allocated between all transportation modes.

Investment should be made in technologies that have applications

across transportation modes. These technologies include, but are not

limited to: EDS and ETD systems currently used by TSA to screen

passengers and their baggage for explosives; Non-Intrusive

Inspection (NII) systems, which are large scale X-ray and Gammaray imaging systems used by CBP at points of entry to inspect

incoming vehicles, trains, and seacraft; and Radiological Detection

Equipment (RDE), used by CBP to detect traces of nuclear isotopes

on vehicles, cargo, and people.

The commission calls for an expansion of current screening

programs. The U.S. border security system should be expanded and

integrated into a larger network of screening points. This network

should include the transportation system and access to vital facilities

such as nuclear reactors. DHS should design this comprehensive

screening system and set common standards that can be applied

system wide. Additionally, DHS should complete its implementation

of a biometric entry/exit screening system as quickly as possible and

expand the screening of passengers and baggage for explosives.

These recommendations are broad in nature and as such difficult to quantify.

Moreover, the 9/11 Commission makes no concrete estimates of the funding

implications involved with implementing their recommendations.

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.