Border and Transportation Security: Appropriations for FY2005
Released: 2004-11-05T00:00:00

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 DHSfor FY2005. P.L. 108-334 provides $33.1 billion in new obligational budget authority for DHS, ofwhich $19.6 billion or 59% is for the border and transportation security-related activities identifiedin this report. The conference report to H.R. 4567 ( H.Rept. 108-774 ) was agreed to bythe 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-passedlanguage and inserting the language of S. 2537 . During floor debate, over 40amendments were added to the bill including 8 that directly impact funding. The Senate-passedversion of H.R. 4567 recommended a total appropriation of $33.8 billion for the Department ofHomeland Security (DHS); an increase of $1.3 billion over the Administration's request, and an11.5% 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 wouldhave provided a total appropriation of $33.1 billion for the DHS; an increase of $500 million overthe 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 totalappropriation of $33.1 billion for DHS; an increase of $500 million over the Administration'srequest, and a 9.2% increase over the enacted FY2004 level. S. 2537 was accompaniedby S.Rept. 108-280 , which was reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 17, 2004,by a vote of 29-0.

President's FY2005 Budget Submitted. On February 2, 2004, the President submitted the FY2005 budget request to Congress, proposing $32.6billion in appropriations for the DHS. This represents a 7.7% increase over net enacted FY2004funding of $30.3 billion. (1) Of the $32.6 billionrequested by the Administration for DHS in FY2005,$19 billion or 58% is for Border and Transportation Security agencies as identified in this report.

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

Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations

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 theFY2005 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 theFY2005 DHS Appropriations bill ( S. 2537 ).

Introduction

Increasing border and transportation security are essential strategies for improving andmaintaining homeland security. Border security entails regulating the flow of goods and peopleacross the nation's borders so that dangerous and unwanted goods or people are detected and deniedentry. Transportation security entails inspecting people and goods as they move among differentlocations within the country to reduce the possibility of terrorist attacks or the incursion of unwantedpeople 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 forsecuring the nation's borders while facilitating the essential commerce and legitimate free flow ofcitizens and authorized visitors. The system must be capable of examining minute details of goodsand 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 aboarddomestic and international flights. Plans exist to extend the presence of federal officers to othermodes of transportation more intensively in the future. Finally, these management systems mustaccomplish their functions with a minimum of disruption of legitimate activities, and withoutunnecessary intrusion into the civil liberties of persons affected by them.

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 HomelandSecurity (DHS). DHS was organized in four major directorates: Border and Transportation Security;Emergency Preparedness and Response; Science and Technology; and Information Analysis andInfrastructure 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 forsecuring 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, andfor enforcing immigration laws. DHS border and transportation security objectives also includefulfilling the newly expanded federal role of the TSA in protecting the nation's transportationsystems, 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, inconjunction with the U.S. Coast Guard, are expected to effectively secure all commercial trafficentering the nation's ports. The Directorate also assumes responsibility for inspecting andmonitoring plants and animals entering the United States to minimize the risk that noxious pests anddiseases 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 CustomsEnforcement (ICE); and the Transportation Security Agency (TSA). The inspection and borderpatrol 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 andINS were merged within ICE. The Federal Protective Service (FPS), the Federal Law EnforcementTraining Center (FLETC), and the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) were also included underBTS by the Homeland Security Act. Subsequently, the Federal Air Marshals have been transferredfrom TSA to ICE; the US-VISIT program has been transferred from ICE to be managed at the BTSdirectorate level; and ODP has been reconfigured and renamed the Office of State and LocalGovernment Coordination and Preparedness (OSLGCP) and is managed at the DHS level. TheCoast Guard remains a direct report, or free standing agency, within DHS but outside the BTSdirectorate.

Appropriations for Border and Transportation Security

March 1, 2003, was the effective date for shifting most of the responsibilities from formerdepartments and agencies to the new DHS. While the transfer of functional lines of authority andthe personnel to carry out those functions was relatively straightforward, problems arose with initialattempts to ascertain the exact amount of appropriated funds actually transferred. Comparisons ofresponsibilities 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 bypredecessor agencies which often had somewhat different purposes than homeland security. Thefunding lines between FY2003 and FY2004 were not identical to lines of functional responsibilitybefore and after transfer, a problem made more difficult because the basic documentation ofappropriations in the President's FY2004 Budget was prepared after the formation of DHS but beforefinal enactment of appropriations for the remainder of FY2003. However, with the completion ofappropriations for FY2004, a baseline has been established, making future appropriations decisionsmore 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 akinto a functional classification for "border and transportation security." Consequently, it does notinclude activities in the Directorate for Border and Transportation Security that have no directbearing on that function (such as the Federal Protective Service). On the other hand, this functionalgrouping does include the activities of the Coast Guard, a separate agency in DHS which is not partof the Directorate for Border and Transportation Security, but which has an essential role inproviding "border and transportation security" as those words are commonly understood. Somefunctions contained in other accounts that are related to border and transportation security, such asthose aspects of the Science and Technology account which are used to improve security, areexcluded from this table. Tables in this report show an approximation of costs for border andtransportation security, based on identifying the accounts for which such security functions are theprimary function involved, and do not necessarily reflect DHS breakdowns as to estimated amountsspecifically 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 conferencereport to H.R. 2555 ( H.Rept. 108-280 ) presented appropriations in four titles, the secondof which, Security, Enforcement, and Investigations , contains most of the functions identified in thisreport as related to border and transportation security. The Administration's FY2005 request followsthis 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 excludeappropriations for the U.S. Secret Service; but include appropriations for FLETC, which is locatedin Title IV.

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%.

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

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. 108-344 , 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 andtransportation security functions for FY2004-FY2005.

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

Table 2. Summary of Border and Transportation Security Appropriations, Functional Presentation ($ in millions)

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 feesare applied for CBP, the difference in fee collections changes the total amount available forobligation by CBP, but does not change the total amount directly appropriated by Congress forCBP. Therefore, for the purposes of this paper, we use the amounts listed in the House reporttables 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 increasethe aviation security fee. Both the House and Senate denied this request and thus reflect $400million less than the request in offsetting fee collections for TSA.

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 thecontext of the current budget situation and competing claims for resources. The following sectionsof the report provide detail concerning the operational components of border and transportationsecurity. 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 andtransportation 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 ofagriculture and livestock; oversight of the security of ports; federal inspection of airline passengersand baggage; and comprehensive approaches to improving overall transportation security. Someobservers 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 thathomeland 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. Immigrationactivities would continue in any event, and including the cost of these activities would distort the truesummary 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.

Table 3. BTS Appropriations: Select Detail, FY2004-2005 ($ in millions)

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 fromFY2004, this is due to a change in accounting for the fee receipts used to offset the expensesof Federal Protective Service (FPS). If the FY2005 offsets are applied in the same way to theFY2004 enacted level for ICE, (zeroing out FPS funding in FY2004) the agency actuallyreceives 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 theaccounting for the fees, and does not represent a new fee.

d. The decrease in Maritime and Land Security reflects a reorganization of grants (primarily portsecurity grants) that, pursuant to the Secretary's Jan. 26, 2004 reorganization proposal, weremoved 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 betweenports-of-entry along the border. These responsibilities include inspecting people and goods todetermine that they are authorized entry, and maintaining border crossing stations to process personsseeking entry to the U.S. The inspection and border-related functions of the Customs Service; theborder 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% increaseover the enacted FY2004 level. CBP also receives funding from a set of user fees (transferred fromlegacy Customs and INS agencies), as well as funding from APHIS user fees, which are transferredfrom USDA to DHS. Table 6 provides account-level detail for CBP. H.Rept. 108-541 wouldhaveprovided a direct appropriation of $5,154 million, and Senate-passed H.R. 4567 wouldhave 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 . Thisamount also includes nearly $390 million in funding for the Office of Air and Marine Interdictionwhich was transferred by DHS to CBP from ICE.

Table 4. CBP Account Detail ($ millions)

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 duringSenate 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 fundingis provided through the Salaries and Expenses account. The President's budget request includes thefollowing initiatives (increases over base resources) for FY2005 which are fully funded by P.L.108-334 :

$25 million (49 Full-Time Equivalents (3) or FTE) to expand the ContainerSecurity Initiative (CSI), deploy additional CSI teams at Phase I and II ports, and further implementCSI at Phase III ports;

$15 million (60 FTE) to expand the Customs-Trade Partnership AgainstTerrorism (C-TPAT) program, and hire additional C-TPAT supply chain security officers specialiststo 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, and1,016 personal radiation detectors (PRDs)( H.R. 4567 provides an additional $50million above the request);

$21 (18 FTE) million to enhance targeting systems used to identify high riskpeople and goods entering the country for inspection;

$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 andsouthern 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 radiationdetection equipment, ( H.Rept. 108-541 , and the Senate-passed H.R. 4567 hadrecommended an additional $50 million above the request for radiation detection equipment), anadditional $2 million for the Immigration Security Initiative ( H.Rept 108-541 had recommended anadditional $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 toreflect the transfer of the Charleston Training Center to FLETC (recommended by both the Houseand Senate). Both the House and Senate Committees indicate that they fully fund the request forC-TPAT and Free and Secure Trade (FAST) programs. As Table 5 illustrates however, there isa$4 million difference between the amounts provided by the House and the Senate. This is apparentlya discrepancy in the amounts reported as requested by each.

Table 5. CBP Selected Sub-Account Level Detail ($ millions)

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 modulesof the Automated Targeting System. The discrepancy evidenced in the table appears to be adiscrepancy between the amounts indicated as requested -- the House indicates that the requestwas 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 andMarine Interdiction, Operation, Maintenance, and Procurement" account within ICE (fundedunder CBP by Conference as the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction has been transferred toCBP 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 doesnot specify a sub-account.

CBP Issues for Congress. Both the House and Senate reports indicate several areas of congressional concern. These issues have been generallygrouped 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 unifiedapproach to staffing, the 'one face at the border initiative,' directs CBP to submit a detailed staffingplan no later than 90 days after enactment. The plan should include actual on-board personnel forFY2004; projected staffing for FY2005; positions funded through direct appropriations; positionsfunded 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. Theconferees require CBP to submit that plan immediately, and to submit an updated plan no later than90 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 underwayto integrate CBP's Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) and the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation's (FBI) Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). The USBP uses IDENT to identify and track illegal aliens. IDENT combines a digital photograph, two flatfingerprints, and biographical data into two databases which can be used to track repeat entrants andbetter identify criminal aliens. The FBI's IAFIS is an automated 10 rolled fingerprint matchingsystem linked to a database that holds over 40 million records, including wanted persons, stolenvehicles, deported felons, gang members, and terrorists. (5) Integration of the two systems is widelyregarded as a vital component of tightening border security, as it would allow CBP inspectors andUSBP agents to access the FBI's criminal database in order to establish whether apprehended alienshave outstanding warrants or criminal histories. However, integration has proved difficult forvarious technical and organizational reasons. The House Committee notes that DHS had testified thatthe integrated systems would be deployed by the end of calendar year 2004, but that the Committeeunderstands that this deployment will only apply to air and sea ports and the largest USBP stationsand points of entry. The House report expresses concern about the slow pace of the integrationproject, noting this delay leaves a security gap along the border which allows individuals withcriminal records to pass through undetected. The House Committee directs DHS to fully fund itscost for the integration project, and directs the Undersecretary for Border and Transportation Securityto submit a report by January 1, 2005 on the status of the integration project. The report shouldinclude the extent of data sharing between IDENT and IAFIS, the combined data's real-timeaccessibility, and what technical and policy issues are involved with allowing State and local lawenforcement officials to access the IDENT system. The Senate Committee report notes that it isessential that the FBI, State and local law enforcement officers have the ability to retrieveinformation from the IDENT/US-VISIT (6) database. The Senate Committee directs DHS to submita plan by February 8, 2005 that details the specific steps that are needed to fully integrate theUS-VISIT program and the IAFIS database, including sources and funds needed and a timetable forfull 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 bothcommittee reports: requiring DHS to fund the full cost of achieving real time interoperabilitybetween the two systems using the US-VISIT appropriation; directing the Under Secretary of BTSto report within 90 days of enactment on the status of the integration effort including steps that willbe 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 enteringpeople 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 atsecuring the supply chain from point of origin through entry into the U.S. CSI is a CBP programstationing CBP officers in foreign sea ports to target and inspect marine containers before they areloaded onto U.S.-bound vessels. The House requests a report from CBP detailing theimplementation plan for CSI, and encourages CBP to develop an integrated network including "allrelevant route, inspection, shipment, and intrusion data." The Government Accountability Office(GAO) recently published a report concerning both the CSI and C-TPAT programs. GAO creditedCBP for quickly rolling out the two programs but noted that CBP needs to develop: systematichuman capital plans; performance measures for accountability and program achievement; and along-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 ladingto point of destination in the United States. S.Rept. 108-280 directs the Under Secretary of BTS tosubmit 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 thissecurity; results of ongoing container security projects such as Operation Safe Commerce, CSI, andC-TPAT; and which BTS entity has primary responsibility for implementing cargo container securitymeasures, 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 that the report should also address the security of 'in-bond' shipments (which were ofconcern for the House Committee, as noted below).

The House report indicated concern with the potential risks associated with 'in-bond' shipments. The term "in-bond" is used to describe shipments which are being provisionally admittedinto the United States under CBP supervision without having to immediately pay the dutiesassociated 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 onin-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 customsbond to cover the amount of duty that will eventually be due on the shipment. The House reportincluded $1 million to support the acquisition, development, and testing of sensor and trackingtechnology to allow CBP to track in-transit shipments from their port of entry in the United Statesto 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, andassigns each shipment a risk score. The higher the score, the more attention a shipment requires, andthe greater the chance it will be targeted for inspection. As noted above in note (a) to Table 5 ,boththe House and Senate indicated full funding for the National Targeting Center and the ATS; thoughthere is an apparent discrepancy as to how that requested amount is scored. While many observersnote the importance of developing sophisticated targeting mechanisms others have raised concerns,including GAO which recently noted that while CBP's targeting strategy incorporated some elementsof 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 findingsand directs CBP to report to Congress no later than November 1, 2005, regarding its plan to respondto the criticisms contained in the GAO report.

Inspections and Inspection Technology (NII). CBPuses a variety of inspection technologies to assist inspectors in detecting and identifying suspiciouscargo. These technologies are referred to generally as non-intrusive inspection (NII) technology, andinclude both gamma-ray (such as the Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System), (VACIS) and x-raysystems, among others. CBP also uses radiation detection devices both personal (PRDs) andlarge-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 forradiation detection technology, and up to an additional $30 million shall be available for eitherradiation detection technology or NII. The House report had recommended an additional $50 millionabove the request ($100 million total increase) for additional detection and inspection equipment,noting the need for an additional 1,000 RPMs, and that the request included funding for existingsystems, 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 floordebate on H.R. 4567 , adopted an amendment providing an additional $50 million forradiation 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 anadditional $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 NaturalizationService program which stationed immigration control officers abroad, and will station small teamsof CBP officers at the world's largest airports to target and intercept high-risk and inadmissabletravelers from continuing on to the United States. Like the CSI program, ISI officers will have nolegal 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 ofCBP and ICE missions, and that CBP should submit a report no later than March 1, 2005 on whatactions are planned.

Commercial Entry and Trade Enforcement. Both the House and Senate reports continue to express concern regarding CBP's development and deploymentof the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). Legacy Customs and now CBP have beenengaged in a long-term effort to develop a trade processing system to replace the current AutomatedCommercial 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 tradecommunity." (10) The House report directs CBP toaddress the integration of CBP and ACEmodernization with DHS information systems; border security technologies; CSI; and the ATS; inthe 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 thesubmission of a comprehensive expenditure plan that complies with various capital planning andinvestment control requirements established by OMB; complies with various acquisitions rules andrequirements; is reviewed by GAO; and approved by the Appropriations Committees of the Senateand the House.

CBP Issues -- Between Points of Entry. WithinCBP, the United States Border Patrol (USBP) is the agency responsible for the enforcement offederal immigration laws between points of entry. As currently comprised, the USBP's primarymission is to detect and prevent the entry of unauthorized aliens into the country, assist in thedetection 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 reportnotes that it is aware that significant gaps exist in the integration of the remote video surveillancesystems and integrated computer assisted detection systems that form ISIS' base. The House reportfully funds the request but believes that more investment is necessary. The House Committee requests that CBP include a five-year 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 andtechnology standards within 90 days of the enactment of the Appropriations Act. The Senate reportrequested 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 forredundancies and digital records, an analysis of the proper number of staff needed to operate thesystem, and a total cost estimate. The conferees direct CBP to submit the five-year capitalacquisition report and the master plan for nationwide deployment with the FY2006 budgetsubmission. The conferees also direct the Under Secretary for BTS to report no later than February8, 2005 on the status of the effort to integrate sub-systems that encompass ISIS. Further, theconferees direct the GAO to undertake a study of ISIS project management and spending plans forISIS investment and operations for FY2006-FY2010.

Fleet Management. Both reports address USBP vehicle acquisition policy, with the Senate report noting it is aware that CBP is conducting acomprehensive review of its vehicle management plan. Nevertheless, the Senate Committee voicesconcern that the USBP may be facing a vehicle procurement and management crisis in the long termand strongly supports efforts to incorporate the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) fleet into the CBP fleetmanagement plan. The Senate directs CBP to submit a detailed vehicle management plan byFebruary 8, 2005. The House report notes it is aware that the USBP needs Severe Off-RoadVehicles, among other types of vehicles, and requests a detailed report on the USBP vehicleacquisition and fleet management plan so they can better understand the agency's needs. The reportmust be submitted within 90 days of enactment and should include the USBP 2004 fleet baseline andplanned 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 andSenate reports.

Arizona Border. The House report voices concern over the continued high level of illegal immigration within the USBP's Tucson sector and stronglysupports the Arizona Border Control (ABC) initiative, an administrative initiative aimed atconcentrating more USBP resources along the Arizona border. However, the committee expressesdisappointment at the apparent lack of progress in ABC's implementation. The committee believesABC will reduce the Arizona border's vulnerability, stop the violence associated with humantraffickers, limit the cost and danger to area residents, and ameliorate the risk of serious injury or lossof life faced by aliens due the inhospitable terrain. In addition, the House Committee report requiresCBP to conduct a study of locations for permanent checkpoints within the Tucson sector. Additionally, the committee includes restrictions that tactical checkpoints must be relocated at leastan average of once every 14 days, and that funds may not be used for the construction of permanentcheckpoints in the Tucson Sector. Lastly, the House Committee directs CBP to submit a detailedstaffing plan that includes staffing by position at each port of entry, USBP station, or other borderlocation. The committee has also funded additional Northern Border staff, bringing USBP stafflevels 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, smugglingand illegal transshipment of people and goods, and vehicle and cargo theft. In addition, this bureauoversees the building security activities of the Federal Protective Service, formerly of the GeneralServices Administration; the operations of the Air and Marine Operations unit; and the Federal AirMarshals Service (FAMS) transferred to ICE from TSA in August of 2003. The Office of Air andMarine Interdiction was transferred to CBP, and therefore the totals for ICE do not include Air andMarine 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 immigrationdetention and removal programs, as well as the operations of the Federal Protective Service. ICEconducts investigations to develop intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the United States, and isresponsible for locating and removing illegal aliens by inspecting places of employment forundocumented workers. ICE is responsible for identifying and finding persons who have overstayedtheir visas, and the Bureau also develops intelligence to combat terrorist financing and moneylaundering, 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 severalactivities 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 fundingfor the following activities: Investigations/Intelligence; Detention and Removal; and AMO. Table6 presents the ICE request by account. In addition to discretionary funding, ICE also receives fundingfrom the following offsetting fee receipt accounts: Breached Bond Detention Fund; User Feeaccount; and the Student Exchange and Visitor Program (SEVIS). (11) The President's budget requestsfunding increases for several program initiatives. The Administration requested a total of $3,307million 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 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 ICEinvestigators, $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 amountsprovided for AMO which, as noted earlier, has been transferred to CBP.

Table 6. ICE Account Detail ($ millions)

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, thisis due to a change in accounting for the fee receipts used to offset the expenses of FPS. If theFY2005 offsets are applied consistent with FY2004, ICE actually receives an increase of nearly11% 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 tosupport the new Visa Security Unit, and the remaining $4 million is requested to replace fundingpreviously provided through the Examination Fee Account (fully funded by P.L. 108-334 , and theHouse and Senate reports);

$25 million to support benefit fraud operations, requested to replace fundingpreviously provided by the Examination Fee Account (fully funded by P.L. 108-334 , but not fundedby 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 FugitiveOperations Program (NFOP) which seeks to reduce the fugitive alien population over the next sixyears;

$11 million (30 FTE) to establish alternatives to detention that includeadditional non-traditional family and female-friendly detention settings and establish communitysupervision operations (the House report provides an additional $5 million above the request whichwas not funded by P.L. 108-334 );

$6 million (40 FTE) for the Legal Program to eliminate the backlog of matterspending in the Immigration Court;

$6.2 million to fund DHS's efforts to interdict illegal alien migrants in theCaribbean region; and

$5 million (14FTE) for additional detention bed space ( P.L. 108-334 providesan additional $16.5 million above the House and Senate recommendations for a total of $20.5million above the request)(the House and Senate reports both recommended an additional $5 millionabove 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 areaswhere ground-based radar have limited effectiveness);

$12.5 million for long range radar to support drug interdiction efforts along thesouthern border.

Table 7 provides a breakout of the activities in ICE.

Table 7. ICE Selected Sub-Account Level Detail ($ millions)

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 AMOwithin BTS; possible mission overlap; resource allocation and utilization; and radar coverage. Priorto the establishment of DHS, AMO was a part of the legacy Customs Service and was called Air andMarine 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 AMOwithin BTS. AMO's current mission includes "interdiction of smugglers and potential terroristscrossing our borders, traffickers operating the source, transit and arrival zones of the WesternHemisphere, providing airspace security for the nation's capital and for National Special SecurityEvents (NSSEs), and providing support for investigative and law enforcement operations." (12) TheHouse report discusses several options: leaving AMO in ICE; "bringing AMO under the umbrellaof the BTS Directorate and aligning its operations with the border security and interdiction missionsof CBP" (13) ; and moving AMO to become astandalone agency reporting directly to the UnderSecretary of BTS. Both the House and Senate committees indicate a desire to identify potential areasof overlap between the air and marine operations of AMO in ICE, the Border Patrol in CBP, and theCoast Guard. DHS and BTS are currently undertaking a review of air and marine assets andoperations 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 thefindings 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 confereesalso reiterate concerns that BTS submit the AMO modernization and capitalization plan, and directAMO to include detailed multi-year staffing plans in this report. Further, the conferees direct theUnder Secretary of BTS in coordination with the U.S. Interdiction Coordinator to submit a reportno later than February 15, 2004 on: (1) specific actions planned or taken to rationalize air and marineefforts; (2) plans for modernizing air and marine assets including staffing plans in the level of detailrequired 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 ofDefense. The House Committee notes no realistic alternative to TARS will be available for the nextdecade. 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 adiscrepancy concerning the optimum number and location of TARS sites. The committee directs theUnder Secretary of BTS in coordination with DHS' U.S. Interdiction Coordinator to submit a jointreport no later than 90 days after enactment, detailing a threat analysis of the U.S. border includinganalyses of attempted intrusions and similar threatening air and marine activity and relating thisactivity to the current and proposed locations of TARS sites. Further, the report should also outlinethe costs and benefits of maintaining current sites, re-opening or commissioning new sites, andupgrading 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, andwould have authorized $5 million to fund a pilot project to test interoperable communicationsbetween 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 reportedly300,000 noncitizens in the United States who have been ordered deported who have not left thecountry. Some argue that these 300,000 people would have been forced to leave the country if theyhad been detained once they were ordered deported. A study done by DOJ's Inspector General foundthat almost 94% of those detained with final orders of removal were deported while only 11% ofthose not detained who were issued final orders of removals left the country. (15) Concerns have beenraised that decisions on which aliens to release and when to release the aliens may be based on theamount of detention space, not on the merits of individual cases, and that the amount of space mayvary by area of the country leading to the disparate application of policies in different geographicareas. (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 themost 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 ofdetaining aliens, and the fact that many non-detained aliens with final orders of removal do not leavethe country, there has been interest in developing alternatives to detention for certain types of alienswho 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. Forexample, previously certain immigration enforcement activities were partially funded by fees fromthe Examination Fee Account, which now goes to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Somehave questioned whether appropriated funds will be enough to compensate for activities previouslyprovided though this account. In addition, due to the increased responsibilities of DHS for visasecurity overseas, concerns have been raised over whether ICE's overseas attache offices areadequately staffed. (19)

SEVIS. Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) is the foreign student monitoring system through which DHS collects informationon foreign students. SEVIS provides the electronic means to monitor and verify informationpertaining to the foreign student including the alien's identity and address; documentation of thestudent's acceptance by an approved school; issuance of the student's nonimmigrant visa; admissionof the student to the U.S.; notice to the school that the foreign student has been admitted into theUnited States; and notice from the school that the alien has attended classes. In addition, schoolshave reported technical difficulties operating SEVIS, and reported discrepancies betweeninformation 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 studentsoverstayed their visas. Through SEVIS, DHS should be able to identify students who have violatedthe terms of their visas; however, some question whether DHS has sufficient compliance teams tolocate all student visa violators, and whether it is an effective use of DHS resources to do so.

Transportation Security Administration (20)

The TSA, (21) created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA; P.L. 107-71 ), wasestablished to increase the protection of people and commerce as they traveled into and through theUnited 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 levelof $2,508 million. According to TSA this increase does not include funding to expand currentprograms, nor does it fund any new program initiatives. (22) Instead, this increase is comprisedprimarily 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 enactedFY2004 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 securityfees. However, neither House nor Senate reports fund this request, instead they provide the $400million 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 forFY2005. However, during floor debate for H.R. 4567 , the Senate adopted amendment3598 which added $75 million to TSA for baggage screening activities. P.L. 108-334 provides a netappropriation of $3,260 million for TSA.

Table 8. TSA Account Detail ($ millions)

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 Senatepassed 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, 2004proposal, 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.

Table 9. TSA Selected Sub-Account LevelDetail ($ millions)

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 Senatepassed 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 abovethe request; while the House recommended $29 million above the Administration's request and theSenate in S.Rept. 108-280 recommended $60 million above the request for the purchase andinstallation 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 millionabove the request for aviation regulation and other enforcement, and an additional $10.4 millionabove the request for air cargo security; and the Senate recommended $38 million above theadministration'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 thathave privatized their baggage and passenger screeners. Both reports note that there is no way forTSA or Congress to know how many airports will opt out of the federal screener program beginningNovember 18, 2004. The Senate Committee noted that if additional airports are awarded the abilityto utilize private screeners TSA is expected to adhere to the reprogramming requirements stipulatedin section 502 of Appropriations Act S. 2537 . The House Committee declared that ithas provided TSA with the flexibility to cover passenger screening activities for federal screenersas well as for any private contracts awarded under the opt out provision. The House Committeecautions that it expects TSA to live within the funding provided for personnel, compensation, andbenefits, however, noting that screening costs for airports opting out should not exceed the costs ofretaining federal screeners -- indeed, the committee believes that there may be some cost savingsassociated 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 2005because it believes that this provision is reasonable and has forced TSA to be more disciplined inspending taxpayer dollars. The House Committee notes that when TSA was first formed itover-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 outrageouslyhigh. While the Committee notes that TSA has made progress towards streamlining and reshapingits workforce so that high-traffic airports receive more screening personnel, it also believes thatmuch more could be done regarding the development and installation of EDS that reduce the numberof FTEs needed. Until these advancements are in place, the committee believes it would be too easyfor TSA to revert back to hiring screeners above the 45,000 cap; for this reason it is continuing thelimitation.

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 betweenairports 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 CAPPSsystem at airports. TSA had been developing a more advanced passenger pre-screening systemcalled CAPPS-II; however, due to mounting privacy concerns and operational problems, TSArecently announced it is scrapping its plans to implement CAPPS-II this fall. (23) Instead, TSAAdministrator David M. Stone recently testified that CAPPS-II is being "reshaped and repackaged"to address the privacy issues. (24) TSA recentlyannounced the replacement program, entitled "SecureFlight" which will differ from CAPPS II because it focuses on identifying terrorists rather than onserving other law enforcement purposes. (25) Oneof the 9/11 Commission Report recommendationssuggests that TSA take over administration of the existing CAPPS system from the airlines untilwhatever program replaces it becomes operational. This would probably add to TSA screenerworkload and thus result in an increased need for funds within TSA. Possible issues for Congressinclude whether current appropriations levels are adequate for the "reshaping" of CAPPS-II into therecently announced "Secure Flight" program, and whether more funds should be appropriated forTSA if in fact the agency takes over the implementation of the existing CAPPS system from aircarriers.

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 concernthat 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 andexpect TSA to cooperate with GAO in its review of Secure Flight. The conferees further note thatDHS is proposing to check all watchlists though the new Secure Flight system as recommended bythe 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 ofcheckpoints. The committee notes that it is aware of TSA efforts to screen passengers' baggage butthat current deficiencies in the ability to detect explosives on passengers and their checked bagscontinue to warrant concerns. The Senate Committee directs TSA to submit a detailed report by July1, 2005 on TSA's pilot program to screen passengers and carry-on baggage for explosives. Theconferees adopted an increase of $35 million for checkpoint security, and adopted the Senatereporting requirements.

Crew Vetting. The House Committee recommended $10 million for the vetting of foreign air carrier crews that the TSA has been undertaking sinceDecember 2003. The Committee is deeply troubled that in FY2004 TSA spent $20 million offunding provided for CAPPSII for this activity without notifying Congress. The House Committeenotes that it believes this activity is still necessary, and states that it expects TSA to make a cleardistinction 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 additionalfunding for purchase of EDS and ETD machines. The Senate Committee noted that its $60 millionincrease over the President's request would have allowed TSA to procure next generation in-lineEDS baggage screening machines. The House also directed that the $20 million it would haveprovided over the President's request be used to purchase the next generation EDS machines, whichit noted are far smaller and less expensive than the current generation of screening units. Theconferees provide $30 million over the request for EDS purchases. The House Committee alsocontinues to encourage competition among vendors so that a wide array of EDS technologies canbe 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 itrecommends to be spent initiating a "Manhattan Project II" program which will attempt to achievea quantum leap in next generation EDS technology, as opposed to the incremental approach currentlybeing taken. The conferees provide $54 million for next generation EDS machines, and like theHouse, allocate $10 million for a "Manhattan Project II" program. The Senate Committeerecommended $57 million for this research, and notes it is encouraged by the progress being madeby the Transportation Security Laboratory.

Airport Security Installations. Both the House and Senate Committee reports support the Letter of Intent (LOI) program with airports for installing EDSmachines. The House Committee recommended an additional $19 million over the statutoryallocation of $250 million for the Aviation Security Capital Fund (ASCF) to fulfill the federalcommitment to the eight airports that have entered into LOI with a 75% federal share. The confereesprovide $45 million in addition to the $250 million statutory allocation of the ASCF. However, dueto budgetary constraints the House Committee notes that the federal government cannot provide a90% federal share to the eight LOI airports; as such the committee waives language in section 605of the Vision 100 Act ( P.L.108-176 ) that distributes the ASCF by formula. The conferees fund theLOI 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 Committeerecommended $13 million over the budget request, while the House Committee recommended $10.4million above the budget request. Both the House and Senate noted that $10 million of theirrespective additional funding is provided for TSA to hire 100 additional air cargo inspectors. TheSenate Committee recommended that the remaining $3 million in additional funding to expand thenumber of explosives detection canine teams, while the House Committee's additional $400,000would have been spent on continuing TSA's participation in the C-TPAT program. The SenateCommittee also recommended some additional funding for developing technologies to secure aircargo within the "Research and Development" account. The conferees provide a total of $115million 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 cargothreats.

The Senate Committee also recommended continued funding for maintaining the "knownshipper" database, which centralizes data provided by known shippers and indirect air carriers inorder to immediately verify the status of a specific shipper, and encourages TSA to continuecoordinating this program with CBP's C-TPAT program to develop the ability to better targetdomestic air cargo for inspection. The House Committee notes that it is encouraged by TSA's workto develop ETD system protocols to inspect air cargo on passenger and cargo aircraft, and directsTSA to issue the protocols as soon as possible. The House Committee also would have continuedand modified section 513 of P.L. 108-90 , requiring the Secretary to research, develop, and procurecertified systems to inspect and screen air cargo on passenger aircraft. Until these systems aredeveloped, the House Committee directs TSA to enhance the known shipper program to prohibithigh-risk cargo from being loaded on passenger planes. Additionally, the language added to section513 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 carriersto ensure their compliance with security directives; and validating indirect carriers' security measureswhere 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 evaluatingcredentials. TSA is directed to report back to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriationsabout the results of the prototyping before moving into the next phase. The conferees provide $15million 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 additionalfunding over the President's request. The House Committee recommended $15 million above thePresident's request of $50 million and would have directed $15 million of the total to developingand 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 usesan existing government card production facility. The House committee expected the remaining $50million which is appropriated to be offset during the fiscal year through the fees people will pay forapplying for an ID card. The Senate Committee recommended $55 million for infrastructureinvestments and for implementation of this program for targeted high-risk populations oftransportation workers.

Rail Security. The conferees provide $12 million for rail security under TSA to support the deployment of 100 federal rail compliance inspectors andincludes $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 SecurityInitiative for rail security grants; Science and Technology Directorate for research and design of railsecurity requirements; and Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection to improve railcorridor security. The conferees also direct TSA to implement projects that demonstrate and advancenew 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 ofwhich is to be spent on deploying 100 Federal compliance inspectors for mass transit and passengerrail to conduct on-site inspections in order to ensure compliance with minimum standards andrecently issued security directives. The remaining $5 million is would have been provided for thedeployment of canine explosives detection teams. The House Committee recommended $11 millionfor rail security within TSA and would have added $100 million through the Urban Area SecurityInitiatives grant program. The House report also recommended an additional $12 million for railsecurity available through the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate. TheHouse Committee voices concern about the vulnerability of the rail and transit systems and directsTSA to work with other agencies such as the Office for State and Local Government Coordinationto develop a comprehensive rail and transit security program. The Committee requires TSA tosubmit a report by March 1, 2005 on this effort which will identify possible research and designrequirements that could enhance nationwide rail security. The House Committee would haverequired TSA to spend $1 million on a prototype program to perform risk assessments on domesticfreight cargo; the remaining $10 million will be spent to accelerate the testing and evaluation oftechnologies that will permit the TSA and transit operators to better screen rail passengers andbaggage.

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 various pilotprograms underway which are testing remote off-site baggage screening systems, noting that it isencouraged by TSA's interest in developing efficient baggage screening pilot programs. The HouseCommittee also directs TSA to work with the Federal Aviation Administration to evaluate whetherrequiring passenger aircraft to incorporate deployable flight incident recorders would improvesecurity analysis in aviation accidents. The House Committee requires TSA to submit a report byJanuary 31, 2005 that contains plans for developing and implementing uniform screening standardsfor vetting airport workers with access to secure areas; presents an assessment of availabletechnologies that may be applied to securing airport perimeters; and develops and implements astandardized 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 andprocurement 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 developand maintain an integrated strategic transportation security plan. This plan should identify andevaluate transportation assets that need to be protected, and set risk-based priorities and select themost cost-effective ways of defending them. The plan should be presented no later than February1, 2005, and future budget requests should be based upon it. Additionally, Senate H.R 4567 includesamendment 3642, requiring the secretary to present a comprehensive report concerning how to bestprotect commercial airliners from man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS). The MANPADSreport should be submitted along with the FY2006 TSA budget request.

U.S. Coast Guard

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 othermissions, including some (such as fisheries enforcement and marine rescue operations) that are notrelated 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 Guardbe maintained as a distinct entity within DHS and that the Commandant of the Coast Guard reportdirectly to the Secretary of DHS. Accordingly, the Coast Guard exists as its own agency within DHSand is not part of DHS's border and transportation security directorate. The Coast Guard does,however, work closely with that directorate. (26)

FY2005 Coast Guard Request. The total FY2005 request for the Coast Guard of $7,335 million represented an 8.5% increase over the enacted FY2004level of $6,764 million. H.Rept. 108-541 recommended $7,307 million for the Coast Guard forFY2005 and included a rescission of $33 million in unexpended funds appropriated in FY2003 andFY2004 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 millionrescission contained in H.R. 4567 ). P.L. 108-334 provides $7,373 million for the CoastGuard for FY2005. This amount includes a rescission of $16 million of funds appropriated inFY2004 for Rescue 21 because of contract delays and high unobligated balances. Table 10 providesaccount level detail for the Coast Guard's appropriation.

Table 10. Coast Guard Account Detail ($ millions)

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 Senatepassed 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 Transportation Security Act (MTSA) ( P.L.108-334 , H.Rept. 108-541 and S.Rept. 108-280 fully fund this request);

$27 million for the Rescue 21 Project, which is recapitalizing the CoastGuard's coastal zone communications network (not funded by P.L. 108-334 or H.Rept. 108-541 , butfully funded by S.Rept. 108-280 );

$10 million for the Integrated Deepwater Program (fully funded by P.L.108-334 , H.Rept. 108-541 and S.Rept. 108-280 ); (27)

$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, asprototypes 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 and207 aging Coast Guard aircraft. The Deepwater program presents several potential issues forCongress.

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 missionrequirements. A 2004 RAND Corporation report on the Deepwater program states that the baselineDeepwater program "will not provide the USCG with adequate assets and capabilities to fulfilldemands for traditional missions and emerging responsibilities. To satisfy these demands, the USCGwill need the capabilities of twice the number of cutters and 50% more air vehicles than it has beenplanning to acquire over the next two decades." The Coast Guard is reassessing the program'smission requirements to take post-9/11 mission demands into account. Coast Guard officials havestated 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 ofstudies that have concluded that massive changes to the program are necessary and the fact that onlya few aspects of the initial system concept are still intact. The House Committee has thereforeincluded bill language requiring the Coast Guard to re-baseline the program and submit its findingsas part of the President's FY2006 budget. The FY2006 budget submission should include specificacquisition timetables for all previously identified assets the Coast Guard believes are still necessaryand a time-line for all new assets needed to fulfil homeland security functions or multi-agencyprocurements. All funding levels in the submission must be identified by fiscal year. The confereesadopt this House report language. Additionally, the House Committee recommends less than therequested sum for Maritime Patrol Aircraft due to questions about whether the aircraft meet the airintercept and rapid cargo lift and deployment capabilities required by the revised Deepwaterproposal. Until the ongoing evaluations of these aircraft are completed and clearly identify whichaircraft the Coast Guard will need in the future, the committee cannot fully support the budgetrequest.

Legacy and Replacement Assets. Both the Senate and House Committee reports voice concern over the condition of Coast Guard legacy assets. TheSenate cites a Governmental Accountability Office report which notes that Coast Guard assets arebeing 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 expendingmore Deepwater funding on maintaining legacy assets and less on acquiring replacement assets. TheSenate Committee directs the Coast Guard to submit a report on its increased operationalrequirements 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 anda timetable of all Deepwater replacement assets. The House Committee, conversely, is concernedthat the Coast Guard is having problems maintaining its legacy assets due to a perceived need toexpend all available funding on Deepwater procurement. The House Committee requires the CoastGuard to report, within 30 days of enactment of the Appropriations Act, its plans for maintenanceof all legacy vessels and aircraft, including the entity responsible for the maintenance and theestimated costs. Further, the Coast Guard is directed to submit quarterly reports on its legacymaintenance plan beginning with the submission of the President's FY2006 budget. The confereesadopt this House Committee report language.

Automatic Identification System. A potential issue for Congress concerns the Automatic Identification System (AIS) -- a vessel-tracking system thatthe Coast Guard wants to implement as a key part of its strategy for achieving maritime domainawareness (MDA). AIS is a system that will identify the ship, its size, and its cargo before it entersan American seaport. Questions include the availability of a radio frequency needed for AIS andwhether the system as currently planned will adequately cover all categories of ships that might posea threat to U.S. homeland security. Both the House and the Senate conference reports voice supportfor the AIS program. The House committee is concerned that by the end of FY2004 only nineseaports will be able to receive AIS signals from entering vessels and disappointed that only $5million was requested for this program even though a national plan to outfit the 55 largest seaportswith this technology is scheduled to be completed by the end of the calendar year. The HouseCommittee is therefore providing $24 million to fund this effort in FY2005. The conferenceprovides $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 homelandand non-homeland security missions. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, increased CoastGuard requirements for homeland-security missions without obviously reducing requirements forother missions. After September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard significantly increased homelandsecurity operations while reducing operations in other missions. GAO, in reports and testimony onthis topic, have noted reduced number of Coast Guard operating hours devoted to non-homelandsecurity missions, and have expressed concerns regarding the Coast Guard's ability to linkapplication 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 staffto ensure that it is in compliance with the U.S. Code [Title 14 sec. 676 (b)] watch standards at theirSearch 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 haveshown the Coast Guard is unable to meet the standard at all facilities at all times. The SenateCommittee encourages the Coast Guard to continue its cooperative programs in the Marine Vesseland Cold Water Safety Education area which provides education and outreach on maritime safetyto fishermen and children. The Senate Committee also recognizes the importance of the RescueSwimmer 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 ballasttanks of foreign ships. Both the House and Senate reports support this program. The SenateCommittee fully funds the request in order to assist the Coast Guard in transitioning the programfrom a voluntary to a mandatory enforcement policy. The House Committee also fully funds therequest and notes that because invasive species spread readily once they have entered U.S. water thisprogram is of critical importance to all states with water resources regardless of their proximity tocommercial 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 securityrelated aerial surveillance missions. The committee directs the Coast Guard to procure, test, andevaluate aircraft that can perform MDA missions.

Icebreakers. The House Committee is very supportiveof Coast Guard efforts to renegotiate the memorandum of understanding with the National ScienceFoundation (NSF) regarding the costs each agency shares for icebreaking, especially in the Antarcticregion. The House Committee continues to believe that the NSF is not adequately reimbursing theCoast Guard for its icebreaking services in support of scientific research and notes that the currentfleet of icebreakers is approaching the end of their service life. The House Committee directs theCoast Guard to evaluate and determine the present and future needs for polar icebreakers. The CoastGuard should consider all appropriate national defense, homeland security, scientific, economic, andenvironmental interests of the United States. The review should be completed and reported to theHouse 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 supportingUS operations in the Antarctic and Arctic. The study should include different scenarios forcontinuing operations including the replacement of current assets and alternative methods that donot involve the Coast Guard. The study should also address possible changes in icebreakingmissions due to environmental change. The study should be submitted to the Senate Committee bySeptember 30, 2005. The conferees adopt this report language.

Other Reports. In addition to the reports requested above the House and Senate Appropriations Committees request the Coast Guard to submit thefollowing reports. The House Committee is concerned that the Coast Guard has not presented areport with the staffing and resource implications of the February, 2004 decision to move to a sectorcommand structure. They direct the Commandant to submit such a report no less than 30 days priorto restructuring, including before and after staffing levels, sector organizational structures, sectorchains of command, and sector infrastructure and other issues that may require additional resourcesto implement. The conferees adopt this House report language and requirements concerning thesector commands. The House Committee also directs the Coast Guard to submit a report on thefeasibility, practicality, and cost-effectiveness of establishing a permanent West Coast helicoptersquadron by October 1, 2004. Lastly, the House Committee fully funds the budget request toaggressively implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. The committee isconcerned, however, that the Coast Guard plans to rely on foreign governments to review foreignvessel security plans, especially in light of the fact that some of these plans may not even betranslated into English. The committee directs the Coast Guard to review all vessel security plansand report their findings by October 15, 2004. The conferees express similar concerns, and directthe Coast Guard to use the Port State Control Programs to ensure that foreign vessel security plansare 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 hoursdedicated to non-homeland security missions remain significantly below pre 9/11 levels. Thecommittee does note, however, that in most cases the Coast Guard continues to meet or exceed itsperformance goals in these operational areas. The committee directs the Coast Guard to submit areport on plans to develop a system that can provide accurate representations of the costs necessaryto meet performance goals. Amendment 3633 to Senate passed H.R. 4567 requiresDHS to submit a report, no later than 90 days after the enactment of the act, on opportunities tointegrate the process by which the Coast Guard issues letters of recommendation for liquefied gasmarine 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 andtransportation security. (28) Many of theserecommendations would have funding implications shouldthey be adopted. However, it is important to note that in none of the recommendations does thecommission suggest specific funding increases, decreases, or allocations. Instead, the commissionpoints out the following broad areas that it believes need more attention and resources:

Current transportation security efforts do not reflect a forward-looking comprehensive strategic plan that systematically evaluates all aspects of transportation security. Anational plan for transportation security, as the commission conceives it, would identify the assetsthat need to be protected, create risk-based priorities for their defense, select the most efficient andcost-effective 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 theabsence of the aforementioned national plan, the commission concludes that transportation securityfunding 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 systemscurrently used by TSA to screen passengers and their baggage for explosives; Non-IntrusiveInspection (NII) systems, which are large scale X-ray and Gamma-ray imaging systems used by CBPat points of entry to inspect incoming vehicles, trains, and seacraft; and Radiological DetectionEquipment (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 screeningpoints. This network should include the transportation system and access to vital facilities such asnuclear reactors. DHS should design this comprehensive screening system and set common standardsthat can be applied system wide. Additionally, DHS should complete its implementation of abiometric entry/exit screening system as quickly as possible and expand the screening of passengersand 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 withimplementing their recommendations.