Border and Transportation Security: Appropriations for FY2005

CRS Report for Congress
Border and Transportation Security:
Appropriations for FY2005
Updated November 5, 2004
Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto
Co-Coordinators
Domestic Social Policy Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), and current program authorizations.
This report is a guide to a subset of one of the 13 regular appropriation bills that Congress
passes each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and
Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Homeland Security; and to supplement the
information provided in the CRS Department of Homeland Security Appropriations report
[http://www.congress.gov/erp/ra/html/RL32302.html]. This report summarizes the current
legislative status of the bill, major issues, funding levels, and legislative activity related to
border and transportation security and will be updated as events warrant.

Border and Transportation Security:
Appropriations for FY2005
Summary
A well-managed border is central to maintaining and improving the security of
the homeland against terrorist threats. Border security entails regulating the flow of
goods and people across the nation’s borders so that dangerous and unwanted goods
or people are denied entry. Transportation security entails inspecting and securing
people and goods as they move among different locations within the country to
reduce the possibility of terrorist attacks or the incursion of unwanted people or
goods. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been given primary
responsibility for securing the nation’s borders and for increasing the security of
transportation, among other responsibilities.
The locus of border and transportation security activity within DHS is in the
Directorate of Border and Transportation Security (BTS) which houses the Bureau
of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The U.S.
Coast Guard is a standalone agency within DHS but plays an important role in border
and transportation security, as does the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
(FLETC). This report includes appropriations for the functions and agencies of BTS,
the U.S. Coast Guard and FLETC.
On October 18, 2004, P.L. 108-334 was signed into law, making appropriations
for DHS for FY2005. P.L. 108-334 provides $33.1 billion in new obligational
budget authority for the activities of DHS. Of this amount, $19.6 billion or 59% is
for border and transportation activities as identified in this report. P.L. 108-334
includes $340 million for the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology (US-VISIT) program; $5.3 billion for CBP; $3.2 billion for ICE; $3.3
billion for TSA; $7.4 billion for the U.S. Coast Guard; and $200 million for FLETC.
Significant issues in border and transportation security include cargo and
container security; implementation of the US-VISIT program; organization of air and
marine assets; aviation security; and security of other transportation modes.
This report will not be updated.

Key Policy Staff: Border and Transportation Security
Area of expertiseNamePhoneE-mail
Co-CoordinatorJennifer E. Lake7-0620jlake@crs.loc.gov
Co-CoordinatorBlas Nuñez-Neto7-0622bnunezneto@crs.loc.gov
Customs IssuesJennifer E. Lake7-0620 jlake@crs.loc.gov
Immigration IssuesAlison Siskin7-0260asiskin@crs.loc.gov
Border PatrolBlas Nuñez-Neto7-0622bnunezneto@crs.loc.gov
TransportationBartholomew Elias7-7771belias@crs.loc.gov
Security
Administration
Coast GuardRonald O’Rourke7-7610rorourke@crs.loc.gov
Port SecurityJohn Frittelli7-7033jfrittelli@crs.loc.gov
AgriculturalJames Monke7-9664jmonke@crs.loc.gov

Quarantine
Inspections

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
P.L. 108-334 Signed by the President..........................1
H.R. 4567 Passed in the Senate...............................1
H.R. 4567 Passed in the House...............................1
S. 2537 Reported..........................................1
President’s FY2005 Budget Submitted.........................1
In troduction ......................................................2
Background ......................................................3
Appropriations for Border and Transportation Security....................4
Operational Components of Border and Transportation Security.........8
Customs and Border Protection..................................10
FY2005 CBP Request.....................................10
CBP Issues for Congress...................................14
Staffing .............................................14
Biometric Screening Database Integration..................14
CBP Issues for Congress — At Ports of Entry..................15
Cargo and Container Security...........................15
Targeting and Risk Assessment..........................16
Inspections and Inspection Technology (NII)...............16
Commercial Entry and Trade Enforcement.................17
CBP Issues — Between Points of Entry.......................17
Integrated Surveillance Information Systems...............18
Fleet Management....................................18
Arizona Border.......................................18
Immigration and Customs Enforcement...........................19
FY2005 Request..........................................19
ICE Issues for Congress....................................22
Air and Marine Operations (AMO).......................22
Detention Issues......................................23
Examinations Fee and Staffing..........................24
SEVIS .............................................25
Transportation Security Administration............................25
FY2005 TSA Request.....................................25
TSA Issues for Congress...................................27
Privatized Airport Screening Program.....................27
Staffing Levels.......................................28
Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-screening System
(CAPPS II) and “Secure Flight”.....................28
Checkpoint Support...................................29
Crew Vetting........................................29
Explosive Detection Systems and Explosive Trace Detection..29
Airport Security Installations............................30
Air Cargo Security....................................30
Transportation Worker Identification Card.................30

Other Reports/Directions...............................31
U.S. Coast Guard ............................................32
FY2005 Coast Guard Request...............................33
Coast Guard Issues for Congress.............................34
Deepwater Program...................................34
Legacy and Replacement Assets.........................35
Automatic Identification System.........................35
Non-Homeland Security Missions........................35
Ballast Water Program.................................36
Icebreakers ..........................................36
Other Reports........................................37
Funding Implications of the 9/11 Commission Border and Transportation
Recommendations ............................................37
List of Figures
Figure 1. FY2005 Request for Border and Transportation Security
Appropriation .................................................5
Figure 2. FY2005 Appropriation for Border and Transportation Security,
P.L. 108-344..................................................6
List of Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations............2
Table 2. Summary of Border and Transportation Security Appropriations,
Functional Presentation.........................................7
Table 3. BTS Appropriations: Select Detail, FY2004-2005.................9
Table 4. CBP Account Detail.......................................11
Table 5. CBP Selected Sub-Account Level Detail........................13
Table 6. ICE Account Detail........................................20
Table 7. ICE Selected Sub-Account Level Detail........................22
Table 8. TSA Account Detail.......................................26
Table 9. TSA Selected Sub-Account Level Detail.......................27
Table 10. Coast Guard Account Detail................................33

Border and Transportation Security:
Appropriations for FY2005
Most Recent Developments
P.L. 108-334 Signed by the President. On October 18, 2004, the
President signed into law P.L. 108-334 making appropriations for DHS for FY2005.
P.L. 108-334 provides $33.1 billion in new obligational budget authority for DHS,
of which $19.6 billion or 59% is for the border and transportation security-related
activities identified in this report. The conference report to H.R. 4567 (H.Rept. 108-
774) was agreed to by the House on October 9, 2004; and by the Senate on October

11, 2004.

H.R. 4567 Passed in the Senate. On September 14, 2004, the Senate
passed H.R. 4567 after striking the House-passed language and inserting the language
of S. 2537. During floor debate, over 40 amendments were added to the bill
including 8 that directly impact funding. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 4567
recommended a total appropriation of $33.8 billion for the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS); an increase of $1.3 billion over the Administration’s request, and an

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

H.R. 4567 Passed in the House. On June 18, 2004, H.R. 4567 was passed
in the House by a vote of 400-5. The bill would have provided a total appropriation
of $33.1 billion for the DHS; an increase of $500 million over the Administration’s
request, and a 9.2% increase over the enacted FY2004 level of $30.3 billion.
S. 2537 Reported. On June 17, 2004, S. 2537 was introduced in the Senate.
The bill would have provided a total appropriation of $33.1 billion for DHS; an
increase of $500 million over the Administration’s request, and a 9.2% increase over
the enacted FY2004 level. S. 2537 was accompanied by S.Rept. 108-280, which was
reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 17, 2004, by a vote of 29-

President’s FY2005 Budget Submitted. On February 2, 2004, the
President submitted the FY2005 budget request to Congress, proposing $32.6 billion
in appropriations for the DHS. This represents a 7.7% increase over net enacted
FY2004 funding of $30.3 billion.¹ Of the $32.6 billion requested by the
Administration for DHS in FY2005, $19 billion or 58% is for Border and
Transportation Security agencies as identified in this report.

¹ The FY2004 amount does not include $4.8 billion in scorekeeping adjustments,
rescissions, and advance appropriations.

Table 1 summarizes the legislative status of DHS appropriations for FY2005.²
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations
^Subco^m^mⁱ^t^t^ee^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Confer.^Conference^Public
^ma^r^k^u^p^Repo^rt^Hou^s^e^Repo^rt^Sena^t^e^report^rep^{ort ap}^p^r^oval^La^w
^108-541^p^a^s^s^age^108-280^p^a^s^s^age^H.Rep^t^.^108-774^108-334^H^o^use^S^ena^t^e^H^o^u^se^Sena^t^e
^06/⁰⁹^c^d^06/¹⁷^e^10/⁰⁹
^06/⁰³^a^06/¹⁶^b⁽^vv)^06/¹⁸^(29-⁰⁾^09/¹⁴^H.R^e^p^t^.^10/⁰⁹^10/⁰⁹^10/¹⁸
⁽^vv)⁽^vv)^H.R^e^p^t^.^(400-⁵⁾^S.Rep^t^.^(93-⁰⁾^108-⁷⁷⁴^(368-⁰⁾⁽^vv)^108-³³⁴
^108-⁵⁴¹^108-²⁸⁰
^Note:^{vv = vo}ⁱ^{ce vo}^t^e
^a^.^H^ous^e^A^ppr^opr^ia^tions^Subc^om^m^itte^e^f^o^r^H^o^m^e^la^{nd Se}^c^u^r^ity^he^{ld a}^m^a^r^k^{up on J}^une^{3, 2004.}
^{b. Se}^na^te^A^ppr^opr^ia^tions^Subc^om^m^itte^e^f^o^r^H^o^m^e^la^{nd Se}^c^u^r^ity^he^{ld a}^m^a^r^k^{up on J}^une^{16, 2004.}
^c^.^H^ous^e^A^ppr^opr^ia^tions^C^o^m^m^itte^e^r^e^por^te^{d by}^v^o^ic^e^v^o^te^the^r^e^por^t⁽^H^.R^e^p^t.^108-⁵⁴¹⁾^to^the^FY²⁰⁰⁵^D^H^S
^A^ppropria^tions^{bill (H}^{.R. 4567).}
^{d. T}^h^e^H^ous^e^pa^s^s^e^{d H}^.^R^.^{4567 J}^une^{18, 2004 by}^a^v^o^te^of^400-^5.
^e^.^Se^na^te^A^ppr^opr^ia^tions^C^o^m^m^itte^e^r^e^por^te^{d by}^a^v^o^te^of^29-^{0, the}^r^e^por^{t (}^S^.R^{ept. 108-}²⁸⁰⁾^{to the}^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^D^H^S^A^ppropria^tions^{bill (S. 2537).}
Introduction
Increasing border and transportation security are essential strategies for
improving and maintaining homeland security. Border security entails regulating the
flow of goods and people across the nation’s borders so that dangerous and unwanted
goods or people are detected and denied entry. Transportation security entails
inspecting people and goods as they move among different locations within the
country to reduce the possibility of terrorist attacks or the incursion of unwanted
people or goods.
Determining which goods and people are permitted and which are denied entry
into the U.S. involves a system of sophisticated border management. This system
must balance the need for securing the nation’s borders while facilitating the essential
commerce and legitimate free flow of citizens and authorized visitors. The system
must be capable of examining minute details of goods and people seeking entry, but
still fit within budgetary constraints and be administratively feasible.
Improving transportation security has meant an expanded federal role in
screening passengers and baggage traveling through airports and also increasing the
presence of federal officers aboard domestic and international flights. Plans exist to
extend the presence of federal officers to other modes of transportation more
intensively in the future. Finally, these management systems must accomplish their
functions with a minimum of disruption of legitimate activities, and without
unnecessary intrusion into the civil liberties of persons affected by them.

² For more information on DHS Appropriations, see CRS Report RL32302, Appropriations
for FY2005: Department of Homeland Security, by Jennifer Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto.

Background
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred the functions,
relevant funding, and most of the personnel of 22 agencies and offices to the newly
created Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS was organized in four major
directorates: Border and Transportation Security; Emergency Preparedness and
Response; Science and Technology; and Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection.
The Border and Transportation Security Directorate (BTS), along with its close
functional sibling, the U.S. Coast Guard, are responsible for the first line of defense
against terrorism and for securing and managing the nation’s borders. Included in
these responsibilities are the inspection, investigative and enforcement operations of
the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which had been
responsible for managing and coordinating entry into the United States, and for
enforcing immigration laws. DHS border and transportation security objectives also
include fulfilling the newly expanded federal role of the TSA in protecting the
nation’s transportation systems, initially involving airline passengers, baggage, and
freight.
The Customs function, previously the responsibility of the Department of the
Treasury’s U.S. Customs Service, now also forms part of BTS. The Customs
functions administered by DHS, in conjunction with the U.S. Coast Guard, are
expected to effectively secure all commercial traffic entering the nation’s ports. The
Directorate also assumes responsibility for inspecting and monitoring plants and
animals entering the United States to minimize the risk that noxious pests and
diseases will be introduced into the country.
The activities for which BTS has assumed responsibility are organized into three
bureaus: the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP); the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); and the Transportation Security
Agency (TSA). The inspection and border patrol functions of legacy Customs, INS,
and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), were merged into CBP.
The investigative and interior enforcement functions of legacy Customs and INS
were merged within ICE. The Federal Protective Service (FPS), the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), and the Office of Domestic Preparedness
(ODP) were also included under BTS by the Homeland Security Act. Subsequently,
the Federal Air Marshals have been transferred from TSA to ICE; the US-VISIT
program has been transferred from ICE to be managed at the BTS directorate level;
and ODP has been reconfigured and renamed the Office of State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness (OSLGCP) and is managed at the DHS
level. The Coast Guard remains a direct report, or free standing agency, within DHS
but outside the BTS directorate.

Appropriations for Border and
Transportation Security
March 1, 2003, was the effective date for shifting most of the responsibilities
from former departments and agencies to the new DHS. While the transfer of
functional lines of authority and the personnel to carry out those functions was
relatively straightforward, problems arose with initial attempts to ascertain the exact
amount of appropriated funds actually transferred. Comparisons of responsibilities
and analyses of requests for increased budget authority proved difficult to develop.
This was due to the fact that functions now performed by DHS were previously
performed by predecessor agencies which often had somewhat different purposes
than homeland security. The funding lines between FY2003 and FY2004 were not
identical to lines of functional responsibility before and after transfer, a problem
made more difficult because the basic documentation of appropriations in the
President’s FY2004 Budget was prepared after the formation of DHS but before final
enactment of appropriations for the remainder of FY2003. However, with the
completion of appropriations for FY2004, a baseline has been established, making
future appropriations decisions more easily compared to the previous year’s levels.
The distinction between border and transportation security functions and other
functions funded through the same account lines is somewhat arbitrary. In this sense,
our analysis uses something akin to a functional classification for “border and
transportation security.” Consequently, it does not include activities in the
Directorate for Border and Transportation Security that have no direct bearing on that
function (such as the Federal Protective Service). On the other hand, this functional
grouping does include the activities of the Coast Guard, a separate agency in DHS
which is not part of the Directorate for Border and Transportation Security, but which
has an essential role in providing “border and transportation security” as those words
are commonly understood. Some functions contained in other accounts that are
related to border and transportation security, such as those aspects of the Science and
Technology account which are used to improve security, are excluded from this table.
Tables in this report show an approximation of costs for border and transportation
security, based on identifying the accounts for which such security functions are the
primary function involved, and do not necessarily reflect DHS breakdowns as to
estimated amounts specifically associated with the Directorate for Border and
Transportation Security.
For FY2005, the Administration presented its request for DHS in an
organization roughly akin to the Conference Committee in presenting the
appropriated amounts for FY2004. The conference report to H.R. 2555 (H.Rept.

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

Enforcement, and Investigations, contains most of the functions identified in this
report as related to border and transportation security. The Administration’s FY2005
request follows this structure and has grouped the requests for the Undersecretary
for Border and Transportation; US-VISIT; CBP; ICE; the TSA; the U.S. Coast
Guard; and the U.S. Secret Service in Title II Security, Enforcement, and
Investigations. For the purposes of this report, we exclude appropriations for the
U.S. Secret Service; but include appropriations for FLETC, which is located in Title
IV.

The Administration requested $32.6 billion for DHS in FY2005, of this amount
$19 billion or 58% is for Border and Transportation Security functions as identified
in the report. Figure 1 illustrates the relative size of the request for each of the
border and transportation security agencies. Of the $19 billion requested in FY2005,
the Coast Guard (USCG) accounts for 38%; CBP for 26.9%; ICE for 17.3%; TSA for

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

Figure 1. FY2005 Request for Border and Transportation
Security Appropriation
^Source:^C^R^S^Aⁿ^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 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 and transportation security functions for
FY2004-FY2005.
Figure 2. FY2005 Appropriation for Border
and Transportation Security, P.L. 108-344.
^Source:^C^R^S^Aⁿ^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^P.L^.^108-^344.

Table 2. Summary of Border and Transportation Security
Appropriations, Functional Presentation
($ in millions)
F Y 2004 F Y 2005 F Y 2005 F Y 2005 F Y 2005
Enacted Re que s t House Senat e Conf .
Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection (CBP)5,9436,2236,2546,2326,349
CBP Fee Accounts ^a-1,044-1,101-1,101-1,074-1,079
CBP Direct Appropriation4,8995,1225,1545,1585,270 ^b
Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE)3,6803,5333,5893,7603,367
Rescission-54 — — — —
ICE Fee Accounts-273-225-225-250-200
ICE Direct Appropriation3,4073,3073,3633,7603,167
Transportation Security
Administration (TSA)4,5785,0425,0485,3025,151
TSA Offsetting Fees ^c-2,070-2,290-1,890-1,890-1,890
TSA Direct Appropriation2,5082,7523,2253,4123,260
Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center192196221224222
U.S. Coast Guard6,7647,3357,3077,4697,373
Under Secretary of Border
and Transportation Security81010910
U.S. VISIT328340340340340
Functional Total: Border
and Transportation Security18,10619,06219,62020,37219,642
^Source:^P.L^.^108-^{334, H}^.^R^e^pt^.^108-⁵⁴¹^t^o^H^.^R^.^{4567 pas}^s^e^{d by}^t^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e Ju}ⁿ^e^{18, 2004;}^S^.^R^e^pt^.
^108-^{280 t}^o^S^.^{2537 report}^e^{d by}^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^Juⁿ^e^{17, 2004.}
^Note:^F^Y^{2004 am}^ouⁿ^t^s^ref^l^ect^t^h^{e 0.59%}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^board^r^e^sci^s^sⁱ^on^en^act^{ed by}^P.L^.^108-^199.
^Ro^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^m^a^y^af^f^{ect to}^{tals. A}^m^o^uⁿ^t^{s in}^p^a^r^eⁿ^t^h^e^{ses ar}^{e n}^o^{t ad}^d^e^d^to^th^{e to}^tal.
^a.^T^h^er^e^is^a^dⁱ^scr^e^p^aⁿ^c^y^b^e^tw^een^th^{e Ho}^u^s^{e an}^d^Sen^a^{te r}^e^p^o^r^{ts r}^e^g^a^r^dⁱⁿ^g^th^{e am}^o^uⁿ^t^o^f^o^f^f^s^ettin^g
^f^{ee collection}^s^f^o^{r C}^B^P^f^o^{r FY2004}^en^acted^an^d^FY2005^requ^es^{t. T}^h^{e w}^a^y^th^{e of}^f^s^ettin^g^f^ees
^{are applied f}^o^{r C}^B^P^,^th^{e dif}^f^e^ren^{ce in}^f^e^e^c^o^l^l^ection^s^ch^an^g^e^s^th^{e total am}^ouⁿ^t^av^{ailable f}^o^r
^o^b^lig^atioⁿ^b^y^CB^P^,^b^u^t^d^o^e^sⁿ^o^{t ch}^an^g^e^th^{e to}^{tal am}^o^uⁿ^t^dⁱ^r^ectly^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iated^b^y^Coⁿ^g^r^ess^f^o^r
^C^B^P^.^T^h^eref^{ore, f}^o^{r th}^{e pu}^rpos^es^of^th^is^{paper, w}^e^u^s^{e th}^{e am}^ouⁿ^t^s^lis^{ted in}^th^{e Hou}^s^{e report}
^t^a^bl^es^f^o^{r C}^B^{P of}^f^s^et^tⁱⁿ^g^f^{ee col}^l^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2004 en}^act^{ed an}^{d t}^h^{e F}^Y^{2005 requ}^es^t^.
^b.^T^h^is^am^ouⁿ^tⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^{a $63 m}^illion^res^c^is^sⁱ^on^of^{FY2004 f}^uⁿ^d^s^prev^iou^s^ly^{appropriated by}^P^.^L^.
^108-^11.
^{c. T}^h^{ere is}^{$400 m}^illion^dif^f^e^ren^ceⁱⁿ^T^S^A^of^f^s^ettiⁿ^g^f^{ee collection}^s^{reported by}^th^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^,
^an^{d t}^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e an}^{d S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^{. T}^h^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed i}ⁿⁱ^t^s^requ^es^t^a^propos^al^t^oⁱⁿ^creas^{e t}^h^e
^avi^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^se^c^u^ri^t^y^f^{ee. Bot}^h^t^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e an}^{d S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^denⁱ^{ed t}^hⁱ^s^requ^es^t^an^{d t}^h^u^s^ref^l^ect^$400
^m^illioⁿ^{less th}^an^th^{e r}^e^q^u^{est in}^o^f^f^s^ettin^g^f^{ee co}^llectioⁿ^s^f^o^r^T^S^A^.

Operational Components of Border and Transportation
Security
While most observers indicate the need for additional funding in the area of
border and transportation security, the issue for Congress is to determine the
appropriate funding level in the context of the current budget situation and competing
claims for resources. The following sections of the report provide detail concerning
the operational components of border and transportation security. These include
selected: appropriations data; issues of potential interest to the conferees; and a
discussion of some of the challenges facing the different components of border and
transportation security.
Securing the nation’s borders and transportation systems includes the regulation
of imports and exports; enforcement of laws pertaining to immigration and visitation;
border-related inspection of agriculture and livestock; oversight of the security of
ports; federal inspection of airline passengers and baggage; and comprehensive
approaches to improving overall transportation security. Some observers might
question the exclusion of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS)
from the discussion of border and transportation security. There is no question that
homeland security is enhanced by the well managed administration of routine
immigration services. However, such services would remain even in absence of any
threats to the homeland. Immigration activities would continue in any event, and
including the cost of these activities would distort the true summary costs of border
and transportation security.
Table 3 provides account level details for the various component border and
transportation agencies as identified in this report.

Table 3. BTS Appropriations: Select Detail, FY2004-2005
($ in millions)
^FY²⁰⁰⁴^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^Op^erati^on^al^C^o^m^p^on^en^t^enacted^request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Co^nf.
^{Office of the Under}^{Secretary for B}^o^rder
^an^d^&^T^r^an^s^p^ortati^on^S^ecu^ri^ty⁸¹⁰¹⁰⁹¹⁰
^Visit^o^{r & Im}^mⁱ^g^r^aⁿ^t^St^a^t^{us Indica}^t^o^r
^{Project (U}^S^-^V^I^S^I^T⁾³²⁸³⁴⁰³⁴⁰³⁴⁰³⁴⁰
^C^u^s^t^om^s^&^Bord^{er Protecti}^oⁿ⁽ⁿ^et)⁴^,899^5,122^5,154^5,158^5,270
^—^S^a^l^a^ri^es^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es^;^con^s^t^r^u^c^tⁱ^oⁿ⁴^,460^4,672^4,704^4,708^4,626
^{— — rescissio}ⁿ^f^r^o^m^S&^E^—^—^—^—^-⁶³
^{— A}ⁱ^{r an}^{d Marin}^e^Operation^s^a^{— — —}^—²⁵⁸
^—^A^u^t^o^m^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^m^odernⁱ^zatⁱ^oⁿ⁴³⁹⁴⁵⁰⁴⁵⁰⁴⁵⁰⁴⁵⁰
^{— Fee accou}ⁿ^t^s^(of^f^s^ettin^g^collectioⁿ^s⁾⁽^1,126)^(1,074)^(1,074)^(1,074)^(1,079)
^I^m^mⁱ^{gration & Cus}^t^om^s^Eⁿ^forcem^{ent (net)}^b^3,407^3,307^3,363^3,760^3,167
^—^S^a^l^a^ri^es^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es^;^con^s^t^r^u^c^tⁱ^oⁿ²^,165^2,397^2,403^2,539^2,464
^{——rescissio}ⁿ^f^r^o^m^S&^E^-⁵⁴^—^—^—^—
^—^F^e^deral^Aⁱ^{r Mars}^h^a^l^s⁶²³⁶¹³⁶⁶³⁷¹³⁶⁶³
^—^F^e^deral^Prot^ectⁱ^v^{e S}^e^rvⁱ^ces⁴²⁴⁴⁷⁸⁴⁷⁸⁴⁷⁸⁴⁷⁸
^——o^f^f^s^{etting FP}^{S f}^ees^c^—^-⁴⁷⁸^-⁴⁷⁸^-⁴⁷⁸^-⁴⁷⁸
^{— A}^u^to^m^a^tioⁿ^&ⁱⁿ^f^r^astr^u^c^tu^r^e^m^o^d^e^rⁿ^izatioⁿ⁴⁰⁴⁰⁴⁰⁴⁰⁴⁰
^—^Aⁱ^{r an}^{d m}^a^riⁿ^eⁱⁿ^t^e^rdi^c^tⁱ^oⁿ²⁰⁹²⁵⁸²⁵⁸⁴⁶⁸^—^a
^{— Fee accou}ⁿ^t^s^(of^f^s^ettin^g^collection^s⁾⁽²⁷³⁾⁽²²⁵⁾⁽²²⁵⁾⁽²⁵⁰⁾⁽²⁰⁰⁾
^T^r^an^s^p^ortati^on^S^ecu^ri^{ty A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rati^on
⁽ⁿ^et)²^,508^2,752^3,225^3,412^3,260
^—^A^vⁱ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^ecu^ri^t^y^(t^ot^al^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g⁾^3,724^4,238^4,271^4,461^4,324
^{— Mar}^itim^{e an}^d^lan^d^secu^r^ity^d²⁶¹²⁹⁶⁵⁴⁴⁴⁸
^{— Cr}^ed^en^tialin^g^A^c^tiv^ities^—⁶⁷⁶⁷⁶⁷⁶⁷
^{— I}ⁿ^tellig^en^ce¹⁴¹⁴¹⁴¹⁴¹⁴
^—^R^e^s^earch^an^{d D}^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t¹⁵⁴¹⁵⁴¹⁷⁴¹⁸¹¹⁷⁸
^—^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ⁴²⁵⁵⁴⁰⁵²⁵⁵³⁵⁵²⁰
^—^A^vⁱ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^S^ecu^ri^t^y^C^a^pi^t^a^l^F^uⁿ^d^s^—⁽²⁵⁰⁾⁽²⁵⁰⁾⁽²⁵⁰⁾⁽²⁵⁰⁾
^{— Of}^f^s^ettin^g^f^{ee co}^llectioⁿ^s^{: A}^v^iatioⁿ
^S^ecu^ri^t^y^f^ees^{, C}^r^eden^tⁱ^a^lⁱⁿ^g^f^ees^-²^,070^-²^,290^-¹^,890^-¹^,890^-¹^,890
^U^.^S^.^C^oas^{t G}^u^ard⁶^,764^7,335^7,307^7,469^7,373
^—^O^p^eratⁱⁿ^g^ex^pen^s^es^4,637^5,173^5,171^5,153^5,157
^{— En}^vⁱ^r^oⁿ^m^en^{tal co}^m^p^lian^{ce &}^r^e^sto^r^atioⁿ¹⁷¹⁷¹⁷¹⁷¹⁷
^—^R^e^s^e^rv^{e t}^r^aiⁿⁱⁿ^g⁹⁴¹¹⁷¹¹³¹¹⁷¹¹³
^{— A}^c^q^u^isitioⁿ^,^coⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ^,^&^im^p^r^o^v^em^en^ts⁹⁶¹⁹⁴³⁹³⁷¹^,⁰⁶³⁹⁸²
^{— Rescissio}ⁿ^—^—^-³³^—^-¹⁶
^—^A^l^t^e^ratⁱ^oⁿ^of^bri^d^g^e^s¹⁹^—¹⁶¹⁵¹⁶
^{— R}^e^s^earch^{, dev}^e^lopm^en^{t, tes}^t^s^,^&^ev^alu^a^tion¹⁵^—^—¹⁸^d¹⁹
^{— Retir}^ed^p^a^y⁽^m^an^d^a^to^r^y^{, en}^titlem^eⁿ^t⁾¹^,0²⁰¹^,⁰⁸⁵¹^,⁰⁸⁵¹^,⁰⁸⁵¹^,⁰⁸⁵
^{Federal L}^a^w^Eⁿ^forcem^{ent T}^r^{aining Center}¹⁹²¹⁹⁶²²¹²²⁴²²²
^Subt^o^t^a^l^:^B^T^S¹⁸^,¹⁰⁶¹⁹^,⁰⁶²¹⁹^,⁶²⁰²⁰^,³⁷²¹⁹^,⁶⁴²

^S^o^u^rce:^P^.^L^.^108-^{334, H}^.^R^e^{pt. 108-}^{541 to H}^.^R^.^{4567 pa}^s^s^e^{d by}^the^H^ous^e^J^une^18,^{2004; S.R}^e^{pt. 108-}^{280 to}
^{S. 2537 r}^e^por^te^{d by}^the^Se^na^te^J^une^{17, 2004.}
^No^te:^FY^{2004 a}^m^ounts^r^e^f^l^e^c^t^the^0.59%^a^c^r^os^s^-^the^-^boa^r^d^r^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^{on e}ⁿ^a^c^t^e^d^by^P^.^L^.^108-^{199. R}^ounding^m^a^y
^a^f^f^e^c^t^tota^ls^{. A}^m^ounts^{in pa}^r^e^nthe^s^e^s^a^r^e^{not a}^dde^{d to the}^tota^l.
^a^.^T^h^e^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^of^Aⁱ^r^a^nd^Ma^rⁱ^ne^O^p^e^r^a^tions^w^a^s^tr^aⁿ^s^f^e^r^r^e^{d f}^r^om^I^C^{E to C}^B^P^by^D^H^S^{, a}^nd^P^.^L^.^108-³³⁴^r^e^f^l^e^c^t^s
^{this tra}ⁿ^sf^e^r^.
^{b. T}^houg^{h this}^ta^ble^indic^a^t^e^s^tha^t^the^FY^{2005 r}^e^que^s^t^f^o^r^I^C^E^r^e^pr^e^s^eⁿ^ts^a^2.9%^de^c^r^e^a^s^e^f^r^om^FY^{2004, this}
ⁱ^s^d^u^e^t^o^{a ch}^an^{ge i}ⁿ^acco^uⁿ^tⁱⁿ^{g f}^o^{r t}^h^{e f}^{ee recei}^p^t^{s u}^s^ed^t^o^o^f^f^s^e^t^t^h^e^e^x^p^eⁿ^s^{es o}^f^F^e^d^e^ral^P^r^o^t^ectⁱ^v^e
^Se^r^v^ic^e⁽^F^P^S⁾^.^I^f^the^FY^{2005 of}^f^s^e^t^s^a^r^e^a^pplie^{d in}^the^s^a^m^e^w^a^y^to^the^FY^{2004 e}ⁿ^a^c^t^e^d^le^v^e^{l f}^o^r^I^C^E,
⁽^z^e^r^oing^{out FP}^{S f}^undingⁱⁿ^F^Y²⁰⁰⁴⁾^the^a^g^eⁿ^c^y^a^c^t^ua^lly^r^ecei^{ves an}ⁱⁿ^{crease o}^fⁿ^earl^y¹¹^%^f^r^o^m^t^h^e
^FY^{2004 le}^v^e^l.
^c.^T^h^{e di}^rect^of^f^s^et^tⁱⁿ^g^of^F^P^S^f^undiⁿ^g^wⁱ^t^h^F^P^S^f^{ee col}^l^ectⁱ^oⁿ^sⁱⁿ^F^Y^{2005 i}^s^{a ch}^an^g^eⁱⁿ^t^h^e
^accouⁿ^tin^g^f^o^{r th}^{e f}^ees^{, an}^d^does^not^repres^en^{t a n}^e^w^f^ee.
^d^.^T^h^{e d}^ecr^ea^s^eⁱⁿ^Mar^itim^{e an}^d^L^aⁿ^d^Secu^r^ity^r^e^f^l^{ects a r}^e^o^r^g^aⁿⁱ^zatioⁿ^o^f^g^r^an^{ts (}^p^rⁱ^m^a^r^ily^p^o^r^t
^s^ecu^ri^t^y^g^r^an^t^s^{) t}^h^at^{, pu}^rs^u^aⁿ^t^t^o^t^h^{e S}^ecr^e^t^a^r^y^’^s^J^aⁿ^.^{26, 2004 reorg}^aⁿⁱ^zatⁱ^oⁿ^propos^al^{, w}^e^re
^m^o^v^e^{d f}^r^om^T^S^A^{to th}^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^Dom^e^s^{tic P}^r^eparedn^e^s^s^.
Customs and Border Protection
Border security functional responsibilities are at their most vivid at the point at
which goods or people are expected to cross borders. CBP has responsibility for
security at and between ports-of-entry along the border. These responsibilities
include inspecting people and goods to determine that they are authorized entry, and
maintaining border crossing stations to process persons seeking entry to the U.S. The
inspection and border-related functions of the Customs Service; the border security
functions of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service; the Border Patrol;
and the inspection functions of the APHIS program are consolidated under the CBP.
FY2005 CBP Request. The President’s budget requested a total of $5,122
million in direct appropriations for CBP, representing a 4.6% increase over the
enacted FY2004 level. CBP also receives funding from a set of user fees (transferred
from legacy Customs and INS agencies), as well as funding from APHIS user fees,
which are transferred from USDA to DHS. Table 6 provides account-level detail for
CBP. H.Rept. 108-541 would have provided a direct appropriation of $5,154
million, and Senate-passed H.R. 4567 would have provided $5,158 million. P.L.
108-334 provides a net appropriation of $5,270 million for CBP, including a
rescission of $63 million in funding previously appropriated by P.L. 108-11. This
amount also includes nearly $390 million in funding for the Office of Air and Marine
Interdiction which was transferred by DHS to CBP from ICE.

Table 4. CBP Account Detail
($ millions)
^FY²⁰⁰⁴^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^CB^{P Acco}^unt^enacted^request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Co^nf.
^S^a^l^a^ri^es^an^{d Ex}^pen^s^es^4,370^4,580^4,612^4,616^4,534
^{— r}^e^sc^issioⁿ^fr^o^m^S&E^—^—^—^—^-6³
^Aⁱ^{r an}^{d Marin}^e^Operation^s^a^{— —}^—^—²⁵⁸
^A^u^t^o^m^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Modernⁱ^zatⁱ^oⁿ⁴³⁹⁴⁵⁰⁴⁵⁰⁴⁵⁰⁴⁵⁰
^Coⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ⁹⁰⁹²⁹²⁹²⁹²
^T^o^{tal Direct Ap}^p^r^op^riation^s^4,899^5,122^5,154^5,158^b^5,270
^Of^f^s^ettin^g^{Fee R}^eceipts¹^,044^1,101^1,101^1,074^1,079
^T^o^tal^Bu^d^g^{et A}^u^th^ori^t^y⁵^,943^6,222^6,254^6,232^6,349
^S^o^u^rce:^P^.^L^.^108-^{334, H}^.^R^e^{pt. 108-}^{541 to H}^.^R^.⁴⁵⁶⁷^pa^s^s^e^d^by^the^H^ous^e^J^une^{18, 2004; S.R}^e^{pt. 108-}^{280 to}
^{S. 2537 r}^e^por^te^{d by}^the^Se^na^te^J^une^{17, 2004.}
^No^te:^FY^{2004 a}^m^ounts^r^e^f^l^e^c^t^the^0.59%^a^c^r^os^s^-^the^-^boa^r^d^r^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^{on e}ⁿ^a^c^t^e^d^by^P^.^L^.^108-^{199. R}^ounding^m^a^y
^a^f^f^e^c^t^tota^ls^{. A}^m^ounts^{in pa}^r^e^nthe^s^e^s^a^r^e^{not a}^dde^{d to the}^tota^l.
^a.^T^h^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^Aⁱ^{r an}^d^M^a^riⁿ^e^Op^eratⁱ^oⁿ^s^w^a^{s t}^r^an^sf^erred^f^r^o^m^ICE^t^o^CBP^b^y^DHS^;^t^h^{e co}ⁿ^f^eren^{ce rep}^o^r^t
^tota^{ls re}^f^l^e^c^t^{this tra}ⁿ^sf^e^r^.
^{b. I}ⁿ^c^l^ude^s^{$50 f}^o^r^r^a^dia^{tion det}^ectⁱ^{on te}^c^hnolog^y^a^dopte^d^{in S. A}^M^D^T^{. 3618 dur}^ing^Se^na^te^f^l^oor^de^ba^te^on
^H^.^R^.^4567.
As with the FY2004 appropriation, the CBP funding is provided through three
accounts: Salaries and Expenses; Automation Modernization; and Construction. The
bulk of CBP’s funding is provided through the Salaries and Expenses account. The
President’s budget request includes the following initiatives (increases over base
resources) for FY2005 which are fully funded by P.L. 108-334:
^!$25 million (49 Full-Time Equivalents³ or FTE) to expand the
Container Security Initiative (CSI), deploy additional CSI teams at
Phase I and II ports, and further implement CSI at Phase III ports;
^!$15 million (60 FTE) to expand the Customs-Trade Partnership
Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) program, and hire additional C-TPAT
supply chain security officers specialists to conduct enrollment and
validations;
^!$50 million for radiation detection and non-intrusive inspection
technology, including the purchase of 165 radiation portal monitors,
206 radiation isotope identifier devices, and 1,016 personal radiation
detectors (PRDs)( H.R. 4567 provides an additional $50 million
above the request);
^!$21 (18 FTE) million to enhance targeting systems used to identify
high risk people and goods entering the country for inspection;

³ Civilian employment in the executive branch is measured in terms of full-time equivalents
(FTE). One FTE is equal to one work year or 2,080 non-overtime hours. For example, one
full-time employee equals one FTE, and two half-time employees equal one FTE.

^!$64 million to expand the Integrated Surveillance and Information
System (ISIS), a networked system of remote video cameras and
sensors used to patrol the northern and southern borders.
^!$10 million for the purchase of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (funded
by S.Rept. 108-280 under ICE).
Table 5 provides selected sub-account level detail for CBP activities in the
Salaries and Expenses account. P.L. 108-334 provides an additional $30 million
above the request for radiation detection equipment, (H.Rept. 108-541, and the
Senate-passed H.R. 4567 had recommended an additional $50 million above the
request for radiation detection equipment), an additional $2 million for the
Immigration Security Initiative (H.Rept 108-541 had recommended an additional $3⁴
million), and an additional $1 million to monitor ‘in-bond’ cargo containers
(recommended by H.Rept. 108-541). The conference also transfers $23 million in
training funds to reflect the transfer of the Charleston Training Center to FLETC
(recommended by both the House and Senate). Both the House and Senate
Committees indicate that they fully fund the request for C-TPAT and Free and Secure
Trade (FAST) programs. As Table 5 illustrates however, there is a $4 million
difference between the amounts provided by the House and the Senate. This is
apparently a discrepancy in the amounts reported as requested by each.

⁴ The term ‘in-bond’ is used to describe cargo shipments that are either destined for deposit
in a bonded warehouse, or that are transiting the U.S. en route to another country, and which
are provisionally entered into the U.S. under a customs bond. Duties and tariffs are not due
on in-bond shipments until the time the merchandise leaves the bonded warehouse and
enters the commerce of the U.S. Brokers or importers take out customs bonds to cover the
potential duties and taxes on the shipments while the shipment is warehoused.

Table 5. CBP Selected Sub-Account Level Detail
($ millions)
^FY²⁰⁰⁴^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^Acti^vi^ty^enacted^request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Co^nf.
^H^e^a^dqua^rt^{ers M}^a^na^g^e^m^e^nt^aⁿ^d
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rati^on^1,365^1,347^1,366^1,262^1,173
^A^t^Ports^{of E}ⁿ^try:
^{— I}ⁿ^sp^ectioⁿ^,^tr^ad^{e an}^d^tr^av^{el f}^acilitatioⁿ¹^,2⁴⁰¹^,²⁵⁶¹^,²⁴³¹^,³⁰⁶¹^,²⁴³
^{— Harbor Main}^ten^aⁿ^{ce Fee}³³³³³
^{— Co}ⁿ^t^ain^e^r^Secu^r^ity^Iⁿ^itiativ^e⁶¹¹²⁶¹²⁶¹²⁶¹²⁶
^—^O^t^h^e^{r In}^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Prog^ram^s⁵⁶⁵⁸⁵⁸⁵⁸⁵⁷
^—^C^-^T^P^A^T^{, F}^A^S^T¹⁸⁴²³⁸⁴²³⁸
^{— I}ⁿ^sp^ectioⁿ^an^d^d^e^tectioⁿ^techⁿ^o^lo^g^y
ⁱⁿ^v^e^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^s¹⁴⁰¹¹⁵¹⁶⁵¹⁶⁵¹⁴⁵
^{— Sy}^ste^m^{s fo}^r^T^a^r^g^e^ting¹²³⁰³⁰³⁰³⁰
^{— Natio}ⁿ^a^{l T}^a^r^g^etin^g^Cen^t^er^a¹⁶¹⁹¹⁶¹⁹¹⁶
^—^O^t^he^r^t^e^c^hno^l^o^gyⁱ^nve^st^m^e^nt^—^—¹^—¹
^—^T^r^aiⁿⁱⁿ^g¹⁸¹⁸¹⁹²³²³
^Subt^o^t^a^l^At^P^o^rt^{s o}^f^Ent^r^y¹^,5⁶⁵¹^,⁶⁶⁷¹^,⁶⁹⁹¹^,⁷⁷²¹^,⁶⁸³
^B^e^tw^{een Ports}^{of E}ⁿ^try:
^—^{Border s}^ecu^ri^t^y^an^{d con}^t^rol¹^,339^1,414^1,414^1,464^1,414
^—^Aⁱ^{r prog}^ram^operatⁱ^oⁿ^s^an^d
^m^aⁱⁿ^ten^aⁿ^c^e³⁷³⁷³⁷³⁷³⁷
^{— Un}^m^aⁿⁿ^e^{d A}^e^{rial Veh}ⁱ^cles^—¹⁰¹⁰^—^b¹⁰
^{— I}ⁿ^teg^r^ated^su^r^v^eillan^{ce an}^dⁱⁿ^tellig^en^ce
^s^y^s^t^em²⁴⁶⁴⁶⁴⁶⁴⁶⁴
^—^T^r^aiⁿⁱⁿ^g⁴¹⁴¹²²¹⁸²²
^Subt^o^t^a^l^B^e^t^w^{een P}^o^rt^{s o}^f^Ent^r^y¹^,4⁴¹¹^,⁵⁶⁶¹^,⁵⁴⁷¹^,⁵⁸³¹^,⁵⁴⁷
^Aⁱ^{r an}^d^Marin^e^Op^eratioⁿ^s^S&^E^—^—^—^—¹³¹
^T^o^tal^C^B^{P S}^a^l^a^ri^es^an^d^E^x^p^eⁿ^s^es^4,370^4,580^4,612^4,616^c^4,534
^S^o^u^rce:^P^.^L^.^108-^{334, H}^.^R^e^{pt. 108-}^{541 to H}^.^R^.^{4567 pa}^s^s^e^d^by^the^H^ous^e^J^une^{18, 2004; S.R}^e^{pt. 108-}^{280 to}
^{S. 2537 r}^e^por^te^{d by}^the^Se^na^te^J^une^{17, 2004 a}^{nd H}^.^R^.^{4567 pa}^s^s^e^{d by}^the^Se^na^te^{on Se}^pte^m^be^r^{14, 2004.}
^No^te:^FY^{2004 a}^m^ounts^r^e^f^l^e^c^t^the^0.59%^a^c^r^os^s^-^the^-^boa^r^d^r^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^{on e}ⁿ^a^c^t^e^d^by^P^.^L^.^108-^{199. R}^ounding^m^a^y
^a^f^f^e^c^t^tota^ls^{. A}^m^ounts^{in pa}^r^e^nthe^s^e^s^a^r^e^{not a}^dde^{d to the}^tota^l.
^a.^Bo^t^h^t^h^{e Ho}^u^s^{e an}^d^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^rep^o^r^t^sⁱⁿ^dⁱ^cat^ed^t^h^at^each^hous^e^ha^s^f^u^lly^f^unde^{d the}^A^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^tion’^s^r^e^que^s^t
^f^o^r^the^N^a^tiona^{l T}^a^r^g^e^ting^C^e^nte^r^a^{nd the}^v^a^rⁱ^ous^ta^r^g^e^ting^m^odule^s^of^the^A^u^tom^a^te^d^T^a^r^g^e^ting^Sy^s^t^e^m^.
^T^h^e^dis^c^r^e^pa^nc^y^e^v^ideⁿ^c^e^d^{in the}^ta^ble^a^ppe^a^r^s^{to be}^a^dis^c^r^e^pa^nc^y^be^tw^e^eⁿ^the^a^m^ount^sⁱⁿ^dⁱ^cat^ed^as
^re^que^s^t^ed^—^t^h^{e H}^ous^e^indic^a^t^e^s^tha^t^the^re^que^s^t^w^a^s^f^o^{r $16 m}^{illion; w}^h^ile^the^Se^na^te^indic^a^t^e^s^the
^re^que^s^t^w^a^s^f^o^{r $19 m}^illion.
^b^.^T^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^p^l^aced^f^unding^f^o^r^the^U^A^{V pr}^og^r^a^m^w^{ithin the}^a^m^{ount r}^e^c^o^m^m^e^nde^{d in the}^“^A^ir^a^{nd Ma}^rⁱ^ne
^Iⁿ^te^r^d^ic^{tion, O}^p^e^r^a^{tion, Ma}^inte^na^nc^e^,^a^{nd P}^r^oc^ur^e^m^eⁿ^t”^a^c^c^ount^wⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^I^C^{E (}^f^unde^{d unde}^r^C^B^P^by
^Coⁿ^f^eren^{ce as t}^h^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^Aⁱ^{r an}^d^M^a^riⁿ^e^In^t^e^rdⁱ^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^h^a^{s b}^een^t^r^an^sf^erred^t^o^CBP^f^r^o^m^ICE⁾^.
^c^.^T^h^e^Se^na^te^a^dopte^d^S.A^m^{dt. 3611 dur}^ing^f^l^oor^de^ba^te^on^H^.^R^.⁴⁵⁶⁷^w^h^ic^{h r}^e^duc^e^d^tota^{l C}^B^P^Sa^la^rⁱ^e^s^aⁿ^d
^Ex^p^eⁿ^s^{es b}^y^$¹^m^illioⁿ^;^h^o^w^ev^{er th}^{e am}^en^d^m^en^{t d}^o^e^{s n}^o^t^sp^ecif^y^{a su}^b^-^acc^ount.

CBP Issues for Congress. Both the House and Senate reports indicate
several areas of congressional concern. These issues have been generally grouped
according to whether or not the issue occurs at ports of entry; or between ports of
entry.
Staffing. Staffing of the primary border agency continues to be of concern to
Congress. The House report while indicating its support for the unified approach to
staffing, the ‘one face at the border initiative,’ directs CBP to submit a detailed
staffing plan no later than 90 days after enactment. The plan should include actual
on-board personnel for FY2004; projected staffing for FY2005; positions funded
through direct appropriations; positions funded through fee collections; and staffing
by position at each port of entry, Border Patrol station, or other border area location.
In the conference report to H.R. 4567 (H.Rept. 108-774), the conferees note that CBP
has not submitted the staffing report due December 1, 2003. The conferees require
CBP to submit that plan immediately, and to submit an updated plan no later than 90
days after enactment. H.Rept. 108-774 essentially adopts the language used in
H.Rept. 108-541 (noted above) regarding the required details of the updated report.
Biometric Screening Database Integration. Both the House and Senate
Committee reports highlight and offer support for the current project underway to
integrate CBP’s Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (IAFIS). The USBP uses IDENT to identify and track illegal
aliens. IDENT combines a digital photograph, two flat fingerprints, and biographical
data into two databases which can be used to track repeat entrants and better identify
criminal aliens. The FBI’s IAFIS is an automated 10 rolled fingerprint matching
system linked to a database that holds over 40 million records, including wanted
persons, stolen vehicles, deported felons, gang members, and terrorists.⁵ Integration
of the two systems is widely regarded as a vital component of tightening border
security, as it would allow CBP inspectors and USBP agents to access the FBI’s
criminal database in order to establish whether apprehended aliens have outstanding
warrants or criminal histories. However, integration has proved difficult for various
technical and organizational reasons. The House Committee notes that DHS had
testified that the integrated systems would be deployed by the end of calendar year
2004, but that the Committee understands that this deployment will only apply to air
and sea ports and the largest USBP stations and points of entry. The House report
expresses concern about the slow pace of the integration project, noting this delay
leaves a security gap along the border which allows individuals with criminal records
to pass through undetected. The House Committee directs DHS to fully fund its cost
for the integration project, and directs the Undersecretary for Border and
Transportation Security to submit a report by January 1, 2005 on the status of the
integration project. The report should include the extent of data sharing between
IDENT and IAFIS, the combined data’s real-time accessibility, and what technical
and policy issues are involved with allowing State and local law enforcement
officials to access the IDENT system. The Senate Committee report notes that it is

⁵ U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, The Rafael Resendez-Ramirez
Case: A Review of the INS’s Actions and the Operation of Its IDENT Automated Fingerprint
Identification System, USDOJ/OIG Special Report, Mar. 2000, Appendix B.

essential that the FBI, State and local law enforcement officers have the ability to
retrieve information from the IDENT/US-VISIT⁶ database. The Senate Committee
directs DHS to submit a plan by February 8, 2005 that details the specific steps that
are needed to fully integrate the US-VISIT program and the IAFIS database,
including sources and funds needed and a timetable for full integration.
The conference report, H.Rept. 108-774, generally echoes the concerns
expressed in both the House and Senate Committee reports. The conferees adopt
reporting requirements from both committee reports: requiring DHS to fund the full
cost of achieving real time interoperability between the two systems using the US-
VISIT appropriation; directing the Under Secretary of BTS to report within 90 days
of enactment on the status of the integration effort including steps that will be taken
to integrate IAFIS into IDENT, needed funding, and a timetable for full integration.
CBP Issues for Congress — At Ports of Entry. CBP activities at ports
of entry include all screening and processing activities involved in entering people
and goods into the country.
Cargo and Container Security. Cargo and container security remains an
issue of concern. Both the House and Senate indicate their support for C-TPAT, and
the Container Security Initiative (CSI). C-TPAT is a public-private partnership
aimed at securing the supply chain from point of origin through entry into the U.S.
CSI is a CBP program stationing CBP officers in foreign sea ports to target and
inspect marine containers before they are loaded onto U.S.-bound vessels. The
House requests a report from CBP detailing the implementation plan for CSI, and
encourages CBP to develop an integrated network including “all relevant route,
inspection, shipment, and intrusion data.” The Government Accountability Office
(GAO) recently published a report concerning both the CSI and C-TPAT programs.
GAO credited CBP for quickly rolling out the two programs but noted that CBP
needs to develop: systematic human capital plans; performance measures for
accountability and program achievement; and a long-term strategic plan to
successfully manage the two programs.⁷
The Senate report notes that Congress has provided more than $200 million for
a variety of programs designed to enhance the security of shipments of containerized
goods from point of lading to point of destination in the United States. S.Rept. 108-
280 directs the Under Secretary of BTS to submit a report by February 8, 2005
detailing: the steps DHS has taken to enhance container security; the resources DHS
has expended in prior fiscal years and necessary future resources to maintain this
security; results of ongoing container security projects such as Operation Safe
Commerce, CSI, and C-TPAT; and which BTS entity has primary responsibility for
implementing cargo container security measures, and what steps this entity will take
to implement future cargo security standards, policies, procedures, or regulations.
The conferees adopted this Senate report language in H.Rept. 108-774, and indicate

⁶ The US-VISIT system is based on the IDENT system.
⁷ U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Container Security: Expansion of Two
Key Programs will Require Greater Attention to Critical Success Factors, GAO-03-770,
July 2003, pp. 2-4.

that the report should also address the security of ‘in-bond’ shipments (which were
of concern for the House Committee, as noted below).
The House report indicated concern with the potential risks associated with ‘in-
bond’ shipments. The term “in-bond” is used to describe shipments which are being
provisionally admitted into the United States under CBP supervision without having
to immediately pay the duties associated with the shipment (the shipments are not
entered into the commerce of the United States). The shipment must be destined for
storage in a bonded warehouse or for transshipment. Duties on in-bond shipments
are collected when the merchandise is withdrawn from the bonded warehouse
(entered into the commerce of the United States). The importer or the broker must
put up a customs bond to cover the amount of duty that will eventually be due on the
shipment. The House report included $1 million to support the acquisition,
development, and testing of sensor and tracking technology to allow CBP to track in-
transit shipments from their port of entry in the United States to their final
destination.
Targeting and Risk Assessment. CBP uses a risk assessment tool, the
Automated Targeting System(ATS) to focus inspections on high-risk shipments. ATS
automatically sorts shipments according to risk based on specific weighted rule sets,
and assigns each shipment a risk score. The higher the score, the more attention a
shipment requires, and the greater the chance it will be targeted for inspection. As
noted above in note (a) to Table 5, both the House and Senate indicated full funding
for the National Targeting Center and the ATS; though there is an apparent
discrepancy as to how that requested amount is scored. While many observers note
the importance of developing sophisticated targeting mechanisms others have raised
concerns, including GAO which recently noted that while CBP’s targeting strategy
incorporated some elements of risk management, it lacked a comprehensive set of
criticality, vulnerability and risk assessments, and does not follow certain recognized
modeling practices.⁸ The House report notes these findings and directs CBP to report
to Congress no later than November 1, 2005, regarding its plan to respond to the
criticisms contained in the GAO report.
Inspections and Inspection Technology (NII). CBP uses a variety of
inspection technologies to assist inspectors in detecting and identifying suspicious
cargo. These technologies are referred to generally as non-intrusive inspection (NII)
technology, and include both gamma-ray (such as the Vehicle and Cargo Inspection
System), (VACIS) and x-ray systems, among others. CBP also uses radiation
detection devices both personal (PRDs) and large-scale radiation portal monitors
(RPMs). The conference report, H.Rept. 108-774, provides $145 million for
inspection and detection technology investments, of which $50 million is for
radiation detection technology, and up to an additional $30 million shall be available
for either radiation detection technology or NII. The House report had recommended
an additional $50 million above the request ($100 million total increase) for
additional detection and inspection equipment, noting the need for an additional

⁸ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: Preliminary Observations
on Efforts to Target Security Inspections of Cargo Containers, GAO-04-325T, Dec. 17,

2003.

1,000 RPMs, and that the request included funding for existing systems, but not for
replacement or acquisition of additional systems. The Senate initially provided $50
million for the “purchase and deployment of radiation detection equipment”⁹, but
during floor debate on H.R. 4567, adopted an amendment providing an additional
$50 million for radiation detection technology.
The House report also indicated its support for the Immigration Security
Initiative (ISI) and provided an additional $3 million above the request for the
program. The conferees provide an additional $2 million for ISI. The ISI is,
according to comments by CBP Commissioner Bonner, intended to be a CSI for
people. The program builds off the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service
program which stationed immigration control officers abroad, and will station small
teams of CBP officers at the world’s largest airports to target and intercept high-risk
and inadmissable travelers from continuing on to the United States. Like the CSI
program, ISI officers will have no legal authority in host countries, but will work in
an advisory capacity with host country authorities.
Finally, the conferees note that DHS should work with the Department of
Defense to allow the New Mexico National Guard to continue preforming vehicle
and cargo inspections in support of CBP and ICE missions, and that CBP should
submit a report no later than March 1, 2005 on what actions are planned.
Commercial Entry and Trade Enforcement. Both the House and Senate
reports continue to express concern regarding CBP’s development and deployment
of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). Legacy Customs and now CBP
have been engaged in a long-term effort to develop a trade processing system to
replace the current Automated Commercial System (ACS) which GAO testimony has
characterized as “paper-intensive, error-prone, and transaction based, and out of step¹⁰
with just-in-time inventory practices of the trade community.” The House report
directs CBP to address the integration of CBP and ACE modernization with DHS
information systems; border security technologies; CSI; and the ATS; in the quarterly
reports sent to Congress. This House report language is adopted by the conferees in
H.Rept. 108-774. The Senate report also notes that funding for ACE is only available
upon the submission of a comprehensive expenditure plan that complies with various
capital planning and investment control requirements established by OMB; complies
with various acquisitions rules and requirements; is reviewed by GAO; and approved
by the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and the House.
CBP Issues — Between Points of Entry. Within CBP, the United States
Border Patrol (USBP) is the agency responsible for the enforcement of federal
immigration laws between points of entry. As currently comprised, the USBP’s
primary mission is to detect and prevent the entry of unauthorized aliens into the

⁹ U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2005 , report to accompany S. 2537, 108^th Cong., 2^nd sess., S.Rept. 108-

280, p. 18.

¹⁰ U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Customs Service: Observations on Selected
Operations and Program Issues, T-GGD/AIMD-00-150 (Washington, Apr. 20,2000), p. 6.

country, assist in the detection of possible terrorists, and interdict drug smugglers and
other criminals.
Integrated Surveillance Information Systems. Both reports also express
support for the expansion of the Integrated Surveillance Information System (ISIS),
a networked system of cameras and sensors used to patrol the borders. The House
report notes that it is aware that significant gaps exist in the integration of the remote
video surveillance systems and integrated computer assisted detection systems that
form ISIS’ base. The House report fully funds the request but believes that more
investment is necessary. The House Committee requests that CBP include a 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 and
technology standards within 90 days of the enactment of the Appropriations Act. The
Senate report requested that CBP submit a master plan for nationwide deployment
of the system by December 15, 2004. The master plan should include a breakout by
sector and installation type, plans for redundancies and digital records, an analysis
of the proper number of staff needed to operate the system, and a total cost estimate.
The conferees direct CBP to submit the five-year capital acquisition report and the
master plan for nationwide deployment with the FY2006 budget submission. The
conferees also direct the Under Secretary for BTS to report no later than February 8,

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

Further, the conferees direct the GAO to undertake a study of ISIS project
management and spending plans for ISIS investment and operations for FY2006-
FY2010.
Fleet Management. Both reports address USBP vehicle acquisition policy,
with the Senate report noting it is aware that CBP is conducting a comprehensive
review of its vehicle management plan. Nevertheless, the Senate Committee voices
concern that the USBP may be facing a vehicle procurement and management crisis
in the long term and strongly supports efforts to incorporate the U.S. Border Patrol
(USBP) fleet into the CBP fleet management plan. The Senate directs CBP to submit
a detailed vehicle management plan by February 8, 2005. The House report notes it
is aware that the USBP needs Severe Off-Road Vehicles, among other types of
vehicles, and requests a detailed report on the USBP vehicle acquisition and fleet
management plan so they can better understand the agency’s needs. The report must
be submitted within 90 days of enactment and should include the USBP 2004 fleet
baseline and planned investments, by vehicle type, for FY2005- FY2009. The
conferees in H.Rept. 108-774, direct CBP to submit a detailed report no later than
February 8, 2005 as specified by the House and Senate reports.
Arizona Border. The House report voices concern over the continued high
level of illegal immigration within the USBP’s Tucson sector and strongly supports
the Arizona Border Control (ABC) initiative, an administrative initiative aimed at
concentrating more USBP resources along the Arizona border. However, the
committee expresses disappointment at the apparent lack of progress in ABC’s
implementation. The committee believes ABC will reduce the Arizona border’s
vulnerability, stop the violence associated with human traffickers, limit the cost and
danger to area residents, and ameliorate the risk of serious injury or loss of life faced
by aliens due the inhospitable terrain. In addition, the House Committee report
requires CBP to conduct a study of locations for permanent checkpoints within the

Tucson sector. Additionally, the committee includes restrictions that tactical
checkpoints must be relocated at least an average of once every 14 days, and that
funds may not be used for the construction of permanent checkpoints in the Tucson
Sector. Lastly, the House Committee directs CBP to submit a detailed staffing plan
that includes staffing by position at each port of entry, USBP station, or other border
location. The committee has also funded additional Northern Border staff, bringing
USBP staff levels there to those authorized in the USA PATRIOT Act.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the U.S.,
as well as investigations into such activities as fraud, forced labor, trade agreement
noncompliance, smuggling and illegal transshipment of people and goods, and
vehicle and cargo theft. In addition, this bureau oversees the building security
activities of the Federal Protective Service, formerly of the General Services
Administration; the operations of the Air and Marine Operations unit; and the Federal
Air Marshals Service (FAMS) transferred to ICE from TSA in August of 2003. The
Office of Air and Marine Interdiction was transferred to CBP, and therefore the totals
for ICE do not include Air and Marine Interdiction funding, which is included under
CBP.
The bureau combined the investigations and intelligence functions of the U.S.
Customs Service and the former INS, the air and marine interdiction functions of
those agencies, and the immigration detention and removal programs, as well as the
operations of the Federal Protective Service. ICE conducts investigations to develop
intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the United States, and is responsible for
locating and removing illegal aliens by inspecting places of employment for
undocumented workers. ICE is responsible for identifying and finding persons who
have overstayed their visas, and the Bureau also develops intelligence to combat
terrorist financing and money laundering, and to enforce export laws against
smuggling and fraud.
FY2005 Request. The President’s budget requested $3,499 million in direct
appropriations for ICE. The ICE budget is composed of several activities broken out
into several accounts. ICE budget accounts include Salaries and Expenses; Federal
Air Marshal Service (FAMS); Federal Protective Service (FPS); Air and Marine
Operations (AMO); Automation Modernization; and Construction. The Salaries and
Expenses includes funding for the following activities: Investigations/Intelligence;
Detention and Removal; and AMO. Table 6 presents the ICE request by account.
In addition to discretionary funding, ICE also receives funding from the following
offsetting fee receipt accounts: Breached Bond Detention Fund; User Fee account;¹¹
and the Student Exchange and Visitor Program (SEVIS). The President’s budget
requests funding increases for several program initiatives. The Administration
requested a total of $3,307 million for ICE in FY2005, representing a nearly 11%
increase over the FY2004 enacted level. H.Rept. 108-541 recommended $3,363
million, while the Senate passed H.R. 4567 recommended $3,760 million for ICE.
During floor debate, the Senate adopted amendments 3616, 3618, and 3578 which

¹¹ The funding from these accounts is not included in Table 7.

would have increased ICE appropriations by $350 million over S.Rept. 108-280,
including $200 million for Air and Marine Operations, $50 million for additional ICE
investigators, $50 million for Detention and Removal, and $50 million for the
Federal Air Marshals. P.L. 108-334 provides $3,167 million for ICE, however, this
amount does not include amounts provided for AMO which, as noted earlier, has
been transferred to CBP.
Table 6. ICE Account Detail
($ millions)
^I^C^E^Account^FY²⁰⁰⁴^enacted^FY²⁰⁰⁵^request^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Hou^s^e^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Co^nf.
^S^a^l^a^ri^es^an^{d Ex}^pen^s^es^2,138^2,371^2,377^2,513^2,438
^Re^sc^issioⁿ^a^(-⁵⁴⁾^{— — —}^—
^Fed^e^r^a^{l P}^r^o^t^ectiv^{e Ser}^v^ice^b⁴²⁴⁴⁷⁸⁴⁷⁸⁴⁷⁸⁴⁷⁸
^of^f^s^ettin^g^f^{ee receipts}^—^(-⁴⁷⁸⁾^(-⁴⁷⁸⁾^(-⁴⁷⁸⁾^(-⁴⁷⁸⁾
^F^e^deral^Aⁱ^{r Mars}^h^a^l^s^c⁶²³⁶¹³⁶⁶³⁷¹³⁶⁶³
^A^u^to^m^a^tioⁿ^Mo^d^e^rⁿ^izatioⁿ⁴⁰⁴⁰⁴⁰⁴⁰⁴⁰
^Aⁱ^{r an}^{d Mari}ⁿ^e^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^s²⁰⁹²⁵⁸²⁵⁸⁴⁶⁸^—^d
^C^oⁿ^s^t^r^u^c^tⁱ^o²⁷²⁶²⁶²⁶²⁶
^T^o^{tal Direct Appropriations}^3,407^3,307^3,363^3,760^3,167
^T^o^{tal Direct Appropriations}^2,983^3,307^3,363^3,760^3,167
^no^t^Including^F^P^S
^S^o^u^rce:^P^.^L^.^108-^{334, H}^.^R^e^{pt. 108-}^{541 to H}^.^R^.^{4567 pa}^s^s^e^{d by}^the^H^ous^e^J^une^{18, 2004;}^S.R^e^pt.^108-²⁸⁰^to
^{S. 2537 r}^e^por^te^{d by}^the^Se^na^te^J^une^{17, 2004.}
^No^te:^FY^{2004 a}^m^ounts^r^e^f^l^e^c^t^the^0.59%^a^c^r^os^s^-^the^-^boa^r^d^r^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^{on e}ⁿ^a^c^t^e^d^by^P^.^L^.^108-^{199. R}^ounding^m^a^y
^a^f^f^e^c^t^tota^ls^{. A}^m^ounts^{in pa}^r^e^nthe^s^e^s^a^r^e^{not a}^dde^{d to the}^tota^l.
^a^.^Re^s^c^is^sⁱ^{on of}^f^unds^a^ppropria^te^{d f}^o^{r O}^p^e^r^a^{tion L}ⁱ^be^rty^Shie^{ld a}^c^tiv^itie^s^w^h^ic^{h a}^r^e^{no long}^e^r^re^quire^d.
^{b. T}^houg^{h this}^ta^ble^indic^a^t^e^s^tha^t^the^FY^{2005 r}^e^que^s^t^r^e^pr^e^s^eⁿ^ts^a^2.9%^de^c^r^e^a^s^e^f^r^om^FY^2004,^this^is^due^to
^a^ch^an^geⁱⁿ^acco^uⁿ^tⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r^t^h^e^f^ee^recei^p^t^{s u}^s^ed^t^o^o^f^f^s^et^t^h^{e exp}^eⁿ^s^{es o}^f^F^P^S^.^If^t^h^e^F^Y^{2005 of}^f^s^e^t^s^a^r^e
^a^pplie^{d c}^ons^is^te^{nt w}^{ith FY}^{2004, I}^C^E^a^c^t^ua^lly^r^ecei^ves^anⁱⁿ^crease^o^fⁿ^earl^y¹¹^%^f^r^o^m^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2004 le}^v^e^l
^a^s^se^eⁿ^{in the}^la^{st line}^of^the^ta^ble^.
^c^.^T^h^e^Fe^de^r^a^{l A}ⁱ^r^Ma^r^s^ha^ls^w^e^r^e^tr^aⁿ^s^f^e^r^r^e^{d to I}^C^{E f}^r^om^T^S^A^{in Se}^pte^m^be^r^of^2003.
^{d. T}^h^e^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^of^Aⁱ^r^a^nd^Ma^rⁱ^ne^Iⁿ^te^r^d^ic^tion⁽^A^MO⁾^w^a^s^tr^aⁿ^s^f^e^r^r^e^d^f^r^om^I^C^E^to^C^B^P^{, P}^.^L^.^108-^{334 a}^{nd the}
^c^onf^e^r^eⁿ^c^e^r^e^por^{t (}^H^.R^e^p^{t. 108-}⁷⁷⁴⁾^r^e^f^l^e^c^t^this^tr^aⁿ^s^f^e^r^.
The Administration requested $78 million (355 FTE) over base resources for the
following Investigations program initiatives:
^!$16 million (65 FTE) for compliance teams to analyze data
generated from the Student Exchange and Visitor Information
System (SEVIS) and US-VISIT (fully funded by P.L. 108-334, and
the House and Senate reports);
^!$14 million (90 FTE) for International Affairs of which $10 million
is to support the new Visa Security Unit, and the remaining $4
million is requested to replace funding previously provided through
the Examination Fee Account (fully funded by P.L. 108-334, and the
House and Senate reports);

^!$25 million to support benefit fraud operations, requested to replace
funding previously provided by the Examination Fee Account (fully
funded by P.L. 108-334, but not funded by the Senate); and
^!$23 million for worksite enforcement (funded at $5 million by P.L.
108-334, funded by the House at $15.6 million, and not funded by
the Senate report).
The Administration requested, and P.L. 108-334 fully funds, $108.2 million (342
FTE) over base resources for the following Detention and Removal program
initiatives:
^!$30 million (140 FTE) to expand the Institutional Removal Program
nationally to all Federal, State, and local institutions housing
criminal aliens;
^!$50 million (118 FTE) to continue implementation of the National
Fugitive Operations Program (NFOP) which seeks to reduce the
fugitive alien population over the next six years;
^!$11 million (30 FTE) to establish alternatives to detention that
include additional non-traditional family and female-friendly
detention settings and establish community supervision operations
(the House report provides an additional $5 million above the
request which was not funded by P.L. 108-334);
^!$6 million (40 FTE) for the Legal Program to eliminate the backlog
of matters pending in the Immigration Court;
^!$6.2 million to fund DHS’s efforts to interdict illegal alien migrants
in the Caribbean region; and
^!$5 million (14FTE) for additional detention bed space (P.L. 108-334
provides an additional $16.5 million above the House and Senate
recommendations for a total of $20.5 million above the request)(the
House and Senate reports both recommended an additional $5
million above the request).
The Administration requested, and P.L. 108-334 fully funds, $40.5 million for the
following AMO program initiatives that have been transferred to CBP:
^!$28 million to increase the number of P-3 flight hours from 200 to
600 hours per month, (the P-3 aircraft are used in interdiction
operations to provide radar coverage in areas where ground-based
radar have limited effectiveness);
^!$12.5 million for long range radar to support drug interdiction
efforts along the southern border.
Table 7 provides a breakout of the activities in ICE.

Table 7. ICE Selected Sub-Account Level Detail
($ millions)
^Acti^vi^ty^FY²⁰⁰⁴^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^Sa^la^{ries a}^{nd Expenses}^enacted^request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Co^nf.
^H^Q^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ¹⁵⁰¹⁶⁶¹⁶⁶¹⁷⁶²¹⁶
^In^v^e^s^tⁱ^g^atⁱ^oⁿ^s⁸⁶¹⁹⁶³⁹⁴²^1,030^1,071
^Iⁿ^tellig^en^ce⁵⁵⁵⁶⁵⁶⁶⁰⁶⁰
^D^e^t^eⁿ^tⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d R}^e^m^o^v^a^l^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^s⁹⁵⁹^1,070^1,080^1,125^1,091
^Aⁱ^r^aⁿ^d^M^a^rⁱ^ne^O^p^e^r^a^tⁱ^o^ns,^P^e^r^s^o^nne^l¹¹⁴¹¹⁶¹³³¹²³^—^a
^Co^m^p^en^satioⁿ^,^an^d^B^eⁿ^e^f^its
^T^o^tal^I^C^E^S^a^l^a^ri^es^an^d^E^x^p^eⁿ^s^es^2,138^2,371^2,377^2,513^2,438
^S^o^u^rce:^P^.^L^.^108-^{334, H}^.^R^e^{pt. 108-}^{541 to H}^.^R^.⁴⁵⁶⁷^pa^s^s^e^d^by^the^H^ous^e^J^une^{18, 2004; S.R}^e^{pt. 108-}^{280 to}
^{S. 2537 r}^e^por^te^{d by}^the^Se^na^te^J^une^{17, 2004.}
^No^te:^FY^{2004 a}^m^ounts^r^e^f^l^e^c^t^the^0.59%^a^c^r^os^s^-^the^-^boa^r^d^r^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^{on e}ⁿ^a^c^t^e^d^by^P^.^L^.^108-^{199. R}^ounding^m^a^y
^a^f^f^e^c^t^tota^ls^{. A}^m^ounts^{in pa}^r^e^nthe^s^e^s^a^r^e^{not a}^dde^{d to the}^tota^l.
^a^.^T^h^e^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^o^f^Aⁱ^r^aⁿ^d^M^a^rⁱⁿ^e^Iⁿ^t^e^r^dⁱ^c^tⁱ^oⁿ⁽^A^M^O⁾^w^a^s^t^r^aⁿ^s^f^e^r^r^e^d^f^r^o^m^I^C^E^t^o^C^B^P^,^P^.^L^.^108-^{334 a}^{nd the}
^c^onf^e^r^eⁿ^c^e^r^e^por^{t (}^H^.R^e^p^{t. 108-}⁷⁷⁴⁾^r^e^f^l^e^c^t^this^tr^aⁿ^s^f^e^r^.
ICE Issues for Congress.
Air and Marine Operations (AMO). There are several AMO issues
discussed in the House and Senate reports including the appropriate location of AMO
within BTS; possible mission overlap; resource allocation and utilization; and radar
coverage. Prior to the establishment of DHS, AMO was a part of the legacy Customs
Service and was called Air and Marine Interdiction. With the creation of CBP and
ICE, AMO became a stand alone unit within ICE. Both H.Rept. 108-541 and S.Rept.

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

AMO’s current mission includes “interdiction of smugglers and potential terrorists
crossing our borders, traffickers operating the source, transit and arrival zones of the
Western Hemisphere, providing airspace security for the nation’s capital and for
National Special Security Events (NSSEs), and providing support for investigative
and law enforcement operations.”¹² The House report discusses several options:
leaving AMO in ICE; “bringing AMO under the umbrella of the BTS Directorate and
aligning its operations with the border security and interdiction missions of CBP”¹³;
and moving AMO to become a standalone agency reporting directly to the Under
Secretary of BTS. Both the House and Senate committees indicate a desire to
identify potential areas of overlap between the air and marine operations of AMO in
ICE, the Border Patrol in CBP, and the Coast Guard. DHS and BTS are currently

¹² U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2005, report to accompany H.R. 4567, 108^th Cong., 2^nd sess., H.Rept.

108-541, p. 17.

¹³ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2005, report to accompany H.R. 4567, 108^th Cong., 2^nd sess., H.Rept.

108-541, p. 18.

undertaking a review of air and marine assets and operations in the department. Both
committees express keen interest in the findings of this review, and the Senate report
directs DHS to submit a report no later than February 15, 2005 detailing the findings
of the pending review.
AMO has been transferred from ICE to CBP. In H.Rept. 108-774, the conferees
strongly support the effort to rationalize air and marine assets and organization within
DHS. The conferees also reiterate concerns that BTS submit the AMO
modernization and capitalization plan, and direct AMO to include detailed multi-year
staffing plans in this report. Further, the conferees direct the Under Secretary of BTS
in coordination with the U.S. Interdiction Coordinator to submit a report no later than
February 15, 2004 on: (1) specific actions planned or taken to rationalize air and
marine efforts; (2) plans for modernizing air and marine assets including staffing
plans in the level of detail required in H.Rept. 108-541; (3) cost/benefit analysis of
retrofitting the existing P-3 fleet; and (4) the multiple air and marine missions of
CBP and their relation to the Coast Guard.
One of the radar systems utilized by AMO is the Tethered Aerostat Radar
System (TARS); a balloon-borne low altitude radar system that provides surveillance
coverage for homeland security, drug interdiction, and air defense missions. TARS
is currently managed by the Department of Defense. The House Committee notes no
realistic alternative to TARS will be available for the next decade. According to
AMO officials, at the height of the program, 14 TARS sites were operational.
H.Rept. 108-541 indicates that there are currently eight sites in operation. The report
also notes a discrepancy concerning the optimum number and location of TARS sites.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of BTS in coordination with DHS’ U.S.
Interdiction Coordinator to submit a joint report no later than 90 days after
enactment, detailing a threat analysis of the U.S. border including analyses of
attempted intrusions and similar threatening air and marine activity and relating this
activity to the current and proposed locations of TARS sites. Further, the report
should also outline the costs and benefits of maintaining current sites, re-opening or
commissioning new sites, and upgrading all sites with the most current surveillance
and monitoring equipment. Conferees in H.Rept. 108-774 echo the concern and
reporting detailed in H.Rept. 108-541.
Lastly, the Senate passed version of H.R. 4567 added $200 million for the
creation and maintenance of air bases in Michigan, Montana, New York, North
Dakota, and Washington, and would have authorized $5 million to fund a pilot
project to test interoperable communications between the first Northern Border Air
Wing and local law enforcement personnel.
Detention Issues. Many contend that DHS does not have enough detention¹⁴
space to house all those who should be detained. There are reportedly 300,000
noncitizens in the United States who have been ordered deported who have not left
the country. Some argue that these 300,000 people would have been forced to leave

¹⁴ For more information on the issues surrounding the detention of noncitizens in the United
States, see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention: Current Legislative
Issues, by Alison Siskin.

the country if they had been detained once they were ordered deported. A study done
by DOJ’s Inspector General found that almost 94% of those detained with final
orders of removal were deported while only 11% of those not detained who were
issued final orders of removals left the country.¹⁵ Concerns have been raised that
decisions on which aliens to release and when to release the aliens may be based on
the amount of detention space, not on the merits of individual cases, and that the
amount of space may vary by area of the country leading to the disparate application
of policies in different geographic areas.¹⁶
Likewise, the overall increase in the number of noncitizens in DHS detention
has raised questions about the cost of detaining noncitizens, and whether ICE is using
their resources in the most efficient manner. For FY2004, DHS budgeted $80 a day
for each detainee held in detention.¹⁷ This cost does not include transportation or the
cost of deporting the alien. Due to the cost of detaining aliens, and the fact that many
non-detained aliens with final orders of removal do not leave the country, there has
been interest in developing alternatives to detention for certain types of aliens who
do not require a secure detention setting.¹⁸
Examinations Fee and Staffing. There are still some issues which remain
due to the dismantling of the former INS into three bureaus within DHS. For
example, previously certain immigration enforcement activities were partially funded
by fees from the Examination Fee Account, which now goes to U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services. Some have questioned whether appropriated funds will be
enough to compensate for activities previously provided though this account. In
addition, due to the increased responsibilities of DHS for visa security overseas,
concerns have been raised over whether ICE’s overseas attache offices are adequately¹⁹

staffed.
¹⁵ Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice. The Immigration and
Naturalization Service’s Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders, Report I-2003-004, Feb.

2003.

¹⁶ The decision does not usually apply to aliens who are under mandatory detention. A high
priority detainee may be released to make space for a mandatory detainee. Nonetheless,
DHS does have explicit procedures for choosing between two mandatory detainees if there
is not enough bed space. Pearson, INS Detention Guidelines, p. 1116.
¹⁷ Unpublished DHS data obtained from Betty Mills-Carilli, Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement Office of Congressional Affairs, Department of Homeland Security,
Apr. 8, 2004.
¹⁸ On June 21, 2004, ICE began a pilot program for low-risk, non-violent offenders in eight
locations. The program, the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP), provides
less restrictive alternatives to detention, using such tools as electronic monitoring devices
(e.g., ankle bracelets), home visits, work visits, and reporting by telephone, to monitor aliens
who are out on bond while awaiting hearings during removal proceedings or the appeals
process. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
“Public Security: ICE Unveils New Alternative to Detention,” Inside ICE, vol. 1, no. 5, June
21, 2004. Available at
[ ht t p: / / www.i ce.gov/ gr aphi cs/ news/ newsr e l eases/ i nsi dei ce/ i nsi dei ce_062104_web3.ht m] .
¹⁹ The attache offices are responsible for conducting and coordinating ICE investigations
(continued...)

SEVIS. Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) is the
foreign student monitoring system through which DHS collects information on
foreign students. SEVIS provides the electronic means to monitor and verify
information pertaining to the foreign student including the alien’s identity and
address; documentation of the student’s acceptance by an approved school; issuance
of the student’s nonimmigrant visa; admission of the student to the U.S.; notice to the
school that the foreign student has been admitted into the United States; and notice
from the school that the alien has attended classes. In addition, schools have reported
technical difficulties operating SEVIS, and reported discrepancies between
information received from different bureaus in DHS regarding SEVIS operations and
requirements. Moreover, prior to the implementation of SEVIS it was difficult to
know when foreign students overstayed their visas. Through SEVIS, DHS should be
able to identify students who have violated the terms of their visas; however, some
question whether DHS has sufficient compliance teams to locate all student visa
violators, and whether it is an effective use of DHS resources to do so.
Transportation Security Administration²⁰
The TSA,²¹ created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA;
P.L. 107-71), was established to increase the protection of people and commerce as
they traveled into and through the United States.
FY2005 TSA Request. The Administration’s net FY2005 request for TSA
of $2,752 million represents a 9.7% increase over the enacted FY2004 level of
$2,508 million. According to TSA this increase does not include funding to expand²²
current programs, nor does it fund any new program initiatives. Instead, this
increase is comprised primarily of annualizations of prior year funding, and pay
inflation.
H.Rept. 108-541 recommended a net appropriation of $3,225 million for TSA.
While this appears to be a $473 million increase over the FY2005 request, and a 29%
increase over the enacted FY2004 level, H.Rept. 108-541 in fact provides increases
totaling $73 million. According to S.Rept. 108-280, the Administration budget
request included a $400 million increase in aviation security fees. However, neither
House nor Senate reports fund this request, instead they provide the $400 million in
appropriated funds. Table 8 reflects the amounts contained in H.Rept. 108-541 and
S.Rept. 108-280. S.Rept. 108-280 recommended a total appropriation of $3,337 for
TSA for FY2005. However, during floor debate for H.R. 4567, the Senate adopted

¹⁹ (...continued)
(including investigations of smuggling and trafficking) and supporting Detention and
Removal Operations (DRO).
²⁰ This section was prepared with the assistance of Bartholomew Elias.
²¹ For more detailed information, see CRS Report RL31308, Appropriations for FY2003:
Transportation and Related Agencies, coordinated by David Randall Petersen and John
Frittelli.
²² Department of Homeland Security, “Transportation Security Administration,” Department
of Homeland Security FY2005 Congressional Budget Justification, p. TSA-15.

amendment 3598 which added $75 million to TSA for baggage screening activities.
P.L. 108-334 provides a net appropriation of $3,260 million for TSA.
Table 8. TSA Account Detail
($ millions)
TSA ActivityFY2004enactedFY2005requestFY2005HouseFY2005SenateFY2005Conf.
Aviation Security3,7244,2384,2714,4614,324
Maritime & Land Security^a26129654448
Credentialing Activities — 67656767
Intelligence 14 14 14 14 14
Research and Development154154174181178
Admi nistration 425 540 525 535 520
Aviation Security Capital — (250)(250)(250)(250)
Fund
Subtotal TSA4,5785,0425,1145,3025,151
Offsetting Fee Collections
— Aviation Security Fees-2,070-2,223-1,823-1,823-1823
— Credentialing Fees — -67-67-67-67
Total TSA2,5082,7523,2253,4123,260
^Source:^P^.^L.^108-^{334, H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 108-}^{541 t}^o^H^.^R^.^{4567 pas}^s^e^{d by}^t^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e Ju}ⁿ^e^{18, 2004;}^S^.^R^e^pt^.
^108-^{280 t}^o^S^.^{2537 report}^e^{d by}^t^h^e^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^Juⁿ^e^{17, 2004, an}^{d S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^pas^s^e^{d H}^.^R^.^{4567 on}^S^e^pt^em^ber
^{14, 2004.}
^Note:^F^Y^{2004 am}^ouⁿ^t^s^ref^l^ect^t^h^{e 0.59%}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board r}^e^scⁱ^ssi^on^en^act^{ed by}^P.L^.^108-^199.
^Ro^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^m^a^y^af^f^{ect to}^{tals. A}^m^o^uⁿ^t^{s in}^p^a^r^eⁿ^t^h^e^{ses ar}^{e n}^o^{t ad}^d^e^d^to^th^{e to}^tal.
^a.^T^h^e^ap^p^a^r^eⁿ^t^d^ecr^easeⁱⁿ^Mar^itim^e^an^d^L^aⁿ^d^Secu^r^ity^r^e^f^l^{ects a r}^e^o^r^g^aⁿⁱ^zatioⁿ^o^f^g^r^an^{ts (}^p^rⁱ^m^a^r^ily
^port^s^ecu^ri^t^y^g^r^an^t^s^{) t}^h^at^{, pu}^rs^u^aⁿ^t^t^o^t^h^{e S}^ecret^ary^of^D^H^S^’^Jan^u^a^ry^26,²⁰⁰⁴^propos^al^{, w}^e^re
^m^o^v^e^{d f}^r^om^T^S^A^t^o^t^h^{e O}^S^L^G^C^P^.
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 Level Detail
($ millions)
^Acti^vi^ty^FY²⁰⁰⁴^enacted^FY²⁰⁰⁵^request^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Hou^s^e^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Co^nf.
^{Aviation Security}
^—^Pas^s^eⁿ^g^e^{r S}^c^reenⁱⁿ^g¹^,802^2,027^2,017^2,077^2,049
^—^Bag^g^a^g^e^S^c^reenⁱⁿ^g¹^,316^1,378^1,407^1,513^1,452
^—^Aⁱ^rport^S^ecu^ri^t^y⁷⁰²⁸³⁴⁸⁴⁷⁸⁷²⁸²²
^{— Use o}^f^P^r^io^{r Year B}^a^lan^ces^-⁹⁵^—^—^—^—
^T^o^tal^T^S^A^A^vⁱ^a^ti^on^S^ecu^ri^ty^3,724^4,238^4,720^4,461^4,324
^Source:^P.L^.^108-^{334, H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 108-}^{541 t}^o^H^.^R^.^{4567 pas}^s^e^d^b^y^t^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e Ju}ⁿ^e^{18, 2004;}^S^.^R^e^pt^.
^108-^{280 t}^o^S^.^{2537 report}^e^{d by}^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^Juⁿ^e^17,^2004,^an^d^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^pas^s^e^{d H}^.^R^.^{4567 on}^S^e^pt^em^ber
^{14, 2004.}
^Note:^F^Y^{2004 am}^ouⁿ^t^s^ref^l^ect^t^h^{e 0.59%}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^en^act^{ed by}^P.L^.^108-^199.
^Ro^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^m^a^y^af^f^{ect to}^{tals. A}^m^o^uⁿ^t^{s in}^p^a^r^eⁿ^t^h^e^{ses ar}^{e n}^o^{t ad}^d^e^d^to^th^{e to}^tal.
As illustrated in Table 9, there are several differences in recommended
appropriations for Aviation Security. P.L. 108-334 provides $22 million over the
request for Passenger Screening, while the House recommended $10 million less than
requested and the Senate report recommended $50 million more than requested. For
Baggage Screening, P.L. 108-334 provides $75 million above the request; while the
House recommended $29 million above the Administration’s request and the Senate
in S.Rept. 108-280 recommended $60 million above the request for the purchase and
installation of EDS/ETD equipment. For Airport Security Direction and
Enforcement P.L. 108-334 provides $12 million less than requested, while the House
recommended an additional $3 million above the request for aviation regulation and
other enforcement, and an additional $10.4 million above the request for air cargo
security; and the Senate recommended $38 million above the administration’s
request, of which $25 million is for airport information technology and support, and
$13 million is for air cargo security activities.
TSA Issues for Congress.
Privatized Airport Screening Program. Both the House and Senate
Committee reports fully fund the budget request for the five pilot airports that have
privatized their baggage and passenger screeners. Both reports note that there is no
way for TSA or Congress to know how many airports will opt out of the federal
screener program beginning November 18, 2004. The Senate Committee noted that
if additional airports are awarded the ability to utilize private screeners TSA is
expected to adhere to the reprogramming requirements stipulated in section 502 of
Appropriations Act S. 2537. The House Committee declared that it has provided
TSA with the flexibility to cover passenger screening activities for federal screeners
as well as for any private contracts awarded under the opt out provision. The House
Committee cautions that it expects TSA to live within the funding provided for
personnel, compensation, and benefits, however, noting that screening costs for
airports opting out should not exceed the costs of retaining federal screeners —

indeed, the committee believes that there may be some cost savings associated with
privatization of screening.
Staffing Levels. The House Committee continues bill language limiting the
number of screeners to no more than 45,000 FTE employees at the end of 2005
because it believes that this provision is reasonable and has forced TSA to be more
disciplined in spending taxpayer dollars. The House Committee notes that when
TSA was first formed it over-hired and mismanaged millions of dollars as it labored
to federalize airport baggage screeners, resulting in staffing levels, especially at small
and medium sized airports, that became outrageously high. While the Committee
notes that TSA has made progress towards streamlining and reshaping its workforce
so that high-traffic airports receive more screening personnel, it also believes that
much more could be done regarding the development and installation of EDS that
reduce the number of FTEs needed. Until these advancements are in place, the
committee believes it would be too easy for TSA to revert back to hiring screeners
above the 45,000 cap; for this reason it is continuing the limitation.
The conferees include bill language capping the TSA FTE screener workforce
level at 45,000 by the end of FY2005. The conferees also note that TSA may need
to realign its workforce between airports throughout the year to maintain security and
customer service.
Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-screening System (CAPPS II)
and “Secure Flight”. Currently, air carriers are responsible for implementing the
CAPPS system at airports. TSA had been developing a more advanced passenger
pre-screening system called CAPPS-II; however, due to mounting privacy concerns
and operational problems, TSA recently announced it is scrapping its plans to
implement CAPPS-II this fall.²³ Instead, TSA Administrator David M. Stone
recently testified that CAPPS-II is being “reshaped and repackaged” to address the
privacy issues.²⁴ TSA recently announced the replacement program, entitled “Secure
Flight” which will differ from CAPPS II because it focuses on identifying terrorists
rather than on serving other law enforcement purposes.²⁵ One of the 9/11
Commission Report recommendations suggests that TSA take over administration
of the existing CAPPS system from the airlines until whatever program replaces it
becomes operational. This would probably add to TSA screener workload and thus
result in an increased need for funds within TSA. Possible issues for Congress
include whether current appropriations levels are adequate for the “reshaping” of
CAPPS-II into the recently announced “Secure Flight” program, and whether more
funds should be appropriated for TSA if in fact the agency takes over the
implementation of the existing CAPPS system from air carriers.

²³ Chris Strohm, “DHS Scraps Computer Pre-Screening System, Starts Over,” Government
Executive Online, July 15, 2004, at [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0704/071504c1.htm].
²⁴ U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Nominations, 108^th Cong., 2^nd sess., July 13, 2004.
²⁵ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, “TSA
to Test New Passenger Pre-Screening Program,” press release, Aug. 26, 2004.

The conferees agree to provide $35 million for Secure Flight and note that an
additional $10 million is provided under a separate TSA account for crew vetting.
The conferees note their concern that 90 days may not be sufficient to plan, test, and
analyze the system before its full implementation. Therefore, the conferees
encourage the TSA to focus first on getting watchlists operational and expect TSA
to cooperate with GAO in its review of Secure Flight. The conferees further note that
DHS is proposing to check all watchlists though the new Secure Flight system as
recommended by the 9/11 Commission.
Checkpoint Support. The Senate Committee recommends a $75 million
increase over the President’s request for the reconfiguration, purchase, installation,
and maintenance of airport checkpoint equipment and the electronic surveillance of
checkpoints. The committee notes that it is aware of TSA efforts to screen
passengers’ baggage but that current deficiencies in the ability to detect explosives
on passengers and their checked bags continue to warrant concerns. The Senate
Committee directs TSA to submit a detailed report by July 1, 2005 on TSA’s pilot
program to screen passengers and carry-on baggage for explosives. The conferees
adopted an increase of $35 million for checkpoint security, and adopted the Senate
reporting requirements.
Crew Vetting. The House Committee recommended $10 million for the
vetting of foreign air carrier crews that the TSA has been undertaking since
December 2003. The Committee is deeply troubled that in FY2004 TSA spent $20
million of funding provided for CAPPSII for this activity without notifying Congress.
The House Committee notes that it believes this activity is still necessary, and states
that it expects TSA to make a clear distinction between CAPPSII and any other
vetting activities it undertakes. The conferees provide $10 million for crew vetting.
Explosive Detection Systems and Explosive Trace Detection. The
House and Senate Committees both recommended additional funding for purchase
of EDS and ETD machines. The Senate Committee noted that its $60 million
increase over the President’s request would have allowed TSA to procure next
generation in-line EDS baggage screening machines. The House also directed that
the $20 million it would have provided over the President’s request be used to
purchase the next generation EDS machines, which it noted are far smaller and less
expensive than the current generation of screening units. The conferees provide $30
million over the request for EDS purchases. The House Committee also continues
to encourage competition among vendors so that a wide array of EDS technologies
can be made available to TSA (the conferees also adopt this language).
Both the House and Senate Committees support TSA efforts to design the next
generation of EDS machines. The House Committee notes it expects $10 million of
the $50 million it recommends to be spent initiating a “Manhattan Project II”
program which will attempt to achieve a quantum leap in next generation EDS
technology, as opposed to the incremental approach currently being taken. The
conferees provide $54 million for next generation EDS machines, and like the House,
allocate $10 million for a “Manhattan Project II” program. The Senate Committee
recommended $57 million for this research, and notes it is encouraged by the
progress being made by the Transportation Security Laboratory.

Airport Security Installations. Both the House and Senate Committee
reports support the Letter of Intent (LOI) program with airports for installing EDS
machines. The House Committee recommended an additional $19 million over the
statutory allocation of $250 million for the Aviation Security Capital Fund (ASCF)
to fulfill the federal commitment to the eight airports that have entered into LOI with
a 75% federal share. The conferees provide $45 million in addition to the $250
million statutory allocation of the ASCF. However, due to budgetary constraints the
House Committee notes that the federal government cannot provide a 90% federal
share to the eight LOI airports; as such the committee waives language in section 605
of the Vision 100 Act (P.L.108-176) that distributes the ASCF by formula. The
conferees fund the LOI commitment at a 75% federal share.
Air Cargo Security. Both the House and Senate Committee reports
recommended additional funding for air cargo security. The Senate Committee
recommended $13 million over the budget request, while the House Committee
recommended $10.4 million above the budget request. Both the House and Senate
noted that $10 million of their respective additional funding is provided for TSA to
hire 100 additional air cargo inspectors. The Senate Committee recommended that
the remaining $3 million in additional funding to expand the number of explosives
detection canine teams, while the House Committee’s additional $400,000 would
have been spent on continuing TSA’s participation in the C-TPAT program. The
Senate Committee also recommended some additional funding for developing
technologies to secure air cargo within the “Research and Development” account.
The conferees provide a total of $115 million for air cargo of which $40 million is
for 100 additional inspectors and enforcement activities, and $75 million for research
and development of technologies to more effectively detect air cargo threats.
The Senate Committee also recommended continued funding for maintaining
the “known shipper” database, which centralizes data provided by known shippers
and indirect air carriers in order to immediately verify the status of a specific shipper,
and encourages TSA to continue coordinating this program with CBP’s C-TPAT
program to develop the ability to better target domestic air cargo for inspection. The
House Committee notes that it is encouraged by TSA’s work to develop ETD system
protocols to inspect air cargo on passenger and cargo aircraft, and directs TSA to
issue the protocols as soon as possible. The House Committee also would have
continued and modified section 513 of P.L. 108-90, requiring the Secretary to
research, develop, and procure certified systems to inspect and screen air cargo on
passenger aircraft. Until these systems are developed, the House Committee directs
TSA to enhance the known shipper program to prohibit high-risk cargo from being
loaded on passenger planes. Additionally, the language added to section 513 requires
the TSA to, at a minimum, double the percentage of air cargo currently being
screened. The conferees direct TSA to work more aggressively to strengthen air
cargo security by: strengthening the known shipper program to include regular
checks; working with indirect carriers to ensure their compliance with security
directives; and validating indirect carriers’ security measures where the carriers
consolidate freight and transport it to passenger and all cargo aircraft.
Transportation Worker Identification Card. The conferees decreased
funding for this program because of delays in prototyping and evaluating credentials.
TSA is directed to report back to the House and Senate Committees on

Appropriations about the results of the prototyping before moving into the next
phase. The conferees provide $15 million for the program ($5 million in direct
appropriations, and $10 million offset through fees). Both the House and Senate
Committees supported this program and recommended additional funding over the
President’s request. The House Committee recommended $15 million above the
President’s request of $50 million and would have directed $15 million of the total
to developing and installing necessary hardware and software at the sites that produce
and personalize the ID cards. TSA is directed, as specified in FY2004, to develop
a centralized personalization system that uses an existing government card
production facility. The House committee expected the remaining $50 million which
is appropriated to be offset during the fiscal year through the fees people will pay for
applying for an ID card. The Senate Committee recommended $55 million for
infrastructure investments and for implementation of this program for targeted high-
risk populations of transportation workers.
Rail Security. The conferees provide $12 million for rail security under TSA
to support the deployment of 100 federal rail compliance inspectors and includes $2
million for the deployment of explosive detection teams. The conferees also provide
$150 million through the Office of State and Local Government Preparedness’ Urban
Area Security Initiative for rail security grants; Science and Technology Directorate
for research and design of rail security requirements; and Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection to improve rail corridor security. The conferees also direct
TSA to implement projects that demonstrate and advance new train control
technology.
Both the Senate and House Committees recommended additional funding over
the President’s budget request for rail security. The Senate Committee recommended
$15 million, $10 million of which is to be spent on deploying 100 Federal
compliance inspectors for mass transit and passenger rail to conduct on-site
inspections in order to ensure compliance with minimum standards and recently
issued security directives. The remaining $5 million is would have been provided for
the deployment of canine explosives detection teams. The House Committee
recommended $11 million for rail security within TSA and would have added $100
million through the Urban Area Security Initiatives grant program. The House report
also recommended an additional $12 million for rail security available through the
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate. The House
Committee voices concern about the vulnerability of the rail and transit systems and
directs TSA to work with other agencies such as the Office for State and Local
Government Coordination to develop a comprehensive rail and transit security
program. The Committee requires TSA to submit a report by March 1, 2005 on this
effort which will identify possible research and design requirements that could
enhance nationwide rail security. The House Committee would have required TSA
to spend $1 million on a prototype program to perform risk assessments on domestic
freight cargo; the remaining $10 million will be spent to accelerate the testing and
evaluation of technologies that will permit the TSA and transit operators to better
screen rail passengers and baggage.
Other Reports/Directions. In addition to the above mentioned reports, the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees request the following reports. The
House Committee requests TSA to provide a report on the merits and results of

various pilot programs underway which are testing remote off-site baggage screening
systems, noting that it is encouraged by TSA’s interest in developing efficient
baggage screening pilot programs. The House Committee also directs TSA to work
with the Federal Aviation Administration to evaluate whether requiring passenger
aircraft to incorporate deployable flight incident recorders would improve security
analysis in aviation accidents. The House Committee requires TSA to submit a
report by January 31, 2005 that contains plans for developing and implementing
uniform screening standards for vetting airport workers with access to secure areas;
presents an assessment of available technologies that may be applied to securing
airport perimeters; and develops and implements a standardized approach to
conducting airport vulnerability assessments and compliance inspections. The House
Committee directs TSA to report on the status of grants awarded for the evaluation
and procurement of portable nuclear radiation search tools by October 1, 2004.
The Senate passed version of H.R. 4567 includes amendment 3585, which
requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation, to develop and maintain an integrated strategic transportation security
plan. This plan should identify and evaluate transportation assets that need to be
protected, and set risk-based priorities and select the most cost-effective ways of
defending them. The plan should be presented no later than February 1, 2005, and
future budget requests should be based upon it. Additionally, Senate H.R 4567
includes amendment 3642, requiring the secretary to present a comprehensive report
concerning how to best protect commercial airliners from man-portable air defense
systems (MANPADS). The MANPADS report should be submitted along with the
FY2006 TSA budget request.
U.S. Coast Guard²⁶
The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for the maritime component of
homeland security. As such, it is lead agency responsible for border and
transportation security as it applies to U.S. ports, coastal and inland waterways, and
territorial waters. The Coast Guard also performs other missions, including some
(such as fisheries enforcement and marine rescue operations) that are not related to
homeland security.
The Coast Guard was transferred from the Department of Transportation (DOT)
to the new DHS on March 1, 2003. The law that established DHS (P.L. 107-296)
directed that the Coast Guard be maintained as a distinct entity within DHS and that
the Commandant of the Coast Guard report directly to the Secretary of DHS.
Accordingly, the Coast Guard exists as its own agency within DHS and is not part
of DHS’s border and transportation security directorate. The Coast Guard does,
however, work closely with that directorate.²⁷

²⁶ This section was prepared with the assistance of Ronald O’Rourke.
²⁷ For more on the Coast Guard’s role in homeland security, see CRS Report RS21125,
Homeland Security: Coast Guard Operations — Background and Issues for Congress, by
Ronald O’Rourke. Some of the discussion below is adapted from this report.

FY2005 Coast Guard Request. The total FY2005 request for the Coast
Guard of $7,335 million represented an 8.5% increase over the enacted FY2004 level
of $6,764 million. H.Rept. 108-541 recommended $7,307 million for the Coast
Guard for FY2005 and included a rescission of $33 million in unexpended funds
appropriated in FY2003 and FY2004 for Maritime Patrol Aircraft under the
Deepwater Program. S.Rept. 108-280 recommended $7,469 million for the Coast
Guard in FY2005 (this amount does not include the $33 million rescission contained
in H.R. 4567). P.L. 108-334 provides $7,373 million for the Coast Guard for
FY2005. This amount includes a rescission of $16 million of funds appropriated in
FY2004 for Rescue 21 because of contract delays and high unobligated balances.
Table 10 provides account level detail for the Coast Guard’s appropriation.
Table 10. Coast Guard Account Detail
($ millions)
Coast Guard AccountFY2004enactedFY2005requestFY2005HouseFY2005SenateFY2005Conf.
Operating Expenses4,6375,1735,1715,1535,157
Rescission — — (-33) — (-16)
Environmental Compliance1717171717
and Restoration
Reserve Training94117113117113
Acquisition, Construction,9619429371,063982
and Improvements
Alteration of Bridges19 — 161516
Research, Development, Test,15 — ^a — ^a1919
and Evaluation
Retired Pay (Mandatory)1,0201,0851,0851,0851,085
Total Coast Guard6,7647,3357,3077,4697,373
^Source:^P.L^.^108-^{334, H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 108-}^{541 t}^o^H^.^R^.^{4567 pas}^s^e^{d by}^t^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e Ju}ⁿ^e^{18, 2004;}^S^.^Re^p^t^.
^108-^{280 t}^o^S^.²⁵³⁷^report^e^d^by^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^Juⁿ^e^{17, 2004, an}^{d S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^pas^s^e^{d H}^.^R^.^{4567 on}^S^e^pt^em^ber
^{14, 2004.}
^Note:^F^Y^{2004 am}^ouⁿ^t^s^re^fl^e^c^t^t^h^{e 0.59%}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^en^act^{ed by}^P.L^.^108-^199.
^Ro^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^m^a^y^af^f^{ect to}^{tals. A}^m^o^uⁿ^t^{s in}^p^a^r^eⁿ^t^h^e^{ses ar}^{e n}^o^{t ad}^d^e^d^to^th^{e to}^tal.
^{a. Bot}^h^t^h^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^’^s^requ^es^t^an^{d t}^h^{e H}^o^u^s^e^pas^s^e^d^H^.^R^.⁴⁵⁶⁷^f^uⁿ^d^R^e^s^earch^{, D}^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t^,
^T^e^s^t^{, an}^{d Ev}^alu^a^tion^uⁿ^d^{er th}^{e Scien}^{ce an}^{d T}^echⁿ^o^log^y^{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
Coast Guard’s coastal zone communications network (not funded by
P.L. 108-334 or H.Rept. 108-541, but fully funded by S.Rept. 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);²⁸
^!$6 million for the Great Lakes Icebreaker Project (fully funded by
P.L. 108-334, H.Rept. 108-541 and S.Rept. 108-280); and
^!$2 million to arm existing helicopter assets at Air Station Cape Cod,
as prototypes for arming all Coast Guard helicopters (fully funded
by P.L. 108-334, H.Rept. 108-541, and S.Rept. 108-280).
Coast Guard Issues for Congress.
Deepwater Program. The Deepwater program is a planned 22-year,
multibillion-dollar project to replace or modernize 93 aging Coast Guard ships and
207 aging Coast Guard aircraft. The Deepwater program presents several potential
issues for Congress.
One potential issue concerns the mission requirements to be met by the program,
which were established in the late 1990s and reflect a pre-9/11 understanding of the
Coast Guard’s future mission requirements. A 2004 RAND Corporation report on
the Deepwater program states that the baseline Deepwater program “will not provide
the USCG with adequate assets and capabilities to fulfill demands for traditional
missions and emerging responsibilities. To satisfy these demands, the USCG will
need the capabilities of twice the number of cutters and 50% more air vehicles than
it has been planning to acquire over the next two decades.” The Coast Guard is
reassessing the program’s mission requirements to take post-9/11 mission demands
into account. Coast Guard officials have stated that existing deepwater-capable
assets are wearing out more quickly than anticipated, suggesting that new assets
might need to be procured sooner than planned.
The Senate Committee report fully funds the Deepwater program. The House
Committee is “deeply concerned” about the direction and focus of the Deepwater
program, given the number of studies that have concluded that massive changes to
the program are necessary and the fact that only a few aspects of the initial system
concept are still intact. The House Committee has therefore included bill language
requiring the Coast Guard to re-baseline the program and submit its findings as part
of the President’s FY2006 budget. The FY2006 budget submission should include
specific acquisition timetables for all previously identified assets the Coast Guard
believes are still necessary and a time-line for all new assets needed to fulfil
homeland security functions or multi-agency procurements. All funding levels in the
submission must be identified by fiscal year. The conferees adopt this House report
language. Additionally, the House Committee recommends less than the requested

²⁸ For more information, see CRS Report RS21019, Coast Guard Deepwater Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.

sum for Maritime Patrol Aircraft due to questions about whether the aircraft meet the
air intercept and rapid cargo lift and deployment capabilities required by the revised
Deepwater proposal. Until the ongoing evaluations of these aircraft are completed
and clearly identify which aircraft the Coast Guard will need in the future, the
committee cannot fully support the budget request.
Legacy and Replacement Assets. Both the Senate and House Committee
reports voice concern over the condition of Coast Guard legacy assets. The Senate
cites a Governmental Accountability Office report which notes that Coast Guard
assets are being used 40% more than originally anticipated when the Deepwater
program was conceived, resulting in an accelerated deterioration. The Senate report
notes that the Coast Guard is expending more Deepwater funding on maintaining
legacy assets and less on acquiring replacement assets. The Senate Committee
directs the Coast Guard to submit a report on its increased operational requirements
post 9/11 and the impact that this is having on its legacy asset inventory by March 1,
2005. The report is expected to include the costs associated with sustaining each
legacy asset and a timetable of all Deepwater replacement assets. The House
Committee, conversely, is concerned that the Coast Guard is having problems
maintaining its legacy assets due to a perceived need to expend all available funding
on Deepwater procurement. The House Committee requires the Coast Guard to
report, within 30 days of enactment of the Appropriations Act, its plans for
maintenance of all legacy vessels and aircraft, including the entity responsible for the
maintenance and the estimated costs. Further, the Coast Guard is directed to submit
quarterly reports on its legacy maintenance plan beginning with the submission of the
President’s FY2006 budget. The conferees adopt this House Committee report
language.
Automatic Identification System. A potential issue for Congress concerns
the Automatic Identification System (AIS) — a vessel-tracking system that the Coast
Guard wants to implement as a key part of its strategy for achieving maritime domain
awareness (MDA). AIS is a system that will identify the ship, its size, and its cargo
before it enters an American seaport. Questions include the availability of a radio
frequency needed for AIS and whether the system as currently planned will
adequately cover all categories of ships that might pose a threat to U.S. homeland
security. Both the House and the Senate conference reports voice support for the AIS
program. The House committee is concerned that by the end of FY2004 only nine
seaports will be able to receive AIS signals from entering vessels and disappointed
that only $5 million was requested for this program even though a national plan to
outfit the 55 largest seaports with this technology is scheduled to be completed by the
end of the calendar year. The House Committee is therefore providing $24 million
to fund this effort in FY2005. The conference provides $24 million for AIS.
Non-Homeland Security Missions. A key potential issue is whether the
Coast Guard’s resources are sufficient to adequately perform both its homeland and
non-homeland security missions. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
increased Coast Guard requirements for homeland-security missions without
obviously reducing requirements for other missions. After September 11, 2001, the
Coast Guard significantly increased homeland security operations while reducing
operations in other missions. GAO, in reports and testimony on this topic, have
noted reduced number of Coast Guard operating hours devoted to non-homeland

security missions, and have expressed concerns regarding the Coast Guard’s ability
to link application of resources to performance levels achieved for various missions.
The House and Senate reports support many non-homeland security Coast
Guard initiatives. The House Committee has included an extra $13 million for the
Coast Guard to hire additional staff to ensure that it is in compliance with the U.S.
Code [Title 14 sec. 676 (b)] watch standards at their Search and Rescue Command
Centers. According to the code, individuals on duty are not allowed, except in
emergencies, to work more than 12 hours in a 24-hour period, but staffing studies
have shown the Coast Guard is unable to meet the standard at all facilities at all
times. The Senate Committee encourages the Coast Guard to continue its cooperative
programs in the Marine Vessel and Cold Water Safety Education area which provides
education and outreach on maritime safety to fishermen and children. The Senate
Committee also recognizes the importance of the Rescue Swimmer program to Coast
Guard operations and supports the program.
Ballast Water Program. The Ballast Water Program aims to prevent the
introduction of alien nuisance species into American waters from the ballast tanks of
foreign ships. Both the House and Senate reports support this program. The Senate
Committee fully funds the request in order to assist the Coast Guard in transitioning
the program from a voluntary to a mandatory enforcement policy. The House
Committee also fully funds the request and notes that because invasive species spread
readily once they have entered U.S. water this program is of critical importance to all
states with water resources regardless of their proximity to commercial ports.
The committee believes that there is a void in the CG’s medium to short range
aerial surveillance assets which limits the CG’s ability to cost-effectively perform its
homeland security related aerial surveillance missions. The committee directs the
Coast Guard to procure, test, and evaluate aircraft that can perform MDA missions.
Icebreakers. The House Committee is very supportive of Coast Guard efforts
to renegotiate the memorandum of understanding with the National Science
Foundation (NSF) regarding the costs each agency shares for icebreaking, especially
in the Antarctic region. The House Committee continues to believe that the NSF is
not adequately reimbursing the Coast Guard for its icebreaking services in support
of scientific research and notes that the current fleet of icebreakers is approaching the
end of their service life. The House Committee directs the Coast Guard to evaluate
and determine the present and future needs for polar icebreakers. The Coast Guard
should consider all appropriate national defense, homeland security, scientific,
economic, and environmental interests of the United States. The review should be
completed and reported to the House Committee by March 1, 2005.
The Senate directs the Coast Guard to enter into an agreement with the national
Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the role Coast Guard
icebreakers play in supporting US operations in the Antarctic and Arctic. The study
should include different scenarios for continuing operations including the
replacement of current assets and alternative methods that do not involve the Coast
Guard. The study should also address possible changes in icebreaking missions due
to environmental change. The study should be submitted to the Senate Committee
by September 30, 2005. The conferees adopt this report language.

Other Reports. In addition to the reports requested above the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees request the Coast Guard to submit the following
reports. The House Committee is concerned that the Coast Guard has not presented
a report with the staffing and resource implications of the February, 2004 decision
to move to a sector command structure. They direct the Commandant to submit such
a report no less than 30 days prior to restructuring, including before and after staffing
levels, sector organizational structures, sector chains of command, and sector
infrastructure and other issues that may require additional resources to implement.
The conferees adopt this House report language and requirements concerning the
sector commands. The House Committee also directs the Coast Guard to submit a
report on the feasibility, practicality, and cost-effectiveness of establishing a
permanent West Coast helicopter squadron by October 1, 2004. Lastly, the House
Committee fully funds the budget request to aggressively implement the Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2002. The committee is concerned, however, that the
Coast Guard plans to rely on foreign governments to review foreign vessel security
plans, especially in light of the fact that some of these plans may not even be
translated into English. The committee directs the Coast Guard to review all vessel
security plans and report their findings by October 15, 2004. The conferees express
similar concerns, and direct the Coast Guard to use the Port State Control Programs
to ensure that foreign vessel security plans are adhered to and in place. The conferees
direct the Coast Guard to report no later than March 1, 2005, on the progress of the
foreign vessel security oversight process including required resources.
The Senate Committee voiced concern that, based on quarterly reports, Coast
Guard hours dedicated to non-homeland security missions remain significantly below
pre 9/11 levels. The committee does note, however, that in most cases the Coast
Guard continues to meet or exceed its performance goals in these operational areas.
The committee directs the Coast Guard to submit a report on plans to develop a
system that can provide accurate representations of the costs necessary to meet
performance goals. Amendment 3633 to Senate passed H.R. 4567 requires DHS to
submit a report, no later than 90 days after the enactment of the act, on opportunities
to integrate the process by which the Coast Guard issues letters of recommendation
for liquefied gas marine terminals. The conferees adopt the this reporting
requirement.
Funding Implications of the 9/11 Commission
Border and Transportation Recommendations
In its final report, the 9/11 Commission makes several recommendations
relating to border and transportation security.²⁹ Many of these recommendations
would have funding implications should they be adopted. However, it is important
to note that in none of the recommendations does the commission suggest specific
funding increases, decreases, or allocations. Instead, the commission points out the
following broad areas that it believes need more attention and resources:

²⁹ For CRS reports related to 9/11 Commission and Transportation Security
recommendations, go to CRS at [http://www.congress.gov/erp/legissues/html/ister15.html].

^!Current transportation security efforts do not reflect a forward-
looking comprehensive strategic plan that systematically evaluates
all aspects of transportation security. A national plan for
transportation security, as the commission conceives it, would
identify the assets that need to be protected, create risk-based
priorities for their defense, select the most efficient and cost-
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 the
absence of the aforementioned national plan, the commission
concludes that transportation security funding may be better
allocated between all transportation modes.
^!Investment should be made in technologies that have applications
across transportation modes. These technologies include, but are not
limited to: EDS and ETD systems currently used by TSA to screen
passengers and their baggage for explosives; Non-Intrusive
Inspection (NII) systems, which are large scale X-ray and Gamma-
ray imaging systems used by CBP at points of entry to inspect
incoming vehicles, trains, and seacraft; and Radiological Detection
Equipment (RDE), used by CBP to detect traces of nuclear isotopes
on vehicles, cargo, and people.
^!The commission calls for an expansion of current screening
programs. The U.S. border security system should be expanded and
integrated into a larger network of screening points. This network
should include the transportation system and access to vital facilities
such as nuclear reactors. DHS should design this comprehensive
screening system and set common standards that can be applied
system wide. Additionally, DHS should complete its implementation
of a biometric entry/exit screening system as quickly as possible and
expand the screening of passengers and baggage for explosives.
These recommendations are broad in nature and as such difficult to quantify.
Moreover, the 9/11 Commission makes no concrete estimates of the funding
implications involved with implementing their recommendations.