Order Code RL31549
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Department of Homeland Security: Proposals to
Consolidate Border and Transportation Security
Agencies
August 30, 2002
William J. Krouse, Coordinator
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Department of Homeland Security: Proposals to
Consolidate Border and Transportation Security
Agencies
Summary
To better prepare the United States against terrorist attacks, the Bush
Administration released its plan to create a Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
on June 6, 2002. To prevent terrorists from entering, or smuggling “instruments of
terrorism” into, the United States and to prevent attacks on U.S. transportation, the
plan calls for consolidating several federal agencies in a Border and Transportation
Security division within a proposed DHS. These agencies include the Department
of Justice’s Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS); the Department of the
Treasury’s U.S. Customs Service; the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Department of Transportation’s U.S. Coast
Guard and Transportation Security Administration; and the General Services
Administration’s Federal Protective Service.
On July 25, 2002, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs revised the
National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act of 2002 (S. 2452). This
bill was previously ordered reported by the Committee on May 22, 2002. While it
differs from the Administration’s plan, particularly in regard to personnel
management flexibility, the new version of S. 2452 was modified to more closely
reflect not only that plan, but also other recommendations that had emerged in the
course of congressional hearings and House consideration of similar proposals. This
bill is scheduled for Senate consideration immediately following the August recess.
On July 26, 2002, the House passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (H.R.
5005). This bill reflects, in part, recommendations made by authorizing committees
with jurisdiction over the affected agencies to the House Select Committee on
Homeland Security. Like the Senate bill, the House bill includes provisions that give
the departmental secretaries of Treasury, Transportation, and Agriculture, continued
authority over certain elements of the agency operations that are not related to border
security, such as Treasury’s “customs revenue functions.” Unlike the Senate bill, the
House bill would give the President broad new personnel management flexibility.
It remains an open question for some whether consolidating these agencies in
a proposed DHS would succeed in increasing border or transportation security. A
related issue is the extent to which border security can be maintained during the
transition period while the border security agencies are being administratively
consolidated. Likewise, Congress may further consider whether giving the Secretary
for Homeland Security statutory authority over visa issuance policy is politically and
administratively feasible. In terms of the security of the nation’s transportation
infrastructure and federal buildings, the issues for Congress would likely include
identifying the most pressing security needs and determining a manageable scope of
activities for this new division.

---

Key Policy Staff
Agency Staff
Phone
#
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Ruth Wasem
707-7342
Lisa Seghetti
707-4669
Bureau of Consular Affairs
Susan Epstein
707-6678
Ruth Wasem (visas only)
707-7342
U.S. Customs Service
William Krouse
707-2225
APHIS
Jean Rawson
707-7283
U.S. Coast Guard
Martin Lee
707-7260
Ronald O’Rourke
707-7610
Seaport Security
John Frittelli
707-7033
Transportation Security Administration
Robert Kirk
707-7769
John Fischer
707-7766
Federal Protective Service
Elaine Halchin
707-0646

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Legislative Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Border Security, Management, and Agency Consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Defining Border Security and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Multiple Agencies, Multiple Border Management Missions . . . . . . . . . 5
Proposed Border Agency Consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Lead Immigration Agencies: INS and Consular Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Consular Affairs (CA): Visa and Passport Issuance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Immigration and Homeland Security Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
U.S. Customs Service and International Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Customs and Homeland Security Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
APHIS and Homeland Security Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Coast Guard and Maritime Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Background Information on the Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Coast Guard and Homeland Security Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Seaport Security Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Transportation Security: An Evolving Federal Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
TSA and Homeland Security Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Federal Building Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
FPS and Homeland Security Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Would Border Security Be Improved? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Would It Be Cost Effective? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Should Both Immigration Services and Enforcement
Be Transferred? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Should the Authority for Visa Issuance and/or Consular
Affairs Be Transferred? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
How Can The Customs Revenue Functions Be Maintained? . . . . . . . 25
Should APHIS Non-Border Inspection Activities Be Transferred? . . 25
What About the Coast Guard’s Non-Border Security Missions? . . . . 26
Should Seaport Security Be Addressed in the Context
of Homeland Security? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Should Transportation Security Be Matched with Border Security? . . 26
Should The New Division Also Be Responsible for Some
Federal Building Security? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

---

Department of Homeland Security:
Proposals to Consolidate Border and
Transportation Security Agencies
This report examines legislative proposals and issues related to establishing a
Border and Transportation Security division in a proposed Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). These proposals call for consolidating several federal agencies
charged with border, transportation, and federal building security responsibilities in
this new division for border and transportation security. They also call for
transferring the policy authority for visa issuance and denial to the Secretary of
Homeland Security. Such a consolidation, according to key Members of Congress
and the Administration, would better position federal agencies to prevent terrorists
from entering, and smuggling instruments of terror into, the United States.
This report includes conceptual definitions for “border management” and
“border security,” and discusses the missions of the principal border management
agencies. It briefly touches on seaport security, since it relates to border security, and
Congress has acted on related legislation; examines the Transportation Security
Administration and that agency’s still evolving scope of responsibilities; and explores
issues raised by transferring the Federal Protective Service to this new division. The
report concludes with a summary of major issues raised by proposals to establish a
Border and Transportation Security division within the proposed DHS.
Introduction
On June 6, 2002, the Bush Administration released its plan to create a
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to better prepare and protect the United
States against terrorist attacks.1 To prevent terrorists from entering, or smuggling
“instruments of terrorism” into, the United States, and to prevent attacks on U.S.
transportation, the Bush Administration’s plan calls for consolidating several federal
agencies in a Border and Transportation Security division within a proposed DHS.
The border management agencies that would be consolidated under the
Administration’s plan include the Department of Justice’s Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS); the Department of the Treasury’s U.S. Customs
Service; the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS); and the Department of Transportation’s U.S. Coast Guard. In addition, the
1For further information on departmental-wide considerations and issues, see CRS Report
RL31493, Homeland Security: Department Organization and Management, by Harold C.
Relyea.

---

CRS-2
plan calls for placing the Transportation Security Administration and General
Services Administration’s (GSA) Federal Protective Service in this new division.
While the plan would possibly dismantle and merge various components of
these agencies, it includes language specifying that the U.S. Coast Guard would
remain a distinct entity, suggesting that it would not be merged with Customs or INS.
It would also give the Secretary of Homeland Security exclusive policy authority
“through the Secretary of State” over the “granting or refusal of visas.” The
Department of State would likely continue its current visa processing responsibilities,
since the Administration’s proposal anticipates no transfer of personnel or
responsibilities from State to the proposed DHS.
Border security is achieved when “undesirable” peoples and harmful materials
are prevented from entering the United States. Border security is an outcome of
effective border management. Border management entails regulating the flow of
people and goods into the United States and, in some instances, from the United
States. The challenge for policy makers is to provide a level of border security that
is commensurate with threats from abroad, while facilitating legitimate cross-border
travel and commerce, as well as protecting civil liberties. At issue for Congress is
whether consolidating border management agencies in a proposed DHS would
increase border security in the short or long run. Likewise, Congress may further
consider whether giving the Secretary of Homeland Security statutory authority over
visa issuance policy would increase border security.
Transportation security is an evolving and expanding federal activity. The
Administration’s plan calls for merging the fledgling Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), currently part of the Department of Transportation, into the
proposed Border and Transportation Security division of DHS. From the earliest
days of the Republic, the federal government has played a role in transportation
security on the high seas. With the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887,
the federal government began taking an active role in transportation regulation.
Prompted by the September 11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed legislation creating
the TSA, but the agency is still being organized and the scope of its border and
transportation security activities for the time being are focused on implementing the
airport and in-flight security provisions of the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act.2
Suggesting that the new division will provide security for some, but not all,
federal buildings, the plan would transfer the Federal Protective Service from GSA
to the Border and Transportation Security division. In terms of the security of the
nation’s transportation infrastructure (air, land, and sea) and federal buildings, the
issues for Congress would likely include identifying the most pressing security needs
and determining a manageable scope of activities for this proposed division.
2P.L. 107-71, 115 STAT. 597.

---

CRS-3
Legislative Action
Legislation to create a Department of Homeland Security is being expedited.
Following much discussion and conjecture as to the need for, and the scope of, a new
department, President George W. Bush released a plan to create a cabinet-level
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on June 6, 2002.3 In response, the House
Speaker, Representative J. Dennis Hastert, and the House Minority Leader,
Representative Richard A. Gephardt, formed the Select Committee on Homeland
Security. A draft bill was transmitted from the White House to Congress on June 18.
The House Majority Leader, Representative Richard K. Armey, introduced the
Administration’s proposal, the Department of Homeland Security Act of 2002 (H.R.
5005) on June 24.
One month earlier, on May 22, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,
chaired by Senator Joseph Lieberman, ordered reported the National Homeland
Security and Combating Terrorism Act of 2002 (S. 2452).4 This bill incorporated
many of the proposals first made by the Hart-Rudman Commission5 regarding
counter-terrorism and the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. While
these bills differed in significant ways, their border and transportation security
provisions were similar in major respects.
Meanwhile, the House leadership invited the 14 congressional committees with
jurisdiction over the agencies and activities that would be transferred to the proposed
DHS to make recommendations to the Select Committee on Homeland Security.
Following a series of hearings and ad hoc discussions with the Administration and
other interested parties, 6 of the 14 committees made recommendations concerning
the proposed transfer of agencies under their jurisdiction to the Border and
Transportation Security division:
! the Committee on International Relations addressed the Administration’s
proposal to transfer “exclusive” authority for visa issuance to the Secretary for
Homeland Security;6
! the Committee on the Judiciary addressed visa issuance as well and the
proposal to transfer INS to the proposed DHS;7
! the Committee on Ways and Means made recommendations about the
Customs Service;8
3See: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/].
4Senate Report 107-175.
5U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Roadmap for National Security:
Imperative for Change. (Washington, February 15, 2001). p. 156. Available at
[http://www.nssg.gov/].
6For further information, see [http://www.house.gov/international_relations/].
7For further information, see [http://www.house.gov/judiciary/].
8For further information, see [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/whatnew.htm/].

---

CRS-4
! the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure made specific
recommendations about the Coast Guard and the TSA;9
! the Committee on Agriculture also made specific recommendations on the
APHIS, among other things;10 and
! the Committee on Government Reform made a recommendation in the form
of a substitute proposal for the entire new department.11
These recommendations are discussed in greater detail below in the sections dealing
with the affected agencies.
On July 19, 2002, the Select Committee amended and approved H.R. 5005 by
a vote of 5 to 4.12 The reported bill reflects, in part, recommendations made by
authorizing committees. In many cases, provisions were included in the bill that gave
the departmental secretaries of Treasury, Transportation, and Agriculture, continued
authority over certain elements of the agency operations that are not related to border
security, such as Treasury’s “customs revenue functions.” Similar to the
Administration’s plan in many respects, the House bill would give the President
broad new personnel management flexibility. On July 26, 2002, the House amended
and approved H.R. 5005 by a vote of 295 to 132.
On July 25, 2002, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs revised S.
2452. As described above, the bill was previously reported by the Committee on
May 22, 2002. While it differs from the Administration’s plan, particularly in regard
personnel management flexibility, the new version of S. 2452 was modified to more
closely reflect not only that plan, but also other recommendations that had emerged
in the course of congressional hearings and House consideration of similar proposals.
This bill is scheduled for Senate consideration immediately following the August
recess.13
Border Security, Management, and Agency Consolidation
In the past, there have been many proposals to reorganize border management
agencies prompted by concerns about illegal immigration and international drug
trafficking.14 The Administration’s DHS proposal is notable in that the threat of
terrorism is currently the factor prompting policy makers to explore border
reorganization options with greater rigor. Indeed, today, policy makers are
confronted with the possibility that the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks
9For further information, see [http://www.house.gov/transportation/].
10For further information, see [http://agriculture.house.gov/homeland.htm/].
11For further information, see [http://www.house.gov/reform/homelandsecurity.htm/].
12House Report 107-609, Part 1.
13For a detailed comparison, see CRS Report RL31513, Homeland Security: Side-by-Side
Comparison of H.R. 5005 and S. 2452, 107th Congress, by the CRS Homeland Security
Team.
14For further information on past attempt at border reorganizations, see CRS Report 97-974,
Reorganization Proposals for U.S. Border Management Agencies, by Frederick M. Kaiser.

---

CRS-5
were not “singular” events, and many believe that international terrorists have
planned, will attempt, and may successfully carry out, attacks of similar magnitude
against the United States in the future. At the same time, trade experts emphasize
that shutting down borders in the event of a terrorist attack on the United States
would have detrimental and possibly catastrophic effects on the national and world
economies.15 Hence, the security and livelihood of the United States depends more
than ever upon how efficiently federal agencies charged with border management
achieve their respective missions.
Defining Border Security and Management. Border management entails
regulating the flow of people and goods into the United States and, in some instances,
from the United States. Border security is derived from how well border
management agencies perform their missions. That entails not only effective law
enforcement in some cases, but also prompt, efficient, and courteous service to the
traveling public. Over the past half-century, border management evolved as a
balancing act between facilitating legitimate cross border commerce and travel, and
deterring illegal immigration and the smuggling of drugs and other contraband.
Even before the September 11 terrorist attacks, border management was
emerging as a public policy area of growing concern for Congress. The Canadian
and North American free trade agreements created a perception, shared by some
policy makers, that international borders were anachronistic, that they belonged to
an earlier era of nationalism, and that their usefulness had passed. While these
agreements fostered international trade, they did not cause the borders to disappear
nor were they intended to. Instead, the borders emerged more manifestly as increased
trade and travel outpaced the institutions and infrastructures set up to accommodate
and regulate those activities. From 1985 to 2000, for example, trade between the
United States and Canada increased from $116.3 to $409.8 billion, yet the number
of Customs inspectors deployed to the northern border reportedly decreased by about
25%.16
Multiple Agencies, Multiple Border Management Missions. There is
no single agency charged with border management. Rather, a handful of agencies is
charged with what could be considered core border management missions. They
include the U.S. Customs Service in the Department of the Treasury, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) in the Department of Justice, and the U.S. Coast
Guard in the Department or Transportation. Many other agencies, like the Bureau
of Consular Affairs in the Department of State and the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) in the Department of Agriculture, play integral roles in
border management as well. By various counts, over 40 federal agencies are
involved in some aspect of border management.
Critics of the status quo point to fragmented authorities, overlapping
jurisdictions, duplicated efforts, and interagency rivalries. Despite significant
15O’Hanlon, Michael E., et al. Protecting the American Homeland. The Brookings
Institution, Washington, 2002. p. 25.
16Flynn, Stephen E. America the Vulnerable. Foreign Affairs, January/February 2002. p.
66.

---

CRS-6
increases in resources (mostly deployed to the southern border), particularly for INS’s
Border Patrol, an unauthorized immigrant population of an estimated 7 to 9 million
people17 and the continuing availability of illegal drugs of foreign origin18 are clear
indicators that current federal border management efforts have had mixed results to
date. Given the importance of efficient border management to the economy of the
United States, the congressional debate may include whether addressing border
security from the angle of counter-terrorism alone, without considering other
governmental objectives, like stemming drug trafficking or facilitating legitimate
cross border commerce, is practical or reasonable.
The missions of the border management agencies broadly classified into five
traditional areas are: (1) immigration and nationality, (2) international trade, (3)
environmental and health quarantine, (4) port security, and (5) border and coastal
patrol. The Bureau of Consular Affairs and INS are charged with most immigration-
and nationality-related activities and missions. Customs is charged chiefly with
administering international trade laws and other federal laws that are enforceable at
the border. At international ports of entry, Customs and INS make up the largest
complement of the federal inspection services, but APHIS and many other agencies
either conduct inspections at ports or support agencies that do so. As a possible sixth
category, TSA’s aviation security mission is viewed by many to be a border
management mission as well. The vast majority of TSA resources, however, are
directed to domestic flights and activities.
In addition, other federal inspection agencies, such as the Public Health Service,
are charged with environmental and health quarantine missions, but the Customs
Service and INS usually carry out the missions of these agencies at the border.
Meanwhile, the Coast Guard usually coordinates the efforts of federal border
management agencies at seaports. INS’s Border Patrol has the largest presence on
the Southwest border between ports of entry. The Customs Service and the Coast
Guard conduct large-scale air and marine drug interdiction operations on the southern
tier of the United States (Caribbean and Southwest border).19 And, the Coast Guard
is charged with securing the nation’s coastal and inland waterways, among other
things. The following discussion will examine the agencies charged with carrying
out those border security-related functions and missions in more detail.
Proposed Border Agency Consolidation. To increase border security
and more effectively counter terrorism, the Administration proposed transferring the
following four agencies and their respective missions to a proposed DHS Border and
Transportation Security division: the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS),
17Camarota, Steven. Census Bureau: Eight Million Illegal Aliens in 2000 (Finding Raises
Concern Over Border Control in light of Terrorist Threat). Center for Immigration Studies,
Washington, October 24, 2001. [http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/censusrelease1001.html].
18According to Federal-wide Drug Seizure System, federal authorities seized between 100
to 130 tons of cocaine per year for the last 5 years. According to DEA estimates, federal
authorities seized approximately 20% to 25% of the cocaine in transit to the United States,
either at the border or on the high seas.
19It is notable that the Department of Defense supports both Customs and the Coast Guard
with intelligence and aerial/maritime surveillance in the transit zones.

---

CRS-7
currently located in the Department of Justice; the U.S. Customs Service, currently
located in the Department of the Treasury; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), currently located in the Department of Agriculture; and the U.S.
Coast Guard, currently located in the Department of Transportation.
Recognizing the role that the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs
plays in the issuance of passports and visas, the Administration’s proposal would
give the Secretary of Homeland Security exclusive policy authority “through the
Secretary of State” over the “granting or refusal of visas.” Such a transfer of
authority is intended to increase border security. On matters related to visa policy,
it would, in effect, subordinate the Secretary of State to the Secretary of Homeland
Security. Nevertheless, the Department of State would likely continue its current visa
processing responsibilities, since the Administration’s proposal anticipates no
transfer of personnel or responsibilities from State to the proposed DHS.
In addition to these agencies and the transfer of the visa issuance authority, the
Administration proposal would fold the newly created Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), currently located in the Department of Transportation, and the
Federal Protective Service (FPS), currently located in the General Services
Administration, into this new division. The TSA’s aviation security responsibilities,
in certain circumstances, overlap with those of border management agencies. Some
might argue, however, that the new agency’s transportation security mandate raises
questions about whether joining this agency with border management agencies is a
good fit. Also, the transfer of the FPS to the new division and its possible expansion
of duties for federal building security raises questions about the division’s final
mission and scope of responsibilities that have not been clearly defined.
While there are various coordinating mechanisms,20 none of these agencies has
responsibility for the entire range of border management missions. Rather, they
specialize in certain types of missions. Currently located in their four separate
departments (Justice, Treasury, Transportation, and Agriculture), these agencies bring
certain professional specializations to the table that they might not otherwise have if
transferred to a department exclusively devoted to counterterrorism. For example,
as an agency in the Department of the Treasury, Customs is well placed to handle
certain missions such as trade compliance and money laundering. Concerns have
been voiced that in the proposed reorganization, these agencies may lose ready access
to professional specializations, and their ability to complete certain missions may be
diminished rather than enhanced.
Moreover, there is uneasiness among some in the “importing community”21 that
Customs will become too enforcement-minded and less supportive of trade
20For further information, see CRS Report RL31357, Federal Interagency Coordinative
Mechanisms: Varied Types and Numerous Devices, by Frederick M. Kaiser.
21Possibly not all inclusive, the concept of “importing community” would include importers,
exporters, customs brokers, shippers, freight forwarders, carriers, international trade
attorneys and consultants, and foreign trade zones.

---

CRS-8
facilitation if located in the proposed DHS.22 Similar views have been expressed by
some Members of Congress about transferring INS’s immigration and naturalization
application processing (service) activities to the DHS. On the other hand,
consolidating key border agencies could eliminate overlapping jurisdictions,
duplication of effort, and inter-agency rivalries, resulting in a more coordinated and
effective border management strategy.
Lead Immigration Agencies: INS and Consular Affairs23
U.S. immigration policy has historically balanced a set of generous principles
with a set of restrictive priorities. The generous principles emphasize the
reunification of families; the admission of immigrants with needed job skills; the
protection of refugees and asylees; the promotion of opportunities for cultural
exchange; the facilitation of trade, commerce, and diplomacy; and the diversity of
admissions by the country of origin. Another principle of immigration policy is to
provide immigrants an opportunity to integrate fully into society. Along these lines,
immigrants (legal permanent residents) usually have the opportunity to become
citizens through a process known as naturalization. The restrictive priorities of U.S.
immigration law focus on protecting public health and welfare, national security,
public safety, and labor markets.
These principles and priorities are embodied in the Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA), first codified in 1952. It is significant to note that there is a tension
between the generous principles and restrictive priorities of immigration law that are
difficult to reconcile in the day-to-day operations of the two lead agencies charged
with managing the migration of non-citizens across U.S. borders–Justice’s
Immigration and Naturalization Service and State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs. This
tension is in evidence as Congress considers proposals to establish a Department of
Homeland Security.
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Section 103 of the INA
gives primary responsibility for the administration and enforcement of immigration
law to the Attorney General. The Attorney General currently delegates most of this
responsibility to the INS Commissioner.24 It has been customary to view INS’s
responsibilities and activities as consisting of two functions, enforcement and service.
For FY2002, Congress provided INS with $6.2 billion, supporting 36,117 funded
permanent positions. According to DOJ, the FY2002 budget includes $4.0 billion
(26,708 positions) for enforcement programs, over $1.4 billion (5,707 positions) for
22Edmonson, R.G. Trade Facilitation in Peril? Some Wonder if Customs Trade Role Will
Be Diminished or Lost within Proposed Department of Homeland Security. Journal of
Commerce, June 17, 2002. p. 39.
23This section was prepared by Ruth Wasem, Lisa Seghetti, Susan Epstein, and William
Krouse.
24The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and the Civil Division are DOJ
entities that also administer certain elements of immigration law.

---

CRS-9
immigration services, and $730 million (3,702 positions) for administration and
support.25
Immigration Enforcement. INS immigration enforcement functions are
generally considered to include the following: (1) patrol of the border between ports
of entry; (2) inspection of travelers seeking entry into the United States at ports of
entry; (3) investigation of violations of immigration law both at the border and within
the interior of the United States; (4) detention and removal of non-citizens found to
be in violation of immigration law; and, (5) the collection of intelligence concerning
immigration-related illegal activities.
Between ports of entry, the U.S. Border Patrol, a division of INS, enforces U.S.
immigration law and other federal laws at the border. Border Patrol agents often
apprehend drug smugglers and others engaged in criminal activities, but the principal
focus of the Border Patrol is to stem illegal immigration,26 by compelling border
crossers to present themselves for inspection at a designated port of entry. At ports
of entry, INS inspectors examine and verify the travel documents of international
travelers to determine their eligibility to enter the United States.27 Unlike INS’s other
enforcement functions, the inspections function includes service-related activities as
well. For example, INS inspectors are the first line of contact with the traveling
public, including non-citizens seeking to enter the United States for the first time.
On the other hand, INS inspectors screen foreign travelers by checking border
lookout systems to determine whether they are listed as known terrorists or
supporters of terrorist organizations.28
INS special agents investigate immigration violations at the border, since neither
the Border Patrol nor INS inspections has a criminal investigations capability, and
in the interior of the United States, as well. Such investigations include identifying
criminal aliens for removal, immigration-related document and benefit fraud, alien
smuggling, and employer sanctions. Federal law prohibits employers from
knowingly hiring aliens who are unauthorized to work in the United States. INS
special agents, immigration inspectors, and Border Patrol agents participate in
interagency task forces, like the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, since only an
immigration officer can determine immigration and nationality status, as opposed to
a U.S. Marshal or FBI agent.29 In addition, a small number of INS special agents are
stationed abroad.
25U.S. Department of Justice, 2003 Budget Summary, (Washington, winter 2002). p. 105.
26Over 90% of Border Patrol agents are deployed on the Southwest border.
27According to the INS Statistics Office, INS inspectors screened about 511 million persons
for entry (approximately 36% citizens and 64% non-citizens) in FY2001. The non-citizens
they found inadmissible number in the hundreds of thousands, but represented less than
0.2% of all inspections annually.
28In the INS budget, inspections is considered an enforcement program, but organizationally
inspections has traditionally been considered an examinations or service program.
29A term of art, “immigration officers” include special agents, immigration agents,
immigration inspectors, Border Patrol agents, deportation officers, detention enforcement
officers, Asylum Corps officers, and adjudications officers.

---

CRS-10
INS officers also oversee the detention and removal of non-citizens – many of
whom cannot be released under the law until removed from the United States. In
recent years, INS has come under intense criticism for not expeditiously deporting
criminal aliens. Despite increased funding, INS officials have maintained that the
agency does not possess the detention capacity to comply with the law. Furthermore,
INS officers collect intelligence in regard to illegal immigration-related activities,
such as alien smuggling or large-scale document and benefit fraud. Such intelligence
is often useful to other federal law enforcement agencies, as well.
It is notable that INS enforcement functions are linked to the INS service
functions. For example, INS inspectors routinely query INS application processing
databases in order to determine the immigration status of applicants for admission
at international ports of entry. Conversely, INS adjudicators routinely query INS
enforcement databases to determine whether non-citizen applicants for certain
immigration benefits have been or are in violation of immigration law. In addition,
INS adjudicators are also required to conduct criminal background and lookout
system checks on certain applicants by checking with the FBI and the Department of
State. Along these lines, moreover, Congress has recently mandated that all INS
databases, service and enforcement systems, be made interoperable.30
Immigration Services. Immigration services consist of two major activities:
(1) the adjudication of immigration- and naturalization-related benefits; and (2) the
consideration of refugee and asylum claims. As part of the INS adjudications and
nationality program, INS adjudication officers and clerks process family-sponsored
and employment-based immigrant petitions to determine the eligibility of relatives
of U.S. citizens and immigrants (legal permanent residents), and employees of U.S.
businesses, to be permanently admitted to the United States. Another significant
workload for INS adjudications officers is that associated with applications for
adjustment of status to permanent residency for non-citizens who are already in the
United States, but who are otherwise eligible for immigrant status. INS officers also
process temporary (nonimmigrant) employment and fiancee visa applications,
nonimmigrant visa adjustments and extensions of stay, as well as many other
immigration- and naturalization-related applications.31
The INS Office of International Affairs, among other things, oversees the
consideration of refugee claims abroad, and asylum claims domestically. Essentially,
non-citizens are granted refugee and asylum status on the same basis. Under current
law, refugees and asylees are persons who are outside of their home country (or the
last country in which they habitually resided), and who are unable to return to that
country because of a well founded fear of persecution on the basis of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Asylum
applicants apply in the United States; refugee applicants apply from abroad. Located
in eight offices around the country, the INS Asylum Corps accounts for a small, but
30Section 202(a)(1) of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002
(P.L. 107-173; 116 Stat. 543).
31In FY2001, INS received about 7.8 million applications and completed a record 7 million,
but INS ended the year with nearly 4.9 million applications pending, a nearly 24% increase
over the previous year.

---

CRS-11
high profile portion of the INS workload. In addition, INS immigration officers
(often Asylum Corps officers) are assigned to many foreign locations to consider
refugee claims.
INS Reorganization Proposals. Preceding the Administration’s June 6
plan and proposed transfer of INS to the proposed DHS, the Administration carried
forward a restructuring plan to split the agency’s service and enforcement programs
within INS. On April 25, 2002, the House passed a measure (H.R. 3231) sponsored
by Judiciary Committee Chairman, Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, that
would dismantle INS. On May 2, a similar, but competing, measure (S. 2444) was
introduced by the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee Chairman, Senator
Edward Kennedy. Both bills would establish separate immigration services and
enforcement bureaus. The Senate bill, however, would create an immigration
director with overall statutory authority for immigration policy. The House bill
would establish an Associate Attorney General for Immigration, but the statutory
authority for immigration services and enforcement would devolve to the respective
bureau directors.32
Consular Affairs (CA): Visa and Passport Issuance. The Department
of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) manages three functions, two of which
– visa and passport issuance – are related to border management and security. Of
these two functions, however, overseas visa issuance policy is a principal focus of
border security proposals being considered by Congress. The third function,
unrelated to border security, includes services to U.S. citizens abroad.
Section 104 of the INA gives primary responsibility for the administration and
enforcement of immigration law to the Secretary of State as it relates to the duties
and functions of diplomatic and consular officers.33 CA’s Visa Office carries out the
Secretary of State’s immigration responsibilities, processing immigrant and
nonimmigrant visa applications (as opposed to visa petitions, which are processed
by INS). Section 211(a) of Title 22 of the United States Code charges the Secretary
of State with responsibilities related to issuing passports to U.S. citizens.34 CA’s
Passport Office oversees the issuance of U.S. passports. While CA provides for
headquarters management of all consular activities, these activities are conducted by
the staff of many different bureaus (regional and administrative) within the
32For further information, see CRS Report RL31388, Immigration and Naturalization
Service Restructuring Proposals in the 107th Congress, by Lisa Seghetti.
33Among other things, Section 221 of the INA (8 U.S.C., § 1201) sets out that, subject to
limitations in the Act and relevant regulations, consular officers may issue immigrant and
nonimmigrant visas.
34With certain exceptions, Section 215 of the INA prohibits any U.S. citizen from departing
from or entering the United States without a valid passport.

---

CRS-12
Department of State. For FY2002, the department-wide budget for consular activities
is about $574 million,35 supporting 3,756 positions.36
CA also maintains the Consolidated Lookout and Support System (CLASS), a
system that is used to screen persons known to be ineligible for visas. CLASS
lookout records, in turn, are downloaded into the Interagency Border Inspection
System (IBIS), a system that is maintained by Customs and used by both Customs
and INS inspectors to screen foreign travelers seeking to enter the United States.37
CLASS was developed under State’s Border Security Program, which is fully funded
through machine readable visa (MRV) application fees that are paid by persons
seeking nonimmigrant visas. For FY2002, under the Border Security Program, it was
estimated the MRV fees would generate an estimated $465 million,38 but this
estimate did not factor in the decline in travel due to the September 11 terrorist
attacks. In addition to funding CLASS, significant amounts of MRV fees are
allocated to passport issuance and systems, and to the Diplomatic Security Service
to conduct visa and passport fraud investigations.39
In regard to processing immigrant visas, CA works in tandem with INS in a two-
step process. INS processes the family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant
visa petitions and, if favorably adjudicated, CA contacts the prospective immigrants.
Then, CA processes their visa applications and, if favorably adjudicated, issues the
non-citizen beneficiaries immigrant visas. The burden of proof is on applicants to
establish eligibility. For denials of visa applications (immigrant or nonimmigrant),
there is only limited review, and no process for administrative or judicial appeal.
Following inspection at a U.S. port of entry, the immigrant visa holder becomes a
legal permanent resident. For the majority of nonimmigrant (temporary) visas, most
of which do not require a U.S. petitioner, CA handles the entire application process.
In general, foreign nationals who wish to come to the United States must have
a visa to be admitted.40 A notable exception would be the visa waiver program under
which foreign nationals from certain countries seeking to enter the United States for
a temporary visit for business or pleasure may enter without a visa.41 In FY2001,
35U.S. Department of State. Congressional Presentation Document, FY2003, (Washington,
winter 2002). p. 40. (Hereafter cited as Congressional Presentation Document, FY2003.)
36Ibid., p. 41.
37For further information, see CRS Report RL31019, Terrorism: Automated Lookout
Systems and Border Security Options and Issues, by William J. Krouse and Raphael F. Perl.
38Congressional Presentation Document, FY2003, p. 516.
39Nearly all of this amount for the border security program, $476 million, is allocated for
consular activities; therefore, it overlaps with the $574 million for consular activities.
40Authorities to except or to waive visa requirements are specified in law, such as the broad
parole authority of the Attorney General under §212(d)(5) of INA and the specific authority
of the Visa Waiver Program in §217 of INA.
41See CRS Report RS21205, Immigration: Visa Waiver Program, by Alison Siskin.

---

CRS-13
Consular Affairs issued over 406,000 immigrant visas,42 and nearly 7.6 million
nonimmigrant visas.43 Often described as a double check system, both State’s
consular officers at overseas posts (when aliens apply for a visa), and INS inspectors
at international ports of entry (when aliens apply for admission) are required to
confirm that the alien is admissible and not subject to a grounds for exclusion as
enumerated in the INA. Beside criminal and public health-related grounds, such
grounds also include being a suspected terrorist or supporter of a terrorist
organization.
Immigration and Homeland Security Legislation. The Administration’s
plan would have given the Secretary of Homeland Security exclusive policy authority
“through the Secretary of State” over the “granting or refusal of visas.” The
Department of State, however, would have continued its current visa processing
responsibilities, since the Administration’s plan anticipated no transfer of personnel
or responsibilities from State to the proposed DHS. The Administration’s plan
would have also transferred INS in its entirety to the proposed DHS Border Security
and Transportation Security division. While supporting documents, accompanying
the Administration’s proposal, show separate border enforcement and immigration
services branches, the proposal itself would not have statutorily split the agency’s
activities. This arrangement elicited the opposition of some Members of Congress,
who maintained that transferring an unreformed INS to the proposed DHS would not
increase border security.
Along those lines, the Chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary,
Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, recommended splitting INS into separate
bureaus; the service activities were to remain at the Department of Justice, while INS
enforcement activities were to be transferred to the proposed Border and
Transportation Security division. This split was reflected in the version of H.R. 5005
passed by the House. In addition, Representative Sensenbrenner favored transferring
State’s CA to the new department, but the Committee approved an amendment that
left CA in State, and that was included in the version of H.R. 5005 approved by the
House.
Meanwhile, the Senate bill (S. 2452), as most recently modified by the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs, includes the Immigration Reform,
Accountability, and Security Enhancement Act of 2002, which would abolish INS
and establish a Directorate of Immigration Affairs in the new department. It would
amend the INA to establish separate bureaus for “immigration services” and
42In FY2001, over 1 million people gained immigrant status (legal permanent residency).
Well over half were already in the United States and, therefore, processed by INS and
adjusted status to legal permanent residency in the United States under section 245 of the
INA. As a result, they were not issued immigrant visas by the Department of State.
43In FY2001, according to INS, about 325 million nonimmigrants were admitted to the
United States (includes multiple entries by the same visitors). Of those nonimmigrants, an
estimated 17 million were admitted under the visa waiver program.

---

CRS-14
“enforcement and border affairs. Both bureaus would be under the proposed
Directorate of Immigration Affairs in the proposed DHS.44
U.S. Customs Service and International Trade45
The U.S. Customs Service, an agency of the Department of the Treasury,
screens goods and merchandise being imported into and, to a lesser extent, exported
from, the United States. Customs is the lead agency charged with administering the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. At international ports of entry, Customs officers
represent about 40 other federal agencies, administering and enforcing over 400
statutes and regulations related to international trade and commerce, drug and crime
control, immigration, public health and safety, environmental protection, child
welfare, and national security.46
Customs processes goods being imported into the United States, collecting
duties and tariffs. The agency plays a major role in federal efforts to interdict illegal
drugs and other contraband being smuggled into the United States. Customs
administers U.S. export law, in part, by interdicting the export of unreported currency
from narcotics trafficking and other illicit activities, preventing international terrorist
groups and rogue nations from obtaining sensitive and controlled commodities, and
interdicting stolen vehicles and other stolen property. Like other federal law
enforcement agencies, Customs has also engaged in efforts to identify and investigate
trans-border crimes committed through the Internet. These responsibilities comprise
Customs’ dual mission of enforcing the laws of the United States, while fostering
legitimate international commerce and travel. All of Customs’ activities are related
to border management and security. If done well, they contribute to “homeland
security.”
In FY2001, Customs collected over $22 billion in trade-related duties, taxes, and
fees.47 Total imports for that year reached an estimated value of $1.175 trillion.48 A
large percentage of these imports arrived in more than 16 million cargo containers,
and about 5.7 million of these containers arrived by ship.49 In FY2001, Customs
processed more than 214,000 ships.50 In addition, Customs processed over 472
million pedestrians and passengers (nearly 66 million arrived by aircraft, 11 million
44For further information, see CRS Report RL31512, Visa Issuances: Policy, Issues, and
Legislation, by Ruth Wasem.
45This section was prepared by William Krouse.
46Provided they have the requisite training, certain INS officers, Inspectors and Border
Patrol agents are authorized to act as Customs officers at the border.
47U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Customs Service: America’s Frontline, FY2001 Annual
Report. Washington, July 2002. p. 70.
48Ibid, p. 16
49U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Customs Container Security Initiative to Safeguard U.S.,
Global Economy, Fact Sheet. Washington, February 2002. p. 1.
[http://www.customs.gov/hot-new/pressrel/2002/0222-00.htm]
50Ibid., p. 1.

---

CRS-15
by ship, 307 million by automobile, 53 million pedestrians, and 35 million by some
other means of conveyance).51 For FY2002, Congress appropriated $3.117 billion
for Customs,52 supporting 18,595 full time equivalent staff positions; a 35% increase
over the agency’s FY2001 appropriation, most of which was provided to improve
border security.53
Customs and Homeland Security Legislation. All versions of the
homeland security proposals would transfer Customs in its entirety to the proposed
DHS, though the House-passed bill (H.R. 5005) and the Senate committee-modified
bill (S. 2452) would give the Secretary of the Treasury continued authority over
“customs revenue functions.” These provisions are largely an outgrowth of concerns
among the “importing community” that Customs’ transfer to DHS – a department
exclusively focused on counterterrorism – might result in less emphasis on
facilitating legitimate international commerce and travel. Some Members of
Congress explored the possibility of splitting Customs enforcement and trade
compliance activities (loosely equivalent to those activities that would fall under
“customs revenue functions”) along the same lines as splitting INS enforcement and
services activities. Others observed, however, that Customs’ enforcement activities
are derived largely from its regulatory activities, and that all these activities are part
of managing international trade at the borders.
The Ways and Means Committee made a series of other recommendations,
some of which address the concerns of the “importing community.” The Chairman’s
mark approved by the Select Committee on Homeland Security included some, but
not all, of the provisions recommended by the Ways and Means Committee. The
Chairman’s mark included provisions that would:
! establish the Customs Service as a stand-alone agency vested with largely the
same revenue-related responsibilities as the agency currently holds;
! require that the Customs Service be headed by a Commissioner (as is the case
today), who would be appointed with advice and consent of the Senate;
! leave the statutory revenue collecting authority with the Secretary of the
Treasury, but allow the Secretary to delegate revenue collecting
responsibilities to the proposed DHS;
! require the development and implementation of a cost accounting system to
track the use of Customs user fees;
51Customs FY2001 Annual Report, p. 16.
52This amount includes the FY2002 emergency supplemental appropriation of $393 million
allocated in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-117). It also includes
monies appropriated into four accounts: 1) $2.501 billion in salaries and expenses account,
2) $185 million in air and marine interdiction program account, 3) $428 million in
automation modernization account, and 4) $3 million in the harbor maintenance fee account.
53From FY1992 to FY2001, Congress increased direct appropriations for the U.S. Customs
Service from $1.454 to $2.315 billion, a 59% increase. To cover the costs of commercial
operations and as directed by Congress, Customs offsets its direct appropriation by the
balance of merchandise processing fees in the Customs User Fee Account ($930 million in
FY2001). In addition to appropriated funding, the Customs Service collects COBRA fee
receipts that are available to the agency for expenditure ($305 million in FY2001).

---

CRS-16
! prohibit the use of Customs user fees for non-Customs-related activities;
! require the Administration to submit a separate budget on Customs’ revenue
functions within the proposed DHS;
! allow certain importers to pay duties and tariffs on a monthly basis;
! define “customs revenue function” and related activities, and
! require the GAO to report on all trade functions performed by the executive
branch.
During Select Committee mark up, several other Customs-related provisions,
originally recommended by the Ways and Means Committee, were approved. These
additional provisions would:
! direct the DHS Secretary to maintain adequate staffing to assure that the
agency’s revenue services are maintained;
! establish reporting requirements to ensure that the level of revenue services
provided by Customs prior to enactment are maintained; and
! dedicate a portion of merchandise processing fees for the continued
development, establishment, and implementation of an Automated
Commercial Environment (a computer system to track imports).
All of these provisions were included in the House-passed version of H.R. 5005.
The Senate bill (S. 2452), as most recently revised by the Committee on
Governmental Affairs on July 25, 2002, would transfer Customs as a distinct entity
to the proposed DHS. Like the House bill, it includes provisions that would leave
“customs revenue functions”54 authority with the Secretary of the Treasury. The
House bill would authorize the Secretary of Treasury to delegate such authority to the
Secretary of Homeland Security, while the Senate bill would require that the
Secretary of the Treasury exercise this authority with the concurrence of the Secretary
of Homeland Security.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)55
While the INS and Customs Service are the principal border management and
inspection agencies, they are assisted in this endeavor by other federal inspection
agencies that are charged with protecting the environment, food supply, and public
54Both bills would statutorily define “customs revenue functions” to include activities
related to the following provisions of law: the Tariff Act of 1930; section 249 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States (19 U.S.C. 3); section 2 of the Act of March 4, 1923 (19 U.S.C.
6); section 13031 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.
C. 58c); section 251 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (19 U.S.C. 66); section 1
of the Act of June 26, 1930 (19 U.S.C. 68); the Foreign Trade Zones Act (19 U.S.C. 81a et
seq.); section 1 of the Act of March 2, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 198); the Trade Act of 1974; the
Trade Agreement of 1979; the North American Free Trade Implementation Act; the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act; the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; the Andean Trad
Preference Act; the African Growth and Opportunity Act; and any of the other provision of
law vesting customs revenue functions in the Secretary of the Treasury.
55This section was prepared by Jean Rawson and William Krouse.

---

CRS-17
health. The Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS), following INS and Customs, has the largest presence at the border. As a
lead inspections agency, nearly 60% of APHIS’s staff and 30% of its $1.2 billion
FY2001 budget were dedicated to border inspection-related duties. As such, APHIS
has been included in recent proposals to consolidate border management agencies.
Like APHIS, other agencies bring their expertise to bear at the border, as well,
supporting the federal inspection services in carrying out their responsibilities related
to the environmental and public heath quarantine function. They include the
Environmental Protection Agency; the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department
of the Interior; the Food Safety Inspection Service in the Department of Agriculture;56
and the Food and Drug Administration, the Public Health Service’s Commissioned
Officer Corps, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the Department
of Health and Human Services.
All of these agencies conduct their inspections-related responsibilities
differently. For example, APHIS conducts its inspections at the ports of entry. The
FDA, for the most part, analyzes electronic cargo manifests and targets certain
shipments for inspection by Customs. The Food Safety Inspection Service conducts
off-site inspections at either locations abroad or within the United States. Earlier in
the year, the President’s Office of Homeland Security had discussed transferring
FDA to a DHS.57 However, the Administration later only identified APHIS as an
agency that should be transferred to the proposed DHS, suggesting that significant
coordination with these entities may remain a challenge.
Agriculture’s APHIS conducts inspection and quarantine activities at
international ports of entry to minimize the risk that agricultural pests and exotic
animal and plant diseases will be introduced into the United States. APHIS,
however, is also charged with several non-border management responsibilities that
include nationwide monitoring of animal and plant health; pest and disease
management; animal care; and controlling and eradicating pests and diseases that are
harmful to agriculture, wildlife, or public safety.
APHIS and Homeland Security Legislation. The Administration’s
original plan would have transferred APHIS in its entirety to the proposed DHS. The
Select Committee-reported and House-passed bill (H.R. 5005), however, reflect the
recommendations made by the House Committee on Agriculture. The bill would
transfer APHIS import and entry inspection functions to the proposed DHS, but
explicitly exempt the agency’s plant and animal quarantine operations. The DHS
Secretary would be required to follow APHIS regulations, policies, and procedures
concerning border inspections, and the USDA Secretary would retain the authority
to make changes in the same, with the requirement to coordinate with the DHS
Secretary.
56For further information, see CRS Issue Brief, IB10099, Food Safety and Protection Issues
in the 107th Congress, by Jean Rawson and Donna Vogt.
57Booth, William. Where Sea Meets Shore, Scenarios for Terrorists: Nation’s Vulnerable
Ports Revamp Defenses. Washington Post, January 3, 2002. p. A1.

---

CRS-18
Nonetheless, under H.R. 5005, the DHS Secretary would have the authority to
issue directives and guidelines to ensure the effective use of the transferred
personnel, pursuant to consultation with USDA. The bill would transfer 3,200
APHIS employees to the new department, and would require USDA to transfer –
from the fees it collects from importers for inspection services – sufficient funds to
cover the costs incurred by DHS in carrying out agricultural inspection activities at
borders and ports of entry.
In addition, H.R. 5005 (as amended) would transfer the Plum Island Foreign
Animal Disease Diagnostics Laboratory to the Science and Technology division in
the proposed DHS. This lab is currently operated jointly by APHIS and USDA’s in-
house research agency, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). A provision in
H.R. 5005 would direct the USDA and DHS Secretaries to create an agreement of
understanding so that ARS personnel would continue to be able to use the facility.
The Senate committee-modified bill (S. 2452) would transfer the authorities,
functions, personnel, and assets that pertain to the entire APHIS agricultural
inspection program (including the quarantine function) to the new department. There
is no language in the proposal addressing questions of joint administration.
However, S. 2452 would not transfer the Plum Island lab to the new department.58
Coast Guard and Maritime Security59
In recent years, many analysts have identified U.S. vessels, ports, shoreside
facilities, and infrastructure as vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Both homeland security
bills (H.R. 5005 and S. 2452) would transfer the U.S. Coast Guard to a proposed
DHS to enhance border security. In addition, Congress has acted on other separate,
but related, measures (S. 1214/H.R. 3983) to enhance seaport security as well.
Background Information on the Coast Guard. Currently located in the
Department of Transportation, the U.S. Coast Guard is one of five military services.
It contributes to border security in the areas of maritime intervention and seaports and
coastal waterways security. Charged with federal law enforcement in both U.S.
territorial waters and on the high seas, border security-related missions include multi-
agency maritime drug interdiction; illegal migrant interdiction; and regulating foreign
fishing vessel transits into the 200-mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
In addition, the Coast Guard is responsible for the search and rescue of those
who find themselves in distress in all waters, and icebreaking operations in areas like
the Great Lakes to maintain year-round access to those waterways and the polar
regions in support of scientific and national security operations. The Coast Guard,
with its ports and waterways security mandate, is the federal agency that coordinates
58For further information, see CRS Report RL31466, Homeland Security Department: U.S.
Department of Agriculture Issues, by Jean Rawson.
59This section was prepared by Martin Lee and Ron O’Roarke (Coast Guard), and John
Frittelli (seaport security).

---

CRS-19
the inspection and security activities of other federal agencies and local port
authorities.60
There has been continuing concern over the adequacy of Coast Guard operating
resources and the condition of some of its vessels and equipment. The
Administration and Congress have significantly increased these resources. For
FY2002, Congress earlier in the year appropriated $5.7 billion for the Coast Guard
(including a $209 million counterterrorism supplemental). This amount funds about
37,000 active-duty personnel, about 6,000 civilian employees, and about 8,000
reserve uniformed personnel. More recently, Congress appropriated for the Coast
Guard an additional $255 million in a supplemental spending measure61 to further
recovery and response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The President signed
this measure on August 2, 2002, bringing total FY2002 Coast Guard funding to over
$6.0 billion.62
As with other agencies, Members of Congress are concerned that, if the Coast
Guard is transferred to the proposed DHS, certain non-security functions such as
boating safety, search and rescue, and fishing regulation may be de-emphasized.
However, a July 12th report by the Brookings Institution argued that institutionally
splitting the Coast Guard’s security and non-security activities would not be cost
effective, since Coast Guard personnel and craft are dual-purpose and most
efficiently managed in that mode.63
Coast Guard and Homeland Security Legislation. The
Administration’s proposal would transfer the Coast Guard to the new department and
place it under the proposed Border and Transportation Security division, but the
proposal included language that would preserve the Coast Guard as a distinct entity
in the new department and mandated that the Coast Guard Commandant report
directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Meanwhile, the House Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure recommended that the Coast Guard remain in
DOT, a new Coast Guard Vice Commandant for Homeland Security be created, and
all core missions be performed at adequate levels.64 Notwithstanding, the Select
Committee-reported and House-passed H.R. 5005 would transfer the Coast Guard in
its entirety as a distinct entity to the proposed DHS, like the Administration’s plan.
The Lieberman substitute to Senate bill (S. 2452), as approved by the
Committee on Governmental Affairs on July 25, 2002, would transfer the Coast
60For Further information, see CRS Report RS20924, Homeland Security: Coast Guard
Legislation in the 107th Congress, by Martin Lee, and CRS Report RS21125, Homeland
Security: Coast Guard Operations-Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O-
Rourke. (Hereafter cited as CRS Report RS21125, Homeland Security)
61Public Law 107-206; 116 STAT. 820.
62From FY1992 to FY2001, the Coast Guard budget increased from about $3.6 to $5.1
billion
63Daalder, Ivo H., et al. Assessing the Department of Homeland Security. The Brookings
Institution, Washington, July 2002. p. 14.
64For further information, see CRS Report RS21125, Homeland Security.

---

CRS-20
Guard to a Border and Transportation Security directorate of the proposed DHS.
Like H.R. 5005, it would require the Commandant to report directly to the Secretary
of Homeland Security (and not to the head of the directorate). The Senate bill also
includes a provision that is geared towards maintaining the Coast Guard’s current
missions. Among other things, it would: (1) define the Coast Guard’s homeland and
non-homeland security missions; (2) prohibit a reduction or transfer of Coast Guard
authorities, functions, personnel, and assets; (3) prohibit the modification of the
Coast Guard’s non-homeland security missions; and (4) require the DHS Inspector
General to report annually to the appropriate authorizing and appropriations
committees as to the Coast Guard’s non-homeland security mission performance.
Another provision would authorize appropriations for certain homeland security
technology research, and development funds for improving ports, waterways, and
coastal security.
Seaport Security Legislation. While the Administration’s proposed
transfer of the Coast Guard to DHS may address some aspects of security at U.S.
seaports, the Senate and House have passed separate measures (S. 1214 and H.R.
3983) addressing this issue in further detail. Even before the September 11 terrorist
attacks, an interagency commission issued a report that found, with a few exceptions,
the level of security at seaports was poor to fair.65 Today, there is heightened concern
that a cargo container or ship’s hull could be used to transport a weapon of mass
destruction to the United States and then be detonated in a major seaport.66 While
the House-passed bill addresses counter-terrorism principally, the Senate-passed bill
addresses drug smuggling, cargo theft, trade fraud, and alien smuggling, in addition
to counter-terrorism. Like the homeland security legislation, the port security
legislation is on the fast track and a conference agreement may be considered on the
House and Senate floor in the near future.
At issue for Congress is how the homeland and seaport security legislation may
be overlapping, complementary, or contradictory in their provisions. For example,
both of the port security bills would give the Secretary of Transportation and
Treasury’s Customs Service varying degrees of responsibility for seaport security.
In addition, the House-passed bill would give TSA limited counter-terrorism
responsibilities in the seaport environment related to cargo containers.67
Transportation Security: An Evolving Federal Activity68
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is an agency in the making.
Under its founding legislation, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act
65Report of The Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports.
Washington, Fall 2000. p. 169.
66For further information, see CRS Report RS21293, Terrorist Nuclear Attacks on Seaports:
Threat and Response, by John Medalia.
67For further information, see CRS Report RL31424, Maritime and Port Security: A
Comparison of Major Provisions of S. 1214 and H.R. 3983, by John Frittelli.
68This section was prepared by Robert Kirk.

---

CRS-21
(ATSA),69 the new agency is to assume the responsibility for the security of all modes
of transportation. Because aircraft were used as weapons in the September 11
attacks and ATSA’s tight aviation security deadlines, it is not surprising that the
TSA’s early efforts have focused on aviation security.
Meanwhile, the rising TSA budget and estimates of the agency’s eventual size
have sparked significant controversy. For FY2002, Congress initially appropriated
$1.3 billion for TSA. The agency received another $1.1 billion transfer from the
Federal Aviation Administration, most of whose security functions were transferred
to TSA. More recently, Congress appropriated an additional $3.4 billion for TSA in
another supplemental spending act70 to further the recovery and response to the
September 11 terrorist attacks. These amounts bring the agency’s operational
FY2002 budget to about $5.8 billion.
Early estimates of TSA’s personnel needs were in the range of 28,000 to 33,000
employees. More recent estimates have been in the range of 60,000 to 70,000
employees. The agency asserts that this increase in funding and personnel is largely
an outgrowth of ATSA’s tight implementation guidelines and the mandates for a
fully federal screener workforce by November 18, 2002, and explosive detection
system screening of all checked baggage (which requires the hiring of more
screeners) by December 31, 2002. Despite this, some Members of Congress have
expressed alarm at the growth in the expected final size of the TSA.
ATSA remains largely silent on how TSA is to assert its authority over the
security of the non-aviation modes of transportation. Under ATSA, the design of
TSA was influenced significantly by the decision to put the proposed agency in the
Department of Transportation. While TSA’s security mandate covers both domestic
and international transportation, its international transportation security role overlaps
with border security. For example, when TSA baggage screeners prevent someone
with ill intent from boarding an international flight, this could be viewed as a border
security activity. Also, when TSA sky marshals provide security on international
flights departing from airports abroad, this could also be viewed as a border security
activity. Nonetheless, how TSA’s security functions will be merged or coordinated
with border management agencies, like INS and Customs, has yet to be specified.
The shift of TSA to the proposed DHS may magnify some of the unresolved issues
of transportation security.
TSA and Homeland Security Legislation. Like the Administration’s
original plan, the House-passed H.R. 5005 would transfer TSA to the proposed DHS.
Other provisions related to TSA emerged from a contentious mark up meeting of the
House Select Committee on Homeland Security on July 22, 2002. Among other
things, the bill would require further that the TSA be maintained as a distinct entity
within the new Department for 2 years after enactment.
The House bill would also provide a process by which airports that determine
they cannot meet the December 31, 2002, deadline for the ATSA requirement that
69P.L. 107-71; 115 STAT. 597.
70P.L. 107-206; 116 STAT. 820.

---

CRS-22
all checked baggage be screened by explosive detection systems (EDS), can have up
until December 31, 2003, to execute their EDS implementation plans. In addition,
the bill prohibits the new department from receiving any funding from the various
transportation trust funds.
The Senate bill (S. 2452), as approved by the Committee on Governmental
Affairs on July 25, 2002, is more in line with the Administration’s plan, and differs
from H.R. 5005 significantly in that it transfers the authorities, functions, personnel,
and assets of the TSA to the Directorate of Border and Transportation Protection
within the new Department, but does not require that the TSA be maintained as a
distinct entity. The Senate bill would not extend the EDS deadline or prohibit the use
of transportation trust fund revenues for the proposed DHS.71
Federal Building Security72
The Administration's plan would have transferred the Office of Federal
Protective Service (FPS) to the Border and Transportation Security division of the
proposed DHS. FPS is currently part of the Public Buildings Service (PBS) at the
General Services Administration (GSA). Approximately 7,000 contract security
personnel supplement nearly 1,400 FPS employees.73
FPS delivers integrated security and law enforcement services to all federal
buildings that GSA owns, controls, or leases, providing protection to federal
employees and visitors in 8,300 properties within the United States. Services
provided by FPS include:74
! Providing a visible uniformed presence in major federal facilities
! Responding to criminal incidents and other emergencies
! Installing and monitoring security devices and systems
! Investigating criminal incidents
! Conducting physical security surveys
! Coordinating a comprehensive program for occupant agencies' emergency
plans
! Providing formal crime prevention and security awareness programs
! Providing police emergency and special security services during natural
disasters, major civil disturbances, and other incidents and emergencies
71For further information, see CRS Report RS21244, Department of Homeland Security:
Should the Transportation Security Administration be Included?, by Robert S. Kirk.
72This section was prepared by Elaine Halchin.
73Information provided in a facsimile by the Office of Federal Protective Service, May 9,
2002.
74General Services Administration. Security and Law Enforcement Services -- Frequently
Asked Questions. Available at: [http://www.gsa.gov/]. Last visited on August 9, 2002.
Click on “FAQs.” Click on “Federal Protective Service Information on Chemical,
Biological and Bomb Threats.” Click on “Office of Federal Protective Service.” Click on
the document cited above.

---

CRS-23
It is notable that many agencies are responsible for securing their buildings and
protecting their personnel. These include agencies and associated facilities that: (1)
are exempted statutorily from GSA's authority; (2) have requested and received a
delegation of security authority from GSA; or (3) have independent real property
authority.75 At the same time, any federal agency may contract with FPS for security
services.
FPS and Homeland Security Legislation. Both the Administration’s plan
and the House-passed H.R. 5005 would transfer FPS to the Border and
Transportation Security division. It is unclear why FPS would be moved to a
division whose focus is border and transportation security, since the primary function
of FPS is the protection of federal facilities and employees. The recently revised
version of S. 2452 would place FPS in what some would argue might be a more
appropriate location: the proposed Directorate of Critical Infrastructure Protection.
Federal agencies that occupy GSA controlled buildings pay a basic security fee
to GSA. Under H.R. 5005, the GSA Administrator would retain the authority to
collect such fees and would be authorized to transfer funds from the rents and fees
collected by GSA to DHS. The bill also would require that these funds be used
solely for the protection of buildings and grounds owned or occupied by federal
government entities. Furthermore, it would prohibit the DHS Secretary from
obligating amounts in the Federal Buildings Fund.
Issues for Congress
No single department or agency is charged with responding to the threat of
terrorism. In response to an increased threat of terrorism, Congress is considering
proposals to create a Department of Homeland Security and, within that cabinet-
level department, merging several federal agencies charged with overseeing elements
of border, transportation, and federal building security into a Border and
Transportation Security division or directorate.
Currently located in five different departments, INS, Consular Affairs, Customs,
APHIS, and the Coast Guard are the federal agencies charged with what are generally
considered core border management missions that would be transferred to this new
division. In addition, over 40 other federal agencies are involved in some aspect of
border management, but Customs and INS largely carry out their responsibilities at
the border. With an evolving transportation security mission, the fledgling TSA
would also be transferred from the Department of Transportation to the new division.
Lastly, the Federal Protective Service, which handles security for buildings owned,
operated, and leased by the GSA, would be transferred to the new division/directorate
under the both the House-passed and the Senate committee modified bills.
75Twenty-six agencies have independent real property authority. The list includes, for
example, all 13 executive departments, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the
General Services Administration, and the U.S. Postal Service. (U.S. Department of Justice,
Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of
Justice, 1995. p. H-2.)

---

CRS-24
The Department of Homeland Security model has strong support, particularly
in regard to border security and management. Supporters point to fragmented
authorities, overlapping jurisdictions, duplicated efforts, and interagency rivalries
among the key border management agencies. Moreover, there is strong consensus
that greater information sharing, inter-agency coordination, and shortened lines of
command and control are imperative to respond more decisively to the new terrorist
threat. Yet, hard questions remain concerning current proposals to consolidate these
agencies.
Would Border Security Be Improved? It remains an open question for
some whether consolidating border management agencies (INS, Customs, APHIS,
and Coast Guard), TSA, and the Federal Protective Service under a single division
at the proposed DHS would improve border, transportation, and federal building
security in either the short or long run.
In the short run, would launching such a large-scale reorganization make the
country more vulnerable to terrorist attacks by disrupting these agencies, fragmenting
their resources, and distracting their attention from more immediate threat responses
and related initiatives? As follow-on issues: What steps could be taken to maintain
an increased focus on counterterrorism and border security while consolidating these
agencies? How could any disruption to legitimate travel and commerce caused by
an increased focus on counterterrorism be mitigated?
In the long run, after the physical consolidation of these agencies has been
completed, there could still be many integrative and harmonization of operations
steps that would be necessary. How would these agencies (even in the same division)
share information needed for border security? How would agreements be struck to
more effectively integrate the border inspection activities? How would coordination
be improved with the multiple agencies that are left out of the consolidation?
Would It Be Cost Effective? The Administration maintains that its
proposed reorganization will achieve savings by eliminating redundancies. Several
outside observers, including Congressional Budget Office76 and General Accounting
Office,77 disagree with this assessment, however. Several questions arise here.
Would costs really be reduced through eliminating redundancies, or would it be
necessary to increase spending to more fully integrate disparate systems and
operations? Or, alternatively, would it be more effective to allocate increased
76Based on the assumption that the necessary amounts were appropriated, CBO estimates
that implementing H.R. 5005 would cost about $4.5 billion over the FY2003 to FY2007
period, and estimated that implementing S. 2452 would cost about $10.6 billion over the
same time period. These amounts are in addition to the funding necessary to maintain the
ongoing activities of the transferred agencies. Neither estimate broke out costs associated
with establishing the Border and Transportation Security division/directorate. To view these
estimates in their entirety, visit [http://www.cbo.gov/CESearch.htm,], click on “cost
estimates,” and search these bills.
77U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO-02-957T, Homeland Security: Critical Design and
Implementation Issues, Statement of David Walker Comptroller General of the United
States, (Washington: July 17, 2002), p. 20. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02957t.pdf]

---

CRS-25
funding to more immediate border security-related initiatives, such as continuing the
development and implementation of automated interoperable information systems
that track persons and merchandise (possibly international terrorists and instruments
of terror) entering the United States, or putting additional inspectors and agents on
the border?
Should Both Immigration Services and Enforcement Be
Transferred? Congress has already considered proposals to restructure the INS by
separating the agency’s enforcement and service functions. The Administration,
meanwhile, has supported the separation of these functions, but wants them to remain
in a single immigration agency. Where these functions should reside is a difference
between the House and Senate homeland security bills. The House would place the
immigration enforcement functions in the new department, leaving the immigration
service functions in DOJ. The Senate bill would create separate immigration
enforcement and service bureaus, but would house both bureaus in a stand-alone
Directorate of Immigration Affairs in the new department. If located in separate
departments, would this exacerbate coordination problems between agencies charged
with administering the Immigration and Nationality Act? How would inter-
departmental/inter-bureau coordination be achieved? Which bureau, immigration
enforcement or services, would maintain shared immigration information systems?
Or, would it be necessary to develop separate, but interoperable systems? On the
other hand, if both the enforcement and service functions were transferred to the new
department, would the service functions suffer?
Should the Authority for Visa Issuance and/or Consular Affairs Be
Transferred? Under current law, the Secretary of State plays a pivotal role in
administering and enforcing immigration policy. Both pending homeland security
proposals would transfer the Secretary of State’s general authority over visa issuance
policy to the Homeland Security Secretary. If this is done, some may questions
whether the Bureau of Consular Affairs’ visa issuance function should be transferred
from the Department of State to the proposed DHS as well. If so, should the passport
issuance function be transferred as well? In either case, issues relating to
administrative feasibility or coordination may be raised.
How Can The Customs Revenue Functions Be Maintained? As the
“frontline” border management agency, all proposals to create a DHS envision
transferring the U.S. Customs Service in its entirety to the new department, though
both the House-passed bill and the Senate committee-modified bill give the Secretary
of the Treasury continued authority for “customs revenue functions.” Many in the
“importing community,” however, fear that transferring Customs to this new
department would result in a de-emphasis on facilitating legitimate cross-border
commerce and travel. Would transferring Customs to the proposed DHS impede
legitimate cross-border commerce and travel, harming national economic growth and
well being? What steps would be taken to ensure that both security and commerce
goals are balanced and met?
Should APHIS Non-Border Inspection Activities Be Transferred?
The House-passed bill, unlike the Senate committee-modified bill, would dismantle
the APHIS, sending its border inspection responsibilities and attributable personnel
and assets to the new department. If this transfer is effected, would the inspectors

---

CRS-26
charged with these responsibilities maintain the same level of expertise as when they
were with the Department of Agriculture?
What About the Coast Guard’s Non-Border Security Missions?
While the Coast Guard plays a pivotal role in providing border security, this agency
carries out many other missions as well. If the Coast Guard is transferred to the
proposed DHS, would certain non-security missions such as boating safety, search
and rescue, and fishing regulation receive appropriate attention?
Should Seaport Security Be Addressed in the Context of Homeland
Security? Congress is considering legislation to improve seaport security. Both
versions of the House- and Senate-passed seaport security bills would give the
Secretary of Transportation and Treasury’s Customs Service varying degrees of
responsibility for seaport security. In addition, the House-passed bill would give
TSA limited counter-terrorism responsibilities in the seaport environment related to
cargo. In terms of homeland and seaport security, Congress may examine where
these proposals are overlapping, complementary, or contradictory.
Should Transportation Security Be Matched with Border Security?
Congress created and charged the Transportation Security Administration with
securing all modes of transportation. While it could be argued that TSA’s security
mandate overlaps with border security, the extent of this overlap has yet to be
determined, since providing transportation security as a federal activity is still
evolving. However, it is clear that the vast majority of TSA’s counterterrorism
efforts will be directed toward protecting domestic transportation. Moreover, in the
near future, this fledgling agency will likely turn its attention to providing security
for non-aviation modes of transportation. Should the proposed DHS have a stand-
alone division charged exclusively with transportation security?
Should The New Division Also Be Responsible for Some Federal
Building Security? The Federal Protective Service is a relatively small agency
charged with providing law enforcement services in GSA buildings. Has the
rationale for including this agency in DHS been spelled out?
In summation, increased information sharing, greater inter-agency coordination,
and shortened lines of command and control are in principle objectives that, if
achieved, will enhance the federal government’s ability to respond to terrorist threats
and to prevent terrorist attacks. Notwithstanding these objectives about which there
is widespread agreement, serious questions remain as to the long and short term
benefits of a large scale consolidation of federal agencies charged with border,
transportation, and federal building security.

---