Order Code IB10135
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Transportation Security:
Issues for the 109th Congress
Updated April 6, 2005
John Frittelli, Coordinator
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Aviation Security
A Risk-Based, Multi-Layered Approach
Passenger Prescreening
Passenger Screening
Federalization and Privatization of Airport Screening
Baggage Screening
Air Cargo Security
Airport and Aircraft Access Controls
In-Flight Security Measures
The Shoulder-Fired Missile Threat
General Aviation Security
Transit and Passenger Rail Security
Truck, Rail, and Marine Cargo Security
Cargo Visibility
Imported Cargo
Private Industry’s Role
Paying for Cargo Security
Hazmat Cargo Security
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
Non-Mode Specific
Aviation
Transit
Surface and Marine Cargo
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10135
04-06-05
Transportation Security: Issues for the 109th Congress
SUMMARY
The nation’s air, land, and marine trans-
include vulnerability assessments; emergency
portation systems are designed for accessibil-
planning; and emergency response training
ity and efficiency, two characteristics that
and drilling of transit personnel, ideally in
make them highly vulnerable to terrorist
coordination with police, fire, and emergency
attack. While hardening the transportation
medical personnel, as well as purchase of
sector from terrorist attack is difficult, reason-
communication and safety equipment. Addi-
able measures can be taken to deter terrorists.
tional options include increasing the number
The focus of this issue brief is how best to
of transit security personnel, installing video
construct and finance a system of deterrence,
surveillance equipment in vehicles and sta-
protection, and response that effectively re-
tions, and conducting random inspections of
duces the possibility and consequences of
platforms and trains using bomb-sniffing
another terrorist attack without unduly inter-
dogs.
fering with travel, commerce, and civil liber-
ties.
A leading issue with regard to securing
truck, rail, and waterborne cargo is the desire
Aviation security has been a major focus
of government authorities to track a given
of transportation security policy following the
freight shipment at a particular time. Most of
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In the
the attention with regard to cargo vulnerability
aftermath of these attacks, the 107th Congress
concerns the tracking of marine containers as
moved quickly to pass the Aviation and Trans-
they are trucked to and from seaports. Secu-
portation Security Act (ATSA; P.L. 107-71)
rity experts believe this is a particularly vul-
creating the Transportation Security Adminis-
nerable point in the container supply chain.
tration (TSA) and mandating a federalized
Debate over who should pay for cargo secu-
workforce of security screeners to inspect
rity, government or industry, and whether
airline passengers and their baggage. The act
mandates or guidelines are the best approach
gave the TSA broad authority to assess vulner-
to ensure industry’s due diligence in protect-
abilities in aviation security and take steps to
ing their supply chains are other leading is-
mitigate these risks. The TSA’s progress on
sues.
aviation security has been the subject of con-
siderable congressional oversight over the past
Hazardous materials (hazmat) transporta-
three years. It is expected that aviation secu-
tion raises numerous security issues. Many
rity policy and programs will continue to be of
Members of Congress want to know whether
considerable interest in the 109th Congress.
current federal policies, regulations, and
grants could more effectively promote hazmat
The volume of ridership and number of
transportation security at reasonable costs.
access points make it impractical to subject all
There are issues regarding routing of hazmat
rail passengers to the type of screening airline
through urban centers, and debate persists
passengers undergo. Nevertheless, there are
over the pros and cons of rerouting high-
prudent steps that can be taken to reduce the
hazard shipments.
risks, and consequences, of an attack. These
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10135
04-06-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The President has requested $5.562 billion for the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) for FY2006. This request includes a proposal to transfer a large
portion of TSA’s research and development functions to the Science and Technology (S&T)
Directorate in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and to transfer a variety of
functions to the proposed new Office of Screening Coordination and Operations (SCO) in
DHS. In an effort to approach full cost recovery from user fees for aviation security
screening, the President’s budget request also proposes an increase in air passenger security
fees. About 90% of the TSA’s proposed budget is designated for aviation security functions.
For non-aviation modes of transportation, highlights of the President’s budget request
include $8 million for the TSA to hire and deploy 100 rail and transit inspectors; $600
million in federal grants under the proposed Targeted Infrastructure Protection program for
seaports, mass transit systems, railways, and energy facilities; and $8.146 billion for the
Coast Guard, including $2.219 billion specifically for seaport and inland waterway security.
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458) passed
by Congress the week of December 6, 2004, implements key 9/11 Commission
recommendations with respect to transportation security. The act requires that the Secretary
of DHS develop and implement a national strategy for transportation security. The strategy
would identify assets that need protection; set risk-based priorities and realistic deadlines
for protecting those assets; identify the most practical and cost-effective means of defending
those assets; assign security roles to federal, state, and local governments; and establish
mechanisms to encourage private sector cooperation and participation. The act also
requires DHS to taken certain steps to further enhance aviation and maritime security.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The nation’s air, land, and marine transportation systems are designed for accessibility
and efficiency, two characteristics that make them highly vulnerable to terrorist attack. The
difficulty and cost of protecting the transportation sector from terrorist attack raises a core
question confronting policymakers: how much effort and resources to put towards protecting
potential targets versus pursuing and fighting terrorists. While hardening the transportation
sector from terrorist attack is difficult, reasonable measures can be taken to deter terrorists.
The focus of this issue brief is how best to construct and finance a system of deterrence,
protection, and response that effectively reduces the possibility and consequences of another
terrorist attack without unduly interfering with travel, commerce, and civil liberties.
For all modes of transportation, one can identify four principle policy objectives that
would support a system of deterrence and protection: (1) ensuring the trustworthiness of the
passengers and the cargo flowing through the system, (2) ensuring the trustworthiness of the
transportation workers who operate and service the vehicles, assist the passengers, or handle
the cargo, (3) ensuring the trustworthiness of the private companies that operate in the
system, such as the carriers, shippers, agents, and brokers, and (4) establishing a perimeter
of security around transportation facilities and vehicles in operation. The first three policy
objectives are concerned with preventing an attack from within a transportation system, such
CRS-1

---

IB10135
04-06-05
as occurred on September 11, 2001. Terrorists could once again disguise themselves as
legitimate passengers (or shippers or workers) to get in position to launch an attack. The
fourth policy objective is concerned with preventing an attack from outside a transportation
system. For instance, terrorists could ram a bomb-laden speed boat into an oil tanker, as they
did in October 2002 to the French oil tanker Limberg, or they could fire a shoulder-fired
missile at an airplane taking off or landing, as they attempted in November 2002 against an
Israeli charter jet in Mombasa, Kenya. Achieving all four of these objectives is difficult, at
best, and in some modes, is practically impossible. Where limited options exist for
preventing an attack, policymakers are left with evaluating options for minimizing the
consequences from an attack.
A narrower set of policy questions is how to tailor an anti-terrorism strategy that
corresponds with the service requirements of each particular mode. For instance, while
prescreening all airline or cruise ship passengers is possible, pre-screening all transit riders
is practically impossible. Likewise, inspecting 100% of imported marine cargo is practically
impossible, so inspectors rely heavily on shipment documentation to select which shipments
to examine more closely. The issue for policymakers is deciding whether ensuring the
trustworthiness of the passengers and cargo flowing through each mode of transportation can
be reasonably achieved and, if so, how best to achieve it without impeding travel and
commerce. Another issue is ensuring the trustworthiness of the companies that operate in
the system. The TSA’s “known shipper” program for cargo carried aboard passenger planes
and Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) “Trade Partnership Against Terrorism” (C-
TPAT) program for cargo imported by all modes are initiatives designed to ensure the
trustworthiness of the companies that operate in the system. These two programs essentially
require the companies that routinely operate in their respective transportation systems to
vouch for the trustworthiness of each other and to alert authorities when they spot any
anomalies or suspicious activity. A point of contention is to what extent government can rely
on the transportation industry to exercise due diligence in protecting their operations from
terrorist attack. In addition to the integrity of transportation companies, there is also the issue
of the trustworthiness of their employees. As requested by Congress, the TSA is developing
a universal biometric transportation worker ID card that is intended to restrict access to
sensitive areas within transportation facilities. One unresolved issue is deciding what should
disqualify a transportation worker from obtaining a card. What sort of background would
make someone a “security risk?”
The 109th Congress will likely renew debate on other areas of disagreement with regard
to transportation security. It will likely renew debate on whether the nation is doing enough,
and is acting in a timely fashion, to secure transportation systems, particularly for non-
aviation modes of transportation. It is likely to debate financial issues, such as what level
of spending will buy what level of security and who should pay for security: federal
taxpayers, state and local governments, system users, or some sort of cost share arrangement
among all of the above. How federal security dollars should be allocated across the country
will likely remain a focal point of the debate. In its oversight role, Congress will continue
to examine the effectiveness of DHS initiatives to strengthen transportation security,
including the degree of coordination among agencies within DHS towards that effort.
CRS-2

---

IB10135
04-06-05
Aviation Security
Aviation security has been a major focus of transportation security policy following the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In the aftermath of these attacks, the 107th Congress
moved quickly to pass the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA; P.L. 107-71)
creating the TSA and mandating a federalized workforce of security screeners to inspect
airline passengers and their baggage. The act gave the TSA broad authority to assess
vulnerabilities in aviation security and take steps to mitigate these risks. The TSA’s progress
on aviation security has been the subject of considerable congressional oversight over the
past three years. It is expected that aviation security policy and programs will continue to
be of considerable interest in the 109th Congress.
A Risk-Based, Multi-Layered Approach. Aviation security policy since September
11, 2001, consists of two basic principles: a risk-based approach for allocating limited
security resources to where they are considered most needed, and a multi-layered strategy
that establishes redundancies to thwart a potential terrorist attack.
The risk-based approach implemented by the TSA has been criticized by some who
believe that an overemphasis on allocating resources to screening airline passengers has left
the system vulnerable to attacks in other areas — namely air cargo operations; airport access
controls; protecting airliners from shoulder-fired missiles; and the security of general
aviation aircraft. In essence, these critics argue that the implementation of aviation security
policy since September 11, 2001, has focused too heavily on protecting aircraft from past
attack scenarios — such as suicide hijackings and luggage bombs carried out by airline
passengers — and has not given enough attention to other potential vulnerabilities.
Given the emphasis on protecting against bombings and suicide hijackings, the multi-
layered concept for aviation security is most apparent in the protection of passenger airliners.
Passengers undergo prescreening to check their names against lists of known and suspected
terrorists, then passengers and their carry-on items are screened and checked baggage is
passed through explosive detection systems (EDS) prior to aircraft boarding. Once on board,
security measures such as air marshals, hardened cockpit doors, and armed pilots provide
added layers of security to thwart an attempted hijacking. The principle objectives of these
measures are to prevent aircraft bombings and hijackings by terrorist passengers. However,
the effectiveness of the TSA’s implementation of virtually all of these security layers has
been brought into question by some or at some time over the past three years.
Passenger Prescreening. Efforts to improve passenger prescreening have been
impacted by concerns over the adequacy of measures to protect fliers’ personal information
and not infringe upon their civil rights. Critics argued that the TSA’s ever-expanding vision
for prescreening was to include data mining of commercial and government databases to look
for indicators that someone may pose a threat, and searches of notoriously inaccurate
criminal databases. These concerns were spurred by vague statements issued by the TSA as
to how it might authenticate passenger identity and check for possible links to terrorism
along with media reports linking passenger prescreening to controversial proposals such as
the Department of Defense’s Total Information Awareness program to detect terrorists by
mining personal data. This controversy ultimately led the TSA to scrap its proposed
enhanced passenger prescreening system, the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening II
(CAPPS II), in August 2004, and pursue enhanced prescreening capabilities under a new
CRS-3

---

IB10135
04-06-05
system called Secure Flight. While Secure Flight is touted to be a significantly scaled down
approach to prescreening compared to CAPPS II, concerns remain over data protections and
redress procedures for passengers falsely identified by the system. Provisions in the FY2005
homeland security appropriations act (P.L. 108-334) prohibit the TSA from fully deploying
the Secure Flight program until these ongoing concerns are adequately addressed. The TSA
is also carrying out trials of a registered traveler program designed to speed the passage
through security checkpoints of frequent fliers who voluntarily submit background
information and biometric identifiers.
Passenger Screening. With regard to screening passengers, the TSA has struggled
to strike a balance between effectively screening passengers for threat objects without
causing undue delays and hassles to travelers. While the TSA is usually keeping passenger
wait times below the stated objective of 10 minutes in most airport checkpoint queues, audits
of airport screening have concluded that screener performance still needs improvement. The
Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that screener training,
screening technology, policies and procedures, and management and supervision of screening
operations all contributed to observed deficiencies in screener performance. Furthermore,
the 9/11 Commission recommended that the TSA give priority attention to implementing
technology and procedures for screening passengers for explosives, something not currently
done routinely at screening checkpoints. To address this recommendation, the TSA is pilot
testing walk-through trace detection portals and has implemented procedures for conducting
pat-down searches of passengers for explosives. Provisions to improve checkpoint
technologies to detect explosives were included in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458, hereafter the “Terrorism Prevention Act”).
Federalization and Privatization of Airport Screening. A key issue in the
debate over aviation security immediately following September 11, 2001, was whether
airport security screeners should be federalized. At that time, airport screening operations
suffered from high turnover, poor supervision and training, low wages, and a lack of
regulatory oversight. All of these factors were believed to have contributed to a poor
performing and highly vulnerable screening system. Federalizing the screener workforce
was offered as a potential solution to address these deficiencies. However, while Congress
ultimately resolved to federalize the screener workforce at most airports under ATSA, the
act also set up a pilot program using contract screeners at five airports and gave all airports
the option to request private screeners on an airport-by-airport basis starting November 19,
2004. While several airports have expressed an interest in private screening, they are being
cautious in proceeding because the TSA has offered few details and limited guidance on how
private screening will be implemented.
Baggage Screening. While airports are, for the most part, meeting mandated
requirements to inspect checked bags with explosive detection system (EDS) equipment
100% of the time, airports are continuing to struggle with the daunting task of integrating
these systems into baggage handling and sorting facilities. To address these needs, Congress
established (in Vision 100, P.L. 108-176) an Aviation Security Capital Fund authorizing up
to $500 million per year through FY2007 and provided the TSA with the authority to issue
letters of intent (LOIs) to airports, committing future funding toward in-line EDS integration
projects. Despite these measures, efforts to integrate EDS systems at all airports is
progressing slowly, prompting the 9/11 Commission to recommend that the TSA expedite
CRS-4

---

IB10135
04-06-05
installation of these in-line baggage screening systems. Provisions to expedite and increase
funding for in-line baggage screening were included in the Terrorism Prevention Act.
Air Cargo Security. Some Members of Congress have voiced concerns that, while
100% of baggage is required to be screened, only a relatively small amount of cargo carried
on passenger airplanes is screened or inspected. Congress increased funding for air cargo
security operations and research to $115 million in FY2005 compared to $85 million in
FY2004 and designated funds for expanding the known shipper program for vetting
shipments on passenger aircraft; increasing oversight of cargo security; and continuing
research and development of technologies to improve air cargo security. The 9/11
Commission recommended that TSA intensify its efforts to identify, track, and screen
potentially dangerous cargo. The 9/11 Commission also recommended deploying at least one
hardened cargo container on each passenger airliner for carrying suspect cargo. These
recommendations were reflected in language contained in the Terrorism Prevention Act that
calls for improved cargo security measures and study of the proposal to deploy blast resistant
cargo containers. While these efforts are designed to mitigate the threat of a terrorist bomb
carried in a cargo shipment, some policymakers believe that the only effective way to
mitigate such a threat is to screen all cargo placed on passenger aircraft. The TSA, however,
has cautioned that such an approach is not technically and logistically feasible at the present
time without unduly impacting cargo operations on passenger aircraft. The TSA has instead
proposed a strategic plan calling for the use of risk-based prescreening techniques to identify
cargo for targeted inspection or exclusion from carriage on passenger aircraft and a threefold
increase in random inspections. In addition to improving the screening of cargo placed on
passenger aircraft, improvements in security programs for all-cargo operations are planned
to protect against unauthorized access to large all-cargo aircraft.
Airport and Aircraft Access Controls. While ATSA mandated background
checks for all workers with unescorted access to passenger aircraft and secured areas of
airports, concerns over the adequacy of security measures for these workers has been
questioned because, in some cases, these workers can bypass airport screening checkpoints.
Legislation introduced in the 108th Congress called for the physical screening of all workers
with access to aircraft or secured area. ATSA also called for the TSA to explore the use of
biometrics and other identification technologies for credentialing transport workers and the
use of biometrics for airport access controls. The Terrorism Prevention Act requires the TSA
to issue guidance on the use of biometrics for airport access controls by March 31, 2005, and
also contains provisions for using biometric technology to verify the identity of law
enforcement officers authorized to carry firearms on passenger airliners.
In-Flight Security Measures. Existing in-flight security measures consist primarily
of federal air marshals, armed pilots on some flights, and hardened cockpit doors. The
federal air marshal service was greatly expanded under ATSA and air marshals are required
on all high risk flights. In November 2003, the Federal Air Marshal program was taken out
of the TSA and realigned with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Under
this realignment, DHS plans to cross-train border patrol and immigration officers to function
as air marshals, thus expanding the pool of available air marshals and providing a surge
capability that can be deployed in response to threat intelligence.
Despite the administration’s initial reservations over allowing airline pilots to be armed,
airline pilots may receive training allowing them to serve as armed federal flight deck
CRS-5

---

IB10135
04-06-05
officers under provisions set forth in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296).
Vision 100 (P.L. 108-176) expanded the program to include all-cargo pilots and other flight
crew members such as flight engineers. The TSA has received $25 million annually over the
past two years to administer the program and conduct initial training for about 100 pilots
every week. However, complaints have surfaced that the procedures to apply for the
program are too cumbersome and the training site is too remote to accommodate many pilots
interested in participating in the program and that restrictive policies over carrying guns
outside the cockpit potentially limit the program’s effectiveness.
ATSA mandated the implementation of hardened cockpit doors and stringent controls
regarding access to the flight deck. The Terrorism Prevention Act contains a provision to
study the use of secondary flight deck barriers — a concept United Airlines is moving
forward with on its own initiative — to overcome the vulnerability introduced when a
hardened cockpit door is opened in flight for meal service or when a pilot needs to access the
aircraft lavatory.
The Shoulder-Fired Missile Threat. Concerns have also been raised over the
potential threat to civil aircraft posed by shoulder-fired missiles (also known as Man-Portable
Air Defense Systems or MANPADS). Appropriations language in FY2003 directed the DHS
to establish a program evaluating the feasibility of adopting military aircraft anti-missile
systems for use on passenger jets. This program is still ongoing. Two contract teams, led
by Northrop-Grumman and BAE Systems, are developing prototype anti-missile systems,
and a final evaluation of these systems is expected to be completed by January 2006.
Language in the Terrorism Prevention Act calls for the FAA to implement an expedited
process to certify the safety of such systems and also includes language directing the
administration to urgently pursue international arms-control agreements to limit the
proliferation of MANPADS.
General Aviation Security. While some policymakers have expressed concern that
security measures for general aviation aircraft are, in their estimation, weak and practically
non-existent, general aviation operators have countered that they have been overburdened
by unnecessary airspace and airport restrictions. General aviation restrictions are most
prevalent in the Washington, DC, area, where the city is encircled by a 15-mile flight
restricted zone in which general aviation operations are significantly limited, and a 30-mile
air defense identification zone where pilots must strictly adhere to special air traffic control
procedures. While Vision 100 (P.L. 108-176) requires the DHS to implement a security plan
permitting general aviation flights to resume at Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA),
DHS has indicated that significant security concerns remain in the way of resuming general
aviation flights at DCA. At various times, flight restrictions have also been put in place over
New York City, Chicago, and elsewhere. General aviation pilots have been restricted from
flying over Disney and other theme parks, and over stadiums during major sporting events,
leading some general aviation advocates to question whether special interests were using the
umbrella of security concerns to curtail unwanted advertising overflights. Securing general
aviation operations continues to be a significant challenge because of the diversity of
operations, aircraft, and airports. Measures put in place thus far, such as the Airport Watch
program and TSA’s general aviation security guidelines, rely heavily on the vigilance of the
pilot community to detect and report suspicious activity. In the area of flight training, flight
training providers are engaged in verifying citizenship or confirming that background checks
have been properly completed before providing training to foreign nationals. A provision
CRS-6

---

IB10135
04-06-05
in the Terrorism Prevention Act would allow aircraft leasing and charter companies to
voluntarily provide the TSA with names of prospective customers for prescreening against
the consolidated terrorist watchlist. (CRS contact: Bart Elias, Aviation; Dan Morgan,
Security Technology)
Transit and Passenger Rail Security
Bombings of commuter trains and subway trains in Europe during 2004 highlighted the
vulnerability of passenger rail systems to terrorist attacks. Passenger rail systems in the
United States carry about five times as many passengers each day as do airlines, over many
thousands of miles of track, serving stations that are designed primarily for easy access.
While no terrorist attacks on trains or rail-related facilities have occurred on U.S. soil, the
increased security efforts around air travel have led to concerns that terrorists may turn their
attention to ‘softer’ targets, such as transit or passenger rail. A key challenge Congress faces
is balancing the desire for increased rail passenger security with the efficient functioning of
transit systems, with the potential costs of an attack, and with other federal priorities.
The volume of ridership and number of access points make it impractical to subject all
rail passengers to the type of screening airline passengers undergo. Thus, transit security
measures tend to emphasize consequence management, as opposed to protective measures.
Nevertheless, there are prudent steps that can be taken to reduce the risks, and consequences,
of an attack. These include vulnerability assessments; emergency planning; emergency
response training and drilling of transit personnel, ideally in coordination with police, fire,
and emergency medical personnel; and communication and safety equipment. Additional
options include increasing the number of transit security personnel, installing video
surveillance equipment in vehicles and stations, and conducting random inspections of
platforms and trains using bomb-sniffing dogs.
The challenges of securing rail passengers, however, are dwarfed by the challenge of
securing bus passengers. There are some 76,000 buses carrying 19 million passengers each
weekday in the United States. Some transit systems have installed video cameras on their
buses, and Congress has provided grants for security improvements to intercity buses. But
the number and operation characteristics of transit buses make them all but impossible to
secure.
There are no independent assessments of transit security needs and costs. In 2004, the
transit community requested $5.2 billion in federal funding for security-related capital
improvements, and $800 million annually in security-related operating assistance. The ability
of the transit community to pay these costs themselves is limited; transit agencies run
operating deficits and require government assistance just to maintain their operations.
However, the average of $2.5 billion annually requested for the next three years is 30 times
the roughly $80 million in annual transit security funding provided by Congress during
FY2003-FY2005. The transit community is also requesting significant increases in non-
security-related transit funding as part of the ongoing surface transportation reauthorization
debate. In light of current and projected federal deficits, federal activities potentially face
constrained budgets; given limited resources, some argue that the federal government could
better enhance domestic security, at less cost, through strengthening the anti-terrorist efforts
of intelligence-gathering and law-enforcement agencies rather than funding security
CRS-7

---

IB10135
04-06-05
improvements to the many potential domestic targets. (CRS contact: David Randall
Peterman)
Truck, Rail, and Marine Cargo Security
Cargo Visibility. A leading issue with regard to securing truck, rail, and waterborne
cargo is to what extent government authorities need the capability to track a given shipment
at a particular time. One can envision a scenario where government authorities receive
intelligence that a terrorist weapon or terrorists themselves are being smuggled in a particular
shipment. Authorities would then want to locate that shipment immediately as well as any
other possible shipments that were suspect based on having similar shipment particulars.
Currently, outside the parcel industry, authorities would have limited capabilities to locate
such shipments quickly. Some trucking firms have outfitted their trucks with Global
Positioning System (GPS) technology. However, this capability is generally limited to large
trucking firms which have a large enough fleet to make tracking equipment commercially
worthwhile, in addition to having the financial resources to afford such technology. Smaller
trucking firms, which carry a significant portion of freight, have not invested in this
technology. Railroads have outfitted their cars with Automatic Equipment Identification
(AEI) technology, but this technology only allows tracking where a reader has been installed,
such as at terminals and rail yards. Thus most railcars can be tracked at certain points but
not in real-time.
Most of the attention with regard to cargo visibility concerns the tracking of marine
shipping containers. Marine containers are not currently outfitted with tracking devices, but
it is common practice to seal container doors with tamper-evident fixtures. Security officials
are concerned that a particularly vulnerable stage in the container shipping process occurs
when containers are trucked to the overseas port of loading or when they are trucked from
the U.S. port of unloading to their final U.S. destination. A sensor or tracking device could
help ensure the integrity of container shipments during these vulnerable stages. Since the
September11, 2001 attack, there has been rapid development of palm-sized tracking devices
and sensors that could be inserted on an interior wall of a container. However, while this
so-called “smart-box” technology is being tested in selected routes, it has not been resolved
whether and how best to deploy it on a widespread basis. In the near term, shippers and
carriers favor using the best container seals currently in use rather than moving to the more
costly sensor and tracking devices.
Imported Cargo. Of particular concern is ensuring the integrity of imported cargo.
Nearly 7 million marine containers from all corners of the globe arrive at U.S. seaports
annually, while 8 million truckloads and about 2 million railcars arrive at U.S. land border
crossings. Since the September 11, 2001 attack, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has
issued new requirements requiring freight carriers to report cargo manifests (shipment
information) before they reach U.S. borders. Container ships must report shipment details
on each container 24 hours before it is loaded at a foreign port. Truckers from Canada and
Mexico must report their trailers’ contents from 30 minutes to an hour prior to border arrival
and railroads must report this information two hours prior to border arrival. CBP analyzes
the cargo manifests and other intelligence to select which cargo units to physically inspect.
CBP’s selection process is thus critical in keeping terrorists and their weapons from being
smuggled into the country. In its oversight role, Congress will likely continue to scrutinize
CRS-8

---

IB10135
04-06-05
CBP’s targeting process and will likely continue to evaluate scanning technologies that can
speed up the inspection process.
Private Industry’s Role. Because most surface and marine freight transportation
assets are owned by private industry, and because there are too many shipments for
government to monitor on its own, government officials have to rely extensively on private
industry to tighten control over their supply chains. Industry has taken steps to protect their
operations from terrorist infiltration. The Association of American Railroads has conducted
a security risk assessment that prioritizes the industry’s assets and lists countermeasures to
be taken at different alert levels. Railroads have also created a “Railway Alert Network” that
is designed to make sure individual railroads receive timely threat information. Barge
operators have created a “Model Vessel Security Plan” through their industry association, the
American Waterways Operators. The American Trucking Associations has expanded a
“Highway Watch” program to include training for drivers on how to spot suspicious activity.
Intermodal (container) shippers have created a “Smart and Secure Trade Lanes” program to
evaluate anti-tampering and tracking devices for marine containers. An issue for
policymakers is determining the best approach for ensuring private industry’s cooperation
and due diligence over the long term. For instance, policymakers are evaluating which
security measures should be mandated versus which ones should be issued as guidelines or
“best practices.”
Paying for Cargo Security. Freight carriers and shippers are private, for-profit
corporations, which raises the issue of whether they or general taxpayers should pay for
security improvements. Advocates for public funding argue that homeland security is a
national concern and therefore a federal government responsibility that should be paid for
from the general Treasury. Others argue that carriers and shippers are the direct beneficiaries
of improved cargo security. They argue that it is in their own economic interest to protect
their assets from terrorist attack, that additional security measures also deter cargo theft
which is costly to the freight industry, and that therefore they should bear the cost of security
improvements. Several legislative efforts to establish a security fee paid by industry to
generate funds for a federal port security grant program have failed in Congress. Meanwhile,
some ports and freight carriers are beginning to add security surcharges to their freight
invoices while other carriers are presumably incorporating extra security-related costs in their
freight rates. It is expected that the question of how to pay for cargo security will continue
to be debated by the 109th Congress. (CRS contact: John Frittelli)
Hazmat Cargo Security
Hundreds of thousands of trucks and railroad tank cars transport tons of hazardous
materials (hazmat) daily. These shipments can be used as instruments or targets of terror.
There is a virtually unlimited number of ways that the hazmat transportation system is at risk
from terrorists. For example, tank trucks can be attacked, drivers can be killed, and loads can
be hijacked and released during shipment. Simply put, there are too many points of
vulnerability to ensure security during hazmat transportation. A major challenge is to cost
effectively increase the security of these shipments, especially those that pose the most
danger to the public, while still meeting, to the extent possible, the transportation
requirements of commerce.
CRS-9

---

IB10135
04-06-05
Industry and government are gradually implementing a “layered” system of measures
affecting shippers, carriers, and drivers to reduce associated security risks. This system
involves incident prevention, preparedness, and response. The Departments of
Transportation (DOT) and Homeland Security (DHS) have taken actions to enhance the
security of hazmat transportation. For example, DOT requires shippers and carriers to
implement security plans regarding specified hazmat transportation. DOT grants encourage
state and some local governmental personnel to conduct hazmat inspections and to plan and
train for spills of these materials. Also, this Department has contacted thousands of
companies that are seeking to improve their security programs, and has established
communication links with industry.
DHS conveys threat information to law enforcement and industry, and conducts
vulnerability assessments. DHS administers a grant that provides for the training and
communications infrastructure which truck drivers, highway workers, and others use to
report potential security threats and safety concerns on the Nation’s roads. DHS seeks to
determine whether specified commercial drivers pose a security threat necessitating denial
of the hazmat endorsement of their commercial drivers license. Whether the pace of these
actions is adequate or not is subject to debate. It is widely recognized that more could be
done to promote hazmat transportation security, but additional costs would be incurred and
tradeoffs would need to be considered.
There remain many issues associated with hazmat transportation security. Many
Members of Congress want to know whether current federal policies, regulations, and grants
could more effectively promote hazmat transportation security at reasonable costs. There are
issues regarding routing of hazmat through urban centers and debate persists over the pros
and cons of rerouting high hazard shipments. H.R. 153 and H.R. 1109 include a provision
that would require the DHS to prepare a vulnerability assessment of freight rail transportation
and to identify security risks that are specific to the transportation of hazmats by rail. H.R.
153 would provide grants to address threats pertaining to the security of hazmat
transportation by rail. H.R. 909 would establish a research program intended to advance
security measures for hazmat transportation. H.R. 3, which the House has passed, includes
a provision intended to ensure that Mexican- and Canadian-domiciled truck drivers
transporting specified hazmat loads in the United States are subject to a background check
similar to that required of U.S. drivers. Other options include increased security awareness
training for state truck inspectors and certain employees of truck leasing companies, and
requiring enhanced security plans and communication systems for carriers of high hazard
materials shipments beyond those now required. Each of these options poses costs that need
to be evaluated within the context of other investments. (CRS contact: Paul Rothberg)
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
Non-Mode Specific.
House Committee on Homeland Security. Subcommittee on Economic Security,
Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity. Proposed FY2006 Budget: Integrating
Homeland Security Screening Operations. March 2, 2005.
CRS-10

---

IB10135
04-06-05
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. TSA Budget Proposal for
FY2006. February 15, 2005.
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The Department of
Homeland Security: The Road Ahead. January 26, 2005.
House Select Committee on Homeland Security. Subcommittee on Infrastructure and Border
Security. Disrupting Terrorist Travel: Safeguarding America’s Borders Through
Information Sharing. September 30, 2004.
GAO Report GAO-04-890. Transportation Security R&D: TSA and DHS Are Researching
and Developing Technologies, but Need to Improve R&D Management. September 30,
2004.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 9/11 Commission
Recommendations on Transportation Security. August 16, 2004.
Aviation.
GAO Report GAO-05-324. Aviation Security: Measures for Testing the Impact of Using
Commercial Data for the Secure Flight Program. February 23, 2005.
GAO Report GAO-05-126. Aviation Security: Preliminary Observations on TSA’s Progress
to Allow Airports to Use Private Passenger and Baggage Screening Services.
November 19, 2004.
GAO-Report GAO-05-144. General Aviation Security: Increased Federal Oversight Is
Needed, but Continued Partnership with the Private Sector Is Critical to Long-Term
Success. November 10, 2004.
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation. 9/11
Commission Report: Review of Aviation Security Recommendations. August 25, 2004.
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation. In-Line
Explosive Detection Systems: Financing and Development. July 14, 2004.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Aviation Security. June 22,
2004.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Security Screening Options
for Airports. June 24, 2004.
GAO Report GAO-04-728. Aviation Security: Further Steps Needed to Strengthen the
Security of Commercial Airport Perimeters and Access Controls. June 4, 2004.
Transit.
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Subcommittee on Highways, Transit
and Pipelines. Public Transportation Security. June 22, 2004.
CRS-11

---

IB10135
04-06-05
Surface and Marine Cargo.
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Subcommittee. FY2006 Budget for the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Programs; H.R. 889, The Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Act of 2005. March 3, 2005.
Inspector General Report OIG-05-10. Review of the Port Security Grant Program. January
2005.
GAO Report GAO-05-161. Coast Guard: Station Readiness Improving, but Resource
Challenges and Management Concerns Remain. January 31, 2005.
GAO Report GAO-05-170. Homeland Security: Process for Reporting Lessons Learned
from Seaport Exercises Needs Further Attention. January 14, 2005.
GAO Report GAO-04-1062. Maritime Security: Better Planning Needed to Help Ensure an
Effective Port Security Assessment Program. September 2004.
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Subcommittee. 9/11 Commission Report and Maritime Transportation
Security. August 25, 2004.
GAO Report GAO-04-868. Maritime Security: Partnering Could Reduce Federal Costs and
Facilitate Implementation of Automatic Vessel Identification System. July 2004.
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Subcommittee. Implementation of the Maritime Transportation Security
Act. June 9, 2004.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Report RL32022. Air Cargo Security.
CRS Report RS21920. Detection of Explosives on Airline Passengers: Recommendation of
the 9/11 Commission and Related Issues.
CRS Report RL32625. Passenger Rail Security: Overview of Issues.
CRS Report RL31733. Port and Maritime Security: Background and Issues for Congress.
CRS Report RS21293. Terrorist Nuclear Attack on Seaports: Threat and Response.
CRS Report RS21997. Port and Maritime Security: Potential for Terrorist Nuclear Attack
Using Oil Tankers.
CRS-12

---

IB10135
04-06-05
CRS Report RS21125. Homeland Security: Coast Guard Operations — Background and
Issues for Congress.
CRS Report RS22041. Legal Issues Concerning State and Local Authority to Restrict the
Transportation of Hazardous Materials by Rail.
CRS Report RL32740. Security Threat Assessments for Hazmat Drivers.
CRS Report RL32566. Border and Transportation Security: Appropriations for FY2005.
CRS Report RL32061. Border and Transportation Security: Budget for FY2003 and
FY2004.
CRS-13

---