Order Code RL33645
Terrorist Watchlist Checks and
Air Passenger Prescreening
Updated March 1, 2007
William J. Krouse
Specialist in Domestic Security
Domestic Social Policy Division
Bart Elias
Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Terrorist Watchlist Checks and Air Passenger
Prescreening
Summary
Considerable controversy continues to surround U.S. air passenger prescreening
and terrorist watchlist checks. In the past, such controversy centered around diverted
international flights and misidentified passengers. While screening agencies have
taken some steps to ameliorate those problems, other related issues have arisen,
underscoring that screening passengers for more intensive searches of their person
or baggage, or to prevent them from boarding an aircraft in the event of a terrorist
watchlist hit, is likely to be a difficult proposition for the federal agencies tasked with
aviation and border security, principally the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and Customs and Border
Protection (CBP). Recent developments underscore the difficulties encountered by
frontline-screening agencies.
For example, in late 2006, the DHS Privacy Office reported that TSA had not
accurately described its use of personal data while testing a new air passenger
prescreening system known as Secure Flight in notifications required under the
Privacy Act. The Privacy Office and the department also reported on CBP’s
Automated Targeting System, which assigns risk assessments to both cargo and
passengers and has been operational for several years. While those reports were
made in the spirit of greater government transparency, they generated additional
public scrutiny and criticism.
Also, in August 2006, a foiled conspiracy to bomb airliners bound for the
United States from the United Kingdom (UK) raised questions about the adequacy
of existing processes to prescreen air passengers against terrorist watchlists. In
response to that plot, DHS reportedly issued a temporary order requiring that greater
amounts of passenger name records (PNRs) be provided preflight to CBP for
transatlantic flights originating in the UK, as opposed to 15 minutes after the flight’s
departure as required previously. U.S. authorities maintain that these measures are
necessary to provide greater aviation and border security. In July 2006, however, the
European Court of Justice ruled that the existing agreement between the European
Commission and CBP to exchange PNRs was illegal. The court ordered the
cessation of this data exchange on September 30, 2006. While a new agreement was
reached in October 2006, this impasse could have significantly affected travel from
European Union countries to the United States. Moreover, the agreement is
temporary and is set to expire on July 31, 2007.
In the 110th Congress, meanwhile, the House passed a bill (H.R. 1) to
implement further the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission on January 9, 2007.
This bill includes two provisions that would require the DHS Secretary to (1)
establish a timely and fair appeals process for persons delayed or prevented from
boarding a commercial aircraft by any homeland security agency, and (2) formulate
a strategic plan to test and implement an advanced passenger prescreening system.
And, the Senate is currently considering similar provisions in S. 509, as an
amendment to S. 4 — the Senate alternative to H.R. 1. Congress included similar
provisions in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458).

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background: HSPD-6 and Terrorist Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
NCTC and Terrorist Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
TSC and Terrorist Watchlisting and Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
TSA and CBP and International Air Passenger Prescreening
Against Terrorist Watchlists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
TSA Air Passenger Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CBP Air Passenger Prescreening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Passenger Name Record Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Diverted International Flights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Air Passenger Misidentifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9/11 Commission and Air Passenger Prescreening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Integrated Terrorist Travel Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Efforts To Improve Air Passenger Prescreening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
TSA Secure Flight Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Domestic and International Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Related Provisions in the Intelligence Reform Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Related Appropriations Rider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Problems Developing Secure Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
CBP’s Automated Targeting System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
TSC Operations and Support for Secure Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Inspector General Audit of TSC Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
NCTC Support of TSC Watchlisting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Anticipated FY2006 TSC Support for Secure Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
EU-U.S. Data Sharing Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
European Court of Justice Ruling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
CBP Requires Additional PNR Data Preflight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
EU-U.S. Interim Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Misidentifications and Related Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
DHS Privacy Office Report on “No Fly” and
“Automatic Selectee” Watchlists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
GAO Report on the Adverse Effects of Terrorist Watchlists . . . . . . . . . . . 20
DHS Redress Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Existing Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Disclosure Under FOIA and Privacy Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Other Possible Legal Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Oversight Hearings and Legislative Activity in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . 24
Senate Oversight Hearing on Aviation Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

---

Strategic Plan for Air Passenger Prescreening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appeals and Redress Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Possible Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Reliability of Intelligence Underlying Lookout Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Accuracy and Completeness of the Terrorist Screening Database . . . . . . . . 26
Preflight Passenger Screening by TSA and CBP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Viable Processes of Redress and Remedy for Misidentifications . . . . . . . . 26

---

Terrorist Watchlist Checks and Air
Passenger Prescreening
Introduction
Considerable controversy surrounds U.S. air passenger prescreening processes
and terrorist watchlist checks. In the past, such controversy centered mainly around
diverted international flights and misidentified passengers; however, the foiled
conspiracy to bomb airliners bound for the United States from the United Kingdom
(UK) in August 2006 raised additional questions about the adequacy of existing
processes to prescreen air passengers preflight against terrorist watchlists. This
report examines (1) measures taken in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to
improve terrorist watchlist screening, (2) U.S. agency efforts underway to improve
air passenger prescreening against those watchlists prior to departure (preflight), and
(3) possible issues associated with maintaining such watchlists and prescreening air
passengers, including the misidentification of persons as terrorists as the result of
watchlist checks.
Recent Developments
On the terrorist watchlist and air passenger prescreening front, there have been
several developments in recent months. On January 17, 2007, the head of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Transportation Security Administration
(TSA), Assistant Secretary Edmund “Kip” Hawley, testified before the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation about aviation security and
related recommendations made by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
upon the United States (9/11 Commission).1 With regards to terrorist watchlist
screening of air passengers, Assistant Secretary Hawley informed the committee that
TSA and the Terrorist Screening Center were reviewing the “No Fly” list in an effort
to reduce the number of individuals on that list by as much as 50%.2
Hawley also conceded that the redress processes at TSA had been “too
cumbersome and expensive,” prompting the agency to introduce a new streamlined
process and automated redress management system.3 At the departmental level,
according to Hawley, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff had also developed a program
1 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Testimony of Assistant Secretary Edmund S.
Hawley before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, “Aviation
Security and 9/11 Commission Recommendations,” Jan. 17, 2007.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.

---

CRS-2
envisioned by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that is designed to provide
travelers with a single, simple process for addressing watchlist-related complaints.4
He also testified that the advance air passenger prescreening program known as
Secure Flight would reduce misidentifications — the largest source of complaints —
but that program reportedly would not be up and running until at least 2008.5
On January 9, 2007, meanwhile, the House of Representatives passed a bill
(H.R. 1), the Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2006,
that includes two air passenger prescreening provisions. Those provisions would
require the DHS Secretary to (1) establish a timely and fair appeals process for
persons delayed or prevented from boarding a commercial aircraft by any homeland
security agency, and (2) formulate a strategic plan to test and implement an advanced
passenger prescreening system. And, the Senate is currently considering similar
provisions in the Aviation Security Improvement Act (S. 509), as an amendment to
S. 4 — the Senate alternative to H.R. 1.
In December 2006, the DHS’s Privacy Office issued a report, finding that the
TSA had not accurately described its use of personal data while testing an advanced
passenger prescreening system in notifications required under the Privacy Act.6 In
November 2006, the DHS Privacy Office issued a notice,7 and the Department issued
a privacy impact assessment,8 on Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP’s)
Automated Targeting System. Those reports and the notice generated additional
public scrutiny and criticism of DHS air passenger prescreening programs and
processes.9
In October 2006, the European Union and CBP renegotiated a passenger name
record information sharing agreement, but this agreement is temporary and is set to
expire on July 31, 2007.10 In late September 2006, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) reported on U.S. government efforts to reduce the adverse effects of
terrorist watchlist screening, outlining measures that DHS and the Terrorist Screening
Center, which is administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), had
4 Ibid.
5 Beverley Lumpkin, “No-Fly List Checked for Accuracy, Cut,” Associated Press, Jan. 18,
2007.
6 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Privacy Office, Secure Flight Report: DHS
Privacy Office Report to the Public on the Transportation Security Administration’s Secure
Flight Program and Privacy Recommendations, Dec. 2006, 15 pp.
7 71 Federal Register 64543, Nov. 2, 2006.
8 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Privacy Impact Assessment for the Automated
Targeting System, Nov. 22, 2006, 30 pp.
9 See “Foreign Opposition Mounts to Traveler Screening Program,” National Journal’s
CongressDaily, Dec. 11, 2006; Ellen Nakashima and Del Quentin Wilber, “Report Says
TSA Violated Privacy Law; Passengers Weren’t Told That Brokers Provided Data to
Screening Program in ‘04,” Washington Post, Dec. 22, 2006, p. A07; and Shaun Waterman,
“Analysis: Dems Slam Border Screening Rules,” United Press International, Jan. 2, 2007.
10 Madhu Unnikrishnan and Martial Tardy, “EU, U.S. Strike Interim Deal On PNR Data
Transfer,” Aviation Daily, vol 366, no. 5, Oct. 9, 2006, p. 3.

---

CRS-3
undertaken to reduce and alleviate misidentifications.11 In this report, GAO also
described the U.S. government’s layered approach to terrorist screening and provided
analysis of the different statutory authorities, under which “frontline-screening
agencies” operate.12
Background: HSPD-6 and Terrorist Screening
In September 2003, President Bush issued Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 6 (HSPD-6), establishing a Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) to consolidate
the U.S. government’s approach to terrorist screening.13 To this end, certain terrorist
identification and watchlist functions, which were previously performed by the
Department of State’s (DOS’s) Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), were
transferred to the newly established TSC and the Terrorist Threat Integration Center
(TTIC) — today the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).
NCTC and Terrorist Identification
The NCTC serves as the central hub for the fusion and analysis of information
collected from all foreign and domestic sources on international terrorist threats.
Under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458),
the NCTC was placed under the newly created Office of the Director of National
Intelligence (ODNI). Prior to this legislation and HSPD-6, however, the nation’s
principal international terrorist watchlist, known as TIPOFF, was maintained by
DOS’s INR.14
Under HSPD-6, TIPOFF was officially transferred to the TTIC on September
16, 2003. Nearly a year later, President George W. Bush established the NCTC by
executive order on the foundations of the TTIC.15 The NCTC continued TTIC’s
efforts to establish a much more expansive database on international terrorists.
Based largely on TIPOFF, the NCTC currently maintains a Terrorist Identities
11 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Terrorism Watch List Screening: Efforts to Help
Reduce Adverse Effects on the Public, GAO-06-1031, Sept. 2006, p. 55.
12 Ibid.
13 The White House, Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-6, Subject:
Integration and Use of Screening Information (Washington, Sept. 16, 2003), available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030916-5.html].
14 Prior to HSPD-6, INR-generated TIPOFF records were distributed to DOS’s Bureau of
Consular Affairs (CA), as well as to border screening agencies, for inclusion in the Consular
Lookout and Support System (CLASS), the Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS),
and the National Automated Immigration Lookout System (NAILS). For further
information, see CRS Report RL31019, Terrorism: Automated Lookout Systems and Border
Security Options and Issues, by William J. Krouse and Raphael Perl. See also CRS Report
RL32366, Terrorist Identification, Screening, and Tracking Under Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 6, by William J. Krouse.
15 Executive Order 13354, “National Counterterrorism Center,” 69 Federal Register 53589,
Sept. 1, 2004.

---

CRS-4
Datamart Environment (TIDE) — designated under HSPD-6 to be the single
repository into which all international terrorist-related data available to the U.S.
government will be stored. According to a press account, the TIDE includes over
325,000 terrorist-related records.16
TSC and Terrorist Watchlisting and Screening
The TSC is a multiagency collaborative effort administered by the FBI. The
NCTC shares international terrorist identities data, which is TIDE-generated, with
the TSC. Combining these data with other government watchlists, the TSC has
established and maintains a consolidated Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB). In
addition, the TSC has developed comprehensive procedures for handling encounters
with known and suspected terrorists and their supporters, and provides terrorist
screening authorities with around-the-clock operational support in the event of
possible terrorist encounters. According to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office
of Inspector General (OIG), as of January 2005, the TSDB included nearly 238,000
records.17
The TSC, in turn, distributes TSDB-generated international terrorist lookout
records — along with domestic terrorist lookout records18 — to frontline screening
agencies. The TSC, for example, supports the terrorist screening activities of the
DHS’s TSA and CBP, as well as the DOS’s Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA). Some
aspects of these terrorist screening activities, however, remain controversial,
particularly with regard to misidentifications (false positives).19 Coordination
between DOJ and DHS on this and other issues has proved challenging.20
TSA and CBP and International Air Passenger
Prescreening Against Terrorist Watchlists
The foiled conspiracy to bomb airliners bound for the United States from the
UK in August 2006 raised additional questions about the adequacy of existing
systems to screen air passengers preflight against terrorist watchlists. Considerable
controversy surrounds air passenger prescreening processes, underscoring that
screening passengers for more intensive searches of their person or baggage, or to
prevent them from boarding an aircraft in the event of a terrorist watchlist hit, is
16 Walter Pincus and Dan Eggen, “325,000 Names on Terrorism List: Rights Groups Say
Database May Include Innocent People,” Washington Post, Feb. 15, 2006, p. A01.
17 U.S. Department of Justice, Officer of the Inspector General, Audit Division, Review of
the Terrorist Screening Center, Audit Report 05-27, June 2005, p. 49.
18 Under HSPD-6, the FBI is charged with providing domestic terrorist data to the TSC.
19 See CRS Report RL32802, Homeland Security: Air Passenger Prescreening and
Counterterrorism, by Bart Elias, William Krouse, and Ed Rappaport.
20 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General, Audit Division, Review of the
Terrorist Screening Center’s Efforts to Support the Secure Flight Program, Audit Report
05-34, August 2005, p. 26.

---

CRS-5
likely to be a difficult proposition for the federal agencies tasked with aviation and
border security. Today, those agencies principally include DHS’s TSA and CBP and
the FBI-administered TSC.
TSA Air Passenger Screening
The TSA provides the airlines with the “No Fly” and “Automatic Selectee”
watchlists for use in identifying passengers who are to be denied boarding or who
require additional scrutiny prior to boarding. The “No Fly” watchlist is a list of
persons who are considered a direct threat to U.S. civil aviation. Aircraft bombings
in the late 1980s prompted the U.S. government to adopt this list in 1990. It was
initially administered jointly by the FBI and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
but the FAA assumed sole administrative responsibility for this list in November
2001. At that time, the FAA instituted the “Automatic Selectee” list as well. As the
names of these lists imply, prospective passengers found to be on the “No Fly” list
are denied boarding and referred to law enforcement, whereas those on the
“Automatic Selectee” list are selected for secondary security screening before being
cleared to board.
Under the Aviation Transportation Security Act,21 TSA was established and
assumed the administrative responsibility for these lists. As the FAA did before it,
the TSA distributes these watchlists to U.S. air carriers. In turn, the air carriers
screen passengers against these watchlists before boarding. In general, these lists are
downloaded into a handful of computer reservations systems used by most U.S. air
carriers; however, a few smaller carriers still manually compare passenger data
against these lists. As intelligence and law enforcement officials were concerned
about the security of the “No Fly” list, only a handful of names were listed prior to
the 9/11 attacks (fewer than 20).22 Since then, the lists have been expanded almost
daily.23 Within TSA, the Office of Intelligence is responsible for resolving potential
watchlist matches.
According to the FBI, the “No Fly” and “Automatic Selectee” lists were
consolidated into the TSC’s TSDB sometime in the latter half of FY2004.24 While
much larger, these watchlists still appear to be a relatively small subset of the TSDB.
It has been reported that by the end of FY2004, there were more than 20,000 names
on the “No Fly” list and TSA was being contacted by air carriers as often as 30 times
21 Public 107-71, Nov. 19, 2001, 115 Stat. 597.
22 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The Aviation Security
System and the 9/11 Attacks, Staff Statement no. 3, Jan. 27, 2004, p. 6. Available at
[http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_3.pdf].
23 Electronic Privacy Information Center, “‘Documents Show Errors in TSA’s ‘No Fly’
Watchlist,” April 2003, at [http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/foia/watchlist_foia_
analysis.html].
24 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information
Services (CJIS) Division, “Terrorist Screening Center Consolidates Data for Law
Enforcement Needs,” The CJIS LINK, vol. 7, no. 4, October 2004, pp. 1-2.

---

CRS-6
per day with potential name matches.25 During 2004, the “No Fly” and “Automatic
Selectee” lists were the subject of increased media scrutiny for misidentifications.
In some cases, these misidentifications included Members of Congress (e.g., Senator
Edward Kennedy and Representatives John Lewis and Don Young).26
It is notable that because not all known and suspected terrorists are considered
“threats to civil aviation,” there could be legal and investigative policy considerations
that would bear upon placing all such persons, who are included in the TSDB, on the
“No Fly” list and possibly the “Automatic Selectee” list. The TSC, moreover, may
be reluctant to release the full list of known and suspected terrorists to the airlines
because of data security concerns. Although data security remains a concern, a much
larger terrorist watchlist is provided by the TSC to CBP. This watchlist, however,
remains under government control.
CBP Air Passenger Prescreening
Air passengers on inbound and outbound international flights are also screened
by CBP with border security systems that include a much larger subset of the TSDB-
generated terrorist lookout records than those included in the “No Fly” or “Automatic
Selectee” lists. Even before the 9/11 attacks, limited amounts of Passenger Name
Record (PNR) data were transferred to CBP predecessor agencies (the U.S. Customs
Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service) for incoming international
flights. As it was prior to the 9/11 attacks, such data are transferred to CBP from air
carriers through the Advanced Passenger Information System (APIS), which runs on
the legacy Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS).27 PNR data are
compared with several watchlists that reside on the Interagency Border Inspection
System (IBIS), including the TSDB-generated terrorist watchlist.28
25 Sara Kehaulani Goo, “Faulty ‘No Fly’ System Detailed,” Washington Post, Oct. 9, 2004,
p. A01.
26 Sara Kehaulani Goo, “Committee Chairman Runs Into Watch-List Problem: Name
Similarity Led to Questioning at Anchorage and Seattle Airports, Alaska Congressman
Says,” Washington Post, Sept. 30, 2004, p. A17; and “Hundreds Report Watch-List Trials:
Some Ended Hassles at Airports by Making Slight Change to Name,” Washington Post,
Aug. 21, 2004, p. A08.
27 APIS was developed in 1988 by the U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service. Although the electronic submission of passenger manifests through
APIS was voluntary at first, most air carriers submitted their manifest electronically prior
to the 9/11 attacks. Following those attacks, Congress included provisions requiring the
electronic submission of manifests in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (P.L.
107-71) and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-
173).
28 U.S. Department of State, TIPOFF, CLASS, IBIS, CT-LINK slide show presentation, Oct.
6, 2002, available at [http://www.markletaskforce.org/documents/TIPOFF.pdf]. U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Privacy Impact Statement for the Advance Passenger
Information System (APIS), Mar. 21, 2005, p. 6, available at [http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/
assets/privacy/privacy_pia_cbpapis.pdf].

---

CRS-7
In addition, PNR data are linked to other immigration inspections systems
(including biometric data) as part of the US-VISIT program — the ultimate objective
of which is to record the entry and exit of every noncitizen to and from the United
States.29 In the future, such data linkages and corresponding interagency information
sharing could be useful to intelligence and law enforcement agencies for not only
“connecting the dots,” but for interdicting known or suspected terrorists at our
borders as well.
Passenger Name Record Data. In FY2004, CBP sought greater amounts
of PNR data from European airlines. Negotiations over acquiring such data were
“highly publicized,” and U.S. authorities threatened to fine the European airlines for
not providing such data. In May 2004, an interim agreement was negotiated with the
European Commission, under which CBP has been provided with 34 specific
categories of PNR data for travelers on international flights from European Union
(EU) countries. In June 2004, however, the European Parliament challenged this
agreement with an “action of annulment” in the European Court of Justice.30
In May 2006, the European Court of Justice ruled that the existing agreement
between the European Commission and CBP was illegal, on the basis that the PNR
agreement was not within the competency of the commission. Consequently, the
court ordered the cessation of PNR data exchange on September 30, 2006, if a new
agreement was not reached that addressed the court’s objections with the existing
agreement.31 It is notable that the court’s decision reportedly was not founded upon
any infringement of fundamental EU data protection rights.32 Nonetheless, members
of the European Parliament expressed concern about possible infringements under
the agreement when they called for the “action of annulment.” Despite continuing
EU concerns about data protection, an interim PNR agreement was tentatively
reached between the EU Commission and CBP on October 6, 2006. Unless
extended, however, this agreement is set to expire on July 31, 2007.33
Diverted International Flights. Under current practice, PNR data are
transferred through CBP’s APIS several times prior to departure as it becomes
available to the airlines; however, final PNR data are sometimes not transferred
through APIS until after the flight has departed (wheels up). In several recent cases,
known and suspected terrorists have been allowed to board aircraft at airports abroad
and, subsequently, this led to costly diversions when air carriers were prevented from
entering U.S. airspace or continuing to their destinations. Several of these incidents
29 For further information, see CRS Report RL32234, U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status
Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program, by Lisa M. Seghetti and Stephen R. Viña.
30 As described more fully below, the court ruled that the agreement was illegal and ordered
that the exchange of PNR data should cease on September 30, 2006, if a revised agreement
has not been negotiated.
31 Martial Tardy and Adrian Schofield, “Court Scraps European Union-U.S. Data
Agreement,” Aviation Daily, May 31, 2006, vol. 364, no. 42, p. 1.
32 “Council Adopts Decision on Signature of Agreement with U.S. on Continued Use of
PNR Data,” US Fed News, Oct. 16, 2006.
33 Ibid.

---

CRS-8
have generated significant press coverage.34 CBP’s National Targeting Center (NTC)
confers with TSC representatives to resolve potential watchlist matches.
Air Passenger Misidentifications. Despite close cooperation between
CBP’s NTC and the FBI-administered TSC, as has been the case for TSA and
domestic flights, CBP misidentifications on international flights have also generated
some controversy.35 Despite these difficulties, the 9/11 Commission made several
recommendations to increase such data sharing and strengthen air passenger
prescreening against TSC-maintained watchlists. Some of these were reflected in
provisions that Congress included in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458). The air passenger prescreening provisions in this law
are discussed generally below.
9/11 Commission and Air Passenger
Prescreening
In July 2004, the 9/11 Commission made air passenger prescreening- and
terrorist travel-related findings and recommendations in its final report. Shortly
thereafter, the TSA unveiled the “Secure Flight” domestic air passenger prescreening
program,36 and the Administration issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive
11 (HSPD-11), calling for “comprehensive terrorist-related screening procedures.”37
Later, in December 2004, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004,38 a law that included several provisions that
authorized the NCTC and built upon earlier efforts already undertaken under HSPD-6
to improve screening of known and suspected terrorists, particularly in regard to
advanced prescreening of airline passengers.39
34 See David Leppard, “Terror Plot To Attack US with BA Jets,” Sunday Times (London),
Jan. 4, 2004, p. 1; Sara Kehaulani Goo, “Cat Stevens Held After DC Flight Diverted,”
Washington Post, Sept. 22, 2004, p. A10; and “US-Bound Air France Flight Diverted Due
to Passenger,” Agence France Presse, Nov. 21, 2004.
35 Niraj Warikoo, “Doctor Says He’s Profiled At Airports: Beverly Hills Man Joins Class
Action vs. Government,” Detroit Free Press, June 20, 2006. Jeff Coen, “ACLU Expands
Profiling Lawsuit,” Chicago Tribune, June 20, 2006, p. C6.
36 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, “TSA
To Test New Passenger Pre-Screening System” (Washington, Aug. 26, 2004), 2 pp.
37 The White House, Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-11, Subject:
Comprehensive Terrorist-Related Screening Procedures (Washington, Aug. 27, 2004),
available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/print/20040827-7.html].
38 P.L. 108-458, Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3638.
39 For further information, see CRS Report RL32802, Homeland Security: Air Passenger
Prescreening and Counterterrorism, by Bart Elias, William Krouse, and Ed Rapport.

---

CRS-9
Integrated Terrorist Travel Strategy
Among other things, the 9/11 Commission concluded that disrupting terrorist
travel was as powerful a weapon as targeting their money.40 The 9/11 Commission
found, however, that prior to the 9/11 attacks, the intelligence community41 did not
view watchlisting as integral to intelligence work.42 To prevent future terrorist
attacks, the 9/11 Commission recommended that the United States expand terrorist
travel intelligence and countermeasures,43 and that the U.S. border security systems
be integrated with other systems to expand the network of screening points to include
the nation’s transportation systems and access to vital facilities.44
To increase aviation security, the 9/11 Commission recommended that the
Congress and TSA give priority to screening passengers for explosives.45 At a
minimum, the 9/11 Commission recommended that all passengers referred to
secondary screening be thoroughly checked for explosives.46 Arguably, this
necessitates a robust process to carefully select only those passengers believed to
pose the greatest risk to aviation security, while minimizing false positives. To
improve air passenger prescreening, the 9/11 Commission recommended that
! the “no-fly” and “automatic selectee” watchlists used to screen air
passengers be improved without delay;
! the actual screening process be transferred from U.S. air carriers to
TSA;
! air passengers be screened against the larger set of U.S. government
watchlists (principally the TSDB); and
40 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission
Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United
States, (Washington, 2004), p. 385.
41 The Intelligence Community includes the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); the National
Security Agency (NSA); the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency (GIA); the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO); the other DOD
offices that specialize in national intelligence through reconnaissance programs; the
intelligence components of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the FBI, the
Department of Energy, and the Coast Guard; the INR at the DOS, the Office of Intelligence
and Analysis at Department of the Treasury, and elements of the DHS that are concerned
with the analyses of foreign intelligence information (50 U.S.C. §401a(4)).
42 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, “Three 9/11 Hijackers:
Identification, Watchlisting, and Tracking,” Staff Statement no. 2, (Washington, 2004), p.
1.
43 The 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 385.
44 Ibid., p. 387.
45 Ibid., p. 393. Also, for further information, see CRS Report RS21920, Detection of
Explosives on Airline Passengers: Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and Related
Issues, by Dana Shea and Daniel Morgan.
46 Ibid., p. 393.

---

CRS-10
! air carriers be required to supply the needed information to test and
implement air passenger prescreening.47
As described below, both the Administration and Congress acted to implement the
9/11 Commission’s recommendations and establish an integrated strategy to disrupt
terrorist travel, but the results to date have been mixed, and some observers believe
that some aviation security issues have not yet been adequately addressed.48
Efforts To Improve Air Passenger Prescreening
Prompted in part by the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations, the TSA
unveiled plans to discontinue the development of the controversial Computer-
Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II (CAPPS II)49 in favor of the test program
dubbed “Secure Flight,”50 but even that program has been beset with problems and
has been repeatedly delayed. For example, in December 2006, the DHS’s Privacy
Office issued a report, finding that the TSA had not accurately described its use of
personal data as part of testing Secure Flight in notifications required under the
Privacy Act.51 Nor, has CBP’s passenger prescreening activities been without
controversy. In November 2006, CBP issued a notice, and the Department issued
a privacy impact assessment,52 on CBP’s Automated Targeting System, generating
additional public scrutiny and criticism.
TSA Secure Flight Program. According to TSA, the Secure Flight program
was being designed to improve passenger prescreening and deter, detect, and prevent
known or suspected terrorists from boarding commercial flights. The TSA
endeavored to meet this objective by using Secure Flight as a means to focus its
47 Ibid.
48 Jonathan Alter, “Plugging Holes in the Skies: The Terrorists Used Airplanes as Weapons
in 9/11. So Why Haven’t We Made Travel Safer by Now?” Newsweek, Aug. 21-28, 2006,
p. 50.
49 CAPPS II was originally designed to use sophisticated algorithms to search both
government and commercial databases to acquire limited background information on ticket
buyers to authenticate their identity and look for irregularities in behavioral patterns that
might suggest that they could pose a risk. Critics, however, decried the cloak of secrecy
under which TSA developed CAPPS II and argued that the potential loss of privacy under
such a system would not be counterbalanced with a corresponding increase in security. See
Jill D. Rhodes, “CAPPS II: Red Light, Green Light, or ‘Mother, May I?’” The Homeland
Security Journal, March 2004, p. 1. For further discussion of CAPPS II and other aspects
of air passenger prescreening, see CRS Report RL32802, Homeland Security: Air Passenger
Prescreening and Counterterrorism.
50 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, TSA to
Test New Passenger Pre-Screening System, (Washington, Aug. 26, 2004), 2 p.
51 Ellen Nakashima and Del Quentin Wilber, Report Says TSA Violated Privacy Law;
Passengers Weren’t Told That Brokers Provided Data to Screening Program in ‘04,”
Washington Post, Dec. 22, 2006, p. A07.
52 Spencer S. Hsu and Ellen Nakashima, “Traveler Data Program Defied Ban, Critics Say;
Congress Barred Funds for DHS Development,” Washington Post, Dec. 9, 2006, p. A02.

---

CRS-11
limited screening resources on individuals and their baggage who are perceived to
pose an elevated or unknown risk to commercial aviation, while reducing the number
of passengers screened and wait times at passenger screening checkpoints.
According to TSA, Secure Flight consisted of four elements:
! a streamlined rule for more intensive screening,
! a scaled-back identity authentication process,
! a passenger name check against the Terrorist Screening Database,
and
! an appeals process for passengers who may have been misidentified.
In addition to the appeals process, the Secure Flight program is an amalgam of
features taken from existing screening systems, CAPPS II, and the 9/11
Commission’s recommendations that passengers be screened against the wider set
of terrorist watchlists maintained by the U.S. government. Within TSA, the Office
of National Risk Assessment had responsibility for establishing policy for the Secure
Flight program.
Domestic and International Screening. To reduce redundant or
overlapping passenger processing systems, it appeared that Secure Flight would be
used only for prescreening passengers on domestic flights. DHS’s CBP would be
responsible for checking passenger identities against watchlists and prescreening
passengers on inbound and outbound international flights. It is unclear, however,
whether responsibility for screening domestic and international flights can be clearly
divided between TSA and CBP, because many international flights have domestic
legs and international passengers sometimes make connections to domestic flights.
It is also unclear, moreover, whether the development of Secure Flight will
impair entirely TSA’s responsibility for screening international air passengers who
may be threats to civil aviation. At issue is TSA’s authority and responsibility over
all aspects of aviation security versus CBP’s authority and responsibility for border
management and security. Presently, the “No Fly” and “Automatic Selectee” lists are
used by air carriers to screen passengers on international and domestic flights. It
remains an open policy question whether this prescreening mechanism will be
replaced by CBP pre-departure screening of air passengers on all in-bound
international flights. In the case of international air travel, the distinction between
aviation and border security functions has become increasingly blurred.
Related Provisions in the Intelligence Reform Act. Congress,
meanwhile, included several air passenger prescreening-related provisions in the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458). Among other
things, this law requires (1) TSA to assume the airline passenger prescreening
function from U.S. air carriers after it establishes an advanced passenger prescreening
system for domestic flights that uses the consolidated TSDB (described as a domestic
corollary system to US-VISIT); (2) CBP to prescreen passengers on international
flights against the TSDB prior to departure; and (3) DHS to establish appeals
procedures by which persons who are identified as security threats may challenge
such determinations.

---

CRS-12
In addition, Congress included two reporting requirements in P.L. 108-458
related to air passenger prescreening and terrorist watchlists. The first required the
DHS Privacy Officer to report to Congress on the impact of the “No Fly” and
“Automatic Selectee” lists on privacy and civil liberties. The second required the
National Intelligence Director to report to Congress on the criteria for placing
individuals on a terrorist watchlist. Both reports were due to Congress by June 15,
2005. While the DHS Privacy Office issued its report in April 2006,53 it is unknown
whether the National Intelligence Director reported to Congress on the criteria used
for placing individuals on terrorist watchlists. As the DHS Privacy Office noted,
however, it is likely that such information could not be made public, without
compromising national security. The Privacy Office report is discussed in greater
detail below.54
Related Appropriations Rider. Also, in the FY2006 DHS Appropriations
Act (P.L. 109-90), Congress prohibited TSA (or any other component of DHS) from
spending any appropriated funds on the deployment of Secure Flight, or any
successor system used to screen aviation passengers, until the GAO reports that
certain conditions have been met, including the establishment of an appeals process.55
A similar provision was included in the FY2007 DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-
295).56
Problems Developing Secure Flight. Like its predecessor, CAPPS II, the
Secure Flight program has proven controversial. In March 2005, the DHS OIG
reported that TSA had mishandled some passenger data while testing CAPPS II, but
since that time, the agency’s approach to privacy issues had improved markedly.57
In the same month, the GAO reported that TSA had begun developing and testing
Secure Flight; however, TSA had not determined fully “data needs and system
functions,” despite ambitious timelines for program implementation.58 Consequently,
the GAO reported that it was uncertain whether TSA would meet its August 2005
Secure Flight operational deployment date.59 The TSA, in fact, did not meet the
deadline and in February 2006 announced that it was restructuring (“rebaselining”)
the Secure Flight program.
53 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS Privacy Office Report on Assessing the
Impact of the Automatic Selectee and No Fly Lists on Privacy and Civil Liberties, April 27,
2006, 22 pp.
54 Ibid., p. 9.
55 Sec. 518, 119 Stat. 2085.
56 Sec. 514, 120 Stat. 1379.
57 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Review of the
Transportation Security Administration’s Role in the Use and Dissemination of Airline
Passenger Data (Redacted), OIG-05-12, March 2005, p. 8.
58 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Aviation Security: Secure Flight Development
and Testing Under Way, but Risks Should Be Managed as System Is Further Developed,
GAO-05-356, Mar. 28, 2005, p. 17.
59 Ibid.

---

CRS-13
In addition, in July 2005, GAO reported that TSA had not fully disclosed its use
of passenger data during the testing for Secure Flight.60 In August 2005, the DOJ
OIG reported that there were numerous problems coordinating the development of
the Secure Flight program with the efforts of the FBI-administered TSC.61 In
September 2005, the identity authentication element of the Secure Flight program,
under which TSA planned to compare PNR data (for domestic flights) with databases
maintained by commercial data aggregators to verify passenger identities, was
reportedly dropped.62 In December 2006, moreover, the DHS’s Privacy Office issued
a report, finding that the TSA had not accurately described its use of personal data
as part of the Secure Flight program in notifications required under the Privacy Act.63
CBP’s Automated Targeting System. In recent months, CBP’s
Automated Targeting System has also generated controversy. In early November
2006, the DHS Privacy Office issued a system of records notice (SORN) on the
Automated Targeting System (ATS),64 in compliance with the Privacy Act. Later
that month, DHS published a privacy impact assessment on that system as well.65
Initially, the effective date on this SORN was December 4, 2006, but DHS extended
it to December 29, following a ground swell of public criticism.66
According to one news account, the U.S. Customs Service developed the ATS
in the mid-1990s as a tool to assist border inspectors with interdicting illegal drugs
and other contraband.67 Arguably, then the scope of the ATS was limited to parties
(custom brokers, freight forwarders, and trucking/shipping companies) and cargoes
that were associated with past criminality that raised the suspicions of customs
authorities. After the 2001 terrorist attacks, the ATS was reportedly reconfigured and
its scope widened to target known and suspected terrorists and terrorist activities as
60 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Aviation Security: Transportation Security
Administration Did Not Fully Disclose Uses of Personal Information during Secure Flight
Program Testing in Initial Privacy Notices, but Has Recently Taken Steps to More Fully
Inform the Public, GAO-05-864R, July 22, 2005, p. 9.
61 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Review of the Terrorist
Screening Center’s Efforts to Support the Secure Flight Program, Audit Report 05-34, Aug.
2005, 41 pp.
62 John Bacon, “TSA: ‘Data Mining’ Deleted from Plan,” USA Today, Sept. 23, 2005, p. 3A.
63 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Privacy Office, Secure Flight Report: DHS
Privacy Office Report to the Public on the Transportation Security Administration’s Secure
Flight Program and Privacy Recommendations, Dec. 2006, 15 pp.
64 Federal Register, vol. 71, no. 212, Nov. 2, 2006, p. 64543.
65 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Privacy Impact Assessment for the Automated
Targeting System, Nov. 22, 2006, 30 pp.
66 “Senators Question Program That Put Risk Ratings On All Who Cross U.S. Borders,”
COMMWEB, Dec. 4, 2006.
67 Spencer S. Hsu and Ellen Nakashima, “Traveler Data Program Defied Ban, Critics Say;
Congress Barred Funds for DHS Development,” Washington Post, Dec. 9, 2006, p. A02.

---

CRS-14
well, by assigning risk assessments to passengers and cargo.68 In response to the
recent SORN and Privacy Office report, privacy advocates, civil libertarians, and
others quickly questioned whether the development of ATS was subject to the same
appropriations limitation (described above) as the Secure Flight program,69 but DHS
maintains that it was and is not subject to that limitation, as the ATS predates the
Secure Flight program and, hence, cannot be viewed as a “follow on” or “successor”
program to Secure Flight.70
Notwithstanding interpretations of the funding limitation, then Chairman-
Designate of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Representative Bennie
Thompson, and others have raised additional questions regarding the ATS and its
impact on privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights.71 In comments addressing the ATS
SORN released on December 29, 2006, Representative Thompson expressed several
concerns regarding aspects of ATS and air passenger prescreening that, in his view,
would require further elaboration or revision.72 He acknowledged the need to ensure
aviation security by screening for terrorists through name-based systems; however,
he emphasized that such systems “must not go beyond the letter or intent of the law
by infringing upon the guaranteed rights of U.S. Citizens.”73 He also noted concerns
about the type of data collected from PNRs and the ways in which that data collected
on U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents would be analyzed, protected, shared,
controlled, and retained.74
In addition, the EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom, and Security, Mr.
Franco Frattini, was quoted in the press as having made the following statement on
December 13, 2006 regarding the ATS: “the information published by the DHS
reveals significant differences between the way in which PNR data are handled with
the ATS on the one hand and the stricter regime for European PNR data according
to the [October 19, 2006] interim agreement”75 (described below).
68 Ibid.
69 Ibid.
70 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “Facts
Concerning the Automated Targeting System,” December 12, 2007, available at
[http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/highlights/cbp_responds/facts_automated_targe
ting_sys.xml].
71 Shaun Waterman, “Analysis: Dems Slam Border Screening Rules,” UPI, Jan. 2, 2007.
72 “Comments of Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Chairman-Designate Committee on
Homeland Security, U.S. House of Representatives, on Department of Homeland Security
Privacy Office Privacy Act System of Records Notice for the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Automated Targeting System (Docket No. DHS-2006-0060, Published Nov. 2,
2006, Extended December 8, 2006),” Dec. 29, 2006, 7 pp.
73 Ibid.
74 Ibid.
75 “European Commissioner Issued A Statement Saying That The U.S. Homeland Security
Department Deviated From Recent Agreements Between the US and EU,” TECHWEB, Dec.
20, 2006.

---

CRS-15
TSC Operations and Support for Secure Flight
Regarding TSC operations and support for the Secure Flight program, the DOJ
OIG issued two audits in the summer of 2005. Congress, meanwhile, provided the
TSC with increased funding to support the Secure Flight program, among other
terrorist screening initiatives. Nevertheless, TSA has encountered difficulties in
adequately developing the program, and its implementation has been repeatedly
delayed.
Inspector General Audit of TSC Operations
In June 2005, DOJ OIG issued an audit, reporting that the TSC had established
a single consolidated TSDB, as recommended by GAO,76 but with some difficulties.77
Among other things, the TSDB had not been completely audited to ensure that its
records were complete and accurate. The OIG also reported that the NCTC was
using TIPOFF as the principal source of lookout records for international terrorists,
and the TIDE was slated to be brought online in mid-2005.78 During a Senate hearing
on passport fraud, the TSC Director, Donna Bucella, testified that the TIDE had been
“incorporated” into the TSDB.79
NCTC Support of TSC Watchlisting. An oversight issue for Congress —
some may maintain the most critical issue — is whether the Intelligence Community
is sharing reliable information with the NCTC that is necessary to identify effectively
known and suspected terrorists and their supporters. Because TIDE-generated
records are the principal source of watchlist records on international terrorists, this
issue undergirds the TSC’s ability to accomplish its mission. To date, the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence OIG has not reported an audit of the NCTC’s
support of the TSC, nor is it publically known whether the NCTC has evaluated the
TIDE for accuracy and comprehensiveness.
Anticipated FY2006 TSC Support for Secure Flight
In August 2005, the DOJ OIG issued an audit of the TSC’s support for the
Secure Flight program, reporting that such support would significantly increase the
TSC’s workload.80 The FBI-administered TSC anticipated that supporting the Secure
76 U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Terrorist Watch Lists Should
Be Consolidated to Promote Better Integration and Sharing, GAO Report GAO-03-322
(April 2003).
77 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, Review of the
Terrorist Screening Center, Audit Report 05-27, (Washington, June 2005), 160 pp.
78 Ibid., p. 6.
79 Statement of Donna A. Bucella Director, Terrorist Screening Center, before the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hearing on Passport
Vulnerabilities, Washington, June 29, 2005, p. 2.
80 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Review of the Terrorist
(continued...)

---

CRS-16
Flight program and other terrorist screening initiatives would increase the number of
possible terrorist encounters by 500% in FY2006, compared with its estimated
FY2005 workload.81 The Administration had requested $75 million to fund an
additional 61 positions for the TSC as part of the overall FBI request,82 bringing the
total FY2006 request for the TSC to nearly $99 million, according to the DOJ OIG.
Of the latter amount, the OIG reported that about 40% was either directly or
indirectly attributable to the TSC’s anticipated support of TSA’s Secure Flight
program.
The FY2006 Science-State-Justice-Commerce appropriations bill (H.R. 2862)
included conference report language that earmarked a $70 million increase for the
TSC to fund an additional 61 positions.83 With this increased funding, the TSC was
in a position financially to support the Secure Flight program. In February 2006,
however, GAO testified before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee that TSA still faced significant program development challenges. Shortly
thereafter, the TSA put Secure Flight on hold so that the program could be redesigned
(rebaselined).84
EU-U.S. Data Sharing Issues
In Summer 2006, the issue of PNR data sharing emerged as a problem for the
United States, as the European Court of Justice has ruled an EU-U.S. PNR data
sharing agreement to be illegal and ordered a cessation of such data sharing on
September 30, 2006. In light of the foiled plot to bomb airliners flying from the UK
to the United States in August 2006, however, DHS Secretary Chertoff proposed that
the United States should acquire greater amounts of PNR data to improve passenger
prescreening for known and suspected terrorists.85 As described below, an interim
EU-U.S. agreement was reached on October 19, 2006.
80 (...continued)
Screening Center’s Efforts to Support the Secure Flight Program, Audit Report 05-34,
(Washington, Aug. 2005), 41 pp.
81 U.S. Department of Justice, 2006 Congressional Authorization & Budget Submission, vol.
II, Federal Bureau of Investigation (Washington, Febrary 2005), pp. 3-33.
82 Ibid.
83 H.Rept. 109-272, conference report on the FY2006 SSJC appropriations act (H.R. 2862),
which was enacted as P.L. 109-108.
84 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Aviation Security: Significant Management
Challenges May Adversely Affect Implementation of the Transportation Security
Administration’s Secure Flight Program, Statement of Cathleen A. Berrick, GAO-06-374T,
Feb. 9, 2006.
85 Michael Chertoff, “A Tool We Need to Stop the Next Airliner Plot,” Washington Post,
Aug. 29, 2006, p. A15.

---

CRS-17
European Court of Justice Ruling
In May 2006, the European Court of Justice ruled in favor of an “action of
annulment” requested by the European Parliament with regard to the legality of an
agreement made by the European Commission and CBP to exchange PNR data to
improve passenger prescreening for terrorists, attempting to board transatlantic
flights.86 The court ordered the cessation of PNR data sharing on September 30,
2006.87 If it had not been resolved, this impasse between the U.S. and EU authorities
with regard to PNR data sharing might have significantly affected travel from EU
countries to the United States. While the European Commission and CBP
renegotiated an interim agreement in terms that were not objectionable to the
European Court of Justice, that agreement is temporary. And, some European
authorities, including Members of the European Parliament, continue to express
concern about adequate data protections under the agreement.
CBP Requires Additional PNR Data Preflight
In July 2006, CBP published a notice of proposed rulemaking, in which the
agency sought to acquire PNR data (complete manifests) 60 minutes prior to
departure, with a mechanism that would allow for individual, real-time transactions
up to 15 minutes prior to a flight’s departure for last-minute ticket buyers and other
manifest changes.88 In part, U.S. authorities maintained that such advanced
information is necessary for prescreening noncitizens traveling to the United States
under the visa waiver program, as well as long-term, multiple-entry visa holders,
because they are not screened at a U.S. consulate abroad as part of a visa issuance
process.89
Following the foiled conspiracy to bomb several airliners flying from Britain to
the United States in August 2006, observers noted that the suspected conspirators
could have boarded the aircraft bound for the United States without having been
screened against the international terrorist watchlists maintained by the TSC in the
TSDB prior to a flight’s departure, because the UK is a participant in the visa waiver
program. In response to the plot, DHS reportedly issued a temporary order requiring
86 “EU Court Rules Illegal EU-U.S. Air Passenger Data Deal,” Associate Press Worldstream,
May 30, 2006.
87 “EU, US Officials: New Agreement Will Be Reached on Passenger Data,” Agence France
Presse, May 30, 2006.
88 Federal Register, vol. 71, no. 135, July 14, 2006, pp. 40035-40048.
89 It is noteworthy that in the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002
(P.L. 107-173), Congress included a requirement that countries participating in the visa
waiver program issue their nationals machine-readable, tamper-resistant, biometric passports
by October 26, 2004. In a subsequent law (P.L. 108-299), the machine-readable and
tamper-resistant requirements were extended to October 26, 2005, and the biometric
requirement was modified so that it only applied to passports issued after that date. In the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458), Congress
required that visa waiver countries certify that they are developing a machine-readable,
tamper-resistant, biometric passport by October 26, 2006. For further information, see CRS
Report RL32221, Visa Waiver Program, by Alison Siskin.

---

CRS-18
that passenger name records be provided preflight to CBP for transatlantic flights
originating in the UK,90 as opposed to 15 minutes after a flight’s departure as
normally required under current CBP regulations (for arrival manifests).91
Furthermore, CBP reportedly announced that it would seek to obtain greater amounts
of air passenger data preflight from all air carriers and retain that data longer.92
Reportedly, some Europeans strongly oppose such data sharing and see U.S. demands
for such data, without stronger data privacy safeguards, as an infringement on their
national and collective sovereignties.93
EU-U.S. Interim Agreement
Despite lingering concerns about data protection and privacy, on October 19,
2006, the EU and U.S. concluded an interim agreement on PNR that allows PNR data
in air carrier reservations systems to continue to be transferred to CBP in the same
manner as previously. It also reportedly addresses other privacy issues. For example,
the agreement anticipates the development of a new screening system, under which
air carriers will send (push) PNR data to CBP, rather than the air carriers allowing
CBP access (pull) the data from their reservations systems, as is the case today.94
This issue is often referred to as the “push/pull issue” and involves systems access
and data control.
Nonetheless, there may be additional data protection/privacy issues for the
European Union and the United States to resolve in regard to air passenger
prescreening under both TSA’s Secure Flight program and CBP’s Automated
Targeting System. Particularly troubling for some Europeans and privacy advocates
are the following elements of the agreement: (1) retention of PNR data for up to 40
years; (2) collection of increased amounts and types of data; and (3) distribution of
that data, along with risk assessments and possibly other analyses, to other law
enforcement agencies, where control of these data would be beyond the reach of the
agencies whose missions necessitated that such data be collected. The interim
agreement is due to expire on July 31, 2007.
Misidentifications and Related Procedures
Misidentifications have been a recurring issue for Congress. Initially, such
problems were frequently associated with TSA’s administration of the “No Fly” and
“Automatic Selectee” lists. More recently, however, this may be an emerging
90 Mark Skertic, “Passenger List Review May Add To Flight Time,” Chicago Tribune, Aug.
17, 2006, p. 1.
91 19 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 4 and 122.
92 Ellen Nakashima, “U.S. Seeks to Expand Data Sharing: Retention of Airline Passenger
Details Raises Privacy Concerns in E.U.,” Washington Post, Aug. 23, 2006, p. A5.
93 Ibid.
94 “Council Adopts Decision on Signature of Agreement with U.S. on Continued Use of
PNR Data,” US Fed News, Oct. 16, 2006.

---

CRS-19
problem for CBP as well in light of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
class-action suit against that agency.95
Under HSPD-6, the TSC Director has been made responsible for developing
policies and procedures related to the criteria for including terrorist identities data in
the consolidated TSDB and for measures to be taken in regard to misidentifications,
erroneous entries, outdated data, and privacy concerns. The Administration
maintains further that since the TSC does not collect intelligence, and has no
authority to do so, all intelligence or data entered into the TSDB are actually being
collected by other agencies in accordance with applicable, pre-existing authorities.
At the same time, however, the TSC is limited in its ability to address certain
issues related to misidentifications because it is restricted from divulging classified
or law enforcement-sensitive information to the public under certain circumstances
(discussed below). The same could be said for many frontline-screening agencies as
well (e.g., TSA and CBP), because many terrorist lookout records, while possibly
declassified, are based on classified intelligence collected by other agencies. Such
records would probably be considered security sensitive information. Hence,
questions could arise as to which agencies, if any, are in a position to handle matters
pertaining to misidentifications.
Moreover, if procedures are not properly coordinated, inconvenienced travelers
who have been misidentified as terrorists or their supporters could face a bureaucratic
maze if they attempt to seek redress and remedy. The DOJ OIG audit on TSC
operations (described above) included a recommendation that the TSC strengthen
procedures for handling misidentifications and articulate those procedures formally
in written documents (operational guidelines).96 Congress later required reports from
the Administration and GAO regarding the use of terrorist watchlists.
DHS Privacy Office Report on “No Fly” and
“Automatic Selectee” Watchlists
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458)
included two reporting requirements related to air passenger prescreening and
terrorist watchlists. Section 4012(b) required the DHS Privacy Officer to report to
Congress,97 within 180 days of enactment (June 15, 2005), on the impact of the “No
95 According to the ACLU, U.S. citizens have been subjected to repeated and lengthy stops,
questioning, body searches, handcuffing, excessive force, and separation from family while
being detained by CBP officers because of possible watchlist matches. Nine of these U.S.
citizens have filed a class action suit against DHS. See Rahman v. Chertoff, Case No. 05
C 3761 (E.D. Ill. filed June 19, 2006).
96 Ibid., p. 76.
97 Section 4012(b) of P.L. 108-458 required that the report be submitted to the Committee
on the Judiciary, the Committee on Governmental Affairs and Homeland Security, and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in the Senate; and to the Committee
on the Judiciary, the Committee on Government Reform, the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, and the Committee on Homeland Security in the House of
(continued...)

---

CRS-20
Fly” and “Automatic Selectee” lists on privacy and civil liberties. Section 4012(c)
required the National Intelligence Director, in consultation with the Secretary of
Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General, to report to
Congress, within a 180 days of enactment, on the criteria for placing individuals in
the consolidated TSDB watchlists maintained by the TSC, including minimum
standards for reliability and accuracy of identifying information, the threat levels
posed by listed persons, and the appropriate responses to be taken if those persons
were encountered.
In April 2006, the DHS Privacy Office issued its report assessing the impact of
the “No Fly” and “Automatic Selectee” lists on privacy and civil liberties.98 The
report cited concerns about the quality of the information of those lists, as well as the
underlying intelligence.99 The report also noted allegations about profiling on the
basis of race, religion, or national origin, but reported that it could not substantiate
those allegations.100 Furthermore, the report assessed existing DHS redress
mechanisms, which are described briefly below.
In regard to the criteria used to place individuals on terrorist watchlists
consolidated in the TSDB, it is unknown whether the National Intelligence Director
reported to Congress on this matter. Nevertheless, the Privacy Office report stressed
that those criteria could not be made public without (1) compromising intelligence
and security, or (2) allowing persons wishing to avoid detection to subvert those
lists.101
GAO Report on the Adverse Effects of Terrorist Watchlists
In late September 2006, GAO reported on efforts to reduce the adverse effects
of terrorist watch list screening, outlining measures that DHS and the TSC had taken
to reduce and alleviate misidentifications.102 According to GAO, the TSC established
formal internal procedures for receiving and processing redress matters in January
2005,103 and the DOJ had drafted an interagency memorandum of understanding
(MOU) to document formally redress opportunities and clarify TSC and frontline-
97 (...continued)
Representatives.
98 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS Privacy Office Report on Assessing the
Impact of the Automatic Selectee and No Fly Lists on Privacy and Civil Liberties, April 27,
2006, 22 pp.
99 Ibid., p. 8.
100 Ibid., p. 9.
101 Ibid.
102 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Terrorism Watch List Screening: Efforts to Help
Reduce Adverse Effects on the Public, GAO-06-1031, Sept. 2006, p. 55.
103 Ibid., p. 29.

---

CRS-21
screening agency responsibilities.104 A final draft of the redress MOU was scheduled
for interagency clearance by the fall 2006.105
GAO also noted that the TSC generally handles redress cases related to persons
who may have been mistakenly placed on terrorist watchlists, as opposed to
misidentifications, which are generally handled by the frontline-screening agencies
(principally CBP and TSA).106 During calendar year 2005, the TSC processed 112
redress cases to completion:
! 31 involved individuals mistakenly watchlisted,
! 48 required no change to the record,
! 6 involved changes or updates to the record,
! 8 were not relevant to watchlist issues and should not have been
referred to the TSC, and
! 19 involved misidentifications that should have been handled by the
frontline-screening agencies.
GAO also noted that while the total number of misidentifications by frontline-
screening agencies is unknown, their frequency, while a very small percentage of
total inspections, is estimated to be in the tens-of-thousands and remains a serious
concern.107
DHS Redress Mechanisms
In the reports discussed above, both the DHS Privacy Office and GAO reported
to Congress on existing DHS redress mechanisms, by which an individual that feels
he or she has been unfairly denied boarding on a commercial aircraft or singled out
for screening, can contact several DHS offices and initiate a redress inquiry. More
recently, Congress has considered legislation to establish a single office to oversee
the DHS’s redress processes, and the head of TSA has testified before Congress
about new efforts to improve those processes.
Existing Mechanisms. According to the DHS Privacy Office, individuals
who believe they have been misidentified as a terrorist while being screened by TSA
can contact either the TSA Ombudsman’s Contact Center or Office of Civil Rights.108
104 Ibid., p. 27.
105 Ibid.
106 It is notable that consular officers are given wide discretion whether to grant or refuse a
visa. Their decisions are subject to limited review, and there are no avenues for
administrative appeal. Moreover, a visa (immigrant or nonimmigrant) is not a guarantee of
entry into the United States. CBP inspectors at ports of entry may find cause to exclude a
visaed alien form entry, although this seldom occurs. See CRS Report RL31019, Terrorism:
Automated Lookout Systems and Border Security Options and Issues, by William J. Krouse
and Raphael F. Perl.
107 Ibid., p. 12.
108 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS Privacy Office Report on Assessing the
(continued...)

---

CRS-22
Information is also available on the TSA website regarding the redress process.109
Individuals seeking redress are issued a Privacy Act Notice and Passenger Identity
Verification Form, which is processed by the TSA Office for Transportation Security
Redress (OSTR).110 If OSTR concludes an individual has been misidentified, they
are placed on a “cleared” list.111 However, GAO has reported that individuals, who
have been placed on the cleared lists, may continue to encounter inconveniences. For
example, “they may be forced to obtain a boarding pass at the ticket counter as
opposed to the using the Internet, curbside, or airport kiosk check-in options.”112
Meanwhile, individuals who believe they have been misidentified while being
screened by CBP can contact that agency’s Customer Service Satisfaction Unit.113
In addition to contacting either TSA or CBP, individuals who have possibly been
misidentified may also contact either the DHS Privacy Office or Office of Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties.114 As described above, frontline-screening agencies refer
matters concerning individuals who believe they have been mistakenly watchlisted
to the TSC.
Disclosure Under FOIA and Privacy Act
In regard to TSC, Members of Congress and other outside observers have
questioned whether there should be new policy and procedures at different levels
(such as visa issuance, border inspections, commercial aviation security, domestic
law enforcement, and security of public events) for the inclusion of persons in the
TSDB.115 Also, Members have asked how a person could find out if they were in the
Terrorist Screening Database and, if so, how they got there. In congressional
testimony, TSC Director Bucella surmised that a person would learn of being in the
TSDB when a screening agency encountered them and, perhaps, denied them a visa
or entry into the United States, or arrested them. Director Bucella suggested that the
108 (...continued)
Impact of the Automatic Selectee and No Fly Lists on Privacy and Civil Liberties, April 27,
2006, p. 17.
109 Ibid.
110 Ibid.
111 Ibid.
112 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Terrorist Watch List Screening, GAO-06-1031,
Sept. 2006, p. 34.
113 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS Privacy Office Report on Assessing the
Impact of the Automatic Selectee and No Fly Lists on Privacy and Civil Liberties, April 27,
2006, p. 17.
114 Ibid.
115 For further information, see CRS Report RL31730, Privacy: Total Information
Awareness Programs and Related Information Access, Collection, and Protection Laws, by
Gina Marie Stevens.

---

CRS-23
TSC would probably be unable to confirm or deny whether the person was in the
TSDB under current law.116
Consequently, persons who have been identified or misidentified as terrorists
or their supporters would have to pursue such matters through the screening agency.
The screening agency, however, might not have been the originating source of the
record, in which case a lengthy process of referrals may have to be initiated. Under
such conditions, persons identified as terrorists or their supporters may turn to the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or the Privacy Act as a last alternative. Under
FOIA,117 any person, including a noncitizen or nonpermanent resident, may file a
request with any executive branch agency or department, such as the State
Department or DHS, for records indicating they are on a watchlist. However, under
national security and law enforcement FOIA exemptions, the departments may
withhold records on whether an individual is on a watchlist.118 Consequently, a FOIA
inquiry is unlikely to shed any light on these areas.
In addition, a citizen or legal permanent resident may file a Privacy Act119
request with DHS and/or DOJ to discern whether a screening agency or the FBI has
records on them. However, the law enforcement exemption under the Privacy Act
may permit the departments to withhold such records. Under the Privacy Act, a
citizen or legal permanent resident may request an amendment of their record if
information in the record is inaccurate, untimely, irrelevant, or incomplete. Under
both FOIA and the Privacy Act, there are provisions for administrative and judicial
appeal. If a request is denied, the citizen or legal permanent resident is required to
exhaust their administrative remedies prior to bringing an action in U.S. District
Court to challenge the agency’s action.120
Other Possible Legal Questions
The Administration has pledged that terrorist screening information will be
gathered and employed within constitutional and other legal parameters. Although
the Privacy Act generally does not restrict information sharing related to known and
suspected terrorists who are not U.S. persons for the purposes of visa issuance and
border inspections, it does restrict the sharing of information on U.S. persons
(citizens and legal permanent residents) for purely intelligence purposes, who are not
116 Donna Bucella, Terrorist Screening Center Director, Testimony Before the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Jan. 26, 2004, p. 1.
117 5 U.S.C. §522.
118 5 U.S.C. §§522(b), (c), 522a(j).
119 5 U.S.C. §522a.
120 One recent legal analysis examined several U.S. court decisions addressing the use of
terrorist watchlists for aviation security purposes. According to that analysis, it appears that
the presiding judges in those cases were willing to defer to TSA regarding determinations
that watchlist records were security sensitive information, even though those records were
essential to the maintenance of the plaintiffs’ claims. See Linda L. Lane, “The
Discoverability of Sensitive Security Information in Aviation Litigation,” Journal of Air
Law and Commerce, vol. 71, Summer 2006, p. 434

---

CRS-24
the subject of on-going foreign intelligence or criminal investigations.121
Consequently, legal questions concerning the inclusion of U.S. persons on various
watchlists under criminal or national security predicates may arise. In addition,
questions of compensation for persons damaged by mistaken inclusion in these
databases will likely be an issue.
Oversight Hearings and Legislative Activity in the
110th Congress
On January 9, 2007, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, a bill to
implement further the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The House bill
includes two provisions related to air passenger prescreening. The Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Homeland Security held hearings on aviation security on January
17 and February 13, 2007, respectively. In addition, the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported, with amendments, the Aviation
Security Improvement Act (S. 509) on February 13, 2007 (without a written report).
The Senate bill includes similar provisions to those in H.R. 1 and is being considered
by the Senate as an amendment to S. 4 — the Senate alternative to H.R. 1.
Senate Oversight Hearing on Aviation Security. At the Senate hearing,
the head of TSA, Assistant Secretary Hawley, conceded that the redress processes at
TSA had been “too cumbersome and expensive,” prompting the agency to introduce
a new streamlined process and automated redress management system.122 Hawley
also testified that DHS Secretary Chertoff had developed a program envisioned by
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that is designed to provide travelers with a
single, simple process for addressing watchlist-related complaints.123 Hawley also
testified that the advance air passenger prescreening program known as Secure Flight
would reduce misidentifications — the largest source of complaints.124 He reported
that TSA had processed more than 20,000 redress requests in 2006, and the average
processing times of those requests had been reduced from two months to 10 days.125
In addition, Hawley informed the committee that TSA and the FBI-administered TSC
were in the process of reviewing the “No Fly” list in an effort to reduce the number
of individuals on that list by as much as 50%.126
Strategic Plan for Air Passenger Prescreening. Section 409 of H.R. 1
would require the DHS Secretary to formulate, within 90 days of enactment, a
121 Department of State, Testimony to the Joint Congressional Intelligence Committee, p. 5.
122 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Testimony of Assistant Secretary Edmund S.
Hawley before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, “Aviation
Security and 9/11 Commission Recommendations,” Jan. 17, 2007.
123 Ibid.
124 Ibid.
125 Ibid.
126 Ibid.

---

CRS-25
strategic plan to test and implement an advanced passenger prescreening system, with
which DHS would assume the function of comparing passenger information to the
“No Fly” and “Automatic Selectee” lists from air carriers, as recommended by the
9/11 Commission. It requires further that this plan include a projected timeline for
testing and implementing such a system, and that it explain how this system would
be integrated with the prescreening system for passengers on international flights.
As described above, the head of TSA, Assistant Secretary Kip Hawley, testified
before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation that the
agency’s advanced air passenger prescreening program (Secure Flight) reportedly
would not be running until at least 2008.127 Section 13 of the S. 509 includes a
similar provision to that in H.R. 1, but the effective date in the Senate provision
would be within 180 days of enactment.
Appeals and Redress Requirements. Section 407 of H.R. 1 includes a
provision that would require the DHS Secretary to establish an Office of Appeals and
Redress at the departmental level, under which a timely and fair process would be
established to allow individuals who believe they have been wrongly delayed or
prohibited from boarding a commercial aircraft by either the TSA or CBP to appeal
those actions and seek redress. The House provision would also require the DHS
Secretary to establish offices for those purposes at each airport, where the department
has a “significant presence.” Section 12 of S. 509 includes a similar provision,
except that it would not require the department to establish offices at each airport,
where the department has a “significant presence,” for the purposes of redress and
remedy for passengers wrongly delayed or prohibited from boarding a flight.
Possible Issues for Congress
Four issues loom large in terms of the U.S. government’s capabilities to identify,
screen, and track terrorists and their supporters. For example, how reliable is the
intelligence that is the basis for lookout records? How accurate and complete is the
consolidated terrorist screening database itself? When will the TSA and CBP be able
to prescreen effectively air passengers prior to departure? Will the TSC in
cooperation with screening agencies be able to establish viable redress and remedy
processes for persons misidentified as terrorists or their supporters given certain
limitations placed on those agencies in regard to the public divulgence of national
security and law enforcement sensitive information?
Reliability of Intelligence Underlying Lookout Records
Because the terrorist identities database (TIDE) maintained by the National
Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) is the principal source of lookout records on
international terrorists placed in the TSC’s consolidated terrorist screening database,
a key oversight issue for Congress is whether the intelligence community is sharing
the appropriate information necessary to identify terrorists and their supporters with
the NCTC. Is the TSC receiving timely terrorist identities data updates that reflect
127 Beverley Lumpkin, “No-Fly List Checked for Accuracy, Cut,” Associated Press Online,
Jan. 18, 2007.

---

CRS-26
the best and most reliable intelligence available to intelligence and law enforcement
agencies?
Accuracy and Completeness of the
Terrorist Screening Database
According to the DOJ OIG, the TSC struggled to develop a consolidated
terrorist screening database, as illustrated by the several versions of this database
referenced in the OIG audit and numerous problems associated with the database.
Among other things, the problems included data inaccuracies, omitted and
unactivated fields, and duplicate records in two early versions of this database.
Although the TSC did manage to upload terrorist lookout records into the National
Crime Information Center’s system, so that it would be available to state, local, and
tribal police for the first time, another issue may be whether there was a degradation
in the quality of lookout records provided to other mainline screening agencies, such
as the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs and DHS’s Customs and
Border Protection. Consequently, an issue for Congress may be whether the TSC
was able to maintain the same quality of lookout records that were provided
previously by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, as there
may be outstanding issues related to the accuracy and completeness of the lookout
records in the consolidated terrorist screening database.
Preflight Passenger Screening by TSA and CBP
While largely related to implementation, a number of unresolved questions
remain with regard to prescreening air passengers prior to departure (wheels up).
How quickly can TSA develop and deploy an advanced air passenger prescreening
system that, among other things, will assume the day-to-day administration of the
“No Fly” and “Automatic Selectee” watchlists from the airlines? Will DHS and CBP
be able to negotiate a permanent agreement with the EU for a greater amount of PNR
data that would be provided preflight? If such an agreement cannot be reached, what
will the implications be if DHS and CBP require such data through new regulations
(administratively) and subsequently refuse non-compliant air carriers entry into the
United States or fine them for not providing such data preflight?
Viable Processes of Redress and
Remedy for Misidentifications
Concerning misidentifications, under HSPD-6, the TSC Director is responsible
for developing policies and procedures related to the criteria for inclusion into the
consolidated TSDB, and for taking measures to address misidentifications, erroneous
entries, outdated data, and privacy concerns. An issue for Congress may be the
extent to which the TSC is working with screening agencies to develop appropriate
and effective redress and remedy processes for persons misidentified as terrorists or
their supporters. Given certain limitations placed on the TSC and screening agencies
with regard to releasing national security and law enforcement sensitive information,
will sufficient information channels be available and remedial processes established
to provide for accurate and expeditious determinations in misidentification cases?

---