An American Airlines Boeing 777 jetliner lands at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in this April, 2003 file photo. (Chris Kilroy/View Full Size)

Lawmakers from both parties said they would block any effort to reduce funding for air marshals.

"It is foolish to even consider cutting back the number of air marshals on commercial flights," Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky. and chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds the Homeland Security Department said Wednesday. "I am adamantly opposed to any attempt to shift money away from the core missions of this vital program."

The Transportation Security Administration asked Congress last Friday for permission to cut $104 million, or about 20 percent, of the funding for the air marshal program to help offset the agency's $900 million budget deficit.

The next day, Homeland Security — the TSA's parent agency — sent an advisory to airlines and law enforcement agencies warning al-Qaida may try more suicide hijackings. On Monday, the TSA directed U.S. airlines to immediately begin more intensive screening of travelers flying out of a foreign airport into the United States, then connecting to another foreign destination.

Those affected are non-U.S. citizens who do not have U.S. visas. They previously have been allowed to stay in secure areas while passing through U.S. airports but have not been subjected to more intensive screening because they aren't staying in the country.

It's unclear how many of the estimated several thousand air marshal jobs could be affected by the proposed cuts.

Homeland Security spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Wednesday that the proposed budget cut actually is $74 million because the air marshals had $30 million left over from last year. That would mean the cuts would apply only to an increase in support staff and some advanced training, he said. There are no plans right now to cut air marshal jobs, he said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and other lawmakers also were upset by reports that air marshals had received a directive saying they would no longer be allowed to fly missions requiring overnight stays to save money on hotel bills. Such a move would reduce the number of cross-country and international flights with marshals on board.

A Homeland Security official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said no directive was sent by the agency. It was not clear whether the idea has been abandoned.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge would only say that every available air marshal is being deployed.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., expressed exasperation about the TSA and its budget problems.

"They don't have enough money to do the job for homeland security," he said. "This sorry episode won't be the last. Every time there's a problem in one place they pull money out of another."

There were only 32 armed, undercover marshals on mostly international flights on the day of the Sept. 11 attacks. Afterward, thousands were rushed into service, though the exact number is kept secret for security reasons.

About 5 percent of the marshals quit or were fired in the past year, according to TSA spokesman Brian Turmail. He would not say whether those positions had been filled.

Wisconsin Rep. David Obey, ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, tried unsuccessfully last week to add $50 million to a spending bill to keep the air marshals at full strength this year. His proposal was defeated 32-21 along party lines.

With an average of 35,000 flights in the United States every day, the marshals can't fly on every plane. But the possibility that they might be on a flight is a deterrence, most agree.

"I hate to see any of the marshal program eroded," said Capt. Steve Luckey, a retired pilot who chairs the Air Line Pilots Association's national security committee. "It's moving in the wrong direction."

Separately, the Homeland Security Department will announce plans on Thursday to begin testing a program to assign a threat level to all airline passengers. Privacy advocates had criticized the passenger screening program because it could lead to unconstitutional invasions of privacy and database mix-ups that could brand innocent people as security risks.

Nuala O'Connor Kelly, Homeland Security's chief privacy officer, said the program would be narrowed to exclude credit history or medical records. It will use government data on people as well as information from commercial databases.

People will have a right to write or call in to find out what's in the database about them, said Kelly.

The program will be tested using the names and addresses of real people for several months at a secure government location, Kelly said.

Under an agreement reached by House and Senate negotiators last week, Homeland Security must first demonstrate the program meets requirements of due process, accuracy and privacy.