Order Code RL32863
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Homeland Security Department:
FY2006 Appropriations
April 14, 2005
Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto, Coordinators
Analysts in Domestic Security
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and supplemental) by
Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also encompasses the
consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation, other spending
measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and the spending
of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing statutes.
Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission
of the President’s budget at the beginning of each annual session of Congress.
Congressional practices governing the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary
measures are rooted in the Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and
statutes, such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to one of the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers each
year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Homeland Security. It summarizes the status of the bill,
its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related congressional activity, and is updated as
events warrant. The reports lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related
CRS products.
Note: A web version of this document with active links is available to congressional
staff at [http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml].
Homeland Security Department:
FY2006 Appropriations
Summary
This report describes the FY2006 appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). The report includes tables that compare the FY2005
appropriations for the programs and activities of DHS, and the President’s FY2006
request.
The President’s budget request for FY2006 was submitted to Congress on
February 7, 2005. The Administration requested $41.1 billion in gross budget
authority for FY2006 (including mandatory expenditures, fees, and special funds).
The Administration is requesting a net appropriation of $30.6 billion in net budget
authority for FY2006, of which $29.6 billion is discretionary budget authority, and
$1 billion is mandatory budget authority. The FY2005 enacted net appropriated
budget authority for DHS was $33.1 billion, including an advance appropriation of
$2.058 billion for Bioshield; without Bioshield, the FY2005 net appropriated budget
authority for DHS was $30.1 billion. Not including Bioshield, the FY2006 request
for an appropriation of $30.6 in net budget authority represents an increase of 1.7%
over the FY2005 enacted amount of $30.1 billion.
The President’s request for appropriations includes the following break out of
net budget authority for the four Titles of the DHS appropriation bill: (I)
Departmental Management and Operations, $748 million; (II) Security, Enforcement
and Investigations, $20,566 million; (III) Preparedness and Response, $6,710 million;
and (IV) Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services, $2,546
million.
The requested net appropriation for major components of the department include
the following: $5,575 million for Customs and Border Protection (CBP); $3,648
million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); $1,641 million for the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA); $7,962 million for the U.S. Coast
Guard; $1,204 million for the Secret Service; $3,565 million for the Office of State
and Local Government Preparedness (SLGCP); $3,135 million for the Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate (EPR); $80 million for Citizenship and
Immigration Services (CIS); $873 million for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection (IAIP); and $1,368 million for the Science and Technology Directorate
(S&T).
Issues that may be of interest to Congress during the FY2006 appropriations
cycle include (but are not limited to): reorganization of the Department and/or some
of its components; personnel issues; the proposed creation of a new screening
coordination office; staffing and resources at the border; immigration enforcement
issues; the requested increase in aviation security fees; the changing Coast Guard
mission and resources; decreases in the amounts available for homeland security-
related grant programs; mechanisms for funding disaster relief; and the consolidation
of Departmental research and development funding in the S&T Directorate.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
Key Policy Staff: Homeland Security
Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
Coordinator
Jennifer E. Lake
7-0620
jlake@crs.loc.gov
Coordinator
Blas Nuñez-Neto
7-0622
bnunezneto@crs.loc.gov
Title I, Departmental Management and Operations
General Management
Harold C. Relyea
7-8679
hrelyea@crs.loc.gov
Personnel Policy
Barbara L. Schwemle
7-8655
bschwemle@crs.loc.gov
Procurement Policy
Elaine Halchin
7-0646
ehalchin@crs.loc.gov
Title II, Security, Enforcement, and Investigation
Coast Guard
John Frittelli
7-7033
jfrittelli@crs.loc.gov
Customs Issues
Jennifer E. Lake
7-0620
jlake@crs.loc.gov
Ruth Ellen Wasem
7-7342
rwasem@crs.loc.gov
Immigration Issues
Alison Siskin
7-0260
asiskin@crs.loc.gov
Lisa M. Seghetti
7-4669
lseghetti@crs.loc.gov
Border Patrol
Blas Nuñez-Neto
7-0622
bnunezneto@crs.loc.gov
Secret Service
Fred Kaiser
7-8682
fkaiser@crs.loc.gov
Transportation Security
Bartholomew Elias
7-7771
belias@crs.loc.gov
Administration
U.S. VISIT Program
Lisa M. Seghetti
7-4669
lseghetti@crs.loc.gov
Title III, Preparedness and Recovery
Biodefense/Bioshield
Frank Gottron
7-5854
fgottron@crs.loc.gov
Disaster Relief
Keith Bea
7-8672
kbea@crs.loc.gov
Emergency Preparedness
Keith Bea
7-8672
kbea@crs.loc.gov
and Response
Firefighter Assistance
Lennard G. Kruger
7-7070
lkruger@crs.loc.gov
First Responders,
Shawn Reese
7-0635
sreese@crs.loc.gov
Domestic Preparedness
Public Health Programs
Sarah Lister
7-7320
slister@crs.loc.gov
Title IV, Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
Citizenship and
Ruth Ellen Wasem
7-7342
rwasem@crs.loc.gov
Immigration Services
Information Analysis
Todd M. Masse
7-2393
tmasse@crs.loc.gov
Infrastructure Protection
John D. Moteff
7-1435
jmoteff@crs.loc.gov
Science and Technology
Daniel Morgan
7-5849
dmorgan@crs.loc.gov
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
President’s FY2006 Budget Submitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Note on Most Recent Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Offsetting Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Personnel Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Office of Screening Operations (SCO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
United States Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
United States Secret Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Title III: Preparedness and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Planning
(SLGCP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Issues For Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services . . . 39
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Science and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Related Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
FY2006 Budget Resolution, S.Con.Res. 18/H.Con.Res 95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan,
Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Appendix I — DHS Appropriations in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
DHS Appropriations and Federal Homeland Security Spending . . . . . . . . . 51
Appendix II — Disaster Relief Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
List of Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 2. FY2006 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 3. Moving From Gross Budget Authority to Net Appropriation: Fee
Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust and Public Enterprise Accounts . . . . . 5
Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 5. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 6. Title III: Preparedness and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 7. SLGCP Program Level Details, FY2005-2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table 8. Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services . . . 40
Table 9: IAIP Account Level Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 10. Science and Technology Directorate Accounts and Activities,
FY2004-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Table 11. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2006 . . 52
Table 12. Disaster Relief Fund, FY1974-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Department of Homeland Security:
Appropriations for FY2006
Most Recent Developments
President’s FY2006 Budget Submitted. The President’s budget request
for FY2006 was submitted to Congress on February 7, 2005. The Administration
requested $41.1 billion in gross budget authority for FY2006 (including mandatories,
fees, and funds). The Administration is requesting a net appropriation of $30.6
billion in net budget authority for FY2006, of which $29.6 billion is discretionary
budget authority, and $1 billion is mandatory budget authority. The FY2005 enacted
net appropriated budget authority for DHS was $33.1 billion, including an advance
appropriation of $2.058 billion for Bioshield; without Bioshield, the FY2005 net
appropriated budget authority for DHS was $30.1 billion. Without including
Bioshield, the FY2006 request for an appropriation of $30.6 in net budget authority
represents an increase of 1.7% over the FY2005 enacted amount of $30.1 billion.
Table 1 summarizes the legislative status of DHS appropriations for FY2006.
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security
Appropriations
Conference
Subcommittee
Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Confer.
Public
House
Senate Report
Passage
Report Passage
Report
House
Senate
Law
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Note on Most Recent Data. Data used in this report include data from the
President’s Budget Documents, the FY2006 DHS Congressional Budget
Justifications, the FY2006 DHS Budget in Brief, and the House Appropriations
Committee Homeland Security tables of March 15, 2005. Data used in Table 3 and
Table 12 are taken from various sections of the FY2006 President’s Budget. These
amounts do not correspond to amounts presented in Tables 4-11, which are based on
data from tables supplied by the Appropriations Subcommittees and from the FY2006
DHS Congressional Budget Justifications in order to best reflect the amounts that
will be used throughout the congressional appropriations process.
CRS-2
Background
This report describes the President’s request for funding for DHS programs and
activities, as submitted to Congress on February 7, 2005. This report compares the
enacted FY2005 amounts to the amounts requested for FY2006. This report will also
track legislative action and congressional issues related to the FY2006 DHS
appropriations bill, with particular attention paid to discretionary funding amounts.
However, this report does not follow specific funding issues related to mandatory
funding — such as retirement pay — nor does the report systematically follow any
legislation related to the authorization or amendment of DHS programs.
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations
The maximum budget authority for annual appropriations (including DHS) are
determined through a two-stage congressional budget process. In the first stage,
Congress sets overall spending totals in the annual concurrent resolution on the
budget. Subsequently, these amounts are allocated among the various appropriations
committees, usually through the statement of managers for the conference report on
the budget resolution. These amounts are known as the 302(a) allocations. They
include discretionary totals available to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations for enactment in annual appropriations bills through the
subcommittees responsible for the development of the bills.
In the second stage of the process, the appropriations committees allocate the
302(a) discretionary funds among their subcommittees for each of the appropriations
bills. These amounts are known as the 302(b) allocations. These allocations must
add up to no more than the 302(a) discretionary allocation, and form the basis for
enforcing budget discipline, since any bill reported with a total above the ceiling is
subject to a point of order. 302(b) allocations may be adjusted during the year as the
various appropriations bills progress towards final enactment.
The Senate budget resolution, S.Con.Res. 18 was introduced on March 11,
2005, and passed the Senate on March 17, 2005. S.Con.Res. 18 provides $848.8
billion in discretionary spending. The House budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 95, was
introduced on March 11, 2005, and passed the House on March 17, 2005.
H.Con.Res. 95 proposes $843 billion in discretionary budget authority. Conference
action is expected some time in April.
Table 2. FY2006 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Comparable
Comparable
Allocation
Allocation
Comparable
32,000
29,554
—
—
—
Source: House Appropriations Committee tables of March 15, 2005.
CRS-3
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays1
Federal government spending involves a multi-step process that begins with the
enactment of a budget authority by Congress in an appropriations act. Federal
agencies then obligate funds from the enacted budget authority to pay for their
activities. Finally, payments are made to liquidate those obligations; the actual
payment amounts are reflected in the budget as outlays.
Budget authority is established through appropriations acts or direct spending
legislation and determines the amounts that are available for federal agencies to
spend. The Antideficiency Act2 prohibits federal agencies from obligating more
funds than the budget authority that was enacted by Congress. Budget authority may
be indefinite, however, when Congress enacts language providing “such sums as may
be necessary” to complete a project or purpose. Budget authority may be available
on a one-year, multi-year, or no-year basis. One-year budget authority is only
available for obligation during a specific fiscal year; any unobligated funds at the end
of that year are no longer available for spending. Multi-year budget authority
specifies a range of time during which funds can be obligated for spending; no-year
budget authority is available for obligation for an indefinite period of time.
Obligations are incurred when federal agencies employ personnel, enter into
contracts, receive services, and engage in similar transactions in a given fiscal year.
Outlays are the funds that are actually spent during the fiscal year.3 Because multi-
year and no-year budget authorities may be obligated over a number of years, outlays
do not always match the budget authority enacted in a given year. Additionally,
budget authority may be obligated in one fiscal year but spent in a future fiscal year;
especially with certain contracts.
In sum, budget authority allows federal agencies to incur obligations and
authorizes payments, or outlays, to be made from the Treasury. Discretionary
agencies and programs, and appropriated entitlement programs, are funded each year
in appropriations acts.
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending4
Gross budget authority, or the total funds available for spending by a federal
agency, may be composed of discretionary and mandatory spending. Of the $41
billion gross budget authority requested for DHS in FY2006, 83% is composed of
discretionary spending and 17% is composed of mandatory spending.
1 Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff Jr., Analyst in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division.
2 31 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517.
3 Appropriations, outlays and account balances for government treasury accounts can be
viewed in the end of year reports published by the U.S. Treasury titled Combined Statement
of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government. The DHS portion of
the report can be accessed at [http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/cs2004/c18.pdf].
4 Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff, Jr., Analyst in American National Government.
CRS-4
Discretionary spending is not mandated by existing law and is thus appropriated
yearly by Congress through appropriations acts. The Budget Enforcement Act5 of
1990 defines discretionary appropriations as budget authority provided in annual
appropriation acts and the outlays derived from that authority, but it excludes
appropriations for entitlements. Mandatory spending, also known as direct spending,
consists of budget authority and resulting outlays provided in laws other than
appropriation acts and is typically not appropriated each year. However, some
mandatory entitlement programs must be appropriated each year and are included in
the appropriations acts. Within DHS, the Coast Guard retirement pay is an example
of appropriated mandatory spending.
Offsetting Collections6
Offsetting funds are collected by the federal government, either from
government accounts or the public, as part of a business-type transaction such as
offsets to outlays or collection of a fee. These funds are not counted as revenue.
Instead, they are counted as negative outlays. DHS net discretionary budget
authority, or the total funds that are appropriated by Congress each year, is composed
of discretionary spending minus any fee or fund collections that offset discretionary
spending.
Some collections offset a portion of an agency’s discretionary budget authority.
Some of these fees offset spending at the account level and are subtracted from the
Appropriations Committee tables directly below the program they offset. An
example of this is the Federal Protective Service, which is immediately offset in the
appropriations tables by an intergovernmental transfer from the General Services
Administration. Other discretionary fees offset spending at the agency level and are
thus subtracted from the discretionary budget authority of the agency to arrive at the
actual appropriated level. An example of this is the Immigration Inspection fee,
which is collected at Ports of Entry by CBP personnel and is used to offset both the
CBP and ICE appropriations.
Other collections offset an agency’s mandatory spending. They are typically
entitlement programs under which individuals, businesses, or units of government
that meet the requirements or qualifications established by law are entitled to receive
certain payments if they establish eligibility. The DHS budget features two
mandatory entitlement programs: the Secret Service and Coast Guard retired pay
accounts (pensions). Some entitlements are funded by permanent appropriations,
others by annual appropriations. The Secret Service retirement pay is a permanent
appropriation and as such is not annually appropriated, while the Coast Guard
retirement pay is annually appropriated. In addition to these entitlements, the DHS
budget contains offsetting Trust and Public Enterprise Funds. These funds are not
appropriated by Congress; they are available for obligation and included in the
President’s budget to calculate the gross budget authority.
5 P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.
6 Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff, Jr., Analyst in American National Government.
CRS-5
Table 3 tabulates all of the offsets within the DHS budget.
Table 3. Moving From Gross Budget Authority to Net
Appropriation: Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust
and Public Enterprise Accounts
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
1,10341,067
Account/Agency
Account Name
FY2005
FY2006
DHS gross budget authority (gross discretionary + fees +
mandatory + funds)
41,018
41,067
Account level discretionary offset
TWIC
50
245
Office of Screening
Hazmat
17
44
Operations
Registered traveler
—
23
ICE
Federal Protective Service
478
487
TSA
Aviation security fees
1,823 a
3,670 a
FEMA/EPR
National flood insurance fund
113
124
CBP
Small airports
5
5
Subtotal account level discretionary offsets
-2,486
-4,598
Agency level discretionary offset
Immigration inspection
429
465
Immigration enforcement
6
6
Land border
28
30
CBP
COBRA
318
334
APHIS
200
204
Puerto Rico
89
98
Immigration inspection
90
92
ICE
SEVIS
40
67
Breached bond detention fund
70
71
TSA
Aviation security capital fund
250
250
Immigration examination fee
1,571
1,730
CIS
H1b, and H1b & L fees
44
44
Office of Screening
Alien flight school background
Operations
checks
5 10
Subtotal agency level discretionary offsets
-3,140
-3,400
CRS-6
Account/Agency
Account Name
FY2005
FY2006
Mandatory budget authority
Secret service
Secret service retired pay b
200
200
Coast guard
Coast guard retired pay c
(1,085)
(1,014)
Subtotal mandatory budget authority
-200
-200
Trust funds and public enterprise funds
CBP
Customs unclaimed goods
8
8
Claims expense
1,302
1,459
Underwriting limit
563
563
FEMA/EPR
Operational expense limit
55
55
Interest expense limit
30
30
Boat safety
64
64
Oil spill recovery
71
121
Coast guard
Miscellaneous revolving fund
(10,533)
(10,533)
Gift fund
1
1
Subtotal trust and public enterprise funds
-2,094
-2,301
DHS gross budget authority
41,103
41,067
Total offsetting collections
(8,004)
(10,499)
DHS net appropriated BA (Mandatory + Discretionary)
33,099 e
30,569
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President’s Budget, and DHS, Budget in Brief, House
Appropriation Committee tables of Mar. 15, 2005.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds.
a. There is a discrepancy reported in the amount of aviation security fees collected by TSA, for both
FY2005 and 2006. The enacted level aviation security fees for FY2005 was $1,823 million, and
this is the amount reported in the current committee tables. The Administration FY2006 budget
documents and the DHS Congressional Budget Justifications report the FY2005 amount as
$2,330 million. The Administration has requested an increase in aviation security fees for
FY2006, and the budget documents estimate the offsetting collections at $3,889 million. The
latest committee tables show $3,670 million for FY2006 (a difference of $218 million from the
President’s budget) based on estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. In order to
complete the crosswalk in Table 3, we have used the enacted amount for FY2005 ($1,823) and
the committee table amount ($3,670) for FY2006.
b. Secret Service Retired Pay is permanently and indefinitely authorized, and as such is not annually
appropriated. Therefore it is offset in Table 3.
c. In contrast to Secret Service Retired Pay, Coast Guard Retired pay must be annually appropriated,
and therefore is not offset in Table 3.
d. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 (P.L. 108-447) enacted a 0.80% across the board
rescission that applied to Bioshield (biodefense countermeasures) funding in the amount of $20
million.
e. This amount ($33,098 million) does not include $6,500 million in emergency disaster relief
funding. For more information on those supplemental appropriations, see CRS Report RL32581
Assistance After Hurricanes and Other Disasters: FY2004 and FY2005 Supplemental
Appropriations.
CRS-7
Appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred the functions,
relevant funding, and most of the personnel of 22 agencies and offices to the new
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) created by the act. DHS is organized into
four major directorates: Border and Transportation Security (BTS); Emergency
Preparedness and Response (EPR); Science and Technology (S&T); and Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP).
BTS, the largest of the four directorates, contains three main agencies: Customs
and Border Protection (CBP); Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); and
Transportation Security Administration (TSA). EPR is comprised primarily of the
former Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and IAIP houses the
Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC), Information Analysis (IA) and the
Infrastructure Protection (IP) offices. S&T is home to the Office of National
Laboratories, Homeland Security Laboratories, and the Homeland Security Advanced
Research Projects Agency (HSARPA). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS),
the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Secret Service are all stand-alone agencies within
DHS directly under the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Appropriations measures for DHS have been organized into four titles: Title I
Departmental Management and Operations; Title II Security, Enforcement, and
Investigations; Title III Preparedness and Recovery; and Title IV Research and
Development, Training, Assessments, and Services. Title I contains appropriations
for the Office of Management, the Office of the Secretary, the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer (CFO), the Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO), and the
Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Title II contains appropriations for the Office
of the Undersecretary for BTS, CBP, ICE, TSA, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service,
and the newly proposed Office of Screening Operations (SCO). Title III contains
appropriations for EPR and the Office of State and Local Government Coordination
and Preparedness (SLGCP). Title IV contains appropriations for USCIS, IAIP, S&T,
and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).
Table 4 is a summary table comparing the enacted appropriations for FY2005
and the requested amounts for FY2006. As shown in Table 3, the Administration
requested $41.1 billion in gross budget authority (including mandatories and other
non-appropriated funding) for FY2006. The Administration is requesting an
appropriation of $30.6 billion in net budget authority for FY2006, of which $29.5
billion is discretionary budget authority, and $1 billion is mandatory budget authority.
The FY2005 enacted net appropriated budget authority for DHS was $33.1 billion,
including an advance appropriation of $2.058 billion for Bioshield; without
Bioshield, the FY2005 net appropriated budget authority for DHS was $30.1 billion.
Without including Bioshield, the FY2006 request for an appropriation of $30.6 in net
budget authority represents an increase of 1.7% over the FY2005 enacted amount of
$30.1 billion.
CRS-8
Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Operational Component
Enacted Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations
Subtotal: Title I
607
748
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
— Office of the undersecretary for border
and transportation security
10
11
— Screening and operations officea
340
525
— Customs and border protection
5,270
5,575
— Immigration and customs enforcement
3,167
3,648
— Transportation security administrationb
3,260
1,641
— U.S. coast guard
7,407
7,962
— U.S. secret service
1,175
1,204
Net subtotal: Title II
20,629
20,566
— Total fee collections
-3,647
-5,849
Gross subtotal: Title II
24,277
26,415
Title III: Preparedness and Recovery
— Office of domestic preparedness/ office
of state and local government coordination
and preparedness
3,985
3,565
— Counter-terrorism fund
8
10
— Emergency preparedness and responsec
5,478
3,135
Net subtotal: Title III
9,471
6,710
Title IV: Research and development, training, assessments, and services
— Citizenship and immigration services
160
80
— Information analysis and infrastructure
protection
894
873
— Federal law enforcement training
center
222
224
— Science and technology
1,115
1,368
Net subtotal: Title IV
2,392
2,546
— Total fee collections
-1,571
-1,730
Gross subtotal: Title IV
3,962
4,275
DHS gross budget authority
38,317
38,149
— Total fee collections
-5,218
-7,579
DHS net budget authority d
33,099
30,569
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President’s Budget, and DHS Budget in Brief, House
Appropriation Committee tables of Mar. 15, 2005.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
CRS-9
a. DHS proposes to create the Screening and Operations Office by transferring in the following
programs: FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI from CBP; Secure Flight, Crew Vetting, Credentialing
Startup, TWIC, Registered Traveler, HAZMAT, and Alien Flight School from TSA. These
programs are discussed in the text.
b. TSA appropriations estimate includes a proposed $3 increase in passenger security fees for one-
way and multi-leg flights, for a total offsetting collection of nearly $3.9 billion; Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) calculations place the offsetting collections from the fee increase at $3.7
billion. Throughout this report, the CBO figure will be used to calculate total appropriations.
c. EPR appropriations do not include $6.5 billion in supplemental appropriations for disaster relief.
For more information on those supplemental appropriations see CRS Report RL32581,
Assistance After Hurricanes and Other Disasters: FY2004 and FY2005 Supplemental
Appropriations. But the total does include a 0.80% across the board rescission pursuant to P.L.
108-447, resulting in a $20 million rescission from Bioshield funding.
d. Net discretionary budget authority differs from the amounts listed in the President’s Budget due
to the following: FY2005 includes $2.508 billion in advance appropriations for Bioshield and
$1.085 in Coast Guard mandatory retirement pay. FY2006 includes $1.014 billion in Coast
Guard mandatory retirement pay.
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations7
President’s Request. Title I covers the general administrative expenses of
DHS. It includes the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OS&EM),
which counts the immediate Office of the Secretary and 14 entities that report
directly to the Secretary; the Under Secretary for Management (USM) and its
components, such as offices of the Chief Procurement Officer, Chief Human Capital
Officer, and Chief Administrative Officer; the Office of CIO; the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer (OCFO); and OIG. FY2006 requests relative to comparable
FY2005 enacted appropriations: OS&EM, $195.8 million, an increase of $110.8
million (+130%); USM, $146.6 million, a decrease of $4.5 million (-3%); OCIO,
$303.7 million, an increase of $28.4 million (+10%); OCFO, $18.5 million, an
increase of $5.5 million (+42%); and OIG, $83 million, an increase of $700,000
(+1%). Table 4 shows appropriations for FY2005 and congressional action on the
requests for FY2006. The total FY2006 request for Title I is $747.6 million. This
represents a 23% increase over the FY2005 enacted level.
Issues for Congress. Within the OS&EM account, $2.4 million of the
request has been designated for a new Office of Policy, Planning, and International
Affairs. Immediately assisting the Secretary, the new unit, according to DHS budget
justification documents, would be headed by an Assistant Secretary for Policy and
Planning and would include other related staff now located within the Office of the
Under Secretary for BTS, as well as such existing entities as the Office of
International Affairs, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, the Homeland Security
Advisory Council, and USM.
A similar DHS restructuring was discussed at a January 26, 2005, oversight
hearing conducted by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs concerning the “road ahead” for the department. Several
major organization and managements issues were discussed, and two reforms, in
7 Prepared by Harold Relyea, Specialist in American National Government, Government and
Finance Division.
CRS-10
particular, appeared to enjoy some support, particularly from Senator Susan Collins,
the committee’s chair, and Senator Joseph Lieberman, the panel’s ranking minority
member. These reforms, which had been discussed in a December 2004 Heritage
Foundation report, DHS 2.0: Rethinking the Department of Homeland Security,
included (1) eliminating the DHS management directorate and USM, but relocating
the chief management officers to the office of the Deputy Secretary; and (2)
establishing an Under Secretary for Policy, who would be assisted by a unified policy
planning staff.8 It was thought that the first reform would eliminate an unnecessary
layer of bureaucracy and otherwise strengthen the roles of the chief management
officers, and that the second reform would bring unity to DHS through the
development of proactive, strategic homeland security policy and plans. Indications
were that these reforms, among others, would be considered for inclusion in
subsequent legislation reauthorizing DHS programs within the jurisdiction of the
Senate committee.
Personnel Issues.9 In addition to the policy and planning issues, and the
reorganization issues, several personnel issues may be of interest to Congress during
the current appropriations cycle.
The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO). This Office
(also referred to in the budget justification as the Office of Human Resources)
establishes policy and procedures and provides oversight, guidance, and leadership
for human resources management (HRM) functions within the DHS. It is organized
into three major components as follows. Human Capital Innovation is responsible
for designing and implementing the department’s new HRM system, referred to as
Max-HR, including human capital strategic planning efforts and HR information
technology components, including payroll modernization. The activities associated
with the new system’s regulatory process and the design and contract management
processes also are part of the Innovation component. Human Capital Policy and
Programs is responsible for establishing corporate human resources policy, including
training and development programs, in support of headquarters and department-wide
initiatives. This component manages program and policy development and execution
for HRM at DHS, including workforce planning, corporate talent, executive
resources, recruitment and branding, benefits, and work life programs. Human
Capital Operational Services, newly established in FY2005, provides comprehensive
human resources services for all headquarters organizations and manages the process
of optimizing shared human capital services within DHS. The principal human
capital officers from each component of the department comprise a Human
Resources Council which coordinates activities across DHS. The Office of the
CHCO reports to the Undersecretary for Management and its appropriation is
included in that of the Undersecretary.
For FY2005, the Office of the CHCO received an appropriation of $43.2 million
and a staffing level of 49 full-time equivalent employees (FTE’s). Of this total, $7.2
8 James Jay Carafano, and David Heyman, DHS 2.0: Rethinking the Department of
Homeland Security, Heritage Special Report (Washington: Dec. 13, 2004).
9 Personnel Issues section prepared by Barbara Schwemle, Analyst in American National
Government, Government and Finance Division.
CRS-11
million funded HR operations10 and $36 million (non-recurring) funded the
development and implementation of Max-HR. Twelve of the FTE’s were attached
to Max-HR.
The President’s FY2006 budget proposes an appropriation of $61.996 million
and 50 FTE’s for the Office of the CHCO. The request represents an increase of
$18.796 million and one FTE over the FY2005 appropriation.11 Especially
noteworthy in the budget proposal are the funding requests of $593,000 for the Office
of the CHCO and $53 million for Max-HR as discussed below.
Workforce Strategies and DHS Employee Surveys. The proposed
increase of $593,000 is allocated as follows. For workforce strategies, $180,000 for
one new FTE is requested. The additional FTE will “analyze the impact of current
and/or potential occupational or skill gaps, and develop various human capital
strategies and plans related to recruiting, retention, learning and development
interventions needed to close these gaps.”12 The National Defense Authorization Act
for FY2004 mandates an annual assessment of employees and the organization. To
fund the employee survey and analysis of the results, $413,000 is requested.13
Max-HR. An appropriation of $53 million is requested for the department’s
new HRM system, an increase of $17 million over the FY2005 funding. The Office
of the CHCO serves as the “command center” for Max-HR. The requested amount
is allocated as follows: $10 million for training for the department’s executives,
managers, supervisors, and human resources professionals; $18 million for detailed
systems design and implementation (for access to experts who are assisting in
designing the performance management, job evaluation, and compensation systems
and pay and performance linkages, and developing and documenting competencies
for DHS positions); $10 million for the conversion of Phase One employees14 from
the General Schedule to newly created market-based pay ranges; $9 million for
program management to manage appropriate cost, schedule, and control activities at
the departmental level to ensure good management of the personnel system; and $6
10 The $7.2 million appropriation was allocated as follows: salaries and benefits
($4,118,516), travel ($46,370), printing ($9,515), advisory and assistance services — portion
not Max-HR ($1,053,683), other services ($854,731), purchase from government accounts
($487,399), operation and maintenance of equipment ($15,623), supplies and materials
($48,104), and equipment ($566,058).
11 The following amounts are requested for FY2006 (unless otherwise noted, the increases
result from pay raises or inflation): $5,446,048 for salaries and benefits (includes $180,000
for one new FTE), $47,205 for travel, $9,687 for printing, $54,372,649 for advisory and
assistance services (includes increases of $17 million for Max-HR and $300,000 for other
HRM initiatives), $983,116 for other services (includes an increase of $113,000 for
programs), $496,172 for purchase from government accounts, $15,905 for operation and
maintenance of equipment, $48,970 for supplies and materials, and $576,248 for equipment.
12 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Fiscal Year 2006 Congressional Justification,
p. USM-17.
13 Of the $413,000, $300,000 is included under advisory and assistance services and
$113,000 is included under other services.
14 Phase One includes employees in DHS headquarters, IAIP, S&T, EPR, and FLETC.
CRS-12
million for the Homeland Security Labor Relations Board (HSLRB) and Mandatory
Removal Offense (MRO) Panel.15 Twelve FTE’s continue to staff Max-HR.
On February 1, 2005, DHS and the Office of Personnel Management jointly
published final regulations in the Federal Register to implement a new HRM system
for DHS.16 The regulations provide new policies on position classification, pay,
performance management, adverse actions and appeals, and labor-management
relations for DHS employees. The new HRM system will cover about 110,000 of the
department’s 180,000 employees and will be implemented in phases. The
performance management process is scheduled to begin in Fall 2005, and the first
conversion of employees to the pay system is scheduled to commence in early 2006.
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
Title II funds Security, Enforcement, and Investigations. The largest component
of Title II is the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security (BTS). BTS is
comprised of the Office of the Under Secretary for BTS, CBP, ICE, and TSA. For
FY2006, the Administration has proposed the creation of SCO within BTS, that
would coordinate the passenger (and to some extent the cargo) screening operations
of BTS. Also included in Title II (though they are not operationally a part of the BTS
Directorate) are the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Secret Service.
Table 5 shows the FY2005 enacted and FY2006 requested appropriations for
Title II. The Administration has requested an appropriation of $20.3 billion in net
discretionary budget authority for Title II for FY2006. This amount represents a
decrease of $63 million or less than 1% decrease compared to the FY2005 enacted
total of $20.7 billion. While almost every account in Title II is up, the gross increase
of $2,138 million from FY2005 to FY2006 is more than offset by the total increase
in offsetting collections of $2,202 million in Title II; $1,780 million of which would
be the result of the proposed fee increase within TSA.17 For the FY2006 request, the
15 The HSLRB, established in FY2005 as an independent entity that reports to the DHS
Secretary, resolves labor-management disputes. The MRO is a separate entity and
adjudicates appeals of employees who have been removed from their positions for engaging
in mandatory removal offenses.
16 U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Office of Personnel Management,
“Department of Homeland Security Human Resources Management System,” Federal
Register, vol. 70, no. 20, Feb. 1, 2005, pp. 5271-5347. See, CRS Report RL32261,
Homeland Security: Final Regulations on Classification, Pay, and Performance
Management Compared With Current Law, by Barbara L. Schwemle; and CRS Report
RL32255, Homeland Security: Final Regulations for the Department of Homeland Security
Human Resources Management System (Subpart E) Compared With Current Law, by Jon
O. Shimabukuro.
17 These calculations are somewhat skewed by the increase in aviation security fees
requested by the Administration within TSA. The requested increase in security fees would
offset TSA’s appropriated budget authority by $3,889 million. Should Congress decide not
to approve the requested fee increase, TSA’s appropriated budget authority would be much
(continued...)
CRS-13
BTS Directorate accounts for 67% of total appropriated DHS budget authority, while
Title II accounts for 69% of total appropriated DHS budget authority.
Table 5. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006 FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Operational Component
Enacted Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Office of the under secretary for border
10
11
and transportation security
Screening and operations officea
— US-VISITb
340
390
— Other programs
—
135
— Fee accountsc
—
321
Gross total
340
846
— Offsetting collections
—
-321
Net total
340
525
Customs & border protectiona
— Salaries and expenses; construction
4,626
4,824
— rescission
-63
—
— Automation modernization
450
458
— Air and marine operations
258
293
— Fee accountsd
1,079
1,142
Gross total
6,349
6,717
— Offsetting collections
-1,079
-1,142
Net total
5,270
5,575
Immigration & Customs Enforcement
— Salaries and expenses; construction
2,464
2,919
— Federal air marshals
663
689
— Federal Protective Services (FPS)
478
487
— Automation & infrastructure
40
40
modernization
— Fee accountse
200
229
Gross total
3,845
4,364
— Offsetting FPS fees
-478
-487
— Offsetting collections
-200
-229
Net total
3,167
3,648
Transportation Security Administrationa
— Aviation security (total funding)
4,324
4,735
— Maritime and land security
48
32
17 (...continued)
larger. CBO has scored the increase in security fees at $3,670 million or $218 million less
than estimated by the President’s budget. Table 5 reflects the amount used by the
committee.
CRS-14
FY2005
FY2006 FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Operational Component
Enacted Request
House
Senate
Enacted
— Credentialing activities
67
—
— Intelligence
14
21
— Research and developmentf
178
—
— Administration
520
524
— Aviation security mandatory spendingg
(255)
(250)
Gross total
5,151
5,312
— Offsetting collectionsh
-1,890
-3,670
Net total
3,260
1,641
U.S. Coast Guard
— Operating expenses
5,191
5.547
— Environmental compliance &
12
restoration
17
— Reserve training
113
119
— Acquisition, construction, &
improvements i
982
1,269
— Recission j
-16
—
— Alteration of bridges
16
—
— Research, development, tests, &
—
evaluation k
19
— Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement)
1,085
1,014
Net total
7,407
7,961
U.S. Secret Service
— Salaries and expenses; construction
1,175
1,204
Net total
1,175
1,204
Gross Budget Authority: Title II
24,277
26,415
— Total offsetting collections: Title II
-3,647
-5,849
Net Budget Authority: Title II
20,629
20,566
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President’s Budget, and DHS, Budget in Brief, House
Appropriation Committee tables of Mar. 15, 2005.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds.
a. DHS is proposing to create this new office, which would combine the following programs and fees:
US-VISIT; FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI from CBP; and Secure Flight, Crew Vetting,
Credentialing Startup, TWIC, Registered Traveler, HAZMAT, and Alien Flight School from
TSA.
b. United States Visitor & Immigrant Status Indicator Project.
c. Fees included TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks.
d. Fees included COBRA, Land Border, Immigration Inspection, Immigration Enforcement, and
Puerto Rico.
e. Fees included Exam, Student Exchange and Visitor Fee, Breached Fond, Immigration User, Land
Border.
f. DHS is proposing to transfer the Research and Development account from TSA to the Directorate
of S&T.
g. Aviation Security Capital Fund, used for installation of Explosive Detection Systems at airports.
h. In FY2006, DHS proposes a $3 increase in passenger security fee for one-way and multi-leg
flights, generating $1.56 billion in new revenue. There is a discrepancy between the
CRS-15
Administration’s budget documents and the Committee tables concerning the aviation security
fee offset amount. The Administration’s budget documents report the FY2005 enacted amount
as $2,330 million, while the Committee tables report the FY2005 enacted amount as $1,890
million. For FY2006, with the requested fee increase the Administration shows $3,889 million
in offsetting aviation security fees, while the Committee tables show $3,670 million, as scored
by CBO. Table 5 reflects the amounts contained on the Committee tables.
i. Does not Include an additional $34 million transfer of funds from the Department of Defense to the
Coast Guard pursuant to P.L. 108-287.
j. Recission pursuant to P.L. 108-334.
k. DHS is proposing to transfer the Research, Development, Tests and Evaluation account from the
Coast Guard to the S&T Office.
Office of Screening Operations (SCO)18
As a part of the FY2006 request, the Administration is proposing to create a new
SCO which will coordinate DHS’ efforts to screen people (and to some extent cargo)
as they enter and move throughout the country. Programs proposed to be moved to
this office include the US Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Project (US-
VISIT); Free and Secure Trade (FAST) and NEXUS/SENTRI, from CBP; Secure
Flight, Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC), Registered Traveler,
Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) background checks, and the Alien Flight School
background checks program from TSA.
President’s Request. The Administration has requested $846 million in
gross budget authority for SCO for FY2006. The request includes $390 million for
the US-VISIT program19 (an increase of $50 million over the enacted FY2005
amount), $94 million for Secure Flight20 (an increase of $49 million over the enacted
FY2005 amount), $7 million for the driver registration component of FAST, $14
million for NEXUS/SENTRI, and $20 million for the stand up of the Credentialing
coordination office. In addition to appropriated activities, SCO will oversee several
fee funded activities including $245 million for TWIC and other TSA credentialing
activities; $23 million for the Registered Traveler program; $44 million for
HAZMAT checks; and $10 million for Alien Flight School background checks. The
net requested appropriation for SCO is $525 million.
Issues for Congress. The creation of the SCO can be traced to Homeland
Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 11, which was one of the Administration’s
responses to the 9/11 recommendations. HSPD-11 directed the improved
coordination of “comprehensive terrorist-related screening procedures.”21 The goal
of the SCO according to the FY2006 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications is to
18 Section prepared by Jennifer E. Lake, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social
Policy Division.
19 For more information on US-VISIT, see CRS Report RL32234, U.S. Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program, by Lisa Seghetti and Stephen
R. Viña.
20 See CRS Report RL32082, Homeland Security: Air Passenger Prescreening and
Counterterrorism, by Bart Elias and William Krouse.
21 U.S. President George W. Bush, Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-11,
Aug. 27, 2004, at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040827-7.html].
CRS-16
leverage the unique aspects of each of the screening programs chosen to be
incorporated into the SCO to enhance overall screening policy which will now be
directed by the new credentialing office within the SCO.
There is not a significant amount of detail in the request about the operations of
the SCO. One potential issue concerns the operational aspects of each of the
programs proposed for transfer to the SCO. How much of the program is actually
being transferred to SCO? Is it simply the funding, the policy planning, or will the
whole function (and the people who carry out that function) be transferred as well?
Recent testimony by CBP Commissioner Bonner, and CIS Director Aguirre
indicated that there remains some uncertainty concerning which operational functions
should remain at the agency level and which functions could be performed by the
SCO.22
Coordination will be a key challenge for the SCO, particularly coordination
between the SCO and the other agencies of the BTS Directorate. Other challenges
recently identified by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) include defining
interrelationships and commonalities among the programs proposed for transfer to
the SCO; clearly delineating roles and responsibilities; and identifying data needs.
In addition, existing issues and concerns confronting some of the programs proposed
for transfer to SCO (such as Secure Flight, and TWIC) will still have to be
addressed.23
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)24
CBP is responsible for security at and between ports-of-entry along the border.
Since 9/11, CBP’s primary mission is to prevent the entry of terrorists and the
instruments of terrorism. CBP’s on-going responsibilities include inspecting people
and goods to determine if they are authorized to enter the United States; interdicting
terrorists and instruments of terrorism; intercepting illegal narcotics, firearms, and
other types of contraband; interdicting unauthorized travelers and immigrants; and
enforcing more than 400 laws and regulations at the border on behalf of more than
60 government agencies. CBP is comprised of the inspection functions of the legacy
Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS); the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction;
and the Border Patrol.
President’s Request. The Administration has requested an appropriation
of $6,717 million in gross budget authority for CBP in FY2006. This represents a
6% increase over the enacted FY2005 level of $6,349 million. The Administration
22 U.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Homeland Security Subcommittee,
Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriations for Citizenship and Immigration Services, and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mar. 2, 2005.
23 GAO, Transportation Security: Systematic Planning Needed to Optimize Resources,
GAO-05-357T, Feb. 15, 2005, p. 23.
24 Section prepared by Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analysts in Domestic
Security, Domestic Social Policy Division.
CRS-17
is requesting an appropriation of $5,575 million in net budget authority for CBP,
representing a 6% increase over the FY2005 enacted level of $5,270 million. The
request includes the following program increases (which are discussed later in this
report):
! $125 million for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) detection
technology;
! $37 million for Border Patrol staff;
! $31.7 million for long range radar for Air and Marine Operations;
! $20 million for Border Patrol aircraft replacement;
! $19.8 million for the America Shield Initiative;
! $8.2 million for the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism
(C-TPAT);
! $5.4 million for the Container Security Initiative (CSI);
! $5.4 million for enhancements to the Automated Targeting System
(ATS);
! $3.2 million for the Homeland Security Data Network;
! $3 million for IDENT/IAFIS;
! $2 million for the Immigration Advisory Program (IAP); and
! $1 million for the Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI).
Issues for Congress. Potential CBP issues for Congress include cargo and
container security; targeting and risk assessments; cargo inspection technology; air
and marine operations; the number of border patrol agents; IDENT/IAFIS
integration; ABCI; and the America Shield Initiative.
Cargo and Container Security. CBP’s cargo security strategy includes two
significant programs: the CSI, and C-TPAT. CSI is a CBP program that stations
CBP officers in foreign sea ports to target marine containers for inspection before
they are loaded onto U.S.-bound vessels. The FY2006 request includes $5.4 million
for CSI to support the expansion of CSI activities in seven new ports in seven
countries: Egypt, Chile, India, the Philippines, Venezuela, Bahamas, and Honduras.
The requested increase would primarily be allocated for salaries and travel expenses
for personnel staffing the ports with a complement of three persons per location. C-
TPAT is a public-private partnership aimed at securing the supply chain from point
of origin through entry into the United States. The FY2006 request includes an
increase of $8.2 million for C-TPAT to be used for travel and the purchase of
equipment and supplies for Supply Chain Specialists to conduct an increased number
of C-TPAT security profile validations.
Targeting and Risk Assessments. CBP uses a risk assessment tool called
the Automated Targeting System (ATS) to focus its inspections on high-risk cargo
and people entering the country. The FY2006 request for CBP includes a $5.4
million increase in funding for ATS. The increase includes $1.5 million for ATS-
Land (ATS-L) to acquire Department of Motor Vehicle Data and to provide
maintenance costs for ATS-L at all land border ports-of-entry; $1.5 million for
enhancements to ATS-Inbound (ATS-N) to enable it to better handle data from the
new cargo manifest requirements, CSI, and the ATS exam findings module; and $2.4
million to incorporate additional government and non-governmental databases for the
rules-based analysis of ATS-Passenger, expand analysis to all incoming Amtrak
CRS-18
passengers, and develop jointly with the Canadian government a risk assessment
process for passengers arriving in both Canada and the United States. GAO has in
the past raised concerns that while CBP’s targeting strategy incorporated some
elements of risk management, it lacked a comprehensive set of criticality,
vulnerability and risk assessments, and does not follow certain recognized modeling
practices.25
Cargo Inspection Technology. The FY2006 Administration request for
CBP includes an increase of $125 million for technology to detect WMD. This
request includes $77 million for the purchase of additional radiation portal monitors
(RPMs), and the purchase of next generation RPMs. One of the goals of CBP’s
Comprehensive Strategy to Address the Threat of Nuclear and Radiological
Terrorism “is to screen all trucks, trains, cars, air freight, mail bags and express
consignment packages with advanced radiation detection technology prior to
release.”26 RPMs detect gamma and neutron radiation, and provide CBP a passive
and non-intrusive way to screen conveyances for radioactive material at ports-of-
entry. As of January 2005, 403 RPMs had been installed at entry points along the
northern and southern borders.27 CBP will also be working with the S&T Directorate
to develop the next generation of RPMs.
Air and Marine Operations (AMO). With the FY2005 Appropriation,
AMO was transferred to CBP, where it is now located. One of the unique facets of
AMO’s capabilities is the integrated radar surveillance coverage it provides through
its Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC). This system of radar coverage is
used to “monitor air traffic environments, particularly to detect and intercept non-
cooperative air traffic attempting to avoid detection entering into the United States.”28
The FY2006 request includes an increase of $31.7 million for long range radar (LRR)
coverage for AMO. This increase is requested to finance a 50% share of the cost (the
other 50% share to be covered by the Department of Defense) of a primary Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) LRR feed that FAA intends to discontinue using.
According to AMO, this primary LRR feed is a critical component of its radar
coverage without which AMO could not achieve the necessary coverage of the air
traffic environment along the border.
Increase in Border Patrol Agents. CBP is proposing to add 210 agents to
the USBP workforce in FY2006 to backfill positions vacated along the Southwest
border. These vacancies were the result of agents being transferred from the
Southwest border in order to fulfill the requirement enacted in the USA PATRIOT
Act (P.L. 107-56, §402) to triple the number of agents assigned to the Northern
border. This increase is well below the 2,000 additional agents authorized by the
25 GAO, Homeland Security: Preliminary Observations on Efforts to Target Security
Inspections of Cargo Containers, GAO-04-325T, Dec. 17, 2003.
26 DHS, FY2006 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. CBP-30.
27 CBP, U.S. Customs and Border Protection FY2006 Budget, Feb. 7, 2005, accessed at
[http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/press_releases/02082005.xml].
28 DHS, FY2006 Congressional Budget Justifications, CBP-6. (Air and Marine Interdiction
tab).
CRS-19
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458, §5202).
Given the disparity between the authorization and the President’s request, a possible
issue for Congress may be what the appropriate level of staffing for the Border Patrol
is in order to achieve its mission of detecting and interdicting the entry of terrorists,
WMD, and unauthorized aliens between ports of entry.
IDENT/IAFIS. According to CBP, the integration of the Border Patrol’s
Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) is
progressing and interoperable IDENT/IAFIS workstations have been deployed to all
USBP stations. This would seem to address some of the concerns about the slow
pace of the integration project raised by House Appropriators in FY2005.29 The
president’s request includes an increase of $3 million for the system and notes that
BTS has assumed ownership for the integration project. While the integration of the
two biometric databases has given USBP agents access to the FBI’s criminal records,
leading to an 8.5% increase in the identification of criminal aliens, a possible issue
for Congress may be the USBP’s apparent lack of access to the Terrorist Watchlist
at their stations. Watchlist records are name-based and are thus not accessible
through the biometric-based IDENT/IAFIS system. This may be of concern due to
recent Congressional testimony by DHS acting Secretary Admiral James Loy that Al-
Qaeda is considering infiltrating the Southwest border due to a belief that “illegal
entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons.”30
Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI). In response to the continuing
high levels of apprehensions in the Tucson sector, the Arizona Border Control (ABC)
initiative was launched on March 16, 2004. ABC is a multi-disciplinary initiative
that seeks to coordinate federal, state, and local authorities to control the Arizona
border. ABC is specifically aimed at stopping cross-border smuggling operations by
detecting, arresting, and deterring all groups seeking to bring people, drugs, weapons,
and other merchandise into the country illegally. 200 additional permanent border
patrol agents and 60 special operations agents trained for search and rescue
operations were assigned to the Tucson sector over the summer of 2004, bringing the
total number of agents there to approximately 2,000. According to DHS, in the first
six months of the ABC, apprehension of unauthorized aliens increased 56% from
apprehension during the same period of the previous year. From March 16, 2004 to
September 7, 2004, 351,700 unauthorized aliens were apprehended compared to
225,108 unauthorized aliens during the same period in 2003. CBP proposes an
increase of $1 million to continue this multi-disciplinary program in FY2006, though
most funding for the program will come from ICE.
America Shield Initiative. CBP proposes an increase of $19.8 million for
the America Shield Initiative (ASI), formerly known as the Integrated Surveillance
Intelligence System. ASI integrates Remote Video Surveillance camera systems,
29 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2005, report to accompany H.R. 4567, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept.
108-541 (Washington, GPO, 2004), pp. 18-19.
30 U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, National Security Threats to the
United States, 109th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 16, 2005.
CRS-20
sensors, and the Integrated Computer Assisted Detection (ICAD) database into a
multi-faceted network capable of detecting illegal entries in a wide range of climate
conditions. The requested FY2006 funding will be used to deploy surveillance assets
to high-priority areas such as Tucson, Yuma, and El Paso on the southwest border,
and Blaine, Spokane, Buffalo, and Swanton (Vermont) on the northern border.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)31
ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the United
States, as well as investigations into such activities as fraud, forced labor, trade
agreement noncompliance, smuggling and illegal transshipment of people and goods,
and vehicle and cargo theft. In addition, this bureau oversees the building security
activities of the Federal Protective Service, formerly of the General Services
Administration; and the Federal Air Marshals Service (FAMS) transferred to ICE
from TSA in August of 2003. The Office of Air and Marine Interdiction was
transferred from ICE to CBP, and therefore the totals for ICE do not include Air and
Marine Interdiction funding which is included under CBP.
The bureau combined the investigations and intelligence functions of the U.S.
Customs Service and the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, the air and
marine interdiction functions of those agencies, and the immigration detention and
removal programs, as well as the operations of the Federal Protective Service. ICE
conducts investigations to develop intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the United
States, and is responsible for locating and removing illegal aliens by inspecting
places of employment for undocumented workers. ICE is responsible for identifying
and finding persons who have overstayed their visas, and the Bureau also develops
intelligence to combat terrorist financing and money laundering, and to enforce
export laws against smuggling and fraud.
President’s Request. The Administration has requested an appropriation
of $4,364 million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2006. This represents a
13% increase over the enacted FY2005 level of $3,845 million. The Administration
is requesting an appropriation of $3,648 million in net budget authority for ICE in
FY2006, representing a 15% increase over the FY2005 enacted level of $3,167
million. The request includes the following program increases:
! $105 million for the Office of Investigations;
! $90 million for custody management and detention bedspace;
! $43.7 million for ICE’s Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement
Task Force (OCDETF) activities;
! $25 million for ABCI and Interior Repatriation;
! $24 million for detention and removal;
! $18 million for temporary worker worksite enforcement;
! $11.3 million for the Homeland Security Data Network;
! $9.9 million for the Federal Air Marshals (FAMS);
! $8.8 million for Fugitive Operations;
31 Section prepared by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analyst in Domestic Security, and Alison Siskin,
Analyst in Social Legislation, Domestic Social Policy Division.
CRS-21
! $5.6 million for Institutional Removal Program (IRP);
! $5.4 million for Alternatives to Detention;
! $5 million for Visa Security; and
! $3.5 million for legal resources.
Issues for Congress. These requested increases could pose issues for
Congress, including the financial management of ICE; the Office of Investigations
and immigration function issues; the Student Exchange and Visitor Program; the
Office of Principal Legal Advisor; detention and removal operations; and interior
repatriation.
Financial Management at ICE. ICE inherited its financial organization and
systems from the former INS. An independent audit of ICE’s financial statements
concluded that the agency’s accounting records were inadequately maintained during
FY2004. The situation was characterized as especially grave regarding intra-
departmental and intra-governmental agreements and transactions, costs, and
budgetary transactions. This required extensive reconciliation and adjustment at the
end of the fiscal year, which ICE was unable to complete. The report noted that ICE
had served as the accounting services provider for several other DHS agencies32
while simultaneously experiencing significant turnover among its financial
management staff. This led the agency to fall “seriously behind in basic accounting
functions, such as account reconciliations, analysis of material abnormal balances,
and proper budgetary accounting.” Additionally, serving as the accounting provider
for other agencies led ICE to experience budget shortfalls due to tardy
reimbursements for expenses it provided to cover other agencies’ costs. This budget
shortfall forced the agency into a freeze on hiring and non-mission critical
expenditures. The auditors concluded that DHS should immediately address the
“void in ICE’s financial management infrastructure” in order to fix the lack of
oversight and controls that led ICE to become anti-deficient or that prevented DHS
management from knowing whether ICE was anti-deficient.33 ICE recently requested
a $500 million reprogramming for FY2005 to cover funding shortfalls within the
agency.34
Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions. The Office of
Investigations (OI) in ICE focuses on a broad array of national security, financial and
smuggling violations including illegal arms exports, financial crimes, commercial
fraud, human trafficking, narcotics smuggling, child pornography/exploitation,
worksite enforcement, and immigration fraud. ICE special agents also conduct
investigations aimed at protecting critical infrastructure industries that are vulnerable
32 Among others, ICE serves as the accounting service provider for CIS, S&T, IAIP, DHS
Management, and BTS Headquarters. These agencies include parts of 10 of the 22 legacy
agencies that were transferred to DHS and account for roughly 20% of total DHS FY2004
budget authority.
33 Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, Independent Auditors’
Report on DHS FY2004 Financial Statements, OIG-05-05, Dec. 2004, pp. 320-333.
34 U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
Fiscal Year 2006 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations, Mar. 15, 2005.
CRS-22
to sabotage, attack or exploitation.35 The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-
296, HSA) abolished the INS and the United States Customs Service, and transferred
most of their investigative functions to ICE effective March 1, 2003. There are
investigative advantages to combining the INS and Customs Services as those who
violate immigration laws often are engaged in other criminal enterprises (e.g., alien
smuggling rings often launder money). Nonetheless, concerns have been raised that
not enough resources have been focused on investigating violations of immigration
laws, and that ICE resources have been focused on terrorism and the types of
investigations performed by the former Customs Service.36 The Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458, §5203) authorized for FY2006,
subject to appropriations, the addition of at least 800 new investigators to investigate
violations of immigration law. The $1,496 million requested in the President’s
budget for the OI includes increases in the base funding for two groups responsible
for immigration enforcement, the Visa Security Unit (VSU) and Temporary Worker
Worksite Enforcement, and includes a total of 148 new positions for these units.
Officers of the VSU are assigned to consular posts to conduct law-enforcement
reviews of visa applications, and provide advice and training to consular officers.
The HSA transferred to DHS the authority to issue regulations regarding visa
issuances, and to assign staff to consular posts abroad. The Department of State’s
Bureau of Consular Affairs remains the agency responsible for issuing visas.37 The
President’s request includes an increase of $5 million to add five new officers to the
VSU, as well as opening a new overseas location, and expanding training programs.
The President has proposed the creation of a temporary (guest) worker program
to match foreign workers with U.S. employers. The President’s budget requests an
additional $18 million for temporary worker worksite enforcement to add 143
positions responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations under existing
immigration law for hiring unauthorized aliens, and supporting and implementing the
provisions of possible temporary worker legislation.
Student Exchange and Visitor Program (SEVP). The Student Exchange
and Visitor Program (SEVP) in ICE is responsible for maintaining the web-based
foreign student monitoring system known as the Student and Exchange Visitor
Information System (SEVIS).38 The operating budget for SEVP comes from fees39
collected from potential foreign students (i.e., those applying for student visas, or to
35 For more information see [http://www.ice.gov/graphics/investigations/index.htm].
36 Based on CRS discussions with ICE personnel in New York City, Aug. 27, 2003.
37 For more information on visa issuance see CRS Report RL31512, Visa Issuance: Policy,
Issues, and Legislation, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
38 For more information on SEVIS see CRS Report RL32188, Monitoring Foreign Students
in the United States: The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), by
Alison Siskin.
39 Collection of the student fee began on Sept. 1, 2004. Prior to the student fee collection,
the operating budget for SEVIS came from fees collected from the schools for SEVIS
enrollment and from the general DHS/INS appropriations. Congress only appropriated
funds specifically for SEVIS in FY2002.
CRS-23
change their nonimmigrant status to student), and from institutions seeking
certification to participate in SEVI40S. The President is requesting an additional
appropriation of $19.7 million for the SEVP in FY2006 to maintain staffing levels,
and increase spending on enhancements such as incorporating historical data,
enhancing batch mode processing into SEVIS, and providing more training and
outreach to the schools. Schools have reported technical difficulties operating
SEVIS, and the lack of consistent information and guidance from ICE.41
Office of Principal Legal Advisor. The Office of Principal Legal Advisor
(OPLA) is responsible for litigating alien custody and removal cases generated by
ICE, CBP, and USCIS before DOJ’s Executive Office of Immigration Review
(EOIR). The OPLA also provides legal advice to operational components in ICE.
The President’s budget requests an increase of $3.5 million for OPLA to hire an
additional 32 attorneys, and 16 legal support staff, arguing that the increase in the
staff will increase OPLA’s ability to complete matters in the immigration courts,
thereby reducing the number of backlogged cases.
Detention and Removal Operations. Detention and Removal Operations
(DRO) in ICE provide custody management (i.e., detention, supervised release, or
release on bond or parole) of aliens who are in removal proceedings or who have
been ordered removed from the United States.42 DRO is also responsible for
processing aliens through the immigration court to determine whether the alien
should be removed from the United States,43 and ensuring that aliens ordered
removed actually depart from the United States. Many contend that DRO does not
have enough detention space to house all those who should be detained. A study
done by DOJ’s Inspector General found that almost 94% of those detained with final
orders of removal were deported while only 11% of those not detained who were
issued final orders of removal left the country.44 Concerns have been raised that
decisions on which aliens to release and when to release the aliens may be based on
the amount of detention space, not on the merits of individual cases, and that the
amount of space may vary by area of the country leading to inequities and disparate
policies in different geographic areas.45 For FY2006, The Intelligence Reform and
40 Only institutions certified (i.e., enrolled) in SEVIS may admit foreign students.
41 Conversation with Victor Johnson, of National Association of Foreign Student Advisors
(NAFSA), Association of International Educators, Nov. 20, 2003.
42 For more information on detention issues see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related
Detention: Current Legislative Issues, by Alison Siskin.
43 Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) aliens can be removed for reasons of
health, criminal status, economic well-being, national security risks and others that are
specifically defined in the act.
44 Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, The Immigration and
Naturalization Service’s Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders, Report I-2003-004, Feb.
2003.
45 The decision does not usually apply to aliens who are under mandatory detention. A high
priority detainee may be released to make space for a mandatory detainee. Nonetheless,
DHS does have explicit procedures for choosing between two mandatory detainees if there
(continued...)
CRS-24
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458, §5204) authorized, subject to
appropriations, a total increase in DRO bed space of 8,000 beds for FY2006-FY2010.
The President’s budget requests an increase for FY2006 of $90 million for 1,920 new
beds.
Interior Repatriation. ICE proposes a $25 million increase for the Interior
Repatriation program. On June 9, 2004 the White House announced it had reached
agreement with the Mexican government to begin piloting the Interior Repatriation
Program, which aims to reduce the number of aliens who immediately try to cross
back into the United States by flying them into the interior of Mexico. Due to
constitutional constraints in Mexico, the apprehended aliens’ return to the interior
must be strictly voluntary and the willingness of their participation is certified by
Mexican consular officers.46 In order to continue the program in FY2006, the
Administration is requesting $39.3 million; $25 million for Custody Management
and $14.3 for Transportation and Removal. This represents a $25 million increase
from the $14 million spent on the pilot program in FY2005.
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)47
The TSA was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA,
P.L. 107-71), and was charged with protecting U.S. air, land, and rail transportation
systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. In 2002, the TSA
was transferred to DHS with the passage of the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-
296). TSA’s responsibilities include protecting the air transportation system against
terrorist threats, sabotage and other acts of violence through the deployment of:
passenger and baggage screeners; detection systems for explosives, weapons, and
other contraband; and other security technologies. TSA also has responsibilities for
marine and land modes of transportation including assessing the risk of terrorist
attacks to all non-aviation transportation modes, issuing regulations to improve the
security of the modes, and enforcing these regulations to ensure the protection of the
transportation system. TSA is further charged with serving as the primary liaison for
transportation security to the law enforcement and intelligence communities, and
with conducting research and development activities to improve security
technologies.
President’s Request. The President has requested an appropriation of
$5,562 million in gross budget authority for TSA in FY2006, a net increase of $156
45 (...continued)
is not enough bed space. Michael A. Pearson, INS Detention Guidelines, Oct. 7, 1998.
Reprinted in Bender’s Immigration Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 21, Nov. 1, 1998, p. 1116.
46 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Office
of the Press Secretary, “Department of Homeland Security to Begin Pilot Program for
Voluntary Interior Repatriation of Mexican Nationals,” press release, June 29, 2004.
47 Section prepared by Bartholomew Elias, Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and
Technology; and John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation, Resources, Science and
Industry Division.
CRS-25
million, or 3%, over the enacted FY2005 level of $5,406 million.48 However, in
comparing the FY2006 budget request to prior year levels, it is important to note that
the President is requesting to transfer a large portion of TSA’s research and
development functions — totaling $109 million in FY2005 appropriated amounts —
to the S&T Directorate, and a transfer of a variety of functions — totaling $142
million in FY2005 — to the proposed Office of Screening Coordination and
Operations (SCO). Functions that would be transferred to the SCO under the
proposal include Secure Flight ($35 million); Crew Vetting ($10 million);
Credentialing Startup Costs ($10 million); Transportation Worker Identification Card
(TWIC, $50 million); Registered Traveler ($15 million); HAZMAT Driver Security
Threat Assessments ($17 million); and Alien Flight School Applicant Security Threat
Assessments ($5 million). Adjusting for these transfers and other miscellaneous
factors, the requested increase to the TSA budget totals $415 million, roughly a 7.7%
increase over FY2005 enacted levels (see P.L. 108-334).
Almost 90% of the TSA’s proposed budget is designated for aviation security
functions. Key aviation security initiatives proposed include:
! developing and testing emerging checkpoint explosives
technologies;
! realigning the screener workforce and providing funds needed to
maintain an authorized level of 45,000 full-time equivalents (FTEs);
! deploying high-speed Internet connections at airport screening
checkpoints and baggage screening areas;
! providing mandated training for flight and cabin crews and
conducting semiannual requalification for armed pilots; and
! conducting mandated security inspections of foreign airline repair
stations and inspections at domestic repair stations.
In an effort to approach full cost recovery from user fees for aviation security
screening, the President has proposed an increase in passenger security fees. The
proposal would raise the fee from its current level of $2.50 per flight segment, with
a maximum fee of $5.00 per one-way trip, to $5.50 per segment, with a maximum
of $8.00 per one-way trip. The Administration anticipates that this proposed fee
increase coupled with a return to pre-9/11 passenger volume will result in an increase
in fee collections from an estimated $2.652 billion in FY2005 to $4.1 billion in
FY2006. This increase is projected to offset roughly 82% of the proposed $4.985
billion budget for aviation security. In contrast, aviation security fees collected in
FY2004 offset only 41% of expenditures for aviation security.49
48 The amount for FY2005 listed here includes $250 million for the Aviation Security
Capital Fund, and $5 million for Alien Flight School Background Checks; and the amount
for FY2006 includes $250 million for the Aviation Security Capital Fund. These amounts
are listed as non-adds in Table 5, and are not included in the committee tables.
49 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration,
Statement of David M. Stone, Assistant Secretary Before the Committee on Commerce,
Science & Transportation, United States Senate, Feb. 15, 2005. (Hereafter cited as
Statement of David M. Stone).
CRS-26
For surface transportation security, the President requests $32 million, which
includes $8 million for hiring and deploying 100 rail and transit inspectors. These
inspectors will be deployed at significant rail and mass transit points across the
United States to perform compliance reviews, audits, and enforcement actions
pertaining to security measures.
Issues for Congress. The President’s proposal to increase airline passenger
security fees will likely be a contentious issue. Financially strapped airlines — still
recovering from the economic impact of the 9/11 attacks and now facing rising fuel
costs — argue that they will likely have to absorb some of the cost of these fee
increases by reducing ticket prices.50 Some Members of Congress have also voiced
concern that the proposed fee increase could cut into the revenues of the airlines, and
could have a greater impact on rural airline customers who would pay proportionately
more in per-segment fees because fewer direct flights are available to these
customers.51 The Administration, on the other hand, argues that increased fees could
help reduce a funding deficit by generating additional revenue to offset expenditures
for aviation security, or could free up general tax revenues for spending on broader
homeland security needs. The Administration also contends that increasing fees to
offset costs is in line with long-standing transportation infrastructure policy to fund
these services largely through user fees, as well as its assessment of the original
intent of these passenger security fees established under the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (ATSA, P.L 107-71).52 However, some opponents of
aviation security fees contend that aviation security, particularly since September 11,
2001, is vital to national security, and therefore, like defense spending, is the
responsibility of all taxpayers.
Another key issue for the TSA is the proposed creation of SCO. With the
proposed transfer of several functions related to credentialing and vetting of
passengers and transportation workers, several potential issues regarding
coordination of effort between the TSA and the SCO arise. Because there are
presently few details regarding how the proposed SCO will interface with TSA in the
implementation of several high-profile programs such as Secure Flight and the TWIC
program, this may be a specific area that Congress may focus on during the
appropriations process.
Another potential issue that may arise during the appropriations process is
coordination between TSA and S&T in light of the proposal to transfer the TSA’s
research and development activities. One particular issue would be how aviation
security research needs will be prioritized given that S&T is more broadly focused
on all homeland security research and development activities. There may be some
concern that aviation security projects could take a back seat to other high-profile
initiatives — such as nuclear, biological, and chemical weapon countermeasures —
50 Air Transport Association of America, Inc., Statement for the Record to the Committee
on Commerce, Science & Transportation, United States Senate Hearing on Fiscal Year
2006 Budget Transportation Security Administration, Feb. 15, 2005.
51 Sara Kehaulani Goo, “Senate Turbulence Greets Plan to Raise Airline Ticket Security
Fees,” The Washington Post, Feb. 16, 2005, p. A2.
52 See Statement of David M. Stone.
CRS-27
that have been the primary focus of S&T to date. Also, while consolidating research
and development on explosives and chemical weapons detection — the primary focus
of aviation security-related research and development — may help leverage resources
for other DHS components, these projects could potentially lose some of the aviation
security-specific focus that they currently have under the auspices of the TSA.
Consequently, Congress may focus on what coordination and interaction between
TSA and S&T will be established under the proposed transfer to ensure that aviation
security research and development needs are adequately addressed.53
United States Coast Guard54
The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for the maritime component of
homeland security. As such, it is the lead agency responsible for BTS as it applies
to U.S. ports, coastal and inland waterways, and territorial waters. The Coast Guard
also performs missions that are not related to homeland security, such as maritime
search and rescue, marine environmental protection, fisheries enforcement, and aids
to navigation.
The Coast Guard was transferred from the Department of Transportation to the
DHS on March 1, 2003. The law that created the DHS (P.L. 107-296) directed that
the Coast Guard be maintained as a distinct entity within DHS and that the
Commandant of the Coast Guard report directly to the Secretary of DHS.
Accordingly, the Coast Guard exists as a distinct agency within DHS and is not part
of DHS’s BTS, although it does work closely with that directorate.
President’s Request. For FY2006 the President requested an appropriation
of $7,961 million in net budget authority for the Coast Guard, which is a 7% increase
over the enacted FY2005 level of $7,440 million. The Coast Guard’s budget is
divided into seven categories. The President requested increases in three of these
categories and decreases or zero funding in the four remaining categories. Among
the categories with increased funding, the largest increase in percentage terms is in
acquisition, construction, and improvements (the agency’s physical equipment),
which would increase by 29.22% to $1,269.2 million. Operating expenses would
increase by 7.57% to $5,547.4 million and reserve training would increase by 5.31%
to $119.0 million. The President requested zero funds for the Coast Guard’s bridge
alteration program which funds alterations to bridges that are obstructing
navigational waterways. Congress provided $15.9 for this program in FY2005. The
President also requested zero funds for Coast Guard research and development;
transferring and consolidating this account under the DHS S&T Directorate.
Congress provided $18.5 million for Coast Guard R&D in FY2005. The two other
budget categories that the President would reduce funding for are Coast Guard
53 Further information and analysis of transportation security issues before Congress are
provided in CRS reports at [http://www.congress.gov/erp/legissues/html/istrn5.html].
54 Section prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation, Resources, Science and
Industry Division. Further information and analysis of the Coast Guard’s role in maritime
security is provided in CRS Report RS21125, Homeland Security: Coast Guard Operations
— Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke; and CRS Report RL31733,
Port and Maritime Security: Background and Issues for Congress, by John Frittelli.
CRS-28
environmental compliance and restoration, which would decrease by 29.41% to $12
million and retired pay, which would decrease by 6.58% to $1,014.1 million.
Issues for Congress. Increased duties in the maritime realm related to
homeland security have added to the Coast Guard’s obligations and increased the
complexity of the issues it faces. Congress is concerned with how the agency is
operationally responding to these demands, including its plans to replace many of its
aging vessels and aircraft.
Deepwater Program.55 The Deepwater program is a planned 22-year, multi-
billion dollar project to replace or modernize 93 aging Coast Guard ships and 207
aging Coast Guard aircraft. It is the largest and most complex acquisition ever
undertaken by the Coast Guard. The Deepwater program is a subset of the agency’s
acquisition, construction, and improvements budget category. For FY2006, the
President requested $966 million for the Deepwater program which is $242 million
more than Congress provided in FY2005. The mission requirements to be met by the
program were established in the late 1990s and reflect pre-9/11 understanding of the
Coast Guard’s future mission requirements. In the FY2005 DHS Appropriations Act
(P.L. 108-334), Congress required the DHS to submit, in conjunction with its
FY2006 budget request, a new Deepwater baseline that identifies a revised
acquisition timeline that is determined to be necessary to fulfill homeland and
national security functions. The President’s FY2006 budget request states that this
report is in its final stages of development.
Maritime Security Mission. The Deepwater program will help the Coast
Guard achieve its many missions, including maritime security, which is another
Coast Guard issue of keen interest to Congress. The President’s FY2006 request
includes $2,219.4 million for port waterways and coastal security, an increase of
$127.9 million from FY2005. Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) is a central
element of the Coast Guard’s security mission. MDA can be described as the Coast
Guard’s ability to know all that is happening in the maritime environment — to
understand normal activity, in order to spot suspicious activity. One objective of
MDA is to increase the transparency of ship movements in U.S. coastal areas. Using
Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) technology, the Coast Guard expects to be
able to track ships in coastal waters. For FY2006, the President requested $29.1
million for AIS which is $5.1 million more than Congress provided in FY2005. In
FY2005, Congress expressed disappointment that only nine seaports would be able
to receive AIS signals and therefore increased funding from the requested $5 million
to $24 million to achieve nationwide coverage. The President’s FY2006 request
indicates that nationwide implementation of AIS is the Administration’s objective.
Another area of maritime security that Congress has expressed particular interest
in is the security of LNG (liquefied natural gas) tankers. The President’s FY2006
request includes $11 million for additional boat crews and screening personnel at
55 Further information and analysis of the Deepwater program is provided in CRS Report
RS21019, Coast Guard Deepwater Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by
Ronald O’Rourke.
CRS-29
U.S. LNG shoreside facilities. Rising natural gas prices are expected to increase the
demand for imported natural gas, most of which will be transported by LNG tankers.
Non-homeland Security Missions. A key issue is whether the Coast
Guard’s resources are adequate to perform both its maritime security and non-
security missions. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, increased Coast
Guard requirements for homeland security missions without obviously reducing the
requirements for other missions. After September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard
significantly increased homeland security operations while reducing operations in
other missions. GAO, in reports and testimony on this topic, have noted reduced
number of Coast Guard operating hours devoted to non-security missions. For
FY2006, the President requested the following amounts for the Coast Guard’s non-
security missions:
! $1,589.8 million for maritime safety, an increase of $63.5 million
over FY2005;
! $1,257.6 million for maritime mobility, an increase of $53.4 million
over FY2005; and
! $1,385.3 million for marine environmental protection, an increase
of $146.3 million over FY2005.
Efficient and Effective Resource Allocation. While Congress is
concerned with whether the Coast Guard has sufficient resources to fulfill its multiple
missions, since September 11, 2001 the Coast Guard’s budget has increased
substantially, which raises the issue of whether the agency has the systems in place
to make the best use of these additional resources. The GAO has concluded that the
agency needs to be able to better track how its personnel spend their time as well as
establish a clearer link between where resources are spent and what results are
achieved.
United States Secret Service56
The United States Secret Service performs two broad missions in homeland
security: criminal investigations and protection.57 Criminal investigations cover
financial crimes, identify theft, counterfeiting, computer fraud, and computer-based
attacks on the nation’s financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure,
among other areas. The protection mission is most prominent for the President, Vice
President, their families, and candidates for those offices, along with the White
House and the Vice President’s residence. Protection duties also extend to foreign
missions in the District of Columbia; other designated individuals, such as the
Secretary of DHS and visiting foreign dignitaries; and National Special Security
Events, which include the political party national nominating conventions as well as
various international conferences and other major designated events in the United
States.
56 Prepared by Frederick M. Kaiser, Specialist in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division.
57 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Secret Service, Fiscal Year 2006,
Congressional Justification (Washington: DHS, 2005), p. SS-1.
CRS-30
President’s Request. For FY2006, the President’s budget requests an
appropriation of $1,200 million for the protection and criminal investigation missions
of the Secret Service, an increase of $24 million (2.0%) over the FY2005 total of
$1,176 million.58 Within the FY2006 amount are requests for certain specific
matters: $100,000 to assist foreign law enforcement organizations in counterfeit
investigations; $2.1 million for forensic and related support for investigations of
missing and exploited children; and $5 million for a grant for activities related to the
investigations of missing and exploited children. In addition, the budget submission
directs that “up to $18 million provided for protective travel shall remain available
until September 30, 2007” and that “not less than $5,000,000 solely for the
unanticipated costs related to security operations for National Special Security
Events.”59
Title III: Preparedness and Response
Title III Preparedness and Response, includes funding for the Office of State and
Local Government Coordination and Planning (OSLGCP), formerly the Office of
Domestic Preparedness; and the Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and
Response (EPR).
Table 6 shows the FY2005 enacted and FY2006 requested appropriations for
Title III. The Administration has requested an appropriation of $6,710 in net budget
authority for Title III for FY2006. This amount represents an 4% decrease compared
to the FY2005 enacted total of $6,963 million (not including $2,508 million for
Bioshield).60 For the FY2006 request, Title III accounts for 22% of requested net
appropriated DHS budget authority; 10% for EPR, and 12% for SLCGP.
58 Ibid., and U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 2006, Appendix (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 485.
59 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2006 Budget for the United States
Government (Washington: GPO, Feb. 2005), p. 485. (Hereafter cited as OMB, FY2006
Budget.)
60 The FY2005 enacted net budget authority of $6,963 million does not include a $2,508
million Bioshield obligation limitation, nor does it include the $6.5 billion in supplemental
disaster relief funding. For more information on the supplemental appropriations, see CRS
Report RL32581, Assistance After Hurricanes and Other Disasters: FY2004 and FY2005
Supplemental Appropriations, by Keith Bea and Ralph M. Chite.
CRS-31
Table 6. Title III: Preparedness and Response
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2005 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006
FY2006
Operational Component
Enacted Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Office of domestic preparedness/office of
state and local government coordination
and planning
— State and local programs
3,086
2,891
— Salaries and Expenses
4
4
— Emergency management planning grants
180
170
— Firefighter assistance grants
715
500
Net subtotal
3,985
3,565
Counter-Terrorism fund
8
10
Emergency Preparedness and Response
— Office of Under Secretary EPR
4
4
— Admin; regional operations
203
218
— Operating expenses (rescission)
-5
—
— Prepare, mitigation, response & recovery
239
235
— Public health programs
34
34
— Biodefense countermeasures
(obligation limitation) a
2,508
—
— Disaster relief b
2,042
2,140
— Flood map modernization fund
200
200
— Radiological preparedness c -1
-1
— National flood insurance fund d
—
—
— National flood mitigation e
—
—
— Pre-disaster mitigation fund
100
150
— Emergency food and shelter
153
153
— Disaster assistance direct loan account
1
1
Net subtotal
5,478 f
3,135
Net budget authority subtotal: Title III
9,471 f
6,710
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President’s Budget, and DHS, Budget in Brief, House
Appropriation Committee tables of Mar. 15, 2005.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. Includes $20 million rescission from Bioshield (biodefense countermeasures) enacted by the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 (P.L. 108-447).
b. FY2005 totals do not include $6.5 billion in disaster relief funding enacted by P.L. 108-324. For
more information on those supplemental appropriations, see CRS Report RL32581, Assistance
After Hurricanes and Other Disasters: FY2004 and FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations.
c. Radiological Emergency Preparedness funds are provide through reimbursements and are not
actually appropriated funds. Administration documents report amounts available at $17 million
in FY2005, and $18 million in FY2006.
d. Amounts available in the National Flood Insurance Fund are derived through premiums and are
not appropriated. These amounts are completely offset in the Committee tables, in the amount
of $113 million for FY2005, and $124 million in FY2006.
e. Amounts for National Flood Mitigation are offset by a transfer from the National Flood Insurance
Fund, $20 million in FY2005, and $28 million in FY2006.
f. Totals do not include $6.5 billion in disaster relief funding enacted by P.L. 108-324. For more
information on those supplemental appropriations, see CRS Report RL32581, Assistance After
Hurricanes and Other Disasters: FY2004 and FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations.
CRS-32
Office of State and Local Government Coordination and
Planning (SLGCP)
The SLGCP is the single point of contact within DHS for facilitating and
coordinating departmental state and local programs. SLGCP provides information
to states and localities on best practices and federal homeland security activities.
Within SLGCP, the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) administers federal
homeland security assistance programs for states and localities. To assist state and
local homeland security efforts, ODP administers formula and discretionary grants
and training, exercise, and technical assistance programs.
President’s Request. The FY2006 budget request proposes the following
amounts for the SLGCP homeland security assistance programs:
! Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG), . . . $170 million;
! Citizen Corps Programs (CCP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $50 million;
! State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) . . . . $1,020 million;61
! Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,020 million;
! Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program (TIPP)
(a new program) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $600 million; and
! Assistance to Firefighters Program (FIRE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . $500 million.62
61 The $1,020 million provided for each of the SHSGP and UASI programs includes $200
million (for a total of $400 million) for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program
(LETPP). Table 7 shows these amounts broken out: $800 million each for SHSGP and
UASI, and $400 million for LETPP.
62 OMB, FY2006 Budget, p. 478.
CRS-33
Table 7 provides program level details for SLGCP.
Table 7. SLGCP Program Level Details, FY2005-2006
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
F2006
Operational component
enacted
request
House
Senate
Conf.
Office of state and local
government coordination and
preparedness
3,985
3,565
— State homeland security grant
program
1,100
820
— Urban area security initiative
885
820
— Citizen corps program
15
50
— Emergency management
performance grants
180
170
— Firefighters assistance
715
500
— State and local training program
55
83
— Law enforcement terrorism
prevention
400
400
— Technical assistance
30
8
— National exercise program
52
52
— Evaluations program
14
14
— Transportation and
infrastructure program (TIPP)
315
600
— Management and administration
4
48
— Technology transfer
50
—
— National domestic preparedness
consortium
135
—
— Metropolitan medical response
system
30
—
— Rural domestic preparedness
consortium
5
—
Source: Conference Report (H.Rept. 108-774) accompanying P.L. 108-334 (FY2005 DHS
Appropriations), and OMB, FY2006 Budget, Appendix, p. 478.
Issues For Congress. The budget request raises policy questions because
it proposes to reduce the overall level of funding for assistance to state and local
preparedness programs, gives new emphasis to assistance for the protection of port,
transit, and other infrastructure; and changes the grant allocation formula for one of
the grants administered by ODP.
CRS-34
Reduction of Funding. In FY2005, Congress appropriated approximately
$3.99 billion for SLGCP and state and local homeland security assistance.63 In the
FY2006 budget request, the Administration proposes a total of $3.57 billion for
SLGCP and federal homeland security assistance, a reduction of $370 million from
FY2005 funding. Additionally, the FY2006 budget request provides no line item
funding for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP). It
proposes, however, to direct states and localities to allocate no less than 20% of
SHSGP and UASI funding for LETTP activities.64 Apparently, this is a reduction in
SHSGP and UASI funding for equipment, training, exercises, and planning, which
states and localities were authorized to fund with 100% of their allocated amount in
FY2005. One could argue that the overall funding reduction of $370 million and the
Administration’s requirement of states and localities allocating no less than 20% of
their SHSGP and UASI funding for LETPP activities represents a further reduction
of funding for federal homeland security assistance.
The Administration’s budget proposal requests $500 million for FIRE in
FY2006, a cut of 23% from the FY2005 appropriated level. Priority would be given
to grant applications enhancing counter-terrorism capabilities. Grants would be
available only for training, vehicle acquisition, firefighting equipment, and personal
protective equipment. Under the budget proposal, activities such as wellness/fitness
and fire station modification would not be funded. Activities such as prevention,
public fire safety education and awareness, and fire code enforcement would be
funded under a separate fire prevention and firefighter safety grant program. For
FY2006, the Administration is requesting no funding of the SAFER grants, which
provide assistance to fire departments for hiring personnel.65
Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS). The Metropolitan
Medical Response System (MMRS) is a program of contracts with major cities to
assist the coordination of multiple local government entities in emergency planning.
The program was transferred to the EPR Directorate at DHS from the Department of
Health and Human Services in the Homeland Security Act, and subsequently was
transferred to OSLGCP from the EPR Directorate in the FY2005 Homeland Security
appropriations bill. Congress appropriated $30 million for the program in FY2005,
which was decreased from $50 million in FY2004. MMRS is slated for elimination
in the FY2006 budget proposal, as it has been in each budget proposal since it was
transferred to DHS. The Administration proposes that ongoing municipal emergency
planning activities be supported at the discretion of states, using funds from the
Homeland Security Grants and the Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants programs.66
Port, Rail, and Infrastructure Security. In FY2005 Congress appropriated
$150 million for port security and $150 million for rail security (both part of UASI).67
63 P.L. 108-334, Title III, FY2005 DHS appropriations.
64 OMB, FY2006 Budget, p. 478.
65 This information provided by Len Kruger, Research, Science, and Industry Division.
66 This information provided by Sarah Lister, Domestic Social Policy Division.
67 P.L. 108-334, Title III.
CRS-35
The Administration, in the FY2006 budget request, proposes the establishment of a
new state and local homeland security assistance program, TIPP, and requests $600
million for the program. TIPP would provide funding to enhance the security of
ports, transits systems, and other infrastructure, as determined by the DHS
Secretary.68 The budget request, however, does not specify how much funding would
be allocated for port security, or transit systems. Since the Administration proposes
TIPP as a discretionary grant program, one could argue that there is no way to
determine the amount that would be allocated for port and rail security which have
been congressional priorities.
Formula Changes. The Administration proposes to change the formula for
ODP’s SHSGP. The FY2006 budget request proposes $1.02 billion for SHSGP to
be allocated based on risks, threats, vulnerabilities, and unmet first responder
capabilities, provided each state and territory is allocated no less than 0.25% of total
funds appropriated for this program. There is no proposed formula change for UASI,
CCP, EMPG, or FIRE. The Administration does, however, propose that FIRE
applications to enhance terrorism response capabilities be given priority.69 It can be
argued that the proposed formula change for SHSGP does not fully support the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States’ (9/11
Commission) recommendation of providing federal homeland security assistance
strictly based on threat and risk,70 because of the Administration’s proposed state and
territory guaranteed minimum of 0.25%.
Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR)
President’s Request. Few substantive changes are proposed in the FY2006
budget justification for the EPR accounts. Funding for two hazard mitigation
programs would increase under the proposal; an increase of $50 million ($100
million appropriated for FY2005) is proposed for pre-disaster mitigation grants
awarded on a competitive basis, and an increase of $8 million ($20 million
authorized to be transferred in each previous year) for flood mitigation assistance.
Post-disaster mitigation grants, however, would continue to be funded at a lower
level than historically provided.
Issues for Congress. While little debate is expected on this component of
the DHS request, Members of the 109th Congress might elect to consider two issues,
(1) means of reducing or controlling escalating disaster relief expenditures and (2)
the funding level for post-disaster hazard mitigation grant awards.
Disaster Relief Expenditures. Congress appropriates money to the Disaster
Relief Fund (DRF) to ensure that federal assistance is available to help individuals
and communities stricken by severe disasters. Funds appropriated to the DRF remain
available until expended. DHS allocates money from the DRF to provide assistance
68 OMB, FY2006 Budget, p. 478.
69 Ibid., pp. 478-480.
70 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission
Report (Washington: GPO, Aug. 2004), p. 396.
CRS-36
to individuals, families, state and local governments, and certain nonprofit
organizations, as authorized by the Stafford Act.71 Stafford Act aid is available after
the President issues a declaration that federal assistance is needed to supplement the
resources of states and localities that are overwhelmed by catastrophes. Federal
assistance supported by DRF money is used by states, localities, individuals, and
certain non-profit organizations for mass care, restoration of damaged or destroyed
facilities, clearance of debris, and certain uninsured needs.
Appropriations to, and the operations of the DRF generally evoke little
controversy. However, questions have been raised concerning the distribution of aid
in Florida after the hurricanes of 2004. Congress has previously explored the issue
of rising federal disaster assistance costs and reliance upon supplemental
appropriations.72 In light of concerns about funding decisions after the hurricanes,
and the rising deficit, Members of the 109th Congress might elect to consider means
of controlling costs or establishing alternative funding mechanisms. As shown in
Table 12 in Appendix II DRF obligations have increased considerably since 1990
in comparison to those recorded in previous decades.
The cause of the increase in federal expenditures since 1990 has been the subject
of some debate. A report issued by the OIG for FEMA concluded that the increase
in federal disaster costs since 1989 “is due to a greater number and magnitude of
disasters, expansion of the law and eligibility for assistance, and interpretation of the
law and regulations.”73 Some contend that other factors, notably political
considerations, contribute to the costs of disaster relief as well. The author of one
study reportedly analyzed data from the insurance industry, climatic study
organizations, and DHS, and concluded that “electoral motivations ... had a dramatic
effect on which states were granted disaster declarations.”74 More specifically, and
less dramatically, the author reports in a published summary of his work: “The best
predictor of a disaster declaration, bar none, is actual need. The question arises in
these marginal cases, when it’s unclear whether to give or not.”75 On the other hand,
a study issued by GAO also considered the effects of politics on disaster declarations
71 The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §5121
et seq.
72 U.S. Congress, Senate Bipartisan Task Force on Funding Disaster Relief, Federal
Disaster Assistance, S.Doc. 104-4, 104th Cong., 1st sess., (Washington: GPO, 1995). The
House convened a task force that issued an unpublished report. Following completion of
the task force efforts, some Members introduced a concurrent resolution (H.Con.Res. 39,
104th Congress) seeking a “fundamental overhaul of federal disaster policies.” See also U.S.
Congress, House Committee on the Budget, Task Force on Budget Process, Budgetary
Treatment of Emergencies, hearing, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., June 23, 1998 (Washington:
GPO, 1998).
73 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, at
[http://www.fema.gov/library/pp2man.shtm], visited Nov. 19, 2004.
74 For a summary see Andrew Reeves, “Plucking Votes from Disasters,” Los Angeles Times,
May 12, 2004, p. A19.
75 Brian Tarcey, “Flooding the Ballot Box: The Politics of Disaster,” Harvard Magazine,
at [http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/030492.html], visited May 21, 2004.
CRS-37
but arrived at a different conclusion. After examining presidential declaration data
from the perspective of the party affiliation of governors and members of state
congressional delegations, the authors concluded that there “were no indications that
party affiliation affected White House major disaster declaration decisions.”76
In considering a gubernatorial request for disaster relief, the President evaluates
a number of factors, including the cause of the catastrophe, damages, needs,
certification by state officials that state and local governments will comply with cost
sharing and other requirements, and official requests for assistance. Neither the
Stafford Act nor implementing regulations provide for a congressional role in the
declaration process.77
The level of expenditures from the DRF fluctuates from year to year primarily
as a consequence of three factors — the number of disaster declarations issued, the
extent of destruction caused by the disasters, and the amount of uninsured losses that
result from declared disasters. Discussions in Congress on the escalating disaster
relief costs move between two policy concerns — the need to control federal costs,
particularly at a time of significant deficits, and the need of constituents who have
suffered devastating losses.
Members of the 109th Congress may wish to evaluate several options in
balancing the needs of disaster stricken areas with budgetary constraints. These
options include and are not limited to the following approaches.
! Amend the Stafford Act to determine whether existing statutory
declaration criteria are appropriate. Reducing the categories or
narrowing their scope would result in cost savings as fewer disasters
would trigger federal assistance. Such changes, however, would
result in greater financial burdens for individuals and communities
in distress.
! Modify how Congress and the President budget for emergencies.
Currently, Congress provides additional funds during the fiscal year,
usually in supplemental appropriations, to respond to specific natural
disasters and other emergency, or unanticipated, situations.
Congress and the President usually designate the additional spending
as an “emergency requirement,” effectively exempting it from
budget constraints associated with the annual budget resolution.
Some believe this practice of budgeting for emergencies might lead
to unnecessary or wasteful spending. In addition, some believe that
the existing budgetary treatment of emergency spending provides an
incentive to designate non-emergency spending as an emergency
requirement in order to circumvent the existing budgetary
76 U.S. General Accounting Office, Disaster Assistance: Timeliness and Other Issues
Involving the Major Disaster Declaration Process, GAO/RCED-89-138, May 25, 1989, pp.
1, 4.
77 For regulations on the request and declaration process, see 44 CFR §§206.35-206.39.
CRS-38
constraints. To address these concerns, some have proposed the
following reforms:78
! Establish a reserve fund for disaster assistance. Proponents of a
reserve fund for disaster assistance argue that the average annual
amount of overall emergency spending can be projected based on
past experience, even though specific emergencies cannot be
predicted. Therefore, they further argue that an expected amount of
disaster assistance spending should be incorporated into the overall
amount of spending in the President’s budget and the budget
resolution. Proponents of such a reserve fund generally suggest that
an historical average of actual disaster assistance spending would
provide sufficient funds to meet specific emergencies as they arise.
Legislation pending before Congress (S. 24) would establish such a
fund in the Treasury.
! Establish criteria for emergency spending. Proponents of
emergency spending criteria argue that any spending for disasters
and other emergencies should meet specific criteria to be considered
outside the constraints associated with the budget resolution and
outside the regular annual appropriations process. Past budget
resolutions have required that spending designated as an “emergency
requirement” meet criteria such as the “underlying situation poses a
threat to life, property, or national security” and is sudden, urgent,
unforeseen, and temporary (for example, see the budget resolution
considered by the 108th Congress, S.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept. 108-498).
Proponents, however, suggest that such criteria should be statutory.79
Hazard Mitigation Grant Awards. Federal hazard mitigation assistance is
provided through several grant-in-aid programs. Since 1988 hazard mitigation funds
have been provided through the Section 404, or Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP). 80 Such grants are provided in states in which major disaster declarations
have been issued. HMGP funding derives from the DRF, not line item
appropriations. Section 404 funds have been used to help communities and property
owners improve buildings to withstand earthquake shaking, purchase hurricane
shutters, and relocate buildings from flood-prone areas.
Some debate might occur on the maximum amount of HMGP awards to be
given to each state. From 1993 until 2004 the maximum grant that could be provided
to a state equaled 15% of the eligible disaster relief provided under the Stafford Act.
In 2004 Congress reduced by half the maximum contribution to be provided through
78 Contributions on emergency funding provided by Bill Heniff, Jr., Analyst in American
National Government, Government and Finance Division.
79 For example, the state of Louisiana defines “emergency,” for the purpose of appropriating
emergency funds, as “an event or occurrence not reasonably anticipated by the legislature.
‘An event not reasonably anticipated’ shall be one not considered and rejected, in the same
relative form or content, by the legislature during the preceding session either by specific
legislative instrument or amendment thereto on the floor of either house or by a committee
thereof.” See La. Rev. Stat. Title 39, §461.1.A.(2).
80 The HMGP grants are authorized in Section 404 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5170c.
CRS-39
HMGP, from 15% of major disaster assistance to 7.5%.81 The FY2006 budget
requests maintains the ceiling at the lower level. Members of the 109th Congress
might elect to consider legislation to return to the higher level. Such legislation was
approved by the House during the 108th Congress (H.R. 3181) but not acted upon by
the Senate.
Debate may also take place on an incentive enacted in the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000, P.L. 106-390. The provision authorizes the President to increase the
HMGP ceiling to 20% of the total assistance provided under the Stafford Act if a
state meets certain requirements, including the establishment of eligibility criteria for
property acquisition, cost effectiveness measures, specification of priorities, and
assessment processes, and if the state has an approved mitigation plan in place,
referred to by the Administration as an “Enhanced Mitigation Plan.”82 The FY2006
request provides that HMGP grants for states with enhanced plans be 12.5%, not
20%, of the total assistance provided. Members of the 109th Congress might elect to
debate whether states with enhanced plans should receive the full 20% authorized in
the statute.
Title IV: Research and Development, Training,
Assessments, and Services
Activities funded by Title IV include the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services (CIS), IAIP, FLETC, and the S&T.
Table 8 shows the FY2005 enacted and FY2006 requested appropriations for
Title IV. The Administration has requested an appropriation of $4,275 million in
gross budget authority for Title IV in FY2006. This represents an 8% increase over
the enacted FY2005 level of $3,962 million. The Administration is requesting an
appropriation of $2,546 million in net budget authority for Title IV in FY2006,
representing a 6% increase over the FY2005 enacted level of $2,392 million. Of the
requested net appropriation for DHS for FY2006: CIS accounts for less than 1%;
IAIP accounts for 3%; S&T accounts for 5%; FLETC accounts for less than 1%; and
all Title IV accounts combined account for 8% of requested net appropriated DHS
budget authority.
81 Section 417, P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 525.
82 “... the President may increase to 20%...” 42 U.S.C. §5165(e).
CRS-40
Table 8. Research and Development, Training, Assessments,
and Services
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Operational component
enacted
request
House
Senate
Conf.
Citizenship and immigration services
(direct appropriation)
Gross subtotal
1,731
1,810
— Offsetting feesa
-1,571b
-1,730b
Net subtotal
160
80
Information analysis and
infrastructure protection
— Management and administration
132
204
— Assessments and evaluation
762
669
Net subtotal
894
873
Federal law enforcement training
center
222
224
Science and technology
— Management and administration
69
81
— Research, development,
acquisition, and operations c
1,047
1,287
Net subtotal
1,115
1,368
Gross budget authority: Title IV
3,962
4,275
— Offsetting collections: Title IV
-1,571
-1,730
Net budget authority: Title IV
2,392
2,546
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President’s Budget, and DHS, Budget in Brief, House
Appropriation Committee tables of Mar. 15, 2005.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. Fees included Immigration Examination Fund.
b. Does not include two fees under CIS that are included in the President’s Budget: the H-1b Visa
Fee, and the Fraud Prevention and Detection fee. These fees total $44 million in FY2005 and
FY2006 and are not included in the House Appropriations Committee tables of Mar. 15, 2005.
The President’s budget documents show an FY2005 enacted of $1,774 million and an FY2006
request of $1,844 million.
c. DHS is proposing to consolidate the department’s Research and Development efforts by
transferring the Research and Development functions of CBP, ICE, TSA, and the Coast Guard
to the Directorate of S&T.
CRS-41
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)83
There are three major activities that dominate the work of the U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS): the adjudication of immigration petitions
(including nonimmigrant change of status petitions, relative petitions, employment-
based petitions, work authorizations, and travel documents); the adjudication of
naturalization petitions for legal permanent residents to become citizens; and the
consideration of refugee and asylum claims, and related humanitarian and
international concerns. USCIS funds the processing and adjudication of immigrant,
nonimmigrant, refugee, asylum, and citizenship benefits largely through monies
generated by the Examinations Fee Account.84 Last year, the Administration
increased the fees charged to U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents petitioning
to bring family or employees into the United States and to foreign nationals in the
United States seeking immigration benefits.85 In FY2004, 86% of USCIS funding
came from the Examinations Fee Account.
In FY2005, USCIS has budget authority for $1.571 billion from the
Examinations Fee Account.86 Congress provided a direct appropriation of $160
million in FY2005. The House report language emphasized that $160 million should
be available to reduce the backlog of applications and to strive for a six-month
processing standard for all applications by FY2006.87 Title IV of P.L. 108-447, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005, also required the Secretary of
Homeland Security to impose a fraud prevention and detection fee of $500 on H-1B
(foreign temporary professional workers) and L (intracompany business personnel)
petitioners. The statute requires that the H-1B and L fraud prevention and detection
fee be divided equally among DHS, the Department of State (DOS) and Department
of Labor (DOL) for use in combating fraud in H-1B and L visa applications with
DOS and H-1B and L petitions with USCIS and in carrying out DOL labor attestation
83 Section prepared by Ruth Ellen Wasem, Specialist in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social
Policy Division.
84 §286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1356.
85 For example, the I-130 petition for family members went from $130 to $185, the I-140
petition for LPR workers went from $135 to $190, the I-485 petition to adjust status went
from $255 to $315, and the N-400 petition to naturalize as a citizen went from $260 to $320.
Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 22, Feb. 3, 2004, pp. 5088-5093.
86 P.L. 108-334, Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4567, H.Rept. 108-774.
87 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2005, report to accompany H.R. 4567, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept.
108-541 (Washington: GPO 2004). The President’s Budget request for FY2002 proposed
a five-year, $500 million initiative to reduce the processing time for all petitions to six
months. Congress provided $100 in budget authority ($80 direct appropriations and $20
million from fees) for backlog reduction in FY2002. P.L. 107-77, Conference report to
accompany H.R. 2500, U.S. Congress, House Committee of Conference, Making
Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2002, and for Other Purposes,
H.Rept. 107-278 (Washington: GPO 2001).
CRS-42
enforcement activities.88 DHS also receives 5% of the H-1B education and training
fees in the Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account.89
President’s Request. For FY2006, the Administration is seeking an increase
of $79 million for USCIS. The Administration is requesting a total of $1,854 million
for USCIS, (an increase of 4% over the enacted FY2005 level of $1,775 million) the
bulk of the funding coming from increased fees paid by individuals and businesses
filing petitions (Table 8). For FY2006, USCIS expects to receive a total of $1,774
million from the various fee accounts, most of which ($1,730 million) would be
coming from the Examinations Fee Account. According to the USCIS Congressional
Justification documents, funds from the Examinations Fee Account alone comprise
93% of the total USCIS FY2006 budget request. The FY2006 Budget also includes
$13 million from the H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account90 and $31 million from
the H-1B and L Fraud Prevention and Detection Account.91 The Administration
proposes to use the $31 million generated from the new fee on H-1B and L petitions
to expand its Fraud Detection and National Security Office.92
In terms of direct appropriations, the Administration is requesting $80 million
— a decrease of $80 from FY2005 (Table 8) and a decrease of $155 million from the
$235 million Congress appropriated in FY2004.
Issues for Congress. Many in Congress have expressed concern and
frustration about the processing delays and pending caseload. Congress has already
enacted statutory requirements for backlog elimination and has earmarked funding
backlog elimination for the past several years.93 The number of pending immigration
and naturalization petitions has decreased by 21.5% from 6.0 million at the close of
FY2003 to 4.7 million at the close of FY2004. Nonetheless, this figure remains
25.7% greater than the 3.7 million pending cases at the close of FY2000. USCIS
hopes to achieve the six-month petition processing time by FY2006.
Another matter that may arise in the appropriations debate is the coordination
and duplication of efforts between USCIS and ICE in the area of fraud and national
security investigations. GAO has reported: “The difficulty between CIS and ICE
investigations regarding benefit fraud is not new ... as a result, some CIS field
officials told us that ICE would not pursue single cases of benefit fraud. ICE field
officials who spoke on this issue cited a lack of investigative resources as to why they
could not respond in the manner CIS wanted.”94 USCIS has established the Office
88 §426(b) of P.L. 108-447.
89 §286(s) of INA; 8 U.S.C. §1356(s).
90 §286(s) of INA; 8 U.S.C. §1356(s).
91 §286(v) of INA; 8 U.S.C. §1356(v).
92 USCIS added a Fraud Detection and National Security Office to handle duties formerly
done by the INS’s enforcement arm, which is now part of DHS’s ICE Bureau.
93 For example, see §§451-461 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296).
94 GAO, Management Challenges Remain in Transforming Immigration Programs,
(continued...)
CRS-43
of Fraud Detection and National Security to work with the appropriate law
enforcement entities to handle national security and criminal “hits” on aliens and to
identify systemic fraud in the application process.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)95
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center provides training on all phases
of law enforcement instruction, from firearms and high speed vehicle pursuit to legal
case instruction and defendant interview techniques, for 81 Federal entities with law
enforcement responsibilities, State and Local law enforcement agencies, and
international law enforcement agencies. Training policies, programs, and standards
are developed by an interagency Board of Directors, and focus on providing training
that develops the skills and knowledge needed to perform law enforcement functions
safely, effectively, and professionally. FLETC maintains four training sites
throughout the United States and has a workforce of over 900 employees. In
FY2004, FLETC trained almost 44,781 law enforcement students. The FY2006
request for FLETC is $224 million, an increase of $2 million from the FY2005
enacted appropriation.
FLETC’s FY2006 request includes only one program change, an increase of
$2.7 million for Simulation Training Technology. This technology will be used to
simulate weather, light, urban, and traffic conditions during high-speed pursuits,
allowing the agency to increase their students’ proficiency at making rapid decisions
during critical law enforcement situations.
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP)96
The mission of the DHS IAIP is to:
! analyze and integrate terrorist threat information;
! map threats against physical and cyber vulnerabilities of the Nation’s
critical infrastructure and key assets; and
! implement actions that protect the lives of the American people,
ensuring the delivery of essential services, and protecting the
infrastructures owned and operated by U.S. industries.
President’s Request. The IAIP appropriation is divided into two primary
accounts: Management and Administration, and Assessments and Evaluations.
Management and Administration includes budgets for the Office of the Under
Secretary and Other Salaries and Expenses. The latter (Other Salaries and Expenses)
94 (...continued)
GAO-05-81, Oct. 2004, available at [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0581.pdf].
95 Prepared by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
96 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources,
Science and Industry Division; and Todd Masse, Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and
Counterterrorism, Domestic Social Policy Division.
CRS-44
includes all the personnel costs of the Directorate. The Assessment and Evaluations
budget supports the Directorate’s activities. These activities have been divided into
12 programs. Each program contains one or more projects. Projects are defined with
varying degrees of specificity. The Directorate’s budget justification document
breaks funding down to the program level. It is beyond the scope of this report to
discuss in much detail the specific activities associated with each of these programs.
The President’s FY2006 IAIP request is for $873 million, a decrease of 2.3%.
Within A&E, funds are allocated to the 12 programs, as illustrated in Table 9 below.
Table 9 summarize the President’s request for FY2006 for these accounts and
programs.
Management and Administration. The President’s FY2006 request for the
M&A account is $204 million, an increase of $72 million, or 55%. However, certain
adjustments97 to the enacted amount for FY2005, including the 2006 pay increase,
other technical adjustments, and management and technical efficiencies, bring the
requested FY2006 base to $135 million, a slight increase over the $132 million
enacted in FY2005. The $72 million increase requested for the Management and
Administration account includes $11.7 million to increase staffing (146 new
positions),98 $38 million to upgrade and expand facilities and equipment for the
Directorate (including security upgrades), and $19.4 million to construct a Homeland
Secure Data Network, to accommodate the automated access and sharing of
classified information within the Directorate. Other technical adjustments to the
baseline account for the balance. Program changes to the M&A account in FY2006
total $69 million, which will be allocated to “... support 1,400 personnel (contractors
and full-time-equivalent). This funding will cover the establishment of facilities
capable of meeting both the classified and unclassified space and technology
requirements”99 associated with IAIP’s mission.
Assessments and Evaluations. The President’s request for FY2006 in the
A&E account is $669 million, a decrease of $92.4 million, or 12% from FY2005.
The reduction is the net result of a number of programmatic increases, decreases, and
transfers. The IAIP Directorate proposes transferring two activities to other DHS
components. One proposal is to transfer support going to state and local officials to
help create Buffer Zone Protection Plans around critical assets to the SLGCP, as part
of the latter’s new $600 million initiative (TIPP). The other proposal is to transfer
support for the National Control Systems Test Center (a test bed for analyzing and
fixing vulnerabilities in computer control systems) to the S&T. The Cyber Security
97 Adjustments to base are changes made to the prior year’s enacted appropriation and
generally include transfers of funds from one program to another, or technical adjustments
for salaries and other management efficiencies.
98 The majority of these positions (100) would go toward the Infrastructure Vulnerability
and Risk Assessment program involved in studying the tactics and capabilities of terrorist
groups and liaising with the Intelligence Community. Another 26 people would be hired for
the Threats Determination and Assessment program to do more strategic level threat
assessments.
99 See Department of Homeland Security, IAIP — Fiscal Year 2006 Congressional
Justification, p. IAIP 56-57.
CRS-45
program has been supporting the Center; the proposal would transfer support to the
S&T.
These adjustments to the enacted FY2005 A&E account bring the FY2006 base
to $624 million. Requested program enhancements for the A&E account total $49
million. Of the $49 million, the A&E program with the largest increase ($26 million,
or 53%) is the Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC). Major programmatic
increases within HSOC include $13.4 million for hardware, software, and support for
extending the Homeland Security Information Network100 to localities and relevant
private sector entities; and $12.9 million to purchase, upgrade, and support additional
information and communications hardware and software to improve the HSOC
capabilities to acquire, manipulate, store and disseminate greater amounts of
information. Other programmatic increases in the A&E account include $5 million
to support expanded capabilities and operations of the United States Computer
Emergency Response Team within the Cyber Security program; $5.5 million to
primarily provide for additional contractor support of the Protected Critical
Infrastructure Information project (within the Critical Infrastructure Outreach and
Partnerships program);101 $3.0 million within the Critical Infrastructure Outreach and
Partnerships program to support implementation and oversight of the National IP
Plan; and $5.5 million to hire contractors to better define policy, procedures and
processes governing information sharing between DHS and its partners, to draft
technical and operational needs statements, and to analyze new requirements.
The IAIP budget justification provides less detail about the programmatic
decreases in FY2006, totaling approximately $146 million (including the transfer of
the National Control Systems Test Center). The Critical Infrastructure Outreach and
Partnerships program decrease includes a $35 million reduction associated with no
longer hosting some Departmental applications as directed by the Department’s CIO.
Some of the increases and decreases within specific programs are the result of the
transfer of projects between programs. For example, some Threat Determination and
Assessment activities were transferred to the Infrastructure Vulnerability and Risk
Assessment program. The budget request also estimates approximately $3.0 million
in savings due to management and technology efficiencies. The A&E program with
the highest ($100 million) adjustment to base is the Protective Actions program.
This program assists federal, state, local, tribal, and private sector organizations in
identifying vulnerabilities, and devising protection strategies and local protective
programs to surround select infrastructure assets. Of the $100 million adjustment,
the Buffer Zone Protection Plans were reduced by $53 million in order to establish
the new TIPP, administered by SLGCP. Another $42 million of the $100 million
100 DHS and the IA/IP view the Homeland Security Information Network as the primary
portal for communicating with states, localities, and the private sector. Connectivity via the
Network has been established with all 50 states and many law enforcement entities. The
FY2006 increase is to extend connectivity to 1800 other sites.
101 The Protected Critical Infrastructure Information program implements Title II, Subtitle
B of the Homeland Security Act, which, among other protections, exempted information
voluntarily provided to DHS, and certified as critical infrastructure information by DHS,
from the Freedom of Information Act.
CRS-46
adjustment was a decrease for Emerging Pilot Projects and Technology Application
Pilots. This effort will now be funded within the DHS S&T.
Table 9: IAIP Account Level Funding
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Account (program)
enacted
request
House
Senate
Conf.
Management and administration
132.0
204.0
Office of the under secretary
5.8
6.9
Other salaries and expenses
126.2
197.1
Assessments and evaluations
761.7
669.2
Critical infrastructure
identification and evaluation
77.9
72.2
National infrastructure
simulation and analysis center
20.0
16.0
Biosurveillance
11.0
11.1
Protective actions
191.6
91.4
Critical infrastructure
outreach and partnerships
106.6
67.2
Cyber security
67.4
73.3
National security/emergency
preparedness telecommunications
140.8
142.6
Threat determination and
assessment
21.9
19.9
Infrastructure vulnerability
and risk assessment
71.1
74.3
Competitive analysis and
evaluation
4.0
—
Evaluations and studies
14.4
34.5
Homeland Security
Operations Center
35.0
61.1
Information sharing and
collaboration
5.5
Total IAIP
893.7
873.2
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President’s Budget, and DHS, Budget in Brief, House
Appropriation Committee tables of Mar. 15, 2005.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
CRS-47
Issues for Congress. The IAIP budget request raises several issues. For
example, the increase for the Protected Critical Infrastructure Information program
is justified in part based on the anticipation of additional information flowing into
DHS. It is not clear to what extent this program is being utilized by critical
infrastructure owners and operators. While exempting such information from FOIA
addressed one of the primary concerns of the private sector to sharing information,
there is still concern about how this information will be handled and used.
Another issue is the National IP Plan. The budget requests an additional $3
million to help complete and implement the Plan. According to HSPD-7, the Plan
was supposed to have been released in December 2004. The Plan has not yet been
released, and media reports suggest some disagreement between some private sector
owners and operators and DHS on the draft Plan.
Finally, the Evaluation and Studies program is requesting an increase of $20
million. However it is not discussed as one of the programmatic increases in the
budget justification document, which implies that it does not represent a change in
the baseline level of effort. The increase is noted in the budget justification as an
increase in the cost associated with outside consultants and detailees on loan from
other agencies aiding in both strategic and tactical threat assessments. This
apparently is in addition to the additional personnel being requested for similar
activities noted above.
Science and Technology102
The requested FY2006 budget for the Directorate of S&T is $1,368 million, an
increase of 23% compared to the FY2005 enacted level of $1,115 million. (For
details see Table 10.) For the first time, all R&D funding for the department is
included in this request. Reflecting direction originally given in the FY2004
appropriations conference report (H.Rept. 108-280), R&D programs currently in the
TSA and Coast Guard, together with some other smaller programs, would be
consolidated in the S&T Directorate in FY2006. Consolidating the Coast Guard
R&D program was also proposed last year in the FY2005 budget request, but the
change was controversial, and Congress did not approve it. This is the first budget
to propose consolidation for the TSA R&D program, because the Homeland Security
Act, which established DHS, required that TSA be maintained as a single distinct
entity until November 2004 (P.L.107-296, §424). Compared with the enacted
FY2005 funding for the S&T Directorate alone, the FY2006 request is a 23%
increase. However, if one includes the enacted FY2005 funding for the consolidated
programs formerly funded elsewhere, the requested increase in DHS-wide R&D
funding is reduced to 4%.
Although the proposed total R&D budget for DHS would change by less than
in any previous year since the department’s creation, there are some substantial shifts
in funding for individual programs. The newly created Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office would receive $227 million. Combined with the existing radiological and
102 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Analyst in Science & Technology, Resources, Science, and
Industry Divison.
CRS-48
nuclear countermeasures program, this would mean a doubling of DHS R&D funding
in the radiological/nuclear area. Chemical countermeasures, support for other
department components, and efforts to counter the threat from MANPADs (portable
ground-to-air missiles) would also all roughly double. Meanwhile, funding for rapid
prototyping (to accelerate the adaptation or development of technologies that can be
deployed in the near term) would drop from $76 million to $21 million, and the R&D
activities currently conducted by the TSA (which appear as part of R&D
Consolidation in the FY2006 request) would drop from $178 million to $109 million.
The FY2006 budget justification for the S&T Directorate also presents program-
level data on the directorate’s actual FY2004 expenditures, as compared with the
program allocations specified in the FY2004 appropriations conference report. These
data show substantial reprogramming. For example, actual expenditures on
biological countermeasures in FY2004 were $455 million, versus the enacted level
of $197 million. Actual funding for construction of the National Biodefense Analysis
and Countermeasure Center was $4 million, versus $88 million enacted. University
centers and efforts to counter MANPADs, two items that were of particular
congressional interest and received more FY2004 funding than had been requested,
had actual expenditures of $22 million and $17 million respectively, versus $69
million and $60 million enacted. As Congress considers appropriations for FY2006,
these FY2004 data may raise questions about how the S&T Directorate establishes
priorities among its programs and how it handles changes in those priorities after
funding decisions have been made.
CRS-49
Table 10. Science and Technology Directorate Accounts and
Activities, FY2004-FY2006
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Account/Activity
enacted
request
House
Senate
Conf.
Science and Technology Directorate
— salaries and expenses
68.6
81.4
— R&D, acquisition, and operations
1,046.8
1,287.0
— biological countermeasures
362.6
362.3
— national biodefense analysis and
countermeasures center
35.0
—
— chemical countermeasures
53.0
102.0
— explosives countermeasures
19.7
14.7
— radiological/nuclear
countermeasures
122.6
19.1
— domestic nuclear detection office
—
227.3
— threat and vulnerability testing and
assessment
65.8
47.0
— critical infrastructure protection
27.0
20.8
— cyber security
18.0
16.7
— standards
39.7
35.5
— support of DHS components
54.6
93.6
— university and fellowship
programs
70.0
63.6
— emerging threats
10.8
10.5
— rapid prototyping
76.0
20.9
— counter MANPADs
61.0
110.0
— SAFETY Act
10.0
5.6
— office of interoperability and
compatibility
21.0
20.5
— R&D consolidation
—
116.9
— unobligated balance
—
—
Science and Technology Directorate
1,115.4
1,368.4
TSA R&D a
178.0
—
U.S. Coast Guard RDT&E a
18.5
—
CBP R&D a
1.4
—
DHS TOTAL R&D
1,313.3
1,368.4
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President’s Budget, and DHS, Budget in Brief, House
Appropriation Committee tables of Mar. 15, 2005.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. The TSA, Coast Guard, and CBP R&D amounts are included for FY2004 and FY2005 to provide
a total comparable with the FY2006 request for S&T which consolidates all R&D funding for
the Department.
CRS-50
Related Legislation
FY2006 Budget Resolution, S.Con.Res. 18/H.Con.Res 95
The annual concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth the congressional
budget. The Senate budget resolution, S.Con.Res. 18 was introduced on March 11,
2005, and passed the Senate on March 17, 2005. S.Con.Res. 18 provides $848.8
billion in discretionary spending. The House budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 95, was
introduced on March 11, 2005, and passed the House on March 17, 2005.
H.Con.Res. 95 proposes $843 billion in discretionary budget authority. Conference
action is expected some time in April.
FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and
Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities103
On February 14, 2005, the President submitted an $81.9 billion request for
supplemental FY2005 funding for military operations, international affairs,
intelligence, and homeland security activities. The request includes an additional
$161 million for the Coast Guard to offset the costs of operations in Iraq. The
request for Coast Guard includes $111 million for operations in support of Operation
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, including port security and law
enforcement capabilities; strategic waterside security teams; and funding of active
duty and mobilized reserve personnel. The request further includes $49 million for
the retrofit, renovation and subsystem replacement of Coast Guard 110-foot patrol
boats. The supplemental request also includes $110 million for the Department of
Energy’s Megaports Initiative. This initiative provides for the deployment of
radiation detection technology and law enforcement personnel to foreign ports (in
this case the funding would be for four specific ports) to detect, deter, and interdict
nuclear and other radioactive material. Though this request is for the DOE, the
Megaports Initiative supports CBP’s CSI program.
H.R. 1268 was introduced on March 11, 2005, and passed the House March 16,
2005. The supplemental (H.R. 1268) is expected to go to the floor of the Senate the
week of April 11, 2005.
103 For more information see CRS Report RL32783 FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations
for Iraq and Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities, by Amy Belasco and Larry
Nowels.
CRS-51
Appendix I — DHS Appropriations in Context
DHS Appropriations and Federal Homeland Security
Spending
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there has been an increasing
interest in the levels of funding available for homeland security efforts. The Office
of Management and Budget, as originally directed by the FY1998 National Defense
Authorization Act, has published an annual report to Congress on combating
terrorism. Beginning with the June 24, 2002 edition of this report, homeland security
was included as a part of the analysis. In subsequent years, this homeland security
funding analysis has become more refined, as distinctions (and account lines)
between homeland and non-homeland security activities have become more precise.
This means that while Table 11 is presented in such a way as to allow year to year
comparisons, they may in fact not be strictly comparable due to the increasing
specificity of the analysis, as outlined above.
With regard to DHS funding, it is important to note that DHS funding does not
comprise all federal spending on homeland security efforts. In fact, while the largest
component of federal spending on homeland security is contained within DHS, the
DHS homeland security request for FY2006 accounts for approximately 54% of total
federal funding for homeland security. The Department of Defense comprises the
next highest proportion at 19% of all federal spending on homeland security. The
Department of Health and Human Services at 8.8%, the Department of Justice at
6.2% and the Department of Energy at 3.3% round out the top five agencies in
spending on homeland security. These five agencies collectively account for nearly
95% of all federal spending on homeland security. It is also important to note that
not all DHS funding is classified as pertaining to homeland security activities. The
legacy agencies that became a part of DHS also conduct activities that are not
homeland security related. Therefore, while the FY2006 requests a total homeland
security budget authority of $27.3 billion for DHS, the requested gross budget
authority is reported as $41.1 billion. The same is true of the other agencies listed
in the table.
CRS-52
Table 11. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency,
FY2002-FY2006
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY06
FY06
as % of
Department
FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 est.
total
Department of Homeland
Security (DHS)
17,380
23,063
22,923
24,887
27,333
54.1%
Department of Defense
(DOD)
5,159
8,442
7,024
8,570
9,514
19.0%
Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS)
1,913
4,144
4,062
4,231
4,407
8.8%
Department of Justice
(DOJ)
2,143
2,349
2,180
2,678
3,104
6.2%
Department of Energy
(DOE)
1,220
1,408
1,364
1,562
1,666
3.3%
Department of State (DOS)
477
634
696
824
938
1.9%
Department of Agriculture
(AG)
553
410
411
600
704
1.4%
Department of
Transportation (DOT)
1,419
383
284
182
192
0.4%
National Science
Foundation (NSF)
260
285
340
342
344
0.7%
Other Agencies
2,357
1,329
1,550
2,129
1,741
3.5%
Total Federal Budget
Authority
32,881
42,447
40,834
46,005
49,943
100%
Source: CRS analysis of data contained in “Section 3. Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” and
Appendix K of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2006 President’s Budget (for FY2004-
FY2006); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of Analytical Perspectives volume of
the FY2005 President’s Budget (for FY2003); and Office of Management and Budget, 2003 Report
to Congress on Combating Terrorism, Sept. 2003, p. 10.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. FY totals shown in this table include enacted
supplemental funding. Year to year comparisons using particularly FY2002 may not be directly
comparable, because as time has gone on agencies have been able to distinguish homeland security
and non-homeland security activities with greater specificity.
CRS-53
Appendix II — Disaster Relief Fund
Table 12. Disaster Relief Fund, FY1974-FY2005
(millions of dollars, 2002 constant dollars)
Appropriations (available funds)
Total appropriations
Outlays
FY
aReq.
Orig.
Supp. Nominal
Constant Nominal
Constant
1974
100
200
233
433
1,412
250
816
1975
100
150
50
200
591
206
609
1976
187
187
0
187
517
362
999
1977
100
100
200
300
770
294
754
1978
150
115
300
415
997
461
1,108
1979
200
200
194
394
876
277
616
1980
194
194
870
1,064
2,175
574
1,173
1981
375
358
0
358
668
401
746
1982
400
302
0
302
526
115
201
1983
325
130
0
130
217
202
337
1984
0
0
0
0
0
243
391
1985
100
100
0
100
156
192
299
1986
194
100
250
350
533
335
511
1987
100
120
b0
120
178
219
325
1988
125
120
0
c120
173
187
269
1989
200
100
d1,108
1,208
1,674
140
194
1990
270
98
e1,150
1,248
1,668
1,333
1,781
1991
270
0
0
0
0
552
711
1992
f184
185
4,136
g4,321
5,429
902
1,134
1993
292
292
2,000
h2,292
2,816
2,276
2,796
1994
i1,154
226
j4,709
4,935
5,935
3,743
4,502
1995
320
320
k3,275
3,595
4,235
2,116
2,492
1996
320
222
k3,275
k3,497
4,042
2,233
2,581
1997
320
l1,320
l3,300
4,620
5,248
2,551
2,898
1998
m2,708
320
n1,600
1,920
2,155
1,998
2,242
1999
o2,566
p1,214
q1,130
2,344
2,597
3,746
4,149
2000
2,780
r2,780
0
2,780
3,019
2,628
2,853
s, t
2001
2,909
300
t5,890
6,249
3,217
3,413
2002
u1,369
664
v7,008
v12,160
12,677
3,947
4,114
2003
1,843
800
w1,426
w2,199
2,255
8,541
8,761
2004
1,956
1,800
x2,275
x2,042
y2,068
y3,044
y3,082
2005
2,151
2,042
x8,500
10,542
z10,542
y3,363
y3,363
Total
24,240
16,360
48,988
72,099
84,455
50,648
60,224
Sources: U.S. President annual budget documents; appropriations legislation; U.S. FEMA budget
justifications. Constant dollar amounts based on CRS calculations based on GDP (chained) price
CRS-54
index in U.S. President (Bush), Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2005 (Washington, 2004), pp. 184-185.
a. Data in the request column generally represent the first budget request submitted by the
Administration each year and do not include amended or supplemental requests. Note, however,
additional detail in this column.
b. In Feb. 1987, a total of $57.5 million was rescinded and transferred from the DRF to the
Emergency Food and Shelter Program account (P.L. 100-6). That amount was returned to the
fund the same year in supplemental appropriations legislation enacted in July 1987 (P.L. 100-
71).
c. P.L. 100-202, the Continuing Appropriations Act for FY1988, appropriated $120 million for
disaster relief. According to FEMA, the original appropriation for that fiscal year was $125
million, but $5 million was transferred to the Department of Labor for “low income agriculture
workers.”
d. Supplemental funds were included in P.L. 101-100, continuing appropriations legislation enacted
after Hurricane Hugo struck in Sept. 1989. According to FEMA, this amount was “referred to
as a supplemental but was an increase in the original appropriation during a continuing
resolution.”
e. P.L. 101-130, enacted after the Loma Prieta earthquake, appropriated $1.1 billion in supplemental
funding for FY1990. In addition, $50 million was appropriated in P.L. 101-302, dire emergency
supplemental appropriations legislation. Table 12 does not reflect a $2.5 million transfer from
the President’s unanticipated needs fund.
f. FY1992 request does not include the budget amendment of $90 million submitted by the
Administration.
g. Appropriations for FY1992 included a $943 million dire emergency supplemental in P.L. 102-229,
enacted in fall 1991 after Hurricane Bob; $300 million after the Los Angeles riots and flooding
in Chicago (spring 1992) in P.L. 102-302; and $2.893 billion in P.L. 102-368 after Hurricanes
Andrew and Iniki, Typhoon Omar, and other disasters.
h. Total for FY1993 includes the $2 billion supplemental approved after the Midwest floods in 1993
(P.L. 103-75).
i. The original FY1994 budget request was $292 million. On July 29, 1993, a supplemental request
of $862 million was sent by President Clinton to Congress.
j. Supplemental appropriations for FY1994 enacted after the Northridge earthquake struck Los
Angeles (P.L. 103-211).
k. Additional supplemental appropriation approved for Northridge earthquake costs (P.L. 104-19) for
FY1995, with the same amount ($3.275 billion) reserved for a contingency fund for FY1996.
However, $1 billion of the contingency fund was rescinded in FY1996 omnibus appropriations,
P.L. 104-134. In the same legislation, another $7 million was also appropriated to other FEMA
accounts for costs associated with the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in
Oklahoma City.
l. The FY1998 budget appendix (p. 1047) noted a transfer of $104 million from the disaster relief
fund in FY1996. In the FY1997 appropriations act (P.L. 104-204), $1 billion that had been
rescinded in FY1996 (P.L. 104-134) was restored, and $320 million in new funds were
appropriated. Supplemental appropriations of $3.3 billion were approved in P.L. 105-18 after
flooding in the Dakotas and Minnesota, and after storms in other states were declared major
disasters. The legislation specified, however, that of the total, $2.3 billion was to be available
in FY1998 only when FEMA submitted a cost control report to Congress. This requirement was
met, and the funding was made available in FY1998.
m. The FY1998 request consisted of a $320 million base amount plus $2.388 billion “to address
actual and projected requirements from 1997 and prior year declarations.” (Budget Appendix
FY1998, p. 1047). Does not include $50 million requested for the DRF for mitigation activities.
n. Supplemental appropriations legislation (P.L. 105-174) for FY1998 approved for flooding
associated with El Niño and other disasters.
o. The FY1999 request consisted of $307.8 million for the DRF and an additional $2.258 billion in
contingency funding to be available when designated as an emergency requirement under the
Balanced Budget Act of 1985, as amended.
p. The FY1999 omnibus appropriations act (P.L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-579) included $906 million
for costs associated with Hurricane Georges, flooding associated with El Niño, and other
disasters.
CRS-55
q. Emergency supplemental appropriations for FY1999 (P.L. 106-31) included $900 million for
tornado damages as well as $230 million for unmet needs, subject to allocation directions in the
conference report (H.Rept. 106-143).
r. FY2000 appropriations act (P.L. 106-74, 113 Stat. 1085) included disaster relief funding as
follows: $300 million in regular appropriations and $2.480 billion designated as emergency
spending for costs associated with Hurricane Floyd and other disasters. In addition, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-113) authorized the Director of FEMA to use up to
$215 million in disaster relief funds appropriated in P.L. 106-74 for the purchase of residences
flooded by Hurricane Floyd, under specified conditions.
s. Supplemental appropriations legislation (P.L. 106-246) authorized that $77 million from the DRF
to be used for buyout and relocation assistance for victims of Hurricane Floyd. The act also
appropriated $500 million in a separate account for claim compensation and administrative costs
associated with the Cerro Grande fire that destroyed much of Los Alamos, New Mexico.
t. P.L. 107-38 appropriated $40 billion in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Pursuant
to the statute, these funds for FY2001 were allocated by the Office of Management Budget from
the Emergency Response Fund (ERF). Of the total appropriated in P.L. 107-38 after the Sept.
11 attacks, $4.4 billion were allocated for FY2001 through P.L. 107-117 (115 Stat. 2338). The
total available for obligation for FY2001 ($5.9 billion) taken from FEMA Justification of
Estimates, FY2003, p. DR-2.
u. Request for FY2002 did not include funding for the Disaster Relief Contingency Fund.
v. Congress appropriated a total of $7.008 billion for FY2002 in P.L. 107-117 and 107-206 to meet
additional needs associated with the terrorist attacks. Total funds available ($12.16 billion)
include a transfer from TSA, $1 billion released from the Emergency Contingency Fund, and
other sources. See DHS, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Justification of
Estimates, FY2004, p. DR-2.
w. Includes $442 million in P.L. 108-69 and $938 million in P.L. 108-83 to meet needs associated
with tornadoes, winter storms, the recovery of wreckage of the Space Shuttle Columbia and
other disasters. Also, funds appropriated in these measures and in the FY2004 appropriations
act for DHS (P.L. 108-90) have been used for costs associated with Hurricane Isabel. Total of
$2.199 billion available taken from: DHS, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate,
Justification of Estimates, FY2005, p. FEMA-18.
x. P.L. 108-106 which primarily addressed reconstruction costs in Iraq and Afghanistan also
contained an appropriation of $500 million for needs arising from disasters in fall 2003,
including Hurricane Isabel and the California fires. Section 4002 of the act designates the funds
an emergency requirement pursuant to the budget resolution adopted by Congress (H.Con.Res.
95), but the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004 (Section 102(a), Division H, P.L.
108-199) rescinded $225 million of the $500 million appropriated in P.L. 108-106. Total of
$2.043 billion taken from: DHS, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate,
Justification of Estimates, FY2005, p. FEMA-18. P.L. 108-303, enacted after Hurricanes
Charley and Frances struck Florida, appropriated $2 billion to the DRF and gave discretion to
DHS to transfer $300 million to the Small Business Administration for disaster loans. P.L. 108-
324, Division B of the Military Construction Appropriations Act for FY2005, appropriated an
additional $6.5 billion to the DRF.
y. Outlay data and constant dollar calculations based on estimates.
z. Funds presented in current dollars