Order Code RL33428
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Homeland Security Department:
FY2007 Appropriations
May 10, 2006
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 report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related
CRS products.

Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Summary
This report describes the FY2007 appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). The Administration requested a net appropriation of
$32.0 billion in net budget authority for FY2007, of which $31.0 billion is
discretionary budget authority, and $1 billion is mandatory budget authority.
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, $1,074 million; (II) Security,
Enforcement and Investigations, $22,671 million; (III) Preparedness and Response,
$6,385 million; and (IV) Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and
Services, $1,965 million.
The requested net appropriation for major components of the department
includes the following: $6,574 million for Customs and Border Protection (CBP);
$3,928 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); $2,323 million for
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA); $8,181 million for the U.S. Coast
Guard; $1,265 million for the Secret Service; $3,420 million for the Preparedness
Directorate; $2,964 million for the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA); $182 million for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); and
$1,002 million for the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T).

This report will be updated as legislative action occurs.

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
Information Analysis
Todd M. Masse
7-2393
tmasse@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
FEMA
Keith Bea
7-8672
kbea@crs.loc.gov
Firefighter Assistance
Lennard G. Kruger
7-7070
lkruger@crs.loc.gov
State and Local Grants
Shawn Reese
7-0635
sreese@crs.loc.gov
Public Health Programs
Sarah Lister
7-7320
slister@crs.loc.gov
(NDMS), MMRS,
Infrastructure Protection
John D. Moteff
7-1435
jmoteff@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
Science and Technology,
Daniel Morgan
7-5849
dmorgan@crs.loc.gov
DNDO

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
President’s FY2007 Budget Submitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Note on Most Recent Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Offsetting Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Summary of DHS Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Analysis and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Personnel Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
President’s Budget Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
US-VISIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Increase in Border Patrol Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Border Technology Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Infrastructure Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Cargo and Container Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Radiation Detection Devices and Non-Intrusive Inspection
Technology (NII) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Secure Border Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
FY2007 Request for the TSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
TSA Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
United States Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
U.S. Secret Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Title III: Preparedness and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Preparedness Directorate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Office of Grants and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Chief Medical Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Disaster Relief Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
National Disaster Medical System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services . . . 51
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Science and Technology (S&T) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
FY2007 Related Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Budget Resolution — S.Con.Res. 83/H.Con.Res. 376 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Appendix I — FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions . . . . . . . 60
H.R. 4939 — Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense,
the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 . . . . . . . . . 60
P.L. 109-148 — Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico,
and Pandemic Influenza Act of 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Transfer of Funds to the Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Across-the-Board Rescission (ATB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Hurricane Katrina Reallocations and Rescissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Pandemic Influenza . . . 63
Additional Border Security Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Appendix II — DHS Appropriations in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Federal-Wide Homeland Security Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
List of Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 2. FY2007 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 3. FY2007 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to
Net Appropriation: Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust and
Public Enterprise Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 5. Title I: Department Management and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 6. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 7. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 8. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 9. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table 10. Title III: Preparedness and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 11. FY2007 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure Protection/
Information Security Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 12. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments,
and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Table 13. Research and Development Accounts and Activities,
FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Table 14. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2006 . . 65

Homeland Security Department: FY2007
Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
President’s FY2007 Budget Submitted. The President’s budget request
for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for FY2007 was submitted to
Congress on February 6, 2006. The Administration requested $42.7 billion in gross
budget authority for FY2007 (including mandatories, fees, and funds). The
Administration’s request includes gross appropriations of $39.8 billion, and a net
appropriation of $32.0 billion in budget authority for FY2007, of which $31.0 billion
is discretionary budget authority, and $1 billion is mandatory budget authority. The
FY2006 enacted net appropriated budget authority for DHS was $31.7 billion.
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security
Appropriations
Conference
Subcommittee
Report
Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate
Confr.
Public
Approval
Report Passage Report
Passage
Report
Law
House Senate
House
Senate
05/11
vv
Note: vv = voice vote
Note on Most Recent Data. Data used in this report include data from the
President’s Budget Documents, the FY2007 DHS Congressional Budget
Justifications
, the FY2007 DHS Budget in Brief, and data from House
Appropriations Committee tables of April 19, 2006. Data used in Table 14 are taken
from the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2007 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. Most dollar
amounts presented in this report are reported in millions of dollars. Where lesser
amounts are presented, these amounts will be shown in italics. For example:
$545,000.

CRS-2
Background
This report describes the President’s FY2007 request for funding for DHS
programs and activities, as submitted to Congress on February 6, 2006. This report
compares the enacted FY2006 amounts to the request for FY2007. This report will
also track legislative action and congressional issues related to the FY2007 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.
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.
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), Analysis and Operations (A&O), the Office of the Chief
Information Officer (CIO), and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Title II
contains appropriations for the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology (US-VISIT) program, Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service. Title III contains
appropriations for the Preparedness Directorate, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS), and the
state and local grants programs in the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP). Title
IV contains appropriations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS),
the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), and the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center (FLETC).
Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review. On July 13, 2005, the
Secretary of DHS, Michael Chertoff, announced the results of the months-long
Second Stage Review (2SR)1 that he undertook upon being confirmed as DHS
1 For more information, see CRS Report RL33042, Department of Homeland Security
Reorganization: The 2SR Initiative
, by Harold C. Relyea and Henry B. Hogue.

CRS-3
Secretary.2 The proposed changes affect many aspects of the department. The
Secretary has designed a six-point agenda based upon the results of the 2SR:
! increase overall preparedness, particularly for catastrophic events;
! create better transportation security systems to move people and
cargo more securely and efficiently;
! strengthen border security and interior enforcement and reform
immigration processes;
! enhance information sharing with our partners;
! improve DHS financial management, human resources development,
procurement, and information technology; and
! realign the DHS organization to maximize mission performance.
On July 22, 2005, the Administration also submitted a revised budget request
for DHS to reflect the organizational and policy changes recommended by the 2SR.3
The Administration submitted its requested amendments to the FY2006 budget
request for DHS after both the House and Senate had passed their versions of H.R.
2360. Therefore, any proposed changes were addressed during the conference on
H.R. 2360. The conferees noted that, for the most part, they have complied with the
Administration’s request to restructure DHS, and P.L. 109-90 adopted the following
changes:
! abolished the Office of the Undersecretary for Border and
Transportation Security, redistributing its functions to other
locations within DHS;
! split the Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection into two new operational components: Analysis and
Operations, and the Preparedness Directorate;
! moved all state and local grants within DHS to the Preparedness
Directorate;
! transferred the Federal Air Marshals program from ICE to TSA; and
! included and expanded the role of the Office of Policy.4
The DHS Congressional Budget Justifications for FY2007 reflect these changes as
well.
2 For text of the Secretary’s speech see DHS, Remarks by Secretary Michael Chertoff on the
Second Stage Review of the Department of Homeland Security
, July 13, 2005, Washington,
DC, at [http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/speech/speech_0255.xml]. For an overview
of the proposed changes see DHS, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff
Announces Six-Point Agenda for Department of Homeland Security
, July 13, 2005,
Washington, DC, at [http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/
press_release_0703.xml]. Proposed organizational chart can be found at
[http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/DHSOrgCharts0705.pdf].
3 See Communication from the President of the United States, Request for FY2006 Budget
Amendments
, 109th Congress, 1st sess., H.Doc. 190-50, July 22, 2005.
4 H.Rept. 109-241, p. 30.

CRS-4
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations
The maximum budget authority for annual appropriations (including DHS) is
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 annual concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth the congressional
budget. The Senate budget resolution, S.Con.Res. 83, was introduced on March 10,
2006, and passed the Senate on March 16, 2006. S.Con.Res. 83 would provide
$872.5 billion in discretionary budget authority for FY2007. H.Con.Res. 376 was
introduced and placed on the House calendar on March 31, 2006. H.Con.Res. 376
would provide $930 billion in discretionary budget authority for FY2007. In
addition, the House Committee report H.Rept. 109-402 states that H.Con.Res. 376
allows for the President’s request for an increase of 3.8% for homeland security
funding.
The House Appropriations Committee released its proposed 302(b) allocations
for FY2007 on May 4, 2006, which included $32.1 billion in discretionary budget
authority for DHS appropriations.
Table 2. FY2007 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2007
FY2006
FY2007 House
FY2007 Senate
Request
Enacted
Comparable
Allocation
Allocation
Comparable
Comparable
30.3
31.0
32.1
Source: House Appropriations Committee press release, May 4, 2006.
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays
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

CRS-5
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 Act5 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.6 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 Spending
Gross budget authority, or the total funds available for spending by a federal
agency, may be composed of discretionary and mandatory spending. Of the $42.7
billion gross budget authority requested for DHS in FY2007, 83% is composed of
discretionary spending and 17% is composed of mandatory spending.
Discretionary spending is not mandated by existing law and is thus appropriated
yearly by Congress through appropriations acts. The Budget Enforcement Act7 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
5 31 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517.
6 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].
7 P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.

CRS-6
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 Collections8
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 Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
personnel and is used to offset both the CBP and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (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, whereas 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.
Table 3 tabulates all of the offsets within the DHS budget as enacted for FY2006
and in the FY2007 request.
8 Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff, Jr., Analyst in American National Government.

CRS-7
Table 3. FY2007 Request: Moving From Gross Budget
Authority to Net Appropriation: Fee Accounts, Offsetting
Fees, and Trust and Public Enterprise Accounts
(budget authority in millions)
Account/Agency
Account Name
FY2006
FY2007
DHS gross budget authority
40,826
42,719
(gross discretionary + fees+ mandatory + funds)
Account level discretionary offset
ICE
Federal Protective Service
482
516
Aviation security fees
1,990a
3,650a
TWIC
100
20
TSA
Hazmat
50
19
Registered Traveler
20
35
FEMA/EPR
National flood insurance fund
124
129
CBP
Small airports
5
6
Subtotal account level discretionary offsets
-2,791
-4,460
Agency level discretionary offset
Immigration inspection
465
529
Immigration enforcement
6
2
Land border
30
28
CBP
COBRA
334
388
APHIS
204
214
Puerto Rico
98
98
ICE
Immigration inspection
100
108
SEVIS
67
54
Breached bond detention fund
87
90
TSA
Aviation security capital fund
250
250
Alien flight school background
10
2
checks
USCIS
Immigration examination fee
1,730
1,760
H1b, and H1b & L fees
44
44
Subtotal agency level discretionary offsets
-3,425
-3,567
Mandatory budget authority
Secret service
Secret service retired pay b
200
200
Coast guard
Coast guard retired pay c
(1,014)
(1,063)
Subtotal mandatory budget authority
-200
-200
Trust funds and public enterprise funds

CRS-8
Account/Agency
Account Name
FY2006
FY2007
CBP
Customs unclaimed goods
8
8
FEMA
National Flood Insurance Fundd
2,104
2,233
Boat safety
101
115
Coast Guard
Oil spill recovery
168
127
Miscellaneous revolving fund
(11)
(11)
Subtotal trust and public enterprise funds
-2,381
-2,483
DHS gross budget authority
40,826e
42,719
Total offsetting collections
-8,797
-10,710
DHS net appropriated BA (Mandatory + Discretionary)
31,743
32,015
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2007 President’s Budget, DHS Budget in Brief, and House
Appropriations Committee tables of April 19, 2006.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. There is a discrepancy reported in the amount of aviation security fees collected by TSA, for both
FY2006 and 2007. The enacted level aviation security fees for FY2006 was $1,990 million, and
this is the amount reported in the current committee tables. The Administration FY2007 budget
documents and the DHS Congressional Budget Justifications report the FY2006 amount as
$2,010 million. The Administration has requested an increase in aviation security fees for
FY2006, and the budget documents estimate the offsetting collections at $3,736 million. The
latest committee tables show $3,650 million for FY2007 (a difference of $86 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 FY2006 ($1,990) and
the committee table amount ($3,650) for FY2007.
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. This fund is comprised of both discretionary and mandatory appropriations; thus its component
parts appear twice in this table.
e. The President’s budget for FY2006 includes a $261 million charge within the Coast Guard for
Health Care Fund Contributions that is not replicated in the House Appropriation Committee
tables. For this reason, the FY2006 column does not add.
Appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security
Summary of DHS Appropriations
Table 4 is a summary table comparing the enacted appropriations for FY2006
and the requested amounts for FY2007. The President’s budget request for FY2007
was submitted to Congress February 6, 2006. The Administration requested $42.7
billion in gross budget authority for FY2007 (including mandatories, fees, and
funds). The Administration’s request includes gross appropriations of $39.8 billion,
and a net appropriation of $32.0 billion in budget authority for FY2007, of which
$31.0 billion is discretionary budget authority, and $1 billion is mandatory budget
authority. The FY2006 enacted net appropriated budget authority for DHS was $31.7
billion.

CRS-9
Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2006 Appropriation
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Operational Component
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Title I: Departmental Operations
Subtotal: Title I
907
47
-23
931
1,074
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
— Screening and Operations Office/ US-VISIT
340

-3
337
399
— Customs and Border Protection
5,952
34
-60
5,927
6,574
— Immigration and Customs Enforcement
3,175
13
-37
3,156
3,928
— Transportation Security Administration
3,925

-58
3,866
2,323
— U.S. Coast Guard
7,881
307
-340
7,885
8,181
— U.S. Secret Service
1,212
4
-12
1,204
1,265
Net subtotal: Title II
22,415
358
-510
22,265
22,671
— Total fee collections
4,302


4,298
6,009
Gross subtotal: Title II
26,717


26,563
28,680
Title III: Preparedness and Recovery
— Preparedness Directorate
4,072
10
-41
4,041
3,420
— Counter Terrorism Fund
2


2


CRS-10
FY2006 Appropriation
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Operational Component
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
— Federal Emergency Management Administration
2,635
17
-26
2,624
2,964
Net subtotal: Title III
6,709
27
-67
6,667
6,385
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
— Citizenship and Immigration Services
115

-1
114
182
— Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
282

-2
280
246
— Science and Technology
1,502

-15
1,487
1,002
— Domestic Nuclear Detection Office




536
Net subtotal: Title IV
1,899

-18
1,880
1,965
— Total fee collections
1,774


1,774
1,804
Gross subtotal: Title IV
3,673


3,655
3,770
Department of Homeland Security Appropriation
Gross DHS budget authority
38,006
432
-618
37,816
39,829
— Total fee collections
-6,076


-6,072
-7,813
Net DHS budget authority
31,930


31,743
32,015
Source: FY2006 enacted numbers from CRS analysis of the Conference Report to H.R. 2360, H. Rept.109-241; FY2006 supplemental numbers from CRS analysis of P.L. 109-61,
P.L. 109-62, P.L. 109-88, and P.L. 109-148; FY2006 rescission numbers from CRS analysis of P.L. 109-148 and the FY2007 DHS Justifications. FY2007 request numbers from the
FY2007 DHS Justifications.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds. For a more detailed analysis of the supplemental appropriations, refer to Appendix I.

CRS-11
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations9
Title I covers the general administrative expenses of DHS. It includes the Office
of the Secretary and Executive Management (OS&EM), which is comprised of the
immediate Office of the Secretary and 11 entities that report directly to the Secretary;
the Office of Screening Coordination and Operations (OSCO); the Undersecretary
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 the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO); the Office of the Chief
Information Officer (CIO); Analysis and Operations Office (AOO); and the Office
of the Inspector General (OIG).
President’s FY2007 Request. FY2007 requests relative to comparable
FY2006 enacted appropriations are as follows: OS&EM, $98 million, a decrease of
$28 million (-22%); OSCO, $4 million, the same as previously provided; USM, $209
million, an increase of $40 million (24%); OCFO, $44 million, an increase of $25
million (+132%); OCIO, $324 million, an increase of $27 million (+9%); and OIG,
$96 million, an increase of $13 million (+16%). Table 5 shows appropriations for
FY2006 and congressional action on the requests for FY2007. The total FY2007
request for Title I is $1,074 million. This represents an increase of $167 million
(18%) over the FY2006 enacted level (not including supplemental appropriations).
9 Prepared by Harold C. Relyea, Specialist in American National Government, Government
and Finance Division.

CRS-12
Table 5. Title I: Department Management and Operations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2006 Appropriation
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Operational Component
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
79
47

126
98
Office of Screening Coordination and Operations
4


4
4
Office of the Undersecretary for Management
169

-2
167
209
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
19


19
44
Office of the Chief Information Officer
297

-3
294
324
Analysis and Operations
255

-2
253
299
Office of the Inspector General
83

-1
82
96
Net Budget Authority: Title I
907
47
-23a
931
1,074
Source: FY2006 enacted numbers from CRS analysis of the Conference Report to H.R. 2360, H. Rept.109-241; FY2006 supplemental numbers from CRS analysis of P.L. 109-61,
P.L. 109-62, P.L. 109-88, and P.L. 109-148; FY2006 rescission numbers from CRS analysis of P.L. 109-148 and the FY2007 DHS Justifications. FY2007 request numbers from the
FY2007 DHS Justifications.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds. For a more detailed analysis of the supplemental appropriations, please refer to Appendix I.
a. This total includes a $15 million rescission from the Working Capital Fund which was included in Title V of H.Rept. 109-241.

CRS-13
Analysis and Operations10
Background. The DHS Intelligence mission is outlined in Title II of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (codified at 6 U.S.C. 121). Organizationally, and
from a budget perspective, there have been a number of changes to the information,
intelligence analysis, and infrastructure protection functions at DHS. Pursuant to the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection (IAIP) Directorate was established. The act created an Undersecretary for
IAIP to whom two Assistant Secretaries, one each for Information Analysis (IA) and
Infrastructure Protection (IP), reported. The act outlined 19 functions for the IAIP
Directorate, to include the following, among others:
! To assess, receive, and analyze law enforcement information,
intelligence information, and other information from federal, state,
and local government agencies, and the private sector to (1) identify
and assess the nature and scope of the terrorist threats to the
homeland, (2) detect and identify threats of terrorism against the
United States, and (3) understand such threats in light of actual and
potential vulnerabilities of the homeland;
! To develop a comprehensive national plan for securing the key
resources and critical infrastructure of the United States;
! To review, analyze, and make recommendations for improvements
in the policies and procedures governing the sharing of law
enforcement information, intelligence information, and intelligence-
related information within the federal government and between the
federal government and state and local government agencies and
authorities.11
Pursuant to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff’s Second Stage Review,12 and the
Conference Report to H.R. 2360, Department of Homeland Security Act FY2006,13
a number of organizational changes were announced. Some of these changes include
the following:
! The IAIP Directorate was disbanded. Intelligence Analysis was
organizationally separated from Infrastructure Protection.
! The Undersecretary of IAIP was dissolved and a new Undersecretary
for Preparedness was created.
10 Prepared by Todd Masse, Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counterterrorism,
Domestic Social Policy Division.
11 See Title II, Subtitle A, Section 201(d), Responsibilities of the Undersecretary (of IAIP),
codified at 6 U.SC. §121. See also Department of Homeland Security, Office of the
Inspector General, Survey of the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
Directorate
, Office of Inspections, Evaluations, and Special Reviews, OIG-04-413, February
2004, p. 26.
12 See “Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff Announces Six-Point Agenda for
Department of Homeland Security,” DHS Press Release, July 13, 2005.
13 See H.Rept. 109-241, in Congressional Record, Sept. 29, 2005, pp. H8585 - H8625.

CRS-14
! Two new offices were created — the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis, and the Office of Operations Coordination (which includes
the Homeland Security Operations Center [HSOC]).
! The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis
was designated the DHS Chief Intelligence Officer and reports
directly to the Secretary.
! A new budget account — Analysis and Operations (A&O) — was
created within Title I, Departmental Management and Operations.
The A&O account “supports the activities of the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis and the Directorate of Operations. Even though these two offices are
different and distinct in their missions, they work together to improve intelligence,
information sharing, and coordination.”14 There are two budget activities within this
account — the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, which leads the DHS Intelligence
Enterprise,15 and the Directorate of Operations, which “disseminates threat
information, provides domestic situational awareness, performs incident
management, and ensures operations coordination among DHS components with
specific threat responsibilities.”16
Budget Structure Changes. The budget for IAIP for FYs 2004 and 2005
was located within Title IV (Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and
Services) of the DHS Appropriations Bills.17 In FY2006, the budget for IA-related
functions moved to Title I (Department Management and Operations). A new A&O
account was established within Title I. According to the FY2006 Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-90), $256 million was appropriated
for “necessary expenses for information analysis, as authorized by Title II of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 ... to remain available until September 30, 2007.”
President’s FY2007 Request. The FY2007 request for Title I, A&O is $299
million and 475 full-time equivalent positions (FTEs). This represents an increase
of 18.1% over the FY2006 revised enacted amount of $253 million, and an increase
of 12 FTEs.18
Linkages to DHS Strategic Goals. Although the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis and the Office of Operations Coordination contribute to a broad array of
DHS strategic goals, their activities are primarily targeted at achieving success in
strategic goals one and two — awareness and prevention — respectively. According
to DHS, the goal of awareness is to “identify and understand threats, assess
14 See DHS FY 07 Congressional Justification, p. AO-3.
15 The Intelligence Enterprise is defined as “all those component organizations within the
Department that have activities producing raw information, intelligence-related information
and/or finished intelligence.” See DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan, Jan. 2006.
16 Ibid.
17 See CRS Report RL32302, Appropriations for FY2005: Department of Homeland
Security
, by Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nunez-Neto; and CRS Report RL32863, Homeland
Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations
, by Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nunez-Neto.
18 Adjustments to the FY06 base include 57 FTE and $16.6 million.

CRS-15
vulnerabilities, determine potential impacts and disseminate timely information out
to homeland security partners and the American public.”19 Two programs under this
goal include A&O and Intelligence. The performance goal for A&O is to “deter,
detect and prevent terrorist incidents by sharing domestic situational awareness
through national operational communications and intelligence analysis.”20 The
performance goal for intelligence is “100 percent distribution of sensitive threat
information relative to Department of Homeland Security/Transportation Security
Administration components, field elements, and stakeholders.”21
Budget Caveats. The FY2007 budget request for A&O represents an increase
of nearly $46 million and 12 FTE. However, it is important to note that dis-
aggregating intelligence analysis from operations is problematic because the budget
of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, an entity of the Intelligence Community,
is classified. The figures cited above are the combined figures for the Office of
Operations Coordination and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis.
Budget Implications. Some observers might argue that the requested A&O
budget is sufficient, given the current stage of development for intelligence and
operations within DHS. Others, however, might question whether the requested
budget can achieve the ambitious intelligence analysis goals, as outlined by Charles
Allen, DHS Chief Intelligence Officer (CIO). In recent testimony,22 CIO Allen has
outlined at least three priorities laden with resource implications, including the
following: (1) supporting the department’s leadership and direction of operational
components, (2) becoming fully involved in the Intelligence Community and
National Intelligence Program, and (3) strengthening intelligence support to state,
local, and private sector partners. These priorities and others might imply that in
order to implement the integration of intelligence at DHS, additional funds may be
necessary for department-wide information management systems and additional
analysts — to be stationed both at Intelligence Community partner agencies, as well
as at some of the 38 plus state, local, and regional intelligence fusion centers.23 The
information management challenge at DHS is significant, as the organization must
“know what it knows” in order to achieve the aforementioned priorities. An option
DHS may consider could be to have its disparate databases, and particularly those
used by the Department’s ten intelligence elements, integrated in order to develop a
systematic method for gathering and manipulating DHS intelligence. Although
integrated information management systems may not be a panacea, for an intelligence
19 See DHS FY 07 Congressional Justification, Budget Overview, p. 3.
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid.
22 Testimony of DHS Chief Intelligence Officer Charles Allen in U.S. Congress, 109th
Congress, 2nd sess., House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Intelligence,
Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment, Feb. 15, 2006. “The President’s
Proposed FY07 Budget for the Department of Homeland Security: The Office of
Intelligence and Analysis.”
23 DHS intelligence analysts are currently being stationed at these fusion centers. See Dibya
Sarkar, “DHS Adds Brainpower to Intelligence Centers,” in Federal Computer Week, Mar.
17, 2006.

CRS-16
organization they are considered by many to be essential. In the absence of such
systems, the coordination of intelligence can tend to rely on personal relationships
and ad hoc arrangements. DHS is currently assessing its information architecture
needs. From a human resource perspective, DHS is stationing liaison officers and
intelligence analysts at some of the 38 state and local fusion centers. When
combined with the detailing of current staff to Intelligence Community partners, such
as the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), such arrangements, though
beneficial, may undermine the development of a permanent cadre of homeland
security analysts at DHS headquarters.
Personnel Issues24
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 Human Capital (OHC) provides overall management and
administration of human capital in the DHS. It establishes policy and procedures and
provides oversight, guidance, and leadership for human resources (HR) functions
within the department. The Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) is responsible for
designing and implementing the new human resources management (HRM) system
in the DHS, referred to as MaxHR,25 including its human resources strategy and
technology components. The OHC reports to the Undersecretary for Management
and its appropriation is included in that of the Undersecretary. For FY2005, the OHC
received an appropriation of $43 million — $7 million for HR Operations and $36
million for MaxHR — and staffing of 49 FTEs. The OHC received funding of nearly
24 Personnel Issues section prepared by Barbara L. Schwemle, Analyst in American National
Government, Government and Finance Division.
25 On Feb. 1, 2005, the DHS and the Office of Personnel Management jointly published final
regulations in the Federal Register to implement MaxHR. (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.) The regulations provide new policies on position classification, pay,
performance management, adverse actions and appeals, and labor-management relations for
DHS employees. MaxHR will cover about 110,000 of the department’s 180,000 employees
and will be implemented in phases. (See CRS Report RL32261, DHS's Max-HR Personnel
System: Regulations on Classification, Pay, and Performance Management Compared With
Current Law, and Implementation Plans
, 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.) By Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on August 12, 2005, and by
Memorandum Opinion issued on October 7, 2005, District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer
blocked implementation of the labor-management relations regulations prescribed for Max-
HR. The decision also enjoined a provision of the regulations that limits the authority of the
Merit Systems Protection Board to modify a penalty imposed by DHS. The agency is
appealing the ruling. In September 2005, DHS announced that it was postponing the initial
implementation of pay for performance under Max-HR for one year. (See CRS Report
RL33052, Homeland Security and Labor-Management Relations: NTEU v. Chertoff, by
Thomas J. Nicola and Jon O. Shimabukuro.)

CRS-17
$38.511 million (down from $38.9 million, after a 1.0% rescission) and a staffing
level of 62 FTEs for FY2006. This total was allocated as $8.811 million (down from
$8.9 million, after a 1.0% rescission) for HR Operations26 and $29.7 million (down
from $30 million, after a 1.0% rescission) for the development and implementation
of MaxHR.27 Of the FTEs, 50 were attached to HR Operations and 12 were attached
to MaxHR.
President’s Budget Proposal.
The President’s FY2007 budget proposes
funding of $81 million and staffing of 80 FTEs for the OHC.28 The request represents
an increase of $43 million and 18 FTEs over the FY2006 appropriation and includes
money for HR Operations and MaxHR as discussed below.
HR Operations. An appropriation of $10 million is requested for HR
Operations, an increase of $1 million over the FY2006 funding. Attached to this
account are 53 FTEs, 3 more FTEs than in FY2006. More than 90% of the requested
money is for salaries and benefits ($7 million) and advisory and assistance services
($2 million).29 Among the activities that the DHS plans to emphasize during FY2006
are continued refinement of the department’s hiring processes, establishment of an
Executive Leadership and Learning Center, and use of a Chief Learning Officer to
conduct needs analyses and identify “best practices.” In FY2007, initiatives are
expected to include improving customer service, enhancing training to inculcate a
“team” spirit across the DHS, and expanding the use of program evaluation to begin
measuring the effects of changes.
MaxHR. The appropriation requested for the department’s new HRM system is
$71 million, nearly $42 million more than the amount provided in FY2006. The
FTEs attached to the account are 27, an increase of 15 FTEs over FY2006. Almost
94% of the requested money is for salaries and benefits ($3 million) and advisory and
26 The $8.811 million appropriation was allocated as follows: salaries and benefits ($6.563
million), travel ($30,000), GSA rent ($19,000), communication, utilities, and miscellaneous
charges ($110,000), printing ($15,000), advisory and assistance services ($1.633 million),
other services ($361,000), purchase from government accounts ($7,000), operation and
maintenance of facilities ($16,000), supplies and materials ($47,000), and equipment
($10,000).
27 The $29.7 million appropriation was allocated as follows: salaries and benefits
($954,000), travel ($6,000), transportation of things ($3,000), GSA rent ($778,000),
communication, utilities, and miscellaneous charges ($1.378 million), printing ($20,000),
advisory and assistance services ($25.037 million), other services ($112,000), purchase from
government accounts ($875,000), operation and maintenance of facilities ($16,000), supplies
and materials ($10,000), and equipment ($511,000).
28 FY2007 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary
for Management, Office of Human Capital and Office of Human Capital — MaxHR, pp.
USM-43 - USM-50.
29 Additional amounts requested for FY2007 are for: travel ($33,000), GSA rent ($74,000),
communication, utilities, and miscellaneous charges ($159,000), printing ($20,000), other
services ($376,000), purchase from government accounts ($159,000), operation and
maintenance of facilities ($20,000), supplies and materials ($75,000), and equipment
($25,000).

CRS-18
assistance services ($64 million).30 Accounting for the increased funding are (1)
implementation costs of the new pay system for employees who were originally
scheduled to be converted in FY2006 ($15 million), (2) implementation and
operational costs for a market and performance-based compensation system in
FY2007 ($22 million), and (3) funding the Homeland Security Labor Relations Board
(HSLRB) ($5 million).
The implementation of MaxHR will continue during FY2006 and include such
activities as design and review of a new market-based pay system, creation of a
compensation committee, and continued training of supervisors, managers, and HR
professionals. Non-bargaining unit employees from Headquarters, ICE, FLETC,
FEMA, USCG, and U.S. Secret Service will convert to the new performance system,
and CBP and CIS will begin training on that new system. The HSLRB, designed to
resolve labor-management disputes, may be established insofar as is legally
permissible. Employees converted to the new performance system in FY2006 will
convert to the new market-based pay system in FY2007, and those training on the
new performance system in FY2006 will be converted to it in FY2007.
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations
Title II funds Security, Enforcement, and Investigations. Title II contains the
appropriations for the U.S.-Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator (US-VISIT)
program, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), the US Coast Guard, and the US Secret Service. Table 6
shows the FY2006 enacted and FY2007 requested appropriation for Title II.
30 Additional amounts requested for FY2007 are for travel ($70,000), transportation of
things ($3,000), GSA rent ($756,000), communication, utilities, and miscellaneous charges
($1.723 million), printing ($100,000), other services ($130,000), purchase from government
accounts ($880,000), operation and maintenance of facilities ($20,000), supplies and
materials ($75,000), and equipment ($550,000).

CRS-19
Table 6. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2006 Appropriation
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Operational Component
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
US-VISITa
— US-VISIT
340

-3
337
399
Net total
340

-3
337
399
Customs & Border Protection
— Salaries and expenses
4,826
24
-48
4,802
5,519
— Automation modernization
456

-5
451
461
— Air and Marine Operations
400

-4
396
338
— Construction
270
10
-3
278
256
— Fee accountsb
1,142


1,210
1,265
Gross total
7,094
34
-60
7,069
7,839
— Offsetting collections
-1,142


-1,142
-1,265
Net total
5,952
34
-60
5,927
6,574
Immigration & Customs Enforcement
— Salaries and expenses
3,108
13
-31
3,090
3,902
— Federal Protective Services (FPS)
487

-5
482
516
— Automation & infrastructure modernization
40


40

— Construction
27

-1
26
26
— Fee accountsc
254


254
252

CRS-20
FY2006 Appropriation
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Operational Component
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Gross total
3,916
13
-37
3,892
4,696
— Offsetting FPS fees
-487


-482
-516
— Offsetting collections
-254


-254
-252
Net total
3,175
13
-37
3,156
3,928
Transportation Security Administrationa
— Aviation security (gross funding)
4,607

-46
4,561
4,655
— Surface Transportation Security
36


36
37
— Credentialing activities (appropriation)
75

-1
74
55
— Credentialing/Fee accountsd
180


180
76
— Intelligence
21


21
21
— Federal Air Marshalse
686

-7
679
699
— Administration
489

-4
485
506
— Aviation security mandatory spendingf
250


250
250
Gross total
6,344

-58
6,286
6,299
— Offsetting collectionsg
-1,990


-1,990
-3,650
— Credentialing/Fee accounts
-180


-180
-76
— Aviation security mandatory spending
-250


-250
-250
Net total
3,925

-58
3,866
2,323
U.S. Coast Guard
— Operating expenses
5,492
232h
-330
5,394
5,519
— Environmental compliance & restoration
12


12
12

CRS-21
FY2006 Appropriation
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Operational Component
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
— Reserve training
119

-1
118
124
— Acquisition, construction, & improvements
1,142
75
-12
1,204
1,170
— Alteration of bridges
15


15

— Research, development, tests, & evaluation
17


18
14
— Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement)
1,014


1,014
1,063
— Health care fund contribution




279
Gross total
7,811
307
-340
7,775
8,181
U.S. Secret Service
— Salaries and expenses; construction
1,212
4
-12
1,204
1,265
Net total
1,212
4
-12
1,204
1,265
Gross Budget Authority: Title II
26,717
358
-510
26,563
28,680
Total offsetting collections: Title II
-4,302


-4,298
-6,009
Net Budget Authority: Title II
22,415


22,265
22,671
Source: FY2006 enacted numbers from CRS analysis of the Conference Report to H.R. 2360, H. Rept.109-241; FY2006 supplemental numbers from CRS analysis of P.L. 109-61,
P.L. 109-62, P.L. 109-88, and P.L. 109-148; FY2006 rescission numbers from CRS analysis of P.L. 109-148 and the FY2007 DHS Justifications. FY2007 request numbers from the
FY2007 DHS Justifications.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds. For a more detailed analysis of the supplemental appropriations, please refer to Appendix I.

CRS-22
a. United States Visitor & Immigrant Status Indicator Project.
b. Fees include COBRA, Land Border, Immigration Inspection, Immigration Enforcement, and Puerto Rico.
c. Fees included Exam, Student Exchange and Visitor Fee, Breached Bond, Immigration User, and Land Border.
d. Fees include TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks.
e. P.L. 109-90 moved FAMS to TSA, pursuant to Secretary Chertoff’s reorganization proposal submitted to Congress on July 13, 2005.
f. Aviation Security Capital Fund, used for installation of Explosive Detection Systems at airports.
g. In FY2007, DHS proposes increasing the passenger security fee for one-way and multi-leg flights by up to $2.50, generating $1.73 billion in
new revenue.
h. Includes $100 million transfer from DOD.

CRS-23
US-VISIT
In 1996, Congress first mandated that the former INS implement an automated
entry and exit data system, now referred to as the US-VISIT program, that would
track the arrival and departure of every alien.31 The objective for an automated entry
and exit data system was, in part, to develop a mechanism that would be able to track
nonimmigrants who overstayed their visas as part of a broader emphasis on
immigration control. Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, however,
there was a marked shift in priority for implementing an automated entry and exit
data system. Although the tracking of nonimmigrants who overstayed their visas
remained an important goal of the system, border security has become the paramount
concern.
President’s FY2007 Request. The Administration is requesting an
appropriation of $399 million in budget authority for US-VISIT in FY2007,
amounting to a nearly 18% (or $62 million) increase over the enacted FY2006 level
of $337 million.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
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 ongoing 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,
now known as CBP Air and Marine (CBPAM); and the Border Patrol (BP).
President’s FY2007 Request. The Administration requested an
appropriation of $7,839 million in gross budget authority for CBP for FY2007,
amounting to a nearly 11% increase over the revised enacted FY2006 level of $7,069
million. Table 7 provides sub-account-level detail for CBP Salaries and Expsenses
(S&E) for FY2006 and FY2007. The bulk of the requested increase for FY2007,
$635 million, is for various aspects of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI). However,
additional amounts were also requested for other CBP initiatives, including, among
others, $12 million for WMD detection staffing; nearly $7 million for enhancements
to the National Targeting Center (NTC); $9 million for the Arizona Border Control
Initiative (ABCI); nearly $5 million for Border Patrol training at FLETC; nearly $5
million for the Immigration Advisory Program (IAP); and $1 million for the
Fraudulent Document Analysis Unit.
31 For more detailed information regarding the US-VISIT system, see CRS Report RL32234,
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program, by Lisa M.
Seghetti and Stephen R. Vina.

CRS-24
Table 7. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY06
FY07
FY07
FY07
FY07
Activity
Enact.
Req.
House
Senate
Conf.
Headquarters Management And
Administration

1,232
1,258
Border Security Inspections and
Trade Facilitation @ POE

1,605
1,680
Inspections, Trade & Travel Facilitation
@ POE
1,250
1,282
Container Security Initiative (CSI)
137
139
Other International Programs
9
9
C-TPAT / FAST / Nexus / SENTRI
75
76
Inspection and Detection Technology
62
94
Systems for Targeting
28
27
National Targeting Center
17
24
Other Technologies
1
1
Training at POE
24
25
Border Security and Control Between
POE

1,778
2,421
Border Security and Control Between
POE
1,726
2,244
Air Program Operations and
Maintenance


Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)


Border Technology
31
132
Training Between the POE
22
46
Air and Marine Operations - Salaries
162
160
CBP Salaries and Expenses Total:
4,802
5,519
Source: DHS FY2007 Justifications, p. CBP-S&E-5. Total includes $24 million supplemental
appropriation for Air and Marine Operations as per P.L. 109-148.
Issues for Congress. The bulk of the increase in CBP’s FY2007 request
from the FY2006 enacted level is for a new DHS program, the Secure Border
Initiative (SBI). DHS states that it “developed a three-pillar approach under the SBI
that will focus on controlling the border, building a robust interior enforcement

CRS-25
program, and establishing a Temporary Worker Program.”32 Within CBP, the SBI
focuses on increasing the personnel deployed to the border, developing and
implementing new technologies, and constructing border infrastructure. CBP is
requesting an overall increase of $639 million for FY2007 in various accounts
relating to SBI.
Increase in Border Patrol Agents. The President’s request includes an
increase of $459 million to increase the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) workforce by an
additional 1,500 agents in FY2007. This would bring the total of new agents hired
since FY2005 to 3,000 and give the USBP an agent workforce of nearly 14,000. The
request does not match the increase authorized by Congress in the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005 (P.L. 108-458). IRTPA §5202
authorized DHS to increase the number of USBP agents by 2,000 each year from
FY2006 to FY2010. The President’s request is in line, however, with the 1,500
increase in USBP agents that was appropriated by Congress in FY2006.33 A potential
issue for Congress could be whether the 1,500-agent increase in the President’s
request is adequate to provide for the security of the border, or whether the
appropriate figure is the 2,000-agent increase authorized by IRTPA.
Border Technology Increase. The President’s request includes $100 million
for border technologies to enhance the surveillance of the border and the USBP’s
ability to respond to incursions. DHS notes that it “will solicit and award a contract
to complete the transition from the current, limited-scope technology plan to one that
addresses the Department’s comprehensive and integrated technological needs.”34
A potential issue for Congress may involve the contracting process that DHS will
pursue for this program. In FY2005, the General Services Administration’s Inspector
General (GSA IG) released a report which criticized the USBP for its contracting
practices regarding the Remote Video Surveillance (RVS) system.35 The GSA IG
found that the contracts were granted without competition, and that in many cases the
contractor failed to deliver the services that were stipulated within the contract
leading to RVS sites not being operational in a timely manner.36 In a 2005 report, the
DHS Inspector General (DHS IG) noted that deficiencies in contract management and
processes resulted in 169 incomplete RVS sites.37
32 DHS FY2007 Justification, p. CBP S&E 4.
33 P.L. 109-13 appropriated funding for 500 additional agents; P.L. 109-90 appropriated
funding for another 1,000 additional agents.
34 DHS FY2007 Justifications, p. CBP S&E 4.
35 The Remote Video Surveillance system includes a set of cameras mounted on poles which
can be remotely controlled by agents at a USBP station.
36 United States General Services Administration, Office of the Inspector General,
Compendium of Audits of the Federal Technology Service Regional Client Support Services,
pp. 173-180.
37 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, A Review of
Remote Surveillance Technology Along U.S. Land Borders,
OIG-06-15, December 2005, p.
2. Hereafter referred to as DHS IG Surveillance Report.

CRS-26
Another potential issue for Congress could be the level of integration and scope
of this border technology program. The RVS system mentioned above forms part of
a larger program that integrates surveillance cameras with sensors. This program was
originally called the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS), but was
folded into the broader America’s Shield Initiative (ASI) by DHS in 2005. DHS IG
Richard Skinner stated in congressional testimony on December 16, 2005, that “to
date, ISIS components have not been integrated to the level predicted at the onset of
the program. RVS cameras and sensors are not linked whereby a sensor alert
automatically activates a corresponding RVS camera to pan and tilt in the direction
of the triggered sensor. However, even if ISIS was fully integrated, due to a limited
number of operational RVS sites (255 nationwide), integration opportunities would
be limited to the areas near these sites.”38 Additionally, the DHS IG noted in its 2005
report that, due to a lack of integration, “ISIS remote surveillance technology yielded
few apprehensions as a percentage of detection.”39 For these reasons, the FY2006
DHS Appropriations Conferees noted that they were not fully funding the
department’s FY2006 request for ASI. The conferees stated that it was their
understanding that DHS was currently reviewing the entire ASI program, and that
major procurement for the program might be curtailed until DHS “has resolved
fundamental questions about scope and architecture, and possibly its relation to
overall, nationwide border domain security and awareness.” The conferees noted that
they expected to be kept informed of the results of this review and encouraged DHS
to explore the use of off-the-shelf solutions for the program.40 Possible issues for
Congress could thus include the relationship between SBI and ASI, whether the
review process outlined above has been concluded and what its recommendations
were, whether the DHS IG’s recommendations concerning ISIS will be carried out,
and what the overall extent of the technological integration featured in SBI will be.
Infrastructure Construction. DHS requests an increase of $30 million to
continue construction of the border fence in San Diego, CA, as part of the SBI.
Additionally, DHS is requesting $51 million to accelerate the construction of
permanent vehicle barriers in western Arizona. DHS is also requesting $59 million
to construct facilities for the additional USBP agents it is proposing to hire in
FY2007. DHS has historically constructed tactical infrastructure41 under a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Under
this MOU, CBP was responsible for providing the funding for planning, engineering,
and purchasing materials, while the actual construction was undertaken by military
personnel at no charge. However, the department notes that using this traditional
approach would take until 2010 to finish the projects currently underway. For this
reason, the requested increase for tactical infrastructure includes funds for a
commercial contract to construct almost half of the vehicle barriers in Arizona. DHS
38 Testimony of DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner before the House Homeland
Security Committee, Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight, New
Secure Border Initiative, 109th Cong., 1st sess., December 16, 2005.
39 DHS IG Surveillance Report, p. 2.
40 H.Rept. 109-241, p. 44.
41 DHS uses this term to refer to its border fencing, vehicle barriers, and access roads, among
other things.

CRS-27
argues that it is at a critical point in its deployment of personnel and other resources
at the border, and proposes using private contractors to accelerate the construction
of this infrastructure.42 A potential issue for Congress could involve whether using
private contractors to construct border infrastructure is the most cost-effective
allocation of taxpayer resources given that under the current MOU with the Corps of
Engineers CBP incurs no labor costs for these projects. Additionally, if contracts are
issued for tactical infrastructure projects another potential issue for Congress could
involve the oversight of the contracting process, given the contracting irregularities
identified by the GSA IG in the RVS contracts mentioned earlier.
Cargo and Container Security. The recent Dubai Ports World controversy
has brought significant attention to several issues surrounding port and maritime
security, including cargo and container security. CBP’s cargo security strategy
includes two significant programs: the Container Security Initiative (CSI) and the
Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (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. C-TPAT is a public-
private partnership aimed at securing the supply chain from point of origin through
entry into the United States. The FY2007 request does not contain significant
increases in funding for either the Container Security Initiative (CSI) or the Customs-
Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). Funding for C-TPAT remains flat
with the FY2007 request of $76 million (which includes funding for the Free and
Secure Trade [FAST] and Nexus/Sentri programs), and the request for CSI increases
by $2 million to $139 million for FY2007.
Significant concerns have recently been raised regarding both of these programs.
Of these concerns, staffing concerns are most impacted by appropriation levels.
GAO has issued several reports noting that inadequate staffing levels for both the CSI
and C-TPAT programs have hampered CBP’s ability to conduct inspections overseas
at foreign ports and to validate every C-TPAT member within three years of
certification.43 Recent testimony by a CBP official has also noted that CBP itself is
not satisfied with the current numbers of supply chain specialists available to conduct
C-TPAT validations. GAO has raised a number of additional concerns regarding the
C-TPAT program, which CBP has begun addressing, including the scope of effort
and level of rigor applied to the validation process, how many and what types of
validations are necessary to manage security risk, and the lack of a comprehensive
set of performance measures for the program.44 GAO has also reported that several
factors limit CBP’s ability to successfully target maritime containers at foreign ports,
including staffing imbalances, operational reasons, lack of technical requirements for
42 DHS FY2007 Justifications, pp. CBP Construction 4-12.
43 GAO-05-446T, Homeland Security: Key Cargo Security Programs Can Be Improved,
May 26, 2005, p. 20, and p. 16.
44 See GAO, Homeland Security: Key Cargo Security Programs Can Be Improved, GAO-05-
466T, Testimony by Richard M. Stana, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues,
before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, May 26, 2005, for a discussion of these issues and steps
CBP has taken to address them.

CRS-28
NII equipment used at foreign ports, and continued refinements to the strategic plan
and performance measures needed to manage the program.45
Radiation Detection Devices and Non-Intrusive Inspection
Technology (NII). CBP has deployed a number of non-intrusive inspection (NII)
technologies at ports of entry to assist customs inspectors with the inspection of
cargos. Large scale NII technologies include a number of x-ray and gamma ray
systems. The Vehicle and Cargo Inspection Systems (VACIS), which uses gamma
rays to produce an image of the contents of a container for review by the CBP
inspector, can be deployed in a mobile or stationary capacity depending upon the
needs of the port. Mobile Sea Container Examinations Systems are also deployed at
ports to examine containers. CBP is also continuing to deploy nuclear and
radiological detection equipment including personal radiation detectors, radiation
portal monitors (RPMs), and radiation isotope identifiers to ports of entry.
Recently, various concerns have been raised regarding in particular the radiation
detection equipment. GAO reported in March of 2006,46 that although DHS has
made progress in deploying radiation detection equipment at US POEs, the program
goals are unrealistic (deployment has fallen behind schedule), and the program’s cost
estimate is uncertain. Delays have been caused by a variety of factors, including
DHS’s review process which has delayed the provision of acquisition and
deployment information to Congress, and difficult negotiations with seaport
operators concerning placement of the portal monitors and the screening of railcars.
According to GAO, uncertainty regarding the cost and improved effectiveness of
advanced technology portals are contributing to the difficulties in obtaining an
accurate cost estimate of the radiation detection deployment program.
In addition, GAO found that although DHS has improved the use of the detection
equipment, CBP officers do not have access to data that would allow them to verify
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses (which are generally required for
radiological materials transported into the U.S., though the licenses need not
accompany the shipment), and that CBP secondary inspection procedures do not
require CBP officers to open containers and inspect them to resolve an alarm (though
GAO found that this does occur at some POE). GAO recommended that DHS
streamline internal review procedures so that Congress can receive spending data in
a more timely fashion, update the RPM deployment schedule, analyze the benefits
and costs of advanced portal technology and then revise the cost estimate, develop
methods to effectively screen rail containers, revise agency container inspection
procedures, and develop a way for CBP officers to verify NRC licenses.
45 GAO has reported issues pertaining to the CSI on several occasions, including in
testimony before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. See Homeland Security: Key Cargo Security
Programs Can be Improved
, May 26, 2005. See also, GAO, Container Security: A Flexible
Staffing Model and Minimum Equipment Requirements Would Improve Overseas Targeting
and Inspection Efforts
, GAO-05-557, April 26, 2005.
46 GAO, DHS has Made Progress in Deploying Radiation Detection Equipment at U.S.
Ports-of-Entry, but Concerns Remain
, GAO-06-389, March 22, 2006.

CRS-29
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the United
States. ICE develops intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the United States and
is responsible for investigating and enforcing violations of the immigration laws
(e.g., alien smuggling, hiring unauthorized alien workers). ICE is also responsible
for locating and removing aliens who have overstayed their visas, entered illegally,
or have become deportable. In addition, ICE develops intelligence to combat terrorist
financing and money laundering, and to enforce export laws against smuggling,
fraud, forced labor, trade agreement noncompliance, and vehicle and cargo theft.
Furthermore, this bureau oversees the building security activities of the Federal
Protective Service, formerly of the General Services Administration. The Federal Air
Marshals Service (FAMS)47 was returned from ICE to TSA pursuant to the
reorganization proposal of July 13, 2005. 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.
President’s FY2007 Request. The Administration requested an
appropriation of $4,696 million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2007. This
represents a 21% increase over the enacted FY2006 level (including supplemental
appropriations) of $3,892 million. The Administration requested an appropriation
of $3,928 million in net budget authority for ICE in FY2007, representing a 24%
increase over the FY2006 enacted level of $3,156 million. Table 8 provides activity-
level detail for the Salaries and Expenses account.
Table 8. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY06
FY07
FY07
FY07
FY07
Activity
enacted
request
House
Senate
Conf.
HQ & Administration
254

Legal Proceeding
129
207
Investigations - Domestic
1,183
1,457
Investigations - International
101
105
Intelligence
50
58
DRO-Custody Operations
1,003
1,433
DRO-Fugitive Operations
101
174
DRO - Institutional Removal
Program
93
110
DRO - Alternatives to
Detention
28
43
47 FAMS transferred to ICE from TSA in Aug. of 2003.

CRS-30
FY06
FY07
FY07
FY07
FY07
Activity
enacted
request
House
Senate
Conf.
DRO Transportation and
Removal Program
133
317
ICE Salaries and Expenses:
3,090
3,902
Source: DHS FY2007 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. ICE-S&E-4.
The request included the following program increases:
! $66.9 million for the Office of Investigations pay and non-pay
inflation;
! $16.6 million for additional compliance enforcement agents and law
enforcement technicians;
! $364.6 million for custody management and detention bedspace;
! $64.7 million for Fugitive Operations;
! $13 million for Alternatives to Detention;
! $8.7 million for Institutional Removal Program (IRP);
! $174.9 million for transportation and removal within the detention
and removal program;
! $41.9 million for worksite enforcement; and
! $59.1 million for legal proceedings.48
Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions. The Office of
Investigations (OI) in ICE focuses on a broad array of criminal and civil violation
affecting national security such as 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
to sabotage, attack, or exploitation.49 The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-
296) 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 civil violations of
immigration law and that ICE resources have been focused on terrorism and the types
of investigations performed by the former Customs Service.50
The $1,457 million requested in the President’s budget for the OI domestic
operations included increases in the base funding for two groups responsible for
48 Also known as Office of the Principal Legal Advisor.
49 For more information see [http://www.ice.gov/graphics/investigations/index.htm].
50 Based on CRS discussions with ICE personnel in New York City, Aug. 27, 2003.

CRS-31
immigration enforcement, the Compliance Enforcement Unit51 and Worksite
Enforcement. The President’s budget requested an additional $41.9 million for
worksite enforcement to add 206 positions responsible for investigating and
prosecuting violations under immigration law for hiring unauthorized aliens. The
President’s budget also requested an additional $10.6 million for compliance
investigations for an additional 54 positions.52
Detention and Removal Operations. Detention and Removal Operations
(DRO) in ICE provide custody management of aliens who are in removal
proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United States.53 DRO is
also responsible for 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
whereas only 11% of those not detained who were issued final orders of removal left
the country.54 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.
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458,
§5204) authorized, subject to appropriations, an increase in DRO bed space of 8,000
beds for each year, FY2006-FY2010. The President’s budget requested additional
funding for several DRO programs, including $364.6 million for custody operations,
$174.9 million for transportation and removal, $64.8 million for fugitive operations,55
and $8.7 million for the Institutional Removal Program (IRP).
Alternatives to Detention. Due to the cost of detaining aliens, and the fact
that many non-detained aliens with final orders of removal do not leave the country,
51 Officers of the Compliance Enforcement Unit use US-VISIT, Student and Exchange
Visitor Information System (SEVIS), and the National Security Entry/Exit System to
identify, locate, and apprehend aliens who have violated the terms of the admission. For
more information on these systems see CRS Report RL31570, Immigration: Alien
Registration,
by Andorra Bruno; CRS Report RL32188, Monitoring Foreign Students in the
United States: The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS)
, by Alison
Siskin; and CRS Report RL32234, U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(US-VISIT) Program,
by Lisa M. Seghetti.
52 The President’s budget also requests an additional 23 positions for compliance
enforcement to be funded from SEVIS fees.
53 For more information on detention issues see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related
Detention: Current Legislative Issues
, by Alison Siskin. Under the 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.
54 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.
55 In Jan. 2006, there were 558,000 aliens with final orders of removal who were
unconfirmed to have left the country. These aliens are known as absconders, and fugitive
operations are responsible for locating, apprehending, and removing alien absconders.

CRS-32
there has been interest in developing alternatives to detention for certain types of
aliens who do not require a secure detention setting. In 2004, ICE began a pilot
program, the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, for low-risk, nonviolent
offenders.56 In addition, ICE uses electronic monitoring devices as another
alternative to detention. The President’s budget requested an addition $13 million for
detention alternatives.
Secure Border Initiative. The Secure Border Initiative (SBI) is a DHS multi-
year plan to secure the borders and reduce illegal migration by hiring more agents,
expanding detention and removal capabilities, upgrading technology, increasing
border infrastructure, and increasing interior enforcement of immigration laws.
According to the President’s budget, several of the requested increases are part of the
SBI, including funds for detention beds ($364. million), worksite enforcement ($41.7
million), and fugitive operations ($64.7 million).
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
The TSA was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA,
P.L. 107-71), and was charged with protecting air, land, and rail transportation
systems within the United States to ensure the 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). The TSA’s responsibilities include
protecting the aviation 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. The TSA also has certain responsibilities for marine and land modes
of transportation including assessing the risk of terrorist attacks to all non-aviation
transportation assets, including seaports; issuing regulations to improve security; and
enforcing these regulations to ensure the protection of these transportation systems.
TSA is further charged with serving as the primary liaison for transportation security
to the law enforcement and intelligence communities.
FY2007 Request for the TSA. The President has requested an appropriation
of $6,299 million in gross budget authority for the TSA in FY2007. The FY2006
revised enacted level was $6,286 million.57 Table 9 provides FY2006 appropriated
and FY2007 requested funding levels for each TSA budget activity. As in past years,
the large majority of these funds are slated for aviation security functions. Direct
funding for aviation security ($4,905 million) and air marshals ($699 million)
comprises about 89% of the requested TSA budget. Additionally, much of the TSA
credentialing activities, intelligence, and administrative functions and associated
funding requests would provide both direct and indirect support for aviation security
operations.
56 Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Public
Security: ICE Unveils New Alternative to Detention,” Inside ICE, vol. 1, no. 5, June 21,
2004. Available at [http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/newsreleases/insideice/
insideice_062104_web3.htm].
57 Department of Homeland Security. Budget in Brief — FY2007.

CRS-33
Table 9. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Budget Activity
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Aviation Security
4,811
4,905
— Screening Partnership Program
(SPP)
138
149
— Passenger Screening (PC&B)
1,505
1,556
— Passenger Screening (Other)
24
23
— Baggage Screening (PC&B)
875
914
— Baggage Screening (Other)
133
133
— Screener Training
87
88
— Human Resource Services
205
207
— Checkpoint Support
163
173
— EDS/ETD Purchase
173
91
— EDS/ETD Installation
45
94
— EDS/ETD Maintenance and
Utilities
198
234
— Operation Integration
23
23
— Regulation and Other
Enforcement
220
218
— Airport Management, IT, and
Support
679
666
— FFDO & Crew Training
30
30
— Air Cargo Security
54
55
— Airport Perimeter Security
5
0
— Foreign and Domestic Repair
Stations
3
0
— Aviation Security Capital Fund
250
250
Federal Air Marshal Service
(FAMS)

679
699

— Management and
Administration
607
628
— Travel and Training
70
71
— Air-To-Ground Communication
2
0
Threat Assessment and
Credentialing

254
131

CRS-34
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Budget Activity
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
— Screening Administration and
Operations
5
0
— Secure Flight
56
40
— Crew Vetting
13
15
— Registered Traveler Program
Fees
20
35
— Alien Flight School Fees
10
2
— TWIC Fees
100
20
— HAZMAT Commercial Driver
Fees
50
19
Surface Transportation Security
36
37
— Operations and Staffing
24
24
— Rail Security Inspectors and
Canines
8
13

— HAZMAT Truck Tracking and
Training
4
0
Transportation Security Support
505
527
— Intelligence
21
21
— Headquarters Administration
277
296
— Information Technology
208
210
TSA TOTAL:
6,286
6,299
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2007 President’s Budget, DHS Budget in Brief, and TSA FY2007
Congressional Justification
documents.
Notes: Subtotals do not sum to functional area totals and TSA total due to rounding. PC&B:
Personnel Compensation and Benefits; EDS: Explosive Detection Systems; ETD: Explosive Trace
Detection equipment; IT: Information Technology; FFDO: Federal Flight Deck Officer program;
TWIC: Transportation Worker Identification Credential; HAZMAT: Hazardous Materials.
Requested funding for transportation security threat assessments and
credentialing totals $131 million. The Secure Flight system for prescreening airline
passengers and the voluntary Registered Traveler program designed to expedite
checkpoint screening of vetted airline passengers account for more than half of the
requested amount in this category. Several of these vetting and credentialing
programs — including the alien flight school applicant vetting program, the
credentialing program for HAZMAT drivers, and the proposed Registered Traveler
and Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) programs — either are,
or are anticipated to be, fully funded through fee collections.

CRS-35
The President has also requested $37 million for TSA surface transportation
security activities, including support personnel and resources to assess terrorist
threats, assess standards and procedures to mitigate these risks, and ensure
compliance with transportation security regulations and policies in non-aviation
modes. Although the overall funding request for surface transportation security is
roughly equal to FY2006 appropriated levels, the President requested an increase of
about $5 million for rail security but requested no specific appropriation for tracking
trucks carrying hazardous materials, an initiative that received $4 million in FY2006.
Highlighted Initiatives in the President’s Funding Request. The
President has proposed several funding initiatives in FY2007 designed to improve
aviation security screening functions. The TSA requested $10 million as a
component of screener benefits to improve screener retention. The TSA has
proposed to use this money to implement retention allowances, performance bonuses,
college credit reimbursement, flexible staffing options, and pay-for-performance
incentives. The goal is to reduce attrition rates, which are nearly 20% for full-time
screeners and above 50% for part-time screeners. The TSA believes that lowering
attrition could reduce recruitment and training costs. The TSA also requests $20
million to fund worker compensation payments owed to the Department of Labor. By
some estimates, TSA on-the-job injury rates — which were close to 30% in 2005 —
far exceed the rates of other federal and private-sector jobs, and injuries cost the TSA
about $52 million in 2005 in lost wages and medical treatment of injured workers.58
The TSA is also requesting slightly more than $8 million for emerging checkpoint
technologies — such as whole body imaging systems, automated explosive spot
samplers, and cast and prosthesis scanners — to improve the detection of weapons
and explosives on passengers and their carry-on items. Congress and the 9/11
Commission have given a high priority to developing and deploying checkpoint
technologies to screen passengers and carry-on items for explosives and nonmetallic,
chemical, biological, and radiological weapons.59 The TSA also proposes a budget
increase of $7.5 million to hire 30 additional procurement staff members to aid in the
acquisition of new technologies and services and improve procurement processes and
controls.
The President’s Proposal for Restructuring Aviation Security Fees.
In an effort to increase revenues from user fees and reduce the general fund
contribution for aviation security functions, the President has proposed a
restructuring of the passenger security fees established under ATSA. The proposal
would replace the current fee structure of $2.50 per flight segment, with a maximum
fee of $5.00 per one-way trip, to a flat fee of $5.00 per one-way trip. Although
passengers making connections to reach their destination would not see a fee increase
under this proposal, passengers on direct flights would see their aviation security fees
double. The Administration argues that the flat fee proposal more closely parallels
58 Thomas Frank, “Airport Screeners’ Strains, Sprains Highest Among Workers,” USA
Today,
January 11, 2006, p. A2
59 See CRS Report RL32541, Aviation Security-Related Findings and Recommendations of
the 9/11 Commission
by Bart Elias; and CRS Report RS21920, Detection of Explosives on
Airline Passengers: Recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and Related Issues,
by Dana
Shea and Daniel Morgan.

CRS-36
passenger utilization of the aviation security system since passengers and their
baggage are typically screened only once regardless of how many connections they
might make to reach their destination.60
In this regard, the Administration’s proposed aviation security fee changes for
FY2007 differ significantly from those previously proposed in the FY2006 budget
request. That prior proposal, which was not widely supported in Congress, would
have kept the per-segment fee structure in place and raised it to $5.50 per trip
segment with a maximum of $8.00 per one-way flight. That proposal, however, was
opposed in Congress not only because it was viewed by many as detrimental to the
airline industry as a whole, but also because it was seen as disproportionately
impacting certain passengers, particularly those using smaller airports, who are more
dependent on connecting flights. It is notable, however, that this perceived
imbalance in the aviation security fee structure stems from the original collection
authority enacted under ATSA, which presently requires passengers taking
connecting flights to pay twice as much in aviation security fees than passengers
taking a direct flight.
The Administration projects that if the newly proposed flat fee of $5.00 per one-
way trip were enacted, the increase in fee collections from passengers on direct
flights, along with a rise in the numbers of air travelers, would boost aviation security
fee collections in FY2007 by about $1,726 million dollars, or roughly 85%,
compared to expected FY2006 revenues. If enacted, these fee increases are expected
to cover about 70% of core aviation security costs, compared to a contribution of
about 38% in FY2005.61
The Administration asserts that having users pay for aviation screening and
security is what Congress intended when it enacted the aviation security fee under
ATSA and doing so would free up general funds for spending on other homeland
security needs that are more generally applicable to all citizens. Critics of the
proposal, on the other hand, argue that all citizens benefit from aviation security
measures that are intended, in part, to prevent another terrorist attack like the attack
of September 11, 2001, and therefore, aviation security should be funded, at least in
part, through general fund contributions. Critics of the proposal also maintain that
tacking the aviation security fee on to passenger tickets hurts airlines by increasing
the overall ticket cost which may prompt some passengers to seek alternative
transportation, particularly for shorter trips. These critics go on to argue that airlines
are already burdened by other ticket taxes and higher fuel prices that can negatively
impact passenger revenues. Also, industry experts believe that the proposed fee
schedule would have a greater relative impact on low-cost carriers that offer more
direct flights.62 The current fee schedule arguably has a greater relative impact on
60 Office of Management and Budget, President’s Budget, FY2007, p. 141.
61 Ibid., and Transportation Security Administration, Fiscal Year 2007 — Congressional
Justification
Overview.
62 John M. Doyle, “No Sale: Proposed TSA Hike in Passenger Security Fee Is Getting a
Chilly Reception on Capitol Hill,” Aviation Week & Space Technology, February 12, 2006,
p. 34.

CRS-37
legacy carriers that route passengers on connecting flights to a much greater extent
using a hub-and-spoke service model.
The Administration also proposes to collect $644 million from security fees paid
directly by the air carriers, known as the aviation security infrastructure fees (ASIF).
This sum includes $448 million in projected FY2007 collections plus $196 million
in retroactive fee collections using revised prior-year airline contribution amounts
based on a GAO analysis.63
TSA Issues for Congress. Congress may consider several TSA-related
transportation security issues during the FY2007 appropriations process. Central
issues include the aviation fee structure and funding aviation security costs;
passenger pre-screening efforts and the status of the Secure Flight program; the
pending roll-out of the Registered Traveler (RT) program; progress in installing in-
line baggage screening systems; initiatives to mitigate workplace injuries among TSA
screeners; efforts to improve the screening of passengers and carry-on items for
explosives; the status of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential Program
(TWIC); and TSA initiatives in other surface transportation modes.
The President’s proposal to modify passenger aviation security fees has already
been taken up by the Senate during debate over the FY2007 budget resolution
(S.Con.Res. 83). An amendment to that resolution offered by Senator Lautenberg
(S.Amdt. 3137) that would prohibit the proposed changes to aviation security fee
collections was agreed to by unanimous consent. However, during consideration of
the Transportation Security Administration Reorganization Act of 2005 (H.R. 4439)
in a markup session held by the House Subcommittee on Economic Security,
Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity on March 9, 2006, Representative
Lungren offered an alternative aviation security fee proposal that is similar to the
President’s proposed fee structure. This alternative fee structure — agreed to by the
subcommittee for inclusion in H.R. 4439 — includes a $4.00 fee per one-way trip
that would directly fund the TSA, plus an optional $1.00 fee that could be charged
by the airport of origin for funding qualified aviation security projects. Passenger
aviation security fees under this plan would be capped at $5.00 per one-way trip and
$10.00 per round-trip. Under the proposal, however, security fees paid directly by
the airlines — the ASIF — would be eliminated.
The status of the Secure Flight program to prescreen airline passengers against
the consolidated terrorist watchlist may be considered during the FY2007
appropriations debate. In prior years, appropriations legislation has contained
language directing the GAO to review the program and making full implementation
of the system beyond the testing phase contingent on the GAO finding that
information security, privacy protection, and passenger redress issues have been
adequately addressed. The GAO recently reported that these issues still largely
remain unresolved and the program still faces many management hurdles,64 while the
63 United States Government Accountability Office, Review of Air Carriers’ Year 2000
Passenger and Property Screening Costs
, April 2005, GAO-05-558.
64 United States Government Accountability Office, Significant Management Challenges
(continued...)

CRS-38
TSA has indicated that it is “re-baselining” the program before entering into the
operational testing phase.65 During the FY2007 appropriations process, Congress
may also examine the related Registered Traveler program, scheduled to be launched
on a nationwide basis in FY2006. The status of the Registered Traveler program may
be of particular interest to Congress since the airline industry, which once
championed the program concept as a means to gain efficiency in passenger
screening, is no longer backing the program amid concerns over the manner in which
it is being implemented.66
Another aviation security-related issue that Congress may consider is the ongoing
debate over resources and schedules for integrating checked baggage explosives
detection equipment with airport baggage handling systems. Although deploying
these in-line baggage screening systems is projected to significantly increase baggage
throughput and reduce TSA manpower requirements for baggage screening, these
capital projects are costly and will take several years to complete on a systemwide
basis at current appropriations levels. A somewhat related issue is the TSA’s effort
to mitigate workplace injuries among TSA baggage screeners, which may benefit
from in-line baggage screening systems and related ergonomic design considerations
to the extent that they can eliminate or minimize the lifting and handling of baggage.
Also, as previously discussed, the physical screening of passengers and their carry-on
items for explosives and nonmetallic threats remains a high priority, and Congress
may debate whether available technologies and TSA initiatives to deploy these
technologies adequately respond to this stated need in a timely manner.
Recent interest in seaport security stemming from the proposed acquisition of
terminal operations at several large U.S. seaports by Dubai Ports World (DPW) may
prompt more detailed examination of TSA’s efforts to assess security risks at
seaports as well as progress on the Transportation Worker Identification Credential
(TWIC) program. According to the TSA, the TWIC program, which is currently in
a prototype testing phase, will be rolled out to ports utilizing the national port
criticality list that prioritizes posts based on risk, threat, and vulnerability analysis.
Although initial deployment of TWIC was planned for FY2006, it has been delayed
until FY2007 to accommodate program review and related rulemaking.67 In light of
the current interest in port security, the TWIC program scope, status, and deployment
schedule may be of particular interest during the appropriations process. More
generally, Congress may examine the TSA’s initiatives to address security in other
64 (...continued)
May Adversely Affect Implementation of the Transportation Security Administration’s
Secure Flight Program
, February 9, 2006, GAO-06-374T.
65 “TSA Puts Brakes on ‘Secure Flight’; GAO Concurs, Congress Resists,” Airport Security
Report, 13
(4), March 1, 2006.
66 Statement of James C. May, President and CEO, Air Transport Association of America,
Inc. Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States
Senate, About the Secure Flight Program and Registered Traveler Program, February 9,
2006.
67 Transportation Security Administration, Fiscal Year 2007 Congressional Justification:
Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing,
pp. 11-12.

CRS-39
surface transportation modes such as passenger and freight rail and HAZMAT
trucking, and perhaps intermodal and supply-chain security issues in the context of
the appropriations framework.
United States Coast Guard68
The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for the maritime component of
homeland security. As such, it is the lead agency responsible for the security of 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 the DHS and that the
Commandant of the Coast Guard report directly to the Secretary of DHS.
President’s FY2007 Request. For FY2007, the President requested a total
of $8,181 million in net budget authority for the Coast Guard, which is about a 1%
increase over the FY2006 level. The President requested $5,519 million for
operating expenses (an increase of 2% over FY2006), $1,170 million for acquisition,
construction, and improvements (a decrease of 3% from FY2006), $124 million for
reserve training (an increase of 5% over FY2006), $14 million for research,
development, tests, and evaluation (a decrease of 22% from FY2006), $12 million
for environmental compliance and restoration (the same amount as FY2006), and
zero funding for the bridge alteration program (Congress appropriated $18 million
for this program in FY2006).
The President requested $62 million for a new mission for the Coast Guard —
protecting the air space over Washington, DC, which used to be a responsibility of
CBP. The funding would pay for five HH-65 Dolphin helicopters and their
associated operating expenses to enforce a no-fly zone around the capital. The
request also includes $50 million for a new Coast Guard headquarters building in
Washington, DC.
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. The Deepwater program is a $24 billion, 25-year acquisition
program to replace or modernize 93 Coast Guard ships and 207 Coast Guard aircraft.
For FY2007, the President requested $934 million for the program. Issues for
Congress include the Coast Guard’s management of the program, which is the largest
and most complex acquisition effort in Coast Guard history, the overall cost of the
program, and the program’s time-line for acquisition. These issues are discussed
68 Prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation, Resources, Science and Industry
Division.

CRS-40
more fully in CRS Report RS21019, Coast Guard Deepwater Program: Background
and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O’Rourke.
Security Mission. The Dubai Ports World issue has intensified debate on U.S.
port and maritime security. Some Members of Congress have expressed strong
concerns that the Coast Guard does not have enough resources to carry out its
homeland security mission. During hearings on the Dubai Ports World transaction,
some witnesses raised the issue of whether the Coast Guard had enough presence on
port grounds to enforce new security regulations.69
About half of the Coast Guard’s FY2007 budget request is for its homeland
security mission. This amount includes $17 million for Maritime Domain
Awareness, which is a term the Coast Guard uses to describe its efforts to identify
threats as far from U.S. shores as possible by becoming more aware of the people,
vessels, and cargo approaching and moving through U.S. ports and waterways. The
$17 million includes funding for development of prototype Joint Harbor Operation
Centers (JHOC). JHOCs are facilities where the Coast Guard and other federal and
local law enforcement agencies can monitor harbor traffic, fuse intelligence data to
screen ships and cargo, and coordinate response activity if the need arises. For
monitoring harbor traffic, the President’s FY2007 request includes $11 million to
continue procurement plans and analysis for deployment of a nationwide system to
identify, track, and communicate with vessels in U.S. harbors, called the Automatic
Identification System (AIS). The FY2007 request also includes $5 million for a
third, 60-member Maritime Security and Response Team, which will be based in
Chesapeake, VA, and whose mission is to provide on-call maritime counter-terrorism
response.70
Non-homeland Security Missions. Some Members of Congress have
expressed concern that with the Coast Guard’s emphasis on its maritime security
mission, the agency could have difficulty sustaining its traditional, non-homeland-
security missions, such as fisheries enforcement or marine environmental protection.
69 See testimony of Michael Mitre, Port Security Director, International Longshore and
Warehouse Union, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Hearing
on the Security of U.S. Ports, February 28, 2006; and testimony of Stephen Flynn, Council
on Foreign Relations, House Committee on Armed Services, Hearing on the Dubai Ports
World Deal, March 2, 2006.
70 For further information on the agency’s homeland security operations, see CRS Report
RS21125, Homeland Security: Coast Guard Operations — Background and Issues for
Congress,
by Ronald O’Rourke.

CRS-41
U.S. Secret Service71
The U.S. Secret Service has two broad missions — criminal investigations and
protection — both connected with homeland security (as well as other matters).72
Criminal investigations encompass financial crimes, identity theft, counterfeiting,
computer fraud, and computer-based attacks on the nation’s financial, banking, and
telecommunications infrastructure, among other areas. The protective mission is the
most prominent, covering the President, Vice President, their families, and candidates
for those offices, along with the White House itself and the Vice President’s
residence (through the Service’s Uniformed Division). Protective duties extend to
foreign missions in the District of Columbia, and other designated individuals, such
as the DHS Secretary and visiting foreign dignitaries. Separate from these specific
mandated assignments, the Secret Service is in charge of National Special Security
Events (NSSEs), which include the major party quadrennial national conventions as
well as international conferences and events held in the United States. The NSSE
designation, by the President, gives the Secret Service authority to organize and
coordinate security arrangements; these involve various law enforcement units (along
with the National Guard) from other federal agencies and state and local
governments.
President’s FY2007 Request. For FY2007, the President’s budget
submission requested an appropriation of $1,265 million for the protection and
criminal investigation missions of the Secret Service.73 This reflected an increase of
$60 million or nearly 5% over the FY2006 total of $1,204 million for the Service.74
The new FY2007 appropriations request broke down the amounts for the total
protection function ($722 million) into specific categories — protection ($651
million), protective intelligence activities ($55 million), and White House mail
screening ($16 million). But it did not specify an amount for the National Special
Security Event fund (which was $5 million in FY2006), because of the uncertainty
surrounding the number and extent of NSSEs, among other reasons. The total for
field operations was $302 million, with specific amounts for field operations ($236
million), international field offices ($22 million), and electronic crimes program and
task forces ($44 million).75
71 Prepared by Frederick M. Kaiser, Specialist in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division.
72 OMB, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007, Appendix, United
States Secret Service, pp. 479-482; DHS, Budget-in-Brief, Fiscal Year 2007, pp. 55-58; and
United States Secret Service, Fiscal Year 2007, Congressional Justification.
73 This amount for gross discretionary appropriations excludes a mandatory appropriation
of $200 million (for annuity payments). OMB, Budget of the US Government, p. 480; and
DHS, Budget-in Brief, p. 56.
74 The FY2006 amount reflects the enacted total of $1,212 million minus $8 million
(consisting of a recession of $12 million plus a supplemental appropriation of $4 million).
75 OMB, Budget of the US Government, p. 480, and DHS, Budget-in-Brief, p. 56.

CRS-42
Title III: Preparedness and Response
Title III includes appropriations for the Preparedness Directorate and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Preparedness Directorate includes
(among others) appropriations accounts for the Undersecretary for Preparedness, the
Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP), State and Local Programs, Emergency
Management Planning Grants (EMPG), the U.S. Fire Administration and Fire
Assistance Grants, and Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS).
Table 10 provides account-level appropriations detail for Title III.

CRS-43
Table 10. Title III: Preparedness and Response
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2006 Appropriation
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Operational Component
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Preparedness Directorate
— Office of the Undersecretary for Preparedness
16


16
74
— Management and Administration
5


5
5
— State and Local Programs
2541a
10
-25
2,526
2,281
— Emergency Management Planning Grants
185

-2
183
170
— U.S. Fire Administration and Training
45

-1
44
47
— Infrastructure Protection and Information Security
625

-6
619
549
— Firefighter Assistance Grants
655

-7
648
293
Net total
4,072
10
-41
4,041
3,420
Counter Terrorism Fund
2


2

Federal Emergency Management Agency
— Admin; regional operations
221
17
-2
236
255
— Prepare, mitigation, response & recovery
204

-2
202
233
— Public health programs
34


34
34
— Disaster relief
1,770

-18
1,752
1,941
— Flood map modernization fund
200

-2
198
199

CRS-44
FY2006 Appropriation
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Operational Component
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
— National flood insurance fund





— National flood mitigation





— Pre-disaster mitigation fund
50


50
150
— Emergency food and shelter
153

-2
151
151
— Disaster assistance direct loan account
1


1
1
Net total
2,635

-26
2,624
2,964
Net budget authority subtotal: Title III
6,709
27
-67
6,667
6,385
Source: FY2006 enacted numbers from CRS analysis of the Conference Report to H.R. 2360, H. Rept.109-241; FY2006 supplemental numbers from CRS analysis of P.L. 109-61,
P.L. 109-62, P.L. 109-88, and P.L. 109-148; FY2006 rescission numbers from CRS analysis of P.L. 109-148 and the FY2007 DHS Justifications. FY2007 request numbers from the
FY2007 DHS Justifications.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds. For a more detailed analysis of the supplemental appropriations, please refer to Appendix I.
a. Includes $40 million in REAL-ID Grant funding placed in Title V by H.Rept. 109-241.

CRS-45
Preparedness Directorate
The Preparedness Directorate, formerly part of the Emergency Preparedness
Response Directorate, is the lead agency for DHS preparedness efforts. The
components of the directorate include the following:
! Cyber and Telecommunications — coordinates federal plans to
prevent and respond to cyber based terrorist attacks;
! Chief Medical Officer — coordinates federal plans to prevent and
respond to biological terrorist attacks;
! U.S. Fire Administration — educates the public, training firefighters,
and develops enhanced firefighting technologies;
! Office for Grants and Training (G&T) — assists states, localities,
and regional authorities to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorist
and other threats to national security through grant funding, training,
and exercises;
! Infrastructure Protection — identifies and assesses current and future
threats to the nation’s physical and informational infrastructure, and
issues warnings to critical infrastructure sectors;
! Office of National Capital Region Coordination — administers
federal programs and relationships with the National Capital Region
(NCR) to ensure planning, information sharing, training, and
execution of NCR homeland security activities;76 and
! Biodefense Countermeasures Program — transferred to the
Preparedness Directorate in FY2006,77 supports federal efforts to
secure medical countermeasures to strengthen the nation’s
preparedness against biomedical terrorist attacks by pre-purchasing
vaccines and other countermeasures through the authorities
established by the Project BioShield Act (P.L. 108-276).78 Funds for
this program were advance appropriated in the 2004 DHS
Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-90), and no additional funds are
requested for FY2007.
Office of Grants and Training. G&T is the single point of contact within
DHS for facilitating and coordinating departmental state and local programs. G&T
provides information to states and localities on best practices and federal homeland
security activities. The office administers federal homeland security assistance
programs for states and localities. To assist state and local homeland security efforts,
G&T administers formula and discretionary grants and training, exercise, and
technical assistance programs.
76 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “DHS Organization: Directorate for
Preparedness,” fact sheet, available at
[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0794.xml].
77 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2007 Budget of the United States
Government
(Washington: GPO, Feb. 2006), Appendix, p. 512.
78 See CRS Report RS21507, Project BioShield, by Frank Gottron.

CRS-46
President’s FY2007 Request. The FY2007 budget request proposes the
following amounts for the G&T homeland security assistance programs:
! State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) — $663 million;
! Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) — $838 million;
! Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program (TIPP) — $600 million;
! Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP) — $0;79
! Assistance to Firefighters Program (FIRE) — $293 million;
! Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) — $170
million;
! Citizen Corps Programs (CCP) — $35 million; and
! Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) — $0.
Issues for Congress. The Administration’s FY2007 budget request may raise
policy issues that Congress may address as it legislates appropriations. Some of the
policy issues include the overall reduction in appropriations, the consolidation of
UASI sub-grants into the proposed TIPP, the reduction of FIRE grant appropriations,
and the proposed elimination of MMRS.
The Administration proposes to reduce the FY2007 appropriations for the
programs to $2.57 billion — a reduction of $395 million. Although the reduction in
overall funding seems to reflect the Administration’s determination of the nation’s
homeland security needs, some critics see it as not meeting the needs of localities
because of what is considered by some as inadequate and unfair distribution of past
homeland security assistance funding.80
Additionally, the Administration proposes to consolidate six UASI sub-grants
into TIPP with an appropriation of $600 million.81 The budget request states that
TIPP will consolidate disparate programs and focus on securing transportation assets
and other critical infrastructure.82 Some might argue, however, that the
consolidation, without identified amounts for specific infrastructure protection
activities, might result in states and localities not being able to meet their specific
infrastructure security needs.
The Administration’s budget proposal requested $293 million for fire grants in
FY2007, a cut of 46% from the FY2006 appropriation. The total of $293 million
requested for the firefighter assistance account (which includes both fire grants and
SAFER grants) is down 55% from the FY2006 level. According to the
Administration proposal, priority would be given to grant applications enhancing
79 The Administration budget request proposes to eliminate funding for LETPP in FY2007.
80 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission
Report
(Washington: GPO, July 2004), p. 396.
81 In FY2006, Congress appropriated $415 million for the UASI sub-grants including port
security ($175 million), rail security ($150 million), trucking industry security ($5 million),
intercity bus security ($10 million), non-governmental organization security ($25 million),
and buffer zone protection ($50 million).
82 Fiscal Year 2007 Budget of the United States Government, Appendix, pp. 508-509.

CRS-47
terrorism capabilities. Fire grants would be available for training, vehicles,
firefighting equipment, and personal protective equipment. Wellness/fitness
activities and fire station modification would not be funded. The Administration
requested no funding for SAFER Act grants, which support the hiring of firefighters
as well as the recruitment and retention of volunteer firefighters. According to the
budget justification, “the Administration has not requested funds for SAFER Grants
in FY2007 on the grounds that local public safety agencies should assume
responsibility for funding the appropriate number of personnel, and that Federal-
funding for hiring local responders puts newly-funded personnel at risk once grant
dollars phase out.”
The Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) is a program of contracts
with major cities to coordinate multiple local government agencies in emergency
planning. MMRS was funded at $30 million for FY2006. The program was slated
for elimination in the FY2007 budget proposal, as it has been in each budget since
it was transferred to DHS in 2003. The Administration has proposed that ongoing
municipal emergency planning activities be supported at the discretion of states,
using funds from the SHSGP and UASI grant programs.
Chief Medical Officer.83 The Office of the DHS Chief Medical Officer
(CMO) was created by Secretary Chertoff in July 2005. Though the position is
within the Preparedness Directorate, the new CMO, Dr. Jeffrey Runge, has been
given responsibility to coordinate public health and medical programs throughout the
department.84 The Office of the CMO was funded at $2 million for FY2006.85 For
FY2007, $5 million was requested, in the Office of the Undersecretary for
Preparedness.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)86
Considerable controversy has enveloped the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) since Hurricane Katrina devastated approximately 90,000 square
miles in Gulf Coast states beginning August 29, 2005. Some contend that the
agency, its mission, and its organizational framework should be reconsidered by
Congress. Although such a debate may occur during the second session of the 109th
Congress, the President’s request for FY2007 does not propose dramatic changes for
FEMA. In general, the funding request for the next fiscal year is comparable to that
requested and enacted for FY2006.
Disaster Relief Fund. Roughly two-thirds of the funds requested for FEMA
are intended to be used for the disaster relief and recovery activities authorized by the
83 Prepared by Sarah Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology, Domestic Social
Policy Division.
84 FY2007 DHS Justification, pp. OUS PREP 15-16.
85 H.Rept. 109-241, p. 63.
86 Prepared by Keith Bea, Specialist in American National Government, Government and
Finance Division.

CRS-48
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.87 Funds
appropriated to the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) are used to meet the immediate needs
of victims, help communities, states, and nonprofit entities repair or rebuild damaged
facilities, and reduce the risk of future disasters through hazard mitigation measures
such as elevating structures in floodplains, retrofitting bridges and buildings in
earthquake prone areas, providing loans to local governments that lose tax revenues
because of disasters, and clearing fire hazards in areas susceptible to wildfires.
Almost $2 billion has been requested for the DRF for FY2007, an amount
roughly equivalent to the historical average of expenditures from the fund, excluding
truly catastrophic events such as Hurricane Katrina and the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. Congress appropriates supplemental funding for the DRF when
annual appropriations are not adequate.88 Such appropriations have been historically
designated emergency spending under the appropriate budget authorities. The extent
of destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina has raised questions about the adequacy
of existing Stafford Act authority, notably the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan
program that replaces some of the lost revenue of local governments. Some contend
that communities in Louisiana and Mississippi remain unable to rebuild a tax base,
and the $750 million transferred from the DRF for this purpose (P.L. 109-88), they
argue, is only part of the assistance needed.
National Disaster Medical System.89 The National Disaster Medical
System (NDMS) is a system of medical, veterinary, and mortuary response teams that
deploy in response to disasters, special security events, and certain other situations.
NDMS administration is the only activity within the “Public Health Programs”
account in FEMA. Generally, when NDMS teams are deployed pursuant to FEMA
mission assignments during disasters, deployment costs are covered by the DRF.
NDMS has been funded at $34 million for several years, and this amount was
requested for FY2007. In supplemental appropriations for FY2006, a one-time
amount of $100 million was provided to NDMS to cover expenses related to the
response to Hurricane Katrina.90 Most of this amount — $70 million — will be used
to reimburse hospitals and healthcare providers who cared for uninsured patients in
affected areas, through an interagency agreement (in effect through September 30,
87 Background on the statute and funding history for the Disaster Relief Fund is presented
in CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential
Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding
, by Keith Bea.
88 For example, supplemental funding for the DRF was approved in P.L. 109-61, P.L. 109-
62, and P.L. 109-148 after Hurricane Katrina. See CRS Report RS22239, Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane Katrina Relief
, by Keith Bea. For information
on the most recent supplemental funding request associated with Hurricane Katrina see CRS
Report RL33298, FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other International
Activities; Additional Katrina Hurricane Relief
, coordinated by Paul M. Irwin and Larry
Nowels.
89 Prepared by Sarah Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology, Domestic Social
Policy Division.
90 P.L. 109-62, Second Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to Meet Immediate
Needs Arising From the Consequences of Hurricane Katrina, 2005
, Sept. 8, 2005, 119 Stat.
1991.

CRS-49
2006) between FEMA and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the
Department of Health and Human Services.91
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS)92
As a result of the 2005 reorganization, many of the programs and activities of the
former Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate are now
performed in the new Preparedness Directorate and funded through the Infrastructure
Protection and Information Security appropriation. The Infrastructure Protection and
Information Security (IP/IS) appropriation is further divided into eight
program/project activities (see Table 11 below). Each of these are divided further
into a number of sub-programs. Specific sub-programs are beyond the scope of this
report, except where major changes may have occurred. However, these sub-
programs involve activities that include the accumulation and cataloging of critical
infrastructure information, the identification and prioritization of nationally critical
assets, vulnerability assessments, national-level risk assessments, and assistance to
owner/operators. It also includes the development of both sector-level and national
infrastructure protection plans, and numerous information sharing and outreach
activities.
President’s FY2007 Request. The FY2007 request for IS/IP activities is $70
million below FY2006 revised enacted levels. According to the IS/IP Budget
Justification, most of the program requests maintain their current levels of activity,
after certain “technical adjustments.” These technical adjustments are not detailed,
and in some cases result in a net increase (and in some cases result in a net decrease)
in funds for the program. For example, the technical adjustments to the baseline
Biosurveillance program resulted in a budget request almost $6 million below the
amount provided to that program for FY2006 (a 43% reduction). Technical
adjustments to the NS/EP Program resulted in a budget request $2 million above the
amount provided for that program in FY2006. In the case of the NISAC program,
the technical adjustment reducing the budget for that program by nearly $4 million
was attributed to the completion of facility construction and resulting redirection of
funds to other programs and activities. Table 11 provides activity and program-level
detail for IPIS.
91 Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2007, p. 192. For more
information about NDMS, see CRS Report RL33096, 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes: The
Public Health and Medical Response,
by Sarah A. Lister.
92 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources,
Science and Industry Division.

CRS-50
Table 11. FY2007 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure
Protection/Information Security Appropriation
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Program/Project Activity
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Management and Administration
(M&A)
83
85
Critical Infrastructure Outreach
and Partnerships (CIOP)
111
101
Critical Infrastructure
Identification and Evaluation
(CIIE)
68
72
National Infrastructure
Simulation and Analysis Center
(NISAC)
20
16
Biosurveillance (BIO)
14
8
Protective Actions (PA)
90
32
Cyber Security (CS)
92
92
National Security/Emergency
Preparedness
Telecommunications (NS/EP)
141
143
Total
619
549
Source: DHS FY2007 Congressional Justification: Preparedness Directorate, p. IPIS-5. FY2006
Figures include the 1% government-wide across the board rescission in FY2006 discretionary funding
called for in Chapter 8, Title III of Division B of the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006, P.L.
109-148.
The budget request, however, did make some relatively significant programmatic
changes in two areas — CIOP and PA. Within the CIOP program, the budget
requested no funds for the National Center for Critical Information Processing and
Storage. No explanation was given for the elimination of funds. For FY2006,
Congress appropriated $50 million for the development, operation, and maintenance
of that center, and directed the department to report on the progress of the center by
February 2006. According to the budget justification, the directorate planned to send
the report to Congress by the end of March 2006. In addition, the directorate
requested an increase of $35 million for National Infrastructure Protection Plan
(NIPP) activities within the CIOP program. The net effect, including technical

CRS-51
adjustments and other minor transfers,93 is a budget request for CIOP that is nearly
$10 million below the amount provided in FY2006.
The budget request for the PA program eliminated funds for two sub-programs,
the Protective Security Analysis Center ($20 million — Congress supported funding
the Center in FY2006) and the Protective Measures Demonstration Pilots ($20
million). Additional reductions were made to activities related to Control Systems
($6 million, with the balance of $4 million transferred to the CIIE program), the
National Terrorist Prevention Training Program (almost $9 million), the Coordinate
National Protection Efforts (almost $3 million, plus another $4 million which was
transferred to CIOP for National Infrastructure Protection Plan activities), and
General Security Plans (over $3 million). The budget did request new funding for
a Chemical Security Office within the PA program ($10 million). The net effect,
including technical adjustments, is a budget request for PA that is over $58 million
less than what was provided in FY2006.
Title IV: Research and Development, Training,
Assessments, and Services
Title IV includes appropriations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS), the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), the Science and
Technology Directorate (S&T), and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO).
Table 12 provides account-level details of Title IV appropriations.

93 For example, funding for DHS’s role in the Committee on Foreign-owned Investment in
the United States (CFIUS) was transferred out of CIOP and budgeted within the new Policy
Office of the Secretary. CFIUS is a multi-agency committee, whose procedures have come
under congressional scrutiny as a result of its approval of a transaction that would have
allowed Dubai Ports World, a government-owned United Arab Emirates company, to
purchase from a British company port terminal operations at a number of U.S. ports.

CRS-52
Table 12. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2006 Appropriation
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Operational Component
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Direct Appropriation
1889

-1
1,888
1,986
— Offsetting feesa
-1774


-1,774
-1,804
Net subtotal
115

-1
114
182
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
282

-2
280
246
Science and Technologyb
— Management and Administration
81

-1
80
196
— Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations
1,421

-14
1,407
806
Net Subtotal
1502

-15
1,487
1,002
Domestic Nuclear Detection Officeb
— Management and Administration




30
— Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations




327
— Systems Acquisition




178
Net Subtotal




536
Gross budget authority: Title IV
3,673

-18
3,655
3,770
— Offsetting collections: Title IV
-1,774


-1,774
-1,804
Net budget authority: Title IV
1,899

-18
1,880
1,965

CRS-53
Source: FY2006 enacted numbers from CRS analysis of the Conference Report to H.R. 2360, H. Rept.109-241; FY2006 rescission numbers from CRS analysis of P.L. 109-148 and
the FY2007 DHS Justifications. FY2007 request numbers from the FY2007 DHS Justifications.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds.
a. Fees include Immigration Examination Fund; H-1b Visa Fee; and the Fraud Prevention and Detection fee.
b. The President’s FY2007 request proposes dividing out the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office from the Science & Technology Office. The new office would comprise more than
one-third of the department’s R&D budget.

CRS-54
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)94
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.95 USCIS funds the processing and adjudication of immigrant,
nonimmigrant, refugee, asylum, and citizenship benefits largely through monies
generated by the Examinations Fee Account.96 In FY2004, 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.97 That same year, 86% of USCIS
funding came from the Examinations Fee Account.
In FY2005, USCIS had budget authority for $1.571 billion from the
Examinations Fee Account.98 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 FY2006.99 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
94 Prepared by Ruth Ellen Wasem, Specialist in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
95 CRS Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
96 §286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1356.
97 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.
98 P.L. 108-334, Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4567, H.Rept. 108-774.
99 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-55
DOS and H-1B and L petitions with USCIS and in carrying out DOL labor attestation
enforcement activities.100 DHS also receives 5% of the H-1B education and training
fees in the Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account.101
In FY2006, Congress provided a total of $1,888 million for USCIS, of which
94% came from fees. The remaining 6% was a direct appropriation of $115 million,
which included $80 million for backlog reduction initiatives as well as $35 million
to support the information technology transformation effort and to convert
immigration records into digital format. This figure was revised downward to $114
million. The FY2006 appropriations amount was a decrease of 29% from the $160
million appropriated in FY2005. As a result of a 10% increase in revenue budgeted
from fees, the FY2006 total is 6% greater than the FY2005 total.
President’s FY2007 Request. For FY2007, the Administration is seeking
an increase of $68 million for USCIS. The Administration is requesting a total of
$1,986 million for USCIS (an increase of 5% over the enacted FY2006 level of
$1,888 million), the bulk of the funding coming from fees paid by individuals and
businesses filing petitions. For FY2007, USCIS expects to receive a total of $1,804
million from the various fee accounts, most of which ($1,760 million) would be
coming from the Examinations Fee Account. According to the USCIS Congressional
Budget Justification documents, funds from the Examinations Fee Account alone
comprise 91% of the total USCIS FY2007 budget request. The FY2007 Budget also
includes $13 million from the H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account102 and $31
million from the H-1B and L Fraud Prevention and Detection Account.103 The
Administration proposes to use the $31 million generated from the fee on H-1B and
L petitions to expand its Fraud Detection and National Security Office.104
In terms of direct appropriations, the Administration is requesting $182 million
— an increase of $68 million from FY2006.
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
for backlog elimination for the past several years.105 As Congress weighs
comprehensive immigration reform legislation that would likely include additional
border and interior enforcement, increased levels of permanent immigration, and
perhaps include a significant expansion of guest workers, some question whether the
100 §426(b) of P.L. 108-447.
101 §286(s) of INA; 8 U.S.C. §1356(s).
102 §286(s) of INA; 8 U.S.C. §1356(s).
103 §286(v) of INA; 8 U.S.C. §1356(v).
104 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.
105 For example, see §§451-461 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296).

CRS-56
DHS in general and USCIS in particular can handle the potential increase of
immigration workload.106
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 USCIS and ICE
investigations regarding benefit fraud is not new ... as a result, some USCIS 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 USCIS wanted.”107 USCIS has established the
Office 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. The House-passed Border
Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437)
would establish an Office of Security and Investigations (OSI) in USCIS that would
formalize these duties.108
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)109
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 1,000 employees. In
FY2005, FLETC trained 47,560 law enforcement students.
President’s FY2007 Request. The FY2007 request for FLETC is $245
million, a decrease of $34 million, or 13%, from the FY2006 enacted appropriation
(including supplemental appropriations). Included in the request for FLETC are
increases of $5 million for Border Patrol and ICE Agent training, and $2 million for
a Practical Application - Counterterrorism Operational Training Facility.
106 For background and legislative tracking, see CRS Report RL33125, Immigration
Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress
, coordinated by Andorra Bruno.
107 GAO, Management Challenges Remain in Transforming Immigration Programs,
GAO-05-81, Oct. 2004, available at [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0581.pdf].
108 CRS Report RL33319, Toward More Effective Immigration Policies: Selected
Organizational Issues,
by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
109 Prepared by Jennifer E. Lake, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy
Division.

CRS-57
Science and Technology (S&T)110
The FY2007 request for Science and Technology (S&T) was $1,002 million, a
reduction of 32% from FY2006. (See Table 13 for details.) Most of the reduction
resulted from the move of funding for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
(DNDO) from S&T to a separate account. If FY2006 funding for DNDO was
excluded, the reduction for S&T in FY2007 was only 13%.
For individual portfolios within the S&T Directorate, comparing the FY2007
request with previous years was difficult because of several accounting factors.
Certain expenses previously funded by each R&D portfolio were requested in the
Management and Administration account in FY2007. Funds for DNDO were
requested separately rather than as part of S&T. The former Transportation Security
Administration R&D program, which was merged into S&T and funded in the R&D
Consolidation line in FY2006, constituted part of the requested Explosives
Countermeasures and Support of Components portfolios in FY2007. The request
stated that some activities, most notably the Counter-Man-Portable Air Defense
Systems (Counter-MANPADS) Program to protect commercial aircraft against
portable ground-to-air missiles, would continue at the same level of effort in FY2007
but would require little additional budget authority because prior-year funds remained
unspent. After accounting for these factors, the FY2007 request would reduce net
funding for the Standards, Rapid Prototyping, Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering
Effective Technologies (SAFETY) Act, and Critical Infrastructure Protection
portfolios and increase net funding for Cyber Security and the Office for
Interoperability and Compatibility. Several of the requested net changes would offset
changes that Congress made in FY2006 relative to the FY2006 request.
The department’s FY2007 budget request marked the end of a period of
consolidation for its R&D programs. In the FY2004 appropriations conference report
(H.Rept.108-280), Congress directed the department to consolidate its R&D activities
into the S&T Directorate. This process began with several small programs in
FY2005, but a proposed move of the Coast Guard RDT&E program was rejected by
the Senate. In FY2006, the much larger R&D program of the Transportation Security
Administration was moved into S&T, but again the Senate rejected moving the Coast
Guard program. The FY2007 request proposed no further consolidations; conversely,
it proposed dividing out DNDO funding into a separate account comprising more
than one third of the department’s R&D budget.
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office111
The FY2007 request for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) was
$536 million. Compared with FY2006, when DNDO was funded as part of S&T,
this was a 70% increase. (See Table 13 for details.) The increased funding would
110 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Analyst in Science & Technology, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
111 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Analyst in Science and Technology, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.

CRS-58
support new R&D initiatives, procurement of additional radiation portal monitors and
other detection equipment, and salaries for all detailee staff (including 66 full-time
equivalents formerly paid by their home agencies).
Table 13. Research and Development Accounts and Activities,
FY2005-FY2006
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Enacted b Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Science and Technology Directorate
1,467
1,002
Management and Administration
80
196
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
1,387
806
Biological Countermeasures
376
337
Chemical Countermeasures
94
83
Explosives Countermeasures
44
87
Radiological/Nuclear
Countermeasures c
19
-
Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office c
315
-
Threat Awareness d
43
40
Standards
35
22
Support of DHS Components
79
89
University and Fellowship
62
52
Programs
Emergent and Prototypical
Technology e
43
20
Counter MANPADS
109
5
SAFETY Act
7
5
Office of Interoperability and
26
30
Compatibility
Critical Infrastructure Protection
40
15
Cyber Security
17
23
R&D Consolidation f
99
-
Rescission of Unobligated Funds
from Prior Yearsg
-20
-
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office c
-
536
Management and Administration
-
30
Research, Development, and
-
327
Operations
Systems Acquisition
-
178
U.S. Coast Guard Research,
18
14
Development, Testing, & Evaluation
Total DHS R&D
1,485
1,552
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2007 congressional budget justification.
Notes: This table shows all of the Research and Development activities within DHS, combining
accounts from the Science and Technology Directorate, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, and
the U.S. Coast Guard to show the overall R&D budget within the Department.

CRS-59
a. Totals may not add because of rounding.
b. FY2006 figures have been reduced by the 1% general rescission (P.L. 109-148) and include a
supplemental appropriation of less than $1 million for Coast Guard RDT&E.
c. Funding for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) was included in the budget for the
Science and Technology Directorate in FY2006. It incorporated most of what had previously
been in Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures. In FY2007, DNDO had a separate budget
request.
d. Threat Awareness was formerly known as Threat and Vulnerability Testing and Assessment.
e. Emergent and Prototypical Technology combines two previous portfolios, Emerging Threats and
Rapid Prototyping, whose funding in FY2006 has been summed for this table.
f. R&D Consolidation in FY2006 mostly funded R&D activities formerly conducted by the
Transportation Security Administration. FY2007 funding for these activities was requested in the
Explosives Countermeasures and Support of DHS Components portfolios.
g. Included in Title V by H.Rept. 109-241.
FY2007 Related Legislation
Budget Resolution — S.Con.Res. 83/H.Con.Res. 376
The annual concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth the congressional
budget. The Senate budget resolution, S.Con.Res. 83 was introduced on March 10,
2006, and passed the Senate on March 16, 2006. S.Con.Res. 83, would provide $873
billion in discretionary budget authority for FY2007. H.Con.Res. 376 was introduced
and reported on March 31, 2006. H.Con.Res. 376 would provide $930 billion in
discretionary budget authority for FY2007. In addition, the House Committee report
H.Rept. 109-402 states that H.Con.Res. 376 allows for the President’s request for an
increase of 3.8% for homeland security funding. There is currently no separate
functional category for Homeland Security in the budget resolution. However,
homeland security budget authority amounts are identified within each major
functional category, though these amounts are typically not available until the
publication of the committee reports that will be attached to the budget resolution.

CRS-60
Appendix I — FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations
and Rescissions
H.R. 4939 — Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Hurricane Recovery, 2006

The House-passed version of H.R. 4939 (passed the House on March 16, 2006),
contains several provisions relating to DHS agencies. Title I, Global War on Terror,
Chapter 2 would provide up to $75 million in transfers from the Operation and
Maintenance account of the Navy, and Chapter 4 would provide an additional $27
million for the Coast Guard’s Operating Expenses account. These funds are intended
to provide for the Coast Guard’s share of the enhanced death gratuity benefit, and for
upgrades to intelligence systems. Title II of H.R. 4939 contains Hurricane Disaster
Relief and Recovery supplemental funding provisions. Chapter 4 of Title II contains
DHS-related provisions that would provide a total of $9,908 million, including the
following additional amounts:
! OIG - $14 million;
! CBP Salaries and Expenses - $13 million;
! CBP Construction - $5 million;
! Coast Guard Operating Expenses - $14 million;
! Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements - $81
million;
! FEMA Administrative and Regional Operations - $70 million;
! FEMA Preparedness, Mitigation, Response and Recovery - $10
million;
! FEMA Disaster Relief - $9,550 million;
! FEMA Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account - $151
million.
Title III of H.R. 4939 includes the General Provisions and Technical Corrections.
Sec. 3004 of Title III rescinds $44 million from the unobligated balances in ICE’s
Automation Modernization Account, and transfers them to the Secret Service for
critical investigative and protective operations.
The Senate passed its version of the bill on May 4, 2006. Title I, Chapter 3 of the
Senate-passed version would provide an additional $75 million for the Coast Guard’s
Operating Expenses account, and Title I Chapter 5 would provide an additional $27
million for the same account. Chapter 5 of Title II of the bill would provide $11,084
million in supplemental appropriations, including the following:
! CBP Salaries and Expenses - $13 million;
! CBP Construction - $5 million;
! Coast Guard Operating Expenses - $91 million;
! Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements - $192
million;
! FEMA Administrative and Regional Operations - $72 million;

CRS-61
! FEMA Preparedness, Mitigation, Response and Recovery - $10
million;
! FEMA Disaster Relief - $10,400 million;
! FEMA Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account - $301
million.
Title II of Senate-passed H.R. 4939 would also amend P.L. 109-90 to change the
limitation placed on National Flood Insurance fund by striking $30 million and
inserting $1 billion. Title V of Senate-passed H.R. 4939 contains $648 million in
supplemental appropriations for Port Security purposes, including the following:
! CBP Salaries and Expenses Account - $266 million;
! Coast Guard Operating Expenses Account - $23 million;
! ODP State and Local Programs Account - $227 million; and
! DNDO - $132 million.
Title VII of Senate-passed H.R. 4939 contains $1,900 million in supplemental
appropriations for border security purposes, including the following:
! Office of the Executive Secretary and Management - $2 million;
! Office of the Chief Information Officer - $50 million;
! USVISIT - $60 million;
! CBP Salaries and Expenses - $180 million;
! CBP Construction - $120 million;
! CBP Air and Marine Operations, Maintenance and Procurement -
$790 million;
! ICE Salaries and Expenses - $80 million;
! Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements - $600
million; and
! FLETC Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related
Expenses - $18 million.
Title IX of Senate-passed H.R. 4939 would rescind $4 million from the Screening
Coordination Office (SCO), and would transfer that $4 million to the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management.
P.L. 109-148 — Department of Defense, Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes
in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act of 2006

P.L. 109-148 contains a number of provisions that impact DHS budget accounts.
Division A of P.L. 109-148 contains the Department of Defense (DoD)
Appropriations Act for FY2006. Division B of P.L. 109-148 contains Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and the
Pandemic Influenza in 2006. Division B also contains a number of rescissions that
affect DHS accounts, including an across-the-board rescission of 1%.
Transfer of Funds to the Coast Guard. Division A, Title IX of the DoD
Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148) contains a provision that transfers up to $100

CRS-62
million to the Coast Guard’s Operating Expenses account from the Iraq Freedom
Fund. These funds are available for transfer until September 30, 2007, and are to be
used only to support operations in Iraq or Afghanistan and classified activities.
Across-the-Board Rescission (ATB). Division B, Title III, Chapter 8, of
P.L. 109-148 contains a 1% across-the-board (ATB) rescission that is to be applied
to all discretionary FY2006 appropriations. Specifically, Sec. 3801 rescinds 1% of
the following:
! the budget authority provided (or obligation limit imposed) for
FY2006 for any discretionary account in any prior and in any other
FY2006 appropriations act;
! the budget authority provided in any advance appropriation for
FY2006 for any discretionary account in any prior fiscal year
appropriation; and
! the contract authority provided in FY2006 for any program subject
to limitation contained in any FY2006 appropriation act.112
The ATB rescission does not apply to emergency appropriations (as defined by Sec.
402 of H.Con.Res. 95, the FY2006 Budget Resolution), nor does it apply to the
discretionary budget authority made available to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Hurricane Katrina Reallocations and Rescissions. Division B, Title I,
Chapter 4, of P.L. 109-148 provides emergency supplemental appropriations to
various DHS accounts to address the impacts of Hurricane Katrina. On October 28,
2005, the President submitted a request to Congress to reallocate $17.1 billion of the
$60 billion previously appropriated by Congress to FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund
(DRF) to respond to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and other disasters. The
Congressional response to this request was included in Title I of Division B of P.L.
109-148; the rescissions (from DHS accounts) funding this request were included in
Title III of Division B of P.L. 109-148. Most of the additional funding provided to
DHS accounts is to be used to repair and/or replace DHS equipment and facilities lost
or damaged by the Hurricanes. These include the following:
! $24.1 million for CBP’s Salaries and Expenses account;
! $10.4 million for CBP’s Construction account;
! $13 million for ICE’s Salaries and Expenses account;
! $132 million for the Coast Guard’s Operating Expenses account;
! $74.5 million for the Coast Guard’s Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements account;
! $3.6 million for the Secret Service’s Salaries and Expenses account;
! $10.3 million for ODP’s State and Local Programs account; and
! $17.2 million for FEMA’s Administrative and Regional Operations
account.
This section of P.L. 109-148 also transfers $1.5 million (of the funds previously
appropriated to this account by P.L. 109-62, see Supplemental funds for Hurricane
112 P.L. 109-148, Division B, Title III, Section 3801.

CRS-63
Katrina below) from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Account to the “Disaster Assistance
Direct Loan Program Account” to carry out the direct loan program. All of the funds
provided to DHS accounts under this section of P.L. 109-148 are designated as
emergency funds.
Title III, Chapter 4, of Division B of P.L. 109-148 contains rescissions affecting
DHS accounts. These include the following:
! $23.4 billion in funds previously appropriated by P.L. 109-62, from
FEMA’s Disaster Relief account; and
! $260.5 million in funds previously appropriated by P.L. 109-90,
from the Coast Guard’s Operating Expenses account.
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Pandemic Influenza.
Division B, Title II, Chapter 4 of P.L. 109-148 provides an additional $47.3 million
for the DHS Office of the Secretary and Executive Management account. These
funds are for “necessary expenses to train, plan, and prepare for a potential outbreak
of highly pathogenic influenza.” These funds are designated as emergency funds.
Additional Border Security Funding. During the conference consideration
of H.R. 2863, two other Divisions, C and D, were inserted into the conference report
(H.Rept. 109-359) attached to the bill. Division C, the American Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2005, would have allowed oil well drilling in
Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Division D contained provisions that
would have distributed the revenues from the ANWR drilling. Among the items that
would have been funded with these revenues was more than $1 billion in additional
border security funding for DHS.113 After a contentious floor debate concerning the
attachment of the ANWR provisions to the Defense Appropriations Bill, both
Divisions C and D were removed from the bill by S.Con.Res. 74, the enrollment
correction measure, and are not included in P.L. 109-148.
113 An itemization of these amounts and the accounts they would have been appropriated to
can be found in the Conference Report to H.R. 2863, H.Rept. 109-359, pp. 159-156.

CRS-64
Appendix II — DHS Appropriations in Context
Federal-Wide Homeland Security Funding
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 14 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 FY2007 accounts for approximately 48% of total
federal funding for homeland security. The Department of Defense comprises the
next highest proportion at 29% of all federal spending on homeland security. The
Department of Health and Human Services at 7.8%, the Department of Justice at
5.6% and the Department of Energy at 2.9% round out the top five agencies in
spending on homeland security. These five agencies collectively account for nearly
93% 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 FY2007 requests included a total
homeland security budget authority of $27.7 billion for DHS, the requested total
gross budget authority
was $39.8 billion. The same is true of the other agencies
listed in the table.

CRS-65
Table 14. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency,
FY2002-FY2006
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY07
FY07
as %
Department
FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06
req.
of
total
Department of
Homeland Security
17,380
23,063
22,923
24,549
25,626
27,777
47.7%
(DHS)
Department of
Defense (DOD)a
16,126
15,413
15,595
17,188
16,440
16,698
28.6%
Department of Health
and Human Services
1,913
4,144
4,062
4,229
4,299
4,563
7.8%
(HHS)
Department of Justice
2,143
2,349
2,180
2,767
2,991
3,280
5.6%
(DOJ)
Department of Energy
1,220
1,408
1,364
1,562
1,705
1,700
2.9%
(DOE)
Department of State
477
634
696
824
1,108
1,213
2.1%
(DOS)
Department of
553
410
411
596
563
650
1.1%
Agriculture (AG)
Department of
1,419
383
284
219
181
206
0.4%
Transportation (DOT)
National Science
260
285
340
342
344
387
0.7%
Foundation (NSF)
Other Agencies
2,357
1,329
1,550
2,107
1,789
1,809
3.1%
Total Federal
43,848
49,418
49,405
54,383
55,046
58,283
100%
Budget Authority
Source: CRS analysis of data contained in “Section 3. Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” and
Appendix K of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2007 President’s Budget (for FY2005-
FY2007); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of Analytical Perspectives volume of
the FY2006 President’s Budget (for FY2004); 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; CRS
analysis of FY2002-2006 re-estimates of DoD homeland security funding provided by OMB, March
17, 2005.
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.