Order Code RL33428 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations Updated July 26, 2006 Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto, Coordinators, Sarah A. Lister, Todd Masse, Alison Siskin, and Ruth Ellen Wasem Domestic Social Policy Division Keith Bea, Harold C. Relyea, Shawn Reese, and Barbara L. Schwemle Government and Finance Division Bartholomew Elias, John Frittelli, Daniel Morgan, and John D. Moteff Resources, Science, and Industry 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 Senate passed H.R. 5441 on July 13, 2006, which would provide $32.8 billion in net budget authority for DHS for FY2007. The House passed H.R. 5441, on June 6, 2006, which would provide $33.2 billion in net budget authority for DHS in FY2007. The Administration requested a net appropriation of $31.9 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). The House-passed H.R. 5441, contains the following amounts for major components of the department: $6,434 million for Customs and Border Protection (CBP); $3,876 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); $3,618 million for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA); $8,129 million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,293 million for the Secret Service; $4,069 million for the Preparedness Directorate; $2,656 million for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); $162 million for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); $956 million for the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T); and $500 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO). The Senate-passed H.R. 5441, contains the following amounts for major components of the department: $6,683 million for Customs and Border Protection (CBP); $3,919 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); $3,816 million for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA); $8,188 million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,226 million for the Secret Service; $3,901 million for the Preparedness Directorate; $2,606 million for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); $135 million for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); $818 million for the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T); and $442 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO). 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, Inspections Jennifer E. Lake 7-0620 jlake@crs.loc.gov Immigration Enforcement Alison Siskin 7-0260 asiskin@crs.loc.gov Immigration Inspections Blas Nuñez-Neto 7-0622 bnunezneto@crs.loc.gov Border Patrol Blas Nuñez-Neto 7-0622 bnunezneto@crs.loc.gov Secret Service Shawn Reese 7-0635 sreese@crs.loc.gov Transportation Security Administration Bartholomew Elias 7-7771 belias@crs.loc.gov U.S. VISIT Program Blas Nuñez-Neto 7-0622 bnunezneto@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 (NDMS), MMRS, Sarah Lister 7-7320 slister@crs.loc.gov Infrastructure Protection John D. Moteff 7-1435 jmoteff@crs.loc.gov Title IV, Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services Citizenship and Immigration Services Ruth Ellen Wasem 7-7342 rwasem@crs.loc.gov Science and Technology, DNDO Daniel Morgan 7-5849 dmorgan@crs.loc.gov Contents Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 House-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 President’s FY2007 Budget Submitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Note on Most Recent Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 302(a) and 302(b) Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Discretionary and Mandatory Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Offsetting Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Summary of DHS Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Title I: Departmental Management and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 House-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Analysis and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 House-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Personnel Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 President’s Budget Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 House-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 US-VISIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 House-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 House-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 CBP Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Increase in Border Patrol Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Border Technology Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Infrastructure Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Tucson Sector Border Patrol Checkpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Border Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Cargo and Container Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Radiation Detection Devices and Non-Intrusive Inspection Technology (NII) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 CBP Air and Marine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Shadow Wolves Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 House-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Secure Border Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 State and Local Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Transportation Security Administration (TSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 FY2007 Request for the TSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 House-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 TSA Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 United States Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 House-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Deepwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Security Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Non-homeland Security Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 U.S. Secret Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 FY2007 Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 House-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Title III: Preparedness and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Preparedness Directorate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Office of Grants and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 House-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Hurricane Katrina Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Disaster Relief Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 National Disaster Medical System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 House-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services . . . 75 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 House-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 President’s FY2007 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 House-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Science and Technology (S&T) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Domestic Nuclear Detection Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 FY2007 Related Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Budget Resolution — S.Con.Res. 83/H.Con.Res. 376 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Appendix I. FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions . . . . . . . . . 85 Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 P.L. 109-234 (H.R. 4939) — Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 P.L. 109-148 — Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act of 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Transfer of Funds to the Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Across-the-Board Rescission (ATB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Hurricane Katrina Reallocations and Rescissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Pandemic Influenza . . . 88 Additional Border Security Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Appendix II. DHS Appropriations in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Federal-Wide Homeland Security Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 List of Tables Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Table 2. FY2007 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 5. Title I: Department Management and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 6. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 7. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 8. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Table 9. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Table 10. Title III: Preparedness and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Table 11. FY2007 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure Protection and Information Security Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Table 12. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Table 13. Research and Development Accounts and Activities, FY2006-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Table 14. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2006 . . 90 Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations Most Recent Developments Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. On July 13, 2006, the Senate passed H.R. 5441. The bill contains a total of $32.8 billion in net budget authority for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for FY2007. This is $900 million more than the $31.9 billion net appropriation requested by the Administration for FY2007. The Senatepassed H.R. 5441 represents a $.9 billion, or 3% increase, from the FY2006 enacted net budget authority of $31.9 billion. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 also includes a $648 supplemental appropriation for FY2006; for more information on this supplemental appropriation please refer to Appendix I. House-Passed H.R. 5441. On May 22, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5441. The bill contains a total of $33.2 billion in net budget authority for DHS for FY2007. This is $1.2 billion more than the $31.9 billion net appropriation requested by the Administration for FY2007. However, this difference is almost entirely ($1.2 billion) due to the aviation security fee increase requested by the Administration, but which would be denied by the House bill. The House-passed H.R. 5441 amount of $33.2 billion is $1.2 or a 4% increase compared with the FY2006 enacted net budget authority of $31.9 billion. President’s FY2007 Budget Submitted. The President’s budget request for 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 $32.0 billion. Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Markup House Senate House Senate Report Report Passage Passage 109-476 109-273 House Senate 05/11 06/27 05/17 vv vv vv Note: vv = voice vote Confr. Report Conference Report Approval House 06/06 389-9 06/29 28-0 07/13 100-0 Senate Public Law CRS-2 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; the House Appropriations Committee tables of April 19, 2006; the House Committee Report to H.R. 5441, H.Rept. 109-476; and the Senate Committee Report to H.R. 5441, S.Rept. 109-243. 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. 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 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. 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). CRS-3 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 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; 1 For more information, see CRS Report RL33042, Department of Homeland Security Reorganization: The 2SR Initiative, by Harold C. Relyea and Henry B. Hogue. 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. CRS-4 ! 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. 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 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. The Senate Appropriations Committee released its proposed 302(b) allocations for FY2007 on June 22, 2006, which included $31.7 billion in discretionary budget authority for DHS appropriations. 4 H.Rept. 109-241, p. 30. CRS-5 Table 2. FY2007 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS (budget authority in billions of dollars) FY2006 Comparable FY2007 Request Comparable FY2007 House Allocation FY2007 Senate Allocation 30.5 31.0 32.1 31.7 FY2007 Enacted Comparable Source: House Appropriations Committee press release, May 4, 2006; H.Rept. 109-488, Report on the Revised Suballocation of Budget Allocations for FY2007; S.Rept. 109-268, Allocations to Subcommittees of Budget Totals for FY2007. 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 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 multiyear 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 5 6 31 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517. 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]. CRS-6 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 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 7 P.L. 101-508, Title XIII. 8 Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff, Jr., Analyst in American National Government. CRS-7 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. 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 DHS gross budget authority (gross discretionary + fees+ mandatory + funds) FY2006 FY2007 40,826 42,719 482 516 a 3,650a TWIC 100 20 Hazmat 50 19 Registered Traveler 20 35 124 129 5 6 -2,791 -4,460 465 529 6 2 30 28 COBRA 334 388 APHIS 204 214 98 98 100 108 SEVIS 67 54 Breached bond detention fund 87 90 Aviation security capital fund 250 250 10 2 Account level discretionary offset ICE Federal Protective Service Aviation security fees TSA FEMA/EPR National flood insurance fund CBP Small airports Subtotal account level discretionary offsets 1,990 Agency level discretionary offset Immigration inspection Immigration enforcement CBP Land border Puerto Rico ICE TSA Immigration inspection Alien flight school background checks CRS-8 Account/Agency Account Name USCIS Immigration examination fee FY2006 FY2007 1,730 1,760 44 44 -3,425 -3,567 200 200 (1,014) (1,063) -200 -200 8 8 2,104 2,233 Boat safety 101 115 Oil spill recovery 168 127 Miscellaneous revolving fund (11) (11) -2,381 -2,483 40,826e 42,719 Total offsetting collections -8,797 -10,710 DHS net appropriated BA (Mandatory + Discretionary) 31,743 32,015 H1b, and H1b & L fees Subtotal agency level discretionary offsets Mandatory budget authority Secret service retired pay b Secret service Coast guard Coast guard retired pay c Subtotal mandatory budget authority Trust funds and public enterprise funds CBP Customs unclaimed goods FEMA National Flood Insurance Fundd Coast Guard Subtotal trust and public enterprise funds DHS gross budget authority Source: CRS analysis of the FY2007 President’s Budget, DHS Budget in Brief, and House Appropriations Committee tables of April 19, 2006. Notes: 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. CRS-9 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-10 Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations (budget authority in millions of dollars) FY2006 Appropriation Operational Component FY2006 Enacted FY2006 Supp. FY2006 Resc. FY2006 Total FY2007 Request FY2007 House FY2007 Senate Title I: Departmental Operations Subtotal: Title I 907 53 -27 933 1,074 960 969 340 — -3 337 399 362 399 — Customs and Border Protection 5,952 857 -60 6,749 6,574 6,434 6,683 — Immigration and Customs Enforcement 3,175 340 -33 3,483 3,928 3,876 3,919 — Transportation Security Administration 3,924 — -58 3,866 2,323 3,618 3,816 — U.S. Coast Guard 7,811 588 -343 8,056 8,181 8,129 8,188 — U.S. Secret Service 1,212 24 -12 1,224 1,265 1,293 1,226 22,414 1,809 -508 23,715 22,670 23,712 24,231 — Total fee collections 4,302 — — 4,302 6,009 4,779 5,029 Gross subtotal: Title II 26,716 1,809 -508 28,017 28,679 28,491 29,260 4,072 2 2,633 6,707 25 — 6,379 6,404 -41 — -26 -67 4,056 2 8,986 13,044 3,419 — 2,964 6,383 4,069 — 2,656 6,725 3,901 — 2,606 6,507 Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations — Screening and Operations Office/ US-VISIT Net subtotal: Title II Title III: Preparedness and Recovery — Preparedness Directorate — Counter Terrorism Fund — Federal Emergency Management Administration Net subtotal: Title III FY2007 Enacted CRS-11 FY2006 Appropriation Operational Component Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services — Citizenship and Immigration Services — Federal Law Enforcement Training Center — Science and Technology — Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Net subtotal: Title IV — Total fee collections Gross subtotal: Title IV Title V: General Provisions — Rescissions a Department of Homeland Security Appropriation Gross DHS budget authority — Total fee collections Net DHS budget authority FY2006 Enacted FY2006 Supp. FY2006 Resc. FY2006 Total FY2007 Request FY2007 House FY2007 Senate 115 282 1,502 — 1,899 1,774 3,673 — 25 — — 25 — 25 -1 -2 -15 — -18 — — 114 305 1,487 — 1,906 1,774 3,680 182 246 1,002 535 1,965 1,804 3,769 162 253 956 500 1,871 1,804 3,675 135 271 818 442 1,667 1,889 3,555 — — — — -16 -20 -582 38,003 -6,076 31,927 8,291 — 8,291 -620 — -620 45,674 -6,076 39,598 39,889 -7,813 32,076 39,831 -6,583 33,248 39,709 -6,918 32,792 FY2007 Enacted 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, P.L. 109-234, and the FY2007 DHS Justifications. FY2007 request numbers from the FY2007 DHS Justifications. FY2007 numbers from the conference report (H.Rept. 109-476) to H.R. 5441. 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. a. FY2006 rescissions, including those in Title V or the General Provisions are displayed in the rescission column of the appropriate account. FY2007 Title V or General Provision rescissions are aggregated here for simplicity. FY2007 House-passed Title V rescissions include -$16 million from the Counter Terrorism Fund and -$4 million in TSA unobligated balances. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 includes a series of rescissions from unobligated balances of prior-year appropriations that are used to offset FY2007 appropriations, including -$67 million from TSA Aviation Security and Headquarters and Management accounts; -$16 million from the Counterterrorism Fund; -$55 million from the Science and Technology Management and Administration account; -$184 million from the Science and Technology Research, Development, Acquisitions and Operations account; -$103 million from the U.S. Coast Guard from funds appropriated in P.L.109-90; -$14 million from CBP Air and Marine Operations from funds appropriated in P.L. 109-90; and -$99 million from the Science and Technology Research and Development account. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 also includes the following FY2007 rescissions: -$43 million from travel and transportation expenses throughout DHS; and -$1 million from printing and reproduction expenses throughout DHS. CRS-12 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 was $1,074 million. This represents an increase of $167 million (18%) over the FY2006 enacted level (not including supplemental appropriations). House-Passed H.R. 5441. With slight exception, appropriators, in making their recommendations for Title I accounts, cut allocations relative to both FY2006 funding and the President’s requests for FY2007. The requested amount for OS&EM was decreased by a little more than $1.5 million to a recommended amount of approximately $96 million, which, after adjustment for floor offset amendments, was reduced to $84 million. OSCO was not allocated monies as a separate entity, but its activities were funded in the Office of Policy within OS&EM. The USM request was slashed by almost $50 million, with $159 million recommended, which, after adjustment for floor offset amendments, was reduced to $70 million. OCFO received a modest reduction of less than $1 million in its request, with $43 million recommended. OCIO, however, was recommended an increase of $41 million above its request to make a total proposed allocation of $365 million, while OIG was recommended $96 million as requested. These recommended and otherwise adjusted amounts were approved by the House. Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. Appropriators largely funded OS&EM accounts at or below FY2006 levels, and the Senate ultimately approved almost $83 million, which was about $15 million less than the amount requested by the President. OSCO was not allocated monies as a separate entity, but its activities were funded in the Office of Policy within OS&EM. Other accounts in Title I — OCFO, OCIO, and OIG — were generally funded at levels below the President’s request, but above FY2006 amounts. The Senate approved a total of $969 million for Title I accounts, $9 million more than the House allocation and $105 million less than the President’s request. 9 Prepared by Harold C. Relyea, Specialist in American National Government, Government and Finance Division. CRS-13 Table 5. Title I: Department Management and Operations (budget authority in millions of dollars) FY2006 Appropriation Operational Component Office of the Secretary and Executive Management FY2006 Enacted FY2006 Supp. FY2006 Resc. FY2006 Total FY2007 Request FY2007 House FY2007 Senate 79 51 — 130 98 84 83 4 — -4 — 4 — — 169 — -2 167 209 70 163 19 — — 19 44 43 27 Office of the Chief Information Officer 297 — -3 294 324 365 307 Analysis and Operations 255 — -2 253 299 299 299 Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding Office of the Inspector General Net Budget Authority: Title I — 83 907 — 2 53 — -1 -27a — 84 933a — 96 1,074 3 96 960 — 90 969 Office of Screening Coordination and Operations Office of the Undersecretary for Management Office of the Chief Financial Officer FY2007 Enacted 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, P.L. 109-234, and the FY2007 DHS Justifications. FY2007 request numbers from the FY2007 DHS Justifications. FY2007 numbers from the conference report (H.Rept. 109-476) to H.R. 5441. 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-14 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 intelligencerelated 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-15 ! ! ! 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 Coordination, which “disseminate (s) 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 House-Passed H.R. 5441. House-passed H.R. 5441 would appropriate $299 million, an amount equal to the level of funding requested by the President for FY2007. This amount is approximately $46 million in excess of the $253 million FY2006 appropriation for the activities associated with these DHS functions. In the 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 See DHS FY 07 Congressional Justification, p. AO-3. 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-16 report accompanying H.R. 5441, the Appropriations Committee also made the following points: ! ! ! ! ! It denied DHS’s request to rename the Directorate of Operations Coordination the Directorate of Operations based on the Committee’s position that the Directorate’s function is “...to support decision makers rather than to direct activities.” 19 It directed the HSOC and ICE report, not later than January 16, 2007, on the number, location, planned deployments, composition, and budgets of DHS-proposed situational awareness teams, noting that the House Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina found that the HSOC failed to provide valuable situational information to the White House. These teams are designed to provide “ground truth” as they are deployed throughout the country during an emergency. It directed the Office of Intelligence and Analysis to continue to provide the Committee with quarterly threat briefings, and noted that it is “...encouraged by the leadership put into place...”20 at the Department’s OIA. It directed that a report be provided to the Committee by January 16, 2007, on the total number of intelligence fusion centers, their funding sources and amounts, and where additional fusion centers are necessary. The Committee “...strongly supports information sharing between the intelligence community and people responsible for taking action on that intelligence.”21 It supports IA’s recent effort to develop a staffing, recruitment, and training plan. Furthermore, “the Committee expects IA to expend unobligated personnel resources on recruitment and training, including fellowships and other tools deemed necessary and to report to the Committee bi-annually on its efforts.”22 Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. Senate-passed H.R.5441 would appropriate $299 million, an amount equal to the Administration’s FY2007 request and the amount passed by the House. These funds, to remain available until September 30, 2008, are for “necessary expenses for information analysis and operations coordination activities, as authorized by title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.)” Of the recommended amount, no more than $5,000 “shall be for official reception and expenses.” The committee further stated it “supports the activities to improve the analysis and sharing of threat information, including the activities of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the Office of Operations 19 See H. Rept. 109-476, p. 19. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. CRS-17 Coordination.”23 The committee also made the following two additional recommendations: ! It directed “the Chief Intelligence Officer to report no later than 90 days after the enactment of this act on efforts to address concerns reported in the Office of Inspector General Report OIG-05-34.”24 ! It “understands the operating procedures for the Homeland Security Operations Center [HSOC] have not changed since Hurricane Katrina. The Committee directs the Government Accountability Office to analyze the role of the HSOC and the numerous DHS component operations centers and to make recommendations regarding the operation and coordination of these centers.”25 During the Senate markup on July 12, S.Amdt. 4569 required the following report on data-mining, an issue that could affect research conducted by any DHS intelligence element: ! “The head of each department or agency in the Department of Homeland Security that is engaged in any activity to use or develop data-mining technology shall each submit a report to Congress on all such activities of the agency under the jurisdiction of that official. The report shall be made available to the public.”26 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 vulnerabilities, determine potential impacts and disseminate timely information out to homeland security partners and the American public.”27 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.”28 The performance goal for intelligence is “100 percent distribution of sensitive threat 23 See Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2007, Senate Report 109-273, p. 17. 24 Ibid. DHS OIG Report OIG-05-34 is Evaluation of DHS’ Security Program and Practices for Its Intelligence Systems, Aug. 2005. An unclassified summary can be located at [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_05-34_Aug05.pdf]. 25 Ibid., p. 18. 26 See Congressional Record, July 12, 2006, p. S7387. 27 See DHS FY 07 Congressional Justification, Budget Overview, p. 3. 28 Ibid. CRS-18 information relative to Department of Homeland Security/Transportation Security Administration components, field elements, and stakeholders.”29 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 disaggregating 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 before the House Committee on Homeland Security,30 CIO Allen outlined at least five priorities laden with resource implications, including the following: (1) improving the quality of analysis across the Department, (2) integrating the DHS intelligence enterprise, (3) strengthening our intelligence support to State, local, and tribal authorities, as well as the private sector, (4) ensuring DHS intelligence takes its full place in the Intelligence Community, and (5) solidifying our relationship with the Congress by improving our transparency and responsiveness. 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.31 The information management challenge at DHS is significant, as the organization must “know what it knows” in order to achieve the aforementioned priorities. According to CIO Allen, DHS has “...developed a comprehensive assessment of the existing intelligence information technology architecture in DHS, along with recommendations to improve and enhance it.”32 Although integrated information management systems may not be a panacea, for an intelligence 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. From a human resource perspective, DHS is stationing liaison officers and intelligence analysts at some of the 38 state and local fusion 29 Ibid. 30 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, May 24, 2006. “Progress of the DHS Chief Intelligence Officer.” 31 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. 32 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, May 24, 2006. “Progress of the DHS Chief Intelligence Officer.” CRS-19 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 and experienced cadre of homeland security analysts at DHS headquarters. Personnel Issues33 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,34 including its human resources strategy and technology components. The OHC reports to the Undersecretary for Management 33 Personnel Issues section prepared by Barbara L. Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division. 34 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 MaxHR. The decision also enjoined a provision of the regulations that limits the authority of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to modify a penalty imposed by DHS. The agency appealed the ruling. A unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on June 27, 2006, found that the proposed system would illegally curtail employee collective bargaining rights and that DHS limited the scope of collective bargaining in violation of law. The appeals court reversed the district court's holding that the appeals procedures in the DHS regulations do not comply with the requirement in the Homeland Security Act that they must be fair. It held that adjudicating the fairness of these procedures is not timely until DHS uses them in an administrative proceeding. The appeals court affirmed the district court's holding that assigning the MSPB an appellate role in mandatory removal cases is entitled to judicial deference. 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-20 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 $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 Operations35 and $29.7 million (down from $30 million, after a 1.0% rescission) for the development and implementation of MaxHR.36 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.37 The request represents an increase of $43 million and 18 FTEs over the FY2006 enacted 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 enacted 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).38 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. 35 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). 36 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). 37 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. 38 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-21 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 assistance services ($64 million).39 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. The Under Secretary for Management at DHS, Janet Hale, resigned effective in early May 2006, and the department’s CHCO, K. Gregg Prillaman, resigned effective in early June 2006. In testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight on May 18, 2006, Mr. Prillaman discussed the progress of MaxHR implementation and management challenges facing the department. With regard to MaxHR, he said that the performance management program, which links individual and department performance goals, should cover 18,000 employees by the end of 2006; the design of the pay bands is being finalized; and the pay-for-performance compensation system is expected to begin in February 2007. Among the challenges that DHS is facing is the retirement eligibility of a significant percentage of high level officials during the next four years. According to Mr. Prillaman, “49% of SES [Senior Executive Service] level employees and 37% of GS-15 level employees [at DHS] will be eligible to retire” by 2009. At the Secret Service, 91% of SES members and 75% of GS-15’s will be retirement eligible by 2010.40 On May 25, 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released an evaluation on the conversion of federal government employees from noncareer to career positions. GAO found that appropriate authorities and proper procedures may 39 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). 40 Statement by K. Gregg Prillaman, Hearing on Human Capital Issues and Security Procedures at the Department of Homeland Security, May 18, 2006, pp. 6-7 (unpublished). CRS-22 not have been followed for two of the three positions converted at DHS — a GS-13 staff assistant at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and a GS-15 Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. For this latter position, GAO found that it may have been created specifically for a particular individual, which, if so, is a violation of federal law.41 Following the hearing and the release of the GAO report, the Ranking Members of the House Homeland Security Committee and its Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on June 1, 2006, requesting answers to several questions. Those queries related to actions DHS will take given the GAO findings on the legislative affairs position and regarding implementation of MaxHR, and explaining why the resignation (tendered on May 15, 2006) of the CHCO was not disclosed prior to his testimony before the Homeland Security Committee.42 House-Passed H.R. 5441. As recommended by the Subcommittee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Appropriations, on June 6, 2006, the House passed an appropriation of $38.9 million for the OHC, $42.3 million less than requested. This amount would be allocated as $9.2 million for HR Operations (salaries and expenses) and $29.7 million for MaxHR; $600,000 and $41.7 million, respectively, less than requested. MaxHR is funded at the FY2006 enacted level. The OHC appropriation represents 24.4% of the funding provided for the Under Secretary for Management ($159.5 million). According to the report accompanying H.R. 5441, the budget assumed that increased aviation passenger fees would allow MaxHR to be funded at the requested level. Because such fees are outside the Appropriation Committee’s jurisdiction, the FY2007 appropriation was adjusted accordingly. The OHC appropriation fully funds nine of the requested 15 FTEs for MaxHR. The six FTEs not included in the appropriation were for the Labor Relations Board. A general provision at Section 504 provides that not more than 50% of unobligated balances remaining at the end of FY2007 from appropriations for salaries and expenses remain available through FY2008 subject to guidelines on reprogramming.43 In a May 25, 2006, Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 5441, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) stated its opposition to either reducing or eliminating funds for MaxHR.44 During consideration of H.R. 5441 in the House on May 25, 2006, an amendment (No. 936) offered by Representative Martin Olav Sabo was agreed to by voice vote. The amendment removes $15 million from the Under Secretary for Management and directs that it be used to fund grants for firefighters. If the entire $15 million is taken from MaxHR, the FY2007 funding for the new personnel system would be $14.7 million. 41 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Personnel Practices; Conversions of Employees From Noncareer to Career Positions, GAO-06-381 (Washington: May 2006), pp. 30, 6062. 42 Letter from Representatives Bennie G. Thompson and Kendrick B. Meek to Michael Chertoff, June 1, 2006. 43 44 H.Rept. 109-476, pp. 145, 14-15, 134. U.S. Executive Office of the President, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 5441 (House) (Washington: May 25, 2006), p. 3. CRS-23 Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. Following the recommendation of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Appropriations, the Senate, on July 13, 2006, passed an appropriation of $44.8 million for the OHC, $36.4 million less than requested. The funding would be allocated as $9.8 million for HR Operations (salaries and expenses) and $35 million for MaxHR. The salaries and expenses total matches the budget request, but the MaxHR funding is $36.4 million less than requested. As compared with the FY2006 appropriation and the FY2007 appropriation passed by the House, the amount represents an increase of $5.3 million for MaxHR. The report accompanying H.R. 5441 states that the new personnel system is not funded at the level requested in the budget because of the “ongoing litigation.” It also directs the Secretary of Homeland Security “to submit an updated expenditure plan” based on the final FY2007 appropriation to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of the act’s enactment. All contract obligations, listed by year, contractor, and purpose, are to be included in the report.45 The appropriation for the OHC makes up 27.4% of the funding provided for the Under Secretary for Management ($163.4 million). The general provision on unobligated balances is included as Section 505 of the Senate-passed bill. OMB expressed the administration’s strong opposition to any reduction or elimination of funding for MaxHR.46 An amendment (S.Amdt. 4674) offered by Senator Barbara Boxer and agreed to by the Senate by unanimous consent would prohibit the use of certain funds for travel by DHS officers and employees until the recommendations of the Inspector General on the National Asset Database are implemented by the Under Secretary for Preparedness or until the Under Secretary submits a report to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the House Committee on Homeland Security, and the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations explaining why the recommendations have not been fully implemented.47 A Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on July 19, 2006, received the results of a GAO audit on the use of purchase (government-issued credit cards) cards by DHS employees in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Some 9,000 DHS employees have been issued such purchase cards and more than $435 million was spent in FY2005 using the cards. GAO found that about 45% of the purchases did not have the appropriate written authorization and that some 63% of purchases had no documentation of receipt of goods and services. The investigators also found weak internal controls, in terms of leadership, staffing, monitoring, and training, at DHS that resulted in questionable and wasteful transactions and that too many purchase cards had been issued by DHS (some 2,468 purchase cards had not been used for a year). An agency manual on procedures for purchase card use remained in draft for two years because of internal disagreements 45 S.Rept. 109-273, p. 14. 46 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 5441 (Senate) (Washington: July 12, 2006), p. 2. 47 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 152, July 13, 2006, p. S7498. CRS-24 within DHS. GAO will be issuing a report that will include recommendations for improved management controls at DHS.48 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. 48 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Individual Disaster Assistance Programs; Fraud Prevention, Detection, and Prosecution, GAO report GAO-06-954T (Washington: July 12, 2006). The hearing testimony is available at [http://hsgac.senate.gov]. CRS-25 Table 6. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations (budget authority in millions of dollars) FY2006 Appropriation Operational Component FY2006 Enacted FY2006 Supp. FY2006 Resc. FY2006 Total FY2007 Request FY2007 House FY2007 Senate US-VISITa — US-VISIT 340 — -3 337 399 362 399 Net total 340 — -3 337 399 362 399 4,826 447 -48 5,225 5,519 5,435 5,355 — Automation modernization 456 — -5 451 461 451 461 — Technology modernization — — — — — — 132 — Air and Marine Operations 400 95 -4 491 338 373 577 — Construction 270 315 -3 582 256 175 378 1,142 — — 1,142 1,265 1,265 1,265 Customs & Border Protection — Salaries and expenses b — Fee accounts Gross total 7,094 857 -60 7,891 7,839 7,699 8,168 -1,142 — — -1,142 -1,265 -1,265 -1,485 5,952 857 -60 6,749 6,574 6,434 6,683 3,108 340 -31 3,417 3,902 3,850 3,770 487 — — 487 516 516 516 — Automation & infrastructure modernization 40 — — 40 — — 20 — Construction 27 — -1 26 26 26 159 — Offsetting collections Net total Immigration & Customs Enforcement — Salaries and expenses — Federal Protective Services (FPS) FY2007 Enacted CRS-26 FY2006 Appropriation Operational Component FY2007 House FY2007 Senate FY2006 Resc. 254 — — 254 252 252 252 3,916 340 -32 4,224 4,696 4,644 4,717 — Offsetting FPS fees -487 — — -487 -516 -516 -516 — Offsetting collections -254 — — -254 -252 -252 -282 3,175 340 -32 3,483 3,928 3,876 3,919 4,607 — -46 4,561 4,655 4,704 4,752 Gross total Net total FY2006 Total FY2007 Request FY2006 Supp. — Fee accountsc FY2006 Enacted a Transportation Security Administration — Aviation security (gross funding) — Surface Transportation Security 36 — — 36 37 37 37 — Credentialing activities (appropriation) 75 — -1 74 55 75 30 180 — — 180 76 76 76 21 — — 21 21 21 21 686 — -7 679 699 699 699 489 — -4 485 506 502 697 250 — — 250 250 250 250 6,344 — -58 6,286 6,299 6,364 6,562 -1,990 — — -1,990 -3,650 -2,420 -2,420 -180 — — -180 -76 -76 -76 — Credentialing/Fee accountsd — Intelligence e — Federal Air Marshals — Administration f — Aviation security mandatory spending Gross total g — Offsetting collections — Credentialing/Fee accounts — Aviation security mandatory spending Net total -250 — — -250 -250 -250 -250 3,924 — -58 3,866 2,323 3,618 3,816 FY2007 Enacted CRS-27 FY2006 Appropriation Operational Component FY2006 Enacted FY2006 Supp. FY2006 Resc. FY2006 Total FY2007 Request FY2007 House FY2007 Senate U.S. Coast Guard 5,492 321h -330 5,483 5,519 5,482 5,534 12 — — 12 12 12 11 119 — -1 118 124 122 124 1,142 267 -12 1,397 1,170 1,140 1,062 — Alteration of bridges 15 — — 15 — 17 15 — Research, development, tests, & evaluation 17 — — 17 14 14 18 1,014 — — 1,014 1,063 1,063 1,145 — — — — 279 279 279(?) 7,811 588 -343 8,056 8,181 8,129 8,188 1,212 24 -12 1,224 1,265 — — — Protection, administration, and training — — — — — 956 918 — Investigations and field operations — — — — — 312 304 — Special event fund — — — — — 21 — — Acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses — — — — — 4 4 1,212 24 -12 1,224 1,265 1,293 1,226 26,717 1,809 -508 28,017 28,679 28,491 29,260 -4,302 — — -4,302 -6,009 -4,779 -5,029 22,415 1,809 -508 23,715 22,670 23,712 24,231 — Operating expenses — Environmental compliance & restoration — Reserve training — Acquisition, construction, & improvements — Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement) — Health care fund contribution Gross total U.S. Secret Service — Salaries and expenses; construction Net total Gross Budget Authority: Title II Total offsetting collections: Title II Net Budget Authority: Title II FY2007 Enacted CRS-28 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. FY2007 numbers from the conference report (H.Rept. 109-476) to H.R. 5441. 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. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. United States Visitor & Immigrant Status Indicator Project. Fees include COBRA, Land Border, Immigration Inspection, Immigration Enforcement, and Puerto Rico. Fees included Exam, Student Exchange and Visitor Fee, Breached Bond, Immigration User, and Land Border. Fees include TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks. P.L. 109-90 moved FAMS to TSA, pursuant to Secretary Chertoff’s reorganization proposal submitted to Congress on July 13, 2005. Aviation Security Capital Fund, used for installation of Explosive Detection Systems at airports. 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. Includes $100 million transfer from DOD. CRS-29 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.49 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 $340 million. House-Passed H.R. 5441. The House-passed version of H.R. 5441 would provide $362 million for US-VISIT, which would amount to $37 million below the President’s request for FY2007, and nearly $22 million above the FY2006 enacted level of $340 million. The House did not approve the requested aviation passenger fee increase requested by the Administration that would have funded US-VISIT at the requested level. Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 5441 would fully fund the President’s request of $399 million for US-VISIT in FY2007. The Senate would make $200 million of the appropriation conditional, however, upon approval of an expenditure plan for the program by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The Senate Appropriations Committee report also includes language directing DHS to submit a report on the progress it has made toward creating the technical standards needed to implement the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. Senatepassed H.R. 5441 includes a provision extending the current legislative deadlines for the implementation of this initiative.50 49 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. 50 For additional information on this provision, which is similar to a provision in S.2611, please refer to CRS Report RL33181, Immigration Related Border Security Legislation in the 109th Congress, by Blas Nuñez-Neto and Janice Beaver, p. CRS-18. CRS-30 Customs and Border Protection (CBP)51 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). See Table 6 for account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 7 for sub-account-level detail for CBP Salaries and Expenses (S&E) for FY2006 and FY2007. 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 enacted FY2006 level of $7,094 million. 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. House-Passed H.R. 5441. House-passed H.R. 5441 would provide an appropriation of $7,699 million in gross budget authority for CBP, an appropriation of $6,434 million in net budget authority (after offsetting fee receipts). The $7,699 million amounts to $140 million less than requested by the Administration for FY2007, and a nearly 9% increase over the enacted FY2006 level. In H.Rept. 109476, the House Appropriations Committee states that the reductions to the request include $10 million that were attributed to the poor responsiveness of CBP in submitting reports to Congress, and the fact that the House recommends denying the Administration’s request for an increase in the aviation passenger fees because such a fee increase lies outside the jurisdiction of the Committee. In the CBP Salaries and Expenses account, only the C-TPAT program would receive funding above the Administration’s request: $15 million to improve validation capability. Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would provide an appropriation of $8,168 million in gross budget authority and $6,683 million in net budget authority for CBP in FY2007. This gross budget authority represents a $1.2 billion and 15% increase over the gross enacted FY2007 level of $7,094 million. The 51 Prepared by Jennifer E. Lake, and Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analysts in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy Division. CRS-31 Senate Appropriations Committee included language requiring DHS to submit expenditure plans before receiving parts of its appropriation for the Secure Border Initiative and the Automated Commercial Environment. Table 7. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail (budget authority in millions of dollars) Activity FY06 Enact. FY07 Req. FY07 House FY07 Senate Headquarters Management And Administration 1,233 1,258 1,248 1,258 Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation @ POE 1,605 1,680 1,695 1,679 Inspections, Trade & Travel Facilitation @ POE 1,250 1,282 1,282 1,281 137 139 139 139 9 9 9 9 C-TPAT / FAST / Nexus / SENTRI 75 76 91 76 Inspection and Detection Technology 62 94 94 94 Systems for Targeting 28 27 27 27 National Targeting Center 17 24 24 24 1 1 1 1 24 25 25 25 3 3 3 3 Border Security and Control Between POE 1,778 2,421 2,329 2,176 Border Security and Control Between POE 1,726 2,244 2,177 2,138 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) — — — — Border Technology/SBI Technology 31 132 115 — Training Between the POE 22 46 37 38 Air and Marine Operations - Salaries 162 160 163 173 Undistributed Supplementals 447 — — — 5,225 5,519 5,435 5,286 Container Security Initiative (CSI) Other International Programs Other Technologies Training at POE Harbor Maintenance Fee CBP Salaries and Expenses Total: FY07 Conf. Source: DHS FY2007 Justifications, p. CBP-S&E-5, and the conference report (H.Rept. 109-476) to H.R. 5441. Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Due to a lack of detail in Senate-passed H.R. 5441, this table has not been updated to reflect Senate passage. CRS-32 Issues for Congress. The bulk of the increase in CBP’s FY2007 request compared to 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 program, and establishing a Temporary Worker Program.”52 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. In H.Rept. 109-476, the committee expressed support for SBI but also described significant concerns regarding the SBI program particularly the absence of a strategic plan in light of the “recent failures of the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence Systems (ISIS) and America’s Shield Initiative (ASI).”53 H.R. 5441 would require the Secretary to submit the SBI strategic plan to the Committee no later than November 1, 2006, and would withhold $25 million under CBP for the SBInet program until an expenditure plan for the program is approved by the Department’s Investment Review Board, reviewed by GAO, and received by Congress. CBP Staffing. Staffing issues have long been of interest to Congress, and there has been considerable debate concerning the appropriate level of staffing that CBP needs to effectively carry out its mission. CBP’s staffing needs include not only Border Patrol Agents (discussed in the following section), but also officers stationed at the nation’s ports of entry, import and trade specialists, pilots, and a variety of other positions. In addition to the debate over the appropriate level of staffing, other issues such as training resources, infrastructure demands, absorption of new staff, attrition, and hiring are also important. In an effort to address the committee’s concerns regarding CBP staffing, H.Rept. 109-476 would require CBP to submit its staffing model with the FY2008 budget request. The model should address the operational assumptions in requesting resources by mission area; and the methodology for aligning staffing levels to threats, vulnerabilities, and workload across all mission areas and per port of entry, Border Patrol sector, and Foreign Trade Zone, in addition to several other items. The Senate committee in its report, S.Rept. 109-273, would also require CBP to submit a resource allocation model (RAM) current and future year staffing requirements, by February 7, 2007. The Senate committee is particularly concerned with CBP’s ability to process growing passenger volumes at the nation’s airports. GAO issued a report in July 2005, which stated that CBP did not systematically assess its staffing requirements at airports.54 S.Rept. 109-273 would require the report to be submitted by CBP to include assessments of optimal staffing levels at all ports for all missions, and stated that CBP should consult with appropriate nonfederal partners to estimate future passenger growth, throughput, and issues such as automatic secondary inspection requirements. 52 DHS FY2007 Justification, p. CBP S&E 4. 53 H.Rept. 109-476, pp. 29-30. 54 see GAO, International Air Passengers: Staffing Model for Airport Inspections Personnel Can be Improved, (GAO-05-663), July, 2005. CRS-33 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 FY2006.55 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. The House included $385 million in funding for 1,200 new USBP agents, cutting the President’s request by 300 agents and $74 million. The Senate appropriated funding for an increase of 1,000 USBP agents, but notes that when combined with the 1,000 agents funded in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-234) brings the total FY2007 increase to 2,000 agents. In addition, a floor amendment was agreed to that would add an additional 236 USBP agents, bringing the total additional USBP agents in the Senate bill to 1,236; taken together with the supplemental the total number of agents added in FY2007 would be 2,236. 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.”56 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.57 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.58 In a 2005 report, the DHS Inspector General (DHS IG) noted that deficiencies in contract management and processes resulted in 169 incomplete RVS sites.59 55 P.L. 109-13 appropriated funding for 500 additional agents; P.L. 109-90 appropriated funding for another 1,000 additional agents. 56 DHS FY2007 Justifications, p. CBP S&E 4. 57 The Remote Video Surveillance system includes a set of cameras mounted on poles which can be remotely controlled by agents at a USBP station. 58 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. 59 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-34 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.”60 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.”61 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.62 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. H.Rept. 109-476 voiced concern about DHS’ request for SBI, noting that the submission and review of a strategic plan should have been the first step in creating the program. The House required that a strategic plan for SBI be submitted by November 1, 2006, and cut funding for SBI technologies by $17 million from the President’s request. The Senate fully funded the President’s request, but would make $100 million conditional on the submission to and approval of an expenditure plan by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would require any contract action related to SBI valued at over $20 million to be reviewed by the DHS IG to ensure it adheres to applicable the cost requirements, performance objectives, and program milestones. Additionally, the Senate bill also includes a provision that would direct DHS to establish a pilot program for the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to surveil the northern border. 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 60 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. 61 DHS IG Surveillance Report, p. 2. 62 H.Rept. 109-241, p. 44. CRS-35 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 infrastructure63 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 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.64 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. H.Rept. 109-476 noted that while $30 million in funding was provided for San Diego tactical infrastructure improvements as requested, funding for Arizona tactical infrastructure projects was reduced due to poor budget justifications, uncertainty surrounding SBI procurement, and the lack of a strategic plan for SBI expenditures. The House withheld $25 million in funding until the Committees on Appropriations receive and approve an expenditure plan for SBI procurement and contracting. The Senate increased the President’s request by $122 million, to $378 million. The Senate fully funded the infrastructure projects in Arizona and California, and included $59 million for the costs associated with constructing facilities for new Border Patrol agents. The Senate total also includes an unspecified $90 million increase added as a floor amendment. Tucson Sector Border Patrol Checkpoints. House-passed H.R. 5441 includes language prohibiting any funds in the bill from being used for the construction, design, or the acquisition of sites for permanent checkpoints in the Tucson sector. The House bill would also require the USBP to relocate its checkpoints in the Tucson sector at least once every seven days to “prevent persons subject to inspection from predicting the location of any such checkpoint.” The Senate Appropriations Committee report notes that the DHS IG concluded that the permanent checkpoints permit safer and more efficient law enforcement and strongly encourages CBP to construct permanent checkpoints in the Tucson sector. The Senate-passed bill does not include any language concerning checkpoints in the Tucson sector. Border Tunnels. Both the House and Senate Appropriations Committee reports raised concern over the existence and increase in tunnels underneath the land 63 DHS uses this term to refer to its border fencing, vehicle barriers, and access roads, among other things. 64 DHS FY2007 Justifications, pp. CBP Construction 4-12. CRS-36 border. The House committee directed CBP to work with Science and Technology to establish a program for detecting and addressing this smuggling tactic and incorporate the costs of funding such a program into future budget submissions. The Senate voiced concern over the lack of a clear policy within DHS concerning which agency is responsible for securing, closing, and filling tunnels that are discovered and directs DHS to address this issue and to submit a report on their proposed policy by February 8, 2007. During floor consideration in the Senate, an amendment was accepted to H.R. 5441 that would criminalize the construction, financing, and use of tunnels crossing the U.S. international border.65 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 publicprivate 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 CustomsTrade 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. The House-passed version of H.R. 5441 would provide an additional $15 million above the Administration’s request for CTPAT, and would fund CSI at the requested level. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 5441 would fund both CSI and C-TPAT at the FY2007 requested level. 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.66 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.67 GAO has also reported that several 65 For more information on this provision, which is identical to a provision in S. 2611, please refer to CRS Report RL33181, Immigration Related Border Security Legislation in the 109th Congress, by Blas Nuñez-Neto and Janice Beaver, p. CRS-12. 66 GAO-05-446T, Homeland Security: Key Cargo Security Programs Can Be Improved, May 26, 2005, p. 20, and p. 16. 67 See GAO, Homeland Security: Key Cargo Security Programs Can Be Improved, GAO-05466T, Testimony by Richard M. Stana, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, (continued...) CRS-37 factors limit CBP’s ability to successfully target maritime containers at foreign ports, including staffing imbalances, operational reasons, lack of technical requirements for NII equipment used at foreign ports, and continued refinements to the strategic plan and performance measures needed to manage the program.68 The House Appropriations Committee in H.Rept. 109-476 expressed several concerns regarding the Department’s port, container, and cargo security programs including: lack of a “port, container, and cargo strategic plan...”69 The committee would withhold $10 million from the Office of the Secretary and Management until this strategic plan was submitted. Several elements that would be required under this plan are similar to items that have been included in port security bills (H.R. 4954 passed by the House, S. 2459 and S. 1052 both reported in the Senate, and S. 2791 introduced in the Senate). Significant provisions that would be required by the strategic plan outlined in H.Rept. 109-476 include having the Secretary ensure that ! ! ! all inbound cargo is screened by the Automated Targeting System (ATS); the percentage of inbound cargo inspected by CBP is doubled; by the end of FY2007: — CSI maintains a 100% manifest review rate; — C-TPAT conducts validations of new certified participants within one year, and once every three years thereafter; and — the percentage of containerized cargo screened for radiation as of January 1, 2006 is doubled. In addition to the above items, the plan would be required to include a discussion of how the CSI program is coordinated with the Department of Energy’s Megaports program, how CBP is promoting non-intrusive inspection (NII) equipment in foreign countries, minimum standards for securing cargo containers, an evaluation of evaluation of cargo inspection systems utilized at high-volume foreign ports (such as Hong Kong), among other items. Section 571 of Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would require the Secretary to conduct a pilot full-scale implementation of the pilot integrated screening system in at least three foreign seaports within one year of enactment. The language in Section 571 is nearly identical to language contained in Section 11(i) of S. 2459, the GreenLane Cargo Security Act (reported in the Senate) and similar in intent to Section 208 of 67 (...continued) 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. 68 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. 69 H.Rept. 109-476, pp.9-10. CRS-38 H.R. 4954, which would require the Secretary to conduct a pilot of the Integrated Container Inspection System being tested in Hong Kong. Title VII of Senate-passed H.R. 5441 contains additional appropriations for port security, including $251 million for CBP for FY2006. For a full discussion see Appendix I of this report. Screening Municipal Solid Waste. The Senate passed version of H.R. 5441 includes provisions pertaining to CBP’s screening of municipal solid waste (MSW). Sec. 555 would require CBP to submit a report to Congress within 90 days of enactment indicating whether the methods used to inspect the trash trucks for chemical, nuclear, biological, and radiological weapons are as effective as methods used to screen other commerce. The report would also have to identify actions to improve the screening of MSW in the event the current screening methods are found deficient, including the acquisition of additional screening technology. Sec. 555 would require the Secretary of DHS to deny the entry of any truck carrying MSW in the event that CBP fails to implement the required corrective actions within a specified time-frame. Sec. 557 would require the Secretary of DHS to provide personnel and equipment to improve the inspection of commercial vehicles carrying MSW, and to levy a fee approximating the costs of the inspections. 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 (POEs). Recently, various concerns have been raised regarding in particular the radiation detection equipment. GAO reported in March of 2006,70 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 70 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-39 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 POEs). GAO recommended that DHS streamline internal review procedures so that the Department can: ! ! ! ! ! provide Congress with 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. The House, in H.Rept. 109-476, indicated its continuing concern with the issues cited by GAO in its report, and would require CBP to report to Congress by January 16, 2007 on improvements to the process for combating nuclear smuggling. The Senate, in S.Rept. 109-273, indicates its support for the acquisition and use of multiple technologies and advanced mobile inspection systems to screen cargo containers and conveyances. The committee also noted that GAO concluded that there was no specific plan to interdict hazardous materials that may be entering the United States, and the committee encourages CBP to use the most up to date technology to address this issue.71 CBP Air and Marine. The Administration requested $338 million for the CBP Air and Marine Interdictions, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement account. House-passed H.R. 5441 would provide $373 million for this account, nearly $36 million above the Administration’s request, and $23 million below the FY2006 enacted amount. The House provides the following additional amount above the Administration’s request: $16 million for the P-3 service life extension program; $5 million for an additional 1,000 P-3 fligh hours; $10 million for 3 manned covert surveillance aircraft; nearly $3 million for UAV logistics and communication equipment; and $2 million to replace 5 marine interceptor boats. In addition, there is funding within the CBP Salaries and Expenses account for CBP Air and Marine, Personnel, Compensation, and Benefits. H.R. 5441 would provide $163 million for this activity, which amounts to $3 million above the Administration’s request and $1 million above the enacted FY2006 amount. H.R. 5441 provides an additional $3 million for staffing at the Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC) above the Administration’s request. The committee remains concerned with several aspects of the CBP Air and Marine program. CBP has yet to submit a capitalization plan to Congress, and as a result the House would reduce the funding for CBP’s Headquarters, Management and Administration has been reduced by $4 million. In addition, H.Rept. 109-476 would direct CBP to submit the Air and Marine Capitalization Plan no later than November 71 GAO, Undeclared Hazardous Materials: New DOT Efforts May Provide Additional Information on Undeclared Shipments, GAO-06-471, March, 2006. CRS-40 1, 2006. There have been several organizational changes made to CBP Air and Marine operations in the past couple of years. The most recent of these changes include the move of CBP Air and Marine from ICE to CBP and the consolidation of legacy Customs air and marine assets with the air and marine assets of the Border Patrol. Concerns have been raised regarding the impact of this consolidation on the deployment of CBP Air and Marine assets, particularly in the source and transit zones, and for investigative and surveillance support missions. H.Rept. 109-476 would direct CBP to reflect a comprehensive approach to asset deployment that is not solely focused on the physical border. In addition, CBP would also be directed to report to Congress no later than January 16, 2007, on requests for support made in 2006, the response to those requests, and on the consequences of reduced support to ICE.72 The Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would provide a total of $472 million for the CBP Air and Marine Interdictions, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement account; and $173 million for CBP Air and Marine, Personnel, Compensation, and Benefits, in the CBP Salaries and expenses account. Title VI of Senate-passed H.R. 5441 contains a provision that would provide an additional $105 million for air asset replacement and air operations facilities upgrades. The total amount provided in Senate-passed H.R. 5441 for the CBPAM Interdictions, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement account is $577 million. Section 551 of the Senate-passed version of H.R. 5441 would require the DHS Secretary to establish and conduct, within one year of enactment, a pilot program at the CBPAM’s Northern Border Airwing bases testing unmanned aerial vehicles for border surveillance along the U.S.-Canada border. Shadow Wolves Transfer. Prior to the creation of DHS, the Shadow Wolves were an elite Customs Patrol investigative unit within the U.S. Customs Service charged with enforcing customs laws and interdicting smugglers within the Tohono O’odham reservation. The Shadow Wolves were created after years of negotiation between the Customs Service and the Tribe, and members of the unit must be certified Native American. The Shadow Wolves were originally placed within ICE when DHS was created, but were subsequently moved into CBP where they are administratively under the USBP. During floor debate on H.R. 4451, an amendment was agreed to (H.Amdt. 952) that would transfer $2 million in funding from CBP to ICE to effectively move the Shadow Wolves into ICE. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)73 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 72 73 H.Rept. 109-476, pp.33-34. Prepared by Alison Siskin, Analyst in Social Legislation, Domestic Social Policy Division. CRS-41 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)74 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. See Table 6 for account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 8 for sub-accountlevel detail for ICE Salaries and Expenses (S&E) for FY2006 and FY2007. President’s FY2007 Request. The Administration requested $4,696 million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2007. This represents a 20% increase over the enacted FY2006 level of $3,916 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 $3,175 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 enacted Activity FY07 request FY07 House FY07 Senate HQ & Administration 254 — 265 280 Legal Proceeding 129 207 187 187 1,183 1,457 1,325 1,286 101 105 105 103 1,284 1,562 1,430 1,388 50 58 51 51 DRO-Custody Operations 1,003 1,433 1,291 1,236 DRO-Fugitive Operations 101 174 200 146 DRO - Institutional Removal Program 93 110 105 101 DRO - Alternatives to Detention 28 43 46 41 133 317 273 308 1,358 2,077 1,915 1,833 340 — — — 3,417 3,902 3,850 3,740 Investigations - Domestic Investigations - International Investigations Total: Intelligence DRO Transportation and Removal Program DRO Total: Unspecified Supplemental ICE Salaries and Expenses: FY07 Conf. Source: DHS FY2007 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. ICE-S&E-4, and the conference report (H.Rept. 109-476) to H.R. 5441. Unspecified supplemental from P.L. 109-234. Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. 74 FAMS transferred to ICE from TSA in Aug. of 2003. CRS-42 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.75 House-Passed H.R. 5441. House-passed H.R. 5441 would appropriate $4,644 million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2007, representing a 19% increase over the enacted FY2006 level of $3,916 million, and $52 million less than the President’s request. As shown in Table 6, the bill would appropriate $3,919 million in net budget authority for ICE in FY2007, representing a 23% increase over the FY2006 enacted level of $3,175 million. Of the appropriated amount, $5.4 million would be used to implement §287(g) of the INA; $11.2 million would be designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care, and repatriation of smuggled aliens, and $15.8 million would be targeted for enforcement of laws against forced child labor. Additionally, H.Rept 109-476 recommended an increase over FY2006 funding of ! ! ! ! ! ! $275 million for detention bedspace, transportation, and removal efforts associated with the SBI; $33.4 million for 70 fugitive operations teams; $13.7 million for financial and trade investigations; $1 million for the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center;76 $5 million for alternatives to detention; and $40 million to expand the Criminal Alien Program (CAP). Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would appropriate $4,717 million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2007, representing a 20% increase over the gross enacted FY2006 level of $3,916 million, and $21 million more than the President’s request. As shown in Table 6, the bill would appropriate $3,919 million in net budget authority for ICE in FY2007, representing a 23% increase over the FY2006 enacted level of $3,175 million. Of the appropriated 75 76 Also known as Office of the Principal Legal Advisor. Established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108458, §7202 ), the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center is an interagency group which provides information and support to counter migrant smuggling, trafficking of persons, and clandestine terrorist travel. CRS-43 amount, $58 million would be available to increase detention space (including related support) by 1,700 beds, $5.4 million would be used to implement §287(g) of the INA; $11.2 million would be designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care, and repatriation of smuggled aliens, $15.8 million would be targeted for enforcement of laws against forced child labor, $102,000 would be used to promote public awareness of child pornography, and $203,000 would fund project alert.77 Senate-passed H.R. 5441 (§601) would direct the Secretary of DHS to adjust the fees charged to noncitizens to achieve no less than $350 million in additional receipts by September 30, 2007. Of the additional monies, $30 million would be for vehicle replacement in ICE, and $15 million for ICE automation modernization. Additionally, S. Rept. 109-275 recommends an increase over FY2006 funding of: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! $10 million (27 FTEs) for compliance investigations related to visa overstays; $400,000 to implement §287(g) agreements; $3.9 million to respond to requests for assistance from state and local law enforcement; $38.5 million (128 FTEs) for DHS representation in removal proceedings; $165 million for DRO custody management; $94 million for DRO transportation and removal operations; $40 million for DRO fugitive operations; $1 million (4 FTEs) to establish the Office of Financial Management to oversee internal controls within ICE; $3.6 million (16 FTEs) to improve the Office of Procurement; $10 million to expand the Office of Professional Responsibility; and $2 million for the Cyber Crime Center. 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.78 The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107296) 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 77 Project ALERT was launched by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in 1992, and consists of retired law enforcement agents who volunteer to provide assistance, as requested, to law enforcement agencies. 78 For more information see [http://www.ice.gov/graphics/investigations/index.htm]. CRS-44 immigration law and that ICE resources have been focused on terrorism and the types of investigations performed by the former Customs Service.79 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 immigration enforcement, the Compliance Enforcement Unit80 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.81 House-passed H.R. 5441 would appropriate $1,325 million for OI domestic operations, $132 million less than the President’s request. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would appropriate $1,286 million for OI domestic operations, $39 million less than House-passed H.R. 5441, and $171 million less than the President’s request. 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.82 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.83 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 79 Based on CRS discussions with ICE personnel in New York City, Aug. 27, 2003. 80 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. 81 The President’s budget also requests an additional 23 positions for compliance enforcement to be funded from SEVIS fees. 82 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. 83 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. CRS-45 beds for each year, FY2006-FY2010. The President’s budget requested a total of $2,077 for DRO including an additional $364.6 million for custody operations, $174.9 million for transportation and removal, $64.8 million for fugitive operations,84 and $8.7 million for the Institutional Removal Program (IRP). House-passed H.R. 5441 would appropriate $1,915 million for DRO. According to H.Rept 109-476, the reduction from the President’s request is due in part to inadequate information about DHS’ detention management plan, and by budget constraints caused by the increase to aviation passenger fees. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would appropriate $1,833 million for DRO, and S.Rept 109-275 would require DHS to submit reports on removal orders, alien absconders, detention bonds, separation of families in detention, and detention of unaccompanied minors.85 In addition, House-passed and Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would appropriate $11.2 million to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the costs associated with the care, maintenance, and repatriation of smuggled aliens. 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, 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.86 In addition, ICE uses electronic monitoring devices as another alternative to detention. The President’s budget requested $43 million, House-passed H.R. 5441 would appropriate $46 million, and Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would appropriate $41 million for detention alternatives Secure Border Initiative. The Secure Border Initiative (SBI) is a DHS multiyear 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). House-passed H.R. 5441 would include increases in fugitive operations ($33.4 million) and for detention bedspace, transportation, and removal efforts ($275 million) associated with the SBI. Senatepassed H.R. 5441 does not appropriate any money specifically for the SBI. 84 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. 85 The report on alien absconders was due Feb. 18, 2006, but has not yet been submitted. The committee report would also require a report in the cost and need of establishing an ICE sub-office in Colorado Springs, CO. 86 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]. CRS-46 State and Local Law Enforcement.87 Currently the INA provides limited avenues for state enforcement of both its civil and criminal provisions. One of the broadest grants of authority for state and local immigration enforcement activity stems from INA §287(g), which authorizes the Attorney General to enter into a written agreement with a State, or any political subdivision to allow an officer or employee of the State or subdivision, to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States. The enforcement of immigration by state and local officials has sparked debate among many who question what the proper role of state and local law enforcement officials should be in enforcing federal immigration laws. Many have expressed concern over proper training, finite resources at the local level, possible civil rights violations, and the overall impact on communities. Some localities, for example, even provide “sanctuary” for illegal aliens and will generally promote policies that ensure such aliens will not be turned over to federal authorities. Nonetheless, some observers contend that the federal government has scarce resources to enforce immigration law and that state and local law enforcement entities should be utilized. House-passed and Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would appropriate $5.4 million to facilitate INA §287(g) agreements. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would also create a new grant program called the “Border Relief Grant Program.”88 Under this program, subject to available appropriations, the Secretary would award grants to tribal, state, and local law enforcement agencies located in counties no more than 100 miles from the U.S.Mexico or U.S.-Canadian land border, or located in counties further than 100 miles from the U.S. land borders who have been certified by the Secretary as High Impact Areas. Two-thirds of the funds would be allocated to the six states with the largest number of unauthorized alien apprehensions, and one-third would be set aside for High Impact Areas. The grants would be used to provide additional resources to the law enforcement agencies to help address criminal activity that occurs in the jurisdiction by virtue of the agencies proximity to the U.S. land border, and the impact of any lack of security along the U.S. border. Priority would be given to law enforcement agencies serving communities with populations less than 50,000 and located no more than 100 miles of the U.S. international land borders. The bill would authorize $50 million each year FY2007 through FY2011 for the “Border Relief Grant Program.” Transportation Security Administration (TSA)89 The TSA was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA, P.L. 107-71), and it was charged with protecting air, land, and rail transportation systems within the United States to ensure the freedom of movement for people and 87 This section adapted from CRS Report RL32270, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement, by Lisa M. Seghetti, Stephen R. Vina, and Karma Ester. 88 89 See Title IX of Senate-passed H.R. 5441. Prepared by Bart Elias, Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology, Resources, Science, and Industry Division. CRS-47 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. See Table 6 for account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 9 for sub-account-level detail for TSA for FY2006 and FY2007. 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 enacted level was $6,344 million. 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. 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. 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. CRS-48 Table 9. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity (budget authority in millions of dollars) Budget Activity Aviation Security FY2006 Enacted FY2007 Request FY2007 House FY2007 Senate 4,811 4,905 4,954 5,004 138 149 149 149 1,505 1,556 1,556 1,556 — Passenger Screening (Other) 24 23 23 23 — Baggage Screening (PC&B) 875 914 914 914 — Baggage Screening (Other) 133 133 133 133 87 88 88 88 — Human Resource Services 205 207 207 200 — Checkpoint Support 163 173 173 181 — EDS/ETD Purchase 173 91 136 141 45 94 94 172 198 234 234 210 — Operation Integration 23 23 23 23 — EDS/ETD Refurbish — — 10 — — Regulation and Other Enforcement 220 218 218 218 — Airport Management, IT, and Support 679 666 666 666 — FFDO & Crew Training 30 30 25 23 — Air Cargo Security 54 55 55 55 — Airport Perimeter Security 5 0 — — — Foreign and Domestic Repair Stations 3 0 — — — Aviation Security Capital Fund 250 250 250 250 Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) 679 699 699 699 — Management and Administration 607 628 628 628 70 71 71 71 2 0 — — — Screening Partnership Program (SPP) — Passenger Screening (PC&B) — Screener Training — EDS/ETD Installation — EDS/ETD Maintenance and Utilities — Travel and Training — Air-To-Ground Communication FY2007 Conf. CRS-49 Budget Activity Threat Assessment and Credentialing FY2006 Enacted FY2007 Request FY2007 House FY2007 Senate 254 131 151 106 5 0 — — — Secure Flight 56 40 40 15 — Crew Vetting 13 15 15 15 — Registered Traveler Program Fees 20 35 35 35 — Alien Flight School Fees 10 2 2 2 — TWIC Appropriation — — 20 — — TWIC Fees 100 20 20 20 — HAZMAT Commercial Driver Fees 50 19 19 19 Surface Transportation Security 36 37 37 37 — Operations and Staffing 24 24 24 24 — Rail Security Inspectors and Canines 8 13 13 13 — HAZMAT Truck Tracking and Training 4 0 — — Transportation Security Support 505 527 523 619 21 21 21 21 — Headquarters Administration 277 296 292 296 — Research and Development — — — 92 — Information Technology 208 210 210 210 6,286 6,299 6,364 6,463 — Screening Administration and Operations — Intelligence TSA TOTAL: FY2007 Conf. Source: CRS analysis of the FY2007 President’s Budget, DHS Budget in Brief, and TSA FY2007 Congressional Justification documents, and the conference report (H.Rept. 109-476) to H.R. 5441. 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. 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 CRS-50 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.90 The TSA is also requesting slightly more than $80 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.91 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 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.92 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 90 Thomas Frank, “Airport Screeners’ Strains, Sprains Highest Among Workers,” USA Today, January 11, 2006, p. A2 91 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. 92 Office of Management and Budget, President’s Budget, FY2007, p. 141. CRS-51 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 oneway 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 FY2005.93 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.94 The current fee schedule arguably has a greater relative impact on 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.95 House-Passed H.R. 5441. House-passed H.R. 5441 would provide a gross total of $6,364 million for the TSA in FY2007. This amount is $65 million higher than the President’s request and $20 million above FY2006 enacted appropriations. 93 Ibid., and Transportation Security Administration, Fiscal Year 2007 — Congressional Justification Overview. 94 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. 95 United States Government Accountability Office, Review of Air Carriers’ Year 2000 Passenger and Property Screening Costs, April 2005, GAO-05-558. CRS-52 The House-passed bill would appropriate $4,704, roughly 74% of the total TSA budget, on direct spending for aviation security, including screening operations, security direction and enforcement, and the mandatory $250 million appropriation for the Aviation Security Capital Fund. The House-passed appropriation for aviation security is roughly $50 million higher than the President’s request. This amount, however, does not include appropriations for the Federal Air Marshals Service (FAMS), which the House-passed bill would provide $699 million, matching the President’s request. The amount for aviation security also does not include aviationsecurity related threat assessment and credentialing programs such as Secure Flight and the Registered Traveler program. The House-passed bill would provide $74 million for the TSA’s Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing (TTAC) mission area in all transportation modes which includes the following programs: Secure Flight (aviation), Crew Vetting (aviation), Transportation Worker Identification Credential — TWIC (currently limited to marine/seaports), Registered Traveler (aviation), HAZMAT Commercial Driver Credentialing (highway, freight trucking) and Alien Flight School vetting (aviation). TTAC appropriations for aviation-related functions includes $55 million in direct appropriations, and an additional $37 million from fee collections, largely anticipated to be derived from the Registered Traveler program. Adding the House-passed funding for FAMS and aviation-related threat assessment and credentialing programs yields a total spending package for aviation-related functions of $5,495 million, or 86% of total TSA funding included in the bill. The House-passed bill would also provide $37 million for TSA surface transportation security functions, the same as the President’s request. The committee report (H.Rept. 109-476) also directs the TSA to use prior year unobligated funds designated for surface transportation staffing and operations on rail and mass transit security screening pilot programs in large metropolitan areas. The House bill would also appropriate $20 million for the TWIC program in addition to the $20 million that the administration expects from fee collections and, in-line with the President’s request, anticipates $19 million in fee collections for HAZMAT commercial driver credentialing. A general provision in the bill (Sec. 520) prohibits any funds designated for the TWIC program from being used to develop any type of credentialing program that is decentralized and not universal, and requires that existing government card production facilities be used to carry out production of TWIC credentials. With regard to the Administration’s proposal to modify the passenger fee schedule, this request was not considered in the House-passed bill because it seeks to modify existing law that falls under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Homeland Security. The appropriations committee has estimated FY2007 passenger fee collections under the existing fee schedule to total $2,124 million. This includes an initial $250 million to be deposited in the Aviation Security Capital Fund plus an additional $1,874 million to offset TSA spending on aviation security. In addition the House committee projects aviation security infrastructure fee (ASIF) collections directly from the airlines, including retroactive payments from FY2005 and FY2006, to total $546 million in FY2007, $98 million less than the administration projection. While the House-passed bill is based on the assumption of collecting significantly less in passenger and airline fees than administration projections, the only TSA program that was specifically reduced to derive cost savings was for headquarters CRS-53 administration, which was reduced by $4 million. House-passed funding for the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program and flight attendant (cabin crew) training was also reduced, by $5 million, compared to the President’s request. However, this cut was attributed to high unobligated balances of prior year appropriations for the program rather than as a specific cost cutting measure. The House-passed bill otherwise set funding at levels equal to or greater than requested amounts. The appropriations committee, however, indicated that reductions to key funding proposals throughout DHS were made to “make up for the shortfall in the President’s budget brought on by this untenable fee proposal.”96 In report language, the House appropriations committee encouraged TSA to develop innovative approaches and incentives for airports to pursue private screener operations instead of federal TSA-screeners.97 A general provision in the bill (Sec. 536) prohibits the TSA from hiring non-screener personnel at airports whose duties would be redundant with those performed by any non-screener personnel employed by a contract screening company participating in the Screening Partnership Program (SPP). As in past years, language in the House-passed bill caps TSA screener staffing levels to 45,000 full-time equivalents. The committee noted that this cap has been kept in place, in part, to ensure that the TSA accelerates technology deployment initiatives for passenger and baggage screening. Report language also directs the TSA to report on its efforts to decentralize screener hiring, and how these efforts might be encumbered by centralized financing of the hiring process. The committee also wants the TSA to complete a study to identify those airports where passenger wait times at screening checkpoints are continually above system-wide averages. The House-passed bill provides $45 million more than the President’s request for EDS purchase. The House-passed bill also includes an additional $10 million, not included in the President’s request, to begin refurbishing and upgrading EDS equipment, with the caveat that only those machines that manufacturers are willing to place back under warranty should be refurbished. The committee, however, emphasized that it does not believe that explosive trace detection (ETD) should be refurbished, and seeks the long term reduction in the use of ETD equipment for baggage screening. House-passed language also requires the TSA to develop standards and protocols for increasing the use of EDS to screen air cargo, and requires the TSA to use existing EDS equipment and screeners to screen cargo on passenger aircraft to the greatest extent practicable at each airport. The bill further requires the TSA to provide Congress with air cargo inspection statistics by airport and by air carrier on a quarterly basis, and reduces aviation security appropriations by $100,000 for every day that the required report is late (Sec. 519). As in previous years, the House-passed bill prohibits the full deployment or implementation of Secure Flight beyond its testing phase until the DHS certifies and the GAO reports that the system satisfactorily addresses specific statutory requirements pertaining to system performance, data protection, privacy, and redress for aggrieved passengers. Language in the House-passed bill (Sec. 513) also prohibits the development of algorithms to assign passenger risk using any means 96 H.Rept. 109-476, p. 46. 97 Ibid. CRS-54 other than official government watch lists, and prohibits the use of commercial, or non-federal, databases in the Secure Flight system. Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. The Senate-passed bill would provide $6,562 million in total budget authority for the TSA, $198 million more than the Housepassed amount and $276 million more than the requested funding amount. The Senate approved a total appropriation (including the Aviation Security Capital Fund) for aviation of $5,002 million, $48 million above the House-passed funding level and $97 million more than the President’s request. Like the House, the Senate did not include the President’s proposed increase to passenger aviation security fees and projects total collections from passengers and the airlines to equal $2,420 million in addition to the $250 million designated for mandatory spending in the Aviation Security Capital Fund. For most budget activities, the Senate-passed bill matches funding levels requested by the President and passed by the House. Notable exceptions to this are discussed below. The Senate approved $181 million for airport checkpoint support functions, $8 million more than the requested level that was agreed to by the House. While the committee did not specifically designate what this additional funding was to be used for, its report (S.Rept. 109-273) indicates that the overall appropriation amount for this budget activity includes funding for the development and piloting of an advanced checkpoint portal solution, and report language directs the TSA to develop a strategic plan and timeline for deploying emerging technologies to screen passengers for explosives. The Senate-passed bill would provide $141 million for EDS and ETD purchase, $50 million more than the President’s request and $5 million more than the Housepassed amount. The Senate committee report (S.Rept. 109-273) expressed concerns over the President’s budget request that would have cut this function by more that 50%. The report specified that out of the total funding amount for EDS and ETD purchase, $20 million or more should be put toward acquiring and deploying nextgeneration EDS machines, noting that the newer machines are potentially more efficient than current-generation units and may yield a significant improvement in installation, integration, and life-cycle costs. The Senate-passed bill also included $172 million for EDS and ETD installation, $127 million more than the FY2006 appropriated amount and $78 million more than both the President’s request and the House-passed bill. S.Rept. 109-273 indicated that this sizable increase in funding would ensure that EDS and ETD installation is carried out in an expedited manner. The Senate-passed bill, however, recommended $24 million less that the President’s request for EDS and ETD maintenance, noting that the TSA has already achieved sizable savings on maintenance, and encouraged the TSA to continue to work with contractors to further reduce maintenance costs. The bill language also limits the obligation of $25 million of these funds until the committee receives a report responding to the DHS IG’s findings regarding contractor fees. The committee report also includes language supporting the TSA’s expanded used of refurbished EDS equipment and directs the TSA to work aggressively to save costs by maximizing the refurbishment of EDS equipment. However, unlike the House- CRS-55 passed bill, the Senate-passed bill did not include a specific funding amount for EDS and ETD refurbishing. The Senate-passed bill includes $23 million for the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program for armed pilots and for crew security training, $7 million less than the FY2006 appropriation and the FY2007 request, and $2 million less than the House-passed funding amount. Like the House committee report, the Senate committee report (S.Rept. 109-273) cited high unobligated balances in this program, rather than specific cost-cutting initiatives, as the reason for this proposed reduction. The Senate-passed bill specifies $15 million for the Secure Flight program, $25 million less than the amount requested and agreed to by the House. The Senate committee report asserted that this amount, in conjunction with available carryover balances, should be sufficient to meet FY2007 program requirements. While the committee expressed its general support for the additional layer of aviation security that would be provided through the Secure Flight program, the committee concluded that the shape and size of the program still remains unclear because of continuing delays and another effort to re-scope the program. The committee indicated that it was therefore reluctant to provide any resources beyond the proposed $15 million. Also regarding Secure Flight, the Senate passed language identical to the Housepassed bill requiring DHS certification and GAO oversight to confirm that the system is secure, protects the privacy of personal data, and has an adequate redress process for passengers that are erroneously flagged by the system. Like the House-passed bill, this language prohibits the use of commercial databases in the Secure Flight system for any purpose including authenticating passenger identity or assessing passenger risk. In addition, S.Amdt. 4635 directs the TSA to work more closely with the airlines to provide technical data and other assistance to better align their reservation systems with terrorist databases to minimize travel delays and inconvenience associated with mistaken identification, until the Secure Flight system or a successor system is fully deployed. Also, S.Amdt. 4619 would require the DHS to establish revised procedures for clearing individuals whose names are mistakenly placed on a terrorist watch list or whose names are similar or identical to individuals included on a terrorist watch list. Often these “false positive” identifications are made when an individual attempts to board a flight and is singled out for additional screening or denied boarding based on use of the no-fly and selectee lists provided by the TSA to the airlines. The Senate also agreed to several amendments related to aviation security. S.Amdt. 4608 would require the TSA to provide passenger and baggage screener and related resources at the New Castle Airport in Wilmington, DE, as long as commercial air service is provided at that airport. It is uncertain whether the wording of this amendment would specifically restrict the use of private screeners, contracted by TSA under their Screening Partnership Program (SPP) – sometimes referred to as the opt-out program – under which airports can elect to use private screeners instead of TSA screeners. If so, this provision could be highly controversial as it could set precedent for legislators to seek similar restrictions at other airports, which could be viewed by advocates for private screening as potentially undermining the intent of the opt-out provision of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA; P.L. 107-71). Another agreed-to amendment (S. 4582) would require TSA to report on CRS-56 the effectiveness of screening operations resulting from its modification of the list of prohibited items in December 2005. Senate-passed S.Amdt. 4592 would require air carriers to develop plans to comply with a provision of ATSA that gave emergency service personnel, such as firefighters, police officers, and medical technicians authority to voluntarily provide emergency services on commercial air flights during emergencies. The Senate also agreed to S.Amdt. 4552, which would remove the TSA’s exemption from federal procurement law. When TSA was established as part of the Department of Transportation under ATSA, it was given authority to operate under the FAA’s acquisition management system, which was statutorily exempt from many aspects of federal procurement law in order to provide for more timely and cost-effective acquisitions of equipment and materials to meet unique challenges in responding to the needs of the aviation industry. Also, in contrast to the House and prior-year appropriations language that capped the number of TSA screeners at 45,000, the Senate-passed S.Amdt. 4558 prohibits any statutory limitation on the number of TSA employees, or any administrative rule or regulation limiting the recruiting or hiring of TSA personnel. 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 inline 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. Noting that going along with the President’s proposed passenger fee restructuring would not be in order as part of the appropriations process because it would require modifications to existing law, the House-passed appropriations bill does not address the issue of modifying passenger security fees. The status of the Secure Flight program to prescreen airline passengers against the consolidated terrorist watch list may be considered during the FY2007 CRS-57 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,98 while the TSA has indicated that it is “re-baselining” the program before entering into the operational testing phase.99 As previously noted, the House-passed bill would keep the restrictions on full deployment of Secure Flight in force. It also would prohibit the TSA from using methods other than Government watch lists for assessing passenger security risk, and would prohibit the use of commercial databases for vetting passengers. 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.100 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 98 United States Government Accountability Office, Significant Management Challenges May Adversely Affect Implementation of the Transportation Security Administration’s Secure Flight Program, February 9, 2006, GAO-06-374T. 99 “TSA Puts Brakes on ‘Secure Flight’; GAO Concurs, Congress Resists,” Airport Security Report, 13(4), March 1, 2006. 100 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. CRS-58 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.101 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 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 Guard102 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. See Table 6 for account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II. 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 .5% increase over the FY2006 level. The President’s request included slight increases in most Coast Guard accounts, including $5,519 million for operating expenses, $1,170 million for acquisition, construction, and improvements, $124 million for reserve training, $14 million for research, development, tests, and evaluation, $12 million for environmental compliance and restoration, 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 to relocate the Coast Guard’s headquarters in Washington, DC. House-Passed H.R. 5441. The House-passed version of H.R. 5441 provides a total of $8,129 million for the Coast Guard which is $52 million less than the President requested and $318 million more than was enacted in FY2006. Most of the difference between the House and the President’s request concerns the operating 101 Transportation Security Administration, Fiscal Year 2007 Congressional Justification: Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing, pp. 11-12. 102 Prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation, Resources, Science and Industry Division. CRS-59 expense account and the ACI account. Under operating expenses, the House did not include $50 million for the Coast Guard’s headquarters relocation. Under the ACI account, the House did not include $42 million for production of the fast response cutter. The House provided $17 million for the bridge alteration program while the President requested no funds for this program. Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 5441 provides a total of $8,188 million for the Coast Guard, which is $7 million more than the President requested and $377 million more than was enacted in FY2006. The Senate did not include the $50 million for the Coast Guard’s headquarters relocation that the President requested. The Senate provided $15 million for the bridge alteration program versus the President’s request for no funds. The Senate provided $18 million for research, development, test and evaluation, which is $4 million more than the President requested. 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, the House provided $893 million, and the Senate provided $994 million. As indicated above, the House did not provide funding for the fast response cutter, whereas the Senate did provide funding. The Senate also moved $81 million for personnel and related support requested in the ACI account to the Operating Expense account, noting the need for increased oversight and management for multiple major acquisition projects. 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 acquisition time-line. These issues are discussed in CRS Report RS21019, Coast Guard Deepwater Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke. Security Mission. The Dubai Ports World issue 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.103 About half of the Coast Guard’s FY2007 budget request is for its homeland security mission. This amount includes $17 million for Maritime Domain 103 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. CRS-60 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.104 H.Rept. 109-476 states that “The Committee is very concerned about DHS’ progress towards securing our nation’s ports and inbound commerce. While the Department is to be commended for establishing many noteworthy security programs to address this issue, sustained, measurable improvement of our nation’s port and commerce security as a whole remains unclear.”105 The House report recommends $15 million more than the President requested for Coast Guard port security inspectors to accelerate foreign port security assessments and increase the number of unannounced inspections at U.S. ports. The House report provides $15 million for AIS deployment, the same amount that the President requested. S.Rept. 109-273 indicates that the Senate committee provides $3,767 million in the Coast Guard’s budget for maritime border security.106 The Senate report also provides a program increase of $3 million for Maritime Security Response Teams and $5 million for Maritime Domain Awareness. The Senate report recommends no funding for AIS, noting that an unobligated balance is available. The Senate-passed version also includes additional funding for FY2006 for the Coast Guard’s security mission. As per an amendment offered by Senator Byrd, the Coast Guard would be provided $184 million for purchasing new patrol boats, maintaining existing cutters, purchasing new patrol aircraft, and for arming its helicopters. For further information, see Appendix I. 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-homelandsecurity missions, such as fisheries enforcement or marine environmental protection. 104 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. 105 H.Rept. 109-476, p. 4. 106 S.Rept. 109-273, p. 6. CRS-61 The Senate denied the President’s request to terminate operations at LORAN (Long Range Aids to Navigation) stations nationwide and instead recommended that maintenance of these stations continue in Alaska, the far Northwest, and the far Northeast.107 The Coast Guard proposed dismantling the LORAN system in light of the availability of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology. Senators Stevens and Murray argued that GPS is not always reliable in their states because of line-ofsight obstacles and that fishermen, boaters, and pilots in their states rely on LORAN as a back up system to GPS. The House committee noted that the Coast Guard must first reach an agreement with the Department of Transportation before terminating the LORAN system.108 Rescue 21 is the Coast Guard’s new coastal zone communications network that is key to its search and rescue mission. The Senate and House agreed with the President’s request of $40 million to continue deployment of the new system, which began in 2002. However, the House committee expressed strong concerns with the Coast Guard’s management of the program,109 noting a GAO audit which found a tripling of project cost from the original estimate, a likely further cost increase in the near future, and further delays in project completion which is already five years behind schedule.110 U.S. Secret Service111 The U.S. Secret Service has two broad missions — criminal investigations and protection — both connected with homeland security (as well as other matters).112 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 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 responsible for 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 107 See section 545 under Title V – General Provisions, in the Senate-passed version. 108 H.Rept. 109-476, p. 60. 109 H.Rept. 109-476, p. 66. 110 GAO, United States Coast Guard: Improvements Needed in Management and Oversight of Rescue System Acquisition, GAO-06-623, May 2006. 111 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in National Government, Government and Finance Division. 112 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. CRS-62 with the National Guard) from other federal agencies and state and local governments. FY2007 Budget 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.113 This reflected an increase of $60 million or nearly 5% over the FY2006 total of $1,204 million for the Service.114 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).115 House-Passed H.R. 5441. For FY2007, the House-passed appropriations for DHS proposes a total appropriation of $1,293 million. H.R. 5441 proposes $956 million for protection, administration and training; $312 million for investigations and field operations; $21 million for special event security; and $4 million for acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses. This proposed appropriation of $1,293 is $89 million more than Congress appropriated in FY2006 ($1,204 million). Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. For FY2007, the Senate-passed appropriations for DHS proposes a total appropriation of $1,226 million, including $918 million for protection, administration and training; $304 million for investigations and field operations; and $3.73 million for acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses. This proposed appropriation of $1,226 million is $22 million more than Congress appropriated in FY2006 ($1,204 million). 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, 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. 113 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. 114 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). 115 OMB, Budget of the US Government, p. 480, and DHS, Budget-in-Brief, p. 56. CRS-63 Table 10. Title III: Preparedness and Response (budget authority in millions of dollars) FY2006 Appropriation Operational Component FY2006 Enacted FY2006 Total FY2007 Request FY2007 House FY2007 Senate FY2006 Supp. FY2006 Resc. 16 — — 16 74 39 31 5 — — 5 5 — — 25 -25 2,541 2,281 2,594 2,399 185 — -2 183 170 186 220 45 — -1 44 47 47 46 — Infrastructure Protection and Information Security 625 — -6 619 549 549 525 — Firefighter Assistance Grants 655 — -7 648 293 654 680 4,072 25 -41 4,056 3,419 4,069 3,901 2 — — 2 — — — 221 204 34 1,770 200 — 89 10 — 6,000 — — -2 -2 — -18 -2 — 308 212 34 7,752 198 — 255 233 34 1,941 199 — 254 240 34 1,677 199 — 249 240 34 1,582 199 — Preparedness Directorate — Office of the Undersecretary for Preparedness — Management and Administration — State and Local Programs — Emergency Management Planning Grants — U.S. Fire Administration and Training Net total Counter Terrorism Fund 2541 a Federal Emergency Management Agency — Admin; regional operations — Prepare, mitigation, response & recovery — Public health programs — Disaster relief — Flood map modernization fund — National flood insurance fund (NFIF) b FY2007 Enacted CRS-64 FY2006 Appropriation Operational Component — National flood mitigation c — Pre-disaster mitigation fund — Emergency food and shelter — Disaster assistance direct loan account Net total Net budget authority subtotal: Title III FY2006 Enacted — 50 153 1 2,633 6,707 FY2006 Supp. — — — 280 6,379 6,404 FY2006 Resc. — — -2 — -26 -67 FY2006 Total — 50 151 281 8,986 13,044 FY2007 Request — 150 151 1 2,964 6,383 FY2007 House — 100 151 1 2,656 6,725 FY2007 Senate FY2007 Enacted — 150 151 1 2,606 6,507 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, P.L. 109-234, and the FY2007 DHS Justifications. FY2007 request numbers from the FY2007 DHS Justifications. FY2007 House-passed numbers from the conference report (H.Rept. 109-476) to H.R. 5441. 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. b. Funds derived from premium payments or transfers from the U.S. Treasury. The House approved bill imposes limits, including $50 million for flood mitigation in severe repetitive loss properties. c. Funds derived from NFIF transfers. House approved bill provides for transfer of $31 million in FY2007. CRS-65 Preparedness Directorate116 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;117 and Biodefense Countermeasures Program — transferred to the Preparedness Directorate in FY2006, supports federal efforts to secure medical countermeasures to strengthen the nation’s preparedness against biomedical terrorist attacks by pre-purchasing vaccines and other countermeasures.118 Table 10 shows the FY2006 enacted and FY2007 requested appropriations for Title III. The Administration requested an appropriation of $6,364 million in net budget authority for Title III in FY2007. This amount represents a 5% decrease compared with the FY2006 enacted total of $6,709 million. For the FY2007 request, Title III accounts for roughly 20% of requested net appropriated DHS budget authority. 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 116 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in National Government, Government and Finance Division. Firefighters assistance text contributed by Lennard Kruger, Specialist in Science and Technology, Resources, Science and Industry Division. 117 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]. 118 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2007 Budget of the United States Government (Washington: GPO, Feb. 2006), Appendix, p. 512. CRS-66 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. President’s 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;119 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. House-Passed H.R. 5441. H.R. 5441, passed by the House, proposes the following amounts for the G&T homeland security assistance programs: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) — $545 million; Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) — $750 million; Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program (TIPP) — $0; Port Security — $200 million; Trucking Industry Security — $5 million; Intercity Bus Security — $10 million; Rail Security — $150 million; Buffer Zone Protection — $50 million; Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP) — $400 million; Assistance to Firefighters Program (FIRE) — $540 million; Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) — $186 million; Citizen Corps Programs (CCP) — $0 million; and Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) — $30 million. Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. H.R. 5441, passed by the Senate, proposes the following amounts for the G&T homeland security assistance programs: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 119 State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) — $500 million; Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) — $745 million; Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program (TIPP) — $0; Port Security — $210 million; Trucking Industry Security — $5 million; Intercity Bus Security — $12 million; Rail Security — $150 million; Buffer Zone Protection — $50 million; The Administration budget request proposes to eliminate funding for LETPP in FY2007. CRS-67 ! ! ! ! ! Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP) — $350 million; Assistance to Firefighters Program (FIRE) — $680 million; Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) — $220 million; Citizen Corps Programs (CCP) — $20 million; and Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) — $35 million. Issues for Congress. The Administration’s FY2007 budget request and the House-passed H.R. 5441 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 and CCP. The Administration proposes to reduce the FY2007 appropriations for the programs to $2.57 billion — a reduction of $395 million. Which 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.120 On the other hand, H.R. 5441 proposes to increase overall grant funding to states and localities by $68 million. The House proposes to maintain funding to these programs in FY2007. Additionally, the Administration proposes to consolidate six UASI sub-grants into TIPP with an appropriation of $600 million.121 The budget request states that TIPP will consolidate disparate programs and focus on securing transportation assets and other critical infrastructure.122 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. H.R. 5441, passed by the House and Senate, does not propose consolidating the UASI sub-grants into TIPP. 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 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 120 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report (Washington: GPO, July 2004), p. 396. 121 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). 122 Fiscal Year 2007 Budget of the United States Government, Appendix, pp. 508-509. CRS-68 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 House Appropriations Committee approved $500 million for fire grants and $40 million for SAFER grants in FY2007. In H.Rept. 109-476, the Committee directed DHS to administer the grant programs in a manner identical to the current year. The Committee did not agree to limit the list of eligible activities, nor to refocus program priorities on terrorism. During floor consideration of H.R. 5441, the House approved an amendment offered by Mr. Sabo which increases FY2007 funding to $541 million for fire grants and $110 million for SAFER grants. 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. For FY2007, House-passed H.R. 5441 provided continued funding for the program at $30 million. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 provided $35 million. (Additionally, House-passed H.R. 5441 proposed to eliminate funding for CCP, whereas the Senate-passed bill provided $20 million.) 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.123 The Office of the CMO was funded at $2 million for FY2006.124 For FY2007, both the House- and Senatepassed bills provided $5 million, equal to the Administration request. The Senate-passed bill also established within DHS the United States Emergency Management Authority (USEMA), and, within the new agency, authorized the position of Chief Medical Officer, to be confirmed by the Senate. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)125 Hurricane Katrina Issues. 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. Reports issued by the House, 123 FY2007 DHS Justification, pp. OUS PREP 15-16. 124 H.Rept. 109-241, p. 63. 125 Prepared by Keith Bea, Specialist in American National Government, Government and Finance Division. CRS-69 Senate, and the White House on the response to Hurricane Katrina provide considerable information pertinent to this debate.126 Drawing from the investigations and reports on the response to Hurricane Katrina, legislation pending in the 109th Congress, including H.R. 5441, as agreed to by the Senate, would modify the organization and mission of FEMA.127 Two of the bills (H.R. 5316 and H.R. 5351) before Congress have been acted upon in the House, and the modified text of a third bill (S. 3595) gained approval from the full Senate when introduced as S.Amdt. 4560 to H.R. 5441. H.R. 5316 would separate FEMA from DHS and establish it as a new cabinet-level agency. H.R. 5351 would establish a Directorate of Emergency Management (DEM) within DHS by transferring the functions and mission of FEMA and the DHS Preparedness Directorate to DEM. S.Amdt. 4560, as incorporated into H.R. 5441, is somewhat comparable to H.R. 5351. As amended by the Senate, H.R. 5441 would establish a new entity, the United States Emergency Management Authority (USEMA), that would incorporate the functions, personnel, and mission of FEMA (except the National Disaster Medical System, discussed below) as well as the Preparedness Directorate currently housed in DHS.128 Funding. The President’s FY2007 request for FEMA did not propose dramatic changes for the agency. In general, the funding request for FY2007 is comparable to that requested and enacted for FY2006. The House approved bill would fund the agency at a level slightly above that currently provided ($2.656 billion recommended for FY2007, $2.607 billion enacted in FY2006, excluding emergency appropriations) and $309 million below the amount requested. The difference between the House approved version and the request primarily derives from a reduction of $278 million for disaster relief, as well as a $50 million reduction in mitigation funding. The funding level approved by the Senate, $2,606 million, is $50 million below the amount approved by the House, with the most significant differences between the chambers as follows: ! the Senate would provide $30 million for urban search and rescue funding, whereas the House provides almost $20 million, ! the Senate matches the request for pre-disaster mitigation funding, recommending almost $150 million, compared with the $100 million approved by the House, 126 The White House, The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina Lessons Learned (Washington, 2006). U.S. Congress, House Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, A Failure of Initiative, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rpt. 109-377 (Washington, 2006). U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hurricane Katrina: A National Still Unprepared (Washington, 2006). 127 See, CRS Report RL33369, Federal Emergency Management and Homeland Security Organization: Historical Developments and Legislative Options, by Henry B. Hogue and Keith Bea. 128 For a comparison of H.R. 5351, H.R. 5316, and SA4560 see CRS Report RL33522, FEMA Reorganization Legislation in the 109th Congress, by Keith Bea and Henry B. Hogue. CRS-70 ! the Senate would provide almost $37 million less for the Disaster Relief Fund than would the House, and ! the Senate would provide roughly $15 million less than the House for administrative and operating activities. 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 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act).129 Funds appropriated to the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) are used to ! ! ! ! meet the immediate needs of victims, and help communities, states, and nonprofit entities repair or rebuild damaged facilities; reduce the risk of future disasters through hazard mitigation measures such as elevating structures in floodplains, retrofitting bridges and buildings in earthquake prone areas; provide loans to local governments that lose tax revenues because of disasters; and help state and local governments develop and maintain preparedness plans. The Administration requested $1.941 billion for the DRF for FY2007, an amount roughly equivalent to the historical average of expenditures from the fund, excluding 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.130 Such appropriations have been historically designated emergency spending under the appropriate budget authorities. The House approved $1.677 billion for the DRF in FY2007, the Senate approved a lower amount, $1.640. National Disaster Medical System.131 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. 129 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. 130 For example, supplemental funding for the DRF was approved in P.L. 109-61, P.L. 10962, 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. Historical information on supplemental appropriations is presented in CRS Report RL33226, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Legislation for Disaster Assistance: Summary Data FY1989 to FY2005, by Justin Murray. 131 Prepared by Sarah Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology, Domestic Social Policy Division. CRS-71 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. 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.132 Most of this amount — $70 million — was transferred, through an interagency agreement with FEMA, to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to reimburse hospitals and healthcare providers who cared for uninsured patients in affected areas.133 For FY2007, both the House and Senate-passed bills provided $34 million, equal to the Administration request. The Senate appears to have proposed the transfer of NDMS to HHS in Senatepassed H.R. 5441. NDMS was transferred from HHS to DHS in P.L. 107-296, the Homeland Security Act, effective in 2003. The transfer has been a subject of debate. Based in part on the findings of its investigation into the response to Hurricane Katrina, the Administration announced that it “strongly supports” the return of NDMS to HHS, as proposed in Senate-reported H.R. 5441.134 Senate-passed H.R. 5441 included S.Amdt. 4560, which established a new entity within DHS — the United States Emergency Management Authority (USEMA) — incorporating the functions, personnel, and mission of FEMA and the DHS Preparedness Directorate. In appropriating $34 million for Public Health Programs, Senate-passed H.R. 5411 states: ... the total amount appropriated and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the National Disaster Medical System ... , including any functions of the Secretary of Homeland Security relating to such System, shall be permanently transferred to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services effective January 1, 2007. However, the incorporated S.Admt. 4560 also contained two provisions that would retain NDMS in the proposed USEMA, namely that its Administrator shall “...(provide) the Federal Government’s response to a natural or man-made disaster, including ... directing ... (NDMS),”135 and that its Chief Medical Officer (CMO) shall have the primary responsibility for “...establishing doctrine and priorities for (NDMS), ... supervising its medical components, and exercising predeployment 132 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. 133 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. 134 Office of Management and Budget, “Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 5441— Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, FY2007,” Senate version, July 12, 2006, p. 2, at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-2/hr5441sap-s.pdf]. 135 S.Amdt. 4560, Sec. 503. CRS-72 operational control ... .”136 An additional provision in the amendment clarified that the functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of NDMS were indeed to be transferred to HHS,137 though it is not clear if it negates the CMO’s responsibility for doctrinal control. In any case, House-passed H.R. 5441 does not contain a provision to transfer NDMS, so the fate of the asset will likely be considered further in conference. Other Issues. In addition to the issues discussed above, the full Senate approved the following Senate amendments (SA) to H.R. 5441 that are related to the administration of disaster assistance and relief: ! S.Amdt. 4570 would require that the DHS Inspector General investigate decisions made by insurers in settling claims submitted for Hurricane Katrina damage. ! S.Amdt. 4573 would require an assessment of models used to reunite families displaced by disasters. ! S.Amdt. 4638 would require a report on federal plans for the response to high risk earthquakes in the United States. ! S.Amdt. 4624 would restrict the use of DRF money for contracts that are based upon urgent exceptions to standard competitive procedures. ! S.Amdt. 4615 would prohibit the seizure of lawfully held firearms during an emergency or major disaster. Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS)138 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 (IPIS) 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 subprograms 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 136 S.Amdt. 4560, Sec. 511. 137 S.Amdt. 4560, Sec. 504. 138 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division. CRS-73 infrastructure protection plans, and numerous information sharing and outreach activities. President’s FY2007 Request. The FY2007 request for IPIS activities is $76 million below FY2006 enacted levels. According to the IPIS 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. Table 11. FY2007 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure Protection and Information Security Appropriation (budget authority in millions of dollars) Program/Project Activity FY2006 Enacted FY2007 Request FY2007 House FY2007 Senate Management and Administration (M&A) 83 85 85 83 Critical Infrastructure Outreach and Partnerships (CIOP) 111 101 101 105 Critical Infrastructure Identification and Evaluation (CIIE) 68 72 72 68 National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC) 20 16 16 25 Biosurveillance (BIO) 14 8 8 8 Protective Actions (PA) 90 32 32 32 Cyber Security (CS) 92 92 92 82 141 143 143 123 National Security/Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications (NS/EP) FY2007 Conf. Total 619 549 549 525 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. FY2007 House-passed numbers from the conference report (H.Rept. 109-476) to H.R. 5441. Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. CRS-74 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 adjustments and other minor transfers,139 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. House-Passed H.R. 5441. In its appropriation bill, the House voted to appropriate the full amount of funds requested by the Administration. While the House was generally supportive of IPIS activities, it did add two caveats to that support. First, while appropriating the requested $35 million increase for National Infrastructure Protection Plan activities, the House made $20 million for the Management and Administration account unavailable for obligation until the National Plan was completed. Also, while supporting the $10 million request for a new Chemical Security Office to run a new Chemical Site Security Program, the House required that DHS submit a spending plan and voted to make $10 million of the Management and Administration account unavailable for obligation until DHS submits a national security strategy for the chemical sector. Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. In its appropriation bill, the Senate voted to appropriate $525 million for the IPIS budget activity. See Table 11 for how those funds were allocated between programs. The Senate report does not provide a rationale for the specific increases or decreases made to the budget request. The 139 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-75 report calls for an enhanced and coordinated national bombing prevention effort and directed the Undersecretary for Preparedness to request the State Homeland Security Directors to work with their State Chief Information Officers to develop state cybersecurity strategies for information technology needed to support state and local services. The report also directs the Secretary to submit the report required by P.L. 109-90, identifying the resources needed to implement mandatory security requirements for the nation’s chemical sector and to audit and ensure compliance with those requirements. On the Senate floor, amendments were added requiring the Secretary to submit a report on efforts to comply with recommendations made in a July 2006 Inspector General (IG) report on issues associated with the National Asset Database. That report noted that the database has “an abundance of assets...whose criticality is not readily apparent.” First among the IG’s recommendations is that the IP Directorate evaluate the criticality of the assets in the database and eliminate those that are “outof-place” or “extremely insignificant.” Another amendment passed on the Senate floor forbids the use of certain funds for travel by officers of the department, until the Undersecretary for Preparedness has implemented the recommendations or reported to Congress on why the recommendations have not been fully implemented. A third amendment passed on the Senate floor expanded, in statute, the role and responsibility of the National Infrastructure Analysis and Simulation Center. In essence, the amendment requires any federal agency with critical infrastructure responsibilities as established by Homeland Security Presidential Directive Number 7 to enter into a formal relationship with the center, including an agreement on information sharing, the purpose of which is facilitate the use by those agencies of the center’s modeling and simulation capabilities. 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. CRS-76 Table 12. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services (budget authority in millions of dollars) FY2006 Appropriation Operational Component FY2006 Enacted FY2006 Supp. FY2006 Resc. FY2006 Total FY2007 Request FY2007 House FY2007 Senate Citizenship and Immigration Services Direct Appropriation 1889 — -1 1,888 1,986 1,966 2,024 — Offsetting feesa -1774 — — -1,774 -1,804 -1,804 -1,889 115 — -1 114 182 162 135 282 25 -2 305 246 253 271 81 — -1 80 196 181 106 — Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations 1,421 — -14 1,407 806 775 712 Net Subtotal 1502 — -15 1,487 1,002 956 818 — Management and Administration — — — — 30 30 30 — Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations — — — — 327 292 234 — — 3,673 -1,774 1,899 — — 25 — 25 — — -18 — -18 — — 3,680 -1,774 1,906 178 535 3,769 -1,804 1,965 178 500 3,675 -1,804 1,871 178 442 3,555 -1,889 1,667 Net subtotal Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Science and Technology b — Management and Administration Domestic Nuclear Detection Office — Systems Acquisition Net Subtotal Gross budget authority: Title IV — Offsetting collections: Title IV Net budget authority: Title IV b FY2007 Enacted CRS-77 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, P.L. 109-234, and the FY2007 DHS Justifications. FY2007 request numbers from the FY2007 DHS Justifications. FY2007 House-passed numbers from the conference report (H.Rept. 109-476) to H.R. 5441. 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-78 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)140 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, employmentbased 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.141 USCIS funds the processing and adjudication of immigrant, nonimmigrant, refugee, asylum, and citizenship benefits largely through monies generated by the Examinations Fee Account.142 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.143 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.144 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 FY2006.145 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 140 Prepared by Ruth Ellen Wasem, Specialist in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division. 141 CRS Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 142 §286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1356. 143 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. 144 145 P.L. 108-334, Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4567, H.Rept. 108-774. 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-79 DOS and H-1B and L petitions with USCIS and in carrying out DOL labor attestation enforcement activities.146 DHS also receives 5% of the H-1B education and training fees in the Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account.147 In FY2006, Congress provided a total of $1,889 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 $1,889 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 Account148 and $31 million from the H-1B and L Fraud Prevention and Detection Account.149 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.150 In terms of direct appropriations, the Administration is requesting $182 million, which is an increase of $67 million from FY2006. House-Passed H.R. 5441. The House-passed bill, H.R. 5441, would appropriate $162 million for USCIS in FY2007. Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. The Senate would provide USCIS $135 million in direct appropriations for FY2007. Among the Senate floor amendments to H.R. 5441 is one that would direct DHS, notably through USCIS, to increase its fees charged to noncitizens to produce an additional $350 million in receipts for FY2007. Most of the funds collected by the fee increases would go to CBP and ICE, but $85 million would remain with USCIS for business transformation ($47 million) and fraud detection and national security ($38 million). 146 §426(b) of P.L. 108-447. 147 §286(s) of INA; 8 U.S.C. §1356(s). 148 §286(s) of INA; 8 U.S.C. §1356(s). 149 §286(v) of INA; 8 U.S.C. §1356(v). 150 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. CRS-80 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.151 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 DHS in general and USCIS in particular can handle the potential increase of immigration workload.152 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.”153 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.154 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)155 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. 151 For example, see §§451-461 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296). 152 For background and legislative tracking, see CRS Report RL33125, Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress, coordinated by Andorra Bruno. 153 GAO, Management Challenges Remain in Transforming Immigration Programs, GAO-05-81, Oct. 2004, available at [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0581.pdf]. 154 CRS Report RL33319, Toward More Effective Immigration Policies: Selected Organizational Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem. 155 Prepared by Jennifer E. Lake, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy Division. CRS-81 President’s FY2007 Request. The FY2007 request for FLETC is $245 million, a decrease of $37 million, or 13%, from the FY2006 enacted appropriation. 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. House-Passed H.R. 5441. House-passed H.R. 5441 would provide $253 million for FLETC, $8 million above the Administration’s request, and $27 million less than the FY2006 enacted amount. The additional funding above the request is intended for the increased training needs of the Border Patrol and ICE. Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would provide $271 million for FLETC, $26 million above the President’s request, and $11 million less than the FY2006 enacted amount. The additional funding is intended to accommodate the increased training of border personnel. Science and Technology (S&T)156 The FY2007 request for Science and Technology (S&T) was $1,002 million, a reduction of 33% 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%. The House provided $956 million, or $46 million less than the request. The Senate provided $818 million, or $184 million less than the request. The Senate also rescinded $200 million in unobligated balances from prior years. 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 House increased funding for the Critical Infrastructure Protection portfolio relative to the 156 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Analyst in Science & Technology, Resources, Science, and Industry Division. CRS-82 request while decreasing Management and Administration, Chemical Countermeasures, Explosives Countermeasures, and Support of Components. The Senate increased funding for Counter-MANPADS relative to the request while cutting the request for Management and Administration almost in half and eliminating most funding for Explosives Countermeasures. (The Senate funded most explosives-related R&D in the Transportation Security Administration rather in S&T.) The House and Senate committee reports were both highly critical of the S&T Directorate. The House committee reduced the Management and Administration account by $5 million “for lack of responsiveness” to its information requests. It made $98 million of that account unavailable for obligation until S&T provides budgetary information “with sufficient detail.” The Senate committee reduced the same account by almost half and made $60 million of the remainder unavailable for obligation pending an expenditure plan approved by the committee. In the Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations account, the House committee made $400 million unavailable for obligation until the Under Secretary reports on progress in addressing financial management deficiencies. The House committee objected that the budget justification contains “no details of how risk assessment was used in its formulation or even which DHS agency was tasked with prioritizing risks and assigning them resources,” while the Senate committee expressed “extreme disappointment” and judged it “simply unacceptable” that DHS was unable “to clearly articulate and justify the funding 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. The House and Senate approved this transfer, with some reservations. (See below under DNDO for more details.) The Senate also acted to reverse the move of the TSA program by appropriating $92 million for R&D in TSA and transferring $99 million in previously appropriated funding from S&T to TSA. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office157 The FY2007 request for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) was $535 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 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 157 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Analyst in Science and Technology, Resources, Science, and Industry Division. CRS-83 equivalents formerly paid by their home agencies). The House provided $500 million, a reduction of $35 million from the request. The House committee report expressed puzzlement and dissatisfaction with the transfer of DNDO out of S&T, but approved it anyway because of the “critical importance of the DNDO mission” and “the liability [DNDO] would face” if left in S&T. The House committee directed S&T to work with DNDO and support its R&D-related needs. The Senate provided $442 million, a reduction of $93 million from the request. The bulk of the Senate reduction was in proposed funding for university research. The Senate committee report noted that S&T has an established university research program and directed DNDO to work with S&T rather than “start a duplicative grant program.” Table 13. Research and Development Accounts and Activities, FY2006-FY2007 (budget authority in millions of dollars) Science and Technology Directorate Management and Administration R&D, Acquisition, and Operations Biological Countermeasures Chemical Countermeasures Explosives Countermeasures Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures c Domestic Nuclear Detection Office c Threat Awareness d Standards Support of DHS Components University and Fellowship Programs Emergent and Prototypical Technology e Counter MANPADS SAFETY Act Office of Interoperability and Compatibility Critical Infrastructure Protection Cyber Security R&D Consolidation f Domestic Nuclear Detection Office c Management and Administration Research, Development, and Operations Systems Acquisition U.S. Coast Guard Research, Development, Testing, & Evaluation FY2006 FY2007 FY2007 FY2007 Enacted b Request House Senate 1,487 1,002 956 818 80 196 181 104 1,387 806 775 714 376 337 339 327 94 83 45 75 44 87 77 5 19 — — — 315 — — — 43 35 79 40 22 89 40 22 86 35 27 80 62 52 52 50 43 20 19 12 109 7 5 5 5 5 40 5 26 30 30 25 40 17 99 — — 15 23 — 535 30 35 23 — 500 30 12 18 — 442 30 — 327 292 234 — 178 178 178 18 14 14 18 FY2007 Conf. CRS-84 TSA: Research and Development in Transportation Security Support Subtotal DHS R&D Rescission of Unobligated Funds from Prior Yearsg Total 0 0 0 92 1,505 1,552 1,470 1,370 -20 — — -200 1,485 1,552 1,470 1,170 Source: CRS analysis of the FY2007 congressional budget justification, H.R. 5441, H.Rept. 109-476, and S. Rept. 109-273. Notes: This table shows all DHS research and development activities, combining accounts from the Directorate of Science and Technology, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Transportation Security Administration to show the department’s overall R&D budget. 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 (FY2006) and S.Rept. 109-273 (FY2007). FY2007 Related Legislation Budget Resolution — S.Con.Res. 83/H.Con.Res. 376158 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, and passed the House on May 18, 2006. H.Con.Res. 376 would provide $873 billion in discretionary budget authority for FY2007. 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. 158 See CRS Report RL33282, The Budget for FY2007, by Philip D. Winters, for a more detailed discussion of the budget resolution. CRS-85 Appendix I. FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 Title VII of Senate-passed H.R. 5441 includes an FY2006 supplemental appropriation for port security enhancements which would total $648 million. The funding would remain available until expended and be allocated as follows: ! ! ! ! $251 million for the CBP Salaries and Expenses account, $23 million for the U.S. Coast Guard for the Operating Expenses account to accelerate foreign port security assessments, conduct domestic port vulnerability assessments, and perform unscheduled security audits of certain facilities. $184 million for the U.S. Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements account for the Integrated Deepwater Systems program in order to acquire maritime patrol aircraft and parent aircraft patrol boats, to provide armed helicopters, and to sustain the medium endurance cutter fleet, $190 million for the Preparedness Directorate, for the State and Local Programs account, to provide port security grants. P.L. 109-234 (H.R. 4939) — Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006159 On June 15, 2006, P.L. 109-234 was signed into law by the President. P.L. 109234 contains several provisions affecting DHS agencies and reflects the President’s request for an additional $1.9 billion in border security funding which focused on personnel, rather than the Senate’s $1.9 billion proposal that concentrated on capital improvements. P.L. 109-234 does not include the $648 million in port security grant funding included in the Senate-passed version of H.R. 4939. Title I, Global War on Terror, would provide identical amounts to the House and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 4939, $75 million in transfers, and $27 million for the Coast Guard’s Operating Expenses account. Title II, Hurricane Relief and Recovery, would provide the following amounts: ! ! ! ! ! ! 159 OIG - $2 million; CBP Salaries and Expenses - $13 million; CBP Construction - $5 million; Coast Guard Operating Expenses - $89 million; Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction, and Maintenance - $192 million; FEMA Administrative and Regional Operations - $72 million; For more information about other aspects of this bill see CRS Report RL33298 FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other International Activities; Additional Hurricane Relief, coordinated by Paul M. Irwin, and Larry Nowels. CRS-86 ! ! ! FEMA Preparedness, Mitigation, Response and Recovery - $10 million; FEMA Disaster Relief - $6,000 million160; FEMA Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account - $280 million. Title V, Border Security includes the following: ! ! ! ! ! ! CBP Salaries and Expenses - $410 million; CBP Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement - $95 million; CBP Construction - $300 million; ICE Salaries and Expenses - $327 million; ODP State and Local Programs - $15 million; FLETC Acquisition, Construction and Improvements - $25 million. Though not included in DHS accounts, the border security provisions adopted by the P.L. 109-234 also includes $708 million to deploy National Guard troops to the border; and $20 million in funding for related legal services to the Department of Justice. Title VII, General Provisions, Sec. 7004 would rescind $20 million in unobligated balances made available by P.L. 108-334, The FY2005 DHS Appropriations Act, and provide them to the Secret Service. Section 7005 would rescind $4 million from Screening Coordination and Operations, and provide them 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 2006161 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 million to the Coast Guard’s Operating Expenses account from the Iraq Freedom 160 Sec. 2604, in the General Provisions of Title II, directs that $34 million of the funds provided to FEMA’s Disaster Relief account be transferred to the Social Security Administration. 161 See, CRS Report RL32783 FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities, by Amy Belasco, and Larry Nowels. CRS-87 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.162 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 Katrina below) from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Account to the “Disaster Assistance 162 P.L. 109-148, Division B, Title III, Section 3801. CRS-88 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.163 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. 163 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-89 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-90 Table 14. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2006 (budget authority in millions of dollars) FY07 as % of total FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 req. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 17,380 23,063 22,923 24,549 25,626 27,777 47.7% 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 (HHS) 1,913 4,144 4,062 4,229 4,299 4,563 7.8% Department of Justice (DOJ) 2,143 2,349 2,180 2,767 2,991 3,280 5.6% Department of Energy (DOE) 1,220 1,408 1,364 1,562 1,705 1,700 2.9% Department of State (DOS) 477 634 696 824 1,108 1,213 2.1% Department of Agriculture (AG) 553 410 411 596 563 650 1.1% 1,419 383 284 219 181 206 0.4% 260 285 340 342 344 387 0.7% 2,357 1,329 1,550 2,107 1,789 1,809 3.1% 43,848 49,418 49,405 54,383 55,046 58,283 100% Department Department of Transportation (DOT) National Science Foundation (NSF) Other Agencies Total Federal 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 FY2005FY2007); 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. Notes: 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.