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 Senate-
passed 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
Conference
Subcommittee
House
Senate
Report
Markup
House
Senate
Confr.
Public
Report
Report
Approval
Passage
Passage
Report
Law
109-476
109-273
House Senate
House
Senate
05/11
06/27
05/17
06/06
06/29
07/13
vv
vv
vv
389-9
28-0
100-0
Note: vv = voice vote

---

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)
FY2007
FY2007
FY2006
FY2007 House
FY2007 Senate
Request
Enacted
Comparable
Allocation
Allocation
Comparable
Comparable
30.5
31.0
32.1
31.7
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 multi-
year and no-year budget authorities may be obligated over a number of years, outlays
do not always match the budget authority enacted in a given year. Additionally,
budget authority may be obligated in one fiscal year but spent in a future fiscal year,
especially with certain contracts.
In sum, budget authority allows federal agencies to incur obligations and
authorizes payments, or outlays, to be made from the Treasury. Discretionary
5 31 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517.
6 Appropriations, outlays, and account balances for government treasury accounts can be
viewed in the end of year reports published by the U.S. Treasury titled Combined Statement
of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government. The DHS portion of
the report can be accessed at [http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/cs2004/c18.pdf].

---

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
FY2006
FY2007
DHS gross budget authority
40,826
42,719
(gross discretionary + fees+ mandatory + funds)
Account level discretionary offset
ICE
Federal Protective Service
482
516
Aviation security fees
1,990a
3,650a
TWIC
100
20
TSA
Hazmat
50
19
Registered Traveler
20
35
FEMA/EPR
National flood insurance fund
124
129
CBP
Small airports
5
6
Subtotal account level discretionary offsets
-2,791
-4,460
Agency level discretionary offset
Immigration inspection
465
529
Immigration enforcement
6
2
Land border
30
28
CBP
COBRA
334
388
APHIS
204
214
Puerto Rico
98
98
ICE
Immigration inspection
100
108
SEVIS
67
54
Breached bond detention fund
87
90
TSA
Aviation security capital fund
250
250
Alien flight school background checks
10
2

---

CRS-8
Account/Agency
Account Name
FY2006
FY2007
USCIS
Immigration examination fee
1,730
1,760
H1b, and H1b & L fees
44
44
Subtotal agency level discretionary offsets
-3,425
-3,567
Mandatory budget authority
Secret service
Secret service retired pay b
200
200
Coast guard
Coast guard retired pay c
(1,014)
(1,063)
Subtotal mandatory budget authority
-200
-200
Trust funds and public enterprise funds
CBP
Customs unclaimed goods
8
8
FEMA
National Flood Insurance Fundd
2,104
2,233
Boat safety
101
115
Coast Guard
Oil spill recovery
168
127
Miscellaneous revolving fund
(11)
(11)
Subtotal trust and public enterprise funds
-2,381
-2,483
DHS gross budget authority
40,826e
42,719
Total offsetting collections
-8,797
-10,710
DHS net appropriated BA (Mandatory + Discretionary)
31,743
32,015
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2007 President’s Budget, DHS Budget in Brief, and House
Appropriations Committee tables of April 19, 2006.
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
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Operational Component
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Title I: Departmental Operations
Subtotal: Title I
907
53
-27
933
1,074
960
969
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
— Screening and Operations Office/ US-VISIT
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
Net subtotal: Title II
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
Title III: Preparedness and Recovery
— Preparedness Directorate
4,072
25
-41
4,056
3,419
4,069
3,901
— Counter Terrorism Fund
2
—
—
2
—
—
—
— Federal Emergency Management Administration
2,633
6,379
-26
8,986
2,964
2,656
2,606
Net subtotal: Title III
6,707
6,404
-67
13,044
6,383
6,725
6,507

---

CRS-11
FY2006 Appropriation
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Operational Component
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
— Citizenship and Immigration Services
115
—
-1
114
182
162
135
— Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
282
25
-2
305
246
253
271
— Science and Technology
1,502
—
-15
1,487
1,002
956
818
— Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
—
—
—
—
535
500
442
Net subtotal: Title IV
1,899
25
-18
1,906
1,965
1,871
1,667
— Total fee collections
1,774
—
—
1,774
1,804
1,804
1,889
Gross subtotal: Title IV
3,673
25
—
3,680
3,769
3,675
3,555
Title V: General Provisions
— Rescissions a
—
—
—
—
-16
-20
-582
Department of Homeland Security Appropriation
Gross DHS budget authority
38,003
8,291
-620
45,674
39,889
39,831
39,709
— Total fee collections
-6,076
—
—
-6,076
-7,813
-6,583
-6,918
Net DHS budget authority
31,927
8,291
-620
39,598
32,076
33,248
32,792
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
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Operational Component
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
79
51
—
130
98
84
83
Office of Screening Coordination and Operations
4
—
-4
—
4
—
—
Office of the Undersecretary for Management
169
—
-2
167
209
70
163
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
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
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
Office of the Inspector General
83
2
-1
84
96
96
90
Net Budget Authority: Title I
907
53
-27a
933a
1,074
960
969
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 intelligence-
related information within the federal government and between the
federal government and state and local government agencies and
authorities.11
Pursuant to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff’s Second Stage Review,12 and the
Conference Report to H.R. 2360, Department of Homeland Security Act FY2006,13
a number of organizational changes were announced. Some of these changes include
the following:
! The IAIP Directorate was disbanded. Intelligence Analysis was
organizationally separated from Infrastructure Protection.
! The Undersecretary of IAIP was dissolved and a new Undersecretary
for Preparedness was created.
10 Prepared by Todd Masse, Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counterterrorism,
Domestic Social Policy Division.
11 See Title II, Subtitle A, Section 201(d), Responsibilities of the Undersecretary (of IAIP),
codified at 6 U.SC. §121. See also Department of Homeland Security, Office of the
Inspector General, Survey of the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
Directorate, Office of Inspections, Evaluations, and Special Reviews, OIG-04-413, February
2004, p. 26.
12 See “Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff Announces Six-Point Agenda for
Department of Homeland Security,” DHS Press Release, July 13, 2005.
13 See H.Rept. 109-241, in Congressional Record, Sept. 29, 2005, pp. H8585 - H8625.

---

CRS-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 dis-
aggregating intelligence analysis from operations is problematic because the budget
of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, an entity of the Intelligence Community,
is classified. The figures cited above are the combined figures for the Office of
Operations Coordination and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis.
Budget Implications. Some observers might argue that the requested A&O
budget is sufficient, given the current stage of development for intelligence and
operations within DHS. Others, however, might question whether the requested
budget can achieve the ambitious intelligence analysis goals, as outlined by Charles
Allen, DHS Chief Intelligence Officer (CIO). In recent testimony 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 Max-
HR. 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, 60-
62.
42 Letter from Representatives Bennie G. Thompson and Kendrick B. Meek to Michael
Chertoff, June 1, 2006.
43 H.Rept. 109-476, pp. 145, 14-15, 134.
44 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
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Operational Component
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
US-VISITa
— US-VISIT
340
—
-3
337
399
362
399
Net total
340
—
-3
337
399
362
399
Customs & Border Protection
— Salaries and expenses
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
— Fee accountsb
1,142
—
—
1,142
1,265
1,265
1,265
Gross total
7,094
857
-60
7,891
7,839
7,699
8,168
— Offsetting collections
-1,142
—
—
-1,142
-1,265
-1,265
-1,485
Net total
5,952
857
-60
6,749
6,574
6,434
6,683
Immigration & Customs Enforcement
— Salaries and expenses
3,108
340
-31
3,417
3,902
3,850
3,770
— Federal Protective Services (FPS)
487
—
—
487
516
516
516
— Automation & infrastructure modernization
40
—
—
40
—
—
20
— Construction
27
—
-1
26
26
26
159

---

CRS-26
FY2006 Appropriation
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Operational Component
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
— Fee accountsc
254
—
—
254
252
252
252
Gross total
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
Net total
3,175
340
-32
3,483
3,928
3,876
3,919
Transportation Security Administrationa
— Aviation security (gross funding)
4,607
—
-46
4,561
4,655
4,704
4,752
— Surface Transportation Security
36
—
—
36
37
37
37
— Credentialing activities (appropriation)
75
—
-1
74
55
75
30
— Credentialing/Fee accountsd
180
—
—
180
76
76
76
— Intelligence
21
—
—
21
21
21
21
— Federal Air Marshalse
686
—
-7
679
699
699
699
— Administration
489
—
-4
485
506
502
697
— Aviation security mandatory spendingf
250
—
—
250
250
250
250
Gross total
6,344
—
-58
6,286
6,299
6,364
6,562
— Offsetting collectionsg
-1,990
—
—
-1,990
-3,650
-2,420
-2,420
— Credentialing/Fee accounts
-180
—
—
-180
-76
-76
-76
— Aviation security mandatory spending
-250
—
—
-250
-250
-250
-250
Net total
3,924
—
-58
3,866
2,323
3,618
3,816

---

CRS-27
FY2006 Appropriation
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Operational Component
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
U.S. Coast Guard
— Operating expenses
5,492
321h
-330
5,483
5,519
5,482
5,534
— Environmental compliance & restoration
12
—
—
12
12
12
11
— Reserve training
119
—
-1
118
124
122
124
— Acquisition, construction, & improvements
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
— Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement)
1,014
—
—
1,014
1,063
1,063
1,145
— Health care fund contribution
—
—
—
—
279
279
279(?)
Gross total
7,811
588
-343
8,056
8,181
8,129
8,188
U.S. Secret Service
— Salaries and expenses; construction
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
Net total
1,212
24
-12
1,224
1,265
1,293
1,226
Gross Budget Authority: Title II
26,717
1,809
-508
28,017
28,679
28,491
29,260
Total offsetting collections: Title II
-4,302
—
—
-4,302
-6,009
-4,779
-5,029
Net Budget Authority: Title II
22,415
1,809
-508
23,715
22,670
23,712
24,231

---

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

---

CRS-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. Senate-
passed 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. 109-
476, 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)
FY06
FY07
FY07
FY07
FY07
Activity
Enact.
Req.
House
Senate
Conf.
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
Container Security Initiative (CSI)
137
139
139
139
Other International Programs
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
Other Technologies
1
1
1
1
Training at POE
24
25
25
25
Harbor Maintenance Fee
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
—
—
—
CBP Salaries and Expenses Total:
5,225
5,519
5,435
5,286
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 public-
private partnership aimed at securing the supply chain from point of origin through
entry into the United States. The FY2007 request does not contain significant
increases in funding for either the Container Security Initiative (CSI) or the Customs-
Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). Funding for C-TPAT remains flat
with the FY2007 request of $76 million (which includes funding for the Free and
Secure Trade [FAST] and Nexus/Sentri programs), and the request for CSI increases
by $2 million to $139 million for FY2007. The House-passed version of H.R. 5441
would provide an additional $15 million above the Administration’s request for C-
TPAT, 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-05-
466T, 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 H.Rept. 109-476, pp.33-34.
73 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-account-
level 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
FY07
FY07
FY07
FY07
Activity
enacted
request
House
Senate
Conf.
HQ & Administration
254
—
265
280
Legal Proceeding
129
207
187
187
Investigations - Domestic
1,183
1,457
1,325
1,286
Investigations - International
101
105
105
103
Investigations Total:
1,284
1,562
1,430
1,388
Intelligence
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
DRO Transportation and Removal
Program
133
317
273
308
DRO Total:
1,358
2,077
1,915
1,833
Unspecified Supplemental
340
—
—
—
ICE Salaries and Expenses:
3,417
3,902
3,850
3,740
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 Also known as Office of the Principal Legal Advisor.
76 Established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-
458, §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. 107-
296) abolished the INS and the United States Customs Service, and transferred most
of their investigative functions to ICE effective March 1, 2003. There are
investigative advantages to combining the INS and Customs Services, as those who
violate immigration laws often are engaged in other criminal enterprises (e.g., alien
smuggling rings often launder money). Nonetheless, concerns have been raised that
not enough resources have been focused on investigating civil violations of
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 multi-
year plan to secure the borders and reduce illegal migration by hiring more agents,
expanding detention and removal capabilities, upgrading technology, increasing
border infrastructure, and increasing interior enforcement of immigration laws.
According to the President’s budget, several of the requested increases are part of the
SBI, including funds for detention beds ($364. million), worksite enforcement ($41.7
million), and fugitive operations ($64.7 million). 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. Senate-
passed 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 See Title IX of Senate-passed H.R. 5441.
89 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)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Budget Activity
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Aviation Security
4,811
4,905
4,954
5,004
— Screening Partnership Program
(SPP)
138
149
149
149
— Passenger Screening (PC&B)
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
— Screener Training
87
88
88
88
— Human Resource Services
205
207
207
200
— Checkpoint Support
163
173
173
181
— EDS/ETD Purchase
173
91
136
141
— EDS/ETD Installation
45
94
94
172
— EDS/ETD Maintenance and
Utilities
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
— Travel and Training
70
71
71
71
— Air-To-Ground Communication
2
0
—
—

---

CRS-49
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Budget Activity
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Threat Assessment and
Credentialing
254
131
151
106
— Screening Administration and
Operations
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
— Intelligence
21
21
21
21
— Headquarters Administration
277
296
292
296
— Research and Development
—
—
—
92
— Information Technology
208
210
210
210
TSA TOTAL:
6,286
6,299
6,364
6,463
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 one-
way trip were enacted, the increase in fee collections from passengers on direct
flights, along with a rise in the numbers of air travelers, would boost aviation security
fee collections in FY2007 by about $1,726 million dollars, or roughly 85%,
compared to expected FY2006 revenues. If enacted, these fee increases are expected
to cover about 70% of core aviation security costs, compared to a contribution of
about 38% in FY2005.93
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 aviation-
security 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 House-
passed 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 House-
passed 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 next-
generation 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 House-
passed 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 in-
line baggage screening systems; initiatives to mitigate workplace injuries among TSA
screeners; efforts to improve the screening of passengers and carry-on items for
explosives; the status of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential Program
(TWIC); and TSA initiatives in other surface transportation modes.
The President’s proposal to modify passenger aviation security fees has already
been taken up by the Senate during debate over the FY2007 budget resolution
(S.Con.Res. 83). An amendment to that resolution offered by Senator Lautenberg
(S.Amdt. 3137) that would prohibit the proposed changes to aviation security fee
collections was agreed to by unanimous consent. However, during consideration of
the Transportation Security Administration Reorganization Act of 2005 (H.R. 4439)
in a markup session held by the House Subcommittee on Economic Security,
Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity on March 9, 2006, Representative
Lungren offered an alternative aviation security fee proposal that is similar to the
President’s proposed fee structure. This alternative fee structure — agreed to by the
subcommittee for inclusion in H.R. 4439 — includes a $4.00 fee per one-way trip
that would directly fund the TSA, plus an optional $1.00 fee that could be charged
by the airport of origin for funding qualified aviation security projects. Passenger
aviation security fees under this plan would be capped at $5.00 per one-way trip and
$10.00 per round-trip. Under the proposal, however, security fees paid directly by
the airlines — the ASIF — would be eliminated. 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-homeland-
security 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-of-
sight 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
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Operational Component
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Preparedness Directorate
— Office of the Undersecretary for Preparedness
16
—
—
16
74
39
31
— Management and Administration
5
—
—
5
5
—
—
— State and Local Programs
2541a
25
-25
2,541
2,281
2,594
2,399
— Emergency Management Planning Grants
185
—
-2
183
170
186
220
— U.S. Fire Administration and Training
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
Net total
4,072
25
-41
4,056
3,419
4,069
3,901
Counter Terrorism Fund
2
—
—
2
—
—
—
Federal Emergency Management Agency
— Admin; regional operations
221
89
-2
308
255
254
249
— Prepare, mitigation, response & recovery
204
10
-2
212
233
240
240
— Public health programs
34
—
—
34
34
34
34
— Disaster relief
1,770
6,000
-18
7,752
1,941
1,677
1,582
— Flood map modernization fund
200
—
-2
198
199
199
199
— National flood insurance fund (NFIF) b
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

---

CRS-64
FY2006 Appropriation
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Operational Component
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
— National flood mitigation c
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— Pre-disaster mitigation fund
50
—
—
50
150
100
150
— Emergency food and shelter
153
—
-2
151
151
151
151
— Disaster assistance direct loan account
1
280
—
281
1
1
1
Net total
2,633
6,379
-26
8,986
2,964
2,656
2,606
Net budget authority subtotal: Title III
6,707
6,404
-67
13,044
6,383
6,725
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:
! 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;
119 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 Senate-
passed 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. 109-
62, and P.L. 109-148 after Hurricane Katrina. See CRS Report RS22239, Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane Katrina Relief, by Keith Bea. For information
on the most recent supplemental funding request associated with Hurricane Katrina see CRS
Report RL33298, FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other International
Activities; Additional Katrina Hurricane Relief, coordinated by Paul M. Irwin and Larry
Nowels. 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 Senate-
passed 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 sub-
programs involve activities that include the accumulation and cataloging of critical
infrastructure information, the identification and prioritization of nationally critical
assets, vulnerability assessments, national-level risk assessments, and assistance to
owner/operators. It also includes the development of both sector-level and national
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)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Program/Project Activity
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
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
National Security/Emergency
Preparedness
Telecommunications (NS/EP)
141
143
143
123
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 “out-
of-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
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Operational Component
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Direct Appropriation
1889
—
-1
1,888
1,986
1,966
2,024
— Offsetting feesa
-1774
—
—
-1,774
-1,804
-1,804
-1,889
Net subtotal
115
—
-1
114
182
162
135
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
282
25
-2
305
246
253
271
Science and Technologyb
— Management and Administration
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
Domestic Nuclear Detection Officeb
— Management and Administration
—
—
—
—
30
30
30
— Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations
—
—
—
—
327
292
234
— Systems Acquisition
—
—
—
—
178
178
178
Net Subtotal
—
—
—
—
535
500
442
Gross budget authority: Title IV
3,673
25
-18
3,680
3,769
3,675
3,555
— Offsetting collections: Title IV
-1,774
—
—
-1,774
-1,804
-1,804
-1,889
Net budget authority: Title IV
1,899
25
-18
1,906
1,965
1,871
1,667

---

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, employment-
based petitions, work authorizations, and travel documents); the adjudication of
naturalization petitions for legal permanent residents to become citizens; and the
consideration of refugee and asylum claims, and related humanitarian and
international concerns.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 P.L. 108-334, Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4567, H.Rept. 108-774.
145 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)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Enacted b Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Science and Technology Directorate
1,487
1,002
956
818
Management and Administration
80
196
181
104
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
1,387
806
775
714
Biological Countermeasures
376
337
339
327
Chemical Countermeasures
94
83
45
75
Explosives Countermeasures
44
87
77
5
Radiological/Nuclear
Countermeasures c
19
—
—
—
Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office c
315
—
—
—
Threat Awareness d
43
40
40
35
Standards
35
22
22
27
Support of DHS Components
79
89
86
80
University and Fellowship
62
52
52
50
Programs
Emergent and Prototypical
Technology e
43
20
19
12
Counter MANPADS
109
5
5
40
SAFETY Act
7
5
5
5
Office of Interoperability and
26
30
30
25
Compatibility
Critical Infrastructure Protection
40
15
35
12
Cyber Security
17
23
23
18
R&D Consolidation f
99
—
—
—
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office c
—
535
500
442
Management and Administration
—
30
30
30
Research, Development, and
—
327
292
234
Operations
Systems Acquisition
—
178
178
178
U.S. Coast Guard Research,
18
14
14
18
Development, Testing, & Evaluation

---

CRS-84
TSA: Research and Development in
0
0
0
92
Transportation Security Support
Subtotal DHS R&D
1,505
1,552
1,470
1,370
Rescission of Unobligated Funds from
Prior Yearsg
-20
—
—
-200
Total
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. 109-
234 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:
! 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;
159 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
FY07
as %
Department
FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06
req.
of
total
Department of
Homeland Security
17,380
23,063
22,923
24,549
25,626
27,777
47.7%
(DHS)
Department of
Defense (DOD)a
16,126
15,413
15,595
17,188
16,440
16,698
28.6%
Department of Health
and Human Services
1,913
4,144
4,062
4,229
4,299
4,563
7.8%
(HHS)
Department of Justice
2,143
2,349
2,180
2,767
2,991
3,280
5.6%
(DOJ)
Department of Energy
1,220
1,408
1,364
1,562
1,705
1,700
2.9%
(DOE)
Department of State
477
634
696
824
1,108
1,213
2.1%
(DOS)
Department of
553
410
411
596
563
650
1.1%
Agriculture (AG)
Department of
1,419
383
284
219
181
206
0.4%
Transportation (DOT)
National Science
260
285
340
342
344
387
0.7%
Foundation (NSF)
Other Agencies
2,357
1,329
1,550
2,107
1,789
1,809
3.1%
Total Federal
43,848
49,418
49,405
54,383
55,046
58,283
100%
Budget Authority
Source: CRS analysis of data contained in “Section 3. Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” and
Appendix K of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2007 President’s Budget (for FY2005-
FY2007); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of Analytical Perspectives volume of
the FY2006 President’s Budget (for FY2004); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of
Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2005 President’s Budget (for FY2003) and Office of
Management and Budget, 2003 Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, Sept. 2003, p. 10; CRS
analysis of FY2002-2006 re-estimates of DoD homeland security funding provided by OMB, March
17, 2005.
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.

---