Order Code RL34004
Homeland Security Department:
FY2008 Request for Appropriations
May 17, 2007
Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto, Coordinators,
Sarah A. Lister, Todd Masse, Alison Siskin, and Chad C. Haddal
Domestic Social Policy Division
Keith Bea, Francis X. McCarthy, 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

---

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:
FY2008 Request for Appropriations
Summary
This report describes the FY2008 appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). The Administration requested a net appropriation of
$35.5 billion in net budget authority for FY2008.
The requested net appropriation for major components of the department
included the following: $8,874 million for Customs and Border Protection (CBP);
$4,168 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); $3,705 million for
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA); $8,506 million for the U.S. Coast
Guard; $1,399 million for the Secret Service; $1,047 for the National Protection and
Programs Directorate (NPP); $5,042 million for FEMA; $30 million for US
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); $799 million for the Science and
Technology Directorate (S&T); and $562 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
Intelligence and 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
Inspector General
Fred Kaiser
7-8682
fkaiser@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, U.S.
VISIT, and the Border Patrol
Blas Nuñez-Neto
7-0622
bnunezneto@crs.loc.gov
Secret Service, Federal
Protective Service
Shawn Reese
7-0635
sreese@crs.loc.gov
Transportation Security
Administration
Bartholomew Elias
7-7771
belias@crs.loc.gov
Title III, Preparedness and Recovery
Keith Bea
7-8672
kbea@crs.loc.gov
FEMA
Fran McCarthy
7-9533
fmccarthy@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
Office of Health Affairs
MMRS, Disability
Coordinator
Sarah Lister
7-7320
slister@crs.loc.gov
Biodefense/Bioshield
Frank Gottron
7-5854
fgottron@crs.loc.gov
Biodefense/BioWatch
Dana Shea
7-6844
dshea@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
Chad C. Haddal
7-3701
chaddal@crs.loc.gov
Science and Technology,
DNDO
Daniel Morgan
7-5849
dmorgan@crs.loc.gov

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
President’s FY2008 Budget Submitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Note on Most Recent Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Offsetting Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
DHS Appropriations Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Summary of DHS Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Personnel Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Analysis and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
SBInet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Fencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Hiring U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Container Security Initiative (CSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Detention and Removal Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Alternatives to Detention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Criminal Alien Program (CAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Institutional Removal Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
State and Local Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Federal Protective Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
TSA Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Screener Workforce Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Screening Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Air Cargo Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
TWIC Program Roll-Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

---

United States Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Deepwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Security Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Non-homeland Security Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Rescue-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
LORAN-C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Bridge Alteration Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
U.S. Secret Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
FY2008 Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Title III: Preparedness and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
FEMA Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Disaster Relief Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Post-Katrina Reform Act Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Office of Grants Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Reduction in Funding for State and Local Assistance
Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Distribution Methods for State and Local Assistance
Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Reduction in Assistance to Firefighters Program . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Office of Health Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
National Protection and Programs Directorate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) . . . . 51
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Administrative Placement Within NPPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
10 Fingerprint Entry Versus the Exit Component . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services . . . 55
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Proposed Fee Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Adjudication Backlog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Science and Technology (S&T) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

---

FY2008 Related Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Budget Resolution — H.Con.Res. 99/ S.Con.Res. 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Appendix I. FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions . . . . . . . . . 64
H.R. 2206 - U.S. Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Care, Katrina Recovery,
and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
H.R. 1591 - U.S. Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Health, and Iraq
Accountability Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
House-Passed H.R. 1591 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Senate-Passed H.R. 1591 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Conference (H.Rept. 110-107) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Appendix II. DHS Appropriations in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Federal-Wide Homeland Security Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
List of Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 2. FY2007 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 3. FY2008 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to Net
Appropriation — Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust and Public
Enterprise Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 6. Title I: Department Management and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 7. Office of Human Capital (OHC) Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 10. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 11. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 12. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-account
Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table 13. Title III: Preparedness and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 14. FY2008 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure Protection and
Information Security Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table 15. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments,
and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Table 16. USCIS Budget Account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Table 17. Research and Development Accounts and Activities,
FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 18. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2008 . . 68

---

Homeland Security Department:
FY2008 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
President’s FY2008 Budget Submitted. The President’s budget request
for DHS for FY2008 was submitted to Congress on February 5, 2007. The
Administration requested $46.4 billion in gross budget authority for FY2008
(including mandatories, fees, and funds). The Administration’s request includes
gross appropriations of $43.0 billion, and a net appropriation of $35.5 billion in
budget authority for FY2008, of which $34.3 billion is discretionary budget authority,
and $1.2 billion is mandatory budget authority. The FY2007 enacted net
appropriated budget authority for DHS was $35.3 billion.
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security
Appropriations
Conference
Subcommittee
Report
Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate
Confr.
Public
Approval
Report Passage Report Passage
Report
Law
House Senate
House
Senate
Note: vv = voice vote
Note on Most Recent Data. Data used in this report include data from the
President’s Budget Documents, the FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget
Justifications, and the FY2008 DHS Budget in Brief. Data used in Table 19 are
taken from the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2008 President’s Budget.
These amounts do not correspond to amounts presented in Tables 4-18, which are
based on data from tables supplied by the Appropriations Subcommittees and from
the FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications. Most dollar amounts
presented in this report are reported in millions of dollars.
Background
This report describes the President’s FY2008 request for funding for DHS
programs and activities, as submitted to Congress on February 5, 2007. It compares
the enacted FY2007 amounts to the request for FY2008, and tracks legislative action
and congressional issues related to the FY2008 DHS appropriations bill with
particular attention paid to discretionary funding amounts. The report does not

---

CRS-2
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 five titles: Title I Departmental Management and
Operations; Title II Security, Enforcement, and Investigations; Title III Preparedness
and Recovery; Title IV Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and
Services; and Title V general provisions.
Title I contains appropriations for the Office of Management, the Office of the
Secretary, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Analysis and Operations (A&O),
the Office fo the Chief Information Office (CIO), the Office of the Inspector General
(OIG), and the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding.
Title II contains appropriations for Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard (USCG), and the Secret Service. The U.S.
Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program was
appropriated within Title II through the FY2007 appropriation. The President’s
FY2008 request for US-VISIT has proposed moving the program to the proposed
National Protection & Programs Directorate (NPPD) in Title III.
Through the FY2007 appropriation Title III contained appropriations for the
Preparedness Directorate, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS)
and the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). The President’s
FY2008 request includes a proposal to shift a number of programs and offices to
eliminate the Preparedness Directorate, create the NPPD, and move several programs
to FEMA. Title III in the FY2008 request includes appropriations for NPPD, FEMA,
and the Office of Health Affairs (OHA).
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).
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

---

CRS-3
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 concurrent resolution on the budget has not been introduced as of the
writing of this report. Table 2 shows DHS’ 302(b) allocations for FY2007 and the
current appropriations cycle.
Table 2. FY2007 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008 House
FY2008 Senate
Request
Enacted
Comparable
Allocation
Allocation
Comparable
Comparable
$31.9
$35.5
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications.
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 Act1 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.
1 31 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517.

---

CRS-4
Outlays are the funds that are actually spent during the fiscal year.2 Because multi-
year and no-year budget authorities may be obligated over a number of years, outlays
do not always match the budget authority enacted in a given year. Additionally,
budget authority may be obligated in one fiscal year but spent in a future fiscal year,
especially with certain contracts.
In sum, budget authority allows federal agencies to incur obligations and
authorizes payments, or outlays, to be made from the Treasury. Discretionary
agencies and programs, and appropriated entitlement programs, are funded each year
in appropriations acts.
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending
Gross budget authority, or the total funds available for spending by a federal
agency, may be composed of discretionary and mandatory spending. Of the $46.4
billion gross budget authority requested for DHS in FY2008, 82% is composed of
discretionary spending and 18% 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 Act of
19903 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 Collections4
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.
Other collections offset an agency’s mandatory spending. They are typically
2 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/cs2005/c18.pdf].
3 P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.
4 Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff Jr., Analyst in American National Government.

---

CRS-5
entitlement programs under which individuals, businesses, or units of government
that meet the requirements or qualifications established by law are entitled to receive
certain payments if they establish eligibility. The DHS budget features two
mandatory entitlement programs: the Secret Service and the 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
FY2007 and in the FY2008 request.
Table 3. FY2008 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
FY2007
FY2008
Enacted
Request
DHS gross budget authority a
44,946
46,448
(gross discretionary + fees+ mandatory + funds)
Account level discretionary offset
ICE
Federal Protective Service
516
613
Aviation security fees
2,303
2,613
TWIC
10
27
TSA
Hazmat
16
19
Registered Traveler
3
35
FEMA/EPR
National flood insurance fund
129
145
CBP
Small airports
7
7
Subtotal account level discretionary offsets
2,984
3,459
Agency level discretionary offset
Immigration inspection
512
535
Immigration enforcement
3
3
Land border
29
30
CBP
COBRA
367
392
APHIS
273
300
Puerto Rico
111
117
ICE
Immigration inspection
108
114
SEVIS
54
56
Breached bond detention fund
90
64

---

CRS-6
Account/Agency
Account Name
FY2007
FY2008
Enacted
Request
TSA
Aviation security capital fund
250
0
Alien flight school background checks
2
2
USCIS
Immigration examination fee
1,760
2,495
H1b, and H1b & L fees
44
44
Subtotal agency level discretionary offsets
3,603
4,152
Mandatory budget authority
Secret service
Secret service retired pay b
200
210
Coast guard
Coast guard retired pay c
(1,063)
(1,185)
Subtotal mandatory budget authority
200
210
Trust funds and public enterprise funds
CBP
Customs unclaimed goods
6
6
FEMA
National Flood Insurance Fundd
2,631
2,833
Boat safety
117
122
Coast Guard
Oil spill recovery
127
147
Miscellaneous revolving fund
—
—
Subtotal trust and public enterprise funds
2,881
3,108
DHS gross budget authority a
44,946
46,448
Total offsets
-9,712
-10,929
DHS net appropriated BA (Mandatory + Discretionary)
35,311
35,519
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 President’s Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. DHS gross budget authority is the total budget authority available to the Department in a given
fiscal year. This amount includes both appropriated and non-appropriated funding.
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.
Appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security
DHS Appropriations Trends
Table 4 presents DHS Appropriations, as enacted, for FY2003 through the
FY2008 request. The appropriation amounts are presented in current dollars and are
not adjusted. The amounts shown in Table 4 represent enacted amounts at the time

---

CRS-7
of the start of the next fiscal year’s appropriation cycle. Thus, the amount shown for
FY2003 is the enacted amount shown in the House Committee report attached to the
FY2004 DHS Appropriations bill. As there is as yet no bill for the FY2008 DHS
Appropriation, the amounts listed for the FY2007 enacted appropriation and the
FY2008 request are from the FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justification.
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2008
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008 Req.
29,069 a
30,175 b
30,554 c
31,679
35,311 d
35,519
Sources: FY2003 enacted taken from H.Rept. 108-169; FY2004 enacted taken from H.Rept. 108-541;
FY2005 enacted taken from H.Rept. 109-79; FY2006 enacted taken from H.Rept. 109-476; and the
FY2007 appropriation and FY2008 request amounts are from the FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget
Justification.
Notes: Amounts do not include supplemental appropriations or rescissions that were enacted
subsequent to the enactment of each appropriations bill.
a. S.Rept. 108-86 reported the FY2003 enacted amount as $29,287 million. CRS was unable to
identify the reason for this discrepancy. For the purposes of this table the House number was
used to maintain consistency with other fiscal years.
b. Amount does not include $4,703 million in advance appropriations for Project Bioshield.
c. Amount does not include $2,508 million in advance appropriations for Project Bioshield.
d. Amount includes $1,829 million in emergency budget authority that was enacted as a part of the
FY2007 DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-295).
Summary of DHS Appropriations
Table 5 is a summary table comparing the enacted appropriations for FY2007
and the requested amounts for FY2008. The Administration requested $46.4 billion
in gross budget authority for FY2008 (including mandatories, fees, and funds). The
Administration’s request includes gross appropriations of $43.0 billion, and a net
appropriation of $35.5 billion in budget authority for FY2008, of which $34.3 billion
is discretionary budget authority, and $1.2 billion is mandatory budget authority. The
FY2007 enacted net appropriated budget authority for DHS was $35.3 billion.

---

CRS-8
Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
House
Senate
Total
Total
Title I: Departmental Operations
Subtotal: Title I
1,025 a
1,097
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
— Screening and Operations Office/ US-VISIT
362
[462] b
— Customs and Border Protection
8,035
8,784
— Immigration and Customs Enforcement
3,958
4,168
— Transportation Security Administration
3,745
3,705
— U.S. Coast Guard
8,485
8,506
— U.S. Secret Service
1,279
1,399
Net subtotal: Title II
25,865
26,561
— Total fee collections
4,653
4,926
Gross subtotal: Title II
30,518
31,487
Title III: Preparedness and Recovery
— Preparedness Directorate
4,012
—
— National Protection & Programs Directorate
—
1,047
— Office of Health Affairs
—
118
— Counter Terrorism Fund
—
—
— Federal Emergency Management Administration
2,464
5,042
Net subtotal: Title III
6,476
6,207

---

CRS-9
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
House
Senate
Total
Total
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
— Citizenship and Immigration Services
182
30
— Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
275
263
— Science and Technology
973
799
— Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
481
562
Net subtotal: Title IV
1,911
1,654
— Total fee collections
1,804
2,539
Gross subtotal: Title IV
3,715
4,193
Title V: General Provisions
— Rescissions c
-232
—
Department of Homeland Security Appropriation (not including Title V rescissions)
Gross DHS budget authority
41,769
42,984
— Total fee collections
-6,458
-7,465
Net DHS budget authority
35,311
35,519
Source: FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justification.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Italicized amounts in parentheses are non-adds. For a more detailed analysis of the supplemental appropriations, refer to Appendix I.
a. Does not include a $5 million rescission per Sec. 21101 of P.L. 110-5.
b. The Administration’s FY2008 budget request proposes moving US-VISIT from Title II to Title III under the proposed National Protection & Programs Directorate.
c. Title V of P.L. 109-295 includes rescissions of $16 million from the Counterterrorism Fund, and rescissions of unobligated balances from: S&T $125 million; TSA $67 million; USCG $20 from the
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements account for the development of the Offshore Patrol Cutter; and from Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements account for the Automatic
Identification System $4 million. Title V of P.L. 109-295 also contains two re-appropriations of previously appropriated, but unobligated funds, including $78 million in funding that was
appropriated by P.L. 109-90 for the USCG’s Fast Response Cutter that is rescinded; and re-appropriated by Sec. 521 of P.L. 109-295 for the USCG’s Replacement Patrol Boat; and $3 million that
is rescinded and re-appropriated by Sec. 560 of P.L. 109-295 from USSS unobligated balances to National Security Special Events (NSSE).

---

CRS-10
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations5
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 12 entities that report directly to the Secretary;
the Undersecretary for Management (USM) and its components, such as the offices
of the Chief Administrative Services Officer, Chief Human Capital Officer, and
Chief Procurement Officer; the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO); the
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO); Analysis and Operations Office
(AOO); Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding (OFCGCR);
and Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Table 6 shows Title I appropriations for
FY2007 and congressional action on the request for FY2008.
President’s FY2008 Request. FY2008 requests relative to comparable
FY2007 enacted appropriations are as follows: OS&EM, $108 million, an increase
of $14 million (+15% ); USM, $278 million, an increase of $124 million (+81%);
OCFO, $33 million, an increase of $7 million (+ 21%); OCIO, $261, a decrease of
$88 million (-25%); AOO, $315 million, an increase of $15 million (+5%);
OFCGCR, $3 million, the same level as previously provided (0%); and OIG, $99
million, almost the same level as previously provided. The total FY2008 request for
Title I was $1,097 million. This represents an increase of $72 million (+7%) over the
FY2007 enacted level.
5 Prepared by Harold C. Relyea, Specialist in American National Government, Government
and Finance Division.

---

CRS-11
Table 6. Title I: Department Management and Operations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
House
Senate
Total
Total.
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
94
108
Office of Screening Coordination and Operations
—
—
Office of the Undersecretary for Management
154 a
278
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
26
33
Office of the Chief Information Officer
349
261
Analysis and Operations
300
315
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding
3
3
Office of the Inspector General
98
99
Net Budget Authority: Title I
1,025 a
1,097
Source: FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justification.
Notes: No FY2007 funding for Title I was designated as emergency spending. Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds.
a. Does not include a $5 million rescission per Sec. 21101 of P.L. 110-5.

---

CRS-12
Personnel Issues.6 The activities of the Office of Human Capital (OHC)
may be of interest to Congress during the current appropriations cycle. The OHC
reports to the Under Secretary for Management and its appropriation is included in
that of the Under Secretary. The OHC appropriation has two parts. The first part,
formerly labeled “HR Operations” and now labeled “OHC,” includes funding for the
office, which is responsible for the overall management and administration of human
capital in DHS. As such, the office establishes policy and procedures and provides
oversight, guidance, and leadership for the department’s human resources functions.
The second part, formerly labeled “MaxHR” and now labeled “OHC — Operational
Initiatives and HR Management System,” includes funding for the OHC organization,
which “is responsible for creating, implementing, and operating DHS’ new human
resources system,7 ensuring that organizational goals and individual work
6 Prepared by Barbara L. Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division.
7 Title VIII, Subtitle E, Section 841 of P.L. 107-296, enacted on November 25, 2002 (116
Stat. 2135, at 2229-2234), established the new human resources system. DHS and the
Office of Personnel Management jointly published final regulations to implement the
system, which, at the time, was referred to as “MaxHR,” in the Federal Register on
February 1, 2005. (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, February 1, 2005, pp. 5271-5347.) The regulations
provided new policies on position classification, pay, performance management, adverse
actions and appeals, and labor-management relations for DHS employees. The system was
expected to cover about 110,000 of the department’s 180,000 employees and be
implemented in phases. (See CRS Report RL32261, DHS’s MaxHR 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.
(continued...)

---

CRS-13
performance are linked, and that employees are compensated based on their
contributions to agency performance.” The OHC organization also “is responsible for
ensuring that DHS recruits, hires, trains, and retains the very best workforce, provides
the highest quality leadership development, and creates a performance culture in the
workforce to ensure DHS succeeds in its mission.”8 Table 7 below shows the
funding and staff for the OHC as enacted in FY2007 and the FY2008 request.
7 (...continued)
Shimabukuro.) For an analysis of the court decisions on the adverse actions and appeals and
labor management relations policies, see CRS Report RL33052, Homeland Security and
Labor-Management Relations: NTEU v. Chertoff, by Thomas J. Nicola and Jon O.
Shimabukuro.
8 FY2008 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary
for Management, p. USM-2.

---

CRS-14
Table 7. Office of Human Capital (OHC) Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Account
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
“OHC” (formerly “HR
Operations”)
$9
$10
“OHC — Operational
Initiatives and HR
Management System”
(formerly “MaxHR”)
$25a
$15
Total
$34
$25
Staffing (full time
equivalent, FTE,
positions)
53
60
Sources: P.L. 108-334, Oct. 18, 2004, 118 Stat. 1298; P.L. 109-90, Oct. 18, 2005, 119 Stat. 2064;
P.L. 109-295, Oct. 4, 2006, 120 Stat. 1355, at 1356, and FY2008 DHS Justifications, Departmental
Management and Operations, Undersecretary for Management, Office of Human Capital, and Office
of Human Capital — Max-HR, pp. USM-39 - USM-44.
a. This amount does not reflect the transfer of $5 milion from “MaxHR” to the Transportation Security Administration as provided by Section 21101 of P.L. 110-5. The numbers in the table are
rounded.
As directed by the conference report9 accompanying P.L. 109-295, the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for FY2007, the Under
Secretary for Management submitted an expenditure plan for the DHS Human
Resources Management System (HRMS) (formerly “MaxHR”) for FY2007 to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on February 1, 2007. The report’s
cover letter states that in FY2007 the HRMS “will be broadened ... to encompass
additional aspects of FY2007 Human Capital Operational Plan (HCOP), including
an increased focus on employee recruiting and advanced homeland security related
education.”10 Among other data, the report states that the contractor Northrop
Grumman Information Technology (NGIT) received a contract worth almost $3
million dollars to provide services through January 31, 2007, related to program
management; pay, performance, and classification; and training, communications,
and organizational change management at DHS. According to the report, NGIT is
being awarded another contract, worth more than $16 million, to provide services to
9 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2006, Making Appropriations for the Department
of Homeland Security For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2007, and For Other
Purposes, conference report to accompany H.R. 5441, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 109-
699 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2006), p. 119.
10 Letter to Representative David E. Price, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Homeland
Security of the House Committee on Appropriations from Paul A. Schneider, Under
Secretary for Management, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, February 1, 2007.

---

CRS-15
the department through September 30, 2007, in the same areas identified above and
labor relations.11
The transfer of the Office of Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation
(FLETA) from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) to the OHC
accounts for the increase of $1 million and 7 full-time equivalent employees over the
FY2007 appropriation for the “OHC” account. Almost 93% of the money requested
for FY2008 under this account is for salaries and benefits ($8 million) and advisory
and assistance services ($2 million) that includes services acquired by contract from
non-federal sources.12 The appropriation will fund continued implementation of the
Human Capital Operational Plan for FY2007 to FY2009, development of an
employee talent bank for use throughout the department, creation of standards to
assess and evaluate learning and development programs, and participation of all new
DHS employees in a department-wide orientation program.13 Some 76% of the
money requested for FY2008 under the “OHC — Operational Initiatives and HR
Management System” account is for advisory and assistance services ($11 million).
No funding is requested for salaries and benefits.14 The appropriation will fund
continued training of the DHS workforce in pay for performance and a new pay
system pilot project that will cover employees in the department who work in the
intelligence area. The pilot will be implemented jointly with the Director of National
Intelligence who is developing a pilot pay system for employees of the intelligence
agencies. It also will fund investment in recruitment and retention programs along
with learning and development initiatives to address gaps in skills and competencies,
and deployment of career paths and rotations to facilitate the mobility of DHS
employees through various leadership positions in the department.15
There are new incumbents for both the Under Secretary and Chief Human
Capital Officer positions at DHS. Paul Schneider assumed the former position on
February 1, 2007, and Marta Brito Perez the latter position on September 18, 2006.
During his confirmation hearing on December 6, 2006, Mr. Schneider told the
members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
that he would make sure that DHS officials create an effective method of evaluating
employees job performance.
11 Report to Congress, Spend Plan for MaxHR, Office of Human Capital, Department of
Homeland Security, January 4, 2007, p. 7. Accompanied the letter cited in footnote 5.
12 FY2008 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary
for Management, Office of Human Capital, pp. USM-39 - USM-41.
13 FY2008 DHS Justifications, Under Secretary for Management, Strategic Context, p.
USM-3.
14 FY2008 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary
for Management, Office of Human Capital — Max-HR, pp. USM-42 - USM-44.
15 FY2008 DHS Justifications, Under Secretary for Management, Strategic Context, p.
USM-4. On January 23, 2007, 27 employees in General Schedule grades 14 and 15 and
representing various components of DHS began a year-long fellowship program designed
to prepare them for future leadership positions in the department. The program is intended
to establish a common culture at DHS and encourage cooperation among the different
agencies that comprise the department.

---

CRS-16
In January 2007, the Culture Task Force of the Homeland Security Advisory
Council issued a report to the DHS Secretary. Among its recommendations were that
DHS staff be referred to as “employees” or “members” of DHS and not as “human
capital,” and that “members of the headquarters” be required to visit and listen “to
employees and engage and support groups outside the headquarters” and respond
within 30 days on actions taken to address their concerns.16 The task force believes
that “there can be no hierarchically imposed ‘single culture’ within the Department,”
but that “an overarching and blended culture can be developed that is based on
threads of common values, goals, and focus of mission among DHS headquarters and
its component organizations.” With regard to developing and sustaining such a
culture, the task force advised that “There are organizations in the Private Sector that
will deploy and embed within DHS qualified, objective, emotionally and
organizationally detached personnel to help develop the leadership’s vision and
strategic goals of creating a Homeland Security (rather than DHS) Mission Culture
and then monitor, objectively test, and support progress in achieving, continually
improving and sustaining an operationally focused, innovation and people rewarding
culture.”17 The task force recommended that such contract employees work under
the direction of a senior (preferably career) DHS employee and with staff from the
department’s component agencies.
Analysis and Operations18
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;
16 Homeland Security Advisory Council, Report of the Culture Task Force, January 2007,
pp. 2-3. Section 871 of P.L. 107-296 (116 Stat. 2243) authorized the council which provides
advice and recommendations to the DHS Secretary on homeland security matters. In June
2006, Secretary Chertoff directed the council to establish the task force “to provide
observations and recommendations for achieving and maintaining an empowering, energetic,
dedicated, mission-focused culture within the Department....”
17 Ibid., pp. 5-6.
18 Prepared by Todd Masse, Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counterterrorism,
Domestic Social Policy Division.

---

CRS-17
! 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.19
President’s FY2008 Request. The FY2008 request for the Analysis and
Operations account is $315 million, an increase of $15 million (+5%) over the
enacted FY2007 amount. It should be noted that funds included in this account
support both the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (OIA) and the Office of
Operations Coordination. The Office of Intelligence and Analysis, the successor to
the “IA” element of the erstwhile IAIP, has as its primary responsibility the
integration and analysis of DHS information, state and local information, and
Intelligence Community intelligence into finished intelligence products, such as
threat assessments and other indications and warning documents. As a member of
the Intelligence Community, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis’s budget is
classified. The Office of Operations Coordination formally houses the National
Operations Center which, among other functions, disseminates OIA assessed threat
information, provides domestic situational awareness, and performs incident
management on behalf of the Department.
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations
Title II contains the appropriations for the U.S.-Visitor and Immigrant Status
Indicator (US-VISIT) program20, 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 8 shows the FY2007 enacted and FY2008 requested
appropriation for Title II.
19 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.
20 US-VISIT has historically been located within Title II of the DHS appropriation.
However, the FY2008 President’s Budget proposes that US-VISIT be transferred to the
proposed National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) in Title III.

---

CRS-18
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
House
Senate
Total
Total
US-VISITa
— US-VISIT
362
[462]
Net total
362
Customs & Border Protection
— Salaries and expenses
5,562
6,580
— Automation modernization
451
477
— Air and Marine Operations
602
477
— Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and
Technology
1,188
1,000
— Construction
233
250
— Fee accountsb
1,303
1,385
Gross total
9,338
10,168
— Offsetting collections
-1,303
-1,385
Net total
8,035
8,784
Immigration & Customs Enforcement
— Salaries and expenses
3,887
4,162
— Federal Protective Services (FPS)
516
613
— Automation & infrastructure modernization
15
—
— Construction
56
6
— Fee accountsc
252
234

---

CRS-19
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
House
Senate
Total
Total
Gross total
4,727
5,015
— Offsetting FPS fees
-516
-613
— Offsetting collections
-252
-234
Net total
3,958
4,168
Transportation Security Administration
— Aviation security (gross funding)
4,732 e
4,953
— Surface Transportation Security
37
41
— Transportation Threat Assessment and
Credentialing
40 f
78
— Credentialing Fees
29
81
— Transportation Security Support
525
525
— Federal Air Marshalse
714
722
— Aviation security capital fund g
250
—
Gross total
6,327
6,399
— Offsetting collections
-2,303
-2,613
— Credentialing/Fee accounts
-29
-81
— Aviation security capital fund (mandatory
spending)
-250
—
Net total
3,745 h
3,705

---

CRS-20
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
House
Senate
Total
Total
U.S. Coast Guard
— Operating expenses
5,568 i
5,894
— Environmental compliance & restoration
11
12
— Reserve training
122
127
— Acquisition, construction, & improvements
1,409 j
998 j
— Alteration of bridges
16
—
— Research, development, tests, & evaluation
17
18
— Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement)
1,063
1,185
— Health care fund contribution
279
272
Gross total
8,485
8,506
U.S. Secret Service
— Salaries and expenses
964k
—
— Protection, administration, and training
—
812
— Investigations and field operations
311
300
— Administration
—
176
— Special event fund
—
55
— Training
—
52
— Acquisition, construction, improvements, and
related expenses
4
4
Net total
1,279
1,399

---

CRS-21
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
House
Senate
Total
Total
Gross Budget Authority: Title II
30,518
31,487
Offsetting collections:
4,653
4,926
Net Budget Authority: Title II
25,865
26,561
Source: FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justification.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds. Amounts in italics and brackets show what the FY2008 request would look like if it had followed
the FY2007 DHS account structure.
a. United States Visitor & Immigrant Status Indicator Project (US-VISIT). The FY2008 President’s Budget proposes that US-VISIT be transferred to the proposed National Protection
and Programs Directorate (NPPD) in Title III.
b. Fees include COBRA, Land Border, Immigration Inspection, Immigration Enforcement, and Puerto Rico.
c. Fees include 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. Does not include transfer of $7 million per Sec. 21101 of P.L. 110-5.
f. Does not include transfer of -$2 million per Sec. 21101 of P.L. 110-5.
g. Aviation Security Capital Fund, used for installation of Explosive Detection Systems at airports.
h. Does not include $67 million rescission of unobligated balances per P.L. 109-295.
i. Includes $90 million transfer from Department of Defense per P.L. 109-289.
j. For FY2007 does not include $44 million in rescissions per Title V of P.L. 109-295, and for FY2008 request does not include a proposed rescission of $49 million.
k. Includes a 2.5 million re-appropriation of a rescinded prior year unobligated balance.

---

CRS-22
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)21
CBP is responsible for security at and between ports-of-entry along the border.
Since September 11, 2001, 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
U.S. Border Patrol (USBP). See Table 8 for account-level detail for all of the
agencies in Title II, and Table 9 for sub-account-level detail for CBP Salaries and
Expenses (S&E) for FY2007 and FY2008.
President’s FY2008 Request. The Administration requested an
appropriation of $10,168 million in gross budget authority for CBP for FY2008,
amounting to an $830 million, or 9%, increase over the enacted FY2007 level of
$9,338 million. The Administration requested $8,874 million in net budget authority
for CBP in FY2008, which amounts to a $749 million, or 9%, increase over the net
FY2007 appropriation of $8,035 million.
Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Activity
Enact.
Req.
House
Senate
Conf.
Headquarters Management and
Administration
1,248
1,277
Border Security Inspections and Trade
Facilitation @ POE
1,860
2,057
Inspections, Trade & Travel Facilitation
@ POE
1,327
1,610
Container Security Initiative (CSI)
139
156
Other International Programs
9
9
C-TPAT
55
56
FAST/Nexus/SENTRI
11
11
Inspection and Detection Technology
241
136
Systems for Targeting
27
28
National Targeting Center
24
24
21 Prepared by Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analysts in Domestic Security,
Domestic Social Policy Division.

---

CRS-23
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Activity
Enact.
Req.
House
Senate
Conf.
Training at POE
25
25
Harbor Maintenance Fee
3
3
Border Security and Control Between
POE
2,278
3,037
Border Security and Control Between
POE
2,240
2,984
Training Between the POE
38
53
Air and Marine Operations - Salaries
176
208
CBP Salaries and Expenses Total:
5,562
6,580
Source: FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justification, p. CBP-S&E-5.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
Issues for Congress. Numerous issues will be of interest to Congress as it
debates the President’s FY2008 request for CBP. One issue is the requested
programmatic increases for CBP, only $15 million was requested for cargo security-
related programs (see below for further analysis). The bulk of the requested increased
funding is dedicated to screening people. Other issues may include whether the
President’s request for fencing at the border satisfies the legislative mandates in the
Secure Fence Act (P.L. 109-367); whether CBP’s request is sufficient to implement
the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative in time to meet the deadlines established
by the FY2007 DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-295); and whether the USBP has
asked for the resources it needs to hire, train, and deploy the 3,000 agents.
SBInet. The Administration requested $1,000 million for the deployment of
SBInet22 related technologies and infrastructures in FY2008; however, the
Administration’s request does not identify how that funding will be apportioned
between the fencing, infrastructure, and technology components of the account.
According to the DHS budget submission, SBInet will initially focus on the
southwest land border between POE and will deploy a mix of personnel, technology,
infrastructure, and response assets in order to “provide maximum tactical advantage
in each unique border environment.”23 CBP plans to construct an SBInet command
center that will provide a common operating picture for all DHS agencies and
external stakeholders. In FY2007, DHS announced that it had awarded a prime
integrator contract to Boeing to oversee the deployment of SBInet; P.L.109-295
required that any contract action related to SBI valued at over $20 million be
reviewed by the DHS Inspector General to ensure it adheres to applicable cost
22 SBInet is the technological and infrastructure component of the Secure Border Initiative
(SBI), a multifaceted approach to securing the border. In its FY2007 budget submission,
DHS asserted that it had “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.” DHS FY2007 Justification, p. CBP S&E 4.
23 DHS FY2008 Justification, p. CBP BSFIT 3.

---

CRS-24
requirements, performance objectives, and program milestones. Possible issues for
Congress could include whether the contracting associated with SBInet is being
carried out responsibly and effectively, and how funding is apportioned between the
technology, infrastructure, and fencing components of the account.
Fencing. In the 109th Congress, legislation was enacted (P.L. 109-367)
directing DHS to construct two-layered reinforced fencing and additional physical
barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors along five stretches of the southwest
border. CBP has estimated that these stretches of fencing will total roughly 850
miles24 of the southern border. DHS has stated that its FY2008 request, when
combined with prior year appropriations, will fund the completion of 370 cumulative
miles of fencing along the southern border.25 However, DHS has not identified what
the actual amount of funding that will be used for border fencing is, or how much it
will cost to maintain the fencing in future fiscal years. According to CBP
Congressional Affairs, this fencing will be a combination of primary and two layer
fencing, will be constructed along areas of the border where DHS determines fencing
will provide a tactical advantage, and will be constructed by some mix of private
contractors and the National Guard (supervised by the Army Corps of Engineers).26
Possible issues for Congress could include whether DHS is complying with the
legislative mandates set out in P.L. 109-367, what the total costs associated with
building and maintaining the border fencing will be, and oversight of the contracting
involved if private contractors are used to build the fencing.
Hiring U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Agents. The Administration requested
an increase of $481 million to hire 3,000 new USBP agents in order to bring the total
number of agents to 17,819 by the end of calendar year 2008.27 This would roughly
double the size of the USBP from the time the President took office in 2001. One
potential issue for Congress may include whether this hiring goal is attainable. In
FY2006, Congress appropriated funding for 1,500 additional agents; however, at the
end of FY2006 the border patrol had increased by 1,081 agents to 12,349.28 This
means that DHS fell roughly 30% short of their goal for agents hired in FY2006;
additionally, the USBP experienced an attrition rate of 7% in FY200629 making their
hiring goals more difficult to attain. The FY2007 appropriation for DHS included
an increase of 2,500 agents for the USBP. A potential issue for Congress may
involve whether some incentives should be offered to help DHS recruit additional
agents or keep existing agents from leaving the agency.
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). The Administration
requested an increase of $252.4 million for WHTI. WHTI will require U.S. citizens,
and Canadian, Mexican, and some island nation nationals to present a passport, or
24 From CBP Congressional Affairs, September 25, 2006.
25 DHS FY2008 Justification, p. CBP BSFIT 12.
26 From CBP Congressional Affairs, January 26, 2007.
27 DHS FY2008 Justification, p. CBP S&E 49.
28 From CBP Congressional Affairs, February 8, 2007.
29 From CBP Congressional Affairs, December 12, 2006.

---

CRS-25
some other document or combination of documents deemed sufficient to denote
identity and citizenship status by the Secretary of Homeland Security, as per P.L.
108-458 §7209. DHS announced that it is requiring all U.S. citizens entering the
country at air and sea POE to present passports as of January 18, 2007; the current
legislative mandate for expanding the program to all POE is the earlier of the
following two dates: June 1, 2009 or three months after the Secretaries of Homeland
Security and State certify that a number of implementation requirements have been
met.30 The FY2008 request for WHTI will include funding to hire 205 CBP officers
and to deploy WHTI pilot programs to 13 POE.31 Possible issues for Congress may
include whether DHS is on track to meet its implementation deadlines, how the
WHTI program will interface with existing registered traveler programs (i.e., Nexus
and SENTRI), and whether any POE infrastructure modifications or expansions will
be required to accommodate WHTI technology.
Container Security Initiative (CSI). CSI is a program by which CBP
stations CBP officers in foreign ports to target high-risk containers for inspection
before they are loaded on U.S.-bound ships. CSI is operational in 50 ports as of
October 2006. Current plans are to have CSI operational in 58 ports by the end of
FY2007 and to continue to expand CSI to strategically important ports throughout
FY2008. The CBP Budget Justifications indicate a requested increase of $16.8
million for the CSI program for FY2008. However, $15.0 million of this increase is
for the SFI program. The rest of the increase for CSI is for non-programmatic
increases (pay and non-pay inflation). An issue for Congress might be why
additional funding for CSI was not requested given that DHS anticipates expanding
CSI in FY2008 to additional strategically important ports. Questions could also arise
concerning the impact (at 6 foreign ports, see below) the first iteration of the Secure
Freight Initiative (SFI) will have on CSI operations at SFI pilot ports, as SFI
represents a change in cargo security strategy from targeting high-risk containers for
scanning and inspection under CSI, to performing an integrated scan (radiation
detection, image, and information risk factors) on all U.S.-bound containers.
Secure Freight Initiative (SFI). The Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) is a
DHS program aimed at securing the cargo on its journey from its origin in a foreign
country to its final destination in the U.S. The first iteration of SFI is being operated
by CBP in partnership with the Department of Energy (DOE), and several foreign
governments. The current iteration of SFI is being operated as a part of CSI and
involves several CSI ports. Under SFI, DHS plans to deploy scanning, imaging, and
secure communications equipment to selected ports to develop a so-called integrated
scan (radiation detection, image, and information risk factors) of all U.S.-bound
containers leaving the port. SFI at Port Qasim, Pakistan; Puerto Cortes, Honduras;
and at Southampton in the United Kingdom will be fully operational scanning all
U.S.-bound containers from these ports. SFI will gradually be deployed in more
limited capacities at Port Salaleh, Oman; the Port of Singapore; and at the Port of
Busan, South Korea. Additionally, Hong Kong officials have agreed to allow DHS
to continue testing the existing integrated cargo inspection system (ICIS) at the port
30 P.L. 109-295 §546.
31 FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justification, pp. CBP S&E 61-62.

---

CRS-26
of Hong Kong. Approximately 24.5% of U.S.-bound containers originate from these
test ports, including Hong Kong.32
Under a fully operational SFI scenario, all U.S.-bound containers from that port
would be scanned with the integrated scanning system. This will require additional
resources on the part of the host country governments and on the part of CBP. The
FY2008 request for CBP includes $15 million for SFI within the CSI program.
Currently under CSI, high-risk containers are inspected before they are loaded on
U.S.-bound ships, while SFI envisions all U.S.-bound containers being subject to the
“integrated scan” prior to loading. This SFI strategy raises a number of questions,
including issues concerning: workload (switching from a targeted approach to
scanning all containers will require more resources); resolving alarms (the more
containers that are scanned the more alarms will have to be resolved); equipment
(who is operating and providing the equipment); and funding (is $15 million
sufficient to cover the initial phase of the program).
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)33
ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the United
States. ICE develops intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the United States and
is responsible for investigating and enforcing violations of the immigration laws
(e.g., alien smuggling, hiring unauthorized alien workers). ICE is also responsible
for locating and removing aliens who have overstayed their visas, entered illegally,
or have become deportable. In addition, ICE develops intelligence to combat terrorist
financing and money laundering, and to enforce export laws against smuggling,
fraud, forced labor, trade agreement noncompliance, and vehicle and cargo theft.
Furthermore, this bureau oversees the building security activities of the Federal
Protective Service, formerly of the General Services Administration. The Federal Air
Marshals Service (FAMS)34 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 7 for
account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 10 for sub-account-
level detail for ICE Salaries and Expenses (S&E) for FY2007 and FY2008.
President’s FY2008 Request. The Administration requested $5,015
million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2008. This represents a 6% increase
over the enacted FY2007 level of $4,727 million. The Administration requested an
appropriation of $4,168 million in net budget authority for ICE in FY2008,
representing a 5% increase over the FY2007 enacted level of $3,958 million. Table
32 Eric Kulisch, “Secure Freight Debuts: DHS to follow automated cargo scanning pilot
with private sector data warehouse,” American Shipper, vol. 49, no. 2 (February, 2007),
p.10.
33 Prepared by Alison Siskin, Specialist in Immigration Legislation, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
34 FAMS transferred to ICE from TSA in August of 2003.

---

CRS-27
10 provides activity-level detail for the Salaries and Expenses account. The request
included the following program increases:
! $7 million (19 FTE) for the Office of Professional Responsibility to
investigate allegations of criminal and serious misconduct involving
ICE and CBP employees;
! $10.7 million (32 FTE) for Border Enforcement Security (BEST)
Task Forces;35
! $5 million (15 FTE) for ICE Mutual Agreement between
Government and Employers (IMAGE), an initiative with private
employers to improve worksite enforcement;
! $1.8 million (4 FTE) for the Trade Transparency Unit to coordinate
investigations with foreign governments and law enforcement to
combat trade-based money laundering;
! $5 million (18 FTE) to enhance ICE’s anti-gang initiative (Operation
Community Shield);
! $26.4 million for 287(g) agreements;36
! $15.7 million (2 FTE) for information technology investments;37
! $31 million (28 FTE) for 600 additional detention beds and support
personnel;
! $28.7 million (110 FTE) for the Criminal Alien Program (CAP),
which includes the Institutional Removal Program (IRP) and the
Criminal Alien Apprehension Program (ACAP);38 and
! $10.8 million for centeralized ticketing operation and additional air
transportation (including use of the Justice Prisoners and Alien
Transportation System (JPATS)) for alien removals.
35 ICE-led BEST task forces coordinate federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law
enforcement and intelligence entities to disrupt cross-border criminal organization to
mitigate border security vulnerabilities. This increase would fund the existing BEST task
force in Laredo, TX, and establish six additional task forces.
36 This increase includes money for training 250 state and local law enforcement officers,
350 detention beds and associated staff, and $7.5 million for T-1 data transmission lines,
computers with IDENT/ENFORCE capabilities and connectivity to ICE databases.
37 This increase includes $11.5 million for Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) IT
modernization; $2.2 million for mobile IDENT/ENFORCE devices; and $2 million for
upgrading immigration enforcement systems.
38 The increase for CAP will fund 22 additional 10-person CAP teams replacing an estimated
360 Special Agents performing CAP duties.

---

CRS-28
Table 10. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY07
FY08
FY08
FY08
FY08
Activity
enacted
request
House
Senate
Conf.
HQ & Administration
274
314
Legal Proceeding
187
208
Investigations - Domestic
1,285
1,372
Investigations - International
105
108
Investigations Total:
1,390
1,480
Intelligence
51
52
DRO-Custody Operations
1,382
1,460
DRO-Fugitive Operations
183
186
DRO - Institutional Removal
Program
137
168
DRO - Alternatives to Detention
44
44
DRO Transportation and Removal
Program
238
249
DRO Total:
1,984
2,107
Unspecified Supplemental
—
ICE Salaries and Expenses:
3,887
4,162
Sources: DHS FY2008 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. PBO-55, and the conference report
(H.Rept. 109-476) to H.R. 5441. The ICE justifications distributed funding for HQ and
Administration throughout the agency’s other accounts. In order to be more precise, this table presents
the HQ and Administration account as specified in the Performance Budget Overview section of the
DHS FY2008 Congressional Budget Justifications. Unspecified supplemental from P.L. 109-234.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
Issues for Congress. ICE is responsible for many divergent activities due
to the breath of the civil and criminal violations of law that fall under ICE’s
jurisdiction. As a result, the allocation of resources in a manner in which to best
achieve their mission is a continuous issue. In addition, part of ICE’s mission
includes locating and removing deportable aliens, which involves determining the
appropriate amount of detention space, as well as which aliens should be detained.
Another issue is the ability of ICE to identify criminal aliens while they are
incarcerated for their criminal activity so that the aliens can be removed prior to
being released into the community. Also, there has been debate concerning the
extent to which state and local law enforcement should aid ICE with the
identification, detention, and removal of deportable aliens.
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

---

CRS-29
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. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-
296) abolished the INS and the United States Customs Service, and transferred most
of their investigative functions to ICE effective March 1, 2003. There are
investigative advantages to combining the INS and Customs Services, as those who
violate immigration laws often are engaged in other criminal enterprises (e.g., alien
smuggling rings often launder money). Nonetheless, concerns have been raised that
not enough resources have been focused on investigating civil violations of
immigration law and that ICE resources have been focused on terrorism and the types
of investigations performed by the former Customs Service.39 The President’s budget
requests $1,480 million total for OI.
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.40 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.41 Concerns have been raised that decisions on which aliens to
release and when to release the aliens may be based on the amount of detention
space, not on the merits of individual cases, and that the amount of space may vary
by area of the country leading to inequities and disparate policies in different
geographic areas. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
(P.L. 108-458, §5204) authorized, subject to appropriations, an increase in DRO bed
space of 8,000 beds for each year, FY2006-FY2010. The President’s budget
requested a total of $2,107 million for DRO including an additional $31 million for
600 detention beds and support personnel, and $10.8 million for transportation for
alien removals. Notably, included in the requested increase for 287(g) agreements
is funding for 350 beds and necessary personnel.
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
39 Based on CRS discussions with ICE personnel in New York City, August 27, 2003.
40 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.
41 Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, The Immigration and
Naturalization Service’s Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders, Report I-2003-004,
February 2003.

---

CRS-30
offenders.42 In addition, ICE uses electronic monitoring devices as another
alternative to detention. The President’s budget requests $43.9 million for
alternatives to detention.
Criminal Alien Program (CAP). Criminal aliens are aliens who have
committed crimes that make them removable. The potential pool of removable
criminal aliens is in the hundreds of thousands. Some are incarcerated in federal,
state, or local facilities, while others are free across the United States, because they
have already served their criminal sentences.43 DHS’ CAP attempts to locate criminal
aliens who have been released after serving their criminal sentences so that the aliens
can be removed from the United States. In addition, CAP is directed at identifying
criminal aliens in federal, state, and local prisons, and assuring that these aliens are
taken into ICE custody at the completion of their criminal sentences. Although
federal prisons have a system to notify ICE when there is an alien in custody,
notification from state and local prisons and jails is not systematic, and many
criminal aliens are released after their criminal sentences are completed rather than
taken into ICE custody, making it more difficult to locate the aliens for deportation
and raising the concern that the released aliens will commit new crimes. Like ICE,
INS had historically failed to identify all removable imprisoned aliens.44 The
President’s FY2008 budget request included $179 million for CAP.
Institutional Removal Program. INA §238(a) allows for removal
proceedings to be conducted at federal, state, and local prisons for aliens convicted
of crimes. This program as instituted is known as the Institutional Removal Program
(IRP) and is part of ICE’s Criminal Alien Program (CAP). Under the IRP, the
proceedings are held while the alien is incarcerated. Nonetheless, under the INA
aliens must complete their criminal sentences before they can be removed from the
United States.45 INS developed a nationwide automated tracking system for the
federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and deployed them to IRP sites. The system covers
foreign born inmates incarcerated under the federal system and tracks the hearing
status of each inmate.46 The President’s budget requests at total of $168 million for
the IRP.
42 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].
43 Stana, Challenges to Implementing the Immigration Interior Enforcement Strategy, p. 5.
44 Of 35,318 criminal aliens released between 1994 and 1999, at least 11,605 went on to
commit new crimes. See Governmental Accountability Office, Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts
to Identify and Remove Imprisoned Aliens Continues to Need Improvement, GAO/T-GGD-
99-47, February 25, 1999.
45 INA §241(a)(4)(A).
46 Government Accountability Office, Immigration Enforcement: Challenges to
Implementing the INS Interior Enforcement Strategy, GAO-02-861T, June 19, 2002.

---

CRS-31
State and Local Law Enforcement.47 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. The President’s budget request includes an increase of
$26.4 million to $78.4 million for these agreements.
Federal Protective Service.48 The Federal Protective Service (FPS), within
ICE, is responsible for the protection and security of federally owned and leased
buildings, property, and personnel. It has two primary missions — basic security and
building specific security. The Administration requests $613 million in FY2008 for
these missions.49 FPS focuses on law enforcement and protection of federal facilities
from criminal and terrorist threats. Currently, FPS utilizes approximately 15,000
contract security guards and 950 uniformed law enforcement officers. However, FPS
intends to move these uniformed law enforcement officers into other ICE law
enforcement offices or reduce the number through attrition. In FY2008, the
Administration plans for FPS to have three main components: security policy and
standards; building security assessments; and agency compliance with security
standards.50
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)51
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
47 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.
48 This section authored by Shawn Reese, Government and Finance Division.
49 OMB, Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2008, p. 460.
50 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal Protective Service, Fiscal Year
2008, Congressional Justification
51 Prepared by Bart Elias, Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

---

CRS-32
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 8 for account-level detail
for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 11 for sub-account-level detail for TSA
for FY2007 enacted and the FY2008 proposal.
President’s FY2008 Request. The proposed funding level for the TSA, a
gross total of $6,399 million, comprises roughly 14% of the gross total DHS budget
request. The President’s FY2008 request estimates about $2,694 million in offsetting
collections, mostly through the collection of airline passenger security fees, yielding
at net total requested amount for TSA of $3,705 million, which is paid for out of the
Treasury general fund. In breaking with prior year requests, the President’s FY2008
request does not propose any changes to the existing passenger security fee structure.
In prior years, the President sought to increase these fees, however the proposed
changes to the fee structure failed to garner much support in Congress.
The proposed FY2008 gross funding level for TSA of $6,399 is comparable to
the FY2007 enacted level of $6,327. Although, notably absent from the requested
amount is the $250 million in mandatory funding for the Aviation Security Capital
Fund that provides grants to airports for constructing in-line explosive detection
systems (in-line EDS). Authority for this fund is set to expire at the end of FY2007,
but legislation to extend authorization is currently being considered by Congress (see
H.R. 1 and S. 509).
Funding for aviation security, Federal Air Marshals, and aviation-related vetting
functions comprises roughly 90% of the total proposed TSA budget. Sub-account
level amounts in the President’s FY2008 request are presented in Table 11. Several
aviation security activities, including training, human resources, checkpoint support,
and airport management and information technology (IT) support, would see a
decrease in funding compared to FY2007 enacted levels under the President’s
proposal. This appears to be part of an effort to trim overhead costs, largely through
improved efficiency. On the other hand, the President has proposed notable increases
for Explosives Detection System (EDS) and Explosives Trace Detection (ETD)
equipment purchase, installation, and maintenance compared to FY2007 enacted
levels. This increase was anticipated, as much of the fielded explosives detection
equipment has been in service for more than four years and is reaching useful service
life requiring additional maintenance and replacement costs to be factored into the
budget process. With regard to screener staffing, the President has proposed a net
increase of 955 full-time equivalent screeners (roughly a 2% increase in the screener
workforce), largely to support a new travel document screening initiative. The

---

CRS-33
President, however, proposes to trim support staff, resulting in a net decrease of
about 351 FTEs across all of the TSA.
Under the President’s budget proposal, the Transportation Threat Assessment
and Credentialing (TTAC) function would almost be doubled compared to FY2007
enacted levels, with the entire amount of the increase, $38 million, going toward the
Secure Flight development effort. Secure Flight, the long delayed program that
would establish a centralized, federally operated system for prescreening airline
passengers against terrorist watchlists, is now scheduled to become operational in the
summer of 2008. Credentialing fee programs would see a notable increase as the
Registered Traveler program continues its nationwide expansion in FY2008, and the
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program is scheduled to
become fully operational at the nation’s seaports in FY2008. The President’s budget
proposes setting funding for surface transportation security at $41 million, roughly
$5 million above FY2007 enacted levels. The additional proposed funding would be
used to hire additional canine teams and inspectors for rail and mass transit. Under
the President’s proposal funding for Transportation Security Support functions would
remain roughly unchanged from FY2007 enacted levels.
Table 11. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Budget Activity
Total
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Aviation Security
4,732
4,953
Screening Partnership Program (SPP)
149
143
Passenger & Baggage Screening
(PC&B)
2,470
2,601
Screener Training & Other
244
200
Human Resource Services
207
182
Checkpoint Support
173
136
EDS/ETD Purchase
141
181
EDS/ETD Installation
138
259
EDS/ETD Maintenance and Utilities
222
264
Operation Integration
23
25
Regulation and Other Enforcement
218
224
Airport Management, IT, and Support
666
656
FFDO & Crew Training
25
25
Air Cargo Security
55
56
Airport Perimeter Security
—
—
Foreign and Domestic Repair Stations
—
—

---

CRS-34
FY2007
FY2008
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
Budget Activity
Total
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Aviation Security Capital Fund
250
—
Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS)
714
722
Management and Administration
628
644
Travel and Training
86
78
Air-To-Ground Communication
—
—
Threat Assessment and Credentialing
40
78
Secure Flight
15
53
Crew Vetting
15
15
Other/ TTAC Admin. & Ops.
10
10
TWIC Appropriation
—
—
Credentialing Fees
29
81
Registered Traveler Program Fees
3
35
TWIC Fees
10
27
HAZMAT Commercial Driver Fees
16
19
Surface Transportation Security
36
41
Operations and Staffing
24
24
Rail Security Inspectors and Canines
13
17
HAZMAT Truck Tracking and
Training
—
—
Transportation Security Support
525
525
Intelligence
21
21
Headquarters Administration
294
294
Information Technology
210
209
Research and Developmenta
—
—
TSA Total:
6,327
6,399
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 President’s Budget, DHS Budget in Brief, and TSA FY2008
Congressional Justification documents.
Notes: Subtotals do not sum to functional area totals and TSA total due to rounding. PC&B:
Personnel Compensation and Benefits; EDS: Explosive Detection Systems; ETD: Explosive Trace
Detection equipment; IT: Information Technology; FFDO: Federal Flight Deck Officer program;
DCA: Washington Reagan National Airport; TWIC: Transportation Worker Identification Credential;
HAZMAT: Hazardous Materials.
a. Transportation Security Research and Development was moved to the Science and Technology
Directorate in FY2006.

---

CRS-35
TSA Issues for Congress. Identified issues for the TSA in the context of
the FY2008 appropriations process center primarily on aviation security including
screener workforce issues, screening technology, and air cargo security.
Additionally, the planned nationwide roll-out of the TWIC program at seaports in
FY2008 will likely also be an issue of considerable interest.
Screener Workforce Issues. In the past, the total number of full-time
equivalent TSOs has been statutorily capped at 45,000 through specific
appropriations language. A GAO assessment of the TSA’s screener staffing
allocation methodology among commercial passenger airports found that the TSA’s
underlying assumptions should be reassessed.52 In particular, the GAO found that
many medium and smaller sized airports were staffed at levels either above or below
the allocation specified by the staffing methodology. However, at small and medium
sized airports, average peak-period passenger wait times in screening queues have
consistently met the goal of 10 minutes or less. While the GAO found that all but
one major (Category X) airport was staffed at levels consistent with the screener
allocation methodology, the average passenger wait times at these airports (12.6
minutes in FY2006) exceeded the target of 10 minutes or less. Among other large
airports (Category I), screener staffing was found to be in line with the staffing model
at almost 80% of the airports, and average passenger wait times (10.4 minutes in
FY2006) were found to be just slightly above the 10-minute target. Observations
from these findings include the difficulty in predicting staffing needs at smaller and
medium sized airports, where changes in air carrier flight schedules can have a more
pronounced impact on screener staffing, and the possible need to more closely
examine the persisting difficulties in achieving passenger wait time targets at large
airports, particularly among the busiest airports in the country. While the President’s
FY2008 budget proposes to eliminate the 45,000 FTE cap for TSOs and add 955
additional screeners, this increase will support the new travel document screening
initiative and is not expected to address staffing imbalances or passenger wait time
issues. During the FY2008 appropriations debate, screener staffing needs to address
these issues may be a topic of particular interest.
In addition to screener staffing, workers compensation continues to be a
significant expense for the TSA, despite initiatives aimed at prevention and
intervention strategies to reduce and mitigate workplace injuries. Anticipated costs
of worker compensation claims account for $59 million (about 2.3%) of the FY2008
Passenger & Baggage Screening (PC&B) amount. Thus, examining the effectiveness
of the TSA’s initiatives to address workplace injuries may be an issue of particular
interest to appropriators.
A provision in the Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act
of 2007 (H.R. 1) would place TSA screeners under the same personnel management
system as all other TSA employees, thereby extending to TSA screeners the right to
collective bargaining. When the TSA was established in 2001, the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (ATSA, P.L. 107-71) gave the TSA Administrator
52 U.S. Government Accountability Office, TSA’s Staffing Allocation Model Is Useful for
Allocating Staff among Airports, but Its Assumptions Should Be Systematically Reassessed,
GAO-07-299, February 2007.

---

CRS-36
discretion to implement an alternate personnel system for screeners, which has, to
date, barred screeners from collective bargaining. TSA Administrator, Kip Hawley,
has indicated that the direct cost to the TSA to set up a collective bargaining program
for TSA screeners would be $160 million.53 If this measure is enacted, the
anticipated additional cost could have a significant impact on the TSA’s
appropriations for airline passenger screening functions.
The President’s FY2008 budget estimates fee collections of about $35 million
for the Registered Traveler program’s continuation of its initial pilot phase at 10 to
20 airports, with the possibility of nationwide implementation sometime in FY2008
or later. Also, the TSA anticipates initial operational deployment of the long delayed
Secure Flight program in the summer of 2008. Meanwhile, the TSA has indicated
that it is culling the lists it currently provides to airlines for passenger prescreening
to reduce false matches. While all of these initiatives could have an impact on
reducing the burden on TSA screening resources, particularly resources dedicated to
secondary screening of passengers, evaluating the impact of these initiatives may be
an issue of particular interest to appropriators with regard to how they impact
appropriations needs for screening resources.
Screening Technologies. Most of the currently deployed baggage
explosives detection systems, deployed in the 2002 and 2003 time frame, have been
in service for several years and are not as capable as newer, next generation
(NextGen) equipment with regard to baggage throughput and explosives detection
capability. The TSA is facing an ongoing challenge with regard to maintaining and
extending the service life of existing equipment and phasing in replacement next
generation systems. In 2006, the TSA developed a Electronic Baggage Screening
Program (EBSP) Strategic Plan to optimize screening solutions at the 250 busiest
airports with the goal of decreasing life cycle costs for baggage screening
technologies. Faced with escalating maintenance costs for baggage screening
systems, the effectiveness of this plan and its implementation may be an issue of
particular interest for appropriators.
In addition to baggage screening technologies, the TSA is engaged in field
testing a host of emerging passenger checkpoint screening technologies designed to
improve throughput and address new and emerging security threats. Technologies
that are currently being evaluated include advanced x-ray and automated explosives
detection systems for carry-on bags; whole body imaging; explosive trace detection
portal machines; cast and prosthetic device scanners; and bottled liquid scanners.
The effectiveness of these various technologies and how they fit into the TSA’s
overall strategy for deploying passenger checkpoint technologies may be an issue of
particular interest during the FY2008 DHS appropriations debate.
Air Cargo Security. At present, the TSA’s air cargo security program
consists of 325 FTE air cargo security inspectors responsible for ensuring compliance
with security regulations throughout the air cargo supply chain. Further, security
threat assessments of cargo workers in the cargo supply chain is administered as a fee
53 Thomas Frank, “TSA Union Fight Threatens Anti-terror Bill”, USA Today, February 28,
2007.

---

CRS-37
program (the indirect air cargo fee), and the TSA levies a $28 charge per assessment.
The air cargo security model is predicated on a risk-based system that relies heavily
on the industry-wide known shipper program. In FY2008, the TSA anticipates
deployment of an Air Cargo Risk Based Targeting (ACRBT) program that will build
upon the known shipper program by including freight forwarder management
information, a risk-based freight assessment system, and a certified shipper program.
Implementation of this initiative may be an issue of particular interest for the
appropriations debate.
A House-passed proposal in H.R. 1 would require the TSA to phase-in physical
inspections of all cargo placed on passenger airplanes to reach 100% screening of
such cargo by the end of FY2009. Under the proposal, 65% of all cargo placed on
passenger airplanes would have to be inspected by the end of FY2008. It is unclear
how such a mandate would specifically impact appropriations. This is because the
bill language does not specifically indicate whether the screening would be a federal
function or whether it would be carried out by the airlines as is currently the practice
for those cargo items currently inspected. Critics of the proposal argue that the
explosives detection technologies needed to meet such a mandate are not yet
available. Thus, additional appropriations may be needed to accelerate technology
development if this proposal is enacted.
TWIC Program Roll-Out. On January 25, 2007, TSA issued a final rule
implementing the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program
for seaport workers.54 Beginning at the end of March 2007, the TWIC card will be
phased in at the nation’s seaports. Seaport workers will pay a fee of between
$107-$159 to apply for a card which will be valid for five years. Vessel and port
facility owners will have to provide card readers after a pilot program is conducted
to test the best type of card reader to use. Anticipating full implementation of the
TWIC program at U.S. seaports by FY2008, the President’s budget expects fee
collections to total roughly $27 million in FY2008, compared to estimated collections
of about $10 million in FY2007. The TSA is also seeking comment on the use of a
TWIC card in all modes of transportation. The scope of the program and its
application to other transportation modes may be an issue of particular interest during
the DHS FY2008 appropriations debate.
United States Coast Guard55
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
54 See Federal Register, vol. 72, no.16, pp. 3492-3604.
55 Prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation, Resources, Science and Industry
Division.

---

CRS-38
that the Coast Guard be maintained as a distinct entity within the DHS and that the
Commandant of the Coast Guard report directly to the Secretary of DHS.
President’s FY2008 Request. For FY2008, the President requested a total
of $8,506 million in net budget authority for the Coast Guard, which is about a 2%
increase over the FY2007 level. The President requested $5,894 million for
operating expenses (an increase of 6% over FY2007), $998 million for acquisition,
construction, and improvements (a decrease of 29% from FY2007), $127 million for
reserve training (an increase of 4% over FY2007), $18 million for research,
development, tests, and evaluation (an increase of 6% from FY2007), $12 million for
environmental compliance and restoration (an increase of 9% from FY2007), and
zero funding for the bridge alteration program which the President proposes
transferring to the Maritime Administration in the Department of Transportation.
The President also requested $223 million in FY2008 supplemental funding for the
Coast Guard to support its operations in providing security for U.S. Navy vessels,
facilities, and port operations in Iraq.56 The following table provides more detail
regarding the Coast Guard’s Operating Expenses (OE) account and its Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements (ACI) account. Under the ACI account, the
President proposes transferring the funding of the personnel that administer ACI
contracts ($81 million and 652 FTEs) to the OE account.
Table 12. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI)
Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Activity
Total
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Operating Expenses
5478
5894
Military pay and allowances
2796
2959
Civilian pay and benefits
571
631
Training and recruiting
181
187
Operating funds and unit
1016
1138
level maintenance
Centrally managed accounts
203
226
Intermediate and depot level
711
754
maintenance
Acquisition, Construction, and
1409
998
Improvements
Vessels and Critical
27
9
Infrastructure
Aircraft
15
—
56 The Budget for Fiscal Year 2008 — Appendix, p. 1164.

---

CRS-39
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Activity
Total
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Other Equipment
120
114
Integrated Deepwater System
1145
837a
Shore facilities and Aids to
22
38
Navigation
Personnel and Related
81
1
Support
Source: DHS FY2008 Budget Justification, pp. CG-OE-4 and CG-AC&I-4.
a. The DHS FY2008 Budget Justification requests $788 million which reflects the cancellation of $49
million from the FY2006 Appropriations (P.L. 109-90) for the Offshore Patrol Cutter, as stated
in the FY2008 Budget Appendix, p. 469.
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. Members of Congress have expressed concern with
how the agency is operationally responding to these demands, including Coast Guard
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 91 cutters, 124 small surface craft, and 244 aircraft.
For FY2008, the President requested $837 million for the program. Issues for
Congress include the Coast Guard’s management of the program, which is the largest
and most complex acquisition effort in Coast Guard history, the overall cost of the
program, and the program’s time-line for acquisition. These issues are discussed in
CRS Report RL33753, Coast Guard Deepwater Program: Background, Oversight
Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
Security Mission. Some Members of Congress have expressed strong
concerns that the Coast Guard does not have enough resources to carry out its
homeland security mission. About 22% of the Coast Guard’s FY2008 budget request
is for its “port, waterways, and coastal security” (PWCS) mission.57 The DHS
Inspector General reports that the resource hours devoted to the PWCS mission has
increased by a factor of 13 compared to pre-9/11 levels and that in FY2005 (the most
recent year data is available), the PWCS mission consumed almost as many resources
as all of its non-homeland security missions combined.58 For monitoring harbor
traffic, the President’s FY2008 request includes $12 million to continue procurement
57 DHS Budget in Brief, p. 52.
58 DHS, Office of Inspector General, Annual Review of Mission Performance: United States
Coast Guard (FY2005), OIG-06-50, July 2006. “Resource hours” is measured by the
number of flight hours (for aircraft) and underway hours (for vessels) dedicated to a specific
mission. Because the marine safety and marine environmental protection missions are
personnel intensive rather than asset intensive, these two missions are not included in the
Inspector General’s analysis.

---

CRS-40
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). This system is currently operational in several major U.S. ports.59 A
GAO review of this system during an earlier stage of its development recommended
that the Coast Guard partner with private and public organizations willing to develop
AIS facilities on shore at their own expense, in order to reduce the cost and speed up
development of AIS nationwide.60
The President’s budget proposes establishing a “Deployable Operations Group”
(DOG) as a means of coordinating the Coast Guard’s various specialized teams,
namely the Maritime Security Response Team, Maritime Safety and Security Teams,
Tactical Law Enforcement Teams, National Strike Force, and Port Security Units.61
The DOG is intended to facilitate cross-training and standardization of tactics,
procedures, and equipment among these teams and enable the Coast Guard to
improve its “all hazards ... all threats” response capability.62
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 may have difficulty sustaining its traditional, non-homeland
security missions, such as fisheries enforcement or marine environmental protection.
The latest annual review of the Coast Guard’s mission performance by the DHS
Inspector General found that in FY2005 the Coast Guard’s resource hours for its non-
homeland security missions increased for the first time since September 11, 2001,
due in large part to its response to Hurricane Katrina.63 The IG reports that in
FY2005, the Coast Guard’s total non-homeland security resource hours were within
3% of pre-9/11 levels.
Rescue-21. During the FY2007 appropriations process, Congress expressed
strong concern with the Coast Guard’s management of the Rescue 21 program, the
Coast Guard’s new coastal zone communications network that is key to its search and
rescue mission. Last fiscal year, Congress provided $40 million to continue
deployment of the new system, which began in 2002, and requested that the Coast
Guard brief the Committees on Appropriations on a quarterly basis. A GAO audit
of the program 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,
59 Coast Guard FY2008 Budget Justification, Strategic Context, p. CG-SC-7.
60 GAO, Maritime Security: Partnering Could Reduce Federal Costs and Facilitate
Implementation of AutomaticVessel Identification System, GAO-04-868, July 2004.
61 Coast Guard FY2008 Budget Justification, Operating Expenses, p. CG-OE-32.
62 For additional information on the Coast Guard’s security mission, see CRS Report
RS21125, Homeland Security: Coast Guard Operations — Background and Issues for
Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
63 DHS, Office of Inspector General, Annual Review of Mission Performance: United States
Coast Guard (FY2005), OIG-06-50, July 2006.

---

CRS-41
which is already five years behind schedule.64 The President’s FY2008 budget
requests $81 million for Rescue 21: for system installation at seven locations,
infrastructure preparation at 12 locations, and full-rate production of the ground
support system through design at ten locations.65
LORAN-C. As in the FY2007 request, the FY2008 request proposes
terminating the LORAN (Long-Range Aids to Navigation) -C system which helps
boaters (including commercial fishermen) and pilots determine their location using
radio signals. The Coast Guard has argued that this system in no longer needed in
light of GPS (Global Positioning System) technology which is more precise than
LORAN. In FY2007, Congress funded continuation of the LORAN-C system and
required the Coast Guard, among other things, to first notify the public before
terminating the system. On January 8, 2007, DHS and the Department of
Transportation issued a Federal Register notice seeking public comment on whether
to decommission LORAN, maintain it, or upgrade it.66 Proponents of maintaining
the ground-based LORAN system argue that it is valuable as a backup to the satellite-
based GPS system. They argue that terrain can sometimes block the line of sight
needed for GPS.
Bridge Alteration Program. The President’s FY2008 request proposes
transferring the Bridge Alteration Program (a program to alter or remove bridges that
are obstructing navigation) from the Coast Guard to the Maritime Administration,
which is housed in the Department of Transportation. Consistent with prior requests,
the President requests no new funding for this program. In FY2007, Congress
appropriated $16 million.
U.S. Secret Service67
The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) has two broad missions — criminal
investigations and protection — both connected with homeland security (as well as
other matters).68 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
64 GAO, United States Coast Guard: Improvements Needed in Management and Oversight
of Rescue System Acquisition, GAO-06-623, May 2006.
65 DHS Budget-in-Brief, p. 55.
66 Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 4, January 8, 2007, pp. 796-797. Comments were due by
February 7, 2007.
67 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
68 OMB, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008, Appendix, United
States Secret Service, pp. 450 - 452; and United States Secret Service, Fiscal Year 2008,
Congressional Justification.

---

CRS-42
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 with the National Guard) from other federal
agencies and state and local governments.
FY2008 Budget Request. For FY2008, the President’s budget submission
requested an appropriation of $1,399 million for the protection and criminal
investigation missions of the Secret Service.69 This reflected an increase of $120
million or nearly 9% over the FY2007 total of $1,279 million for the Service.
Specifically, the Administration requested the following amounts for
! protection of persons and facilities — $697 million;
! protective intelligence activities — $58 million;
! National Special Security Events (NSSE) — $1 million;
! presidential candidate nominee protection — $85 million;
! White House mail screening — $27 million;
! management and administration — $176 million;
! James Rowley Training Center — $52 million;
! domestic field operations — $220 million;
! international field operations — $28 million;
! electronic crimes program — $45 million;
! acquisition, construction, and improvements — $4 million.70
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 13 provides account-level appropriations
detail for Title III.
69 OMB, Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2008, p. 451.
70 Ibid., pp. 450-452.

---

CRS-43
Table 13. Title III: Preparedness and Response
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
House
Senate
Total
Total.
Preparedness Directorate
— Management and Administration
31
—
— State and Local Programs
2,531
—
— Emergency Management Planning Grants
200
—
— U.S. Fire Administration and Training
47
[43]
— Firefighter Assistance Grants
662
—
— Infrastructure Protection and Information Security
548
[538]
— Radiological Emergency Preparedness
-6
Net total
4,012
—
National Protection & Programs Directorate
— Administration
—
46
— Infrastructure Protection and Information Security
[548]
538
— US-VISIT
362
462
Net total
—
1,047
Office of Health Affairs
—
118
Counter Terrorism Fund
— a
—

---

CRS-44
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
House
Senate
Total
Total.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
— Operations, Planning, and Support
—
668
— Office of Grant Programs
—
2,196
— U.S. Fire Administration
[47]
43
— Administrative and regional operations
282
—
— Readiness, mitigation, response & recovery
244
—
— Public health programs
—
—
— Disaster relief
1,487
1,700
— Flood map modernization fund
199
195
— National flood insurance fund (NFIF) b
—
—
— National flood mitigation c
—
—
— Pre-disaster mitigation fund
100
100
— Emergency food and shelter
151
140
— Disaster assistance direct loan account
1
1
Net total
2,464
5,042
Net budget authority subtotal: Title III
6,476
6,207
Source: FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justification.
Notes: No FY2007 funding for Title III was designated as emergency spending. Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds. Amounts in italics and
brackets show what the FY2008 request would look like if it had followed the FY2007 DHS account structure. For a more detailed analysis of the supplemental appropriations, please
refer to Appendix I.
a. Does not include a $16 million rescission of unobligated balances per P.L. 109-295.
b. Funds derived from premium payments or transfers from the U.S. Treasury.
c. Funds derived from NFIF transfers.

---

CRS-45
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)71
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Congress passed the Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act (Title VI of P.L. 109-295, the FY2007
appropriations legislation) to address shortcomings identified in the reports published
by congressional committees and the White House. Based on those reports and
oversight hearings on many aspects of FEMA’s performance during the hurricane
season of 2005, the post-Katrina Act expanded FEMA’s responsibilities within the
Department of Homeland Security as well as the agency’s program authorities for
preparing for and responding to major disaster events.72 The FY2008 appropriations
request represents the Administration’s first opportunity to establish priorities under
the new legislative authority.
President’s FY2008 Request. The President’s FY2008 request of $5,042
million for FEMA more than doubles the FY2007 enacted level of $2,464 million.
This dramatic increase reflects the intent of Congress, through the Post-Katrina Act,
to increase FEMA’s authority, move disaster preparedness programs back within
FEMA from the DHS Preparedness Directorate, and ensure that resources and
personnel are able to respond to catastrophes. The transfer of the majority of the
preparedness grant programs to FEMA accounts for $2,196 million of the increase.
Another significant increase is in the Operations and Support section of FEMA’s
budget which would be increased by $668 million to support the preparedness
changes as well as other Post-Katrina Act measures. Other changes proposed by the
Administration for FY2008 include the following:
! A $4 million decrease in the Flood Map Modernization Fund from
$199 million in FY2007 to $195 million in FY2008.
! FEMA’s budget no longer includes funding for the National Disaster
Medical System (NDMS), which was transferred to the Department
of Health and Human Services pursuant to the Post-Katrina Act.73
NDMS had been funded at $34 million for several years, as the sole
program in FEMA’s “Public Health Programs” account.
! An $11 million reduction in the Emergency Food and Shelter
Program (Title III of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act)
from $151 million to $140 million.
! Decreased funding from $47 million in FY2007 to $43 million in
FY2008 for the U.S. Fire Administration.
71 Prepared by Keith Bea, Specialist in American National Government and Fran McCarthy,
Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
72 For more information, see CRS Report, CRS Report RL33729, Federal Emergency
Management Policy Changes After Hurricane Katrina: A Summary of Statutory Provisions,
Keith Bea, Coordinator.
73 See the legislative history for the 109th Congress in CRS Report RL33589, The Pandemic
and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (P.L. 109-417): Provisions and Changes to Preexisting
Law, by Sarah A. Lister and Frank Gottron.

---

CRS-46
FEMA Issues for Congress. The problematic response to Hurricane
Katrina and the slow recovery from the storm (as well as Hurricanes Rita and Wilma)
will likely be issues of concern for Members of the 110th Congress. Some of the
specific issues that might be subjects of investigation include whether improvements
have been made in logistical and administrative capacities, whether the agency is
better prepared to respond to a catastrophic disaster comparable to or even more
destructive than the 2005 hurricanes, among others.
Disaster Relief Fund. The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) usually accounts for
the great majority of FEMA’s spending. It is the DRF which funds the assistance
made available under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act (P.L. 93-288).74
Congress appropriates supplemental funding for the DRF when annual
appropriations are not adequate for the DRF obligations needed to pay for recovery
projects associated with disasters from previous years (notably the reconstruction of
Gulf Coast states), current disaster activity for emergency response costs, and hazard
mitigation efforts to reduce the impact of disasters in future years.75 While funds for
the Gulf Coast hurricane season of 2005 have been included in four supplemental
appropriations statutes (P.L. 109-61, P.L. 109-62, P.L 109-148, and P.L. 109-234),
the President’s request for the DRF in FY2008 also acknowledges the need for
additional funds by requesting another FY2007 supplemental of $3,400 million for
the DRF.
The issue before Congress concerns the use of supplemental appropriations
legislation to meet climbing costs of emergency assistance instead of requesting
sufficient funds at the start of the process. For example, in FY2007 the
Administration requested $1,500 million initially for the DRF; supplemental requests
added billions more. The request for FY2008 exceeds that for the previous fiscal
year by $200 million, to $1,700 million. While this is a significant increase within
the context of FEMA’s budget, the actual amount is actually slightly below FEMA’s
historical average of DRF spending (excluding outliers such as Hurricane Katrina and
the World Trade Center attacks). Congress might elect to examine whether the initial
DRF request should be increased to meet the high costs of continuing to provide for
the recovery of the Gulf Coast while providing funds for the response to the next
disaster. On the other hand, concern with escalating federal costs and the deficit
might lead some to argue that supplemental funding, requested and approved only
when needed, is the most appropriate funding mechanism for emergency assistance.
Congress also may be concerned about accountability for DRF expenditures, in
particular when relevant programmatic expertise resides in an agency other than
FEMA. An example is the Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program
(CCP), authorized by the Stafford Act, which provides professional counseling
74 Additional information on the statutory and funding history of the DRF is presented in
CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations,
Eligible Activities, and Funding, by Keith Bea.
75 Historical information on supplemental appropriations is presented in CRS Report
RL33226, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Legislation for Disaster Assistance:
Summary Data FY 1989 to FY 2005, by Justin Murray.

---

CRS-47
services to major disaster victims in order to relieve mental health problems. FEMA
and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) share administrative duties for
CCP. Though the program is funded through the DRF, it is not clear which agency
bears primary or ultimate responsibility for the program, which has been associated
with fiscal and programmatic challenges.76
Post-Katrina Reform Act Measures. In addition to the significant
resources needed for FEMA to administer Preparedness grants, there are many
directions in the Post-Katrina Reform Act that, in seeking to improve the
performance of FEMA, necessarily expand the Agency’s coverage and areas of
responsibility. Many of these changes carry potentially large costs depending on the
frequency and scope of future disaster activity. However, they also hold the potential
of vastly improved service to disaster victims and their communities. Some of the
areas for potentially increased costs include the following.
! Federal contributions for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) for approximately the past five years has been set at 7.5%
of the total aid provided in a state after it receives a major disaster
declaration. The post-Katrina Act modifies the HMGP provision to
provide 15% (for disasters with total damages under $2 billion),
10% (for disasters with damages between $2 billion and $10 billion),
and 7.5% (for disasters between $10 billion and $35.3 billion).
! The Public Assistance (PA) program authority has been expanded in
several ways that could result in increased federal disaster spending.
First, the list of eligible applicants, previously defined by those that
provided “essential services of a governmental nature to the general
public,” can now be expanded by the President. Also, under this
2006 amendment, services do not necessarily have to be available
only to the general public. Second, the PA program statutory
authority now includes some facilities that were previously
identified in regulations. Third, education facilities can apply
directly for Stafford Act assistance without first pursuing a Small
Business Administration loan. Finally within the Public Assistance
realm, the post-Katrina Act includes a Pilot Program for Public
Assistance that seeks to provide incentives to state and local
governments to be more involved in the PA work such as debris
removal and repair projects. While one intent of the provision is to
reduce costs, the incentives provided could result in an increase in
the Federal cost share for participating areas as well as
reimbursement for base wages for local hires employed by the state
and local governments to accomplish this work.
76 See CRS Report RL33738, Gulf Coast Hurricanes: Addressing Survivors’ Mental Health
and Substance Abuse Treatment Needs, by Ramya Sundararaman, Sarah A. Lister, and Erin
D. Williams.

---

CRS-48
! Another area of accelerated FEMA involvement that could increase
costs concerns expedited federal assistance. This may take the form
of earlier, and greater, technical assistance provided to a state for
precautionary evacuation measures as well as help with logistics and
communications.
! There are several administrative and service improvement provisions
in the Post-Katrina Act like to result in increased outreach and
greater expenditures, including efforts to identify and assist the
disabled and disaster victims with limited English proficiency, assist
in the reunification of families following a disaster event, and
provide increased transportation assistance to victims.
! The Post-Katrina Act authorizes case management to be an eligible
cost. Given the importance of this service and the potential caseload
that could require some of this assistance, higher costs will likely be
associated with providing this new form of assistance to major
disaster victims.
Office of Grants Programs77
The Office of Grant Programs within FEMA is responsible for facilitating and
coordinating DHS state and local programs. The office administers formula and
discretionary grant programs to further state and local homeland security capabilities.
As a result of the reorganization mandated by the Post-Katrina Reform Act (P.L. 109-
295), the work of Grant Programs has been separated from training activities.
FEMA’s National Integration Center within the National Preparedness Directorate
administers training, exercises, and technical assistance for states and localities.
President’s Request. The FY2008 budget request proposes the following
amounts for the Office of Grant Programs homeland security assistance programs:
! State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) — $250
million;78
! Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) — $800 million;79
! Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP) — [$263
million];80
! Port Security Program — $210 million;
! Transit Security Program — $175 million;
77 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in American National Government/Emergency
Management, Government and Finance Division.
78 Of the $250 million requested for SHSGP, $63 million is to be allocated for law
enforcement terrorism prevention activities.
79 Of the $800 million requested for UASI, $200 million is to be allocated for law
enforcement terrorism prevention activities.
80 This amount is included in the request for SHSGP of $63 million and UASI of $200
million.

---

CRS-49
! Intercity Bus Security Program — $12 million;
! Trucking Industry Security Program — $9 million;
! Buffer Zone Protection — $50 million;
! Assistance to Firefighters (FIRE) — $300 million;
! Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG) —
$200 million;
! Citizen Corps Program (CCP) — $15 million;
! National Exercise Program — $50 million;
! State and Local Training Program — $95 million;
! Metropolitan Medical Response System — 0;81 and
! Technical Assistance and Evaluation — $25 million.82
Issues for Congress. As Congress considers appropriations, Members may
wish to address potential policy issues that the Administration’s FY2008 budget
request raises. Some of the issues include the impact of the proposed overall
reduction in grant appropriations, proposed changes to some of the grants’
distribution methods, and the proposed reduction in FIRE appropriations. These
issues are discussed below.
For SHSGP, UASI,83 infrastructure security programs, FIRE, EMPG, and CCP,
the Administration proposes approximately $2,021 million for state and local
homeland security assistance programs — $985 million less than Congress
appropriated for these programs in FY2007 (P.L. 109-295). The reduction in overall
funding arguably reflects the Administration’s assessment of the nation’s homeland
security needs. Some, notably the members of the 9/11 Commission, have
commented in the past that counterterrorism, law enforcement, and hazard prevention
funding patterns historically have been inadequate and inappropriate. Such critics
might argue that the proposal for reduced funding would continue to result in
deficient financial support in light of the needs of localities.84
Reduction in Funding for State and Local Assistance Programs.
One possible policy question concerns the requested reduction in DHS appropriations
for state and local homeland security assistance programs. The Administration does
not request funding for LETPP; instead it requests that nearly $63 million of the $250
million requested for SHSGP and $200 million of the $800 million requested for
UASI be used for law enforcement terrorism prevention activities.85 If funded as
proposed, this shift could result in the availability of fewer funds for the states —
$188 million in FY2008 (versus $525 million in FY2007) for SHSGP activities, and
81 The Administration has not requested an amount for MMRS since FY2004.
82 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2008 Budget of the United States
Government, Appendix, pp. 480-482.
83 Both SHSGP and UASI include a portion of funding to be used for law enforcement
terrorism prevention activities.
84 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission
Report (Washington: GPO, July 2004), p. 396.
85 Fiscal Year 2008 Budget of the United States Government, Appendix, p. 480.

---

CRS-50
$600 million (versus $770 million in FY2007) for high threat urban areas seeking to
fund UASI activities.
Distribution Methods for State and Local Assistance Programs.
Another potential policy issue is the proposed distribution methods DHS intends to
use in allocating state and local homeland security assistance programs. The
Administration requests that EMPG and CCP be the only state and local programs
funded using Section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56). This statute
guarantees each state a minimum of 0.75% of total appropriations for domestic
preparedness programs.86 This continued use of a 0.75% guaranteed minimum
arguably does not reflect the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation to allocate all
federal homeland security assistance based on risk and threat assessments.
Additionally, the Administration proposes that SHSGP be a discretionary program,
but guarantees each state a minimum of 0.25% of total appropriations.87 Some could
argue, that SHSGP would not be a discretionary program if there is a guaranteed
minimum amount for states. For an in-depth description and analysis of H.R. 1 and
S. 4 grant provisions, see CRS Report RL33859, Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland
Security Grant Program, H.R. 1, and S. 4: Description and Analysis, by Shawn
Reese and Steven Maguire.
Reduction in Assistance to Firefighters Program. With regard to the
proposed reduction in homeland security assistance, Congress might elect to evaluate
the Administration’s proposed reduction in Assistance to Firefighters program. The
Administration requested an appropriation of $300 million for fire grants in FY2008,
a 45% reduction from the FY2007 level. No funding is requested for SAFER grants.88
The total FY2008 request for firefighter assistance grants is 55% below the FY2007
level for the combined grants. As a result, the FY2008 budget proposal would
eliminate grants for capacity building, notably wellness and fitness activities as well
as modifications to facilities for firefighter safety. Instead, the budget justification
requested funding for “applications that enhance the most critical capabilities of local
response to fire-related hazards in the event of a terrorist attack or major disaster.”
Some may contend that the capacity building assistance efforts targeted previously
will be minimized if specific objectives are replaced by broad program goals.
Office of Health Affairs89
The Post-Katrina Act codified the position of Chief Medical Officer (CMO)
within DHS.90 The Administration budget request for FY2008 proposes the creation
of a new Office of Health Affairs (OHA) within DHS, to be headed by the CMO,
86 Ibid.
87 Ibid.
88 For more information see CRS Report RL33375, Staffing for Adequate Fire and
Emergency Response: The SAFER Grant Program, and CRS Report RS21302, Assistance
to Firefighters Program, both by Lennard G. Kruger.
89 Prepared by Sarah A. Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology, Domestic
Social Policy Division.
90 6 U.S.C. § 321e.

---

CRS-51
who will report to the Secretary through the Deputy Secretary, and have the title of
Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs and Chief Medical Officer. According to the
FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justification,91 the OHA will consist of three
main divisions: (1) Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Biodefense; (2)
Medical Readiness; and (3) Component Services. The WMD and Biodefense
Division will lead the department’s biodefense activities, including the BioShield and
BioWatch programs, which will be transferred from the Science and Technology
Directorate (S&T), and the National Biosurveillance Integration System (NBIS),
which will be transferred from the former Preparedness Directorate. The Medical
Readiness division will oversee contingency planning, first responder readiness,
WMD incident management support, medical readiness grant coordination, and
assistance to the FEMA Administrator in emergency and disaster response. The
Component Services division will oversee the department’s occupational health and
safety programs.
The Administration requests $118 million for OHA for FY2008. This includes
a funding increase of $17 million, in addition to $100 million for the following
transfers:
! $5 million from the former Preparedness Directorate, for the Office
of the Chief Medical Officer;
! $82 million from the S&T Directorate, for BioWatch Operations and
the Biological Warning and Incident Characterization (BWIC)
programs;
! $3 million from the S&T Directorate, for the Rapidly Deployable
Chemical Defense System (RDCDS);
! $1 million from the S&T Directorate for personnel support for
BioWatch, BWIC, and RDCDS;
! $8 million from the former Preparedness Directorate for NBIS; and
! $1 million from the former Preparedness Directorate for personnel
support for NBIS.92
National Protection and Programs Directorate93
The National Protection and Programs (NPP) Directorate is a new directorate
formed by the Secretary for Homeland Security in response to the Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006. This act deconstructed the
Preparedness Directorate by transferring preparedness activities and responsiblities
back to a new reconstructed Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The
act required the Office of Grants and Training (which runs the agency’s Homeland
Security Grants Program), the U.S. Fire Administration, the Chemical Stockpile
Emergency Preparedness Division, the Radiological Emergency Preparedness
Program, and the Office of the National Capital Region Coordination, be transferred
91 FY2008 DHS Congressional Justification, pp. OHA 2-3.
92 Ibid. Numbers do not add due to rounding.
93 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources,
Science and Industry Division.

---

CRS-52
from the Preparedness Directorate to the new FEMA, as well. The remaining
functions of the old Preparedness Directorate, primarily related to critical
infrastructure protection, and grouped under the Infrastructure Protection and
Information Security Program, were not transferred. The Secretary, under his own
authority, transferred the Office of the Chief Medical Officer to a new Office of
Health Affairs.
Additional elements were also added to the new NPP. The Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act established the Office of Emergency
Communications, combining within it a number of disparate programs from other
parts of the department aimed at facilitating communications between first
responders and policy makers during times of crisis. The act placed the Office of
Emergency Communications under the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and
Communications, who now reports to the Under Secretary for National Protection
and Programs. In addition, the Secretary, under his own authority, transferred the
US-VISIT program to this new directorate. Also under his own authority, the
Secretary established an Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to act as liaison between
state and local officials and the Directorate, and elevated the Risk Management
Division of the Office of Infrastructure Protection into a separate Office of Risk
Management and Analysis, reporting directly to the proposed Under Secretary.
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(US-VISIT)94
Until FY2006, US-VISIT was coordinated out of the Directorate of Border and
Transportation Security (BTS). DHS Secretary Chertoff’s second stage review,
among other things, eliminated BTS and proposed placing US-VISIT within a new
Screening Coordination Office (SCO) that would have combined a number of
screening programs within DHS95 and that would have reported directly to the
Secretary. The appropriators did not provide funding for the SCO, however, and US-
VISIT became a stand-alone office within Title II of the DHS appropriation in
FY2006.96 In FY2008, DHS is proposing to move US-VISIT into a new entity, the
National Protection Programs Directorate (NPPD). In its Section 872 letter, DHS
states that it is relocating US-VISIT to the NPPD “to support coordination for the
program’s protection mission and to strengthen DHS management oversight.”97
94 Prepared by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
95 Programs proposed for transfer to the Screening Coordination Office included the US
Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Project (US-VISIT); Free and Secure Trade (FAST)
and NEXUS/SENTRI, from CBP; and Secure Flight, Transportation Worker Identification
Credential (TWIC), Registered Traveler, Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) background
checks, and the Alien Flight School background checks program from TSA
96 H.Rept. 109-241.
97 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, letter from Secretary Michael Chertoff to the
Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and
Government Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, January 18, 2007, p. 8.

---

CRS-53
President’s Request. The Administration requested $462 million for US-
VISIT in FY2008, an increase of $100 million over the FY2007 enacted level.
Included in the Administration’s request is an increase of $146 million to convert the
entry system to 10 fingerprint capability, and a decrease of $31 million for pilot
programs to test the exit component of the system.98
Issues for Congress. There are a number of issues that Congress may face
relating to the implementation of the US-VISIT system and its proposed transfer to
the NPPD. These issues may include whether the Administration’s decrease in
funding for the exit component and focus on expanding the entry component of the
system is appropriate, whether U.S. Visit should be placed administratively within
the NPPD or whether there is some other configuration within DHS that is better
suited to US-VISIT’s mission, and whether the current POE infrastructure can
support the added communication load that a 10 fingerprint system would likely
require.
Administrative Placement Within NPPD. Some question whether the
administrative placement of US-VISIT within the proposed NPPD is appropriate.99
Most of the other DHS components that would comprise the NPPD focus on
infrastructure protection and government-wide coordination and were previously
located within the Office of Infrastructure Protection at DHS. While an argument
could be made that US-VISIT supports the protection of critical infrastructure by
preventing terrorists from entering the country, a counter-argument could be made
that US-VISIT’s primary role is immigration-related and relates to screening
individuals as they enter the country. Some observers, including the GAO, have
noted that the US-VISIT program would benefit from stronger management
oversight, especially in light of the program’s continuing inability to formulate a
strategic plan.100 However, there is some doubt concerning whether the NPPD would
be the best fit within DHS for US-VISIT given the seeming disparity between US-
VISIT and the other proposed components of the NPPD. A possible issue for
Congress could include whether US-VISIT should be placed administratively within
the NPPD or whether there are other administrative placements that would be more
appropriate. Possible options, should Congress decide against placing US-VISIT
within the NPPD, could include leaving US-VISIT as a stand-alone entity within
DHS reporting directly to the Undersecretary, or placing it within CBP to bolster US-
VISIT’s immigration control aspects.
10 Fingerprint Entry Versus the Exit Component. In its FY2008
request, DHS appears to be moving toward implementing a 10 fingerprint entry
component to the US-VISIT system rather than electing to implement the system’s
exit component. In congressional testimony, DHS acknowledged that it has stopped
98 DHS FY2008 Justification, p. US-VISIT 3.
99 For example, H.R. 1684, as amended during committee markup, would prohibit this
transfer until DHS submits a plan for implementing the US-VISIT program’s exit
component at all ports of entry.
100 GAO Testimony, February 2007, p. 19.

---

CRS-54
actively testing technologies associated with the exit component of the system,101 and
the FY2008 request includes a reduction of $31 million for exit pilot programs.
Instead, DHS appears to be focusing on expanding the entry component of the system
to include 10 fingerprint enrollment and interoperability with other federal
government fingerprint databases. Possible issues for Congress may include whether
these goals are mutually exclusive, and whether DHS should continue to work on the
exit component of the system as it expands the entry component.
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security102
Within DHS those activities that coordinate the national effort to identify the
nation’s most critical infrastructure assets and to prioritize risk reduction at those
sites are located in the Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS)
Program. For the most part, these activities were left in place following the
reorganizations mentioned above. One notable exception was the transfer of the
Biosurveillance sub-program to the new Office of Health Affairs. In addition,
funding for the new Office of Emergency Communications falls within this program.
President’s FY2008 Request. While many of the activities of the IPIS
program were left in place, the President’s request did make some changes that make
it difficult to compare the FY2008 requested figures with the FY2007 enacted
figures. In the FY2008 budget request, a number of IPIS sub-programs (Critical
Infrastructure Outreach and Partnerships, Critical Infrastructure Identification and
Evaluation, National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center, and Protective
Actions) were combined into a single sub-program called Infrastructure Protection.
In addition, the President’s request transfered certain expenses (such as facility rents
and information technology support), previously paid for by each sub-program, to the
NPP’s Management and Administration account, while proposing that each sub-
program pick up their own related salaries and benefits. Salaries and benefits were
previously paid for in an IPIS Management and Administration sub-program.
Tracking these transfers is beyond the scope of this document.
The President’s budget identified 6 programmatic increases totaling
approximately $38 million. The largest of these is $15 million to expand the
Chemical Site Security Program to support development, implementation, and
oversight of the new regulations being promulgated on selected sites that handle
certain amounts of selected hazardous chemicals. The other relatively large increase
is $11 million to accelerate activities associated with the Department’s Wireless
Priority Service responsibility. The budget also identified 3 areas where program
reductions were made, with $30 million in various Infrastructure Protection sub-
program activities being scaled back. These include, among others, reductions
associated with the expected completion of Sector Specific Plans, deferral of some
capabilities of the Automated Critical Asset Management System, reductions in the
101 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Technology, and Homeland Security, US-VISIT: Challenges and Strategies for Securing the
U.S. Border, 110th Cong., 1st Sess., January 31, 2007.
102 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources,
Science and Industry Division.

---

CRS-55
Bomb Prevention Program and some Infrastructure Planning, Training and Exercise
Programs. Table 14 provides activity and program-level detail for IPIS.
Table 14. FY2008 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure
Protection and Information Security Appropriation
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Program/Project Activity
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Management and Administration
(M&A)
77
—
Critical Infrastructure Outreach
and Partnerships (CIOP)
101
—
Critical Infrastructure
Identification and Evaluation
(CIIE)
69
—
National Infrastructure
Simulation and Analysis Center
(NISAC)
25
—
Biosurveillance (BIO)
8
—
Protective Actions (PA)
32
—
Infrastructure Protection
—
240
Cyber Security (CS)
92
98
National Security/Emergency
Preparedness
Telecommunications (NS/EP)
143
165
Office of Emergency
Communications
—
36
Total
547
538
Source: DHS FY2008 Congressional Justification: National Protection and Programs Directorate,
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security. February 2008.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
Issues for Congress. The consolidation of some of the IPIS sub-program
elements may make some activities less visible and give the Secretary more
discretion to transfer funds within the IPIS budget. Also, notwithstanding the
increase in the funding request for the Chemical Site Security Program, there may be
some concern whether this is sufficient for the amount of review that may be required
to implement the new regulations.

---

CRS-56
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 15 provides account-level details of Title IV appropriations.

---

CRS-57
Table 15. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
House
Senate
Total
Total.
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Direct Appropriation
1,986
2,569
— Offsetting feesa
-1,804
-2,539
Net subtotal
182
30
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
275
263
Science and Technology
— Management and Administration
135
143
— Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations
838
656
Net Subtotal
973 b
799
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
— Management and Administration
30
34
— Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations
273
320
— Systems Acquisition
178
208
Net Subtotal
481
562
Gross budget authority: Title IV
3,715
4,193
— Offsetting collections: Title IV
-1,804
-2,539
Net budget authority: Title IV
1,911
1,654
Source: FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justification. Totals may not add due to rounding.
Notes: Amounts in parentheses are non-adds.
a. Fees include Immigration Examination Fund; H-1b Visa Fee; and the Fraud Prevention and Detection fee.
b. Does not include a $125 million rescission of unobligated balances per P.L. 109-295.

---

CRS-58
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)103
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.104 USCIS funds the processing and adjudication of
immigrant, nonimmigrant, refugee, asylum, and citizenship benefits largely through
monies generated by the Examinations Fee Account.105 Table 17 shows FY2007
appropriations and congressional actions in response to the FY2008 request.
President’s FY2008 Request. USCIS is a fee driven agency. As part of the
former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), USCIS was directed to
transform its revenue structure with the creation of the Examinations Fee Account.106
103 Prepared by Chad C. Haddal, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
104 CRS Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
105 §286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1356.
106 There are two other fee accounts at USCIS, known as the H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner
Account and the Fraud Prevention and Detection Account. The revenues in these accounts
are drawn from separate fees that are statutorily determined (P.L. 106-311 and P.L.109-13,
respectively). USCIS receives 5% of the H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account revenues
and 33% of the Fraud Detection and Prevention Account revenues. In FY2006, the USCIS
shares of revenues in these accounts were approximately $13 million and $16 million
(continued...)

---

CRS-59
Although the agency has received direct appropriations in the last decade, these
appropriations have been largely directed towards specific projects such as backlog
reduction initiatives. The vast majority of the agency’s revenues, however, come
from the adjudication fees of immigration benefit applications and petitions. In the
President’s FY2008 budget request, the agency requested $30 million in direct
appropriations. The remaining $2,539 million of the appropriations requested would
be funded by revenues from collected fees.
As Table 16 below shows, the requested USCIS budget for FY2008 is
approximately $2,569 million. This requested amount constitutes and increase of
$583 million or 29% over the enacted appropriation amount from FY2007. The
requested direct appropriation of $30 million would be designated for the Employer
Eligibility Verification Program (EEV), while all other program and operations
would be fee funded. Of the requested funds for FY2008, $1,842 million, or roughly
77%, would fund the USCIS adjudication services. A plurality of these adjudication
funds would go towards pay and expenses with an allocation of $764 million, while
district operating expenses would receive $552 million and service center operating
expenses would be allocated $354 million, respectively. Business transformation
initiatives for modernizing systems and improving agency information sharing and
efficiency would receive $139 million. The President’s budget request also includes
requested funding levels of $162 million for information and customer services, $375
million for administration, and $21 million for the Systematic Alien Verification for
Entitlements (SAVE) Program.
Table 16. USCIS Budget Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Program/Project Activity
Enacteda
Requestb
House
Senate
Enacted
Adjudication Services
1419
1842
Pay & Benefits
625
764
District Operating Expenses
385
552
Service Center Operating
267
354
Expenses
Asylum/Refugee Operating
75
91
Expenses
Records Operating Expenses
67
81
Information and Customer
144
162
Services
Administration
241
375
106 (...continued)
respectively, and these funds combined for roughly 3% of the USCIS budget (U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Fiscal Year
2008 Congressional Budget Justifications).

---

CRS-60
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Program/Project Activity
Enacteda
Requestb
House
Senate
Enacted
Salaries and Expenses
182
190
Business Transformation
47
139
SAVE
21
21
EEV
114
30
Total USCIS Funding
1986
2569
Source: H.Rept. 109-699; DHS FY2008 Congressional Budget Justifications.
a. The amounts enacted in P.L.109-295 are the $182 million for salaries and expenses, including the
$47 million for strategic business transformation. The remaining figures for
FY2007 are from the conference report.
b. The FY2008 budget request includes a request for $30 million for the EEV. All remaining funds
would be reimbursed from fees.
Issues for Congress. The 110th Congress may face a number of issues
relating to legal immigration and USCIS’ role in the process. These issues may
include whether the Administration’s proposed fee increases for visa applicants
should be implemented or whether there are alternatives to fee increases that could
be considered, whether USCIS is effectively dealing with their adjudication backlog,
and whether the proposed fee structure would provide sufficient funding to cover the
elimination of the USCIS backlog.
Proposed Fee Increase. On February 1, 2007, USCIS proposed a new
fee schedule for immigration adjudications and benefits. These fee adjustments
would constitute the first fee revision since October 26, 2005, and would increase
application fees by a weighted average of 96% for each benefit.107 USCIS officials
claim the fee increase is necessary to maintain proper service levels and to avoid the
accumulation of backlogs.108 Congressional reactions to these proposed fees have
been strong and divergent. Some opponents of the fees have called for congressional
action to prevent the new fees from being implemented. Although generally not
opposed to the increased revenue for USCIS, the fee increase opponents want USCIS
to implement a sliding scale fee structure or request direct appropriations to offset the
benefit costs for lower income families.109 Fee increase supporters contend that the
proposed fee structure would help deter possible public charges from applying for
107 This weighted average does not include the increases to the biometric fee. When
combined with the biometric fee, the weighted average application fee increase would be
reduced to 86%. (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit
Application and Petition Fee Schedule; Proposed Rule,” Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 21
(February 1, 2007), p. 4888)
108 Ibid, p. 4892.
109 For example, in the House Chamber, Representatives Gutierrez and Shakowsky
introduced H.R. 1379, which would prevent USCIS from increasing the citizenship
application fees to levels above application processing costs.

---

CRS-61
immigration benefits. These fee proponents further contend that the immigration
benefits these individuals receive are a “good deal” by world standards, even under
the proposed fee structure.110
Adjudication Backlog. The fee increase has also raised issues and
questions concerning the adjudications backlog that USCIS has worked towards
reducing. USCIS Director Emilio T. Gonzalez has stated that the current backlog of
applications for immigration benefits has been significantly reduced, and that the
share of the backlog due to factors under the control of USCIS was approximately
65,000.111 Critics continue to be concerned, however, about the more than 1 million
additional applications that have been pending for more than six months that USCIS
does not count in its backlog figures, and that the seriousness of the USCIS backlog
is masked by changes in the agency’s backlog definition.112 Since FY2002, Congress
has appropriated $574 million towards backlog reduction efforts at USCIS, including
$494 million in direct appropriations.
It has been the stated goal of President George W. Bush to reduce the
application processing time for immigration to a six month standard.113 Some argue
that in order for USCIS to be able to accomplish this goal, it needs a fee structure that
more accurately reflects the cost of processing immigration benefit applications.
USCIS claims that the proposed fees are more aligned with the agency’s adjudication
costs.114 Some additionally believe that the fee increases would be necessary in order
for USCIS to handle any potential future increases in applications. Since USCIS is
fee funded, any passage of comprehensive immigration reform legislation that
includes either earned legalization or a temporary worker program would likely result
in a significant increase in the number of incoming applications.
110 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, The Proposed Immigration
Fee Increase, 110th Cong., 1st sess., February 14, 2007
111 Ibid.
112 The DHS Inspector General has expressed concern that the changing backlog definitions
“will not resolve the long-standing processing and IT problems that contributed to the
backlog in the first place. (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector
General, USCIS Faces Challenges in Modernizing Information Technology, OIG-05-41
(September 2005), p. 28) The USCIS Ombudsman also criticized the definition changes,
saying that “these definitional changes hide the true problem and the need for change” (U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Service Ombudsman,
Annual Report 2006, June 29, 2006, p. 9).
113 Remarks by the President at INS Naturalization Ceremony (July 10, 2001), at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010710-1.html], visited March 9,
2007.
114 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee
Schedule; Proposed Rule,” Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 21 (February1, 2007), pp. 4893-
4894.

---

CRS-62
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)115
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 more than 1,000 employees.
President’s Request. The overall request for FLETC in FY2008 is $263
million, a decrease of $12 million from the FY2007 appropriation. The
Administration is proposing the creation of a FLETC Fund to replace the Salaries and
Expenses account within FLETC. For FY2008, the fund would be capitalized with
$220 million in a no year revolving fund that would allow for the development of a
reimbursable cost module. The new fund would include funding for 1,077 positions
including an increase of seven new instructors to support the Secure Border Initiative
(SBI) at CBP. As part of SBI, FLETC estimates it will need to provide basic training
for 4,350 USBP agents in order to add a net total of 3,000 agents to the USBP
workforce.116
Science and Technology (S&T)117
The Directorate of Science and Technology is the primary DHS organization
for research and development. Headed by an Under Secretary for Science and
Technology, it performs R&D in several laboratories of its own; funds R&D
performed by universities, industry, the national laboratories, and other government
agencies; and manages operational systems. See Table 17 for details of the
directorate’s appropriation.
President’s FY2008 Request. The Administration requested a total of
$799 million for S&T for FY2008. This was 18% less than the FY2007
appropriation, but about half of the proposed reduction was in operational programs
that were transferred from S&T to other parts of the department (Biowatch and
related programs from the Biological and Chemical program and Safecom from the
Command, Control, and Interoperability program). A proposed $41 million
reduction in the Explosives program was due to the completion of efforts to develop
a prototype for protecting commercial aircraft against shoulder-launched missiles.
A proposed $51 million reduction in the Infrastructure and Geophysical program was
115 Prepared by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
116 DHS FY2008 Congressional Budget Justification, pp. FLETC Fund 3-6.
117 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Analyst in Science & Technology, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.

---

CRS-63
largely the result of reducing funding for local and regional initiatives previously
established or funded at congressional direction.
Issues for Congress. During the FY2007 appropriations cycle, Congress
and others were highly critical of the S&T Directorate’s performance. Among the
fundamental issues facing Congress are questions about the directorate’s mission, its
organization, its priorities and how they are set, its financial management, and the
transparency of its operations. A reorganization in late 2006 aligned the directorate’s
management structure with the presentation of its budget (with a division director
responsible for each italicized program in Table 17). The directorate’s university
centers of excellence are to be realigned to match the new organization, with new
centers being established for some topics and other topics being merged. After
several years of criticism for failing to spend funds that were appropriated, the
directorate reports progress in more rapidly obligating its FY2007 funding.
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office118
The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) is the primary DHS organization
for combating the threat of nuclear attack. It is responsible for all DHS nuclear
detection research, development, testing, evaluation, acquisition, and operational
support. See Table 17 for details of the appropriation for DNDO.
President’s FY2008 Request. The Administration requested a total of
$562 million for DNDO for FY2008. This was a 17% increase from the FY2007
appropriation. A proposed $47 million increase in Research, Development, and
Operations would focus primarily on the Transformational R&D program, whose
goal is to identify, develop, and demonstrate technologies that fill major gaps in the
nuclear detection architecture. A proposed $30 million increase in Systems
Acquisition would go to begin implementation of the Securing the Cities initiative
in the New York City area.
Issues for Congress. The DNDO was funded in the S&T account in
FY2006, and before that year, nuclear and radiological R&D were the responsibility
of the S&T Directorate. In the FY2007 appropriations cycle, the House committee
report expressed dissatisfaction with the transfer of DNDO out of S&T and directed
S&T to work with DNDO and support its R&D-related needs (H.Rept. 109-476).
Meanwhile, the Senate committee report for FY2007 directed DNDO to work with
S&T rather than start a duplicative university grant program (S.Rept. 109-273). With
DNDO funding increasing and S&T funding decreasing, the relative roles of the two
organizations remain an issue of congressional interest. Congressional attention has
also focused on criticism of a cost-benefit analysis that DNDO conducted to support
its decision to purchase and deploy next-generation Advanced Spectroscopic Portal
technology for radiation portal monitors.119
118 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Analyst in Science and Technology, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
119 See, for example, Government Accountability Office, Combating Nuclear Smuggling:
DHS’s Decision to Procure and Deploy the Next Generation of Radiation Detection
(continued...)

---

CRS-64
Table 17. Research and Development Accounts and Activities,
FY2007-FY2008
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Enacted a
Request
House
Senate
Final
Science and Technology
Directorate
973
799
Management and Administration b
135
143
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
838
656
Borders and Maritime Security
33
26
Chemical and Biological b
314
229
Command, Control, and
Interoperability c
63
64
Explosives
105
64
Human Factors
7
13
Infrastructure and Geophysical
75
24
Innovation
38
60
Laboratory Facilities
106
89
Test and Evaluation, Standards
25
26
Transition
24
25
University Programs
49
39
Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office
481
562
Management and Administration
30
34
Research, Development, and
Operations
273
320
Systems Acquisition
178
208
U.S. Coast Guard Research,
Development, Testing, and
Evaluation
17
18
Subtotal DHS R&D:
1471
1379
Rescission of unobligated funds
from prior years
-125
—
Total DHS R&D:
1346
1379
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justification.
119 (...continued)
Equipment Is Not Supported by Its Cost-Benefit Analysis, GAO-07-581T, testimony before
the House Committee on Homeland Security, March 14, 2007.

---

CRS-65
Notes: This table shows all DHS research and development activities, combining accounts from the
Directorate of Science and Technology, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, and the U.S. Coast
Guard to show the department’s overall R&D budget. Totals may not add because of rounding.
a. Programs in the S&T Directorate have been realigned since the enactment of the FY2007
appropriation. For comparability, FY2007 funding is shown here in the new structure.
b. Biowatch and related programs will be transferred from the S&T Directorate to the Office of
Health Affairs in FY2008. The enacted FY2007 funding for these programs in S&T consisted
of $1 million in the Management and Administration account plus $84 million in the
Chemical and Biological program of the R&D, Acquisition, and Operations account.
c. Safecom will be transferred from the S&T Directorate to the National Protection and Programs
Directorate in FY2008. Its enacted FY2007 funding in S&T was $5 million in the Command,
Control, and Interoperability program of the R&D, Acquisition, and Operations account.
FY2008 Related Legislation
Budget Resolution — H.Con.Res. 99/ S.Con.Res. 21
The annual concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth the congressional
budget. The House introduced H.Con.Res. 99 on March 23, 2007 and passed the
budget resolution on March 29, 2007. H.Con.Res. 99 would provide $955 billion in
discretionary budget authority for FY2008. The Senate introduce S.Con.Res. 21 on
March 16, 2007 and passed the budget resolution on March 23, 2007. S.Con.Res. 21
would provide $942 billion in discretionary budget authority for FY2008.
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 accompany the
budget resolutions.

---

CRS-66
Appendix I. FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations
and Rescissions
H.R. 2206 - U.S. Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Care, Katrina
Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007
Following the failure of the House to override the President’s veto of H.R.
1591, the House introduced two new bills that would provide supplemental
appropriations for FY2007 H.R. 2206, and H.R. 2207. Among other provisions, H.R.
2206 contains provisions that would provide supplemental funding for DHS agencies
and accounts. DHS funding provisions in H.R. 2206 are identical to those provisions
contained in the version of H.R. 1591 that was vetoed by the President on May 1,
2007.
Titles II, III, and IV of H.R. 2206 contain funding provisions pertaining to
DHS accounts. H.R. 2206 would provide a total of $6,851 million for DHS. Title
II would provide a total of $2,250 million as follows:
! Analysis and Operations — $15 million;
! CBP Salaries and Expenses — $110 million;
! CBP AMO Operations and Procurement — $120 million;
! FLETC — $5 million;
! ICE Salaries and Expenses — $10 million;
! TSA Aviation Security — $970 million;
! TSA Federal Air Marshals — $8 million;
! Office of Health Affairs — $15 million;
! NPPD IPIS — $37 million;
! FEMA Management and Administration — $25 million;
! FEMA State and Local Programs — $553 million;
! FEMA Emergency Management Performance Grants — $100
million;
! USCIS — $10 million;
! S&T Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations — $10
million;
! DNDO Research, Development, and Operations — $39 million; and
! DNDO Systems Acquisition — $224 million.
Title III of H.R. 2206 would provide a total of $4,610 million to DHS. Of this
amount, $4 million is for the DHS OIG and $4,606 million is for FEMA disaster
relief. Section 5401 of Title IV of H.R. 2206 would make up to $30 million in
unobligated USCG Retired Pay balances available until expended. Section 5404(a)
of Title IV of H.R. 2206 would rescind funds from several different DHS accounts
totaling approximately $31 million. Section 5404(b) would have provide additional
appropriations of $30 million to the USCG Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements account, and $1 million to the Office of the Under Secretary for
Management.

---

CRS-67
H.R. 1591 - U.S. Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Health,
and Iraq Accountability Act120
H.R. 1591 was introduced in the House on March 20, 2007, and was passed
by the House on March 23, 2007. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 1591 on
March 29, 2007. The conference agreement was passed by the House on April 25,
2007, and by the Senate on April 26, 2007. The President vetoed the bill on May 1,
2007. On May 2, 2007 the House failed to override the President’s veto by a vote of
222-203. The following sections describe the amounts that would have been
provided for DHS in the House-passed, Senate-passed, and conference versions of
the bill.
House-Passed H.R. 1591. The House-passed version would have
provided a total of $6,710 million in supplemental funding for DHS in Title I, Title
III, and Title IV of the bill. Title I provisions included the following amounts:
! Analysis and Operations — $35 million;
! CBP Salaries and Expenses — $100 million (transfer $1 million to
FLETC);
! CBP AMO Operations and Procurement — $150 million;
! TSA Aviation Security — $1,250 million;
! NPPD IPIS — $25 million;
! FEMA Salaries and Expenses — $25 million;
! FEMA State and Local Programs — $415 million;
! DNDO Systems Acquisition — $400 million.
Title II would have provided $4,310 million for FEMA Disaster Relief, which
included $4 million to be transferred to the DHS Inspector General. Title IV
included a provision that would have rescinded nearly $90 million of unobligated
balances that were appropriated by P.L. 109-90, the FY2006 DHS Appropriation.
Senate-Passed H.R. 1591. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 1591
would have provided a total of $6,310 in supplemental funding for DHS in Title I,
and Title II of the bill. Title I amounts included the following:
! CBP Salaries and Expenses — $140 million;
! CBP AMO Operations and Procurement — $75 million;
! ICE Salaries and Expenses — $20 million;
! TSA Aviation Security — $660 million;
! TSA Federal Air Marshals — $15 million;
! Preparedness Chief Medical Officer — $18 million;
! Preparedness IPIS — $18 million;
! FEMA Administrative and Regional Operations — $20 million;
! FEMA State and Local Programs — $855 million;
! FEMA Emergency Management Performance Grants — $100
million;
120 For more detailed information concerning H.R. 1591 see CRS Report RL33900, FY2007
Supplemental for Defense, Foreign Affairs, and Other Purposes, by Stephen Daggett, et al.

---

CRS-68
! USCIS — $25 million;
! S&T Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations — $15
million; and
! DNDO Research Development and Operations — $39 million.
Title II would have provided $4,310 million for FEMA Disaster Relief.
Conference (H.Rept. 110-107). Titles I, II, and IV of the conference
version of H.R. 1591 included funding provisions pertaining to DHS accounts. The
conference version of H.R. 1591 would have provided a total of $6,851 million for
DHS. This amount was $141 million more than was recommended by House-passed
H.R. 1591, and $541 million more than was recommended by Senate-passed H.R.
1591. Title I would have provided the following amounts:
! Analysis and Operations — $15 million;
! CBP Salaries and Expenses — $110 million;
! CBP AMO Operations and Procurement — $120 million;
! FLETC — $5 million;
! ICE Salaries and Expenses — $10 million;
! TSA Aviation Security — $970 million;
! TSA Federal Air Marshals — $8 million;
! Office of Health Affairs — $15 million;
! NPPD IPIS — $37 million;
! FEMA Management and Administration — $25 million;
! FEMA State and Local Programs — $553 million;
! FEMA Emergency Management Performance Grants — $100
million;
! USCIS — $10 million;
! DNDO Research, Development, and Operations — $39 million; and
! DNDO Systems Acquisition — $224 million.
Title II of the conference adopted version of H.R. 1591 would have provided a total
of $4,610 million to DHS. Of this amount, $4 million was for the DHS OIG and
$4,606 million was for FEMA disaster relief. Section 4404(a) of Title IV of the
conference version of H.R. 1591 would have rescinded funds from several different
DHS accounts totaling approximately $31 million. Section 4404(b) would have
provided additional appropriations of $30 million to the USCG Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements account, and $1 million to the Office of the Under
Secretary for Management.

---

CRS-69
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 18 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 FY2008 accounts for approximately
49% 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 7.2%, the Department
of Justice at 5.5% and the Department of Energy at 3.0% round out the top five
agencies in spending on homeland security. These five agencies collectively account
for nearly 94% 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 FY2008 request included
total homeland security budget authority of $29.7 billion for DHS, the requested total
gross budget authority was $43.0 billion. The same is true of the other agencies
listed in the table.

---

CRS-70
Table 18. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency,
FY2002-FY2008
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2008
Department
FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007
as % of
Req.
total
Department of
Homeland
17,380
23,063
22,923
24,549
26,571
28,689
29,667
48.6%
Security
(DHS)
Department of
Defense
16,126
15,413
15,595
17,188
17,510
16,538
17,461
28.6%
(DOD)a
Department of
Health and
Human
1,913
4,144
4,062
4,229
4,352
4,313
4,424
7.2%
Services
(HHS)
Department of
2,143
2,349
2,180
2,767
3,026
3,185
3,331
5.5%
Justice (DOJ)
Department of
1,220
1,408
1,364
1,562
1,702
1,697
1,834
3.0%
Energy (DOE)
Department of
477
634
696
824
1,108
1,240
1,406
2.3%
State (DOS)
Department of
Agriculture
553
410
411
596
597
523
719
1.2%
(AG)
Department of
Transportation
1,419
383
284
219
181
179
200
0.3%
(DOT)
National
Science
260
285
340
342
344
344
375
0.6%
Foundation
(NSF)
Other
2,357
1,329
1,550
2,107
1,727
1,612
1,689
2.8%
Agencies
Total Federal
Budget
43,848
49,418
49,405
54,383
57,118
58,319
61,105
100%
Authority
Source: CRS analysis of data contained in “Section 3. Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” and Appendix
K of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2008 President’s Budget (for FY2006- FY2008); 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.

---