Order Code RL34004
Homeland Security Department:
FY2008 Appropriations
Updated July 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: $8,783 million for Customs and Border Protection (CBP);
$4,168 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); $3,608 million for
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA); $8,457 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 the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (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).
The House passed H.R. 2638 on June 15, 2007. H.R. 2638 would provide $37.4
billion in net budget authority for DHS for FY2008. H.R. 2638 contains the
following in net budget authority for major components of DHS: $8,923 million for
CBP; $4,192 million for ICE; $3,842 million for the TSA; $8,352 million for the
U.S. Coast Guard; $1,396 million for the Secret Service; $1,035 for the NPP; $7,239
million for FEMA; $30 million for USCIS; $777 million for S&T; and $556 million
for the DNDO.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its bill, S. 1644, on June 14,
2007. S. 1644 would provide $37.6 billion in net budget authority for DHS for
FY2008. The bill contains the following amounts of net budget authority for major
components of DHS: $8,841 million for CBP; $4,433 million for ICE; $3,685 million
for the TSA; $8,559 million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,396 million for the Secret
Service; $919 for the NPP; $6,913 million for FEMA; $50 million for USCIS; $838
million for the S&T; and $550 million for the 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
Senate Reported S. 1644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
House Passed H.R. 2638 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
President’s FY2008 Budget Submitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Note on Most Recent Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Offsetting Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
DHS Appropriations Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Summary of DHS Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
House-Passed H.R. 2638 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Senate-Reported S. 1644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Personnel Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Analysis and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
House-Passed H.R. 2638 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Senate-Passed S. 1644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
House-Passed H.R. 2368 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Senate-Reported S. 1644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
SBInet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Fencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
CBP Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Hiring U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Covered Law Enforcement Officer Status for CBP Officers . . . . 29
Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) . . . . . 29
Container Security Initiative (CSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
House-passed H.R. 2638 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Senate-reported S. 1644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

---

Detention and Removal Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Alternatives to Detention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Criminal Alien Program (CAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Institutional Removal Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
State and Local Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Federal Protective Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
House-passed H.R. 2638 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Senate-Reported S. 1644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
TSA Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Screener Workforce Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Screening Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Air Cargo Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
TWIC Program Roll-Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Secure Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Judicial Review of Airline Security Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
United States Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
House-Passed H.R. 2638 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Senate-Reported S. 1644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Deepwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Security Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Specialized Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Non-homeland Security Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Rescue-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
LORAN-C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Bridge Alteration Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
U.S. Secret Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
FY2008 Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
House-passed H.R. 2368 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Senate Committee-passed S. 1644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Title III: Preparedness and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
House Passed H.R. 2638 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Senate Committee Reported S. 1644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
FEMA Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Disaster Relief Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Post-Katrina Reform Act Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Office of Grants Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
House Passed H.R. 2638 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Senate Committee Reported S. 1644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Distribution Methods for State and Local
Assistance Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Reduction in Assistance to Firefighters Program . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Office of Health Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
National Protection and Programs Directorate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

---

U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) . . . . 71
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
House-Passed H.R. 2638 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Senate-Reported S. 1644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Administrative Placement Within NPPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
10 Fingerprint Entry Versus the Exit Component . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
House-passed H.R. 2638 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Senate-reported S. 1644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Quality of Budget Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Chemical Facility Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Location of Risk Management Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services . . . 76
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
House-Passed H.R. 2638 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Senate-Reported S. 1644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Scheduled Fee Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Adjudication Backlog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
House-Passed H.R. 2638 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Senate-Reported S. 1644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Science and Technology (S&T) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
House-Passed H.R. 2638 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Senate-Reported S. 1644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
House-Passed H.R. 2638 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Senate-Reported S. 1644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
FY2008 Related Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Budget Resolution — H.Con.Res. 99/ S.Con.Res. 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Appendix I. FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions . . . . . . . . . 88
P.L. 110-28 (H.R. 2206) — U.S. Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Care,
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations
Act, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
P.L. 110-28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
House-passed H.R. 2206 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
H.R. 1591 — U.S. Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Health, and Iraq
Accountability Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
House-Passed H.R. 1591 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Senate-Passed H.R. 1591 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

---

Conference (H.Rept. 110-107) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Appendix II. DHS Appropriations in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Federal-Wide Homeland Security Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
List of Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 2. FY2007 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 3. FY2008 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority
to Net Appropriation — Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust
and Public Enterprise Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 6. Title I: Department Management and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 7. Office of Human Capital (OHC) Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 10. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 11. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 12. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI)
Sub-account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 13. U.S. Secret Service Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Table 14. Title III: Preparedness and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table 15. State and Local Homeland Security Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 16. FY2008 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure Protection and
Information Security Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Table 17. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments,
and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Table 18. USCIS Budget Account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Table 19. Research and Development Accounts and Activities,
FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Table 20. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2008 . . 93

---

Homeland Security Department:
FY2008 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
Senate Reported S. 1644. On June 15, 2007, the Senate reported S. 1644.
The bill contains a total of $37.6 billion in net budget authority for DHS for FY2008.
This is $2.1 billion more than the $35.5 billion net appropriation requested by the
Administration for FY2008. The Senate-reported S. 1644 amount of $37.6 billion
is a $2.8 billion or 8% increase compared with the FY2007 enacted net budget
authority of $34.8 billion.
House Passed H.R. 2638. On June 15, 2007, the House passed H.R. 2638
which contains a total of $37.4 billion in net budget authority for DHS for FY2008.
This is $1.9 billion more than the $35.5 billion net appropriation requested by the
Administration for FY2008. Not including supplemental appropriations, the House-
passed H.R. 2638 amount of $37.4 billion is a $2.6 billion or nearly 8% increase
compared with the FY2007 enacted net budget authority of $34.8 billion (as passed
by P.L. 109-295).
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 $42.8 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 $34.8 billion.
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security
Appropriations
Conference
Subcommittee
House
Senate
Report
Markup
House
Senate
Confr.
Public
Report
Report
Approval
Passage
Passage
Report
Law
110-181
110-84
House Senate
House
Senate
5/18
6/13
6/5
6/15
6/14
(vv)
(uc)
(vv)
268-150
29-0
Note: (vv) = voice vote, (uc) = unanimous consent.

---

CRS-2
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, the House Report to H.R. 2638,
H.Rept. 110-181 as well as the bill itself, and the Senate Report to S. 1644, S.Rept.
110-84. 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. Except when discussing total amounts for the bill as a whole, all
amounts contained in this report are rounded to the nearest million.
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 bills with
particular attention paid to discretionary funding amounts. The report does not
follow specific funding issues related to mandatory funding — such as retirement pay
— nor does the report systematically follow any legislation related to the
authorization or amendment of DHS programs.
Department of Homeland Security
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred the functions,
relevant funding, and most of the personnel of 22 agencies and offices to the new
Department of Homeland Security created by the act. Appropriations measures for
DHS have been organized into 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. Both the House and
Senate bills have adopted this same organization.
Through the FY2007 appropriation Title III contained appropriations for the
Preparedness Directorate, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS)

---

CRS-3
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
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 House passed H.Con.Res. 99 on March 29, 2007 which would have
provided $955 billion in discretionary budget authority for FY2008. The Senate
passed S.Con.Res. 21 on March 23, 2007 which would have provided $942 billion
in discretionary budget authority for FY2008. The House and Senate appointed
conferees to resolve the differences between the two resolutions and adopted a
conference agreement on May 16, 2007. The House and Senate adopted the
conference report (H.Rept. 110-153) on May 17, 2007. The conference report
provides $954 billion in discretionary budget authority for FY2008. Table 2 shows
DHS’ 302(b) allocations for FY2007 and the current appropriations cycle.

---

CRS-4
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
$34.0
$35.5
$36.3
$36.4
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications; House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee FY2008 Allocation tables.
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.
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
1 31 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517.
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].

---

CRS-5
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
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.
3 P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.
4 Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff Jr., Analyst in American National Government.

---

CRS-6
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
44,590
46,399
(gross discretionary + fees+ mandatory + funds)
Account level discretionary offset
ICE
Federal Protective Service
516
613
Aviation security fees
2,420
2,710
TWIC
20
27
TSA
Hazmat
19
19
Registered Traveler
35
35
FEMA/EPR
National flood insurance fund
129
145
CBP
Small airports
7
7
Subtotal account level discretionary offsets
3,146
3,556
Agency level discretionary offset
Immigration inspection
529
535
Immigration enforcement
2
3
Land border
28
30
CBP
COBRA
388
392
APHIS
214
300
Puerto Rico
99
117
ICE
Immigration inspection
108
114
SEVIS
54
56
Breached bond detention fund
90
64
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
3,568
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

---

CRS-7
Account/Agency
Account Name
FY2007
FY2008
Enacted
Request
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
44,590
46,399
Total offsets
-9,795
-11,026
DHS net appropriated BA (Mandatory + Discretionary)
34,795
35,373
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 President’s Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-
181, and S.Rept. 110-84.
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
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 enacted 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.

---

CRS-8
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
35,373
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 H.Rept. 110-181.
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.
House-passed H.R. 2638 included $37.4 billion for DHS in FY2008, and Senate-
reported S. 1644 included $37.6 billion for DHS in FY2008.

---

CRS-9
Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
House
Senate
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Total
Passed
Reported
Title I: Departmental Operations
Subtotal: Title I
1,024 a
13
-6
1,030
1,097
771
1,104
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
— Customs and Border Protection
8,036
147
—
8,183
8,783
8,923
8,841
— Immigration and Customs Enforcement
3,958
6
—
3,964
4,168
4,192
4,433
— Transportation Security Administration
3,561
402
-2
3,961
3,608
3,843
3,685
— U.S. Coast Guard
8,292
60
-26
8,327
8,457
8,352
8,559
— U.S. Secret Service
1,276
—
—
1,276
1,399
1,396
1,396
Net subtotal: Title II
25,123
615
-28
25,711
26,416
26,706
26,914
— Total fee collections
4,779
—
—
4,779
5,025
5,025
5,025
Gross subtotal: Title II
29,902
615
-28
30,490
31,441
31,731
31,939
Title III: Preparedness and Recovery
— National Protection & Programs Directorate
934
24 c
—
957
1,047
1,035
919
— Office of Health Affairs
99
8
—
107
118
118
115
— Counter Terrorism Fund
-16
—
—
-16
—
—
—
— Federal Emergency Management Administration
5,935
4,887
—
10,821
5,042
7,239
6,913
Net subtotal: Title III
6,952
4,919
-1
11,869
6,207
8,392
7,947

---

CRS-10
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
House
Senate
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Total
Passed
Reported
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
— Citizenship and Immigration Services
182
8
—
190
30
30
50
— Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
275
3
—
278
263
263
266
— Science and Technology
758
5
-1
762
799
777
838
— Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
481
135
—
616
562
556
550
Net subtotal: Title IV
1,696
151
-1
1,846
1,654
1,626
1,704
— Total fee collections
1,804
—
—
1,804
2,539
2,539
2,539
Gross subtotal: Title IV
3,500
151
-1
3,650
4,193
4,165
4,243
Title V: General Provisions
— Rescissions
-[232] d
—
-2 e
-2
—
-55
-45
Department of Homeland Security Appropriation (not including Title V rescissions)
Gross DHS budget authority
41,378
5,698
-37
47,037
42,838
44,905
45,088
— Total fee collections
-6,583
—
—
6,583
-7,465
-7,465
-7,465
Net DHS budget authority
34,795
5,698
-37
40,453
35,373
37,440
37,623
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. $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. P.L. 110-28 provides $24 million in supplemental appropriations to Infrastructure Protection and Information Security for FY2007. This amount is included in IPIS under the Preparedness Directorate
in Table 5.
d. Rescissions from Title V of P.L. 109-295 are shown here as non-adds, because they have been incorporated into the accounts throughout the tables in this report.
e. Sec. 6404 of P.L. 110-28 includes 4 rescissions that are not shown in Table 5 because they are of amounts that fall below $500,000 and would round to less than $1 million dollars. These 4 rescissions
round to a total approximately $2 million and are presented in aggregate on Table 5 under General Provision Rescissions.

---

CRS-11
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 were 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 (+ 27%); 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.
House-Passed H.R. 2638. The House provided $771 million for DHS
management and operations entities funded in Title I, $326 less (-30%) than the
amount requested. The allocations for entities within the title, as approved by the
House, were as follows: OS&EM, $85 million, a decrease of $18 million (-17%);
USM, -$8 million, a decrease of $286 million (-103%); OCFO, $30 million, a
decrease of $3 million (-9%); OCIO, $259 million, a decrease of $2 million (-1%);
AOO, $302 million, a decrease of $13 million (-4%); OFCGCR, $3 million, the same
level as requested (0%); and OIG, $100 million, $1 million more than requested.
Senate-Reported S. 1644. Senate appropriators recommended $1,104
million for Title I accounts, slightly more than the President’s request. The suggested
allocations for the title were as follows: OS&EM, $100 million, a decrease of $8
million (-7%); USM, $235 million, a decrease of $43 million (-15%); OCFO, $30
million, a decrease of $3 million (-9%); OCIO, $321 million, an increase of $60
million (+23%); AOO, $306 million, a decrease of $9 million (-3%); OFCGCR, $3
million, the same level as requested (0%); and OIG, $95 million, a decrease of $4
million (-4%), but increased by a $14 million proposed transfer of funds from
FEMA’s Disaster Relief account, resulting in a recommended total appropriation of
$109 million, an increase of $10 million (+10%).
5 Prepared by Harold C. Relyea, Specialist in American National Government, Government
and Finance Division.

---

CRS-12
Table 6. Title I: Department Management and Operations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
House-
Senate-
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Total
Passed
Reported
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
94
-1a
93
108
85
100
Office of Screening Coordination and Operations
—
—
—
—
—
Office of the Undersecretary for Management
154
1
-5 b
149
278
-8
235
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
26
26
33
30
30
Office of the Chief Information Officer
349
349
261
259
321
Analysis and Operations
300
8
308
315
302
306
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding
3
3
3
3
3
Office of the Inspector General
99
4
103
99
100
109b
Net Budget Authority: Title I
1,024
13
-6
1,030
1,097
771
1,104
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. Rescissions per Sec. 6404 of P.L. 110-28.
b. Includes a $14 million proposed transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.
c. $5 million rescission per Sec. 21101 of P.L. 110-5.

---

CRS-13
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
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, the FY2008 request, and the
House-passed and Senate-reported funding.
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 “Max-HR,” 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.
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)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
Account
House-
Senate-
Enacted
Request
Enacted
Passed
Reported
“OHC” (formerly “HR
Operations”)
$9
$10
$10
$9
“OHC — Operational
Initiatives and HR
Management System”
(formerly “MaxHR”)
$25a
$15
$3b
$5
Total
$34
$25
$13
$14
Staffing (full time
equivalent, FTE,
positions)
53
60
53
53
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; 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; Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153,
June 15, 2007, p. H6501; H.Rept. 110-181; and S.Rept. 110-84.
a. This amount does not reflect the transfer of $5 million from “MaxHR” to the Transportation
Security Administration as provided by Section 21101 of P.L. 110-5. The numbers in the table
are rounded.
b. This amount is for human resource activities, including a human capital survey. Funding is not
provided for MaxHR, as Section 531 of H.R. 2638, as passed by the House, prohibits the use
“of the funds provided by this or any other Act” to be “obligated for the development, testing,
deployment, or operation of any system related to the MAX-HR project, or any subsequent but
related human resources management project, until any pending litigation concerning such
activities is resolved, and any legal claim or appeal by either party has been fully resolved.”
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
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
(continued...)

---

CRS-15
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
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
10 (...continued)
Secretary for Management, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, February 1, 2007.
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
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.
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. The morale of employees in the department has
come under scrutiny because DHS placed last or almost last for the categories of job
satisfaction, leadership, and workplace performance in the 2006 Federal Human
Capital Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management.18
Section 511 of H.R. 1684, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization
Act for FY2008, as passed by the House, would repeal the authority for the
department’s new personnel system (MaxHR) at 5 U.S.C. Chapter 97 and would
render void any regulations prescribed thereunder.19 The House Committee on
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 The survey results are available at [http://www.fhcs2006.opm.gov].
19 H.R. 1684 passed the House of Representatives on a 296-126 (Roll No. 318) vote on May
9, 2007.

---

CRS-17
Homeland Security report that accompanied the bill stated that DHS “employees
must be afforded the same protections as other civil service employees.”20
The Senate Committee on Appropriations report that accompanies S. 1644 notes
that the DHS regulations governing employee appeal rights and labor relations were
struck down in federal court and that other elements of the personnel system have
been delayed. For these reasons, the report states that the committee recommends an
appropriation of $5 million for human capital operational initiatives, formerly
“MaxHR,” rather than the requested amount of $15 million. According to the report,
the committee retains the funding for the training accreditation of law enforcement
officers with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center rather than providing it
to the Chief Human Capital Officer. Additionally, Section 507 under the General
Provisions of H.R. 2638, as passed by the House and S. 1644, as reported, provides
that the Center will lead the accreditation process.
The Senate report also directs the Secretary to submit an updated Human Capital
Operational expenditure plan to the committee within 90 days of the act’s enactment.
The plan must include the following elements: definitions for all activities,
milestones, and yearly costs for all initiatives; a list of all contract obligations by
contractor, year, and purpose; efforts to improve the “dismal results” for the
department in the 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey; performance metrics for
measuring the attainment of goals for human capital; funds spent in support of
employee recruitment, retention, and training; and an analysis of all internship
programs within the department designed to recruit young professionals. With regard
to these internship programs, the committee report notes that coordination is needed
and directs the Chief Human Capital Officer to “review goals for the programs,
milestones, needs of the components, and the capacity to accept these employees.”
Another requirement reiterated in the Senate committee report is that, by July
20, 2007, DHS must submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on senior staffing, including the Senior Executive Service, the
contractor workforce, and political appointees. The Government Accountability
Office must then report “on the strengths and weaknesses” of the DHS report within
90 days after its submission.21
Analysis and Operations22
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
20 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Department of Homeland
Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, report to accompany H.R. 1684, 110th
Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 110-122 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 83.
21 S.Rept. 110-84, pp. 18-19.
22 Prepared by Todd Masse, Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counterterrorism,
Domestic Social Policy Division.

---

CRS-18
Security Act of 2002, the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP)
Directorate was established. The act created an Undersecretary for IAIP to whom
two Assistant Secretaries, one each for Information Analysis (IA) and Infrastructure
Protection (IP), reported. The act outlined 19 functions for the IAIP Directorate, to
include the following, among others:
! To assess, receive, and analyze law enforcement information,
intelligence information, and other information from federal, state,
and local government agencies, and the private sector to (1) identify
and assess the nature and scope of the terrorist threats to the
homeland, (2) detect and identify threats of terrorism against the
United States, and (3) understand such threats in light of actual and
potential vulnerabilities of the homeland;
! To develop a comprehensive national plan for securing the key
resources and critical infrastructure of the United States;
! To review, analyze, and make recommendations for improvements
in the policies and procedures governing the sharing of law
enforcement information, intelligence information, and intelligence-
related information within the federal government and between the
federal government and state and local government agencies and
authorities.23
Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review of the Department made numerous
changes in the DHS intelligence structure. For example, the erstwhile IAIP
disbanded, and the Office of Information Analysis was renamed the Office of
Intelligence and Analysis and became a stand alone entity. The Office of
Infrastructure Protection was placed within the Directorate for Preparedness. The
Assistant Secretary for Intelligence Analysis was also provided the title of the
Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer.24
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
23 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.
24 See DHS Management Directive 8110, Intelligence Integration and Management, January
30, 2006.

---

CRS-19
Operations Center which, among other functions, disseminates OIA assessed threat
information, provides domestic situational awareness, and performs incident
management on behalf of the Department.
House-Passed H.R. 2638. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $302 million, a decrease of $13 million (4%) from the President’s
requested amount of $315 million, and $2 million (nearly 1%) below the amount
provided in FY2007 ($300 million). In the report accompanying the legislation, the
House, the Committee noted with respect to both the Office of Operations
Coordination and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis that they:
...carried over significant unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year 2006, and
(have) shown no signs of an increased pace of obligations during the current
fiscal year.25
The Committee also expressed concern about the potential movement of the
Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC) (also known as the National
Operations Center) and/or its combination with the Transportation Security
Operations Center, from its current location at the Nebraska Avenue Complex (NAC)
to two possible other locations. The Committee noted that:
...over $137 million has been appropriated for improvements to the (NAC) since
2004, and a large portion of these funds have gone toward upgrades to the
HSOC.... The Committee is concerned by the apparent DHS attitude that costly
capital investments are disposable, and will provide no further appropriations for
HSOC capital improvements until the Department submits a coherent and cost-
effective plan for consolidating its operations centers.26
With respect to DHS support for State and local information and intelligence
fusion centers, the Committee “...recommends doubling the requested funding level
for establishing DHS presence at these centers in 2008 and directs the (OIA) to
review all unobligated balances available...at the start of (FY) 2008 and submit a
reprogramming request for those amounts that could be reasonably reallocated to
fusion center implementation.”27 Moreover, the Committee directed DHS to provide
“ongoing quarterly updates...that detail the progress in placing DHS homeland
security intelligence professionals in State and local fusion centers.”28 Among other
25 See House of Representatives, DHS Appropriations Bill, 2008, H. Report. 110-181, p. 23.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid., p. 24. Given that DHS’s intelligence budget is classified, the amount of funding
requested specifically to support the deployment of DHS personnel to fusion centers is not
available. The “U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007,” (P.L. 110-28) provided an additional $8 million
for DHS “Analysis and Operation,” to be used for support of the DHS State and Local
Fusion Center Program.
28 Ibid. It should be noted that DHS currently has approximately 15 intelligence
professionals detailed to 15 fusion centers. According to DHS Chief Intelligence Officer
Charles Allen, DHS has plans to embed 35 intelligence officers at fusion centers by the end
(continued...)

---

CRS-20
elements, the report requires DHS to detail progress on: (1) qualification criteria used
by DHS to decided where and how to place DHS intelligence analysts and related
technology, (2) total Federal expenditures to support each center to date, and (3) the
location of each fusion center, both operational and planned.29
Senate-Passed S. 1644. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $306 million, a decrease of $9 million (2.9%) to the President’s
requested level of $315 million and a $6 million (2%) increase over the amount
provided in FY2007 ($300 million). In the Senate report accompanying the bill, the
Committee also expressed concern about the possible movement of the National
Operations Center and “...directs the Office of Operations Coordination to provide
a briefing to the Committee justifying this relocation....”30 The Committee also
required a “DHS Intelligence Expenditure Plan” from the Secretary for the Office of
Intelligence and Analysis, that would include, among other items: (1) FY2008
expenditures and staffing allotted for each (OIA) program..., (2) all funded versus on-
board positions, including Federal full-time equivalents (FTE), contractors, and
reimbursable and non-reimbursable detailees, and (3) an explanation for maintaining
contract staff in lieu of government FTE....”31 Lastly, the Committee included
language similar to that provided by the House Appropriations Committee with
respect to required quarterly reports on the progress DHS is making in “...placing
DHS homeland security intelligence professionals in State and local fusion centers.”32
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations
Title II contains the appropriations for 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.
28 (...continued)
of FY2008. See House Homeland Security Committee, Subcommittee on Intelligence,
Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, hearing on “Information Sharing and
Civil Liberties,” March 14, 2007.
29 See House of Representatives, DHS Appropriations Bill, 2008, H. Report. 110-181, p. 24.
30 See U.S. Senate, DHS Appropriations Bill, 2008, S. Report 110-84, p. 23.
31 Ibid. p. 24.
32 Ibid.

---

CRS-21
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
House
Senate
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Total
Passed
Reported
Customs & Border Protection
— Salaries and expenses
5,562
72 b
—
5,634
6,580
6,630
6,601
— Automation modernization
451
—
—
451
477
477
477
— Air and Marine Operations
602
75
—
677
477
477
489
— Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and
Technology
1,188
—
—
1,188
1,000
1,089
1,000
— Construction
233
—
—
233
250
250
275
— Fee accountsc
1,265
—
—
1,265
1,385
1,385
1,385
Gross total
9,301
147
—
9,448
10,169
10,308
10,226
— Offsetting collections
-1,265
—
—
-1,265
-1,385
-1,385
-1,385
Net total
8,036
147
—
8,183
8,783
8,923
8,841
Immigration & Customs Enforcement
— Salaries and expenses
3,887
6
—
3,893
4,162
4,155
4,402
— Federal Protective Services (FPS)
516
—
—
516
613
613
613
— Automation & infrastructure modernization
15
—
—
15
—
31
15
— Construction
56
—
—
56
6
6
16
— Fee accountsd
252
—
—
252
234
234
234

---

CRS-22
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
House
Senate
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Total
Passed
Reported
Gross total
4,727
6
—
4,733
5,015
5,039
5,279
— Offsetting FPS fees
-516
—
—
-516
-613
-613
-613
— Offsetting collections
-252
—
—
-252
-234
-234
-234
Net total
3,958
6
—
3,964
4,168
4,192
4,433
Transportation Security Administration
— Aviation security (gross funding)
4,732
397 e
—
5,129
4,953
5,199
5,040
— Surface Transportation Security
37
—
—
37
41
41
41
— Transportation Threat Assessment and
Credentialing
40
—
-2 f
38
77
64
67
— Credentialing Fees g
76
—
—
76
83
83
83
— Transportation Security Support
525
—
—
525
525
527
525
— Federal Air Marshals
714
5
—
719
722
722
722
— Aviation security capital fund h
250
—
—
250
—
—
—
— Rescission
-67
—
—
-67
—
—
—
Gross total
6,307
402
-2
6,707
6,401
6,636
6,478
— Offsetting collections
-2,420
—
—
-2,420
-2,710
-2,710
-2,710
— Credentialing/Fee accounts
-76
—
—
-76
-83
-83
-83
— Aviation security capital fund (mandatory
spending)
-250
—
—
-250
—
—
—
Net total
3,561
402
-2
3,961
3,608
3,843
3,685

---

CRS-23
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
House
Senate
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Total
Passed
Reported
U.S. Coast Guard
— Operating expenses
5,478 j
—
-26
5,452
5,894
5,885
5,931
— Environmental compliance & restoration
11
—
—
11
12
15
12
— Reserve training
122
—
—
122
127
127
127
— Acquisition, construction, & improvements
1,306
30
—
1,336
949 k
834 k
991 k
— Alteration of bridges
16
—
—
16
—
16
16
— Research, development, tests, & evaluation
17
—
—
17
18
18
26
— Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement)
1,063
30
—
1,093
1,185
1,185
1,185
— Health care fund contribution
279
—
—
279
272
272
272
Gross total
8,292
60
-26
8,327
8,457
8,352
8,559
U.S. Secret Service
— Salaries and expenses
961
—
—
961
1,095
1,392
1,392
— Investigations and field operations
311
—
—
311
300
—
—
— Acquisition, construction, improvements, and
related expenses
4
—
—
4
4
4
4
Net total
1,276
—
—
1,276
1,399
1,396
1,396

---

CRS-24
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
House
Senate
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Total
Passed
Reported
Gross Budget Authority: Title II
29,902
615
-28
30,490
31,441
31,731
31,939
Offsetting collections:
-4,779
—
—
-4,779
-5,025
-5,025
-5,025
Net Budget Authority: Title II
25,123
615
-28
25,711
26,416
26,706
26,914
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.
b. Includes $3 million transfer to FLETC per P.L. 110-28.
c. Fees include COBRA, Land Border, Immigration Inspection, Immigration Enforcement, and Puerto Rico.
d. Fees include Exam, Student Exchange and Visitor Fee, Breached Bond, Immigration User, and Land Border.
e. Includes transfer of $7 million per Sec. 21101 of P.L. 110-5, and $390 million in supplemental appropriations per P.L. 110-28.
f. Transfer of -$2 million per Sec. 21101 of P.L. 110-5.
g. Fees include TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks.
h. Aviation Security Capital Fund, used for installation of Explosive Detection Systems at airports.
i. Includes $67 million rescission of unobligated balances per P.L. 109-295.
j. Includes $90 million transfer from Department of Defense per P.L. 109-289.
k. FY2008 request House-passed H.R. 2638 include a proposed rescission of $49 million. Senate-reported S. 1644 includes a proposed rescission of $57 million of funds previously
appropriated by P.L. 109-90 and P.L. 10-295.

---

CRS-25
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)33
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 $10,169 million in gross budget authority for CBP for FY2008,
amounting to an $868 million, or 9%, increase over the enacted FY2007 level of
$9,301 million. The Administration requested $8,783 million in net budget authority
for CBP in FY2008, which amounts to a $747 million, or 9%, increase over the net
FY2007 appropriation of $8,036 million.
House-Passed H.R. 2368. House-passed H.R. 2368 included $8,923
million in net budget authority for CBP for FY2008, amounting to a $886 million,
or 11%, increase over the FY2007 enacted amount of $8,036 million (not including
supplemental appropriations), and a $139 million or nearly 2% increase over the
FY2008 request.
Senate-Reported S. 1644. Senate-reported S. 1644 included $8,841 million
in net budget authority for CBP for FY2008, amounting to an $805 million, or 10%,
increase over the FY2007 enacted amount of $8,036 million (not including
supplemental appropriations), and a $58 million or nearly 1% increase compared to
the FY2008 request .
33 Prepared by Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analysts in Domestic Security,
Domestic Social Policy Division.

---

CRS-26
Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
Activity
House
Senate
Enacted
Request
Conf.
Passed
Reported
Headquarters Management and
Administration
1,248
1,277
1,277
1,236
Border Security Inspections and Trade
Facilitation @ POE
1,860
2,057
2,107
2,101
Inspections, Trade & Travel Facilitation
@ POE
1,327
1,610
1,655
1,676
Container Security Initiative (CSI)
139
156
156
156
Other International Programs
9
9
9
11
C-TPAT
55
56
61
62
FAST/Nexus/SENTRI
11
11
11
11
Inspection and Detection Technology
241
136
136
105
Systems for Targeting
27
28
28
28
National Targeting Center
24
24
24
24
Training at POE
25
25
25
25
Harbor Maintenance Fee
3
3
3
3
Border Security and Control Between
POE
2,278
3,037
3,037
3,037
Border Security and Control Between
POE
2,240
2,984
2,984
2,984
Training Between the POE
38
53
53
53
Air and Marine Operations - Salaries
176 a
208
208
227
CBP Salaries and Expenses Total:
5,562 a
6,580
6,630
6,601
Source: FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justification, p. CBP-S&E-5.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. Does not include $75 million in supplemental appropriations provided by P.L. 110-28.
Issues for Congress. Numerous issues may 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

---

CRS-27
asked for the resources it needs to hire, train, and deploy the 3,000 new agents
requested by the Administration.
SBInet. The Administration requested $1,000 million for the deployment of
SBInet34 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.”35 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
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. H.R. 2638 fully
funds the President’s request for SBInet, but withholds $700 million pending the
submission of an expenditure plan that would, among other things, identifies: the
activities, milestones, and costs associated with implementing the program, including
the maximum foreseeable investment and the life-cycle costs; the funding and
staffing requirements of the program by activity; how SBInet will address the security
needs of the northern border; and, for each segment of the border where fencing or
tactical infrastructure will be constructed, an analysis of alternative means of
achieving operational control over those areas. Senate-reported S. 1644 would also
fully fund the President’s request for SBInet. The Senate asserted, however, that
“[t]he Department’s track record on major development programs is spotty at best”
and noted that it “will be closely watching to ensure that SBInet meets performance
objectives, is delivered on time, and on budget.”36
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
miles37 of the southern border. DHS has stated that its FY2008 request, when
combined with prior year appropriations, will fund the completion of 370 cumulative
34 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.
35 DHS FY2008 Justification, p. CBP BSFIT 3.
36 S.Rept. 110-84, p. 37.
37 From CBP Congressional Affairs, September 25, 2006.

---

CRS-28
miles of fencing along the southern border.38 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).39
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.
CBP Staffing. Staffing issues have long been of interest to Congress, and
there has been considerable debate concerning the appropriate level of staffing that
CBP needs to effectively carry out its mission. CBP’s staffing needs include not only
Border Patrol Agents (discussed in the following section), but also officers stationed
at the nation’s ports of entry, import and trade specialists, pilots, and a variety of
other positions. In addition to the debate over the appropriate level of staffing, other
issues such as training resources, infrastructure demands, absorption of new staff,
attrition, and hiring are also important. In an effort to address the concerns regarding
CBP’s staffing, the Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006
(P.L. 109-347), and the conference report to the FY2007 DHS Appropriations bill
H.R. 5441, H.Rept. 109-699, required CBP to submit a resource allocation model
(RAM) to the Congress no later than January, 23, 2007. This report (the RAM) was
required to address staffing levels at all ports of entry, and to provide the complete
methodology for aligning staff across mission areas. The House Appropriations
Committee notes in its report (H.Rept. 110-181) to the FY2008 DHS Appropriations
bill that CBP has yet to submit the staffing model, and that staffing allocation
remains a concern for the committee particularly at airports. H.Rept. 110-181 directs
CBP to submit its staffing model to the committee by October 15, 2007.
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 2008.40 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 1,051 agents to 12,319.41 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 FY200642 making their
hiring goals more difficult to attain. The FY2007 appropriation for DHS included
38 DHS FY2008 Justification, p. CBP BSFIT 12.
39 From CBP Congressional Affairs, January 26, 2007.
40 DHS FY2008 Justification, p. CBP S&E 49.
41 From CBP Congressional Affairs, February 8, 2007.
42 From CBP Congressional Affairs, December 12, 2006.

---

CRS-29
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. H.R. 2638 fully funded the
President’s request, but would direct DHS to deploy an additional 500 USBP agents
to the northern border in FY2008. Senate-reported S. 1644 also fully funds the
Administration’s request, and directed DHS to ensure that 20% of the increase in
agents during FY2008 be assigned to the northern border as per P.L. 108-458.
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
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.43 The FY2008 request for WHTI will include funding to hire 205 CBP officers
and to deploy WHTI pilot programs to 13 POE.44 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. H.R. 2638 included $225 million
for WHTI, $27 million less than the President’s request. H.R. 2638 also includes
language that would withhold $100 million of this funding until CBP reports on the
findings of the 13 WHTI pilot programs that are currently being conducted. This
report should include, among other things, the infrastructure and staffing required by
POE, confirmation that the radio frequency technology being used has been
adequately tested, and updated milestones for implementing the program. Senate-
reported S. 1644 would fully fund the WHTI program.
Covered Law Enforcement Officer Status for CBP Officers. H.R.
2638 (Sec. 533) would direct DHS to extend federal law enforcement officer status
to CBP officers for retirement purposes. Citing concern that CBP is losing valuable
officers to other agencies due to the disparity in retirement pay, the House
Appropriations Committee directed DHS to offer voluntary conversions of all
eligible CBP officer positions to federal law enforcement officer status no later than
July 1, 2008. H.R. 2638 included $50 million to cover the FY2008 costs associated
with this conversion.
Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). The
Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) is a public-private
partnership program aimed at improving supply chain security. DHS requested no
funding increases for C-TPAT in the FY2008 budget request. During the debate
surrounding both the Dubai Ports issue and the SAFE Port Act (P.L. 109-347),
43 P.L. 109-295 §546.
44 FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justification, pp. CBP S&E 61-62.

---

CRS-30
several questions were raised regarding the vigor of the C-TPAT validation process
and the pace at which CBP was able to conduct the validations. An issue for
Congress might be why no additional funds were requested for C-TPAT given that
the SAFE Port Act (P.L. 109-347) requires DHS to launch a pilot program to test 3rd
party validations of C-TPAT certified applicants. The SAFE Port Act also now
requires CBP to re-validate already validated C-TPAT members once every four
years. Senate report S.Rept. 110-84 notes the concerns of GAO and other experts
regarding C-TPAT security inspections and validations, and further notes that as of
March 1, 2007, CBP has 157 supply chain security specialists (SCSS) on board.
Senate-reported S. 1644 contains $62 million for C-TPAT; an additional $7 million
above the request for CBP to hire an additional 50 SCSS to bring the total number
of SCSS to 207 FTE. House-passed H.R. 2638 includes $61 million for C-TPAT,
$5 million more than requested for FY2008.
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 nearly $17
million for the CSI program for FY2008. However, $15 million of this increase is
for the Secure Freight Initiative (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 SFI will have on CSI operations at SFI pilot ports. 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. Both House-
passed H.R. 2638 and Senate-reported S. 1644 would fully fund the request for CSI
at $156 million for FY2008.
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

---

CRS-31
of Hong Kong. Approximately 24.5% of U.S.-bound containers originate from these
test ports, including Hong Kong.45
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). As previously mentioned, both
House-passed H.R. 2638 and Senate-reported S. 1644 would fully fund the request
for CSI (which includes $15 million for SFI) at $156 million for FY2008.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)46
ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the United
States. ICE develops intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the United States and
is responsible for investigating and enforcing violations of the immigration laws
(e.g., alien smuggling, hiring unauthorized alien workers). ICE is also responsible
for locating and removing aliens who have overstayed their visas, entered illegally,
or have become deportable. In addition, ICE develops intelligence to combat terrorist
financing and money laundering, and to enforce export laws against smuggling,
fraud, forced labor, trade agreement noncompliance, and vehicle and cargo theft.
Furthermore, this bureau oversees the building security activities of the Federal
Protective Service, formerly of the General Services Administration. The Federal Air
Marshals Service (FAMS)47 was returned from ICE to TSA pursuant to the
reorganization proposal of July 13, 2005. The Office of Air and Marine Interdiction
was transferred from ICE to CBP, and therefore the totals for ICE do not include Air
and Marine Interdiction funding, which is included under CBP. See Table 8 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.
House-passed H.R. 2638. House-passed H.R. 2638 would appropriate
$4,192 million in net budget authority for ICE, which represents an increase of $24
million over the Administration’s requested amount. In addition, House-passed H.R.
2638 would appropriate $4,155 million for Salaries and Expenses, $7 million less
45 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.
46 Prepared by Alison Siskin, Specialist in Immigration Legislation, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
47 FAMS transferred to ICE from TSA in August of 2003.

---

CRS-32
than the Administration’s request, but this decrease, according to H.Rept. 110-181
is due to a reallocation of funds to the “Automatization Modernization” account.
Table 10 provides activity-level detail for the Salaries and Expenses account.
Of the appropriated amount, $10 million would be for special operations under
§3131 of the Customs Enforcement Act of 1986; $11 million would be designated
to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care, and repatriation of
smuggled aliens; and $16 million would be targeted for enforcement of laws against
forced child labor. Additionally, H.Rept. 110-181 recommended an increase over
FY2007 funding of :
! $43 million for the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), which includes
the Institutional Removal Program (IRP) and the Criminal Alien
Apprehension Program (ACAP);
! $11 million for the Alternatives to Detention program;
! $7 million for the Office of Professional Responsibility, $1 million
of which should be used for a third-party compliance review pilot
program to ensure that standards are met at detention facilities
managed by private contractors;
! $111 million for Border Enforcement Security (BEST) Task
Forces;48
! $32 million for the three ICE programs that support State and local
law enforcement: Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC),
Forensic Document Laboratory (FDL), and to facilitate agreements
under the 287(g) program of the INA; and
! $4 million for the Trade Transparency Unit.
The report also recommends funding to increase detention space by 950 beds.
Senate-reported S. 1644. Senate-reported S. 1644 would appropriate
$4,433 million in net budget authority for ICE, which represents an increase of $265
million, 6% over the Administration’s requested amount. Of the appropriated
amount, nearly $8 million would be for special operations under §3131 of the
Customs Enforcement Act of 1986; $102,000 would be used to promote public
awareness of the child pornography tipline; $203,000 would fund project alert;49 $5
million would be used to facilitate agreements under §287(g) of the INA; $11
million would be designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost
of care, and repatriation of smuggled aliens; and $16 million would be targeted for
enforcement of laws against forced child labor.
48 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.
49 Project ALERT was launched by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
in 1992, and consists of retired law enforcement agents who volunteer to provide assistance,
as requested, to law enforcement agencies.

---

CRS-33
In addition, Senate-reported S. 1644 would appropriate $4,402 million for
Salaries and Expenses, $240 million or 6% more than the Administration’s request.
Table 10 provides activity-level detail for the Salaries and Expenses account.
Additionally, S.Rept. 110-84 recommended an increase over the Administration’s
request of:
! $147 million for 3,050 additional detention beds and 248 detention
and removal positions;
! $33 million for transportation and removal activities;
! $2 million, including 4 FTE, to establish an “Office of Policy and
Planning” within the Detention and Removal Office (DRO);50
! $9 million for Fugitive Operations Teams;51
! $11 million (146 positions) for additional CAP teams;52
! $240 million for more than 700 immigration enforcement and
detention and removal positions;
! $3 million including 4 positions for development of an ICE-wide
training program for new and mid-career level managers;
! $3 million (10 FTE) for BEST Task Forces;
! $10 million (63 positions) for to enhance ICE’s anti-gang initiative
(Operation Community Shield);
! $15 million (50 FTE) for worksite enforcement efforts; and
! $11 million (63 positions) to fully staff the Document and Benefit
Fraud Task Forces.
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
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;
! $11 million (32 FTE) for BEST Task Forces;
! $5 million (15 FTE) for ICE Mutual Agreement between
Government and Employers (IMAGE), an initiative with private
employers to improve worksite enforcement;
50 The “Office of Policy and Planning assess existing policy for suitability given the growth
in detention, ensure adherence to detention standards, and be responsible for development
and modification of new policies as they relate to DRO-wide programs.
51 Fugitive Operations Teams would be expanded from the Administration’s request of 75
teams to 81 teams.
52 With the additional monies, CAP teams would be expanded from the Administration’s
request of 22 teams to 30 teams.

---

CRS-34
! $2 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 million for 287(g) agreements;53
! $16 million (2 FTE) for information technology investments;54
! $31 million (28 FTE) for 600 additional detention beds and support
personnel;
! $29 million (110 FTE) for the Criminal Alien Program (CAP),
which includes the Institutional Removal Program (IRP) and the
Criminal Alien Apprehension Program (ACAP);55 and
! $11 million for centralized ticketing operation and additional air
transportation (including use of the Justice Prisoners and Alien
Transportation System (JPATS)) for alien removals.
Table 10. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY08
FY08
Activity
FY07
FY08
House
Senate
FY08
Enacted
Request
Passed
Reported
Conf.
HQ & Administration
274
314
299
317
Legal Proceeding
187
208
208
208
Investigations - Domestic
1,285
1,372
1,370
1,411
Investigations - International
105
108
108
108
Investigations Total:
1,390
1,480
1,478
1,519
Intelligence
51
52
52
52
DRO-Custody Operations
1,382
1,460
1,451
1,606
DRO-Fugitive Operations
183
186
183
195
DRO - Criminal Alien Program
137
168
180
179
DRO - Alternatives to Detention
44
44
55
44
DRO Transportation and Removal
Program
238
249
249
283
53 This increase includes money for training 250 state and local law enforcement officers,
350 detention beds and associated staff, and $8 million for T-1 data transmission lines,
computers with IDENT/ENFORCE capabilities and connectivity to ICE databases.
54 This increase includes $11 million for Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) IT
modernization; $2 million for mobile IDENT/ENFORCE devices; and $2 million for
upgrading immigration enforcement systems.
55 The increase for CAP will fund 22 additional 10-person CAP teams replacing an estimated
360 Special Agents performing CAP duties.

---

CRS-35
FY08
FY08
Activity
FY07
FY08
House
Senate
FY08
Enacted
Request
Passed
Reported
Conf.
DRO Total:
1,984
2,107
2,118
2,306
ICE Salaries and Expenses:
3,887
4,162
4,155
4,402
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
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.56 The President’s budget
requests $1,478 million total for OI. Comparatively, for OI, House-passed H.R. 2638
would appropriate $1,469 million, and Senate-reported S. 1644 would appropriate
$1,519 million.
Detention and Removal Operations. Detention and Removal Operations
(DRO) in ICE provide custody management of aliens who are in removal
56 Based on CRS discussions with ICE personnel in New York City, August 27, 2003.

---

CRS-36
proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United States.57 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.58 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. House-passed H.R. 2638 would
appropriate $2,118 for DRO. Senate-reported S. 1644 would appropriate $2,306 for
DRO including increases of $147 million over the Administration’s request for 3,050
additional beds.
Alternatives to Detention. Due to the cost of detaining aliens, and the fact
that many non-detained aliens with final orders of removal do not leave the country,
there has been interest in developing alternatives to detention for certain types of
aliens who do not require a secure detention setting. In 2004, ICE began a pilot
program, the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, for low-risk, nonviolent
offenders.59 In addition, ICE uses electronic monitoring devices as another
alternative to detention. The President’s budget requests $44 million for alternatives
to detention, the same as would be appropriated by Senate-reported S. 1644, and $11
million less than House-passed H.R. 2638 would appropriate.

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
57 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.
58 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.
59 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].

---

CRS-37
have already served their criminal sentences.60 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.61 The
President’s FY2008 budget request includes $168 million for CAP. In comparison,
for CAP, House-passed H.R. 2638 would appropriate $180 million, and Senate-
reported S. 1644 would appropriate $179 million.
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.62 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.63
State and Local Law Enforcement.64 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
60 Stana, Challenges to Implementing the Immigration Interior Enforcement Strategy, p. 5.
61 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.
62 INA §241(a)(4)(A).
63 Government Accountability Office, Immigration Enforcement: Challenges to
Implementing the INS Interior Enforcement Strategy, GAO-02-861T, June 19, 2002.
64 This section adapted from CRS Report RL32270, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role
of State and Local Law Enforcement, by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Michael John Garcia, and Karma
Ester.

---

CRS-38
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 million to $78 million for these agreements. Senate-reported S. 1644 would
appropriate $52 million for §287(g) agreements, while House-passed H.R. 2638
would appropriate $32 million for the three ICE programs that support State and
local law enforcement: (1) Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC); (2) Forensic
Document Laboratory (FDL); and (3) 287(g) agreements.
Federal Protective Service.65 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. Basic security, for example, is the manning of federal
building entry and exit points, and building specific security, for example, is
investigating specific threats to a federal facility or building. FPS focuses on law
enforcement and protection of federal facilities from criminal and terrorist threats.
The Administration requests $613 million in FY2008 for these missions.66 Also
in FY2008, the Administration plans for FPS to administer three main components:
security policy and standards; building security assessments; and agency compliance
with security standards.67 Currently, FPS utilizes approximately 15,000 contract
security guards and 950 uniformed law enforcement officers. However, pursuant to
the Administration’s request, FPS intends to move these uniformed law enforcement
officers into other ICE law enforcement offices or reduce the number through
attrition.
The House, in H.R. 2638, states that no funds from the FY2008 DHS
appropriations may be obligated for any activity that reduces the number of in-service
FPS police officers unless the FPS director provides information to state and local
law enforcement agencies that may be affected by the downsizing. Before reducing
the number of FPS uniformed personnel, the director must prepare a report on the
number and type of cases handled by FPS in the previous two fiscal years, and give
copies of the report to officials in jurisdictions with federal buildings protected by
FPS. In addition, the House provision requires that the FPS director negotiate a
memorandum of agreement with each state and local law enforcement agency that
details how security needs identified in the report will be addressed in the future.
Finally, the FPS Director is to submit a copy of the report and each memorandum of
agreement to the House and Senate Committees of Appropriation 15 days prior to the
65 This section authored by Shawn Reese, Government and Finance Division.
66 OMB, Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2008, p. 460.
67 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal Protective Service, Fiscal Year
2008, Congressional Justification

---

CRS-39
reduction in the number of FPS police officers.68 H.Rept. 110-181 states that the
House Appropriations Committee is concerned that the reduction in FPS police
officers will impose a “significant” burden on state and local law enforcement
agencies.69 The Senate bill, S. 1644, does not address the Administration’s intended
reduction in FPS police officers.
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)70
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
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 levels and supplemental appropriations and FY2008 amounts
specified in the President’s request and the House and Senate bills.
President’s FY2008 Request. The proposed funding level for the TSA, a
gross total of $6,401 million, comprises roughly 14% of the gross total DHS budget
request. The President’s FY2008 request estimates about $2,793 million in offsetting
collections, mostly through the collection of airline passenger security fees, yielding
at net total requested amount for TSA of $3,608 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 $6,401 is roughly
comparable to the FY2007 enacted level of $6,307. 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).
68 H.R. 2638, Title II.
69 H.Rept. 110-181.
70 Prepared by Bart Elias, Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

---

CRS-40
Funding for aviation security, the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS), 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 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)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007 FY2007 FY2008
FY2008
Budget Activity
House
Senate
Enacted
Supp.
Request
Conf.
Passed Reported
Aviation Security
4,732 a
390
4,953
5,199
5,040
Screening Partnership Program
(SPP)
149
—
147
143
143
Passenger & Baggage Screening
(PC&B)
2,470
—
2,601
2,589
2,601
Screener Training & Other
244
—
200
200
200

---

CRS-41
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007 FY2007 FY2008
FY2008
Budget Activity
House
Senate
Enacted
Supp.
Request
Conf.
Passed Reported
Human Resource Services
207
—
182
182
182
Checkpoint Support
173
25
136
250
136
EDS/ETD Purchase
141
—
181
—
—
EDS/ETD Installation
138
—
259
—
—
EDS/ETD Installation/Purchase
—
285
—
560
529
EDS/ETD Maintenance and
Utilities
222
—
264
264
257
Operation Integration
23
—
25
25
25
Regulation and Other
Enforcement
218
—
224
224
224
Airport Management, IT, and
Support
666
—
656
652
646
FFDO & Crew Training
25
—
25
28
25
Air Cargo Security
55
80
56
73
66
Airport Perimeter Security
—
—
—
4
4
Foreign and Domestic Repair
Stations
—
—
—
—
—
Aviation Security Capital Fund
250
—
—
—
—
Federal Air Marshal Service
(FAMS)
714
5 c
722
722
722
Management and Administration
628
—
644
644
644
Travel and Training
86
—
78
78
78
Air-To-Ground Communication
—
—
—
—
—
Threat Assessment and
Credentialing
40
—
78
64
67
Secure Flight
15
—
53
25
28
Crew Vetting
15
—
15
15
15
Other/ TTAC Admin. & Ops.
10
—
10
25
10
TWIC Appropriation
—
—
—
—
15
Credentialing Fees
76
—
83
83
83
Registered Traveler Program
Fees
35
—
35
35
35
TWIC Fees
20
—
27
27
27

---

CRS-42
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007 FY2007 FY2008
FY2008
Budget Activity
House
Senate
Enacted
Supp.
Request
Conf.
Passed Reported
Alien Flight School Fee
2
—
2
2
2
HAZMAT Commercial Driver
Fees
19
—
19
19
19
Surface Transportation Security
37
—
41
41
41
Operations and Staffing
24
—
24
24
24
Rail Security Inspectors and
Canines
13
—
17
17
17
HAZMAT Truck Tracking and
Training
—
—
—
—
—
Transportation Security Support
525
—
525
527
525
Intelligence
21
—
21
21
21
Headquarters Administration
294
—
294
296
294
Information Technology
210
—
209
209
209
Research and Developmentb
—
—
—
—
—
TSA Subtotal
6,374
395
6,401
6,636
6,478
Rescission
-67
—
—
—
—
TSA Total:
6,307
395
6,401
6,636
6,478
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. Does not include a $7 million transfer to Aviation Security provided by P.L. 110-5, nor does the
amount include $390 million in supplemental appropriations provided by P.L. 110-28. In contrast,
both H.Rept. 110-181 and S.Rept. 110-84 include the $7 million transfer (but not the $390 million in
supplemental appropriations) yielding a total FY2007 appropriation for aviation security of $4,739
that is reported in those documents, $7 million more than the amount shown on this table. Of this $7
million, $2 million was transferred from the Secure Flight program. However, in contrast to references
in H.Rept. 110-181 and S.Rept. 110-84, the above table does not indicate this $2 million reduction in
the FY2007 appropriation for Secure Flight.
b. Transportation Security Research and Development was moved to the Science and Technology
Directorate in FY2006.
c. P.L. 110-28 required the DHS to provide the appropriations committees a report detailing how these
additional funds would be allocated within 30 days of enactment. No allocation to FAMS sub-
accounts is shown in this table.
House-passed H.R. 2638. The House bill would provide $6,636 million for
the TSA, with $5,199 million (78%) designated for aviation security programs. Total
TSA funding specified in the House bill is $235 more than the Administration

---

CRS-43
request and $329 million above FY2007 enacted levels, not including FY2007
supplemental funding appropriated in P.L. 110-28 or transfers included in P.L. 110-5.

Aviation security funding specified in the House bill is $246 million (5%) more
than the Administration request, and $467 million (almost 10%) above the FY2007
enacted levels, not including supplemental funding and transfers. The increased
funding above the requested amount is primarily designated for procurement and
installation of explosives detection equipment for checked baggage screening,
procurement of screening technologies for passenger checkpoints, and additional
canine teams and inspectors for air cargo security. These three programs remain high
priorities and each also received supplemental appropriations for FY2007 included
in the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-28).
A total of $560 million is specified for procurement and installation of
explosives detection equipment, $120 million (27%) above the Administration
request. While this represents a sizable increase, it should be noted that this, in part,
reflects the expiration of the authorization of the Aviation Security Capital Fund at
the end of FY2007. That fund had provided for an additional $250 million annually
in mandatory spending to provide airports with grants for accommodating explosives
detection equipment. Based on studies of checked baggage explosives detection
screening over the next 20 years, the House report (H.Rept. 110-181) expresses
considerable concern over the ability to meet long-term spending needs for EDS
refurbishing and replacement, next-generation EDS deployment, and modifications
to airport infrastructure to accommodate checked baggage screening equipment and
operations. The additional funds for EDS procurement and installation specified in
the House bill are intended to expedite EDS deployment among all airports, replace
aging explosives trace detection (ETD) machines at larger airports, and deploy new
ETD machines at any newly federalized small airports and heliports. The House
report urges the TSA to further explore consolidating checkpoint and checked
baggage screening at smaller airports as a means for improving screening efficiency.
The House bill also specifies $250 million for checkpoint support, $114 million
(84%) above the requested amount, to pilot testing and deployment of advanced
checkpoint technologies such as: whole body imaging systems; liquid explosives
detectors; and automated explosives detection systems. The additional funding
would also support any additional checkpoint infrastructure requirements to carry out
a pilot program for screening airport workers at up to seven airports. Under screener
workforce funding, the bill also adds an additional $5 million for labor costs
associated with this pilot. The total appropriation for the screener workforce is,
nonetheless, slightly less than the Administration request reflecting partial funding
of the requests for travel document checker and behavior detection screener
initiatives. The bill, however, lifts the longstanding cap of 45,000 full-time
equivalent screeners, although a minority view printed in the House report expressed
concern that without the cap “TSA will go back to its old ways of solving screener
problems by simply adding more people — a very short-sighted and costly

---

CRS-44
solution.”71 With regard to private, non-TSA screening, the bill provides roughly $3
million above the requested amount to implement private screening to small airports
and heliports that start up commercial air service.
The bill provides $73 million for air cargo security, $17 million above the
President’s request. The additional funding is designated for deployment of
additional canine teams and air cargo security inspectors. Additionally, the bill
includes a general provision (Sec. 516) that would require a doubling of the percent
of air cargo screened. The bill also provides $4 million for airport perimeter security,
a program element that was not funded in the President’s request.
The Secure Flight program for prescreening passengers against government
terrorist watchlists would be funded at $28 million below the President’s request
under the House bill, reflecting frustration over the lack of a complete cost estimate
for system development and testing, and the prospect that operational testing could
slip from FY2008 until early FY2009. The bill continues the longstanding
requirement for GAO oversight and DHS certification that specified operational
requirements regarding data retention, data security, privacy, and mechanisms for
redress are met prior to implementing the system on other than a test basis. The
provision also prohibits the use of commercial data or algorithms to evaluate the risk
of passengers whose names are not included on any government terrorist watch lists.
If the system does not check airline passenger names against the full terrorist
watchlist, the bill would require the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Security
to certify that checking passengers against a subset of this list does not raise any
security risks. All other Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing
(TTAC) programs would be funded at the levels specified in the President’s request.
The House bill also provides funding for surface transportation security and the
Federal Air Marshal Service at the requested levels and funds the TSA’s
Transportation Security Support functions at a level roughly equal to the President’s
request.
Senate-Reported S. 1644. The Senate bill provides a total of $6,478 million
to the TSA for FY2008, $17 million (2.7%) above FY2007 enacted levels excluding
supplemental appropriations and transfers, and $77 million (1%) more than the
President’s request.
For aviation security, the Senate bill specifies $5,040 million, $87 million
(1.8%) more than the President’s request, but $159 million less than the House bill.
Like the House bill, the Senate bill seeks additional funding for explosives detection
capabilities for checked baggage and reduced funding for the Secure Flight program.
However, the Senate bill does not include the additional funding sought in the House
bill for the deployment of checkpoint screening technologies.
Specifically, the Senate bill specifies $529 million for explosives detection
equipment purchase and installation, $89 million more than the President’s request
but $31 million below the amount specified in the House bill. The Senate bill would
consolidate maintenance costs for baggage and checkpoint screening technologies as
71 H.Rept. 110-181, p. 197.

---

CRS-45
requested in the President’s request. However, citing slow procurement decisions
and large unobligated balances for acquisition of emerging passenger screening
systems and related maintenance costs, the Senate bill would provide $7 million less
than the President’s request for screening technologies maintenance and utilities.
While the Senate committee noted the persisting threat posed by explosives carried
by passengers, it expressed deep concern over the TSA’s failure to submit a strategy
for deployment of checkpoint screening technologies as directed by the conference
report accompanying last years appropriations act (H.Rept. 109-699) and the large
unobligated balance of appropriations for checkpoint technologies. The Senate report
(S.Rept. 110-84) funds checkpoint support functions, which includes funding for
checkpoint technologies, at the requested funding level, $114 million less than the
amount passed by the House, and withholds $20 million from TSA’s headquarters
spending until the Committee receives the strategic plan for checkpoint screening
technology deployment.
The Senate committee report specifies that $15 million of the amount
appropriated for screening operations is to be made available for carrying out a pilot
test to study various methods for screening airport employees. The report also makes
$59 million available for workers compensation payments, almost $4 million above
last years amount despite concerted efforts by the TSA to reduce costs associated
with work-related injuries. The Senate bill would fund screener training at the
requested level of $200 million, $44 million below FY2007 enacted levels, and
directs the TSA to provide a detailed report on its behavioral screening initiatives
which it intends to expand to all airports in FY2008, but has provided limited
information on to date.
The Senate bill specifies $66 million for air cargo security, $10 million above
the President’s request, but $7 million below the amount specified in the House bill.
These funds, along with the additional $80 million in FY2007 supplemental funding
specified for air cargo security, are intended to be used for deploying additional
canine teams, hiring additional cargo inspectors, and procuring cargo screening
technologies. The Senate report instructs the TSA to complete the air cargo
vulnerability assessments of Category X airports, funded through FY2007
supplemental funding, by March 1, 2008, and develop an action plan for inbound
international air cargo addressing recommendations made by the GAO no later than
February 5, 2008. Like the House bill, the Senate bill includes a $4 million
appropriation amount for carrying out airport perimeter security pilot programs that
was not included in the President’s request.

The Senate bill specifies $28 million for the Secure Flight program, $3 million
more than the amount specified in the House bill, but $25 million less than the
President’s request. Like the House, the Senate report describes continued frustration
with the TSA’s inability “to fully articulate the goals, objectives, and requirements
for the program” despite 18 months of “rebaselining” the program and years of work
to develop a passenger prescreening system. However, the Senate bill includes a
provision that would give the TSA authority to transfer the additional $25 million
sought, if the TSA can demonstrate significant improvement in the program,
supported by the findings of an ongoing GAO review. Like the House bill, the
Senate bill would keep in force the longstanding stipulation that Secure Flight may
not be deployed for any purpose other than system testing until the GAO finds that

---

CRS-46
all issues identified in legislation regarding the program have been adequately
addressed, and it prohibits the use of commercial databases for vetting airline
passengers. All other Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing (TTAC)
programs would be funded at the levels specified in the President’s request. The
Senate bill also matches the amounts specified in the President’s request for surface
transportation security and transportation security support.
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. Other issues have
emerged during the FY2008 appropriations debate as the Administration has raised
concerns over bill language that would cut funding for the Secure Flight program and
would subject TSA decisions regarding airline security fee collections to judicial
review.
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.72 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. While neither the House nor the
Senate bills retain the longstanding screener cap, a minority view printed in House
Rept. 110-181 questioned the removal of this cap, voicing concern that it would lead
72 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-47
to poor strategic planning by hiring screeners rather than focusing on technology
approaches to streamline screening procedures that could reduce manpower needs.
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. The Senate report (S.Rept. 110-84) specifically identified
$59 million for workers compensation benefits for FY2008, and requests committee
briefings on how the TSA’s proposed strategies will mitigate on-the-job injuries and
associated costs.
Provisions in the Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act
of 2007 (H.R. 1) and the Improving America’s Security Act of 2007 (S. 4) 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 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.73 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
73 Thomas Frank, “TSA Union Fight Threatens Anti-terror Bill”, USA Today, February 28,
2007.

---

CRS-48
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. Both the House and Senate bills would increase
funding for explosives detection equipment procurement and installation above the
requested levels.
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. While the House
bill includes additional funding for checkpoint technologies, the Senate bill would
fund this activity at the requested level.
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
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. Both the House and Senate bills include
increased funding for air cargo security activities above the requested amounts.
These funds are intended for deploying additional canine units for screening air cargo
and increasing the number of air cargo security regulatory compliance inspectors in
addition to continued deployment and testing of new air cargo screening
technologies.

---

CRS-49
A general provision in the House bill (Sec. 516) would require a doubling of the
amount of cargo placed on passenger aircraft that undergoes inspection. The
Administration strongly opposes this provision stating that this objective “...is not
achievable with the resources provided and would adversely affect the flow of
commerce.”74
TWIC Program Roll-Out. On January 25, 2007, TSA issued a final rule
implementing the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program
for seaport workers.75 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. Expressing concern over progress on the
TWIC program and expecting that delays will not permit the program to be self-
sustaining based on FY2008 fee collections alone, the House bill includes a $15
million direct appropriation to be used for carrying out a pilot program to test TWIC
card readers at maritime facilities as mandated in the SAFE Ports Act (P.L. 109-347).
Secure Flight. The long delayed and highly controversial initiatives to
develop a system for government prescreening of airline passengers against terrorist
watchlists remains at issue. The Administration has long maintained that the
requirement for GAO review and certification of the Secure Flight system constitutes
a “legislative veto” of administration decisions and actions and therefore, in the
Administration’s view, violates the constitutional framework of separation of
powers.76 The OMB has also voiced concerns in the current appropriations debate
that cuts to the program included in both the House and Senate bills could further
delay the program beyond a target deployment of sometime in 2010.77
Judicial Review of Airline Security Fees. In addition to passenger
security fees charged, airlines are assessed direct fees for aviation security. At
present the TSA has final authority in setting these fees and allocating fees among the
various carriers, provided that the total fee collections do not exceed what all
passenger airlines combined paid for privately-run security screening of passengers
74 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administration Policy, H.R. 2638, June 12, 2007, p. 4.
75 See Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 16, pp. 3492-3604.
76 See, e.g., President George W. Bush, Statement on H.R. 4567, the Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2005, White House Office of the Press Secretary,
Washington, DC. October 18, 2004.
77 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administration Policy, H.R. 2638, June 12, 2007.

---

CRS-50
and property in calendar year 2000. Through FY2004, there were also per carrier
limits that prevented any single carrier from paying more in fees that what it had
spent on screening in calendar year 2000, but these limits no longer apply. Thus the
TSA serves as the final authority for determining the proportion of total airline
security fee collections, and, by statute, the TSA’s determinations are not subject to
judicial review. A provision in the House bill (Sec. 539), however, would strike the
provision in existing statute that exempts these TSA’s setting of these fees from
judicial review, allowing airlines to challenge the TSA’s fee determination methods
in court. The Administration has voiced strong opposition to this provision
expressing concern that this would undermine the intent of the statute to allow the
TSA to adjust airline security fees to reflect current market share, and would prolong
the fee collection process during judicial review.78
United States Coast Guard79
The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for the maritime component of
homeland security. As such, it is the lead agency responsible for the security of U.S.
ports, coastal and inland waterways, and territorial waters. The Coast Guard also
performs missions that are not related to homeland security, such as maritime search
and rescue, marine environmental protection, fisheries enforcement, and aids to
navigation. The Coast Guard was transferred from the Department of Transportation
to the DHS on March 1, 2003. The law that created the DHS (P.L. 107-296) directed
that the Coast Guard be maintained as a distinct entity within the DHS and that the
Commandant of the Coast Guard report directly to the Secretary of DHS.
President’s FY2008 Request. For FY2008, the President requested a total
of $8,457 million in net budget authority for the Coast Guard, which is about a 2%
increase over the FY2007 enacted level. The President requested $5,894 million for
operating expenses (an increase of 8% over FY2007), $949 million for acquisition,
construction, and improvements (a decrease of 27% from FY2007 enacted level),
$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.80 Table 12 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.
78 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administration Policy, H.R. 2638, June 12, 2007.
79 Prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation, Resources, Science and Industry
Division.
80 The Budget for Fiscal Year 2008 — Appendix, p. 1164.

---

CRS-51
House-Passed H.R. 2638. H.R. 2638 provides a total of $8,352 million in
net budget authority for the Coast Guard, which is $100 million less than the
President requested. This total includes $5,885 million in operating expenses which
is $9 million less than the President requested and $834 million in acquisition,
construction, and improvements, which is $115 million less than the President
requested. The House provides $16 million for the bridge alteration program versus
the President’s request for zero funds.
The House denies the President’s request to transfer ACI personnel funding to
the OE account, contending that acquisition staffing levels can better be tracked in
the ACI account.81
Senate-Reported S. 1644. The Senate Committee provides $8,559 million
for the Coast Guard which is $102 million more than the President requested. This
total includes $5,931 million in operating expenses which is $37 million more than
the President requested and $991 million for acquisition, construction, and
improvements which is $42 million more than the President requested. The Senate
Committee provides $16 million for the bridge alteration program versus the
President’s request for zero funds. The committee provides $26 million for research,
development, tests, and evaluation versus the President’s request for $18 million.
The Senate Committee agrees with the President’s request to transfer ACI
personnel funding to the OE account, contending that by so doing, personnel can be
surged to and from ACI projects where needed and provide the flexibility to match
competencies to core requirements.82
Table 12. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI)
Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
House
Senate
FY2008
Activity
Enacteda
Request
Passed
Reported
Conf.
Operating Expenses
5,478
5,894
5,885
5,931
Military pay and
allowances
2,788
2,959
2,933
2,959
Civilian pay and benefits
569
631
593
633
Training and recruiting
181
187
186
187
Operating funds and unit
level maintenance
1,011
1,138
1,148
1,138
Centrally managed
accounts
202
226
226
230
81 H.Rept. 110-181, p. 67.
82 S.Rept. 110-84, p. 69.

---

CRS-52
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
House
Senate
FY2008
Activity
Enacteda
Request
Passed
Reported
Conf.
Port Security
15
—
45
30
Intermediate and depot
level maintenance
711
754
754
754
Acquisition, Construction,
and Improvements
1,306
949
834
991
Vessels and Critical
Infrastructure
27
9
9
9
Aircraft
15
—
—
—
Other Equipment
116
114
114
174
Integrated Deepwater
System
1,046
788 a
591
770
Shore facilities and Aids
to Navigation
22
38
38
38
Personnel and Related
Support
81
1
83
1
Source: DHS FY2008 Budget Justification, pp. CG-OE-4 and CG-AC&I-4.
a. Does not include $30 million in supplemental appropriations for the ACI account and a $26 million
rescission from the OE account as per P.L. 110-28.
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.
The Coast Guard’s management and execution of the program has been strongly
criticized and several hearings were held on the program this year. For FY2008, the
President requested $788 million for the program. The House provides $591 million
for the program, which is $197 million less than the President requested, and
withholds $400 million of this amount until the appropriations committees in the
House and Senate receive and approve a detailed expenditure plan from the Coast
Guard. The House Report continues to identify a number of concerns with the

---

CRS-53
Deepwater program.83 The Senate committee provides $770 million for Deepwater
which is $18 million less than the President’s request and requires the Coast Guard
to submit an expenditure plan within 60 days of enactment of the appropriations bill.
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.84 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.85
For monitoring harbor traffic, the President’s FY2008 request includes $12
million to continue procurement plans and analysis for deployment of a nationwide
system to identify, track, and communicate with vessels in U.S. harbors, called the
Automatic Identification System (AIS). This system is currently operational in
several major U.S. ports.86 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.87 In its FY2008
Coast Guard budget review, the GAO reports that the Coast Guard has partnered with
private entities in Tampa, Florida and Alaska.88 The GAO also reports that this
system is being implemented in three phases. The first phase is expected to be
completed in September 2007 when the Coast Guard expects to track, but not
communicate with, vessels in 55 ports and nine coastal areas. The last phase is
planned to be completed in 2014 when the Coast Guard will be able to track ships as
83 H.Rept. 110-181, pp. 71-75.
84 DHS Budget in Brief, p. 52.
85 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.
86 Coast Guard FY2008 Budget Justification, Strategic Context, p. CG-SC-7.
87 GAO, Maritime Security: Partnering Could Reduce Federal Costs and Facilitate
Implementation of AutomaticVessel Identification System, GAO-04-868, July 2004.
88 GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, Performance,
Reorganization, and Related Challenges, April 18, 2007, GAO-07-489T, p. 27.

---

CRS-54
far as 2,000 nautical miles from shore and communicate with them when they are
within 24 nautical miles from shore.
In the House Report (H.Rept. 110-181), the House committee recommends an
additional $40 million above the President’s request for the Coast Guard to carry out
new security-related requirements mandated in the SAFE Port Act (P.L. 109-347).89
These additional funds are for establishing interagency port security operational
centers, which are centers for federal and local law enforcement to share intelligence,
monitor harbor traffic, and coordinate response activities; and for establishing a port
security training program.
In the Senate Report (S.Rept. 110-84), the Senate committee also provides
additional funds to the Coast Guard to carry out mandates in the SAFE Port Act.
Specifically, it provides an additional $60 million to establish interagency port
security operational centers (noting that only three centers currently exist), $15
million for the security of hazardous materials shipping, and $15 million to double
the frequency of security spot checks at ports, conduct vulnerability assessments at
high risk ports, and develop AIS for long range tracking of ships.
Specialized Teams. 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.90 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.91 The GAO reports that this reorganization will affect approximately
2,500 personnel and while it has not reviewed this reorganization specifically, it
notes that obtaining “buy-in” from the affected personnel may be a challenge.92
The Senate Committee requires the Coast Guard to submit a detailed report on
its reorganization plans within 90 days of enactment and requires the GAO to review
this report.93
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
89 H.Rept. 110-181, p. 65.
90 Coast Guard FY2008 Budget Justification, Operating Expenses, p. CG-OE-32.
91 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.
92 GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, Performance,
Reorganization, and Related Challenges, April 18, 2007, GAO-07-489T, p. 18.
93 S.Rept. 110-84, p. 69.

---

CRS-55
protection.94 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.95 The IG reports that
in FY2005, the Coast Guard’s total non-homeland security resource hours were
within 3% of pre-9/11 levels. The GAO reports that over the past five years, Coast
Guard performance trends show that increased homeland security activities have not
prevented the agency from meeting its non-homeland security mission goals.96
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,
which is already five years behind schedule.97 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.98 The Senate Committee agrees with
the President’s request of $81 million for Rescue-21.
The GAO’s FY2008 Coast Guard budget review notes that while Rescue-21 was
originally intended to limit gaps to 2% of coverage area, that target has now
expanded to a less than 10% coverage gap.99
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
94 For information on Coast Guard environmental protection issues, see CRS Report
RS22145, Environmental Activities of the U.S. Coast Guard, by Mark Reisch and Jonathan
L. Ramseur.
95 DHS, Office of Inspector General, Annual Review of Mission Performance: United States
Coast Guard (FY2005), OIG-06-50, July 2006.
96 GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, Performance,
Reorganization, and Related Challenges, April 18, 2007, GAO-07-489T, p. 2.
97 GAO, United States Coast Guard: Improvements Needed in Management and Oversight
of Rescue System Acquisition, GAO-06-623, May 2006.
98 DHS Budget-in-Brief, p. 55.
99 GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, Performance,
Reorganization, and Related Challenges, April 18, 2007, GAO-07-489T, p. 3.

---

CRS-56
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.100 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.
In the House Report (H.Rept. 110-181) and the Senate Report (S.Rept. 110-84),
the committees deny the President’s request to terminate LORAN-C. The committees
note that a team of officials from DHS and DOT evaluated the system in late 2006
and concluded that LORAN-C should be maintained as a back up system.
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. In the House Report (H.Rept. 110-181) and the Senate
Report (S.Rept. 110-84), the committees deny the President’s request to transfer the
program to the DOT101 and both committees recommend $16 million for the program.
U.S. Secret Service102
The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) has two broad missions — criminal
investigations and protection — both connected with homeland security (as well as
other matters).103 Criminal investigations encompass financial crimes, identity theft,
counterfeiting, computer fraud, and computer-based attacks on the nation’s financial,
banking, and telecommunications infrastructure, among other areas. The protective
mission is the most prominent, covering the President, Vice President, their families,
and candidates for those offices, along with the White House and the Vice
President’s residence (through the Service’s Uniformed Division). Protective duties
extend to foreign missions in the District of Columbia and other designated
individuals, such as the DHS Secretary and visiting foreign dignitaries. Separate
from these specific mandated assignments, the Secret Service is responsible for
National Special Security Events (NSSEs), which include the major party
quadrennial national conventions as well as international conferences and events held
in the United States. The NSSE designation by the President gives the Secret
Service authority to organize and coordinate security arrangements; these involve
various law enforcement units (along with the National Guard) from other federal
100 Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 4, January 8, 2007, pp. 796-797.
101 H.Rept. 110-181, p. 67 and S.Rept. 110-84, p. 76.
102 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
103 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-57
agencies and state and local governments. Table 13 displays sub-account detail for
the Secret Service.
Table 13. U.S. Secret Service Appropriations
(Amounts in millions)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
House
Senate
Programs and Activities
Request
Passed
Reported
Protection of persons and facilities
$697
$690
$694
Protective intelligence activities
$58
$58
$58
National Special Security Events
$1
$1
$1
Presidential candidate nominee protection
$85
$85
$85
White House mail screening
$27
$16
$27
Management and administration
$176
$176
$176
Rowley Training Center
$52
$52
$52
Domestic field operations
$220
$230
$220
International field operations
$28
$28
$28
Electronic crimes program
$45
$49
$45
Forensic support grants for the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC)
$8
$8
$8
Acquisition, construction, and improvements
$4
$4
$4
Total
$1,399
$1,396
$1,396
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.104 This reflected an increase of $123
million or nearly 10% over the FY2007 total of $1,276 million for the Service. The
Administration requests the highest amount for “protection of persons and facilities”
with a proposed appropriation of $697 million, the House proposes $690 million, and
the Senate proposes $694 million.
House-passed H.R. 2368. For FY2008, the House proposes an
appropriation of $1,396 million for the protection and criminal investigation missions
of the Secret Service.105 This reflects an increase of $120 million or 9% over the
FY2007 total of $1,276 million for the Service. The House proposes the smallest
appropriation for “White House mail screening” with an amount of $16 million, the
104 OMB, Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2008, p. 451.
105 H.R. 2368 (FY2008 DHS appropriations), Title II.

---

CRS-58
Administration requests and the Senate proposes $27 million. However, the House
proposes the highest appropriation for “Domestic field operations” with an amount
of $230 million, whereas the Senate and Administration proposes $220 million.
Senate Committee-passed S. 1644. For FY2008, the Senate proposes an
appropriation of $1,396 million for the protection and criminal investigation missions
of the Secret Service.106 This reflected an increase of $120 million or 9% over the
FY2007 total of $1,276 million for the Service.
Title III: Preparedness and Response
Title III includes appropriations for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), and the
Office of Health Affairs (OHA). Congress expanded FEMA’s authorities and
responsibilities in the Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act (P.L. 109-295) and
explicitly kept certain DHS functions out of the “new FEMA.”107 In response to
these statutory exclusions, DHS officials created the NPPD to house functions not
transferred to FEMA, and the OHA was established for the Office of the Chief
Medical Officer. Table 14 provides account-level appropriations detail for Title III.
106 S. 1644 (FY2008 DHS appropriations), Title II.
107 P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1400.

---

CRS-59
Table 14. Title III: Preparedness and Response
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
House
Senate
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Total
Passed
Reported
National Protection & Programs Directorate


— Administration
38
38
46
40
30
— Infrastructure Protection and Information Security
534
24
-1
557
538
533
527
— US-VISIT
362
362
462
462
362
Net total
934
24
-1
957
1,047
1,035
919
Office of Health Affairs
99
8
107
118
118
115
Counter Terrorism Fund
-16
—
-16
—
—
—
Federal Emergency Management Agency
— Management and Administration
535
14
549
716
685
727
— Office of Grant Programs/State and Local
3,387
297
3,684
2,196
4,307
4,031
Assistance
— U.S. Fire Administration
41
—
41
43
43
43
— Public health programs
34
—
34
—
—
—
— Disaster relief
1,487
4,256 b
5,743
1,652
1,700
1,639
— Flood map modernization fund
199
—
199
195
230
200
— National flood insurance fund (NFIF) b
—
—
—
—
—
—
— National flood mitigation c
—
—
—
—
—
—

---

CRS-60
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
House
Senate
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Total
Passed
Reported
— Pre-disaster mitigation fund
100
—
100
100
120
120
— Emergency food and shelter
151
—
151
140
153
153
— Disaster assistance direct loan account
1
320
321
1
1
1
Net total
5,935
4,887
10,821
5,042
7,239
6,913
Net budget authority subtotal: Title III
6,952
4,919
11,869
6,207
8,392
7,947
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. Per P.L. 110-28, includes a $4,110 million emergency supplemental appropriation, a transfer to the DHS OIG of $4 million, and a transfer from the Small Business Administration
Disaster loan program of $150 million.
b. Funds derived from premium payments or transfers from the U.S. Treasury.
c. Funds derived from NFIF transfers.

---

CRS-61
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)108
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 and the agency’s program authorities relevant to
preparing for and responding to major disaster events.109 The FY2008 appropriations
legislation, based upon the Administration’s request, represents the first opportunity
of policymakers to fund the “new FEMA” and its efforts to implement many
provisions of the Post-Katrina Reform Act.
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.
Taking the Post-Katrina Act reorganization into account, the adjusted FY2007
enacted level for FEMA is $5,935 million. 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.110
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.
108 Prepared by Keith Bea, Specialist in American National Government and Fran McCarthy,
Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
109 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.
110 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-62
! Decreased funding from $47 million in FY2007 to $43 million in
FY2008 for the U.S. Fire Administration.
House Passed H.R. 2638. The House approved an appropriations total that
exceeds the request by $2,197 million, most of which derives from increased funding
sought for the state and local programs account. The House-passed H.R. 2638
proposes $4,307 million for state and local programs, which is $623 million more
than the FY2007 appropriated amount of $3,684 million. Other areas in which the
House sought funding over the request are $10 million more for the Urban Search
and Rescue teams, $20 million more for the pre-disaster mitigation fund, and $35
million more for the flood map modernization project. The House rejected the
request to reduce funding for emergency food and shelter, and instead would provide
$153 million, slightly more than that appropriated for FY2007. Also, the House
approved funding for disaster relief, management and administration, and emergency
food and shelter at levels comparable to the request. The total amount approved by
the House for FEMA is $7,239 million; the Administration request totaled $5,042
million.
Senate Committee Reported S. 1644. The Senate Appropriations
Committee reported almost $2 billion more in funding for FEMA than requested.
Similar to the action taken by the House, the increase primarily rests in the state and
local programs account. The Senate committee reported S. 1644 proposes an
appropriation of $4,031 million for state and local programs which is $347 million
more than the FY2007 appropriation of $3,684 million. The other accounts for
which the Senate Committee recommended funding levels different from that
requested include a roughly $5 million increase for flood map modernization, $5
million more for Urban Search and Rescue, funding for emergency food and shelter
at $153 million ($13 million more than the request), and $20 million more than
requested for the pre-disaster mitigation fund. The total approved by the Senate
Committee for FEMA is $6,913 million, compared to the request for $5,042 million.
FEMA Issues for Congress. The problematic response to Hurricane
Katrina and the slow recovery from the storm (as well as Hurricanes Rita and Wilma)
continue to be issues of concern for Members of the 110th Congress. Both the House
and the Senate Committee have expressed concern with the delay in filling personnel
vacancies in the agency, delays in the final release of planning documents and
guidances, and continued reliance on outdated or inefficient systems and technology.
Issues that have been or might yet be discussed by Congress are reviewed below.
Disaster Relief Fund. The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) usually accounts for
the great majority of FEMA’s spending. It is the DRF that funds the assistance made
available under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act (the Stafford Act).111
Congress appropriates supplemental funding for the DRF when annual
appropriations are not adequate for the DRF obligations needed to pay for recovery
111 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.

---

CRS-63
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.112 Funds for the
Gulf Coast hurricane season of 2005 have been included in five supplemental
appropriations statutes (P.L. 109-61, P.L. 109-62, P.L 109-148, P.L. 109-234, and
P.L. 110-28).
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). The Senate Committee report addresses this issue
by requiring that FEMA “provide a detailed estimate” of DRF funding needed
through September 30, 2008 (not only the end of the fiscal year but toward the end
of the hurricane season). The Committee also calls upon agency officials “to firmly
establish measurably thresholds for transparent decisionmaking regarding federal
fiscal expenditures for disaster response.”113
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
services to victims of a major disaster 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.114
In past years Congress has authorized or directed the transfer of money from the
DRF to other FEMA accounts to address identified needs or shortcomings. Some
may contend that the dispersion of money from the DRF reduces the amount needed
for disaster relief activities; others perceive the DRF to be an appropriate source of
funds to meet special needs related to the mission of the agency. For example, the
Office of Inspector General (OIG) has received funds in this manner to conduct
audits and investigations into the use of DRF funds. The Senate Committee report
112 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, and Keith Bea.
113 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2008, 110th Cong., 1st Sess., S.Rept. 110-84 (Washington: 2007), p. 104.
114 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-64
continues this tradition with the transfer of $14 million to the OIG, and also allows
for the transfer of up to $48 million to fill agency personnel vacancies and provide
further opportunities to enhance the skills of the workforce. The House Committee
on Appropriations did not include similar language in their report, and noted its
disapproval of the planned transfer of $48 million “to convert temporary disaster
employees into permanent positions.”115
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
for 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
House Committee report noted that HMGP assistance has been
“greatly underutilized” after Hurricane Katrina and directs FEMA to
report on needed policy changes and plans to direct funding as
needed.116 Also related to mitigation, the Senate Committee report
makes reference to the recent finding that mitigation activities result
in cost savings and encourages incentives for such actions.
! 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
115 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2008, 110th Cong., 1st Sess., H.Rept. 110-181 (Washington: 2007), p.
108.
116 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2008, 110th Cong., 1st Sess., H.Rept. 110-181 (Washington: 2007), p.
113.

---

CRS-65
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.
! 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 likely 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. Another
deficiency identified in the wake of Hurricane Katrina concerned the
information systems used by FEMA. The Senate Committee report
includes expectations that the agency is to adopt “cutting edge
technology” and ensure that technology is used effectively. To
achieve this goal, the Senate Committee included $6 million to be
awarded competitively for this purpose.
! 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.
! The surplus trailers (manufactured housing) used by FEMA to
provide temporary shelters to disaster victims remains a point of
concern for some policymakers. The Post-Katrina Act addressed
concerns that the temporary housing provisions of the Stafford Act
required emendation. The House Committee report includes
language that directs the agency to examine the feasibility of making
surplus housing units available to homeless veterans.117
117 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2008, 110th Cong., 1st Sess., H.Rept. 110-181 (Washington: 2007), p.
97.

---

CRS-66
Office of Grants Programs118
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.
Table 15 provides a break-out of appropriations for state and local homeland security
grant programs.
Table 15. State and Local Homeland Security Programs
(Amounts in millions)
Program
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Request
House
Senate
Passed
Reported
State Homeland Security Grant Program
$250A
$550
$525
(SHSGP)
Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)
$800B
$850
$820
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention
—
$400
$375
Program (LETPP)
Port Security Program
$210
$400
$400
Transit Security Program
$175
$400
$400
Intercity Bus Security Program
$12
$11
$12
Trucking Industry Security Program
$9
$10
$16
Buffer Zone Protection
$50
$100
$50
Assistance to Firefighters (FIRE)
$300
$805
$700
Emergency Management Performance
$200
$300
$300
Grants (EMPG)
Citizen Corps Programs (CCP)
$15
$17
$15
Metropolitan Medical Response System
—
$50
$33
(MMRS)
Training, Technical Assistance, Exercises,
$175
$293
$295
and Evaluation
Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance
—
$20
$40
Grants
Interoperable Communications Grants
—
$50
—
118 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in American National Government/Emergency
Management, Government and Finance Division.

---

CRS-67
Program
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Request
House
Senate
Passed
Reported
Real ID Grants
—
$50
—
Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grants
—
—
$50
Total
$2,196
$4,307
$4,031
a. Of the $250 million requested for SHSGP, $63 million is to be allocated for law enforcement
terrorism prevention activities.
b. Of the $800 million requested for UASI, $200 million is to be allocated for law enforcement
terrorism prevention activities.
President’s Request. The President’s FY2008 request of $2,196 million for
state and local programs is $1,488 less than the FY2007 appropriated amount of
$3,684 million. The Administration does not request funding for LETPP; instead it
requests that $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.119 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 $600 million (versus $770 million in
FY2007) for high threat urban areas seeking to fund UASI activities.
House Passed H.R. 2638. The House-passed appropriation of $4,307
million for state and local programs is $6237 million more than the FY2007
appropriated amount of $3,684 million. The House proposes to provide funding for
the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP, $400 million), even
though the Administration had requested no line item funding for LETPP.
Additionally, the House proposes funding for Metropolitan Medical Response
System ($50 million), Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Grants ($20
million), Interoperable Communications Grants ($50 million), and Real ID Grants
($50 million).
Senate Committee Reported S. 1644. The Senate committee reported
S. 1644 proposed appropriation of $4,031 million for state and local programs is
$347 million more than the FY2007 appropriation of $3,684 million. The Senate
committee proposes to provide funding for the Law Enforcement Terrorism
Prevention Program (LETPP, $375), even though the Administration had requested
no line item funding for LETPP. Additionally, the Senate committee proposes to
appropriate funding for the Metropolitan Medical Response System ($33 million),
Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Grants ($40 million), and Regional
Catastrophic Preparedness Grants ($50 million).
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 proposed changes to some of the grants’
119 Fiscal Year 2008 Budget of the United States Government, Appendix, p. 480.

---

CRS-68
distribution methods, and the proposed reduction in Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Program (FIRE) appropriations. These issues are discussed below.
For SHSGP, UASI,120 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 counter-terrorism, 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.121
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.122 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.123 Some could
argue that SHSGP would not be a discretionary program if there is a guaranteed
minimum amount for states. However, both the House-passed H.R. 2368 and the
Senate committee reported S. 1644 do not propose to alter the distribution of these
grant programs because both the House and the Senate have passed bills that address
the distribution methods. 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. On June 5, 2007, the
House Appropriations Committee approved $570 million for fire grants and $230
million for Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters
(SAFER) program. The Committee directed FEMA to continue granting funds
directly to local fire departments and to include the U.S. Fire Administration during
the grant administration process, while also maintaining an all-hazards focus and not
limiting the list of eligible activities. The Committee also expressed concern that
120 Both SHSGP and UASI include a portion of funding to be used for law enforcement
terrorism prevention activities.
121 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission
Report (Washington: GPO, July 2004), p. 396.
122 Ibid.
123 Ibid.

---

CRS-69
large numbers of fire grant applications never reach the peer review stage. The
Government Accountability Office (GAO) was directed to review the application and
award process for fire and SAFER grants, and FEMA was directed to peer review all
grant applications that meet basic eligibility requirements. On June 15, 2007, the
House passed H.R. 2638, including an amendment adding $5 million to the SAFER
account. Thus, the final House-passed bill provided $570 million for fire grants and
$235 million for SAFER.
On June 14, 2007, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version
of the FY2008 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. The bill
provided $560 million for fire grants and $140 million for SAFER. The Committee
directed DHS to continue the present practice of funding applications according to
local priorities and those established by the United States Fire Administration. The
Committee further directed DHS to continue direct funding to fire departments and
the peer review process. Additionally, $3 million was made available for foam
firefighter equipment used in remote areas.
Office of Health Affairs124
The Post-Katrina Act codified the position of Chief Medical Officer (CMO)
within DHS.125 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,
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,126 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;
124 Prepared by Sarah A. Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology, Domestic
Social Policy Division.
125 6 U.S.C. § 321e.
126 FY2008 DHS Congressional Justification, pp. OHA 2-3.

---

CRS-70
! $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.127
House-passed H.R. 2638 recommends $118 million for OHA, but directs that $2
million of the amount requested for BioWatch Operations be used instead to enter
into a grant or contract with the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the
effectiveness of the program. Senate-reported S. 1644 recommends $115 million for
OHA, including the full amount requested for BioWatch Operations, but $3 million
less than requested for salaries and expenses.
National Protection and Programs Directorate128
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
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
127 Ibid. Numbers do not add due to rounding.
128 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources,
Science and Industry Division.

---

CRS-71
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)129
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 DHS130 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
FY2006.131 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.”132
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.133
House-Passed H.R. 2638. The House fully funded the Administration’s
request for US-VISIT in FY2008, including the $228 million requested to implement
10 finger-print capability for entry purposes. The House also withheld $232 million
from the overall appropriation for US-VISIT pending the submission, and approval
by the Committee, of an expenditure plan. This plan should include a complete
schedule for the full implementation of a biometric exit component within five years,
or a certification that a cost-effective solution is not technically feasible in five years.
129 Prepared by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
130 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
131 H.Rept. 109-241.
132 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.
133 DHS FY2008 Justification, p. US-VISIT 3.

---

CRS-72
Senate-Reported S. 1644. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended an appropriation of $362 million for US-VISIT in FY2008, $100
million less than the President requested. The Senate committee noted that DHS has
large unobligated balances for the US-VISIT program in making its recommendation.
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.134
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.135 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. House-passed H.R. 2638 and Senate-reported
S. 1644 would leave US-VISIT within the NPPD.
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
134 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.
135 GAO Testimony, February 2007, p. 19.

---

CRS-73
actively testing technologies associated with the exit component of the system,136 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. H.R. 2638 fully
funded the Administration’s request for the implementation of a 10 fingerprint entry
capability. However, the House Committee on Appropriations voiced concern over
the “lack of a clear plan, with timelines and milestone goals, for addressing an exit
strategy.”137 The House also noted that, while the implementation of the exit
component at the land border may not be feasible with current technology, “the
failure to exploit the foundation for air exit solutions is incomprehensible — as are
current plans to terminate the existing air pilots, rather than use them to fill a gap
until a permanent solution can be found.”138 Senate-reported S. 1644 also fully
funded the Administration’s request for the implementation of 10 fingerprint entry
capability. However, the Senate Committee on Appropriations “is deeply
disappointed that the Department has achieved no tangible progress on instituting an
‘exit’ capacity in over 4 years.”139 Senate-reported S. 1644 would withhold $100
million from obligation pending the committee’s approval of a comprehensive US-
VISIT plan.
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security140
Within DHS, those activities which coordinate the national effort to identify the
nation’s most critical infrastructure assets and to prioritize risk reduction activities
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 program/project activity (PPA) to the new Office of Health Affairs.
In addition, funding for the new Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) falls
within this program.
President’s FY2008 Request. The President’s request for the FY2008 IPIS
program was $538 million. 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 presented
in the President’s budget. In the FY2008 budget request, a number of IPIS
program/project activities (PPAs — Critical Infrastructure Outreach and Partnerships,
136 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.
137 H.Rept. 110-181, p. 89.
138 H.Rept. 110-181, p. 89.
139 S.Rept. 110-84, p. 86.
140 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources,
Science and Industry Division.

---

CRS-74
Critical Infrastructure Identification and Evaluation, National Infrastructure
Simulation and Analysis Center, and Protective Actions) were combined into a single
PPA called Infrastructure Protection (IP). In addition, the President’s request
transferred certain expenses (such as facility rents and information technology
support), previously paid for by each PPA, to the NPPD’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 PPA. Tracking these transfers is beyond the scope
of this document. The FY2007 enacted figures noted below in Table 16 are based
on House and Senate reports accompanying their respective appropriation bills.
Presumably, these FY2007 enacted figures reflect the changes made in the new
FY2008 budget categories.
The President’s budget identified 6 programmatic increases totaling
approximately $38 million. The largest of these was $15 million to expand the
Chemical Site Security Program (within the IP PPA) 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 was $11 million to accelerate activities associated with the
Department’s Wireless Priority Service responsibility (within the NS/EP PPA). The
budget also identified 3 areas where program reductions were made, with $30 million
in various IP PPA activities being scaled back. These included, among others,
reductions in management and implementation of the National Infrastructure
Protection Plan (made possible according to DHS by completion of Sector Specific
Plans), deferral of some capabilities of the Automated Critical Asset Management
System, reductions in the Bomb Prevention Program and some Infrastructure
Planning, Training and Exercise Programs. Table 16 provides PPA-level detail for
IPIS.
House-passed H.R. 2638. The House appropriated $533 million for the
IPIS program, providing more funds for Infrastructure Protection (IP) and the Office
of Emergency Communications (OEC) than requested, and less funds for Computer
Security (CS) and National Security/Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications
(NS/EP). Within the IP PPA, the House provided $20 million more than requested
for continued management and implementation of the National Infrastructure
Protection Plan. It did not accept the argument that the release of the Sector Specific
Plans could allow for a reduction in effort. The increase included $3 million for
greater administrative and logistical support for the Sector Coordinating Councils,
through which DHS interacts with the private sector on critical infrastructure
protection. The House also provided $10 million more than requested for the
National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center. Within the OEC PPA, the
House provided $8 million more than requested for interoperability integration and
technical assistance to State and local entities. Regarding the reduction made in the
NS/EP request, the House did not feel that DHS had justified the large increase
requested for a Next Generation Network so soon after the anticipated successful
completion of the current Wireless Priority Service program. The House provided
$18 million, instead of the $52 million requested. The House bill also contained
provisions that would preclude federal regulations from preempting stronger state
and local regulations governing security at chemical facilities.

---

CRS-75
Table 16. FY2008 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure
Protection and Information Security Appropriation
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Program
FY07
FY07
FY07
FY07
FY08
FY08
FY08
FY08
Project
Enact.1
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Req.
House
Senate
Conf.
Activity
M/A
55
55
IP
227
24
-1
250
240
272
252
CS
92
92
98
87
92
NS/EP
143
143
165
129
137
OEC
17
17
36
46
46
Total
534
24
-1
557
538
533
527
M/A=Management and Administration; IP=Infrastructure Protection; CS=Computer Security;
NS/EP=National Security/Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications; OEC=Office of Emergency
Communications.
Source: U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Bill, 2008. H.Rept. 110-181, accompanying H.R. 2638. June 8, 2008.
1. FY2007 enacted figures reflect changes in the expenditures covered in the FY2008 budget request,
making FY2007 and FY2008 figures comparable. They do not represent the actual enacted figure for
the IPIS program at the time of enactment.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
Senate-reported S. 1644. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $527 million for the IPIS program. Similar to the House, the
Committee recommended additional funding for IP and OEC, while recommending
less for CS and NS/EP than requested. Within the IP PPA, the Committee
recommended increases for implementing security regulations at chemical facilities
(+ $15 million) and for the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center
(+ $9 million). Within the OEC PPA, the Committee recommended an increase of
$12 million for the Interoperable Communications Integration and Technical
Assistance program. Similar to the House, the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended less funding than requested for the Next Generation Network, within
the NS/EP PPA (recommending $30 million instead of the $52 million requested).
Issues for Congress. Some IPIS-related issues that may be of interest to
Congress include the quality of the budget requests; chemical facility regulations;
and the location of risk management funding.
Quality of Budget Requests. The consolidation of some of the IPIS PPAs
may make some activities less visible and give the Secretary more discretion to
transfer funds within the IPIS budget. Both the House and the Senate Appropriations
Committee criticized the level of detail and clarity of the NPPD budget justification
document and the apparent transfer of funds without their knowledge. The Senate

---

CRS-76
Appropriations Committee went further to say that the consolidation appeared to be
an effort to obfuscate. Both went on to specify lower-level line-item funding for
individual program areas within the IP and NS/EP PPAs. The Senate Appropriations
Committee also cut the NPPD’s request for its Management and Administration
account by $16 million and withheld half ($15 million) of its recommended funding
from obligation until the Committee receives and approves an expenditure plan that
has been reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.
Chemical Facility Regulations. Both the House and the Senate
Appropriations Committee were concerned about the chemical facility security
regulations developed by DHS which preempt State and local regulations. The
House bill included language that specifically prevents federal regulations from
precluding or preempting stronger State and local regulations. The Senate
Appropriations Committee included similar language, unless “there is an actual
conflict” between Section 550 of the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act of 2007 (P.L. 109-295), the provision of federal law authorizing
DHS to regulate security at chemical facilities, and the State law. The Senate
language seems to be in response to the White House Statement of Policy regarding
H.R. 2638, which “strongly opposes” the House language. One rationale given by
the White House for opposing the House language is that it would prevent the
Department from preempting State or local laws that “actually conflict with and/or
impede the Federal regulatory requirements....” The White House also stated that the
language would weaken the Department’s ability to protect information transmitted
to the Department for regulatory purposes from disclosure, although it does not
elaborate on how this would do so.
Location of Risk Management Funding. As part of the reorganization of
the National Protection and Programs Directorate, the Secretary elevated the Division
of Risk Management to the Office of Risk Management and Analysis. The Director
of the new Office reports directly to the Undersecretary for National Protection and
Programs. The President’s request included $9 million for this Office, but dispersed
these funds within each of the IPIS PPAs and the NPPD’s Management and
Administration account. The House version of the appropriations bill would fund
this Office out of the NPPD’s Management and Administration account. The Senate
Appropriations Committee did not make a comparable recommendation.
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 17 provides account-level details of Title IV appropriations.

---

CRS-77
Table 17. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2008
FY2008
Operational Component
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
House
Senate
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Total
Passed
Reported
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Total available budget authority
1,986
8
1,994
2,569
2,569
2,589
— Offsetting feesa
-1,804
—
-1,804
-2,539
-2,539
-2,539
Net subtotal (Direct appropriation)
182
8
190
30
30
50
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
275
3
278
263
263
266
Science and Technology
— Management and Administration
134
—
-1
133
143
131
141
— Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations
624
5
629
656
646
697
Net Subtotal
758 b
5
-1
762
799
777
838
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
— Management and Administration
30
—
30
34
31
32
— Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations
273
35
308
320
317
336
— Systems Acquisition
178
100
278
208
208
182
Net Subtotal
481
135
616
562
556
550
Gross budget authority: Title IV
3,500
151
3,650
4,193
4,165
4,243
— Offsetting collections: Title IV
-1,804
—
-1,804
-2,539
-2,539
-2,539
Net budget authority: Title IV
1,696
151
1,846
1,654
1,626
1,704
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-78
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)141
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.142 USCIS funds the processing and adjudication of
immigrant, nonimmigrant, refugee, asylum, and citizenship benefits largely through
monies generated by the Examinations Fee Account.143 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.144
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 18 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, $1,981 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
141 Prepared by Chad C. Haddal, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
142 CRS Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
143 §286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1356.
144 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
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-79
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 18. USCIS Budget Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
House
Senate
FY2008
Program/Project Activity
Enacted
Requested
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Appropriations
Appropriations
182b
30
30
50
Business Transformation
47
—
—
—
SAVE
21
—
—
—
EEV
114
30
30
30
FBI Background Check
—
—
—
20
Fee Accounts
Adjudication Services
1,419
1,981
1,981
1,981
Pay & Benefits
625
764
764
764
District Operating
385
552
552
552
Expenses
Service Center
267
354
354
354
Operating Expenses
Asylum/Refugee
75
91
91
91
Operating Expenses
Records Operating
67
81
81
81
Expenses
Business
139
139
139
Transformation
Information and
144
162
162
162
Customer Services
Administration
241
375
375
375
SAVE
—
21
21
21
Total USCIS Funding
1,986
2,569
2,569
2,589
Source: H.Rept. 109-699; DHS FY2008 Congressional Budget Justifications; H.R. 2638; H.Rept.
110-181; S. 1644; and S.Rept. 110-84.
a. The table does not include a proposed appropriation of $523,000 to benefit parole programs. Thus,
the total proposed appropriation in S. 1644 is $50,523,000.
b. The Table does not include a supplemental appropriation of $8 million for FY2007 included in
P.L. 110-28.

---

CRS-80
House-Passed H.R. 2638. The appropriations bills on homeland security
offer different funding proposals in the two congressional chambers. The House-
passed version of the USCIS appropriations is identical to the agency’s request, but
H.Rept. 110-181 expressed some concerns that committee members had regarding
USCIS fees and operations. The report expressed concern regarding the potential
hardship the fee increase may create for some applicants, and Members directed
USCIS to review its fees on a more regular basis.145 Moreover, the report would
require USCIS to submit a report to the committee with the FY2009 budget request
on whether the fee increase resulted in service improvements, including reductions
in USCIS adjudication times and FBI backlogs. Finally, the House Members
expressed continuing support for USCIS’ business and information technology
transformation and internal security improvements, while urging the immediate
publication of the final regulation rule on U-Visas.146
Senate-Reported S. 1644. Although identical to the President’s budget
request in all other manners, the Senate appropriations proposal would supplement
the agency’s request of $30 million for the EEV program with an additional $20.5
million in direct appropriations. Of these funds, $20 million would be appropriated
for FBI background checks, and $523,000 would be for benefit parole programs.147
In the S.Rept. 110-84, the committee members expressed their concern about the FBI
backlogs for background checks submitted by USCIS and the length of time it
currently takes to process security background checks. Additionally, the committee
would require that the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General
submit a plan to comprehensively deal with the FBI backlogs, and it would require
USCIS to submit quarterly reports on the status of USCIS application processing and
its backlog reduction plan.
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.
Scheduled Fee Increase. On May 30, 2007, USCIS published a new fee
schedule for immigration adjudications and benefits set to take effect on July 30,
2007. These fee adjustments would constitute the first fee revision since October 26,
145 H.Rept. 110-181 also directs USCIS to ensure that all its ongoing base operations are
fully funded by fees prior to initiating any new initiatives.
146 The U-Visa is a nonimmigrant visa designed for issuance to victims of domestic violence
and other heinous crimes. It was originally enacted in the Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act of 2000. (P.L.106-386)
147 According to S.Rept. 110-84, on March 31, 2007, the Secretary of Homeland Security
transferred this amount of funds to the Cuban-Haitian Entrant Program, the Moscow
Refugee Program, and the Humanitarian Parole Program within USCIS from U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of Investigations (International). The
Senate Report recommends that this transfer become permanent.

---

CRS-81
2005, and would increase application fees by a weighted average of 96% for each
benefit.148 USCIS officials claim the fee increase is necessary to maintain proper
service levels and to avoid the accumulation of backlogs.149 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.150 Fee increase
supporters contend that the proposed fee structure would help deter possible public
charges from applying for 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.151
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
65,000.152 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.153 Critics are also
concerned about delays that are allegedly caused by the FBI’s National Name Check
148 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)
149 Ibid, p. 4892.
150 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.
151 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
152 Ibid.
153 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).

---

CRS-82
Program.154 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.155 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.156 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.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)157
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
154 For example, see S.Amdt. 1228 to S. 1348.
155 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.
156 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.
157 Prepared by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy
Division.

---

CRS-83
for 4,350 USBP agents in order to add a net total of 3,000 agents to the USBP
workforce.158
House-Passed H.R. 2638. The House fully funded the Administrations
FY2008 request for FLETC. However, the House did not approve the
Administration’s proposal to replace the salaries and expenses account within
FLETC with a no-year revolving fund, asserting that “the current funding
mechanisms utilized for FLETC appear to be working well.”159
Senate-Reported S. 1644. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended $266 million for FLETC in FY2008, $3 million more than the
Administration requested. Included in the recommendation is $1 million for the
construction of a detention training facility within the Artesia, new Mexico FLETC.
Science and Technology (S&T)160
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 19 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 of
$973 million, 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). Including these transfers and a
$125 million rescission of unobligated balances, the FY2007 enacted amount was
$758 million (not including supplementals and rescissions included in P.L. 110-5 or
P.L. 110-28). 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 largely the result of reducing funding
for local and regional initiatives previously established or funded at congressional
direction.
House-Passed H.R. 2638. The House, citing unfilled staff positions in the
S&T Directorate, provided $12 million less than the request for Management and
Administration. It rejected the $14 million request for procurement of third-
generation BioWatch units in the Biological and Chemical program. It provided $10
million more than the request for University Programs and instructed the S&T
158 DHS FY2008 Congressional Budget Justification, pp. FLETC Fund 3-6.
159 H.Rept. 110-181, p. 117.
160 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Analyst in Science & Technology, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.

---

CRS-84
Directorate to report by February 1, 2008, on how it selects university Centers of
Excellence, determines the research topics for Centers, and evaluates the quality of
their work. Several other smaller changes added up to a net decrease of $10 million
in Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations.
Senate-Reported S. 1644. The Senate committee recommended an increase
of $41 million in Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations over the
request for FY2008. Within this total, reductions relative to the request included $13
million from the Biological and Chemical program and $14 million from Innovation.
Increases included $18 million for Explosives to counter car bombs and other
improvised explosive devices, $40 million for Infrastructure and Geophysical
earmarked for the Southeast Region Research Initiative and the Regional Technology
Integration initiative, and $15 million for Laboratory Facilities earmarked for Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory. The committee recommended a reduction of $2
million in Management and Administration.
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 19). 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 Office161
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 19 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.
House-Passed H.R. 2638. The House provided $26 million less than the
request for Systems Acquisition. A portion of this reduction was because DNDO has
161 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Analyst in Science and Technology, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.

---

CRS-85
reduced the number of radiation portal monitors it plans to acquire in FY2008.
another portion would reduce the Securing the Cities initiative to $10 million from
the requested level of $30 million. The House report cited delays in reaching
agreements with New York and New Jersey officials about the implementation of
this initiative. The House also reduced Management and Administration and
Research, Development, and Operations by $3 million each. The House report
directed DNDO not to procure Advanced Spectroscopic Portal (ASP) systems until
it certifies that they are more effective than traditional radiation portal monitors.
Senate-Reported S. 1644. The Senate committee recommended a reduction
of $2 million in Management and Administration, an increase of $16 million in
Research, Development, and Operations, and a reduction of $26 million in Systems
Acquisition, compared to the Administration’s request for FY2008. The largest
recommended change relative to the request was a shift of $29 million from Systems
Acquisition to Research, Development, and Operations. Of this amount, it
recommended spending $20 million on screening general aviation aircraft for illicit
nuclear materials. The committee recommended $25 million for the Securing the
Cities initiative in Systems Acquisition, along with $5 million in Research,
Development, and Operations. The committee recommended no funding for
full-scale procurement of ASP monitors until DHS provides the report and
certification called for by the FY2007 conference report (H.Rept. 109-699).
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 ASP technology for radiation
portal monitors.162
162 See, for example, Government Accountability Office, Combating Nuclear Smuggling:
DHS’s Decision to Procure and Deploy the Next Generation of Radiation Detection
Equipment Is Not Supported by Its Cost-Benefit Analysis, GAO-07-581T, testimony before
the House Committee on Homeland Security, March 14, 2007.

---

CRS-86
Table 19. Research and Development Accounts and Activities,
FY2007-FY2008
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
House
Senate
FY2008
Enacted a
Request
Passed
Reported
Final
Science and Technology
Directorate
973 b
799
777
838
Management and Administration c
135
143
131
141
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
838
656
646
697
Borders and Maritime Security
33
26
26
25
Chemical and Biological c
314
229
215
216
Command, Control, and
Interoperability d
63
64
61
62
Explosives
105
64
64
82
Human Factors
7
13
13
7
Infrastructure and Geophysical
75
24
24
64
Innovation
38
60
52
46
Laboratory Facilities
106
89
89
104
Test and Evaluation, Standards
25
26
29
24
Transition
24
25
26
24
University Programs
49
39
49
39
Homeland Security Institute
—
—
—
5
Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office
481
562
556
550
Management and Administration
30
34
31
32
Research, Development, and
Operations
273
320
317
336
Systems Acquisition
178
208
208
182
U.S. Coast Guard Research,
Development, Testing, and
Evaluation
17
18
23
26
Subtotal DHS R&D:
1,471
1,379
1,357
1,414
Rescission of unobligated funds
from prior years
-125
—
—
—
Total DHS R&D:
1,346
1,379
1,357
1,414
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 DHS congressional budget justification, H.R. 2638 as passed
by the House, S. 1644 as reported, H.Rept. 110-181, and S.Rept. 110-84.
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.

---

CRS-87
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. Including a rescission of $125 million, and the transfers outlined in notes c & d (below), the
FY2007 amount is $758 million.
c. 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.
d. 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. The House
and Senate appointed conferees to resolve the differences between the two
resolutions and adopted a conference agreement on May 16, 2007. The House and
Senate adopted the conference report (H.Rept. 110-153) on May 17, 2007. The
conference report provides $954 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-88
Appendix I. FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations
and Rescissions
P.L. 110-28 (H.R. 2206) — U.S. Troop Readiness, Veteran’s
Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007163
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. The House passed H.R. 2206 on May 10,
2007. On May 17, 2007, the Senate adopted an amendment in the nature of a
substitute (S.Amdt. 1126) which contained no specific funding figures.164 On May
24, 2007, the House adopted two amendments to the Senate amendment which were
adopted by the Senate later that day. P.L. 110-28 was signed into law by the
President on May 25, 2007.
P.L. 110-28. P.L. 110-28 provides a total of $5,190 million for DHS agencies
and accounts. Provisions providing funding for DHS are contained in Titles II, III,
IV, and V. Title II provides an additional $3,400 million for the FEMA disaster
relief. Title III provides the following amounts:
! Analysis and Operations — $8 million;
! CBP Salaries and Expenses — $72 million;
! CBP AMO Operations and Procurement — $75 million;
! FLETC — $3 million;
! ICE Salaries and Expenses — $6 million;
! TSA Aviation Security — $390 million;
! TSA Federal Air Marshals — $5 million;
! NPPD Office of Health Affairs — $8 million;
! NPPD IPIS — $24 million;
! FEMA Management and Administration — $14 million;
! FEMA State and Local Programs — $247 million;
! FEMA Emergency Management Performance Grants — $50
million;
! USCIS — $8 million;
! S&T Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations — $5
million;
! DNDO Research, Development, and Operations — $35 million; and
! DNDO Systems Acquisition — $100 million.
163 For more detailed information concerning H.R. 2206 see CRS Report RL33900, FY2007
Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, Foreign Affairs, and Other Purposes, by Stephen
Daggett, Amy Belasco, Pat Towell, Susan B. Epstein, Connie Veillette, Curt Tarnoff, Rhoda
Margesson, and Bart Elias.
164 See CRS summary of S.Amdt. 1126 to H.R. 2206 at [http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/
bdquery/z?d110:HR02206:@@@D&summ2=m&:dbs=n:].

---

CRS-89
Title IV of H.R. 2206 provides a total of $710 million to DHS. Of this amount, $4
million is for the DHS OIG and $706 million is for FEMA disaster relief. Section
6401 of Title V of H.R. 2206 makes up to $30 million in unobligated USCG Retired
Pay balances available until expended. Section 5404(a) of Title IV of H.R. 2206
rescinds funds from several different DHS accounts totaling approximately $31
million. Section 5404(b) provides 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.
House-passed H.R. 2206. DHS funding provisions contained in the House-
passed version of H.R. 2206 were 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 contained funding provisions pertaining to DHS accounts. H.R.
2206 would have provided a total of $6,851 million for DHS. Title II would have
provided 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 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 5401 of Title IV of H.R. 2206 would have made up to $30 million in
unobligated USCG Retired Pay balances available until expended. Section 5404(a)
of Title IV of H.R. 2206 would have rescinded funds from several different DHS
accounts totaling approximately $31 million. Section 5404(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-90
H.R. 1591 — U.S. Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Health,
and Iraq Accountability Act165
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;
165 For more detailed information concerning H.R. 1591 see CRS Report RL33900, FY2007
Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, Foreign Affairs, and Other Purposes, by Stephen
Daggett, Amy Belasco, Pat Towell, Susan B. Epstein, Connie Veillette, Curt Tarnoff, Rhoda
Margesson, and Bart Elias.

---

CRS-91
! FEMA Emergency Management Performance Grants — $100
million;
! 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-92
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 20 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-93
Table 20. 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

---