Order Code RL34482
Homeland Security Department:
FY2009 Request for Appropriations
May 6, 2008
Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto, Coordinators,
Sarah A. Lister, 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:
FY2009 Request for Appropriations
Summary
This report describes the FY2009 appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). The Administration requested a net appropriation of
$38.8 billion in budget authority for FY2009. The requested net appropriation for
major components of the department included the following: $9,487 million for
Customs and Border Protection (CBP); $4,748 million for Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE); $4,057 million for the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA); $9,071 million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,414 million for the Secret
Service; $1,286 for the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPP); $5,573
million for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); $151 million for
US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); $869 million for the Science and
Technology Directorate (S&T); and $564 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (DNDO).
This report will be updated as legislative action occurs.

---

Key Policy Staff: Department of 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
Jennifer E. Lake
7-0620
jlake@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.
Blas Nuñez-Neto
7-0622
bnunezneto@crs.loc.gov
VISIT, and the Border Patrol
Secret Service, Federal
Shawn Reese
7-0635
sreese@crs.loc.gov
Protective Service
Transportation Security
Bartholomew Elias
7-7771
belias@crs.loc.gov
Administration
Title III, Preparedness and Recovery
FEMA
Keith Bea
7-8672
kbea@crs.loc.gov
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
Sarah Lister
7-7320
slister@crs.loc.gov
MMRS, Disability
Coordinator
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
Chad C. Haddal
7-3701
chaddal@crs.loc.gov
Services
Science and Technology,
Daniel Morgan
7-5849
dmorgan@crs.loc.gov
DNDO

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
President’s FY2009 Budget Submitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Note on Most Recent Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Offsetting Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
DHS Appropriations Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Summary of DHS Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Personnel Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Analysis and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Hiring U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Covered Law Enforcement Officer Status for CBP Officers . . . . 24
Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Container Security Initiative (CSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Detention and Removal Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
State and Local Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Federal Protective Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
TSA Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Passenger Security Fee Surcharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Checkpoint Technology Investment and Deployment . . . . . . . . . 35
Program Consolidation Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Secure Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
United States Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

---

Deepwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Security Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Non-Homeland Security Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Marine Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Rescue-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
LORAN-C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Bridge Alteration Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
U.S. Secret Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Secret Service Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Title III: Preparedness and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
FEMA Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Disaster Temporary Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Disaster Logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
FEMA Work Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Office of Grant Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Office of Grant Programs Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Reduction in State and Local Assistance Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Reduction in Assistance to Firefighter Program Funding . . . . . . 54
Office of Health Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Office of Health Affairs Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
National Protection and Programs Directorate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Management and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) . . . . 57
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
10 Fingerprint Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Exit Component at Air and Sea Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
IPIS Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services . . . 61
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
USCIS Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Surge in Benefit Applications and Resulting Backlog . . . . . . . . . 65
Use of FBI National Name Check Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Science and Technology (S&T) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

---

President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
FY2009-Related Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Budget Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Appendix A. Emergency Funding for Border Security in The
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Distribution of FY2008 Emergency Border Security Funding in Division
E — DHS of P.L. 110-161 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
CBP FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . 71
ICE FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . 72
U.S. Coast Guard FY2008 Emergency Border Security
Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(USVISIT) FY2008 Emergency Border Security
Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
State and Local Programs FY2008 Emergency Border
Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
USCIS FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations . . . . . . . 73
FLETC FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations . . . . . . . 73
Distribution of FY2008 Emergency Border Security Funding in Division
B — Commerce, Justice, Science of P.L. 110-161 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Department of Justice (DOJ) FY2008 Emergency Border
Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Distribution of FY2008 Emergency Border Security Funding in Division
D — Financial Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
General Services Administration (GSA) FY2008 Emergency
Border Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Courts of Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services,
FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . 74
Appendix B. DHS Appropriations in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Federal-Wide Homeland Security Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
List of Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 2. FY2009 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 3. FY2009 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to
Net Appropriation — Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust and
Public Enterprise Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 6. Title I: Department Management and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 7. Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer and Office of Human
Capital Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 10. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 11. TSA Gross Budget Authority, by Budget Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

---

Table 12. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-account
Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table 13. U.S. Secret Service Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 14. Title III: Preparedness and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 15. State and Local Homeland Security Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Table 16. FY2009 Budget Activity for the Management and
Administration Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Table 17. FY2009 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure Protection and
Information Security Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table 18. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments,
and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 19. USCIS Budget Account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table 20. Directorate of Science and Technology Accounts and Activities,
FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Table 21. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Accounts and Activities,
FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table 22. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2003-FY2009 . . 77

---

Homeland Security Department:
FY2009 Request for Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
President’s FY2009 Budget Submitted. The President’s budget request
for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for FY2009 was submitted to
Congress on February 4, 2008. The Administration requested $50.5 billion in gross
budget authority for FY2009 (including mandatories, fees, and funds). The
Administration’s request includes gross appropriations of $46.8 billion, and a net
appropriation of $38.8 billion in budget authority for FY2009, of which $37.6 billion
is discretionary budget authority, and $1.2 billion is mandatory budget authority. The
FY2008 enacted net appropriated budget authority for DHS was $38.8 billion ($41.7
billion including supplemental appropriations).
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland
Security Appropriations
Subcommittee
Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate
Confr.
Public
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
Law
Note: (vv) = voice vote, (uc) = unanimous consent.
Note on Most Recent Data. Data used in this report include data from the
President’s Budget Documents, the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget
Justifications, and the FY2009 DHS Budget in Brief. Data used in Table 21 are
taken from the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2009 President’s Budget.
These amounts do not correspond to amounts presented in Tables 4-20, from the
FY2009 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 FY2009 request for funding for DHS
programs and activities, as submitted to Congress on February 4, 2008. It compares
the enacted FY2008 amounts to the request for FY2009, and tracks legislative action
and congressional issues related to the FY2009 DHS appropriations bills with
particular attention paid to discretionary funding amounts. The report does not

---

CRS-2
follow specific funding issues related to mandatory funding — such as retirement pay
— nor does the report systematically follow any legislation related to the
authorization or amendment of DHS programs.
Department of Homeland Security
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred the functions,
relevant funding, and most of the personnel of 22 agencies and offices to the new
Department of Homeland Security created by the act. Appropriations measures for
DHS have been organized into five titles: Title I Departmental Management and
Operations; Title II Security, Enforcement, and Investigations; Title III Preparedness
and Recovery; Title IV Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and
Services; and Title V general provisions.
Title I contains appropriations for the Office of Management, the Office of the
Secretary, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Analysis and Operations (A&O),
the Office of 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 FY2008
appropriation transferred US-VISIT, as proposed by the Administration, to the newly
created National Protection & Programs Directorate (NPPD) in Title III. Division
E of P.L. 110-161, the DHS Appropriations Act, 2008, enacted this reorganization,
which is reflected by the FY2009 request.
Through the FY2007 appropriation, Title III contained appropriations for the
Preparedness Directorate, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS)
and the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). The President’s
FY2008 request included a proposal to shift a number of programs and offices to
eliminate the Preparedness Directorate, create the NPPD, and move several programs
to FEMA. These changes were largely agreed to by Congress in the FY2008
appropriation, reflected by Title III in Division E of P.L. 110-161. The FY2009
request also reflects this reorganization.
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

---

CRS-3
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. There is as yet no budget resolution for FY2009. Table 2 shows DHS’
302(b) allocations for FY2008 and the current appropriations cycle.
Table 2. FY2009 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009 Request
FY2009 House
FY2009 Senate
FY2009 Enacted
Comparable
Comparable
Allocation
Allocation
Comparable
$38.7
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications.
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays
Federal government spending involves a multi-step process that begins with the
enactment of budget authority by Congress. Federal agencies then obligate funds
from the enacted budget authority to pay for their activities. Finally, payments are
made to liquidate those obligations; the actual payment amounts are reflected in the
budget as outlays.
Budget authority is established through appropriations acts or direct spending
legislation and determines the amounts that are available for federal agencies to
spend. The Antideficiency Act1 prohibits federal agencies from obligating more
funds than the budget authority that was enacted by Congress. Budget authority may
be indefinite, however, when Congress enacts language providing “such sums as may
be necessary” to complete a project or purpose. Budget authority may be available
on a one-year, multi-year, or no-year basis. One-year budget authority is only
available for obligation during a specific fiscal year; any unobligated funds at the end
of that year are no longer available for spending. Multi-year budget authority
specifies a range of time during which funds can be obligated for spending; no-year
budget authority is available for obligation for an indefinite period of time.
Obligations are incurred when federal agencies employ personnel, enter into
contracts, receive services, and engage in similar transactions in a given fiscal year.
1 31 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517.

---

CRS-4
Outlays are the funds that are actually spent during the fiscal year.2 Because multi-
year and no-year budget authorities may be obligated over a number of years, outlays
do not always match the budget authority enacted in a given year. Additionally,
budget authority may be obligated in one fiscal year but spent in a future fiscal year,
especially with certain contracts.
In sum, budget authority allows federal agencies to incur obligations and
authorizes payments, or outlays, to be made from the Treasury. Discretionary
agencies and programs, and appropriated entitlement programs, are funded each year
in appropriations acts.
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending
Gross budget authority, or the total funds available for spending by a federal
agency, may be composed of discretionary and mandatory spending. Of the $46.4
billion gross budget authority requested for DHS in FY2009, 82% is composed of
discretionary spending and 18% is composed of mandatory spending.
Discretionary spending is not mandated by existing law and is thus appropriated
yearly by Congress through appropriations acts. The Budget Enforcement Act of
19903 defines discretionary appropriations as budget authority provided in annual
appropriation acts and the outlays derived from that authority, but it excludes
appropriations for entitlements. Mandatory spending, also known as direct spending,
consists of budget authority and resulting outlays provided in laws other than
appropriation acts and is typically not appropriated each year. However, some
mandatory entitlement programs must be appropriated each year and are included in
the appropriations acts. Within DHS, the Coast Guard retirement pay is an example
of appropriated mandatory spending.
Offsetting Collections4
Offsetting funds are collected by the federal government, either from
government accounts or the public, as part of a business-type transaction such as
offsets to outlays or collection of a fee. These funds are not counted as revenue.
Instead, they are counted as negative outlays. DHS net discretionary budget
authority, or the total funds that are appropriated by Congress each year, is composed
of discretionary spending minus any fee or fund collections that offset discretionary
spending.
Some collections offset a portion of an agency’s discretionary budget authority.
Other collections offset an agency’s mandatory spending. They are typically
2 Appropriations, outlays, and account balances for government treasury accounts can be
viewed in the end of year reports published by the U.S. Treasury titled Combined Statement
of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government. The DHS portion of
the report can be accessed at [http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/cs2005/c18.pdf].
3 P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.
4 Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff Jr., Analyst in American National Government.

---

CRS-5
entitlement programs under which individuals, businesses, or units of government
that meet the requirements or qualifications established by law are entitled to receive
certain payments if they establish eligibility. The DHS budget features two
mandatory entitlement programs: the Secret Service and the Coast Guard retired pay
accounts (pensions). Some entitlements are funded by permanent appropriations,
others by annual appropriations. The Secret Service retirement pay is a permanent
appropriation and as such is not annually appropriated, whereas the Coast Guard
retirement pay is annually appropriated. In addition to these entitlements, the DHS
budget contains offsetting Trust and Public Enterprise Funds. These funds are not
appropriated by Congress. They are available for obligation and included in the
President’s budget to calculate the gross budget authority.
Table 3 tabulates all of the offsets within the DHS budget as enacted for
FY2008 and in the FY2009 request.
Table 3. FY2009 Request: Moving From Gross Budget
Authority to Net Appropriation — Fee Accounts, Offsetting
Fees, and Trust and Public Enterprise Accounts
(budget authority in millions)
FY2008
FY2009
Account/Agency
Account Name
Enacted
Request
DHS gross budget authoritya
52,915
50,502
(gross discretionary + fees+ mandatory + funds)
Discretionary fee funded offsets
ICE
Federal Protective Service
613
616
Aviation security fees
2,113
2,329
TWIC
64
9
TSA
Hazmat
18
18
Registered Traveler
4
10
FEMA/EPR
National Flood Insurance Fund
111
157
CBP
Small airports
7
7
Subtotal discretionary fee funded offsets
2,930
3,146
Mandatory fee funded offsets
Immigration inspection
562
570
Immigration enforcement
3
3
Land border
27
27
CBP
COBRA
392
411
APHIS
321
333
Puerto Rico
98
97
ICE
Immigration inspection
114
118
SEVIS
56
75
Breached bond detention fund
64
120

---

CRS-6
FY2008
FY2009
Account/Agency
Account Name
Enacted
Request
TSA
Aviation security capital fund
250
676
Checkpoint screening security fund
250
—
Alien flight school background checks
3
3
USCIS
Immigration examination fee
2,495
2,495
H1b, and H1b & L fees
44
44
Subtotal mandatory fee funded offsets
4,679
4,972
Mandatory budget authority
Secret service
Secret service retired payb
210
225
Coast guard
Coast guard retired payc
(1,185)
(1,237)
Subtotal mandatory budget authority
210
225
Trust funds and public enterprise funds
CBP
Customs unclaimed goods
6
6
FEMA
National Flood Insurance Fundd
2,833
3,037
Boat safety
133
125
Coast Guard
Oil spill recovery
147
149
Subtotal trust and public enterprise funds
3,119
3,317
DHS gross budget authoritya
52,915
50,502
Total offsets
-10,938
-11,660
Rescissions
-262
—
Emergency Supplemental (P.L. 110-116)
-2,900
—
DHS net appropriated BA (Mandatory + Discretionary)
38,817
38,843
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2009 President’s Budget, and the DHS FY2009 Budget in Brief.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. DHS gross budget authority is the total budget authority available to the Department in a given
fiscal year. This amount includes both appropriated and non-appropriated funding.
b. Secret Service Retired Pay is permanently and indefinitely authorized, and as such is not annually
appropriated. Therefore it is offset in Table 3.
c. In contrast to Secret Service Retired Pay, Coast Guard Retired pay must be annually appropriated,
and therefore is not offset in Table 3.
d. This fund is comprised of both discretionary and mandatory appropriations; thus its component
parts appear twice in this table.

---

CRS-7
Appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security
DHS Appropriations Trends
Table 4 presents DHS Appropriations, as enacted, for FY2003 through the
FY2009 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. FY2008 is from the Joint Explanatory Statement
for Division E of P.L. 110-161, and FY2009 is from the FY2009 DHS Budget
Justifications.
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2009
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2009
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Enacted
request
29,069a
30,175b
30,554c
31,679
35,311d
38,817
38,843
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; FY2007
appropriation amounts are from the H.Rept. 110-181; and FY2008 enacted amounts are from Division
E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint Explanatory Statement for Division E, published in the
Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating amendments to the
budget request).
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, recommended by the House and Senate, and enacted for FY2008.

---

CRS-8
Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Operational Component
Enacteda
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Title I: Departmental Operations
Subtotal: Title I
986
986
1,187
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
Customs and Border Protection
9,423
9,423
9,487
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
4,735
4,735
4,748
Transportation Security Administration
4,118
4,118
4,057
U.S. Coast Guard
8,627
8,627
9,071
U.S. Secret Service
1,385
1,385
1,414
Net subtotal: Title II
28,287
28,287
28,778
Total fee collections
4,958
4,958
5,421
Gross subtotal: Title II
33,245
33,245
34,199
Title III: Preparedness and Recovery
National Protection & Programs Directorate
1,177
1,177
1,286
Office of Health Affairs
117
117
161
Counter Terrorism Fund
—
—
—
Federal Emergency Management Administration
6,826
2,900b
9,726
5,573
Net subtotal: Title III
8,120
11,020
7,020
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and
Services
Citizenship and Immigration Services
81
81
151
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
289
289
274
Science and Technology
830
830
869
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
485
485
564

---

CRS-9
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Operational Component
Enacteda
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Net subtotal: Title IV
1,685
1,685
1,857
Total fee collections
2,539
2,539
2,539
Gross subtotal: Title IV
4,224
4,224
4,396
Title V: General Provisions
Rescissions -262
-262

—
Department of Homeland Security Appropriation
Gross DHS budget authority
46,314
2,900b
49,214
46,803
Total fee collections
-7,497
—
-7,497
-7,960
Net DHS budget authority
38,817
2,900b
41,717
38,843
Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
b. $2,900 million in FY2008 emergency supplemental funding for Disaster Relief enacted by Division B - Sec. 158 of P.L. 110-28, The Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2008.

---

CRS-10
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations5
Title I covers the general administrative expenses of DHS. It includes the Office
of the Secretary and Executive Management (OS&EM), which is comprised of the
immediate Office of the Secretary and 12 entities that report directly to the Secretary;
the Undersecretary for Management (USM) and its components, such as the offices
of the Chief Administrative Services Officer, Chief Human Capital Officer, and
Chief Procurement Officer; the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO); the
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO); Analysis and Operations Office
(AOO); Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding (OFCGCR);
and Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Table 6 shows Title I appropriations for
FY2008 and congressional action on the request for FY2009.
President’s FY2009 Request. FY2009 requests relative to comparable
FY2008 enacted appropriations were as follow: OS&EM, $127 million, an increase
of $30 million (+31%); USM, $321 million, an increase of $176 million (+121%);
OCFO, $56 million, an increase of $25 million (+81%); OCIO, $247 million, a
decrease of $48 million (-16%); AOO, $334 million, an increase of $28 million
(+9%); OFCGCR, .25 million, a decrease of approximately $3 million (-90%); and
OIG, $101 million, a decrease of $8 million (-7%). The total FY2009 request for
Title I was $1,187 million. This represents an increase of $201 million (+20%) over
the FY2008 enacted level.
Of the amounts requested, the largest increase would occur in the USM, which
is seeking $120 million for the planned consolidation of DHS executive program
leadership on the West Campus of the Saint Elizabeth’s Hospital grounds in
accordance with the DHS National Capital Region Housing Master Plan signed by
the Secretary on October 25, 2006. The consolidation includes up to 4.5 million
gross square feet of office space at the Saint Elizabeth’s site. Other areas of
increased USM funding include department-wide program management teams ($4
million), the department-wide acquisition intern program ($3 million), and increased
counterintelligence and security needs ($1 million). A small increase in USM
funding is being sought to provide added support for the Deputy Under Secretary for
Management for the transition process.
Formed in 2002, DHS has not previously been through a presidential transition.
Many of its principal components, however, have done so, some several times over.
For example, the United States Secret Service began as a Treasury Department
bureau in 1865; the Bureau of Immigration, which grew into the Bureau of
Immigration and Naturalization and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, was
established in the Treasury Department in 1891;6 the United States Coast Guard was
statutorily chartered in 1915;7 the Bureau of Customs was created in the Treasury
5 Prepared by Harold C. Relyea, Specialist in American National Government, Government
and Finance Division.
6 26 Stat. 1085.
7 38 Stat. 800.

---

CRS-11
Department in 1927;8 and the Federal Emergency Management Agency was
mandated by E.O. 12127 of March 31, 1979.9 At DHS, the Under Secretary for
Management has responsibility for, “before December 1 of any year in which a
Presidential election is held, the development of a transition and succession plan, to
be made available to the incoming Secretary and Under Secretary for Management,
to guide the transition of management functions to a new Administration.”10
On January 10, 2008, in response to a request of the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Homeland Security Advisory Council issued a report by its
Administration Transition Task Force. The panel’s recommendations regarding
transition preparation addressed seven broad areas: threat awareness, leadership,
congressional oversight/action, policy, operations, succession, and training.11 Details
about the implementation of the panel’s recommendations are not available for
security reasons, according to DHS.
8 44 Stat. 1381.
9 3 C.F.R., 1979 Comp., pp. 376-377.
10 6 U.S.C. §341(a)(9)(B).
11 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Advisory Council, Report of
the Administration Transition Task Force (Washington: January 2008), available at
[http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hsac_ATTF_Report.pdf].

---

CRS-12
Table 6. Title I: Department Management and Operations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Operational Component
Enacteda
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
97
97
127
Office of Screening Coordination and Operations
—
—
—
Office of the Undersecretary for Management
145b
145
321
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
31
31
56
Office of the Chief Information Officer
295
295
247
Analysis and Operations
306c
306c
334
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding
3
3
— e
Office of the Inspector General
109d
109d
101
Net Budget Authority: Title I
986
986
1,187
Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
b. Includes an unspecified $5 million reduction per P.L. 110-161.
c. Per P.L. 110-161 Does not include $9 million rescission of prior year balances appropriated by P.L. 109-295.
d. Includes a $14 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.
e. $250,000 was requested for the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding in FY2009; this table only shows millions, however.

---

CRS-13
Personnel Issues.12 The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer
(OCHCO) manages and administers human resources at DHS and includes the Office
of Human Capital (OHC). The OCHCO reports to the Under Secretary for
Management, and its appropriation is included in that of the Under Secretary. The
office “establishes policy and procedures” and “provides oversight, guidance, and
leadership for human resources functions, including learning and development.” The
OHC designs and implements human resources programs, including their strategy
and technology components, and the response to the issues identified in the Federal
Human Capital Survey (FHCS).
The FY2009 budget requests $48 million13 and 86 full-time equivalent (FTE)
employees for the OCHCO and the OHC. The requested funding is $29 million
above the $19 million provided for FY2008. The number of FTEs would increase
by 33 over the 53 authorized for FY2008. An appropriation is not requested for the
new human resources management system (MAX-HR) that was authorized in P.L.
107-296.14
Table 7 below shows the funding and staff for the OCHCO and the OHC as
enacted in FY2008, and as requested for FY2009.
12 Prepared by Barbara L. Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division.
13 Salaries and benefits ($11.1 million) and other services ($28 million) account for some
81% of the total of $48.1 million. Other services include contractual services with non-
federal sources.
14 Title VIII, Subtitle E, Section 841 of P.L. 107-296, enacted on November 25, 2002 (116
Stat. 2135, at 2229-2234), established a new human resources system for DHS that, to date,
has not been fully implemented. DHS and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
jointly published final regulations to implement the system 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 Max-HR Personnel System:
Regulations on Classification, Pay, and Performance Management Compared With Current
Law, and Implementation Plans, by Barbara L. Schwemle; and CRS Report RL32255,
Homeland Security: Final Regulations for the Department of Homeland Security Human
Resources Management System (Subpart E) Compared With Current Law, by Jon O.
Shimabukuro.) However, shortly after the regulations were issued, the National Treasury
Employees Union (“NTEU”) and several other labor organizations filed a lawsuit alleging
that DHS and OPM exceeded the authority granted to them under the Homeland Security
Act. 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.
Section 511 of H.R. 1684, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for
FY2008, as passed by the House of Representatives, would repeal the authority for the
department’s new personnel system and render void any regulations prescribed thereunder.
The bill passed the House on a 296-126 (Roll No. 318) vote on May 9, 2007, but no further
action has occurred.

---

CRS-14
Table 7. Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer and Office of
Human Capital Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Account
FY2008 Enacted
FY2009 Request
Salaries and Expenses CHCO
$9
$48
Max-HR System
0
0
Human Resources — Operational
$10a
0
Initiatives and HR Management Systems
Total
$19
$48
Staffing (full time equivalent, FTE,
53
86
positions)
Sources: P.L. 110-161, December 26, 2007; and FY2009 DHS Justifications, Departmental
Management and Operations, Undersecretary for Management, Office of the Chief Human Capital
Officer, p. USM-7.
a. According to the explanatory statement accompanying the consolidated appropriations act, DHS
is directed to ensure that this appropriation is used for “programs that directly address the
shortcomings identified in [the 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey] or in a subsequent DHS
survey that the Department plans to conduct.” These programs could include the “planned DHS
survey, gap analysis of mission critical occupations, hiring and retention strategies, robust
diversity programs, and Department-wide education and training initiatives.” The Secretary must
submit a plan for expending the funds prior to their obligation. (Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 153, December 17, 2007, p. H16079.)
The justification that accompanied the DHS budget request for FY2009 states
that the increased funding will be used for continued support of the learning and
development strategy to train the department’s workforce through the Preparedness
Center, the Leadership Institute, the Homeland Security Academy, and the Center for
Academic and Interagency Outreach. The requested appropriation also will be used
to fund the continued modernization of the human resources systems, including
eRecruitment and ePerformance, “to implement a prototype pay for performance plan
for a limited number of DHS employees,” and to invest in diversity and recruitment
and retention programs.15
Under the leadership of the OHC, the department will “monitor and evaluate the
implementation of the performance management system.” Initiatives related to the
diversity of the DHS workforce will include finalizing and implementing the
diversity strategy; outreach to colleges, universities, organizations, and professional
associations; training on diversity; increased diversity among the department’s
executives; and improved outreach to veterans.16
The OHC will conduct an internal survey of DHS employees, analyze the
results, and develop a plan to address any concerns. It will determine current and
15 DHS Justifications, Undersecretary for Management, pp. USM-4-USM-5.
16 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary for
Management, Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, p. USM-7.

---

CRS-15
future staffing needs for mission critical occupations, analyze employee turnover and
attrition using methods such as exit interviews and surveys, and link the results of
that analysis to training and strategies for recruitment and retention.17 With regard
to fostering better results on the FHCS, the office will focus on developing and
monitoring policies and programs that will improve the work environment and
perceptions of employees. According to its Annual Performance Report for Fiscal
Years 2007-2009, DHS has established a target of achieving a 50% favorable
response rate on the FHCS.18
In FY2009, the OHC will convert 23 contractor positions to federal positions
to provide the office with a workforce that is stable and cost effective and “to
perform ongoing initiatives and provide depth” in issue areas. Furthermore,
according to DHS, the conversions will enable the OHC “to broaden and sustain its
diversity, veteran outreach, recruiting and retention, employee morale, service
delivery,” and management of human resources lines of business. A challenge that
will face the department in FY2009 is the transition to a new Administration.19 In a
February 7, 2008, letter to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, Representative Bennie
G. Thompson, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, requested
that the Secretary “issue a policy directive to prohibit the ‘burrowing in’ of political
appointees into non-political career positions within the Department” within 60 days.
Representative Thompson stated that he was “sure that [the Secretary] would agree
that it would be inappropriate to fill career non-political executive level positions
with political appointees absent an open and fully competitive process.”20
The OHC will use the savings that accrue from conversion of the contractor
positions to fund services such as responding to the FHCS, conducting a survey of
employee morale, and responding to its findings. Its contracts will focus “on short
term projects to meet surge requirements, one-time infrastructure costs, and areas
where expertise is not easily obtained ... or would be more cost effective if provided
by contractors.”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
17 Ibid., p. USM-16.
18 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Annual Performance Report Fiscal Years 2007-
2009 (Washington: DHS, [February 4, 2008]), p. 82.
19 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary for
Management, Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, pp. 7-8.
20 Letter from Representative Bennie G. Thompson to the Honorable Michael Chertoff,
February 7, 2008.
21 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary for
Management, Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, pp. 7-8.
22 Prepared by Jennifer E. Lake, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy
Division.

---

CRS-16
perspective, there have been a number of changes to the information, intelligence
analysis, and infrastructure protection functions at DHS. Pursuant to the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP)
Directorate was established. The act created an Undersecretary for IAIP to whom
two Assistant Secretaries, one each for Information Analysis (IA) and Infrastructure
Protection (IP), reported. The act outlined 19 functions for the IAIP Directorate,
including 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 Pursuant to the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53, signed August
3, 2007), a number of amendments to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (codified
at 6 U.S.C. 201) related to homeland security intelligence were made. Among these
changes, the law provided statutory standing to the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis and the Office of Infrastructure Protection. The Office of Intelligence and
Analysis is to be headed by an Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, who
will also serve as the Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer.25
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.
25 See P.L. 110-53, Title V, “Improving intelligence and information sharing within the
federal government, and with State, local and tribal governments,” Subtitle D, “Homeland
(continued...)

---

CRS-17
President’s FY2009 Request. The FY2009 request for the Analysis and
Operations (AO) account is $334 million, an increase of $28 million (+9%) over the
enacted FY2008 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 information from DHS, state and local stakeholders, and
the intelligence community into finished intelligence products such as threat
assessments and other indications and warning documents. As a member of the
Intelligence Community, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis’s budget is
classified. The Office of Operations Coordination formally houses the National
Operations Center which, among other functions, disseminates OIA assessed threat
information, provides domestic situational awareness, and performs incident
management on behalf of the Department.
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations
Title II contains the appropriations for the 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 appropriation action
for Title II.
25 (...continued)
security intelligence offices reorganization.”

---

CRS-18
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Operational Component
Enacteda
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Customs & Border Protection
Salaries and expenses
6,803
6,803
7,309
Automation modernization
477
477
511
Air and Marine Operations
570
570
528
Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology
1,225
1,225
775
Construction 348
348
364
Fee accountsb
1,409c
1,409c
1,448
Gross total
10,832
10,832
10,935
Offsetting collections
-1,409
-1,409
-1,448
Net total
9,423
9,423
9,487
Immigration & Customs Enforcement
Salaries and expenses
4,688
4,688
4,691
Federal Protective Services (FPS)
613
613
616
Automation & infrastructure modernization
31
31
57
Construction
17
17
—
Fee accountsd
234
234
312
Gross total
5,581
5,581
5,676
Offsetting FPS fees
-613
-613
-616
Offsetting collections
-234
-234
-312
Net total
4,735
4,735
4,748
Transportation Security Administration
Aviation security (gross funding)
4,809
4,809
5,290
Surface Transportation Security
47
47
37

---

CRS-19
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Operational Component
Enacteda
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing
83
83
133
Credentialing Feese
89
89
40
Transportation Security Support
524
524
926
Federal Air Marshals
770
770
—
Aviation security capital fundf
250
250
676
Checkpoint screening security fund
250
250
—
Rescission
—
—
—
Gross total
6,820
6,820
7,102
Offsetting collections
-2,113
-2,113
-2,329
Credentialing/Fee accounts
-89
-89
-40
Aviation security capital fund (mandatory spending)
-250
-250
-676
Checkpoint screening security fund
-250
-250
—
Net total
4,118
4,118
4,057
U.S. Coast Guard
Operating expenses
6,001
6,001
6,213
Environmental compliance & restoration
13
13
12
Reserve training
127
127
131
Acquisition, construction, & improvements
988g
988
1,205
Alteration of bridges
16
16
—
Research, development, tests, & evaluation
25
25
16
Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement)
1,185
1,185
1,237
Health care fund contribution
272
272
257
Gross total
8,627
8,627
9,071
U.S. Secret Service
Salaries and expenses
1,382
1,382
1,411
Investigations and field operations
—
—
—

---

CRS-20
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Operational Component
Enacteda
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Acquisition, construction, improvements, and related
expenses
4
4
4
Gross total
1,385
1,385
1,414
Gross Budget Authority: Title II
33,245
33,245
34,199
Offsetting collections:
-4,458
-4,958
-5,421
Net Budget Authority: Title II
28,287
28,287
28,778
Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, and the FY2009 Budget-in-Brief.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
b. Fees include COBRA, Land Border, Immigration Inspection, Immigration Enforcement, and Puerto Rico.
c. The President’s FY2009 Budget Request includes a re-estimate of the FY2008 fees.
d. Fees include Exam, Student Exchange and Visitor Fee, Breached Bond, Immigration User, and Land Border.
e. Fees include TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks.
f. Aviation Security Capital Fund, used for installation of Explosive Detection Systems at airports.
g. FY2008 request and House-passed H.R. 2638 include a proposed rescission of $49 million. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 includes a proposed rescission of $57 million of funds previously
appropriated by P.L. 109-90 and P.L. 109-295. Division E of P.L. 110-161 includes a rescission of $133 million in funds previously appropriated by P.L. 108-334, P.L. 109-90,
and P.L. 109-295.

---

CRS-21
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)26
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 FY2008 and FY2009.
President’s FY2009 Request. The Administration requested an
appropriation of $10,935 million in gross budget authority for CBP for FY2009,
amounting to an $103 million, or 1%, increase over the enacted FY2008 level of
$10,832 million. The Administration requested $9,847 million in net budget
authority for CBP in FY2009, which amounts to a $424 million, or 4%, increase over
the net FY2008 appropriation of $9,423 million.
Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Activity
Enacteda
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Headquarters Management and
Administration
1,221
1,267
Border Security Inspections and
Trade Facilitation @ POE
2,279
2,273
Inspections, Trade & Travel
Facilitation @ POE
1,854
1,835
Container Security Initiative (CSI)/
International Cargo Screening (ICS)
156
149
Other International Programs
11
11
C-TPAT
62
64
FAST/NEXUS/SENTRI
11
11
Inspection and Detection Technology
105
117
Systems for Targeting
28
33
National Targeting Center
24
24
26 Prepared by Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analysts in Domestic Security,
Domestic Social Policy Division.

---

CRS-22
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Activity
Enacteda
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Training at POE
25
25
Harbor Maintenance Fee
3
3
Border Security and Control
Between POE
3,075
3,515
Border Security and Control Between
POE
3,022
3,441
Training Between the POE
53
75
Air and Marine Operations - Salaries
227
254
CBP Salaries and Expenses Total:
6,803
7,309
Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, and the FY2009
Budget-in-Brief.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L.
110-161.
Issues for Congress. Issues that may be of interest to Congress during the
FY2009 appropriations cycle include funding for and deployment of the border fence
and the Secure Border Initiative (SBI); Border Patrol hiring and staffing levels; the
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI); the designation of CBP Officers as
law enforcement officers for retirement purposes; and the declining request for
appropriations for some cargo security initiatives.
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology. The Administration requested
$775 million for the deployment of SBInet27 related technologies and infrastructures
in FY2009, a decrease of $450 million over the FY2008 enacted level of $1,225
million.28 Within the FY2009 request, the Administration is proposing to allocate
$275 million for developing and deploying additional technology and infrastructure
solutions to the southwest border. An additional $410 million is requested for
operations and maintenance of the cameras, sensors, and fencing that will have been
27 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.
28 The FY2008 total enacted appropriation of for SBInet was $1,225 million; this total
included an emergency appropriation of $1,053 million. However this may be somewhat
misleading because the FY2008 request for the account, which had been fully funded by
both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriation, was $1,000 million. The amount
of additional funding (above the request) provided in FY2008 was thus $225 million and not
$1,053 million.

---

CRS-23
constructed by the end of calendar year 2008 with prior-year funding.29 The
Administration notes that this funding will cover the costs associated with operating
and maintaining the technologies that have been deployed to the border as part of the
SBInet program as well as the 370 miles of fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers,
which are scheduled to be completed by the end of calendar year 2008 with funding
appropriated in FY2007 and FY2008. Recent Government Accountability Office
(GAO) testimony noted that CBP’s goal for fencing and vehicle barrier deployment
in 2008 “will be challenging because of factors that include difficulties acquiring
rights to border land and an inability to estimate costs for installation.”30 GAO also
noted that the Border Patrol was not consulted early enough in the process of
developing the technology solutions that would be used by SBInet, and that this fact,
combined with some challenges relating to the integration of the technologies
deployed by Boeing, led to an eight-month delay in the initial pilot program’s
deployment in the Tucson Sector.31 Oversight of the SBInet program’s continuing
deployment of technology, fencing, and infrastructure at the border, including
whether DHS is on track to meet its goals for fencing and vehicle barriers at the
border, will likely be an issue of concern to Congress as it considers the FY2009
request.
Hiring U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Agents. The Administration requested
an increase of $363 million to hire 2,200 new USBP agents in order to bring the total
number of agents to 20,019 by the end of FY2009.32 CBP is also proposing to
transfer “up to” 440 veteran agents to the northern border in FY2009. This is the first
time that DHS’ budget request has complied with the P.L. 108-458 mandate requiring
DHS to augment the northern border staffing by 20% of any annual increases to the
USBP workforce each year between FY2006 and FY2010. A potential issue for
Congress may involve whether incentives should be offered to help DHS recruit
additional agents or keep existing agents from leaving the agency; in FY2007 the
USBP experienced a 10% attrition rate.33
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). The Administration
requested an increase of $107 million for CBP to continue the implementation of
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 has already
required all U.S. citizens entering the country at air and sea POE to present passports
as of January 18, 2007. P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008,
29 DHS FY2009 Justification, p. CBP BSFIT 11.
30 Testimony of GAO Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues Richard Stana, in
U.S. Congress, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, DHS
Has Taken Actions to Strengthen Border Security Programs and Operations, But Challenges
Remain, 110th Cong., 2nd Sess., March 6, 2009. Hereafter referred to as GAO Border Security
Testimony.
31 GAO Border Security Testimony.
32 DHS FY2008 Justification, p. CBP S&E 49.
33 From CBP Congressional Affairs, December 18, 2007.

---

CRS-24
prohibited DHS from implementing WHTI, which requires U.S. citizens to provide
proof of identity and citizenship at the land border, before the later of the following
two dates: June 1, 2009, or three months after the Secretaries of State and Homeland
Security certify that a series of implementation requirements have been met. Despite
this legislation, as of January 31, 2008 DHS has ended the practice of accepting oral
declarations of citizenship at the land border and is requiring U.S, citizens to present
a passport, some other accepted biometric document, or the combination of a driver’s
license and a birth certificate, in order to re-enter the country. As of June 1, 2009,
DHS will require U.S. citizens to present an approved document that denotes both
identity and citizenship, including passport books, passport cards, frequent traveler
cards, or certain enhanced state driver’s licenses, in order to enter the country at the
land border. The FY2009 request for WHTI will include funding to hire 89 CBP
officers and to deploy radio frequency technologies to the 39 busiest land POE which
cover 95% of the incoming traffic at the land border, including “facility
modifications and the build out of primary lanes as operationally necessary.”34
Possible issues for Congress may include whether DHS’s implementation of new
documentary requirements conflicts with the extension enacted by P.L. 110-161,
whether the proposed staffing increases and infrastructure modifications are adequate
to meet the needs associated with the WHTI program, and whether the program to
develop enhanced state driver’s licenses that may be used to cross the land-border
adequately addresses security concerns.35
Covered Law Enforcement Officer Status for CBP Officers. The 110th
Congress addressed concerns that CBP was losing valuable officers to other agencies
due to disparities in retirement pay in FY2008 by extending federal law enforcement
officer status to CBP officers for retirement purposes in P.L. 110-161. The FY2009
request would retract the law enforcement officer status that was enacted in FY2008.
During testimony given before the House Committee on Appropriations, CBP
Commissioner Basham noted that: “I cannot think of one thing in my 37 years in law
enforcement that has been more positive for the people, the men and women out
there at our ports of entry, than what you have done by recognizing them as law
enforcement officers.”36 Given the concerns that led to the measure’s enactment in
FY2008 and its support within CBP, DHS’ proposal to retract this status may be an
issue of concern to Congress in FY2009.
Secure Freight Initiative (SFI). The Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) is the
next stage in the Department’s effort to secure cargo containers in-bound to the U.S.
from foreign countries. According to DHS, SFI is now being characterized as a
34 DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. CBP S&E 4.
35 DHS entered into an agreement to with Washington State to develop driver’s licenses that
would be considered WHTI-compliant. These enhanced driver’s licenses (EDL) have been
issued as of January 22, 2008 and several other states have expressed interest in developing
their own EDLs.
36 Testimony of CBP Commissioner Ralph Basham, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Hearing on Border Security
Programs and Operations, 110th Congress, 2nd Sess, March 6, 2008.

---

CRS-25
“three-pronged approach to enhance supply chain security.”37 The three prongs of
this approach are: the International Container Security project (ICS), the Security
Filing (SF); and the Global Trade Exchange (GTX). The ICS is the component of
the strategy whereby all U.S.-bound maritime containers are subject to an integrated
scan (image and radiation detection) at the participating overseas port before being
loaded on the U.S.-bound vessel. ICS is currently in operation at ports in the United
Kingdom, Pakistan, and Honduras. According to DHS, operating the ICS at these
ports fulfills the requirements set out in P.L. 109-347, the Safe Port Act of 2006. The
SF initiative, also referred to as “10+2” by Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
is the latest effort to collect additional data pertaining to U.S.-bound maritime
shipments. The SF will allow CBP to collect additional data earlier in the supply
chain to enhance risk assessment capabilities before cargo is loaded onto U.S.-bound
vessels. CBP recently issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the SF.38
The Global Trade Exchange (GTX) is being proposed as a “private sector owned and
operated ... new business model for collecting and fusing disparate international
cargo data, providing governments and other parties with greater visibility into that
data.”39
Congress may wish to explore why no additional funds were requested for
SFI/ICS for FY2009 when one of the goals for the fiscal year is to expand the
program to at least one additional port and to add more capacity at other designated
ports. CBP Congressional Budget Justification materials, in fact, indicate that the
$149 million request for ICS in FY2009 includes an $11 million reduction for Secure
Freight.40 It is unclear from the budget materials what this reduction represents.
Congress may wish to explore what this reduction consists of, and what potential
impacts the reduction will have on the SFI program.
Additionally, In FY2008 CBP listed as one of its goals the issuing of a Request
for Quotation (RFQ) regarding GTX, the reviewing of these bids, and the
development of a pilot GTX program. In FY2009, given that the GTX is being
characterized by CBP and DHS as “private sector owned and operated,” Congress
may wish to explore the details of the RFQ, what the pilot program will look like,
and its goals.
It is important to note that CBP is currently describing the Secure Freight
Initiative (SFI) as the next phase/iteration or future of the Container Security
Initiative (CSI). CSI may also be referred to as a component of the International
Container Security (ICS) project. The ICS, as noted above, is the new umbrella name
for CBP’s international cargo security initiatives, which also includes CSI and SFI.
37 DHS, FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. CBP-SE-26.
38 See, CBP, “Customs issues Proposed Rule Requiring Additional Cargo Information,” at
[http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/news_releases/archives/2008_news_ releases/jan_
2008/01022008.xml],
39 Ibid. p. CBP-S&E-27.
40 DHS, FY2009 Congressional Budget Justification, CBP-S&E-24, accessed at
[http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/budget_fy2009.pdf].

---

CRS-26
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 58 ports as of
September, 2007. As noted above, the CBP Budget Justifications indicate a
requested decrease of nearly $7 million for the CSI/ICS program for FY2009. This
year, the requested $149 million for FY2009 includes funding for CSI/ICS, SFI, the
Security Filing (SF), and the proposed Global Trade Exchange(GTX). Given that the
request includes less funding for several programs, than has been appropriated for
CSI alone in the past couple of years, this indicates a decline in requested funding for
CSI. An issue for Congress might concern the reasoning behind the Administration’s
proposal to apparently decrease funding for CSI. Additionally, Congress may wish
to explore why no additional funding was requested for the CSI/ICS given that DHS
anticipates expanding CSI/ICS in FY2009 by deploying ICS at one additional site
and expanding capacity at other designated ports.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)41
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)42 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 in FY2005, 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 FY2008 and
FY2009.
President’s FY2009 Request. The Administration requested $5,676
million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2009. This represented a 2% increase
over the enacted FY2008 level of $5,581 million. The Administration requested an
appropriation of $4,748 million in net budget authority for ICE in FY2009,
representing a small increase over the FY2008 enacted level (including Division E
of P.L. 110-161) of $4,735 million. Notably, Division E of P.L. 110-161 included
an appropriation of $200 million for the comprehensive identification and removal
of criminal aliens, which is not included in the FY2009 budget request. Table 10
provides activity-level detail for the Salaries and Expenses account. The request
included the following program increases:
41 Prepared by Alison Siskin, Specialist in Immigration Legislation, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
42 FAMS transferred to ICE from TSA in August of 2003.

---

CRS-27
! $46 million (39 FTE) for 725 additional detention beds and support
personnel;43
! $12 million (36 FTE) for investigations related to national security
and critical infrastructure;
! $12 million for 287(g) agreements;
! $12 million to co-locate ICE facilities (i.e., consolidating ICE offices
in cities where ICE occupies more than one location);
! $7 million (19 FTE) for the Office of Professional Responsibility to
investigate allegations of criminal and serious misconduct involving
ICE employees;
! $6 million (20 FTE) for the Office of Cyber Crimes Center to
increase investigations of cyber crimes related to document fraud,
child exploitation, and money laundering;
! $5 million (14 FTE) for additional positions in the Commercial
Fraud, Intellectual Property Rights, and Trade Transparency Units
to combat crimes such as trafficking in counterfeit merchandise and
pharmaceuticals;
! $3 million for new Visa Security Units in Istanbul, Turkey and
Beirut, Lebanon;
! $2 million (14 FTE) to consolidate and coordinate ICE training and
oversight activities; and
! $1 million to increase outbound enforcement to prevent arms and
strategic technologies from leaving the United States.
Table 10. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Activity
Enacteda
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
HQ & Administration
316
0
Legal Proceeding
208
241
Investigations - Domestic
1,422
1,679
Investigations - International
108
128
Investigations Total
1,530
1,807
Intelligence
52
62
DRO-Custody Operations
1,647
1,789
DRO-Fugitive Operations
219
238
DRO-Criminal Alien Program
179
204
DRO-Alternatives to
Detention
54
58
DRO Transportation and
Removal Program
282
290
43 According to the President’s request, DHS would also fund 275 new beds through the
breach bond fund.

---

CRS-28
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Activity
Enacteda
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
DRO Total
2,381
2,579
Comprehensive
Identification and Removal
of Criminal Aliens
200
0
ICE Salaries and Expenses
4,688
4,691
Sources: CRS Analysis of the DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, and the FY2009
Budget-in-Brief.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L.
110-161.
Issues for Congress. ICE is responsible for many divergent activities due
to the breadth of the civil and criminal violations of law that fall under ICE’s
jurisdiction. As a result, how ICE resources are allocated in order to best achieve its
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. Additionally, in recent
years 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 violations
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 may be 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.44 The President’s budget
requested $1,807 million total for OI for FY2009.
Detention and Removal Operations. Detention and Removal Operations
(DRO) in ICE provide custody management of the aliens who are in removal
44 Based on CRS discussions with ICE personnel in New York City, August 27, 2003.

---

CRS-29
proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United States.45 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.46 Concerns have been raised that decisions regarding which aliens
to release and when to release them 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
$2,579 million for DRO including an additional $46 million for 725 detention beds
and support personnel.47
State and Local Law Enforcement48. 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 state and local
law enforcement officers to perform the functions of an immigration officer in
relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States.
The enforcement of immigration by state and local officials has sparked debate
among many who question what the proper role of state and local law enforcement
officials should be in enforcing federal immigration laws. Many have expressed
concern over proper training, finite resources at the local level, possible civil rights
violations, and the overall impact on communities. 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 included an increase of $12 million for these agreements.
Federal Protective Service.49 The Federal Protective Service (FPS), within
ICE, is responsible for the protection and security of federally owned and leased
45 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.
46 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.
47 In addition, DHS would also fund 275 beds through the breach bond fund, increasing the
total bed space by 1,000 to 33,000 beds.
48 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.
49 This section authored by Shawn Reese, Government and Finance Division.

---

CRS-30
buildings, property, and personnel. It has two primary missions — basic security and
building specific security. Basic security functions include daily monitoring of
federal building entry and exit points; building specific security includes
investigating specific threats to a federal facility or building. In general, FPS focuses
on law enforcement and protection of federal facilities from criminal and terrorist
threats.
In FY2007, the Administration made the following changes to FPS:
! transitioning to a new mission by realigning its workforce;
! improving the strategic methods used to identify and reduce real and
perceived threats;
! continuing its intelligence and information sharing, hazardous
materials response, and protective services; and
! strengthening security standards to reduce threat and vulnerability
levels at federal facilities.50
However, a newly released Government Accountability Office(GAO) report states
that the FY2007 changes have resulted in the FPS not providing proactive patrols in
and around many federal facilities, and that there is a greater reliance on local law
enforcement.51 The report also states that at the end of FY2007, FPS had
approximately 215 police officers, 541 inspectors, and about 15,000 contract guards
to protect federal employees and facilities. These totals included a 20% reduction in
police officers and inspectors from FY2004 levels.52 Because of the reduction in
police officers, GAO states that the FPS may have difficulty determining how to
allocate its limited resources effectively.53 Additionally, the report states that some
FPS officials are concerned about security guard contract oversight, and that it is
unclear if local police have the authority to respond to an incident inside federal
facilities.54
In FY2008, the Administration expects to:
! improve methods used to identify and reduce real and perceived
threats to federal facilities;
! continue intelligence and information sharing;
! provide law enforcement and security services at National Special
Security Events (NSSE); and
50 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Federal Protective Service, “Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional Justification,” p. 6.
51 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: Preliminary Observations
on the Federal Protective Service’s Efforts to Protect Federal Property (Washington:
February 2008), p. 2.
52 Ibid., p. 3.
53 Ibid., p. 8.
54 Ibid. pp. 13-14.

---

CRS-31
! strengthen federal facility security standards.55
Finally, in FY2009, the Administration intends for the FPS to:
! provide law enforcement and security services at National Special
Security Events (NSSE);
! complete risk-based security standards aligned with intelligence;
! continue federal facility security assessments;
! continue to monitor federal agency compliance with security
standards;
! improve contract security guard management; and
! continue to strengthen business processes and the Service.56
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)57
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 FY2008 enacted levels and supplemental appropriations and FY2009
amounts specified in the President’s request, the House and Senate bills.
President’s FY2009 Request. The President’s requested funding level for
the TSA in FY2009, totaling $7,102 million, comprises about 14% of the DHS gross
budget authority. The President’s FY2009 request estimates receipts totaling $2,369
million in offsetting collections, mostly through the collection of passenger security
fees and security fees paid by the airlines. These estimated offsetting collections for
FY2009 are $216 million over FY2008 projected levels, yielding a net total requested
amount for TSA of $4,057 million, to be paid for out of the Treasury General Fund.
55 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Federal Protective Service, “Fiscal Year 2009 Congressional Justification,” p. 5.
56 Ibid.
57 Prepared by Bart Elias, Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

---

CRS-32
New funding initiatives include an additional $426 million to the Aviation
Security Capital Fund (ASCF) for explosives detection equipment purchase and
installation. Proposed discretionary funding for the purchase and installation of
Explosive Detection Systems (EDS) and Explosive Trace Detection (ETD)
equipment would be reduced by $140 million compared to FY2008 levels, however
this reduction would be more than offset by the proposed increase to the ASCF. A
proposed increase of $47 million for Screening Technology (Maintenance and
Utilities) reflects increasing costs of checked baggage and checkpoint screening
equipment maintenance as these systems age and approach their useful service life.
Also, a funding increase of $32 million is proposed for the Secure Flight program.
The Checkpoint Screening Security Fund — a one-time mandatory funding vehicle
that provided $250 million in FY2008 for checkpoint screening technologies —
would be replaced by a requested appropriation of $128 million for Checkpoint
Support. The President’s FY2009 request provides for 800 additional full-time
equivalent (FTE) Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) and other aviation security
job functions. These additional slots would mainly be filled by more Behavioral
Detection Officers (BDOs, 330 additional FTEs) and additional screeners to conduct
random screening of airport workers.
The President’s FY2009 request includes a proposal to realign several TSA
programs. Most notably, the request proposes to place the Federal Air Marshal
Service (FAMS) under the Aviation Security account, rather than maintaining it as
a separate entity. The budget also seeks to realign several regulatory functions,
including air cargo security, under the Aviation Regulation program, and several law
enforcement programs, including airport law enforcement support; canine teams;
Visible Intermodal Protective Response (VIPR) teams; and Federal Flight Deck
Officers (FFDOs), under the Law Enforcement program. The proposal also seeks to
establish a single Human Resource Services within the Aviation Security account,
to support both field and headquarters staff. Also, the request proposes that
information technology and support for Aviation Security be realigned with the
Information Technology function housed within the Transportation Security Support
account.

---

CRS-33
Table 11. TSA Gross Budget Authority, by Budget Activity
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Budget Activity
Enacteda
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Aviation Security
4,809
5,290
Screening Partnership
Program (SPP)
143
151
Passenger & Baggage
Screening (PC&B)
2,636
2,716
Screener Training & Other
224
197
Human Resource Services
182
—
Checkpoint Support
—
128
EDS/ETD
Purchase/Installation
294
154
Screening Technology
264
311
Operation Integration
25
21
Aviation Regulation (and
Other Enforcement)
256
210
Airport Management, IT,
and Support
652
373
FFDO & Crew Training
25
—
Air Cargo Security
73
—
Federal Air Marshals
Service
—b 786
Law Enforcement
—
242
Airport Perimeter Security
4
—
Implementing P.L. 110-53
30
—
Aviation Security Capital
Fund
250
676
Checkpoint Screening
Security Fund
250
—
Federal Air Marshal Service
770
—b
Management and
Administration
674
—
Travel and Training
95
—
Threat Assessment and
Credentialing (TTAC)
83
133
Secure Flight
50
82
Crew Vetting
15
—
Other/ TTAC Admin. &
Ops.
10
51

---

CRS-34
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Budget Activity
Enacteda
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
TWIC Appropriation
8
—
Credentialing Fees
89
40
Registered Traveler
Program 4
10
TWIC
64
9
Alien Flight School
3
3
HAZMAT Commercial
Driver
18
18
Surface Transportation
Security
47
37
Operations and Staffing
24
25
Security Inspectors
22
11
Transportation Security
Support
524
926
Intelligence
21
22
Headquarters
Administration
293
213
Human Capital Services
—
218
Information Technology
209
473
Rescission of Prior Year
Funds
-5
—
TSA Total
6,815
7,102
Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, and the FY2009
Budget-in-Brief.
Notes: Subtotals do not sum to functional area totals and TSA total due to rounding. PC&B:
Personnel Compensation and Benefits; EDS: Explosive Detection Systems; ETD: Explosive Trace
Detection equipment; IT: Information Technology; FFDO: Federal Flight Deck Officer program;
TWIC: Transportation Worker Identification Credential; HAZMAT: Hazardous Materials.
a. Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L.
110-161.
b. The President’s FY2009 request contains a proposal to place FAMS under the Aviation Security
Account rather than maintaining it as a separate entity.
TSA Issues for Congress. Issues that may arise during congressional
appropriations debate may include the passenger security fee surcharge proposal, the
adequacy of checkpoint technology investment, and the appropriateness of proposed
program realignments.
Passenger Security Fee Surcharge. The Administration has requested
a four-year temporary passenger surcharge beginning in FY2009 of $0.50 per flight,
not to exceed $1.00 per one-way trip, in addition to the current passenger security

---

CRS-35
fees of $2.50 per flight with a cap of $5.00 per one-way trip. Under the proposal,
these additional fees would be deposited in the Aviation Security Capital Fund
(ASCF). The surcharge is intended to offset the $426 million in new budget
authority for the Aviation Security Capital Fund that the Administration is seeking.
These funds would be used to finance the acquisition and installation of checked
baggage explosives detection equipment. The Administration regards this new
budget authority it is seeking as being subject to PAYGO rules, and it has
recommended the collection of the passenger security fee surcharge as an offsetting
collection.
If the increased budget authority for the ASCF is subject to PAYGO rules, as
the Administration maintains, then questions regarding the need for, and possibly the
adequacy of, the proposed $0.50 surcharge may be raised during congressional
appropriations debate. The Administration projects an increase of $216 million in
offsetting security fee collections in FY2009 compared to FY2008, and it is
requesting additional budget authority totaling $426 million for the ASCF. Current
authorization for the ASCF consists of a mandatory appropriation of $250 million
derived solely from passenger security fee collections. In addition, the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53) authorizes an
additional $450 million annually through FY2011 for these same purposes, but as a
discretionary appropriation and not through the ASCF. Congress may debate
whether the direct appropriation is a preferable alternative to supplementing the
ASCF as the Administration proposes. Congress may also debate whether the $0.50
surcharge is adequate to offset the proposed ASCF funding increase, particularly if
economic conditions were to worsen and lead to a slowdown in passenger volume
and lower-than-expected security fee revenue.
Checkpoint Technology Investment and Deployment. At the
President’s requested funding level, the TSA anticipates deploying advanced
technology (AT) x-ray systems at 60% of checkpoints at Category X and Category
I airports, whole-body imaging (WBI) systems at 15% of checkpoints at such
airports, bottle liquids scanners at 65% of checkpoints at such airports, and cast and
prosthesis screening systems at 25% of checkpoints at such airports. Additionally,
the TSA intends to fund the deployment of additional video cameras and electronic
surveillance monitoring systems at checkpoints, and devote $13.5 million to
mitigating various safety hazards at passenger and baggage screening areas.
Congress may question whether the $128 million requested for Checkpoint
Support will be adequate to address advanced screening technology initiatives
throughout the aviation system along with these other competing efforts. This may
be an area of particular interest given that last year Congress provided $250 million
for advanced checkpoint technologies through the creation of the Checkpoint
Screening Security Fund. As many of these advanced checkpoint screening
technologies are now moving beyond the pilot testing phase to full-scale operational
deployment, Congress may seek to more closely examine and reevaluate the TSA’s
existing checkpoint screening technology plan in light of what is now known about
the capabilities and limitations of these various technologies as well as the current
risk environment. Congress may debate whether the deployment strategy should be
modified to either accelerate, or perhaps even scale back, the fielding of various
advanced checkpoint screening technologies.

---

CRS-36
Program Consolidation Proposals. Congress may debate the realignment
of functions as proposed in the President’s budget request. Most notably, placing air
cargo security — which has been a priority issue for legislation and appropriations
over the past five year — within the Aviation Regulation function may be of
particular concern. Critics may argue that air cargo security should remain a separate
function because of its unique characteristics and in recognition of statutory
requirements to screen 50% of all cargo placed on passenger aircraft by February
2009 and 100% of such cargo by August of 2010 (see P. L. 110-53, Sec. 1602).
While the TSA’s budget justification contends that aligning air cargo security
under Aviation Regulation would emphasize the regulatory aspects of the program
and provide greater flexibility in assigning regulatory inspectors to air cargo details,
these air cargo screening mandates arguably suggest a broader scope to the overall
air cargo program. The TSA has maintained that its roles and responsibilities in
meeting these statutory requirements will largely be met through promulgating
regulations and conducting stepped-up regulatory oversight to ensure air carrier,
freight forwarder, and shipper compliance with screening requirements and other
security regulations. However, some in Congress view the TSA’s role as being much
larger, including testing and evaluating screening technologies, the acquisition and
deployment of such equipment, and the training and deployment of canine teams to
assist in cargo screening operations. The TSA has indicated that it intends to
significantly expand canine team involvement in air cargo screening, making these
teams available for air cargo screening 42.5% of the time by FY2009 compared to
the current availability level of 25%. Since a formal plan for meeting statutory cargo
screening requirements has not yet been presented by the TSA, viewing the TSA role
in air cargo security and screening as a regulatory function may arguably be taking
an overly narrow perspective (see CRS Report RL34390, Aviation Security:
Background and Policy Options for Screening and Securing Air Cargo, by Bart
Elias).
Other proposed realignment options may not be as seemingly controversial, but
may nonetheless raise questions during congressional debate. The proposed
alignment of the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) into the Aviation Security
function may allow better integration of FAMS operations with screening operations
and may provide more streamlined career advancement opportunities for screeners
to enter FAMS, as the TSA budget justification argues. However, some may
question why FAMS, the largest law enforcement unit within the TSA, is not instead
aligned with the Law Enforcement program, which could potentially provide better
integration with other law enforcement functions, including airport law enforcement
presence and the FFDO program.
Secure Flight. The President’s request proposes a funding increase of $32
million for the Secure Flight program in order to achieve initial operational
deployment in the second quarter of FY2009, with a goal of fully implementing
Secure Flight in early FY2010. This long-delayed and highly controversial initiative
to develop a system for government prescreening of airline passengers against
terrorist watchlists remains an issue. Prior appropriations acts, including the FY2008
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161), have imposed restrictions on
deploying Secure Flight or any other follow-on prescreening system until the DHS
certifies, and the GAO reports to Congress, that specific issues regarding privacy

---

CRS-37
protection, data security and integrity, and redress procedures have been adequately
addressed. The Administration has long maintained that this 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.
United States Coast Guard58
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.
President’s FY2009 Request. For FY2009, the President requested a total
of $9,071 million for the Coast Guard, which accounts for about 19% of DHS’s
requested budget. The President requested $6,213 million for operating expenses (an
increase of 4% over FY2008), $1,205 million for acquisition, construction, and
improvements (an increase of 22% over FY2008), $131 million for reserve training
(an increase of 3% over FY2008), $16 million for research, development, tests, and
evaluation (a decrease of 36% from FY2008), $12 million for environmental
compliance and restoration (a decrease of 8% from FY2008), and zero funding for
the bridge alteration program. Table 12 provides more detail regarding the Coast
Guard’s Operating Expenses (OE) account and its Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements (ACI) account.
Table 12. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI)
Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Enacteda
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Operating
Expenses
6,001
6,213
Military pay and
allowances
2,939
3,077
Civilian pay and
benefits
604
693
Training and
recruiting
189
196
58 Prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation, Resources, Science and Industry
Division.

---

CRS-38
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Enacteda
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Operating funds and
unit level
maintenance
1,164
1,170
Centrally managed
accounts
233
263
Intermediate and
depot level
maintenance
762
815
DOD Transfer
110
—
Acquisition,
Construction, and
Improvements
988
1,205
Vessels and Critical
Infrastructure
40
69
Aircraft
—
—
Other Equipment
173
95
Integrated
Deepwater System
651
990
Shore facilities and
Aids to Navigation
41
50
Personnel and
Related Support
83
1
Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, and the FY2009
Budget-in-Brief.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. Column “FY2008 Enacted: includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L.
110-161.
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 in 2007. The GAO and
DHS IG have been very active in reviewing Deepwater and in 2007 the Coast Guard
decided to phase out an outside system integrator (a team led by Lockheed Martin
and Northrup Grumman) to execute the program. For FY2009, the President requests
$990 million for the program (to be made available through the end of FY2013)
which includes $541 million for vessels and $231 million for aircraft. The FY2009
request includes $9 million to add 65 new positions for the new Acquisition

---

CRS-39
Directorate that will be responsible for major acquisition projects; most notably the
Deepwater program. For FY2008 (P.L. 110-161), Congress appropriated $651
million for Deepwater which included rescissions for unmanned aerial vehicles and
offshore patrol cutters and was $137 million less than the President requested. Last
fiscal year, Congress called for a detailed program expenditure plan from the Coast
Guard, and requested that the GAO review the plan. 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. A GAO audit raised this concern with respect to the
security of energy tankers,59 and at a Senate hearing the GAO testified that Coast
Guard resources were being challenged by a number of security requirements.60
About 28% of the Coast Guard’s FY2009 budget request is for its “port, waterways,
and coastal security” (PWCS) mission.61 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.62
For monitoring harbor traffic, the President’s FY2009 request includes $26
million to continue deployment of a nationwide system to detect, identify, track, and
communicate with ships in U.S. harbors, called the Automatic Identification System
(AIS). This system is currently able to track ships, but not to communicate with
them, in 55 ports and nine coastal waterways.63 Tracking receivers are installed on
land as well as on sea buoys, aircraft, and satellites. The FY2009 funding request is
for extending tracking capability out to 50 nautical miles from shore and being able
to communicate with ships out to 24 nautical miles from shore for Coast Guard
59 GAO, Maritime Security: Federal Efforts Needed to Address Challenges in Preventing
and Responding to Terrorist Attacks on Energy Commodity Tankers, GAO-08-141,
December 2007.
60 GAO, Coast Guard: Deepwater Program Management Initiatives and Key Homeland
Security Missions, March 5, 2008, GAO-08-531T, see specifically pp. 12-16.
61 DHS Budget in Brief, p. 58.
62 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.
63 DHS Budget in Brief, p. 57.

---

CRS-40
sectors Hampton Roads, Delaware Bay, and Mobile.64 By FY2014, the Coast Guard
expects to extend this capability to all remaining Coast Guard sectors.
An unresolved issue is the usefulness of tracking smaller vessels, such as
recreational boats, to counter the threat posed by suicide bombers or smugglers.
There are too many smaller boats for the Coast Guard to track and recreational
boaters oppose tracking because of cost and privacy concerns.
Non-Homeland Security Missions. Some Members of Congress have
expressed concern that with the Coast Guard’s emphasis on its maritime security
mission, the agency may have difficulty sustaining its traditional, non-homeland
security missions such as fisheries enforcement or marine environmental protection.65
In the wake of an oil spill by a container ship in San Francisco Bay on November 7,
2007, the Coast Guard was criticized for delays in its rulemaking requiring oil spill
response plans for non-tank vessels.66
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.67 The IG reported that in
FY2005, the Coast Guard’s total non-homeland security resource hours were within
3% of pre-9/11 levels. The GAO reported that over the past five years, Coast Guard
performance trends showed that increased homeland security activities have not
prevented the agency from meeting its non-homeland security mission goals.68
Marine Safety. A congressional hearing was held on August 2, 2007 to
examine the performance of the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Program.69 Witnesses
from the maritime industry complained about Coast Guard delays in documenting
mariners and vessels and a lack of technical expertise and experience by Coast Guard
marine inspectors. In response to these criticisms, the Commandant announced a
plan to increase civilian positions in the marine safety program and strengthen their
64 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-AC&I-122.
65 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.
66 For further information, see CRS Report RL33705, Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters:
Background, Governance, and Issues for Congress, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
67 DHS, Office of Inspector General, Annual Review of Mission Performance: United States
Coast Guard (FY2005), OIG-06-50, July 2006.
68 GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, Performance,
Reorganization, and Related Challenges, April 18, 2007, GAO-07-489T, p. 2.
69 House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation, “Challenges Facing the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety
Program,” August 2, 2007.

---

CRS-41
career paths to foster professional continuity in this area.70 The FY2009 budget
request notes that “the Coast Guard is encountering serious stakeholder concern
about our capacity to conduct marine inspections, investigations, and rulemaking.”71
The budget requests an additional $20 million in operating expenses in order to: add
276 marine inspector positions; increase LNG vessel calls; conduct examinations of
5,200 towing vessels mandated in the FY2004 Coast Guard Authorization Act;
review non-tank vessel oil spill response plans; and conduct oversight of ballast
water management.72 The FY2009 budget also requests $2.6 million to fund 25
rulemaking projects involving safety, security, and environmental protection.
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 and which replaces its National Distress and Response System. A
2006 GAO audit of the program found a tripling of project cost from the original
estimate and likely further delays in project completion, which was already five years
behind schedule.73 The GAO’s FY2008 Coast Guard budget review noted 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.74 In the FY2008 Appropriations
Act (P.L. 110-161), Congress expressed concern for the number of outages that have
been recorded with the system, and requested that the Coast Guard provide quarterly
briefings on its plans to address the outages.
The President’s FY2009 budget requests $88 million for Rescue 21 for further
deployment of the system’s infrastructure at seven Coast Guard sectors75 and
additional watchstanders at 15 sectors receiving the most rescue traffic.76
LORAN-C. The LORAN (Long-Range Aids to Navigation) -C system helps
boaters (including commercial fishermen) and airplane pilots determine their location
using radio signals from 24 tower stations in the United States. 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, and in recent budget
submissions requested that the LORAN-C system be terminated. In FY2007,
Congress funded continuation of the LORAN-C system and required the Coast
Guard, among other things, to first notify the public before terminating the system.
70 U.S. Coast Guard, “Enhancing the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Program,” September 25,
2007.
71 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-SC-5.
72 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-OE-52 and DHS Budget in Brief, p. 60-
61.
73 GAO, United States Coast Guard: Improvements Needed in Management and Oversight
of Rescue System Acquisition, GAO-06-623, May 2006.
74 GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, Performance,
Reorganization, and Related Challenges, April 18, 2007, GAO-07-489T, p. 3.
75 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-AC&I-128.
76 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-OE-33 and 34.

---

CRS-42
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.77 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. For
FY2008, Congress denied the Administration’s request to terminate LORAN-C and
noted that an Administration policy decision on the future of LORAN-C was
expected to be completed by March 1, 2008. On February 7, 2008, the DHS
announced that an enhanced LORAN system (eLoran) will be used as a backup
system to GPS. The Coast Guard FY2009 budget requests that the administration of
the eLoran system be transferred to the National Preparedness and Programs
Directorate (NPPD) of DHS (a transfer equating to $35 million) while the Coast
Guard continues to operate the system on a reimbursable basis.78
Bridge Alteration Program. The bridge alteration program is a program to
alter or remove road or railroad bridges that are obstructing navigation. Consistent
with prior requests, the President requests no new funding for this program. In
FY2008, Congress appropriated $16 million.
U.S. Secret Service79
The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) has two broad missions — criminal
investigations and protection.80 Criminal investigations activities 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 protection 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 to designated individuals, such as the DHS Secretary and visiting
foreign dignitaries. Separate from these specific mandated assignments, the Secret
Service is responsible for security activities at 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.81 The NSSE
designation by the President gives the Secret Service authority to organize and
coordinate security arrangements involving various law enforcement units from other
federal agencies and state and local governments, as well as from the National Guard.
Table 13 displays sub-account detail for Secret Service funding.
77 Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 4, January 8, 2007, pp. 796-797.
78 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-OE-18 and 19.
79 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security
Policy, Government and Finance Division.
80 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, United States Secret Service, Fiscal Year 2009,
Congressional Justification.
81 Congress appropriated $100 million for the FY2008 presidential nominating conventions
in Division B, Title II of P.L. 110-161.

---

CRS-43
Table 13. U.S. Secret Service Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Programs and Activities
Enacteda
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Protection of persons and
facilities
$694
$710
Protective intelligence
activities
$58
$60
National Special Security
Events
$1
$1
Presidential candidate
nominee protection
$85
$41
White House mail screening
$16
$37
Management and
administration
$176
$182
Rowley Training Center
$52
$53
Domestic field operations
$220
$243
International field operations
$26
$28
Electronic crimes program
$45
$48
Forensic support grants for
the National Center for
Missing and Exploited
Children (NCMEC)
$8
$8
Acquisition, construction, and
improvements
$4
$4
Total
$1,385
$1,414
Sources: CRS Analysis of the DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, and the FY2009
DHS Budget-in-Brief.
a. Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L.
110-161.
President’s FY2009 Request. For FY2009, the President’s budget
submission requests an appropriation of $1,414 million for the protection and
criminal investigation missions of the Secret Service.82 This reflects an increase of
$29 million or nearly 2% over the FY2008 total of $1,385 million for the Service.
Secret Service Issues for Congress. Federal funding for National Special
Security Events (NSSE) costs incurred by federal, state, and local entities is one issue
Congress may wish to address. In FY2008, Congress appropriated $1 million for
82 OMB, Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2009, p. 482.

---

CRS-44
NSSE costs within the Secret Service.83 In addition, the 110th Congress appropriated
a total of $100 million for the 2008 presidential nominating conventions’ security.
This $100 million is to be administered through Department of Justice’s (DOJ)
Office of Justice Programs, and this appropriation is to be used for security and
related costs incurred by state and local governments, including overtime, associated
with these two NSSEs.84
In FY2008, Congress appropriated $1 million for NSSE costs within the Secret
Service.85 This appropriation is used to fund the Secret Service’s development and
implementation of security operations at NSSEs, however, it can not be used to
reimburse state and local law enforcement’s NSSE costs — specifically the overtime
costs incurred by state and local governments. In addition this funding, Congress
appropriated a total of $100 million for the 2008 presidential nominating
conventions’ security through the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Justice
Programs. The DOJ appropriation is to be used for security and related costs
incurred by state and local governments, including overtime, associated with these
two NSSEs.86
In FY2009, the Secret Service requested $1 million for NSSEs. One issue that
Congress may wish to address concerns whether this amount is sufficient to cover
multiple or unexpected NSSE costs, although the Secret Service has never requested
supplemental funding to support NSSE operations. In addition to the NSSE funding
through the Secret Service and DOJ, state and local jurisdictions can use DHS grants,
such as the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) and the Urban Area
Security Initiative (UASI), for NSSE-related security activities. However, the grant
approval process for these programs is not flexible, so the programs have limited
application to NSSEs in that states and localities would need to include SHSGP and
UASI funding for NSSE security in their grant applications. For unexpected NSSEs,
states and localities are unable to plan ahead and therefore cannot use SHSGP or
UASI funds to cover these unexpected security costs. DHS does authorize states and
localities to reprogram SHSGP and UASI funding with the DHS Secretary’s
approval; however, that may result in states and localities not funding other planned
homeland security activities. An issue that Congress may wish to consider could
include whether more coordination of NSSE funding is needed at the federal level;
currently the Secret Service, DOJ, and the Office of Grant Programs each have
separate funding streams that can be used to fund different components of NSSEs but
there is no overarching coordinating mechanism in place to oversee this funding.
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
83 P.L. 110-161, Div. E.
84 P.L. 110-161, Div. B, Title II.
85 P.L. 110-161, Div. E.
86 P.L. 110-161, Div. B, Title II.

---

CRS-45
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.”87 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.
President’s FY2009 Request. In FY2008 Congress appropriated $11,020
million to DHS for activities related to emergency preparedness and response. For
FY2009, the President’s request for emergency preparedness and response activities
is $7,020 million. This is a decrease of $4,000 million (-36%). The President’s
FY2009 request includes $1,286 million for NPPD, an increase of $109 million
(+9%) over FY2008, $161 million for OHA which is an increase of $44 million
(+38%), and $5,573 million for FEMA, representing a decrease of $4,153 million
(-43%) from the previous year.
87 P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1400.

---

CRS-46
Table 14. Title III: Preparedness and Response
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Operational Component
Enacteda
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
National Protection & Programs Directorate
Administration
47
47
55
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security
655
655
841
US-VISIT
475
475
390
Net total
1,177
1,177
1,286
Office of Health Affairs
117
117
161
Counter Terrorism Fund
—
—
—
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Management and Administration
724
724
957
Office of Grant Programs
3,498
3,498
1,900
Firefighter Assistance Grants
750
750
300
U.S. Fire Administration
43
43
—
Public health programs
—
—
—
Disaster relief
1,324b
2,900c
4,224
1,900
Disaster readiness and support activities
—
—
200
Flood map modernization fund
220
220
150
National flood insurance fund (NFIF)d
—
—
—
National flood mitigatione
—
—
—
Pre-disaster mitigation fund
114
114
75
Emergency food and shelter
153
153
100
Disaster assistance direct loan account
1
1
1

---

CRS-47
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Operational Component
Enacteda
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Rescission
—
—
-9
Net total
6,826b
2,900c
9,726
5,573
Net budget authority subtotal: Title III
8,120b
2,900c
11,020
7,020
Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, and the FY2009 Budget-in-Brief.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
b. Does not include $2,900 million in FY2008 emergency supplemental funding for Disaster Relief enacted by P.L. 110-28.
c. Per P.L. 110-28, $2,900 million in FY2008 emergency supplemental funding for Disaster Relief.
d. Funds derived from premium payments or transfers from the U.S. Treasury.
e. Funds derived from NFIF transfers.

---

CRS-48
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)88
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Congress passed the Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act (Title VI of P.L. 109-295, the FY2007 DHS
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.89 The FY2009 Administration
request represents the Administration’s attempt to focus on the growth of the FEMA
workforce rather than discrete programs. While Congress has shown increasing
interest in FEMA’s plans to implement a strategic approach to disaster housing and
other disaster response, recovery, and mitigation capabilities reflected in the
provisions of the Post-Katrina Reform Act, the FY2009 request places its greatest
emphasis on expanding the FEMA workforce as shown in the increase for
Management and Administration. How closely FEMA’s expanded capacity
addresses areas of congressional interest may be the central discussion of the 2009
budget season for the Agency. Table 14 provides account-level funding details for
FY2008 and FY2009.
President’s FY2009 Request. FEMA’s net budget authority of $5,573
million for FY2009 is $4,153 million below the FY2008 level. Most of this
difference is in the Disaster Relief Fund account which, during FY2008, received an
emergency supplemental appropriation of $2,900 million. The other substantial
reductions are in the Office of Grant Programs which would receive a cut of $1,598
million. Also, within FEMA’s program areas there are requests below the FY2008
level for programs such as the flood map modernization fund and the Emergency
Food and Shelter Program (EFSP).
FEMA’s FY2009 budget requests an increase of $233 million to the
Management and Administration account. Parts of this increase are dedicated to a
series of improvements in information technology and logistical support. However,
the great majority of the increase ($184 million) would add 118 new positions in
FEMA as well as transitioning 149 CORE (Cadre On-call Response Employees)
positions into permanent slots. The CORE’s are the multi-year temporary positions
at FEMA dedicated to disaster-related work.
FEMA Issues for Congress. Both FY20007 and FY2008 were relatively
quiet hurricane seasons. During this time, Congress looked to FEMA for an
assessment of priority areas, matched with suggested resource levels, that would
improve FEMA’s preparedness for, response to, and recovery from major disaster
events. Most prominent among the issues that have drawn the interest of Congress
88 Prepared by Keith Bea, Specialist in American National Government and Fran McCarthy,
Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
89 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.

---

CRS-49
is the quality and safety of FEMA’s temporary housing that has been provided to
disaster victims.90 With regard to a more effective immediate response to a major
disaster, the Congress has sought the improvement of the FEMA logistics chain that
supports that response. An overarching theme of all these issues is the quality and
depth of the FEMA work force and whether it is commensurate, in size and skill,
with its missions.
Disaster Temporary Housing. Thousands of disaster victims from the Gulf
Coast hurricane season of 2005 remain in temporary housing — some in rental units,
and some in manufactured housing in the Gulf region. At the hearing of the House
Appropriations DHS Subcommittee on the FY2009 budget, Members expressed
much interest in FEMA’s implementation, or lack thereof, of new housing authorities
provided to the agency in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act
(P.L. 109-295).91 Congress has been particularly interested in the problem of the
levels of formaldehyde found in travel trailers and some mobile homes used for
housing following the Gulf Coast disasters of 2005.
Congress requested in P.L. 109-295 a disaster housing strategy from FEMA to
inform the overall approach to housing following a catastrophic disaster. Though the
report on a housing strategy was due in July of 2007, it has not yet been produced.
In a Senate hearing on the topic, the need for this report to serve as both a guide and
an indication of Administration intent was underlined.92 The Administration’s
budget request for FY2009 notes that it will improve and expand the agency work
force devoted to disaster assistance in general (both the programs addressing help to
households and those dedicated to infrastructure repair) but does not specifically
address temporary housing nor the correlated health and safety issues. The absence
of information in the budget request may reflect statements by the FEMA
Administrator indicating a desire for an increased role for the Department of Housing
and Urban Development in disaster housing.93
Disaster Logistics. Logistics represents FEMA’s ability to get the necessary
resources (food, water and other supplies) to the disaster area as rapidly as possible.
In its investigation of the response to Hurricane Katrina, Congress had concentrated
much of its attention on the logistics chain. As was noted in the aftermath: “Katrina
overwhelmed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) management
90 For more information, see CRS Report RL34087, FEMA Disaster Housing and Hurricane
Katrina: Overview, Analysis, and Congressional Options, by Francis X. McCarthy.
91 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Homeland Security, “Federal Emergency Management Agency: Is the Agency on the Right
Track?”, 110th Cong. 2nd Sess., March 13, 2008.
92 U.S. Senate, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Ad Hoc
Subcommittees on Disaster Recovery and on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness
and Integration, “Is Housing too Much to Hope for? FEMA’s disaster housing strategy,”
110th Cong. 2nd Sess., March 4, 2008.
93 Testimony of FEMA Administrator David Paulison, House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on Homeland Security, “Federal Emergency Management Agency: Is the
agency on the Right Track?,” 110th Cong. 2nd Sess. March 13, 2008.

---

CRS-50
and overloaded its logistics system.”94 As a result, Members of Congress continue
to insist on an improved logistics process that includes the concerns of state and local
governments in the planning.
In its budget presentation, FEMA notes that logistics has been taken out of the
Operations Directorate within its organizational structure and now is a stand alone
Logistics Management Directorate, giving logistics more visibility and prominence
within the agency. In support of this new Directorate, FEMA is requesting an
increase of $10 million to create 30 new positions that will be placed at headquarters
and in the regional offices. In describing its initiative, FEMA has referred in the
budget justification to “best practices” by private industry as a model for how it will
improve its performance.
FEMA Work Force. The most substantial increase in the FEMA budget for
FY2009 is in the expansion of the work force. FEMA has requested an increase of
$184 million to support an additional 118 new permanent positions for the Agency
and to transition 149 temporary positions (known as CORE appointments) into
permanent slots.
The CORE positions traditionally have been used by FEMA to accomplish
ongoing disaster tasks at the regional and headquarters levels (such as closing out old
disasters or working in the telephone and online registration centers). CORE
appointments can be for a maximum of up to four years and receive benefits similar
to a career employee (e.g., health benefits). The CORE’s status stands in contrast to
the Disaster Assistance Employees (DAEs). The DAEs are the temporary employees,
usually working on renewable 30 to 90 day appointments (without benefits), who are
recruited, trained, and hired in large numbers to provide the staff support across a
disaster. DAEs are often aligned into cadres of expertise. For example, there is a
Public Assistance Cadre that employs engineers and other program experts to help
manage the PA program in the field. Similarly there are DAEs trained to work in
Individual Assistance, Mitigation, Congressional Affairs, Community Relations, and
many other functional areas during a disaster response and recovery operation. The
DAEs work on an as needed basis, often with interruptions in service based on the
level of disaster activity. CORE’s are also separate and distinct from private
contractor employees and consultants who may also work in a supporting role within
different FEMA program areas.
Since CORE appointments have been multi-year rather than measured in
months, the CORE employees have acquired organizational experience and
programmatic skills that the Agency wants to retain. The retention of quality
employees has been a recurring challenge for FEMA since the lack of continuity is
disruptive to FEMA’s state and local partners in the consistent interpretation of
program policy and overall customer service.
94 U.S. House of Representatives, “A Failure of Initiative: Final Report of the Select Bi-
partisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina,”,
February 19, 2006, Government Printing Office, p. 319.

---

CRS-51
FEMA describes the additional employees requested in the FY2009 budget as
“enhancements” in several areas of the agency and mentions the improvement of
plans for many programs. In the past, Congress has been supportive of FEMA
expanding its base of employees and their skill levels, particularly at the regional
level to “help state and local governments prepare for and respond to disasters.”95
However, Congress may also wish to see greater specificity on how these new
positions will be apportioned throughout the agency and whether those choices
correspond to congressional direction and interest.
Office of Grant Programs96
The Office of Grant Programs within the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) is responsible for facilitating and coordinating DHS state and local
assistance 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 Emergency Management Reform Act
of 2006 (P.L. 109-295), the work of the Office of Grant Programs was separated from
FEMA training activities. FEMA’s National Integration Center within the agency’s
National Preparedness Directorate administers training, exercises, and technical
assistance for states and localities. Presently, DHS’s assistance programs for states
and localities include:
! State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP);
! Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI);
! Port Security Program;
! Transit Security Program;
! Bus Security Program;
! Trucking Security Program;
! Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP);
! Assistance to Firefighters (FIRE);
! Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG);
! Citizen Corps Program (CCP);
! Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS);
! Training, technical assistance, exercises, and evaluations;
! Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program (CEDAP);
! Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program (PSIC);
! Real ID Grants;
! Emergency Operations Centers (EOC); and
! Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grants.
95 U.S. House of Representative, Committee on Appropriations, “FY2008 Omnibus
Summary: Homeland Security Committee”, [http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/Homeland
Omnibus.pdf].
96 This section prepared by Shawn Reese, Government and Finance Division.

---

CRS-52
Table 15. State and Local Homeland Security Programs
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Program
Enacteda
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
State Homeland Security Grant
Program (SHSGP)
$950b
$200
Urban Area Security Initiative
(UASI)
$820c
$825
Law Enforcement Terrorism
Prevention Program (LETPP)
—
—
Port Security Program
$400
$210
Transit Security Program
$400
$175
Intercity Bus Security Program
$12
$12
Trucking Industry Security Program
$16
$8
Emergency Operation Centers
$15
—
Buffer Zone Protection
$50
—
Assistance to Firefighters (FIRE)
$750
$300d
Emergency Management
Performance Grants (EMPG)
$300
$200
Citizen Corps Programs (CCP)
$15
$15
Metropolitan Medical Response
System (MMRS)
$41
—
Training, Technical Assistance,
Exercises, and Evaluation
$299e
$145f
Commercial Equipment Direct
Assistance Grants
$25
—
Interoperable Communications
Grants
$50
[$7]g
Real ID Grants
$50
—
Regional Catastrophic Preparedness
Grants
$35
—
National Security and Terrorism
Prevention Programh
—
$110
Total
$4,228
$2,200
Source: CRS Analysis of the P.L. 110-161, DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, and
the FY2009 Budget-in-Brief.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L.
110-161.

---

CRS-53
b. Not less than 25% of the $950 million for SHSGP is to be used for law enforcement terrorism
prevention activities, in accordance with P.L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act of 2007.
c. Not less than 25% of the $820 million for UASI is to be used for law enforcement terrorism
prevention activities, in accordance with P.L. 110-53.
d. The $300 million for FIRE grants is a separate line item in the Title III table.
e. Of this $299 million: $88 million is for the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium; $63
million is for the Center for Domestic Preparedness; $50 million is for the National Exercise
Program; $12 million is for technical assistance; $27 million is for Demonstration Training
Grants; $31 million is for Continuing Training Grants; $19 million is for evaluations and
assessments; and $9 million is for the Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium.
f. Of this $145 million: $40 million is for the National Exercise Program; $79 million is for the
National Domestic Preparedness Consortium and the Center for Domestic Preparedness; $10
million is for technical assistance; and $16 million for evaluations and assessments.
g. The Administration proposes to fund the Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant
program through the Department of Commerce.
h. The National Security and Terrorism Prevention Grant Program, newly requested for FY2009,
would provide competitive grants to state and local jurisdictions that address homeland security
vulnerabilities, and for Real ID proposals and buffer zone protection of critical infrastructure.
President’s Request. The Administration proposes $2,200 million for
FY2009 Department of Homeland Security assistance programs for states and
localities. Additionally, the Administration proposes to reduce funding on most of
the programs, except the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), the Citizen Corps
Program, and its program for bus security. Because of this, the Administration
requests $2,028 million less than the $4,228 million Congress appropriated in
FY2008.
Office of Grant Programs Issues for Congress. In FY2009, Congress
might elect to address two issues when appropriating funds for DHS’s state and local
assistance programs. The first issue is the reduction in state and local assistance
funding, and the second issue is the reduction in appropriations for the Assistance to
Firefighters Program.
Reduction in State and Local Assistance Funding. The issue that
appears to dominate the Administration’s FY2009 budget request is the reduction in
appropriations for state and local homeland security programs. The Administration
has proposed significant reductions in state and local homeland security assistance
programs or the consolidation of programs in prior fiscal years. In FY2003 and
FY2004, the Administration proposed a homeland security block grant; this year the
Administration proposes to reduce funding for all programs except UASI, CCP, and
Bus Security. UASI is the only program for which the Administration requested an
increase in funding. Additionally, the Administration proposes to consolidate the
Real ID Grant program and the Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP)within the
National Security and Terrorism Prevention Program. These two programs would
be eligible activities under a grant program that would be competitive, and would
allow states and localities to apply for grants that address homeland security
vulnerabilities.97
97 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2009 Budget for the United States
Government (Washington: GPO, February 2009), Appendix, pp. 514-516.

---

CRS-54
In the past, Congress has funded the majority of these grant programs
individually and at a higher level than the Administration has requested. In FY2008,
however, Congress consolidated the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention
Program with SHSGP and UASI.98
Reduction in Assistance to Firefighter Program Funding. In previous
years, the Administration’s budget proposals have typically recommended significant
cuts for fire grants, used to fund training and equipment, as well as zero funding for
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grants, used for
hiring, recruitment, and retention. Opponents of the cuts have argued that the reduced
levels are inadequate to meet the needs of fire departments, while the Administration
has argued that reduced levels are sufficient to enhance critical capabilities in the
event of a terrorist attack or major disaster. For FY2009, the Administration
proposes $300 million for fire grants, a 46% cut from the FY2008 level. No funding
is proposed for SAFER grants, and the total request for Assistance to Firefighters
Grants (AFG) is 60% below the FY2008 level for fire and SAFER grants combined.
The FY2009 budget proposal eliminated grants for wellness/fitness activities and
modifications to facilities for firefighter safety. The budget justification requested
funding for “applications that enhance the most critical capabilities of local response
to fire-related hazards in the event of a terrorist attack or major disaster.” The budget
justification also stated that the requested level of funding is “an appropriate level of
funding given the availability of significant amounts of funding for first responder
preparedness missions from other DHS grant programs which are coordinated with
state and local homeland security strategies and, unlike AFG, are allocated on the
basis of risk.”
Office of Health Affairs99
The Office of Health Affairs (OHA) coordinates public health and medical
programs throughout DHS, and administers several of them, including the BioWatch
program, the National Biosurveillance Integration Center (NBIC), certain functions
of Project BioShield, and the department’s occupational health and safety
programs.100 Dr. Jeffrey Runge was confirmed as the first DHS Assistant Secretary
for Health Affairs in December 2007.
President’s FY2009 Request. The Administration requested $161 million
for OHA for FY2009, including $112 million for the BioWatch program, $8 million
98 P.L. 110-161 (FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations), Div. E, Title III.
99 Prepared by Sarah A. Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology, Domestic
Social Policy Division.
100 For more information, see DHS, Office of Health Affairs, at [http://www.dhs.gov/
xabout/structure/editorial_0880.shtm]. For a brief history of the office, see CRS Report
RL34004, Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations, section on Office of
Health Affairs.

---

CRS-55
for NBIC, $3 million for the Rapidly Deployable Chemical System, $10 million for
planning and coordination, and $29 million for salaries and expenses.101
Office of Health Affairs Issues for Congress. The upcoming presidential
transition may prove challenging for OHA, which is in the midst of rapid growth. It
began as the Office of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) in 2005, and was funded at
$2 million in FY2006. As OHA, it grew to a funding level of $117 million in
FY2008. Of that amount, $100 million was in existing programs transferred from
elsewhere in the department, principally the BioWatch program, which was
transferred from the Science and Technology Directorate. OHA plans to use
contractors to meet some of the workforce needs associated with its rapid growth
(particularly in support of BioWatch), but has also requested FY2009 funding to
annualize salaries and expenses for 27 FTEs acquired in FY2008, and for eight new
positions, bringing OHA’s total positions to 84. Four of the requested new positions
would be administrative, intended “to enhance the internal control function of
[OHA]. In FY2008, these activities are extremely limited due to lack of personnel
and in FY2009 we hope to correct these shortfalls. It is imperative that the positions
are funded in order to meet GAO standards and Federal regulations and policies
associated with contracting, budget formulation, budget execution, and internal
controls.”102
In previous fiscal years, Congress has been interested in the effectiveness of
OHA programs. In FY2008 appropriations, Congress provided funding for the
National Academy of Sciences to study the effectiveness of the BioWatch program.
In the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007
(PL-110-53), Congress called on the Comptroller General to evaluate implementation
of the NBIC. These reviews are pending.
National Protection and Programs Directorate103
The National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) was formed by the
Secretary for Homeland Security in response to the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006. The Directorate includes the Office of
Infrastructure Protection, the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, the
Office of Intergovernmental Programs, the Office of Risk Management and Analysis,
and the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program (US-
VISIT). The programs and activities of the Office of the Undersecretary for National
Protection and Programs, along with the activities of the Office of Intergovernmental
Programs and the Office of Risk Management and Analysis, are supported within the
Directorate’s Management and Administration Program. The programs and activities
of the Office of Infrastructure Protection and the Office of Cybersecurity and
Communications are supported through the Infrastructure Protection and Information
Security Program.
101 FY2009 Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 3051-3141 of the pdf document.
102 Ibid, p. OHA-44 (p. 3094 of the pdf document).
103 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources,
Science and Industry Division.

---

CRS-56
Management and Administration. The programs and activities of the
Office of the Undersecretary are aggregated in Directorate Administration and
support the other offices and programs within the Directorate. This support includes
budget formulation and financial management, contract and program management,
information technology, business culture (i.e. employee relations), and
communications, among other things.
The Office of Intergovernmental Programs (IPG) was established by the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 to act as both an advocate for State, local, tribal, and
territorial officials within the department and as the primary liaison between these
officials, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other senior level officials within
the department. In this role, the IPG manages communications and helps coordinate
activities among these stakeholders.
The Office of Risk Management and Analysis (RMA) was established as part
of the Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act of 2006. It had formerly been a division
within the Office of Infrastructure Protection. The RMA now reports directly to the
Undersecretary. The responsibility of this office is to help develop and implement
a common risk management framework104 and to leverage risk management expertise
throughout the entire department.
President’s FY2009 Request. The President requested a total of $54
million for the NPPD Management and Administration appropriation. This included
$43 million for Directorate Administration, $2 million for Intergovernmental
Programs, and $9 million for Risk Management and Analysis. The budget request
included a programmatic increase for additional personnel (including increases in
recruitment and retention bonuses and training) for both the Office of the
Undersecretary (24 positions, 12 FTEs) and the Office of Intergovernmental
Programs (17 positions, 17 FTEs). The primary reason for the increase was to reduce
dependence on outside contractors. The IPG received no funds in FY2008. The
request for the Office of Risk Management and Analysis supports current services.
Issues for Congress. One potential issue in this appropriation cycle is
whether the FY2009 budget justification documents sufficiently address Congress’s
concerns about the quality of the NPPD’s budget requests. In the FY2008
appropriations, both the House and the Senate criticized the level of detail and clarity
of the NPPD budget justification documents and the apparent transfer of funds
without the Committees’ knowledge. The Omnibus Appropriations Act ordered $5
million of the NPPD Management and Administration account to be put on hold until
the Committees’ receive and approve an expenditure plan that has been reviewed by
the Government Accountability Office.
Another possible issue is the location of the Office of Risk Management and
Analysis (RMA) and the Office of Intergovernmental Programs. Both of these
offices oversee activities that cut across the entire department. Some observers have
104 This framework includes the development of a risk management lexicon, risk
performance metrics, a risk communication strategy, and support for the development and
vetting of new risk management tools and techniques.

---

CRS-57
expressed concern that the RMA, in particular, may be located too low in the
organization to accomplish its goals.
Table 16. FY2009 Budget Activity for the Management and
Administration Appropriation
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Program
FY2008
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
Project Activity
Total
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Directorate
Administration
38
43
Intergovernmental
Programs
—
2
Risk Management and
Analysis
9
9
Total
47
54
Sources: CRS Analysis of the DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, and the FY2009
Budget-in-Brief.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(US-VISIT)105
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
programs within DHS106 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 FY2006.107 In
FY2008, DHS transferred US-VISIT into a new entity, the National Protection
Programs Directorate (NPPD). In its Section 872 letter, DHS stated that it was
relocating US-VISIT to the NPPD “to support coordination for the program’s
protection mission and to strengthen DHS management oversight.”108
105 Prepared by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
106 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.
107 H.Rept. 109-241.
108 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, letter from Secretary Michael Chertoff to the
Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and
(continued...)

---

CRS-58
President’s Request. The Administration requested $390 million for US-
VISIT in FY2009, a decrease of $85 million from the FY2009 enacted level of $475
million.109 Included in the Administration’s request is an increase of $43 million to
conduct testing of potential exit solutions at the land POE, and an increase of $4
million to help US-VISIT deal with increased demand for services from other
government entities as the system expands to 10-fingerprints.
Issues for Congress. There are a number of issues that Congress may face
relating to the implementation of the US-VISIT system. These issues may include
whether the Administration’s proposed pilot project for deploying the exit component
at land POE is appropriate, whether the current plan to deploy the exit component at
air POEs is adequate, and whether the current POE infrastructure can support the
added bandwidth that a 10 fingerprint system would likely require.
10 Fingerprint Entry. In FY2008, US-VISIT has been operating a pilot
program of the 10 fingerprint enrollment system to assess the impact of the
program’s expansion on the infrastructure at POE and wait times for travelers
entering the United States. During FY2009, US-VISIT plans to deploy 3,000 new
10 fingerprint scanners to the 292 POE where the US-VISIT system is currently
operational. Issues for Congress could include wether the current information
technology infrastructure at POEs can support the enhanced bandwidth that a 10
fingerprint system will require, whether the 10 fingerprint technology that gets
implemented can produce fast and accurate results, what kind of an impact the
system’s deployment to airports will have on the travel and wait times for individuals
entering the country, and the potential economic impacts that delays may have on
airlines due to missed connections.
Exit Component at Air and Sea Ports. Deployment of a biometric exit
system has been of concern to Congress for a number of years. Without verifying the
identity of travelers who leave the United States, DHS has no easy way of identifying
individuals who overstay their visas and remain in the country illegally. After being
heavily criticized during FY2008 for appearing to move away from the deployment
of an exit system, US-VISIT is requesting $56 million for the exit component of the
system in FY2009. According the DHS, US-VISIT will “finalize a biometric exit
strategy and complete implementation of a biometric air and sea exit system by the
end of calendar year 2008.”110 The exact nature of this strategy will likely be an issue
that Congress will closely examine, given the intense congressional interest on this
topic in the past.
108 (...continued)
Government Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, January 18, 2007, p. 8.
109 While the FY2008 enacted total included $275 million in emergency appropriations, the
total appropriation for US-VISIT in FY2008 was in line with the President’s FY2008
request of $462 million.
110 FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, p. NPPD US-VISIT 21.

---

CRS-59
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security111
The Infrastructure Protection and Information Security Program (IPIS) supports
the activities of the Office of Infrastructure Protection (OIP), which manages the
Infrastructure Protection Program (IP), and the Office of Cybersecurity and
Communications, which includes the National Computer Security Division (NCSD),
the National Communication System (NCS), and the Office of Emergency
Communications (OEC). OIP coordinates the national effort to reduce the risks
associated with the loss or damage to the nation’s critical infrastructure due to
terrorist attack or natural events. This effort is a cooperative one between the federal
government, state, local and tribal governments, and the private sector to identify
critical elements of the nation’s infrastructure, their vulnerabilities, the potential
consequences of their loss or damage, and ways to mitigate those losses. The NCSD
performs a similar function, but specifically focuses on the nation’s information
networks. The NCS also performs similar function, but specifically focuses on the
nation’s communication systems, in particular the communications systems and
programs that ensure the President can communicate with selected federal agencies,
state, local, and tribal governments, and certain private sector entities during times
of national emergencies. The OEC is responsible for promoting the ability of state,
local and federal emergency response providers to communicate with each other
during an emergency through the development and distribution of interoperable
communication equipment.
President’s FY2009 Request. The President requested a total of $841
million for IPIS in FY2009. This is an increase of approximately $186 million above
the amount enacted for FY2008. Each of the four Program/Project Activities (PPAs)
requested increased funding (see Table 16). Of the total increase, $44 million is the
result of changes to baseline funding, including pay increases (plus one large baseline
increase associated with the transfer of a program from the Coast Guard to the NCS).
The balance, $142 million, is the net result of expanded or reduced programmatic
activity, including the hiring of additional personnel.
The National Communication System request is $101 million above last year’s
enacted amount. The request included an increase of nearly $35 million for the Next
Generation Network. This program aims to migrate the Telecommunications Priority
Services program from legacy circuit-switched technology to industry’s new IP-based
packet technology. In FY2008, Congress chose not to fully fund the President’s
request for this program, stating that DHS had not justified the need for the level of
funding requested at that time. Another large programmatic increase in the NCS
request, $57 million, would support the National Command and Coordination
Capability (NCCC). NCCC is an effort to integrate existing and future networks that
share classified as well as sensitive-but-unclassified information (voice, video, and
data) between the President, Vice-President, federal agencies, state Emergency
Operation Centers, and selected local fusion centers. The Secretary of DHS is the
Executive Agent of the NCCC, and he has delegated this authority to the NCS. The
$57 million increase goes toward standing up the NCCC Management Coordination
111 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources,
Science and Industry Division.

---

CRS-60
Office and to extend and integrate the necessary interoperable hardware and software.
The NCS also requested a $35 million increase to its baseline funding to take over
the Coast Guard’s Long Range Navigation (LORAN) system.
The NCSD requested an increase of $83 million above the FY2008 enacted
amount. Expansion of the Division’s Einstein program, and its role in the Office of
Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Trusted Internet Connections initiative,
accounts for nearly $70 million of this increase. The Einstein program monitors
network traffic on federal information networks and acts as an intrusion detection
system. OMB’s Trusted Internet Connections initiative seeks to deploy the Einstein
system to all federal departments and agencies (current involvement had been
voluntary). The increased funding would be spent on the acquisition and deployment
of additional and upgraded hardware and software, the expansion of facilities, and
the hiring of additional personnel and contractor services. Some of the increases are
to handle the additional incident handling and data analysis the expansion will
generate.
The net budget increase requested for the IP is less than a million dollars.
Increases would include $11 million to increase staff and support for chemical
facility security compliance. It also would include $1 million for additional
Protective Security Advisors. Proposed decreases included -$14 million for NIPP
management, -$4 million for the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis
Center, and -$1 million for the Bomb Prevention Program. Congress had
appropriated funds above what the President requested for these programs in
FY2008.
Table 17. FY2009 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure
Protection and Information Security Appropriation
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Program
FY2008
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
Project Activity
Total
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
IP
273
273
NCSDa
210
293
NCSb
136
237
OEC
36
38
Total
655
841
Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, and the FY2009
Budget-in-Brief.
Notes: Tables may not add due to rounding. IP=Infrastructure Protection; NCSD=National Computer
Security Division; NCS=National Communications System; OEC=Office of Emergency
Communications.
a. Account formerly called Computer Security.
b. Account formerly called National Security/Emergency Predparedness.

---

CRS-61
IPIS Issues for Congress. The budget request might raise congressional
concerns given the apparent disagreement between Congress and the President over
levels of funding for certain projects for FY2008. As mentioned above, the
President’s FY2009 budget proposes increased funding in areas that Congress
reduced in FY2008, and reduced programs that Congress had increased, although the
dollar amounts are relatively small.
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 18 provides account-level details of Title IV appropriations.

---

CRS-62
Table 18. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Operational Component
Enacteda
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Total available budget authority
2,620
2,620
2,690
Offsetting feesb
-2,539
-2,539
-2,539
Net subtotal (Direct appropriation)
81
81
151
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
289
289
274
Science and Technology
Management and Administration
139
139
132
Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations
692
692
737
Net Subtotal
830
830
869
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
Management and Administration
32
32
39
Research, Development, and Operations
324
324
334
Systems Acquisition
130
130
191
Net Subtotal
485
485
564
Gross budget authority: Title IV
4,224
4,224
4,396
Offsetting collections: Title IV
-2,539
-2,539
-2,539
Net budget authority: Title IV
1,685
1,685
1,857
Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, and the FY2009 Budget-in-Brief.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
b. Fees include Immigration Examination Fund; H-1b Visa Fee; and the Fraud Prevention and Detection fee.

---

CRS-63
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)112
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.113 USCIS funds the processing and adjudication of
immigrant, nonimmigrant, refugee, asylum, and citizenship benefits largely through
funds generated by the Examinations Fee Account.114 Table 19 shows FY2008
appropriations and the FY2009 request.
President’s FY2009 Request. USCIS is a fee supported 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.115
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, comes
from the adjudication fees of immigration benefit applications and petitions. In the
President’s FY2009 budget request, the agency requested $151 million in direct
appropriations. The remaining $2,539 million in gross budget authority requested
would be funded by revenues from collected fees.
As Table 19 below shows, the requested USCIS budget for FY2009 is
approximately $2,690 million. This requested amount constitutes an increase of $70
million, or almost 3%, over the gross budget authority provided in FY2008. The
requested direct appropriation of $151 million would include $100 million for the
Employer Eligibility Verification Program (EEV, or E-Verify), $50 million for REAL
ID Act implementation, and roughly $1 million for asylum and refugee program
operating expenses. All other programs and operations would be fee funded. Of the
requested funds for FY2009, $1,979 million, or roughly 73.6%, would fund the
USCIS adjudication services. A plurality of these adjudication funds would go
towards pay and benefits with an allocation of $780 million, while district operating
112 Prepared by Chad C. Haddal, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
113 CRS Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
114 §286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1356.
115 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 FY2007, the USCIS
shares of revenues in these accounts were approximately $13 million each, and the funds
combined for a little less than 2% of the USCIS budget (U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Fiscal Year 2009 Congressional
Budget Justifications).

---

CRS-64
expenses would receive $535 million and service center operating expenses would
be allocated $346 million. Business transformation initiatives for modernizing
systems and improving agency information sharing and efficiency would receive
$139 million. The President’s budget request also includes requested funding levels
of $168 million for information and customer services, $374 million for
administration, and $19 million for the Systematic Alien Verification for
Entitlements (SAVE) Program.
Table 19. USCIS Budget Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Program/Project Activity
Enacted
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Appropriations
Appropriations
81
151
REAL ID Act Implementation
—
50
Asylum/Refugee Operating Expenses
—
1
EEV
60
100
FBI Background Check
21
—
Fee Accounts
Adjudication Services
2,000
1,979
Pay & Benefits
758
780
District Operating Expenses
567
535
Service Center Operating Expenses
353
346
Asylum/Refugee Operating Expenses
95
93
Records Operating Expenses
88
86
Business Transformation
139
139
Information and Customer Services
162
168
Administration
375
374
SAVE
22
19
Total USCIS Funding
2,620
2,690
Sources: CRS Analysis of the DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, and the FY2009
Budget-in-Brief.
Notes: Tables may not add due to rounding. Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding
for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
USCIS Issues for Congress. USCIS issues for Congress include the surge
in immigration benefit applications that occurred in FY2007 and which resulted in
an increase in the agency’s backlog, and the use of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s (FBI’s) National Name Check program to vet immigration benefit
applications.

---

CRS-65
Surge in Benefit Applications and Resulting Backlog. According to
the testimony of USCIS Director Emilo T. Gonzalez, USCIS experienced an increase
in its backlog of naturalization applications in the second half of FY2007.116 From
May through July of 2007 USCIS received three and a half times more applications
than during the same three months in the previous year.117 Consequently, published
accounts indicate that processing time for applications filed during the FY2007
“surge” would be between 16-18 months, as compared to 6-7 months for applications
filed in the same period during FY2006.118 For all immigration benefits, the USCIS
director testified that the agency received over 1.2 million more applications during
the FY2007 surge than in the same period during FY2006, for a total of over 3
million applications.119 According to media reports, USCIS officials believe that the
backlog created by the application surge could take close to three years to clear.120
Although citizenship campaigns and a contentious national immigration debate
have been cited as contributing factors, many observers believe most of the surge in
applications may be attributed to the USCIS fee increase of July 30, 2007.121 These
fee adjustments followed an internal cost review and they increased application fees
by a weighted average of 96% for each benefit.122 The cost of naturalization, for
116 Testimony of USCIS Director Emilio T. Gonzalez, in U.S. Congress, House Committee
on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law, Naturalization Delays: Causes, Consequences and Solutions, 110th
Cong., 2nd sess., January 17, 2008.
117 Ibid.
118 For example, see Muzaffar Chishti and Claire Bergeron, “USCIS: Backlog in
Naturalization Applications Will Take Nearly Three Years to Clear,” Migration Policy
Institute, February 15, 2008, at
[file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/chaddal/Application%20Data/Mozilla/Firefox
/Profiles/q4pkbndw.default/zotero/storage/11212/display.html], visited March 4, 2008.
119 Testimony of USCIS Director Emilio T. Gonzalez, in U.S. Congress, House Committee
on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law, Naturalization Delays: Causes, Consequences and Solutions, 110th
Cong., 2nd sess., January 17, 2008.
120 Muzaffar Chishti and Claire Bergeron, “USCIS: Backlog in Naturalization Applications
Will Take Nearly Three Years to Clear,” Migration Policy Institute, February 15, 2008, at
[file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/chaddal/Application%20Data/Mozilla/Firefox
/Profiles/q4pkbndw.default/zotero/storage/11212/display.html], visited March 4, 2008.
121 Chris Nelson, “Delay Debacle,” IndUS Business Journal Online, February 15, 2008, at
[http://www.indusbusinessjournal.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing
&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&t
ier=4&id=5AF6AC18B95142F39C890025700AFBC3], visited March 4, 2008.
122 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)

---

CRS-66
example, increased from $330 to $595.123 Critics of this new naturalization backlog
have mainly raised concerns that applicants would not naturalize in time to
participate in the 2008 election.124 USCIS did not include a request for direct
appropriations to hire additional temporary personnel to adjudicate the backlog.
Use of FBI National Name Check Program. An additional potential issue
for Congress concerns USCIS’ use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI)
National Name Check Program. USCIS officials have estimated that roughly 44% of
320,000 pending name checks for immigration benefit applications have taken more
than six months to process, including applications for legal permanent residence125
(LPR) and naturalization.126 As a result, the White House has authorized USCIS to
grant approximately 47,000 LPR applicants their immigration benefits without
requiring completed FBI name checks.127 Critics of this decision believe it could
expose the United States to more security threats.128 The USCIS ombudsman,
however, has argued that USCIS employment of the FBI name check process is of
limited value to public safety or national security because in most cases the
applicants are living and working in the United States without restriction.129
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)130
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.
123 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee
Schedule,” Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 103 (May 30, 2007), p. 29854.
124 Chris Nelson, “Delay Debacle,” IndUS Business Journal Online, February 15, 2008, at
[http://www.indusbusinessjournal.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&
mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tie
r=4&id=5AF6AC18B95142F39C890025700AFBC3], visited March 4, 2008.
125 Legal permanent residence is more commonly known as being issued a “green card.”
126 Spencer S. Hsu, “U.S. to Skirt Green-Card Check: Action Will Help Applicants Lacking
Final FBI Clearance,” Washington Post, February 12, 2008, p. A03.
127 Susan Carroll, “Green Cards Will Go Out, Background Check or Not,” Houston
Chronicle, February 12, 2008.
128 Ibid.
129 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Service
Ombudsman, Annual Report 2007, June 11, 2007, p. 40.
130 Prepared by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy
Division.

---

CRS-67
President’s Request. The overall request for FLETC in FY2009 is $274
million, a decrease of $15 million from the FY2008 appropriation. The
Administration is requesting an increase of 55 positions to assist in the training of the
additional Border Patrol agents, CBP officers, ICE detention personnel, and ICE
investigators requested by DHS in its FY2009 budget submission. DHS is also
proposing to transfer the office of Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation
to the Chief Human Capital Office in Title I.131
Science and Technology (S&T)132
The Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) is the primary DHS
organization for research and development (R&D).133 Headed by the Under Secretary
for Science and Technology, it performs R&D in several laboratories of its own and
funds R&D performed by the national laboratories, industry, universities, and other
government agencies. See Table 20 for details of the directorate’s appropriation.
President’s FY2009 Request. The Administration requested a total of $869
million for the S&T Directorate for FY2009. This was 5% more than the FY2008
appropriation of $830 million. A proposed increase of $18 million for the Explosives
program would fund R&D on countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs), with
an emphasis on basic research to complement shorter-term R&D being conducted by
other agencies. A proposed increase of $43 million for the Laboratory Facilities
program included $29 million for startup costs at the National Biodefense Analysis
and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) as well as $14 million for laboratory
employee salaries previously budgeted in another account. A proposed $27 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.
131 DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. FLETC S&E 2 and 11.
132 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Analyst in Science & Technology, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
133 Two other DHS organizations also conduct R&D: the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (see next section) and the U.S. Coast Guard. Funding for the Coast Guard’s
Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation account was as follows: FY2008 enacted,
$25 million; FY2009 request, $16 million.

---

CRS-68
Table 20. Directorate of Science and Technology Accounts and
Activities, FY2008-FY2009
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009 FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
House- Senate- FY2009
Enacted
Request
Passed
Passed Enacted
Directorate of Science and Technology
830
869
Management and Administrationa
139
132
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
692
737
Border and Maritime
25
35
Chemical and Biological
208
200
Command, Control, and Interoperability
57
62
Explosives
78
96
Human Factors
14
12
Infrastructure and Geophysical
64
38
Innovation
33
45
Laboratory Facilitiesa
104
147
Test and Evaluation, Standards
29
25
Transitionb
25
32
Homeland Security Instituteb
5


—
University Programs
49
44
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2009 DHS congressional budget justification.
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
a. Reflects transfer of $14 million for salaries of DHS laboratory employees from Management and
Administration in FY2008 to Laboratory Facilities in FY2009.
b. Congress appropriated $5 million for the Homeland Security Institute as a separate line item in
FY2008. The FY2009 budget justification incorporated this amount into Transition. The
FY2009 request for Transition included $5 million for the Homeland Security Institute.
Issues for Congress. Among the issues facing Congress are the S&T
Directorate’s priorities and how they are set, its relationships with other federal R&D
organizations both inside and outside DHS, its budgeting and financial management,
and the allocation of its R&D resources to national laboratories, industry, and
universities. The directorate announced five new university centers of excellence in
February 2008. Some existing centers are expected to be terminated or merged over
the next few years to align with the directorate’s division structure. For more
information, see CRS Report RL34356, The DHS Directorate of Science and
Technology: Key Issues for Congress.

---

CRS-69
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office134
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 21 for details of the appropriation for DNDO.
President’s FY2009 Request. The Administration requested a total of $564
million for DNDO for FY2009. This was a 16% increase from the FY2008
appropriation of $485 million. Most of the growth was in the Systems Acquisition
account, where an increase of $68 million for procurement of Advanced
Spectroscopic Portals (ASPs) was partly offset by a decrease of $10 million for the
Securing the Cities initiative in the New York City area.
Table 21. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Accounts and
Activities, FY2008-FY2009
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009 FY2009
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
FY2009
Enacted
Request
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
485
564
Management and Administration
32
39
Research, Development, and Operations
324
334
Systems Engineering and Architecture
22
25
Systems Development
118
108
Transformational Research and
Development
96
113
Assessments
38
32
Operations Support
34
38
National Technical Nuclear Forensics
Center
15
18
Systems Acquisition
130
191
Radiation Portal Monitoring Program
90
158
Securing the Cities
30
20
Human Portable Radiation Detection
Systems
10
13
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2009 DHS congressional budget justification.
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
134 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Analyst in Science and Technology, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.

---

CRS-70
Issues for Congress. Congressional attention has focused on the testing and
analysis DNDO conducted to support its decision to purchase and deploy ASPs, a
type of next-generation radiation portal monitor.135 The Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2008 prohibits full-scale procurement of ASPs until the Secretary of Homeland
Security has certified their performance.136 DHS states that it expects the Secretary
to make that certification in late FY2008. The relative roles of DNDO and the S&T
Directorate in research, development, testing, and evaluation also remain an issue of
congressional interest.
FY2009-Related Legislation
Budget Resolution
The President’s FY2009 budget request included nearly $992 billion in
discretionary, non-emergency, budget authority. On March 6, 2008, the House and
Senate Budget Committees each reported budget resolutions. The House budget
resolution (H.Con.Res. 312) was passed in the House on March 13, 2008. While the
budget resolution does not identify specific amounts for DHS, it does note that:
this resolution assumes funding above the President’s requested level for 2009,
and additional amounts in subsequent years, in the four budget functions —
Function 400 (Transportation), Function 450 (Community and Regional
Development), Function 550 (Health), and Function 750 (Administration of
Justice) — that fund most nondefense homeland security activities.137
135 See, for example, Government Accountability Office, Combating Nuclear Smuggling:
Additional Actions Needed to Ensure Adequate Testing of Next Generation Radiation
Detection Equipment, GAO-07-1247T, testimony before the House Committee on Energy
and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, September 18, 2007.
136 P.L. 110-161, Division E, Title IV, under the heading “Systems Acquisition.”
137 H.Con.Res. 312, §603.

---

CRS-71
Appendix A. Emergency Funding for Border
Security in The Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2008 (P.L. 110-161)
This appendix describes the distribution of $3,000 million ($3.0 billion) in
emergency funds for border security throughout the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).138 Division E of P.L. 110-161 includes $2,710 million
($2.7 billion) in emergency funding for border security purposes. This funding is
disbursed throughout several DHS funding accounts including Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT); State and Local Programs
(S&L); the U.S. Coast Guard, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS),
and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). P.L. 110-161 also
includes another $40 million in Division B — Commerce, Justice, Science; the
remaining $250 million is included in Division D — Financial Services.
Distribution of FY2008 Emergency Border Security Funding
in Division E — DHS of P.L. 110-161
As noted above, $2,710 million ($2.7 billion) in emergency funding was
distributed among several accounts in Division E of P.L. 110-161. The funds are
distributed as follows: $1,531 million ($1.5 billion) for CBP; $527 million for ICE;
$166 million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $275 million for USVISIT; $110 million for
S&L programs; $80 million for USCIS; and $21 million for FLETC.
CBP FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations. The $1,531
million ($1.5 billion) in FY2008 emergency funding for CBP is disbursed as follows,
by account and amount:
! Salaries and Expenses — $323 million
! $40 million for the Model Ports of Entry program and
includes funding to hire at least 200 additional CBP
officers at the 20 U.S. international airports with the
highest number of foreign visitors arriving annually;
! $45 million for terrorist prevention system
enhancements for passenger screening - to develop
system infrastructure needed to support a real-time
capability to process advanced passenger information
for passengers intending to fly to the U.S.;
! $36 million to implement the electronic travel
authorization program for visa waiver countries;
! $150 million for the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative (WHTI);
! $25 million for a ground transportation vehicle contract
(Border Patrol);
! $13 million for Border Patrol vehicles;
138 Figures in this memorandum are rounded to the nearest million.

---

CRS-72
! $14 million for Air and Marine Personnel
Compensation and Benefits for 82 positions to support
the establishment of 11 new marine enforcement units.
! Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT) —
$1,053 million:
! $1,053 million ($1.1 billion) for development and
deployment of systems and technology.
! Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and
Procurement:
! $94 million for procurement.
! Construction — $61 million:
! $61 million for Border Patrol Construction.
ICE FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations. The $527
million in FY2008 emergency funding for ICE is disbursed as follows, by account
and amount:
! Salaries and Expenses — $516 million
! $4 million for ICE vehicle replacements;
! $50 million for domestic investigations;
! $186 million for custody operations;
! $33 million for fugitive operations;
! $10 million for alternatives to detention;
! $33 million for transportation and removal;
! $200 million for the comprehensive identification and
removal of criminal aliens.
! Construction — $11 million
! $11 million for construction.
U.S. Coast Guard FY2008 Emergency Border Security
Appropriations. The $166 million in FY2008 emergency funding for the U.S.
Coast Guard is disbursed as follows, by account and amount:
! Operating Expenses — $70 million
! $70 million for port and maritime security
enhancements.
! Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements — $96 million
! $36 million for medium response boat replacement;
! $60 million for interagency operational centers for port
security.
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (USVISIT)
FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations. The $275 million in
FY2008 emergency funding for US-VISIT is provided in the main US-VISIT
account.

---

CRS-73
State and Local Programs FY2008 Emergency Border Security
Appropriations. The $110 million in FY2008 emergency funding for State and
Local Programs is disbursed as follows:
! $60 million for Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Grants —
Operation Stonegarden;139
! $50 million for REAL ID140 grants.
USCIS FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations. The $80
million in FY2008 emergency funding for USCIS is disbursed as follows:
! $60 million for the E-Verify141 program;
! $20 million for the FBI background check backlog.
FLETC FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations. The $21
million in FY2008 emergency funding for FLETC is disbursed as follows, by amount
and account:
! Salaries and Expenses — $17 million
! $17 million for law enforcement training
! Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses —
$4 million
! $4 million for construction.
Distribution of FY2008 Emergency Border Security Funding
in Division B — Commerce, Justice, Science of P.L. 110-161
Division B — the Commerce, Justice, Science portion of P.L. 110-161 contains
border security-related emergency funding to provide additional resources that will
be required as a result of an anticipated increase in immigration enforcement actions.
Department of Justice (DOJ) FY2008 Emergency Border Security
Appropriations. The $40 million in FY2008 emergency funding for DOJ is
disbursed as follows, by amount and account:
! General Administration - Salaries and Expenses — $8 million
! $8 million for the Executive Office for Immigration
Review (EOIR) to provide additional attorneys and
judges for the Board of Immigration Appeals
139 Operation Stonegarden provides funds (awarded on a competitive basis) to state and local
law enforcement in counties along the land border in support of ongoing law enforcement
operations along the border.
140 Grants to assist states in implementing the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005
regarding the issuance of state driver’s licenses and state identification cards.
141 The E-Verify program was previously referred to as the Employment Eligibility
Verification program and is administered by USCIS.

---

CRS-74
! Legal Activities — Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities -
$10 million
! $10 million for the Civil Division Office of Immigration
Litigation to provide 86 additional attorneys to address
appeals resulting from increased immigration
enforcement actions
! Legal Activities — Salaries and Expenses, United States Attorneys
— $7 million
! $7 million for United States Attorneys for criminal and
civil litigation resulting from increased immigration
enforcement actions.
! US Marshals Service — Salaries and Expenses — $15 million.
! $15 million for prisoner transportation, defendant
productions and courthouse security resulting from
increased immigration-related Federal court
proceedings.
Distribution of FY2008 Emergency Border Security Funding
in Division D — Financial Services
Division D — the Financial Services portion of P.L. 110-161 contains border
security-related emergency funding to provide additional resources that will be
required as a result of an anticipated increase in immigration enforcement actions.
This funding is found within the General Services Administration (GSA), and within
the Judiciary, Courts of Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services.
General Services Administration (GSA) FY2008 Emergency Border
Security Appropriations. There is $225 million in emergency border security
funding included in the Construction and Acquisition account of the Federal
Buildings Fund under the GSA:
! Federal Buildings Fund — Construction and Acquisition — $225
million
! $225 million to expedite construction at select land
ports of entry, including one of the nation’s most
congested sites.
Courts of Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services,
FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations. P.L. 110-161 provides
$25 million142 in emergency funding for border security initiatives within Courts of
Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services:
! Salaries and Expenses — $15 million
142 The overall total appropriated for this account was $25 million because the total for
Salaries and Expenses was actually $14.5 million and the total for defender services was
actually $10.5 million.

---

CRS-75
! $15 million to address the understaffed workload
associated with increased immigration enforcement
along the Southwest border
! Defender Services — $11 million
! $11 million to address the expected increased workload
of attorneys appointed to represent persons under the
Criminal Justice Act of 1964 as a result of increased
immigration enforcement along the Southwest border.

---

CRS-76
Appendix B. 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 22 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 FY2009 accounts for approximately 49.5% of
total federal funding for homeland security. The Department of Defense comprises
the next highest proportion at 26.6% of all federal spending on homeland security.
The Department of Health and Human Services at 6.7%, the Department of Justice
at 5.7% and the Department of State at 3.7% round out the top five agencies in
spending on homeland security. These five agencies collectively account for nearly
92.2% 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 FY2009 request included total
homeland security budget authority of $32.8 billion for DHS, the requested total
gross budget authority was $46.8 billion. The same is true of the other agencies
listed in the table.

---

CRS-77
Table 22. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2003-FY2009
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009 as %
Department
FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006
FY2007 FY2008
Request
of total
Department of Homeland
Security (DHS)
23,063
22,923
24,549
26,571
29,554
32,740
32,817
49.5%
Department of Defense (DOD)a
8,442
7,024
17,188
17,510
16,538
17,374
17,646
26.6%
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS)
4,144
4,062
4,229
4,352
4,327
4,301
4,457
6.7%
Department of Justice (DOJ)
2,349
2,180
2,767
3,026
3,518
3,523
3,795
5.7%
Department of State (DOS)
634
696
824
1,108
1,242
1,962
2,466
3.7%
Department of Energy (DOE)
1,408
1,364
1,562
1,702
1,719
1,829
1,943
2.9%
Department of Agriculture (AG)
410
411
596
597
541
570
691
1.0%
National Science Foundation
(NSF)
285
340
342
344
385
374
379
0.6%
Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA)
154
271
249
298
260
272
348
0.5%
Department of Commerce
112
125
167
181
205
207
262
0.4%
Other Agencies
1,445
1,437
1,910
1,429
1,545
1,772
1,500
2.3%
Total Federal Budget
Authority
42,447
40,834
54,383
57,118
59,833
64,923
66,303
100%
Sources: CRS analysis of data contained in “Section 3. Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” and Appendix K of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2009 President’s
Budget (for FY2007- FY2009); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2008 President’s Budget (for FY2006); Section 3.
“Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2008 President’s Budget (for FY2005); 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.

---

CRS-78
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.
a. FY2002, FY2003, and FY2004 do not include re-estimates of DOD homeland security funding. For FY2007 DOD changed the manner in which they calculate their homeland
security activities. This new method of estimation has been applied for FY2005 and forward. Re-estimates of FY2002-FY2004 DOD funding using this new method of calculation
were not available for inclusion.

---