Order Code RL34482
Homeland Security Department:
FY2009 Appropriations
Updated September 25, 2008
Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto, Coordinators,
Sarah A. Lister, Alison Siskin, and Chad C. Haddal
Domestic Social Policy Division
Bruce R. Lindsay, 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 Appropriations
Summary
This report describes the FY2009 appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). The Administration requested a net appropriation of
$38.9 billion in budget authority for FY2009. The House Appropriations Committee
reported its version of the FY2009 DHS Appropriations bill on June 24, 2008. The
bill was filed on September 18, 2008, as H.R. 6947, and the accompanying report has
been numbered H.Rept. 110-862. This report has been updated using draft versions
of both the reported bill and report, and refers to the bill as draft-H.R. 6947. Draft-
H.R. 6947 would provide a net appropriation of $41.1 billion in budget authority for
DHS for FY2009. This amounts to an increase of $2.2 billion or nearly 6% increase
over the President’s request. The Senate reported its version of the bill on June 19,
2008. S. 3181 would provide $41.3 billion in net budget authority for DHS for
FY2009, a $2.4 billion or 6% increase over the President’s request.
On September 23, 2008, the House Rules Committee reported H.Res. 1488 for
consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. H.R. 2638 was
originally introduced as the FY2008 DHS Appropriations Act, but has been amended
to serve as the legislative vehicle for the proposed Continuing Resolution, a Disaster
Relief Emergency Supplemental, the Department of Defense FY2009 Appropriations
Act, the FY2009 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, and the
FY2009 Military Construction and Veterans Assistance Act.1 On September 24,
2008, the House passed H.R. 2638.
The tables in this CRS report have been updated to reflect House action. The
far right column in each table in this report reflects amounts contained in the draft-
Joint Explanatory Statement posted on the House Rules Committee website on
September 24, 2008, and passed by the House on September 25, 2008, by a vote of
370-58-1. The text of this CRS report has not been updated.
Divison D of House-passed H.R. 2638 would provide a net appropriation of
$41.2 billion for DHS for FY2009. This amounts to nearly $2.4 billion more than
the President’s request for FY2009, $88 million more than was reported by the House
in H.R. 6947, and $89 million less than was reported by the Senate in S. 3181.
Division B of House-passed H.R. 2638 contains the following amounts for DHS
agencies: $300 million in emergency FY2008 funding for the Coast Guard, $7.96
billion in emergency FY2008 funding for FEMA’s Disaster Relief Account, and $100
million in emergency FY2008 funding for payments to the American Red Cross.
These FY2008 emergency supplemental amounts are not currently reflected in the
tables in this report.
This report will be updated as legislative action occurs.
1 See the CRS Appropriations Status table for more information
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/appover.shtml].

---

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
House-Passed H.R. 2638 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Draft-H.R. 6947 Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Senate-reported S. 3181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
President’s FY2009 Budget Submitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Note on Most Recent Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Offsetting Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
DHS Appropriations Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Summary of DHS Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Draft-H.R. 6947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Senate-Reported S. 3181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Personnel Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Analysis and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Draft-H.R. 6947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Senate-reported S. 3181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Draft-H.R. 6947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Senate-reported S. 3181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Hiring U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Other Travel Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Covered Law Enforcement Officer Status for CBP Officers . . . . 28
Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Container Security Initiative (CSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Draft-H.R. 6947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Senate-reported S. 3181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Detention and Removal Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

---

State and Local Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Federal Protective Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Draft-H.R. 6947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Senate-reported S. 3181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
TSA Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Passenger Security Fee Surcharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Checkpoint Technology Investment and Deployment . . . . . . . . . 44
Program Consolidation Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Secure Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
United States Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Draft-H.R. 6947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Senate-Reported S. 3181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Deepwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Response-Boat Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Security Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Non-Homeland Security Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Marine Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Rescue-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
LORAN-C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Bridge Alteration Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Arctic Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
U.S. Secret Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Draft-H.R. 6947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Senate-reported S. 3181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Secret Service Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Title III: Preparedness and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Draft-H.R. 6947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Senate-reported S. 3181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Disaster Relief Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
FEMA Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Emergency Food and Shelter (EFS) Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Flood Map Modernization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
FEMA Work Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Draft-H.R. 6947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Senate-reported S. 3181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Pre-Disaster Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Gulf Coast Hurricane Recovery Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Administrative, Financial and Budgeting Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Disaster Logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Urban Search and Rescue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Office of Grant Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Draft-H.R. 6947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

---

Senate-reported S. 3181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Office of Grant Programs Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Reduction in Funding for State and Local Assistance . . . . . . . . . 69
Reduction in Funding for the Assistance to Firefighters
Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Office of Health Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Draft-H.R. 6947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Senate-reported S. 3181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Office of Health Affairs Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
National Protection and Programs Directorate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Management and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Draft-H.R. 6947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Senate-reported S. 3181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) . . . . 74
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Draft-H.R. 6947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Senate-reported S. 3181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
10 Fingerprint Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Exit Component at Air and Sea Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Draft-H.R. 6947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Senate-reported S. 3181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
IPIS Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services . . . 81
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Draft-H.R. 6947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Senate-reported S. 3181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
USCIS Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Surge in Benefit Applications and Resulting Backlog . . . . . . . . . 86
Use of FBI National Name Check Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Draft-H.R. 6947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Senate-reported S. 3181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Science and Technology (S&T) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Draft-H.R. 6947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Senate-Reported S. 3181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
President’s FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Draft-H.R. 6947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Senate-Reported S. 3181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

---

FY2009-Related Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Budget Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Appendix A. Emergency Funding for Border Security in The
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Distribution of FY2008 Emergency Border Security Funding in Division
E — DHS of P.L. 110-161 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
CBP FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . 95
ICE FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . 96
U.S. Coast Guard FY2008 Emergency Border Security
Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (USVISIT)
FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . 96
State and Local Programs FY2008 Emergency Border Security
Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
USCIS FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations . . . . . . . 97
FLETC FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations . . . . . . . 97
Distribution of FY2008 Emergency Border Security Funding in Division
B — Commerce, Justice, Science of P.L. 110-161 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Department of Justice (DOJ) FY2008 Emergency Border Security
Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Distribution of FY2008 Emergency Border Security Funding in Division
D — Financial Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
General Services Administration (GSA) FY2008 Emergency
Border Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Courts of Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services,
FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . 98
Appendix B. DHS Appropriations in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Federal-Wide Homeland Security Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
List of Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. FY2009 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 3. FY2009 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to
Net Appropriation — Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust and
Public Enterprise Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 6. Title I: Department Management and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 7. Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer and Office of Human
Capital Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 10. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 11. TSA Gross Budget Authority, by Budget Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 12. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-account
Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 13. U.S. Secret Service Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table 14. Title III: Preparedness and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

---

Table 15. State and Local Homeland Security Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table 16. FY2009 Budget Activity for the Management and
Administration Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Table 17. FY2009 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure Protection and
Information Security Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Table 18. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments,
and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Table 19. USCIS Budget Account Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Table 20. Directorate of Science and Technology Accounts and Activities,
FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Table 21. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Accounts and Activities,
FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Table 22. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency,
FY2003-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

---

Homeland Security Department:
FY2009 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
House-Passed H.R. 2638. On September 23, 2008, the House Rules
Committee reported H.Res. 1488 for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R.
2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2009. H.R. 2638 was originally introduced as the FY2008 DHS Appropriations
Act, but has been amended to serve as the legislative vehicle for the proposed
Continuing Resolution, a Disaster Relief Emergency Supplemental, the Department
of Defense FY2009 Appropriations Act, the FY2009 Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act, and the FY2009 Military Construction and Veterans
Assistance Act.2 On September 24, 2008, the House passed H.R. 2638.
The tables in this CRS report have been updated to reflect the most recent House
action. The far right column in each table in this report reflects amounts contained
in the draft-Joint Explanatory Statement posted on the House Rules Committee
website on September 24, 2008, and passed by the House on September 25, 2008, by
a vote of 370-58-1. The text of this CRS report has not been updated.
Divison D of House-passed H.R. 2638 would provide a net appropriation of
$41.2 billion for DHS for FY2009. This amounts to nearly $2.4 billion more than
the President’s request for FY2009, $88 million more than was reported by the House
in H.R. 6947, and $89 million less than was reported by the Senate in S. 3181.
Division B of House-passed H.R. 2638 contains the following amounts for DHS
agencies: $300 million in emergency FY2008 funding for the Coast Guard, $7.96
billion in emergency FY2008 funding for FEMA’s Disaster Relief Account, and $100
million in emergency FY2008 funding for payments to the American Red Cross.
These FY2008 emergency supplemental amounts are not currently reflected in the
tables in this report.
Draft-H.R. 6947 Bill. The House Appropriations Committee reported its
version of the FY2009 DHS Appropriations bill on June 24, 2008. The bill was filed
on September 18, 2008, as H.R. 6947, and the accompanying report has been
numbered H.Rept. 110-862. This report has been updated using draft versions of
both the reported bill and report, and refers to the bill as draft-H.R. 6947. Draft-H.R.
6947 would provide a net appropriation of $41.1 billion in budget authority for DHS
for FY2009. This amounts to an increase of $2.2 billion or nearly 6% increase over
2 See the CRS Appropriations Status table for more information
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/appover.shtml].

---

CRS-2
the President’s request. Draft-H.R. 6947 contains net appropriations for major
components of the department as follows: $9,694 million for CBP; $4,813 million
for ICE; $4,354 million for the TSA; $9,206 million for the U.S. Coast Guard;
$1,371 million for the Secret Service; $1,287 for the NPP; $7,407 million for the
FEMA; $102 million for USCIS; $887 million for the S&T; and $544 million for the
DNDO.
Senate-reported S. 3181. The Senate reported its version of the bill on June
19, 2008. S. 3181 would provide $41.3 billion in net budget authority for DHS for
FY2009, a $2.4 billion or 6% increase over the President’s request. S. 3181 contains
net appropriations for major components of the department included as follows:
$9,740 million for CBP; $4,989 million for ICE; $4,277 million for the TSA; $9,216
million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,418 million for the Secret Service; $1,041 for
the NPP; $7,407 million for the FEMA; $151 million for USCIS; $919 million for
the S&T; and $541 million for the DNDO.
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
Senate
Report
House
Report
Senate
Confr.
Public
House
Senate
110-862
Passage
110-396
Passage
Report
Law
6/11
6/18
6/24
6/19
(vv)
(vv)
(vv)a
(vv)
Note: (vv) = voice vote, (uc) = unanimous consent.
a. The full House Appropriations Committee reported the FY2009 DHS Appropriations bill on June
6, 2008, but the bill was not filed until September 18, 2008.
Note on Most Recent Data. Data used in this report include data from the
President’s Budget Documents, the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget
Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying
report S.Rept. 110-396, and draft copies of the House-reported bill (H.R. 6947) and
the accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862), provided to CRS by the Homeland
Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on July 8, 2008.
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

---

CRS-3
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
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.

---

CRS-4
Title IV contains appropriations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS), the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), and the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations
The maximum budget authority for annual appropriations (including DHS) is
determined through a two-stage congressional budget process. In the first stage,
Congress sets overall spending totals in the annual concurrent resolution on the
budget. Subsequently, these amounts are allocated among the appropriations
committees, usually through the statement of managers for the conference report on
the budget resolution. These amounts are known as the 302(a) allocations. They
include discretionary totals available to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations for enactment in annual appropriations bills through the
subcommittees responsible for the development of the bills. In the second stage of
the process, the appropriations committees allocate the 302(a) discretionary funds
among their subcommittees for each of the appropriations bills. These amounts are
known as the 302(b) allocations. These allocations must add up to no more than the
302(a) discretionary allocation and form the basis for enforcing budget discipline,
since any bill reported with a total above the ceiling is subject to a point of order.
302(b) allocations may be adjusted during the year as the various appropriations bills
progress towards final enactment.
The annual concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth the congressional
budget. 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
Comparablea
Allocationa
Allocationa
Comparable
$37.6
$37.6
$42.1
$42.3
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, H.Rept. 110-746,
Report on the Suballocation of Budget Allocations for Fiscal Year 2009, House Committee on
Appropriations, July 8, 2008, and S.Rept. 110-402, Revised Allocation to Subcommittees of Budget
Totals from the Concurrent Resolution, Fiscal Year 2009, Senate Committee on Appropriations, June
25, 2008.
a. Does not include $2.2 billion in advance Bioshield funding appropriated in FY2004 that becomes
available for obligation in FY2009.
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.

---

CRS-5
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 Act3 prohibits federal agencies from obligating more
funds than the budget authority that was enacted by Congress. Budget authority may
be indefinite, however, when Congress enacts language providing “such sums as may
be necessary” to complete a project or purpose. Budget authority may be available
on a one-year, multi-year, or no-year basis. One-year budget authority is only
available for obligation during a specific fiscal year; any unobligated funds at the end
of that year are no longer available for spending. Multi-year budget authority
specifies a range of time during which funds can be obligated for spending; no-year
budget authority is available for obligation for an indefinite period of time.
Obligations are incurred when federal agencies employ personnel, enter into
contracts, receive services, and engage in similar transactions in a given fiscal year.
Outlays are the funds that are actually spent during the fiscal year.4 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
19905 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
3 31 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517.
4 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].
5 P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.

---

CRS-6
the appropriations acts. Within DHS, the Coast Guard retirement pay is an example
of appropriated mandatory spending.
Offsetting Collections6
Offsetting funds are collected by the federal government, either from
government accounts or the public, as part of a business-type transaction such as
offsets to outlays or collection of a fee. These funds are not counted as revenue.
Instead, they are counted as negative outlays. DHS net discretionary budget
authority, or the total funds that are appropriated by Congress each year, is composed
of discretionary spending minus any fee or fund collections that offset discretionary
spending.
Some collections offset a portion of an agency’s discretionary budget authority.
Other collections offset an agency’s mandatory spending. They are typically
entitlement programs under which individuals, businesses, or units of government
that meet the requirements or qualifications established by law are entitled to receive
certain payments if they establish eligibility. The DHS budget features two
mandatory entitlement programs: the Secret Service and the Coast Guard retired pay
accounts (pensions). Some entitlements are funded by permanent appropriations,
others by annual appropriations. The Secret Service retirement pay is a permanent
appropriation and as such is not annually appropriated, whereas the Coast Guard
retirement pay is annually appropriated. In addition to these entitlements, the DHS
budget contains offsetting Trust and Public Enterprise Funds. These funds are not
appropriated by Congress. They are available for obligation and included in the
President’s budget to calculate the gross budget authority.
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
6 Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff Jr., Analyst in American National Government.

---

CRS-7
FY2008
FY2009
Account/Agency
Account Name
Enacted
Request
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
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.

---

CRS-8
a. DHS gross budget authority is the total budget authority available to the Department in a given
fiscal year. This amount includes both appropriated and non-appropriated funding.
b. Secret Service Retired Pay is permanently and indefinitely authorized, and as such is not annually
appropriated. Therefore it is offset in Table 3.
c. In contrast to Secret Service Retired Pay, Coast Guard Retired pay must be annually appropriated,
and therefore is not offset in Table 3.
d. This fund is comprised of both discretionary and mandatory appropriations; thus its component
parts appear twice in this table.
Appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security
DHS Appropriations Trends
Table 4 presents DHS Appropriations, as enacted, for FY2003 through the
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-9
Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
House-
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed
Operational Component
Enacteda
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Reported
Reported
H.R. 2638*
Title I: Departmental Operations
Subtotal: Title I
983
983
1,185
1,049
1,197
1,086
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
Customs and Border Protection
9,423
9,423
9,487
9,694
9,741
9,821
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
4,735
4,735
4,748
4,813
4,989
4,989
Transportation Security Administration
4,021
4,021
4,065
4,354
4,277
4,367
U.S. Coast Guard
8,632
8,632
9,071
9,206
9,216
9,361
U.S. Secret Service
1,385
1,385
1,414
1,371
1,418
1,413
Net subtotal: Title II
28,195
28,195
28,786
29,438
29,641
29,951
Total fee collections
5,025
5,025
5,399
4,973
4,997
4,997
Gross subtotal: Title II
33,220
33,220
34,185
34,411
34,638
34,948
Title III: Preparedness and Recovery
National Protection & Programs Directorate
1,177
1,177
1,286
1,287
1,041
1,158
Office of Health Affairs
117
117
161
134
171
157
Counter Terrorism Fund
—
—
—
—
—
—
Federal Emergency Management Administration
6,806
2,900b
9,706
5,573
7,407
7,328
6,963
Net subtotal: Title III
8,100
11,000
7,020
8,829
8,540
8,278
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and
Services
Citizenship and Immigration Services
81
81
151
102
151
102
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
289
289
274
286
324
333
Science and Technology
830
830
869
887
919
933

---

CRS-10
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
House-
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed
Operational Component
Enacteda
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Reported
Reported
H.R. 2638*
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
485
485
564
544
541
514
Net subtotal: Title IV
1,685
1,685
1,857
1,819
1,935
1,882
Total fee collections
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
Gross subtotal: Title IV
4,224
4,224
4,396
4,358
4,474
4,421
Title V: General Provisions
Rescissions
-216
-216
—
—
—
28 c
Department of Homeland Security Appropriation
Gross DHS budget authority
46,311
2,900b
49,211
46,786
48,649
48,849
48,761
Total fee collections
-7,564
—
-7,564
-7,938
-7,512
-7,536
-7,536
Net DHS budget authority
38,747
2,900b
41,647
38,849
41,137
41,314
41,225
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and draft
copies of the House-reported bill (H.R. 6947) and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862), provided to CRS by the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations
Committee on July 8, 2008.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
*As contained in the draft-Joint Explanatory Statement posted on the House Rules Committee website on September 24, 2008.
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.
c. Represents the net of several amounts contained in the Title V General Provisions of House-passed H.R. 2638, including the following: Sec. 547, which would provide an additional
$50 million for REAL ID grants and an additional $50 million for REAL ID Information Sharing and Verification; Sec. 549, which would rescind $31 million in undistributed
TSA carryover balances; Sec. 550, which would rescind $21 million in A&O unobligated balances; and Sec. 551, which would rescind $20 million in Coast Guard unobligated
balances.

---

CRS-11
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations7
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;8 the United States Coast Guard was
statutorily chartered in 1915;9 the Bureau of Customs was created in the Treasury
7 Prepared by Harold C. Relyea, Specialist in American National Government, Government
and Finance Division.
8 26 Stat. 1085.
9 38 Stat. 800.

---

CRS-12
Department in 1927;10 and the Federal Emergency Management Agency was
mandated by E.O. 12127 of March 31, 1979.11 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.”12
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.13 Details
about the implementation of the panel’s recommendations are not available for
security reasons, according to DHS.
Draft-H.R. 6947. Draft-H.R. 6947 tentatively recommended $1,049 million
for DHS management and operations entities funded in Title I, $136 less (-12%) than
the amount requested. The allocations for entities within the title, as approved by the
House, were as follow: OS&EM, $123 million, a decrease of $4 million (-3%); USM,
-$190 million, a decrease of $130 million (-41%); OCFO, $55 million, a decrease of
$1 million (-2%); OCIO, $247 million, the same level as requested (0%); AOO, $324
million, a decrease of $9 million (-3%); OFCGCR, less than $1 million, the same
level as requested (0%); and OIG, $101 million, the same level as requested (0%),
but increased by a $15 million proposed transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster
Relief account, resulting in a recommended total appropriation of $116 million, an
increase of $15(+15%). A subsequent amendment adopted in committee moved $6
million (-5%) from the Title I OS&EM account to the Title II ICE salaries and
expenses account.
Senate-Reported S. 3181. Senate appropriators recommended $1,197
million for Title I accounts, slightly more (+1%) than the President’s $1,185 million
request. The suggested allocations for the title were as follow: OS&EM, $123
million, a decrease of $4 million (-3%); USM, $310 million, a decrease of about $9
million (-3%); OCFO, $56 million, the same level as requested (0%); OCIO, $274
million, an increase of $27 million (+11%); AOO, $318 million, a decrease of $16
million (-5%); OFCGCR, $3 million, an increase of $2 million (+50%); and OIG,
$96 million, a decrease of $5 million (-5%), but increased by a $16 million proposed
transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account, resulting in a recommended
total appropriation of $112 million, an increase of $11 million (+11%).
10 44 Stat. 1381.
11 3 C.F.R., 1979 Comp., pp. 376-377.
12 6 U.S.C. §341(a)(9)(B).
13 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-13
Table 6. Title I: Department Management and Operations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
House-
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed
Operational Component
Enacteda
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Reported
Reported
H.R. 2638*
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
97
97
127
117 b
123
123
Office of Screening Coordination and Operations
—
—
—
—
—
—
Office of the Undersecretary for Management
145c
145 c
321
190
311
192
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
31
31
56
55
56
55
Office of the Chief Information Officer
295
295
247
247
275
272
Analysis and Operations
306d
306d
334
324
318 e
327
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding
3
3
— f
— g
3
2
Office of the Inspector General
109h
109h
101
116 i
112 j
115 k
Net Budget Authority: Title I
986
986
1,187
1,049
1,197
1,086
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and draft
copies of the House-reported bill (H.R. 6947) and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862), provided to CRS by the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations
Committee on July 8, 2008.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
*As contained in the draft-Joint Explanatory Statement posted on the House Rules Committee website on September 24, 2008.
a. Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
b. Includes a $6 million transfer from OSEM to ICE S&E that was adopted by amendment during the House full committee mark-up.
c. Includes an unspecified $5 million reduction per P.L. 110-161.
d. Per P.L. 110-161 Does not include $9 million rescission of prior year balances appropriated by P.L. 109-295.
e. Includes $3 million rescission of unobligated balances.
f. $250,000 was requested for the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding in FY2009; this table only shows millions, however.
g. The House-reported draft bill includes $341,000 for this office.
h. Includes a $14 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.
i. Includes a $15 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.
j. Includes a $16 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.

---

CRS-14
Personnel Issues.14 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).
According to the DHS Justifications, the FY2009 budget requests $48 million15
and 86 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees for the OCHCO and the OHC.16 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. 107-296.17 The draft House report and
14 Prepared by Barbara L. Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division.
15 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.
16 FY2009 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary
for Management, Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, p. USM-7.
17 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
(continued...)

---

CRS-15
S.Rept. 110-396 show the FY2009 request as $47 million and these figures are
included in Table 7.
Table 7 below shows the funding and staff for the OCHCO and the OHC as
enacted in FY2008, as requested for FY2009, and as recommended by draft-H.R.
6947 and the Senate-reported S. 3181.
Table 7. Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer and Office of
Human Capital Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Senate-
FY2008
FY2009
Draft-H.R.
reported
Account
Enacted
Request
6947
S. 3181
Salaries and Expenses CHCO
$9
$32
$29
$30
Max-HR System
0
0
Human Resources — Operational
$10a
$15
$10
$10
Initiatives and HR Management
Systems
Total
$19
$47
$39
$40
Staffing (full time equivalent, FTE,
53
86
not specified
79
positions)
Sources: P.L. 110-161, December 26, 2007; Draft House report, pp. 173-174; and S.Rept. 110-396,
p. 151.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
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
17 (...continued)
action has occurred.

---

CRS-16
for a limited number of DHS employees,” and to invest in diversity and recruitment
and retention programs.18
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.19
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
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.20 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.21
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.22 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.”23
18 DHS Justifications, Undersecretary for Management, pp. USM-4-USM-5.
19 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary for
Management, Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, p. USM-7.
20 Ibid., p. USM-16.
21 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Annual Performance Report Fiscal Years 2007-
2009 (Washington: DHS, [February 4, 2008]), p. 82.
22 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary for
Management, Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, pp. 7-8.
23 Letter from Representative Bennie G. Thompson to the Honorable Michael Chertoff,
February 7, 2008.

---

CRS-17
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.”24
The OCHCO has new leadership. On May 8, 2008, Secretary Chertoff
announced the President’s intention to appoint Thomas D. Cairns as the CHCO for
DHS.
The draft House report states that the funding recommended by the House
Committee on Appropriations is $8 million below the President’s request and $20
million above the FY2008 appropriation. The $10 million recommended for human
resource activities is to be used “to enhance employee morale and create a more
satisfying work environment.” The committee recommended that the request to
transfer the law enforcement accreditation board from the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center (FLETC) to the CHCO be denied, that $2.5 million be provided for
new learning initiatives, and that the human resource information technologies be
funded at $17.1 million. With regard to the latter appropriation, the draft report
states that the committee “is troubled” that the request to fund this account under the
CHCO instead of under the Chief Information Officer (CIO) “was not clearly detailed
in the budget request,” and, for the future
directs that all proposals to move programs and funding from one office to
another be clearly outlined in congressional budget justifications and include:
the preceding year funding level; a detailed description of the work; a rationale
for the movement; and a detailed breakdown of the budget request.25
Expressing concern about delays in the department’s hiring process,
administered by the CHCO, the draft report directs the CHCO to report to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations, on a monthly basis on
vacancies requested, by [the] office that have not been processed; vacancies
announced by [the] office; and the amount of time after a vacancy has closed
before a selection list is sent back to the requesting entity.26
According to the Senate report (S.Rept. 110-396), the funding recommended by
the Senate Committee on Appropriations is $6.3 million below the President’s
request and $21.7 million above the FY2008 appropriation. Within the CHCO’s
salaries and expenses account, funding of $18.8 million is recommended to maintain
current services, including a transfer of $17.1 million from the CIO to the CHCO for
human resources information technology. An additional appropriation of $5.5
24 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary for
Management, Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, pp. 7-8.
25 Draft House Report provided to CRS on July 8, 2008, by the Homeland Security
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, p. 19.
26 Ibid.

---

CRS-18
million, and three FTEs, are recommended for implementation of the learning and
development strategy. The $10 million recommended for human resources is to “be
spent on programs that directly address the shortcomings identified in [the 2006
Federal Human Capital Survey and the 2007 internal DHS employee survey] or in
subsequent surveys.” The programs could include “gap analysis of mission critical
occupations, hiring and retention strategies, robust diversity programs, and
Department-wide learning and development programs.” Like the House committee,
the Senate committee denied the President’s request that $1.3 million and seven
FTEs be transferred from the FLETC to the CHCO for the law enforcement
accreditation board.
Draft-H.R. 6947 and the Senate-reported S. 3181 include general provisions
related to DHS personnel as follows:
! Section 516 of the House bill and Section 524 of the Senate bill
would require the DHS Chief Financial Officer to submit “a monthly
budget and staffing report that includes total obligations, on-board
versus funded full-time equivalent staffing levels, and the number of
contract employees by office” to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations within 45 days after the end of each month.
! Section 524 of the House bill and Section 541 of the Senate bill
would prohibit the use of funds appropriated to the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management for any new hires by DHS that
are not verified through the basic pilot program to confirm
employment eligibility that is codified at 8 U.S.C. §1324a note.
! Section 530 of the House bill and Section 531 of the Senate bill
would prohibit funds from being obligated “to develop, test, deploy,
or operate any portion of a new human resources management
system, [authorized by 5 U.S.C. §9701(a)] for employees” and
would require collaboration between DHS and employee
representatives on “planning, testing, and development of any
portion of a human resources management system for persons
excluded from the definition of ‘employee.’”
Analysis and Operations27
The DHS intelligence mission is outlined in Title II of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (codified at 6 U.S.C. 121). Organizationally, and from a budget
perspective, there have been a number of changes to the information, intelligence
analysis, and infrastructure protection functions at DHS. Pursuant to the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP)
Directorate was established. The act created an Undersecretary for IAIP to whom
two Assistant Secretaries, one each for Information Analysis (IA) and Infrastructure
27 Prepared by Jennifer E. Lake, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy
Division.

---

CRS-19
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.28
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.29 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.30
President’s FY2009 Request. The FY2009 request for the 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
28 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.
29 See DHS Management Directive 8110, Intelligence Integration and Management, January
30, 2006.
30 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
security intelligence offices reorganization.”

---

CRS-20
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.
Draft-H.R. 6947. Draft-H.R. 6947 includes $324 million for AOO, amounting
to a nearly $10 million decrease compared to the amount requested for FY2009, and
$18 million more than the FY2008 enacted level of $306 million. The draft House
report includes language reflecting the Committee’s continued concern over the
National Applications Office and the National Immigration Information Sharing
Office. The FY2008 DHS Appropriations Act (Division E, P.L. 110-161) required
the Secretary to submit and the GAO to review a certification that the NAO and the
NIISO comply with all existing laws, including applicable privacy and civil liberties
standards. The Department was prohibited from using any related funds from the
FY2008 Act until GAO completed its review. The Committee notes in the draft
Committee report that the Department’s NAO submission was incomplete, and that
no information was submitted regarding the NIISO. The Committee therefore
includes in the FY2009 draft bill statutory prohibitions on the operations of the NAO
and the NIISO until the certification has been reviewed by GAO.
Senate-reported S. 3181. Senate-reported S. 3181 includes $318 million,
a decrease of $16 million (-5%) for the Analysis and Operations (AOO) account as
compared with the President’s request. The Committee in S.Rept. 110-396, directs
the Secretary to submit a detailed expenditure plan for FY2009 within 60 days after
enactment of the FY2009 DHS Appropriations Act. Reflecting the Committee’s
concern with the I&A’s reliance on contract staff versus federal full-time equivalents,
the reporting requirements are geared to provide the Committee with staffing and
expenditure data regarding all of I&A’s programs. S.Rept. 110-396 also includes
language requiring the DHS Chief Intelligence Officer to continue to provide the
Appropriations Committees quarterly updates on the Department’s progress towards
placing DHS intelligence professionals in state and local fusion centers.
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.

---

CRS-21
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
House-
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed
Operational Component
Enacteda
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Reported
Reported
H.R. 2638*
Customs & Border Protection
Salaries and expenses
6,803
6,803
7,309
7,534
7,523 b
7,603
Automation modernization
477
477
511
511
511
511
Air and Marine Operations
570
570
528
510
528
528
Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology
1,225
1,225
775
775
775
775
Construction 348
348
364
364
403
403
Fee accountsc
1,385d
1,385d
1,448
1,448
1,448
1,448
Gross total
10,808
10,808
10,935
11,142
11,189
11,268
Offsetting collections
-1,385
-1,385
-1,448
-1,448
-1,448
-1,448
Net total
9,423
9,423
9,487
9,694
9,741
9,821
Immigration & Customs Enforcement
Salaries and expenses
4,688
4,688
4,691
4,746
4,932
4,927
Federal Protective Services (FPS)
613
613
616
616
640
640
Automation & infrastructure modernization
31
31
57
57
57
57
Construction
17
17
—
10
—
5
Fee accountse
234
234
299
299
299
299
Gross total
5,581
5,581
5,676
5,728
5,928
5,928
Offsetting FPS fees
-613
-613
-616
-616
-640
-640
Offsetting collections
-234
-234
-299
-299
-299
-299
Net total
4,735
4,735
4,748
4,813
4,989
4,989
Transportation Security Administration
Aviation security (gross funding)
4,809
4,809
5,290
4,743
4,672
4,755

---

CRS-22
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
House-
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed
Operational Component
Enacteda
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Reported
Reported
H.R. 2638*
Surface Transportation Security
47
47
37
50
64
50
Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing
83
83
133
109
120
116
Credentialing Feesf
83
83
40
40
40
40
Transportation Security Support
524
524
926
950
950
948
Federal Air Marshals
770
770
—
821
799
819
Aviation security capital fundg
250
250
676
250
250
250
Checkpoint screening security fund
250
250
—
—
—
—
Rescission
—
—
—
—
-7
—
Gross total
6,814
6,814
7,102
6,964
6,887
6,977
Offsetting collections
-2,210
-2,210
-2,320
-2,320
-2,320
-2,320
Credentialing/Fee accounts
-83
-83
-40
-40
-40
-40
Aviation security capital fund (mandatory spending)
-250
-250
-676
-250
-250
-250
Checkpoint screening security fund
-250
-250
—
—
—
—
Net total
4,022
4,022
4,065
4,354
4,277
4,367
U.S. Coast Guard
Operating expenses
6,001
6,001
6,213
6,202
6,280
6,195
Environmental compliance & restoration
13
13
12
13
12
13
Reserve training
127
127
131
131
131
131
Acquisition, construction, & improvements
993h
993 h
1,205
1339 i
1,267
1,495
Alteration of bridges
16
16
—
12
16
16
Research, development, tests, & evaluation
25
25
16
16
16
18
Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement)
1,185
1,185
1,237
1,237
1,237
1,237
Health care fund contribution
272
272
257
257
257
257
Gross total
8,632
8,632
9,206
9,216
9,361
U.S. Secret Service

---

CRS-23
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
House-
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed
Operational Component
Enacteda
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Reported
Reported
H.R. 2638*
Salaries and expenses
1,382
1,382
1,411
1,367
1,414
1,409
Investigations and field operations
—
—
—
—
—
—
Acquisition, construction, improvements, and related
expenses
4
4
4
4
4
4
Gross total
1,385
1,385
1,414
1,371
1,418
1,413
Gross Budget Authority: Title II
33,220
33,220
34,185
34,411
34,637
34,948
Offsetting collections:
-5,025
-5,025
-5,399
-4,973
-4,997
-4,997
Net Budget Authority: Title II
28,195
28,195
28,786
29,438
29,641
29,951
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and draft
copies of the House-reported bill (H.R. 6947) and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862), provided to CRS by the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations
Committee on July 8, 2008.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
*As contained in the draft-Joint Explanatory Statement posted on the House Rules Committee website on September 24, 2008.
a. Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
b. Includes $13 million rescission of unobligated balances.
c. Fees include COBRA, Land Border, Immigration Inspection, Immigration Enforcement, and Puerto Rico.
d. The President’s FY2009 Budget Request includes a re-estimate of the FY2008 fees.
e. Fees include Exam, Student Exchange and Visitor Fee, Breached Bond, Immigration User, and Land Border.
f. Fees include TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks.
g. Aviation Security Capital Fund, used for installation of Explosive Detection Systems at airports.
h. FY2008 request and House-passed H.R. 2638 included a proposed rescission of $49 million. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 included 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.
i. The House-reported bill includes a rescission of $20 million in previously appropriated funding for UAVs.

---

CRS-24
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)31
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 a $127 million, or 1%, increase over the enacted FY2008 level of
$10,808 million. The Administration requested $9,487 million in net budget
authority for CBP in FY2009, which amounts to a $64 million increase over the net
FY2008 appropriation of $9,423 million.
Draft-H.R. 6947. Draft-H.R. 6947 would provide $11,142 million in gross
budget authority for CBP for FY2009, amounting to $207 million or 2% more than
was requested by the Administration, and a $334 million or 3% increase over the
enacted FY2008 level of $10,808 million. Draft-H.R. 6947 included $9,694 million
in net budget authority for CBP for FY2009, amounting to a $207 million increase
over the Administration’s request, and a $271 million increase over the FY2008
enacted level of $9,423 million.
Senate-reported S. 3181. Senate-reported S. 3181 would provide $11,189
million in gross budget authority for CBP for FY2009, amounting to $254 million or
2% more than was requested by the Administration, and a $381 million or 4%
increase over the enacted FY2008 level of $10,808 million. Senate-reported S. 3181
included $9,741 million in net budget authority for CBP for FY2009, amounting to
a $254 million increase over the Administration’s request, and a $318 million
increase over the FY2008 enacted level of $9,423 million.
31 Prepared by Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analysts in Domestic Security,
Domestic Social Policy Division.

---

CRS-25
Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
House-
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed
Activity
Enacteda
Request
Reported
Reported
H.R. 2638*
Headquarters
Management and
Administration
1,221
1,267
1,267
1,269
1,269
Border Security
Inspections and Trade
Facilitation @ POE
2,279
2,273
2,496
2,480
2,561
Inspections, Trade &
Travel Facilitation @ POE
1,854
1,835
2,061
2,042
2,094
Container Security
Initiative (CSI)/
International Cargo
Screening (ICS)
156
149
149
149
149
Other International
Programs
11
11
11
11
11
C-TPAT
62
64
64
64
64
FAST/NEXUS/SENTRI
11
11
11
11
11
Inspection and Detection
Technology
105
117
114
117
146


Systems for Targeting
28
33
33
33
33
National Targeting Center
24
24
24
24
24

Training at POE
25
25
25
25
25

Harbor M
aintenance Fee
3
3
3
3
3
Border Security and
Control Between POE
3,075
3,515
3,517
3,515
3,501
Border Security and
Control Between POE
3,022
3,441
3,442
3,441
3,426


Training Between the POE
53
75
75
75
75
Air and Marine
Operations - Salaries
227
254
254
272
272
Rescission
—
—
—
-13
—
CBP Salaries and
Expenses Total:
6,803
7,309
7,534
7,523
7,603
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS
Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and draft copies of the House-
reported bill (H.R. 6947) and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862), provided to CRS by the
Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on July 8, 2008.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
*As contained in the draft-Joint Explanatory Statement posted on the House Rules Committee website
on September 24, 2008.
a. Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L.
110-161.

---

CRS-26
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 SBInet32 related technologies and infrastructures
in FY2009, a decrease of $450 million over the FY2008 enacted level of $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 was
$1,000 million). 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 constructed by the end of calendar year 2008 with prior-year
funding.33 The Administration notes that this will fund 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 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 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.”34 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 Tucson Sector.35 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. The Senate Committee recommended
fully funding the President’s request, and noted that close oversight of the program
was required due to its importance. The House Committee recommended fully
funding the President’s request, but noted its concern that the rapid growth in border
32 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.
33 DHS FY2009 Justification, p. CBP BSFIT 11.
34 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.
35 GAO Border Security Testimony.

---

CRS-27
technology “may lead to systems and structures that are expensive, fail to perform as
promised, and do not result in a more secure border.”36 The House Committee noted
that only 1.7% of funding for fencing, infrastructure, and technology had been
expended on the northern border and included $40 million in its FY2009
appropriation for this purpose. The House Committee also directed that $30 million
be spent on a border interoperability demonstration project to better integrate border
security efforts between federal, state, local, and tribal authorities, and that $50
million be spent on regulatory and environmental assessments to mitigate the
environmental damage associated with infrastructure construction. Lastly, the House
Committee noted that it was disappointed with the FY2008 expenditure plan for this
account, and directs CBP to fully comply with its requirements for the FY2009
expenditure plan.
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 FY2009.37 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 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.38 The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended fully funding
the President’s request. Additionally, the Senate Committee reiterated its desire that
20% of the overall increase be assigned to the northern border and required a report
on the challenges CBP faces in transferring agents to the northern border within 60
days of the bill’s enactment. Lastly, the Senate Committee noted that the National
Guard is withdrawing its troops from their supporting role at the border in FY2008
and directed CBP, “in the strongest terms possible,” to hire the previously funded
USBP support personnel in order to allow agents to focus on their border
enforcement responsibilities.39 The House Committee recommended fully funding
the President’s request and reiterated its support for transferring additional agents to
the northern border in order to comply with the statutory requirements.
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). The Administration
requested an increase of $107 million for WHTI. WHTI will require U.S. citizens,
and Canadian, Mexican, and some island nation nationals to present a passport, or
some other document or combination of documents deemed sufficient to denote
identity and citizenship status by the Secretary of Homeland Security, as per P.L.
108-458 §7209. DHS 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, prohibited DHS from implementing WHTI,
which requires U.S. citizens to provide proof of identity and citizenship at the land
36 Draft House report, pp. 42-43.
37 DHS FY2008 Justification, p. CBP S&E 49.
38 From CBP Congressional Affairs, December 18, 2007.
39 S.Rept. 110-396, pp. 25-26.

---

CRS-28
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 me. 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 requirng 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. 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.”40 Possible issues for Congress may include whether DHS’s
disregard of the extension enacted by P.L. 110-161 was appropriate, 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.41 The Senate Committee fully funded the President’s
request and directed CBP to provide quarterly briefings on the status of WHTI
implementation in FY2009. The House Committee also fully funded the President’s
request and noted that it remains concerned that the program “may not be fully
integrated and ready for enforcement of the WHTI document requirements.”42 The
House Committee also directed CBP to provide quarterly briefings on the program’s
implementation.
Other Travel Programs. The House Committee voiced its support for the
new International Registered Traveler program enacted by the FY2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, and which has been renamed Global Entry by the
Administration. The program will give pre-approved, low-risk travelers (U.S.
Citizens and Legal Permanent Residents) expedited clearance into the United States
at three airports.43 The Committee also included $10 million to expand this program
to the 20 busiest international airports. Additionally, the House Committee noted
that it provided $36 million in FY2008 for the Electronic System for Travel
Authorization (ESTA), which will be used to screen and process travelers from visa-
waiver countries, and directed CBP to submit a report on ESTA’s implementation
with the FY2010 budget request.
Covered Law Enforcement Officer Status for CBP Officers.
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
40 DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. CBP S&E 4.
41 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.
42 Draft House report, p. 33.
43 John F. Kennedy International Airport, Washington-Dulles International Airport, and
George Bush Intercontinental Airport.

---

CRS-29
request would retract the law enforcement officer status that was enacted in FY2008.
Given the concerns that led to the measure’s enactment in FY2008, whether
retracting this status is appropriate may be an issue of concern to Congress in
FY2009. The Senate Committee reiterated its strong support for CBP officers’ new
retirement status and included $200 million to fully fund the new law enforcement
officer retirement program for CBP officers. The House Committee recommended
$217 million for CBP officers’ new retirement status, also rejecting the
Administration’s proposal to repeal the new status.
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
“three-pronged approach to enhance supply chain security.”44 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,
and is currently reviewing public comments on the proposed rule.45
The Global Trade Exchange (GTX) was 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.”46 On April 4, 2008, Commissioner Basham announced in
remarks given before the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of
America that CBP has decided not to go forward with a contract award for the GTX.
The Commissioner did not rule out exploring similar concepts in the future.47
Language in the House Appropriations draft committee report indicates that CBP has
decided not to go ahead with GTX while in the midst of implementing the 10+2
Security Filing initiative. The draft House Report also notes that Committee remains
concerned about the remaining gaps in CBP’s information about in-bound cargo
containers and their supply chains, and directs CBP to report to the Committee no
44 DHS, FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. CBP-SE-26.
45 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],
46 Ibid. p. CBP-S&E-27.
47 Remarks by CBP Commissioner Ralph W. Basham before the National Customs Brokers
and National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, April 4, 2008.

---

CRS-30
later than January 8, 2009 on the information and intelligence CBP collects on these
containers.48
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 indicate that the $149
million request for ICS in FY2009 includes an $11 million reduction for Secure
Freight.49 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. Both draft-H.R. 6947 and
Senate-reported S. 3181 would fund ICS/CSI at the requested level for FY2009.
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.
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.
Language in the House Appropriations draft committee report indicates that the
Committee is concerned about CBP staffing levels at CSI and SFI port locations.
Among other items of concern, the staffing of senior leadership positions and staff
with appropriate language skills were of particular interest to the Committee. The
draft House Report requires CBP to report to the Committee no later than January 8,
2009, on the steps that CBP will have taken to improve staffing and host country
relations.
48 Draft Committee Report provided to CRS by the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the
House Appropriations Committee, July 8, 2009.
49 DHS, FY2009 Congressional Budget Justification, CBP-S&E-24, accessed at
[http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/budget_fy2009.pdf].

---

CRS-31
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)50
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)51 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 $5,663
million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2009. This represented a 1% 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:
! $46 million (39 FTE) for 725 additional detention beds and support
personnel;52
! $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;
50 Prepared by Alison Siskin, Specialist in Immigration Legislation, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
51 FAMS transferred to ICE from TSA in August of 2003.
52 According to the President’s request, DHS would also fund 275 new beds through the
breach bond fund.

---

CRS-32
! $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
FY2009
House-
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed
Activity
Enacteda
Request
Reported
Reported
H.R. 2638*
HQ & Administration
316
0
361
377
372
Legal Proceeding
208
241
215
214
215
Investigations - Domestic
1,422
1,679
1,191
1,514
1,519
Investigations - International
108
128
126
134
134
Investigations Total
1,530
1,807
1,317
1,648
1,653
Intelligence
52
62
53
56
56
DRO-Custody Operations
1,647
1,789
1,650
1,721
1,721
DRO-Fugitive Operations
219
238
—
226
226
DRO-Criminal Alien Program
179
204
—
189
189
DRO-Alternatives to
Detention
54
58
63
60
63
DRO Transportation and
Removal Program
282
290
281
281
281
DRO Total
2,381
2,579
1,994
2,478
2,481
Comprehensive
Identification and Removal
of Criminal Aliens (Secure
Communities)
200 0
800b
160
150
ICE Salaries and Expenses
4,688
4,691
4,740 c
4,932
4,927
Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS
Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and draft copies of the House-
reported bill (H.R. 6947) and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862), provided to CRS by the
Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on July 8, 2008.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.

---

CRS-33
*As contained in the draft-Joint Explanatory Statement posted on the House Rules Committee website
on September 24, 2008.
a. Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L.
110-161.
b. This amount includes funding for the Criminal Alien Program, Fugitive Operations, Office of
Investigations support to locate criminal aliens, and State and Local Programs including 287(g)
agreements.
c. Does not include $6 million transferred from Title I OS&EM account to ICE S&E by amendment
during the full Committee mark-up of the draft bill in the House.
Draft-H.R. 6947. Draft-H.R. 6947 would appropriate $5,728 million in gross
budget authority, $52 million more than the President’s request. Draft-H.R. 6947
would appropriate $4,813 in net budget authority for ICE, which would represent an
increase of $65 million, 1% over the Administration’s requested amount. Of the
appropriated amount, nearly $8 million would be for special operations under §3131
of the Customs Enforcement Act of 1986; $1 million would provide compensation
awards to informants; $305,000 would be used to promote public awareness of the
child pornography tipline and anti-child exploitation activities; $11 million would be
designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care, and
repatriation of smuggled aliens; $16 million would have been targeted for
enforcement of laws against forced child labor; and $800 million to identify aliens
convicted of a crime and remove them from the United States. According to the draft
House report, the appropriate monies include the President’s budget requested
increases of $46 million to fund the for detention bed space and support personnel,
and $12 million for investigations related to national security and critical
infrastructure.
The draft House report notes that draft-H.R. 6947 would appropriate an
additional $2 million for Office of Professional Responsibility to oversee the
comprehensive review of the medical care provided to ICE detainees. In addition,
according to the draft House report, draft-H.R. 6947 would appropriate over the
President’s requested budget:
! $12 million for criminal gang investigations;
! approximately $1 for Office of the Principle Legal Advisor;53 and
! $7 million for the Alternatives to Detention Program.
In addition, an amendment was adopted during the full Committee mark-up that
would transfer an additional $6 million from Title I OE&SM account to the ICE
salaries and expenses account.
Senate-reported S. 3181. Senate-reported S. 3181 would appropriate
$5,928 million in gross budget authority for ICE, $265 million more than the
President’s request. Senate-reported S. 3181 would appropriate $4,989 in net budget
authority for ICE, which would represent an increase of $241 million, 5% over the
Administration’s requested amount. Of the appropriated amount, $2,478 million
would be designated for detention and removal operations; $160 million to identify
53 Of this, more than half would be used to expand the prosecutions of human rights
violators who have entered the United States.

---

CRS-34
and remove criminal aliens; nearly $8 million would be for special operations under
§3131 of the Customs Enforcement Act of 1986; $1 million would provide
compensation awards to informants; $305,000 would be used to promote public
awareness of the child pornography tipline and anti-child exploitation activities; $5
million would be used to facilitate agreements under §287(g) of the INA; $11
million would be designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost
of care, and repatriation of smuggled aliens; $16 million would have been targeted
for enforcement of laws against forced child labor; and nearly $7 million would be
used to fund the Visa Security Program.
According to S.Rept. 110-396, Senate-reported S. 3181 would fully fund the
President’s budget request for increases over the FY2008 appropriate amounts for:
the ICE Office of Human Capital ($1 million); the co-location of ICE facilities ($12
million); national security and critical infrastructure investigations ($12 million);
commercial fraud and intellectual property investigations ($5 million); outbound
enforcement investigations ($1 million); 287(g) agreements ($12 million); fugitive
operations ($1 million); and the Criminal Alien Program ($2 million). In addition,
S.Rept. 110-396 recommends an increase over the President’s budget requested of:
! $26 million for 400 additional detention beds and support personnel
to support increased worksite enforcement54 (total increase of $74
million);
! $34 million (108 FTE) for worksite enforcement investigations;
! $2 million for the Office of Professional Responsibility to
investigate allegations of criminal and serious misconduct involving
ICE employees (total increase of $9 million and 39 FTE from
FY2008);
! $5 million (3 FTE) for investigations of cyber crimes (total increase
of $11 million (23 FTE) over FY2008);
! $3 million (3 FTE) for the Visa Security Program (total increase of
$7 million and 6 FTE from FY2008);
! $5 million (7 FTE) for Security Advisory Opinion Units;55
! $5 million for textile transshipment enforcement;
! $3 million (19 FTE) for Field Intelligence Groups;56
! $4 million for Alternatives to Detention; and
! $160 million for Secure Communities.
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
54 The total number of funded beds for FY2009 would be 33,400.
55 These units are part of the Visa Security Program and co-locate ICE officers with
Department of State personnel to review visa applications.
56 Field Intelligence Groups are part of Office of Intelligence.

---

CRS-35
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.57 The draft House report
notes that the Committee has developed a new investigatory budget structure for ICE
in 2009 to provide transparency into the agency’s various law enforcement missions.
The President’s budget requested $1,807 million total for OI for FY2009. Senate-
reported S. 3181 would appropriate $1,648 million for OI, while the draft House
report would appropriate $1,317 million.58
Detention and Removal Operations. Detention and Removal Operations
(DRO) in ICE provide custody management of the aliens who are in removal
proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United States.59 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.60 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,
57 Based on CRS discussions with ICE personnel in New York City, August 27, 2003.
58 Although draft-H.R. 6947 and Senate-reported S. 3181 would appropriate less money than
the President’s budget request, it is not clear that the President’s budget actually requested
more money. The President’s budget requested no money for HQ and Administration,
appearing to fold the funding into program activities. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that there
will be no funding for HQ and administration purposes.
59 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.
60 Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, The Immigration and
Naturalization Service’s Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders, Report I-2003-004,
February 2003.

---

CRS-36
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 draft House-reported draft bill would fully
fund the President’s request of $2,579 million for DRO including an additional $46
million for 725 detention beds and support personnel.61 Senate-reported S. 3181
would appropriate $2,478 for DRO, including funding for 400 more detention beds
and support personnel, and $160 million for Secure Communities than the
President’s budget request.
Furthermore, recently there have been concerns raised about the adequacy of
medical care received by aliens in detention.62 The draft House report recommends
an addition $2 million for the Office of Professional Responsibility to oversee the
comprehensive review of the medical care provided to ICE detainees. In addition,
draft-H.R. 6947 would specify that no funds may be used to continue any contract for
detention services with a facility that receives two consecutive less than adequate
performance ratings. S.Rept. 110-396 urges ICE to establish and improve the system
for responding to detainee complaints.
State and Local Law Enforcement.63 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.
Draft-H.R. 6947 would specify that no funds may be used to continue a 287(g)
agreement if the DHS Inspector General determines that the 287(g) agreement has
been violated; or to enter into an agreement with law enforcement (other than at a jail
or prison) of a state or subdivision of the state unless the Assistant Secretary of ICE
reviews all requests for 287(g) agreements in that state and prioritizes the agreements
that will maximize the identification of criminal aliens convicted of dangerous
61 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.
62 For more on the issue of detainee medical care, see CRS Report RL3455, Health Care for
Noncitizens in Immigration Detention, by Alison Siskin.
63 This section adapted from CRS Report RL32270, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role
of State and Local Law Enforcement, by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Michael John Garcia, and Karma
Ester.

---

CRS-37
crimes. In addition, the President’s budget request included an increase of $12
million for these agreements which Senate-reported S. 3181 would fully fund.
Federal Protective Service.64 The Federal Protective Service (FPS), within
ICE, is responsible for the protection and security of federally owned and leased
buildings, property, and personnel. It has two primary missions — basic security and
building specific security. Basic security 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:
! transitioned to a new mission by realigning its workforce;
! improved the strategic methods used to identify and reduce real and
perceived threats;
! continued its intelligence and information sharing, hazardous
materials response, and protective services; and
! strengthened security standards to reduce threat and vulnerability
levels at federal facilities.65
However, a Government Accountability Office(GAO) report, issued in June
2008, stated that FPS’s staff has decreased by approximately 20%, from about 1,400
employees at the end of FY2004 to approximately 1,100 employees at the end of
FY2007.66 Additionally, this reduction in FPS’s staff has resulted in the reduction
of security at federal facilities and increased the risk of crime or terrorist attacks.67
Finally, GAO stated that FPS has eliminated proactive security patrols at federal
facilities, and this has resulted in FPS law enforcement personnel not being able to
conduct security operations such as inspecting suspicious vehicles, monitor
suspicious individuals, or detect and deter criminal activity in and around federal
buildings.68
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;
64 This section authored by Shawn Reese, Government and Finance Division.
65 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Federal Protective Service, “Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional Justification,” p. 6.
66 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: The Federal Protective
Service Faces Several Challenges That Hamper Its Ability to Protect Federal Facilities
(Washington: June 2008), p. 12.
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid., p. 14.

---

CRS-38
! provide law enforcement and security services at National Special
Security Events (NSSE); and
! strengthen federal facility security standards.69
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.70
Both draft-H.R. 6947 and Senate-reported S. 3181 require OMB and DHS to
fully fund FPS operations through revenue and collections of security fees paid by
federal departments and agencies. This security fee collection is intended to ensure
that the FPS maintains not fewer than 1,200 full-time equivalent staff and 900 full-
time equivalent police officers, inspectors, area commanders, and special agents.71
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)72
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.
69 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Federal Protective Service, “Fiscal Year 2009 Congressional Justification,” p. 5.
70 Ibid.
71 Draft House Report provided by CRS on July 8, 2008, by the Homeland Security
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, p. 58, and S. 3181, Title II.
72 Prepared by Bart Elias, Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

---

CRS-39
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 $2,360
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 $67 million over FY2008 projected levels, yielding a net total requested
amount for TSA of $4,065 million, to be paid for out of the Treasury General Fund.
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-40
Table 11. TSA Gross Budget Authority, by Budget Activity
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
House-
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed
Budget Activity
Enacteda
Request
Reported
Reported
H.R. 2638*
Aviation Security
4,809
5,290
4,733
4,672
4,735
Screening Partnership
Program (SPP)
143
151
151
151
151
Passenger & Baggage
Screening (PC&B)
2,636
2,716
2,716
2,692
2,716
Screener Training & Other
224
197
197
197
197
Human Resource Services
182
—
—
—
—
Checkpoint Support
—
128
250
200
250
EDS/ETD
Purchase/Installation
294
154
294
294
294
Screening Technology
264
311
311
306
306
Operation Integration
25
21
21
21
21
Aviation Regulation (and
Other Enforcement)
256
210
246
251
245
Airport Management, IT,
and Support
652
373
407
407
402
FFDO & Crew Training
25
—
25
25
25
Air Cargo Security
73
—
110
123
123
Federal Air Marshals
Service
— b
786
—
—
—
Law Enforcement
—
242
—
—
—
Airport Perimeter Security
4
—
4
4
4
Implementing P.L. 110-53
30
—
10
— c
20
Aviation Security Capital
Fund
250
676
250
250
250
Checkpoint Screening
Security Fund
250
—
—
—
—
Federal Air Marshal Service
770
— b
822
799
819
Management and
Administration
674
—
727
708
725
Travel and Training
95
—
94
91
94
Threat Assessment and
Credentialing (TTAC)
83
133
109
120
116
Secure Flight
50
82
75
82
82
Crew Vetting
15
—
—
—
—
Other/ TTAC Admin. &
Ops.
10
51
34
37
34

---

CRS-41
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
House-
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed
Budget Activity
Enacteda
Request
Reported
Reported
H.R. 2638*
TWIC Appropriation
8
—
—
—
—
Credentialing Fees
83
40
40
40
40
Registered Traveler
Program 35
10
10
10
10
TWIC
27
9
9
9
9
Alien Flight School
2
3
3
3
3
HAZMAT Commercial
Driver
19
18
18
18
18
Surface Transportation
Security
47
37
50
64
50
Operations and Staffing
24
25
25
34
25
Security Inspectors
22
11
25
30
25
Transportation Security
Support
524
926
950
950
948
Intelligence
21
22
22
22
22
Headquarters
Administration
293
213
237
237
235
Human Capital Services
—
218
218
218
218
Information Technology
209
473
473
473
473
Rescission of Prior Year
Funds
-5
—
—
-7
—
TSA Gross Total
6,815
7,102
6,964
6,887
6,978
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS
Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and draft copies of the House-
reported bill (H.R. 6947) and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862), provided to CRS by the
Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on July 8, 2008.
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.
*As contained in the draft-Joint Explanatory Statement posted on the House Rules Committee website
on September 24, 2008.
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.
c. Not centralized by Senate, however S.Rept. 110-396 indicates that an additional $20 million above
the President’s request was spread across various budget activities for this purpose.

---

CRS-42
Draft-H.R. 6947. The House committee recommended $6,964 million
for the TSA, $138 million less than the President’s request, but $77 million more
than the Senate-reported bill. Like the Senate-reported bill, the House reported bill
has not adopted many of the realignment proposals offered in the President’s request.
Specifically, the committee rejected the idea of consolidating air cargo with other
aviation regulation activities, and it rejected the concept of placing FAMS under the
aviation security program area. However, like the Senate-reported bill, draft-H.R.
6947 concurred with the Administration proposals to consolidate human resources
and information technology activities throughout the TSA. Thus, while funding
levels for budget activities contained in draft-H.R. 6947 are directly comparable to
the Senate-reported amounts, these amounts are not directly comparable to the
President’s request for affected budget activities.
Draft-H.R. 6947 seeks $250 million for Checkpoint Support, the same amount
as was provided under the Checkpoint Security Screening Fund in FY2008, and $122
million above the President’s request for FY2009. The committee believes that this
additional funding is necessary to expedite testing and deployment of checkpoint
explosives screening technologies. The draft report expressed concern that only half
of large airports have optimized their baggage screening systems to date, and
recommended $294 million for EDS/ETD purchase and installation, in-line with the
Senate reported amount. The committee also recommended $110 million for air
cargo security, $39 million above the FY2008 appropriated level, but $13 million
below the Senate-reported amount.
The House committee recommended $109 million for Threat Assessment and
Credentialing functions, $24 million below the requested level. The committee
recommended $75 million of this for the Secure Flight program, $7 million below
the request, citing schedule slips in the regulatory process and GAO reviews of the
program. With regard to surface transportation security, the draft House-reported
measure specifies $50 million, $13 million above the President’s request, and $14
million below the Senate-reported amount. The additional funding specified in the
draft House report is intended for the deployment of additional security inspectors.

Senate-reported S. 3181. The Senate-reported bill would set total funding
for the TSA at $6,887 million, $215 million less than the President’s request. The
reported bill supported only some of the Administration-proposed functional
realignments. Therefore, funding for several of the budget activities in Table 11
cannot be directly compared. Specifically, the committee agreed with the
Administration plan to consolidate human resources and information technology
programs throughout the TSA. However, the committee did not go along with the
Administration proposals to consolidate law enforcement activities under the aviation
security program area, to place the FAMS under aviation security, and to consolidate
regulatory enforcement functions, including air cargo security activities.
The committee recommended $2,692 million for passenger and baggage
screening personnel compensation and benefits (PC&B), $24 million below the
requested levels based on FY2008 “payroll underburn” reported to the committee.
The committee also recommended a recision of $7.3 million of FY2008 funds set
aside for pilot programs to screen airport employees that were determined to be in
excess of the amount needed to carry out these pilots. The committee recommended

---

CRS-43
$200 million for checkpoint support, $72 million above the President’s request, but
$50 million less than the amount provided in FY2008 under the Checkpoint Security
Screening Fund.
The committee noted that the Administration’s proposed passenger security fee
increase has not been acted on by congressional authorizing committees, and
therefore reported mandatory funding for the Aviation Security Capital Fund at the
currently authorized level of $250 million. The committee, instead, proposed a
funding level of $294 million for EDS/ETD purchase and installation, $140 million
above the President’s request.
The committee recommended $123 million for air cargo security, $18 million
above the amount proposed in the President’s request within the aviation regulation
and law enforcement program area, under the proposed restructuring scheme. The
committee also seeks to expand the TSA air cargo screening technology pilots to
address the mandate for 100% screening of cargo placed on passenger aircraft, and
calls for the TSA to issue an expenditure plan detailing efforts to develop covert
testing protocols, augment cargo strike teams, and provide details of deployed canine
teams and screening technologies. In addition to increased air cargo security funding
to meet the 100% screening mandate of the Implementing Recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53), the committee recommendation
includes $20 million across various budget activities to implement regulations and
fulfill other mandates of the 9/11 Act. The committee also recommended $4 million
for airport perimeter security pilot projects, which was not included in the President’s
request but is equal to FY2008 funding for this activity. The committee proposes
$799 million for FAMS, $13 million above the President’s request, and recommends
keeping FAMS separate from aviation security, rather than placing it under the
aviation security program area as requested. With regard to surface transportation
security, the bill seeks $64 million, $27 million more than the President’s request,
and seeks additions inspectors and operations staff.

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
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.

---

CRS-44
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.
Authorizing committees in the House and the Senate have not considered
legislation to raise the passenger security fees as proposed in the President’s request.
Therefore, in both the Senate-reported and the draft House-reported legislation, it is
assumed that the ASCF will be funded in FY2009 at the mandatory level currently
authorized in law of $250 million. Both the Senate-reported and draft House-
reported measures, therefore, have proposed increased discretionary appropriations
levels for EDS/ETD purchase and installation.
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. The draft House-reported measure
specifies $250 million for Checkpoint Support, which would maintain this activity
at the level provided for under the one-year authorization of the Checkpoint

---

CRS-45
Screening Security Fund in FY2008. The Senate report specified $200 for
Checkpoint Support, $50 million below the amount specified in the draft House
report, but $72 million above the requested level.
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.
As noted above, neither the Senate-reported nor the draft House-reported
legislation supported the integration of FAMS into the Aviation Security. The
measures also did not support the realignment of air cargo security operations, opting
instead to keep Air Cargo Security as a separate program. The committees also did
not endorse the Administration proposals to realign other law enforcement and

---

CRS-46
regulatory functions. The committees did, however, agree to realign human
resources and information technology functions across the TSA.
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
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. Nonetheless, both the
Senate-reported and draft House-reported legislation would keep in place these
requirements as well as a general prohibition against the use of commercial
information to assess the risk of passengers whose names do not appear on
government terrorist watchlists.
United States Coast Guard73
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 21% 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.
Draft-H.R. 6947. The House Appropriations Committee recommends a total
of $9,206 million for the Coast Guard, $135 million more than requested by the
73 Prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation, Resources, Science and Industry
Division.

---

CRS-47
President (see Table 8 for totals by major accounts). The major differences between
the President’s request and House committee recommendations include rejecting the
request for funding for a fourth National Security Cutter, rejecting the requested
transfer of $82 million in personnel funding from the ACI account to the OE account
(both are discussed further below) and $98 million provided for the Coast Guard’s
new headquarters versus no funding requested by the President.
Senate-Reported S. 3181. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommends a total of $9,216 million for the Coast Guard, $145 million more than
requested by the President (see Table 8 for totals by major accounts). The largest
differences in dollar terms between the President’s request and the Senate
committee’s recommendations concern the acquisition of the response-boat medium
and the missionization of C-130J aircraft (both are discussed further below).
Table 12. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI)
Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
House-
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed H.R.
Enacteda
Request
Reported
Reported
2638*
Operating
Expenses
6,001
6,213
6,202
6,280
6,195
Military pay and
allowances
2,939
3,077
3,058
3,121
3,062
Civilian pay and
benefits
604
693
646
691
645
Training and
recruiting
189
196
195
199
196
Operating funds and
unit level
maintenance
1,164
1,170
1,177
1,182
1,177
Centrally managed
accounts
233
263
259
267
262
Port/vessel security
and environmental
response
—
—
29
—
24
Aviation mission
hour gap
—
—
10
—
5
Intermediate and
depot level
maintenance
762
815
828
820
824
DOD Transfer
110
—
—
—
—
Acquisition,
Construction, and
Improvements
988
1,205
1,339
1,267
1,495
Vessels and Critical
Infrastructure
45
69
69
113
113

---

CRS-48
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
House-
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed H.R.
Enacteda
Request
Reported
Reported
2638*
Aircraft
—
—
(20)b
—
—
Other Equipment
173
95
95
89
89
Integrated
Deepwater System
651
990
934
1,014
1,034
Shore facilities and
Aids to Navigation
41
50
68
50
68
Personnel and
Related Support
83
1
96
1
93
Coast Guard HQ
—
—
98
—
98
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS
Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and draft copies of the House-
reported bill (H.R. 6947) and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862), provided to CRS by the
Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on July 8, 2008.
*As contained in the draft-Joint Explanatory Statement posted on the House Rules Committee website
on September 24, 2008.
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. The House-reported draft bill includes a rescission of $20 million in previously appropriated
funding for UAVs.
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.74
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
Directorate that will be responsible for major acquisition projects; most notably the
74 On the missions versus resources issue, see also GAO testimony on the Coast Guard’s
FY2009 Budget Request before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, March 6, 2008, GAO-08-494T.

---

CRS-49
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. Senate-reported S. 3181 largely
concurs with the President’s budget request for Deepwater except that the Senate
committee recommends $24 million for the missionization of three C-130J aircraft
while the President’s request did not include these funds. The draft House report
denies the President’s request of $3 million for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
under the Deepwater program and instead funds these under the Coast Guard’s
Research, Test, and Evaluation account. The House committee also reduces the
President’s request for National Security Cutters by $54 million because it believes
the construction of the fourth cutter will be delayed and because a GAO review raises
concerns about the transparency of the contractor’s cost and performance schedules.
The President requests and the Senate reported bill concurs that $82 million and
652 FTEs be transferred from the ACI appropriation to the OE appropriation in order
to increase oversight and management of major acquisition projects, such as
Deepwater. Draft-H.R. 6947 denies this transfer, at least until the GAO completes
its review of the potential benefits of this proposal.
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.
Response-Boat Medium. The President requests and the draft House bill
concurs to provide $64 million to order fourteen 45-foot response boats to replace
existing 41-foot utility boats. The Senate committee, however, recommends an
additional $44 million so that an additional 22 response boats can be ordered.
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,75 and at a Senate hearing the GAO testified that Coast
Guard resources were being challenged by a number of security requirements.76
About 28% of the Coast Guard’s FY2009 budget request is for its “port, waterways,
and coastal security” (PWCS) mission.77
For monitoring harbor traffic, the President’s FY2009 request includes $26
million to continue deployment of a nationwide system to detect, identify, track, and
75 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.
76 GAO, Coast Guard: Deepwater Program Management Initiatives and Key Homeland
Security Missions, March 5, 2008, GAO-08-531T, see specifically pp. 12-16.
77 DHS Budget in Brief, p. 58.

---

CRS-50
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.78 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
sectors Hampton Roads, Delaware Bay, and Mobile.79 By FY2014, the Coast Guard
expects to extend this capability to all remaining Coast Guard sectors. The draft
House report agrees with the President’s request regarding AIS deployment but the
Senate report reduces the President’s request by $6 million, noting that the agency
has carryover funds available from prior years and that it is unlikely that the Coast
Guard will achieve its acquisition schedule in FY2009 based on recent history. The
Senate report requests quarterly briefings by the Coast Guard on the status and
development of interagency operations centers (IOCs). IOCs are fusion centers to be
located in each Coast Guard sector that are intended to facilitate intelligence sharing
and coordinated responses among federal and state or local law enforcement to
harbor security-related incidents. AIS is a key technology for the functioning of the
IOCs.
The Senate report (S.Rept. 110-396) states that the President’s budget requests
a $15 million reduction in Coast Guard port presence and coastal security.80 The
committee report recommends that this reduction be denied and instead used to add
170 billets for marine inspectors, armed boat crew escorts, security boardings, and
dangerous cargo terminal inspections.
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. Based on a recent
DHS strategy report, it appears the Coast Guard has no immediate plans to require
smaller vessels be outfitted with AIS transponders but will continue to pursue
methods to identify small craft.81
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.82
In the wake of an oil spill by a container ship (the Cosco Busan) in San Francisco
78 DHS Budget in Brief, p. 57.
79 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-AC&I-122.
80 S.Rept. 110-396, p. 79.
81 DHS, Small Vessel Security Strategy, April 2008.
82 For information on Coast Guard environmental protection issues, see CRS Report
RS22145, Environmental Activities of the U.S. Coast Guard, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.

---

CRS-51
Bay on November 7, 2007, the Coast Guard was criticized for delays in its
rulemaking requiring oil spill response plans for non-tank vessels.83
Marine Safety. A congressional hearing was held on August 2, 2007 to
examine the performance of the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Program.84 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
career paths to foster professional continuity in this area.85 The FY2009 budget
request notes that “the Coast Guard is encountering serious stakeholder concern
about our capacity to conduct marine inspections, investigations, and rulemaking.”86
The budget requests an additional $20 million in operating expenses in order to: add
276 marine inspector positions; respond to an increase in 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.87 The FY2009 budget also requests $2.6
million to fund 25 rulemaking projects involving safety, security, and environmental
protection.
Senate-reported S. 3181 recommends an additional $4 million to fund 67 more
watchstanders than the President requested, citing a Coast Guard report on the Cosco
Busan oil spill as justification for the increase.88 Watchstanders monitor harbor ship
traffic and provide relevant navigation-related information to ship captains and pilots
transiting harbors.89 The draft House report recommends an additional $29 million
above the President’s request for watchstanders, boats, marine inspection staff, and
for additional oil spill and environmental response exercises and requests a report
from the Coast Guard detailing how it intends to allocate these funds.90
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
83 For further information, see CRS Report RL33705, Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters:
Background, Governance, and Issues for Congress, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
84 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.
85 U.S. Coast Guard, “Enhancing the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Program,” September 25,
2007.
86 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-SC-5.
87 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-OE-52 and DHS Budget in Brief, p. 60-
61.
88 S.Rept. 110-396, p. 78.
89 For further information on the Cosco Busan oil spill and the role of watchstanders in ship
navigation, see CRS Report RL34365, Ship Navigation in Harbors: Safety Issues.
90 Draft House report, p. 77.

---

CRS-52
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.91 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.92 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 sectors93 and
additional watchstanders at 15 sectors receiving the most rescue traffic.94 The Senate
and House committees agree with this request. The Senate report states that the
overall acquisition cost is now estimated to be $1,066 million, an increase of $366
million, and the completion date has been extended six years to 2017.95
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.
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.96 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 President’s 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
91 GAO, United States Coast Guard: Improvements Needed in Management and Oversight
of Rescue System Acquisition, GAO-06-623, May 2006.
92 GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, Performance,
Reorganization, and Related Challenges, April 18, 2007, GAO-07-489T, p. 3.
93 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-AC&I-128.
94 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-OE-33 and 34.
95 S.Rept. 110-396, p. 88.
96 Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 4, January 8, 2007, pp. 796-797.

---

CRS-53
Guard continues to operate the system on a reimbursable basis.97 Both the Senate and
House Appropriations Committees deny the President’s request to transfer these
funds to NPPD.
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. For FY2009, Senate-reported S. 3181
recommends $16 million while draft-H.R. 6947 recommends $12 million for this
program.
Arctic Activity. With the melting of arctic sea ice, it is predicted that a Trans-
Arctic commercial shipping lane could soon develop in addition to other increased
commercial activity in the region. The Coast Guard is currently testing how its
vessels, aircraft, and personnel operate in the arctic. Three polar icebreaker ships are
operated by the Coast Guard (one of them is in caretaker status) but funded from the
National Science Foundation’s (NSF) budget.98 In light of additional polar activities
that may extend beyond scientific research, the House committee directs the Coast
Guard to negotiate with the NSF to return the budget of the polar icebreakers to the
Coast Guard.99 The Senate and House committee reports note that a Coast Guard
polar mission report is due to Congress by August 31, 2008.
U.S. Secret Service100
The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) has two broad missions — criminal
investigations and protection.101 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. Aside 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
97 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-OE-18 and 19.
98 For further discussion of the U.S. icebreaker fleet, see CRS Report RL34391, Coast
Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by
Ronald O’Rourke.
99 Draft House report, pp. 81-82.
100 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security
Policy, Government and Finance Division.
101 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, United States Secret Service, Fiscal Year 2009,
Congressional Justification.

---

CRS-54
international conferences and events held in the United States.102 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.
Table 13. U.S. Secret Service Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
House-
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed
Programs and Activities
Enacteda
Request
Reported
Reported
H.R. 2638*
Protection of persons and
facilities
694
710
703
710
706
Protective intelligence
activities
58
60
60
60
60
National Special Security
Events
1
1
1
1
1
Presidential candidate
nominee protection
85
41
41
41
41
White House mail screening
16
37
—
31
34
Management and
administration
176
182
182
182
182
Rowley Training Center
52
53
53
53
53
Domestic field operations
220
243
242
242
242
International field operations
26
28
28
30
30
Electronic crimes program
45
48
48
56
52
Forensic support grants for
the National Center for
Missing and Exploited

Children (NCMEC)
8
8
8
8
8
Acquisition, construction, and
improvements
4
4
4
4
4
Total
1,385
1,414
1,371
1,418
1,413
Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS
Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and draft copies of the House-
reported bill (H.R. 6947) and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862), provided to CRS by the
Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on July 8, 2008.
*As contained in the draft-Joint Explanatory Statement posted on the House Rules Committee website
on September 24, 2008.
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.
102 Congress appropriated $100 million for the FY2008 presidential nominating conventions
in Division B, Title II of P.L. 110-161.

---

CRS-55
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.103 This reflects an increase of
$29 million, or nearly 2%, over the FY2008 total of $1,385 million for the Service.
Draft-H.R. 6947. For FY2009, draft-H.R. 6947 proposes a total appropriation
of $1,371 million for the Secret Service.104 This reflects a decrease of $14 million
or nearly 1% less than the FY2008 total of $1,385 million for the Service. One area
that draft-H.R. 6947 proposes to reduce funding for is White House mail screening.
According to the draft House report, “No funding is provided for the processing of
mail at the White House, since this activity is an administrative duty that should be
requested and financed through the routine expenses of the Executive Office of the
President.”105
Senate-reported S. 3181. For FY2009, Senate-reported S. 3181 proposes
a total appropriation of $1,418 million for the Secret Service.106 This reflects an
increase of $33 million, or nearly 2%, more than the FY2008 total of $1,385 million
for the Service. Senate-reported S. 3181, unlike draft-H.R. 6947, proposes to fund
White House mail screening.
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
NSSE costs within the Secret Service.107 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 to 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.108
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
103 OMB, Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2009, p. 482.
104 Draft House Report provided to CRS on July 8, 2008, by the Homeland Security
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, p. 91.
105 Ibid., p. 92.
106 S. 3181, Title II.
107 P.L. 110-161, Div. E.
108 P.L. 110-161, Div. B, Title II.

---

CRS-56
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
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.”109 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.
109 P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1400.

---

CRS-57
Table 14. Title III: Preparedness and Response
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
House-
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed
Operational Component
Enacteda
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Reported
Reported
H.R. 2638*
National Protection & Programs Directorate
Administration
47
47
55
50
53
51
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security
655
655
841
847
809
807
US-VISIT
475
475
390
390
180
300
Net total
1,177
1,177
1,286
1,287
1,041
1,158
Office of Health Affairs
117
117
161 b
134
171
157
Counter Terrorism Fund
—
—
—
—
—
—
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Management and Administration
724
724
957
912
893
943
Office of Grant Programs
3,478
3,478
1,900
3,371
3,329
3,421
Firefighter Assistance Grants
750
750
300
800
750
775
U.S. Fire Administration
43
43
—
45
43
45
Public health programs
—
—
—
—
—
—
Disaster relief
1,324c
2,900 d
4,224
1,900
1,794 e
1,841 f
1,278
Disaster readiness and support activities
—
—
200
—
—
—
Flood map modernization fund
220
220
150
220
185
220
National flood insurance fund (NFIF)g
—
—
—
—
—
—
National flood mitigationh
—
—
—
—
—
—
Pre-disaster mitigation fund
114
114
75
75
100
90
Emergency food and shelter
153
153
100
200
153
200
Disaster assistance direct loan account
1
1
1
—
— i
—

---

CRS-58
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
House-
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed
Operational Component
Enacteda
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Reported
Reported
H.R. 2638*
Radiological Emergency Preparedness
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
Rescission
—
—
-9 j
-9 j
-9 j
-9 j
Net total
6,806c
2,900d
9,706
5,573
7,407
7,328
6,963
Net budget authority subtotal: Title III
8,100c
2,900d
11,000
7,020
8,829
8,540
8,278
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and draft
copies of the House-reported bill (H.R. 6947) and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862), provided to CRS by the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations
Committee on July 8, 2008.
*As contained in the draft-Joint Explanatory Statement posted on the House Rules Committee website on September 24, 2008.
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 an additional $27 million requested in the President’s budget amendment transmitted to Congress on June 9th, 2008.
c. Does not include $2,900 million in FY2008 emergency supplemental funding for Disaster Relief enacted by P.L. 110-28.
d. Per P.L. 110-28, $2,900 million in FY2008 emergency supplemental funding for Disaster Relief.
e. Reflects transfers of $91 million to FEMA Management and Administration, and $15 million to DHS OIG.
f. Reflects transfers of $43 million to FEMA Management and Administration, and $16 million to DHS OIG.
g. Funds derived from premium payments or transfers from the U.S. Treasury.
h. Funds derived from NFIF transfers.
i. The Senate includes $580,000 (or $1 million) under FEMA Management and Administration for this activity.
j. Rescission of $9 million in unobligated previously appropriated funds for Cerro Grande fire claims.

---

CRS-59
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)110
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.111 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 $4,133 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,
most of the increase ($184 million) would go to adding 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.
Draft-H.R. 6947. The House-reported bill places FEMA spending at $7,407
million, surpassing the Administration’s requested level by $1,834 million. As in the
previous year, the great majority of increases come from consistently higher funding
levels for nearly all of the state and local grant programs. The FY2009 mark also is
greater than the actual FY2008 level as well.
110 Prepared by Keith Bea, Specialist in American National Government and Fran McCarthy,
Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
111 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-60
Senate-reported S. 3181. The Senate FEMA mark for FY2009 is $7,328
million which is an increase of $1,755 million over the President’s request. The
Senate bill also increases grants to states above the proposed Administration levels.
The Senate mark also exceeds the enacted level for the previous fiscal year.
Disaster Relief Fund. There are areas of agreement between the House and
Senate measures and the Administration request. For the Disaster Relief Fund
(DRF), which funds disaster response, recovery, and mitigation work following
Presidentially declared disasters, the House and Senate concurred with the $1,900
million amount requested by the administration. While this represents a reduction
of $2,400 million from last year’s level, it also reflects the current unobligated
balance in the DRF which exceeds $4,200 million.112 That DRF balance does not
include the recent supplemental bill which contained an additional $897 million for
the DRF account.113
Neither the House nor the Senate endorses the concept of a separate Disaster
Readiness and Support Account in the FEMA budget. The Senate agrees to fund up
to $250 million for those purposes without establishing a new account. The House
also declines to create a separate account, but intends this spending to remain within
the Disaster Relief Fund account since it supports future disaster activity.
There are two significant transfers recommended from the DRF by both the
House and Senate. The House and Senate recommend large transfers to support the
conversion of temporary disaster employees to full time, permanent positions (see the
FEMA Work Force section in this report).
The committees also recommend the transfer of DRF funds to the Office of
Inspector General for audits and investigations related to disasters. The House bill
transfers $15 million while the Senate bill sets the amount transferred at $16 million.
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
is the quality and safety of FEMA’s temporary housing that has been provided to
disaster victims.114 With regard to a more effective immediate response to a major
disaster, Congress has sought to improve FEMA’s 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. Additionally, for FY2009, Congress has concentrated on two particular
112 U.S. Department of Homeland Security-Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Disaster Relief Fund Monthly Congressional Report, June 1, 2008, p. 2.
113 H.R. 2642, pg. 63.
114 For more information, see CRS Report RL34087, FEMA Disaster Housing and
Hurricane Katrina: Overview, Analysis, and Congressional Options, by Francis X.
McCarthy.

---

CRS-61
programs slated for cuts, Emergency Food and Shelter and Flood Map
Modernization, and has instead increased funding levels far over the Administration
request.
Emergency Food and Shelter (EFS) Program. The EFS program, which
provides funding to homeless assistance providers across the nation on a formula
basis, was slated for a $53 million reduction to $100 million. Instead, the House
recommended increasing the program to $200 million, double the requested level.
As a statement by the Chairman of the Homeland Security appropriations
subcommittee explained:
Additional resources for this program are especially critical now, as more and
more people turn to food banks and other community support organizations to
meet their basic needs. This is the largest single appropriation for this program
in its 25 year history.115
The Senate also disagreed with the President’s request to decrease the EFS account
from the 2008 appropriation of $153 million to $100 million, recommending instead
the account remain at the 2008 number.
Flood Map Modernization. The President’s FY2009 budget level for flood
map modernization would be increased by the Senate from $150 million to $185
million to modernize and digitalize flood maps. The House also chose to recommend
increasing the funding for this program, which is intended to modernize and maintain
more than 100,000 of the nation’s flood maps, up to $220 million, the FY2008
funding level, which represents an increase of 46% above the Administration’s
request.
FEMA Work Force. The most substantial increase in the Administration’s
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
115 Opening Statement, Chairman David Price, Subcommittee Markup: FY2009 Homeland
S e c u r i t y A p p r o p r i a t i o n s A c t , J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 , a t
[http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PriceSubMarkup 06-11-08.pdf].

---

CRS-62
Individual Assistance, Mitigation, Congressional Affairs, Community Relations, and
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.
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.”116
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. But the funding for more
permanent staff reflects an attempt to address some general concerns that both
chambers have raised.
Draft-H.R. 6947. First, the House recommends that $90.6 million be
transferred from the DRF account to support the conversion of temporary disaster
employees to full time, permanent positions. While supporting the effort to
supplement the permanent work force, the House notes that the funds will not be
available until the Agency submits an implementation plan. The House also notes
that the transfer is not at the full level requested by DHS/FEMA because “previous
funding provided for this effort has been reprogrammed by FEMA.”117
Senate-reported S. 3181. The Senate recommends that $43.5 million be
transferred for that purpose. The Senate wants FEMA to improve customer service
and is concerned about employee turnover, stating that the agency is overly reliant
on temporary employees for projects related to public assistance. According to the
Senate report, this reliance has created a lack of consistent decision making and has
compromised the accuracy of information accessed by state and local governments.
To address these concerns, the Senate proposed an increase in the number of
permanent personnel devoted to Public Assistance in particular.
Pre-Disaster Mitigation. Pre-Disaster Mitigation is a competitive grant
program that provides awards on an annual basis and is not directly linked to disaster
116 U.S. House of Representative, Committee on Appropriations, “FY2008 Omnibus
Summary: Homeland Security Committee,” [http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/Homeland
Omnibus.pdf].
117 House Appropriations Draft Report, pg. 109.

---

CRS-63
declarations. The House agreed with the reduced level of funding for the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program suggested in the FY2009 budget. In FY2008 the
Congress chose to increase funding in this account but this year the House acceded
to the $39 million reduction in the President’s budget.118 The Senate disagreed with
the Administration and House position and would increase the PDM119 fund from $75
million requested to $100 million to provide grants to states and localities for hazard
mitigation planning and implementation mitigation projects.
In explaining its reduced mark for the PDM program the House noted its
support for similar mitigation programs, including $90 million for programs targeting
flood loss properties, funded through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The House also pointed to its support of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP). This program is triggered under disaster declarations, is funded by the
DRF account, and supports similar projects and activities. The House Committee has
requested that FEMA report to the Committee within six months with a mitigation
strategy showing how each mitigation program contributes to achieving mitigation
goals. The House bill also earmarks the PDM program for the second time. The
listed earmarks (51 projects) in the bill total just under $25 million, or close to a third
of the funds available for the PDM competitive grant program. In that vein, the
Senate report language directs FEMA to “operate this program competitively.”120
Gulf Coast Hurricane Recovery Issues. 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 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).121 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. One House
Committee Chairman concluded that “no one was looking out for the interests of the
displaced families living in the FEMA trailers.”122
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 provided to
Congress. In a Senate hearing on the topic, the need for this report to serve as both
118 For additional information on this program see CRS Report RL34537, Pre-Disaster
Mitigation Program: Overview and Analysis, by Francis X. McCarthy.
119 For more information see CRS Report RL34537, FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Program: Overview and Issues.
120 Senate Report, pg. 123
121 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.
122 U.S. House of Representatives, Opening Statement, Rep. Henry Waxman, July 9, 2008
at [http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=2073].

---

CRS-64
a guide and an indication of Administration intent was underlined.123 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 eligible assistance 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.124
The ongoing housing problems following Hurricane Katrina prompted House
comments that directly addressed an ongoing area of contention regarding the
rebuilding of public housing in the wake of the 2005 hurricanes. Recent House
hearings have concentrated on the perceived conflicting views of responsibility
between HUD and FEMA regarding the repairs for public housing.125 In response to
these concerns the House recommended an additional $50 thousand to “the Office
of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding to convene a panel of experts
to develop solutions for restoring the affordable rental housing stock of communities
affected the 2005 hurricanes.”126
In a related issue regarding mitigation, the House Committee is “encouraged”
by the progress being made to implement the HMGP. Funding has moved slowly but
it now appears that HMGP funds will supplement mitigation measures for recipients
of the “Road Home” program in Louisiana.127 While noting the administrative
progress, the House report observes that the program deadline for applications is
September 1, 2008. Based on all of these considerations, the House report urges
FEMA to consider extending that deadline.

Administrative, Financial and Budgeting Challenges. Another area of
concern voiced by the Senate is FEMA’s process of handling state and local grant
programs. According to the Senate, grant award distribution is flawed because there
is a lack of effective implementation. Accordingly, the Senate recommendation
123 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.
124 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.
125 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity and the House Homeland Security Committee, Subcommittee on
Emergency Communications, Preparedness and Response, Examining the Roles and
Responsibilities of HUD and FEMA in Responding to the Affordable Housing Needs of Gulf
Coast States following Emergencies and Natural Disasters, June 4, 2008.
126 Opening Statement, Chairman David Price, Subcommittee Markup: FY2009 Homeland
S e c u r i t y A p p r o p r i a t i o n s A c t , J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 , a t
[http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PriceSubMarkup 06-11-08.pdf].
127 For additional information, see CRS Report RL34410, The Louisiana Road Home
Program: Federal Aid for State Disaster Housing Assistance Programs, by Natalie Love.

---

CRS-65
includes a provision to withhold $10 million from FEMA Management and
Administration until the Secretary, in coordination with the Administrator of FEMA,
certifies and reports to the Senate Committee that the processes to incorporate
stakeholder input for grant guidance development and award distribution have
improved transparency and increased information about security needs on all hazards.
The House also voiced this concern, albeit without the stipulations set forth by the
Senate (see Office of Grants Programs section in this report).
In a similar vein, the House cited a recent GAO report128 which stated that
FEMA needs to develop policies and procedures to ensure states and localities are
involved collaboratively in all future updates to the National Response Framework
(NRF).
Furthermore, both chambers directed FEMA to submit its FY2010 budget
request, including justification materials, by office. In 2008 FEMA was directed to
submit its 2009 budget in this fashion, but failed to do so. The House used their
report as an opportunity to express their displeasure with FEMA on this matter.
The Senate agrees with the Office of Inspector General that FEMA has financial
weaknesses as a result of the agency’s financial reporting and accounting practices.
While the Senate acknowledges the challenges of operating an agency which has
underwent reorganization and supports multifaceted operations, the Senate insists
that FEMA take steps to correct these areas of weakness.
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
and overloaded its logistics system.”129 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.
The House mark agreed to an increase of close to $160 million over FY2008
in FEMA’s Management and Administration account, which includes Logistics, that
will fund initiatives to increase the work force and also to improve the logistics
process for responding to disasters. However, that mark was approximately $136
million short of the Administration request for the overall Management and
Administration account.
Urban Search and Rescue. Both chambers disagreed with the President’s
request to reduce funding for the Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) Response
128 U.S. General Accounting Office, National Disaster Response: FEMA Should Take Action
to Improve Capacity and Coordination between Government and Voluntary Sectors, GAO-
08-369, February 2008.
129 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-66
System from the 2008 amount of $32.5 million to $25 million. Rather, both the
House and the Senate recommend returning the account to its original amount of $32
million. The House report directs FEMA to report back to the Committee within six
months on the feasibility of adding another team to the USAR program. The USAR
system currently has 28 teams.
Climate Change. The impact of climate change was introduced by the House
where it stated that $5 million should be designated for North Carolina to perform
a risk assessment, and a mitigation strategy, to address the impact of sea level rise in
that state. The information gained from this study will then be disseminated to other
states to assist them with their climate change mitigation efforts. The information
attained from the study is expected to assess the long-term, potential fiscal impact of
climate change as it “affects the frequency and impacts of natural disasters.”130
Office of Grant Programs131
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.
130 House Appropriations Draft Report, p. 112.
131 This section was prepared by Shawn Reese, Government and Finance Division.

---

CRS-67
Table 15. State and Local Homeland Security Programs
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
House-
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed
Program
Enacteda
Request
Reported
Reported
H.R. 2638*
State Homeland Security
Grant Program (SHSGP)
950b
200
950
890
890
Urban Area Security
Initiative (UASI)
820c
825
850
825
838
Law Enforcement Terrorism
Prevention Program (LETPP)
—
—
—
—
—
Port Security Program
400
210
400
400
400
Transit Security Program
400
175
400
400
400
Intercity Bus Security
Program
12
12
12
12
12
Trucking Industry Security
Program
16
8
8
8
8
Emergency Operation
Centers
15
—
35
10
35
Buffer Zone Protection
50
—
—
50
50
Assistance to Firefighters
(FIRE)
750
300d
800
750
775
Emergency Management
Performance Grants (EMPG)
300
200
315
300
315
Citizen Corps Programs
(CCP)
15
15
15
15
15
Metropolitan Medical
Response System (MMRS)
41
—
50
33
41
Training, Technical
Assistance, Exercises, and
Evaluation
299
145f
236
291
264
Commercial Equipment
Direct Assistance Grants
25
—
—
10
8
Interoperable
Communications Grants
50
[7]g
50
50
50
Real ID Grants
50
—
50
[50] h
Regional Catastrophic
Preparedness Grants
35
—
—
35
35
National Security and
Terrorism Prevention
Programi
—
110
—
—
—
Total
4,228
2,200
4,171
4,079
4,136
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS
Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and draft copies of the House-
reported bill (H.R. 6947) and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862), provided to CRS by the
Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on July 8, 2008.

---

CRS-68
*As contained in the draft-Joint Explanatory Statement posted on the House Rules Committee website
on September 24, 2008.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds.
a. Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L.
110-161.
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 Senate-reported bill includes $50 million for Real-ID Grants under the SHSGP.
i. 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 requests $2,200 million for
FY2009 DHS 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.
Draft-H.R. 6947. Draft-H.R. 6947 proposes $4,171 million for FY2009 DHS
assistance programs for states and localities. This proposed appropriation is $57
million, or 1%, less than the $4,228 million Congress appropriated in FY2008. Some
of the assistance programs that the bill proposes not to fund in FY2009 are the Buffer
Zone Protection Program, Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Grants, and
Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grants. Additionally, the bill does not propose
to fund the Administration’s new initiative, the National Security and Terrorism
Prevention Program, which would have consolidated funding for such programs as
Real ID and the Buffer Zone Protection Program.
Senate-reported S. 3181. The Senate-reported S. 3181 proposes $4,079
million for FY2009 DHS assistance programs for states and localities. This proposed
appropriation is $149 million, or nearly 4%, less than the $4,228 million Congress
appropriated in FY2008. Some of the assistance programs that the bill proposes to
reduce funding for are the State Homeland Security Grant Program, Trucking
Industry Security Program, Emergency Operations Centers, Metropolitan Medical
Response System, and the Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Grants. The
Senate-reported S. 3181, like draft-H.R. 6947, does not propose to fund the National
Security and Terrorism Prevention Program.

---

CRS-69
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 Funding for State and Local Assistance. 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
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.132
In the past, Congress 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.133
Like the Administration request, both the House- and Senate-reported bills
propose to reduce funding to state and local homeland security assistance programs,
approximately 1% and 4% respectively. The Senate-reported S. 3181 proposes a
larger reduction in funding ($149 million), however, it proposes to do this by
reducing appropriations to numerous programs instead of not funding specific
programs, such as proposing $890 million for the State Homeland Security Grant
Program which received $950 million in FY2009. On the other hand, draft-H.R.
6947 proposes to not fund numerous grant programs, such as Buffer Zone Protection
Program, in FY2009 which received appropriations in FY2008.
Reduction in Funding for the Assistance to Firefighters Program.134
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
132 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2009 Budget for the United States
Government (Washington: GPO, February 2009), Appendix, pp. 514-516.
133 P.L. 110-161 (FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations), Div. E, Title III.
134 This section prepared by Lennard G. Kruger, Specialist in Science and Technology,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

---

CRS-70
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 proposed $300 million for fire grants, a 46% cut from
the FY2008 level. No funding was proposed for SAFER grants, and the total request
for Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) was 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.”
Senate-reported S. 3181 proposes $750 million for firefighter assistance,
including $560 million for fire grants and $190 million for SAFER grants, the same
funding level approved for FY2008. The Senate Report directed DHS to continue
the present practice of funding applications according to local priorities and those
established by the U.S. Fire Administration, and further directed DHS to continue
direct funding to fire departments and the peer review process. Draft-H.R. 6947
would provide $800 million for firefighter assistance, consisting of $570 million for
fire grants and $230 million for SAFER grants. The draft House report directed
FEMA to continue granting funds directly to local fire departments and to include the
U.S. Fire Administration during the grant administration process, while also
maintaining an all-hazards focus and not limiting the list of eligible activities.
Office of Health Affairs135
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 System (NBIS), certain functions
of Project BioShield, and the department’s occupational health and safety
programs.136 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
135 Prepared by Sarah A. Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology, Domestic
Social Policy Division.
136 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-71
for NBIS, $3 million for the Rapidly Deployable Chemical System, $10 million for
planning and coordination, and $29 million for salaries and expenses.137
Draft-H.R. 6947. The bill would provide $134 million for OHA, which is $27
million (-17%) below the FY2009 request, but $18 million (+15%) above the
FY2008 level. This amount includes $89 million for the BioWatch program, $8
million for NBIS, $3 million for the Rapidly Deployable Chemical Detection System,
$6 million for planning and coordination, and $29 million for salaries and expenses.
Senate-reported S. 3181. The bill would provide $171 million for OHA,
which is $10 million (+6%) above the FY2009 request, and $55 million (+47%)
above the FY2008 level. This amount includes the amounts requested for BioWatch,
NBIS, the Rapidly Deployable Chemical Detection System, and planning and
coordination, plus an additional $10 million above the requested amount for salaries
and expenses.
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 uses contractors to
meet some of the workforce needs associated with its rapid growth, particularly in
support of BioWatch. It also requested additional FY2009 funding for new staff
positions, partly to strengthen its administrative functions, such as contracting,
budget formulation, budget execution, and internal controls.138
In prior appropriations, Congress has been interested in the effectiveness of
OHA programs. In FY2008, Congress provided funding for the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) to study the effectiveness of BioWatch. In the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53), Congress
called on the Comptroller General to evaluate implementation of NBIS. These
reviews are pending. In its FY2009 recommendation, the House Committee provided
BioWatch funding substantially below the request, and expressed concern about
OHA’s plans to deploy new versions of BioWatch sensing systems.139 The
Committee said that until the NAS review is completed, the funding provided would
maintain current operations and continued testing of new sensing systems, but that
the Committee was to be notified prior to any future BioWatch deployments in new
locations.140 The Senate Committee did not discuss BioWatch in its report.
137 FY2009 Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 3051-3141 of the pdf document.
138 Ibid, p. OHA-44 (p. 3094 of the pdf document).
139 For more information, see House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Homeland Security, hearing on Department of Homeland Security, Office of Health Affairs,
April 1, 2008, 110th Cong., 2nd Sess., Washington, DC.
140 Draft House Report provided to CRS on July 8, 2008, by the Homeland Security
(continued...)

---

CRS-72
Additional concerns mentioned by the House Committee include, among others,
basing DHS’s pandemic influenza planing activities in OHA rather than elsewhere
in DHS, and expanding OHA’s activities to monitor environmental exposures among
disaster victims. The Senate Committee expressed concern about the level of
national preparedness for a nuclear incident, and provided that $10 million (the
amount that the Committee provided above the request) be used to expand OHA’s
efforts to plan for this threat.141 Both the House and Senate Committees expressed
concerns about problems with medical care in ICE detention facilities, and the status
of OHA’s responsibility to evaluate health and medical policies across the
department. Both committees also directed OHA and FEMA to coordinate their
efforts in managing the Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) grants to
cities.
National Protection and Programs Directorate142
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.
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.
140 (...continued)
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, p. 105.
141 S.Rept. 110-396, p. 101.
142 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources,
Science and Industry Division.

---

CRS-73
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 framework143 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 NPPD funds in FY2008.
The request for the Office of Risk Management and Analysis supports current
services.
Table 16. FY2009 Budget Activity for the Management and
Administration Appropriation
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
House-
Program
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed
Project Activity
Total
Request
Reported
Reported
H.R. 2638*
Directorate
Administration
38
43
41
43
42
Intergovernmental
Programs
—
2
—
—
—
Risk Management and
Analysis
9
10
10
10
10
Total
47
55
50
53
51
Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS
Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and draft copies of the House-
reported bill (H.R. 6947) and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862), provided to CRS by the
Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on July 8, 2008.
*As contained in the draft-Joint Explanatory Statement posted on the House Rules Committee website
on September 24, 2008.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
143 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-74
Draft-H.R. 6947. The House Committee recommended no funding for the
Office of Intergovernmental Programs in the National Protection and Programs
budget, noting that the Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act moved this Office into
FEMA and, that funding for the Office is provided within the FEMA budget. The
House Committee would also cut in half the amount of funding requested for hiring
new staff (a reduction of $2 million in the Directorate Administration line item). The
Committee stated the slow pace at which the Directorate is hiring new staff made it
unlikely that the Directorate would need the full amount requested. The House
Committee, too, took issue with the National Command and Coordination Capability
budget request (and two other programs), due to a perceived lack of justification and
planning for the programs.
Senate-reported S. 3181. The Senate Committee approved the President’s
Management and Administration request, with the exception of funding for Office
of Intergovernmental Programs, which they did not fund. The Committee made no
comment regarding the quality of the Directorate’s budget submission as a whole,
but, as mentioned below, it did express concern about the lack of planning documents
for one of the programs requested within the National Security Preparedness
Telecommunications line item (see the discussion on the National Command and
Control Capability in the Infrastructure Protection and Information Security section
below).
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
expressed concern that the RMA, in particular, may be located too low in the
organization to accomplish its goals.
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(US-VISIT)144
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
144 Prepared by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy
Division.

---

CRS-75
screening programs within DHS145 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
FY2006.146 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.”147
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.148 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.
Draft-H.R. 6947. The House Committee recommended fully funding the
President’s request for US-VISIT, but withheld $90 million pending the submission
and approval of an expenditure plan for the program. Additionally, the House
Committee included $40 million for operations and management of the program
within the CBP Salaries and Expenses account, $22 million less than the President’s
request, because “the budget explanation did not justify full funding.”149
Senate-reported S. 3181. The Senate Committee recommended $180
million for US-VISIT, $210 million less than the President’s request. The Senate
Committee noted that it did not receive US-VISIT’s FY2008 expenditure plan until
June 12, 2008 (or almost 3/4 of the way through the fiscal year) and that $125 million
in FY2008 funding will remain unavailable for obligation until this plan is reviewed
by GAO and accepted by the Committee — something that will likely not occur until
September. As a result of the delay in submitting the plan, the Senate Committee
noted that DHS was effectively turning US-VISIT into a forward funded account.
As such, the Senate Committee reduced the FY2009 appropriation by $210 million
from the FY2009 request, to $180 million. However, the Senate Committee noted
that it fully funded the President’s request for an additional $62 million for
145 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.
146 H.Rept. 109-241.
147 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, letter from Secretary Michael Chertoff to the
Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and
Government Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, January 18, 2007, p. 8.
148 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.
149 Draft House report, pp. 36-37.

---

CRS-76
“operations and management” of the program within the CBP Salaries and Expenses
Account.
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 communication load 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 effective results, and what kind of an impact the
deployment of the system to airports will have on the travel times for individuals
entering the country as well as the potential economic impacts that delays may have
on airlines due to missed connections. The Senate Committee noted its approval of
the plans to transition to a 10 fingerprint entry system, and included full funding for
that portion of the request. The House Committee also recommended fully funding
the President’s request for this component of the US-VISIT system, and directed
DHS to provide quarterly briefings on the implementation of the 10 fingerprint entry
solution.
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.”150 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. The House Committee noted that the exit component remains
behind schedule, and expressed its concern that “no pilot tests have been carried out
or are planned for the proposed assignment of biometric collection responsibilities
to private industry.”151 In order to address this concern, the House Committee
withheld from its recommendation funding for the implementation of an exit solution
at airports until US-VISIT conducts pilot programs testing private industry collection
and transmission of biometric data and CBP collection of this data at airline gates
and submits a report to the committee on their outcomes. US-VISIT would be
150 FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, p. NPPD US-VISIT 21.
151 Draft House report, p. 101.

---

CRS-77
required to complete these pilots by October 31, 2008. The House Committee also
noted its concern that DHS has yet to provide a detailed and comprehensive strategy
for implementation of an exit solution across all ports of entry, as required by the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, and included language reiterating this
requirement.
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security152
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 Cyber 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
152 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources,
Science and Industry Division.

---

CRS-78
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
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)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
House-
Program
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed
Project Activity
Total
Request
Reported
Reported
H.R. 2638*
IP
273
273
312
298
314
NCSDa
210
293
299
319
314
NCSb
136
237
147
143
141
OEC
36
38
38
48
38
REAL ID Hub
—
—
50
—
—
Total
655
841
847
809
807

---

CRS-79
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS
Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and draft copies of the House-
reported bill (H.R. 6947) and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862), provided to CRS by the
Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on July 8, 2008.
*As contained in the draft-Joint Explanatory Statement posted on the House Rules Committee website
on September 24, 2008.
Notes: Tables may not add due to rounding. IP=Infrastructure Protection; NCSD=National Cyber
Security Division; NCS=National Communications System; OEC=Office of Emergency
Communications.
a. Account formerly called Computer Security.
b. Account formerly called National Security/Emergency Preparedness.
Draft-H.R. 6947. The House Committee recommended $847 million for the
IPIS program, but voted to withhold from obligation $149 million from three
programs (National Cyber Security Initiative, Next Generation Networks, and the
National Command and Coordination Capability) until the Committee receives
expenditure plans and documentation on how these programs relate to achieving
homeland security goals. The Committee recommended $39 million more for
Infrastructure Protection and $6 million more for the National Cyber Security
Division PPAs than requested. The House Committee supported the
Administration’s request for the Office of Emergency Communications, but
recommended less (-$90 million) than what was requested for the National
Communications System program. In addition, the House Committee recommended
the $50 million REAL ID Hub program be transferred to NPPD. The Administration
requested funds for this program in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) budget. The Committee recommended the development program be run out
of NPPD to allow the USCIS to focus on its large backlog of applications.
Within the Infrastructure Protection PPA, the Committee included an additional
$16 million to the request for National Infrastructure Protection Plan implementation
and $2 million to the Bombing Prevention Program, more than reversing the
Administration’s proposed reductions in those programs. The Committee also
recommended, similar to the Senate Appropriations Committee, an additional $12
million for chemical plant security compliance support, also citing the need to
support upcoming regulations on ammonium nitrate. In addition, the Committee
recommended $2 million to fund continued deployment of video surveillance
cameras in Philadelphia and $3 million to study the efficacy of manhole cover
locking systems to ensure security of underground utilities.
The Committee fully supported the National Cyber Security Division’s U.S.-
CERT budget, but, withheld from obligation half of the amount ($121 million) until
the Committee receives an expenditure plan for the U.S.-CERT’s contribution to the
National Cyber Security Initiative. Also within the NCSD PPA, the Committee
recommended $4 million more than the request for control systems security testing
at Idaho National Laboratory.
Within the National Communications System PPA, the Committee
recommended $14 million for the National Command and Coordination Capability
budget, about $47 million less than the request, and withheld all of this amount from

---

CRS-80
obligation until it receives an expenditure plan for this program. The Committee also
recommended $8 million less for the Next Generation Networks program, and
withheld half of this amount from obligation until it receives an expenditure plan for
the program. As did the Senate Committee, the House Committee did not support
the transfer of the LORAN program to NPPD.
Senate-reported S. 3181. The Senate Committee recommended a total of
$809 million for the IPIS program. This included funding, above requested levels,
for Infrastructure Protection (+$25 million), the National Cyber Security Division
(+$26 million), and the Office of Emergency Communications (+$10 million) PPAs.
The Committee, however, recommended less than requested funding for the National
Communications System PPA (-$94 million).
Within the Infrastructure Protection PPA, the Committee recommended
additional funds for the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (+$4
million) and the Bombing Prevention Program ($1 million), reversing the
Administration’s proposed reductions in these two programs. In addition, the
Committee increased the funding for chemical plant security compliance an
additional $12 million above the Administration’s request, citing the need to enforce
upcoming regulations on ammonium nitrate. The Committee also recommended an
additional $8 million above the Administration’s request to help accelerate the pace
of vulnerability assessments at Tier 1 and Tier 2 critical infrastructure sites. The
additional $10 million recommended for the Office of Emergency Communications
PPA is to support 6 international interoperability border demonstration projects. The
Committee did not expand upon its recommendation to increase the National Cyber
Security Division’s budget request by $26 million.
Within the National Communications System PPA, the Committee
recommended $6 million for the National Command and Coordination Capability
(NCCC), $55 million less than what was requested. Although the Committee
recommendation increased funding over last year’s budget for the NCCC, the
Committee expressed concern that the program lacked an overall strategic plan, input
from prospective end users, a defined fully operational capability, and a total program
cost estimate. The funds provided by the Committee are to conduct such planning.
The Committee also directed the Government Accountability Office to review the
program, including the business case for proceeding with the NCCC. Also within the
National Communications System PPA, the Committee did not support the transfer
of the LORAN program to the NPPD. The Committee noted that the requested
funding was provided in the Coast Guard budget.
IPIS Issues for Congress. Congress and the Administration continue to
disagree on the direction or pace certain programs within the IPIS should take. The
Administration favors reducing funding in the National Infrastructure Simulation and
Analysis Center, the National Infrastructure Protection Plan implementation support,
and the Bombing Prevention Program. Congress did not support these reductions in
FY2008 and have not in the FY2009 budget. Meanwhile, Congress has not been
willing to completely support relatively large increases the Administration has been
seeking for programs in the National Communications Systems PPA. Both the
House and the Senate appear to be in basic agreement. A primary difference between
the House and Senate bills is that the House Appropriations Committee

---

CRS-81
recommended the transfer of the REAL ID Hub program to NPPD, while the Senate
Committee did not make a similar recommendation.
Title IV: Research and Development, Training,
Assessments, and Services
Title IV includes appropriations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS), the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), the Science and
Technology Directorate (S&T), and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO).
Table 18 provides account-level details of Title IV appropriations.

---

CRS-82
Table 18. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
House-
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed
Operational Component
Enacteda
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Reported
Reported
H.R. 2638*
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Total available budget authority
2,620
2,620
2,690
2,641
2,690
2,641
Offsetting feesb
-2,539
-2,539
-2,539
-2,539
-2,539
-2,539
Net subtotal (Direct appropriation)
81
81
151
102
151
102
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
289
289
274
286
324
333
Science and Technology
Management and Administration
139
139
132
132
132
132
Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations
692
692
737
755
787
800
Net Subtotal
830
830
869
887
919
933
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
Management and Administration
32
32
39
35
39
38
Research, Development, and Operations
324
324
334
333
334
323
Systems Acquisition
130
130
191
176
168
153
Net Subtotal
485
485
564
544
541
514
Gross budget authority: Title IV
4,224
4,224
4,396
4,358
4,474
4,421
Offsetting collections: Title IV
-2,539
-2,539
-2,539
-2,539
-2,539
-2,539
Net budget authority: Title IV
1,685
1,685
1,857
1,819
1,935
1,882
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and draft
copies of the House-reported bill (H.R. 6947) and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862), provided to CRS by the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations
Committee on July 8, 2008.
*As contained in the draft-Joint Explanatory Statement posted on the House Rules Committee website on September 24, 2008.
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-83
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)153
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.154 USCIS funds the processing and adjudication of
immigrant, nonimmigrant, refugee, asylum, and citizenship benefits largely through
funds generated by the Examinations Fee Account.155 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.156
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
153 Prepared by Chad C. Haddal, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
154 CRS Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
155 §286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1356.
156 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-84
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
FY2009
House-
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
Passed
Program/Project Activity
Enacted
Request
Reported
Reported
H.R. 2638*
Appropriations
Appropriations
81
151
102
151
102
REAL ID Act
Implementation
—
50
—
50
—
Asylum/Refugee Operating
Expenses


—
1
1
1
1
EEV
60
100
100
100
100
FBI Background Check
21
—
—
—
—
Citizenship Education Grants
—
—
1
—
1
Fee Accounts
Adjudication Services
2,000
1,979
1,979
1,979
1,979
Pay & Benefits
758
780
780
780
780
District Operating Expenses
567
535
535
535
535
Service Center Operating
Expenses
353
346
346
346
346
Asylum/Refugee Operating
Expenses
95
93
93
93
93
Records Operating Expenses
88
86
86
86
86
Business Transformation
139
139
139
139
139
Information and Customer
Services
162
168
168
168
168
Administration
375
374
374
374
374
SAVE
22
19
19
19
19
Total USCIS Funding
2,620
2,690
2,641
2,690
2,641
Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS
Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and draft copies of the House-
reported bill (H.R. 6947) and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862), provided to CRS by the
Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on July 8, 2008.
*As contained in the draft-Joint Explanatory Statement posted on the House Rules Committee website
on September 24, 2008.
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.

---

CRS-85
Draft-H.R. 6947. Draft-H.R. 6947 would provide USCIS with total
appropriations $2,641 million, of which $2,539 million would be mandatory
appropriations collected from fees and $102 million would be direct appropriations.
For the mandatory fees, the draft House report states that at least $54 million must
be used for supporting Customer Service Center operations. Additionally, the report
would direct all USCIS’ premium processing revenues to be used for business and
information technology transformation purposes, including the digital conversion of
records.157 Discretionary funding includes $100 million for E-Verify, $1 million for
asylum/refugee operating expenses, and $1 million for citizenship education grants.158
Section 522 of the bill would prohibit USCIS from using funds made available from
draft-H.R. 6947 for granting any immigration benefits unless any legally required
background checks are completed and the results do not preclude benefits to be
granted.
Although the mandatory appropriations in the House-reported bill are identical
to those in the President’s budget request (as well as those in Senate-reported S.
3181), the discretionary funds would not include the $50 million requested for REAL
ID implementation. The draft House report notes that this funding would instead be
provided through the National Protections and Program Directorate (NPPD), which
has similar identity verification systems and experience in data integration. The
Citizenship and education grants — proposed competitively awarded grants to
community organizations in areas of the country with the highest concentrations of
immigrants — is an exclusive item to draft-H.R. 6947.159
The draft House-report makes several additional notes regarding Congressional
concerns. First, it notes concerns over the high error rates in the E-Verify system and
requires USCIS to submit a report on its plan to address this issue. Moreover, noting
the projected cost of a nationwide mandatory E-Verify program, the draft House
report encourages USCIS to develop a detailed plan of E-Verify use, along with
projected costs and an implementation timeline. Second, the report notes concern
over the 2007 USCIS immigration benefit fee increase and the reduced possibility for
fee waivers. Specific concerns are raised in the report regarding applicants under the
Violence Against Women Act. Third, concerns are raised over refugee processing
and cases where material support to extremist groups has been provided under threat
or duress. USCIS, in conjunction with the Department of State, are asked to clarify
United States policy on this matter. Finally, the report expresses concerns over
fraudulently or erroneously identified orphans from Vietnam, as well as the levels of
funding used for naturalization and oath of allegiance ceremonies.
157 The draft House report also states that no more than $10,000 of the fees collected be used
for official reception and representation expenses.
158 The bill also allows discretionary funds to be used for the purchase of up to five vehicles,
of which two are to be replacement vehicles. This provision is also included in Senate-
reported S. 3181.
159 The initial President’s FY2009 budget request for discretionary funds requested an
additional four $4 million. OMB withdrew this funding request, noting it was a technical
error based upon a faulty assumption. Draft-H.R. 6947 explicitly denies funding for the
erroneous budget item.

---

CRS-86
Senate-reported S. 3181. Unlike draft-H.R. 6947, Senate-reported S. 3181
would provide USCIS with its full funding request of $2,690 million. This funding
would provide $2,539 million in mandatory appropriations from fee collections and
$151 million in direct appropriations.160 The accompanying report, S.Rept. 110-396,
notes that USCIS plans to use over $24 million in anticipated carry-over funds from
FY2008 for E-Verify. It also notes the expectation that all DHS privacy rules and
regulations will be adhered to in the development of the REAL ID program.
The main concern expressed in S.Rept. 110-396 is the ongoing issue of FBI
background check backlogs. Noting that having approximately 327,000 individuals
in the country awaiting adjudication represented an unnecessary security rick, the
report reiterated that a total of $28 million had been appropriated in previous fiscal
years to address this issue. The report states that USCIS has assured Congress that
previously appropriated funding should be sufficient. Additionally, the report urges
USCIS to place personnel at the FBI name check facility to expedite additional
information requests. This request reflects a recent recommendation of the
Department of Justice Inspector General.
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.
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 FY2007.161 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.162 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 FY2006.163 For all immigration benefits, the USCIS
160 Section 515 of Senate-reported S. 3181 states: “None of the funds appropriated by this
Act may be used to process or approve a competition under Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-76 for services provided as of June 1, 2004, by employees (including
employees serving on a temporary or term basis) of United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security who are known as of that
date as Immigration Information Officers, Contact Representatives, or Investigative
Assistants.”
161 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.
162 Ibid.
163 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 [http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/
(continued...)

---

CRS-87
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.164 According to media reports, in February USCIS officials
believed that the backlog created by the application surge could take close to three
years to clear.165 As of April 2008, USCIS believed it would take 13-15 months to
process an application for naturalization.166
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, 2007.167 These
fee adjustments followed an internal cost review and they increased application fees
by a weighted average of 96% for each benefit.168 The cost of naturalization, for
example, increased from $330 to $595.169 Critics of this new naturalization backlog
have mainly raised concerns that applicants would not naturalize in time to
participate in the 2008 election.170 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. In February, USCIS officials estimated that roughly
163 (...continued)
display.cfm?ID=673], visited July 17, 2008.
164 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.
165 Muzaffar Chishti and Claire Bergeron, “USCIS: Backlog in Naturalization Applications
Will Take Nearly Three Years to Clear,” Migration Policy Institute, at
[http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?ID=673], visited July 17, 2008.
166 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, Annual Report 2008, p.2.
167 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 July 17, 2008.
168 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.)
169 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.
170 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 July 17, 2008.

---

CRS-88
44% of 320,000 pending name checks for immigration benefit applications have
taken more than six months to process, including applications for legal permanent
residence171 (LPR) and naturalization.172 As a result, the White House authorized
USCIS to grant approximately 47,000 LPR applicants their immigration benefits
without requiring completed FBI name checks.173 Critics of this decision believe it
could expose the United States to more security threats.174 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.175
According to the USCIS Ombudsman’s 2008 Annual Report, on May 6, 2008 there
were 269,943 pending name checks, of which 219,615 (81%) had been pending for
more than 90 days and 74,260 (28%) had been pending for more than one year.176
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)177
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center provides training on all phases
of law enforcement instruction, from firearms and high speed vehicle pursuit to legal
case instruction and defendant interview techniques for 81 federal entities with law
enforcement responsibilities, state and local law enforcement agencies, and
international law enforcement agencies. Training policies, programs, and standards
are developed by an interagency Board of Directors, and focus on providing training
that develops the skills and knowledge needed to perform law enforcement functions
safely, effectively, and professionally. FLETC maintains four training sites
throughout the United States and has a workforce of more than 1,000 employees.
President’s Request. The overall request for FLETC in FY2009 is $274
million, a decrease of $14 million from the FY2008 appropriation. The
Administration is requesting an increase of 55 positions to assist in the training of the
additional USBP 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.178
171 Legal permanent residence is more commonly known as being issued a “green card.”
172 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.
173 Susan Carroll, “Green Cards Will Go Out, Background Check or Not,” Houston
Chronicle, February 12, 2008.
174 Ibid.
175 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Service
Ombudsman, Annual Report 2007, June 11, 2007, p. 40.
176 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, Annual Report 2008, p. 6. In S.Rept.
110-396, the backlog in background checks is cited as 327,000 cases pending.
177 Prepared by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
178 DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. FLETC S&E 2 and 11.

---

CRS-89
Draft-H.R. 6947. The House Committee recommended $286 million for
FLETC in FY2009, an increase of $12 million over the President’s request. This
increase would be used to fund improvements in FLETC’s simulated training
capabilities, to add instructors for United States Capitol Police training needs, and
to train 734 additional CBP officers. The House Committee does not support the
Administration’s requests to transfer FLETA and to close down its Washington D.C.
office.
Senate-reported S. 3181. The Senate Committee recommended $324
million for FLETC in FY2009, an increase of $50 million over the President’s
request. Of the increase: $40 million was included for the construction of a new
dormitory in FLETC’s Charleston, South Carolina facility to compensate for the
expiration of a lease on dormitory currently being used there; $3 million was
included to complete construction of training-related facilities at the Artesia, New
Mexico facility; and $7 million was included for law enforcement accreditation and
annualized increases in pay. The Senate Committee prohibited DHS from
transferring the Law Enforcement Training Accreditation Board (FLETA) from
FLETC and from closing down or transferring its Washington D.C. office. Lastly,
the Committee recommended $5 million for the creation of a Rural Policing Institute
to export training programs to rural first-responders throughout the country.
Science and Technology (S&T)179
The Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) is the primary DHS
organization for research and development (R&D).180 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.
Draft-H.R. 6947. The House committee recommended a total of $887 million.
Increases relative to the request included $11 million for the Infrastructure and
179 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Analyst in Science & Technology, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
180 Two other DHS organizations also conduct R&D: the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (see next section) and the U.S. Coast Guard (see Title II above).

---

CRS-90
Geophysical program to support the National Institute for Hometown Security; $5
million for the ongoing construction at PNNL; $4 million to help develop an
operational test and evaluation program for first responder technologies; $2 million
for a pilot program to improve the productivity and efficiency of the homeland
security industrial base; and $7 million for University Programs to support university
centers of excellence and maintain the fellowship program at the FY2008 level.
Decreases included $5 million for new maritime technologies “more appropriately
handled by the Coast Guard” and $6 million for the Innovation program “due to a
lack of budgetary details.” The committee directed DHS to provide a report on issues
related to the S&T Directorate’s unobligated balances.
Senate-Reported S. 3181. The Senate committee recommended a total of
$919 million. Increases relative to the request included $25 million for cyber security
research in the Command, Control, and Interoperability program; $27 million for the
Infrastructure and Geophysical program to continue the Southeast Region Research
Initiative; and $15 million for Laboratory Facilities to accelerate ongoing
construction activities at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL).
Decreases included $12 million for Innovation (because of the need for “sound
business plans” based on “operational requirements”) and $4 million for Human
Factors. The committee recommended that $5 million for the Homeland Security
Institute be provided as a separate item, as it was in FY2008, rather than as part of
the Transition program as the Administration requested.
Table 20. Directorate of Science and Technology Accounts and
Activities, FY2008-FY2009
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
House-
FY2009
FY2009
Passed
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
H.R.
Enacted
Request
Reported
Reported
2638*
Directorate of Science and
Technology
830
869
887
919
932
Management and
Administrationa
139
132
132
132
132
R&D, Acquisition, and
Operations
692
737
755
787
800
Border and Maritime
25
35
30
35
33
Chemical and Biological
208
200
200
200
200
Command, Control, and
Interoperability
57
62
62
87
75
Explosives
78
96
96
96
96
Human Factors
14
12
12
8
12
Infrastructure and
Geophysical
64
38
49
65
76
Innovation
33
45
39
33
33
Laboratory Facilitiesa
104
147
152
162
162

---

CRS-91
FY2009
House-
FY2009
FY2009
Passed
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
H.R.
Enacted
Request
Reported
Reported
2638*
Test and Evaluation,
Standards
29
25
29
25
29
Transitionb
25
32
34
27
29
U
niversity Programs
49
44
51
44
50
Homeland Security Instituteb
5
—
—
5
5
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS
Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and draft copies of the House-
reported bill (H.R. 6947) and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862), provided to CRS by the
Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on July 8, 2008.
*As contained in the draft-Joint Explanatory Statement posted on the House Rules Committee website
on September 24, 2008.
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.
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office181
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
181 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Analyst in Science and Technology, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.

---

CRS-92
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.
Draft-H.R. 6947. The House committee recommended a total of $544 million.
Changes relative to the request included reductions of $3 million for new
headquarters employees, $1 million for a proposed fellowship program at the
National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center, and $15 million for the Radiation
Portal Monitoring Program. Like the Senate bill, the House bill would continue the
prohibition on full-scale procurement of ASPs until the Secretary certifies their
performance and would prohibit DNDO from engaging in high-risk concurrent
development and production of mutually dependent software and hardware. The
draft report directed DNDO to conduct a risk assessment for radiological dispersal
devices.
Senate-Reported S. 3181. The Senate committee recommended a total of
$541 million. The only change relative to the Administration request was a reduction
of $23 million in the Radiation Portal Monitoring Program because of delays in the
required certification of ASP performance. The Senate bill would continue the
prohibition on full-scale procurement of ASPs until the Secretary makes that
certification and would further prohibit DNDO from engaging in “high-risk
concurrent development and production of mutually dependent software and
hardware components of detection systems.” The committee report urged DNDO to
prioritize its programs based on risk and directed it to contract with the National
Academy of Sciences (or another independent organization) to develop a conceptual
framework for prioritizing defensive efforts relative to mitigation measures.
Table 21. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Accounts and
Activities, FY2008-FY2009
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
House-
FY2009
FY2009
Passed
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
H.R.
Enacted
Request
Reported
Reported
2638*
Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office
485
564
544
541
514
Management and Administration
32
39
35
39
38
Research, Development, and
Operations
324
334
333
334
323
Systems Engineering and
Architecture
22
25
25
25
25
Systems Development
118
108
108
108
108
Transformational Research
and Development
96
113
113
113
103
Assessments
38
32
32
32
32
Operations Support
34
38
38
38
38

---

CRS-93
FY2009
House-
FY2009
FY2009
Passed
FY2008
FY2009
House-
Senate-
H.R.
Enacted
Request
Reported
Reported
2638*
National Technical Nuclear
Forensics Center
15
18
17
18
17
Systems Acquisition
130
191
176
168
153
Radiation Portal Monitoring
Program
90
158
143
135
120
Securing the Cities
30
20
20
20
20
Human Portable Radiation
Detection Systems
10
13
13
13
13
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS
Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and draft copies of the House-
reported bill (H.R. 6947) and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862), provided to CRS by the
Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on July 8, 2008.
*As contained in the draft-Joint Explanatory Statement posted on the House Rules Committee website
on September 24, 2008.
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
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.182 The Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2008 prohibits full-scale procurement of ASPs until the Secretary of Homeland
Security has certified their performance.183 DHS states that it expects the Secretary
to make that certification in late FY2008. The global nuclear detection architecture
overseen by DNDO and the relative roles of DNDO and the S&T Directorate in
research, development, testing, and evaluation also remain issues of congressional
interest.184
182 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.
183 P.L. 110-161, Division E, Title IV, under the heading “Systems Acquisition.”
184 For more information on the global nuclear detection architecture, see CRS Report
RL34574, The Global Nuclear Detection Architecture: Issues for Congress, by Dana A.
Shea

---

CRS-94
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.185
185 H.Con.Res. 312, §603.

---

CRS-95
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).186 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;
186 Figures in this memorandum are rounded to the nearest million.

---

CRS-96
! $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-97
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;187
! $50 million for REAL ID188 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-Verify189 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
187 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.
188 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.
189 The E-Verify program was previously referred to as the Employment Eligibility
Verification program and is administered by USCIS.

---

CRS-98
! 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 million190 in emergency funding for border security initiatives within Courts of
Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services:
! Salaries and Expenses — $15 million
190 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-99
! $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-100
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-101
Table 22. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2003-FY2009
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009 as %
Department
FY2002
FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006
FY2007 FY2008
Request
of Total
Department of Homeland
Security (DHS)
17,381
23,063
22,923
24,549
26,571
29,554
32,740
32,817
49.5%
Department of Defense (DOD)a
16,126
8,442
7,024
17,188
17,510
16,538
17,374
17,646
26.6%
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS)
1,913
4,144
4,062
4,229
4,352
4,327
4,301
4,457
6.7%
Department of Justice (DOJ)
2,143
2,349
2,180
2,767
3,026
3,518
3,523
3,795
5.7%
Department of State (DOS)
477
634
696
824
1,108
1,242
1,962
2,466
3.7%
Department of Energy (DOE)
1,220
1,408
1,364
1,562
1,702
1,719
1,829
1,943
2.9%
Department of Agriculture (AG)
553
410
411
596
597
541
570
691
1.0%
National Science Foundation
(NSF)
260
285
340
342
344
385
374
379
0.6%
Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA)
49
154
271
249
298
260
272
348
0.5%
Department of Commerce
116
112
125
167
181
205
207
262
0.4%
Other Agencies
3,613
1,445
1,437
1,910
1,429
1,545
1,772
1,500
2.3%
Total Federal Budget
Authority
43,848
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.
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

---