Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

CRS Report for Congress
Homeland Security Department:
FY2006 Appropriations
Updated January 24, 2006
Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto, Coordinators
Domestic Social Policy Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and supplemental) by
Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also encompasses the
consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation, other spending
measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and the spending
of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing statutes.
Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission
of the President’s budget at the beginning of each annual session of Congress.
Congressional practices governing the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary
measures are rooted in the Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and
statutes, such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to one of the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers each
year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Homeland Security. It summarizes the status of the bill,
its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related congressional activity, and is updated as
events warrant. The reports lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related
CRS products.
Note: A web version of this document with active links is available to congressional
staff at [http://beta.crs.gov/cli/level_2.aspx?PRDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=73].

Homeland Security Department:
FY2006 Appropriations
Summary
This report describes the FY2006 appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). The Administration requested a net appropriation of
$30.6 billion in net budget authority for FY2006, of which $29.6 billion is
discretionary budget authority, and $1 billion is mandatory budget authority. P.L.
109-90 was signed into law on October 18, 2005, and provides a net appropriation
of $31.9 billion for DHS and $30.8 billion in discretionary budget authority.
The President’s request for appropriations includes the following break out of
net budget authority for the four Titles of the DHS appropriation bill: (I)
Departmental Management and Operations, $748 million; (II) Security, Enforcement
and Investigations, $20,566 million; (III) Preparedness and Response, $6,710 million;
and (IV) Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services, $2,546
million. The House-passed version of H.R. 2360 would provide the following
amounts for each title: (I) $561 million; (II) $21,988 million; (III) $6,688 million;
and (IV) $2,522 million. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 would provide the
following amounts for each title: (I) $647 million; (II) $22,193 million; (III) $6,334
million; and (IV) $2,686 million. P.L. 109-90 reflects Secretary Chertoff’s proposed
reorganization and provides the following amounts for each title: (I) $907 million;
(II) $22,401 million; (III) $6,666 million; and (IV) $1,899 million.
P.L. 109-90 concurs with much of Secretary Chertoff’s reorganization of DHS,
including moving the Federal Air Marshals from ICE to TSA and splitting the
Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection into two different
agencies, Analysis and Operations within Title I, and Infrastructure Protection and
Information Security, within Title III. The requested net appropriation, amounts in
House-passed H.R. 2360 (in parentheses), amounts in Senate-passed H.R. 2360 [in
brackets], and amounts in the conference report {in ellipses} for major components
of the department include the following: $5,575 ($5,785) [$5,998] {$5,993} million
for Customs and Border Protection (CBP); $3,648 ($3,830) [$3,808] {$3,175}
million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); $1,641 ($3,263) [$3,065]
{$3,925} million for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA); $7,962
($7,458) [$7,780] {$7,797} million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,204 ($1,232)
[$1,192] {$1,212} million for the Secret Service; $3,565 ($3,665) [$3,573] {$3,346}
million for the Office of State and Local Government Preparedness (SLGCP); $3,135
($3,013) [$2,758] {$2,633} million for the Emergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate (EPR); $80 ($120) [$80] {$115} million for Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS); and $1,368 ($1,290) [$1,453] {$1,502} million for the Science
and Technology Directorate.
Responding to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, Congress enacted
two supplemental appropriation laws totaling $60 billion in FY2005 for EPR.
This report will not be updated.

^{Area of E}^x^pertis^e^N^am^e^P^hone^E^-^m^a^il
^C^oordiⁿ^a^t^o^r^J^enⁿⁱ^f^e^{r E. L}^a^k^e^7-⁰⁶²⁰^j^l^ak^e@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^C^oordiⁿ^a^t^o^r^B^l^a^s^N^u^ñ^ez-^N^e^t^o^7-⁰⁶²²^bⁿ^uⁿ^ezn^eto@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^Tit^l^{e I, Depa}^rt^m^e^nt^a^l^M^a^na^g^e^m^e^nt^a^{nd O}^p^era^tⁱ^oⁿ^s
^G^eⁿ^e^ral^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^H^a^rol^d^C^.^R^e^l^y^ea^7-⁸⁶⁷⁹^h^r^el^y^ea@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^Pers^onⁿ^e^l^Polⁱ^c^y^B^{arbara L}^.^S^c^h^w^em^l^e^7-⁸⁶⁵⁵^bs^ch^w^e^m^l^e@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^Procu^r^em^en^t^Polⁱ^c^y^E^l^aⁱⁿ^{e H}^a^l^c^hⁱⁿ⁷^-⁰⁶⁴⁶^eh^al^chⁱⁿ^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^Tⁱ^{tle I}^I^,^{Security, E}ⁿ^forcem^{ent, and I}ⁿ^ves^t^igation
^C^o^as^{t Gu}^ard^J^ohⁿ^Frittelli^7-⁷⁰³³^j^f^rittelli@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^C^u^s^t^om^s^Is^s^u^es^Jenⁿⁱ^f^e^{r E. L}^a^k^e^7-⁰⁶²⁰^j^l^ak^e@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^R^u^t^h^El^l^eⁿ^Was^e^m^7-⁷³⁴²^rw^as^em^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^I^m^mⁱ^gr^a^tⁱ^o^{n I}^ssue^s^A^lⁱ^s^on^Sⁱ^s^kⁱⁿ^7-⁰²⁶⁰^asⁱ^s^kⁱⁿ^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^Lⁱ^s^a^{M. Seg}^h^e^tti^7-⁴⁶⁶⁹^ls^eg^h^e^tti@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^{Border Pat}^r^ol^Bl^as^N^u^ñ^ez-^N^e^t^o^7-⁰⁶²²^bⁿ^uⁿ^ezn^eto@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^S^ecret^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e^F^{red K}^aⁱ^s^er^7-⁸⁶⁸²^f^k^ai^s^e^r@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^Secu^r^ity^Bart^h^o^l^o^m^e^w^Elⁱ^a^s⁷^-⁷⁷⁷¹^belⁱ^a^s^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ
^{U.S. VISIT}^P^r^og^ram^L^is^{a M. Seg}^h^e^tti^7-⁴⁶⁶⁹^ls^eg^h^e^tti@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^Tit^l^e^III,^P^r^e^p^a^r^e^dne^{ss a}^{nd Re}^c^o^v^e^r^y
^Bi^odef^eⁿ^s^e/^Bi^os^hⁱ^el^d^F^ran^k^G^o^t^t^r^on^7-⁵⁸⁵⁴^f^g^ot^t^r^on^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^Dⁱ^s^a^s^t^{er R}^e^lⁱ^e^f^K^ei^t^h^Bea⁷^-⁸⁶⁷²^k^b^ea@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^Em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^P^r^eparedn^e^s^s^K^eⁱ^t^h^Bea⁷^-⁸⁶⁷²^k^b^ea@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^an^{d R}^e^s^pon^s^e
^Fⁱ^refⁱ^g^h^t^{er A}^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce^L^eⁿⁿ^a^{rd G}^.^K^r^u^g^e^r⁷^-⁷⁰⁷⁰^l^k^ru^g^e^r@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^Fⁱ^rs^t^R^e^s^pon^ders^,^S^h^awⁿ^R^ees^e⁷^-⁰⁶³⁵^s^r^ees^e@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^Dom^e^s^{tic P}^r^eparedn^e^s^s
^P^u^b^{lic Health}^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^,^S^a^rah^Lⁱ^s^t^er^7-⁷³²⁰^s^lⁱ^s^t^e^r@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^MMR^{S, EMS}
^Tⁱ^{tle I}^V^{, Res}^e^{arch and Developm}^ent,^Traⁱ^ning^{, Assessm}^ent^s^{, a}^{nd Serv}^ices
^Citizen^sh^ip^an^d^R^u^t^h^El^l^eⁿ^Was^e^m^7-⁷³⁴²^rw^as^em^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^I^m^mⁱ^gr^a^tⁱ^o^{n Se}^r^vⁱ^c^e^s
^In^f^o^rm^atⁱ^oⁿ^Aⁿ^al^y^sⁱ^s^T^{odd M. Mas}^s^e^7-²³⁹³^t^m^as^s^e^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^In^f^r^as^t^r^u^c^t^u^{re Prot}^ectⁱ^oⁿ^J^ohⁿ^D^.^Mot^e^f^f^7-¹⁴³⁵^j^m^ot^ef^f^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^{ce an}^{d T}^echⁿ^o^l^o^g^y^D^aⁿⁱ^el^Morg^an^7-⁵⁸⁴⁹^dm^org^aⁿ^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
P.L. 109-90 Signed into Law.................................1
Conference Report Filed....................................1
Senate Passes H.R. 2360....................................1
House Passes H.R. 2360....................................1
President’s FY2006 Budget Submitted.........................1
Note on Most Recent Data...................................2
Background ......................................................3
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations....................................3
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays.........................4
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending.............................5
Offsetting Collections..........................................5
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security..................8
Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review..........................8
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations......................13
President’s Request.......................................13
House-Passed H.R. 2360...................................14
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360...................................14
P.L. 109-90..............................................14
Issues for Congress.......................................15
Personnel Issues..........................................16
President’s Budget Proposal................................17
House-Passed H.R. 2360...................................18
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360...................................19
P.L. 109-90..............................................19
Bureau of Analysis and Operations...............................20
Budget, Budget Structure, and Transfers.......................20
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations......................22
Office of Screening Operations (SCO)............................26
President’s Request.......................................26
House-Passed H.R. 2360...................................26
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360...................................27
P.L. 109-90..............................................27
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)............................27
President’s Request.......................................27
House-Passed H.R. 2360...................................28
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360...................................28
P.L. 109-90..............................................28
Issues for Congress.......................................29
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)......................33
President’s Request.......................................33
House-Passed H.R. 2360...................................34
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360...................................34

ICE Issues for Congress....................................35
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)......................39
President’s Request.......................................39
House-Passed H.R. 2360...................................41
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360...................................42
P.L. 109-90..............................................43
Issues for Congress.......................................44
United States Coast Guard......................................46
President’s Request.......................................47
House-Passed H.R. 2360...................................47
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360...................................47
P.L. 109-90..............................................48
Issues for Congress.......................................48
United States Secret Service....................................49
President’s Request.......................................49
House-Passed H.R. 2360...................................50
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360...................................50
P.L. 109-90..............................................50
Issues for Congress.......................................50
Title III: Preparedness and Recovery.................................51
Office for State and Local Government Coordination and
Preparedness (SLGCP) ....................................53
President’s Request.......................................53
House-Passed H.R. 2360...................................54
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360...................................54
P.L. 109-90..............................................54
Issues for Congress.......................................56
Public Health and Medical Programs in Title III.....................59
Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA).............60
Hurricane Katrina.........................................60
President’s Request.......................................61
House Passed H.R. 2360...................................61
Senate Passed H.R. 2360...................................61
P.L. 109-90..............................................61
Issues for Congress.......................................62
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services...65
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).....................67
President’s Request.......................................68
House-Passed H.R. 2360...................................68
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360...................................68
P.L. 109-90..............................................68
Issues for Congress.......................................68
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).................69
President’s Request.......................................69
House-Passed H.R. 2360...................................70
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360...................................70
P.L. 109-90..............................................70
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP).............70
Management and Administration.............................71

IAIP Reorganization...........................................73
Science and Technology.......................................76
Related Legislation...............................................79
H.R. 2863/P.L. 109-148 Department of Defense, Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the
Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act of 2006............79
Transfer of Funds to the Coast Guard.........................79
Across-the Board Rescission (ATB)..........................79
Hurricane Katrina Reallocations and Rescissions................79
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Pandemic Influenza...80
Additional Border Security Funding..........................80
FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane Katrina Relief.....81
FY2006 Budget Resolution, S.Con.Res. 18/H.Con.Res 95.............81
FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq andAfghanistan, Tsunami
Relief, and Other Activities.................................81
Appendix I — DHS Appropriations in Context.........................83
DHS Appropriations and Federal Homeland Security Spending.........83
Appendix II — Disaster Relief Fund .................................85
List of Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations............2
Table 2. FY2006 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS................4
Table 3. FY2006 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to
Net Appropriation: Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust
and Public Enterprise Accounts...................................6
Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations...........................10
Table 5. Title I: Department Management and Operations................13
Table 6. Proposed FY2006 DHS Budget Amendments Germane to IA.......21
Table 7. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations...............23
Table 8. Title III: Preparedness and Response..........................52
Table 9. SLGCP Program Level Details, FY2005-FY2006................55
Table 10. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments,
and Services.................................................66
Table 11. IAIP Account Level Funding and Crosswalk...................74
Table 12. Science and Technology Directorate Accounts and Activities,
FY2005-FY2006 .............................................78
Table 13. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2006..84
Table 14. Disaster Relief Fund, FY1974-FY2005.......................85

Department of Homeland Security:
Appropriations for FY2006
Most Recent Developments
P.L. 109-90 Signed into Law. On October 18, 2005, the FY2006
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-90) was
signed into law. The House approved the conference report (H.Rept. 109-241) on
October 6, 2005 by a vote of 347-70, and the Senate approved the conference report
on October 7, 2005 by voice vote. No amendments to the conference report were
made during floor debate in either chamber. P.L. 109-90 provides a net appropriation
of $31.9 billion for DHS for FY2006. This amount represents an increase of $1.3
billion or 4% compared to the FY2005 enacted level; and an increase of $1.2 billion
or nearly 4% compared to the FY2006 request.
Conference Report Filed. On September 29, 2005, the conference
committee approved and filed the conference report (H.Rept. 109-241) to H.R. 2360,
the FY2006 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations Act. The
conferees agreed to recommend a net appropriation of $31.9 billion for DHS for
FY2006. This amount represents an increase of $1.3 billion or 4% compared to the
FY2005 enacted level; and an increase of $1.2 billion or nearly 4% compared to the
FY2006 request.
Senate Passes H.R. 2360. On July 14, the Senate passed H.R. 2360 96-1.
The Senate version of H.R. 2360 recommends a net appropriation of $31.9 billion for
DHS for FY2006. This amount includes $30.8 billion in discretionary budget
authority. This amount represents an increase of $1.3 billion or 4% compared to the
FY2005 enacted level; and an increase of $1.2 billion or nearly 4% compared to the
FY2006 request.
House Passes H.R. 2360. On May 17, 2005, the House passed H.R. 2360
424-1. The bill provides a net appropriation of $31.9 billion for DHS. This amount
includes $30.8 billion in discretionary budget authority, which represents an increase
of $1.3 billion, or 4%, compared to the baseline FY2005 enacted level (without
advance or emergency appropriations); and an increase of $1.2 billion, or nearly 4%,
compared to the FY2006 request.
President’s FY2006 Budget Submitted. The President’s budget request
for FY2006 was submitted to Congress on February 7, 2005. The Administration
requested $41.1 billion in gross budget authority for FY2006 (including mandatories,
fees, and funds). The Administration is requesting a net appropriation of $30.6
billion in net budget authority for FY2006, of which $29.6 billion is discretionary
budget authority, and $1 billion is mandatory budget authority. The FY2005 enacted

net appropriated budget authority for DHS was $40.2 billion, including an advance
appropriation of $2.058 billion for Bioshield and $7.145 billion in emergency
appropriations; without Bioshield or the emergency appropriations, the FY2005 net
appropriated budget authority for DHS was $30.6 billion. Without including
Bioshield, the FY2006 request for an appropriation of $30.6 in net budget authority
represents no increase over the FY2005 enacted amount.
Table 1 summarizes the legislative status of DHS appropriations for FY2006.
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security
Appropriations
^Subco^m^mⁱ^t^t^ee^Conference^Repo^rt
^Ma^r^k^u^p^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Co^nfr.^A^p^p^r^oval^Public
^Repo^rt^Hou^s^e^Repo^rt^Sena^t^e^Repo^rt^La^w
^109-79^Pas^s^age^109-83^Pas^s^age^109-241^109-90^Hou^s^e^S^en^ate^Hou^s^e^S^en^ate
^05/⁰⁴^06/¹⁴^05/¹⁰^05/¹⁷^06/¹⁶^07/¹⁴^09/²⁹^10/⁶^10/⁷^10/¹⁸
⁽^vv)⁽^vv)⁽^vv)^(424-¹⁾^(28-⁰⁾^(96-¹⁾^—^347-⁷⁰⁽^vv)
^No^te:^{vv =}^voⁱ^c^e^vo^t^e
Note on Most Recent Data. Data used in this report include data from the
President’s Budget Documents, the FY2006 DHS Congressional Budget
Justifications, the FY2006 DHS Budget in Brief, and the House Appropriations
Committee Homeland Security tables of May 20, 2005. Data used in Table 3 and
Table 12 are taken from various sections of the FY2006 President’s Budget. These
amounts do not correspond to amounts presented in Tables 4-11, which are based on
data from tables supplied by the Appropriations Subcommittees and from the FY2006
DHS Congressional Budget Justifications in order to best reflect the amounts that
will be used throughout the congressional appropriations process. The most recent
update of this report uses amounts contained in: the House-passed version of H.R.

2360, and the attached report (H.Rept. 109-79); the Senate-passed version of H.R.

2360, and the attached report (S.Rept. 109-83); the conference-approved version of
H.R. 2360 and the attached report (H.Rept. 109-241); and P.L. 109-90.
FY2006 enacted amounts shown in the tables in this final version of the report
may not match amounts listed in P.L. 109-90, as the tables include changes enacted
by P.L. 109-148, the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic
Influenza Act of 2006. The tables do not reflect the 1% across-the-board rescission
that was also enacted by P.L. 109-148. At the time of the final update of this paper
it was unclear at to how this rescission would be applied across DHS discretionary
accounts.

Background
This report describes the President’s FY2006 request for funding for DHS
programs and activities, as submitted to Congress on February 7, 2005. This report
compares the enacted FY2005 amounts to the request for FY2006. This report will
also track legislative action and congressional issues related to the FY2006 DHS
appropriations bill, with particular attention paid to discretionary funding amounts.
However, this report does not follow specific funding issues related to mandatory
funding — such as retirement pay — nor does the report systematically follow any
legislation related to the authorization or amendment of DHS programs.
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations
The maximum budget authority for annual appropriations (including DHS) are
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 various 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 Senate budget resolution, S.Con.Res. 18 was introduced on March 11,
2005, and passed the Senate on March 17, 2005. S.Con.Res. 18 provides $848.8
billion in discretionary spending. The House budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 95, was
introduced on March 11, 2005, and passed the House on March 17, 2005.
H.Con.Res. 95 proposed $843 billion in discretionary budget authority. On April 28,

2005 the conference committee reported, and both the House and Senate passed,

H.Rept. 109-62 providing $843 billion in discretionary budget authority for FY2006.
The House Appropriations Committee revised its 302(b) allocations on November
11, 2005, which allocates $30.8 billion in discretionary budget authority for
homeland security. The Senate Appropriations Committee revised its 302(b)
allocation on November 18, 2005, and reported S.Rept. 109-184 which allocates
$30.8 billion in discretionary budget authority for DHS.

Table 2. FY2006 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
F Y 2006 F Y 2006 F Y 2006 F Y 2006
F Y 2005 Request House Senat e Enacted
Comparable Comparable Allocation Allocation Comparable
32,00029,554 30,84630,84630,860
^Source:^H^o^u^s^{e A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee t}^a^bl^es^of^March^{15, 2005;}^H^o^u^s^{e A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ
^C^o^m^m^{ittee 302(b) t}^a^b^l^{e of}^May^{10, 2005; rev}ⁱ^s^e^{d Sen}^a^{te A}^ppropriation^s^C^o^m^m^{ittee 302(b)}
^al^l^o^catⁱ^oⁿ^sⁱⁿ^S^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^184;^revⁱ^s^e^{d H}^o^u^s^{e A}^l^l^o^catⁱ^oⁿ^s^of^N^o^v^.^{2, 2005 i}ⁿ^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^264.
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays¹
Federal government spending involves a multi-step process that begins with the
enactment of a budget authority by Congress in an appropriations act. Federal
agencies then obligate funds from the enacted budget authority to pay for their
activities. Finally, payments are made to liquidate those obligations; the actual
payment amounts are reflected in the budget as outlays.
Budget authority is established through appropriations acts or direct spending
legislation and determines the amounts that are available for federal agencies to²
spend. The Antideficiency Act 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.³
Outlays are the funds that are actually spent during the fiscal year. 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.

¹ Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff Jr., Analyst in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division.
² 31 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517.
³ Appropriations, outlays and account balances for government treasury accounts can be
viewed in the end of year reports published by the U.S. Treasury titled Combined Statement
of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government. The DHS portion of
the report can be accessed at [http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/cs2004/c18.pdf].

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 Spending⁴
Gross budget authority, or the total funds available for spending by a federal
agency, may be composed of discretionary and mandatory spending. Of the $41
billion gross budget authority requested for DHS in FY2006, 83% is composed of
discretionary spending and 17% is composed of mandatory spending.
Discretionary spending is not mandated by existing law and is thus appropriated
yearly by Congress through appropriations acts. The Budget Enforcement Act⁵ of
1990 defines discretionary appropriations as budget authority provided in annual
appropriation acts and the outlays derived from that authority, but it excludes
appropriations for entitlements. Mandatory spending, also known as direct spending,
consists of budget authority and resulting outlays provided in laws other than
appropriation acts and is typically not appropriated each year. However, some
mandatory entitlement programs must be appropriated each year and are included in
the appropriations acts. Within DHS, the Coast Guard retirement pay is an example
of appropriated mandatory spending.
Offsetting 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.
Some of these fees offset spending at the account level and are subtracted from the
Appropriations Committee tables directly below the program they offset. An
example of this is the Federal Protective Service, which is immediately offset in the
appropriations tables by an intergovernmental transfer from the General Services
Administration. Other discretionary fees offset spending at the agency level and are
thus subtracted from the discretionary budget authority of the agency to arrive at the
actual appropriated level. An example of this is the Immigration Inspection fee,
which is collected at Ports of Entry by CBP personnel and is used to offset both the
CBP and ICE appropriations.

⁴ Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff, Jr., Analyst in American National Government.
⁵ P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.
⁶ Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff, Jr., Analyst in American National Government.

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 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, while 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
FY2005 and in the FY2006 request.
Table 3. FY2006 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority
to Net Appropriation: Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust
and Public Enterprise Accounts
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^A^ccouⁿ^t^/^A^gen^c^y^A^ccouⁿ^t^N^a^m^e^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^DH^{S g}^r^o^{ss budg}^et^a^u^t^h^o^r^it^y^41,018^41,067
⁽^g^r^o^{ss d}ⁱ^sc^r^e^tⁱ^o^na^r^y⁺^fe^e^s⁺^m^a^nd^a^t^o^r^y⁺^fund^s)
^{Account level dis}^{cretionary offs}^et
^O^ffi^c^e^o^f^T^W^IC⁵⁰²⁴⁵
^Screenⁱⁿ^g^Hazm^at¹⁷⁴⁴
^Operation^s^R^e^gⁱ^s^t^{ered trav}^eler^—²³
^IC^E^F^{ederal P}^r^otectiv^{e Serv}^ice⁴⁷⁸⁴⁸⁷
^T^S^A^A^vⁱ^ation^s^ecu^rity^f^ees^1,823^a^3,670^a
^F^E^MA^/^E^PR^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^f^l^{ood i}ⁿ^s^u^ran^{ce f}^uⁿ^d¹¹³¹²⁴
^CB^P^S^m^a^{ll air}^p^o^r^ts⁵⁵
^Subto^t^a^l^a^cco^{unt lev}^e^{l discretio}^na^ry^o^f^fsets^-²^,⁴⁸⁶^-4^,5⁹⁸
^{Agency level dis}^{cretionary offs}^et
^I^m^mⁱ^g^r^atioⁿⁱⁿ^sp^ectioⁿ⁴²⁹⁴⁶⁵
^Im^mⁱ^g^r^ation^en^f^o^rcem^en^t⁶⁶
^L^aⁿ^d^border²⁸³⁰
^CB^P
^C^O^BR^A³¹⁸³³⁴
^A^P^H^I^S²⁰⁰²⁰⁴
^P^u^{erto R}ⁱ^co⁸⁹⁹⁸
^I^C^E^I^m^mⁱ^g^r^atioⁿⁱⁿ^sp^ectioⁿ⁹⁰⁹²
^SE^VI^S⁴⁰⁶⁷
^B^r^each^{ed bon}^{d deten}^tion^f^uⁿ^d⁷⁰⁷¹

^A^ccouⁿ^t^/^A^gen^c^y^A^ccouⁿ^t^N^a^m^e^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^T^S^A^A^vⁱ^atioⁿ^secu^r^ity^cap^{ital f}^uⁿ^d²⁵⁰²⁵⁰
^USCI^S^I^m^mⁱ^g^r^atioⁿ^ex^amⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^f^e^e¹^,5⁷¹¹^,⁷³⁰
^H^{1b, an}^{d H}^{1b &}^L^f^ees⁴⁴⁴⁴
^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^Screenⁱⁿ^g^A^lⁱ^e^{n fl}ⁱ^ght^sc^ho^o^l^b^a^c^kgr^o^und^c^h^e^c^k^s⁵¹⁰
^Operation^s
^Subto^t^a^l^a^g^e^ncy^lev^e^{l discretio}^na^ry^o^f^fsets^-³^,¹⁴⁰^-3^,4⁰⁰
^M^a^nda^t^o^ry^budg^et^a^u^t^h^o^r^it^y
^{Secret s}^e^rv^ice^S^{ecret s}^e^rv^{ice retired pay}^b²⁰⁰²⁰⁰
^Co^{ast g}^u^a^r^d^Co^{ast g}^u^a^r^d^r^e^tir^ed^p^a^y^c^(1,085)^(1,014)
^Subt^o^t^a^l^m^a^nda^t^o^ry^budg^et^a^u^t^h^o^r^it^y^-²⁰⁰^-²⁰⁰
^Trust^f^{unds a}^{nd public ent}^{erprise f}^unds
^C^B^P^C^u^s^t^o^m^s^uⁿ^c^l^aⁱ^m^{ed g}^oods⁸⁸
^C^l^ai^m^s^ex^pen^s^e¹^,302^1,459
^Un^d^e^r^w^r^itin^g^lim^it⁵⁶³⁵⁶³
^FE^MA^/E^P^R
^Op^er^atioⁿ^a^{l ex}^p^eⁿ^s^{e lim}^it⁵⁵⁵⁵
^Iⁿ^ter^e^{st ex}^p^eⁿ^s^{e lim}^it³⁰³⁰
^Boat^s^a^f^e^t^y⁶⁴⁶⁴
^{Oil sp}^{ill r}^eco^v^e^r^y⁷¹¹²¹
^C^o^as^{t Gu}^ard
^Mi^s^cel^l^aⁿ^e^ou^s^rev^o^l^vⁱⁿ^g^f^uⁿ^d^(10,533)^(10,533)
^Gⁱ^ft^fund¹¹
^Subt^o^t^a^l^t^r^ust^a^{nd public ent}^{erprise f}^unds^-²^,0⁹⁴^-²^,3⁰¹
^DH^{S g}^r^o^{ss budg}^et^a^u^t^h^o^r^it^y⁴¹^,¹⁰³⁴¹^,⁰⁶⁷
^T^o^tal^offs^ettiⁿ^g^col^l^ecti^oⁿ^s^(8,004)^(10,499)
^DHSⁿ^e^{t ap}^p^r^op^riated^{BA (M}^an^d^a^{tory +}^Dis^cretion^a^ry)^33,099^d^30,569
^S^o^u^rce:^C^R^S^aⁿ^a^l^y^s^is^of^the^FY^{2006 P}^r^e^s^id^ent’^s^B^udg^e^t^{, a}^{nd D}^H^S^,^Budge^{t in Br}^ie^f^{, H}^ous^e^A^ppr^opr^ia^tion
^C^o^m^m^itte^e^ta^ble^s^of^Ma^y^{20, 2005.}
^Note:^T^o^ta^ls^m^a^y^{not a}^{dd due}^{to r}^ounding^{. A}^m^ounts^{in pa}^r^e^nthe^s^e^s^a^r^e^non-^a^dds^.
^a^.^T^h^e^r^e^is^a^dis^c^r^e^pa^nc^y^r^e^por^te^{d in}^the^a^m^ount^of^a^v^ia^tion^s^e^c^u^r^ity^f^e^e^s^c^o^lle^c^t^e^d^by^T^S^A^,^f^o^r^{both FY}²⁰⁰⁵
^a^{nd 2006. T}^h^e^eⁿ^a^c^t^e^d^le^v^e^{l a}^v^ia^tion^s^e^c^u^rity^f^e^e^s^f^o^{r FY}^{2005 w}^a^s^{$1,823 m}^{illion, a}^{nd this}^is^the^a^m^ount
^r^e^por^te^{d in the}^c^u^r^r^e^{nt c}^o^m^m^itte^e^ta^ble^s^{. T}^h^e^A^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^{tion FY}^{2006 budg}^e^t^doc^um^eⁿ^ts^a^nd^the^D^H^S
^Cong^re^s^sⁱ^ona^{l Budg}^e^t^J^u^s^tif^ic^a^tions^re^{port the}^FY^{2005 a}^m^{ount a}^s^{$2,330 m}^{illion. T}^h^e^A^d^mⁱ^nis^t^ra^tion
^ha^s^r^e^que^s^t^e^d^aⁿ^inc^r^e^a^s^e^{in a}^v^ia^{tion s}^e^c^u^r^ity^f^e^e^s^f^o^r^FY^{2006, a}^{nd the}^budg^e^t^doc^um^eⁿ^ts^e^s^tim^a^t^e^the
^of^f^s^e^tting^c^o^lle^c^tions^a^t^$3,889^m^illion.^T^h^e^la^te^s^t^c^o^m^m^itte^e^ta^ble^s^s^how^{$3,670 m}^{illion f}^o^{r FY}^{2006 (a}
^dif^f^e^re^nc^e^of^$218^m^illion^f^r^om^the^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^t’s^budg^e^t^{) ba}^s^e^{d on e}^s^tim^a^t^e^s^by^the^Cong^re^s^sⁱ^ona^{l Budg}^e^t
^Of^fⁱ^ce.^In^o^r^d^e^{r t}^o^co^mp^l^e^t^e^t^h^{e cro}^ssw^al^{k i}ⁿ^Ta^b^l^{e 3}^{, w}^e^ha^v^e^us^e^d^the^eⁿ^a^c^t^e^d^a^m^{ount f}^o^r^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^{($1,823) a}^{nd the}^c^o^m^m^itte^e^ta^ble^a^m^{ount ($3,670) f}^o^{r FY}^2006.
^{b. Se}^c^r^e^t^Se^r^v^ic^e^R^e^tir^e^d^P^a^yⁱ^s^p^e^r^m^aⁿ^eⁿ^tly^a^{nd inde}^fⁱ^nite^ly^a^u^thor^iz^e^d^{, a}^{nd a}^s^s^u^c^h^is^{not a}^nnua^lly
^a^ppr^opr^ia^te^{d. T}^h^e^r^e^f^or^e^{it is}^of^f^s^e^tⁱⁿ^Ta^b^l^{e 3}^.
^c.^Iⁿ^coⁿ^t^r^a^{st to Se}^c^r^e^t^Se^r^v^ic^e^R^e^tir^e^d^P^a^y^,^C^o^a^s^{t G}^u^a^r^{d R}^e^tir^e^d^pa^y^m^u^s^t^be^a^nnua^lly^a^ppr^opr^ia^te^{d, a}ⁿ^d
^t^h^eref^o^r^{e i}^s^not^o^ffs^e^tⁱⁿ^Ta^b^l^{e 3}^.
^{d. his}^a^m^{ount ($33,098 m}^illi^{on) doe}^s^{not inc}^l^ude^{$6,500 m}^{illion in e}^m^e^r^g^e^nc^y^dis^a^s^t^e^r^re^lie^f^f^unding^{. For m}^o^re
^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion on thos}^e^s^upple^m^eⁿ^tal^appr^opr^ia^tions^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L^32581,^Supple^m^eⁿ^tal
^Appr^opr^iations^for^the^{2004 H}^u^r^rⁱ^c^ane^s^{and O}^t^he^r^Dⁱ^s^a^s^t^e^r^s^{, by}^K^e^{ith B}^e^a^a^{nd R}^a^{lph C}^h^ite^.

Appropriations for the 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 (DHS) created by the act. DHS is organized into
four major directorates⁷: Border and Transportation Security (BTS); Emergency
Preparedness and Response (EPR); Science and Technology (S&T); and Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP).
BTS, the largest of the four directorates, contains three main agencies: Customs
and Border Protection (CBP); Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); and
Transportation Security Administration (TSA). EPR is comprised primarily of the
former Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and IAIP houses the
Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC), Information Analysis (IA) and the
Infrastructure Protection (IP) offices. S&T is home to the Office of National
Laboratories, Homeland Security Laboratories, and the Homeland Security Advanced
Research Projects Agency (HSARPA). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS),
the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Secret Service are all stand-alone agencies within
DHS directly under the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Appropriations measures for DHS have been organized into four titles: Title I
Departmental Management and Operations; Title II Security, Enforcement, and
Investigations; Title III Preparedness and Recovery; and Title IV Research and
Development, Training, Assessments, and Services. Title I contains appropriations
for the Office of Management, the Office of the Secretary, the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer (CFO), the Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO), and the
Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Title II contains appropriations for the Office
of the Undersecretary for BTS, CBP, Immigration ICE, TSA, the Coast Guard, the
Secret Service, and the newly proposed Office of Screening Operations (SCO). Title
III contains appropriations for EPR and the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP). Title IV contains appropriations for
USCIS, IAIP, S&T, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).
Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review⁸
On July 13, 2005, the Secretary of DHS, Michael Chertoff, announced the
results of the months-long Second Stage Review (2SR) that he undertook upon being⁹
confirmed as DHS Secretary. The proposed changes affect many aspects of the

⁷ The Department has been reorganized with the passage of P.L. 109-90. The organizational
changes are discussed throughout the report. This discussion has been left intact to provide
readers with a reference for the previous organization.
⁸ For more information, see CRS Report RL33042, Department of Homeland Security
Reorganization: The 2SR Initiative, by Harold C. Relyea and Henry B. Hogue.
⁹ For text of the Secretary’s speech see, DHS, Remarks by Secretary Michael Chertoff on
(continued...)

Department. The Secretary has designed a six-point agenda based upon the results
of the 2SR:
^!increase overall preparedness, particularly for catastrophic events;
^!create better transportation security systems to move people and
cargo more securely and efficiently;
^!strengthen border security and interior enforcement and reform
immigration processes;
^!enhance information sharing with our partners;
^!improve DHS financial management, human resources development,
procurement and information technology; and
^!realign the DHS organization to maximize mission performance.
On July 22, 2005, the Administration also submitted a revised budget request
for DHS to reflect the organizational and policy changes recommended by the 2SR.¹⁰
The Administration submitted its requested amendments to the FY2006 budget
request for DHS after both the House and Senate had passed their versions of H.R.
2360. Therefore, any proposed changes were addressed during the conference on
H.R. 2360. The conferees noted that, for the most part, they have complied with the
Administration’s request to restructure DHS, and P.L. 109-90 adopts the following
changes:
^!abolishes the Office of the Undersecretary for Border and
Transportation Security, redistributing its functions to other
locations within DHS;
^!splits the Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection into two new operational components: Analysis and
Operations, and the Preparedness Directorate;
^!moves all state and local grants within DHS to the Preparedness
Directorate;
^!transfers the Federal Air Marshals program from ICE to TSA; and
^!includes and expands the role of Office of Policy.¹¹
Table 4 is a summary table comparing the enacted appropriations for FY2005
and the requested amounts for FY2006. The Administration requested an
appropriation of $30.6 billion in net budget authority for FY2006. The FY2005
enacted net appropriated budget authority for DHS was $40.2 billion, including an

⁹ (...continued)
the Second Stage Review of the Department of Homeland Security, July 13, 2005,
Washington, DC, at [http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/speech/speech_0255.xml]. For
an overview of the proposed changes see, DHS, Homeland Security Secretary Michael
Chertoff announces Six-Point Agenda for Department of Homeland Security, July 13, 2005,
Washington, DC, accessible at [http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/
press_release_0703.xml]. Proposed organizational chart can be found at
[http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/DHSOr gCharts0705.pdf].
¹⁰ See, Communication from the President of the United States, Request for FY2006 Budget
Amendments, 109^th Congress, 1^st sess., H.Doc. 190-50, July 22, 2005.
¹¹ H.Rept. 109-241, p.30.

advance appropriation of $2.058 billion for Bioshield and $7.145 billion in
emergency appropriations; without Bioshield or the emergency appropriations, the
FY2005 net appropriated budget authority for DHS was $30.6 billion. Without
including Bioshield, the FY2006 request for an appropriation of $30.6 in net budget
authority represents no increase over the FY2005 baseline enacted amount. House-
passed H.R. 2360 provided a net appropriation of $31.9 billion for DHS for FY2006.
This amount represents a $1.3 billion increase over the FY2005 base appropriation,
and a $1.2 billion, or nearly 4%, increase compared to the FY2006 request. Senate-
passed H.R. 2360 also recommended $31.9 billion ($30.8 billion in discretionary
budget authority) for DHS for FY2006. P.L. 109-90 provides $31.9 billion for DHS
in FY2006.
Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^Op^erati^on^al^C^o^m^p^on^en^t^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^Tit^l^{e I:}^Depa^rt^m^e^nt^a^l^M^a^na^g^e^m^e^nt^a^{nd O}^p^era^tⁱ^oⁿ^s
^Subt^o^t^a^l^:^Tit^l^{e I}⁵⁸³^a⁷⁴⁸⁵⁶¹^b⁶⁴⁷⁹⁵⁴^c
^Tⁱ^{tle I}^I^:^{Security, E}ⁿ^fo^rcem^{ent, and I}ⁿ^ves^t^igations
^{— Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e Un}^ders^ecretary^f^o^{r B}^o^rder¹⁰¹¹⁹¹⁰^—^d
^an^d^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^Secu^r^ity
^{— Screen}ⁱⁿ^g^an^{d operation}^s^of^fⁱ^ce/^e³⁴⁰⁵²⁵⁴¹¹³⁴⁰³⁴⁰
^A^u^to^m^a^tioⁿ^Mo^d^e^rⁿ^izatioⁿ^/^US-^V^I^S^I^T
^—^C^u^s^t^om^s^an^{d Border Prot}^ectⁱ^oⁿ⁵^,371^5,575^5,785^5,998^5,986^f
^—^Im^mⁱ^g^r^atⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d C}^u^s^t^om^s^En^f^o^rcem^en^t³^,537^3,648^3,830^3,808^3,188^g
^{— T}^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^Secu^r^ity^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^h^3,260^1,641^3,263^3,065^3,925
^—^U^.^S^.^C^o^as^t^G^u^ard⁷^,568^7,962^7,458^7,780^7,843ⁱ
^—^U^.^S^.^S^ecret^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e¹^,175^1,204^1,233^1,192^1,216^j
^N^e^{t s}^u^b^t^otal^{: T}ⁱ^tl^{e I}^I^21,260^20,566^21,988^22,193^22,498
^—^T^o^t^a^l^f^{ee col}^l^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^-³^,897^-⁶^,099^-⁴^,278^-⁴^,278^-⁴^,302
^G^r^os^s^s^u^b^t^otal^{: T}ⁱ^tl^{e I}^I^25,157^26,665^26,267^26,470^26,800
^Tit^l^e^III:^P^r^e^p^a^r^e^dne^{ss a}^{nd Re}^c^o^v^e^r^y
^—^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^aⁿ^d^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^N^/^A^N^/^A^N^/^A^N^/^A¹⁶
^{— I}ⁿ^f^r^astr^u^c^tu^r^e^P^r^o^t^ectioⁿ^an^d^Iⁿ^f^o^r^m^atioⁿ^N/A^N^/A^N/A^N^/A⁶²⁵
^Secu^rity
^—^U^.^S.^Fi^r^e^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^o^{n a}ⁿ^d^T^r^aⁱⁿⁱ^ng^N^/^A^N^/^A^N^/^A^N^/^A⁴⁵
^{— Of}^fⁱ^{ce f}^o^{r Dom}^e^s^{tic P}^r^eparedn^e^s^s^/^Of^fⁱ^ce^k
^of^{State an}^{d L}^o^{cal Gov}^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^C^oordin^a^tion^3,985^3,565^3,665^3,573^3,356
^an^{d P}^r^eparedn^e^s^s
^—^Co^unt^e^r^-T^e^r^r^o^rⁱ^sm^Fund⁸¹⁰¹⁰³²
^—^Fe^d^e^r^a^l^E^m^e^r^ge^nc^y^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^48,564^l^3,135^3,013^2,758^2,652^m
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ
^N^e^{t s}^u^b^t^otal^{: T}ⁱ^tl^{e I}^I^I^52,557^6,710^6,688^6,334^6,696
^Tit^l^{e IV:}^Resea^{rch a}^{nd dev}^e^lo^pm^ent^,^{training, as}^s^e^s^s^m^ents^{, and s}^ervices
^—^Cⁱ^tⁱ^zen^s^hⁱ^p^an^{d Im}^mⁱ^g^r^atⁱ^oⁿ^S^e^rvⁱ^ces¹⁶⁰⁸⁰¹²⁰⁸⁰¹¹⁵

^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^Op^erati^on^al^C^o^m^p^on^en^t^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^{— I}ⁿ^f^o^r^m^atioⁿ^Aⁿ^aly^s^{is an}^d^Iⁿ^f^r^astr^u^c^tu^r^e⁸⁹⁴⁸⁷³⁸⁵³⁸⁷¹^—ⁿ
^P^r^o^t^ectioⁿ
^—^F^e^deral^L^a^w^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^T^r^aiⁿⁱⁿ^g^C^eⁿ^t^er²²⁷²²⁴²⁵⁹²⁸²²⁸²
^—^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^{ce an}^{d T}^echⁿ^o^l^o^g^y^1,115^1,368^1,290^1,453^1,502
^N^e^{t s}^u^b^t^otal^{: T}ⁱ^tl^{e I}^V^2,396^2,546^2,522^2,686^1,899
^—^T^o^t^a^l^f^{ee col}^l^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^-¹^,615^-¹^,774^-¹^,774^-¹^,774^-¹^,774
^G^r^os^s^s^u^b^t^otal^{: T}ⁱ^tl^{e I}^V^4,011^4,320^4,296^4,460^3,673
^Tⁱ^{tle V: G}^e^{neral Provis}ⁱ^ons
^{— RE}^AL^{ID G}^r^aⁿ^ts^o^—^—¹⁰⁰⁽⁴⁰⁾⁴⁰
^{— Re}^sc^issioⁿ^s^p^—^—^—^—^-5⁵
^DH^{S g}^r^o^{ss budg}^et^a^u^t^h^o^r^it^y^82,308^38,399^37,912^37,912^38,108
^—^T^o^tal^{fee col}^l^ecti^oⁿ^s^-5,512^-7,873^-6,052^-6,052^-6,076
^DH^{S net}^budg^et^a^u^t^h^o^r^it^y^q^76,796^30,569^31,860^31,860^32,032
^—^A^d^v^aⁿ^{ce appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^r²^,⁵⁰⁸^—^—^—^—
^—^Em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^43,734^s^—^—^—^—
^D^H^S^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^30,554^30,569^31,860^31,860^32,032
^S^o^u^rce:^CRS^aⁿ^a^l^y^sⁱ^s^of^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^Bu^dg^et^{, an}^{d D}^H^S^Budgetⁱⁿ^Brⁱ^e^f^{, Hou}^s^e
^A^p^p^r^opri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee t}^a^bl^es^of^May^{20, 2005, H}^o^u^s^e-^pas^s^e^{d H}^.^R^.^{2360 an}^{d H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}⁷⁹^;
^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^-^p^as^s^e^{d H}^.^R^.²³⁶⁰^an^d^S^.^R^e^pt^.^109-^83;^t^h^{e C}^oⁿ^f^eren^{ce R}^e^port^t^o^H^.^R^.^{2360, H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^241;
^an^{d P.L}^.^109-^90.
^No^te:^T^o^t^a^l^s^m^a^yⁿ^o^t^{add du}^{e t}^o^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^A^m^ouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^paren^t^h^e^s^e^s^{are n}^oⁿ^-^adds^{. F}^Y^{2006 am}^ouⁿ^t^s
^{do n}^o^t^ref^l^ect^t^h^{e 1%}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^en^act^{ed by}^P.L^.^109-^148.
^{a. In}^clu^d^es^{a $24 m}^illion^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to P}^.^L^.^109-^13.
^b^.^Iⁿ^clu^d^{es a $}⁷^m^illioⁿ^r^e^scissioⁿ^.
^{c. In}^clu^d^es^{$47 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e Secretary}^an^{d Ex}^ecu^tiv^{e Man}^a^ge^m^e^nt^fo^r^e^f^f^o^rts^to
^addres^s^{a pot}^en^tⁱ^a^l^ou^t^b^reak^of^hⁱ^g^h^l^y^pat^h^og^enⁱ^cⁱⁿ^f^l^u^eⁿ^{za pu}^rs^u^aⁿ^t^t^o^P.L^.^109-^148.
^{d. T}^h^{e f}^uⁿ^c^tion^s^of^th^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e Un}^{der Secretary}^f^o^{r bo}^r^d^{er an}^{d T}^r^an^s^portation^Secu^rity^h^a^v^e
^b^een^tr^an^sf^er^r^e^d^to^th^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^P^o^licyⁱⁿ^T^{itle I}^,^p^u^r^s^u^aⁿ^t^to^th^e^Secr^etar^y^’^{s J}^u^ly^r^e^o^r^g^aⁿⁱ^zatioⁿ
^propos^al^.
^e.^T^h^e^Presⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^F^Y^{2006 requ}^es^t^f^o^{r D}^H^S^propos^es^t^o^creat^{e t}^h^e^S^c^reenⁱⁿ^g^an^d^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^s^O^f^fⁱ^ce
^b^y^tr^an^sf^er^rⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^th^{e f}^o^llo^wⁱⁿ^g^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^{: FA}^ST^an^d^NEXUS/SENT^R^I^f^r^o^m^CB^P^;^Secu^r^e
^Flig^h^t^{, C}^r^ew^Vettin^g^,^C^r^eden^tialin^g^Startu^{p, T}^W^IC^{, R}^e^gⁱ^s^t^{ered T}^r^av^eler,^HA^Z^M^A^T^{, an}^{d A}^lien
^F^lⁱ^g^h^t^S^c^h^ool^f^r^om^T^S^A^.^T^h^es^e^prog^ram^s^{are di}^s^c^u^s^s^e^{d i}ⁿ^t^h^{e t}^e^x^t^{. T}^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e report}^(H^.R^ept^.
^109-^{79) den}ⁱ^es^t^h^{e creat}ⁱ^oⁿ^of^t^h^{e S}^C^O^,^b^u^t^t^r^aⁿ^s^f^ers^F^A^S^T^an^{d N}^E^X^U^S^/^S^EN^T^R^{I t}^o^{a n}^e^w
^o^f^fⁱ^ce^c^a^lled^A^u^to^m^a^tioⁿ^Mo^d^e^rⁿ^izatioⁿ^w^ith^th^{e US-}^V^I^S^I^T^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^.^A^{ll o}^t^h^e^r^activ^ities
^propos^{ed f}^o^{r t}^r^an^s^f^{er t}^o^t^h^{e S}^C^O^w^o^u^l^{d rem}^aⁱⁿⁱⁿ^T^S^A^,^uⁿ^d^er^t^h^e^H^o^u^s^e-^pas^s^e^d^v^e^rsⁱ^oⁿ^of^H^.^R^.
^{2360. T}^h^{e C}^oⁿ^f^erees^{, in}^H.R^e^{pt. 109-}^{241, h}^a^v^e^prov^{ided $4 m}^illioⁿ^f^o^{r S}^C^Oⁱⁿ^T^{itle I, bu}^t
^declⁱⁿ^{ed t}^o^t^r^an^s^f^{er an}^y^of^t^h^{e propos}^{ed prog}^ram^s^t^o^t^h^{e n}^e^w^of^fⁱ^ce.
^f^.^In^clu^d^es^{$35 m}^illion^,^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to P}^.^L^.^109-^{148, f}^o^{r C}^B^P^’^s^Salaries^an^{d Ex}^pen^s^es^an^{d C}^oⁿ^s^tru^c^tion
^acco^uⁿ^t^{s to}^rep^l^{ace an}^d^rep^a^{ir eq}^uⁱ^p^m^eⁿ^t^aⁿ^d^f^{acilities d}^a^m^a^g^e^d^b^y^h^u^r^rican^{es an}^d^o^t^h^e^r
^dⁱ^sa^ste^r^s.
^g^.^In^clu^d^es^{$13 m}^illion^,^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to P}^.^L^.^109-^{148, f}^o^{r IC}^E’^s^Salaries^an^{d Ex}^pen^s^es^accouⁿ^t^to^replace
^an^d^r^e^p^a^ir^eq^uⁱ^p^m^en^{t an}^d^f^{acilities d}^a^m^a^g^e^d^b^y^h^u^r^rⁱ^can^{es an}^d^o^t^h^e^r^dⁱ^saster^s.
^h^.^T^S^A^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^es^tⁱ^m^at^{e i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^es^{a propos}^{ed $3}ⁱⁿ^creas^eⁱⁿ^pas^s^eⁿ^g^e^r^s^ecu^ri^t^y^f^ees^f^o^{r on}^e-
^w^a^y^an^d^m^u^lti-^leg^f^lig^h^t^{s, f}^o^r^a^to^tal^o^f^f^s^ettin^g^co^llectioⁿ^o^fⁿ^ear^ly^$³^.⁹^b^illioⁿ^;^Coⁿ^g^r^essioⁿ^al
^B^u^d^g^et^Of^fⁱ^ce^(CB^O⁾^calcu^latioⁿ^s^p^l^{ace th}^{e o}^f^f^s^ettin^g^co^llectioⁿ^s^f^r^o^m^th^{e f}^eeⁱⁿ^crease^at^$³^.⁷
^b^illio^n.^T^h^r^o^ugho^{ut this r}^e^p^o^r^t,^the^CB^O^figur^e^w^{ill b}^e^use^d^to^c^a^l^c^u^la^te^to^ta^{l a}^p^p^r^o^p^r^ia^tio^ns.

^T^h^e^H^o^u^s^{e report}^(H^.R^ept^.^109-^{79) den}ⁱ^es^t^h^{e t}^r^an^s^f^{er of}^s^e^v^e^ral^T^S^A^prog^ram^s^t^o^t^h^e^propos^ed
^SC^{O, as}^m^eⁿ^tion^e^d^abov^eⁱⁿ^Note^{a, th}^es^{e prog}^ram^s^w^o^u^l^{d rem}^aⁱⁿⁱⁿ^T^S^A^uⁿ^d^{er Hou}^s^e-^pas^s^e^d
^H^.^R^.^2360.
^{i. In}^clu^d^es^{, pu}^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to P}^.^L^.^109-^{148, $232 m}^illionⁱⁿ^s^u^pplem^en^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r th}^{e Operation}^s^an^d
^Ex^pen^s^es^accouⁿ^t^{, $75 m}^illionⁱⁿ^s^u^pplem^en^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r th}^{e A}^c^qu^is^ition^,^C^oⁿ^s^tru^c^tion^an^d
^Im^prov^em^en^ts^accouⁿ^t^{, an}^{d a res}^c^is^sⁱ^on^of^$261^m^illion^(of^f^uⁿ^d^s^prev^iou^s^ly^{appropriated by}
^P^.^L^.^109-^{90) f}^r^om^th^{e Operatin}^g^Ex^pen^s^es^accouⁿ^t^.
^j^.^In^clu^d^es^{, pu}^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to P}^.^L^.^109-^{148, $4 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e Secret}^Serv^ice^Salaries^an^d^Ex^pen^s^es^accouⁿ^t^.
^k^.^Inc^l^u^d^es^{, pu}^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to P}^.^L^.^109-^{148, $10 m}^illion^{to ODP}^’^s^{State an}^{d L}^o^{cal P}^r^og^ram^s^accouⁿ^t^{, to}
^rep^l^{ace an}^d^rep^a^{ir eq}^uⁱ^p^m^en^{t an}^d^f^{acilities d}^a^m^a^g^e^d^b^y^h^u^rrican^{es an}^d^o^t^h^e^{r d}ⁱ^sasters.
^{l. FY2005 appropriation}^sⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e $66.5 billion}ⁱⁿ^s^u^pplem^en^{tal approp}^riation^s^f^o^{r dis}^a^s^t^{er relief}
^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to: P}^.^L^.^109-^{61 —}^{$10 billio}ⁿ^;^P^.^L^.^109-^{62 —}^{$60 billio}ⁿ^;^an^{d P}^.^L^.^108-³²⁴^—^$6.5
^billion^.^A^l^s^oⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^res^c^is^sⁱ^on^s^an^{d tran}^s^f^ers^totalin^g^{$23.4 billion}^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to P}^.^L^.^109-^148.
^Fo^r^m^o^r^eⁱⁿ^f^o^r^m^atioⁿ^oⁿ^th^{e Hu}^r^r^ican^e^Katrⁱⁿ^a^r^e^lated^su^p^p^l^em^en^tal^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^,^{see CRS}
^R^e^port^R^S^22239,^Em^er^gency^Suppl^em^ent^a^l^Appr^oprⁱ^a^tⁱ^ons^f^o^r^H^u^r^rⁱ^{cane K}^a^t^rⁱ^{na Rel}ⁱ^e^f^{. For}
ⁱⁿ^f^o^rm^atⁱ^oⁿ^on^t^h^{e ot}^h^e^{r s}^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^a^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^s^{ee C}^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^32581,^A^ssistaⁿ^c^e
^Af^t^e^r^H^u^r^rⁱ^canes^{and O}^t^her^Dⁱ^s^a^st^er^s^:^FY^{2004 and FY}^{2005 Suppl}^em^ent^a^l^Appr^oprⁱ^a^tⁱ^ons^.
^T^h^{e total als}^oⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^a^0.80%^acros^s^th^{e board res}^c^is^sⁱ^on^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to P}^.^L^.^108-^{447, res}^u^ltin^g
ⁱⁿ^{a $20 m}^illion^res^c^is^sⁱ^on^f^r^om^Bⁱ^os^hⁱ^{eld f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
^m^.^Iⁿ^c^l^u^d^e^s^$17^mⁱ^llion^,^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to P}^.^L^.^109-^{148, f}^o^{r FEMA}^’^s^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rativ^{e an}^{d R}^e^gⁱ^on^al
^Operation^s^accouⁿ^t^.
^n.^T^h^e^c^o^nfe^r^e^e^s^a^g^r^e^e^d^to^sp^{lit up}^the^I^A^I^P^Dⁱ^r^e^c^t^o^r^a^t^e^p^u^r^s^ua^{nt to}^Se^c^r^e^t^a^r^y^Che^r^to^ff’s
^reorg^aⁿⁱ^zation^propos^{al s}^u^bm^{itted to C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^on^J^u^ly^{13, 2005. T}^h^{e IA}^portion^of^IA^IP^h^a^s
^b^een^m^o^v^e^d^to^T^{itle I u}ⁿ^d^{er th}^{e acco}^uⁿ^t^h^eadⁱⁿ^g^Anal^ysⁱ^s^{and O}^p^er^atⁱ^ons^{. T}^h^{e IP port}ⁱ^oⁿ^of
^I^A^IP^h^a^{s b}^een^m^o^v^e^d^to^T^{itle III in}^th^{e P}^r^ep^aredⁿ^e^{ss Directo}^r^{ate an}^d^{is u}ⁿ^d^{er th}^{e acco}^uⁿ^t
^h^eadiⁿ^{g of}^Inf^r^as^t^r^uct^u^r^e^Pr^ot^ectⁱ^{on and Inf}^o^r^m^atⁱ^{on Secur}ⁱ^t^y^.^T^h^e^I^A^I^P^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^aⁿ^d
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^stratioⁿ^acco^uⁿ^t^s^h^a^v^e^ap^p^a^ren^tly^b^een^sp^{lit b}^e^tw^een^th^{ese tw}^oⁿ^e^w^acco^uⁿ^t^s,^h^o^w^e^v^e^r
^th^{e ex}^{act div}ⁱ^sⁱ^on^of^th^es^{e f}^uⁿ^d^s^w^a^sⁿ^o^{t readily}^av^ailable.
^{o. T}^h^{e Sen}^a^te-^p^as^s^e^{d v}^e^rs^ion^of^H.R^.²³⁶⁰ⁱⁿ^clu^d^ed^$40^m^illionⁱⁿ^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r R}^E^A^l^{ID g}^r^an^ts^uⁿ^d^er
^OSL^G^C^P^.
^{p. R}^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^s^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^t^o^S^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^{542 t}^h^ro^ugh^{546 of}^t^h^{e C}^oⁿ^f^eren^ce-^approv^{ed v}^e^rsⁱ^oⁿ^of^H^.^R^.
²³⁶⁰^an^dⁱⁿ^clu^d^e^{$15 m}^illion^f^r^om^th^{e W}^o^rkⁱⁿ^g^C^a^{pital Fu}ⁿ^d^(T^{itle I); $6 m}^illion^f^r^om^T^S^A^’^s
^A^v^iatioⁿ^Secu^rity^acco^uⁿ^{t; $}⁶^m^illioⁿ^f^r^o^m^th^{e Co}^{ast Gu}^ard^’^{s Op}^eratin^g^Ex^p^eⁿ^s^{es an}^d
^A^c^q^u^isitioⁿ^,^Coⁿ^s^tru^c^tioⁿ^an^d^Im^p^r^o^v^em^en^{ts acco}^uⁿ^t^{s; $}⁸^m^illioⁿ^f^r^o^m^th^{e Co}^uⁿ^t^erterro^rism
^Fuⁿ^d^{; an}^{d $20 m}^illion^f^r^om^S&^T^’^s^R^e^s^earch^,^Dev^e^lopm^ent^,^Ac^qu^is^ition^,^an^{d Operation}^s
^accouⁿ^t^.
^q^.^{Net d}ⁱ^scr^e^tioⁿ^a^r^y^b^u^d^g^{et au}^th^o^r^ity^dⁱ^f^f^e^r^s^f^r^o^m^th^{e am}^o^uⁿ^t^{s listed}ⁱⁿ^th^{e P}^r^esid^en^t’^{s B}^u^d^g^{et d}^u^e
^{to th}^{e f}^o^llowⁱⁿ^g^:^FY2005ⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^$2.508^billionⁱⁿ^adv^aⁿ^{ce appropriation}^s^f^o^{r B}ⁱ^os^hⁱ^{eld an}^d
^{$1.085 in}^C^o^as^{t Gu}^ar^d^m^a^nd^a^t^o^r^y^retirem^en^{t pay}^.^{FY2006 in}^clu^d^es^{$1.014 billion}ⁱⁿ^C^o^as^t
^Gu^{ard m}^aⁿ^d^atory^retirem^en^{t pay}^.
^{r. R}^e^pres^en^ts^th^{e $2.508 billion}^adv^aⁿ^{ce appropriation}^f^o^{r B}ⁱ^os^hⁱ^eld.
^s^.^In^clu^d^es^{6.5 billion}ⁱⁿ^h^u^r^rican^{e relief}^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^to^P^.^L^.^108-^324,^$644^m^illionⁱⁿ^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y
^{appropriation}^s^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to P}^.^L^.^109-^13,^an^d^{$60 billion}ⁱⁿ^h^u^rrican^{e relief}^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^res^pon^s^e
^t^o^H^u^rri^can^{e K}^a^t^rⁱⁿ^{a (P.L}^{. 109-}^61/^P.L^.^109-^{62). A}^l^s^oⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^es^{a res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^of^$23.4^b^illioⁿ^an^d
^{a tran}^s^f^{er of}^{$2 m}^illioⁿ^f^r^om^{FY2005 to FY2006.}

Title I: Departmental Management and Operations¹²
Table 5. Title I: Department Management and Operations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^Op^erati^on^al^C^o^m^p^on^en^t^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e Secretary}^an^{d Ex}^ecu^tiv^e⁸⁵¹⁹⁶¹¹³¹²⁵¹²⁶^a
^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt
^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^Screenⁱⁿ^g^C^oordiⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^an^d^b^—^N/A^—^—⁴
^Operation^s
^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e Un}^ders^ecretary^f^o^r¹⁵¹¹⁴⁷⁵⁰¹⁴⁶¹⁶⁹
^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt
^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^t^h^{e C}^hⁱ^e^f^Fⁱⁿ^aⁿ^cⁱ^a^l^O^f^fⁱ^cer¹³¹⁹¹⁹¹⁸¹⁹
^O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^t^h^{e C}^hⁱ^e^f^In^f^o^rm^atⁱ^oⁿ^O^f^fⁱ^cer²⁷⁵³⁰⁴³⁰⁴²⁸⁷²⁹⁷
^Aⁿ^aly^s^is^an^{d Operation}^s^c^N/A^N/A^N^/^A^N^/^A²⁵⁵
^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e In}^s^p^{ector Gen}^e^ral⁸²⁸³⁸³⁸³⁸³
^G^r^os^s^T^o^tal⁶⁰⁷⁷⁴⁸⁵⁶⁸⁶⁵⁹⁹⁵⁴
^{— Re}^sc^issioⁿ^-4^d^-7^e^-1²^f^-1⁵^g
^N^e^{t Bu}^d^g^{et A}^u^th^ori^t^{y: T}ⁱ^tl^{e I}⁶⁰³⁷⁴⁸⁵⁶¹⁶⁴⁷⁹³⁹
^Source:^D^H^S^F^Y^{2006 C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^Bu^dg^et^Ju^s^tⁱ^fⁱ^c^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^{, H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{79, S}^.^R^p^t^.^109-^{83, an}^d
^H^.^R^p^t^.^109-^241.
^No^te:^N^/^A^s^t^an^ds^f^o^{r N}^o^t^A^v^ai^l^a^bl^{e. F}^Y^{2006 am}^ouⁿ^t^s^{do n}^o^t^r^e^fl^e^c^t^t^h^{e 1%}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^board
^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^en^act^{ed by}^P.L^.^109-^148.
^{a. In}^clu^d^es^{, pu}^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to P}^.^L^.^109-^{148, $47 m}^illion^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^pplem^en^{tal f}^o^{r th}^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^e
^Secretary^an^{d Ex}^ecu^ti^ve^M^a^na^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^f^o^{r ef}^f^o^rts^{to addres}^s^{a poten}^{tial ou}^tbreak^of^hⁱ^g^h^l^y
^pat^h^og^enⁱ^cⁱⁿ^f^l^u^eⁿ^{za pu}^rs^u^aⁿ^t^t^o^P.L^.^109-^148.
^{b. T}^h^{e Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^F^Y^{2006 requ}^es^t^f^o^{r D}^H^S^propos^es^t^o^c^r^eat^{e t}^h^{e S}^c^reenⁱⁿ^g^C^oordiⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^an^d
^Op^er^atioⁿ^s^Of^fⁱ^{ce w}^ithⁱⁿ^T^{itle I}^I^{. B}^o^th^th^{e Ho}^u^s^{e an}^d^th^e^Sen^a^te^d^eⁿⁱ^ed^th^e^cr^eatioⁿ^o^f^th^isⁿ^e^w
^of^fⁱ^{ce w}^ithⁱⁿ^T^{itle II. T}^h^e^C^oⁿ^f^eren^ce^R^e^port,^H.R^p^t.109-^{241, allocates}^{$4 m}^illion^w^ithⁱⁿ^T^itle
^{I f}^o^{r th}^{e operation}^s^of^th^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^Screenⁱⁿ^g^C^oordin^a^tion^an^{d Operation}^s^.
^c^.^T^hⁱ^s^ne^w^c^a^t^e^g^o^r^y^r^e^fl^e^c^t^{s S}^e^c^r^e^t^a^r^y^Che^r^t^o^{ff’s r}^e^c^o^m^m^e^nd^a^tⁱ^o^{n fo}^r^r^e^st^r^u^c^t^urⁱ^ng^D^H^S^.^F^o^r^fur^t^he^r
^an^aly^s^is^of^th^is^res^t^ru^ctu^rⁱⁿ^g^,^pleas^{e ref}^e^{r to}^Ta^ble¹¹^{. W}^e^h^a^v^e^b^een^uⁿ^ab^{le to}^tr^ack^th^is
^acco^{unt b}^{ack thr}^o^{ugh the ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatio^{ns p}^r^o^cess.
^{d. R}^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^t^o^P.L^.^109-^13.
^{e. R}^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^t^o^t^h^{e Work}ⁱⁿ^g^C^a^pi^t^a^l^F^uⁿ^d^{, as}^{per H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^79.
^f^.^R^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^t^o^t^h^{e Work}ⁱⁿ^g^C^a^pi^t^a^l^F^uⁿ^d^{, as}^{per S}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^83.
^g^.^R^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^t^o^t^h^{e Work}ⁱⁿ^g^C^a^pi^t^a^l^F^uⁿ^d^{, per H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^241.
President’s Request. Title I covers the general administrative expenses of
DHS. It includes the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OS&EM),
which counts the immediate Office of the Secretary and 14 entities that report
directly to the Secretary; the Under Secretary for Management (USM) and its
components, such as offices of the Chief Procurement Officer, Chief Human Capital

¹² Prepared by Harold C. Relyea, Specialist in American National Government, Government
and Finance Division.

Officer, and Chief Administrative Officer; the Office of CIO; the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer (OCFO); and OIG. FY2006 requests relative to comparable
FY2005 enacted appropriations: OS&EM, $195.8 million, an increase of $110.8
million (+130%); USM, $146.6 million, a decrease of $4.5 million (-3%); OCIO,
$303.7 million, an increase of $28.4 million (+10%); OCFO, $18.5 million, an
increase of $5.5 million (+42%); and OIG, $83 million, an increase of $700,000
(+1%). Table 4 shows appropriations for FY2005 and congressional action on the
requests for FY2006, and Table 5 provides account-level details for Title I. The total
FY2006 request for Title I is $748 million. This represents a 28% increase over the
FY2005 enacted level.
House-Passed H.R. 2360. Unhappy and otherwise frustrated with “the
Department’s inability to respond quickly, or at all, to items of Congressional interest
or direction,” “extremely concerned by the Department’s inability to submit reports
on a timely basis,” and “very concerned about the results of the 2004 financial audit,”
among other complaints, House appropriators slashed $62.6 million from the
OS&EM request, recommending $133.2 million, which was $48.2 million above the¹³
amount provided in FY2005. Among the entities bearing the brunt of this cut were
the Office of Security (-$10 million), which was criticized for not assuring that
unclassified information was clearly marked and distinguished from classified and
other security sensitive information within DHS documents; the Operation
Integration Staff (-$1.9 million), which was left to continue to rely upon a half staff
of detailees from other components within DHS; and Regions (-$49.8 million),
which, with regional structure still under internal DHS review, was considered to be
“premature” for any funding at the time. The amount was reduced to $113 million
as a result of qualifying conditions specified in Title I.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. Approving the recommendations of
appropriators, the Senate chopped $71.2 million from the OS&EM request,
approving $124.6 million. Among the entities hardest hit by this cut were the Office
of Security (-$6 million); the Executive Secretary (-$1.3 million); the new Office of
Policy, Planning, and International Affairs (OPPIA) (-$1.5 million); the Office of
Public Affairs (-$1 million); the Operation Integration Staff (-$9.4 million), due to
its integration and coordination functions being assumed by OPPIA; and the Regions
Initiative (-$49.8 million), due to the lack of a required consolidation and collocation
plan. In brief, no funding was approved for the latter two accounts.¹⁴
P.L. 109-90. P.L. 109-90 provides $79 million for OS&EM instead of the
$113 million approved by the House and the $125 million approved by the Senate.
Compared with the President’s budget request, the OS&EM account receiving major
reduction was the unfunded Regions area (-$50 million), followed by the Office of
Policy (-$4 million), the Executive Secretary (-$1 million), Office of Public Affairs

¹³ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2006, a report to accompany H.R. 2360, 109^th Cong., 1^st sess., H.Rept.

109-79 (Washington: GPO, 2005), pp. 5, 7-9, 14. Hereafter cited as H.Rept. 109-79.

¹⁴ U.S. Congress, Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2006, a report to accompany H.R. 2360, 109^th Cong., 1^st sess., S.Rept.

109-83 (Washington: GPO, 2005), pp. 9-11.

(-$1 million), and Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs (-$1 million).
The Office of Policy is a modified version of OPPIA. It is one of several new or
modified entities resulting from the Secretary’s 2SR reorganization of DHS. Acting
on a July 21, 2005, DHS budget amendment requesting the department’s
appropriations structure be modified for FY2006, appropriations conferees endorsed
much of the 2SR reorganization plan.¹⁵
Issues for Congress. Within the OS&EM account, the House approved
$8.7 million for the new OPPIA, which had been proposed in the DHS budget
justification. Immediately assisting the Secretary, OPPIA was to be headed by an
Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning and was to include other related staff
located within the Office of the Under Secretary for BTS, as well as such existing
entities as the Office of International Affairs, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy,
the Homeland Security Advisory Council, and USM. Senate appropriators reduced
the OPPIA allotment and indicated an expectation that it would assume the role of
the Operation Integration Staff.
A similar DHS restructuring had been discussed at a January 26, 2005, oversight
hearing conducted by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs. Participating was one of the authors of a December 2004
Heritage Foundation report, DHS 2.0: Rethinking the Department of Homeland
Security, which had recommended (1) eliminating the DHS management directorate
and USM, but relocating the chief management officers to the office of the Deputy
Secretary; and (2) establishing an Under Secretary for Policy, who would be assisted¹⁶
by a unified policy planning staff. It was thought that the first reform would
eliminate an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and otherwise strengthen the roles of
the chief management officers, and that the second reform would bring unity to DHS
through the development of proactive, strategic homeland security policy and plans.
Indications were that these reforms, among others, would be considered for inclusion
in subsequent legislation reauthorizing DHS programs within the jurisdiction of the
Senate committee. A DHS authorization bill (H.R. 1817) later reported from the
House Committee on Homeland Security (H.Rept. 109-71), however, made no
mention of these particular suggested reforms.
The House also approved a new general provision to ensure that the DHS
Privacy Officer would report privacy abuses to Congress and have access to all
documents and information necessary to carry out statutory responsibilities. The
provision was added in committee because it was thought that the Privacy Officer
“should provide Congress, and thus the public, an unfettered view into the operations
of the Department and its impact on personal privacy.”¹⁷

¹⁵ See CRS Report RL33042, Department of Homeland Security Reorganization: The 2SR
Initiative, by Harold C. Relyea.
¹⁶ James Jay Carafano, and David Heyman, DHS 2.0: Rethinking the Department of
Homeland Security, Heritage Special Report (Washington: Dec. 13, 2004).
¹⁷ H.Rept. 109-79, p. 7.

Personnel Issues.¹⁸ In addition to the policy and planning issues, and the
reorganization issues, several personnel issues may be of interest to Congress during
the current appropriations cycle.
The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO). This Office
(also referred to in the budget justification as the Office of Human Resources)
establishes policy and procedures and provides oversight, guidance, and leadership
for human resources management (HRM) functions within the DHS. It is organized
into three major components as follows. Human Capital Innovation is responsible
for designing and implementing the department’s new HRM system, referred to as
Max-HR,¹⁹ including human capital strategic planning efforts and HR information
technology components, including payroll modernization. The activities associated
with the new system’s regulatory process and the design and contract management
processes also are part of the Innovation component. Human Capital Policy and
Programs is responsible for establishing corporate human resources policy, including
training and development programs, in support of headquarters and department-wide
initiatives. This component manages program and policy development and execution
for HRM at DHS, including workforce planning, corporate talent, executive
resources, recruitment and branding, benefits, and work life programs. Human
Capital Operational Services, newly established in FY2005, provides comprehensive
human resources services for all headquarters organizations and manages the process
of optimizing shared human capital services within DHS. The principal human
capital officers from each component of the department comprise a Human
Resources Council which coordinates activities across DHS. The Office of the
CHCO reports to the Undersecretary for Management and its appropriation is
included in that of the Undersecretary. For FY2005, the Office of the CHCO
received an appropriation of $43.2 million and a staffing level of 49 full-time

¹⁸ Personnel Issues section prepared by Barbara Schwemle, Analyst in American National
Government, Government and Finance Division.
¹⁹ On Feb. 1, 2005, DHS and the Office of Personnel Management jointly published final
regulations in the Federal Register to implement Max-HR. (U.S. Department of Homeland
Security and U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Department of Homeland Security
Human Resources Management System,” Federal Register, vol. 70, no. 20, Feb. 1, 2005,
pp. 5271-5347.) The regulations provide new policies on position classification, pay,
performance management, adverse actions and appeals, and labor-management relations for
DHS employees. Max-HR will cover about 110,000 of the department’s 180,000 employees
and will be implemented in phases. (See, CRS Report RL32261, Homeland Security: Final
Regulations on Classification, Pay, and Performance Management Compared With Current
Law, 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.) In early May
2005, the National Treasury Employees Union released the results of a series of focus group
meetings on the design and implementation of the new pay-for-performance system.
According to the union, issues that concern non-managerial employees include fair
administration, sufficient funding, and accountability of the pay system. (The National
Treasury Employees Union, “Front-Line Homeland Security Employees and Managers
Alike Raise Concerns About Pay-For-Performance,” News Release, May 9, 2005. Available
on the Internet at [http://www.nteu.org], visited June 7, 2005. DHS conducted the surveys
at 10 locations with some 289 employees from Feb. 24 through Mar. 18, 2005.)

equivalent employees (FTEs). Of this total, $7.2 million funded HR operations²⁰ and
$36 million (non-recurring) funded the development and implementation of Max-
HR. Twelve of the FTEs were attached to Max-HR.
President’s Budget Proposal. The President’s FY2006 budget proposed
an appropriation of $61.996 million and 50 FTEs for the Office of the CHCO. The
request represents an increase of $18.796 million and one FTE over the FY2005
appropriation.²¹ Especially noteworthy in the budget proposal were the funding
requests of $593,000 for the Office of the CHCO and $53 million for Max-HR as
discussed below.
Workforce Strategies and DHS Employee Surveys. The proposed
increase of $593,000 was allocated as follows. For workforce strategies, $180,000
for one new FTE is requested. The additional FTE would “analyze the impact of
current and/or potential occupational or skill gaps, and develop various human capital
strategies and plans related to recruiting, retention, learning and development
interventions needed to close these gaps.”²² The National Defense Authorization Act
for FY2004 mandates an annual assessment of employees and the organization. To
fund the employee survey and analysis of the results, $413,000 was requested.²³
Max-HR. An appropriation of $53 million is requested for the department’s
new HRM system, an increase of $17 million over the FY2005 funding.²⁴ The Office

²⁰ The $7.2 million appropriation was allocated as follows: salaries and benefits
($4,118,516), travel ($46,370), printing ($9,515), advisory and assistance services — portion
not Max-HR ($1,053,683), other services ($854,731), purchase from government accounts
($487,399), operation and maintenance of equipment ($15,623), supplies and materials
($48,104), and equipment ($566,058).
²¹ The following amounts are requested for FY2006 (unless otherwise noted, the increases
result from pay raises or inflation): $5,446,048 for salaries and benefits (includes $180,000
for one new FTE), $47,205 for travel, $9,687 for printing, $54,372,649 for advisory and
assistance services (includes increases of $17 million for Max-HR and $300,000 for other
HRM initiatives), $983,116 for other services (includes an increase of $113,000 for
programs), $496,172 for purchase from government accounts, $15,905 for operation and
maintenance of equipment, $48,970 for supplies and materials, and $576,248 for equipment.
²² U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Fiscal Year 2006 Congressional Justification,
p. USM-17.
²³ Of the $413,000, $300,000 is included under advisory and assistance services and
$113,000 is included under other services.
²⁴ The requested amount is allocated as follows: $10 million for training for the
department’s executives, managers, supervisors, and human resources professionals; $18
million for detailed systems design and implementation (for access to experts who are
assisting in designing the performance management, job evaluation, and compensation
systems and pay and performance linkages, and developing and documenting competencies
for DHS positions); $10 million for the conversion of Phase One employees (in DHS
headquarters, IAIP, S&T, EPR, and FLETC) from the General Schedule to newly created
market-based pay ranges; $9 million for program management to manage appropriate cost,
schedule, and control activities at the departmental level to ensure good management of the
(continued...)

of the CHCO serves as the “command center” for Max-HR. Twelve FTEs continue
to staff Max-HR.
House-Passed H.R. 2360. The Appropriations Committee tables that
accompanied the House-passed bill show an appropriation of $61.951 million for the
Office of the CHCO. This amount would have been allocated as $8.951 million for
salaries and expenses ($45,000 below the President’s request of $8.996 million) and
$53 million for Max-HR (the same amount as the President’s request).²⁵ According
to the committee, however, amendments agreed to by the House would have reduced
the funding for the Office of the Under Secretary for Management by $96.1 million,
thereby resulting in reductions, unspecified, in the Under Secretary accounts. Full
year funding would have been denied for the one new FTE in the Office of the
CHCO requested by the President. The committee assumed that the “new staff will
be on board beginning in the second quarter of FY2006.”²⁶ Opposition to any change
in the funding for Max-HR was stated by the Office of Management and Budget,
DHS itself, and Senator George Voinovich, with particular emphasis on the adverse²⁷
impact on managerial and supervisory training. The National Treasury Employees
Union supported the reduction, saying that $18 million would have funded
contractors working on the design of the performance management component and
$6 million would have funded the establishment of internal labor relations boards at²⁸
DHS. Section 516 of the House-passed bill would have continued to authorize
transfer from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to DHS the authority to
conduct personnel security and suitability background investigations, update
investigations, and periodically re-investigate applicants for, or appointees in certain²⁹

DHS positions.
²⁴ (...continued)
personnel system; and $6 million for the Homeland Security Labor Relations Board
(HSLRB) and Mandatory Removal Offense (MRO) Panel. The HSLRB, established in
FY2005 as an independent entity that reports to the DHS Secretary, resolves labor-
management disputes. The MRO is a separate entity and adjudicates appeals of employees
who have been removed from their positions for engaging in mandatory removal offenses.
²⁵ H.Rept. 109-79, pp. 13-14.
²⁶ Ibid., p. 14.
²⁷ U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administration Policy, H.R. 2360 — Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill,
FY2006, May 17, 2005, p. 2. David McGlinchey, “Homeland Security Appeals for
Personnel Funding,” Government Executive, May 24, 2005. Available on the Internet at
[http://www.govexec.com], visited June 7, 2005. Letter from Senator Voinovich, Chairman,
Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee to Senator Judd Gregg, Chairman,
Homeland Security Subcommittee provided to CRS by subcommittee staff on May 31, 2005.
²⁸ The National Treasury Employees Union, “Kelley Welcomes Shift of Substantial DHS
Funding Away From Implementing New and Unnecessary Personnel System,” News
Release, May 20, 2005. Available on the Internet at [http://www.nteu.org], visited June 7,

2005.

²⁹ The positions would be in the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, the
Office of the Under Secretary for Management, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, the Directorate of Science and Technology, and the Directorate of Information
(continued...)

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. Concurring with the Appropriations Committee,
the Senate-passed bill provided the Office of the CHCO with the appropriation³⁰
requested by the President, including $53 million for Max-HR. DHS is directed to
report to the committee by February 18, 2006, on implementation progress, improved
mission effectiveness, and projected costs for each fiscal year over the life of the new
personnel system.³¹ The general provision on background security investigations was
not included in the Senate-passed bill.
P.L. 109-90. P.L. 109-90 provides funding of $38.9 million for the Office of
the CHCO, some $23 million less than the President’s budget proposal. The amount
would be allocated as $8.9 million for salaries and expenses ($96,000 below the
President’s request) and $30 million for Max-HR ($23 million below the President’s
request). As proposed by the House, a general provision at Section 516 on
background investigations is included in the conference agreement. The conference
report directs that background investigations be conducted expeditiously for DHS
employees, particularly those in the Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management; Office of the Under Secretary for Management, Analysis, and
Operations; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the Directorate of Science and
Technology; and the Directorate for Preparedness.

²⁹ (...continued)
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. Upon DHS’ request, OPM would cooperate with
and assist DHS in any investigation or reinvestigation. The authorization would cease to be
effective once the President has selected a single agency to conduct security clearance
investigations and that agency has reported to Congress that the agency selected is capable
of conducting all necessary investigations in a timely manner or has authorized the entities
within DHS covered by Section 516 to conduct their own investigations. This latter
provision was added by Amendment No. 139 offered by Representative Tom Davis and
agreed to by the House by voice vote on May 17, 2005. According to Representative Davis,
the amendment provides that “the Congressionally mandated oversight authority will be
responsible for ensuring that investigations for DHS security clearances are done in the most
timely and efficient manner once the 9/11 Act reforms take effect.” (Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 151, no. 65, May 17, 2005, pp. H3394-H3395.)
³⁰ The Max-HR funding is allocated as $18 million for detailed systems design and
implementation support; $10 million for training and communication; $9 million for
program management, oversight, and evaluation; $10 million for initial personnel
conversion from the General Schedule; and $6 million for the Homeland Security Labor
Relations Board. (S.Rept. 109-83, p. 101.)
³¹ S.Rept. 109-83, p. 13.

Bureau of Analysis and Operations³²
The conferees, pursuant to the Secretary Chertoff’s organizational restructuring
program that was provided to the Congress on July 13, 2005, propose to disband the
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate. The conferees
propose transferring the functions that existed within the erstwhile IAIP Directorate
to, among other entities, the newly established Preparedness Directorate within Title
III and two new Offices within Title I — the Office of Intelligence and Analysis and
the Office of Operations Coordination. As such, the activities of Information
Analysis (IA) and Infrastructure Protection (IP), formerly under Title IV, Research
and Development, Training, Assessments and Services of the DHS appropriations
bills, would be separated. The information analysis and operations coordination
activities would be funded through a new Analysis and Operations bureau under
which the new Operating Expenses account appears in the Conference agreement.
Within the H.R. 2360, as approved by conferees, the information analysis functions
would fall within Title I - Departmental Management Operations. Organizationally,
under Secretary Chertoff’s restructuring plan, DHS proposed that the former
Assistant Secretary for Intelligence Analysis position be replaced with a Chief
Intelligence Officer position, which would report directly to the Secretary. The
proposed Office of Intelligence and Analysis will be “... comprised of analysts within
the former Information Analysis Directorate and draw upon the expertise of other
DHS components with intelligence collection and analysis operations.”³³ P.L. 109-90
adopts these proposals.
Budget, Budget Structure, and Transfers. As previous iterations of this
report have outlined, prior to Secretary Chertoff’s proposed restructuring program,
the IAIP Directorate had two accounts - (1) Management and Administration (M&A),
which included the budgets for the Office of the Under Secretary for IAIP and Other
Salaries and Expenses - and (2) Assessments and Evaluations (A&E), which covered
intelligence analysis and infrastructure protection/vulnerability assessments. The
President’s request for FY2006 for M&A for FY2006 was $204 million, and for
A&E it was $669.2 million, for a total IAIP requested budget amount of $872.2
million.
Cross-Walk Between President’s Proposed and Amended Budget
Structures. On July 22, 2005, based on Secretary Chertoff’s organizational
restructuring plan, the President proposed a number of budget amendments for
FY2006 for the Department of Homeland Security. According to a presidential
communication,³⁴ the overall discretionary budget authority for FY2006 for the
department would not be increased. In short, under the president’s proposed budget

³² Prepared by Todd Masse, Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counterterrorism,
Domestic Social Policy Division.
³³ See “Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff Announces Six-Point Agenda for
Department of Homeland Security,” Department of Homeland Security, July 13, 2005.
³⁴ See Request for FY2006 Budget Amendments — Communication from the President of the
United States Transmitting A Request for FY 2006 Budget Amendments for the Department
of Homeland Security, July 22, 2005, H.Doc. 109-50.

amendments, $311.2 million was requested for the new Analysis and Operations
bureau, Operating Expenses account. Table 6 outlines the changes germane to the
IA function made pursuant to this communication.
Table 6. Proposed FY2006 DHS Budget Amendments
Germane to IA
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^A^ccouⁿ^t^M^ovedⁱⁿ^to^M^oved^ou^t
^D^e^p^a^r^t^m^e^nt^a^l^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^,^{$1.8 t}^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^IA^IP,^{$8.409 m}^o^v^e^{d t}^o^Aⁿ^al^y^sⁱ^s^an^d
^Operation^s^{, Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^e^M^aⁿ^a^ge^m^e^nt^aⁿ^d^Op^e^r^a^tioⁿ^s^{, Op}^er^atin^g
^Secretary^an^{d Ex}^ecu^tiv^e^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^o^{n a}ⁿ^d^m^o^ve^d^Ex^pen^s^es^as^t^h^{e propos}^ed
^M^a^na^ge^m^e^ntⁱⁿ^to^P^o^licy^Of^fⁱ^{ce in}^th^e^Op^er^atioⁿ^s^Iⁿ^teg^r^atioⁿ^Staf^f
^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^the^Secretary^an^d^m^o^v^e^{s to}^th^e^Aⁿ^aly^s^{is an}^d
^E^x^e^c^u^tⁱ^v^e^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^Operation^s^bu^reau^.
^I^A^I^P^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^aⁿ^d^{$204. C}^o^m^pos^{ed of}^{(1) $97.7}
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^o^{n (}^M^&A⁾^{to n}^e^w^P^r^eparedn^e^s^s
^Dⁱ^rect^orat^{e, (2)}^$^{104.5 t}^oⁿ^e^w
^Aⁿ^a^l^y^s^is^an^{d Operation}^s
^bu^reau^{, operatin}^g^ex^p^eⁿ^s^es
^accouⁿ^t^{, an}^{d (3) $1.8 to}
^D^e^p^a^r^t^m^e^nt^a^l^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^—
^P^o^licy^Of^fⁱ^ce
^I^A^I^P^A^sse^ssm^eⁿ^{ts a}ⁿ^d^O^f^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 requ}^e^s^t^e^d
^E^v^a^l^ua^tⁱ^o^{ns (}^A^&E⁾^r^e^s^o^u^r^ces^{, $195.4 m}^o^v^e^sⁱⁿ^t^o
^t^h^e^ne^w^Aⁿ^a^l^ysⁱ^s^aⁿ^d
^Operation^s^bu^reau^,^Operatin^g
^Ex^pen^s^es^accouⁿ^t^.
^Aⁿ^aly^s^is^an^{d Operation}^s^—^{$311.2. R}^e^s^o^u^r^ces^deri^v^e^d
^operatin^g^ex^pen^s^es⁽ⁿ^ew^f^r^o^m^th^{e f}^o^ll^o^wⁱⁿ^g
^bu^reau^an^{d accou}ⁿ^t⁾^accouⁿ^t^s^:^{(1) $104.5 f}^r^om
^IA^IP^M&^A^accouⁿ^t^{, (2)}
^{$195.4 f}^r^om^IA^IP^’^s^A^&^E
^accouⁿ^t^{, (3) $8.4 f}^r^om
^Departm^eⁿ^t^{al Operation}^s^,
^an^d^{(4) $2.9 f}^r^om^O^f^fⁱ^ce^of
^th^{e Un}^{der Se}^c^r^etary^f^o^r
^B^o^{rder an}^d^T^r^an^s^portation
^S^e^c^u^r^ity^{, Salar}ⁱ^e^s^&
^Ex^pen^s^es^.
^Source:^C^o^m^m^uⁿⁱ^cation^f^r^om^th^{e P}^r^es^iden^{t of}^th^{e Un}^{ited States}^T^r^an^s^m^ittin^g^A^R^e^qu^es^t^f^o^{r FY2006}
^Bu^dg^et^A^m^en^dm^en^t^s^f^o^{r t}^h^{e D}^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^H^o^m^e^l^aⁿ^d^S^ecu^ri^t^y^{, Ju}^l^y^{22, 2005, H}^.^D^o^{c. 109-}^50.
Top Line Figures for the IA Function and Conferee Adjustments.
According to the conference report, $255.5 million would remain available until
September 30, 2007, for “... necessary expenses for information analysis and
operations coordination activities authorized by Title II of the Homeland Security Act

of 2002 (6 U.S.C. et. seq.).”³⁵ Under the budget structure as agreed to by the
conferees, these funds would fall within Title I of the appropriations bill, under the
Analysis and Operations bureau, operating expenses account. This represents a
reduction of $55.7 million or 17.9% from the requested amount of $311.2 million.
Of the amount transferred into Analysis and Operations from the erstwhile IAIP,
M&A account, the conferees, reduced the amount based:
... on a continuing large number of vacancies. The Secretary shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations no later than February 10, 2006, a report that
identifies staffing and other resource requirements that reconciles the
Department’s intelligence mission responsibilities under the various Acts and³⁶
executive orders.
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
Title II funds Security, Enforcement, and Investigations. The largest component
of Title II was the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security (BTS). BTS
was comprised of the Office of the Under Secretary for BTS, CBP, ICE, and TSA.
For FY2006, the Administration proposed the creation of SCO within BTS (now
located in the Office of Policy under P.L. 109-90), that would coordinate the
passenger (and to some extent the cargo) screening operations of BTS. Also included
in Title II (though they were not operationally a part of the BTS Directorate) are the
U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Secret Service. With the passage of P.L. 109-90 the
Office of the Undersecretary for BTS is eliminated, and the agencies (CBP, ICE, and
TSA) that were a part of BTS report directly to the Office of the Secretary.
Table 7 shows the FY2005 enacted and FY2006 requested appropriations for
Title II. The Administration requested an appropriation of $20.6 billion in net
discretionary budget authority for Title II for FY2006. This amount represented a
decrease of $13 million or less than 1% decrease compared to the FY2005 enacted
total of $20.7 billion.³⁷ While almost every account in Title II is up, the requested
gross increase of $2,138 million from FY2005 to FY2006 is more than offset by the
total increase in offsetting collections of $2,202 million in Title II; $1,780 million of
which would be the result of the proposed fee increase within TSA. For the FY2006
request, the BTS Directorate accounts for 67% of total appropriated DHS budget
authority, while Title II accounts for 69% of total appropriated DHS budget authority.
House-passed H.R. 2360 recommended a net appropriation of nearly $22 billion
for activities and agencies of Title II. This amount represented a $1.4 billion or
nearly 7% increase over the President’s requested level for FY2006, and a $728
million or 3% increase over the FY2005 enacted level (including supplemental
appropriations). H.Rept. 109-79 did not approve the TSA security fee increase

³⁵ See conference report, H.Rept. 109-241, in Congressional Record, Sept. 29, 2005,
p. H8586.
³⁶ See H.Rept. 109-241, as reported in Congressional Record, Sept. 29, 2005, p. H8596.
³⁷ This number does not include the FY2005 supplemental appropriation for Title II in P.L.

109-13.

requested by the Administration. House-passed H.R. 2360 therefore shows an
increased appropriation, as compared to the Administration’s request. House-passed
H.R. 2360 provided $22 billion for Title II, which accounts for 69% of total DHS
budget authority. Senate-passed H.R. 2360 provided $22.2 billion for the activities
of Title II. This amount represented an increase of $1,625 million or 7% as
compared to the President’s request, an increase of $203 million or 1% as compared
to the House-passed amount; and an increase of $931 million or 4% as compared to
the FY2005 enacted amount. The $22.2 billion that would have been provided by the
Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 would have accounted for 70% of total DHS
budget authority in FY2006. P.L. 109-90 provides $22.4 billion for the activities of
Title II, representing and increase of $141 million or less than 1% as compared to
FY2005, an increase of $1,835 million or 9% as compared to the request for FY2006,
an increase of $403 million or 2% as compared to the House-passed version of H.R.
2360, and an increase of $208 million or 1% as compared to the Senate-passed
version of H.R. 2360.
Table 7. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^Op^erati^on^al^C^o^m^p^on^en^t^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^{Office of the Unders}^{ecretary for B}^o^rder¹⁰¹¹^{9 10}^—^a
^an^d^T^r^an^s^p^ortati^on^S^ecu^ri^ty
^Screening^{and Operations}^Office^b
^{— US}^-^V^IS^IT^c³⁴⁰³⁹⁰³⁹⁰³⁴⁰³⁴⁰
^—^O^t^h^e^{r prog}^ram^s^—¹³⁵²¹^—^—
^{— Fee accou}ⁿ^t^s^d^—³²¹^—^—^—
^G^r^os^s^total³⁴⁰⁸⁴⁶⁴¹¹³⁴⁰³⁴⁰
^{— Of}^f^s^ettin^g^co^llectioⁿ^s^—^-³²¹^—^—^—
^N^e^{t total}³⁴⁰⁵²⁵⁴¹¹³⁴⁰³⁴⁰
^Cus^t^om^s^{& B}^o^{rder Protection}^a
^{— Salaries}^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es^e^4,658^4,730^4,886^4,922^4,850^f
^{— Re}^sc^issioⁿ^s^g^-¹³⁹^—^—^-¹⁴^—
^—^A^u^t^o^m^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^m^odernⁱ^zatⁱ^oⁿ⁴⁵⁰⁴⁵⁸⁴⁵⁸⁴⁵⁸⁴⁵⁶
^—^Aⁱ^{r an}^{d Mari}ⁿ^e^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^s²⁵⁸²⁹³³⁴⁸³²¹⁴⁰⁰
^—^C^oⁿ^s^t^r^u^c^tⁱ^oⁿ¹⁴⁴^h⁹³⁹³³¹¹²⁸⁰ⁱ
^{— Fee accou}ⁿ^t^s^j^1,079^1,142^1,142^1,142^1,142
^G^r^os^s^total^6,450^6,717^6,927^7,140^7,128
^—^O^f^f^s^et^tⁱⁿ^g^col^l^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^-¹^,079^-¹^,142^-¹^,142^-¹^,142^-¹^,142
^N^e^{t total}⁵^,371^5,575^5,785^5,998^5,986
^I^m^mⁱ^{gration & Cus}^t^om^s^Eⁿ^forcem^ent
^—^S^a^l^a^ri^es^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es^2,893^k^2,892^3,064^3,052^3,121^l
^{— F}^e^deral^Aⁱ^{r Mars}^h^a^l^s^m⁶⁶³⁶⁸⁹⁶⁹⁹⁶⁷⁹^—
^—^F^e^deral^Prot^ectⁱ^v^{e S}^e^rvⁱ^ces^(F^PS⁾⁴⁷⁸⁴⁸⁷⁴⁸⁷⁴⁸⁷⁴⁸⁷
^{— A}^u^to^m^a^tioⁿ^&ⁱⁿ^f^r^astr^u^c^tu^r^e⁴⁰⁴⁰⁴⁰⁵⁰⁴⁰
^m^o^d^e^rⁿ^izatioⁿ
^—^C^oⁿ^s^t^r^u^c^tⁱ^oⁿ²⁶²⁷²⁷²⁷²⁷

^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^Op^erati^on^al^C^o^m^p^on^en^t^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^{— Fee accou}ⁿ^t^sⁿ²⁰⁰²²⁹²²⁹²²⁹²⁵³
^{— Re}^sc^issioⁿ^o^-⁸⁵^—^—^—^—
^G^r^os^s^total⁴^,215^4,364^4,546^4,524^3,928
^—^O^f^f^s^et^tⁱⁿ^g^F^P^S^f^ees^-⁴⁷⁸^-⁴⁸⁷^-⁴⁸⁷^-⁴⁸⁷^-⁴⁸⁷
^—^O^f^f^s^et^tⁱⁿ^g^col^l^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^-²⁰⁰^-²²⁹^-²²⁹^-²²⁹^-²⁵³
^N^e^{t total}³^,537^3,648^3,830^3,808^3,188
^T^r^an^s^p^ortati^on^S^ecu^ri^{ty Ad}^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rati^on^a
^—^A^vⁱ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^ecu^ri^t^y^(g^ros^s^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g⁾^4,324^4,735^4,592^4,452^4,607
^{— Su}^rf^{ace T}^r^an^s^portation^Secu^rity⁴⁸³²³⁶³⁶³⁶
^{— Cr}^ed^en^tialin^g^activ^{ities (}^a^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ⁾^—^—⁸⁴⁷⁵⁷⁵
^{— C}^r^eden^tialin^g^/^{Fee accou}ⁿ^t^s^p⁶⁷^—¹⁸⁰¹⁸⁰¹⁸⁰
^{— I}ⁿ^tellig^en^ce¹⁴²¹²¹²¹²¹
^{— R}^e^s^earch^an^{d dev}^e^lopm^en^t^q¹⁷⁸^—^—^—^—
^{— F}^e^deral^Aⁱ^{r Mars}^h^a^l^s^m^—^—^—^—⁶⁸⁶
^—^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ⁵²⁰⁵²⁴⁵²⁰⁴⁷⁰⁴⁸⁹
^{— A}^v^iatioⁿ^secu^r^ity^m^aⁿ^d^ato^r^y^sp^en^dⁱⁿ^g^r²⁵⁰²⁵⁰²⁵⁰²⁵⁰²⁵⁰
^G^r^os^s^total⁵^,401^5,562^5,683^5,484^6,344
^{— Of}^f^s^ettin^g^co^llectioⁿ^s^s^-¹^,823^-³^,670^-¹^,990^-¹^,990^-¹^,990
^{— C}^r^eden^tialin^g^/^{Fee accou}ⁿ^t^s^-⁶⁷^—^-¹⁸⁰^-¹⁸⁰^-¹⁸⁰
^—^A^vⁱ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^ecu^ri^t^y^m^aⁿ^d^at^ory^s^p^en^diⁿ^g^-²⁵⁰^-²⁵⁰^-²⁵⁰^-²⁵⁰^-²⁵⁰
^N^e^{t total}³^,260^1,641^3,263^3,065^3,925
^U^.^S^.^C^oas^{t G}^u^ard
^—^O^p^eratⁱⁿ^g^ex^pen^s^es^5,303^t^5,547^5,500^5,459^5,724^u
^—^—^R^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^—^—^—^—^-²⁷⁶^v
^{— En}^vⁱ^r^oⁿ^m^en^{tal co}^m^p^lian^{ce &}
^r^e^s^t^o^r^a^t¹⁷¹²¹²¹²¹²
^—^R^e^s^e^rv^{e t}^r^aiⁿⁱⁿ^g¹¹³¹¹⁹¹¹⁹¹¹⁹¹¹⁹
^{— A}^c^q^u^isitioⁿ^,^coⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ^,^&^w^x
ⁱ^m^prov^em^en^t^s^1,031^1,269⁷⁹⁸^1,225^1,217
^{—— Re}^sc^issioⁿ^y^-¹⁶^—^—^-⁸³^—
^—^A^l^t^e^ratⁱ^oⁿ^of^bri^d^g^e^s¹⁶^—¹⁵¹⁵¹⁵
^{— R}^e^s^earch^{, dev}^e^lopm^en^{t, tes}^t^s^,^&^z¹⁹^—^—¹⁹¹⁷
^ev^alu^a^tion
^{— Retir}^ed^p^a^y⁽^m^an^d^a^to^r^y^{, en}^titlem^eⁿ^t⁾¹^,0⁸⁵¹^,⁰¹⁴¹^,⁰¹⁴¹^,⁰¹⁴¹^,⁰¹⁴
^G^r^os^s^total⁷^,568^7,962^7,458^7,780^7,842
^{U.S. Secret Service}
^—^S^a^l^a^ri^es^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es^;^con^s^t^r^u^c^tⁱ^oⁿ¹^,175^1,204^1,233^1,192^1,216^aa
^N^e^{t total}¹^,175^1,204^1,233^1,192^1,216
^G^r^os^s^Bu^d^g^{et A}^u^th^ori^t^{y: T}ⁱ^tl^{e I}^I^25,157^26,665^26,267^26,470^26,800
^T^o^tal^offs^ettiⁿ^g^col^l^ecti^oⁿ^s^{: T}ⁱ^tl^{e I}^I^-3,897^-6,099^-4,278^-4,278^-4,302
^N^e^{t Bu}^d^g^{et A}^u^th^ori^t^{y: T}ⁱ^tl^{e I}^I^21,260^20,566^21,988^22,193^22,498

^Source:^C^R^S^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^t^h^{e F}^Y²⁰⁰⁶^P^r^e^sⁱ^d^eⁿ^t^’^s^Bu^dg^et^{, an}^{d D}^H^S^Budgetⁱⁿ^Brⁱ^e^f^{, Hou}^s^e
^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee t}^a^bl^es^of^May^{20, 2005, H}^o^u^s^e-^pas^s^e^d^H^.^{R. 2360 an}^{d H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^79;
^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^-^p^as^s^e^d^H^.^R^.^{2360 an}^{d S}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^83;^an^{d t}^h^{e C}^oⁿ^f^eren^{ce R}^e^port^t^o^H^.^R^.^{2360, H}^.^R^e^pt^.^109-
^241.
^No^te:^T^o^t^a^l^s^m^a^yⁿ^o^t^{add du}^{e t}^o^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^A^m^ouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^paren^t^h^e^s^e^s^{are n}^oⁿ^-^adds^{. F}^Y^{2006 am}^ouⁿ^t^s
^{do n}^o^t^ref^l^ect^t^h^{e 1%}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^en^act^{ed by}^P.L^.^109-^148.
^{a. T}^h^{e f}^uⁿ^c^tion^s^of^th^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e Un}^{der Secretary}^f^o^{r B}^o^{rder an}^{d T}^r^an^s^portatioⁿ^S^e^c^u^rⁱ^ty^h^a^v^e
^b^een^tr^an^sf^er^r^e^d^to^th^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^P^o^licyⁱⁿ^T^itle^I^,^p^u^r^s^u^aⁿ^t^to^th^{e Secr}^etar^y^’^{s J}^u^ly^r^e^o^r^g^aⁿⁱ^zatioⁿ
^propos^al^.
^{b. D}^H^S^propos^{ed creat}ⁱⁿ^g^t^hⁱ^sⁿ^e^w^of^fⁱ^{ce, w}^hⁱ^c^h^w^o^u^l^{d h}^a^v^e^com^bⁱⁿ^{ed t}^h^{e f}^o^l^l^o^wⁱⁿ^g^prog^ram^s^an^d
^f^{ees: US-V}^I^S^I^T^;^F^A^ST^an^d^NEXUS/SENT^R^{I f}^r^o^m^C^B^P^;^an^{d Secu}^{re Flig}^h^t^{, C}^r^ew^Vettin^g^,
^C^r^eden^tialin^g^Startu^{p, T}^W^IC^{, R}^e^gⁱ^s^t^{ered T}^r^av^{eler, HA}^Z^M^A^T^{, an}^{d Al}ⁱ^eⁿ^F^l^ig^h^t^Sch^{ool f}^r^om
^T^S^A^.^T^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^e^e^d^eⁿⁱ^e^d^t^h^{e creat}ⁱ^oⁿ^of^t^h^{e S}^C^O^,^bu^t^di^{d propos}^e
^m^o^vⁱⁿ^g^FA^ST^an^d^NEXUS/SENT^R^I^f^r^o^m^CB^P^to^th^{e B}^T^S^m^aⁿ^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^lev^e^l,^an^d^co^m^bⁱⁿⁱⁿ^g
^th^{ese tw}^o^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^w^ith^USVI^SI^Tⁱⁿ^aⁿ^e^w^A^u^to^m^a^tioⁿ^Mo^d^e^rⁿ^izatioⁿ^o^f^fⁱ^ce.^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^f^r^o^m
^T^S^A^propos^{ed f}^o^{r t}^r^an^s^f^{er t}^o^S^C^O^w^o^ul^d^ha^ve^rem^aⁱⁿ^{ed i}ⁿ^T^S^A^uⁿ^d^{er H}^o^u^s^e-^pas^s^e^{d H}^.^R^.
^2360.^T^h^e^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^-^p^as^s^e^{d v}^e^rsⁱ^oⁿ^of^H^.^R^.^{2360 al}^s^o^denⁱ^{ed t}^h^{e creat}ⁱ^oⁿ^of^t^h^e^S^C^O^,^l^e^f^t^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g
^f^o^{r F}^A^S^T^an^{d N}^E^X^U^S^/^S^EN^T^R^{I i}ⁿ^C^B^{P, an}^{d f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r t}^h^{e T}^S^A^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^propos^{ed f}^o^r
^tran^s^f^er^to^th^{e SC}^{O rem}^aⁱⁿ^{ed in}^T^S^A^.^P^.^L^.^109-⁹⁰^prov^ides^$4^m^illion^f^o^{r SC}^{O in}^T^{itle I, bu}^t
^doesⁿ^o^t^t^r^an^s^f^{er an}^y^of^t^h^{e propos}^{ed prog}^ram^s^t^o^t^h^{e n}^e^w^of^fⁱ^ce.
^{c. Un}^{ited States}^Vis^{itor &}^Im^mⁱ^g^r^an^{t Statu}^s^In^{dicator P}^r^oj^ect.
^{d. Fees}ⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e T}^W^IC^{, HA}^Z^M^A^T^{, R}^e^gⁱ^s^t^{ered T}^r^av^{eler, an}^{d A}^lien^Flig^h^t^Sch^{ool C}^h^eck^s^.^B^o^th^th^e
^H^ouse^-^p^a^s^s^e^{d an}^{d S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^-^p^as^s^e^{d v}^e^rsⁱ^oⁿ^s^of^H^.^R^.^{2360, an}^{d P.L}^.^109-^{90 l}^e^f^t^t^h^es^{e prog}^ram^s
^an^{d th}^{eir f}^eesⁱⁿ^T^S^A^.
^{e. In}^clu^d^es^{$124 m}^illionⁱⁿ^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^prov^{ided by}^P^.^L^.^109-^{13, th}^{e Em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^Su^pplem^en^tal
^A^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^A^c^t.
^f^.^In^clu^d^es^{$24 m}^illion^,^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to P}^.^L^.^109-^{148, to repl}^{ace an}^{d repa}ⁱ^r^equⁱ^pm^en^{t an}^{d f}^acilities
^dam^a^g^e^{d by}^h^u^r^ri^can^es^an^{d ot}^h^e^{r di}^s^a^s^t^ers^.
^g^.^In^clu^d^es^{a $63 m}^illion^res^c^is^sⁱ^onⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^108-^{11 an}^{d a $76}^m^illion^res^c^is^sⁱ^onⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^109-^{13 f}^r^om
^th^{e C}^B^P^s^a^laries^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es^accouⁿ^t^.
^h^.^In^clu^d^es^{$52 m}^illionⁱⁿ^s^u^pplem^en^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^prov^{ided by}^P^.^L^.^109-^13.
^{i. In}^clu^d^es^{$10 m}^illion^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to P}^.^L.^109-^{148, t}^o^rebuⁱ^l^d^an^{d repai}^r^s^t^ru^ct^u^r^es^dam^a^g^e^{d by}
^h^u^rrican^es^an^{d oth}^e^{r dis}^a^s^t^ers^.
^j^.^Feesⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e C}^O^B^R^A^,^L^aⁿ^d^B^o^{rder, Im}^mⁱ^g^r^atioⁿ^In^s^p^ection^,^Im^mⁱ^g^r^ation^En^f^o^rcem^en^{t, an}^d^P^u^erto
^Ric^o^.
^k^.^In^clu^d^es^{$454 m}^illionⁱⁿ^s^u^pplem^en^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^prov^{ided by}^P^.^L^.^109-^13.
^l^.^In^cl^u^d^es^$13^m^illi^on^{, pu}^rs^u^aⁿ^t^t^o^P.L^.^109-^{148, t}^o^repl^{ace an}^{d repai}^r^equⁱ^pm^en^t^an^{d f}^ac^ilities
^dam^a^g^e^{d by}^h^u^r^ri^can^es^an^{d ot}^h^e^{r di}^s^a^s^t^ers^.
^m^.^P^.^L.¹⁰⁹^-⁹⁰^mo^v^e^s^F^A^M^S^t^o^T^S^A,^p^u^r^s^ua^nt^t^o^S^e^c^r^e^t^a^r^y^Che^r^t^o^{ff’s r}^e^o^r^gaⁿⁱ^z^a^tⁱ^o^{n p}^r^opos^al
^s^u^bm^{itted to C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^on^J^u^ly^{13, 2005.}
ⁿ^.^Feesⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed Ex}^am^{, Stu}^d^en^{t Ex}^ch^an^g^e^an^d^Vis^{itor Fee, B}^r^each^{ed B}^oⁿ^d^{, Im}^mⁱ^g^r^ation^Us^{er, L}^aⁿ^d
^Borde^r^.
^{o. R}^e^f^l^ects^th^{e $85 m}^illion^res^c^is^sⁱ^on^f^r^om^IC^{E in}^P^.^L^.^109-^13.
^p.^Feesⁱⁿ^clu^d^e^T^W^IC^{, HA}^Z^M^A^T^{, R}^e^gⁱ^s^t^{ered T}^r^av^{eler, an}^{d A}^lien^Flig^h^t^Sch^ool^C^h^eck^s^,^w^h^ich^w^e^re
ⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed i}ⁿ^t^h^e^propos^{ed S}^C^Oⁱⁿ^t^h^{e Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^requ^es^t^,^bu^t^{are ret}^aⁱⁿ^{ed i}ⁿ^T^S^A^as^en^act^{ed i}ⁿ
^P.L^.^109-^90.
^{q. T}^h^{e P}^r^es^iden^t’^s^requ^es^{t f}^o^{r DHS}^propos^{ed tra}ⁿ^sfe^r^rin^g^th^{e R}^e^s^earch^an^{d Dev}^e^lopm^en^{t accou}ⁿ^t
^f^r^om^T^S^A^{to th}^{e Directorate of}^S&^T^.
^r^.^A^v^iatioⁿ^Secu^r^ity^Cap^{ital Fu}ⁿ^d^{, u}^s^ed^f^o^rⁱⁿ^stallatioⁿ^o^f^Ex^p^l^o^s^iv^{e Detectio}ⁿ^Sy^stem^{s at air}^p^o^r^ts.
^s^.^In^{FY2006, DHS propos}^es^{a $3 in}^creas^{e in}^th^{e pas}^s^eⁿ^g^e^{r s}^ecu^rity^f^{ee f}^o^{r on}^e-^w^a^y^an^{d m}^u^lti-^leg
^f^lig^h^t^{s, g}^eⁿ^e^r^a^tin^g^$¹^.⁵⁶^b^illioⁿⁱⁿⁿ^e^w^r^e^v^eⁿ^u^e^{. T}^h^er^{e is a d}ⁱ^scr^e^p^aⁿ^c^y^b^e^tw^een^th^e
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^’^s^bu^dg^{et docu}^m^en^ts^an^{d th}^{e C}^o^m^m^{ittee tables}^con^cernⁱⁿ^g^th^{e av}^iation^s^ecu^rity
^f^{ee of}^f^s^et^am^ouⁿ^t^{. T}^h^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^’^s^bu^dg^et^docu^m^en^t^s^report^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2005 en}^act^{ed am}^ouⁿ^t
^a^s^$2,³³⁰^m^illio^n,^w^hⁱ^l^e^t^h^e^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee t}^a^bl^es^report^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2005 en}^act^{ed am}^ouⁿ^t^as^$1,890
^m^illion^.^For^FY2006,^w^ith^th^{e requ}^es^{ted f}^{ee in}^creas^{e th}^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^s^h^ow^s^{$3,889 m}^illion
ⁱⁿ^of^f^s^ettin^g^av^iation^s^ecu^rity^f^ees^{, w}^h^{ile th}^{e C}^o^m^m^{ittee tables}^s^h^ow^{$3,670 m}^illion^,^as^s^c^ored
^by^C^B^O^.^P.L^.^109-^{90 di}^d^no^t^approv^{e t}^h^{e propos}^{ed f}^{ee i}ⁿ^creas^{e, an}^{d as}^s^u^m^e^s^an^of^f^s^et^of
^{$1,990 m}^illioⁿ^,^an^{d a n}^e^{t appropriation}^of^{$3,925 m}^illion^f^o^{r T}^S^A^.
^{t. In}^clu^d^es^{$112 m}^illionⁱⁿ^s^u^pplem^en^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^prov^{ided by}^P^.^L^.^109-^13.

^u^.^In^clu^d^es^{, pu}^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to P}^.^L^.^109-^{148, $232 m}^illionⁱⁿ^s^u^pplem^en^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r th}^e^Operation^s^an^d
^Ex^pen^s^es^accouⁿ^t^{, $75 m}^illionⁱⁿ^s^u^pplem^en^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r th}^{e A}^c^qu^is^ition^,^C^oⁿ^s^tru^c^tion^an^d
^Im^prov^em^en^ts^accouⁿ^t^{, an}^{d a res}^c^is^sⁱ^on^of^$261^m^illion^(of^f^uⁿ^d^s^prev^iou^s^ly^{appropriated by}
^P^.^L^.^109-^{90) f}^r^om^th^{e Operatin}^g^Ex^pen^s^es^accouⁿ^t^.
^v^.^In^cl^u^d^es^{a res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^of^uⁿ^oblⁱ^g^at^{ed port}^as^s^e^s^s^m^en^t^s^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^prevⁱ^o^u^s^l^y^provⁱ^d^{ed i}ⁿ^P.L^.^108-^11,
^an^{d a res}^c^is^sⁱ^on^of^$261^m^illion^f^r^om^f^uⁿ^d^s^appr^{opriated by}^P^.^L^.^109-^90.
^w^.^Doesⁿ^o^tⁱⁿ^clu^d^e^an^addition^a^l^{$34 m}^illion^tran^s^f^{er of}^f^uⁿ^d^s^f^r^om^th^{e Departm}^eⁿ^t^of^Def^eⁿ^s^{e to}
^t^h^e^C^o^as^{t Gu}^{ard pu}^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to P}^.^L^.^108-^{287. In}^clu^d^es^{$49 m}^illionⁱⁿ^s^u^pplem^en^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g
^provⁱ^d^{ed by}^P.L^.^109-^13.
^x^.^In^clu^d^es^$75^m^illion^,^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to P}^.^L^.^109-^{148, f}^o^{r n}^eces^s^a^ry^ex^pen^s^es^{related to th}^e^con^s^equ^eⁿ^ces
^of^h^u^rrican^es^an^{d oth}^e^{r n}^a^tu^{ral dis}^a^s^t^ers^.
^y^.^{$16 m}^illion^res^c^is^sⁱ^on^f^r^om^{FY2005 f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^to^P^.^L^.^108-^{334, an}^{d $83}^m^illion^res^c^is^sⁱ^on
^f^r^om^P.L^.^108-^90.
^{z. P}^r^es^iden^{t requ}^es^{ted tran}^s^f^errin^g^th^e^R^e^s^earch^,^Dev^e^lopm^en^{t, T}^e^s^t^s^an^{d Ev}^alu^a^tion^accouⁿ^t^f^r^om
^t^h^{e C}^o^as^t^G^u^{ard t}^o^t^h^{e S}^&^T^O^f^fⁱ^{ce, bu}^t^P.L^.^109-^{90 does}ⁿ^o^t^adopt^t^h^at^t^r^an^s^f^er.
^aa.^In^clu^d^es^{$4 m}^illion^,^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^to^P^.^L^.^109-^{148, f}^o^{r equ}ⁱ^pm^en^{t, v}^e^hⁱ^{cle replacem}^en^{t, an}^{d pers}^onⁿ^e^l
^relocation^du^{e to th}^{e con}^s^equ^eⁿ^ces^of^h^u^r^rican^es^an^{d oth}^e^{r n}^a^tu^{ral dis}^a^s^t^ers^.
Office of Screening Operations (SCO)³⁸
As a part of the FY2006 request, the Administration proposed the creation of
a new SCO to coordinate DHS’ efforts to screen people (and to some extent cargo)
as they enter and move throughout the country. Programs proposed for transfer to
this office included the US Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Project (US-
VISIT); Free and Secure Trade (FAST) and NEXUS/SENTRI, from CBP; Secure
Flight, Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC), Registered Traveler,
Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) background checks, and the Alien Flight School
background checks program from TSA.
President’s Request. The Administration requested $846 million in gross
budget authority for SCO for FY2006. The request included $390 million for the
US-VISIT program³⁹ (an increase of $50 million over the enacted FY2005 amount),
$94 million for Secure Flight⁴⁰ (an increase of $49 million over the enacted FY2005
amount), $7 million for the driver registration component of FAST, $14 million for
NEXUS/SENTRI, and $20 million for the stand up of the Credentialing Coordination
Office. In addition to appropriated activities, SCO would have overseen several fee
funded activities including $245 million for TWIC and other TSA credentialing
activities; $23 million for the Registered Traveler program; $44 million for
HAZMAT checks; and $10 million for Alien Flight School background checks. The
net requested appropriation for SCO is $525 million.
House-Passed H.R. 2360. The Committee noted that while the SCO office
“may have merit,” a broader justification is required for it than what was given by the

³⁸ Section prepared by Jennifer E. Lake, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social
Policy Division.
³⁹ For more information on US-VISIT, see CRS Report RL32234, U.S. Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program, by Lisa Seghetti and Stephen
R. Viña.
⁴⁰ See CRS Report RL32802, Homeland Security: Air Passenger Prescreening and
Counterterrorism, by Bart Elias and William Krouse.

Department. The Committee therefore denied this consolidation and recommended
no funds for SCO. Instead, the Committee recommended establishing a new Office
of Transportation Vetting and Credentialing within TSA to oversee the Secure
Flight, Crew Vetting, Registered Traveler, TWIC, HAZMAT, and Alien Flight
School programs. US-VISIT, FAST, and NEXUS/SENTRI would have been funded
within a new BTS Automation Modernization office.⁴¹
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 denied
the creation of the SCO. In contrast to the House-passed version of H.R. 2360, the
Senate-passed version left funding for the FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI programs
within CBP rather than placing them within a new BTS Automation Modernization
office. Both the House and Senate-passed versions of the bill left funding for the
TSA programs proposed for transfer to the SCO within TSA.
P.L. 109-90. P.L. 109-90 provides $4 million in Title I, under the
Departmental Operations and Management for an Office of Screening Coordination
and Management. However, the P.L. 109-90 does not transfer any of the programs
requested for transfer by the President to this office.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)⁴²
CBP is responsible for security at and between ports-of-entry along the border.
Since 9/11, CBP’s primary mission is to prevent the entry of terrorists and the
instruments of terrorism. CBP’s on-going 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;
and the Border Patrol.
President’s Request. The Administration requested an appropriation of
$6,717 million in gross budget authority for CBP in FY2006, amounting to a 4%
increase over the enacted FY2005 level (including supplemental appropriations) of
$6,450 million. The Administration requested an appropriation of $5,575 million in
net budget authority for CBP, representing a 4% increase over the FY2005 enacted
level of $5,371 million. The request included the following program increases
(which are discussed later in this report):
^!$125 million for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) detection
technology;
^!$37 million for Border Patrol staff;
^!$31.7 million for long range radar for Air and Marine Operations;

⁴¹ H.Rept. 109-79, pp. 23 and 52.
⁴² Section prepared by Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analysts in Domestic
Security, Domestic Social Policy Division.

^!$20 million for Border Patrol aircraft replacement;
^!$19.8 million for the America Shield Initiative;
^!$8.2 million for the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism
(C-TPAT);
^!$5.4 million for the Container Security Initiative (CSI);
^!$5.4 million for enhancements to the Automated Targeting System
(ATS);
^!$3.2 million for the Homeland Security Data Network;
^!$3 million for IDENT/IAFIS;
^!$2 million for the Immigration Advisory Program (IAP); and
^!$1 million for the Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI).
House-Passed H.R. 2360. The House Appropriators added $210 million to
both the gross and net budget authorities for CBP in order to cover a range of
programs. The House-passed H.R. 2360 recommended a net appropriation for CBP
is $5.785 billion, an 8% increase over the FY2005 enacted level and a 4% increase⁴³
over the President’s FY2006 request. House-passed H.R. 2360 recommended fully
funding all of the above listed requested increases, and providing an additional $150
million above the request for Border Patrol staffing. However, the House
recommended making unavailable the $1 million requested increase for the IAP until
CBP submits the report on the program that has been overdue since January 1.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360
recommended a net appropriation of $ 5,998 million for CBP, representing an
increase of $213 million or nearly 4% compared to the amount provided by the
House in H.R. 2360; an increase of $423 million or nearly 8% as compared to the
FY2006 request; and an increase of $627 million or nearly 12% as compared to the
FY2005 enacted level. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 would have funded
the $125 million requested increase for radiation portal monitors (RPMs) under the
S&T Directorate, rather than under CBP; and would have provided an additional
$241 million for Border Patrol staffing. Amounts provided for CBP in Senate-passed
H.R. 2360 include $21 million in FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI funding that had been
requested for transfer to the Administration proposed SCO (the House-passed version
of H.R. 2360 placed this funding in a new BTS-level Automation Modernization
Account).
P.L. 109-90. P.L. 109-90 provides a net appropriation of $5,952 million for
CBP, which is $46 million or approximately 1% less than provided in the Senate-
passed version of H.R. 2360, $167 or nearly 3% more than provided by the House-
passed version of H.R. 2360, $377 million or nearly 7% more than requested for CBP
in FY2006, and $581 million or nearly 11% more than enacted in FY2005. P.L. 109-
90 provides no funding for radiation portal monitors under this account, and adopts
the House recommendation that these be funded under S&T. P.L. 109-90 does not
transfer the FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI programs to the proposed SCO, and instead
fully funds FAST at $7 million, and NEXUS/SENTRI at $14 million for FY2006.
P.L. 109-90, concurring with both the House and the Senate, also provides an

⁴³ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2006, 109^th Cong., 1^st sess., H.Rept. 109-79, p. 142.

additional $241 million above the request to fund an additional 1,500 Border Patrol
agents. P.L. 109-90 also agreed to makes $10 million unavailable for obligation until
CBP submits a detailed five-year plan on CBP’s air and marine operations to the
Appropriation Committees.
Issues for Congress. Potential CBP issues for Congress include cargo and
container security; targeting and risk assessments; cargo inspection technology; air
and marine operations; the number of border patrol agents; IDENT/IAFIS
integration; ABCI; and the America Shield Initiative.
Cargo and Container Security. CBP’s cargo security strategy includes two
significant programs: the CSI, and C-TPAT. CSI is a CBP program that stations
CBP officers in foreign sea ports to target marine containers for inspection before
they are loaded onto U.S.-bound vessels. The FY2006 request included an additional
$5.4 million for CSI to support the expansion of CSI activities in seven new ports in
seven countries. House-passed H.R. 2360 recommended fully funding the requested
increase, a total of nearly $139 million for CSI in FY2006. However, the House
Committee also noted that it has not yet received a report detailing the spending and
planning projections for CSI for FY2005-2009, and directs CBP to submit the report
as soon as possible. The Committee also included a provision in H.R. 2360
withholding $70 million until this report is submitted as directed by H.Rept. 108-541.
The Senate Committee recommended fully funding the request for CSI, but notes its
concern about CSI host-country cooperation and directs CBP to submit a report to the
Committee no later than February 18, 2006, detailing specific steps the Department
is taking to address any reluctance on the part of foreign countries to fully cooperate.
P.L. 109-90 fully funds the requested $139 million for CSI in FY2006, and concurs
with the reporting requirements on CSI outlined in both the House and Senate
reports, and direct CBP to submit both reports no later than February 10, 2006.
Further, the conferees also direct DHS, in conjunction with the Department of Energy
(DOE), to submit a report by February 10, 2006, on the progress made on various
radiation technology efforts, and (among other things) the coordination between
CBP’s CSI and DOE’s Megaports Initiative.
C-TPAT is a public-private partnership aimed at securing the supply chain from
point of origin through entry into the United States. The FY2006 request included
an increase of $8.2 million for C-TPAT to be used for travel and the purchase of
equipment and supplies for Supply Chain Specialists to conduct an increased number
of C-TPAT security profile validations. House-passed H.R. 2360 recommended fully
funding the request for C-TPAT. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 also
recommended fully funding the request for C-TPAT, and S.Rept. 109-83 directs CBP
to submit a report by February 18, 2006, providing detailed performance measures,
human capital plans, and any plans or actions taken that would address the
recommendations made by GAO’s recent report on the program.⁴⁴ P.L. 109-90 fully
funds the $54 million request for C-TPAT for FY2006.

⁴⁴ GAO, “Partnership Program Grants Importers Reduced Scrutiny with Limited Assurance
of Improved Security,” GAO-05-404.

Cargo Inspection Technology. The FY2006 Administration request for
CBP includes an increase of $125 million for technology to detect WMD. This
request included $77 million for the purchase of additional radiation portal monitors
(RPMs), and the purchase of next generation RPMs. House-passed H.R. 2360
recommended fully funding the $188 million request for cargo inspection technology.
H.Rept. 109-79 directs CBP to submit two reports no later than January 16, 2006: (1)
detailing the current status and investment plan for RPMs through FY2010; and (2)
detailing the projected spending, maintenance and replacement of large-scale non-
intrusive inspection (NII) equipment (for example, truck x-ray machines, and vehicle
and cargo inspection systems) for FY2006-2010. Senate-passed H.R. 2360
recommended fully funding the requested increase of $125 million for RPMs, but
would have funded the request under the S&T Directorate rather than under CBP, as
the Committee believes that S&T is the appropriate organization to test, pilot, and
direct procurement of RPMs. P.L. 109-90 fully funds the $125 million request for
RPMs, and concurs with the Senate by placing the funding within the S&T
Directorate, rather than under CBP.
Air and Marine Operations (AMO). With the FY2005 Appropriation,
AMO was transferred to CBP, where it is now located. The FY2006 request included
an increase of $31.7 million for long range radar (LRR) coverage for AMO. This
increase was requested to finance a 50% share of the cost (the other 50% share to be
covered by the Department of Defense) of a primary Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) LRR feed that FAA intends to discontinue using. House-passed H.R. 2360
recommended fully funding the request for AMO, and providing an additional $60
million above the request for AMO: $14 million for the acquisition of manned covert
surveillance aircraft, $15 million for the acquisition and deployment of palletized
sensor packages for the P-3 Slick aircraft, $16 million for the P-3 service-life
extension program, and $5 million for additional staff and equipment. The Senate-
passed version of H.R. 2360 would have fully funded the requested increase for
AMO, and provided an additional $33 million in total for AMO: $5 million for staff
for the fourth Northern Border airwing base in Great Falls, Montana; $13 million for
the operations of the fourth Northern Border airwing base; and $15 million for the
P-3 Slick palletized sensor packages. The conferees agreed to provide $400 million
for AMO operations, maintenance and procurement for FY2006. This amount,
adopted in P.L. 109-90 includes $15 million for the P-3 palletized sensor systems;
$16 million for the P-3 service-life extension; $14 million for manned, covert
surveillance aircraft; nearly $13 million for the fourth Northern Border airwing base
in Montana; $20 million for the replacement of BP helicopters; $10 million for
unmanned aerial vehicles; $19 million for the operation and maintenance of legacy
BP aircraft and vessels; and $2 million to begin work on an airwing in North Dakota.
The conferees also agreed to withhold $10 million from CBP’s salaries and expenses
account until the Department submits a five-year strategic plan for CBP’s Air
program.
Increase in Border Patrol Agents. The FY2006 request for CBP proposed
adding 210 agents to the USBP workforce in FY2006 to backfill positions vacated
along the Southwest border. These vacancies were the result of agents being
transferred from the Southwest border in order to fulfill the requirement enacted in
the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56, §402) to triple the number of agents assigned
to the Northern border. This requested increase was well below the 2,000 additional

agents authorized by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
(P.L. 108-458, §5202). The House Appropriators addressed this issue by adding
$150 million to the President’s request, which, combined with the $124 million
available in the FY2005 supplemental appropriation (P.L. 109-13), will allow the
Border Patrol to add 1,500 agents to its workforce by the end of FY2006.⁴⁵ The
Senate Appropriations Committee concurred with the House in adding 1,500 agents
to the USBP in FY2006 and increases the President’s request by $241 million.⁴⁶ P.L.

109-90 also includes this increase.

IDENT/IAFIS. According to CBP, the integration of the Border Patrol’s
Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) is
progressing and linked IDENT/IAFIS workstations have been deployed to all USBP
stations. This would seem to address some of the concerns about the slow pace of⁴⁷
the integration project raised by House Appropriators in FY2005. The president’s
request included an increase of $3 million for the system and noted that BTS has
assumed ownership for the integration project. While the integration of the two
biometric databases has given USBP agents access to the FBI’s criminal records,
leading to an 8.5% increase in the identification of criminal aliens, a possible issue
for Congress may be the USBP’s apparent lack of access to the name-based Terrorist
Watchlist at their stations. This may be of concern due to recent Congressional
testimony by DHS acting Secretary Admiral James Loy that Al-Qaeda is considering
infiltrating the Southwest border due to a belief that “illegal entry is more
advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons.”⁴⁸ House
Appropriators expressed frustration with CBP that the report they requested in the
FY2005 appropriation bill on the IDENT/IAFIS integration project has not been
delivered yet. They directed DHS to submit the report by July 1, 2005. The Senate
Appropriation Committee also funded the President’s request and directed DHS to
submit the report on the project that was requested in FY2005 which continues to
be outstanding.⁴⁹
Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI). In response to the continuing
high levels of apprehensions in the Tucson sector, the Arizona Border Control (ABC)
initiative was launched on March 16, 2004. ABC is a multi-disciplinary initiative
that seeks to coordinate federal, state, and local authorities to control the Arizona
border. ABC is specifically aimed at stopping cross-border smuggling operations by
detecting, arresting, and deterring all groups seeking to bring people, drugs, weapons,
and other merchandise into the country illegally. 200 additional permanent border
patrol agents and 60 special operations agents trained for search and rescue

⁴⁵ H.Rept. 109-79, p. 24.
⁴⁶ S.Rept. 109-83, p. 24.
⁴⁷ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2005, report to accompany H.R. 4567, 108^th Cong., 2^nd sess., H.Rept.

108-541 (Washington, GPO, 2004), pp. 18-19.

⁴⁸ U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, National Security Threats to the
United States, 109^th Cong., 1^st sess., Feb. 16, 2005.
⁴⁹ S.Rept. 109-83, p. 19.

operations were assigned to the Tucson sector over the summer of 2004, bringing the
total number of agents there to approximately 2,000. According to DHS, in the first
six months of the ABC, apprehension of unauthorized aliens increased 56% from
apprehension during the same period of the previous year. From March 16, 2004 to
September 7, 2004, 351,700 unauthorized aliens were apprehended compared to
225,108 unauthorized aliens during the same period in 2003. CBP proposed an
increase of $1 million to continue this multi-disciplinary program in FY2006, though
most funding for the program will come from ICE. House Appropriators supported
this multi-agency approach to protecting the border and fund the President’s request
and direct CBP to work closely with the Tohono O’odham Nation along the Arizona
border to ensure that the Nation is fully aware of CBP’s actions on their territory.⁵⁰
The Senate Appropriations Committee fully funded the President’s request.
America Shield Initiative. CBP proposed an increase of $19.8 million for
the America Shield Initiative (ASI), formerly known as the Integrated Surveillance
Intelligence System (ISIS). ASI integrates Remote Video Surveillance camera
systems, sensors, and the Integrated Computer Assisted Detection (ICAD) database
into a multi-faceted network capable of detecting illegal entries in a wide range of
climate conditions. The requested FY2006 funding will be used to deploy
surveillance assets to high-priority areas such as Tucson, Yuma, and El Paso on the
southwest border, and Blaine, Spokane, Buffalo, and Swanton (Vermont) on the
northern border. House Appropriators fully funded the President’s request and, citing
concerns with the contracting problems identified in the ISIS program by the General
Services Administration Inspector General, requested a report by January 16, 2006
on these problems and the specific measures taken by CBP to address them. A report
on the specific performance metrics used by the ASI program was also requested by⁵¹
January 16, 2006. The Senate Appropriations Committee fully funded the
President’s request and encouraged program managers to explore off-the-shelf
solutions as they develop the program. The conferees did not fund the President’s
request for a $19.8 million increase, noting that DHS is currently reviewing the entire
planning process for this program and may suspend all major procurement action
until this review is completed.
Construction. The President requested $93 million for this account, which
covers the construction of the tactical infrastructure that provides physical
impediments to illegal entry. Construction under this account includes the erection
of lights, fences, and vehicle barriers, as well as the creation of access roads. The
House Appropriations Committee fully funded the President’s request. The Senate
Appropriations Committee increased the President’s request by $218 million, to $311
million. Included in this increase was $82 million for the construction of facilities
to accomodate the 1,500 additional USBP agents, as well as $55 million to complete
the fence in the San Diego Sector and $55 million to expand the USBP tactical⁵²
infrastructure in the Tucson Sector. The conferees provided $270 million for the

⁵⁰ H.Rept. 109-79, p. 28.
⁵¹ H.Rept. 109-79, pp. 27-28.
⁵² S.Rept. 109-83, p. 30.

Construction account, including $35 million each for the San Diego fence and the
Tucson Sector tactical infrastructure expansion.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)⁵³
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 by committing a crime. 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)⁵⁴ was returned from ICE
to TSA pursuant to the reorganization proposal of July 13, 2005. The Office of Air
and Marine Interdiction was transferred from ICE to CBP, and therefore the totals for
ICE do not include Air and Marine Interdiction funding which is included under
CBP.
President’s Request. The Administration requested an appropriation of
$4,364 million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2006. This represents a 4%
increase over the enacted FY2005 level (including supplemental appropriations) of
$4,215 million. The Administration requested an appropriation of $3,648 million in
net budget authority for ICE in FY2006, representing a 3% increase over the FY2005
enacted level of $3,537 million. The request included the following program
increases:
^!$105 million for the Office of Investigations;
^!$90 million for custody management and detention bedspace;
^!$43.7 million for ICE’s Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement
Task Force (OCDETF) activities;
^!$25 million for ABCI and Interior Repatriation;
^!$24 million for detention and removal;
^!$18 million for temporary worker worksite enforcement;
^!$11.3 million for the Homeland Security Data Network;
^!$9.9 million for the Federal Air Marshals (FAMS);
^!$8.8 million for Fugitive Operations;
^!$5.6 million for Institutional Removal Program (IRP);
^!$5.4 million for Alternatives to Detention;
^!$5 million for Visa Security; and
^!$3.5 million for legal resources.

⁵³ Section prepared by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analyst in Domestic Security, and Alison Siskin,
Analyst in Social Legislation, Domestic Social Policy Division.
⁵⁴ FAMS transferred to ICE from TSA in Aug. of 2003.

House-Passed H.R. 2360. House-passed H.R. 2360 provided $3,830
million for ICE including $699 million for FAMS, or $3,131 million without funding
for FAMS. Of the appropriated amount, $5 million was to be used to implement
§287(g) of the INA; and $11.2 million was designated to fund or reimburse other
federal agencies for the cost of care, and repatriation of smuggled aliens. House-
passed H.R. 2360 also would have withheld $20 million of the money appropriated
to DHS’ Office of the Secretary and Executive management until the Secretary of
DHS submitted a report to the Appropriations Committee outlining an immigration
enforcement strategy to reduce the number of unauthorized aliens in the United
States by 10% each year.
Additionally, H.Rept. 109-79 recommended fully funding the President’s
requests and recommended an additional:
^!$90 million for 1,920 detention beds;
^!$16 million for 60 fugitive operations team positions;
^!$18 million for 100 Institutional Removal Program agents;
^!$10 million for 49 Alternatives to Detention positions;
^!$19 million for 150 criminal investigators;
^!$18 million for 200 Immigration Enforcement Agents; and
^!$800,000 for the Cyber Crimes Center.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. Senate-passed H.R. 2360 provided $3,806
million for ICE including $679 million for FAMS, or $3,127 million without funding
for FAMS. Of the appropriated amount,$11.2 million was designated to fund or
reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care, and repatriation of smuggled
aliens. Additionally, S.Rept. 109-83 recommended an increase of:
^!$77.4 million for 32 positions (16 FTEs) for Custody Management;
^!$4.8 million for the Visa Security Program;
^!$24.9 million for 60 fugitive operations team positions (30 FTEs);
^!$23.4 million for 136 Institutional Removal Program agents (69
FTEs);
^!$15.4 million for 62 Alternatives to Detention positions (31 FTEs);
^!$37 million for 300 investigator positions for immigration
investigations (150 FTEs);
^!$18 million for 200 (100 FTEs) Immigration Enforcement Agents;
^!$25 million for the Arizona Border Control Initiative; and
^!$3.5 million for additional attorney personnel.
P.L. 109-90. P.L. 109-90 provides $3,175 million for ICE. This total does not
include $686 million in funding for FAMS. If funding for FAMS is included in the
total funding for ICE, P.L. 109-90 provides $3,861 million for ICE, an increase of
$31 million over House-passed H.R. 2360, and $55 million over Senate-passed H.R.
2360. In addition, the funding for ICE in P.L. 109-90 provides an increase of $213
million, or 6% more than the President’s FY2006 request and $324 million, or 9%
above FY2005 enacted. Of the appropriated amount in P.L. 109-90, not less than $5
million is to be used to implement §287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

(INA),⁵⁵ which allows the Attorney General⁵⁶ to enter into agreements with states and
local governments to allow their employees to perform functions of immigration
officers; and $11.2 million is designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies
for the cost of care, and repatriation of smuggled aliens. In addition, $5 million of
the appropriated funds for ICE salaries and expenses would not be available until the
Secretary of DHS submits to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees a
national detention management plan.
Additionally, P.L. 109-90 recommends an increase of:
^!$90 million to augment bed space capacity including support
positions;
^!$42 million for additional criminal investigator positions;
^!$35 million to annualize new positions and programs funded in P.L.
109-13 so that DHS will not divert the $32 million provided for bed
space in P.L. 109-13 to annualized personnel costs;
^!$9 million for 100 new Immigration Enforcement Agents;
^!$16 million for new fugitive operations team positions;⁵⁷
^!$18 million to expand the Institutional Removal Program;
^!$10 million to broaden the Alternatives to Detention program
including the Intense Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP);
^!$1 million to increase the speed, accuracy and efficiency of
immigration enforcement information currently entered into the
National Crime Information Center database (NCIC); and
^!$5 million for the Cyber Crimes Center.
P.L. 109-90 also recommends an increase of $15.8 million to be offset by a reduction
in CBP’s salaries and expenses for the enforcement of laws against forced child
labor.
ICE Issues for Congress. There are several issues within the ICE
appropriation that may be of interest to Congress, including but not limited to: the
severe financial management problems at the agency over the past several years; the
lack of detention bed-space; and whether the agency has enough investigators to
adequately pursue its many varied missions.
Financial Management at ICE. ICE inherited its financial organization and
systems from the former INS. An independent audit of ICE’s financial statements
concluded that the agency’s accounting records were inadequately maintained during
FY2004. The report noted that ICE had served as the accounting services provider

⁵⁵ 8 U.S.C. §§1101 et seq. 8 U.S.C. §1357(g).
⁵⁶ This provision is now being administered by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
⁵⁷ The Office of Detention and Removal’s National Fugitive Operations Program (NFOP)
seeks to apprehend, process, and remove aliens who have failed to comply with removal
orders, giving priority to apprehending aliens convicted of crimes.

for several other DHS agencies⁵⁸ while simultaneously experiencing significant
turnover among its financial management staff. This led the agency to fall “seriously
behind in basic accounting functions, such as account reconciliations, analysis of
material abnormal balances, and proper budgetary accounting.” Additionally, serving
as the accounting provider for other agencies led ICE to experience budget shortfalls
due to tardy reimbursements for expenses it provided to cover other agencies’ costs.
This budget shortfall forced the agency into a freeze on hiring and non-mission
critical expenditures, including training. The auditors concluded that DHS should
immediately address the “void in ICE’s financial management infrastructure.”⁵⁹ ICE
recently requested a $500 million reprogramming for FY2005 to cover funding
shortfalls within the agency.⁶⁰ House Appropriators expressed concern and
disappointment over the continuing financial troubles at ICE. The Committee notes
that the agency has been forced to employ drastic cost-cutting measures that the
Committee believes adversely limited ICE’s operations. The Committee directs DHS
to provide monthly reports on ICE’s financial condition.⁶¹
Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions. The Office of
Investigations (OI) in ICE focuses on a broad array of criminal and civil violation
affecting national security such as illegal arms exports, financial crimes, commercial
fraud, human trafficking, narcotics smuggling, child pornography/exploitation,
worksite enforcement, and immigration fraud. ICE special agents also conduct
investigations aimed at protecting critical infrastructure industries that are vulnerable⁶²
to sabotage, attack or exploitation. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-
296) abolished the INS and the United States Customs Service, and transferred most
of their investigative functions to ICE effective March 1, 2003. There are
investigative advantages to combining the INS and Customs Services as those who
violate immigration laws often are engaged in other criminal enterprises (e.g., alien
smuggling rings often launder money). Nonetheless, concerns have been raised that
not enough resources have been focused on investigating civil violations of
immigration law, and that ICE resources have been focused on terrorism and the⁶³
types of investigations performed by the former Customs Service.
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458,
§5203) authorized for FY2006, subject to appropriations, the addition of at least 800
new investigators to investigate violations of immigration law. The $1,496 million
requested in the President’s budget for the OI includes increases in the base funding

⁵⁸ Among others, ICE serves as the accounting service provider for CIS, S&T, IAIP, DHS
Management, and BTS Headquarters. These agencies include parts of 10 of the 22 legacy
agencies that were transferred to DHS and account for roughly 20% of total DHS FY2004
budget authority.
⁵⁹ Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, Independent Auditors’
Report on DHS FY2004 Financial Statements, OIG-05-05, Dec. 2004, pp. 320-333.
⁶⁰ U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
Fiscal Year 2006 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations, Mar. 15, 2005.
⁶¹ H.Rept. 109-79, pp. 33-34.
⁶² For more information see [http://www.ice.gov/graphics/investigations/index.htm].
⁶³ Based on CRS discussions with ICE personnel in New York City, Aug. 27, 2003.

for two groups responsible for immigration enforcement, the Visa Security Unit
(VSU)⁶⁴ and Temporary Worker Worksite Enforcement, and includes a total of 148
new positions for these units. The President’s budget requested an additional $18
million for temporary worker worksite enforcement to add 143 positions responsible
for investigating and prosecuting violations under existing immigration law for hiring
unauthorized aliens, and supporting and implementing the provisions of possible
temporary worker legislation. The President’s request also included an increase of
$5 million to add five new officers to the VSU, open a new overseas location, and
expand training programs. H.Rept. 109-79 recommended $19 million to expand the
Visa Security Program, and S. Rept.109-83 recommended an additional $4.8 million
for nine positions for an additional VSU. H.Rept. 109-241 does not contain an
increase for the VSU. Furthermore, H.Rept. 109-79 recommended an additional $18
million over the President’s request for 200 new Immigration Enforcement Agents
(IEAs),⁶⁵ and $19 million for an additional 150 criminal investigators.⁶⁶ S.Rept. 109-
83 recommended an additional $37 million for 300 new immigration investigations
positions, and $18 million for 200 IEAs. The conference report, H.Rept. 109-241,
recommends an additional $42 million for additional criminal investigator positions,
$5 million more than the Senate committee report and $23 million more than House
committee report. However, H.Rept. 109-241 provides an increase of $9 million for
100 new IEA’s, half of what was provided in the House and Senate committee
reports. Like S.Rept. 109-83, H.Rept. 109-241 does not provide a funding increase
for temporary worksite enforcement.
Detention and Removal Operations. Detention and Removal Operations
(DRO) in ICE provide custody management of aliens who are in removal
proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United States.⁶⁷ 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
while only 11% of those not detained who were issued final orders of removal left
the country.⁶⁸ Concerns have been raised that decisions on which aliens to release

⁶⁴ Officers of the VSU are assigned to consular posts to conduct law-enforcement reviews
of visa applications, and provide advice and training to consular officers. For more
information on visa issuance see CRS Report RL31512, Visa Issuance: Policy, Issues, and
Legislation, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
⁶⁵ The Conference Report (H.Rept. 109-72) for the Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L.

109-13) provides funding for an additional 168 IEAs and detention officers.

⁶⁶ The Conference Report (H.Rept. 109-72) for the Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L.
109-13) contains funding for 50 new criminal investigators. Nonetheless, it is unknown to
which types of cases the new criminal investigators will be assigned.
⁶⁷ 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.
⁶⁸ Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, The Immigration and
(continued...)

and when to release the aliens may be based on the amount of detention space, not
on the merits of individual cases, and that the amount of space may vary by area of
the country leading to inequities and disparate policies in different geographic areas.
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458,
§5204) authorized, subject to appropriations, an increase in DRO bed space of 8,000
beds for each year, FY2006-FY2010. The President’s budget requested an increase
for FY2006 of $90 million for 1,920 new beds. H.Rept. 109-79 recommended $90
million for 1,920 new beds,⁶⁹ while S.Rept. 109-83 recommended $77.4 million for
32 positions for Custody Management and 2,240 new beds. H.Rept. 109-241
proposes an increase of $90 million for new bedspace and the required support
positions. House-passed H.R. 2360 would have withheld $50 million of the
appropriated funds for ICE salaries and expenses until the Assistant Secretary of ICE
submitted to the Appropriations Committee a national detention management plan.
This provision was included in H.Rept. 109-241, but only $5 million will be
withheld until the Secretary of DHS submits the report.
Alternatives to Detention. Due to the cost of detaining aliens, and the fact
that many non-detained aliens with final orders of removal do not leave the country,
there has been interest in developing alternatives to detention for certain types of
aliens who do not require a secure detention setting. In 2004, ICE began a pilot
program, the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP), for low-risk, non-
violent offenders.⁷⁰ H.Rept. 109-79 recommended $10 million for 49 new positions
for this program, and S.Rept. 109-83 recommended $15.4 million and 32 new
positions. Like, the H.Rept. 109-79, H.Rept. 109-241 provides an increase of $10
million for alternatives to detention including the ISAP.
Interior Repatriation. ICE proposes a $25 million increase for the Interior
Repatriation program. On June 9, 2004 the White House announced it had reached
agreement with the Mexican government to begin piloting the Interior Repatriation
Program, which aims to reduce the number of aliens who immediately try to cross
back into the United States by flying them into the interior of Mexico. Due to
constitutional constraints in Mexico, the apprehended aliens’ return to the interior
must be strictly voluntary and the willingness of their participation is certified by
Mexican consular officers.⁷¹ In order to continue the program in FY2006, the
Administration requested $39.3 million; $25 million for Custody Management and
$14.3 for Transportation and Removal. This represented a $25 million increase from

⁶⁸ (...continued)
Naturalization Service’s Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders, Report I-2003-004, Feb.

2003.

⁶⁹ The Conference Report (H.Rept. 109-72) for the Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L.

109-13) contains funding for an additional 1950 beds.

⁷⁰ Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Public
Security: ICE Unveils New Alternative to Detention,” Inside ICE, vol. 1, no. 5, June 21,
2004. Available at
[ ht t p: / / www.i ce.gov/ gr aphi cs/ news/ newsr e l eases/ i nsi dei ce/ i nsi dei ce_062104_web3.ht m] .
⁷¹ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Office
of the Press Secretary, “Department of Homeland Security to Begin Pilot Program for
Voluntary Interior Repatriation of Mexican Nationals,” press release, June 29, 2004.

the $14 million spent on the pilot program in FY2005. H.Rept. 109-79 directed the
Commissioner of CBP to report no later than January 16, 2006 on the performance
of the Interior Repatriation Program. As in H.Rept. 109-79, neither S.Rept. 109-83
nor H.Rept. 109-241 contains funding specifically for the Interior Repatriation
Program.
State and Local Law Enforcement.⁷² Currently the INA provides limited
avenues for state enforcement of both its civil and criminal provisions. One of the
broadest grants of authority for state and local immigration enforcement activity
stems from INA §287(g), which authorizes the Attorney General to enter into a
written agreement with a State, or any political subdivision to allow an officer or
employee of the State or subdivision, to perform a function of an immigration officer
in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United
States. The enforcement of immigration by state and local officials has sparked
debate among many who question what the proper role of state and local law
enforcement officials should be in enforcing federal immigration laws. Many have
expressed concern over proper training, finite resources at the local level, possible
civil rights violations, and the overall impact on communities. Some localities, for
example, even provide “sanctuary” for illegal aliens and will generally promote
policies that ensure such aliens will not be turned over to federal authorities.
Nonetheless, some observers contend that the federal government has scarce
resources to enforce immigration law and that state and local law enforcement
entities should be utilized. As in Senate-passed H.R. 2360 and House-passed H.R.

2360, H.Rept. 109-241 would appropriate $5 million to implement INA §287(g).

Transportation Security Administration (TSA)⁷³
The TSA was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA,
P.L. 107-71), and was charged with protecting U.S. air, land, and rail transportation
systems to ensure 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). 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. TSA also has certain responsibilities for
marine and land modes of transportation. TSA is further charged with serving as the
primary liaison for transportation security to the law enforcement and intelligence
communities, and with conducting research and development to improve security
technologies.
President’s Request. The President requested an appropriation of $5,562
million in gross budget authority for TSA in FY2006, a net increase of $162 million,

⁷² This section adapted from CRS Report RL32270, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role
of State and Local Law Enforcement, by Lisa M. Seghetti, Stephen R. Viña, and Karma
Ester.
⁷³ Section prepared by Bartholomew Elias, Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and
Technology; and John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation, Resources, Science and
Industry Division.

or 3%, over the enacted FY2005 level of $5,400 million.⁷⁴ However, in comparing
the FY2006 budget request to prior year levels, it is important to note that the
President requested to transfer a large portion of TSA’s research and development
functions — totaling $109 million in FY2005 appropriated amounts — to the S&T
Directorate, and a transfer of a variety of functions — totaling $142 million in
FY2005 — to the proposed Office of Screening Coordination and Operations (SCO).
Functions that would have been transferred to the SCO under the proposal included
Secure Flight ($35 million); Crew Vetting ($10 million); Credentialing Startup Costs
($10 million); Transportation Worker Identification Card (TWIC, $50 million);
Registered Traveler ($15 million); HAZMAT Driver Security Threat Assessments
($17 million); and Alien Flight School Applicant Security Threat Assessments ($5
million). Adjusting for these transfers and other miscellaneous factors, the requested
increase to the TSA budget totaled $415 million, roughly a 7.7% increase over
FY2005 enacted levels (see P.L. 108-334).
Almost 90% of the TSA’s proposed budget is designated for aviation security
functions. Key aviation security initiatives proposed included:
^!developing and testing emerging checkpoint explosives
technologies;
^!realigning the screener workforce and providing funds needed to
maintain an authorized level of 45,000 full-time equivalents (FTEs);
^!deploying high-speed Internet connections at airport screening
checkpoints and baggage screening areas;
^!providing mandated training for flight and cabin crews and
conducting semiannual requalification for armed pilots; and
^!conducting mandated security inspections of foreign airline repair
stations and inspections at domestic repair stations.
In an effort to approach full cost recovery from user fees for aviation security
screening, the President proposed an increase in passenger security fees. The
proposal would have raised the fee from its current level of $2.50 per flight segment,
with a maximum fee of $5.00 per one-way trip, to $5.50 per segment, with a
maximum of $8.00 per one-way trip. The Administration believed that this proposed
fee increase coupled with a return to pre-9/11 passenger volume would result in an
increase in fee collections from an estimated $2.652 billion in FY2005 to $4.1 billion
in FY2006. This increase was projected to offset roughly 82% of the proposed
$4.985 billion budget for aviation security. In contrast, aviation security fees
collected in FY2004 offset only 41% of expenditures for aviation security.⁷⁵

⁷⁴ The amount for FY2005 listed here includes $250 million for the Aviation Security
Capital Fund, and $5 million for Alien Flight School Background Checks; and the amount
for FY2006 includes $250 million for the Aviation Security Capital Fund. These amounts
are listed as non-adds in Table 5, and are not included in the committee tables.
⁷⁵ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration,
Statement of David M. Stone, Assistant Secretary Before the Committee on Commerce,
Science & Transportation, United States Senate, Feb. 15, 2005. (Hereafter cited as
Statement of David M. Stone).

For surface transportation security, the President requested $32 million,
including $8 million for hiring and deploying 100 rail and transit inspectors. These
inspectors will be deployed at significant rail and mass transit points across the
United States to perform compliance reviews, audits, and enforcement actions
pertaining to security measures.
House-Passed H.R. 2360. House-passed H.R. 2360 would have provided
a gross total of $5,683 million (net total of $3,263 million) for the TSA. This total
included $264.3 million for Transportation Vetting and Credentialing which the
President’s request proposed to transfer to the SCO.
For aviation security activities, the initial House-passed version of H.R. 2360
would have provided $143.2 million less than the President’s request but was $268.1
million more than FY2005 enacted levels.⁷⁶ There are several key differences
between H.R. 2360 and the President’s request regarding aviation security. Funding
for private screening contracts at airports was set at $6.5 million less than the
requested level. The House Committee on Appropriations found that the full request
was not justified because of a lack of interest in the federal screening opt-out
program due to lingering concerns over airport liability and other aspects of the
program. The committee also found a lack of justification for the proposed increases
in aviation regulation and law enforcement recommending that the TSA trim staffing
levels in this program element, and the House initially agreed to a funding level $9.8
million below the President’s request. Similarly, the committee expressed concerns
over staffing levels in airport management, information technology and support, and
the House initially agreed to fund this component of the TSA budget at a level $108.2
million below the President’s request. The committee also did not agree with the
President’s request for increased funding for the Federal Flight Deck Officer
Program, citing high unobligated balances as evidence that this program does not
need additional funds. The House agreed to $25 million for this program, the same
as what was appropriated in FY2004 and FY2005.
In keeping with previous year trends, the House initially agreed to larger funding
amounts for air cargo security, providing $60 million, $20 million more than the
President’s request. This included an additional $10 million to hire 100 new air cargo
inspectors, plus increased funding for travel for inspectors, enhancements to the
known-shipper database, and security threat assessments. Additionally, the House
passed two general provisions calling for more thorough screening of shipments on
all-cargo and passenger aircraft by March 1, 2006 (Sec. 522), and requiring the TSA,
to the greatest extent practicable, to use checked baggage equipment and screeners
to screen cargo carried on passenger aircraft (Sec. 523).
Consistent with the President’s request and prior year appropriations language,
the House agreed to keep screener staffing at or below the 45,000 full-time-
equivalent (FTE) cap. The committee noted that efficiencies gained through new
technologies and increased use of in-line explosives detection systems (EDS) can
greatly reduce the need for baggage screeners. The House agreed to additional
funding of in-line EDS, proposing a total of $75 million for this purpose — $61

⁷⁶ H.Rept. 109-79, p. 42.

million above President’s request — in addition to the $250 million mandatory
deposit into the Aviation Security Capital Fund. While the committee agreed with
the President’s request to limit the federal share at the eight existing airports with
letters on intent (LOIs) to 75% , rather than the 90% authorized for large airports in
Vision 100 (P.L. 108-176), this measure was stricken by a point of order because it
sought to modify existing law. H.R. 2360 provides additional funding for the
purchase of EDS and explosive trace detection (ETD) equipment, providing $40
million above the $130 million included in the President’s request for this purpose.
In an effort to further increase the availability of funds for EDS, the House agreed to
language directing the TSA to spend any recovered or deobligated funds appropriated
for aviation security or TSA administration exclusively on EDS procurement and
installation (Sec. 530).
For surface transportation security, the House agreed to $36 million, which is
$4 million more than the President’s request. The House agreed with the President’s
request that $8 million of this total be designated for federal rail security inspectors.
The House also provided $4 million for a hazardous materials truck tracking
program.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. The Senate initially agreed to a gross total of
$5,055 million (net total of $3,065 million) for the TSA, not including the $250
million in direct funding to the Aviation Security Capital Fund. This total includes
$255 million for Transportation Vetting and Credentialing which the President’s
request proposed to transfer to the SCO.
For aviation security, the Senate initially agreed to $4,452 million, $129 million
more than the FY2005 appropriation, but $283 million less than the budget request
and $139 million less than the House-passed bill. Unlike the budget request and the
House-passed bill, the Senate language contained no specific cap on the number of
screeners but, like the House bill, sought to increase funding for screening
technologies in a move to rapidly shift away from a workforce-intensive use of
resources. The Senate bill endeavored to do this, in part, by increasing the TSA’s
flexibility to transfer monies from screener workforce accounts to accounts for
procuring screening equipment. The Senate bill provided $180 million for EDS and
ETD procurement with the stipulation that at least $50 million be used for acquiring
next-generation EDS equipment.
The Senate-passed bill made more modest reductions in the budget request for
airport management, staff, information technology, and support, recommending $748
million for this function, $10 million less than the budget request but $103 million
above the House-passed amount. In contrast to the fiscal concerns expressed by the
House committee, Senate report language noted that increased funding for
information technology is imperative for maintaining real-time intelligence and
operational effectiveness and efficiency.
The Senate provision of $50 million for air cargo security fell directly between
the budget request of $40 million and the House-passed level of $60 million. The
additional $10 million above the request offered in the Senate-passed bill included
$7 million for hiring additional inspectors and $3 million for increased inspections
of both international flights and domestic passenger flights. The Senate bill also

directed the TSA to continue coordination of “known-shipper” and Customs-Trade
Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) programs and move toward the goal of
screening 100 percent of cargo carried on passenger airplanes.
With regard to surface transportation security, the Senate bill was in full
agreement with the House-passed amount and use of funds. Also, the Senate bill was
in concordance with the House-passed plan to keep transportation vetting and
credentialing functions within the TSA but set direct funding for credentialing
activities at a level $9 million less than the House-passed amount. Senate floor
debate on the appropriations bill occurred shortly after the terrorist bombings of
London’s transit system. Three amendments that would have substantially increased
security funding for U.S. transit and intercity rail systems were defeated during
Senate floor debate.
P.L. 109-90. P.L. 109-90 provides $5,334 million for the operations of the
TSA plus an additional $686 million for the Federal Air Marshals, which rejoined the
TSA under the DHS restructuring plan, termed the Second Stage Review (2SR), that
was released in June, 2005. This set the total discretionary appropriation for TSA at
$6,094 million. To this, $250 million in mandatory funding for the Aviation Security
Capital Fund is added to bring the total TSA appropriation to $6,344 million.
For aviation security, P.L. 109-90 provides $4,607 million, $15 million above
the House-passed amount and $155 above the Senate-passed amount, but $128
million below the President’s request. The Act provides $283 million more that the
FY2005 enacted level for aviation security but keeps the longstanding cap on the
number of full-time equivalent screeners in place at 45,000.
Funding for privatized screening is set at $139 million, consistent with the
House-passed amount, with the option for TSA to adjust funding between TSA
screening operations and the private set aside as new contracts are awarded or as
airports leave the private screening program after notifying the appropriations
committees. A general provision (Sec. 547) of the Act added in conference provides
long-sought liability protections for airports that elect to opt-out of TSA federal
screening and implement private screening contracts managed by the TSA. San
Francisco International Airport, the largest airport with private screeners, had
signaled that it would end its private screener pilot program, but reversed this
decision based on the inclusion of statutory liability protections. While privatizing
airport screening contracts have not yet attracted much interest among airports that
currently have federal screeners, in part, due to lingering liability concerns,
lawmakers who have advocated a shift toward private screening operations are
hopeful that this provision will spur an increase in airports with private screeners.
For air cargo security measures, P.L. 109-90 provides $55 million, an even split
between the House-passed $60 million and the Senate-passed $50 million. This
funding level is $15 million above FY2005 enacted levels and the President’s request
for FY2006 and includes $10 million for hiring and deploying an additional 100
regulatory inspectors and $5 million for improving databases of freight forwarders
and known shippers, performing threat assessments, and carrying out pending
rulemaking activities.

The conferees agreed to $57 million for Secure Flight — the controversial
program for prescreening airline passengers — an amount equal to that passed by the
Senate, but $9 million less than the House-passed amount. While the conferees
continued to support this additional layer of aviation security, the conference report
noted that the TSA has failed to fully justify cost estimates for FY2006 and has failed
to commence initial operating capability of the system at two airlines by the
scheduled date of August 19, 2005. The conferees also agreed to a general provision
prohibiting deployment of the system on other than a test basis until the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) certifies that 10 elements related to privacy protections,
data security, and redress for aggrieved individuals are adequately addressed. Similar
provisions were enacted in appropriations legislation for FY2004 and FY2005. The
provision in the FY2006 Act also prevents the TSA from using commercial data in
the system. While commercial data is seen as a possible means for authenticating
passenger identities, some in Congress have raised concerns over TSA’s prior
disclosure and handling of personal data obtained from commercial sources during
the development and testing of Secure Flight.
P.L. 109-90 provides $36 million for surface transportation security. Both the
House and Senate had agreed to this amount, which is $12 million less than FY2005
enacted levels but $4 million above the President’s request.
Issues for Congress. The President’s proposal to increase airline passenger
security fees has been a contentious issue that failed to garner sufficient support in
either the House or the Senate, and met with considerable criticism during the
appropriations debate. Financially strapped airlines — still recovering from the
economic impact of the 9/11 attacks and now facing rising fuel costs — argued that
they would likely have to absorb some of the proposed fee increases by reducing
ticket prices.⁷⁷ Some Members of Congress also voiced concern that the proposed
fee increase could cut into the revenues of the airlines, and could have a greater
impact on rural airline customers who would pay proportionately more in per-⁷⁸
segment fees because fewer direct flights are available to these customers. The
Administration, on the other hand, argued that increased fees could help reduce a
funding deficit by generating additional revenue to offset expenditures for aviation
security, or could free up general tax revenues for spending on broader homeland
security needs. The Administration maintained that increasing fees to offset costs is
in line with long-standing transportation infrastructure policy to fund these services
largely through user fees, as well as its assessment of the original intent of these
passenger security fees established under ATSA (P.L 107-71).⁷⁹ However, some
opponents of aviation security fees contend that aviation security, particularly since
September 11, 2001, is vital to national security, and therefore, like defense spending,
is the responsibility of all taxpayers. The House Committee on Appropriations noted
that amending the statutory fee structure falls under the jurisdiction of the Homeland

⁷⁷ Air Transport Association of America, Inc., Statement for the Record to the Committee
on Commerce, Science & Transportation, United States Senate Hearing on Fiscal Year

2006 Budget Transportation Security Administration, Feb. 15, 2005.

⁷⁸ Sara Kehaulani Goo, “Senate Turbulence Greets Plan to Raise Airline Ticket Security
Fees,” The Washington Post, Feb. 16, 2005, p. A2.
⁷⁹ See Statement of David M. Stone.

Security Committee and did not include the proposed fee increases in its bill. An
amendment to the FY2006 DHS Authorization Act (H.R. 1817) prohibiting an
increase in airline ticket taxes for aviation security was agreed to by a large majority
in the House, despite opposition by Aviation Subcommittee Chairman John Mica.
While the Senate also did not recommend any passenger fee increases, language in
S.Rept. 109-83 directed the TSA to use its available authority to collect about $448
million from aviation security infrastructure fees paid directly by the airlines. This
is the amount determined by a GAO audit that TSA should be collecting annually.
However, the TSA has been collecting only about $318 million in these fees, despite
assuming that collections would total $750 million for FY2005, thus creating a
projected shortfall of more than $400 million.
Another key issue for the TSA during the FY2006 appropriations process was
the proposed creation of SCO. The proposed transfer of programs related to
credentialing and vetting of passengers and transportation workers raised several
issues regarding coordination of effort between the TSA and the proposed SCO. The
Administration offered few details regarding how the proposed SCO would interface
with the TSA on several high-profile programs such as Secure Flight and the TWIC
program. Citing concerns over disrupting work on these key programs, P.L. 109-90
implements a different approach that integrates these various programs, but keeps
them within the TSA under a new Office of Transportation Vetting and
Credentialing. The Act establishes a FY2006 funding level of $75 million for the
newly created Office of Transportation Vetting and Credentialing, an amount
consistent with the Senate-passed bill but $9 million less than the House-passed
amount. In addition to these sums, it is anticipated that the office will handle an
additional $180 million in credentialing accounts that are expected to be fully offset
by user fees.
Another lingering issue that did not receive much attention during the
appropriations process is the coordination between TSA and S&T in light of the
transfer of the TSA’s research and development activities to the S&T Directorate.
One particular oversight issue is how aviation security research needs will be
prioritized given that S&T is more broadly focused on all homeland security research
and development activities. There may be some concern that aviation security
projects could take a back seat to other high-profile initiatives — such as chemical,
biological, radiological and nuclear weapons countermeasures — that have been the
primary focus of S&T to date. Also, while consolidating research and development
on explosives and chemical weapons detection — the primary focus of aviation
security-related research and development — may help leverage resources for other
DHS components, these projects could potentially lose some of the aviation security-
specific focus that they received while under the auspices of the TSA. Consequently,
Congress may focus on what coordination and interaction between TSA and S&T
will be established to ensure that aviation security research and development needs
are adequately addressed.⁸⁰ House report language specifies that the S&T Directorate
is to carry out air cargo research and development pilot programs initiated by the
TSA, but expressed frustration over the lack of progress in this area commenting that

⁸⁰ Further information and analysis of transportation security issues before Congress are
provided in CRS reports at [http://beta.crs.gov/cli/cli.aspx?PRDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=471].

“... high unobligated balances give the impression that the TSA does not view air
cargo as a serious aviation security vulnerability.”⁸¹ Consequently, the report
contains language that would require the TSA to develop protocols and standards for
emerging new technologies to screen cargo, noting past deployment delays occurred
because such coordination was lacking.
Appropriations to the TSA for surface transportation modes raise the issue of
determining TSA’s role, and in a broader context, the federal government’s role, in
the security of the non-aviation modes of transportation. While ATSA made TSA
responsible for the security of all modes of transportation, it did not direct the TSA
to take specific actions to address security needs in modes other than aviation. One
view is that the federal government, and TSA in particular, should assume a more
dominant, or at least a more prominent role, in the security of surface modes.
Proponents of this view hold that the federal Treasury should fund most of the
security needs of surface modes. Another view is that the federal role in securing
surface modes should reflect or parallel its existing role in financing the
infrastructure or operations of surface modes. This view holds that federal funding
for the security needs of surface modes should be in partnership with state and local
governments or the private sector. For instance, because freight railways are
predominantly privately owned and financed, some believe that the freight railroad
companies should pay for their security needs. Likewise, in the case of mass transit,
in which state and local governments have primary responsibility for infrastructure
financing and operations, some believe the federal government’s role in securing
mass transit should be in partnership with state and local governments rather than
having a dominant role, as it does in aviation.
United States Coast Guard⁸²
The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for the maritime component of
homeland security. As such, it is the lead agency responsible for BTS as it applies
to U.S. ports, coastal and inland waterways, and territorial waters. The Coast Guard
also performs missions that are not related to homeland security, such as maritime
search and rescue, marine environmental protection, fisheries enforcement, and aids
to navigation.
The Coast Guard was transferred from the Department of Transportation to the
DHS on March 1, 2003. The law that created the DHS (P.L. 107-296) directed that
the Coast Guard be maintained as a distinct entity within DHS and that the
Commandant of the Coast Guard report directly to the Secretary of DHS.
Accordingly, the Coast Guard exists as a distinct agency within DHS and is not part
of DHS’s BTS, although it does work closely with that directorate.

⁸¹ H.Rept. 109-79, p. 48.
⁸² Section prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation, Resources, Science and
Industry Division. Further information and analysis of the Coast Guard’s role in maritime
security is provided in CRS Report RS21125, Homeland Security: Coast Guard Operations
— Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke; and CRS Report RL31733,
Port and Maritime Security: Background and Issues for Congress, by John Frittelli.

President’s Request. For FY2006 the President requested an appropriation
of $7,961 million in net budget authority for the Coast Guard, which is a 5.21%
increase over the enacted FY2005 level of $7,567 million. The Coast Guard’s budget
is divided into seven categories. The President requested increases in three of these
categories and decreases or zero funding in the four remaining categories. Among
the categories with increased funding, the largest increase in percentage terms is in
acquisition, construction, and improvements (the agency’s physical equipment),
which would increase by 23.08% to $1,269.2 million. Operating expenses would
increase by 4.62% to $5,547.4 million and reserve training would increase by 5.31%
to $119.0 million. The President requested zero funds for the Coast Guard’s bridge
alteration program which funds alterations to the understructure of bridges that are
obstructing navigational waterways. Congress provided $15.9 for this program in
FY2005. The President also requested zero funds for Coast Guard research and
development; transferring and consolidating this account under the DHS S&T
Directorate. Congress provided $18.5 million for Coast Guard R&D in FY2005.
The two other budget categories that the President would reduce funding for are
Coast Guard environmental compliance and restoration, which would decrease by
29.41% to $12 million and retired pay, which would decrease by 6.54% to $1,014.1
million.
House-Passed H.R. 2360. House-passed H.R. 2360 provided $7,458
million, $503 million or 6% less than the President’s request and $109 million or 1%
less than FY2005 enacted. H.R. 2360 provided $798 million for acquisitions,
construction, and improvements, which is about $471 million less than the President
requested. Most of this difference has to do with the Coast Guard’s Deepwater
program, which is explained further below. For operating expenses, the House bill
provided $5,500 million which is $47 million less than the President’s request. For
alteration of bridges, the House bill provided $15 million versus the President’s
request of no funds. For environmental compliance and restoration, reserve training,
and retired pay, the House bill provided the same amounts that the President
requested. The House bill also agreed with the President’s request to transfer the
Coast Guard’s research and development funds to the DHS S&T Directorate. The
House Committee on Appropriations’ report states that the Committee “is extremely
frustrated in the Coast Guard’s apparent disregard for Congressional direction” and
cites the Deepwater plan and other reprogramming submissions as examples.⁸³
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. Senate-passed H.R. 2360 provided $7,780
million, $322 million or 4% more than the House. The Senate provided $1,225
million for acquisitions, construction, and improvements, which is $427 million
more than the House. As indicated below, most of the $427 million difference
between the House and Senate concerns the Deepwater program. The Senate
provided $5,459 million for operating expenses, which is $41 million less than the
House. For environmental compliance and restoration, reserve training, and
alteration of bridges, the Senate provided the same amount as the House. Senate-
passed H.R. 2360 does not agree with the House and the President’s request to
transfer the Coast Guard’s R&D funds to the DHS S&T Directorate; it provides $19
million to the Coast Guard for R&D.

⁸³ H.Rept. 109-79, p. 57.

P.L. 109-90. P.L. 109-90 provides a total of $7,797 million for the Coast
Guard for FY2006, representing a decrease of $165 million or 2% as compared to the
request; an increase of $339 million or 5% as compared to the House-passed version
of H.R. 2360; and an increase of $17 million as compared to the Senate-passed
version of H.R. 2360. P.L. 109-90 provides $5,492 million for operating expenses,
which is $55 million less than the President requested. It provides $1,142 for
acquisitions, construction, and improvements, which is $127 million less than the
President requested. P.L. 109-90 provides the same amount that the President
requested for environmental compliance and restoration ($12 million), reserve
training ($119 million), and retired pay ($1,014 million). P.L. 109-90 provides $15
million for the alteration of bridges while the President requested no funds for this
purpose; and provides $18 million for Coast Guard R&D while the President
requested that these funds be transferred to the DHS S&T Directorate.
Issues for Congress. Increased duties in the maritime realm related to
homeland security have added to the Coast Guard’s obligations and increased the
complexity of the issues it faces. Congress is concerned with how the agency is
operationally responding to these demands, including its plans to replace many of its
aging vessels and aircraft.
Deepwater Program.⁸⁴ The Deepwater program is a planned 22-year, multi-
billion dollar project to replace or modernize 93 aging Coast Guard ships and 207
aging Coast Guard aircraft. It is the largest and most complex acquisition ever
undertaken by the Coast Guard. The Deepwater program is a subset of the agency’s
acquisition, construction, and improvements budget category. For FY2006, the
President requested $966 million for the Deepwater program which is $242 million
more than Congress provided in FY2005. The House bill provided $500 million for
the Deepwater program, which is $466 million less than the President’s request. The
House bill would have withheld $50 million of this amount until the Appropriations
Committee received a new Deepwater program baseline that reflects revised, post
September 11 mission requirements. Senate-passed H.R. 2360 provided $906
million for Deepwater and the Senate Committee’s report states that it “is extremely
disappointed with the poor congressional justifications accompanying the President’s
budget request,” and directs the Coast Guard to update the Deepwater plan the
agency submitted to Congress on May 31, 2005. The conference agreement provides
$933 million for the Deepwater program, which is $33 million less than the President
requested. The conference agreement also specifies information about the Deepwater
plan as well as the Coast Guard’s overall capital plan that Congress wants the agency
to submit in conjunction with future budget submissions.
Maritime Security Mission. The Deepwater program will help the Coast
Guard achieve its many missions, including maritime security, which is another
Coast Guard issue of keen interest to Congress. The President’s FY2006 request
includes $2,219.4 million for port waterways and coastal security, an increase of
$127.9 million from FY2005. Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) is a central

⁸⁴ Further information and analysis of the Deepwater program is provided in CRS Report
RS21019, Coast Guard Deepwater Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by
Ronald O’Rourke.

element of the Coast Guard’s security mission. MDA can be described as the Coast
Guard’s ability to know all that is happening in the maritime environment — to
understand normal activity, in order to spot suspicious activity. One objective of
MDA is to increase the transparency of ship movements in U.S. coastal areas. Using
Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) technology, the Coast Guard expects to be
able to track ships in coastal waters. For FY2006, the President requested $29.1
million for AIS which is $5.1 million more than Congress provided in FY2005. In
FY2005, Congress expressed disappointment that only nine seaports would be able
to receive AIS signals and therefore increased funding from the requested $5 million
to $24 million to achieve nationwide coverage. The President’s FY2006 request
indicates that nationwide implementation of AIS is the Administration’s objective.
Another area of maritime security that Congress has expressed particular interest
in is the security of LNG (liquefied natural gas) tankers. The President’s FY2006
request includes $11 million for additional boat crews and screening personnel at
U.S. LNG shoreside facilities. Rising natural gas prices are expected to increase the
demand for imported natural gas, most of which will be transported by LNG tankers.
United States Secret Service⁸⁵
The United States Secret Service performs two broad missions in homeland
security: criminal investigations and protection.⁸⁶ Criminal investigations cover
financial crimes, identify theft, counterfeiting, computer fraud, and computer-based
attacks on the nation’s financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure,
among other areas. The protection mission is most prominent for the President, Vice
President, their families, and candidates for those offices, along with the White
House and the Vice President’s residence. Protection duties also extend to foreign
missions in the District of Columbia; other designated individuals, such as the
Secretary of DHS and visiting foreign dignitaries; and National Special Security
Events (NSSE), which include the political party national nominating conventions
as well as various international conferences and other major designated events in the
United States.
President’s Request. For FY2006, the President’s budget requested an
appropriation of $1,204 million for the protection and criminal investigation missions
of the Secret Service, an increase of $29 million (2%) over the FY2005 total of
$1,175 million.⁸⁷ Within the FY2006 amount were requests for certain specific
matters: $100,000 to assist foreign law enforcement organizations in counterfeit
investigations; $2.1 million for forensic and related support for investigations of
missing and exploited children; and $5 million for a grant for activities related to the
investigations of missing and exploited children. In addition, the budget submission

⁸⁵ Prepared by Frederick M. Kaiser, Specialist in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division.
⁸⁶ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Secret Service, Fiscal Year 2006,
Congressional Justification (Washington: DHS, 2005), p. SS-1.
⁸⁷ Ibid., and U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 2006, Appendix (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 485.

directed that “up to $18 million provided for protective travel shall remain available
until September 30, 2007” and that “not less than $5,000,000 solely for the
unanticipated costs related to security operations for National Special Security
Events.”⁸⁸
House-Passed H.R. 2360. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended an appropriation of nearly $1,233 million, an increase of almost $29
million, or 2%, above the President’s request and almost $58 million, or 5%, above⁸⁹
the FY2005 appropriation. The House-passed version of H.R. 2360 included
additional amounts above the President’s request of: $5 million for NSSEs; $23
million to support protective operations, investigations, foreign field offices, and
technical support functions; and $1 million for support to the National Center for⁹⁰
Mission and Exploited Children.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360
recommended $1,192 million for the Secret Service, a decrease of $41million, or 3%,
compared to the House-passed amounts; a decrease of $12 million, or 1%, as
compared to the requested amount; and an increase of $17 million compared to the
FY2005 enacted amount. The Senate Committee did not provide the requested $5
million for the NSSE fund, because of unobligated balances remaining in the
account.⁹¹ The Senate Committee also did not continue general provision bill
language “regarding maintaining the Service as a distinct entity within” DHS.⁹²
P.L. 109-90. P.L. 109-90 provides $1,212 million for the Secret Service,
essentially splitting the difference between the House and Senate versions of H.R.
2360. This sum represents an increase of $8 million and 1% from the President’s
request. The conferees, in H.Rept. 109-241, note their concern with the workloads
facing Secret Service Agents and direct the agency to submit a workload rebalancing
report by February 10, 2006.
Issues for Congress. Developments in the contemporary era, particularly
after the 2001 terrorist attacks, have added to the Secret Service’s roles and
responsibilities. Even though its two primary missions remain the same as they have
for the past 100 years, the actual assignments, activities, duties, and functions have
been expanded and have become more complex and sophisticated than before. The
resulting issues for Congress (and the executive) range from the sufficiency of USSS
resources to meet its new obligations to the adequacy of interagency cooperation.
The former involves not just facilities, equipment, and personnel levels but also
training, language skills, and protective research. The latter involves coordination
not just with entities inside the Department but also with organizations outside it:

⁸⁸ U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2006 Budget for the United States
Government (Washington: GPO, Feb. 2005), p. 485. (Hereafter cited as OMB, FY2006
Budget.)
⁸⁹ H.Rept. 109-79, pp. 155-156.
⁹⁰ H.Rept. 109-79, pp. 70-71.
⁹¹ S.Rept. 109-83, p. 63.
⁹² S.Rept. 109-83, p. 64.

i.e., in other federal departments and agencies, State and local governments, foreign
governments, and the private sector. Along with this are occasional requests from
subnational governments for the Secret Service (or DHS) to reimburse them for their
expenses associated with specific USSS protective operations within their
jurisdictions. Another matter extends to the capability of the Secret Service to
maintain its traditional role in the enforcement of certain financial crimes, such as
anti-counterfeiting. Such criminal conduct has also become more sophisticated and
complex. And combating it may now have to compete with new higher priorities and
expanded duties in other fields, most markedly in anti-terrorism.
Title III: Preparedness and Recovery
Title III Preparedness and Recovery, provides funding for the Office of State
and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP), which includes the
Office for Domestic Preparedness. In addition, Title III funds the Emergency
Preparedness and Response (EPR) Directorate.
Table 8 shows the FY2005 enacted and FY2006 requested appropriations for
Title III. The Administration requested an appropriation of $6,710 million in net
budget authority for Title III for FY2006. This amount represents an 4% decrease
compared to the FY2005 enacted total of $6,963 million (not including $2,508
million for Bioshield).⁹³ For the FY2006 request, Title III accounts for 22% of
requested net appropriated DHS budget authority; 10% for EPR, and 12% for
SLCGP. The House-passed version of H.R. 2360 recommended an appropriation of
$6,688 million in net budget authority for Title III, represents a $21 million or less
than 1% decrease compared to the President’s request. The Senate-passed version
of H.R. 2360 recommended $6,336 million for the activities of Title III, representing
a decrease of $374 million or nearly 6% compared to the FY2006 request; and a
decrease of $352 million or 5% as compared to House-passed H.R. 2360. P.L. 109-
90 provides $6,666 million for the activities of Title III. This amount includes $625
million for Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS) activities that
were transferred from the now disbanded IAIP Directorate in Title IV, pursuant to the
Secretary’s reorganization proposal.

⁹³ The FY2005 enacted net budget authority of $6,963 million does not include a $2,508
million Bioshield obligation limitation, nor does it include the $6.5 billion in supplemental
disaster relief funding. For more information on the supplemental appropriations, see CRS
Report RL32581, Assistance After Hurricanes and Other Disasters: FY2004 and FY2005
Supplemental Appropriations, by Keith Bea and Ralph M. Chite.

Table 8. Title III: Preparedness and Response
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^Op^erati^on^al^com^p^onent^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^M^a^na^g^e^m^e^nt^a^{nd Adm}ⁱ^nist^ra^tⁱ^oⁿ^a
^{— Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e Un}^{der Secretary}^N/A^N^/A^N/A^N^/A¹³
^{— Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e C}^h^ief^{Medical Of}^fⁱ^cer^N/A^N^/A^N/A^N^/A²
^{— Of}^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^Natioⁿ^a^{l Cap}^{ital Reg}ⁱ^oⁿ^N/A^N^/A^N/A^N^/A¹
^C^oordiⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ
^{Net subto}^t^a^l^N/A^N^/A^N/A^N^/A¹⁶
^{— R}^a^diolog^{ical preparedn}^e^s^s^b^-1^-1^-1^-1^-1
^{U.S. F}ⁱ^{re Adm}ⁱ^nist^ra^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^{nd Tra}ⁱ^ning^N/A^N^/A^N/A^N^/A⁴⁵
^Iⁿ^fras^{tructure Protection and}^c^N/A^N^/A^N/A^N^/A⁶²⁵
^Iⁿ^form^{ation Security}
^{Office for Dom}^e^s^t^{ic Preparednes}^s^/^Office
^{of s}^t^{ate an}^d^l^o^cal^govern^m^eⁿ^t
^co^o^r^dina^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^{nd pla}^nning
^—^S^t^at^{e an}^{d l}^o^cal^prog^ram^s^3,086^2,891^2,831^2,714^2,511^d
^{— Salaries}^an^{d Ex}^pen^s^es⁴⁴⁴⁴⁵
^—^E^m^e^r^ge^nc^y^m^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^p^l^aⁿⁿⁱ^{ng gr}^aⁿ^t^s¹⁸⁰¹⁷⁰¹⁸⁰¹⁹⁰¹⁸⁵
^—^Fⁱ^refⁱ^g^h^t^{er as}^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce g}^r^an^t^s⁷¹⁵⁵⁰⁰⁶⁵⁰⁶⁶⁵⁶⁵⁵
^N^e^{t s}^u^b^t^otal^3,985^3,565^3,665^3,573^3,356
^Counter-T^erroris^m^fund⁸¹⁰¹⁰³²
^{Federal E}^m^{ergency M}^a^nagem^e^{nt Agency}
^—^A^d^mⁱⁿ^;^regⁱ^on^al^operatⁱ^oⁿ^s²⁰³²¹⁸²²⁵²¹⁶²³⁸^e
^{— Operatin}^g^ex^pen^s^es^(res^cis^sⁱ^on⁾^-⁵^—^—^—^—
^{— P}^r^ep^ar^{e, m}^itig^atioⁿ^,^r^e^sp^oⁿ^{se &}^r^eco^v^e^r^y²³⁹²³⁵²⁴⁹²⁰³²⁰⁴
^{— rescissio}ⁿ^—^—^—^-¹⁰^—
^{— P}^u^b^{lic h}^ealth^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^f³⁴³⁴³⁴³⁴³⁴
^{— B}ⁱ^odef^eⁿ^s^{e cou}ⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es^g²^,⁵⁰⁸^—^—^—^—
⁽^o^b^lig^atioⁿ^lim^itatioⁿ⁾
^{— Disa}^ste^r^r^e^lie^f^h^68,542^2,140^2,000^1,920^1,770
^{—— Re}^sc^issioⁿ^{& tr}^aⁿ^sfe^rⁱ²³^,⁴¹¹^—^—^—^—
^—^F^l^{ood m}^a^{p m}^odernⁱ^zatⁱ^oⁿ^f^uⁿ^d²⁰⁰²⁰⁰²⁰⁰²⁰⁰²⁰⁰
^—^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^f^l^{ood i}ⁿ^s^u^ran^{ce f}^uⁿ^d^j^—^—^—^—^—
^{— Nation}^a^{l f}^l^{ood m}^itig^ation^k^—^—^—^—^—
^{— P}^r^e-^dⁱ^saster^m^itig^atioⁿ^f^uⁿ^d¹⁰⁰¹⁵⁰¹⁵⁰³⁷⁵⁰
^—^Em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^f^{ood an}^{d s}^h^el^t^e^r¹⁵³¹⁵³¹⁵³¹⁵³¹⁵³
^{— Dis}^a^s^t^{er as}^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce direct loan}^accouⁿ^t¹¹¹¹³^l
^N^e^{t s}^u^b^t^otal^48,564^3,135^3,013^2,758^2,652
^{Net budget authority s}^ubtotal:^Tⁱ^{tle I}^I^I^52,557^6,710^6,688^6,334^6,696
^Source:^C^R^S^aⁿ^a^l^y^sⁱ^s^o^f^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^Bu^dg^et^{, an}^{d D}^H^S^Budgetⁱⁿ^Brⁱ^e^f^{, Hou}^s^e
^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee t}^a^bl^es^of^May^{20, 2005, H}^o^u^s^e-^pas^s^e^{d H}^.^R^.^{2360 a}ⁿ^d^H^.^R^e^p^t^.^109-^79;
^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^-^p^as^s^e^d^H^.^R^.^{2360 an}^{d S}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^83;^an^{d t}^h^{e C}^oⁿ^f^eren^{ce R}^e^port^t^o^H^.^R^.^2360,^H^.^R^e^pt^.^109-
^241.

^No^te:^T^o^{tals m}^a^yⁿ^o^{t ad}^d^d^u^{e to}^r^o^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^S^o^m^e^a^m^o^uⁿ^t^{s w}^e^r^eⁿ^o^{t av}^ailab^l^{e f}^o^rⁱⁿ^clu^s^ioⁿⁱⁿ^th^is
^report^.^T^h^es^e^am^ouⁿ^t^s^{are des}ⁱ^gⁿ^a^t^e^{d ‘}^N^/^A^’^.^F^Y^{2006 am}^ouⁿ^t^s^{do n}^o^t^ref^l^ect^t^h^{e 1%}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^board
^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^en^act^{ed by}^P.L^.^109-^148.
^{a. T}^h^es^{e t}^h^{ree of}^fⁱ^ces^w^e^{re propos}^{ed i}ⁿ^t^h^{e S}^ecret^ary^’^s^reorg^aⁿⁱ^zatⁱ^oⁿ^propos^al^of^Ju^l^y^13,^{2005 as}
^parts^of^{a n}^e^w^s^e^{t of}^accouⁿ^t^s^uⁿ^d^{er th}^{e h}^eadⁱⁿ^g^P^r^e^p^a^r^e^dⁿ^e^s^s^Operation^s^{. T}^h^{e C}^oⁿ^f^erees
^s^e^{parated th}^es^{e accou}ⁿ^t^s^uⁿ^d^{er th}^{e h}^eadin^g^‘^M^an^ag^em^en^{t an}^{d A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^’^.
^b^.^Ra^dⁱ^o^l^o^gⁱ^c^a^l^E^m^e^r^ge^nc^y^P^r^e^p^a^r^e^d^ne^{ss fund}^{s a}^r^e^p^r^o^vⁱ^d^e^d^t^h^r^o^{ugh r}^eⁱ^m^b^u^r^s^e^m^eⁿ^t^s^aⁿ^d^a^r^e^no^t
^act^u^a^l^l^y^appropri^a^t^e^{d f}^uⁿ^d^s^.^T^h^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^proj^ect^s^t^h^at^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^obt^aiⁿ^e^{d f}^r^om^ot^h^e^r
^s^o^u^r^ces^w^{ill ex}^{ceed es}^tim^{ated B}^Aⁿ^eeds^by^{$17 m}^illionⁱⁿ^{FY2005, an}^{d $18 m}^illionⁱⁿ^FY2006.
^c^.^T^hⁱ^sⁿ^e^w^of^fⁱ^{ce w}^a^s^propos^{ed i}ⁿ^t^h^{e S}^ecret^ary^’^s^Ju^l^y^{13, 2005 reorg}^aⁿⁱ^zatⁱ^oⁿ^propos^al^{, an}^dⁱ^s
^com^p^ris^e^{d of}^accouⁿ^t^s^th^{at w}^e^{re a part of}^th^{e IA}^IP^{Directorate. A}^ccouⁿ^t^details^can^be^f^o^uⁿ^d
ⁱⁿ^Ta^ble¹¹^laterⁱⁿ^th^{is r}^e^p^o^r^{t u}ⁿ^d^er^th^{e h}^eadⁱⁿ^g^Iⁿ^f^r^astr^u^c^tu^r^e^P^r^o^t^ectioⁿ^an^d^Iⁿ^f^o^r^m^atioⁿ
^Secu^rity^.
^{d. In}^clu^d^es^{$10 m}^illion^,^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to P}^.^L^.^109-^{148, f}^o^{r equ}ⁱ^pm^en^{t replacem}^en^{t related to h}^u^rrican^es
^an^{d ot}^h^e^{r n}^a^t^u^ral^di^s^a^s^t^ers^.
^{e. In}^clu^d^es^{$17 m}^illion^,^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to P}^.^L^.^109-^148,^f^o^rⁿ^eces^s^a^ry^ex^pen^s^es^{related to h}^u^r^rican^es^an^d
^o^t^he^r^na^tur^a^{l d}ⁱ^sa^ste^r^s.
^f^.^T^o^{tal am}^o^uⁿ^t^f^uⁿ^d^{s th}^{e Natio}ⁿ^a^{l Disaster}^Medⁱ^cal^Sy^s^t^em^(NDMS),^{a s}^y^s^t^em^of^h^ealth^w^o^rk^ers^an^d
^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^tran^s^{port to prov}^{ide m}^e^{dical care du}^rin^g^dis^a^s^t^ers^.
^g^.^In^clu^d^es^{$20 m}^illion^res^c^is^sⁱ^on^f^r^om^Bⁱ^os^hⁱ^{eld (biodef}^e^ns^e^c^o^uⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es^{) en}^{acted by}^th^e
^C^oⁿ^s^olⁱ^d^at^{ed A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^of^{2005 (P.L}^{. 108-}^447).
^h^.^{FY2005 totals}ⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e $60 billion}ⁱⁿ^dis^a^s^t^{er re}^lief^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^{precipitated by}^Hu^rrican^{e Katrin}^{a; $10}
^b^illionⁱⁿ^P.^L^.^109-^{61 a}ⁿ^{d $50 b}^illionⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^109-^{62. For m}^o^{re in}^f^o^rm^ation^on^th^es^e
^s^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^approp^ri^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^{, s}^{ee C}^R^S^R^e^port^R^S^22239,^Em^er^{gency Suppl}^em^ent^a^l
^Appr^oprⁱ^a^tⁱ^ons^f^o^r^H^u^r^rⁱ^{cane K}^a^t^rⁱ^{na Rel}ⁱ^e^f^{, by}^K^eⁱ^t^h^Bea.^F^Y^{2005 t}^o^t^a^l^s^al^s^oⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{e $6.5}
^b^illioⁿⁱⁿ^dⁱ^saster^r^e^lief^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^en^acted^b^y^P^.^L^.¹⁰⁸^-^324.^F^o^r^m^o^r^eⁱⁿ^f^o^r^m^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^oⁿ^t^h^o^s^e
^s^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^{, s}^{ee C}^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^32581,^As^sⁱ^s^t^aⁿ^{ce Af}^t^e^r^H^u^r^rⁱ^canes^{and O}^t^her
^Dⁱ^s^a^s^t^er^s^:^FY^{2004 and FY}²⁰⁰⁵^Suppl^em^ent^a^l^Appr^oprⁱ^a^tⁱ^ons^{, b}^y^Keith^B^{ea an}^d^Ralp^h^Ch^ite.
^{i. In}^clu^d^es^res^c^is^sⁱ^on^s^an^{d tran}^s^f^ers^totalin^g^$23.4^billion^of^f^uⁿ^d^s^prev^iou^s^ly^{appropriated by}^P^.^L^.
^109-^{61 an}^{d P.L}^.^109-^{62, pu}^rs^u^aⁿ^t^t^o^P^.^L.¹⁰⁹^-^{148. (S}^{ee bel}^o^w^,^R^e^l^a^t^e^{d L}^e^gⁱ^s^l^atⁱ^oⁿ^“^H^.R^.
^2863/^P.L^.^109-^148”).
^j^.^A^m^ouⁿ^t^s^av^ai^l^a^bl^eⁱⁿ^t^h^e^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^F^l^{ood In}^s^u^ran^{ce F}^uⁿ^d^(N^F^I^F⁾^{are deri}^v^e^{d t}^h^ro^{ugh p}^r^e^mⁱ^u^m^s^aⁿ^d
^{are n}^o^{t appropriated. T}^h^es^{e am}^ouⁿ^t^s^{are com}^p^le^tely^o^f^f^s^{et in}^th^{e Co}^m^mⁱ^t^t^e^e^t^a^b^l^{es, in}^th^e
^am^ouⁿ^t^of^{$113 m}^illion^f^o^{r FY2005, an}^{d $124 m}^illionⁱⁿ^{FY2006. P}^.^L^.^109-^65,^en^acted^af^ter
^Hu^rrican^{e Katrin}^{a, in}^creas^{ed NFIF borrow}ⁱ^ng^a^u^t^hority^{to en}^s^u^{re th}^{at s}^u^f^fⁱ^cien^{t f}^uⁿ^d^s^are
^av^ai^l^a^bl^{e f}^o^{r f}^l^{ood i}ⁿ^s^u^ran^{ce pay}^m^en^t^sⁿ^{eeded as}^{a res}^u^l^t^of^t^h^{e h}^u^rri^can^e.
^k^.^A^m^ouⁿ^t^s^f^o^{r Nation}^a^{l Flood Mitig}^ation^{are of}^f^s^et^by^{a tran}^s^f^{er f}^r^om^th^e^Nation^a^l^Flood^In^s^u^ran^c^e
^Fuⁿ^d^{, $20 m}^illionⁱⁿ^{FY2005, an}^{d $40 m}^illionⁱⁿ^FY2006.
^{l. P}^.^L^.^109-^{148 tran}^s^f^ers^{$1.5 m}^illion^f^r^om^FEMA^’^s^Dis^a^s^t^{er R}^e^lief^accouⁿ^t^(f^rom^f^uⁿ^d^s^prev^iou^s^ly
^{appropriated in}^F^Y^{2005 by}^P^.^L^.^109-^{62) to th}^{e Dis}^a^s^t^{er A}^s^sⁱ^st^aⁿ^{ce Direct L}^o^an^accouⁿ^t^f^o^r
^admⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^v^{e ex}^pen^s^esⁱⁿ^F^Y^2006.
Office for State and Local Government Coordination and
Preparedness (SLGCP)
The SLGCP is the single point of contact within DHS for facilitating and
coordinating departmental state and local programs. SLGCP provides information
to states and localities on best practices and federal homeland security activities.
Within SLGCP, the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) administers federal
homeland security assistance programs for states and localities. To assist state and
local homeland security efforts, ODP administers formula and discretionary grants
and training, exercise, and technical assistance programs.
President’s Request. The FY2006 budget request proposed the following
amounts for the SLGCP homeland security assistance programs:

^!Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) — $170
million;
^!Citizen Corps Programs (CCP) — $50 million;
^!State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) — $1,020
million;⁹⁴
^!Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) — $1,020 million;
^!Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program (TIPP) (new program)
— $600 million;
^!Assistance to Firefighters Program (FIRE) — $500 million.⁹⁵
House-Passed H.R. 2360. The House passed the following amounts for the
SLGCP homeland security assistance programs:
^!Emergency Management Performance Grants — $180 million;
^!Citizen Corps Programs — $40 million;
^!State Homeland Security Grant Program — $750 million;⁹⁶
^!Urban Area Security Initiative — $1,215 million;
^!Assistance to Firefighters Program — $600 million;⁹⁷ and
^!Metropolitan Medical Response System — $40 million.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. The Senate passed the following amounts for the
SLGCP homeland security Assistance programs:
^!Emergency Management Performance Grants — $190 million;
^!Citizen Corps Programs — $25 million;
^!State and Local Assistance Grants — $1,538 million;⁹⁸
^!Assistance to Firefighters Program — $665 million;
^!Metropolitan Medical Response System — $10 million; and
^!Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention — $400 million.
P.L. 109-90. P.L. 109-90 provides the following amounts for the SLGCP
homeland security Assistance programs:
^!Emergency Management Performance Grants — $185 million;
^!Citizen Corps Programs — $20 million;

⁹⁴ The $1,020 million provided for each of the SHSGP and UASI programs includes $200
million (for a total of $400 million) for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program
(LETPP). Table 9 shows these amounts broken out: $800 million each for SHSGP and
UASI, and $400 million for LETPP.
⁹⁵ OMB, FY2006 Budget, p. 478.
⁹⁶ Includes funding for port, rail, and infrastructure security.
⁹⁷ House Appropriations Committee Homeland Security tables of Mar. 15, 2005.
⁹⁸ Senate passed H.R. 2360 does not provide a specific amount for State Homeland Security
Grant Program or Urban Area Security Initiative, instead it provides $1,518 billion for “state
and local assistance grants” of which $425 million are to be allocated in the same amounts
in FY2005 based on the Section 1014, USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56), with remainder
of total appropriations distributed based on risk.

^!State Homeland Security Grant Program — $550 million;
^!Urban Area Security Initiative — $1,155 million;⁹⁹
^!Assistance to Firefighters Program — $655 million;¹⁰⁰ and
^!Metropolitan Medical Response System — $30 million.
Table 9 provides program level details for SLGCP.
Table 9. SLGCP Program Level Details, FY2005-FY2006
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^F2006
^Op^erati^on^al^C^o^m^p^on^en^t^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^{Office of s}^t^{ate and local}
^govern^m^eⁿ^t^coordⁱⁿ^a^ti^on^an^d^3,985^3,565^3,665^3,573^3,346
^preparednes^s
^{— State an}^{d local as}^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce g}^r^an^ts^—^—^—^1,538^—
^{— State h}^o^m^e^lan^d^s^ecu^rity^g^r^an^t^1,100⁸²⁰⁷⁵⁰^—⁵⁵⁰
^prog^ram
^{— Ur}^b^aⁿ^ar^{ea secu}^r^ityⁱⁿ^itiativ^e⁸⁸⁵⁸²⁰⁸⁵⁰^—⁷⁶⁵
^—^Cⁱ^tⁱ^zen^corps^prog^ram¹⁵⁵⁰⁴⁰²⁵²⁰
^—^E^m^e^r^ge^nc^y^m^a^na^ge^m^e^nt¹⁸⁰¹⁷⁰¹⁸⁰¹⁹⁰¹⁸⁵
^perf^orm^aⁿ^{ce g}^r^an^ts
^—^Fⁱ^refⁱ^g^h^t^ers^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce⁷¹⁵⁵⁰⁰⁶⁵⁰⁶⁶⁵⁶⁵⁵
^{— State an}^{d local train}ⁱⁿ^g^prog^ram⁵⁵⁸³⁶⁵⁵⁵⁵⁵
^{— L}^a^w^en^f^o^rcem^en^{t terroris}^m⁴⁰⁰⁴⁰⁰⁴⁰⁰⁴⁰⁰⁴⁰⁰
^prev^en^tion
^{— T}^echⁿⁱ^{cal as}^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce³⁰⁸²⁰²⁰²⁰
^{— Nation}^a^{l ex}^ercis^e^prog^ram⁵²⁵²⁵²⁵²⁵²
^—^E^v^a^l^ua^tⁱ^o^{ns p}^r^o^g^r^a^m¹⁴¹⁴¹⁴¹⁴¹⁴
^{— T}^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^an^d³¹⁵⁶⁰⁰³⁶⁵³⁶⁵³⁹⁰
ⁱⁿ^f^r^astr^u^c^tu^r^e^p^r^o^g^r^a^m⁽^T^I^P^P⁾
^—^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^aⁿ^d^a^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^oⁿ⁴⁴⁸⁵⁴⁴⁵
^{— T}^echⁿ^o^lo^g^y^tran^sf^er⁵⁰^—^—⁵⁰^—
^{— Natio}ⁿ^a^{l d}^o^m^{estic p}^r^ep^ar^edⁿ^e^ss¹³⁵^—¹²⁵¹⁴⁵¹⁴⁵
^coⁿ^s^o^r^tiu^m
^{— Metr}^o^p^o^litan^Medⁱ^{cal Resp}^oⁿ^se³⁰^—⁴⁰¹⁰³⁰
^Sy^stem
^{— R}^u^{ral dom}^es^{tic preparedn}^e^s^s⁵^—¹⁰^—¹⁰

^coⁿ^s^o^r^tiu^m
⁹⁹ Includes funding for port, rail, and infrastructure security.
¹⁰⁰ House Appropriations Committee Homeland Security tables of Mar. 15, 2005.

^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^F2006
^Op^erati^on^al^C^o^m^p^on^en^t^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^{— C}^o^m^m^e^{rcial equ}ⁱ^pm^en^{t direct}^—^—⁵⁰^—⁵⁰
^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce prog}^ram
^{— REA}^L^{ID Im}^p^l^em^en^tatioⁿ^—^—^—⁴⁰^—
^Source:^C^oⁿ^f^eren^{ce R}^e^port^(H^.R^ept^.^108-^{774) acc}^o^m^p^aⁿ^yⁱⁿ^g^P^.^L^.^108-^{334 (F}^Y^{2005 D}^H^S
^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^);^O^M^B,^FY^{2006 Budget}^,^A^ppen^d^ix^,^{p. 478; Hou}^s^{e A}^ppropriation^C^o^m^m^{ittee tables}
^of^May^{20, 2005, i}ⁿ^t^r^odu^{ced H}^.^R^.^{2360 an}^{d H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^79.
^No^te:^F^Y^{2006 am}^ouⁿ^t^s^{do n}^o^t^ref^l^ect^t^h^{e 1%}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^en^act^{ed by}^P.L^.^109-^148.
Issues for Congress. The budget request raises policy questions because it
proposes to reduce the overall level of funding for assistance to state and local
preparedness programs, gives new emphasis to assistance for the protection of port,
transit, and other infrastructure; and changes the grant allocation formula for one of
the grants administered by ODP.
Reduction in Funding. In FY2005, Congress appropriated approximately
$3.99 billion for SLGCP and state and local homeland security assistance.¹⁰¹ In the
FY2006 budget request, the Administration proposes a total of $3.57 billion for
SLGCP and federal homeland security assistance, a reduction of $420 million from
FY2005 funding. Additionally, the FY2006 budget request provides no line item
funding for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP). It
proposes, however, to direct states and localities to allocate no less than 20% of
SHSGP and UASI funding for LETTP activities.¹⁰² Apparently, this is a reduction
in SHSGP and UASI funding for equipment, training, exercises, and planning, which
states and localities were authorized to fund with 100% of their allocated amount in
FY2005. One could argue that the overall funding reduction of $420 million and the
Administration’s requirement of states and localities allocating no less than 20% of
their SHSGP and UASI funding for LETPP activities represents a further reduction
of funding for federal homeland security assistance.
The House passed H.R. 2360 proposes a total of $3.67 billion for SLGCP and
federal homeland security assistance, a reduction of $320 million from FY2005
funding. This proposed reduction includes $350 million less for SHSGP than was
appropriated in FY2005.¹⁰³
The Administration’s budget proposal requests $500 million for FIRE in
FY2006, a cut of 23% from the FY2005 appropriated level. Priority would be given
to grant applications enhancing counter-terrorism capabilities. Activities such as
prevention, public fire safety education and awareness, and fire code enforcement
would be funded under a separate fire prevention and firefighter safety grant
program. For FY2006, the Administration is requesting no funding of the SAFER

¹⁰¹ P.L. 108-334, Title III, FY2005 DHS appropriations.
¹⁰² OMB, FY2006 Budget, p. 478.
¹⁰³ House Appropriations Committee Homeland Security tables of Mar. 15, 2005.

grants, which provide assistance to fire departments for hiring personnel.¹⁰⁴ After
House Amendment 134 was adopted during floor debate, House-passed H.R. 2360
included $650 million for firefighter assistance, including $575 million for fire grants
and $75 million for SAFER Act grants. The committee does not agree with the
Administration’s proposal to shift the program’s priority to terrorism or to limit the
list of eligible activities.
On June 16, 2005, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $615 million
for firefighter assistance, including $550 million for fire grants and $65 million for
SAFER Act grants. The committee report states that DHS should “continue the
present practice of funding applications according to local priorities and those
established by the United States Fire Administration.” The Senate passed H.R. 2360
proposes $3.49 billion for SLGCP and federal homeland security-assistance, a
reduction of $492 million from FY2005 funding. This proposed reduction includes
$350 million less for SHSGP than was appropriated in FY2005. The H.R. 2360
conference report proposes $3.346 billion for SLGCP, which is $639 million than
appropriated for these programs in FY2005.
Port, Rail, and Infrastructure Security. In FY2005 Congress appropriated
$150 million for port security and $150 million for rail security (both part of¹⁰⁵
UASI). The Administration, in the FY2006 budget request, proposes the
establishment of a new state and local homeland security assistance program, TIPP,
and requests $600 million for the program. TIPP would provide funding to enhance
the security of ports, transits systems, and other infrastructure, as determined by the¹⁰⁶
DHS Secretary. The budget request, however, does not specify how much funding
would be allocated for port security, or transit systems. Since the Administration
proposes TIPP as a discretionary grant program, one could argue that there is no way
to determine the amount that would be allocated for port and rail security which have
been congressional priorities.
The House passed H.R. 2360 proposed $365 million for port, rail, and
infrastructure security, however, the committee did not agree with the Administration¹⁰⁷
in establishing a separate grant program for these security activities. The Senate
passed H.R. 2360 recommended $365 million for port, rail, and infrastructure
security and for the grants to be administered separately from UASI. The H.R. 2360
conference report proposed $390 million (adopted in P.L. 109-90) for these port, rail,
and infrastructure security grants, which is $75 million more than what was
appropriated in FY2005.
Formula Changes. The Administration proposed changing the formula for
ODP’s SHSGP. The FY2006 budget request proposed $1.02 billion for SHSGP to
be allocated based on risks, threats, vulnerabilities, and unmet first responder
capabilities, provided each state and territory is allocated no less than 0.25% of total

¹⁰⁴ This information provided by Len Kruger, Research, Science, and Industry Division.
¹⁰⁵ P.L. 108-334, Title III.
¹⁰⁶ OMB, FY2006 Budget, p. 478.
¹⁰⁷ House Appropriations Committee Homeland Security tables of Mar. 15, 2005

funds appropriated for this program. There was no proposed formula change for
UASI, CCP, EMPG, or FIRE. The Administration did, however, propose that FIRE
applications to enhance terrorism response capabilities be given priority.¹⁰⁸ It can be
argued that the proposed formula change for SHSGP did not fully support the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States’ (9/11
Commission) recommendation of providing federal homeland security assistance
strictly based on threat and risk,¹⁰⁹ because of the Administration’s proposed state
and territory guaranteed minimum of 0.25%.
The House report (H.Rept. 109-79) accompanying H.R. 2360 stated that the
committee recognizes pending legislation to modify state formula grants and
presumes ODP would distribute funds based on any successor legislation to Section
1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56). Provided no succeeding legislation
to the USA PATRIOT Act is enacted, the Committee directs ODP to assess each
state’s threat, risk, and need to determine their minimum essential preparedness
capability levels and allocate remaining funds to address those identified gaps in
preparedness.¹¹⁰
Senate passed H.R. 2360 recommended $425 million to be allocated to states
in the same manner as amounts distributed to states in FY2005. All remaining funds
would be allocated to states at the discretion of the DHS Secretary based on risks,
threats, vulnerabilities, unmet essential capabilities, and cooperation of multiple
jurisdictions in preparing domestic preparedness plans.¹¹¹ The Collins-Lieberman
Amendment (S.Amdt. 1142) passed by the Senate on July 12, 2005 to Senate passed
H.R. 2360 would allow states, and U.S. possessions and territories to select either of
two options that yields the highest funding level. First, funds would be divided
among the states, the District of Columbia (DC), and U.S. possessions and territories
as follows: states and DC would receive 0.55%, and Puerto Rico and specified U.S.
possessions and territories 0.055%; these total 28.62%. Second, states could
alternatively choose to receive an amount based on a “sliding scale baseline
allocation” calculated by multiplying 0.001 times (1) a state’s population ratio and
(2) a state’s population density ratio.¹¹² After the “base” funds are distributed, the
remainder would be distributed through the risk assessment process, with a
maximum of 50% to be distributed to high-threat urban areas, and the remainder to
the states.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid., pp. 478-480.
¹⁰⁹ National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission
Report (Washington: GPO, Aug. 2004), p. 396.
¹¹⁰ H.Rept. 109-79, p. 77.
¹¹¹ S.Rept. 109-83, p. 66.
¹¹² Section 1801(7) of S.Amdt. 1142 sets out the alternatives as follows: (A) the value of a
state’s population relative to that of the most populous of the 50 states, where the population
of the 50 states has been normalized to a maximum value of 100; and (B) one-fourth of the
value of a state’s population density relative to that of the most densely populated of the 50
states, where the population density of the 50 states has been normalized to a maximum
value of 100.

On September 29, 2005, the conference on H.R. 2360 — FY2006 Department
of Homeland Security appropriations — issued its report, which recommended a total
of $3.34 billion for state and local homeland security grant programs. This is $270
million less than was appropriated for these programs in FY2005 ($3.61billion). The
conference report does not propose to alter the funding formula for SHSGP and
LETPP, it maintains the current formula in which states, DC, and Puerto Rico are to
receive 0.75% of total appropriations, and U.S. insular areas are to receive 0.08% of
total appropriations.¹¹³ It does propose, however, that states be required to update
their State Homeland Security Strategies in accordance with the Interim National
Preparedness Goal to be eligible for federal homeland security assistance.
Additionally, it does not specify what risk factors ODP is to consider in
determining the remainder of appropriations following the distribution of state base
amounts.
The conference report requires the GAO to review the threats and risk factors
the DHS Secretary used in determining discretionary grant allocations — the Urban
Area Security Initiative (UASI) and sub-grants¹¹⁴ — and report to Congress on the
review no later than November 17, 2005.
Public Health and Medical Programs in Title III¹¹⁵
A number of programs in Title III address public health and medical
preparedness for and response to disasters. Existing programs include the
Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) contracts in SLGCP and the
National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) in FEMA. A new position of Chief
Medical Officer was proposed by DHS Secretary Chertoff in July 2005, and is slated
for initial funding in the Homeland Security appropriations conference report for
FY2006. Community EMS services are eligible for funding through a number of
state and local grant programs, including MMRS. Finally, certain activities in the
Biosurveillance Initiative, previously in the DHS Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate, have been transferred to a new
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS) program in Title III.
Proposed FY2006 funding levels for these programs are found in Table 8. Certain
funding issues associated with these programs are discussed below.¹¹⁶
The Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) is a program of contracts
with major cities to coordinate multiple local government agencies in emergency

¹¹³ P.L. 107-56, Section 1014.
¹¹⁴ The sub-grants include port security, trucking industry security, intercity bus security,
intercity passenger rail transportation security, and buffer zone protection grants.
¹¹⁵ This information provided by Sarah Lister, Domestic Social Policy Division.
¹¹⁶ For more information about the MMRS and Biosurveillance programs, see CRS Report
RL31719, An Overview of the U.S. Public Health System in the Context of Emergency
Preparedness, by Sarah A. Lister. For more information about NDMS and the Chief
Medical Officer position, see CRS Report RL33096, 2005 Gulf Cost Hurricanes: The
Public Health and Medical Response, by Sarah A. Lister.

planning. MMRS is slated for elimination in the FY2006 budget proposal, as it has
been in each budget proposal since it was transferred to DHS. The Administration
proposes that ongoing municipal emergency planning activities be supported at the
discretion of states, using funds from the SHSGP and UASI grant programs. The
House Appropriations Committee did not agree with the Administration’s proposal
to eliminate MMRS, and recommended an appropriation of $40 million.¹¹⁷ The
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended an appropriation of $10 million.¹¹⁸
Conferees recommended an appropriation of $30 million.
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers are considered first responders
but are not given funding priority in any sizeable homeland security grant programs.
A few small grant programs are available through the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), though they are not specifically designed for
homeland security activities. EMS providers are also eligible for preparedness funds
through DHS first responder grants (SHSGP, UASI and FIRE) and through the
hospital preparedness program at the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS). But a recent report found that while EMS providers may represent one-third
of traditional first responders, they have received only 4% of the preparedness funds
available through DHS, and 5% of funds available through HHS.¹¹⁹ In its report on
homeland security appropriations for FY2006, the House Committee on
Appropriations directs that no less than 10% of SHSGP and UASI funds must be
provided to EMS responders.¹²⁰ The Senate Committee on Appropriations
encourages DHS to require that states include EMS representatives in planning
efforts.¹²¹ The conferees direct ODP to require state and local governments to
include EMS representatives in planning committees. The conferees do not mandate
that a specific percentage of grant funds be allocated to EMS providers, but rather
they direct ODP to evaluate how much money goes to EMS providers and to require
an explanation from any state not providing at least 10% of its grant funding to
them .¹²²
Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA)¹²³
Hurricane Katrina. Responding to the devastation caused by Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, Congress enacted two supplemental appropriations to the Disaster
Relief Fund (DRF). These appropriations provided EPR with $60 billion in
additional funding to administer relief to the affected region and to other areas

¹¹⁷ H.Rept. 109-79, pp. 82-83.
¹¹⁸ S.Rept. 109-83, p. 68.
¹¹⁹ New York University, Center for Catastrophe Preparedness and Response, Emergency
Medical Services: The Forgotten First Responder, Apr. 2005, at
[http://www.nyu.edu/ccpr/index.html ].
¹²⁰ H.Rept. 109-79, p. 85.
¹²¹ S.Rept. 109-83, p. 68.
¹²² H.Rept. 109-241, pp. 68.
¹²³ Prepared by Keith Bea, Specialist in American National Government, Government and
Finance Division.

included in major disaster or emergency declarations. The funding comprises $10
billion in P.L. 109-61 and $50 billion in P.L. 109-62. DHS uses DRF funds to
provide assistance to individuals, families, state and local governments, and certain
nonprofit organizations, as authorized by the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b).¹²⁴
President’s Request. Few substantive changes were proposed in the
FY2006 budget justification for the EPR accounts. The disaster relief funding
request submitted by the Administration corresponded to the amount requested in
previous fiscal years. Funding for two hazard mitigation programs would have
increased under the proposal; an increase of $50 million ($100 million appropriated
for FY2005) proposed for pre-disaster mitigation grants awarded on a competitive
basis, and an increase of $8 million ($20 million authorized to be transferred in each
previous year) for flood mitigation assistance. Post-disaster mitigation grants,
however, would continue to be funded at a lower level than historically provided.
House Passed H.R. 2360. The House approved legislation that differed in
certain respects from the Administration request. The version of H.R. 2360 adopted
by the House included the following: (1) a reduction of $2 million for the Office of
the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response in light of a “lack of
cooperation received from EP&R, specifically regional and field offices;”¹²⁵ (2)
increased funding of $10 million to further development of the national preparedness
system;¹²⁶ (3) completion of a report by EPR (March 15, 2006) on disaster relief
overpayments made over the past four years; and (4) mitigation assistance higher
than that proposed by the Administration.
Senate Passed H.R. 2360. The Title III provisions approved by the Senate
differed from those approved by the House. The Senate-passed version (1) provided
the requested funding for the Office of the Under Secretary, (2) did not include $15
million requested for the national preparedness system and rescinded almost $10
million in unobligated funds, (3) did not address disaster relief overpayments, and (4)
recommended mitigation funding below that requested and the amount approved by
the House. The Senate report included an increase of $23 million to support Urban
Search and Rescue teams, along with a requirement for a report on costs of the teams,
as well as support for the National Dam Safety Program. Also, while both chambers
recommended comparable funding levels ($2 billion) for the disaster relief fund, the
Senate approved an amendment that would reduce funding by $10 million in order
to increase the funding level for Emergency Management Performance Grants
(EMPG).
P.L. 109-90. The final version of the FY2006 appropriations statute supported
the Second Stage Review (2SR) reorganization plan proposed by Secretary Chertoff
on July 13, 2005 by providing a total of $16.079 million for management and

¹²⁴ For more information see CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster
Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding, by Keith Bea, and
CRS Report RS22239, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane Katrina
Relief, by Jennifer E. Lake and Ralph M. Chite.
¹²⁵ H.Rept. 109-79, p. 85-86.
¹²⁶ H.Rept. 109-79, p. 89.

administration of the Preparedness Directorate and requiring that the Directorate
“work with” FEMA to continue to build “an all-hazard approach for preparation,
response and recovery to any type of disaster.”¹²⁷ P.L. 109-90 also provides roughly
$40 million less than the $249.5 million approved by the House for Preparedness,
Mitigation, Response and Recovery (PMRR) funding. Of the total, $20 million is to
be provided for “catastrophic planning,” and $22 million for implementation of the
National Incident Management System (NIMS). In addition, $20 million in the same
account has been approved by conferees for urban search and rescue teams (the
House proposed $7 million, the Senate $30 million), as has $4 million for reusable
structures. The statute provides additional funding for the DRF at a level ($1.770
billion) lower than proposed by both the House ($2 billion) and the Senate ($1.920
billion), apparently largely because of the supplemental funding provided after
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Also of significance, the statute increases funding for
disaster mitigation by providing $40 million for activities involving repetitively
flooded property (not previously funded) and for the National Flood Mitigation Fund,
from the historic level of $20 million to $40 million through transfers from the
National Flood Insurance Fund. As enacted, the statute includes funding for the pre-
disaster mitigation fund that differs from the amount approved by the two chambers
— $50 million compared to $150 million approved by the House and $37 million by
the Senate.
Issues for Congress. Two significant developments, not apparent when
debate on the FY2006 appropriation began were addressed by Congress during
debate on H.R. 2360. First, funding ($16 million) has been provided for the
management and administration of the Preparedness Directorate. Second, in the
wake of the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina increased reporting
requirements have been imposed on FEMA to ensure that expenditures of over $50
million is provided to Congress.
Disaster Relief Expenditures. Congress appropriates money to the Disaster
Relief Fund (DRF) to ensure that federal assistance is available to help individuals
and communities stricken by severe disasters. Funds appropriated to the DRF remain
available until expended. DHS allocates money from the DRF to provide assistance
to individuals, families, state and local governments, and certain nonprofit
organizations, as authorized by the Stafford Act.¹²⁸ Stafford Act aid is available after
the President issues a declaration that federal assistance is needed to supplement the
resources of states and localities that are overwhelmed by catastrophes. Federal
assistance supported by DRF money is used by states, localities, individuals, and
certain non-profit organizations for mass care, restoration of damaged or destroyed
facilities, clearance of debris, and certain uninsured needs.
As shown in Table 14 in Appendix II, DRF obligations have increased
considerably since 1990 in comparison to those recorded in previous decades. The

¹²⁷ For an examination of 2SR and its impact on FEMA’s mission see CRS Report RL33064,
Organization and Mission of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate:^th
Issues and Options for the 109 Congress, by Keith Bea.
¹²⁸ The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §5121
et seq.

cause of the increase in federal expenditures since 1990 has been the subject of some
debate. A report issued by the OIG for FEMA concluded that the increase in federal
disaster costs “is due to a greater number and magnitude of disasters, expansion of
the law and eligibility for assistance, and interpretation of the law and regulations.”¹²⁹
Some contend that other factors, notably political considerations, contribute to the
costs of disaster relief as well. The author of one study reportedly analyzed data from
the insurance industry, climatic study organizations, and DHS, and concluded that
“electoral motivations ... had a dramatic effect on which states were granted disaster
declarations.”¹³⁰ More specifically, and less dramatically, the author reports in a
published summary of his work: “The best predictor of a disaster declaration, bar
none, is actual need. The question arises in these marginal cases, when it’s unclear
whether to give or not.”¹³¹ On the other hand, a study issued by GAO also considered
the effects of politics on disaster declarations but arrived at a different conclusion.
After examining presidential declaration data from the perspective of the party
affiliation of governors and members of state congressional delegations, the authors
concluded that there “were no indications that party affiliation affected White House
major disaster declaration decisions.”¹³²
In considering a gubernatorial request for disaster relief, the President evaluates
a number of factors, including the cause of the catastrophe, damages, needs,
certification by state officials that state and local governments will comply with cost
sharing and other requirements, and official requests for assistance. Neither the
Stafford Act nor implementing regulations provide for a congressional role in the
declaration process.¹³³
The level of expenditures from the DRF fluctuates from year to year primarily
as a consequence of three factors — the number of disaster declarations issued, the
extent of destruction caused by the disasters, and the amount of uninsured losses that
result from declared disasters. Discussions in Congress on the escalating disaster
relief costs move between two policy concerns — the need to control federal costs,
particularly at a time of significant deficits, and the need of constituents who have
suffered devastating losses.

¹²⁹ U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, at [http://www.fema.gov/library/
pp2man.shtm].
¹³⁰ For a summary see Andrew Reeves, “Plucking Votes from Disasters,” Los Angeles Times,
May 12, 2004, p. A19.
¹³¹ Brian Tarcey, “Flooding the Ballot Box: The Politics of Disaster,” Harvard Magazine,
at [http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/030492.html].
¹³² U.S. General Accounting Office, Disaster Assistance: Timeliness and Other Issues
Involving the Major Disaster Declaration Process, GAO/RCED-89-138, May 25, 1989, pp.

1, 4.

¹³³ For regulations on the request and declaration process, see 44 CFR §§206.35-206.39.

During the second session of the 109th Congress Members may wish to evaluate
several options in balancing the needs of disaster stricken areas with budgetary
constraints. These options include and are not limited to the following approaches.¹³⁴
^!Amend the Stafford Act to determine whether existing statutory
declaration criteria are appropriate. Reducing the categories or
narrowing their scope would result in cost savings as fewer disasters
would trigger federal assistance. Such changes, however, would
result in greater financial burdens for individuals and communities
in distress.
^!Modify how Congress and the President budget for emergencies.
Currently, Congress provides additional funds during the fiscal year,
usually in supplemental appropriations, to respond to specific natural
disasters and other emergency, or unanticipated, situations.
Congress and the President usually designate the additional spending
as an “emergency requirement,” effectively exempting it from
budget constraints associated with the annual budget resolution.
Some believe this practice of budgeting for emergencies might lead
to unnecessary or wasteful spending. In addition, some believe that
the existing budgetary treatment of emergency spending provides an
incentive to designate non-emergency spending as an emergency
requirement in order to circumvent the existing budgetary
constraints. To address these concerns, some have proposed the
following two reforms, establishment of a reserve fund or criteria for
the designation of an emergency, as follows.
^!Establish a reserve fund for disaster assistance. Proponents of a
reserve fund for disaster assistance argue that the average annual
amount of overall emergency spending can be projected based on
past experience, even though specific emergencies cannot be
predicted. Therefore, they further argue that an expected amount of
disaster assistance spending should be incorporated into the overall
amount of spending in the President’s budget and the budget
resolution. Proponents of such a reserve fund generally suggest that
an historical average of actual disaster assistance spending would
provide sufficient funds to meet specific emergencies as they arise.
Legislation pending before Congress (S. 24) would establish such a
fund in the Treasury.
^!Establish criteria for emergency spending. Proponents of emergency
spending criteria argue that any spending for disasters and other
emergencies should meet specific criteria to be considered outside
the constraints associated with the budget resolution and outside the
regular annual appropriations process. Past budget resolutions have
required that spending designated as an “emergency requirement”

¹³⁴ Contributions on emergency funding provided by Bill Heniff, Jr., Analyst in American
National Government, Government and Finance Division.

meet criteria such as the “underlying situation poses a threat to life,
property, or national security” and is sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and
temporary (for example, see the budget resolution considered by the

108th Congress, S.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept. 108-498). Proponents,

however, suggest that such criteria should be statutory.¹³⁵
Title IV: Research and Development, Training,
Assessments, and Services
Activities funded by Title IV include the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS), IAIP, FLETC, and the S&T.
Table 8 shows the FY2005 enacted and FY2006 requested appropriations for
Title IV. The Administration requested an appropriation of $4,320 million in gross
budget authority for Title IV in FY2006, representing an 8% increase over the
enacted FY2005 level of $4,011 million. The Administration requested an
appropriation of $2,546 million in net budget authority for Title IV in FY2006,
representing a 6% increase over the FY2005 enacted level of $2,392 million. Of the
requested net appropriation for DHS for FY2006: USCIS accounts for less than 1%;
IAIP accounts for 3%; S&T accounts for 5%; FLETC accounts for less than 1%; and
all Title IV accounts combined account for 8% of requested net appropriated DHS
budget authority. House-passed H.R. 2360 recommended a net appropriation of
$2,522 million in net budget authority for Title IV in FY2006, representing a $126
million or nearly 5% increase as compared to the FY2005 enacted amount; and a $24
million or 1% decrease as compared to the FY2006 request. The Senate-passed
version of H.R. 2360 would have provided $2,686 million for the activities of Title
IV, representing an increase of $140 million, or 5%, compared to the FY2006
request; an increase of $164 million, or 7%, compared to the amount provided in the
House-passed version of H.R. 2360; and an increase of $290 million, or 12%,
compared to the FY2005 enacted amount. P.L. 109-90 provides $1,899 million for
the activities of Title IV. This does not include funding for IAIP (see tablenote b to
Table 10).

¹³⁵ For example, the state of Louisiana defines “emergency,” for the purpose of
appropriating emergency funds, as “an event or occurrence not reasonably anticipated by
the legislature. ‘An event not reasonably anticipated’ shall be one not considered and
rejected, in the same relative form or content, by the legislature during the preceding session
either by specific legislative instrument or amendment thereto on the floor of either house
or by a committee thereof.” See La. Rev. Stat. Title 39, §461.1.A.(2).

Table 10. Title IV: Research and Development, Training,
Assessments, and Services
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^Op^erati^on^al^com^p^onent^enacted^request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^Citizens^h^{ip and im}^mⁱ^{gration s}^ervices
^{(direct appropriation)}
^G^r^os^s^s^u^b^t^otal^1,775^1,854^1,894^1,854^1,889
^—^O^ffse^t^tⁱ^{ng fe}^e^s^a^-¹^,615^-¹^,774^-¹^,774^-¹^,774^-¹^,774
^N^e^{t s}^u^b^t^otal¹⁶⁰⁸⁰¹²⁰⁸⁰¹¹⁵
^Iⁿ^form^ati^oⁿ^an^al^ysⁱ^s^an^d^b
ⁱⁿ^fras^tru^c^tu^{re p}^r^otecti^oⁿ
^—^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ¹³²²⁰⁴¹⁹⁰¹⁶⁹^—
^—^A^s^s^e^s^s^m^en^t^s^an^{d ev}^al^u^a^tⁱ^oⁿ⁷⁶²⁶⁶⁹⁶⁶³⁷⁰²^—
^N^e^{t s}^u^b^t^otal⁸⁹⁴⁸⁷³⁸⁵³⁸⁷¹^—
^{Federal law}^enforcem^{ent training}²²⁷^c²²⁴²⁵⁹²⁸²²⁸²
^center
^{Science a}^{nd t}^echno^lo^g^y
^—^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^aⁿ^d^a^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^oⁿ⁶⁹⁸¹⁸¹⁸¹⁸¹
^{— R}^e^s^earch^{, dev}^e^lopm^en^t,^d^1,047^1,287^1,209^1,372^1,421
^acq^uⁱ^sitioⁿ^,^an^d^o^p^e^r^a^tioⁿ^s
^N^e^{t s}^u^b^t^otal^1,115^1,368^1,290^1,453^1,502
^G^r^o^{ss budg}^et^a^u^t^h^o^r^it^y^:^Tit^l^{e IV}⁴^,⁰¹¹⁴^,³²⁰⁴^,²⁹⁶⁴^,⁴⁶⁰³^,⁶⁷³
^Offs^ettiⁿ^g^col^l^ecti^oⁿ^s^{: T}ⁱ^tl^{e I}^V^-1,615^-1,774^-1,774^-1,774^-1,774
^Net^budg^et^a^u^t^h^o^r^it^y^:^Tit^l^{e IV}²^,³⁹⁶²^,⁵⁴⁶²^,⁵²²²^,⁶⁸⁶¹^,⁸⁹⁹
^Source:^C^R^S^aⁿ^a^l^y^sⁱ^s^o^f^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^Bu^dg^et^{, an}^{d D}^H^S^Budgetⁱⁿ^Brⁱ^e^f^{, Hou}^s^e
^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee t}^a^bl^es^of^May^{20, 2005, H}^ouse^-^p^a^s^s^e^{d H}^.^R^.^{2360 an}^{d H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^79;
^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^-^p^as^s^e^d^H^.^R^.²³⁶⁰^an^{d S}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^83;^an^{d t}^h^{e C}^oⁿ^f^eren^{ce R}^e^port^t^o^H^.^R^.^{2360, H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}
^241.
^No^te:^T^o^t^a^l^s^m^a^yⁿ^o^t^add^du^e^t^o^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^F^Y^{2006 am}^ouⁿ^t^s^{do n}^o^t^ref^l^ect^t^h^{e 1%}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^board
^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^en^act^{ed by}^P.L^.^109-^148.
^{a. Fees}ⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e Im}^mⁱ^g^r^ation^Ex^amⁱⁿ^ation^Fuⁿ^d^{; H-}^{1b Vis}^a^{Fee; an}^{d th}^e^F^r^a^u^d^P^r^e^v^en^tion^an^d
^Detection^f^ee.
^{b. P}^.^L^.^109-^{90 s}^p^lits^u^p^th^{e IA}^IP^{Directorate pu}^rs^u^aⁿ^t^{to Secretary}^C^h^erto^{ff’s r}^e^o^r^gaⁿⁱ^z^a^tⁱ^o^{n p}^r^opos^al
^s^u^bm^{itted to C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^on^J^u^ly^{13, 2005. T}^h^{e IA}^portion^of^IA^IP^h^a^s^been^m^ove^d^t^o^T^{itle I}
^uⁿ^d^{er th}^{e accou}ⁿ^t^h^eadin^g^Anal^ysⁱ^s^{and O}^p^er^atⁱ^ons^{. T}^h^{e IP}^portⁱ^oⁿ^of^IA^IP^h^a^s^been^m^o^v^e^d
^to^T^{itle III in}^th^e^P^r^ep^aredⁿ^e^{ss Directo}^r^{ate an}^d^{is u}ⁿ^d^{er th}^{e acco}^uⁿ^t^h^eadⁱⁿ^g^o^f^Iⁿ^fra^s^tru^c^tu^re
^Pr^ot^ectⁱ^{on and Inf}^o^r^m^atⁱ^{on Secur}ⁱ^t^y^.^T^h^e^IA^IP^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^accouⁿ^t^s^h^a^v^e
^ap^p^a^ren^tly^b^een^sp^lit^b^e^tw^een^th^ese^tw^oⁿ^e^w^acco^uⁿ^t^{s, h}^o^w^e^v^e^{r th}^{e ex}^{act d}ⁱ^vⁱ^sioⁿ^o^f^th^{ese f}^uⁿ^d^s
^w^a^{s n}^o^{t r}^ead^ily^av^ailab^l^e.
^{c. In}^clu^d^es^{$4 m}^illionⁱⁿ^s^u^pplem^en^{tal appropriation}^s^prov^{ided by}^P^.^L^.^109-^13.
^{d. D}^H^S^propos^ed^con^s^olⁱ^d^atⁱⁿ^g^t^h^{e depart}^m^eⁿ^t^’^s^R^e^s^earch^an^{d D}^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t^ef^f^o^rt^s^by^t^r^an^s^f^erriⁿ^g
^th^{e R}^e^s^earch^an^{d Dev}^e^lopm^en^{t f}^uⁿ^c^tion^s^of^C^B^P^,^IC^{E, T}^S^A^,^an^{d th}^{e C}^o^a^s^t^G^u^a^r^d^{to th}^e
^{Directorate of}^S&^T^.

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)¹³⁶
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. USCIS funds the processing and adjudication of immigrant,
nonimmigrant, refugee, asylum, and citizenship benefits largely through monies
generated by the Examinations Fee Account.¹³⁷ Last year, the Administration
increased the fees charged to U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents petitioning
to bring family or employees into the United States and to foreign nationals in the
United States seeking immigration benefits.¹³⁸ In FY2004, 86% of USCIS funding
came from the Examinations Fee Account.
In FY2005, USCIS had budget authority for $1.571 billion from the
Examinations Fee Account.¹³⁹ Congress provided a direct appropriation of $160
million in FY2005. The House report language emphasized that $160 million should
be available to reduce the backlog of applications and to strive for a six-month
processing standard for all applications by FY2006.¹⁴⁰ Title IV of P.L. 108-447, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005, also required the Secretary of
Homeland Security to impose a fraud prevention and detection fee of $500 on H-1B
(foreign temporary professional workers) and L (intracompany business personnel)
petitioners. The statute requires that the H-1B and L fraud prevention and detection
fee be divided equally among DHS, the Department of State (DOS) and Department
of Labor (DOL) for use in combating fraud in H-1B and L visa applications with
DOS and H-1B and L petitions with USCIS and in carrying out DOL labor attestation

¹³⁶ Section prepared by Ruth Ellen Wasem, Specialist in Immigration Policy, Domestic
Social Policy Division. For further information see CRS congressional distribution
memorandum, FY2006 Funding for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, by Ruth
Ellen Wasem.
¹³⁷ §286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1356.
¹³⁸ For example, the I-130 petition for family members went from $130 to $185, the I-140
petition for LPR workers went from $135 to $190, the I-485 petition to adjust status went
from $255 to $315, and the N-400 petition to naturalize as a citizen went from $260 to $320.
Federal Register, vol. 69, no. 22, Feb. 3, 2004, pp. 5088-5093.
¹³⁹ P.L. 108-334, Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4567, H.Rept. 108-774.
¹⁴⁰ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2005, report to accompany H.R. 4567, 108^th Cong., 2^nd sess., H.Rept.
108-541 (Washington: GPO 2004). The President’s Budget request for FY2002 proposed
a five-year, $500 million initiative to reduce the processing time for all petitions to six
months. Congress provided $100 in budget authority ($80 direct appropriations and $20
million from fees) for backlog reduction in FY2002. P.L. 107-77, Conference report to
accompany H.R. 2500, U.S. Congress, House Committee of Conference, Making
Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2002, and for Other Purposes,
H.Rept. 107-278 (Washington: GPO 2001).

enforcement activities.¹⁴¹ DHS also receives 5% of the H-1B education and training
fees in the Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account.¹⁴²
President’s Request. For FY2006, the Administration is seeking an increase
of $79 million for USCIS. The Administration is requesting a total of $1,854 million
for USCIS, (an increase of 4% over the enacted FY2005 level of $1,775 million) the
bulk of the funding coming from increased fees paid by individuals and businesses
filing petitions (Table 10). For FY2006, USCIS expects to receive a total of $1,774
million from the various fee accounts, most of which ($1,730 million) would be
coming from the Examinations Fee Account. According to the USCIS Congressional
Justification documents, funds from the Examinations Fee Account alone comprise
93% of the total USCIS FY2006 budget request. The FY2006 Budget also includes
$13 million from the H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account¹⁴³ and $31 million
from the H-1B and L Fraud Prevention and Detection Account.¹⁴⁴ The
Administration proposes to use the $31 million generated from the new fee on H-1B
and L petitions to expand its Fraud Detection and National Security Office.¹⁴⁵
In terms of direct appropriations, the Administration is requesting $80 million
— a decrease of $80 from FY2005 (Table 10) and a decrease of $155 million from
the $235 million Congress appropriated in FY2004.
House-Passed H.R. 2360. House-passed H.R. 2360 recommended an
increase of $40 million above the President’s request for a total of $120 million,
which is $40 million less than the FY2005 enacted appropriation.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. Senate-passed H.R. 2360 recommended $80
million for USCIS in direct appropriations fully funding the President’s request, but
recommending $40 million less than provided in House-passed H.R. 2360, and $80
million less than enacted in FY2005.
P.L. 109-90. P.L. 109-90 provides a total of $1,889 million for USCIS, of
which 94% comes from fees. The remaining 6% is a direct appropriation of $115
million, which includes $80 million for backlog reduction initiatives as well as $35
million to support the information technology transformation effort and to convert
immigration records into digital format. The FY2006 appropriations amount is a
decrease of 28% from the $160 million appropriated in FY2005. As a result of a
10% increase in revenue budgeted from fees, the FY2006 total is 6% greater than the
FY2005 total.
Issues for Congress. Many in Congress have expressed concern and
frustration about the processing delays and pending caseload. Congress has already

¹⁴¹ §426(b) of P.L. 108-447.
¹⁴² §286(s) of INA; 8 U.S.C. §1356(s).
¹⁴³ §286(s) of INA; 8 U.S.C. §1356(s).
¹⁴⁴ §286(v) of INA; 8 U.S.C. §1356(v).
¹⁴⁵ USCIS added a Fraud Detection and National Security Office to handle duties formerly
done by the INS’s enforcement arm, which is now part of DHS’s ICE Bureau.

enacted statutory requirements for backlog elimination and has earmarked funding
backlog elimination for the past several years.¹⁴⁶ The number of pending
immigration and naturalization petitions has decreased by 21.5% from 6.0 million at
the close of FY2003 to 4.7 million at the close of FY2004. Nonetheless, this figure
remains 25.7% greater than the 3.7 million pending cases at the close of FY2000.
USCIS hopes to achieve the six-month petition processing time by FY2006.
Another matter that may arise in the appropriations debate is the coordination
and duplication of efforts between USCIS and ICE in the area of fraud and national
security investigations. GAO has reported: “The difficulty between USCIS and ICE
investigations regarding benefit fraud is not new ... as a result, some USCIS field
officials told us that ICE would not pursue single cases of benefit fraud. ICE field
officials who spoke on this issue cited a lack of investigative resources as to why they
could not respond in the manner USCIS wanted.”¹⁴⁷ USCIS has established the
Office of Fraud Detection and National Security to work with the appropriate law
enforcement entities to handle national security and criminal “hits” on aliens and to
identify systemic fraud in the application process.¹⁴⁸
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)¹⁴⁹
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center provides training on all phases
of law enforcement instruction, from firearms and high speed vehicle pursuit to legal
case instruction and defendant interview techniques, for 81 Federal entities with law
enforcement responsibilities, State and Local law enforcement agencies, and
international law enforcement agencies. Training policies, programs, and standards
are developed by an interagency Board of Directors, and focus on providing training
that develops the skills and knowledge needed to perform law enforcement functions
safely, effectively, and professionally. FLETC maintains four training sites
throughout the United States and has a workforce of over 900 employees. In
FY2004, FLETC trained almost 44,781 law enforcement students.
President’s Request. The FY2006 request for FLETC was $224 million,
an decrease of $3 million, and 1%, from the FY2005 enacted appropriation
(including supplemental appropriations). FLETC’s FY2006 request included only
one program change, an increase of $2.7 million for Simulation Training Technology.
This technology will be used to simulate weather, light, urban, and traffic conditions
during high-speed pursuits, allowing the agency to increase their students’
proficiency at making rapid decisions during critical law enforcement situations.

¹⁴⁶ For example, see §§451-461 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296).
¹⁴⁷ GAO, Management Challenges Remain in Transforming Immigration Programs,
GAO-05-81, Oct. 2004, available at [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0581.pdf].
¹⁴⁸ For further analysis, see CRS Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent
Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
¹⁴⁹ Prepared by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy
Division.

House-Passed H.R. 2360. House-passed H.R. 2360 alloted $259 million
for FLETC in FY2006, $35 million, or 16%, more than the President’s request and
$32 million, or 14% more than the agency’s FY2005 appropriation. This increase
was intended to cover the increased training needs that will be engendered by new¹⁵⁰
Border Patrol agents and ICE investigators added by the House Committee.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2360. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $282 million for FLETC in FY2006, $58 million more than the
President’s request and $55 million, or 24% more than the agency’s FY2005
appropriation. The bulk of this increase was in the construction account in order to
cover the expansion and maintenance of training facilities to accommodate the
increase in Border Patrol agents and ICE investigators.¹⁵¹
P.L. 109-90. P.L. 109-90 provides $282 million for FLETC. This number
includes the Senate’s recommendation for $88 million in the Construction account
in order to cover the increased training needs of DHS as the department hires
additional Border Patrol agents and ICE investigators.¹⁵²
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP)¹⁵³
The historical mission of the DHS IAIP, in short, was to:
^!integrate and analyze terrorist threat information;
^!map threat information against physical and cyber vulnerabilities of
the Nation’s critical infrastructure and key assets; and
^!implement and/or recommend actions that protect the lives of the
American people and ensure the national and economic security of
the United States.
The IAIP appropriation was divided into two primary accounts: Management
and Administration, and Assessments and Evaluations. Management and
Administration includes budgets for the Office of the Under Secretary and Other
Salaries and Expenses. The latter (Other Salaries and Expenses) includes all the
personnel costs of the Directorate. The Assessment and Evaluations budget supports
the directorate’s activities. These activities have been divided into 12 programs.
Each program contains one or more projects. Projects are defined with varying
degrees of specificity. The Directorate’s budget justification document breaks
funding down to the program level. It is beyond the scope of this report to discuss
in much detail the specific activities associated with each of these programs.

¹⁵⁰ H.Rept. 109-79, pp.100-101.
¹⁵¹ S.Rept. 109-83, pp. 81-82.
¹⁵² H.Rept. 109-241, p. 77.
¹⁵³ Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources,
Science and Industry Division; and Todd Masse, Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and
Counterterrorism, Domestic Social Policy Division.

The President’s FY2006 IAIP request was $873 million, a decrease of 2.3%
from the amounted enacted for FY2005. The House approved $853 million for IAIP,
about $20 million below what the Administration requested. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $871 million for IAIP. Table 11
summarizes the President’s request and congressional action for each account and
program.
Management and Administration. The President’s FY2006 request for the
M&A account was $204 million, an increase of $72 million, or 55%. Of the $72
million increase requested for the Management and Administration account, $69.1
million are programmatic changes: $11.7 million to increase staffing (146 new
positions, funded for half a year),¹⁵⁴ $38 million to upgrade and expand facilities and
equipment for the Directorate (including security upgrades), and $19.4 million to
construct a Homeland Secure Data Network, to accommodate the automated access
and sharing of classified information within the Directorate. Adjustments to the
FY2005 base ($2.8 million) account for the balance.¹⁵⁵
The House approved $190.2 million for this account, $13.8 million less than
what was requested. The House cut $5.8 million from the amount requested for
additional positions. The House report noted that IAIP has still not filled its currently
authorized FTE positions and that the committee would like a review of the mission
and function of IAIP in light of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act and the formation of the National Counter Terrorism Center and the Terrorist
Screening Center.¹⁵⁶ The House also approved a floor amendment to reduce the
M&A account by another $8 million (in undisclosed reductions).
The Senate also approved less funding for the M&A account ($168.7 million).
It denied all of the requested funds for extra FTE positions and included a base
reduction due to continued hiring difficulties.¹⁵⁷ Like the House, the Senate called
for a review of IAIP staffing requirements. The Senate also recommended that no
funds be made available for the Homeland Secure Data Network through the M&A
account. The Senate recommended funding this program through the Chief
Information Officer’s budget, located elsewhere in the DHS budget. The Senate did
allow increases for pay and non-pay inflationary costs and other efficiencies.
Assessments and Evaluations. The President’s request for FY2006 in the
A&E account was $669 million, a decrease of $92.4 million, or 12% from FY2005.

¹⁵⁴ The majority of these positions (100) would go toward the Infrastructure Vulnerability
and Risk Assessment program involved in studying the tactics and capabilities of terrorist
groups and liaising with the Intelligence Community. Another 26 people would be hired for
the Threats Determination and Assessment program to do more strategic level threat
assessments.
¹⁵⁵ Adjustments to base are changes made to the prior year’s enacted appropriation and
generally include transfers of funds from one program to another, or technical adjustments
for salaries and other management efficiencies.
¹⁵⁶ H.Rept. 109-79, pp. 101-102.
¹⁵⁷ S.Rept. 109-83, p. 83.

The reduction is the net result of a number of programmatic increases, decreases, and
transfers. The IAIP Directorate proposes transferring two activities to other DHS
components. One proposal is to transfer support for state and local assistance to help
create Buffer Zone Protection Plans around critical assets to the SLGCP, as part of
the latter’s new $600 million initiative (TIPP). The other proposal is to transfer
support for the National Control Systems Test Center (a test bed for analyzing and
fixing vulnerabilities in computer control systems) to the S&T Directorate. The
Cyber Security program has been supporting the center.
These adjustments to the enacted FY2005 A&E account bring the FY2006 base
to $624 million. Requested program enhancements for the A&E account total $49
million. Of the $49 million, the A&E program with the largest increase ($26 million,
or 53%) is the Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC). Major programmatic
increases within HSOC include $13.4 million for hardware, software, and support for
extending the Homeland Security Information Network¹⁵⁸ to localities and relevant
private sector entities; and $12.9 million to purchase, upgrade, and support additional
information and communications hardware and software to improve the HSOC
capabilities to acquire, manipulate, store and disseminate greater amounts of
information. Other programmatic increases in the A&E account include $5 million
to support expanded capabilities and operations of the United States Computer
Emergency Response Team within the Cyber Security program; $5.5 million to
primarily provide for additional contractor support of the Protected Critical
Infrastructure Information project (within the Critical Infrastructure Outreach and
Partnerships program);¹⁵⁹ $3.0 million within the Critical Infrastructure Outreach and
Partnerships program to support implementation and oversight of the National IP
Plan; and $5.5 million to hire contractors to better define policy, procedures and
processes governing information sharing between DHS and its partners, to draft
technical and operational needs statements, and to analyze new requirements.
The IAIP budget justification provides less detail about the programmatic
decreases in FY2006, totaling approximately $146 million (including the transfer of
the National Control Systems Test Center). The Critical Infrastructure Outreach and
Partnerships program decrease includes a $35 million reduction associated with no
longer hosting some departmental applications as directed by the department’s CIO.
Some of the increases and decreases within specific programs are the result of the
transfer of projects between programs. For example, some Threat Determination and
Assessment activities were transferred to the Infrastructure Vulnerability and Risk
Assessment program. The budget request also estimates approximately $3.0 million
in savings due to management and technology efficiencies. The A&E program with
the highest ($100 million) adjustment to its base is the Protective Actions program.

¹⁵⁸ DHS and the IA/IP view the Homeland Security Information Network as the primary
portal for communicating with states, localities, and the private sector. Connectivity via the
Network has been established with all 50 states and many law enforcement entities. The
FY2006 increase is to extend connectivity to 1800 other sites.
¹⁵⁹ The Protected Critical Infrastructure Information program implements Title II, Subtitle
B of the Homeland Security Act, which, among other protections, exempted information
voluntarily provided to DHS, and certified as critical infrastructure information by DHS,
from the Freedom of Information Act.

This program assists federal, state, local, tribal, and private sector organizations in
identifying vulnerabilities, and devising protection strategies and local protective
programs to surround select infrastructure assets. Of the $100 million adjustment,
the Buffer Zone Protection Plans (BZPP) project was reduced by $53 million
associated with the transfer of assistance to the new TIPP, administered by SLGCP.
Another $42 million of the $100 million adjustment was a decrease for Emerging
Pilot Projects and Technology Application Pilots. This effort will now be funded
within the DHS S&T.
The House approved $663 million for the A&E account, making a few
modifications to specific programs, as noted in Table 11. It reduced the Critical
Infrastructure and Outreach program request by $5 million because it did not receive
a report on Information Sharing and Analysis Centers, which it said it needed to
assess funding levels for them. The House reduced the Homeland Security
Operations Center request by $5 million because it did not receive a five-year
implementation plan for the center. The House reduced the Biosurveillance request
by $1 million because it did not receive a classified report on the program’s scope,
costs, schedules, and key milestones. The House increased the Critical Infrastructure
Identification and Evaluation program by $5 million to expand IAIP Comprehensive
Reviews of selected infrastructure sectors. The House commended IAIP on its
Review of the nuclear reactor and fuel storage facilities and would like to see similar
Reviews of the chemical and liquified natural gas sectors.¹⁶⁰
The Senate approved $702 million for the A&E account, making different
modifications to specific programs from those approved by the House. The Senate
nearly doubled the Critical Infrastructure Outreach and Partnerships program request
to $126.6 million, maintaining that program at FY2005 levels plus increasing funds
for the National Center for Critical Information Processing and Storage by $20
million. The Senate also increased the request for the National Infrastructure
Simulation and Analysis Center by $5 million ($1 million above its FY2005
appropriation), and increased the Biosurveillance program request by $7 million, for
a total of $18 million. The Senate recommended reducing the Critical Infrastructure
Identification and Evaluation program request by $12.3 million. It also
recommended reducing the Homeland Security Operations Center request by $21.1
million and denied funding for the new Information Sharing and Collaboration
program. The Senate Appropriations Committee’s report language, however, stated
that its recommendation for the Operations Center included funding for the 10
additional FTEs requested for that program. This is at odds with its earlier language¹⁶¹
denying all additional FTE increases.
IAIP Reorganization
The Chertoff reorganization essentially split the IA/IP Directorate, with the IA
part forming part of the Analysis and Operations group, funded under the
Departmental Operations account, and the IP part being merged with elements from
the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate (including the Office of

¹⁶⁰ H.Rept. 109-79, pp. 103-108.
¹⁶¹ See S.Rept. 109-83, pp. 83 and 86.

Domestic Preparedness and its multitude of grant programs, and FEMA) to form a
new Preparedness Directorate. Conferees agreed to this reorganization, if not quite
the level of funding to be provided.
The conferees funded the Analysis and Operations account at $255.5 million.
The amended request was $311 million. The reduction was due in part to reductions
made to those funds being transferred from the old IA/IP Management and
Administration account. The number of vacant positions was given as the reason for
those reductions. The amended request asked for $577 million for Preparedness
Operations, which included funding for the Office of the Undersecretary for
Preparedness, the Office of the Chief Medical Officer, the Office of the National
Capital Region Coordinator, and for Infrastructure Protection and Information
Security programs (i.e., those IP programs that comprised the old Evaluations and
Assessment account). The conferees provided a total of $642 million: $16 million
for Management and Administration which includes funding (but $4.8 million less
than what was requested) for those offices mentioned above and $625 million for
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security programs ($69 million more than
was requested).
Table 11 shows the FY2005 funding and FY2006 proposals for IAIP. The
Conference Report, H.Rept.109-241, split IAIP into Infrastructure Protection and
Information Security within Title III, and Analysis and Operations in Title I. Where
possible, Table 11 follows tracks the accounts that were moved back to the FY2005
enacted level. Where such information was not available or not readily identifiable,
we insert N/A. Lastly, we include the total funding provided to the new entities, IPIS
and Analysis and Operations, in order to make comparisons possible between the
overall request and the House and Senate recommendations for IAIP and for the new
agencies.
Table 11. IAIP Account Level Funding and Crosswalk
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^A^ccouⁿ^t^(p^rogram⁾^enacted^request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^M^aⁿ^agem^eⁿ^t^an^d^132.0^204.0^190.2^168.8^N^/^A^a
^ad^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rati^on
^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e u}ⁿ^d^{er s}^ecretary⁵^.8^6.9⁶^.9^6.9^N^/A
^O^t^h^e^{r s}^a^l^a^ri^es^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es^126.2^197.1^191.3^161.9^N^/^A
^Un^sp^ecifⁱ^ed^red^u^ctioⁿ^—^—⁸^—^N/A
^A^s^s^e^s^s^m^en^ts^an^d^eval^u^a^ti^on^s^761.7^669.2^663.2^701.8^N^/^A
^To^t^a^{l IAIP}^a^893.7^873.2^853.4^870.6^N^/^A
^Iⁿ^fras^{tructure Protection}
^{and I}ⁿ^form^{ation Security}^a
^(I^PI^S⁾
^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^aⁿ^d^N/A^N^/A^N/A^N^/A^83.3

^ad^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ

^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^A^ccouⁿ^t^(p^rogram⁾^enacted^request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^Cr^{itical in}^f^r^astr^u^c^tu^r^e^77.9^72.2^77.2^59.9^68.5
^id^en^tif^icatioⁿ^an^d^ev^alu^a^tioⁿ
^Natioⁿ^a^{l in}^f^r^astr^u^c^tu^r^e^20.0^16.0^16.0^21.0^20.0
^sⁱ^m^u^lation^an^{d an}^aly^s^is^cen^ter
^Bⁱ^o^s^u^r^v^e^illan^c^e^11.0^11.1^10.1^18.1^14.1
^P^r^otectiv^{e action}^s^191.6^91.4^91.4^91.4^91.4
^Cr^{itical in}^f^r^astr^u^c^tu^r^e^106.6^67.2^62.2^126.6^112.2
^ou^treach^an^{d partn}^e^rs^hⁱ^ps
^C^y^{ber s}^ecu^rity^67.4^73.3^73.3^73.3^93.3
^Natioⁿ^a^{l secu}^r^ity^/em^e^r^g^en^cy
^preparedn^e^s^s^140.8^142.6^142.6^142.6^142.6
^teleco^m^m^uⁿⁱ^catioⁿ^s
^I^P^I^S^Subtotal^N/A^N^/A^N/A^N^/A^625.5
^Aⁿ^al^ysⁱ^s^an^d^Op^erati^on^s^a
^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^aⁿ^d^N/A^N^/A^N/A^N^/A^N/A
^ad^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ
^T^h^r^{eat d}^e^ter^mⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^an^d^21.9^19.9^19.9^19.9^N/A
^a^sse^ssm^eⁿ^t
^Iⁿ^f^r^astr^u^c^tu^r^e^v^u^lⁿ^e^r^a^b^ility^71.1^74.3^74.3^74.3^N/A
^aⁿ^d^rⁱ^{sk a}^sse^ssm^eⁿ^t
^Co^m^p^etitiv^{e an}^aly^s^{is an}^d^4.0^—^—^—^N/A
^ev^alu^a^tion
^E^v^a^l^ua^tⁱ^o^{ns a}ⁿ^d^st^udⁱ^e^s^14.4^34.5^34.5^34.5^N/A
^Ho^m^e^lan^d^Secu^r^ity^35.0^61.1^56.1^40.0^N/A
^Operation^s^C^eⁿ^t^er
^Iⁿ^fo^r^m^a^tⁱ^o^{n sha}^rⁱ^{ng a}ⁿ^d^—^5.5⁵^.5^—^N/A
^co^llab^o^r^atioⁿ
^Aⁿ^al^ysⁱ^s^an^d^Op^erati^on^s^N^/^A^N^/^A^N^/^A^N^/^A^255.5
^Subt^o^t^a^l
^T^o^tal^,^I^P^I^S^an^d^Aⁿ^al^ysⁱ^s^an^d^N^/^A^N^/^A^N^/^A^N^/^A^881.1
^Operations
^Source:^C^R^S^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^Bu^dg^et^,^aⁿ^d^D^H^S^,^B^udg^etⁱⁿ^Bri^e^f^,^H^o^u^s^e
^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee t}^a^bl^es^of^May^20,^2005,ⁱⁿ^t^r^odu^ced^H^.^R^.²³⁶⁰^an^{d H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{79, S}^eⁿ^a^t^e
^A^ppropriation^s^C^o^m^m^{ittee tables}^of^Juⁿ^e^{16, 2005, S}^.^R^e^pt.^109-⁸³^to^accom^p^an^y^H.R^.^2360,^an^d^th^e
^C^oⁿ^f^eren^{ce R}^e^port^,^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^241.
^No^te:^T^o^t^a^l^s^m^a^yⁿ^o^t^{add du}^{e t}^o^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^N^/^A^m^ean^sⁿ^o^t^av^ai^l^a^bl^e.^F^Y²⁰⁰⁶^am^ouⁿ^t^s^{do n}^o^t^ref^l^ect
^t^h^{e 1%}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^en^act^{ed by}^P.L^.^109-^148.
^a^.^T^h^e^c^o^nfe^r^e^e^s^a^g^r^e^e^d^to^sp^{lit up}^the^I^A^I^P^Dⁱ^r^e^c^t^o^r^a^t^e^p^u^r^s^u^aⁿ^t^t^o^S^e^c^r^e^t^a^r^y^Che^r^to^ff’s
^reorg^aⁿⁱ^zation^propos^{al s}^u^bm^{itted to C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^on^J^u^ly^{13, 2005.}^T^h^e^IA^portion^of^IA^IP^h^a^s
^b^een^m^o^v^e^d^to^T^itle^I^uⁿ^d^{er th}^{e acco}^uⁿ^t^h^eadⁱⁿ^g^Anal^ysⁱ^s^{and O}^p^er^atⁱ^ons^{. T}^h^{e IP port}ⁱ^oⁿ^of
^IA^IP^h^a^{s b}^een^m^o^v^e^d^to^T^{itle III in}^th^{e P}^r^ep^aredⁿ^e^{ss Directo}^r^{ate an}^d^{is u}ⁿ^d^e^r^th^{e acco}^uⁿ^t
^he^a^dⁱ^{ng o}^f^Inf^r^as^t^r^uct^u^r^e^Pr^ot^ectⁱ^{on and Inf}^o^r^m^atⁱ^{on Secur}ⁱ^t^y^.^T^h^e^I^A^I^P^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^aⁿ^d
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^stratioⁿ^acco^uⁿ^t^{s h}^a^v^e^ap^p^a^ren^tly^b^een^sp^{lit b}^e^tw^een^th^ese^tw^oⁿ^e^w^acco^uⁿ^t^s,^h^o^w^e^v^e^r
^th^{e ex}^{act div}ⁱ^sⁱ^on^of^th^es^{e f}^uⁿ^d^s^w^a^sⁿ^o^{t readily}^av^ailable.

Science and Technology¹⁶²
The requested FY2006 budget for Science and Technology (S&T) was $1,368
million. (For details see Table 10.) For the first time, all R&D funding for the
department was included in this request. Compared with the enacted FY2005
funding for the S&T Directorate alone ($1,115 million) the FY2006 request was a
23% increase. However, if one included the enacted FY2005 funding for R&D
programs formerly funded elsewhere in the department, the requested increase in
DHS-wide R&D funding was 4%. The House provided $1,290 million, a reduction
of $78 million from the request.¹⁶³ The Senate committee recommended $1,453
million, or $85 million more than the request. P.L. 109-90 provides $1,502.1
million.
R&D programs formerly in the TSA and Coast Guard, together with some other
smaller programs, would all have been consolidated into the S&T Directorate under
the proposed FY2006 budget. This move reflected direction originally given in the
FY2004 appropriations conference report (H.Rept. 108-280). Consolidating the
Coast Guard R&D program was proposed in the FY2005 budget request as well, but
the change was controversial, and Congress did not approve it. For FY2006, the
House accepted the Coast Guard move, but the Senate again rejected it, and the
conference agreement again followed the Senate. The House, Senate, and conference
agreement all accepted the other proposed FY2006 consolidations as requested. The
FY2006 budget was the first to propose consolidation for the TSA R&D program
because the Homeland Security Act, which established DHS, required that TSA be
maintained as a single distinct entity until November 2004 (P.L.107-296, §424).
The request for the newly created Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO)
was $227 million. Although funded under S&T, DNDO has been made a
freestanding office that reports directly to the Secretary. Noting this fact, the House
report provided $100 million less than was requested and stated that “DHS still needs
to clarify its role in regard to other federal agencies ... that have similar and more
mature programs.” The Senate committee, stating that it was “troubled by the
manner in which this initiative has been handled,” also recommended $100 million
less than requested for DNDO, and recommended restricting the obligation of all but
$15 million until further details are provided to the appropriations committees. Some
DNDO activities were formerly funded by the S&T Directorate’s radiological and
nuclear countermeasures program, whose FY2006 request was $19 million, down
from $123 million. The House provided the requested amount for radiological and
nuclear countermeasures, while the Senate provided an increase to $226 million,
including $125 million requested under CBP for testing, development, and
deployment of radiation portal monitors at ports of entry. The conference agreement
provided $318 for DNDO, including $135 million for radiation portal monitors and
with restrictions on the obligation of another $145 million pending approval of an

¹⁶² Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Analyst in Science & Technology, Resources, Science, and
Industry Divison.
¹⁶³ The House committee recommended $1,340 million, but a floor amendment by Rep.
Obey reduced this by $50 million to fund state conformance with drivers’ license standards
under the REAL ID Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13).

expenditure plan by the appropriations committees. The conference agreement
provided $19 million for radiological and nuclear countermeasures and concurred
with the plan to transfer most funding for this activity into DNDO.
Although the proposed total R&D budget for DHS would have changed from
the previous year by less than in any other year since the department’s creation, the
FY2006 request made substantial changes in several existing programs, as well as the
new DNDO. Chemical countermeasures, support for other department components,
and efforts to counter the threat from MANPADs (portable ground-to-air missiles)
were all roughly doubled. Meanwhile, funding for rapid prototyping (to accelerate
the adaptation or development of technologies that can be deployed in the near term)
was dropped from $76 million to $21 million, and the consolidated R&D activities
currently conducted by TSA were dropped from $178 million to $109 million. The
House and the Senate committees and the conference agreement all broadly accepted
these proposals, with some modifications, and made various other changes to the
request, such as increasing funding for explosives countermeasures. See Table 12
for details.
The FY2006 budget justification for the S&T Directorate presented program-
level data on the directorate’s actual FY2004 expenditures, as compared with the
program allocations specified in the FY2004 appropriations conference report. These
data showed substantial reprogramming. For example, actual expenditures on
biological countermeasures in FY2004 were $455 million, versus the enacted level
of $197 million. Actual funding for construction of the National Biodefense Analysis
and Countermeasure Center was $4 million, versus $88 million enacted. University
centers and efforts to counter MANPADs, two items that were of particular
congressional interest and received more FY2004 funding than had been requested,
had actual expenditures of $22 million and $17 million respectively, versus $69
million and $60 million enacted. As Congress considered appropriations for
FY2006, these FY2004 data raised questions about how the S&T Directorate
establishes priorities among its programs and how it handles changes in those
priorities after funding decisions have been made.
Section 546 of P.L. 109-90 rescinds $20 million in unobligated funding for the
S&T Directorate from previous fiscal years.

Table 12. Science and Technology Directorate Accounts and
Activities, FY2005-FY2006
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^Acco^unt^/Act^iv^it^y^enacted^request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^{Science a}^{nd Techno}^lo^g^y^1,115.4¹^,368.4¹^,290.0¹^,453.5¹^,502.1
^Directorate
^S^a^l^a^ri^es^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es^68.6^81.4^81.4^81.1^81.1
^R^&^{D, acqu}ⁱ^s^ition^,^an^{d operation}^s^1,046.8¹^,287.0¹^,208.6¹^,372.4¹^,421.0
^{— biolog}^{ical cou}ⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es^362.6^362.3^360.0^384.3^380.0
^{— Natio}ⁿ^a^{l B}ⁱ^o^d^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e A}ⁿ^aly^s^is^35.0^—^—^—^—
^an^{d C}^o^uⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es^C^eⁿ^t^er
^{— ch}^em^{ical cou}ⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es^53.0^102.0^90.0^100.0^95.0
^{— ex}^plos^iv^es^couⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es^19.7^14.7^54.7^33.9^44.0
^—^radi^ol^ogⁱ^cal^/ⁿ^u^c^l^ear^122.6^19.1^19.1^226.0^19.1
^couⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es
^{— Dom}^e^s^{tic Nu}^{clear Detection}^—^227.3^127.3^127.3^318.0
^O^ffi^c^e
^{— th}^r^{eat an}^d^v^u^lⁿ^e^r^a^b^ility^testin^g^65.8^47.0^47.0^40.0^43.0
^aⁿ^d^a^sse^ssm^eⁿ^t
^{— cr}^{itical in}^f^r^astr^u^c^tu^r^e^27.0^20.8^35.8^13.8
^prot^ectⁱ^oⁿ
^{— cy}^{ber s}^ecu^rity^18.0^16.7^16.7^16.7^16.7
^{— stan}^d^a^rd^s^39.7^35.5^35.5^35.5⁸^.0
^—^s^u^pport^of^D^H^S^com^pon^en^t^s^54.6^93.6^80.0^74.7^80.0
^—^uni^ve^r^sⁱ^t^y^aⁿ^d^fe^l^l^o^w^s^hi^p^70.0^63.6^63.6^63.6^63.0
^prog^ram^s
^{— em}^ergⁱⁿ^g^th^reats^10.8^10.5^10.5⁵^.3^40.8
^—^rapi^{d prot}^ot^y^pⁱⁿ^g^76.0^20.9^30.0^20.9^35.0
^{— cou}ⁿ^t^{er MA}^NP^A^D^s^61.0^110.0^110.0^110.0^110.0
^{— SA}^FE^T^Y^A^c^t^10.0⁵^.6^10.0⁵^.6^7.0
^{— Of}^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^Iⁿ^ter^o^p^e^r^a^b^ility^an^d^21.0^20.5^41.5^15.0^26.5
^Co^m^p^atib^ility
^{— R&}^{D co}ⁿ^s^o^lid^atioⁿ^—^116.9^116.9^99.9^99.9
^—^t^e^c^hno^l^o^gy^d^e^ve^l^o^p^m^eⁿ^t^aⁿ^d^—^—^10.0^—^—
^tran^s^f^er
^{— g}^eⁿ^e^r^a^{l r}^e^d^u^ctioⁿ^—^—^{— 50.0}^—^—
^T^S^{A R&D}^a^178.0^—^—^—^—
^{U.S. Co}^a^s^{t G}^u^a^r^{d RDT}^&E^a^18.5^—^—^18.5^17.8
^CB^{P R&D}^a^1.4^—^—^—^—
^D^H^S^total^R^&^D¹^,313.3¹^,368.4¹^,290.0¹^,453.5¹^,519.9
^Source:^C^R^S^ana^l^y^sⁱ^s^of^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^Bu^dg^et^;^D^H^S^,^Budgetⁱⁿ^Brⁱ^e^f^{; Ho}^u^s^e
^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee t}^a^bl^es^of^May^{20, 2005;}^H^o^u^s^e-^pas^s^e^{d H}^.^R^.^2360;^an^{d H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^79.
^No^te:^T^o^t^a^l^s^m^a^yⁿ^o^t^add^du^{e t}^o^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^F^Y^{2006 am}^ouⁿ^t^s^{do n}^o^t^ref^l^ect^t^h^{e 1%}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^board
^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^en^act^{ed by}^P.L^.^109-^148.
^{a. T}^h^{e T}^S^A^,^C^o^as^{t Gu}^{ard, an}^{d C}^B^P^R^&^D^am^ouⁿ^t^s^areⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed to prov}^ide^{a to}^{tal co}^m^p^ar^ab^{le w}^ith
^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 requ}^es^t^f^o^{r S}^&^T^,^w^hⁱ^c^h^con^s^olⁱ^d^at^es^al^l^R^&^D^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r t}^h^{e D}^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^.

Related Legislation
H.R. 2863/P.L. 109-148 Department of Defense, Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the
Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act of 2006
P.L. 109-148 contains a number of provisions that impact DHS budget accounts.
Division A of P.L. 109-148 contains the Department of Defense (DoD)
Appropriations Act for FY2006. Division B of P.L. 109-148 contains Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and the
Pandemic Influenza in 2006. Division B also contains a number of rescissions that
affect DHS accounts, including an across-the-board rescission of 1%.
Transfer of Funds to the Coast Guard. Division A, Title IX of the DoD
Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148) contains a provision that transfers up to $100
million to the Coast Guard’s Operating Expenses account from the Iraq Freedom
Fund. These funds are available for transfer until September 30, 2007, and are to be
used only to support operations in Iraq or Afghanistan and classified activities.
Across-the Board Rescission (ATB). Division B, Title III, Chapter 8, of
P.L. 109-148 contains a 1% across-the-board (ATB) rescission that is to be applied
to all discretionary FY2006 appropriations. Specifically, Sec. 3801 rescinds 1% of:
^!the budget authority provided (or obligation limit imposed) for
FY2006 for any discretionary account in any prior and in any other
FY2006 appropriations act;
^!the budget authority provided in any advance appropriation for
FY2006 for any discretionary account in any prior fiscal year
appropriation; and
^!the contract authority provided in FY2006 for any program subject
to limitation contained in any FY2006 appropriation act.¹⁶⁴
The ATB rescission does not apply to emergency appropriations (as defined by Sec.
402 of H.Con.Res. 95, the FY2006 Budget Resolution), nor does it apply to the
discretionary budget authority made available to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
At the time of the final update of this report, it was unclear how the rescission would
be applied across DHS discretionary accounts.
Hurricane Katrina Reallocations and Rescissions. Division B, Title
I, Chapter 4, of P.L. 109-148 provides emergency supplemental appropriations to
various DHS accounts to address the impacts of Hurricane Katrina. On October 28,
2005, the President submitted a request to Congress to reallocate $17.1 billion of the
$60 billion previously appropriated by Congress to FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund
(DRF) to respond to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and other disasters. The
Congressional response to this request was included in Title I of Division B of P.L.

109-148; the rescissions (from DHS accounts) funding this request were included in

¹⁶⁴ P.L. 109-148, Division B, Title III, Section 3801.

Title III of Division B of P.L. 109-148. Most of the additional funding provided to
DHS accounts is to be used to repair and/or replace DHS equipment and facilities lost
or damage by the Hurricanes. These include:
^!$24.1 million for CBP’s Salaries and Expenses account;
^!$10.4 million for CBP’s Construction account;
^!$13 million for ICE’s Salaries and Expenses account;
^!$132 million for the Coast Guard’s Operating Expenses account;
^!$74.5 million for the Coast Guard’s Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements account;
^!$3.6 million for the Secret Service’s Salaries and Expenses account;
^!$10.3 million for ODP’s State and Local Programs account; and
^!17.2 million for FEMA’s Administrative and Regional Operations
account.
This section of P.L. 109-148 also transfers $1.5 million (of the funds previously
appropriated to this account by P.L. 109-62, see Supplemental funds for Hurricane
Katrina below) from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Account to the “Disaster Assistance
Direct Loan Program Account” to carry out the direct loan program. All of the funds
provided to DHS accounts under this section of P.L. 109-148 are designated as
emergency funds.
Title III, Chapter 4, of Division B of P.L. 109-148 contains rescissions affecting
DHS accounts. These include:
^!$23.4 billion in funds previously appropriated by P.L. 109-62, from
FEMA’s Disaster Relief account; and
^!$260.5 million in funds previously appropriated by P.L. 109-90,
from the Coast Guard’s Operating Expenses account.
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Pandemic Influenza.
Division B, Title II, Chapter 4 of P.L. 109-148 provides an additional $47.3 million
for the DHS Office of the Secretary and Executive Management account. These
funds are for “necessary expenses to train, plan, and prepare for a potential outbreak
of highly pathogenic influenza.” These funds are designated as emergency funds.
Additional Border Security Funding. During the conference consideration
of H.R. 2863, two other Divisions, C and D were inserted into the conference report
(H.Rept. 109-359) attached to the bill. Division C, the American Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2005, would have allowed oil well drilling in
Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Division D, contained provisions that
would have distributed the revenues from the ANWR drilling. Among the items that
would have been funded with these revenues was more than $1 billion in additional
border security funding for DHS.¹⁶⁵ After a contentious floor debate concerning the
attachment of the ANWR provisions to the Defense Appropriations Bill, both

¹⁶⁵ An itemization of these amounts and the accounts they would have been appropriated to
can be found in the Conference Report to H.R. 2863, H.Rept. 109-359, pp. 159-156.

Divisions C and D were removed from the bill by S.Con.Res. 74, the enrollment
correction measure, and are not included in P.L. 109-148.
FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane Katrina
Relief
In response to the widespread destruction brought to the Gulf Coast by^th
Hurricane Katrina, the 109 Congress has completed action on two separate
emergency supplemental bills (P.L. 109-61/H.R. 3645 and P.L. 109-62/H.R. 3673)
which together provide an additional $62.3 billion for emergency response and
recovery needs.¹⁶⁶ Of the combined amount provided in the two measures, $60
billion is for the ongoing efforts of FEMA to provide emergency food, shelter, and
medical care to areas stricken by the hurricane and other disasters. In addition, $1.9
billion is for the Department of Defense to defray the cost of deploying military
personnel to the region for rescue, relief, and for other response costs, and $400
million is for the Army Corps of Engineers to restore navigation waterways and
repair damaged flood control projects in affected Gulf states. Additional requests for
supplemental funding may be forthcoming in the weeks and months ahead as loss and
recovery statements, and assessments of the damage caused by Hurricane Rita
become available.
FY2006 Budget Resolution, S.Con.Res. 18/H.Con.Res 95
The annual concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth the congressional
budget. The Senate budget resolution, S.Con.Res. 18 was introduced on March 11,
2005, and passed the Senate on March 17, 2005. S.Con.Res. 18 provides $848.8
billion in discretionary spending. The House budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 95, was
introduced on March 11, 2005, and passed the House on March 17, 2005.
H.Con.Res. 95 proposes $843 billion in discretionary budget authority. On April 28,

2005 the conference committee reported, and both the House and Senate passed,

H.Rept. 109-62 providing $843 billion in discretionary budget authority for
FY2006.¹⁶⁷
FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and
Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities¹⁶⁸
On February 14, 2005, the President submitted an $81.9 billion request for
supplemental FY2005 funding for military operations, international affairs,
intelligence, and homeland security activities. The request includes an additional
$161 million for the Coast Guard to offset the costs of operations in Iraq. The

¹⁶⁶ For more information, see CRS Report RS22239 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for Hurricane Katrina Relief, by Keith Bea.
¹⁶⁷ For more information, see CRS Report RL32812 The Budget for FY2006, by Philip D.
Winters.
¹⁶⁸ For more information, see CRS Report RL32783 FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations
for Iraq and Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities, by Amy Belasco and Larry
Nowels.

request for Coast Guard includes $111 million for operations in support of Operation
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, including port security and law
enforcement capabilities; strategic waterside security teams; and funding of active
duty and mobilized reserve personnel. The request further includes $49 million for
the retrofit, renovation and subsystem replacement of Coast Guard 110-foot patrol
boats. The supplemental request also includes $110 million for the Department of
Energy’s Megaports Initiative. This initiative provides for the deployment of
radiation detection technology and law enforcement personnel to foreign ports (in
this case the funding would be for four specific ports) to detect, deter, and interdict
nuclear and other radioactive material. Though this request is for the DOE, the
Megaports Initiative supports CBP’s CSI program.
H.R. 1268 was introduced on March 11, 2005, and passed the House March 16,
2005. The bill passed the Senate on April 21, 2005. The conference committee
reported the conference report (H.Rept. 109-72) was filed on May 3, 2005. H.Rept.
109-72 was agreed to in the House on May 5, 2005; and was agreed to in the Senate
on May 10, 2005. The President signed H.R. 1268 on May 11, 2005, and the bill
became P.L. 109-13.
Within DHS, P.L. 109-13 provides CBP with an additional $125 million for 500
new Border Patrol agents above the FY2005 enacted level, and with $52 million in
additional construction funding; ICE with an additional $454 million for additional
investigators, enforcement agents, detention officers and detention bedspace; Coast
Guard with an additional $161 million as requested (see above); and FLETC with an
additional $4 milllion. As enacted, P.L. 109-13 also includes the REAL ID Act of

2005.¹⁶⁹

¹⁶⁹ For more information, see CRS Report RL32754 Immigration: Analysis of the Major
Provisions of H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005, by Michael John Garcia, Margaret
Mikyung Lee, Todd Tatelman, and Larry M. Eig.

Appendix I — DHS Appropriations in Context
DHS Appropriations and Federal Homeland Security
Spending
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 13 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 FY2006 accounts for approximately 54% of total
federal funding for homeland security. The Department of Defense comprises the
next highest proportion at 19% of all federal spending on homeland security. The
Department of Health and Human Services at 8.8%, the Department of Justice at
6.2% and the Department of Energy at 3.3% round out the top five agencies in
spending on homeland security. These five agencies collectively account for nearly
95% 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 FY2006 requests a total homeland
security budget authority of $27.3 billion for DHS, the requested gross budget
authority is reported as $41.1 billion. The same is true of the other agencies listed
in the table.

Table 13. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency,
FY2002-FY2006
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^FY06
^FY06^as^%^of
^D^e^p^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^FY^{02 FY}^{03 FY}^{04 FY}⁰⁵^es^t.^total
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^H^o^m^e^l^aⁿ^d^17,380^23,063^22,923^24,887^27,333^54.1%
^Secu^rity^(DHS)
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^e^5,159^8,442^7,024^8,570^9,514^19.0%
^(DOD)
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^H^eal^t^h^an^d^1,913^4,144^4,062^4,231^4,407^8.8%
^Hu^m^aⁿ^Serv^{ices (HHS)}
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^Ju^s^tⁱ^c^e^2,143^2,349^2,180^2,678^3,104^6.2%
^(DOJ⁾
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^En^erg^y^1,220^1,408^1,364^1,562^1,666^3.3%
^(DOE)
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^S^t^at^{e (D}^O^S⁾⁴⁷⁷⁶³⁴⁶⁹⁶⁸²⁴⁹³⁸^1.9%
^Depart^m^eⁿ^t^of^A^g^ri^cu^l^t^u^re⁵⁵³⁴¹⁰⁴¹¹⁶⁰⁰⁷⁰⁴^1.4%
^(A^G)
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^1,419³⁸³²⁸⁴¹⁸²¹⁹²^0.4%
^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ⁽^DOT⁾
^Natioⁿ^a^{l Scien}^c^e²⁶⁰²⁸⁵³⁴⁰³⁴²³⁴⁴^0.7%
^Fo^und^a^tⁱ^o^{n (}^N^SF)
^O^t^h^e^{r A}^g^en^ci^es^2,357^1,329^1,550^2,129^1,741^3.5%
^T^o^{tal Federal B}^udget^32,881^42,447^40,834^46,005^49,943^100%
^Autho^r^ity
^Source:^{CRS an}^aly^s^{is o}^f^d^a^{ta co}ⁿ^t^ain^e^dⁱⁿ^“^S^ectioⁿ³^.^Ho^m^e^lan^d^Secu^r^ity^Fuⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^Aⁿ^aly^s^is,”^an^d
^A^ppen^dⁱ^x^K^of^t^h^{e A}ⁿ^al^y^tⁱ^cal^Pers^pectⁱ^v^es^v^o^l^u^m^e^of^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^Bu^dg^et^(f^or^F^Y^2004-
^F^Y^2006);^S^ectⁱ^oⁿ^3.^“^H^om^el^an^{d S}^ecu^ri^t^y^F^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^Aⁿ^al^y^sⁱ^s^{,” of}^Aⁿ^al^y^tⁱ^cal^Pers^pectⁱ^v^es^v^o^l^u^m^e^of
^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2005 Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^Bu^dg^et^(f^{or F}^Y^2003);^an^{d O}^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d Bu}^dg^et^{, 2003 R}^e^port
^t^o^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^on^C^o^m^b^atⁱⁿ^g^T^e^rrori^s^m^,^S^e^pt^{. 2003, p. 10.}
^No^te:^T^o^{tals m}^a^yⁿ^o^{t ad}^d^d^u^{e to}^r^o^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^{FY to}^{tals sh}^o^wⁿⁱⁿ^th^{is tab}^l^{e in}^clu^d^{e en}^acted
^s^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^Y^{ear t}^o^y^e^{ar com}^p^ari^s^on^s^u^sⁱⁿ^g^partⁱ^c^u^l^arl^y^F^Y^{2002 m}^a^yⁿ^o^t^{be di}^rect^l^y
^co^m^p^ar^ab^le,^b^{ecause as tim}^{e has go}^ne^oⁿ^{agencies have b}^{een ab}^le^to^dⁱ^{stinguish ho}^m^e^land^secur^ity
^an^dⁿ^oⁿ^-^h^o^m^e^lan^d^secu^r^ity^activ^{ities w}^ith^g^r^eater^sp^ecifⁱ^city^.

Appendix II — Disaster Relief Fund
Table 14. Disaster Relief Fund, FY1974-FY2005
(millions of dollars, 2005 constant dollars)
^T^o^tal^ap^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^Ou^tl^ays
^F^Y^Request^a^O^r^ig^ina^l^Supplem^ent^a^l^N^o^m^ina^l^Co^nst^a^nt^No^mⁱ^na^l^C^oⁿ^st^aⁿ^t
¹⁹⁷⁴¹⁰⁰²⁰⁰²³³⁴³³^1,412²⁵⁰⁸¹⁶
¹⁹⁷⁵¹⁰⁰¹⁵⁰⁵⁰²⁰⁰⁵⁹¹²⁰⁶⁶⁰⁹
¹⁹⁷⁶¹⁸⁷¹⁸⁷⁰¹⁸⁷⁵¹⁷³⁶²⁹⁹⁹
¹⁹⁷⁷¹⁰⁰¹⁰⁰²⁰⁰³⁰⁰⁷⁷⁰²⁹⁴⁷⁵⁴
¹⁹⁷⁸¹⁵⁰¹¹⁵³⁰⁰⁴¹⁵⁹⁹⁷⁴⁶¹^1,108
¹⁹⁷⁹²⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹⁹⁴³⁹⁴⁸⁷⁶²⁷⁷⁶¹⁶
¹⁹⁸⁰¹⁹⁴¹⁹⁴⁸⁷⁰^1,064^2,175⁵⁷⁴^1,173
¹⁹⁸¹³⁷⁵³⁵⁸⁰³⁵⁸⁶⁶⁸⁴⁰¹⁷⁴⁶
¹⁹⁸²⁴⁰⁰³⁰²⁰³⁰²⁵²⁶¹¹⁵²⁰¹
¹⁹⁸³³²⁵¹³⁰⁰¹³⁰²¹⁷²⁰²³³⁷
¹⁹⁸⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰²⁴³³⁹¹
¹⁹⁸⁵¹⁰⁰¹⁰⁰⁰¹⁰⁰¹⁵⁶¹⁹²²⁹⁹
¹⁹⁸⁶¹⁹⁴¹⁰⁰²⁵⁰³⁵⁰⁵³³³³⁵⁵¹¹
¹⁹⁸⁷¹⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰^b¹²⁰¹⁷⁸²¹⁹³²⁵
¹⁹⁸⁸¹²⁵¹²⁰⁰¹²⁰^c¹⁷³¹⁸⁷²⁶⁹
¹⁹⁸⁹²⁰⁰¹⁰⁰^1,108^d^1,208^1,674¹⁴⁰¹⁹⁴
¹⁹⁹⁰²⁷⁰⁹⁸^1,150^e^1,248^1,668^1,333^1,781
¹⁹⁹¹²⁷⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁵⁵²⁷¹¹
¹⁹⁹²¹⁸⁴^f¹⁸⁵^4,136^4,321^g^5,429⁹⁰²^1,134
¹⁹⁹³²⁹²²⁹²^2,000^2,292^h^2,816^2,276^2,796
¹⁹⁹⁴^1,154ⁱ²²⁶^4,709^j^4,935^5,935^3,743^4,502
¹⁹⁹⁵³²⁰³²⁰^3,275^k^3,595^4,235^2,116^2,492
¹⁹⁹⁶³²⁰²²²^3,275^k^3,497^k^4,042^2,233^2,581
¹⁹⁹⁷³²⁰^l^1,320^3,300^l^4,620^5,248^2,551^2,898
¹⁹⁹⁸^2,708^m³²⁰^1,600ⁿ^1,920^2,155^1,998^2,242
¹⁹⁹⁹^2,566^o^1,214^p^1,130^q^2,344^2,597^3,746^4,149
²⁰⁰⁰^2,780^2,780^r⁰²^,780^3,019^2,628^2,853^s,^t
²⁰⁰¹^2,909³⁰⁰^t^5,890^6,249^3,217^3,413
²⁰⁰²^1,369^u⁶⁶⁴^7,008^v^12,160^v^12,677^3,947^4,114
²⁰⁰³^1,843⁸⁰⁰^1,426^w^2,199^w^2,255^8,541^8,761
²⁰⁰⁴^1,956^1,800^2,275^x^2,042^x^2,068^y^3,044^y^3,082^y
²⁰⁰⁵^2,151^2,042^68,500^x^70,542^70,542^3,363^y^3,363^y
^T^o^tal^24,240^16,360^108,988^132,099^144,455^50,648^60,224
^Sources^:^U^.^S.^P^r^e^sⁱ^d^eⁿ^t^,^a^nnua^l^b^u^d^g^e^t^d^o^c^um^eⁿ^t^s^;^a^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^o^{ns l}^e^gi^sl^a^tⁱ^o^n;^U^.^S.^FE^M^A^b^u^d^g^e^t
^j^u^stif^icatioⁿ^s^{. No}^mⁱⁿ^a^{l am}^o^uⁿ^t^{s ar}^e^th^e^actu^a^l^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^{; co}ⁿ^s^tan^t^d^o^llar^am^o^uⁿ^t^{s b}^a^sed^oⁿ^CRS
^calcu^latioⁿ^sⁱⁿ^tu^rⁿ^b^a^sed^oⁿ^GDP⁽^c^h^aⁱⁿ^ed⁾^p^r^{ice in}^d^e^xⁱⁿ^U.S.^P^r^esid^en^{t (}^B^u^s^h⁾^,^Hⁱ^s^t^orⁱ^c^al^T^abl^es^,
^Budget^of^t^h^{e U}ⁿⁱ^t^e^{d St}^at^es^G^o^ver^nm^ent^,^Fi^s^c^al^Y^e^ar²⁰⁰⁵^(Was^hⁱⁿ^g^t^on^{, 2004), pp. 184-}^{185. T}^a^bl^e
^{prepared by}^Keith^B^{ea, Specia}^lⁱ^s^tⁱⁿ^A^m^e^rⁱ^c^aⁿ^N^a^tⁱ^o^na^l^G^o^ve^rⁿ^m^e^nt^,^G^o^ve^rⁿ^m^e^nt^aⁿ^d^Fi^na^nc^e
^Divⁱ^sioⁿ^.

^{a. Data in}^th^{e r}^e^q^u^{est c}^o^l^u^mⁿ^g^eⁿ^e^r^a^lly^r^e^p^r^esen^{t th}^{e f}ⁱ^r^s^{t b}^u^d^g^{et r}^e^q^u^{est su}^b^m^itted^b^y^th^e
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^each^y^{ear an}^{d do}ⁿ^o^tⁱⁿ^clu^d^e^am^en^ded^or^s^u^pplem^en^tal^requ^es^ts^{. Notes}ⁱⁿ^th^is
^co^lu^mⁿ^p^r^o^v^id^{e ad}^d^itioⁿ^a^{l d}^e^tail.
^b^.^In^{Feb. 1987, a total of}^{$57.475 m}^illioⁿ^w^a^s^res^cⁱⁿ^{ded an}^{d tran}^s^f^{erred f}^r^om^the^D^R^F^t^o^t^h^e
^Em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^F^{ood an}^{d S}^h^{elter P}^r^og^ram^accouⁿ^t^(P^.L^{. 100-}^{6; 101 S}^t^at.⁹²⁾^.^T^h^a^t^am^ouⁿ^t^w^a^s
^r^e^tu^rⁿ^ed^to^th^{e f}^uⁿ^d^t^h^e^s^a^m^e^y^earⁱⁿ^su^p^p^l^em^en^{tal ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^legⁱ^slatioⁿ^en^actedⁱⁿ^J^u^ly
^{1987 (P.L}^{. 100-}^71;^{101 S}^t^at^{. 412).}
^c.^P.L^.^100-^{202 (101 S}^t^at^{. 329), t}^h^{e C}^oⁿ^tⁱⁿ^uⁱⁿ^g^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^f^o^{r F}^Y^{1988, appropri}^a^t^e^{d $120}
^m^illioⁿ^f^o^r^dⁱ^saster^r^e^lief^.^A^cco^r^dⁱⁿ^g^to^FEMA^{, th}^{e o}^r^igⁱⁿ^{al ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^f^o^r^th^{at f}ⁱ^{scal y}^ear
^w^a^s^$125^m^illion^,^bu^t^$5^m^illion^w^a^s^tran^s^f^erred^{to th}^{e Departm}^eⁿ^t^of^L^a^{bor f}^o^{r “}^l^owⁱⁿ^com^e
^ag^ri^cu^l^t^u^{re w}^o^rk^ers^.^”
^d^.^S^u^p^p^l^e^m^eⁿ^t^a^l^f^uⁿ^d^s^w^e^r^eⁱⁿ^c^l^u^d^e^dⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^101-^{100 (101 S}^t^at^{. 640), con}^tⁱⁿ^uⁱⁿ^g^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s
^l^e^gⁱ^s^l^atⁱ^oⁿ^en^act^{ed af}^t^e^{r H}^u^rri^can^{e H}^u^g^o^s^t^ru^ckⁱⁿ^S^e^pt^.^1989.^A^ccordiⁿ^g^t^o^F^E^MA^{, t}^hⁱ^s^am^ouⁿ^t
^w^a^{s “}^r^ef^er^r^e^d^to^a^s^a^su^p^p^l^em^en^{tal b}^u^{t w}^a^{s an}ⁱⁿ^cr^{ease in}^th^{e o}^r^igⁱⁿ^{al ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^d^u^rⁱⁿ^g^a
^c^o^ntⁱ^nui^{ng r}^e^so^l^u^tⁱ^o^n.^”
^e.^P^.^L^.^101-^{130 (103 Stat. 775), en}^{acted af}^{ter th}^e^L^o^m^a^P^r^{ieta earth}^qu^ak^{e, appropriated $1.1 billion}
ⁱⁿ^s^u^pplem^en^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r FY1990. In}^addition^,^$50^m^illion^w^a^s^appropriatedⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^101-³⁰²
⁽^{104 S}^t^at^{. 214), di}^{re em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^l^e^gⁱ^s^l^atⁱ^oⁿ^.^Ta^ble¹²^do^e^s^no^t
^r^e^f^l^{ect a $}²^.⁵^m^illioⁿ^tr^an^sf^er^f^r^o^m^th^{e P}^r^esid^en^t’^{s u}ⁿ^aⁿ^ticip^atedⁿ^eed^{s f}^uⁿ^d^.
^f^.^F^Y¹⁹⁹²^r^e^q^u^e^s^t^d^o^e^sⁿ^o^tⁱⁿ^c^l^u^d^e^t^h^e^b^u^d^g^e^t^a^m^eⁿ^d^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^{$90 m}^illion^s^u^bm^{itted by}^the
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^o^n.
^g^.^A^ppropriation^s^f^o^{r FY1992 in}^clu^d^{ed a $943 m}^illion^dire^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^pplem^en^talⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^102-²²⁹
^{(105 Stat. 1701), en}^{acted in}^f^a^{ll 1991 af}^{ter Hu}^rrican^{e B}^{ob; $300 m}^illion^af^ter^th^e^L^o^s^Aⁿ^g^e^les
^riots^an^{d f}^l^oodin^gⁱⁿ^C^h^icag^{o (s}^prin^g¹⁹⁹²⁾ⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^102-^{302 (106 Stat}^{. 248); an}^d^{$2.893 b}^illion
ⁱⁿ^P.L^.^102-^{368 (106 S}^t^at^{. 1117) af}^t^e^{r H}^u^rri^can^es^Aⁿ^drew^an^d^Inⁱ^kⁱ^,^T^y^ph^oon^O^m^{ar, an}^{d ot}^h^e^r
^dⁱ^sa^ste^r^s.
^h^.^T^o^{tal f}^o^{r FY1993 in}^clu^d^es^th^{e $2 billion}^s^u^pplem^en^tal^approv^ed^af^ter^th^e^Midw^es^t^f^l^oodsⁱⁿ¹⁹⁹³
^(P.L^{. 103-}^75;^{107 S}^t^at^{. 739).}
^{i. T}^h^{e orig}ⁱⁿ^{al FY1994 bu}^dg^{et requ}^es^t^w^a^s^{$292 m}^illion^.^On^J^u^ly^{29, 1993, a s}^u^pplem^en^{tal requ}^es^t
^of^{$862 m}^illion^w^a^s^s^eⁿ^t^by^P^r^es^iden^{t C}^lin^ton^{to C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^.
^j^.^S^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^f^o^{r F}^Y^{1994 en}^act^{ed af}^t^e^{r t}^h^{e N}^o^rt^h^rⁱ^d^g^e^eart^h^qu^ak^{e s}^t^ru^c^k^L^o^s
^Aⁿ^g^e^l^e^s^(P.L^{. 103-}^211;^{108 S}^t^at^{. 13).}
^k^.^A^ddition^a^{l s}^u^pplem^en^{tal appropriation}^approv^ed^f^o^{r Nor}^t^h^rⁱ^d^g^e^earth^qu^ak^{e cos}^t^s^(P^.L^{. 104-}^{19; 109}
^{Stat. 230)}^f^o^r^{FY1995, w}^ith^th^{e s}^a^m^e^am^ouⁿ^t^{($3.275 billion}⁾^res^e^rv^{ed f}^o^{r a con}^tin^g^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^d
^f^o^{r F}^Y^{1996 (P.}^L^.^104-^{19; 109 Stat. 231). How}^e^v^e^{r, $1 billion}^of^th^{e con}^tin^g^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^d^w^a^s
^res^cⁱⁿ^{ded i}ⁿ^F^Y^{1996 om}ⁿⁱ^bu^s^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^,^P.L^.^104-¹³⁴^{(110 S}^t^at^{. 1321-}^{358). In}^t^h^{e s}^a^m^e
^legⁱ^slatioⁿ^,^an^o^t^h^e^{r $}⁷^m^illioⁿ^w^a^{s also}^a^p^p^r^o^p^r^iated^to^o^t^h^e^{r FEMA}^acco^uⁿ^t^{s f}^o^{r co}^sts
^asso^ciated^w^ith^th^{e b}^o^m^bⁱⁿ^g^o^f^th^{e A}^l^f^r^ed^P^.^Mu^r^r^ah^f^e^d^e^r^a^l^b^u^ildⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^Ok^lah^o^m^a^City⁽^P^.L^.
^104-^134;^{109 S}^t^at^{. 254).}
^{l. T}^h^{e F}^Y¹^{998 bu}^dg^{et appen}^d^ix^{(p. 1047) n}^o^{ted a}^tran^s^f^{er of}^{$104 m}^illion^f^r^om^th^{e dis}^a^s^t^{er relief}
^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^F^Y^{1996. In}^t^h^{e F}^Y¹⁹⁹⁷^a^p^propri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^act^(P.L^{. 104-}^204;^{110 S}^t^at^{. 1321-}^{358), $1}
^billion^th^{at h}^a^{d been}^res^cⁱⁿ^{ded in}^{FY1996 (P}^.L^{. 104-}^{134) w}^a^s^res^t^ored,^an^{d $320 m}^illionⁱⁿⁿ^e^w
^f^uⁿ^d^{s w}^e^r^e^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iated^.^Su^p^p^l^e^m^eⁿ^t^a^{l ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^o^f^$³^.³^b^illioⁿ^w^e^r^e^ap^p^r^o^v^edⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.
^105-^{18 (111 S}^t^at^{. 200) af}^t^e^r^f^l^oodiⁿ^gⁱⁿ^t^h^{e D}^a^k^o^t^a^s^an^{d Mi}ⁿⁿ^e^s^o^t^a^{, an}^{d af}^t^e^{r s}^t^orm^sⁱⁿ^ot^h^e^r
^s^t^ates^w^e^{re declared m}^a^j^o^{r dis}^a^s^t^ers^.^T^h^e^legⁱ^s^l^atioⁿ^sp^ecifⁱ^ed^{, h}^o^w^e^v^e^r^,^th^{at o}^f^th^{e to}^tal,^$²^.³
^billion^w^a^s^{to be av}^{ailable in}^F^Y^{1998 on}^ly^w^h^en^FEMA^s^u^bm^{itted a cos}^t^con^t^{rol report to}
^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^.^T^hⁱ^s^requⁱ^r^em^en^t^w^a^s^m^e^t^,^an^{d t}^h^{e f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^w^a^s^m^a^{de av}^ai^l^a^bl^{e i}ⁿ^F^Y^1998.
^m^.^T^h^{e FY1998 re}^q^u^es^{t con}^s^is^{ted of}^{a $320 m}^illioⁿ^bas^e^am^ouⁿ^t^plu^s^{$2.388 billio}ⁿ^“^t^{o addres}^s
^act^u^a^l^an^{d proj}^ect^e^d^requⁱ^r^em^en^t^s^f^r^om^{1997 an}^{d pri}^o^{r y}^{ear decl}^aratⁱ^oⁿ^s^{.” (}^Budget^Appendi^x
^FY¹⁹⁹⁸^,^p.^1047).^Doesⁿ^o^{t in}^clu^d^{e $50 m}^illion^requ^es^{ted f}^o^{r th}^{e DR}^{F f}^o^{r m}^itig^ation^activ^ities^.
ⁿ^.^S^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^l^e^gⁱ^s^l^atⁱ^oⁿ^(P.L^{. 105-}^174;^{112 S}^t^at^{. 77) f}^o^{r F}^Y^{1998, approv}^{ed f}^o^r
^f^l^oodiⁿ^g^as^s^o^ci^at^{ed w}ⁱ^t^h^El^Nⁱ^ñ^o^an^{d ot}^h^e^{r di}^s^a^s^t^ers^.
^{o. T}^h^{e FY1999 requ}^es^{t con}^s^is^{ted of}^{$307.8 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e DR}^{F an}^{d an}^addition^a^l^$2.258^billionⁱⁿ
^con^tin^g^eⁿ^c^y^f^undⁱⁿ^g^{to be av}^{ailable w}^h^en^desⁱ^gⁿ^a^{ted as}^an^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^requ^irem^en^{t u}ⁿ^d^{er th}^e
^Bal^aⁿ^{ced Bu}^dg^et^A^c^t^of^{1985, as}^am^en^ded.
^{p. T}^h^e^FY1999^omⁿⁱ^bu^s^{appropriation}^s^{act (P}^.L^{. 105-}^{277; 112 Stat. 2681-}⁵⁷⁹⁾ⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed $906 m}^illion
^f^o^{r cos}^t^s^as^s^o^cⁱ^a^t^{ed w}ⁱ^t^h^H^u^rri^can^{e G}^e^org^e^s^,^f^l^oodiⁿ^g^as^s^o^ci^at^{ed w}ⁱ^t^h^El^Nⁱ^ñ^o^{, an}^{d ot}^h^e^r
^dⁱ^sa^ste^r^s.
^{q. Em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^f^o^{r F}^Y^{1999 (P.L}^{. 106-}^31;^{113 S}^t^at^{. 73) i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed $900}
^m^illion^f^o^{r torn}^{ado dam}^a^g^e^s^as^w^e^{ll as}^{$230 m}ⁱ^l^lion^f^o^{r u}ⁿ^m^{et n}^eeds^,^s^u^bj^{ect to allocation}
^di^rectⁱ^oⁿ^sⁱⁿ^t^h^{e con}^f^eren^{ce report}^(H^.R^ept^.^106-^143).

^{r. F}^Y^{2000 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^act^(P.L^{. 106-}^{74, 113 S}^t^at^{. 1085) i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed di}^sa^st^e^r^r^e^lⁱ^e^{f f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^as
^f^o^llow^s^{: $300 m}^illionⁱⁿ^reg^u^l^{ar appropriation}^s^an^{d $2.480}^b^illion^desⁱ^gⁿ^a^{ted as}^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y
^sp^en^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r^c^o^s^t^s^a^s^so^ciated^w^ith^Hu^r^r^ican^{e Flo}^y^d^an^d^o^t^h^e^r^dⁱ^saster^{s. I}ⁿ^ad^d^itioⁿ^,^th^e
^C^oⁿ^s^olⁱ^d^at^{ed A}^p^p^r^opri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^(P.L^{. 106-}^113;^{113 S}^t^at^{. 1501) au}^t^h^ori^{zed t}^h^{e D}ⁱ^rect^{or of}
^FEMA^{to u}^s^e^u^p^to^$215^m^illionⁱⁿ^dis^a^s^t^{er relief}^f^uⁿ^d^s^{appropriated in}^P^.^L^.^106-^{74 (113 Stat.}
^{1047) f}^o^{r th}^{e pu}^rch^a^s^e^of^resⁱ^den^ces^f^l^{ooded by}^Hu^rrican^{e Floy}^{d, u}ⁿ^d^{er s}^p^ecifⁱ^{ed con}^d^ition^s^.
^s^.^Su^pplem^en^{tal appropriation}^s^legⁱ^s^l^ation^(P^.L^.^106-^{246; 114 Stat. 568) au}^th^{orized th}^{at $50 m}^illion
^f^r^om^th^{e DR}^{F w}^a^s^{to be u}^s^{ed f}^o^{r bu}^y^o^u^t^an^{d relocation}^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce f}^o^{r v}ⁱ^ctim^s^of^Hu^rrican^e
^Floy^{d. T}^h^{e act als}^o^{appropriated $500}^m^illionⁱⁿ^a^s^e^{parate accou}ⁿ^t^(P^.L^{. 106-}^{246; 114 Stat.}
^{590) f}^o^{r cl}^ai^m^com^p^en^s^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^an^d^admⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^v^e^cos^t^s^as^s^o^ci^at^{ed w}ⁱ^t^h^t^h^{e C}^e^{rro G}^r^an^{de f}ⁱ^{re t}^h^at
^des^t^roy^e^{d m}^u^ch^of^L^o^s^A^l^am^os^{, N}^e^w^Mexⁱ^co.
^t.^P^.^L^.^107-^{38 (115 Stat. 220) appr}^opriated^$40^billionⁱⁿ^res^pon^s^e^{to th}^{e terroris}^t^attack^s^of^{Sept. 11,}
^{2001. Pu}^rs^u^aⁿ^t^t^o^t^h^{e s}^t^at^u^t^{e, t}^h^es^{e f}^uⁿ^d^s^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2001 w}^e^{re al}^l^o^cat^{ed by}^t^h^{e O}^f^fⁱ^{ce of}
^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^B^u^d^g^{et f}^r^o^m^th^{e Em}^er^g^eⁿ^c^y^Resp^oⁿ^{se Fu}ⁿ^d⁽^E^RF)^.^Of^th^e^to^tal^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatedⁱⁿ
^P^.^L^.^107-^{38 af}^{ter th}^{e Sept. 11 attack}^s^,^{$4.357 b}ⁱ^llion^w^a^s^{allocated f}^o^{r FY2001 th}^ro^{ugh P}^.^L.
^107-^{117 (115 S}^t^a^t^.^2338).^Th^e^t^o^t^a^l^a^v^aⁱ^l^a^b^l^e^f^o^r^o^b^lⁱ^g^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^r^F^Y^{2001 ($5.9}^billion⁾^tak^eⁿ
^fr^o^m^F^E^M^A^Jus^{tification of Es}^timates^{, FY2003}^{, p. DR}^-²^.
^u^.^R^e^qu^es^t^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2002 di}^{d n}^o^tⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{e f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r t}^h^{e D}ⁱ^s^a^s^t^{er R}^e^lⁱ^e^f^C^oⁿ^tⁱⁿ^g^eⁿ^c^y^F^uⁿ^d^.
^v^.^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^{appropriated a total of}^$7.008^b^illion^f^o^{r FY2002 in}^P^.^L^.^107-^{117 (115 Stat. 2238)}^an^d
^P^.^L^.^107-²⁰⁶⁽¹¹⁶^{Stat. 894) to m}^{eet addition}^a^{l n}^eeds^as^s^o^{ciated w}^ith^th^{e terroris}^t^attack^s^.^T^o^tal
^f^uⁿ^d^s^av^{ailable ($12.16 billion}⁾ⁱⁿ^cl^ud^{e a tran}^s^f^{er f}^r^om^T^S^A^,^{$1 billion}^releas^{ed f}^r^om^th^e
^E^m^e^r^ge^nc^y^Co^ntⁱ^nge^nc^y^Fund^,^aⁿ^d^o^t^he^r^so^ur^c^e^s^.^Se^e^D^H^S^,^E^m^e^r^ge^nc^y^P^r^e^p^a^r^e^d^ne^{ss a}ⁿ^d
^R^e^s^pon^s^e^Directorate,^Jus^{tification of Es}^timates^{, FY2004}^{, p. DR}^-²^.
^w^.^In^clu^d^es^{$983.6 m}^illionⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^108-^{69 (117 S}^t^a^t^.^{885) an}^{d $441.7}^m^illionⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^108-^{83 (117}
^S^t^at^.¹⁰³⁷⁾^t^o^m^eetⁿ^eeds^as^s^o^ci^at^{ed w}ⁱ^t^h^t^o^rn^adoes^,^wⁱⁿ^t^{er s}^t^orm^s^{, t}^h^{e recov}^e^ry^of^w^r^eck^ag^e
^o^f^th^{e Sp}^{ace Sh}^u^ttle^Co^lu^mb^ia^an^{d ot}^h^e^{r di}^s^a^s^t^ers^.^A^l^s^o^{, f}^uⁿ^d^s^appropri^a^t^e^dⁱⁿ^t^h^es^e^m^eas^u^r^es
^an^{d i}ⁿ^t^h^e^FY^{2004 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^act^f^o^{r D}^H^S^(P.L^{. 108-}^90;^{117 S}^t^at^{. 1137) h}^a^v^e^been^u^s^ed
^f^o^{r cos}^t^s^as^s^o^{ciated w}^ith^Hu^rrican^{e Is}^abel.^T^o^tal^of^{$2.199 billion}^av^{ailable tak}^eⁿ^f^r^om^DHS,
^Em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^P^r^eparedn^e^s^s^a^{nd R}^e^s^pon^s^e^Directorate,^Jus^{tification of Es}^timates^{, FY2005}^{, p.}
^F^E^MA^-^18.
^x.^P^.^{L. 108-}^{106 (117 S}^t^at^{. 1209), w}^hⁱ^c^h^pri^m^ari^l^y^addres^s^e^{d recon}^s^t^r^u^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^cos^t^sⁱⁿ^Ir^a^q^aⁿ^d
^A^f^g^h^aⁿⁱ^s^t^an^,^als^o^con^t^ain^e^d^an^{appropriation}^of^{$500 m}^illion^f^o^{r n}^eeds^arisⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^dis^a^s^t^ers
ⁱⁿ^f^a^l^l^{2003, i}ⁿ^cl^u^dⁱⁿ^g^H^u^rri^can^{e Is}^abel^an^d^t^h^e^C^a^lⁱ^f^ornⁱ^a^fⁱ^res^{(117 S}^t^at^{. 1220). S}^ectⁱ^oⁿ⁴⁰⁰²
^of^th^{e act des}ⁱ^gⁿ^a^tes^th^{e f}^uⁿ^d^s^an^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^requ^irem^en^{t pu}^rs^u^aⁿ^t^to^t^h^e^bu^dg^{et res}^o^lu^tion
^adopt^{ed by}^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^(H^.C^on^.R^es^{. 95), bu}^t^t^h^{e C}^oⁿ^s^olⁱ^d^at^ed^A^p^p^r^opri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^f^o^{r F}^Y²⁰⁰⁴
^(Section^102(a),^Divⁱ^sⁱ^on^{H, P}^.^L^.^108-^199;^{118 Stat. 454) res}^cⁱⁿ^de^{d $225 m}^illioⁿ^of^th^{e $500}
^m^illion^{appropriated i}ⁿ^P^.^L^.^108-^{106 (117 Stat. 1220). T}^o^tal^of^{$2.043 b}^illion^tak^eⁿ^f^r^om^:
^DHS,^Em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^P^r^eparedn^e^s^s^an^{d R}^e^s^pon^s^e^Directorate,^Jus^{tification of Es}^timates^{, FY2005}^,
^{p. F}^E^MA^-^{18. P.L}^.¹⁰⁸^-^{303 (118 S}^t^at^{. 1124), en}^act^{ed af}^t^e^{r H}^u^rri^can^es^C^h^arl^e^y^an^{d F}^r^an^ces
^str^u^ck^Flo^r^id^{a, ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iated^$²^b^illioⁿ^to^th^e^DRF^an^d^g^a^v^e^dⁱ^scr^e^tioⁿ^to^{DHS to}^tr^an^sf^er^$³⁰
^m^illion^{to th}^{e Sm}^{all B}^u^sⁱⁿ^e^s^s^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^f^o^{r dis}^a^s^t^{er loan}^s^.^P^.^L^.^108-³²⁴^{, Div}ⁱ^sⁱ^on^B^of
^th^{e Military}^C^oⁿ^s^tru^c^tion^A^pproprⁱ^a^tⁱ^on^s^A^c^{t f}^o^{r FY2005, appropriated an}^addition^a^{l $6.5}
^billion^to^th^e^DR^F^{(118 Stat. 1247). C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^al^s^o^appropriate^{d $10 billion}ⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^109-^{61 (119}
^S^t^a^t^.^1988),^a^p^p^r^o^v^e^d^b^y^C^oⁿ^g^r^e^s^sⁱⁿ^a^s^p^e^cⁱ^a^l^s^e^s^sⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^t^h^e^l^e^a^d^e^r^s^hⁱ^p^aⁿ^d^sⁱ^gⁿ^e^d^b^y^t^h^e
^Presⁱ^d^en^t^on^S^e^pt^em^{ber 2, 2005, as}^anⁱ^m^m^e^di^at^{e res}^pon^s^e^t^o^t^h^{e n}^eeds^c^a^u^se^d^b^y^H^u^rri^can^e
^Katrin^{a. A}^s^econ^d^s^u^pplem^en^{tal f}^o^r^cos^t^s^as^s^o^ciated^w^ith^Hu^rrican^{e Katrin}^{a ($50 billion}^,^P^.^L^.
^109-^62;^{119 S}^t^at^{. 1990) w}^a^s^approv^{ed by}^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^an^d^sⁱ^gⁿ^e^d^by^Presⁱ^d^en^t^Bu^s^h^on^S^e^pt^{. 8,}
^2005.
^y^.^Ou^tlay^d^a^{ta an}^d^coⁿ^s^tan^t^d^o^llar^calcu^latioⁿ^s^b^a^sed^oⁿ^estim^ates.