Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations

CRS Report for Congress
Homeland Security Department:
FY2007 Appropriations
Updated November 17, 2006
Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto, Coordinators,
Sarah A. Lister, Todd Masse, Alison Siskin, and Ruth Ellen Wasem
Domestic Social Policy Division
Keith Bea, Harold C. Relyea, Shawn Reese,
and Barbara L. Schwemle
Government and Finance Division
Bart Elias, John Frittelli, Daniel Morgan,
and John D. Moteff
Resources, Science, and Industry 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 report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related
CRS products.

Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Summary
This report describes the FY2007 appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). On October 4, 2006, P.L. 109-295 was signed into law.
P.L. 109-295 provides gross total budget authority of $41.4 billion for DHS for
FY2007. This amounts includes $1.8 billion in emergency funding that was added
to the bill during conference. P.L. 109-295 provides net budget authority of $34.8
billion, including the emergency funding. Excluding the emergency funding, P.L.

109-295 provides nearly $33.0 billion in net budget authority for DHS for FY2007.

Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would have provided $32.8 billion in net budget authority
for DHS for FY2007. House-passed H.R. 5441 would have provided $33.2 billion
in net budget authority for DHS in FY2007. The Administration requested a net
appropriation of $31.9 billion in net budget authority for FY2007.
P.L. 109-295 provides the following net appropriation for major components of
DHS: $8,035 million for Customs and Border Protection (CBP); $3,958 million for
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); $3,628 million for the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA); $8,316 million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,277
million for the Secret Service; $4,018 million for the Preparedness Directorate;
$2,511 million for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); $182
million for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); and $973 million
for the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T).
The requested net appropriation for major components of the department
included the following: $6,574 million for CBP; $3,928 million for ICE; $2,323
million for TSA; $8,181 million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,265 million for the
Secret Service; $3,420 million for the Preparedness Directorate; $2,964 million for
FEMA; $182 million for USCIS; and $1,002 million for the S&T.
House-passed H.R. 5441, contained the following amounts for major
components of the department: $6,434 million for CBP; $3,876 million for ICE;
$3,618 million for TSA; $8,129 million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,293 million for
the Secret Service; $4,069 million for the Preparedness Directorate; $2,656 million
for the FEMA; $162 million for USCIS; $956 million for S&T; and $500 million for
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO).
Senate-passed H.R. 5441 contained the following amounts for major
components of the department: $6,683 million for CBP; $3,919 million for ICE;
$3,816 million for TSA; $8,188 million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,226 million for
the Secret Service; $3,901 million for the Preparedness Directorate; $2,606 million
for FEMA; $135 million for USCIS; $818 million for S&T; and $442 million for the
DNDO.
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
^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
^B^a^{rbara L}^.
^P^e^r^s^oⁿⁿ^e^{l P}^o^licy^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^{, In}^s^p^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^Jenⁿⁱ^f^e^{r E. L}^a^k^e^7-⁰⁶²⁰^j^l^ak^e@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^Im^mⁱ^g^r^atⁱ^oⁿ^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^A^lⁱ^s^on^Sⁱ^s^kⁱⁿ^7-⁰²⁶⁰^asⁱ^s^kⁱⁿ^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^Im^mⁱ^g^r^atⁱ^oⁿ^In^s^p^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^Bl^as^N^u^ñ^ez-^N^e^t^o^7-⁰⁶²²^bⁿ^uⁿ^ezn^eto@^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^S^h^a^wⁿ^R^ees^e⁷^-⁰⁶³⁵^s^r^ees^e@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^Secu^r^ity
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^B^art^h^ol^om^ew^Elⁱ^a^s⁷^-⁷⁷⁷¹^belⁱ^a^s^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^U^.^S^.^V^I^S^I^T^Prog^ram^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^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
^F^E^MA^K^eⁱ^t^h^Bea⁷^-⁸⁶⁷²^k^b^ea@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^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
^S^t^at^{e an}^{d L}^o^cal^G^r^an^t^s^S^h^awⁿ^R^ees^e⁷^-⁰⁶³⁵^s^r^ees^e@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^P^u^b^{lic Health}^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^s
^{NDMS, MMRS, Chief}
^Medi^cal^O^f^fⁱ^cer^S^a^rah^Lⁱ^s^t^er^7-⁷³²⁰^s^lⁱ^s^t^e^r@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^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
^Tⁱ^{tle I}^V^{, Res}^e^{arch and Developm}^ent,^Traⁱ^ning^{, Assessm}^ent^s^{, a}^{nd Serv}^ices
^Citizen^sh^ip^an^d^I^m^mⁱ^g^r^atioⁿ
^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^R^u^t^h^El^l^eⁿ^Was^e^m^7-⁷³⁴²^rw^as^em^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^Scien^{ce an}^{d T}^echⁿ^o^log^y^,
^DNDO^Danⁱ^{el Morg}^an^7-⁵⁸⁴⁹^dm^org^aⁿ^@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
P.L. 109-295 Signed into law................................1
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441....................................1
House-Passed H.R. 5441....................................1
President’s FY2007 Budget Submitted.........................1
Note on Most Recent Data...................................2
Background ......................................................2
Department of Homeland Security.................................2
Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review......................3
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations....................................4
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays.........................5
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending.............................6
Offsetting Collections..........................................6
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security..................9
Summary of DHS Appropriations.................................9
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations......................13
President’s FY2007 Request................................13
House-Passed H.R. 5441...................................13
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441...................................13
P.L. 109-295.............................................14
Analysis and Operations.......................................16
Background .............................................16
President’s FY2007 Request................................17
House-Passed H.R. 5441...................................17
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441...................................18
P.L. 109-295.............................................19
Personnel Issues..............................................21
President’s FY2007 Request................................22
House-Passed H.R. 5441...................................24
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441...................................25
P.L. 109-295.............................................26
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations........................27
US-VISIT ...................................................32
President’s FY2007 Request................................32
House-Passed H.R. 5441...................................32
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441...................................32
P.L. 109-295.............................................32
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)............................33
President’s FY2007 Request................................33
House-Passed H.R. 5441...................................33
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441...................................34
P.L. 109-295.............................................34
Issues for Congress.......................................35

Border Patrol Vehicles.....................................37
Border Technology Increase................................37
Infrastructure Construction.................................39
Tucson Sector Border Patrol Checkpoints......................40
Border Tunnels...........................................40
Cargo and Container Security...............................40
Radiation Detection Devices and Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII)
Technology ..........................................43
CBP Air and Marine......................................44
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.................................45
Shadow Wolves Transfer...................................45
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)......................45
President’s FY2007 Request................................46
House-Passed H.R. 5441...................................47
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441...................................47
P.L. 109-295.............................................48
Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions.................49
Secure Border Initiative....................................51
State and Local Law Enforcement............................52
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)......................53
President’s FY2007 Request................................53
House-Passed H.R. 5441...................................57
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441...................................60
P.L. 109-295.............................................62
TSA Issues for Congress...................................64
United States Coast Guard......................................66
President’s FY2007 Request................................67
House-Passed H.R. 5441...................................67
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441...................................67
P.L. 109-295.............................................67
Issues for Congress.......................................68
Deepwater ..............................................68
Security Mission.........................................68
Non-homeland Security Missions............................69
U.S. Secret Service...........................................70
FY2007 Budget Request...................................71
House-Passed H.R. 5441...................................71
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441...................................71
P.L. 109-295.............................................71
Title III: Preparedness and Response..................................72
Preparedness Directorate.......................................75
Office of Grants and Training...............................75
Issues for Congress.......................................76
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)...................78
Hurricane Katrina Issues...................................78
Funding ................................................79
Disaster Relief Fund......................................79
National Disaster Medical System............................80
The National Emergency Management Title (Title VI)............81
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS)..............82

House-Passed H.R. 5441...................................84
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441...................................84
P.L. 109-295.............................................85
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services...85
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).................88
President’s FY2007 Request................................89
House-Passed H.R. 5441...................................89
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441...................................89
P.L. 109-295.............................................90
Issues for Congress.......................................90
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).................90
President’s FY2007 Request................................91
House-Passed H.R. 5441...................................91
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441...................................91
P.L. 109-295.............................................91
Science and Technology (S&T)..................................91
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office...............................93
FY2007 Related Legislation........................................95
Budget Resolution — S.Con.Res. 83/H.Con.Res. 376................95
Appendix I. FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions.........96
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441.......................................96
P.L. 109-234 (H.R. 4939) — Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane
Recovery, 2006..........................................96
P.L. 109-148 — Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico,
and Pandemic Influenza Act of 2006..........................97
Transfer of Funds to the Coast Guard.........................97
Across-the-Board Rescission (ATB)..........................98
Hurricane Katrina Reallocations and Rescissions................98
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Pandemic Influenza...99
Additional Border Security Funding..........................99
Appendix II. DHS Appropriations in Context.........................100
Federal-Wide Homeland Security Funding........................100
List of Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations............2
Table 2. FY2007 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS................5
Table 3. FY2007 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to Net
Appropriation — Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust and Public
Enterprise Accounts............................................7
Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations...........................10
Table 5. Title I: Department Management and Operations................15
Table 6. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations...............28
Table 7. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail...............................34

Table 9. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity ...............54
Table 10. Title III: Preparedness and Response.........................73
Table 11. FY2007 Appropriations, Office of Grants and Training
Assistance Programs..........................................76
Table 12. FY2007 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure Protection and
Information Security Appropriation...............................83
Table 13. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments,
and Services.................................................86
Table 14. Research and Development Accounts and Activities,
FY2006-FY2007 .............................................94
Table 15. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency,
FY2002-FY2006 ............................................101

Homeland Security Department:
FY2007 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
P.L. 109-295 Signed into law. On October 4, 2006, P.L. 109-295 was
signed into law. Both the House and Senate approved the conference report (H.Rept.
109-699) on September 29, 2006; the House by a vote of 412-6, and the Senate by
a voice vote. P.L. 109-295 provides gross total budget authority of $41.4 billion for
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for FY2007. This amounts includes
$1.8 billion in emergency funding that was added to the bill during conference. P.L.
109-699 provides net budget authority of $34.8 billion, including the emergency
funding. Excluding the emergency funding, P.L. 109-295 provides nearly $33.0
billion in net budget authority for DHS for FY2007.
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. On July 13, 2006, the Senate passed H.R. 5441.
The bill contains a total of $32.8 billion in net budget authority for DHS for FY2007.
This is $900 million more than the $31.9 billion net appropriation requested by the
Administration for FY2007. The Senate-passed H.R. 5441 represents a $.9 billion,
or 3% increase, from the FY2006 enacted net budget authority of $31.9 billion.
Senate-passed H.R. 5441 also includes a $648 supplemental appropriation for
FY2006; for more information on this supplemental appropriation please refer to
Appendix I.
House-Passed H.R. 5441. On May 22, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5441.
The bill contains a total of $33.2 billion in net budget authority for DHS for FY2007.
This is $1.2 billion more than the $31.9 billion net appropriation requested by the
Administration for FY2007. However, this difference is almost entirely ($1.2 billion)
due to the aviation security fee increase requested by the Administration, but which
would be denied by the House bill. The House-passed H.R. 5441 amount of $33.2
billion is $1.2 or a 4% increase compared with the FY2006 enacted net budget
authority of $31.9 billion.
President’s FY2007 Budget Submitted. The President’s budget request
for DHS for FY2007 was submitted to Congress on February 6, 2006. The
Administration requested $42.7 billion in gross budget authority for FY2007
(including mandatories, fees, and funds). The Administration’s request includes
gross appropriations of $39.8 billion, and a net appropriation of $32.0 billion in
budget authority for FY2007, of which $31.0 billion is discretionary budget authority,
and $1 billion is mandatory budget authority. The FY2006 enacted net appropriated
budget authority for DHS was $32.0 billion.

Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security
Appropriations
^Subco^m^mⁱ^t^t^ee^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Co^nf.^Conference^Repo^rt^Public
^Ma^r^k^u^p^Repo^rt^Hou^s^e^Repo^rt^Sena^t^e^Repo^rt^A^p^p^r^oval^La^w
^109-476^Pas^s^age^109-273^Pas^s^age^109-699^109-²⁹⁵
^H^o^use^S^ena^t^e^H^o^u^se^Sena^t^e
^05/¹¹^06/²⁷^05/¹⁷^06/⁰⁶^06/²⁹^07/¹³^09/²⁸^09/²⁹^09/²⁹^10/⁰⁴
^vv^vv^vv^389-⁹^28-⁰^100-⁰^—^412-⁶^vv^—
^No^te:^{vv =}^voⁱ^c^e^vo^t^e
Note on Most Recent Data. Data used in this report are from the
President’s Budget Documents; the FY2007 DHS Congressional Budget
Justifications; the FY2007 DHS Budget in Brief; the House Appropriations
Committee tables of April 19, 2006; the House Committee Report to H.R. 5441,
H.Rept. 109-476; the Senate Committee Report to H.R. 5441, S.Rept. 109-273; the
Conference Committee report to H.R. 5441, H.Rept. 109-699; and P.L. 109-295.
Data used in Table 15 are taken from the Analytical Perspectives volume of the
FY2007 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. Most dollar amounts presented in this report are reported in
millions of dollars. Where lesser amounts are presented, these amounts will be
shown in italics. For example: $545,000.
Background
This report describes the President’s FY2007 request for funding for DHS
programs and activities, as submitted to Congress on February 6, 2006. It compares
the enacted FY2006 amounts to the request for FY2007. This report also tracks
legislative action and congressional issues related to the FY2007 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.
Department of Homeland Security
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred the functions,
relevant funding, and most of the personnel of 22 agencies and offices to the new
Department of Homeland Security created by the act.
Appropriations measures for DHS have been organized into 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), Analysis and Operations (A&O), the Office of the Chief
Information Officer (CIO), and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Title II
contains appropriations for the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology (US-VISIT) program, Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service. Title III contains
appropriations for the Preparedness Directorate, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS), and the
state and local grants programs. Title IV contains appropriations for U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T),
and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).
Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review. On July 13, 2005, the
Secretary of DHS, Michael Chertoff, announced the results of the months-long¹
Second Stage Review (2SR) that he undertook upon being confirmed as DHS
Secretary.² The proposed changes affect many aspects of the 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.³
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

¹ For more information, see CRS Report RL33042, Department of Homeland Security
Reorganization: The 2SR Initiative, by Harold C. Relyea and Henry B. Hogue.
² For text of the Secretary’s speech see DHS, Remarks by Secretary Michael Chertoff on 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, at [http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_

0703.xml]. Proposed organizational chart at [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/

DHSOrgCharts0705.pdf].
³ 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.

Administration’s request to restructure DHS, and P.L. 109-90 adopted the following
changes:
^!abolished the Office of the Undersecretary for Border and
Transportation Security, redistributing its functions to other
locations within DHS;
^!split the Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection into two new operational components: Analysis and
Operations, and the Preparedness Directorate;
^!moved all state and local grants within DHS to the Preparedness
Directorate;
^!transferred the Federal Air Marshals program from ICE to TSA; and
^!included and expanded the role of the Office of Policy.⁴
The DHS Congressional Budget Justifications for FY2007 also reflect these changes.
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations
The maximum budget authority for annual appropriations (including DHS) is
determined through a two-stage congressional budget process. In the first stage,
Congress sets overall spending totals in the annual concurrent resolution on the
budget. Subsequently, these amounts are allocated among the appropriations
committees, usually through the statement of managers for the conference report on
the budget resolution. These amounts are known as the 302(a) allocations. They
include discretionary totals available to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations for enactment in annual appropriations bills through the
subcommittees responsible for the development of the bills. In the second stage of
the process, the appropriations committees allocate the 302(a) discretionary funds
among their subcommittees for each of the appropriations bills. These amounts are
known as the 302(b) allocations. These allocations must add up to no more than the

302(a) discretionary allocation and form the basis for enforcing budget discipline,

since any bill reported with a total above the ceiling is subject to a point of order.
302(b) allocations may be adjusted during the year as the various appropriations bills
progress towards final enactment.
The annual concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth the congressional
budget. The Senate budget resolution, S.Con.Res. 83 was introduced on March 10,
2006, and passed the Senate on March 16, 2006. S.Con.Res. 83, would provide $873
billion in discretionary budget authority for FY2007. H.Con.Res. 376 was introduced
and reported on March 31, 2006, and passed the House on May 18, 2006.
H.Con.Res. 376 would provide $873 billion in discretionary budget authority for
FY2007. The anticipated difficulties in resolving the substantial differences between
the House- and Senate-passed versions of the budget resolution led to both the House
and the Senate adopting deeming resolutions. These deeming resolutions set the
discretionary spending levels for FY2007 at $873 billion.⁵

⁴ H.Rept. 109-241, p. 30.
⁵ Deeming resolutions serve as an annual budget resolution to establish enforceable budget
(continued...)

Table 2. FY2007 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Request^FY^{2007 Hou}^s^e^FY^{2007 S}^eⁿ^a^te^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Ena^c^t^e^d
^C^o^m^p^arab^l^e^C^o^m^p^arab^l^e^Allo^ca^tⁱ^oⁿ^Allo^ca^tⁱ^oⁿ^C^o^m^p^arab^l^e
^30.3^31.0^32.1^31.9^31.7
^Source:^H^o^u^s^e^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^ee^pres^s^rel^eas^{e, May}^{4, 2006;}^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^488,^Repor^t^on
^t^h^{e Revi}^s^e^{d Subal}^l^o^catⁱ^{on of}^B^u^d^g^et^Al^l^o^catⁱ^ons^f^o^r^FY^2007;^S^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^268,^Allo^ca^tioⁿ^s^to
^{Subcommittees}^{of Budget Totals}^for^FY2007;^an^d^t^h^e^C^oⁿ^f^eren^{ce R}^e^port^t^o^H^.^R^.^{5441, H}^.^R^e^pt^.^109-
^{699. F}^Y^{2007 en}^act^{ed com}^p^arabl^e^doesⁿ^o^tⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{e f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^desⁱ^gna^t^e^d^as^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^or
^of^f^s^ettin^g^receipts^.
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays
Federal government spending involves a multi-step process that begins with the
enactment of a budget authority by Congress in an appropriations act. Federal
agencies then obligate funds from the enacted budget authority to pay for their
activities. Finally, payments are made to liquidate those obligations; the actual
payment amounts are reflected in the budget as outlays.
Budget authority is established through appropriations acts or direct spending
legislation and determines the amounts that are available for federal agencies to
spend. The Antideficiency Act⁶ prohibits federal agencies from obligating more
funds than the budget authority that was enacted by Congress. Budget authority may
be indefinite, however, when Congress enacts language providing “such sums as may
be necessary” to complete a project or purpose. Budget authority may be available
on a one-year, multi-year, or no-year basis. One-year budget authority is only
available for obligation during a specific fiscal year; any unobligated funds at the end
of that year are no longer available for spending. Multi-year budget authority
specifies a range of time during which funds can be obligated for spending; no-year
budget authority is available for obligation for an indefinite period of time.
Obligations are incurred when federal agencies employ personnel, enter into
contracts, receive services, and engage in similar transactions in a given fiscal year.
Outlays are the funds that are actually spent during the fiscal year.⁷ 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,

⁵ (...continued)
levels in the absence of an actual congressionally adopted budget resolution. For more
information, see CRS Report RL31443, The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement
Tool, by Robert Keith.
⁶ 31 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517.
⁷ Appropriations, outlays, and account balances for government treasury accounts can be
viewed in the end of year reports published by the U.S. Treasury titled Combined Statement
of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government. The DHS portion of
the report can be accessed at [http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/cs2005/c18.pdf].

budget authority may be obligated in one fiscal year but spent in a future fiscal year,
especially with certain contracts.
In sum, budget authority allows federal agencies to incur obligations and
authorizes payments, or outlays, to be made from the Treasury. Discretionary
agencies and programs, and appropriated entitlement programs, are funded each year
in appropriations acts.
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending
Gross budget authority, or the total funds available for spending by a federal
agency, may be composed of discretionary and mandatory spending. Of the $42.7
billion gross budget authority requested for DHS in FY2007, 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 Act⁸ 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 Collections⁹
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 Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

⁸ P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.
⁹ Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff, Jr., Analyst in American National Government.

personnel and is used to offset both the CBP and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) appropriations.
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, whereas the Coast Guard
retirement pay is annually appropriated. In addition to these entitlements, the DHS
budget contains offsetting Trust and Public Enterprise Funds. These funds are not
appropriated by Congress; they are available for obligation and included in the
President’s budget to calculate the gross budget authority.
Table 3 tabulates all of the offsets within the DHS budget as enacted for
FY2006 and in the FY2007 request.
Table 3. FY2007 Request: Moving From Gross Budget
Authority to Net Appropriation — Fee Accounts, Offsetting
Fees, and Trust and Public Enterprise Accounts
(budget authority in millions)
^A^ccouⁿ^t^/^A^gen^c^y^A^ccouⁿ^t^N^a^m^e^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^DH^{S g}^r^o^{ss budg}^et^a^u^t^h^o^r^it^y^40,826^42,719
⁽^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
^IC^E^F^{ederal P}^r^otectiv^{e Serv}^ice⁴⁸²⁵¹⁶
^A^v^iatioⁿ^secu^r^ity^f^ees¹^,⁹⁹⁰^a^3,650^a
^T^W^IC¹⁰⁰²⁰
^TS^A^Hazm^at⁵⁰¹⁹
^R^e^gⁱ^s^t^{ered T}^r^av^eler²⁰³⁵
^F^E^MA^/^E^PR^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^f^l^{ood i}ⁿ^s^u^ran^{ce f}^uⁿ^d¹²⁴¹²⁹
^CB^P^S^m^a^{ll air}^p^o^r^ts⁵⁶
^Subto^t^a^l^a^cco^{unt lev}^e^{l discretio}^na^ry^o^f^fsets^-²^,⁷⁹¹^-4^,4⁶⁰
^{Agency level dis}^{cretionary offs}^et
^I^m^mⁱ^g^r^atioⁿⁱⁿ^sp^ectioⁿ⁴⁶⁵⁵²⁹
^Im^mⁱ^g^r^ation^en^f^o^rcem^en^t⁶²
^L^aⁿ^d^border³⁰²⁸
^CB^P^C^O^BR^A³³⁴³⁸⁸
^A^P^H^I^S²⁰⁴²¹⁴
^P^u^{erto R}ⁱ^co⁹⁸⁹⁸
^I^C^E^I^m^mⁱ^g^r^atioⁿⁱⁿ^sp^ectioⁿ¹⁰⁰¹⁰⁸
^SE^VI^S⁶⁷⁵⁴
^B^r^each^{ed bon}^{d deten}^tion^f^uⁿ^d⁸⁷⁹⁰

^A^ccouⁿ^t^/^A^gen^c^y^A^ccouⁿ^t^N^a^m^e^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^T^S^A^A^vⁱ^atioⁿ^secu^r^ity^cap^{ital f}^uⁿ^d²⁵⁰²⁵⁰
^A^lⁱ^e^{n fl}ⁱ^ght^sc^ho^o^l^b^a^c^kgr^o^und^c^h^e^c^k^s¹⁰²
^USCI^S^I^m^mⁱ^g^r^atioⁿ^ex^amⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^f^e^e¹^,7³⁰¹^,⁷⁶⁰
^H^{1b, an}^{d H}^{1b &}^L^f^ees⁴⁴⁴⁴
^Subto^t^a^l^a^g^e^ncy^lev^e^{l discretio}^na^ry^o^f^fsets^-³^,⁴²⁵^-3^,5⁶⁷
^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^(1,014)^(1,063)
^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
^F^E^MA^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^F^l^{ood In}^s^u^ran^{ce F}^uⁿ^d^d^2,104^2,233
^Boat^s^a^f^e^t^y¹⁰¹¹¹⁵
^C^o^as^{t Gu}^ard^{Oil sp}^{ill r}^eco^v^e^r^y¹⁶⁸¹²⁷
^Mⁱ^sc^e^l^l^a^ne^o^u^{s r}^e^vo^l^vⁱ^{ng fund}⁽¹¹⁾⁽¹¹⁾
^Subt^o^t^a^l^t^r^ust^a^{nd public ent}^{erprise f}^unds^-²^,3⁸¹^-²^,4⁸³
^DH^{S g}^r^o^{ss budg}^et^a^u^t^h^o^r^it^y⁴⁰^,⁸²⁶^e^42,719
^T^o^tal^offs^ettiⁿ^g^col^l^ecti^oⁿ^s^-8,797^-10,710
^{DHS net appropriated B}^A^(M^anda^{tory +}^Dis^cretionary)^31,743^32,015
^Source:^CR^S^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2007 Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^Bu^dg^et^{, D}^H^S^Budgetⁱⁿ^Brⁱ^e^f^{, an}^{d H}^o^use
^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee t}^a^bl^es^of^A^p^ri^l^{19, 2006.}
^No^tes:^T^o^{tals m}^a^yⁿ^o^{t ad}^d^d^u^{e to}^r^o^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
^a.^T^h^ere^is^{a dis}^c^repan^c^y^{reported in}^th^{e am}^ouⁿ^t^of^av^iation^s^ecu^rity^f^ees^{collected by}^T^S^A^,^f^o^{r both}
^{FY2006 an}^{d 2007. T}^h^{e en}^{acted lev}^e^{l av}^iation^s^ecu^rity^f^ees^f^o^r^FY2006^w^a^s^$1,990^m^illion^,^an^d
^t^hⁱ^sⁱ^s^t^h^{e am}^ouⁿ^t^report^e^{d i}ⁿ^t^h^{e cu}^rren^t^com^mⁱ^t^t^{ee t}^a^bl^es^{. T}^h^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^F^Y²⁰⁰⁷^bu^dg^et
^doc^um^eⁿ^t^s^an^{d t}^h^{e D}^H^S^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^Bu^dg^et^Ju^s^tⁱ^fⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^s^report^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 am}^ouⁿ^t^as
^$2^,^{010 m}^illion^.^T^h^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^h^a^s^requ^es^{ted an}ⁱⁿ^creas^{e in}^av^iation^s^ecu^rity^f^ees^f^o^r
^{FY2006, an}^{d th}^{e bu}^dg^et^docu^m^en^ts^es^tim^ate^th^e^of^f^s^ettin^g^collection^s^{at $3,736 m}^illion^.^T^h^e
^lates^t^com^m^{ittee tables}^s^h^ow^$3,650^m^illion^f^o^r^FY2007^(a^dif^f^e^ren^{ce of}^{$86 m}^illion^f^r^om^th^e
^P^r^es^iden^t’^s^bu^dg^{et) bas}^e^{d on}^es^tim^ates^by^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al B}^u^dg^{et Of}^fⁱ^{ce. I}ⁿ^{order to}
^com^p^l^e^t^e^t^h^{e cros}^s^w^al^kⁱⁿ^T^a^bl^{e 3, w}^e^h^a^v^e^u^s^{ed t}^h^e^en^act^ed^am^ouⁿ^t^f^o^r^F^Y²⁰⁰⁶^($1,990)^an^d
^t^h^{e com}^mⁱ^t^t^{ee t}^a^bl^{e am}^ouⁿ^t^{($3,650) f}^o^{r F}^Y^2007.
^b^.^Se^c^r^e^t^Se^r^vⁱ^c^e^Re^tⁱ^r^e^d^P^a^yⁱ^s^p^e^r^m^aⁿ^eⁿ^t^l^y^aⁿ^dⁱⁿ^d^e^fiⁿⁱ^t^e^l^y^a^u^t^h^o^rⁱ^z^e^d^,^aⁿ^d^a^s^suc^hⁱ^s^no^t^a^nnua^l^l^y
^appropri^a^t^e^{d. T}^h^eref^{ore i}^tⁱ^s^of^f^s^etⁱⁿ^T^a^bl^{e 3.}
^c^.^Iⁿ^c^o^nt^r^a^st^t^o^Se^c^r^e^t^Se^r^vⁱ^c^e^Re^tⁱ^r^e^d^P^a^y^,^Co^a^s^t^G^u^a^r^d^Re^tⁱ^r^e^d^p^a^y^m^u^st^b^e^a^nnua^l^l^y^a^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^t^e^d^,
^an^{d th}^eref^{ore is}ⁿ^o^{t of}^f^s^{et in}^T^a^{ble 3.}
^{d. T}^hⁱ^s^f^uⁿ^dⁱ^s^com^p^ri^s^e^{d of}^bot^h^di^s^c^retⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^an^{d m}^aⁿ^d^at^ory^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^;^t^h^u^sⁱ^t^s^com^pon^en^t
^p^a^r^t^{s ap}^p^ear^tw^{ice in}^th^{is tab}^l^e.
^{e. T}^h^{e P}^r^es^ideⁿ^t’^s^bu^dg^{et f}^o^{r FY2006 in}^clu^d^es^{a $261 m}^illion^ch^arg^e^w^ithⁱⁿ^th^{e C}^o^as^{t Gu}^{ard f}^o^r
^Health^Car^e^Fuⁿ^d^Coⁿ^t^rⁱ^b^u^tioⁿ^s^th^{at is n}^o^{t r}^e^p^licatedⁱⁿ^th^{e Ho}^u^s^{e A}^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^atioⁿ^Co^m^m^ittee
^t^a^bl^es^{. F}^o^{r t}^hⁱ^s^reas^on^{, t}^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 col}^u^mⁿ^doesⁿ^o^t^add.

Appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security
Summary of DHS Appropriations
Table 4 is a summary table comparing the enacted appropriations for FY2006
and the requested amounts for FY2007. The President’s budget request for FY2007
was submitted to Congress February 6, 2006. The Administration requested $42.7
billion in gross budget authority for FY2007 (including mandatories, fees, and
funds). The Administration’s request includes gross appropriations of $39.8 billion,
and a net appropriation of $32.0 billion in budget authority for FY2007, of which
$31.0 billion is discretionary budget authority, and $1 billion is mandatory budget
authority. The FY2006 enacted net appropriated budget authority for DHS was $31.7
billion.
P.L. 109-295 provides $39.8 billion in gross budget authority for DHS for
FY2007. Including emergency funding, P.L. 109-295 provides $41.4 billion in gross
budget authority for DHS. P.L. 109-295 provides $34.8 billion in net budget
authority for DHS in FY2007 (including the emergency funding) and $33.0 billion
in net budget authority (not including the emergency funding). House-passed H.R.
5441 would have provided $39.8 billion in gross budget authority and $33.2 billion
in net budget authority for DHS in FY2007. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would have
provided $39.7 billion in gross budget authority and $32.7 billion in net budget
authority for DHS in FY2007.

CRS-10
Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^FY^{2006 A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^FY^{2007 A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ
^Op^erati^on^al^C^o^m^p^on^en^t^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Request^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Hou^s^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Supp.^Resc.^To^t^a^l^Ena^c^t^e^d^E^m^erg.^To^t^a^l
^{tle I}^:^Departm^e^{ntal Operations}
^o^t^a^l^:^Tit^l^{e I}⁹⁰⁷⁵³^-²⁷⁹³³¹^,⁰⁷⁴⁹⁶⁰⁹⁶⁹¹^,⁰¹¹^—¹^,⁰¹¹
^{tle I}^I^:^{Security, E}ⁿ^forcem^{ent, and I}ⁿ^ves^t^igations
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33428}^S^c^reenⁱⁿ^g^an^{d O}^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^s^O^f^fⁱ^ce/^U^S^-^V^IS^IT³⁴⁰^—^-³³³⁷³⁹⁹³⁶²³⁹⁹³⁶²^—³⁶²
^g/w^C^u^s^t^om^s^an^{d Border Prot}^ectⁱ^oⁿ⁵^,⁹⁵²⁸⁵⁷^-⁶⁰⁶^,749^6,574^6,434^6,683^6,435^1,601^8,035
^s^.or
^le^ak^Im^mⁱ^g^r^atⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d C}^u^s^t^om^s^En^f^o^rcem^en^t³^,175³⁴⁰^-³³³^,483^3,928^3,876^3,919^3,928³⁰^3,958
^T^r^an^s^port^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^S^ecu^ri^t^y^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ³^,924^—^-⁵⁸³^,866^2,323^3,618^3,816^3,628^—^3,628
^://wiki^U^.^S^.^C^o^as^t^G^u^ard⁷^,811⁵⁸⁸^-³⁴³^8,056^8,181^8,129^8,188^8,140¹⁷⁶^8,316
^h^ttp
^U^.^S^.^S^ecret^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e¹^,212²⁴^-¹²¹^,224^1,265^1,293^1,226^1,277^—^1,277
^{t s}^u^b^t^otal^{: T}ⁱ^tl^{e I}^I^22,414^1,809^-⁵⁰⁸^23,715^22,670^23,712^24,231^23,770^1,807^25,577
^T^o^t^a^l^f^{ee col}^l^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^4,302^—^—^4,302^6,009^4,779^5,029^4,779^—^4,779
^os^s^s^u^b^t^otal^{: T}ⁱ^tl^{e I}^I^26,716^1,809^-508^28,017^28,679^28,491^29,260^28,550^1,807^30,357
^l^e^III:^P^r^e^p^a^r^e^dne^{ss a}^{nd Re}^c^o^v^e^r^y
^Preparedn^e^s^s^Dⁱ^rect^orat^e⁴^,072²⁵^-⁴¹⁴^,056^3,419^4,069^3,901^4,018^—^4,018
^uⁿ^t^{er T}^e^rro^r^ism^Fuⁿ^d²^—^—²^—^—^—^—^—^—
^Fe^d^e^r^a^l^E^m^e^r^ge^nc^y^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^oⁿ²^,633^6,379^-²⁶⁸^,986^2,964^2,656^2,606^2,511^—^2,511
^{t s}^u^b^t^otal^{: T}ⁱ^tl^{e I}^I^I^6,707^6,404^-67^13,044^6,383^6,725^6,507^6,529^—^6,529

CRS-11
^FY^{2006 A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^FY^{2007 A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ
^Op^erati^on^al^C^o^m^p^on^en^t^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Request^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Hou^s^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Supp.^Resc.^To^t^a^l^Ena^c^t^e^d^E^m^erg.^To^t^a^l
^{tle I}^V^{: Res}^e^{arch and Developm}^ent,^Traⁱ^ning^{, Assessm}^ent^s^{, a}^{nd Serv}^ices
^Cⁱ^tⁱ^zen^s^hⁱ^p^an^{d Im}^mⁱ^g^r^atⁱ^oⁿ^S^e^rvⁱ^ces¹¹⁵^—^-¹¹¹⁴¹⁸²¹⁶²¹³⁵¹⁸²^—¹⁸²
^F^e^deral^L^a^w^En^f^o^rcem^en^t^T^r^aiⁿⁱⁿ^g^C^eⁿ^t^er²⁸²²⁵^-²³⁰⁵²⁴⁶²⁵³²⁷¹²⁵³²²²⁷⁵
^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^{ce an}^{d T}^echⁿ^o^l^o^g^y^1,502^—^-¹⁵¹^,487^1,002⁹⁵⁶⁸¹⁸⁹⁷³^—⁹⁷³
^D^o^m^e^s^tⁱ^c^N^u^cl^{ear D}^e^t^ectⁱ^oⁿ^O^f^fⁱ^ce^—^—^—^—⁵³⁵⁵⁰⁰⁴⁴²⁴⁸¹^—⁴⁸¹
^{t s}^u^b^t^otal^{: T}ⁱ^tl^{e I}^V^1,899²⁵^-18¹^,906^1,965^1,871^1,667^1,889²²^1,911
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33428}^T^o^t^a^l^f^{ee col}^l^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^1,774^—^—^1,774^1,804^1,804^1,889^1,804^—^1,804
^g/w^os^s^s^u^b^t^otal^{: T}ⁱ^tl^{e I}^V^3,673²⁵^—^3,680^3,769^3,675^3,555^3,693²²^3,715
^s^.or^{tle V: G}^e^{neral Provis}ⁱ^ons
^le^ak^sc^issioⁿ^s^a^—^—^—^—^-16^-²⁰^-582^-232^—^-232
^://wiki^rt^m^e^nt^o^f^H^o^m^e^la^{nd Securit}^y^Appro^p^ria^t^ioⁿ^o^{ss DH}^{S budg}^et^a^u^t^h^o^r^it^y³⁸^,⁰⁰³⁸^,²⁹¹^-⁶²⁰⁴⁵^,⁶⁷⁴³⁹^,⁸⁸⁹³⁹^,⁸³¹³⁹^,⁷⁰⁹³⁹^,⁷⁸³¹^,⁸²⁹⁴¹^,³⁸⁰
^h^ttp
^T^o^t^a^l^f^{ee col}^l^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^-⁶^,076^—^—^-⁶^,076^-⁷^,813^-⁶^,583^-⁶^,918^-⁶^,815^—^-⁶^,583
^DH^{S budg}^et^a^u^t^h^o^r^it^y³¹^,⁹²⁷⁸^,²⁹¹^-⁶²⁰³⁹^,⁵⁹⁸³²^,⁰⁷⁶³³^,²⁴⁸³²^,⁷⁹²³²^,⁹⁶⁷¹^,⁸²⁹³⁴^,⁷⁹⁶
^rce:^FY^{2006 e}ⁿ^a^c^t^e^d^num^be^r^s^f^r^om^C^R^S^aⁿ^a^l^y^s^is^of^the^c^onf^e^r^eⁿ^c^e^r^e^por^{t to H}^.^R^.^2360,^H^.^R^e^pt.109-^241;^FY²⁰⁰⁶^s^upple^m^eⁿ^ta^l^num^be^r^s^f^r^o^m^C^R^S^aⁿ^a^l^y^s^is^of^P^.^L^.^109-^{61, P}^.^L^.^109-^{62, P}^.^L^.^109-^88,
^.^L^.^109-^{148; FY}^{2006 r}^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^{on num}^be^r^s^f^r^om^C^R^S^aⁿ^a^l^y^s^is^of^P^.^L^.^109-^{148, P}^.^L^.^109-^{234, a}^{nd the}^{FY2007 D}^H^S^J^u^s^tific^ations^{. FY}^{2007 r}^e^que^s^t^num^be^r^s^f^r^om^the^{FY2007 D}^H^S^J^u^s^tific^ations^.
^be^r^s^f^r^om^the^c^onf^e^r^eⁿ^c^e^r^e^por^{t (}^H^.R^e^p^{t. 109-}⁴⁷⁶⁾^{to H}^.^R^.^5441.
^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^{. For}^a^m^o^r^e^de^ta^ile^{d a}ⁿ^a^l^y^s^is^of^the^s^upple^m^eⁿ^ta^{l a}^p^pr^opr^ia^tions^{, r}^e^f^e^r^{to A}^ppe^ndix^I^.
^{2006 re}^s^c^is^sⁱ^ons^{, inc}^l^uding^thos^e^{in T}^itle^V^{or the}^G^e^ner^a^l^P^r^o^vⁱ^sⁱ^oⁿ^s^ar^e^dⁱ^s^p^l^a^y^e^{d in the}^re^s^c^is^sⁱ^{on c}^o^lumⁿ^of^the^a^ppr^opria^te^a^c^c^{ount. FY}^{2007 T}^itle^V^{or G}^e^ne^ra^{l P}^r^ov^is^{ion re}^s^c^is^sⁱ^ons^a^r^e
^a^g^g^r^e^g^a^t^e^d^he^re^f^o^{r s}ⁱ^m^p^lic^ity^{. FY}^{2007 H}^ous^e^-^pa^s^s^e^{d T}^itle^V^re^s^c^is^sⁱ^ons^inc^l^ude^{-$16 m}^{illion f}^r^om^the^Counte^r^T^e^rroris^m^Fund^a^{nd -$4 m}^{illion in T}^S^A^unoblig^a^t^e^d^ba^la^nc^e^s^{. Se}^na^te^-pa^s^s^e^d^H^.^R.
^{5441 inc}^l^ude^s^a^s^e^rⁱ^e^s^of^r^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^ons^f^r^om^unoblig^a^t^e^d^ba^la^nc^e^s^of^pr^ior^-^y^e^a^r^a^ppr^opr^ia^tions^tha^t^a^r^e^us^e^d^to^of^f^s^e^t^FY²⁰⁰⁷^a^p^p^ropria^tions^{, inc}^l^uding^{-$67 m}^illion^f^r^om^T^S^A^A^v^ia^{tion Se}^c^u^rity^aⁿ^d
^H^e^a^dqua^r^t^e^r^s^a^{nd Ma}^na^g^e^m^e^nt^a^c^c^ounts^;^-$16^m^illion^f^r^om^the^Counte^r^te^rrori^s^m^{Fund; -$55 m}^{illion f}^r^om^the^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^{nd T}^e^c^hnolog^y^Ma^na^g^e^m^e^{nt a}^{nd A}^d^mⁱ^nis^t^ra^ti^{on a}^c^c^{ount; -$184 m}^illion

CRS-12
^f^r^om^the^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^{nd T}^e^c^hnolog^y^Re^s^e^a^r^c^h^{, D}^e^vel^opm^eⁿ^{t, A}^c^quis^itions^a^{nd O}^p^e^r^a^tions^a^c^c^{ount; -$103 m}^{illion f}^r^om^the^U^.^{S. Coa}^s^{t G}^u^a^r^{d f}^r^om^f^unds^a^ppropria^te^{d in}^P^.^L^.^{109-90; -$14 m}^illion
^f^r^om^CBP^Aⁱ^{r a}^{nd Ma}^rine^O^p^e^r^a^tions^f^r^om^f^unds^a^ppropria^te^{d in}^P^.^L^.^{109-90; a}^{nd -$99 m}^{illion f}^r^om^the^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^{nd T}^e^c^hnolog^y^Re^s^e^a^r^c^h^a^{nd D}^e^v^e^lopm^eⁿ^{t a}^c^c^{ount. Se}^na^te^-^p^a^s^s^e^{d H}^.^R^.⁵⁴⁴¹
^a^l^s^o^inc^l^ude^s^the^f^o^llowⁱ^ng^FY²⁰⁰⁷^re^s^c^is^sⁱ^ons^:^{-$43 m}^{illion f}^r^om^tra^v^e^l^a^{nd tra}ⁿ^s^porta^{tion e}^x^pe^ns^e^s^throug^{hout D}^H^S^{; a}^{nd -$1 m}^{illion f}^r^om^printing^a^{nd re}^produc^{tion e}^x^pe^ns^e^s^throug^{hout D}^H^S^.
^T^itle^V^of^P^.^L^.^{109-295 inc}^l^ude^s^re^s^c^is^sⁱ^ons^of^-$16^m^illion^f^o^rm^the^Counte^r^te^rroris^m^{Fund, a}^{nd re}^s^c^is^sⁱ^ons^of^unoblig^a^t^e^d^ba^l^aⁿ^c^e^s^f^r^om^{: S&}^T^{-$125 m}^{illion, T}^S^A^{-$67 m}^{illion, U}^S^CG^-$20
^f^r^om^the^A^c^quis^{ition, Cons}^truc^{tion, a}^{nd Im}^prov^e^m^eⁿ^ts^a^c^c^{ount f}^o^{r the}^de^v^e^lopm^eⁿ^{t of}^the^O^f^f^s^hore^P^a^{trol Cutte}^{r, -$20 m}^{illion, a}^nd^f^r^om^A^c^quis^{ition, C}^ons^tr^uc^{tion, a}^{nd I}^m^pr^ov^e^m^eⁿ^ts^a^c^c^ount
^f^o^{r the}^A^u^tom^a^tic^Ideⁿ^tif^ic^a^{tion Sy}^s^t^e^m^{-$4 m}^{illion. T}^itle^V^of^P^.^L^.^{109-295 a}^l^s^o^c^ontaⁱ^ns^tw^o^re^-a^ppropria^tions^of^pre^v^ious^ly^a^ppropria^te^{d, but unoblig}^a^t^e^d^f^unds^{, inc}^l^uding^{: $78 m}^{illion in f}^unding
^tha^t^w^a^s^a^ppr^opr^ia^te^{d by}^P^.^L^.^109-^{90 f}^o^r^the^U^S^C^G^’^s^Fa^s^t^R^e^s^pons^e^C^u^tte^r^tha^t^is^r^e^s^c^inde^{d a}^{nd r}^e^-^a^ppr^opr^ia^te^{d by}^Se^c^.^{521 of}^P^.L^{. 109-}^{295 f}^o^r^the^U^S^C^G^’^s^R^e^pl^acem^en^t^P^a^tro^l^Bo^{at; an}^d^$³^m^illioⁿ
^tha^t^is^re^s^c^inde^{d a}^{nd re}^-a^ppropria^te^{d by}^Se^c^.^{560 of}^P^.^L^.^109-295^f^r^om^U^{SSS unoblig}^a^t^e^d^ba^la^nc^e^s^{to N}^a^tiona^{l Se}^c^u^rity^Spe^cⁱ^a^l^E^v^eⁿ^t^{s (NSSE).}

ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33428}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

Title I: Departmental Management and Operations¹⁰
Title I covers the general administrative expenses of DHS. It includes the Office
of the Secretary and Executive Management (OS&EM), which is comprised of the
immediate Office of the Secretary and 11 entities that report directly to the Secretary;
the Office of Screening Coordination and Operations (OSCO); the Undersecretary
for Management (USM) and its components, such as offices of the Chief
Procurement Officer, Chief Human Capital Officer, and Chief Administrative
Officer; the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO); the Office of the Chief
Information Officer (CIO); Analysis and Operations Office (AOO); and the Office
of the Inspector General (OIG). Table 5 shows Title I appropriations for FY2006
and congressional action on the request for FY2007.
President’s FY2007 Request. FY2007 requests relative to comparable
FY2006 enacted appropriations are as follows: OS&EM, $98 million, a decrease of
$28 million (-22%); OSCO, $4 million, the same as previously provided; USM, $209
million, an increase of $40 million (24%); OCFO, $44 million, an increase of $25
million (+132%); OCIO, $324 million, an increase of $27 million (+9%); and OIG,
$96 million, an increase of $13 million (+16%). The total FY2007 request for Title
I was $1,074 million. This represents an increase of $167 million (18%) over the
FY2006 enacted level (not including supplemental appropriations).
House-Passed H.R. 5441. With slight exception, appropriators, in making
their recommendations for Title I accounts, cut allocations relative to both FY2006
funding and the President’s requests for FY2007. The requested amount for OS&EM
was decreased by a little more than $1.5 million to a recommended amount of
approximately $96 million, which, after adjustment for floor offset amendments, was
reduced to $84 million. OSCO was not allocated monies as a separate entity, but its
activities were funded in the Office of Policy within OS&EM. The USM request was
slashed by almost $50 million, with $159 million recommended, which, after
adjustment for floor offset amendments, was reduced to $70 million. OCFO received
a modest reduction of less than $1 million in its request, with $43 million
recommended. OCIO, however, was recommended an increase of $41 million above
its request to make a total proposed allocation of $365 million, whereas OIG was
recommended $96 million as requested. These recommended and otherwise adjusted
amounts were approved by the House.
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. Appropriators largely funded OS&EM accounts
at or below FY2006 levels, and the Senate ultimately approved almost $83 million,
which was about $15 million less than the amount requested by the President. OSCO
was not allocated monies as a separate entity, but its activities were funded in the
Office of Policy within OS&EM. Other accounts in Title I — OCFO, OCIO, and
OIG — were generally funded at levels below the President’s request, but above
FY2006 amounts. The Senate approved a total of $969 million for Title I accounts,
$9 million more than the House allocation and $105 million less than the President’s
request.

¹⁰ Prepared by Harold C. Relyea, Specialist in American National Government, Government
and Finance Division.

P.L. 109-295. P.L. 109-295 provides $94 million for OS&EM instead of the
$84 million approved by the House and $83 million approved by the Senate.
Conferees explained they had “made reductions to the [President’s] budget request
due to a large number of vacancies and unobligated balances within certain offices”¹¹
of OS&EM. The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman and the
Privacy Officer were funded at the requested levels, but all other OS&EM accounts
were trimmed in conference. Conferees agreed to provide a little over $2 million for
a separate Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement, which had previously been
funded through the Office of Chief of Staff account. Other entities experiencing
considerable reductions in their funding requests were USM (-$51 million), OCFO
($-18), and OIG (-$11 million), whereas OCIO received an increase (+$25 million)
to its request.

¹¹ U.S. Congress, House Committee of Conference, Making Appropriations for the
Department of Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2007, and for^th^nd
Other Purposes, conference report to accompany H.R. 5441, 109 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept.

109-699 (Washington: GPO, 2006), p. 114.

CRS-15
Table 5. Title I: Department Management and Operations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^FY^{2006 A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ
^Op^erati^on^al^C^o^m^p^on^en^t^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Request^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Hou^s^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Ena^c^t^e^d^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Supp.^Resc.^To^t^a^l
^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e Secretary}^an^{d Ex}^ecu^tiv^{e Man}^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t⁷⁹⁵¹^—¹³⁰⁹⁸⁸⁴⁸³⁹⁴
^fⁱ^{ce of}^Screenⁱⁿ^g^C^oordin^a^tion^an^{d Operation}^s⁴^—^-⁴^—⁴^—^—^—
^fⁱ^{ce of}^t^h^{e U}ⁿ^ders^ecret^ary^f^o^{r Man}^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t¹⁶⁹^—^-²¹⁶⁷²⁰⁹⁷⁰¹⁶³¹⁵⁴
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33428}^fⁱ^{ce of}^t^h^{e C}^hⁱ^e^f^Fⁱⁿ^aⁿ^cⁱ^a^l^O^f^fⁱ^cer¹⁹^—^—¹⁹⁴⁴⁴³²⁷²⁶
^g/w^fⁱ^{ce of}^t^h^{e C}^hⁱ^e^f^In^f^o^rm^atⁱ^oⁿ^O^f^fⁱ^cer²⁹⁷^—^-³²⁹⁴³²⁴³⁶⁵³⁰⁷³⁴⁹
^s^.or
^le^ak^al^y^sⁱ^s^an^{d O}^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^s²⁵⁵^—^-²²⁵³²⁹⁹²⁹⁹²⁹⁹³⁰⁰
^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^th^{e Fed}^e^r^a^{l Co}^o^r^dⁱⁿ^a^to^r^f^o^r^Gu^lf^Co^{ast Reb}^u^ildⁱⁿ^g^—^—^—^—^—³^—³
^://wiki^fⁱ^{ce of}^t^h^{e In}^s^p^ect^{or G}^eⁿ^e^ral⁸³²^-¹⁸⁴⁹⁶⁹⁶⁹⁰⁸⁵
^h^ttp^{t Bu}^d^g^{et A}^u^th^ori^t^{y: T}ⁱ^tl^{e I}⁹⁰⁷⁵³^-27^a⁹³³^a^1,074⁹⁶⁰⁹⁶⁹^1,011
^F^Y²⁰⁰⁶^en^act^edⁿ^u^m^bers^f^r^om^C^R^S^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^t^h^{e C}^oⁿ^f^eren^{ce R}^e^port^t^o^H^.^R^.^{2360, H}^.^R^e^pt^.109-^241;^F^Y^{2006 s}^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^lⁿ^u^m^bers^f^r^om^C^R^S^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^P.L^.^109-^61,
^.^109-^{62, P.L}^.^109-^{88, an}^{d P.L}^.^109-^148;^F^Y^{2006 res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^onⁿ^u^m^be^rs^f^r^om^C^R^S^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^P.L^.^109-^{148, P.L}^.^109-^{234, an}^{d t}^h^e^{FY2007 D}^H^S^J^u^s^tifications^{. F}^Y^{2007 requ}^es^t
^bers^f^r^om^t^h^e^{FY2007 DHS Jus}^tifications^{. F}^Y^{2007 n}^u^m^bers^f^r^om^t^h^{e con}^f^eren^{ce report}^(H^.R^ept^.^109-^{476) t}^o^H^.^R^.^5441.
^No^FY2007^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r^T^itle^I^w^a^s^desⁱ^gⁿ^a^ted^as^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^p^en^din^g^.^T^o^tals^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add du}^{e to rou}ⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^A^m^ouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^paren^t^h^e^s^es^{are n}^oⁿ^-^adds^{. For a m}^o^re^detailed^an^aly^s^is
^{e s}^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^{, pl}^eas^{e ref}^e^{r t}^o^A^ppen^dⁱ^x^I.
^h^is^{total in}^clu^d^es^{a $15 m}^illion^res^c^is^sⁱ^on^f^r^om^th^{e W}^o^rkⁱⁿ^g^C^a^{pital Fu}ⁿ^d^w^h^ich^w^a^sⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed in}^T^{itle V of}^H.R^e^{pt. 109-}²⁴¹^.

Analysis and Operations¹²
Background. The DHS Intelligence mission is outlined in Title II of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (codified at 6 U.S.C. 121). Organizationally, and
from a budget perspective, there have been a number of changes to the information,
intelligence analysis, and infrastructure protection functions at DHS. Pursuant to the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection (IAIP) Directorate was established. The act created an Undersecretary for
IAIP to whom two Assistant Secretaries, one each for Information Analysis (IA) and
Infrastructure Protection (IP), reported. The act outlined 19 functions for the IAIP
Directorate, to include the following, among others:
^!To assess, receive, and analyze law enforcement information,
intelligence information, and other information from federal, state,
and local government agencies, and the private sector to (1) identify
and assess the nature and scope of the terrorist threats to the
homeland, (2) detect and identify threats of terrorism against the
United States, and (3) understand such threats in light of actual and
potential vulnerabilities of the homeland;
^!To develop a comprehensive national plan for securing the key
resources and critical infrastructure of the United States;
^!To review, analyze, and make recommendations for improvements
in the policies and procedures governing the sharing of law
enforcement information, intelligence information, and intelligence-
related information within the federal government and between the
federal government and state and local government agencies and
authorities.¹³
Pursuant to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff’s Second Stage Review,¹⁴ and the¹⁵
Conference Report to H.R. 2360, Department of Homeland Security Act FY2006,
a number of organizational changes were announced. Some of these changes include
the following:
^!The IAIP Directorate was disbanded. Intelligence Analysis was
organizationally separated from Infrastructure Protection.

¹² Prepared by Todd Masse, Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counterterrorism,
Domestic Social Policy Division.
¹³ See Title II, Subtitle A, Section 201(d), Responsibilities of the Undersecretary (of IAIP),
codified at 6 U.SC. §121. See also Department of Homeland Security, Office of the
Inspector General, Survey of the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
Directorate, Office of Inspections, Evaluations, and Special Reviews, OIG-04-413, Feb.

2004, p. 26.

¹⁴ See “Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff Announces Six-Point Agenda for
Department of Homeland Security,” DHS Press Release, July 13, 2005.
¹⁵ See H.Rept. 109-241, in Congressional Record, Sept. 29, 2005, pp. H8585 - H8625.

^!The Undersecretary of IAIP was dissolved and a new Undersecretary
for Preparedness was created.
^!Two new offices were created — the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis, and the Office of Operations Coordination (which includes
the Homeland Security Operations Center [HSOC]).
^!The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis
was designated the DHS Chief Intelligence Officer and reports
directly to the Secretary.
^!A new budget account — Analysis and Operations (A&O) — was
created within Title I, Departmental Management and Operations.
The A&O account “supports the activities of the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis and the Directorate of Operations. Even though these two offices are
different and distinct in their missions, they work together to improve intelligence,
information sharing, and coordination.”¹⁶ There are two budget activities within this
account — the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, which leads the DHS Intelligence
Enterprise,¹⁷ and the Directorate of Operations Coordination, which “disseminate (s)
threat information, provides domestic situational awareness, performs incident
management, and ensures operations coordination among DHS components with
specific threat responsibilities.”¹⁸ Table 5 shows Title I appropriations for FY2006
and congressional action on the request for FY2007.
Budget Structure Changes. The budget for IAIP for FY2004 and FY2005
was located within Title IV (Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and
Services) of the DHS Appropriations Bills.¹⁹ In FY2006, the budget for IA-related
functions moved to Title I (Department Management and Operations). A new A&O
account was established within Title I. According to the FY2006 Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-90), $256 million was appropriated
for “necessary expenses for information analysis, as authorized by Title II of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 ... to remain available until September 30, 2007.”
President’s FY2007 Request. The FY2007 request for Title I, A&O is $299
million and 475 full-time equivalent positions (FTEs). This represents an increase
of 18.1% more than the FY2006 revised enacted amount of $253 million, and an
increase of 12 FTEs.²⁰
House-Passed H.R. 5441. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $299 million, an amount equal to the level of funding requested by the

¹⁶ See DHS FY 07 Congressional Justification, p. AO-3.
¹⁷ The Intelligence Enterprise is defined as “all those component organizations within the
Department that have activities producing raw information, intelligence-related information
and/or finished intelligence.” See DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan, Jan. 2006.
¹⁸ See DHS FY 07 Congressional Justification, p. AO-3.
¹⁹ See CRS Report RL32302, Appropriations for FY2005: Department of Homeland
Security, by Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nunez-Neto; and CRS Report RL32863, Homeland
Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations, by Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nunez-Neto.
²⁰ Adjustments to the FY06 base include 57 FTE and $16.6 million.

President for FY2007. This amount is approximately $46 million in excess of the
$253 million FY2006 appropriation for the activities associated with these DHS
functions. In the report accompanying H.R. 5441, the Appropriations Committee
also made the following points:
^!It denied DHS’s request to rename the Directorate of Operations
Coordination the Directorate of Operations based on the
Committee’s position that the Directorate’s function is “...to support
decision makers rather than to direct activities.” ²¹
^!It directed the HSOC and ICE report, not later than January 16,

2007, on the number, location, planned deployments, composition,

and budgets of DHS-proposed situational awareness teams, noting
that the House Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the
Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina found that the
HSOC failed to provide valuable situational information to the
White House. These teams are designed to provide “ground truth”
as they are deployed throughout the country during an emergency.
^!It directed the Office of Intelligence and Analysis to continue to
provide the Committee with quarterly threat briefings, and noted that
it is “...encouraged by the leadership put into place...”²² at the
Department’s OIA.
^!It directed that a report be provided to the Committee by January 16,
2007, on the total number of intelligence fusion centers, their
funding sources and amounts, and where additional fusion centers
are necessary. The Committee “...strongly supports information
sharing between the intelligence community and people responsible
for taking action on that intelligence.”²³
^!It supports IA’s recent effort to develop a staffing, recruitment, and
training plan. Furthermore, “the Committee expects IA to expend
unobligated personnel resources on recruitment and training,
including fellowships and other tools deemed necessary and to report
to the Committee bi-annually on its efforts.”²⁴
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $299 million, an amount equal to the Administration’s FY2007
request and the amount passed by the House. These funds, to remain available until
September 30, 2008, are for “necessary expenses for information analysis and
operations coordination activities, as authorized by title II of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.)” Of the recommended amount, no more than

²¹ See H.Rept. 109-476, p. 19.
²² Ibid.
²³ Ibid.
²⁴ Ibid.

$5,000 “shall be for official reception and expenses.” The committee further stated
it “supports the activities to improve the analysis and sharing of threat information,
including the activities of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the Office of
Operations Coordination.”²⁵ The committee also made the following two additional
recommendations:
^!It directed “the Chief Intelligence Officer to report no later than 90
days after the enactment of this act on efforts to address concerns
reported in the Office of Inspector General Report OIG-05-34.”²⁶
^!It “understands the operating procedures for the Homeland Security
Operations Center [HSOC] have not changed since Hurricane
Katrina. The committee directs the Government Accountability
Office to analyze the role of the HSOC and the numerous DHS
component operations centers and to make recommendations
regarding the operation and coordination of these centers.”²⁷
During Senate floor action on July 12, S.Amdt. 4569 required the following report
on data-mining, an issue which could affect research conducted by any DHS
intelligence element:
^!“The head of each department or agency in the Department of
Homeland Security that is engaged in any activity to use or develop
data-mining technology shall each submit a report to Congress on all
such activities of the agency under the jurisdiction of that official.
The report shall be made available to the public.”²⁸
P.L. 109-295. P.L. 109-295 provides $300 million, or $1 million more than the
Administration’s request, and level of funding recommended by the House and
Senate. According to the conference report, “...Up to $1million is for an independent²⁹
study on the feasibility of creating a counter terrorism intelligence agency.” Such
a study may consider the question of the establishment of an agency that might be the
equivalent of the British Security Service (know as MI-5). However, numerous
entities within the federal government, including DHS’s Office of Intelligence and
Analysis, the FBI’s National Security Branch, and the interagency National
Counterterrorism Center, among others, all currently perform a counterterrorism
intelligence function. How the current organizational structure would be altered by

²⁵ See Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2007, S.Rept. 109-273, p. 17.
²⁶ Ibid. DHS OIG Report OIG-05-34 is Evaluation of DHS’ Security Program and Practices
for Its Intelligence Systems, Aug. 2005. An unclassified summary can be located at
[http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_05-34_Aug05.pdf].
²⁷ Ibid., p. 18.
²⁸ See Congressional Record, July 12, 2006, p. S7387.
²⁹ See Conference Report, Making Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security
for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2007, and for Other Purposes, H.Rept. 109-699,
p. 122.

the potential creation of a “counter terrorism intelligence agency,” is an open
question.
Linkages to DHS Strategic Goals. Although the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis and the Office of Operations Coordination contribute to a broad array of
DHS strategic goals, their activities are primarily targeted at achieving success in
strategic goals one and two — awareness and prevention — respectively. According
to DHS, the goal of awareness is to “identify and understand threats, assess
vulnerabilities, determine potential impacts and disseminate timely information out
to homeland security partners and the American public.”³⁰ Two programs under this
goal include A&O and Intelligence. The performance goal for A&O is to “deter,
detect and prevent terrorist incidents by sharing domestic situational awareness³¹
through national operational communications and intelligence analysis.” The
performance goal for intelligence is “100 percent distribution of sensitive threat
information relative to Department of Homeland Security/Transportation Security
Administration components, field elements, and stakeholders.”³²
Budget Caveats. The FY2007 budget request for A&O represents an increase
of nearly $46 million and 12 FTE. However, it is important to note that dis-
aggregating intelligence analysis from operations is problematic because the budget
of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, an entity of the Intelligence Community,
is classified. The figures cited above are the combined figures for the Office of
Operations Coordination and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis.
Budget Implications. Some observers might argue that the requested A&O
budget is sufficient, given the current stage of development for intelligence and
operations within DHS. Others, however, might question whether the requested
budget can achieve the ambitious intelligence analysis goals, as outlined by Charles
Allen, DHS Chief Intelligence Officer (CIO). In recent testimony before the House
Committee on Homeland Security,³³ CIO Allen outlined at least five priorities laden
with resource implications, including the following: (1) improving the quality of
analysis across the Department, (2) integrating the DHS intelligence enterprise, (3)
strengthening our intelligence support to State, local, and tribal authorities, as well
as the private sector, (4) ensuring DHS intelligence takes its full place in the
Intelligence Community, and (5) solidifying our relationship with the Congress by
improving our transparency and responsiveness. These priorities and others might
imply that in order to implement the integration of intelligence at DHS, additional
funds may be necessary for department-wide information management systems and
additional analysts — to be stationed both at Intelligence Community partner
agencies, as well as at some of the 38 plus state, local, and regional intelligence

³⁰ See DHS FY 07 Congressional Justification, Budget Overview, p. 3.
³¹ Ibid.
³² Ibid.
³³ Testimony of DHS Chief Intelligence Officer Charles Allen in U.S. Congress, 109^th
Congress, 2^nd sess., House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Intelligence,
Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment, May 24, 2006. “Progress of the DHS
Chief Intelligence Officer.”

fusion centers.³⁴ The information management challenge at DHS is significant, as
the organization must “know what it knows” in order to achieve the aforementioned
priorities. According to CIO Allen, DHS has “...developed a comprehensive
assessment of the existing intelligence information technology architecture in DHS,
along with recommendations to improve and enhance it.”³⁵ Although integrated
information management systems may not be a panacea, for an intelligence
organization they are considered by many to be essential. In the absence of such
systems, the coordination of intelligence can tend to rely on personal relationships
and ad hoc arrangements. From a human resource perspective, DHS is stationing
liaison officers and intelligence analysts at some of the 38 state and local fusion
centers. When combined with the detailing of current staff to Intelligence
Community partners, such as the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), such
arrangements, though beneficial, may undermine the development of a permanent
and experienced cadre of homeland security analysts at DHS headquarters.
Personnel Issues³⁶
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 Human Capital (OHC) provides overall management and
administration of human capital in the DHS. It establishes policy and procedures and
provides oversight, guidance, and leadership for human resources (HR) functions
within the department. The Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) is responsible for
designing and implementing the new human resources management (HRM) system
in the DHS, referred to as MaxHR,³⁷ including its human resources strategy and

³⁴ DHS intelligence analysts are currently being stationed at these fusion centers. See Dibya
Sarkar, “DHS Adds Brainpower to Intelligence Centers,” in Federal Computer Week, Mar.

17, 2006.

³⁵ Testimony of DHS Chief Intelligence Officer Charles Allen in U.S. Congress, 109^th
Congress, 2^nd sess., House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Intelligence,
Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment, May 24, 2006. “Progress of the DHS
Chief Intelligence Officer.”
³⁶ Personnel Issues section prepared by Barbara L. Schwemle, Analyst in American National
Government, Government and Finance Division.
³⁷ On Feb. 1, 2005, the DHS and the Office of Personnel Management jointly published final
regulations in the Federal Register to implement MaxHR. (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. MaxHR will cover about 110,000 of the department’s 180,000 employees
and will be implemented in phases. (See CRS Report RL32261, DHS’s Max-HR Personnel
System: Regulations on Classification, Pay, and Performance Management Compared With
Current Law, and Implementation Plans, by Barbara L. Schwemle; and CRS Report
RL32255, Homeland Security: Final Regulations for the Department of Homeland Security
(continued...)

technology components. The OHC reports to the Undersecretary for Management
and its appropriation is included in that of the Undersecretary. For FY2005, the OHC
received an appropriation of $43 million — $7 million for HR Operations and $36
million for MaxHR — and staffing of 49 FTEs. The OHC received funding of nearly
$38.511 million (down from $38.9 million, after a 1.0% rescission) and a staffing
level of 62 FTEs for FY2006. This total was allocated as $8.811 million (down from
$8.9 million, after a 1.0% rescission) for HR Operations³⁸ and $29.7 million (down
from $30 million, after a 1.0% rescission) for the development and implementation
of MaxHR.³⁹ Of the FTEs, 50 were attached to HR Operations and 12 were attached
to MaxHR.
President’s FY2007 Request. The President’s FY2007 budget proposes⁴⁰
funding of $81 million and staffing of 80 FTEs for the OHC. The request represents

³⁷ (...continued)
Human Resources Management System (Subpart E) Compared With Current Law, by Jon
O. Shimabukuro.) By Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on August 12, 2005, and by
Memorandum Opinion issued on October 7, 2005, District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer
blocked implementation of the labor-management relations regulations prescribed for Max-
HR. The decision also enjoined a provision of the regulations that limits the authority of the
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to modify a penalty imposed by DHS. The agency
appealed the ruling. A unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on June 27, 2006, found that the proposed system would
illegally curtail employee collective bargaining rights and that DHS limited the scope of
collective bargaining in violation of law. The appeals court reversed the district court's
holding that the appeals procedures in the DHS regulations do not comply with the
requirement in the Homeland Security Act that they must be fair. It held that adjudicating
the fairness of these procedures is not timely until DHS uses them in an administrative
proceeding. The appeals court affirmed the district court's holding that assigning the MSPB
an appellate role in mandatory removal cases is entitled to judicial deference. In September
2005, DHS announced that it was postponing the initial implementation of pay for
performance under Max-HR for one year. In September 2006, the Justice Department
decided that the appeals court decision would not be appealed to the Supreme Court. (See
CRS Report RL33052, Homeland Security and Labor-Management Relations: NTEU v.
Chertoff, by Thomas J. Nicola and Jon O. Shimabukuro.)
³⁸ The $8.811 million appropriation was allocated as follows: salaries and benefits ($6.563
million), travel ($30,000), GSA rent ($19,000), communication, utilities, and miscellaneous
charges ($110,000), printing ($15,000), advisory and assistance services ($1.633 million),
other services ($361,000), purchase from government accounts ($7,000), operation and
maintenance of facilities ($16,000), supplies and materials ($47,000), and equipment
($10,000).
³⁹ The $29.7 million appropriation was allocated as follows: salaries and benefits
($954,000), travel ($6,000), transportation of things ($3,000), GSA rent ($778,000),
communication, utilities, and miscellaneous charges ($1.378 million), printing ($20,000),
advisory and assistance services ($25.037 million), other services ($112,000), purchase from
government accounts ($875,000), operation and maintenance of facilities ($16,000), supplies
and materials ($10,000), and equipment ($511,000).
⁴⁰ FY2007 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary
for Management, Office of Human Capital and Office of Human Capital — MaxHR, pp.
USM-43 - USM-50.

an increase of $43 million and 18 FTEs more than the FY2006 enacted appropriation
and includes money for HR Operations and MaxHR as discussed below.
HR Operations. An appropriation of $10 million is requested for HR
Operations, an increase of $1 million more than the FY2006 enacted funding.
Attached to this account are 53 FTEs, 3 more FTEs than in FY2006. More than 90%
of the requested money is for salaries and benefits ($7 million) and advisory and
assistance services ($2 million).⁴¹ Among the activities that the DHS plans to
emphasize during FY2006 are continued refinement of the department’s hiring
processes, establishment of an Executive Leadership and Learning Center, and use
of a Chief Learning Officer to conduct needs analyses and identify “best practices.”
In FY2007, initiatives are expected to include improving customer service, enhancing
training to inculcate a “team” spirit across the DHS, and expanding the use of
program evaluation to begin measuring the effects of changes.
MaxHR. The appropriation requested for the department’s new HRM system is
$71 million, nearly $42 million more than the amount provided in FY2006. The
FTEs attached to the account are 27, an increase of 15 FTEs over FY2006. Almost
94% of the requested money is for salaries and benefits ($3 million) and advisory and
assistance services ($64 million).⁴² Accounting for the increased funding are (1)
implementation costs of the new pay system for employees who were originally
scheduled to be converted in FY2006 ($15 million), (2) implementation and
operational costs for a market and performance-based compensation system in
FY2007 ($22 million), and (3) funding the Homeland Security Labor Relations Board
(HSLRB) ($5 million).
The implementation of MaxHR will continue during FY2006 and include such
activities as design and review of a new market-based pay system, creation of a
compensation committee, and continued training of supervisors, managers, and HR
professionals. Non-bargaining unit employees from Headquarters, ICE, FLETC,
FEMA, USCG, and U.S. Secret Service will convert to the new performance system,
and CBP and CIS will begin training on that new system. The HSLRB, designed to
resolve labor-management disputes, may be established insofar as is legally
permissible. Employees converted to the new performance system in FY2006 will
convert to the new market-based pay system in FY2007, and those training on the
new performance system in FY2006 will be converted to it in FY2007.

⁴¹ Additional amounts requested for FY2007 are for: travel ($33,000), GSA rent ($74,000),
communication, utilities, and miscellaneous charges ($159,000), printing ($20,000), other
services ($376,000), purchase from government accounts ($159,000), operation and
maintenance of facilities ($20,000), supplies and materials ($75,000), and equipment
($25,000).
⁴² Additional amounts requested for FY2007 are for travel ($70,000), transportation of
things ($3,000), GSA rent ($756,000), communication, utilities, and miscellaneous charges
($1.723 million), printing ($100,000), other services ($130,000), purchase from government
accounts ($880,000), operation and maintenance of facilities ($20,000), supplies and
materials ($75,000), and equipment ($550,000).

The Under Secretary for Management at DHS, Janet Hale, resigned effective in
early May 2006, and the department’s CHCO, K. Gregg Prillaman, resigned effective
in early June 2006. In testimony before the House Committee on Homeland
Security’s Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight on May 18,
2006, Mr. Prillaman discussed the progress of MaxHR implementation and
management challenges facing the department. With regard to MaxHR, he said that
the performance management program, which links individual and department
performance goals, should cover 18,000 employees by the end of 2006; the design
of the pay bands is being finalized; and the pay-for-performance compensation
system is expected to begin in February 2007. Among the challenges that DHS is
facing is the retirement eligibility of a significant percentage of high level officials
during the next four years. According to Mr. Prillaman, “49% of SES [Senior
Executive Service] level employees and 37% of GS-15 level employees [at DHS]
will be eligible to retire” by 2009. At the Secret Service, 91% of SES members and

75% of GS-15’s will be retirement eligible by 2010.⁴³

On May 25, 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released an
evaluation on the conversion of federal government employees from noncareer to
career positions. GAO found that appropriate authorities and proper procedures may
not have been followed for two of the three positions converted at DHS — a GS-13
staff assistant at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and a GS-15 Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. For this latter position, GAO found that
it may have been created specifically for a particular individual, which, if so, is a
violation of federal law.⁴⁴ Following the hearing and the release of the GAO report,
the Ranking Members of the House Homeland Security Committee and its
Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight sent a letter to Homeland
Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on June 1, 2006, requesting answers to several
questions. Those queries related to actions DHS will take given the GAO findings
on the legislative affairs position and regarding implementation of MaxHR, and
explaining why the resignation (tendered on May 15, 2006) of the CHCO was not
disclosed prior to his testimony before the Homeland Security Committee.⁴⁵
House-Passed H.R. 5441. As recommended by the Subcommittee on
Homeland Security and the Committee on Appropriations, on June 6, 2006, the
House passed an appropriation of $38.9 million for the OHC, $42.3 million less than
requested. This amount would be allocated as $9.2 million for HR Operations
(salaries and expenses) and $29.7 million for MaxHR; $600,000 and $41.7 million,
respectively, less than requested. MaxHR is funded at the FY2006 enacted level.
The OHC appropriation represents 24.4% of the funding provided for the Under
Secretary for Management ($159.5 million). According to the report accompanying
H.R. 5441, the budget request assumed that increased aviation passenger fees would

⁴³ Statement by K. Gregg Prillaman, Hearing on Human Capital Issues and Security
Procedures at the Department of Homeland Security, May 18, 2006, pp. 6-7 (unpublished).
⁴⁴ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Personnel Practices; Conversions of Employees
From Noncareer to Career Positions, GAO-06-381 (Washington: May 2006), pp. 30, 60-

62.

⁴⁵ Letter from Representatives Bennie G. Thompson and Kendrick B. Meek to Michael
Chertoff, June 1, 2006.

allow MaxHR to be funded at the requested level. Because such fees are outside the
Appropriation Committee’s jurisdiction, the committee’s FY2007 recommended
appropriation was adjusted accordingly. The OHC appropriation fully funds nine of
the requested 15 FTEs for MaxHR. The six FTEs not included in the appropriation
were for the Labor Relations Board. A general provision at Section 504 provides that
not more than 50% of unobligated balances remaining at the end of FY2007 from
appropriations for salaries and expenses remain available through FY2008 subject
to guidelines on reprogramming.⁴⁶ In a May 25, 2006, Statement of Administration
Policy on H.R. 5441, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) stated its
opposition to either reducing or eliminating funds for MaxHR.⁴⁷
During consideration of H.R. 5441 in the House on May 25, 2006, H.Amdt. 936,
offered by Representative Martin Olav Sabo, was agreed to by voice vote. The
amendment removes $15 million from the Under Secretary for Management and
directs that it be used to fund grants for firefighters. If the entire $15 million is taken
from MaxHR, the FY2007 funding for the new personnel system would be $14.7
million.
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. Following the recommendation of the
Subcommittee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Appropriations, the
Senate, on July 13, 2006, passed an appropriation of $44.8 million for the OHC,
$36.4 million less than requested. Under the Senate-passed bill, the funding would
have been allocated as $9.8 million for HR Operations (salaries and expenses) and
$35 million for MaxHR. The salaries and expenses total matched the budget request,
but the MaxHR funding was $36.4 million less than requested. As compared with
the FY2006 appropriation and the FY2007 appropriation passed by the House, the
amount represented an increase of $5.3 million for MaxHR. The report
accompanying H.R. 5441 stated that the new personnel system was not funded at the
level requested in the budget because of the “ongoing litigation.” It also directed the
Secretary of Homeland Security “to submit an updated expenditure plan” based on
the final FY2007 appropriation to the Senate and House Committees on
Appropriations within 90 days of the act’s enactment. All contract obligations, listed⁴⁸
by year, contractor, and purpose, are to be included in the report. The
recommended appropriation for the OHC makes up 27.4% of the funding provided
for the Under Secretary for Management ($163.4 million). The general provision on
unobligated balances was included as Section 505 of the Senate-passed bill. OMB
expressed the administration’s strong opposition to any reduction or elimination of
funding for MaxHR.⁴⁹
An amendment (S.Amdt. 4674) offered by Senator Barbara Boxer and agreed to
by the Senate by unanimous consent would have prohibited the use of certain funds

⁴⁶ H.Rept. 109-476, pp. 145, 14-15, 134.
⁴⁷ U.S. Executive Office of the President, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 5441
(House) (Washington: May 25, 2006), p. 3.
⁴⁸ S.Rept. 109-273, p. 14.
⁴⁹ U.S. Executive Office of the President, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 5441
(Senate) (Washington: July 12, 2006), p. 2.

for travel by DHS officers and employees until the recommendations of the Inspector
General on the National Asset Database are implemented by the Under Secretary for
Preparedness or until the Under Secretary submits a report to the Senate Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the House Committee on
Homeland Security, and the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations
explaining why the recommendations have not been fully implemented.⁵⁰ (This
provision is not included in the law.)
A Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing
on July 19, 2006, received the results of a GAO audit on the use of purchase
(government-issued credit cards) cards by DHS employees in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina. Some 9,000 DHS employees have been issued such purchase cards and
more than $435 million was spent in FY2005 using the cards. GAO found that about
45% of the purchases did not have the appropriate written authorization and that
some 63% of purchases had no documentation of receipt of goods and services. The
investigators also found weak internal controls, in terms of leadership, staffing,
monitoring, and training, at DHS that resulted in questionable and wasteful
transactions and that too many purchase cards had been issued by DHS (some 2,468
purchase cards had not been used for a year). An agency manual on procedures for
purchase card use remained in draft for two years because of internal disagreements
within DHS. GAO will be issuing a report that will include recommendations for
improved management controls at DHS.⁵¹
P.L. 109-295. The law provides funding of $33.8 million for the OHC, some
$47.5 million less than the President’s budget proposal. The amount is to be
allocated as $8.8 million for salaries and expenses (some $1.0 million below the
President’s request) and $25 million for Max-HR (some $46.4 million below the
President’s request). The $8.8 million matches the FY2006 appropriation for the
salaries and expenses account after the rescission. The appropriation for the OHC
makes up 22% of the funding provided for the Under Secretary for Management
($153.6 million). As provided in the Senate report, the Secretary of DHS is directed
to submit an updated expenditure plan for Max-HR to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations within 90 days after the act’s enactment. The report
must include all contract obligations, by contractor by year, and the purpose of the⁵²
contract. As proposed by the House and Senate, the law continues a general
provision at Section 513 on background investigations. The conference report directs
that background investigations, including updates and reinvestigations, be processed
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

⁵⁰ Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 152, July 13, 2006, p. S7498.
⁵¹ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Individual Disaster Assistance Programs; Fraud
Prevention, Detection, and Prosecution, GAO report GAO-06-954T (Washington: July 12,

2006). The hearing testimony is available at [http://hsgac.senate.gov].

⁵² H.Rept. 109-699, p. 119.

of Science and Technology; and the Directorate for Preparedness.⁵³ The general
provision on unobligated balances is continued at Section 505 of the law, as proposed
by the House and Senate. Both of these general provisions were addressed in the
President’s signing statement on H.R. 5441. With regard to the background
investigations, he stated that “the executive branch shall construe this provision in
a manner consistent with the President’s exclusive constitutional authority ... to
classify and control access to national security information and to determine whether
an individual is suitable to occupy a position in the executive branch with access to
such information.” The statement characterizes the provision on unobligated balances
as one of several provisions in the law that “The executive branch shall construe as
calling solely for notification.”⁵⁴
Title VI, Subtitle B of the law includes provisions on personnel policies for
employees of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The
Administrator of FEMA is directed to develop a strategic human capital plan for the
agency’s workforce and authorizes the Administrator to pay recruitment and retention
bonuses to individuals in positions that are difficult to fill and to provide for the
professional development and education of employees.
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations
Title II funds Security, Enforcement, and Investigations. Title II contains the
appropriations for the U.S.-Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator (US-VISIT)
program, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), the US Coast Guard, and the US Secret Service. Table 6
shows the FY2006 enacted and FY2007 enacted appropriation for Title II.

⁵³ Ibid., p. 174.
⁵⁴ U.S. President (Bush), “President’s Statement on H.R. 5441, the ‘Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007,’ Oct. 4, 2006, available at
[ h t t p : / / www.whi t e house.go v] .

CRS-28
Table 6. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^FY^{2006 A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^FY^{2007 A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ
^Op^erati^on^al^C^o^m^p^on^en^t^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Request^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Hou^s^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Supp.^Resc.^To^t^a^l^Ena^c^t^e^d^E^m^erg.^To^t^a^l
^V^ISIT^a
^U^S^-^V^IS^IT³⁴⁰^—^-³³³⁷³⁹⁹³⁶²³⁹⁹³⁶²^—³⁶²
^{t total}³⁴⁰^—^-3³³⁷³⁹⁹³⁶²³⁹⁹³⁶²^—³⁶²
^t^om^s^{& B}^o^{rder Protection}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33428}^S^a^l^a^ri^es^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es^4,826⁴⁴⁷^-⁴⁸⁵^,225^5,519^5,435^5,355^5,459¹⁰³^5,562
^g/w
^s^.or^A^u^t^o^m^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^m^odernⁱ^zatⁱ^oⁿ⁴⁵⁶^—^-⁵⁴⁵¹⁴⁶¹⁴⁵¹⁴⁶¹⁴⁵¹^—⁴⁵¹
^le^ak^echⁿ^o^lo^g^y^m^o^d^e^rn^izatioⁿ^—^—^—^—^—^—¹³²^—^—^—
^://wiki^Aⁱ^{r an}^{d Mari}ⁿ^e^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^s⁴⁰⁰⁹⁵^-⁴⁴⁹¹³³⁸³⁷³⁵⁷⁷³⁷⁰²³²⁶⁰²
^h^ttp^cⁱⁿ^g^,^In^f^r^astru^c^tu^{re, an}^d^T^echⁿ^o^lo^g^y^—^—^—^—^—^—^—²⁸¹^,¹⁵⁹¹^,¹⁸⁸
^C^oⁿ^s^t^r^u^c^tⁱ^oⁿ²⁷⁰³¹⁵^-³⁵⁸²²⁵⁶¹⁷⁵³⁷⁸¹²²¹¹⁰²³²
ⁿ^t^s^b^1,142^—^—^1,142^1,265^1,265^1,265^1,265^—^1,265
^os^s^total^7,094⁸⁵⁷^-60⁷^,891^7,839^7,699^8,168^7,701^1,601^9,302
^O^f^f^s^et^tⁱⁿ^g^col^l^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^-¹^,142^—^—^-¹^,142^-¹^,265^-¹^,265^-¹^,485^-¹^,265^—^-¹^,265
^{t total}⁵^,952⁸⁵⁷^-60⁶^,749^6,574^6,434^6,683^6,435^1,601^8,036
^mⁱ^{gration & Cus}^t^om^s^Eⁿ^forcem^ent
^S^a^l^a^ri^es^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es^3,108³⁴⁰^-³¹³^,417^3,902^3,850^3,770^3,887^—^3,887
^F^e^deral^Prot^ectⁱ^v^{e S}^e^rvⁱ^ces^(F^PS⁾⁴⁸⁷^—^—⁴⁸⁷⁵¹⁶⁵¹⁶⁵¹⁶⁵¹⁶^—⁵¹⁶
^u^to^m^a^tioⁿ^&ⁱⁿ^f^r^astr^u^c^tu^r^e^m^o^d^e^rⁿ^izatioⁿ⁴⁰^—^—⁴⁰^—^—²⁰¹⁵^—¹⁵

CRS-29
^FY^{2006 A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^FY^{2007 A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ
^Op^erati^on^al^C^o^m^p^on^en^t^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Request^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Hou^s^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Supp.^Resc.^To^t^a^l^Ena^c^t^e^d^E^m^erg.^To^t^a^l
^C^oⁿ^s^t^r^u^c^tⁱ^oⁿ²⁷^—^-¹²⁶²⁶²⁶¹⁵⁹²⁶³⁰⁵⁶
ⁿ^t^s^c²⁵⁴^—^—²⁵⁴²⁵²²⁵²²⁵²²⁵²^—²⁵²
^os^s^total³^,916³⁴⁰^-32⁴^,224^4,696^4,644^4,717^4,697³⁰^4,727
^O^f^f^s^et^tⁱⁿ^g^F^P^S^f^ees^-⁴⁸⁷^—^—^-⁴⁸⁷^-⁵¹⁶^-⁵¹⁶^-⁵¹⁶^-⁵¹⁶^—^-⁵¹⁶
^O^f^f^s^et^tⁱⁿ^g^col^l^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^-²⁵⁴^—^—^-²⁵⁴^-²⁵²^-²⁵²^-²⁸²^-²⁵²^—^-²⁵²
^{t total}³^,175³⁴⁰^-32³^,483^3,928^3,876^3,919^3,928³⁰^3,958
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33428}^an^s^p^ortati^on^S^ecu^ri^{ty A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rati^on^a
^g/w^A^vⁱ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^ecu^ri^t^y^(g^ros^s^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g⁾^4,607^—^-⁴⁶⁴^,561^4,655^4,704^4,752^4,731^—⁴^,731
^s^.or^rf^{ace T}^r^an^s^portation^Secu^rity³⁶^—^—³⁶³⁷³⁷³⁷³⁷^—³⁷
^le^ak^ed^en^tialin^g^activ^{ities (}^a^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ⁾⁷⁵^—^-¹⁷⁴⁵⁵⁷⁵³⁰⁴⁰^—⁴⁰
^://wiki^r^eden^tialin^g^/^{Fee accou}ⁿ^t^s^d¹⁸⁰^—^—¹⁸⁰⁷⁶⁷⁶⁷⁶⁷⁶^—⁷⁶
^h^ttpⁿ^tellig^en^ce²¹^—^—²¹²¹²¹²¹²¹^—²¹
^e^deral^Aⁱ^{r Mars}^h^a^l^s^e⁶⁸⁶^—^-⁷⁶⁷⁹⁶⁹⁹⁶⁹⁹⁶⁹⁹⁷¹⁴^—⁷¹⁴
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ⁴⁸⁹^—^-⁴⁴⁸⁵⁵⁰⁶⁵⁰²⁶⁹⁷⁵⁰⁴^—⁵⁰⁴
^v^iatioⁿ^secu^r^ity^m^aⁿ^d^ato^r^y^sp^en^dⁱⁿ^g^f²⁵⁰^—^—²⁵⁰²⁵⁰²⁵⁰²⁵⁰²⁵⁰^—²⁵⁰
^os^s^total⁶^,344^—^-58⁶^,286^6,299^6,364^6,562^6,374^—⁶^,374
^f^s^ettin^g^co^llectioⁿ^s^g^-¹^,990^—^—^-¹^,990^-³^,650^-²^,420^-²^,420^-²^,420^—^-^2,420
^r^eden^tialin^g^/^{Fee accou}ⁿ^t^s^-¹⁸⁰^—^—^-¹⁸⁰^-⁷⁶^-⁷⁶^-⁷⁶^-⁷⁶^—^-⁷⁶
^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^-²⁵⁰^—^-²⁵⁰
^{t total}³^,924^—^-58³^,866^2,323^3,618^3,816^3,628^—³^,628

CRS-30
^FY^{2006 A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^FY^{2007 A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ
^Op^erati^on^al^C^o^m^p^on^en^t^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Request^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Hou^s^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Supp.^Resc.^To^t^a^l^Ena^c^t^e^d^E^m^erg.^To^t^a^l
^S^.^C^oas^{t G}^u^ard
^O^p^eratⁱⁿ^g^ex^pen^s^es^5,492³²¹^h^-³³⁰^5,483^5,519^5,482^5,534^5,478^—⁵^,478
^En^vⁱ^ron^m^en^t^a^l^com^p^lⁱ^aⁿ^{ce &}^res^t^oratⁱ^oⁿ¹²^—^—¹²¹²¹²¹¹¹¹^—¹¹
^R^e^s^e^rv^{e t}^r^aiⁿⁱⁿ^g¹¹⁹^—^-¹¹¹⁸¹²⁴¹²²¹²⁴¹²²^—¹²²
^c^q^u^isitioⁿ^,^coⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ^,^&^im^p^r^o^v^em^en^ts¹^,¹⁴²²⁶⁷^-¹²¹^,3⁹⁷¹^,¹⁷⁰¹^,¹⁴⁰¹^,⁰⁶²¹^,¹⁵⁴¹⁷⁶¹^,³³⁰
^A^l^t^e^ratⁱ^oⁿ^of^bri^d^g^e^s¹⁵^—^—¹⁵^—¹⁷¹⁵¹⁶^—¹⁶
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33428}^R^e^s^earch^{, dev}^e^l^opm^en^t^,^t^e^s^t^s^,^&^ev^al^u^a^tⁱ^oⁿ¹⁷^—^—¹⁷¹⁴¹⁴¹⁸¹⁷^—¹⁷
^g/w^ed^p^a^y⁽^m^an^d^a^to^r^y^{, en}^titlem^eⁿ^t⁾¹^,0¹⁴^—^—¹^,⁰¹⁴¹^,⁰⁶³¹^,⁰⁶³¹^,¹⁴⁵¹^,⁰⁶³^—¹^,0⁶³
^s^.or^H^eal^t^h^{care f}^uⁿ^d^con^t^ri^bu^tⁱ^oⁿ^—^—^—^—²⁷⁹²⁷⁹²⁷⁹²⁷⁹^—²⁷⁹
^le^ak^os^s^total⁷^,811⁵⁸⁸^-343^8,056^8,181^8,129^8,188^8,140¹⁷⁶^8,316
^://wiki
^h^ttp^S^a^l^a^ri^es^an^{d ex}^pen^s^es^;^con^s^t^r^u^c^tⁱ^oⁿ¹^,212²⁴^-¹²¹^,224^1,265^—^—^—^—^—
^Prot^ectⁱ^oⁿ^,^admⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^,^an^{d t}^r^aiⁿⁱⁿ^g^—^—^—^—^—⁹⁵⁶⁹¹⁸⁹⁶²^—⁹⁶²
^In^v^e^s^tⁱ^g^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^an^{d f}ⁱ^el^{d operat}ⁱ^oⁿ^s^—^—^—^—^—³¹²³⁰⁴³¹¹^—³¹¹
^{ecial ev}^en^{t f}^uⁿ^d^—^—^—^—^—²¹^—^—^—^—
^c^q^u^isitioⁿ^,^coⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ^,^im^p^r^o^v^em^en^{ts, an}^d^—^—^—^—^—
^ex^p^eⁿ^s^es⁴⁴⁴^—⁴
^{t total}¹^,212²⁴^-12¹^,224^1,265^1,293^1,226^1,277^—¹^,277
^os^s^Bu^d^g^{et A}^u^th^ori^t^{y: T}ⁱ^tl^{e I}^I^26,⁷¹⁷^1,809^-508^28,017^28,679^28,⁴⁹¹^29,260^28,550^1,807^30,357
^T^o^tal^offs^ettiⁿ^g^col^l^ecti^oⁿ^s^{: T}ⁱ^tl^{e I}^I^-4,302^—^—^-4,302^-6,009^-4,779^-5,029^-4,779^—^-^4,779
^{t Bu}^d^g^{et A}^u^th^ori^t^{y: T}ⁱ^tl^{e I}^I^22,415^1,809^-508^23,715^22,670^23,⁷¹²^24,231^23,770^1,807^25,577

CRS-31
^F^Y^{2006 en}^act^{ed n}^u^m^bers^f^r^om^C^R^S^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^t^h^{e C}^oⁿ^f^eren^{ce R}^e^port^t^o^H^.^R^.^{2360, H}^.^R^e^pt^.109-^241;^F^Y²⁰⁰⁶^s^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^lⁿ^u^m^bers^f^r^om^C^R^S^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^P.L^.^109-^61,
^.^109-^{62, P.L}^.^109-^{88, an}^{d P.L}^.^109-^148;^F^Y^{2006 res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^onⁿ^u^m^bers^f^r^om^C^R^S^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^P.L^.^109-^{148 an}^{d t}^h^e^{FY2007 DHS Jus}^tifications^{. F}^Y^{2007 requ}^es^tⁿ^u^m^bers^f^r^om^t^h^e
^tifications^{. F}^Y^{2007 n}^u^m^bers^f^r^om^t^h^{e con}^f^eren^{ce report}^(H^.R^ept^.^109-^{476) t}^o^H^.^R^.^5441.
^T^o^{tals m}^a^yⁿ^o^{t ad}^d^d^u^{e to}^r^o^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^A^m^o^uⁿ^t^{s in}^p^a^r^eⁿ^t^h^e^{ses ar}^{e n}^oⁿ^-^ad^d^s^{. Fo}^r^{a m}^o^r^e^d^e^tailed^an^aly^s^{is o}^f^th^{e su}^p^p^l^em^en^{tal ap}^propri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^{, pl}^eas^{e ref}^e^{r t}^o^A^ppen^dⁱ^x^I.
^{ited States}^Vis^{itor &}^Im^mⁱ^g^r^an^{t Statu}^s^In^{dicator P}^r^oj^ect.
ⁱⁿ^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 R}ⁱ^co.
ⁱⁿ^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, an}^{d L}^aⁿ^d^B^o^rder.
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^.
^.^109-^{90 m}^o^v^e^{d F}^A^MS^t^o^T^S^A^,^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^t^o^S^ecret^ary^C^h^ert^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}.
^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.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33428}^{FY2007, DHS propos}^esⁱⁿ^creasⁱⁿ^g^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^by^u^p^{to $2.50, g}^eⁿ^e^ratin^g^$¹^.⁷³^b^illioⁿⁱⁿⁿ^e^w^r^e^v^eⁿ^u^e^.^clu^d^es^{$100 m}^illion^tran^s^f^{er f}^r^om^DOD.

^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

US-VISIT⁵⁵
In 1996, Congress first mandated that the former INS implement an automated
entry and exit data system, now referred to as the US-VISIT program, that would
track the arrival and departure of every alien.⁵⁶ The objective for an automated entry
and exit data system was, in part, to develop a mechanism that would be able to track
nonimmigrants who overstayed their visas as part of a broader emphasis on
immigration control. Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, however,
there was a marked shift in priority for implementing an automated entry and exit
data system. Although the tracking of nonimmigrants who overstayed their visas
remained an important goal of the system, border security has become the paramount
concern.
President’s FY2007 Request. The Administration requested an
appropriation of $399 million in budget authority for US-VISIT in FY2007,
amounting to a nearly 18% (or $62 million) increase over the enacted FY2006 level
of $340 million.
House-Passed H.R. 5441. The House-passed version of H.R. 5441 would
have provided $362 million for US-VISIT, which would have amounted to $37
million below the President’s request for FY2007, and nearly $22 million above the
FY2006 enacted level of $340 million. The House did not approve the requested
aviation passenger fee increase requested by the Administration that would have
funded US-VISIT at the requested level.
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 5441 would
have fully funded the President’s request of $399 million for US-VISIT in FY2007.
The Senate would have made $200 million of the appropriation conditional, however,
upon approval of an expenditure plan for the program by the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
The Senate Appropriations Committee report also included language directing
DHS to submit a report on the progress it has made toward creating the technical
standards needed to implement the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. Senate-
passed H.R. 5441 included a provision extending the current legislative deadlines for
the implementation of this initiative.⁵⁷
P.L. 109-295. The act provides $362 million for the US-VISIT program. Of
this funding, $60 million is to be used for implementation of 10 fingerprint

⁵⁵ Prepared by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
⁵⁶ For more detailed information regarding the US-VISIT system, see CRS Report RL32234,
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program, by Lisa M.
Seghetti and Stephen R. Vina.
⁵⁷ For additional information on this provision, which is similar to a provision in S. 2611,
please refer to CRS Report RL33181, Immigration Related Border Security Legislation in^th
the 109 Congress, by Blas Nuñez-Neto and Janice Beaver.

enrollment capability and to continue working towards the interoperability of the
USBP’s Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System
(IAFIS). DHS is required to submit a strategic plan for modifying US-VISIT to
allow for 10 fingerprint enrollment and for interoperability with IDENT and IAFIS
and for the implementation of the exit component of the US-VISIT system.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)⁵⁸
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 ongoing responsibilities include inspecting people
and goods to determine if they are authorized to enter the United States; interdicting
terrorists and instruments of terrorism; intercepting illegal narcotics, firearms, and
other types of contraband; interdicting unauthorized travelers and immigrants; and
enforcing more than 400 laws and regulations at the border on behalf of more than
60 government agencies. CBP is comprised of the inspection functions of the legacy
Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS); the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction,
now known as CBP Air and Marine (CBPAM); and the Border Patrol (BP). See
Table 6 for account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 7 for
sub-account-level detail for CBP Salaries and Expenses (S&E) for FY2006 and
FY2007.
President’s FY2007 Request. The Administration requested an
appropriation of $7,839 million in gross budget authority for CBP for FY2007,
amounting to a nearly 11% increase over the enacted FY2006 level of $7,094 million.
The bulk of the requested increase for FY2007, $635 million, is for various aspects
of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI). However, additional amounts were also
requested for other CBP initiatives, including, among others, $12 million for WMD
detection staffing; nearly $7 million for enhancements to the National Targeting
Center (NTC); $9 million for the Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI); nearly
$5 million for Border Patrol training at FLETC; nearly $5 million for the
Immigration Advisory Program (IAP); and $1 million for the Fraudulent Document
Analysis Unit.
House-Passed H.R. 5441. House-passed H.R. 5441 recommended an
appropriation of $7,699 million in gross budget authority for CBP and an
appropriation of $6,434 million in net budget authority (after offsetting fee receipts).
The $7,699 million amounted to $140 million less than requested by the
Administration for FY2007, and a nearly 9% increase over the enacted FY2006 level.
In H.Rept. 109-476, the House Appropriations Committee stated that the reductions
to the request included $10 million that were attributed to the poor responsiveness
of CBP in submitting reports to Congress, and the fact that the House recommended
denying the Administration’s request for an increase in the aviation passenger fees
because such a fee increase lies outside the jurisdiction of the Committee. In the

⁵⁸ Prepared by Jennifer E. Lake, and Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analysts in Domestic Security,
Domestic Social Policy Division.

CBP Salaries and Expenses account, only the C-TPAT program would have received
funding above the Administration’s request: $15 million to improve validation
capability.
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would have provided
an appropriation of $8,168 million in gross budget authority and $6,683 million in
net budget authority for CBP in FY2007. This gross budget authority represented a
$1.2 billion, or 15%, increase over the gross enacted FY2006 level of $7,094 million.
The Senate Appropriations Committee included language requiring DHS to submit
expenditure plans before receiving parts of its appropriation for the Secure Border
Initiative and the Automated Commercial Environment.
P.L. 109-295. P.L. 109-295 provides an appropriation of $9,302 million in
gross budget authority for CBP, an appropriation of $8,036 million in net budget
authority (after offsetting fee receipts). These amounts include $1,601 million in
emergency funding that was attached inserted into H.R. 5441 during conference.
Including the emergency funding, gross budget authority for FY2007 represents an
increase of $2,208 million, or 24%, compared with the FY2006 enacted level of
$7,094 million. Not including the $1.6 billion in emergency funding, P.L. 109-295
provides $7,701 million in gross budget authority and $6,435 million in net budget
authority for CBP for FY2007. The $7,701 million in gross budget authority
amounts to an increase of $607 million, or 9%, compared with the enacted FY2006
level.
Table 7. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^Activⁱ^ty^FY06^Ena^c^t^.^FY07^Req.^FY07^Hou^s^e^FY07^Sena^t^e^FY07^Co^nf.
^H^e^a^dqua^rt^{ers M}^a^na^g^e^m^e^nt^And
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rati^on^1,233^1,258^1,248^1,258^1,248
^B^o^{rder Security I}ⁿ^s^p^ections^and
^Tra^d^{e Fa}^cilit^a^t^io^{n @ PO}^E¹^,6⁰⁵¹^,⁶⁸⁰¹^,⁶⁹⁵¹^,⁶⁷⁹¹^,⁸⁶⁰
^Iⁿ^sp^ectioⁿ^s^{, T}^r^ad^{e &}^T^r^av^{el Facilitatio}ⁿ
^@^PO^E¹^,250^1,282^1,282^1,281^1,327
^Coⁿ^t^ain^e^r^Secu^r^ity^Iⁿ^itiativ^{e (}^C^SI⁾¹³⁷¹³⁹¹³⁹¹³⁹¹³⁹
^Oth^e^r^Iⁿ^terⁿ^atioⁿ^a^{l P}^r^o^g^r^a^m^s⁹⁹⁹⁹⁹
^C^-^T^P^A^T^/^F^A^S^T^/^N^e^x^u^s^/^S^E^N^T^R^I⁷⁵⁷⁶⁹¹⁷⁶^—
^C-^T^P^A^T^{— —}^{— —}⁵⁵
^FA^ST^/Nex^u^s^/SENT^R^I^—^—^—^—¹¹
^In^s^p^ectⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d D}^e^t^ectⁱ^oⁿ^T^echⁿ^o^l^o^g^y⁶²⁹⁴⁹⁴⁹⁴²⁴¹
^Sy^ste^m^{s fo}^r^T^a^r^g^e^ting²⁸²⁷²⁷²⁷²⁷
^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^T^a^rg^etⁱⁿ^g^C^eⁿ^t^er¹⁷²⁴²⁴²⁴²⁴
^O^t^he^r^T^e^c^hno^l^o^gi^e^s¹¹¹¹^—

^Activⁱ^ty^FY06^Ena^c^t^.^FY07^Req.^FY07^Hou^s^e^FY07^Sena^t^e^FY07^Co^nf.
^T^r^aⁱⁿⁱ^{ng a}^t^P^O^E²⁴²⁵²⁵²⁵²⁵
^Har^b^o^r^Main^ten^aⁿ^{ce Fee}³³³³³
^B^o^{rder Security a}^{nd Co}^nt^ro^{l B}^e^t^w^een
^POE¹^,778^2,421^2,329^2,176^2,278
^B^o^{rder Secu}^rity^an^{d C}^oⁿ^t^{rol B}^e^tw^een
^PO^E¹^,726^2,244^2,177^2,138^2,240
^Un^m^aⁿⁿ^e^d^A^e^{rial Veh}ⁱ^{cles (UA}^V^s)^—^—^—^—^—
^B^o^r^d^e^r^T^e^c^hno^l^o^gy^/^S^B^I^T^e^c^hno^l^o^gy³¹¹³²¹¹⁵^—^—
^T^r^ainⁱⁿ^g^B^e^tw^een^th^{e P}^O^E²²⁴⁶³⁷³⁸³⁸
^Aⁱ^{r an}^d^M^a^riⁿ^e^Op^erati^on^s^{- S}^a^l^a^ri^es¹⁶²¹⁶⁰¹⁶³¹⁷³¹⁷⁶
^Undist^ribut^{ed Supplem}^ent^a^ls⁴⁴⁷^—^—^—^—
^C^B^{P S}^a^l^a^ri^es^an^d^E^x^p^eⁿ^s^es^T^o^tal^:^5,225^5,519^5,435^5,286^5,562
^Source:^D^H^S^F^Y^{2007 Ju}^s^tⁱ^fⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^s^{, p. C}^B^P-^S^&^E-^{5, an}^{d t}^h^{e con}^f^eren^{ce repor}^t⁽^H^.^R^e^p^t^.^109-⁴⁷⁶⁾
^t^o^H^.^R^.^5441.
^No^te:^T^o^{tals m}^a^yⁿ^o^{t ad}^d^d^u^{e to}^r^o^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
Issues for Congress. The bulk of the increase in CBP’s FY2007 request
compared with the FY2006 enacted level is for a new DHS program, the Secure
Border Initiative (SBI). DHS states that it “developed a three-pillar approach under
the SBI that will focus on controlling the border, building a robust interior
enforcement program, and establishing a Temporary Worker Program.”⁵⁹ Other CBP
issues of interest to Congress include CBP staffing, Border Patrol vehicles, border
technology, infrastructure construction, Tucson Border Patrol checkpoints, border
tunnels, cargo and container security, radiation detection devices and non-intrusive
inspection equipment, CBP Air and Marine, unmanned aerial vehicles, and the
transfer of the Shadow Wolves from CBP to ICE.
CBP Staffing. Staffing issues have long been of interest to Congress, and there
has been considerable debate concerning the appropriate level of staffing that CBP
needs to effectively carry out its mission. CBP’s staffing needs include not only
Border Patrol Agents (discussed in the following section), but also officers stationed
at the nation’s ports of entry, import and trade specialists, pilots, and a variety of
other positions. In addition to the debate over the appropriate level of staffing, other
issues such as training resources, infrastructure demands, absorption of new staff,
attrition, and hiring are also important. In an effort to address the concerns regarding
CBP’s staffing, the conference report to H.R. 5441, H.Rept. 109-699, requires CBP
to submit a resource allocation model (RAM) to Congress no later than January, 23,
2007. The report is required to address the concerns and items contained in both the
House (H.Rept. 109-476) and Senate (S.Rept. 109-273) reports. The report would

⁵⁹ DHS FY2007 Justification, p. CBP S&E 4.

be required to address staffing levels at all ports of entry and provide the complete
methodology for aligning staff across mission areas. The conferees were particularly
concerned with airport processing times, and directed CBP to specifically include in
the RAM airports and the number of flights that took longer than 60 minutes to
process.
The House committee in its report, H.Rept. 109-476, would require CBP to
submit its staffing model with the FY2008 budget request. The model should
address the operational assumptions in requesting resources by mission area; and the
methodology for aligning staffing levels to threats, vulnerabilities, and workload
across all mission areas and per port of entry, Border Patrol sector, and Foreign Trade
Zone, in addition to several other items.
The Senate committee in its report, S.Rept. 109-273, would also require CBP to
submit a RAM with current and future year staffing requirements, by February 7,
2007. The Senate committee was particularly concerned with CBP’s ability to
process growing passenger volumes at the nation’s airports. GAO issued a report in
July 2005, which stated that CBP did not systematically assess its staffing
requirements at airports.⁶⁰ S.Rept. 109-273 would required the report to be submitted
by CBP to include assessments of optimal staffing levels at all ports for all missions,
and stated that CBP should consult with appropriate nonfederal partners to estimate
future passenger growth, throughput, and issues such as automatic secondary
inspection requirements.
Increase in CBP Officers. P.L. 109-295 includes $34.8 million in funding
for an additional 450 CBP officers in FY2007.⁶¹ The recently enacted Security and
Accountability for Every Port Act (the SAFE Port Act, P.L.109-347), authorizes 200
CBP officers per fiscal year for FY2008-FY2012, for a total of an additional 1,000
CBP officers in each of the next 5 fiscal years. The SAFE Port Act also would
require the Commissioner of CBP to increase by not less than 50 full-time personnel,
the number of personnel conducting validations and re-validations of certified C-
TPAT participants in FY2008 and FY2009. The SAFE Port Act also authorizes⁶²
additional funding for these personnel for FY2008-FY2012.
Increase in Border Patrol Agents. The President’s request includes an
increase of $459 million to increase the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) workforce by an
additional 1,500 agents in FY2007. This would bring the total of new agents hired
since FY2005 to 3,000 and give the USBP an agent workforce of nearly 14,000. The
request does not match the increase authorized by Congress in the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005 (P.L. 108-458). IRTPA §5202
authorized DHS to increase the number of USBP agents by 2,000 each year from
FY2006 to FY2010. The President’s request is in line, however, with the 1,500

⁶⁰ See GAO, International Air Passengers: Staffing Model for Airport Inspections Personnel
Can be Improved, GAO-05-663, July 2005.
⁶¹ H.Rept. 109-699, p. 125.
⁶² The Safe Port Act (H.R. 4954, enacted), Sec. 222, and Sec. 223. Signed by the President
on Oct. 13, 2007.

increase in USBP agents that was appropriated by Congress in FY2006.⁶³ A potential
issue for Congress could be whether the 1,500-agent increase in the President’s
request is adequate to provide for the security of the border, or whether the
appropriate figure is the 2,000-agent increase authorized by IRTPA. The House
included $385 million in funding for 1,200 new USBP agents, cutting the President’s
request by 300 agents and $74 million. The Senate recommended funding for an
increase of 1,000 USBP agents, but noted that when combined with the 1,000 agents
funded in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-234) brings the
total FY2007 increase to 2,000 agents. In addition, a floor amendment was agreed
to that would have added an additional 236 USBP agents, bringing the total
additional USBP agents in the Senate bill to 1,236; taken together with the
supplemental the total number of agents added in FY2007 would have been 2,236.
The conferees appropriated funding for an increase of 1,500 USBP agents, or 2,500
total in FY2007 including the supplemental, and noted that they expect 10% of any
increase in staffing to occur along the northern border.
Border Patrol Vehicles. The conferees noted that they were “extremely
disappointed” with what they characterized as insufficient vehicle fleet planning on
CBP’s part. They noted that CBP’s cost-benefit analyses for comparing the operating
costs of standard commercial vehicles to those that may be more appropriate for the
unique and challenging topographical and environmental features found at the border
are unclear. The conferees direct CBP to re-submit its Vehicle Fleet Management
Plan by January 23, 2007, and to fully describe its process for evaluating which
vehicles meet its mission requirements and cost constraints.
Border Technology Increase. The President’s request includes $100 million
for border technologies to enhance the surveillance of the border and the USBP’s
ability to respond to incursions. DHS notes that it “will solicit and award a contract
to complete the transition from the current, limited-scope technology plan to one that
addresses the Department’s comprehensive and integrated technological needs.”⁶⁴
A potential issue for Congress may involve the contracting process that DHS will
pursue for this program. In FY2005, the General Services Administration’s Inspector
General (GSA IG) released a report which criticized the USBP for its contracting
practices regarding the Remote Video Surveillance (RVS) system.⁶⁵ The GSA IG
found that the contracts were granted without competition, and that in many cases the
contractor failed to deliver the services that were stipulated within the contract
leading to RVS sites not being operational in a timely manner.⁶⁶ In a 2005 report, the

⁶³ P.L. 109-13 appropriated funding for 500 additional agents; P.L. 109-90 appropriated
funding for another 1,000 additional agents.
⁶⁴ DHS FY2007 Justifications, p. CBP S&E 4.
⁶⁵ The Remote Video Surveillance system includes a set of cameras mounted on poles which
can be remotely controlled by agents at a USBP station.
⁶⁶ United States General Services Administration, Office of the Inspector General,
Compendium of Audits of the Federal Technology Service Regional Client Support Services,
pp. 173-180.

DHS Inspector General (DHS IG) noted that deficiencies in contract management and
processes resulted in 169 incomplete RVS sites.⁶⁷
Another potential issue for Congress could be the level of integration and scope
of this border technology program. The RVS system mentioned above forms part of
a larger program that integrates surveillance cameras with sensors. This program was
originally called the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS), but was
folded into the broader America’s Shield Initiative (ASI) by DHS in 2005. DHS IG
Richard Skinner stated in congressional testimony on December 16, 2005, that “to
date, ISIS components have not been integrated to the level predicted at the onset of
the program. RVS cameras and sensors are not linked whereby a sensor alert
automatically activates a corresponding RVS camera to pan and tilt in the direction
of the triggered sensor. However, even if ISIS was fully integrated, due to a limited
number of operational RVS sites (255 nationwide), integration opportunities would
be limited to the areas near these sites.”⁶⁸ Additionally, the DHS IG noted in its 2005
report that, due to a lack of integration, “ISIS remote surveillance technology yielded
few apprehensions as a percentage of detection.”⁶⁹ For these reasons, the FY2006
DHS Appropriations Conferees noted that they were not fully funding the
department’s FY2006 request for ASI. The conferees stated that it was their
understanding that DHS was currently reviewing the entire ASI program, and that
major procurement for the program might be curtailed until DHS “has resolved
fundamental questions about scope and architecture, and possibly its relation to
overall, nationwide border domain security and awareness.” The conferees noted that
they expected to be kept informed of the results of this review and encouraged DHS
to explore the use of off-the-shelf solutions for the program.⁷⁰ Possible issues for
Congress could thus include the relationship between SBI and ASI, whether the
review process outlined above has been concluded and what its recommendations
were, whether the DHS IG’s recommendations concerning ISIS will be carried out,
and what the overall extent of the technological integration featured in SBI will be.
H.Rept. 109-476 voiced concern about DHS’ request for SBI, noting that the
submission and review of a strategic plan should have been the first step in creating
the program. The House required that a strategic plan for SBI be submitted by
November 1, 2006, and cut funding for SBI technologies by $17 million from the
President’s request. The Senate fully funded the President’s request, but would make
$100 million conditional on the submission to and approval of an expenditure plan
by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Senate-passed H.R. 5441
would require any contract action related to SBI valued at more than $20 million to
be reviewed by the DHS IG to ensure it adheres to applicable the cost requirements,

⁶⁷ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, A Review of
Remote Surveillance Technology Along U.S. Land Borders, OIG-06-15, Dec. 2005, p. 2.
Hereafter referred to as DHS IG Surveillance Report.
⁶⁸ Testimony of DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner before the House Homeland
Security Committee, Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight, New^th^st
Secure Border Initiative, 109 Cong., 1 sess., Dec. 16, 2005.
⁶⁹ DHS IG Surveillance Report, p. 2.
⁷⁰ H.Rept. 109-241, p. 44.

performance objectives, and program milestones. The conferees continued this
language from the Senate-passed bill.
Infrastructure Construction. DHS requests an increase of $30 million to
continue construction of the border fence in San Diego, CA, as part of the SBI.
Additionally, DHS is requesting $51 million to accelerate the construction of
permanent vehicle barriers in western Arizona. DHS is also requesting $59 million
to construct facilities for the additional USBP agents it is proposing to hire in⁷¹
FY2007. DHS has historically constructed tactical infrastructure under a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Under
this MOU, CBP was responsible for providing the funding for planning, engineering,
and purchasing materials, while the actual construction was undertaken by military
personnel at no charge. However, the department notes that using this traditional
approach would take until 2010 to finish the projects currently underway. For this
reason, the requested increase for tactical infrastructure includes funds for a
commercial contract to construct almost half of the vehicle barriers in Arizona. DHS
argues that it is at a critical point in its deployment of personnel and other resources
at the border, and proposes using private contractors to accelerate the construction⁷²
of this infrastructure. A potential issue for Congress could involve whether using
private contractors to construct border infrastructure is the most cost-effective
allocation of taxpayer resources given that under the current MOU with the Corps of
Engineers CBP incurs no labor costs for these projects. Additionally, if contracts are
issued for tactical infrastructure projects another potential issue for Congress could
involve the oversight of the contracting process, given the contracting irregularities
identified by the GSA IG in the RVS contracts mentioned earlier. H.Rept. 109-476
noted that while $30 million in funding was provided for San Diego tactical
infrastructure improvements as requested, funding for Arizona tactical infrastructure
projects was reduced due to poor budget justifications, uncertainty surrounding SBI
procurement, and the lack of a strategic plan for SBI expenditures. The House
withheld $25 million in funding until the Committees on Appropriations receive and
approve an expenditure plan for SBI procurement and contracting. The Senate
increased the President’s request by $122 million, to $378 million. The Senate fully
funded the infrastructure projects in Arizona and California, and included $59
million for the costs associated with constructing facilities for new Border Patrol
agents. The Senate total also included an unspecified $90 million increase added as
a floor amendment.
The conferees agreed to provide $1,188 million for a new account entitled Border
Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology. This account will be used to fund
integrated infrastructure projects at the border, including fencing, vehicle barriers,
access roads, cameras, sensors, stadium lighting. Combined with the supplemental
appropriation, the conferees noted that DHS will have $1,513 million for border
infrastructure construction in FY2007. The conferees directed DHS to submit an
expenditure plan for this funding within 60 days of the bill’s enactment, and withheld
$950 million of the funding until this plan is received and approved by the House and

⁷¹ DHS uses this term to refer to its border fencing, vehicle barriers, and access roads, among
other things.
⁷² DHS FY2007 Justifications, pp. CBP Construction 4-12.

Senate Committees. DHS was also directed to ensure that CBP’s future budget
submissions consolidate funding for fencing, infrastructure, and technology between
POE within this account. Lastly, the conferees directed CBP to work with the Secure
Border Coordination Office, the Chief Procurement Officer, and the Chief Financial
Officer to rigorously oversee all contracts awarded for border fencing, infrastructure,
and technology and to work to minimize the use of subcontractors.
Tucson Sector Border Patrol Checkpoints. House-passed H.R. 5441
included language prohibiting any funds in the bill from being used for the
construction, design, or the acquisition of sites for permanent checkpoints in the
Tucson sector. The House bill would have also required the USBP to relocate its
checkpoints in the Tucson sector at least once every seven days to “prevent persons
subject to inspection from predicting the location of any such checkpoint.” The
Senate Appropriations Committee report noted that the DHS IG concluded that the
permanent checkpoints permit safer and more efficient law enforcement and strongly
encourages CBP to construct permanent checkpoints in the Tucson sector. The
Senate-passed bill did not include any language concerning checkpoints in the
Tucson sector.
Border Tunnels. Both the House and Senate Appropriations Committee
reports raised concern over the existence and increase in tunnels underneath the land
border. The House committee directed CBP to work with Science and Technology
to establish a program for detecting and addressing this smuggling tactic and
incorporate the costs of funding such a program into future budget submissions. The
Senate voiced concern over the lack of a clear policy within DHS concerning which
agency is responsible for securing, closing, and filling tunnels that are discovered and
directs DHS to address this issue and to submit a report on their proposed policy by
February 8, 2007; the conferees concurred with the reporting requirement. During
floor consideration in the Senate, an amendment was accepted to H.R. 5441 that
would criminalize the construction, financing, and use of tunnels crossing the U.S.
international border.⁷³ This amendment was agreed to in conference.
Cargo and Container Security. The recent Dubai Ports World controversy
has brought significant attention to several issues surrounding port and maritime
security, including cargo and container security. CBP’s cargo security strategy
includes two significant programs: the Container Security Initiative (CSI) and the
Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (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. C-TPAT is a public-
private partnership aimed at securing the supply chain from point of origin through
entry into the United States. The FY2007 request did not contain significant
increases in funding for either the Container Security Initiative (CSI) or the Customs-
Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). Funding for C-TPAT remained flat
with the FY2007 request of $76 million (which includes funding for the Free and

⁷³ For more information on this provision, which is identical to a provision in S. 2611, please
refer to CRS Report RL33181, Immigration Related Border Security Legislation in the 109^th
Congress, by Blas Nuñez-Neto and Janice Beaver.

Secure Trade (FAST) and NEXUS/SENTRIi programs), and the request for CSI
increased by $2 million to $139 million for FY2007.
P.L. 109-295 provides $139 million for CSI, $55 million for C-TPAT, and $11
million for FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI. The conferees in H.Rept. 109-699 noted
that the conference agreement provides an additional $147 million for additional non-
intrusive inspection technology (NII) and fully funds the requests for all cargo
security and trade facilitation programs within CBP. H.Rept. 109-699 specifically
directs CBP to comply with all aspects of the reporting requirements specified in the
statement of managers and the House report regarding the port, cargo, and container,
strategic plan⁷⁴ (discussed below). The conferees also withhold $5 million from
obligation, from the OSEM account (in Title I), until the Secretary of DHS submits
the port, cargo, and container strategic plan to Congress.⁷⁵ The conferees also note
that they provide sufficient funding to allow CBP to meet the strategic plan
requirements (specified in H.Rept. 109-699 and 109-476) of 100% initial validation
and periodic re-validation of certified C-TPAT participants; and 100% manifest
review at CSI ports.
The House-passed version of H.R. 5441 would have provided an additional $15
million above the Administration’s request for C-TPAT, and would fund CSI at the
requested level. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 5441 would have funded both
CSI and C-TPAT at the FY2007 requested level.
Significant concerns have recently been raised regarding both of these programs.
GAO has issued several reports noting that inadequate staffing levels for both the CSI
and C-TPAT programs have hampered CBP’s ability to conduct inspections overseas
at foreign ports and to validate every C-TPAT member within three years of
certification.⁷⁶ Recent testimony by a CBP official has also noted that CBP itself is
not satisfied with the current numbers of supply chain specialists available to conduct
C-TPAT validations. GAO has raised a number of additional concerns regarding the
C-TPAT program, which CBP has begun addressing, including the scope of effort
and level of rigor applied to the validation process, how many and what types of
validations are necessary to manage security risk, and the lack of a comprehensive
set of performance measures for the program.⁷⁷ GAO has also reported that several
factors limit CBP’s ability to successfully target maritime containers at foreign ports,
including staffing imbalances, operational factors, lack of technical requirements for

⁷⁴ H.Rept. 109-699, p. 127.
⁷⁵ H.Rept. 109-699, p. 114.
⁷⁶ GAO-05-446T, Homeland Security: Key Cargo Security Programs Can Be Improved,
May 26, 2005, p. 20, and p. 16.
⁷⁷ See GAO, Homeland Security: Key Cargo Security Programs Can Be Improved, GAO-05-

466T, Testimony by Richard M. Stana, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues,

before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, May 26, 2005, for a discussion of these issues and steps
CBP has taken to address them.

NII equipment used at foreign ports, and continued refinements to the strategic plan
and performance measures needed to manage the program.⁷⁸
The House Appropriations Committee in H.Rept. 109-476 expressed several
concerns regarding the department’s port, container, and cargo security programs,
including lack of a “port, container, and cargo strategic plan....”⁷⁹ The committee
would have withheld $10 million from the Office of the Secretary and Management
until this strategic plan was submitted. Several elements that would be required
under this plan are similar to items that have been included in port security bills
(H.R. 4954 passed by the House, S. 2459 and S. 1052 both reported in the Senate,
and S. 2791 introduced in the Senate). Significant provisions that would be required
by the strategic plan outlined in H.Rept. 109-476 include having the Secretary ensure
that
^!all inbound cargo is screened by the Automated Targeting System
(ATS);
^!the percentage of inbound cargo inspected by CBP is doubled;
^!by the end of FY2007:
— CSI maintains a 100% manifest review rate;
— C-TPAT conducts validations of new certified participants
within one year, and once every three years thereafter; and
— the percentage of containerized cargo screened for radiation as of
January 1, 2006 is doubled.
In addition to the above items, the plan would be required to include a discussion of
how the CSI program is coordinated with the Department of Energy’s Megaports
program, how CBP is promoting non-intrusive inspection (NII) equipment in foreign
countries, minimum standards for securing cargo containers, an evaluation of
evaluation of cargo inspection systems utilized at high-volume foreign ports (such
as Hong Kong), among other items. P.L. 109-295 requires CBP to comply with these
strategic plan directives set out in H.Rept. 109-699.
Section 558 of P.L. 109-295 requires the Secretary of DHS to conduct a full-scale
pilot of the integrated screening system (similar to the one being used at certain
terminals in Hong Kong). This provision is similar to the provision passed in the
Security and Accountability for Every Port Act (the SAFE Port Act, P.L. 109-347).
Title VII of Senate-passed H.R. 5441 contains additional appropriations for port
security, including $251 million for CBP for FY2006, but this funding was not
included in P.L. 109-295 (though other emergency funding was included). For a full
discussion, see Appendix I of this report.

⁷⁸ GAO has reported issues pertaining to the CSI on several occasions, including in
testimony before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. See Homeland Security: Key Cargo Security
Programs Can be Improved, May 26, 2005. See also, GAO, Container Security: A Flexible
Staffing Model and Minimum Equipment Requirements Would Improve Overseas Targeting
and Inspection Efforts, GAO-05-557, Apr. 26, 2005.
⁷⁹ H.Rept. 109-476, pp.9-10.

Screening Municipal Solid Waste. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 5441
included provisions pertaining to CBP’s screening of municipal solid waste (MSW).
Sec. 555 would have required CBP to submit a report to Congress within 90 days of
enactment indicating whether the methods used to inspect the trash trucks for
chemical, nuclear, biological, and radiological weapons were as effective as methods
used to screen other commerce. The report would also have been required to identify
actions to improve the screening of MSW in the event the current screening methods
are found deficient, including the acquisition of additional screening technology.
Sec. 555 would have required the Secretary of DHS to deny the entry of any truck
carrying MSW in the event that CBP failed to implement the required corrective
actions within a specified time-frame. Sec. 557 would have required the Secretary
of DHS to provide personnel and equipment to improve the inspection of commercial
vehicles carrying MSW, and to levy a fee approximating the costs of the inspections.
These provisions were not included in P.L. 109-295.
Radiation Detection Devices and Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII)
Technology. CBP has deployed a number of non-intrusive inspection (NII)
technologies at ports of entry to assist customs inspectors with the inspection of
cargos. Large scale NII technologies include a number of x-ray and gamma ray
systems. The Vehicle and Cargo Inspection Systems (VACIS), which uses gamma
rays to produce an image of the contents of a container for review by the CBP
inspector, can be deployed in a mobile or stationary capacity depending upon the
needs of the port. Mobile Sea Container Examinations Systems are also deployed at
ports to examine containers. CBP is also continuing to deploy nuclear and
radiological detection equipment including personal radiation detectors, radiation
portal monitors (RPMs), and radiation isotope identifiers to ports of entry (POEs).
Recently, various concerns have been raised regarding in particular the radiation
detection equipment. GAO reported in March of 2006,⁸⁰ that although DHS has
made progress in deploying radiation detection equipment at US POEs, the program
goals are unrealistic (deployment has fallen behind schedule), and the program’s cost
estimate is uncertain. Delays have been caused by a variety of factors, including
DHS’s review process which has delayed the provision of acquisition and
deployment information to Congress, and difficult negotiations with seaport
operators concerning placement of the portal monitors and the screening of railcars.
According to GAO, uncertainty regarding the cost and improved effectiveness of
advanced technology portals are contributing to the difficulties in obtaining an
accurate cost estimate of the radiation detection deployment program.
In addition, GAO found that although DHS has improved the use of the detection
equipment, CBP officers do not have access to data that would allow them to verify
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses (which are generally required for
radiological materials transported into the U.S., though the licenses need not
accompany the shipment), and that CBP secondary inspection procedures do not
require CBP officers to open containers and inspect them to resolve an alarm (though

⁸⁰ GAO, DHS has Made Progress in Deploying Radiation Detection Equipment at U.S.
Ports-of-Entry, but Concerns Remain, GAO-06-389, Mar. 22, 2006.

GAO found that this does occur at some POEs). GAO recommended that DHS
streamline its internal review procedures so that the department can
^!provide Congress with spending data in a more timely fashion;
update the RPM deployment schedule;
^!analyze the benefits and costs of advanced portal technology and
then revise the cost estimate;
^!develop methods to effectively screen rail containers;
^!revise agency container inspection procedures; and
^!develop a way for CBP officers to verify NRC licenses.
The House, in H.Rept. 109-476, indicated its continuing concern with the issues cited
by GAO in its report, and required CBP to report to Congress by January 16, 2007,
on improvements to the process for combating nuclear smuggling.
The Senate, in S.Rept. 109-273, indicated its support for the acquisition and use
of multiple technologies and advanced mobile inspection systems to screen cargo
containers and conveyances. The committee also noted that GAO concluded that
there was no specific plan to interdict hazardous materials that may be entering the
United States, and the committee encouraged CBP to use the most up to date
technology to address this issue.⁸¹
CBP Air and Marine. The Administration requested $338 million for the CBP
Air and Marine Interdictions, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement account.
P.L. 109-295 provides $602 million for CBP Air and Marine. This amount includes
$70 million for P-3 service-life extension and additional hours; $20 million for
helicopter acquisition; $20 million for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and related
support systems; $2 million for marine interceptor boat replacement; $10 million for
the missionization of manned covert aircraft; $64 million for two medium lift
helicopters; $58 million for multipurpose aircraft; and $19 million for the Northern
Border Airwing (NBA). H.Rept. 109-699 would also require DHS to include funding
for the fifth NBA, to be set up in Michigan, in the FY2008 budget request.
House-passed H.R. 5441 provided $373 million for this account, nearly $36
million above the Administration’s request and $23 million below the FY2006
enacted amount. The Senate-passed H.R. 5441 provided a total of $472 million for
the CBP Air and Marine Interdictions, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement
account; and $173 million for CBP Air and Marine, Personnel, Compensation, and
Benefits, in the CBP Salaries and expenses account. Title VI of Senate-passed H.R.
5441 contained a provision that provided an additional $105 million for air asset
replacement and air operations facilities upgrades. The total amount provided in
Senate-passed H.R. 5441 for the CBPAM Interdictions, Operations, Maintenance,
and Procurement account was $577 million.
The House Appropriations Committee remained concerned with several aspects
of the CBP Air and Marine program. CBP had yet to submit a capitalization plan to

⁸¹ GAO, Undeclared Hazardous Materials: New DOT Efforts May Provide Additional
Information on Undeclared Shipments, GAO-06-471, Mar. 2006.

Congress, and as a result the House recommended reduced funding for CBP’s
Headquarters, Management and Administration has been reduced by $4 million. In
addition, H.Rept. 109-476 directed CBP to submit the Air and Marine Capitalization
Plan no later than November 1, 2006. There have been several organizational
changes made to CBP Air and Marine operations in the past couple of years. The
most recent of these changes include the move of CBP Air and Marine from ICE to
CBP and the consolidation of legacy Customs air and marine assets with the air and
marine assets of the Border Patrol. Concerns have been raised regarding the impact
of this consolidation on the deployment of CBP Air and Marine assets, particularly
in the source and transit zones, and for investigative and surveillance support
missions. H.Rept. 109-476 directed CBP to reflect a comprehensive approach to
asset deployment that is not solely focused on the physical border. In addition, CBP
was also directed to report to Congress no later than January 16, 2007, on requests
for support made in 2006, the response to those requests, and on the consequences
of reduced support to ICE.⁸²
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 included a provision
that would direct DHS to establish a pilot program for the use of Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles to surveil the northern border. P.L. 109-295 provides $20 million within
the CBP Air and Marine Interdictions, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement
account for the acquisition of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). The conferees (in
H.Rept. 109-699) directed CBP to submit to the House and Senate Committees the
official findings of the April 2006 UAV crash in Arizona no later than January 23,
2007. CBP was also encouraged to work with the Federal Aviation Administration
to establish a pilot program to test the use of UAVs to surveil the northern border.
Shadow Wolves Transfer. Prior to the creation of DHS, the Shadow Wolves
were a Customs Patrol investigative unit within the U.S. Customs Service charged
with enforcing customs laws and interdicting smugglers within the Tohono O’odham
reservation. The Shadow Wolves were created after years of negotiation between the
Customs Service and the Tribe, and members of the unit must be certified Native
American. The Shadow Wolves were originally placed within ICE when DHS was
created, but were subsequently moved into CBP where they are administratively
under the USBP. During floor debate on H.R. 5441, an amendment was agreed to
(H.Amdt. 952) that would transfer $2 million in funding from CBP to ICE to
effectively move the Shadow Wolves into ICE. P.L. 109-295 includes $3 million to
effect the transfer of the Shadow Wolves from CBP into ICE.⁸³
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)⁸⁴
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

⁸² H.Rept. 109-476, pp. 33-34.
⁸³ H.Rept. 109-699, pp. 125 and 132.
⁸⁴ Prepared by Alison Siskin, Analyst in Social Legislation, Domestic Social Policy
Division.

(e.g., alien smuggling, hiring unauthorized alien workers). ICE is also responsible
for locating and removing aliens who have overstayed their visas, entered illegally,
or have become deportable. In addition, ICE develops intelligence to combat terrorist
financing and money laundering, and to enforce export laws against smuggling,
fraud, forced labor, trade agreement noncompliance, and vehicle and cargo theft.
Furthermore, this bureau oversees the building security activities of the Federal
Protective Service, formerly of GSA. The Federal Air Marshals Service (FAMS)⁸⁵
was returned from ICE to TSA pursuant to the reorganization proposal of July 13,

2005. The Office of Air and Marine Interdiction was transferred from ICE to CBP,

and therefore the totals for ICE do not include Air and Marine Interdiction funding,
which is included under CBP. See Table 6 for account-level detail for all of the
agencies in Title II, and Table 8 for sub-account-level detail for ICE Salaries and
Expenses (S&E) for FY2006 and FY2007.
President’s FY2007 Request. The Administration requested $4,696 million
in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2007, which represents a 20% increase over
the enacted FY2006 level of $3,916 million. The Administration requested an
appropriation of $3,928 million in net budget authority for ICE in FY2007,
representing a 24% increase over the FY2006 enacted level of $3,175 million. Table

8 provides activity-level detail for the Salaries and Expenses account.

Table 8. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^Activⁱ^ty^FY²⁰⁰⁶^Ena^c^t^e^d^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Request^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Hou^s^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Co^nf.
^HQ^&^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rati^on²⁵⁴^—²⁶⁵²⁸⁰²⁷⁴
^L^e^{gal Proceeding}¹²⁹²⁰⁷¹⁸⁷¹⁸⁷¹⁸⁷
^In^v^e^s^tⁱ^g^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^-^D^o^m^e^s^tⁱ^c^1,183^1,457^1,325^1,286^1,285
^In^v^e^s^tⁱ^g^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^-^In^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l¹⁰¹¹⁰⁵¹⁰⁵¹⁰³¹⁰⁵
^Iⁿ^ves^tⁱ^gati^oⁿ^s^T^o^tal¹^,284^1,562^1,430^1,388^1,390
^Int^e^llig^ence⁵⁰⁵⁸⁵¹⁵¹⁵¹
^D^R^O^-^C^u^s^t^ody^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^s^1,003^1,433^1,291^1,236^1,382
^DRO-^Fu^g^itiv^{e Op}^er^atioⁿ^s¹⁰¹¹⁷⁴²⁰⁰¹⁴⁶¹⁸³
^DRO-^Iⁿ^stitu^tioⁿ^a^{l Rem}^o^v^a^{l P}^r^o^g^r^a^m⁹³¹¹⁰¹⁰⁵¹⁰¹¹³⁷
^{DRO -}^A^lterⁿ^ativ^{es to}^Deten^tioⁿ²⁸⁴³⁴⁶⁴¹⁴⁴
^{DRO T}^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^an^d^Rem^o^v^a^l
^Prog^ram¹³³³¹⁷²⁷³³⁰⁸²³⁸
^D^R^O^T^o^tal¹^,358^2,077^1,915^1,833^1,984
^Unspecifⁱ^{ed Supplem}^ent^a^l³⁴⁰^—^—^—^—
^I^C^E^S^a^l^a^ri^es^an^d^E^x^p^eⁿ^s^es^3,417^3,902^3,850^3,740^3,887
^S^o^u^rce:^D^H^S^FY²⁰⁰⁷^C^ong^r^e^s^sⁱ^ona^l^B^udg^e^t^J^u^s^tif^ic^a^tions^{, p. I}^C^E-^S&^E-^{4, a}^{nd the}^c^onf^e^r^eⁿ^c^e^r^e^por^t⁽^H^.R^e^p^t.
^109-⁴⁷⁶⁾^{to H}^.^R^.^{5441. U}ⁿ^s^p^e^cⁱ^fⁱ^e^d^s^upple^m^eⁿ^ta^{l f}^r^om^P^.^L^.^109-^234.
^Note:^T^o^ta^ls^m^a^y^{not a}^{dd due}^{to r}^ounding^.

⁸⁵ FAMS transferred to ICE from TSA in Aug. 2003.

The request included the following program increases:
^!$66.9 million for the Office of Investigations pay and non-pay
inflation;
^!$16.6 million for additional compliance enforcement agents and law
enforcement technicians;
^!$364.6 million for custody management and detention bedspace;
^!$64.7 million for Fugitive Operations;
^!$13 million for Alternatives to Detention;
^!$8.7 million for Institutional Removal Program (IRP);
^!$174.9 million for transportation and removal within the detention
and removal program;
^!$41.9 million for worksite enforcement; and
^!$59.1 million for legal proceedings.⁸⁶
House-Passed H.R. 5441. House-passed H.R. 5441 would have appropriated
$4,644 million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2007, which represented a
19% increase over the enacted FY2006 level of $3,916 million, and $52 million less
than the President’s request. As shown in Table 6, the bill would have appropriated
$3,876 million in net budget authority for ICE in FY2007, which represented a 22%
increase over the FY2006 enacted level of $3,175 million. Of the appropriated
amount, $5.4 million would have been used to implement §287(g) of the INA; $11.2
million would have been designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for
the cost of care, and repatriation of smuggled aliens, and $15.8 million would have
been targeted for enforcement of laws against forced child labor.
In addition, H.Rept 109-476 recommended an increase over FY2006 funding of
^!$275 million for detention bedspace, transportation, and removal
efforts associated with the SBI;
^!$33.4 million for 70 fugitive operations teams;
^!$13.7 million for financial and trade investigations;
^!$1 million for the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center;⁸⁷
^!$5 million for alternatives to detention; and
^!$40 million to expand the Criminal Alien Program (CAP).
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would have appropriated
$4,717 million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2007, which would have
represented a 20% increase over the gross enacted FY2006 level of $3,916 million,
and $21 million more than the President’s request. As shown in Table 6, the bill
would have appropriated $3,919 million in net budget authority for ICE in FY2007,
which would have represented a 23% increase over the FY2006 enacted level of
$3,175 million. Of the appropriated amount, $58 million would have been available

⁸⁶ Also known as Office of the Principal Legal Advisor.
⁸⁷ Established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-
458, §7202 ), the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center is an interagency group which
provides information and support to counter migrant smuggling, trafficking of persons, and
clandestine terrorist travel.

to increase detention space (including related support) by 1,700 beds, $5.4 million
would have been used to implement §287(g) of the INA; $11.2 million would have
been designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care, and
repatriation of smuggled aliens, $15.8 million would have been targeted for
enforcement of laws against forced child labor, $102,000 would have been used to
promote public awareness of child pornography, and $203,000 would have funded
project alert.⁸⁸ Senate-passed H.R. 5441 (§601) would have directed the Secretary
of DHS to adjust the fees charged to noncitizens to achieve no less than $350 million
in additional receipts by September 30, 2007. Of the additional monies, $30 million
would have been for vehicle replacement in ICE, and $15 million for ICE automation
modernization.
In addition, S.Rept. 109-273 recommended an increase over FY2006 funding of
^!$10 million (27 FTEs) for compliance investigations related to visa
overstays;
^!$400,000 to implement §287(g) agreements;
^!$3.9 million to respond to requests for assistance from state and
local law enforcement;
^!$38.5 million (128 FTEs) for DHS representation in removal
proceedings;
^!$165 million for DRO custody management;
^!$94 million for DRO transportation and removal operations;
^!$40 million for DRO fugitive operations;
^!$1 million (4 FTEs) to establish the Office of Financial Management
to oversee internal controls within ICE;
^!$3.6 million (16 FTEs) to improve the Office of Procurement;
^!$10 million to expand the Office of Professional Responsibility; and
^!$2 million for the Cyber Crime Center.
P.L. 109-295. P.L. 109-295 appropriates $4,727 million⁸⁹ in gross budget
authority for ICE in FY2007, representing a 21% increase over the gross enacted
FY2006 level of $3,916 million. As shown in Table 6, the bill would appropriate
$3,928 million in net budget authority (not including the additional $30 million in
emergency funding) for ICE in FY2007, representing a 24% increase over the
FY2006 enacted level of $3,175 million. Of the appropriated amount, $5.4 million
would be used to implement §287(g) of the INA, $11.2 million would be designated
to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care and repatriation of
smuggled aliens, $15.8 million would be targeted for enforcement of laws against
forced child labor, $102,000 would be used to promote public awareness of child
pornography, and $203,000 would fund Project Alert.⁹⁰ Of the monies, $30 million

⁸⁸ Project ALERT was launched by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
in 1992, and consists of retired law enforcement agents who volunteer to provide assistance,
as requested, to law enforcement agencies.
⁸⁹ This number includes an emergency appropriation of $30 million for ICE.
⁹⁰ Project ALERT was launched by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
in 1992, and consists of retired law enforcement agents who volunteer to provide assistance,
(continued...)

would be for vehicle replacement in ICE and $15 million for ICE automation
modernization. P.L. 109-295 specifies that $13 million of the appropriated monies
for automation modernization may not be obligated until the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees receive and approve a plan for spending the funds.
In addition, H.Rept. 109-699 recommends increased or new funding of
^!$153.4 million for DRO custody management;
^!$94 million for DRO transportation and removal operations;
^!$76 million for DRO fugitive operations and associated bed space;
^!$20 million for DRO vehicles;
^!$2.5 million for Alternatives to Detention;
^!$4.6 million for internal controls and procurement management;
^!$5 million for the Office of Professional Responsibility;
^!$10 million for Compliance Enforcement Units;
^!$30 million for expanded worksite enforcement efforts;
^!$10 million for additional vehicles for the Office of Investigations;
^!$6.8 million for the Trade Transparency Unit;
^!$2 million for the Criminal Alien Program; and
^!$1 million for the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center.
Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions. ICE’s Office of
Investigations (OI) focuses on a broad array of criminal and civil violation affecting
national security such as illegal arms exports, financial crimes, commercial fraud,
human trafficking, narcotics smuggling, child pornography/exploitation, worksite
enforcement, and immigration fraud. ICE special agents also conduct investigations
aimed at protecting critical infrastructure industries that are vulnerable to sabotage,
attack, or exploitation.⁹¹ The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296)
abolished the INS and the United States Customs Service, and transferred most of
their investigative functions to ICE effective March 1, 2003. There are investigative
advantages to combining the INS and Customs Services, as those who violate
immigration laws often are engaged in other criminal enterprises (e.g., alien
smuggling rings often launder money). Nonetheless, concerns have been raised that
not enough resources have been focused on investigating civil violations of
immigration law and that ICE resources have been focused on terrorism and the types
of investigations performed by the former Customs Service.⁹²
P.L. 109-295 appropriates $1,285 million for OI domestic operations, which
according to the conference report, includes increases in the base funding for two
specific immigration enforcement programs, the Compliance Enforcement Unit⁹³

⁹⁰ (...continued)
as requested, to law enforcement agencies.
⁹¹ For more information see [http://www.ice.gov/graphics/investigations/index.htm].
⁹² Based on CRS discussions with ICE personnel in New York City, Aug. 27, 2003.
⁹³ Officers of the Compliance Enforcement Unit use US-VISIT, Student and Exchange
Visitor Information System (SEVIS), and the National Security Entry/Exit System to
(continued...)

($10 million) and worksite enforcement ($30 million). The $1,457 million requested
in the President’s budget for the OI domestic operations also included increases for
the Compliance Enforcement Unit and worksite enforcement. The President’s budget
requested an additional $41.9 million for worksite enforcement to add 206 positions
responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations under immigration law for
hiring unauthorized aliens. The President’s budget also requested an additional $10.6
million for compliance investigations for an additional 54 positions.⁹⁴ House-passed
H.R. 5441 would have appropriated $1,325 million for OI domestic operations,
whereas Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would have appropriated $1,286 million for OI
domestic operations, $39 million less than House-passed H.R. 5441, and $171
million less than the President’s request.
Detention and Removal Operations. Detention and Removal Operations
(DRO) in ICE provides custody management of aliens who are in removal⁹⁵
proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United States. DRO is
also responsible for ensuring that aliens ordered removed actually depart from the
United States. Many contend that DRO does not have enough detention space to
house all those who should be detained. A study done by DOJ’s Inspector General
found that almost 94% of those detained with final orders of removal were deported
whereas only 11% of those not detained who were issued final orders of removal left⁹⁶
the country. Concerns have been raised that decisions on which aliens to release
and when to release the aliens may be based on the amount of detention space, not
on the merits of individual cases, and that the amount of space may vary by area of
the country leading to inequities and disparate policies in different geographic areas.
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458,
§5204) authorized, subject to appropriations, an increase in DRO bed space of 8,000
beds for each year, FY2006-FY2010. The President’s budget requested a total of
$2,077 for DRO including an additional $364.6 million for custody operations,

⁹³ (...continued)
identify, locate, and apprehend aliens who have violated the terms of the admission. For
more information on these systems see CRS Report RL31570, Immigration: Alien
Registration, by Andorra Bruno; CRS Report RL32188, Monitoring Foreign Students in the
United States: The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), by Alison
Siskin; and CRS Report RL32234, U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(US-VISIT) Program, by Lisa M. Seghetti.
⁹⁴ The President’s budget also requests an additional 23 positions for compliance
enforcement to be funded from SEVIS fees.
⁹⁵ 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.
⁹⁶ Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, The Immigration and
Naturalization Service’s Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders, Report I-2003-004, Feb.

2003.

$174.9 million for transportation and removal, $64.8 million for fugitive operations,⁹⁷
and $8.7 million for the Institutional Removal Program (IRP).
P.L. 109-295 appropriates $1,984 million for DRO, 46% more than the FY2006
appropriation of $1,358 million and $93 million less than the President’s request.
H.Rept. 109-699 states that with the new DRO funding, ICE will be able to sustain
an average bed space capacity of 27,500, as proposed by the President.⁹⁸ P.L. 109-
295 also requires DHS to submit reports to Congress on removal orders, detainee
bonds, and detention space management.
House-passed H.R. 5441 would have appropriated $1,915 million for DRO.
According to H.Rept. 109-476, the reduction from the President’s request was due
in part to inadequate information about DHS’ detention management plan, and by
budget constraints caused by the increase to aviation passenger fees. Senate-passed
H.R. 5441 would have appropriated $1,833 million for DRO, and S.Rept. 109-273
would have required DHS to submit reports on removal orders, alien absconders,
detention bonds, separation of families in detention, and detention of unaccompanied
minors.⁹⁹ Similar to House-passed and Senate-passed H.R. 5441, P.L. 109-295,
appropriates $11.2 million to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the costs
associated with the care, maintenance, and repatriation of smuggled aliens.
Alternatives to Detention. Because of the cost of detaining aliens and
because many nondetained aliens with final orders of removal do not leave the
country, there has been interest in developing alternatives to detention for certain
types of aliens who do not require a secure detention setting. In 2004, ICE began a
pilot program, the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, for low-risk,¹⁰⁰
nonviolent offenders. In addition, ICE uses electronic monitoring devices as
another alternative to detention. P.L. 109-295 appropriates $44 million for detention
alternatives, $1 million more than the President’s budget request. House-passed
H.R. 5441 would have appropriated $46 million and the Senate-passed H.R. 5441
would have appropriated $41 million for detention alternatives
Secure Border Initiative. The Secure Border Initiative (SBI) is a DHS multi-
year plan to secure the borders and reduce illegal migration by hiring more agents,
expanding detention and removal capabilities, upgrading technology, increasing
border infrastructure, and increasing interior enforcement of immigration laws.

⁹⁷ In Jan. 2006, there were 558,000 aliens with final orders of removal who were
unconfirmed to have left the country. These aliens are known as absconders, and fugitive
operations are responsible for locating, apprehending, and removing alien absconders.
⁹⁸ For FY2006, the funded number of beds was 20,800. CRS Report RL33351, Immigration
Enforcement in the United States, coordinated by Alison Siskin.
⁹⁹ The report on alien absconders was due Feb. 18, 2006, but has not yet been submitted.
The committee report would also require a report in the cost and need of establishing an ICE
sub-office in Colorado Springs, CO.
¹⁰⁰ Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Public
Security: ICE Unveils New Alternative to Detention,” Inside ICE, vol. 1, no. 5, June 21,

2004. Available at [http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/newsreleases/insideice/

insideice_062104_web3.htm] .

According to the President’s budget, several of the requested increases are part of the
SBI, including funds for detention beds ($364. million), worksite enforcement ($41.7
million), and fugitive operations ($64.7 million). House-passed H.R. 5441 would
have included increases in fugitive operations ($33.4 million) and for detention
bedspace, transportation, and removal efforts ($275 million) associated with the SBI.
As in Senate-passed H.R. 5441, P.L. 109-295 does not appropriate any money within
ICE specifically for the SBI.
State and Local Law Enforcement.¹⁰¹ 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. P.L. 109-295 appropriates $5.4 million to facilitate INA
§287(g) agreements, the same amount that both House-passed and Senate-passed
H.R. 5441 would have appropriated.
Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would also have created a new grant program called the
“Border Relief Grant Program.”¹⁰² Under this program, subject to available
appropriations, the Secretary would have awarded grants to tribal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies located in counties no more than 100 miles from the U.S.-
Mexico or U.S.-Canadian land border, or located in counties further than 100 miles
from the U.S. land borders who had been certified by the Secretary as High Impact
Areas. Two-thirds of the funds would have been allocated to the six states with the
largest number of unauthorized alien apprehensions, and one-third would be set aside
for High Impact Areas. The grants would have been used to provide additional
resources to the law enforcement agencies to help address criminal activity that
occurs in the jurisdiction by virtue of the agencies proximity to the U.S. land border,
and the impact of any lack of security along the U.S. border. Priority would have
been given to law enforcement agencies serving communities with populations less
than 50,000 and located no more than 100 miles of the U.S. international land
borders. The bill would have authorized $50 million each year FY2007 through

¹⁰¹ This section adapted from CRS Report RL32270, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role
of State and Local Law Enforcement, by Lisa M. Seghetti, Stephen R. Vina, and Karma
Ester.
¹⁰² See Title IX of Senate-passed H.R. 5441.

FY2011 for the “Border Relief Grant Program.” This program was not included in
P.L. 109-295.
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)¹⁰³
The TSA was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA,
P.L. 107-71), and it was charged with protecting air, land, and rail transportation
systems within the United States to ensure the freedom of movement for people and
commerce. In 2002, the TSA was transferred to DHS with the passage of the
Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296). The TSA’s responsibilities include
protecting the aviation system against terrorist threats, sabotage, and other acts of
violence through the deployment of passenger and baggage screeners; detection
systems for explosives, weapons, and other contraband; and other security
technologies. The TSA also has certain responsibilities for marine and land modes
of transportation including assessing the risk of terrorist attacks to all non-aviation
transportation assets, including seaports; issuing regulations to improve security; and
enforcing these regulations to ensure the protection of these transportation systems.
TSA is further charged with serving as the primary liaison for transportation security
to the law enforcement and intelligence communities. See Table 6 for account-level
detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 9 for sub-account-level detail for
TSA for FY2006 and FY2007.
President’s FY2007 Request. The President requested an appropriation of
$6,299 million in gross budget authority for the TSA in FY2007. The FY2006
enacted level was $6,344 million. Table 9 provides FY2006 appropriated and
FY2007 requested funding levels for each TSA budget activity. As in past years, the
large majority of these funds are slated for aviation security functions. Direct
funding for aviation security ($4,905 million) and air marshals ($699 million)
comprises about 89% of the requested TSA budget. Additionally, much of the TSA
credentialing activities, intelligence, and administrative functions and associated
funding requests would provide both direct and indirect support for aviation security
operations.
Requested funding for transportation security threat assessments and
credentialing totals $131 million. The Secure Flight system for prescreening airline
passengers and the voluntary Registered Traveler program designed to expedite
checkpoint screening of vetted airline passengers account for more than half of the
requested amount in this category. Several of these vetting and credentialing
programs — including the alien flight school applicant vetting program, the
credentialing program for HAZMAT drivers, and the proposed Registered Traveler
and Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) programs — either are,
or are anticipated to be, fully funded through fee collections.
The President has also requested $37 million for TSA surface transportation
security activities, including support personnel and resources to assess terrorist
threats, assess standards and procedures to mitigate these risks, and ensure

¹⁰³ Prepared by Bart Elias, Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

compliance with transportation security regulations and policies in non-aviation
modes. Although the overall funding request for surface transportation security is
roughly equal to FY2006 appropriated levels, the President requested an increase of
about $5 million for rail security but requested no specific appropriation for tracking
trucks carrying hazardous materials, an initiative that received $4 million in FY2006.
Table 9. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^Bu^d^g^{et Acti}^vi^ty^FY²⁰⁰⁶^To^t^a^l^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Request^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Hou^s^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Ena^c^t^e^d
^A^vⁱ^a^ti^on^S^ecu^ri^ty^4,561^4,655^4,704^4,752^4,731
^—^S^c^reenⁱⁿ^g^Partⁿ^e^rs^hⁱ^{p Prog}^ram^(S^PP)¹³⁸¹⁴⁹¹⁴⁹¹⁴⁹¹⁴⁹
^—^Pas^s^eⁿ^g^e^{r S}^c^reenⁱⁿ^g^(PC^&^B)^1,505^1,556^1,556^1,556^2,470^a
^—^P^a^sse^nge^r^Sc^r^e^eⁿⁱ^{ng (}^O^t^h^e^r⁾²⁴²³²³²³^—^b
^—^Bag^g^a^g^e^S^c^reenⁱⁿ^g^(PC^&^B)⁸⁷⁵⁹¹⁴⁹¹⁴⁹¹⁴^—^a
^—^Bag^g^a^g^e^S^c^reenⁱⁿ^g^(O^t^h^er)¹³³¹³³¹³³¹³³^—^b
^—^S^c^reen^{er T}^r^aiⁿⁱⁿ^g⁸⁷⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸²⁴⁴^b
^—^H^u^m^aⁿ^R^e^s^o^u^r^{ce S}^e^rvⁱ^ces²⁰⁵²⁰⁷²⁰⁷²⁰⁰²⁰⁷
^—^C^h^eck^poiⁿ^t^S^u^pport¹⁶³¹⁷³¹⁷³¹⁸¹¹⁷³
^—^ED^S^/^ET^D^Pu^rch^a^s^e¹⁷³⁹¹¹³⁶¹⁴¹¹⁴¹
^{— EDS/ET}^{D I}ⁿ^stallatioⁿ⁴⁵⁹⁴⁹⁴¹⁷²¹³⁸
^{— EDS/ET}^{D Main}^ten^aⁿ^{ce an}^d^Utilities¹⁹⁸²³⁴²³⁴²¹⁰²²²
^{— Op}^er^atioⁿ^Iⁿ^teg^r^atioⁿ²³²³²³²³²³
^{— EDS/ET}^{D Ref}^u^rb^ish^—^—¹⁰^—^—
^—^R^e^g^u^l^atⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d O}^t^h^e^{r En}^f^o^rcem^en^t²²⁰²¹⁸²¹⁸²¹⁸²¹⁸
^—^Aⁱ^rport^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^{, IT}^{, an}^{d S}^u^pport⁶⁷⁹⁶⁶⁶⁶⁶⁶⁶⁶⁶⁶⁶⁶
^—^F^F^D^O^&^C^r^ew^T^r^aiⁿⁱⁿ^g³⁰³⁰²⁵²³²⁵
^—^Aⁱ^{r C}^a^rg^{o S}^ecu^ri^t^y⁵⁴⁵⁵⁵⁵⁵⁵⁵⁵
^{— A}ⁱ^r^p^o^r^{t P}^e^rⁱ^m^e^ter^Secu^r^ity⁵⁰^—^—^—
^{— Fo}^r^e^igⁿ^an^d^Do^m^e^{stic Rep}^a^ir^Statioⁿ^s³⁰^—^—^—
^A^vⁱ^a^ti^on^S^ecu^ri^{ty C}^a^pⁱ^tal^Fuⁿ^d²⁵⁰²⁵⁰²⁵⁰²⁵⁰²⁵⁰
^Fed^eral^Aⁱ^{r M}^a^rs^h^a^l^S^ervi^{ce (FA}^M^S⁾⁶⁷⁹⁶⁹⁹⁶⁹⁹⁶⁹⁹⁷¹⁴
^—^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ⁶⁰⁷⁶²⁸⁶²⁸⁶²⁸⁶²⁸
^—^T^r^av^el^an^{d T}^r^aiⁿⁱⁿ^g⁷⁰⁷¹⁷¹⁷¹⁸⁶
^{— A}ⁱ^r-^T^o^-^G^ro^uⁿ^d^Co^m^m^uⁿⁱ^catioⁿ²⁰^—^—^—

^Bu^d^g^{et Acti}^vi^ty^FY²⁰⁰⁶^To^t^a^l^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Request^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Hou^s^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Ena^c^t^e^d
^T^h^{reat A}^s^s^e^s^s^m^en^{t an}^d^C^red^en^ti^alⁱⁿ^g²⁵⁴¹³¹¹⁵¹¹⁰⁶¹¹⁶
^—^Sc^r^e^eⁿⁱ^{ng A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^o^{n a}ⁿ^d
^Op^eratioⁿ^s⁵⁰^—^—^—
^—^S^ecu^{re F}^lⁱ^g^h^t⁵⁶⁴⁰⁴⁰¹⁵¹⁵
^{— Cr}^ew^Vettin^g¹³¹⁵¹⁵¹⁵¹⁵
^{— R}^e^gⁱ^s^t^{ered T}^r^av^{eler P}^r^og^ram^Fees²⁰³⁵³⁵³⁵³⁵
^—^A^lⁱ^e^{n Fl}ⁱ^ght^Sc^ho^o^l^Fe^e^s¹⁰²²²²
^{— T}^W^{IC A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^—^—²⁰^—^—
^—^T^W^IC^F^ees¹⁰⁰²⁰²⁰²⁰²⁰
^—^H^A^Z^M^A^T^C^o^m^m^e^rci^a^l^D^rⁱ^v^{er F}^ees⁵⁰¹⁹¹⁹¹⁹¹⁹
^S^u^r^{face T}^r^an^s^p^ortati^on^S^ecu^ri^ty³⁶³⁷³⁷³⁷³⁷
^—^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^s^an^{d S}^t^af^fⁱⁿ^g²⁴²⁴²⁴²⁴²⁴
^—^R^aⁱ^l^S^ecu^ri^t^y^In^s^p^ect^ors^an^{d C}^aⁿⁱⁿ^e^s⁸¹³¹³¹³¹³
^—^H^A^ZM^A^T^T^r^uc^{k T}^r^a^c^kⁱ^{ng a}ⁿ^d
^T^r^ainⁱⁿ^g⁴⁰^—^—^—
^Traⁿ^spo^r^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Securit^y^Suppo^rt⁵⁰⁵⁵²⁷⁵²³⁶¹⁹⁵²⁵
^{— I}ⁿ^tellig^en^ce²¹²¹²¹²¹²¹
^—^H^eadqu^art^e^rs^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ²⁷⁷²⁹⁶²⁹²²⁹⁶²⁹⁴
^{— R}^e^s^earch^an^{d Dev}^e^lopm^en^t^—^—^—⁹²^—
^—^In^f^o^rm^atⁱ^oⁿ^T^echⁿ^o^l^o^g^y²⁰⁸²¹⁰²¹⁰²¹⁰²¹⁰
^T^S^A^T^O^T^A^L^:^6,286^6,299^6,364^6,508^6,374
^Source:^C^R^S^an^aly^s^is^o^f^t^h^e^FY^{2007 Pr}^esⁱ^d^ent^’^s^Budget^,^D^H^S^Budgetⁱⁿ^Brⁱ^e^f^{, an}^d^T^S^{A FY}²⁰⁰⁷
^C^ongr^es^sⁱ^{onal Jus}^tification^docu^m^en^t^s^{, t}^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e A}^pproprⁱ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee report}^(H^.R^ept^.^109-
^{476) to H.R}^.^{5441, Sen}^a^{te A}^ppropriation^s^C^o^m^m^ittee^R^e^{port S.R}^e^{pt. 109-}^{273; an}^{d FY2007 en}^acted
ⁿ^u^m^bers^f^r^om^P.L^.^109-^{295 an}^{d t}^h^{e C}^oⁿ^f^eren^{ce R}^e^port^t^o^H^.^R^.^{5441, H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^699.
^No^tes:^Su^b^t^o^t^{als d}^oⁿ^o^{t su}^m^to^f^uⁿ^c^tioⁿ^a^{l ar}^{ea to}^{tals an}^d^T^S^A^to^{tal d}^u^{e to}^r^o^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^P^C^&^B^:
^P^e^r^s^oⁿⁿ^e^{l Co}^m^p^en^satioⁿ^an^d^B^eⁿ^e^f^{its; EDS: Ex}^p^l^o^s^iv^{e D}^e^t^e^c^tioⁿ^Sy^stem^{s; ET}^{D: Ex}^p^l^o^s^iv^{e T}^r^ace
^Detectioⁿ^eq^uⁱ^p^m^en^{t; I}^T^{: I}ⁿ^f^o^r^m^atioⁿ^T^echⁿ^o^lo^g^y^{; FFDO:}^F^e^d^e^r^a^{l Flig}^h^t^Deck^Of^fⁱ^cer^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^;
^T^W^IC^{: T}^r^an^s^portation^W^o^rk^{er Iden}^tif^ication^C^r^eden^{tial; HA}^Z^M^A^T^{: Hazardou}^s^Materials^.
^{a. T}^h^{e f}ⁱⁿ^a^{l con}^f^eren^{ce report com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed pas}^s^eⁿ^g^e^{r an}^{d bag}^g^a^g^e^s^c^reenⁱⁿ^g^P^C^&^B^.
^{b. T}^h^{e f}ⁱⁿ^a^{l con}^f^eren^{ce report com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed pas}^s^eⁿ^g^e^{r an}^{d bag}^g^a^g^e^s^c^reenⁱⁿ^g^trainⁱⁿ^g^an^{d oth}^e^r.
Highlighted Initiatives in the President’s Funding Request. The
President proposed several funding initiatives in FY2007 designed to improve
aviation security screening functions. The TSA requested $10 million as a
component of screener benefits to improve screener retention. The TSA proposed
to use this money to implement retention allowances, performance bonuses, college

credit reimbursement, flexible staffing options, and pay-for-performance incentives.
The goal is to reduce attrition rates, which are nearly 20% for full-time screeners and
above 50% for part-time screeners. The TSA believes that lowering attrition could
reduce recruitment and training costs. The TSA also requested $20 million to fund
worker compensation payments owed to the Department of Labor. By some
estimates, TSA on-the-job injury rates — which were close to 30% in 2005 — far
exceed the rates of other federal and private-sector jobs, and injuries cost the TSA
about $52 million in 2005 in lost wages and medical treatment of injured workers.¹⁰⁴
The TSA also requested slightly more than $80 million for emerging checkpoint
technologies — such as whole body imaging systems, automated explosive spot
samplers, and cast and prosthesis scanners — to improve the detection of weapons
and explosives on passengers and their carry-on items. Congress and the 9/11
Commission have given a high priority to developing and deploying checkpoint
technologies to screen passengers and carry-on items for explosives and nonmetallic,
chemical, biological, and radiological weapons.¹⁰⁵ The TSA also proposed a budget
increase of $7.5 million to hire 30 additional procurement staff members to aid in the
acquisition of new technologies and services and improve procurement processes and
controls.
The President’s Proposal for Restructuring Aviation Security Fees.
In an effort to increase revenues from user fees and reduce the general fund
contribution for aviation security functions, the President proposed a restructuring of
the passenger security fees established under ATSA. The proposal would have
replaced the current fee structure of $2.50 per flight segment and a maximum fee of
$5.00 per one-way trip, with a flat fee of $5.00 per one-way trip. Although
passengers making connections to reach their destination would not see a fee increase
under this proposal, passengers on direct flights would see their aviation security fees
double. The Administration argues that the flat fee proposal more closely parallels
passenger utilization of the aviation security system since passengers and their
baggage are typically screened only once regardless of how many connections they¹⁰⁶
might make to reach their destination.
In this regard, the Administration’s proposed aviation security fee changes for
FY2007 differed significantly from those previously proposed in the FY2006 budget
request. That prior proposal, which was not widely supported in Congress, would
have kept the per-segment fee structure in place and raised it to $5.50 per trip
segment with a maximum of $8.00 per one-way flight. That proposal, however, was
opposed in Congress not only because it was viewed by many as detrimental to the
airline industry as a whole, but also because it was seen as disproportionately
impacting certain passengers, particularly those using smaller airports, who are more
dependent on connecting flights. It is notable, however, that this perceived

¹⁰⁴ Thomas Frank, “Airport Screeners’ Strains, Sprains Highest Among Workers,” USA
Today, Jan. 11, 2006, p. A2
¹⁰⁵ See CRS Report RL32541, Aviation Security-Related Findings and Recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission by Bart Elias; and CRS Report RS21920, Detection of Explosives
on Airline Passengers: Recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and Related Issues, by
Dana Shea and Daniel Morgan.
¹⁰⁶ Office of Management and Budget, President’s Budget, FY2007, p. 141.

imbalance in the aviation security fee structure stems from the original collection
authority enacted under ATSA, which presently requires passengers taking
connecting flights to pay twice as much in aviation security fees as passengers taking
a direct flight.
The Administration projected that if the newly proposed flat fee of $5.00 per
one-way trip were enacted, the increase in fee collections from passengers on direct
flights, along with a rise in the numbers of air travelers, would have boosted aviation
security fee collections in FY2007 by about $1,726 million dollars, or roughly 85%,
compared to expected FY2006 revenues. If this measure were enacted, the
Administration expected the new fees to cover about 70% of core aviation security
costs, compared to a contribution of about 38% in FY2005.¹⁰⁷
The Administration asserts that having users pay for aviation screening and
security is what Congress intended when it enacted the aviation security fee under
ATSA and doing so would free up general funds for spending on other homeland
security needs that are more generally applicable to all citizens. Critics of the
proposal, on the other hand, argue that all citizens benefit from aviation security
measures that are intended, in part, to prevent another terrorist attack like the attack
of September 11, 2001, and therefore, aviation security should be funded, at least in
part, through general fund contributions. Critics of the proposal also maintain that
tacking the aviation security fee on to passenger tickets hurts airlines by increasing
the overall ticket cost which may prompt some passengers to seek alternative
transportation, particularly for shorter trips. These critics go on to argue that airlines
are already burdened by other ticket taxes and higher fuel prices that can negatively
impact passenger revenues. Also, industry experts believe that the proposed fee
schedule would have a greater relative impact on low-cost carriers that offer more
direct flights.¹⁰⁸ The current fee schedule arguably has a greater relative impact on
legacy carriers that route passengers on connecting flights to a much greater extent
using a hub-and-spoke service model.
The Administration also proposed to collect $644 million from security fees paid
directly by the air carriers, known as the aviation security infrastructure fees (ASIF).
This sum includes $448 million in projected FY2007 collections plus $196 million
in retroactive fee collections using revised prior-year airline contribution amounts
based on a GAO analysis.¹⁰⁹
House-Passed H.R. 5441. House-passed H.R. 5441 would have provided
a gross total of $6,364 million for the TSA in FY2007. This amount was $65 million
more than the President’s request and $20 million more than FY2006 enacted
appropriations.

¹⁰⁷ Ibid., and Transportation Security Administration, Fiscal Year 2007 — Congressional
Justification Overview.
¹⁰⁸ John M. Doyle, “No Sale: Proposed TSA Hike in Passenger Security Fee Is Getting a
Chilly Reception on Capitol Hill,” Aviation Week & Space Technology, Feb. 12, 2006, p.

34.

¹⁰⁹ United States Government Accountability Office, Review of Air Carriers’ Year 2000
Passenger and Property Screening Costs, April 2005, GAO-05-558.

The House-passed bill would have appropriated $4,704, roughly 74% of the total
TSA budget, on direct spending for aviation security, including screening operations,
security direction and enforcement, and the mandatory $250 million appropriation
for the Aviation Security Capital Fund. The House-passed appropriation for aviation
security was roughly $50 million higher than the President’s request. This amount,
however, did not include appropriations for the Federal Air Marshals Service
(FAMS), for which the House-passed bill would have provided $699 million,
matching the President’s request. The amount for aviation security also did not
include aviation-security related threat assessment and credentialing programs such
as Secure Flight and the Registered Traveler program. The House-passed bill would
have provided $74 million for the TSA’s Transportation Threat Assessment and
Credentialing (TTAC) mission area in all transportation modes which includes the
following programs: Secure Flight (aviation), Crew Vetting (aviation),
Transportation Worker Identification Credential — TWIC (currently limited to
marine/seaports), Registered Traveler (aviation), HAZMAT Commercial Driver
Credentialing (highway, freight trucking) and Alien Flight School vetting (aviation).
Under the House-passed bill, TTAC funding for aviation-related functions included
$55 million in direct appropriations, and an additional $37 million from fee
collections, largely anticipated to be derived from the Registered Traveler program.
Adding the House-passed funding for FAMS and aviation-related threat assessment
and credentialing programs would have yielded a total spending package for aviation-
related functions of $5,495 million, or 86% of total TSA funding included in the bill.
The House-passed bill would also have provided $37 million for TSA surface
transportation security functions, the same as the President’s request. The committee
report (H.Rept. 109-476) also directed the TSA to use prior year unobligated funds
designated for surface transportation staffing and operations on rail and mass transit
security screening pilot programs in large metropolitan areas. The House bill would
also have appropriated $20 million for the TWIC program in addition to the $20
million that the administration expects from fee collections and, in-line with the
President’s request, anticipated $19 million in fee collections for HAZMAT
commercial driver credentialing. A general provision in the bill (Sec. 520) would
have prohibited any funds designated for the TWIC program from being used to
develop any type of credentialing program that is decentralized and not universal, and
would have required that existing government card production facilities be used to
carry out production of TWIC credentials.
With regard to the Administration’s proposal to modify the passenger fee
schedule, this request was not considered in the House-passed bill because it sought
to modify existing law that falls under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on
Homeland Security. The appropriations committee estimated FY2007 passenger fee
collections under the existing fee schedule to total $2,124 million. This included an
initial $250 million to be deposited in the Aviation Security Capital Fund plus an
additional $1,874 million to offset TSA spending on aviation security. In addition
the House committee projected aviation security infrastructure fee (ASIF) collections
directly from the airlines, including retroactive payments from FY2005 and FY2006,
to total $546 million in FY2007, $98 million less than the administration projection.
While the House-passed bill was based on the assumption of collecting significantly
less in passenger and airline fees than administration projections, the only TSA
program that was specifically reduced to derive cost savings was for headquarters

administration, which was reduced by $4 million. House-passed funding for the
Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program and flight attendant (cabin crew)
training was also reduced, by $5 million, compared to the President’s request.
However, this cut was attributed to high unobligated balances of prior year
appropriations for the program rather than as a specific cost cutting measure. The
House-passed bill otherwise set funding at levels equal to or greater than requested
amounts. The appropriations committee, however, indicated that reductions to key
funding proposals throughout DHS were made to “make up for the shortfall in the
President’s budget brought on by this untenable fee proposal.”¹¹⁰
In report language, the House appropriations committee encouraged TSA to
develop innovative approaches and incentives for airports to pursue private screener
operations instead of federal TSA-screeners.¹¹¹ A general provision in the bill (Sec.
536) would have prohibited the TSA from hiring non-screener personnel at airports
whose duties would be redundant with those performed by any non-screener
personnel employed by a contract screening company participating in the Screening
Partnership Program (SPP). As in past years, language in the House-passed bill
capped TSA screener staffing levels to 45,000 full-time equivalents. The committee
noted that this cap has been kept in place, in part, to ensure that the TSA accelerates
technology deployment initiatives for passenger and baggage screening. Report
language also directed the TSA to report on its efforts to decentralize screener hiring,
and how these efforts might be encumbered by centralized financing of the hiring
process. The committee also wanted the TSA to complete a study to identify those
airports where passenger wait times at screening checkpoints are continually above
system-wide averages.
The House-passed bill would have provided $45 million more than the
President’s request for EDS purchase. The House-passed bill also included an
additional $10 million, not included in the President’s request, to begin refurbishing
and upgrading EDS equipment, with the caveat that only those machines that
manufacturers are willing to place back under warranty should be refurbished. The
committee, however, emphasized that it did not believe that explosive trace detection
(ETD) should be refurbished, and sought the long term reduction in the use of ETD
equipment for baggage screening. House-passed language also required the TSA to
develop standards and protocols for increasing the use of EDS to screen air cargo,
and requires the TSA to use existing EDS equipment and screeners to screen cargo
on passenger aircraft to the greatest extent practicable at each airport. The bill further
would have required the TSA to provide Congress with air cargo inspection statistics
by airport and by air carrier on a quarterly basis, and would have reduced aviation
security appropriations by $100,000 for every day that the required report is late (Sec.

519).

As in previous years, the House-passed bill would have prohibited the full
deployment or implementation of Secure Flight beyond its testing phase until the
DHS certifies and the GAO reports that the system satisfactorily addresses specific
statutory requirements pertaining to system performance, data protection, privacy,

¹¹⁰ H.Rept. 109-476, p. 46.
¹¹¹ Ibid.

and redress for aggrieved passengers. Language in the House-passed bill (Sec. 513)
also would have prohibited the development of algorithms to assign passenger risk
using any means other than official government watch lists, and prohibits the use of
commercial, or non-federal, databases in the Secure Flight system.
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. The Senate-passed bill would have provided
$6,562 million in total budget authority for the TSA, $198 million more than the
House-passed amount and $276 million more than the requested funding amount.
The Senate approved a total appropriation (including the Aviation Security Capital
Fund) for aviation of $5,002 million, $48 million above the House-passed funding
level and $97 million more than the President’s request. Like the House, the Senate
did not include the President’s proposed increase to passenger aviation security fees
and projected total collections from passengers and the airlines to equal $2,420
million in addition to the $250 million designated for mandatory spending in the
Aviation Security Capital Fund.
For most budget activities, the Senate-passed bill matches funding levels
requested by the President and passed by the House. Notable exceptions to this are
discussed below.
The Senate approved $181 million for airport checkpoint support functions, $8
million more than the requested level that was agreed to by the House. While the
committee did not specifically designate what this additional funding was to be used
for, its report (S.Rept. 109-273) indicated that the overall appropriation amount for
this budget activity included funding for the development and piloting of an
advanced checkpoint portal solution, and report language directed the TSA to
develop a strategic plan and timeline for deploying emerging technologies to screen
passengers for explosives. The Senate-passed bill also proposed bringing
transportation security research and development functions back under the TSA,
rather than in the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), where they has been
for the last two years. Much of these activities are directed at improving explosives
detection capabilities in the aviation environment. The Senate agreed to $92 million
for these aviation security research and development activities.
The Senate-passed bill would have provided $141 million for EDS and ETD
purchase, $50 million more than the President’s request and $5 million more than the
House-passed amount. The Senate committee report (S.Rept. 109-273) expressed
concerns over the President’s budget request that would have cut this function by
more that 50%. The report specified that out of the total funding amount for EDS
and ETD purchase, $20 million or more should be put toward acquiring and
deploying next-generation EDS machines, noting that the newer machines are
potentially more efficient than current-generation units and may yield a significant
improvement in installation, integration, and life-cycle costs. The Senate-passed bill
also included $172 million for EDS and ETD installation, $127 million more than the
FY2006 appropriated amount and $78 million more than both the President’s request
and the House-passed bill. S.Rept. 109-273 indicated that this sizable increase in
funding would ensure that EDS and ETD installation is carried out in an expedited
manner. The Senate-passed bill, however, recommended $24 million less that the
President’s request for EDS and ETD maintenance, noting that the TSA has already
achieved sizable savings on maintenance, and encouraged the TSA to continue to

work with contractors to further reduce maintenance costs. The bill language also
limits the obligation of $25 million of these funds until the committee receives a
report responding to the DHS IG’s findings regarding contractor fees. The
committee report also includes language supporting the TSA’s expanded used of
refurbished EDS equipment and directs the TSA to work aggressively to save costs
by maximizing the refurbishment of EDS equipment. However, unlike the House-
passed bill, the Senate-passed bill did not include a specific funding amount for EDS
and ETD refurbishing.
The Senate-passed bill included $23 million for the Federal Flight Deck Officer
(FFDO) program for armed pilots and for crew security training, $7 million less than
the FY2006 appropriation and the FY2007 request, and $2 million less than the
House-passed funding amount. Like the House committee report, the Senate
committee report (S.Rept. 109-273) cited high unobligated balances in this program,
rather than specific cost-cutting initiatives, as the reason for this proposed reduction.
The Senate-passed bill specified $15 million for the Secure Flight program, $25
million less than the amount requested and agreed to by the House. The Senate
committee report asserted that this amount, in conjunction with available carryover
balances, should be sufficient to meet FY2007 program requirements. While the
committee expressed its general support for the additional layer of aviation security
that would be provided through the Secure Flight program, the committee concluded
that the shape and size of the program still remains unclear because of continuing
delays and another effort to re-scope the program. The committee indicated that it
was therefore reluctant to provide any resources beyond the proposed $15 million.
Also regarding Secure Flight, the Senate-passed language was identical to the
House-passed bill requiring DHS certification and GAO oversight to confirm that the
system is secure, protects the privacy of personal data, and has an adequate redress
process for passengers that are erroneously flagged by the system. Like the House-
passed bill, this language would have prohibited the use of commercial databases in
the Secure Flight system for any purpose including authenticating passenger identity
or assessing passenger risk. In addition, S.Amdt. 4635 directed the TSA to work
more closely with the airlines to provide technical data and other assistance to better
align their reservation systems with terrorist databases to minimize travel delays and
inconvenience associated with mistaken identification, until the Secure Flight system
or a successor system is fully deployed. Also, S.Amdt. 4619 would have required the
DHS to establish revised procedures for clearing individuals whose names are
mistakenly placed on a terrorist watch list or whose names are similar or identical to
individuals included on a terrorist watch list. Often these “false positive”
identifications are made when an individual attempts to board a flight and is singled
out for additional screening or denied boarding based on use of the no-fly and
selectee lists provided by the TSA to the airlines.
The Senate also agreed to several amendments related to aviation security.
S.Amdt. 4608 would have required the TSA to provide passenger and baggage
screener and related resources at the New Castle Airport in Wilmington, DE, as long
as commercial air service is provided at that airport. It is uncertain whether the
wording of this amendment would have specifically restricted the use of private
screeners, contracted by TSA under their Screening Partnership Program (SPP) –

sometimes referred to as the opt-out program – under which airports can elect to use
private screeners instead of TSA screeners. If so, this provision could be highly
controversial as it could set precedent for legislators to seek similar restrictions at
other airports, which could be viewed by advocates for private screening as
potentially undermining the intent of the opt-out provision of the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (ATSA; P.L. 107-71). Another agreed-to amendment
(S.Amdt. 4582) would have required TSA to report on the effectiveness of screening
operations resulting from its modification of the list of prohibited items in December
2005. Senate-passed S.Amdt. 4592 would have required air carriers to develop plans
to comply with a provision of ATSA that gave emergency service personnel, such as
firefighters, police officers, and medical technicians authority to voluntarily provide
emergency services on commercial air flights during emergencies. The Senate also
agreed to S.Amdt. 4552, which would have removed the TSA’s exemption from
federal procurement law. When TSA was established as part of the Department of
Transportation under ATSA, it was given authority to operate under the FAA’s
acquisition management system, which was statutorily exempt from many aspects of
federal procurement law in order to provide for more timely and cost-effective
acquisitions of equipment and materials to meet unique challenges in responding to
the needs of the aviation industry. Also, in contrast to the House and prior-year
appropriations language that capped the number of TSA screeners at 45,000, the
Senate-passed S.Amdt. 4558 would have prohibited any statutory limitation on the
number of TSA employees, or any administrative rule or regulation limiting the
recruiting or hiring of TSA personnel.
P.L. 109-295. P.L 109-295 provides gross funding of $6,374 billion for the
TSA. That amount includes $4,731million for aviation security plus $250 million
for the Aviation Security Capital Fund. This, combined with $714 million for the
Federal Air Marshals Service (FAMS) and $67 million for aviation-related threat
assessment and credentialing functions (namely, Secure Flight, Registered Traveler,
Alien Flight School Fees, and Crew Vetting), brings the total direct appropriation for
aviation security-related function to $5,762 billion. This amount comprises roughly
90% of the total TSA budget. By comparison, TSA’s surface transportation security
account was funded at $37 million, and related threat assessment and credentialing
functions (namely, the TWIC program and HAZMAT Commercial Driver Fees)
totaled $39 million. These activities collectively account for less than 2% of the
TSA’s total appropriations. While some in Congress have argued that increased
funding for surface and maritime transportation initiatives is needed, this funding
distribution is roughly inline with prior year funding allocations.
Airport checkpoint explosives screening of passengers and carry-on items has
been a priority, highlighted in 9/11 Commission recommendations and recently
spotlighted by the foiled terrorist plot to down United States-bound aircraft from the
United Kingdom using liquid explosives. Although the conference report encouraged
the deployment of emerging airport checkpoint technologies, it funded checkpoint
support at $173 million, consistent with the House-passed amount, instead of the
$181 million funding level originally passed by the Senate. This was due to a large
unobligated carryover balance of $56 million from previous fiscal years for this
activity that can be used to support FY2007 checkpoint support initiatives. These
initiatives remain a high priority, and the conference report directs the TSA to
develop a strategic plan for screening all types of explosives on passengers and in

carry-on baggage. The act, however, did not include the Senate-passed language that
would have moved aviation security research and development activities back within
the TSA. With regard to checkpoint screening, report language also directs the TSA
to review airport checkpoint wait times over the past three years and provide a report,
identifying airports with above average wait times, with the FY2008 budget.
Conference report language also direct the TSA to provide screening at 24
commercial airports and heliports that have requested TSA screening, but continue
to operate with temporary screening or none at all. The report further directs the TSA
to consider contracting out screening functions at these locations if it does not believe
it would be efficient to deploy TSA personnel to these sites. Conference language
also directs the GAO to study the effects of changes to the permitted and prohibited
items lists made in December 2005 on public safety and screening effectiveness. The
act keeps in place the longstanding cap on full-time equivalent TSA screeners of

45,000.

A provision of the act (Section 514) reiterates a prohibition on using funds for the
Secure Flight passenger prescreening program in other than a test basis until the TSA
demonstrates and the GAO certifies that certain conditions pertaining to data
security, privacy, and redress have been adequately addressed. While the President’s
signing statement indicates that the executive branch considers this section to only
be advisory in nature, the TSA has been cooperating with the GAO to address these
unresolved issues. The cct further requires the TSA to submit a detailed plan of
Secure Flight program milestones and certification within 90 days of enactment.
The act provides $141 million for EDS purchase, as initially agreed to by the
Senate and $5 million above the House-passed amount. Report language specifies
that up to $6 million may be used for refurbishing existing EDS equipment so long
as the manufacturers are willing to place these machines back under warranty. This
is $4 million less than the direct appropriation for EDS and ETD refurbishing passed
by the House. While the Senate report language expressed support for the TSA’s
EDS refurbishment efforts, it did not specify an appropriation level for this activity.
The conference report further specifies that EDS purchase funding is not to be used
to procure ETD equipment, unless necessary for secondary baggage screening, as
replacements at airports primarily dependent of ETD technologies, or for use at small
airports and heliports where screening operations are newly federalized. The act
includes a total of $388 million for EDS installations, including $250 million from
the Aviation Security Capital Fund and a separate appropriation of $138 million.
This amount is $34 million less than the original Senate-passed amount, but it is $44
million more than the original House-passed amount. The act also includes $222
million for EDS and ETD maintenance, an even split between the original Senate and
House amounts. Conference report language directs the TSA to combine
maintenance costs for all equipment, including EDS, ETD, and checkpoint screening
equipment, into one budget activity in FY2008 to provide a more complete picture
of the total maintenance costs for security equipment deployed at the nation’s
airports. The conference report also directs the TSA to develop performance
measures and targets with regard to alternative screening procedures; track the use
of these alternative screening procedures at airports; assess their effectiveness;
conduct covert tests at airports using these procedures; and develop a plan to stop the
use of these alternative screening procedures which are sometimes used in lieu of
EDS and ETD screening. A general provision of the act (Section 524) specifies that

recovered or deobligated funds for TSA aviation security, administration security
support from prior fiscal years shall only be available for procurement and
installation of EDS equipment for use in air cargo, checkpoint, and baggage
screening. However, a separate provision (Section 537) rescinds roughly $5 million
of these prior-year unobligated funds.
The act provides $714 million for the Federal Air Marshals Service (FAMS), $15
million above the original amounts passed in both the House and Senate. The
increased funding is designated for travel and training. Conference language states
that the pilot program using FAMS in transportation modes other than aviation “goes
beyond what has been authorized for FAMS.” The report further states that it is
imperative for FAMS to focus on protecting aviation assets, particularly flights
deemed to be a high security threat, before further expanding the role of FAMS. The
act also maintains the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program and crew training
initiatives at a appropriated level of $25 million, consistent with the original House-
passed amount and $2 million above the original Senate-passed funding level.
The act provides $55 million for air cargo security, consistent with original
House-passed and Senate-passed and requested amounts. While this funding is the
same as FY2006 appropriations levels, the conference report noted that the TSA has
been slow to obligate air cargo security funding, and expected that one-tenth of the
total FY2006 appropriation would be carried into FY2007. The conference report
language directs the TSA to use these carryover funds to hire additional staff to
enhance the TSA’s air cargo security analytic capabilities. A separate provision
(Section 518) of the act directs the TSA, in consultation with industry stakeholders,
to develop standards and protocols for increasing the use of EDS for screening air
cargo when appropriate.
With regard to surface transportation security, the act provides $37 million,
consistent with both the original House-passed and Senate-passed amounts. The act
also appropriates $20 million for the TWIC program, which is expected to be
recouped through credentialing fees. Conference report language notes that due to
the TSA’s reprogramming of TWIC, an additional direct appropriation for FY2007
was not necessary. The TWIC is regarded as a high priority issue in response to
public attention directed at seaport security over the past year, and conference report
language reflects support for expeditious implementation of the TWIC program.
Also, Section 558 of the act directs the TSA, in collaboration with the Department
of Energy, to pilot test an integrated scanning system, that couples nonintrusive
imaging equipment and radiation detection equipment, at three foreign seaports.
TSA Issues for Congress. Congress may consider several TSA-related
transportation security issues during the FY2007 appropriations process. Central
issues include the aviation fee structure and funding aviation security costs;
passenger pre-screening efforts and the status of the Secure Flight program; the
pending roll-out of the Registered Traveler (RT) program; progress in installing in-
line baggage screening systems; initiatives to mitigate workplace injuries among TSA
screeners; efforts to improve the screening of passengers and carry-on items for
explosives; the status of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential Program
(TWIC); and TSA initiatives in other surface transportation modes.

The President’s proposal to modify passenger aviation security fees has already
been taken up by the Senate during debate over the FY2007 budget resolution
(S.Con.Res. 83). An amendment to that resolution offered by Senator Lautenberg
(S.Amdt. 3137) that would prohibit the proposed changes to aviation security fee
collections was agreed to by unanimous consent. However, during consideration of
the Transportation Security Administration Reorganization Act of 2005 (H.R. 4439)
in a markup session held by the House Subcommittee on Economic Security,
Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity on March 9, 2006, Representative
Lungren offered an alternative aviation security fee proposal that is similar to the
President’s proposed fee structure. This alternative fee structure — agreed to by the
subcommittee for inclusion in H.R. 4439 — includes a $4.00 fee per one-way trip
that would directly fund the TSA, plus an optional $1.00 fee that could be charged
by the airport of origin for funding qualified aviation security projects. Passenger
aviation security fees under this plan would be capped at $5.00 per one-way trip and
$10.00 per round-trip. Under the proposal, however, security fees paid directly by
the airlines — the ASIF — would be eliminated. Noting that going along with the
President’s proposed passenger fee restructuring would not be in order as part of the
appropriations process because it would require modifications to existing law, the
House-passed appropriations bill does not address the issue of modifying passenger
security fees.
The status of the Secure Flight program to prescreen airline passengers against
the consolidated terrorist watch list may be considered during the FY2007
appropriations debate. In prior years, appropriations legislation has contained
language directing the GAO to review the program and making full implementation
of the system beyond the testing phase contingent on the GAO finding that
information security, privacy protection, and passenger redress issues have been
adequately addressed. The GAO recently reported that these issues still largely
remain unresolved and the program still faces many management hurdles,¹¹² while
the TSA has indicated that it is “re-baselining” the program before entering into the
operational testing phase.¹¹³ As previously noted, the House-passed bill would keep
the restrictions on full deployment of Secure Flight in force. It also would prohibit
the TSA from using methods other than Government watch lists for assessing
passenger security risk, and would prohibit the use of commercial databases for
vetting passengers. During the FY2007 appropriations process, Congress may also
examine the related Registered Traveler program, scheduled to be launched on a
nationwide basis in FY2006. The status of the Registered Traveler program may be
of particular interest to Congress since the airline industry, which once championed
the program concept as a means to gain efficiency in passenger screening, is no
longer backing the program amid concerns over the manner in which it is being
implemented.¹¹⁴

¹¹² United States Government Accountability Office, Significant Management Challenges
May Adversely Affect Implementation of the Transportation Security Administration’s
Secure Flight Program, Feb. 9, 2006, GAO-06-374T.
¹¹³ “TSA Puts Brakes on ‘Secure Flight’; GAO Concurs, Congress Resists,” Airport Security
Report, 13(4), Mar. 1, 2006.
¹¹⁴ Statement of James C. May, President and CEO, Air Transport Association of America,
(continued...)

Another aviation security-related issue that Congress may consider is the ongoing
debate over resources and schedules for integrating checked baggage explosives
detection equipment with airport baggage handling systems. Although deploying
these in-line baggage screening systems is projected to significantly increase baggage
throughput and reduce TSA manpower requirements for baggage screening, these
capital projects are costly and will take several years to complete on a systemwide
basis at current appropriations levels. A somewhat related issue is the TSA’s effort
to mitigate workplace injuries among TSA baggage screeners, which may benefit
from in-line baggage screening systems and related ergonomic design considerations
to the extent that they can eliminate or minimize the lifting and handling of baggage.
Also, as previously discussed, the physical screening of passengers and their carry-on
items for explosives and nonmetallic threats remains a high priority, and Congress
may debate whether available technologies and TSA initiatives to deploy these
technologies adequately respond to this stated need in a timely manner.
Recent interest in seaport security stemming from the proposed acquisition of
terminal operations at several large U.S. seaports by Dubai Ports World (DPW) may
prompt more detailed examination of TSA’s efforts to assess security risks at
seaports as well as progress on the Transportation Worker Identification Credential
(TWIC) program. According to the TSA, the TWIC program, which is currently in
a prototype testing phase, will be rolled out to ports utilizing the national port
criticality list that prioritizes posts based on risk, threat, and vulnerability analysis.
Although initial deployment of TWIC was planned for FY2006, it has been delayed
until FY2007 to accommodate program review and related rulemaking.¹¹⁵ In light of
the current interest in port security, the TWIC program scope, status, and deployment
schedule may be of particular interest during the appropriations process. More
generally, Congress may examine the TSA’s initiatives to address security in other
surface transportation modes such as passenger and freight rail and HAZMAT
trucking, and perhaps intermodal and supply-chain security issues in the context of
the appropriations framework.
United States Coast Guard¹¹⁶
The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for the maritime component of
homeland security. As such, it is the lead agency responsible for the security of U.S.
ports, coastal and inland waterways, and territorial waters. The Coast Guard also
performs missions that are not related to homeland security, such as maritime search
and rescue, marine environmental protection, fisheries enforcement, and aids to
navigation. The Coast Guard was transferred from the Department of Transportation
to the DHS on March 1, 2003. The law that created the DHS (P.L. 107-296) directed
that the Coast Guard be maintained as a distinct entity within the DHS and that the

¹¹⁴ (...continued)
Inc. Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States
Senate, About the Secure Flight Program and Registered Traveler Program, Feb. 9, 2006.
¹¹⁵ Transportation Security Administration, Fiscal Year 2007 Congressional Justification:
Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing, pp. 11-12.
¹¹⁶ Prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation, Resources, Science and Industry
Division.

Commandant of the Coast Guard report directly to the Secretary of DHS. See Table

6 for account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II.

President’s FY2007 Request. For FY2007, the President requested a total
of $8,181 million in net budget authority for the Coast Guard, which is about a 0.5%
increase over the FY2006 level. The President’s request included slight increases in
most Coast Guard accounts, including $5,519 million for operating expenses, $1,170
million for acquisition, construction, and improvements, $124 million for reserve
training, $14 million for research, development, tests, and evaluation, $12 million for
environmental compliance and restoration, and zero funding for the bridge alteration
program (Congress appropriated $18 million for this program in FY2006).
The President requested $62 million for a new mission for the Coast Guard —
protecting the air space over Washington, DC, which used to be a responsibility of
CBP. The funding would pay for five HH-65 Dolphin helicopters and their
associated operating expenses to enforce a no-fly zone around the capital. The
request also includes $50 million to relocate the Coast Guard’s headquarters in
Washington, DC.
House-Passed H.R. 5441. The House-passed version of H.R. 5441 provided
a total of $8,129 million for the Coast Guard, $52 million less than the President
requested and $318 million more than was enacted in FY2006. Most of the
difference between the House and the President’s request concerned the operating
expense account and the ACI account. Under operating expenses, the House did not
include $50 million for the Coast Guard’s headquarters relocation. Under the ACI
account, the House did not include $42 million for production of the fast response
cutter. The House provided $17 million for the bridge alteration program while the
President requested no funds for this program.
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 5441 provided
a total of $8,188 million for the Coast Guard, which is $7 million more than the
President requested and $377 million more than was enacted in FY2006. The Senate
did not include the $50 million for the Coast Guard’s headquarters relocation that the
President requested. The Senate provided $15 million for the bridge alteration
program versus the President’s request for no funds. The Senate provided $18
million for research, development, test and evaluation, which is $4 million more than
the President requested.
P.L. 109-295. P.L. 109-295 provides a total of $8,316 million for the Coast
Guard for FY2007, which is about $136 million more than the President requested.
P.L. 109-295 provides $5,478 million for operating expenses, which is $41 million
less than the President requested. It provides $1,330 million for acquisition,
construction, and improvements, which is $160 million more than the President
requested. (This amount includes an additional $176 million appropriated as FY2007
emergency funding). Under the operating expenses account, P.L. 109-295 allows 5%
of these funds to be transferred to the acquisition, construction, and improvements
account for management and oversight of construction projects provided that the
Coast Guard notifies the appropriations committees within 30 days of transfer. For
the bridge alteration program, P.L. 109-295 provides $16 million versus the
President’s request for zero funds. P.L. 109-295 does not provide any funds for the

Coast Guard’s proposal to relocate its headquarters and the conference report
requests a relocation plan from DHS.
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. The Deepwater program is a $24 billion, 25-year acquisition
program to replace or modernize 93 Coast Guard ships and 207 Coast Guard aircraft.
For FY2007, the President requested $934 million for the program, the House
provided $893 million, and the Senate provided $994 million. P.L. 109-295 provides
$1,066 million for the Deepwater program. As indicated above, the House did not
provide funding for the fast response cutter, whereas the Senate did provide funding.
P.L. 109-295 rescinds $79 million from the FY2006 unexpended balance for the fast
response cutter and reprograms it for FY2007 for the service life extension program
of the current 110-foot Island Class patrol boat fleet and the acquisition of traditional
patrol boats. These patrol boats would act as “stand-in” assets until design issues
with the fast response cutter are resolved. Issues for Congress include the Coast
Guard’s management of the program, which is the largest and most complex
acquisition effort in Coast Guard history, the overall cost of the program, and the
program’s acquisition time-line. These issues are discussed in CRS Report RS21019,
Coast Guard Deepwater Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald
O’Rourke.
Security Mission. The Dubai Ports World issue intensified debate on U.S.
port and maritime security. Some Members of Congress have expressed strong
concerns that the Coast Guard does not have enough resources to carry out its
homeland security mission. During hearings on the Dubai Ports World transaction,
some witnesses raised the issue of whether the Coast Guard had enough presence on
port grounds to enforce new security regulations.¹¹⁷
About half of the Coast Guard’s FY2007 budget request is for its homeland
security mission. This amount includes $17 million for Maritime Domain
Awareness, which is a term the Coast Guard uses to describe its efforts to identify
threats as far from U.S. shores as possible by becoming more aware of the people,
vessels, and cargo approaching and moving through U.S. ports and waterways. The
$17 million includes funding for development of prototype Joint Harbor Operation
Centers (JHOC). JHOCs are facilities where the Coast Guard and other federal and
local law enforcement agencies can monitor harbor traffic, fuse intelligence data to
screen ships and cargo, and coordinate response activity if the need arises. For
monitoring harbor traffic, the President’s FY2007 request includes $11 million to
continue procurement plans and analysis for deployment of a nationwide system to

¹¹⁷ See testimony of Michael Mitre, Port Security Director, International Longshore and
Warehouse Union, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Hearing
on the Security of U.S. Ports, Feb. 28, 2006; and testimony of Stephen Flynn, Council on
Foreign Relations, House Committee on Armed Services, Hearing on the Dubai Ports World
Deal, Mar. 2, 2006.

identify, track, and communicate with vessels in U.S. harbors, called the Automatic
Identification System (AIS). The FY2007 request also includes $5 million for a
third, 60-member Maritime Security and Response Team, which will be based in
Chesapeake, VA, and whose mission is to provide on-call maritime counter-terrorism
response.¹¹⁸
H.Rept. 109-476 states that “The Committee is very concerned about DHS’
progress towards securing our nation’s ports and inbound commerce. While the
Department is to be commended for establishing many noteworthy security programs
to address this issue, sustained, measurable improvement of our nation’s port and
commerce security as a whole remains unclear.”¹¹⁹ The House report recommended
$15 million more than the President requested for Coast Guard port security
inspectors to accelerate foreign port security assessments and increase the number of
unannounced inspections at U.S. ports. The House report provided $15 million for
AIS deployment, the same amount that the President requested. P.L. 109-295
provides $15 million as the House recommended for additional port security
inspectors.
S.Rept. 109-273 indicates that the Senate committee provided $3,767 million in
the Coast Guard’s budget for maritime border security.¹²⁰ The Senate report also
provided a program increase of $3 million for Maritime Security Response Teams
and $5 million for Maritime Domain Awareness. The Senate report recommended
no funding for AIS, noting that an unobligated balance is available.
The Senate-passed version also included additional funding for FY2006 for the
Coast Guard’s security mission. As per an amendment offered by Senator Byrd, the
Coast Guard would be provided $184 million for purchasing new patrol boats,
maintaining existing cutters, purchasing new patrol aircraft, and for arming its
helicopters. For further information, see Appendix I.
Non-homeland Security Missions. Some Members of Congress have
expressed concern that with the Coast Guard’s emphasis on its maritime security
mission, the agency could have difficulty sustaining its traditional, non-homeland-
security missions, such as fisheries enforcement or marine environmental protection.
The Senate denied the President’s request to terminate operations at LORAN
(Long Range Aids to Navigation) stations nationwide and instead recommended that
maintenance of these stations continue in Alaska, the far Northwest, and the far
Northeast.¹²¹ The Coast Guard proposed dismantling the LORAN system in light of
the availability of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology. Senators Stevens
and Murray argued that GPS is not always reliable in their states because of line-of-

¹¹⁸ For further information on the agency’s homeland security operations, see CRS Report
RS21125, Homeland Security: Coast Guard Operations — Background and Issues for
Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
¹¹⁹ H.Rept. 109-476, p. 4.
¹²⁰ S.Rept. 109-273, p. 6.
¹²¹ See Sec. 545 under Title V – General Provisions, in the Senate-passed version.

sight obstacles and that fishermen, boaters, and pilots in their states rely on LORAN
as a back up system to GPS. The House committee noted that the Coast Guard must
first reach an agreement with the Department of Transportation before terminating
the LORAN system.¹²² P.L. 109-295 also assumes continuation of the LORAN-C
program until the appropriate entities within the executive branch have agreed in
writing to the termination, the public has been notified, and the appropriate countries
have been notified under existing international agreements. The conference report
calls for a report from the Coast Guard providing details on how the above three
requirements have been achieved.
Rescue 21 is the Coast Guard’s new coastal zone communications network that
is key to its search and rescue mission. The Senate and House agreed with the
President’s request of $40 million to continue deployment of the new system, which
began in 2002. However, the House committee expressed strong concerns with the
Coast Guard’s management of the program,¹²³ noting a GAO audit which found a
tripling of project cost from the original estimate, a likely further cost increase in the
near future, and further delays in project completion which is already five years
behind schedule.¹²⁴ The conference report calls on the Coast Guard to brief the
Committees on Appropriations on a quarterly basis regarding the Rescue-21 program.
U.S. Secret Service¹²⁵
The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) has two broad missions — criminal
investigations and protection — both connected with homeland security (as well as
other matters).¹²⁶ Criminal investigations encompass financial crimes, identity theft,
counterfeiting, computer fraud, and computer-based attacks on the nation’s financial,
banking, and telecommunications infrastructure, among other areas. The protective
mission is the most prominent, covering the President, Vice President, their families,
and candidates for those offices, along with the White House and the Vice
President’s residence (through the Service’s Uniformed Division). Protective duties
extend to foreign missions in the District of Columbia, and other designated
individuals, such as the DHS Secretary and visiting foreign dignitaries. Separate
from these specific mandated assignments, the Secret Service is responsible for
National Special Security Events (NSSEs), which include the major party
quadrennial national conventions as well as international conferences and events held
in the United States. The NSSE designation, by the President, gives the Secret
Service authority to organize and coordinate security arrangements; these involve

¹²² H.Rept. 109-476, p. 60.
¹²³ H.Rept. 109-476, p. 66.
¹²⁴ GAO, United States Coast Guard: Improvements Needed in Management and Oversight
of Rescue System Acquisition, GAO-06-623, May 2006.
¹²⁵ Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
¹²⁶ OMB, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007, Appendix, United
States Secret Service, pp. 479-482; DHS, Budget-in-Brief, Fiscal Year 2007, pp. 55-58; and
United States Secret Service, Fiscal Year 2007, Congressional Justification.

various law enforcement units (along with the National Guard) from other federal
agencies and state and local governments.
FY2007 Budget Request. For FY2007, the President’s budget submission
requested an appropriation of $1,265 million for the protection and criminal¹²⁷
investigation missions of the Secret Service. This reflected an increase of $60
million or nearly 5% more than the FY2006 total of $1,204 million for the Service.¹²⁸
The new FY2007 appropriations request broke down the amounts for the total
protection function ($722 million) into specific categories — protection ($651
million), protective intelligence activities ($55 million), and White House mail
screening ($16 million). But it did not specify an amount for the National Special
Security Event fund (which was $5 million in FY2006), because of the uncertainty
surrounding the number and extent of NSSEs, among other reasons. The total for
field operations was $302 million, with specific amounts for field operations ($236
million), international field offices ($22 million), and electronic crimes program and¹²⁹
task forces ($44 million).
House-Passed H.R. 5441. For FY2007, the House-passed appropriations for
DHS proposed a total appropriation of $1,293 million. H.R. 5441 proposed $956
million for protection, administration, and training; $312 million for investigations
and field operations; $21 million for special event security; and $4 million for
acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses. This proposed
appropriation of $1,293 was $89 million more than Congress appropriated in FY2006
($1,204 million).
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. For FY2007, the Senate-passed appropriations
for DHS proposed a total appropriation of $1,293 million. H.R. 5441 proposed $918
million for protection, administration and training; $304 million for investigations
and field operations; and $3.73 million for acquisition, construction, improvements,
and related expenses. This proposed appropriation of $1,226 million was nearly $22
million more than Congress appropriated in FY2006 ($1,204 million).
P.L. 109-295. For FY2007, Congress appropriated $1,277 million for USS;
$962 million was appropriated for protection, administration, and training; $311
million for investigations and field operations; and nearly $4 million for acquisition,
construction, improvements, and related expenses. The FY2007 USSS appropriations
of $1,277 million is nearly $73 million more than Congress appropriated in FY2006
($1,204 million).
Of the $962 million for protection, administration, and training, not to exceed
$25,000 shall be for official reception and representation expenses; up to $18 million
for protective travel and shall remain available until September 30, 2008; up to $18

¹²⁷ This amount for gross discretionary appropriations excludes a mandatory appropriation
of $200 million (for annuity payments). OMB, Budget of the US Government, p. 480; and
DHS, Budget-in Brief, p. 56.
¹²⁸ The FY2006 amount reflects the enacted total of $1,212 million minus $8 million
(consisting of a recession of $12 million plus a supplemental appropriation of $4 million).
¹²⁹ OMB, Budget of the US Government, p. 480, and DHS, Budget-in-Brief, p. 56.

million for candidate nominee protection shall remain available until September 30,

2009; and up to $1 million for National Special Security Events (NSSE).

Of the $311 million appropriated for investigations and field operations, not to
exceed $100,000 shall be to provide technical assistance and equipment to foreign
law enforcement organizations in counterfeit investigations; $2 million shall be for
forensic and related support of investigations of missing and exploited children; and
$6 million shall be for grant activities related to the investigations of missing and
exploited children.
Title III: Preparedness and Response
Title III includes appropriations for the Preparedness Directorate and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Preparedness Directorate includes
(among others) appropriations accounts for the Undersecretary for Preparedness,
State and Local Programs, Emergency Management Planning Grants (EMPG), the
U.S. Fire Administration and Fire Assistance Grants, and Infrastructure Protection
and Information Security (IPIS). Table 10 provides account-level appropriations
detail for Title III.

CRS-73
Table 10. Title III: Preparedness and Response
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^FY^{2006 A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ
^Op^erati^on^al^C^o^m^p^on^en^t^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Request^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Hou^s^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Ena^c^t^e^d^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Supp.^Resc.^To^t^a^l
^s^Directorate
^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e Un}^ders^ecretary^f^o^{r P}^r^eparedn^e^s^s¹⁶^—^—¹⁶⁷⁴³⁹³¹³¹
^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^d^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^stratioⁿ⁵^—^—⁵⁵^—^—^—
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33428}^S^t^at^{e an}^{d L}^o^cal^Prog^ram^s²⁵⁴¹^a²⁵^-²⁵²^,541^2,281^2,594^2,399^2,531
^g/w^Em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^Pl^anⁿⁱⁿ^g^G^r^an^t^s¹⁸⁵^—^-²¹⁸³¹⁷⁰¹⁸⁶²²⁰²⁰⁰
^s^.or
^le^ak^U^.^S^.^Fⁱ^{re A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d T}^r^aiⁿⁱⁿ^g⁴⁵^—^-¹⁴⁴⁴⁷⁴⁷⁴⁶⁴⁷
^In^f^r^as^t^r^u^c^t^u^{re Prot}^ectⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d In}^f^o^rm^atⁱ^oⁿ^S^ecu^ri^t^y⁶²⁵^—^-⁶⁶¹⁹⁵⁴⁹⁵⁴⁹⁵²⁵⁵⁴⁸
^://wiki^Fⁱ^refⁱ^g^h^t^{er A}^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce G}^r^an^t^s⁶⁵⁵^—^-⁷⁶⁴⁸²⁹³⁶⁵⁴⁶⁸⁰⁶⁶²
^h^ttp
^{t total}⁴^,072²⁵^-41⁴^,056^3,419^4,069^3,901^4,018
^erroris^m^Fund²^—^—²^—^—^—^—
^m^{ergency M}^a^nagem^e^{nt Agency}
^A^d^mⁱⁿ^;^regⁱ^on^al^operatⁱ^oⁿ^s²²¹⁸⁹^-²³⁰⁸²⁵⁵²⁵⁴²⁴⁹²⁸²
^r^ep^ar^{e, m}^itig^atioⁿ^,^r^e^sp^oⁿ^{se &}^r^eco^v^e^r^y²⁰⁴¹⁰^-²²¹²²³³²⁴⁰²⁴⁰²⁴⁴
^Pu^blⁱ^c^h^eal^t^h^prog^ram^s³⁴^—^—³⁴³⁴³⁴³⁴³⁴
^Dⁱ^s^a^s^t^{er rel}ⁱ^e^f^1,770^6,000^-¹⁸⁷^,752^1,941^1,677^1,582^1,500
^F^l^{ood m}^a^{p m}^odernⁱ^zatⁱ^oⁿ^f^uⁿ^d²⁰⁰^—^-²¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹
^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^f^l^{ood i}ⁿ^s^u^ran^{ce f}^uⁿ^d^(N^F^I^F⁾^b^—^—^—^—^—^—^—^—

CRS-74
^FY^{2006 A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ
^Op^erati^on^al^C^o^m^p^on^en^t^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Request^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Hou^s^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Ena^c^t^e^d^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Supp.^Resc.^To^t^a^l
^a^{l f}^l^{ood m}^itig^ation^c^—^—^—^—^—^—^—^—
^r^e-^dⁱ^saster^m^itig^atioⁿ^f^uⁿ^d⁵⁰^—^—⁵⁰¹⁵⁰¹⁰⁰¹⁵⁰¹⁰⁰
^Em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^f^{ood an}^{d s}^h^el^t^e^r¹⁵³^—^-²¹⁵¹¹⁵¹¹⁵¹¹⁵¹¹⁵¹
^a^s^t^{er as}^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce direct loan}^accouⁿ^t¹²⁸⁰^—²⁸¹¹¹¹¹
^{t total}²^,633^6,379^-26⁸^,986^2,964^2,656^2,606^2,511
^budg^et^a^u^t^h^o^r^it^y^subt^o^t^a^l^:^Tit^l^{e III}⁶^,⁷⁰⁷⁶^,⁴⁰⁴^-⁶⁷¹³^,⁰⁴⁴⁶^,³⁸³⁶^,⁷²⁵⁶^,⁵⁰⁷⁶^,⁵²⁹
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33428}
^g/w^F^Y^{2006 en}^act^{ed n}^u^m^bers^f^r^om^C^R^S^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^t^h^{e C}^oⁿ^f^eren^{ce R}^e^port^t^o^H^.^R^.^2360,^H^.^R^e^pt^.109-^241;^F^Y²⁰⁰⁶^s^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^lⁿ^u^m^bers^f^r^om^C^R^S^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^P.L^.^109-^61,
^s^.or^.^109-^{62, P.L.}¹⁰⁹^-^{88, an}^{d P.L}^.^109-^148;^F^Y^{2006 res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^onⁿ^u^m^be^rs^f^r^om^C^R^S^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^P.L^.^109-^{148, P.L}^.^109-^{234, an}^{d t}^h^e^{FY2007 DHS Jus}^tifications^{. F}^Y^{2007 requ}^es^t
^le^ak^bers^f^r^om^t^h^e^{FY2007 DHS Jus}^tifications^{. F}^Y^{2007 H}^o^u^s^e-^pas^s^e^{d n}^u^m^bers^f^r^om^t^h^{e con}^f^eren^{ce report}^(H^.R^ept^.^109-^{476) t}^o^H^.^R^.^5441.
^://wiki^{No FY2007 f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r T}^{itle III w}^a^s^desⁱ^gⁿ^a^{ted as}^e^m^e^r^ge^nc^y^s^p^en^din^g^.^T^o^tals^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add du}^{e to rou}ⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^A^m^ouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^paren^t^h^es^es^{are n}^oⁿ^-^adds^{. For a m}^o^{re detailed}
^h^ttp^s^{is o}^f^th^{e su}^p^p^l^em^en^{tal ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^{, p}^l^{ease r}^e^f^e^r^to^A^p^p^eⁿ^d^ix^I^.
^clu^d^es^{$40 m}^illionⁱⁿ^R^E^A^L^-^I^{D Gran}^{t f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^{placed in}^T^{itle V by}^H.R^e^{pt. 109-}^241.
ⁿ^d^{s d}^e^rⁱ^v^e^d^f^r^o^m^p^r^em^iu^m^p^a^y^m^en^{ts o}^r^tr^an^sf^er^{s f}^r^o^m^th^{e U.S.}^T^r^easu^r^y^.^T^h^e^Ho^u^s^e^ap^p^r^o^v^ed^b^ill^im^p^o^s^es^lim^its,ⁱⁿ^clu^dⁱⁿ^g^{$50 m}^illion^f^o^{r f}^l^{ood m}^itig^ationⁱⁿ^s^e^v^e^{re repetitiv}^e
^l^o^s^s^propertⁱ^e^s^.
ⁿ^d^s^deriv^e^{d f}^r^om^{NFIF tran}^s^f^ers^.^Hou^s^{e approv}^{ed bill prov}^ides^f^o^{r tran}^s^f^{er of}^{$31 m}^illionⁱⁿ^FY2007.

Preparedness Directorate¹³⁰
The preparedness appropriations accounts include the following:
^!Chief Medical Officer — coordinates federal plans to prevent and
respond to biological terrorist attacks;
^!U.S. Fire Administration — educates the public, training firefighters,
and develops enhanced firefighting technologies;
^!Office for Grants and Training (G&T) — assists states, localities,
and regional authorities to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorist
and other threats to national security through grant funding, training,
and exercises;
^!Infrastructure Protection — identifies and assesses current and future
threats to the nation’s physical and informational infrastructure, and
issues warnings to critical infrastructure sectors;
^!Office of National Capital Region Coordination — administers
federal programs and relationships with the National Capital Region
(NCR) to ensure planning, information sharing, training, and
execution of NCR homeland security activities.¹³¹
Table 10 shows the FY2006 enacted and FY2007 requested appropriations for
Title III. The Administration requested an appropriation of $6,364 million in net
budget authority for Title III in FY2007. This amount represents a 5% decrease
compared with the FY2006 enacted total of $6,709 million. For the FY2007 request,
Title III accounts for roughly 20% of requested net appropriated DHS budget
authority.
Office of Grants and Training. G&T is the single point of contact within
DHS for facilitating and coordinating departmental state and local programs. G&T
provides information to states and localities on best practices and federal homeland
security activities. The office administers federal homeland security assistance
programs for states and localities. To assist state and local homeland security efforts,
G&T administers formula and discretionary grants and training, exercise, and
technical assistance programs.
Table 11 provides summarizes budget request, House- and Senate-passed
appropriations bills, and the FY2007 DHS appropriations (P.L. 109-295) for G&T
programs for states and localities.

¹³⁰ Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in National Government, Government and Finance
Division. Firefighters assistance text contributed by Lennard Kruger, Specialist in Science
and Technology, Resources, Science and Industry Division.
¹³¹ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “DHS Organization: Directorate for
Preparedness,” fact sheet, available at [http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/
editorial_0794.xml].

Table 11. FY2007 Appropriations,
Office of Grants and Training Assistance Programs
(in millions)
^Hou^s^e-^Sena^t^e^-
^G^r^an^{t Program}^Pres^ident’s^Request^pa^sse^d^pa^sse^d^Ena^c^t^e^d
^H.R^.⁵⁴⁴¹^H.R^.⁵⁴⁴¹
^{State Hom}^e^lan^d^Secu^rity^Gran^t⁶⁶³⁵⁴⁵⁵⁰⁰⁵²⁵
^P^r^og^ram^(S^HS^C^P⁾
^Ur^b^aⁿ^A^r^{ea Secu}^r^ity^Iⁿ^itiativ^e⁸³⁸⁷⁵⁰⁷⁴⁵⁷⁷⁰
^(UA^S^I)
^T^a^rg^{eted In}^f^r^as^tru^c^tu^{re P}^r^otection^a⁶⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰
^P^r^og^ram^(T^IP^P⁾
^P^o^{rt Secu}^rity^a⁰²⁰⁰²¹⁰²¹⁰
^T^r^uc^ki^{ng I}ⁿ^d^u^st^r^y^Se^c^u^rⁱ^t^y^a⁰⁵⁵¹²
^Iⁿ^ter^c^ity^B^u^{s Secu}^r^ity^a⁰¹⁰¹²¹²
^{Rail Secu}^r^ity^a⁰¹⁵⁰¹⁵⁰¹⁷⁵
^B^u^ffe^r^Zo^ne^P^r^o^t^e^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^a⁰⁵⁰⁵⁰⁵⁰
^L^a^w^En^f^o^rcem^en^{t T}^e^rroris^m⁰^b⁴⁰⁰³⁵⁰³⁷⁵
^Pr^e^v^eⁿ^tⁱ^oⁿ^Pr^og^r^a^m⁽^L^E^T^PP)
^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce to Firef}ⁱ^g^h^t^ers²⁹³⁵⁴⁰⁶⁸⁰⁶⁶²
^P^r^og^ram^(F^IR^E)
^E^m^e^r^ge^nc^y^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt¹⁷⁰¹⁸⁶²²⁰²⁰⁰
^P^e^rf^orm^aⁿ^{ce Gran}^ts^(EMP^G)
^Cⁱ^tⁱ^zen^C^o^rps^Prog^ram^s^(C^C^P⁾³⁵⁰²⁰¹⁵
^Metr^o^p^o^litan^Medⁱ^{cal Resp}^oⁿ^se⁰^b³⁰³⁵³³
^Sy^stem⁽^MMRS)
^Source:^F^Y^{2007 requ}^es^tⁿ^u^m^bers^f^r^om^t^h^e^{FY2007 DHS Jus}^tifications^{. F}^Y^{2007 H}^o^u^s^e-^pas^s^e^d
ⁿ^u^m^bers^f^r^om^t^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee report}^(H^.R^ept^.^109-^{476) t}^o^H^.^R^.^5441;^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^-
^pas^s^e^{d n}^u^m^bers^f^r^om^Sen^a^te-^p^as^s^e^{d H.R}^.^{5441 an}^{d th}^{e Sen}^a^{te A}^ppropriation^s^C^o^m^m^ittee^R^e^port
^S^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{273. F}^Y^{2007 en}^act^{ed n}^u^m^bers^f^r^om^P.L^.^109-²⁹⁵^aⁿ^d^t^h^e^C^oⁿ^f^e^r^eⁿ^c^e^R^e^p^o^r^t^t^o^H^.^R^.
^{5441, H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^699.
^a^.^Se^e^sub^s^e^q^ue^nt^dⁱ^sc^ussi^oⁿ^,ⁱⁿ^“I^ssue^s^fo^r^Co^ngr^e^ss,^”^r^e^ga^r^dⁱ^{ng c}^o^nso^lⁱ^d^a^tⁱ^o^{n o}^fⁱⁿ^fr^a^s^t^r^uc^t^u^r^e
^p^r^o^t^ectioⁿ^g^r^an^ts.
^{b. T}^h^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^bu^dg^et^requ^es^t^propos^{ed t}^o^elⁱ^mⁱⁿ^at^{e f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r L}^E^T^{PP an}^{d MMR}^Sⁱⁿ
^F^Y^2007.
Issues for Congress. The Administration’s FY2007 budget request and the
House-passed H.R. 5441 may raise policy issues that Congress may address as it
legislates appropriations. Some of the policy issues include the overall reduction in
appropriations, the consolidation of UASI sub-grants into the proposed TIPP, the
reduction of FIRE grant appropriations, and the proposed elimination of MMRS and
CCP.

The Administration proposed to reduce the FY2007 appropriations for the
programs to $2.57 billion — a reduction of $395 million. While the reduction in
overall funding seems to reflect the Administration’s determination of the nation’s
homeland security needs, some critics see it as not meeting the needs of localities
because of what is considered by some as inadequate and unfair distribution of past
homeland security assistance funding.¹³² On the other hand, H.R. 5441 proposed to
increase overall grant funding to states and localities by $68 million. The House
proposes to maintain funding to these programs in FY2007. Congress appropriated
$41 million more than FY2006 appropriations for these programs.
Additionally, the Administration proposed to consolidate six UASI sub-grants
into TIPP with an appropriation of $600 million.¹³³ The budget request stated that
TIPP would consolidate disparate programs and focus on securing transportation
assets and other critical infrastructure.¹³⁴ Some might argue, however, that the
consolidation, without identified amounts for specific infrastructure protection
activities, might result in states and localities not being able to meet their specific
infrastructure security needs. H.R. 5441, passed by the House and Senate, did not
propose consolidating the UASI sub-grants into TIPP. Congress did not consolidate
infrastructure security grants into TIPP in the FY2007 DHS appropriation.
The Administration’s budget proposal requested $293 million for fire grants in
FY2007, a cut of 46% from the FY2006 appropriation. The total of $293 million
requested for the firefighter assistance account (which includes both fire grants and
SAFER grants) is down 55% from the FY2006 level. According to the
Administration proposal, priority would be given to grant applications enhancing
terrorism capabilities. Fire grants would be available for training, vehicles,
firefighting equipment and personal protective equipment. Wellness/fitness activities
and fire station modification would not be funded. The Administration requested
no funding for SAFER Act grants, which support the hiring of firefighters as well as
the recruitment and retention of volunteer firefighters. According to the budget
justification, “the Administration has not requested funds for SAFER Grants in
FY2007 on the grounds that local public safety agencies should assume responsibility
for funding the appropriate number of personnel, and that Federal-funding for hiring
local responders puts newly-funded personnel at risk once grant dollars phase out.”
The House Appropriations Committee directed DHS to administer the grant
programs in a manner identical to the current year. The committee did not agree to
limit the list of eligible activities, nor to refocus program priorities on terrorism. The
Senate Appropriations Committee directed DHS to continue direct funding to fire
departments and the peer review process, to continue the present practice of funding
applications according to local priorities and those established by the USFA, and to

¹³² National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission
Report (Washington: GPO, July 2004), p. 396.
¹³³ In FY2006, Congress appropriated $415 million for the UASI sub-grants including: port
security ($175 million); rail security ($150 million); trucking industry security ($5 million);
intercity bus security ($10 million); non-governmental organization security ($25 million);
and buffer zone protection ($50 million).
¹³⁴ Fiscal Year 2007 Budget of the United States Government, Appendix, pp. 508-509.

favor applications that take a regional approach in equipment purchases and their
future deployment. The conference agreement (H.Rept. 109-699) provided $547
million for fire grants and $115 million for SAFER for FY2007.
The Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) is a program of contracts
with major cities to coordinate multiple local government agencies in emergency
planning. MMRS was funded at $30 million for FY2006. The program was slated
for elimination in the FY2007 budget proposal, as it has been in each budget since
it was transferred to DHS in 2003. The Administration has proposed that ongoing
municipal emergency planning activities be supported at the discretion of states,
using funds from the SHSGP and UASI grant programs. For FY2007, House-passed
H.R. 5441 provided continued funding for the program at $30 million. Senate-passed
H.R. 5441 provided $35 million. H.R. 5441 as enacted provided $33 million for the
program, and provided the program’s first explicit authorization, through FY2008.
(Additionally, House-passed H.R. 5441 proposed to eliminate funding for CCP, the
Senate-passed bill provided $20 million, and the enacted law provided $15 million.)
The Office of the DHS Chief Medical Officer (CMO) was created by Secretary
Chertoff in July 2005. Though the position was within the Preparedness Directorate,
the new CMO, Dr. Jeffrey Runge, was given responsibility to coordinate public
health and medical programs throughout the department.¹³⁵ The Office of the CMO
was funded at $2 million for FY2006. For FY2007, the House- and Senate-passed
bills and the enacted law provided $5 million, equal to the Administration request.
H.R. 5441 as enacted also provided the first explicit authorization for the CMO
position, to require Senate confirmation, but the position was not among the
functions transferred from the Preparedness Directorate to FEMA.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)¹³⁶
Hurricane Katrina Issues. Considerable controversy has enveloped FEMA
since Hurricane Katrina devastated approximately 90,000 square miles in Gulf Coast
states beginning August 29, 2005. Subsequent to investigations conducted in 2005
and 2006, the House Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for
and Response to Hurricane Katrina, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs Committee, and the White House issued reports on the response to the 2005¹³⁷
catastrophe. Drawing from these reports and other sources, Congress considered

¹³⁵ FY2007 DHS Justification, pp. OUS PREP 15-16.
¹³⁶ Prepared by Keith Bea, Specialist in American National Government, Government and
Finance Division.
¹³⁷ The White House, The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina Lessons Learned
(Washington, 2006). U.S. Congress, House Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the^th^nd
Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, A Failure of Initiative, 109 Cong., 2
sess., H.Rept. 109-377 (Washington, 2006). U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hurricane Katrina: A National Still
Unprepared (Washington, 2006).

various legislative proposals concerning the organization and functions of FEMA.¹³⁸
Title VI of the FY2007 DHS appropriations legislation modifies FEMA’s structure
and leadership hierarchy, expands the agency’s mission, and requires changes in
operational procedures effective January 1, 2007, when the provisions take effect.
Summary information on Title VI is provided at the end of this section.
Funding. The President’s FY2007 request for FEMA did not propose dramatic
changes for the agency. In general, the funding request for FY2007 was comparable
to that requested and enacted for FY2006. The House-approved bill would have
funded the agency at a level slightly above that currently provided ($2,656 million
recommended for FY2007, $2,607 million enacted in FY2006, excluding emergency
appropriations) and $309 million below the amount requested. The difference
between the House-approved version and the request primarily derived from a
reduction of $278 million for disaster relief, as well as a $50 million reduction in
mitigation funding. The funding level approved by the Senate, $2,606 million, was
$50 million below the amount approved by the House, with the most significant
differences between the chambers as follows:
^!the Senate would have provided $30 million for urban search and
rescue funding, whereas the House would have provided almost $20
million;
^!the Senate matched the request for pre-disaster mitigation funding,
recommending almost $150 million, compared with the $100
million approved by the House;
^!the Senate would have provided almost $37 million less for the
Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) than the House; and
^!the Senate would have provided roughly $15 million less than the
House for administrative and operating activities.
As approved by Congress and signed by the President, the legislation appropriates
approximately $450 million less than requested by the Administration and roughly
$100 million less than the amounts approved by the House and Senate. The
difference primarily rests in the amount appropriated to the DRF. As noted below,
this reduction is arguably insignificant in light of the historical practice of the
enactment of supplemental appropriations for the DRF when the balance in the fund
proves insufficient.
Disaster Relief Fund. Roughly two-thirds of the FEMA funding is used for
the disaster relief and recovery activities authorized by the Robert T. Stafford

¹³⁸ See CRS Report RL33369, Federal Emergency Management and Homeland Security
Organization: Historical Developments and Legislative Options, by Henry B. Hogue and
Keith Bea.

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act).¹³⁹ Funds
appropriated to the Disaster Relief Fund are used to
^!meet the immediate needs of victims, and help communities, states,
and nonprofit entities repair or rebuild damaged facilities;
^!reduce the risk of future disasters through hazard mitigation
measures such as elevating structures in floodplains, retrofitting
bridges and buildings in earthquake prone areas;
^!provide loans to local governments that lose tax revenues because of
disasters; and
^!help state and local governments develop and maintain preparedness
plans.
Congress appropriates supplemental funding for the DRF when annual
appropriations are not adequate.¹⁴⁰ Such appropriations have been historically
designated emergency spending under the appropriate budget authorities. The
Administration requested $1,941 million for the DRF for FY2007, an amount
roughly equivalent to the historical average of expenditures from the fund, excluding
catastrophic events such as Hurricane Katrina and the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001. The House approved $1,677 million for the DRF in FY2007, the Senate
approved a lower amount, $1,640 million. Conferees and the President agreed to an
even lower figure, $1, 500 million.
National Disaster Medical System.¹⁴¹ The National Disaster Medical
System (NDMS) is a system of medical, veterinary, and mortuary response teams that
deploy in response to disasters, special security events, and certain other situations.
The Senate-passed bill transferred NDMS to the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), and the enacted law adopted this transfer, effective January 1, 2007.¹⁴²
The transfer was supported by the Administration. (NDMS was originally
transferred from HHS to DHS in P.L. 107-296, the Homeland Security Act, effective
in 2003.)

¹³⁹ Background on the statute and funding history for the Disaster Relief Fund is presented
in CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential
Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding, by Keith Bea.
¹⁴⁰ For example, supplemental funding for the DRF was approved in P.L. 109-61, P.L. 109-
62, and P.L. 109-148 after Hurricane Katrina. See CRS Report RS22239, Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane Katrina Relief, by Keith Bea. For information
on the most recent supplemental funding request associated with Hurricane Katrina, see
CRS Report RL33298, FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other International
Activities; Additional Katrina Hurricane Relief, coordinated by Paul M. Irwin and Larry
Nowels. Historical information on supplemental appropriations is presented in CRS Report
RL33226, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Legislation for Disaster Assistance:
Summary Data FY1989 to FY2005, by Justin Murray.
¹⁴¹ Prepared by Sarah Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology, Domestic Social
Policy Division.
¹⁴² Office of Management and Budget, “Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 5441—
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, FY2007,” Senate version, July 12,

2006, p. 2, at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-2/hr5441sap-s.pdf].

Currently, NDMS administration is the only activity within the “Public Health
Programs” account in FEMA. For FY2007, the House- and Senate-passed bills and
the enacted law (P.L. 109-295) provided $34 million, equal to the Administration
request. NDMS has been funded at this level for several years. Generally, when
NDMS teams are deployed pursuant to FEMA mission assignments during disasters,
deployment costs are covered by the DRF. In supplemental appropriations for
FY2006, a one-time amount of $100 million was provided to NDMS to cover
expenses related to the response to Hurricane Katrina.¹⁴³ Most of this amount — $70
million — was transferred, through an interagency agreement with FEMA, to the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in HHS, to reimburse hospitals and
healthcare providers who cared for uninsured patients in affected areas.¹⁴⁴
The National Emergency Management Title (Title VI). A wide range of
policy issues have been addressed by Congress with the inclusion of Title VI,
“National Emergency Management,” in P.L. 109-295. The location, composition,
and authorities of FEMA, the mission and procedures to be modified, and emergency
communications capabilities and requirements were some of the more significant
issues debated in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina investigations.
After considerable debate over the most appropriate organizational structure,
Congress agreed to keep FEMA within DHS and established it as a “distinct entity”
with prohibitions on the transfer of resources or mission from the agency. The
mission and resources of the Preparedness Directorate of DHS will be merged with
FEMA, but certain offices and authorities (Chief Medical Officer, National
Cybersecurity, National Communications, and Infrastructure Protection) will not be
integrated with FEMA. The legislation also establishes a Office of Emergency
Communications in DHS (not within FEMA) to establish policy and practices related
to the communications needs of emergency responders.
Title VI addresses a number of personnel and leadership concerns. The
Administrator of FEMA must meet specified qualification requirements, and an
advisory council comprising state, local, and private officials is to be established. In
an effort to address concerns that the federal workforce is retiring and personnel in
essential areas depleted, the FEMA Administrator has authority to issue incentives
to recruit skilled persons or retain those who would otherwise retire.
The Homeland Security Act also is amended by the legislation by establishing
more specific requirements for preparedness, planning, and operational procedures.
In reviewing state emergency preparedness plans, FEMA must now consider whether
the state has included a catastrophic incident annex and established evacuation
procedures, the latter with federal assistance. In addition, elements of the national

¹⁴³ P.L. 109-62, Second Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to Meet Immediate
Needs Arising From the Consequences of Hurricane Katrina, 2005, Sept. 8, 2005, 119 Stat.

1991.

¹⁴⁴ Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2007, p. 192. For more
information about NDMS, see CRS Report RL33096, 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes: The
Public Health and Medical Response, by Sarah A. Lister.

preparedness system that have previously been established solely under
administrative direction are now based on statute.
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS)¹⁴⁵
As a result of the 2005 reorganization, many of the programs and activities of the
former Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate are now
performed in the new Preparedness Directorate and funded through the Infrastructure
Protection and Information Security appropriation. The Infrastructure Protection and
Information Security (IPIS) appropriation is further divided into eight
program/project activities (see Table 12 below). Each of these are divided further
into a number of sub-programs. Specific sub-programs are beyond the scope of this
report, except where major changes may have occurred. However, these sub-
programs involve activities that include the accumulation and cataloging of critical
infrastructure information, the identification and prioritization of nationally critical
assets, vulnerability assessments, national-level risk assessments, and assistance to
owner/operators. It also includes the development of both sector-level and national
infrastructure protection plans, and numerous information sharing and outreach
activities.
President’s FY2007 Request. The FY2007 request for IPIS activities was
$76 million below FY2006 enacted levels. According to the IPIS Budget
Justification, most of the program requests maintained their current levels of activity,
after certain “technical adjustments.” These technical adjustments were not detailed,
and in some cases resulted in a net increase (and in some cases resulted in a net
decrease) in funds for the program. For example, the technical adjustments to the
baseline Biosurveillance program resulted in a budget request almost $6 million
below the amount provided to that program for FY2006 (a 43% reduction).
Technical adjustments to the NS/EP Program resulted in a budget request $2 million
above the amount provided for that program in FY2006. In the case of the NISAC
program, the technical adjustment reducing the budget for that program by nearly $4
million was attributed to the completion of facility construction and resulting
redirection of funds to other programs and activities. Table 12 provides activity and
program-level detail for IPIS.

¹⁴⁵ Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources,
Science and Industry Division.

Table 12. FY2007 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure
Protection and Information Security Appropriation
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^Program^/^P^{roject A}^c^ti^vi^ty^FY²⁰⁰⁶^Ena^c^t^e^d^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Request^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Hou^s^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Co^nf.
^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^aⁿ^d^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^oⁿ
⁽^&^A⁾⁸³⁸⁵⁸⁵⁸³⁷
^C^r^{itical In}^f^r^as^tru^c^tu^{re Ou}^treach
^an^{d Part}ⁿ^e^rs^hⁱ^ps^(C^IO^P)¹¹¹¹⁰¹¹⁰¹¹⁰⁵¹⁰¹
^Cr^{itical I}ⁿ^f^r^astr^u^c^tu^r^e
^I^d^en^tif^icatioⁿ^an^d^Ev^alu^a^tioⁿ
^(C^IIE)⁶⁸⁷²⁷²⁶⁸⁶⁹
^Natioⁿ^a^{l I}ⁿ^f^r^astr^u^c^tu^r^e
^Sim^u^latioⁿ^an^d^Aⁿ^aly^s^{is Cen}^t^er
^(NIS^A^C⁾²⁰¹⁶¹⁶²⁵²⁵
^Bⁱ^o^s^u^r^v^e^illan^{ce (}^B^I^O⁾¹⁴⁸⁸⁸⁸
^Prot^ectⁱ^v^{e A}^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^(PA⁾⁹⁰³²³²³²³²
^C^y^{ber S}^ecu^ri^t^y^(C^S⁾⁹²⁹²⁹²⁸²⁹²
^Natioⁿ^a^{l Secu}^r^ity^/Em^e^r^g^en^cy
^P^r^eparedn^e^s^s
^T^e^l^ecom^m^uⁿⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^s^(N^S^/^EP)¹⁴¹¹⁴³¹⁴³¹²³¹⁴³
^T^o^tal⁶¹⁹⁵⁴⁹⁵⁴⁹⁵²⁵⁵⁴⁷
^Source:^D^H^S^F^Y^{2007 C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^ona^l^Ju^s^tⁱ^fⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^:^Preparedn^e^s^s^Dⁱ^rect^orat^{e, p. IPIS}^-⁵^{. F}^Y²⁰⁰⁶
^Fⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^e^t^h^e^1%^g^o^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^-^wⁱ^d^e^acros^s^t^h^{e board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^onⁱⁿ^F^Y^{2006 di}^s^c^retⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g
^called^f^o^rⁱⁿ^Ch^ap^ter⁸^,^T^{itle I}^I^I^o^f^Divⁱ^sioⁿ^B^o^f^th^{e Dep}^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^Def^eⁿ^s^{e, Em}^er^g^eⁿ^c^y^Su^p^p^l^em^en^tal
^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^o^A^ddres^s^H^u^rri^can^esⁱⁿ^t^h^{e G}^u^l^f^of^Mexⁱ^{co, an}^{d Pan}^d^emⁱ^c^In^f^l^u^eⁿ^{za A}^c^t^,^{2006, P.L}^.
^109-^148.^F^Y²⁰^{07 H}^o^u^s^e-^pas^s^e^{d n}^u^m^bers^f^r^om^t^h^{e con}^f^eren^{ce report}^(H^.R^ept^.^109-^{476) t}^o^H^.^R^.^5441.
^No^te:^T^o^{tals m}^a^yⁿ^o^{t ad}^d^d^u^{e to}^r^o^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
The budget request, however, did make some relatively significant programmatic
changes in two areas — CIOP and PA. Within the CIOP program, the budget
requested no funds for the National Center for Critical Information Processing and
Storage. No explanation was given for the elimination of funds. For FY2006,
Congress appropriated $50 million for the development, operation, and maintenance
of that center, and directed the department to report on the progress of the center by
February 2006. According to the budget justification, the directorate planned to send
the report to Congress by the end of March 2006. In addition, the directorate
requested an increase of $35 million for National Infrastructure Protection Plan
(NIPP) activities within the CIOP program. The net effect, including technical

adjustments and other minor transfers,¹⁴⁶ was a budget request for CIOP that was
nearly $10 million below the amount provided in FY2006.
The budget request for the PA program eliminated funds for two sub-programs,
the Protective Security Analysis Center ($20 million — Congress supported funding
the Center in FY2006) and the Protective Measures Demonstration Pilots ($20
million). Additional reductions were made to activities related to Control Systems
($6 million, with the balance of $4 million transferred to the CIIE program), the
National Terrorist Prevention Training Program (almost $9 million), the Coordinate
National Protection Efforts (almost $3 million, plus another $4 million that was
transferred to CIOP for National Infrastructure Protection Plan activities), and
General Security Plans (over $3 million). The budget did request new funding for
a Chemical Security Office within the PA program ($10 million). The net effect,
including technical adjustments, is a budget request for PA that was over $58 million
less than what was provided in FY2006.
House-Passed H.R. 5441. In its appropriation bill, the House voted to
appropriate the full amount of funds requested by the Administration. While the
House was generally supportive of IPIS activities, it did add two caveats to that
support. First, while appropriating the requested $35 million increase for National
Infrastructure Protection Plan activities, the House made $20 million for the
Management and Administration account unavailable for obligation until the
National Plan was completed. Also, while supporting the $10 million request for a
new Chemical Security Office to run a new Chemical Site Security Program, the
House required that DHS submit a spending plan and voted to make $10 million of
the Management and Administration account unavailable for obligation until DHS
submits a national security strategy for the chemical sector.
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. In its appropriation bill, the Senate voted to
appropriate $525 million for the IPIS budget activity. See Table 12 for how those
funds were allocated between programs. The Senate report did not provide a
rationale for the specific increases or decreases made to the budget request. The
report called for an enhanced and coordinated national bombing prevention effort and
directed the Undersecretary for Preparedness to request the State Homeland Security
Directors to work with their State Chief Information Officers to develop state
cybersecurity strategies for information technology needed to support state and local
services. The report also directed the Secretary to submit the report required by P.L.
109-90, identifying the resources needed to implement mandatory security
requirements for the nation’s chemical sector and to audit and ensure compliance
with those requirements.

¹⁴⁶ For example, funding for DHS’s role in the Committee on Foreign-owned Investment in
the United States (CFIUS) was transferred out of CIOP and budgeted within the new Policy
Office of the Secretary. CFIUS is a multi-agency committee, whose procedures have come
under congressional scrutiny as a result of its approval of a transaction that would have
allowed Dubai Ports World, a government-owned United Arab Emirates company, to
purchase from a British company port terminal operations at a number of U.S. ports.

On the Senate floor, amendments were added requiring the Secretary to submit
a report on efforts to comply with recommendations made in a July 2006 Inspector
General (IG) report on issues associated with the National Asset Database. That
report noted that the database has “an abundance of assets...whose criticality is not
readily apparent.” First among the IG’s recommendations is that the IP Directorate
evaluate the criticality of the assets in the database and eliminate those that are “out-
of-place” or “extremely insignificant.” Another amendment passed on the Senate
floor forbids the use of certain funds for travel by officers of the department, until the
Undersecretary for Preparedness has implemented the recommendations or reported
to Congress on why the recommendations have not been fully implemented. A third
amendment passed on the Senate floor expanded, in statute, the role and
responsibility of the National Infrastructure Analysis and Simulation Center. In
essence, the amendment requires any federal agency with critical infrastructure
responsibilities as established by Homeland Security Presidential Directive Number
7 to enter into a formal relationship with the center, including an agreement on
information sharing, the purpose of which is facilitate the use by those agencies of
the center’s modeling and simulation capabilities.
P.L. 109-295. Both houses approved the conference committee’s
recommendations with the passage of P.L. 109-295. The committee recommended
$547 million for the IPIS budget activity. See Table 12 for how those funds were
allocated between programs. It also recommended withholding $10 million
(presumably from the Management and Administration program) until the
department reports to Congress on the resources needed to implement its authority
to issue mandatory security requirements for the nation’s chemical sector, including
the creation of a system for auditing and ensuring compliance. The mandatory
security requirements for the chemical sector were mandated in Section 550 of the
bill. The bill reported from the conference committee also restructured FEMA within
the department. All of the functions of the Preparedness Directorate, including those
of the Undersecretary for Preparedness were transferred to the agency, except those
of the Office of Infrastructure Protection, the National Communication System, the
National Cybersecurity Division, and the Office of the Chief Medical Officer. The
bill did not relocate these offices. The conference committee also included language
similar to that of the Senate version of the bill relating to the National Infrastructure
Analysis and Simulation Center. The conference committee, however, did not
include Senate language that related the restriction of travel funds for department
officials to the department’s implementation of its IG’s recommendations regarding
the National Asset Database.
Title IV: Research and Development, Training,
Assessments, and Services
Title IV includes appropriations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS), the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), the Science and
Technology Directorate (S&T), and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO).
Table 13 provides account-level details of Title IV appropriations.

CRS-86
Table 13. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^FY^{2006 A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^FY^{2007 T}^o^tal
^Op^erati^on^al^C^o^m^p^on^en^t^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Request^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Hou^s^e^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Supp.^Resc.^To^t^a^l^Ena^c^t^e^d^E^m^erg.^To^t^a^l
^h^{ip and I}^m^mⁱ^{gration Services}
^rect^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ¹⁸⁸⁹^—^-¹^1,888^1,986^1,966^2,024^1,986^—^1,986
^O^ffse^t^tⁱ^{ng fe}^e^s^a^-¹⁷⁷⁴^—^—^-¹^,774^-¹^,804^-¹^,804^-¹^,889^-¹^,804^—^-¹^,804
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33428}^{t s}^u^b^t^otal¹¹⁵^—^-1¹¹⁴¹⁸²¹⁶²¹³⁵¹⁸²^—¹⁸²
^g/w^a^w^Eⁿ^forcem^{ent T}^r^aining^Center²⁸²²⁵^-2³⁰⁵²⁴⁶²⁵³²⁷¹²⁵³²²²⁷⁵
^s^.or^{nd Techno}^lo^g^y^b
^le^ak^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ⁸¹^—^-¹⁸⁰¹⁹⁶¹⁸¹¹⁰⁶¹³⁵^—¹³⁵
^://wiki^ch^{, Dev}^e^lo^p^m^en^{t, A}^c^q^u^isitioⁿ^,^an^d^Op^er^atioⁿ^s¹^,⁴²¹^—^-¹⁴¹^,4⁰⁷⁸⁰⁶⁷⁷⁵⁷¹²⁸³⁸^—⁸³⁸
^h^ttp¹⁵⁰²^—^-15¹^,487^1,002⁹⁵⁶⁸¹⁸⁹⁷³^—⁹⁷³
^e^s^t^{ic Nuclear Detection Office}^b
^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^d^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^stratioⁿ^—^—^—^—³⁰³⁰³⁰³⁰^—³⁰
^ch^{, Dev}^e^lo^p^m^en^{t, A}^c^q^u^isitioⁿ^,^an^d^Op^er^atioⁿ^s^—^—^—^—³²⁷²⁹²²³⁴²⁷³^—²⁷³
^stem^{s A}^c^q^u^isitioⁿ^—^—^—^—¹⁷⁸¹⁷⁸¹⁷⁸¹⁷⁸^—¹⁷⁸
^Subt^o^t^a^l^—^—^—^—⁵³⁵⁵⁰⁰⁴⁴²⁴⁸¹^—⁴⁸¹
^o^{ss budg}^et^a^u^t^h^o^r^it^y^:^Tit^l^{e IV}³^,⁶⁷³²⁵^-¹⁸³^,6⁸⁰³^,⁷⁶⁹³^,⁶⁷⁵³^,⁵⁵⁵³^,⁶⁹³²²³^,⁷¹⁵
^f^s^ettin^g^co^llectioⁿ^s^{: T}^{itle I}^V^-¹^,7⁷⁴^—^—^-¹^,7⁷⁴^-¹^,8⁰⁴^-¹^,8⁰⁴^-¹^,8⁸⁹^-¹^,8⁰⁴^—^-¹^,8⁰⁴
^budg^et^a^u^t^h^o^r^it^y^:^Tit^l^{e IV}¹^,⁸⁹⁹²⁵^-¹⁸¹^,9⁰⁶¹^,⁹⁶⁵¹^,⁸⁷¹¹^,⁶⁶⁷¹^,⁸⁸⁹²²¹^,⁹¹¹

CRS-87
^F^Y^{2006 en}^act^{ed n}^u^m^bers^f^r^om^C^R^S^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^t^h^{e C}^oⁿ^f^eren^{ce R}^e^port^t^o^H^.^R^.^2360,^H^.^R^e^pt^.109-^241;^F^Y^{2006 res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^onⁿ^u^m^bers^f^r^o^m^C^R^S^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^P.L^.^109-^{148, P.L}^.
^{234, an}^{d t}^h^e^{FY2007 DHS}^Jus^tifications^{. F}^Y^{2007 requ}^es^tⁿ^u^m^bers^f^r^om^t^h^e^{FY2007 DHS Jus}^tifications^{. F}^Y^{2007 H}^o^u^s^e-^pas^s^e^{d n}^u^m^bers^f^r^om^t^h^{e con}^f^eren^{ce report}^(H^.R^ept^.
^{476) t}^o^H^.^R^.^5441.
^T^o^t^a^l^s^m^a^y^no^t^a^d^d^d^u^e^t^o^r^o^undⁱ^ng.^A^m^o^unt^{s i}ⁿ^p^a^r^e^nt^he^se^{s a}^r^e^no^n-a^d^d^s^.
ⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e Im}^mⁱ^g^r^ation^Ex^amⁱⁿ^ation^Fuⁿ^d^{; H-}^1b^Vis^a^{Fee; an}^{d th}^{e Frau}^{d P}^r^ev^en^tion^an^{d Detection}^f^ee.
^h^{e Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^F^Y^{2007 requ}^es^t^propos^es^di^vⁱ^diⁿ^g^ou^t^t^h^{e D}^o^m^e^s^tⁱ^c^N^u^cl^{ear D}^e^t^ectⁱ^oⁿ^O^f^fⁱ^ce^f^r^om^t^h^{e S}^cⁱ^eⁿ^{ce &}^T^echⁿ^o^l^o^g^y^O^f^fⁱ^{ce. T}^h^{e n}^e^w^of^fⁱ^{ce w}^o^u^l^{d com}^p^ris^e^m^o^{re th}^an
^on^e-^t^hⁱ^r^{d of}^t^h^{e depart}^m^eⁿ^t^’^s^R^&^D^bu^dg^et.

ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33428}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)¹⁴⁷
Three major activities 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.¹⁴⁸ USCIS funds the processing and adjudication of
immigrant, nonimmigrant, refugee, asylum, and citizenship benefits largely through
monies generated by the Examinations Fee Account.¹⁴⁹ In FY2004, 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.¹⁵⁰ That same
year, 86% of USCIS funding came from the Examinations Fee Account. Table 13
shows FY2006 appropriations and congressional actions in response to the FY2007
request.
In FY2005, USCIS had budget authority for $1,571 million from the¹⁵¹
Examinations Fee Account. 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 FY2006.¹⁵² 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

¹⁴⁷ Prepared by Ruth Ellen Wasem, Specialist in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
¹⁴⁸ CRS Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, by Ruth
Ellen Wasem.
¹⁴⁹ §286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1356.
¹⁵⁰ 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.
¹⁵¹ P.L. 108-334, Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4567, H.Rept. 108-774.
¹⁵² 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).

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
enforcement activities.¹⁵³ DHS also receives 5% of the H-1B education and training
fees in the Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account.¹⁵⁴
In FY2006, Congress provided a total of $1,889 million for USCIS, of which

94% came from fees. The remaining 6% was a direct appropriation of $115 million,

which included $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. This figure was revised downward to $114
million. The FY2006 appropriations amount was a decrease of 29% 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.
President’s FY2007 Request. For FY2007, the Administration sought an
increase of $68 million for USCIS. The Administration requested a total of $1,986
million for USCIS (an increase of 5% more than the enacted FY2006 level of $1,889
million), the bulk of the funding coming from fees paid by individuals and businesses
filing petitions. For FY2007, USCIS expected to receive a total of $1,804 million
from the various fee accounts, most of which ($1,760 million) would come from the
Examinations Fee Account. According to the USCIS Congressional Budget
Justification documents, funds from the Examinations Fee Account alone comprised

91% of the total USCIS FY2007 budget request. The FY2007 Budget also included¹⁵⁵

$13 million from the H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account and $31 million
from the H-1B and L Fraud Prevention and Detection Account.¹⁵⁶ The
Administration proposed to use the $31 million generated from the fee on H-1B and
L petitions to expand its Fraud Detection and National Security Office.¹⁵⁷ In terms
of direct appropriations, the Administration requested $182 million, which was an
increase of $67 million from FY2006.
House-Passed H.R. 5441. The House-passed bill, H.R. 5441, would have
appropriated $162 million for USCIS in FY2007.
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. The Senate would have provided USCIS $135
million in direct appropriations for FY2007. Among the Senate floor amendments
to H.R. 5441 was one that would direct DHS, notably through USCIS, to increase its
fees charged to noncitizens to produce an additional $350 million in receipts for
FY2007. Most of the funds collected by the fee increases would have gone to CBP
and ICE, but $85 million would have remained with USCIS for business
transformation ($47 million) and fraud detection and national security ($38 million).

¹⁵³ §426(b) of P.L. 108-447.
¹⁵⁴ §286(s) of INA; 8 U.S.C. §1356(s).
¹⁵⁵ §286(s) of INA; 8 U.S.C. §1356(s).
¹⁵⁶ §286(v) of INA; 8 U.S.C. §1356(v).
¹⁵⁷ 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.

P.L. 109-295. The conferees provide USCIS with $182 million in direct
appropriations, $47 million of which is contingent on USCIS obtaining approval
from the Committees on Appropriations of the USCIS plan for “business system and
information technology transformation plan.” The act also provides $114 million for
expansion of the Employment Eligibility Verification system and $21 million for the
Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system, both automated
database systems to ascertain immigration status. In terms of USCIS income from
fees, current estimates are $1,804 million, giving USCIS $1,986 million in total
resources.
Issues for Congress. Many in Congress have expressed concern and
frustration about the processing delays and pending caseload. Congress has already
enacted statutory requirements for backlog elimination and has earmarked funding
for backlog elimination for the past several years.¹⁵⁸ As Congress weighs
comprehensive immigration reform legislation that would likely include additional
border and interior enforcement, increased levels of permanent immigration, and
perhaps include a significant expansion of guest workers, some question whether the
DHS in general and USCIS in particular can handle the potential increase of
immigration workload.¹⁵⁹
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.”¹⁶⁰ 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. The House-passed Border
Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437)
would establish an Office of Security and Investigations (OSI) in USCIS that would
formalize these duties.¹⁶¹
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)¹⁶²
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center provides training on all phases of
law enforcement instruction, from firearms and high speed vehicle pursuit to legal

¹⁵⁸ For example, see §§451-461 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296).
¹⁵⁹ For background and legislative tracking, see CRS Report RL33125, Immigration
Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress, coordinated by Andorra Bruno.
¹⁶⁰ GAO, Management Challenges Remain in Transforming Immigration Programs,
GAO-05-81, Oct. 2004, available at [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0581.pdf].
¹⁶¹ CRS Report RL33319, Toward More Effective Immigration Policies: Selected
Organizational Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
¹⁶² Prepared by Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analysts in Domestic Security,
Domestic Social Policy Division.

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 1,000 employees. In
FY2005, FLETC trained 47,560 law enforcement students.
President’s FY2007 Request. The FY2007 request for FLETC was $245
million, a decrease of $37 million, or 13%, from the FY2006 enacted appropriation.
Included in the request for FLETC were increases of $5 million for Border Patrol and
ICE Agent training, and $2 million for a Practical Application - Counterterrorism
Operational Training Facility.
House-Passed H.R. 5441. House-passed H.R. 5441 would have provided
$253 million for FLETC, $8 million more than the Administration’s request, and $27
million less than the FY2006 enacted amount. The additional funding above the
request was intended for the increased training needs of the Border Patrol and ICE.
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would have provided
$271 million for FLETC, $26 million more than the President’s request, and $11
million less than the FY2006 enacted amount. The additional funding was intended
to accommodate the increased training of border personnel.
P.L. 109-295. The act provides $275 million for FLETC. Included in this
amount are increases of $9 million over the President’s request for training resources
that were proposed to be funded out of the CBP and ICE appropriations and $22
million for renovation and construction at the Artesia, New Mexico, facility. The
conferees also extended FLETC’s authority to rehire annuitants through December
31, 2007, and included $2 million for salaries and construction expenses related to
the Counter-terrorism Operations Training Facility.
Science and Technology (S&T)¹⁶³
The FY2007 request for Science and Technology (S&T) was $1,002 million, a
reduction of 33% from FY2006. (See Table 14 for details.) Most of the reduction
resulted from the move of funding for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
(DNDO) from S&T to a separate account. If FY2006 funding for DNDO was
excluded, the reduction for S&T in FY2007 was only 13%. The House provided
$956 million, or $46 million less than the request. The Senate provided $818
million, or $184 million less than the request. The Senate also rescinded $200
million in unobligated balances from prior years. The final bill (P.L. 109-295)
provided $973 million and rescinded $125 million from prior years.

¹⁶³ Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Analyst in Science & Technology, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.

For individual portfolios within the S&T Directorate, comparing the FY2007
request with previous years was difficult because of several accounting factors.
Certain expenses previously funded by each R&D portfolio were requested in the
Management and Administration account in FY2007. Funds for DNDO were
requested separately rather than as part of S&T. The former Transportation Security
Administration R&D program, which was merged into S&T and funded in the R&D
Consolidation line in FY2006, constituted part of the requested Explosives
Countermeasures and Support of Components portfolios in FY2007. The request
stated that some activities, most notably the Counter-Man-Portable Air Defense
Systems (Counter-MANPADS) Program to protect commercial aircraft against
portable ground-to-air missiles, would continue at the same level of effort in FY2007
but would require little additional budget authority because prior-year funds remained
unspent. After accounting for these factors, the FY2007 request would have reduced
net funding for the Standards, Rapid Prototyping, Support Anti-terrorism by
Fostering Effective Technologies (SAFETY) Act, and Critical Infrastructure
Protection portfolios and increased net funding for Cyber Security and the Office for
Interoperability and Compatibility. Several of the requested net changes would have
offset changes that Congress made in FY2006 relative to the FY2006 request. The
House increased funding for the Critical Infrastructure Protection portfolio relative
to the request while decreasing Management and Administration, Chemical
Countermeasures, Explosives Countermeasures, and Support of Components. The
Senate increased funding for Counter-MANPADS relative to the request while
cutting the request for Management and Administration almost in half and
eliminating most funding for Explosives Countermeasures. (The Senate funded most
explosives-related R&D in the Transportation Security Administration rather in
S&T.) The final bill reduced Management and Administration and Chemical
Countermeasures and increased Biological Countermeasures, Counter-MANPADS,
and Critical Infrastructure Protection.
The House and Senate committee reports were both highly critical of the S&T
Directorate. The House committee reduced the Management and Administration
account by $5 million “for lack of responsiveness” to its information requests. It
made $98 million of that account unavailable for obligation until S&T provides
budgetary information “with sufficient detail.” The Senate committee reduced the
same account by almost half and made $60 million of the remainder unavailable for
obligation pending an expenditure plan approved by the committee. In the Research,
Development, Acquisition, and Operations account, the House committee made
$400 million unavailable for obligation until the Under Secretary reports on progress
in addressing financial management deficiencies. The House committee objected
that the budget justification contains “no details of how risk assessment was used in
its formulation or even which DHS agency was tasked with prioritizing risks and
assigning them resources,” while the Senate committee expressed “extreme
disappointment” and judged it “simply unacceptable” that DHS was unable “to
clearly articulate and justify the funding request.” The conference report was not as
explicitly critical as the House and Senate reports, but the final bill did restrict $60
million of the Management and Administration account with language similar to the
Senate’s and $50 million of the Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations
Account with language similar to the House’s. (According to the President’s signing

statement, the executive branch will construe these restrictions as “calling solely for
notification” rather than “requir[ing] congressional committee approval.”¹⁶⁴)
The department’s FY2007 budget request marked the end of a period of
consolidation for its R&D programs. In the FY2004 appropriations conference report
(H.Rept. 108-280), Congress directed the department to consolidate its R&D
activities into the S&T Directorate. This process began with several small programs
in FY2005, but a proposed move of the Coast Guard RDT&E program was rejected
by the Senate. In FY2006, the much larger R&D program of the Transportation
Security Administration was moved into S&T, but again the Senate rejected moving
the Coast Guard program. The FY2007 request proposed no further consolidations;
conversely, it proposed dividing out DNDO funding into a separate account
comprising more than one-third of the department’s R&D budget. The House and
Senate approved this transfer, with some reservations. (See below under DNDO for
more details.) The Senate also acted to reverse the move of the TSA program by
appropriating $92 million for R&D in TSA and transferring $99 million in previously
appropriated funding from S&T to TSA; the conference report kept these activities
within S&T.
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office¹⁶⁵
The FY2007 request for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) was
$535 million. Compared with FY2006, when DNDO was funded as part of S&T,
this was a 70% increase. (See Table 14 for details.) The increased funding would
support new R&D initiatives, procurement of additional radiation portal monitors and
other detection equipment, and salaries for all detailee staff (including 66 full-time
equivalents formerly paid by their home agencies). The House provided $500
million, a reduction of $35 million from the request. The House committee report
expressed puzzlement and dissatisfaction with the transfer of DNDO out of S&T, but
approved it anyway because of the “critical importance of the DNDO mission” and
“the liability [DNDO] would face” if left in S&T. The House committee directed
S&T to work with DNDO and support its R&D-related needs. The Senate provided
$442 million, a reduction of $93 million from the request. The bulk of the Senate
reduction was in proposed funding for university research. The Senate committee
report noted that S&T has an established university research program and directed
DNDO to work with S&T rather than “start a duplicative grant program.” The final
bill provided $481 million. Conference report language limited the new university
research program to $9 million.

¹⁶⁴ “President’s Statement on H.R. 5441”, White House press release October 4, 2006, online
at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/print/20061004-10.html].
¹⁶⁵ Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Analyst in Science and Technology, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.

Table 14. Research and Development Accounts and Activities,
FY2006-FY2007
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^FY²⁰⁰⁶^b^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁷
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Fin^a^l
^S^c^ien^{ce an}^d^T^echⁿ^o^{logy Directorate}¹^,487^1,002⁹⁵⁶⁸¹⁸⁹⁷³
^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ⁸⁰¹⁹⁶¹⁸¹¹⁰⁴¹³⁵
^R&^{D, A}^c^q^u^isitioⁿ^,^an^d^Op^er^atioⁿ^s¹^,³⁸⁷⁸⁰⁶⁷⁷⁵⁷¹⁴⁸³⁸
^Bi^ol^ogⁱ^cal^C^o^uⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es³⁷⁶³³⁷³³⁹³²⁷³⁵⁰
^C^h^em^{ical C}^o^uⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es⁹⁴⁸³⁴⁵⁷⁵⁶⁰
^Ex^pl^osⁱ^v^es^C^o^uⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es⁴⁴⁸⁷⁷⁷⁵⁸⁷
^R^a^di^ol^ogⁱ^cal^/^N^u^c^l^ear^c¹⁹^—^—^—^—
^C^o^uⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es
^Dom^e^s^{tic Nu}^{clear Detection}^c³¹⁵^—^—^—^—
^O^ffi^c^e
^T^h^{reat A}^w^aren^es^s^d⁴³⁴⁰⁴⁰³⁵³⁵
^S^t^aⁿ^d^a^r^s³⁵²²²²²⁷²
^S^u^pport^of^D^H^S^C^o^m^pon^en^t^s⁷⁹⁸⁹⁸⁶⁸⁰⁸⁶
^Un^iv^er^sity^an^d^Fello^w^s^hⁱ^p⁶²⁵²⁵²⁵⁰⁵⁰
^Pr^og^r^a^m^s
^Em^erg^eⁿ^t^an^{d P}^r^ototy^p^ical^e⁴³²⁰¹⁹¹²¹⁹
^T^e^c^hno^l^o^gy
^C^o^uⁿ^t^{er MA}^N^P^A^D^S¹⁰⁹⁵⁵⁴⁰⁴⁰
^SA^FE^T^Y^A^c^t⁷⁵⁵⁵⁵
^Of^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^Iⁿ^ter^o^p^e^r^a^b^ility^an^d²⁶³⁰³⁰²⁵²⁷
^Co^m^p^atib^ility
^Cr^{itical I}ⁿ^f^r^astr^u^c^tu^r^e^P^r^o^t^ectioⁿ⁴⁰¹⁵³⁵¹²³⁵
^C^y^{ber S}^ecu^ri^t^y¹⁷²³²³¹⁸²⁰
^R&^{D Co}ⁿ^s^o^lid^atioⁿ^f⁹⁹^—^—^—^—
^Dom^e^s^t^{ic Nuclear Detection Office}^c^—⁵³⁵⁵⁰⁰⁴⁴²⁴⁸¹
^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^—³⁰³⁰³⁰³⁰
^R^e^s^earch^{, Dev}^e^lopm^en^{t, an}^d^—³²⁷²⁹²²³⁴²⁷²
^Operation^s
^Sy^stem^{s A}^c^q^u^isitioⁿ^—¹⁷⁸¹⁷⁸¹⁷⁸¹⁷⁸
^U^.^S^.^C^oas^{t G}^u^ard^R^e^s^e^arch^,¹⁸¹⁴¹⁴¹⁸¹⁷
^D^e^vel^o^p^m^en^{t, T}^e^s^tⁱⁿ^{g, &}^E^val^u^a^ti^on
^T^S^{A: Resea}^{rch a}^{nd Dev}^e^lo^pm^{ent in}⁰⁰⁰⁹²⁰
^Traⁿ^spo^r^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^Securit^y^Suppo^rt
^Subt^o^t^a^l^DH^{S R&D}¹^,5⁰⁵¹^,⁵⁵²¹^,⁴⁷⁰¹^,³⁷⁰¹^,⁴⁷¹
^R^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^of^Uⁿ^oblⁱ^g^at^{ed F}^uⁿ^d^s^f^r^om^g^-²⁰^—^—^-²⁰⁰^-¹²⁵
^P^r^{ior Years}
^T^o^tal¹^,485^1,552^1,470^1,170^1,346
^Source:^C^R^S^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^t^h^e^F^Y^{2007 con}^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^bu^dg^et^j^u^s^tⁱ^fⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^,^H^.^R^.^{5441, H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^476,
^an^{d S}^.^R^e^pt^{. 109-}^273.
^No^tes:^T^h^{is tab}^l^{e sh}^o^w^{s all DHS research}^an^d^d^e^v^e^lo^p^m^en^{t activ}^{ities, co}^m^bⁱⁿⁱⁿ^g^acco^uⁿ^t^{s f}^r^o^m^th^e
^{Directorate of}^Scien^{ce an}^{d T}^echⁿ^o^log^y^{, th}^{e Dom}^e^s^tic^Nu^{clear Detection}^Of^fⁱ^{ce, th}^{e U.S.}^C^o^as^t^Gu^ard,
^an^d^th^{e T}^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ^Secu^r^ity^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^to^sh^o^w^th^{e d}^e^p^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^’^s^o^v^er^{all R&}^{D b}^u^d^g^et.

^{a. T}^o^tals^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add becau}^s^e^of^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
^{b. F}^Y²⁰⁰⁶^fi^gur^e^s^hav^e^been^redu^{ced by}^t^h^{e 1%}^g^eⁿ^e^ral^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^(P.L^{. 109-}^{148) an}^{d i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^{e a}
^su^p^p^l^em^en^{tal ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^o^f^{less th}^an^$¹^m^illioⁿ^f^o^r^Co^{ast Gu}^ar^d^RDT^&^E.
^{c. Fu}ⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r th}^{e Do}^m^e^{stic Nu}^{clear Detectio}ⁿ^Of^fⁱ^{ce (DNDO) w}^a^{s in}^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^th^{e b}^u^d^g^e^t^fo^r^t^h^e
^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^{ce an}^d^T^echⁿ^o^l^o^g^y^Dⁱ^rect^orat^eⁱⁿ^F^Y^2006.^Itⁱⁿ^corporat^{ed m}^o^s^t^of^w^h^at^h^a^{d prev}ⁱ^o^u^s^l^y
^beenⁱⁿ^R^a^diolog^ical/Nu^c^{lear C}^o^uⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es^.^In^F^Y^2007,^{DNDO h}^a^{d a s}^e^{parate bu}^dg^et
^requ^es^t^.
^d^.^T^h^r^{eat A}^w^ar^en^{ess w}^a^{s f}^o^r^m^er^ly^kⁿ^o^wⁿ^{as T}^h^r^{eat an}^d^Vu^ln^er^ab^ility^T^e^stin^g^an^d^A^ssessm^en^t.
^{e. Em}^erg^eⁿ^t^an^{d P}^r^ototy^p^ical^T^echⁿ^o^log^y^com^bⁱⁿ^es^tw^{o prev}^iou^s^portf^olios^,^Em^ergⁱⁿ^g^T^h^reats^an^d
^R^a^pi^{d Prot}^ot^y^pⁱⁿ^g^,^w^h^os^{e f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^F^Y^{2006 h}^a^s^been^s^u^m^m^e^{d f}^o^{r t}^hⁱ^s^t^a^bl^e.
^f^.^R^&^{D C}^oⁿ^s^olidationⁱⁿ^FY2006^m^o^s^tly^f^uⁿ^d^e^d^R^&^D^a^c^tiv^ities^f^o^rm^erly^con^d^u^c^{ted by}^th^e
^T^r^an^s^portation^Secu^rity^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^.^{FY2007 f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r th}^es^{e activ}^ities^w^a^s^requ^es^te^dⁱⁿ^th^e
^Ex^pl^osⁱ^v^es^C^o^uⁿ^t^erm^eas^u^r^es^an^{d S}^u^pport^of^D^H^S^C^o^m^pon^en^t^s^port^f^olⁱ^o^s^.
^g^.^In^clu^d^{ed in}^T^{itle V by}^H.R^e^pt^{. 109-}^{241 (FY2006) an}^{d S.}^R^e^{pt. 109-}^{273 (FY2007).}
FY2007 Related Legislation
Budget Resolution — S.Con.Res. 83/H.Con.Res. 376¹⁶⁶
The annual concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth the congressional
budget. The Senate budget resolution, S.Con.Res. 83 was introduced on March 10,
2006, and passed the Senate on March 16, 2006. S.Con.Res. 83, would provide $873
billion in discretionary budget authority for FY2007. H.Con.Res. 376 was introduced
and reported on March 31, 2006, and passed the House on May 18, 2006.
H.Con.Res. 376 would provide $873 billion in discretionary budget authority for
FY2007. The anticipated difficulties in resolving the substantial differences between
the House- and Senate-passed versions of the budget resolution led to both the House
and the Senate adopting deeming resolutions. These deeming resolutions set the
discretionary spending levels for FY2007 at $873 billion.¹⁶⁷
There is currently no separate functional category for Homeland Security in the
budget resolution. However, homeland security budget authority amounts are
identified within each major functional category, though these amounts are typically
not available until the publication of the committee reports that will be attached to
the budget resolution.

¹⁶⁶ See CRS Report RL33282, The Budget for FY2007, by Philip D. Winters, for a more
detailed discussion of the budget resolution.
¹⁶⁷ Deeming resolutions serve as an annual budget resolution to establish enforceable budget
levels in the absence of an actual congressionally adopted budget resolution. For more
information see, CRS Report RL31443, The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement
Tool, by Robert Keith.

Appendix I. FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations
and Rescissions
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441
Title VII of Senate-passed H.R. 5441 included an FY2006 supplemental
appropriation for port security enhancements which would have totaled $648 million.
This funding was not included in P.L. 109-295. The funding would have been
allocated as follows:
^!$251 million for the CBP Salaries and Expenses account,
^!$23 million for the U.S. Coast Guard for the Operating Expenses
account to accelerate foreign port security assessments, conduct
domestic port vulnerability assessments, and perform unscheduled
security audits of certain facilities.
^!$184 million for the U.S. Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction,
and Improvements account for the Integrated Deepwater Systems
program in order to acquire maritime patrol aircraft and parent
aircraft patrol boats, to provide armed helicopters, and to sustain the
medium endurance cutter fleet,
^!$190 million for the Preparedness Directorate, for the State and
Local Programs account, to provide port security grants.
P.L. 109-234 (H.R. 4939) — Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror,
and Hurricane Recovery, 2006¹⁶⁸
On June 15, 2006, P.L. 109-234 was signed into law by the President. P.L. 109-
234 contains several provisions affecting DHS agencies and reflects the President’s
request for an additional $1.9 billion in border security funding which focused on
personnel, rather than the Senate’s $1.9 billion proposal that concentrated on capital
improvements. P.L. 109-234 does not include the $648 million in port security grant
funding included in the Senate-passed version of H.R. 4939. Title I, Global War on
Terror, would provide identical amounts to the House and Senate-passed versions of
H.R. 4939, $75 million in transfers, and $27 million for the Coast Guard’s Operating
Expenses account. Title II, Hurricane Relief and Recovery, would provide the
following amounts:
^!OIG - $2 million;
^!CBP Salaries and Expenses - $13 million;
^!CBP Construction - $5 million;
^!Coast Guard Operating Expenses - $89 million;
^!Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction, and Maintenance - $192
million;

¹⁶⁸ For more information about other aspects of this bill, see CRS Report RL33298, FY2006
Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other International Activities; Additional
Hurricane Relief, coordinated by Paul M. Irwin and Larry Nowels.

^!FEMA Administrative and Regional Operations - $72 million;
^!FEMA Preparedness, Mitigation, Response and Recovery - $10
million;
^!FEMA Disaster Relief - $6,000 million¹⁶⁹;
^!FEMA Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account - $280
million.
Title V, Border Security includes the following:
^!CBP Salaries and Expenses - $410 million;
^!CBP Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and
Procurement - $95 million;
^!CBP Construction - $300 million;
^!ICE Salaries and Expenses - $327 million;
^!ODP State and Local Programs - $15 million;
^!FLETC Acquisition, Construction and Improvements - $25 million.
Though not included in DHS accounts, the border security provisions adopted by the
P.L. 109-234 also includes $708 million to deploy National Guard troops to the
border; and $20 million in funding for related legal services to the Department of
Justice.
Title VII, General Provisions, Sec. 7004 would rescind $20 million in
unobligated balances made available by P.L. 108-334, The FY2005 DHS
Appropriations Act, and provide them to the Secret Service. Section 7005 would
rescind $4 million from Screening Coordination and Operations, and provide them
to the office of the Secretary and Executive Management.
P.L. 109-148 — Department of Defense, Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes
in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act of 2006¹⁷⁰
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

¹⁶⁹ Sec. 2604, in the General Provisions of Title II, directs that $34 million of the funds
provided to FEMA’s Disaster Relief account be transferred to the Social Security
Administration.
¹⁷⁰ See CRS Report RL32783, FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and
Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and Other Activities, by Amy Belasco and Larry Nowels.

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 following:
^!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.¹⁷¹
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.
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
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 damaged by the Hurricanes. These include the following:
^!$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

¹⁷¹ P.L. 109-148, Division B, Title III, Section 3801.

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 the following:
^!$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.¹⁷² After a contentious floor debate concerning the
attachment of the ANWR provisions to the Defense Appropriations Bill, both
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.

¹⁷² 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.

Appendix II. DHS Appropriations in Context
Federal-Wide Homeland Security Funding
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there has been an increasing
interest in the levels of funding available for homeland security efforts. The Office
of Management and Budget, as originally directed by the FY1998 National Defense
Authorization Act, has published an annual report to Congress on combating
terrorism. Beginning with the June 24, 2002 edition of this report, homeland security
was included as a part of the analysis. In subsequent years, this homeland security
funding analysis has become more refined, as distinctions (and account lines)
between homeland and non-homeland security activities have become more precise.
This means that while Table 15 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 FY2007 accounts for approximately 48% of total
federal funding for homeland security. The Department of Defense comprises the
next highest proportion at 29% of all federal spending on homeland security. The
Department of Health and Human Services at 7.8%, the Department of Justice at
5.6% and the Department of Energy at 2.9% round out the top five agencies in
spending on homeland security. These five agencies collectively account for nearly
93% 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 FY2007 requests included a total
homeland security budget authority of $27.7 billion for DHS, the requested total
gross budget authority was $39.8 billion. The same is true of the other agencies
listed in the table.

Table 15. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency,
FY2002-FY2006
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
^FY07
^D^e^p^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^FY^{02 FY}^{03 FY}⁰⁴^FY⁰⁵^FY⁰⁶^FY07^req.^as^%^of
^total
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of
^Ho^m^e^lan^d^Secu^r^ity^17,380^23,063^22,923^24,549^25,626^27,777^47.7%
^(DHS)
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^a^16,126^15,413^15,595^17,188^16,440^16,698^28.6%
^Def^eⁿ^s^{e (DOD)}
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^H^eal^t^h
^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^1,913^4,144^4,062^4,229^4,299^4,563^7.8%
^(HHS)
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^Ju^s^tⁱ^c^e^2,143^2,349^2,180^2,767^2,991^3,280^5.6%
^(DOJ⁾
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^En^erg^y^1,220^1,408^1,364^1,562^1,705^1,700^2.9%
^(DOE)
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^S^t^at^e⁴⁷⁷⁶³⁴⁶⁹⁶⁸²⁴^1,108^1,213^2.1%
^(DOS)
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of⁵⁵³⁴¹⁰⁴¹¹⁵⁹⁶⁵⁶³⁶⁵⁰^1.1%
^A^g^ri^cu^l^t^u^{re (A}^G)
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^1,419³⁸³²⁸⁴²¹⁹¹⁸¹²⁰⁶^0.4%
^T^r^an^sp^o^r^tatioⁿ⁽^DOT⁾
^Natioⁿ^a^{l Scien}^c^e²⁶⁰²⁸⁵³⁴⁰³⁴²³⁴⁴³⁸⁷^0.7%
^Fo^und^a^tⁱ^o^{n (}^N^SF)
^O^t^h^e^{r A}^g^en^ci^es^2,357^1,329^1,550^2,107^1,789^1,809^3.1%
^To^t^a^{l Federa}^l^43,848^49,418^49,405^54,383^55,046^58,283^100%
^B^udg^et^Aut^h^o^r^it^y
^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^{2007 Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^Bu^dg^et^(f^or^F^Y^2005-
^F^Y^2007);^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^{2006 Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^Bu^dg^et^(f^{or F}^Y^2004);^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^B^u^d^g^et^(f^{or F}^Y^{2003) an}^{d O}^f^fⁱ^{ce of}
^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^aⁿ^d^B^u^d^g^e^t^,²⁰⁰³^Repor^t^t^o^C^ongr^es^s^{on C}^o^m^batⁱ^{ng T}^e^r^r^o^rⁱ^s^m^{, S}^e^pt^{. 2003, p.}^10;^C^R^S
^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^F^Y^2002-^{2006 re-}^e^s^tⁱ^m^at^es^of^D^o^D^h^o^m^e^l^aⁿ^d^s^ecu^ri^t^y^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^provⁱ^d^{ed by}^O^M^{B, March}
^{17, 2005.}
^No^tes:^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^t^a^b^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^{ear 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^.