Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Homeland Security Department: FY2009
Appropriations
Jennifer E. Lake, Coordinator
Analyst in Domestic Security
Blas Nuñez-Neto, Coordinator
Analyst in Domestic Security
December 11, 2008
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34482


CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress


Summary
This report describes the FY2009 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). The Administration requested a net appropriation of $38, 849 million in budget authority
for FY2009. The House Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2009 DHS
Appropriations bill on June 24, 2008. The bill was filed on September 18, 2008, as H.R. 6947,
and the accompanying report has been numbered H.Rept. 110-862. House-reported H.R. 6947
would have provided a net appropriation of $41,137 million in budget authority for DHS for
FY2009. This amounted to an increase of $2,288 million, or nearly 6% increase over the
President’s request. The Senate-reported its version of the bill on June 19, 2008. S. 3181 would
have provided $41,314 million in net budget authority for DHS for FY2009, a $2,465 million or

6% increase over the President’s request.


On September 23, 2008, the House Rules Committee reported H.Res. 1488 for consideration of
the Senate amendment to H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. H.R. 2638 was originally introduced as the FY2008 DHS
Appropriations Act but was amended to serve as the legislative vehicle for the proposed
Continuing Resolution, a Disaster Relief Emergency Supplemental, the Department of Defense
FY2009 Appropriations Act, the FY2009 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
and the FY2009 Military Construction and Veterans Assistance Act (see the CRS Appropriations
Status table for more information: http://www.crs.gov/products/ appropriations/appover.shtml).
H.R. 2638 was enacted as P.L. 110-329 on September 30, 2008.
Division D of P.L. 110-329 provided a net appropriation of $41,225 million for DHS for FY2009.
This amounted to nearly $2,376 million more than the President’s request for FY2009, $88
million more than was reported by the House in H.R. 6947, and $89 million less than was
reported by the Senate in S. 3181. Net appropriations for major agencies within DHS were as
follows: Customs and Border Protection, $9,821 million; Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
4,989 million; Transportation Security Administration, $4,367 million; Coast Guard, $9,361
million; Secret Service, $1,413 million; National Protection & Programs Directorate, $1,158
million; Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), $6,963 million; Science and
Technology, $933 million; and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $514 million.
Additionally, Division B of the Act also contained the following amounts for DHS agencies in
emergency supplemental FY2008 funding: $300 for the Coast Guard, $7.96 billion for FEMA’s
Disaster Relief Account, and $100 million for FEMA to reimburse the American Red Cross.
This report will not be updated.


Congressional Research Service


Contents
Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1
P.L. 110-329....................................................................................................................1
House-reported H.R. 6947...............................................................................................1
Senate-reported S. 3181..................................................................................................1
President’s FY2009 Budget Submitted............................................................................2
Note on Most Recent Data..............................................................................................2
Ba ckgr ou nd ................................................................................................................................ 3
Department of Homeland Security........................................................................................3
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations...............................................................................................4
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays...........................................................................4
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending.................................................................................5
Offsetting Collections...........................................................................................................5
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security...........................................................8
DHS Appropriations Trends..................................................................................................8
Summary of DHS Appropriations..........................................................................................8
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations....................................................................11
President’s FY2009 Request..........................................................................................11
House-reported H.R. 6947.............................................................................................12
Senate-reported S. 3181................................................................................................12
P.L. 110-329..................................................................................................................12
Personnel Issues ...........................................................................................................16
Analysis and Operations......................................................................................................20
President’s FY2009 Request..........................................................................................21
House-reported H.R. 6947.............................................................................................21
Senate-reported S. 3181................................................................................................22
P.L. 110-329..................................................................................................................22
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations......................................................................22
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)................................................................................27
Issues for Congress.......................................................................................................29
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).....................................................................34
President’s FY2009 Request..........................................................................................34
House-reported H.R. 6947.............................................................................................35
Senate-reported S. 3181................................................................................................36
P.L. 110-329..................................................................................................................37
Issues for Congress.......................................................................................................39
Transportation Security Administration (TSA).....................................................................43
President’s FY2009 Request..........................................................................................43
House-reported H.R. 6947.............................................................................................44
Senate-reported S. 3181................................................................................................45
P.L. 110-329..................................................................................................................46
TSA Issues for Congress...............................................................................................49
United States Coast Guard...................................................................................................52
President’s FY2009 Request..........................................................................................52
House-reported H.R. 6947.............................................................................................53
Senate-reported S. 3181................................................................................................53
P.L. 110-329..................................................................................................................53


Congressional Research Service 4


Issues for Congress.......................................................................................................55
Deep wa ter ..................................................................................................................... 55
Response-Boat Medium................................................................................................56
Security Mission...........................................................................................................56
Non-Homeland Security Missions.................................................................................57
Marine Safety...............................................................................................................57
Rescu e-21 ..................................................................................................................... 58
LORAN-C .................................................................................................................... 59
Bridge Alteration Program............................................................................................59
Arctic Activity..............................................................................................................60
U.S. Secret Service.............................................................................................................60
Title III: Preparedness and Response.........................................................................................63
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)..............................................................66
President’s FY2009 Request..........................................................................................66
House-reported H.R. 6947.............................................................................................66
Senate-reported S. 3181................................................................................................67
P.L. 110-329..................................................................................................................67
FEMA Issues for Congress..................................................................................................67
Disaster Relief Fund......................................................................................................67
Emergency Food and Shelter (EFS) Program.................................................................68
Flood Map Modernization.............................................................................................69
FEMA Management and Administration—Work Force..................................................69
Pre-Disaster Mitigation.................................................................................................70
Gulf Coast Hurricane Recovery Issues..........................................................................71
Administrative, Financial and Budgeting Challenges.....................................................73
Urban Search and Rescue..............................................................................................73
Climate Change............................................................................................................74
Office of Grant Programs....................................................................................................74
President’s Request.......................................................................................................75
House-reported H.R. 6947.............................................................................................75
Senate-reported S. 3181................................................................................................75
P.L. 110-329..................................................................................................................75
Office of Grant Programs Issues for Congress...............................................................77
Office of Health Affairs.......................................................................................................79
President’s FY2009 Request..........................................................................................79
House-reported H.R. 6947.............................................................................................80
Senate-reported S. 3181................................................................................................80
P.L. 110-329..................................................................................................................80
Office of Health Affairs Issues for Congress..................................................................80
National Protection and Programs Directorate.....................................................................81
Management and Administration...................................................................................81
President’s FY2009 Request..........................................................................................82
House-reported H.R. 6947.............................................................................................82
Senate-reported S. 3181................................................................................................83
P.L. 110-329..................................................................................................................83
Issues for Congress.......................................................................................................83
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT)..................................84
President’s Request.......................................................................................................84
House-reported H.R. 6947.............................................................................................85
Senate-reported S. 3181................................................................................................85


Congressional Research Service


P.L. 110-329..................................................................................................................85
Issues for Congress.......................................................................................................85
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security..............................................................87
President’s FY2009 Request..........................................................................................87
House-reported H.R. 6947.............................................................................................88
Senate-reported S. 3181................................................................................................89
P.L. 110-329..................................................................................................................90
IPIS Issues for Congress...............................................................................................91
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services................................91
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)...........................................................94
President’s FY2009 Request..........................................................................................94
House-reported H.R. 6947.............................................................................................95
Senate-reported S. 3181................................................................................................96
P.L. 110-329..................................................................................................................96
USCIS Issues for Congress...........................................................................................98
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)...........................................................99
President’s Request.....................................................................................................100
House-reported H.R. 6947...........................................................................................100
Senate-reported S. 3181..............................................................................................100
P.L. 110-329................................................................................................................100
Science and Technology (S&T).........................................................................................101
President’s FY2009 Request........................................................................................101
House-reported H.R. 6947...........................................................................................101
Senate-reported S. 3181..............................................................................................102
P.L. 110-329................................................................................................................102
Issues for Congress.....................................................................................................103
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office...................................................................................103
President’s FY2009 Request........................................................................................103
House-reported H.R. 6947...........................................................................................104
Senate-reported S. 3181..............................................................................................104
P.L. 110-329................................................................................................................104
Issues for Congress.....................................................................................................105
FY2009-Related Legislation....................................................................................................106
Budget Resolution.............................................................................................................106
Distribution of FY2008 Emergency Border Security Funding in Division B—
Commerce, Justice, Science of P.L. 110-161...................................................................111
Distribution of FY2008 Emergency Border Security Funding in Division D—
Financial Services..........................................................................................................111
Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations................................................2
Table 2. FY2009 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS........................................................4
Table 3. FY2009 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to Net Appropriation—
Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust and Public Enterprise Accounts.................................6
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2009..........................................................................8
Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations.................................................................................9


Congressional Research Service


Table 6. Title I: Department Management and Operations..........................................................14
Table 7.Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer and Office of Human Capital
Appr opriations ....................................................................................................................... 17
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations.......................................................23
Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail......................................................................................28
Table 10. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail.....................................................................................38
Table 11. TSA Gross Budget Authority, by Budget Activity.......................................................47
Table 12. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-account Detail.....................54
Table 13. U.S. Secret Service Appropriations............................................................................61
Table 14. Title III: Preparedness and Response..........................................................................64
Table 15. State and Local Homeland Security Programs............................................................76
Table 16. FY2009 Budget Activity for the Management and Administration
Appr opriation ........................................................................................................................ 83
Table 17. FY2009 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure Protection and Information
Security Appropriation...........................................................................................................90
Table 18. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services.................92
Table 19. USCIS Budget Account Detail...................................................................................97
Table 20. Directorate of Science and Technology Accounts and Activities, FY2008-
F Y2009 ................................................................................................................................ 102
Table 21. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Accounts and Activities, FY2008-FY2009........104
Table C-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2003-FY2009.........................114
Appendixes
Appendix A. FY2008 Supplemental Funding provided by Division B of P.L. 110-329.............107
Appendix B. Emergency Funding for Border Security in The Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161)..............................................................................108
Appendix C. DHS Appropriations in Context..........................................................................113
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................1
Key Policy Staff: Department of Homeland Security...................................................................1


Congressional Research Service


Most Recent Developments
P.L. 110-329
On September 23, 2008, the House Rules Committee reported H.Res. 1488 for consideration of
the Senate amendment to H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. H.R. 2638 was originally introduced as the FY2008 DHS
Appropriations Act, but has been amended to serve as the legislative vehicle for the proposed
Continuing Resolution, a Disaster Relief Emergency Supplemental, the Department of Defense
FY2009 Appropriations Act, the FY2009 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 1
and the FY2009 Military Construction and Veterans Assistance Act. On September 24, 2008, the
House passed H.R. 2638. On September 27, 2008 the Senate passed H.R. 2638. H.R. 2638 was
enacted as P.L. 110-329 on September 30, 2008.
Division D of P.L. 110-329 provided a net appropriation of $41,225 million for DHS for FY2009.
This amounts to nearly $2,376 million more than the President’s request for FY2009, $88 million
more than was reported by the House in H.R. 6947, and $89 million less than was reported by the
Senate in S. 3181. Net appropriations for major agencies within DHS were as follows: Customs
and Border Protection, $9,821 million; Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 4,989 million;
Transportation Security Administration, $4,367 million; Coast Guard, $9,361 million; Secret
Service, $1,413 million; National Protection & Programs Directorate, $1,158 million; Federal
Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), $6,963 million; Science and Technology, $933
million; and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $514 million. Additionally, Division B of the
Act also contained the following amounts for DHS agencies in emergency supplemental FY2008
funding: $300 for the Coast Guard, $7.96 billion for FEMA’s Disaster Relief Account, and $100
million for FEMA to reimburse the American Red Cross.
House-reported H.R. 6947
The House Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2009 DHS Appropriations
bill on June 24, 2008. The bill was filed on September 18, 2008, as H.R. 6947, and the
accompanying report has been numbered H.Rept. 110-862. House-reported H.R. 6947 would
provide a net appropriation of $41,137 million in budget authority for DHS for FY2009. This
would have amounted to an increase of $2,288 million or nearly 6% increase over the President’s
request. H.R. 6947 contained net appropriations for major components of the department as
follows: $9,694 million for CBP; $4,813 million for ICE; $4,354 million for the TSA; $9,206
million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,371 million for the Secret Service; $1,287 for the NPP;
$7,407 million for the FEMA; $102 million for USCIS; $887 million for the S&T; and $544
million for the DNDO.
Senate-reported S. 3181
The Senate-reported its version of the bill on June 19, 2008. S. 3181 would have provided
$41,314 million in net budget authority for DHS for FY2009, a $2,465 million or 6% increase

1 See the CRS Appropriations Status table for more information http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/
appover.shtml.


Congressional Research Service 1


over the President’s request. S. 3181 contained net appropriations for major components of the
department included as follows: $9,740 million for CBP; $4,989 million for ICE; $4,277 million
for the TSA; $9,216 million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,418 million for the Secret Service;
$1,041 for the NPP; $7,407 million for the FEMA; $151 million for USCIS; $919 million for the
S&T; and $541 million for the DNDO.
President’s FY2009 Budget Submitted
The President’s budget request for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for FY2009 was
submitted to Congress on February 4, 2008. The Administration requested $50,502 million in
gross budget authority for FY2009 (including mandatories, fees, and funds). The Administration’s
request included gross appropriations of $46,786 million, and a net appropriation of $38,849
million in budget authority for FY2009, of which $37,664 million was discretionary budget
authority, and $1,185 million was mandatory budget authority. The FY2008 enacted net
appropriated budget authority for DHS was $38,747 million ($49,907 million including
supplemental appropriations).
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee House Senate
Markup Report House Report Senate Confr. Public
House Senate 110-862 Passage 110-396 Passage Report Law
6/11 6/18 6/24 a9/24 b6/19 9/27 b
(vv) (vv) (vv) (370 -58) (vv) (78-12) 9/24c 110-329
Note: (vv) = voice vote, (uc) = unanimous consent.
a. The full House Appropriations Committee reported the FY2009 DHS Appropriations bill on June 6, 2008,
but the bill was not filed until September 18, 2008.
b. On September 23, 2008, the House Rules Committee reported H.Res. 1488 for consideration of the
Senate amendment to H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2009. H.R. 2638 was originally introduced as the FY2008 DHS Appropriations Act, but
was amended to serve as the legislative vehicle for the proposed Continuing Resolution, a Disaster Relief
Emergency Supplemental, the Department of Defense FY2009 Appropriations Act, the FY2009 Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, and the FY2009 Military Construction and Veterans Assistance
Act.
c. The conference report for the FY2009 DHS Appropriations Act was submitted as a joint explanatory
statement in the Congressional Record.
Note on Most Recent Data
Data used in this report include data from the President’s Budget Documents, the FY2009 DHS
Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the
accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, House-reportedH.R. 6947 and the accompanying report
(H.Rept. 110-862), and the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the Congressional
Record on September 24, 2008, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
Data used in Table 21 are taken from the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2009
President’s Budget. These amounts do not correspond to amounts presented in Tables 4-20,
which were derived from the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications. Except when
discussing total amounts for the bill as a whole, all amounts contained in this report are rounded
to the nearest million.


Congressional Research Service 2


Background
This report describes the President’s FY2009 request for funding for DHS programs and
activities, as submitted to Congress on February 4, 2008. It compares the enacted FY2008
amounts to the request for FY2009, and tracks legislative action and congressional issues related
to the FY2009 DHS appropriations bills with particular attention paid to discretionary funding
amounts. The report does not follow specific funding issues related to mandatory funding—such
as retirement pay—nor does the report systematically follow any legislation related to the
authorization or amendment of DHS programs.
Department of Homeland Security
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred the functions, relevant funding,
and most of the personnel of 22 agencies and offices to the new Department of Homeland
Security created by the act. Appropriations measures for DHS have been organized into five
titles: Title I Departmental Management and Operations; Title II Security, Enforcement, and
Investigations; Title III Preparedness and Recovery; Title IV Research and Development,
Training, Assessments, and Services; and Title V general provisions.
Title I contains appropriations for the Office of Management, the Office of the Secretary, the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Analysis and Operations (A&O), the Office of the Chief
Information Office (CIO), the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and the Office of the
Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding.
Title II contains appropriations for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard
(USCG), and the Secret Service. The U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(US-VISIT) program was appropriated within Title II through the FY2007 appropriation. The
FY2008 appropriation transferred US-VISIT, as proposed by the Administration, to the newly
created National Protection & Programs Directorate (NPPD) in Title III. Division E of P.L. 110-
161, the DHS Appropriations Act, 2008, enacted this reorganization, which is reflected by the
FY2009 request.
Through the FY2007 appropriation, Title III contained appropriations for the Preparedness
Directorate, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS) and the Federal Emergency
Management Administration (FEMA). The President’s FY2008 request included a proposal to
shift a number of programs and offices to eliminate the Preparedness Directorate, create the
NPPD, and move several programs to FEMA. These changes were largely agreed to by Congress
in the FY2008 appropriation, reflected by Title III in Division E of P.L. 110-161. The FY2009
request also reflects this reorganization.
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).


Congressional Research Service 3


302(a) and 302(b) Allocations
The maximum budget authority for annual appropriations (including DHS) is determined through
a two-stage congressional budget process. In the first stage, Congress sets overall spending totals
in the annual concurrent resolution on the budget. Subsequently, these amounts are allocated
among the appropriations committees, usually through the statement of managers for the
conference report on the budget resolution. These amounts are known as the 302(a) allocations.
They include discretionary totals available to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations for enactment in annual appropriations bills through the subcommittees
responsible for the development of the bills. In the second stage of the process, the appropriations
committees allocate the 302(a) discretionary funds among their subcommittees for each of the
appropriations bills. These amounts are known as the 302(b) allocations. These allocations must
add up to no more than the 302(a) discretionary allocation and form the basis for enforcing
budget discipline, since any bill reported with a total above the ceiling is subject to a point of
order. 302(b) allocations may be adjusted during the year as the various appropriations bills
progress towards final enactment.
The annual concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth the congressional budget. There is as
yet no budget resolution for FY2009. Table 2 shows DHS’ 302(b) allocations for FY2008 and the
current appropriations cycle.
Table 2. FY2009 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2008 FY2009 Request aFY2009 House aFY2009 Senate aFY2009 Enacted
Comparable Comparable Allocation Allocation Comparable
$37.6 $37.6 $42.1 $42.3 41.2
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, H.Rept. 110-746, Report on the
Suballocation of Budget Allocations for Fiscal Year 2009, House Committee on Appropriations, July 8, 2008, and
S.Rept. 110-402, Revised Allocation to Subcommittees of Budget Totals from the Concurrent Resolution, Fiscal Year 2009,
Senate Committee on Appropriations, June 25, 2008.
a. Does not include $2.2 billion in advance Bioshield funding appropriated in FY2004 that becomes available
for obligation in FY2009.
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays
Federal government spending involves a multi-step process that begins with the enactment of
budget authority by Congress. Federal agencies then obligate funds from the enacted budget
authority to pay for their activities. Finally, payments are made to liquidate those obligations; the
actual payment amounts are reflected in the budget as outlays.
Budget authority is established through appropriations acts or direct spending legislation and 2
determines the amounts that are available for federal agencies to spend. The Antideficiency Act
prohibits federal agencies from obligating more funds than the budget authority that was enacted
by Congress. Budget authority may be indefinite, however, when Congress enacts language
providing “such sums as may be necessary” to complete a project or purpose. Budget authority

2 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517.


Congressional Research Service 4


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 3
actually spent during the fiscal year. Because multi-year and no-year budget authorities may be
obligated over a number of years, outlays do not always match the budget authority enacted in a
given year. Additionally, budget authority may be obligated in one fiscal year but spent in a future
fiscal year, especially with certain contracts.
In sum, budget authority allows federal agencies to incur obligations and authorizes payments, or
outlays, to be made from the Treasury. Discretionary agencies and programs, and appropriated
entitlement programs, are funded each year in appropriations acts.
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending
Gross budget authority, or the total funds available for spending by a federal agency, may be
composed of discretionary and mandatory spending. Of the $46.4 billion gross budget authority
requested for DHS in FY2009, 82% is composed of discretionary spending and 18% is composed
of mandatory spending.
Discretionary spending is not mandated by existing law and is thus appropriated yearly by 4
Congress through appropriations acts. The Budget Enforcement Act 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 Collections5
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.

3 Appropriations, outlays, and account balances for government treasury accounts can be viewed in the end of year
reports published by the U.S. Treasury titled Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United
States Government. The DHS portion of the report can be accessed at http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/cs2005/c18.pdf.
4 P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.
5 Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff Jr., Analyst in American National Government.


Congressional Research Service 5


Some collections offset a portion of an agency’s discretionary budget authority. Other collections
offset an agency’s mandatory spending. They are typically entitlement programs under which
individuals, businesses, or units of government that meet the requirements or qualifications
established by law are entitled to receive certain payments if they establish eligibility. The DHS
budget features two mandatory entitlement programs: the Secret Service and the Coast Guard
retired pay accounts (pensions). Some entitlements are funded by permanent appropriations,
others by annual appropriations. The Secret Service retirement pay is a permanent appropriation
and as such is not annually appropriated, whereas the Coast Guard retirement pay is annually
appropriated. In addition to these entitlements, the DHS budget contains offsetting Trust and
Public Enterprise Funds. These funds are not appropriated by Congress. They are available for
obligation and included in the President’s budget to calculate the gross budget authority.
Table 3 tabulates all of the offsets within the DHS budget as enacted for FY2008 and in the
FY2009 request.
Table 3. FY2009 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to Net
Appropriation—Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust and Public Enterprise
Accounts
(budget authority in millions)
FY2008 FY2009
Account/Agency AccountNameEnacted Request
DHS gross budget authority (BA)a 52,915 50,502
(gross discretionary + fees+ mandatory + funds)
Discretionary fee funded offsets
ICE Federal Protective Service 613 616
Aviation security fees 2,113 2,329
TWIC 64 9 TSA
Hazmat 18 18
Registered Traveler 4 10
FEMA/EPR National Flood Insurance Fund 111 157
CBP Small airports7 7
Subtotal discretionary fee funded offsets 2,930 3,146
Mandatory fee funded offsets
Immigration inspection 562 570
Immigration enforcement 3 3
Land border 27 27 CBP
COBRA 392 411
APHIS 321 333
Puerto Rico 98 97
Immigration inspection 114 118 ICE
SEVIS 56 75
Breached bond detention fund 64 120


Congressional Research Service 6


FY2008 FY2009
Account/Agency Account NameEnacted Request
Aviation security capital fund 250 676 TSA
Checkpoint screening security fund 250
Alien flight school background checks 3 3
Immigration examination fee 2,495 2,495 USCIS
H1b, and H1b & L fees 44 44
Subtotal mandatory fee funded offsets 4,679 4,972
Mandatory budget authority
Secret service Secret service retired payb 210 225
Coast guard Coast guard retired payc (1,185)(1,237)
Subtotal mandatory budget authority 210 225
Trust funds and public enterprise funds
CBP Customsunclaimed goods6 6
FEMA National Flood Insurance Fundd 2,833 3,037
Boat safety 133 125
Coast Guard Oil spill recovery 147 149
Subtotal trust and public enterprise funds 3,119 3,317
DHS gross budget authoritya 52,915 50,502
Total offsets -10,938 -11,660
Rescissions -262
Emergency Supplemental (P.L. 110-116) -2,900
DHS net appropriated BA (Mandatory + Discretionary) 38,817 38,843
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2009 Presidents Budget, and the DHS FY2009 Budget in Brief.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. DHS gross budget authority is the total budget authority available to the Department in a given fiscal year.
This amount includes both appropriated and non-appropriated funding.
b. Secret Service Retired Pay is permanently and indefinitely authorized, and as such is not annually
appropriated. Therefore it is offset in Table 3.
c. In contrast to Secret Service Retired Pay, Coast Guard Retired pay must be annually appropriated, and
therefore is not offset in Table 3.
d. This fund is comprised of both discretionary and mandatory appropriations; thus its component parts
appear twice in this table.


Congressional Research Service 7


Appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security
DHS Appropriations Trends
Table 4 presents DHS Appropriations, as enacted, for FY2003 through the FY2009 request. The
appropriation amounts are presented in current dollars and are not adjusted. The amounts shown
in Table 4 represent enacted amounts at the time of the start of the next fiscal year’s appropriation
cycle (with the exception of FY2009). Thus, the amount shown for FY2003 is the enacted amount
shown in the House Committee report attached to the FY2004 DHS Appropriations bill. FY2008
is from the Joint Explanatory Statement for Division E of P.L. 110-161, and FY2009 is from the
FY2009 DHS Budget Justifications.
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2009
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 Enacted FY2009
29,069a 30,175b 30,554c 31,679 35,311d 38,817e 41,225
Sources: FY2003 enacted taken from H.Rept. 108-169; FY2004 enacted taken from H.Rept. 108-541; FY2005
enacted taken from H.Rept. 109-79; FY2006 enacted taken from H.Rept. 109-476; FY2007 appropriation
amounts are from the H.Rept. 110-181; and FY2008 enacted amounts are from Division E of P.L. 110-161, and
tables in the Joint Explanatory Statement for Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17,
2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating amendments to the budget request). FY2009 enacted taken from the
DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate-
enrolled version of H.R. 2638
Notes: Amounts do not include supplemental appropriations or rescissions that were enacted subsequent to
the enactment of each appropriations bill.
a. S.Rept. 108-86 reported the FY2003 enacted amount as $29,287 million. CRS was unable to identify the
reason for this discrepancy. For the purposes of this table the House number was used to maintain
consistency with other fiscal years.
b. Amount does not include $4,703 million in advance appropriations for Project Bioshield.
c. Amount does not include $2,508 million in advance appropriations for Project Bioshield
d. Amount includes $1,829 million in emergency budget authority that was enacted as a part of the FY2007
DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-295).
e. FY2008 Enacted includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
Summary of DHS Appropriations
Table 5 is a summary table comparing the enacted appropriations for FY2008 and the requested,
recommended by the House and Senate, and enacted appropriations for FY2009.


Congressional Research Service 8

Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 Appropriation FY2009 Appropriation
FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 House- FY2009 Senate- P.L. 110-
Operational Component Enacteda Supp. Resc. Total Request Reported Reported 329b
Title I: Departmental Operations
Subtotal: Title I 983 983 1,185 1,049 1,197 1,086
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and
Investigations
Customs and Border Protection 9,423 9,423 9,487 9,694 9,741 9,821
Immigration and Customs Enforcement 4,735 4,735 4,748 4,813 4,989 4,989
Transportation Security Administration 4,021 4,021 4,065 4,354 4,277 4,367
iki/CRS-RL34482 U.S. Coast Guard 8,632 300c 8,932 9,071 9,206 9,216 9,361
g/w U.S. Secret Service 1,385 1,385 1,414 1,371 1,418 1,413
s.orNet subtotal: Title II 28,195 300 28,495 28,786 29,438 29,641 29,951
leak Total fee collections 5,025 5,025 5,399 4,973 4,997 4,997
://wikiGross subtotal: Title II 33,220 300 33,520 34,185 34,411 34,638 34,948
httpTitle III: Preparedness and Recovery
National Protection & Programs 1,177 1,177 1,286 1,287 1,041 1,158
Directorate
Office of Health Affairs 117 117 161 134 171 157
Counter Terrorism Fund
Federal Emergency Management 6,806 10,960c 17,766 5,573 7,407 7,328 6,963
Administration
Net subtotal: Title III 8,100 10,960c 19,060 7,020 8,829 8,540 8,278
Title IV: Research and Development,
Training, Assessments, and Services
Citizenship and Immigration Services 81 81 151 102 151 102
Federal Law Enforcement Training 289 289 274 286 324 333


CRS-9

FY2008 Appropriation FY2009 Appropriation
FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 House- FY2009 Senate- P.L. 110-
Operational Component Enacteda Supp. Resc. Total Request Reported Reported 329b
Center
Science and Technology 830 830 869 887 919 933
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 485 485 564 544 541 514
Net subtotal: Title IV 1,685 1,685 1,857 1,819 1,935 1,882
Total fee collections 2,539 2,539 2,539 2,539 2,539 2,539
Gross subtotal: Title IV 4,224 4,224 4,396 4,358 4,474 4,421
Title V: General Provisions
Rescissions -216 -216 — 28d
Department of Homeland Security
Appropriation
iki/CRS-RL34482Gross DHS budget authority 46,311 11,260c 57,571 46,786 48,649 48,849 48,761
g/w Total fee collections -7,564 -7,564 -7,938 -7,512 -7,536 -7,536
s.orNet DHS budget authority 38,747 11,260c 50,007 38,849 41,137 41,314 41,225
leak
://wikiSource: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and House-reported H.R. 6947 and its accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862). FY2009 enacted from the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the Congressional
httpRecord, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. ColumnFY2008 Enacted includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
b. The text of P.L. 110-329was not available as of November 6, 2008. These tables reflect DHS appropriations for FY2009 contained in the DHS Joint Explanatory
Statement as submitted in the Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
c. FY2008 emergency supplemental funding was provided by two Acts: P.L. 110-116, §158, The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008 provided $2,900 million in
FY2008 emergency supplemental funding for FEMA Disaster Relief; and Division B of P.L. 110-329 also provided $300 million for Coast Guard Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements, $7,960 million for FEMA Disaster Relief, and $100 million for FEMA to reimburse the Red Cross.
d. Represents the net of several amounts contained in the Title V General Provisions of House-passed H.R. 2638, including the following: Sec. 547, which would provide
an additional $50 million for REAL ID grants and an additional $50 million for REAL ID Information Sharing and Verification; Sec. 549, which would rescind $31 million
in undistributed TSA carryover balances; Sec.550, which would rescind $21 million in A&O unobligated balances; and Sec. 551, which would rescind $20 million in
Coast Guard unobligated balances.


CRS-10


Title I: Departmental Management and Operations6
Title I covers the general administrative expenses of DHS. It includes the Office of the Secretary
and Executive Management (OS&EM), which is comprised of the immediate Office of the
Secretary and 12 entities that report directly to the Secretary; the Undersecretary for Management
(USM) and its components, such as the offices of the Chief Administrative Services Officer,
Chief Human Capital Officer, and Chief Procurement Officer; the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO); the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO); Analysis and Operations
Office (AOO); Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding (OFCGCR); and
Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Table 6 shows Title I appropriations for FY2008 and
congressional action on the request for FY2009.
President’s FY2009 Request
FY2009 requests relative to comparable FY2008 enacted appropriations were as follow:
OS&EM, $127 million, an increase of $30 million (+31%); USM, $321 million, an increase of
$176 million (+121%); OCFO, $56 million, an increase of $25 million (+81%); OCIO, $247
million, a decrease of $48 million (-16%); AOO, $334 million, an increase of $28 million (+9%);
OFCGCR, $.25 million, a decrease of approximately $3 million (-90%); and OIG, $101 million, a
decrease of $8 million (-7%). The total FY2009 request for Title I was $1,187 million. This
represents an increase of $201 million (+20%) over the FY2008 enacted level.
Of the amounts requested, the largest increase would occur in the USM, which is seeking $120
million for the planned consolidation of DHS executive program leadership on the West Campus
of the Saint Elizabeth’s Hospital grounds in accordance with the DHS National Capital Region
Housing Master Plan signed by the Secretary on October 25, 2006. The consolidation includes up
to 4.5 million gross square feet of office space at the Saint Elizabeth’s site. Other areas of
increased USM funding include department-wide program management teams ($4 million), the
department-wide acquisition intern program ($3 million), and increased counterintelligence and
security needs ($1 million). A small increase in USM funding is being sought to provide added
support for the Deputy Under Secretary for Management for the transition process.
Formed in 2002, DHS has not previously been through a presidential transition. Many of its
principal components, however, have done so, some several times over. For example, the United
States Secret Service began as a Treasury Department bureau in 1865; the Bureau of Immigration,
which grew into the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization and the Immigration and 7
Naturalization Service, was established in the Treasury Department in 1891; the United States 8
Coast Guard was statutorily chartered in 1915; the Bureau of Customs was created in the 9
Treasury Department in 1927; and the Federal Emergency Management Agency was mandated 10
by E.O. 12127 of March 31, 1979. At DHS, the Under Secretary for Management has
responsibility for, “before December 1 of any year in which a Presidential election is held, the

6 Prepared by Harold C. Relyea, Specialist in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
7 Stat. 1085.
8 Stat. 800.
9 Stat. 1381.
10 3 C.F.R., 1979 Comp., pp. 376-377.


Congressional Research Service 11


development of a transition and succession plan, to be made available to the incoming Secretary
and Under Secretary for Management, to guide the transition of management functions to a new 11
A d mi n i s t r a t i on. ”
On January 10, 2008, in response to a request of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the
Homeland Security Advisory Council issued a report by its Administration Transition Task Force.
The panel’s recommendations regardingtransition preparation addressed seven broad areas: threat
awareness, leadership, congressional oversight/action, policy, operations, succession, and 12
training. Details about the implementation of the panel’s recommendations are not available for
security reasons, according to DHS.
House-reported H.R. 6947
House-reported H.R. 6947 recommended $1,049 million for DHS management and operations
entities funded in Title I, $136 less (-12%) than the amount requested. The allocations for entities
within the title, as approved by the House, were as follow: OS&EM, $123 million, a decrease of
$4 million (-3%); USM, -$190 million, a decrease of $130 million (-41%); OCFO, $55 million, a
decrease of $1 million (-2%); OCIO, $247 million, the same level as requested (0%); AOO, $324
million, a decrease of $9 million (-3%); OFCGCR, less than $1 million, the same level as
requested (0%); and OIG, $101 million, the same level as requested (0%), but increased by a $15
million proposed transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account, resulting in a
recommended total appropriation of $116 million, an increase of $15(+15%). A subsequent
amendment adopted in committee moved $6 million (-5%) from the Title I OS&EM account to
the Title II ICE salaries and expenses account.
Senate-reported S. 3181
Senate appropriators recommended $1,197 million for Title I accounts, slightly more (+1%) than
the President’s $1,185 million request. The suggested allocations for the title were as follow:
OS&EM, $123 million, a decrease of $4 million (-3%); USM, $310 million, a decrease of about
$9 million (-3%); OCFO, $56 million, the same level as requested (0%); OCIO, $274 million, an
increase of $27 million (+11%); AOO, $318 million, a decrease of $16 million (-5%); OFCGCR,
$3 million, an increase of $2 million (+50%); and OIG, $96 million, a decrease of $5 million
(-5%), but increased by a $16 million proposed transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief
account, resulting in a recommended total appropriation of $112 million, an increase of $11
million (+11%).
P.L. 110-329
As approved by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, the final bill allocated
$1,086 million for Title I provided $99 million less (-8%) than the President’s $1,185 million
request. The allocations for the title were as follow: OS&EM, $123 million, a decrease of $4
million (-3%); USM, $191 million, a decrease of $130 million (-40%); OCFO, $55 million, a

11 4 U.S.C. §341(a)(9)(B).
12 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Advisory Council, Report of the Administration
Transition Task Force (Washington: January 2008), available at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/
hsac_ATTF_Report.pdf.


Congressional Research Service 12


decrease of $1 million (-2%); OCIO, $272 million, an increase of $25 million (+10%); AOO,
$327, an decrease of $7 million (-2%); OFCGCR, almost $2 million, an increase of almost $1.75
million (+70%); and OIG, 114 million, an increase of $13 million (+13%).


Congressional Research Service 13

Table 6. Title I: Department Management and Operations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 Appropriation FY2009 Appropriation
FY2008FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 House-FY2009 Senate-P.L. 110-
Operational Component Enacteda Supp. Resc. Total Request reported reported 329b
Office of the Secretary and Executive 97 97 127 117c 123 123
Management
Office of Screening Coordination and
Operations
Office of the Undersecretary for 145d 145d 321 190 311 192
Management
Office of the Chief Financial Officer 31 31 56 55 56 55
Office of the Chief Information Officer 295 295 247 247 275 272
iki/CRS-RL34482Analysis and Operations 306e 306e 334 324 318f 327
g/wOffice of the Federal Coordinator for gh
s.orGulf Coast Rebuilding 3 3 3 2
leakOffice of the Inspector General 109i 109i 101 116j 112k 115l
://wikiNet Budget Authority: Title I 986 986 1,187 1,049 1,197 1,086
httpSource: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and
House-reported H.R. 6947 and its accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862). FY2009 enacted from the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the Congressional
Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. ColumnFY2008 Enacted includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
b. The text of P.L. 110-329 was not available as of November 6, 2008. These tables reflect DHS appropriations for FY2009 contained in the DHS Joint Explanatory
Statement as submitted in the Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
c. Includes a $6 million transfer from OSEM to ICE S&E that was adopted by amendment during the House full committee mark-up.
d. Includes an unspecified $5 million reduction per P.L. 110-161.
e. Per P.L. 110-161Does not include $9 million rescission of prior year balances appropriated by P.L. 109-295.
f. Includes $3 million rescission of unobligated balances.
g. $250,000 was requested for the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding in FY2009; this table only shows millions, however.


CRS-14

h. The House-reported bill includes $341,000 for this office.
i. Includes a $14 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.
j. Includes a $15 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.
k. Includes a $16 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.
l. Includes a $16 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.


iki/CRS-RL34482
g/w
s.or
leak
://wiki
http
CRS-15


Personnel Issues 13
The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) manages and administers human
resources at DHS and includes the Office of Human Capital (OHC). The OCHCO reports to the
Under Secretary for Management, and its appropriation is included in that of the Under Secretary.
The office “establishes policy and procedures” and “provides oversight, guidance, and leadership
for human resources functions, including learning and development.” The OHC designs and
implements human resources programs, including their strategy and technology components, and
the response to the issues identified in the Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS).
According to the DHS Justifications, the FY2009 budget requested $47 million14 and 86 full-time 15
equivalent (FTE) employees for the OCHCO and the OHC. The requested funding is $29
million above the $18 million provided for FY2008. The number of FTEs would increase by 33
over the 53 authorized for FY2008. An appropriation is not requested for the new human 16
resources management system (MAX-HR) that was authorized in P.L. 107-296. The FY2009
request was $47 million; these figures are included in Table 7.
Table 7 below shows the funding and staff for the OCHCO and the OHC as enacted in FY2008,
as requested for FY2009, and as recommended by the House- reported H.R. 6947 and the Senate-
reported S. 3181, and as provided in P.L. 110-329.

13 Prepared by Barbara L. Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
14 Salaries and benefits ($11.1 million) and other services ($28 million) account for some 81% of the total of $48.1
million. Other services include contractual services with non-federal sources.
15 FY2009 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary for Management, Office of
the Chief Human Capital Officer, p. USM-7.
16 Title VIII, Subtitle E, Section 841 of P.L. 107-296, enacted on November 25, 2002 (116 Stat. 2135, at 2229-2234),
established a new human resources management system for DHS. DHS and the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) jointly published final regulations to implement the system in the Federal Register on February 1, 2005. (U.S.
Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Department of Homeland Security
Human Resources Management System, Federal Register, vol. 70, no. 20, February 1, 2005, pp. 5271-5347.) The
regulations provided new policies on position classification, pay, performance management, adverse actions and
appeals, and labor-management relations for DHS employees. The system was expected to cover about 110,000 of the
departments 180,000 employees and be implemented in phases. (See CRS Report RL32261, DHSs Max-HR
Personnel System: Regulations on Classification, Pay, and Performance Management Compared With Current Law,
and Implementation Plans, by Barbara L. Schwemle; and CRS Report RL32255, Homeland Security: Final
Regulations for the Department of Homeland Security Human Resources Management System (Subpart E) Compared
With Current Law, by Jon O. Shimabukuro.) However, shortly after the regulations were issued, the National Treasury
Employees Union (NTEU”) and several other labor organizations filed a lawsuit alleging that DHS and OPM
exceeded the authority granted to them under the Homeland Security Act. For an analysis of the court decisions on the
adverse actions and appeals and labor-management relations policies, see CRS Report RL33052, Homeland Security
and Labor-Management Relations: NTEU v. Chertoff, by Thomas J. Nicola and Jon O. Shimabukuro. Section 511 of
H.R. 1684, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for FY2008, as passed by the House of
Representatives, would have repealed the authority for the departments new personnel system and rendered void any
regulations prescribed thereunder. The bill passed the House on a 296-126 (Roll No. 318) vote on May 9, 2007, but no
further action has occurred. See, Chris Strohm,Homeland Security Authorization Bill Falls by the Wayside,
Government Executive, September 24, 2008, available at http://www.govexec.com. P.L. 110-329, enacted on
September 30, 2008, prohibits the use of appropriated funds to implement the new personnel system and its
development was halted by DHS effective on October 1, 2008, as discussed later in this section.


Congressional Research Service 16


Table 7.Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer and Office of Human Capital
Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
House- Senate-
FY2008 FY2009 reported reported P.L. 110-
Account Enacted Request H.R. 6947 S. 3181 329
Salaries and Expenses CHCO $9 $32 $29 $30 $29
Max-HR System 0 0 0 0 0
Human ResourcesOperational $10a $15 $10 $10 $10
Initiatives and HR Management
Systems
Total $19 $47 $39 $40 $39
Staffing (full time equivalent, FTE, 53 86 not specified 79 not
positions) specified
Sources: P.L. 110-161, December 26, 2007; H.Rept. 110-862, pp. 185-186; S.Rept. 110-396, p. 151; and
Congressional Record version of the DHS explanatory statement, p. H9813.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. According to the explanatory statement accompanying the consolidated appropriations act, DHS is directed
to ensure that this appropriation is used for “programs that directly address the shortcomings identified in
[the 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey] or in a subsequent DHS survey that the Department plans to
conduct. These programs could include theplanned DHS survey, gap analysis of mission critical
occupations, hiring and retention strategies, robust diversity programs, and Department-wide education
and training initiatives. The Secretary must submit a plan for expending the funds prior to their obligation.
(Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, December 17, 2007, p. H16079.)
President’s Request
The justification that accompanied the DHS budget request for FY2009 stated that the increased
funding would be used for continued support of the learning and development strategy to train the
department’s workforce through the Preparedness Center, the Leadership Institute, the Homeland
Security Academy, and the Center for Academic and Interagency Outreach. The requested
appropriation also would be used to fund the continued modernization of the human resources
systems, including eRecruitment and ePerformance, “to implement a prototype pay for
performance plan for a limited number of DHS employees,” and to invest in diversity and 17
recruitment and retention programs.
Under the leadership of the OHC, the department will “monitor and evaluate the implementation
of the performance management system.” Initiatives related to the diversity of the DHS
workforce will include finalizing and implementing the diversity strategy; outreach to colleges,
universities, organizations, and professional associations; training on diversity; increased 18
diversity among the department’s executives; and improved outreach to veterans.

17 DHS Justifications, Undersecretary for Management, pp. USM-4-USM-5.
18 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary for Management, Office of the Chief
Human Capital Officer, p. USM-7.


Congressional Research Service 17


The OHC will conduct an internal survey of DHS employees, analyze the results, and develop a
plan to address any concerns. It will determine current and future staffing needs for mission
critical occupations, analyze employee turnover and attrition using methods such as exit
interviews and surveys, and link the results of that analysis to training and strategies for 19
recruitment and retention. With regard to fostering better results on the FHCS, the office will
focus on developing and monitoring policies and programs that will improve the work
environment and perceptions of employees. According to its Annual Performance Report for
Fiscal Years 2007-2009, DHS has established a target of achieving a 50% favorable response rate 20
on the FHCS.
In FY2009, the OHC will convert 23 contractor positions to federal positions to provide the office
with a workforce that is stable and cost effective and “to perform ongoing initiatives and provide
depth” in issue areas. Furthermore, according to DHS, the conversions will enable the OHC “to
broaden and sustain its diversity, veteran outreach, recruiting and retention, employee morale,
service delivery,” and management of human resources lines of business. A challenge that will 21
face the department in FY2009 is the transition to a new Administration. In a February 7, 2008,
letter to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, Representative Bennie G. Thompson, chairman of the
House Committee on Homeland Security, requested that the Secretary “issue a policy directive to
prohibit the ‘burrowing in’ of political appointees into non-political career positions within the
Department” within 60 days. Representative Thompson stated that he was “sure that [the
Secretary] would agree that it would be inappropriate to fill career non-political executive level 22
positions with political appointees absent an open and fully competitive process.” CRS research
has not located a publicly available record of any such directive issued by the Secretary.
The OHC will use the savings that accrue from conversion of the contractor positions to fund
services such as responding to the FHCS, conducting a survey of employee morale, and
responding to its findings. Its contracts will focus “on short term projects to meet surge
requirements, one-time infrastructure costs, and areas where expertise is not easily obtained ... or 23
would be more cost effective if provided by contractors.”
House-reported H.R. 6947
The House report (H.Rept. 110-862) stated that the funding recommended by the House
Committee on Appropriations is $8 million below the President’s request and $20 million above
the FY2008 appropriation. The $10 million recommended for human resource activities is to be
used “to enhance employee morale and create a more satisfying work environment.” The
committee recommended that the request to transfer the law enforcement accreditation board
from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) to the OCHCO be denied, that $2.5
million be provided for new learning initiatives, and that the human resource information
technologies be funded at $17.1 million. With regard to the latter appropriation, the report stated

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


Congressional Research Service 18


that the committee “is troubled that the request to fund this” account under the CHCO instead of
under the Chief Information Officer (CIO) “was not clearly detailed in the budget request,” and,
for the future
directs that all proposals to move programs and funding from one office to another be clearly
outlined in congressional budget justifications and include: the preceding year funding level;
a detailed description of the work; a rationale for the movement; and a detailed breakdown of 24
the budget request.
Expressing concern about delays in the department’s hiring process, administered by the
OCHCO, the report directed the OCHCO to report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, on a monthly basis on
vacancies requested, by [the] office, that have not been processed; vacancies announced, by
[the] office; and the amount of time after a vacancy has closed before a selection list is sent 25
back to the requesting entity.
Senate-reported S. 3181
According to the Senate report (S.Rept. 110-396), the funding recommended by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations was $6.3 million below the President’s request and $21.7 million
above the FY2008 appropriation. Within the OCHCO’s salaries and expenses account, funding of
$18.8 million was recommended to maintain current services, including a transfer of $17.1
million from the CIO to the OCHCO for human resources information technology. An additional
appropriation of $5.5 million, and three FTEs, were recommended for implementation of the
learning and development strategy. The $10 million recommended for human resources is to “be
spent on programs that directly address the shortcomings identified in [the 2006 Federal Human
Capital Survey and the 2007 internal DHS employee survey] or in subsequent surveys.” The
programs could include “gap analysis of mission critical occupations, hiring and retention
strategies, robust diversity programs, and Department-wide learning and development programs.”
Like the House committee, the Senate committee denied the President’s request that $1.3 million
and seven FTEs be transferred from the FLETC to the OCHCO for the law enforcement
accreditation board.
P.L. 110-329
The law provided funding at the level recommended in the House-reported bill. The
Congressional Record version of the DHS explanatory statement noted that the “Funding has
been reduced due to high unobligated balances” in the OCHCO. The statement also directed the
OCHCO to “provide monthly reports on the amount of time it takes to fill vacancies within 26
DHS,” as the House report specified.
The law included the following general provisions related to DHS personnel:

24 H.Rept. 110-862, p. 19.
25 Ibid.
26 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154, September 24, 2008, p. H9793.


Congressional Research Service 19


• Section 519 requires the Chief Financial Officer at DHS to submit a monthly
budget and staffing report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations. The report must be submitted within 45 days after the close of
each month and include information on total obligations, on-board versus funded
full-time equivalent staffing levels, and the number of contract employees by
office.
• Section 522 prohibits the obligation of funds “for the development, testing,
deployment, or operation of any portion of a human resources management
system authorized by 5 U.S.C. 9701(a), or by regulations prescribed pursuant to
such section.” Collaboration is required between the DHS Secretary and
employee representatives in the manner prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 9701(e), on
“planning, testing, and development of any portion of a human resources
management system ... for persons excluded from the definition of ‘employee.’”
• Section 534 prohibits the use of funds appropriated to the Office of the Secretary
and Executive Management for any new hires by DHS that are not verified
through the basic pilot program to confirm employment eligibility that is codified
at 8 U.S.C. §1324a note.
In the wake of the Section 522 provision, the OCHCO at DHS reportedly issued a memorandum
to department employees on October 1, 2008, announcing that development of the human
resources management system authorized at Title VIII, Subtitle E of P.L. 107-296 would be 27
halted. The OCHCO reportedly wrote to employees “that no current salary adjustments or bonus 28
decisions will be affected.”
Analysis and Operations29
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,
including the following, among others:
• To assess, receive, and analyze law enforcement information, intelligence
information, and other information from federal, state, and local government
agencies, and the private sector to (1) identify and assess the nature and scope of
the terrorist threats to the homeland, (2) detect and identify threats of terrorism
against the United States, and (3) understand such threats in light of actual and
potential vulnerabilities of the homeland;

27 Brittany R. Ballenstedt, Homeland Security Scraps Plan for Personnel System, Government Executive, October 2,
2008, available at http://www.govexec.com.
28 Mary Mosquera, DHS Drops Potential Pay-for-Performance Plans, Federal Computer Week, October 3, 2008,
available at http://www.fcw.com.
29 Prepared by Jennifer E. Lake, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy Division.


Congressional Research Service 20


• 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 30
agencies and authorities.
Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review of the Department made numerous changes in the
DHS intelligence structure. For example, the erstwhile IAIP disbanded, and the Office of
Information Analysis was renamed the Office of Intelligence and Analysis and became a stand
alone entity. The Office of Infrastructure Protection was placed within the Directorate for
Preparedness. The Assistant Secretary for Intelligence Analysis was also provided the title of the 31
Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer. Pursuant to the Implementing Recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53, signed August 3, 2007), a number of amendments to
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (codified at 6 U.S.C. 201) related to homeland security
intelligence were made. Among these changes, the law provided statutory standing to the Office
of Intelligence and Analysis and the Office of Infrastructure Protection. The Office of Intelligence
and Analysis is to be headed by an Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, who will also 32
serve as the Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer.
President’s FY2009 Request
The FY2009 request for the Analysis and Operations (AOO) account was $334 million, an
increase of $28 million (+9%) over the enacted FY2008 amount. It should be noted that funds
included in this account support both the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (OIA) and the Office
of Operations Coordination. The Office of Intelligence and Analysis, the successor to the “IA”
element of the erstwhile IAIP, has as its primary responsibility the integration and analysis of
information from DHS, state and local stakeholders, and the intelligence community into finished
intelligence products such as threat assessments and other indications and warning documents. As
a member of the Intelligence Community, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis’s budget is
classified. The Office of Operations Coordination formally houses the National Operations Center
which, among other functions, disseminates OIA assessed threat information, provides domestic
situational awareness, and performs incident management on behalf of the Department.
House-reported H.R. 6947
House-reported H.R. 6947 included $324 million for AOO, amounting to a nearly $10 million
decrease compared to the amount requested for FY2009, and $18 million more than the FY2008
enacted level of $306 million. The House report included language reflecting the Committee’s

30 See Title II, Subtitle A, Section 201(d), Responsibilities of the Undersecretary (of IAIP), codified at 6 U.SC. §121.
See also Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, Survey of the Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection Directorate, Office of Inspections, Evaluations, and Special Reviews, OIG-04-413, February
2004, p. 26.
31 See DHS Management Directive 8110, Intelligence Integration and Management, January 30, 2006.
32 See P.L. 110-53, Title V, Improving intelligence and information sharing within the federal government, and with
State, local and tribal governments,” Subtitle D,Homeland security intelligence offices reorganization.


Congressional Research Service 21


continued concern over the National Applications Office and the National Immigration
Information Sharing Office (NIISO). The FY2008 DHS Appropriations Act (Division E, P.L. 110-
161) required the Secretary to submit and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to
review a certification that the National Applications Office (NAO) and the NIISO comply with all
existing laws, including applicable privacy and civil liberties standards. The Department was
prohibited from using any related funds from the FY2008 Act until GAO completed its review.
The House Committee notes in its report that the Department’s NAO submission was incomplete,
and that no information was submitted regarding the NIISO. The Committee therefore includes in
the FY2009 bill statutory prohibitions on the operations of the NAO and the NIISO until the
certification has been reviewed by GAO.
Senate-reported S. 3181
Senate-reported S. 3181 included $318 million, a decrease of $16 million (-5%) for the AOO
account as compared with the President’s request. The Committee, in S.Rept. 110-396, directed
the Secretary to submit a detailed expenditure plan for FY2009 within 60 days after enactment of
the FY2009 DHS Appropriations Act. Reflecting the Committee’s concern with the I&A’s
reliance on contract staff versus federal full-time equivalents, the reporting requirements were
geared to provide the Committee with staffing and expenditure data regarding all of I&A’s
programs. S.Rept. 110-396 also included language requiring the DHS Chief Intelligence Officer
to continue to provide the Appropriations Committees quarterly updates on the Department’s
progress towards placing DHS intelligence professionals in state and local fusion centers.
P.L. 110-329
P.L. 110-329 included $327 million for AOO for FY2009, a decrease of $7 million (-2%) for the
AOO account as compared with the President’s request, and increase of $30 million or 10% as
compared to the FY2008 enacted amount. The Congressional Record version of the DHS
Explanatory Statement, required the Secretary to submit a FY2009 expenditure plan for the
Office of Intelligence and Analysis that includes balances carried forward from prior years. In
addition, the DHS Explanatory Statement required the Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer to
continue to provide quarterly updates to the Committees detailing the progress in placing DHS
intelligence professionals in state and local fusion centers.
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations
Title II contains the appropriations for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), the US Coast Guard, and the US Secret Service. Table 8 shows the
FY2007 enacted and FY2008 appropriation action for Title II.


Congressional Research Service 22

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 Appropriation FY2009 Appropriation
FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 House- FY2009 Senate- P.L. 110-
rational Component Enacteda Supp. Resc. Total Request Reported Reported 329b
toms & Border Protection
alaries and expenses 6,803 6,803 7,309 7,534 7,523c 7,603
utomation modernization 477 477 511 511 511 511
ir and Marine Operations 570 570 528 510 528 528
order Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and
chnology 1,225 1,225 775 775 775 775
iki/CRS-RL34482struction 348 348 364 364 403 403
g/wee accountsd 1,385e 1,385e 1,448 1,448 1,448 1,448
s.or
leakss total 10,808 10,808 10,935 11,142 11,189 11,268
://wikiffsetting collections -1,385 -1,385 -1,448 -1,448 -1,448 -1,448
http total 9,423 9,423 9,487 9,694 9,741 9,821
ration & Customs Enforcement
alaries and expenses 4,688 4,688 4,691 4,746 4,932 4,927
deral Protective Services (FPS) 613 613 616 616 640 640
utomation & infrastructure modernization 31 31 57 57 57 57
struction 17 17 10 5
ee accountsf 234 234 299 299 299 299
ss total 5,581 5,581 5,663 5,728 5,928 5,928
ffsetting FPS fees -613 -613 -616 -616 -640 -640
ffsetting collections -234 -234 -299 -299 -299 -299



Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
FY2008 Appropriation FY2009 Appropriation
FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 House- FY2009 Senate- P.L. 110-
rational Component Enacteda Supp. Resc. Total Request Reported Reported 329b
total 4,735 4,735 4,748 4,813 4,989 4,989
nsportation Security Administration
viation security (gross funding) 4,809 4,809 5,290 4,743 4,672 4,755
urface Transportation Security 47 47 37 50 64 50
ransportation Threat Assessment and
dentialing 83 83 133 109 120 116
redentialing Feesg 83 83 40 40 40 40
nsportation Security Support 524 524 926 950 950 948
iki/CRS-RL34482deral Air Marshals 770 770 821 799 819 h
g/wviation security capital fund 250 250 676 250 250 250
s.orckpoint screening security fund 250 250
leakscission -7
://wikiss total 6,814 6,814 7,102 6,964 6,887 6,977
httpffsetting collections -2,210 -2,210 -2,320 -2,320 -2,320 -2,320
dentialing/Fee accounts -83 -83 -40 -40 -40 -40
viation security capital fund (mandatory
pending) -250 -250 -676 -250 -250 -250
ckpoint screening security fund -250 -250
total 4,022 4,022 4,065 4,354 4,277 4,367
. Coast Guard
perating expenses 6,001 6,001 6,213 6,202 6,280 6,195
ironmental compliance & restoration 13 13 12 13 12 13
serve training 127 127 131 131 131 131



Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
FY2008 Appropriation FY2009 Appropriation
FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 House- FY2009 Senate- P.L. 110-
rational Component Enacteda Supp. Resc. Total Request Reported Reported 329b
cquisition, construction, & improvements 993i 300 1,293i 1,205 1339j 1,267 1,495
lteration of bridges 16 16 12 16 16
search, development, tests, & evaluation 25 25 16 16 16 18
tired pay (mandatory, entitlement) 1,185 1,185 1,237 1,237 1,237 1,237
ealth care fund contribution 272 272 257 257 257 257
ss total 8,632 300 8,932 9,071 9,206 9,216 9,361
Secret Service
alaries and expenses 1,382 1,382 1,411 1,367 1,414 1,409
iki/CRS-RL34482nvestigations and field operations
g/wquisition, construction, improvements, and
s.orlated expenses 4 4 4 4 4 4
leakss total 1,385 1,385 1,414 1,371 1,418 1,413
://wikiss Budget Authority: Title II 33,220 300 33,520 34,185 34,411 34,637 34,948
httptting collections: -5,025 -5,025 -5,399 -4,973 -4,997 -4,997
Budget Authority: Title II 28,195 300 28,495 28,786 29,438 29,641 29,951
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and House-reported H.R.
6947 and its accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862). FY2009 enacted from the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate-
enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. ColumnFY2008 Enacted includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
b. The text P.L. 110-329was not available as of November 6, 2008. These tables reflect DHS appropriations for FY2009 contained in the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in
the Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
c. Includes $13 million rescission of unobligated balances.
d. Fees include COBRA, Land Border, Immigration Inspection, Immigration Enforcement, and Puerto Rico.



Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
e. The Presidents FY2009 Budget Request includes a re-estimate of the FY2008 fees.
f. Fees include Exam, Student Exchange and Visitor Fee, Breached Bond, Immigration User, and Land Border.
g. Fees include TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks.
h. Aviation Security Capital Fund, used for installation of Explosive Detection Systems at airports.
i. FY2008 request and House-passed H.R. 2638 included a proposed rescission of $49 million. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 included a proposed rescission of $57 million of funds previously
appropriated by P.L. 109-90 and P.L. 109-295. Division E of P.L. 110-161 includes a rescission of $133 million in funds previously appropriated by P.L. 108-334, P.L. 109-90, and P.L.
109-295.
j. The House-reported bill includes a rescission of $20 million in previously appropriated funding for UAVs.


iki/CRS-RL34482
g/w
s.or
leak
://wiki
http

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Customs and Border Protection (CBP)33
CBP is responsible for security at and between ports-of-entry along the border. Since
September 11, 2001, CBP’s primary mission is to prevent the entry of terrorists and the
instruments of terrorism. CBP’s ongoing responsibilities include inspecting people and
goods to determine if they are authorized to enter the United States; interdicting terrorists
and instruments of terrorism; intercepting illegal narcotics, firearms, and other types of
contraband; interdicting unauthorized travelers and immigrants; and enforcing more than

400 laws and regulations at the border on behalf of more than 60 government agencies.


CBP is comprised of the inspection functions of the legacy Customs Service, Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS); the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction, now known as CBP Air and Marine
(CBPAM); and the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP). See Table 8 for account-level detail for
all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 9 for sub-account-level detail for CBP Salaries
and Expenses (S&E) for FY2008 and FY2009.
President’s FY2009 Request . The Administration requested an appropriation of $10,935
million in gross budget authority for CBP for FY2009, amounting to a $127 million (or
1%) increase over the enacted FY2008 level of $10,808 million. The Administration
requested $9,487 million in net budget authority for CBP in FY2009, which amounts to a
$64 million increase over the net FY2008 appropriation of $9,423 million.
House-reported H.R. 6947 . House-reported H.R. 6947 would have provided $11,142
million in gross budget authority for CBP for FY2009, amounting to $207 million (or
2%) more than was requested by the Administration, and a $334 million or 3% increase
over the enacted FY2008 level of $10,808 million. House-reported H.R. 6947 included
$9,694 million in net budget authority for CBP for FY2009, amounting to a $207 million
increase over the Administration’s request, and a $271 million increase over the FY2008
enacted level of $9,423 million.
Senate-reported S. 3181 . Senate-reported S. 3181 would have provided $11,189 million
in gross budget authority for CBP for FY2009, amounting to $254 million (or 2%) more
than was requested by the Administration, and a $381 million or 4% increase over the
enacted FY2008 level of $10,808 million. Senate-reported S. 3181 included $9,741
million in net budget authority for CBP for FY2009, amounting to a $254 million
increase over the Administration’s request, and a $318 million increase over the FY2008
enacted level of $9,423 million.
P.L. 110-329 . The Act provided $11,268 million in gross budget authority for CBP for
FY2009, $333 million (or 3%) increase over the Administration’s request, and a $460
million (or 4%) increase over the enacted FY2008 level of $10,808 million. The enacted
net appropriation for CBP was $9,821 million, $334 million above the Administration’s
request and $398 million over the FY2008 enacted level.

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


Congressional Research Service 27

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009 FY2009 P.L.
FY2008 FY2009 House- Senate- 110-
Activity Enacteda Request Reported Reported 329b
Headquarters Management
and Administration 1,221 1,267 1,267 1,269 1,269
Border Security Inspections
and Trade Facilitation @
POE 2,279 2,273 2,496 2,480 2,561
Inspections, Trade & Travel
Facilitation @ POE 1,854 1,835 2,061 2,042 2,094
Container Security Initiative
(CSI)/ International Cargo
Screening (ICS) 156 149 149 149 149
Other International Programs 11 11 11 11 11
C-TPAT 62 64 64 64 64
FAST/NEXUS/SENTRI 11 11 11 11 11
Inspection and Detection
Technology 105 117 114 117 146
Systems for Targeting 28 33 33 33 33
National Targeting Center 24 24 24 24 24
Training at POE 25 25 25 25 25
Harbor Maintenance Fee 3 3 3 3 3
Border Security and
Control Between POE 3,075 3,515 3,517 3,515 3,501
Border Security and Control
Between POE 3,022 3,441 3,442 3,441 3,426
Training Between the POE 53 75 75 75 75
Air and Marine Operations -
Salaries 227 254 254 272 272
Rescission — — -13
CBP Salaries and Expenses
Total: 6,803 7,309 7,534 7,523 7,603
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in
Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and House-reported H.R. 6947 and its
accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862). FY2009 enacted from the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as
submitted in the Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. ColumnFY2008 Enacted includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-
161.
b. The text of P.L. 110-329 was not available as of November 6, 2008. These tables reflect DHS
appropriations for FY2009 contained in the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the
Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.


Congressional Research Service 28

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Issues for Congress
Issues that Congress considered during the FY2009 appropriations cycle included
funding for and deployment of the border fence and the Secure Border Initiative (SBI);
Border Patrol hiring and staffing levels; the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative
(WHTI); the designation of CBP Officers as law enforcement officers for retirement
purposes; and the declining request for appropriations for some cargo security initiatives.
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology
The Administration requested $775 million for the deployment of SBInet334 related
technologies and infrastructures in FY2009, a decrease of $450 million over the FY2008
enacted level of $1,225 million (this total included an emergency appropriation of $1,053
million, however this may be somewhat misleading because the FY2008 request for the
account was $1,000 million). Within the FY2009 request, the Administration is proposing
to allocate $275 million for developing and deploying additional technology and
infrastructure solutions to the southwest border. An additional $410 million is requested
for operations and maintenance of the cameras, sensors, and fencing that will have been 35
constructed by the end of calendar year 2008 with prior-year funding.3 The
Administration notes that this will fund the costs associated with operating and
maintaining the technologies that have been deployed to the border as part of the SBInet
program as well as 370 miles of fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers, which are
scheduled to be completed by the end of calendar year 2008 with funding appropriated in
FY2007 and FY2008. Recent GAO testimony noted that CBP’s goal for fencing and
vehicle barrier deployment in 2008 “will be challenging because of factors that include
difficulties acquiring rights to border land and an inability to estimate costs for 36
installation.”3 GAO also noted that the Border Patrol was not consulted early enough in
the process of developing the technology solutions that would be used by SBInet, and
that this fact combined with some challenges relating to the integration of the
technologies deployed by Boeing led to an eight month delay in the initial pilot program’s 37
deployment in Tucson Sector.3 Oversight of the SBInet program’s continuing
deployment of technology, fencing, and infrastructure at the border, including whether
DHS is on track to meet its goals for fencing and vehicle barriers at the border, will likely
be an issue of concern to Congress as it considers the FY2009 request.
The Senate Committee recommended fully funding the President’s request, and noted that
close oversight of the program was required due to its importance. The House Committee

34 SBInet is the technological and infrastructure component of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), a
multifaceted approach to securing the border. In its FY2007 budget submission, DHS asserted that it had
developed a three-pillar approach under the SBI that will focus on controlling the border, building a robust
interior enforcement program, and establishing a Temporary Worker Program. DHS FY2007 Justification, p.
CBP S&E 4.
35 DHS FY2009 Justification, p. CBP BSFIT 11.
36 Testimony of GAO Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues Richard Stana, in U.S. Congress,
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, DHS Has Taken Actions to Strengthen thnd
Border Security Programs and Operations, But Challenges Remain, 110 Cong., 2 Sess., March 6, 2009.
Hereafter referred to as GAO Border Security Testimony.
37 GAO Border Security Testimony.


Congressional Research Service 29

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

recommended fully funding the President’s request, but noted its concern that the rapid
growth in border technology “may lead to systems and structures that are expensive, fail 38
to perform as promised, and do not result in a more secure border.”3 The House
Committee noted that only 1.7% of funding for fencing, infrastructure, and technology
had been expended on the northern border and included $40 million in its FY2009
appropriation for this purpose. The House Committee also directed that $30 million be
spent on a border interoperability demonstration project to better integrate border security
efforts between federal, state, local, and tribal authorities, and that $50 million be spent
on regulatory and environmental assessments to mitigate the environmental damage
associated with infrastructure construction. Lastly, the House Committee noted that it was
disappointed with the FY2008 expenditure plan for this account, and directs CBP to fully
comply with its requirements for the FY2009 expenditure plan.
P.L. 110-329 fully funded the President’s request, but withheld $400 million from
obligation until an expenditure plan is submitted and approved by the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations. This spending plan should include 12 specific
components, among them: a detailed accounting of the program’s implementation to date;
a description of how the expenditure plan allocates funding to the highest priority border
security needs, addresses northern border security needs, and works towards obtaining
operational control of the entire border; certifications by the Chief Procurement Officer
and the Chief Information Officer at DHS; an analysis, for each 15 miles of fencing or
tactical infrastructure, of how the selected approach compares to other alternative means
of achieving operational control; and a review by the Government Accountability 39
Office.
Hiring U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Agents
The Administration requested an increase of $363 million to hire 2,200 new USBP agents 40
in order to bring the total number of agents to 20,019 by the end of FY2009. CBP is
also proposing to transfer “up to” 440 veteran agents to the northern border in FY2009;
this is the first time that DHS’ budget request has complied with the P.L. 108-458
mandate requiring DHS to augment the northern border staffing by 20% of any annual
increases each year between FY2006 and FY2010. An issue for Congress may involve
whether incentives should be offered to help DHS recruit additional agents or keep
existing agents from leaving the agency; in FY2007 the USBP experienced a 10% 41
attrition rate. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended fully funding the
President’s request. Additionally, the Senate Committee reiterated its desire that 20% of
the overall increase in Border Patrol agents be assigned to the northern border and
required a report on the challenges CBP faces in transferring agents to the northern
border within 60 days of the bill’s enactment. Lastly, the Senate Committee noted that the
National Guard was withdrawing its troops from their supporting role at the border in
FY2008 and directed CBP, “in the strongest terms possible,” to hire the previously
funded USBP support personnel in order to allow agents to focus on their border

38 House report, pp. 42-43.
39 H.R. 2638, as Enrolled by the House and the Senate, pp. 83-84.
40 DHS FY2008 Justification, p. CBP S&E 49.
41 From CBP Congressional Affairs, December 18, 2007.


Congressional Research Service 30

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
42
enforcement responsibilities. The House Committee recommended fully funding the
President’s request and reiterated its support for transferring additional agents to the
northern border in order to comply with the statutory requirements. P.L. 110-329 fully
funded the President’s request for additional Border Patrol agents and provided funding
for up to 75 agents to be transferred to the northern border.
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)
The Administration requested an increase of $107 million for WHTI. WHTI will require
U.S. citizens, and Canadian, Mexican, and some island nation nationals to present a
passport, or some other document or combination of documents deemed sufficient to
denote identity and citizenship status by the Secretary of Homeland Security, as per P.L.
108-458 §7209. DHS has already required all U.S. citizens entering the country at air and
sea POE to present passports as of January 18, 2007. P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008, prohibited DHS from implementing WHTI, which requires
U.S. citizens to provide proof of identity and citizenship at the land border, before the
later of the following two dates: June 1, 2009, or three months after the Secretaries of
State and Homeland Security certify that a series of implementation requirements have
been me. Despite this legislation, as of January 31, 2008 DHS has ended the practice of
accepting oral declarations of citizenship at the land border and is requirng U.S, citizens
to present a passport, some other accepted biometric document, or the combination of a 43
driver’s license and a birth certificate, in order to re-enter the country. The FY2009
request for WHTI included funding to hire 89 CBP officers and to deploy radio frequency
technologies to the 39 busiest land POE which cover 95% of the incoming traffic at the
land border, including “facility modifications and the build out of primary lanes as 44
operationally necessary.” Issues for Congress include whether DHS’s disregard of the
extension enacted by P.L. 110-161 was appropriate, whether the proposed staffing
increases and infrastructure modifications are adequate to meet the needs associated with
the WHTI program, and whether the program to develop enhanced state driver’s licenses 45
that may be used to cross the land-border adequately addresses security concerns.
The Senate Committee fully funded the President’s request and directed CBP to provide
quarterly briefings on the status of WHTI implementation in FY2009. The House
Committee also fully funded the President’s request and noted that it remains concerned
that the program “may not be fully integrated and ready for enforcement of the WHTI 46
document requirements.” The House Committee also directed CBP to provide quarterly
briefings on the program’s implementation.

42 S.Rept. 110-396, pp. 25-26.
43 Department of Homeland Security, Press Release, DHS Ends Oral Declarations at Borders, Reminds
Travelers of New Procedures on January 31, January 18, 2008.
44 DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. CBP S&E 4.
45 DHS entered into an agreement to with Washington State to develop driver’s licenses that would be
considered WHTI-compliant. These enhanced drivers licenses (EDL) have been issued as of January 22,
2008 and several other states have expressed interest in developing their own EDLs.
46 H.Rept. 110-862, p. 33.


Congressional Research Service 31

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Other Travel Programs
The House Committee voiced its support for the new International Registered Traveler
program enacted by the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, and which has been
renamed Global Entry by the Administration. The program will give pre-approved, low-
risk travelers (U.S. Citizens and Legal Permanent Residents) expedited clearance into the 47
United States at three airports. The Committee also included $10 million to expand this
program to the 20 busiest international airports. Additionally, the House Committee noted
that it provided $36 million in FY2008 for the Electronic System for Travel Authorization
(ESTA), which will be used to screen and process travelers from visa-waiver countries,
and directed CBP to submit a report on ESTA’s implementation with the FY2010 budget
request.
Covered Law Enforcement Officer Status for CBP Officers
Congress addressed concerns that CBP was losing valuable officers to other agencies due
to disparities in retirement pay in FY2008 by extending federal law enforcement officer
status to CBP officers for retirement purposes in P.L. 110-161. The FY2009 President’s
request would have retracted the law enforcement officer status for CBP officers that was
enacted in FY2008. During the FY2009 appropriations cycle, the Senate Committee
reiterated its strong support for CBP officers’ new retirement status and included $200
million to fully fund the new law enforcement officer retirement program for CBP
officers. The House Committee recommended $217 million for CBP officers’ new
retirement status, also rejecting the Administration’s proposal to repeal the new status.
P.L. 110-329 provided CBP with an additional $200 million above the President’s request
to cover the costs associated with the new retirement status for CBP officers.
Secure Freight Initiative (SFI)
The Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) is the next stage in the Department’s effort to secure
cargo containers in-bound to the U.S. from foreign countries. According to DHS, SFI is
now being characterized as a “three-pronged approach to enhance supply chain 48
security.” The three prongs of this approach are: the International Container Security
project (ICS), the Security Filing (SF); and the Global Trade Exchange (GTX). The ICS
is the component of the strategy whereby all U.S.-bound maritime containers are subject
to an integrated scan (image and radiation detection) at the participating overseas port
before being loaded on the U.S.-bound vessel. ICS is currently in operation at ports in the
United Kingdom, Pakistan, and Honduras. According to DHS, operating the ICS at these
ports fulfills the requirements set out in P.L. 109-347, the Safe Port Act of 2006. The SF
initiative, also referred to as “10+2” by CBP, is the latest effort to collect additional data
pertaining to U.S.-bound maritime shipments. The SF initiative will allow CBP to collect
additional data earlier in the supply chain to enhance risk assessment capabilities before

47 John F. Kennedy International Airport, Washington-Dulles International Airport, and George Bush
Intercontinental Airport.
48 DHS, FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. CBP-SE-26.


Congressional Research Service 32

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

cargo is loaded onto U.S.-bound vessels. CBP issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 49
(NPRM) on the SF initiative and is in the process of developing the final rule.
The Global Trade Exchange (GTX) was being proposed as a “private sector owned and
operated ... new business model for collecting and fusing disparate international cargo 50
data, providing governments and other parties with greater visibility into that data.” On
April 4, 2008, CBP Commissioner Basham announced in remarks given before the
National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America that CBP has decided
not to go forward with a contract award for the GTX. The Commissioner did not rule out 51
exploring similar concepts in the future. Language in the House Appropriations
committee report indicated that CBP has decided not to go ahead with GTX while in the
midst of implementing the 10+2 Security Filing initiative. The House Report also noted
that Committee remains concerned about the remaining gaps in CBP’s information about
in-bound cargo containers and their supply chains, and directs CBP to report to the
Committee no later than January 8, 2009 on the information and intelligence CBP 52
collects on these containers.
CBP Congressional Budget Justification materials indicated that the $149 million request 53
for ICS in FY2009 includes an $11 million reduction for Secure Freight. It is unclear
from the budget materials what this reduction represented, since one of the goals for the
fiscal year was to expand the program to at least one additional port and to add more
capacity at other designated ports. Both House-reported H.R. 6947 and Senate-reported
S. 3181 would have funded ICS/CSI at the requested level for FY2009. P.L. 110-329
fully funded the Administration’s request for ICS/CSI.
It is important to note that CBP is currently describing the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI)
as the next phase/iteration or future of the Container Security Initiative (CSI). CSI may
also be referred to as a component of the International Container Security (ICS) project.
The ICS, as noted above, is the new umbrella name for CBP’s international cargo security
initiatives, which also includes CSI and SFI.
Container Security Initiative (CSI)
CSI is a program by which CBP stations CBP officers in foreign ports to target high-risk
containers for inspection before they are loaded on U.S.-bound ships. CSI is operational
in 58 ports as of September, 2007. As noted above, the CBP Budget Justifications
indicate a requested decrease of nearly $7 million for the CSI/ICS program for FY2009.
This year, the requested $149 million for FY2009 includes funding for CSI/ICS, SFI, the

49 See, CBP,Customs issues Proposed Rule Requiring Additional Cargo Information,” at
h t tp :/ / www. cb p . gov/ x p / c go v/ n e w s r oom / n e w s _r e l e as e s / a r c h i ve s / 2008_news _releas e s/j a n_2008/
01022008.xml.
50 Ibid. p. CBP-S&E-27.
51 Remarks by CBP Commissioner Ralph W. Basham before the National Customs Brokers and National
Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, April 4, 2008.
52 H.Rept. 110-826, July 8, 2009.
53 DHS, FY2009 Congressional Budget Justification, CBP-S&E-24, accessed at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/
assets/budget_fy2009.pdf.


Congressional Research Service 33

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Security Filing (SF), and the proposed Global Trade Exchange(GTX). Given that the
request includes less funding for several programs, than has been appropriated for CSI
alone in the past couple of years, this indicates a decline in requested funding for CSI. An
issue for Congress concerns the reasoning behind the Administration’s proposal to
apparently decrease funding for CSI given that DHS anticipated expanding CSI/ICS in
FY2009 by deploying ICS at one additional site and expanding capacity at other
designated ports.
Language in the House Appropriations committee report indicated that the Committee
was concerned about CBP staffing levels at CSI and SFI port locations. Among other
items of concern, the staffing of senior leadership positions and staff with appropriate
language skills were of particular interest to the Committee. The House Report required
CBP to report to the Committee no later than January 8, 2009, on the steps that CBP will
have taken to improve staffing and host country relations.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)54
ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the United States.
ICE develops intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the United States and is responsible
for investigating and enforcing violations of the immigration laws (e.g., alien smuggling,
hiring unauthorized alien workers). ICE is also responsible for locating and removing
aliens who have overstayed their visas, entered illegally, or have become deportable. In
addition, ICE develops intelligence to combat terrorist financing and money laundering,
and to enforce export laws against smuggling, fraud, forced labor, trade agreement
noncompliance, and vehicle and cargo theft. Furthermore, this bureau oversees the
building security activities of the Federal Protective Service, formerly of the General 55
Services Administration. The Federal Air Marshals Service (FAMS) was returned from
ICE to TSA pursuant to the reorganization proposal of July 13, 2005. The Office of Air
and Marine Interdiction was transferred from ICE to CBP in FY2005, and therefore the
totals for ICE do not include Air and Marine Interdiction funding, which is included
under CBP. See Table 8 for account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and
Table 10 for sub-account-level detail for ICE Salaries and Expenses (S&E) for FY2008
and FY2009.
President’s FY2009 Request
The Administration requested $5,663 million in gross budget authority for ICE in
FY2009. This represented a 1% increase over the enacted FY2008 level of $5,581
million. The Administration requested an appropriation of $4,748 million in net budget
authority for ICE in FY2009, representing a small increase over the FY2008 enacted
level (including Division E of P.L. 110-161) of $4,735 million. Notably, Division E of
P.L. 110-161 included an appropriation of $200 million for the comprehensive
identification and removal of criminal aliens, which is not included in the FY2009 budget

54 Prepared by Alison Siskin, Specialist in Immigration Legislation, Domestic Social Policy Division.
55 FAMS transferred to ICE from TSA in August of 2003.


Congressional Research Service 34

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

request. Table 10 provides activity-level detail for the Salaries and Expenses account.
The request included the following program increases:
• $46 million (39 FTE) for 725 additional detention beds and support 56
personnel;
• $12 million (36 FTE) for investigations related to national security and
critical infrastructure;
• $12 million for 287(g) agreements;
• $12 million to co-locate ICE facilities (i.e., consolidating ICE offices in
cities where ICE occupies more than one location);
• $7 million (19 FTE) for the Office of Professional Responsibility to
investigate allegations of criminal and serious misconduct involving ICE
employees;
• $6 million (20 FTE) for the Office of Cyber Crimes Center to increase
investigations of cyber crimes related to document fraud, child
exploitation, and money laundering;
• $5 million (14 FTE) for additional positions in the Commercial Fraud,
Intellectual Property Rights, and Trade Transparency Units to combat
crimes such as trafficking in counterfeit merchandise and
pharmaceuticals;
• $3 million for new Visa Security Units in Istanbul, Turkey and Beirut,
Lebanon;
• $2 million (14 FTE) to consolidate and coordinate ICE training and
oversight activities; and
• $1 million to increase outbound enforcement to prevent arms and
strategic technologies from leaving the United States.
House-reported H.R. 6947
House-reported H.R. 6947 would have appropriated $5,728 million in gross budget
authority, $65 million more than the President’s request. House-reported H.R. 6947
would have appropriated $4,813 in net budget authority for ICE, which would have
represented an increase of $65 million, 1% over the Administration’s requested amount.
Of the appropriated amount, nearly $8 million would have been for special operations
under §3131 of the Customs Enforcement Act of 1986; $1 million would have provided
compensation awards to informants; $305,000 would have been used to promote public
awareness of the child pornography tipline and anti-child exploitation activities; $11
million would have been designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the
cost of care, and repatriation of smuggled aliens; $16 million would have been targeted
for enforcement of laws against forced child labor; and $800 million would have been
designated to identify aliens convicted of a crime and remove them from the United

56 According to the Presidents request, DHS would also fund 275 new beds through the breach bond fund.


Congressional Research Service 35

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

States. According to the House report, the appropriated monies would have included the
President’s budget requested increases of $46 million to fund the for detention bed space
and support personnel, and $12 million for investigations related to national security and
critical infrastructure.
The House report noted that House-reported H.R. 6947 would have appropriated an
additional $2 million for Office of Professional Responsibility to oversee the
comprehensive review of the medical care provided to ICE detainees. In addition,
according to the House report, House-reported H.R. 6947 would have appropriated over
the President’s requested budget:
• $12 million for criminal gang investigations;
• approximately $1 for Office of the Principle Legal Advisor;57 and
• $7 million for the Alternatives to Detention Program.
In addition, an amendment was adopted during the full Committee mark-up that would
have transferred an additional $6 million from Title I OE&SM account to the ICE salaries
and expenses account.
Senate-reported S. 3181
Senate-reported S. 3181 would have appropriated $5,928 million in gross budget
authority for ICE, $265 million more than the President’s request. Senate-reported S.
3181 would have appropriated $4,989 in net budget authority for ICE, which would have
represented an increase of $241 million, 5% over the Administration’s requested amount.
Of the appropriated amount, $2,478 million would have been designated for detention
and removal operations; $160 million would have been allocated to identify and remove
criminal aliens; nearly $8 million would have been for special operations under §3131 of
the Customs Enforcement Act of 1986; $1 million would have provided compensation
awards to informants; $305,000 would have been used to promote public awareness of
the child pornography tipline and anti-child exploitation activities; $5 million would have
been used to facilitate agreements under §287(g) of the INA; $11 million would have
been designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care, and
repatriation of smuggled aliens; $16 million would have been targeted for enforcement of
laws against forced child labor; and nearly $7 million would have been used to fund the
Visa Security Program.
According to S.Rept. 110-396, Senate-reported S. 3181 would have fully funded the
President’s budget request for increases over the FY2008 appropriate amounts for: the
ICE Office of Human Capital ($1 million); the co-location of ICE facilities ($12 million);
national security and critical infrastructure investigations ($12 million); commercial fraud
and intellectual property investigations ($5 million); outbound enforcement investigations
($1 million); 287(g) agreements ($12 million); fugitive operations ($1 million); and the
Criminal Alien Program ($2 million). In addition, S.Rept. 110-396 recommended an
increase over the President’s budget requested of:

57 Of this, more than half would be used to expand the prosecutions of human rights violators who have
entered the United States.


Congressional Research Service 36

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

• $26 million for 400 additional detention beds and support personnel to 58
support increased worksite enforcement (total increase of $74 million);
• $34 million (108 FTE) for worksite enforcement investigations;
• $2 million for the Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate
allegations of criminal and serious misconduct involving ICE employees
(total increase of $9 million and 39 FTE from FY2008);
• $5 million (3 FTE) for investigations of cyber crimes (total increase of
$11 million (23 FTE) over FY2008);
• $3 million (3 FTE) for the Visa Security Program (total increase of $7
million and 6 FTE from FY2008);
• $5 million (7 FTE) for Security Advisory Opinion Units;59
• $5 million for textile transshipment enforcement;
• $3 million (19 FTE) for Field Intelligence Groups;660
• $4 million for Alternatives to Detention; and
• $160 million for Secure Communities.
P.L. 110-329
P.L. 110-329 appropriated $5,928 million in gross budget authority for ICE, which was
$265 million (5%) more than the President’s request. P.L. 110-329 appropriated $4,989
million in net budget authority, 5% or $241 million more than the President’s request.
The Act specified that the appropriated amounts are to be used as follows: $1,000 million 61
to identify and removal criminal aliens;6 $22 million to expand a variety of
investigative programs; $100 million for state and local programs; $127 million for
worksite enforcement investigations; $11 million for the Forensics Document Laboratory;
$34 for the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC); $5 million for textile
transshipment enforcement; $63 million for alternatives to detention; $57 million for 62
Automatization Modernization; and $16 million for TECS modernization.6
P.L. 110-329 provided increases in appropriations over the President’s request for the
following programs:
• $150 million for the identification and removal of criminal aliens;

58 The total number of funded beds for FY2009 would be 33,400.
59 These units are part of the Visa Security Program and co-locate ICE officers with Department of State
personnel to review visa applications.
60 Field Intelligence Groups are part of Office of Intelligence.
61 The Act required that $850 million of the money to locate and removal criminal aliens be allocated from
existing ICE programs.
62 Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS) was created as the accounting system for the
former U.S. Customs Service, and is the accounting system used by ICE and CBP. The former Immigration
and Naturalization Service used a system known as the Performance Analysis System (PAS). During 2004,
ICE and CBP stopped using PAS and switched all their accounting to TECS.


Congressional Research Service 37

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

• $6 million for transnational gang enforcement;
• $8 million for the visa security program;
• $3 million for cyber crime investigations;
• $34 million for worksite enforcement investigations;
• $3 million for ICE field intelligence groups;
• $2 for the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) to fund the
conversion of LESC employees from job category 1802 to job category

1801;


• $7 million for alternatives to detention;
• $1 million for ICE training consolidation and integration;
• $7 million to co-locate ICE field facilities;
• $0.5 million got the Office of the Principle Legal Advisor; and
• $5 million for construction, which funds basic and emergency
maintenance at ICE-owned detention facilities.
Table 10. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009 FY2009 P.L
FY2008 aFY2009 House- Senate- 110-b
Activity Enacted Request Reported Reported 329
HQ & Administration 316 0 361 377 372
Legal Proceeding 208 241 215 214 215
Investigations - Domestic 1,422 1,679 1,191 1,514 1,519
Investigations - International 108 128 126 134 134
Investigations Total 1,530 1,807 1,317 1,648 1,653
Intelligence 52 62 53 56 56
DRO-Custody Operations 1,647 1,789 1,650 1,721 1,721
DRO-Fugitive Operations 219 238 226 226
DRO-Criminal Alien Program 179 204 189 189
DRO-Alternatives to
Detention 54 58 63 60 63
DRO Transportation and
Removal Program 282 290 281 281 281
DRO Total 2,381 2,579 1,994 2,478 2,481
Comprehensive
Identification and Removal cd
of Criminal Aliens 200 0 800 160 150
ICE Salaries and Expenses 4,688 4,691 4,740e 4,932 4,927


Congressional Research Service 38

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in
Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and House-reported H.R. 6947 and its
accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862). FY2009 enacted from the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as
submitted in the Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. ColumnFY2008 Enacted includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L.
110-161.
b. The text of P.L. 110-329was not available as of November 6, 2008. These tables reflect DHS
appropriations for FY2009 contained in the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the
Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
c. This amount includes funding for the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), Fugitive Operations, Office
of Investigations support to locate criminal aliens, and State and Local Programs including 287(g)
agreements. The House-reported bill did not include separate funding for CAP or Fugitive
Operations.
d. P.L. 110-329appropriated $1,000 million for the identification and removal of criminal aliens. Of
those funds, $150 million was additional funding not included in the Presidents budget, and $850
million was required to be allocated from existing ICE programs.
e. Does not include $6 million transferred from Title I OS&EM account to ICE S&E by amendment
during the full Committee mark-up of the bill in the House.
Issues for Congress
ICE is responsible for many divergent activities due to the breadth of the civil and
criminal violations of law that fall under ICE’s jurisdiction. As a result, how ICE
resources are allocated in order to best achieve its mission is a continuous issue. In
addition, part of ICE’s mission includes locating and removing deportable aliens, which
involves determining the appropriate amount of detention space as well as which aliens
should be detained. Additionally, in recent years there has been debate concerning the
extent to which state and local law enforcement should aid ICE with the identification,
detention, and removal of deportable aliens.
Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions
The Office of Investigations (OI) in ICE focuses on a broad array of criminal and civil
violations affecting national security such as illegal arms exports, financial crimes,
commercial fraud, human trafficking, narcotics smuggling, child
pornography/exploitation, worksite enforcement, and immigration fraud. ICE special
agents also conduct investigations aimed at protecting critical infrastructure industries
that are vulnerable to sabotage, attack, or exploitation. The Homeland Security Act of
2002 (P.L. 107-296) abolished the INS and the United States Customs Service, and
transferred most of their investigative functions to ICE effective March 1, 2003. There
are investigative advantages to combining the INS and Customs Services, as those who
violate immigration laws may be engaged in other criminal enterprises (e.g., alien
smuggling rings often launder money). Nonetheless, concerns have been raised that not
enough resources have been focused on investigating civil violations of immigration law
and that ICE resources have been focused on terrorism and the types of investigations


Congressional Research Service 39

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
63
performed by the former Customs Service.6 The House report noted that the Committee
has developed a new investigatory budget structure for ICE in 2009 to provide
transparency into the agency’s various law enforcement missions. P.L. 110-329
appropriated 1,653 total for OI for FY2009, $154 million less than the President’s budget
request of $1,807 million. Senate-reported S. 3181 would have appropriated $1,648 64
million for OI, while the House report would have appropriated $1,317 million.6
Detention and Removal Operations
Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) in ICE provide custody management of the
aliens who are in removal proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the 65
United States.6 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 66
removal, left the country.6 Concerns have been raised that decisions regarding which
aliens to release and when to release them may be based on the amount of detention
space, not on the merits of individual cases, and that the amount of space may vary by
area of the country leading to inequities and disparate policies in different geographic
areas. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458,
§5204) authorized, subject to appropriations, an increase in DRO bed space of 8,000 beds
for each year, FY2006-FY2010. P.L. 110-329 appropriated $2,481 million for DRO,
including funding 1,400 more detention beds and support personnel than in FY2008,
bring the total number of FY2009 detention beds to 33,400. Although P.L. 110-329
appropriated less money than the President’s request of $2,579 for DRO, P.L. 110-329
appropriated an additional $150 million to identify and removal criminal aliens much of
which will be used by DRO. The House-reported bill would have fully funded the
President’s request of $2,579 million for DRO including an additional $46 million for 67
725 detention beds and support personnel.6 Senate-reported S. 3181 would have
appropriated $2,478 for DRO, including funding for 400 more detention beds and support
personnel, and $160 million for Secure Communities (a program that identifies and
removes incarcerated criminal aliens) than the President’s budget request.

63 Based on CRS discussions with ICE personnel in New York City, August 27, 2003.
64 Although House-reported H.R. 6947 and Senate-reported S. 3181 would have appropriated less money
than the Presidents budget request, it is not clear that the Presidents budget actually requested more money.
The Presidents budget requested no money for HQ and Administration, appearing to fold the funding into
program activities. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that there will be no funding for HQ and administration
purposes.
65 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.
66 Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, The Immigration and Naturalization Services
Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders, Report I-2003-004, February 2003.
67 In addition, DHS would also fund 275 beds through the breach bond fund, increasing the total bed space by
1,000 to 33,000 beds.


Congressional Research Service 40

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Furthermore, there have been concerns raised about the adequacy of medical care 68
received by aliens in detention.6 House-reported H.R. 6947 would have specified that
no funds could be used to continue any contract for detention services with a facility that
receives two consecutive less than adequate performance ratings, while S.Rept. 110-396
urged ICE to establish and improve the system for responding to detainee complaints. As
in the House report, P.L. 110-329 appropriated an additional $2 million for the Office of
Professional Responsibility to undertake an immediate comprehensive review of the
medical care provided to ICE detainees. The Act also directed ICE to immediately
implement the Government Accountability Office’s recommendation to improve medical
services.
State and Local Law Enforcement 69
Currently, the INA provides limited avenues for state enforcement of both its civil and
criminal provisions. One of the broadest grants of authority for state and local
immigration enforcement activity stems from INA §287(g), which authorizes the
Attorney General to enter into a written agreement with a state, or any political
subdivision, to allow state and local law enforcement officers to perform the functions of
an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of
aliens in the United States. The enforcement of immigration by state and local officials
has sparked debate among many who question what the proper role of state and local law
enforcement officials should be in enforcing federal immigration laws. Many have
expressed concern over proper training, finite resources at the local level, possible civil
rights violations, and the overall impact on communities. Nonetheless, some observers
contend that the federal government has scarce resources to enforce immigration law and
that state and local law enforcement entities should be utilized.
House-reported H.R. 6947 would have specified that no funds may be used to continue a
287(g) agreement if the DHS Inspector General determined that the 287(g) agreement
had been violated; or to enter into an agreement with law enforcement (other than at a jail
or prison) of a state or subdivision of the state unless the Assistant Secretary of ICE
reviewed all requests for 287(g) agreements in that state and prioritizes the agreements
that will maximize the identification of criminal aliens convicted of dangerous crimes. In
addition, the President’s budget request included an increase of $12 million for these
agreements that Senate-reported S. 3181 would have fully funded.
P.L. 110-329 appropriated $100 million for state and local programs including $54
million for the 287(g) program and $5 million for compliance reviews of the 287(g)
agreements. P.L. 110-329 directed ICE to prioritize 287(g) agreements that will maximize
the identification and removal of deportable criminal aliens.

68 For more on the issue of detainee medical care, see CRS Report RL34556, Health Care for Noncitizens in
Immigration Detention, by Alison Siskin.
69 This section adapted from CRS Report RL32270, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local
Law Enforcement, by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Michael John Garcia, and Karma Ester.


Congressional Research Service 41

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Federal Protective Service770
The Federal Protective Service (FPS), within ICE, is responsible for the protection and
security of federally owned and leased buildings, property, and personnel. It has two
primary missions—basic security and building specific security. Basic security functions
include daily monitoring of federal building entry and exit points; building specific
security includes investigating specific threats to a federal facility or building. In general,
FPS focuses on law enforcement and protection of federal facilities from criminal and
terrorist threats. The FY2009 President’s request for FPS was $616 million. House-
reported H.R. 6947 would have fully funded the President’s request. Senate-reported S.
3181 would have appropriated $640 million for FPS. P.L. 110-329 appropriated $640
million for FPS in FY2009.
In FY2007, the Administration realigned its workforce and reduced the number of FPS
law enforcement officers and investigators. Following this realignment and reduction, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that FPS’s staff decreased by
approximately 20%, from about 1,400 employees at the end of FY2004 to approximately 71
1,100 employees at the end of FY2007.7 According to GAO, this reduction in FPS’s
staff resulted in the reduction of security at federal facilities and increased the risk of 72
crime or terrorist attacks.7 Finally, GAO stated that the decision by FPS to eliminate
proactive security patrols at federal facilities resulted in FPS law enforcement personnel
not being able to conduct security operations. Such operations involve inspecting
suspicious vehicles, monitoring suspicious individuals, or detecting and deterring 73
criminal activity in and around federal buildings.7 Since the Administration’s FY2007
decisions on FPS activities received congressional attention, it may be important to note
the Administration’s actions and intentions for FY2008 and FY2009.
In FY2008, the Administration expected to:
• improve methods used to identify and reduce real and perceived threats
to federal facilities;
• continue intelligence and information sharing;
• provide law enforcement and security services at National Special
Security Events (NSSE); and
• strengthen federal facility security standards.774
Finally, in FY2009, the Administration intends for the FPS to:

70 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy,
Government and Finance Division.
71 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: The Federal Protective Service Faces
Several Challenges That Hamper Its Ability to Protect Federal Facilities (Washington: June 2008), p. 12.
72 Ibid.
73 Ibid., p.14.
74 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal Protective
Service, Fiscal Year 2009 Congressional Justification, p. 5.


Congressional Research Service 42

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

• provide law enforcement and security services at National Special
Security Events (NSSE);
• complete risk-based security standards aligned with intelligence;
• continue federal facility security assessments;
• continue to monitor federal agency compliance with security standards;
• improve contract security guard management; and
• continue to strengthen business processes and the Service.775
As a result of GAO’s findings and congressional interest, P.L. 110-329 required OMB
and DHS to fully fund FPS operations through revenue and collections of security fees 76
paid by federal departments and agencies.7 This security fee collection is intended to
ensure that the FPS maintains not fewer than 1,200 full-time equivalent staff and 900 77
full-time equivalent police officers, inspectors, area commanders, and special agents.7
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)78
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 transportationsystems.
TSA is further charged with serving as the primary liaison for transportation security to
the law enforcement and intelligence communities. See Table 8 for account-level detail
for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 11 for sub-account-level detail for TSA for
FY2008 enacted levels and supplemental appropriations and FY2009 amounts specified
in the President’s request, the House and Senate-reported bills, and enacted levels
specified in P.L. 110-329.
President’s FY2009 Request
The President’s requested funding level for the TSA in FY2009, totaling $7,102 million,
comprises about 14% of the DHS gross budget authority. The President’s FY2009 request

75 Ibid.
76 P.L. 110-329, Title II, mandates that OMB “certify in writingto the Committees of Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives that FPS will be fully funded in FY2009.
77 P.L. 110-329, Title II.
78 Prepared by Bart Elias, Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.


Congressional Research Service 43

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

estimates receipts totaling $2,360 million in offsetting collections, mostly through the
collection of passenger security fees and security fees paid by the airlines. These
estimated offsetting collections for FY2009 are $67 million over FY2008 projected
levels, yielding a net total requested amount for TSA of $4,065 million, to be paid for out
of the Treasury General Fund.
New funding initiatives include an additional $426 million to the Aviation Security
Capital Fund (ASCF) for explosives detection equipment purchase and installation.
Proposed discretionary funding for the purchase and installation of Explosive Detection
Systems (EDS) and Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) equipment would be reduced by
$140 million compared to FY2008 levels, however this reduction would be more than
offset by the proposed increase to the ASCF. A proposed increase of $47 million for
Screening Technology (Maintenance and Utilities) reflects increasing costs of checked
baggage and checkpoint screening equipment maintenance as these systems age and
approach their useful service life. Also, a funding increase of $32 million is proposed for
the Secure Flight program. The Checkpoint Screening Security Fund—a one-time
mandatory funding vehicle that provided $250 million in FY2008 for checkpoint
screening technologies—would be replaced by a requested appropriation of $128 million
for Checkpoint Support. The President’s FY2009 request provides for 800 additional full-
time equivalent (FTE) Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) and other aviation
security job functions. These additional slots would mainly be filled by more Behavioral
Detection Officers (BDOs, 330 additional FTEs) and additional screeners to conduct
random screening of airport workers.
The President’s FY2009 request includes a proposal to realign several TSA programs.
Most notably, the request proposes to place the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS)
under the Aviation Security account, rather than maintaining it as a separate entity. The
budget also seeks to realign several regulatory functions, including air cargo security,
under the Aviation Regulation program, and several law enforcement programs, including
airport law enforcement support; canine teams; Visible Intermodal Protective Response
(VIPR) teams; and Federal Flight Deck Officers (FFDOs), under the Law Enforcement
program. The proposal also seeks to establish a single Human Resource Services within
the Aviation Security account, to support both field and headquarters staff. Also, the
request proposes that information technology and support for Aviation Security be
realigned with the Information Technology function housed within the Transportation
Security Support account.
House-reported H.R. 6947
The House committee recommended $6,964 million for the TSA, $138 million less than
the President’s request, but $77 million more than the Senate-reported bill. Like the
Senate-reported bill, the House-reported bill has not adopted many of the realignment
proposals offered in the President’s request. Specifically, the committee rejected the idea
of consolidating air cargo with other aviation regulation activities, and it rejected the
concept of placing FAMS under the aviation security program area. However, like the
Senate-reported bill, H.R. 6947 concurred with the Administration proposals to
consolidate human resources and information technology activities throughout the TSA.
Thus, while funding levels for budget activities contained in H.R. 6947 are directly


Congressional Research Service 44

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

comparable to the Senate-reported amounts, these amounts are not directly comparable to
the President’s request for affected budget activities.
House-reported H.R. 6947 requested $250 million for Checkpoint Support, the same
amount provided under the Checkpoint Security Screening Fund in FY2008, and $122
million above the President’s request for FY2009. The committee believed that this
additional funding was necessary to expedite testing and deployment of checkpoint
explosives screening technologies. The House report expressed concern that only half of
large airports have optimized their baggage screening systems to date, and recommended
$294 million for EDS/ETD purchase and installation, in line with the Senate-reported
amount. The committee also recommended $110 million for air cargo security, $39
million above the FY2008 appropriated level, but $13 million below the Senate-reported
amount.
The House committee recommended $109 million for Threat Assessment and
Credentialing functions, $24 million below the requested level. The committee
recommended $75 million of this for the Secure Flight program, $7 million below the
request, citing schedule slips in the regulatory process and GAO reviews of the program.
With regard to surface transportation security, the House-reported measure specified $50
million, $13 million above the President’s request, and $14 million below the Senate-
reported amount. The additional funding specified in the House report was intended for
the deployment of additional security inspectors.
Senate-reported S. 3181
The Senate-reported bill would have set total funding for the TSA at $6,887 million, $215
million less than the President’s request. The reported bill supported only some of the
Administration-proposed functional realignments. Therefore, funding for several of the
budget activities in Table 11 cannot be directly compared. Specifically, the committee
agreed with the Administration plan to consolidate human resources and information
technology programs throughout the TSA. However, the committee did not go along with
the Administration proposals to consolidate law enforcement activities under the aviation
security program area, to place the FAMS under aviation security, and to consolidate
regulatory enforcement functions, including air cargo security activities.
The committee recommended $2,692 million for passenger and baggage screening
personnel compensation and benefits (PC&B), $24 million below the requested levels
based on FY2008 “payroll underburn” reported to the committee. The committee also
recommended a recision of $7.3 million of FY2008 funds set aside for pilot programs to
screen airport employees that were determined to be in excess of the amount needed to
carry out these pilots. The committee recommended $200 million for checkpoint support,
$72 million above the President’s request, but $50 million less than the amount provided
in FY2008 under the Checkpoint Security Screening Fund.
The committee noted that the Administration’s proposed passenger security fee increase
has not been acted on by congressional authorizing committees, and therefore reported
mandatory funding for the Aviation Security Capital Fund at the currently authorized
level of $250 million. The committee, instead, proposed a funding level of $294 million
for EDS/ETD purchase and installation, $140 million above the President’s request.


Congressional Research Service 45

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

The committee recommended $123 million for air cargo security, $18 million above the
amount proposed in the President’s request within the aviation regulation and law
enforcement program area, under the proposed restructuring scheme. The committee also
sought to expand the TSA air cargo screening technology pilots to address the mandate
for 100% screening of cargo placed on passenger aircraft, and called for the TSA to issue
an expenditure plan detailing efforts to develop covert testing protocols, augment cargo
strike teams, and provide details of deployed canine teams and screening technologies. In
addition to increased air cargo security funding to meet the 100% screening mandate of
the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53),
the committee recommendation included $20 million across various budget activities to
implement regulations and fulfill other mandates of the 9/11 Act. The committee also
recommended $4 million for airport perimeter security pilot projects, which was not
included in the President’s request but is equal to FY2008 funding for this activity. The
committee proposed $799 million for FAMS, $13 million above the President’s request,
and recommends keeping FAMS separate from aviation security, rather than placing it
under the aviation security program area as requested. With regard to surface
transportation security, the bill sought $64 million, $27 million more than the President’s
request, and seeks additional inspectors and operations staff.
P.L. 110-329
The Act provided a total of $6,978 to the TSA, $91 million above the Senate-reported
level and $14 million above the House-reported level, but $124 million less than the
President’s request. Funding for aviation security totaled $4,735 million, roughly
matching the House-reported levels.
As recommended in the House and Senate reports, the Act consolidated Information
Technology functions and Human Capital Services across the TSA. Like the House and
Senate-reported measures, the Act did not support other realignment and consolidation
proposals from the President’s request.
The Act included a total of $544 million for the procurement and installation of checked
baggage explosives detection systems, including $294 million for EDS/ETD purchase
and installation and the mandatory $250 million for the ASCF. This comprises slightly
less than half of the spending that has been designated as going towards efforts to
implement requirements of the 9/11 Act (P.L. 110-53). These funding initiatives, totaling
$1,119 million, also included $123 million for Air Cargo Security; $391 million for
specialized screening programs, including travel document checkers, behavior detection
officers, bomb appraisal officers, and random screening of airport workers; $30 million to
expand the VIPR teams; almost $12 million for surface transportation security inspectors;
and $20 million specifically designated for Implementing P.L. 110-53, intended for
conducting vulnerability assessments and security training exercises for high-risk surface
transportation systems.
Of the $123 million appropriated for Air Cargo Security, $18 million was allocated for
expanding test programs evaluating air cargo screening technologies, and for auditing
freight forwarders, shippers, and distributors participating in the TSA’s certified shipper
program. The Act also directed the TSA to submit an expenditure plan for air cargo
security funds including details of new covert testing protocols, efforts to expand


Congressional Research Service 46

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

regulatory inspection strike teams, and data on canine team and air cargo screening
technology deployment.
The Act also provided $250 million for Checkpoint Support to deploy emerging
passenger and carry-on screening technologies, with a focus on deploying whole body
imaging (WBI) technologies to passenger checkpoints. This amount equals the funding
provided in FY2008 under the Checkpoint Screening Security Fund. The Act also
provided $306 million for Screening Technology Maintenance and Utilities for the
upkeep of deployed passenger checkpoint and checked baggage screening technologies,
including slightly more that $4 million for the disposal of equipment no longer in service.
The Act provided $116 million for Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing
functions, including $82 million for Secure Flight. The Act, however, prohibited the
operational deployment of Secure Flight beyond testing until the DHS certifies and the
GAO reports that all statutory conditions pertaining to privacy, data security, data
retention, and redress procedures for passengers have been satisfactorily met.
Table 11. TSA Gross Budget Authority, by Budget Activity
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009 FY2009 P.L.
FY2008 FY2009 House- Senate- 110-b
Budget Activity Enacteda Request Reported Reported 329
Aviation Security 4,809 5,290 4,733 4,672 4,735
Screening Partnership
Program (SPP) 143 151 151 151 151
Passenger & Baggage
Screening (PC&B) 2,636 2,716 2,716 2,692 2,716
Screener Training & Other 224 197 197 197 197
Human Resource Services 182
Checkpoint Support 128 250 200 250
EDS/ETD
Purchase/Installation 294 154 294 294 294
Screening Technology 264 311 311 306 306
Operation Integration 25 21 21 21 21
Aviation Regulation (and 256 210 246 251 245
Other Enforcement)
Airport Management, IT, 652 373 407 407 402
and Support
FFDO & Crew Training 25 25 25 25
Air Cargo Security 73 110 123 123
Federal Air Marshals c 786
Service
Law Enforcement 242
Airport Perimeter Security 4 4 4 4


Congressional Research Service 47

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

FY2009 FY2009 P.L.
FY2008 aFY2009 House- Senate- 110-b
Budget Activity Enacted Request Reported Reported 329
Implementing P.L. 110-30 — 10 d 20
53
Aviation Security Capital 250 676 250 250 250
Fund
Checkpoint Screening 250 — —
Security Fund
Federal Air Marshal 770 c 822 799 819
Service
Management and 674 — 727 708 725
Administration
Travel and Training 95 94 91 94
Threat Assessment and 83 133 109 120 116
Credentialing (TTAC)
Secure Flight 50 82 75 82 82
Crew Vetting 15
Other/ TTAC Admin. & 10 51 34 37 34
Ops.
TWIC Appropriation 8
Credentialing Fees 83 40 40 40 40
Registered Traveler 35 10 10 10 10
Program
TWIC 27 9 9 9 9
Alien Flight School 2 3 3 3 3
HAZMAT Commercial 19 18 18 18 18
Driver
Surface Transportation 47 37 50 64 50
Security
Operations and Staffing 24 25 25 34 25
Security Inspectors 22 11 25 30 25
Transportation Security 524 926 950 950 948
Support
Intelligence 21 22 22 22 22
Headquarters 293 213 237 237 235
Administration
Human Capital Services 218 218 218 218
Information Technology 209 473 473 473 473
Rescission of Prior Year -5 — — -7
Funds
TSA Gross Total 6,815 7,102 6,964 6,887 6,978


Congressional Research Service 48

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS
Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. and H.R. 6947 and the accompanying
report (H.Rept. 110-862).
Notes: Subtotals do not sum to functional area totals and TSA total due to rounding. PC&B:
Personnel Compensation and Benefits; EDS: Explosive Detection Systems; ETD: Explosive Trace
Detection equipment; IT: Information Technology; FFDO: Federal Flight Deck Officer program; TWIC:
Transportation Worker Identification Credential; HAZMAT: Hazardous Materials.
a. ColumnFY2008 Enacted includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-
161.
b. The text of P.L. 110-329was not available as of November 6, 2008. These tables reflect DHS
appropriations for FY2009 contained in the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the
Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
c. The Presidents FY2009 request contains a proposal to place FAMS under the Aviation Security
Account rather than maintaining it as a separate entity.
d. Not centralized by Senate, however S.Rept. 110-396 indicates that an additional $20 million above
the President’s request was spread across various budget activities for this purpose.
TSA Issues for Congress
Issues considered during in the FY2009 appropriations process included the passenger
security fee surcharge proposal, the adequacy of checkpoint technology investment, and
the appropriateness of proposed program realignments included in the President’s
request.
Passenger Security Fee Surcharge
The Administration requested a four-year temporary passenger surcharge beginning in
FY2009 of $0.50 per flight, not to exceed $1.00 per one-way trip, in addition to the
current passenger security fees of $2.50 per flight with a cap of $5.00 per one-way trip.
Under the proposal, these additional fees would be deposited in the Aviation Security
Capital Fund (ASCF). The surcharge is intended to offset the $426 million in new budget
authority for the Aviation Security Capital Fund that the Administration is seeking. These
funds would be used to finance the acquisition and installation of checked baggage
explosives detection equipment. The Administration regards this new budget authority it
is seeking as being subject to PAYGO rules, and it has recommended the collection of the
passenger security fee surcharge as an offsetting collection.
If the increased budget authority for the ASCF is subject to PAYGO rules, as the
Administration maintains, then questions regarding the need for, and possibly the
adequacy of, the proposed $0.50 surcharge may be raised during congressional
appropriations debate. The Administration projects an increase of $216 million in
offsetting security fee collections in FY2009 compared to FY2008, and it is requesting
additional budget authority totaling $426 million for the ASCF. Current authorization for
the ASCF consists of a mandatory appropriation of $250 million derived solely from
passenger security fee collections. In addition, the Implementing Recommendations of
the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53) authorizes an additional $450 million
annually through FY2011 for these same purposes, but as a discretionary appropriation
and not through the ASCF. Congress may debate whether the direct appropriation is a
preferable alternative to supplementing the ASCF as the Administration proposes.


Congressional Research Service 49

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Congress may also debate whether the $0.50 surcharge is adequate to offset the proposed
ASCF funding increase, particularly if economic conditions were to worsen and lead to a
slowdown in passenger volume and lower-than-expected security fee revenue.
Authorizing committees in the House and the Senate have not considered legislation to
raise the passenger security fees as proposed in the President’s request. Therefore, in both
the Senate-reported and the House-reported legislation, it was assumed that the ASCF
will be funded in FY2009 at the mandatory level currently authorized in law of $250
million. Both the Senate-reported and House-reported measures, therefore, proposed
increased discretionary appropriations levels for EDS/ETD purchase and installation. P.L.
110-329 provided a total of $544 million for baggage screening explosives detection
system purchase, installation, and integration, including $294 million for EDS/ETD
purchase and installation in addition to the $250 million mandatory ASCF funding,
matching the amount specified in both the House and Senate bills.
Checkpoint Technology Investment and Deployment
At the President’s requested funding level, the TSA anticipates deploying advanced
technology (AT) x-ray systems at 60% of checkpoints at Category X and Category I
airports, whole-body imaging (WBI) systems at 15% of checkpoints at such airports,
bottle liquids scanners at 65% of checkpoints at such airports, and cast and prosthesis
screening systems at 25% of checkpoints at such airports. Additionally, the TSA intends
to fund the deployment of additional video cameras and electronic surveillance
monitoring systems at checkpoints, and devote $13.5 million to mitigating various safety
hazards at passenger and baggage screening areas.
Congress considered whether the $128 million requested for Checkpoint Support will be
adequate to address advanced screening technology initiatives throughout the aviation
system along with these other competing efforts. This may be an area of particular
interest given that in FY2008 Congress provided $250 million for advanced checkpoint
technologies through the creation of the Checkpoint Screening Security Fund. As many
of these advanced checkpoint screening technologies are now moving beyond the pilot
testing phase to full-scale operational deployment, Congress may seek to more closely
examine and reevaluate the TSA’s existing checkpoint screening technology plan in light
of what is now known about the capabilities and limitations of these various technologies
as well as the current risk environment. Congress may debate whether the deployment
strategy should be modified to either accelerate, or perhaps even scale back, the fielding
of various advanced checkpoint screening technologies. The House-reported measure
specifies $250 million for Checkpoint Support, which would maintain this activity at the
level provided for under the one-year authorization of the Checkpoint Screening Security
Fund in FY2008. The Senate report specified $200 million for Checkpoint Support, $50
million below the amount specified in the House report, but $72 million above the
requested level. P.L. 110-329 provided $250 million for Checkpoint Support, matching
the FY2008 funding level of the Checkpoint Screening Security Fund and the amount
reported in the House. The Act emphasized the use of these funds to acquire mulitple
whole body imaging (WBI) technologies including x-ray backscatter and millimeter wave
systems, as directed in the Senate report.


Congressional Research Service 50

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Program Consolidation Proposals
Congress also considered the realignment of functions as proposed in the President’s
budget request. Most notably, placing air cargo security—which has been a priority issue
for legislation and appropriations over the past five year—within the Aviation Regulation
function may be of particular concern. Critics may argue that air cargo security should
remain a separate function because of its unique characteristics and in recognition of
statutory requirements to screen 50% of all cargo placed on passenger aircraft by
February 2009 and 100% of such cargo by August of 2010 (see P.L. 110-53, Sec. 1602).
While the TSA’s budget justification contended that aligning air cargo security under
Aviation Regulation would emphasize the regulatory aspects of the program and provide
greater flexibility in assigning regulatory inspectors to air cargo details, these air cargo
screening mandates arguably suggest a broader scope to the overall air cargo program.
The TSA has maintained that its roles and responsibilities in meeting these statutory
requirements will largely be met through promulgating regulations and conducting
stepped-up regulatory oversight to ensure air carrier, freight forwarder, and shipper
compliance with screening requirements and other security regulations. However, some
in Congress view the TSA’s role as being much larger, including testing and evaluating
screening technologies, the acquisition and deployment of such equipment, and the
training and deployment of canine teams to assist in cargo screening operations. The TSA
has indicated that it intends to significantly expand canine team involvement in air cargo
screening, making these teams available for air cargo screening 42.5% of the time by
FY2009 compared to the current availability level of 25%. Since a formal plan for
meeting statutory cargo screening requirements has not yet been presented by the TSA,
viewing the TSA role in air cargo security and screening as a regulatory function may
arguably be taking an overly narrow perspective (see CRS Report RL34390, Aviation
Security: Background and Policy Options for Screening and Securing Air Cargo, by Bart
Elias).
Other proposed realignment options may not be as seemingly controversial, but may
nonetheless raise questions during congressional debate. The proposed alignment of the
Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) into the Aviation Security function may allow better
integration of FAMS operations with screening operations and may provide more
streamlined career advancement opportunities for screeners to enter FAMS, as the TSA
budget justification argues. However, some may question why FAMS, the largest law
enforcement unit within the TSA, is not instead aligned with the Law Enforcement
program, which could potentially provide better integration with other law enforcement
functions, including airport law enforcement presence and the FFDO program.
As noted above, neither the Senate-reported nor the House-reported legislation supported
the integration of FAMS into the Aviation Security. The measures also did not support the
realignment of air cargo security operations, opting instead to keep Air Cargo Security as
a separate program. The committees also did not endorse the Administration proposals to
realign other law enforcement and regulatory functions. The committees did, however,
agree to realign human resources and information technology functions across the TSA.
Realignment of these two functional areas was reflected in the FY2009 appropriations act
(P.L. 110-329), but the act did not restructure or realign any other TSA functional areas as
proposed in the President’s request.


Congressional Research Service 51

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Secure Flight
The President’s request proposed a funding increase of $32 million for the Secure Flight
program in order to achieve initial operational deployment in the second quarter of
FY2009, with a goal of fully implementing Secure Flight in early FY2010. This long-
delayed and highly controversial initiative to develop a system for government
prescreening of airline passengers against terrorist watchlists remains an issue. Prior
appropriations acts, including the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-
161), have imposed restrictions on deploying Secure Flight or any other follow-on
prescreening system until the DHS certifies, and the GAO reports to Congress, that
specific issues regarding privacy protection, data security and integrity, and redress
procedures have been adequately addressed. The Administration has long maintained that
this requirement for GAO review and certification of the Secure Flight system constitutes
a “legislative veto” of Administration decisions and actions and therefore, in the
Administration’s view, violates the constitutional framework of separation of powers.
Nonetheless, both the Senate-reported and House-reported legislation would keep in
place these requirements as well as a general prohibition against the use of commercial
information to assess the risk of passengers whose names do not appear on government
terrorist watchlists. P.L. 110-329 also included language (See Sec. 512) prohibiting
operational deployment of Secure Flight, in other than a test basis, until the DHS certifies
and the GAO reports that statutory conditions described in section 522 of P.L. 108-334
pertaining to privacy, data security, data retention, and redress procedures for passengers
have been satisfactorily met. The Act further specified that, during Secure Flight testing,
the TSA may not delay or deny boarding to passengers on the basis of any system-
provided information other than the results of matching names against a government
watch list. The Act also prohibited the TSA from expending any appropriations, including
prior year appropriations, to develop or test algorithms assigning risk to passengers
whose names are not on government watch lists and prohibited the TSA from utilizing
information from non-federal databases in the Secure Flight system, except for passenger
name record (PNR) data provided by the airlines.
United States Coast Guard79
The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for the maritime component of homeland
security. As such, it is the lead agency responsible for the security of U.S. ports, coastal
and inland waterways, and territorial waters. The Coast Guard also performs missions
that are not related to homeland security, such as maritime search and rescue, marine
environmental protection, fisheries enforcement, and aids to navigation. The Coast Guard
was transferred from the Department of Transportation to the DHS on March 1, 2003.
President’s FY2009 Request
For FY2009, the President requested a total of $9,071 million for the Coast Guard, which
accounts for about 19% of DHS’s requested budget. The President requested $6,213
million for operating expenses (an increase of 4% over FY2008), $1,205 million for

79 Prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation, Resources, Science and Industry Division.


Congressional Research Service 52

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

acquisition, construction, and improvements (an increase of 21% over FY2008), $131
million for reserve training (an increase of 3% over FY2008), $16 million for research,
development, tests, and evaluation (a decrease of 36% from FY2008), $12 million for
environmental compliance and restoration (a decrease of 8% from FY2008), and zero
funding for the bridge alteration program. Table 12 provides more detail regarding the
Coast Guard’s Operating Expenses (OE) account and its Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements (ACI) account.
House-reported H.R. 6947
The House Appropriations Committee recommended a total of $9,206 million for the
Coast Guard, $135 million more than requested by the President (see Table 8for totals by
major accounts). The major differences between the President’s request and House
committee recommendations include rejecting the request for funding for a fourth
National Security Cutter, rejecting the requested transfer of $82 million in personnel
funding from the ACI account to the OE account (both are discussed further below) and
$98 million provided for the Coast Guard’s new headquarters versus no funding
requested by the President.
Senate-reported S. 3181
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a total of $9,216 million for the
Coast Guard, $145 million more than requested by the President (see Table 8 for totals
by major accounts). The largest differences in dollar terms between the President’s
request and the Senate committee’s recommendations concern the acquisition of the
response-boat medium and the missionization of C-130J aircraft (both are discussed
further below).
P.L. 110-329
P.L. 110-329 provided $9,361 million for the Coast Guard which includes $6,195 million 80
for OE and $1,495 million for ACI (see Table 8 for totals by major accounts). The Act
provided $64 million more than the President requested for response boats - medium, $44
million more for the Deepwater program, $18 million more for shore facilities and aids to
navigation, $30 million for refurbishment of a polar icebreaker vessel, and $98 million
for Coast Guard headquarters relocation (these differences are discussed further below).

80 This amount excludes a $20 million rescission of unobligated balances in the ACI account as per section
551 of P.L. 110-329. Also, Division B of P.L. 110-329, the Disaster Relief and Recovery Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 provides $300 million for the Coast Guard’s ACI account for facilities damaged by
2008 natural disasters and flooding.


Congressional Research Service 53

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Table 12. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI)
Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009 P.L.
FY2008 aFY2009 FY2009 House- Senate- 110-b
Enacted Request Reported Reported 329
Operating Expenses 6,0016,2136,2026,280 6,195
Military pay and allowances 2,9393,0773,0583,121 3,062
Civilian pay and benefits 604693646691 645
Training and recruiting 189196195199 196
Operating funds and unit level
maintenance 1,1641,1701,1771,182 1,177
Centrally managed accounts 233263259267 262
Port/vessel security and
environmental response 2924
Aviation mission hour gap 105
Intermediate and depot level
maintenance 762815828820 824
DOD Transfer 110
Acquisition, Construction, a
and Improvements 9881,2051,3391,267 1,495
Vessels and Critical
Infrastructure 456969113 113
Aircraft (20)c— —
Other Equipment 173959589 89
Integrated Deepwater System 6519909341,014 1,034
Shore facilities and Aids to
Navigation 41506850 68
Personnel and Related
Support 831961 93
Coast Guard HQ 9898
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in
Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and House-reported H.R. 6947 and its
accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862). FY2009 enacted from the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as
submitted in the Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. ColumnFY2008 Enacted includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-
161, but does not include $300 million for Acquisitions, Construction, and Improvements as
enacted by Division B of P.L. 110-329.
b. The text of P.L. 110-329was not available as of November 6, 2008. These tables reflect DHS
appropriations for FY2009 contained in the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the
Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
c. The House-reported bill includes a rescission of $20 million in previously appropriated funding for
UAVs.


Congressional Research Service 54

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Issues for Congress
Increased duties in the maritime realm related to homeland security have added to the
Coast Guard’s obligations and increased the complexity of the issues it faces. Members of
Congress have expressed concern with how the agency is operationally responding to
these demands, including Coast Guard plans to replace many of its aging vessels and 81
aircraft.
Deepwater
The Deepwater program is a $24 billion, 25-year acquisition program to replace or
modernize 91 cutters, 124 small surface craft, and 244 aircraft. The Coast Guard’s
management and execution of the program has been strongly criticized and several
hearings were held on the program in 2007. The GAO and DHS IG have been very active
in reviewing Deepwater and in 2007 the Coast Guard decided to phase out an outside
system integrator (a team led by Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman) to execute
the program. For FY2009, the President requested $990 million for the program (to be
made available through the end of FY2013) which includes $541 million for vessels and
$231 million for aircraft. The FY2009 request includes $9 million to add 65 new
positions for the new Acquisition Directorate that will be responsible for major
acquisition projects; most notably the Deepwater program. For FY2008 (P.L. 110-161),
Congress appropriated $651 million for Deepwater which included rescissions for
unmanned aerial vehicles and offshore patrol cutters and was $137 million less than the
President requested. Last fiscal year, Congress called for a detailed program expenditure
plan from the Coast Guard, and requested that the GAO review the plan.
Senate-reported S. 3181 largely concurs with the President’s budget request for
Deepwater except that the Senate committee recommended $24 million for the
missionization of three C-130J aircraft while the President’s request did not include these
funds. The House report denied the President’s request of $3 million for Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) under the Deepwater program and instead funded these under the
Coast Guard’s Research, Test, and Evaluation account. The House committee also
reduced the President’s request for National Security Cutters by $54 million because it
believes the construction of the fourth cutter will be delayed and because a GAO review
raises concerns about the transparency of the contractor’s cost and performance
schedules. P.L. 110-329 provided $1,034 million for Deepwater and designates $245
million for aircraft and $571 million for surface ships. The Act withheld $350 million of
this amount until the appropriations committees receives and approves an expenditure
plan. The Act provided $13 million for missionization of three C-130J aircraft, $3 million
for UAVs, and $354 million for National Security Cutters as the President requested.
The President requested and the Senate-reported bill concurs that $82 million and 652
FTEs be transferred from the ACI appropriation to the OE appropriation in order to
increase oversight and management of major acquisition projects, such as Deepwater.

81 On the missions versus resources issue, see also GAO testimony on the Coast Guard’s FY2009 Budget
Request before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, March 6, 2008, GAO-08-
494T.


Congressional Research Service 55

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

House-reported H.R. 6947 denied this transfer, at least until the GAO completes its
review of the potential benefits of this proposal. P.L. 110-329 allowed the Coast Guard to
transfer up to 5% of its OE appropriation to the ACI appropriation for personnel
compensation and benefits if the agency gives notice to the appropriations committees.
Issues for Congress include the Coast Guard’s management of the program, which is the
largest and most complex acquisition effort in Coast Guard history, the overall cost of the
program, and the program’s time-line for acquisition. These issues are discussed in CRS
Report RL33753, Coast Guard Deepwater Acquisition Programs: Background, Oversight
Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
Response-Boat Medium
The President requested and House-reported H.R. 6947 concurred to provide $64 million
to order fourteen 45-foot response boats to replace existing 41-foot utility boats. The
Senate committee, however, recommended an additional $44 million so that an additional
22 response boats can be ordered. The Congressional Record version of the DHS
explanatory statement concurred with the Senate committee’s recommendation, providing 82
a total of $108 million to purchase a total of 36 boats.
Security Mission
Some Members of Congress have expressed strong concerns that the Coast Guard does
not have enough resources to carry out its homeland security mission. A GAO audit 83
raised this concern with respect to the security of energy tankers, and at a Senate
hearing the GAO testified that Coast Guard resources were being challenged by a number 84
of security requirements. About 28% of the Coast Guard’s FY2009 budget request was 85
for its “port, waterways, and coastal security” (PWCS) mission.
For monitoring harbor traffic, the President’s FY2009 request included $26 million to
continue deployment of a nationwide system to detect, identify, track, and communicate
with ships in U.S. harbors, called the Automatic Identification System (AIS). This system
is currently able to track ships, but not to communicate with them, in 55 ports and nine 86
coastal waterways. Tracking receivers are installed on land as well as on sea buoys,
aircraft, and satellites. The FY2009 funding request is for extending tracking capability
out to 50 nautical miles from shore and being able to communicate with ships out to 24
nautical miles from shore for Coast Guard sectors Hampton Roads, Delaware Bay, and 87
Mobile. By FY2014, the Coast Guard expects to extend this capability to all remaining
Coast Guard sectors. The House report agreed with the President’s request regarding AIS

82 CR, September 24, 2008, p. H9800.
83 GAO, Maritime Security: Federal Efforts Needed to Address Challenges in Preventing and Responding to
Terrorist Attacks on Energy Commodity Tankers, GAO-08-141, December 2007.
84 GAO, Coast Guard: Deepwater Program Management Initiatives and Key Homeland Security Missions,
March 5, 2008, GAO-08-531T, see specifically pp. 12-16.
85 DHS Budget in Brief, p. 58.
86 DHS Budget in Brief, p. 57.
87 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-AC&I-122.


Congressional Research Service 56

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

deployment but the Senate report reduced the President’s request by $6 million, noting
that the agency has carryover funds available from prior years and that it is unlikely that
the Coast Guard will achieve its acquisition schedule in FY2009 based on recent history.
The final bill agreed with the Senate report.
The Senate report requested quarterly briefings by the Coast Guard on the status and
development of interagency operations centers (IOCs). IOCs are fusion centers to be
located in each Coast Guard sector that are intended to facilitate intelligence sharing and
coordinated responses among federal and state or local law enforcement to harbor
security-related incidents. AIS is a key technology for the functioning of the IOCs.
The Senate report (S.Rept. 110-396) stated that the President’s budget requests a $15 88
million reduction in Coast Guard port presence and coastal security. The committee
report recommended that this reduction be denied and instead used to add 170 billets for
marine inspectors, armed boat crew escorts, security boardings, and dangerous cargo
terminal inspections.
An unresolved issue is the usefulness of tracking smaller vessels, such as recreational
boats, to counter the threat posed by suicide bombers or smugglers. There are too many
smaller boats for the Coast Guard to track and recreational boaters oppose tracking
because of cost and privacy concerns. Based on a recent DHS strategy report, it appears
the Coast Guard has no immediate plans to require smaller vessels be outfitted with AIS 89
transponders but will continue to pursue methods to identify small craft.
Non-Homeland Security Missions
Some Members of Congress have expressed concern that with the Coast Guard’s
emphasis on its maritime security mission, the agency may have difficulty sustaining its
traditional, non-homeland security missions such as fisheries enforcement or marine 90
environmental protection. In the wake of an oil spill by a container ship (the Cosco
Busan) in San Francisco Bay on November 7, 2007, the Coast Guard was criticized for 91
delays in its rulemaking requiring oil spill response plans for non-tank vessels.
Marine Safety
A congressional hearing was held on August 2, 2007 to examine the performance of the 92
Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Program. Witnesses from the maritime industry
complained about Coast Guard delays in documenting mariners and vessels and a lack of
technical expertise and experience by Coast Guard marine inspectors. In response to

88 S.Rept. 110-396, p. 79.
89 DHS, Small Vessel Security Strategy, April 2008.
90 For information on Coast Guard environmental protection issues, see CRS Report RS22145,
Environmental Activities of the U.S. Coast Guard, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
91 For further information, see CRS Report RL33705, Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters: Background,
Governance, and Issues for Congress, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
92 House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation, “Challenges Facing the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Program,” August 2, 2007.


Congressional Research Service 57

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

these criticisms, the Commandant announced a plan to increase civilian positions in the
marine safety program and strengthen their career paths to foster professional continuity 93
in this area. The FY2009 budget request noted that “the Coast Guard is encountering
serious stakeholder concern about our capacity to conduct marine inspections, 94
investigations, and rulemaking.” The budget requested an additional $20 million in
operating expenses in order to: add 276 marine inspector positions; respond to an
increase in LNG vessel calls; conduct examinations of 5,200 towing vessels mandated in
the FY2004 Coast Guard Authorization Act; review non-tank vessel oil spill response 95
plans; and conduct oversight of ballast water management. The FY2009 budget also
requested $2.6 million to fund 25 rulemaking projects involving safety, security, and
environmental protection.
Senate-reported S. 3181 recommended an additional $4 million to fund 67 more
watchstanders than the President requested, citing a Coast Guard report on the Cosco 96
Busan oil spill as justification for the increase. Watchstanders monitor harbor ship
traffic and provide relevant navigation-related information to ship captains and pilots 97
transiting harbors. The House report recommended an additional $29 million above the
President’s request for watchstanders, boats, marine inspection staff, and for additional
oil spill and environmental response exercises and requests a report from the Coast Guard 98
detailing how it intends to allocate these funds.
Rescue-21
During the FY2007 appropriations process, Congress expressed strong concern with the
Coast Guard’s management of the Rescue 21 program, the Coast Guard’s new coastal
zone communications network that is key to its search and rescue mission and which
replaces its National Distress and Response System. A 2006 GAO audit of the program
found a tripling of project cost from the original estimate and likely further delays in 99
project completion, which was already five years behind schedule. The GAO’s FY2008
Coast Guard budget review noted that while Rescue-21 was originally intended to limit
gaps to 2% of coverage area, that target has now expanded to a less than 10% coverage 100
gap. In the FY2008 Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161), Congress expressed concern for
the number of outages that have been recorded with the system, and requested that the
Coast Guard provide quarterly briefings on its plans to address the outages.

93 U.S. Coast Guard, “Enhancing the Coast Guards Marine Safety Program, September 25, 2007.
94 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-SC-5.
95 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-OE-52 and DHS Budget in Brief, p. 60-61.
96 S.Rept. 110-396, p. 78.
97 For further information on the Cosco Busan oil spill and the role of watchstanders in ship navigation, see
CRS Report RL34365, Ship Navigation in Harbors: Safety Issues.
98 H.Rept. 110-826, p. 77.
99 GAO, United States Coast Guard: Improvements Needed in Management and Oversight of Rescue System
Acquisition, GAO-06-623, May 2006.
100 GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, Performance, Reorganization, and
Related Challenges, April 18, 2007, GAO-07-489T, p. 3.


Congressional Research Service 58

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

The President’s FY2009 budget requested $88 million for Rescue 21 for further 101
deployment of the system’s infrastructure at seven Coast Guard sectors and additional 102
watchstanders at 15 sectors receiving the most rescue traffic. The Senate and House
committees agreed with this request as does the final bill. The Senate report stated that
the overall acquisition cost is now estimated to be $1,066 million, an increase of $366 103
million, and the completion date has been extended six years to 2017.
LORAN-C
The LORAN (Long-Range Aids to Navigation) -C system helps boaters (including
commercial fishermen) and airplane pilots determine their location using radio signals
from 24 tower stations in the United States. The Coast Guard has argued that this system
in no longer needed in light of GPS (Global Positioning System) technology which is
more precise than LORAN, and in recent budget submissions requested that the LORAN-
C system be terminated. In FY2007, Congress funded continuation of the LORAN-C
system and required the Coast Guard, among other things, to first notify the public before
terminating the system. On January 8, 2007, DHS and the Department of Transportation
issued a Federal Register notice seeking public comment on whether to decommission 104
LORAN, maintain it, or upgrade it. Proponents of maintaining the ground-based
LORAN system argue that it is valuable as a backup to the satellite-based GPS system.
They argue that terrain can sometimes block the line of sight needed for GPS. For
FY2008, Congress denied the Administration’s request to terminate LORAN-C and noted
that an Administration policy decision on the future of LORAN-C was expected to be
completed by March 1, 2008. On February 7, 2008, the DHS announced that an enhanced
LORAN system (eLoran) will be used as a backup system to GPS. The President’s
FY2009 budget requested that the administration of the eLoran system be transferred to
the National Preparedness and Programs Directorate (NPPD) of DHS (a transfer equating
to $35 million) while the Coast Guard continues to operate the system on a reimbursable 105
basis. Both the Senate and House Appropriations Committees denied the President’s
request to transfer these funds to NPPD.
Bridge Alteration Program
The bridge alteration program is a program to alter or remove road or railroad bridges
that are obstructing navigation. Consistent with prior requests, the President requested no
new funding for this program. In FY2008, Congress appropriated $16 million. For
FY2009, Senate-reported S. 3181 recommended $16 million while House-reported H.R.

6947 recommended $12 million for this program. P.L. 110-329 provided $16 million.



101 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-AC&I-128.
102 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-OE-33 and 34.
103 S.Rept. 110-396, p. 88.
104 Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 4, January 8, 2007, pp. 796-797.
105 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-OE-18 and 19.


Congressional Research Service 59

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Arctic Activity
With the melting of arctic sea ice, it is predicted that a Trans-Arctic commercial shipping
lane could soon develop in addition to other increased commercial activity in the region.
The Coast Guard is currently testing how its vessels, aircraft, and personnel operate in the
arctic. Three polar icebreaker ships are operated by the Coast Guard (one of them, the
Polar Star, is in caretaker status) but funded from the National Science Foundation’s 106
(NSF) budget. In light of additional polar activities that may extend beyond scientific
research, the House committee directed the Coast Guard to negotiate with the NSF to 107
return the budget of the polar icebreakers to the Coast Guard. The Congressional
Record version of the DHS explanatory statement provided $30 million to reactivate the
Polar Star for 7 to 10 years of service life and directs the Coast Guard to follow the 108
House committee’s direction regarding the budget for icebreakers.
U.S. Secret Service109
The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) has two broad missions—criminal investigations and 110
protection. Criminal investigation activities encompass financial crimes, identity theft,
counterfeiting, computer fraud, and computer-based attacks on the nation’s financial,
banking, and telecommunications infrastructure, among other areas. The protection
mission is the most prominent, covering the President, Vice President, their families, and
candidates for those offices, along with the White House and the Vice President’s
residence (through the Service’s Uniformed Division). Protective duties also extend to
foreign missions in the District of Columbia and to designated individuals, such as the
DHS Secretary and visiting foreign dignitaries. Aside from these specific mandated
assignments, the Secret Service is responsible for security activities at National Special
Security Events (NSSEs), which include the major party quadrennial national 111
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 involving various law enforcement units from other
federal agencies and state and local governments, as well as from the National Guard.
Table 13 displays sub-account detail for Secret Service funding.
President’s FY2009 Request . For FY2009, the President’s budget submission requested
an appropriation of $1,414 million for the protection and criminal investigation missions

106 For further discussion of the U.S. icebreaker fleet, see CRS Report RL34391, Coast Guard Polar
Icebreaker Modernization: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald ORourke.
107 H.Rept. 110-826, pp. 81-82.
108 Congressional Record, September 24, 2008, p. H9800.
109 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy,
Government and Finance Division.
110 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, United States Secret Service, Fiscal Year 2009, Congressional
Justification.
111 Congress appropriated $100 million for the FY2008 presidential nominating conventions in Division B,
Title II of P.L. 110-161.


Congressional Research Service 60

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
112
of the Secret Service. This reflected an increase of $29 million, or nearly 2%, over the
FY2008 total of $1,385 million for the Service.
House-reported H.R. 6947 . For FY2009, the House-reported version of H.R. 6947 113
proposed a total appropriation of $1,371 million for the Secret Service. This reflected a
decrease of $14 million or nearly 1% less than the FY2008 total of $1,385 million for the
Service. One area the House proposed to reduce funding for is White House mail
screening. According to the House report, “No funding is provided for the processing of
mail at the White House, since this activity is an administrative duty that should be
requested and financed through the routine expenses of the Executive Office of the 114
Pr esident. ”
Senate-reported S. 3181 . For FY2009, Senate-reported S. 3181 proposed a total 115
appropriation of $1,418 million for the Secret Service. This reflected an increase of
$33 million, or nearly 2%, more than the FY2008 total of $1,385 million for the Service.
The Senate committee, unlike the House committee, included funds for White House
mail screening.
P.L. 110-329 . For FY2009, Congress appropriated a total appropriation of $1,413 million 116
for the Secret Service. This reflects an increase of $27 million, or nearly 2%, more than
the FY2008 total of $1,385 million for the Service. This appropriation also included $34
million for White House mail screening.
Table 13. U.S. Secret Service Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 House- FY2009 Senate- P.L. 110-
Programs and Activities Enacteda Request Reported Reported 329b
Protection of persons and facilities 694 710 703 710 706
Protective intelligence activities 58 60 60 60 60
National Special Security Events 1 1 1 1 1
Presidential candidate nominee 85 41 41 41 41
protection
White House mail screening 16 37 31 34
Management and administration 176 182 182 182 182
Rowley Training Center 52 53 53 53 53
Domestic field operations 220 243 242 242 242
International field operations 26 28 28 30 30

112 OMB, Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2009, p. 482.
113 H.Rept. 110-826, p. 91.
114 Ibid., p. 92.
115 S. 3181, Title II.
116 P.L. 110-329, Title II.


Congressional Research Service 61

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 House- FY2009 Senate- P.L. 110-
Programs and Activities Enacteda Request Reported Reported 329b
Electronic crimes program 45 48 48 56 52
Forensic support grants for the
National Center for Missing and 8 8 8 8 8
Exploited Children (NCMEC)
Acquisition, construction, and 4 4 4 4 4
improvements
Total 1,385 1,415 1,370 1,418 1,413
Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS
Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, House-reported bill (H.R. 6947)
and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862)—provided to CRS by the Homeland Security
Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on July 8, 2008—and P.L. 110-329.
a. ColumnFY2008 Enacted includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-
161.
b. The text of P.L. 110-329 was not available as of November 6, 2008. These tables reflect DHS
appropriations for FY2009 contained in the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the
Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
Secret Service Issues for Congress . Federal funding for National Special Security Events
(NSSE) costs incurred by federal, state, and local entities is one issue Congress may wish
to address. In FY2009, Congress appropriated $1 million for NSSE costs within the 117
Secret Service.11 This appropriation is used to fund the Secret Service’s development
and implementation of security operations at NSSEs, however, it can not be used to
reimburse state and local law enforcement’s NSSE costs—specifically the overtime costs
incurred by state and local governments. Congress appropriated a total of $100 million
for the 2008 presidential nominating conventions’ security through the Department of
Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Justice Programs. The DOJ appropriation was used for security
and related costs incurred by state and local governments, including overtime, associated 118
with these two NSSEs.11
One issue that Congress may address concerns whether this amount is sufficient to cover
multiple or unexpected NSSE costs, although the Secret Service has never requested
supplemental funding to support NSSE operations. In addition to the NSSE funding
through the Secret Service and DOJ, state and local jurisdictions can use DHS grants,
such as the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) and the Urban Area
Security Initiative (UASI), for NSSE-related security activities. However, the grant
approval process for these programs is not flexible, so the programs have limited
application to NSSEs in that states and localities would need to include SHSGP and
UASI funding for NSSE security in their grant applications. For unexpected NSSEs,
states and localities are unable to plan ahead and therefore cannot use SHSGP or UASI
funds to cover these unexpected security costs. DHS does authorize states and localities
to reprogram SHSGP and UASI funding with the DHS Secretary’s approval; however,
that may result in states and localities not funding other planned homeland security

117 P.L. 110-329, Title II.
118 P.L. 110-161, Div. B, Title II.


Congressional Research Service 62

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

activities. An issue that Congress may wish to consider could include whether more
coordination of NSSE funding is needed at the federal level; currently the Secret Service,
DOJ, and the Office of Grant Programs each have separate funding streams that can be
used to fund different components of NSSEs but there is no overarching coordinating
mechanism in place to oversee this funding.
Title III: Preparedness and Response
Title III includes appropriations for the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), and the Office of
Health Affairs (OHA). Congress expanded FEMA’s authorities and responsibilities in the
Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act (P.L. 109-295) and explicitly kept certain DHS 119
functions out of the “new FEMA.”11 In response to these statutory exclusions, DHS
officials created the NPPD to house functions not transferred to FEMA, and the OHA
was established for the Office of the Chief Medical Officer. Table 14 provides account-
level appropriations detail for Title III.

119 P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1400.


Congressional Research Service 63

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Table 14. Title III: Preparedness and Response
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 Appropriation FY2009 Appropriation
FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 House- FY2009 Senate- P.L. 110-
rational Component Enacteda Supp. Resc. Total Request Reported Reported 329b
ional Protection & Programs Directorate
inistration 47 47 55 50 53 51
astructure Protection and Information 655 655 841 847 809 807
urity
VISIT 475 475 390 390 180 300
total 1,177 1,177 1,286 1,287 1,041 1,158
iki/CRS-RL34482ce of Health Affairs 117 117 161c 134 171 157
g/w
s.orer Terrorism Fund — —
leak Emergency Management Agency
://wikigement and Administration 724 724 957 912 893 943
httpice of Grant Programs 3,478 3,478 1,900 3,371 3,329 3,421
fighter Assistance Grants 750 750 300 800 750 775
. Fire Administration 43 43 45 43 45
ic health programs
aster relief 1,324d 10,960e 12,284 1,900 1,794f 1,841g 1,278
aster readiness and support activities 200
map modernization fund 220 220 150 220 185 220
ional flood insurance fund (NFIF)h
ional flood mitigationi
-disaster mitigation fund 114 114 75 75 100 90



Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
FY2008 Appropriation FY2009 Appropriation
FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 House- FY2009 Senate- P.L. 110-b
rational Component Enacteda Supp. Resc. Total Request Reported Reported 329
ergency food and shelter 153 153 100 200 153 200
aster assistance direct loan account 1 1 1 j
logical Emergency Preparedness -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
cission -9k -9k -9k -9k
total 6,806d 10,960e 17,766 5,573 7,407 7,328 6,963
budget authority subtotal: Title III 8,100d 10,960e 19,060 7,020 8,829 8,540 8,278
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and House-reported H.R.
6947 and its accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862). FY2009 enacted from the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate-
iki/CRS-RL34482enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
g/wNote: Tables may not add due to rounding.
s.ora. ColumnFY2008 Enacted includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
leak
b. The text of P.L. 110-329 was not available as of November 6, 2008. These tables reflect DHS appropriations for FY2009 contained in the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in
://wikithe Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
httpc. Does not include an additional $27 million requested in the Presidents budget amendment transmitted to Congress on June 9th, 2008.
d. Does not include $2,900 million in FY2008 emergency supplemental funding for Disaster Relief enacted by P.L. 110-116.
e. Includes the following FY2008 emergency supplemental funding: $2,900 million for Disaster Relief as provided by P.L. 110-116, §158; and $7,960 million for Disaster Relief and $100
million for reimbursements to the Red Cross as provided by Division B of P.L. 110-329.
f. Reflects transfers of $91 million to FEMA Management and Administration, and $15 million to DHS OIG.
g. Reflects transfers of $43 million to FEMA Management and Administration, and $16 million to DHS OIG.
h. Funds derived from premium payments or transfers from the U.S. Treasury.
i. Funds derived from NFIF transfers.
j. The Senate includes $580,000 (or $1 million) under FEMA Management and Administration for this activity.
k. Rescission of $9 million in unobligated previously appropriated funds for Cerro Grande fire claims.



Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)120
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Congress passed the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act (Title VI of P.L. 109-295, the FY2007 DHS appropriations
legislation) to address shortcomings identified in the reports published by congressional
committees and the White House. Based on those reports and oversight hearings on many
aspects of FEMA’s performance during the hurricane season of 2005, the Post-Katrina
Act expanded FEMA’s responsibilities within the Department of Homeland Security and
the agency’s program authorities relevant to preparing for and responding to major 121
disaster events. While Congress has shown interest in FEMA’s plans to implement a
strategic approach to disaster housing and other disaster response, recovery, and
mitigation capabilities reflected in the provisions of the Post-Katrina Reform Act, the
FY2009 request placed its greatest emphasis on expanding the FEMA workforce as
shown in the increase for Management and Administration. How closely FEMA’s
expanded capacity addresses areas of congressional interest formed part of the discussion
during the 2009 budget season for the Agency. Table 14 provides account-level funding
details for FY2008 and FY2009.
President’s FY2009 Request
FEMA’s budget request of $5,573 million for FY2009 was $4,153 million below the
FY2008 level. Most of this difference is in the Disaster Relief Fund account which,
during FY2008, received two emergency supplemental appropriations of $2,900 million
and $2,400 million respectively. The other substantial reductions were in the Office of
Grant Programs which would have received a cut of $1,598 million under the request.
There were also program areas within FEMA’s request that were below the FY2008 level
for programs, such as the Flood Map Modernization fund and the Emergency Food and
Shelter Program (EFSP).
FEMA’s FY2009 budget request contained an increase of $233 million to the
Management and Administration account. Parts of this increase were dedicated to a series
of improvements in information technology and logistical support. However, most of the
increase ($184 million) would have gone to adding 118 new positions in FEMA as well
as transitioning 149 CORE (Cadre On-call Response Employees) positions into
permanent slots. The CORE’s are the multi-year temporary positions at FEMA dedicated
to disaster-related work.
House-reported H.R. 6947
H.R. 6947 recommended $7,407 million for FEMA in FY2009, surpassing the
Administration’s requested level by 32% ($1,834 million). As in the previous year, the
majority of increases over the Administration request would have come from consistently

120 Prepared by Keith Bea, Specialist in American National Government and Fran McCarthy, Analyst in
American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
121 For more information, see CRS Report, CRS Report RL33729, Federal Emergency Management Policy
Changes After Hurricane Katrina: A Summary of Statutory Provisions, by Keith Bea et al.


Congressional Research Service 66

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

higher funding levels for nearly all of the state and local grant programs. The FY2009
mark of $7,407 million was also greater than the actual FY2008 ($6,806 million).
Senate-reported S. 3181
The Senate FEMA mark for FY2009 was $7,328 million which represented an increase of
$1,755 million over the President’s request. The Senate bill also increased grants to states
above the proposed Administration levels. The Senate mark also exceeded the enacted
level for the previous fiscal year by 31%.
P.L. 110-329
P.L. 110-329 funded FEMA at $6,963 million. This represented an increase of nearly
$1,400 million above the President’s request for FEMA’s budget and 25% ($157 million)
over the FY2008 enacted level.
FEMA Issues for Congress
FY20007 and the early stages of FY2008 were relatively quiet hurricane seasons; that
changed dramatically in the late summer of 2008. During the quiescent period earlier in
the year, Congress looked to FEMA for an assessment of priority areas, matched with
suggested resource levels, that would improve FEMA’s preparedness for, response to, and
recovery from major disaster events. Most prominent among the issues that have drawn
the interest of Congress is the quality and safety of FEMA’s temporary housing that has 122
been provided to disaster victims. With regard to a more effective immediate response
to a major disaster, Congress has sought to improve FEMA’s logistics chain that supports
that response. An overarching theme of all these issues is the quality and depth of the
FEMA work force and whether it is commensurate, in size and skill, with its missions.
Additionally, for FY2009, Congress expressed support for two programs slated for cuts in
the request, Emergency Food and Shelter and Flood Map Modernization. Congress
instead recommended increased funding levels far over the Administration request.
Disaster Relief Fund
There were areas of agreement between the House and Senate measures and the
Administration request. The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) funds disaster response,
recovery, and mitigation work following Presidentially declared disasters; the House and
Senate concurred with the $1,900 million amount requested by the administration. While
this represented a reduction of $2,400 million from last year’s level, it also reflected an
unobligated balance in the DRF as well as an earlier supplemental bill which contained 123
$897 million for the DRF account.

122 For more information, see CRS Report RL34087, FEMA Disaster Housing and Hurricane Katrina:
Overview, Analysis, and Congressional Issues, by Francis X. McCarthy.
123 P.L. 110-252-122 Stat. 2351.


Congressional Research Service 67

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Neither the House nor the Senate committees endorsed the concept of a separate Disaster
Readiness and Support Account in the FEMA budget. The Senate agreed to fund up to
$250 million out of the DRF for those purposes without establishing a new account. The
House also declined to create a separate account, but directed that this spending remain
within the Disaster Relief Fund account since it supports future disaster activity.
There were two transfers recommended from the DRF by both the House and Senate.
First, the House and Senate recommended a transfer of $106 million to FEMA’s
Management and Administration account. Second, the committees also recommended the
transfer of DRF funds to the Office of Inspector General for audits and investigations
related to disasters. The House bill would have transferred $15 million while the Senate
bill set the amount to be transferred at $16 million.
P.L. 110-329 provided $1,400 million (approximately $1,278 after accounting for
transfers from the Fund as noted in Table 14) for DRF in FY2009. This amount for the
DRFwas a reduction from the Administration request and the House and Senate
recommendations. However, Division B of P.L. 110-329, The Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, contained an additional
$7,960 million for the DRF in FY2008 emergency supplemental funding. Taken together,
these amounts were intended to assure adequate funding for the busy disaster season of

2008 that included the Midwest floods and Hurricanes Gustav and Ike.


The FY2009 appropriation transferred $106 million from the Fund to FEMA’s
Management and Administration account. In addition, $16 million will be transferred
from the DRF to the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General for
audits and investigations related to disasters. Also, with regard to disasters, Section 539
of the bill instructed FEMA to submit to the appropriate committees of Congress and to
publish on the FEMA website a report on the damage assessment information used to
make determinations regarding disaster declarations.
Emergency Food and Shelter (EFS) Program
The Administration request for the EFS program, which provides funding to homeless
assistance providers across the nation on a formula basis, sought a $53 million reduction
to $100 million. Instead, the House chose to increase the program to $200 million, double
the requested level. As a statement by the Chairman of the Homeland Security
appropriations subcommittee explained:
Additional resources for this program are especially critical now, as more and more
people turn to food banks and other community support organizations to meet their
basic needs. This is the largest single appropriation for this program in its 25 year 124
history.
The Senate also disagreed with the President’s request to decrease the EFS account to
$100 million, recommending instead the account be returned to the 2008 number. P.L.

124 Opening Statement, Chairman David Price, Subcommittee Markup: FY2009 Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, June 11, 2008, at http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PriceSubMarkup06-11-08.pdf.


Congressional Research Service 68

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

110-329 provided $200 million for the EFS program, which represents the largest amount
the program has ever received.
Flood Map Modernization
The President’s FY2009 budget level for Flood Map Modernization was $150 million.
The Senate approved an amount—$185 million, that was $35 million above the
Administration’s request. The House also chose to increase the amount of funds available
for this program to $220 million, the FY2008 funding level, which represents an increase
of 46% above the Administration’s request. P.L. 110-329 provided $220 million to fund
Flood Map Modernization for FY2009.
FEMA Management and Administration—Work Force
Consistent with the Post-Katrina Act, the most substantial increase in the
Administration’s FEMA budget request for FY2009 is in the expansion of the work force.
FEMA requested an increase of $184 million to support an additional 118 new permanent
positions for the Agency and to transition 149 temporary positions (known as CORE
appointments) into permanent slots. The CORE positions have traditionally been used by
FEMA to accomplish ongoing disaster tasks at the regional and headquarters levels (such
as closing out old disasters or working in the telephone and online registration centers).
CORE personnel appointments can serve for a maximum of up to four years and receive
benefits similar to a career employee (e.g., health benefits).
The CORE position’s status stands in contrast to the Disaster Assistance Employees
(DAEs). The DAEs are the temporary employees, usually working on renewable 30 to 90
day appointments (without benefits), who are recruited, trained, and hired in large
numbers to provide the staff support across a disaster. DAEs are often aligned into cadres
of expertise. For example, there is a Public Assistance (PA) Cadre that employs engineers
and other program experts to help manage the PA program in the field. Similarly there are
DAEs trained to work in Individual Assistance, Mitigation, Congressional Affairs,
Community Relations, and other functional areas during a disaster response and recovery
operation. The DAEs work on an as needed basis, often with interruptions in service
based on the level of disaster activity. COREs are also separate and distinct from private
contractor employees and consultants who may also work in a supporting role within
different FEMA program areas.
Since CORE appointments have been multi-year rather than measured in months, the
CORE employees have acquired organizational experience and programmatic skills that
the Agency wants to retain. The retention of quality employees has been a recurring
challenge for FEMA since the lack of continuity is disruptive to FEMA’s state and local
partners in the consistent interpretation of program policy and overall customer service.
FEMA described the additional employees requested in the FY2009 budget as
“enhancements” in several areas of the agency and mentions the improvement of plans
for many programs. In the past, Congress has been supportive of FEMA expanding its
base of employees and their skill levels, particularly at the regional level to “help state


Congressional Research Service 69

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
125
and local governments prepare for and respond to disasters.” Congress may also wish
to see greater specificity on how these new positions will be apportioned throughout the
agency and whether those choices correspond to congressional direction and interest. The
funding for more permanent staff reflects an attempt to address some general concerns
that both chambers have raised.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended that $90.6 million be transferred
from the DRF account to support the conversion of temporary disaster employees to full
time, permanent positions. While supporting the effort to supplement the permanent work
force, the House committee noted that the funds will not be available until the Agency
submits an implementation plan. The Committee also noted that the transfer is not at the
full level requested by DHS/FEMA because “previous funding provided for this effort 126
has been reprogrammed by FEMA.”
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended that $43.5 million be transferred for
position conversion. The Senate Committee wanted FEMA to improve customer service
and is concerned about employee turnover, stating that the agency is overly reliant on
temporary employees for projects related to public assistance. According to the Senate
report, this reliance has created a lack of consistent decision making and has
compromised the accuracy of information provided to state and local governments. To
address these concerns, the Senate proposed an increase in the number of permanent
personnel devoted to Public Assistance in particular.
P.L. 110-329 transferred $106 million from the Disaster Relief Fund to the Management
and Administration account. While the legislative language did not specify what purpose
this funding would be used for, this increased the account up to $943 million, well above
the House and Senate levels and only $14 million below the original Administration
request. The appropriations statute also noted that the funds will “not be available for
transfer” until the Agency submits an implementation plan to the Appropriations
Committees.
Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Pre-Disaster Mitigation is a competitive grant program that provides awards on an annual
basis and is not directly linked to disaster declarations. The House Committee agreed
with the reduced level of funding for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program
suggested in the FY2009 budget. In FY2008 the Congress chose to increase funding in
this account, but this year the House Committee acceded to the $39 million reduction in 127
the President’s budget. The Senate Committee disagreed with the Administration and
House Committee position for the PDM fund and recommended an increase from the $75

125 U.S. House of Representative, Committee on Appropriations,FY2008 Omnibus Summary: Homeland
Security Committee, http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/HomelandOmnibus.pdf.
126 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Bill, 2009, report to accompany H.R. 6947, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 110-862, pg. 109.
127 For additional information on this program see CRS Report RL34537, FEMAs Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Program: Overview and Issues, by Francis X. McCarthy.


Congressional Research Service 70

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

million requested to $100 million to provide grants to states and localities for hazard
mitigation planning and implementation mitigation projects.
In explaining its reduced mark for the PDM program the House noted its support for
similar mitigation programs, including $90 million for programs targeting flood loss
properties, funded through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The House
also pointed to its support of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). This
program is triggered under disaster declarations, is funded by the DRF account, and
supports similar projects and activities. The House Committee has requested that FEMA
report to the Committee within six months with a mitigation strategy showing how each
mitigation program contributes to achieving mitigation goals. The House bill also
earmarks the PDM program for the second time. The listed earmarks (51 projects) in the
bill total just under $25 million, or close to a third of the funds available for the PDM
competitive grant program. In that vein, the Senate report language directs FEMA to 128
“operate this program competitively.”
The FY2009 bill appropriated $90 million for the PDM program. In addition to an
appropriation for PDM, Section 553 of the law extended authorization for the program
through September 30, 2009.
Gulf Coast Hurricane Recovery Issues
Thousands of disaster victims from the Gulf Coast hurricane season of 2005 remain in
temporary housing—some in rental units, and some in manufactured housing in the Gulf
region. At the hearing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the FY2009 budget,
Members expressed interest in FEMA’s implementation, or lack thereof, of new housing
authorities provided to the agency in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform 129
Act (P.L. 109-295). Congress has been particularly interested in the problem of the
levels of formaldehyde found in travel trailers and some mobile homes used for housing
following the Gulf Coast disasters of 2005. One House Committee Chairman concluded
that “no one was looking out for the interests of the displaced families living in the 130
FEMA trailers.”
Congress directed in P.L. 109-295 that FEMA prepare a disaster housing strategy to
inform the overall approach to housing following a catastrophic disaster. In a Senate
hearing on the topic, the need for this report to serve as both a guide and an indication of 131
Administration intent was underlined. Though the report on a housing strategy was due
in July of 2007, an outline of the strategy was not presented to Congress until July of

128 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Bill, 2009, report to accompany S. 3181, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 110-396, pg. 122.
129 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
Federal Emergency Management Agency: Is the Agency on the Right Track?”, 110th Cong. 2nd Sess., March
13, 2008.
130 U.S. House of Representatives, Opening Statement, Rep. Henry Waxman, July 9, 2008 at
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=2073.
131 U.S. Senate, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Ad Hoc Subcommittees on
Disaster Recovery and on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration, Is Housing too thnd
Much to Hope for? FEMAs disaster housing strategy,” 110 Cong. 2 Sess., March 4, 2008.


Congressional Research Service 71

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

2009. The full National Disaster Housing Strategy is expected to be delivered to
Congress before the end of 2009.
The Administration’s budget request for FY2009 noted that it would improve and expand
the agency work force devoted to disaster assistance in general (both the programs
addressing eligible assistance to households and those dedicated to infrastructure repair)
but did not specifically address temporary housing nor the related health and safety
issues. The absence of information in the budget request may have reflected statements
by the FEMA Administrator indicating a desire for an increased role for the Department 132
of Housing and Urban Development in disaster housing. As evidence of this direction,
FEMA entered into another agreement with HUD to provide housing assistance to the 133
victims of Hurricane Ike.
The ongoing housing problems following Hurricane Katrina prompted House comments
that directly addressed an ongoing area of contention regarding the rebuilding of public
housing in the wake of the 2005 hurricanes. Recent House hearings have concentrated on
the perceived conflicting views of responsibility between HUD and FEMA regarding the 134
repairs for public housing. In response to these concerns the House Committee
provided an additional $50,000 to “the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast
Rebuilding to convene a panel of experts to develop solutions for restoring the affordable 135
rental housing stock of communities affected the 2005 hurricanes.”
In a related issue regarding mitigation, the House Committee noted it was “encouraged”
by the progress being made to implement the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).
Funding has moved slowly but it now appears that HMGP funds will supplement 136
mitigation measures for recipients of the “Road Home” program in Louisiana. While
noting the administrative progress, the House report observed that the program deadline
for applications was September 1, 2008. Based on all of these considerations, the House
report urged FEMA to consider extending that deadline.
P.L. 110-329 included two provisions directed at Gulf Coast rebuilding. Section 546 of
the law called on FEMA to provide “a single payment for any eligible costs” under the 137
infrastructure repair program for any “police station, fire station, or criminal justice

132 Testimony of FEMA Administrator David Paulison, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee
on Homeland Security, “Federal Emergency Management Agency: Is the agency on the Right Track?, 110th nd
Cong. 2 Sess. March 13, 2008.
133 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency,HUD, FEMA
Announce 18-Month Housing Assistance Program For Families Displaced By Hurricane Ike,” Release #FNF-
08-075, Sept, 24, 2008 at http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=45894.
134 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Opportunity and the House Homeland Security Committee, Subcommittee on Emergency Communications,
Preparedness and Response, Examining the Roles and Responsibilities of HUD and FEMA in Responding to
the Affordable Housing Needs of Gulf Coast States following Emergencies and Natural Disasters, June 4,
2008.
135 Opening Statement, Chairman David Price, Subcommittee Markup: FY2009 Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, June 11, 2008, at http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PriceSubMarkup06-11-08.pdf.
136 For additional information, see CRS Report RL34410, The Louisiana Road Home Program: Federal Aid
for State Disaster Housing Assistance Programs, by Natalie Paris Love.
137 42 U.S.C. §5172.


Congressional Research Service 72

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

facility that was damaged by Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 225.”
Section 548 of the law called on FEMA to reimburse Jones County and Harrison County 138
in the State of Mississippi for unreimbursed debris removal costs relating to debris as a
result of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Administrative, Financial and Budgeting Challenges
An area of concern voiced by the Senate Appropriations Committee is FEMA’s process of
handling state and local grant programs. According to the Committee, grant award
distribution is flawed because there is a lack of effective implementation. Accordingly,
the Senate recommendation included a provision to withhold $10 million from FEMA
Management and Administration until the Secretary, in coordination with the
Administrator of FEMA, certified and reported to the Senate Appropriations Committee
that the processes to incorporate stakeholder input for grant guidance development and
award distribution have improved transparency and increased information about security
needs on all hazards. The House also voiced this concern, albeit without the stipulations
set forth by the Senate (see Office of Grants Programs section in this report).
Other areas of concern were also noted. First, the House Appropriations Committee cited 139
a recent GAO report which stated that FEMA needs to develop policies and procedures
to ensure states and localities are involved collaboratively in all future updates to the
National Response Framework (NRF). Second, both chambers directed FEMA to submit
its FY2010 budget request, including justification materials, by office. In 2008 FEMA
was directed to submit its 2009 budget in this fashion, but failed to do so. The House
Committee used their report as an opportunity to express their displeasure with FEMA on
this matter. Third, the Senate Committee agreed with the Office of Inspector General that
FEMA has financial weaknesses as a result of the agency’s financial reporting and
accounting practices. While the Committee acknowledged the challenges of operating an
agency which has been reorganized and supports multifaceted operations, the Members
insisted that FEMA take steps to correct these areas of weakness.
P.L. 110-329 reflected the above concerns and required that Agency officials report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House on how FEMA processes
incorporate input from stakeholders for grant guidance development and award
distribution. FEMA was required to demonstrate that the process will be sufficiently
strengthened to ensure greater transparency and to include an increased capacity to
provide information and consultation about security needs for all-hazards. Finally, the
process FEMA employs to meet these objectives must be formalized and made clear to
stakeholders.
Urban Search and Rescue
Both Committees disagreed with the President’s request to reduce funding for the Urban
Search and Rescue (USAR) Response System from the 2008 amount of $32.5 million to

138 42 U.S.C. §5172.
139 U.S. General Accounting Office, National Disaster Response: FEMA Should Take Action to Improve
Capacity and Coordination between Government and Voluntary Sectors, GAO -08-369, February 2008.


Congressional Research Service 73

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

$25 million. Rather, both recommended returning the account to its original amount of
$32 million. The House report directed FEMA to report back to the Committee within six
months on the feasibility of adding another team to the USAR program. The USAR
system currently has 28 teams. The FY2009 appropriations bill funded USAR at $32
million.
Climate Change
The House Committee stated $5 million should be designated for North Carolina to
perform a risk assessment, and devise a mitigation strategy, to address the impact of sea
level rise in that state. The information gained from this study will then be disseminated
to other states to assist them with their climate change mitigation efforts. The information
obtained from the study is expected to be used to assess the long-term, potential fiscal 140
impact of climate change as it “affects the frequency and impacts of natural disasters.”
P.L. 110-329 included the $5 million for the state of North Carolina in the bill.
Office of Grant Programs141
The Office of Grant Programs within the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) is responsible for facilitating and coordinating DHS state and local assistance
programs. The office administers formula and discretionary grant programs to further
state and local homeland security capabilities. As a result of the reorganization mandated
by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-295), the
work of the Office of Grant Programs was separated from FEMA training activities.
FEMA’s National Integration Center within the agency’s National Preparedness
Directorate administers training, exercises, and technical assistance for states and
localities. Presently, DHS’s assistance programs for states and localities include:
• State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP);
• Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI);
• Port Security Program;
• Transit Security Program;
• Bus Security Program;
• Trucking Security Program;
• Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP);
• Assistance to Firefighters (FIRE);
• Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG);
• Citizen Corps Program (CCP);

140 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Bill, 2009, report to accompany H.R. 6947, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 110-862, p. 112.
141 This section was prepared by Shawn Reese, Government and Finance Division.


Congressional Research Service 74

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

• Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS);
• Training, technical assistance, exercises, and evaluations;
• Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program (CEDAP);
• Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program (PSIC);
• Center for Counterterrorism and Cyber Crime;
• Emergency Operations Centers (EOC); and
• Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grants.
President’s Request
The Administration requested $2,200 million for FY2009 DHS assistance programs for
states and localities. Additionally, the Administration proposed to reduce funding for
most of the programs except the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), the Citizen Corps
Program, and its program for bus security. Because of this, the Administration requested
$2,028 million less than the $4,228 million Congress appropriated in FY2008.
House-reported H.R. 6947
The House-reported version of H.R. 6947 proposed $4,171 million for FY2009 DHS
assistance programs for states and localities. This proposed appropriation was $57
million, or 1%, less than the $4,228 million Congress appropriated in FY2008. Some of
the assistance programs that the bill proposed not to fund in FY2009 were the Buffer
Zone Protection Program, Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Grants, and
Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grants. Additionally, the bill did not propose to fund
the Administration’s new initiative, the National Security and Terrorism Prevention
Program, which would have consolidated funding for such programs as Real ID and the
Buffer Zone Protection Program.
Senate-reported S. 3181
The Senate-reported version of S. 3181 proposed $4,079 million for FY2009 DHS
assistance programs for states and localities. This proposed appropriation was $149
million, or nearly 4%, less than the $4,228 million Congress appropriated in FY2008.
Some of the assistance programs that the bill proposed to reduce funding for were the
State Homeland Security Grant Program, Trucking Industry Security Program,
Emergency Operations Centers, Metropolitan Medical Response System, and the
Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Grants. The Senate-reported bill, like House-
reported legislation, did not propose to fund the National Security and Terrorism
Prevention Program.
P.L. 110-329
Congress appropriated, in P.L. 110-329, $4,138 million for FY2009 DHS assistance
programs for states and localities. This appropriation is $90 million, or approximately

2%, less than the $4,228 million Congress appropriated in FY2008. This reduction was


Congressional Research Service 75

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

primarily due to Congress not funding the Real ID program ($50 million) in FY2008.
Additionally, Congress did not appropriate funding for the Administration’s proposed
National Security and Terrorism Prevention Program. Table 15 shows the appropriations
for State and Local Homeland Security Programs.
Table 15. State and Local Homeland Security Programs
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009 FY2009 P.L.110-
FY2008 aFY2009 Request House- Senate- 329b
Program Enacted Reported Reported
State Homeland Security Grant 950c 200 950 890 890
Program (SHSGP)
Urban Area Security Initiative 820d 825 850 825 838
(UASI)
Law Enforcement Terrorism — —
Prevention Program (LETPP)
Port Security Program 400 210 400 400 400
Transit Security Program 400 175 400 400 400
Intercity Bus Security Program 12 12 12 12 12
Trucking Industry Security 16 8 8 8 8
Program
Emergency Operation Centers 15 35 10 35
Buffer Zone Protection 50 50 50
Assistance to Firefighters (FIRE) 750 300c 800 750 775
Emergency Management 300 200 315 300 315
Performance Grants (EMPG)
Citizen Corps Programs (CCP) 15 15 15 15 15
Metropolitan Medical Response 41 — 50 33 41
System (MMRS)
Training, Technical Assistance, 299d 145e 236 291 264
Exercises, and Evaluation
Commercial Equipment Direct 25 — 10 8
Assistance Grants
Interoperable Communications 50 [7]f 50 50 50
Grants
Real ID Grants 50 50 [50]g
Regional Catastrophic 35 — 35 35
Preparedness Grants
National Security and Terrorism — 110
Prevention Programh
Center for Counterterrorism — — 2i
and Cyber Crime
Total 4,228 2,200 4,171 4,079 4,138


Congressional Research Service 76

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in
Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and House-reported H.R. 6947 and its
accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862). FY2009 enacted from the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as
submitted in the Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds.
a. ColumnFY2008 Enacted includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-
161.
b. * The text of P.L. 110-329 was not available as of November 6, 2008. These tables reflect DHS
appropriations for FY2009 contained in the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the
Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
c. Not less than 25% of the $950 million for SHSGP is to be used for law enforcement terrorism
prevention activities, in accordance with P.L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007.
d. Not less than 25% of the $820 million for UASI is to be used for law enforcement terrorism
prevention activities, in accordance with P.L. 110-53.
e. The $300 million for FIRE grants is a separate line item in the Title III table.
f. Of this $299 million: $88 million is for the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium; $63
million is for the Center for Domestic Preparedness; $50 million is for the National Exercise
Program; $12 million is for technical assistance; $27 million is for Demonstration Training Grants;
$31 million is for Continuing Training Grants; $19 million is for evaluations and assessments; and
$9 million is for the Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium.
g. Of this $145 million: $40 million is for the National Exercise Program; $79 million is for the
National Domestic Preparedness Consortium and the Center for Domestic Preparedness; $10
million is for technical assistance; and $16 million for evaluations and assessments.
h. The Administration proposes to fund the Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant
program through the Department of Commerce.
i. The Senate-reported bill includes $50 million for Real-ID Grants under the SHSGP.
j. The National Security and Terrorism Prevention Grant Program, newly requested for FY2009,
would have provided competitive grants to state and local jurisdictions that address homeland
security vulnerabilities, and for Real ID proposals and buffer zone protection of critical
infrastructure.
k. The Center for Counterterrorism and Cyber Crime at Norwich University, Northfield, Vermont,
is a new grant program in FY2009.
Office of Grant Programs Issues for Congress
In FY2009, Congress could elect to address three issues when considering appropriating
funds for DHS’s state and local assistance programs. The first issue is the reduction in
state and local assistance funding, the second issue is the allocation method DHS uses to
determine state and locality grant awards, and the third issue is the reduction in
appropriations for the Assistance to Firefighters Program.
Reduction in Total State and Local Assistance Funding
The issue that appears to continue to dominate DHS’s assistance programs for states and
localities is the overall reduction in funding. Congress reduced funding to the State
Homeland Security Grant Program by $60 million, the Trucking Industry Security
Program by $8 million, the Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Grants by $17
million, and did not fund the Real ID program. Conversely, Congress did increase


Congressional Research Service 77

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

funding for Urban Area Security Initiative by $18 million, Emergency Operations Centers
by $20 million, Assistance to Firefighters by $25 million, Emergency Management
Performance Grants by $15 million, and appropriated $2 million for a new grant 142
program, the Center for Counterterrorism and Cyber Crime. This combination of
reduced and increased funding for these different programs resulted in the overall funding
for states and localities to be $90 million less than appropriated in FY2008. Still,
Congress continued to appropriate over $4 billion for states and localities, similar to the
amount appropriated in FY2008.
Allocation Methodology
Since FY2003, Congress has debated the allocation methodology DHS uses to determine
some state and locality grant awards. Some degree of resolution was reached in P.L. 110-143
53. P.L. 110-329 requires GAO to report to Congress on the data, assumptions, and
methodology that DHS uses to assess risk in determining SHSGP and UASI allocations.
Specifically, this report is to include information on the reliability and validity of the data
used, the basis for the assumptions used, how the methodology is applied to determine
the risk scores for individual locations, an analysis of the usefulness of placing states and 144
cities into tier groups, and the allocation of grants to eligible recipients. Additionally,
the Congressional Record version of the DHS explanatory statement states that FEMA is
“expected to continue to fully engage agencies with subject matter expertise within the
Department, when appropriate, in the development of grant guidance and the 145
determination of awards.”
Reduction in Funding for the Assistance to Firefighters Program .146
In previous years, the Administration’s budget proposals have typically recommended
significant cuts for fire grants, used to fund training and equipment, as well as zero
funding for Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grants, used
for hiring, recruitment, and retention. Opponents of the cuts have argued that the reduced
levels are inadequate to meet the needs of fire departments, while the Administration has
argued that reduced levels are sufficient to enhance critical capabilities in the event of a
terrorist attack or major disaster. For FY2009, the Administration proposed $300 million
for fire grants, a 46% cut from the FY2008 level. No funding was proposed for SAFER
grants, and the total request for Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) was 60% below
the FY2008 level for fire and SAFER grants combined. The FY2009 budget proposal
eliminated grants for wellness/fitness activities and modifications to facilities for
firefighter safety. The budget justification requested funding for “applications that
enhance the most critical capabilities of local response to fire-related hazards in the event

142 P.L. 110-329, Title III.
143 For further information, see CRS Report RL34181, Distribution of Homeland Security Grants in FY2007
and P.L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act, by Shawn Reese and Steven
Maguire.
144 Ibid.
145 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154, September 24, 2008, p. H9804.
146 This section prepared by Lennard G. Kruger, Specialist in Science and Technology, Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.


Congressional Research Service 78

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
147
of a terrorist attack or major disaster.” The budget justification also stated that the
requested level of funding is “an appropriate level of funding given the availability of
significant amounts of funding for first responder preparedness missions from other DHS
grant programs which are coordinated with state and local homeland security strategies 148
and, unlike AFG, are allocated on the basis of risk.”
The Senate-reported version of S. 3181 proposed $750 million for firefighter assistance,
including $560 million for fire grants and $190 million for SAFER grants, the same
funding level approved for FY2008. The Senate report directed DHS to continue the
present practice of funding applications according to local priorities and those established
by the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA), and further directed DHS to continue direct
funding to fire departments and the peer review process. The House version of H.R.
6947, as reported, provided $800 million for firefighter assistance, consisting of $570
million for fire grants and $230 million for SAFER grants, and directed FEMA to
continue granting funds directly to local fire departments and to include the U.S. Fire
Administration during the grant administration process, while also maintaining an all-
hazards focus and not limiting the list of eligible activities. P.L. 110-329 provided $775
million for firefighter assistance, including $565 million for fire grants and $210 million
for SAFER. The Congressional Record version of the DHS explanatory statement
directed FEMA to continue the present practice of funding applications according to local
priorities and those established by the USFA.
Office of Health Affairs149
The Office of Health Affairs (OHA) coordinates public health and medical programs
throughout DHS, and administers several of them, including the BioWatch program, the
National Biosurveillance Integration System (NBIS), certain functions of Project 150
BioShield, and the department’s occupational health and safety programs. Dr. Jeffrey
Runge, who was confirmed by the Senate as the first DHS Assistant Secretary for Health
Affairs in 2007, stepped down in August, 2008. The position is now filled by the Acting
Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, Dr. Jon R. Krohmer.
President’s FY2009 Request
The Administration requested $161 million for OHA for FY2009, including $112 million
for BioWatch, $8 million for NBIS, $3 million for the Rapidly Deployable Chemical
Detection System (RDCDS), $10 million for planning and coordination, and $29 million 151
for salaries and expenses.

147 DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications.
148 Ibid.
149 Prepared by Sarah A. Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
150 For more information, see DHS, Office of Health Affairs, at http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/
editorial_0880.shtm.
151 FY2009 Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 3051-3141 of the pdf document.


Congressional Research Service 79

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

House-reported H.R. 6947
The bill would have provided $134 million for OHA, which is $27 million (-17%) below 152
the FY2009 request, but $18 million (+15%) above the FY2008 level. This amount
includes $89 million for the BioWatch program, $8 million for NBIS, $3 million for
RDCDS, $6 million for planning and coordination, and $29 million for salaries and
expenses.
Senate-reported S. 3181
The bill would have provided $171 million for OHA, which is $10 million (+6%) above 153
the FY2009 request, and $55 million (+47%) above the FY2008 level. This amount
includes the amounts requested for BioWatch, NBIS, RDCDS, and planning and
coordination, plus an additional $10 million above the requested amount for salaries and
expenses.
P.L. 110-329
The law and the accompanying explanatory statement provided $157 million for OHA,
which is $4 million (-3%) below the FY2009 request, and $41 million (+35%) above the 154
FY2008 level. This amount includes $112 million for BioWatch, and $29 million for
salaries and expenses, both amounts as requested.
Office of Health Affairs Issues for Congress
The upcoming presidential transition may prove challenging for OHA, which was
established three years ago and has since experienced rapid growth in its budget and
mission. OHA began as the Office of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) in 2005, and was
funded at $2 million in FY2006. As OHA, it was funded at $117 million in FY2008. Most
of that amount was for existing programs transferred from elsewhere in the department,
principally BioWatch, which was transferred from the Science and Technology
Directorate. In addition to a $34 million increase for BioWatch for FY2009, OHA
requested additional funding for planning and coordination, and salaries and expenses,
partly to strengthen its administrative functions such as contracting, budget formulation, 155
budget execution, and internal controls.
In prior appropriations, Congress has been interested in the effectiveness of OHA
programs. In FY2008, Congress provided funding for the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) to study the effectiveness of BioWatch. In P.L. 110-53, the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Congress called on the
Comptroller General to evaluate implementation of NBIS. These reviews are pending. In
its FY2009 recommendation, the House Committee provided BioWatch funding

152 H.Rept. 110-862, pp. 106-109.
153 S.Rept. 110-396, pp. 100-101.
154 Congressional Record version of the DHS explanatory statement, pp. H9802-H9803, September 24, 2008.
155 FY2009 Congressional Budget Justification, p. OHA-44 (pp. 3094 of the pdf document).


Congressional Research Service 80

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

substantially below the request, and expressed concern about OHA’s plans to deploy two
different versions of BioWatch sensing systems concurrently, before the NAS review is 156
completed. The Senate Committee recommended the requested amount for BioWatch,
and did not discuss the program in its report. In P.L. 110-329 and the accompanying
explanatory statement, Congress provided the amount requested for BioWatch, but laid
out a number of explicit spending and reporting requirements for new system
deployments.
Additional matters mentioned by the House Committee include, among others, a directive
that DHS’s pandemic influenza planing activities be based in OHA rather than elsewhere
in the department, and encouragement of OHA’s activities to monitor environmental
exposures among disaster victims. The Senate Committee expressed concern about the
level of national preparedness for a nuclear incident, and recommended that $10
million—the amount that the Committee recommended above the request—be used to
expand OHA’s efforts to plan for this threat. Both the House and Senate Committees
expressed concerns about problems with medical care in ICE detention facilities, and the
House Committee directed ICE to initiate a comprehensive third-party review of detainee 157
medical care, in consultation with OHA. Both committees also directed OHA and
FEMA to coordinate their efforts in managing the Metropolitan Medical Response
System (MMRS) grants to cities.
National Protection and Programs Directorate158
The National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) was formed by the Secretary
for Homeland Security in response to the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform
Act of 2006. The Directorate includes the Office of Infrastructure Protection, the Office
of Cybersecurity and Communications, the Office of Intergovernmental Programs, the
Office of Risk Management and Analysis, and the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status
Indicator Technology Program (US-VISIT). The programs and activities of the Office of
the Undersecretary for National Protection and Programs, along with the activities of the
Office of Intergovernmental Programs and the Office of Risk Management and Analysis,
are supported within the Directorate’s Management and Administration Program. The
programs and activities of the Office of Infrastructure Protection and the Office of
Cybersecurity and Communications are supported through the Infrastructure Protection
and Information Security Program.
Management and Administration
The programs and activities of the Office of the Undersecretary are aggregated in
Directorate Administration and support the other offices and programs within the

156 For more information, see House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
hearing on Department of Homeland Security, Office of Health Affairs, April 1, 2008, 110th Cong., 2nd Sess.,
Washington, DC.
157 For more information, see CRS Report RL34556, Health Care for Noncitizens in Immigration Detention,
by Alison Siskin.
158 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science and Industry
Division.


Congressional Research Service 81

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Directorate. This support includes budget formulation and financial management,
contract and program management, information technology, business culture (i.e.
employee relations), and communications, among other things.
The Office of Intergovernmental Programs (IPG) was established by the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 to act as both an advocate for State, local, tribal, and territorial
officials within the department and as the primary liaison between these officials, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, and other senior level officials within the department. In
this role, the IPG manages communications and helps coordinate activities among these
stakeholders.
The Office of Risk Management and Analysis (RMA) was established as part of the Post-
Katrina Emergency Reform Act of 2006. It had formerly been a division within the Office
of Infrastructure Protection. The RMA now reports directly to the Undersecretary. The
responsibility of this office is to help develop and implement a common risk management 159
framework and to leverage risk management expertise throughout the entire
department.
President’s FY2009 Request
The President requested a total of $54 million for the NPPD Management and
Administration appropriation. This included $43 million for Directorate Administration,
$2 million for Intergovernmental Programs, and $10 million for Risk Management and
Analysis. The budget request included a programmatic increase for additional personnel
(including increases in recruitment and retention bonuses and training) for both the Office
of the Undersecretary (24 positions, 12 FTEs) and the Office of Intergovernmental
Programs (17 positions, 17 FTEs). The primary reason for the increase was to reduce
dependence on outside contractors. The IPG received no NPPD funds in FY2008. The
request for the Office of Risk Management and Analysis supports current services.
House-reported H.R. 6947
The House Committee recommended no funding for the Office of Intergovernmental
Programs in the National Protection and Programs budget, noting that the Post-Katrina
Emergency Reform Act moved this Office into FEMA and, that funding for the Office is
provided within the FEMA budget. The House Committee would also cut in half the
amount of funding requested for hiring and retaining staff (a reduction of $2 million in
the Directorate Administration line item). The Committee stated the slow pace at which
the Directorate is hiring new staff made it unlikely that the Directorate would need the
full amount requested.

159 This framework includes the development of a risk management lexicon, risk performance metrics, a risk
communication strategy, and support for the development and vetting of new risk management tools and
techniques.


Congressional Research Service 82

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Senate-reported S. 3181
The Senate Committee also chose not to fund the Office of Intergovernmental Programs
through the NPPD. It did provide the requested funds for hiring and retaining staff within
the Directorate Administration line item.
P.L. 110-329
Congress approved $42 million for Directorate Administration, a little over $1 million
less than requested. Congress did not fully support the requested increase for hiring and
retaining staff, nor did it transfer funding for the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs from
FEMA to NPPD. Congress did fully support the RMA request.
Table 16. FY2009 Budget Activity for the Management and
Administration Appropriation
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Program FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 House- FY2009 Senate-P.L. 110-
Project Activity Total Request Reported reported 329a
Directorate
Administration 38 43 41 43 42
Intergovernmental
Programs2
Risk Management and
Analysis 9 10 10 10 10
Total 47 55 50 53 51
Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in
Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, H.R. 6947 and accompanying report
H.Rept. 110-862, and P.L. 110-329 and the Congressional Record version of the DHS explanatory
statement, Sept. 24, 2008.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. The text of P.L. 110-329 was not available as of November 6, 2008. These tables reflect DHS
appropriations for FY2009 contained in the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the
Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
Issues for Congress
One potential issue in this appropriation cycle is whether the FY2009 budget justification
documents sufficiently address Congress’s concerns about the quality of the NPPD’s
budget requests. In the FY2008 appropriations, both the House and the Senate criticized
the level of detail and clarity of the NPPD budget justification documents and the
apparent transfer of funds without the Committees’ knowledge. The Omnibus
Appropriations Act ordered $5 million of the NPPD Management and Administration
account to be put on hold until the Committees’ receive and approve an expenditure plan
that has been reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.
Another possible issue is the location of the Office of Risk Management and Analysis
(RMA) and the Office of Intergovernmental Programs. Both of these offices oversee


Congressional Research Service 83

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

activities that cut across the entire department. Some observers have expressed concern
that the RMA, in particular, may be located too low in the organization to accomplish its
goals.
Lastly, where to budget the activities of the Office of Intergovernmental Programs
continues to be a contentious issue between Congress and the Adminstration. The
Administration has sought to fund the office through the NPPD budget in its last two
budget submissions; both times Congress has chosen to keep the funding in FEMA’s
budget.
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-
VI SI T ) 160
Until FY2006, US-VISIT was coordinated out of the Directorate of Border and
Transportation Security (BTS). DHS Secretary Chertoff’s second stage review, among
other things, eliminated BTS and proposed placing US-VISIT within a new Screening
Coordination Office (SCO) that would have combined a number of screening programs 161
within DHS and that would have reported directly to the Secretary. The appropriators
did not provide funding for the SCO, however, and US-VISIT became a stand-alone 162
office within Title II of the DHS appropriation in FY2006. In FY2008, DHS
transferred US-VISIT into a new entity, the National Protection Programs Directorate
(NPPD). In its Section 872 letter, DHS stated that it was relocating US-VISIT to the
NPPD “to support coordination for the program’s protection mission and to strengthen 163
DHS management oversight.”
President’s Request
The Administration requested $390 million for US-VISIT in FY2009, a decrease of $85 164
million from the FY2009 enacted level of $475 million. Included in the
Administration’s request is an increase of $43 million to conduct testing of potential exit
solutions at the land POE, and an increase of $4 million to help US-VISIT deal with
increased demand for services from other government entities as the system expands to

10-fi nger pr int s.



160 Prepared by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy Division.
161 Programs proposed for transfer to the Screening Coordination Office included the US Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Project (US-VISIT); Free and Secure Trade (FAST) and NEXUS/SENTRI, from
CBP; and Secure Flight, Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC), Registered Traveler,
Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) background checks, and the Alien Flight School background checks
program from TSA.
162 H.Rept. 109-241.
163 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, letter from Secretary Michael Chertoff to the Honorable Joseph I.
Lieberman, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC, January 18, 2007, p. 8.
164 While the FY2008 enacted total included $275 million in emergency appropriations, the total
appropriation for US-VISIT in FY2008 was in line with the Presidents FY2008 request of $462 million.


Congressional Research Service 84

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

House-reported H.R. 6947
The House Committee recommended fully funding the President’s request for US-VISIT,
but withheld $90 million pending the submission and approval of an expenditure plan for
the program. Additionally, the House Committee included $40 million for operations and
management of the program within the CBP Salaries and Expenses account, $22 million
less than the President’s request, because “the budget explanation did not justify full 165
funding.”
Senate-reported S. 3181
The Senate Committee recommended $180 million for US-VISIT, $210 million less than
the President’s request. The Senate Committee noted that it did not receive US-VISIT’s
FY2008 expenditure plan until June 12, 2008 (or almost 3/4 of the way through the fiscal
year) and that $125 million in FY2008 funding will remain unavailable for obligation
until this plan is reviewed by GAO and accepted by the Committee—something that will
likely not occur until September. As a result of the delay in submitting the plan, the
Senate Committee noted that DHS was effectively turning US-VISIT into a forward
funded account. As such, the Senate Committee reduced the FY2009 appropriation by
$210 million from the FY2009 request, to $180 million. However, the Senate Committee
noted that it fully funded the President’s request for an additional $62 million for
“operations and management” of the program within the CBP Salaries and Expenses
Account.
P.L. 110-329
Congress provided $300 million for US-VISIT in the Act, $90 million below the
President’s request. The reduction in funding was in response “to the delay in submitting 166
the expenditure plans and the resulting unobligated balances.” Congress admonished
DHS for continuing to run high unobligated balances in the US-VISIT program and
directed DHS to ensure that US-VISIT becomes a current-year progam moving forward.
In order to encourage this, Congress withheld $70 million from obligation until an
expenditure plan for the program is submitted to and approved by the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations. Of the $300 million appropriation, Congress designated
$20,000,000 for identity management and screening services; $66,368,000 for the Unique
Identity program, and $25,327,000 for moving US—VISIT operations to a DHS data and
establishing a second disaster recovery site. The remaining $188 million was made
available for operations and maintenance, program management, and the development
and implementation of biometric exit solutions.
Issues for Congress
There are a number of issues that Congress may face relating to the implementation of
the US-VISIT system. These issues may include whether the Administration’s proposed

165 H.Rept. 110-826, pp. 36-37.
166 Congressional Record version of the DHS explanatory statement, p. H9802.


Congressional Research Service 85

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

pilot project for deploying the exit component at land POE is appropriate, whether the
current plan to deploy the exit component at air POEs is adequate, and whether the
current POE infrastructure can support the added communication load that a 10
fingerprint system would likely require.
10 Fingerprint Entry
In FY2008, US-VISIT has been operating a pilot program of the 10 fingerprint
enrollment system to assess the impact of the program’s expansion on the infrastructure
at POE and wait times for travelers entering the United States. During FY2009, US-
VISIT plans to deploy 3,000 new 10 fingerprint scanners to the 292 POE where the US-
VISIT system is currently operational. Issues for Congress could include wether the
current information technology infrastructure at POEs can support the enhanced
bandwidth that a 10 fingerprint system will require, whether the 10 fingerprint
technology that gets implemented can produce fast and effective results, and what kind of
an impact the deployment of the system to airports will have on the travel times for
individuals entering the country as well as the potential economic impacts that delays
may have on airlines due to missed connections. The Senate Committee noted its
approval of the plans to transition to a 10 fingerprint entry system, and included full
funding for that portion of the request. The House Committee also recommended fully
funding the President’s request for this component of the US-VISIT system, and directed
DHS to provide quarterly briefings on the implementation of the 10 fingerprint entry
solution.
Exit Component at Air and Sea Ports
Deployment of a biometric exit system has been of concern to Congress for a number of
years. Without verifying the identity of travelers who leave the United States, DHS has
no easy way of identifying individuals who overstay their visas and remain in the country
illegally. After being heavily criticized during FY2008 for appearing to move away from
the deployment of an exit system, US-VISIT is requesting $56 million for the exit
component of the system in FY2009. According the DHS, US-VISIT will “finalize a
biometric exit strategy and complete implementation of a biometric air and sea exit 167
system by the end of calendar year 2008.” The exact nature of this strategy will likely
be an issue that Congress will closely examine, given the intense congressional interest
on this topic in the past. The House Committee noted that the exit component remains
behind schedule, and expressed its concern that “no pilot tests have been carried out or
are planned for the proposed assignment of biometric collection responsibilities to private 168
industry.” In order to address this concern, the House Committee withheld from its
recommendation funding for the implementation of an exit solution at airports until US-
VISIT conducts pilot programs testing private industry collection and transmission of
biometric data and CBP collection of this data at airline gates and submits a report to the
committee on their outcomes. US-VISIT would be required to complete these pilots by
October 31, 2008. The House Committee also noted its concern that DHS has yet to

167 FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, p. NPPD US-VISIT 21.
168 H.Rept. 110-826, p. 101.


Congressional Research Service 86

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

provide a detailed and comprehensive strategy for implementation of an exit solution
across all ports of entry, as required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, and
included language reiterating this requirement. P.L. 110-329 directed DHS to execute the
pilot programs outlined in the House Report, but extended the deadline for completion of
these pilots to January 31, 2009.
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security169
The Infrastructure Protection and Information Security Program (IPIS) supports the
activities of the Office of Infrastructure Protection (OIP), which manages the
Infrastructure Protection Program (IP), and the Office of Cybersecurity and
Communications, which includes the National Cyber Security Division (NCSD), the
National Communication System (NCS), and the Office of Emergency Communications
(OEC). OIP coordinates the national effort to reduce the risks associated with the loss or
damage to the nation’s critical infrastructure due to terrorist attack or natural events. This
effort is a cooperative one between the federal government, state, local and tribal
governments, and the private sector to identify critical elements of the nation’s
infrastructure, their vulnerabilities, the potential consequences of their loss or damage,
and ways to mitigate those losses. The NCSD performs a similar function, but
specifically focuses on the nation’s information networks. The NCS also performs similar
function, but specifically focuses on the nation’s communication systems, in particular
the communications systems and programs that ensure the President can communicate
with selected federal agencies, state, local, and tribal governments, and certain private
sector entities during times of national emergencies. The OEC is responsible for
promoting the ability of state, local and federal emergency response providers to
communicate with each other during an emergency through the development and
distribution of interoperable communication equipment.
President’s FY2009 Request
The President requested a total of $841 million for IPIS in FY2009. This is an increase of
approximately $186 million above the amount enacted for FY2008. Each of the four
Program/Project Activities (PPAs) requested increased funding (see Table 16). Of the
total increase, $44 million is the result of changes to baseline funding, including pay
increases (plus one large baseline increase associated with the transfer of a program from
the Coast Guard to the NCS). The balance, $142 million, is the net result of expanded or
reduced programmatic activity, including the hiring of additional personnel.
The National Communication System request is $101 million above last year’s enacted
amount. The request included an increase of nearly $35 million for the Next Generation
Network. This program aims to migrate the Telecommunications Priority Services
program from legacy circuit-switched technology to industry’s new IP-based packet
technology. In FY2008, Congress chose not to fully fund the President’s request for this
program, stating that DHS had not justified the need for the level of funding requested at

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


Congressional Research Service 87

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

that time. Another large programmatic increase in the NCS request, $57 million, would
support the National Command and Coordination Capability (NCCC). NCCC is an effort
to integrate existing and future networks that share classified as well as sensitive-but-
unclassified information (voice, video, and data) between the President, Vice-President,
federal agencies, state Emergency Operation Centers, and selected local fusion centers.
The Secretary of DHS is the Executive Agent of the NCCC, and he has delegated this
authority to the NCS. The $57 million increase goes toward standing up the NCCC
Management Coordination Office and to extend and integrate the necessary interoperable
hardware and software. The NCS also requested a $35 million increase to its baseline
funding to take over the Coast Guard’s Long Range Navigation (LORAN) system.
The NCSD requested an increase of $83 million above the FY2008 enacted amount.
Expansion of the Division’s Einstein program, and its role in the Office of Management
and Budget’s (OMB’s) Trusted Internet Connections initiative, accounts for nearly $70
million of this increase. The Einstein program monitors network traffic on federal
information networks and acts as an intrusion detection system. OMB’s Trusted Internet
Connections initiative seeks to deploy the Einstein system to all federal departments and
agencies (current involvement had been voluntary). The increased funding would be
spent on the acquisition and deployment of additional and upgraded hardware and
software, the expansion of facilities, and the hiring of additional personnel and contractor
services. Some of the increases are to handle the additional incident handling and data
analysis the expansion will generate.
The net budget increase requested for IP is less than a million dollars. Increases would
include $11 million to increase staff and support for chemical facility security
compliance. It also would include $1 million for additional Protective Security Advisors.
Proposed decreases included -$14 million for NIPP management, -$4 million for the
National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center, and -$1 million for the Bomb
Prevention Program. Congress had appropriated funds above what the President
requested for these programs in FY2008.
House-reported H.R. 6947
The House Committee recommended $847 million for the IPIS program, but voted to
withhold from obligation $149 million from three programs (National Cyber Security
Initiative, Next Generation Networks, and the National Command and Coordination
Capability) until the Committee receives expenditure plans and documentation on how
these programs relate to achieving homeland security goals. The Committee
recommended $39 million more for Infrastructure Protection and $6 million more for the
National Cyber Security Division PPAs than requested. The House Committee supported
the Administration’s request for the Office of Emergency Communications, but
recommended less (-$90 million) than what was requested for the National
Communications System program. In addition, the House Committee recommended the
$50 million REAL ID Hub program be transferred to NPPD. The Administration
requested funds for this program in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) budget. The Committee recommended the development program be run out of
NPPD to allow the USCIS to focus on its large backlog of applications.


Congressional Research Service 88

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Within the Infrastructure Protection PPA, the Committee included an additional $16
million to the request for National Infrastructure Protection Plan implementation and $2
million to the Bombing Prevention Program, more than reversing the Administration’s
proposed reductions in those programs. The Committee also recommended an additional
$12 million for chemical plant security compliance support, also citing the need to
support upcoming regulations on ammonium nitrate. In addition, the Committee
recommended $2 million to fund continued deployment of video surveillance cameras in
Philadelphia and $3 million to study the efficacy of manhole cover locking systems to
ensure security of underground utilities.
The Committee fully supported the National Cyber Security Division’s U.S.-CERT
budget, but, withheld from obligation half of the amount ($121 million) until the
Committee receives an expenditure plan for the U.S.-CERT’s contribution to the National
Cyber Security Initiative. Also within the NCSD PPA, the Committee recommended $4
million more than the request for testing at Idaho National Laboratory the security of
control systems.
Within the National Communications System PPA, the Committee recommended $14
million for the National Command and Coordination Capability budget, about $47
million less than the request, and withheld all of this amount from obligation until it
receives an expenditure plan for this program. The Committee also recommended $8
million less for the Next Generation Networks program, and withheld half of this amount
from obligation until it receives an expenditure plan for the program. The House
Committee did not support the transfer of the LORAN program to NPPD.
Senate-reported S. 3181
The Senate Committee recommended a total of $809 million for the IPIS program. This
included funding, above requested levels, for Infrastructure Protection (+$25 million), the
National Cyber Security Division (+$26 million), and the Office of Emergency
Communications (+$10 million) PPAs. The Committee, however, recommended less than
requested funding for the National Communications System PPA (-$94 million).
Within the Infrastructure Protection PPA, the Committee recommended additional funds
for the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (+$4 million) and the
Bombing Prevention Program ($1 million), reversing the Administration’s proposed
reductions in these two programs. In addition, the Committee increased the funding for
chemical plant security compliance an additional $12 million above the Administration’s
request, citing the need to enforce upcoming regulations on ammonium nitrate. The
Committee also recommended an additional $8 million above the Administration’s
request to help accelerate the pace of vulnerability assessments at Tier 1 and Tier 2
critical infrastructure sites. The additional $10 million recommended for the Office of
Emergency Communications PPA is to support 6 international interoperability border
demonstration projects. The Committee did not expand upon its recommendation to
increase the National Cyber Security Division’s budget request by $26 million.
Within the National Communications System PPA, the Committee recommended $6
million for the National Command and Coordination Capability (NCCC), $55 million
less than what was requested. Although the Committee recommendation increased


Congressional Research Service 89

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

funding over last year’s budget for the NCCC, the Committee expressed concern that the
program lacked an overall strategic plan, input from prospective end users, a defined
fully operational capability, and a total program cost estimate. The funds provided by the
Committee are to conduct such planning. The Committee also directed the Government
Accountability Office to review the program, including the business case for proceeding
with the NCCC. Also within the National Communications System PPA, the Committee
did not support the transfer of the LORAN program to the NPPD. The Committee noted
that the requested funding was provided in the Coast Guard budget.
P.L. 110-329
Congress approved $807 million for the IPIS program. This included $314 million for IP,
$314 million for NCSD, $38 million for OEC, and $141 million for NCS. However, a
total of $152 million would be withheld from obligation until Congress received and
approved expenditure plans for the following projects: the National Cyber Security
Initiative in the NCSD program ($127 million withheld); and, the Next Generation
Network in the NCS program ($25 million withheld).
Within the IP program, Congress appropriated a total of $73 million for implementing
chemical plant security regulations ($10 million above the request) and $5 million to
initiate efforts to regulate ammonium nitrate. It provided $11 million for the Office of
Bombing Prevention, roughly $2 million above the request. It also provided $31 million
for NIPP management ($10 million above the request), $20 million for NISAC ($4
million above the request), and $6 million more than requested to conduct vulnerability
assessments. In addition, the $2 million sought for the city of Philadelphia and the $3
million to study the efficacy of protecting underground infrastructures by securing
manhole covers was approved.
Notwithstanding the withholding of obligations noted above, Congress appropriated $255
million for DHS’s activities associated with the National Cyber Security Initiative and
$50 million for the Next Generation Network. Congress appropriated $6 million for the
National Command and Control Capability. Congress provided $22 million for NCSD’s
activities to secure control systems of critical infrastructures ($4 million more than
requested). Congress did not support the transfer of LORAN to NPPD. The bill did not
mention transferring the Real ID Hub from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to
NPPD as sought in the House.
Table 17. FY2009 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure Protection and
Information Security Appropriation
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Program
Project FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 House- FY2009 Senate-P.L. 110-
Activity Total Request Reported reported 329a
IP 273 273 312 298 314
NCSDb 210 293 299 319 314
NCSc 136 237 147 143 141
OEC 36 38 38 48 38


Congressional Research Service 90

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Program
Project FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 House- FY2009 Senate-P.L. 110-a
Activity Total Request Reported reported 329
REAL ID Hub 50
Total 655 841 847 809 807
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in
Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, H.R. 6947 and accompanying report
H.Rept. 110-862, and P.L. 110-329 and the Congressional Record version of the DHS explanatory
statement, Sept. 24, 2008.
Notes: Tables may not add due to rounding. IP=Infrastructure Protection; NCSD=National Cyber
Security Division; NCS=National Communications System; OEC=Office of Emergency
Communications.
a. The text of P.L. 110-329 was not available as of November 6, 2008. These tables reflect DHS
appropriations for FY2009 contained in the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the
Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
b. Account formerly called Computer Security.
c. Account formerly called National Security/Emergency Preparedness.
IPIS Issues for Congress
Congress and the Administration continue to disagree on the direction or pace certain
programs within the IPIS should take. The Administration favors reducing funding in the
National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center, the National Infrastructure
Protection Plan implementation support, and the Bombing Prevention Program. Congress
did not support these reductions in FY2008 and have not in the FY2009 budget.
Meanwhile, Congress has not been willing to completely support relatively large
increases the Administration has been seeking for programs in the National
Communications Systems PPA. Both the House and the Senate appear to be in basic
agreement. A primary difference between the House and Senate bills is that the House
Appropriations Committee recommended the transfer of the REAL ID Hub program to
NPPD, while the Senate Committee did not make a similar recommendation.
Title IV: Research and Development, Training,
Assessments, and Services
Title IV includes appropriations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS),
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), the Science and Technology
Directorate (S&T), and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO). Table 18
provides account-level details of Title IV appropriations.


Congressional Research Service 91

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Table 18. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 Appropriation FY2009 Appropriation
FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 House- FY2009 Senate- P.L. 110-
rational Component EnactedaSupp. Resc. Total Request Reported Reported 329b
enship and Immigration Services
l available budget authority 2,620 2,620 2,690 2,641 2,690 2,641
setting feesc -2,539 -2,539 -2,539 -2,539 -2,539 -2,539
subtotal (Direct appropriation) 81 81 151 102 151 102
l Law Enforcement Training Center 289 289 274 286 324 333
iki/CRS-RL34482nce and Technology
g/wnagement and Administration 139 139 132 132 132 132
s.orearch, Development, Acquisition, and 692 692 737 755 787 800
leakerations
://wiki Subtotal 830 830 869 887 919 933
httpestic Nuclear Detection Office
nagement and Administration 32 32 39 35 39 38
search, Development, and Operations 324 324 334 333 334 323
tems Acquisition 130 130 191 176 168 153
Subtotal 485 485 564 544 541 514
ss budget authority: Title IV 4,224 4,224 4,396 4,358 4,474 4,421
setting collections: Title IV -2,539 -2,539 -2,539 -2,539 -2,539 -2,539
budget authority: Title IV 1,685 1,685 1,857 1,819 1,935 1,882
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and House-reported H.R.
6947 and its accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862). FY2009 enacted from the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate-
enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. ColumnFY2008 Enacted includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.



Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
b. The text of P.L. 110-329 was not available as of November 6, 2008. These tables reflect DHS appropriations for FY2009 contained in the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in
the Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
c. Fees include Immigration Examination Fund; H-1b Visa Fee; and the Fraud Prevention and Detection fee.


iki/CRS-RL34482
g/w
s.or
leak
://wiki
http

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)170
There are three major activities that dominate the work of the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS): the adjudication of immigration petitions (including
nonimmigrant change of status petitions, relative petitions, employment-based petitions,
work authorizations, and travel documents); the adjudication of naturalization petitions
for legal permanent residents to become citizens; and the consideration of refugee and 171
asylum claims, and related humanitarian and international concerns. USCIS funds the
processing and adjudication of immigrant, nonimmigrant, refugee, asylum, and 172
citizenship benefits largely through funds generated by the Examinations Fee Account.
Table 19 shows FY2008 appropriations and the FY2009 request.
President’s FY2009 Request
USCIS is a fee supported agency. As part of the former Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), USCIS was directed to transform its revenue structure with the creation of 173
the Examinations Fee Account. Although the agency has received direct appropriations
in the last decade, these appropriations have been largely directed towards specific
projects such as backlog reduction initiatives. The vast majority of the agency’s revenues,
however, comes from the adjudication fees of immigration benefit applications and
petitions. In the President’s FY2009 budget request, the agency requested $151 million in
direct appropriations. The remaining $2,539 million in gross budget authority requested
would be funded by revenues from collected fees.
As Table 19 below shows, the requested USCIS budget for FY2009 is approximately
$2,690 million. This requested amount constitutes an increase of $70 million, or almost
3%, over the gross budget authority provided in FY2008. The requested direct
appropriation of $151 million would include $100 million for the Employer Eligibility
Verification Program (EEV, or E-Verify), $50 million for REAL ID Act implementation,
and roughly $1 million for asylum and refugee program operating expenses. All other
programs and operations would be fee funded. Of the requested funds for FY2009,
$1,979 million, or roughly 73.6%, would fund the USCIS adjudication services. A
plurality of these adjudication funds would go towards pay and benefits with an
allocation of $780 million, while district operating expenses would receive $535 million
and service center operating expenses would be allocated $346 million. Business
transformation initiatives for modernizing systems and improving agency information
sharing and efficiency would receive $139 million. The President’s budget request also

170 Prepared by Chad C. Haddal, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
171 CRS Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
172 §286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1356.
173 There are two other fee accounts at USCIS, known as the H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account and the
Fraud Prevention and Detection Account. The revenues in these accounts are drawn from separate fees that
are statutorily determined (P.L. 106-311 and P.L. 109-13, respectively). USCIS receives 5% of the H-1B
Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account revenues and 33% of the Fraud Detection and Prevention Account
revenues. In FY2007, the USCIS shares of revenues in these accounts were approximately $13 million each,
and the funds combined for a little less than 2% of the USCIS budget (U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Fiscal Year 2009 Congressional Budget Justifications).


Congressional Research Service 94

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

includes requested funding levels of $168 million for information and customer services,
$374 million for administration, and $19 million for the Systematic Alien Verification for
Entitlements (SAVE) Program.
House-reported H.R. 6947
House-reported H.R. 6947 would have provided USCIS with total appropriations $2,641
million, of which $2,539 million would have been mandatory appropriations collected
from fees and $102 million would have been direct appropriations. For the mandatory
fees, the House report stated that at least $54 million must be used for supporting
Customer Service Center operations. Additionally, the report would have directed all
USCIS’ premium processing revenues to be used for business and information 174
technology transformation purposes, including the digital conversion of records.
Discretionary funding included $100 million for E-Verify, $1 million for asylum/refugee 175
operating expenses, and $1 million for citizenship education grants. Section 522 of the
bill would have prohibited USCIS from using funds made available from House-reported
H.R. 6947 for granting any immigration benefits unless any legally required background
checks were completed and the results did not preclude benefits to be granted.
Although the mandatory appropriations in the House-reported bill were identical to those
in the President’s budget request (as well as those in Senate-reported S. 3181), the
discretionary funds would not have included the $50 million requested for REAL ID
implementation. H.Rept. 110-862 noted that this funding would instead be provided
through the National Protections and Program Directorate (NPPD), which has similar
identity verification systems and experience in data integration. The Citizenship and
education grants—proposed competitively awarded grants to community organizations in
areas of the country with the highest concentrations of immigrants—were an exclusive 176
item to House-reported H.R. 6947.
H.Rept. 110-862 made several additional notes regarding Congressional concerns. First,
it noted concerns over the high error rates in the E-Verify system and required USCIS to
submit a report on its plan to address this issue. Moreover, noting the projected cost of a
nationwide mandatory E-Verify program, H.Rept. 110-862 encouraged USCIS to develop
a detailed plan of E-Verify use, along with projected costs and an implementation
timeline. Second, the report noted concern over the 2007 USCIS immigration benefit fee
increase and the reduced possibility for fee waivers. Specific concerns were raised in the
report regarding applicants under the Violence Against Women Act. Third, concerns were
raised over refugee processing and cases where material support to extremist groups has
been provided under threat or duress. USCIS, in conjunction with the Department of
State, were asked to clarify United States policy on this matter. Finally, H.Rept. 110-862

174 H.Rept. 110-862 also states that no more than $10,000 of the fees collected be used for official reception
and representation expenses.
175 The bill also allows discretionary funds to be used for the purchase of up to five vehicles, of which two are
to be replacement vehicles. This provision is also included in Senate-reported S. 3181.
176 The initial Presidents FY2009 budget request for discretionary funds requested an additional four $4
million. OMB withdrew this funding request, noting it was a technical error based upon a faulty assumption.
House-reported H.R. 6947 explicitly denies funding for the erroneous budget item.


Congressional Research Service 95

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

expressed concerns over fraudulently or erroneously identified orphans from Vietnam, as
well as the levels of funding used for naturalization and oath of allegiance ceremonies.
Senate-reported S. 3181
Unlike House-reported H.R. 6947, Senate-reported S. 3181 would have provided USCIS
with its full funding request of $2,690 million. This funding would have provided $2,539
million in mandatory appropriations from fee collections and $151 million in direct 177
appropriations. The accompanying report, S.Rept. 110-396, noted that USCIS planned
to use over $24 million in anticipated carry-over funds from FY2008 for E-Verify. It also
noted the expectation that all DHS privacy rules and regulations will be adhered to in the
development of the REAL ID program.
The main concern expressed in S.Rept. 110-396 was the ongoing issue of FBI
background check backlogs. Noting that having approximately 327,000 individuals in the
country awaiting adjudication represented an unnecessary security rick, the report
reiterated that a total of $28 million had been appropriated in previous fiscal years to
address this issue. The report stated that USCIS has assured Congress that previously
appropriated funding should be sufficient. Additionally, the report urged USCIS to place
personnel at the FBI name check facility to expedite additional information requests. This
request reflected a recent recommendation of the Department of Justice Inspector
General.
P.L. 110-329
The provision of P.L. 110-329 regarding USCIS were virtually identical to those of the of
House-reported H.R. 6947. Like its predecessor in the House, the public law provided
$102 million in direct appropriations, of which $100 million was specified for the E-178
Verify program. According to report language in the Congressional Record, $1 million
of the direct appropriations was for citizenship education grants as spelled out in House-179
reported H.R. 6947. The REAL ID funding that was requested and included in Senate-180
reported S. 3181 was included under Title V of the public law.
In addition to the direct appropriations, USCIS was directed to collect an estimated
$2,539 million in fee collections from adjudication services for mandatory
appropriations. For the mandatory fees, the report language stated that at least $54
million must be used for supporting Customer Service Center operations. Additionally,

177 Section 515 of Senate-reported S. 3181 states: “None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to
process or approve a competition under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 for services
provided as of June 1, 2004, by employees (including employees serving on a temporary or term basis) of
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security who are known
as of that date as Immigration Information Officers, Contact Representatives, or Investigative Assistants.
178 Rep. David Obey, “Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act,
2009, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154 (September 24, 2008), p.H9806.
179 The bill also allows discretionary funds to be used for the purchase of up to five vehicles, of which two are
to be replacement vehicles.
180 See Section 547 of House-Passed H.R. 2638.


Congressional Research Service 96

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

$28 million of the mandatory fees was directed to be used for converting immigration
records to digital format. Finally, the report language stated that USCIS is directed to
advise Congress of any resource requirements necessary to avoid the buildup of new
backlogs with the FBI Name Check Program.
Table 19. USCIS Budget Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Program/Project FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 House- FY2009 Senate- P.L.
Activity Enacted Request Reported Reported 110-329a
Appropriations
Appropriations 81 151 102 151 102
REAL ID Act
Implementation50 50
Asylum/Refugee Operating
Expenses1 1 1 1
EEV 60 100 100 100 100
FBI Background Check 21
Citizenship Education
Grants1 1
Fee Accounts
Adjudication Services 2,000 1,979 1,979 1,979 1,979
Pay & Benefits 758 780 780 780 780
District Operating Expenses 567 535 535 535 535
Service Center Operating 353 346 346 346 346
Expenses
Asylum/Refugee Operating 95 93 93 93 93
Expenses
Records Operating 88 86 86 86 86
Expenses
Business Transformation 139 139 139 139 139
Information and 162 168 168 168 168
Customer Services
Administration 375 374 374 374 374
SAVE 22 19 19 19 19
Total USCIS Funding 2,620 2,690 2,641 2,690 2,641
Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in
Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and House-reported H.R. 6947 and its
accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862). FY2009 enacted from the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as
submitted in the Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
Notes: Tables may not add due to rounding. ColumnFY2008 Enacted includes emergency funding
for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
a. The text of P.L. 110-329 was not available as of November 6, 2008. These tables reflect DHS
appropriations for FY2009 contained in the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the
Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.


Congressional Research Service 97

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

USCIS Issues for Congress
USCIS issues for Congress included the surge in immigration benefit applications that
occurred in FY2007 and which resulted in an increase in the agency’s backlog, and the
use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) National Name Check program to vet
immigration benefit applications.
Surge in Benefit Applications and Resulting Backlog
According to the testimony of USCIS Director Emilo T. Gonzalez, USCIS experienced 181
an increase in its backlog of naturalization applications in the second half of FY2007.
From May through July of 2007 USCIS received three and a half times more applications 182
than during the same three months in the previous year. Consequently, published
accounts indicate that processing time for applications filed during the FY2007 “surge”
would be between 16-18 months, as compared to 6-7 months for applications filed in the 183
same period during FY2006. For all immigration benefits, the USCIS director testified
that the agency received over 1.2 million more applications during the FY2007 surge than 184
in the same period during FY2006, for a total of over 3 million applications. According
to media reports, in February USCIS officials believed that the backlog created by the 185
application surge could take close to three years to clear. As of April 2008, USCIS 186
believed it would take 13-15 months to process an application for naturalization.
Although citizenship campaigns and a contentious national immigration debate have been
cited as contributing factors, many observers believe most of the surge in applications 187
may be attributed to the USCIS fee increase of July 30, 2007. These fee adjustments
followed an internal cost review and they increased application fees by a weighted 188
average of 96% for each benefit. The cost of naturalization, for example, increased

181 Testimony of USCIS Director Emilio T. Gonzalez, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, thnd
Naturalization Delays: Causes, Consequences and Solutions, 110 Cong., 2 sess., January 17, 2008.
182 Ibid.
183 For example, see Muzaffar Chishti and Claire Bergeron, “USCIS: Backlog in Naturalization Applications
Will Take Nearly Three Years to Clear, Migration Policy Institute, February 15, 2008, at
http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?ID=673, visited July 17, 2008.
184 Testimony of USCIS Director Emilio T. Gonzalez, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, thnd
Naturalization Delays: Causes, Consequences and Solutions, 110 Cong., 2 sess., January 17, 2008.
185 Muzaffar Chishti and Claire Bergeron, USCIS: Backlog in Naturalization Applications Will Take Nearly
Three Years to Clear, Migration Policy Institute, at http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/
display.cfm?ID=673, visited July 17, 2008.
186 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, Annual Report 2008, p.2.
187 Chris Nelson, “Delay Debacle,IndUS Business Journal Online, February 15, 2008, at
h t tp :/ / www. in d us b u si ne s sj ou r na l. com/ M E 2/
di r mod.a s p?si d=&nm=&t ype=Publi s hi ng&mod=Publ i cati ons% 3A% 3AAr t i cl e &mi d=8F3A7027421841978F
18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=5AF6AC18B95142F39C890025700AFBC3, visited July 17, 2008.
188 This weighted average does not include the increases to the biometric fee. When combined with the
biometric fee, the weighted average application fee increase would be reduced to 86%. (U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Adjustment of the Immigration and
Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule; Proposed Rule, Federal Register, vol. 72, no.
(continued...)


Congressional Research Service 98

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
189
from $330 to $595. Critics of this new naturalization backlog have mainly raised 190
concerns that applicants would not naturalize in time to participate in the 2008 election.
USCIS did not include a request for direct appropriations to hire additional temporary
personnel to adjudicate the backlog.
Use of FBI National Name Check Program
An additional issue for Congress concerned USCIS’ use of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s (FBI) National Name Check Program. In February, USCIS officials
estimated that roughly 44% of 320,000 pending name checks for immigration benefit
applications have taken more than six months to process, including applications for legal 191192
permanent residence (LPR) and naturalization. As a result, the White House
authorized USCIS to grant approximately 47,000 LPR applicants their immigration 193
benefits without requiring completed FBI name checks. Critics of this decision believe 194
it could expose the United States to more security threats. The USCIS ombudsman,
however, has argued that USCIS employment of the FBI name check process is of limited
value to public safety or national security because in most cases the applicants are living 195
and working in the United States without restriction. According to the USCIS
Ombudsman’s 2008 Annual Report, on May 6, 2008 there were 269,943 pending name
checks, of which 219,615 (81%) had been pending for more than 90 days and 74,260 196
(28%) had been pending for more than one year.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)197
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center provides training on all phases of law
enforcement instruction, from firearms and high speed vehicle pursuit to legal case
instruction and defendant interview techniques for 81 federal entities with law

(...continued)
21 (February 1, 2007), p. 4888.)
189 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Adjustment of the
Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee Schedule,” Federal Register, vol. 72,
no. 103 (May 30, 2007), p. 29854.
190 Chris Nelson, “Delay Debacle,IndUS Business Journal Online, February 15, 2008, at
h t tp :/ / www. in d us b u si ne s sj ou r na l. com/ M E 2/
di r mod.a s p?si d=&nm=&t ype=Publi s hi ng&mod=Publ i cati ons% 3A% 3AAr t i cl e &mi d=8F3A7027421841978F
18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=5AF6AC18B95142F39C890025700AFBC3, visited July 17, 2008.
191 Legal permanent residence is more commonly known as being issued a “green card.
192 Spencer S. Hsu,U.S. to Skirt Green-Card Check: Action Will Help Applicants Lacking Final FBI
Clearance,Washington Post, February 12, 2008, p. A03.
193 Susan Carroll, “Green Cards Will Go Out, Background Check or Not,Houston Chronicle, February 12,
2008.
194 Ibid.
195 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Service Ombudsman, Annual
Report 2007, June 11, 2007, p. 40.
196 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, Annual Report 2008, p. 6. In S.Rept. 110-396, the
backlog in background checks is cited as 327,000 cases pending.
197 Prepared by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy Division.


Congressional Research Service 99

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

enforcement responsibilities, state and local law enforcement agencies, and international
law enforcement agencies. Training policies, programs, and standards are developed by
an interagency Board of Directors, and focus on providing training that develops the
skills and knowledge needed to perform law enforcement functions safely, effectively,
and professionally. FLETC maintains four training sites throughout the United States and
has a workforce of more than 1,000 employees.
President’s Request
The overall request for FLETC in FY2009 was $274 million, a decrease of $14 million
from the FY2008 appropriation. The Administration requested an increase of 55 positions
to assist in the training of the additional USBP agents, CBP officers, ICE detention
personnel, and ICE investigators requested by DHS in its FY2009 budget submission.
DHS also proposed transfering the office of Federal Law Enforcement Training 198
Accreditation to the Chief Human Capital Office in Title I.
House-reported H.R. 6947
The House Committee recommended $286 million for FLETC in FY2009, an increase of
$12 million over the President’s request. This increase would have been used to fund
improvements in FLETC’s simulated training capabilities, to add instructors for United
States Capitol Police training needs, and to train 734 additional CBP officers. The House
Committee did not support the Administration’s requests to transfer FLETA and to close
down its Washington D.C. office.
Senate-reported S. 3181
The Senate Committee recommended $324 million for FLETC in FY2009, an increase of
$50 million over the President’s request. Of the increase: $40 million was included for
the construction of a new dormitory in FLETC’s Charleston, South Carolina facility to
compensate for the expiration of a lease on dormitory currently being used there; $3
million was included to complete construction of training-related facilities at the Artesia,
New Mexico facility; and $7 million was included for law enforcement accreditation and
annualized increases in pay. The Senate Committee prohibited DHS from transferring the
Law Enforcement Training Accreditation Board (FLETA) from FLETC and from closing
down or transferring its Washington D.C. office. Lastly, the Committee recommended $5
million for the creation of a Rural Policing Institute to export training programs to rural
first-responders throughout the country.
P.L. 110-329
Congress provided $339 million for FLETC in the Continuing Resolution, $65 million
more than the President’s request. Within this total, $40 million is allocated for
construction of a replacement dormitary in the Charleston, South Carolina campus and $3
million for construction in the Artesia, New Mexico facility. Congress also denied

198 DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. FLETC S&E 2 and 11.


Congressional Research Service 100

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

FLETC’s request to close its Washington D.C. office, provided $4 million for the creation
of a Rural Policing Institute, and allocated $6 million above the President’s request for
the training needs of the additional CBP and ICE personnel provided in Title II of the
appropriation.
Science and Technology (S&T)199
The Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) is the primary DHS organization for 200
research and development (R&D). Headed by the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology, it performs R&D in several laboratories of its own and funds R&D
performed by the national laboratories, industry, universities, and other government
agencies. See Table 20 for details of the directorate’s appropriation.
President’s FY2009 Request
The Administration requested a total of $869 million for the S&T Directorate for
FY2009. This was 5% more than the FY2008 appropriation of $830 million. A proposed
increase of $18 million for the Explosives program would fund R&D on countering
improvised explosive devices (IEDs), with an emphasis on basic research to complement
shorter-term R&D being conducted by other agencies. A proposed increase of $43 million
for the Laboratory Facilities program included $29 million for startup costs at the
National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) as well as $14
million for laboratory employee salaries previously budgeted in another account. A
proposed $27 million reduction in the Infrastructure and Geophysical program was
largely the result of reducing funding for local and regional initiatives previously
established or funded at congressional direction.
House-reported H.R. 6947
The House committee recommended a total of $887 million. Increases relative to the
request included $11 million for the Infrastructure and Geophysical program to support
the National Institute for Hometown Security; $5 million for the ongoing construction at
PNNL; $4 million to help develop an operational test and evaluation program for first
responder technologies; $2 million for a pilot program to improve the productivity and
efficiency of the homeland security industrial base; and $7 million for University
Programs to support university centers of excellence and maintain the fellowship
program at the FY2008 level. Decreases included $5 million for new maritime
technologies “more appropriately handled by the Coast Guard” and $6 million for the
Innovation program “due to a lack of budgetary details.” The committee directed DHS to
provide a report on issues related to the S&T Directorate’s unobligated balances.

199 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Analyst in Science & Technology, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
200 Two other DHS organizations also conduct R&D: the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (see next
section) and the U.S. Coast Guard (see Title II above).


Congressional Research Service 101

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Senate-reported S. 3181
The Senate committee recommended a total of $919 million. Increases relative to the
request included $25 million for cyber security research in the Command, Control, and
Interoperability program; $27 million for the Infrastructure and Geophysical program to
continue the Southeast Region Research Initiative; and $15 million for Laboratory
Facilities to accelerate ongoing construction activities at the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory (PNNL). Decreases included $12 million for Innovation (because of the need
for “sound business plans” based on “operational requirements”) and $4 million for
Human Factors. The committee recommended that $5 million for the Homeland Security
Institute be provided as a separate item, as it was in FY2008, rather than as part of the
Transition program as the Administration requested.
P.L. 110-329
The final appropriation for S&T was $933 million. Relative to the request, this total
included increases of $10 million for cyber security research, $11 million for the National
Institute for Hometown Security, $27 million for the Southeast Region Research
Initiative, $15 million for the ongoing construction at PNNL, and $6 million for
University Programs. Decreases included $12 million from Innovation, because the DHS
Inspector General “raised concerns about how projects were selected and managed” and
because S&T took nine months to inform the committee how FY2008 funding would be
spent. Funding for the Homeland Security Institute was provided as a separate line item.
The explanatory statement included the House requirement for a report on unobligated
balances.
Table 20. Directorate of Science and Technology Accounts and Activities,
FY2008-FY2009
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2008FY2009House-FY2009 Senate-P.L. 110-
EnactedRequestReportedReported 329a
Directorate of Science and
Technology 830 869 887 919 933
Management and Administrationb 139 132 132 132 132
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations 692 737 755 787 800
Border and Maritime 25 35 30 35 33
Chemical and Biological 208 200 200 200 200
Command, Control, and
Interoperability 57 62 62 87 75
Explosives 78 96 96 96 96
Human Factors 14 12 12 8 12
Infrastructure and Geophysical 64 38 49 65 76
Innovation 33 45 39 33 33
Laboratory Facilitiesb 104 147 152 162 162


Congressional Research Service 102

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

FY2009
FY2008FY2009House-FY2009 Senate-P.L. 110-a
EnactedRequestReportedReported 329
Test and Evaluation, Standards 29 25 29 25 29
Transitionc 25 32 34 27 29
University Programs 49 44 51 44 50
Homeland Security Institutec 5 5 5
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2009 DHS congressional budget justification; H.R. 6947 and H.Rept.
110-862; S. 3181 and S.Rept. 110-396; and P.L. 110-329 and explanatory statement, Congressional
Record, September 24, 2008, pp. H9806-9807.
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
a. The text of P.L. 110-329 was not available as of November 6, 2008. These tables reflect DHS
appropriations for FY2009 contained in the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the
Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
b. Reflects transfer of $14 million for salaries of DHS laboratory employees from Management and
Administration in FY2008 to Laboratory Facilities in FY2009.
c. Congress appropriated $5 million for the Homeland Security Institute as a separate line item in
FY2008. The FY2009 budget justification incorporated this amount into Transition. The FY2009
request for Transition included $5 million for the Homeland Security Institute.
Issues for Congress
Among the issues facing Congress are the S&T Directorate’s priorities and how they are
set, its relationships with other federal R&D organizations both inside and outside DHS,
its budgeting and financial management, and the allocation of its R&D resources to
national laboratories, industry, and universities. The directorate announced five new
university centers of excellence in February 2008. Some existing centers are expected to
be terminated or merged over the next few years to align with the directorate’s division
structure. For more information, see CRS Report RL34356, The DHS Directorate of
Science and Technology: Key Issues for Congress, by Dana A. Shea and Daniel Morgan.
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office201
The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) is the primary DHS organization for
combating the threat of nuclear attack. It is responsible for all DHS nuclear detection
research, development, testing, evaluation, acquisition, and operational support. See
Table 21 for details of the appropriation for DNDO.
President’s FY2009 Request
The Administration requested a total of $564 million for DNDO for FY2009. This was a
16% increase from the FY2008 appropriation of $485 million. Most of the growth was in

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


Congressional Research Service 103

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

the Systems Acquisition account, where an increase of $68 million for procurement of
Advanced Spectroscopic Portals (ASPs) was partly offset by a decrease of $10 million
for the Securing the Cities initiative in the New York City area.
House-reported H.R. 6947
The House committee recommended a total of $544 million. Changes relative to the
request included reductions of $3 million for new headquarters employees, $1 million for
a proposed fellowship program at the National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center, and
$15 million for the Radiation Portal Monitoring Program. The House continued the
prohibition on full-scale procurement of ASPs until the Secretary certifies their
performance and added a prohibition from engaging in high-risk concurrent development
and production of mutually dependent software and hardware. Report language directed
DNDO to conduct a risk assessment for radiological dispersal devices.
Senate-reported S. 3181
The Senate committee recommended a total of $541 million. The only change relative to
the Administration request was a reduction of $23 million in the Radiation Portal
Monitoring Program because of delays in the required certification of ASP performance.
Like the House, the Senate continued the prohibition on full-scale procurement of ASPs
until secretarial certification and prohibited high-risk concurrent development and
production of mutually dependent software and hardware components of detection
systems. The committee report urged DNDO to prioritize its programs based on risk and
directed it to contract with the National Academy of Sciences (or another independent
organization) to develop a conceptual framework for prioritizing defensive efforts
relative to mitigation measures.
P.L. 110-329
The final appropriation for DNDO was $514 million. Reductions relative to the request
included $10 million from new initiatives in Transformational R&D and $38 million from
the Radiation Portal Monitoring Program due to development delays. Like the House and
Senate bills, the final bill continued the prohibition on full-scale procurement of ASPs
and prohibited high-risk concurrent development and production.
Table 21. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Accounts and Activities,
FY2008-FY2009
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009 P.L.
FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 House-Senate-110-
Enacted Request Reported Reported 329a
Domestic Nuclear 485 564 544 541 514
Detection Office
Management and Administration 32 39 35 39 38
Research, Development, and 324 334 333 334 323


Congressional Research Service 104

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

FY2009 P.L.
FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 House-Senate-110-a
Enacted Request Reported Reported 329
Operations
Systems Engineering and 22 25 25 25 25
Architecture
Systems Development 118 108 108 108 108
Transformational Research 96 113 113 113 103
and Development
Assessments 38 32 32 32 32
Operations Support 34 38 38 38 38
National Technical Nuclear 15 18 17 18 17
Forensics Center
Systems Acquisition 130 191 176 168 153
Radiation Portal Monitoring 90 158 143 135 120
Program
Securing the Cities 30 20 20 20 20
Human Portable Radiation 10 13 13 13 13
Detection Systems
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2009 DHS congressional budget justification; S. 3181 and S.Rept. 110-
396; H.R. 6947 and H.Rept. 110-862; and P.L. 110-329 and explanatory statement, Congressional
Record, September 24, 2008, p. H9807.
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
a. The text of P.L. 110-329 was not available as of November 6, 2008. These tables reflect DHS
appropriations for FY2009 contained in the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the
Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
Issues for Congress
Congressional attention has focused on the testing and analysis DNDO conducted to
support its decision to purchase and deploy ASPs, a type of next-generation radiation 202
portal monitor.20 The requirement for secretarial certification before full-scale ASP
procurement has been included in each appropriations act since FY2007. The expected
date for certification has been postponed several times; the current target is reportedly 203
November 2008.20 The global nuclear detection architecture overseen by DNDO and
the relative roles of DNDO and the S&T Directorate in research, development, testing,
and evaluation also remain issues of congressional interest. For more information on the

202 See, for example, Government Accountability Office, Combating Nuclear Smuggling: Additional Actions
Needed to Ensure Adequate Testing of Next Generation Radiation Detection Equipment, GAO-07-1247T,
testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, September 18, 2007.
203 Government Accountability Office, Combating Nuclear Smuggling: DHS Need to Consider the Full Costs
and Complete All Tests Prior to Making a Decision on Whether to Purchase Advanced Portal Monitors,
GAO-08-1178T, September 25, 2008.


Congressional Research Service 105

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

global nuclear detection architecture, see CRS Report RL34574, The Global Nuclear
Detection Architecture: Issues for Congress, by Dana A. Shea.
FY2009-Related Legislation
Budget Resolution
The President’s FY2009 budget request included nearly $992 billion in discretionary,
non-emergency, budget authority. On March 6, 2008, the House and Senate Budget
Committees each reported budget resolutions. The House budget resolution (H.Con.Res.
312) was passed in the House on March 13, 2008. While the budget resolution does not
identify specific amounts for DHS, it does note that:
this resolution assumes funding above the President’s requested level for 2009, and
additional amounts in subsequent years, in the four budget functions—Function 400
(Transportation), Function 450 (Community and Regional Development), Function

550 (Health), and Function 750 (Administration of Justice)—that fund most 204


nondefense homeland security activities.
The Senate budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 70) was passed in the Senate on March 14,
2008. On June 5, 2008, the House and Senate reached agreement on S.Con.Res. 70. The
final agreement contained language similar to the House language excerpted above, and
also noted that:
the homeland security funding provided in this resolution will help to strengthen the
security of our Nation’s transportation system, particularly our ports where
significant security shortfalls still exist and foreign ports, by expanding efforts to
identify and scan all high-risk United States-bound cargo, equip, train and support
first responders (including enhancing interoperable communications and emergency
management), strengthen border patrol, and increase the preparedness of the public 205
health system.

204 H.Con.Res. 312, §603
205 S.Con.Res. 70, §512.


Congressional Research Service 106

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Appendix A. FY2008 Supplemental Funding
provided by Division B of P.L. 110-329
Division B of P.L. 110-329 provided supplemental funding related to disaster relief
efforts in 2008. DHS received a total of $8,260 million in FY2008 emergency
supplemental funding. The Act provided $300 million to the Coast Guard for the
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements account for the reconstruction and
restoration of facilities damaged by disasters during 2008 and required that a plan listing
these facilities be submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The
Act also provided $7,960 million to FEMA for the Disaster Relief account and designated
that up to $100 million be provided to the American Red Cross for reimbursement of


their activities during major disasters, as designated by the President, during 2008.
Congressional Research Service 107

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Appendix B. Emergency Funding for Border
Security in The Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161)
This appendix describes the distribution of $3,000 million ($3.0 billion) in emergency
funds for border security throughout the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 206
110-161). Division E of P.L. 110-161 includes $2,710 million ($2.7 billion) in
emergency funding for border security purposes. This funding is disbursed throughout
several DHS funding accounts including Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status
Indicator Technology (US-VISIT); State and Local Programs (S&L); the U.S. Coast
Guard, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). P.L. 110-161 also includes another $40 million in
Division B—Commerce, Justice, Science; the remaining $250 million is included in
Division D—Financial Services.
Distribution of FY2008 Emergency Border Security Funding
in Division E—DHS of P.L. 110-161
As noted above, $2,710 million ($2.7 billion) in emergency funding was distributed
among several accounts in Division E of P.L. 110-161. The funds are distributed as
follows: $1,531 million ($1.5 billion) for CBP; $527 million for ICE; $166 million for the
U.S. Coast Guard; $275 million for USVISIT; $110 million for S&L programs; $80
million for USCIS; and $21 million for FLETC.
CBP FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations
The $1,531 million ($1.5 billion) in FY2008 emergency funding for CBP is disbursed as
follows, by account and amount:
• Salaries and Expenses—$323 million
• $40 million for the Model Ports of Entry program and includes
funding to hire at least 200 additional CBP officers at the 20 U.S.
international airports with the highest number of foreign visitors
arriving annually;
• $45 million for terrorist prevention system enhancements for
passenger screening - to develop system infrastructure needed to
support a real-time capability to process advanced passenger
information for passengers intending to fly to the U.S.;
• $36 million to implement the electronic travel authorization program
for visa waiver countries;

206 Figures in this memorandum are rounded to the nearest million.


Congressional Research Service 108

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

• $150 million for the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI);
• $25 million for a ground transportation vehicle contract (Border
Patrol);
• $13 million for Border Patrol vehicles;
• $14 million for Air and Marine Personnel Compensation and
Benefits for 82 positions to support the establishment of 11 new
marine enforcement units.
• Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT)—
$1,053 million:
• $1,053 million ($1.1 billion) for development and deployment of
systems and technology.
• Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement:
• $94 million for procurement.
• Construction—$61 million:
• $61 million for Border Patrol Construction.
ICE FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations
The $527 million in FY2008 emergency funding for ICE is disbursed as follows, by
account and amount:
• Salaries and Expenses—$516 million
• $4 million for ICE vehicle replacements;
• $50 million for domestic investigations;
• $186 million for custody operations;
• $33 million for fugitive operations;
• $10 million for alternatives to detention;
• $33 million for transportation and removal;
• $200 million for the comprehensive identification and removal of
criminal aliens.
• Construction—$11 million
• $11 million for construction.
U.S. Coast Guard FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations
The $166 million in FY2008 emergency funding for the U.S. Coast Guard is disbursed as
follows, by account and amount:
• Operating Expenses—$70 million


Congressional Research Service 109

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

• $70 million for port and maritime security enhancements.
• Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements—$96 million
• $36 million for medium response boat replacement;
• $60 million for interagency operational centers for port security.
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (USVISIT)
FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations
The $275 million in FY2008 emergency funding for US-VISIT is provided in the main
US-VISIT account.
State and Local Programs FY2008 Emergency Border Security
Appropriations
The $110 million in FY2008 emergency funding for State and Local Programs is
disbursed as follows:
• $60 million for Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Grants—207
Operation Stonegarden;
• $50 million for REAL ID208 grants.
USCIS FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations
The $80 million in FY2008 emergency funding for USCIS is disbursed as follows:
• $60 million for the E-Verify209 program;
• $20 million for the FBI background check backlog.
FLETC FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations
The $21 million in FY2008 emergency funding for FLETC is disbursed as follows, by
amount and account:
• Salaries and Expenses—$17 million
• $17 million for law enforcement training

207 Operation Stonegarden provides funds (awarded on a competitive basis) to state and local law
enforcement in counties along the land border in support of ongoing law enforcement operations along the
border.
208 Grants to assist states in implementing the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 regarding the
issuance of state drivers licenses and state identification cards.
209 The E-Verify program was previously referred to as the Employment Eligibility Verification program and
is administered by USCIS.


Congressional Research Service 110

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

• Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses—$4
million
• $4 million for construction.
Distribution of FY2008 Emergency Border Security Funding
in Division B—Commerce, Justice, Science of P.L. 110-161
Division B—the Commerce, Justice, Science portion of P.L. 110-161 contains border
security-related emergency funding to provide additional resources that will be required
as a result of an anticipated increase in immigration enforcement actions.
Department of Justice (DOJ) FY2008 Emergency Border Security
Appropriations
The $40 million in FY2008 emergency funding for DOJ is disbursed as follows, by
amount and account:
• General Administration - Salaries and Expenses—$8 million
• $8 million for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
to provide additional attorneys and judges for the Board of
Immigration Appeals
• Legal Activities—Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities - $10
million
• $10 million for the Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation to
provide 86 additional attorneys to address appeals resulting from
increased immigration enforcement actions
• Legal Activities—Salaries and Expenses, United States Attorneys—$7
million
• $7 million for United States Attorneys for criminal and civil
litigation resulting from increased immigration enforcement actions.
• US Marshals Service—Salaries and Expenses—$15 million.
• $15 million for prisoner transportation, defendant productions and
courthouse security resulting from increased immigration-related
Federal court proceedings.
Distribution of FY2008 Emergency Border Security Funding
in Division D—Financial Services
Division D—the Financial Services portion of P.L. 110-161 contains border security-
related emergency funding to provide additional resources that will be required as a result
of an anticipated increase in immigration enforcement actions. This funding is found
within the General Services Administration (GSA), and within the Judiciary, Courts of
Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services.


Congressional Research Service 111

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

General Services Administration (GSA) FY2008 Emergency Border
Security Appropriations
There is $225 million in emergency border security funding included in the Construction
and Acquisition account of the Federal Buildings Fund under the GSA:
• Federal Buildings Fund—Construction and Acquisition—$225 million
• $225 million to expedite construction at select land ports of entry,
including one of the nation’s most congested sites.
Courts of Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services, FY2008
Emergency Border Security Appropriations
P.L. 110-161 provides $25 million210 in emergency funding for border security initiatives
within Courts of Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services:
• Salaries and Expenses—$15 million
• $15 million to address the understaffed workload associated with
increased immigration enforcement along the Southwest border
• Defender Services—$11 million
• $11 million to address the expected increased workload of attorneys
appointed to represent persons under the Criminal Justice Act of
1964 as a result of increased immigration enforcement along the
Southwest border.

210 The overall total appropriated for this account was $25 million because the total for Salaries and Expenses
was actually $14.5 million and the total for defender services was actually $10.5 million.


Congressional Research Service 112

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations

Appendix C. 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 C-1 is presented in
such a way as to allow year to year comparisons, they may in fact not be strictly
comparable due to the increasing specificity of the analysis, as outlined above.
With regard to DHS funding, it is important to note that DHS funding does not comprise
all federal spending on homeland security efforts. In fact, while the largest component of
federal spending on homeland security is contained within DHS, the DHS homeland
security request for FY2009 accounts for approximately 49.5% of total federal funding
for homeland security. The Department of Defense comprises the next highest proportion
at 26.6% of all federal spending on homeland security. The Department of Health and
Human Services at 6.7%, the Department of Justice at 5.7% and the Department of State
at 3.7% round out the top five agencies in spending on homeland security. These five
agencies collectively account for nearly 92.2% of all federal spending on homeland
security. It is also important to note that not all DHS funding is classified as pertaining to
homeland security activities. The legacy agencies that became a part of DHS also conduct
activities that are not homeland security related. Therefore, while the FY2009 request
included total homeland security budget authority of $32.8 billion for DHS, the requested
total gross budget authority was $46.8 billion. The same is true of the other agencies


listed in the table.
Congressional Research Service 113

Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Table C-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2003-FY2009
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009 FY2009 as
rtment FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 Request % of Total
rtment of Homeland Security (DHS) 17,381 23,063 22,923 24,549 26,571 29,554 32,740 32,817 49.5%
artment of Defense (DOD)a 16,126 8,442 7,024 17,188 17,510 16,538 17,374 17,646 26.6%
rtment ofHealth and Human Services (HHS) 1,913 4,144 4,062 4,229 4,352 4,327 4,301 4,457 6.7%
rtment ofJustice (DOJ) 2,143 2,349 2,180 2,767 3,026 3,518 3,523 3,795 5.7%
rtment ofState (DOS) 477 634 696 824 1,108 1,242 1,962 2,466 3.7%
rtment ofEnergy (DOE) 1,220 1,408 1,364 1,562 1,702 1,719 1,829 1,943 2.9%
rtment ofAgriculture (AG) 553 410 411 596 597 541 570 691 1.0%
iki/CRS-RL34482
g/wional Science Foundation (NSF) 260 285 340 342 344 385 374 379 0.6%
s.orrtment ofVeterans Affairs (VA) 49 154 271 249 298 260 272 348 0.5%
leakrtment ofCommerce 116 112 125 167 181 205 207 262 0.4%
://wikir Agencies 3,613 1,445 1,437 1,910 1,429 1,545 1,772 1,500 2.3%
httpal Federal Budget Authority 43,848 42,447 40,834 54,383 57,118 59,833 64,923 66,303 100%
Sources: CRS analysis of data contained in “Section 3. Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” and Appendix K of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2009 Presidents Budget (for
FY2007- FY2009); Section 3.Homeland Security Funding Analysis, of Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2008 Presidents Budget (for FY2006); Section 3.Homeland Security Funding
Analysis, of Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2008 Presidents Budget (for FY2005); Section 3.Homeland Security Funding Analysis, of Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2006
Presidents Budget (for FY2004); Section 3.Homeland Security Funding Analysis, of Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2005 Presidents Budget (for FY2003) and Office of Management
and Budget, 2003 Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, Sept. 2003, p. 10; CRS analysis of FY2002-2006 re-estimates of DoD homeland security funding provided by OMB, March 17, 2005.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. FY totals shown in this table include enacted supplemental funding. Year to year comparisons using particularly FY2002 may not be directly
comparable, because as time has gone on agencies have been able to distinguish homeland security and non-homeland security activities with greater specificity.
a. FY2002, FY2003, and FY2004 do not include re-estimates of DOD homeland security funding. For FY2007 DOD changed the manner in which they calculate their homeland security
activities. This new method of estimation has been applied for FY2005 and forward. Re-estimates of FY2002-FY2004 DOD funding using this new method of calculation were not available
for inclusion.




Author Contact Information
Jennifer E. Lake, Coordinator Daniel Morgan
Analyst in Domestic Security Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
jlake@crs.loc.gov, 7-0620 dmorgan@crs.loc.gov, 7-5849
Blas Nuñez-Neto, Coordinator Alison Siskin
Analyst in Domestic Security Specialist in Immigration Policy
bnunezneto@crs.loc.gov, 7-0622 asiskin@crs.loc.gov, 7-0260
Sarah A. Lister Bruce R. Lindsay
Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
slister@crs.loc.gov, 7-7320 blindsay@crs.loc.gov, 7-3752
Chad C. Haddal Harold C. Relyea
Analyst in Immigration Policy Specialist in American National Government
chaddal@crs.loc.gov, 7-3701 hrelyea@crs.loc.gov, 7-8679
Francis X. McCarthy Barbara L. Schwemle
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy Analyst in American National Government
fmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-9533 bschwemle@crs.loc.gov, 7-8655
Shawn Reese John Frittelli
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Specialist in Transportation Policy
Security Policy jfrittelli@crs.loc.gov, 7-7033
sreese@crs.loc.gov, 7-0635
Bart Elias John D. Moteff
Specialist in Aviation Policy Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
belias@crs.loc.gov, 7-7771 jmoteff@crs.loc.gov, 7-1435
Key Policy Staff: Department of Homeland Security
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


Congressional Research Service 1


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.
Key Policy Staff: Department of Homeland Security
Area of Expertise Name Phone E-mail
Coordinator Jennifer E. Lake 7-0620 jlake@crs.loc.gov
Coordinator BlasNuñez-Neto7-0622 bnunezneto@crs.loc.gov
Title I, Departmental Management and Operations
General Management Harold C. Relyea 7-8679 hrelyea@crs.loc.gov
Intelligence and Analysis Jennifer E. Lake 7-0620 jlake@crs.loc.gov
Personnel Policy Barbara L. 7-8655 bschwemle@crs.loc.gov
Schwemle
Procurement Policy Elaine Halchin 7-0646 ehalchin@crs.loc.gov
Inspector General Fred Kaiser 7-8682 fkaiser@crs.loc.gov
Title II, Security, Enforcement, and Investigation
Coast Guard John Frittelli 7-7033 jfrittelli@crs.loc.gov
Customs Issues, Inspections Jennifer E. Lake 7-0620 jlake@crs.loc.gov
Immigration Enforcement Alison Siskin 7-0260 asiskin@crs.loc.gov
Immigration Inspections, U.S. VISIT, and the Border Blas Nuñez-Neto 7-0622 bnunezneto@crs.loc.gov
Patrol
Secret Service, Federal Protective Service Shawn Reese 7-0635 sreese@crs.loc.gov
Transportation Security Administration Bartholomew Elias 7-7771 belias@crs.loc.gov
Title III, Preparedness and Recovery
FEMA KeithBea7-8672 kbea@crs.loc.gov
Fran McCarthy 7-9533 fmccarthy@crs.loc.gov
Firefighter Assistance Lennard G. Kruger 7-7070 lkruger@crs.loc.gov
State and Local Grants Shawn Reese 7-0635 sreese@crs.loc.gov
Office of Health Affairs MMRS, Disability Coordinator Sarah Lister 7-7320 slister@crs.loc.gov
Biodefense/Bioshield FrankGottron7-5854 fgottron@crs.loc.gov
Biodefense/BioWatch Dana Shea7-6844 dshea@crs.loc.gov
Infrastructure Protection John D. Moteff 7-1435 jmoteff@crs.loc.gov
Title IV, Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
Citizenship and Immigration Services Chad C. Haddal 7-3701 chaddal@crs.loc.gov
Science and Technology, DNDO Daniel Morgan 7-5849 dmorgan@crs.loc.gov


Congressional Research Service 2