Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations

Homeland Security Department:
FY2008 Appropriations
Updated February 15, 2008
Jennifer E. Lake and Blas Nuñez-Neto, Coordinators,
Sarah A. Lister, Todd Masse, Alison Siskin, and Chad C. Haddal
Domestic Social Policy Division
Keith Bea, Francis X. McCarthy, Harold C. Relyea, Shawn Reese,
and Barbara L. Schwemle
Government and Finance Division
Bartholomew Elias, John Frittelli, Daniel Morgan,
and John D. Moteff
Resources, Science, and Industry Division



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



Homeland Security Department:
FY2008 Appropriations
Summary
This report describes the FY2008 appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). The Administration requested a net appropriation of
$35.5 billion in net budget authority for FY2008. The requested net appropriation
for major components of the department included the following: $8,783 million for
Customs and Border Protection (CBP); $4,168 million for Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE); $3,608 million for the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA); $8,457 million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,399 million for the Secret
Service; $1,047 for the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPP); $5,042
million for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); $30 million for
US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); $799 million for the Science and
Technology Directorate (S&T); and $562 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (DNDO).
The House passed H.R. 2638 on June 15, 2007. H.R. 2638 included $37.4
billion in net budget authority for DHS for FY2008. H.R. 2638 contained the
following in net budget authority for major components of DHS: $8,923 million for
CBP; $4,192 million for ICE; $3,842 million for the TSA; $8,352 million for the
U.S. Coast Guard; $1,396 million for the Secret Service; $1,035 million for the NPP;
$7,239 million for FEMA; $30 million for USCIS; $777 million for S&T; and $556
million for the DNDO.
On July 26, 2007, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 2638. The Senate bill
included $40.6 billion in net budget authority, including $3 billion in emergency
funding; not including the emergency funding, Senate-passed H.R. 2638 included
$37.6 billion in net budget authority for DHS for FY2008. The bill contained the
following amounts of net budget authority for major components of DHS: $8,841
million for CBP; $4,433 million for ICE; $3,685 million for the TSA; $8,559 million
for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,396 million for the Secret Service; $914 million for the
NPP; $7,019 million for FEMA; $50 million (plus and additional $60 million in
emergency funding) for USCIS; $838 million for the S&T; and $550 million for the
DNDO. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 also included a $3,000 million emergency
supplemental appropriation for border-security purposes.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161) was signed into
law by the President on December 26, 2007. The DHS Appropriations Act of 2008
was included as Division E of P.L. 110-161. The Act provides $38.7 billion in net
budget authority for FY2008. P.L. 110-161 contains the following amounts of net
budget authority for major components of DHS: $9,423 million for CBP; $4,734
million for ICE; $4,021 million for the TSA; $8,521 million for the U.S. Coast
Guard; $1,386 million for the Secret Service; $1,177 million for the NPP; $6,807
million for FEMA; $81 million for USCIS; $830 million for the S&T; and $485
million for the DNDO.
This report will not be updated.



Area of ExpertiseNamePhoneE-mail
CoordinatorJennifer E. Lake7-0620jlake@crs.loc.gov
CoordinatorBlas Nuñez-Neto7-0622bnunezneto@crs.loc.gov
Title I, Departmental Management and Operations
General ManagementHarold C. Relyea7-8679hrelyea@crs.loc.gov
Intelligence and AnalysisTodd M. Masse7-2393tmasse@crs.loc.gov
Personnel PolicyBarbara L. Schwemle7-8655bschwemle@crs.loc.gov
Procurement PolicyElaine Halchin7-0646ehalchin@crs.loc.gov
Inspector GeneralFred Kaiser7-8682fkaiser@crs.loc.gov
Title II, Security, Enforcement, and Investigation
Coast GuardJohn Frittelli7-7033jfrittelli@crs.loc.gov
Customs Issues, InspectionsJennifer E. Lake7-0620jlake@crs.loc.gov
Immigration EnforcementAlison Siskin7-0260asiskin@crs.loc.gov
Immigration Inspections, U.S.
VISIT, and the Border PatrolBlas Nuñez-Neto7-0622bnunezneto@crs.loc.gov
Secret Service, Federal
Protective ServiceShawn Reese7-0635sreese@crs.loc.gov
Transportation Security
AdministrationBartholomew Elias7-7771belias@crs.loc.gov
Title III, Preparedness and Recovery
Keith Bea7-8672kbea@crs.loc.gov
FEMAFran McCarthy7-9533fmccarthy@crs.loc.gov
Firefighter AssistanceLennard G. Kruger7-7070lkruger@crs.loc.gov
State and Local GrantsShawn Reese7-0635sreese@crs.loc.gov
Office of Health Affairs
MMRS, Disability
CoordinatorSarah Lister7-7320slister@crs.loc.gov
Biodefense/BioshieldFrank Gottron7-5854fgottron@crs.loc.gov
Biodefense/BioWatchDana Shea7-6844dshea@crs.loc.gov
Infrastructure ProtectionJohn D. Moteff7-1435jmoteff@crs.loc.gov
Title IV, Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
Citizenship and Immigration
ServicesChad C. Haddal7-3701chaddal@crs.loc.gov
Science and Technology,
DNDODaniel Morgan7-5849dmorgan@crs.loc.gov



Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
FY2008 Enacted: Division E — P.L. 110-161...................1
Continuing Resolutions.....................................1
First Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-92)..................1
Second Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-116)...............2
Third Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-137).................2
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638....................................2
House-Passed H.R. 2638....................................2
President’s FY2008 Budget Submitted (and Revised).............2
Note on Most Recent Data...................................3
Background ......................................................3
Department of Homeland Security.................................4
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations....................................4
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays.........................5
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending.............................6
Offsetting Collections..........................................7
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security..................9
DHS Appropriations Trends.....................................9
Summary of DHS Appropriations................................10
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations.......................14
President’s FY2008 Request................................14
House-Passed H.R. 2638...................................14
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638...................................14
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)....................15
Personnel Issues......................................17
Analysis and Operations.......................................23
President’s FY2008 Request................................24
House-Passed H.R. 2638...................................25
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638...................................26
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)....................26
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations........................27
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)............................32
President’s FY2008 Request................................32
House-Passed H.R. 2638...................................32
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638...................................32
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)....................32
Issues for Congress.......................................33
SBInet .............................................34
Fencing .............................................35
CBP Staffing........................................35
Hiring U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Agents.................36
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)..............37
Covered Law Enforcement Officer Status for CBP Officers....37



Systems ............................................38
Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT).....38
Container Security Initiative (CSI).......................38
Secure Freight Initiative (SFI)...........................39
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)......................39
President’s FY2008 Request................................40
House-Passed H.R. 2638...................................41
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638...................................42
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)....................43
Issues for Congress.......................................44
Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions.............44
Detention and Removal Operations.......................45
Alternatives to Detention...............................46
Criminal Alien Program (CAP)..........................46
State and Local Law Enforcement........................47
Federal Protective Service..............................47
President’s FY2008 Request................................48
House-passed H.R. 2638...................................48
Senate-passed H.R. 2638...................................48
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)....................48
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)......................49
President’s FY2008 Request................................49
House-passed H.R. 2638...................................53
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638...................................55
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)....................57
TSA Issues for Congress...................................58
Screener Workforce Issues..............................59
Screening Technologies................................61
Air Cargo Security....................................62
TWIC Program Roll-Out...............................63
Secure Flight........................................63
Judicial Review of Airline Security Fees...................64
United States Coast Guard......................................64
President’s FY2008 Request................................65
House-Passed H.R. 2638...................................65
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638...................................65
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)....................66
Issues for Congress.......................................67
Deepwater ..........................................67
Security Mission.....................................68
Specialized Teams....................................69
Non-homeland Security Missions........................70
Rescue-21 ...........................................70
LORAN-C ..........................................71
Bridge Alteration Program..............................71
U.S. Secret Service...........................................72
President’s FY2008 Request................................73
House-passed H.R. 2638...................................73
Senate-passed H.R. 2638...................................73
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)....................74



Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)...................77
President’s FY2008 Request................................77
House Passed H.R. 2638...................................78
Senate Passed H.R. 2638...................................78
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)....................78
FEMA Issues for Congress.................................79
Disaster Relief Fund..................................79
Post-Katrina Reform Act Measures.......................81
Office of Grant Programs.......................................83
President’s Request.......................................85
House-Passed H.R. 2638...................................85
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638...................................86
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)....................86
Issues for Congress.......................................86
Distribution Methods for State and Local Assistance.........86
Reduction in Appropriations for Assistance to Firefighters
Program ........................................87
Office of Health Affairs........................................88
National Protection and Programs Directorate......................90
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT)....90
President’s Request.......................................91
House-Passed H.R. 2638...................................91
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638...................................91
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)....................91
Issues for Congress.......................................92
Administrative Placement Within NPPD..................92
10 Fingerprint Entry Versus the Exit Component............92
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security...................93
President’s FY2008 Request................................93
House-Passed H.R. 2638...................................94
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638...................................95
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)....................95
Issues for Congress.......................................96
Quality of Budget Requests.............................96
Chemical Facility Regulations...........................97
Location of Risk Management Funding....................97
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services...97
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)................100
President’s FY2008 Request...............................100
House-Passed H.R. 2638..................................102
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638..................................102
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)...................103
Issues for Congress......................................103
Scheduled Fee Increase...............................103
Adjudication Backlog................................104
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)................105
President’s Request......................................105
House-Passed H.R. 2638..................................105
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638..................................106
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)...................106



President’s FY2008 Request...............................106
House-Passed H.R. 2638..................................106
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638..................................107
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)...................107
Issues for Congress......................................107
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office..............................108
President’s FY2008 Request...............................108
House-Passed H.R. 2638..................................108
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638..................................108
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)...................108
Issues for Congress......................................109
FY2008 Related Legislation.......................................111
Budget Resolution — H.Con.Res. 99/ S.Con.Res. 21................111
Appendix I. Emergency Funding for Border Security in The
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161)..............112
Distribution of FY2008 Emergency Border Security Funding in Division
E — Department of Homeland Security of P.L. 110-161.........112
CBP FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations........112
ICE FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations.........113
U.S. Coast Guard FY2008 Emergency Border Security
Appropriations ......................................113
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(USVISIT) FY2008 Emergency Border Security
Appropriations ......................................113
State and Local Programs FY2008 Emergency Border
Security Appropriations...............................114
USCIS FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations......114
FLETC FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations......114
Distribution of FY2008 Emergency Border Security Funding in Division
B — Commerce, Justice, Science of P.L. 110-161..............114
Department of Justice (DOJ) FY2008 Emergency Border
Security Appropriations...............................114
Distribution of FY2008 Emergency Border Security Funding in Division
D — Financial Services...................................115
General Services Administration (GSA) FY2008 Emergency
Border Security Appropriations.........................115
Courts of Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services,
FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations........115
Appendix II. FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions.......117
P.L. 110-28 (H.R. 2206) — U.S. Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Care,
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations
Act, 2007..............................................117
P.L. 110-28.............................................117
H.R. 1591 — U.S. Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Health, and Iraq
Accountability Act.......................................118
Conference (H.Rept. 110-107)..............................118
Appendix III. DHS Appropriations in Context.........................120



List of Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations............3
Table 2. FY2007 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS................5
Table 3. FY2008 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority
to Net Appropriation — Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust
and Public Enterprise Accounts...................................7
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2008.........................9
Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations...........................11
Table 6. Title I: Department Management and Operations................16
Table 7. Office of Human Capital (OHC) Appropriations.................18
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations...............28
Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail...............................33
Table 10. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail...............................43
Table 11. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity ..............50
Table 12. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-account
Detail ......................................................66
Table 13. U.S. Secret Service Appropriations...........................72
Table 14. Title III: Preparedness and Response.........................75
Table 15. State and Local Homeland Security Programs..................84
Table 16. FY2008 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure Protection and
Information Security Appropriation...............................96
Table 17. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments,
and Services.................................................98
Table 18. USCIS Budget Account Detail.............................101
Table 19. Research and Development Accounts and Activities,
FY2007-FY2008 ............................................109
Table 20. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency,
FY2002-FY2008 ............................................121



Homeland Security Department:
FY2008 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
FY2008 Enacted: Division E — P.L. 110-161. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161) was signed into law by the President on
December 26, 2007. The DHS Appropriations Act of 2008 was included as Division
E of P.L. 110-161. The Act provides $38.7 billion in net budget authority for
FY2008. It should be noted that the totals for FY2008 include $2,710 million in
emergency funding for border security purposes. These amounts are shown in the
last column of the funding tables in this report, and are described in detail in
Appendix I. It should also be noted that the funding tables in this report do not
include $2,900 million in FY2008 emergency funding for the Federal Emergency
Management Administration (FEMA) enacted by P.L. 110-116, The Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 2008.
Continuing Resolutions.1 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
had been operating under a continuing resolution (CR) during the period between the
end of FY2007 and the passage of P.L. 110-161. Congress had passed three
sequential CRs extending budget authority for DHS (and the rest of the federal
government) at FY2007 levels.
First Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-92). The first CR, P.L. 110-92,
extended funding from October 1, 2007, through November 16, 2007. In addition
to extending funding at FY2007 levels, P.L. 110-92 contained several provisions
specifically pertaining to DHS and its component agencies. These provisions are
summarized as follows:
!Sec. 131 authorized the Commissioner of Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to obligate funds under the CR to support hiring
and training new border patrols agents to sustain the numbers of new
border patrol agents hired in the last quarter of FY2007, and would
require the Commissioner to report to Congress each time the
authority under this section is utilized.
!Sec. 132 authorized the Secretary of DHS to continue to obligate
funds to sustain the average monthly number of detention bed spaces
in use at detention facilities operated or contracted by DHS, during
September of 2007.


1 For more information, see CRS Report RL30343 Continuing Resolutions: FY2008 Action
and Brief Overview of Recent Practices, by Sandy Streeter.

!Sec. 133 specified that during the period the CR is in effect, that Sec.
517(b) of P.L. 109-295 will not be in effect (provisions relating to
the provision of Secret Service protection to certain individuals, and
reimbursement for such protection).
Second Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-116). The second CR amended
the first by changing the expiration date of November 16, 2007, to December 14,

2007. The provisions summarized above remained in effect until December 14,


2007, when Congress enacted the third CR (P.L. 110-137). In addition to extending
the authority provided by P.L. 110-92, P.L. 110-116 added a new provision that
provided an additional $2.9 billion in emergency no-year funding to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for disaster relief. This amount is not
included in the funding tables in this report.
Third Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-137). Congress passed the third
CR on December 14, 2007. P.L. 100-137 would have extended the budget authority
provided by P.L. 110-92, through December 21, 2007. However, P.L. 110-161 was
passed by Congress December 19, 2007.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638. On July 26, 2007, the Senate passed H.R. 2638.
On July 19, 2007, the Senate had taken up the House bill and substituted its text with
Senate-reported S. 1644. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would have provided a total of
$40.6 billion in net budget authority (including $3 billion in emergency
appropriations) for DHS for FY2008. This is $5.1 billion, or 14%, more than was
requested and $5.8 billion, or 17%, more than was enacted for FY2007. Not
including the emergency funding, the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2638 contains
a total of $37.6 billion in net budget authority for DHS for FY2008. This is $2.1
billion more than the $35.5 billion net appropriation requested by the Administration
for FY2008 and a $2.8 billion, or 8%, increase compared with the FY2007-enacted
net budget authority of $34.8 billion. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 also included an
additional $3,000 million emergency funding that was attached during floor debate;
this funding would have been used to help secure the southern border with Mexico,
and for other purposes.
House-Passed H.R. 2638. On June 15, 2007, the House passed H.R. 2638
which contains a total of $37.4 billion in net budget authority for DHS for FY2008.
This is $1.9 billion more than the $35.5 billion net appropriation requested by the
Administration for FY2008. Not including supplemental appropriations, the House-
passed H.R. 2638 amount of $37.4 billion is a $2.6 billion or nearly 8% increase
compared with the FY2007 enacted net budget authority of $34.8 billion (as passed
by P.L. 109-295).
President’s FY2008 Budget Submitted (and Revised). The President’s
budget request for DHS for FY2008 was submitted to Congress on February 5, 2007.
The Administration requested $46.4 billion in gross budget authority for FY2008
(including mandatories, fees, and funds). The Administration’s request includes
gross appropriations of $42.8 billion, and a net appropriation of $35.5 billion in
budget authority for FY2008, of which $34.3 billion is discretionary budget authority,
and $1.2 billion is mandatory budget authority. The FY2007 enacted net
appropriated budget authority for DHS was $34.8 billion ($40.6 billion including



supplemental appropriations). The Administration subsequently amended the
FY2008 budget request and submitted these revisions to Congress on November 6,
2007.2 The revised FY2008 request included $43.0 billion in gross budget authority
for DHS and $35.5 billion in net budget authority for DHS for FY2008. The funding
tables included in this report reflect the revised budget request totals.
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security
Appropriations
Subco mmit t ee House Sena t e Co nfr. Co nso lida t edAppro pria t io ns
MarkupReportHouseReportSenateReportAct, H.R. 2764Public
110- Passage 110-84 Passage La w
181H o use Sena t e H o use Sena t e
5/18 6/13 6/5 6/15 6/14 7/26 a 12/19 12/18
(vv)(uc)(vv)268-15029-089-4 272-20176-17110-161
Note: (vv) = voice vote, (uc) = unanimous consent.
a. Following initial passage of H.R. 2764, the FY2008 State-Foreign Operations bill, became the
Consolidated Appropriations Act through an exchange of amendments. To see this exchange
of amendments, see [http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/z?d110:HR02764:@@@X:
dbs=n:]. H.R. 2638 was incorporated into H.R. 2764 and was enacted by the President on
December 26, 2007.
Note on Most Recent Data. Data used in this report include data from the
President’s Budget Documents, the FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget
Justifications, and the FY2008 DHS Budget in Brief, the House Report to H.R. 2638,
H.Rept. 110-181 as well as the bill itself, Senate Report to S. 1644, S.Rept. 110-84,
Senate-passed H.R. 2638, Division E of P.L. 110-161, and the tables published in the
Congressional Record of December 17, 2007, in the Explanatory Statement for
Division E (pp. H16107-H16121). Data used in Table 19 are taken from the
Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2008 President’s Budget. These amounts
do not correspond to amounts presented in Tables 4-18, which are based on data
from tables supplied by the Appropriations Subcommittees and from the FY2008
DHS Congressional Budget Justifications. Except when discussing total amounts for
the bill as a whole, all amounts contained in this report are rounded to the nearest
million.
Background
This report describes the President’s FY2008 request for funding for DHS
programs and activities, as submitted to Congress on February 5, 2007. It compares
the enacted FY2007 amounts to the request for FY2008, and tracks legislative action


2 See, The White House, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and
Budget, Estimate No. 7 110th Congress, 1st Session, November 5, 2007, accessed at
[ h t t p : / / www.whi t e house.go v/ omb/ budget / a me ndment s / a me ndment _11_6_07.pdf ] .

and congressional issues related to the FY2008 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 fo 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 President’s
FY2008 request for US-VISIT has proposed moving the program to the proposed
National Protection & Programs Directorate (NPPD) in Title III. Both the House and
Senate bills have adopted this same organization.
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 includes a proposal to shift a number of programs and offices to
eliminate the Preparedness Directorate, create the NPPD, and move several programs
to FEMA. Title III in the FY2008 request includes appropriations for NPPD, FEMA,
and the Office of Health Affairs (OHA).
Title IV contains appropriations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS), the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), and the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations
The maximum budget authority for annual appropriations (including DHS) is
determined through a two-stage congressional budget process. In the first stage,
Congress sets overall spending totals in the annual concurrent resolution on the
budget. Subsequently, these amounts are allocated among the appropriations
committees, usually through the statement of managers for the conference report on



the budget resolution. These amounts are known as the 302(a) allocations. They
include discretionary totals available to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations for enactment in annual appropriations bills through the
subcommittees responsible for the development of the bills. In the second stage of
the process, the appropriations committees allocate the 302(a) discretionary funds
among their subcommittees for each of the appropriations bills. These amounts are
known as the 302(b) allocations. These allocations must add up to no more than the

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


since any bill reported with a total above the ceiling is subject to a point of order.
302(b) allocations may be adjusted during the year as the various appropriations bills
progress towards final enactment.
The annual concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth the congressional
budget. The House passed H.Con.Res. 99 on March 29, 2007 which would have
provided $955 billion in discretionary budget authority for FY2008. The Senate
passed S.Con.Res. 21 on March 23, 2007 which would have provided $942 billion
in discretionary budget authority for FY2008. The House and Senate appointed
conferees to resolve the differences between the two resolutions and adopted a
conference agreement on May 16, 2007. The House and Senate adopted the
conference report (H.Rept. 110-153) on May 17, 2007. The conference report
provides $954 billion in discretionary budget authority for FY2008. Table 2 shows
DHS’ 302(b) allocations for FY2007 and the current appropriations cycle.
Table 2. FY2007 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2007FY2008RequestFY2008 HouseFY2008 SenateFY2008Enacted
Co mparable Co mparable Allo ca t io n Allo ca t io n Co mparable
$34.0 $35.5 $36.3 $36.4 $38.7
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications; House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee FY2008 Allocation tables, Division E of P.L. 110-161.
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays
Federal government spending involves a multi-step process that begins with the
enactment of a budget authority by Congress in an appropriations act. Federal
agencies then obligate funds from the enacted budget authority to pay for their
activities. Finally, payments are made to liquidate those obligations; the actual
payment amounts are reflected in the budget as outlays.
Budget authority is established through appropriations acts or direct spending
legislation and determines the amounts that are available for federal agencies to3
spend. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from obligating more
funds than the budget authority that was enacted by Congress. Budget authority may


3 31 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517.

be indefinite, however, when Congress enacts language providing “such sums as may
be necessary” to complete a project or purpose. Budget authority may be available
on a one-year, multi-year, or no-year basis. One-year budget authority is only
available for obligation during a specific fiscal year; any unobligated funds at the end
of that year are no longer available for spending. Multi-year budget authority
specifies a range of time during which funds can be obligated for spending; no-year
budget authority is available for obligation for an indefinite period of time.
Obligations are incurred when federal agencies employ personnel, enter into
contracts, receive services, and engage in similar transactions in a given fiscal year.
Outlays are the funds that are actually spent during the fiscal year.4 Because multi-
year and no-year budget authorities may be obligated over a number of years, outlays
do not always match the budget authority enacted in a given year. Additionally,
budget authority may be obligated in one fiscal year but spent in a future fiscal year,
especially with certain contracts.
In sum, budget authority allows federal agencies to incur obligations and
authorizes payments, or outlays, to be made from the Treasury. Discretionary
agencies and programs, and appropriated entitlement programs, are funded each year
in appropriations acts.
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending
Gross budget authority, or the total funds available for spending by a federal
agency, may be composed of discretionary and mandatory spending. Of the $46.4
billion gross budget authority requested for DHS in FY2008, 82% is composed of
discretionary spending and 18% is composed of mandatory spending.
Discretionary spending is not mandated by existing law and is thus appropriated
yearly by Congress through appropriations acts. The Budget Enforcement Act of
19905 defines discretionary appropriations as budget authority provided in annual
appropriation acts and the outlays derived from that authority, but it excludes
appropriations for entitlements. Mandatory spending, also known as direct spending,
consists of budget authority and resulting outlays provided in laws other than
appropriation acts and is typically not appropriated each year. However, some
mandatory entitlement programs must be appropriated each year and are included in
the appropriations acts. Within DHS, the Coast Guard retirement pay is an example
of appropriated mandatory spending.


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

Offsetting Collections6
Offsetting funds are collected by the federal government, either from
government accounts or the public, as part of a business-type transaction such as
offsets to outlays or collection of a fee. These funds are not counted as revenue.
Instead, they are counted as negative outlays. DHS net discretionary budget
authority, or the total funds that are appropriated by Congress each year, is composed
of discretionary spending minus any fee or fund collections that offset discretionary
spending.
Some collections offset a portion of an agency’s discretionary budget authority.
Other collections offset an agency’s mandatory spending. They are typically
entitlement programs under which individuals, businesses, or units of government
that meet the requirements or qualifications established by law are entitled to receive
certain payments if they establish eligibility. The DHS budget features two
mandatory entitlement programs: the Secret Service and the Coast Guard retired pay
accounts (pensions). Some entitlements are funded by permanent appropriations,
others by annual appropriations. The Secret Service retirement pay is a permanent
appropriation and as such is not annually appropriated, whereas the Coast Guard
retirement pay is annually appropriated. In addition to these entitlements, the DHS
budget contains offsetting Trust and Public Enterprise Funds. These funds are not
appropriated by Congress they are available for obligation and included in the
President’s budget to calculate the gross budget authority.
Table 3 tabulates all of the offsets within the DHS budget as enacted for
FY2007 and in the FY2008 request.
Table 3. FY2008 Request: Moving From Gross Budget
Authority to Net Appropriation — Fee Accounts, Offsetting
Fees, and Trust and Public Enterprise Accounts
(budget authority in millions)
Account/AgencyAccount NameFY2007FY2008
Ena c t e d Request
DHS gross budget authority a44,59046,523
(gross discretionary + fees+ mandatory + funds)
Account level discretionary offset
ICEFederal Protective Service516613
Aviation security fees2,4202,210
T W IC 20 27
TSA
Hazmat 19 19
Registered Traveler3535
FEMA/EPRNational flood insurance fund129145
CBPSmall airports77


6 Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff Jr., Analyst in American National Government.

Account/AgencyAccount NameFY2007FY2008
Ena c t e d Request
Subtotal account level discretionary offsets3,1463,056
Agency level discretionary offset
Immigration inspection529535
Immigration enforcement23
Land border2830
CB P
COBRA 388 392
AP HIS 214 300
Puerto Rico99117
ICEImmigration inspection108114
SE VI S 5 4 5 6
Breached bond detention fund9064
TSAAviation security capital fund250250
Checkpoint screening security fund250
Alien flight school background checks22
USCISImmigration examination fee1,7602,495
H1b, and H1b & L fees4444
Subtotal agency level discretionary offsets3,5684,652
Mandatory budget authority
Secret serviceSecret service retired pay b200210
Coast guardCoast guard retired pay c(1,063)(1,185)
Subtotal mandatory budget authority200210
Trust funds and public enterprise funds
CBPCustoms unclaimed goods66
FEMANational Flood Insurance Fundd2,6312,833
Boat safety117122
Coast GuardOil spill recovery127147
Miscellaneous revolving fund
Subtotal trust and public enterprise funds2,8813,108
DHS gross budget authority a44,59046,523
Total offsets-9,795-11,026
DHS net appropriated BA (Mandatory + Discretionary)34,79535,497
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 Presidents Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-
181, and S.Rept. 110-84, Division E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint Explanatory Statement
for Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121
(incorporating amendments to the budget request).
Notes: 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.
Appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security
DHS Appropriations Trends
Table 4 presents DHS Appropriations, as enacted, for FY2003 through the
FY2008. The appropriation amounts are presented in current dollars and are not
adjusted. The amounts shown in Table 4 represent enacted amounts at the time of
the start of the next fiscal year’s appropriation cycle. Thus, the amount shown for
FY2003 is the enacted amount shown in the House Committee report attached to the
FY2004 DHS Appropriations bill. FY2008 is from the Joint Explanatory Statement
for Division E of P.L. 110-161.
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2008
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 Ena c t e d
29,069 a30,175 b30,554 c31,67935,311 d38,747
Sources: FY2003 enacted taken from H.Rept. 108-169; FY2004 enacted taken from H.Rept. 108-541;
FY2005 enacted taken from H.Rept. 109-79; FY2006 enacted taken from H.Rept. 109-476; FY2007
appropriation amounts are from the H.Rept. 110-181; and FY2008 enacted amounts are from Division
E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint Explanatory Statement for Division E, published in the
Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating amendments to the
budget request).
Notes: Amounts do not include supplemental appropriations or rescissions that were enacted
subsequent to the enactment of each appropriations bill.
a. S.Rept. 108-86 reported the FY2003 enacted amount as $29,287 million. CRS was unable to
identify the reason for this discrepancy. For the purposes of this table the House number was
used to maintain consistency with other fiscal years.
b. Amount does not include $4,703 million in advance appropriations for Project Bioshield.
c. Amount does not include $2,508 million in advance appropriations for Project Bioshield.
d. Amount includes $1,829 million in emergency budget authority that was enacted as a part of the
FY2007 DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-295).



Summary of DHS Appropriations
Table 5 is a summary table comparing the enacted appropriations for FY2007
and the requested, recommended by the House and Senate, and enacted for FY2008.
The Administration requested $46.4 billion in gross budget authority for FY2008
(including mandatories, fees, and funds). The Administration’s request includes
gross appropriations of $43.0 billion and a net appropriation of $35.5 billion in
budget authority for FY2008. The total FY2007 enacted net appropriated budget
authority for DHS was $40.6 billion including supplementals and rescissions.
House-passed H.R. 2638 included $37.4 billion for DHS for FY2008; Senate-passed
H.R. 2638 included $37.6 billion for DHS in FY2008. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 also
included an additional $3,000 million in emergency supplemental appropriations.
Division E of P.L. 110-161 provides $38.7 billion in net appropriated budget
authority for FY2008. This amount includes $2,710 million in emergency funding,
but does not include $2,900 million in supplemental funding for Disaster Relief that
was included in P.L. 110-116.



CRS-11
Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007 AppropriationFY2008 Appropriation
FY2008
Operational ComponentFY2007 FY2007FY2007FY2007FY2008FY2008HouseFY2008SenateFY2008Emergency
Enacted Supp.Resc.TotalRequestPassedPassedEnactedP.L.110-
161
tle I: Departmental Operations
otal: Title I1,02413-61,0301,0927791,104983
iki/CRS-RL34004tle II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations Customs and Border Protection8,036147 8,1838,7658,9228,8419,4231,531
g/w
s.or Immigration and Customs Enforcement3,9586 3,9644,1684,1924,4334,734527
leak Transportation Security Administration3,561402-2 3,9623,7713,8433,6854,021
://wiki U.S. Coast Guard8,292180-268,4478,4578,3528,5598,522166
http U.S. Secret Service1,276 1,2761,3991,3961,3961,385
t subtotal: Title II25,123735-2825,83326,56026,70526,91428,0852,224
Total fee collections4,779 4,7795,0255,0255,0255,025
oss subtotal: Title II29,902735-2830,61231,58531,73031,93933,1102,224
le III: Preparedness and Recovery
National Protection & Programs Directorate 93424 -1 9571,1611,0359141,177275
Office of Health Affairs998 107118118115117
unter Terrorism Fund -16-16
Federal Emergency Management Administration5,9354,887 10,8215,0427,2397,0176,807 a110
t subtotal: Title III6,9524,919-111,8696,3228,3928,0468,100 a385



CRS-12
FY2007 AppropriationFY2008 Appropriation
FY2008
Operational ComponentFY2007 FY2007FY2007FY2007FY2008FY2008HouseFY2008SenateFY2008Emergency
Enacted Supp.Resc.TotalRequestPassedPassedEnactedP.L.110-
161
tle IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
Citizenship and Immigration Services1828 190303050 b8180
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center2753 27826326326628921
Science and Technology7585-1762799777838830
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office481135 616562556550485
iki/CRS-RL34004t subtotal: Title IV1,696151-11,8461,6541,6261,7041,685101
g/w Total fee collections1,804 1,8042,5392,5392,5392,539
s.oross subtotal: Title IV3,500151-13,6504,1934,1654,2434,224101
leaktle V: General Provisions
c-2 d-2-132-55-145 e-106
://wikiscissions -[232]
httpergency Supplemental
Border Security First Act of 2007 f3,000 f
rtment of Homeland Security Appropriation (not including Title V rescissions)
oss DHS budget authority41,3785,698-3747,16142,96544,91148,08846,3112,710
Total fee collections-6,583 6,583-7,465-7,465-7,465-7,564
order Security Supplemental-3,000
ity34,7955,698-3740,578 g 35,49737,44637,62338,7472,710
CRS analysis of the FY2008 Presidents Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-181, and S.Rept. 110-84, Division E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint
atory Statement for Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating amendments to the budget request).



CRS-13
Totals may not add due to rounding. Italicized amounts in parentheses are non-adds. For a more detailed analysis of the supplemental appropriations, refer to Appendix I.
mount does not include $2,900 million in emergency FY2008 funds for Disaster Relief enacted by P.L. 110-161.
ate-passed H.R. 2638 also includes an additional $60 million in emergency funding (SA 2518) for USCIS’ Employment Eligibility Verification System, that was to be taken from
the $3,000 million emergency appropriation included in Senate-passed H.R. 2638 as a part of the Border Security First Act of 2007.
escissions from Title V of P.L. 109-295 are shown here as non-adds, because they have been incorporated into the accounts throughout the tables in this report.
ec. 6404 of P.L. 110-28 includes 4 rescissions that are not shown in Table 5 because they are of amounts that fall below $500,000 and would round to less than $1 million dollars.
These 4 rescissions round to a total approximately $2 million and are presented in aggregate on Table 5 under General Provision Rescissions.
cludes an across-the-board rescission (percentage unspecified) of discretionary budget authority totaling $100 million to be used for interoperable communications.
ate-passed H.R. 2638 included a $3,000 million emergency supplemental appropriation that was attached during floor debate (originally S.Amdt. 2480). This appropriation would
have been used to fund the following overall level of resources: 23,000 U.S. Border Patrol Agents; 300 miles of vehicle barriers; 700 miles of fencing; 105 camera and radar
towers; four unmanned aerial vehicles; and 45,000 detention beds. The Senate adopted two amendments (S.Amdt 2518 and S.Amdt. 2524) that would have designated portions
of the $3,000 million in emergency funding for specific activities. S.Amdt 2518 would direct $60 million of the emergency funding for USCIS’ Employment Eligibility
iki/CRS-RL34004Verification System, and S.Amdt. 2524 would make $100 million of the emergency funding available for state and local law enforcement entities for security and related costs
g/wassociated with the Democratic and Republican National Conventions ($50 million for Denver, Colorado; and $50 million for St. Paul Minnesota).
s.ormount does not match the total listed in the tables to the Joint Explanatory Statement for Division E of P.L. 110-161. Subtotals for agencies and account match, but the final total
leakdoes not match the sum of the subtotals in the tables. Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, p. H16121.


://wiki
http

Title I: Departmental Management and Operations7
Title I covers the general administrative expenses of DHS. It includes the Office
of the Secretary and Executive Management (OS&EM), which is comprised of the
immediate Office of the Secretary and 12 entities that report directly to the Secretary;
the Undersecretary for Management (USM) and its components, such as the offices
of the Chief Administrative Services Officer, Chief Human Capital Officer, and
Chief Procurement Officer; the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO); the
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO); Analysis and Operations Office
(AOO); Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding (OFCGCR);
and Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Table 6 shows Title I appropriations for
FY2007 and congressional action on the request for FY2008.
President’s FY2008 Request. FY2008 requests relative to comparable
FY2007 enacted appropriations were as follows: OS&EM, $103 million, an increase
of $10 million (+10% ); USM, $278 million, an increase of $124 million (+81%);
OCFO, $33 million, an increase of $7 million (+ 27%); OCIO, $261, a decrease of
$88 million (-25%); AOO, $315 million, an increase of $15 million (+5%);
OFCGCR, $3 million, the same level as previously provided (0%); and OIG, $99
million, almost the same level as previously provided. The total FY2008 request for
Title I was $1,092 million. This represents an increase of $68 million (+6%) over the
FY2007 enacted level.
House-Passed H.R. 2638. The House would have provided $779 million
for DHS management and operations entities funded in Title I, $313 less (-28%) than
the amount requested. The allocations for entities within the title, as approved by the
House, were as follows: OS&EM, $85 million, a decrease of $18 million (-17%);
USM, -$8 million8, a decrease of $270 million (-97%); OCFO, $30 million, a
decrease of $3 million (-9%); OCIO, $259 million, a decrease of $2 million (-1%);
AOO, $302 million, a decrease of $13 million (-4%); OFCGCR, $3 million, the same
level as requested (0%); and OIG, $100 million, $1 million more than requested.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638. The Senate approved the Title I allocations
recommended by the Committee on Appropriations in Senate-reported S. 1644. The
Senate approved $1,104 million for Title I accounts, slightly more than the
President’s request. The Senate allocations for the title were as follows: OS&EM,
$100 million, a decrease of $3 million (-2%); USM, $235 million, a decrease of $43
million (-15%); OCFO, $30 million, a decrease of $3 million (-9%); OCIO, $321
million, an increase of $60 million (+23%); AOO, $306 million, a decrease of $9
million (-3%); OFCGCR, $3 million, the same level as requested (0%); and OIG, $95


7 Prepared by Harold C. Relyea, Specialist in American National Government, Government
and Finance Division.
8 During the House floor debate on H.R. 2638 a number of amendments were adopted
reducing funding provided for the Office of the Undersecretary for Management. The sum
total of these amendments totaled $8m less than was initially proposed for that activity.
This negative amount (-$8 million) is not reflected in the tables accompanying the Joint
Explanatory Statement to Division E of P.L. 110-161, and therefore is not included in Table

6.



million, a decrease of $4 million (-4%), but increased by a $14 million proposed
transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account, resulting in a recommended
total appropriation of $109 million, an increase of $10 million (+10%).
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E). The amount ultimately
appropriated for Title I accounts was $975 million ($983 million including $16
million in transfers in, and an $8 million rescission), $2 million less (-2%) than the
$1,097 million requested by the President and $129 million less (-12%) than the
$1,104 million approved by the Senate, but somewhat more (+21%) than the $771
million approved by the House. The final allocations for the title were as follows:
OS&EM, $97 million, a decrease of $6 million (-6%) compared with the requested
amount; USM, $150 million, a decrease of $128 million (-46%); OCFO, $31 million,
a decrease of $2 million (-6%); OCIO, $295 million, an increase of $34 million
(+13%); AOO, $297 million, a decrease of $18 million (-6%); OFCGCR, $3 million,
the same level as requested (0%); and OIG, $109 million, a increase of $10 million
(+10%).



CRS-16
Table 6. Title I: Department Management and Operations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007 AppropriationFY2008 Appropriation
FY2008
Operational ComponentFY2007 FY2007FY2007FY2007FY2008FY2008House-FY2008Senate-FY2008Emergency
Enacted Supp.Resc.TotalRequestPassedPassedOmnibusP.L.110-
161
ice of the Secretary and Executive Management94-1a931038510097
ice of Screening Coordination and Operations
b235150
iki/CRS-RL34004ice of the Undersecretary for Management1541-5149278 ice of the Chief Financial Officer262633303031
g/w
s.orice of the Chief Information Officer349349261259321295
leakalysis and Operations3008308315302306297
://wikiice of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coastuilding333333
httpice of the Inspector General99410399100109c109 c
dget Authority: Title I1,02413-61,0301,0927791,104983
CRS analysis of the FY2008 Presidents Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-181, and S.Rept. 110-84, Division E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint
atory Statement for Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating amendments to the budget request).
No FY2007 funding for Title I was designated as emergency spending. Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds.
escissions per Sec. 6404 of P.L. 110-28.
uring the House floor debate on H.R. 2638 a number of amendments were adopted reducing funding provided for the Office of the Undersecretary for Management. The sum
total of these amendments totaled $8m less than was initially proposed for that activity. This negative amount (-$8 million) is not reflected in the tables accompanying the Joint
Explanatory Statement to Division E of P.L. 110-161, and therefore is not included in Table 6.
cludes a $14 million proposed transfer of funds from FEMAs Disaster Relief account.



Personnel Issues.9 The activities of the Office of Human Capital (OHC)
may be of interest to Congress during the current appropriations cycle. The OHC
reports to the Under Secretary for Management, and its appropriation is included in
that of the Under Secretary. The OHC appropriation has two parts. The first part,
formerly labeled “HR Operations” and now labeled “OHC,” includes funding for the
office, which is responsible for the overall management and administration of human
capital in DHS. As such, the office establishes policy and procedures and provides
oversight, guidance, and leadership for the department’s human resources functions.
The second part, formerly labeled “MaxHR” and now labeled “OHC — Operational
Initiatives and HR Management System,” includes funding for the OHC organization,
which “is responsible for creating, implementing, and operating DHS’ new human
resources system,10 ensuring that organizational goals and individual work
performance are linked, and that employees are compensated based on their
contributions to agency performance.” The OHC organization also “is responsible for
ensuring that DHS recruits, hires, trains, and retains the very best workforce, provides
the highest quality leadership development, and creates a performance culture in the
workforce to ensure DHS succeeds in its mission.”11 Table 7 below shows the
funding and staff for the OHC as enacted in FY2007, as requested for FY2008, as


9 Prepared by Barbara L. Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division.
10 Title VIII, Subtitle E, Section 841 of P.L. 107-296, enacted on November 25, 2002 (116
Stat. 2135, at 2229-2234), established the new human resources system. DHS and the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) jointly published final regulations to implement
the system, which, at the time, was referred to as “Max-HR,” in the Federal Register on
February 1, 2005. (U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Office of Personnel
Management, “Department of Homeland Security Human Resources Management System,”
Federal Register, vol. 70, no. 20, February 1, 2005, pp. 5271-5347.) The regulations
provided new policies on position classification, pay, performance management, adverse
actions and appeals, and labor-management relations for DHS employees. The system was
expected to cover about 110,000 of the department’s 180,000 employees and be
implemented in phases. (See CRS Report RL32261, DHS’s MaxHR 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.) On October 5, 2007, the Merit Systems Protection Board published an
interim rule in the Federal Register to reconcile its regulations with the OPM and DHS final
regulations on adverse actions and appeals under the new personnel system. See U.S. Merit
Systems Protection Board, “Interim Regulatory Changes Regarding Department of
Homeland Security Personnel System,” Federal Register, vol. 72, October 5, 2007, pp.
56883-56889. On January 17, 2008, DHS provided a status report to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia stating that the department had not made a decision on whether
to revise or abandon the proposed rules on labor management relations under the new
personnel system. 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.
11 FY2008 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary
for Management, p. USM-2.

passed by the House and Senate for FY2008, and as enacted in P.L. 110-161 for
FY2008.
Table 7. Office of Human Capital (OHC) Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008Emerg.
Account FY2007Ena c t e d FY2008Request House- Sena t e - O mnibus P.L.110-
PassedPassed161
OHC” (formerly
HR Operations”)$9$10$10$9$9
OHC
Operational
Initiatives and HR
M a na ge me nt
System
(formerly
MaxHR”)$25a$15$3b$50
Human Resources$10
Total$34$25$13$14$19
Staffing (full time
equivalent, FTE,
positions)5360535353
Sources: P.L. 108-334, Oct. 18, 2004, 118 Stat. 1298; P.L. 109-90, October 18, 2005, 119 Stat.
2064; P.L. 109-295, Oct. 4, 2006, 120 Stat. 1355, at 1356; FY2008 DHS Justifications, Departmental
Management and Operations, Undersecretary for Management, Office of Human Capital, and Office
of Human Capital Max-HR, pp. USM-39 - USM-44; Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153,
June 15, 2007, p. H6501; H.Rept. 110-181; S.Rept. 110-84; P.L. 110-161, December 26, 2007; and
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, December 17, 2007, p. H16107.
a. This amount does not reflect the transfer of $5 million fromMaxHR” to the Transportation
Security Administration as provided by Section 21101 of P.L. 110-5. The numbers in the table
are rounded.
b. This amount is for human resources activities, including a human capital survey. Funding is not
provided for MaxHR, as Section 531 of H.R. 2638, as passed by the House, prohibits the use
of the funds provided by this or any other Act” to beobligated for the development, testing,
deployment, or operation of any system related to the MAX-HR project, or any subsequent but
related human resources management project, until any pending litigation concerning such
activities is resolved, and any legal claim or appeal by either party has been fully resolved.”
As directed by the conference report12 accompanying P.L. 109-295, the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for FY2007, the Under
Secretary for Management submitted an expenditure plan for the DHS Human


12 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2006, Making Appropriations for the Department
of Homeland Security For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2007, and For Otherthnd
Purposes, conference report to accompany H.R. 5441, 109 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 109-

699 (Washington: GPO, 2006), p. 119.



Resources Management System (HRMS) (formerly “MaxHR”) for FY2007 to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on February 1, 2007. The report’s
cover letter states that in FY2007 the HRMS “will be broadened ... to encompass
additional aspects of FY2007 Human Capital Operational Plan (HCOP), including
an increased focus on employee recruiting and advanced homeland security related
education.”13 Among other data, the report states that the contractor Northrop
Grumman Information Technology (NGIT) received a contract worth almost $3
million dollars to provide services through January 31, 2007, related to program
management; pay, performance, and classification; and training, communications,
and organizational change management at DHS. According to the report, NGIT is
being awarded another contract, worth more than $16 million, to provide services to
the department through September 30, 2007, in the same areas identified above and
labor relations.14
The transfer of the Office of Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation
(FLETA) from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) to the OHC
accounts for the increase of $1 million and 7 full-time equivalent employees over the
FY2007 appropriation for the “OHC” account. Almost 93% of the money requested
for FY2008 under this account is for salaries and benefits ($8 million) and advisory
and assistance services ($2 million) that includes services acquired by contract from
non-federal sources.15 The appropriation will fund continued implementation of the
Human Capital Operational Plan for FY2007 to FY2009, development of an
employee talent bank for use throughout the department, creation of standards to
assess and evaluate learning and development programs, and participation of all new
DHS employees in a department-wide orientation program.16 Some 76% of the
money requested for FY2008 under the “OHC — Operational Initiatives and HR
Management System” account is for advisory and assistance services ($11 million).
No funding is requested for salaries and benefits.17 The appropriation will fund
continued training of the DHS workforce in pay for performance and a new pay
system pilot project that will cover employees in the department who work in the
intelligence area. The pilot will be implemented jointly with the Director of National
Intelligence who is developing a pilot pay system for employees of the intelligence
agencies. It also will fund investment in recruitment and retention programs along
with learning and development initiatives to address gaps in skills and competencies,


13 Letter to Representative David E. Price, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Homeland
Security of the House Committee on Appropriations from Paul A. Schneider, Under
Secretary for Management, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, February 1, 2007.
14 Report to Congress, Spend Plan for MaxHR, Office of Human Capital, Department of
Homeland Security, January 4, 2007, p. 7. Accompanied the letter cited in footnote 5.
15 FY2008 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary
for Management, Office of Human Capital, pp. USM-39 - USM-41.
16 FY2008 DHS Justifications, Under Secretary for Management, Strategic Context, p.
USM-3.
17 FY2008 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary
for Management, Office of Human Capital — Max-HR, pp. USM-42 - USM-44.

and deployment of career paths and rotations to facilitate the mobility of DHS
employees through various leadership positions in the department.18
In January 2007, the Culture Task Force of the Homeland Security Advisory
Council issued a report to the DHS Secretary. Among its recommendations were that
DHS staff be referred to as “employees” or “members” of DHS and not as “human
capital,” and that “members of the headquarters” be required to visit and listen “to
employees and engage and support groups outside the headquarters” and respond
within 30 days on actions taken to address their concerns.19 The task force believes
that “there can be no hierarchically imposed ‘single culture’ within the Department,”
but that “an overarching and blended culture can be developed that is based on
threads of common values, goals, and focus of mission among DHS headquarters and
its component organizations.” With regard to developing and sustaining such a
culture, the task force advised that “There are organizations in the Private Sector that
will deploy and embed within DHS qualified, objective, emotionally and
organizationally detached personnel to help develop the leadership’s vision and
strategic goals of creating a Homeland Security (rather than DHS) Mission Culture
and then monitor, objectively test, and support progress in achieving, continually
improving and sustaining an operationally focused, innovation and people rewarding
culture.”20 The task force recommended that such contract employees work under
the direction of a senior (preferably career) DHS employee and with staff from the
department’s component agencies. The morale of employees in the department has
come under scrutiny because DHS placed last or almost last for the categories of job
satisfaction, leadership, and workplace performance in the 2006 Federal Human
Capital Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management.21
Section 511 of H.R. 1684, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization
Act for FY2008, as passed by the House, would have repealed the authority for the
department’s new personnel system (MaxHR) at 5 U.S.C. Chapter 97 and would
render void any regulations prescribed thereunder.22 The House Committee on
Homeland Security report that accompanied the bill stated that DHS “employees


18 FY2008 DHS Justifications, Under Secretary for Management, Strategic Context, p.
USM-4. On January 23, 2007, 27 employees in General Schedule grades 14 and 15 and
representing various components of DHS began a year-long fellowship program designed
to prepare them for future leadership positions in the department. The program is intended
to establish a common culture at DHS and encourage cooperation among the different
agencies that make up the department.
19 Homeland Security Advisory Council, Report of the Culture Task Force, January 2007,
pp. 2-3. Section 871 of P.L. 107-296 (116 Stat. 2243) authorized the council, which
provides advice and recommendations to the DHS Secretary on homeland security matters.
In June 2006, Secretary Chertoff directed the council to establish the task force “to provide
observations and recommendations for achieving and maintaining an empowering, energetic,
dedicated, mission-focused culture within the Department....”
20 Ibid., pp. 5-6.
21 The survey results are available at [http://www.fhcs2006.opm.gov], visited January 24,

2008.


22 H.R. 1684 passed the House of Representatives on a 296-126 (Roll No. 318) vote on May

9, 2007.



must be afforded the same protections as other civil service employees.”23 No further
action has occurred on H.R. 1684.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations report that accompanied S. 1644
noted that the DHS regulations governing employee appeal rights and labor relations
were struck down in federal court and that other elements of the personnel system
have been delayed. For these reasons, the report stated that the committee
recommended an appropriation of $5 million for human capital operational
initiatives, formerly “MaxHR,” rather than the requested amount of $15 million.
According to the report, the committee retains the funding for the training
accreditation of law enforcement officers with the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center rather than providing it to the Chief Human Capital Officer. Additionally,
Section 507 under the General Provisions of H.R. 2638, as passed by the House and
the Senate, would have provided that the Center will lead the accreditation process.
This language was included in P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated Appropriations Act
of 2008.
The Senate report also directed the Secretary to submit an updated Human
Capital Operational expenditure plan to the committee within 90 days of the act’s
enactment. The plan must include the following elements: definitions for all
activities, milestones, and yearly costs for all initiatives; a list of all contract
obligations by contractor, year, and purpose; efforts to improve the “dismal results”
for the department in the 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey; performance metrics
for measuring the attainment of goals for human capital; funds spent in support of
employee recruitment, retention, and training; and an analysis of all internship
programs within the department designed to recruit young professionals. With regard
to these internship programs, the committee report noted that coordination is needed
and directs the Chief Human Capital Officer to “review goals for the programs,
milestones, needs of the components, and the capacity to accept these employees.”
In a statement of Administration policy on S. 1644, OMB stated its strong
opposition “to any effort to reduce, limit, or delay funding for DHS human resources
initiatives,” because such “would severely impact support to basic human resource
services and development of practices designed to meet the Department’s diverse
personnel requirements.”24
P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, does not provide any
funding “for MAX-HR or any follow-on personnel system.” A general provision at
Section 533 “prohibits the obligation of funds for the development, testing,
deployment, or operation of any system related to MAX-HR or any subsequent, but
related human resources management project, until pending litigation, legal claims
or appeals have been fully resolved.” The law provides $10 million to an account


23 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Department of Homeland
Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, report to accompany H.R. 1684, 110thst
Cong., 1 sess., H.Rept. 110-122 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 83.
24 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administration Policy, S. 1644 — Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,

2008, July 25, 2007, p. 4.



labeled “human resources.” According to the explanatory statement accompanying
the omnibus, DHS is directed to ensure that this appropriation is used for “programs
that directly address the shortcomings identified in [the 2006 Federal Human Capital
Survey] or in a subsequent DHS survey that the Department plans to conduct.”
These programs could include the “planned DHS survey, gap analysis of mission
critical occupations, hiring and retention strategies, robust diversity programs, and
Department-wide education and training initiatives.” The Secretary must submit a
plan for expending the funds prior to their obligation.25
Section 538 of the law relates to a general provision that reduces by $5 million
the cumulative amount of the appropriation provided to the Office of the Secretary
and Executive Management and the Office of the Under Secretary for Management.
The amount reflects management efficiencies and, within 30 days of the act’s
enactment, the Secretary must notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations “of these efficiency savings by account and within the account, by
program, project and activity.”26
The law also includes a general provision at Section 526 that requires the Chief
Financial Officer to submit reports on the execution of the budget and staffing,
including the number of contract employees by office, within 45 days after the close
of each month. The House-passed bill included the general provision at Section 524
and would have provided that within 45 days after the close of each month, the Chief
Financial Officer must submit to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations a monthly budget and staffing report that includes total obligations
and on-board versus funded full-time equivalent staffing levels. The provision was
included as Section 526 of the Senate-passed bill and provided that the report also
would have included the number of contract employees by office. A July 2007
evaluation prepared by the Government Accountability Office found that DHS
employees in permanent positions (excluding Senior Executive Service and
presidential appointments) left their positions at an attrition rate of 7.1% in 2006.
When the 14% to 17% attrition rate for transportation security officers at the
Transportation Security Administration was excluded, the department’s average
attrition rate was 3.3%. (The average attrition rate for all Cabinet-level departments
was roughly 4%.)27
P.L. 110-161 continues four general provisions related to FLETA and FLETC
— Section 507 provides that the accreditation board will lead the accreditation
process; Section 509 requires the advance approval of the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations before any additional law enforcement training
facilities can be purchased, constructed, or leased; Section 510 directs FLETC to
“schedule basic and advanced law enforcement training at all four training facilities
... to ensure that these training centers are operated at the highest capacity”; and


25 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, December 17, 2007, p. H16079.
26 Ibid., p. H16102.
27 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security, DHS’s Actions to Recruit
and Retain Staff and Comply With the Vacancies Reform Act, GAO Report GAO-07-758
(Washington: July 2007).

Section 529 classifies the functions of the FLETC instructors as inherently
governmental. 28
Several executive positions related to the overall administration and
management of DHS have new incumbents. Michael Jackson resigned his position
as Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security effective on October 26, 2007. The
department’s Under Secretary for Management, Paul Schneider, is serving as the
acting deputy secretary. Mr. Schneider had assumed the Under Secretary position on
February 1, 2007, and during his confirmation hearing on December 6, 2006, told the
members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
that he would make sure that DHS officials create an effective method of evaluating
employees’ job performance. Reportedly, Mr. Schneider is assisting with the
department’s transition to a new Administration by tracking critical jobs with a goal
“to make sure that either the No. 1 or No. 2 in each post is a career civil service
employee.”29 As for the Human Capital Officer (HCO) position, Marta Brito Perez,
who assumed the position on September 18, 2006, resigned effective on January 6,

2008. Gregg Pelowski is currently serving as the acting HCO.30


Analysis and Operations31
The DHS intelligence mission is outlined in Title II of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (codified at 6 U.S.C. 121). Organizationally, and from a budget
perspective, there have been a number of changes to the information, intelligence
analysis, and infrastructure protection functions at DHS. Pursuant to the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP)
Directorate was established. The act created an Undersecretary for IAIP to whom
two Assistant Secretaries, one each for Information Analysis (IA) and Infrastructure
Protection (IP), reported. The act outlined 19 functions for the IAIP Directorate, to
include the following, among others:
!To assess, receive, and analyze law enforcement information,
intelligence information, and other information from federal, state,
and local government agencies, and the private sector to (1) identify
and assess the nature and scope of the terrorist threats to the
homeland, (2) detect and identify threats of terrorism against the
United States, and (3) understand such threats in light of actual and
potential vulnerabilities of the homeland;
!To develop a comprehensive national plan for securing the key
resources and critical infrastructure of the United States;


28 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, December 17, 2007, p. H16101.
29 Stephen Barr, “Homeland Security Prepares for Its First Transition, Washington Post,
January 21, 2008, p. D01.
30 The department’s executive positions are listed at
[http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1157655281546.shtm], visited January 24, 2008.
31 Prepared by Todd Masse, Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counterterrorism,
Domestic Social Policy Division.

!To review, analyze, and make recommendations for improvements
in the policies and procedures governing the sharing of law
enforcement information, intelligence information, and intelligence-
related information within the federal government and between the
federal government and state and local government agencies and
authorities.32
Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review of the Department made numerous
changes in the DHS intelligence structure. For example, the erstwhile IAIP
disbanded, and the Office of Information Analysis was renamed the Office of
Intelligence and Analysis and became a stand alone entity. The Office of
Infrastructure Protection was placed within the Directorate for Preparedness. The
Assistant Secretary for Intelligence Analysis was also provided the title of the
Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer.33 Pursuant to the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53, signed August
3, 2007), a number of amendments to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (codified
at 6 U.S.C. 201) related to homeland security intelligence were made. Among these
changes, the law provided statutory standing to the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis and the Office of Infrastructure Protection. The Office of Intelligence and
Analysis is to be headed by an Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, who
will also serve and the Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer.34
President’s FY2008 Request. The FY2008 request for the Analysis and
Operations account was $315 million, an increase of $15 million (+5%) over the
enacted FY2007 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 DHS information, state and local information, and
Intelligence Community intelligence 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.


32 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.


33 See DHS Management Directive 8110, Intelligence Integration and Management, January

30, 2006.


34 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.”

House-Passed H.R. 2638. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $302 million, a decrease of $13 million (4%) from the President’s
requested amount of $315 million, and $2 million above the amount provided in
FY2007 ($300 million). In the report accompanying the legislation, the Committee
noted with respect to both the Office of Operations Coordination and the Office of
Intelligence and Analysis that they:
...carried over significant unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year 2006, and
(have) shown no signs of an increased pace of obligations during the current35
fiscal year.
The Committee also expressed concern about the potential movement of the
Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC) (also known as the National
Operations Center) and/or its combination with the Transportation Security
Operations Center, from its current location at the Nebraska Avenue Complex (NAC)
to two possible other locations. The Committee noted that:
...over $137 million has been appropriated for improvements to the (NAC) since
2004, and a large portion of these funds have gone toward upgrades to the
HSOC.... The Committee is concerned by the apparent DHS attitude that costly
capital investments are disposable, and will provide no further appropriations for
HSOC capital improvements until the Department submits a coherent and cost-36
effective plan for consolidating its operations centers.
With respect to DHS support for State and local information and intelligence
fusion centers, the Committee “...recommends doubling the requested funding level
for establishing DHS presence at these centers in 2008 and directs the (OIA) to
review all unobligated balances available...at the start of (FY) 2008 and submit a
reprogramming request for those amounts that could be reasonably reallocated to
fusion center implementation.”37 Moreover, the Committee directed DHS to provide
“ongoing quarterly updates...that detail the progress in placing DHS homeland
security intelligence professionals in State and local fusion centers.”38 Among other
elements, the report requires DHS to detail progress on: (1) qualification criteria used
by DHS to decided where and how to place DHS intelligence analysts and related


35 See House of Representatives, DHS Appropriations Bill, 2008, H. Report. 110-181, p. 23.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid., p. 24. Given that DHS’s intelligence budget is classified, the amount of funding
requested specifically to support the deployment of DHS personnel to fusion centers is not
available. The “U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007,” (P.L. 110-28) provided an additional $8 million
for DHS “Analysis and Operation,” to be used for support of the DHS State and Local
Fusion Center Program.
38 Ibid. It should be noted that DHS currently has approximately 15 intelligence
professionals detailed to 15 fusion centers. According to DHS Chief Intelligence Officer
Charles Allen, DHS has plans to embed 35 intelligence officers at fusion centers by the end
of FY2008. See House Homeland Security Committee, Subcommittee on Intelligence,
Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, hearing on “Information Sharing and
Civil Liberties,” March 14, 2007.

technology, (2) total Federal expenditures to support each center to date, and (3) the
location of each fusion center, both operational and planned.39
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638. The Senate recommended $306 million, a
decrease of $9 million (2.9%) to the President’s requested level of $315 million and
a $6 million (2%) increase over the amount provided in FY2007 ($300 million). The
Senate provided that no more than $5,000 of appropriated funds shall be for official
reception and representation expenses. In the Senate report accompanying the bill,
the Committee expressed concern about the possible movement of the National
Operations Center and “...directs the Office of Operations Coordination to provide40
a briefing to the Committee justifying this relocation....” The Committee also
required a “DHS Intelligence Expenditure Plan” from the Secretary for the Office of
Intelligence and Analysis, that would include, among other items: (1) FY2008
expenditures and staffing allotted for each (OIA) program..., (2) all funded versus on-
board positions, including Federal full-time equivalents (FTE), contractors, and
reimbursable and non-reimbursable detailees, and (3) an explanation for maintaining41
contract staff in lieu of government FTE....” Lastly, the Committee included
language similar to that provided by the House Appropriations Committee with
respect to requiring quarterly reports on the progress DHS is making in “...placing
DHS homeland security intelligence professionals in State and local fusion centers.”42
Moreover, the Senate provided that the Director of Operations “...shall encourage
rotating State and local fire service representation at the National Operations43
Center.”
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E). According to the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, an amount of $306 million shall be allocated
to Analysis and Operations. This amount represents a decrease of $9 million (2.9%)
of the President’s requested level of $315 million and a $6 million (2%) increase over
the amount provided in FY2007 ($300 million). The bill includes a statutory
restriction on the obligation of funds for operation of either the National Immigration
Information Sharing Office or the National Applications Office until the Secretary
“... certifies these programs comply with all existing laws, including all applicable
privacy and civil liberties standards, with the certification reviewed by the
Government Accountability Office.”44 Three other elements related to Analysis and
Operations funding were included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008.
First, the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis is “directed to provide the
Committees on Appropriations an expenditure plan for the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis ... that report is to include an analysis of all new requirements enacted in the

9/11 Act, as well as the estimated costs and available resources to implement those


39 See House of Representatives, DHS Appropriations Bill, 2008, H. Report. 110-181, p. 24.
40 See U.S. Senate, DHS Appropriations Bill, 2008, S. Report 110-84, p. 23.
41 Ibid. p. 24.
42 Ibid.
43 See H.R. 2638 Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate (EAS), Title I, Analysis and
Operations, July 26, 2007.
44 See Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, p. H16080.

requirements in fiscal year 2008 and subsequent fiscal years.”45 Second, while the
amount that Congress appropriates for state and local fusion centers remains part of
the classified national intelligence program budget, the bill adopted the Senate level
of funding for these centers, “... instead of doubling the requested amount as
proposed by the House.”46 Finally, with respect to the National Operations Center
(NOC), the Committees “do not require information about the relocation of the NOC,
since the reprogramming proposal to affect such a move was denied by the House.
The amended bill rescinds $8.7 million in unobligated balances from prior-year
appropriations made for Analysis and Operations, which is an amount equal to the
levels that had been proposed for reallocation to fund the NOC move.”47 The
Committees also encourage the “rotation of State and local fire service
representation”48 to the NOC.
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.


45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid.

CRS-28
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007 AppropriationFY2008 Appropriation
FY2008
Operational ComponentFY2007 FY2007FY2007FY2007FY2008FY2008HouseFY2008SenateFY2008Emergency
Enacted Supp.Resc.TotalRequestPassedPassedOmnibusP.L.110-
161
toms & Border Protection
Salaries and expenses5,56272 a 5,6346,5926,6306,6016,803323
iki/CRS-RL34004 Automation modernization451 451447477477477
g/w Air and Marine Operations 60275 67747747748957094
s.ororder Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and
leaknology1,188 1,1881,0001,0891,0001,2251,053
://wiki Construction 233 23325025027534861b
httpnts 1,265 1,2651,3851,3851,3851,385
oss total 9,301147 9,44910,15010,30710,22610,8081,531
Offsetting collections-1,265 -1,265-1,385-1,385-1,385-1,385
t total8,036147 8,1838,7658,9228,8419,4231,531
migration & Customs Enforcement
Salaries and expenses3,8876 3,8934,1624,1554,4024,688516
Federal Protective Services (FPS)516 516613613613613
utomation & infrastructure modernization1515311531
nstruction56566 6161711
nts c252 252234234234234



CRS-29
FY2007 AppropriationFY2008 Appropriation
FY2008
Operational ComponentFY2007 FY2007FY2007FY2007FY2008FY2008HouseFY2008SenateFY2008Emergency
Enacted Supp.Resc.TotalRequestPassedPassedOmnibusP.L.110-
161
oss total4,7276 4,7335,0155,0395,2795,581527
Offsetting FPS fees -516 -516-613-613-613-613
Offsetting collections-252 -252-234-234-234-234
t total3,9586 3,9644,1684,1924,4334,734527
ansportation Security Administration
iki/CRS-RL34004 Aviation security (gross funding)4,732397 d 5,1295,0425,1995,0434,809
g/wrface Transportation Security373747414147
s.or
leakransportation Threat Assessment andedentialing40-2 e3898646783
://wikiredentialing Fees f76 7683838383
http Transportation Security Support525 525525527522524
Federal Air Marshals7145 719770722722770
viation security capital fund g250250250
eckpoint screening security fund250
n-67-67
oss total6,307402-26,7076,5646,6366,4786,814
Offsetting collections-2,420 -2,420-2,710-2,710-2,710-2,210
redentialing/Fee accounts-76-76-83-83-83-83
viation security capital fund (mandatory
ding)-250 -250 -250



CRS-30
FY2007 AppropriationFY2008 Appropriation
FY2008
Operational ComponentFY2007 FY2007FY2007FY2007FY2008FY2008HouseFY2008SenateFY2008Emergency
Enacted Supp.Resc.TotalRequestPassedPassedOmnibusP.L.110-
161
eckpoint screening security fund-250
t total3,561402-23,9623,7713,8433,6854,021
S. Coast Guard
Operating expenses5,478 h120 i-265,5725,8945,8855,9315,89170
Environmental compliance & restoration11 1112151213
iki/CRS-RL34004 Reserve training122 122127127127127
g/wcquisition, construction, & improvements1,306301,336949 j834 j991 j993 j96
s.or
leak Alteration of bridges16 16 161616
Research, development, tests, & evaluation17 1718182625
://wikied pay (mandatory, entitlement)1,063301,0931,1851,1851,1851,185
http Health care fund contribution 279 279272272272272
oss total8,292180-268,4478,4578,3528,5598,522166
Salaries and expenses961 961 1,0951,3931,3921,382
Investigations and field operations311 311300
cquisition, construction, improvements, and
expenses444444
oss total1,276 1,2761,3991,3961,3961,385



CRS-31
FY2007 AppropriationFY2008 Appropriation
FY2008
Operational ComponentFY2007 FY2007FY2007FY2007FY2008FY2008HouseFY2008SenateFY2008Emergency
Enacted Supp.Resc.TotalRequestPassedPassedOmnibusP.L.110-
161
oss Budget Authority: Title II29,902735-2830,61231,58531,73031,93933,1102,224
etting collections:-4,779 -4,779-5,025-5,025-5,025-5,025
t Budget Authority: Title II25,123735-2825,83326,56026,70526,91428,0852,224
CRS analysis of the FY2008 Presidents Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-181, and S.Rept. 110-84, Division E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint
iki/CRS-RL34004atory Statement for Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating amendments to the budget request).
g/w Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds.
s.or
leakcludes $3 million transfer to FLETC per P.L. 110-28.
include COBRA, Land Border, Immigration Inspection, Immigration Enforcement, and Puerto Rico.
://wiki include Exam, Student Exchange and Visitor Fee, Breached Bond, Immigration User, and Land Border.
httpcludes transfer of $7 million per Sec. 21101 of P.L. 110-5, and $390 million in supplemental appropriations per P.L. 110-28.
ransfer of -$2 million per Sec. 21101 of P.L. 110-5.
include TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks.
viation Security Capital Fund, used for installation of Explosive Detection Systems at airports.
cludes $90 million transfer from Department of Defense per P.L. 109-289.
illion transfer in emergency FY2007 supplemental funding enacted by P.L.110-28, transfer from Defense, O&M, Navy.
est and House-passed H.R. 2638 include a proposed rescission of $49 million. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 includes a proposed rescission of $57 million of funds previously
appropriated by P.L. 109-90 and P.L. 109-295. Division E of P.L. 110-161 includes a rescission of $133 million in funds previously appropriated by P.L. 108-334, P.L. 109-90,
and P.L. 109-295.



Customs and Border Protection (CBP)49
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 FY2007 and FY2008.
President’s FY2008 Request. The Administration requested an
appropriation of $10,150 million in gross budget authority for CBP for FY2008,
amounting to an $849 million, or 9%, increase over the enacted FY2007 level of
$9,301 million. The Administration requested $8,765 million in net budget authority
for CBP in FY2008, which amounts to a $729 million, or 9%, increase over the net
FY2007 appropriation of $8,036 million.
House-Passed H.R. 2638. House-passed H.R. 2638 included $8,922
million in net budget authority for CBP for FY2008, amounting to a $886 million,
or 11%, increase over the FY2007 enacted amount of $8,036 million (not including
supplemental appropriations), and a $157 million or 1% increase over the FY2008
request.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 included $8,841
million in net budget authority for CBP for FY2008, amounting to an $805 million,
or 10%, increase over the FY2007 enacted amount of $8,036 million (not including
supplemental appropriations), and a $76 million or nearly 1% increase compared to
the FY2008 request. The Senate-passed bill also included a $3,000 million
emergency appropriation (adopted by S.Amdt. 2480) that would be used, among
other things, by CBP for hiring additional U.S. Border Patrol agents and deploying
infrastructure and technology to the border.
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E). Division E of P.L. 110-161
provides $9,423 million in net budget authority for CBP for FY2008. This amounts
to an increase of $658 million, or 7%, over the FY2008 request and an increase of
$1,387 million, or 17%, over the enacted amount for FY2007. P.L. 110-161 also
includes $2,710 million in emergency funding for border security purposes, of which
$1,531 million is provided to CBP (see Appendix I for details).


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

Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 FY2008 FY2008 FY2008Emerg.
Activ ity FY2007Ena c t e d FY2008Request House Sena t e Ena c t e d P.L.110-
PassedPassed161
Headquarters Management and
Administration1,2481,2771,2771,2361,221
Border Security Inspections and
Trade Facilitation @ POE1,8602,0692,1072,1012,279271
Inspections, Trade & Travel
Facilitation @ POE1,3271,6221,6551,6761,854271
Container Security Initiative (CSI)139156156156156
Other International Programs9991111
C-TPAT5556616262
FAST/Nexus/SENTRI1111111111
Inspection and Detection
Technology241136136105105
Systems for Targeting2728282828
National Targeting Center2424242424
Training at POE2525252525
Harbor Maintenance Fee33333
Border Security and Control
Between POE2,2783,0373,0373,0373,07538
Border Security and Control
Between POE2,2402,9842,9842,9843,02238
Training Between the POE3853535353
Air and Marine Operations -a
Salaries176 20820822722714
CBP Salaries and Expensesa
Total:5,562 6,5916,6306,6016,803323
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 Presidents Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-
181, and S.Rept. 110-84, 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)..
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. Does not include $75 million in supplemental appropriations provided by P.L. 110-28.
Issues for Congress. Several issues arose during the congressional debate
over appropriations for CBP. This issues included, but were not limited to the Secure
Border Initiative (SBI), border fencing; staffing levels, the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative (WHTI), covered law enforcement officer status for CBP Officers,
and cargo and container security issues.



SBInet. The Administration requested $1,000 million for the deployment of
SBInet50 related technologies and infrastructures in FY2008; however, the
Administration’s request does not identify how that funding will be apportioned
between the fencing, infrastructure, and technology components of the account.
According to the DHS budget submission, SBInet will initially focus on the
southwest land border between POE and will deploy a mix of personnel, technology,
infrastructure, and response assets in order to “provide maximum tactical advantage
in each unique border environment.”51 CBP plans to construct an SBInet command
center that will provide a common operating picture for all DHS agencies and
external stakeholders.
In FY2007, DHS announced that it had awarded a prime integrator contract to
Boeing to oversee the deployment of SBInet; P.L.109-295 required that any contract
action related to SBI valued at over $20 million be reviewed by the DHS Inspector
General to ensure it adheres to applicable cost requirements, performance objectives,
and program milestones. Possible issues for Congress could include whether the
contracting associated with SBInet is being carried out responsibly and effectively,
and how funding is apportioned between the technology, infrastructure, and fencing
components of the account.
H.R. 2638 fully funds the President’s request for SBInet, but withholds $700
million pending the submission of an expenditure plan that would, among other
things, identifies: the activities, milestones, and costs associated with implementing
the program, including the maximum foreseeable investment and the life-cycle costs;
the funding and staffing requirements of the program by activity; how SBInet will
address the security needs of the northern border; and, for each segment of the border
where fencing or tactical infrastructure will be constructed, an analysis of alternative
means of achieving operational control over those areas.
Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would also fully fund the President’s request for
SBInet; the bill also included a $3,000 million emergency supplemental appropriation
that could be used, among other things, to deploy four unmanned aerial vehicles and
105 camera and radar towers to the border as part of the SBInet initiative. The
Senate Committee on Approriations asserted, however, that “[t]he Department’s
track record on major development programs is spotty at best” and noted that it “will
be closely watching to ensure that SBInet meets performance objectives, is delivered52
on time, and on budget.”
Division E of P.L. 110-161 expresses concern with the overall coordination of
the SBI program and directs DHS to provide a briefing within 120 days of enactment
on how the program is being effectively coordinated and how the FY2007 funds that


50 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.
51 DHS FY2008 Justification, p. CBP BSFIT 3.
52 S.Rept. 110-84, p. 37.

were appropriated for the Office of Secure Border Coordination in FY2007 were
obligated. The bill would provide $1,225 million for SBInet, but would withhold
$650 million until an expenditure plan is received and approved.
Fencing. In the 109th Congress, the Secure Fence Act (P.L. 109-367) directed
DHS to construct two-layered reinforced fencing and additional physical barriers,
roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors along five stretches of the southwest border.
CBP has estimated that these stretches of fencing will total roughly 850 miles53 of the
southern border. DHS has stated that its FY2008 request, when combined with prior
year appropriations, will fund the completion of 370 cumulative miles of fencing54
along the southern border. However, DHS has not identified what the actual
amount of funding that will be used for border fencing is, or how much it will cost
to maintain the fencing in future fiscal years. According to CBP Congressional
Affairs, this fencing will be a combination of primary and two layer fencing, will be
constructed along areas of the border where DHS determines fencing will provide a
tactical advantage, and will be constructed by some mix of private contractors and55
the National Guard (supervised by the Army Corps of Engineers). As of FY2007,
border fence construction has been included within the Border Security, Fencing,
Infrastructure and Technology account. Possible issues for Congress as it considers
the issue of border fencing could include whether DHS is complying with the
legislative mandates set out in P.L. 109-367, what the total costs associated with
building and maintaining the border fencing will be, and oversight of the contracting
involved if private contractors are used to build the fencing.
Both the House and Senate passed bills fully funded the President’s request for
border fencing. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 also included a $3,000 million emergency
supplemental appropriation that could be used, among other things, for constructing
700 miles of fencing along the southern border. P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008, strikes the five specific stretches of fencing required by
the Secure Fence Act in the 109th Congress and instead requires DHS to construct not
less than 700 miles of reinforced fencing at the border. This new language gives
DHS discretion as to where this fencing will be constructed, and mandates that 370
miles of fencing be completed by December 31, 2008. The Act also requires DHS
to consult with the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, states, local
governments, Indian tribes, and property owners along the border in order to
minimize the potential impact that fencing may have on border communities and the
environment.
CBP Staffing. Staffing issues have long been of interest to Congress, and
there has been considerable debate concerning the appropriate level of staffing that
CBP needs to effectively carry out its mission. CBP’s staffing needs include not only
Border Patrol Agents (discussed in the following section), but also officers stationed
at the nation’s ports of entry, import and trade specialists, pilots, and a variety of
other positions. In addition to the debate over the appropriate level of staffing, other


53 From CBP Congressional Affairs, September 25, 2006.
54 DHS FY2008 Justification, p. CBP BSFIT 12.
55 From CBP Congressional Affairs, January 26, 2007.

issues such as training resources, infrastructure demands, absorption of new staff,
attrition, and hiring are also important. In an effort to address the concerns regarding
CBP’s staffing, the Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006
(P.L. 109-347), and the conference report to the FY2007 DHS Appropriations bill
H.R. 5441, H.Rept. 109-699, required CBP to submit a resource allocation model
(RAM) to the Congress no later than January, 23, 2007. This report (the RAM) was
required to address staffing levels at all ports of entry, and to provide the complete
methodology for aligning staff across mission areas. The House Appropriations
Committee noted in its report (H.Rept. 110-181) to the FY2008 DHS Appropriations
bill that CBP had yet to submit the staffing model, and that staffing allocation
remains a concern for the committee particularly at airports. H.Rept. 110-181
directed CBP to submit its staffing model to the committee by October 15, 2007.
The Explanatory Statement56 to Division E of P.L. 110-161 notes that CBP has
satisfied the requirements laid out in H.Rept. 110-181 through its briefings and letters
regarding the Workload Staffing Model (WSM). Division E of P.L. 110-161 also
directs DHS to make every effort to comply with previous congressional mandates
concerning increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and CBP officers deployed
to the northern border, and directs CBP to provide quarterly hiring briefings on the
progress they have made in this regard.
Hiring U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Agents. The Administration requested
an increase of $481 million to hire 3,000 new USBP agents in order to bring the total
number of agents to 17,819 by the end of calendar year 2008.57 This would roughly
double the size of the USBP from the time the President took office in 2001. One
potential issue for Congress may include whether this hiring goal is attainable. In
FY2006, Congress appropriated funding for 1,500 additional agents; however, at the
end of FY2006 the border patrol had increased by 1,051 agents to 12,319.58 This
means that DHS fell roughly 30% short of their goal for agents hired in FY2006;
additionally, the USBP experienced an attrition rate of 7% in FY200659 making their
hiring goals more difficult to attain. The FY2007 appropriation for DHS included
an increase of 2,500 agents for the USBP. A potential issue for Congress may
involve whether some incentives should be offered to help DHS recruit additional
agents or keep existing agents from leaving the agency. House-passed H.R. 2638
fully funded the President’s request, but would direct DHS to deploy an additional
500 USBP agents to the northern border in FY2008. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 also
fully funds the Administration’s request, and directed DHS to ensure that 20% of the
increase in agents during FY2008 be assigned to the northern border as per P.L. 108-
458. In addition, Senate-passed H.R. 2638 included a $3,000 million emergency
supplemental appropriation that could be used, among other things, to bring the
overall USBP workforce to 23,000 agents. Division E of P.L. 110-161 fully funds
the President’s request.


56 Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, p. H16081.
57 DHS FY2008 Justification, p. CBP S&E 49.
58 From CBP Congressional Affairs, February 8, 2007.
59 From CBP Congressional Affairs, December 12, 2006.

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). The Administration
requested an increase of $252.4 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 announced that it is requiring all U.S. citizens entering the
country at air and sea POE to present passports as of January 18, 2007; the current
legislative mandate for expanding the program to all POE is the earlier of the
following two dates: June 1, 2009 or three months after the Secretaries of Homeland
Security and State certify that a number of implementation requirements have been60
met.
The FY2008 request for WHTI included funding to hire 205 CBP officers and
to deploy WHTI pilot programs to 13 POE.61 Possible issues for Congress may
include whether DHS is on track to meet its implementation deadlines, how the
WHTI program will interface with existing registered traveler programs (i.e., Nexus
and SENTRI), and whether any POE infrastructure modifications or expansions will
be required to accommodate WHTI technology. House-passed H.R. 2638 included
$225 million for WHTI, $27 million less than the President’s request. H.R. 2638
also includes language that would withhold $100 million of this funding until CBP
reports on the findings of the 13 WHTI pilot programs that are currently being
conducted. This report should include, among other things, the infrastructure and
staffing required by POE, confirmation that the radio frequency technology being
used has been adequately tested, and updated milestones for implementing the
program. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would fully fund the WHTI program and would
push back its implementation date to the later of the following two dates: June 1,
2009, or three months after the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security certify
that a series of implementation requirements have been met.62 H.R. 2764, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, includes $225 million for WHTI but
withholds $75 million of this total until the report mentioned above is submitted.
The bill would also prohibit DHS from implementing the program before the later
of the following two dates: June 1, 2009, or three months after the Secretaries of
State and Homeland Security certify that a series of implementation requirements
have been met.
Covered Law Enforcement Officer Status for CBP Officers. House-
passed H.R. 2638 (Sec. 533) included a provision directing DHS to extend federal
law enforcement officer status to CBP officers for retirement purposes. Citing
concern that CBP is losing valuable officers to other agencies due to the disparity in
retirement pay, the House Appropriations Committee directed DHS to offer voluntary
conversions of all eligible CBP officer positions to federal law enforcement officer
status no later than July 1, 2008. House-passed H.R. 2638 included $50 million to
cover the FY2008 costs associated with this conversion. Senate-passed H.R. 2638


60 P.L. 109-295 §546.
61 FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justification, pp. CBP S&E 61-62.
62 These implementation requirements are specified in 8 U.S.C. 1185 note.

did not include a similar provision. Division E of P.L. 110-161 (Sec. 535), contains
language similar to that found in the House bill.
International Registered Traveler Program and Related Screening
Systems. Division E of P.L. 110-161 authorizes CBP to develop an international
registered traveler program and to enhance the screening of incoming international
air passengers, and $45 million is appropriated to develop the needed technologies
and infrastructure to provide for real time screening of incoming international air
travelers. In addition, CBP has been provided $36 million to implement the
electronic travel authorization program for visa-waiver countries, and would be
directed to coordinate the program’s development with the US-VISIT office.
Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). The
Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) is a public-private
partnership program aimed at improving supply chain security. DHS requested no
funding increases for C-TPAT in the FY2008 budget request. During the debate
surrounding both the Dubai Ports issue and the SAFE Port Act (P.L. 109-347),
several questions were raised regarding the vigor of the C-TPAT validation process
and the pace at which CBP was able to conduct the validations. An issue for
Congress might be why no additional funds were requested for C-TPAT given that
the SAFE Port Act (P.L. 109-347) requires DHS to launch a pilot program to test 3rd
party validations of C-TPAT certified applicants. The SAFE Port Act also now
requires CBP to re-validate already validated C-TPAT members once every four
years. Senate report S.Rept. 110-84 notes the concerns of GAO and other experts
regarding C-TPAT security inspections and validations, and further notes that as of
March 1, 2007, CBP has 157 supply chain security specialists (SCSS) on board.
Senate-passed H.R. 2638 contained $62 million for C-TPAT; an additional $7
million above the request for CBP to hire an additional 50 SCSS to bring the total
number of SCSS to 207 FTE. House-passed H.R. 2638 included $61 million for C-
TPAT, $5 million more than requested for FY2008. Division E of P.L. 110-161
provides $62 million for C-TPAT, including funding to hire 50 SCSS as included in
the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2638.
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 50 ports as of
October 2006. Current plans are to have CSI operational in 58 ports by the end of
FY2007 and to continue to expand CSI to strategically important ports throughout
FY2008. The CBP Budget Justifications indicate a requested increase of nearly $17
million for the CSI program for FY2008. However, $15 million of this increase is
for the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) program. The rest of the increase for CSI is for
non-programmatic increases (pay and non-pay inflation). An issue for Congress
might be why additional funding for CSI was not requested given that DHS
anticipates expanding CSI in FY2008 to additional strategically important ports.
Questions could also arise concerning the impact (at 6 foreign ports, see below) the
first iteration of the SFI will have on CSI operations at SFI pilot ports. SFI represents
a change in cargo security strategy from targeting high-risk containers for scanning
and inspection under CSI, to performing an integrated scan (radiation detection,
image, and information risk factors) on all U.S.-bound containers. Both House-
passed H.R. 2638 and Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would have fully funded the request



for CSI at $156 million for FY2008. Division E of P.L. 110-161 provides $156
million for CSI.
Secure Freight Initiative (SFI). The Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) is a
DHS program aimed at securing the cargo on its journey from its origin in a foreign
country to its final destination in the United States. The first iteration of SFI is being
operated by CBP in partnership with the Department of Energy (DOE), and several
foreign governments. The current iteration of SFI is being operated as a part of CSI
and involves several CSI ports. Under SFI, DHS plans to deploy scanning, imaging,
and secure communications equipment to selected ports to develop a so-called
integrated scan (radiation detection, image, and information risk factors) of all U.S.-
bound containers leaving the port. SFI at Port Qasim, Pakistan; Puerto Cortes,
Honduras; and at Southampton in the United Kingdom will be fully operational
scanning all U.S.-bound containers from these ports. SFI will gradually be deployed
in more limited capacities at Port Salaleh, Oman; the Port of Singapore; and at the
Port of Busan, South Korea. Additionally, Hong Kong officials have agreed to allow
DHS to continue testing the existing integrated cargo inspection system (ICIS) at the
port of Hong Kong. Approximately 24.5% of U.S.-bound containers originate from63
these test ports, including Hong Kong.
Under a fully operational SFI scenario, all U.S.-bound containers from that port
would be scanned with the integrated scanning system. This will require additional
resources on the part of the host country governments and on the part of CBP. The
FY2008 request for CBP includes $15 million for SFI within the CSI program.
Currently under CSI, high-risk containers are inspected before they are loaded on
U.S.-bound ships, while SFI envisions all U.S.-bound containers being subject to the
“integrated scan” prior to loading. This SFI strategy raises a number of questions,
including issues concerning: workload (switching from a targeted approach to
scanning all containers will require more resources); resolving alarms (the more
containers that are scanned the more alarms will have to be resolved); equipment
(who is operating and providing the equipment); and funding (is $15 million
sufficient to cover the initial phase of the program). As previously mentioned, both
House-passed H.R. 2638 and Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would fully fund the request
for CSI (which includes $15 million for SFI) at $156 million for FY2008. Division
E of P.L. 110-161 fully funds the request for CSI and includes an additional $13
million for the “competitive procurement of commercially available technology” to
support SFI and the proposed Global Trade Exchange.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)64
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


63 Eric Kulisch, “Secure Freight Debuts: DHS to follow automated cargo scanning pilot
with private sector data warehouse,” American Shipper, vol. 49, no. 2 (February, 2007),
p.10.
64 Prepared by Alison Siskin, Specialist in Immigration Legislation, Domestic Social Policy
Division.

(e.g., alien smuggling, hiring unauthorized alien workers). ICE is also responsible
for locating and removing aliens who have overstayed their visas, entered illegally,
or have become deportable. In addition, ICE develops intelligence to combat terrorist
financing and money laundering, and to enforce export laws against smuggling,
fraud, forced labor, trade agreement noncompliance, and vehicle and cargo theft.
Furthermore, this bureau oversees the building security activities of the Federal
Protective Service, formerly of the General Services Administration. The Federal Air
Marshals Service (FAMS)65 was returned from ICE to TSA pursuant to the
reorganization proposal of July 13, 2005. The Office of Air and Marine Interdiction
was transferred from ICE to CBP, and therefore the totals for ICE do not include Air
and Marine Interdiction funding, which is included under CBP. See Table 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 FY2007 and FY2008.
President’s FY2008 Request. The Administration requested $5,015
million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2008. This represented a 6% increase
over the enacted FY2007 level of $4,727 million. The Administration requested an
appropriation of $4,168 million in net budget authority for ICE in FY2008,
representing a 5% increase over the FY2007 enacted level of $3,958 million. Table
10 provides activity-level detail for the Salaries and Expenses account. The request
included the following program increases:
!$7 million (19 FTE) for the Office of Professional Responsibility to
investigate allegations of criminal and serious misconduct involving
ICE and CBP employees;
!$11 million (32 FTE) for BEST Task Forces;
!$5 million (15 FTE) for ICE Mutual Agreement between
Government and Employers (IMAGE), an initiative with private
employers to improve worksite enforcement;
!$2 million (4 FTE) for the Trade Transparency Unit to coordinate
investigations with foreign governments and law enforcement to
combat trade-based money laundering;
!$5 million (18 FTE) to enhance ICE’s anti-gang initiative (Operation
Community Shield);66
!$26 million for 287(g) agreements;
!$16 million (2 FTE) for information technology investments;67
!$31 million (28 FTE) for 600 additional detention beds and support
personnel;


65 FAMS transferred to ICE from TSA in August of 2003.
66 This increase includes money for training 250 state and local law enforcement officers,

350 detention beds and associated staff, and $8 million for T-1 data transmission lines,


computers with IDENT/ENFORCE capabilities and connectivity to ICE databases.
67 This increase includes $11 million for Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) IT
modernization; $2 million for mobile IDENT/ENFORCE devices; and $2 million for
upgrading immigration enforcement systems.

!$29 million (110 FTE) for the Criminal Alien Program (CAP),
which includes the Institutional Removal Program (IRP) and the
Criminal Alien Apprehension Program (ACAP);68 and
!$11 million for centralized ticketing operation and additional air
transportation (including use of the Justice Prisoners and Alien
Transportation System [JPATS]) for alien removals.
House-Passed H.R. 2638. House-passed H.R. 2638 would have
appropriated $4,192 million in net budget authority for ICE, which would have
represented an increase of $24 million over the Administration’s requested amount.
In addition, House-passed H.R. 2638 would have appropriated $4,155 million for
Salaries and Expenses, $7 million less than the Administration’s request, but this
decrease, according to H.Rept. 110-181 would have been due to a reallocation of
funds to the “Automatization Modernization” account. Table 10 provides activity-
level detail for the Salaries and Expenses account.
Of the appropriated amount, $10 million would have been for special operations
under §3131 of the Customs Enforcement Act of 1986; $11 million would have been
designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care, and
repatriation of smuggled aliens; and $16 million would have been targeted for
enforcement of laws against forced child labor. Additionally, H.Rept. 110-181
recommended an increase over FY2007 funding of :
!$43 million for the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), which includes
the Institutional Removal Program (IRP) and the Criminal Alien
Apprehension Program (ACAP);
!$11 million for the Alternatives to Detention program;
!$7 million for the Office of Professional Responsibility, $1 million
of which should have been used for a third-party compliance review
pilot program to ensure that standards are met at detention facilities
managed by private contractors;
!$111 million for Border Enforcement Security (BEST) Task
Forces; 69
!$32 million for the three ICE programs that support State and local
law enforcement: Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC),
Forensic Document Laboratory (FDL), and to facilitate agreements
under the 287(g) program of the INA; and
!$4 million for the Trade Transparency Unit.
The report also recommended funding to increase detention space by 950 beds.


68 The increase for CAP will fund 22 additional 10-person CAP teams replacing an estimated

360 Special Agents performing CAP duties.


69 ICE-led BEST task forces coordinate federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law
enforcement and intelligence entities to disrupt cross-border criminal organization to
mitigate border security vulnerabilities. This increase would fund the existing BEST task
force in Laredo, TX, and establish six additional task forces.

Senate-Passed H.R. 2638. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would have
appropriated $4,433 million in net budget authority for ICE, which represented an
increase of $265 million, 6% 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; $102,000 would have been used to promote
public awareness of the child pornography tipline; $203,000 would have funded
project alert;70 $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; and
$16 million would have been targeted for enforcement of laws against forced child
labor.
In addition, Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would have appropriated $4,402 million
for Salaries and Expenses, $240 million or 6% more than the Administration’s
request. Table 10 provides activity-level detail for the Salaries and Expenses
account. Additionally, S.Rept. 110-84 recommended an increase over the
Administration’s request of:
!$147 million for 3,050 additional detention beds and 248 detention
and removal positions;
!$33 million for transportation and removal activities;
!$2 million, including 4 FTE, to establish an “Office of Policy and
Planning” within the Detention and Removal Office (DRO);71
!$9 million for Fugitive Operations Teams;72
!$11 million (146 positions) for additional CAP teams;73
!$240 million for more than 700 immigration enforcement and
detention and removal positions;
!$3 million including 4 positions for development of an ICE-wide
training program for new and mid-career level managers;
!$3 million (10 FTE) for BEST Task Forces;
!$10 million (63 positions) for to enhance ICE’s anti-gang initiative
(Operation Community Shield);
!$15 million (50 FTE) for worksite enforcement efforts; and
!$11 million (63 positions) to fully staff the Document and Benefit
Fraud Task Forces.


70 Project ALERT was launched by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
in 1992, and consists of retired law enforcement agents who volunteer to provide assistance,
as requested, to law enforcement agencies.
71 The Office of Policy and Planning assesses existing policy for suitability given the growth
in detention, ensures adherence to detention standards, and is responsible for the
development and modification of new policies as they relate to DRO-wide programs.
72 Fugitive Operations Teams would be expanded from the Administration’s request of 75
teams to 81 teams.
73 With the additional monies, CAP teams would be expanded from the Administration’s
request of 22 teams to 30 teams.

FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E). Congress appropriated
$4,734 million in net budget authority for ICE, which represented an increase of $566
million, 14% over the Administration’s request, and $776 million, 20% more than
the FY2007 appropriation. Of the total appropriated amount, nearly $8 million is for
special operations under §3131 of the Customs Enforcement Act of 1986; $1 million
is to provide compensation awards to informants; $305,000 is to promote public74
awareness of the child pornography tipline; $203,000 is to fund project alert; $5
million is to be used to facilitate agreements under §287(g) of the INA; $11 million
is designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care, and
repatriation of smuggled aliens; and $16 million is for the enforcement of laws
against forced child labor. Furthermore, of the total amount appropriated, P.L. 110-
161 specifies that at least $2,381 million is to be used for detention and removal
operations, and $200 million is to improve and modernize efforts to identify and
remove criminal aliens.
In addition, P.L. 110-161 appropriated $4,688 million for Salaries and
Expenses, $526 million or 13% more than the Administration’s request, and $801
million or 21% more than the FY2007 appropriation. Table 10 provides activity-
level detail for the Salaries and Expenses account.
Table 10. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008
Activity FY07 FY08 FY08House FY08Sena t e FY08 Emerg.P.L.11
EnactedRequestPassedPassedEnacted0-161
HQ & Administration2743142993173164
Legal Proceeding187208208208208
Investigations -
Do mestic 1,285 1,372 1,370 1,411 1,422 50
Investigations -
International105108108108108
Investigations Total:1,3901,4801,4781,5191,53050
Intelligence5152525252
DRO-Custo d y
Op eratio ns 1,382 1,460 1,451 1,606 1,647 186
DRO-Fugitive
Op eratio ns 183 186 183 195 219 33
DRO - Criminal Alien
Program137168180179179


74 Project ALERT was launched by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
in 1992, and consists of retired law enforcement agents who volunteer to provide assistance,
as requested, to law enforcement agencies.

FY2008
Activity FY07 FY08 FY08House FY08Sena t e FY08 Emerg.P.L.11
EnactedRequestPassedPassedEnacted0-161
DRO - Alternatives to
Detentio n 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 5 4 10
DRO Transportation and
Removal Program23824924928328233
DRO Total:1,9842,1072,1182,306a2,381262
Comprehensive
Identification and
Removal of Criminal
Aliens 200 200
ICE Salaries and
Expenses: 3 ,887 4,162 4,155 4,402 4,688 516
Sources: DHS FY2008 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. PBO-55, and the conference report
(H.Rept. 109-476) to H.R. 5441. The ICE justifications distributed funding for HQ and
Administration throughout the agencys other accounts. In order to be more precise, this table presents
the HQ and Administration account as specified in the Performance Budget Overview section of the
DHS FY2008 Congressional Budget Justifications. Unspecified supplemental from P.L. 109-234
H.Rept. 110-181, and S.Rept. 110-84, 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).
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. This amount does not include an unspecified amount of emergency funding for additional detention
beds from the $3,000 million emergency funding for border security activities included in the
b ill.
Issues for Congress. ICE is responsible for many divergent activities due
to the breath of the civil and criminal violations of law that fall under ICE’s
jurisdiction. As a result, the allocation of resources in a manner in which to best
achieve their 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.
Another issue is the ability of ICE to identify criminal aliens while they are
incarcerated for their criminal activity so that the aliens can be removed prior to
being released into the community. Also, 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 violation
affecting national security such as illegal arms exports, financial crimes, commercial
fraud, human trafficking, narcotics smuggling, child pornography/exploitation,
worksite enforcement, and immigration fraud. ICE special agents also conduct
investigations aimed at protecting critical infrastructure industries that are vulnerable
to sabotage, attack, or exploitation. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-
296) abolished the INS and the United States Customs Service, and transferred most
of their investigative functions to ICE effective March 1, 2003. There are



investigative advantages to combining the INS and Customs Services, as those who
violate immigration laws often are engaged in other criminal enterprises (e.g., alien
smuggling rings often launder money). Nonetheless, concerns have been raised that
not enough resources have been focused on investigating civil violations of
immigration law and that ICE resources have been focused on terrorism and the types
of investigations performed by the former Customs Service.75 For FY2008, Congress
appropriated $1,530 million for OI, while the President’s budget requested $1,480
million. Comparatively, for OI, House-passed H.R. 2638 would have appropriated
$1,478 million and Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would have appropriated $1,519
million.
Detention and Removal Operations. Detention and Removal Operations
(DRO) in ICE provide custody management of aliens who are in removal
proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United States.76 DRO is
also responsible for ensuring that aliens ordered removed actually depart from the
United States. Many contend that DRO does not have enough detention space to
house all those who should be detained. A study done by DOJ’s Inspector General
found that almost 94% of those detained with final orders of removal were deported,
whereas only 11% of those not detained, who were issued final orders of removal,
left the country.77 Concerns have been raised that decisions on which aliens to
release and when to release the aliens may be based on the amount of detention
space, not on the merits of individual cases, and that the amount of space may vary
by area of the country leading to inequities and disparate policies in different
geographic areas. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
(P.L. 108-458, §5204) authorized, subject to appropriations, an increase in DRO bed
space of 8,000 beds for each year, FY2006-FY2010. P.L. 110-161 appropriated
$2,381 million for DRO and an additional $200 million to “improve and modernize
efforts to identify aliens convicted of a crime, sentenced to imprisonment, and who
may be deportable, and remove them from the United States once they are judged
deportable.”
The President’s budget requested a total of $2,107 million for DRO, including
an additional $31 million for 600 detention beds and support personnel, and $10.8
million for transportation for alien removals. Notably, included in the request is an
increase in funding for 350 beds and necessary personnel to carry out 287(g)
agreements.78 House-passed H.R. 2638 would have appropriate $2,118 for DRO.


75 Based on CRS discussions with ICE personnel in New York City, August 27, 2003.
76 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.
77 Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, The Immigration and
Naturalization Service’s Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders, Report I-2003-004,
February 2003.
78 287(g) agreements allow state and local police forces to undertake some immigration law
enforcement functions under ICE’s supervision. For more information about the 287(g)
(continued...)

Senate-passed H.R. 2638 contained appropriations for detention beds in Title II and
in an emergency supplemental that was attached to the bill during floor-debate. Title
II of Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would have appropriated $2,306 for DRO including
increases of $147 million over the Administration’s request for 3,050 additional beds.
The emergency supplemental included in Senate-passed H.R. 2638 specified that
within two years ICE should have the resources to detain 45,000 aliens per day (i.e.,
45,000 detention beds), and would have appropriated $3,000 million for, among
other things, the additional detention beds.
Alternatives to Detention. Due to the cost of detaining aliens, and the fact
that many non-detained aliens with final orders of removal do not leave the country,
there has been interest in developing alternatives to detention for certain types of
aliens who do not require a secure detention setting. In 2004, ICE began a pilot
program, the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, for low-risk, nonviolent79
offenders. In addition, ICE uses electronic monitoring devices as another
alternative to detention. For FY2008, Congress appropriated $54 million for
alternatives to detention, $1 million less than House-passed H.R. 2638 would have
appropriated, and $10 million more than President’s budget request and would have
been appropriated by Senate-passed H.R. 2638.
Criminal Alien Program (CAP). Criminal aliens are aliens who have
committed crimes that make them removable. The potential pool of removable
criminal aliens is in the hundreds of thousands. Some are incarcerated in federal,
state, or local facilities, while others are free across the United States, because they80
have already served their criminal sentences. DHS’ CAP attempts to locate criminal
aliens who have been released after serving their criminal sentences so that the aliens
can be removed from the United States. In addition, CAP is directed at identifying
criminal aliens in federal, state, and local prisons, and assuring that these aliens are
taken into ICE custody at the completion of their criminal sentences. Although
federal prisons have a system to notify ICE when there is an alien in custody,
notification from state and local prisons and jails is not systematic, and many
criminal aliens are released after their criminal sentences are completed rather than
taken into ICE custody, making it more difficult to locate the aliens for deportation
and raising the concern that the released aliens will commit new crimes. Like ICE,81
INS had historically failed to identify all removable imprisoned aliens. P.L. 110-

161 appropriated $179 million specifically for CAP and an additional $200 million


78 (...continued)
program, please refer to CRS Report RL32270, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of
State and Local Law Enforcement, by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Michael John Garcia, Karma Ester.
79 Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Public
Security: ICE Unveils New Alternative to Detention,” Inside ICE, vol. 1, no. 5, June 21,

2004, available at [http://www.ice.gov].


80 Stana, Challenges to Implementing the Immigration Interior Enforcement Strategy, p. 5.
81 Of 35,318 criminal aliens released between 1994 and 1999, at least 11,605 went on to
commit new crimes. See Governmental Accountability Office, Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts
to Identify and Remove Imprisoned Aliens Continues to Need Improvement, GAO/T-GGD-

99-47, February 25, 1999.



to improve and modernize efforts to identify and remove criminal aliens. The Act
did not specify that the entire $200 million was for the CAP; however, it can be
assumed that at least some of the money will used augment this program. The
President’s FY2008 budget request included $168 million for CAP. In comparison,
for CAP, House-passed H.R. 2638 would have appropriated $180 million, and
Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would have appropriated $179 million.
State and Local Law Enforcement.82 Currently, the INA provides limited
avenues for state enforcement of both its civil and criminal provisions. One of the
broadest grants of authority for state and local immigration enforcement activity
stems from INA §287(g), which authorizes the Attorney General to enter into a
written agreement with a state, or any political subdivision to allow an officer or
employee of the state or subdivision, to perform a function of an immigration officer
in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United
States. The enforcement of immigration by state and local officials has sparked
debate among many who question what the proper role of state and local law
enforcement officials should be in enforcing federal immigration laws. Many have
expressed concern over proper training, finite resources at the local level, possible
civil rights violations, and the overall impact on communities. Some localities, for
example, even provide “sanctuary” for illegal aliens and will generally promote
policies that ensure such aliens will not be turned over to federal authorities.
Nonetheless, some observers contend that the federal government has scarce
resources to enforce immigration law and that state and local law enforcement
entities should be utilized. For FY2008 Congress appropriated $5 million for
§287(g) agreements. The President’s budget request included an increase of $26
million to $78 million for these agreements. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would have
appropriated $52 million for §287(g) agreements, while House-passed H.R. 2638
would have appropriated $32 million for the three ICE programs that support State
and local law enforcement: (1) Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC); (2)
Forensic Document Laboratory (FDL); and (3) 287(g) agreements.
Federal Protective Service.83 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.


82 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.
83 This section authored by Shawn Reese, Government and Finance Division.

President’s FY2008 Request. The Administration requested $613 million
in FY2008 for these missions.84 With these funds, the Administration planned for
FPS to focus on three objectives or tasks: security policy and standards, building
security assessments, and agency compliance with security standards.85 Currently,
FPS utilizes approximately 15,000 contract security guards and 950 uniformed law
enforcement officers. Pursuant to the Administration’s request, FPS intended to
move these uniformed law enforcement officers into other ICE law enforcement
offices or reduce the number through attrition.
House-passed H.R. 2638. The House approved legislation would have
prohibited the obligation of FY2008 funds for any activity that would have reduced
the number of in-service FPS police officers, unless the FPS director provided
information to state and local law enforcement agencies that could be affected by the
downsizing. Before reducing the number of FPS uniformed personnel, the director
must prepare a report on the number and type of cases handled by FPS in the
previous two fiscal years, and give copies of the report to officials in jurisdictions
with federal buildings protected by FPS. In addition, the House provision requires
that the FPS director negotiate a memorandum of agreement with each state and local
law enforcement agency that details how security needs identified in the report will
be addressed in the future. Finally, the FPS Director would be required to submit a
copy of the report and each memorandum of agreement to the House and Senate
Committees of Appropriation 15 days prior to the reduction in the number of FPS
police officers.86 The report accompanying the House-passed legislation further
addresses this issue, noting that the reduction in FPS police officers will impose a
“significant” burden on state and local law enforcement agencies.87
Senate-passed H.R. 2638. The legislation approved by the Senate required
that the DHS Secretary ensure that there are not fewer than 1,200 FPS law
enforcement officers protecting federal buildings. In addition, the Senate-passed bill
stated that the DHS Secretary and the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget adjust security fees, paid by federal agencies for FPS security, to ensure full88
funding for not fewer than 1,200 FPS officers.
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E). Division E of FY2008
Consolidated Appropriations Act requires FPS to maintain not fewer than 1,200 full-
time equivalent staff and 900 full-time equivalent police officers “directly” engaged


84 OMB, Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2008, p. 460.
85 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal Protective Service, Fiscal Year
2008, Congressional Justification
86 House-passed H.R. 2638, Title II.
87 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2008, report to accompany H.R. 2638, 110th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept.

110-181 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 47.


88 Senate-passed H.R. 2638, Title II.

protecting and enforcing laws at federal buildings on a daily basis.89 As a result,
Congress does not support the Administration’s decision to reduce the number of
FPS uniformed officers through attrition or reassigning them to other ICE offices.
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)90
The TSA was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA,
P.L. 107-71), and it was charged with protecting air, land, and rail transportation
systems within the United States to ensure the freedom of movement for people and
commerce. In 2002, the TSA was transferred to DHS with the passage of the
Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296). The TSA’s responsibilities include protecting
the aviation system against terrorist threats, sabotage, and other acts of violence
through the deployment of passenger and baggage screeners; detection systems for
explosives, weapons, and other contraband; and other security technologies. The
TSA also has certain responsibilities for marine and land modes of transportation
including assessing the risk of terrorist attacks to all non-aviation transportation
assets, including seaports; issuing regulations to improve security; and enforcing
these regulations to ensure the protection of these transportation systems. TSA is
further charged with serving as the primary liaison for transportation security to the
law enforcement and intelligence communities. See Table 8 for account-level detail
for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 11 for sub-account-level detail for TSA
for FY2007 enacted levels and supplemental appropriations and FY2008 amounts
specified in the President’s request, the House and Senate bills, and the enacted
Division E of P.L. 110-161.
President’s FY2008 Request. The proposed funding level for the TSA, a
gross total of $6,564 million, comprises roughly 15% of the gross total DHS budget
request. The President’s FY2008 request estimates about $2,793 million in offsetting
collections, mostly through the collection of airline passenger security fees, yielding
at net total requested amount for TSA of $3,771 million, which is paid for out of the
Treasury general fund. In breaking with prior year requests, the President’s FY2008
request does not propose any changes to the existing passenger security fee structure.
In prior years, the President sought to increase these fees, however the proposed
changes to the fee structure failed to garner much support in Congress.
The proposed FY2008 gross funding level for TSA of $6,564 is roughly
comparable to the FY2007 enacted level of $6,307. Although, notably absent from
the requested amount is the $250 million in mandatory funding for the Aviation
Security Capital Fund that provides grants to airports for constructing in-line
explosive detection systems (in-line EDS). Authority for this fund was set to expire
at the end of FY2007, but a provision to extend authorization of the fund through

2028 was included in P.L. 110-53.


89 P.L. 110-161, Div. E, Title II.
90 Prepared by Bart Elias, Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

Funding for aviation security, the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS), and
aviation-related vetting functions comprises roughly 90% of the total proposed TSA
budget. Sub-account level amounts in the President’s FY2008 request are presented
in Table 11. Several aviation security activities, including training, human resources,
checkpoint support, and airport management and information technology (IT)
support, would see a decrease in funding compared to FY2007 enacted levels under
the President’s proposal. This appears to be part of an effort to trim overhead costs,
largely through improved efficiency. On the other hand, the President has proposed
notable increases for Explosives Detection System (EDS) and Explosives Trace
Detection (ETD) equipment purchase, installation, and maintenance compared to
FY2007 enacted levels. This increase was anticipated, as much of the fielded
explosives detection equipment has been in service for more than four years and is
reaching useful service life requiring additional maintenance and replacement costs
to be factored into the budget process. With regard to screener staffing, the President
has proposed a net increase of 955 full-time equivalent screeners (roughly a 2%
increase in the screener workforce), largely to support a new travel document
screening initiative. The President, however, proposes to trim support staff, resulting
in a net decrease of about 351 FTEs across all of the TSA.
Under the President’s budget proposal, the Transportation Threat Assessment
and Credentialing (TTAC) function would almost be doubled compared to FY2007
enacted levels, with the entire amount of the increase, $38 million, going toward the
Secure Flight development effort. Secure Flight, the long delayed program that
would establish a centralized, federally operated system for prescreening airline
passengers against terrorist watchlists, is now scheduled to become operational in the
summer of 2008. Credentialing fee programs would see a notable increase as the
Registered Traveler program continues its nationwide expansion in FY2008, and the
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program is scheduled to
become fully operational at the nation’s seaports in FY2008. The President’s budget
proposes setting funding for surface transportation security at $47 million, roughly
$10 million above FY2007 enacted levels. The additional proposed funding would
be used to hire additional canine teams and inspectors for rail and mass transit.
Under the President’s proposal funding for Transportation Security Support functions
would remain roughly unchanged from FY2007 enacted levels.
Table 11. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008
Budget ActivityFY2007FY2007FY2008FY2008HouseFY2008SenateFY2008Emerg.P.L.110-
EnactedSupp.RequestPassedPassedEnacted161
Aviation Security4,732 a3975,0425,1995,0434,809
Screening Partnership
Program (SPP)149 143147143143
Passenger & Baggage
Screening (PC&B)2,470 2,6382,5892,6012,636



FY2008
Budget ActivityFY2007FY2007FY2008FY2008HouseFY2008SenateFY2008Emerg.P.L.110-
EnactedSupp.RequestPassedPassedEnacted161
Screener Training &
Other244 224200200224
Human Resource
Services207 182182182182
Checkpoint Support17325136250136
EDS/ETD Purchase141181
EDS/ETD Installation138259
EDS/ET D
Installation/Purchase 285 560529294
EDS/ET D
Maintenance and
Utilities222264264257264
Operation Integration2325252525
Regulation and Other
Enforcement218 253224227256
Airport Management,
IT, and Support666 656652646652
FFDO & Crew
Training25 25282525
Air Cargo Security558056736673
Airport Perimeter
Security444
Transfer per P.L. 110-
5 Sec. 21101 7
Implementing P.L.
110-52 30
Adjustment -b
S.Amdt. 24613
Aviation Security
Capital Fund250250
Checkpoint Screening
Security Fund 250
Federal Air Marshald
Service (FAMS)7145 770722722770
Management and
Administration628 674644644674
Travel and Training86 78787895



FY2008
Budget ActivityFY2007FY2007FY2008FY2008HouseFY2008SenateFY2008Emerg.P.L.110-
EnactedSupp.RequestPassedPassedEnacted161
Ai r -T o -G r o und
Communication
Threat Assessment and
Credentialing40 98646783
Secure Flight15 74402850
Crew Vetting1515151515
Other/ TTAC Admin.
& Ops.10 10101010
TWIC Appropriation158
Credentialing Fees76 83838383
Registered Traveler
Program Fees35 35353535
TWIC Fees20 27272727
Alien Flight School
F2 2222
HAZM AT
Commercial Driver
Fees19 19191919
Surf a ce
Transportation
Security37 47414147
Operations and
Staffing24 24242424
Rail Security
Inspectors and
Canines13 22171722
HAZMAT Truck
Tracking and Training
Transportation
Security Support525525527522524
Intelligence2121212121
Headquarters
Administration294 294296294293
Info rmatio n
Technology210 209209209209
Research andc
Development



FY2008
Budget ActivityFY2007FY2007FY2008FY2008HouseFY2008SenateFY2008Emerg.P.L.110-
EnactedSupp.RequestPassedPassedEnacted161
Adjustment - S. Amdtb
2461-3
TSA Subtotal6,3744026,5646,6366,4786,814
Rescission-67
TSA Total:6,3074026,5646,6366,4786,814
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 Presidents Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-
181, and S.Rept. 110-84, Division E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint Explanatory Statement
for Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121
(incorporating amendments to the budget request).
Notes: 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;
DCA: Washington Reagan National Airport; TWIC: Transportation Worker Identification Credential;
HAZMAT: Hazardous Materials.
a. Does not include a $7 million transfer to Aviation Security provided by P.L. 110-5, nor does the
amount include $390 million in supplemental appropriations provided by P.L. 110-28. In
contrast, both H.Rept. 110-181 and S.Rept. 110-84 include the $7 million transfer (but not the
$390 million in supplemental appropriations) yielding a total FY2007 appropriation for aviation
security of $4,739 that is reported in those documents, $7 million more than the amount shown
on this table. Of this $7 million, $2 million was transferred from the Secure Flight program.
However, in contrast to references in H.Rept. 110-181 and S.Rept. 110-84, the above table does
not indicate this $2 million reduction in the FY2007 appropriation for Secure Flight.
b. S.Amdt. 2461, as modified, increases funding for Aviation Security by $3 million and decreases
funding for Transportation Security Support by $3 million. While debate over the amendment
indicated that this money was intended for the “Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement
Program,” its impact on specific sub-accounts was not specified. This function would fall under
Regulation and Other Enforcement in this table. However, the amount shown in this table for
this sub-account has not been adjusted from that specified in S.Rept. 110-84.
c. Transportation Security Research and Development was moved to the Science and Technology
Directorate in FY2006.
d. P.L. 110-28 required the DHS to provide the appropriations committees a report detailing how these
additional funds would be allocated within 30 days of enactment. No allocation to FAMS sub-
accounts is shown in this table.
House-passed H.R. 2638. The House bill would provide $6,636 million for
the TSA, with $5,199 million (78%) designated for aviation security programs. Total
TSA funding specified in the House bill is $235 million more than the
Administration request and $329 million above FY2007 enacted levels, not including
FY2007 supplemental funding appropriated in P.L. 110-28 or transfers included in
P.L. 110-5.
Aviation security funding specified in the House bill is $246 million (5%) more
than the Administration request, and $467 million (almost 10%) above the FY2007
enacted levels, not including supplemental funding and transfers. The increased
funding above the requested amount is primarily designated for procurement and
installation of explosives detection equipment for checked baggage screening,



procurement of screening technologies for passenger checkpoints, and additional
canine teams and inspectors for air cargo security. These three programs remain high
priorities and each also received supplemental appropriations for FY2007 included
in the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-28).
A total of $560 million is specified for procurement and installation of
explosives detection equipment, $120 million (27%) above the Administration
request. While this represents a sizable increase, it should be noted that this, in part,
reflects the fact that appropriations measures have assumed that of the authorization
of the Aviation Security Capital Fund, set to expire at the end of FY2007, would not
be reauthorized. That fund has provided for an additional $250 million annually in
mandatory spending to provide airports with grants to airports for accommodating
explosives detection equipment. While appropriations debate has proceeded under
the assumption that this fund would not be authorized in FY2008, a provision in P.L.

110-53 extended authorization of the Aviation Security Capital Fund through 2028.


Based on studies of checked baggage explosives detection screening over the
next 20 years, the House report (H.Rept. 110-181) expresses considerable concern
over the ability to meet long-term spending needs for EDS refurbishing and
replacement, next-generation EDS deployment, and modifications to airport
infrastructure to accommodate checked baggage screening equipment and operations.
The additional funds for EDS procurement and installation specified in the House bill
are intended to expedite EDS deployment among all airports, replace aging
explosives trace detection (ETD) machines at larger airports, and deploy new ETD
machines at any newly federalized small airports and heliports. The House report
urges the TSA to further explore consolidating checkpoint and checked baggage
screening at smaller airports as a means for improving screening efficiency.
The House bill also specifies $250 million for checkpoint support, $114 million
(84%) above the requested amount, to pilot testing and deployment of advanced
checkpoint technologies such as: whole body imaging systems; liquid explosives
detectors; and automated explosives detection systems. The additional funding
would also support any additional checkpoint infrastructure requirements to carry out
a pilot program for screening airport workers at up to seven airports. Under screener
workforce funding, the bill also adds an additional $5 million for labor costs
associated with this pilot. The total appropriation for the screener workforce is,
nonetheless, slightly less than the Administration request reflecting partial funding
of the requests for travel document checker and behavior detection screener
initiatives. The bill, however, lifts the longstanding cap of 45,000 full-time
equivalent screeners, although a minority view printed in the House report expressed
concern that without the cap “TSA will go back to its old ways of solving screener
problems by simply adding more people — a very short-sighted and costly
solution.”91 With regard to private, non-TSA screening, the bill provides roughly $3
million above the requested amount to implement private screening to small airports
and heliports that start up commercial air service.


91 H.Rept. 110-181, p. 197.

The bill provides $73 million for air cargo security, $17 million above the
President’s request. The additional funding is designated for deployment of
additional canine teams and air cargo security inspectors. Additionally, the bill
includes a general provision (Sec. 516) that would require a doubling of the percent
of air cargo screened. The bill also provides $4 million for airport perimeter security,
a program element that was not funded in the President’s request.
The Secure Flight program for prescreening passengers against government
terrorist watchlists would be funded at $28 million below the President’s request
under the House bill, reflecting frustration over the lack of a complete cost estimate
for system development and testing, and the prospect that operational testing could
slip from FY2008 until early FY2009. The bill continues the longstanding
requirement for GAO oversight and DHS certification that specified operational
requirements regarding data retention, data security, privacy, and mechanisms for
redress are met prior to implementing the system on other than a test basis. The
provision also prohibits the use of commercial data or algorithms to evaluate the risk
of passengers whose names are not included on any government terrorist watch lists.
If the system does not check airline passenger names against the full terrorist
watchlist, the bill would require the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Security
to certify that checking passengers against a subset of this list does not raise any
security risks. All other Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing
(TTAC) programs would be funded at the levels specified in the President’s request.
The House bill also provides funding for surface transportation security and the
Federal Air Marshal Service at the requested levels and funds the TSA’s
Transportation Security Support functions at a level roughly equal to the President’s
request.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638. The Senate-passed bill provides a total of $6,478
million to the TSA for FY2008, $171 million (2.7%) above FY2007 enacted levels
excluding supplemental appropriations and transfers, and $86 million (1%) more than
the President’s request.
For aviation security, the Senate bill specifies $5,043 million, $9 million (about
the same) more than the President’s request, but $156 million less than the House
bill. Like the House bill, the Senate bill seeks additional funding for explosives
detection capabilities for checked baggage and reduced funding for the Secure Flight
program. However, the Senate bill does not include the additional funding sought
in the House bill for the deployment of checkpoint screening technologies.
Specifically, the Senate bill specifies $529 million for explosives detection
equipment purchase and installation, $89 million more than the President’s request
but $31 million below the amount specified in the House bill. The Senate bill would
consolidate maintenance costs for baggage and checkpoint screening technologies as
requested in the President’s request. However, citing slow procurement decisions
and large unobligated balances for acquisition of emerging passenger screening
systems and related maintenance costs, the Senate bill would provide $7 million less
than the President’s request for screening technologies maintenance and utilities.
While the Senate committee noted the persisting threat posed by explosives carried
by passengers, it expressed deep concern over the TSA’s failure to submit a strategy



for deployment of checkpoint screening technologies as directed by the conference
report accompanying last years appropriations act (H.Rept. 109-699) and the large
unobligated balance of appropriations for checkpoint technologies. The Senate report
(S.Rept. 110-84) funds checkpoint support functions, which includes funding for
checkpoint technologies, at the requested funding level, $114 million less than the
amount passed by the House, and withholds $20 million from TSA’s headquarters
spending until the Committee receives the strategic plan for checkpoint screening
technology deployment.
The Senate committee report specifies that $15 million of the amount
appropriated for screening operations is to be made available for carrying out a pilot
test to study various methods for screening airport employees. The report also makes
$59 million available for workers compensation payments, almost $4 million above
last years amount despite concerted efforts by the TSA to reduce costs associated
with work-related injuries. The Senate bill would fund screener training at the
requested level of $200 million, $44 million below FY2007 enacted levels, and
directs the TSA to provide a detailed report on its behavioral screening initiatives
which it intends to expand to all airports in FY2008, but has provided limited
information on to date.
The Senate bill specifies $66 million for air cargo security, $10 million above
the President’s request, but $7 million below the amount specified in the House bill.
These funds, along with the additional $80 million in FY2007 supplemental funding
specified for air cargo security, are intended to be used for deploying additional
canine teams, hiring additional cargo inspectors, and procuring cargo screening
technologies. The Senate report instructs the TSA to complete the air cargo
vulnerability assessments of Category X airports, funded through FY2007
supplemental funding, by March 1, 2008, and develop an action plan for inbound
international air cargo addressing recommendations made by the GAO no later than
February 5, 2008. Like the House bill, the Senate bill includes a $4 million
appropriation amount for carrying out airport perimeter security pilot programs that
was not included in the President’s request. An amendment approved by the Senate
(S.Amdt. 2461) would shift $3 million from Transportation Security Support to
Aviation Security to provide increased funding for law enforcement reimbursable
agreements that provide state and local law enforcement presence at passenger
screening checkpoints.
The Senate bill specifies $28 million for the Secure Flight program, $3 million
more than the amount specified in the House bill, but $25 million less than the
President’s request. Like the House, the Senate report describes continued frustration
with the TSA’s inability “to fully articulate the goals, objectives, and requirements
for the program” despite 18 months of “rebaselining” the program and years of work
to develop a passenger prescreening system. However, the Senate bill includes a
provision that would give the TSA authority to transfer the additional $25 million
sought, if the TSA can demonstrate significant improvement in the program,
supported by the findings of an ongoing GAO review. Like the House bill, the
Senate bill would keep in force the longstanding stipulation that Secure Flight may
not be deployed for any purpose other than system testing until the GAO finds that
all issues identified in legislation regarding the program have been adequately
addressed, and it prohibits the use of commercial databases for vetting airline



passengers. All other Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing (TTAC)
programs would be funded at the levels specified in the President’s request. The
Senate bill also matches the amounts specified in the President’s request for surface
transportation security and transportation security support.
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E). Division E of P.L. 110-161
provides $6,814 million dollars for the TSA, $413 million more than the President’s
request and $112 million above enacted base and supplemental appropriations made
in FY2007.
FY2008 appropriations for aviation security total $4,809 million, which is below
both the House-passed and Senate-passed bills. However, those bills did not
consider the additional $250 million in nondiscretionary deposits from passenger
security fees to the Checkpoint Screening Security Fund, established under P.L. 110-
53. Nor did the original bills consider the reauthorization of Aviation Security
Capital Fund, at its nondiscretionary funding level of $250 million, also from
passenger security fees. Adding these sums to discretionary appropriations provided
in the Act yields a total of $5,309 million, which is a slight decrease in funding
compared with FY2007 base and supplemental appropriations for aviation security,
plus the $250 million placed in the Aviation Security Capital Fund, which totaled
$5,372 million. The FY2008 appropriations, however, provided the Federal Air
Marshal Service (FAMS) with $770 million, $56 million more than the FY2007
enacted level, and $48 million more than the amount specified in the President’s
request and passed by both the House and the Senate.
Differences in amounts specified for specific budget activities for aviation
security compared with the House-passed and Senate-passed bills largely reflect
budgetary shifts created by the reauthorization of the Aviation Security Capital Fund
and the creation of the Checkpoint Screening Security Fund. Specifically, EDS/ETD
installation and purchase received an appropriation of $294 million, $266 million less
than the House-passed amount and $235 million less than the Senate-passed amount.
This, combined with the $250 million in collections to be deposited into the Aviation
Security Capital Fund, yields a total of $544 million, which represents a rough
compromise between the House-passed and Senate-passed funding levels rather than
a sizable budget cut. Similarly, to account for the creation of the Checkpoint
Screening Security Fund, Division E of P.L. 110-161 eliminated funding for the
Checkpoint Support activity, which the House had proposed to fund at the same level
this fund provides for (i.e., $250 million), whereas the President’s request and the
Senate had both specified $136 million for this activity. Thus, the net result on the
TSA’s budget for checkpoint-related technologies is in line with the House-passed
funding amount. The FY2008 appropriations measure provides for slightly higher
amounts for screener PC&B and training, largely to support additional hiring and
training of Behavioral Detection Officers (BDOs), travel document checkers, and
bomb appraisal officers (BAOs).
Air cargo security funding was increased to $73 million, in line with the House-
passed amount. The increase is for additional canine teams, inspectors, development
of a certified shipper program, and continued development of cargo screening
technologies to meet the requirements of P.L. 110-53 for cargo screening. A general



provision of the Act directs the DHS to research and develop screening methods for
cargo, and in the interim, utilize existing checked baggage explosives detection
equipment to the greatest extent practicable for screening cargo. The provision also
directs the TSA to work with air carriers and airports to increase the proportion of
cargo that is screened each quarter and report to Congress on the progress being
made. An additional $30 million was also appropriated for implementing other
requirements set forth in P.L. 110-53. This money is to be used to fund a wide array
of mandated aviation and surface transportation security activities. With regard to
surface transportation security, in general, enacted amounts were identical to those
specified in the President’s request and passed by both the House and the Senate.
Division E of P.L. 110-161 also included several general provisions related to
transportation security. Notably, section 513 continues a longstanding appropriations
requirement specifying that the DHS must certify, and the GAO must report to
Congress, that all conditions pertaining to privacy protection, data security, and
redress have been adequately addressed before Secure Flight or any other successor
prescreening program is implemented, other than on a test basis. TSA has indicated
that it will finalize plans to implement Secure Flight in FY2008, prompting
additional appropriations for this program. Whereas the House and Senate had
passed amounts of $25 and $28 million, respectively, the enacted appropriation for
Secure Flight was set at $50 million, roughly in line with the President’s request.
Section 521 specifies that any prior year funds for aviation security that are
deobligated or recovered shall be available solely for the purpose of procuring and
installing explosives detection systems for checked baggage, carry-ons, or air cargo.
Section 542 establishes civil penalties for airport vendors and contractors that fail to
collect airport security badges from terminated employees. Section 565 requires the
DHS to establish an international registered traveler program within two years. The
international registered traveler program is to incorporate technologies such as
biometrics and e-passports along with security threat assessments, and it is to
complement U.S. VISIT and the Visa Waiver Program. Section 568 appears to have
the effect of eliminating the TSA’s current acquisition management system, which
was based on FAA acquisition management, within six months, bringing the TSA in
line with DHS-wide acquisition management regulations and practices. Also,
Section 571 specifies that, within 90-days after enactment, participants in the
Registered Traveler (RT) program may satisfy checkpoint identification requirements
by presenting their biometric RT card in lieu of providing government-issued photo
identification. The TSA has required photo identification for RT participants and has
indicated to vendors its desire to include photographs on RT cards issued in the
future for checkpoint identification purposes.
TSA Issues for Congress. Identified issues for the TSA in the context of
the FY2008 appropriations process center primarily on aviation security including
screener workforce issues, screening technology, and air cargo security.
Additionally, the planned nationwide roll-out of the TWIC program at seaports in
FY2008 will likely also be an issue of considerable interest. Other issues have
emerged during the FY2008 appropriations debate as the Administration has raised
concerns over bill language that would cut funding for the Secure Flight program and
would subject TSA decisions regarding airline security fee collections to judicial



review. These provisions, however, were not included in the FY2008 enacted
appropriations.
Screener Workforce Issues. In the past, the total number of full-time
equivalent TSOs has been statutorily capped at 45,000 through specific
appropriations language. A GAO assessment of the TSA’s screener staffing
allocation methodology among commercial passenger airports found that the TSA’s
underlying assumptions should be reassessed.92 In particular, the GAO found that
many medium and smaller sized airports were staffed at levels either above or below
the allocation specified by the staffing methodology. However, at small and medium
sized airports, average peak-period passenger wait times in screening queues have
consistently met the goal of 10 minutes or less. While the GAO found that all but
one major (Category X) airport was staffed at levels consistent with the screener
allocation methodology, the average passenger wait times at these airports (12.6
minutes in FY2006) exceeded the target of 10 minutes or less. Among other large
airports (Category I), screener staffing was found to be in line with the staffing model
at almost 80% of the airports, and average passenger wait times (10.4 minutes in
FY2006) were found to be just slightly above the 10-minute target. Observations
from these findings include the difficulty in predicting staffing needs at smaller and
medium sized airports, where changes in air carrier flight schedules can have a more
pronounced impact on screener staffing, and the possible need to more closely
examine the persisting difficulties in achieving passenger wait time targets at large
airports, particularly among the busiest airports in the country. The joint explanatory
statement accompanying Division E of P.L. 110-161 directs the TSA to submit
quarterly wait time data for all airports with “above average wait times” and for the
40 busiest airports. In these reports, the TSA is to explain any significant changes
in wait times at airports.
While the President’s FY2008 budget proposed to eliminate the 45,000 FTE cap
for TSOs and add 955 additional screeners, this increase will support the new travel
document screening initiative and is not expected to address staffing imbalances or
passenger wait time issues. During the FY2008 appropriations debate, screener
staffing needs to address these issues may be a topic of particular interest. While
neither the House nor the Senate bills retain the longstanding screener cap, a minority
view printed in House Rept. 110-181 questioned the removal of this cap, voicing
concern that it would lead to poor strategic planning by hiring screeners rather than
focusing on technology approaches to streamline screening procedures that could
reduce manpower needs. A provision in the Implementing the 9/11 Commission
Recommendations Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53) explicitly removes the cap and directs
the TSA to hire as many personnel as determined necessary to enhance security and
reduce passenger wait times to under 10 minutes.
In addition to screener staffing, workers compensation continues to be a
significant expense for the TSA despite initiatives aimed at prevention and
intervention strategies to reduce and mitigate workplace injuries. Anticipated costs


92 U.S. Government Accountability Office, TSA’s Staffing Allocation Model Is Useful for
Allocating Staff among Airports, but Its Assumptions Should Be Systematically Reassessed,
GAO-07-299, February 2007.

of worker compensation claims account for $59 million (about 2.3%) of the FY2008
Passenger & Baggage Screening (PC&B) amount. Thus, examining the effectiveness
of the TSA’s initiatives to address workplace injuries may be an issue of particular
interest to appropriators. The Senate report (S.Rept. 110-84) specifically identified
$59 million for workers compensation benefits for FY2008, and requests committee
briefings on how the TSA’s proposed strategies will mitigate on-the-job injuries and
associated costs. The final appropriations measure and accompanying joint
explanatory statement, however, did not specifically address this issue.
Provisions in original House-passed and Senate-passed versions of the
Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007 (H.R. 1) would
have placed TSA screeners under the same personnel management system as all other
TSA employees, thereby extending to TSA screeners the right to collective
bargaining. These provisions, however, were excluded from the Conference Report
on the bill (H.Rept. 110-259), which became P.L 110-53. When the TSA was
established in 2001, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA, P.L. 107-
71) gave the TSA Administrator discretion to implement an alternate personnel
system for screeners, which has, to date, barred screeners from collective bargaining.
TSA Administrator Kip Hawley had cautioned that the direct cost to the TSA to set
up a collective bargaining program for TSA screeners would be $160 million.93
TSA’s application of its performance-based accountability and standards system
for employees has been another ongoing issue. In 2006, the TSA initiated a
performance-based management system, and under this system compensates
screeners and other employees, in part, based on factors related to performance,
technical proficiency, level of training and development, and other indicators of job
performance.94 Senate-passed H.R. 2638 includes a provision that would require the
TSA to submit a report to the congressional appropriations and oversight committees
that examines performance ratings and pay increases for all positions covered under
this system comparing performance and pay increases between managers and non-
managers and providing data on attrition among employees covered under this
system. This language was not included in Division E of P.L. 110-161.
The President’s FY2008 budget estimates fee collections of about $35 million
for the Registered Traveler program’s continuation of its initial pilot phase at 10 to
20 airports, with the possibility of nationwide implementation sometime in FY2008
or later. A provision in Senate-passed H.R. 2638 that was included in Division E of
P.L. 110-161 (see Section 571) establishes an international registered traveler
program, coordinated with the US-VISIT and Visa Waiver programs, that, like the
domestic program would be offset by participant fees. Also, the TSA anticipates
initial operational deployment of the long delayed Secure Flight program in the
summer of 2008. Appropriated funding specified in P.L. 110-161, which is in line
with the President’s request and well above the House-passed and Senate-passed


93 Thomas Frank, “TSA Union Fight Threatens Anti-terror Bill”, USA Today, February 28,

2007.


94 United States Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration.
Statement of Kip Hawley, Assistant Secretary, Before the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, January 17, 2006.

amounts, reflect that this milestone is anticipated and funds have been designated
accordingly. Meanwhile, the TSA has indicated that it is culling the lists it currently
provides to airlines for passenger prescreening to reduce false matches. While all of
these initiatives could have an impact on reducing the burden on TSA screening
resources, particularly resources dedicated to secondary screening of passengers,
evaluating the impact of these initiatives may be an issue of particular interest to
appropriators with regard to how they impact appropriations needs for screening
resources.
Screening Technologies. Most of the currently deployed baggage
explosives detection systems, deployed in the 2002 and 2003 time frame, have been
in service for several years and are not as capable as newer, next generation
(NextGen) equipment with regard to baggage throughput and explosives detection
capability. The TSA is facing an ongoing challenge with regard to maintaining and
extending the service life of existing equipment and phasing in replacement next
generation systems. In 2006, the TSA developed an Electronic Baggage Screening
Program (EBSP) Strategic Plan to optimize screening solutions at the 250 busiest
airports with the goal of decreasing life cycle costs for baggage screening
technologies. Faced with escalating maintenance costs for baggage screening
systems, the effectiveness of this plan and its implementation may be an issue of
particular interest for appropriators. Both the House and Senate bills would increase
funding for explosives detection equipment procurement and installation above the
requested levels. The reauthorization of the Aviation Security Capital Fund and its
nondiscretionary funding of $250 million combined with a discretionary
appropriation of $294 million for EDS and ETD purchase and installation provides
a total of $544 million for the deployment of explosives detection systems. This is
$114 million above the $440 million for these activities specified in the President’s
request.
In addition to baggage screening technologies, the TSA is engaged in field
testing a host of emerging passenger checkpoint screening technologies designed to
improve throughput and address new and emerging security threats. Technologies
that are currently being evaluated include advanced x-ray and automated explosives
detection systems for carry-on bags; whole body imaging; explosive trace detection
portal machines; cast and prosthetic device scanners; and bottled liquid scanners.
The effectiveness of these various technologies and how they fit into the TSA’s
overall strategy for deploying passenger checkpoint technologies may be an issue of
particular interest during the FY2008 DHS appropriations debate. While the House
bill includes additional funding for checkpoint technologies, the Senate bill would
fund this activity at the requested level. The creation of the Checkpoint Screening
Security Fund established a nondiscretionary funding source, providing $250 million
for checkpoint screening technologies. This amount was equal to the House-passed
amount for checkpoint support. In recognition of this new funding source, a separate
funding amount for checkpoint support was not included in Division E of P.L. 110-

161.


Division E of P.L. 110-161 also includes a provision, adopted from the Senate-
passed bill, that eliminates the statutory framework that has kept TSA acquisition
practices under a set of special rules initially set up for the FAA. While the current
TSA acquisition system offers greater flexibility than the general federal acquisition



regulations, the rest of DHS currently operates under a separate contracting system.
This provision would provide for commonality among acquisition procedures and
practices across all of DHS.95 This new system would apply to all technology
acquisition including screening technologies for passengers, baggage, and cargo, as
well as other service and support contracts with the TSA.
Air Cargo Security. At present, the TSA’s air cargo security program
consists of 325 FTE air cargo security inspectors responsible for ensuring compliance
with security regulations throughout the air cargo supply chain. Further, security
threat assessments of cargo workers in the cargo supply chain is administered as a fee
program (the indirect air cargo fee), and the TSA levies a $28 charge per assessment.
The air cargo security model is predicated on a risk-based system that relies heavily
on the industry-wide known shipper program. In FY2008, the TSA anticipates
deployment of an Air Cargo Risk Based Targeting (ACRBT) program that will build
upon the known shipper program by including freight forwarder management
information, a risk-based freight assessment system, and a certified shipper program.
Implementation of this initiative may be an issue of particular interest for the
appropriations debate.
A provision in P.L. 110-53 requires the TSA to phase-in physical inspections
of all cargo placed on passenger airplanes. Under this provision, 50% of all cargo
placed on passenger airplanes would have to be inspected within 18 months and
100% of such cargo would have to be inspected within three years of enactment. It
is unclear how such a mandate would specifically impact appropriations. This is
because the provision does not specifically indicate whether the screening would be
a federal function or whether it would be carried out by the airlines as is currently the
practice for those cargo items currently inspected. Critics of this measure have
argued that the explosives detection technologies needed to meet such a mandate are
not yet available. Thus, additional appropriations may be needed to accelerate
technology development if this proposal is enacted. Both the House and Senate bills
include increased funding for air cargo security activities above the requested
amounts. These funds are intended for deploying additional canine units for
screening air cargo and increasing the number of air cargo security regulatory
compliance inspectors in addition to continued deployment and testing of new air
cargo screening technologies.
A general provision in the House bill (Sec. 516) would require a doubling of the
amount of cargo placed on passenger aircraft that undergoes inspection. The
Administration strongly opposes this provision stating that this objective “...is not
achievable with the resources provided and would adversely affect the flow of96
commerce.” While this specific language was not included in the enacted
appropriations measures, Division E of P.L. 110-161 includes a general provision
that directs the TSA to work with air carriers and airports to increase the proportion
of cargo that is screened each quarter, and report to Congress on the progress being


95 Elizabeth Newell, “Senators Seek to Hold TSA to Standard Acquisition Rules,”
Government Executive.com, July 26, 2007.
96 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administration Policy, H.R. 2638, June 12, 2007, p. 4.

made. The provision also calls on the DHS to sponsor research and development of
screening methods for cargo, and in the interim, to utilize existing checked baggage
explosives detection equipment for screening of cargo to the greatest extent
practicable.
TWIC Program Roll-Out. On January 25, 2007, TSA issued a final rule
implementing the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program
for seaport workers.97 The TSA began the implementation of TWIC at the Port of
Wilmington, DE in October 2007 and as of January 2008, enrollment has begun at
54 ports. Seaport workers will pay a fee of about $132 to apply for a card which will
be valid for five years. Vessel and port facility owners will have to provide card
readers after a pilot program is conducted to test the best type of card reader to use.
Anticipating full implementation of the TWIC program at U.S. seaports by FY2008,
the President’s budget expects fee collections to total roughly $27 million in FY2008,
compared to estimated collections of about $10 million in FY2007. The TSA is also
seeking comment on the use of a TWIC card in all modes of transportation. The
scope of the program and its application to other transportation modes may be an
issue of particular interest during the DHS FY2008 appropriations debate.
Expressing concern over progress on the TWIC program and expecting that delays
will not permit the program to be self-sustaining based on FY2008 fee collections
alone, the House bill includes a $15 million direct appropriation to be used for
carrying out a pilot program to test TWIC card readers at maritime facilities as
mandated in the SAFE Ports Act (P.L. 109-347). The Senate bill includes a
provision prohibiting the use of FY2008 funds to remove any of the criminal offenses
that would disqualify an individual from obtaining a TWIC card that were included
in the Implementing the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53). The Senate
bill also includes a provision that would require the TSA to resolve differences with
the State of Florida which has already implemented an access control program at
Florida seaports (see Senate-passed H.R. 2638, sections 544 and 565). Division E
of P.L. 110-161 provides a direct appropriation of $8 million to cover the proposed
local cost share (25%) for the ports participating in the card reader test pilot and for
program evaluation. Division E of the Act also directs TSA to resolve differences
with the State of Florida or other states that have existing port worker ID programs
and does not include the provision in the Senate bill that would have prohibited TSA
from modifying the list of criminal offenses disqualifying an applicant from
obtaining a card.
Secure Flight. The long delayed and highly controversial initiatives to
develop a system for government prescreening of airline passengers against terrorist
watchlists remains at issue. The Administration has long maintained that the
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.98 The OMB has also voiced concerns in the current appropriations debate


97 See Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 16, pp. 3492-3604.
98 See, e.g., President George W. Bush, Statement on H.R. 4567, the Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2005, White House Office of the Press Secretary,
(continued...)

that cuts to the program included in both the House and Senate bills could further
delay the program beyond a target deployment of sometime in 2010.99 Division E of
P.L. 110-161 provides $50 million for Secure Flight, roughly in line with the
President’s request of $53 million. This amount assumes initial deployment of the
system in FY2008. The Act, however, also includes a general provision keeping in
force the 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.
Judicial Review of Airline Security Fees. In addition to passenger
security fees charged, airlines are assessed direct fees for aviation security. At
present the TSA has final authority in setting these fees and allocating fees among the
various carriers, provided that the total fee collections do not exceed what all
passenger airlines combined paid for privately-run security screening of passengers
and property in calendar year 2000. Through FY2004, there were also per carrier
limits that prevented any single carrier from paying more in fees that what it had
spent on screening in calendar year 2000, but these limits no longer apply. Thus the
TSA serves as the final authority for determining the proportion of total airline
security fee collections, and, by statute, the TSA’s determinations are not subject to
judicial review. A provision in the House bill (Sec. 539), however, would strike the
provision in existing statute that exempts these TSA’s setting of these fees from
judicial review, allowing airlines to challenge the TSA’s fee determination methods
in court. The Administration has voiced strong opposition to this provision
expressing concern that this would undermine the intent of the statute to allow the
TSA to adjust airline security fees to reflect current market share, and would prolong100
the fee collection process during judicial review. Division E of P.L. 110-161 in
general keeps the restriction preventing judicial review of most aviation security fees
intact. However, Section 540 of the Act specifies that the additional sums collected
from airlines based on a methodology involving GAO determination of air carrier
underpayments of prior year Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee (ASIF) amounts,
as called for by the 2005 DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-334), are not explicitly
exempt from judicial review.
United States Coast Guard101
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


98 (...continued)
Washington, DC. October 18, 2004.
99 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administration Policy, H.R. 2638, June 12, 2007.
100 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administration Policy, H.R. 2638, June 12, 2007.
101 Prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation, Resources, Science and Industry
Division.

performs missions that are not related to homeland security, such as maritime search
and rescue, marine environmental protection, fisheries enforcement, and aids to
navigation. The Coast Guard was transferred from the Department of Transportation
to the DHS on March 1, 2003. The law that created the DHS (P.L. 107-296) directed
that the Coast Guard be maintained as a distinct entity within the DHS and that the
Commandant of the Coast Guard report directly to the Secretary of DHS.
President’s FY2008 Request. For FY2008, the President requested a total
of $8,457 million in net budget authority for the Coast Guard, which is about a 2%
increase over the FY2007 enacted level. The President requested $5,894 million for
operating expenses (an increase of 8% over FY2007), $949 million for acquisition,
construction, and improvements (a decrease of 27% from FY2007 enacted level),
$127 million for reserve training (an increase of 4% over FY2007), $18 million for
research, development, tests, and evaluation (an increase of 6% from FY2007), $12
million for environmental compliance and restoration (an increase of 9% from
FY2007), and zero funding for the bridge alteration program which the President
proposes transferring to the Maritime Administration in the Department of
Transportation. The President also requested $223 million in FY2008 supplemental
funding for the Coast Guard to support its operations in providing security for U.S.
Navy vessels, facilities, and port operations in Iraq.102 Table 12 provides more detail
regarding the Coast Guard’s Operating Expenses (OE) account and its Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements (ACI) account. Under the ACI account, the
President proposes transferring the funding of the personnel that administer ACI
contracts ($81 million and 652 FTEs) to the OE account.
House-Passed H.R. 2638. H.R. 2638 provided a total of $8,352 million in
net budget authority for the Coast Guard, which is $102 million less than the
President requested. This total included $5,885 million in operating expenses which
is $9 million less than the President requested and $834 million in acquisition,
construction, and improvements, which is $115 million less than the President
requested. The House provided $16 million for the bridge alteration program versus
the President’s request for zero funds.
The House denied the President’s request to transfer ACI personnel funding to
the OE account, contending that acquisition staffing levels can better be tracked in103
the ACI account.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638. The Senate provided $8,559 million for the
Coast Guard which is $102 million more than the President requested. This total
included $5,931 million in operating expenses which is $37 million more than the
President requested and $991 million for acquisition, construction, and improvements
which is $42 million more than the President requested. The Senate Committee
provided $16 million for the bridge alteration program versus the President’s request
for zero funds. The Senate provided $26 million for research, development, tests,
and evaluation versus the President’s request for $18 million.


102 The Budget for Fiscal Year 2008 — Appendix, p. 1164.
103 H.Rept. 110-181, p. 67.

The Senate agreed with the President’s request to transfer ACI personnel
funding to the OE account, contending that by so doing, personnel can be surged to
and from ACI projects where needed and provide the flexibility to match
competencies to core requirements.104
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E). The Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161), provides $8,522 million for the Coast
Guard, which is $65 million more than the President requested. This total includes
$5,891 million in operating expenses, which is $3 million less than the President
requested and $993 million in acquisition, construction, and improvements, which
is $44 million more than the President requested. P.L. 110-161 provides $16 million
for the bridge alteration program versus the President’s request for zero funds.
P.L. 110-161 allows the Coast Guard to transfer up to 5% of the OE
appropriation to the ACI appropriation for personnel costs provided that notice be
given to the Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of the transfer.
Table 12. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI)
Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2008 FY2008 Emerg.
FY2007a FY2008 House Sena t e FY2008 P.L.110-
EnactedRequestPassedPassedEnacted161
Operating
Expenses 5,478 5,894 5,885 5,931 5,891 70
Military pay
and allowances2,7882,9592,9332,9592,922
Civilian pay
and benefits569631593633595
Training and
recruiting181187186187186
Operating funds
and unit level
maintenance1,0111,1381,1481,1381,135
Cent r a lly
ma na ge d
accounts202226226230230
Port Security15 453070
I nter med iate
and depot level
maintenance711754754754754


104 S.Rept. 110-84, p. 69.

FY2008
FY2008 FY2008 Emerg.
FY2007a FY2008 House Sena t e FY2008 P.L.110-
EnactedRequestPassedPassedEnacted161
Acquisit io n,
Co nst r uct io n,
and
Improvements 1 ,306 949 834 991 993 96
Vessels and
Cr itical
I nfr astr uc tur e 2 7 9 9 9 4 5 36
Aircraft15
Othe r
Equipment 116 114 114 174 173 60
Integr ated
Deepwater b
System1,046788 591770651
Shore facilities
and Aids to
Navigation2238383841
Personnel and
Related
Support81183183
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 Presidents Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-
181, and S.Rept. 110-84, 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).
a. Does not include $30 million in supplemental appropriations for the ACI account per P.L. 110-28;
also does not include a $120 million transfer from Department of Defense, Navy O&M, nor a
$26 million rescission from the OE account as per P.L. 110-28.
b. The DHS FY2008 Budget Justification requests $788 million which reflects the cancellation of $49
million from the FY2006 Appropriations (P.L. 109-90) for the Offshore Patrol Cutter, as stated
in the FY2008 Budget Appendix, p. 469.
Issues for Congress. Increased duties in the maritime realm related to
homeland security have added to the Coast Guard’s obligations and increased the
complexity of the issues it faces. Members of Congress have expressed concern with
how the agency is operationally responding to these demands, including Coast Guard
plans to replace many of its aging vessels and aircraft.
Deepwater. The Deepwater program is a $24 billion, 25-year acquisition
program to replace or modernize 91 cutters, 124 small surface craft, and 244 aircraft.
The Coast Guard’s management and execution of the program has been strongly
criticized and several hearings were held on the program in 2007. For FY2008, the
President requested $788 million for the program. The House provided $591 million
for the program, which is $197 million less than the President requested, and
withholds $400 million of this amount until the appropriations committees in the
House and Senate receive and approve a detailed expenditure plan from the Coast



Guard. The House Report continues to identify a number of concerns with the
Deepwater program.105 The Senate provided $770 million for Deepwater which is
$18 million less than the President’s request and requires the Coast Guard to submit
an expenditure plan within 60 days of enactment of the appropriations bill. The
Senate also required an independent qualified third party to conduct an “alternative
analysis” before the Coast Guard’s acquisition of additional major assets not already
under contract and before acquisition of a third National Security Cutter. P.L. 110-
161 provides $651 million for Deepwater, which includes rescissions for unmanned
aerial vehicles and offshore patrol cutters and is $137 million less than the President
requested. The Act calls for a detailed program expenditure plan from the Coast
Guard, and requests the GAO to review this plan. Issues for Congress include the
Coast Guard’s management of the program, which is the largest and most complex
acquisition effort in Coast Guard history, the overall cost of the program, and the
program’s time-line for acquisition. These issues are discussed in CRS Report
RL33753, Coast Guard Deepwater Program: Background, Oversight Issues, and
Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
Security Mission. Some Members of Congress have expressed strong
concerns that the Coast Guard does not have enough resources to carry out its
homeland security mission. A GAO audit raises this concern with respect to the106
security of energy tankers. About 22% of the Coast Guard’s FY2008 budget
request is for its “port, waterways, and coastal security” (PWCS) mission.107 The
DHS Inspector General reports that the resource hours devoted to the PWCS mission
has increased by a factor of 13 compared to pre-9/11 levels and that in FY2005 (the
most recent year data is available), the PWCS mission consumed almost as many
resources as all of its non-homeland security missions combined.108
For monitoring harbor traffic, the President’s FY2008 request included $12
million to continue procurement plans and analysis for deployment of a nationwide
system to identify, track, and communicate with vessels in U.S. harbors, called the
Automatic Identification System (AIS). This system is currently operational in
several major U.S. ports.109 A GAO review of this system during an earlier stage of
its development recommended that the Coast Guard partner with private and public
organizations willing to develop AIS facilities on shore at their own expense, in order


105 H.Rept. 110-181, pp. 71-75.
106 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.
107 DHS Budget in Brief, p. 52.
108 DHS, Office of Inspector General, Annual Review of Mission Performance: United States
Coast Guard (FY2005), OIG-06-50, July 2006. “Resource hours” is measured by the
number of flight hours (for aircraft) and underway hours (for vessels) dedicated to a specific
mission. Because the marine safety and marine environmental protection missions are
personnel intensive rather than asset intensive, these two missions are not included in the
Inspector General’s analysis.
109 Coast Guard FY2008 Budget Justification, Strategic Context, p. CG-SC-7.

to reduce the cost and speed up development of AIS nationwide.110 In its FY2008
Coast Guard budget review, the GAO reports that the Coast Guard has partnered with
private entities in Tampa, Florida and Alaska.111 The GAO also reports that this
system is being implemented in three phases. The first phase is expected to be
completed in September 2007 when the Coast Guard expects to track, but not
communicate with, vessels in 55 ports and nine coastal areas. The last phase is
planned to be completed in 2014 when the Coast Guard will be able to track ships as
far as 2,000 nautical miles from shore and communicate with them when they are
within 24 nautical miles from shore.
In the House Report (H.Rept. 110-181), the House committee recommended an
additional $40 million above the President’s request for the Coast Guard to carry out
new security-related requirements mandated in the SAFE Port Act (P.L. 109-347).112
These additional funds are for establishing interagency port security operational
centers, which are centers for federal and local law enforcement to share intelligence,
monitor harbor traffic, and coordinate response activities; and for establishing a port
security training program.
In the Senate Report (S.Rept. 110-84), the Senate committee also provided
additional funds to the Coast Guard to carry out mandates in the SAFE Port Act.
Specifically, it provides an additional $60 million to establish interagency port
security operational centers (noting that only three centers currently exist), $15
million for the security of hazardous materials shipping, and $15 million to double
the frequency of security spot checks at ports, conduct vulnerability assessments at
high risk ports, and develop AIS for long range tracking of ships. Senate-passed H.R.
2638 (section 571) required the Coast Guard to report on the progress of establishing
an interagency port security operational center at the Port of Charleston.
Division E of P.L. 110-161 provides $59 million for port and cargo security,
which includes $29 million for small boats and crews for ship escorts and boardings,
security zone enforcement, and marine inspectors, and nearly $5 million for long-
range vessel tracking. Division E of the Act provides $60 million for interagency
port security operational centers as proposed by the Senate and specifies what is to
be included in the Coast Guard’s report on the interagency port security operational
center at the Port of Charleston. At a October 4, 2007, Senate Commerce Committee
hearing, the Coast Guard testified that it expects these port security operational
centers to cost a total of $260 million to roll out at U.S. high-priority ports.
Specialized Teams. The President’s budget proposed establishing a
“Deployable Operations Group” (DOG) as a means of coordinating the Coast
Guard’s various specialized teams, namely the Maritime Security Response Team,
Maritime Safety and Security Teams, Tactical Law Enforcement Teams, National


110 GAO, Maritime Security: Partnering Could Reduce Federal Costs and Facilitate
Implementation of Automatic Vessel Identification System, GAO-04-868, July 2004.
111 GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, Performance,
Reorganization, and Related Challenges, April 18, 2007, GAO-07-489T, p. 27.
112 H.Rept. 110-181, p. 65.

Strike Force, and Port Security Units.113 The DOG is intended to facilitate cross-
training and standardization of tactics, procedures, and equipment among these teams
and enable the Coast Guard to improve its “all hazards ... all threats” response
capability.114 The GAO reports that this reorganization will affect approximately
2,500 personnel and while it has not reviewed this reorganization specifically, it
notes that obtaining “buy-in” from the affected personnel may be a challenge.115
The Senate Committee required the Coast Guard to submit a detailed report on
its reorganization plans within 90 days of enactment and required the GAO to review
this report.116
Non-homeland Security Missions. Some Members of Congress have
expressed concern that with the Coast Guard’s emphasis on its maritime security
mission, the agency may have difficulty sustaining its traditional, non-homeland
security missions, such as fisheries enforcement or marine environmental
protection.117 The latest annual review of the Coast Guard’s mission performance by
the DHS Inspector General found that in FY2005 the Coast Guard’s resource hours
for its non-homeland security missions increased for the first time since September118
11, 2001, due in large part to its response to Hurricane Katrina. The IG reports that
in FY2005, the Coast Guard’s total non-homeland security resource hours were
within 3% of pre-9/11 levels. The GAO reports that over the past five years, Coast
Guard performance trends show that increased homeland security activities have not119
prevented the agency from meeting its non-homeland security mission goals.
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. Last fiscal year, Congress provided $40 million to continue
deployment of the new system, which began in 2002, and requested that the Coast
Guard brief the Committees on Appropriations on a quarterly basis. A GAO audit
of the program found a tripling of project cost from the original estimate, a likely
further cost increase in the near future, and further delays in project completion,


113 Coast Guard FY2008 Budget Justification, Operating Expenses, p. CG-OE-32.
114 For additional information on the Coast Guard’s security mission, see CRS Report
RS21125, Homeland Security: Coast Guard Operations — Background and Issues for
Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
115 GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, Performance,
Reorganization, and Related Challenges, April 18, 2007, GAO-07-489T, p. 18.
116 S.Rept. 110-84, p. 69.
117 For information on Coast Guard environmental protection issues, see CRS Report
RS22145, Environmental Activities of the U.S. Coast Guard, by Mark Reisch and Jonathan
L. Ramseur.
118 DHS, Office of Inspector General, Annual Review of Mission Performance: United States
Coast Guard (FY2005), OIG-06-50, July 2006.
119 GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, Performance,
Reorganization, and Related Challenges, April 18, 2007, GAO-07-489T, p. 2.

which is already five years behind schedule.120 The President’s FY2008 budget
requested $81 million for Rescue 21: for system installation at seven locations,
infrastructure preparation at 12 locations, and full-rate production of the ground
support system through design at ten locations.121 The Senate agreed with the
President’s request of $81 million for Rescue-21. P.L. 110-161 provides $80 million,
expresses concern for the number of outages that have been recorded with the system,
and requests the Coast Guard to provide quarterly briefings on its plans to address the
outages.
The GAO’s FY2008 Coast Guard budget review notes that while Rescue-21 was
originally intended to limit gaps to 2% of coverage area, that target has now
expanded to a less than 10% coverage gap.122
LORAN-C. As in the FY2007 request, the FY2008 request proposed
terminating the LORAN (Long-Range Aids to Navigation) -C system which helps
boaters (including commercial fishermen) and pilots determine their location using
radio signals. 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. 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 whether123
to decommission 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.
In the House Report (H.Rept. 110-181) and the Senate Report (S.Rept. 110-84),
the committees deny the President’s request to terminate LORAN-C. The committees
note that a team of officials from DHS and DOT evaluated the system in late 2006
and concluded that LORAN-C should be maintained as a back up system. P.L. 110-
161 also denies the request to terminate LORAN-C and notes that an Administration
policy decision on the future of LORAN-C is expected to be completed by March 1,

2008.


Bridge Alteration Program. The President’s FY2008 request proposes
transferring the Bridge Alteration Program (a program to alter or remove bridges that
are obstructing navigation) from the Coast Guard to the Maritime Administration,
which is housed in the Department of Transportation. Consistent with prior requests,
the President requests no new funding for this program. In FY2007, Congress
appropriated $16 million. In the House Report (H.Rept. 110-181) and the Senate


120 GAO, United States Coast Guard: Improvements Needed in Management and Oversight
of Rescue System Acquisition, GAO-06-623, May 2006.
121 DHS Budget-in-Brief, p. 55.
122 GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, Performance,
Reorganization, and Related Challenges, April 18, 2007, GAO-07-489T, p. 3.
123 Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 4, January 8, 2007, pp. 796-797.

Report (S.Rept. 110-84), the committees denied the President’s request to transfer
the program to the DOT124 and both committees recommended $16 million for the
program. P.L. 110-161 concurs with the House and Senate committees.
U.S. Secret Service
The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) has two broad missions — criminal
investigations and protection.125 Criminal investigations activities encompass
financial crimes, identity theft, counterfeiting, computer fraud, and computer-based
attacks on the nation’s financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure,
among other areas. The protection mission is the most prominent, covering the
President, Vice President, their families, and candidates for those offices, along with
the White House and the Vice President’s residence (through the Service’s
Uniformed Division). Protective duties extend to foreign missions in the District of
Columbia and to designated individuals, such as the DHS Secretary and visiting
foreign dignitaries. Separate from these specific mandated assignments, the Secret
Service is responsible for security activities at National Special Security Events
(NSSEs), which include the major party quadrennial national conventions as well as
international conferences and events held in the United States.126 The NSSE
designation by the President gives the Secret Service authority to organize and
coordinate security arrangements involving various law enforcement units from other
federal agencies and state and local governments, as well as from the National Guard.
Table 13 displays sub-account detail for Secret Service funding.
Table 13. U.S. Secret Service Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2008FY2008 Emerg.
Programs andFY2007FY2008HouseSenateFY2008P.L.11
ActivitiesEnactedRequestPassedPassedEnacted0-161
Protection of persons
and facilities$651697694694694
Protective intelligence
activities$5658585858
National Special
Security Events$11111
Presidential candidate
nominee protection$1885858585


124 H.Rept. 110-181, p. 67 and S.Rept. 110-84, p. 76.
125 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2008, Appendix, United States Secret Service, pp. 450 - 452; and United States Secret
Service, Fiscal Year 2008, Congressional Justification.
126 Congress appropriated $100 million for the FY2008 presidential nominating conventions
in Division B, Title II of P.L. 110-161.

FY2008
FY2008FY2008 Emerg.
Programs andFY2007FY2008HouseSenateFY2008P.L.11
ActivitiesEnactedRequestPassedPassedEnacted0-161
White House mail
screening$1627162716
Management and
administration$169176176176176
Rowley Training Center$5052525252
Domestic field
operations$236220226220220
International field
operations$2328282828
Electronic crimes
program$4445494545
Forensic support grants
for the National Center
for Missing and
Exploited Children
(NCMEC)$88888
Ac q uisitio n,
construction, and
improvements$44444
Total$1,2761,3991,3961,3961,385
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 Presidents Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-
181, and S.Rept. 110-84, 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).
President’s FY2008 Request. For FY2008, the President’s budget
submission requested an appropriation of $1,399 million for the protection and
criminal investigation missions of the Secret Service.127 This reflected an increase
of $123 million or nearly 10% over the FY2007 total of $1,276 million for the
Service.
House-passed H.R. 2638. For FY2008, the House proposed an
appropriation of $1,396 million for the protection and criminal investigation missions128
of the Secret Service. This reflected an increase of $120 million or 9% over the
FY2007 total of $1,276 million for the Service.
Senate-passed H.R. 2638. For FY2008, the Senate proposed an
appropriation of $1,396 million for the protection and criminal investigation missions


127 OMB, Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2008, p. 451.
128 H.R. 2638 (FY2008 DHS appropriations), Title II.

of the Secret Service.129 This reflected an increase of $120 million or 9% over the
FY2007 total of $1,276 million for the Service.
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E). For FY2008, Congress
appropriated $1,385 million for the protection and criminal investigation missions
of the Secret Service.130 This reflects an increase of $109 million or nearly 9% over
the FY2007 total of $1,276 million for the Service.
Title III: Preparedness and Response
Title III includes appropriations for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), and the
Office of Health Affairs (OHA). Congress expanded FEMA’s authorities and
responsibilities in the Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act (P.L. 109-295) and
explicitly kept certain DHS functions out of the “new FEMA.”131 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.


129 H.R. 2638 (FY2008 DHS appropriations), Title II.
130 P.L. 110-161, Division E, Title II.
131 P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1400.

CRS-75
Table 14. Title III: Preparedness and Response
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007 AppropriationFY2008 Appropriation
Operational ComponentFY2007 FY2007FY2007FY2007FY2008FY2008FY2008FY2008FY2008Emergency
Enacted Supp.Resc.TotalRequestHousePassedSenatePassedEnactedP.L.110-
161
s Directorate
Adminstraion383846403047
iki/CRS-RL34004 Infrastructure Protection and Information Security53424-1557653533522655
g/w
s.or US-VISIT362362462462362475275
leakt total93424-19571,1611,0359141,177275
://wikice of Health Affairs998107118118115117
httperrorism Fund -16-16
mergency Management Agency
Management and Administration53514549716685727724
Office of Grant Programs3,3872973,6842,1964,3074,1364,228110
U.S. Fire Administration41 4143434343
ublic health programs 34 34
Disaster relief 1,4874,256 a5,7431,6521,7001,6391,324 b
Flood map modernization fund199 199195230200220
National flood insurance fund (NFIF) c
al flood mitigation d



CRS-76
FY2007 AppropriationFY2008 Appropriation
Operational ComponentFY2007 FY2007FY2007FY2007FY2008FY2008FY2008FY2008FY2008Emergency
Enacted Supp.Resc.TotalRequestHousePassedSenatePassedEnactedP.L.110-
161
re-disaster mitigation fund100100100120120114
Emergency food and shelter151 151140153153153
aster assistance direct loan account1320 321111 1
t total5,9354,88710,8215,0427,2397,0176,807 b110
ubtotal: Title III6,9524,919-111,8696,3228,3928,0468,100 b385
iki/CRS-RL34004
g/w CRS analysis of the FY2008 Presidents Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-181, and S.Rept. 110-84, Division E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint
s.oratory Statement for Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating amendments to the budget request).
leak
No FY2007 funding for Title III was designated as emergency spending. Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds. Amounts in italics and
://wikiets show what the FY2008 request would look like if it had followed the FY2007 DHS account structure. For a more detailed analysis of the supplemental appropriations, please
httpr to Appendix I.
er P.L. 110-28, includes a $4,110 million emergency supplemental appropriation, a transfer to the DHS OIG of $4 million, and a transfer from the Small Business Administration
ster loan program of $150 million.
oes not include $2,900 million in FY2008 emergency supplemental funding for Disaster Relief enacted by P.L. 110-28.
nds derived from premium payments or transfers from the U.S. Treasury.
unds derived from NFIF transfers.



Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)132
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Congress passed the Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act (Title VI of P.L. 109-295, the FY2007
appropriations legislation) to address shortcomings identified in the reports published
by congressional committees and the White House. Based on those reports and
oversight hearings on many aspects of FEMA’s performance during the hurricane
season of 2005, the Post-Katrina Act expanded FEMA’s responsibilities within the
Department of Homeland Security and the agency’s program authorities relevant to
preparing for and responding to major disaster events.133 The FY2008 appropriations
legislation, based upon the Administration’s request, represents the first opportunity
of policymakers to fund the “new FEMA” and its efforts to implement many
provisions of the Post-Katrina Reform Act. It also provides Congress its first
opportunity to weigh in on the priorities it wished to see addressed within the budget.
President’s FY2008 Request. The President’s FY2008 request of $5,042
million for FEMA more than doubles the FY2007 enacted level of $2,464 million.
This dramatic increase reflects the intent of Congress, through the Post-Katrina Act,
to increase FEMA’s authority, move disaster preparedness programs back within
FEMA from the DHS Preparedness Directorate, and ensure that resources and
personnel are able to respond to catastrophes. The transfer of the majority of the
preparedness grant programs to FEMA accounts for $2,196 million of the increase.
Taking the Post-Katrina Act reorganization into account, the adjusted FY2007
enacted level for FEMA is $5,935 million. Another significant increase is in the
Operations and Support section of FEMA’s budget which would be increased by
$668 million to support the preparedness changes as well as other Post-Katrina Act
measures. Other changes proposed by the Administration for FY2008 include the
following:
!A $4 million decrease in the Flood Map Modernization Fund from
$199 million in FY2007 to $195 million in FY2008.
!FEMA’s budget no longer includes funding for the National Disaster
Medical System (NDMS), which was transferred to the Department
of Health and Human Services pursuant to the Post-Katrina Act.134
NDMS had been funded at $34 million for several years, as the sole
program in FEMA’s “Public Health Programs” account.


132 Prepared by Keith Bea, Specialist in American National Government and Fran McCarthy,
Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
133 For more information, see CRS Report RL33729, Federal Emergency Management
Policy Changes After Hurricane Katrina: A Summary of Statutory Provisions, Keith Bea,
Coordinator.
134 See the legislative history for the 109th Congress in CRS Report RL33589, The Pandemic
and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (P.L. 109-417): Provisions and Changes to Preexisting
Law, by Sarah A. Lister and Frank Gottron.

!An $11 million reduction in the Emergency Food and Shelter
Program (Title III of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act)
from $151 million to $140 million.
!Decreased funding from $47 million in FY2007 to $43 million in
FY2008 for the U.S. Fire Administration (this was the amount
enacted for FY 08).
House Passed H.R. 2638. The House approved an appropriations total that
exceeds the request by $2,197 million, most of which derives from increased funding
sought for the state and local programs account. The House-passed version of H.R.
2638 proposed $4,307 million for state and local programs, which is $623 million
more than the FY2007 appropriated amount of $3,684 million. Other areas in which
the House sought funding over the request are
!$20 million more for the pre-disaster mitigation fund,
!$35 million more for the flood map modernization project, and
! $13 million more for the emergency food and shelter program.
Also, the House approved funding for disaster relief as well as management and
administration at levels comparable to the request. The total amount approved by the
House for FEMA is $7,239 million; the Administration request totaled $5,043
million.
Senate Passed H.R. 2638. The Senate-approved version appropriated
$7,017 million, almost $2 billion more in funding for FEMA than requested. Similar
to the action taken by the House, the increase primarily rests in the state and local
programs account. The Senate approved version of the legislation proposes an
appropriation of $4,136 million for state and local programs, $452 million more than
the FY2007 appropriation of $3,684 million (including supplemental appropriations).
The other accounts for which the Senate recommended funding levels different from
that requested include
! a roughly $5 million increase for flood map modernization,
!funding for emergency food and shelter at $153 million ($13 million
more than the request), and
!$20 million more than requested for the pre-disaster mitigation fund.
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E). P.L. 110-161 appropriated
$6,807 million for FEMA. This total is less than what was approved by the Senate
($7,019 million) and the House ($7,239 million), but is considerably larger than the
President’s request ($5,043 million). The FEMA appropriation included increases
for a number of assistance programs, including
!$220 million for flood map modernization ($25 million more than
the President’s request);
!$114 million for pre-disaster mitigation ($14 million more than the
President’s request); and



!$153 million for the emergency food and shelter program ($13
million more than the President’s request).
FEMA Issues for Congress. The problematic response to Hurricane
Katrina and the slow recovery from the storm (as well as Hurricanes Rita and Wilma)
continue to be issues for Members of the 110th Congress. Members of Congress have
expressed concern with the delay in filling personnel vacancies in the agency, delays
in the final release of planning documents and guidance papers, delays in reports
mandated by P.L. 109-295, and continued reliance on outdated or inefficient systems
and technology. Issues that have been or might yet be discussed by Congress are
reviewed below.
Disaster Relief Fund. The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) usually accounts for
the great majority of FEMA’s spending. It is the DRF that funds the assistance made
available under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act (the Stafford Act).135
Congress appropriates supplemental funding for the DRF when annual
appropriations are not adequate for the DRF obligations needed to pay for recovery
projects associated with disasters from previous years (notably the reconstruction of
Gulf Coast states), current disaster activity for emergency response costs, and hazard
mitigation efforts to reduce the impact of disasters in future years.136 Funds for the
Gulf Coast hurricane season of 2005 have been included in five supplemental
appropriations statutes (P.L. 109-61, P.L. 109-62, P.L 109-148, P.L. 109-234, and
P.L. 110-28).
The issue before Congress concerns the use of supplemental appropriations
legislation to meet climbing costs of emergency assistance instead of requesting
sufficient funds at the start of the process. For example, in FY2007 the
Administration requested $1,500 million initially for the DRF; supplemental requests
added billions more. The request for FY2008 exceeds that for the previous fiscal
year by $200 million, to $1,700 million. The Senate set the mark for the DRF at
about $1,640 million. The final amount enacted was $1,324 million. While this is
a significant amount within the context of FEMA’s budget, the actual amount is
slightly below FEMA’s historical average of DRF spending (excluding outliers such
as Hurricane Katrina and the World Trade Center attacks). The smaller amount
below requested levels for the DRF was arrived at in the context of the recent DOD
Appropriations Act of November 11, 2007 (P.L. 110-116), which added $2.9 billion
to the DRF in funding that is available until expended.137


135 Additional information on the statutory and funding history of the DRF is presented in
CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations,
Eligible Activities, and Funding, by Keith Bea.
136 Historical information on supplemental appropriations is presented in CRS Report
RL33226, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Legislation for Disaster Assistance:
Summary Data FY 1989 to FY 2005, by Justin Murray, and Keith Bea.
137 For further information on DRF appropriations, see CRS Report RL33226, Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Legislation for Disaster Assistance: Summary Data, by Justin
Murray and Keith Bea.

The Senate Committee report addressed the accountability issue for the DRF by
requiring that FEMA “provide a detailed estimate” of DRF funding needed through
September 30, 2008 (not only the end of the fiscal year but toward the end of the
hurricane season). The Committee also called upon agency officials “to firmly
establish measurable thresholds for transparent decision making regarding federal
fiscal expenditures for disaster response.”138 The Omnibus Act also requests from
FEMA “a list of all contracts that were awarded on a sole source or limited
competition basis” as well as an estimate “of when available appropriations will be
exhausted, assuming an average disaster season.”139
Congress also may be concerned about accountability for DRF expenditures, in
particular when relevant programmatic expertise resides in an agency other than
FEMA. An example is the Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program
(CCP), authorized by the Stafford Act, which provides professional counseling
services to victims of a major disaster in order to relieve mental health problems.
FEMA and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) share
administrative duties for CCP. Though the program is funded through the DRF, it
is not clear which agency bears primary or ultimate responsibility for the program,
which has been associated with fiscal and programmatic challenges.140 Similarly,
questions have been raised about FEMA’s administration of the temporary housing
program, also funded through the DRF.141
In past years Congress has authorized or directed the transfer of money from the
DRF to other FEMA accounts to address identified needs or shortcomings. Some
may contend that the dispersion of money from the DRF reduces the amount needed
for disaster relief activities; others perceive the DRF to be an appropriate source of
funds to meet special needs related to the mission of the agency. For example, the
Office of Inspector General (OIG) has received funds in this manner to conduct
audits and investigations into the use of DRF funds. The Senate version of the
legislation continues this tradition with the transfer of $14 million to the OIG. The
Ominbus Act approved an even larger amount, $16 million, to be transferred to the
OIG. The bill also allows for the transfer of up to $48 million to fill agency
personnel vacancies and provide further opportunities to enhance the skills of the
workforce. The House did not include similar language. The House Appropriations
Committee noted its disapproval of the planned transfer of $48 million “to convert
temporary disaster employees into permanent positions.”142 The Omnibus Act


138 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2008, 110th Cong., 1st Sess., S.Rept. 110-84 (Washington: 2007), p. 104.
139 H.R. 2764, pg. 222.
140 See CRS Report RL33738, Gulf Coast Hurricanes: Addressing Survivors’ Mental Health
and Substance Abuse Treatment Needs, by Ramya Sundararaman, Sarah A. Lister, and Erin
D. Williams.
141 See CRS Report RL34087, FEMA Disaster Housing and Hurricane Katrina: Overview,
Analysis, and Congressional Options, by Francis X. McCarthy.
142 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
(continued...)

approved the $48 million figure for 250 positions along with an additional $12
million for “activities related” to the Stafford Act. However, of the previous $60
million, the bill stipulates that “$30 million shall not be available for transfer for
management and administration functions until the Federal Emergency Management
Agency submits an expenditure plan to the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House regarding the 250 positions.”143
Post-Katrina Reform Act Measures. In addition to the significant
resources needed for FEMA to administer preparedness grants, there are provisions
in the Post-Katrina Reform Act that, in seeking to improve the performance of
FEMA, necessarily expand the Agency’s coverage and areas of responsibility. Many
of these changes carry potentially large costs depending on the frequency and scope
of future disaster activity. However, they also hold the potential for vastly improved
service to disaster victims and their communities. Some of the areas for potentially
increased costs include the following.
!Federal contributions for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) for approximately the past five years has been set at 7.5%
of the total aid provided in a state after it receives a major disaster
declaration. The Post-Katrina Act modifies the HMGP provision to
provide 15% (for disasters with total damages under $2 billion),

10% (for disasters with damages between $2 billion and $10 billion),


and 7.5% (for disasters between $10 billion and $35.3 billion). The
House Committee report noted that HMGP assistance has been
“greatly underutilized” after Hurricane Katrina and directs FEMA to
report on needed policy changes and plans to direct funding as144
needed. Also related to mitigation, the Senate Committee report
makes reference to the recent finding that mitigation activities result
in cost savings and encourages incentives for such actions. The
Senate-approved version of the legislation includes a provision that
exempts certain hazard mitigation projects associated with
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita from pre-certification requirements.
This emphasis by the respective Committees is reflected in the
increased funding for both map modernization and the pre-disaster
mitigation fund.
!The Public Assistance (PA) program authority has been expanded in
several ways that could result in increased federal disaster spending.
First, the list of eligible applicants, previously defined by those that
provided “essential services of a governmental nature to the general
public,” can now be expanded by the President. Also, under this


142 (...continued)
Appropriations Bill, 2008, 110th Cong., 1st Sess., H.Rept. 110-181 (Washington: 2007), p.

108.


143 H.R. 2764, pg. 221.
144 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2008, 110th Cong., 1st Sess., H.Rept. 110-181 (Washington: 2007), p.

113.



2006 amendment, services do not necessarily have to be available
only to the general public. Second, the PA program statutory
authority establishes eligibility for some facilities previously
identified in regulations. Third, education facilities can apply
directly for Stafford Act assistance without first pursuing a Small
Business Administration loan. Finally, the post-Katrina Act includes
a Pilot Program for Public Assistance that seeks to provide
incentives to state and local governments to be more involved in the
PA work such as debris removal and repair projects. While one
intent of the provision is to reduce costs, the incentives provided
could result in an increase in the Federal cost share for participating
areas as well as reimbursement for base wages for local hires
employed by the state and local governments to accomplish this
work.
!Public Assistance costs will also increase the amounts paid out from
the Disaster Relief Fund as a result of P.L. 110-28, which waived the
state and local cost-share for Gulf Coast states that had infrastructure
damage due to Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, Dennis, and Rita. Other
cost-shares for disaster-related costs were also waived in that
legislation but will not amount to the significant increases in federal
costs inherent in large infrastructure repair projects.
!Another area of accelerated FEMA involvement that could increase
costs concerns expedited federal assistance. This may take the form
of earlier, and greater, technical assistance provided to a state for
precautionary evacuation measures as well as help with logistics and
communications.
!There are several administrative and service improvement provisions
in the Post-Katrina Act likely to result in increased outreach and
greater expenditures, including efforts to identify and assist the
disabled and disaster victims with limited English proficiency, assist
in the reunification of families following a disaster event, and
provide increased transportation assistance to victims. Another
deficiency identified in the wake of Hurricane Katrina concerned the
information systems used by FEMA. The Senate Committee report
included expectations that the agency is to adopt “cutting edge
technology” and ensure that technology is used effectively. To
achieve this goal, the Senate Committee included $6 million to be
awarded competitively for this purpose. While the Omnibus Act
does not specifically address this issue, it may be a part of the
additional Stafford Act funding that is transferred from the DRF as
previously noted. The Explanatory Statement by Congress does
reference a direction to FEMA to fund a program “at no less than



$6,000,000, based on competitive award, the completion of the
Document Management and Records Tracking System.”145
!The Post-Katrina Act authorizes case management to be an eligible
cost. Given the importance of this service and the potential caseload
that could require some of this assistance, higher costs will likely be
associated with providing this new form of assistance to major
disaster victims.
!The surplus trailers (manufactured housing) used by FEMA to
provide temporary shelters to disaster victims remains a point of
concern for some policymakers. The Post-Katrina Act addressed
concerns that the temporary housing provisions of the Stafford Act
required emendation. The House Committee report includes
language that directs the agency to examine the feasibility of making
surplus housing units available to homeless veterans.146 The Senate-
passed version also addresses the issue by including a requirement
that the FEMA Administrator provide training to agency officials,
including lawyers, on health concerns of disaster victims, and by
requiring that reports be prepared and programs established to
address the health concerns associated with FEMA trailers. The
Congress’ Explanatory Statement for the Omnibus Act states that
“the Committees on Appropriations direct the Inspector General to
report to the Committees on Appropriations, the Senate Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee regarding FEMA’s
decision-making regarding formaldehyde in trailers.”147
!Concern with preparedness for a catastrophic disaster led to the
inclusion in the Senate bill of a mandate that West Virginia and
Pennsylvania officials be consulted with regard to evacuations from
the National Capital Region.
Office of Grant Programs
The Office of Grant Programs within FEMA is responsible for facilitating and
coordinating DHS state and local 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


145 “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Obey, Chairman of the House Committee on
Appropriations, Regarding the Consolidated Appropriations Amendment of the House of
Representatives to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2764”, House of Representatives,
Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, H-16094, at [http://www.Congress.gov/cgi-
lis/query/CPr110:./temp/~r110XMMUPu], visited on January 31, 2008.
146 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, 2008, report to accompany H.R. 2638, 110th Cong., 1st Sess., June 8,

2007, (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 97.


147 Ibid, Obey, Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pg. H16094.

Management Reform Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-295), the work of the Office of Grant
Programs has been 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. Table 15
provides information on appropriations for state and local homeland security grant
programs.
Table 15. State and Local Homeland Security Programs
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 FY2008
FY2007a FY2008 House Sena t e FY2008 FY2008
Program Ena c t e d Request P a sse d P a sse d Ena c t e d Emerg.
State Homeland
Security Grantb
Program (SHSGP)52525055052595060
Urban Area Securityc
Initiative (UASI)770800850820820
Law Enforcement
T errorism
Prevention Program
(LETPP)375 400375
Port Security
Program320210400400400
Transit Security
Program275175400400400
Intercity Bus
Seurity Progam1212111212
Trucking Industry
Security Program129101616
E me r ge nc y
Operation Centers15
Buffer Zone
Protectio n 5 0 5 0 100 50 50
Assistance to
Firefighters (FIRE)662300805705750
E me r ge nc y
M a na ge me nt
Performance Grants
(EMPG) 250 200 300 300 300
Citizen Corps
Programs (CCP)1515171515
Metr o p o litan
Medical Response
System (MMRS)33 503341



FY2008 FY2008
FY2007a FY2008 House Sena t e FY2008 FY2008
Program Ena c t e d Request P a sse d P a sse d Ena c t e d Emerg.
Training, Technical
Assista nc e ,
Exercises, and
Evaluatio n 300 175 293 295 299
C o mme r c i a l
Equipment Direct
Assistance Grants50 204025
Interoperable
Co mmuni c a t i o ns
Grants 50 100 50
Real ID Grants505050
Re gio na l
Catastr o p hic
Preparedness Grants35 5035
To tal 3 ,684 2,196 4,307 4,136 4228 110
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 Presidents Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-
181, and S.Rept. 110-84, 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).
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. Includes FY2007 supplemental funding.
b. Of the $250 million requested for SHSGP, $63 million would be allocated for law enforcement
terrorism prevention activities.
c. Of the $800 million requested for UASI, $200 million would be allocated for law enforcement
terrorism prevention activities.
President’s Request. The President’s FY2008 requested $2,196 million for
state and local programs; $1,191 million less than the FY2007 appropriated amount
of $3,387 million. The Administration did not request funding for the Law
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP); instead it requested that $63
million of the $250 million sought for SHSGP and $200 million of the $800 million148
for UASI be used for law enforcement terrorism prevention activities. If funded
as proposed, this shift could have resulted in the availability of fewer funds for the
states — $188 million in FY2008 (versus $525 million in FY2007) for SHSGP
activities, and $600 million (versus $770 million in FY2007) for high threat urban
areas seeking to fund UASI activities.
House-Passed H.R. 2638. The House-passed appropriation of $4,307
million for state and local programs was $920 million more than the FY2007
appropriated amount of $3,387 million. The House would have provided funding for


148 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2008 Budget of the United States
Government, (Washington: GPO, 2007), Appendix, p. 480.

LETPP ( $400 million) even though the Administration had requested no line item
funding for the program. Additionally, contrary to the Administration request, the
House proposed funding for the Metropolitan Medical Response System ($50
million), Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Grants ($20 million),
Interoperable Communications Grants ($50 million), and Real ID Grants ($50
million).
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638. The Senate approved an appropriation of $4,136
million for state and local programs, $749 million more than the FY2007
appropriation of $3,387 million. Like the House, the Senate would have funded
LETPP ($375 million) even though the Administration had requested no line item
funding for the program, and would also have funded the Metropolitan Medical
Response System ($33 million), Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Grants
($40 million), Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grants ($50 million), and
Interoperable Communications Grants ($100 million).
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E). Congress appropriated
$4,228 million for state and local programs, $544 million more than the FY2007
appropriation of $3,684 million. There is no separate line item for LETPP; however,
in accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of the 9-11 Commission
Act (P.L. 110-53), grant recipients are to obligate no less than 25% of their State
Homeland Security Grant Program and Urban Area Security Initiative allocations on
law enforcement terrorism prevention activities. In addition, Congress appropriated
$15 million for Emergency Operation Centers (EOC), even though neither the House
nor the Senate had proposed funding for EOCs.149
$60 million in emergency funding — included in the $950 million for State
Homeland Security Grant Program — is for Operation Stonegarden. Operation
Stonegarden assists state and local law enforcement border security operations in four
Southwestern states.150 The remaining $50 million of emergency funding is for the
Real ID program.
Issues for Congress. Two issues appear to have dominated congressional
debate on the FY2008 request for homeland security grant funds — the method by
which funds are allocated among the states and the proposed reduction in Assistance
to Firefighters Grant Program (FIRE) appropriations. These issues are discussed
below.
Distribution Methods for State and Local Assistance. For years, since
publication of the final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon
the United States (often referred to as the 9/11 Commission), Members of Congress
have debated the formula or process to be used in distributing federal homeland
security grant funds. The 9/11 Commission recommended that funds should be


149 P.L. 110-161, Div. E, Title III.
150 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Press Secretary, “DHS Expands
Operation Stonegarden to Bolster Border Security Efforts,” available at
[http://test.rwb.gov.edgesuite.net/dhspublic/display?content=5332], visited January 24,

2008.



distributed based on threat and risk assessments. While debate has ensued on this
recommendation, certain program funds have been distributed pursuant to the
formula set out in Section 1014 of the USA Patriot Act (P.L. 107-56). This statute
guaranteed each state a minimum of 0.75% of total appropriations for domestic
preparedness programs.
The Administration requested that FY2008 funds for only the Emergency
Management Performance Grants (EMPG) and Citizen Corps Programs (CCP) be
distributed pursuant to the Section 1014 formula. Additionally, the Administration
proposed that SHSGP be a discretionary program, but guaranteed each state a
minimum of 0.25% of total appropriations. Certain Members of Congress did not
agree with this proposal. Neither the House-passed nor Senate-passed versions of
H.R. 2638 included provisions to alter the funding distribution method because the
issue was included in debate on other legislation, H.R. 1 and S. 4. With enactment
of this legislation (P.L. 110-53, Implementing the 9/11 Commission
Recommendations Act of 2007), FY2008 funding allocations will be based upon a
different formula. The minimum allocation for each state for SHSGP grants will be
0.375% of total SHSGP and UASI appropriations in FY2008, with the floor
eventually reduced to 0.35% of the total SHSGP and UASI appropriations in
FY2012.151 While some may contend that this agreement resolves the debate that has
been the focus of congressional attention for years, others might argue that SHSGP
would not be a discretionary program if there is a guaranteed minimum amount for
states each fiscal year.
Reduction in Appropriations for Assistance to Firefighters
Program. Administration budget proposals have typically recommended significant
cuts for fire grants, as well as zero funding for SAFER grants. 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
FY2008, the Administration proposed $300 million for fire grants in FY2008, a 45%
cut from the FY2007 level. No funding was proposed for SAFER grants. The total
request for Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) was 55% below the FY2007
level for fire and SAFER grants combined. The FY2008 budget proposal
eliminated grants for wellness/fitness activities and modifications to facilities for
firefighter safety. The budget justification requested funding for “applications that
enhance the most critical capabilities of local response to fire-related hazards in the
event of a terrorist attack or major disaster.” The budget justification also stated that
the requested level of funding is “an appropriate level of funding given the
availability of significant amounts of funding for first responder preparedness
missions from other DHS grant programs which are better coordinated with state and
local homeland security strategies and, unlike AFG, are allocated on the basis of
risk.”
On June 5, 2007, the House Appropriations Committee recommended an
appropriation of $570 million for fire grants and $230 million for the Staffing for
Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters (SAFER) program. The


151 P.L. 110-53, Title I, Sec. 101, “Sec. 2004,(e)(1)(A).”

Committee directed FEMA to: continue providing funds directly to local fire
departments; include the U.S. Fire Administration during the grant administration
process; maintain an all-hazards focus; and, not limit the list of eligible activities.
The Committee also expressed concern that large numbers of fire grant applications
never reach the peer review stage. The Committee report directed the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to review the application and award process for fire and
SAFER grants, and directed FEMA to peer review all grant applications that meet
basic eligibility requirements. On June 15, 2007, the House passed H.R. 2638,
including an amendment adding $5 million to the SAFER account. Thus, the final
House-passed bill provided $570 million for fire grants and $235 million for SAFER.
On June 14, 2007, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version
of the FY2008 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. As
reported, the bill would provide $560 million for fire grants and $140 million for
SAFER. The Senate Committee directed DHS to continue the present practice of
funding applications according to local priorities, as well as those established by the
United States Fire Administration. The Committee further directed DHS to continue
to direct funding to fire departments and to the peer review process. Additionally,
the Committee directed that $3 million be available for foam firefighter equipment
in remote areas. On July 26, 2007, the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2638 included
an amendment adding $5 million to the SAFER account. Thus, the final Senate-
passed bill provided $560 million for fire grants and $145 million for SAFER.
Division E of P.L. 110-161 provided $560 million for fire grants and $190
million for SAFER grants, a total of $750 million for firefighter assistance in
FY2008. As stated in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying P.L. 110-161,
$3 million was made available for foam firefighter equipment used in remote areas,
to be competitively awarded. GAO was directed to review the application and award
process for fire and SAFER grants, and FEMA was directed to peer review all grant
applications that meet criteria established by FEMA and the fire service.
Office of Health Affairs152
The Post-Katrina Act codified the position of Chief Medical Officer (CMO)
within DHS.153 The Administration budget request for FY2008 proposed the creation
of a new Office of Health Affairs (OHA) within DHS, to be headed by the CMO,
who would report to the Secretary through the Deputy Secretary, and have the title
of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs and Chief Medical Officer. According to
the FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justification,154 the OHA would consist of
three main divisions: (1) Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Biodefense; (2)
Medical Readiness; and (3) Component Services. The WMD and Biodefense
Division would lead the department’s biodefense activities, including the BioShield
and BioWatch programs, which would be transferred from the Science and


152 Prepared by Sarah A. Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology, Domestic
Social Policy Division.
153 6 U.S.C. § 321e.
154 FY2008 DHS Congressional Justification, pp. OHA 2-3.

Technology Directorate (S&T), and the National Biosurveillance Integration System
(NBIS), which would be transferred from the former Preparedness Directorate. The
Medical Readiness division would oversee contingency planning, first responder
readiness, WMD incident management support, medical readiness grant
coordination, and assistance to the FEMA Administrator in emergency and disaster
response. The Component Services division would oversee the department’s
occupational health and safety programs. The proposed structure has been
established, and Dr. Jeffrey Runge was confirmed as the first DHS Assistant
Secretary for Health Affairs on December 19, 2007.155
The Administration requested $118 million for OHA for FY2008. This
included a funding increase of $17 million, in addition to $100 million for the
following transfers:
!$5 million from the former Preparedness Directorate, for the Office
of the Chief Medical Officer;
!$82 million from the S&T Directorate, for BioWatch Operations and
the Biological Warning and Incident Characterization (BWIC)
programs;
!$3 million from the S&T Directorate, for the Rapidly Deployable
Chemical Defense System (RDCDS);
!$1 million from the S&T Directorate for personnel support for
BioWatch, BWIC, and RDCDS;
!$8 million from the former Preparedness Directorate for NBIS; and
!$1 million from the former Preparedness Directorate for personnel
support for NBIS.156
House-passed H.R. 2638 recommended $118 million for OHA, but directed that
$2 million of the amount requested for BioWatch Operations be used instead to enter
into a grant or contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to evaluate the
effectiveness of the program.
Senate-passed H.R. 2638 recommended $115 million for OHA, including the
full amount requested for BioWatch Operations, but $3 million less than requested
for salaries and expenses.
The enacted FY2008 appropriation provided $117 million for OHA, including
$24 million — slightly more than was requested — for salaries and expenses, and up
to $2 million for an NAS evaluation of the BioWatch program.


155 See DHS, Office of Health Affairs, at [http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_

0880.shtm].


156 Ibid. Numbers do not add due to rounding.

National Protection and Programs Directorate157
The National Protection and Programs (NPP) Directorate is a new directorate
formed by the Secretary for Homeland Security in response to the Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006. This act deconstructed the
Preparedness Directorate by transferring preparedness activities and responsiblities
back to a new reconstructed Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The
act required the Office of Grants and Training (which runs the agency’s Homeland
Security Grants Program), the U.S. Fire Administration, the Chemical Stockpile
Emergency Preparedness Division, the Radiological Emergency Preparedness
Program, and the Office of the National Capital Region Coordination, be transferred
from the Preparedness Directorate to the new FEMA, as well. The remaining
functions of the old Preparedness Directorate, primarily related to critical
infrastructure protection, and grouped under the Infrastructure Protection and
Information Security Program, were not transferred. The Secretary, under his own
authority, transferred the Office of the Chief Medical Officer to a new Office of
Health Affairs.
Additional elements were also added to the new NPP. The Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act established the Office of Emergency
Communications, combining within it a number of disparate programs from other
parts of the department aimed at facilitating communications between first
responders and policy makers during times of crisis. The act placed the Office of
Emergency Communications under the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and
Communications, who now reports to the Under Secretary for National Protection
and Programs. In addition, the Secretary, under his own authority, transferred the
US-VISIT program to this new directorate. Also under his own authority, the
Secretary established an Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to act as liaison between
state and local officials and the Directorate, and elevated the Risk Management
Division of the Office of Infrastructure Protection into a separate Office of Risk
Management and Analysis, reporting directly to the proposed Under Secretary.
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(US-VISIT) 158
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 within DHS159 and that would have reported directly to the


157 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources,
Science and Industry Division.
158 Prepared by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
159 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)
(continued...)

Secretary. The appropriators did not provide funding for the SCO, however, and US-
VISIT became a stand-alone office within Title II of the DHS appropriation in
FY2006.160 In FY2008, DHS is proposing to move US-VISIT into a new entity, the
National Protection Programs Directorate (NPPD). In its Section 872 letter, DHS
states that it is relocating US-VISIT to the NPPD “to support coordination for the
program’s protection mission and to strengthen DHS management oversight.”161
President’s Request. The Administration requested $462 million for US-
VISIT in FY2008, an increase of $100 million over the FY2007 enacted level.
Included in the Administration’s request is an increase of $146 million to convert the
entry system to 10 fingerprint capability, and a decrease of $31 million for pilot
programs to test the exit component of the system.162
House-Passed H.R. 2638. The House fully funded the Administration’s
request for US-VISIT in FY2008, including the $228 million requested to implement
10 finger-print capability for entry purposes. The House also withheld $232 million
from the overall appropriation for US-VISIT pending the submission, and approval
by the Committee, of an expenditure plan. This plan should include a complete
schedule for the full implementation of a biometric exit component within five years,
or a certification that a cost-effective solution is not technically feasible in five years.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638. The Senate recommended an appropriation of
$362 million for US-VISIT in FY2008, $100 million less than the President
requested. The Senate committee noted that DHS has large unobligated balances for
the US-VISIT program in making its recommendation. The Senate also withheld
$100 million from obligation pending the receipt of a comprehensive expenditure
plan for the US-VISIT program.
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E). H.R. 2764 provides $475
million for the US-VISIT system, including $275 million in emergency funding. The
$13 million provided above the President’s request is included in order to expedite
the implementation and deployment of an air and sea exit component. The bill
withholds $125 million from obligation until an expenditure plan has been reviewed
by GAO and approved by the Committees on Appropriations. DHS is also required
to provide quarterly briefings on the implementation of the US-VISIT system,
including their coordination with WHTI, SBI, and other DHS efforts related to border
security and the interdiction of terrorist travel.


159 (...continued)
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
160 H.Rept. 109-241.
161 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.
162 DHS FY2008 Justification, p. US-VISIT 3.

Issues for Congress. There are a number of issues that Congress may face
relating to the implementation of the US-VISIT system and its proposed transfer to
the NPPD. These issues may include whether the Administration’s decrease in
funding for the exit component and focus on expanding the entry component of the
system is appropriate, whether U.S. Visit should be placed administratively within
the NPPD or whether there is some other configuration within DHS that is better
suited to US-VISIT’s mission, and whether the current POE infrastructure can
support the added communication load that a 10 fingerprint system would likely
require.
Administrative Placement Within NPPD. Some question whether the
administrative placement of US-VISIT within the proposed NPPD is appropriate.163
Most of the other DHS components that would comprise the NPPD focus on
infrastructure protection and government-wide coordination and were previously
located within the Office of Infrastructure Protection at DHS. While an argument
could be made that US-VISIT supports the protection of critical infrastructure by
preventing terrorists from entering the country, a counter-argument could be made
that US-VISIT’s primary role is immigration-related and relates to screening
individuals as they enter the country. Some observers, including the GAO, have
noted that the US-VISIT program would benefit from stronger management
oversight, especially in light of the program’s continuing inability to formulate a
strategic plan.164 However, there is some doubt concerning whether the NPPD would
be the best fit within DHS for US-VISIT given the seeming disparity between US-
VISIT and the other proposed components of the NPPD. A possible issue for
Congress could include whether US-VISIT should be placed administratively within
the NPPD or whether there are other administrative placements that would be more
appropriate. Possible options, should Congress decide against placing US-VISIT
within the NPPD, could include leaving US-VISIT as a stand-alone entity within
DHS reporting directly to the Undersecretary, or placing it within CBP to bolster US-
VISIT’s immigration control aspects. Both the House and Senate passed bills would
leave US-VISIT within the NPPD.
10 Fingerprint Entry Versus the Exit Component. In its FY2008
request, DHS appears to be moving toward implementing a 10 fingerprint entry
component to the US-VISIT system rather than electing to implement the system’s
exit component. In congressional testimony, DHS acknowledged that it has stopped
actively testing technologies associated with the exit component of the system,165 and
the FY2008 request includes a reduction of $31 million for exit pilot programs.
Instead, DHS appears to be focusing on expanding the entry component of the system
to include 10 fingerprint enrollment and interoperability with other federal
government fingerprint databases. Possible issues for Congress may include whether


163 For example, H.R. 1684, as amended during committee markup, would prohibit this
transfer until DHS submits a plan for implementing the US-VISIT program’s exit
component at all ports of entry.
164 GAO Testimony, February 2007, p. 19.
165 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Technology, and Homeland Security, US-VISIT: Challenges and Strategies for Securing thethst
U.S. Border, 110 Cong., 1 Sess., January 31, 2007.

these goals are mutually exclusive, and whether DHS should continue to work on the
exit component of the system as it expands the entry component. H.R. 2638 fully
funded the Administration’s request for the implementation of a 10 fingerprint entry
capability. However, the House Committee on Appropriations voiced concern over
the “lack of a clear plan, with timelines and milestone goals, for addressing an exit
strategy.”166 The House also noted that, while the implementation of the exit
component at the land border may not be feasible with current technology, “the
failure to exploit the foundation for air exit solutions is incomprehensible — as are
current plans to terminate the existing air pilots, rather than use them to fill a gap
until a permanent solution can be found.”167 Senate-passed H.R. 2638 also fully
funded the Administration’s request for the implementation of 10 fingerprint entry
capability. However, the Senate Committee on Appropriations “is deeply
disappointed that the Department has achieved no tangible progress on instituting an
‘exit’ capacity in over 4 years.”168 Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would withhold $100
million from obligation pending the committee’s approval of a comprehensive US-
VISIT plan. P.L. 110-161 supports the move toward a 10 fingerprint entry-system
and directs US-VISIT to oversee and manage the efforts to provide real-time
interoperability between the DHS Automated Biometric Identification System
(IDENT) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (IAFIS). The conference report names this effort “Unique
Identity” and places US-VISIT in charge of its implementation. The conferees
express their disappointment with the lack of an exit solution for the US-VISIT
system, and note that they are providing $13 million in FY2008 to implement an exit
solution at air and sea POE by the end of 2008. They also direct DHS to assess the
feasibility of an exit solution at land POE and report on its findings.
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security169
Within DHS, those activities which coordinate the national effort to identify the
nation’s most critical infrastructure assets and to prioritize risk reduction activities
at those sites are located in the Infrastructure Protection and Information Security
(IPIS) Program. For the most part, these activities were left in place following the
reorganizations mentioned above. One notable exception was the transfer of the
Biosurveillance program/project activity (PPA) to the new Office of Health Affairs.
In addition, funding for the new Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) falls
within this program.
President’s FY2008 Request. The President’s request for the FY2008 IPIS
program was $653 million. While many of the activities of the IPIS program were
left in place, the President’s request did make some changes that make it difficult to
compare the FY2008 requested figures with the FY2007 enacted figures presented
in the President’s budget. In the FY2008 budget request, a number of IPIS


166 H.Rept. 110-181, p. 89.
167 H.Rept. 110-181, p. 89.
168 S.Rept. 110-84, p. 86.
169 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources,
Science and Industry Division.

program/project activities (PPAs — Critical Infrastructure Outreach and Partnerships,
Critical Infrastructure Identification and Evaluation, National Infrastructure
Simulation and Analysis Center, and Protective Actions) were combined into a single
PPA called Infrastructure Protection (IP). In addition, the President’s request
transferred certain expenses (such as facility rents and information technology
support), previously paid for by each PPA, to the NPPD’s Management and
Administration account, while proposing that each sub-program pick up their own
related salaries and benefits. Salaries and benefits were previously paid for in an IPIS
Management and Administration PPA. Tracking these transfers is beyond the scope
of this document. The FY2007 enacted figures noted below in Table 16 are based
on House and Senate reports accompanying their respective appropriation bills.
Presumably, these FY2007 enacted figures reflect the changes made in the new
FY2008 budget categories.
The President’s budget identified 6 programmatic increases totaling
approximately $38 million. The largest of these was $15 million to expand the
Chemical Site Security Program (within the IP PPA) to support development,
implementation, and oversight of the new regulations being promulgated on selected
sites that handle certain amounts of selected hazardous chemicals. The other
relatively large increase was $11 million to accelerate activities associated with the
Department’s Wireless Priority Service responsibility (within the NS/EP PPA). The
budget also identified 3 areas where program reductions were made, with $30 million
in various IP PPA activities being scaled back. These included, among others,
reductions in management and implementation of the National Infrastructure
Protection Plan (made possible according to DHS by completion of Sector Specific
Plans), deferral of some capabilities of the Automated Critical Asset Management
System, reductions in the Bomb Prevention Program and some Infrastructure
Planning, Training and Exercise Programs. Table 16 provides PPA-level detail for
IPIS.
House-Passed H.R. 2638. The House appropriated $533 million for the
IPIS program, providing more funds for Infrastructure Protection (IP) and the Office
of Emergency Communications (OEC) than requested, and less funds for Computer
Security (CS) and National Security/Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications
(NS/EP). Within the IP PPA, the House provided $20 million more than requested
for continued management and implementation of the National Infrastructure
Protection Plan. It did not accept the argument that the release of the Sector Specific
Plans could allow for a reduction in effort. The increase included $3 million for
greater administrative and logistical support for the Sector Coordinating Councils,
through which DHS interacts with the private sector on critical infrastructure
protection. The House also provided $10 million more than requested for the
National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center. Within the OEC PPA, the
House provided $8 million more than requested for interoperability integration and
technical assistance to State and local entities. Regarding the reduction made in the
NS/EP request, the House did not feel that DHS had justified the large increase
requested for a Next Generation Network so soon after the anticipated successful
completion of the current Wireless Priority Service program. The House provided
$18 million, instead of the $52 million requested. The House bill also contained
provisions that would preclude federal regulations from preempting stronger state
and local regulations governing security at chemical facilities.



Senate-Passed H.R. 2638. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would provide $522
million for IPIS. Similar to the House, the Senate Committee on Appriopriations
recommended additional funding for IP and OEC, while recommending less for CS
and NS/EP than requested. Within the IP PPA, the Committee recommended
increases for implementing security regulations at chemical facilities (+ $15 million)
and for the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (+ $9 million).
Within the OEC PPA, the Committee recommended an increase of $12 million for
the Interoperable Communications Integration and Technical Assistance program.
Similar to the House, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended less
funding than requested for the Next Generation Network, within the NS/EP PPA
(recommending $30 million instead of the $52 million requested). In addition,
during floor debate, the Senate agreed to Amendment 2468 which specified that $10
million shall be provided to the Office of Bombing Prevention and not more than $26
million should be provided for the Next Generation Network (reducing it further than
the Committee recommendation). The full Senate also agreed to Amendment 2502,
amending the Homeland Security Act, authorizing the Secretary to regulate the sale
of ammonium nitrate. The amendment also authorized $2 million to implement this
authority, to be funded through the IPIS program. Ammonium nitrate is an
ingredient used in fertilizers that can also be used to make homemade bombs like that
used in the Oklahoma City bombing. The Senate also agreed to S.Amdt. 2465, which
provides an additional $5 million to firefighter assistance grants by reducing the
amount provided to IPIS by $5 million. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 thus includes $522
million for IPIS.
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E). The Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008, provided $655 million for the IPIS program. This
included the additional $115 million the Administration requested for Cyber Security
as part of an amended budget request dated November 6, 2007, and reversed earlier
recommendations by both chambers to appropriate less than what was requested for
that program. The $115 million increase represents a down payment on a larger
cyber security initiative expected to be announced later this calendar year. The Act
also provided $50 million for implementing the chemical facility security regulations,
another $10 million above what the Senate recommended, and double the
Administration’s request. The Act provided $20 million for the National
Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center, an increase of about $4 million above
the requested level, but not as great an increase as proposed by either chamber. The
Act provided $31 million for NIPP implementation, an increase of $8 million above
the request, but less than what the House recommended. The Act split the difference
between the House and the Senate regarding the the NS/EP Next Generation Network
project, appropriating $21 million. While both chambers had recommended
increasing funding for the Office of Emergency Communications, the Act
appropriated the amount requested by the Administration.



Table 16. FY2008 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure
Protection and Information Security Appropriation
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008
Program FY07 FY08 FY08 FY08 FY08 Emerg.
Project ActivityTotalReq.HouseSenateEnactedP.L.
110-161
M/A55
IP250240272256273
CS922138792210
NS/EP143165129128136
OEC1736464636
Undistributed
reduction-5
Total557653533522655
M/A=Management and Administration; IP=Infrastructure Protection; CS=Computer Security;
NS/EP=National Security/Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications; OEC=Office of Emergency
Co mmuni c a t i o ns.
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 Presidents Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-
181, and S.Rept. 110-84, 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).
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. FY2007 enacted figures reflect changes in the expenditures covered in the FY2008 budget request,
making FY2007 and FY2008 figures comparable. They do not represent the actual enacted
figure for the IPIS program at the time of enactment.
Issues for Congress. Some IPIS-related issues that were of interest to
Congress include the quality of the budget requests; chemical facility regulations;
and the location of risk management funding.
Quality of Budget Requests. The consolidation of some of the IPIS PPAs
may make some activities less visible and give the Secretary more discretion to
transfer funds within the IPIS budget. Both the House and the Senate Appropriations
Committee criticized the level of detail and clarity of the NPPD budget justification
document and the apparent transfer of funds without their knowledge. The Senate
Appropriations Committee went further to say that the consolidation appeared to be
an effort to obfuscate. Both went on to specify lower-level line-item funding for
individual program areas within the IP and NS/EP PPAs. The Senate Appropriations
Committee also cut the NPPD’s request for its Management and Administration
account by $16 million and withheld half ($15 million) of its recommended funding
from obligation until the Committee receives and approves an expenditure plan that



has been reviewed by the Government Accountability Office. The Act reiterated
congressional concerns but reduced the fenced off funds to $5 million.
Chemical Facility Regulations. Both the House and the Senate
Appropriations Committee were concerned about the chemical facility security
regulations developed by DHS which preempt State and local regulations. The
House bill included language that specifically prevents federal regulations from
precluding or preempting stronger State and local regulations. The Senate
Appropriations Committee included similar language, unless “there is an actual
conflict” between Section 550 of the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act of 2007 (P.L. 109-295), the provision of federal law authorizing
DHS to regulate security at chemical facilities, and the State law. The Senate
language seems to be in response to the White House Statement of Policy regarding
H.R. 2638, which “strongly opposes” the House language. One rationale given by
the White House for opposing the House language is that it would prevent the
Department from preempting State or local laws that “actually conflict with and/or
impede the Federal regulatory requirements....” The White House also stated that the
language would weaken the Department’s ability to protect information transmitted
to the Department for regulatory purposes from disclosure, although it does not
elaborate on how this would do so. Industry has expressed concern that some state-
level freedom of information statutes are too accommodating to making information
available to the public. The Act included the Senate provision.
Location of Risk Management Funding. As part of the reorganization of
the National Protection and Programs Directorate, the Secretary elevated the Division
of Risk Management to the Office of Risk Management and Analysis. The Director
of the new Office reports directly to the Undersecretary for National Protection and
Programs. The President’s request included $9 million for this Office, stating that
the funds were reflected in each of the IPIS PPAs and the NPPD’s Management and
Administration account. The House version of the appropriations bill would fund
this Office out of the NPPD’s Management and Administration account. The Senate
Appropriations Committee did not make a comparable recommendation. The Act
provided $9 million for the Office from the NPPD’s Management and Administration
account.
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 17 provides account-level details of Title IV appropriations.



CRS-98
Table 17. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007 AppropriationFY2008 Appropriation
FY2008
Operational ComponentFY2007 FY2007FY2007FY2007FY2008FY2008HouseFY2008SenateFY2008Emerg.
Enacted Supp.Resc.TotalRequestPassedPassedEnactedP.L.
110-161
hip and Immigration Services
tal available budget authority1,98681,9942,5692,5692,5892,620
Offsetting feesa-1,804 -1,804-2,539-2,539-2,539-2,539
iki/CRS-RL34004ubtotal (Direct appropriation)1828190303050 b8180
g/waw Enforcement Training Center275327826326326628921
s.ornd Technology
leak Management and Administration134 -1133143131141139
://wikich, Development, Acquisition, and Operations6245629656646697692 Subtotal7585-1762799777838830
http
estic Nuclear Detection Office
Management and Administration30 3034313232
ch, Development, Acquisition, and Operations27335308320317336324
stems Acquisition178100278208208182130
Subtotal481135616562556550485
oss budget authority: Title IV3,500151-13,6504,1934,1654,2434,224101
fsetting collections: Title IV-1,804-1,804-2,539-2,539-2,539-2,539
budget authority: Title IV1,696151-11,8461,6541,6261,7041,685101
CRS analysis of the FY2008 Presidents Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-181, and S.Rept. 110-84, Division E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint
atory Statement for Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating amendments to the budget request).



CRS-99
Amounts in parentheses are non-adds. Totals may not add due to rounding.
include Immigration Examination Fund; H-1b Visa Fee; and the Fraud Prevention and Detection fee.
ate-passed H.R. 2638 also includes an additional $60 million in emergency funding (not shown in Table 17) for USCIS Employment Eligibility Verification System, that is
to be taken from the $3,000 million emergency appropriation included in Senate-passed H.R. 2638 as a part of the Border Security First Act of 2007.


iki/CRS-RL34004
g/w
s.or
leak
://wiki
http

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 asylum claims, and related humanitarian and
international concerns.171 USCIS funds the processing and adjudication of
immigrant, nonimmigrant, refugee, asylum, and citizenship benefits largely through
monies generated by the Examinations Fee Account.172 Table 17 shows FY2007
appropriations and congressional actions in response to the FY2008 request.
President’s FY2008 Request. USCIS is a fee driven agency. As part of the
former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), USCIS was directed to173
transform its revenue structure with the creation of 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, come
from the adjudication fees of immigration benefit applications and petitions. In the
President’s FY2008 budget request, the agency requested $30 million in direct
appropriations. The remaining $2,539 million of the appropriations requested would
be funded by revenues from collected fees.
As Table 18 below shows, the requested USCIS budget for FY2008 is
approximately $2,569 million. This requested amount constitutes and increase of
$583 million or 29% over the enacted appropriation amount from FY2007. The
requested direct appropriation of $30 million would be designated for the Employer174
Eligibility Verification Program (EEV), while all other program and operations
would be fee funded. Of the requested funds for FY2008, $1,981 million, or roughly
77%, would fund the USCIS adjudication services. A plurality of these adjudication
funds would go towards pay and expenses with an allocation of $764 million, while


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 FY2006, the USCIS
shares of revenues in these accounts were approximately $13 million and $16 million
respectively, and these funds combined for roughly 3% of the USCIS budget (U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Fiscal Year

2008 Congressional Budget Justifications).


174 EEV is also known as E-Verify.

district operating expenses would receive $552 million and service center operating
expenses would be allocated $354 million, respectively. Business transformation
initiatives for modernizing systems and improving agency information sharing and
efficiency would receive $139 million. The President’s budget request also includes
requested funding levels of $162 million for information and customer services, $375
million for administration, and $21 million for the Systematic Alien Verification for
Entitlements (SAVE) Program.
Table 18. USCIS Budget Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2008 FY2008 Emerg.
FY2007 FY2008 House Sena t ea FY2008 P.L.
Program/Project ActivityEnactedRequestPassedPassedEnacted110-161
Appropriations
Appropriatio ns 182 b 30 30 110 81 80
Business47
T r ansfo r ma tio n
SAVE21
EEV114303090 c6060
FBI Background202120
Check
Fee Accounts
Adjudication Services1,4191,9811,9811,9811,981
Pay & Benefits625764764764764
District Operating385552552552552
Expenses
Service Center267355355355355
Operating Expenses
Asylum/Refugee7591919191
Operating Expenses
Records Operating6781818181
Expenses
Business139139139139
T r ansfo r ma tio n
Information and144162162162162
Customer Services
Administration241375375375375
SAVE 21212122
Total USCIS Funding1,9862,5692,5692,649 c2,62080



Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 Presidents Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-
181, and S.Rept. 110-84, 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).
a. The table does not include a proposed appropriation of $523,000 to benefit parole programs. Thus,
the total proposed appropriation in Senate-passed H.R. 2638 is $110,523,000.
b. The table does not include a supplemental appropriation of $8 million for FY2007 included in P.L.
110-28.
c. Includes an additional $60 million in emergency funding (SA 2518) for USCISs Employment
Eligibility Verification System, which is to be taken from the $3,000 million emergency
appropriation included in Senate-passed H.R. 2638 as a part of the Border Security First Act of
2007.
House-Passed H.R. 2638. The appropriations bills on homeland security
offer different funding proposals in the two congressional chambers. The House-
passed version of the USCIS appropriations is identical to the agency’s request, but
H.Rept. 110-181 expressed some concerns that committee members had regarding
USCIS fees and operations. The report expressed concern regarding the potential
hardship the fee increase may create for some applicants, and Members directed175
USCIS to review its fees on a more regular basis. Moreover, the report would
require USCIS to submit a report to the committee with the FY2009 budget request
on whether the fee increase resulted in service improvements, including reductions
in USCIS adjudication times and FBI backlogs. Finally, the House Members
expressed continuing support for USCIS’ business and information technology
transformation and internal security improvements, while urging the immediate176
publication of the final regulation rule on U-Visas.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638. In the course of considering the DHS budget,
the Senate chose to adopt H.R. 2638 and employ the language of S. 1644 in the
nature of a substitute. Although similar to the President’s budget request in most
respects, the Senate appropriations proposal would supplement the agency’s request
of $30 million for the EEV program with an additional $80.5 million in direct
appropriations. Of these funds, $20 million would be appropriated for FBI
background checks, and $523,000 would be for benefit parole programs.177 In the
S.Rept. 110-84, the committee members expressed their concern about the FBI
backlogs for background checks submitted by USCIS and the length of time it
currently takes to process security background checks. Additionally, the committee
would require that the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General


175 H.Rept. 110-181 also directs USCIS to ensure that all its ongoing base operations are
fully funded by fees prior to initiating any new initiatives.
176 The U-Visa is a nonimmigrant visa designed for issuance to victims of domestic violence
and other heinous crimes. It was originally enacted in the Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act of 2000. (P.L.106-386)
177 According to S.Rept. 110-84, on March 31, 2007, the Secretary of Homeland Security
transferred this amount of funds to the Cuban-Haitian Entrant Program, the Moscow
Refugee Program, and the Humanitarian Parole Program within USCIS from U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of Investigations (International). The
Senate Report recommends that this transfer become permanent.

submit a plan to comprehensively deal with the FBI backlogs, and it would require
USCIS to submit quarterly reports on the status of USCIS application processing and
its backlog reduction plan.
In addition to the FBI-related funding, the Senate also adopted two amendments
during floor debates that relate to USCIS funding. First, the Senate stipulated in
S.Amdt 2518 that a further $60 million be made available in direct appropriations for
the EEV program. These funds would be drawn from the supplemental funds
provided for under the border security measures of S.Amdt. 2480 to H.R. 2638.
These funds would be used to ensure that state and local programs have sufficient
access to and coordination with the EEV system and that the system has sufficient
capacity for the registration and inquiries of employers in states with EEV
registration requirements. Also the funds would be used for the development of
privacy and security policies and protection. Secondly, S.Amdt. 2526 stipulated that
not less than $1 million of USCIS funding be set aside for a benefits fraud
assessment of the H-1B Visa Program.
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E). Division E of P.L. 110-161
differs from the House-passed and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 2638 in several
ways. First, it provides a direct appropriation of $60 million for the EEV program.
Additionally, the Act includes the $21 million direct appropriation to reduce the FBI
name check backlog that was originally included in Senate-passed H.R. 2638. The
Act also includes the Senate-proposed appropriation of $523,000 for benefit parole
programs, as well as an appropriation of $450,000 for USCIS to expand its
immigration services programs in areas with large populations of underserved
immigrant populations. The latter appropriation was not included in either version
of H.R. 2638. The total amount of direct appropriations for USCIS from Division
E of P.L. 110-161 is $80.9 million.
Issues for Congress. The 110th Congress may faced a number of issues
relating to legal immigration and USCIS’ role in the process during the FY2008
appropriations cycle. These issues may include whether the Administration’s
proposed fee increases for visa applicants should be implemented or whether there
are alternatives to fee increases that could be considered, whether USCIS is
effectively dealing with their adjudication backlog, and whether the proposed fee
structure would provide sufficient funding to cover the elimination of the USCIS
backlog.
Scheduled Fee Increase. On May 30, 2007, USCIS published a new fee
schedule for immigration adjudications and benefits set to take effect on July 30,

2007. These fee adjustments would constitute the first fee revision since October 26,


2005, and would increase application fees by a weighted average of 96% for each
benefit.178 USCIS officials claim the fee increase is necessary to maintain proper


178 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
(continued...)

service levels and to avoid the accumulation of backlogs.179 Congressional reactions
to these proposed fees have been strong and divergent. Some opponents of the fees
have called for congressional action to prevent the new fees from being implemented.
Although generally not opposed to the increased revenue for USCIS, the fee increase
opponents want USCIS to implement a sliding scale fee structure or request direct
appropriations to offset the benefit costs for lower income families.180 Fee increase
supporters contend that the proposed fee structure would help deter possible public
charges from applying for immigration benefits. These fee proponents further
contend that the immigration benefits these individuals receive are a “good deal” by
world standards, even under the proposed fee structure.181
Adjudication Backlog. The fee increase has also raised issues and questions
concerning the adjudications backlog that USCIS has worked towards reducing.
USCIS Director Emilio T. Gonzalez has stated that the current backlog of
applications for immigration benefits has been significantly reduced, and that the
share of the backlog due to factors under the control of USCIS was approximately182
65,000. Critics continue to be concerned, however, about the more than 1 million
additional applications that have been pending for more than six months that USCIS
does not count in its backlog figures, and that the seriousness of the USCIS backlog
is masked by changes in the agency’s backlog definition.183 Critics are also
concerned about delays that are allegedly caused by the FBI’s National Name Check
Program.184 Since FY2002, Congress has appropriated $574 million towards backlog
reduction efforts at USCIS, including $494 million in direct appropriations.


178 (...continued)
Application and Petition Fee Schedule; Proposed Rule,” Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 21
(February 1, 2007), p. 4888)
179 Ibid, p. 4892.
180 For example, in the House Chamber, Representatives Gutierrez and Shakowsky
introduced H.R. 1379, which would prevent USCIS from increasing the citizenship
application fees to levels above application processing costs.
181 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, The Proposed Immigrationthst
Fee Increase, 110 Cong., 1 sess., February 14, 2007
182 Ibid.
183 The DHS Inspector General has expressed concern that the changing backlog definitions
“will not resolve the long-standing processing and IT problems that contributed to the
backlog in the first place. (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector
General, USCIS Faces Challenges in Modernizing Information Technology, OIG-05-41
(September 2005), p. 28) The USCIS Ombudsman also criticized the definition changes,
saying that “these definitional changes hide the true problem and the need for change” (U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Service Ombudsman,
Annual Report 2006, June 29, 2006, p. 9).
184 For example, see S.Amdt. 1228 to S. 1348.

It has been the stated goal of President George W. Bush to reduce the
application processing time for immigration to a six month standard.185 Some argue
that in order for USCIS to be able to accomplish this goal, it needs a fee structure that
more accurately reflects the cost of processing immigration benefit applications.
USCIS claims that the proposed fees are more aligned with the agency’s adjudication
costs.186 Some additionally believe that the fee increases would be necessary in order
for USCIS to handle any potential future increases in applications. Since USCIS is
fee funded, any passage of comprehensive immigration reform legislation that
includes either earned legalization or a temporary worker program would likely result
in a significant increase in the number of incoming applications.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)187
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center provides training on all phases
of law enforcement instruction, from firearms and high speed vehicle pursuit to legal
case instruction and defendant interview techniques for 81 federal entities with law
enforcement responsibilities, state and local law enforcement agencies, and
international law enforcement agencies. Training policies, programs, and standards
are developed by an interagency Board of Directors, and focus on providing training
that develops the skills and knowledge needed to perform law enforcement functions
safely, effectively, and professionally. FLETC maintains four training sites
throughout the United States and has a workforce of more than 1,000 employees.
President’s Request. The overall request for FLETC in FY2008 is $263
million, a decrease of $12 million from the FY2007 appropriation. The
Administration is proposing the creation of a FLETC Fund to replace the Salaries and
Expenses account within FLETC. For FY2008, the fund would be capitalized with
$220 million in a no year revolving fund that would allow for the development of a
reimbursable cost module. The new fund would include funding for 1,077 positions
including an increase of seven new instructors to support the Secure Border Initiative
(SBI) at CBP. As part of SBI, FLETC estimates it will need to provide basic training
for 4,350 USBP agents in order to add a net total of 3,000 agents to the USBP
workforce. 188
House-Passed H.R. 2638. The House fully funded the Administration’s
FY2008 request for FLETC. However, the House did not approve the
Administration’s proposal to replace the salaries and expenses account within


185 Remarks by the President at INS Naturalization Ceremony (July 10, 2001), at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010710-1.html], visited March 9,

2007.


186 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit Application and Petition Fee
Schedule; Proposed Rule,” Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 21 (February1, 2007), pp. 4893-

4894.


187 Prepared by Blas Nuñez-Neto, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
188 DHS FY2008 Congressional Budget Justification, pp. FLETC Fund 3-6.

FLETC with a no-year revolving fund, asserting that “the current funding
mechanisms utilized for FLETC appear to be working well.”189
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638. The Senate recommended $266 million for
FLETC in FY2008, $3 million more than the Administration requested. Included in
the recommendation is $1 million for the construction of a detention training facility
within the Artesia, new Mexico FLETC.
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E). P.L. 110-161 provides $289
million for FLETC; however, it rejects the Administration’s FLETC fund proposal.
The Act extends FLETC’s rehired annuitant authority through December 31, 2010.
Science and Technology (S&T)190
The Directorate of Science and Technology is the primary DHS organization for
research and development. Headed by an Under Secretary for Science and
Technology, it performs R&D in several laboratories of its own; funds R&D
performed by universities, industry, the national laboratories, and other government
agencies; and manages operational systems. See Table 19 for details of the
directorate’s appropriation.
President’s FY2008 Request. The Administration requested a total of $799
million for S&T for FY2008. This was 18% less than the FY2007 appropriation of
$973 million, but about half of the proposed reduction was in operational programs
that were transferred from S&T to other parts of the department (Biowatch and
related programs from the Biological and Chemical program and Safecom from the
Command, Control, and Interoperability program). Including these transfers and a
$125 million rescission of unobligated balances, the FY2007 enacted amount was
$758 million (not including supplementals and rescissions included in P.L. 110-5 or
P.L. 110-28). A proposed $41 million reduction in the Explosives program was due
to the completion of efforts to develop a prototype for protecting commercial aircraft
against shoulder-launched missiles. A proposed $51 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-Passed H.R. 2638. The House, citing unfilled staff positions in the
S&T Directorate, provided $12 million less than the request for Management and
Administration. It rejected the $14 million request for procurement of third-
generation BioWatch units in the Biological and Chemical program. It provided $10
million more than the request for University Programs and instructed the S&T
Directorate to report by February 1, 2008, on how it selects university Centers of
Excellence, determines the research topics for Centers, and evaluates the quality of
their work. The House provided no funding for the Analysis, Dissemination,


189 H.Rept. 110-181, p. 117.
190 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Analyst in Science & Technology, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.

Visualization, Insight, and Semantic Enhancement (ADVISE) program, a data-
mining tool, and prohibited obligation of funds for ADVISE until DHS completed
a privacy impact assessment.191 Several other smaller changes added up to a net
decrease of $10 million in Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638. The Senate provided an increase of $41 million
in Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations over the request for FY2008.
Within this total, reductions relative to the request included $13 million from the
Biological and Chemical program, $14 million from Innovation, and zero funding for
ADVISE. Increases included $18 million for Explosives to counter car bombs and
other improvised explosive devices, $40 million for Infrastructure and Geophysical
earmarked for the Southeast Region Research Initiative and the Regional Technology
Integration initiative, and $15 million for Laboratory Facilities earmarked for Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory. The Senate provided a reduction of $2 million in
Management and Administration.
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E). The final appropriation
included an increase of $35 million in Research, Development, Acquisition, and
Operations and a reduction of $4 million in Management and Administration. The
Chemical and Biological program received $21 million less than requested, including
$8 million less for third-generation BioWatch procurement. Innovation received $27
million less, and the explanatory statement directed S&T to provide a plan for how
the program’s funds will be allocated. University Programs received $11 million
more than the request, and the explanatory statement called for a briefing similar to
the report called for by the House. Explosives received $14 million more, including
$15 million to counter car bombs and IEDs. The final appropriation included the
Senate earmarks for $55 million. It provided no funding for ADVISE or its follow-
ons or successors.
Issues for Congress. During the FY2008 appropriations cycle, Congress
and others were highly critical of the S&T Directorate’s performance. Among the
fundamental issues facing Congress are questions about the directorate’s mission, its
organization, its priorities and how they are set, its financial management, and the
transparency of its operations. A reorganization in late 2006 aligned the directorate’s
management structure with the presentation of its budget (with a division director
responsible for each italicized program in Table 19). The directorate’s university
centers of excellence are to be realigned to match the new organization, with new
centers being established for some topics and other topics being merged. After
several years of criticism for failing to spend funds that were appropriated, the
directorate reports progress in more rapidly obligating its FY2007 funding.


191 The assessment was published after passage of the House bill but before passage of the
Senate bill. DHS Privacy Office, Review of the Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization,
Insight and Semantic Enhancement (ADVISE) Program, July 11, 2007.

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office192
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 19 for details of the appropriation for DNDO.
President’s FY2008 Request. The Administration requested a total of $562
million for DNDO for FY2008. This was a 17% increase from the FY2007
appropriation. A proposed $47 million increase in Research, Development, and
Operations would focus primarily on the Transformational R&D program, whose
goal is to identify, develop, and demonstrate technologies that fill major gaps in the
nuclear detection architecture. A proposed $30 million increase in Systems
Acquisition would go to begin implementation of the Securing the Cities initiative
in the New York City area.
House-Passed H.R. 2638. The House provided the requested amount for
Systems Acquisition. A reduction of $40 million, including a reduction of $20
million in the Securing the Cities initiative, was recommended by the House
committee but was reversed by a floor amendment. The House reduced Management
and Administration and Research, Development, and Operations by $3 million each.
The House report directed DNDO not to procure Advanced Spectroscopic Portal
(ASP) systems until it certifies that they are more effective than traditional radiation
portal monitors.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638. Compared with the request, the Senate provided
a reduction of $2 million in Management and Administration, an increase of $16
million in Research, Development, and Operations, and a reduction of $26 million
in Systems Acquisition. The largest change relative to the request was a shift of $29
million from Systems Acquisition to Research, Development, and Operations. Of
this amount, $20 million would be spent on screening general aviation aircraft for
illicit nuclear materials. A floor amendment increased funding for the Securing the
Cities initiative to the requested amount: $30 million in Systems Acquisition and
$10 million in Research, Development, and Operations. The Senate bill would
prohibit obligation of funds for full-scale procurement of ASP monitors until DHS
provides the report and certification called for by the FY2007 conference report
(H.Rept. 109-699).
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E). The final appropriation
provided $90 million less than the request for Systems Acquisition. As in previous
years, it prohibited full-scale procurement of ASP monitors until their performance
has been certified by the Secretary. Recognizing “the difficulty the Secretary faces”
in making this certification, it provided funds for the National Academy of Sciences
“to assist the Secretary in his certification decisions.” It also required the
certification to be made separately for primary and secondary deployments. The final


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

appropriation included the requested amount for Securing the Cities and $13 million
related to screening of general aviation aircraft.
Issues for Congress. Congressional attention has focused on criticism of
a cost-benefit analysis that DNDO conducted to support its decision to purchase and
deploy next-generation ASP technology for radiation portal monitors.193 With
DNDO funding increasing and S&T funding decreasing, the relative role of the two
organizations also remains an issue of congressional interest. The DNDO was
funded in the S&T account in FY2006, and before that year, nuclear and radiological
R&D were the responsibility of the S&T Directorate. In the FY2007 appropriations
cycle, the House committee report expressed dissatisfaction with the transfer of
DNDO out of S&T and directed S&T to work with DNDO and support its
R&D-related needs (H.Rept. 109-476). Meanwhile, the Senate committee report for
FY2007 directed DNDO to work with S&T rather than start a duplicative university
grant program (S.Rept. 109-273).
Table 19. Research and Development Accounts and Activities,
FY2007-FY2008
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008
FY2008 FY2008 Emerg.
FY2007 a FY2008 House Sena t e FY2008 P.L.
Enacted RequestPassedPassedEnacted110-161
Science and
Techno lo g y b
Directorate973 799777838830
Management andc
Administration 135143131141139
R&D, Acquisition, and
Operations838656646697692
Borders and Maritime
Security3326262525
Chemical and Biologicalc314229215216208
Command, Control, andd
Interoperability 6364616257
Explosives10564648278
Human Factors71313714
Infrastructure and
Geophysical7524246465
Innovation3860524633


193 See, for example, Government Accountability Office, Combating Nuclear Smuggling:
DHS’s Decision to Procure and Deploy the Next Generation of Radiation Detection
Equipment Is Not Supported by Its Cost-Benefit Analysis, GAO-07-581T, testimony before
the House Committee on Homeland Security, March 14, 2007.

FY2008
FY2008 FY2008 Emerg.
FY2007 a FY2008 House Sena t e FY2008 P.L.
Enacted RequestPassedPassedEnacted110-161
Laboratory Facilities1068989104104
Test and Evaluation,
Standards2526292429
Transition2425262425
University Programs4939493949
Homeland Security
Institute55
Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office481562556550485
Management and
Administration3034313232
Research, Development,
and Operations273320317336324
Systems Acquisition178208208182130
U.S. Coast Guard
Research,
Development, Testing,
and Evaluation1718182625
Subtotal DHS R&D:1,4711,3791,3511,4141,340
Rescission of
unobligated funds from
prior years-125
Total DHS R&D:1,3461,3791,3511,4141,340
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 Presidents Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-
181, and S.Rept. 110-84, Division E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint Explanatory Statement
for Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121
(incorporating amendments to the budget request).
Notes: This table shows all DHS research and development activities, combining accounts from the
Directorate of Science and Technology, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, and the U.S. Coast
Guard to show the departments overall R&D budget. Totals may not add because of rounding.
a. Programs in the S&T Directorate have been realigned since the enactment of the FY2007
appropriation. For comparability, FY2007 funding is shown here in the new structure.
b. Including a rescission of $125 million, and the transfers outlined in notes c & d (below), the
FY2007 amount is $758 million.
c. Biowatch and related programs will be transferred from the S&T Directorate to the Office of
Health Affairs in FY2008. The enacted FY2007 funding for these programs in S&T consisted
of $1 million in the Management and Administration account plus $84 million in the Chemical
and Biological program of the R&D, Acquisition, and Operations account.
d. Safecom will be transferred from the S&T Directorate to the National Protection and Programs
Directorate in FY2008. Its enacted FY2007 funding in S&T was $5 million in the Command,
Control, and Interoperability program of the R&D, Acquisition, and Operations account.



FY2008 Related Legislation
Budget Resolution — H.Con.Res. 99/ S.Con.Res. 21
The annual concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth the congressional
budget. The House introduced H.Con.Res. 99 on March 23, 2007 and passed the
budget resolution on March 29, 2007. H.Con.Res. 99 would provide $955 billion in
discretionary budget authority for FY2008. The Senate introduce S.Con.Res. 21 on
March 16, 2007 and passed the budget resolution on March 23, 2007. S.Con.Res. 21
would provide $942 billion in discretionary budget authority for FY2008. The House
and Senate appointed conferees to resolve the differences between the two
resolutions and adopted a conference agreement on May 16, 2007. The House and
Senate adopted the conference report (H.Rept. 110-153) on May 17, 2007. The
conference report provides $954 billion in discretionary budget authority for FY2008.
There is currently no separate functional category for Homeland Security in the
budget resolution. However, homeland security budget authority amounts are
identified within each major functional category, though these amounts are typically
not available until the publication of the committee reports that accompany the
budget resolutions.



Appendix I. Emergency Funding for Border Security
in The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
(P.L. 110-161)
This Appendix describes the distribution of $3,000 million ($3.0 billion) in
emergency funds for border security throughout the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).194 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, and the
remaining $250 million is included in Division D — Financial Services.
Distribution of FY2008 Emergency Border Security Funding
in Division E — Department of Homeland Security of P.L. 110-
161
As noted above, $2,710 million ($2.7 billion) in emergency funding was
distributed among several accounts in Division E of P.L. 110-161. The funds are
distributed as follows: $1,531 million ($1.5 billion) for CBP; $527 million for ICE;
$166 million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $275 million for USVISIT; $110 million for
S&L programs; $80 million for USCIS; and $21 million for FLETC.
CBP FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations. The $1,531
million ($1.5 billion) in FY2008 emergency funding for CBP is disbursed as follows,
by account and amount:
!Salaries and Expenses: $323 million
!$40 million for the Model Ports of Entry program and
includes funding to hire at least 200 additional CBP
officers at the 20 U.S. international airports with the
highest number of foreign visitors arriving annually;
!$45 million for terrorist prevention system
enhancements for passenger screening — to develop
system infrastructure needed to support a real-time
capability to process advanced passenger information
for passengers intending to fly to the U.S.;
!$36 million to implement the electronic travel
authorization program for visa waiver countries;
!$150 million for the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative (WHTI);


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

!$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
!$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 —195
Operation Stonegarden;
!$50 million for REAL ID196 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-Verify197 program;
!$20 million for the FBI background check backlog.
FLETC FY2008 Emergency Border Security Appropriations. The $21
million in FY2008 emergency funding for FLETC is disbursed as follows, by amount
and account:
!Salaries and Expenses: $17 million
!$17 million for law enforcement training
!Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses: $4
million
!$4 million for construction.
Distribution of FY2008 Emergency Border Security Funding
in Division B — Commerce, Justice, Science of P.L. 110-161
Division B — the Commerce, Justice, Science portion of P.L. 110-161 —
contains border security-related emergency funding to provide additional resources
that will be required as a result of an anticipated increase in immigration enforcement
actions.
Department of Justice (DOJ) FY2008 Emergency Border Security
Appropriations. The $40 million in FY2008 emergency funding for DOJ is
disbursed as follows, by amount and account:


195 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.
196 Grants to assist states in implementing the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005
regarding the issuance of state driver’s licenses and state identification cards.
197 The E-Verify program was previously referred to as the Employment Eligibility
Verification program and is administered by USCIS.

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



Appendix II. FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations
and Rescissions
P.L. 110-28 (H.R. 2206) — U.S. Troop Readiness, Veteran’s
Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007198
Following the failure of the House to override the President’s veto of H.R. 1591,
the House introduced two new bills that would provide supplemental appropriations
for FY2007 H.R. 2206, and H.R. 2207. The House passed H.R. 2206 on May 10,

2007. On May 17, 2007, the Senate adopted an amendment in the nature of a199


substitute (S.Amdt. 1126) which contained no specific funding figures. On May
24, 2007, the House adopted two amendments to the Senate amendment which were
adopted by the Senate later that day. P.L. 110-28 was signed into law by the
President on May 25, 2007.
P.L. 110-28. P.L. 110-28 provides a total of $5,190 million for DHS agencies
and accounts. Provisions providing funding for DHS are contained in Titles II, III,
IV, and V. Title II provides an additional $3,400 million for the FEMA disaster
relief. Title III provides the following amounts:
!Analysis and Operations — $8 million;
!CBP Salaries and Expenses — $72 million;
!CBP AMO Operations and Procurement — $75 million;
!FLETC — $3 million;
!ICE Salaries and Expenses — $6 million;
!TSA Aviation Security — $390 million;
!TSA Federal Air Marshals — $5 million;
!NPPD Office of Health Affairs — $8 million;
!NPPD IPIS — $24 million;
!FEMA Management and Administration — $14 million;
!FEMA State and Local Programs — $247 million;
!FEMA Emergency Management Performance Grants — $50
million;
!USCIS — $8 million;
!S&T Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations — $5
million;
!DNDO Research, Development, and Operations — $35 million; and
!DNDO Systems Acquisition — $100 million.


198 For more detailed information concerning H.R. 2206 see CRS Report RL33900, FY2007
Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, Foreign Affairs, and Other Purposes, by Stephen
Daggett, Amy Belasco, Pat Towell, Susan B. Epstein, Connie Veillette, Curt Tarnoff, Rhoda
Margesson, and Bart Elias.
199 See CRS summary of S.Amdt. 1126 to H.R. 2206 at [http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/
bdque r y/ z? d110: HR02206: @@@D&s umm2 = m&: dbs = n : ] .

Title IV of H.R. 2206 provides a total of $710 million to DHS. Of this amount, $4
million is for the DHS OIG and $706 million is for FEMA disaster relief. Section
6401 of Title V of H.R. 2206 makes up to $30 million in unobligated USCG Retired
Pay balances available until expended. Section 5404(a) of Title IV of H.R. 2206
rescinds funds from several different DHS accounts totaling approximately $31
million. Section 5404(b) provides additional appropriations of $30 million to the
USCG Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements account, and $1 million to the
Office of the Under Secretary for Management.
H.R. 1591 — U.S. Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Health,
and Iraq Accountability Act200
H.R. 1591 was introduced in the House on March 20, 2007, and was passed by
the House on March 23, 2007. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 1591 on March

29, 2007. The conference agreement was passed by the House on April 25, 2007,


and by the Senate on April 26, 2007. The President vetoed the bill on May 1, 2007.
On May 2, 2007 the House failed to override the President’s veto by a vote of 222-
203. The following section describes the amount that would have been provided for
DHS in the conference version of the bill.
Conference (H.Rept. 110-107). Titles I, II, and IV of the conference version
of H.R. 1591 included funding provisions pertaining to DHS accounts. The
conference version of H.R. 1591 would have provided a total of $6,851 million for
DHS. This amount was $141 million more than was recommended by House-passed
H.R. 1591, and $541 million more than was recommended by Senate-passed H.R.

1591. Title I would have provided the following amounts:


!Analysis and Operations — $15 million;
!CBP Salaries and Expenses — $110 million;
!CBP AMO Operations and Procurement — $120 million;
!FLETC — $5 million;
!ICE Salaries and Expenses — $10 million;
!TSA Aviation Security — $970 million;
!TSA Federal Air Marshals — $8 million;
!Office of Health Affairs — $15 million;
!NPPD IPIS — $37 million;
!FEMA Management and Administration — $25 million;
!FEMA State and Local Programs — $553 million;
!FEMA Emergency Management Performance Grants — $100
million;
!USCIS — $10 million;
!DNDO Research, Development, and Operations — $39 million; and
!DNDO Systems Acquisition — $224 million.


200 For more detailed information concerning H.R. 1591 see CRS Report RL33900, FY2007
Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, Foreign Affairs, and Other Purposes, by Stephen
Daggett, Amy Belasco, Pat Towell, Susan B. Epstein, Connie Veillette, Curt Tarnoff, Rhoda
Margesson, and Bart Elias.

Title II of the conference adopted version of H.R. 1591 would have provided a total
of $4,610 million to DHS. Of this amount, $4 million was for the DHS OIG and
$4,606 million was for FEMA disaster relief. Section 4404(a) of Title IV of the
conference version of H.R. 1591 would have rescinded funds from several different
DHS accounts totaling approximately $31 million. Section 4404(b) would have
provided additional appropriations of $30 million to the USCG Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements account, and $1 million to the Office of the Under
Secretary for Management.



Appendix III. 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 20 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 FY2008 accounts for approximately 49% of total
federal funding for homeland security. The Department of Defense comprises the
next highest proportion at 29% of all federal spending on homeland security. The
Department of Health and Human Services at 7.2%, the Department of Justice at
5.5% and the Department of Energy at 3.0% round out the top five agencies in
spending on homeland security. These five agencies collectively account for nearly
94% 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 FY2008 request included total
homeland security budget authority of $29.7 billion for DHS, the requested total
gross budget authority was $43.0 billion. The same is true of the other agencies
listed in the table.



Table 20. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency,
FY2002-FY2008
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008
DepartmentFY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006FY2007 FY2008Req.as % of
total
Department of
Ho me land 17,380 23,063 22,923 24,549 26,571 28,689 29,667 48.6%
Security
(DHS)
Department of
Defe nsea 16,126 15,413 15,595 17,188 17,510 16,538 17,461 28.6%
(DOD)
Department of
Health and
Huma n 1,913 4,144 4,062 4,229 4,352 4,313 4,424 7.2%
Services
(HHS)
Department of2,1432,3492,1802,7673,0263,1853,3315.5%
Justice (DOJ)
Department of1,2201,4081,3641,5621,7021,6971,8343.0%
Energy (DOE)
Department of4776346968241,1081,2401,4062.3%
State (DOS)
Department of
Agriculture 553 410 411 596 597 523 719 1.2%
(AG)
Department of
T r ansp o r tatio n 1,419 383 284 219 181 179 200 0.3%
(DOT )
Natio na l
Science 260 285 340 342 344 344 375 0.6%
Fo und a t i o n
( N SF)
Othe r 2,357 1,329 1,550 2,107 1,727 1,612 1,689 2.8%
Agencies
Total Federal
B udg et 43,848 49,418 49,405 54,383 57,118 58,319 61,105 100%
Autho r ity
Source: CRS analysis of data contained in “Section 3. Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” and Appendix
K of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2008 President’s Budget (for FY2006- FY2008); Section 3.
Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2006 President’s Budget
(for FY2004); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of Analytical Perspectives volume of the
FY2005 President’s Budget (for FY2003) and Office of Management and Budget, 2003 Report to Congress on
Combating Terrorism, Sept. 2003, p. 10; CRS analysis of FY2002-2006 re-estimates of DoD homeland security
funding provided by OMB, March 17, 2005.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. FY totals shown in this table include enacted supplemental funding.
Year to year comparisons using particularly FY2002 may not be directly comparable, because as time has gone
on agencies have been able to distinguish homeland security and non-homeland security activities with greater
sp eci fi ci t y