Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Congressional research reportJan 24, 2006

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Homeland Security Department: FY2006

Appropriations

(name redacted), Coordinator

Analyst in Domestic Security

January 24, 2006

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

RL32863

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Summary

This report describes the FY2006 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security

(DHS). The Administration requested a net appropriation of $30.6 billion in net budget authority

for FY2006, of which $29.6 billion is discretionary budget authority, and $1 billion is mandatory

budget authority. P.L. 109-90 was signed into law on October 18, 2005, and provides a net

appropriation of $31.9 billion for DHS and $30.8 billion in discretionary budget authority.

The President’s request for appropriations includes the following break out of net budget

authority for the four Titles of the DHS appropriation bill: (I) Departmental Management and

Operations, $748 million; (II) Security, Enforcement and Investigations, $20,566 million; (III)

Preparedness and Response, $6,710 million; and (IV) Research and Development, Training,

Assessments, and Services, $2,546 million. The House-passed version of H.R. 2360 would

provide the following amounts for each title: (I) $561 million; (II) $21,988 million; (III) $6,688

million; and (IV) $2,522 million. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 would provide the

following amounts for each title: (I) $647 million; (II) $22,193 million; (III) $6,334 million; and

(IV) $2,686 million. P.L. 109-90 reflects Secretary Chertoff’s proposed reorganization and

provides the following amounts for each title: (I) $907 million; (II) $22,401 million; (III) $6,666

million; and (IV) $1,899 million.

P.L. 109-90 concurs with much of Secretary Chertoff’s reorganization of DHS, including moving

the Federal Air Marshals from ICE to TSA and splitting the Directorate for Information Analysis

and Infrastructure Protection into two different agencies, Analysis and Operations within Title I,

and Infrastructure Protection and Information Security, within Title III. The requested net

appropriation, amounts in House-passed H.R. 2360 (in parentheses), amounts in Senate-passed

H.R. 2360 [in brackets], and amounts in the conference report {in ellipses} for major components

of the department include the following: $5,575 ($5,785) [$5,998] {$5,993} million for Customs

and Border Protection (CBP); $3,648 ($3,830) [$3,808] {$3,175} million for Immigration and

Customs Enforcement (ICE); $1,641 ($3,263) [$3,065] {$3,925} million for the Transportation

Security Administration (TSA); $7,962 ($7,458) [$7,780] {$7,797} million for the U.S. Coast

Guard; $1,204 ($1,232) [$1,192] {$1,212} million for the Secret Service; $3,565 ($3,665)

[$3,573] {$3,346} million for the Office of State and Local Government Preparedness (SLGCP);

$3,135 ($3,013) [$2,758] {$2,633} million for the Emergency Preparedness and Response

Directorate (EPR); $80 ($120) [$80] {$115} million for Citizenship and Immigration Services

(USCIS); and $1,368 ($1,290) [$1,453] {$1,502} million for the Science and Technology

Directorate.

Responding to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, Congress enacted two supplemental

appropriation laws totaling $60 billion in FY2005 for EPR.

This report will not be updated.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Contents

Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1

P.L. 109-90 Signed into Law ...........................................................................................1

Conference Report Filed .................................................................................................1

Senate Passes H.R. 2360 .................................................................................................1

House Passes H.R. 2360..................................................................................................1

President’s FY2006 Budget Submitted ............................................................................1

Note on Most Recent Data ..............................................................................................2

Background ................................................................................................................................2

302(a) and 302(b) Allocations ...............................................................................................3

Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays...........................................................................3

Discretionary and Mandatory Spending.................................................................................4

Offsetting Collections ...........................................................................................................5

Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security ...........................................................7

Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review ............................................................................8

Title I: Departmental Management and Operations .................................................................... 12

President’s Request ....................................................................................................... 13

House-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 13

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 13

P.L. 109-90 ................................................................................................................... 14

Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 14

Personnel Issues............................................................................................................ 15

President’s Budget Proposal .......................................................................................... 16

House-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 17

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 18

P.L. 109-90 ................................................................................................................... 18

Bureau of Analysis and Operations...................................................................................... 18

Budget, Budget Structure, and Transfers........................................................................ 19

Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations..................................................................... 20

Office of Screening Operations (SCO) ................................................................................ 24

President’s Request ....................................................................................................... 25

House-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 25

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 25

P.L. 109-90 ................................................................................................................... 25

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ................................................................................ 26

President’s Request ....................................................................................................... 26

House-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 26

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 27

P.L. 109-90 ................................................................................................................... 27

Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 27

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ..................................................................... 31

President’s Request ....................................................................................................... 32

House-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 32

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 33

P.L. 109-90 ................................................................................................................... 33

ICE Issues for Congress ................................................................................................ 34

Transportation Security Administration (TSA)..................................................................... 38

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

President’s Request ....................................................................................................... 38

House-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 39

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 40

P.L. 109-90 ................................................................................................................... 41

Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 42

United States Coast Guard................................................................................................... 44

President’s Request ....................................................................................................... 44

House-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 45

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 45

P.L. 109-90 ................................................................................................................... 45

Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 46

United States Secret Service................................................................................................ 47

President’s Request ....................................................................................................... 47

House-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 47

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 48

P.L. 109-90 ................................................................................................................... 48

Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 48

Title III: Preparedness and Recovery ......................................................................................... 49

Office for State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP) ............... 51

President’s Request ....................................................................................................... 51

House-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 52

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 52

P.L. 109-90 ................................................................................................................... 52

Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 54

Public Health and Medical Programs in Title III .................................................................. 57

Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA)................................................... 58

Hurricane Katrina ......................................................................................................... 58

President’s Request ....................................................................................................... 58

House Passed H.R. 2360 ............................................................................................... 58

Senate Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 59

P.L. 109-90 ................................................................................................................... 59

Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 59

Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................................ 62

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) ................................................................... 63

President’s Request ....................................................................................................... 64

House-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 65

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 65

P.L. 109-90 ................................................................................................................... 65

Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 65

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) ........................................................... 66

President’s Request ....................................................................................................... 66

House-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 66

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360............................................................................................... 66

P.L. 109-90 ................................................................................................................... 67

Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) ................................................... 67

Management and Administration................................................................................... 67

Assessments and Evaluations ........................................................................................ 68

IAIP Reorganization............................................................................................................ 70

Science and Technology ...................................................................................................... 72

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Related Legislation ................................................................................................................... 74

H.R. 2863/P.L. 109-148 Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic

Influenza Act of 2006....................................................................................................... 74

Transfer of Funds to the Coast Guard ............................................................................ 74

Across-the Board Rescission (ATB) .............................................................................. 75

Hurricane Katrina Reallocations and Rescissions .......................................................... 75

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Pandemic Influenza ................................. 76

Additional Border Security Funding.............................................................................. 76

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane Katrina Relief .................................... 76

FY2006 Budget Resolution, S.Con.Res. 18/H.Con.Res. 95.................................................. 77

FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, Tsunami Relief, and

Other Activities ................................................................................................................ 77

Tables

Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations ................................................2

Table 2. FY2006 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS ........................................................3

Table 3. FY2006 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to Net Appropriation:

Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust and Public Enterprise Accounts .................................5

Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations .................................................................................9

Table 5. Title I: Department Management and Operations.......................................................... 12

Table 6. Proposed FY2006 DHS Budget Amendments Germane to IA....................................... 19

Table 7. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations ....................................................... 21

Table 8. Title III: Preparedness and Response............................................................................ 49

Table 9. SLGCP Program Level Details, FY2005-FY2006 ........................................................ 53

Table 10. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................. 62

Table 11. IAIP Account Level Funding and Crosswalk .............................................................. 71

Table 12. Science and Technology Directorate Accounts and Activities, FY2005-FY2006 ......... 73

Table A-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2006 ........................... 79

Table B-1. Disaster Relief Fund, FY1974-FY2005 .................................................................... 81

Appendixes

Appendix A. DHS Appropriations in Context ............................................................................ 79

Appendix B. Disaster Relief Fund ............................................................................................. 81

Contacts

Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 84

Key Policy Staff: Homeland Security ........................................................................................ 84

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Most Recent Developments

P.L. 109-90 Signed into Law

On October 18, 2005, the FY2006 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations Act

(P.L. 109-90) was signed into law. The House approved the conference report (H.Rept. 109-241)

on October 6, 2005 by a vote of 347-70, and the Senate approved the conference report on

October 7, 2005 by voice vote. No amendments to the conference report were made during floor

debate in either chamber. P.L. 109-90 provides a net appropriation of $31.9 billion for DHS for

FY2006. This amount represents an increase of $1.3 billion or 4% compared to the FY2005

enacted level; and an increase of $1.2 billion or nearly 4% compared to the FY2006 request.

Conference Report Filed

On September 29, 2005, the conference committee approved and filed the conference report

(H.Rept. 109-241) to H.R. 2360, the FY2006 Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Appropriations Act. The conferees agreed to recommend a net appropriation of $31.9 billion for

DHS for FY2006. This amount represents an increase of $1.3 billion or 4% compared to the

FY2005 enacted level; and an increase of $1.2 billion or nearly 4% compared to the FY2006

request.

Senate Passes H.R. 2360

On July 14, the Senate passed H.R. 2360 96-1. The Senate version of H.R. 2360 recommends a

net appropriation of $31.9 billion for DHS for FY2006. This amount includes $30.8 billion in

discretionary budget authority. This amount represents an increase of $1.3 billion or 4%

compared to the FY2005 enacted level; and an increase of $1.2 billion or nearly 4% compared to

the FY2006 request.

House Passes H.R. 2360

On May 17, 2005, the House passed H.R. 2360 424-1. The bill provides a net appropriation of

$31.9 billion for DHS. This amount includes $30.8 billion in discretionary budget authority,

which represents an increase of $1.3 billion, or 4%, compared to the baseline FY2005 enacted

level (without advance or emergency appropriations); and an increase of $1.2 billion, or nearly

4%, compared to the FY2006 request.

President’s FY2006 Budget Submitted

The President’s budget request for FY2006 was submitted to Congress on February 7, 2005. The

Administration requested $41.1 billion in gross budget authority for FY2006 (including

mandatories, fees, and funds). The Administration is requesting a net appropriation of $30.6

billion in net budget authority for FY2006, of which $29.6 billion is discretionary budget

authority, and $1 billion is mandatory budget authority. The FY2005 enacted net appropriated

budget authority for DHS was $40.2 billion, including an advance appropriation of $2.058 billion

for Bioshield and $7.145 billion in emergency appropriations; without Bioshield or the

emergency appropriations, the FY2005 net appropriated budget authority for DHS was $30.6

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

billion. Without including Bioshield, the FY2006 request for an appropriation of $30.6 in net

budget authority represents no increase over the FY2005 enacted amount.

Table 1 summarizes the legislative status of DHS appropriations for FY2006.

Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations

Subcommittee

Markup

House

Senate

House

Report

109-79

05/04

(vv)

06/14

(vv)

05/10

(vv)

House

Passage

Senate

Report

109-83

Senate

Passage

Confr.

Report

109-241

05/17

(424-1)

06/16

(28-0)

07/14

(96-1)

09/29

—

Conference

Report Approval

House

Senate

10/6

347-70

10/7

(vv)

Public

Law

109-90

10/18

Note: vv = voice vote

Note on Most Recent Data

Data used in this report include data from the President’s Budget Documents, the FY2006 DHS

Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2006 DHS Budget in Brief, and the House

Appropriations Committee Homeland Security tables of May 20, 2005. Data used in Table 3 and

Table 12 are taken from various sections of the FY2006 President’s Budget. These amounts do

not correspond to amounts presented in Tables 4-11, which are based on data from tables

supplied by the Appropriations Subcommittees and from the FY2006 DHS Congressional Budget

Justifications in order to best reflect the amounts that will be used throughout the congressional

appropriations process. The most recent update of this report uses amounts contained in: the

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

version of H.R. 2360, and the attached report (S.Rept. 109-83); the conference-approved version

of H.R. 2360 and the attached report (H.Rept. 109-241); and P.L. 109-90.

FY2006 enacted amounts shown in the tables in this final version of the report may not match

amounts listed in P.L. 109-90, as the tables include changes enacted by P.L. 109-148, the

Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the

Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act of 2006. The tables do not reflect the 1% across-theboard rescission that was also enacted by P.L. 109-148. At the time of the final update of this

paper it was unclear at to how this rescission would be applied across DHS discretionary

accounts.

Background

This report describes the President’s FY2006 request for funding for DHS programs and

activities, as submitted to Congress on February 7, 2005. This report compares the enacted

FY2005 amounts to the request for FY2006. This report will also track legislative action and

congressional issues related to the FY2006 DHS appropriations bill, with particular attention paid

to discretionary funding amounts. However, this report does not follow specific funding issues

related to mandatory funding—such as retirement pay—nor does the report systematically follow

any legislation related to the authorization or amendment of DHS programs.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

302(a) and 302(b) Allocations

The maximum budget authority for annual appropriations (including DHS) are determined

through a two-stage congressional budget process. In the first stage, Congress sets overall

spending totals in the annual concurrent resolution on the budget. Subsequently, these amounts

are allocated among the various appropriations committees, usually through the statement of

managers for the conference report on the budget resolution. These amounts are known as the

302(a) allocations. They include discretionary totals available to the House and Senate

Committees on Appropriations for enactment in annual appropriations bills through the

subcommittees responsible for the development of the bills. In the second stage of the process,

the appropriations committees allocate the 302(a) discretionary funds among their subcommittees

for each of the appropriations bills. These amounts are known as the 302(b) allocations. These

allocations must add up to no more than the 302(a) discretionary allocation, and form the basis

for enforcing budget discipline, since any bill reported with a total above the ceiling is subject to

a point of order. 302(b) allocations may be adjusted during the year as the various appropriations

bills progress towards final enactment.

The Senate budget resolution, S.Con.Res. 18 was introduced on March 11, 2005, and passed the

Senate on March 17, 2005. S.Con.Res. 18 provides $848.8 billion in discretionary spending. The

House budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 95, was introduced on March 11, 2005, and passed the

House on March 17, 2005. H.Con.Res. 95 proposed $843 billion in discretionary budget

authority. On April 28, 2005 the conference committee reported, and both the House and Senate

passed, H.Rept. 109-62 providing $843 billion in discretionary budget authority for FY2006. The

House Appropriations Committee revised its 302(b) allocations on November 11, 2005, which

allocates $30.8 billion in discretionary budget authority for homeland security. The Senate

Appropriations Committee revised its 302(b) allocation on November 18, 2005, and reported

S.Rept. 109-184 which allocates $30.8 billion in discretionary budget authority for DHS.

Table 2. FY2006 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS

(budget authority in billions of dollars)

FY2005

Comparable

FY2006 Request

Comparable

FY2006 House

Allocation

FY2006 Senate

Allocation

FY2006 Enacted

Comparable

32,000

29,554

30,846

30,860

Source: House Appropriations Committee tables of March 15, 2005; House Appropriation Committee 302(b)

table of May 10, 2005; revised Senate Appropriations Committee 302(b) allocations in S.Rept. 109-184; revised

House Allocations of Nov. 2, 2005 in H.Rept. 109-264.

Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays1

Federal government spending involves a multi-step process that begins with the enactment of a

budget authority by Congress in an appropriations act. Federal agencies then obligate funds from

the enacted budget authority to pay for their activities. Finally, payments are made to liquidate

those obligations; the actual payment amounts are reflected in the budget as outlays.

Prepared with assistance from (name redacted), Analyst in American National Government, Government and

Finance Division.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Budget authority is established through appropriations acts or direct spending legislation and

determines the amounts that are available for federal agencies to spend. The Antideficiency Act2

prohibits federal agencies from obligating more funds than the budget authority that was enacted

by Congress. Budget authority may be indefinite, however, when Congress enacts language

providing “such sums as may be necessary” to complete a project or purpose. Budget authority

may be available on a one-year, multi-year, or no-year basis. One-year budget authority is only

available for obligation during a specific fiscal year; any unobligated funds at the end of that year

are no longer available for spending. Multi-year budget authority specifies a range of time during

which funds can be obligated for spending; no-year budget authority is available for obligation

for an indefinite period of time.

Obligations are incurred when federal agencies employ personnel, enter into contracts, receive

services, and engage in similar transactions in a given fiscal year. Outlays are the funds that are

actually spent during the fiscal year.3 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 Spending4

Gross budget authority, or the total funds available for spending by a federal agency, may be

composed of discretionary and mandatory spending. Of the $41 billion gross budget authority

requested for DHS in FY2006, 83% is composed of discretionary spending and 17% is composed

of mandatory spending.

Discretionary spending is not mandated by existing law and is thus appropriated yearly by

Congress through appropriations acts. The Budget Enforcement Act5 of 1990 defines

discretionary appropriations as budget authority provided in annual appropriation acts and the

outlays derived from that authority, but it excludes appropriations for entitlements. Mandatory

spending, also known as direct spending, consists of budget authority and resulting outlays

provided in laws other than appropriation acts and is typically not appropriated each year.

However, some mandatory entitlement programs must be appropriated each year and are included

in the appropriations acts. Within DHS, the Coast Guard retirement pay is an example of

appropriated mandatory spending.

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

Appropriations, outlays and account balances for government treasury accounts can be viewed in the end of year

reports published by the U.S. Treasury titled Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United

States Government. The DHS portion of the report can be accessed at http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/cs2004/c18.pdf.

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

P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Offsetting Collections6

Offsetting funds are collected by the federal government, either from government accounts or

the public, as part of a business-type transaction such as offsets to outlays or collection of a fee.

These funds are not counted as revenue. Instead, they are counted as negative outlays. DHS

net discretionary budget authority, or the total funds that are appropriated by Congress each

year, is composed of discretionary spending minus any fee or fund collections that offset

discretionary spending.

Some collections offset a portion of an agency’s discretionary budget authority. Some of these

fees offset spending at the account level and are subtracted from the Appropriations Committee

tables directly below the program they offset. An example of this is the Federal Protective

Service, which is immediately offset in the appropriations tables by an intergovernmental transfer

from the General Services Administration. Other discretionary fees offset spending at the agency

level and are thus subtracted from the discretionary budget authority of the agency to arrive at the

actual appropriated level. An example of this is the Immigration Inspection fee, which is collected

at Ports of Entry by CBP personnel and is used to offset both the CBP and ICE appropriations.

Other collections offset an agency’s mandatory spending. They are typically entitlement programs

under which individuals, businesses, or units of government that meet the requirements or

qualifications established by law are entitled to receive certain payments if they establish

eligibility. The DHS budget features two mandatory entitlement programs: the Secret Service and

Coast Guard retired pay accounts (pensions). Some entitlements are funded by permanent

appropriations, others by annual appropriations. The Secret Service retirement pay is a permanent

appropriation and as such is not annually appropriated, while the Coast Guard retirement pay is

annually appropriated. In addition to these entitlements, the DHS budget contains offsetting Trust

and Public Enterprise Funds. These funds are not appropriated by Congress; they are available for

obligation and included in the President’s budget to calculate the gross budget authority.

Table 3 tabulates all of the offsets within the DHS budget as enacted for FY2005 and in the

FY2006 request.

Table 3. FY2006 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to Net

Appropriation: Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust and Public

Enterprise Accounts

(budget authority in millions of dollars)

Account/Agency

Account Name

FY2005

FY2006

41,018

41,067

TWIC

245

Hazmat

Registered traveler

—

DHS gross budget authority

(gross discretionary + fees+ mandatory + funds)

Account level discretionary offset

Office of Screening Operations

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

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Account/Agency

Account Name

FY2005

FY2006

ICE

Federal Protective Service

478

487

1,823a

3,670a

113

124

-2,486

-4,598

Immigration inspection

429

465

Immigration enforcement

Land border

COBRA

318

334

APHIS

200

204

Puerto Rico

Immigration inspection

SEVIS

Breached bond detention fund

TSA

Aviation security capital fund

250

USCIS

Immigration examination fee

1,571

1,730

H1b, and H1b & L fees

Alien flight school background checks

-3,140

-3,400

TSA

Aviation security fees

FEMA/EPR

National flood insurance fund

CBP

Small airports

Subtotal account level discretionary offsets

Agency level discretionary offset

CBP

ICE

Office of Screening Operations

Subtotal agency level discretionary offsets

Mandatory budget authority

Secret service

Secret service retired payb

200

Coast guard

Coast guard retired payc

(1,085)

(1,014)

-200

Claims expense

1,302

1,459

Underwriting limit

563

Operational expense limit

Interest expense limit

Boat safety

Oil spill recovery

121

(10,533)

-2,094

-2,301

Subtotal mandatory budget authority

Trust funds and public enterprise funds

CBP

FEMA/EPR

Coast Guard

Customs unclaimed goods

Miscellaneous revolving fund

Gift fund

Subtotal trust and public enterprise funds

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Account/Agency

Account Name

FY2005

FY2006

DHS gross budget authority

41,103

41,067

Total offsetting collections

(8,004)

(10,499)

DHS net appropriated BA (Mandatory + Discretionary)

33,099d

30,569

Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President’s Budget, and DHS, Budget in Brief, House Appropriation

Committee tables of May 20, 2005.

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds.

There is a discrepancy reported in the amount of aviation security fees collected by TSA, for both FY2005

and 2006. The enacted level aviation security fees for FY2005 was $1,823 million, and this is the amount

reported in the current committee tables. The Administration FY2006 budget documents and the DHS

Congressional Budget Justifications report the FY2005 amount as $2,330 million. The Administration has

requested an increase in aviation security fees for FY2006, and the budget documents estimate the

offsetting collections at $3,889 million. The latest committee tables show $3,670 million for FY2006 (a

difference of $218 million from the President’s budget) based on estimates by the Congressional Budget

Office. In order to complete the crosswalk in Table 3, we have used the enacted amount for FY2005

($1,823) and the committee table amount ($3,670) for FY2006.

Secret Service Retired Pay is permanently and indefinitely authorized, and as such is not annually

appropriated. Therefore it is offset in Table 3.

In contrast to Secret Service Retired Pay, Coast Guard Retired pay must be annually appropriated, and

therefore is not offset in Table 3.

his amount ($33,098 million) does not include $6,500 million in emergency disaster relief funding. For more

information on those supplemental appropriations, see CRS Report RL32581, Supplemental Appropriations for

the 2004 Hurricanes and Other Disasters, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Appropriations for the Department of

Homeland Security

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred the functions, relevant funding,

and most of the personnel of 22 agencies and offices to the new Department of Homeland

Security (DHS) created by the act. DHS is organized into four major directorates7: Border and

Transportation Security (BTS); Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR); Science and

Technology (S&T); and Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP).

BTS, the largest of the four directorates, contains three main agencies: Customs and Border

Protection (CBP); Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); and Transportation Security

Administration (TSA). EPR is comprised primarily of the former Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA), and IAIP houses the Homeland Security Operations Center

(HSOC), Information Analysis (IA) and the Infrastructure Protection (IP) offices. S&T is home to

the Office of National Laboratories, Homeland Security Laboratories, and the Homeland Security

Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS), the

U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Secret Service are all stand-alone agencies within DHS directly

under the Secretary of Homeland Security.

The Department has been reorganized with the passage of P.L. 109-90. The organizational changes are discussed

throughout the report. This discussion has been left intact to provide readers with a reference for the previous

organization.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Appropriations measures for DHS have been organized into four titles: Title I Departmental

Management and Operations; Title II Security, Enforcement, and Investigations; Title III

Preparedness and Recovery; and Title IV Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and

Services. Title I contains appropriations for the Office of Management, the Office of the

Secretary, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), the Office of the Chief Information

Officer (CIO), and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Title II contains appropriations for

the Office of the Undersecretary for BTS, CBP, Immigration ICE, TSA, the Coast Guard, the

Secret Service, and the newly proposed Office of Screening Operations (SCO). Title III contains

appropriations for EPR and the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and

Preparedness (SLGCP). Title IV contains appropriations for USCIS, IAIP, S&T, and the Federal

Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).

Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review8

On July 13, 2005, the Secretary of DHS, Michael Chertoff, announced the results of the monthslong Second Stage Review (2SR) that he undertook upon being confirmed as DHS Secretary.9

The proposed changes affect many aspects of the Department. The Secretary has designed a sixpoint agenda based upon the results of the 2SR:

•

increase overall preparedness, particularly for catastrophic events;

•

create better transportation security systems to move people and cargo more

securely and efficiently;

•

strengthen border security and interior enforcement and reform immigration

processes;

•

enhance information sharing with our partners;

•

improve DHS financial management, human resources development,

procurement and information technology; and

•

realign the DHS organization to maximize mission performance.

On July 22, 2005, the Administration also submitted a revised budget request for DHS to reflect

the organizational and policy changes recommended by the 2SR.10 The Administration submitted

its requested amendments to the FY2006 budget request for DHS after both the House and Senate

had passed their versions of H.R. 2360. Therefore, any proposed changes were addressed during

the conference on H.R. 2360. The conferees noted that, for the most part, they have complied

with the Administration’s request to restructure DHS, and P.L. 109-90 adopts the following

changes:

For more information, see CRS Report RL33042, Department of Homeland Security Reorganization: The 2SR

Initiative, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

For text of the Secretary’s speech see, DHS, Remarks by Secretary Michael Chertoff on the Second Stage Review of

the Department of Homeland Security, July 13, 2005, Washington, DC, at http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/

speech/speech_0255.xml. For an overview of the proposed changes see, DHS, Homeland Security Secretary Michael

Chertoff announces Six-Point Agenda for Department of Homeland Security, July 13, 2005, Washington, DC,

accessible at http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0703.xml. Proposed organizational

chart can be found at http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/DHSOrgCharts0705.pdf.

See, Communication from the President of the United States, Request for FY2006 Budget Amendments, 109th

Congress, 1st sess., H.Doc. 190-50, July 22, 2005.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

•

abolishes the Office of the Undersecretary for Border and Transportation

Security, redistributing its functions to other locations within DHS;

•

splits the Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection into

two new operational components: Analysis and Operations, and the Preparedness

Directorate;

•

moves all state and local grants within DHS to the Preparedness Directorate;

•

transfers the Federal Air Marshals program from ICE to TSA; and

•

includes and expands the role of Office of Policy.11

Table 4 is a summary table comparing the enacted appropriations for FY2005 and the requested

amounts for FY2006. The Administration requested an appropriation of $30.6 billion in net

budget authority for FY2006. The FY2005 enacted net appropriated budget authority for DHS

was $40.2 billion, including an advance appropriation of $2.058 billion for Bioshield and $7.145

billion in emergency appropriations; without Bioshield or the emergency appropriations, the

FY2005 net appropriated budget authority for DHS was $30.6 billion. Without including

Bioshield, the FY2006 request for an appropriation of $30.6 in net budget authority represents no

increase over the FY2005 baseline enacted amount. House-passed H.R. 2360 provided a net

appropriation of $31.9 billion for DHS for FY2006. This amount represents a $1.3 billion

increase over the FY2005 base appropriation, and a $1.2 billion, or nearly 4%, increase compared

to the FY2006 request. Senate-passed H.R. 2360 also recommended $31.9 billion ($30.8 billion

in discretionary budget authority) for DHS for FY2006. P.L. 109-90 provides $31.9 billion for

DHS in FY2006.

Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations

(budget authority in millions of dollars)

Operational Component

FY2005

Enacted

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

FY2006

Senate

FY2006

Enacted

748

561b

647

954c

Title I: Departmental Management and Operations

Subtotal: Title I

583a

Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations

—Office of the Undersecretary for Border

and Transportation Security

—d

—Screening and operations office/

Automation Modernization/US-VISITe

340

525

411

340

—Customs and Border Protection

5,371

5,575

5,785

5,998

5,986f

—Immigration and Customs Enforcement

3,537

3,648

3,830

3,808

3,188g

—Transportation Security Administrationh

3,260

1,641

3,263

3,065

3,925

—U.S. Coast Guard

7,568

7,962

7,458

7,780

7,843i

—U.S. Secret Service

1,175

1,204

1,233

1,192

1,216j

Net subtotal: Title II

21,260

20,566

21,988

22,193

22,498

H.Rept. 109-241, p.30.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

FY2005

Enacted

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

FY2006

Senate

FY2006

Enacted

—Total fee collections

-3,897

-6,099

-4,278

-4,302

Gross subtotal: Title II

25,157

26,665

26,267

26,470

26,800

—Management and Administration

N/A

—Infrastructure Protection and Information

Security

N/A

625

—U.S. Fire Administration and Training

N/A

—Office for Domestic Preparedness/ Office

of State and Local Government

Coordination and Preparedness

3,985

3,565

3,665

3,573

3,356k

—Federal Emergency Management

Administration

48,564l

3,135

3,013

2,758

2,652m

Net subtotal: Title III

52,557

6,710

6,688

6,334

6,696

Operational Component

Title III: Preparedness and Recovery

—Counter-Terrorism Fund

Title IV: Research and development, training, assessments, and services

—Citizenship and Immigration Services

160

120

115

—Information Analysis and Infrastructure

Protection

894

873

853

871

—n

—Federal Law Enforcement Training

Center

227

224

259

282

—Science and Technology

1,115

1,368

1,290

1,453

1,502

Net subtotal: Title IV

2,396

2,546

2,522

2,686

1,899

—Total fee collections

-1,615

-1,774

Gross subtotal: Title IV

4,011

4,320

4,296

4,460

3,673

—REAL ID Grantso

—

100

(40)

—Rescissionsp

—

-55

DHS gross budget authority

82,308

38,399

37,912

38,108

—Total fee collections

-5,512

-7,873

-6,052

-6,076

DHS net budget authorityq

76,796

30,569

31,860

32,032

—Advance appropriationr

2,508

—

—Emergency appropriation

43,734s

—

DHS Appropriation

30,554

30,569

31,860

32,032

Title V: General Provisions

Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President’s Budget, and DHS Budget in Brief, House Appropriation

Committee tables of May 20, 2005, House-passed H.R. 2360 and H.Rept. 109-79; Senate-passed H.R. 2360 and

S.Rept. 109-83; the Conference Report to H.R. 2360, H.Rept. 109-241; and P.L. 109-90.

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds. FY2006 amounts do not

reflect the 1% across-the-board rescission enacted by P.L. 109-148.

Includes a $24 million rescission pursuant to P.L. 109-13.

Includes a $7 million rescission.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Includes $47 million for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management for efforts to address a

potential outbreak of highly pathogenic influenza pursuant to P.L. 109-148.

The functions of the Office of the Under Secretary for border and Transportation Security have been

transferred to the Office of Policy in Title I, pursuant to the Secretary’s July reorganization proposal.

The President’s FY2006 request for DHS proposes to create the Screening and Operations Office by

transferring in the following programs: FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI from CBP; Secure Flight, Crew Vetting,

Credentialing Startup, TWIC, Registered Traveler, HAZMAT, and Alien Flight School from TSA. These

programs are discussed in the text. The House report (H.Rept. 109-79) denies the creation of the SCO, but

transfers FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI to a new office called Automation Modernization with the US-VISIT

program. All other activities proposed for transfer to the SCO would remain in TSA, under the Housepassed version of H.R. 2360. The Conferees, in H.Rept. 109-241, have provided $4 million for SCO in Title

I, but declined to transfer any of the proposed programs to the new office.

Includes $35 million, pursuant to P.L. 109-148, for CBP’s Salaries and Expenses and Construction accounts

to replace and repair equipment and facilities damaged by hurricanes and other disasters.

Includes $13 million, pursuant to P.L. 109-148, for ICE’s Salaries and Expenses account to replace and repair

equipment and facilities damaged by hurricanes and other disasters.

TSA appropriations estimate includes a proposed $3 increase in passenger security fees for one-way and

multi-leg flights, for a total offsetting collection of nearly $3.9 billion; Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

calculations place the offsetting collections from the fee increase at $3.7billion. Throughout this report, the

CBO figure will be used to calculate total appropriations. The House report (H.Rept. 109-79) denies the

transfer of several TSA programs to the proposed SCO, as mentioned above in Note a, these programs

would remain in TSA under House-passed H.R. 2360.

Includes, pursuant to P.L. 109-148, $232 million in supplemental funding for the Operations and Expenses

account, $75 million in supplemental funding for the Acquisition, Construction and Improvements account,

and a rescission of $261 million (of funds previously appropriated by P.L. 109-90) from the Operating

Expenses account.

Includes, pursuant to P.L. 109-148, $4 million for the Secret Service Salaries and Expenses account.

Includes, pursuant to P.L. 109-148, $10 million to ODP’s State and Local Programs account, to replace and

repair equipment and facilities damaged by hurricanes and other disasters.

FY2005 appropriations include $66.5 billion in supplemental appropriations for disaster relief pursuant to:

P.L. 109-61—$10 billion; P.L. 109-62—$60 billion; and P.L. 108-324—$6.5 billion. Also includes rescissions

and transfers totaling $23.4 billion pursuant to P.L. 109-148. For more information on the Hurricane Katrina

related supplemental appropriations, see CRS Report RS22239, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for

Hurricane Katrina Relief. For information on the other supplemental appropriations see CRS Report

RL32581, Supplemental Appropriations for the 2004 Hurricanes and Other Disasters, by (name redacted) and (name red

acted), Supplemental Appropriations for the 2004 Hurricanes and Other Disasters. The total also includes a

0.80% across the board rescission pursuant to P.L. 108-447, resulting in a $20 million rescission from

Bioshield funding.

m. Includes $17 million, pursuant to P.L. 109-148, for FEMA’s Administrative and Regional Operations account.

The conferees agreed to split up the IAIP Directorate pursuant to Secretary Chertoff’s reorganization

proposal submitted to Congress on July 13, 2005. The IA portion of IAIP has been moved to Title I under

the account heading Analysis and Operations. The IP portion of IAIP has been moved to Title III in the

Preparedness Directorate and is under the account heading of Infrastructure Protection and Information

Security. The IAIP Management and Administration accounts have apparently been split between these two

new accounts, however the exact division of these funds was not readily available.

The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 included $40 million in funding for REAL ID grants under OSLGCP.

Rescissions pursuant to Sections 542 through 546 of the Conference-approved version of H.R. 2360 and

include $15 million from the Working Capital Fund (Title I); $6 million from TSA’s Aviation Security

account; $6 million from the Coast Guard’s Operating Expenses and Acquisition, Construction and

Improvements accounts; $8 million from the Counterterrorism Fund; and $20 million from S&T’s Research

, Development, Acquisition, and Operations account.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Net discretionary budget authority differs from the amounts listed in the President’s Budget due to the

following: FY2005 includes $2.508 billion in advance appropriations for Bioshield and $1.085 in Coast Guard

mandatory retirement pay. FY2006 includes $1.014 billion in Coast Guard mandatory retirement pay.

Represents the $2.508 billion advance appropriation for Bioshield.

Includes 6.5 billion in hurricane relief funding pursuant to P.L. 108-324, $644 million in emergency

appropriations pursuant to P.L. 109-13, and $60 billion in hurricane relief funding in response to Hurricane

Katrina (P.L. 109-61/P.L. 109-62). Also includes a rescission of $23.4 billion and a transfer of $2 million from

FY2005 to FY2006.

Title I: Departmental Management and Operations12

Table 5.Title I: Department Management and Operations

(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2005

Enacted

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

FY2006

Senate

FY2006

Enacted

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

196

113

125

126a

Office of Screening Coordination and Operationsb

—

N/A

—

Office of the Undersecretary for Management

151

147

146

169

Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Office of the Chief Information Officer

275

304

287

297

Analysis and Operationsc

N/A

255

Office of the Inspector General

Gross Total

607

748

568

659

954

—Rescission

-4d

-7e

-12f

-15g

Net Budget Authority: Title I

603

561

647

939

Operational Component

748

Source: DHS FY2006 Congressional Budget Justifications, H.Rept. 109-79, S.Rept. 109-83, and H.Rept. 109-241.

Note: N/A stands for Not Available. FY2006 amounts do not reflect the 1% across-the-board rescission enacted

by P.L. 109-148.

Includes, pursuant to P.L. 109-148, $47 million emergency supplemental for the Office of the Secretary and

Executive Management for efforts to address a potential outbreak of highly pathogenic influenza pursuant to

P.L. 109-148.

The President’s FY2006 request for DHS proposes to create the Screening Coordination and Operations

Office within Title II. Both the House and the Senate denied the creation of this new office within Title II.

The Conference Report, H.Rept. 109-241, allocates $4 million within Title I for the operations of the Office

of Screening Coordination and Operations.

This new category reflects Secretary Chertoff’s recommendation for restructuring DHS. For further analysis

of this restructuring, please refer to Table 11. We have been unable to track this account back through

the appropriations process.

Rescission pursuant to P.L. 109-13.

Rescission to the Working Capital Fund, as per H.Rept. 109-79.

Rescission to the Working Capital Fund, as per S.Rept. 109-83.

Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Rescission to the Working Capital Fund, per H.Rept. 109-241.

President’s Request

Title I covers the general administrative expenses of DHS. It includes the Office of the Secretary

and Executive Management (OS&EM), which counts the immediate Office of the Secretary and

14 entities that report directly to the Secretary; the Under Secretary for Management (USM) and

its components, such as offices of the Chief Procurement Officer, Chief Human Capital Officer,

and Chief Administrative Officer; the Office of CIO; the Office of the Chief Financial Officer

(OCFO); and OIG. FY2006 requests relative to comparable FY2005 enacted appropriations:

OS&EM, $195.8 million, an increase of $110.8 million (+130%); USM, $146.6 million, a

decrease of $4.5 million (-3%); OCIO, $303.7 million, an increase of $28.4 million (+10%);

OCFO, $18.5 million, an increase of $5.5 million (+42%); and OIG, $83 million, an increase of

$700,000 (+1%). Table 4 shows appropriations for FY2005 and congressional action on the

requests for FY2006, and Table 5 provides account-level details for Title I. The total FY2006

request for Title I is $748 million. This represents a 28% increase over the FY2005 enacted level.

House-Passed H.R. 2360

Unhappy and otherwise frustrated with “the Department’s inability to respond quickly, or at all, to

items of Congressional interest or direction,” “extremely concerned by the Department’s inability

to submit reports on a timely basis,” and “very concerned about the results of the 2004 financial

audit,” among other complaints, House appropriators slashed $62.6 million from the OS&EM

request, recommending $133.2 million, which was $48.2 million above the amount provided in

FY2005.13 Among the entities bearing the brunt of this cut were the Office of Security (-$10

million), which was criticized for not assuring that unclassified information was clearly marked

and distinguished from classified and other security sensitive information within DHS

documents; the Operation Integration Staff (-$1.9 million), which was left to continue to rely

upon a half staff of detailees from other components within DHS; and Regions (-$49.8 million),

which, with regional structure still under internal DHS review, was considered to be “premature”

for any funding at the time. The amount was reduced to $113 million as a result of qualifying

conditions specified in Title I.

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360

Approving the recommendations of appropriators, the Senate chopped $71.2 million from the

OS&EM request, approving $124.6 million. Among the entities hardest hit by this cut were the

Office of Security (-$6 million); the Executive Secretary (-$1.3 million); the new Office of

Policy, Planning, and International Affairs (OPPIA) (-$1.5 million); the Office of Public Affairs

(-$1 million); the Operation Integration Staff (-$9.4 million), due to its integration and

coordination functions being assumed by OPPIA; and the Regions Initiative (-$49.8 million), due

to the lack of a required consolidation and collocation plan. In brief, no funding was approved for

the latter two accounts.14

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2006, a

report to accompany H.R. 2360, 109th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 109-79 (Washington: GPO, 2005), pp. 5, 7-9, 14.

Hereafter cited as H.Rept. 109-79.

U.S. Congress, Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2006, a report

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

P.L. 109-90

P.L. 109-90 provides $79 million for OS&EM instead of the $113 million approved by the House

and the $125 million approved by the Senate. Compared with the President’s budget request, the

OS&EM account receiving major reduction was the unfunded Regions area (-$50 million),

followed by the Office of Policy (-$4 million), the Executive Secretary (-$1 million), Office of

Public Affairs (-$1 million), and Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs (-$1

million). The Office of Policy is a modified version of OPPIA. It is one of several new or

modified entities resulting from the Secretary’s 2SR reorganization of DHS. Acting on a July 21,

2005, DHS budget amendment requesting the department’s appropriations structure be modified

for FY2006, appropriations conferees endorsed much of the 2SR reorganization plan.15

Issues for Congress

Within the OS&EM account, the House approved $8.7 million for the new OPPIA, which had

been proposed in the DHS budget justification. Immediately assisting the Secretary, OPPIA was

to be headed by an Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning and was to include other related

staff located within the Office of the Under Secretary for BTS, as well as such existing entities as

the Office of International Affairs, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, the Homeland Security

Advisory Council, and USM. Senate appropriators reduced the OPPIA allotment and indicated an

expectation that it would assume the role of the Operation Integration Staff.

A similar DHS restructuring had been discussed at a January 26, 2005, oversight hearing

conducted by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Participating was one of the authors of a December 2004 Heritage Foundation report, DHS 2.0:

Rethinking the Department of Homeland Security, which had recommended (1) eliminating the

DHS management directorate and USM, but relocating the chief management officers to the

office of the Deputy Secretary; and (2) establishing an Under Secretary for Policy, who would be

assisted by a unified policy planning staff.16 It was thought that the first reform would eliminate

an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and otherwise strengthen the roles of the chief management

officers, and that the second reform would bring unity to DHS through the development of

proactive, strategic homeland security policy and plans. Indications were that these reforms,

among others, would be considered for inclusion in subsequent legislation reauthorizing DHS

programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate committee. A DHS authorization bill (H.R. 1817)

later reported from the House Committee on Homeland Security (H.Rept. 109-71), however,

made no mention of these particular suggested reforms.

The House also approved a new general provision to ensure that the DHS Privacy Officer would

report privacy abuses to Congress and have access to all documents and information necessary to

carry out statutory responsibilities. The provision was added in committee because it was thought

(...continued)

to accompany H.R. 2360, 109th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 109-83 (Washington: GPO, 2005), pp. 9-11.

See CRS Report RL33042, Department of Homeland Security Reorganization: The 2SR Initiative, by (name reda

cted) and (name redacted).

James Jay Carafano, and David Heyman, DHS 2.0: Rethinking the Department of Homeland Security, Heritage

Special Report (Washington: Dec. 13, 2004).

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

that the Privacy Officer “should provide Congress, and thus the public, an unfettered view into

the operations of the Department and its impact on personal privacy.”17

Personnel Issues18

In addition to the policy and planning issues, and the reorganization issues, several personnel

issues may be of interest to Congress during the current appropriations cycle.

The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO)

This Office (also referred to in the budget justification as the Office of Human Resources)

establishes policy and procedures and provides oversight, guidance, and leadership for human

resources management (HRM) functions within the DHS. It is organized into three major

components as follows. Human Capital Innovation is responsible for designing and implementing

the department’s new HRM system, referred to as Max-HR,19 including human capital strategic

planning efforts and HR information technology components, including payroll modernization.

The activities associated with the new system’s regulatory process and the design and contract

management processes also are part of the Innovation component. Human Capital Policy and

Programs is responsible for establishing corporate human resources policy, including training and

development programs, in support of headquarters and department-wide initiatives. This

component manages program and policy development and execution for HRM at DHS, including

workforce planning, corporate talent, executive resources, recruitment and branding, benefits, and

work life programs. Human Capital Operational Services, newly established in FY2005, provides

comprehensive human resources services for all headquarters organizations and manages the

process of optimizing shared human capital services within DHS. The principal human capital

officers from each component of the department comprise a Human Resources Council which

coordinates activities across DHS. The Office of the CHCO reports to the Undersecretary for

Management and its appropriation is included in that of the Undersecretary. For FY2005, the

Office of the CHCO received an appropriation of $43.2 million and a staffing level of 49 full-time

equivalent employees (FTEs). Of this total, $7.2 million funded HR operations20 and $36 million

H.Rept. 109-79, p. 7.

Personnel Issues section prepared by Barbara Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government

and Finance Division.

On Feb. 1, 2005, DHS and the Office of Personnel Management jointly published final regulations in the Federal

“Department of Homeland Security Human Resources Management System,” Federal Register, vol. 70, no. 20, Feb. 1,

2005, pp. 5271-5347.) The regulations provide new policies on position classification, pay, performance management,

adverse actions and appeals, and labor-management relations for DHS employees. Max-HR will cover about 110,000

of the department’s 180,000 employees and will be implemented in phases. (See, CRS Report RL32261, DHS’s MaxHR Personnel System: Regulations on Classification, Pay, and Performance Management Compared With Current

Law, and Implementation Plans, by (name redacted); 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 (name redacted).) In early May 2005, the National Treasury Employees Union released the

results of a series of focus group meetings on the design and implementation of the new pay-for-performance system.

According to the union, issues that concern non-managerial employees include fair administration, sufficient funding,

and accountability of the pay system. (The National Treasury Employees Union, “Front-Line Homeland Security

Employees and Managers Alike Raise Concerns About Pay-For-Performance,” News Release, May 9, 2005. Available

on the Internet at http://www.nteu.org, visited June 7, 2005. DHS conducted the surveys at 10 locations with some 289

employees from Feb. 24 through Mar. 18, 2005.)

The $7.2 million appropriation was allocated as follows: salaries and benefits ($4,118,516), travel ($46,370), printing

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

(non-recurring) funded the development and implementation of Max-HR. Twelve of the FTEs

were attached to Max-HR.

President’s Budget Proposal

The President’s FY2006 budget proposed an appropriation of $61.996 million and 50 FTEs

for the Office of the CHCO. The request represents an increase of $18.796 million and one

FTE over the FY2005 appropriation.21 Especially noteworthy in the budget proposal were the

funding requests of $593,000 for the Office of the CHCO and $53 million for Max-HR as

discussed below.

Workforce Strategies and DHS Employee Surveys

The proposed increase of $593,000 was allocated as follows. For workforce strategies, $180,000

for one new FTE is requested. The additional FTE would “analyze the impact of current and/or

potential occupational or skill gaps, and develop various human capital strategies and plans

related to recruiting, retention, learning and development interventions needed to close these

gaps.”22 The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2004 mandates an annual assessment of

employees and the organization. To fund the employee survey and analysis of the results,

$413,000 was requested.23

Max-HR

An appropriation of $53 million is requested for the department’s new HRM system, an increase

of $17 million over the FY2005 funding. 24 The Office of the CHCO serves as the “command

center” for Max-HR. Twelve FTEs continue to staff Max-HR.

(...continued)

($9,515), advisory and assistance services—portion not Max-HR ($1,053,683), other services ($854,731), purchase

from government accounts ($487,399), operation and maintenance of equipment ($15,623), supplies and materials

($48,104), and equipment ($566,058).

The following amounts are requested for FY2006 (unless otherwise noted, the increases result from pay raises or

inflation): $5,446,048 for salaries and benefits (includes $180,000 for one new FTE), $47,205 for travel, $9,687 for

printing, $54,372,649 for advisory and assistance services (includes increases of $17 million for Max-HR and $300,000

for other HRM initiatives), $983,116 for other services (includes an increase of $113,000 for programs), $496,172 for

purchase from government accounts, $15,905 for operation and maintenance of equipment, $48,970 for supplies and

materials, and $576,248 for equipment.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Fiscal Year 2006 Congressional Justification, p. USM-17.

Of the $413,000, $300,000 is included under advisory and assistance services and $113,000 is included under

other services.

The requested amount is allocated as follows: $10 million for training for the department’s executives, managers,

supervisors, and human resources professionals; $18 million for detailed systems design and implementation (for

access to experts who are assisting in designing the performance management, job evaluation, and compensation

systems and pay and performance linkages, and developing and documenting competencies for DHS positions); $10

million for the conversion of Phase One employees (in DHS headquarters, IAIP, S&T, EPR, and FLETC) from the

General Schedule to newly created market-based pay ranges; $9 million for program management to manage

appropriate cost, schedule, and control activities at the departmental level to ensure good management of the personnel

system; and $6 million for the Homeland Security Labor Relations Board (HSLRB) and Mandatory Removal Offense

(MRO) Panel. The HSLRB, established in FY2005 as an independent entity that reports to the DHS Secretary, resolves

labor-management disputes. The MRO is a separate entity and adjudicates appeals of employees who have been

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

House-Passed H.R. 2360

The Appropriations Committee tables that accompanied the House-passed bill show an

appropriation of $61.951 million for the Office of the CHCO. This amount would have been

allocated as $8.951 million for salaries and expenses ($45,000 below the President’s request of

$8.996 million) and $53 million for Max-HR (the same amount as the President’s request).25

According to the committee, however, amendments agreed to by the House would have

reduced the funding for the Office of the Under Secretary for Management by $96.1 million,

thereby resulting in reductions, unspecified, in the Under Secretary accounts. Full year funding

would have been denied for the one new FTE in the Office of the CHCO requested by the

President. The committee assumed that the “new staff will be on board beginning in the second

quarter of FY2006.”26 Opposition to any change in the funding for Max-HR was stated by the

Office of Management and Budget, DHS itself, and Senator George Voinovich, with particular

emphasis on the adverse impact on managerial and supervisory training. 27 The National Treasury

Employees Union supported the reduction, saying that $18 million would have funded contractors

working on the design of the performance management component and $6 million would have

funded the establishment of internal labor relations boards at DHS.28 Section 516 of the Housepassed bill would have continued to authorize transfer from the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM) to DHS the authority to conduct personnel security and suitability background

investigations, update investigations, and periodically re-investigate applicants for, or appointees

in certain DHS positions.29

(...continued)

removed from their positions for engaging in mandatory removal offenses.

H.Rept. 109-79, pp. 13-14.

Ibid., p. 14.

U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R.

2360—Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, FY2006, May 17, 2005, p. 2. David McGlinchey,

“Homeland Security Appeals for Personnel Funding,” Government Executive, May 24, 2005. Available on the Internet

at http://www.govexec.com, visited June 7, 2005. Letter from Senator Voinovich, Chairman, Oversight of Government

Management Subcommittee to Senator Judd Gregg, Chairman, Homeland Security Subcommittee provided to CRS by

subcommittee staff on May 31, 2005.

The National Treasury Employees Union, “Kelley Welcomes Shift of Substantial DHS Funding Away From

Implementing New and Unnecessary Personnel System,” News Release, May 20, 2005. Available on the Internet at

http://www.nteu.org, visited June 7, 2005.

The positions would be in the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, the Office of the Under Secretary

for Management, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Directorate of Science and Technology,

and the Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. Upon DHS’ request, OPM would cooperate

with and assist DHS in any investigation or reinvestigation. The authorization would cease to be effective once the

President has selected a single agency to conduct security clearance investigations and that agency has reported to

Congress that the agency selected is capable of conducting all necessary investigations in a timely manner or has

authorized the entities within DHS covered by Section 516 to conduct their own investigations. This latter provision

was added by Amendment No. 139 offered by Representative Tom Davis and agreed to by the House by voice vote on

May 17, 2005. According to Representative Davis, the amendment provides that “the Congressionally mandated

oversight authority will be responsible for ensuring that investigations for DHS security clearances are done in the most

timely and efficient manner once the 9/11 Act reforms take effect.” (Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151,

no. 65, May 17, 2005, pp. H3394-H3395.)

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360

Concurring with the Appropriations Committee, the Senate-passed bill provided the Office of the

CHCO with the appropriation requested by the President, including $53 million for Max-HR.30

DHS is directed to report to the committee by February 18, 2006, on implementation progress,

improved mission effectiveness, and projected costs for each fiscal year over the life of the new

personnel system. 31 The general provision on background security investigations was not

included in the Senate-passed bill.

P.L. 109-90

P.L. 109-90 provides funding of $38.9 million for the Office of the CHCO, some $23 million less

than the President’s budget proposal. The amount would be allocated as $8.9 million for salaries

and expenses ($96,000 below the President’s request) and $30 million for Max-HR ($23 million

below the President’s request). As proposed by the House, a general provision at Section 516 on

background investigations is included in the conference agreement. The conference report directs

that background investigations be conducted expeditiously for DHS employees, particularly those

in the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management; Office of the Under Secretary for

Management, Analysis, and Operations; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the Directorate

of Science and Technology; and the Directorate for Preparedness.

Bureau of Analysis and Operations32

The conferees, pursuant to the Secretary Chertoff’s organizational restructuring program that was

provided to the Congress on July 13, 2005, propose to disband the Information Analysis and

Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate. The conferees propose transferring the functions that

existed within the erstwhile IAIP Directorate to, among other entities, the newly established

Preparedness Directorate within Title III and two new Offices within Title I—the Office of

Intelligence and Analysis and the Office of Operations Coordination. As such, the activities of

Information Analysis (IA) and Infrastructure Protection (IP), formerly under Title IV, Research

and Development, Training, Assessments and Services of the DHS appropriations bills, would be

separated. The information analysis and operations coordination activities would be funded

through a new Analysis and Operations bureau under which the new Operating Expenses account

appears in the Conference agreement. Within the H.R. 2360, as approved by conferees, the

information analysis functions would fall within Title I - Departmental Management Operations.

Organizationally, under Secretary Chertoff’s restructuring plan, DHS proposed that the former

Assistant Secretary for Intelligence Analysis position be replaced with a Chief Intelligence

Officer position, which would report directly to the Secretary. The proposed Office of Intelligence

and Analysis will be “... comprised of analysts within the former Information Analysis Directorate

The Max-HR funding is allocated as $18 million for detailed systems design and implementation support; $10

million for training and communication; $9 million for program management, oversight, and evaluation; $10 million

for initial personnel conversion from the General Schedule; and $6 million for the Homeland Security Labor Relations

Board. (S.Rept. 109-83, p. 101.)

S.Rept. 109-83, p. 13.

Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counterterrorism, Domestic Social Policy

Division.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

and draw upon the expertise of other DHS components with intelligence collection and analysis

operations.”33 P.L. 109-90 adopts these proposals.

Budget, Budget Structure, and Transfers

As previous iterations of this report have outlined, prior to Secretary Chertoff’s proposed

restructuring program, the IAIP Directorate had two accounts—(1) Management and

Administration (M&A), which included the budgets for the Office of the Under Secretary for

IAIP and Other Salaries and Expenses—and (2) Assessments and Evaluations (A&E), which

covered intelligence analysis and infrastructure protection/vulnerability assessments. The

President’s request for FY2006 for M&A for FY2006 was $204 million, and for A&E it was

$669.2 million, for a total IAIP requested budget amount of $872.2 million.

Cross-Walk Between President’s Proposed and Amended Budget Structures

On July 22, 2005, based on Secretary Chertoff’s organizational restructuring plan, the President

proposed a number of budget amendments for FY2006 for the Department of Homeland Security.

According to a presidential communication, 34 the overall discretionary budget authority for

FY2006 for the department would not be increased. In short, under the president’s proposed

budget amendments, $311.2 million was requested for the new Analysis and Operations bureau,

Operating Expenses account. Table 6 outlines the changes germane to the IA function made

pursuant to this communication.

Table 6. Proposed FY2006 DHS Budget Amendments Germane to IA

(budget authority in millions of dollars)

Account

Moved into

Moved out

Departmental Management,

Operations, Office of the Secretary

and Executive Management

$1.8 taken from IAIP, Management

and Administration and moved into

Policy Office in the Office of the

Secretary and Executive Management

$8.409 moved to Analysis and

Operations, Operating Expenses as

the proposed Operations Integration

Staff moves to the Analysis and

Operations bureau.

IAIP Management and

Administration (M&A)

$204. Composed of (1) $97.7 to

new Preparedness Directorate, (2)

$104.5 to new Analysis and

Operations bureau, operating

expenses account, and (3) $1.8 to

Departmental Management—

Policy Office

IAIP Assessments and

Evaluations (A&E)

Of the FY2006 requested resources,

$195.4 moves into the new Analysis

and Operations bureau, Operating

Expenses account.

Analysis and Operations—operating

$311.2. Resources derived from the

See “Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff Announces Six-Point Agenda for Department of Homeland

Security,” Department of Homeland Security, July 13, 2005.

See Request for FY2006 Budget Amendments—Communication from the President of the United States Transmitting

A Request for FY 2006 Budget Amendments for the Department of Homeland Security, July 22, 2005, H.Doc. 109-50.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Account

Moved into

expenses (new bureau and account)

following accounts: (1) $104.5 from

IAIP M&A account, (2) $195.4 from

IAIP’s A&E account, (3) $8.4 from

Departmental Operations, and (4)

$2.9 from Office of the Under

Secretary for Border and

Transportation Security, Salaries &

Expenses.

Moved out

Source: Communication from the President of the United States Transmitting A Request for FY2006 Budget

Amendments for the Department of Homeland Security, July 22, 2005, H.Doc. 109-50.

Top Line Figures for the IA Function and Conferee Adjustments

According to the conference report, $255.5 million would remain available until September 30,

2007, for “... necessary expenses for information analysis and operations coordination activities

authorized by Title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. et. seq.).”35 Under the

budget structure as agreed to by the conferees, these funds would fall within Title I of the

appropriations bill, under the Analysis and Operations bureau, operating expenses account. This

represents a reduction of $55.7 million or 17.9% from the requested amount of $311.2 million. Of

the amount transferred into Analysis and Operations from the erstwhile IAIP, M&A account, the

conferees, reduced the amount based:

... on a continuing large number of vacancies. The Secretary shall submit to the Committees

on Appropriations no later than February 10, 2006, a report that identifies staffing and other

resource requirements that reconciles the Department’s intelligence mission responsibilities

under the various Acts and executive orders.36

Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations

Title II funds Security, Enforcement, and Investigations. The largest component of Title II was the

Directorate of Border and Transportation Security (BTS). BTS was comprised of the Office of the

Under Secretary for BTS, CBP, ICE, and TSA. For FY2006, the Administration proposed the

creation of SCO within BTS (now located in the Office of Policy under P.L. 109-90), that would

coordinate the passenger (and to some extent the cargo) screening operations of BTS. Also

included in Title II (though they were not operationally a part of the BTS Directorate) are the U.S.

Coast Guard, and the U.S. Secret Service. With the passage of P.L. 109-90 the Office of the

Undersecretary for BTS is eliminated, and the agencies (CBP, ICE, and TSA) that were a part of

BTS report directly to the Office of the Secretary.

Table 7 shows the FY2005 enacted and FY2006 requested appropriations for Title II. The

Administration requested an appropriation of $20.6 billion in net discretionary budget authority

for Title II for FY2006. This amount represented a decrease of $13 million or less than 1%

decrease compared to the FY2005 enacted total of $20.7 billion.37 While almost every account in

See conference report, H.Rept. 109-241, in Congressional Record, Sept. 29, 2005, p. H8586.

See H.Rept. 109-241, as reported in Congressional Record, Sept. 29, 2005, p. H8596.

This number does not include the FY2005 supplemental appropriation for Title II in P.L. 109-13.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Title II is up, the requested gross increase of $2,138 million from FY2005 to FY2006 is more

than offset by the total increase in offsetting collections of $2,202 million in Title II; $1,780

million of which would be the result of the proposed fee increase within TSA. For the FY2006

request, the BTS Directorate accounts for 67% of total appropriated DHS budget authority, while

Title II accounts for 69% of total appropriated DHS budget authority.

House-passed H.R. 2360 recommended a net appropriation of nearly $22 billion for activities and

agencies of Title II. This amount represented a $1.4 billion or nearly 7% increase over the

President’s requested level for FY2006, and a $728 million or 3% increase over the FY2005

enacted level (including supplemental appropriations). H.Rept. 109-79 did not approve the TSA

security fee increase requested by the Administration. House-passed H.R. 2360 therefore shows

an increased appropriation, as compared to the Administration’s request. House-passed H.R. 2360

provided $22 billion for Title II, which accounts for 69% of total DHS budget authority. Senatepassed H.R. 2360 provided $22.2 billion for the activities of Title II. This amount represented an

increase of $1,625 million or 7% as compared to the President’s request, an increase of $203

million or 1% as compared to the House-passed amount; and an increase of $931 million or 4%

as compared to the FY2005 enacted amount. The $22.2 billion that would have been provided by

the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 would have accounted for 70% of total DHS budget

authority in FY2006. P.L. 109-90 provides $22.4 billion for the activities of Title II, representing

and increase of $141 million or less than 1% as compared to FY2005, an increase of $1,835

million or 9% as compared to the request for FY2006, an increase of $403 million or 2% as

compared to the House-passed version of H.R. 2360, and an increase of $208 million or 1% as

compared to the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360.

Table 7.Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations

(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2005

Enacted

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

FY2006

Senate

FY2006

Enacted

—a

—US-VISITc

340

390

340

—Other programs

—

135

—

—Fee accountsd

—

321

—

Gross total

340

846

411

340

—Offsetting collections

—

-321

—

Net total

340

525

411

340

—Salaries and expensese

4,658

4,730

4,886

4,922

4,850f

—Rescissionsg

-139

—

-14

—

—Automation modernization

450

458

456

—Air and Marine Operations

258

293

348

321

400

—Construction

144h

311

280i

—Fee accountsj

1,079

1,142

Operational Component

Office of the Undersecretary for Border

and Transportation Security

Screening and Operations Officeb

Customs & Border Protectiona

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

FY2005

Enacted

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

FY2006

Senate

FY2006

Enacted

Gross total

6,450

6,717

6,927

7,140

7,128

—Offsetting collections

-1,079

-1,142

Net total

5,371

5,575

5,785

5,998

5,986

—Salaries and expenses

2,893k

2,892

3,064

3,052

3,121l

—Federal Air Marshalsm

663

689

699

679

—

—Federal Protective Services (FPS)

478

487

—Automation & infrastructure modernization

—Construction

—Fee accountsn

200

229

253

—Rescissiono

-85

—

Gross total

4,215

4,364

4,546

4,524

3,928

—Offsetting FPS fees

-478

-487

—Offsetting collections

-200

-229

-253

Net total

3,537

3,648

3,830

3,808

3,188

—Aviation security (gross funding)

4,324

4,735

4,592

4,452

4,607

—Surface Transportation Security

—Credentialing activities (appropriation)

—

—Credentialing/Fee accountsp

—

180

—Intelligence

—Research and developmentq

178

—

—Federal Air Marshalsm

—

686

—Administration

520

524

520

470

489

—Aviation security mandatory spendingr

250

Gross total

5,401

5,562

5,683

5,484

6,344

—Offsetting collectionss

-1,823

-3,670

-1,990

—Credentialing/Fee accounts

-67

—

-180

—Aviation security mandatory spending

-250

Net total

3,260

1,641

3,263

3,065

3,925

5,303t

5,547

5,500

5,459

5,724u

——Rescission

—

-276v

—Environmental compliance & restoration

—Reserve training

113

119

1,031w

1,269

798

1,225

1,217x

Operational Component

Immigration & Customs Enforcement

Transportation Security Administrationa

U.S. Coast Guard

—Operating expenses

—Acquisition, construction, & improvements

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

FY2005

Enacted

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

FY2006

Senate

FY2006

Enacted

——Rescissiony

-16

—

-83

—

—Alteration of bridges

—

—Research, development, tests, & evaluationz

—

—Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement)

1,085

1,014

Gross total

7,568

7,962

7,458

7,780

7,842

—Salaries and expenses; construction

1,175

1,204

1,233

1,192

1,216aa

Net total

1,175

1,204

1,233

1,192

1,216

Gross Budget Authority: Title II

25,157

26,665

26,267

26,470

26,800

-3,897

-6,099

-4,278

-4,302

21,260

20,566

21,988

22,193

22,498

Operational Component

U.S. Secret Service

Total offsetting collections: Title II

Net Budget Authority: Title II

Source: CRS analysis of the FY2006 President’s Budget, and DHS Budget in Brief, House Appropriation

Committee tables of May 20, 2005, House-passed H.R. 2360 and H.Rept. 109-79; Senate-passed H.R. 2360 and

S.Rept. 109-83; and the Conference Report to H.R. 2360, H.Rept. 109-241.

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds. FY2006 amounts do not

reflect the 1% across-the-board rescission enacted by P.L. 109-148.

The functions of the Office of the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security have been

transferred to the Office of Policy in Title I, pursuant to the Secretary’s July reorganization proposal.

DHS proposed creating this new office, which would have combined the following programs and fees: USVISIT; FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI from CBP; and Secure Flight, Crew Vetting, Credentialing Startup, TWIC,

Registered Traveler, HAZMAT, and Alien Flight School from TSA. The House Appropriation Committee

denied the creation of the SCO, but did propose moving FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI from CBP to the BTS

management level, and combining these two programs with USVISIT in a new Automation Modernization

office. Programs from TSA proposed for transfer to SCO would have remained in TSA under House-passed

H.R. 2360. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 also denied the creation of the SCO, left funding for

FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI in CBP, and funding for the TSA programs proposed for transfer to the SCO

remained in TSA. P.L. 109-90 provides $4 million for SCO in Title I, but does not transfer any of the

proposed programs to the new office.

United States Visitor & Immigrant Status Indicator Project.

Fees include TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks. Both the House-passed

and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 2360, and P.L. 109-90 left these programs and their fees in TSA.

Includes $124 million in funding provided by P.L. 109-13, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Includes $24 million, pursuant to P.L. 109-148, to replace and repair equipment and facilities damaged by

hurricanes and other disasters.

Includes a $63 million rescission in P.L. 108-11 and a $76 million rescission in P.L. 109-13 from the CBP

salaries and expenses account.

Includes $52 million in supplemental funding provided by P.L. 109-13.

Includes $10 million pursuant to P.L. 109-148, to rebuild and repair structures damaged by hurricanes and

other disasters.

Fees include COBRA, Land Border, Immigration Inspection, Immigration Enforcement, and Puerto Rico.

Includes $454 million in supplemental funding provided by P.L. 109-13.

Includes $13 million, pursuant to P.L. 109-148, to replace and repair equipment and facilities damaged by

hurricanes and other disasters.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

m. P.L. 109-90 moves FAMS to TSA, pursuant to Secretary Chertoff’s reorganization proposal submitted to

Congress on July 13, 2005.

Fees included Exam, Student Exchange and Visitor Fee, Breached Bond, Immigration User, Land Border.

Reflects the $85 million rescission from ICE in P.L. 109-13.

Fees include TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks, which were included in

the proposed SCO in the President’s request, but are retained in TSA as enacted in P.L. 109-90.

The President’s request for DHS proposed transferring the Research and Development account from TSA

to the Directorate of S&T.

Aviation Security Capital Fund, used for installation of Explosive Detection Systems at airports.

In FY2006, DHS proposes a $3 increase in the passenger security fee for one-way and multi-leg flights,

generating $1.56 billion in new revenue. There is a discrepancy between the Administration’s budget

documents and the Committee tables concerning the aviation security fee offset amount. The

Administration’s budget documents report the FY2005 enacted amount as $2,330 million, while the

Committee tables report the FY2005 enacted amount as $1,890 million. For FY2006, with the requested fee

increase the Administration shows $3,889 million in offsetting aviation security fees, while the Committee

tables show $3,670 million, as scored by CBO. P.L. 109-90 did not approve the proposed fee increase, and

assumes an offset of $1,990 million, and a net appropriation of $3,925 million for TSA.

Includes $112 million in supplemental funding provided by P.L. 109-13.

Includes, pursuant to P.L. 109-148, $232 million in supplemental funding for the Operations and Expenses

account, $75 million in supplemental funding for the Acquisition, Construction and Improvements account,

and a rescission of $261 million (of funds previously appropriated by P.L. 109-90) from the Operating

Expenses account.

Includes a rescission of unobligated port assessments funding previously provided in P.L. 108-11, and a

rescission of $261 million from funds appropriated by P.L. 109-90.

Does not include an additional $34 million transfer of funds from the Department of Defense to the Coast

Guard pursuant to P.L. 108-287. Includes $49 million in supplemental funding provided by P.L. 109-13.

Includes $75 million, pursuant to P.L. 109-148, for necessary expenses related to the consequences of

hurricanes and other natural disasters.

$16 million rescission from FY2005 funding pursuant to P.L. 108-334, and $83 million rescission from P.L.

108-90.

President requested transferring the Research, Development, Tests and Evaluation account from the Coast

Guard to the S&T Office, but P.L. 109-90 does not adopt that transfer.

aa. Includes $4 million, pursuant to P.L. 109-148, for equipment, vehicle replacement, and personnel relocation

due to the consequences of hurricanes and other natural disasters.

Office of Screening Operations (SCO)38

As a part of the FY2006 request, the Administration proposed the creation of a new SCO to

coordinate DHS’ efforts to screen people (and to some extent cargo) as they enter and move

throughout the country. Programs proposed for transfer to this office included the US Visitor and

Immigrant Status Indicator Project (US-VISIT); Free and Secure Trade (FAST) and

NEXUS/SENTRI, from CBP; Secure Flight, Transportation Worker Identification Credential

(TWIC), Registered Traveler, Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) background checks, and the Alien

Flight School background checks program from TSA.

Section prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy Division.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

President’s Request

The Administration requested $846 million in gross budget authority for SCO for FY2006. The

request included $390 million for the US-VISIT program39 (an increase of $50 million over the

enacted FY2005 amount), $94 million for Secure Flight40 (an increase of $49 million over the

enacted FY2005 amount), $7 million for the driver registration component of FAST, $14 million

for NEXUS/SENTRI, and $20 million for the stand up of the Credentialing Coordination Office.

In addition to appropriated activities, SCO would have overseen several fee funded activities

including $245 million for TWIC and other TSA credentialing activities; $23 million for the

Registered Traveler program; $44 million for HAZMAT checks; and $10 million for Alien Flight

School background checks. The net requested appropriation for SCO is $525 million.

House-Passed H.R. 2360

The Committee noted that while the SCO office “may have merit,” a broader justification is

required for it than what was given by the Department. The Committee therefore denied this

consolidation and recommended no funds for SCO. Instead, the Committee recommended

establishing a new Office of Transportation Vetting and Credentialing within TSA to oversee the

Secure Flight, Crew Vetting, Registered Traveler, TWIC, HAZMAT, and Alien Flight School

programs. US-VISIT, FAST, and NEXUS/SENTRI would have been funded within a new BTS

Automation Modernization office. 41

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360

The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 denied the creation of the SCO. In contrast to the Housepassed version of H.R. 2360, the Senate-passed version left funding for the FAST and

NEXUS/SENTRI programs within CBP rather than placing them within a new BTS Automation

Modernization office. Both the House and Senate-passed versions of the bill left funding for the

TSA programs proposed for transfer to the SCO within TSA.

P.L. 109-90

P.L. 109-90 provides $4 million in Title I, under the Departmental Operations and Management

for an Office of Screening Coordination and Management. However, the P.L. 109-90 does not

transfer any of the programs requested for transfer by the President to this office.

For more information on US-VISIT, see CRS Report RL32234, U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator

Technology (US-VISIT) Program, by Lisa M. Seghetti and (name redacted).

See CRS Report RL32802, Homeland Security: Air Passenger Prescreening and Counterterrorism, by (name redacted)

and William Krouse.

H.Rept. 109-79, pp. 23 and 52.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Customs and Border Protection (CBP)42

CBP is responsible for security at and between ports-of-entry along the border. Since 9/11, CBP’s

primary mission is to prevent the entry of terrorists and the instruments of terrorism. CBP’s 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; and the Border Patrol.

President’s Request

The Administration requested an appropriation of $6,717 million in gross budget authority for

CBP in FY2006, amounting to a 4% increase over the enacted FY2005 level (including

supplemental appropriations) of $6,450 million. The Administration requested an appropriation of

$5,575 million in net budget authority for CBP, representing a 4% increase over the FY2005

enacted level of $5,371 million. The request included the following program increases (which are

discussed later in this report):

•

$125 million for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) detection technology;

•

$37 million for Border Patrol staff;

•

$31.7 million for long range radar for Air and Marine Operations;

•

$20 million for Border Patrol aircraft replacement;

•

$19.8 million for the America Shield Initiative;

•

$8.2 million for the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT);

•

$5.4 million for the Container Security Initiative (CSI);

•

$5.4 million for enhancements to the Automated Targeting System (ATS);

•

$3.2 million for the Homeland Security Data Network;

•

$3 million for IDENT/IAFIS;

•

$2 million for the Immigration Advisory Program (IAP); and

•

$1 million for the Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI).

House-Passed H.R. 2360

The House Appropriators added $210 million to both the gross and net budget authorities for CBP

in order to cover a range of programs. The House-passed H.R. 2360 recommended a net

appropriation for CBP is $5.785 billion, an 8% increase over the FY2005 enacted level and a 4%

Section prepared by (name redacted) and (name redacted), Analysts in Domestic Security, Domestic Social

Policy Division.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

increase over the President’s FY2006 request.43 House-passed H.R. 2360 recommended fully

funding all of the above listed requested increases, and providing an additional $150 million

above the request for Border Patrol staffing. However, the House recommended making

unavailable the $1 million requested increase for the IAP until CBP submits the report on the

program that has been overdue since January 1.

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360

The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 recommended a net appropriation of $ 5,998 million for

CBP, representing an increase of $213 million or nearly 4% compared to the amount provided by

the House in H.R. 2360; an increase of $423 million or nearly 8% as compared to the FY2006

request; and an increase of $627 million or nearly 12% as compared to the FY2005 enacted level.

The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360 would have funded the $125 million requested increase

for radiation portal monitors (RPMs) under the S&T Directorate, rather than under CBP; and

would have provided an additional $241 million for Border Patrol staffing. Amounts provided for

CBP in Senate-passed H.R. 2360 include $21 million in FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI funding that

had been requested for transfer to the Administration proposed SCO (the House-passed version of

H.R. 2360 placed this funding in a new BTS-level Automation Modernization Account).

P.L. 109-90

P.L. 109-90 provides a net appropriation of $5,952 million for CBP, which is $46 million or

approximately 1% less than provided in the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2360, $167 or nearly

3% more than provided by the House-passed version of H.R. 2360, $377 million or nearly 7%

more than requested for CBP in FY2006, and $581 million or nearly 11% more than enacted in

FY2005. P.L. 109-90 provides no funding for radiation portal monitors under this account, and

adopts the House recommendation that these be funded under S&T. P.L. 109-90 does not transfer

the FAST and NEXUS/SENTRI programs to the proposed SCO, and instead fully funds FAST at

$7 million, and NEXUS/SENTRI at $14 million for FY2006. P.L. 109-90, concurring with both

the House and the Senate, also provides an additional $241 million above the request to fund an

additional 1,500 Border Patrol agents. P.L. 109-90 also agreed to makes $10 million unavailable

for obligation until CBP submits a detailed five-year plan on CBP’s air and marine operations to

the Appropriation Committees.

Issues for Congress

Potential CBP issues for Congress include cargo and container security; targeting and risk

assessments; cargo inspection technology; air and marine operations; the number of border patrol

agents; IDENT/IAFIS integration; ABCI; and the America Shield Initiative.

Cargo and Container Security

CBP’s cargo security strategy includes two significant programs: the CSI, and C-TPAT. CSI is a

CBP program that stations CBP officers in foreign sea ports to target marine containers for

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2006,

109th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 109-79, p. 142.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

inspection before they are loaded onto U.S.-bound vessels. The FY2006 request included an

additional $5.4 million for CSI to support the expansion of CSI activities in seven new ports in

seven countries. House-passed H.R. 2360 recommended fully funding the requested increase, a

total of nearly $139 million for CSI in FY2006. However, the House Committee also noted that it

has not yet received a report detailing the spending and planning projections for CSI for FY20052009, and directs CBP to submit the report as soon as possible. The Committee also included a

provision in H.R. 2360 withholding $70 million until this report is submitted as directed by

H.Rept. 108-541. The Senate Committee recommended fully funding the request for CSI, but

notes its concern about CSI host-country cooperation and directs CBP to submit a report to the

Committee no later than February 18, 2006, detailing specific steps the Department is taking to

address any reluctance on the part of foreign countries to fully cooperate. P.L. 109-90 fully funds

the requested $139 million for CSI in FY2006, and concurs with the reporting requirements on

CSI outlined in both the House and Senate reports, and direct CBP to submit both reports no later

than February 10, 2006. Further, the conferees also direct DHS, in conjunction with the

Department of Energy (DOE), to submit a report by February 10, 2006, on the progress made on

various radiation technology efforts, and (among other things) the coordination between CBP’s

CSI and DOE’s Megaports Initiative.

C-TPAT is a public-private partnership aimed at securing the supply chain from point of origin

through entry into the United States. The FY2006 request included an increase of $8.2 million for

C-TPAT to be used for travel and the purchase of equipment and supplies for Supply Chain

Specialists to conduct an increased number of C-TPAT security profile validations. House-passed

H.R. 2360 recommended fully funding the request for C-TPAT. The Senate-passed version of

H.R. 2360 also recommended fully funding the request for C-TPAT, and S.Rept. 109-83 directs

CBP to submit a report by February 18, 2006, providing detailed performance measures, human

capital plans, and any plans or actions taken that would address the recommendations made by

GAO’s recent report on the program.44 P.L. 109-90 fully funds the $54 million request for CTPAT for FY2006.

Cargo Inspection Technology

The FY2006 Administration request for CBP includes an increase of $125 million for technology

to detect WMD. This request included $77 million for the purchase of additional radiation portal

monitors (RPMs), and the purchase of next generation RPMs. House-passed H.R. 2360

recommended fully funding the $188 million request for cargo inspection technology. H.Rept.

109-79 directs CBP to submit two reports no later than January 16, 2006: (1) detailing the current

status and investment plan for RPMs through FY2010; and (2) detailing the projected spending,

maintenance and replacement of large-scale non-intrusive inspection (NII) equipment (for

example, truck x-ray machines, and vehicle and cargo inspection systems) for FY2006-2010.

Senate-passed H.R. 2360 recommended fully funding the requested increase of $125 million for

RPMs, but would have funded the request under the S&T Directorate rather than under CBP, as

the Committee believes that S&T is the appropriate organization to test, pilot, and direct

procurement of RPMs. P.L. 109-90 fully funds the $125 million request for RPMs, and concurs

with the Senate by placing the funding within the S&T Directorate, rather than under CBP.

GAO, “Partnership Program Grants Importers Reduced Scrutiny with Limited Assurance of Improved Security,”

GAO-05-404.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Air and Marine Operations (AMO)

With the FY2005 Appropriation, AMO was transferred to CBP, where it is now located. The

FY2006 request included an increase of $31.7 million for long range radar (LRR) coverage for

AMO. This increase was requested to finance a 50% share of the cost (the other 50% share to be

covered by the Department of Defense) of a primary Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) LRR

feed that FAA intends to discontinue using. House-passed H.R. 2360 recommended fully funding

the request for AMO, and providing an additional $60 million above the request for AMO: $14

million for the acquisition of manned covert surveillance aircraft, $15 million for the acquisition

and deployment of palletized sensor packages for the P-3 Slick aircraft, $16 million for the P-3

service-life extension program, and $5 million for additional staff and equipment. The Senatepassed version of H.R. 2360 would have fully funded the requested increase for AMO, and

provided an additional $33 million in total for AMO: $5 million for staff for the fourth Northern

Border airwing base in Great Falls, Montana; $13 million for the operations of the fourth

Northern Border airwing base; and $15 million for the P-3 Slick palletized sensor packages. The

conferees agreed to provide $400 million for AMO operations, maintenance and procurement for

FY2006. This amount, adopted in P.L. 109-90 includes $15 million for the P-3 palletized sensor

systems; $16 million for the P-3 service-life extension; $14 million for manned, covert

surveillance aircraft; nearly $13 million for the fourth Northern Border airwing base in Montana;

$20 million for the replacement of BP helicopters; $10 million for unmanned aerial vehicles; $19

million for the operation and maintenance of legacy BP aircraft and vessels; and $2 million to

begin work on an airwing in North Dakota. The conferees also agreed to withhold $10 million

from CBP’s salaries and expenses account until the Department submits a five-year strategic plan

for CBP’s Air program.

Increase in Border Patrol Agents

The FY2006 request for CBP proposed adding 210 agents to the USBP workforce in FY2006 to

backfill positions vacated along the Southwest border. These vacancies were the result of agents

being transferred from the Southwest border in order to fulfill the requirement enacted in the USA

PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56, §402) to triple the number of agents assigned to the Northern border.

This requested increase was well below the 2,000 additional agents authorized by the Intelligence

Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458, §5202). The House Appropriators

addressed this issue by adding $150 million to the President’s request, which, combined with the

$124 million available in the FY2005 supplemental appropriation (P.L. 109-13), will allow the

Border Patrol to add 1,500 agents to its workforce by the end of FY2006.45 The Senate

Appropriations Committee concurred with the House in adding 1,500 agents to the USBP in

FY2006 and increases the President’s request by $241 million. 46 P.L. 109-90 also includes this

increase.

IDENT/IAFIS

According to CBP, the integration of the Border Patrol’s Automated Biometric Identification

System (IDENT) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint

Identification System (IAFIS) is progressing and linked IDENT/IAFIS workstations have been

H.Rept. 109-79, p. 24.

S.Rept. 109-83, p. 24.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

deployed to all USBP stations. This would seem to address some of the concerns about the slow

pace of the integration project raised by House Appropriators in FY2005.47 The president’s

request included an increase of $3 million for the system and noted that BTS has assumed

ownership for the integration project. While the integration of the two biometric databases has

given USBP agents access to the FBI’s criminal records, leading to an 8.5% increase in the

identification of criminal aliens, a possible issue for Congress may be the USBP’s apparent lack

of access to the name-based Terrorist Watchlist at their stations. This may be of concern due to

recent Congressional testimony by DHS acting Secretary Admiral James Loy that Al-Qaeda is

considering infiltrating the Southwest border due to a belief that “illegal entry is more

advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons.”48 House Appropriators expressed

frustration with CBP that the report they requested in the FY2005 appropriation bill on the

IDENT/IAFIS integration project has not been delivered yet. They directed DHS to submit the

report by July 1, 2005. The Senate Appropriation Committee also funded the President’s request

and directed DHS to submit the report on the project that was requested in FY2005 which

continues to be outstanding.49

Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI)

In response to the continuing high levels of apprehensions in the Tucson sector, the Arizona

Border Control (ABC) initiative was launched on March 16, 2004. ABC is a multi-disciplinary

initiative that seeks to coordinate federal, state, and local authorities to control the Arizona border.

ABC is specifically aimed at stopping cross-border smuggling operations by detecting, arresting,

and deterring all groups seeking to bring people, drugs, weapons, and other merchandise into the

country illegally. 200 additional permanent border patrol agents and 60 special operations agents

trained for search and rescue operations were assigned to the Tucson sector over the summer of

2004, bringing the total number of agents there to approximately 2,000. According to DHS, in the

first six months of the ABC, apprehension of unauthorized aliens increased 56% from

apprehension during the same period of the previous year. From March 16, 2004 to September 7,

2004, 351,700 unauthorized aliens were apprehended compared to 225,108 unauthorized aliens

during the same period in 2003. CBP proposed an increase of $1 million to continue this multidisciplinary program in FY2006, though most funding for the program will come from ICE.

House Appropriators supported this multi-agency approach to protecting the border and fund the

President’s request and direct CBP to work closely with the Tohono O’odham Nation along the

Arizona border to ensure that the Nation is fully aware of CBP’s actions on their territory.50 The

Senate Appropriations Committee fully funded the President’s request.

America Shield Initiative

CBP proposed an increase of $19.8 million for the America Shield Initiative (ASI), formerly

known as the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS). ASI integrates Remote Video

Surveillance camera systems, sensors, and the Integrated Computer Assisted Detection (ICAD)

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2005,

report to accompany H.R. 4567, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 108-541 (Washington, GPO, 2004), pp. 18-19.

U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, National Security Threats to the United States, 109th Cong.,

1st sess., Feb. 16, 2005.

S.Rept. 109-83, p. 19.

H.Rept. 109-79, p. 28.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

database into a multi-faceted network capable of detecting illegal entries in a wide range of

climate conditions. The requested FY2006 funding will be used to deploy surveillance assets to

high-priority areas such as Tucson, Yuma, and El Paso on the southwest border, and Blaine,

Spokane, Buffalo, and Swanton (Vermont) on the northern border. House Appropriators fully

funded the President’s request and, citing concerns with the contracting problems identified in the

ISIS program by the General Services Administration Inspector General, requested a report by

January 16, 2006 on these problems and the specific measures taken by CBP to address them. A

report on the specific performance metrics used by the ASI program was also requested by

January 16, 2006.51 The Senate Appropriations Committee fully funded the President’s request

and encouraged program managers to explore off-the-shelf solutions as they develop the program.

The conferees did not fund the President’s request for a $19.8 million increase, noting that DHS is

currently reviewing the entire planning process for this program and may suspend all major

procurement action until this review is completed.

Construction

The President requested $93 million for this account, which covers the construction of the tactical

infrastructure that provides physical impediments to illegal entry. Construction under this account

includes the erection of lights, fences, and vehicle barriers, as well as the creation of access roads.

The House Appropriations Committee fully funded the President’s request. The Senate

Appropriations Committee increased the President’s request by $218 million, to $311 million.

Included in this increase was $82 million for the construction of facilities to accommodate the

1,500 additional USBP agents, as well as $55 million to complete the fence in the San Diego

Sector and $55 million to expand the USBP tactical infrastructure in the Tucson Sector. 52 The

conferees provided $270 million for the Construction account, including $35 million each for the

San Diego fence and the Tucson Sector tactical infrastructure expansion.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)53

ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the United States. ICE

develops intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the United States, and is responsible for

investigating and enforcing violations of the immigration laws (e.g., alien smuggling, hiring

unauthorized alien workers). ICE is also responsible for locating and removing aliens who have

overstayed their visas, entered illegally, or have become deportable by committing a crime. In

addition, ICE develops intelligence to combat terrorist financing and money laundering, and to

enforce export laws against smuggling, fraud, forced labor, trade agreement noncompliance, and

vehicle and cargo theft. Furthermore, this bureau oversees the building security activities of the

Federal Protective Service, formerly of the General Services Administration. The Federal Air

Marshals Service (FAMS)54 was returned from ICE to TSA pursuant to the reorganization

proposal of July 13, 2005. The Office of Air and Marine Interdiction was transferred from ICE to

CBP, and therefore the totals for ICE do not include Air and Marine Interdiction funding which is

included under CBP.

H.Rept. 109-79, pp. 27-28.

S.Rept. 109-83, p. 30.

Section prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Domestic Security, and (name redacted), Analyst in Social

Legislation, Domestic Social Policy Division.

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

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

President’s Request

The Administration requested an appropriation of $4,364 million in gross budget authority for

ICE in FY2006. This represents a 4% increase over the enacted FY2005 level (including

supplemental appropriations) of $4,215 million. The Administration requested an appropriation of

$3,648 million in net budget authority for ICE in FY2006, representing a 3% increase over the

FY2005 enacted level of $3,537 million. The request included the following program increases:

•

$105 million for the Office of Investigations;

•

$90 million for custody management and detention bedspace;

•

$43.7 million for ICE’s Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force

(OCDETF) activities;

•

$25 million for ABCI and Interior Repatriation;

•

$24 million for detention and removal;

•

$18 million for temporary worker worksite enforcement;

•

$11.3 million for the Homeland Security Data Network;

•

$9.9 million for the Federal Air Marshals (FAMS);

•

$8.8 million for Fugitive Operations;

•

$5.6 million for Institutional Removal Program (IRP);

•

$5.4 million for Alternatives to Detention;

•

$5 million for Visa Security; and

•

$3.5 million for legal resources.

House-Passed H.R. 2360

House-passed H.R. 2360 provided $3,830 million for ICE including $699 million for FAMS, or

$3,131 million without funding for FAMS. Of the appropriated amount, $5 million was to be used

to implement §287(g) of the INA; and $11.2 million was designated to fund or reimburse other

federal agencies for the cost of care, and repatriation of smuggled aliens. House-passed H.R. 2360

also would have withheld $20 million of the money appropriated to DHS’ Office of the Secretary

and Executive management until the Secretary of DHS submitted a report to the Appropriations

Committee outlining an immigration enforcement strategy to reduce the number of unauthorized

aliens in the United States by 10% each year.

Additionally, H.Rept. 109-79 recommended fully funding the President’s requests and

recommended an additional:

•

$90 million for 1,920 detention beds;

•

$16 million for 60 fugitive operations team positions;

•

$18 million for 100 Institutional Removal Program agents;

•

$10 million for 49 Alternatives to Detention positions;

•

$19 million for 150 criminal investigators;

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

•

$18 million for 200 Immigration Enforcement Agents; and

•

$800,000 for the Cyber Crimes Center.

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360

Senate-passed H.R. 2360 provided $3,806 million for ICE including $679 million for FAMS, or

$3,127 million without funding for FAMS. Of the appropriated amount,$11.2 million was

designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care, and repatriation of

smuggled aliens. Additionally, S.Rept. 109-83 recommended an increase of:

•

$77.4 million for 32 positions (16 FTEs) for Custody Management;

•

$4.8 million for the Visa Security Program;

•

$24.9 million for 60 fugitive operations team positions (30 FTEs);

•

$23.4 million for 136 Institutional Removal Program agents (69 FTEs);

•

$15.4 million for 62 Alternatives to Detention positions (31 FTEs);

•

$37 million for 300 investigator positions for immigration investigations

(150 FTEs);

•

$18 million for 200 (100 FTEs) Immigration Enforcement Agents;

•

$25 million for the Arizona Border Control Initiative; and

•

$3.5 million for additional attorney personnel.

P.L. 109-90

P.L. 109-90 provides $3,175 million for ICE. This total does not include $686 million in funding

for FAMS. If funding for FAMS is included in the total funding for ICE, P.L. 109-90 provides

$3,861 million for ICE, an increase of $31 million over House-passed H.R. 2360, and $55 million

over Senate-passed H.R. 2360. In addition, the funding for ICE in P.L. 109-90 provides an

increase of $213 million, or 6% more than the President’s FY2006 request and $324 million, or

9% above FY2005 enacted. Of the appropriated amount in P.L. 109-90, not less than $5 million is

to be used to implement §287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 55 which allows

the Attorney General56 to enter into agreements with states and local governments to allow their

employees to perform functions of immigration officers; and $11.2 million is designated to fund

or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care, and repatriation of smuggled aliens. In

addition, $5 million of the appropriated funds for ICE salaries and expenses would not be

available until the Secretary of DHS submits to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees

a national detention management plan.

Additionally, P.L. 109-90 recommends an increase of:

•

$90 million to augment bed space capacity including support positions;

•

$42 million for additional criminal investigator positions;

8 U.S.C. §§1101 et seq. 8 U.S.C. §1357(g).

This provision is now being administered by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

•

$35 million to annualize new positions and programs funded in P.L. 109-13 so

that DHS will not divert the $32 million provided for bed space in P.L. 109-13 to

annualized personnel costs;

•

$9 million for 100 new Immigration Enforcement Agents;

•

$16 million for new fugitive operations team positions; 57

•

$18 million to expand the Institutional Removal Program;

•

$10 million to broaden the Alternatives to Detention program including the

Intense Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP);

•

$1 million to increase the speed, accuracy and efficiency of immigration

enforcement information currently entered into the National Crime Information

Center database (NCIC); and

•

$5 million for the Cyber Crimes Center.

P.L. 109-90 also recommends an increase of $15.8 million to be offset by a reduction in CBP’s

salaries and expenses for the enforcement of laws against forced child labor.

ICE Issues for Congress

There are several issues within the ICE appropriation that may be of interest to Congress,

including but not limited to: the severe financial management problems at the agency over the

past several years; the lack of detention bed-space; and whether the agency has enough

investigators to adequately pursue its many varied missions.

Financial Management at ICE

ICE inherited its financial organization and systems from the former INS. An independent audit

of ICE’s financial statements concluded that the agency’s accounting records were inadequately

maintained during FY2004. The report noted that ICE had served as the accounting services

provider for several other DHS agencies58 while simultaneously experiencing significant turnover

among its financial management staff. This led the agency to fall “seriously behind in basic

accounting functions, such as account reconciliations, analysis of material abnormal balances, and

proper budgetary accounting.” Additionally, serving as the accounting provider for other agencies

led ICE to experience budget shortfalls due to tardy reimbursements for expenses it provided to

cover other agencies’ costs. This budget shortfall forced the agency into a freeze on hiring and

non-mission critical expenditures, including training. The auditors concluded that DHS should

immediately address the “void in ICE’s financial management infrastructure.”59 ICE recently

requested a $500 million reprogramming for FY2005 to cover funding shortfalls within the

The Office of Detention and Removal’s National Fugitive Operations Program (NFOP) seeks to apprehend,

process, and remove aliens who have failed to comply with removal orders, giving priority to apprehending aliens

convicted of crimes.

Among others, ICE serves as the accounting service provider for CIS, S&T, IAIP, DHS Management, and BTS

Headquarters. These agencies include parts of 10 of the 22 legacy agencies that were transferred to DHS and account

for roughly 20% of total DHS FY2004 budget authority.

Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, Independent Auditors’ Report on DHS FY2004

Financial Statements, OIG-05-05, Dec. 2004, pp. 320-333.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

agency.60 House Appropriators expressed concern and disappointment over the continuing

financial troubles at ICE. The Committee notes that the agency has been forced to employ drastic

cost-cutting measures that the Committee believes adversely limited ICE’s operations. The

Committee directs DHS to provide monthly reports on ICE’s financial condition.61

Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions

The Office of Investigations (OI) in ICE focuses on a broad array of criminal and civil violation

affecting national security such as illegal arms exports, financial crimes, commercial fraud,

human trafficking, narcotics smuggling, child pornography/exploitation, worksite enforcement,

and immigration fraud. ICE special agents also conduct investigations aimed at protecting critical

infrastructure industries that are vulnerable to sabotage, attack or exploitation.62 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. 63

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458, §5203) authorized

for FY2006, subject to appropriations, the addition of at least 800 new investigators to investigate

violations of immigration law. The $1,496 million requested in the President’s budget for the OI

includes increases in the base funding for two groups responsible for immigration enforcement,

the Visa Security Unit (VSU)64 and Temporary Worker Worksite Enforcement, and includes a

total of 148 new positions for these units. The President’s budget requested an additional $18

million for temporary worker worksite enforcement to add 143 positions responsible for

investigating and prosecuting violations under existing immigration law for hiring unauthorized

aliens, and supporting and implementing the provisions of possible temporary worker legislation.

The President’s request also included an increase of $5 million to add five new officers to the

VSU, open a new overseas location, and expand training programs. H.Rept. 109-79

recommended $19 million to expand the Visa Security Program, and S. Rept.109-83

recommended an additional $4.8 million for nine positions for an additional VSU. H.Rept. 109241 does not contain an increase for the VSU. Furthermore, H.Rept. 109-79 recommended an

additional $18 million over the President’s request for 200 new Immigration Enforcement Agents

(IEAs),65 and $19 million for an additional 150 criminal investigators.66 S.Rept. 109-83

U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Fiscal Year 2006

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations, Mar. 15, 2005.

H.Rept. 109-79, pp. 33-34.

For more information see http://www.ice.gov/graphics/investigations/index.htm.

Based on CRS discussions with ICE personnel in New York City, Aug. 27, 2003.

Officers of the VSU are assigned to consular posts to conduct law-enforcement reviews of visa applications, and

provide advice and training to consular officers. For more information on visa issuance see CRS Report RL31512, Visa

Issuances: Policy, Issues, and Legislation, by (name redacted).

The Conference Report (H.Rept. 109-72) for the Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-13) provides funding

for an additional 168 IEAs and detention officers.

The Conference Report (H.Rept. 109-72) for the Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-13) contains funding

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

recommended an additional $37 million for 300 new immigration investigations positions, and

$18 million for 200 IEAs. The conference report, H.Rept. 109-241, recommends an additional

$42 million for additional criminal investigator positions, $5 million more than the Senate

committee report and $23 million more than House committee report. However, H.Rept. 109-241

provides an increase of $9 million for 100 new IEA’s, half of what was provided in the House and

Senate committee reports. Like S.Rept. 109-83, H.Rept. 109-241 does not provide a funding

increase for temporary worksite enforcement.

Detention and Removal Operations

Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) in ICE provide custody management of aliens who are

in removal proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United States.67 DRO is also

responsible for ensuring that aliens ordered removed actually depart from the United States.

Many contend that DRO does not have enough detention space to house all those who should be

detained. A study done by DOJ’s Inspector General found that almost 94% of those detained with

final orders of removal were deported while only 11% of those not detained who were issued

final orders of removal left the country.68 Concerns have been raised that decisions on which

aliens to release and when to release the aliens may be based on the amount of detention space,

not on the merits of individual cases, and that the amount of space may vary by area of the

country leading to inequities and disparate policies in different geographic areas. The Intelligence

Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458, §5204) authorized, subject to

appropriations, an increase in DRO bed space of 8,000 beds for each year, FY2006-FY2010. The

President’s budget requested an increase for FY2006 of $90 million for 1,920 new beds. H.Rept.

109-79 recommended $90 million for 1,920 new beds,69 while S.Rept. 109-83 recommended

$77.4 million for 32 positions for Custody Management and 2,240 new beds. H.Rept. 109-241

proposes an increase of $90 million for new bedspace and the required support positions. Housepassed H.R. 2360 would have withheld $50 million of the appropriated funds for ICE salaries and

expenses until the Assistant Secretary of ICE submitted to the Appropriations Committee a

national detention management plan. This provision was included in H.Rept. 109-241, but only

$5 million will be withheld until the Secretary of DHS submits the report.

Alternatives to Detention

Due to the cost of detaining aliens, and the fact that many non-detained aliens with final orders of

removal do not leave the country, there has been interest in developing alternatives to detention

for certain types of aliens who do not require a secure detention setting. In 2004, ICE began a

pilot program, the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP), for low-risk, non-violent

(...continued)

for 50 new criminal investigators. Nonetheless, it is unknown to which types of cases the new criminal investigators

will be assigned.

For more information on detention issues see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention: Current

Legislative Issues, by (name redacted). 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.

Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, The Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Removal of

Aliens Issued Final Orders, Report I-2003-004, Feb. 2003.

The Conference Report (H.Rept. 109-72) for the Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-13) contains funding

for an additional 1950 beds.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

offenders.70 H.Rept. 109-79 recommended $10 million for 49 new positions for this program, and

S.Rept. 109-83 recommended $15.4 million and 32 new positions. Like, the H.Rept. 109-79,

H.Rept. 109-241 provides an increase of $10 million for alternatives to detention including the

ISAP.

Interior Repatriation

ICE proposes a $25 million increase for the Interior Repatriation program. On June 9, 2004 the

White House announced it had reached agreement with the Mexican government to begin piloting

the Interior Repatriation Program, which aims to reduce the number of aliens who immediately

try to cross back into the United States by flying them into the interior of Mexico. Due to

constitutional constraints in Mexico, the apprehended aliens’ return to the interior must be strictly

voluntary and the willingness of their participation is certified by Mexican consular officers.71 In

order to continue the program in FY2006, the Administration requested $39.3 million; $25

million for Custody Management and $14.3 for Transportation and Removal. This represented a

$25 million increase from the $14 million spent on the pilot program in FY2005. H.Rept. 109-79

directed the Commissioner of CBP to report no later than January 16, 2006 on the performance of

the Interior Repatriation Program. As in H.Rept. 109-79, neither S.Rept. 109-83 nor H.Rept. 109241 contains funding specifically for the Interior Repatriation Program.

State and Local Law Enforcement72

Currently the INA provides limited avenues for state enforcement of both its civil and criminal

provisions. One of the broadest grants of authority for state and local immigration enforcement

activity stems from INA §287(g), which authorizes the Attorney General to enter into a written

agreement with a State, or any political subdivision to allow an officer or employee of the State or

subdivision, to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation,

apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States. The enforcement of immigration by

state and local officials has sparked debate among many who question what the proper role of

state and local law enforcement officials should be in enforcing federal immigration laws. Many

have expressed concern over proper training, finite resources at the local level, possible civil

rights violations, and the overall impact on communities. Some localities, for example, even

provide “sanctuary” for illegal aliens and will generally promote policies that ensure such aliens

will not be turned over to federal authorities. Nonetheless, some observers contend that the

federal government has scarce resources to enforce immigration law and that state and local law

enforcement entities should be utilized. As in Senate-passed H.R. 2360 and House-passed H.R.

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

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Public Security: ICE Unveils New

Alternative to Detention,” Inside ICE, vol. 1, no. 5, June 21, 2004. Available at http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/

newsreleases/insideice/insideice_062104_web3.htm.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Office of the Press Secretary,

“Department of Homeland Security to Begin Pilot Program for Voluntary Interior Repatriation of Mexican Nationals,”

press release, June 29, 2004.

This section adapted from CRS Report RL32270, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law

Enforcement, by Lisa M. Seghetti, (name redacted), and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Transportation Security Administration (TSA)73

The TSA was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA, P.L. 107-71), and

was charged with protecting U.S. air, land, and rail transportation systems to ensure freedom of

movement for people and commerce. In 2002, the TSA was transferred to DHS with the passage

of the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296). TSA’s responsibilities include protecting the

aviation system against terrorist threats, sabotage, and other acts of violence through the

deployment of: passenger and baggage screeners; detection systems for explosives, weapons, and

other contraband; and other security technologies. TSA also has certain responsibilities for marine

and land modes of transportation. TSA is further charged with serving as the primary liaison for

transportation security to the law enforcement and intelligence communities, and with conducting

research and development to improve security technologies.

President’s Request

The President requested an appropriation of $5,562 million in gross budget authority for TSA in

FY2006, a net increase of $162 million, or 3%, over the enacted FY2005 level of $5,400

million. 74 However, in comparing the FY2006 budget request to prior year levels, it is important

to note that the President requested to transfer a large portion of TSA’s research and development

functions—totaling $109 million in FY2005 appropriated amounts—to the S&T Directorate, and

a transfer of a variety of functions—totaling $142 million in FY2005—to the proposed Office of

Screening Coordination and Operations (SCO). Functions that would have been transferred to the

SCO under the proposal included Secure Flight ($35 million); Crew Vetting ($10 million);

Credentialing Startup Costs ($10 million); Transportation Worker Identification Card (TWIC, $50

million); Registered Traveler ($15 million); HAZMAT Driver Security Threat Assessments ($17

million); and Alien Flight School Applicant Security Threat Assessments ($5 million). Adjusting

for these transfers and other miscellaneous factors, the requested increase to the TSA budget

totaled $415 million, roughly a 7.7% increase over FY2005 enacted levels (see P.L. 108-334).

Almost 90% of the TSA’s proposed budget is designated for aviation security functions. Key

aviation security initiatives proposed included:

•

developing and testing emerging checkpoint explosives technologies;

•

realigning the screener workforce and providing funds needed to maintain an

authorized level of 45,000 full-time equivalents (FTEs);

•

deploying high-speed Internet connections at airport screening checkpoints and

baggage screening areas;

•

providing mandated training for flight and cabin crews and conducting

semiannual requalification for armed pilots; and

•

conducting mandated security inspections of foreign airline repair stations and

inspections at domestic repair stations.

Section prepared by Bartholomew Elias, Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology; and (name redacted),

Specialist in Transportation, Resources, Science and Industry Division.

The amount for FY2005 listed here includes $250 million for the Aviation Security Capital Fund, and $5 million for

Alien Flight School Background Checks; and the amount for FY2006 includes $250 million for the Aviation Security

Capital Fund. These amounts are listed as non-adds in Table 5, and are not included in the committee tables.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

In an effort to approach full cost recovery from user fees for aviation security screening, the

President proposed an increase in passenger security fees. The proposal would have raised the fee

from its current level of $2.50 per flight segment, with a maximum fee of $5.00 per one-way trip,

to $5.50 per segment, with a maximum of $8.00 per one-way trip. The Administration believed

that this proposed fee increase coupled with a return to pre-9/11 passenger volume would result in

an increase in fee collections from an estimated $2.652 billion in FY2005 to $4.1 billion in

FY2006. This increase was projected to offset roughly 82% of the proposed $4.985 billion budget

for aviation security. In contrast, aviation security fees collected in FY2004 offset only 41% of

expenditures for aviation security.75

For surface transportation security, the President requested $32 million, including $8 million for

hiring and deploying 100 rail and transit inspectors. These inspectors will be deployed at

significant rail and mass transit points across the United States to perform compliance reviews,

audits, and enforcement actions pertaining to security measures.

House-Passed H.R. 2360

House-passed H.R. 2360 would have provided a gross total of $5,683 million (net total of $3,263

million) for the TSA. This total included $264.3 million for Transportation Vetting and

Credentialing which the President’s request proposed to transfer to the SCO.

For aviation security activities, the initial House-passed version of H.R. 2360 would have

provided $143.2 million less than the President’s request but was $268.1 million more than

FY2005 enacted levels.76 There are several key differences between H.R. 2360 and the

President’s request regarding aviation security. Funding for private screening contracts at airports

was set at $6.5 million less than the requested level. The House Committee on Appropriations

found that the full request was not justified because of a lack of interest in the federal screening

opt-out program due to lingering concerns over airport liability and other aspects of the program.

The committee also found a lack of justification for the proposed increases in aviation regulation

and law enforcement recommending that the TSA trim staffing levels in this program element,

and the House initially agreed to a funding level $9.8 million below the President’s request.

Similarly, the committee expressed concerns over staffing levels in airport management,

information technology and support, and the House initially agreed to fund this component of the

TSA budget at a level $108.2 million below the President’s request. The committee also did not

agree with the President’s request for increased funding for the Federal Flight Deck Officer

Program, citing high unobligated balances as evidence that this program does not need additional

funds. The House agreed to $25 million for this program, the same as what was appropriated in

FY2004 and FY2005.

In keeping with previous year trends, the House initially agreed to larger funding amounts for air

cargo security, providing $60 million, $20 million more than the President’s request. This

included an additional $10 million to hire 100 new air cargo inspectors, plus increased funding

for travel for inspectors, enhancements to the known-shipper database, and security threat

assessments. Additionally, the House passed two general provisions calling for more thorough

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Statement of David M. Stone,

Assistant Secretary Before the Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, United States Senate, Feb. 15,

2005. (Hereafter cited as Statement of David M. Stone).

H.Rept. 109-79, p. 42.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

screening of shipments on all-cargo and passenger aircraft by March 1, 2006 (Sec. 522), and

requiring the TSA, to the greatest extent practicable, to use checked baggage equipment and

screeners to screen cargo carried on passenger aircraft (Sec. 523).

Consistent with the President’s request and prior year appropriations language, the House agreed

to keep screener staffing at or below the 45,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) cap. The committee

noted that efficiencies gained through new technologies and increased use of in-line explosives

detection systems (EDS) can greatly reduce the need for baggage screeners. The House agreed to

additional funding of in-line EDS, proposing a total of $75 million for this purpose—$61 million

above President’s request—in addition to the $250 million mandatory deposit into the Aviation

Security Capital Fund. While the committee agreed with the President’s request to limit the

federal share at the eight existing airports with letters on intent (LOIs) to 75% , rather than the

90% authorized for large airports in Vision 100 (P.L. 108-176), this measure was stricken by a

point of order because it sought to modify existing law. H.R. 2360 provides additional funding for

the purchase of EDS and explosive trace detection (ETD) equipment, providing $40 million

above the $130 million included in the President’s request for this purpose. In an effort to further

increase the availability of funds for EDS, the House agreed to language directing the TSA to

spend any recovered or deobligated funds appropriated for aviation security or TSA

administration exclusively on EDS procurement and installation (Sec. 530).

For surface transportation security, the House agreed to $36 million, which is $4 million more

than the President’s request. The House agreed with the President’s request that $8 million of this

total be designated for federal rail security inspectors. The House also provided $4 million for a

hazardous materials truck tracking program.

Senate-Passed H.R. 2360

The Senate initially agreed to a gross total of $5,055 million (net total of $3,065 million) for the

TSA, not including the $250 million in direct funding to the Aviation Security Capital Fund. This

total includes $255 million for Transportation Vetting and Credentialing which the President’s

request proposed to transfer to the SCO.

For aviation security, the Senate initially agreed to $4,452 million, $129 million more than the

FY2005 appropriation, but $283 million less than the budget request and $139 million less than

the House-passed bill. Unlike the budget request and the House-passed bill, the Senate language

contained no specific cap on the number of screeners but, like the House bill, sought to increase

funding for screening technologies in a move to rapidly shift away from a workforce-intensive

use of resources. The Senate bill endeavored to do this, in part, by increasing the TSA’s flexibility

to transfer monies from screener workforce accounts to accounts for procuring screening

equipment. The Senate bill provided $180 million for EDS and ETD procurement with the

stipulation that at least $50 million be used for acquiring next-generation EDS equipment.

The Senate-passed bill made more modest reductions in the budget request for airport

management, staff, information technology, and support, recommending $748 million for this

function, $10 million less than the budget request but $103 million above the House-passed

amount. In contrast to the fiscal concerns expressed by the House committee, Senate report

language noted that increased funding for information technology is imperative for maintaining

real-time intelligence and operational effectiveness and efficiency.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

The Senate provision of $50 million for air cargo security fell directly between the budget request

of $40 million and the House-passed level of $60 million. The additional $10 million above the

request offered in the Senate-passed bill included $7 million for hiring additional inspectors and

$3 million for increased inspections of both international flights and domestic passenger flights.

The Senate bill also directed the TSA to continue coordination of “known-shipper” and CustomsTrade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) programs and move toward the goal of screening

100 percent of cargo carried on passenger airplanes.

With regard to surface transportation security, the Senate bill was in full agreement with the

House-passed amount and use of funds. Also, the Senate bill was in concordance with the Housepassed plan to keep transportation vetting and credentialing functions within the TSA but set

direct funding for credentialing activities at a level $9 million less than the House-passed amount.

Senate floor debate on the appropriations bill occurred shortly after the terrorist bombings of

London’s transit system. Three amendments that would have substantially increased security

funding for U.S. transit and intercity rail systems were defeated during Senate floor debate.

P.L. 109-90

P.L. 109-90 provides $5,334 million for the operations of the TSA plus an additional $686 million

for the Federal Air Marshals, which rejoined the TSA under the DHS restructuring plan, termed

the Second Stage Review (2SR), that was released in June, 2005. This set the total discretionary

appropriation for TSA at $6,094 million. To this, $250 million in mandatory funding for the

Aviation Security Capital Fund is added to bring the total TSA appropriation to $6,344 million.

For aviation security, P.L. 109-90 provides $4,607 million, $15 million above the House-passed

amount and $155 above the Senate-passed amount, but $128 million below the President’s

request. The Act provides $283 million more that the FY2005 enacted level for aviation security

but keeps the longstanding cap on the number of full-time equivalent screeners in place at 45,000.

Funding for privatized screening is set at $139 million, consistent with the House-passed amount,

with the option for TSA to adjust funding between TSA screening operations and the private set

aside as new contracts are awarded or as airports leave the private screening program after

notifying the appropriations committees. A general provision (Sec. 547) of the Act added in

conference provides long-sought liability protections for airports that elect to opt-out of TSA

federal screening and implement private screening contracts managed by the TSA. San Francisco

International Airport, the largest airport with private screeners, had signaled that it would end its

private screener pilot program, but reversed this decision based on the inclusion of statutory

liability protections. While privatizing airport screening contracts have not yet attracted much

interest among airports that currently have federal screeners, in part, due to lingering liability

concerns, lawmakers who have advocated a shift toward private screening operations are hopeful

that this provision will spur an increase in airports with private screeners.

For air cargo security measures, P.L. 109-90 provides $55 million, an even split between the

House-passed $60 million and the Senate-passed $50 million. This funding level is $15 million

above FY2005 enacted levels and the President’s request for FY2006 and includes $10 million for

hiring and deploying an additional 100 regulatory inspectors and $5 million for improving

databases of freight forwarders and known shippers, performing threat assessments, and carrying

out pending rulemaking activities.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

The conferees agreed to $57 million for Secure Flight—the controversial program for

prescreening airline passengers—an amount equal to that passed by the Senate, but $9 million

less than the House-passed amount. While the conferees continued to support this additional layer

of aviation security, the conference report noted that the TSA has failed to fully justify cost

estimates for FY2006 and has failed to commence initial operating capability of the system at two

airlines by the scheduled date of August 19, 2005. The conferees also agreed to a general

provision prohibiting deployment of the system on other than a test basis until the Government

Accountability Office (GAO) certifies that 10 elements related to privacy protections, data

security, and redress for aggrieved individuals are adequately addressed. Similar provisions were

enacted in appropriations legislation for FY2004 and FY2005. The provision in the FY2006 Act

also prevents the TSA from using commercial data in the system. While commercial data is seen

as a possible means for authenticating passenger identities, some in Congress have raised

concerns over TSA’s prior disclosure and handling of personal data obtained from commercial

sources during the development and testing of Secure Flight.

P.L. 109-90 provides $36 million for surface transportation security. Both the House and Senate

had agreed to this amount, which is $12 million less than FY2005 enacted levels but $4 million

above the President’s request.

Issues for Congress

The President’s proposal to increase airline passenger security fees has been a contentious issue

that failed to garner sufficient support in either the House or the Senate, and met with

considerable criticism during the appropriations debate. Financially strapped airlines—still

recovering from the economic impact of the 9/11 attacks and now facing rising fuel costs—

argued that they would likely have to absorb some of the proposed fee increases by reducing

ticket prices.77 Some Members of Congress also voiced concern that the proposed fee increase

could cut into the revenues of the airlines, and could have a greater impact on rural airline

customers who would pay proportionately more in per-segment fees because fewer direct flights

are available to these customers.78 The Administration, on the other hand, argued that increased

fees could help reduce a funding deficit by generating additional revenue to offset expenditures

for aviation security, or could free up general tax revenues for spending on broader homeland

security needs. The Administration maintained that increasing fees to offset costs is in line with

long-standing transportation infrastructure policy to fund these services largely through user fees,

as well as its assessment of the original intent of these passenger security fees established under

ATSA (P.L 107-71).79 However, some opponents of aviation security fees contend that aviation

security, particularly since September 11, 2001, is vital to national security, and therefore, like

defense spending, is the responsibility of all taxpayers. The House Committee on Appropriations

noted that amending the statutory fee structure falls under the jurisdiction of the Homeland

Security Committee and did not include the proposed fee increases in its bill. An amendment to

the FY2006 DHS Authorization Act (H.R. 1817) prohibiting an increase in airline ticket taxes for

aviation security was agreed to by a large majority in the House, despite opposition by Aviation

Air Transport Association of America, Inc., Statement for the Record to the Committee on Commerce, Science &

Transportation, United States Senate Hearing on Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Transportation Security Administration,

Feb. 15, 2005.

Sara Kehaulani Goo, “Senate Turbulence Greets Plan to Raise Airline Ticket Security Fees,” The Washington Post,

Feb. 16, 2005, p. A2.

See Statement of David M. Stone.

Congressional Research Service

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations

Subcommittee Chairman John Mica. While the Senate also did not recommend any passenger fee

increases, language in S.Rept. 109-83 directed the TSA to use its available authority to collect

about $448 million from aviation security infrastructure fees paid directly by the airlines. This is

the amount determined by a GAO audit that TSA should be collecting annually. However, the

TSA has been collecting only about $318 million in these fees, despite assuming that collections

would total $750 milli

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.