Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Congressional research reportNov 17, 2006
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Homeland Security Department: FY2007
Appropriations
(name redacted), Coordinator
Analyst in Domestic Security
November 17, 2006
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL33428
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Summary
The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and supplemental) by
Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also encompasses the consideration of
budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation, other spending measures, and
reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and the spending of appropriated funds
are subject to constraints established in authorizing statutes. Congressional action on the budget
for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission of the President’s budget at the
beginning of each annual session of Congress. Congressional practices governing the
consideration of appropriations and other budgetary measures are rooted in the Constitution, the
standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to one of the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers each year.
It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate Appropriations
Subcommittees on Homeland Security. It summarizes the status of the bill, its scope, major
issues, funding levels, and related congressional activity, and is updated as events warrant. The
report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
This report describes the FY2007 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). On October 4, 2006, P.L. 109-295 was signed into law. P.L. 109-295 provides gross total
budget authority of $41.4 billion for DHS for FY2007. This amounts includes $1.8 billion in
emergency funding that was added to the bill during conference. P.L. 109-295 provides net
budget authority of $34.8 billion, including the emergency funding. Excluding the emergency
funding, P.L. 109-295 provides nearly $33.0 billion in net budget authority for DHS for FY2007.
Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would have provided $32.8 billion in net budget authority for DHS for
FY2007. House-passed H.R. 5441 would have provided $33.2 billion in net budget authority for
DHS in FY2007. The Administration requested a net appropriation of $31.9 billion in net budget
authority for FY2007.
P.L. 109-295 provides the following net appropriation for major components of DHS: $8,035
million for Customs and Border Protection (CBP); $3,958 million for Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE); $3,628 million for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA); $8,316
million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,277 million for the Secret Service; $4,018 million for the
Preparedness Directorate; $2,511 million for the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA); $182 million for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); and $973 million
for the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T).
The requested net appropriation for major components of the department included the following:
$6,574 million for CBP; $3,928 million for ICE; $2,323 million for TSA; $8,181 million for the
U.S. Coast Guard; $1,265 million for the Secret Service; $3,420 million for the Preparedness
Directorate; $2,964 million for FEMA; $182 million for USCIS; and $1,002 million for the S&T.
House-passed H.R. 5441, contained the following amounts for major components of the
department: $6,434 million for CBP; $3,876 million for ICE; $3,618 million for TSA; $8,129
million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,293 million for the Secret Service; $4,069 million for the
Preparedness Directorate; $2,656 million for the FEMA; $162 million for USCIS; $956 million
for S&T; and $500 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO).
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Senate-passed H.R. 5441 contained the following amounts for major components of the
department: $6,683 million for CBP; $3,919 million for ICE; $3,816 million for TSA; $8,188
million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,226 million for the Secret Service; $3,901 million for the
Preparedness Directorate; $2,606 million for FEMA; $135 million for USCIS; $818 million for
S&T; and $442 million for the DNDO.
This report will not be updated.
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments ............................................................................................................. 1
P.L. 109-295 Signed into law .............................................................................................. 1
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 .................................................................................................... 1
House-Passed H.R. 5441 ..................................................................................................... 1
President’s FY2007 Budget Submitted ............................................................................... 1
Note on Most Recent Data .................................................................................................. 2
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Department of Homeland Security ............................................................................................ 2
Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review ......................................................................... 3
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations ................................................................................................... 4
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays .............................................................................. 5
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending .................................................................................... 6
Offsetting Collections ................................................................................................................ 6
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security............................................................. 8
Summary of DHS Appropriations ............................................................................................. 8
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations ....................................................................... 12
President’s FY2007 Request ............................................................................................. 12
House-Passed H.R. 5441 ................................................................................................... 12
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 .................................................................................................. 12
P.L. 109-295 ...................................................................................................................... 13
Analysis and Operations .......................................................................................................... 14
Background ....................................................................................................................... 14
President’s FY2007 Request ............................................................................................. 15
House-Passed H.R. 5441 ................................................................................................... 16
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 .................................................................................................. 16
P.L. 109-295 ...................................................................................................................... 17
Personnel Issues....................................................................................................................... 19
President’s FY2007 Request ............................................................................................. 20
House-Passed H.R. 5441 ................................................................................................... 22
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 .................................................................................................. 22
P.L. 109-295 ...................................................................................................................... 23
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations ......................................................................... 24
US-VISIT ................................................................................................................................ 28
President’s FY2007 Request ............................................................................................. 28
House-Passed H.R. 5441 ................................................................................................... 28
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 .................................................................................................. 28
P.L. 109-295 ...................................................................................................................... 29
Customs and Border Protection (CBP).................................................................................... 29
President’s FY2007 Request ............................................................................................. 29
House-Passed H.R. 5441 ................................................................................................... 29
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 .................................................................................................. 30
P.L. 109-295 ...................................................................................................................... 30
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 31
CBP Staffing...................................................................................................................... 31
Border Patrol Vehicles ....................................................................................................... 33
Border Technology Increase .............................................................................................. 33
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Infrastructure Construction ............................................................................................... 34
Tucson Sector Border Patrol Checkpoints ........................................................................ 35
Border Tunnels .................................................................................................................. 35
Cargo and Container Security ........................................................................................... 36
Radiation Detection Devices and Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) Technology . .............. 38
CBP Air and Marine . ........................................................................................................ 39
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles ................................................................................................ 40
Shadow Wolves Transfer ................................................................................................... 40
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ........................................................................ 41
President’s FY2007 Request ............................................................................................. 41
House-Passed H.R. 5441 ................................................................................................... 42
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 .................................................................................................. 43
P.L. 109-295 ...................................................................................................................... 44
Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions ............................................................... 44
Secure Border Initiative .................................................................................................... 47
State and Local Law Enforcement . .................................................................................. 47
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) ....................................................................... 48
President’s FY2007 Request ............................................................................................. 48
House-Passed H.R. 5441 ................................................................................................... 52
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 .................................................................................................. 54
P.L. 109-295 ...................................................................................................................... 56
TSA Issues for Congress ................................................................................................... 58
United States Coast Guard ....................................................................................................... 60
President’s FY2007 Request ............................................................................................. 60
House-Passed H.R. 5441 ................................................................................................... 60
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 .................................................................................................. 61
P.L. 109-295 ...................................................................................................................... 61
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 61
Deepwater ......................................................................................................................... 61
Security Mission................................................................................................................ 62
Non-homeland Security Missions ..................................................................................... 63
U.S. Secret Service .................................................................................................................. 63
FY2007 Budget Request ................................................................................................... 64
House-Passed H.R. 5441 ................................................................................................... 64
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 .................................................................................................. 64
P.L. 109-295 ...................................................................................................................... 65
Title III: Preparedness and Response ............................................................................................. 65
Preparedness Directorate ......................................................................................................... 68
Office of Grants and Training ........................................................................................... 68
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 69
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ................................................................ 71
Hurricane Katrina Issues ................................................................................................... 71
Funding ............................................................................................................................. 71
Disaster Relief Fund .......................................................................................................... 72
National Disaster Medical System .................................................................................... 73
The National Emergency Management Title (Title VI) .................................................... 73
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS) ...................................................... 74
President’s FY2007 Request ............................................................................................. 74
House-Passed H.R. 5441 ................................................................................................... 76
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 .................................................................................................. 76
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
P.L. 109-295 ...................................................................................................................... 77
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................................. 77
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) .............................................................. 80
President’s FY2007 Request ............................................................................................. 81
House-Passed H.R. 5441 ................................................................................................... 81
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 .................................................................................................. 81
P.L. 109-295 ...................................................................................................................... 81
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 82
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) ............................................................. 82
President’s FY2007 Request ............................................................................................. 83
House-Passed H.R. 5441 ................................................................................................... 83
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441 .................................................................................................. 83
P.L. 109-295 ...................................................................................................................... 83
Science and Technology (S&T) ............................................................................................... 83
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office......................................................................................... 85
FY2007 Related Legislation .......................................................................................................... 87
Budget Resolution—S.Con.Res. 83/H.Con.Res ...................................................................... 87
Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations .................................................. 2
Table 2. FY2007 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS .......................................................... 5
Table 3. FY2007 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to Net Appropriation—
Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust and Public Enterprise Accounts ................................. 7
Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations ..................................................................................... 9
Table 5. Title I: Department Management and Operations ............................................................ 13
Table 6. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations .......................................................... 25
Table 7. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail .......................................................................................... 30
Table 8. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail........................................................................................... 41
Table 9. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity ............................................................ 49
Table 10. Title III: Preparedness and Response ............................................................................. 66
Table 11. FY2007 Appropriations, Office of Grants and Training Assistance Programs ............. 69
Table 12. FY2007 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure Protection and Information
Security Appropriation ............................................................................................................... 75
Table 13. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................. 78
Table 14. Research and Development Accounts and Activities, FY2006-FY2007 ....................... 85
Table B-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2006 ............................ 92
Appendixes
Appendix A. FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions........................................... 88
Appendix B. DHS Appropriations in Context ............................................................................... 92
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 93
Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................. 94
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
P.L. 109-295 Signed into law
On October 4, 2006, P.L. 109-295 was signed into law. Both the House and Senate approved the
conference report (H.Rept. 109-699) on September 29, 2006; the House by a vote of 412-6, and
the Senate by a voice vote. P.L. 109-295 provides gross total budget authority of $41.4 billion for
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for FY2007. This amounts includes $1.8 billion in
emergency funding that was added to the bill during conference. P.L. 109-699 provides net
budget authority of $34.8 billion, including the emergency funding. Excluding the emergency
funding, P.L. 109-295 provides nearly $33.0 billion in net budget authority for DHS for FY2007.
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441
On July 13, 2006, the Senate passed H.R. 5441. The bill contains a total of $32.8 billion in net
budget authority for DHS for FY2007. This is $900 million more than the $31.9 billion net
appropriation requested by the Administration for FY2007. The Senate-passed H.R. 5441
represents a $.9 billion, or 3% increase, from the FY2006 enacted net budget authority of $31.9
billion. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 also includes a $648 supplemental appropriation for FY2006;
for more information on this supplemental appropriation please refer to Appendix A.
House-Passed H.R. 5441
On May 22, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5441. The bill contains a total of $33.2 billion in net
budget authority for DHS for FY2007. This is $1.2 billion more than the $31.9 billion net
appropriation requested by the Administration for FY2007. However, this difference is almost
entirely ($1.2 billion) due to the aviation security fee increase requested by the Administration,
but which would be denied by the House bill. The House-passed H.R. 5441 amount of $33.2
billion is $1.2 or a 4% increase compared with the FY2006 enacted net budget authority of $31.9
billion.
President’s FY2007 Budget Submitted
The President’s budget request for DHS for FY2007 was submitted to Congress on February 6,
2006. The Administration requested $42.7 billion in gross budget authority for FY2007 (including
mandatories, fees, and funds). The Administration’s request includes gross appropriations of
$39.8 billion, and a net appropriation of $32.0 billion in budget authority for FY2007, of which
$31.0 billion is discretionary budget authority, and $1 billion is mandatory budget authority. The
FY2006 enacted net appropriated budget authority for DHS was $32.0 billion.
Congressional Research Service
1
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee
Markup
House
Senate
05/11
vv
06/27
vv
House
Report
109-476
House
Passage
05/17
vv
06/06
389-9
Senate
Report
109-273
Senate
Passage
06/29
28-0
07/13
100-0
Conf.
Report
109-699
Conference
Report Approval
House
Senate
09/28
—
09/29
412-6
09/29
vv
Public Law
109-295
10/04
—
Note: vv = voice vote
Note on Most Recent Data
Data used in this report are from the President’s Budget Documents; the FY2007 DHS
Congressional Budget Justifications; the FY2007 DHS Budget in Brief; the House Appropriations
Committee tables of April 19, 2006; the House Committee Report to H.R. 5441, H.Rept. 109476; the Senate Committee Report to H.R. 5441, S.Rept. 109-273; the Conference Committee
report to H.R. 5441, H.Rept. 109-699; and P.L. 109-295. Data used in Table B-1 are taken from
the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2007 President’s Budget. These amounts do not
correspond to amounts presented in Tables 4-11, which are based on data from tables supplied by
the Appropriations Subcommittees and from the FY2006 DHS Congressional Budget
Justifications in order to best reflect the amounts that will be used throughout the congressional
appropriations process. Most dollar amounts presented in this report are reported in millions of
dollars. Where lesser amounts are presented, these amounts will be shown in italics. For example:
$545,000.
Background
This report describes the President’s FY2007 request for funding for DHS programs and
activities, as submitted to Congress on February 6, 2006. It compares the enacted FY2006
amounts to the request for FY2007. This report also tracks legislative action and congressional
issues related to the FY2007 DHS appropriations bill, with particular attention paid to
discretionary funding amounts. However, this report does not follow specific funding issues
related to mandatory funding—such as retirement pay—nor does the report systematically follow
any legislation related to the authorization or amendment of DHS programs.
Department of Homeland Security
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred the functions, relevant funding,
and most of the personnel of 22 agencies and offices to the new Department of Homeland
Security created by the act.
Appropriations measures for DHS have been organized into four titles: Title I Departmental
Management and Operations; Title II Security, Enforcement, and Investigations; Title III
Preparedness and Recovery; and Title IV Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and
Services. Title I contains appropriations for the Office of Management, the Office of the
Secretary, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Analysis and Operations (A&O), the
Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO), and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Title II contains appropriations for the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(US-VISIT) program, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs
Congressional Research Service
2
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard, and the
Secret Service. Title III contains appropriations for the Preparedness Directorate, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Infrastructure Protection and Information Security
(IPIS), and the state and local grants programs. Title IV contains appropriations for U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T),
and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).
Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review
On July 13, 2005, the Secretary of DHS, Michael Chertoff, announced the results of the monthslong Second Stage Review (2SR)1 that he undertook upon being confirmed as DHS Secretary.2
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.3 The Administration submitted
its requested amendments to the FY2006 budget request for DHS after both the House and Senate
had passed their versions of H.R. 2360. Therefore, any proposed changes were addressed during
the conference on H.R. 2360. The conferees noted that, for the most part, they have complied
with the Administration’s request to restructure DHS, and P.L. 109-90 adopted the following
changes:
•
abolished the Office of the Undersecretary for Border and Transportation
Security, redistributing its functions to other locations within DHS;
1
For more information, see CRS Report RL33042, Department of Homeland Security Reorganization: The 2SR
Initiative, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
2
For text of the Secretary’s speech see DHS, Remarks by Secretary Michael Chertoff on the Second Stage Review of
the Department of Homeland Security, July 13, 2005, Washington, DC, at http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/
speech/speech_0255.xml. For an overview of the proposed changes see DHS, Homeland Security Secretary Michael
Chertoff Announces Six-Point Agenda for Department of Homeland Security, July 13, 2005, Washington, DC, at
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0703.xml. Proposed organizational chart at
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/DHSOrgCharts0705.pdf.
3
See Communication from the President of the United States, Request for FY2006 Budget Amendments, 109th
Congress, 1st sess., H.Doc. 190-50, July 22, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
3
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
•
split the Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection into
two new operational components: Analysis and Operations, and the Preparedness
Directorate;
•
moved all state and local grants within DHS to the Preparedness Directorate;
•
transferred the Federal Air Marshals program from ICE to TSA; and
•
included and expanded the role of the Office of Policy.4
The DHS Congressional Budget Justifications for FY2007 also reflect these changes.
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations
The maximum budget authority for annual appropriations (including DHS) is determined through
a two-stage congressional budget process. In the first stage, Congress sets overall spending totals
in the annual concurrent resolution on the budget. Subsequently, these amounts are allocated
among the appropriations committees, usually through the statement of managers for the
conference report on the budget resolution. These amounts are known as the 302(a) allocations.
They include discretionary totals available to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations for enactment in annual appropriations bills through the subcommittees
responsible for the development of the bills. In the second stage of the process, the appropriations
committees allocate the 302(a) discretionary funds among their subcommittees for each of the
appropriations bills. These amounts are known as the 302(b) allocations. These allocations must
add up to no more than the 302(a) discretionary allocation and form the basis for enforcing
budget discipline, since any bill reported with a total above the ceiling is subject to a point of
order. 302(b) allocations may be adjusted during the year as the various appropriations bills
progress towards final enactment.
The annual concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth the congressional budget. The Senate
budget resolution, S.Con.Res. 83 was introduced on March 10, 2006, and passed the Senate on
March 16, 2006. S.Con.Res. 83, would provide $873 billion in discretionary budget authority for
FY2007. H.Con.Res. 376 was introduced and reported on March 31, 2006, and passed the House
on May 18, 2006. H.Con.Res. 376 would provide $873 billion in discretionary budget authority
for FY2007. The anticipated difficulties in resolving the substantial differences between the
House- and Senate-passed versions of the budget resolution led to both the House and the Senate
adopting deeming resolutions. These deeming resolutions set the discretionary spending levels for
FY2007 at $873 billion.5
4
H.Rept. 109-241, p. 30.
Deeming resolutions serve as an annual budget resolution to establish enforceable budget levels in the absence of an
actual congressionally adopted budget resolution. For more information, see CRS Report RL31443, The “Deeming
Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool, by (name redacted).
5
Congressional Research Service
4
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Table 2. FY2007 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2006
Comparable
FY2007 Request
Comparable
FY2007 House
Allocation
FY2007 Senate
Allocation
FY2007 Enacted
Comparable
30.3
31.0
32.1
31.9
31.7
Source: House Appropriations Committee press release, May 4, 2006; H.Rept. 109-488, Report on the Revised
Suballocation of Budget Allocations for FY2007; S.Rept. 109-268, Allocations to Subcommittees of Budget Totals for
FY2007; and the Conference Report to H.R. 5441, H.Rept. 109-699. FY2007 enacted comparable does not
include funding designated as emergency funding or offsetting receipts.
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays
Federal government spending involves a multi-step process that begins with the enactment of a
budget authority by Congress in an appropriations act. Federal agencies then obligate funds from
the enacted budget authority to pay for their activities. Finally, payments are made to liquidate
those obligations; the actual payment amounts are reflected in the budget as outlays.
Budget authority is established through appropriations acts or direct spending legislation and
determines the amounts that are available for federal agencies to spend. The Antideficiency Act6
prohibits federal agencies from obligating more funds than the budget authority that was enacted
by Congress. Budget authority may be indefinite, however, when Congress enacts language
providing “such sums as may be necessary” to complete a project or purpose. Budget authority
may be available on a one-year, multi-year, or no-year basis. One-year budget authority is only
available for obligation during a specific fiscal year; any unobligated funds at the end of that year
are no longer available for spending. Multi-year budget authority specifies a range of time during
which funds can be obligated for spending; no-year budget authority is available for obligation
for an indefinite period of time.
Obligations are incurred when federal agencies employ personnel, enter into contracts, receive
services, and engage in similar transactions in a given fiscal year. Outlays are the funds that are
actually spent during the fiscal year.7 Because multi-year and no-year budget authorities may be
obligated over a number of years, outlays do not always match the budget authority enacted in a
given year. Additionally, 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.
6
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/cs2005/c18.pdf.
7
Congressional Research Service
5
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending
Gross budget authority, or the total funds available for spending by a federal agency, may be
composed of discretionary and mandatory spending. Of the $42.7 billion gross budget authority
requested for DHS in FY2007, 83% is composed of discretionary spending and 17% is composed
of mandatory spending.
Discretionary spending is not mandated by existing law and is thus appropriated yearly by
Congress through appropriations acts. The Budget Enforcement Act8 of 1990 defines
discretionary appropriations as budget authority provided in annual appropriation acts and the
outlays derived from that authority, but it excludes appropriations for entitlements. Mandatory
spending, also known as direct spending, consists of budget authority and resulting outlays
provided in laws other than appropriation acts and is typically not appropriated each year.
However, some mandatory entitlement programs must be appropriated each year and are included
in the appropriations acts. Within DHS, the Coast Guard retirement pay is an example of
appropriated mandatory spending.
Offsetting Collections9
Offsetting funds are collected by the federal government, either from government accounts or the
public, as part of a business-type transaction such as offsets to outlays or collection of a fee.
These funds are not counted as revenue. Instead, they are counted as negative outlays. DHS net
discretionary budget authority, or the total funds that are appropriated by Congress each year, is
composed of discretionary spending minus any fee or fund collections that offset discretionary
spending.
Some collections offset a portion of an agency’s discretionary budget authority. Some of these
fees offset spending at the account level and are subtracted from the Appropriations Committee
tables directly below the program they offset. An example of this is the Federal Protective
Service, which is immediately offset in the appropriations tables by an intergovernmental transfer
from the General Services Administration. Other discretionary fees offset spending at the agency
level and are thus subtracted from the discretionary budget authority of the agency to arrive at the
actual appropriated level. An example of this is the Immigration Inspection fee, which is collected
at Ports of Entry by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel and is used to offset both
the CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) appropriations.
Other collections offset an agency’s mandatory spending. They are typically entitlement programs
under which individuals, businesses, or units of government that meet the requirements or
qualifications established by law are entitled to receive certain payments if they establish
eligibility. The DHS budget features two mandatory entitlement programs: the Secret Service and
Coast Guard retired pay accounts (pensions). Some entitlements are funded by permanent
appropriations, others by annual appropriations. The Secret Service retirement pay is a permanent
appropriation and as such is not annually appropriated, whereas the Coast Guard retirement pay is
annually appropriated. In addition to these entitlements, the DHS budget contains offsetting Trust
8
9
P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.
Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff, Jr., Analyst in American National Government.
Congressional Research Service
6
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
and Public Enterprise Funds. These funds are not appropriated by Congress; they are available for
obligation and included in the President’s budget to calculate the gross budget authority.
Table 3 tabulates all of the offsets within the DHS budget as enacted for FY2006 and in the
FY2007 request.
Table 3. FY2007 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to Net
Appropriation—Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust
and Public Enterprise Accounts
(budget authority in millions)
Account/Agency
Account Name
DHS gross budget authority
(gross discretionary + fees+ mandatory + funds)
FY2006
FY2007
40,826
42,719
482
516
1,990a
3,650a
TWIC
100
20
Hazmat
50
19
Registered Traveler
20
35
FEMA/EPR
National flood insurance fund
124
129
CBP
Small airports
5
6
-2,791
-4,460
Immigration inspection
465
529
Immigration enforcement
6
2
Land border
30
28
COBRA
334
388
APHIS
204
214
Puerto Rico
98
98
Immigration inspection
100
108
SEVIS
67
54
Breached bond detention fund
87
90
Aviation security capital fund
250
250
Alien flight school background checks
10
2
1,730
1,760
44
44
-3,425
-3,567
Account level discretionary offset
ICE
TSA
Federal Protective Service
Aviation security fees
Subtotal account level discretionary offsets
Agency level discretionary offset
CBP
ICE
TSA
USCIS
Immigration examination fee
H1b, and H1b & L fees
Subtotal agency level discretionary offsets
Mandatory budget authority
Secret service
Secret service retired payb
200
200
Coast guard
Coast guard retired payc
(1,014)
(1,063)
Congressional Research Service
7
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Account/Agency
Account Name
Subtotal mandatory budget authority
FY2006
FY2007
-200
-200
8
8
2,104
2,233
Trust funds and public enterprise funds
CBP
Customs unclaimed goods
FEMA
National Flood Insurance Fundd
Coast Guard
Boat safety
101
115
Oil spill recovery
168
127
Miscellaneous revolving fund
(11)
(11)
-2,381
-2,483
DHS gross budget authority
40,826e
42,719
Total offsetting collections
-8,797
-10,710
DHS net appropriated BA (Mandatory + Discretionary)
31,743
32,015
Subtotal trust and public enterprise funds
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2007 President’s Budget, DHS Budget in Brief, and House Appropriations
Committee tables of April 19, 2006.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a.
There is a discrepancy reported in the amount of aviation security fees collected by TSA, for both FY2006
and 2007. The enacted level aviation security fees for FY2006 was $1,990 million, and this is the amount
reported in the current committee tables. The Administration FY2007 budget documents and the DHS
Congressional Budget Justifications report the FY2006 amount as $2,010 million. The Administration has
requested an increase in aviation security fees for FY2006, and the budget documents estimate the
offsetting collections at $3,736 million. The latest committee tables show $3,650 million for FY2007 (a
difference of $86 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 FY2006
($1,990) and the committee table amount ($3,650) for FY2007.
b.
Secret Service Retired Pay is permanently and indefinitely authorized, and as such is not annually
appropriated. Therefore it is offset in Table 3.
c.
In contrast to Secret Service Retired Pay, Coast Guard Retired pay must be annually appropriated, and
therefore is not offset in Table 3.
d.
This fund is comprised of both discretionary and mandatory appropriations; thus its component parts
appear twice in this table.
e.
The President’s budget for FY2006 includes a $261 million charge within the Coast Guard for Health Care
Fund Contributions that is not replicated in the House Appropriation Committee tables. For this reason,
the FY2006 column does not add.
Appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security
Summary of DHS Appropriations
Table 4 is a summary table comparing the enacted appropriations for FY2006 and the requested
amounts for FY2007. The President’s budget request for FY2007 was submitted to Congress
February 6, 2006. The Administration requested $42.7 billion in gross budget authority for
FY2007 (including mandatories, fees, and funds). The Administration’s request includes gross
appropriations of $39.8 billion, and a net appropriation of $32.0 billion in budget authority for
Congressional Research Service
8
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
FY2007, of which $31.0 billion is discretionary budget authority, and $1 billion is mandatory
budget authority. The FY2006 enacted net appropriated budget authority for DHS was $31.7
billion.
P.L. 109-295 provides $39.8 billion in gross budget authority for DHS for FY2007. Including
emergency funding, P.L. 109-295 provides $41.4 billion in gross budget authority for DHS. P.L.
109-295 provides $34.8 billion in net budget authority for DHS in FY2007 (including the
emergency funding) and $33.0 billion in net budget authority (not including the emergency
funding). House-passed H.R. 5441 would have provided $39.8 billion in gross budget authority
and $33.2 billion in net budget authority for DHS in FY2007. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would
have provided $39.7 billion in gross budget authority and $32.7 billion in net budget authority for
DHS in FY2007.
Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Operation
al
Componen
t
FY2006 Appropriation
FY200
6
Enacte
d
FY200
6
Supp.
FY200
6
Resc.
FY200
6
Total
FY200
7
Reque
st
FY200
7
House
FY200
7
Senat
e
1,074
960
FY2007 Appropriation
FY200
7
Enacte
d
FY200
7
Emer
g.
FY200
7
Total
969
1,011
—
1,011
Title I: Departmental Operations
Subtotal:
Title I
907
53
-27
933
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
—Screening
and
Operations
Office/ USVISIT
—Customs
and Border
Protection
—
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement
340
—
-3
337
399
362
399
362
—
362
857
-60
6,749
6,574
6,434
6,683
6,435
1,601
8,035
340
-33
3,483
3,928
3,876
3,919
3,928
30
3,958
—
-58
3,866
2,323
3,618
3,816
3,628
—
3,628
588
-343
8,056
8,181
8,129
8,188
8,140
176
8,316
24
-12
1,224
1,265
1,293
1,226
1,277
—
1,277
1,809
-508
23,71
22,670
23,71
24,23
23,770
1,807
25,57
5,952
3,175
—
Transportati
on Security
Administrati
on
3,924
—U.S.
Coast
Guard
7,811
—U.S.
Secret
Service
1,212
Net
22,414
Congressional Research Service
9
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Operation
al
Componen
t
FY2006 Appropriation
FY200
6
Enacte
d
FY200
6
Supp.
FY200
6
Resc.
subtotal:
Title II
—Total fee
collections
Gross
subtotal:
Title II
FY200
6
Total
FY200
7
Reque
st
5
4,302
FY200
7
House
FY200
7
Senat
e
2
1
FY2007 Appropriation
FY200
7
Enacte
d
FY200
7
Emer
g.
FY200
7
Total
7
—
—
4,302
6,009
4,779
5,029
4,779
—
4,779
1,809
-508
28,01
7
28,679
28,49
1
29,26
0
28,550
1,807
30,35
7
26,716
Title III: Preparedness and Recovery
—
Preparednes
s
Directorate
4,072
—Counter
Terrorism
Fund
2
—Federal
Emergency
Management
Administrati
on
Net
subtotal:
Title III
2,633
25
-41
4,056
3,419
4,069
3,901
4,018
—
4,018
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
6,379
-26
8,986
2,964
2,656
2,606
2,511
—
2,511
6,404
-67
13,04
4
6,383
6,725
6,507
6,529
—
6,529
6,707
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
—
Citizenship
and
Immigration
Services
115
—Federal
Law
Enforcement
Training
Center
282
—Science
and
Technology
1,502
—Domestic
Nuclear
Detection
Office
—
-1
114
182
162
135
182
—
182
25
-2
305
246
253
271
253
22
275
—
-15
1,487
1,002
956
818
973
—
973
—
—
—
535
500
442
481
—
481
25
-18
1,906
1,965
1,871
1,667
1,889
22
1,911
—
—
1,774
1,804
1,804
1,889
1,804
—
1,804
—
Net
subtotal:
Title IV
1,899
—Total fee
collections
1,774
Congressional Research Service
10
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Operation
al
Componen
t
Gross
subtotal:
Title IV
FY2006 Appropriation
FY200
6
Enacte
d
FY200
7
Reque
st
FY200
7
House
FY200
7
Senat
e
FY2007 Appropriation
FY200
7
Enacte
d
FY200
7
Emer
g.
FY200
7
Total
3,555
3,693
22
3,715
-20
-582
-232
—
-232
FY200
6
Supp.
FY200
6
Resc.
FY200
6
Total
25
—
3,680
3,769
3,675
—
—
—
-16
3,673
Title V: General Provisions
—
Rescissions
—
a
Department of Homeland Security Appropriation
Gross DHS
budget
authority
38,003
—Total fee
collections
-6,076
Net DHS
budget
authority
8,291
-620
45,67
4
39,889
39,83
1
39,70
9
39,783
1,829
41,38
0
—
—
-6,076
-7,813
-6,583
-6,918
-6,815
—
-6,583
8,291
-620
39,59
8
32,076
33,24
8
32,79
2
32,967
1,829
34,79
6
31,927
Source: FY2006 enacted numbers from CRS analysis of the conference report to H.R. 2360, H.Rept. 109-241;
FY2006 supplemental numbers from CRS analysis of P.L. 109-61, P.L. 109-62, P.L. 109-88, and P.L. 109-148;
FY2006 rescission numbers from CRS analysis of P.L. 109-148, P.L. 109-234, and the FY2007 DHS Justifications.
FY2007 request numbers from the FY2007 DHS Justifications. FY2007 numbers from the conference report
(H.Rept. 109-476) to H.R. 5441.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds. For a more detailed analysis
of the supplemental appropriations, refer to Appendix A.
a.
FY2006 rescissions, including those in Title V or the General Provisions are displayed in the rescission
column of the appropriate account. FY2007 Title V or General Provision rescissions are aggregated here for
simplicity. FY2007 House-passed Title V rescissions include -$16 million from the Counter Terrorism Fund
and -$4 million in TSA unobligated balances. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 includes a series of rescissions from
unobligated balances of prior-year appropriations that are used to offset FY2007 appropriations, including $67 million from TSA Aviation Security and Headquarters and Management accounts; -$16 million from the
Counterterrorism Fund; -$55 million from the Science and Technology Management and Administration
account; -$184 million from the Science and Technology Research, Development, Acquisitions and
Operations account; -$103 million from the U.S. Coast Guard from funds appropriated in P.L. 109-90; -$14
million from CBP Air and Marine Operations from funds appropriated in P.L. 109-90; and -$99 million from
the Science and Technology Research and Development account. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 also includes the
following FY2007 rescissions: -$43 million from travel and transportation expenses throughout DHS; and
-$1 million from printing and reproduction expenses throughout DHS. Title V of P.L. 109-295 includes
rescissions of -$16 million form the Counterterrorism Fund, and rescissions of unobligated balances from:
S&T -$125 million, TSA -$67 million, USCG -$20 from the Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
account for the development of the Offshore Patrol Cutter, -$20 million, and from Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements account for the Automatic Identification System -$4 million. Title V of P.L.
109-295 also contains two re-appropriations of previously appropriated, but unobligated funds, including:
$78 million in funding that was appropriated by P.L. 109-90 for the USCG’s Fast Response Cutter that is
rescinded and re-appropriated by Sec. 521 of P.L. 109-295 for the USCG’s Replacement Patrol Boat; and $3
million that is rescinded and re-appropriated by Sec. 560 of P.L. 109-295 from USSS unobligated balances to
National Security Special Events (NSSE).
Congressional Research Service
11
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations10
Title I covers the general administrative expenses of DHS. It includes the Office of the Secretary
and Executive Management (OS&EM), which is comprised of the immediate Office of the
Secretary and 11 entities that report directly to the Secretary; the Office of Screening
Coordination and Operations (OSCO); the Undersecretary for Management (USM) and its
components, such as offices of the Chief Procurement Officer, Chief Human Capital Officer, and
Chief Administrative Officer; the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO); the Office of the
Chief Information Officer (CIO); Analysis and Operations Office (AOO); and the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG). Table 5 shows Title I appropriations for FY2006 and congressional
action on the request for FY2007.
President’s FY2007 Request
FY2007 requests relative to comparable FY2006 enacted appropriations are as follows: OS&EM,
$98 million, a decrease of $28 million (-22%); OSCO, $4 million, the same as previously
provided; USM, $209 million, an increase of $40 million (24%); OCFO, $44 million, an increase
of $25 million (+132%); OCIO, $324 million, an increase of $27 million (+9%); and OIG, $96
million, an increase of $13 million (+16%). The total FY2007 request for Title I was $1,074
million. This represents an increase of $167 million (18%) over the FY2006 enacted level (not
including supplemental appropriations).
House-Passed H.R. 5441
With slight exception, appropriators, in making their recommendations for Title I accounts, cut
allocations relative to both FY2006 funding and the President’s requests for FY2007. The
requested amount for OS&EM was decreased by a little more than $1.5 million to a
recommended amount of approximately $96 million, which, after adjustment for floor offset
amendments, was reduced to $84 million. OSCO was not allocated monies as a separate entity,
but its activities were funded in the Office of Policy within OS&EM. The USM request was
slashed by almost $50 million, with $159 million recommended, which, after adjustment for floor
offset amendments, was reduced to $70 million. OCFO received a modest reduction of less than
$1 million in its request, with $43 million recommended. OCIO, however, was recommended an
increase of $41 million above its request to make a total proposed allocation of $365 million,
whereas OIG was recommended $96 million as requested. These recommended and otherwise
adjusted amounts were approved by the House.
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441
Appropriators largely funded OS&EM accounts at or below FY2006 levels, and the Senate
ultimately approved almost $83 million, which was about $15 million less than the amount
requested by the President. OSCO was not allocated monies as a separate entity, but its activities
were funded in the Office of Policy within OS&EM. Other accounts in Title I—OCFO, OCIO,
and OIG—were generally funded at levels below the President’s request, but above FY2006
10
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
12
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
amounts. The Senate approved a total of $969 million for Title I accounts, $9 million more than
the House allocation and $105 million less than the President’s request.
P.L. 109-295
P.L. 109-295 provides $94 million for OS&EM instead of the $84 million approved by the House
and $83 million approved by the Senate. Conferees explained they had “made reductions to the
[President’s] budget request due to a large number of vacancies and unobligated balances within
certain offices” of OS&EM.11 The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman and the
Privacy Officer were funded at the requested levels, but all other OS&EM accounts were trimmed
in conference. Conferees agreed to provide a little over $2 million for a separate Office of
Counternarcotics Enforcement, which had previously been funded through the Office of Chief of
Staff account. Other entities experiencing considerable reductions in their funding requests were
USM (-$51 million), OCFO ($-18), and OIG (-$11 million), whereas OCIO received an increase
(+$25 million) to its request.
Table 5. Title I: Department Management and Operations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2006 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2007 FY2007 FY2007 FY2007
FY2006 FY2006 FY2006 FY2006 Request House Senate Enacted
Enacted Supp.
Resc.
Total
Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management
79
51
—
130
98
84
83
94
Office of Screening Coordination and
Operations
4
—
-4
—
4
—
—
—
Office of the Undersecretary for
Management
169
—
-2
167
209
70
163
154
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
19
—
—
19
44
43
27
26
Office of the Chief Information Officer
297
—
-3
294
324
365
307
349
Analysis and Operations
255
—
-2
253
299
299
299
300
Office of the Federal Coordinator for
Gulf Coast Rebuilding
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
3
Office of the Inspector General
83
2
-1
84
96
96
90
85
Net Budget Authority: Title I
907
53
-27a
933a
1,074
960
969
1,011
Source: FY2006 enacted numbers from CRS analysis of the Conference Report to H.R. 2360, H. Rept.109-241;
FY2006 supplemental numbers from CRS analysis of P.L. 109-61, P.L. 109-62, P.L. 109-88, and P.L. 109-148;
FY2006 rescission numbers from CRS analysis of P.L. 109-148, P.L. 109-234, and the FY2007 DHS Justifications.
FY2007 request numbers from the FY2007 DHS Justifications. FY2007 numbers from the conference report
(H.Rept. 109-476) to H.R. 5441.
11
U.S. Congress, House Committee of Conference, Making Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security
for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2007, and for Other Purposes, conference report to accompany H.R. 5441,
109th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 109-699 (Washington: GPO, 2006), p. 114.
Congressional Research Service
13
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Notes: No FY2007 funding for Title I was designated as emergency spending. Totals may not add due to
rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds. For a more detailed analysis of the supplemental appropriations,
please refer to Appendix A.
a.
This total includes a $15 million rescission from the Working Capital Fund which was included in Title V of
H.Rept. 109-241.
Analysis and Operations12
Background
The DHS Intelligence mission is outlined in Title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(codified at 6 U.S.C. 121). Organizationally, and from a budget perspective, there have been a
number of changes to the information, intelligence analysis, and infrastructure protection
functions at DHS. Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate was established. The act created an Undersecretary
for IAIP to whom two Assistant Secretaries, one each for Information Analysis (IA) and
Infrastructure Protection (IP), reported. The act outlined 19 functions for the IAIP Directorate, to
include the following, among others:
•
To assess, receive, and analyze law enforcement information, intelligence
information, and other information from federal, state, and local government
agencies, and the private sector to (1) identify and assess the nature and scope of
the terrorist threats to the homeland, (2) detect and identify threats of terrorism
against the United States, and (3) understand such threats in light of actual and
potential vulnerabilities of the homeland;
•
To develop a comprehensive national plan for securing the key resources and
critical infrastructure of the United States;
•
To review, analyze, and make recommendations for improvements in the policies
and procedures governing the sharing of law enforcement information,
intelligence information, and intelligence-related information within the federal
government and between the federal government and state and local government
agencies and authorities.13
Pursuant to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff’s Second Stage Review,14 and the Conference
Report to H.R. 2360, Department of Homeland Security Act FY2006,15 a number of
organizational changes were announced. Some of these changes include the following:
•
The IAIP Directorate was disbanded. Intelligence Analysis was organizationally
separated from Infrastructure Protection.
12
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counterterrorism, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
13
See Title II, Subtitle A, Section 201(d), Responsibilities of the Undersecretary (of IAIP), codified at 6 U.SC. §121.
See also Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, Survey of the Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection Directorate, Office of Inspections, Evaluations, and Special Reviews, OIG-04-413, Feb.
2004, p. 26.
14
See “Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff Announces Six-Point Agenda for Department of Homeland
Security,” DHS Press Release, July 13, 2005.
15
See H.Rept. 109-241, in Congressional Record, Sept. 29, 2005, pp. H8585 - H8625.
Congressional Research Service
14
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
•
The Undersecretary of IAIP was dissolved and a new Undersecretary for
Preparedness was created.
•
Two new offices were created—the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, and the
Office of Operations Coordination (which includes the Homeland Security
Operations Center [HSOC]).
•
The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis was
designated the DHS Chief Intelligence Officer and reports directly to the
Secretary.
•
A new budget account—Analysis and Operations (A&O)—was created within
Title I, Departmental Management and Operations.
The A&O account “supports the activities of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the
Directorate of Operations. Even though these two offices are different and distinct in their
missions, they work together to improve intelligence, information sharing, and coordination.”16
There are two budget activities within this account—the Office of Intelligence and Analysis,
which leads the DHS Intelligence Enterprise,17 and the Directorate of Operations Coordination,
which “disseminate (s) threat information, provides domestic situational awareness, performs
incident management, and ensures operations coordination among DHS components with specific
threat responsibilities.”18 Table 5 shows Title I appropriations for FY2006 and congressional
action on the request for FY2007.
Budget Structure Changes
The budget for IAIP for FY2004 and FY2005 was located within Title IV (Research and
Development, Training, Assessments, and Services) of the DHS Appropriations Bills.19 In
FY2006, the budget for IA-related functions moved to Title I (Department Management and
Operations). A new A&O account was established within Title I. According to the FY2006
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-90), $256 million was
appropriated for “necessary expenses for information analysis, as authorized by Title II of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 ... to remain available until September 30, 2007.”
President’s FY2007 Request
The FY2007 request for Title I, A&O is $299 million and 475 full-time equivalent positions
(FTEs). This represents an increase of 18.1% more than the FY2006 revised enacted amount of
$253 million, and an increase of 12 FTEs.20
16
See DHS FY 07 Congressional Justification, p. AO-3.
The Intelligence Enterprise is defined as “all those component organizations within the Department that have
activities producing raw information, intelligence-related information and/or finished intelligence.” See DHS
Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan, Jan. 2006.
18
See DHS FY 07 Congressional Justification, p. AO-3.
19
See CRS Report RL32302, Appropriations for FY2005: Department of Homeland Security, by (name redacted) and
(name redacted); and CRS Report RL32863, Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations, coordinated by
(name redacted) and (name redacted).
20
Adjustments to the FY06 base include 57 FTE and $16.6 million.
17
Congressional Research Service
15
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
House-Passed H.R. 5441
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $299 million, an amount equal to the level
of funding requested by the President for FY2007. This amount is approximately $46 million in
excess of the $253 million FY2006 appropriation for the activities associated with these DHS
functions. In the report accompanying H.R. 5441, the Appropriations Committee also made the
following points:
•
It denied DHS’s request to rename the Directorate of Operations Coordination
the Directorate of Operations based on the Committee’s position that the
Directorate’s function is “...to support decision makers rather than to direct
activities.”21
•
It directed the HSOC and ICE report, not later than January 16, 2007, on the
number, location, planned deployments, composition, and budgets of DHSproposed situational awareness teams, noting that the House Select Bipartisan
Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina
found that the HSOC failed to provide valuable situational information to the
White House. These teams are designed to provide “ground truth” as they are
deployed throughout the country during an emergency.
•
It directed the Office of Intelligence and Analysis to continue to provide the
Committee with quarterly threat briefings, and noted that it is “...encouraged by
the leadership put into place...”22 at the Department’s OIA.
•
It directed that a report be provided to the Committee by January 16, 2007, on the
total number of intelligence fusion centers, their funding sources and amounts,
and where additional fusion centers are necessary. The Committee “...strongly
supports information sharing between the intelligence community and people
responsible for taking action on that intelligence.”23
•
It supports IA’s recent effort to develop a staffing, recruitment, and training plan.
Furthermore, “the Committee expects IA to expend unobligated personnel
resources on recruitment and training, including fellowships and other tools
deemed necessary and to report to the Committee bi-annually on its efforts.”24
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $299 million, an amount equal to the
Administration’s FY2007 request and the amount passed by the House. These funds, to remain
available until September 30, 2008, are for “necessary expenses for information analysis and
operations coordination activities, as authorized by title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.)” Of the recommended amount, no more than $5,000 “shall be for official
reception and expenses.” The committee further stated it “supports the activities to improve the
analysis and sharing of threat information, including the activities of the Office of Intelligence
21
See H.Rept. 109-476, p. 19.
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
22
Congressional Research Service
16
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
and Analysis and the Office of Operations Coordination.”25 The committee also made the
following two additional recommendations:
•
It directed “the Chief Intelligence Officer to report no later than 90 days after the
enactment of this act on efforts to address concerns reported in the Office of
Inspector General Report OIG-05-34.”26
•
It “understands the operating procedures for the Homeland Security Operations
Center [HSOC] have not changed since Hurricane Katrina. The committee directs
the Government Accountability Office to analyze the role of the HSOC and the
numerous DHS component operations centers and to make recommendations
regarding the operation and coordination of these centers.”27
During Senate floor action on July 12, S.Amdt. 4569 required the following report on datamining, an issue which could affect research conducted by any DHS intelligence element:
•
“The head of each department or agency in the Department of Homeland
Security that is engaged in any activity to use or develop data-mining technology
shall each submit a report to Congress on all such activities of the agency under
the jurisdiction of that official. The report shall be made available to the
public.”28
P.L. 109-295
P.L. 109-295 provides $300 million, or $1 million more than the Administration’s request, and
level of funding recommended by the House and Senate. According to the conference report,
“...Up to $1million is for an independent study on the feasibility of creating a counter terrorism
intelligence agency.”29 Such a study may consider the question of the establishment of an agency
that might be the equivalent of the British Security Service (know as MI-5). However, numerous
entities within the federal government, including DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, the
FBI’s National Security Branch, and the interagency National Counterterrorism Center, among
others, all currently perform a counterterrorism intelligence function. How the current
organizational structure would be altered by the potential creation of a “counter terrorism
intelligence agency,” is an open question.
Linkages to DHS Strategic Goals
Although the Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the Office of Operations Coordination
contribute to a broad array of DHS strategic goals, their activities are primarily targeted at
achieving success in strategic goals one and two—awareness and prevention—respectively.
According to DHS, the goal of awareness is to “identify and understand threats, assess
25
See Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2007, S.Rept. 109-273, p. 17.
Ibid. DHS OIG Report OIG-05-34 is Evaluation of DHS’ Security Program and Practices for Its Intelligence
Systems, Aug. 2005. An unclassified summary can be located at http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_0534_Aug05.pdf.
27
Ibid., p. 18.
28
See Congressional Record, July 12, 2006, p. S7387.
29
See Conference Report, Making Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year Ending
September 30, 2007, and for Other Purposes, H.Rept. 109-699, p. 122.
26
Congressional Research Service
17
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
vulnerabilities, determine potential impacts and disseminate timely information out to homeland
security partners and the American public.”30 Two programs under this goal include A&O and
Intelligence. The performance goal for A&O is to “deter, detect and prevent terrorist incidents by
sharing domestic situational awareness through national operational communications and
intelligence analysis.”31 The performance goal for intelligence is “100 percent distribution of
sensitive threat information relative to Department of Homeland Security/Transportation Security
Administration components, field elements, and stakeholders.”32
Budget Caveats
The FY2007 budget request for A&O represents an increase of nearly $46 million and 12 FTE.
However, it is important to note that dis-aggregating intelligence analysis from operations is
problematic because the budget of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, an entity of the
Intelligence Community, is classified. The figures cited above are the combined figures for the
Office of Operations Coordination and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis.
Budget Implications
Some observers might argue that the requested A&O budget is sufficient, given the current stage
of development for intelligence and operations within DHS. Others, however, might question
whether the requested budget can achieve the ambitious intelligence analysis goals, as outlined by
Charles Allen, DHS Chief Intelligence Officer (CIO). In recent testimony before the House
Committee on Homeland Security,33 CIO Allen outlined at least five priorities laden with resource
implications, including the following: (1) improving the quality of analysis across the
Department, (2) integrating the DHS intelligence enterprise, (3) strengthening our intelligence
support to State, local, and tribal authorities, as well as the private sector, (4) ensuring DHS
intelligence takes its full place in the Intelligence Community, and (5) solidifying our relationship
with the Congress by improving our transparency and responsiveness. These priorities and others
might imply that in order to implement the integration of intelligence at DHS, additional funds
may be necessary for department-wide information management systems and additional
analysts—to be stationed both at Intelligence Community partner agencies, as well as at some of
the 38 plus state, local, and regional intelligence fusion centers.34 The information management
challenge at DHS is significant, as the organization must “know what it knows” in order to
achieve the aforementioned priorities. According to CIO Allen, DHS has “...developed a
comprehensive assessment of the existing intelligence information technology architecture in
DHS, along with recommendations to improve and enhance it.”35 Although integrated information
management systems may not be a panacea, for an intelligence organization they are considered
30
See DHS FY 07 Congressional Justification, Budget Overview, p. 3.
Ibid.
32
Ibid.
33
Testimony of DHS Chief Intelligence Officer Charles Allen in U.S. Congress, 109th Congress, 2nd sess., House
Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk
Assessment, May 24, 2006. “Progress of the DHS Chief Intelligence Officer.”
34
DHS intelligence analysts are currently being stationed at these fusion centers. See Dibya Sarkar, “DHS Adds
Brainpower to Intelligence Centers,” in Federal Computer Week, Mar. 17, 2006.
35
Testimony of DHS Chief Intelligence Officer Charles Allen in U.S. Congress, 109th Congress, 2nd sess., House
Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk
Assessment, May 24, 2006. “Progress of the DHS Chief Intelligence Officer.”
31
Congressional Research Service
18
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
by many to be essential. In the absence of such systems, the coordination of intelligence can tend
to rely on personal relationships and ad hoc arrangements. From a human resource perspective,
DHS is stationing liaison officers and intelligence analysts at some of the 38 state and local fusion
centers. When combined with the detailing of current staff to Intelligence Community partners,
such as the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), such arrangements, though beneficial,
may undermine the development of a permanent and experienced cadre of homeland security
analysts at DHS headquarters.
Personnel Issues36
In addition to the policy and planning issues, and the reorganization issues, several personnel
issues may be of interest to Congress during the current appropriations cycle.
The Office of Human Capital (OHC) provides overall management and administration of human
capital in the DHS. It establishes policy and procedures and provides oversight, guidance, and
leadership for human resources (HR) functions within the department. The Chief Human Capital
Officer (CHCO) is responsible for designing and implementing the new human resources
management (HRM) system in the DHS, referred to as MaxHR,37 including its human resources
strategy and technology components. The OHC reports to the Undersecretary for Management
and its appropriation is included in that of the Undersecretary. For FY2005, the OHC received an
appropriation of $43 million—$7 million for HR Operations and $36 million for MaxHR—and
staffing of 49 FTEs. The OHC received funding of nearly $38.511 million (down from $38.9
million, after a 1.0% rescission) and a staffing level of 62 FTEs for FY2006. This total was
allocated as $8.811 million (down from $8.9 million, after a 1.0% rescission) for HR Operations38
36
Personnel Issues section prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in American National Government, Government
and Finance Division.
37
On Feb. 1, 2005, the DHS and the Office of Personnel Management jointly published final regulations in the Federal
Register to implement MaxHR. (U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Office of Personnel Management,
“Department of Homeland Security Human Resources Management System,” Federal Register, vol. 70, no. 20, Feb. 1,
2005, pp. 5271-5347.) The regulations provide new policies on position classification, pay, performance management,
adverse actions and appeals, and labor-management relations for DHS employees. MaxHR will cover about 110,000 of
the department’s 180,000 employees and will be implemented in phases. (See CRS Report RL32261, DHS’s Max-HR
Personnel System: Regulations on Classification, Pay, and Performance Management Compared With Current Law,
and Implementation Plans, by (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).) By Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on August 12, 2005, and by
Memorandum Opinion issued on October 7, 2005, District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer blocked implementation of
the labor-management relations regulations prescribed for Max-HR. The decision also enjoined a provision of the
regulations that limits the authority of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to modify a penalty imposed by
DHS. The agency appealed the ruling. A unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit on June 27, 2006, found that the proposed system would illegally curtail employee collective
bargaining rights and that DHS limited the scope of collective bargaining in violation of law. The appeals court
reversed the district court’s holding that the appeals procedures in the DHS regulations do not comply with the
requirement in the Homeland Security Act that they must be fair. It held that adjudicating the fairness of these
procedures is not timely until DHS uses them in an administrative proceeding. The appeals court affirmed the district
court’s holding that assigning the MSPB an appellate role in mandatory removal cases is entitled to judicial deference.
In September 2005, DHS announced that it was postponing the initial implementation of pay for performance under
Max-HR for one year. In September 2006, the Justice Department decided that the appeals court decision would not be
appealed to the Supreme Court. (See CRS Report RL33052, Homeland Security and Labor-Management Relations:
NTEU v. Chertoff, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).)
38
The $8.811 million appropriation was allocated as follows: salaries and benefits ($6.563 million), travel ($30,000),
GSA rent ($19,000), communication, utilities, and miscellaneous charges ($110,000), printing ($15,000), advisory and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
19
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
and $29.7 million (down from $30 million, after a 1.0% rescission) for the development and
implementation of MaxHR.39 Of the FTEs, 50 were attached to HR Operations and 12 were
attached to MaxHR.
President’s FY2007 Request
The President’s FY2007 budget proposes funding of $81 million and staffing of 80 FTEs for the
OHC.40 The request represents an increase of $43 million and 18 FTEs more than the FY2006
enacted appropriation and includes money for HR Operations and MaxHR as discussed below.
HR Operations
An appropriation of $10 million is requested for HR Operations, an increase of $1 million more
than the FY2006 enacted funding. Attached to this account are 53 FTEs, 3 more FTEs than in
FY2006. More than 90% of the requested money is for salaries and benefits ($7 million) and
advisory and assistance services ($2 million).41 Among the activities that the DHS plans to
emphasize during FY2006 are continued refinement of the department’s hiring processes,
establishment of an Executive Leadership and Learning Center, and use of a Chief Learning
Officer to conduct needs analyses and identify “best practices.” In FY2007, initiatives are
expected to include improving customer service, enhancing training to inculcate a “team” spirit
across the DHS, and expanding the use of program evaluation to begin measuring the effects of
changes.
MaxHR
The appropriation requested for the department’s new HRM system is $71 million, nearly $42
million more than the amount provided in FY2006. The FTEs attached to the account are 27, an
increase of 15 FTEs over FY2006. Almost 94% of the requested money is for salaries and
benefits ($3 million) and advisory and assistance services ($64 million).42 Accounting for the
increased funding are (1) implementation costs of the new pay system for employees who were
originally scheduled to be converted in FY2006 ($15 million), (2) implementation and
(...continued)
assistance services ($1.633 million), other services ($361,000), purchase from government accounts ($7,000), operation
and maintenance of facilities ($16,000), supplies and materials ($47,000), and equipment ($10,000).
39
The $29.7 million appropriation was allocated as follows: salaries and benefits ($954,000), travel ($6,000),
transportation of things ($3,000), GSA rent ($778,000), communication, utilities, and miscellaneous charges ($1.378
million), printing ($20,000), advisory and assistance services ($25.037 million), other services ($112,000), purchase
from government accounts ($875,000), operation and maintenance of facilities ($16,000), supplies and materials
($10,000), and equipment ($511,000).
40
FY2007 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary for Management, Office of
Human Capital and Office of Human Capital—MaxHR, pp. USM-43 - USM-50.
41
Additional amounts requested for FY2007 are for: travel ($33,000), GSA rent ($74,000), communication, utilities,
and miscellaneous charges ($159,000), printing ($20,000), other services ($376,000), purchase from government
accounts ($159,000), operation and maintenance of facilities ($20,000), supplies and materials ($75,000), and
equipment ($25,000).
42
Additional amounts requested for FY2007 are for travel ($70,000), transportation of things ($3,000), GSA rent
($756,000), communication, utilities, and miscellaneous charges ($1.723 million), printing ($100,000), other services
($130,000), purchase from government accounts ($880,000), operation and maintenance of facilities ($20,000),
supplies and materials ($75,000), and equipment ($550,000).
Congressional Research Service
20
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
operational costs for a market and performance-based compensation system in FY2007 ($22
million), and (3) funding the Homeland Security Labor Relations Board (HSLRB) ($5 million).
The implementation of MaxHR will continue during FY2006 and include such activities as
design and review of a new market-based pay system, creation of a compensation committee, and
continued training of supervisors, managers, and HR professionals. Non-bargaining unit
employees from Headquarters, ICE, FLETC, FEMA, USCG, and U.S. Secret Service will convert
to the new performance system, and CBP and CIS will begin training on that new system. The
HSLRB, designed to resolve labor-management disputes, may be established insofar as is legally
permissible. Employees converted to the new performance system in FY2006 will convert to the
new market-based pay system in FY2007, and those training on the new performance system in
FY2006 will be converted to it in FY2007.
The Under Secretary for Management at DHS, Janet Hale, resigned effective in early May 2006,
and the department’s CHCO, K. Gregg Prillaman, resigned effective in early June 2006. In
testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Management,
Integration, and Oversight on May 18, 2006, Mr. Prillaman discussed the progress of MaxHR
implementation and management challenges facing the department. With regard to MaxHR, he
said that the performance management program, which links individual and department
performance goals, should cover 18,000 employees by the end of 2006; the design of the pay
bands is being finalized; and the pay-for-performance compensation system is expected to begin
in February 2007. Among the challenges that DHS is facing is the retirement eligibility of a
significant percentage of high level officials during the next four years. According to Mr.
Prillaman, “49% of SES [Senior Executive Service] level employees and 37% of GS-15 level
employees [at DHS] will be eligible to retire” by 2009. At the Secret Service, 91% of SES
members and 75% of GS-15’s will be retirement eligible by 2010.43
On May 25, 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released an evaluation on the
conversion of federal government employees from noncareer to career positions. GAO found that
appropriate authorities and proper procedures may not have been followed for two of the three
positions converted at DHS—a GS-13 staff assistant at the Federal Emergency Management
Agency and a GS-15 Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. For this latter position,
GAO found that it may have been created specifically for a particular individual, which, if so, is a
violation of federal law.44 Following the hearing and the release of the GAO report, the Ranking
Members of the House Homeland Security Committee and its Subcommittee on Management,
Integration, and Oversight sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on June
1, 2006, requesting answers to several questions. Those queries related to actions DHS will take
given the GAO findings on the legislative affairs position and regarding implementation of
MaxHR, and explaining why the resignation (tendered on May 15, 2006) of the CHCO was not
disclosed prior to his testimony before the Homeland Security Committee.45
43
Statement by K. Gregg Prillaman, Hearing on Human Capital Issues and Security Procedures at the Department of
Homeland Security, May 18, 2006, pp. 6-7 (unpublished).
44
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Personnel Practices; Conversions of Employees From Noncareer to Career
Positions, GAO-06-381 (Washington: May 2006), pp. 30, 60-62.
45
Letter from Representatives Bennie G. Thompson and Kendrick B. Meek to Michael Chertoff, June 1, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
21
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
House-Passed H.R. 5441
As recommended by the Subcommittee on Homeland Security and the Committee on
Appropriations, on June 6, 2006, the House passed an appropriation of $38.9 million for the
OHC, $42.3 million less than requested. This amount would be allocated as $9.2 million for HR
Operations (salaries and expenses) and $29.7 million for MaxHR; $600,000 and $41.7 million,
respectively, less than requested. MaxHR is funded at the FY2006 enacted level. The OHC
appropriation represents 24.4% of the funding provided for the Under Secretary for Management
($159.5 million). According to the report accompanying H.R. 5441, the budget request assumed
that increased aviation passenger fees would allow MaxHR to be funded at the requested level.
Because such fees are outside the Appropriation Committee’s jurisdiction, the committee’s
FY2007 recommended appropriation was adjusted accordingly. The OHC appropriation fully
funds nine of the requested 15 FTEs for MaxHR. The six FTEs not included in the appropriation
were for the Labor Relations Board. A general provision at Section 504 provides that not more
than 50% of unobligated balances remaining at the end of FY2007 from appropriations for
salaries and expenses remain available through FY2008 subject to guidelines on
reprogramming.46 In a May 25, 2006, Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 5441, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) stated its opposition to either reducing or eliminating
funds for MaxHR.47
During consideration of H.R. 5441 in the House on May 25, 2006, H.Amdt. 936, offered by
Representative Martin Olav Sabo, was agreed to by voice vote. The amendment removes $15
million from the Under Secretary for Management and directs that it be used to fund grants for
firefighters. If the entire $15 million is taken from MaxHR, the FY2007 funding for the new
personnel system would be $14.7 million.
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441
Following the recommendation of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security and the Committee
on Appropriations, the Senate, on July 13, 2006, passed an appropriation of $44.8 million for the
OHC, $36.4 million less than requested. Under the Senate-passed bill, the funding would have
been allocated as $9.8 million for HR Operations (salaries and expenses) and $35 million for
MaxHR. The salaries and expenses total matched the budget request, but the MaxHR funding was
$36.4 million less than requested. As compared with the FY2006 appropriation and the FY2007
appropriation passed by the House, the amount represented an increase of $5.3 million for
MaxHR. The report accompanying H.R. 5441 stated that the new personnel system was not
funded at the level requested in the budget because of the “ongoing litigation.” It also directed the
Secretary of Homeland Security “to submit an updated expenditure plan” based on the final
FY2007 appropriation to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of
the act’s enactment. All contract obligations, listed by year, contractor, and purpose, are to be
included in the report.48 The recommended appropriation for the OHC makes up 27.4% of the
funding provided for the Under Secretary for Management ($163.4 million). The general
provision on unobligated balances was included as Section 505 of the Senate-passed bill. OMB
46
H.Rept. 109-476, pp. 145, 14-15, 134.
U.S. Executive Office of the President, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 5441 (House) (Washington: May
25, 2006), p. 3.
48
S.Rept. 109-273, p. 14.
47
Congressional Research Service
22
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
expressed the administration’s strong opposition to any reduction or elimination of funding for
MaxHR.49
An amendment (S.Amdt. 4674) offered by Senator Barbara Boxer and agreed to by the Senate by
unanimous consent would have prohibited the use of certain funds for travel by DHS officers and
employees until the recommendations of the Inspector General on the National Asset Database
are implemented by the Under Secretary for Preparedness or until the Under Secretary submits a
report to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the House
Committee on Homeland Security, and the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations
explaining why the recommendations have not been fully implemented.50 (This provision is not
included in the law.)
A Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on July 19, 2006,
received the results of a GAO audit on the use of purchase (government-issued credit cards) cards
by DHS employees in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Some 9,000 DHS employees have been
issued such purchase cards and more than $435 million was spent in FY2005 using the cards.
GAO found that about 45% of the purchases did not have the appropriate written authorization
and that some 63% of purchases had no documentation of receipt of goods and services. The
investigators also found weak internal controls, in terms of leadership, staffing, monitoring, and
training, at DHS that resulted in questionable and wasteful transactions and that too many
purchase cards had been issued by DHS (some 2,468 purchase cards had not been used for a
year). An agency manual on procedures for purchase card use remained in draft for two years
because of internal disagreements within DHS. GAO will be issuing a report that will include
recommendations for improved management controls at DHS.51
P.L. 109-295
The law provides funding of $33.8 million for the OHC, some $47.5 million less than the
President’s budget proposal. The amount is to be allocated as $8.8 million for salaries and
expenses (some $1.0 million below the President’s request) and $25 million for Max-HR (some
$46.4 million below the President’s request). The $8.8 million matches the FY2006 appropriation
for the salaries and expenses account after the rescission. The appropriation for the OHC makes
up 22% of the funding provided for the Under Secretary for Management ($153.6 million). As
provided in the Senate report, the Secretary of DHS is directed to submit an updated expenditure
plan for Max-HR to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 90 days after the
act’s enactment. The report must include all contract obligations, by contractor by year, and the
purpose of the contract.52 As proposed by the House and Senate, the law continues a general
provision at Section 513 on background investigations. The conference report directs that
background investigations, including updates and reinvestigations, be processed expeditiously for
DHS employees, particularly those in the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management;
Office of the Under Secretary for Management, Analysis, and Operations; Immigration and
49
U.S. Executive Office of the President, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 5441 (Senate) (Washington: July
12, 2006), p. 2.
50
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 152, July 13, 2006, p. S7498.
51
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Individual Disaster Assistance Programs; Fraud Prevention, Detection,
and Prosecution, GAO report GAO-06-954T (Washington: July 12, 2006). The hearing testimony is available at
http://hsgac.senate.gov.
52
H.Rept. 109-699, p. 119.
Congressional Research Service
23
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Customs Enforcement; the Directorate of Science and Technology; and the Directorate for
Preparedness.53 The general provision on unobligated balances is continued at Section 505 of the
law, as proposed by the House and Senate. Both of these general provisions were addressed in the
President’s signing statement on H.R. 5441. With regard to the background investigations, he
stated that “the executive branch shall construe this provision in a manner consistent with the
President’s exclusive constitutional authority ... to classify and control access to national security
information and to determine whether an individual is suitable to occupy a position in the
executive branch with access to such information.” The statement characterizes the provision on
unobligated balances as one of several provisions in the law that “The executive branch shall
construe as calling solely for notification.”54
Title VI, Subtitle B of the law includes provisions on personnel policies for employees of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Administrator of FEMA is directed to
develop a strategic human capital plan for the agency’s workforce and authorizes the
Administrator to pay recruitment and retention bonuses to individuals in positions that are
difficult to fill and to provide for the professional development and education of employees.
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations
Title II funds Security, Enforcement, and Investigations. Title II contains the appropriations for
the U.S.-Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator (US-VISIT) program, the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the US Coast Guard, and the US Secret Service.
Table 6 shows the FY2006 enacted and FY2007 enacted appropriation for Title II.
53
Ibid., p. 174.
U.S. President (Bush), “President’s Statement on H.R. 5441, the ‘Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Act, 2007,’ Oct. 4, 2006, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov.
54
Congressional Research Service
24
Table 6. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2006 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
FY2007
Senate
FY2006
Enacted
FY2006
Supp.
FY2006
Resc.
FY2006
Total
—US-VISIT
340
—
-3
337
399
362
Net total
340
—
-3
337
399
4,826
447
-48
5,225
—Automation modernization
456
—
-5
—Technology modernization
—
—
—Air and Marine Operations
400
—Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2007
Enacted
FY2007
Emerg.
FY2007
Total
399
362
—
362
362
399
362
—
362
5,519
5,435
5,355
5,459
103
5,562
451
461
451
461
451
—
451
—
—
—
—
132
—
—
—
95
-4
491
338
373
577
370
232
602
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
28
1,159
1,188
—Construction
270
315
-3
582
256
175
378
122
110
232
—Fee accountsb
1,142
—
—
1,142
1,265
1,265
1,265
1,265
—
1,265
Gross total
7,094
857
-60
7,891
7,839
7,699
8,168
7,701
1,601
9,302
—Offsetting collections
-1,142
—
—
-1,142
-1,265
-1,265
-1,485
-1,265
—
-1,265
Net total
5,952
857
-60
6,749
6,574
6,434
6,683
6,435
1,601
8,036
3,108
340
-31
3,417
3,902
3,850
3,770
3,887
—
3,887
—Federal Protective Services (FPS)
487
—
—
487
516
516
516
516
—
516
—Automation & infrastructure modernization
40
—
—
40
—
—
20
15
—
15
—Construction
27
—
-1
26
26
26
159
26
30
56
—Fee accountsc
254
—
—
254
252
252
252
252
—
252
Gross total
3,916
340
-32
4,224
4,696
4,644
4,717
4,697
30
4,727
—Offsetting FPS fees
-487
—
—
-487
-516
-516
-516
-516
—
-516
US-VISITa
Customs & Border Protection
—Salaries and expenses
Immigration & Customs Enforcement
—Salaries and expenses
CRS-25
FY2006 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
FY2007
Senate
FY2006
Enacted
FY2006
Supp.
FY2006
Resc.
FY2006
Total
—Offsetting collections
-254
—
—
-254
-252
-252
Net total
3,175
340
-32
3,483
3,928
—Aviation security (gross funding)
4,607
—
-46
4,561
—Surface Transportation Security
36
—
—
—Credentialing activities (appropriation)
75
—
—Credentialing/Fee accountsd
180
—Intelligence
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2007
Enacted
FY2007
Emerg.
FY2007
Total
-282
-252
—
-252
3,876
3,919
3,928
30
3,958
4,655
4,704
4,752
4,731
—
4,731
36
37
37
37
37
—
37
-1
74
55
75
30
40
—
40
—
—
180
76
76
76
76
—
76
21
—
—
21
21
21
21
21
—
21
—Federal Air Marshalse
686
—
-7
679
699
699
699
714
—
714
—Administration
489
—
-4
485
506
502
697
504
—
504
—Aviation security mandatory spendingf
250
—
—
250
250
250
250
250
—
250
Gross total
6,344
—
-58
6,286
6,299
6,364
6,562
6,374
—
6,374
—Offsetting collectionsg
-1,990
—
—
-1,990
-3,650
-2,420
-2,420
-2,420
—
-2,420
—Credentialing/Fee accounts
-180
—
—
-180
-76
-76
-76
-76
—
-76
—Aviation security mandatory spending
-250
—
—
-250
-250
-250
-250
-250
—
-250
Net total
3,924
—
-58
3,866
2,323
3,618
3,816
3,628
—
3,628
5,492
321h
-330
5,483
5,519
5,482
5,534
5,478
—
5,478
—Environmental compliance & restoration
12
—
—
12
12
12
11
11
—
11
—Reserve training
119
—
-1
118
124
122
124
122
—
122
1,142
267
-12
1,397
1,170
1,140
1,062
1,154
176
1,330
—Alteration of bridges
15
—
—
15
—
17
15
16
—
16
—Research, development, tests, & evaluation
17
—
—
17
14
14
18
17
—
17
1,014
—
—
1,014
1,063
1,063
1,145
1,063
—
1,063
—
—
—
—
279
279
279
279
—
279
Transportation Security Administrationa
U.S. Coast Guard
—Operating expenses
—Acquisition, construction, & improvements
—Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement)
—Health care fund contribution
CRS-26
FY2006 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
FY2007
Senate
FY2006
Enacted
FY2006
Supp.
FY2006
Resc.
FY2006
Total
7,811
588
-343
8,056
8,181
8,129
1,212
24
-12
1,224
1,265
—Protection, administration, and training
—
—
—
—
—Investigations and field operations
—
—
—
—Special event fund
—
—
—Acquisition, construction, improvements, and
related expenses
—
Net total
Gross Budget Authority: Title II
Gross total
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2007
Enacted
FY2007
Emerg.
FY2007
Total
8,188
8,140
176
8,316
—
—
—
—
—
—
956
918
962
—
962
—
—
312
304
311
—
311
—
—
—
21
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4
4
4
—
4
1,212
24
-12
1,224
1,265
1,293
1,226
1,277
—
1,277
26,717
1,809
-508
28,017
28,679
28,491
29,260
28,550
1,807
30,357
-4,302
—
—
-4,302
-6,009
-4,779
-5,029
-4,779
—
-4,779
22,415
1,809
-508
23,715
22,670
23,712
24,231
23,770
1,807
25,577
U.S. Secret Service
—Salaries and expenses; construction
Total offsetting collections: Title II
Net Budget Authority: Title II
Source: FY2006 enacted numbers from CRS analysis of the Conference Report to H.R. 2360, H. Rept.109-241; FY2006 supplemental numbers from CRS analysis of P.L.
109-61, P.L. 109-62, P.L. 109-88, and P.L. 109-148; FY2006 rescission numbers from CRS analysis of P.L. 109-148 and the FY2007 DHS Justifications. FY2007 request
numbers from the FY2007 DHS Justifications. FY2007 numbers from the conference report (H.Rept. 109-476) to H.R. 5441.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds. For a more detailed analysis of the supplemental appropriations, please refer to
Appendix A.
a.
United States Visitor & Immigrant Status Indicator Project.
b.
Fees include COBRA, Land Border, Immigration Inspection, Immigration Enforcement, and Puerto Rico.
c.
Fees included Exam, Student Exchange and Visitor Fee, Breached Bond, Immigration User, and Land Border.
d.
Fees include TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks.
e.
P.L. 109-90 moved FAMS to TSA, pursuant to Secretary Chertoff’s reorganization proposal submitted to Congress on July 13, 2005.
f.
Aviation Security Capital Fund, used for installation of Explosive Detection Systems at airports.
g.
In FY2007, DHS proposes increasing the passenger security fee for one-way and multi-leg flights by up to $2.50, generating $1.73 billion in new revenue.
h.
Includes $100 million transfer from DOD.
CRS-27
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
US-VISIT55
In 1996, Congress first mandated that the former INS implement an automated entry and exit data
system, now referred to as the US-VISIT program, that would track the arrival and departure of
every alien.56 The objective for an automated entry and exit data system was, in part, to develop a
mechanism that would be able to track nonimmigrants who overstayed their visas as part of a
broader emphasis on immigration control. Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks,
however, there was a marked shift in priority for implementing an automated entry and exit data
system. Although the tracking of nonimmigrants who overstayed their visas remained an
important goal of the system, border security has become the paramount concern.
President’s FY2007 Request
The Administration requested an appropriation of $399 million in budget authority for US-VISIT
in FY2007, amounting to a nearly 18% (or $62 million) increase over the enacted FY2006 level
of $340 million.
House-Passed H.R. 5441
The House-passed version of H.R. 5441 would have provided $362 million for US-VISIT, which
would have amounted to $37 million below the President’s request for FY2007, and nearly $22
million above the FY2006 enacted level of $340 million. The House did not approve the
requested aviation passenger fee increase requested by the Administration that would have funded
US-VISIT at the requested level.
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441
The Senate-passed version of H.R. 5441 would have fully funded the President’s request of $399
million for US-VISIT in FY2007. The Senate would have made $200 million of the appropriation
conditional, however, upon approval of an expenditure plan for the program by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations.
The Senate Appropriations Committee report also included language directing DHS to submit a
report on the progress it has made toward creating the technical standards needed to implement
the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 included a provision
extending the current legislative deadlines for the implementation of this initiative.57
55
Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy Division.
For more detailed information regarding the US-VISIT system, see CRS Report RL32234, U.S. Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program, by Lisa M. Seghetti and (name redacted).
57
For additional information on this provision, which is similar to a provision in S. 2611, please refer to CRS Report
RL33181, Immigration Related Border Security Legislation in the 109th Congress, by (name redacted) and (name r
edacted).
56
Congressional Research Service
28
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
P.L. 109-295
The act provides $362 million for the US-VISIT program. Of this funding, $60 million is to be
used for implementation of 10 fingerprint enrollment capability and to continue working towards
the interoperability of the USBP’s Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System
(IAFIS). DHS is required to submit a strategic plan for modifying US-VISIT to allow for 10
fingerprint enrollment and for interoperability with IDENT and IAFIS and for the implementation
of the exit component of the US-VISIT system.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)58
CBP is responsible for security at and between ports-of-entry along the border. Since 9/11, CBP’s
primary mission is to prevent the entry of terrorists and the instruments of terrorism. CBP’s
ongoing responsibilities include inspecting people and goods to determine if they are authorized
to enter the United States; interdicting terrorists and instruments of terrorism; intercepting illegal
narcotics, firearms, and other types of contraband; interdicting unauthorized travelers and
immigrants; and enforcing more than 400 laws and regulations at the border on behalf of more
than 60 government agencies. CBP is comprised of the inspection functions of the legacy
Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS); the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction, now known as CBP Air
and Marine (CBPAM); and the Border Patrol (BP). See Table 6 for account-level detail for all of
the agencies in Title II, and Table 7 for sub-account-level detail for CBP Salaries and Expenses
(S&E) for FY2006 and FY2007.
President’s FY2007 Request
The Administration requested an appropriation of $7,839 million in gross budget authority for
CBP for FY2007, amounting to a nearly 11% increase over the enacted FY2006 level of $7,094
million. The bulk of the requested increase for FY2007, $635 million, is for various aspects of the
Secure Border Initiative (SBI). However, additional amounts were also requested for other CBP
initiatives, including, among others, $12 million for WMD detection staffing; nearly $7 million
for enhancements to the National Targeting Center (NTC); $9 million for the Arizona Border
Control Initiative (ABCI); nearly $5 million for Border Patrol training at FLETC; nearly $5
million for the Immigration Advisory Program (IAP); and $1 million for the Fraudulent
Document Analysis Unit.
House-Passed H.R. 5441
House-passed H.R. 5441 recommended an appropriation of $7,699 million in gross budget
authority for CBP and an appropriation of $6,434 million in net budget authority (after offsetting
fee receipts). The $7,699 million amounted to $140 million less than requested by the
Administration for FY2007, and a nearly 9% increase over the enacted FY2006 level. In H.Rept.
109-476, the House Appropriations Committee stated that the reductions to the request included
$10 million that were attributed to the poor responsiveness of CBP in submitting reports to
58
Prepared by (name redacted), and (name redacted), Analysts in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
Congressional Research Service
29
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Congress, and the fact that the House recommended denying the Administration’s request for an
increase in the aviation passenger fees because such a fee increase lies outside the jurisdiction of
the Committee. In the CBP Salaries and Expenses account, only the C-TPAT program would have
received funding above the Administration’s request: $15 million to improve validation
capability.
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441
Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would have provided an appropriation of $8,168 million in gross budget
authority and $6,683 million in net budget authority for CBP in FY2007. This gross budget
authority represented a $1.2 billion, or 15%, increase over the gross enacted FY2006 level of
$7,094 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee included language requiring DHS to
submit expenditure plans before receiving parts of its appropriation for the Secure Border
Initiative and the Automated Commercial Environment.
P.L. 109-295
P.L. 109-295 provides an appropriation of $9,302 million in gross budget authority for CBP, an
appropriation of $8,036 million in net budget authority (after offsetting fee receipts). These
amounts include $1,601 million in emergency funding that was attached inserted into H.R. 5441
during conference. Including the emergency funding, gross budget authority for FY2007
represents an increase of $2,208 million, or 24%, compared with the FY2006 enacted level of
$7,094 million. Not including the $1.6 billion in emergency funding, P.L. 109-295 provides
$7,701 million in gross budget authority and $6,435 million in net budget authority for CBP for
FY2007. The $7,701 million in gross budget authority amounts to an increase of $607 million, or
9%, compared with the enacted FY2006 level.
Table 7. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Activity
FY06
Enact.
FY07
Req.
FY07
House
FY07
Senate
FY07
Conf.
Headquarters Management And Administration
1,233
1,258
1,248
1,258
1,248
Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation
@ POE
1,605
1,680
1,695
1,679
1,860
Inspections, Trade & Travel Facilitation @ POE
1,250
1,282
1,282
1,281
1,327
137
139
139
139
139
Other International Programs
9
9
9
9
9
C-TPAT / FAST / Nexus / SENTRI
75
76
91
76
—
C-TPAT
—
—
—
—
55
FAST/Nexus/SENTRI
—
—
—
—
11
Inspection and Detection Technology
62
94
94
94
241
Systems for Targeting
28
27
27
27
27
National Targeting Center
17
24
24
24
24
Other Technologies
1
1
1
1
—
Container Security Initiative (CSI)
Congressional Research Service
30
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
FY06
Enact.
FY07
Req.
FY07
House
FY07
Senate
FY07
Conf.
Training at POE
24
25
25
25
25
Harbor Maintenance Fee
3
3
3
3
3
Border Security and Control Between POE
1,778
2,421
2,329
2,176
2,278
Border Security and Control Between POE
1,726
2,244
2,177
2,138
2,240
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
—
—
—
—
—
Border Technology/SBI Technology
31
132
115
—
—
Training Between the POE
22
46
37
38
38
Air and Marine Operations - Salaries
162
160
163
173
176
Undistributed Supplementals
447
—
—
—
—
5,225
5,519
5,435
5,286
5,562
Activity
CBP Salaries and Expenses Total:
Source: DHS FY2007 Justifications, p. CBP-S&E-5, and the conference report (H.Rept. 109-476) to H.R. 5441.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
Issues for Congress
The bulk of the increase in CBP’s FY2007 request compared with the FY2006 enacted level is for
a new DHS program, the Secure Border Initiative (SBI). DHS states that it “developed a threepillar approach under the SBI that will focus on controlling the border, building a robust interior
enforcement program, and establishing a Temporary Worker Program.”59 Other CBP issues of
interest to Congress include CBP staffing, Border Patrol vehicles, border technology,
infrastructure construction, Tucson Border Patrol checkpoints, border tunnels, cargo and
container security, radiation detection devices and non-intrusive inspection equipment, CBP Air
and Marine, unmanned aerial vehicles, and the transfer of the Shadow Wolves from CBP to ICE.
CBP Staffing
Staffing issues have long been of interest to Congress, and there has been considerable debate
concerning the appropriate level of staffing that CBP needs to effectively carry out its mission.
CBP’s staffing needs include not only Border Patrol Agents (discussed in the following section),
but also officers stationed at the nation’s ports of entry, import and trade specialists, pilots, and a
variety of other positions. In addition to the debate over the appropriate level of staffing, other
issues such as training resources, infrastructure demands, absorption of new staff, attrition, and
hiring are also important. In an effort to address the concerns regarding CBP’s staffing, the
conference report to H.R. 5441, H.Rept. 109-699, requires CBP to submit a resource allocation
model (RAM) to Congress no later than January, 23, 2007. The report is required to address the
concerns and items contained in both the House (H.Rept. 109-476) and Senate (S.Rept. 109-273)
reports. The report would be required to address staffing levels at all ports of entry and provide
the complete methodology for aligning staff across mission areas. The conferees were particularly
concerned with airport processing times, and directed CBP to specifically include in the RAM
airports and the number of flights that took longer than 60 minutes to process.
59
DHS FY2007 Justification, p. CBP S&E 4.
Congressional Research Service
31
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
The House committee in its report, H.Rept. 109-476, would require CBP to submit its staffing
model with the FY2008 budget request. The model should address the operational assumptions in
requesting resources by mission area; and the methodology for aligning staffing levels to threats,
vulnerabilities, and workload across all mission areas and per port of entry, Border Patrol sector,
and Foreign Trade Zone, in addition to several other items.
The Senate committee in its report, S.Rept. 109-273, would also require CBP to submit a RAM
with current and future year staffing requirements, by February 7, 2007. The Senate committee
was particularly concerned with CBP’s ability to process growing passenger volumes at the
nation’s airports. GAO issued a report in July 2005, which stated that CBP did not systematically
assess its staffing requirements at airports.60 S.Rept. 109-273 would required the report to be
submitted by CBP to include assessments of optimal staffing levels at all ports for all missions,
and stated that CBP should consult with appropriate nonfederal partners to estimate future
passenger growth, throughput, and issues such as automatic secondary inspection requirements.
Increase in CBP Officers
P.L. 109-295 includes $34.8 million in funding for an additional 450 CBP officers in FY2007.61
The recently enacted Security and Accountability for Every Port Act (the SAFE Port Act, P.L.
109-347), authorizes 200 CBP officers per fiscal year for FY2008-FY2012, for a total of an
additional 1,000 CBP officers in each of the next 5 fiscal years. The SAFE Port Act also would
require the Commissioner of CBP to increase by not less than 50 full-time personnel, the number
of personnel conducting validations and re-validations of certified C-TPAT participants in
FY2008 and FY2009. The SAFE Port Act also authorizes additional funding for these personnel
for FY2008-FY2012.62
Increase in Border Patrol Agents
The President’s request includes an increase of $459 million to increase the U.S. Border Patrol
(USBP) workforce by an additional 1,500 agents in FY2007. This would bring the total of new
agents hired since FY2005 to 3,000 and give the USBP an agent workforce of nearly 14,000. The
request does not match the increase authorized by Congress in the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005 (P.L. 108-458). IRTPA §5202 authorized DHS to increase the
number of USBP agents by 2,000 each year from FY2006 to FY2010. The President’s request is
in line, however, with the 1,500 increase in USBP agents that was appropriated by Congress in
FY2006.63 A potential issue for Congress could be whether the 1,500-agent increase in the
President’s request is adequate to provide for the security of the border, or whether the
appropriate figure is the 2,000-agent increase authorized by IRTPA. The House included $385
million in funding for 1,200 new USBP agents, cutting the President’s request by 300 agents and
$74 million. The Senate recommended funding for an increase of 1,000 USBP agents, but noted
that when combined with the 1,000 agents funded in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
60
See GAO, International Air Passengers: Staffing Model for Airport Inspections Personnel Can be Improved, GAO05-663, July 2005.
61
H.Rept. 109-699, p. 125.
62
The Safe Port Act (H.R. 4954, enacted), Sec. 222, and Sec. 223. Signed by the President on Oct. 13, 2007.
63
P.L. 109-13 appropriated funding for 500 additional agents; P.L. 109-90 appropriated funding for another 1,000
additional agents.
Congressional Research Service
32
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Act (P.L. 109-234) brings the total FY2007 increase to 2,000 agents. In addition, a floor
amendment was agreed to that would have added an additional 236 USBP agents, bringing the
total additional USBP agents in the Senate bill to 1,236; taken together with the supplemental the
total number of agents added in FY2007 would have been 2,236. The conferees appropriated
funding for an increase of 1,500 USBP agents, or 2,500 total in FY2007 including the
supplemental, and noted that they expect 10% of any increase in staffing to occur along the
northern border.
Border Patrol Vehicles
The conferees noted that they were “extremely disappointed” with what they characterized as
insufficient vehicle fleet planning on CBP’s part. They noted that CBP’s cost-benefit analyses for
comparing the operating costs of standard commercial vehicles to those that may be more
appropriate for the unique and challenging topographical and environmental features found at the
border are unclear. The conferees direct CBP to re-submit its Vehicle Fleet Management Plan by
January 23, 2007, and to fully describe its process for evaluating which vehicles meet its mission
requirements and cost constraints.
Border Technology Increase
The President’s request includes $100 million for border technologies to enhance the surveillance
of the border and the USBP’s ability to respond to incursions. DHS notes that it “will solicit and
award a contract to complete the transition from the current, limited-scope technology plan to one
that addresses the Department’s comprehensive and integrated technological needs.”64 A potential
issue for Congress may involve the contracting process that DHS will pursue for this program. In
FY2005, the General Services Administration’s Inspector General (GSA IG) released a report
which criticized the USBP for its contracting practices regarding the Remote Video Surveillance
(RVS) system.65 The GSA IG found that the contracts were granted without competition, and that
in many cases the contractor failed to deliver the services that were stipulated within the contract
leading to RVS sites not being operational in a timely manner.66 In a 2005 report, the DHS
Inspector General (DHS IG) noted that deficiencies in contract management and processes
resulted in 169 incomplete RVS sites.67
Another potential issue for Congress could be the level of integration and scope of this border
technology program. The RVS system mentioned above forms part of a larger program that
integrates surveillance cameras with sensors. This program was originally called the Integrated
Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS), but was folded into the broader America’s Shield
Initiative (ASI) by DHS in 2005. DHS IG Richard Skinner stated in congressional testimony on
December 16, 2005, that “to date, ISIS components have not been integrated to the level
predicted at the onset of the program. RVS cameras and sensors are not linked whereby a sensor
64
DHS FY2007 Justifications, p. CBP S&E 4.
The Remote Video Surveillance system includes a set of cameras mounted on poles which can be remotely
controlled by agents at a USBP station.
66
United States General Services Administration, Office of the Inspector General, Compendium of Audits of the
Federal Technology Service Regional Client Support Services, pp. 173-180.
67
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, A Review of Remote Surveillance
Technology Along U.S. Land Borders, OIG-06-15, Dec. 2005, p. 2. Hereafter referred to as DHS IG Surveillance
Report.
65
Congressional Research Service
33
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
alert automatically activates a corresponding RVS camera to pan and tilt in the direction of the
triggered sensor. However, even if ISIS was fully integrated, due to a limited number of
operational RVS sites (255 nationwide), integration opportunities would be limited to the areas
near these sites.”68 Additionally, the DHS IG noted in its 2005 report that, due to a lack of
integration, “ISIS remote surveillance technology yielded few apprehensions as a percentage of
detection.”69 For these reasons, the FY2006 DHS Appropriations Conferees noted that they were
not fully funding the department’s FY2006 request for ASI. The conferees stated that it was their
understanding that DHS was currently reviewing the entire ASI program, and that major
procurement for the program might be curtailed until DHS “has resolved fundamental questions
about scope and architecture, and possibly its relation to overall, nationwide border domain
security and awareness.” The conferees noted that they expected to be kept informed of the
results of this review and encouraged DHS to explore the use of off-the-shelf solutions for the
program.70 Possible issues for Congress could thus include the relationship between SBI and ASI,
whether the review process outlined above has been concluded and what its recommendations
were, whether the DHS IG’s recommendations concerning ISIS will be carried out, and what the
overall extent of the technological integration featured in SBI will be. H.Rept. 109-476 voiced
concern about DHS’ request for SBI, noting that the submission and review of a strategic plan
should have been the first step in creating the program. The House required that a strategic plan
for SBI be submitted by November 1, 2006, and cut funding for SBI technologies by $17 million
from the President’s request. The Senate fully funded the President’s request, but would make
$100 million conditional on the submission to and approval of an expenditure plan by the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees. Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would require any contract
action related to SBI valued at more than $20 million to be reviewed by the DHS IG to ensure it
adheres to applicable the cost requirements, performance objectives, and program milestones. The
conferees continued this language from the Senate-passed bill.
Infrastructure Construction
DHS requests an increase of $30 million to continue construction of the border fence in San
Diego, CA, as part of the SBI. Additionally, DHS is requesting $51 million to accelerate the
construction of permanent vehicle barriers in western Arizona. DHS is also requesting $59
million to construct facilities for the additional USBP agents it is proposing to hire in FY2007.
DHS has historically constructed tactical infrastructure71 under a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Under this MOU, CBP was responsible for providing
the funding for planning, engineering, and purchasing materials, while the actual construction
was undertaken by military personnel at no charge. However, the department notes that using this
traditional approach would take until 2010 to finish the projects currently underway. For this
reason, the requested increase for tactical infrastructure includes funds for a commercial contract
to construct almost half of the vehicle barriers in Arizona. DHS argues that it is at a critical point
in its deployment of personnel and other resources at the border, and proposes using private
contractors to accelerate the construction of this infrastructure.72 A potential issue for Congress
68
Testimony of DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner before the House Homeland Security Committee,
Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight, New Secure Border Initiative, 109th Cong., 1st sess., Dec.
16, 2005.
69
DHS IG Surveillance Report, p. 2.
70
H.Rept. 109-241, p. 44.
71
DHS uses this term to refer to its border fencing, vehicle barriers, and access roads, among other things.
72
DHS FY2007 Justifications, pp. CBP Construction 4-12.
Congressional Research Service
34
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
could involve whether using private contractors to construct border infrastructure is the most
cost-effective allocation of taxpayer resources given that under the current MOU with the Corps
of Engineers CBP incurs no labor costs for these projects. Additionally, if contracts are issued for
tactical infrastructure projects another potential issue for Congress could involve the oversight of
the contracting process, given the contracting irregularities identified by the GSA IG in the RVS
contracts mentioned earlier. H.Rept. 109-476 noted that while $30 million in funding was
provided for San Diego tactical infrastructure improvements as requested, funding for Arizona
tactical infrastructure projects was reduced due to poor budget justifications, uncertainty
surrounding SBI procurement, and the lack of a strategic plan for SBI expenditures. The House
withheld $25 million in funding until the Committees on Appropriations receive and approve an
expenditure plan for SBI procurement and contracting. The Senate increased the President’s
request by $122 million, to $378 million. The Senate fully funded the infrastructure projects in
Arizona and California, and included $59 million for the costs associated with constructing
facilities for new Border Patrol agents. The Senate total also included an unspecified $90 million
increase added as a floor amendment.
The conferees agreed to provide $1,188 million for a new account entitled Border Security
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology. This account will be used to fund integrated
infrastructure projects at the border, including fencing, vehicle barriers, access roads, cameras,
sensors, stadium lighting. Combined with the supplemental appropriation, the conferees noted
that DHS will have $1,513 million for border infrastructure construction in FY2007. The
conferees directed DHS to submit an expenditure plan for this funding within 60 days of the bill’s
enactment, and withheld $950 million of the funding until this plan is received and approved by
the House and Senate Committees. DHS was also directed to ensure that CBP’s future budget
submissions consolidate funding for fencing, infrastructure, and technology between POE within
this account. Lastly, the conferees directed CBP to work with the Secure Border Coordination
Office, the Chief Procurement Officer, and the Chief Financial Officer to rigorously oversee all
contracts awarded for border fencing, infrastructure, and technology and to work to minimize the
use of subcontractors.
Tucson Sector Border Patrol Checkpoints
House-passed H.R. 5441 included language prohibiting any funds in the bill from being used for
the construction, design, or the acquisition of sites for permanent checkpoints in the Tucson
sector. The House bill would have also required the USBP to relocate its checkpoints in the
Tucson sector at least once every seven days to “prevent persons subject to inspection from
predicting the location of any such checkpoint.” The Senate Appropriations Committee report
noted that the DHS IG concluded that the permanent checkpoints permit safer and more efficient
law enforcement and strongly encourages CBP to construct permanent checkpoints in the Tucson
sector. The Senate-passed bill did not include any language concerning checkpoints in the Tucson
sector.
Border Tunnels
Both the House and Senate Appropriations Committee reports raised concern over the existence
and increase in tunnels underneath the land border. The House committee directed CBP to work
with Science and Technology to establish a program for detecting and addressing this smuggling
tactic and incorporate the costs of funding such a program into future budget submissions. The
Senate voiced concern over the lack of a clear policy within DHS concerning which agency is
Congressional Research Service
35
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
responsible for securing, closing, and filling tunnels that are discovered and directs DHS to
address this issue and to submit a report on their proposed policy by February 8, 2007; the
conferees concurred with the reporting requirement. During floor consideration in the Senate, an
amendment was accepted to H.R. 5441 that would criminalize the construction, financing, and
use of tunnels crossing the U.S. international border.73 This amendment was agreed to in
conference.
Cargo and Container Security
The recent Dubai Ports World controversy has brought significant attention to several issues
surrounding port and maritime security, including cargo and container security. CBP’s cargo
security strategy includes two significant programs: the Container Security Initiative (CSI) and
the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). CSI is a CBP program that stations
CBP officers in foreign sea ports to target marine containers for inspection before they are loaded
onto U.S.-bound vessels. C-TPAT is a public-private partnership aimed at securing the supply
chain from point of origin through entry into the United States. The FY2007 request did not
contain significant increases in funding for either the Container Security Initiative (CSI) or the
Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). Funding for C-TPAT remained flat with
the FY2007 request of $76 million (which includes funding for the Free and Secure Trade (FAST)
and NEXUS/SENTRIi programs), and the request for CSI increased by $2 million to $139
million for FY2007.
P.L. 109-295 provides $139 million for CSI, $55 million for C-TPAT, and $11 million for FAST
and NEXUS/SENTRI. The conferees in H.Rept. 109-699 noted that the conference agreement
provides an additional $147 million for additional non-intrusive inspection technology (NII) and
fully funds the requests for all cargo security and trade facilitation programs within CBP. H.Rept.
109-699 specifically directs CBP to comply with all aspects of the reporting requirements
specified in the statement of managers and the House report regarding the port, cargo, and
container, strategic plan74 (discussed below). The conferees also withhold $5 million from
obligation, from the OSEM account (in Title I), until the Secretary of DHS submits the port,
cargo, and container strategic plan to Congress.75 The conferees also note that they provide
sufficient funding to allow CBP to meet the strategic plan requirements (specified in H.Rept. 109699 and 109-476) of 100% initial validation and periodic re-validation of certified C-TPAT
participants; and 100% manifest review at CSI ports.
The House-passed version of H.R. 5441 would have provided an additional $15 million above the
Administration’s request for C-TPAT, and would fund CSI at the requested level. The Senatepassed version of H.R. 5441 would have funded both CSI and C-TPAT at the FY2007 requested
level.
Significant concerns have recently been raised regarding both of these programs. GAO has issued
several reports noting that inadequate staffing levels for both the CSI and C-TPAT programs have
hampered CBP’s ability to conduct inspections overseas at foreign ports and to validate every C73
For more information on this provision, which is identical to a provision in S. 2611, please refer to CRS Report
RL33181, Immigration Related Border Security Legislation in the 109th Congress, by (name redacted) and (name r
edacted).
74
H.Rept. 109-699, p. 127.
75
H.Rept. 109-699, p. 114.
Congressional Research Service
36
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
TPAT member within three years of certification.76 Recent testimony by a CBP official has also
noted that CBP itself is not satisfied with the current numbers of supply chain specialists available
to conduct C-TPAT validations. GAO has raised a number of additional concerns regarding the CTPAT program, which CBP has begun addressing, including the scope of effort and level of rigor
applied to the validation process, how many and what types of validations are necessary to
manage security risk, and the lack of a comprehensive set of performance measures for the
program.77 GAO has also reported that several factors limit CBP’s ability to successfully target
maritime containers at foreign ports, including staffing imbalances, operational factors, lack of
technical requirements for NII equipment used at foreign ports, and continued refinements to the
strategic plan and performance measures needed to manage the program.78
The House Appropriations Committee in H.Rept. 109-476 expressed several concerns regarding
the department’s port, container, and cargo security programs, including lack of a “port, container,
and cargo strategic plan....”79 The committee would have withheld $10 million from the Office of
the Secretary and Management until this strategic plan was submitted. Several elements that
would be required under this plan are similar to items that have been included in port security
bills (H.R. 4954 passed by the House, S. 2459 and S. 1052 both reported in the Senate, and S.
2791 introduced in the Senate). Significant provisions that would be required by the strategic plan
outlined in H.Rept. 109-476 include having the Secretary ensure that
•
all inbound cargo is screened by the Automated Targeting System (ATS);
•
the percentage of inbound cargo inspected by CBP is doubled;
•
by the end of FY2007:
—CSI maintains a 100% manifest review rate;
—C-TPAT conducts validations of new certified participants within one year, and
once every three years thereafter; and
—the percentage of containerized cargo screened for radiation as of January 1,
2006 is doubled.
In addition to the above items, the plan would be required to include a discussion of how the CSI
program is coordinated with the Department of Energy’s Megaports program, how CBP is
promoting non-intrusive inspection (NII) equipment in foreign countries, minimum standards for
securing cargo containers, an evaluation of evaluation of cargo inspection systems utilized at
high-volume foreign ports (such as Hong Kong), among other items. P.L. 109-295 requires CBP
to comply with these strategic plan directives set out in H.Rept. 109-699.
76
GAO-05-446T, Homeland Security: Key Cargo Security Programs Can Be Improved, May 26, 2005, p. 20, and p.
16.
77
See GAO, Homeland Security: Key Cargo Security Programs Can Be Improved, GAO-05-466T, Testimony by
Richard M. Stana, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, May 26, 2005, for a discussion of these
issues and steps CBP has taken to address them.
78
GAO has reported issues pertaining to the CSI on several occasions, including in testimony before the Senate
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. See
Homeland Security: Key Cargo Security Programs Can be Improved, May 26, 2005. See also, GAO, Container
Security: A Flexible Staffing Model and Minimum Equipment Requirements Would Improve Overseas Targeting and
Inspection Efforts, GAO-05-557, Apr. 26, 2005.
79
H.Rept. 109-476, pp.9-10.
Congressional Research Service
37
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Section 558 of P.L. 109-295 requires the Secretary of DHS to conduct a full-scale pilot of the
integrated screening system (similar to the one being used at certain terminals in Hong Kong).
This provision is similar to the provision passed in the Security and Accountability for Every Port
Act (the SAFE Port Act, P.L. 109-347). Title VII of Senate-passed H.R. 5441 contains additional
appropriations for port security, including $251 million for CBP for FY2006, but this funding was
not included in P.L. 109-295 (though other emergency funding was included). For a full
discussion, see Appendix A of this report.
Screening Municipal Solid Waste
The Senate-passed version of H.R. 5441 included provisions pertaining to CBP’s screening of
municipal solid waste (MSW). Sec. 555 would have required CBP to submit a report to Congress
within 90 days of enactment indicating whether the methods used to inspect the trash trucks for
chemical, nuclear, biological, and radiological weapons were as effective as methods used to
screen other commerce. The report would also have been required to identify actions to improve
the screening of MSW in the event the current screening methods are found deficient, including
the acquisition of additional screening technology. Sec. 555 would have required the Secretary of
DHS to deny the entry of any truck carrying MSW in the event that CBP failed to implement the
required corrective actions within a specified time-frame. Sec. 557 would have required the
Secretary of DHS to provide personnel and equipment to improve the inspection of commercial
vehicles carrying MSW, and to levy a fee approximating the costs of the inspections. These
provisions were not included in P.L. 109-295.
Radiation Detection Devices and Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) Technology .
CBP has deployed a number of non-intrusive inspection (NII) technologies at ports of entry to
assist customs inspectors with the inspection of cargos. Large scale NII technologies include a
number of x-ray and gamma ray systems. The Vehicle and Cargo Inspection Systems (VACIS),
which uses gamma rays to produce an image of the contents of a container for review by the CBP
inspector, can be deployed in a mobile or stationary capacity depending upon the needs of the
port. Mobile Sea Container Examinations Systems are also deployed at ports to examine
containers. CBP is also continuing to deploy nuclear and radiological detection equipment
including personal radiation detectors, radiation portal monitors (RPMs), and radiation isotope
identifiers to ports of entry (POEs).
Recently, various concerns have been raised regarding in particular the radiation detection
equipment. GAO reported in March of 2006,80 that although DHS has made progress in deploying
radiation detection equipment at US POEs, the program goals are unrealistic (deployment has
fallen behind schedule), and the program’s cost estimate is uncertain. Delays have been caused by
a variety of factors, including DHS’s review process which has delayed the provision of
acquisition and deployment information to Congress, and difficult negotiations with seaport
operators concerning placement of the portal monitors and the screening of railcars. According to
GAO, uncertainty regarding the cost and improved effectiveness of advanced technology portals
are contributing to the difficulties in obtaining an accurate cost estimate of the radiation detection
deployment program.
80
GAO, DHS has Made Progress in Deploying Radiation Detection Equipment at U.S. Ports-of-Entry, but Concerns
Remain, GAO-06-389, Mar. 22, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
38
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
In addition, GAO found that although DHS has improved the use of the detection equipment,
CBP officers do not have access to data that would allow them to verify Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) licenses (which are generally required for radiological materials transported
into the U.S., though the licenses need not accompany the shipment), and that CBP secondary
inspection procedures do not require CBP officers to open containers and inspect them to resolve
an alarm (though GAO found that this does occur at some POEs). GAO recommended that DHS
streamline its internal review procedures so that the department can
•
provide Congress with spending data in a more timely fashion; update the RPM
deployment schedule;
•
analyze the benefits and costs of advanced portal technology and then revise the
cost estimate;
•
develop methods to effectively screen rail containers;
•
revise agency container inspection procedures; and
•
develop a way for CBP officers to verify NRC licenses.
The House, in H.Rept. 109-476, indicated its continuing concern with the issues cited by GAO in
its report, and required CBP to report to Congress by January 16, 2007, on improvements to the
process for combating nuclear smuggling.
The Senate, in S.Rept. 109-273, indicated its support for the acquisition and use of multiple
technologies and advanced mobile inspection systems to screen cargo containers and
conveyances. The committee also noted that GAO concluded that there was no specific plan to
interdict hazardous materials that may be entering the United States, and the committee
encouraged CBP to use the most up to date technology to address this issue.81
CBP Air and Marine .
The Administration requested $338 million for the CBP Air and Marine Interdictions, Operations,
Maintenance, and Procurement account. P.L. 109-295 provides $602 million for CBP Air and
Marine. This amount includes $70 million for P-3 service-life extension and additional hours; $20
million for helicopter acquisition; $20 million for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and related
support systems; $2 million for marine interceptor boat replacement; $10 million for the
missionization of manned covert aircraft; $64 million for two medium lift helicopters; $58
million for multipurpose aircraft; and $19 million for the Northern Border Airwing (NBA).
H.Rept. 109-699 would also require DHS to include funding for the fifth NBA, to be set up in
Michigan, in the FY2008 budget request.
House-passed H.R. 5441 provided $373 million for this account, nearly $36 million above the
Administration’s request and $23 million below the FY2006 enacted amount. The Senate-passed
H.R. 5441 provided a total of $472 million for the CBP Air and Marine Interdictions, Operations,
Maintenance, and Procurement account; and $173 million for CBP Air and Marine, Personnel,
Compensation, and Benefits, in the CBP Salaries and expenses account. Title VI of Senate-passed
H.R. 5441 contained a provision that provided an additional $105 million for air asset
81
GAO, Undeclared Hazardous Materials: New DOT Efforts May Provide Additional Information on Undeclared
Shipments, GAO-06-471, Mar. 2006.
Congressional Research Service
39
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
replacement and air operations facilities upgrades. The total amount provided in Senate-passed
H.R. 5441 for the CBPAM Interdictions, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement account was
$577 million.
The House Appropriations Committee remained concerned with several aspects of the CBP Air
and Marine program. CBP had yet to submit a capitalization plan to Congress, and as a result the
House recommended reduced funding for CBP’s Headquarters, Management and Administration
has been reduced by $4 million. In addition, H.Rept. 109-476 directed CBP to submit the Air and
Marine Capitalization Plan no later than November 1, 2006. There have been several
organizational changes made to CBP Air and Marine operations in the past couple of years. The
most recent of these changes include the move of CBP Air and Marine from ICE to CBP and the
consolidation of legacy Customs air and marine assets with the air and marine assets of the
Border Patrol. Concerns have been raised regarding the impact of this consolidation on the
deployment of CBP Air and Marine assets, particularly in the source and transit zones, and for
investigative and surveillance support missions. H.Rept. 109-476 directed CBP to reflect a
comprehensive approach to asset deployment that is not solely focused on the physical border. In
addition, CBP was also directed to report to Congress no later than January 16, 2007, on requests
for support made in 2006, the response to those requests, and on the consequences of reduced
support to ICE.82
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Senate-passed H.R. 5441 included a provision that would direct DHS to establish a pilot program
for the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to surveil the northern border. P.L. 109-295 provides $20
million within the CBP Air and Marine Interdictions, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement
account for the acquisition of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). The conferees (in H.Rept. 109699) directed CBP to submit to the House and Senate Committees the official findings of the
April 2006 UAV crash in Arizona no later than January 23, 2007. CBP was also encouraged to
work with the Federal Aviation Administration to establish a pilot program to test the use of
UAVs to surveil the northern border.
Shadow Wolves Transfer
Prior to the creation of DHS, the Shadow Wolves were a Customs Patrol investigative unit within
the U.S. Customs Service charged with enforcing customs laws and interdicting smugglers within
the Tohono O’odham reservation. The Shadow Wolves were created after years of negotiation
between the Customs Service and the Tribe, and members of the unit must be certified Native
American. The Shadow Wolves were originally placed within ICE when DHS was created, but
were subsequently moved into CBP where they are administratively under the USBP. During
floor debate on H.R. 5441, an amendment was agreed to (H.Amdt. 952) that would transfer $2
million in funding from CBP to ICE to effectively move the Shadow Wolves into ICE. P.L. 109295 includes $3 million to effect the transfer of the Shadow Wolves from CBP into ICE.83
82
83
H.Rept. 109-476, pp. 33-34.
H.Rept. 109-699, pp. 125 and 132.
Congressional Research Service
40
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)84
ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the United States. ICE
develops intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the United States and is responsible for
investigating and enforcing violations of the immigration laws (e.g., alien smuggling, hiring
unauthorized alien workers). ICE is also responsible for locating and removing aliens who have
overstayed their visas, entered illegally, or have become deportable. In addition, ICE develops
intelligence to combat terrorist financing and money laundering, and to enforce export laws
against smuggling, fraud, forced labor, trade agreement noncompliance, and vehicle and cargo
theft. Furthermore, this bureau oversees the building security activities of the Federal Protective
Service, formerly of GSA. The Federal Air Marshals Service (FAMS)85 was returned from ICE to
TSA pursuant to the reorganization proposal of July 13, 2005. The Office of Air and Marine
Interdiction was transferred from ICE to CBP, and therefore the totals for ICE do not include Air
and Marine Interdiction funding, which is included under CBP. See Table 6 for account-level
detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 8 for sub-account-level detail for ICE Salaries
and Expenses (S&E) for FY2006 and FY2007.
President’s FY2007 Request
The Administration requested $4,696 million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2007, which
represents a 20% increase over the enacted FY2006 level of $3,916 million. The Administration
requested an appropriation of $3,928 million in net budget authority for ICE in FY2007,
representing a 24% increase over the FY2006 enacted level of $3,175 million. Table 8 provides
activity-level detail for the Salaries and Expenses account.
Table 8. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2006
Enacted
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
FY2007
Senate
FY2007
Conf.
HQ & Administration
254
—
265
280
274
Legal Proceeding
129
207
187
187
187
Investigations - Domestic
1,183
1,457
1,325
1,286
1,285
Investigations - International
101
105
105
103
105
1,284
1,562
1,430
1,388
1,390
50
58
51
51
51
DRO-Custody Operations
1,003
1,433
1,291
1,236
1,382
DRO-Fugitive Operations
101
174
200
146
183
DRO-Institutional Removal Program
93
110
105
101
137
DRO - Alternatives to Detention
28
43
46
41
44
DRO Transportation and Removal Program
133
317
273
308
238
Activity
Investigations Total
Intelligence
84
85
Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Social Legislation, Domestic Social Policy Division.
FAMS transferred to ICE from TSA in Aug. 2003.
Congressional Research Service
41
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
FY2006
Enacted
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
FY2007
Senate
FY2007
Conf.
1,358
2,077
1,915
1,833
1,984
Unspecified Supplemental
340
—
—
—
—
ICE Salaries and Expenses
3,417
3,902
3,850
3,740
3,887
Activity
DRO Total
Source: DHS FY2007 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. ICE-S&E-4, and the conference report (H.Rept.
109-476) to H.R. 5441. Unspecified supplemental from P.L. 109-234.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
The request included the following program increases:
•
$66.9 million for the Office of Investigations pay and non-pay inflation;
•
$16.6 million for additional compliance enforcement agents and law enforcement
technicians;
•
$364.6 million for custody management and detention bedspace;
•
$64.7 million for Fugitive Operations;
•
$13 million for Alternatives to Detention;
•
$8.7 million for Institutional Removal Program (IRP);
•
$174.9 million for transportation and removal within the detention and removal
program;
•
$41.9 million for worksite enforcement; and
•
$59.1 million for legal proceedings.86
House-Passed H.R. 5441
House-passed H.R. 5441 would have appropriated $4,644 million in gross budget authority for
ICE in FY2007, which represented a 19% increase over the enacted FY2006 level of $3,916
million, and $52 million less than the President’s request. As shown in Table 6, the bill would
have appropriated $3,876 million in net budget authority for ICE in FY2007, which represented a
22% increase over the FY2006 enacted level of $3,175 million. Of the appropriated amount, $5.4
million would have been used to implement §287(g) of the INA; $11.2 million would have been
designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care, and repatriation of
smuggled aliens, and $15.8 million would have been targeted for enforcement of laws against
forced child labor.
In addition, H.Rept 109-476 recommended an increase over FY2006 funding of
86
•
$275 million for detention bedspace, transportation, and removal efforts
associated with the SBI;
•
$33.4 million for 70 fugitive operations teams;
Also known as Office of the Principal Legal Advisor.
Congressional Research Service
42
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
•
$13.7 million for financial and trade investigations;
•
$1 million for the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center;87
•
$5 million for alternatives to detention; and
•
$40 million to expand the Criminal Alien Program (CAP).
Senate-Passed H.R. 5441
Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would have appropriated $4,717 million in gross budget authority for
ICE in FY2007, which would have represented a 20% increase over the gross enacted FY2006
level of $3,916 million, and $21 million more than the President’s request. As shown in Table 6,
the bill would have appropriated $3,919 million in net budget authority for ICE in FY2007, which
would have represented a 23% increase over the FY2006 enacted level of $3,175 million. Of the
appropriated amount, $58 million would have been available to increase detention space
(including related support) by 1,700 beds, $5.4 million would have been used to implement
§287(g) of the INA; $11.2 million would have been designated to fund or reimburse other federal
agencies for the cost of care, and repatriation of smuggled aliens, $15.8 million would have been
targeted for enforcement of laws against forced child labor, $102,000 would have been used to
promote public awareness of child pornography, and $203,000 would have funded project alert.88
Senate-passed H.R. 5441 (§601) would have directed the Secretary of DHS to adjust the fees
charged to noncitizens to achieve no less than $350 million in additional receipts by September
30, 2007. Of the additional monies, $30 million would have been for vehicle replacement in ICE,
and $15 million for ICE automation modernization.
In addition, S.Rept. 109-273 recommended an increase over FY2006 funding of
•
$10 million (27 FTEs) for compliance investigations related to visa overstays;
•
$400,000 to implement §287(g) agreements;
•
$3.9 million to respond to requests for assistance from state and local law
enforcement;
•
$38.5 million (128 FTEs) for DHS representation in removal proceedings;
•
$165 million for DRO custody management;
•
$94 million for DRO transportation and removal operations;
•
$40 million for DRO fugitive operations;
•
$1 million (4 FTEs) to establish the Office of Financial Management to oversee
internal controls within ICE;
•
$3.6 million (16 FTEs) to improve the Office of Procurement;
•
$10 million to expand the Office of Professional Responsibility; and
87
Established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458, §7202 ), the Human
Smuggling and Trafficking Center is an interagency group which provides information and support to counter migrant
smuggling, trafficking of persons, and clandestine terrorist travel.
88
Project ALERT was launched by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in 1992, and consists of
retired law enforcement agents who volunteer to provide assistance, as requested, to law enforcement agencies.
Congressional Research Service
43
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
•
$2 million for the Cyber Crime Center.
P.L. 109-295
P.L. 109-295 appropriates $4,727 million89 in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2007,
representing a 21% increase over the gross enacted FY2006 level of $3,916 million. As shown in
Table 6, the bill would appropriate $3,928 million in net budget authority (not including the
additional $30 million in emergency funding) for ICE in FY2007, representing a 24% increase
over the FY2006 enacted level of $3,175 million. Of the appropriated amount, $5.4 million would
be used to implement §287(g) of the INA, $11.2 million would be designated to fund or
reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care and repatriation of smuggled aliens, $15.8
million would be targeted for enforcement of laws against forced child labor, $102,000 would be
used to promote public awareness of child pornography, and $203,000 would fund Project Alert.90
Of the monies, $30 million would be for vehicle replacement in ICE and $15 million for ICE
automation modernization. P.L. 109-295 specifies that $13 million of the appropriated monies for
automation modernization may not be obligated until the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees receive and approve a plan for spending the funds.
In addition, H.Rept. 109-699 recommends increased or new funding of
•
$153.4 million for DRO custody management;
•
$94 million for DRO transportation and removal operations;
•
$76 million for DRO fugitive operations and associated bed space;
•
$20 million for DRO vehicles;
•
$2.5 million for Alternatives to Detention;
•
$4.6 million for internal controls and procurement management;
•
$5 million for the Office of Professional Responsibility;
•
$10 million for Compliance Enforcement Units;
•
$30 million for expanded worksite enforcement efforts;
•
$10 million for additional vehicles for the Office of Investigations;
•
$6.8 million for the Trade Transparency Unit;
•
$2 million for the Criminal Alien Program; and
•
$1 million for the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center.
Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions
ICE’s Office of Investigations (OI) focuses on a broad array of criminal and civil violation
affecting national security such as illegal arms exports, financial crimes, commercial fraud,
89
This number includes an emergency appropriation of $30 million for ICE.
Project ALERT was launched by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in 1992, and consists of
retired law enforcement agents who volunteer to provide assistance, as requested, to law enforcement agencies.
90
Congressional Research Service
44
Homeland Security Department: FY2007 Appropriations
human trafficking, narcotics smuggling, child pornography/exploitation, worksite enforcement,
and immigration fraud. ICE special agents also conduct investigations aimed at protecting critical
infrastructure industries that are vulnerable to sabotage, attack, or exploitation.91 The Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) abolished the INS and the United States Customs Service,
and transferred most of their investigative functions to ICE effective March 1, 2003. There are
investigative advantages to combining the INS and Customs Services, as those who violate
immigration laws often are engaged in other criminal enterprises (e.g., alien smuggling rings
often launder money). Nonetheless, concerns have been raised that not enough resources have
been focused on investigating civil violations of immigration law and that ICE resources have
been focused on terrorism and the types of investigations performed by the former Customs
Service.92
P.L. 109-295 appropriates $1,285 million for OI domestic operations, which according to the
conference report, includes increases in the base funding for two specific immigration
enforcement programs, the Compliance Enforcement Unit93 ($10 million) and worksite
enforcement ($30 million). The $1,457 million requested in the President’s budget for the OI
domestic operations also included increases for the Compliance Enforcement Unit and worksite
enforcement. The President’s budget requested an additional $41.9 million for worksite
enforcement to add 206 positions responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations under
immigration law for hiring unauthorized aliens. The President’s budget also requested an
additional $10.6 million for compliance investigations for an additional 54 positions.94 Housepassed H.R. 5441 would have appropriated $1,325 million for OI domestic operations, whereas
Senate-passed H.R. 5441 would have appropriated $1,286 million for OI domestic operations,
$39 million less than House-passed H.R. 5441, and $171 million less than the President’s request.
Detention and Removal Operations
Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) in ICE provides custody management of aliens who
are in removal proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United States.95 DRO is
also responsible for ensuring that aliens ordered removed actually depart from the United States.
Many contend that DRO does not have enough detention space to house all those who should be
detained. A study done by DOJ’s Inspector General found that almost 94% of those detained with
final orders of removal were deported whereas only 11% o
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.