Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
Congressional research reportFeb 15, 2008
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Homeland Security Department: FY2008
Appropriations
(name redacted), Coordinator
Analyst in Domestic Security
February 15, 2008
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL34004
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
Summary
This report describes the FY2008 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). The Administration requested a net appropriation of $35.5 billion in net budget authority
for FY2008. The requested net appropriation for major components of the department included
the following: $8,783 million for Customs and Border Protection (CBP); $4,168 million for
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); $3,608 million for the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA); $8,457 million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,399 million for the Secret
Service; $1,047 for the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPP); $5,042 million for
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); $30 million for US Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS); $799 million for the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T);
and $562 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO).
The House passed H.R. 2638 on June 15, 2007. H.R. 2638 included $37.4 billion in net budget
authority for DHS for FY2008. H.R. 2638 contained the following in net budget authority for
major components of DHS: $8,923 million for CBP; $4,192 million for ICE; $3,842 million for
the TSA; $8,352 million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,396 million for the Secret Service; $1,035
million for the NPP; $7,239 million for FEMA; $30 million for USCIS; $777 million for S&T;
and $556 million for the DNDO.
On July 26, 2007, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 2638. The Senate bill included $40.6
billion in net budget authority, including $3 billion in emergency funding; not including the
emergency funding, Senate-passed H.R. 2638 included $37.6 billion in net budget authority for
DHS for FY2008. The bill contained the following amounts of net budget authority for major
components of DHS: $8,841 million for CBP; $4,433 million for ICE; $3,685 million for the
TSA; $8,559 million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,396 million for the Secret Service; $914
million for the NPP; $7,019 million for FEMA; $50 million (plus and additional $60 million in
emergency funding) for USCIS; $838 million for the S&T; and $550 million for the DNDO.
Senate-passed H.R. 2638 also included a $3,000 million emergency supplemental appropriation
for border-security purposes.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161) was signed into law by the President
on December 26, 2007. The DHS Appropriations Act of 2008 was included as Division E of P.L.
110-161. The Act provides $38.7 billion in net budget authority for FY2008. P.L. 110-161
contains the following amounts of net budget authority for major components of DHS: $9,423
million for CBP; $4,734 million for ICE; $4,021 million for the TSA; $8,521 million for the U.S.
Coast Guard; $1,386 million for the Secret Service; $1,177 million for the NPP; $6,807 million
for FEMA; $81 million for USCIS; $830 million for the S&T; and $485 million for the DNDO.
This report will not be updated.
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments ............................................................................................................. 1
FY2008 Enacted: Division E—P.L. 110-161 ...................................................................... 1
Continuing Resolutions ....................................................................................................... 1
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638 .................................................................................................... 2
House-Passed H.R. 2638 ..................................................................................................... 2
President’s FY2008 Budget Submitted (and Revised) ........................................................ 2
Note on Most Recent Data .................................................................................................. 3
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Department of Homeland Security ............................................................................................ 4
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations ................................................................................................... 4
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays .............................................................................. 5
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending .................................................................................... 6
Offsetting Collections ................................................................................................................ 6
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security.............................................................. 8
DHS Appropriations Trends ...................................................................................................... 8
Summary of DHS Appropriations ............................................................................................. 9
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations ....................................................................... 13
President’s FY2008 Request ............................................................................................. 13
House-Passed H.R. 2638 ................................................................................................... 13
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638 .................................................................................................. 13
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E) ..................................................................... 14
Analysis and Operations .......................................................................................................... 21
President’s FY2008 Request ............................................................................................. 22
House-Passed H.R. 2638 ................................................................................................... 22
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638 .................................................................................................. 23
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E) ..................................................................... 24
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations ......................................................................... 25
Customs and Border Protection (CBP).................................................................................... 29
President’s FY2008 Request ............................................................................................. 29
House-Passed H.R. 2638 ................................................................................................... 29
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638 .................................................................................................. 29
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E) ..................................................................... 29
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 30
International Registered Traveler Program and Related Screening Systems .................... 34
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ........................................................................ 36
President’s FY2008 Request ............................................................................................. 37
House-Passed H.R. 2638 ................................................................................................... 37
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638 .................................................................................................. 38
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E) ..................................................................... 39
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 40
President’s FY2008 Request ............................................................................................. 44
House-passed H.R. 2638 ................................................................................................... 44
Senate-passed H.R. 2638................................................................................................... 44
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E) ..................................................................... 44
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) ....................................................................... 45
President’s FY2008 Request ............................................................................................. 45
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
House-Passed H.R. 2638 ................................................................................................... 49
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638 .................................................................................................. 50
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E) ..................................................................... 52
TSA Issues for Congress ................................................................................................... 53
United States Coast Guard ....................................................................................................... 59
President’s FY2008 Request ............................................................................................. 59
House-Passed H.R. 2638 ................................................................................................... 59
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638 .................................................................................................. 60
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E) ..................................................................... 60
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 61
U.S. Secret Service .................................................................................................................. 65
President’s FY2008 Request ............................................................................................. 67
House-passed H.R. 2638 ................................................................................................... 67
Senate-passed H.R. 2638................................................................................................... 67
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E) ..................................................................... 67
Title III: Preparedness and Response ............................................................................................. 67
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ................................................................ 70
President’s FY2008 Request ............................................................................................. 70
House Passed H.R. 2638 ................................................................................................... 71
Senate Passed H.R. 2638 ................................................................................................... 71
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E) ..................................................................... 71
FEMA Issues for Congress................................................................................................ 72
Office of Grant Programs ........................................................................................................ 76
President’s Request ........................................................................................................... 77
House-Passed H.R. 2638 ................................................................................................... 77
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638 .................................................................................................. 77
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E) ..................................................................... 78
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 78
Office of Health Affairs ........................................................................................................... 80
National Protection and Programs Directorate ........................................................................ 81
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT).................................... 82
President’s Request ........................................................................................................... 82
House-Passed H.R. 2638 ................................................................................................... 82
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638 .................................................................................................. 82
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E) ..................................................................... 83
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 83
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security ................................................................. 84
President’s FY2008 Request ............................................................................................. 85
House-Passed H.R. 2638 ................................................................................................... 85
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638 .................................................................................................. 86
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E) ..................................................................... 86
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 87
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................................. 88
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) .............................................................. 90
President’s FY2008 Request ............................................................................................. 90
House-Passed H.R. 2638 ................................................................................................... 91
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638 .................................................................................................. 92
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E) ..................................................................... 92
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 93
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) ............................................................. 94
President’s Request ........................................................................................................... 94
House-Passed H.R. 2638 ................................................................................................... 95
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638 .................................................................................................. 95
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E) ..................................................................... 95
Science and Technology (S&T) ............................................................................................... 95
President’s FY2008 Request ............................................................................................. 95
House-Passed H.R. 2638 ................................................................................................... 96
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638 .................................................................................................. 96
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E) ..................................................................... 96
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 96
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office......................................................................................... 97
President’s FY2008 Request ............................................................................................. 97
House-Passed H.R. 2638 ................................................................................................... 97
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638 .................................................................................................. 97
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E) ..................................................................... 98
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 98
FY2008 Related Legislation ........................................................................................................ 100
Budget Resolution—H.Con.Res. 99/ S.Con.Res. 21 ............................................................. 100
Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations .................................................. 3
Table 2. FY2007 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS .......................................................... 5
Table 3. FY2008 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to Net Appropriation—
Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust and Public Enterprise Accounts .................................. 7
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2008 ............................................................................. 9
Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations ................................................................................... 10
Table 6. Title I: Department Management and Operations ............................................................ 15
Table 7. Office of Human Capital (OHC) Appropriations ............................................................. 17
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations .......................................................... 26
Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail .......................................................................................... 30
Table 10. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail......................................................................................... 40
Table 11. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity .......................................................... 46
Table 12. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-account Detail ..................... 60
Table 13. U.S. Secret Service Appropriations................................................................................ 66
Table 14. Title III: Preparedness and Response ............................................................................. 68
Table 15. State and Local Homeland Security Programs ............................................................... 76
Table 16. FY2008 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure Protection and Information
Security Appropriation ............................................................................................................... 87
Table 17. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................. 89
Table 18. USCIS Budget Account Detail ....................................................................................... 91
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
Table 19. Research and Development Accounts and Activities, FY2007-FY2008 ....................... 98
Table C-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2008 .......................... 109
Appendixes
Appendix A. Emergency Funding for Border Security in The Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).................................................................................. 101
Appendix B. FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions......................................... 106
Appendix C. DHS Appropriations in Context ............................................................................. 109
Contacts
Author Contact Information......................................................................................................... 111
Key Policy Staff: Homeland Security .......................................................................................... 111
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
FY2008 Enacted: Division E—P.L. 110-161
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161) was signed into law by the President
on December 26, 2007. The DHS Appropriations Act of 2008 was included as Division E of P.L.
110-161. The Act provides $38.7 billion in net budget authority for FY2008. It should be noted
that the totals for FY2008 include $2,710 million in emergency funding for border security
purposes. These amounts are shown in the last column of the funding tables in this report, and are
described in detail in Appendix A. It should also be noted that the funding tables in this report do
not include $2,900 million in FY2008 emergency funding for the Federal Emergency
Management Administration (FEMA) enacted by P.L. 110-116, The Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2008.
Continuing Resolutions1
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had been operating under a continuing resolution
(CR) during the period between the end of FY2007 and the passage of P.L. 110-161. Congress
had passed three sequential CRs extending budget authority for DHS (and the rest of the federal
government) at FY2007 levels.
First Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-92)
The first CR, P.L. 110-92, extended funding from October 1, 2007, through November 16, 2007.
In addition to extending funding at FY2007 levels, P.L. 110-92 contained several provisions
specifically pertaining to DHS and its component agencies. These provisions are summarized as
follows:
•
Sec. 131 authorized the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
to obligate funds under the CR to support hiring and training new border patrols
agents to sustain the numbers of new border patrol agents hired in the last quarter
of FY2007, and would require the Commissioner to report to Congress each time
the authority under this section is utilized.
•
Sec. 132 authorized the Secretary of DHS to continue to obligate funds to sustain
the average monthly number of detention bed spaces in use at detention facilities
operated or contracted by DHS, during September of 2007.
•
Sec. 133 specified that during the period the CR is in effect, that Sec. 517(b) of
P.L. 109-295 will not be in effect (provisions relating to the provision of Secret
Service protection to certain individuals, and reimbursement for such protection).
1
For more information, see CRS Report RL30343, Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of
Recent Practices, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
1
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
Second Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-116)
The second CR amended the first by changing the expiration date of November 16, 2007, to
December 14, 2007. The provisions summarized above remained in effect until December 14,
2007, when Congress enacted the third CR (P.L. 110-137). In addition to extending the authority
provided by P.L. 110-92, P.L. 110-116 added a new provision that provided an additional $2.9
billion in emergency no-year funding to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
for disaster relief. This amount is not included in the funding tables in this report.
Third Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-137)
Congress passed the third CR on December 14, 2007. P.L. 100-137 would have extended the
budget authority provided by P.L. 110-92, through December 21, 2007. However, P.L. 110-161
was passed by Congress December 19, 2007.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638
On July 26, 2007, the Senate passed H.R. 2638. On July 19, 2007, the Senate had taken up the
House bill and substituted its text with Senate-reported S. 1644. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would
have provided a total of $40.6 billion in net budget authority (including $3 billion in emergency
appropriations) for DHS for FY2008. This is $5.1 billion, or 14%, more than was requested and
$5.8 billion, or 17%, more than was enacted for FY2007. Not including the emergency funding,
the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2638 contains a total of $37.6 billion in net budget authority
for DHS for FY2008. This is $2.1 billion more than the $35.5 billion net appropriation requested
by the Administration for FY2008 and a $2.8 billion, or 8%, increase compared with the FY2007enacted net budget authority of $34.8 billion. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 also included an
additional $3,000 million emergency funding that was attached during floor debate; this funding
would have been used to help secure the southern border with Mexico, and for other purposes.
House-Passed H.R. 2638
On June 15, 2007, the House passed H.R. 2638 which contains a total of $37.4 billion in net
budget authority for DHS for FY2008. This is $1.9 billion more than the $35.5 billion net
appropriation requested by the Administration for FY2008. Not including supplemental
appropriations, the House-passed H.R. 2638 amount of $37.4 billion is a $2.6 billion or nearly 8%
increase compared with the FY2007 enacted net budget authority of $34.8 billion (as passed by
P.L. 109-295).
President’s FY2008 Budget Submitted (and Revised)
The President’s budget request for DHS for FY2008 was submitted to Congress on February 5,
2007. The Administration requested $46.4 billion in gross budget authority for FY2008 (including
mandatories, fees, and funds). The Administration’s request includes gross appropriations of
$42.8 billion, and a net appropriation of $35.5 billion in budget authority for FY2008, of which
$34.3 billion is discretionary budget authority, and $1.2 billion is mandatory budget authority.
The FY2007 enacted net appropriated budget authority for DHS was $34.8 billion ($40.6 billion
Congressional Research Service
2
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
including supplemental appropriations). The Administration subsequently amended the FY2008
budget request and submitted these revisions to Congress on November 6, 2007.2 The revised
FY2008 request included $43.0 billion in gross budget authority for DHS and $35.5 billion in net
budget authority for DHS for FY2008. The funding tables included in this report reflect the
revised budget request totals.
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations
Consolidated
Appropriations Act,
H.R. 2764
Subcommittee
Markup
House Senate
5/18
(vv)
6/13
(uc)
H.Rept.
110-181
House
Passage
S.Rept.
110-84
Senate
Passage
Confr.
Report
House
Senate
Public
Law
6/5
(vv)
6/15
268-150
6/14
29-0
7/26
89-4
—a
12/19
272-201
12/18
76-17
110-161
Note: (vv) = voice vote, (uc) = unanimous consent.
a.
Following initial passage of H.R. 2764, the FY2008 State-Foreign Operations bill, became the Consolidated
Appropriations Act through an exchange of amendments. To see this exchange of amendments, see
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/z?d110:HR02764:@@@X:dbs=n. H.R. 2638 was incorporated into
H.R. 2764 and was enacted by the President on December 26, 2007.
Note on Most Recent Data
Data used in this report include data from the President’s Budget Documents, the FY2008 DHS
Congressional Budget Justifications, and the FY2008 DHS Budget in Brief, the House Report to
H.R. 2638, H.Rept. 110-181 as well as the bill itself, Senate Report to S. 1644, S.Rept. 110-84,
Senate-passed H.R. 2638, Division E of P.L. 110-161, and the tables published in the
Congressional Record of December 17, 2007, in the Explanatory Statement for Division E (pp.
H16107-H16121). Data used in Table 19 are taken from the Analytical Perspectives volume of
the FY2008 President’s Budget. These amounts do not correspond to amounts presented in
Tables 4-18, which are based on data from tables supplied by the Appropriations Subcommittees
and from the FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications. Except when discussing total
amounts for the bill as a whole, all amounts contained in this report are rounded to the nearest
million.
Background
This report describes the President’s FY2008 request for funding for DHS programs and
activities, as submitted to Congress on February 5, 2007. It compares the enacted FY2007
amounts to the request for FY2008, and tracks legislative action and congressional issues related
to the FY2008 DHS appropriations bills with particular attention paid to discretionary funding
amounts. The report does not follow specific funding issues related to mandatory funding—such
as retirement pay—nor does the report systematically follow any legislation related to the
authorization or amendment of DHS programs.
2
See, The White House, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Estimate No. 7 110th
Congress, 1st Session, November 5, 2007, accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/
amendment_11_6_07.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
Department of Homeland Security
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred the functions, relevant funding,
and most of the personnel of 22 agencies and offices to the new Department of Homeland
Security created by the act. Appropriations measures for DHS have been organized into five
titles: Title I Departmental Management and Operations; Title II Security, Enforcement, and
Investigations; Title III Preparedness and Recovery; Title IV Research and Development,
Training, Assessments, and Services; and Title V general provisions.
Title I contains appropriations for the Office of Management, the Office of the Secretary, the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Analysis and Operations (A&O), the Office fo the Chief
Information Office (CIO), the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and the Office of the
Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding.
Title II contains appropriations for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard
(USCG), and the Secret Service. The U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(US-VISIT) program was appropriated within Title II through the FY2007 appropriation. The
President’s FY2008 request for US-VISIT has proposed moving the program to the proposed
National Protection & Programs Directorate (NPPD) in Title III. Both the House and Senate bills
have adopted this same organization.
Through the FY2007 appropriation Title III contained appropriations for the Preparedness
Directorate, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS) and the Federal Emergency
Management Administration (FEMA). The President’s FY2008 request includes a proposal to
shift a number of programs and offices to eliminate the Preparedness Directorate, create the
NPPD, and move several programs to FEMA. Title III in the FY2008 request includes
appropriations for NPPD, FEMA, and the Office of Health Affairs (OHA).
Title IV contains appropriations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS),
the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), and the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center (FLETC).
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations
The maximum budget authority for annual appropriations (including DHS) is determined through
a two-stage congressional budget process. In the first stage, Congress sets overall spending totals
in the annual concurrent resolution on the budget. Subsequently, these amounts are allocated
among the appropriations committees, usually through the statement of managers for the
conference report on the budget resolution. These amounts are known as the 302(a) allocations.
They include discretionary totals available to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations for enactment in annual appropriations bills through the subcommittees
responsible for the development of the bills. In the second stage of the process, the appropriations
committees allocate the 302(a) discretionary funds among their subcommittees for each of the
appropriations bills. These amounts are known as the 302(b) allocations. These allocations must
add up to no more than the 302(a) discretionary allocation and form the basis for enforcing
budget discipline, since any bill reported with a total above the ceiling is subject to a point of
order. 302(b) allocations may be adjusted during the year as the various appropriations bills
progress towards final enactment.
Congressional Research Service
4
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
The annual concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth the congressional budget. The House
passed H.Con.Res. 99 on March 29, 2007 which would have provided $955 billion in
discretionary budget authority for FY2008. The Senate passed S.Con.Res. 21 on March 23, 2007
which would have provided $942 billion in discretionary budget authority for FY2008. The
House and Senate appointed conferees to resolve the differences between the two resolutions and
adopted a conference agreement on May 16, 2007. The House and Senate adopted the conference
report (H.Rept. 110-153) on May 17, 2007. The conference report provides $954 billion in
discretionary budget authority for FY2008. Table 2 shows DHS’ 302(b) allocations for FY2007
and the current appropriations cycle.
Table 2. FY2007 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2007
Comparable
$34.0
FY2008 Request
Comparable
$35.5
FY2008 House
Allocation
FY2008 Senate
Allocation
$36.3
$36.4
FY2008 Enacted
Comparable
$38.7
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications; House and Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee FY2008 Allocation tables, Division E of P.L. 110-161.
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays
Federal government spending involves a multi-step process that begins with the enactment of a
budget authority by Congress in an appropriations act. Federal agencies then obligate funds from
the enacted budget authority to pay for their activities. Finally, payments are made to liquidate
those obligations; the actual payment amounts are reflected in the budget as outlays.
Budget authority is established through appropriations acts or direct spending legislation and
determines the amounts that are available for federal agencies to spend. The Antideficiency Act3
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.4 Because multi-year and no-year budget authorities may be
obligated over a number of years, outlays do not always match the budget authority enacted in a
given year. Additionally, budget authority may be obligated in one fiscal year but spent in a future
fiscal year, especially with certain contracts.
3
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.
4
Congressional Research Service
5
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
In sum, budget authority allows federal agencies to incur obligations and authorizes payments, or
outlays, to be made from the Treasury. Discretionary agencies and programs, and appropriated
entitlement programs, are funded each year in appropriations acts.
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending
Gross budget authority, or the total funds available for spending by a federal agency, may be
composed of discretionary and mandatory spending. Of the $46.4 billion gross budget authority
requested for DHS in FY2008, 82% is composed of discretionary spending and 18% is composed
of mandatory spending.
Discretionary spending is not mandated by existing law and is thus appropriated yearly by
Congress through appropriations acts. The Budget Enforcement Act of 19905 defines
discretionary appropriations as budget authority provided in annual appropriation acts and the
outlays derived from that authority, but it excludes appropriations for entitlements. Mandatory
spending, also known as direct spending, consists of budget authority and resulting outlays
provided in laws other than appropriation acts and is typically not appropriated each year.
However, some mandatory entitlement programs must be appropriated each year and are included
in the appropriations acts. Within DHS, the Coast Guard retirement pay is an example of
appropriated mandatory spending.
Offsetting Collections6
Offsetting funds are collected by the federal government, either from government accounts or
the public, as part of a business-type transaction such as offsets to outlays or collection of a fee.
These funds are not counted as revenue. Instead, they are counted as negative outlays. DHS
net discretionary budget authority, or the total funds that are appropriated by Congress each
year, is composed of discretionary spending minus any fee or fund collections that offset
discretionary spending.
Some collections offset a portion of an agency’s discretionary budget authority. Other collections
offset an agency’s mandatory spending. They are typically entitlement programs under which
individuals, businesses, or units of government that meet the requirements or qualifications
established by law are entitled to receive certain payments if they establish eligibility. The DHS
budget features two mandatory entitlement programs: the Secret Service and the Coast Guard
retired pay accounts (pensions). Some entitlements are funded by permanent appropriations,
others by annual appropriations. The Secret Service retirement pay is a permanent appropriation
and as such is not annually appropriated, whereas the Coast Guard retirement pay is annually
appropriated. In addition to these entitlements, the DHS budget contains offsetting Trust and
Public Enterprise Funds. These funds are not appropriated by Congress they are available for
obligation and included in the President’s budget to calculate the gross budget authority.
Table 3 tabulates all of the offsets within the DHS budget as enacted for FY2007 and in the
FY2008 request.
5
6
P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.
Prepared with assistance from (name redacted), Analyst in American National Government.
Congressional Research Service
6
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
Table 3. FY2008 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to
Net Appropriation—Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust and
Public Enterprise Accounts
(budget authority in millions)
FY2007
Enacted
FY2008
Request
44,590
46,523
516
613
2,420
2,210
TWIC
20
27
Hazmat
19
19
Registered Traveler
35
35
FEMA/EPR
National flood insurance fund
129
145
CBP
Small airports
7
7
3,146
3,056
Immigration inspection
529
535
Immigration enforcement
2
3
Land border
28
30
COBRA
388
392
APHIS
214
300
Puerto Rico
99
117
Immigration inspection
108
114
SEVIS
54
56
Breached bond detention fund
90
64
Aviation security capital fund
250
250
Checkpoint screening security fund
—
250
Alien flight school background checks
2
2
1,760
2,495
44
44
3,568
4,652
Account/Agency
Account Name
DHS gross budget authoritya
(gross discretionary + fees+ mandatory + funds)
Account level discretionary offset
ICE
Federal Protective Service
Aviation security fees
TSA
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
210
Coast guard
Coast guard retired payc
(1,063)
(1,185)
200
210
Subtotal mandatory budget authority
Congressional Research Service
7
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
FY2007
Enacted
FY2008
Request
6
6
2,631
2,833
Boat safety
117
122
Oil spill recovery
127
147
Miscellaneous revolving fund
—
—
Account/Agency
Account Name
Trust funds and public enterprise funds
CBP
Customs unclaimed goods
FEMA
National Flood Insurance Fundd
Coast Guard
Subtotal trust and public enterprise funds
2,881
3,108
DHS gross budget authoritya
44,590
46,523
Total offsets
-9,795
-11,026
DHS net appropriated BA (Mandatory + Discretionary)
34,795
35,497
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 President’s Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-181, and
S.Rept. 110-84, Division E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint Explanatory Statement for Division E, published
in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating amendments to the
budget request).
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a.
DHS gross budget authority is the total budget authority available to the Department in a given fiscal year.
This amount includes both appropriated and non-appropriated funding.
b.
Secret Service Retired Pay is permanently and indefinitely authorized, and as such is not annually
appropriated. Therefore it is offset in Table 3.
c.
In contrast to Secret Service Retired Pay, Coast Guard Retired pay must be annually appropriated, and
therefore is not offset in Table 3.
d.
This fund is comprised of both discretionary and mandatory appropriations; thus its component parts
appear twice in this table.
Appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security
DHS Appropriations Trends
Table 4 presents DHS Appropriations, as enacted, for FY2003 through the FY2008. The
appropriation amounts are presented in current dollars and are not adjusted. The amounts shown
in Table 4 represent enacted amounts at the time of the start of the next fiscal year’s appropriation
cycle. Thus, the amount shown for FY2003 is the enacted amount shown in the House Committee
report attached to the FY2004 DHS Appropriations bill. FY2008 is from the Joint Explanatory
Statement for Division E of P.L. 110-161.
Congressional Research Service
8
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2008
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Enacted
29,069a
30,175b
30,554c
31,679
35,311d
38,747
Sources: FY2003 enacted taken from H.Rept. 108-169; FY2004 enacted taken from H.Rept. 108-541; FY2005
enacted taken from H.Rept. 109-79; FY2006 enacted taken from H.Rept. 109-476; FY2007 appropriation
amounts are from the H.Rept. 110-181; and FY2008 enacted amounts are from Division E of P.L. 110-161, and
tables in the Joint Explanatory Statement for Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17,
2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating amendments to the budget request).
Notes: Amounts do not include supplemental appropriations or rescissions that were enacted subsequent to
the enactment of each appropriations bill.
a.
S.Rept. 108-86 reported the FY2003 enacted amount as $29,287 million. CRS was unable to identify the
reason for this discrepancy. For the purposes of this table the House number was used to maintain
consistency with other fiscal years.
b.
Amount does not include $4,703 million in advance appropriations for Project Bioshield.
c.
Amount does not include $2,508 million in advance appropriations for Project Bioshield.
d.
Amount includes $1,829 million in emergency budget authority that was enacted as a part of the FY2007
DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-295).
Summary of DHS Appropriations
Table 5 is a summary table comparing the enacted appropriations for FY2007 and the requested,
recommended by the House and Senate, and enacted for FY2008. The Administration requested
$46.4 billion in gross budget authority for FY2008 (including mandatories, fees, and funds). The
Administration’s request includes gross appropriations of $43.0 billion and a net appropriation of
$35.5 billion in budget authority for FY2008. The total FY2007 enacted net appropriated budget
authority for DHS was $40.6 billion including supplementals and rescissions. House-passed H.R.
2638 included $37.4 billion for DHS for FY2008; Senate-passed H.R. 2638 included $37.6
billion for DHS in FY2008. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 also included an additional $3,000 million
in emergency supplemental appropriations. Division E of P.L. 110-161 provides $38.7 billion in
net appropriated budget authority for FY2008. This amount includes $2,710 million in emergency
funding, but does not include $2,900 million in supplemental funding for Disaster Relief that was
included in P.L. 110-116.
Congressional Research Service
9
Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2008
Senate
Passed
FY2008
Enacted
FY2008
Emergency
P.L. 110161
FY2007
Enacted
FY2007
Supp.
FY2007
Resc.
FY2007
Total
FY2008
Request
FY2008
House
Passed
1,024
13
-6
1,030
1,092
779
1,104
983
—
—Customs and Border Protection
8,036
147
—
8,183
8,765
8,922
8,841
9,423
1,531
—Immigration and Customs Enforcement
3,958
6
—
3,964
4,168
4,192
4,433
4,734
527
—Transportation Security Administration
3,561
402
-2
3,962
3,771
3,843
3,685
4,021
—
—U.S. Coast Guard
8,292
180
-26
8,447
8,457
8,352
8,559
8,522
166
—U.S. Secret Service
1,276
—
—
1,276
1,399
1,396
1,396
1,385
—
Net subtotal: Title II
25,123
735
-28
25,833
26,560
26,705
26,914
28,085
2,224
—Total fee collections
4,779
—
—
4,779
5,025
5,025
5,025
5,025
—
Gross subtotal: Title II
29,902
735
-28
30,612
31,585
31,730
31,939
33,110
2,224
—National Protection & Programs Directorate
934
24
-1
957
1,161
1,035
914
1,177
275
—Office of Health Affairs
99
8
—
107
118
118
115
117
—
—Counter Terrorism Fund
-16
—
—
-16
—
—
—
—
—
—Federal Emergency Management Administration
5,935
4,887
—
10,821
5,042
7,239
7,017
6,807a
110
Net subtotal: Title III
6,952
4,919
-1
11,869
6,322
8,392
8,046
8,100a
385
Operational Component
Title I: Departmental Operations
Subtotal: Title I
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
Title III: Preparedness and Recovery
CRS-10
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2007 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2007
Enacted
FY2007
Supp.
FY2007
Resc.
FY2007
Total
FY2008
Request
FY2008
House
Passed
FY2008
Senate
Passed
FY2008
Enacted
FY2008
Emergency
P.L. 110161
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
—Citizenship and Immigration Services
182
8
—
190
30
30
50b
81
80
—Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
275
3
—
278
263
263
266
289
21
—Science and Technology
758
5
-1
762
799
777
838
830
—
—Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
481
135
—
616
562
556
550
485
—
Net subtotal: Title IV
1,696
151
-1
1,846
1,654
1,626
1,704
1,685
101
—Total fee collections
1,804
—
—
1,804
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
—
Gross subtotal: Title IV
3,500
151
-1
3,650
4,193
4,165
4,243
4,224
101
Title V: General Provisions
—Rescissions
-[232]c
—
-2d
-2
-132
-55
-145e
-106
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3,000f
—
—
Emergency Supplemental
—Border Security First Act of 2007f
Department of Homeland Security Appropriation (not including Title V rescissions)
Gross DHS budget authority
41,378
5,698
-37
47,161
42,965
44,911
48,088
46,311
2,710
—Total fee collections
-6,583
—
—
6,583
-7,465
-7,465
-7,465
-7,564
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-3,000
—
—
-37
40,578g
35,497
37,446
37,623
38,747
2,710
—Border Security Supplemental
Net DHS budget authority
34,795
5,698
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 President’s Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-181, and S.Rept. 110-84, Division E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint
Explanatory Statement for Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating amendments to the budget request).
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Italicized amounts in parentheses are non-adds. For a more detailed analysis of the supplemental appropriations, refer to
Appendix A.
a.
Amount does not include $2,900 million in emergency FY2008 funds for Disaster Relief enacted by P.L. 110-161.
b.
Senate passed H.R. 2638 also includes an additional $60 million in emergency funding (SA 2518) for USCIS’ Employment Eligibility Verification System, that was to be
taken from the $3,000 million emergency appropriation included in Senate passed H.R. 2638 as a part of the Border Security First Act of 2007.
CRS-11
c.
Rescissions from Title V of P.L. 109-295 are shown here as non-adds, because they have been incorporated into the accounts throughout the tables in this report.
d.
Sec. 6404 of P.L. 110-28 includes 4 rescissions that are not shown in Table 5 because they are of amounts that fall below $500,000 and would round to less than $1
million dollars. These 4 rescissions round to a total approximately $2 million and are presented in aggregate on Table 5 under General Provision Rescissions.
e.
Includes an across-the-board rescission (percentage unspecified) of discretionary budget authority totaling $100 million to be used for interoperable communications.
f.
Senate-passed H.R. 2638 included a $3,000 million emergency supplemental appropriation that was attached during floor debate (originally S.Amdt. 2480). This
appropriation would have been used to fund the following overall level of resources: 23,000 U.S. Border Patrol Agents; 300 miles of vehicle barriers; 700 miles of
fencing; 105 camera and radar towers; four unmanned aerial vehicles; and 45,000 detention beds. The Senate adopted two amendments (S.Amdt. 2518 and S.Amdt.
2524) that would have designated portions of the $3,000 million in emergency funding for specific activities. S.Amdt. 2518 would direct $60 million of the emergency
funding for USCIS’ Employment Eligibility Verification System, and S.Amdt. 2524 would make $100 million of the emergency funding available for state and local law
enforcement entities for security and related costs associated with the Democratic and Republican National Conventions ($50 million for Denver, Colorado; and $50
million for St. Paul Minnesota).
g.
Amount does not match the total listed in the tables to the Joint Explanatory Statement for Division E of P.L. 110-161. Subtotals for agencies and account match, but
the final total does not match the sum of the subtotals in the tables. Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, p. H16121.
CRS-12
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations7
Title I covers the general administrative expenses of DHS. It includes the Office of the Secretary
and Executive Management (OS&EM), which is comprised of the immediate Office of the
Secretary and 12 entities that report directly to the Secretary; the Undersecretary for Management
(USM) and its components, such as the offices of the Chief Administrative Services Officer,
Chief Human Capital Officer, and Chief Procurement Officer; the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO); the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO); Analysis and Operations
Office (AOO); Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding (OFCGCR); and
Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Table 6 shows Title I appropriations for FY2007 and
congressional action on the request for FY2008.
President’s FY2008 Request
FY2008 requests relative to comparable FY2007 enacted appropriations were as follows:
OS&EM, $103 million, an increase of $10 million (+10% ); USM, $278 million, an increase of
$124 million (+81%); OCFO, $33 million, an increase of $7 million (+ 27%); OCIO, $261, a
decrease of $88 million (-25%); AOO, $315 million, an increase of $15 million (+5%);
OFCGCR, $3 million, the same level as previously provided (0%); and OIG, $99 million, almost
the same level as previously provided. The total FY2008 request for Title I was $1,092 million.
This represents an increase of $68 million (+6%) over the FY2007 enacted level.
House-Passed H.R. 2638
The House would have provided $779 million for DHS management and operations entities
funded in Title I, $313 less (-28%) than the amount requested. The allocations for entities within
the title, as approved by the House, were as follows: OS&EM, $85 million, a decrease of $18
million (-17%); USM, -$8 million8, a decrease of $270 million (-97%); OCFO, $30 million, a
decrease of $3 million (-9%); OCIO, $259 million, a decrease of $2 million (-1%); AOO, $302
million, a decrease of $13 million (-4%); OFCGCR, $3 million, the same level as requested (0%);
and OIG, $100 million, $1 million more than requested.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638
The Senate approved the Title I allocations recommended by the Committee on Appropriations in
Senate-reported S. 1644. The Senate approved $1,104 million for Title I accounts, slightly more
than the President’s request. The Senate allocations for the title were as follows: OS&EM, $100
million, a decrease of $3 million (-2%); USM, $235 million, a decrease of $43 million (-15%);
OCFO, $30 million, a decrease of $3 million (-9%); OCIO, $321 million, an increase of $60
million (+23%); AOO, $306 million, a decrease of $9 million (-3%); OFCGCR, $3 million, the
7
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
During the House floor debate on H.R. 2638 a number of amendments were adopted reducing funding provided for
the Office of the Undersecretary for Management. The sum total of these amendments totaled $8m less than was
initially proposed for that activity. This negative amount (-$8 million) is not reflected in the tables accompanying the
Joint Explanatory Statement to Division E of P.L. 110-161, and therefore is not included in Table 6.
8
Congressional Research Service
13
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
same level as requested (0%); and OIG, $95 million, a decrease of $4 million (-4%), but increased
by a $14 million proposed transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account, resulting in a
recommended total appropriation of $109 million, an increase of $10 million (+10%).
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)
The amount ultimately appropriated for Title I accounts was $975 million ($983 million including
$16 million in transfers in, and an $8 million rescission), $2 million less (-2%) than the $1,097
million requested by the President and $129 million less (-12%) than the $1,104 million approved
by the Senate, but somewhat more (+21%) than the $771 million approved by the House. The
final allocations for the title were as follows: OS&EM, $97 million, a decrease of $6 million
(-6%) compared with the requested amount; USM, $150 million, a decrease of $128 million
(-46%); OCFO, $31 million, a decrease of $2 million (-6%); OCIO, $295 million, an increase of
$34 million (+13%); AOO, $297 million, a decrease of $18 million (-6%); OFCGCR, $3 million,
the same level as requested (0%); and OIG, $109 million, a increase of $10 million (+10%).
Congressional Research Service
14
Table 6. Title I: Department Management and Operations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2007
Enacted
FY2007
Supp.
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2008
SenatePassed
FY2008
Emergency
FY2008
P.L. 110Omnibus
161
FY2007
Resc.
FY2007
Total
FY2008
Request
FY2008
HousePassed
-1a
93
103
85
100
97
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
149
278
—b
235
150
—
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
94
Office of Screening Coordination and Operations
—
Office of the Undersecretary for Management
154
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
26
26
33
30
30
31
—
Office of the Chief Information Officer
349
349
261
259
321
295
—
Analysis and Operations
300
308
315
302
306
297
—
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast
Rebuilding
3
3
3
3
3
3
—
Office of the Inspector General
99
4
103
99
100
109c
109c
—
Net Budget Authority: Title I
1,024
13
1,030
1,092
779
1,104
983
—
1
-5
8
-6
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 President’s Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-181, and S.Rept. 110-84, Division E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint
Explanatory Statement for Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating amendments to the budget request).
Notes: No FY2007 funding for Title I was designated as emergency spending. Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds.
a.
Rescissions per Sec. 6404 of P.L. 110-28.
b.
During the House floor debate on H.R. 2638 a number of amendments were adopted reducing funding provided for the Office of the Undersecretary for Management.
The sum total of these amendments totaled $8m less than was initially proposed for that activity. This negative amount (-$8 million) is not reflected in the tables
accompanying the Joint Explanatory Statement to Division E of P.L. 110-161, and therefore is not included in Table 6.
c.
Includes a $14 million proposed transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.
CRS-15
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
Personnel Issues9
The activities of the Office of Human Capital (OHC) may be of interest to Congress during the
current appropriations cycle. The OHC reports to the Under Secretary for Management, and its
appropriation is included in that of the Under Secretary. The OHC appropriation has two parts.
The first part, formerly labeled “HR Operations” and now labeled “OHC,” includes funding for
the office, which is responsible for the overall management and administration of human capital
in DHS. As such, the office establishes policy and procedures and provides oversight, guidance,
and leadership for the department’s human resources functions. The second part, formerly labeled
“MaxHR” and now labeled “OHC—Operational Initiatives and HR Management System,”
includes funding for the OHC organization, which “is responsible for creating, implementing, and
operating DHS’ new human resources system,10 ensuring that organizational goals and individual
work performance are linked, and that employees are compensated based on their contributions to
agency performance.” The OHC organization also “is responsible for ensuring that DHS recruits,
hires, trains, and retains the very best workforce, provides the highest quality leadership
development, and creates a performance culture in the workforce to ensure DHS succeeds in its
mission.”11 Table 7 below shows the funding and staff for the OHC as enacted in FY2007, as
requested for FY2008, as passed by the House and Senate for FY2008, and as enacted in P.L.
110-161 for FY2008.
9
Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
Title VIII, Subtitle E, Section 841 of P.L. 107-296, enacted on November 25, 2002 (116 Stat. 2135, at 2229-2234),
established the new human resources system. DHS and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) jointly published
final regulations to implement the system, which, at the time, was referred to as “Max-HR,” in the Federal Register on
February 1, 2005. (U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Department of
Homeland Security Human Resources Management System,” Federal Register, vol. 70, no. 20, February 1, 2005, pp.
5271-5347.) The regulations provided new policies on position classification, pay, performance management, adverse
actions and appeals, and labor-management relations for DHS employees. The system was expected to cover about
110,000 of the department’s 180,000 employees and be implemented in phases. (See CRS Report RL32261, DHS’s
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).) On October 5, 2007, the Merit Systems Protection Board
published an interim rule in the Federal Register to reconcile its regulations with the OPM and DHS final regulations
on adverse actions and appeals under the new personnel system. See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “Interim
Regulatory Changes Regarding Department of Homeland Security Personnel System,” Federal Register, vol. 72,
October 5, 2007, pp. 56883-56889. On January 17, 2008, DHS provided a status report to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia stating that the department had not made a decision on whether to revise or abandon the proposed
rules on labor management relations under the new personnel system. For an analysis of the court decisions on the
adverse actions and appeals and labor management relations policies, see CRS Report RL33052, Homeland Security
and Labor-Management Relations: NTEU v. Chertoff, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
11
FY2008 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary for Management,
p. USM-2.
10
Congressional Research Service
16
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
Table 7. Office of Human Capital (OHC) Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008
SenatePassed
FY2008
Omnibus
FY2008
Emerg.
P.L. 110161
FY2007
Enacted
FY2008
Request
FY2008
HousePassed
“OHC” (formerly “HR Operations”)
$9
$10
$10
$9
$9
—
“OHC—Operational Initiatives
and HR Management System”
(formerly “MaxHR”)
$25a
$15
$3b
$5
0
—
Human Resources
—
—
—
—
$10
—
$34
$25
$13
$14
$19
—
53
60
53
53
53
—
Account
Total
Staffing (full time equivalent,
FTE, positions)
Sources: P.L. 108-334, Oct. 18, 2004, 118 Stat. 1298; P.L. 109-90, October 18, 2005, 119 Stat. 2064; P.L. 109295, Oct. 4, 2006, 120 Stat. 1355, at 1356; FY2008 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and
Operations, Undersecretary for Management, Office of Human Capital, and Office of Human Capital—Max-HR,
pp. USM-39 - USM-44; Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, June 15, 2007, p. H6501; H.Rept. 110-181;
S.Rept. 110-84; P.L. 110-161, December 26, 2007; and Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, December 17,
2007, p. H16107.
a.
This amount does not reflect the transfer of $5 million from “MaxHR” to the Transportation Security
Administration as provided by Section 21101 of P.L. 110-5. The numbers in the table are rounded.
b.
This amount is for human resources activities, including a human capital survey. Funding is not provided for
MaxHR, as Section 531 of H.R. 2638, as passed by the House, prohibits the use “of the funds provided by
this or any other Act” to be “obligated for the development, testing, deployment, or operation of any
system related to the MAX-HR project, or any subsequent but related human resources management
project, until any pending litigation concerning such activities is resolved, and any legal claim or appeal by
either party has been fully resolved.”
As directed by the conference report12 accompanying P.L. 109-295, the Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act for FY2007, the Under Secretary for Management submitted an
expenditure plan for the DHS Human Resources Management System (HRMS) (formerly
“MaxHR”) for FY2007 to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on February 1,
2007. The report’s cover letter states that in FY2007 the HRMS “will be broadened ... to
encompass additional aspects of FY2007 Human Capital Operational Plan (HCOP), including an
increased focus on employee recruiting and advanced homeland security related education.”13
Among other data, the report states that the contractor Northrop Grumman Information
Technology (NGIT) received a contract worth almost $3 million dollars to provide services
through January 31, 2007, related to program management; pay, performance, and classification;
and training, communications, and organizational change management at DHS. According to the
report, NGIT is being awarded another contract, worth more than $16 million, to provide
12
U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2006, Making Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security For
the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2007, and For Other Purposes, conference report to accompany H.R. 5441,
109th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 109-699 (Washington: GPO, 2006), p. 119.
13
Letter to Representative David E. Price, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the House
Committee on Appropriations from Paul A. Schneider, Under Secretary for Management, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, February 1, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
17
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
services to the department through September 30, 2007, in the same areas identified above and
labor relations.14
The transfer of the Office of Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation (FLETA) from the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) to the OHC accounts for the increase of $1
million and 7 full-time equivalent employees over the FY2007 appropriation for the “OHC”
account. Almost 93% of the money requested for FY2008 under this account is for salaries and
benefits ($8 million) and advisory and assistance services ($2 million) that includes services
acquired by contract from non-federal sources.15 The appropriation will fund continued
implementation of the Human Capital Operational Plan for FY2007 to FY2009, development of
an employee talent bank for use throughout the department, creation of standards to assess and
evaluate learning and development programs, and participation of all new DHS employees in a
department-wide orientation program.16 Some 76% of the money requested for FY2008 under the
“OHC—Operational Initiatives and HR Management System” account is for advisory and
assistance services ($11 million). No funding is requested for salaries and benefits.17 The
appropriation will fund continued training of the DHS workforce in pay for performance and a
new pay system pilot project that will cover employees in the department who work in the
intelligence area. The pilot will be implemented jointly with the Director of National Intelligence
who is developing a pilot pay system for employees of the intelligence agencies. It also will fund
investment in recruitment and retention programs along with learning and development
initiatives to address gaps in skills and competencies, and deployment of career paths and
rotations to facilitate the mobility of DHS employees through various leadership positions in
the department.18
In January 2007, the Culture Task Force of the Homeland Security Advisory Council issued a
report to the DHS Secretary. Among its recommendations were that DHS staff be referred to as
“employees” or “members” of DHS and not as “human capital,” and that “members of the
headquarters” be required to visit and listen “to employees and engage and support groups outside
the headquarters” and respond within 30 days on actions taken to address their concerns.19 The
task force believes that “there can be no hierarchically imposed ‘single culture’ within the
Department,” but that “an overarching and blended culture can be developed that is based on
threads of common values, goals, and focus of mission among DHS headquarters and its
component organizations.” With regard to developing and sustaining such a culture, the task force
14
Report to Congress, Spend Plan for MaxHR, Office of Human Capital, Department of Homeland Security, January 4,
2007, p. 7. Accompanied the letter cited in footnote 5.
15
FY2008 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary for Management, Office of
Human Capital, pp. USM-39 - USM-41.
16
FY2008 DHS Justifications, Under Secretary for Management, Strategic Context, p. USM-3.
17
FY2008 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary for Management, Office of
Human Capital—Max-HR, pp. USM-42 - USM-44.
18
FY2008 DHS Justifications, Under Secretary for Management, Strategic Context, p. USM-4. On January 23, 2007,
27 employees in General Schedule grades 14 and 15 and representing various components of DHS began a year-long
fellowship program designed to prepare them for future leadership positions in the department. The program is
intended to establish a common culture at DHS and encourage cooperation among the different agencies that make up
the department.
19
Homeland Security Advisory Council, Report of the Culture Task Force, January 2007, pp. 2-3. Section 871 of P.L.
107-296 (116 Stat. 2243) authorized the council, which provides advice and recommendations to the DHS Secretary on
homeland security matters. In June 2006, Secretary Chertoff directed the council to establish the task force “to provide
observations and recommendations for achieving and maintaining an empowering, energetic, dedicated, missionfocused culture within the Department....”
Congressional Research Service
18
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
advised that “There are organizations in the Private Sector that will deploy and embed within
DHS qualified, objective, emotionally and organizationally detached personnel to help develop
the leadership’s vision and strategic goals of creating a Homeland Security (rather than DHS)
Mission Culture and then monitor, objectively test, and support progress in achieving, continually
improving and sustaining an operationally focused, innovation and people rewarding culture.”20
The task force recommended that such contract employees work under the direction of a senior
(preferably career) DHS employee and with staff from the department’s component agencies. The
morale of employees in the department has come under scrutiny because DHS placed last or
almost last for the categories of job satisfaction, leadership, and workplace performance in the
2006 Federal Human Capital Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management.21
Section 511 of H.R. 1684, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for FY2008,
as passed by the House, would have repealed the authority for the department’s new personnel
system (MaxHR) at 5 U.S.C. Chapter 97 and would render void any regulations prescribed
thereunder.22 The House Committee on Homeland Security report that accompanied the bill stated
that DHS “employees must be afforded the same protections as other civil service employees.”23
No further action has occurred on H.R. 1684.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations report that accompanied S. 1644 noted that the DHS
regulations governing employee appeal rights and labor relations were struck down in federal
court and that other elements of the personnel system have been delayed. For these reasons, the
report stated that the committee recommended an appropriation of $5 million for human capital
operational initiatives, formerly “MaxHR,” rather than the requested amount of $15 million.
According to the report, the committee retains the funding for the training accreditation of law
enforcement officers with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center rather than providing it
to the Chief Human Capital Officer. Additionally, Section 507 under the General Provisions of
H.R. 2638, as passed by the House and the Senate, would have provided that the Center will lead
the accreditation process. This language was included in P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2008.
The Senate report also directed the Secretary to submit an updated Human Capital Operational
expenditure plan to the committee within 90 days of the act’s enactment. The plan must include
the following elements: definitions for all activities, milestones, and yearly costs for all
initiatives; a list of all contract obligations by contractor, year, and purpose; efforts to improve the
“dismal results” for the department in the 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey; performance
metrics for measuring the attainment of goals for human capital; funds spent in support of
employee recruitment, retention, and training; and an analysis of all internship programs within
the department designed to recruit young professionals. With regard to these internship programs,
the committee report noted that coordination is needed and directs the Chief Human Capital
Officer to “review goals for the programs, milestones, needs of the components, and the capacity
to accept these employees.”
20
Ibid., pp. 5-6.
The survey results are available at http://www.fhcs2006.opm.gov, visited January 24, 2008.
22
H.R. 1684 passed the House of Representatives on a 296-126 (Roll No. 318) vote on May 9, 2007.
23
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008, report to accompany H.R. 1684, 110th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 110-122 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p.
83.
21
Congressional Research Service
19
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
In a statement of Administration policy on S. 1644, OMB stated its strong opposition “to any
effort to reduce, limit, or delay funding for DHS human resources initiatives,” because such
“would severely impact support to basic human resource services and development of practices
designed to meet the Department’s diverse personnel requirements.”24
P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, does not provide any funding “for
MAX-HR or any follow-on personnel system.” A general provision at Section 533 “prohibits the
obligation of funds for the development, testing, deployment, or operation of any system related
to MAX-HR or any subsequent, but related human resources management project, until pending
litigation, legal claims or appeals have been fully resolved.” The law provides $10 million to an
account labeled “human resources.” According to the explanatory statement accompanying the
omnibus, DHS is directed to ensure that this appropriation is used for “programs that directly
address the shortcomings identified in [the 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey] or in a
subsequent DHS survey that the Department plans to conduct.” These programs could include the
“planned DHS survey, gap analysis of mission critical occupations, hiring and retention
strategies, robust diversity programs, and Department-wide education and training initiatives.”
The Secretary must submit a plan for expending the funds prior to their obligation.25
Section 538 of the law relates to a general provision that reduces by $5 million the cumulative
amount of the appropriation provided to the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
and the Office of the Under Secretary for Management. The amount reflects management
efficiencies and, within 30 days of the act’s enactment, the Secretary must notify the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations “of these efficiency savings by account and within the
account, by program, project and activity.”26
The law also includes a general provision at Section 526 that requires the Chief Financial Officer
to submit reports on the execution of the budget and staffing, including the number of contract
employees by office, within 45 days after the close of each month. The House-passed bill
included the general provision at Section 524 and would have provided that within 45 days after
the close of each month, the Chief Financial Officer must submit to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations a monthly budget and staffing report that includes total obligations
and on-board versus funded full-time equivalent staffing levels. The provision was included as
Section 526 of the Senate-passed bill and provided that the report also would have included the
number of contract employees by office. A July 2007 evaluation prepared by the Government
Accountability Office found that DHS employees in permanent positions (excluding Senior
Executive Service and presidential appointments) left their positions at an attrition rate of 7.1% in
2006. When the 14% to 17% attrition rate for transportation security officers at the Transportation
Security Administration was excluded, the department’s average attrition rate was 3.3%. (The
average attrition rate for all Cabinet-level departments was roughly 4%.)27
P.L. 110-161 continues four general provisions related to FLETA and FLETC—Section 507
provides that the accreditation board will lead the accreditation process; Section 509 requires the
24
U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, S.
1644—Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, July 25, 2007, p. 4.
25
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, December 17, 2007, p. H16079.
26
Ibid., p. H16102.
27
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security, DHS’s Actions to Recruit and Retain Staff and Comply
With the Vacancies Reform Act, GAO Report GAO-07-758 (Washington: July 2007).
Congressional Research Service
20
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
advance approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations before any additional
law enforcement training facilities can be purchased, constructed, or leased; Section 510 directs
FLETC to “schedule basic and advanced law enforcement training at all four training facilities ...
to ensure that these training centers are operated at the highest capacity”; and Section 529
classifies the functions of the FLETC instructors as inherently governmental.28
Several executive positions related to the overall administration and management of DHS have
new incumbents. Michael Jackson resigned his position as Deputy Secretary of Homeland
Security effective on October 26, 2007. The department’s Under Secretary for Management, Paul
Schneider, is serving as the acting deputy secretary. Mr. Schneider had assumed the Under
Secretary position on February 1, 2007, and during his confirmation hearing on December 6,
2006, told the members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs that he would make sure that DHS officials create an effective method of evaluating
employees’ job performance. Reportedly, Mr. Schneider is assisting with the department’s
transition to a new Administration by tracking critical jobs with a goal “to make sure that either
the No. 1 or No. 2 in each post is a career civil service employee.”29 As for the Human Capital
Officer (HCO) position, Marta Brito Perez, who assumed the position on September 18, 2006,
resigned effective on January 6, 2008. Gregg Pelowski is currently serving as the acting HCO.30
Analysis and Operations31
The DHS intelligence mission is outlined in Title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(codified at 6 U.S.C. 121). Organizationally, and from a budget perspective, there have been a
number of changes to the information, intelligence analysis, and infrastructure protection
functions at DHS. Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate was established. The act created an Undersecretary
for IAIP to whom two Assistant Secretaries, one each for Information Analysis (IA) and
Infrastructure Protection (IP), reported. The act outlined 19 functions for the IAIP Directorate, to
include the following, among others:
•
To assess, receive, and analyze law enforcement information, intelligence
information, and other information from federal, state, and local government
agencies, and the private sector to (1) identify and assess the nature and scope of
the terrorist threats to the homeland, (2) detect and identify threats of terrorism
against the United States, and (3) understand such threats in light of actual and
potential vulnerabilities of the homeland;
•
To develop a comprehensive national plan for securing the key resources and
critical infrastructure of the United States;
•
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
28
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, December 17, 2007, p. H16101.
Stephen Barr, “Homeland Security Prepares for Its First Transition, Washington Post, January 21, 2008, p. D01.
30
The department’s executive positions are listed at http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1157655281546.shtm,
visited January 24, 2008.
31
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counterterrorism, Domestic Social
Policy Division.
29
Congressional Research Service
21
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
government and between the federal government and state and local government
agencies and authorities.32
Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review of the Department made numerous changes in the
DHS intelligence structure. For example, the erstwhile IAIP disbanded, and the Office of
Information Analysis was renamed the Office of Intelligence and Analysis and became a stand
alone entity. The Office of Infrastructure Protection was placed within the Directorate for
Preparedness. The Assistant Secretary for Intelligence Analysis was also provided the title of the
Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer.33 Pursuant to the Implementing Recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53, signed August 3, 2007), a number of amendments to
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (codified at 6 U.S.C. 201) related to homeland security
intelligence were made. Among these changes, the law provided statutory standing to the Office
of Intelligence and Analysis and the Office of Infrastructure Protection. The Office of Intelligence
and Analysis is to be headed by an Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, who will also
serve and the Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer.34
President’s FY2008 Request
The FY2008 request for the Analysis and Operations account was $315 million, an increase of
$15 million (+5%) over the enacted FY2007 amount. It should be noted that funds included in
this account support both the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (OIA) and the Office of
Operations Coordination. The Office of Intelligence and Analysis, the successor to the “IA”
element of the erstwhile IAIP, has as its primary responsibility the integration and analysis of
DHS information, state and local information, and Intelligence Community intelligence into
finished intelligence products, such as threat assessments and other indications and warning
documents. As a member of the Intelligence Community, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis’s
budget is classified. The Office of Operations Coordination formally houses the National
Operations Center which, among other functions, disseminates OIA assessed threat information,
provides domestic situational awareness, and performs incident management on behalf of the
Department.
House-Passed H.R. 2638
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $302 million, a decrease of $13 million
(4%) from the President’s requested amount of $315 million, and $2 million above the amount
provided in FY2007 ($300 million). In the report accompanying the legislation, the Committee
noted with respect to both the Office of Operations Coordination and the Office of Intelligence
and Analysis that they:
32
See Title II, Subtitle A, Section 201(d), Responsibilities of the Undersecretary (of IAIP), codified at 6 U.SC. §121.
See also Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, Survey of the Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection Directorate, Office of Inspections, Evaluations, and Special Reviews, OIG-04-413, February
2004, p. 26.
33
See DHS Management Directive 8110, Intelligence Integration and Management, January 30, 2006.
34
See P.L. 110-53, Title V, “Improving intelligence and information sharing within the federal government, and with
State, local and tribal governments,” Subtitle D, “Homeland security intelligence offices reorganization.”
Congressional Research Service
22
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
...carried over significant unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year 2006, and (have)
shown no signs of an increased pace of obligations during the current fiscal year.35
The Committee also expressed concern about the potential movement of the Homeland Security
Operations Center (HSOC) (also known as the National Operations Center) and/or its
combination with the Transportation Security Operations Center, from its current location at the
Nebraska Avenue Complex (NAC) to two possible other locations. The Committee noted that:
...over $137 million has been appropriated for improvements to the (NAC) since 2004, and a
large portion of these funds have gone toward upgrades to the HSOC.... The Committee is
concerned by the apparent DHS attitude that costly capital investments are disposable, and
will provide no further appropriations for HSOC capital improvements until the Department
submits a coherent and cost-effective plan for consolidating its operations centers.36
With respect to DHS support for State and local information and intelligence fusion centers, the
Committee “...recommends doubling the requested funding level for establishing DHS presence
at these centers in 2008 and directs the (OIA) to review all unobligated balances available...at the
start of (FY) 2008 and submit a reprogramming request for those amounts that could be
reasonably reallocated to fusion center implementation.”37 Moreover, the Committee directed
DHS to provide “ongoing quarterly updates...that detail the progress in placing DHS homeland
security intelligence professionals in State and local fusion centers.”38 Among other elements, the
report requires DHS to detail progress on: (1) qualification criteria used by DHS to decided where
and how to place DHS intelligence analysts and related technology, (2) total Federal expenditures
to support each center to date, and (3) the location of each fusion center, both operational
and planned.39
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638
The Senate recommended $306 million, a decrease of $9 million (2.9%) to the President’s
requested level of $315 million and a $6 million (2%) increase over the amount provided in
FY2007 ($300 million). The Senate provided that no more than $5,000 of appropriated funds
shall be for official reception and representation expenses. In the Senate report accompanying the
bill, the Committee expressed concern about the possible movement of the National Operations
Center and “...directs the Office of Operations Coordination to provide a briefing to the
Committee justifying this relocation....”40 The Committee also required a “DHS Intelligence
Expenditure Plan” from the Secretary for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, that would
35
See House of Representatives, DHS Appropriations Bill, 2008, H. Report. 110-181, p. 23.
Ibid.
37
Ibid., p. 24. Given that DHS’s intelligence budget is classified, the amount of funding requested specifically to
support the deployment of DHS personnel to fusion centers is not available. The “U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’
Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007,” (P.L. 110-28) provided an additional $8
million for DHS “Analysis and Operation,” to be used for support of the DHS State and Local Fusion Center Program.
38
Ibid. It should be noted that DHS currently has approximately 15 intelligence professionals detailed to 15 fusion
centers. According to DHS Chief Intelligence Officer Charles Allen, DHS has plans to embed 35 intelligence
officers at fusion centers by the end of FY2008. See House Homeland Security Committee, Subcommittee on
Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, hearing on “Information Sharing and Civil
Liberties,” March 14, 2007.
39
See House of Representatives, DHS Appropriations Bill, 2008, H. Report. 110-181, p. 24.
40
See U.S. Senate, DHS Appropriations Bill, 2008, S. Report 110-84, p. 23.
36
Congressional Research Service
23
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
include, among other items: (1) FY2008 expenditures and staffing allotted for each (OIA)
program..., (2) all funded versus on-board positions, including Federal full-time equivalents
(FTE), contractors, and reimbursable and non-reimbursable detailees, and (3) an explanation for
maintaining contract staff in lieu of government FTE....”41 Lastly, the Committee included
language similar to that provided by the House Appropriations Committee with respect to
requiring quarterly reports on the progress DHS is making in “...placing DHS homeland security
intelligence professionals in State and local fusion centers.”42 Moreover, the Senate provided that
the Director of Operations “...shall encourage rotating State and local fire service representation
at the National Operations Center.”43
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)
According to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, an amount of $306 million shall be
allocated to Analysis and Operations. This amount represents a decrease of $9 million (2.9%) of
the President’s requested level of $315 million and a $6 million (2%) increase over the amount
provided in FY2007 ($300 million). The bill includes a statutory restriction on the obligation of
funds for operation of either the National Immigration Information Sharing Office or the National
Applications Office until the Secretary “... certifies these programs comply with all existing laws,
including all applicable privacy and civil liberties standards, with the certification reviewed by
the Government Accountability Office.”44 Three other elements related to Analysis and
Operations funding were included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. First, the Under
Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis is “directed to provide the Committees on Appropriations
an expenditure plan for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis ... that report is to include an
analysis of all new requirements enacted in the 9/11 Act, as well as the estimated costs and
available resources to implement those requirements in fiscal year 2008 and subsequent fiscal
years.”45 Second, while the amount that Congress appropriates for state and local fusion centers
remains part of the classified national intelligence program budget, the bill adopted the Senate
level of funding for these centers, “... instead of doubling the requested amount as proposed by
the House.”46 Finally, with respect to the National Operations Center (NOC), the Committees “do
not require information about the relocation of the NOC, since the reprogramming proposal to
affect such a move was denied by the House. The amended bill rescinds $8.7 million in
unobligated balances from prior-year appropriations made for Analysis and Operations, which is
an amount equal to the levels that had been proposed for reallocation to fund the NOC move.”47
The Committees also encourage the “rotation of State and local fire service representation”48 to
the NOC.
41
Ibid. p. 24.
Ibid.
43
See H.R. 2638 Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate (EAS), Title I, Analysis and Operations,
July 26, 2007.
44
See Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, p. H16080.
45
Ibid.
46
Ibid.
47
Ibid.
48
Ibid.
42
Congressional Research Service
24
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations
Title II contains the appropriations for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), the US Coast Guard, and the US Secret Service. Table 8 shows the
FY2007 enacted and FY2008 appropriation action for Title II.
Congressional Research Service
25
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2007
Enacted
FY2007
Supp.
FY2007
Resc.
FY2007
Total
FY2008
Request
FY2008
House
Passed
FY2008
Senate
Passed
FY2008
Omnibus
FY2008
Emergency
P.L. 110-161
—Salaries and expenses
5,562
72a
—
5,634
6,592
6,630
6,601
6,803
323
—Automation modernization
451
—
—
451
447
477
477
477
—
—Air and Marine Operations
602
75
—
677
477
477
489
570
94
—Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure,
and Technology
1,188
—
—
1,188
1,000
1,089
1,000
1,225
1,053
Operational Component
Customs & Border Protection
—Construction
233
—
—
233
250
250
275
348
61
—Fee accountsb
1,265
—
—
1,265
1,385
1,385
1,385
1,385
—
Gross total
9,301
147
—
9,449
10,150
10,307
10,226
10,808
1,531
—Offsetting collections
-1,265
—
—
-1,265
-1,385
-1,385
-1,385
-1,385
—
Net total
8,036
147
—
8,183
8,765
8,922
8,841
9,423
1,531
—Salaries and expenses
3,887
6
—
3,893
4,162
4,155
4,402
4,688
516
—Federal Protective Services (FPS)
516
—
—
516
613
613
613
613
—
Immigration & Customs Enforcement
—Automation & infrastructure modernization
15
—
—
15
—
31
15
31
—
—Construction
56
—
—
56
6
6
16
17
11
—Fee accountsc
252
—
—
252
234
234
234
234
—
Gross total
4,727
6
—
4,733
5,015
5,039
5,279
5,581
527
—Offsetting FPS fees
-516
—
—
-516
-613
-613
-613
-613
—
—Offsetting collections
-252
—
—
-252
-234
-234
-234
-234
—
Net total
3,958
6
—
3,964
4,168
4,192
4,433
4,734
527
4,732
397d
—
5,129
5,042
5,199
5,043
4,809
—
Transportation Security Administration
—Aviation security (gross funding)
CRS-26
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2007
Enacted
FY2007
Supp.
FY2007
Resc.
FY2007
Total
FY2008
Request
FY2008
House
Passed
FY2008
Senate
Passed
FY2008
Omnibus
FY2008
Emergency
P.L. 110-161
—Surface Transportation Security
37
—
—
37
47
41
41
47
—
—Transportation Threat Assessment
and Credentialing
40
—
-2e
38
98
64
67
83
—
—Credentialing Feesf
76
—
—
76
83
83
83
83
—
—Transportation Security Support
525
—
—
525
525
527
522
524
—
—Federal Air Marshals
714
5
—
719
770
722
722
770
—
—Aviation security capital fundg
250
—
—
250
—
—
—
250
—
—Checkpoint screening security fund
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
250
—
—Rescission
-67
—
—
-67
—
—
—
—
—
Gross total
6,307
402
-2
6,707
6,564
6,636
6,478
6,814
—
—Offsetting collections
-2,420
—
—
-2,420
-2,710
-2,710
-2,710
-2,210
—
—Credentialing/Fee accounts
-76
—
—
-76
-83
-83
-83
-83
—
—Aviation security capital fund
(mandatory spending)
-250
—
—
-250
—
—
—
-250
—
Operational Component
—Checkpoint screening security fund
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-250
3,561
402
-2
3,962
3,771
3,843
3,685
4,021
—
5,478h
120i
-26
5,572
5,894
5,885
5,931
5,891
70
—Environmental compliance & restoration
11
—
—
11
12
15
12
13
—
—Reserve training
122
—
—
122
127
127
127
127
—
834j
991j
993j
96
16
16
16
—
Net total
U.S. Coast Guard
—Operating expenses
—Acquisition, construction, & improvements
1,306
30
—
1,336
949j
—Alteration of bridges
16
—
—
16
—
—Research, development, tests, & evaluation
17
—
—
17
18
18
26
25
—
—Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement)
1,063
30
—
1,093
1,185
1,185
1,185
1,185
—
—Health care fund contribution
279
—
—
279
272
272
272
272
—
Gross total
8,292
180
-26
8,447
8,457
8,352
8,559
8,522
166
CRS-27
FY2007 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2007
Enacted
FY2007
Supp.
FY2007
Resc.
FY2007
Total
FY2008
Request
FY2008
House
Passed
FY2008
Senate
Passed
FY2008
Omnibus
FY2008
Emergency
P.L. 110-161
—Salaries and expenses
961
—
—
961
1,095
1,393
1,392
1,382
—
—Investigations and field operations
311
—
—
311
300
—
—
—
—
—Acquisition, construction, improvements, and
related expenses
4
—
—
4
4
4
4
4
—
Gross total
1,276
—
—
1,276
1,399
1,396
1,396
1,385
—
Gross Budget Authority: Title II
29,902
735
-28
30,612
31,585
31,730
31,939
33,110
2,224
Offsetting collections:
-4,779
—
—
-4,779
-5,025
-5,025
-5,025
-5,025
—
Net Budget Authority: Title II
25,123
735
-28
25,833
26,560
26,705
26,914
28,085
2,224
Operational Component
U.S. Secret Service
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 President’s Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-181, and S.Rept. 110-84, Division E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint
Explanatory Statement for Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating amendments to the budget request).
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts in parentheses are non-adds.
a.
Includes $3 million transfer to FLETC per P.L. 110-28.
b.
Fees include COBRA, Land Border, Immigration Inspection, Immigration Enforcement, and Puerto Rico.
c.
Fees include Exam, Student Exchange and Visitor Fee, Breached Bond, Immigration User, and Land Border.
d.
Includes transfer of $7 million per Sec. 21101 of P.L. 110-5, and $390 million in supplemental appropriations per P.L. 110-28.
e.
Transfer of -$2 million per Sec. 21101 of P.L. 110-5
f.
Fees include TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks.
g.
Aviation Security Capital Fund, used for installation of Explosive Detection Systems at airports.
h.
Includes $90 million transfer from Department of Defense per P.L. 109-289.
i.
$120 million transfer in emergency FY2007 supplemental funding enacted by P.L. 110-28, transfer from Defense, O&M, Navy.
j.
FY2008 request and House-passed H.R. 2638 include a proposed rescission of $49 million. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 includes a proposed rescission of $57 million of
funds previously appropriated by P.L. 109-90 and P.L. 109-295. Division E of P.L. 110-161 includes a rescission of $133 million in funds previously appropriated by P.L.
108-334, P.L. 109-90, and P.L. 109-295.
CRS-28
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)49
CBP is responsible for security at and between ports-of-entry along the border. Since
September 11, 2001, CBP’s primary mission is to prevent the entry of terrorists and the
instruments of terrorism. CBP’s ongoing responsibilities include inspecting people and goods to
determine if they are authorized to enter the United States; interdicting terrorists and instruments
of terrorism; intercepting illegal narcotics, firearms, and other types of contraband; interdicting
unauthorized travelers and immigrants; and enforcing more than 400 laws and regulations at the
border on behalf of more than 60 government agencies. CBP is comprised of the inspection
functions of the legacy Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS); the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction,
now known as CBP Air and Marine (CBPAM); and the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP). See Table 8
for account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 9 for sub-account-level detail
for CBP Salaries and Expenses (S&E) for FY2007 and FY2008.
President’s FY2008 Request
The Administration requested an appropriation of $10,150 million in gross budget authority for
CBP for FY2008, amounting to an $849 million, or 9%, increase over the enacted FY2007 level
of $9,301 million. The Administration requested $8,765 million in net budget authority for CBP
in FY2008, which amounts to a $729 million, or 9%, increase over the net FY2007 appropriation
of $8,036 million.
House-Passed H.R. 2638
House-passed H.R. 2638 included $8,922 million in net budget authority for CBP for FY2008,
amounting to a $886 million, or 11%, increase over the FY2007 enacted amount of $8,036
million (not including supplemental appropriations), and a $157 million or 1% increase over the
FY2008 request.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638
Senate-passed H.R. 2638 included $8,841 million in net budget authority for CBP for FY2008,
amounting to an $805 million, or 10%, increase over the FY2007 enacted amount of $8,036
million (not including supplemental appropriations), and a $76 million or nearly 1% increase
compared to the FY2008 request. The Senate-passed bill also included a $3,000 million
emergency appropriation (adopted by S.Amdt. 2480) that would be used, among other things, by
CBP for hiring additional U.S. Border Patrol agents and deploying infrastructure and technology
to the border.
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)
Division E of P.L. 110-161 provides $9,423 million in net budget authority for CBP for FY2008.
This amounts to an increase of $658 million, or 7%, over the FY2008 request and an increase of
49
Prepared by (name redacted) and (name redacted), Analysts in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
29
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
$1,387 million, or 17%, over the enacted amount for FY2007. P.L. 110-161 also includes $2,710
million in emergency funding for border security purposes, of which $1,531 million is provided
to CBP (see Appendix A for details).
Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008
Senate
Passed
FY2008
Enacted
FY2008
Emerg.
P.L. 110161
FY2007
Enacted
FY2008
Request
FY2008
House
Passed
Headquarters Management and
Administration
1,248
1,277
1,277
1,236
1,221
—
Border Security Inspections and
Trade Facilitation @ POE
1,860
2,069
2,107
2,101
2,279
271
Inspections, Trade & Travel Facilitation
@ POE
1,327
1,622
1,655
1,676
1,854
271
139
156
156
156
156
—
Other International Programs
9
9
9
11
11
—
C-TPAT
55
56
61
62
62
—
FAST/Nexus/SENTRI
11
11
11
11
11
—
Inspection and Detection Technology
241
136
136
105
105
—
Systems for Targeting
27
28
28
28
28
—
National Targeting Center
24
24
24
24
24
—
Training at POE
25
25
25
25
25
—
Harbor Maintenance Fee
3
3
3
3
3
—
Border Security and Control
Between POE
2,278
3,037
3,037
3,037
3,075
38
Border Security and Control
Between POE
2,240
2,984
2,984
2,984
3,022
38
Training Between the POE
38
53
53
53
53
—
176a
208
208
227
227
14
5,562a
6,591
6,630
6,601
6,803
323
Activity
Container Security Initiative (CSI)
Air and Marine Operations Salaries
CBP Salaries and
Expenses Total:
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2008 President’s Budget, and the DHS Budget in Brief, H.Rept. 110-181, and
S.Rept. 110-84, Division E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint Explanatory Statement for Division E, published
in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating amendments to the
budget request)..
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a.
Does not include $75 million in supplemental appropriations provided by P.L. 110-28.
Issues for Congress
Several issues arose during the congressional debate over appropriations for CBP. This issues
included, but were not limited to the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), border fencing; staffing
Congressional Research Service
30
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
levels, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), covered law enforcement officer status
for CBP Officers, and cargo and container security issues.
SBInet
The Administration requested $1,000 million for the deployment of SBInet50 related technologies
and infrastructures in FY2008; however, the Administration’s request does not identify how that
funding will be apportioned between the fencing, infrastructure, and technology components of
the account. According to the DHS budget submission, SBInet will initially focus on the
southwest land border between POE and will deploy a mix of personnel, technology,
infrastructure, and response assets in order to “provide maximum tactical advantage in each
unique border environment.”51 CBP plans to construct an SBInet command center that will
provide a common operating picture for all DHS agencies and external stakeholders.
In FY2007, DHS announced that it had awarded a prime integrator contract to Boeing to oversee
the deployment of SBInet; P.L. 109-295 required that any contract action related to SBI valued at
over $20 million be reviewed by the DHS Inspector General to ensure it adheres to applicable
cost requirements, performance objectives, and program milestones. Possible issues for Congress
could include whether the contracting associated with SBInet is being carried out responsibly and
effectively, and how funding is apportioned between the technology, infrastructure, and fencing
components of the account.
H.R. 2638 fully funds the President’s request for SBInet, but withholds $700 million pending the
submission of an expenditure plan that would, among other things, identifies: the activities,
milestones, and costs associated with implementing the program, including the maximum
foreseeable investment and the life-cycle costs; the funding and staffing requirements of the
program by activity; how SBInet will address the security needs of the northern border; and, for
each segment of the border where fencing or tactical infrastructure will be constructed, an
analysis of alternative means of achieving operational control over those areas.
Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would also fully fund the President’s request for SBInet; the bill also
included a $3,000 million emergency supplemental appropriation that could be used, among other
things, to deploy four unmanned aerial vehicles and 105 camera and radar towers to the border as
part of the SBInet initiative. The Senate Committee on Approriations asserted, however, that
“[t]he Department’s track record on major development programs is spotty at best” and noted that
it “will be closely watching to ensure that SBInet meets performance objectives, is delivered on
time, and on budget.”52
Division E of P.L. 110-161 expresses concern with the overall coordination of the SBI program
and directs DHS to provide a briefing within 120 days of enactment on how the program is being
effectively coordinated and how the FY2007 funds that were appropriated for the Office of
50
SBInet is the technological and infrastructure component of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), a multifaceted
approach to securing the border. In its FY2007 budget submission, DHS asserted that it had “developed a three-pillar
approach under the SBI that will focus on controlling the border, building a robust interior enforcement program, and
establishing a Temporary Worker Program.” DHS FY2007 Justification, p. CBP S&E 4.
51
DHS FY2008 Justification, p. CBP BSFIT 3.
52
S.Rept. 110-84, p. 37.
Congressional Research Service
31
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
Secure Border Coordination in FY2007 were obligated. The bill would provide $1,225 million for
SBInet, but would withhold $650 million until an expenditure plan is received and approved.
Fencing
In the 109th Congress, the Secure Fence Act (P.L. 109-367) directed DHS to construct two-layered
reinforced fencing and additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors along
five stretches of the southwest border. CBP has estimated that these stretches of fencing will total
roughly 850 miles53 of the southern border. DHS has stated that its FY2008 request, when
combined with prior year appropriations, will fund the completion of 370 cumulative miles of
fencing along the southern border.54 However, DHS has not identified what the actual amount of
funding that will be used for border fencing is, or how much it will cost to maintain the fencing in
future fiscal years. According to CBP Congressional Affairs, this fencing will be a combination of
primary and two layer fencing, will be constructed along areas of the border where DHS
determines fencing will provide a tactical advantage, and will be constructed by some mix of
private contractors and the National Guard (supervised by the Army Corps of Engineers).55 As of
FY2007, border fence construction has been included within the Border Security, Fencing,
Infrastructure and Technology account. Possible issues for Congress as it considers the issue of
border fencing could include whether DHS is complying with the legislative mandates set out in
P.L. 109-367, what the total costs associated with building and maintaining the border fencing
will be, and oversight of the contracting involved if private contractors are used to build the
fencing.
Both the House and Senate passed bills fully funded the President’s request for border fencing.
Senate-passed H.R. 2638 also included a $3,000 million emergency supplemental appropriation
that could be used, among other things, for constructing 700 miles of fencing along the southern
border. P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, strikes the five specific
stretches of fencing required by the Secure Fence Act in the 109th Congress and instead requires
DHS to construct not less than 700 miles of reinforced fencing at the border. This new language
gives DHS discretion as to where this fencing will be constructed, and mandates that 370 miles of
fencing be completed by December 31, 2008. The Act also requires DHS to consult with the
Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, states, local governments, Indian tribes, and
property owners along the border in order to minimize the potential impact that fencing may have
on border communities and the environment.
CBP Staffing
Staffing issues have long been of interest to Congress, and there has been considerable debate
concerning the appropriate level of staffing that CBP needs to effectively carry out its mission.
CBP’s staffing needs include not only Border Patrol Agents (discussed in the following section),
but also officers stationed at the nation’s ports of entry, import and trade specialists, pilots, and a
variety of other positions. In addition to the debate over the appropriate level of staffing, other
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
53
From CBP Congressional Affairs, September 25, 2006.
DHS FY2008 Justification, p. CBP BSFIT 12.
55
From CBP Congressional Affairs, January 26, 2007.
54
Congressional Research Service
32
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-347), and the
conference report to the FY2007 DHS Appropriations bill H.R. 5441, H.Rept. 109-699, required
CBP to submit a resource allocation model (RAM) to the Congress no later than January, 23,
2007. This report (the RAM) was required to address staffing levels at all ports of entry, and to
provide the complete methodology for aligning staff across mission areas. The House
Appropriations Committee noted in its report (H.Rept. 110-181) to the FY2008 DHS
Appropriations bill that CBP had yet to submit the staffing model, and that staffing allocation
remains a concern for the committee particularly at airports. H.Rept. 110-181 directed CBP to
submit its staffing model to the committee by October 15, 2007.
The Explanatory Statement56 to Division E of P.L. 110-161 notes that CBP has satisfied the
requirements laid out in H.Rept. 110-181 through its briefings and letters regarding the Workload
Staffing Model (WSM). Division E of P.L. 110-161 also directs DHS to make every effort to
comply with previous congressional mandates concerning increasing the number of Border Patrol
agents and CBP officers deployed to the northern border, and directs CBP to provide quarterly
hiring briefings on the progress they have made in this regard.
Hiring U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Agents
The Administration requested an increase of $481 million to hire 3,000 new USBP agents in order
to bring the total number of agents to 17,819 by the end of calendar year 2008.57 This would
roughly double the size of the USBP from the time the President took office in 2001. One
potential issue for Congress may include whether this hiring goal is attainable. In FY2006,
Congress appropriated funding for 1,500 additional agents; however, at the end of FY2006 the
border patrol had increased by 1,051 agents to 12,319.58 This means that DHS fell roughly 30%
short of their goal for agents hired in FY2006; additionally, the USBP experienced an attrition
rate of 7% in FY200659 making their hiring goals more difficult to attain. The FY2007
appropriation for DHS included an increase of 2,500 agents for the USBP. A potential issue for
Congress may involve whether some incentives should be offered to help DHS recruit additional
agents or keep existing agents from leaving the agency. House-passed H.R. 2638 fully funded the
President’s request, but would direct DHS to deploy an additional 500 USBP agents to the
northern border in FY2008. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 also fully funds the Administration’s
request, and directed DHS to ensure that 20% of the increase in agents during FY2008 be
assigned to the northern border as per P.L. 108-458. In addition, Senate-passed H.R. 2638
included a $3,000 million emergency supplemental appropriation that could be used, among other
things, to bring the overall USBP workforce to 23,000 agents. Division E of P.L. 110-161 fully
funds the President’s request.
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)
The Administration requested an increase of $252.4 million for WHTI. WHTI will require U.S.
citizens, and Canadian, Mexican, and some island nation nationals to present a passport, or some
other document or combination of documents deemed sufficient to denote identity and citizenship
56
Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, p. H16081.
DHS FY2008 Justification, p. CBP S&E 49.
58
From CBP Congressional Affairs, February 8, 2007.
59
From CBP Congressional Affairs, December 12, 2006.
57
Congressional Research Service
33
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
status by the Secretary of Homeland Security, as per P.L. 108-458 §7209. DHS announced that it
is requiring all U.S. citizens entering the country at air and sea POE to present passports as of
January 18, 2007; the current legislative mandate for expanding the program to all POE is the
earlier of the following two dates: June 1, 2009 or three months after the Secretaries of
Homeland Security and State certify that a number of implementation requirements have been
met.60
The FY2008 request for WHTI included funding to hire 205 CBP officers and to deploy WHTI
pilot programs to 13 POE.61 Possible issues for Congress may include whether DHS is on track to
meet its implementation deadlines, how the WHTI program will interface with existing registered
traveler programs (i.e., Nexus and SENTRI), and whether any POE infrastructure modifications
or expansions will be required to accommodate WHTI technology. House-passed H.R. 2638
included $225 million for WHTI, $27 million less than the President’s request. H.R. 2638 also
includes language that would withhold $100 million of this funding until CBP reports on the
findings of the 13 WHTI pilot programs that are currently being conducted. This report should
include, among other things, the infrastructure and staffing required by POE, confirmation that
the radio frequency technology being used has been adequately tested, and updated milestones for
implementing the program. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would fully fund the WHTI program and
would push back its implementation date to the later of the following two dates: June 1, 2009, or
three months after the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security certify that a series of
implementation requirements have been met.62 H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2008, includes $225 million for WHTI but withholds $75 million of this total until the report
mentioned above is submitted. The bill would also prohibit DHS from implementing the program
before the later of the following two dates: June 1, 2009, or three months after the Secretaries of
State and Homeland Security certify that a series of implementation requirements have been met.
Covered Law Enforcement Officer Status for CBP Officers
House-passed H.R. 2638 (Sec. 533) included a provision directing DHS to extend federal law
enforcement officer status to CBP officers for retirement purposes. Citing concern that CBP is
losing valuable officers to other agencies due to the disparity in retirement pay, the House
Appropriations Committee directed DHS to offer voluntary conversions of all eligible CBP
officer positions to federal law enforcement officer status no later than July 1, 2008. Housepassed H.R. 2638 included $50 million to cover the FY2008 costs associated with this
conversion. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 did not include a similar provision. Division E of P.L. 110161 (Sec. 535), contains language similar to that found in the House bill.
International Registered Traveler Program and Related Screening Systems
Division E of P.L. 110-161 authorizes CBP to develop an international registered traveler
program and to enhance the screening of incoming international air passengers, and $45 million is
appropriated to develop the needed technologies and infrastructure to provide for real time
screening of incoming international air travelers. In addition, CBP has been provided $36 million
60
P.L. 109-295 §546.
FY2008 DHS Congressional Budget Justification, pp. CBP S&E 61-62.
62
These implementation requirements are specified in 8 U.S.C. 1185 note.
61
Congressional Research Service
34
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
to implement the electronic travel authorization program for visa-waiver countries, and would be
directed to coordinate the program’s development with the US-VISIT office.
Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT)
The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) is a public-private partnership
program aimed at improving supply chain security. DHS requested no funding increases for
C-TPAT in the FY2008 budget request. During the debate surrounding both the Dubai Ports issue
and the SAFE Port Act (P.L. 109-347), several questions were raised regarding the vigor of the CTPAT validation process and the pace at which CBP was able to conduct the validations. An issue
for Congress might be why no additional funds were requested for C-TPAT given that the SAFE
Port Act (P.L. 109-347) requires DHS to launch a pilot program to test 3rd party validations of CTPAT certified applicants. The SAFE Port Act also now requires CBP to re-validate already
validated C-TPAT members once every four years. Senate report S.Rept. 110-84 notes the
concerns of GAO and other experts regarding C-TPAT security inspections and validations, and
further notes that as of March 1, 2007, CBP has 157 supply chain security specialists (SCSS) on
board. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 contained $62 million for C-TPAT; an additional $7 million
above the request for CBP to hire an additional 50 SCSS to bring the total number of SCSS to 207
FTE. House-passed H.R. 2638 included $61 million for C-TPAT, $5 million more than requested
for FY2008. Division E of P.L. 110-161 provides $62 million for C-TPAT, including funding to
hire 50 SCSS as included in the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2638.
Container Security Initiative (CSI)
CSI is a program by which CBP stations CBP officers in foreign ports to target high-risk
containers for inspection before they are loaded on U.S.-bound ships. CSI is operational in 50
ports as of October 2006. Current plans are to have CSI operational in 58 ports by the end of
FY2007 and to continue to expand CSI to strategically important ports throughout FY2008. The
CBP Budget Justifications indicate a requested increase of nearly $17 million for the CSI
program for FY2008. However, $15 million of this increase is for the Secure Freight Initiative
(SFI) program. The rest of the increase for CSI is for non-programmatic increases (pay and nonpay inflation). An issue for Congress might be why additional funding for CSI was not requested
given that DHS anticipates expanding CSI in FY2008 to additional strategically important ports.
Questions could also arise concerning the impact (at 6 foreign ports, see below) the first iteration
of the SFI will have on CSI operations at SFI pilot ports. SFI represents a change in cargo
security strategy from targeting high-risk containers for scanning and inspection under CSI, to
performing an integrated scan (radiation detection, image, and information risk factors) on all
U.S.-bound containers. Both House-passed H.R. 2638 and Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would have
fully funded the request for CSI at $156 million for FY2008. Division E of P.L. 110-161 provides
$156 million for CSI.
Secure Freight Initiative (SFI)
The Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) is a DHS program aimed at securing the cargo on its journey
from its origin in a foreign country to its final destination in the United States. The first iteration
of SFI is being operated by CBP in partnership with the Department of Energy (DOE), and
several foreign governments. The current iteration of SFI is being operated as a part of CSI and
involves several CSI ports. Under SFI, DHS plans to deploy scanning, imaging, and secure
communications equipment to selected ports to develop a so-called integrated scan (radiation
Congressional Research Service
35
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
detection, image, and information risk factors) of all U.S.-bound containers leaving the port. SFI
at Port Qasim, Pakistan; Puerto Cortes, Honduras; and at Southampton in the United Kingdom
will be fully operational scanning all U.S.-bound containers from these ports. SFI will gradually
be deployed in more limited capacities at Port Salaleh, Oman; the Port of Singapore; and at the
Port of Busan, South Korea. Additionally, Hong Kong officials have agreed to allow DHS to
continue testing the existing integrated cargo inspection system (ICIS) at the port of Hong
Kong. Approximately 24.5% of U.S.-bound containers originate from these test ports, including
Hong Kong.63
Under a fully operational SFI scenario, all U.S.-bound containers from that port would be
scanned with the integrated scanning system. This will require additional resources on the part of
the host country governments and on the part of CBP. The FY2008 request for CBP includes $15
million for SFI within the CSI program. Currently under CSI, high-risk containers are inspected
before they are loaded on U.S.-bound ships, while SFI envisions all U.S.-bound containers being
subject to the “integrated scan” prior to loading. This SFI strategy raises a number of questions,
including issues concerning: workload (switching from a targeted approach to scanning all
containers will require more resources); resolving alarms (the more containers that are scanned
the more alarms will have to be resolved); equipment (who is operating and providing the
equipment); and funding (is $15 million sufficient to cover the initial phase of the program). As
previously mentioned, both House-passed H.R. 2638 and Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would fully
fund the request for CSI (which includes $15 million for SFI) at $156 million for FY2008.
Division E of P.L. 110-161 fully funds the request for CSI and includes an additional $13 million
for the “competitive procurement of commercially available technology” to support SFI and the
proposed Global Trade Exchange.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)64
ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the United States. ICE
develops intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the United States and is responsible for
investigating and enforcing violations of the immigration laws (e.g., alien smuggling, hiring
unauthorized alien workers). ICE is also responsible for locating and removing aliens who have
overstayed their visas, entered illegally, or have become deportable. In addition, ICE develops
intelligence to combat terrorist financing and money laundering, and to enforce export laws
against smuggling, fraud, forced labor, trade agreement noncompliance, and vehicle and cargo
theft. Furthermore, this bureau oversees the building security activities of the Federal Protective
Service, formerly of the General Services Administration. The Federal Air Marshals Service
(FAMS)65 was returned from ICE to TSA pursuant to the reorganization proposal of July 13,
2005. The Office of Air and Marine Interdiction was transferred from ICE to CBP, and therefore
the totals for ICE do not include Air and Marine Interdiction funding, which is included under
CBP. See Table 8 for account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 10 for subaccount-level detail for ICE Salaries and Expenses (S&E) for FY2007 and FY2008.
63
Eric Kulisch, “Secure Freight Debuts: DHS to follow automated cargo scanning pilot with private sector data
warehouse,” American Shipper, vol. 49, no. 2 (February, 2007), p.10.
64
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Immigra
tion Legislation, Domestic Social Policy Division.
65
FAMS transferred to ICE from TSA in August of 2003.
Congressional Research Service
36
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
President’s FY2008 Request
The Administration requested $5,015 million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2008. This
represented a 6% increase over the enacted FY2007 level of $4,727 million. The Administration
requested an appropriation of $4,168 million in net budget authority for ICE in FY2008,
representing a 5% increase over the FY2007 enacted level of $3,958 million. Table 10 provides
activity-level detail for the Salaries and Expenses account. The request included the following
program increases:
•
$7 million (19 FTE) for the Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate
allegations of criminal and serious misconduct involving ICE and CBP
employees;
•
$11 million (32 FTE) for BEST Task Forces;
•
$5 million (15 FTE) for ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and
Employers (IMAGE), an initiative with private employers to improve worksite
enforcement;
•
$2 million (4 FTE) for the Trade Transparency Unit to coordinate investigations
with foreign governments and law enforcement to combat trade-based money
laundering;
•
$5 million (18 FTE) to enhance ICE’s anti-gang initiative (Operation Community
Shield);
•
$26 million for 287(g) agreements;66
•
$16 million (2 FTE) for information technology investments;67
•
$31 million (28 FTE) for 600 additional detention beds and support personnel;
•
$29 million (110 FTE) for the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), which includes the
Institutional Removal Program (IRP) and the Criminal Alien Apprehension
Program (ACAP);68 and
•
$11 million for centralized ticketing operation and additional air transportation
(including use of the Justice Prisoners and Alien Transportation System [JPATS])
for alien removals.
House-Passed H.R. 2638
House-passed H.R. 2638 would have appropriated $4,192 million in net budget authority for ICE,
which would have represented an increase of $24 million over the Administration’s requested
amount. In addition, House-passed H.R. 2638 would have appropriated $4,155 million for
Salaries and Expenses, $7 million less than the Administration’s request, but this decrease,
66
This increase includes money for training 250 state and local law enforcement officers, 350 detention beds and
associated staff, and $8 million for T-1 data transmission lines, computers with IDENT/ENFORCE capabilities and
connectivity to ICE databases.
67
This increase includes $11 million for Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) IT modernization; $2 million for
mobile IDENT/ENFORCE devices; and $2 million for upgrading immigration enforcement systems.
68
The increase for CAP will fund 22 additional 10-person CAP teams replacing an estimated 360 Special Agents
performing CAP duties.
Congressional Research Service
37
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
according to H.Rept. 110-181 would have been due to a reallocation of funds to the
“Automatization Modernization” account. Table 10 provides activity-level detail for the Salaries
and Expenses account.
Of the appropriated amount, $10 million would have been for special operations under §3131 of
the Customs Enforcement Act of 1986; $11 million would have been designated to fund or
reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care, and repatriation of smuggled aliens; and $16
million would have been targeted for enforcement of laws against forced child labor. Additionally,
H.Rept. 110-181 recommended an increase over FY2007 funding of:
•
$43 million for the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), which includes the
Institutional Removal Program (IRP) and the Criminal Alien Apprehension
Program (ACAP);
•
$11 million for the Alternatives to Detention program;
•
$7 million for the Office of Professional Responsibility, $1 million of which
should have been used for a third-party compliance review pilot program to
ensure that standards are met at detention facilities managed by private
contractors;
•
$111 million for Border Enforcement Security (BEST) Task Forces;69
•
$32 million for the three ICE programs that support State and local law
enforcement: Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), Forensic Document
Laboratory (FDL), and to facilitate agreements under the 287(g) program of the
INA; and
•
$4 million for the Trade Transparency Unit.
The report also recommended funding to increase detention space by 950 beds.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2638
Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would have appropriated $4,433 million in net budget authority for ICE,
which represented an increase of $265 million, 6% over the Administration’s requested amount.
Of the appropriated amount, nearly $8 million would have been for special operations under
§3131 of the Customs Enforcement Act of 1986; $1 million would have provided compensation
awards to informants; $102,000 would have been used to promote public awareness of the child
pornography tipline; $203,000 would have funded project alert;70 $5 million would have been
used to facilitate agreements under §287(g) of the INA; $11 million would have been designated
to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care, and repatriation of smuggled
aliens; and $16 million would have been targeted for enforcement of laws against forced child
labor.
69
ICE-led BEST task forces coordinate federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law enforcement and intelligence entities
to disrupt cross-border criminal organization to mitigate border security vulnerabilities. This increase would fund the
existing BEST task force in Laredo, TX, and establish six additional task forces.
70
Project ALERT was launched by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in 1992, and consists of
retired law enforcement agents who volunteer to provide assistance, as requested, to law enforcement agencies.
Congressional Research Service
38
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
In addition, Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would have appropriated $4,402 million for Salaries and
Expenses, $240 million or 6% more than the Administration’s request. Table 10 provides activitylevel detail for the Salaries and Expenses account. Additionally, S.Rept. 110-84 recommended an
increase over the Administration’s request of:
•
$147 million for 3,050 additional detention beds and 248 detention and
removal positions;
•
$33 million for transportation and removal activities;
•
$2 million, including 4 FTE, to establish an “Office of Policy and Planning”
within the Detention and Removal Office (DRO);71
•
$9 million for Fugitive Operations Teams;72
•
$11 million (146 positions) for additional CAP teams;73
•
$240 million for more than 700 immigration enforcement and detention and
removal positions;
•
$3 million including 4 positions for development of an ICE-wide training
program for new and mid-career level managers;
•
$3 million (10 FTE) for BEST Task Forces;
•
$10 million (63 positions) for to enhance ICE’s anti-gang initiative (Operation
Community Shield);
•
$15 million (50 FTE) for worksite enforcement efforts; and
•
$11 million (63 positions) to fully staff the Document and Benefit Fraud
Task Forces.
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)
Congress appropriated $4,734 million in net budget authority for ICE, which represented an
increase of $566 million, 14% over the Administration’s request, and $776 million, 20% more
than the FY2007 appropriation. Of the total appropriated amount, nearly $8 million is for special
operations under §3131 of the Customs Enforcement Act of 1986; $1 million is to provide
compensation awards to informants; $305,000 is to promote public awareness of the child
pornography tipline; $203,000 is to fund project alert;74 $5 million is to be used to facilitate
agreements under §287(g) of the INA; $11 million is designated to fund or reimburse other
federal agencies for the cost of care, and repatriation of smuggled aliens; and $16 million is for
the enforcement of laws against forced child labor. Furthermore, of the total amount appropriated,
P.L. 110-161 specifies that at least $2,381 million is to be used for detention and removal
71
The Office of Policy and Planning assesses existing policy for suitability given the growth in detention, ensures
adherence to detention standards, and is responsible for the development and modification of new policies as they relate
to DRO-wide programs.
72
Fugitive Operations Teams would be expanded from the Administration’s request of 75 teams to 81 teams.
73
With the additional monies, CAP teams would be expanded from the Administration’s request of 22 teams to
30 teams.
74
Project ALERT was launched by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in 1992, and consists of
retired law enforcement agents who volunteer to provide assistance, as requested, to law enforcement agencies.
Congressional Research Service
39
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
operations, and $200 million is to improve and modernize efforts to identify and remove criminal
aliens.
In addition, P.L. 110-161 appropriated $4,688 million for Salaries and Expenses, $526 million or
13% more than the Administration’s request, and $801 million or 21% more than the FY2007
appropriation. Table 10 provides activity-level detail for the Salaries and Expenses account.
Table 10. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY07
Enacted
FY08
Request
HQ & Administration
274
314
299
317
316
4
Legal Proceeding
187
208
208
208
208
—
Investigations - Domestic
1,285
1,372
1,370
1,411
1,422
50
Investigations - International
105
108
108
108
108
—
1,390
1,480
1,478
1,519
1,530
50
51
52
52
52
52
—
DRO - Custody Operations
1,382
1,460
1,451
1,606
1,647
186
DRO - Fugitive Operations
183
186
183
195
219
33
DRO - Criminal Alien Program
137
168
180
179
179
—
DRO - Alternatives to
Detention
44
44
55
44
54
10
DRO - Transportation and
Removal Program
238
249
249
283
282
33
DRO Total:
1,984
2,107
2,118
2,306a
2,381
262
Comprehensive
Identification and Removal
of Criminal Aliens
—
—
—
—
200
200
ICE Salaries and Expenses:
3,887
4,162
4,155
4,402
4,688
516
Activity
Investigations Total:
Intelligence
FY08
Senate
Passed
FY08
Enacted
FY2008
Emerg.
P.L. 110161
FY08
House
Passed
Sources: DHS FY2008 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. PBO-55, and the conference report (H.Rept. 109476) to H.R. 5441. The ICE justifications distributed funding for HQ and Administration throughout the agency’s
other accounts. In order to be more precise, this table presents the HQ and Administration account as specified
in the Performance Budget Overview section of the DHS FY2008 Congressional Budget Justifications.
Unspecified supplemental from P.L. 109-234, H.Rept. 110-181, and S.Rept. 110-84, Division E of P.L. 110-161,
and tables in the Joint Explanatory Statement for Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December
17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating amendments to the budget request).
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a.
This amount does not include an unspecified amount of emergency funding for additional detention beds
from the $3,000 million emergency funding for border security activities included in the bill.
Issues for Congress
ICE is responsible for many divergent activities due to the breath of the civil and criminal
violations of law that fall under ICE’s jurisdiction. As a result, the allocation of resources in a
Congressional Research Service
40
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
manner in which to best achieve their mission is a continuous issue. In addition, part of ICE’s
mission includes locating and removing deportable aliens, which involves determining the
appropriate amount of detention space, as well as which aliens should be detained. Another issue
is the ability of ICE to identify criminal aliens while they are incarcerated for their criminal
activity so that the aliens can be removed prior to being released into the community. Also, there
has been debate concerning the extent to which state and local law enforcement should aid ICE
with the identification, detention, and removal of deportable aliens.
Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions
The Office of Investigations (OI) in ICE focuses on a broad array of criminal and civil violation
affecting national security such as illegal arms exports, financial crimes, commercial fraud,
human trafficking, narcotics smuggling, child pornography/exploitation, worksite enforcement,
and immigration fraud. ICE special agents also conduct investigations aimed at protecting critical
infrastructure industries that are vulnerable to sabotage, attack, or exploitation. The Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) abolished the INS and the United States Customs Service,
and transferred most of their investigative functions to ICE effective March 1, 2003. There are
investigative advantages to combining the INS and Customs Services, as those who violate
immigration laws often are engaged in other criminal enterprises (e.g., alien smuggling rings
often launder money). Nonetheless, concerns have been raised that not enough resources have
been focused on investigating civil violations of immigration law and that ICE resources have
been focused on terrorism and the types of investigations performed by the former Customs
Service.75 For FY2008, Congress appropriated $1,530 million for OI, while the President’s budget
requested $1,480 million. Comparatively, for OI, House-passed H.R. 2638 would have
appropriated $1,478 million and Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would have appropriated $1,519
million.
Detention and Removal Operations
Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) in ICE provide custody management of aliens who are
in removal proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United States.76 DRO is also
responsible for ensuring that aliens ordered removed actually depart from the United States.
Many contend that DRO does not have enough detention space to house all those who should be
detained. A study done by DOJ’s Inspector General found that almost 94% of those detained with
final orders of removal were deported, whereas only 11% of those not detained, who were issued
final orders of removal, left the country.77 Concerns have been raised that decisions on which
aliens to release and when to release the aliens may be based on the amount of detention space,
not on the merits of individual cases, and that the amount of space may vary by area of the
country leading to inequities and disparate policies in different geographic areas. The Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458, §5204) authorized, subject to
appropriations, an increase in DRO bed space of 8,000 beds for each year, FY2006-FY2010. P.L.
75
Based on CRS discussions with ICE personnel in New York City, August 27, 2003.
For more information on detention issues see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention:
Current Legislative Issues, by (name redacted). Under the INA aliens can be removed for reasons of health, criminal
status, economic well-being, national security risks, and others that are specifically defined in the act.
77
Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, The Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Removal of
Aliens Issued Final Orders, Report I-2003-004, February 2003.
76
Congressional Research Service
41
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
110-161 appropriated $2,381 million for DRO and an additional $200 million to “improve and
modernize efforts to identify aliens convicted of a crime, sentenced to imprisonment, and who
may be deportable, and remove them from the United States once they are judged deportable.”
The President’s budget requested a total of $2,107 million for DRO, including an additional $31
million for 600 detention beds and support personnel, and $10.8 million for transportation for
alien removals. Notably, included in the request is an increase in funding for 350 beds and
necessary personnel to carry out 287(g) agreements.78 House-passed H.R. 2638 would have
appropriate $2,118 for DRO. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 contained appropriations for detention
beds in Title II and in an emergency supplemental that was attached to the bill during floordebate. Title II of Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would have appropriated $2,306 for DRO including
increases of $147 million over the Administration’s request for 3,050 additional beds. The
emergency supplemental included in Senate-passed H.R. 2638 specified that within two years
ICE should have the resources to detain 45,000 aliens per day (i.e., 45,000 detention beds), and
would have appropriated $3,000 million for, among other things, the additional detention beds.
Alternatives to Detention
Due to the cost of detaining aliens, and the fact that many non-detained aliens with final orders of
removal do not leave the country, there has been interest in developing alternatives to detention
for certain types of aliens who do not require a secure detention setting. In 2004, ICE began a
pilot program, the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, for low-risk, nonviolent
offenders.79 In addition, ICE uses electronic monitoring devices as another alternative to
detention. For FY2008, Congress appropriated $54 million for alternatives to detention, $1
million less than House-passed H.R. 2638 would have appropriated, and $10 million more than
President’s budget request and would have been appropriated by Senate-passed H.R. 2638.
Criminal Alien Program (CAP)
Criminal aliens are aliens who have committed crimes that make them removable. The potential
pool of removable criminal aliens is in the hundreds of thousands. Some are incarcerated in
federal, state, or local facilities, while others are free across the United States, because they have
already served their criminal sentences.80 DHS’ CAP attempts to locate criminal aliens who have
been released after serving their criminal sentences so that the aliens can be removed from the
United States. In addition, CAP is directed at identifying criminal aliens in federal, state, and
local prisons, and assuring that these aliens are taken into ICE custody at the completion of their
criminal sentences. Although federal prisons have a system to notify ICE when there is an alien in
custody, notification from state and local prisons and jails is not systematic, and many criminal
aliens are released after their criminal sentences are completed rather than taken into ICE custody,
making it more difficult to locate the aliens for deportation and raising the concern that the
released aliens will commit new crimes. Like ICE, INS had historically failed to identify all
78
287(g) agreements allow state and local police forces to undertake some immigration law enforcement functions
under ICE’s supervision. For more information about the 287(g) program, please refer to CRS Report RL32270,
Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement, by Lisa M. Seghetti, (name redacted), and
(name redacted).
79
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Public Security: ICE Unveils New
Alternative to Detention,” Inside ICE, vol. 1, no. 5, June 21, 2004, available at http://www.ice.gov.
80
Stana, Challenges to Implementing the Immigration Interior Enforcement Strategy, p. 5.
Congressional Research Service
42
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
removable imprisoned aliens.81 P.L. 110-161 appropriated $179 million specifically for CAP and
an additional $200 million to improve and modernize efforts to identify and remove criminal
aliens. The Act did not specify that the entire $200 million was for the CAP; however, it can be
assumed that at least some of the money will used augment this program. The President’s FY2008
budget request included $168 million for CAP. In comparison, for CAP, House-passed H.R. 2638
would have appropriated $180 million, and Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would have appropriated
$179 million.
State and Local Law Enforcement82
Currently, the INA provides limited avenues for state enforcement of both its civil and criminal
provisions. One of the broadest grants of authority for state and local immigration enforcement
activity stems from INA §287(g), which authorizes the Attorney General to enter into a written
agreement with a state, or any political subdivision to allow an officer or employee of the state or
subdivision, to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation,
apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States. The enforcement of immigration by
state and local officials has sparked debate among many who question what the proper role of
state and local law enforcement officials should be in enforcing federal immigration laws. Many
have expressed concern over proper training, finite resources at the local level, possible civil
rights violations, and the overall impact on communities. Some localities, for example, even
provide “sanctuary” for illegal aliens and will generally promote policies that ensure such aliens
will not be turned over to federal authorities. Nonetheless, some observers contend that the
federal government has scarce resources to enforce immigration law and that state and local law
enforcement entities should be utilized. For FY2008 Congress appropriated $5 million for
§287(g) agreements. The President’s budget request included an increase of $26 million to $78
million for these agreements. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 would have appropriated $52 million for
§287(g) agreements, while House-passed H.R. 2638 would have appropriated $32 million for the
three ICE programs that support State and local law enforcement: (1) Law Enforcement Support
Center (LESC); (2) Forensic Document Laboratory (FDL); and (3) 287(g) agreements.
Federal Protective Service83
The Federal Protective Service (FPS), within ICE, is responsible for the protection and security of
federally owned and leased buildings, property, and personnel. It has two primary missions—
basic security and building specific security. Basic security functions include daily monitoring of
federal building entry and exit points; building specific security includes investigating specific
threats to a federal facility or building. In general, FPS focuses on law enforcement and
protection of federal facilities from criminal and terrorist threats.
81
Of 35,318 criminal aliens released between 1994 and 1999, at least 11,605 went on to commit new crimes. See
Governmental Accountability Office, Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and Remove Imprisoned Aliens
Continues to Need Improvement, GAO/T-GGD-99-47, February 25, 1999.
82
This section adapted from CRS Report RL32270, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law
Enforcement, by Lisa M. Seghetti, (name redacted), and (name redacted).
83
This section authored by (name redacted), Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
43
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
President’s FY2008 Request
The Administration requested $613 million in FY2008 for these missions.84 With these funds, the
Administration planned for FPS to focus on three objectives or tasks: security policy and
standards, building security assessments, and agency compliance with security standards.85
Currently, FPS utilizes approximately 15,000 contract security guards and 950 uniformed law
enforcement officers. Pursuant to the Administration’s request, FPS intended to move these
uniformed law enforcement officers into other ICE law enforcement offices or reduce the number
through attrition.
House-passed H.R. 2638
The House approved legislation would have prohibited the obligation of FY2008 funds for any
activity that would have reduced the number of in-service FPS police officers, unless the FPS
director provided information to state and local law enforcement agencies that could be affected
by the downsizing. Before reducing the number of FPS uniformed personnel, the director must
prepare a report on the number and type of cases handled by FPS in the previous two fiscal years,
and give copies of the report to officials in jurisdictions with federal buildings protected by FPS.
In addition, the House provision requires that the FPS director negotiate a memorandum of
agreement with each state and local law enforcement agency that details how security needs
identified in the report will be addressed in the future. Finally, the FPS Director would be
required to submit a copy of the report and each memorandum of agreement to the House and
Senate Committees of Appropriation 15 days prior to the reduction in the number of FPS police
officers.86 The report accompanying the House-passed legislation further addresses this issue,
noting that the reduction in FPS police officers will impose a “significant” burden on state and
local law enforcement agencies.87
Senate-passed H.R. 2638
The legislation approved by the Senate required that the DHS Secretary ensure that there are not
fewer than 1,200 FPS law enforcement officers protecting federal buildings. In addition, the
Senate-passed bill stated that the DHS Secretary and the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget adjust security fees, paid by federal agencies for FPS security, to ensure full funding
for not fewer than 1,200 FPS officers.88
FY2008 Enacted (P.L. 110-161, Division E)
Division E of FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act requires FPS to maintain not fewer than
1,200 full-time equivalent staff and 900 full-time equivalent police officers “directly” engaged
84
OMB, Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2008, p. 460.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal Protective Service, Fiscal Year 2008, Congressional
Justification
86
House-passed H.R. 2638, Title II.
87
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2008,
report to accompany H.R. 2638, 110th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 110-181 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 47.
88
Senate-passed H.R. 2638, Title II.
85
Congressional Research Service
44
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
protecting and enforcing laws at federal buildings on a daily basis.89 As a result, Congress does
not support the Administration’s decision to reduce the number of FPS uniformed officers
through attrition or reassigning them to other ICE offices.
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)90
The TSA was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA, P.L. 107-71), and it
was charged with protecting air, land, and rail transportation systems within the United States to
ensure the freedom of movement for people and commerce. In 2002, the TSA was transferred to
DHS with the passage of the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296). The TSA’s responsibilities
include protecting the aviation system against terrorist threats, sabotage, and other acts of
violence through the deployment of passenger and baggage screeners; detection systems for
explosives, weapons, and other contraband; and other security technologies. The TSA also has
certain responsibilities for marine and land modes of transportation including assessing the risk of
terrorist attacks to all non-aviation transportation assets, including seaports; issuing regulations to
improve security; and enforcing these regulations to ensure the protection of these transportation
systems. TSA is further charged with serving as the primary liaison for transportation security to
the law enforcement and intelligence communities. See Table 8 for account-level detail for all of
the agencies in Title II, and Table 11 for sub-account-level detail for TSA for FY2007 enacted
levels and supplemental appropriations and FY2008 amounts specified in the President’s request,
the House and Senate bills, and the enacted Division E of P.L. 110-161.
President’s FY2008 Request
The proposed funding level for the TSA, a gross total of $6,564 million, comprises roughly 15%
of the gross total DHS budget request. The President’s FY2008 request estimates about $2,793
million in offsetting collections, mostly through the collection of airline passenger security fees,
yielding at net total requested amount for TSA of $3,771 million, which is paid for out of the
Treasury general fund. In breaking with prior year requests, the President’s FY2008 request does
not propose any changes to the existing passenger security fee structure. In prior years, the
President sought to increase these fees, however the proposed changes to the fee structure failed
to garner much support in Congress.
The proposed FY2008 gross funding level for TSA of $6,564 is roughly comparable to the
FY2007 enacted level of $6,307. Although, notably absent from the requested amount is the $250
million in mandatory funding for the Aviation Security Capital Fund that provides grants to
airports for constructing in-line explosive detection systems (in-line EDS). Authority for this fund
was set to expire at the end of FY2007, but a provision to extend authorization of the fund
through 2028 was included in P.L. 110-53.
Funding for aviation security, the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS), and aviation-related
vetting functions comprises roughly 90% of the total proposed TSA budget. Sub-account level
amounts in the President’s FY2008 request are presented in Table 11. Several aviation security
activities, including training, human resources, checkpoint support, and airport management and
89
P.L. 110-161, Div. E, Title II.
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
90
Congressional Research Service
45
Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations
information technology (IT) support, would see a decrease in funding compared to FY2007
enacted levels under the President’s proposal. This appears to be part of an effort to trim overhead
costs, largely through improved efficiency. On the other hand, the President has proposed notable
increases for Explosives Detection System (EDS) and Explosives Trace Detection (ETD)
equipment purchase, installation, and maintenance compared to FY2007 enacted levels. This
increase was anticipated, as much of the fielded explosives detection equipment has been in
service for more than four years and is reaching useful service life requiring additional
maintenance and replacement costs to be factored into the budget process. With regard to screener
staffing, the President has proposed a net increase of 955 full-time equivalent screeners (roughly
a 2% increase in the screener workforce), largely to support a new travel document screening
initiative. The President, however, proposes to trim support staff, resulting in a net decrease of
about 351 FTEs across all of the TSA.
Under the President’s budget proposal, the Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing
(TTAC) function would almost be doubled compared to FY2007 enacted levels, with the entire
amount of the increase, $38 million, going toward the Secure Flight development effort. Secure
Flight, the long delayed program that would establish a centralized, federally operated system for
prescreening airline passengers against terrorist watchlists, is now scheduled to become
operational in the summer of 2008. Credentialing fee programs would see a notable increase as
the Registered Traveler program continues its nationwide expansion in FY2008, and the
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program is scheduled to become fully
operational at the nation’s seaports in FY2008. The President’s budget proposes setting funding
for surface transportation security at $47 million, roughly $10 million above FY2007 enacted
levels. The additional proposed funding would be used to hire additional canine teams and
inspectors for rail and mass transit. Under the President’s proposal funding for Transportation
Security Support functions would remain roughly unchanged from FY2007 enacted levels.
Table 11. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Budget Activity
FY2007
Enacted
FY2007
Supp.
FY2008
Request
Aviation Security
4,732a
397
5,042
5,199
5,043
4,809
—
Screening Partnership
Program (SPP)
149
—
143
147
143
143
—
Passenger & Baggage
Screening (PC&B)
2,470
—
2,638
2,589
2,601
2,636
—
Screener Training & Other
244
—
224
200
200
224
—
Human Resource Services
207
—
182
182
182
182
—
Checkpoint Support
173
25
136
250
136
—
—
EDS/ETD Purchase
141
—
181
—
—
—
—
EDS/ETD Installation
138
—
259
—
—
—
—
EDS/ETD
Installation/Purchase
—
285
—
560
529
294
—
EDS/ETD Maintenance and
Utilities
222
—
264
264
257
264
—
Congressional Research Se
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.