Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Congressional research reportMar 4, 2009
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Homeland Security Department:
FY2009 Appropriations
(name redacted), Coordinator
Analyst in Domestic Security
March 4, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL34482
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Summary
This report describes the FY2009 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). The Administration requested a net appropriation of $38,849 million in budget authority
for FY2009. The House Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2009 DHS
Appropriations bill on June 24, 2008. The bill was filed on September 18, 2008, as H.R. 6947,
and the accompanying report has been numbered H.Rept. 110-862. House-reported H.R. 6947
would have provided a net appropriation of $41,137 million in budget authority for DHS for
FY2009. This amounted to an increase of $2,288 million, or nearly 6% increase over the
President’s request. The Senate-reported its version of the bill on June 19, 2008. S. 3181 would
have provided $41,314 million in net budget authority for DHS for FY2009, a $2,465 million or
6% increase over the President’s request.
On September 23, 2008, the House Rules Committee reported H.Res. 1488 for consideration of
the Senate amendment to H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. H.R. 2638 was originally introduced as the FY2008 DHS
Appropriations Act but was amended to serve as the legislative vehicle for the proposed
Continuing Resolution, a Disaster Relief Emergency Supplemental, the Department of Defense
FY2009 Appropriations Act, the FY2009 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
and the FY2009 Military Construction and Veterans Assistance Act (see the CRS Appropriations
Status table for more information: http://www.crs.gov/Pages/fy2009-status-table.aspx). H.R. 2638
was enacted as P.L. 110-329 on September 30, 2008.
Division D of P.L. 110-329 provided a net appropriation of $41,225 million for DHS for FY2009.
This amounted to nearly $2,376 million more than the President’s request for FY2009, $88
million more than was reported by the House in H.R. 6947, and $89 million less than was
reported by the Senate in S. 3181. Net appropriations for major agencies within DHS were as
follows: Customs and Border Protection (CBP), $9,821 million; Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), 4,989 million; Transportation Security Administration (TSA), $4,367 million;
Coast Guard, $9,361 million; Secret Service, $1,413 million; National Protection & Programs
Directorate, $1,158 million; Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), $6,963
million; Science and Technology, $933 million; and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $514
million. Additionally, Division B of the Act also contained the following amounts for DHS
agencies in emergency supplemental FY2008 funding: $300 for the Coast Guard, $7.96 billion
for FEMA’s Disaster Relief Account, and $100 million for FEMA to reimburse the American Red
Cross.
P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, provided $2,765 million in
emergency supplemental funding for DHS in FY2009. Funding was broken out as follows: $205
million for Departmental Operations; $680 million for CBP; $20 million for ICE; $1,000 million
for TSA; $250 million for the Coast Guard; and $610 million for FEMA.
This report will not be updated.
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1
P.L. 111-5........................................................................................................................1
P.L. 110-329....................................................................................................................1
House-reported H.R. 6947...............................................................................................1
Senate-reported S. 3181 ..................................................................................................2
President’s FY2009 Budget Submitted ............................................................................2
Note on Most Recent Data ..............................................................................................3
Background ................................................................................................................................3
Department of Homeland Security ........................................................................................3
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations ...............................................................................................4
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays...........................................................................4
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending.................................................................................5
Offsetting Collections ...........................................................................................................6
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security ...........................................................8
DHS Appropriations Trends ..................................................................................................8
Summary of DHS Appropriations..........................................................................................8
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations .................................................................... 11
President’s FY2009 Request.......................................................................................... 11
House-reported H.R. 6947............................................................................................. 12
Senate-reported S. 3181 ................................................................................................ 12
P.L. 110-329.................................................................................................................. 12
P.L. 111-5...................................................................................................................... 13
Personnel Issues ........................................................................................................... 16
Analysis and Operations...................................................................................................... 20
President’s FY2009 Request.......................................................................................... 21
House-reported H.R. 6947............................................................................................. 21
Senate-reported S. 3181 ................................................................................................ 22
P.L. 110-329.................................................................................................................. 22
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations ...................................................................... 22
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ................................................................................ 27
President’s FY2009 Request.......................................................................................... 27
House-reported H.R. 6947............................................................................................. 27
Senate-reported S. 3181 ................................................................................................ 27
P.L. 110-329.................................................................................................................. 28
P.L. 111-5...................................................................................................................... 28
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 29
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ..................................................................... 34
President’s FY2009 Request.......................................................................................... 34
House-reported H.R. 6947............................................................................................. 35
Senate-reported S. 3181 ................................................................................................ 36
P.L. 110-329.................................................................................................................. 37
P.L. 111-5...................................................................................................................... 38
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 39
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)..................................................................... 43
President’s FY2009 Request.......................................................................................... 43
House-reported H.R. 6947............................................................................................. 44
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Senate-reported S. 3181 ................................................................................................ 44
P.L. 110-329.................................................................................................................. 45
P.L. 111-5...................................................................................................................... 46
TSA Issues for Congress ............................................................................................... 48
United States Coast Guard................................................................................................... 52
President’s FY2009 Request.......................................................................................... 52
House-reported H.R. 6947............................................................................................. 52
Senate-reported S. 3181 ................................................................................................ 52
P.L. 110-329.................................................................................................................. 52
P.L. 111-5...................................................................................................................... 53
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 54
Deepwater..................................................................................................................... 54
Response-Boat Medium ................................................................................................ 55
Security Mission ........................................................................................................... 55
Non-Homeland Security Missions ................................................................................. 56
Marine Safety ............................................................................................................... 57
Rescue-21 ..................................................................................................................... 57
LORAN-C .................................................................................................................... 58
Bridge Alteration Program ............................................................................................ 58
Arctic Activity .............................................................................................................. 59
U.S. Secret Service ............................................................................................................. 59
President’s FY2009 Request.......................................................................................... 60
House-reported H.R. 6947............................................................................................. 60
Senate-reported S. 3181 ................................................................................................ 60
P.L. 110-329.................................................................................................................. 60
Title III: Preparedness and Response ......................................................................................... 62
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).............................................................. 65
President’s FY2009 Request.......................................................................................... 65
House-reported H.R. 6947............................................................................................. 65
Senate-reported S. 3181 ................................................................................................ 66
P.L. 110-329.................................................................................................................. 66
P.L. 111-5...................................................................................................................... 66
FEMA Issues for Congress.................................................................................................. 66
Disaster Relief Fund...................................................................................................... 66
Emergency Food and Shelter (EFS) Program................................................................. 67
Flood Map Modernization............................................................................................. 68
FEMA Management and Administration—Work Force.................................................. 68
Pre-Disaster Mitigation ................................................................................................. 69
Gulf Coast Hurricane Recovery Issues .......................................................................... 70
Administrative, Financial and Budgeting Challenges ..................................................... 71
Urban Search and Rescue.............................................................................................. 72
Climate Change ............................................................................................................ 72
Grant Programs Directorate................................................................................................. 73
President’s Request ....................................................................................................... 73
House-reported H.R. 6947............................................................................................. 74
Senate-reported S. 3181 ................................................................................................ 74
P.L. 110-329.................................................................................................................. 74
P.L. 111-5...................................................................................................................... 74
Grant Programs Directorate Issues for Congress............................................................ 76
Office of Health Affairs....................................................................................................... 78
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
President’s FY2009 Request.......................................................................................... 78
House-reported H.R. 6947............................................................................................. 78
Senate-reported S. 3181 ................................................................................................ 79
P.L. 110-329.................................................................................................................. 79
Office of Health Affairs Issues for Congress.................................................................. 79
National Protection and Programs Directorate ..................................................................... 80
Management and Administration................................................................................... 80
President’s FY2009 Request.......................................................................................... 81
House-reported H.R. 6947............................................................................................. 81
Senate-reported S. 3181 ................................................................................................ 81
P.L. 110-329.................................................................................................................. 81
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 82
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) .................................. 82
President’s Request ....................................................................................................... 83
House-reported H.R. 6947............................................................................................. 83
Senate-reported S. 3181 ................................................................................................ 83
P.L. 110-329.................................................................................................................. 83
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 84
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security .............................................................. 85
President’s FY2009 Request.......................................................................................... 85
House-reported H.R. 6947............................................................................................. 86
Senate-reported S. 3181 ................................................................................................ 87
P.L. 110-329.................................................................................................................. 88
IPIS Issues for Congress ............................................................................................... 89
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................................ 89
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) ........................................................... 91
President’s FY2009 Request.......................................................................................... 91
House-reported H.R. 6947............................................................................................. 92
Senate-reported S. 3181 ................................................................................................ 92
P.L. 110-329.................................................................................................................. 93
USCIS Issues for Congress ........................................................................................... 94
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) ........................................................... 96
President’s Request ....................................................................................................... 96
House-reported H.R. 6947............................................................................................. 97
Senate-reported S. 3181 ................................................................................................ 97
P.L. 110-329.................................................................................................................. 97
Science and Technology (S&T)........................................................................................... 97
President’s FY2009 Request.......................................................................................... 98
House-reported H.R. 6947............................................................................................. 98
Senate-reported S. 3181 ................................................................................................ 98
P.L. 110-329.................................................................................................................. 98
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 99
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office ................................................................................... 100
President’s FY2009 Request........................................................................................ 100
House-reported H.R. 6947........................................................................................... 100
Senate-reported S. 3181 .............................................................................................. 100
P.L. 110-329................................................................................................................ 100
Issues for Congress ..................................................................................................... 101
FY2009-Related Legislation.................................................................................................... 102
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Budget Resolution............................................................................................................. 102
Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations ................................................2
Table 2. FY2009 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS ........................................................4
Table 3. FY2009 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to Net Appropriation—
Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust and Public Enterprise Accounts .................................6
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2009 ..........................................................................8
Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations .................................................................................9
Table 6. Title I: Department Management and Operations.......................................................... 14
Table 7.Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer and Office of Human Capital
Appropriations ....................................................................................................................... 17
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations ....................................................... 23
Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail ...................................................................................... 28
Table 10. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail ..................................................................................... 38
Table 11. TSA Gross Budget Authority, by Budget Activity ....................................................... 47
Table 12. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-account Detail..................... 53
Table 13. U.S. Secret Service Appropriations ............................................................................ 60
Table 14. Title III: Preparedness and Response .......................................................................... 63
Table 15. State and Local Homeland Security Programs ............................................................ 75
Table 16. FY2009 Budget Activity for the Management and Administration
Appropriation ........................................................................................................................ 81
Table 17. FY2009 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure Protection and Information
Security Appropriation ........................................................................................................... 88
Table 18. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................. 90
Table 19. USCIS Budget Account Detail ................................................................................... 94
Table 20. Directorate of Science and Technology Accounts and Activities, FY2008FY2009.................................................................................................................................. 99
Table 21. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Accounts and Activities, FY2008-FY2009 ........ 101
Table D-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2003-FY2009 ......................... 112
Appendixes
Appendix A. DHS Funding in P.L. 111-5................................................................................. 103
Appendix B. FY2008 Supplemental Funding provided by Division B of P.L. 110-329 ............. 105
Appendix C. Emergency Funding for Border Security in The Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) .............................................................................. 106
Appendix D. DHS Appropriations in Context .......................................................................... 111
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Contacts
Author Contact Information .................................................................................................... 113
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................. 113
Key Policy Staff...................................................................................................................... 113
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
P.L. 111-5
In response to the ongoing economic recession in the United States, Congress enacted P.L. 111-5,
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, on February 17, 2005. Title V of P.L. 1115 included funding for a number of agencies within DHS, including $20 million for the Office of
the Undersecretary for Management; $5 million for the Office of the Inspector General; $680
million for CBP; $20 million for ICE; $1,000 million for TSA; $250 million for the Coast Guard;
and $610 million for FEMA.
P.L. 110-329
On September 23, 2008, the House Rules Committee reported H.Res. 1488 for consideration of
the Senate amendment to H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. H.R. 2638 was originally introduced as the FY2008 DHS
Appropriations Act, but has been amended to serve as the legislative vehicle for the proposed
Continuing Resolution, a Disaster Relief Emergency Supplemental, the Department of Defense
FY2009 Appropriations Act, the FY2009 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
and the FY2009 Military Construction and Veterans Assistance Act.1 On September 24, 2008, the
House passed H.R. 2638. On September 27, 2008 the Senate passed H.R. 2638. H.R. 2638 was
enacted as P.L. 110-329 on September 30, 2008.
Division D of P.L. 110-329 provided a net appropriation of $41,225 million for DHS for FY2009.
This amounts to nearly $2,376 million more than the President’s request for FY2009, $88 million
more than was reported by the House in H.R. 6947, and $89 million less than was reported by the
Senate in S. 3181. Net appropriations for major agencies within DHS were as follows: Customs
and Border Protection, $9,821 million; Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 4,989 million;
Transportation Security Administration, $4,367 million; Coast Guard, $9,361 million; Secret
Service, $1,413 million; National Protection & Programs Directorate, $1,158 million; Federal
Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), $6,963 million; Science and Technology, $933
million; and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $514 million. Additionally, Division B of the
Act also contained the following amounts for DHS agencies in emergency supplemental FY2008
funding: $300 for the Coast Guard, $7.96 billion for FEMA’s Disaster Relief Account, and $100
million for FEMA to reimburse the American Red Cross.
House-reported H.R. 6947
The House Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2009 DHS Appropriations
bill on June 24, 2008. The bill was filed on September 18, 2008, as H.R. 6947, and the
accompanying report has been numbered H.Rept. 110-862. House-reported H.R. 6947 would
provide a net appropriation of $41,137 million in budget authority for DHS for FY2009. This
would have amounted to an increase of $2,288 million or nearly 6% increase over the President’s
request. H.R. 6947 contained net appropriations for major components of the department as
1
See the CRS Appropriations Status table for more information http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/
appover.shtml.
Congressional Research Service
1
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
follows: $9,694 million for CBP; $4,813 million for ICE; $4,354 million for the TSA; $9,206
million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,371 million for the Secret Service; $1,287 for the NPP;
$7,407 million for the FEMA; $102 million for USCIS; $887 million for the S&T; and $544
million for the DNDO.
Senate-reported S. 3181
The Senate-reported its version of the bill on June 19, 2008. S. 3181 would have provided
$41,314 million in net budget authority for DHS for FY2009, a $2,465 million or 6% increase
over the President’s request. S. 3181 contained net appropriations for major components of the
department included as follows: $9,740 million for CBP; $4,989 million for ICE; $4,277 million
for the TSA; $9,216 million for the U.S. Coast Guard; $1,418 million for the Secret Service;
$1,041 for the NPP; $7,407 million for the FEMA; $151 million for USCIS; $919 million for the
S&T; and $541 million for the DNDO.
President’s FY2009 Budget Submitted
The President’s budget request for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for FY2009 was
submitted to Congress on February 4, 2008. The Administration requested $50,502 million in
gross budget authority for FY2009 (including mandatories, fees, and funds). The Administration’s
request included gross appropriations of $46,786 million, and a net appropriation of $38,849
million in budget authority for FY2009, of which $37,664 million was discretionary budget
authority, and $1,185 million was mandatory budget authority. The FY2008 enacted net
appropriated budget authority for DHS was $38,747 million ($49,907 million including
supplemental appropriations).
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee
Markup
House
Senate
6/11
(vv)
6/18
(vv)
H.Rept.
110-862
6/24
(vv)a
House
Passage
9/24
(370 -58)b
S.Rept.
110-396
6/19
(vv)
Senate
Passage
9/27
(78-12)b
Confr.
Report
9/24c
Public
Law
110-329
Note: (vv) = voice vote, (uc) = unanimous consent.
a.
The full House Appropriations Committee reported the FY2009 DHS Appropriations bill on June 6, 2008,
but the bill was not filed until September 18, 2008.
b.
On September 23, 2008, the House Rules Committee reported H.Res. 1488 for consideration of the
Senate amendment to H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2009. H.R. 2638 was originally introduced as the FY2008 DHS Appropriations Act, but
was amended to serve as the legislative vehicle for the proposed Continuing Resolution, a Disaster Relief
Emergency Supplemental, the Department of Defense FY2009 Appropriations Act, the FY2009 Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, and the FY2009 Military Construction and Veterans Assistance
Act.
c.
The conference report for the FY2009 DHS Appropriations Act was submitted as a joint explanatory
statement in the Congressional Record.
Congressional Research Service
2
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Note on Most Recent Data
Data used in this report include data from the President’s Budget Documents, the FY2009 DHS
Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the
accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, House-reportedH.R. 6947 and the accompanying report
(H.Rept. 110-862), and the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the Congressional
Record on September 24, 2008, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
Data used in Table 21 are taken from the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2009
President’s Budget. These amounts do not correspond to amounts presented in Tables 4-20,
which were derived from the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications. Except when
discussing total amounts for the bill as a whole, all amounts contained in this report are rounded
to the nearest million.
Background
This report describes the President’s FY2009 request for funding for DHS programs and
activities, as submitted to Congress on February 4, 2008. It compares the enacted FY2008
amounts to the request for FY2009, and tracks legislative action and congressional issues related
to the FY2009 DHS appropriations bills with particular attention paid to discretionary funding
amounts. The report does not follow specific funding issues related to mandatory funding—such
as retirement pay—nor does the report systematically follow any legislation related to the
authorization or amendment of DHS programs.
Department of Homeland Security
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred the functions, relevant funding,
and most of the personnel of 22 agencies and offices to the new Department of Homeland
Security created by the act. Appropriations measures for DHS have been organized into five
titles: Title I Departmental Management and Operations; Title II Security, Enforcement, and
Investigations; Title III Preparedness and Recovery; Title IV Research and Development,
Training, Assessments, and Services; and Title V general provisions.
Title I contains appropriations for the Office of Management, the Office of the Secretary, the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Analysis and Operations (A&O), the Office of the Chief
Information Office (CIO), the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and the Office of the
Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding.
Title II contains appropriations for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard
(USCG), and the Secret Service. The U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(US-VISIT) program was appropriated within Title II through the FY2007 appropriation. The
FY2008 appropriation transferred US-VISIT, as proposed by the Administration, to the newly
created National Protection & Programs Directorate (NPPD) in Title III. Division E of P.L. 110161, the DHS Appropriations Act, 2008, enacted this reorganization, which is reflected by the
FY2009 request.
Through the FY2007 appropriation, Title III contained appropriations for the Preparedness
Directorate, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS) and the Federal Emergency
Congressional Research Service
3
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Management Administration (FEMA). The President’s FY2008 request included a proposal to
shift a number of programs and offices to eliminate the Preparedness Directorate, create the
NPPD, and move several programs to FEMA. These changes were largely agreed to by Congress
in the FY2008 appropriation, reflected by Title III in Division E of P.L. 110-161. The FY2009
request also reflects this reorganization.
Title IV contains appropriations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the
Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
(FLETC).
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations
The maximum budget authority for annual appropriations (including DHS) is determined through
a two-stage congressional budget process. In the first stage, Congress sets overall spending totals
in the annual concurrent resolution on the budget. Subsequently, these amounts are allocated
among the appropriations committees, usually through the statement of managers for the
conference report on the budget resolution. These amounts are known as the 302(a) allocations.
They include discretionary totals available to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations for enactment in annual appropriations bills through the subcommittees
responsible for the development of the bills. In the second stage of the process, the appropriations
committees allocate the 302(a) discretionary funds among their subcommittees for each of the
appropriations bills. These amounts are known as the 302(b) allocations. These allocations must
add up to no more than the 302(a) discretionary allocation and form the basis for enforcing
budget discipline, since any bill reported with a total above the ceiling is subject to a point of
order. 302(b) allocations may be adjusted during the year as the various appropriations bills
progress towards final enactment.
The annual concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth the congressional budget. There is as
yet no budget resolution for FY2009. Table 2 shows DHS’ 302(b) allocations for FY2008 and the
current appropriations cycle.
Table 2. FY2009 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2008
Comparable
$37.6
FY2009 Request
Comparablea
$37.6
FY2009 House
Allocationa
FY2009 Senate
Allocationa
$42.1
$42.3
FY2009 Enacted
Comparable
41.2
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, H.Rept. 110-746, Report on the
Suballocation of Budget Allocations for Fiscal Year 2009, House Committee on Appropriations, July 8, 2008, and
S.Rept. 110-402, Revised Allocation to Subcommittees of Budget Totals from the Concurrent Resolution, Fiscal Year 2009,
Senate Committee on Appropriations, June 25, 2008.
a.
Does not include $2.2 billion in advance Bioshield funding appropriated in FY2004 that becomes available
for obligation in FY2009.
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays
Federal government spending involves a multi-step process that begins with the enactment of
budget authority by Congress. Federal agencies then obligate funds from the enacted budget
Congressional Research Service
4
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
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 Act2
prohibits federal agencies from obligating more funds than the budget authority that was enacted
by Congress. Budget authority may be indefinite, however, when Congress enacts language
providing “such sums as may be necessary” to complete a project or purpose. Budget authority
may be available on a one-year, multi-year, or no-year basis. One-year budget authority is only
available for obligation during a specific fiscal year; any unobligated funds at the end of that year
are no longer available for spending. Multi-year budget authority specifies a range of time during
which funds can be obligated for spending; no-year budget authority is available for obligation
for an indefinite period of time.
Obligations are incurred when federal agencies employ personnel, enter into contracts, receive
services, and engage in similar transactions in a given fiscal year. Outlays are the funds that are
actually spent during the fiscal year.3 Because multi-year and no-year budget authorities may be
obligated over a number of years, outlays do not always match the budget authority enacted in a
given year. Additionally, budget authority may be obligated in one fiscal year but spent in a future
fiscal year, especially with certain contracts.
In sum, budget authority allows federal agencies to incur obligations and authorizes payments, or
outlays, to be made from the Treasury. Discretionary agencies and programs, and appropriated
entitlement programs, are funded each year in appropriations acts.
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending
Gross budget authority, or the total funds available for spending by a federal agency, may be
composed of discretionary and mandatory spending. Of the $46.4 billion gross budget authority
requested for DHS in FY2009, 82% is composed of discretionary spending and 18% is composed
of mandatory spending.
Discretionary spending is not mandated by existing law and is thus appropriated yearly by
Congress through appropriations acts. The Budget Enforcement Act of 19904 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.
2
U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517.
3
Appropriations, outlays, and account balances for government treasury accounts can be viewed in the end of year
reports published by the U.S. Treasury titled Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United
States Government. The DHS portion of the report can be accessed at http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/cs2005/c18.pdf.
4
P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.
Congressional Research Service
5
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Offsetting Collections5
Offsetting funds are collected by the federal government, either from government accounts or the
public, as part of a business-type transaction such as offsets to outlays or collection of a fee.
These funds are not counted as revenue. Instead, they are counted as negative outlays. DHS net
discretionary budget authority, or the total funds that are appropriated by Congress each year, is
composed of discretionary spending minus any fee or fund collections that offset discretionary
spending.
Some collections offset a portion of an agency’s discretionary budget authority. Other collections
offset an agency’s mandatory spending. They are typically entitlement programs under which
individuals, businesses, or units of government that meet the requirements or qualifications
established by law are entitled to receive certain payments if they establish eligibility. The DHS
budget features two mandatory entitlement programs: the Secret Service and the Coast Guard
retired pay accounts (pensions). Some entitlements are funded by permanent appropriations,
others by annual appropriations. The Secret Service retirement pay is a permanent appropriation
and as such is not annually appropriated, whereas the Coast Guard retirement pay is annually
appropriated. In addition to these entitlements, the DHS budget contains offsetting Trust and
Public Enterprise Funds. These funds are not appropriated by Congress. They are available for
obligation and included in the President’s budget to calculate the gross budget authority.
Table 3 tabulates all of the offsets within the DHS budget as enacted for FY2008 and in the
FY2009 request.
Table 3. FY2009 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to Net
Appropriation—Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust and Public Enterprise
Accounts
(budget authority in millions)
Account/Agency
Account Name
a
DHS gross budget authority (BA)
(gross discretionary + fees+ mandatory + funds)
Discretionary fee funded offsets
ICE
Federal Protective Service
Aviation security fees
TWIC
TSA
Hazmat
Registered Traveler
FEMA/EPR
National Flood Insurance Fund
CBP
Small airports
Subtotal discretionary fee funded offsets
Mandatory fee funded offsets
CBP
Immigration inspection
Immigration enforcement
Land border
5
FY2008
Enacted
FY2009
Request
52,915
50,502
613
2,113
64
18
4
111
7
2,930
616
2,329
9
18
10
157
7
3,146
562
3
27
570
3
27
Prepared with assistance from (name redacted), Analyst in American National Government.
Congressional Research Service
6
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Account/Agency
Account Name
COBRA
APHIS
Puerto Rico
ICE
Immigration inspection
SEVIS
Breached bond detention fund
TSA
Aviation security capital fund
Checkpoint screening security fund
Alien flight school background checks
USCIS
Immigration examination fee
H1b, and H1b & L fees
Subtotal mandatory fee funded offsets
Mandatory budget authority
Secret service
Secret service retired payb
Coast guard
Coast guard retired payc
Subtotal mandatory budget authority
Trust funds and public enterprise funds
CBP
Customs unclaimed goods
FEMA
National Flood Insurance Fundd
Boat safety
Coast Guard
Oil spill recovery
Subtotal trust and public enterprise funds
DHS gross budget authoritya
Total offsets
Rescissions
Emergency Supplemental (P.L. 110-116)
DHS net appropriated BA (Mandatory + Discretionary)
FY2008
Enacted
392
321
98
114
56
64
250
250
3
2,495
44
4,679
FY2009
Request
411
333
97
118
75
120
676
—
3
2,495
44
4,972
210
(1,185)
210
225
(1,237)
225
6
2,833
133
147
3,119
52,915
-10,938
-262
-2,900
38,817
6
3,037
125
149
3,317
50,502
-11,660
—
—
38,843
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2009 President’s Budget, and the DHS FY2009 Budget in Brief.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a.
DHS gross budget authority is the total budget authority available to the Department in a given fiscal year.
This amount includes both appropriated and non-appropriated funding.
b.
Secret Service Retired Pay is permanently and indefinitely authorized, and as such is not annually
appropriated. Therefore it is offset in Table 3.
c.
In contrast to Secret Service Retired Pay, Coast Guard Retired pay must be annually appropriated, and
therefore is not offset in Table 3.
d.
This fund is comprised of both discretionary and mandatory appropriations; thus its component parts
appear twice in this table.
Congressional Research Service
7
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security
DHS Appropriations Trends
Table 4 presents DHS Appropriations, as enacted, for FY2003 through the FY2009 request. The
appropriation amounts are presented in current dollars and are not adjusted. The amounts shown
in Table 4 represent enacted amounts at the time of the start of the next fiscal year’s appropriation
cycle (with the exception of FY2009). Thus, the amount shown for FY2003 is the enacted amount
shown in the House Committee report attached to the FY2004 DHS Appropriations bill. FY2008
is from the Joint Explanatory Statement for Division E of P.L. 110-161, and FY2009 is from the
FY2009 DHS Budget Justifications.
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2009
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008 Enacted
FY2009
29,069a
30,175b
30,554c
31,679
35,311d
38,817e
41,225
Sources: FY2003 enacted taken from H.Rept. 108-169; FY2004 enacted taken from H.Rept. 108-541; FY2005
enacted taken from H.Rept. 109-79; FY2006 enacted taken from H.Rept. 109-476; FY2007 appropriation
amounts are from the H.Rept. 110-181; and FY2008 enacted amounts are from Division E of P.L. 110-161, and
tables in the Joint Explanatory Statement for Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17,
2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating amendments to the budget request). FY2009 enacted taken from the
DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senateenrolled version of H.R. 2638
Notes: Amounts do not include supplemental appropriations or rescissions that were enacted subsequent to
the enactment of each appropriations bill.
a.
S.Rept. 108-86 reported the FY2003 enacted amount as $29,287 million. CRS was unable to identify the
reason for this discrepancy. For the purposes of this table the House number was used to maintain
consistency with other fiscal years.
b.
Amount does not include $4,703 million in advance appropriations for Project Bioshield.
c.
Amount does not include $2,508 million in advance appropriations for Project Bioshield
d.
Amount includes $1,829 million in emergency budget authority that was enacted as a part of the FY2007
DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-295).
e.
FY2008 Enacted includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
Summary of DHS Appropriations
Table 5 is a summary table comparing the enacted appropriations for FY2008 and the requested,
recommended by the House and Senate, and enacted appropriations for FY2009.
Congressional Research Service
8
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2008
Total
FY2009
Request
FY2009
HouseReported
FY2009
SenateReported
P.L.
110-329
P.L. 1115 Emerg.
Funding
Total
FY2009
983
983
1,185
1,049
1,197
1,086
205
1,291
Customs and Border Protection
9,423
9,423
9,487
9,694
9,741
9,821
680
10,501
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
4,735
4,735
4,748
4,813
4,989
4,989
20
5,009
Transportation Security
Administration
4,021
4,021
4,065
4,354
4,277
4,367
1,000
5,367
U.S. Coast Guard
8,632
8,932
9,071
9,206
9,216
9,361
250
9,611
U.S. Secret Service
1,385
1,385
1,414
1,371
1,418
1,413
Net subtotal: Title II
28,195
28,495
28,786
29,438
29,641
29,951
1,950
31,901
Total fee collections
5,025
5,025
5,399
4,973
4,997
4,997
—
4,997
Gross subtotal: Title II
33,220
33,520
34,185
34,411
34,638
34,948
1,950
36,898
1,177
1,177
1,286
1,287
1,041
1,158
—
1,158
Office of Health Affairs
117
117
161
134
171
157
—
157
Counter Terrorism Fund
—
Operational Component
FY2008
Enacteda
FY2008
Supp.
FY2008
Resc.
Title I: Departmental Operations
Subtotal: Title I
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and
Investigations
300b
300
300
1,413
Title III: Preparedness and Recovery
National Protection & Programs
Directorate
Federal Emergency Management
Administration
Net subtotal: Title III
Title IV: Research and Development,
Training, Assessments, and Services
CRS-9
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
6,806
10,960b
17,766
5,573
7,407
7,328
6,963
610
7,573
8,100
10,960b
19,060
7,020
8,829
8,540
8,278
610
8,888
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2008
Enacteda
FY2008
Supp.
FY2008
Resc.
FY2008
Total
FY2009
Request
FY2009
HouseReported
FY2009
SenateReported
P.L.
110-329
P.L. 1115 Emerg.
Funding
Total
FY2009
Citizenship and Immigration Services
81
81
151
102
151
102
—
102
Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center
289
289
274
286
324
333
—
333
Science and Technology
830
830
869
887
919
933
—
933
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
485
485
564
544
541
514
—
514
Net subtotal: Title IV
1,685
1,685
1,857
1,819
1,935
1,882
—
1,882
Total fee collections
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
2,539
—
2,539
Gross subtotal: Title IV
4,224
4,224
4,396
4,358
4,474
4,421
—
4,421
-216
-216
—
—
—
28c
—
28c
Title V: General Provisions
Rescissions
Department of Homeland Security
Appropriation
Gross DHS budget authority
46,311
11,260b
57,571
46,786
48,649
48,849
48,761
2,765
51,526
Total fee collections
-7,564
—
-7,564
-7,938
-7,512
-7,536
-7,536
—
-7,536
Net DHS budget authority
38,747
11,260b
50,007
38,849
41,137
41,314
41,225
2,765
43,990
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and
House-reported H.R. 6947 and its accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862). FY2009 enacted from the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the Congressional
Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
Notes: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a.
Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
b.
FY2008 emergency supplemental funding was provided by two Acts: P.L. 110-116, §158, The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008 provided $2,900 million in
FY2008 emergency supplemental funding for FEMA Disaster Relief; and Division B of P.L. 110-329 also provided $300 million for Coast Guard Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements, $7,960 million for FEMA Disaster Relief, and $100 million for FEMA to reimburse the Red Cross.
c.
Represents the net of several amounts contained in the Title V General Provisions of House-passed H.R. 2638, including the following: Sec. 547, which would provide
an additional $50 million for REAL ID grants and an additional $50 million for REAL ID Information Sharing and Verification; Sec. 549, which would rescind $31 million
in undistributed TSA carryover balances; Sec.550, which would rescind $21 million in A&O unobligated balances; and Sec. 551, which would rescind $20 million in
Coast Guard unobligated balances.
CRS-10
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations6
Title I covers the general administrative expenses of DHS. It includes the Office of the Secretary
and Executive Management (OS&EM), which is comprised of the immediate Office of the
Secretary and 12 entities that report directly to the Secretary; the Undersecretary for Management
(USM) and its components, such as the offices of the Chief Administrative Services Officer,
Chief Human Capital Officer, and Chief Procurement Officer; the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO); the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO); Analysis and Operations
Office (AOO); Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding (OFCGCR); and
Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Table 6 shows Title I appropriations for FY2008 and
congressional action on the request for FY2009.
President’s FY2009 Request
FY2009 requests relative to comparable FY2008 enacted appropriations were as follow:
OS&EM, $127 million, an increase of $30 million (+31%); USM, $321 million, an increase of
$176 million (+121%); OCFO, $56 million, an increase of $25 million (+81%); OCIO, $247
million, a decrease of $48 million (-16%); AOO, $334 million, an increase of $28 million (+9%);
OFCGCR, $.25 million, a decrease of approximately $3 million (-90%); and OIG, $101 million, a
decrease of $8 million (-7%). The total FY2009 request for Title I was $1,187 million. This
represents an increase of $201 million (+20%) over the FY2008 enacted level.
Of the amounts requested, the largest increase would occur in the USM, which is seeking $120
million for the planned consolidation of DHS executive program leadership on the West Campus
of the Saint Elizabeth’s Hospital grounds in accordance with the DHS National Capital Region
Housing Master Plan signed by the Secretary on October 25, 2006. The consolidation includes up
to 4.5 million gross square feet of office space at the Saint Elizabeth’s site. Other areas of
increased USM funding include department-wide program management teams ($4 million), the
department-wide acquisition intern program ($3 million), and increased counterintelligence and
security needs ($1 million). A small increase in USM funding is being sought to provide added
support for the Deputy Under Secretary for Management for the transition process.
Formed in 2002, DHS has not previously been through a presidential transition. Many of its
principal components, however, have done so, some several times over. For example, the United
States Secret Service began as a Treasury Department bureau in 1865; the Bureau of Immigration,
which grew into the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, was established in the Treasury Department in 1891;7 the United States
Coast Guard was statutorily chartered in 1915;8 the Bureau of Customs was created in the
Treasury Department in 1927;9 and the Federal Emergency Management Agency was mandated
by E.O. 12127 of March 31, 1979.10 At DHS, the Under Secretary for Management has
responsibility for, “before December 1 of any year in which a Presidential election is held, the
6
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
Stat. 1085.
8
Stat. 800.
9
Stat. 1381.
10
3 C.F.R., 1979 Comp., pp. 376-377.
7
Congressional Research Service
11
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
development of a transition and succession plan, to be made available to the incoming Secretary
and Under Secretary for Management, to guide the transition of management functions to a new
Administration.”11
On January 10, 2008, in response to a request of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the
Homeland Security Advisory Council issued a report by its Administration Transition Task Force.
The panel’s recommendations regarding transition preparation addressed seven broad areas: threat
awareness, leadership, congressional oversight/action, policy, operations, succession, and
training.12 Details about the implementation of the panel’s recommendations are not available for
security reasons, according to DHS.
House-reported H.R. 6947
House-reported H.R. 6947 recommended $1,049 million for DHS management and operations
entities funded in Title I, $136 less (-12%) than the amount requested. The allocations for entities
within the title, as approved by the House, were as follow: OS&EM, $123 million, a decrease of
$4 million (-3%); USM, -$190 million, a decrease of $130 million (-41%); OCFO, $55 million, a
decrease of $1 million (-2%); OCIO, $247 million, the same level as requested (0%); AOO, $324
million, a decrease of $9 million (-3%); OFCGCR, less than $1 million, the same level as
requested (0%); and OIG, $101 million, the same level as requested (0%), but increased by a $15
million proposed transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account, resulting in a
recommended total appropriation of $116 million, an increase of $15(+15%). A subsequent
amendment adopted in committee moved $6 million (-5%) from the Title I OS&EM account to
the Title II ICE salaries and expenses account.
Senate-reported S. 3181
Senate appropriators recommended $1,197 million for Title I accounts, slightly more (+1%) than
the President’s $1,185 million request. The suggested allocations for the title were as follow:
OS&EM, $123 million, a decrease of $4 million (-3%); USM, $310 million, a decrease of about
$9 million (-3%); OCFO, $56 million, the same level as requested (0%); OCIO, $274 million, an
increase of $27 million (+11%); AOO, $318 million, a decrease of $16 million (-5%); OFCGCR,
$3 million, an increase of $2 million (+50%); and OIG, $96 million, a decrease of $5 million
(-5%), but increased by a $16 million proposed transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief
account, resulting in a recommended total appropriation of $112 million, an increase of $11
million (+11%).
P.L. 110-329
As approved by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, the final bill allocated
$1,086 million for Title I provided $99 million less (-8%) than the President’s $1,185 million
request. The allocations for the title were as follow: OS&EM, $123 million, a decrease of $4
million (-3%); USM, $191 million, a decrease of $130 million (-40%); OCFO, $55 million, a
11
4 U.S.C. §341(a)(9)(B).
12
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Advisory Council, Report of the Administration
Transition Task Force (Washington: January 2008), available at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/
hsac_ATTF_Report.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
decrease of $1 million (-2%); OCIO, $272 million, an increase of $25 million (+10%); AOO,
$327, an decrease of $7 million (-2%); OFCGCR, almost $2 million, an increase of almost $1.75
million (+70%); and OIG, 114 million, an increase of $13 million (+13%).
P.L. 111-5
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1), enacted on February 17, 2009,
provides $200 million for planning, design, construction costs, site security, information
technology infrastructure, fixtures, and related costs to consolidate the DHS headquarters (in the
OUM account). The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Administrator of
General Services, must submit a plan for the expenditure of these funds to the Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations no later than 60 days after the act’s enactment.
The law also provides $5 million to the Office of Inspector General for the oversight and audit of
programs, grants, and projects funded under Title VI. The money will remain available until
September 30, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
13
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Table 6.Title I: Department Management and Operations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2008
Enacteda
FY2008
Supp.
FY2008
Resc.
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2008
Total
FY2009
Request
FY2009
Housereported
FY2009
Senatereported
P.L. 110329
P.L. 1115 Emerg.
Funding
Total
FY2009
Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management
97
97
127
117b
123
123
—
123
Office of Screening Coordination and
Operations
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Office of the Undersecretary for
Management
145c
145c
321
190
311
192
200
392
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
31
31
56
55
56
55
—
55
Office of the Chief Information
Officer
295
295
247
247
275
272
—
272
Analysis and Operations
306d
306d
334
324
318e
327
—
327
Office of the Federal Coordinator
for Gulf Coast Rebuilding
3
3
—f
—g
3
2
—
2
Office of the Inspector General
109h
109h
101
116i
112j
115k
5
5
Net Budget Authority: Title I
986
986
1,187
1,049
1,197
1,086
205
1291
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and
House-reported H.R. 6947 and its accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862). FY2009 enacted from the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the Congressional
Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a.
Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
b.
Includes a $6 million transfer from OSEM to ICE S&E that was adopted by amendment during the House full committee mark-up.
c.
Includes an unspecified $5 million reduction per P.L. 110-161.
d.
Per P.L. 110-161Does not include $9 million rescission of prior year balances appropriated by P.L. 109-295.
e.
Includes $3 million rescission of unobligated balances.
f.
$250,000 was requested for the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding in FY2009; this table only shows millions, however.
CRS-14
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
g.
The House-reported bill includes $341,000 for this office.
h.
Includes a $14 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.
i.
Includes a $15 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.
j.
Includes a $16 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.
k.
Includes a $16 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.
CRS-15
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Personnel Issues 13
The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) manages and administers human
resources at DHS and includes the Office of Human Capital (OHC). The OCHCO reports to the
Under Secretary for Management, and its appropriation is included in that of the Under Secretary.
The office “establishes policy and procedures” and “provides oversight, guidance, and leadership
for human resources functions, including learning and development.” The OHC designs and
implements human resources programs, including their strategy and technology components, and
the response to the issues identified in the Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS).
According to the DHS Justifications, the FY2009 budget requested $47 million14 and 86 full-time
equivalent (FTE) employees for the OCHCO and the OHC.15 The requested funding is $29
million above the $18 million provided for FY2008. The number of FTEs would increase by 33
over the 53 authorized for FY2008. An appropriation is not requested for the new human
resources management system (MAX-HR) that was authorized in P.L. 107-296.16 The FY2009
request was $47 million; these figures are included in Table 7.
Table 7 below shows the funding and staff for the OCHCO and the OHC as enacted in FY2008,
as requested for FY2009, and as recommended by the House- reported H.R. 6947 and the Senatereported S. 3181, and as provided in P.L. 110-329.
13
Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
Salaries and benefits ($11.1 million) and other services ($28 million) account for some 81% of the total of $48.1
million. Other services include contractual services with non-federal sources.
15
FY2009 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary for Management, Office of
the Chief Human Capital Officer, p. USM-7.
16
Title VIII, Subtitle E, Section 841 of P.L. 107-296, enacted on November 25, 2002 (116 Stat. 2135, at 2229-2234),
established a new human resources management system for DHS. DHS and the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) jointly published final regulations to implement the system in the Federal Register on February 1, 2005. (U.S.
Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Department of Homeland Security
Human Resources Management System,” Federal Register, vol. 70, no. 20, February 1, 2005, pp. 5271-5347.) The
regulations provided new policies on position classification, pay, performance management, adverse actions and
appeals, and labor-management relations for DHS employees. The system was expected to cover about 110,000 of the
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).) However, shortly after the regulations were issued, the National Treasury
Employees Union (“NTEU”) and several other labor organizations filed a lawsuit alleging that DHS and OPM
exceeded the authority granted to them under the Homeland Security Act. For an analysis of the court decisions on the
adverse actions and appeals and labor-management relations policies, see CRS Report RL33052, Homeland Security
and Labor-Management Relations: NTEU v. Chertoff, by (name redacted) and (name redacted). Section 511 of
H.R. 1684, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for FY2008, as passed by the House of
Representatives, would have repealed the authority for the department’s new personnel system and rendered void any
regulations prescribed thereunder. The bill passed the House on a 296-126 (Roll No. 318) vote on May 9, 2007, but no
further action has occurred. See, Chris Strohm, “Homeland Security Authorization Bill Falls by the Wayside,”
Government Executive, September 24, 2008, available at http://www.govexec.com. P.L. 110-329, enacted on
September 30, 2008, prohibits the use of appropriated funds to implement the new personnel system and its
development was halted by DHS effective on October 1, 2008, as discussed later in this section.
14
Congressional Research Service
16
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Table 7.Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer and Office of Human Capital
Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008
Enacted
Account
Housereported
H.R. 6947
FY2009
Request
Senatereported
S. 3181
P.L. 110329
Salaries and Expenses CHCO
$9
$32
$29
$30
$29
Max-HR System
0
0
0
0
0
Human Resources—Operational
Initiatives and HR Management
Systems
$10a
$15
$10
$10
$10
Total
$19
$47
$39
$40
$39
Staffing (full time equivalent, FTE,
positions)
53
86
not specified
79
not
specified
Sources: P.L. 110-161, December 26, 2007; H.Rept. 110-862, pp. 185-186; S.Rept. 110-396, p. 151; and
Congressional Record version of the DHS explanatory statement, p. H9813.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a.
According to the explanatory statement accompanying the consolidated appropriations act, DHS is directed
to ensure that this appropriation is used for “programs that directly address the shortcomings identified in
[the 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey] or in a subsequent DHS survey that the Department plans to
conduct.” These programs could include 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.
(Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, December 17, 2007, p. H16079.)
President’s Request
The justification that accompanied the DHS budget request for FY2009 stated that the increased
funding would be used for continued support of the learning and development strategy to train the
department’s workforce through the Preparedness Center, the Leadership Institute, the Homeland
Security Academy, and the Center for Academic and Interagency Outreach. The requested
appropriation also would be used to fund the continued modernization of the human resources
systems, including eRecruitment and ePerformance, “to implement a prototype pay for
performance plan for a limited number of DHS employees,” and to invest in diversity and
recruitment and retention programs.17
Under the leadership of the OHC, the department will “monitor and evaluate the implementation
of the performance management system.” Initiatives related to the diversity of the DHS
workforce will include finalizing and implementing the diversity strategy; outreach to colleges,
universities, organizations, and professional associations; training on diversity; increased
diversity among the department’s executives; and improved outreach to veterans.18
17
DHS Justifications, Undersecretary for Management, pp. USM-4-USM-5.
DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary for Management, Office of the Chief
Human Capital Officer, p. USM-7.
18
Congressional Research Service
17
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
The OHC will conduct an internal survey of DHS employees, analyze the results, and develop a
plan to address any concerns. It will determine current and future staffing needs for mission
critical occupations, analyze employee turnover and attrition using methods such as exit
interviews and surveys, and link the results of that analysis to training and strategies for
recruitment and retention. 19 With regard to fostering better results on the FHCS, the office will
focus on developing and monitoring policies and programs that will improve the work
environment and perceptions of employees. According to its Annual Performance Report for
Fiscal Years 2007-2009, DHS has established a target of achieving a 50% favorable response rate
on the FHCS.20
In FY2009, the OHC will convert 23 contractor positions to federal positions to provide the office
with a workforce that is stable and cost effective and “to perform ongoing initiatives and provide
depth” in issue areas. Furthermore, according to DHS, the conversions will enable the OHC “to
broaden and sustain its diversity, veteran outreach, recruiting and retention, employee morale,
service delivery,” and management of human resources lines of business. A challenge that will
face the department in FY2009 is the transition to a new Administration.21 In a February 7, 2008,
letter to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, Representative Bennie G. Thompson, chairman of the
House Committee on Homeland Security, requested that the Secretary “issue a policy directive to
prohibit the ‘burrowing in’ of political appointees into non-political career positions within the
Department” within 60 days. Representative Thompson stated that he was “sure that [the
Secretary] would agree that it would be inappropriate to fill career non-political executive level
positions with political appointees absent an open and fully competitive process.”22 CRS research
has not located a publicly available record of any such directive issued by the Secretary.
The OHC will use the savings that accrue from conversion of the contractor positions to fund
services such as responding to the FHCS, conducting a survey of employee morale, and
responding to its findings. Its contracts will focus “on short term projects to meet surge
requirements, one-time infrastructure costs, and areas where expertise is not easily obtained ... or
would be more cost effective if provided by contractors.”23
House-reported H.R. 6947
The House report (H.Rept. 110-862) stated that the funding recommended by the House
Committee on Appropriations is $8 million below the President’s request and $20 million above
the FY2008 appropriation. The $10 million recommended for human resource activities is to be
used “to enhance employee morale and create a more satisfying work environment.” The
committee recommended that the request to transfer the law enforcement accreditation board
from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) to the OCHCO be denied, that $2.5
million be provided for new learning initiatives, and that the human resource information
technologies be funded at $17.1 million. With regard to the latter appropriation, the report stated
19
Ibid., p. USM-16.
20
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Annual Performance Report Fiscal Years 2007-2009 (Washington: DHS,
[February 4, 2008]), p. 82.
21
DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary for Management, Office of the Chief
Human Capital Officer, pp. 7-8.
22
Letter from Representative Bennie G. Thompson to the Honorable Michael Chertoff, February 7, 2008.
23
DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Undersecretary for Management, Office of the Chief
Human Capital Officer, pp. 7-8.
Congressional Research Service
18
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
that the committee “is troubled that the request to fund this” account under the CHCO instead of
under the Chief Information Officer (CIO) “was not clearly detailed in the budget request,” and,
for the future
directs that all proposals to move programs and funding from one office to another be clearly
outlined in congressional budget justifications and include: the preceding year funding level;
a detailed description of the work; a rationale for the movement; and a detailed breakdown of
the budget request.24
Expressing concern about delays in the department’s hiring process, administered by the
OCHCO, the report directed the OCHCO to report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, on a monthly basis on
vacancies requested, by [the] office, that have not been processed; vacancies announced, by
[the] office; and the amount of time after a vacancy has closed before a selection list is sent
back to the requesting entity.25
Senate-reported S. 3181
According to the Senate report (S.Rept. 110-396), the funding recommended by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations was $6.3 million below the President’s request and $21.7 million
above the FY2008 appropriation. Within the OCHCO’s salaries and expenses account, funding of
$18.8 million was recommended to maintain current services, including a transfer of $17.1
million from the CIO to the OCHCO for human resources information technology. An additional
appropriation of $5.5 million, and three FTEs, were recommended for implementation of the
learning and development strategy. The $10 million recommended for human resources is to “be
spent on programs that directly address the shortcomings identified in [the 2006 Federal Human
Capital Survey and the 2007 internal DHS employee survey] or in subsequent surveys.” The
programs could include “gap analysis of mission critical occupations, hiring and retention
strategies, robust diversity programs, and Department-wide learning and development programs.”
Like the House committee, the Senate committee denied the President’s request that $1.3 million
and seven FTEs be transferred from the FLETC to the OCHCO for the law enforcement
accreditation board.
P.L. 110-329
The law provided funding at the level recommended in the House-reported bill. The
Congressional Record version of the DHS explanatory statement noted that the “Funding has
been reduced due to high unobligated balances” in the OCHCO. The statement also directed the
OCHCO to “provide monthly reports on the amount of time it takes to fill vacancies within
DHS,” as the House report specified.26
The law included the following general provisions related to DHS personnel:
24
H.Rept. 110-862, p. 19.
Ibid.
26
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154, September 24, 2008, p. H9793.
25
Congressional Research Service
19
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
•
Section 519 requires the Chief Financial Officer at DHS to submit a monthly
budget and staffing report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations. The report must be submitted within 45 days after the close of
each month and include information on total obligations, on-board versus funded
full-time equivalent staffing levels, and the number of contract employees by
office.
•
Section 522 prohibits the obligation of funds “for the development, testing,
deployment, or operation of any portion of a human resources management
system authorized by 5 U.S.C. 9701(a), or by regulations prescribed pursuant to
such section.” Collaboration is required between the DHS Secretary and
employee representatives in the manner prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 9701(e), on
“planning, testing, and development of any portion of a human resources
management system ... for persons excluded from the definition of ‘employee.’”
•
Section 534 prohibits the use of funds appropriated to the Office of the Secretary
and Executive Management for any new hires by DHS that are not verified
through the basic pilot program to confirm employment eligibility that is codified
at 8 U.S.C. §1324a note.
In the wake of the Section 522 provision, the OCHCO at DHS reportedly issued a memorandum
to department employees on October 1, 2008, announcing that development of the human
resources management system authorized at Title VIII, Subtitle E of P.L. 107-296 would be
halted.27 The OCHCO reportedly wrote to employees “that no current salary adjustments or bonus
decisions will be affected.”28
Analysis and Operations29
The DHS intelligence mission is outlined in Title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(codified at 6 U.S.C. 121). Organizationally, and from a budget perspective, there have been a
number of changes to the information, intelligence analysis, and infrastructure protection
functions at DHS. Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate was established. The act created an Undersecretary
for IAIP to whom two Assistant Secretaries, one each for Information Analysis (IA) and
Infrastructure Protection (IP), reported. The act outlined 19 functions for the IAIP Directorate,
including the following, among others:
•
To assess, receive, and analyze law enforcement information, intelligence
information, and other information from federal, state, and local government
agencies, and the private sector to (1) identify and assess the nature and scope of
the terrorist threats to the homeland, (2) detect and identify threats of terrorism
against the United States, and (3) understand such threats in light of actual and
potential vulnerabilities of the homeland;
27
Brittany R. Ballenstedt, “Homeland Security Scraps Plan for Personnel System,” Government Executive, October 2,
2008, available at http://www.govexec.com.
28
Mary Mosquera, “DHS Drops Potential Pay-for-Performance Plans,” Federal Computer Week, October 3, 2008,
available at http://www.fcw.com.
29
Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
20
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
•
To develop a comprehensive national plan for securing the key resources and
critical infrastructure of the United States;
•
To review, analyze, and make recommendations for improvements in the policies
and procedures governing the sharing of law enforcement information,
intelligence information, and intelligence-related information within the federal
government and between the federal government and state and local government
agencies and authorities. 30
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. 31 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 as the Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer. 32
President’s FY2009 Request
The FY2009 request for the Analysis and Operations (AOO) account was $334 million, an
increase of $28 million (+9%) over the enacted FY2008 amount. It should be noted that funds
included in this account support both the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (OIA) and the Office
of Operations Coordination. The Office of Intelligence and Analysis, the successor to the “IA”
element of the erstwhile IAIP, has as its primary responsibility the integration and analysis of
information from DHS, state and local stakeholders, and the intelligence community into finished
intelligence products such as threat assessments and other indications and warning documents. As
a member of the Intelligence Community, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis’s budget is
classified. The Office of Operations Coordination formally houses the National Operations Center
which, among other functions, disseminates OIA assessed threat information, provides domestic
situational awareness, and performs incident management on behalf of the Department.
House-reported H.R. 6947
House-reported H.R. 6947 included $324 million for AOO, amounting to a nearly $10 million
decrease compared to the amount requested for FY2009, and $18 million more than the FY2008
enacted level of $306 million. The House report included language reflecting the Committee’s
30
See Title II, Subtitle A, Section 201(d), Responsibilities of the Undersecretary (of IAIP), codified at 6 U.SC. §121.
See also Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, Survey of the Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection Directorate, Office of Inspections, Evaluations, and Special Reviews, OIG-04-413, February
2004, p. 26.
31
See DHS Management Directive 8110, Intelligence Integration and Management, January 30, 2006.
32
See P.L. 110-53, Title V, “Improving intelligence and information sharing within the federal government, and with
State, local and tribal governments,” Subtitle D, “Homeland security intelligence offices reorganization.”
Congressional Research Service
21
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
continued concern over the National Applications Office and the National Immigration
Information Sharing Office (NIISO). The FY2008 DHS Appropriations Act (Division E, P.L. 110161) required the Secretary to submit and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to
review a certification that the National Applications Office (NAO) and the NIISO comply with all
existing laws, including applicable privacy and civil liberties standards. The Department was
prohibited from using any related funds from the FY2008 Act until GAO completed its review.
The House Committee notes in its report that the Department’s NAO submission was incomplete,
and that no information was submitted regarding the NIISO. The Committee therefore includes in
the FY2009 bill statutory prohibitions on the operations of the NAO and the NIISO until the
certification has been reviewed by GAO.
Senate-reported S. 3181
Senate-reported S. 3181 included $318 million, a decrease of $16 million (-5%) for the AOO
account as compared with the President’s request. The Committee, in S.Rept. 110-396, directed
the Secretary to submit a detailed expenditure plan for FY2009 within 60 days after enactment of
the FY2009 DHS Appropriations Act. Reflecting the Committee’s concern with the I&A’s
reliance on contract staff versus federal full-time equivalents, the reporting requirements were
geared to provide the Committee with staffing and expenditure data regarding all of I&A’s
programs. S.Rept. 110-396 also included language requiring the DHS Chief Intelligence Officer
to continue to provide the Appropriations Committees quarterly updates on the Department’s
progress towards placing DHS intelligence professionals in state and local fusion centers.
P.L. 110-329
P.L. 110-329 included $327 million for AOO for FY2009, a decrease of $7 million (-2%) for the
AOO account as compared with the President’s request, and increase of $30 million or 10% as
compared to the FY2008 enacted amount. The Congressional Record version of the DHS
Explanatory Statement, required the Secretary to submit a FY2009 expenditure plan for the
Office of Intelligence and Analysis that includes balances carried forward from prior years. In
addition, the DHS Explanatory Statement required the Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer to
continue to provide quarterly updates to the Committees detailing the progress in placing DHS
intelligence professionals in state and local fusion centers.
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations
Title II contains the appropriations for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), the US Coast Guard, and the US Secret Service. Table 8 shows the
FY2008 enacted and FY2009 appropriation action for Title II.
Congressional Research Service
22
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Table 8.Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2008 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2008
Total
FY2009
Request
FY2009
HouseReported
FY2009
SenateReported
P.L.
110-329
P.L. 1115 Emerg.
Funding
Total
FY2009
6,803
6,803
7,309
7,534
7,523b
7,603
160
7,763
Automation modernization
477
477
511
511
511
511
511
Air and Marine Operations
570
570
528
510
528
528
528
1,225
1,225
775
775
775
775
100
875
Construction
348
348
364
364
403
403
420
823
Fee accountsc
1,385d
1,385d
1,448
1,448
1,448
1,448
10,808
10,808
10,935
11,142
11,189
11,268
-1,385
-1,385
-1,448
-1,448
-1,448
-1,448
9,423
9,423
9,487
9,694
9,741
9,821
Operational Component
FY2008
Enacteda
FY2008
Supp.
FY2008
Resc.
Customs & Border Protection
Salaries and expenses
Border Security Fencing,
Infrastructure, and Technology
Gross total
Offsetting collections
Net total
1,448
680
-1,448
680
Immigration & Customs Enforcement
Salaries and expenses
11,948
10,501
0
4,688
4,688
4,691
4,746
4,932
4,927
4,927
Federal Protective Services (FPS)
613
613
616
616
640
640
640
Automation & infrastructure
modernization
31
31
57
57
57
57
Construction
17
17
Fee accountse
234
234
299
299
5,581
5,581
5,663
Offsetting FPS fees
-613
-613
Offsetting collections
-234
4,735
Gross total
Net total
CRS-23
10
20
77
5
5
299
299
299
5,728
5,928
5,928
-616
-616
-640
-640
-640
-234
-299
-299
-299
-299
-299
4,735
4,748
4,813
4,989
4,989
20
20
5,948
5,009
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2008
Enacteda
FY2008
Supp.
FY2008
Resc.
FY2008
Total
FY2009
Request
FY2009
HouseReported
FY2009
SenateReported
P.L.
110-329
P.L. 1115 Emerg.
Funding
Transportation Security Administration
Total
FY2009
0
Aviation security (gross funding)
4,809
4,809
5,290
4,743
4,672
4,755
Surface Transportation Security
47
47
37
50
64
50
50
Transportation Threat Assessment
and Credentialing
83
83
133
109
120
116
116
Credentialing Feesf
83
83
40
40
40
40
40
Transportation Security Support
524
524
926
950
950
948
948
Federal Air Marshals
770
770
821
799
819
819
Aviation security capital fundg
250
250
250
250
250
250
Checkpoint screening security fund
250
250
Rescission
—
Gross total
676
1,000
5,755
-7
6,814
6,814
7,102
6,964
6,887
6,977
-2,210
-2,210
-2,320
-2,320
-2,320
-2,320
-2,320
Credentialing/Fee accounts
-83
-83
-40
-40
-40
-40
-40
Aviation security capital fund
(mandatory spending)
-250
-250
-676
-250
-250
-250
-250
Checkpoint screening security fund
-250
-250
4,022
4,022
4,065
4,354
4,277
4,367
6,001
6,001
6,213
6,202
6,280
6,195
6,195
Environmental compliance &
restoration
13
13
12
13
12
13
13
Reserve training
127
127
131
131
131
131
131
Acquisition, construction, &
improvements
993h
1,293h
1,205
1339i
1,267
1,495
98
1,593
16
—
12
16
16
142
158
Offsetting collections
Net total
1,000
1,000
7,977
5,367
U.S. Coast Guard
Operating expenses
Alteration of bridges
CRS-24
16
300
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2008 Appropriation
Operational Component
Research, development, tests, &
evaluation
Retired pay (mandatory,
entitlement)
Health care fund contribution
Gross total
P.L. 1115 Emerg.
Funding
FY2008
Total
FY2009
Request
FY2009
HouseReported
FY2009
SenateReported
P.L.
110-329
25
25
16
16
16
18
18
1,185
1,185
1,237
1,237
1,237
1,237
1,237
272
272
257
257
257
257
257
8,932
9,071
9,206
9,216
9,361
FY2008
Enacteda
FY2008
Supp.
8,632
300
FY2008
Resc.
240
Total
FY2009
9,601
U.S. Secret Service
0
Salaries and expenses
1,382
1,382
1,411
1,367
1,414
1,409
Investigations and field operations
—
—
—
—
—
—
Acquisition, construction,
improvements, and related
expenses
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Gross total
1,385
1,385
1,414
1,371
1,418
1,413
1,413
Gross Budget Authority: Title II
33,220
33,520
34,185
34,411
34,637
34,948
Offsetting collections:
-5,025
-5,025
-5,399
-4,973
-4,997
-4,997
Net Budget Authority: Title II
28,195
28,495
28,786
29,438
29,641
29,951
300
300
1,409
1,940
36,888
-4,997
1940
31,891
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in Brief, S. 3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and
House-reported H.R. 6947 and its accompanying report (H.Rept. 110-862). FY2009 enacted from the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the Congressional
Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
Notes: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a.
Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
b.
Includes $13 million rescission of unobligated balances.
c.
Fees include COBRA, Land Border, Immigration Inspection, Immigration Enforcement, and Puerto Rico.
d.
The President’s FY2009 Budget Request includes a re-estimate of the FY2008 fees.
e.
Fees include Exam, Student Exchange and Visitor Fee, Breached Bond, Immigration User, and Land Border.
f.
Fees include TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks.
CRS-25
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
g.
Aviation Security Capital Fund, used for installation of Explosive Detection Systems at airports.
h.
FY2008 request and House-passed H.R. 2638 included a proposed rescission of $49 million. Senate-passed H.R. 2638 included a proposed rescission of $57 million of
funds previously appropriated by P.L. 109-90 and P.L. 109-295. Division E of P.L. 110-161 includes a rescission of $133 million in funds previously appropriated by P.L.
108-334, P.L. 109-90, and P.L. 109-295.
i.
The House-reported bill includes a rescission of $20 million in previously appropriated funding for UAVs.
CRS-26
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)33
CBP is responsible for security at and between ports-of-entry along the border. Since September
11, 2001, CBP’s primary mission is to prevent the entry of terrorists and the instruments of
terrorism. CBP’s ongoing responsibilities include inspecting people and goods to determine if
they are authorized to enter the United States; interdicting terrorists and instruments of terrorism;
intercepting illegal narcotics, firearms, and other types of contraband; interdicting unauthorized
travelers and immigrants; and enforcing more than 400 laws and regulations at the border on
behalf of more than 60 government agencies. CBP is comprised of the inspection functions of the
legacy Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS); the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction, now known as
CBP Air and Marine (CBPAM); and the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP). See Table 8 for accountlevel detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 9 for sub-account-level detail for CBP
Salaries and Expenses (S&E) for FY2008 and FY2009.
President’s FY2009 Request
The Administration requested an appropriation of $10,935 million in gross budget authority for
CBP for FY2009, amounting to a $127 million (or 1%) increase over the enacted FY2008 level of
$10,808 million. The Administration requested $9,487 million in net budget authority for CBP in
FY2009, which amounts to a $64 million increase over the net FY2008 appropriation of $9,423
million.
House-reported H.R. 6947
House-reported H.R. 6947 would have provided $11,142 million in gross budget authority for
CBP for FY2009, amounting to $207 million (or 2%) more than was requested by the
Administration, and a $334 million or 3% increase over the enacted FY2008 level of $10,808
million. House-reported H.R. 6947 included $9,694 million in net budget authority for CBP for
FY2009, amounting to a $207 million increase over the Administration’s request, and a $271
million increase over the FY2008 enacted level of $9,423 million.
Senate-reported S. 3181
Senate-reported S. 3181 would have provided $11,189 million in gross budget authority for CBP
for FY2009, amounting to $254 million (or 2%) more than was requested by the Administration,
and a $381 million or 4% increase over the enacted FY2008 level of $10,808 million. Senatereported S. 3181 included $9,741 million in net budget authority for CBP for FY2009, amounting
to a $254 million increase over the Administration’s request, and a $318 million increase over the
FY2008 enacted level of $9,423 million.
33
Prepared by (name redacted) and (name redacted), Analysts in Domestic Security, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
27
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
P.L. 110-329
The Act provided $11,268 million in gross budget authority for CBP for FY2009, $333 million
(or 3%) increase over the Administration’s request, and a $460 million (or 4%) increase over the
enacted FY2008 level of $10,808 million. The enacted net appropriation for CBP was $9,821
million, $334 million above the Administration’s request and $398 million over the FY2008
enacted level.
P.L. 111-5
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided an emergency supplemental
appropriation of $680 million for CBP during FY2009. The funding for CBP included $160
million for salaries and expenses, of which $100 million was designated for the procurement and
deployment of non-intrusive inspection technology and $60 million was designated for the
procurement and deployment of tactical communications equipment and radios. The Act included
$100 million for the deployment of SBInet technology to the border, and $420 million for the
construction and modification of ports of entry.
Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
HouseReported
FY2009
SenateReported
FY2008
Enacteda
FY2009
Request
Headquarters Management and
Administration
1,221
1,267
1,267
1,269
1,269
Border Security Inspections
and Trade Facilitation @ POE
2,279
2,273
2,496
2,480
2,561
Inspections, Trade & Travel
Facilitation @ POE
1,854
1,835
2,061
2,042
2,094
Container Security Initiative (CSI)/
International Cargo Screening (ICS)
156
149
149
149
149
Other International Programs
11
11
11
11
11
C-TPAT
62
64
64
64
64
FAST/NEXUS/SENTRI
11
11
11
11
11
Inspection and Detection
Technology
105
117
114
117
146
Systems for Targeting
28
33
33
33
33
National Targeting Center
24
24
24
24
24
Training at POE
25
25
25
25
25
Harbor Maintenance Fee
3
3
3
3
3
Border Security and Control
Between POE
3,075
3,515
3,517
3,515
3,501
Border Security and Control
Between POE
3,022
3,441
3,442
3,441
3,426
Training Between the POE
53
75
75
75
75
Activity
Congressional Research Service
P.L.
110-329
28
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
FY2009
HouseReported
FY2009
SenateReported
FY2008
Enacteda
FY2009
Request
227
254
254
272
272
Rescission
—
—
—
-13
—
CBP Salaries and Expenses
Total:
6,803
7,309
7,534
7,523
7,603b
Activity
Air and Marine Operations Salaries
P.L.
110-329
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in Brief, S.
3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and House-reported H.R. 6947 and its accompanying report
(H.Rept. 110-862). FY2009 enacted from the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the Congressional
Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a.
Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
b.
This total does not include $160 million in emergency funding appropriated by P.L. 111-5.
Issues for Congress
Issues that Congress considered during the FY2009 appropriations cycle included funding for and
deployment of the border fence and the Secure Border Initiative (SBI); Border Patrol hiring and
staffing levels; the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI); the designation of CBP
Officers as law enforcement officers for retirement purposes; and the declining request for
appropriations for some cargo security initiatives.
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology
The Administration requested $775 million for the deployment of SBInet34 related technologies
and infrastructures in FY2009, a decrease of $450 million over the FY2008 enacted level of
$1,225 million (this total included an emergency appropriation of $1,053 million, however this
may be somewhat misleading because the FY2008 request for the account was $1,000 million).
Within the FY2009 request, the Administration is proposing to allocate $275 million for
developing and deploying additional technology and infrastructure solutions to the southwest
border. An additional $410 million is requested for operations and maintenance of the cameras,
sensors, and fencing that will have been constructed by the end of calendar year 2008 with prioryear funding.35 The Administration notes that this will fund the costs associated with operating
and maintaining the technologies that have been deployed to the border as part of the SBInet
program as well as 370 miles of fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers, which are scheduled to
be completed by the end of calendar year 2008 with funding appropriated in FY2007 and
FY2008. Recent GAO testimony noted that CBP’s goal for fencing and vehicle barrier
deployment in 2008 “will be challenging because of factors that include difficulties acquiring
34
SBInet is the technological and infrastructure component of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), a multifaceted
approach to securing the border. In its FY2007 budget submission, DHS asserted that it had “developed a three-pillar
approach under the SBI that will focus on controlling the border, building a robust interior enforcement program, and
establishing a Temporary Worker Program.” DHS FY2007 Justification, p. CBP S&E 4.
35
DHS FY2009 Justification, p. CBP BSFIT 11.
Congressional Research Service
29
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
rights to border land and an inability to estimate costs for installation.”36 GAO also noted that the
Border Patrol was not consulted early enough in the process of developing the technology
solutions that would be used by SBInet, and that this fact combined with some challenges relating
to the integration of the technologies deployed by Boeing led to an eight month delay in the initial
pilot program’s deployment in Tucson Sector.37 Oversight of the SBInet program’s continuing
deployment of technology, fencing, and infrastructure at the border, including whether DHS is on
track to meet its goals for fencing and vehicle barriers at the border, will likely be an issue of
concern to Congress as it considers the FY2009 request.
The Senate Committee recommended fully funding the President’s request, and noted that close
oversight of the program was required due to its importance. The House Committee
recommended fully funding the President’s request, but noted its concern that the rapid growth in
border technology “may lead to systems and structures that are expensive, fail to perform as
promised, and do not result in a more secure border.”38 The House Committee noted that only
1.7% of funding for fencing, infrastructure, and technology had been expended on the northern
border and included $40 million in its FY2009 appropriation for this purpose. The House
Committee also directed that $30 million be spent on a border interoperability demonstration
project to better integrate border security efforts between federal, state, local, and tribal
authorities, and that $50 million be spent on regulatory and environmental assessments to
mitigate the environmental damage associated with infrastructure construction. Lastly, the House
Committee noted that it was disappointed with the FY2008 expenditure plan for this account, and
directs CBP to fully comply with its requirements for the FY2009 expenditure plan.
P.L. 110-329 fully funded the President’s request, but withheld $400 million from obligation until
an expenditure plan is submitted and approved by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations. This spending plan should include 12 specific components, among them: a
detailed accounting of the program’s implementation to date; a description of how the
expenditure plan allocates funding to the highest priority border security needs, addresses
northern border security needs, and works towards obtaining operational control of the entire
border; certifications by the Chief Procurement Officer and the Chief Information Officer at
DHS; an analysis, for each 15 miles of fencing or tactical infrastructure, of how the selected
approach compares to other alternative means of achieving operational control; and a review by
the Government Accountability Office. 39 P.L. 111-5 provided an emergency supplemental
appropriation of $100 million to expedite the development and deployment of SBInet
technologies at the border and required DHS to submit an expenditure plan for this funding to
Congress within 45 days of enactment.
36
Testimony of GAO Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues Richard Stana, in U.S. Congress, Committee
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, DHS Has Taken Actions to Strengthen Border Security
Programs and Operations, But Challenges Remain, 110th Cong., 2nd Sess., March 6, 2009. Hereafter referred to as
GAO Border Security Testimony.
37
GAO Border Security Testimony.
38
House report, pp. 42-43.
39
H.R. 2638, as Enrolled by the House and the Senate, pp. 83-84.
Congressional Research Service
30
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Hiring U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Agents
The Administration requested an increase of $363 million to hire 2,200 new USBP agents in order
to bring the total number of agents to 20,019 by the end of FY2009.40 CBP is also proposing to
transfer “up to” 440 veteran agents to the northern border in FY2009; this is the first time that
DHS’ budget request has complied with the P.L. 108-458 mandate requiring DHS to augment the
northern border staffing by 20% of any annual increases each year between FY2006 and FY2010.
An issue for Congress may involve whether incentives should be offered to help DHS recruit
additional agents or keep existing agents from leaving the agency; in FY2007 the USBP
experienced a 10% attrition rate.41 The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended fully
funding the President’s request. Additionally, the Senate Committee reiterated its desire that 20%
of the overall increase in Border Patrol agents be assigned to the northern border and required a
report on the challenges CBP faces in transferring agents to the northern border within 60 days of
the bill’s enactment. Lastly, the Senate Committee noted that the National Guard was
withdrawing its troops from their supporting role at the border in FY2008 and directed CBP, “in
the strongest terms possible,” to hire the previously funded USBP support personnel in order to
allow agents to focus on their border enforcement responsibilities. 42 The House Committee
recommended fully funding the President’s request and reiterated its support for transferring
additional agents to the northern border in order to comply with the statutory requirements. P.L.
110-329 fully funded the President’s request for additional Border Patrol agents and provided
funding for up to 75 agents to be transferred to the northern border.
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)
The Administration requested an increase of $107 million for WHTI. WHTI will require U.S.
citizens, and Canadian, Mexican, and some island nation nationals to present a passport, or some
other document or combination of documents deemed sufficient to denote identity and citizenship
status by the Secretary of Homeland Security, as per P.L. 108-458 §7209. DHS has already
required all U.S. citizens entering the country at air and sea POE to present passports as of
January 18, 2007. P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, prohibited DHS from
implementing WHTI, which requires U.S. citizens to provide proof of identity and citizenship at
the land border, before the later of the following two dates: June 1, 2009, or three months after
the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security certify that a series of implementation
requirements have been me. Despite this legislation, as of January 31, 2008 DHS has ended the
practice of accepting oral declarations of citizenship at the land border and is requirng U.S,
citizens to present a passport, some other accepted biometric document, or the combination of a
driver’s license and a birth certificate, in order to re-enter the country.43 The FY2009 request for
WHTI included funding to hire 89 CBP officers and to deploy radio frequency technologies to the
39 busiest land POE which cover 95% of the incoming traffic at the land border, including
“facility modifications and the build out of primary lanes as operationally necessary.”44 Issues for
Congress include whether DHS’s disregard of the extension enacted by P.L. 110-161 was
40
DHS FY2008 Justification, p. CBP S&E 49.
From CBP Congressional Affairs, December 18, 2007.
42
S.Rept. 110-396, pp. 25-26.
41
43
Department of Homeland Security, Press Release, DHS Ends Oral Declarations at Borders, Reminds Travelers of
New Procedures on January 31, January 18, 2008.
44
DHS FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. CBP S&E 4.
Congressional Research Service
31
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
appropriate, whether the proposed staffing increases and infrastructure modifications are adequate
to meet the needs associated with the WHTI program, and whether the program to develop
enhanced state driver’s licenses that may be used to cross the land-border adequately addresses
security concerns.45
The Senate Committee fully funded the President’s request and directed CBP to provide quarterly
briefings on the status of WHTI implementation in FY2009. The House Committee also fully
funded the President’s request and noted that it remains concerned that the program “may not be
fully integrated and ready for enforcement of the WHTI document requirements.”46 The House
Committee also directed CBP to provide quarterly briefings on the program’s implementation.
Other Travel Programs
The House Committee voiced its support for the new International Registered Traveler program
enacted by the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, and which has been renamed Global
Entry by the Administration. The program will give pre-approved, low-risk travelers (U.S.
Citizens and Legal Permanent Residents) expedited clearance into the United States at three
airports.47 The Committee also included $10 million to expand this program to the 20 busiest
international airports. Additionally, the House Committee noted that it provided $36 million in
FY2008 for the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), which will be used to screen
and process travelers from visa-waiver countries, and directed CBP to submit a report on ESTA’s
implementation with the FY2010 budget request.
Covered Law Enforcement Officer Status for CBP Officers
Congress addressed concerns that CBP was losing valuable officers to other agencies due to
disparities in retirement pay in FY2008 by extending federal law enforcement officer status to
CBP officers for retirement purposes in P.L. 110-161. The FY2009 President’s request would
have retracted the law enforcement officer status for CBP officers that was enacted in FY2008.
During the FY2009 appropriations cycle, the Senate Committee reiterated its strong support for
CBP officers’ new retirement status and included $200 million to fully fund the new law
enforcement officer retirement program for CBP officers. The House Committee recommended
$217 million for CBP officers’ new retirement status, also rejecting the Administration’s proposal
to repeal the new status. P.L. 110-329 provided CBP with an additional $200 million above the
President’s request to cover the costs associated with the new retirement status for CBP officers.
Secure Freight Initiative (SFI)
The Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) is the next stage in the Department’s effort to secure cargo
containers in-bound to the U.S. from foreign countries. According to DHS, SFI is now being
45
DHS entered into an agreement to with Washington State to develop driver’s licenses that would be considered
WHTI-compliant. These enhanced driver’s licenses (EDL) have been issued as of January 22, 2008 and several other
states have expressed interest in developing their own EDLs.
46
H.Rept. 110-862, p. 33.
47
John F. Kennedy International Airport, Washington-Dulles International Airport, and George Bush Intercontinental
Airport.
Congressional Research Service
32
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
characterized as a “three-pronged approach to enhance supply chain security.”48 The three prongs
of this approach are: the International Container Security project (ICS), the Security Filing (SF);
and the Global Trade Exchange (GTX). The ICS is the component of the strategy whereby all
U.S.-bound maritime containers are subject to an integrated scan (image and radiation detection)
at the participating overseas port before being loaded on the U.S.-bound vessel. ICS is currently
in operation at ports in the United Kingdom, Pakistan, and Honduras. According to DHS,
operating the ICS at these ports fulfills the requirements set out in P.L. 109-347, the Safe Port Act
of 2006. The SF initiative, also referred to as “10+2” by CBP, is the latest effort to collect
additional data pertaining to U.S.-bound maritime shipments. The SF initiative will allow CBP to
collect additional data earlier in the supply chain to enhance risk assessment capabilities before
cargo is loaded onto U.S.-bound vessels. CBP issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
on the SF initiative49 and is in the process of developing the final rule.
The Global Trade Exchange (GTX) was being proposed as a “private sector owned and operated
... new business model for collecting and fusing disparate international cargo data, providing
governments and other parties with greater visibility into that data.”50 On April 4, 2008, CBP
Commissioner Basham announced in remarks given before the National Customs Brokers &
Forwarders Association of America that CBP has decided not to go forward with a contract award
for the GTX. The Commissioner did not rule out exploring similar concepts in the future. 51
Language in the House Appropriations committee report indicated that CBP has decided not to go
ahead with GTX while in the midst of implementing the 10+2 Security Filing initiative. The
House Report also noted that Committee remains concerned about the remaining gaps in CBP’s
information about in-bound cargo containers and their supply chains, and directs CBP to report to
the Committee no later than January 8, 2009 on the information and intelligence CBP collects on
these containers.52
CBP Congressional Budget Justification materials indicated that the $149 million request for ICS
in FY2009 includes an $11 million reduction for Secure Freight. 53 It is unclear from the budget
materials what this reduction represented, since one of the goals for the fiscal year was to expand
the program to at least one additional port and to add more capacity at other designated ports.
Both House-reported H.R. 6947 and Senate-reported S. 3181 would have funded ICS/CSI at the
requested level for FY2009. P.L. 110-329 fully funded the Administration’s request for ICS/CSI.
It is important to note that CBP is currently describing the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) as the
next phase/iteration or future of the Container Security Initiative (CSI). CSI may also be referred
to as a component of the International Container Security (ICS) project. The ICS, as noted above,
is the new umbrella name for CBP’s international cargo security initiatives, which also includes
CSI and SFI.
48
DHS, FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. CBP-SE-26.
See, CBP, “Customs issues Proposed Rule Requiring Additional Cargo Information,” at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/
cgov/newsroom/news_releases/archives/2008_news_releases/jan_2008/01022008.xml.
50
Ibid. p. CBP-S&E-27.
51
Remarks by CBP Commissioner Ralph W. Basham before the National Customs Brokers and National Customs
Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, April 4, 2008.
52
H.Rept. 110-826, July 8, 2009.
53
DHS, FY2009 Congressional Budget Justification, CBP-S&E-24, accessed at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/
budget_fy2009.pdf.
49
Congressional Research Service
33
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Container Security Initiative (CSI)
CSI is a program by which CBP stations CBP officers in foreign ports to target high-risk
containers for inspection before they are loaded on U.S.-bound ships. CSI is operational in 58
ports as of September, 2007. As noted above, the CBP Budget Justifications indicate a requested
decrease of nearly $7 million for the CSI/ICS program for FY2009. This year, the requested $149
million for FY2009 includes funding for CSI/ICS, SFI, the Security Filing (SF), and the proposed
Global Trade Exchange(GTX). Given that the request includes less funding for several programs,
than has been appropriated for CSI alone in the past couple of years, this indicates a decline in
requested funding for CSI. An issue for Congress concerns the reasoning behind the
Administration’s proposal to apparently decrease funding for CSI given that DHS anticipated
expanding CSI/ICS in FY2009 by deploying ICS at one additional site and expanding capacity at
other designated ports.
Language in the House Appropriations committee report indicated that the Committee was
concerned about CBP staffing levels at CSI and SFI port locations. Among other items of
concern, the staffing of senior leadership positions and staff with appropriate language skills were
of particular interest to the Committee. The House Report required CBP to report to the
Committee no later than January 8, 2009, on the steps that CBP will have taken to improve
staffing and host country relations.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)54
ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the United States. ICE
develops intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the United States and is responsible for
investigating and enforcing violations of the immigration laws (e.g., alien smuggling, hiring
unauthorized alien workers). ICE is also responsible for locating and removing aliens who have
overstayed their visas, entered illegally, or have become deportable. In addition, ICE develops
intelligence to combat terrorist financing and money laundering, and to enforce export laws
against smuggling, fraud, forced labor, trade agreement noncompliance, and vehicle and cargo
theft. Furthermore, this bureau oversees the building security activities of the Federal Protective
Service, formerly of the General Services Administration. The Federal Air Marshals Service
(FAMS)55 was returned from ICE to TSA pursuant to the reorganization proposal of July 13,
2005. The Office of Air and Marine Interdiction was transferred from ICE to CBP in FY2005, and
therefore the totals for ICE do not include Air and Marine Interdiction funding, which is included
under CBP. See Table 8 for account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 10
for sub-account-level detail for ICE Salaries and Expenses (S&E) for FY2008 and FY2009.
President’s FY2009 Request
The Administration requested $5,663 million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2009. This
represented a 1% increase over the enacted FY2008 level of $5,581 million. The Administration
requested an appropriation of $4,748 million in net budget authority for ICE in FY2009,
representing a small increase over the FY2008 enacted level (including Division E of P.L. 110161) of $4,735 million. Notably, Division E of P.L. 110-161 included an appropriation of $200
54
55
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Immigration Legislation, Domestic Social Policy Division.
FAMS transferred to ICE from TSA in August of 2003.
Congressional Research Service
34
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
million for the comprehensive identification and removal of criminal aliens, which is not included
in the FY2009 budget request. Table 10 provides activity-level detail for the Salaries and
Expenses account. The request included the following program increases:
•
$46 million (39 FTE) for 725 additional detention beds and support personnel;56
•
$12 million (36 FTE) for investigations related to national security and critical
infrastructure;
•
$12 million for 287(g) agreements;
•
$12 million to co-locate ICE facilities (i.e., consolidating ICE offices in cities
where ICE occupies more than one location);
•
$7 million (19 FTE) for the Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate
allegations of criminal and serious misconduct involving ICE employees;
•
$6 million (20 FTE) for the Office of Cyber Crimes Center to increase
investigations of cyber crimes related to document fraud, child exploitation, and
money laundering;
•
$5 million (14 FTE) for additional positions in the Commercial Fraud,
Intellectual Property Rights, and Trade Transparency Units to combat crimes
such as trafficking in counterfeit merchandise and pharmaceuticals;
•
$3 million for new Visa Security Units in Istanbul, Turkey and Beirut, Lebanon;
•
$2 million (14 FTE) to consolidate and coordinate ICE training and oversight
activities; and
•
$1 million to increase outbound enforcement to prevent arms and strategic
technologies from leaving the United States.
House-reported H.R. 6947
House-reported H.R. 6947 would have appropriated $5,728 million in gross budget authority, $65
million more than the President’s request. House-reported H.R. 6947 would have appropriated
$4,813 in net budget authority for ICE, which would have represented an increase of $65 million,
1% over the Administration’s requested amount. Of the appropriated amount, nearly $8 million
would have been for special operations under §3131 of the Customs Enforcement Act of 1986; $1
million would have provided compensation awards to informants; $305,000 would have been
used to promote public awareness of the child pornography tipline and anti-child exploitation
activities; $11 million would have been designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for
the cost of care, and repatriation of smuggled aliens; $16 million would have been targeted for
enforcement of laws against forced child labor; and $800 million would have been designated to
identify aliens convicted of a crime and remove them from the United States. According to the
House report, the appropriated monies would have included the President’s budget requested
increases of $46 million to fund the for detention bed space and support personnel, and $12
million for investigations related to national security and critical infrastructure.
56
According to the President’s request, DHS would also fund 275 new beds through the breach bond fund.
Congressional Research Service
35
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
The House report noted that House-reported H.R. 6947 would have appropriated an additional $2
million for Office of Professional Responsibility to oversee the comprehensive review of the
medical care provided to ICE detainees. In addition, according to the House report, Housereported H.R. 6947 would have appropriated over the President’s requested budget:
•
$12 million for criminal gang investigations;
•
approximately $1 for Office of the Principle Legal Advisor;57 and
•
$7 million for the Alternatives to Detention Program.
In addition, an amendment was adopted during the full Committee mark-up that would have
transferred an additional $6 million from Title I OE&SM account to the ICE salaries and
expenses account.
Senate-reported S. 3181
Senate-reported S. 3181 would have appropriated $5,928 million in gross budget authority for
ICE, $265 million more than the President’s request. Senate-reported S. 3181 would have
appropriated $4,989 in net budget authority for ICE, which would have represented an increase of
$241 million, 5% over the Administration’s requested amount. Of the appropriated amount,
$2,478 million would have been designated for detention and removal operations; $160 million
would have been allocated to identify and remove criminal aliens; nearly $8 million would have
been for special operations under §3131 of the Customs Enforcement Act of 1986; $1 million
would have provided compensation awards to informants; $305,000 would have been used to
promote public awareness of the child pornography tipline and anti-child exploitation activities;
$5 million would have been used to facilitate agreements under §287(g) of the INA; $11 million
would have been designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care, and
repatriation of smuggled aliens; $16 million would have been targeted for enforcement of laws
against forced child labor; and nearly $7 million would have been used to fund the Visa Security
Program.
According to S.Rept. 110-396, Senate-reported S. 3181 would have fully funded the President’s
budget request for increases over the FY2008 appropriate amounts for: the ICE Office of Human
Capital ($1 million); the co-location of ICE facilities ($12 million); national security and critical
infrastructure investigations ($12 million); commercial fraud and intellectual property
investigations ($5 million); outbound enforcement investigations ($1 million); 287(g) agreements
($12 million); fugitive operations ($1 million); and the Criminal Alien Program ($2 million). In
addition, S.Rept. 110-396 recommended an increase over the President’s budget requested of:
•
$26 million for 400 additional detention beds and support personnel to support
increased worksite enforcement58 (total increase of $74 million);
•
$34 million (108 FTE) for worksite enforcement investigations;
57
Of this, more than half would be used to expand the prosecutions of human rights violators who have entered the
United States.
58
The total number of funded beds for FY2009 would be 33,400.
Congressional Research Service
36
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
•
$2 million for the Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate allegations
of criminal and serious misconduct involving ICE employees (total increase of
$9 million and 39 FTE from FY2008);
•
$5 million (3 FTE) for investigations of cyber crimes (total increase of $11
million (23 FTE) over FY2008);
•
$3 million (3 FTE) for the Visa Security Program (total increase of $7 million
and 6 FTE from FY2008);
•
$5 million (7 FTE) for Security Advisory Opinion Units;59
•
$5 million for textile transshipment enforcement;
•
$3 million (19 FTE) for Field Intelligence Groups;660
•
$4 million for Alternatives to Detention; and
•
$160 million for Secure Communities.
P.L. 110-329
P.L. 110-329 appropriated $5,928 million in gross budget authority for ICE, which was $265
million (5%) more than the President’s request. P.L. 110-329 appropriated $4,989 million in net
budget authority, 5% or $241 million more than the President’s request. The Act specified that the
appropriated amounts are to be used as follows: $1,000 million to identify and removal criminal
aliens;61 $22 million to expand a variety of investigative programs; $100 million for state and
local programs; $127 million for worksite enforcement investigations; $11 million for the
Forensics Document Laboratory; $34 for the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC); $5
million for textile transshipment enforcement; $63 million for alternatives to detention; $57
million for Automatization Modernization; and $16 million for TECS modernization.62
P.L. 110-329 provided increases in appropriations over the President’s request for the following
programs:
•
$150 million for the identification and removal of criminal aliens;
•
$6 million for transnational gang enforcement;
•
$8 million for the visa security program;
•
$3 million for cyber crime investigations;
•
$34 million for worksite enforcement investigations;
59
These units are part of the Visa Security Program and co-locate ICE officers with Department of State personnel to
review visa applications.
60
Field Intelligence Groups are part of Office of Intelligence.
61
The Act required that $850 million of the money to locate and removal criminal aliens be allocated from existing ICE
programs.
62
Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS) was created as the accounting system for the former U.S.
Customs Service, and is the accounting system used by ICE and CBP. The former Immigration and Naturalization
Service used a system known as the Performance Analysis System (PAS). During 2004, ICE and CBP stopped using
PAS and switched all their accounting to TECS.
Congressional Research Service
37
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
•
$3 million for ICE field intelligence groups;
•
$2 for the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) to fund the conversion of
LESC employees from job category 1802 to job category 1801;
•
$7 million for alternatives to detention;
•
$1 million for ICE training consolidation and integration;
•
$7 million to co-locate ICE field facilities;
•
$0.5 million got the Office of the Principle Legal Advisor; and
•
$5 million for construction, which funds basic and emergency maintenance at
ICE-owned detention facilities.
P.L. 111-5
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 appropriated $20 million for the
procurement and deployment of tactical communications equipment and radios. According to the
conference report, ICE estimates this will create more than 120 new jobs related to the planning,
manufacture, programming, and installation of this equipment. In addition, the Act requires that
by April 3, 2009, the Secretary submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a
plan for expenditure of these funds.
Table 10. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Activity
FY2008
Enacteda
FY2009
HouseReported
FY2009
Request
FY2009
SenateReported
P.L.
110329
HQ & Administration
316
0
361
377
372
Legal Proceeding
208
241
215
214
215
Investigations - Domestic
1,422
1,679
1,191
1,514
1,519
Investigations - International
108
128
126
134
134
Investigations Total
1,530
1,807
1,317
1,648
1,653
52
62
53
56
56
DRO-Custody Operations
1,647
1,789
1,650
1,721
1,721
DRO-Fugitive Operations
219
238
—
226
226
DRO-Criminal Alien Program
179
204
—
189
189
DRO-Alternatives to Detention
54
58
63
60
63
DRO Transportation and Removal
Program
282
290
281
281
281
2,381
2,579
1,994
2,478
2,481
200
0
800b
160
150c
4,688
4,691
4,740d
4,932
4,927
Intelligence
DRO Total
Comprehensive Identification
and Removal of Criminal
Aliens
ICE Salaries and Expenses
Congressional Research Service
38
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2009 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2009 DHS Budget in Brief, S.
3181 and the accompanying report S.Rept. 110-396, and House-reported H.R. 6947 and its accompanying report
(H.Rept. 110-862). FY2009 enacted from the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the Congressional
Record, and in the House- and Senate- enrolled version of H.R. 2638.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a.
Column “FY2008 Enacted” includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
b.
This amount includes funding for the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), Fugitive Operations, Office of
Investigations support to locate criminal aliens, and State and Local Programs including 287(g) agreements.
The House-reported bill did not include separate funding for CAP or Fugitive Operations.
c.
P.L. 110-329appropriated $1,000 million for the identification and removal of criminal aliens. Of those
funds, $150 million was additional funding not included in the President’s budget, and $850 million was
required to be allocated from existing ICE programs.
d.
Does not include $6 million transferred from Title I OS&EM account to ICE S&E by amendment during the
full Committee mark-up of the bill in the House.
Issues for Congress
ICE is responsible for many divergent activities due to the breadth of the civil and criminal
violations of law that fall under ICE’s jurisdiction. As a result, how ICE resources are allocated in
order to best achieve its mission is a continuous issue. In addition, part of ICE’s mission includes
locating and removing deportable aliens, which involves determining the appropriate amount of
detention space as well as which aliens should be detained. Additionally, in recent years there has
been debate concerning the extent to which state and local law enforcement should aid ICE with
the identification, detention, and removal of deportable aliens.
Office of Investigations/Immigration Functions
The Office of Investigations (OI) in ICE focuses on a broad array of criminal and civil violations
affecting national security such as illegal arms exports, financial crimes, commercial fraud,
human trafficking, narcotics smuggling, child pornography/exploitation, worksite enforcement,
and immigration fraud. ICE special agents also conduct investigations aimed at protecting critical
infrastructure industries that are vulnerable to sabotage, attack, or exploitation. The Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) abolished the INS and the United States Customs Service,
and transferred most of their investigative functions to ICE effective March 1, 2003. There are
investigative advantages to combining the INS and Customs Services, as those who violate
immigration laws may be engaged in other criminal enterprises (e.g., alien smuggling rings often
launder money). Nonetheless, concerns have been raised that not enough resources have been
focused on investigating civil violations of immigration law and that ICE resources have been
focused on terrorism and the types of investigations performed by the former Customs Service.63
The House report noted that the Committee has developed a new investigatory budget structure
for ICE in 2009 to provide transparency into the agency’s various law enforcement missions. P.L.
110-329 appropriated 1,653 total for OI for FY2009, $154 million less than the President’s budget
request of $1,807 million. Senate-reported S. 3181 would have appropriated $1,648 million for
OI, while the House report would have appropriated $1,317 million. 64
63
Based on CRS discussions with ICE personnel in New York City, August 27, 2003.
Although House-reported H.R. 6947 and Senate-reported S. 3181 would have appropriated less money than the
President’s budget request, it is not clear that the President’s budget actually requested more money. The President’s
(continued...)
64
Congressional Research Service
39
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Detention and Removal Operations
Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) in ICE provide custody management of the aliens who
are in removal proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United States.65 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. 66 Concerns have been raised that decisions regarding
which aliens to release and when to release them may be based on the amount of detention space,
not on the merits of individual cases, and that the amount of space may vary by area of the
country leading to inequities and disparate policies in different geographic areas. The Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458, §5204) authorized, subject to
appropriations, an increase in DRO bed space of 8,000 beds for each year, FY2006-FY2010. P.L.
110-329 appropriated $2,481 million for DRO, including funding 1,400 more detention beds and
support personnel than in FY2008, bring the total number of FY2009 detention beds to 33,400.
Although P.L. 110-329 appropriated less money than the President’s request of $2,579 for DRO,
P.L. 110-329 appropriated an additional $150 million to identify and removal criminal aliens
much of which will be used by DRO. The House-reported bill would have fully funded the
President’s request of $2,579 million for DRO including an additional $46 million for 725
detention beds and support personnel. 67 Senate-reported S. 3181 would have appropriated $2,478
for DRO, including funding for 400 more detention beds and support personnel, and $160 million
for Secure Communities (a program that identifies and removes incarcerated criminal aliens) than
the President’s budget request.
Furthermore, there have been concerns raised about the adequacy of medical care received by
aliens in detention.68 House-reported H.R. 6947 would have specified that no funds could be used
to continue any contract for detention services with a facility that receives two consecutive less
than adequate performance ratings, while S.Rept. 110-396 urged ICE to establish and improve the
system for responding to detainee complaints. As in the House report, P.L. 110-329 appropriated
an additional $2 million for the Office of Professional Responsibility to undertake an immediate
comprehensive review of the medical care provided to ICE detainees. The Act also directed ICE
to immediately implement the Government Accountability Office’s recommendation to improve
medical services.
(...continued)
budget requested no money for HQ and Administration, appearing to fold the funding into program activities.
Nonetheless, it is unlikely that there will be no funding for HQ and administration purposes.
65
For more information on detention issues see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention: Current
Legislative Issues, by (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.
66
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.
67
In addition, DHS would also fund 275 beds through the breach bond fund, increasing the total bed space by 1,000 to
33,000 beds.
68
For more on the issue of detainee medical care, see CRS Report RL34556, Health Care for Noncitizens in
Immigration Detention, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
40
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
State and Local Law Enforcement 69
Currently, the INA provides limited avenues for state enforcement of both its civil and criminal
provisions. One of the broadest grants of authority for state and local immigration enforcement
activity stems from INA §287(g), which authorizes the Attorney General to enter into a written
agreement with a state, or any political subdivision, to allow state and local law enforcement
officers to perform the functions of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation,
apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States. The enforcement of immigration by
state and local officials has sparked debate among many who question what the proper role of
state and local law enforcement officials should be in enforcing federal immigration laws. Many
have expressed concern over proper training, finite resources at the local level, possible civil
rights violations, and the overall impact on communities. Nonetheless, some observers contend
that the federal government has scarce resources to enforce immigration law and that state and
local law enforcement entities should be utilized.
House-reported H.R. 6947 would have specified that no funds may be used to continue a 287(g)
agreement if the DHS Inspector General determined that the 287(g) agreement had been violated;
or to enter into an agreement with law enforcement (other than at a jail or prison) of a state or
subdivision of the state unless the Assistant Secretary of ICE reviewed all requests for 287(g)
agreements in that state and prioritizes the agreements that will maximize the identification of
criminal aliens convicted of dangerous crimes. In addition, the President’s budget request
included an increase of $12 million for these agreements that Senate-reported S. 3181 would have
fully funded.
P.L. 110-329 appropriated $100 million for state and local programs including $54 million for the
287(g) program and $5 million for compliance reviews of the 287(g) agreements. P.L. 110-329
directed ICE to prioritize 287(g) agreements that will maximize the identification and removal of
deportable criminal aliens.
Federal Protective Service770
The Federal Protective Service (FPS), within ICE, is responsible for the protection and security of
federally owned and leased buildings, property, and personnel. It has two primary missions—
basic security and building specific security. Basic security functions include daily monitoring of
federal building entry and exit points; building specific security includes investigating specific
threats to a federal facility or building. In general, FPS focuses on law enforcement and
protection of federal facilities from criminal and terrorist threats. The FY2009 President’s request
for FPS was $616 million. House-reported H.R. 6947 would have fully funded the President’s
request. Senate-reported S. 3181 would have appropriated $640 million for FPS. P.L. 110-329
appropriated $640 million for FPS in FY2009.
In FY2007, the Administration realigned its workforce and reduced the number of FPS law
enforcement officers and investigators. Following this realignment and reduction, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that FPS’s staff decreased by approximately
69
This section adapted from CRS Report RL32270, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law
Enforcement, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
70
Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and
Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
41
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
20%, from about 1,400 employees at the end of FY2004 to approximately 1,100 employees at the
end of FY2007.771 According to GAO, this reduction in FPS’s staff resulted in the reduction of
security at federal facilities and increased the risk of crime or terrorist attacks.72 Finally, GAO
stated that the decision by FPS to eliminate proactive security patrols at federal facilities resulted
in FPS law enforcement personnel not being able to conduct security operations. Such operations
involve inspecting suspicious vehicles, monitoring suspicious individuals, or detecting and
deterring criminal activity in and around federal buildings.73 Since the Administration’s FY2007
decisions on FPS activities received congressional attention, it may be important to note the
Administration’s actions and intentions for FY2008 and FY2009.
In FY2008, the Administration expected to:
•
improve methods used to identify and reduce real and perceived threats to federal
facilities;
•
continue intelligence and information sharing;
•
provide law enforcement and security services at National Special Security
Events (NSSE); and
•
strengthen federal facility security standards.74
Finally, in FY2009, the Administration intends for the FPS to:
•
provide law enforcement and security services at National Special Security
Events (NSSE);
•
complete risk-based security standards aligned with intelligence;
•
continue federal facility security assessments;
•
continue to monitor federal agency compliance with security standards;
•
improve contract security guard management; and
•
continue to strengthen business processes and the Service.75
As a result of GAO’s findings and congressional interest, P.L. 110-329 required OMB and DHS
to fully fund FPS operations through revenue and collections of security fees paid by federal
departments and agencies.76 This security fee collection is intended to ensure that the FPS
maintains not fewer than 1,200 full-time equivalent staff and 900 full-time equivalent police
officers, inspectors, area commanders, and special agents.77
71
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: The Federal Protective Service Faces Several
Challenges That Hamper Its Ability to Protect Federal Facilities (Washington: June 2008), p. 12.
72
Ibid.
73
Ibid., p.14.
74
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal Protective Service,
Fiscal Year 2009 Congressional Justification, p. 5.
75
Ibid.
76
P.L. 110-329, Title II, mandates that OMB “certify in writing” to the Committees of Appropriations of the Senate
and the House of Representatives that FPS will be fully funded in FY2009.
77
P.L. 110-329, Title II.
Congressional Research Service
42
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)78
The TSA was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA, P.L. 107-71), and it
was charged with protecting air, land, and rail transportation systems within the United States to
ensure the freedom of movement for people and commerce. In 2002, the TSA was transferred to
DHS with the passage of the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296). The TSA’s responsibilities
include protecting the aviation system against terrorist threats, sabotage, and other acts of
violence through the deployment of passenger and baggage screeners; detection systems for
explosives, weapons, and other contraband; and other security technologies. The TSA also has
certain responsibilities for marine and land modes of transportation including assessing the risk of
terrorist attacks to all non-aviation transportation assets, including seaports; issuing regulations to
improve security; and enforcing these regulations to ensure the protection of these 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 FY2008 enacted
levels and supplemental appropriations and FY2009 amounts specified in the President’s request,
the House and Senate-reported bills, and enacted levels specified in P.L. 110-329.
President’s FY2009 Request
The President’s requested funding level for the TSA in FY2009, totaling $7,102 million,
comprises about 14% of the DHS gross budget authority. The President’s FY2009 request
estimates receipts totaling $2,360 million in offsetting collections, mostly through the collection
of passenger security fees and security fees paid by the airlines. These estimated offsetting
collections for FY2009 are $67 million over FY2008 projected levels, yielding a net total
requested amount for TSA of $4,065 million, to be paid for out of the Treasury General Fund.
New funding initiatives include an additional $426 million to the Aviation Security Capital Fund
(ASCF) for explosives detection equipment purchase and installation. Proposed discretionary
funding for the purchase and installation of Explosive Detection Systems (EDS) and Explosive
Trace Detection (ETD) equipment would be reduced by $140 million compared to FY2008
levels, however this reduction would be more than offset by the proposed increase to the ASCF. A
proposed increase of $47 million for Screening Technology (Maintenance and Utilities) reflects
increasing costs of checked baggage and checkpoint screening equipment maintenance as these
systems age and approach their useful service life. Also, a funding increase of $32 million is
proposed for the Secure Flight program. The Checkpoint Screening Security Fund—a one-time
mandatory funding vehicle that provided $250 million in FY2008 for checkpoint screening
technologies—would be replaced by a requested appropriation of $128 million for Checkpoint
Support. The President’s FY2009 request provides for 800 additional full-time equivalent (FTE)
Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) and other aviation security job functions. These
additional slots would mainly be filled by more Behavioral Detection Officers (BDOs, 330
additional FTEs) and additional screeners to conduct random screening of airport workers.
The President’s FY2009 request includes a proposal to realign several TSA programs. Most
notably, the request proposes to place the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) under the Aviation
Security account, rather than maintaining it as a separate entity. The budget also seeks to realign
78
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
Congressional Research Service
43
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
several regulatory functions, including air cargo security, under the Aviation Regulation program,
and several law enforcement programs, including airport law enforcement support; canine teams;
Visible Intermodal Protective Response (VIPR) teams; and Federal Flight Deck Officers
(FFDOs), under the Law Enforcement program. The proposal also seeks to establish a single
Human Resource Services within the Aviation Security account, to support both field and
headquarters staff. Also, the request proposes that information technology and support for
Aviation Security be realigned with the Information Technology function housed within the
Transportation Security Support account.
House-reported H.R. 6947
The House committee recommended $6,964 million for the TSA, $138 million less than the
President’s request, but $77 million more than the Senate-reported bill. Like the Senate-reported
bill, the House-reported bill has not adopted many of the realignment proposals offered in the
President’s request. Specifically, the committee rejected the idea of consolidating air cargo with
other aviation regulation activities, and it rejected the concept of placing FAMS under the
aviation security program area. However, like the Senate-reported bill, H.R. 6947 concurred with
the Administration proposals to consolidate human resources and information technology
activities throughout the TSA. Thus, while funding levels for budget activities contained in H.R.
6947 are directly comparable to the Senate-reported amounts, these amounts are not directly
comparable to the President’s request for affected budget activities.
House-reported H.R. 6947 requested $250 million for Checkpoint Support, the same amount
provided under the Checkpoint Security Screening Fund in FY2008, and $122 million above the
President’s request for FY2009. The committee believed that this additional funding was
necessary to expedite testing and deployment of checkpoint explosives screening technologies.
The House report expressed concern that only half of large airports have optimized their baggage
screening systems to date, and recommended $294 million for EDS/ETD purchase and
installation, in line with the Senate-reported amount. The committee also recommended $110
million for air cargo security, $39 million above the FY2008 appropriated level, but $13 million
below the Senate-reported amount.
The House committee recommended $109 million for Threat Assessment and Credentialing
functions, $24 million below the requested level. The committee recommended $75 million of
this for the Secure Flight program, $7 million below the request, citing schedule slips in the
regulatory process and GAO reviews of the program. With regard to surface transportation
security, the House-reported measure specified $50 million, $13 million above the President’s
request, and $14 million below the Senate-reported amount. The additional funding specified in
the House report was intended for the deployment of additional security inspectors.
Senate-reported S. 3181
The Senate-reported bill would have set total funding for the TSA at $6,887 million, $215 million
less than the President’s request. The reported bill supported only some of the Administrationproposed functional realignments. Therefore, funding for several of the budget activities in Table
11 cannot be directly compared. Specifically, the committee agreed with the Administration plan
to consolidate human resources and information technology programs throughout the TSA.
However, the committee did not go along with the Administration proposals to consolidate law
enforcement activities under the aviation security program area, to place the FAMS under
Congressional Research Service
44
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
aviation security, and to consolidate regulatory enforcement functions, including air cargo
security activities.
The committee recommended $2,692 million for passenger and baggage screening personnel
compensation and benefits (PC&B), $24 million below the requested levels based on FY2008
“payroll underburn” reported to the committee. The committee also recommended a recision of
$7.3 million of FY2008 funds set aside for pilot programs to screen airport employees that were
determined to be in excess of the amount needed to carry out these pilots. The committee
recommended $200 million for checkpoint support, $72 million above the President’s request, but
$50 million less than the amount provided in FY2008 under the Checkpoint Security Screening
Fund.
The committee noted that the Administration’s proposed passenger security fee increase has not
been acted on by congressional authorizing committees, and therefore reported mandatory
funding for the Aviation Security Capital Fund at the currently authorized level of $250 million.
The committee, instead, proposed a funding level of $294 million for EDS/ETD purchase and
installation, $140 million above the President’s request.
The committee recommended $123 million for air cargo security, $18 million above the amount
proposed in the President’s request within the aviation regulation and law enforcement program
area, under the proposed restructuring scheme. The committee also sought to expand the TSA air
cargo screening technology pilots to address the mandate for 100% screening of cargo placed on
passenger aircraft, and called for the TSA to issue an expenditure plan detailing efforts to develop
covert testing protocols, augment cargo strike teams, and provide details of deployed canine
teams and screening technologies. In addition to increased air cargo security funding to meet the
100% screening mandate of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of
2007 (P.L. 110-53), the committee recommendation included $20 million across various budget
activities to implement regulations and fulfill other mandates of the 9/11 Act. The committee also
recommended $4 million for airport perimeter security pilot projects, which was not included in
the President’s request but is equal to FY2008 funding for this activity. The committee proposed
$799 million for FAMS, $13 million above the President’s request, and recommends keeping
FAMS separate from aviation security, rather than placing it under the aviation security program
area as requested. With regard to surface transportation security, the bill sought $64 million, $27
million more than the President’s request, and seeks additional inspectors and operations staff.
P.L. 110-329
The Act provided a total of $6,978 to the TSA, $91 million above the Senate-reported level and
$14 million above the House-reported level, but $124 million less than the President’s request.
Funding for aviation security totaled $4,735 million, roughly matching the House-reported levels.
As recommended in the House and Senate reports, the Act consolidated Information Technology
functions and Human Capital Services across the TSA. Like the House and Senate-reported
measures, the Act did not support other realignment and consolidation proposals from the
President’s request.
The Act included a total of $544 million for the procurement and installation of checked baggage
explosives detection systems, including $294 million for EDS/ETD purchase and installation and
the mandatory $250 million for the ASCF. This comprises slightly less than half of the spending
that has been designated as going towards efforts to implement requirements of the 9/11 Act (P.L.
Congressional Research Service
45
Homeland Security Department: FY2009 Appropriations
110-53). These funding initiatives, totaling $1,119 million, also included $123 million for Air
Cargo Security; $391 million for specialized screening programs, including travel document
checkers, behavior detection officers, bomb appraisal officers, and random screening of airport
workers; $30 million to expand the VIPR teams; almost $12 million for surface transportation
security inspectors; and $20 million specifically designated for Implementing P.L. 110-53,
intended for conducting vulnerability assessments and security training exercises for high-risk
surface transportation systems.
Of the $123 million appropriated for Air Cargo Security, $18 million was allocated for expanding
test programs evaluating air cargo screening technologies, and for auditing freight forwarders,
shippers, and distributors participating in the TSA’s certified shipper program. The Act also
directed the TSA to submit an expenditure plan for air cargo security funds including details of
new covert testing protocols, efforts to expand regulatory inspection strike teams, and data on
canine team and air cargo screening technology deployment.
The Act also provided $250 million for Checkpoint Support to deploy emerging passenger and
carry-on screening technologies, with a focus on deploying whole body imaging (WBI)
technologies to passenger checkpoints. This amount equals the funding provided in FY2008
under the Checkpoint Screening Security Fund. The Act also provided $306 million for Screening
Technology Maintenance and Utilities for the upkeep of deployed passenger checkpoint and
checked baggage screening technologies, including slightly more that $4 million for the disposal
of equipment no longer in service.
The Act provided $116 million for Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing functions,
including $82 million for Secure Flight. The Act, however, prohibited the operational deployment
of Secure Flight beyond testing until the DHS certifies and the GAO reports that all statutory
conditions pertaining to privacy, data security, data retention, and redress procedures for
passengers have been satisfactorily met.
P.L. 111-5
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 includes $1,000 million for aviation
security. This funding is designated for the procurement and installation of checked baggage
explosives detection systems and checkpoint explosives detection equipment. The act requires the
DHS to submit an expenditure plan for these funds within 45 days of enactment, and the
conference report (H.Rept. 111-16) includes language specifying that projects should be
prioritized based on security risks and funds be used to accelerate equipment ins
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.