PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 17, 2006
Department of Homeland Security Management and Operations Improvement Act of 2006 - Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) take steps to control the costs of hiring, training, and deploying new Border Patrol agents and limit the FY2007 cost for each new agent to $150,000; and (2) actively consult with and fully inform the congressional homeland security committees regarding all activities and responsibilities within their jurisdictions. Makes the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Inspector General independently responsible for keeping such committees informed.
Establishes in DHS a Directorate for Policy, Planning, and International Affairs, headed by an Under Secretary for Policy. Establishes within the Directorate an Office of International Affairs. Makes the Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for Management, responsible for the integration and consolidation of DHS's management systems.
Directs the Inspector General to review each contract action related to DHS's Secure Border Initiative valued at greater than $20 million.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Chief Financial Officer to establish the Authorization Liaison Officer position.
Increases the number of federal annuitants who may be appointed by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) officials responsible for coordinating disability issues; and (2) homeland security procurement training.
Directs the Comptroller General to conduct a national study regarding emergency shelter accessibility and a study of the integration and adequacy of training for DHS personnel who process asylum seekers at U.S. ports of entry.
Requires the Secretary to: (1) establish a database of small business concerns, a Council on Procurement Training, a National Homeland Security University, and a Homeland Security Canine Detection Accreditation Board; and (2) increase the number of and coordinate DHS canine detection teams.
People & committees
Rep. Rogers, Mike D. [R-AL-3] · R–AL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight.
Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5813 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5813 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5813 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5813 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.