Homeland Security Department:
FY2010 Appropriations
Jennifer E. Lake, Coordinator
Analyst in Domestic Security
Chad C. Haddal, Coordinator
Analyst in Immigration Policy
June 23, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40642
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Summary
This report describes the FY2010 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). The Administration requested a net appropriation of $44.1 billion in budget authority for
FY2010. This amounts to a $2.8 billion, or a 6.7% increase over the $41.2 billion enacted for
FY2009 (not including supplemental funding). Total budget authority requested by the
Administration for DHS for FY2010 amounts to $55.1 billion.
Net requested appropriations for major agencies within DHS were as follows: Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), $10,049 million; Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), $5,458
million; Transportation Security Administration (TSA), $5,267 million; Coast Guard, $9,734
million; Secret Service, $1,490 million; National Protection & Programs Directorate, $1,319
million; Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), $7,235 million; Science and
Technology, $968 million; and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $366 million.
This report contains a detailed discussion of the President’s budget request for DHS, but due to
time constraints, the text does not include a detailed discussion of the House- or Senate-reported
versions of the FY2010 bill. The tables reflect the House- and Senate-reported numbers.
The House Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2010 DHS Appropriations
bill on June 12, 2009. This report uses House-reported H.R. 2982 and the accompanying
committee report (H.Rept. 111-157) as the source for the House-reported numbers. The House-
reported H.R. 2982 recommends a net appropriation of $44.0 billion for DHS for FY2010. This
amounts to a $205 million decrease as compared to the Administration’s request, and a nearly
$2.8 billion increase as compared to the $41.2 billion enacted for FY2009 (not including FY2009
supplemental funding).
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2010 DHS Appropriations
bill on June 17, 2009. This report uses Senate-reported S.1298 and the accompanying committee
report (S.Rept. 111-31) as the source for the Senate-reported numbers. The Senate-reported
S.1298 recommends a net appropriation of $44.3 billion for DHS for FY2010. This amounts to a
$97 million increase as compared to the Administration’s request, and a nearly $3.1 billion
increase as compared to the $41.2 billion enacted for FY2009 (not including FY2009
supplemental funding).
This report will be updated to reflect congressional action.
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments......................................................................................................... 1
Senate-Reported S.1298 .................................................................................................. 1
House-Reported H.R. 2892 ............................................................................................. 1
President’s FY2010 Budget Submitted ............................................................................ 1
Note on Most Recent Data .............................................................................................. 2
Background ................................................................................................................................ 2
Department of Homeland Security ........................................................................................ 2
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations ............................................................................................... 3
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays........................................................................... 3
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending................................................................................. 4
Offsetting Collections ........................................................................................................... 4
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security ........................................................... 6
DHS Appropriations Trends .................................................................................................. 6
Summary of DHS Appropriations.......................................................................................... 7
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations .................................................................... 10
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 11
Personnel Issues............................................................................................................ 11
Analysis and Operations...................................................................................................... 13
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 14
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations ...................................................................... 14
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ................................................................................ 18
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 19
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 19
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ..................................................................... 22
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 23
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 24
Federal Protective Service................................................................................................... 25
President’s Budget ........................................................................................................ 26
Federal Protective Service Issues for Congress .............................................................. 26
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)..................................................................... 27
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 28
TSA Issues for Congress ............................................................................................... 31
United States Coast Guard................................................................................................... 33
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 33
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 34
Deepwater..................................................................................................................... 34
Security Mission ........................................................................................................... 35
Non-Homeland Security Missions ................................................................................. 36
Marine Safety ............................................................................................................... 36
Rescue-21 ..................................................................................................................... 36
LORAN-C .................................................................................................................... 37
Bridge Alteration Program ............................................................................................ 38
Arctic Activity .............................................................................................................. 38
U.S. Secret Service ............................................................................................................. 39
President’s Budget ........................................................................................................ 40
USSS Issues for Congress ............................................................................................. 40
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Title III: Preparedness and Response ......................................................................................... 41
Federal Emergency Management Agency............................................................................ 44
The President’s Budget in Brief..................................................................................... 44
State and Local Programs .............................................................................................. 45
FEMA Issues for Congress............................................................................................ 47
Office of Health Affairs....................................................................................................... 51
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 51
Office of Health Affairs Issues for Congress.................................................................. 51
National Protection and Programs Directorate ..................................................................... 52
Management and Administration................................................................................... 53
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 53
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 53
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) .................................. 54
President’s Request ....................................................................................................... 54
US-VISIT Issues for Congress ...................................................................................... 55
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security .............................................................. 55
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 56
IPIS Issues for Congress ............................................................................................... 57
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................................ 57
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) ........................................................... 60
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 60
USCIS Issues for Congress ........................................................................................... 61
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center .......................................................................... 62
President’s Budget ........................................................................................................ 62
Science and Technology (S&T) ........................................................................................... 63
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 63
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 64
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office ..................................................................................... 65
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 65
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 66
FY2010-Related Legislation...................................................................................................... 67
Budget Resolution............................................................................................................... 67
Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations ................................................ 1
Table 2. FY2010 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS ........................................................ 3
Table 3. FY2010 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to Net Appropriation—
Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust and Public Enterprise Accounts ................................. 5
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2010 .......................................................................... 7
Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations ................................................................................. 8
Table 6. Title I: Department Management and Operations.......................................................... 10
Table 7. Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer Appropriations ........................................... 12
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations ....................................................... 15
Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail ...................................................................................... 18
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Table 10. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail ..................................................................................... 23
Table 11. TSA Gross Budget Authority, by Budget Activity ....................................................... 29
Table 12. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-account Detail..................... 33
Table 13. U.S. Secret Service Appropriations ............................................................................ 39
Table 14. Title III: Preparedness and Response .......................................................................... 42
Table 15. FY2009 Enacted and FY2010 Requested Budget Authority for State and Local
Programs ............................................................................................................................... 46
Table 16. FY2009 Budget Activity for NPPD Management and Administration
Appropriation ........................................................................................................................ 53
Table 17. FY2009 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure Protection and Information
Security Appropriation ........................................................................................................... 56
Table 18. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................. 59
Table 19. USCIS Budget Account Detail ................................................................................... 61
Table 20. Directorate of Science and Technology Accounts and Activities, FY2009-
FY2010.................................................................................................................................. 64
Table 21. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Accounts and Activities, FY2009-FY2010 .......... 66
Table C-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2003-FY2010 ........................... 72
Appendixes
Appendix A. DHS Funding in P.L. 111-5................................................................................... 68
Appendix B. FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations .................................................................. 70
Appendix C. DHS Appropriations in Context ............................................................................ 71
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 73
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
Senate-Reported S.1298
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2010 DHS Appropriations
bill on June 17, 2009. This report uses Senate-reported S.1298 and the accompanying committee
report (S.Rept. 111-31) as the source for the Senate-reported numbers. The Senate-reported
S.1298 recommends a net appropriation of $44.3 billion for DHS for FY2010. This amounts to a
$97 million increase as compared to the Administration’s request, and a nearly $3.1 billion
increase as compared to the $41.2 billion enacted for FY2009 (not including FY2009
supplemental funding).
House-Reported H.R. 2892
The House Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2010 DHS Appropriations
bill on June 12, 2009. This report uses House-reported H.R. 2892 and the accompanying
committee report (H.Rept. 111-157) as the source for the House-reported numbers. The House-
reported H.R. 2892 recommends a net appropriation of $44.0 billion for DHS for FY2010. This
amounts to a $205 million decrease as compared to the Administration’s request, and a nearly
$2.8 billion increase as compared to the $41.2 billion enacted for FY2009 (not including FY2009
supplemental funding).
President’s FY2010 Budget Submitted
The Administration requested a net appropriation of $44.1 billion in budget authority for FY2010.
This amounts to a $2.8 billion, or a 6.7% increase over the $41.2 billion enacted for FY2009 (not
including supplemental funding). Total budget authority requested by the Administration for DHS
for FY2010 amounts to $55.1 billion.
Net requested appropriations for major agencies within DHS were as follows: Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), $10,049 million; Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), $5,458
million; Transportation Security Administration (TSA), $5,267 million; Coast Guard, $9,734
million; Secret Service, $1,490 million; National Protection & Programs Directorate, $1,319
million; Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), $7,235 million; Science and
Technology, $968 million; and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $366 million.
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee
Markup
H.Rept.
House
S.Rept.
Senate
Conf.
Public
House
Senate
111-157
Passage
111-31
Passage
Report
Law
6/8 (vv)
6/17 (vv)
6/12 (vv)
6/18 (vv)
Note: (vv) = voice vote, (uc) = unanimous consent.
Congressional Research Service
1
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Note on Most Recent Data
Data used in this report for FY2009 enacted, and FY2009 total amount are from the President’s
Budget Documents, the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, and the FY2010 DHS
Budget in Brief. Data used in this report for the President’s request and the House-reported
amounts are from House-reported H.R.2892 and H.Rept. 111-157; the Senate-reported amounts
are from Senate-reported S.1298 and S.Rept. 111-31. Data used in Appendix C are taken from
the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2009 President’s Budget. 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 FY2010 request for funding for DHS programs and
activities, as submitted to Congress on May 7, 2009. It compares the enacted FY2009 amounts to
the request for FY2010, and tracks legislative action and congressional issues related to the
FY2010 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 Officer (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. 110-
161, the DHS Appropriations Act, 2008, enacted this reorganization.
Through the FY2007 appropriation, Title III contained appropriations for the Preparedness
Directorate, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS) and the Federal Emergency
Management Administration (FEMA). The President’s FY2008 request included a proposal to
shift a number of programs and offices to eliminate the Preparedness Directorate, create the
Congressional Research Service
2
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
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.
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. Table 2
shows DHS’s 302(b) allocations for FY2009 and the current appropriations cycle.
Table 2. FY2010 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2010 Request
FY2010 House
FY2010 Senate
FY2010 Enacted
Comparable
Comparable
Allocation
Allocation
Comparable
$41.2 $44.1
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications.
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
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 Act1
prohibits federal agencies from obligating more funds than the budget authority that was enacted
1 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517.
Congressional Research Service
3
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
by Congress. Budget authority may be also be indefinite, as 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.2 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. Discretionary spending is not mandated by
existing law and is thus appropriated yearly by Congress through appropriations acts. The Budget
Enforcement Act of 19903 defines discretionary appropriations as budget authority provided in
annual appropriation acts and the outlays derived from that authority, but it excludes
appropriations for entitlements. Mandatory spending, also known as direct spending, consists of
budget authority and resulting outlays provided in laws other than appropriation acts and is
typically not appropriated each year. However, some mandatory entitlement programs must be
appropriated each year and are included in the appropriations acts. Within DHS, the Coast Guard
retirement pay is an example of appropriated mandatory spending.
Offsetting Collections4
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.
2 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.
3 P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.
4 Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff Jr., Analyst in American National Government.
Congressional Research Service
4
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
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 FY2009 and in the
FY2010 request.
Table 3. FY2010 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to Net
Appropriation—Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust and Public Enterprise
Accounts
(budget authority in millions)
FY2009
FY2010
Account/Agency Account
Name
Enacted
Request
DHS gross budget authority (BA)a
52,544 55,115
(gross discretionary + fees+ mandatory + funds)
Discretionary fee funded offsets
ICE
Federal Protective Service
640
640
Aviation security fees
2,323
2,249
TWIC 32
9
TSA
Hazmat 15
15
Registered Traveler
FEMA/EPR
National Flood Insurance Fund
157
159
CBP Smal
airports
7
8
Subtotal discretionary fee funded offsets
3,173
3,078
Mandatory fee funded offsets
Immigration inspection
570
522
Immigration enforcement
3
2
Land border
27
34
CBP
COBRA 411
398
APHIS 333
325
Puerto Rico
97
92
ICE
Immigration inspection
119
110
SEVIS 120
120
Breached bond detention fund
60
75
TSA
Aviation security capital fund
250
250
Checkpoint screening security fund
Alien flight school background checks
4
4
USCIS
Immigration examination fee
2,495
2,452
H1b, and H1b & L fees
44
51
Congressional Research Service
5
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
FY2009
FY2010
Account/Agency Account
Name
Enacted
Request
Subtotal mandatory fee funded offsets
4,533
4,850
Mandatory budget authority
Secret service
Secret service retired payb 225
220
Coast guard
Coast guard retired payc [1,237]
[1,361]
Subtotal mandatory budget authority
225
220
Trust funds and public enterprise funds
CBP Customs
unclaimed
goods
6
6
FEMA
National Flood Insurance Fundd 3,037
3,085
Boat safety
134
131
Coast Guard
Oil spill recovery
149
91
Subtotal trust and public enterprise funds
3,326
3,313
DHS gross budget authoritya 52,544
55,115
Total offsets
11,257
11,048
Rescissions
-81
DHS net appropriated BA (Mandatory + Discretionary)
41,205
44,067
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2010 President’s Budget, and the DHS FY2010 Budget in Brief.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Totals do not include FY2009 supplemental funding.
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 annual y appropriated, and
therefore is not offset in Table 3.
d. This fund is comprised of both discretionary and mandatory appropriations; thus its component parts
appear twice in this table.
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security
DHS Appropriations Trends
Table 4 presents DHS Appropriations, as enacted, for FY2003 through the FY2010 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 and the
FY2010 are from the FY2010 DHS Budget Justifications.
Congressional Research Service
6
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2010
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010
request
29,069a 30,175b 30,554c 31,679 35,311d 38,817e 41,205f 44,067
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 Senate-
enrolled version of H.R. 2638, and FY2010 Request numbers are from the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget
Justifications.
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.
f.
This amount has been adjusted to match the amount reported in the DHS FY2010 Congressional Budget
Justifications. There is a $20 million discrepancy between the amount reported in the Joint Explanatory
Statement (JES) in the Congressional Record. The JES reports a total for DHS for FY2009 as $41,225, while
the Congressional Budget Justifications for FY2010 show this amount as $41,205 million.
Summary of DHS Appropriations
Table 5 is a summary table comparing the enacted appropriations for FY2009 and the request for
appropriations for FY2010.
Congressional Research Service
7
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
House-
Senate-
Total
Operational Component
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Reported
Reported
FY2010
Title I
Departmental Operations
645
200
845
905
782
861
Analysis and Operations
327
327
357
346
348
Office of the Inspector General
99
5
120
128
128
132
Subtotal: Title I
1,071
205
1,276
1,390
1,255
1,341
Title II
Customs and Border Protection
9,821
680
10,501
10,049
9,967
10,170
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
4,989
20
5,009
5,458
5,428
5,445
Transportation Security Administration
4,369
1,000
5,369
5,396
5,294
5,312
U.S. Coast Guard
9,341
352
9,693
9,729
9,968
10,239
U.S. Secret Service
1,413
1,413
1,490
1,461
1,487
Net subtotal: Title II
29,931
2,052
31,983
32,122
32,120
32,653
Total fee col ections
4,997
—
5,004
4,128
5,260
4,114
Gross subtotal: Title II
34,935
2,052
36,987
36,250
37,380
36,767
Title III
National Protection & Programs
1,158 —
1,158 1,319
1,280
1,324
Directorate
Office of Health Affairs
157
—
157
138
128
135
Federal Emergency Management
7,038 610
7,573
7,235 7,353
7,078
Administration
Net subtotal: Title III
8,353
610
8,963
8,692
8,761
8,538
Total fee col ections
640
1,115
CRS-8
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
House-
Senate-
Total
Operational Component
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Reported
Reported
FY2010
Gross subtotal: Title III
8,353
610
8,963
9,332
8,761
9,652
Title IV
Citizenship and Immigration Services
102
102
364
248
136
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
333
333
289
283
288
Science and Technology
933
933
968
968
995
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
514
514
366
366
374
Net subtotal: Title IV
1,882
1,882
1,987
1,865
1,792
Total fee col ections
2,539
2,539
2,503
2,503
2,503
Gross subtotal: Title IV
4,421
4,421
4,490
4,368
4,295
Rescissions
-28
-28
-14
-36
Gross DHS budget authority
48,748
2,765
51,513
51,268
51,749
52,020
Total fee col ections
-7,543
—
-7,543
-7,077
-7,763
-7,732
Net DHS budget authority
41,205
2,765
43,970
44,191
43,986
44,288
Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief, House-reported H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-
reported S.1298 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Notes: Tables may not add due to rounding.
CRS-9
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations5
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 Under Secretary for
Management (USM) and its components, such as the offices of the Chief Administrative 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, below, shows Title I appropriations for FY2009
and congressional action on the request for FY2010.
Table 6. Title I: Department Management and Operations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2010
FY2010
Operational
FY2009 FY2009 FY2009 FY2009
FY2010
House-
Senate-
Total
Component
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
reported reported FY2010
Office of the
123 — 123
161 147 149
Secretary and
Executive
Management
Office of the Under
192 200
392
338 269 308
Secretary for
Management
Office of the Chief
55 — 55
66 64 64
Financial Officer
Office of the Chief
272 — 272
338 300 338
Information Officer
Analysis and
327 — 327
357 346 348
Operations
Office of the
2 — 2
2
2 2
Federal
Coordinator for
Gulf Coast
Rebuilding
Office of the
115a 5
120 128
128b
132b
Inspector General
Net Budget
1,086 205
1,291 1,390 1,255 1,341
Authority: Title I
Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief,
House-reported H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-reported S.1298 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. Does not include a $16 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.
b. Includes a $16 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.
5 Prepared by Barbara L. Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
10
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
President’s FY2010 Request
FY2010 requests compared to the FY2009 enacted appropriations were as follow: OS&EM, $161
million, an increase of $38 million (+31%); USM, $338 million, an increase of $146 million
(+43%) when compared to the FY2009 enacted, (or a decrease of $54 million (-14%) as
compared with the total provided for FY2009 including supplemental amounts); OCFO, $66
million, an increase of $11 million (+20%); OCIO, $338 million, an increase of $66 million
(+24%); AOO, $357 million, an increase of $30 million (+9%); OFCGCR, $2 million, the same
amount; and OIG, $128 million, an increase of $8 million (+7%). The total FY2010 request for
Title I was $1,390 million. This represents an increase of $97 million (+8%) over the FY2009
total (enacted and supplemental funding).6
Of the amounts requested, the largest increase would occur in the OS&EM (requesting $161
million and 678 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees). Within OS&EM, program increases are
requested for the Office of Policy (requesting $62 million and 208 FTE) and the Office for Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties (requesting $22 million and 99 FTE). Increased funding for the former
office would be used for continued efforts to “strengthen DHS’s ability to maintain policy and
operational readiness necessary to protect the homeland” and for the latter office would support
staff increases. Other areas of increased OS&EM funding include requests of: $7 million and 36
FTE for the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman to, among other activities,
“establish a Virtual Ombudsman’s Office to provide for online case problem submission,
improved analysis and reporting capabilities, and an electronic interface with customers and
stakeholders as another avenue to share concerns and solutions” and $4 million and 17 FTE for
activities of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement, including “increase[d] involvement in
counterdrug issues related to Afghanistan and Southwest Asia.”7
Personnel Issues8
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 “establishes
policy and procedures” and provides “oversight, guidance, and leadership within the Department”
for the various functions under human capital management. These functions are policy and
programs, learning and development, executive resources, human capital business systems,
headquarters human resources management services, and business support and operations. The
OCHCO reports to the Under Secretary for Management, and its appropriation is included in that
of the Under Secretary. The OHC implements the Human Capital Operational Plan and is
organized around the initiatives of talent management, performance culture, learning and
development, and service excellence.9
Table 7, below, shows the funding and staff for the OCHCO for FY2009 and congressional action
on the request for FY2010.
6 DHS, FY2010 Budget Overview, pp. 2-3.
7 FY2010 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management, pp. OSEM-71 – OSEM-74.
8 Prepared by Barbara L. Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
9 FY2010 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, p. USM-
2; and FY2010 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management,
Strategic Context, p. USM-3.
Congressional Research Service
11
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Table 7. Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
FY2010
House-
Senate-
Total
Account
Enacted
Request
reported
reported
FY2010
Salaries and Expenses CHCO
$29
$34
34
34
Human Resources—Operational
$10 $10
10 10
Initiatives and HR Management
Systems
Total $39
$44
44
44
Staffing (full time equivalent, FTE,
79 89 N/A
N/A
positions)
Sources: FY2010 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for
Management, p. USM-4, and the draft of House-reported version of the FY2010 DHS Appropriations bill, H.Rept.
111-157, and S.Rept. 111-31.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
President’s FY2010 Request
According to the DHS Justifications, the FY2010 budget requested $44 million10 and 89 full-time
equivalent (FTE) employees for the OCHCO.11 The requested funding is $5 million above the
$39 million provided for FY2009. The number of FTEs would increase by 10 over the 79
authorized for FY2009. An appropriation is not requested for the new human resources
management system that was authorized in P.L. 107-296.12
The justification that accompanied the DHS budget request for FY2010 stated that the increased
funding would be used for continued support of learning and development of the department’s
workforce through the Preparedness Center, the Leadership Institute, the Homeland Security
Academy, and the Center for Academic and Interagency Outreach; human capital programs; and
investments in programs to foster diversity, recruitment, and retention.13 The competencies
required for mission critical occupations within DHS will be reassessed in FY2010 and any gaps
that are revealed will be closed through training and development, such as classroom courses,
details, and rotations through various positions. The skill and proficiency levels of the
department’s human resources staff will be increased through continuing professional
development.
10 Salaries and benefits ($14 million) and other services ($22 million) account for 82% of the total of $44 million. Other
services include contractual services with non-federal sources.
11 FY2010 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, p. USM-
7.
12 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. 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.
13 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, Strategic Context,
pp. USM-3-USM-4.
Congressional Research Service
12
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
The Human Resources Information Technology (HRIT) program is designed to “merge and
modernize the DHS HRIT infrastructure to provide flexibility and the management information
that will allow DHS to continuously evolve.” In 2010, a new enterprise performance management
system is expected to be implemented under HRIT. Departmental goals to enhance workforce
diversity include the establishment of a Diversity Outreach Advisory Forum and training of
managers and executives on recruiting and supervising a diverse workforce.14
Analysis and Operations15
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
several 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 Under Secretary
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;
• 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.
Former Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review reorganization of the Department in 2005
made several changes to the DHS intelligence structure. IAIP was disbanded and the Office of
Infrastructure Protection was placed within the newly-created National Protection and Programs
Directorate. The Office of Information Analysis was renamed the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis and became a stand alone entity. The Assistant Secretary for Intelligence Analysis was
designated the Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer.31 Pursuant to the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53), the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 (codified at 6 U.S.C. 201) was amended to codify the Office of Intelligence and Analysis
and the Office of Infrastructure Protection and made the head of the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis an Under Secretary position. It also designated the Under Secretary for Intelligence and
14 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, pp. USM-9 and
USM-12 - USM-13.
15 Prepared by Mark A. Randol, Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counterterrorism, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
Congressional Research Service
13
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Analysis as the Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer with responsibility for managing the
entire DHS Intelligence Enterprise.32
In 2008, former Secretary Chertoff established the Office of Operations Coordination and
Planning (OPS), built on the foundation of the former Office of Operations Coordination. OPS
supports Departmental and interagency crisis and contingency planning and operations to support
the Secretary of Homeland Security in his/her role as the principal Federal official for domestic
incident management.16
President’s FY2010 Request
The FY2010 request for the Analysis and Operations (AOO) account is $357 million, an increase
of nearly $30 million (+9%) over the enacted FY2009 amount. It should be noted that funds
included in this account support both the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) and the Office
of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS). I&A is responsible for managing the DHS
Intelligence enterprise and for collecting, analyzing, and sharing intelligence information for and
among all components of DHS, and with the State, local, tribal, and private sector homeland
security partners. As a member of the Intelligence Community, I&A’s budget is part of the
National Intelligence Program, a classified program document. OPS develops and coordinates
departmental and interagency operations plans and manages the National Operations Center, the
primary 24/7 national-level hub for domestic incident management, operations coordination, and
situational awareness, fusing law enforcement, national intelligence, emergency response, and
private sector information.
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
FY2009 enacted and FY2010 appropriation action for Title II.
16 According to Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-5, Management of Domestic Incidents, (2003): “To
prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies, the United
States Government shall establish a single, comprehensive approach to domestic incident management.... The Secretary
of Homeland Security is the principal Federal official for domestic incident management.”
Congressional Research Service
14
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
House-
Senate-
Operational Component
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Reported
Reported Total
FY2010
Customs & Border Protection
Salaries and expenses
7,603
160
7,763
7,623
7,577
8,076
Automation modernization
511
511
462
462
462
Air and Marine Interdictions
528
528
506
514
516
Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure,
775 100 875 779 732 800
and Technology
Facilities Management (Construction) 403
420
823
679
682
316
Fee accountsa 1,448
1,448
1,432
1,432
1,432
Gross total
11,268
680
11,948
11,481
11,399
11,602
Offsetting col ections
-1,448
-1,448
-1,432
-1,432
-1,432
Net total
9,821
680
10,501
10,049
9,967
10,170
Immigration & Customs Enforcement
Salaries and expenses
4,927
4,927
5,348
5,311
5,360
Federal Protective Services (FPS)
640
640
b 1,115
c
Automation & infrastructure
57 20 77 110 110 85
modernization
Construction 5
5
7
Fee accountsd 299
299
318
318
304
Gross total
5,928
20
5,948
5,776
6,861
5,750
Offsetting FPS fees
-640
-640
-1,115
Offsetting col ections
-299
-299
-318
-318
-304
Net total
4,989
20
5,009
5,458
5,428
5,445
CRS-15
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
House-
Senate-
Operational Component
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Reported
Reported Total
FY2010
Transportation Security Administration
Aviation security (gross funding)
4,741
1,000
5,741
5,311
5,266
5,238
Surface Transportation Security
63
63
128
103
143
Transportation Threat Assessment and
116
116
192
172
172
Credentialing
Credentialing Feese 47
47
28
45
28
Transportation Security Support
950
950
1,005
993
1,000
Federal Air Marshals
819
819
860
860
860
Aviation security capital fundf 250
250
250
250
250
Gross total
6,986
1,000
7,986
7,774
7,689
7,690
Offsetting col ections
-2,320
-2,320
-2,100
-2,100
-2,100
Credentialing/Fee accounts
-47
-47
-28
-45
-28
Aviation security capital fund (mandatory
-250
-250
-250
-250
-250
spending)
Net total
4,367
1,000
5,367
5,396
5,294
5,312
U.S. Coast Guard
Operating expenses
6,195
112
6,307
6,556g 6,822
6,838h
Environmental compliance & restoration
13
13
13
13
13
Reserve training
131
131
134
134
134
Acquisition, construction, & improvements
1,495
98
1,593
1,384
1,347
1,598
Alteration of bridges
16
142
158
10
4
Research, development, tests, & evaluation
18
18
20
20
30
Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement)
1,237
1,237
1,361
1,361
1,361
Health care fund contribution
257
257
261
261
261
Gross total
9,341
352
9,693
9,729g 9,968
10,239h
CRS-16
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
House-
Senate-
Operational Component
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Reported
Reported Total
FY2010
U.S. Secret Service
Salaries and expenses
1,409
1,409
1,486
1,457
1,483
Acquisition, construction, improvements,
4
4 4 4 4
and related expenses
Gross total
1,413
1,413
1,490
1,461
1,487
Gross Budget Authority: Title II
34,935
2,052
36,987
36,250
37,380
36,767
Offsetting collections:
-5,004
-5,004
-4,128
-5,260
-4,114
Net Budget Authority: Title II
29,931
2,052
31,983
32,122
32,120
32,653
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief, House-reported H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-
reported S.1298 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Notes: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. Fees include COBRA, Land Border, Immigration Inspection, Immigration Enforcement, and Puerto Rico.
b. The FY2010 requests proposes to move FPS to the NPPD under Title III, see Table 14.
c. The Senate-reported version of S. 1298 also moves FPS to the NPPD under Title III, see Table 14.
d. Fees include Exam, Student Exchange and Visitor Fee, Breached Bond, Immigration User, and Land Border.
e. Fees include TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks.
f.
Aviation Security Capital Fund, used for instal ation of Explosive Detection Systems at airports.
g. Does not include $242 million for overseas contingency operations.
h. Includes $242 million for overseas contingency operations.
CRS-17
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)17
CBP is responsible for security at and between ports-of-entry along the border. Since September
11, 2001, CBP’s primary mission is to prevent the entry of terrorists and the instruments of
terrorism. CBP’s ongoing responsibilities include inspecting people and goods to determine if
they are authorized to enter the United States; interdicting terrorists and instruments of terrorism;
intercepting illegal narcotics, firearms, and other types of contraband; interdicting unauthorized
travelers and immigrants; and enforcing more than 400 laws and regulations at the border on
behalf of more than 60 government agencies. CBP is comprised of the inspection functions of the
legacy Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS); the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction, now known as
CBP Air and Marine (CBPAM); and the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP). See Table 8 for account-
level detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 9 for sub-account-level detail for CBP
Salaries and Expenses (S&E) for FY2008 and FY2009.
Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
FY2010
House-
Senate-
FY2010
Activity
Enacted
Request
Reported
Reported
Enacted
Headquarters Management
and Administration
1,269 1,021
982
1,419
Border Security Inspections
and Trade Facilitation @ POE 2,561 2,736 2,728 2,770
Inspections, Trade & Travel
Facilitation @ POE
2,094 2,255
2,250 2,269
Container Security Initiative (CSI)/
International Cargo Screening (ICS)
149
165
162
165
Other International Programs
11
11
11
11
C-TPAT
64
63 63 63
FAST/NEXUS/SENTRI
11
11 11 11
Inspection and Detection
Technology
146
144 144 164
Systems
for
Targeting
33
33 33 33
National Targeting Center
24
26
26
27
Training at POE
25
25
25
25
Harbor Maintenance Fee
3
3
3
3
Border Security and Control
Between
POE
3,501
3,557 3,558 3,577
Border Security and Control
Between
POE
3,426
3,505 3,505 3,525
17 Prepared by Jennifer E. Lake, Analysts in Domestic Security, and Chad C. Haddal, Analyst in Immigration Policy,
Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
18
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
FY2010
House-
Senate-
FY2010
Activity
Enacted
Request
Reported
Reported
Enacted
Training Between the POE
75
52
52
52
Air and Marine Operations -
Salaries
272
310 310 310
Rescission
—
— — —
CBP Salaries and Expenses
Total: 7,603a
7,623 7,577 8,076
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief,
House-reported H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-reported S.1298 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. This total does not include $160 million in emergency funding appropriated by P.L. 111-5.
President’s FY2010 Request
The Administration requested an appropriation of $11,431 million in gross budget authority for
CBP for FY2010, amounting to a $163 million (or 1%) increase over the enacted FY2009 level of
$11,268 million. The Administration requested $10,049 million in net budget authority for CBP in
FY2010, which amounts to a $228 million increase over the net FY2009 appropriation of $9,821
million.
Issues for Congress
Issues that Congress could consider during the FY2010 appropriations cycle include funding for
and deployment of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) technologies known as SBInet; CBP
officers and Border Patrol agents 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 $779 million for the deployment of SBInet18 related technologies
and infrastructures in FY2010, a decrease of $4 million over the FY2009 enacted level of $775
million (this total does not include $100 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act19). Within the FY2010 request, the Administration is proposing to allocate $494 million for
developing and deploying additional technology and infrastructure solutions to the southwest
border. An additional $200 million is requested for operations and maintenance of the cameras,
sensors, and tactical infrastructure (TI) fencing. The Administration notes that this will fund the
costs associated with operating and maintaining the technologies that have already been deployed
18 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.
19 P.L. 111-5.
Congressional Research Service
19
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
to the border as part of the SBI program. CBP states that the 670 miles of pedestrian and vehicle
fencing along the southwest border are largely completed, and their attention will now shift
towards other priorities, including the deployment of multiple SBInet projects.20 The management
of SBInet, however, has come under scrutiny. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)
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.21 Oversight of the SBInet
program’s continuing deployment of technology at the border, including whether DHS is on track
to meet its goals, may be an issue of concern to Congress as it considers the FY2010 request.
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)
The Administration requested an increase of $21 million for WHTI in FY2010. WHTI requires
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, which requires
U.S. citizens to provide proof of identity and citizenship at the land border, took effect June 1,
2009. Moreover, as of January 31, 2008 DHS has ended the practice of accepting oral
declarations of citizenship at the land border and is requiring 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 country22 (although DHS has made public assurances that
immigration inspectors will be allowed some discretion immediately following the WHTI
requirements taking effect).23 Issues for Congress include whether dissemination of WHTI
documents is large enough to prevent a detrimental impact on the border regions, 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.24
Other Travel Programs
The new International Registered Traveler program enacted by the FY2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, and which has been renamed Global Entry by the Administration, is currently
20 DHS FY2010 Justification, p. CBP BSFIT 2.
21 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.
22 Department of Homeland Security, Press Release, DHS Ends Oral Declarations at Borders, Reminds Travelers of
New Procedures, on January 31, January 18, 2008.
23 Comments of Colleen Manahaer, Director, WHTI, at New Administration, New Border Policy: International
Conference and Congressional Briefing of the Border Trade Alliance, Washington, DC, April 20, 2009.
24 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 since January 22, 2008 and several other
states have signed agreements with DHS to develop their own EDLs. For additional information and discussion, see
CRS Report RL32754, Immigration: Analysis of the Major Provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005, by Michael John
Garcia, Margaret Mikyung Lee, and Todd B. Tatelman.
Congressional Research Service
20
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
being rolled out. The program gives pre-approved, low-risk travelers (U.S. Citizens and Legal
Permanent Residents) expedited clearance into the United States at seven airports, and the
program will eventually expand to the 20 busiest international airports.25 An agreement with the
Government of the Netherlands will allow qualified U.S. citizens to join Privium, the Dutch
equivalent to Global Entry, and allow Dutch citizens to join Global Entry.26 In addition, pursuant
to requirements under Section 711 of the Implementing the Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007,27 the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) has been
established to screen Visa Waiver Program travelers prior to travel to the United States. As eight
countries were added to the Visa Waiver Program in 2008,28 the ESTA program is projected to
process over 17 million ESTA applications submitted by VWP travelers.29
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
characterized as a “three-pronged approach to enhance supply chain security.”30 The three prongs
of this approach are: the International Container Security project (ICS); the project to acquire data
elements to improve risk-based targeting of containers, known as the Security Filing (SF) or
“10+2”; and the efforts to identify and acquire technology to enhance cargo scanning and risk
assessment capabilities.31 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 fully
operational and scanning 100% of U.S.-bound containers at the Port of Southampton in the
United Kingdom, the Port of Qasim in Pakistan, and at Puerto Cortes in Honduras.32
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 the final rule setting out the implementation of the
10+2 data requirements November 25, 2008.33 The rule took effect on January 26, 2009, but is
being implemented under a “delayed compliance period” which is currently scheduled to last 12
months.
CBP Congressional Budget Justification materials indicated that the $165 million request for ICS
in FY2010 includes a $16 million increase for Secure Freight, the majority of which is what is
25 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Global Entry Program Overview, Washington, DC, February 12, 2009,
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/trusted_traveler/global_entry/global_entry_discription.xml.
26 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Global Entry with Expedited Entry into the Netherlands, Washington, DC,
May 5, 2009, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/trusted_traveler/global_entry/global_entry_flux.xml.
27 P.L. 110-53.
28 These eight countries were Estonia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, South Korea, and Malta.
29 DHS FY2010 Budget Justification, p. CBP S&E 15.
30 DHS, FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. CBP-SE-26.
31 DHS FY2010 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. CBP-S&E-23.
32 Ibid. p. CBP-S&E-24.
33 Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, “19 CFR Parts 4, 12, 18, et al.: Importer Security
Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements; Final Rule,” 73 Federal Register 71730-71785, November 25, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
21
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
characterized as a “base funding adjustment”.34 According to the budget justification materials,
the goals for FY2010 include expanding ‘as permitted’ SFI to an additional 9 locations that would
focus on high-risk trade corridors. An issue for Congress might be whether or not the requested
increase of $16 million is sufficient to support the expansion of SFI, given that the majority of the
requested increase has been characterized as an adjustment to base funding, rather than as a
programmatic increase. Congress may also wish to examine the criteria CBP is using to select the
additional SFI locations, and in particular their designation as high-risk.
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 includes CSI
and SFI.
Container Security Initiative
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 currently operational
in 58 ports. This year, the requested $165 million for FY2010 includes funding for CSI/ICS, SFI,
the Security Filing (SF), and technology acquisition efforts. As noted above, the CBP Budget
Justifications indicate a requested increase of nearly $16 million for the CSI/ICS program for
FY2010. However, as noted above, the majority of the requested increase appears targeted to SFI,
and thus the FY2010 budget request does not appear to include any additional funding for CSI.
Congress may wish to explore in more detail the current and potential relationship between the
CSI and SFI programs, and whether or not it would be beneficial to have a separate budgetary
presentation for the CSI and SFI programs. Currently, it is difficult to assess what portion of the
ICS account is dedicated to the CSI program.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)35
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 (FPS), formerly of the General Services Administration. For FY2010, the Administration
has proposed moving the FPS from ICE to NPPD in Title III. 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 FY2009 and FY2010.
34 DHS, FY2010 Congressional Budget Justification, CBP-S&E-21, accessed at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/
budget_fy2009.pdf.
35 Prepared by Alison Siskin, Specialist in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
22
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
President’s FY2010 Request
The Administration requested $5,763 million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2010. This
represented a 2.7% decrease over the enacted FY2009 level of $5,928 million. However, this
decrease is misleading, because of the proposed transfer of FPS from ICE to NPPD. The
Administration requested an appropriation of $5,458 million in net budget authority for ICE in
FY2010, representing a 9% increase over the FY2009 enacted level (including the Supplemental)
of $4,989 million. Table 10 provides activity-level detail for the Salaries and Expenses account.
The request includes the following increases:
• $70 million for the Southwest Border Enforcement Program;
• $92 million for the co-location of ICE facilities;
• $39.1 million for Secure Communities;36
• $12 million for the Detention Facilities Inspection Group;
• $12 for the Office of State and Local Coordination;
• $34 million to move data center operations from Department of Justice’s centers
to DHS centers.
Table 10. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
FY2010
House-
Senate-
FY2010
Activity
Enacteda
Requesta
Reported
Reported
Enacted
Management (HQ) &
Administration
0 0 486 522
Legal Proceeding
240
260
222
222
Investigations - Domestic
1,696
1,884
1,643
1,667
Investigations - International
111
119
113
113
Visa Security Programb
28 32 30 30
Total Investigations
1,835
2,035
1,786
1,810
Intelligence 64
80
68
72
DRO-Custody Operations
1,830
1,967
1,771
1,771
DRO-Fugitive Operations
241
251
230
230
DRO-Criminal Alien Program
209
222
193
193
DRO-Alternatives to Detention
67
69
74
64
DRO Transportation and Removal
Program 281
281
282
282
DRO Total
2,628
2,790
2,549
2,539
Comprehensive Identification
and Removal of Criminal Aliens
161c 212 200 196
ICE Salaries and Expenses
4,927d 5,348 5,311 5,360
36 Secure communities is a program which seeks to remove all criminal aliens convicted of violent felonies and major
drug crimes from the United States.
Congressional Research Service
23
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief,
House-reported H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-reported S.1298 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding. Although the total funding requests summed to the same amount,
CRS noted a discrepancy in the account requests between the Budget Justifications and the Budget in Brief. As
such, CRS chose to use the numbers presented by ICE in the budget justifications.
a. In P.L. 110-329, Congress appropriated $372 million for Headquarters and Administration. The President’s
request does not include a specific line item for Headquarters and Administration (now cal ed Management
and Administration (M & A)) and puts funding for M & A within the line item for office that is related to the
purpose of the funds. Amounts shown in Table 10 for the FY2009 enacted and the President’s request for
FY2010 are displayed in this manner. The House-reported version of the bill shows the M&A amount as a
specific line item extracted from the line item for the office that is related to the purpose of the funds.
b. In the FY2009 appropriations, the Visa Security Program was included as part of Office of Investigations
(OI) International Investigations funding
c. 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 INA §287(g) 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.
d. Excludes $20 million from the FY2009 supplemental which was appropriated to aid in the transfer of
unaccompanied minors from ICE or CBP custody to the custody of Department of Health and Human
Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
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.
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.37 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 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General study released in 2003
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.38
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
37 For more information on detention issues see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention:
Current Legislative Issues, by Alison Siskin. 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.
38 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.
Congressional Research Service
24
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
policies in different geographic areas. Furthermore, there have been concerns raised about the
adequacy of medical care received by aliens in detention.39 The Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458, §5204) authorized, subject to appropriations, an
increase in DRO bed space of 8,000 beds for each year, FY2006-FY2010. The total number of
FY2009 detention beds was 33,400, and the President’s FY2010 budget requests an increase of
$36 million to maintain current amount of bed space.
State and Local Law Enforcement40
Currently, the INA provides limited avenues for state enforcement of its civil 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. Congress appropriated $54 million for the 287(g)
program for FY2009. The President’s FY2010 request for ICE includes $5 million for 287(g)
agreements which is the FY2008 funding level.
Federal Protective Service41
The Federal Protective Service (FPS), presently within ICE, is responsible for the protection and
security of federally owned and leased buildings, property, and personnel.42 In general, FPS
operations focus on security and law enforcement activities that reduce vulnerability to criminal
and terrorist threats.43 FPS protection and security operations include all-hazards based risk
assessments; emplacement of criminal and terrorist countermeasures, such as vehicle barriers and
closed-circuit cameras; law enforcement response; assistance to federal agencies through Facility
Security Committees; and emergency and safety education programs. FPS also assists other
federal agencies with additional security such as the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) at National
Special Security Events (NSSE).44 FPS is the lead Government Facilities Sector Agency for the
National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP).45 Currently, FPS employs approximately 1,225
39 For more on the issue of detainee medical care, see CRS Report RL34556, Health Care for Noncitizens in
Immigration Detention, by Alison Siskin.
40 This section adapted from CRS Report RL32270, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law
Enforcement, by Lisa M. Seghetti, Karma Ester, and Michael John Garcia.
41 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and
Finance Division.
42 40 U.S.C. 1315.
43 For more information on FPS, see CRS Report RS22706, The Federal Protective Service and Contract Security
Guards: A Statutory History and Current Status, by Shawn Reese.
44 For information on NSSEs, see CRS Report RS22754, National Special Security Events, by Shawn Reese.
45 Information on the NIPP is available at http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/editorial_0827.shtm.
Congressional Research Service
25
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
law enforcement officers, investigators, and administrative personnel, and administers the
services of approximately 15,000 contract security guards.46
President’s Budget
The FPS congressional budget justification proposed $640 million for FPS in FY2010 to be
collected in security fees (which is not an appropriation, but an accounting of other agencies’
funding for security fees), the same amount Congress enacted in FY2009. FPS estimates
collection of security leasing fees47 to provide $420 million for basic security operations and $220
million for building specific security operations.48 However, the budget appendix displays an
amount of $1,031 million and CRS is unable to determine the difference in the congressional
justification amount of $640 million and this $1,031 million in the budget appendix. Additionally,
the Administration proposed to maintain FPS 1,225 positions and 1,225 FTE, and approximately
15,000 contract security guards in FY2010.49 Finally, the FY2010 budget request proposed to
transfer FPS to the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) of DHS.
Federal Protective Service Issues for Congress
There are potential issues Congress may wish to consider when debating the FY2010 FPS
appropriations, including the continued use of contract security guards and the transfer of FPS
from ICE to NPPD.
Contract Security Guards
According to the DHS Inspector General (DHS IG), contract guard services “represent the single
largest item in the FPS operating budget, with an estimated FY2006 budget of $487 million.”50
FPS currently uses approximately 15,000 contract security guards who, along with approximately
950 FPS law enforcement officers, provide security and law enforcement coverage to all GSA
owned and operated federal property.51 FPS contract security guard responsibilities include
federal building access control, employee and visitor identification checks, security equipment
monitoring, and roving patrols of the interior and exterior of federal property.52
In FY2007, DHS realigned its workforce and reduced the number of FPS law enforcement
officers and investigators. A GAO report, issued in June 2008, stated that FPS’s staff decreased by
approximately 20%, from about 1,400 employees at the end of FY2004 to approximately 1,100
46 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Federal Protective Service:
Fiscal Year 2010 Congressional Justification, Washington, DC, May 2009, pp. FPS-1.
47 The rate for basic security services is $0.66 per square foot of General Service Administration controlled property.
48 The rate for building specific security operations is based on individual building and agency needs.
49 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Federal Protective Service:
Fiscal Year 2010 Congressional Justification, Washington, DC, May 2009, pp. FPS-1 – FPS-2.
50 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Federal Protective Service Needs to Improve its
Oversight of the Contract Guard Program, OIG-07-05, October 2006, p. 2.
51 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal Protective Service,
“Fiscal Year 2009 Congressional Justification,” February 2008, p. 3.
52 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Federal Protective Service Needs to Improve its
Oversight of the Contract Guard Program, OIG-07-05, October 2006, p. 2.
Congressional Research Service
26
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
employees at the end of FY2007.53 According to the GAO, this reduction in FPS’s staff resulted
in the degradation of security at federal facilities and increased the risk of crime or terrorist
attacks.54 GAO concluded 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.55
Subsequently, the number of FPS employees increased by 125 to 1,225 in FY2009. In FY2010,
the Administration does not intend to decrease the number of FPS employees but maintain the
same amount as FY2009 numbers. Consequently, Congress may wish to determine if the GAO
report has merit, and may decide to require FPS to increase the number of its law enforcement
officers.
FPS Transfer to NPPD
The FY2010 budget request proposes to transfer FPS from ICE to NPPD. The Administration
states that this will allow ICE, which currently administers the FPS, to focus its law enforcement
operations on protecting the nation by targeting the people, money, and materials that support
terrorists and criminals relating to the nation’s borders. Also, the Administration states that FPS
should be transferred to NPPD given the directorate’s responsibility of the NIPP. FPS, as the
NIPP’s Government Facilities Sector agency, is an infrastructure protection entity; by transferring
FPS to NPPD, the Administration expects to “solidify” NPPD as DHS’s lead for critical
infrastructure.56 This proposal is based primarily on: 1) allowing ICE to focus its operations on
border security; and 2) reinforcing, or “solidifying” NPPD’s role in infrastructure protection. Both
of these reasons may be considered valid considering the increased congressional and national
interest in ICE and border security, and, what appears to be, a logical location for DHS’s
infrastructure protection law enforcement agency. Conversely, one could argue that NPPD does
not include any other law enforcement operational entity that has a similar infrastructure
protection responsibility. ICE, however, is focused on border security in which FPS has no role.
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)57
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
53 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.
54 Ibid.
55 Ibid., p. 14.
56 Ibid., p. FPS-1.
57 Prepared by Bart Elias, Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
Congressional Research Service
27
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
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 FY2009 enacted
levels and FY2010 amounts specified in the President’s request.
President’s FY2010 Request
The President’s request seeks total gross funding of $7,774 million in FY2010 for the TSA, a
nearly 12% increase over FY2009 enacted levels. The President has requested an increase of 12%
for Aviation Security, and a twofold increase in Surface Transportation Security funding, totaling
$128 million compared to the FY2009 enacted level of $63 million. The additional funding for
Surface Transportation Security would primarily go toward deploying 15 additional Visual
Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams—which consist of TSA inspectors, officers,
and canine teams that patrol surface modes (highway, rail, and transit), screen passengers, and act
as a visible deterrent—at an added cost of $50 million.
The largest increase to Aviation Security funding specified in the President’s Request is a $563
million increase for explosives detection systems (EDS) and explosives trace detection (ETD)
systems purchase and installation to accelerate the implementation of optimal checked baggage
explosives screening configurations. In addition to FY2009 appropriations of $294 million for
this function, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) provided for
$1,000 million for Aviation Security, of which $700 million was designated by the TSA for EDS
and ETD procurement and installation, to be expended over a two-year period. The combination
of these additional funds, along with funding provided through the Aviation Security Capital Fund
(ASCF), addresses concerns over the lengthy and costly process of optimizing checked baggage
screening systems.
In contrast to the increase requested for checked baggage explosives detection system acquisition
and installation, the President’s request calls for a funding reduction of $121 million for
Checkpoint Support compared to the FY2009 enacted level. Checkpoint Support funds are
primarily intended for modernizing checkpoint screening technologies and improving capabilities
to detect explosives on passengers and carry-on items. The proposed reduction is in response to
additional funds provided in FY2009 by Congress above the President’s request plus the
designation of an additional $300 million for Checkpoint Support activities specified in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). While the Bush Administration
similarly sought to reduce Checkpoint Support activities in FY2009, Congress increased the
FY2009 funding for checkpoint support to $250 million to match the amount provided in FY2008
through the Airport Checkpoint Screening Fund established by the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53).
The President’s request has proposed establishing a new certified cargo screening program to
fulfill the mandate of screening 100% of cargo placed on passenger airplanes by August 2010. It
also calls for establishing a program to implement and oversee the Large Aircraft Security
Program (LASP) to regulate security of large general aviation (GA) aircraft operations. The
President’s Request also seeks $10 million in new funding for aviation security to provide for
security fee collections to carry out security threat assessments of airport and airline workers
requiring Security Identification Display Area (SIDA) credentials for airport access.
Congressional Research Service
28
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
The President’s request also seeks a $76 million increase, a 65% increase over FY2009 enacted
levels for Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing. The majority of this increase, $64
million, is slated for a Vetting Infrastructure Modernization initiative designed to implement a
universal fee mechanism and common vetting infrastructure to reduce duplicative background
checks and fees for transportation workers and bring TSA modal vetting programs inline with the
strategic goals of the DHS Credentialing Framework Initiative (CFI).
Table 11. TSA Gross Budget Authority, by Budget Activity
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
FY2010
House-
Senate-
FY2010
Budget Activity
Enacteda
Request
Reported
Reported
Enacted
Aviation Security
4,741
5,310
5,266
5,238
Screening Partnership
Program (SPP)
151
150
150
150
Passenger & Baggage
Screening (PC&B)
2,716
2,789
2,759
2,759
Screener Training & Other
197
203
203
203
Checkpoint
Support
250
129
129
129
EDS/ETD
Purchase/Instal ation 294
857
807
807
Screening
Technology
306
327
327
327
Operation
Integration
21
21
21
21
Aviation Regulation and
249 254
254
254
Other Enforcement
Airport Management, IT, and
402 448
448
448
Support
FFDO & Crew Training
25
25
25
25
Air Cargo Security
123
108
115
115
Airport Perimeter Security
4
—
[3]b [3]b
Indirect Air Cargo – Fee
3
[5b] [5]b
Certified Cargo Screening
— 5 [2]b [2]b
Program
Large Aircraft Security Plan
—
2
[10]b [10]b
Security Identification Display
— 10
—
—
Area Checks
Federal Air Marshal Service
819
860
860
860
Management
and
725 763
763
763
Administration
Travel
and
Training
94
98
98
98
Threat Assessment and
116
192 172 172
Credentialing (TTAC)
Secure
Flight
82
84
84
84
Congressional Research Service
29
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
FY2010
House-
Senate-
FY2010
Budget Activity
Enacteda
Request
Reported
Reported
Enacted
Other/ TTAC Admin. & Ops.
34
108
88
88
Credentialing Fees
47
24
45
28
Registered Traveler
— —
Program
TWIC – Fee
32
9
9
9
HAZMAT CDL - Fee
15
15
15
15
Certified Cargo Screening
—
—
5 —
Program - Fee
Large Aircraft Security Plan -
—
—
2 —
Fee
Security Identification Display
—
—
10 —
Area Checks - Fee
Alien Flight School - Fee
4
4
4
4
Surface Transportation
63
128 103 143
Security
Operations and Staffing
34
42
42
42
Security
Inspectors
30
86
61
100
Transportation Security
950
1,005 993
1,000
Support
Intelligence
24
28
28
28
Headquarters
Administration
235
249
249
249
Human Capital Services
218
226
226
226
Information
Technology
473
501
490
496
Sensitive
Security
— —
—
Information - Fee
—
Aviation Security Capital
250
250 250 250
Fund (ASCF)
TSA Gross Total
6,991
7,774
7,689
7,690
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief,
House-reported H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-reported S.1298 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Notes: Tables may not add due to rounding. Table 11 Includes Alien Flight School funding of $4 million which
is not included in Tables 5 or 8.
a. FY2009 appropriated amounts specified in this table include TSA distributions of an additional $20 million
designated for implementing various requirements specified in P.L. 110-53. These distributions add roughly
$4 million to Aviation Security under Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement; $14 million to Surface
Transportation Security ($9 million for Operations and Staffing and $5 million for Security Inspectors); and
roughly $3 million to Transportation Security Support for Intelligence activities above levels specified in P.L.
110-329 for these specific activities (See DHS FY2010 Congressional Justification, p. TSA-Aviation-56).
b. The Indirect Air Cargo Fee, charged for conducting background checks of security workers in the air cargo
supply chain, was authorized under FY2004 DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-90) to fulfill requirements of
the TSA’s Air Cargo Security Final Rule. The FY2009 estimated fee col ections for this activity are reflected
in this table and are included in the totals for Aviation Security.
Congressional Research Service
30
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
TSA Issues for Congress
Significant issues that may arise during debate over TSA appropriations may include funding for
checkpoint screening technologies; funding to optimize checked baggage screening system
configurations; strategies and resources for meeting the mandate to screen 100% of cargo placed
on passenger airliners; and funding needs and oversight of the TSA’s efforts to operationally
deploy the long-delayed Secure Flight passenger prescreening system.
Funding for Checkpoint Screening Technologies
Funding for Checkpoint Support, and in particular the strategy and budgetary resources for
deploying new checkpoint screening technologies may emerge as a specific issue of interest to
Congress during the FY2010 DHS appropriations debate. Congress provided $250 million in
FY2008 and in FY2009, significant increases above the President’s request in those years, to
accelerate the deployment of technologies to screen passengers and carry-on items for explosives.
Also, Congress provided an additional $1,000 million in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) for checked baggage and checkpoint explosives detection
equipment, of which the TSA designated $300 million for the acquisition and deployment of
checkpoint explosives detection technologies, primarily whole-body imaging (WBI) technologies.
The FY2010 President’s request specified a 48% reduction compared to FY2009 appropriated
amounts for Checkpoint Support.
Also, controversies remain over the choice of checkpoint screening technology and the
application of that technology. While the TSA has abandoned the acquisition and operational
utilization of trace detection portal (puffer) machines in favor WBI devices, privacy rights
organizations and some Members of Congress have raised concerns over the privacy implications
of these technologies. The Aircraft Passenger Whole-Body Imaging Limitations Act of 2009
(H.R. 2027) would prohibit the use of WBI for routine passenger screening, allow passengers to
opt for a pat down search in lieu of whole-body screening, and would prohibit the storage,
transfer, sharing, or copying of images generated by whole-body imagers. The TSA has taken
steps to address privacy concerns including implementing privacy filters to degrade the image,
reviewing images remotely, and not storing electronic WBI images. The Transportation Security
Administration Authorization Act (H.R. 2200) would require the TSA to submit a report to the
congressional oversight committees on the WBI test program, including specifics on how privacy
protections were integrated. Privacy issues identified during field testing of WBI technologies
may influence the deployment strategy and operational use of WBI systems and may be an issue
of particular interest in the context of appropriations for checkpoint screening technologies.
Optimizing Airport Baggage Screening System Configurations
According to the TSA, only 68 out of 277 (roughly 25%) airports in need of additional EDS/ETD
deployment and facility modifications, have fully optimized their EDS and ETD system
configurations. Appropriations provided through FY2009 appropriations and the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) are funding 62 checked baggage explosives
screening optimization projects. However, many more airports are in need of funding for
EDS/ETD optimization. The President’s budget is seeking roughly $563 million over FY2009
appropriated levels in FY2010. The TSA believes that this will allow it to fund 24 additional
airport projects, compared to only four if FY2010 appropriations are maintained at FY2009
levels. Congress may debate whether this continued emphasis on accelerating EDS/ETD system
Congressional Research Service
31
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
configuration at airports is appropriate and feasible. Congress may also consider whether the TSA
has an appropriate strategy in place to work with airports to successfully carry out these projects,
and whether it can adequately conduct oversight of airport projects being carried out under an
accelerated timetable to avoid poor resource allocation and possible instances of fraud, waste, or
abuse.
Meeting the Mandate for 100% Cargo Screening on Passenger Flights
The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53)
mandated the physical screening or inspection of all cargo items placed onboard passenger
airliners using specified methods by August 2010. The Act further specified that 50% of such
cargo must be inspected using these methods by an interim deadline of February 2009. While the
TSA claims to be meeting the interim objective, there has been increasing concern that TSA may
lack the technology and fiscal resources to meet the 100% screening mandate by August 2010.58
Industry experts warn that trying to stick to the deadline may result in suboptimal solutions that
could impede the flow of commerce, particularly for inbound international flights.59
Congressional appropriators may debate whether requested funding levels for air cargo security
are sufficient to meet the mandate for screening all cargo placed on passenger airliners by August
2010. More broadly, Congress may debate concerns over the TSA’s approach to meeting this
mandate by relying mainly on private sector entities to carry out physical screening and
inspections and implement enhanced supply chain security measures in cases where the screening
is conducted off-airport. Congress may also take up debate over TSA investment in cargo
screening technologies, canine teams, and other acceptable screening methods compared to cargo
industry investment to deploy and operate cargo screening systems. Such debate could have
significant implications for air cargo security appropriations.
Operationally Deploying the Secure Flight Passenger Prescreening System
Past appropriations measures have included language prohibiting the TSA from implementing
Secure Flight beyond operational testing of the system until the GAO reported to Congress that
specific issues regarding privacy protection, data security and integrity, and redress procedures
had been adequately addressed in the system’s design and implementation. The GAO recently
reported that the Secure Flight program has mostly achieved the mandated requirements set forth
in these appropriations measures.60 The TSA intends to begin operational deployment of the
Secure Flight program in phases with the goal of fully implementing it for all domestic flights by
early 2010, and for all international flights by the end of 2010.61 Congressional appropriators may
debate the adequacy of funding for maintaining this timetable, as well as options for
implementing oversight mechanisms to ensure that the concerns expressed by Congress and the
issues examined by the GAO during development of the system—such as privacy protections and
data security—do not erode and are not compromised as the system is operationally deployed.
58 Chris Strohm, “TSA Lacks Technology To Meet Air Cargo Screening Goal,” Congress Daily, March 19, 2009.
59 Ibid.
60 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Aviation Security: TSA Has Completed Key Activities Associated with
Implementing Secure Flight, but Additional Actions Are Needed to Mitigate Risks, GAO-09-292, May 13, 2009.
61 Transportation Security Administration, “TSA and Ad Council Raise Awareness of Secure Flight Program as part of
National Public Education Campaign,” Press Release, May 21, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
32
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
United States Coast Guard62
The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for the maritime component of homeland security. As
such, it is the lead agency responsible for the security of U.S. ports, coastal and inland waterways,
and territorial waters. The Coast Guard also performs missions that are not related to homeland
security, such as maritime search and rescue, marine environmental protection, fisheries
enforcement, and aids to navigation. The Coast Guard was transferred from the Department of
Transportation to the DHS on March 1, 2003.
President’s FY2010 Request
For FY2010, the President requested a total of $9,729 million for the Coast Guard, which
accounts for about 18% of DHS’s requested budget. The President requested $6,556 million for
operating expenses (an increase of 4% over FY2009), $1,384 million for acquisition,
construction, and improvements (a decrease of 7% from FY2009), $134 million for reserve
training (an increase of 2% over FY2009), $20 million for research, development, tests, and
evaluation (an increase of 10% from FY2009), $13 million for environmental compliance and
restoration (a slight increase from FY2008), and zero funding for the bridge alteration program.
Table 12 provides more detail regarding the Coast Guard’s Operating Expenses (OE) account and
its Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (ACI) account.
Table 12. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
FY2010
House-
Senate-
FY2010
Enacted
Request
Reported
Reported
Enacted
Operating Expenses
6,307
6,556
6,822
6,838
Military pay and allowances
3,062
3,245
3,271
3,256
Civilian pay and benefits
645
700
700
700
Training and recruiting
196
206
207
206
Operating funds and unit level
maintenance
1,177
1,150
1,160
1,155
Central y managed accounts
262
353
331
355
Port/vessel security and
environmental response
24
—
—
Aviation mission hour gap
5
—
—
Intermediate and depot level
maintenance
824
903
912
925
DOD Transfer
112a
—
—
Overseas Contingency
Operation
b
242b
242b
Acquisition, Construction,
and Improvements
1,495
1,384
1,347
1,598
62 Prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
33
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
FY2010
House-
Senate-
FY2010
Enacted
Request
Reported
Reported
Enacted
Vessels and Critical
Infrastructure 113
103
103
123
Aircraft
—
—
—
Other Equipment
89
120
120
148
Integrated Deepwater System
1,034
1,051
1,015
1,195
Shore facilities and Aids to
Navigation
68
10
10
27
Personnel and Related Support
93
100
100
105
Coast Guard HQ
98
—
—
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief,
House-reported H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-reported S.1298 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. Transfer from Navy’s operations and maintenance account as per P.L. 110-252.
b. Both the President’s budget request and the House-reported bill include $242 million for contingency
operations funding for FY2010. The request treats this funding as a transfer, and therefore it is not included
in the FY2010 amount. The House-reported bill treats it as an appropriation, and therefore it is included in
the total for the House-reported column.
Issues for Congress
Increased duties in the maritime realm related to homeland security have added to the Coast
Guard’s obligations and increased the complexity of the issues it faces. Some Members of
Congress have expressed concern with how the agency is operationally responding to these
demands, including Coast Guard plans to replace many of its aging vessels and aircraft.
Deepwater
The Deepwater program is a 25-year acquisition program to replace or modernize 91 cutters, 124
small surface craft, and 247 aircraft at an estimated cost of over $25 billion. The Coast Guard’s
management and execution of the program has been strongly criticized and several hearings were
held on the program in 2007 and 2008. The GAO and DHS IG have been very active in reviewing
Deepwater and in 2007 the Coast Guard decided to phase out an outside system integrator (a team
led by Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman) to execute the program. For FY2010, the
President requested $591 million for Deepwater vessels, $306 million for aircraft, and $155
million for other related Deepwater assets and management. Issues for Congress include the
Coast Guard’s management of the program, which is the largest and most complex acquisition
effort in Coast Guard history, the overall cost of the program, and the program’s time-line for
acquisition.63
63 These issues are discussed in CRS Report RL33753, Coast Guard Deepwater Acquisition Programs: Background,
Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
34
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Security Mission
Some Members of Congress have expressed strong concerns that the Coast Guard does not have
enough resources to carry out its homeland security mission. A GAO audit raised this concern
with respect to the security of energy tankers,64 and at a Senate hearing the GAO testified that
Coast Guard resources were being challenged by a number of security requirements.65 About 19%
of the Coast Guard’s FY2010 budget request is for its “port, waterways, and coastal security”
(PWCS) mission.66
For monitoring harbor traffic, the President’s FY2010 request included $2 million to continue
operation of a nationwide system to detect, identify, track, and communicate with ships in U.S.
harbors, called the Automatic Identification System (AIS), which has a range of about 50 nautical
miles. This system is currently able to track ships, but not to communicate with them, in 55 ports
and nine coastal waterways.67 Tracking receivers are installed on land as well as on sea buoys,
and elsewhere to extend the range of tracking. The FY2010 budget also requests $4 million for
operating expenses for Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) of ships which has a
range of more than 1,000 nautical miles from the coast.68 The GAO released an audit of the Coast
Guard’s vessel tracking systems in March 2009 and found that AIS and LRIT systems may be
duplicative of a classified means of tracking vessels.69
The Coast Guard has set up interagency operations centers (IOCs) at some ports to enhance
security. IOCs are fusion centers to be located in each Coast Guard sector that are intended to
facilitate intelligence sharing and coordinated responses among federal and state or local law
enforcement to harbor security activity, such as boardings of high-risk vessels. They have been
established in a few major ports and are generally co-located with Vessel Traffic Services (VTSs)
which were set up for safety purposes and are staffed by Coast Guard “watchstanders” who
monitor harbor ship traffic and provide navigation information to ship captains. In FY2009, the
Senate Appropriations Committee’s report requested quarterly briefings by the Coast Guard on
the status and development of (IOCs). For FY2010, the President’s budget does not specifically
mention operational centers except for a request of $1 million to continue Project Seahawk at the
Port of Charleston. Seahawk is an interagency operations center that is different from the others
in that it was originally established by the Department of Justice rather than the Coast Guard.
An unresolved issue is the usefulness of tracking smaller vessels, such as recreational boats, to
counter the threat posed by suicide bombers or smugglers. There are too many smaller boats for
the Coast Guard to track and recreational boaters oppose tracking because of cost and privacy
concerns. Based on a recent DHS strategy report, it appears the Coast Guard has no immediate
64 GAO, Maritime Security: Federal Efforts Needed to Address Challenges in Preventing and Responding to Terrorist
Attacks on Energy Commodity Tankers, GAO-08-141, December 2007.
65 GAO, Coast Guard: Deepwater Program Management Initiatives and Key Homeland Security Missions, March 5,
2008, GAO-08-531T, see specifically pp. 12-16.
66 DHS FY2010 Budget in Brief, p. 88.
67 Coast Guard FY2010 Budget Justification, p. CG-OE-22.
68 Coast Guard FY2010 Budget Justification, p. CG-OE-18.
69 GAO, Maritime Security: Vessel Tracking Systems Provide Key Information, but the Need for Duplicate Data
Should Be Reviewed, GAO-09-337, March 2009.
Congressional Research Service
35
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
plans to require smaller vessels be outfitted with AIS transponders but will continue to pursue
methods to identify small craft.70
Non-Homeland Security Missions
Some Members of Congress have expressed concern that with the Coast Guard’s emphasis on its
maritime security mission, the agency may have difficulty sustaining its traditional, non-
homeland security missions such as fisheries enforcement or marine environmental protection.71
Marine Safety
A congressional hearing was held on August 2, 2007 to examine the performance of the Coast
Guard’s Marine Safety Program.72 Witnesses from the maritime industry complained about Coast
Guard delays in documenting mariners and vessels and a lack of technical expertise and
experience by Coast Guard marine inspectors. In response to these criticisms, the Commandant
announced a plan to increase civilian positions in the marine safety program and strengthen their
career paths to foster professional continuity in this area.73 The FY2009 budget request noted that
“the Coast Guard is encountering serious stakeholder concern about our capacity to conduct
marine inspections, investigations, and rulemaking.”74 The FY2009 budget provided an additional
$20 million in operating expenses in order to: add 276 marine inspector positions; respond to an
increase in LNG vessel calls; conduct examinations of 5,200 towing vessels mandated in the
FY2004 Coast Guard Authorization Act; review non-tank vessel oil spill response plans; and
conduct oversight of ballast water management.75 The FY2009 budget also provided $2.6 million
to fund 25 rulemaking projects involving safety, security, and environmental protection.
For FY2010, the President requested $7.5 million for 74 additional marine safety personnel.
Rescue-21
During the FY2007 appropriations process, Congress expressed strong concern with the Coast
Guard’s management of the Rescue 21 program, the Coast Guard’s new coastal zone
communications network that is key to its search and rescue mission and which replaces its
National Distress and Response System. A 2006 GAO audit of the program found a tripling of
project cost from the original estimate and likely further delays in project completion, which was
already five years behind schedule.76 The GAO’s FY2008 Coast Guard budget review noted that
while Rescue-21 was originally intended to limit gaps to 2% of coverage area, that target has now
70 DHS, Small Vessel Security Strategy, April 2008.
71 See DHS OIG, Annual Review of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Mission Performance (FY2007), OIG-09-13, December
2008 for the latest breakdown of resources by mission area. For information on Coast Guard environmental protection
issues, see CRS Report RS22145, Environmental Activities of the U.S. Coast Guard, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
72 House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,
“Challenges Facing the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Program,” August 2, 2007.
73 U.S. Coast Guard, “Enhancing the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Program,” September 25, 2007.
74 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-SC-5.
75 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-OE-52 and DHS FY2009 Budget in Brief, p. 60-61.
76 GAO, United States Coast Guard: Improvements Needed in Management and Oversight of Rescue System
Acquisition, GAO-06-623, May 2006.
Congressional Research Service
36
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
expanded to a less than 10% coverage gap.77 In the FY2008 Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161),
Congress expressed concern for the number of outages that had been recorded with the system,
and requested that the Coast Guard provide quarterly briefings on its plans to address the outages.
In FY2009, Congress provided $88 million for Rescue 21 for further deployment of the system’s
infrastructure at seven Coast Guard sectors78 and additional watchstanders at 15 sectors receiving
the most rescue traffic.79 The Senate Committee report stated that the overall acquisition cost is
estimated to be $1,066 million, an increase of $366 million, and the completion date had been
extended six years to 2017.80
For FY2010, the President requested $117 million for California and New England sectors to
receive Rescue-21 capability, and continued development in the Great Lakes region, Hawaii,
Guam, and Puerto Rico.
LORAN-C
The LORAN-C (Long-Range Aids to Navigation) system is an older navigation system that can
help vessels or aircraft determine their location using radio signals from 24 tower stations in the
United States.81 The Coast Guard has argued that this system in no longer needed in light of GPS
(Global Positioning System) technology which is more precise than LORAN, and in recent
budget submissions requested that the LORAN-C system be terminated. In FY2007, Congress
funded continuation of the LORAN-C system and required the Coast Guard, among other things,
to first notify the public before terminating the system. On January 8, 2007, DHS and the
Department of Transportation issued a Federal Register notice seeking public comment on
whether to decommission LORAN, maintain it, or upgrade it.82 A review of some of the public
comments filed indicate that lobsterman may use LORAN-C to locate their traps when their
buoys are lost, fishing trawlers use it to re-locate certain fishing areas and to avoid objects that
would interfere with their nets, charter boat and some recreational boaters still rely on it, and
harbor pilots and other commercial shipping interests believe a land-based system like LORAN is
needed as a back-up to satellite-based navigation, even though they no longer use LORAN.83
Small aircraft operators also support maintaining LORAN as a back-up system but the
commercial airlines and manufacturers (Boeing and Airbus) do not support maintaining the
system. Proponents of maintaining the land-based LORAN system argue that GPS signals are
weak and can sometimes be disrupted by bad weather or mountains and are vulnerable to solar
storms or intentional jamming.84
77 GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, Performance, Reorganization, and Related
Challenges, April 18, 2007, GAO-07-489T, p. 3.
78 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-AC&I-128.
79 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-OE-33 and 34.
80 S.Rept. 110-396, p. 88.
81 It dates back to World War II and a previous version known as LORAN-A.
82 Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 4, January 8, 2007, pp. 796-797.
83 Comments can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov and searching under docket numbers USCG-2006-24685
and USCG-2007-28460.
84 For a GAO review of the U.S. Air Force’s planned improvements to GPS, see report # GAO-09-325, April 2009. See
also, U.S. DOT, Volpe Center, Vulnerability Assessment of the Transportation Infrastructure Relying on the Global
Positioning System, September 2001.
Congressional Research Service
37
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
For FY2008, Congress denied the Administration’s request to terminate LORAN-C and noted that
an Administration policy decision on the future of LORAN-C was expected to be completed by
March 1, 2008.85 On February 7, 2008, the DHS announced that an enhanced LORAN system
(eLoran) will be developed as a backup system to GPS.86 The Bush Administration’s FY2009
budget requested that the administration of the eLoran system be transferred to the National
Preparedness and Programs Directorate (NPPD) of DHS (a transfer equating to $35 million)
because the NPPD’s mission was more related to critical infrastructure redundancy than was the
Coast Guard’s.87 In FY2009, Congress denied the Administration’s request to transfer these funds
to NPPD.
For FY2010, the Obama Administration requests that LORAN-C be terminated, arguing that it is
no longer needed in light of GPS and states that this will save $36 million in FY2010, $190
million over five years, and allow Coast Guard military personnel to be reassigned to other
missions.88 The budget justification for NPPD does not mention LORAN nor is funding for it
mentioned under other agencies in the Budget Appendix.
Bridge Alteration Program
The bridge alteration program is a program to alter or remove road or railroad bridges that are
obstructing navigation. The President requested no new funding for this program. In FY2009,
Congress appropriated $16 million and in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(P.L. 111-5) included $142 million in emergency supplemental funding for this program.
Arctic Activity
With the melting of Arctic sea ice, it is predicted that a Trans-Arctic commercial shipping lane
could soon develop in addition to other increased shipping activity in order to extract natural
resources from the region. Cruise ship activity has also increased in the Arctic and there is an
immediate concern about the inability of rescuers to reach a passenger vessel in time if it were in
distress. The Coast Guard is currently testing how its vessels, aircraft, and personnel operate in
the Arctic. Three polar icebreaker ships are operated by the Coast Guard (one of them, the Polar
Star, is in caretaker status) but funded from the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) budget. In
light of additional polar activities that may extend beyond scientific research, in FY2009,
Congress directed the Coast Guard to negotiate with the NSF to return the budget of the polar
icebreakers to the Coast Guard and provided $30 million to reactivate the Polar Star for 7 to 10
years of service life .89 The President’s FY2010 budget does not request any funds specifically for
icebreakers.90
85 For further information on LORAN-C and eLoran, see these two government reports: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/
Loran/geninfo/LORAN_PEIS_2008.pdf. and http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/frp2008/
2008_Federal_Radionavigation_Plan.pdf.
86 States News Service, Statement of DHS Press Secretary Laura Keehhner, February 7, 2008.
87 Coast Guard FY2009 Budget Justification, p. CG-OE-18 and 19.
88 Coast Guard Budget Justification, p. CG-OE-33.
89 Congressional Record, September 24, 2008, p. H9800.200
90 For further discussion of the U.S. icebreaker fleet, see CRS Report RL34391, Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker
Modernization: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
38
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
U.S. Secret Service91
The U.S. Secret Service (USSS)92 has two broad missions, criminal investigations and
protection.93 Criminal investigation activities encompass financial crimes, identity theft,
counterfeiting, computer fraud, and computer-based attacks on the nation’s financial, banking,
and telecommunications infrastructure, among other areas. The protection mission is the most
prominent, covering the President, Vice President, their families, and candidates for those offices,
along with the White House and Vice President’s residence, through the Service’s Uniformed
Division. Protective duties also extend to foreign missions in the District of Columbia and to
designated individuals, such as the DHS Secretary and visiting foreign dignitaries. Aside from
these specific mandated assignments, USSS is responsible for security activities at National
Special Security Events (NSSE),94 which include the major party quadrennial national
conventions as well as international conferences and events held in the United States.95 The NSSE
designation by the President gives USSS authority to organize and coordinate security
arrangements involving various law enforcement units from other federal agencies and state and
local governments, as well as from the National Guard.
Table 13. U.S. Secret Service Appropriations
All amounts in millions
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
Budget
House-
Senate-
FY2010
Programs and Activities
Enacted
Request
Reported
Reported
Enacted
Protection of persons and
806a 756 756
760
facilities
Protective intelligence
60 68 68
68
activities
National Special Security
1 1 1
1
Events
Candidate nominee
41 —
—
protection
White House mail screening
34
25
22
22
Management and
182 221 200
221
administration
Rowley Training Center
53
54
54
54
Domestic field operations
242
261
261
261
International field operations
30
31
31
31
91 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and
Finance Division.
92 For more information, see CRS Report RL34603, The U.S. Secret Service: An Examination and Analysis of Its
Evolving Missions, by Shawn Reese.
93 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service: Salaries and Expenses, Washington, DC, May 2009,
pp. USSS-1.
94 For more information, see CRS Report RS22754, National Special Security Events, by Shawn Reese.
95 Congress appropriated $100 million for the FY2008 presidential nominating conventions in Division B, Title II of
P.L. 110-161.
Congressional Research Service
39
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
Budget
House-
Senate-
FY2010
Programs and Activities
Enacted
Request
Reported
Reported
Enacted
Electronic crimes program
52
57
57
57
Forensic support to the
8 8 8
8
National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children
Acquisition, construction, and
4 4 4
4
improvements
Uniformed Division
— 4
—
modernization
Total 1,513
1,490
1,461
1,487
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief,
House-reported H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-reported S.1298 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Notes:
a. This amount includes the $100 million appropriated for protection of persons and facilities in P.L. 111-8, the
FY2009 omnibus.
President’s Budget
For FY2010, the Administration has requested an appropriation of $1,490 million for protection
and criminal investigation missions of USSS (Table 13).96 This reflects a decrease of $23 million
from the FY2009 total of $1,513 million for the USSS.
USSS Issues for Congress
Federal funding for NSSE costs incurred by state, and local entities is one issue Congress may
wish to address. In FY2009, Congress appropriated $1 million for NSSE costs within USSS.97
This appropriation was used to fund USSS development and implementation of security
operations at such NSSEs as the 2008 presidential nominating conventions; however, it was not
used to reimburse state and local law enforcement’s NSSE overtime costs. Congress appropriated
a total of $100 million for the 2008 presidential nominating conventions’ security through the
Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Grant Programs. The DOJ appropriation was used for
security and related costs incurred by state and local governments, including overtime, associated
with these two NSSEs.
One issue that Congress may wish to address concerns whether the $1 million requested by the
Administration in FY2010 is sufficient to cover multiple or unexpected NSSE costs, although
USSS has never requested supplemental funding to support NSSE operations. In addition to the
NSSE funding through USS and DOJ, state and local jurisdictions can use DHS grants, such as
the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) and the Urban Area Security Initiative
(UASI), for NSSE-related security activities. However, the grant approval process for these
programs is not flexible; the programs have limited application to NSSEs in that states and
96 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service: Fiscal Year 2010 Overview Congressional
Justification, Washington, DC, May 2009, p. i.
97 P.L. 110-329, Title II.
Congressional Research Service
40
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
localities would need to include SHSGP and UASI funding for NSSE security in their grant
applications. For unexpected NSSEs, states and localities are unable to plan ahead and therefore
cannot use SHSGP or UASI funds to cover these unexpected security costs. DHS does authorize
states and localities to reprogram SHSGP and UASI funding with the DHS Secretary’s approval;
however, that may result in states and localities not funding other planned homeland security
activities.
A related issue that Congress may wish to consider could include whether more coordination of
NSSE funding is needed at the federal level. Currently USSS, DOJ, and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency’s Grant Programs Directorate each have separate funding streams that can
be used to fund different components of NSSEs. However, there is no overarching coordinating
mechanism in place to oversee this funding.
Title III: Preparedness and Response
Title III includes appropriations for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), and the Office of Health Affairs (OHA).
Congress expanded FEMA’s authorities and responsibilities in the Post-Katrina Emergency
Reform Act (P.L. 109-295) and explicitly kept certain DHS functions out of the “new FEMA.”98
In response to these statutory exclusions, DHS officials created the NPPD to house functions not
transferred to FEMA, and the OHA was established for the Office of the Chief Medical Officer.
Table 14 provides account-level appropriations detail for Title III.
98 P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1400.
Congressional Research Service
41
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Table 14. Title III: Preparedness and Response
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
FY2009 FY2009 FY2009
FY2010
House-
Senate-
Total
Operational Component
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request Reported Reported
FY2010
National Protection and Programs Directorate
Administration 51
51
45
45
45
Infrastructure Protection and
807 807
918 883 901
Information Security
US-VISIT 300
300
356
352
378
Federal Protective Service (FPS)
640
1,115
Gross Total
1,158
1,158
1,959
1,280
2,439
Offsetting col ections
-640
-1,115
Net total
1,158
1,158
1,319
1,280
1,324
Office of Health Affairs
157
157
138
128
135
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
Management and Administration
837a
837a 852 845 860e
Grant Programs Directorate
3,471b 300
3,721b 3,867c 3,959c 4,217c
Firefighter Assistance Grants
775
210
985
U.S. Fire Administration
45
45
46
46
46
Public health programs
—
Disaster relief
1,400d
1,400d 2,000e 1,984f
1,441f
Disaster readiness and support
—
activities
Flood map modernization fund
220
220
220
220
220
National flood insurance fund
—
(NFIF)g
National flood mitigationh —
CRS-42
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
FY2009 FY2009 FY2009
FY2010
House-
Senate-
Total
Operational Component
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request Reported Reported
FY2010
Pre-disaster mitigation fund
90
90
150
100
120
Emergency food and shelter
200
100
300
100
200
175
Disaster assistance direct loan
—
account
Radiological Emergency
Preparedness
Net total
7,038
610
7,648
7,235
7,353
7,078
Net budget authority subtotal:
8,353 610
8,963 8,692 8,761 8,538
Title III
Offsetting col ections
640
1,115
Gross budget authority Title III
8,353
610
8,963
9,332
8,761
9,652
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief, House-reported H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-
reported S.1298 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Notes: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. Does not include $94 million in transfers from the Department of Defense.
b. Includes State and Local Grants, Emergency Performance Management Grants (EMPG), and $50 million in Real ID grants.
c. Includes State and Local Grants, Emergency Performance Management Grants (EMPG), Assistance to Firefighters grants, and $50 million in Real ID grants
d. Does not include transfers from the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) of $106 million to FEMA’s Management and Administration account, and of $16 million to the DHS
Office of Inspector General in Title I.
e. Does not include transfers from the DRF of $50 million to FEMA’s Management and Administration account.
f.
Does not include transfers from the DRF of $90 million to FEMA’s Management and Administration account but does include transfer from the DRF of $16 million to
DHS OIG in Title I..
g. Funds derived from premium payments or transfers from the U.S. Treasury.
h. Funds derived from National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF) transfers.
CRS-43
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The primary mission of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “is to reduce the
loss of life and property and protect the Nation from all hazards, including natural disasters, acts
of terrorism, and other man-made disasters, by leading and supporting the Nation in a risk-based,
comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness, protection, response, recovery,
and mitigation.”99
In support of FEMA’s mission, some of the main issues addressed in the President’s budget
submission include updating technology systems and improving processes related to disaster
assistance programs, improved evacuation procedures through additional state and local plans and
evacuee tracking systems, and improving operational capabilities for responding to emergencies
and major disasters. FEMA has also announced it will be making efforts to enhance the
capabilities of Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMAT), and implement standardized
hiring, training and credentialing of disaster responders. There is also a move to provide
additional funding for logistics planning, operations and management.
Additionally, FEMA plans to expand the agency’s National Continuity Program (NCP), improve
the National Preparedness Directorate’s (NPD) training, exercise, technological hazards and
community preparedness programs to implement the National Preparedness System,100 and
transition the Flood Map Modernization program to a system that will review and update flood
maps every five years. The President’s budget submission also included a request for increased
funding for its Gap Analysis Program (GAP) to examine the strengths and weaknesses of each
state’s emergency and evacuation plans. Traditionally, the GAP program focused primarily on
hurricane-prone regions and rural and suburban areas rather than including each state.101
The President’s Budget in Brief102
For FY2010, the President’s budget submission requested an appropriation of $7,235 million for
FEMA, an increase of 3% over the FY2009 total of $7,038 million. The President requested
$2,000 million for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) (an increase of 43% over the FY2009 total of
$1,400 million). The President’s budget submission also requested a total of $3,867 million for
State and local programs in FY2010, $909 million less than appropriated in FY2009, which was
$4,776 million (representing a decrease of 19%). The FY2009 enacted amount for the
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program (REPP) was $27,980 million; the President
requested $28,485 million (an increase of 2%).103
99 Federal Emergency Management Agency, About FEMA: FEMA Mission, Washington DC, November 2008,
http://www.fema.gov/about/index.shtm.
100 Assessments on the program’s progress will be published in a National Preparedness Report (NPR).
101 Department of Homeland Security: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Fiscal Year 2010: Strategic Context,
Congressional Justification, Washington DC, April 2009, pp. 2-11.
102 Prepared by Bruce R. Lindsay, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy, Government and Finance Division.
103 The REPP fund is financed from user fees assessed and collected from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
licensees to cover budgeted costs for radiological emergency planning, preparedness, and response activities in the
following year.
Congressional Research Service
44
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
State and Local Programs104
FEMA is responsible for administering grant programs that assist states, localities, and critical
infrastructure meet their homeland security needs.105 These programs are used primarily by first
responders, which include firefighters, emergency medical personnel, emergency managers, and
law enforcement officers. Specifically, the appropriations for these programs fund grants,
training, exercises, and other support activities that assist states, territories, and tribal and joint
jurisdictions to prepare for terrorism, emergencies, and major disasters. The programs are
administered by two different organizations within FEMA, the Grants Programs Directorate
(GPD) and the National Preparedness Directorate (NPD).
GPD programs include:
• State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP),
• Firefighter Assistance Grants Program (FIRE),
• Driver’s License Security Grants Program (DLSGP, formerly known as REAL
ID),
• Citizen Corps Grant Program (CCP),
• Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP),
• Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP),
• Medical Surge Grant Program (MSGP, formerly known as the Metropolitan
Medical Response System),
• Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG),
• Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), and
• Transportation Infrastructure Protection (including port, rail/transit, and Buffer
Zone Protection security programs).106
NPD is responsible for administering the Training, Measurement, and Exercise Programs, which
include exercises, training, technical assistance and evaluations. The Administration proposes that
in FY2010 this include the National Exercise Program (NEP), State and Local Training Programs,
Technical Assistance (TA) Programs, and Evaluations and National Assessments.107
As previously mentioned, the President’s budget proposed $909 million less for these programs
than was appropriated in FY2009; however, some programs would receive increased funding in
FY2010. The reduction is primarily the result of the Administration not requesting funding for
Emergency Operations Centers, Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program, Over-the-
104 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and
Finance Division.
105 For more information on these grant programs and an analysis of some policy issues, see CRS Report R40246,
Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities: A Summary and Issues for the 111th Congress,
by Shawn Reese.
106 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agecny, State and Local Programs:
Fiscal Year 2010 Congressional Budget Submission, Washington, DC, May 2009, pp. FEMA-SLP-1 - FEMA-SLP-2.
107 Ibid., p. FEMA-SLP-3.
Congressional Research Service
45
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Road Bus Security Program, the Trucking Security Grant program, and the Center for
Counterterrorism and Cyber Crime. In addition, the Administration has requested a funding
reduction for the State Local Training Program, Transportation and Infrastructure Protection, and
Assistance to Firefighters.
The Administration categorizes all these programs into: Homeland Security Prevention and
Protection Programs; Homeland Security Response and Recovery Programs; and Other National,
State and Local Programs/Training, Measurement, and Exercise Program. See Table 15, below,
for specific amounts requested.
Table 15. FY2009 Enacted and FY2010 Requested Budget Authority for State and
Local Programs
(All amounts in millions)
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
Budget
House-
Senate-
FY2010
Programs
Enacted
Request
Reported Reported
Enacted
Homeland Security Prevention
and Protection Programs
Urban Area Security Initiative
838
887
887
887
State Homeland Security Grant
950a 950b 950b 950
Program
Driver’s License Security Program
50 50
50
50
(REAL ID)
Buffer Zone Protection Program
50
50
50
50
Transportation Security Grant
1,120c 500d 512 706
Program
Homeland Security Response and
Recovery Programs
Assistance to Firefighters
985e 590f 800 800
Emergency Management
315 315
330
350
Performance Grants
Medical Surge Grants
41
40
40
40
Citizen Corps Programs
15
15
15
15
Regional Catastrophic Preparedness
35
35
35
Interoperable Emergency
50 50
50
50
Communications Grants
Mississippi Interoperable
20 0
Communications
Emergency
Operations
Centers 35
0 40 20
Other National, State and Local
Grant Programs/Training,
Measurement and Exercise
Program
Commercial Equipment Direct
8 0
Assistance Program
Continuing Training Grants
31
23
31
27
Congressional Research Service
46
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
Budget
House-
Senate-
FY2010
Programs
Enacted
Request
Reported Reported
Enacted
National Domestic Preparedness
102 52
92
102
Consortium
Cybercrime Counterterrorism
2 0
2
Training
Center for Domestic
62 63
40
63
Preparedness/Noble Training
Center
National Exercise Program
40
42
40
40
Technical Assistance Programs
11
13
13
13
Evaluations and Assessments
16
18
16
18
Rural Domestic Preparedness
3
Consortium
Management and Administration
—g 175
Total 4,776
3,868
3,959
4,217
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief,
House-reported H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-reported S.1298 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. This amount includes $60 million for Operation Stone Garden.
b. This amount includes $60 million for Operation Stone Garden.
c. This amount includes $550 million for port security, $550 million for rail security, $12 million for bus
security, and $8 million for trucking security.
d. This amount includes $250 million for port security, and $250 million for rail security.
e. This amount includes $565 million for fire grants, and $420 million for the SAFER program.
f.
This amount includes $170 million for fire grants, and $420 million for the SAFER program.
g. In FY2010, the Administration requests a specific budget authority for Management and Administration.
FEMA Issues for Congress
Pre-Disaster Mitigation108
The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program, Section 203 of the Stafford Act, awards mitigation
grants on an annual basis and is not directly connected to disaster declarations.109 It is intended to
reduce the risk and impact of disasters prior to those events. (The Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program, Section 404 of the Stafford Act, is a post-disaster program.110) The FY2010 budget
requested a $60 million increase above last years appropriated level, from $90 million to $150
million. This would return the program to the level of funding requested in 2005 and 2006.
108 Prepared by Francis X. McCarthy, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy, Government and Finance Division.
109 42 U.S.C. 5133
110 42 U.S.C. 5170c.
Congressional Research Service
47
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Authority for the PDM program will terminate on September 30, 2009.111 The House has passed
H.R. 1746, which extends authorization through FY2012. The Senate has yet to take action on the
extension of authorization.
Authorized by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the PDM program has been directed by
Congress since FY2007 to be run, in part, as a competitive grant program. This was a significant
change as the authorizing legislation was shaped around minimum state allocations and
community awards rather than on an individual project basis.112 Since FY2008, PDM has also
been subject to a significant number of congressionally directed awards. Taken as a whole, the
authorized allocations, along with the earmarks, left relatively few program funds for the
competitive process awards. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is proposing
in the FY2010 budget to “implement a base-plus-risk allocation program that will assist states,
territories, and tribes.”113 This change would reflect FEMA’s assessment of disaster risk and
allocate all funding based on the statutory minimum allocation to each state of $500,000, plus any
remaining funding that would also be allocated through a national level risk analysis. 114
Emergency Food and Shelter115
The FY2010 request for the Emergency Food and Shelter (EFS) Program (Title III of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act) is $100 million. The $100 million figure is the same
amount requested by the previous Administration for the program in the FY2009 budget request.
The budget request for FY2010 is a reduction of $200 million from the total program
appropriations in FY2009, which included an additional $100 million from the Stimulus bill for
the EFS program.116 With the inclusion of stimulus funding, the total funds available to local
homeless assistance providers in the current fiscal year through the EFS program is $300 million,
the largest amount in the program’s 26 year history. The existence of the extra stimulus funds may
have influenced the reduced request. However, since the funds are only available to the recipient
agencies until December 31, 2009, a significant reduction would be absorbed through most of
FY2010.117 The budget document places the program, a unique public-private partnership, under
DHS goal 2: ‘Build a nimble, effective emergency response system and promote national
resilience.” The justification for the reduction is attributed to a “refocus of resources on the
primary mission of preparing for and coordinating disaster response and recovery efforts while
still providing substantial support for the EFS program.”118
111 P.L. 110-329, 122 Stat. 3690.
112 P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 515.
113 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Fiscal Year 2010, Strategic
Context, Congressional Justification, p. FEMA-11.
114 The pending legislation to reauthorize PDM (H.R. 1746) would also increase the state minimum amount to
$575,000.
115 Prepared by Francis X. McCarthy, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy, Government and Finance Division.
116 P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Feb.17, 2009, 123 Stat. 164.
117 The Emergency Food and Shelter National Board, Current Phase Deadlines, at http://www.efsp.unitedway.org/.
118 Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Fiscal Year 2010, Congressional
Justification, Emergency Food and Shelter Program, p. EFS-14. Note: The EFS program is separate from Individual
Assistance funds provided for disaster relief. However, the EFS National Board has provided additional funding to
areas hit by catastrophic disasters, such as Florida following Hurricane Andrew, and Louisiana following Hurricane
Katrina, as a response to the needs of homeless populations in those areas exacerbated by the disaster events.
Congressional Research Service
48
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
State and Local Programs119
In FY2010, Congress could elect to address three issues when considering appropriating funds for
DHS’s state and local assistance programs. The first issue is the overall reduction in funding for
state and local assistance programs, the second issue is the allocation method DHS uses to
determine state and local grant awards, and the third issue is the reduction in appropriations for
Assistance to Firefighters Program.
• Reduction in Total State and Local Assistance Funding. The issue that appears to continue
to dominate DHS’s assistance programs for states and localities is the overall reduction in
funding, despite increases in some program funding. The Administration proposed to reduce
the overall funding for these programs in FY2010 by $909 million from what was enacted in
FY2009. This proposed reduction includes eliminating funding for transportation security
programs such as the Over-the-Road Bus Security Program and Trucking Security Program.
The Administration also proposed to reduce funding to such programs as the Assistance to
Firefighters Program and the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium. This overall
reduction in funding may result from a focus on maintaining existing programs instead of
increasing or adding additional grant programs.
• Allocation Methodology. Since FY2003, Congress has debated the allocation methodology
DHS uses to determine some state and local grant awards. Some degree of resolution was
reached in P.L. 110-53.120 The FY2009 DHS appropriations, P.L. 110-329, required GAO to
report to Congress on the data, assumptions, and methodology that DHS uses to assess risk in
determining SHSGP and UASI allocations. Specifically, this report was to include
information on the reliability and validity of the data used, the basis for the assumptions used,
how the methodology was applied to determine the risk scores for individual locations, an
analysis of the usefulness of placing states and cities into tier groups, and the allocation of
grants to eligible recipients. Additionally, the Congressional Record version of the FY2009
DHS explanatory statement stated that FEMA is “expected to continue to fully engage
agencies with subject matter expertise within the Department, when appropriate, in the
development of grant guidance and the determination of awards.”121 Congress could require
similar language in the FY2010 appropriations legislation in order to maintain oversight of
DHS’s allocation methodology.
• Reduction in Funding for the Assistance to Firefighters Program.122 For FY2010,
the Administration proposed $170 million for Assistance to Firefighter Grants (AFG),
a 70% decrease from the FY2009 level, and $420 million for SAFER (Staffing for
Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters), double the amount
appropriated in FY2009. The total amount requested for firefighter assistance (AFG
and SAFER) is $590 million, a 24% decrease from FY2009. The FY2010 budget
proposal states that the firefighter assistance grant process will give priority to
119 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and
Finance Division.
120 For further information, see CRS Report RL34181, Distribution of Homeland Security Grants in FY2007 and P.L.
110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act, by Shawn Reese and Steven Maguire.
121 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154, September 24, 2008, p. H9804.
122 This section prepared by Lennard G. Kruger, Specialist in Science and Technology, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
49
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
applications that enhance capabilities for terrorism response and other major
incidents.
AFG grants are used primarily for firefighting equipment, while SAFER grants are used for
hiring (by career departments) and recruitment/retention (by volunteer departments). The $170
million request for AFG, if approved by Congress, would be the lowest level for the program
since FY2001, the program’s initial year. On the other hand, the proposed doubling of the SAFER
budget to $420 million would be the highest level for this program since its inception. In
evaluating the budget proposal, Congress may assess whether there is an appropriate balance
between funding for firefighter equipment and hiring/recruitment.
Flood Map Modernization123
The Administration has proposed transitioning the Flood Map Modernization program to a system
that will review and update flood maps every five years. The President’s budget submission did
not request additional funding for the program. Some may question whether the increase in
reviewing and updating of flood maps can be achieved without additional funding.
The Disaster Relief Fund124
In the report “A New Era of Responsibility,” the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB)
claimed that prior FEMA budgets did not account for large disasters, permitting past
Administrations to project deficits that were lower than were likely to occur.125 The President’s
FY2010 budget submission increased the DRF by $600 million to account for large-scale
disasters. Congress has traditionally appropriated funds to maintain the DRF at a certain level,
and then provided additional financing for assistance through supplemental appropriations
following a specific large disaster. Currently, the DRF funds disaster relief for emergencies and
major disasters that cost $500 million dollars or less. Major disasters costing more than $500
million dollars are generally funded with emergency supplemental appropriations.
Is an additional $600 million a sufficient amount to obviate the need for emergency supplemental
appropriations? If not, it may not meet the President’s and the OMB’s stated goal of creating a
budget that accounts for large disasters because there will be a continued need for emergency
supplemental appropriations.
Still, some may argue that using emergency supplemental appropriations are a better mechanism
for funding large disasters because large disasters tend to be infrequent. Proponents of using
emergency supplemental appropriations to fund large disasters may claim that keeping the DRF at
a lower level prevents the likelihood that some of the funding in the account will be transferred
for other uses.
123 Prepared by Bruce R. Lindsay, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy, Government and Finance Division.
124 Prepared by Bruce R. Lindsay, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy, Government and Finance Division.
125 Office of Management and Budget, A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America’s Promise, Washington DC,
February 26, 2009, p. 36.
Congressional Research Service
50
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Office of Health Affairs126
The Office of Health Affairs (OHA) coordinates public health and medical programs throughout
DHS, and administers several of them, including the BioWatch program, the National
Biosurveillance Integration System (NBIS), and the department’s occupational health and safety
programs.127 OHA is administered by the DHS Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs and Chief
Medical Officer.128 Dr. Jeffrey Runge, the first person to hold the position, stepped down in
August, 2008. The position is now filled by Acting Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs and
Chief Medical Officer Dr. Jon R. Krohmer. OHA received $157 million in FY2009
appropriations.
President’s FY2010 Request
The President requested $138 million for OHA for FY2010, $19 million (12%) less than was
provided in FY2009. The requested funding level would support 84 FTEs, 4 more than in
FY2009. Most of the proposed decrease ($17 million) would affect the BioWatch program,
discussed below. In addition, $3 million would be cut from the Planning and Coordination
account (under which numerous leadership and coordination activities are implemented) through
decreases in compensation, travel, and use of contractor services. A $1 million increase was
proposed for Salaries and Expenses, to include an increase for information technology equipment
costs for the National Capital Region.129
Office of Health Affairs Issues for Congress
BioWatch: Effectiveness and Deployment
The BioWatch program deploys sensors in more than 30 large U.S. cities to detect the possible
aerosol release of a bioterrorism pathogen. OHA has coordinated with S&T and others to develop
a “real-time” (autonomous) replacement for the sensors currently in use, which require off-site
laboratory testing that can delay detection for more than 24 hours. However, in the Spring of
2009 New York City discontinued its use of an autonomous sensor prototype when it was found
to have performance problems.
Some Members of Congress and others have been concerned about certain aspects of the
BioWatch program for several years. In FY2008, Congress provided funding for the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study the effectiveness of BioWatch. This review is pending. In
its FY2009 recommendation, the House Committee recommended BioWatch funding
substantially below the request, and expressed concern about OHA’s plans to deploy two different
versions of autonomous sensors concurrently while the NAS review was pending.130 The FY2010
126 Prepared by Sarah A. Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology, Domestic Social Policy Division.
127 DHS, Office of Health Affairs, http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0880.shtm.
128 The dual title applies to one individual. The position of Chief Medical Officer is established at 6 U.S.C. § 321e.
Senate confirmation is required, and certain qualifications are stipulated.
129 OHA, Fiscal Year 2010 Congressional Justification, pp. OHA-38–OHA-47.
130 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2009,
report to accompany H.R. 6947, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., September 18, 2008, H.Rept. 110-862 (Washington: GPO,
2008), pp. 106-107.
Congressional Research Service
51
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
budget request proposed $95 million for BioWatch, a $17 million decrease from the FY2009
enacted amount. The proposed cut primarily reflects the Administration’s proposal to scale back
procurement and deployment of new autonomous sensors.
Proposed Transfer of the BioShield Special Reserve Fund131
OHA manages the Special Reserve Fund, the account Congress established for DHS and the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to purchase medical countermeasures against
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) agents, through Project BioShield.132 For
FY2010, the Administration proposed transferring management of this account and all of its
remaining funds from DHS to HHS. The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
2004 (P.L. 108-90) advance-appropriated $5,593 million for this account. The Administration
estimated the transferred balance will be $1,569 million, after accounting for congressional
rescissions, congressional transfers of funds to other programs, and actual and planned Project
BioShield countermeasure obligations from FY2004-FY2009. This amount would be transferred
to the HHS Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund. Of this amount, the
Administration plans to keep in reserve $1,264 million available for the purchase of medical
countermeasures. The remaining $305 million would fund countermeasure development through
the Biodefense Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) in an attempt to spur
the development of countermeasures that might be purchased through Project BioShield.133 This
follows a similar transfer of $275 million from this account to BARDA by the Omnibus
Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8).134
National Protection and Programs Directorate135
The National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) was formed by the Secretary for
Homeland Security in response to the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006.
The Directorate includes the Office of Infrastructure Protection, the Office of Cybersecurity and
Communications, the Office of Risk Management and Analysis, and the U.S. Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program (US-VISIT). In FY2010, DHS is proposing
moving the Federal Protective Service into the Directorate. The programs and activities of the
Office of the Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs and the Office of Risk
Management and Analysis, are supported within the Directorate’s Management and
Administration Program. The programs and activities of the Office of Infrastructure Protection
and the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications are supported through the Infrastructure
Protection and Information Security Program. The President’s FY2010 budget requests $1,319
million in budget authority for NPPD.
131 Prepared by Frank Gottron, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
132 For more on Project BioShield, see CRS Report RS21507, Project BioShield: Purposes and Authorities, by Frank
Gottron.
133 Department of Health and Human Services, Fiscal Year 2010 Budget in Brief, May 7, 2009, p. 108,
http://www.hhs.gov/asrt/ob/docbudget/.
134 U.S. Congress, House Appropriations, Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 1105; P.L. 111-8), committee
print, 111th Cong., 1st sess., March 2009, p. 1301.
135 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
52
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Management and Administration
The programs and activities of the Office of the Under Secretary are aggregated in Directorate
Administration and support the other offices and programs within the Directorate. This support
includes budget formulation and financial management, contract and program management,
information technology, business culture (i.e. employee relations), and communications, among
other things.
The Office of Risk Management and Analysis (RMA) was established as part of the Post-Katrina
Emergency Reform Act of 2006. It had formerly been a division within the Office of
Infrastructure Protection. The RMA now reports directly to the Under Secretary. The
responsibility of this office is to help develop and implement a common risk management
framework136 and to leverage risk management expertise throughout the entire department.
President’s FY2010 Request
DHS requested $45 million for NPPD Management and Administration (Table 16). This is nearly
$7 million below last year’s enacted appropriation, even after requesting 40 new positions (26
within Directorate Administration and 14 within the Office of Risk Management and Analysis). A
net reduction in the account’s base funding accounted for the lower funding. Funding for the
additional positions were offset by reductions in program funds. Most of these offsets came from
contracted services. The additional reduction in Directorate Administration was due the transfer
of rent costs out of the Directorate Administration’s base budget. Neither activity requested
changes in current services.
Table 16. FY2009 Budget Activity for NPPD Management and
Administration Appropriation
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Program
FY2009
FY2010
FY2010 House-
FY2010 Senate-
FY2010
Project Activity
Enacted
Request
Reported
reported
Enacted
Directorate
Administration
42 35
35
35
Risk Management and
Analysis 10
10
10
10
Total 51
45
45
45
Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief,
House-reported H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-reported S.1298 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
Issues for Congress
This year’s budget request does not appear to raise any significant issues. Of the offices located
within the Directorate Administration, only the Office of Resource Administration identified new
136 This framework includes the development of a risk management lexicon, risk performance metrics, a risk
communication strategy, and support for the development and vetting of new risk management tools and techniques.
Congressional Research Service
53
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
hires in its budget justification language. Through its oversight responsibility, Congress might ask
where the requested new hires will be located and what they will be doing. They may be doing
the work formerly being done by contractors.
Within the Office of Risk Management and Analysis, Congress might ask how the development
of RAPID, the Risk Assessment Process for Informed Decision-making, is progressing. RAPID is
being designed to be incorporated into the Department’s planning, programming, and budgeting
system, to help the Department allocate resources in a more analytical risk-informed process.
Since incorporating this process involves buy-in from across the Department, Congress might ask
how the program is progressing from the perspective of a variety of DHS components.
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-
VISIT)137
Until FY2006, US-VISIT was coordinated out of the Directorate of Border and Transportation
Security (BTS). DHS Secretary Chertoff’s second stage review, among other things, eliminated
BTS and proposed placing US-VISIT within a new Screening Coordination Office (SCO) that
would have combined a number of screening programs within DHS138 and that would have
reported directly to the Secretary. The appropriators did not provide funding for the SCO,
however, and US-VISIT became a stand-alone office within Title II of the DHS appropriation in
FY2006.139 In FY2008, DHS transferred US-VISIT into a new entity, the National Protection
Programs Directorate (NPPD). In its Section 872 letter, DHS stated that it was relocating US-
VISIT to the NPPD “to support coordination for the program’s protection mission and to
strengthen DHS management oversight.”140
President’s Request
The Administration requested $356 million for US-VISIT in FY2010, an increase of $56 million
from the FY2009 enacted level of $300 million. Included in the Administration’s request is an
increase of $42 million for additional US-VISIT infrastructure technology enhancements and
development of new capabilities supporting Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT)
and the Arrival and Departure Information System (ADIS). Other program changes identified by
US-VISIT include program management services, identity management and screening, data
center mirror and migration, and unique identity.
137 Prepared by Chad C. Haddal, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
138 Programs proposed for transfer to the Screening Coordination Office included the US Visitor and Immigrant Status
Indicator Project (US-VISIT); Free and Secure Trade (FAST) and NEXUS/SENTRI, from CBP; and Secure Flight,
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC), Registered Traveler, Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT)
background checks, and the Alien Flight School background checks program from TSA.
139 H.Rept. 109-241.
140 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, letter from Secretary Michael Chertoff to the Honorable Joseph I.
Lieberman, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC,
January 18, 2007, p. 8.
Congressional Research Service
54
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
US-VISIT Issues for Congress
There are a number of issues that Congress may face relating to the implementation of the US-
VISIT system. These issues may include whether the Administration’s proposed pilot project for
deploying the exit component at land POE is appropriate, whether the current plan to deploy the
exit component at air POEs is adequate, and whether the current POE infrastructure can support
the added communication load that a 10 fingerprint system would likely require.
10 Fingerprint Entry
In FY2009, US-VISIT plans to finish deploying 3,000 new 10 fingerprint scanners to the 292
POE where the US-VISIT system is currently operational—an action taken after US-VISIT
deemed successful an FY2008 pilot program to assess the impact of the program’s expansion on
the infrastructure at POE and wait times for travelers entering the United States. Issues for
Congress could include what kind of impact the ongoing database integration efforts with other
databases could have on the accuracy and operation of IDENT,141 whether the 10 fingerprint
technology that gets implemented can produce fast and effective results, and what kind of an
impact the deployment of the system to all ports of entry will have on the travel times for
individuals entering the country.
Exit Component at Air and Sea Ports
Deployment of a biometric exit system has been of concern to Congress for a number of years.
Without verifying the identity of travelers who leave the United States, DHS has no easy way of
identifying individuals who overstay their visas and remain in the country illegally. For the past
several years, US-VISIT has been heavily criticized for not implementing an exit system at ports
of entry. Although the budget justifications provided by US-VISIT are unclear on the extent to
which an exit system has been developed, the justifications do note that in FY2009 IDENT users
will be informed that biometric data will be collected from non-citizens exiting from the United
States from air and sea ports. US-VISIT has not requested any specific appropriations relating to
an exit system.142 The exact nature of US-VISIT’s exit system strategy may be an issue that
Congress will examine, given the intense congressional interest on this topic in the past.
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security143
The Infrastructure Protection and Information Security Program (IPIS) supports the activities of
the Office of Infrastructure Protection (OIP), and the Office of Cybersecurity and
Communications. The latter includes the National Cyber Security Division (NCSD), the National
Communication System (NCS), and the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC). OIP
coordinates the national effort to reduce the risks associated with the loss or damage to the
141 IDENT is a system used CBP that is composed of two databases: (1) a “lookout” database that contains fingerprints
and photographs of aliens who have been previously deported or have a criminal history; and (2) a “recidivist” database
that contains fingerprints and photographs of illegal aliens who have been apprehended by the border patrol. IDENT
uses a biometric identifier (the left and right index fingerprints and a photo) to obtain information on selected aliens
seeking entry into the United States.
142 DHS FY2010 Justification, p. NPPD US-VISIT 22-23.
143 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
55
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
nation’s critical infrastructure due to terrorist attack or natural events. This effort is a cooperative
one between the federal government, state, local and tribal governments, and the private sector, to
identify critical elements of the nation’s infrastructure, their vulnerabilities, the potential
consequences of their loss or damage, and ways to mitigate those losses. The NCSD performs a
similar function, but specifically focuses on the nation’s information networks. The NCS also
performs similar function, but specifically focuses on the nation’s communication systems, in
particular the communications systems and programs that ensure the President can communicate
with selected federal agencies, state, local, and tribal governments, and certain private sector
entities during times of national emergencies. The OEC is responsible for promoting the ability of
state, local and federal emergency response providers to communicate with each other during an
emergency through the development and distribution of interoperable communication equipment.
President’s FY2010 Request
DHS requested approximately $111 million more for FY2010 than was appropriated in FY2009
(Table 17). Approximately $24 million of this increase is due to adjustments in the account’s base
funding, the remaining $87 million is the net increase associated with requested program changes
(including the addition of 38 FTEs). The National Cyber Security Division program received the
bulk of these requested increases ($69 million). This included requested increases in Network
Security Deployment144 ($40 million), US-CERT Operations ($16 million), and Cybersecurity
Coordination ($13 million). Outside of the National Cyber Security Division, the largest
requested increase was for Infrastructure Security Compliance in Mitigation Programs ($19
million).145 The three largest requested reductions in programs were for National Infrastructure
Protection Plan Management and Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources Partnerships in the
Coordination and Information Sharing program (-$11 million), termination of the National
Command and Coordination Capability (-$6 million), and Wireless Priority Service in the Priority
Telecommunications Service program (-$5 million). DHS also requested $4 million less for the
National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC) within the Identification and
Analysis program. Other reductions included relatively small programs Congress added to the
budget in FY2009.
Table 17. FY2009 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure Protection and Information
Security Appropriation
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Program
FY2009
FY2010
FY2010 House-
FY2010 Senate-
FY2010
Project Activitya
Enacted
Request
Reported
Reported
Enacted
IP 314
333
346
346
Identification and Analysis
(87)
87
87
91
Coordination and Information
Sharing (56)
51
63
60
144 The Network Security Deployment activity involves the placement of intrusion detection sensors throughout the
federal government’s computer networks. The activity has been called Einstein in the past. The increase in funding
would be to expand the deployment with improved sensors.
145 Infrastructure Security Compliance enforces DHS security regulations related to sites containing certain amount of
harmful chemicals and ammonium nitrate.
Congressional Research Service
56
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Program
FY2009
FY2010
FY2010 House-
FY2010 Senate-
FY2010
Project Activitya
Enacted
Request
Reported
Reported
Enacted
Mitigation Programs
(171)
196
197
196
NCSD 314
401
382
399
NCS 141
140
110
112
Priority Telecom Service
(59)
57
57
57
Programs to Study and
Enhance Telecom
(15)
19
17
17
Critical Infrastructure
Protection (11)
14
11
14
Next Generation Networks
(50)
50
25
25
Nat’l Command and
Coordination Capability
(6)
0
OEC 38
44
45
44
Total 807
918
883
901
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief,
House-reported H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-reported S.1298 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Notes: Tables may not add due to rounding. IP=Infrastructure Protection; NCSD=National Cyber Security
Division; NCS=National Communications System; OEC=Office of Emergency Communications.
a. The table reflects the FY2010 proposed program realignments and restructuring. In other words, the
FY2009 figures in the table are what the FY2009 appropriations would have looked like given the new
realignment/restructuring. In addition, DHS presented the major PPAs differently for FY2010 than in
FY2009, breaking IP and NCS down into the next level of PPAs, though not for NCSD or OEC. Therefore,
IP and NCS are left blank in FY2010, and their component elements in FY2009 are shown in parentheses.
IPIS Issues for Congress
The requested increase of $13 million for Cyber Security Coordination represents a new activity
within the NCSD program. However, it does not include funding for any new FTEs. Nor is it
clear how the functions described in the budget justification differ from those associated with US-
CERT Operations. As part of its oversight responsibilities, Congress might ask for more
clarification on how the additional $13 million will be spent.
Also, it is not clear how the Obama Administration’s internal review of its cyber security
initiatives relates to or is reflected in this budget request. Congress might ask for further
clarification on this point.
The reductions sought by the budget request are programs that Congress has added, or added to,
in the past, and may be an issue as the Congress considers the request.
Title IV: Research and Development, Training,
Assessments, and Services
Title IV includes appropriations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), the Science and Technology Directorate
Congressional Research Service
57
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
(S&T), and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO). Table 18 provides account-level
details of Title IV appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
58
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Table 18. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
FY2010 House-
FY2010 Senate-
Operational Component
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Reported
Reported
FY2010 Enacted
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Total available budget authority
2,641
2,641
2,867
2,751
2,639
Offsetting Feesa
-2,539
-2,539
-2,503
-2,503
-2,503
Net subtotal (Direct appropriation)
102
102 364
248
136
Federal Law Enforcement Training
333
333 289
283
288
Center
Science and Technology
Management and Administration
132
132
142
142
143
Research, Development, Acquisition, and
800
800 826
825
852
Operations
Net Subtotal
933
933 968
968
995
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
Management and Administration
38
38
40
40
38
Research, Development, and Operations
323
323
327
327
327
Systems Acquisition
153
153
10
Net Subtotal
514
514 366
366
374
Gross budget authority: Title IV
4,421
4,421 4,490
4,368
4,295
Offsetting col ections: Title IV
-2,539
-2,539
-2,503
-2,503
-2,503
Net budget authority: Title IV
1,882
1,882 1,987
1,865
1,792
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief, House-reported H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-
reported S.1298 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Notes: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. Fees include Immigration Examination Fund; H-1b Visa Fee; and the Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee.
CRS-59
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)146
There are three major activities that dominate the work of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS): the adjudication of immigration petitions (including nonimmigrant change of
status petitions, relative petitions, employment-based petitions, work authorizations, and travel
documents); the adjudication of naturalization petitions for legal permanent residents to become
citizens; and the consideration of refugee and asylum claims, and related humanitarian and
international concerns. USCIS funds the processing and adjudication of immigrant,
nonimmigrant, refugee, asylum, and citizenship benefits largely through funds generated by the
Examinations Fee Account.147 Table 19 shows FY2009 appropriations and the FY2010 request.
President’s FY2010 Request
USCIS is a fee supported agency. As part of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS), USCIS was directed to transform its revenue structure with the creation of the
Examinations Fee Account.148 Although the agency has received direct appropriations in the last
decade, these appropriations have been largely directed towards specific projects such as backlog
reduction initiatives. The vast majority of the agency’s revenues, however, comes from the
adjudication fees of immigration benefit applications and petitions. In the President’s FY2010
budget request, the agency requested $364 million in direct appropriations. The remaining $2,503
million in gross budget authority requested would be funded by revenues from collected fees.
As Table 19 shows, the requested USCIS gross budget authority for FY2010 is approximately
$2,867 million. The requested direct appropriation of $364 million would include $112 million
for the E-Verify program, and $25 million for REAL ID Act implementation. Moreover, the
agency requested $10 million for a new Immigrant Integration Initiative and $11 million for data
center development. USCIS is also proposing to fund asylum and refugee applications and
military naturalizations—all which have no fees attached—with a direct appropriation of $206
million. All other programs and operations would be fee funded. Of the fee-collected funds for
FY2010, $1,953 million would fund the USCIS adjudication services. The President’s budget
request also includes requested funding levels of $154 million for information and customer
services, $375 million for administration, and $21 million for the Systematic Alien Verification
for Entitlements (SAVE) Program.
146 Prepared by Chad C. Haddal, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
147 §286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1356.
148 There are two other fee accounts at USCIS, known as the H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account and the Fraud
Prevention and Detection Account. The revenues in these accounts are drawn from separate fees that are statutorily
determined (P.L. 106-311 and P.L. 109-13, respectively). USCIS receives 5% of the H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner
Account revenues and 33% of the Fraud Detection and Prevention Account revenues. In FY2007, the USCIS shares of
revenues in these accounts were approximately $13 million each, and the funds combined for a little less than 2% of the
USCIS budget (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Fiscal Year 2009
Congressional Budget Justifications).
Congressional Research Service
60
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Table 19. USCIS Budget Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Program/Project
FY2009
FY2010
FY2010 House-
FY2010 Senate-
FY2010
Activity
Enacted
Request
Reported
Reported
Enacted
Appropriations
102 364 248
136
REAL ID Act
—a 25 25
—
Implementation
Asylum/Refugee Operating
1 —
Expenses
E-Verify
100 112 112
119
Data Development Center
—
11
11
Citizenship Education
1 —
Grants
Immigrant Integration
— 10 11
1
Initiative
Asylum, Refugees, &
— 206 100
5
Military Naturalizations
Processing
Fee
Collections
2,539 2,503 2,503
2,503
Adjudication
Services 1,979 2,207 1,952
2,027
Information and Customer
168 89 154
89
Services
Administration
374 366 375
366
SAVE
19 21 21
21
Total USCIS Funding
2,641
2,867
2,751
2,639
Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief,
House-reported H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-reported S.1298 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Notes: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a. USCIS requested $50 million for REAL ID implementation in the FY2009 Budget Request. This funding was
provided in the general provisions of P.L. 110-329.
USCIS Issues for Congress
For the FY2010 budget cycle, some potential issues for Congress include the decline in
immigrant and nonimmigrant applications and the use of fee-generated funding, as well as the
USCIS request for appropriations to process refugee, asylees, and military naturalization
applications.
Application Declines and Fee-generated Funding
Because USCIS has been almost completely fee supported for many years, accurate projections of
the number of applications that will require processing are essential in order to avoid building
backlogs or over-budgeting projects. In the past few years, USCIS has been criticized for its
handling of application backlogs and allegedly being underprepared for the surge of applications
Congressional Research Service
61
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
in the wake of the 2007 fee increases.149 More recently, the global economic downturn has
highlighted projection concerns, as some observers believe the number of applications submitted
to USCIS could decrease (thereby decreasing the agency’s revenues). If such revenue declines do
occur, USCIS may need to forgo certain future projects or request appropriated funds from
Congress. In order to address this issue, USCIS has among other things taken steps to ensure
more accurate application projections as a means of informing the budgeting process.150
Appropriations for Waiver Applications
In the FY2010 presidential budget request, USCIS has requested direct appropriations of $206
million for funding applications for refugees, asylum-seekers, and military naturalizations.
Historically, these applications (for which the fees are waived for the applicants) have been
funded through revenues generated by application fees charged to other applicants. In previous
years, Congress has had debates over providing USCIS with direct appropriations for application
processing and the fees. Thus, the proposal to fund these applications with direct appropriations
may be an issue of concern to Congress as it considers the FY2010 request.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center151
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) provides law enforcement instruction,
such as firearms training, high speed vehicle pursuit, and defendant interview techniques for 81
federal entities with law enforcement responsibilities. FLETC also provides training to state and
local law enforcement entities and international law enforcement agencies. Training policies,
programs, and standards are developed by an interagency Board of Directors, and focus on
providing training that develop the skills and knowledge needed to perform law enforcement
activities safely, effectively, and professionally. FLETC administers four training sites throughout
the United States and employs more than 1,000 personnel. Table 18 shows the enacted FY2009
and FY2010 appropriations for FLETC.
President’s Budget
The overall request for FLETC in FY2010 was $289 million, a decrease of $44 million from the
FY2009 appropriation of $333 million. The Administration intends to implement a one-time
decrease of 53 FLETC positions and 52 FTEs in FY2010.152 In FY2010, FLETC officials intend
to:
• train over 85,000 students;
• receive re-accreditation for its Law Enforcement Fitness Coordinator Training
Program, the Law Enforcement Instructor In-Service Training Program, the
149 For more information, see CRS Report RL34040, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Immigration Fees and
Adjudication Costs: The FY2008 Adjustments and Historical Context, by Chad C. Haddal.
150 Information is based upon CRS discussions with USCIS Chief Financial Officer.
151 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and
Finance Division.
152 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Fiscal Year 2010 Strategic
Context, Congressional Submission, Washington, DC, May 2009, pp. FLETC-1 - FLETC-2.
Congressional Research Service
62
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Criminal Investigator Training Program, and the Inland Boat Operators Training
Program; and
• continue construction of the multi-phased Practical Application/Counterterrorism
Operational Training facility.153
Science and Technology (S&T)154
The Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) is the primary DHS organization for research
and development (R&D).155 It performs R&D in several laboratories of its own and funds R&D
performed by the national laboratories, industry, and universities. See Table 20 for details of the
directorate’s appropriation.
President’s FY2010 Request
The Administration requested a total of $968 million for the S&T Directorate for FY2010. This
was 4% more than the FY2009 appropriation of $933 million. The Command, Control, and
Interoperability Division includes a proposed net increase of $5 million to a total of $80 million.
Within this $80 million total, a proposed increase of $15 million for next-generation cyber
security R&D was largely offset by reductions in the division’s other activities. A proposed
increase of $25 million for the Explosives Division included $10 million to develop technologies
for high-throughput screening of air cargo and $15 million to develop technologies for detection
of improvised explosive devices in mass transit and at large events. A proposed reduction of $31
million for the Infrastructure and Geophysical Division included the elimination of funding for
local and regional initiatives previously established or funded at congressional direction. The
request for Laboratory Facilities included $36 million for the planned National Bio and Agro
Defense Facility (NBAF), about the same as in FY2009. A proposed increase of $16 million for
the Transition program included $5 million for the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis
Institute, formerly the Homeland Security Institute, which was funded as a separate item in
FY2009.
153 Ibid.
154 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
155 Two other DHS organizations also conduct R&D: the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (see next section) and the
U.S. Coast Guard (see Title II above).
Congressional Research Service
63
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Table 20. Directorate of Science and Technology Accounts and Activities, FY2009-
FY2010
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Directorate of Science and
Technology - Total
933 968 968 995
Management and
Administration
132 142 142 143
R&D, Acquisition, and
Operations
800 826 825 852
Border and Maritime
33
40
40
40
Chemical and Biological
200
207
222
207
Command, Control, and
Interoperability
75 80 81 83
Explosives
96
121
121
121
Human Factors / Behavioral
Sciences
12 15 17 12
Infrastructure and Geophysical
76
45
52
68
Innovation
33
44
44
44
Laboratory
Facilities
162 154 123 155
Test and Evaluation, Standards
29
29
29
29
Transition
29
45
46
45
University
Programs
50
46
50
48
Homeland
Security
Institute
5
0
0
0
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief,
House-reported H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-reported S.1298 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
Issues for Congress
Among the issues facing Congress are the S&T Directorate’s priorities and how they are set; its
relationships with other federal R&D organizations both inside and outside DHS; its budgeting
and financial management; the allocation of its R&D resources to national laboratories, industry,
and universities; and plans over the next few years to establish new university centers of
excellence and terminate or merge several existing ones.156
The start of NBAF construction in FY2011 will likely require significant increases in Laboratory
Facilities funding over the next several years. It may also result in increased Congressional
oversight. For construction of NBAF and decommissioning of the Plum Island Animal Disease
Center (PIADC), which NBAF will replace, DHS expects to need appropriations of $687 million
156 For more information, see CRS Report RL34356, The DHS Directorate of Science and Technology: Key Issues for
Congress, by Dana A. Shea and Daniel Morgan.
Congressional Research Service
64
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
between FY2011 and FY2014. The estimated total cost of the NBAF project, excluding PIADC
decommissioning and site-specific infrastructure and utility upgrades, increased from $451
million in December 2006 to $615 million in May 2009. Decommissioning PIADC is expected to
cost $190 million. In the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 110-
329, Div. D, Sec. 540) Congress authorized DHS to offset NBAF construction and PIADC
decommissioning costs by selling Plum Island. Site-specific costs of $110 million will be
contributed in-kind by Kansas State University.157
Statutory authority for the Homeland Security Institute (HSI) expired in April 2009. Under its
general authority to establish federally funded R&D centers, the S&T Directorate has replaced
HSI with the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute. It has also established a new
Homeland Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute. Both institutes will be
funded mostly on a cost-reimbursement basis by other S&T programs and other DHS and non-
DHS agencies. The FY2010 DHS congressional budget justification estimated that reimbursable
obligations by the two institutes would total $122 million in FY2009 and $143 million in
FY2010.
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office158
The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) is the primary DHS organization for combating
the threat of nuclear attack. It is responsible for all DHS nuclear detection research, development,
testing, evaluation, acquisition, and operational support. See Table 21 for details of the
appropriation for DNDO.
President’s FY2010 Request
The Administration requested a total of $366 million for DNDO for FY2010. This was a 29%
reduction from the FY2009 appropriation of $514 million. The requested funding for
Management and Administration and Research, Development, and Operations was approximately
the same as in FY2009. No funds were requested for Systems Acquisition, which received $153
million in FY2009. According to the DHS congressional budget justification, new funds for
Systems Acquisition are not needed in FY2010 because unobligated funds are available from
previous fiscal years and because secretarial certification of Advanced Spectroscopic Portal
(ASP) technology has been delayed.
157 For more information on NBAF, see CRS Report RL34160, The National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility: Issues
for Congress, by Dana A. Shea, Jim Monke, and Frank Gottron.
158 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
Congressional Research Service
65
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Table 21. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Accounts and Activities, FY2009-
FY2010
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office Total
514 366 366 374
Management and
Administration
38 40 40 38
Research, Development, and
Operations
323 327 327 327
Systems Engineering and
Architecture
25 25 25 25
Systems
Development
108 100 100 100
Transformational Research and
Development
103 111 111 111
Assessments
32 32 32 32
Operations
Support
38 38 38 38
National Technical Nuclear
Forensics
17 20 20 20
Systems
Acquisition
153 0 0
10
Radiation Portal Monitoring
Program
120 0 0
Securing
the
Cities
20 0 0
10
Human Portable Radiation
Detection Systems
13 0 0
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief,
House-reported H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-reported S.1298 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
Issues for Congress
Congressional attention has focused on the testing and analysis DNDO conducted to support its
decision to purchase and deploy ASPs, a type of next-generation radiation portal monitor. A
requirement for secretarial certification before full-scale ASP procurement has been included in
each appropriations act since FY2007. The expected date for certification has been postponed
several times. For more information, see CRS Report RL34750, The Advanced Spectroscopic
Portal Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Dana A. Shea, John D. Moteff, and
Daniel Morgan.
The global nuclear detection architecture overseen by DNDO and the relative roles of DNDO and
the S&T Directorate in research, development, testing, and evaluation also remain issues of
congressional interest. For more information on the global nuclear detection architecture, see
CRS Report RL34574, The Global Nuclear Detection Architecture: Issues for Congress, by Dana
A. Shea.
Congressional Research Service
66
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
The mission of DNDO, as established by Congress in the SAFE Port Act (P.L. 109-347), includes
serving as the primary federal entity “to further develop, acquire, and support the deployment of
an enhanced domestic system” for detection of nuclear and radiological devices and material (6
U.S.C. 592). Congress may wish to consider whether the acquisition portion of that mission is
consistent with the Administration’s request of no new funding for Systems Acquisition and the
following statement in the President’s Budget Appendix (pp. 560-561):
In the past, DNDO acquired and deployed radiation detection technologies for DHS
components, primarily the Coast Guard and the Customs and Border Patrol, or state and local
users. Funding requests for radiation detection equipment will now be sought by the end
users that will operate them.
FY2010-Related Legislation
Budget Resolution
The President’s FY2009 budget request included nearly $992 billion in discretionary, non-
emergency, budget authority. On March 6, 2008, the House and Senate Budget Committees each
reported budget resolutions. The House budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 312) was passed in the
House on March 13, 2008. While the budget resolution does not identify specific amounts for
DHS, it does note that:
this resolution assumes funding above the President’s requested level for 2009, and
additional amounts in subsequent years, in the four budget functions—Function 400
(Transportation), Function 450 (Community and Regional Development), Function 550
(Health), and Function 750 (Administration of Justice)—that fund most nondefense
homeland security activities.159
The Senate budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 70) was passed in the Senate on March 14, 2008. On
June 5, 2008, the House and Senate reached agreement on S.Con.Res. 70. The final agreement
contained language similar to the House language excerpted above, and also noted that:
the homeland security funding provided in this resolution will help to strengthen the security
of our Nation’s transportation system, particularly our ports where significant security
shortfalls still exist and foreign ports, by expanding efforts to identify and scan all high-risk
United States-bound cargo, equip, train and support first responders (including enhancing
interoperable communications and emergency management), strengthen border patrol, and
increase the preparedness of the public health system.160
159 H.Con.Res. 312, §603
160 S.Con.Res. 70, §512.
Congressional Research Service
67
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Appendix A. DHS Funding in P.L. 111-5
Title VI of P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, included a number
of provisions providing emergency funding to DHS components; these provisions were also
included in the accompanying conference language in Title VI of H.Rept. 111-16. The following
funding provisions are included for the Department of Homeland Security:
• $200 million for the Office of the Under Secretary of Management. These funds
are for the planning, design, and construction costs necessary to consolidate the
DHS headquarters.
• $5 million for the Office of Inspector General. Funds are to be used for oversight
and auditing of programs, grants and projects funded under the DHS Title of the
stimulus bill.
• $160 million for the CBP Salaries and Expenses account. This includes $100
million for the procurement and deployment of new or replacement non-intrusive
inspection (NII) systems, and $60 million for tactical communications.
• $100 million for the CBP Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and
Technology account for the expedited development and deployment of border
security technology on the Southwest border. A DHS expenditure plan is required
within 45 days of enactment of P.L. 111-5.
• $420 million for the CBP Construction account. These funds are designated for
the planning, design, management, alteration, and construction of land ports-of-
entry. A DHS expenditure plan is required within 45 days of enactment of P.L.
111-2.
• $20 million for ICE’s Automation Modernization account for the procurement
and deployment of tactical communications equipment and radios. A DHS
expenditure plan is required within 45 days of enactment of P.L. 111-5.
• $1,000 million for TSA’s Aviation Security account to procure and install
checked baggage explosives detection systems and checkpoint explosives
detection equipment. A DHS expenditure plan is required within 45 days of
enactment of P.L. 111-5.
• $98 million for the Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
account for shore facilities and aids to navigation facilities, priority procurements
due to material and labor cost increases, and for costs to repair, renovate assess,
or improve vessels. The funding cannot be used for pre-acquisition survey,
design, or construction of a new polar icebreaker. A DHS expenditure plan is
required within 45 days of enactment of P.L. 111-5.
• $142 million for the Coast Guard Alteration of Bridges account to be used for the
alteration or removal of obstructive bridges. A DHS expenditure plan is required
within 45 days of enactment of P.L. 111-5.
• $300 million to FEMA’s State and Local Program account, of which $150 million
is for Public Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad Security Assistance,
including Amtrak security, and $150 million is for Port Security Grants.
Congressional Research Service
68
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
• $210 million for FEMA’s Firefighter Assistance Grants account to be used for the
modification, upgrade or construction of non-Federal fire stations.
• $100 million for FEMA’s Emergency Food and Shelter account.
In addition to the broad funding distribution listed above, the general provisions of the Title VI of
H.Rept. 111-16 includes so-called “buy American” requirements. With certain exceptions, this
provision states that funds appropriated or otherwise made available to DHS in the Act may not
be used for the procurement of fabric or fiber-related items if the item is not grown, reprocessed,
reused, or produced in the United States. Generally, DHS can procure items with 10% or less of
total value of non-compliant fibers. Exceptions to this requirement are made for vessels in foreign
waters, emergency procurements, small purchases, and circumstances wherein the Secretary of
DHS determines that qualifying items of satisfactory quality or quantity cannot be procured.
Congressional Research Service
69
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Appendix B. FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009
Title VI of the Senate-reported version of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (S. 1054),
contains a total of $287 million for DHS. Of this amount, $140 million is fully recommended to
support activities along the southwest border with Mexico in response to reports of increasing
drug-related violence. The recommended budget authority includes the following amounts by
account:
• CBP Salaries and Expenses: $46 million, of which $40 million is for various
activities along the southwest border and $6 million for the care and transport of
unaccompanied illegal alien children;
• CBP Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement: $5
million to support additional air operations along the southwest border;
• ICE Salaries and Expenses: $67 million, of which $50 million is for various
activities along the southwest border, and $12 million is for the care and transport
of unaccompanied illegal alien children to HHS;
• U.S. Coast Guard Operating Expenses: $140 million, of which $129 million is
for operational support to the Department of Defense requirements for Operation
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, and $10 million is for the High
Endurance Cutter that plays a part in the Coast Guard’s interdiction strategy;
• FEMA State and Local Programs: $30 million for Operation Stonegarden.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 1054 on May 14, 2009. The House passed
H.R. 2346 on May 14, 2009. H.R. 2346 as passed by the House contained no supplemental
budget authority for DHS.
Congressional Research Service
70
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Appendix C. DHS Appropriations in Context
Federal-Wide Homeland Security Funding
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there has been an increasing interest in the
levels of funding available for homeland security efforts. The Office of Management and Budget,
as originally directed by the FY1998 National Defense Authorization Act, has published an
annual report to Congress on combating terrorism. Beginning with the June 24, 2002 edition of
this report, homeland security was included as a part of the analysis. In subsequent years, this
homeland security funding analysis has become more refined, as distinctions (and account lines)
between homeland and non-homeland security activities have become more precise. This means
that while Table C-1 is presented in such a way as to allow year to year comparisons, they may in
fact not be strictly comparable due to the increasing specificity of the analysis, as outlined above.
With regard to DHS funding, it is important to note that DHS funding does not comprise all
federal spending on homeland security efforts. In fact, while the largest component of federal
spending on homeland security is contained within DHS, the DHS homeland security request for
FY2010 accounts for approximately 50% of total federal funding for homeland security. The
Department of Defense comprises the next highest proportion at 28% of all federal spending on
homeland security. The Department of Health and Human Services at 7%, the Department of
Justice at 6% and the Department of Energy at 3% round out the top five agencies in spending on
homeland security. These five agencies collectively account for nearly 94% of all federal
spending on homeland security. It is also important to note that not all DHS funding is classified
as pertaining to homeland security activities. The legacy agencies that became a part of DHS also
conduct activities that are not homeland security related. Therefore, while the FY2010 request
included total homeland security budget authority of $34.7 billion for DHS, the requested total
gross budget authority was $55.1 billion. The same is true of the other agencies listed in the table.
Congressional Research Service
71
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Table C-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2003-FY2010
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2010 as
Department
FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Request
% of Total
Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)
17,381 23,063 22,923 24,549 26,571 29,554 32,486 36,860 34,732
50%
Department of Defense (DOD)a 16,126
8,442
7,024
17,188
17,510
16,538
18,032
19,779
19,303 28%
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS)
1,913 4,144 4,062 4,229 4,352 4,327 4,301 4,677 4,840
7%
Department
of
Justice
(DOJ)
2,143 2,349 2,180 2,767 3,026 3,518 3,528 3,688 3,974
6%
Department
of
Energy
(DOE)
1,220 1,408 1,364 1,562 1,702 1,719 1,827 1,939 2,008
3%
Department of State (DOS)
477
634
696
824
1,108
1,242
1,719
1,809
1,768
3%
Department
of
Agriculture
(AG) 553 410 411 596 597 541 575 507 575
1%
National Science Foundation (NSF)
260
285
340
342
344
385
365
407
386
1%
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
49
154
271
249
298
260
309
305
369
1%
Department
of
Commerce
116 112 125 167 181 205 207 271 268
0%
Other
Agencies
3,613 1,445 1,437 1,910 1,429 1,545 1,751 1,960 1,624
2%
Total
Federal
Budget
Authority 43,848 42,447 40,834 54,383 57,118 59,833 65,099 72,201 69,845
100%
Sources: CRS analysis of data contained in Section 3. Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” and Appendix K of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2010
President’s Budget (for FY2008-FY2010); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” and Appendix K of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2009 President’s
Budget (for FY2007); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2008 President’s Budget (for FY2006); Section 3.
“Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2008 President’s Budget (for FY2005); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,”
of Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2006 President’s Budget (for FY2004); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of Analytical Perspectives volume of the
FY2005 President’s Budget (for FY2003) and Office of Management and Budget, 2003 Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, Sept. 2003, p. 10; CRS analysis of FY2002-
2006 re-estimates of DOD homeland security funding provided by OMB, March 17, 2005.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. FY totals shown in this table include enacted supplemental funding. Year to year comparisons using particularly FY2002 may
not be directly comparable, because as time has gone on agencies have been able to distinguish homeland security and non-homeland security activities with greater
specificity.
a. FY2002, FY2003, and FY2004 do not include re-estimates of DOD homeland security funding. For FY2007 DOD changed the manner in which they calculate their
homeland security activities. This new method of estimation has been applied for FY2005 and forward. Re-estimates of FY2002-FY2004 DOD funding using this new
method of calculation were not available for inclusion.
CRS-72
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Author Contact Information
Jennifer E. Lake, Coordinator
Daniel Morgan
Analyst in Domestic Security
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
jlake@crs.loc.gov, 7-0620
dmorgan@crs.loc.gov, 7-5849
Chad C. Haddal, Coordinator
Shawn Reese
Analyst in Immigration Policy
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
chaddal@crs.loc.gov, 7-3701
Security Policy
sreese@crs.loc.gov, 7-0635
Barbara L. Schwemle
Bruce R. Lindsay
Analyst in American National Government
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
bschwemle@crs.loc.gov, 7-8655
blindsay@crs.loc.gov, 7-3752
Mark A. Randol
Francis X. McCarthy
Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counter-
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
Terrorism
fmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-9533
mrandol@crs.loc.gov, 7-2393
Alison Siskin
John D. Moteff
Specialist in Immigration Policy
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
asiskin@crs.loc.gov, 7-0260
jmoteff@crs.loc.gov, 7-1435
John Frittelli
Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Transportation Policy
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
jfrittelli@crs.loc.gov, 7-7033
lkruger@crs.loc.gov, 7-7070
Bart Elias
Sarah A. Lister
Specialist in Aviation Policy
Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology
belias@crs.loc.gov, 7-7771
slister@crs.loc.gov, 7-7320
Congressional Research Service
73