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 Prepared 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 Housereported 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, FY2009FY2010.................................................................................................................................. 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 Housereported 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 House Senate 6/8 (vv) 6/17 (vv) H.Rept. 111-157 House Passage 6/12 (vv) S.Rept. 111-31 Senate Passage Conf. Report Public Law 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. 110161, 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 Comparable $41.2 FY2010 Request Comparable FY2010 House Allocation FY2010 Senate Allocation FY2010 Enacted Comparable $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) Account/Agency Account Name a DHS gross budget authority (BA) (gross discretionary + fees+ mandatory + funds) Discretionary fee funded offsets ICE Federal Protective Service Aviation security fees TWIC TSA Hazmat Registered Traveler FEMA/EPR National Flood Insurance Fund CBP Small airports Subtotal discretionary fee funded offsets Mandatory fee funded offsets Immigration inspection Immigration enforcement Land border CBP COBRA APHIS Puerto Rico ICE Immigration inspection SEVIS Breached bond detention fund TSA Aviation security capital fund Checkpoint screening security fund Alien flight school background checks USCIS Immigration examination fee H1b, and H1b & L fees Congressional Research Service FY2009 Enacted FY2010 Request 52,544 55,115 640 2,323 32 15 640 2,249 9 15 157 7 3,173 159 8 3,078 570 3 27 411 333 97 119 120 60 250 522 2 34 398 325 92 110 120 75 250 4 2,495 44 4 2,452 51 5 Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations Account/Agency Account Name Subtotal mandatory fee funded offsets Mandatory budget authority Secret service Secret service retired payb Coast guard Coast guard retired payc Subtotal mandatory budget authority Trust funds and public enterprise funds CBP Customs unclaimed goods FEMA National Flood Insurance Fundd Boat safety Coast Guard Oil spill recovery Subtotal trust and public enterprise funds DHS gross budget authoritya Total offsets Rescissions DHS net appropriated BA (Mandatory + Discretionary) FY2009 Enacted 4,533 FY2010 Request 4,850 225 [1,237] 225 220 [1,361] 220 6 3,037 134 149 3,326 52,544 11,257 -81 41,205 6 3,085 131 91 3,313 55,115 11,048 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 annually appropriated, and therefore is not offset in Table 3. d. This fund is comprised of both discretionary and mandatory appropriations; thus its component parts appear twice in this table. Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security DHS Appropriations Trends Table 4 presents DHS Appropriations, as enacted, for FY2003 through the 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 29,069a 30,175b 30,554c 31,679 35,311d 38,817e 41,205f FY2010 request 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 Senateenrolled 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 Operational Component FY2009 Enacted FY2009 Supp. FY2009 Resc. FY2010 Appropriation FY2009 Total FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 Request FY2010 SenateReported Title I Departmental Operations 645 Analysis and Operations 327 Office of the Inspector General 200 845 905 782 861 327 357 346 348 99 5 120 128 128 132 1,071 205 1,276 1,390 1,255 1,341 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 collections 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 1,158 — 1,158 1,319 1,280 1,324 157 — 157 138 128 135 7,038 610 7,573 7,235 7,353 7,078 8,353 610 8,963 8,692 8,761 8,538 Subtotal: Title I Title II Title III National Protection & Programs Directorate Office of Health Affairs Federal Emergency Management Administration Net subtotal: Title III Total fee collections CRS-8 640 1,115 Total FY2010 Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations FY2010 Appropriation FY2010 Appropriation Operational Component Gross subtotal: Title III FY2009 Enacted 8,353 FY2009 Supp. 610 FY2009 Resc. FY2009 Total FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 Request FY2010 SenateReported 8,963 9,332 8,761 9,652 Total FY2010 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 collections 2,539 2,539 2,503 2,503 2,503 4,421 4,421 4,490 4,368 4,295 -28 -28 -14 -36 Gross subtotal: Title IV Rescissions Gross DHS budget authority 48,748 2,765 51,513 51,268 51,749 52,020 Total fee collections -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 Senatereported 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 Housereported FY2010 Senatereported 161 147 149 392 338 269 308 — 55 66 64 64 272 — 272 338 300 338 327 — 327 357 346 348 2 — 2 2 2 2 115a 5 120 128 128b 132b 1,086 205 1,291 1,390 1,255 1,341 Operational Component FY2009 Enacted FY2009 Supp. Office of the Secretary and Executive Management 123 — 123 Office of the Under Secretary for Management 192 200 Office of the Chief Financial Officer 55 Office of the Chief Information Officer Analysis and Operations Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding Office of the Inspector General Net Budget Authority: Title I FY2009 Resc. FY2009 Total FY2010 Request Total FY2010 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. 5 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. 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. 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. 7 9 FY2010 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, p. USM2; 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) Account FY2009 Enacted FY2010 Housereported FY2010 Request FY2010 Senatereported Salaries and Expenses CHCO $29 $34 34 34 Human Resources—Operational Initiatives and HR Management Systems $10 $10 10 10 Total $39 $44 44 44 79 89 N/A N/A Staffing (full time equivalent, FTE, positions) Total FY2010 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. USM7. 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 Operational Component FY2009 Enacted FY2009 Supp. FY2009 Resc. FY2010 Appropriation FY2009 Total FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 Request FY2010 SenateReported 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, and Technology 775 100 875 779 732 800 Facilities Management (Construction) 403 420 823 679 682 316 1,448 1,432 1,432 1,432 11,948 11,481 11,399 11,602 -1,448 -1,432 -1,432 -1,432 10,501 10,049 9,967 10,170 4,927 4,927 5,348 5,311 5,360 640 640 b 1,115 c 77 110 110 85 Fee accountsa Gross total Offsetting collections Net total 1,448 11,268 680 -1,448 9,821 680 Immigration & Customs Enforcement Salaries and expenses Federal Protective Services (FPS) Automation & infrastructure modernization 57 20 Construction 5 5 Fee accountsd 299 299 318 318 304 5,948 5,776 6,861 5,750 Gross total 5,928 20 7 Offsetting FPS fees -640 -640 Offsetting collections -299 -299 -318 -318 -304 5,009 5,458 5,428 5,445 Net total CRS-15 4,989 20 -1,115 Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations FY2010 Appropriation FY2009 Appropriation Operational Component FY2009 Enacted FY2009 Supp. FY2009 Resc. FY2009 Total FY2010 Request FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 SenateReported Transportation Security Administration Aviation security (gross funding) 4,741 Surface Transportation Security 5,741 5,311 5,266 5,238 63 63 128 103 143 116 116 192 172 172 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 7,986 7,774 7,689 7,690 -2,320 -2,320 -2,100 -2,100 -2,100 -47 -47 -28 -45 -28 -250 -250 -250 -250 -250 Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing Credentialing Feese Gross total Offsetting collections Credentialing/Fee accounts Aviation security capital fund (mandatory spending) Net total 6,986 1,000 1,000 4,367 1,000 5,367 5,396 5,294 5,312 6,195 112 6,307 6,556g 6,822 6,838h 13 13 13 13 13 131 131 134 134 134 1,384 1,347 1,598 10 4 U.S. Coast Guard Operating expenses Environmental compliance & restoration Reserve training Acquisition, construction, & improvements 1,495 98 1,593 Alteration of bridges 16 142 158 Research, development, tests, & evaluation 18 18 20 20 30 1,237 1,237 1,361 1,361 1,361 257 257 261 261 261 9,693 9,729g 9,968 10,239h Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement) Health care fund contribution Gross total CRS-16 9,341 352 Total FY2010 Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations FY2010 Appropriation FY2009 Appropriation Operational Component FY2009 Enacted FY2009 Supp. FY2009 Resc. FY2009 Total FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 Request FY2010 SenateReported Total FY2010 U.S. Secret Service Salaries and expenses Acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses Gross total 1,409 1,409 1,486 1,457 1,483 4 4 4 4 4 1,413 1,413 1,490 1,461 1,487 36,987 36,250 37,380 36,767 -5,004 -4,128 -5,260 -4,114 31,983 32,122 32,120 32,653 Gross Budget Authority: Title II 34,935 Offsetting collections: -5,004 Net Budget Authority: Title II 29,931 2,052 2,052 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 Senatereported 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 installation 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 accountlevel detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 9 for sub-account-level detail for CBP Salaries and Expenses (S&E) for FY2008 and FY2009. Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail (budget authority in millions of dollars) Activity FY2009 Enacted FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 Request FY2010 SenateReported FY2010 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 2,269 149 165 162 165 Other International Programs 11 11 11 11 C-TPAT 64 63 63 63 FAST/NEXUS/SENTRI 11 11 11 11 146 144 144 164 Systems for Targeting 33 33 33 33 National Targeting Center 24 26 26 27 Training at POE 25 25 25 25 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 Container Security Initiative (CSI)/ International Cargo Screening (ICS) Inspection and Detection Technology Harbor Maintenance Fee 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 FY2009 Enacted Activity Training Between the POE FY2010 Request FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 SenateReported FY2010 Enacted 75 52 52 52 272 310 310 310 Rescission — — — — CBP Salaries and Expenses Total: 7,603a 7,623 7,577 8,076 Air and Marine Operations Salaries 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. 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. 21 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) Activity Management (HQ) & Administration Legal Proceeding Investigations - Domestic Investigations - International Visa Security Programb Total Investigations Intelligence DRO-Custody Operations FY2009 Enacteda FY2010 Requesta FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 SenateReported 0 0 486 522 240 260 222 222 1,696 1,884 1,643 1,667 111 119 113 113 28 32 30 30 1,835 2,035 1,786 1,810 64 80 68 72 1,830 1,967 1,771 1,771 DRO-Fugitive Operations 241 251 230 230 DRO-Criminal Alien Program 209 222 193 193 67 69 74 64 DRO-Alternatives to Detention DRO Transportation and Removal Program DRO Total Comprehensive Identification and Removal of Criminal Aliens ICE Salaries and Expenses 281 281 282 282 2,628 2,790 2,549 2,539 161c 212 200 196 4,927d 5,348 5,311 5,360 FY2010 Enacted 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 called 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) Budget Activity Aviation Security FY2009 Enacteda FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 Request FY2010 SenateReported FY2010 Enacted 4,741 5,310 5,266 5,238 151 150 150 150 2,716 2,789 2,759 2,759 Screener Training & Other 197 203 203 203 Checkpoint Support 250 129 129 129 EDS/ETD Purchase/Installation 294 857 807 807 Screening Technology 306 327 327 327 Operation Integration 21 21 21 21 Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement 249 254 254 254 Airport Management, IT, and Support 402 448 448 448 25 25 25 25 123 108 115 115 4 — [3]b [3]b 3 [5b] [5]b Screening Partnership Program (SPP) Passenger & Baggage Screening (PC&B) FFDO & Crew Training Air Cargo Security Airport Perimeter Security Indirect Air Cargo – Fee Certified Cargo Screening Program — 5 [2]b [2]b Large Aircraft Security Plan — 2 [10]b [10]b Security Identification Display Area Checks — 10 — — Federal Air Marshal Service 819 860 860 860 725 763 763 763 94 98 98 98 116 192 172 172 82 84 84 84 Management and Administration Travel and Training Threat Assessment and Credentialing (TTAC) Secure Flight Congressional Research Service 29 Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations Budget Activity Other/ TTAC Admin. & Ops. FY2009 Enacteda FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 Request FY2010 SenateReported FY2010 Enacted 34 108 88 88 47 24 45 28 Registered Traveler Program — — TWIC – Fee 32 9 9 9 HAZMAT CDL - Fee 15 15 15 15 Certified Cargo Screening Program - Fee — — 5 — Large Aircraft Security Plan Fee — — 2 — Security Identification Display Area Checks - Fee — — 10 — Alien Flight School - Fee 4 4 4 4 Surface Transportation Security 63 128 103 143 Operations and Staffing 34 42 42 42 Security Inspectors 30 86 61 100 950 1,005 993 1,000 24 28 28 28 Headquarters Administration 235 249 249 249 Human Capital Services 218 226 226 226 Information Technology 473 501 490 496 — — — 250 250 250 250 6,991 7,774 7,689 7,690 Credentialing Fees Transportation Security Support Intelligence Sensitive Security Information - Fee Aviation Security Capital Fund (ASCF) TSA Gross Total — 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 collections 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 59 Chris Strohm, “TSA Lacks Technology To Meet Air Cargo Screening Goal,” Congress Daily, March 19, 2009. 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) FY2009 Enacted FY2010 SenateReported 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 1,177 1,150 1,160 1,155 262 353 331 355 24 — — 5 — — Intermediate and depot level maintenance 824 903 DOD Transfer 112a — Operating funds and unit level maintenance Centrally managed accounts Port/vessel security and environmental response Aviation mission hour gap Overseas Contingency Operation Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements 62 FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 Request 1,495 912 FY2010 Enacted 925 — b 242b 242b 1,384 1,347 1,598 Prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division. Congressional Research Service 33 Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations FY2009 Enacted Vessels and Critical Infrastructure FY2010 Request FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 SenateReported 123 113 103 Aircraft — — Other Equipment 89 120 120 148 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 — Integrated Deepwater System 103 FY2010 Enacted — — 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, nonhomeland 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. 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. 71 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 FY2009 Enacted FY2010 Budget Request FY2010 HouseReported 806a 756 756 760 Protective intelligence activities 60 68 68 68 National Special Security Events 1 1 1 1 Candidate nominee protection 41 — White House mail screening 34 25 22 22 Management and administration 182 221 200 221 Rowley Training Center 53 54 54 54 Domestic field operations 242 261 261 261 International field operations 30 31 31 31 Programs and Activities Protection of persons and facilities FY2010 SenateReported FY2010 Enacted — 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 FY2009 Enacted FY2010 Budget Request FY2010 HouseReported Electronic crimes program 52 57 57 57 Forensic support to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 8 8 8 8 Acquisition, construction, and improvements 4 4 4 4 Uniformed Division modernization — 4 1,513 1,490 Programs and Activities Total FY2010 SenateReported FY2010 Enacted — 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 Operational Component FY2009 Enacted FY2009 Supp. FY2009 Resc. FY2010 Appropriation FY2009 Total FY2010 Request FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 SenateReported National Protection and Programs Directorate Administration 51 51 45 45 45 Infrastructure Protection and Information Security 807 807 918 883 901 US-VISIT 300 300 356 352 378 Federal Protective Service (FPS) Gross Total 640 1,158 1,158 Offsetting collections Net total Office of Health Affairs 1,959 1,115 1,280 -640 2,439 -1,115 1,158 1,158 1,319 1,280 1,324 157 157 138 128 135 837a 837a 852 845 860e 3,867c 3,959c 4,217c 45 46 46 46 1,400d 2,000e 1,984f 1,441f 220 220 220 220 Federal Emergency Management Agency Management and Administration Grant Programs Directorate 3,471b 300 3,721b Firefighter Assistance Grants 775 210 985 U.S. Fire Administration 45 Public health programs — Disaster relief CRS-42 1,400d Disaster readiness and support activities — Flood map modernization fund 220 National flood insurance fund (NFIF)g — National flood mitigationh — Total FY2010 Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations FY2010 Appropriation FY2009 Appropriation Operational Component FY2009 Enacted Pre-disaster mitigation fund 90 Emergency food and shelter 200 Disaster assistance direct loan account FY2010 Request FY2010 HouseReported 90 150 100 120 100 300 100 200 175 FY2009 Supp. FY2009 Resc. FY2009 Total FY2010 SenateReported Total FY2010 — Radiological Emergency Preparedness Net total 7,038 610 7,648 7,235 7,353 7,078 Net budget authority subtotal: Title III 8,353 610 8,963 8,692 8,761 8,538 Offsetting collections Gross budget authority Title III 640 8,353 610 8,963 9,332 1,115 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 Senatereported 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-the104 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) FY2009 Enacted FY2010 Budget Request Urban Area Security Initiative 838 887 887 State Homeland Security Grant Program 950a 950b 950b 950 Driver’s License Security Program (REAL ID) 50 50 50 50 Buffer Zone Protection Program 50 50 50 50 1,120c 500d 512 706 Assistance to Firefighters 985e 590f 800 800 Emergency Management Performance Grants 315 315 330 350 Medical Surge Grants 41 40 40 40 Citizen Corps Programs 15 15 15 15 Regional Catastrophic Preparedness 35 35 Interoperable Emergency Communications Grants 50 50 Mississippi Interoperable Communications 20 0 Emergency Operations Centers 35 0 Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program 8 0 Continuing Training Grants 31 23 Programs FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 SenateReported FY2010 Enacted Homeland Security Prevention and Protection Programs Transportation Security Grant Program 887 Homeland Security Response and Recovery Programs 35 50 50 40 20 31 27 Other National, State and Local Grant Programs/Training, Measurement and Exercise Program Congressional Research Service 46 Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations FY2009 Enacted FY2010 Budget Request FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 SenateReported 102 52 92 102 Cybercrime Counterterrorism Training 2 0 Center for Domestic Preparedness/Noble Training Center 62 63 40 63 National Exercise Program 40 42 40 40 Technical Assistance Programs 11 13 13 13 Evaluations and Assessments 16 18 16 18 Programs National Domestic Preparedness Consortium Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium Management and Administration Total FY2010 Enacted 2 3 —g 175 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. 42 U.S.C. 5133 110 42 U.S.C. 5170c. 109 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. 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. 112 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. 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. 124 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. 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. 127 130 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 Project Activity FY2009 Enacted FY2010 Request FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 Senatereported Directorate Administration 42 35 35 35 Risk Management and Analysis 10 10 10 10 Total 51 45 45 45 FY2010 Enacted 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 (USVISIT)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 USVISIT 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. 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. 138 140 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 USVISIT 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) FY2009 Enacted FY2010 Request FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 SenateReported IP 314 333 346 346 Identification and Analysis (87) 87 87 91 Coordination and Information Sharing (56) 51 63 60 Program Project Activitya FY2010 Enacted 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 Project Activitya FY2009 Enacted FY2010 Request FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 SenateReported 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 FY2010 Enacted 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 USCERT 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 Operational Component FY2009 Enacted FY2009 Supp. FY2009 Resc. FY2010 Appropriation FY2009 Total FY2010 Request FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 SenateReported 2,641 -2,539 102 2,641 -2,539 102 2,867 -2,503 364 2,751 -2,503 248 2,639 -2,503 136 333 333 289 283 288 132 132 142 142 143 800 800 826 825 852 933 933 968 968 995 38 323 153 514 4,421 -2,539 1,882 38 323 153 514 4,421 -2,539 1,882 40 327 40 327 366 4,490 -2,503 1,987 366 4,368 -2,503 1,865 38 327 10 374 4,295 -2,503 1,792 FY2010 Enacted Citizenship and Immigration Services Total available budget authority Offsetting Feesa Net subtotal (Direct appropriation) Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Science and Technology Management and Administration Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations Net Subtotal Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Management and Administration Research, Development, and Operations Systems Acquisition Net Subtotal Gross budget authority: Title IV Offsetting collections: Title IV Net budget authority: Title IV 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 Senatereported S.1298 and S.Rept. 111-31. Notes: Tables may not add due to rounding. a. CRS-59 Fees include Immigration Examination Fund; H-1b Visa Fee; and the Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee. 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. 146 147 Prepared by Chad C. Haddal, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division. §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 Activity FY2009 Enacted Appropriations FY2010 Request FY2010 HouseReported FY2010 SenateReported 102 364 248 136 —a 25 25 — 1 — 100 112 112 119 — 11 Citizenship Education Grants 1 — Immigrant Integration Initiative — 10 11 1 Asylum, Refugees, & Military Naturalizations Processing — 206 100 5 Fee Collections 2,539 2,503 2,503 2,503 Adjudication Services 1,979 2,207 1,952 2,027 Information and Customer Services 168 89 154 89 Administration 374 366 375 366 19 21 21 21 2,641 2,867 2,751 2,639 REAL ID Act Implementation Asylum/Refugee Operating Expenses E-Verify Data Development Center SAVE Total USCIS Funding FY2010 Enacted 11 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, FY2009FY2010 (budget authority in millions of dollars) FY2009 Enacted FY2010 Request 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 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 44 162 154 123 155 Test and Evaluation, Standards 29 29 29 29 Transition 29 45 46 45 University Programs 50 46 50 48 5 0 0 0 Border and Maritime Laboratory Facilities Homeland Security Institute FY2010 House FY2010 Senate FY2010 Enacted 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. 110329, 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 nonDHS 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, FY2009FY2010 (budget authority in millions of dollars) FY2009 Enacted FY2010 Request 514 366 366 374 38 40 40 38 323 327 327 327 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 20 153 0 0 10 120 0 0 Securing the Cities 20 0 0 Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems 13 0 0 Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Total Management and Administration Research, Development, and Operations Systems Engineering and Architecture Systems Acquisition Radiation Portal Monitoring Program FY2010 House FY2010 Senate FY2010 Enacted 10 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, nonemergency, 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.160 159 160 H.Con.Res. 312, §603 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-ofentry. 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) FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 Request FY2010 as % 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% 3,613 1,445 1,437 1,910 1,429 1,545 1,751 1,960 1,624 2% 43,848 42,447 40,834 54,383 57,118 59,833 65,099 72,201 69,845 100% Department Other Agencies Total Federal Budget Authority 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 FY20022006 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. CRS-72 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. Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations Author Contact Information Jennifer E. Lake, Coordinator Analyst in Domestic Security jlake@crs.loc.gov, 7-0620 Daniel Morgan Specialist in Science and Technology Policy dmorgan@crs.loc.gov, 7-5849 Chad C. Haddal, Coordinator Analyst in Immigration Policy chaddal@crs.loc.gov, 7-3701 Shawn Reese Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy sreese@crs.loc.gov, 7-0635 Barbara L. Schwemle Analyst in American National Government bschwemle@crs.loc.gov, 7-8655 Bruce R. Lindsay Analyst in Emergency Management Policy blindsay@crs.loc.gov, 7-3752 Mark A. Randol Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and CounterTerrorism mrandol@crs.loc.gov, 7-2393 Francis X. McCarthy Analyst in Emergency Management Policy fmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-9533 Alison Siskin Specialist in Immigration Policy asiskin@crs.loc.gov, 7-0260 John D. Moteff Specialist in Science and Technology Policy jmoteff@crs.loc.gov, 7-1435 John Frittelli Specialist in Transportation Policy jfrittelli@crs.loc.gov, 7-7033 Lennard G. Kruger Specialist in Science and Technology Policy lkruger@crs.loc.gov, 7-7070 Bart Elias Specialist in Aviation Policy belias@crs.loc.gov, 7-7771 Sarah A. Lister Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology slister@crs.loc.gov, 7-7320 Congressional Research Service 73