Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Chad C. Haddal, Coordinator Analyst in Immigration Policy Jennifer E. Lake, Coordinator Analyst in Domestic Security April 15, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41189 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Summary This report describes the FY2011 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Administration requested a net appropriation of $45.0 billion in budget authority for FY2011. This amounts to a $1.1 billion, or a 2.4% increase from the $43.9 billion enacted for FY2010. Total budget authority requested by the Administration for DHS for FY2011 amounts to $52.6 billion as compared to $51.7 billion enacted for FY2010. Net requested appropriations for major agencies within DHS were as follows: Customs and Border Protection (CBP), $9,809 million; Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), $5,524 million; Transportation Security Administration (TSA), $5,729 million; Coast Guard, $9,867 million; Secret Service, $1,570 million; National Protection & Programs Directorate, $2,362 million; Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), $7,294 million; Science and Technology, $1,018 million; and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $306 million. Congressional Research Service Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Contents Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1 President’s FY2011 Budget Request Submitted ...............................................................1 Note on Most Recent Data ..............................................................................................1 Background ................................................................................................................................1 Department of Homeland Security ........................................................................................2 302(a) and 302(b) Allocations ...............................................................................................2 Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays...........................................................................3 Discretionary and Mandatory Spending.................................................................................4 Offsetting Collections ...........................................................................................................4 Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security ...........................................................4 DHS Appropriations Trends ..................................................................................................4 Summary of DHS Appropriations..........................................................................................5 Title I: Departmental Management and Operations ......................................................................8 President’s FY2011 Request.......................................................................................... 10 Personnel Issues............................................................................................................ 11 Analysis and Operations...................................................................................................... 12 President’s FY2011 Request.......................................................................................... 13 Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations..................................................................... 13 Customs and Border Protection ........................................................................................... 17 President’s FY2011 Request.......................................................................................... 17 Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 19 Immigration and Customs Enforcement............................................................................... 21 President’s FY2011 Request.......................................................................................... 22 Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 23 Transportation Security Administration ............................................................................... 24 President’s FY2011 Request.......................................................................................... 25 Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 27 United States Coast Guard................................................................................................... 30 President’s FY2011 Request.......................................................................................... 30 Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 31 United States Secret Service................................................................................................ 32 President’s FY2011 Request.......................................................................................... 33 Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 34 Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ...................................................... 36 Federal Emergency Management Agency............................................................................ 39 President’s FY2011 Request.......................................................................................... 39 FEMA Issues for Congress............................................................................................ 40 Office of Health Affairs....................................................................................................... 44 President’s FY2011 Request.......................................................................................... 45 Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 45 National Protection and Programs Directorate ..................................................................... 46 Management and Administration................................................................................... 46 President’s FY2011 Request.......................................................................................... 46 Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 47 Federal Protective Service................................................................................................... 47 Congressional Research Service Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations President’s FY2011 Request.......................................................................................... 48 Issue for Congress......................................................................................................... 48 U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) .................................. 49 President’s FY2011 Request.......................................................................................... 49 Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 49 Infrastructure Protection and Information Security .............................................................. 50 President’s FY2011 Request.......................................................................................... 50 Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 52 Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................................ 53 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.......................................................................... 56 President’s FY2011 Request.......................................................................................... 56 Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 57 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center .......................................................................... 58 President’s FY2011 Request.......................................................................................... 58 Science and Technology ...................................................................................................... 59 President’s FY2011 Request.......................................................................................... 59 Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 60 Domestic Nuclear Detection Office ..................................................................................... 61 President’s FY2011 Request.......................................................................................... 61 Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 62 Tables Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations ................................................1 Table 2. FY2011 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS ........................................................3 Table 3. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2010 ..........................................................................5 Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations .................................................................................6 Table 5. Title I: Departmental Management and Operations.........................................................9 Table 6. Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer Appropriations ........................................... 11 Table 7. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations ....................................................... 14 Table 8. CBP Salaries and Expenses Account Detail .................................................................. 18 Table 9. ICE Salaries and Expenses Account Detail ................................................................... 22 Table 10. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity........................................................ 25 Table 11. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-account Detail..................... 30 Table 12. FY2010 Enacted and FY2011 Budget Authority for the U.S. Secret Service ............... 33 Table 13. Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ....................................... 37 Table 14. Budget Authority for State and Local Programs.......................................................... 41 Table 15. FY2009 Budget Activity for NPPD Management and Administration Appropriation ........................................................................................................................ 47 Table 16. Budget Authority for Infrastructure Protection and Information Security .................... 52 Table 17. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................. 54 Table 18. USCIS Budget Account Detail ................................................................................... 57 Congressional Research Service Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Table 19. Directorate of Science and Technology, Accounts and Activities................................ 59 Table 20. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Accounts and Activities..................................... 61 Table A-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2011 ........................... 65 Appendixes Appendix A. DHS Appropriations in Context ............................................................................ 64 Contacts Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 67 Congressional Research Service Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Most Recent Developments President’s FY2011 Budget Request Submitted This report describes the FY2011 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Administration requested a net appropriation of $45.0 billion in budget authority for FY2011. This amounts to a $1.1 billion, or a 2.4% increase from the $43.9 billion enacted for FY2010. Total budget authority requested by the Administration for DHS for FY2011 amounts to $52.6 billion as compared to $51.7 billion enacted for FY2010. Net requested appropriations for major agencies within DHS were as follows: Customs and Border Protection (CBP), $9,809 million; Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), $5,524 million; Transportation Security Administration (TSA), $5,729 million; Coast Guard, $9,867 million; Secret Service, $1,570 million; National Protection & Programs Directorate, $2,362 million; Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), $7,294 million; Science and Technology, $1,018 million; and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $306 million. Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Markup House Senate Committee Report House Passage Committee Report Senate Passage Conference Report Approval (H.Rept. 111-298) House Senate P.L. 111-83 Note: (vv) = voice vote, (uc) = unanimous consent. Note on Most Recent Data Data used in this report for FY2010 enacted, and FY2011 requested amounts are from the President’s Budget Documents, the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, and the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief. Data used in the Appendix are taken from the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2006-FY2011 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 FY2011 request for funding for DHS programs and activities, as submitted to Congress on February 1, 2010. It compares the enacted FY2010 amounts to the request for FY2011, and tracks legislative action and congressional issues related to the FY2011 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. Congressional Research Service 1 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Department of Homeland Security The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred the functions, relevant funding, and most of the personnel of 22 agencies and offices to the new Department of Homeland Security created by the act. Appropriations measures for DHS have been organized into five titles: Title I, Departmental Management and Operations; Title II, Security, Enforcement, and Investigations; Title III, Preparedness and Recovery; Title IV, Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services; and Title V, general provisions. Title I contains appropriations for the Office of Management, the Office of the Secretary, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Analysis and Operations (A&O), the Office 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 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. Congressional Research Service 2 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations The annual concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth the congressional budget. Table 2 shows DHS’s 302(b) allocations for FY2010 and the current appropriations cycle. Table 2. FY2011 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS (budget authority in billions of dollars) FY2010 Comparable 43.9 FY2011 Request Comparable FY2011 House Allocation FY2011 Senate Allocation FY2011 Enacted Comparable 45.0 Source: CRS analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications. Note: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. 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 by Congress. Budget authority may 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. 1 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517. 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. Congressional Research Service 3 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations 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. 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. Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security DHS Appropriations Trends Table 3 presents DHS Appropriations, as enacted, for FY2003 through the FY2011 request. The appropriation amounts are presented in current dollars and are not adjusted. The amounts shown in Table 3 represent enacted amounts at the time of the start of the next fiscal year’s appropriation 3 4 P.L. 101-508, Title XIII. Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff Jr., Analyst in American National Government. Congressional Research Service 4 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations 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, FY2010, and FY2011 are from the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications. Table 3. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2010 (budget authority in millions of dollars) FY2003 FY2004 29,069a 30,175b FY2005 30,554c FY2006 31,679 FY2007 35,311d FY2008 38,817e FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Request 41,205 43,944 44,990 Sources: FY2003 and FY2004 enacted taken from H.Rept. 108-169; FY2005 enacted taken from H.Rept. 10979; FY2006 enacted taken from H.Rept. 109-476; FY2007 appropriation amounts are from the H.Rept. 110-181; and FY2008 enacted amounts are from Division E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint Explanatory Statement for Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating amendments to the budget request). FY2009 enacted taken from the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate-enrolled version of H.R. 2638, and FY2010 enacted amounts are from the conference report to H.R. 2892, H.Rept. 111-298, and P.L. 111-83. Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. 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. Amount includes $2,710 million in emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161. Summary of DHS Appropriations Table 4 is a summary table comparing the enacted total for FY2010 to the request for, and congressional action on the FY2011 appropriations. Congressional Research Service 5 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations (budget authority in millions of dollars) FY2010 Appropriation Operational Component FY2010 Enacted FY2010 Supplemental FY2010 Rescission FY2011 Appropriation FY2010 Total FY2011 Request Title I: Departmental Operations Departmental Operations 803 803 1,271 Analysis and Operations 335 335 348 Office of the Inspector General 114 114 130 1,252 1,252 1,749 10,127 10,127 9,809 Immigration and Customs Enforcement 5,437 5,437 5,524 Transportation Security Administration 5,259 5,259 5,729 U.S. Coast Guard 9,903 9,903 9,867 U.S. Secret Service 1,483 1,483 1,570 32,209 32,209 32,499 4,020 4,020 4,112 36,229 36,229 36,611 1,318 1,318 2,362 139 139 213 7,129 7,129 7,294 Subtotal: Title I Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations Customs and Border Protection Net subtotal: Title II Total fee collections Gross subtotal: Title II Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response and Recovery National Protection & Programs Directorate Office of Health Affairs Federal Emergency Management Administration CRS-6 FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations FY2010 Appropriation Operational Component FY2010 Enacted FY2010 Supplemental FY2010 Rescission FY2011 Appropriation FY2010 Total FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 Request Net subtotal: Title III 8,586 8,586 8,754 Total fee collections 1,115 1,115 1,115 Gross subtotal: Title III 9,701 9,701 9,869 FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services Citizenship and Immigration Services 224 224 386 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 283 283 278 1,006 1,006 1,018 384 384 306 Net subtotal: Title IV 1,897 1,897 1,988 Total fee collections 2,636 2,636 2,427 Gross subtotal: Title IV 4,533 4,533 4,415 - 0 - 51,715 51,715 52,644 7,771 7,771 7,654 43,944 43,944 44,990 Science and Technology Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Rescissions Gross DHS budget authority Total fee collections Net DHS budget authority Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief. Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. The FY2010 supplemental appropriations column and the FY2010 rescission column are placeholders. Thus, while no such funding has yet been put forth for FY2010, these columns are included in anticipation that such actions may occur as the bill moves forward. Supplemental appropriations and rescissions have occurred on numerous occasions for past DHS appropriations. CRS-7 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for 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 13 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); the Analysis and Operations Office (AOO); the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding (OFCGCR); and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). New Title I accounts for FY2011 are DHS Headquarters Consolidation and the National Special Security Event (NSSE) State and Local Reimbursement Fund. Table 5, below, shows Title I appropriations for FY2010 and the President’s request for FY2011. 5 Prepared by Barbara L. Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division. Congressional Research Service 8 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Table 5.Title I: Departmental Management and Operations (budget authority in millions of dollars) FY2010 Appropriation Operational Component FY2010 Enacted FY2010 Supp. FY2010 Resc. FY2011 Appropriation FY2010 Total FY2011 Request Office of the Secretary and Executive Management 148 148 157 Office of the Under Secretary for Management 254 254 267 61 61 66 Office of the Chief Information Officer 338 338 398 Analysis and Operations 335 335 348 Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding 2 2 0 DHS Headquarters Consolidation - - 363 National Special Security Event State an Local Reimbursement Fund - - 20 Office of the Chief Financial Officer Office of the Inspector General Net Budget Authority: Title I 114 114 130 1,252a 1,252 1,749 FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief. Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. The FY2010 supplemental appropriations column and the FY2010 rescission column are placeholders. Thus, while no such funding has yet been put forth for FY2010, these columns are included in anticipation that such actions may occur as the bill moves forward. Supplemental appropriations and rescissions have occurred on numerous occasions for past DHS appropriations. a. CRS-9 Does not include a $16 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account. Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations President’s FY2011 Request FY2011 request compared to the FY2010 enacted appropriations was as follows: OS&EM, $157 million, an increase of $9 million (+6.1%); USM, $267 million, an increase of $13 million (+5.1%); OCFO, $66 million, an increase of $5 million (+8.2%); OCIO, $398 million, an increase of $60 million (+17.7%); AOO, $348 million, an increase of $13 million (+3.9%); OFCGCR, no funding, a decrease of $2 million; and OIG, $130 million, an increase of $16 million (+14%). As for the two new accounts for FY2011, the DHS Headquarters Consolidation request was $363 million and the National Special Security Event State and Local Reimbursement Fund request was $20 million. The total FY2011 request for Title I accounts that were funded in FY2010 was $1,366 million. This represents an increase of $114 million (+9.1%) over the FY2010 total. The total FY2011 request for all Title I accounts was $1,749 million. This represents an increase of $497 million (+39.7%) over the FY2010 total.6 Of the amounts requested for accounts that were funded in FY2010, the largest increase would occur in the OCIO (requesting $398 million and 309 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees, up from $338 million and 203 FTEs in FY2010). Within OCIO, program increases are requested for Information Technology Services (requesting $56 million), Infrastructure and Security Activities (requesting $186 million), and National Security Systems (requesting $74 million). 7 The next largest increase would occur in the OIG (requesting $130 million and 665 FTEs, up from $114 million and 632 FTEs in FY2010). Within OIG, a program increase of $4 million and 9 FTEs is requested for Audit, Inspections, and Investigations to fund planned audits on TSA international in-bound flight initiatives, best practices with international partners, and the Secure Flight Program. Reviews and evaluations of TSA’s in-line baggage screening system, the paperless boarding pass, TSA Worker Identification Credentials, and the procurement and deployment of new screening technology are also planned. 8 An FY2011 funding request for the OFCGCR is not requested because the office closed on March 31, 2010. The new DHS Headquarters Consolidation account is expected to provide DHS, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress “with improved visibility of the ongoing efforts for establishing a central DHS facility” and “facilitate better reporting and overall management of the program” by DHS. The $363 million being requested for FY2011 is to support both the consolidation of mission support elements that are not relocating to the St. Elizabeths Campus and the consolidation of the department’s headquarters to that Campus. There are no FTEs attached to this account.9 Another new account, the NSSE State and Local Reimbursement Fund, will be administered by the Office of Operations Coordination and Planning. Among events that have been designated as NSSEs in the past have been presidential inaugurations, presidential nominating conventions, major sports events, major international meetings, presidential funerals, and world economic summits. The requested $20 million appropriation for the fund will be used to reimburse state and 6 FY2011 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, pp. DMO-2–DMO-3. FY2011 DHS Justifications, Office of the Chief Information Officer, p.OCIO-8. 8 FY2011 DHS Justifications, Office of Inspector General, pp. OIG-5 and OIG-11. 9 FY2011 DHS Justifications, DHS HQ Consolidation, pp. HQ-3-HQ-4. 7 Congressional Research Service 10 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations local governments for the actual costs associated with increased security measures for unplanned NSSEs.10 There are no FTEs attached to this account. Personnel Issues 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. 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. 11 The Human Resources Information Technology (HRIT) program “is to merge and modernize the DHS HRIT infrastructure to provide flexibility and the management information that will allow DHS to continuously evolve in response to changing business, legislative and economic” circumstances. 12 Table 6, below, shows the funding for the OCHCO for FY2010 and the President’s request for FY2011. The OCHCO appropriation is included in the total for the Office of the Under Secretary of Management, as shown in Table 5. Table 6. Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer Appropriations (budget authority in millions of dollars) Account FY2010 Enacted FY2011 Request Salaries and Expenses CHCO $25 $25 Human Resources Information Technology $17 $17 Total $42 $42 FY2011 House FY2011 Senate FY2011 Enacted Source: FY2011 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, pp. USM-49-USM-53. Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. President’s FY2011 Request According to the DHS Justifications, the FY2011 budget requested $25 million (rounded)13 and 108 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees for the OCHCO.14 The requested funding is $474,000 10 FY2011 DHS Justifications, National Special Security Event State and Local Reimbursement Fund, pp. NSSE-1NSSE-2. 11 FY2011 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, pp. USM-4 and USM-49. 12 Ibid., p. USM-15. 13 Salaries and benefits ($18 million, rounded) and purchases from government accounts ($4 million, rounded) make-up 88% of the total of $25 million. Purchases from government accounts include costs for purchases from other federal government agencies or accounts that are not otherwise classified. Congressional Research Service 11 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations less than the $25 million (rounded) provided for FY2010. The number of FTEs would increase by 19, from 89 to 108, for FY2011. The appropriation requested for HRIT for FY2011 was $17 million (rounded), the same amount as the funding authorized for FY2010. The FTEs for this account for FY2011 would be 25.15 The OCHCO funding for FY2011 would be used for, among other initiatives, continued efforts to improve diversity across DHS and particularly in the executive ranks, to develop and implement a comprehensive leader development program across the department, to enhance the Candidate Development Program for the Senior Executive Service, and to aggressively expand outreach to former military personnel to meet the Secretary’s goal of having 50,000 veterans employed by DHS. Human capital policies, programs, practices, and staffing will be consolidated to make them more efficient.16 For FY2011, the HRIT program will fund and deploy TALENTLink to the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Immigration Service. TALENTLink is an automated system for recruiting and staffing across DHS that will streamline the department’s hiring process.17 Analysis and Operations18 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 (...continued) 14 FY2011 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, p. USM11. 15 Ibid., p. USM-15. 16 Ibid., pp. USM-14-USM-15. 17 Ibid., pp. USM-16 and USM-18. 18 Prepared by Mark A. Randol, Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counterterrorism, Domestic Social Policy Division. Congressional Research Service 12 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations 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. 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 Analysis as the Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer with responsibility for managing the entire DHS Intelligence Enterprise. 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. 19 President’s FY2011 Request The FY2011 request for the Analysis and Operations (AOO) account is $348 million, an increase of nearly $13 million (+3.9 %) over the enacted FY2010 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 U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Secret Service. Table 7 shows the FY2010 enacted and FY2011 appropriation action for Title II. 19 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 13 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Table 7.Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations (budget authority in millions of dollars) FY2010 Appropriation FY2011 Appropriation Operational Component FY2010 Enacted FY2010 Supp. FY2010 Resc. FY2010 Total FY2011 Request Customs & Border Protection Salaries and expenses 8,065 8,065 8,208 Automation modernization 422 422 348 Air and Marine Interdictions 520 520 503 Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology 800 800 574 Facilities Management (Construction) 320 320 176 1,317 1,317 1,365 Gross total 11,444 11,444 11,174 Offsetting collections -1,317 -1,317 -1,365 Net total 10,127 10,127 9,809 5,344 5,344 5,440 Fee accountsa Immigration & Customs Enforcement Salaries and expenses Federal Protective Services (FPS) Automation & infrastructure modernization 0 90 90 Construction 5 5 accountsb 305 305 311 5,742 5,742 5,835 0 0 -305 -305 -311 5,437 5,437 5,524 Fee Gross total Offsetting FPS fees Offsetting collections Net total CRS-14 85 FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations FY2010 Appropriation Operational Component FY2010 Enacted FY2010 Supp. FY2010 Resc. FY2011 Appropriation FY2010 Total FY2011 Request Transportation Security Administration Aviation security (gross funding) 5,214 5,214 5,560 Surface Transportation Security 111 111 138 Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing 220 220 215 1,002 1,002 1,052 860 860 950 250 250 250 7,657 7,657 8,165 -2,100 -2,100 -2,186 Credentialing/Fee accountsd -48 -48 Aviation security capital fund (mandatory spending) -250 -250 -250 5,259 5,259 5,729 6,564 6,564 6,651 13 13 13 134 134 136 1,536 1,536 1,381 4 4 - 25 25 20 1,361 1,361 1,401 Transportation Security Support Federal Air Marshals Aviation security capital fundc Gross total Offsetting collections Net total U.S. Coast Guard Operating expenses Environmental compliance & restoration Reserve training Acquisition, construction, & improvements Alteration of bridges Research, development, tests, & evaluation Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement) CRS-15 FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations FY2010 Appropriation Operational Component FY2010 Enacted Health care fund contribution FY2010 Supp. FY2010 Resc. FY2011 Appropriation FY2010 Total FY2011 Request 266 266 265 9,903 9,903 9,867 1,479 1,479 1,566 4 4 4 1,483 1,483 1,570 Gross Budget Authority: Title II 36,229 36,229 36,611 Offsetting collections: -4,020 -4,020 -4,112 Net Budget Authority: Title II 32,209 32,209 32,499 Gross total FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted U.S. Secret Service Salaries and expenses Acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses Gross total Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief. Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. The FY2010 supplemental appropriations column and the FY2010 rescission column are placeholders. Thus, while no such funding has yet been put forth for FY2010, these columns are included in anticipation that such actions may occur as the bill moves forward. Supplemental appropriations and rescissions have occurred on numerous occasions for past DHS appropriations. a. Fees include COBRA, Land Border, Immigration Inspection, Immigration Enforcement, and Puerto Rico. b. Fees include Exam, Student Exchange and Visitor Fee, Breached Bond, Immigration User, and Land Border. c. Aviation Security Capital Fund, used for installation of Explosive Detection Systems at airports. d. Fees include TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks. CRS-16 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Customs and Border Protection20 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 Office of Air and Marine (OAM); and the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP). See Table 7 for accountlevel detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 8 for sub-account-level detail for CBP Salaries and Expenses (S&E) for FY2010 and FY2011. President’s FY2011 Request The Administration requested an appropriation of $11,174 million in gross budget authority for CBP for FY2011, amounting to a $270 million (or 2.3%) decrease from the enacted FY2010 level of $11,444 million. The Administration requested $9,809 million in net budget authority for CBP in FY2011, which amounts to a $318 million decrease from the net FY2010 appropriation of $10,127 million. The request includes the following changes: • Increase of $27 million for the Data Center consolidation effort; • Increase of $25 million for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) enforcement; • Increase of $10 million to fund 103 Intelligence Analysts; • Reduction of $74 million to reduce Office of Information Technology (OIT) support; • Reduction of $28 million derived from not sustaining FY2010 initiatives including, $20 million from Office of Air and Marine (OAM) personnel enhancements, $5 millions from Cyber Security, and $3 million from the API/PNR program; • Reduction of $15 million for Border Patrol Premium Pay and Agent Staffing; • Reduction of $4 million for human resource reductions; • Reduction of $24 million to the Office of Training and Development (OTD); • Reduction of $17 million for the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI); • Reduction of $12 million for the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT); 20 Prepared by Jennifer E. Lake, Analyst in Domestic Security, and Chad C. Haddal, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division. Congressional Research Service 17 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations • Reduction of $4.4 million to terminate United States Postal Service (USPS) leases; • Elimination of the CBP Explosive Detector Dog program ($400,000); • Reduction of $51 million for the Container Security Initiative (CSI); • Reduction of $25 million for the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI); • Reduction of $20 million for the Foreign Language Award Program (FLAP); • Reductions of $158 million for the Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT) program, including $135 million for Development and Deployment, and $23 million for Program Management; • Reduction to base funding for Automation Modernization account of $75 million in funding for the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)/International Trade Database System (ITDS); • Reduction to base funding of $44 million to the Construction and Facilities Management Account, and a cancellation of nearly $100 million in previously appropriated non-expended funds; • Reduction to base funding for Air and Marine Interdiction funding of $14 million, and programmatic reduction of $3 million for planned logistics and management systems upgrades. Table 8. CBP Salaries and Expenses Account Detail (budget authority in millions of dollars) Activity FY2010 Enacted FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 Request Headquarters Management and Administration 1,418 1,414 Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation @ POE 2,750 2,913 Inspections, Trade & Travel Facilitation @ POE 2,262 2,509 162 83 Other International Programs 11 11 C-TPAT 63 50 FAST/NEXUS/SENTRI 11 11 154 155 Systems for Targeting 33 32 National Targeting Center 26 36 Training at POE 25 21 3 3 3,587 3,583 Container Security Initiative (CSI)/ International Cargo Screening (ICS) Inspection and Detection Technology Harbor Maintenance Fee Border Security and Control Between POE Congressional Research Service FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted 18 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Activity Border Security and Control Between POE Training Between the POE Air and Marine Operations Salaries CBP Salaries and Expenses Total: FY2010 Enacted FY2011 Request 3,535 3,547 52 36 310 298 8,065 8,208 FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief. Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. Issues for Congress Issues that Congress could consider during the FY2011 appropriations cycle include funding for and deployment of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) technologies known as SBInet; Border Patrol agents hiring and staffing levels; and the declining request for appropriations for some cargo security initiatives. Border Patrol Reductions For FY2011, CBP submitted two budget requests: (1) the original budget request, and (2) a revised budget request that made adjustments to the request for Border Patrol staffing and premium pay. While the most recent version of the FY2011 budget request only includes a reduction of $15 million to Border Patrol premium pay, the original FY2011 budget request included a proposed reduction of premium pay of $31 million and a reduction 181 U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Agents. This reduction would have reduced the number of USBP Agents from 20,163 in FY2010 to 19,983 in FY2011. Several Members of Congress expressed concern over this reduction and which geographic areas would have had their staffing levels reduced.21 Prior to the revised budget request, in testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, DHS Secretary Napolitano stated that there would be no reductions of Agent numbers at the southwest border and the Department would continue to meet its staffing obligations at the northern border.22 Subsequently, CBP revised its premium pay reduction request, and removed language on Border Patrol Agent reductions altogether.23 21 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, The Homeland Security Department's Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2011, 111th Cong., 1st sess., February 24, 2010. 22 Ibid. 23 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Congressional Budget Justifications (Revised), p. CBP S&E -4. Congressional Research Service 19 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology The Administration requested $574 million for the deployment of SBInet24 related technologies and infrastructures in FY2011, a decrease of $226 million over the FY2010 enacted level of $800 million. Within the FY2011 request, the Administration is proposing to allocate $336 million for developing and deploying additional technology and infrastructure solutions to the southwest border. An additional $169 million is requested for operations and maintenance of the cameras, sensors, and tactical infrastructure (TI) fencing. CBP states that the 670 miles of pedestrian and vehicle fencing along the southwest border are largely completed. The management and deployment 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.25 Secretary Napolitano has ordered a department-wide assessment of the SBInet technology project, but continues to support the deployment of border supervision and protection technologies.26 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 FY2011 request. International Cargo Screening Funding Reductions The Administration’s FY2011 budget request contains decreases in funding for cargo security initiatives. The International Cargo Screening (ICS) activity in the budget includes funding for the Container Security Initiative (CSI) program and the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI). In FY2010 Congress appropriated $162 million for these two programs. The President’s budget request for this activity in FY2011 is $84 million. This represents a decrease of $78 million or 48% as compared to the FY2010 enacted level. The SFI is characterized as a “three-pronged approach to enhance supply chain security.”27 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.28 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 24 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. 25 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. 26 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, The Homeland Security Department's Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2011, 111th Cong., 1st sess., February 24, 2010. 27 DHS, FY2011 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. CBP-SE-37. 28 Ibid. Congressional Research Service 20 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations being loaded on the U.S.-bound vessel. In FY2010 ICS was 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.29 The President’s FY2011 request proposes a reduction of nearly $17 million for ICS. This reduction would be achieved by changing the protocols at three ICS ports (Honduras, Southampton, and Korea) from ICS protocols (100% integrated scanning of cargo) to CSI protocols (integrated scanning of only high risk containers). It is notable that two of the three ports that would be changing protocol, Southampton and Honduras, were fully operational under ICS protocols in FY2010. ICS operations at Port Qasim in Pakistan and in Salalah, Oman, would remain constant under the FY2011 request. In addition to reductions in funding for the ICS program, the President’s FY2011 budget also proposes a $58 million reduction to the CSI program. CSI is a program by which CBP stations CBP officers in foreign ports to target high-risk containers for inspection before they are loaded on U.S.-bound ships. CSI is operational in 58 ports for FY2010. According to the FY2011 Congressional Budget Justifications, the proposed $58 million reduction in CSI funding will be achieved by changing CSI’s operational posture from one in which CBP Officers are on the ground in foreign ports, to a remote posture whereby the targeting and selection of high risk containers are done at the National Targeting Center-Cargo (NTC-C). For FY2011 CBP plans to phase out physical operations at 54 of the 58 existing CSI ports. It should be noted that the FY2011 request does not contain a programmatic increase in funds for the NTC-C. The FY2011 request includes nearly $37 million for NTC, a $10 million increase over the FY2010 enacted amount. More than $9 million of this increase represents a realignment of 65 positions that were originally appropriated in the 2007 War Supplemental and incorrectly annualized under Inspections, Trade, and Travel Facilitation rather than under NTC. This increase has no programmatic impact. In light of this, and the fact that CBP reports that in FY2010 CSI “screened over 80 percent of the volume of maritime containers destined for the U.S.,”30 Congress might be interested in the degree to which the NTC-C is positioned to support the increase in workload that will result from the proposed changes to CSI without additional resources. Congress may also wish to examine the impact the proposed changes will have on the security of U.S.-bound containers arriving in the U.S. from CSI ports. Of possible further interest to Congress is the degree to which these proposed reductions represent a change in cargo security strategy from one focused on ‘pushing out the borders’ and moving towards congressionally mandated 100% scanning to a remote posture focused on high-risk shipments. Immigration and Customs Enforcement31 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 29 Ibid. p. CBP-S&E-24. Ibid., CBP-S&E–37. 31 Prepared by Chad C. Haddal, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division. 30 Congressional Research Service 21 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations theft. This bureau no longer oversees the building security activities of the Federal Protective Service (FPS), which has been transferred to the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). See Table 7 for account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 9 for sub-account-level detail for ICE Salaries and Expenses (S&E) for FY2010 and FY2011. President’s FY2011 Request The Administration requested $5,835 million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2011. This represented a 1.6% increase over the enacted FY2010 level of $5,742 million. The Administration requested an appropriation of $5,524 million in net budget authority for ICE in FY2011, representing a 1.6% increase over the FY2010 enacted level of $5,437 million. Table 9 provides activity-level detail for the Salaries and Expenses account. The request includes the following increases: • $20 million help Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) to maintain current bed space; • $19.9 million for the co-location of ICE facilities; • $15 million for Office of Investigations mission support; • $10.4 million for data center migration; • $10 million for addition Border Enforcement Security Task Forces (BEST); • $5 million for intellectual property rights enforcement. Table 9. ICE Salaries and Expenses Account Detail (budget authority in millions of dollars) Activity FY2010 Enacted FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 Request Management (HQ) & Administration 512 510 Legal Proceeding 222 222 1,650 1,727 113 114 Visa Security Programb 31 31 Total Investigations 1,794 1,872 70 71 1,771 1,904 DRO-Fugitive Operations 230 168 DRO-Criminal Alien Program 193 179 70 72 282 295 2,546 2,618 Investigations - Domestic Investigations - International Intelligence DRO-Custody Operations DRO-Alternatives to Detention DRO Transportation and Removal Program DRO Total Congressional Research Service FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted 22 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Activity Comprehensive Identification and Removal of Criminal Aliens ICE Salaries and Expenses FY2010 Enacted FY2011 Request 200 147 5,344 5,440 FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief. Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. 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. Although many contend that the priority should be placed on removing aliens who have committed crimes in the United States, in FY2008 less than one-third of those deported by ICE were convicted of a criminal offense. 32 Furthermore, others argue that the prioritization of criminal aliens should not come at the expense of ICE’s other responsibilities, such as terrorist travel and worksite enforcement investigations.33 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.34 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. 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 detention conditions may vary by area of the country leading to inequities. A number of policymakers have advocated for the increased use of alternatives to detention programs for non-criminal alien detainees, citing these programs as a lower cost option than detention and a more proportional treatment relative to the violation. 35 Furthermore, there have 32 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2010, Report to accompany H.R. 2892, 111th Cong., 1st sess., June 16, 2009, H.Rept. 111-157, p. 8. 33 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2010, Report to accompany H.R. 2892, 111th Cong., 1st sess., June 16, 2009, H.Rept. 111-157, p. 228. 34 For more information on detention issues see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention: Current Legislative Issues, by Chad C. Haddal and 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. 35 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism, Moving Toward More Effective Immigration Detention Management, 111th Cong., 1st sess., December 10, 2009 (Washington: GPO, 2009). Congressional Research Service 23 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations been concerns raised about the adequacy of medical care received by aliens in detention.36 ICE released new detention standards aimed at addressing these criticisms. 37 The total number of FY2010 detention beds was 33,400, and the President’s FY2011 budget requested an increase of $20 million to maintain the current amount of bed space. State and Local Law Enforcement38 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. The President’s FY2011 request for ICE includes $5 million for 287(g) agreements which is the FY2010 ICE funding level for such agreements; however, state and local entities may apply for additional funding through appropriations to the Office of State and Local Government Coordination in FEMA. Transportation Security Administration39 The TSA, created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA, P.L. 107-71), is charged with protecting air, land, and rail transportation systems within the United States to ensure the freedom of movement for people and commerce. In 2002, the TSA was transferred to DHS with the passage of the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296). The TSA's responsibilities include protecting the aviation system against terrorist threats, sabotage, and other acts of violence through the deployment of passenger and baggage screeners; detection systems for explosives, weapons, and other contraband; and other security technologies. The TSA also has certain responsibilities for marine and land modes of transportation including assessing the risk of terrorist attacks to all non-aviation transportation assets, including seaports; issuing regulations to improve security; and enforcing these regulations to ensure the protection of these transportation systems. TSA is further charged with serving as the primary liaison for transportation security to the law enforcement and intelligence communities. See Table 7 for account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 10 for amounts specified for TSA budget activities. 36 For more on the issue of detainee medical care, see CRS Report RL34556, Health Care for Noncitizens in Immigration Detention, by Alison Siskin. 37 Immigration and Customs Enforcement, "Secretary Napolitano and ICE Assistant Secretary Morton Announce New Immigration Detention Reform Initiatives," press release, October 6, 2009. 38 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. 39 Prepared by Bart Elias, Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology, Resources, Science, and Industry Division. Congressional Research Service 24 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations President’s FY2011 Request The President’s request specified total gross funding of $8,165 million in FY2011 for the TSA, an increase of about 7% over FY2010 enacted levels. The request for Aviation Security of $5,561 million was also roughly 7% more than FY2010 enacted levels and would comprise roughly 68% of the total TSA budget. Proposed programmatic increases for aviation security highlight initiatives on passenger screening and international aviation security, two key areas brought to the forefront of policy debate following the December 25, 2009, attempted bombing of a transAtlantic flight on approach to Detroit. Proposed increases for passenger screening and security include an increase of $215 million over FY2010 baseline levels for the purchase and deployment of advanced imaging technology (AIT), also known as whole body imaging (WBI) systems, at airport screening checkpoints. The President’s request also specified an additional $219 million for about 3,500 full-time equivalent (FTE) screeners to operate newly deployed AIT systems, as well as $96 million for airport management and mission support for deploying and operating these systems. The President’s budget also specified a $60 million increase, within the Checkpoint Support activity, for purchasing about 800 new portable Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) machines for deployment to airport screening checkpoints. In contrast to the proposed budget increases for Checkpoint Support, the President’s request reflected a decrease of $404 million for checked baggage Explosives Detection Systems (EDS) and ETD purchase and installation, due to a high level of non-recurring procurement and installation costs for EDS and ETD that were allocated in the FY2010 budget. The FY2011 budget request also included $71 million for 275 additional canine explosives detection teams as part of the proposed increase for Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement activities, and $20 million for deploying 350 additional behavioral detection officers (BDOs) to spot suspicious behavior as part of passenger and baggage screening operations. To enhance international aviation security initiatives, the President’s request included an increase of $85 million for the Federal Air Marshals (FAMS) to increase coverage on international flights, as well as an additional $39 million for international cooperative programs and rapid response capabilities to deploy to high risk areas such as the Middle East and Africa, included as part of the proposed increase for Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement activities. The President’s request included an increase of roughly $28 million for Surface Transportation Security, reflecting an increase in rail security inspectors and canine explosives detection teams. The request also included an increase of about $51 million for Transportation Security Support, including $10 million to increase Office of Intelligence staffing by 35 FTEs, primarily to expand the Field Intelligence Officer (FIO) program presence at large airports. Table 10.TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity (budget authority in millions of dollars) Budget Activity Aviation Security FY2010 Enacted FY2011 Request 5,215 5,561 Screening Partnership Program (SPP) 150 143 Passenger & Baggage Screening (PC&B) 2,759 2,998 Congressional Research Service FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted 25 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Budget Activity FY2010 Enacted FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 Request Screener Training & Other 205 265 Checkpoint Support 129 360 EDS/ETD Purchase/Installation 778 374 Screening Technology 317 333 Operation Integration 21 - Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement 254 368 Airport Management, IT, and Support 454 577 25 25 Air Cargo Security 123 118 Federal Air Marshal Service 861 950 Management and Administration 763 823 98 127 172 174 Secure Flight 84 85 Other/ TTAC Admin. & Ops. 88 89 Credentialing Fees 48 40 9 9 15 12 Certified Cargo Screening Program—Fee 5 5 Large Aircraft Security Plan—Fee 2 1 10 8 Indirect Air Cargo—Fee 3 1 Alien Flight School—Fee 4 4 110 138 Operations and Staffing 42 40 Security Inspectors 68 98 1,001 1,052 28 38 Headquarters Administration 249 271 Human Capital Services 226 263 Information Technology 498 480 FFDO & Crew Training Travel and Training Threat Assessment and Credentialing (TTAC) TWIC—Fee HAZMAT CDL—Fee Security Identification Display Area Checks—Fee Surface Transportation Security Transportation Security Support Intelligence Congressional Research Service FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted 26 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Budget Activity FY2010 Enacted Aviation Security Capital Fund (ASCF) TSA Gross Total FY2011 Request 250 250 7,657 8,165 FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief. Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. Issues for Congress The FY2011 DHS appropriations process is taking place amid heightened congressional interest in aviation security issues following the December 25, 2009, attempted bombing of a Detroitbound international airline flight from Amsterdam. The incident has focused attention in particular on the use of terrorist watchlists in aviation security, the screening of passengers and carry-on items for explosives, and security measures for inbound international flights. Additionally, TSA faces ongoing challenges to meet the statutory deadline set forth in P.L. 110-53 to screen 100% of all cargo placed on passenger airliners by August 2010. Challenges in meeting this deadline, particularly for inbound international flights, could raise issues regarding cargo screening technologies and TSA oversight of air carriers, freight forwarding, and cargo consolidation operations. Amid growing concerns over deficit spending, Congress may also consider options for increasing aviation security fees, most notably the passenger security fee, although an Administration proposal to increase this fee would not begin to take effect until FY2012. Checkpoint Explosives Screening The President’s request included $344 million to test, procure, and deploy a variety of new checkpoint technologies to improve the detection of explosives and prohibited items, an increase of $227 million over FY2010 baseline funding levels. The most controversial of these technologies are whole body imaging (WBI) systems, that the TSA refers to as advanced imaging technology (AIT), used to screen passengers for items concealed by clothing. In addition to raising considerable concerns among privacy advocates, these systems are costly to acquire and maintain. They are also labor intensive, since current generations require the images to be analyzed by human operators, although future versions may include automated imagery analysis capabilities. In addition to AIT, advanced technology (AT) X-ray systems, bottle liquid scanner (BLS), and next generation explosives trace detection (ETD) equipment are also being procured. By the end of FY2011, the TSA anticipates that AT X-ray deployment will be at 96% of full operating capacity (FOC) sought by FY2014, whereas AIT deployments will only be at 56% of FOC. The TSA strategy is to focus its AIT deployments at larger airports first, and by end of FY2011, it plans to have deployed 75% of the FOC at the most critical Category X airports. This strategy may, however, leave vulnerabilities at smaller airports. The sustainment costs of checkpoint screening systems may also be a particular concern for appropriators. For FY2011, the TSA request includes $74 million for maintenance of checkpoint screening equipment, a 45% increase compared to FY2010. Checkpoint screening maintenance Congressional Research Service 27 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations costs will likely increase considerably in future years, to pay for upkeep and extend the service life of the more complex next generation screening technologies currently being deployed.40 Secure Flight, Terrorist Watchlists, and Transportation Security Intelligence Terrorist watchlisting and the TSA’s efforts to deploy its Secure Flight system to check passenger names for possible ties to terrorism have been considerable issues in appropriations debate for several years. Past appropriations measures have included language requiring that adequate steps be taken to protect data, ensure privacy, and provide avenues for passenger redress before Secure Flight could be fully deployed. Full implementation of Secure Flight, covering both domestic and international flights, is expected to be completed by December 2010, and the FY2011 request only includes inflationary adjustments to the FY2010 enacted levels for the Secure Flight program. To a large degree, following the December 25, 2009, incident, the policy emphasis has now shifted from the procedural, technical, and privacy issues surrounding the Secure Flight system development and deployment to focus on the intelligence analysis process underlying the no-fly and selectee lists against which passenger names are checked. While the circumstances of the incident have focused attention more specifically on intelligence gathering and analysis agencies, the FY2011 President’s request included a proposed increase of $10 million for the TSA’s Office of Intelligence (TSA-OI). The increase is intended to provide additional field intelligence capabilities at large airports and to implement improved secure communications capabilities between TSA headquarters and large airports to improve the dissemination of intelligence information to security operations in the field. In the course of the appropriations process, Congress may also examine the adequacy of TSA-OI resources and capabilities to work with the intelligence community with respect to making accurate and timely decisions for including terrorist identities on the no-fly and selectee lists, as well as the scope of those lists compared to the broader available information contained in government terrorist systems and databases, such as the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), maintained by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), and the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC).41 Air Cargo Screening The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53, Sec. 1602) required the TSA to establish a system for screening 50% of cargo placed on passenger airliners by February 2009, and 100% of such cargo by August 2010. The TSA currently requires 100% screening of cargo placed on domestic passenger flights using narrow body aircraft, which accounts for 95% of domestic flights, and relies on a process known as the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP) to regulate screening and supply chain security practices of participating shippers, freight forwarders, and cargo consolidation facilities to carry out these screening requirements. By 2010, the TSA estimates that about 15,000 shipping facilities and 250 freight forwarding and cargo consolidation facilities will be participating in the CCSP. However, screening of cargo placed on widebody jets, particularly inbound international flights, 40 See CRS Report R40543, Airport Passenger Screening: Background and Issues for Congress, by Bart Elias. For further discussion of this topic see CRS Report RL33645, Terrorist Watchlist Checks and Air Passenger Prescreening, by William J. Krouse and Bart Elias. 41 Congressional Research Service 28 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations remains a particular challenge for meeting the statutory requirements. Specific challenges in the international arena include limited control over foreign supply chain activities, the scale of diversity among various supply chains, and diplomatic considerations that pose specific challenges to implementing the CCSP model overseas. The TSA indicates that it will continue to work with international partners through FY2011 to better harmonize air cargo security standards and advance the supply chain screening approach to move toward achieving 100% screening of cargo on inbound international passenger flights. With respect to domestic air cargo security, the TSA is anticipated to face continuing resource challenges to adequately oversee the large number of regulated shipping and freight forwarding entities participating in the CCSP. The FY2011 request includes $28 million for air cargo policy and programs, a reduction of $11 million compared to FY2010 levels reflecting the culmination of the air cargo screening technology pilot program effective August 2010, and the transition of those technologies and screening responsibilities to the CCSP participants. The request also includes $74 million for air cargo inspectors, which reflects inflationary adjustments to the FY2010 baseline of $70 million. Also included in the request is $15 million for the National Explosive Detection Canine Training Program (NEDCTP) which provides for the training and certification of local law enforcement canine teams assigned to air cargo screening duties at airports, as well as partial reimbursement for the operational and maintenance costs through cooperative agreements with local law enforcement agencies. 42 Passenger Security Fee Collections ATSA gave the TSA authority to collect passenger security fees totaling $2.50 per leg, not to exceed $5.00 per one-way trip. The Bush Administration had unsuccessfully attempted to raise passenger security fees on several occasions, but its proposals failed to gain sufficient support in Congress. The Obama Administration has proposed a phased-in increase beginning in FY2012. Under this proposal, the base fee would increase by $1 per leg each year in FY2012, FY2013, and FY2014, until it reaches a level of $5.50 per leg with a cap of $11 per one-way trip. While the Administration has not proposed to begin phasing-in these increases until FY2012, Congress may consider various options to increase passenger security fee collections as a means to reduce the budget deficit, including possible options that could go into effect prior to or during FY2011. For example, S. 1808 and S. 698, both offered by Senator Feingold, seek a flat fee of $5.00 per oneway trip. The airline industry has ardently opposed such fee increases, arguing that aviation security is a national concern that impacts all citizens, and therefore, like national defense, its costs should be borne by all and not just aviation system users. The airline industry also argues that the passenger security fees, along with ticket taxes and other government fees, must be offset to some degree in the pricing of airline tickets to sustain passenger demand, which impacts airline revenues during tough economic times. 43 Notwithstanding these arguments, Congress may be more willing to consider a fee increase in the current context given that the fee has remained unchanged and has not been adjusted for inflation since its initial authorization in 2001, and there is increasing pressure to identify offsetting revenue sources to reduce federal deficit spending. 42 See CRS Report RL34390, Aviation Security: Background and Policy Options for Screening and Securing Air Cargo, by Bart Elias. 43 Chris Strohm, "Airlines oppose renewed push for higher security fees," Congress Daily, February 9, 2010. Congressional Research Service 29 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations United States Coast Guard44 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 FY2011 Request The President’s requested amount for major accounts compared with last year’s enacted level is shown in Table 7. As the table indicates, the President requested $87 million more in operating expenses (an increase of 1%) and $155 million less in the capital (ACI) account (a decrease of 10%) compared to last year’s enacted level. These two accounts are shown in further detail in Table 11 below. The President requested no funds for the Bridge Alteration account (consistent with prior Administration budget requests) and requested $5 million less for research and development. The other requested amounts are nearly the same as last year’s enacted level. Table 11. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-account Detail (budget authority in millions of dollars) FY2010 Enacted FY2011 Request Operating Expenses 6,564 6,651 Military pay and allowances 3,253 3,358 Civilian pay and benefits 701 757 Training and recruiting 206 204 1,155 1,106 Centrally managed accounts 335 346 Intermediate and depot level maintenance 914 880 1,536 1,381 Vessels and Critical Infrastructure 121 42 Other Equipment 130 36 1,154 1,113 27 69 Operating funds and unit level maintenance Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements Integrated Deepwater System Shore facilities and Aids to Navigation 44 FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted Prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division. Congressional Research Service 30 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Personnel and Related Support Coast Guard HQ FY2010 Enacted FY2011 Request 105 108 - 14 FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief. Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. 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. The President’s FY2011 budget request reflects a trade off of mission hours for capital investment in order not to further delay the replacement of older 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 the GAO and DHS IG have been very active in reviewing Deepwater. 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. 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.45 For FY2011, the President requested $1,113 million for Deepwater. This amount includes $538 million for the construction of a fifth National Security Cutter and $240 million for four Fast Response Cutters. Personnel Strength The FY2011 budget request would reduce the size of the Coast Guard’s military workforce by 485 FTE (1,112 positions) and increase the size of the civilian workforce by 384 FTE (339 positions) for a net reduction of 773 personnel.46 Some military positions would be re-classified as civilian positions. Some of the reduction in personnel is due to the planned decommissioning of older vessels (cutters) that require more crew than the newer vessels replacing them. However, some of the newer vessels will not be ready for service when the older vessels are taken out of service, reducing total cutter hours in FY2011 by an estimated 5,000 hours. The USCG has 12 Maritime Safety and Security Teams (MSSTs), which can be deployed to respond to a safety or security situation in a port that requires additional personnel. MSSTs escort 45 These issues are discussed in CRS Report RL33753, Coast Guard Deepwater Acquisition Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke. 46 FY2011 Budget Justification, pp. CG-OE-6 and 8. Congressional Research Service 31 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations vessels, patrol critical infrastructure, perform counter terrorism activities, board high interest vessels, and respond to unanticipated surge operations (e.g., mass migration, hurricane response, terrorist attack, etc.). The MSSTs are part of a larger group called the Deployable Operations Group (DOG), consisting of 3,000 personnel who are ready to provide a "surge capacity" when needed at a particular port. The President’s budget proposes eliminating five of the 12 MSSTs for a savings of $18.2 million. Teams would be eliminated in San Francisco, New Orleans, New York, Anchorage, and Kings Bay, GA. The decision of where to eliminate teams was based, in part, on where the agency already had a large permanent presence of Coast Guard personnel. Rescue-21 Congress has been concerned 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 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. 47 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 expanded to a less than 10% coverage gap.48 As of December 2009, Rescue-21 was deployed at 24 of 39 planned locations. For FY2011, the President requested $36 million for Rescue-21, to complete deployment at six locations and continue deployment at four other locations. United States Secret Service49 The U.S. Secret Service (USSS)50 has two broad missions, criminal investigations and protection. 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)51, which include the major party quadrennial national conventions as well as international conferences and events held in the United States. The NSSE 47 GAO, United States Coast Guard: Improvements Needed in Management and Oversight of Rescue System Acquisition, GAO-06-623, May 2006. 48 GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, Performance, Reorganization, and Related Challenges, April 18, 2007, GAO-07-489T, p. 3. 49 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and Finance Division. 50 For more information, see CRS Report RL34603, The U.S. Secret Service: An Examination and Analysis of Its Evolving Missions, by Shawn Reese. 51 For more information, see CRS Report RS22754, National Special Security Events, by Shawn Reese. Congressional Research Service 32 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations designation by the President gives the 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. President’s FY2011 Request For FY2011, the Administration requested an appropriation of $1,570 million. The Administration’s request reflected an increase of $87 million from FY2010. Within the Protection of Persons and Facilities account, the Administration protects 34 individuals, of which 24 are authorized under U.S. Code52 and ten are provisional protectees authorized pursuant to presidential memoranda.53 Additionally the Secretary of the Treasury receives protection on a reimbursable basis.54 USSS intends to continue to provide protection for the President and Vice President, their families, visiting heads-of-state, and the White House and other buildings within the Washington, DC, area. Finally, USSS plans to continue implementing operational security for designated NSSEs.55 Table 12. FY2010 Enacted and FY2011 Budget Authority for the U.S. Secret Service (Amounts in millions of dollars) Programs and Activities Protection of persons and facilities FY2010 Enacted FY2011 Budget Request 756 792 Protective intelligence activities 68 69 National Special Security Events 1 1 Candidate nominee protection White House mail screening - 25 221 253 54 55 261 257 International field operations 31 31 Electronic crimes program 57 57 Forensic support to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 8 8 Acquisition, construction, and improvements 4 4 1,483 1,570 Rowley Training Center Domestic field operations Total 52 53 FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted 18 22 Management and administration FY2011 HousePassed 18 U.S.C. § 3056. The ten provisional protectees are not identified due to security operations. 54 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service, Salaries & Expenses: Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Justification, Washington, DC, February 2010, p. S&E-1. 55 Ibid., p. S&E-10. Congressional Research Service 33 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief. Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. Issues for Congress There are two potential issues Congress might wish to address concerning the FY2011 appropriations for USSS. The two issues include funding for the Service’s protection mission, and NSSE funding. Protection Mission Funding USSS’s protection mission, as opposed to its investigative mission, employs the majority of the Service’s agents and receives a larger share of the agency’s resources. Additionally, the majority of congressional action concerning USSS has been related to its protection mission, as evidenced by past appropriations, and their accompanying conference report, for USSS. The priority given to protection reflects the costs associated with an increase in protecting individuals, events, and facilities, which the conferees noted in the conference report accompanying P.L. 111-83 (FY2010 DHS appropriations). While Congress has maintained USSS’s role in investigating financial crimes, such as providing funding for a new international field office in Estonia to combat electronic crimes in FY2010, congressional action primarily has addressed, and continues to address, the Service’s protection mission. An example of this is the 110th Congress’ enactment of P.L. 110-326, the Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008, which requires the Service to protect former Vice Presidents, their spouses, and minor children for a period of up to six months after leaving office. Congress has, however, moved to reduce the Service’s protection mission by specifically stating, in the FY2010 DHS appropriations, that the USSS could not use any funds to protect any federal department head, except the DHS Secretary, unless the Service is reimbursed. 56 One could argue that potential terrorist attacks and possible threats to the President have resulted in an increase in the need for the Service’s protection activities. Advocates for expansion of the investigation mission, however, may contend that protection is enhanced through better threat investigation efforts. National Special Security Event Funding The Administration proposes $20 million for a new initiative, the NSSE State and Local Reimbursement Fund (NSSE Fund). For FY2011, the Administration proposes housing this account in Title I, under Analysis and Operations (see Table 5). The NSSE Fund would reimburse state and local governments for costs incurred when providing security at NSSEs. In the past state and local governments were reimbursed for NSSE costs through targeted through multiple federal programs that were not consolidated or coordinated. Eligible costs of the NSSE Fund would be determined by the DHS Secretary and the fund’s management and administrative costs could not exceed one percent ($200,000). NSSE Fund allocations would not be available to states and 56 P.L. 111-83. Congressional Research Service 34 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations localities that receive reimbursement from other federal programs, including the Department of State’s “Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials” account. 57 NSSEs are events of national significance58 that may heighten the possibility of terrorist attacks because of the anticipated attendance by U.S. officials and foreign dignitaries; the size of the event; and the event’s historical, political, and symbolic significance. Recent NSSEs include the January 2009 inauguration of President Barack Obama and the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) is the lead federal agency for planning, implementing, and coordinating operational security at NSSEs.59 USSS’s Major Events Division (MED) plans and coordinates NSSE security operations. Some of the coordination includes advance planning and liaison for venue and air space security, training, communications, and security credentialing.60 State and local law enforcement entities augment federal law enforcement security of NSSEs. Recent NSSE funding include the appropriation of $100 million for securing the 2008 Presidential Nominating Conventions in Denver, CO, and Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN.61 The $100 million was appropriated to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and administered through the DOJ’s Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Enforcement Assistance Programs (Byrne Programs). DOJ used most of this funding to reimburse state and local law enforcement entities for NSSE security costs. The most recent NSSE funding was $15 million for “emergency planning and security costs” incurred by the District of Columbia (DC) during the January 20, 2009, inauguration of President Obama.62 Prior to the inauguration, former President George W. Bush issued an emergency declaration for DC, which authorized the federal government to reimburse the District for emergency preparedness activities and expenditures that exceeded the $15 million Congress appropriated in P.L. 110-329, “The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continued Appropriations Act, 2009.”63 Additionally, Congress appropriated, in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, $39.2 million for emergency planning and security costs in DC; however, this funding was not specifically for NSSEs.64 The Administration’s request for a NSSE Fund raises potential questions that include the following: • In 2008, the Presidential Nominating Conventions were provided a total of $100 million, with $50 million each provided to Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul, 57 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Washington, DC, February 1, 2010, p. 518. 58 P.L. 106-544, Sec. 3. 114 Stat. 2713. 59 Ibid. 60 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service, Office of Legislative Affairs, National Special Security Events: Meeting the Counter-Terrorism Challenge, Washington, DC, 2006, p. 1. This document is only available by contacting the USSS’s Office of Legislative Affairs. 61 P.L. 110-161. 121 Stat. 1909. 62 P.L. 110-329, Div. A, Sec. 135. 122 Stat. 3579. 63 For more information on this emergency declaration, see http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=47284. 64 P.L. 111-8, Div. D, Title IV. 123 Stat. 650. Congressional Research Service 35 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations which hosted a convention. DC was provided $15 million to reimburse 2009 inauguration security and emergency preparedness activities, with an additional $39.2 million appropriated in the FY2009 omnibus. How did DHS determine $20 million as the appropriate amount for the NSSE Fund for FY2011? • The FY2011 budget request proposes the NSSE Fund be placed in the Office of the Secretary but does not identify an administering agency. USSS has statutory authority to administer, plan, and implement NSSE operations; however, USSS is not identified as the NSSE Fund administrating agency. One would assume that there would be coordination, at a minimum, between USSS and the DHS entity that administers the NSSE Fund. The budget request is silent on the NSSE Fund’s relationship with other grants and assistance provided to states and localities by other DHS agencies. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) provides homeland security grants and assistance to states and localities, and has an established relationship with states and localities. What entity within DHS would administer the NSSE Fund? • In the past, Congress funded some state and local NSSE costs by providing assistance through the DOJ Byrne Programs. If Congress were to approve the Administration’s NSSE Fund, one would assume that Congress would not provide funding through the DOJ Byrne Program. As noted earlier, DHS already provides funding to states and localities through GPD for homeland security assistance. Specifically, GPD’s State Homeland Security Program and the Urban Area Security Initiative can be used for NSSE security activities. The grant approval process for these programs, however, is not flexible, so the programs have limited application to NSSEs. Would the NSSE Fund be redundant of the other federal programs? Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 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.”65 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 13 provides account-level appropriations detail for Title III. 65 P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1400. Congressional Research Service 36 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Table 13.Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (budget authority in millions of dollars) FY2010 Appropriation Operational Component FY2010 Enacted FY2010 Supp. FY2010 Resc. FY2011 Appropriation FY2010 Total FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 Request National Protection and Programs Directorate Management and Administration 45 45 46 Infrastructure Protection and Information Security 899 899 866 US-VISIT 374 374 335 Federal Protective Service (FPS) 1,115 1,115 1,115 Gross Total 2,433 2,433 2,362 Offsetting collections -1,115 -1,115 -1,115 Net total 1,318 1,318 1,247 139 139 213 798 798 903 Grant Programs Directorate 4,165a 4,165a 4,001b Firefighter Assistance Grants c c c 46 46 46 1,600d 1,600d 1,950 Office of Health Affairs Federal Emergency Management Agency Management and Administration U.S. Fire Administration Disaster relief Disaster readiness and support activities Flood map modernization fund CRS-37 0 220 220 194 FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011Enacted Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations FY2010 Appropriation Operational Component FY2010 Enacted FY2010 Supp. FY2010 Resc. FY2011 Appropriation FY2010 Total FY2011 Request National flood insurance fund (NFIF)e 0 National flood mitigationf 0 Pre-disaster mitigation fund 100 100 100 Emergency food and shelter 200 200 100 Disaster assistance direct loan account 0 Radiological Emergency Preparednessg 0 Net total 7,129 7,129 7,294 Net budget authority subtotal: Title III 8,586 8,586 8,754 Offsetting collections 1,115 1,115 1,115 Gross budget authority Title III 9,701 9,701 9,869 FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011Enacted Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief. Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. The FY2010 supplemental appropriations column and the FY2010 rescission column are placeholders. Thus, while no such funding has yet been put forth for FY2010, these columns are included in anticipation that such actions may occur as the bill moves forward. Supplemental appropriations and rescissions have occurred on numerous occasions for past DHS appropriations. a. Includes State and Local Grants, Emergency Performance Management Grants (EMPG), Assistance to Firefighters grants, and $50 million in Real ID grants. b. Includes State and Local Grants, Emergency Performance Management Grants (EMPG), and Assistance to Firefighters grants. c. Firefighter Assistance Grants included under Grants Program Directorate. d. Does not include transfers from the DRF of $106 million to FEMA's Management and Administration account, nor does it include a transfer from the DRF of $16 million to the DHS OIG in Title I. e. NFIF funding is derived from premium payments or transfers from the U.S. Treasury, not appropriations. f. Funds for the National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF) are derived from transfers, not appropriations. g. Radiological Emergency Preparedness funds are provided through reimbursements and are not actually appropriated funds. CRS-38 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Federal Emergency Management Agency66 The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for leading and supporting the nation’s preparedness through a risk-based and comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation. This comprehensive emergency management system is intended to reduce the loss of life and property, and protect the nation from all hazards. These hazards include natural and accidental man-made disasters, and acts of terrorism. 67 FEMA executes its mission through a number of activities such as providing assistance through its administration of the Disaster Relief Fund and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund. Additionally, FEMA provides assistance to state, local, and tribal governments, and non-governmental entities through its management and administration of programs such as State and Local Programs, the Emergency Food and Shelter program, and the Radiological Emergency Preparedness program. Table 13 provides information on the FY2010 appropriations and the FY2011 budget request for all of FEMA’s activities. President’s FY2011 Request For FY2011, the Administration proposed an appropriation of $7,294 million for FEMA, which is an increase of $165 million compared to the FY2010 FEMA appropriation of $7,129 million. The proposed increase was due to a proposed appropriation of $903 million for FEMA’s Management and Administration activities, which was $105 million more than appropriated in FY2010; and a proposed appropriation of $1,950 million for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), which was $250 million more than the FY2010 amount. These proposed increases, however, were slightly offset by a proposed reduction in other FEMA activities. The Administration proposed $4,001 million for State and Local Programs, which was a $164 million reduction from the FY2010 amount; $194 million for the Flood Map Modernization Fund, which was a $16 million reduction from the FY2010 appropriation; and $100 million for Emergency Food and Shelter, which was a $100 million reduction from the FY2010 amount. Significant budget proposals include consolidating selected State and Local Programs;68 refocusing FEMA’s resources on its mission of preparing for and coordinating disaster response and recovery while providing support for the non-disaster Emergency Food and Shelter program;69 repairing, maintaining, and improving regional facilities;70 and eliminating the 66 This section was prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Bruce Lindsay, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy, Natalie Keegan, Analyst in American Federalism and Emergency Management Policy, Francis McCarthy, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy, Government and Finance Division, and Len Kruger, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Research, Science, and Industry Division. 67 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, About FEMA: FEMA Mission, Washington, DC, November 2008, at http://www.fema.gov/about/index.shtm. 68 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Washington, DC, February 2010, p. 557. 69 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FY2011 Budget Request: FEMAAll Appropriations, Congressional Committee Rollout, Washington, DC, February 2010, p. 27. 70 Ibid., p. 6. Congressional Research Service 39 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations National Flood Mitigation Fund and funding its activities through the National Flood Insurance Fund. 71 The Administration also proposed to partner FEMA with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to support strategic local approaches to sustainable development by combining certain hazard mitigation objectives with community development objectives.72 Finally, the Administration assumed that catastrophic disasters are rare and that these catastrophic disasters would be funded through a supplemental or emergency appropriation. 73 FEMA Issues for Congress As noted above, there are several significant issues associated with the Administration’s budget request. They include consolidation of selected state and local programs, reduction in funding for the Assistance to Firefighters Program, Disaster Relief Fund appropriations, reduction in funding for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, expiration of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program, and Flood Map Modernization appropriations. Disaster Relief Fund The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) is the main account used to fund a wide variety of programs, grants, and other forms of emergency and disaster assistance to states, local governments, certain nonprofit entities, and family and individuals affected by disasters.74 The DRF is funded yearly through regular appropriations; however, the account often needs supplemental funds for continued disaster assistance. Ongoing recovery efforts from the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005 have increased the federal government’s reliance on supplemental funding for the DRF. The DRF appropriation in FY2011 may be of particular concern due to developments that occurred after the initial FY2011 request, when the President submitted a supplemental request for appropriations for the DRF for FY2010.75 According to President Obama, additional funds for the DRF were needed to supplement continued response and recovery efforts. Initially, the Administration included a request for $3,600 million in supplemental funds to carry out disaster assistance in FY2010, with the FY2011 budget request.76 Unexpected recovery costs were incurred by FEMA however, which prompted the Administration to amend this supplemental request by an additional $1,500 million, making the FY2010 request for supplemental appropriations to the DRF $5,100. These requests for additional supplemental FY2010 funds are included in the proposed legislative language of the FY2011 request as a General Provision in Title V. 71 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Washington, DC, February 2010, p. 561. 72 Ibid., p. 562. 73 Ibid., p. 563. 74 In most cases, funding from the DRF is released after the President has issued a declaration pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.). For further analysis on the DRF, see CRS Report R40708, Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, by Bruce R. Lindsay and Justin Murray. For further analysis on declaration process, see CRS Report RL34146, FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer, by Francis X. McCarthy. 75 Barrack Obama, Letter from the White House, Washington DC, February 12, 2010. 76 Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government, Washington DC, 2010, pp. 13621363. Congressional Research Service 40 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations It is unclear if increased expenditures for federal disaster assistance are due solely to the hurricanes. Rather, they may indicate an increased trend in catastrophic disasters, an escalation of federal involvement in disaster assistance more broadly, or both. Moreover, the arbitration panels authorized by P.L. 111-5 have resulted in increased costs to the DRF because arbitrators have overturned some of FEMA’s cost decisions for FY2010. Furthermore, in A New Era of Responsibility, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) stated that “in the past, budgets assumed that there would not be any natural disasters in our nation that would necessitate federal help.... This omission is irresponsible, and has permitted past Administrations to project deficits that were lower than likely to occur.”77 Such a claim may lead some to question whether the President’s request for the DRF was sufficient given the pending supplemental request for FY2010. Finally, the increase in DRF funding further highlights fundamental questions concerning responsibility and equity in disaster recovery: at what point are individuals responsible to recover from disasters on their own through homeowners insurance and other means? Does increased federal assistance create an expectation that if the federal government provides assistance for a particular event, future incidents will receive similar assistance? In light of increased DRF expenditures, Congress might elect to investigate potential reforms to reduce federal expenditures on disaster assistance. Furthermore, if one makes the assumption that the incidence of disasters in the future will increase because of such factors as global warming or the development of unused land areas, then Congress might also consider expending more funds on mitigation to lessen future expenditures or reliance on supplemental appropriations to increase the DRF. State and Local Programs FEMA’s State and Local Programs assist state, local, and tribal governments—primarily first responder entities—to meet homeland security needs and enhance capabilities to prepare for, respond to, and recover from both man-made and natural disasters. Table 14 provides information on the FY2010 appropriations and the Administration’s FY2011 budget request for all State and Local Programs. Table 14. Budget Authority for State and Local Programs (budget authority in millions of dollars) Programs FY2010 Enacted FY2011 Budget Request FY2011 HouseReported FY2011 SenateReported FY2011 Enacted Homeland Security Prevention and Protection Programs Urban Area Security Initiative 887 1,100 State Homeland Security Grant Program 950 1,050 50 0 Driver’s License Security Program (REAL ID) 77 Office of Management and Budget, A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America’s Promise, Washington DC, February 26, 2009, p. 36. Congressional Research Service 41 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Programs Buffer Zone Protection Program FY2010 Enacted FY2011 Budget Request 50 50 600 600 12 0 Assistance to Firefighters 810 610 Emergency Management Performance Grants 340 345 Metropolitan Medical Response System 41 0 Citizen Corps Programs 13 0 Regional Catastrophic Preparedness 35 35 Interoperable Emergency Communications Grants 50 0 Emergency Operations Centers 60 0 29 22 102 52 Cybercrime Counterterrorism Training 2 0 Center for Domestic Preparedness/Noble Training Center 63 63 National Exercise Program 40 42 Technical Assistance Programs 13 15 Evaluations and Assessments 16 18 Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium 3 0 4,165 4,001 Transportation Security Grant Program Over-the-Road Bus Security Grants FY2011 HouseReported FY2011 SenateReported FY2011 Enacted Homeland Security Response and Recovery Programs Other National, State and Local Grant Programs/Training, Measurement and Exercise Program Continuing Training Grants National Domestic Preparedness Consortium Total Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief. Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. For FY2011, the Administration proposed a total appropriation of $4,001 million for State and Local Programs, which was $164 million less than Congress appropriated in FY2010. This proposed reduction in total appropriations is a combination of reducing funding for some programs and the elimination of selected programs. This proposed reduction in total Congressional Research Service 42 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations appropriations and elimination of selected programs, such as the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program and the Metropolitan Medical Response System, could potentially lead to two scenarios: • Grantees would attempt to continue funding all of their homeland security projects, including those that are eliminated but eligible under other programs, which might result in reduced funding for all homeland security projects; • Grantees would not fund all of their needed homeland security projects. The Administration, however, states that the reduction in the number of assistance programs consolidates prior individual programs and expands the eligible activities of the remaining programs. Additionally, the Administration states that the consolidation increases grantee discretion and encourages grantees to prioritize investments that meet specific homeland security needs that vary from grantee to grantee. 78 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFG) The Administration’s FY2011 budget proposed $610 million for firefighter assistance. The FY2011 request is a 25% decrease from the FY2010 level, and would, if approved, constitute the lowest amount for firefighter assistance since FY2002. Specifically, the Administration’s FY2011 budget proposed $305 million for AFG (a 22% decrease from the FY2010 level) and $305 million for the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Program (SAFER) (a 27% decrease). The FY2011 request for AFG alone would, if approved, be the lowest amount since FY2001, the initial year of the program. The FY2011 budget proposal stated that the firefighter assistance grant process “will give priority to applications that enhance capabilities for terrorism response and other major incidents.” Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFS) The EFS Program is authorized by Title III of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. The program provides emergency help (preventing evictions, utility cut-offs, supplementing shelters, soup kitchens, food banks, etc.) to thousands of social service providers across the nation. FEMA chairs a national board consisting of representatives from the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities USA, the United Way, the American Red Cross, the Jewish Federations of North America, and the National Council of Churches. The unique part of the program is that after allocations are made at the national level, decisions on funding to specific provider organizations are made at the local level by an EFS Local Board similar in composition to the EFS National Board. The total administrative budget for the program is 3.5%, so almost all funds go to direct services. The Administration’s FY2011 budget suggests cutting the EFS program in half, from its current $200 million to $100 million. The program had received an additional $100 million in supplemental appropriations for FY2009, from P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the availability of which extends 3 months into FY2010. This means that the proposed funding cuts may have a greater impact on local recipients given the recent 78 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Washington, DC, February 2010, p. 557. Congressional Research Service 43 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations funding history. The Administration’s justification notes that the reduction in EFS funding will permit a “refocus of agency-wide resources on FEMA’s primary mission” of disaster response and recovery efforts. While the EFS program is not a disaster program, it has been hosted at FEMA for more than 25 years and has a significant role in communities during times of high unemployment. This is a budgetary issue that Congress may examine as the process moves forward. Pre-Disaster Mitigation The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program provides federal grants to mitigate property damage and loss of life due to disasters. While funding is authorized under Section 203 of the Stafford Act, eligibility for the PDM program does not require a Stafford Act disaster declaration.79 Authorization for the PDM program expires on September 30, 2010. The Administration’s FY2011 budget request would extend the authorization until September 30, 2011.80 In the 111th Congress, Representative Oberstar and other sponsors introduced H.R. 1746 to re-authorize the program for an additional three years at $250 million per year.81 The FY2011 budget requested $100 million, which does not reflect any change from the appropriated amount for FY2010.82 Flood Map Modernization FEMA was directed to perform digital updates of flood maps every five years for communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program.83 The Administration’s FY2011 budget requested $26 million less than the FY2010 appropriated level, from $220 million to $194 million. 84 The reduced funding level may be attributed to the anticipated completion of the Flood Map Modernization Initiative (FMMI), and greater sharing of the costs of ongoing Flood Map Modernization (MapMod) with other federal, state, local, and private stakeholders.85 Office of Health Affairs86 The Office of Health Affairs (OHA) coordinates or consults on DHS programs that have a public health or medical component. These include several of the homeland security grant programs, and medical care provided at ICE detention facilities. OHA also administers several programs, 79 42 U.S.C. 5133 §203. For additional information on the PDM program, see CRS Report RL34537, FEMA’s PreDisaster Mitigation Program: Overview and Issues, by Francis X. McCarthy and Natalie Keegan. 80 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Washington, DC, February 2010, p. 574. 81 H.R. 1746 would also incrase the state minimum amount to $575,000. 82 The FY2010 budget requested $150 million, but P.L. 111-83 appropriated $100 million and extended authorization for the program until September 30, 2010. 83 As required by §575 of P.L. 103-325, the 1994 Flood Insurance Program Reform Act. 84 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Washington, DC, February 2010, p. 564. 85 FEMA introduced the FMMI in 1997 to convert paper flood insurance rate maps (FIRMs) to digital maps (DFIRMs). MapMod costs are shared with FEMA Cooperating Technical Partners, which include other federal agencies, state and local governments, and private stakeholders. 86 Prepared by Sarah A. Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology, Domestic Social Policy Division. Congressional Research Service 44 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations including the BioWatch program, the National Biosurveillance Integration System (NBIS), and the department’s occupational health and safety programs. 87 Dr. Alexander G. Garza, President Obama’s nominee for the position, was confirmed by the Senate as Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security and Chief Medical Officer in August 2009. OHA received $139 million in FY2010 appropriations. President’s FY2011 Request The President requested $213 million for OHA for FY2011, $74 million (53%) more than was provided for FY2010. The requested funding level would support 95 FTEs, 11 more than in FY2010. The requested increase would more than double the funding for the BioWatch program, discussed below. The request would decrease funding for other OHA budget lines, namely Salaries and Expenses; Planning and Coordination (under which numerous leadership and coordination activities are implemented); the National Biosurveillance Integration Center; and the Rapidly Deployable Chemical Detection System. 88 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, in order that medications could be distributed before exposed individuals became ill. The Administration requested an $84 million (93%) increase for BioWatch, from about $90 million in FY2010 to almost $174 million in FY2011. The increase would be used to procure and deploy new so-called “Generation 3” (Gen-3) detectors, which are intended to improve timeliness by automating detection on site, no longer requiring daily collection and analysis in off-site labs. However, test deployments of earlier prototypes raised questions about their performance. In the past two funding cycles, appropriators have withheld some funding for OHA proposals to transition to next-generation automated detectors, and/or required notification prior to any such deployments.89 In FY2008, Congress funded a National Academies study of the effectiveness of the BioWatch program. Among other things, the group recommended thorough operational testing of Gen-3 detectors before deployment; more robust assessments of BioWatch system performance; and improved coordination with federal and non-federal partners. In addition, they estimated the average annual costs to deploy and operate a system of Gen-3 detectors, over a ten-year period, at $200 million per year.90 87 DHS, Office of Health Affairs, http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0880.shtm. OHA, Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Justification, Overview, p. OHA-4. 89 For more information, see the discussion in the OHA section of CRS Report R40642, Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations, coordinated by Jennifer E. Lake and Chad C. Haddal. 90 Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, BioWatch and Public Health Surveillance: Evaluating Systems for the Early Detection of Biological Threats, Summary, Abbreviated Version, 2010, Washington, DC, The National Academies Press, http://www.nap.edu/. 88 Congressional Research Service 45 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations National Protection and Programs Directorate91 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 the Under Secretary and accompanying administrative support functions (budget, communications, etc.), the Office of Risk Management and Analysis, the Office of Infrastructure Protection, the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program (US-VISIT), and the Federal Protective Service. The activities of the Office of the Under Secretary and the other administrative functions and the Office of Risk Management and Analysis (RMA) are supported by the Management and Administration Program. The activities of the Office of Infrastructure Protection and the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications are supported by the Infrastructure Protection and Information Security Program (IPIS). The US-VISIT and the Federal Protective Service each have their own programs. Management and Administration The Management and Administration Program supports the basic administrative functions of the directorate through the Directorate Administration Program/Project Activity (PPA). It also supports the activities of the Office of Risk Management and Analysis (through the Risk Management and Analysis PPA). The Office of Risk Management and Analysis is responsible for developing and implementing a common risk management framework and to leverage risk management expertise throughout the Department. Among its projects are the development of the Risk Assessment Process for Informed Decision-making (RAPID) and support for the Homeland Security National Risk Assessment (HSNRA). RAPID is being developed to inform the Department’s budgeting and programming efforts to help it prioritize the allocation of resources. HSNRA is used to support the DHS Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. President’s FY2011 Request For FY2011, the Administration requested $46 million for Management and Administration: $36 million for Directorate Administration and $10 million for RMA. This is $1 million above the funding appropriated for FY2010, with all of the increase going to Directorate Administration. The increase is the net effect of adjustments to the base and some minor programmatic changes. Base adjustments included a request for 54 additional FTE slots: 41 for functions supported by the Directorate Administration account and 13 for RMA. The Department’s effort to reduce the number of contractors working at DHS accounted for the request. The cost is more than offset by a reduction in contracting fees. The Administration claims that it is saving a half million dollars in contracting expenses. Programmatic changes are minor. The Administration requested an additional $2 million in the Directorate Administration account to support the establishment of two DHS Enterprise Data Centers and the migration of applications to those Centers. The Administration also requested a modest programmatic reduction for RMA (much less than $1 million). The reduction would reduce the technical assistance RMA provides to other components inside DHS. 91 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division. Congressional Research Service 46 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Table 15. FY2009 Budget Activity for NPPD Management and Administration Appropriation (budget authority in millions of dollars) Program Project Activity FY2010 Enacted FY2011 Request Directorate Administration 35 36 Risk Management and Analysis 10 10 Total 45 46 FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted Sources: CRS Analysis of the Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Management and Administration, Fiscal Year 2011, Overview, Budget Justification. Note: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. Issues for Congress As noted in the IPIS discussion below, the migration of information systems appeared in various places within the NPPD budget. In the Directorate Administration PPA and as part of the IPIS Coordination and Information Sharing PAA, it appeared as programmatic increases. In the USCERT PPA, it appeared as a programmatic reduction. Congress might ask for clarification of the budget impact of these migrations and consolidation of information resources. Federal Protective Service92 The Federal Protective Service (FPS), now within FEMA’s National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD),93 is responsible for the protection and security of federally owned and leased buildings, property, and personnel.94 In general, FPS operations focus on security and law enforcement activities that reduce vulnerability to criminal and terrorist threats.95 FPS protection and security operations include all-hazards based risk assessments; emplacement of criminal and terrorist countermeasures, such as vehicle barriers and close-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, such as the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) at National Special Security Events (NSSE), with additional security.96 FPS is the lead “Government Facilities Sector Agency” for the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP).97 Currently, FPS employs approximately 1,225 law enforcement officers, investigators, and administrative personnel, and administers the services of approximately 15,000 contract security guards. 92 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and Finance Division. 93 FPS was transferred to NPPD from ICE following the enactment of the FY2010 DHS appropriations, P.L. 111-83. 94 40 U.S.C. 1315. 95 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. 96 For information on NSSEs, see CRS Report RS22754, National Special Security Events, by Shawn Reese. 97 Information on the NIPP is available at: http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/editorial_0827.shtm. Congressional Research Service 47 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations President’s FY2011 Request The FPS congressional budget justification proposed $1,115 million for FPS in FY2011 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 FY2010.98 FPS estimated a collection of security leasing fees to provide $220 million for basic security operations, 99 $420 million for building specific security operations, 100 and $475 million for Security Work Authorizations.101 Issue for Congress One potential issue Congress may consider when conducting oversight of FY2011 FPS activities is FPS operations. FPS Operations In July 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) completed and reported a survey that indicated that 82% of FPS customers do not use the agency as their primary law enforcement agency in emergency situations. Additionally, the customers informed GAO that they primarily rely on other entities such as local law enforcement, the U.S. Marshals Service, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. GSA also informed GAO that it has not been satisfied with the level of protection and security provided by FPS since being transferred to DHS. According to GSA officials, FPS has not been responsive and timely in providing building security assessments for new leases. GAO, however, stated FPS has taken steps to improve customer service through education and outreach initiatives. 102 As a result of GAO’s findings and other criticisms, FPS intends (in FY2011) to • improve the strategic methods used in identifying and reducing actual and potential threats directed at FPS-protected facilities; • restore proactive monitoring activities to mitigate the increased risk to FPSprotected facilities noted by GAO; • improve the service provided by contract security guard forces through acquisition strategies and “intensive” monitoring and training; • develop risk-based security standards tied to intelligence and risk-assessments; 98 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Protection & Programs Directorate, Federal Protective Service: Fiscal Year 2011 Overview, Congressional Justification, Washington, DC, February 2011, p. FPS-2. 99 Basic security operations include law enforcement services on federally-controlled property, preliminary investigations of incidents, limited proactive activities to detect and deter attacks on high-risk facilities, and capture and detention of suspects. 100 Building specific security operations include security countermeasure requirements specific to a particular building. 101 Security Work Authorizations are agreements between FPS and customer agencies to procure security measures beyond those included with basic security operations and building specific security operations. 102 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: Federal Protective Service Should Improve Human Capital Planning and Better Communicate with Tenants, GAO-09-749, July 2009, pp. 5-6. Congressional Research Service 48 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations • refine business practices to ensure full collection of revenue through “positive” stakeholder interface; and • implement a capital plan that will improve security and customer service. 103 U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (USVISIT)104 Until FY2006, US-VISIT was coordinated out of the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security (BTS). Former 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 DHS105 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 FY2006.106 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.”107 President’s FY2011 Request The Administration requested $335 million for US-VISIT in FY2011, a decrease of $39 million from the FY2010 enacted level of $374 million. Included in the Administration’s request is reduction of $12 million for US-VISIT Program Management Services and no funding request for the Comprehensive Biometric Exit Program, which was appropriated $22 million in FY2010. Other program changes identified by US-VISIT include identity management and screening, data center mirror and migration, unique identity, and US-VISIT 1.0.108 Issues for Congress The singularly most prominent issue that Congress may face relating to the implementation of the US-VISIT system is the lack of a biometric exit component. 103 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Protection & Programs Directorate, Federal Protective Service: Fiscal Year 2011 Overview, Congressional Justification, Washington, DC, February 2011, p. FPS-8. 104 Prepared by Chad C. Haddal, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division. 105 Programs proposed for transfer to the Screening Coordination Office included the U.S. 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. 106 H.Rept. 109-241. 107 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. 108 US-VISIT 1.0 addresses IDENT systems scalability issues and other re-architecting issues to the current system to improve efficiency and performance. Congressional Research Service 49 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Biometric Exit Component Deployment of a biometric exit system has been of concern to Congress for a number of years, and US-VISIT has been heavily criticized for not implementing an exit system at ports of entry. 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. Currently, DHS uses biographical information from Traveler Enforcement Compliance System (TECS) officer confirmed arrivals, I-94 forms, and other traveler information to conduct matching of entry data to exit data—a method with inherent inaccuracies. A pair of recent pilot projects on biometric exit systems were completed in late 2009, yet according to GAO there is no transition plan in place to begin comprehensive deployment of either system. 109 The FY2011 budget requests no funding for the implementation of a biometric exit capability. The lack of such a funding request could indicate that a comprehensive biometric exit solution at ports of entry is unlikely to begin deployment in FY2011. 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 Security110 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 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 a 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 FY2011 Request For FY2011, the Administration requested $866 million for the IPIS program. This is $33 million below what Congress appropriated for FY2010, about a 4% reduction. Net adjustments to base funding accounted for between $4 million and $5 million of the reductions. Net programmatic changes accounted for slightly less than $29 million of the proposed reductions. 109 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: Key US-VISIT Components at Varying Stages of Completion, but Integrated and Reliable Schedule Needed, GAO-10-13, November 19, 2009. 110 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division. Congressional Research Service 50 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations The Administration aggregated the activities supported by the IPIS program into 11 line items called Program/Project Activities (PAAs). Adjustments to the base funding and programmatic changes requested by the Administration resulted in net reductions to all but 2 of the PPAs (see Table 16). What follows is a brief discussion of selected changes being proposed within this PPA structure. Base adjustments111 (worth -$12 million) resulted in the large net decrease in the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) PPA. These adjustments were the migration of information systems to a different location, presumably outside the US-CERT budget, and the transfer of funds to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to support the National Computer Forensic Institute. The largest programmatic reductions within various PPAs were proposed for the National Cybersecurity Protection System (-$13 million) and Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources Partnerships and Information Sharing Program (-$10 million). Other reductions were proposed for Vulnerability Assessments (-$4 million), the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (-$4 million), the National Infrastructure Protection Plan Management Program (-$4 million), and Next Generation Networks (-$4 million), cybersecurity-related Training and Education (-$4 million), and Critical Infrastructure Protection-Cybersecurity (-$4 million). The Administration proposed programmatic increases within various PPAs for Assessment, Testing, and Analysis (+$9 million), Infrastructure Protection Data Center Migration (+$7 million), Cybersecurity Coordination (+$5 million), Cybersecurity Exercises (+$3 million), and the National Coordinating Center (+$2 million). Some of the increases/decreases in requested funding resulted from proposed increases/decreases in requested FTE levels. In some cases, the Administration requested increased FTE levels as part of an effort to reduce the number of contractors working for NPPD. These requests, considered as adjustments to the base, were budget neutral, with the costs offset by reductions in contracting budgets. In other cases, the Administration requested fewer FTEs, based on an analysis of the historical rates at which those FTEs were being filled. In other cases, increases/decreases in FTEs resulted from proposed programmatic changes. In all, the Administration requested a net increase of 138 FTEs. The predominate share of these fell within the US-CERT PPA. The second largest increase occurred within the Mitigation PPA. Also, the Administration attributed a number of programmatic reductions within the PPAs managed by the NCSD and NCS to greater efficiencies associated with newly instituted Cybersecurity and Communications quarterly reviews collaboratively managed by US-CERT and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Cybersecurity and Communications. Along with the IPIS FY2011 budget justification, the Administration submitted an Addendum proposing an alternative PPA structure for the IPIS. The restructuring proposed three basic changes. The creation of a separate PPA for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and Communications; a restructuring of the activities carried out by the National Cyber Security Division; and a realignment of the FTEs associated with the activities of the National Communications System. 111 Base adjustments are not reflected in Table 16. Congressional Research Service 51 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Table 16. Budget Authority for Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (budget authority in millions of dollars) Program IP FY2010 Enacted FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 Request 348 334 Identification and Analysis 91 83 Coordination and Information Sharing 60 53 Mitigation Programs 197 198 NCSD 397 379 US-CERT 324 315 64 57 9 7 110 109 Priority Telecom Service 57 56 Programs to Study and Enhance Telecom 17 17 Critical Infrastructure Protection 11 15 Next Generation Networks 25 21 OEC 45 45 Total 899 866 Strategic Initiatives Outreach and Programs NCS FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief. Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. Issues for Congress The Administration proposed a $13 million reduction for the National Cybersecurity Protection System Program, also known as EINSTEIN. The reduction in funding would slow the deployment of the latest intrusion detection hardware and software throughout the federal government and its partners. The deployment of this hardware/software and the analysis of the resulting information is a major part of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative. Some of these funds were redirected toward initiating the new Assessment, Test, and Analysis Program. The Assessment, Test, and Analysis Program supports penetration testing of federal networks by red and blue teams, to assess the effectiveness of agencies’ cybersecurity protections. Such regular penetration testing has been suggested for a number of years by many in the information security community. Congress might consider the trade-offs associated with this redirection of funds. The Administration proposed a $10 million reduction in the Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources Partnerships and Information Sharing Program. This program supports the Sector and Government Coordinating Councils and their operations. The reduction would reduce the travel, meeting, workshop, and Secretariat support for State, local, tribal, and territorial government, and regional consortium representatives. The number of joint regional consortium meetings between Congressional Research Service 52 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations public and private stakeholders would be reduced. The Administration also anticipated the end of operations for the Critical Infrastructure Warning Information Network (CWIN) or its incorporation into the Department’s overall future communication enterprise. Congress might investigate how this reduction impacts the participation of the affected groups and to what extent termination of CWIN operations has been considered at the Department level. In the past, the Appropriations Committees of both chambers have expressed their frustration with the NPPD’s budget documentation. Congress instructed DHS to use the current budget structure. Congress might consider the merits of the DHS restructuring proposal and if it achieves the transparency and rationalization that both seek. 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 (S&T), and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO). Table 17 provides account-level details of Title IV appropriations. Congressional Research Service 53 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Table 17.Title IV: Research and Development,Training, Assessments, and Services (budget authority in millions of dollars) FY2010 Appropriation FY2010 Total FY2011 Request 2,860 2,860 2,813 -2,636 -2,636 -2,427 Net subtotal (Direct appropriation) 224 224 386 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 283 283 278 Management and Administration 143 143 152 Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations 863 863 866 1,006 1,006 1018 39 39 37 325 325 208 20 20 61 384 384 306 4,533 4,533 4,414 Offsetting collections: Title IV -2,636 -2,636 -2,427 Net budget authority: Title IV 1,897 1,897 1,988 Operational Component FY2010 Enacted FY2011 Appropriation FY2010 Supp. FY2010 Resc. Citizenship and Immigration Services Total available budget authority Offsetting Feesa Science and Technology Net Subtotal Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Management and Administration Research, Development, and Operations Systems Acquisition Net Subtotal Gross budget authority: Title IV Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief. CRS-54 FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. The FY2010 supplemental appropriations column and the FY2010 rescission column are placeholders. Thus, while no such funding has yet been put forth for FY2010, these columns are included in anticipation that such actions may occur as the bill moves forward. Supplemental appropriations and rescissions have occurred on numerous occasions for past DHS appropriations. a. CRS-55 Fees include Immigration Examination Fund; H-1b Visa Fee; and the Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee. Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services112 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.113 Table 18 shows FY2010 appropriations and the FY2011 request. President’s FY2011 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.114 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 FY2011 budget request, the agency requested $386 million in direct appropriations. The remaining $2,427 million in gross budget authority requested would be funded by revenues from collected fees. As Table 18 shows, the requested USCIS gross budget authority for FY2011 was approximately $2,813 million. The requested direct appropriation of $386 million includes $103 million for the E-Verify program, $23 million for data center development, and $18 million for the Immigrant Integration Initiative. Moreover, the agency requested $34 million for a new Systematic Alien Verification Entitlements (SAVE) Program. USCIS is also proposing to fund asylum and refugee applications and military naturalizations—all which have no fees attached—with a direct appropriation of $207 million. All other programs and operations would be fee funded. Of the fee-collected funds for FY2011, $1,955 million would fund the USCIS adjudication services. The President’s budget request also included requested funding levels of $84 million for information and customer services, and $337 million for administration. 112 113 This section was prepared by William Kandel, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division. §286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1356. 114 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 56 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Table 18. USCIS Budget Account Detail (budget authority in millions of dollars) Program/Project Activity Appropriations FY2010 Enacted FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 Request 224 386 10 0 137 103 Data Center Development 11 23 Immigrant Integration Initiative 11 18 Asylum, Refugees, & Military Naturalizations Processing 55 207 REAL ID Act Implementation E-Verify (Basic Pilot Program) SAVE 2,636 2,427 Immigration Examination Fee Account 2,513 2,376 Adjudication Services 2,071 1,955 86 84 337 337 SAVE 19 0 H-1B Visa 13 13 110 38 2,860 2,813 Administration H-1B/L Fraud Total USCIS Funding FY2011 Enacted 34 Fee Collections Information and Customer Services FY2011 SenatePassed Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief. Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. Issues for Congress For the FY2011 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 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 in the wake Congressional Research Service 57 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations of the 2007 fee increases.115 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 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.116 Appropriations for Waiver Applications In the FY2011 presidential budget request, USCIS has requested direct appropriations of $207 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 debated 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 FY2011 request. Likewise, the FY2011 presidential budget request also includes a $34 million appropriation for the SAVE Program which currently is funded through “surcharges” on immigration application fees. Federal Law Enforcement Training Center117 The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) provides law enforcement instruction, such as firearms training, high-speed vehicle pursuit, and defendant interview techniques, for 85 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 developed by an interagency board of directors focus on providing training that develop the skills and knowledge needed to perform law enforcement activities. FLETC administers four training sites throughout the United States and employs approximately 1,000 personnel. President’s FY2011 Request The overall request for FLETC in FY2011 was $278 million, a decrease of $5 million from the FY2010 appropriation of $283 million. In FY2011, FLETC officials intend to • continue the re-accreditation, begun in FY2010, for its law enforcement training programs; and • continue to provide professional law enforcement training to its federal, state, local, and international partners.118 115 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. 116 Information is based upon CRS discussions with the USCIS Chief Financial Officer in 2009. 117 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and Finance Division. 118 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Salaries and Expenses: Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Justification, Washington, DC, February 2010. Congressional Research Service 58 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Science and Technology119 The Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) is the primary DHS organization for research and development (R&D). Headed by the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, it performs R&D in several laboratories of its own and funds R&D performed by the Department of Energy national laboratories, industry, universities, and others.120 President’s FY2011 Request The Administration has requested a total of $1,018 million for the S&T Directorate for FY2011 (see Table 19). This is 2% more than the FY2010 appropriation, but it includes $109 million for radiological and nuclear countermeasures R&D, an activity formerly funded in the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO). Funding for the directorate’s other activities is 9% below the FY2010 level. The proposed reduction of $39 million for the Infrastructure and Geophysical Division includes the termination of local and regional initiatives previously established or funded at congressional direction. The request for Laboratory Facilities includes no funds for the planned National Bio and Agro Defense Facility (NBAF), which received $32 million in FY2010, but DHS announced plans to request a reprogramming of unobligated prior-year funds to support construction of a utility plant at the NBAF site.121 Table 19. Directorate of Science and Technology, Accounts and Activities (budget authority in millions of dollars) FY2010 Enacted FY2011 Request 1,006 1,018 Management and Administration 143 152 R&D, Acquisition, and Operations 863 866 44 40 207 201 82 75 121 121 Human Factors / Behavioral Sciences 16 13 Infrastructure and Geophysical 75 36 Directorate of Science and Technology - Total Border and Maritime Chemical and Biological Command, Control, and Interoperability Explosives FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted 119 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division. 120 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. 121 DHS is prohibited from obligating funds for NBAF construction until 30 days after it completes a safety and security assessment, has it evaluated by the National Academy of Sciences, and provides the Academy’s report and certain other reports to the House and Senate appropriations committees. (Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, P.L. 111-83, Sec. 560) According to the FY2011 DHS congressional budget justification, DHS expects to conduct site preparation at the NBAF site during FY2010 and FY2011, and to begin construction of a utility plant in FY2011, but does not plan to commence construction of the laboratory facility until FY2012. Congressional Research Service 59 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations FY2010 Enacted Radiological/Nuclear FY2011 Request - 109 44 44 150 122 Test and Evaluation, Standards 29 23 Transition 46 42 University Programs 49 40 Innovation Laboratory Facilities FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief. Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. Issues for Congress National Bio and Agro Defense Facility (NBAF) The construction of NBAF 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 further appropriations of $691 million between FY2012 and FY2017. The estimated total federal cost of the NBAF project increased from $451 million in December 2006 to $615 million in May 2009. Additional site-specific infrastructure and utility upgrade costs of $110 million are to be contributed in-kind by Kansas State University and its partners. Decommissioning PIADC is expected to cost another $190 million. These estimated costs have not changed since May 2009, but the completion schedule has been extended by one year because the process of selling Plum Island is taking longer than DHS had planned. In the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 110-329, Div. D, Sec. 540) and the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-83, Sec. 540) Congress authorized DHS to use receipts from the sale of Plum Island, subject to appropriation, to offset NBAF construction and PIADC decommissioning costs.122 Testing and Evaluation for Large DHS Acquisition Projects Congress has been interested for several years in DHS policies and procedures for testing and evaluation (T&E) of large acquisition projects. This interest has especially focused on the T&E role of the S&T Directorate in acquisitions by other DHS components. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296, Section 306) authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, to “issue necessary regulations with respect to ... testing and evaluation activities of the Department.” Under current DHS policy, in establishing T&E policies and procedures for DHS acquisitions, the Under Secretary acts through the Director of the S&T Directorate’s Test and Evaluation and Standards Division (TSD) and a special assistant in the TSD known as the Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation 122 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. Congressional Research Service 60 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations (DOT&E).123 Congressional oversight of DHS acquisition and T&E may therefore focus attention on the S&T Directorate’s funding for Test and Evaluation and Standards. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers: HSI, HSSAI, and HSSEDI 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 (HSSAI). It has also established a new Homeland Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute (HSSEDI). Both institutes are funded mostly on a cost-reimbursement basis by other S&T programs and other DHS and non-DHS agencies. The institutes attracted outside users in FY2009 at only about onethird the level that DHS had anticipated. Nevertheless, DHS expects them to grow rapidly in FY2010 and continue growing in FY2011. The FY2011 budget justification projects reimbursable obligations of $187 million in FY2011, more than four times the FY2009 level of $42 million. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office124 The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) is the primary DHS organization for combating the threat of nuclear attack. It is currently responsible for all DHS nuclear detection research, development, testing, evaluation, acquisition, and operational support. Under the Administration’s FY2011 budget, DNDO’s research role would be transferred to the Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T). President’s FY2011 Request The Administration requested a total of $306 million for DNDO for FY2011 (see Table 20). This is a 20% decrease from the FY2010 appropriation, but excluding Transformational R&D, which would be transferred to the S&T Directorate, the remaining activities would increase by 12%. In some cases, however, there would be substantial shifts in emphasis. Systems Acquisition would receive $53 million for human-portable radiation detection systems, versus none in FY2010. Systems Development would be reduced by $31 million. Table 20. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Accounts and Activities (budget authority in millions of dollars) FY2010 Enacted Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Total Management and Administration FY2011 Request 384 306 39 37 FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted 123 DHS, Acquisition Management Directive, DHS Directive 102-01, revision 01, authorized by the Under Secretary for Management on January 20, 2010. 124 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division. Congressional Research Service 61 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations FY2010 Enacted Research, Development, and Operations FY2011 HousePassed FY2011 Request 324 208 25 39 Systems Development 100 69 Transformational Research and Development 109 Systems Engineering and Architecture Assessments 32 43 Operations Support 38 34 National Technical Nuclear Forensics 20 23 Systems Acquisition 20 61 - 8 20 - - 53 Radiation Portal Monitoring Program Securing the Cities Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems FY2011 SenatePassed FY2011 Enacted Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief. Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. Issues for Congress Advanced Spectroscopic Portal (ASP) Program Congressional attention has focused in recent years on the testing and analysis DNDO has conducted to support its planned purchase and deployment of Advanced Spectroscopic Portals (ASPs), a type of next-generation radiation portal monitor.125 Congress included a requirement for secretarial certification before full-scale ASP procurement in each homeland security appropriations act from FY2007 through FY2010. The expected date for certification has been postponed several times. In February 2010, DHS decided that it will no longer pursue the use of ASPs for primary screening, although it will continue developing and testing them for use in secondary screening.126 Global Nuclear Detection Architecture The global nuclear detection architecture overseen by DNDO remains an issue of congressional interest.127 According to the FY2011 congressional budget justification, the proposed reduction in 125 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. 126 Letter from Dr. William K. Hagan, Acting Director, DNDO, to Senator Lieberman, February 24, 2010, http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=11f7d1f0-c4fe-4105-94e6bb4a0213f048. 127 For more information, see CRS Report RL34574, The Global Nuclear Detection Architecture: Issues for Congress, by Dana A. Shea. Congressional Research Service 62 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations funding for Systems Development reflects “a shift in DNDO priorities to developing a wider range of potential solutions to enduring vulnerabilities in the global nuclear detection architecture” and will result in increased funding for “systems studies, as well as testing and piloting existing technologies in new operational environments.” Congress may consider the basis for and implications of these changes in priorities, including how they may affect other elements of the global architecture. Other agencies with a role in the architecture, in addition to DHS, include DOD, DOE, the Department of State, and the intelligence community. DNDO Role in Research and Acquisition The mission of DNDO, as established by Congress in the SAFE Port Act (P.L. 109-347, Title V), 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). The act also eliminated any explicit mention of radiological and nuclear countermeasures from the statutory duties and responsibilities of the Under Secretary for S&T. Congress may wish to consider whether the proposed transfer of DNDO’s research activities to the S&T Directorate is consistent with its intent in the SAFE Port Act. It may also wish to consider the acquisition portion of DNDO’s mission. Most of DNDO’s funding for Systems Acquisition was eliminated in FY2010, and that year’s budget stated that “funding requests for radiation detection equipment will now be sought by the end users that will operate them.”128 In contrast, the FY2011 request for Systems Acquisition includes more funding than ever before for DNDO’s procurement of human-portable radiation detectors on behalf of the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and the Transportation Security Administration. The reasons for this apparent reversal of policy are not explained in the FY2011 congressional budget justification for DNDO. 128 Executive Office of the President, FY2010 Budget, Appendix, p. 560. Congressional Research Service 63 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Appendix. 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 A-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 FY2011 accounts for approximately 51% of total federal funding for homeland security. The Department of Defense comprises the next highest proportion at 26% of all federal spending on homeland security. The Department of Health and Human Services at 6%, 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 93% 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 FY2011 request included total homeland security budget authority of $37.1 billion for DHS, the requested total budget authority for DHS was $52.6 billion. Moreover, the amounts shown in Table A-1 will not be consistent with total amounts shown elsewhere in the report. This same inconsistency between homeland security budget authority and requested total budget authority is true of the other agencies listed in the table. Congressional Research Service 64 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Table A-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2011 (budget authority in millions of dollars) FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Request FY2011 as % of Total Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 17,381 23,063 22,923 24,549 26,571 29,554 32,486 38,988 32,807 37,066 51% Department of Defense (DOD)a 16,126 8,442 7,024 17,188 17,510 16,538 18,032 19,483 19,041 19,103 26% Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 1,913 4,144 4,062 4,229 4,352 4,327 4,301 4,677 7,228 4,528 6% Department of Justice (DOJ) 2,143 2,349 2,180 2,767 3,026 3,518 3,528 3,715 4,107 4,285 6% Department of Energy (DOE) 1,220 1,408 1,364 1,562 1,702 1,719 1,827 1,939 2,018 2,023 3% Department of State (DOS) 477 634 696 824 1,108 1,242 1,719 1,809 1,767 2,259 3% Department of Agriculture (AG) 553 410 411 596 597 541 575 513 599 596 1% National Science Foundation (NSF) 260 285 340 342 344 385 365 407 390 405 1% Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 49 154 271 249 298 260 309 310 427 428 1% Department of Commerce 116 112 125 167 181 205 207 272 254 286 0% 3,613 1,445 1,437 1,910 1,429 1,545 1,751 1,883 1,824 1,533 2% 43,848 42,447 40,834 54,383 57,118 59,833 65,099 73,996 70,462 72,512 100% 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 FY2011 President’s Budget (for FY2009-FY2011); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” and Appendix K of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2010 President’s Budget (for FY2008); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” and Appendix K of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2009 President’s Budget (for FY2007); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2008 President’s Budget (for FY2006); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2008 President’s Budget (for FY2005); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2006 President’s Budget (for FY2004); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2005 President’s Budget (for FY2003) and Office of Management and Budget, 2003 Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, Sept. 2003, p. 10; CRS analysis of FY2002-2006 reestimates of DOD homeland security funding provided by OMB, March 17, 2005. Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents 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 nonhomeland security activities with greater specificity. CRS-65 Homeland Security Department: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations a. CRS-66 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: FY2011 President’s Request for Appropriations Author Contact Information Chad C. Haddal, Coordinator Analyst in Immigration Policy chaddal@crs.loc.gov, 7-3701 Lennard G. Kruger Specialist in Science and Technology Policy lkruger@crs.loc.gov, 7-7070 Jennifer E. Lake, Coordinator Analyst in Domestic Security jlake@crs.loc.gov, 7-0620 Bruce R. Lindsay Analyst in Emergency Management Policy blindsay@crs.loc.gov, 7-3752 Barbara L. Schwemle Analyst in American National Government bschwemle@crs.loc.gov, 7-8655 Francis X. McCarthy Analyst in Emergency Management Policy fmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-9533 Mark A. Randol Specialist in Domestic Intellengence and CounterTerrorism mrandol@crs.loc.gov, 7-2393 Sarah A. Lister Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology slister@crs.loc.gov, 7-7320 Bart Elias Specialist in Aviation Policy belias@crs.loc.gov, 7-7771 William A. Kandel Analyst in Immigration Policy wkandel@crs.loc.gov, 7-4703 John Frittelli Specialist in Transportation Policy jfrittelli@crs.loc.gov, 7-7033 John D. Moteff Specialist in Science and Technology Policy jmoteff@crs.loc.gov, 7-1435 Shawn Reese Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy sreese@crs.loc.gov, 7-0635 Daniel Morgan Specialist in Science and Technology Policy dmorgan@crs.loc.gov, 7-5849 Congressional Research Service 67