Homeland Security Department:
FY2011 Appropriations
Chad C. Haddal, Coordinator
Specialist in Immigration Policy
October 13, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41189
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 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.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2010 DHS Appropriations
bill on July 15, 2010. This report uses Senate-reported S. 3607 and the committee report (S.Rept.
111-222) accompanying S. 3607 as the source for the Senate-reported numbers. The Senate-
reported S. 3607 recommends a net appropriation of $45.2 billion for DHS for FY2011. This
amounts to a $195 million increase as compared to the Administration’s request, and a nearly $1.3
billion increase as compared to the $43.9 billion enacted for FY2010 (not including FY2010
supplemental funding).
Congress did not enact the FY2011 DHS appropriation act by the end of FY2010; therefore,
Congress completed and the President signed the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (H.R.
3081, P.L. 111-242) on September 30, 2010 (also known as the continuing resolution (CR)). This
act generally extends funding for the FY2011 DHS appropriation bill at the FY2010 enacted
spending levels, through December 3, 2010.
Congress did not originally consider the FY2011 CR as a separate measure; instead, the Senate
adopted it in the form of a substitute amendment to another appropriations bill, the Department of
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010, as passed by the
House on July 9, 2010. On September 29, 2010, the Senate adopted the substitute amendment and
passed the amended measure; on September 30, 2010, the House passed the Senate-passed bill
without amendment.
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments......................................................................................................... 1
P.L. 111-242.................................................................................................................... 1
Senate-Reported S. 3607 ................................................................................................. 1
President’s FY2011 Budget Request Submitted ............................................................... 1
Note on Most Recent Data .............................................................................................. 2
Background ................................................................................................................................ 2
Department of Homeland Security ........................................................................................ 2
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations ............................................................................................... 3
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays........................................................................... 3
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending................................................................................. 4
Offsetting Collections ........................................................................................................... 5
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security ........................................................... 5
DHS Appropriations Trends .................................................................................................. 5
Summary of DHS Appropriations.......................................................................................... 6
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations ...................................................................... 9
President’s FY2011 Request .......................................................................................... 11
Senate-Reported S. 3607 ............................................................................................... 12
Personnel Issues............................................................................................................ 14
Analysis and Operations...................................................................................................... 16
President’s FY2011 Request .......................................................................................... 17
Senate-Reported S. 3607 ............................................................................................... 17
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations..................................................................... 18
Customs and Border Protection ........................................................................................... 22
President’s FY2011 Request .......................................................................................... 22
Senate-Reported S. 3607 ............................................................................................... 24
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 24
Immigration and Customs Enforcement............................................................................... 27
President’s FY2011 Request .......................................................................................... 27
Senate-Reported S. 3607 ............................................................................................... 28
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 28
Transportation Security Administration ............................................................................... 30
President’s FY2011 Request .......................................................................................... 30
Senate-Reported S. 3607 ............................................................................................... 32
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 33
United States Coast Guard................................................................................................... 37
President’s FY2011 Request .......................................................................................... 37
Senate Reported S. 3607 ............................................................................................... 38
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 38
United States Secret Service................................................................................................ 40
President’s FY2011 Request .......................................................................................... 41
Senate-Reported S. 3607 ............................................................................................... 41
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 42
Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ...................................................... 45
Federal Emergency Management Agency............................................................................ 48
President’s FY2011 Request .......................................................................................... 48
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Senate-Reported S. 3607 ............................................................................................... 49
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 49
Office of Health Affairs....................................................................................................... 55
President’s FY2011 Request .......................................................................................... 55
Senate Reported S. 3607 ............................................................................................... 56
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 56
National Protection and Programs Directorate ..................................................................... 56
Management and Administration................................................................................... 57
President’s FY2011 Request .......................................................................................... 57
Senate-Reported S. 3607 ............................................................................................... 58
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 58
Federal Protective Service................................................................................................... 58
President’s FY2011 Request .......................................................................................... 59
Senate-Reported S. 3607 ............................................................................................... 59
Issue for Congress......................................................................................................... 60
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) .................................. 61
President’s FY2011 Request .......................................................................................... 61
Senate-Reported S. 3607 ............................................................................................... 61
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 61
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security .............................................................. 62
President’s FY2011 Request .......................................................................................... 62
Senate-Reported S. 3607 ............................................................................................... 64
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 65
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................................ 66
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.......................................................................... 68
President’s FY2011 Request .......................................................................................... 68
Senate-Reported S. 3607 ............................................................................................... 69
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 69
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center .......................................................................... 70
President’s FY2011 Request .......................................................................................... 70
Senate-Reported S. 3607 ............................................................................................... 71
Science and Technology ...................................................................................................... 71
President’s FY2011 Request .......................................................................................... 71
Senate-Reported S. 3607 ............................................................................................... 72
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 72
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office ..................................................................................... 74
President’s FY2011 Request .......................................................................................... 74
Senate-Reported S. 3607 ............................................................................................... 75
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 75
Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations ................................................ 2
Table 2. FY2011 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS ........................................................ 3
Table 3. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2010 .......................................................................... 5
Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations ................................................................................. 7
Table 5. Title I: Departmental Management and Operations....................................................... 10
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 6. Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer Appropriations ........................................... 14
Table 7. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations ....................................................... 19
Table 8. CBP Salaries and Expenses Account Detail .................................................................. 23
Table 9. ICE Salaries and Expenses Account Detail ................................................................... 28
Table 10. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity........................................................ 31
Table 11. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-account Detail..................... 37
Table 12. FY2010 Enacted and FY2011 Budget Authority for the U.S. Secret Service ............... 42
Table 13. Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ....................................... 46
Table 14. Budget Authority for State and Local Programs.......................................................... 51
Table 15. FY2009 Budget Activity for NPPD Management and Administration
Appropriation ........................................................................................................................ 58
Table 16. Budget Authority for Infrastructure Protection and Information Security .................... 64
Table 17. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................. 67
Table 18. USCIS Budget Account Detail ................................................................................... 69
Table 19. Directorate of Science and Technology, Accounts and Activities................................. 72
Table 20. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Accounts and Activities...................................... 74
Table B-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2011 ........................... 80
Appendixes
Appendix A. FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations .................................................................. 77
Appendix B. DHS Appropriations in Context ............................................................................ 79
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 81
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
P.L. 111-242
Congress did not enact the FY2011 DHS appropriation act by the end of FY2010; therefore,
Congress completed and the President signed the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (H.R.
3081, P.L. 111-242) on September 30, 2010 (also known as the continuing resolution (CR)). This
act generally extends funding for the FY2011 DHS appropriation bill at the FY2010 enacted
spending levels, through December 3, 2010.
Congress did not originally consider the FY2011 CR as a separate measure; instead, the Senate
adopted it in the form of a substitute amendment to another appropriations bill, the Department of
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010, as passed by the
House on July 9, 2010. On September 29, 2010, the Senate adopted the substitute amendment and
passed the amended measure;1 on September 30, 2010, the House passed the Senate-passed bill
without amendment.2
Senate-Reported S. 3607
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2010 DHS Appropriations
bill on July 15, 2010. This report uses Senate-reported S. 3607 and the committee report (S.Rept.
111-222) accompanying S. 3607 as the source for the Senate-reported numbers. The Senate-
reported S. 3607 recommends a net appropriation of $45.2 billion for DHS for FY2011. This
amounts to a $195 million increase as compared to the Administration’s request, and a nearly $1.3
billion increase as compared to the $43.9 billion enacted for FY2010 (not including FY2010
supplemental funding).
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.
1 The Senate also adopted a second amendment changing the title of the bill to reflect the new text.
2 For more information on the FY2011 Continuing Resolution, see CRS Report RL30343, Continuing
Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices, by Sandy Streeter.
Congressional Research Service
1
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee
Senate
Conference
Markup
Committee
Report Approval
House
Report
Committee
House
S.Rept.
Senate
House
Senate
Report
Passage
111-222
Passage
House Senate P.L.
6/24
7/14
7/15
(VV)
(VV)
(17-12)
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, the
FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief, and the Senate-reported version of S. 3607. Data used in the
Appendix B 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.
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
Congressional Research Service
2
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
FY2008 appropriation transferred US-VISIT, as proposed by the Administration, to the newly
created National Protection & Programs Directorate (NPPD) in Title III. Division E of P.L. 110-
161, the DHS Appropriations Act, 2008, enacted this reorganization.
Through the FY2007 appropriation, Title III contained appropriations for the Preparedness
Directorate, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS) and the Federal Emergency
Management Administration (FEMA). The President’s FY2008 request included a proposal to
shift a number of programs and offices to eliminate the Preparedness Directorate, create the
NPPD, and move several programs to FEMA. These changes were largely agreed to by Congress
in the FY2008 appropriation, reflected by Title III in Division E of P.L. 110-161.
Title IV contains appropriations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the
Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
(FLETC).
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations
The maximum budget authority for annual appropriations (including DHS) is determined through
a two-stage congressional budget process. In the first stage, Congress sets overall spending totals
in the annual concurrent resolution on the budget. Subsequently, these amounts are allocated
among the appropriations committees, usually through the statement of managers for the
conference report on the budget resolution. These amounts are known as the 302(a) allocations.
They include discretionary totals available to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations for enactment in annual appropriations bills through the subcommittees
responsible for the development of the bills. In the second stage of the process, the appropriations
committees allocate the 302(a) discretionary funds among their subcommittees for each of the
appropriations bills. These amounts are known as the 302(b) allocations. These allocations must
add up to no more than the 302(a) discretionary allocation and form the basis for enforcing
budget discipline, since any bill reported with a total above the ceiling is subject to a point of
order. 302(b) allocations may be adjusted during the year as the various appropriations bills
progress towards final enactment.
The annual concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth the congressional budget. Table 2
shows DHS’s 302(b) allocations for FY2010 and the current appropriations cycle.
Table 2. FY2011 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2011 Request
FY2011 House
FY2011 Senate
FY2011 Enacted
Comparable
Comparable
Allocation
Allocation
Comparable
43.9 45.0 45.2
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, and S.Rept. 111-222.
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
Congressional Research Service
3
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
authority to pay for their activities. Finally, payments are made to liquidate those obligations; the
actual payment amounts are reflected in the budget as outlays.
Budget authority is established through appropriations acts or direct spending legislation and
determines the amounts that are available for federal agencies to spend. The Antideficiency Act3
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.4 Because multi-year and no-year budget authorities may be
obligated over a number of years, outlays do not always match the budget authority enacted in a
given year. Additionally, budget authority may be obligated in one fiscal year but spent in a future
fiscal year, especially with certain contracts.
In sum, budget authority allows federal agencies to incur obligations and authorizes payments, or
outlays, to be made from the Treasury. Discretionary agencies and programs, and appropriated
entitlement programs, are funded each year in appropriations acts.
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending
Gross budget authority, or the total funds available for spending by a federal agency, may be
composed of discretionary and mandatory spending. Discretionary spending is not mandated by
existing law and is thus appropriated yearly by Congress through appropriations acts. The Budget
Enforcement Act of 19905 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.
3 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517.
4 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.
5 P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.
Congressional Research Service
4
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Offsetting Collections6
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
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)
FY2011
FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010
Request
29,069a 30,175b 30,554c 31,679 35,311d 38,817e 41,205 43,944 44,990
Sources: FY2003 and FY2004 enacted taken from H.Rept. 108-169; FY2005 enacted taken from H.Rept. 109-
79; FY2006 enacted taken from H.Rept. 109-476; FY2007 appropriation amounts are from the H.Rept. 110-181;
and FY2008 enacted amounts are from Division E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint Explanatory Statement
6 Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff Jr., Analyst in American National Government.
Congressional Research Service
5
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
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
6
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2011 Appropriation
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2011
House-
Senate-
FY2011
Operational Component
Enacted
Supplemental
Rescission
Total
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Title I: Departmental Operations
Departmental Operations
803
803
1,271
837
Analysis and Operations
335
335
348
340
Office of the Inspector
General 114
114
130
133
Subtotal: Title I
1,252
1,252
1,749
1,310
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
Customs and Border
Protection 10,127
306
100
10,333
9,809
9,917
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement 5,437
80
5,517
5,524
5,551
Transportation Security
Administration 5,259
5,259
5,729
5,674
U.S. Coast Guard
9,903
9,903
9,867
10,401
U.S. Secret Service
1,483
1,483
1,570
1,576
Net subtotal: Title II
32,209
32,495
32,499
33,119
Total fee col ections
4,020
4,020
4,112
4,067
Gross subtotal: Title II
36,229
36,515
36,611
37,186
Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response and Recovery
National Protection &
Programs Directorate
1,318
1,318
2,362
2,375
Office of Health Affairs
139
139
213
155
Federal Emergency
Management Administration
7,129
7,129
7,294
7,562
CRS-7
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2011 Appropriation
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2011
House-
Senate-
FY2011
Operational Component
Enacted
Supplemental
Rescission
Total
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Net subtotal: Title III
8,586
8,586
8,754
8,977
Total fee col ections
1,115
1,115
1,115
1,115
Gross subtotal: Title III
9,701
9,701
9,869
10,092
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
Citizenship and Immigration
Services 224
224
386
172
Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center
283
8
291
278
274
Science and Technology
1,006
1,006
1,018
1,010
Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office
384
384
306
323
Net subtotal: Title IV
1,897
1,905
1,988
1,779
Total fee col ections
2,636
2,636
2,427
2,427
Gross subtotal: Title IV
4,533
4,541
4,415
4,206
Rescissions -
0
-
Gross DHS budget
authority 51,715
394
100
52,009
52,644
52,794
Total fee col ections
7,771
7,771
7,654
7,609
Net DHS budget
authority 43,944
394
100
44,238
44,990
45,185
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief, and S.Rept. 111-222.
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-8
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations7
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.
7 Prepared by Barbara L. Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
9
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 5. Title I: Departmental Management and Operations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2011 Appropriation
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2011
House-
Senate-
FY2011
Operational Component
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Office of the Secretary and
148
148
157
151
Executive Management
Office of the Under Secretary
254
254
267
240
for Management
Office of the Chief Financial
61
61
66
64
Officer
Office of the Chief Information
338
338
398
382
Officer
Analysis and Operations
335
335
348
340
Office of the Federal
2
2
0
0
Coordinator for Gulf Coast
Rebuilding
DHS Headquarters
-
-
363
0
Consolidation
National Special Security Event
-
-
20
0
State an Local Reimbursement
Fund
Office of the Inspector
114
114
130
133
General
Net Budget Authority:
1,252a
1,252
1,749
1,310
Title I
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief, and S.Rept. 111-222.
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. Does not include a $16 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.
CRS-10
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 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.8
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).9 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.10 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.11
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
8 FY2011 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, pp. DMO-2–DMO-3.
9 FY2011 DHS Justifications, Office of the Chief Information Officer, p.OCIO-8.
10 FY2011 DHS Justifications, Office of Inspector General, pp. OIG-5 and OIG-11.
11 FY2011 DHS Justifications, DHS HQ Consolidation, pp. HQ-3–HQ-4.
Congressional Research Service
11
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
local governments for the actual costs associated with increased security measures for unplanned
NSSEs.12 There are no FTEs attached to this account.
Senate-Reported S. 3607
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended these appropriations, as compared with
the President’s request: OS&EM, $151 million ($6 million or 3.8% less); USM, $240 million
($27 million or 10.1% less); OCFO, $64 million ($2 million or 3% less); OCIO, $382 million
($16 million or 4% less); AOO, $340 million ($8 million or 2.3% less); OFCGCR, $0 (the same
as the budget request); National Security Event, $0 (20 million less); and OIG, $133 million ($3
million or 2.3% more). The total funding recommended by the Senate committee for Title I was
$1,310 million. This represents a decrease of $439 million, or 25.1%, from the President’s
request.
A general provision at Section 556 of S. 3607, as reported, includes funding of $288 million
(rounded) to continue development of the DHS Consolidated Headquarters at St. Elizabeths and
$54 million (rounded) to consolidate leases across the National Capital Region. The Chief
Administrative Officer is directed to continue regular briefings on the consolidation plan,
including the status of National Capital Planning Commission approvals, the project schedule,
and any deviation from the plans described in the FY2011 budget justification.13
For the OS&EM appropriation, $50 million would not be obligated until the Secretary submits a
comprehensive risk assessment and national security strategy for the railroad sector, a detailed
timeline for meeting all remaining congressional requirements for the security of surface
transportation, and a comprehensive plan for meeting the recommendations in the Surface
Transportation Security Priority Assessment of the National Security Council. In addition, $25
million would not be obligated until the Secretary submits a comprehensive plan to implement a
biometric air exit capability in FY2011 to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations.
Of the OS&EM total, $20 million would be made available to the Office of Policy to host Visa
Waiver Program negotiations in Washington, DC.
For the USM appropriation, $5 million would fund the alteration and improvement of facilities,
tenant improvements, and relocation costs to consolidate DHS headquarters operations at the
Nebraska Avenue Complex.
Among the directives included in the committee report for the departmental management and
operations accounts are the following:
• The Secretary is strongly encouraged to negotiate with the relevant foreign
governments to permit rapid deployment of Federal Air Marshals to and from
such countries.
• The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is encouraged to
negotiate with the relevant governments on an expansion of U.S. Customs and
Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel
12 FY2011 DHS Justifications, National Special Security Event State and Local Reimbursement Fund, pp. NSSE-1-
NSSE-2.
13 S.Rept. 111-222, p. 148.
Congressional Research Service
12
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
associated with the Immigration Advisory Program and the Visa Security
Program.
• The OCFO is directed to ensure that annual appropriations justifications are
prepared for each DHS component in support of the President’s budget and
submitted on the day the budget is delivered to Congress. The OCFO also is
directed to include detailed information by appropriations account, program,
project, and activity on all reimbursable agreements, and significant uses of the
Economy Act for each fiscal year. Additionally, the OCFO must ensure that the
DHS justifications accompanying the President’s FY2012 budget request include
a status report of overdue committee reports, plans, and other directives. One
standard format must be used by all offices and agencies and inserted in the
justifications reflecting the status of congressional directives for each of fiscal
years 2009, 2010, and 2011.
• The OCIO is required to submit an expenditure plan for certain information
technology acquisition projects to the House and Senate committees on
Appropriations within 60 days after the act’s enactment. Of the OCIO funding,
$75 million would not be obligated until the plan has been submitted.
• The DHS Chief Intelligence Officer must submit an expenditure plan for FY2011
within 60 days after the act’s enactment. The plan must include the following: (1)
FY2011 expenditures and staffing allotted for each program as compared to fiscal
years 2010 and 2009; (2) all funded versus on-board positions, including federal
FTE, contractors, and reimbursable and nonreimbursable detailees; (3) an
explanation for maintaining contract staff in lieu of federal FTE; (4) a plan,
including dates or timeframes for achieving key milestones, to reduce the office’s
reliance on contract staff in lieu of federal FTE; (5) funding, by object
classification, including a comparison fiscal years 2009 and 2008; and (6) the
number of I&A-funded employees supporting organizations outside I&A and
within DHS. The expenditure plan must focus the activities of the office on areas
where DHS can provide unique expertise or serve intelligence customers who are
not supported by other components of the intelligence community.
• The committee believes that “to avoid corruption and misconduct it is imperative
that all agents, especially new hires, receive comprehensive training in ethics and
public integrity.” The committee provides the OIG with additional funding of $3
million to conduct integrity investigations and directs the IG to submit a plan,
developed in coordination with CBP and ICE, for the expenditure of these funds
within 90 days after the act’s enactment.14
A general provision at Section 516 of S. 3607, as reported, requires the CFO “to submit monthly
budget execution and staffing reports within 45 days after the close of each month.”15
14Ibid., pp. 9, 21-22, 24, 26, and 28.
15 Ibid., p. 145.
Congressional Research Service
13
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
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.16 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.17
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)
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
House-
Senate-
FY2011
Account
Enacted
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Salaries and Expenses CHCO
25
25
25
Human Resources Information
17 17 14
Technology
Total
42 42 39
Source: FY2011 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for
Management, pp. USM-49–USM-53, and S.Rept. 111-222.
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding.
Personnel and the President’s FY2011 Request
According to the DHS Justifications, the FY2011 budget requested $25 million (rounded)18 and
108 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees for the OCHCO.19 The requested funding is $474,000
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
16 FY2011 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, pp.
USM-4 and USM-49.
17 Ibid., p. USM-15.
18 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.
19 FY2011 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, p. USM-
11.
Congressional Research Service
14
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
million (rounded), the same amount as the funding authorized for FY2010. The FTEs for this
account for FY2011 would be 25.20
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.21
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.22
Personnel and the Senate-Reported S. 3607
The Senate committee recommended an appropriation of $39 million (rounded amount) for the
OCHCO, that is $3 million less than the President’s request. Of the total, $14 million (rounded) is
allocated to the Human Resources Information Technology Program, and accounts for the
decrease from the President’s request. The OCHCO terminated TALENTLink, a department-wide
automated recruiting and staffing system, because it did not meet federal standards and the
reduction in funding reflects this action. The committee report states that the OCHCO must use
TALENTLINK funds appropriated in FY2010 if a follow-on system is developed. According to
the committee report, the OCHCO appropriation will maintain current services; provide for 133
FTEs, as requested; and result in savings of more than $1 million by converting 15 contractor
positions to FTEs, as requested.
The report also states the committee’s expectation that the OCHCO will provide briefings to the
committee on the department’s progress in developing a strategic plan to overhaul the DHS hiring
process and how the plan aligns with the Administration’s plans to overhaul the federal hiring
process. The OCHCO is also required to provide quarterly briefings summarizing vacancy data at
DHS that will include the number of new hires for each headquarters office in the previous
month; the ratio of applications received to positions closed; data from the Office of Security on
progress made to reduce the security clearance backlog, including whether the 15-day standard
for suitability reviews is being met; and an end-of-the-month hiring “snapshot” for each
headquarters office. Included in the “snapshot” will be the number of new hires pending security
or suitability clearance, the number of open vacancies, and the number of selection referral lists
pending with management. The briefings will explain hiring delays, steps being taken or planned
to correct the delays, and Office of Security information on progress made to reduce the security
clearance backlog and compliance with the time requirement for suitability reviews. The results
of the FY2010 performance metrics for the OCHCO will be presented at the first quarterly
meeting.
20 Ibid., p. USM-15.
21 Ibid., pp. USM-14-USM-15.
22 Ibid., pp. USM-16 and USM-18.
Congressional Research Service
15
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
A general provision at Section 519 of S. 3607, as reported, prohibits “funds for the development,
testing, deployment, or operation of any portion of a human resources management system
authorized by 5 U.S.C. §9701(a), or by regulations prescribed pursuant to” that statute “for an
employee as defined in 5 U.S.C. §7103(a)(2).” In addition, general provisions prohibit the
obligation of funds for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management for new hires not
verified through the E-Verify Program (Section 533) and for adverse personnel actions for
employees who use protective equipment or measures, including surgical masks, N95 respirators,
gloves, or hand-sanitizers, in the conduct of their official duties (Section 547).
Analysis and Operations23
The DHS intelligence mission is outlined in Title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(codified at 6 U.S.C. 121). Organizationally, and from a budget perspective, there have been
several changes to the information, intelligence analysis, and infrastructure protection functions at
DHS. Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate was established. The act created an Under Secretary
for IAIP to whom two Assistant Secretaries, one each for Information Analysis (IA) and
Infrastructure Protection (IP), reported. The act outlined 19 functions for the IAIP Directorate,
including the following, among others:
• To assess, receive, and analyze law enforcement information, intelligence
information, and other information from federal, state, and local government
agencies, and the private sector to (1) identify and assess the nature and scope of
the terrorist threats to the homeland, (2) detect and identify threats of terrorism
against the United States, and (3) understand such threats in light of actual and
potential vulnerabilities of the homeland;
• To develop a comprehensive national plan for securing the key resources and
critical infrastructure of the United States;
• To review, analyze, and make recommendations for improvements in the policies
and procedures governing the sharing of law enforcement information,
intelligence information, and intelligence-related information within the federal
government and between the federal government and state and local government
agencies and authorities.
Former Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review reorganization of the Department in 2005
made several changes to the DHS intelligence structure. IAIP was disbanded and the Office of
Infrastructure Protection was placed within the newly created National Protection and Programs
Directorate. The Office of Information Analysis was renamed the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis and became a stand-alone entity. The Assistant Secretary for Intelligence Analysis was
designated the Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer. 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
23 Prepared by Mark A. Randol, Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counterterrorism, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
Congressional Research Service
16
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
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.24
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.
Senate-Reported S. 3607
Senate-Reported S. 3607 includes $340 million for AOO. This is an increase of nearly $5 million
(1.4%) above the FY2010-enacted level but a decrease of nearly $8 million (2.2%) from the
Administration’s request for FY2011. S. 3607 stipulates that none of the funds provided in this or
any other Act shall be available to commence operations of the National Immigration Information
Sharing Operation or any follow-on entity until the Secretary certifies that such program complies
with all existing laws, including all applicable privacy and civil liberties standards, the
Comptroller General of the United States notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate
and the House of Representatives and the Secretary that the Comptroller has reviewed such
certification, and the Secretary notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the
House of Representatives of all funds to be expended on operations of the National Immigration
Information Sharing Operation or any follow-on entity pursuant to section 503 of this act. In
S.Rept. 111-222, the committee requires the Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer to submit an
expenditure plan for FY2011 no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this act and
outlines what information should be included in that expenditure plan. Also in S.Rept. 111-222,
the committee directs I&A to brief the committee quarterly on progress in placing DHS
intelligence professionals in state and local fusion centers [SLFC] and outlines what information
should be included in those briefings.
24 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
17
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
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.
Congressional Research Service
18
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 7. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2011 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
House-
Senate-
FY2010 Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total FY2011
Request Passed
Reported FY2011
Enacted
Customs & Border Protection
Salaries and expenses
8,065
254
8,319
8,208
8,291
Automation modernization
422
422
348
348
Air and Marine Interdictions
520
32
552
503
524
Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure,
800 14
100
714 574
574
and Technology
Facilities Management (Construction) 320 6
326 176
180
Fee accountsa 1,317
1,317
1,365
1,365
Gross total
11,444
11,650
11,174
11,282
Offsetting collections
-1,317
-1,317
-1,365
-1,365
Net total
10,127
10,333
9,809
9,917
Immigration & Customs
Enforcement
Salaries and expenses
5,344
80
5,424
5,440
5,467
Federal Protective Services (FPS)
0
0
Automation & infrastructure
90
90
85
85
modernization
Construction 5
5
0
Fee accountsb 305
305
311
311
Gross total
5,742
5,822
5,835
5,862
Offsetting FPS fees
0
0
0
Offsetting collections
-305
-305
-311
-311
Net total
5,437
5,517
5,524
5,551
CRS-19
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2011 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
House-
Senate-
FY2010 Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
FY2011 Request
Passed
Reported FY2011
Enacted
Transportation Security
Administration
Aviation security (gross funding)
5,214
5,214
5,560
5,491
Surface Transportation Security
111
111
138
138
Transportation Threat Assessment and
220
220
215
188
Credentialing
Transportation Security Support
1,002
1,002
1,052
1,048
Federal Air Marshals
860
860
950
950
Aviation security capital fundc 250
250
250
250
Gross total
7,657
7,657
8,165
8,065
Offsetting collections
-2,100
-2,100
-2,186
-2,100
Credentialing/Fee accountsd -48
-48
-41
Aviation security capital fund
-250
-250
-250
-250
(mandatory spending)
Net total
5,259
5,259
5,729
5,674
U.S.
Coast
Guard
Operating expenses
6,564
6,564
6,651
6,971
Environmental compliance &
13
13
13
13
restoration
Reserve training
134
134
136
136
Acquisition, construction, &
1,536
1,536
1,381
1,583
improvements
Alteration of bridges
4
4
-
4
Research, development, tests, &
25
25
20
28
evaluation
Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement)
1,361
1,361
1,401
1,401
CRS-20
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2011 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
House-
Senate-
FY2010 Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
FY2011 Request
Passed
Reported FY2011
Enacted
Health care fund contribution
266
266
265
265
Gross total
9,903
9,903
9,867
10,401
U.S. Secret Service
Salaries and expenses
1,479
1,479
1,566
1,572
Acquisition, construction,
4
4 4
4
improvements, and related expenses
Gross total
1,483
1,483
1,570
1,576
Gross Budget Authority: Title II
36,229
386
100
36,515
36,611
37,186
Offsetting collections:
-4,020
-4,020
-4,112
-4,067
Net Budget Authority: Title II
32,209
386
100
32,495
32,499
33,119
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief, and S.Rept. 111-222.
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 instal ation of Explosive Detection Systems at airports.
d. Fees include TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks.
CRS-21
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Customs and Border Protection25
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 account-
level 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);
25 Prepared by Jennifer E. Lake, Analyst in Domestic Security, and Chad C. Haddal, Analyst in Immigration Policy,
Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
22
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 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)
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
House-
Senate-
FY2011
Activity
Enacted
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Headquarters Management and
Administration
1,418 1,414
1,431
Border Security Inspections and
Trade Facilitation @ POE
2,750
2,913
2,973
Inspections, Trade & Travel
Facilitation @ POE 2,262
2,509
2,544
Container Security Initiative (CSI)/
International Cargo Screening (ICS)
162
83
103
Other International Programs
11
11
11
C-TPAT 63
50
55
FAST/NEXUS/SENTRI 11
11
11
Inspection and Detection Technology
154
155
155
Systems for Targeting
33
32
32
National Targeting Center
26
36
36
Training at POE
25
21
21
Harbor Maintenance Fee
3
3
3
Border Security and Control
Between POE
3,587
3,583
3,573
Congressional Research Service
23
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
House-
Senate-
FY2011
Activity
Enacted
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Border Security and Control Between
POE
3,535 3,547
3,537
Training Between the POE
52
36
36
Air and Marine Operations -
Salaries 310
298
314
CBP Salaries and Expenses Total:
8,065
8,208
8,291
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief, and
S.Rept. 111-222.
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. FY2010 amounts do not
include FY2010 supplemental appropriations.
Senate-Reported S. 3607
Senate-reported S. 3607 would provide $11,282 million in gross budget authority for CBP for
FY2011, amounting to $108 million (or 1%) more than was requested by the Administration, and
a $162 million, or 1%, decrease from the enacted FY2010 level of $11,444 million. Senate-
reported S. 3607 included $9,917 million in net budget authority for CBP for FY2010, amounting
to a $108 million increase over the Administration’s request and a $110 million decrease from the
FY2010-enacted level of $10,127 million.
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.26 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
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.
Congressional Research Service
24
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
obligations at the northern border.27 Subsequently, CBP revised its premium pay reduction
request, and removed language on Border Patrol Agent reductions altogether.28 Senate-reported S.
3607 includes bill language that would mandate a floor of not less than 20,370 Border Patrol
agents onboard throughout FY2011.
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology
The Administration requested $574 million for the deployment of SBInet29 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.30 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.31 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. Senate-reported S. 3607 would match the Administration’s funding 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 Senate-reported version of S.3607 proposes
$103 million for ICS, a decrease of $59 million, or 36%, as compared to the FY2010-enacted
level.
27 Ibid.
28 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Congressional Budget Justifications (Revised), p. CBP S&E -4.
29 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.
30 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.
31 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.
Congressional Research Service
25
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
The SFI is characterized as a “three-pronged approach to enhance supply chain security.”32 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.33
The ICS is the component of the strategy whereby all U.S.-bound maritime containers are subject
to an integrated scan (image and radiation detection) at the participating overseas port before
being loaded on the U.S.-bound vessel. 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.34 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.,”35
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.
32 DHS, FY2011 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. CBP-SE-37.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid. p. CBP-S&E-24.
35 Ibid., CBP-S&E–37.
Congressional Research Service
26
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
The Senate Appropriations Committee noted in S.Rept. 111-222 that it strongly supports
programs that effectively support and promote the strategies of “pushing out the borders” and
layered border security.36 The committee also noted its disappointment in the proposed cuts to
CSI, C-TPAT, and WHITI. The committee further requested a briefing within 90 days of
enactment to explain how the additional $29 million provided for these programs will be used by
CBP, and how the agency plans to mitigate the potential effects of the proposed cuts on security.37
Immigration and Customs Enforcement38
ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the United States. ICE
develops intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the United States and is responsible for
investigating and enforcing violations of the immigration laws (e.g., alien smuggling, hiring
unauthorized alien workers). ICE is also responsible for locating and removing aliens who have
overstayed their visas, entered illegally, or have become deportable. In addition, ICE develops
intelligence to combat terrorist financing and money laundering, and to enforce export laws
against smuggling, fraud, forced labor, trade agreement noncompliance, and vehicle and cargo
theft. 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.
36 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2011,
report to accompany S. 3607, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., July 17, 2010, S.Rept. 111-222 (Washington: GPO, 2010), p. 32.
37 Ibid.
38 Prepared by Chad C. Haddal, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
27
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 9. ICE Salaries and Expenses Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
House-
Senate-
FY2011
Activity
Enacted
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Management (HQ) &
Administration
512 510
495
Legal Proceeding
222
222
222
Investigations - Domestic
1,650
1,727
1,761
Investigations - International
113
114
114
Visa Security Programb
31
31
38
Total Investigations
1,794
1,872
1,913
Intelligence 70
71
72
DRO-Custody Operations
1,771
1,904
1,904
DRO-Fugitive Operations
230
168
168
DRO-Criminal Alien Program
193
179
179
DRO-Alternatives to Detention
70
72
72
DRO Transportation and Removal
Program 282
295
295
DRO Total
2,546
2,618
2,618
Comprehensive Identification
and Removal of Criminal Aliens
200
147
147
ICE Salaries and Expenses
5,344
5,440
5,467
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief, and
S.Rept. 111-222.
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. FY2010 amounts do not
include FY2010 supplemental appropriations.
Senate-Reported S. 3607
Senate-reported S. 3607 would appropriate $5,862 million in gross budget authority, $27 million
more than the Administration request. Senate-reported S. 3607 would appropriate $5,551 million
in net budget authority for ICE in FY2011, $27 million more than the Administration request.
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
Congressional Research Service
28
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
FY2008 less than one-third of those deported by ICE were convicted of a criminal offense.39
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.40
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.41 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.42 Furthermore, there have
been concerns raised about the adequacy of medical care received by aliens in detention.43 ICE
released new detention standards aimed at addressing these criticisms.44
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. Senate-reported
S. 3607 would match the Administration’s funding request.
State and Local Law Enforcement45
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
39 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.
40 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.
41 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.
42 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).
43 For more on the issue of detainee medical care, see CRS Report RL34556, Health Care for Noncitizens in
Immigration Detention, by Alison Siskin.
44 Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Secretary Napolitano and ICE Assistant Secretary Morton Announce New
Immigration Detention Reform Initiatives,” press release, October 6, 2009.
45 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.
Congressional Research Service
29
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
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. Senate-reported S. 3607 would
match the Administration’s funding request.
Transportation Security Administration46
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.
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 trans-
Atlantic 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
46 Prepared by Bart Elias, Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
Congressional Research Service
30
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
(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)
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
House-
Senate-
FY2011
Budget Activity
Enacted
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Aviation Security
5,215
5,561
5,490
Screening Partnership Program
(SPP) 150
143
142
Passenger & Baggage Screening
(PC&B) 2,759
2,998
2,961
Screener Training & Other
205
265
258
Checkpoint Support
129
360
360
EDS/ETD Purchase/Instal ation
778
374
355
Screening Technology
317
333
323
Operation Integration
21
-
0
Aviation Regulation and Other
368
Enforcement 254
368
Airport Management, IT, and
575
Support 454
577
FFDO & Crew Training
25
25
26
Air Cargo Security
123
118
122
Federal Air Marshal Service
861
950
950
Management and Administration
763
823
823
Congressional Research Service
31
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
House-
Senate-
FY2011
Budget Activity
Enacted
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Travel and Training
98
127
127
Threat Assessment and
148
Credentialing (TTAC)
172
174
Secure Flight
84
85
85
Other/ TTAC Admin. & Ops.
88
89
63
Credentialing Fees
48
40
40
TWIC—Fee 9
9
9
HAZMAT CDL—Fee
15
12
12
Certified Cargo Screening
5
Program—Fee 5
5
Large Aircraft Security Plan—Fee
2
1
1
Security Identification Display
8
Area Checks—Fee
10
8
Indirect Air Cargo—Fee
3
1
1
Alien Flight School—Fee
4
4
4
Surface Transportation
138
Security 110
138
Operations and Staffing
42
40
40
Security Inspectors
68
98
98
Transportation Security
1049
Support 1,001
1,052
Intelligence 28
38
38
Headquarters Administration
249
271
270
Human Capital Services
226
263
261
Information Technology
498
480
480
Aviation Security Capital
250
Fund (ASCF)
250
250
TSA Gross Total
7,657
8,165
8,065
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief, and
S.Rept. 111-222.
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding.
Senate-Reported S. 3607
Senate-reported S. 3607 specified $8,065 million for the TSA, $100 million less than the
President’s request. Of this amount, $5,491 million (68%) is designated for aviation security
programs. Additionally, $950 million is specified for FAMS, and an additional $250 million is to
be provided as grants to airports derived from the mandatory Aviation Security Capital Fund
(ASCF).
Congressional Research Service
32
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
The amount specified in S. 3607 for aviation security is $71 million less than the requested
amount. The Senate-reported amount for passenger and baggage screener personnel,
compensation, and benefits (PC&B) was $37 million less than requested. The Senate committee
denied the TSA’s request for additional BDOs, at an additional cost of roughly $16 million,
expressing concern over further expansion of the program without a complete assessment and
validation of its effectiveness. Additionally, the Senate-reported amount reflects an anticipation
that increased efficiency gains from the expedited deployment of in-line EDS systems will allow
for personnel reductions. The committee also noted that in prior years, the TSA has carried large
unobligated balances for screener PC&B, and included a general provision rescinding $15 million
from prior year balances.
The Senate-reported amount for EDS/ETD purchase and installation is $19 million less than
requested, and the amount specified for Screening Technology Maintenance and Utilities is $9
million below the requested amount. These lower amounts reflect anticipated recovery of
amounts appropriated in prior years but not fully expended for EDS procurement and installation,
as well as reductions in anticipated maintenance costs due to the negotiation of extended vendor
warranties for AIT systems currently being deployed. The Senate-reported bill provides $360
million, the same as requested, for procurement and installation of AIT systems and other
checkpoint technologies under the Checkpoint Support program. The Senate-reported bill
included the requested level of $368 million for Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement,
supporting the Administration’s request for an increase of $114 million above FY2010 levels to
provide for additional canine teams and strengthening of international aviation security programs
in high risk areas of the world. The Senate committee also recommended $122 million for Air
Cargo Security, $4 million above the request to accelerate inspector needs and canine cooperative
programs with state and local law enforcement to support cargo screening mandates.
The Senate-reported bill included $138 million for Surface Transportation Security, as requested.
It also specified, $1,049 million for Transportation Security Support, roughly in-line with the
requested amount. S. 3607, however, specified $147 million for Transportation Threat
Assessment and Crendentialing (TTAC), $25 million less than the requested amount. The lower
amount reflects the TSA’s decision to pursue full and open competition for its initiative to
“modernize” its vetting and credentialing infrastructure, to reduce duplication and complexity
among the various programs and services for conducting criminal checks, security threat
assessments, and maintaining data on transportation workers and others with access to
transportation systems and facilities. As a result of the shift to a competitive procurement, less
development funding is anticipated in FY2011 for this initiative.
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 Detroit-
bound 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,
Congressional Research Service
33
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
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
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.47
Another concern is the additional space requirements and costs to modify airport terminals to
accommodate next-generation checkpoint technologies, particularly AIT systems. S.Rept. 111-
222 contains language instructing the TSA to work closely with airport authorities to address
space and facility requirements and constraints before AIT units are deployed, and provide
funding for necessary terminal modifications. The Senate-reported bill included $65 million
within the Checkpoint Support program, as requested, for anticipated costs to accommodate AIT
equipment.
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
47 See CRS Report R40543, Airport Passenger Screening: Background and Issues for Congress, by Bart Elias.
Congressional Research Service
34
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
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).48
S. 3607 included a general provision that would require the TSA to certify that no significant
security risks are raised if the Secure Flight system checks passengers names against a subset of
the full terrorist watchlist, instead of the full terrorist watchlist.
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, 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.
48 For further discussion of this topic see CRS Report RL33645, Terrorist Watchlist Checks and Air Passenger
Prescreening, by William J. Krouse and Bart Elias.
Congressional Research Service
35
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
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.49
S. 3607 included a general provision that would direct the TSA to continue its quarterly reporting
of cargo screening statistics and also to provide an implementation plan for meeting the 100%
screening mandate for passenger aircraft in the event that the August 2010 statutory deadline is
not met. The Senate committee also issued report language (see S.Rept. 111-222, p. 65)
encouraging the TSA to expedite approval of effective and suitable technologies for screening air
cargo commodities with a particular emphasis on continuing its ongoing work with the fresh fruit
industry to identify and certify screening systems.
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 one-
way 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.50 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.
49 See CRS Report RL34390, Aviation Security: Background and Policy Options for Screening and Securing Air
Cargo, by Bart Elias.
50 Chris Strohm, “Airlines oppose renewed push for higher security fees,” Congress Daily, February 9, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
36
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
United States Coast Guard51
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)
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
House-
Senate-
FY2011
Enacted
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Operating Expenses
6,564
6,651
6,970
Military pay and allowances
3,253
3,358
3,381
Civilian pay and benefits
701
757
757
Training and recruiting
206
204
204
Operating funds and unit
1,155 1,106
1,114
level maintenance
Central y managed accounts
335
346
347
Intermediate and depot level
914 880
893
maintenance
Marine Safety and Response
20
Personnel
Acquisition,
1,536 1,381
1,583
Construction, and
Improvements
Vessels and Critical
121 42
62
Infrastructure
Icebreaker
Refurbishment
21
Other Equipment
130
36
36
51 Prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
37
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
House-
Senate-
FY2011
Enacted
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Integrated Deepwater
1,154 1,113
1,234
System
Shore facilities and Aids to
27 69
108
Navigation
Personnel and Related
105 108
108
Support
Coast Guard HQ
-
14
14
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief, and
S.Rept. 111-222.
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding.
Senate Reported S. 3607
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended about 6% more than the President
requested. However, the Senate committee included $255 million for the Coast Guard’s overseas
activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the President requested these funds under the Navy’s
budget. Other major differences are that the Senate committee provided $41 million more than
requested for vessel acquisition, about $40 million more for shore facilities, $8 million more for
research and development, and $4 million for modifying bridges interfering with navigation.
Other differences are discussed below.
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.52 For FY2011, the President requested
52 These issues are discussed in CRS Report RL33753, Coast Guard Deepwater Acquisition Programs: Background,
Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
38
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
$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.
The Senate Appropriations Committee provided $121 million more than the request for
Deepwater. Most of this difference is for advancing the procurement of a sixth national security
cutter.
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.53 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
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. 54
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.
The Senate Appropriations Committee rejected the President’s request to eliminate five MSSTs.
The committee also partially rejected the request for decommissioning certain assets, continuing
the operations of two High Endurance Cutters and five HH-65 helicopters.
Marine Safety Mission
The oil spill from the drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico has focused attention on the Coast
Guard’s role in marine safety and environmental protection. The Coast Guard oversees the safety
of the non-drilling aspects of offshore oil platforms, rescues crews when in danger, and is the lead
agency in responding to oil spill clean up. One issue that has been raised with respect to the Coast
Guard’s role in overseeing the safety of oil rigs is its ability to keep pace with changing
technology in the offshore industry. For instance, it has been noted that some areas of the Coast
Guard regulations covering the safety requirements of “Mobile Offshore Drilling Units,” such as
the Deepwater Horizon, date back to 1978 when rigs were much closer to shore and in shallower
53 FY2011 Budget Justification, pp. CG-OE-6 and 8.
54 A DHS OIG report provides further information on MSSTs, http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_10-
89_May10.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
39
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
water. The Coast Guard’s pace in issuing rulemakings and its overall competence in carrying out
its marine safety mission was the subject of a recent congressional hearing55 as well as an issue
raised in the aftermath of the Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco Bay in November 2007. In
response to these criticisms, the Coast Guard has revamped its marine safety program.56 In
FY2009, the Administration requested and Congress provided funds for about 300 additional
marine safety personnel.
The Senate Appropriations Committee provided $20 million more in the operations account than
the President requested for 176 marine safety positions to improve regulation, enforcement, and
compliance of the maritime industry.
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.57 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.58 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. The Senate committee agreed with the
President’s request.
United States Secret Service59
The U.S. Secret Service (USSS)60 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
55 House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,
Hearing on Challenges Facing the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Program, July 27, 2007. See also an independent
assessment report on the Coast Guard’s marine safety mission available at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg54/docs/
VADM%20Card%20Report.pdf.
56 For a description of its intended changes, see Coast Guard Proceedings, Summer 2008, pp. 20-28, available at
http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings.
57 GAO, United States Coast Guard: Improvements Needed in Management and Oversight of Rescue System
Acquisition, GAO-06-623, May 2006.
58 GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, Performance, Reorganization, and Related
Challenges, April 18, 2007, GAO-07-489T, p. 3.
59 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and
Finance Division.
60 For more information, see CRS Report RL34603, The U.S. Secret Service: An Examination and Analysis of Its
Evolving Missions, by Shawn Reese.
Congressional Research Service
40
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
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)61, which include the major party quadrennial national
conventions as well as international conferences and events held in the United States. The NSSE
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. Code62 and ten are provisional protectees authorized pursuant to
presidential memoranda.63 Additionally the Secretary of the Treasury receives protection on a
reimbursable basis.64 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.65
Senate-Reported S. 3607
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $1,576 million for the Secret Service for
FY2011, an increase of $93 million over the FY2010 appropriations and $4 million over the
president’s FY2011 budget request.66 In all spending categories (except for one), the
Appropriations Committee recommendations for FY2011 were identical to the president’s budget
request. The single difference was for domestic investigations: the committee recommended $4
million above the president’s request, which thus accounts for the increase in the total amount
between the committee’s recommendation and the president’s request.
The panel raised concerns—based on a 2010 Government Accountability Office report (GAO-10-
762)—however, that the Secret Service was in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, by spending
more funds than it had available. The committee directed the Secret Service and the DHS Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) to implement the GAO recommendations related to financial
management and compliance.67 The panel also retained bill language withholding from obligation
$20 million until the DHS Chief Information Officer submits a report to the House and Senate
61 For more information, see CRS Report RS22754, National Special Security Events, by Shawn Reese.
62 18 U.S.C. § 3056.
63 The ten provisional protectees are not identified due to security operations.
64 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.
65 Ibid., p. S&E-10.
66 U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2011, S.Rept.
111-222, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., pp. 89-93.
67 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
41
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Appropriations Committees certifying that all information security modernization plans are
consistent with DHS data center migration and enterprise architecture requirements.68
Table 12. FY2010 Enacted and FY2011 Budget Authority for the U.S. Secret Service
(Amounts in millions of dollars)
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
Budget
House-
Senate-
FY2011
Programs and Activities
Enacted
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Protection of persons and
756 792
792
facilities
Protective intelligence activities
68
69
69
National Special Security Events
1
1
1
Candidate nominee protection
—
18
18
White House mail screening
22
25
25
Management and administration
221
253
253
Rowley Training Center
54
55
55
Domestic field operations
261
257
261
International field operations
31
31
31
Electronic crimes program
57
57
57
Forensic support to the National
8 8
8
Center for Missing and Exploited
Children
Acquisition, construction, and
4 4
4
improvements
Total
1,483
1,570
1,574
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief, and
S.Rept. 111-222.
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
68 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
42
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
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.69
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
localities that receive reimbursement from other federal programs, including the Department of
State’s “Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials” account.70
NSSEs are events of national significance71 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.72 USSS’s Major Events Division (MED) plans and
coordinates NSSE security operations. Some of the coordination includes advance planning and
69 P.L. 111-83.
70 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Washington,
DC, February 1, 2010, p. 518.
71 P.L. 106-544, Sec. 3. 114 Stat. 2713.
72 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
43
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
liaison for venue and air space security, training, communications, and security credentialing.73
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.74 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.75 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.”76 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.77
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,
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
73 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.
74 P.L. 110-161. 121 Stat. 1909.
75 P.L. 110-329, Div. A, Sec. 135. 122 Stat. 3579.
76 For more information on this emergency declaration, see http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=47284.
77 P.L. 111-8, Div. D, Title IV. 123 Stat. 650.
Congressional Research Service
44
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
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.”78
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.
78 P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1400.
Congressional Research Service
45
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 13. Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2011 Appropriation
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2011
House-
Senate-
Operational Component
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Passed
Reported FY2011Enacted
National Protection and Programs Directorate
Management and
Administration
45
45
46
45
Infrastructure Protection and
Information Security
899
899
866
881
US-VISIT
374
374
335
335
Federal Protective Service
(FPS)
1,115
1,115
1,115
1,115
Gross
Total
2,433
2,433
2,362
2,375
Offsetting
col ections
-1,115
-1,115
-1,115
-1,115
Net
total
1,318
1,318
1,247
1,260
Office of Health Affairs
139
139
213
155
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Management and
913
Administration
798
798
903
Grant Programs Directorate
4,165a
4,165a 4,001b
4,234
Firefighter Assistance Grants
c
c
c
U.S. Fire Administration
46
46
46
46
Disaster relief
1,600d
1,600d 1,950
1,950e
Disaster readiness and
support
activities
0
Flood map modernization
fund
220
220
194
194
National flood insurance fund
(NFIF)f
0
National flood mitigationg
0
CRS-46
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2011 Appropriation
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2011
House-
Senate-
Operational Component
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Passed
Reported FY2011Enacted
Pre-disaster mitigation fund
100
100
100
75
Emergency food and shelter
200
200
100
150
Disaster assistance direct
loan account
0
Radiological Emergency
Preparednessh
0
Net
total
7,129
7,129
7,294
7,562
Net budget authority
subtotal:
Title
III 8,586
8,586
8,754
8,977
Offsetting
collections
1,115
1,115
1,115
1,115
Gross budget authority
Title III
9,701
9,701
9,869
10,092
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief, and S.Rept. 111-222.
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. Does not include transfers from the DRF of $217 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.
f.
NFIF funding is derived from premium payments or transfers from the U.S. Treasury, not appropriations.
g. Funds for the National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF) are derived from transfers, not appropriations.
h. Radiological Emergency Preparedness funds are provided through reimbursements and are not actual y appropriated funds.
CRS-47
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Federal Emergency Management Agency79
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.80
FEMA executes its mission through a number of activities such as providing assistance through
its administration of the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) 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 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;81
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;82 repairing, maintaining, and improving regional facilities;83 and eliminating the
79 This section was prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy,
Bruce R. 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 Lennard G. Kruger, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Research, Science, and
Industry Division.
80 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.
81 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Washington,
DC, February 2010, p. 557.
82 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FY2011 Budget Request: FEMA-
All Appropriations, Congressional Committee Rollout, Washington, DC, February 2010, p. 27.
83 Ibid., p. 6.
Congressional Research Service
48
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
National Flood Mitigation Fund and funding its activities through the National Flood Insurance
Fund.84 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.85
Finally, the Administration assumed that catastrophic disasters are rare and that these catastrophic
disasters would be funded through a supplemental or emergency appropriation.86
Senate-Reported S. 3607
Compared to the Administration’s request, the Senate proposed a slight increase for FEMA’s
budget ($7,345 million). The Senate also proposed a decrease of 24% for the Management and
Administration ($696 million). The decrease is offset, however, by a transfer of $216 million
from the DRF, making the proposal comparable to the Administration’s request. The Senate
committee recommended a total appropriation of $4,237 million for State and Local Programs,
which was $236 million more than the Administration proposed. The Senate proposal for
Emergency Food and Shelter was $150 million, an increase of $50 million compared to the
Administration’s request. The Senate proposed the same amount for Flood Map Modernization
($194 million).
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 Administration’s FY2011 request for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) was $1,950 million.
The 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.87 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.
84 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Washington,
DC, February 2010, p. 561.
85 Ibid., p. 562.
86 Ibid., p. 563.
87 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.
Congressional Research Service
49
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Senate-reported S. 3607 also proposed $1,950 million for the DRF. However, Senate-reported S.
3607 stipulated that of the $1,950 million, $16 million would be transferred to the Department of
Homeland Security Office of Inspector General for audits and investigations related to disasters,
and $217 million to FEMA’s Management and Administration account. On May 27, 2010,
Congress passed P.L. 111-212. The bill transferred $5 million of the supplemental funding
provided for the DRF (discussed below) to the Department of Homeland Security Office of
Inspector General. It is unclear if the proposed transfer of $16 million in S. 3607 will be altered or
offset as a result of P.L. 111-212.
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 FY2010.88 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.89 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
were included in the proposed legislative language of the FY2011 request as a General Provision
in Title V, and on May 27, 2010, Congress provided the requested supplement of $5,100 million
in P.L. 111-212.
Issues for Congress Related to the DRF
There are at least two issues that might be of congressional concern. The first is how the DRF is
funded. The second is the fundamental question concerning the federal government’s role in
providing disaster assistance.
Expenditures related to disasters in the past five years have increased significantly. However, it is
unclear if increased expenditures are due solely to hurricane activity in the Gulf Coast since 2005.
Rather, the rise in expenditures may indicate increases in the number of disasters occurring each
year, 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. Despite the
cause, the federal funding for disaster assistance since 2005 has been on the rise.
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.”90 Such a claim may lead some to question
whether the President’s request for the DRF was sufficient given the supplemental request for
FY2010 and increased federal spending for disaster relief.
88 Barrack Obama, Letter from the White House, Washington DC, February 12, 2010.
89 Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government, Washington DC, 2010, pp. 1362-
1363.
90 Office of Management and Budget, A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America’s Promise, Washington DC,
February 26, 2009, p. 36.
Congressional Research Service
50
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Essentially, the trend over the past 20 years for funding disaster assistance has consisted of
funding the DRF through regular appropriations and then supplementing the account as needed
through emergency supplemental appropriations. However, the DRF receives an emergency
supplemental appropriation almost annually. Critics might argue that this indicates, as the OMB
quote above appears to suggest, that the DRF should be funded at a higher amount to avoid the
need for emergency supplemental appropriations. Supporters of the practice might argue that it is
better to pay for large disasters after they occur through emergency supplemental appropriations
rather than funding the DRF at a higher amount ties up funds if they are not needed due to a lack
of disaster activities.
Another issue is that 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)
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
Budget
House-
Senate-
FY2011
Programs
Enacted
Request
Reported
Reported
Enacted
Homeland Security Prevention
and Protection Programs
Urban Area Security Initiative
887
1,100
950
State Homeland Security Grant
Program 950
1,050
950
Driver’s License Security Program
(REAL ID)
50
0
0
Buffer Zone Protection Program
50
50
50
Transportation Security Grant
Program 600
600
700
Over-the-Road Bus Security Grants
12
0
0
Congressional Research Service
51
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
Budget
House-
Senate-
FY2011
Programs
Enacted
Request
Reported
Reported
Enacted
Homeland Security Response
and Recovery Programs
Assistance to Firefighters
810
610
810
Emergency Management
Performance Grants
340
345
345
Metropolitan Medical Response
System 41
0
38
Citizen Corps Programs
13
0
12
Regional Catastrophic
Preparedness 35
35
35
Interoperable Emergency
Communications Grants
50
0
50
Emergency Operations Centers
60
0
32
Other National, State and Local
Grant Programs/Training,
Measurement and Exercise
Program
Continuing Training Grants
29
22
30
National Domestic Preparedness
Consortium 102
52
97
Cybercrime Counterterrorism
Training 2
0
2
Center for Domestic
Preparedness/Noble Training
Center
63 63
63
National Exercise Program
40
42
40
Technical Assistance Programs
13
15
15
Evaluations and Assessments
16
18
16
Rural Domestic Preparedness
Consortium 3
0
0
Total 4,165
4,001
4,234
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief, and
S.Rept. 111-222.
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
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:
Congressional Research Service
52
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
• 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.91
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.”
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved $810 million for firefighter assistance (including
$390 million for AFG and $420 million for SAFER), the same level as FY2010 and 33% more
than the Administration proposal. Unlike the Administration proposal, the committee would
continue to keep firefighter assistance in its own separate budget account. The committee report
directed DHS to continue funding applications according to local priorities and priorities
established by the United States Fire Administration, and to continue direct funding to fire
departments and the peer review process.
Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFS)92
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.
91 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Washington,
DC, February 2010, p. 557.
92 Prepared by Francis McCarthy, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
53
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
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
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. The Senate has suggested a program budget of $150 million, $50 million
above the Administration level and $50 million below the current funding level.
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. The program
has frequently been augmented during economic downturns, but the FY2011 budget request of
$100 million, as well as the Senate mark of $150 million (from the $200 million of the previous
year), represents the largest reduction in the program’s 27-year history.93 The suggested cut-backs
are significant within the context of current hunger statistics that suggest increased need.94 This is
a budgetary issue that Congress may examine as the process moves forward.
Pre-Disaster Mitigation95
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.96
Authorization for the PDM program expires on September 30, 2010. The Administration’s
FY2011 budget request would extend the authorization until September 30, 2011.97 In the 111th
Congress, Representative Oberstar and other sponsors introduced H.R. 3377 to re-authorize the
program for an additional three years at $250 million per year.98 The FY2011 budget requested
$100 million, which does not reflect any change from the appropriated amount for FY2010.99 The
Senate has suggested a $75 million level, a reduction of $25 million. The Senate committee did
not address extending the authorization. If enacted, that amount would be the lowest level of
funding for the program since FY2006 ($50 million).
93 The largest previous reduction was in FY1996, which reduced the program funding level by $30 million (from $130
million to $100 million).
94 Feeding America, Hunger and Poverty Statistics, http://feedingamerica.org/faces-of-hunger/hunger-101/hunger-and-
poverty-statistics.aspx
95 Prepared by Natalie Keegan, Analyst in American Federalism and Emergency Management Policy, Government and
Finance Division.
96 42 U.S.C. 5133 §203. For additional information on the PDM program, see CRS Report RL34537, FEMA’s Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Program: Overview and Issues, by Francis X. McCarthy and Natalie Keegan.
97 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Washington,
DC, February 2010, p. 574.
98 H.R. 3377 would also increase the state minimum amount to $575,000.
99 The FY2010 budget requested $150 million, but P.L. 111-83 appropriated $100 million and extended authorization
for the program until September 30, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
54
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Flood Map Modernization100
FEMA was directed to perform digital updates of flood maps every five years for communities
participating in the National Flood Insurance Program.101 The Administration’s FY2011 budget
requested $26 million less than the FY2010 appropriated level, from $220 million to $194
million.102 In agreement with the Administration’s request, the Senate committee recommended
$194 million for FY2011 for flood mapping activities. 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.103
Office of Health Affairs104
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,
including the BioWatch program, the National Biosurveillance Integration System (NBIS), and
the department’s occupational health and safety programs.105 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.106
100 Prepared by Natalie Keegan, Analyst in American Federalism and Emergency Management Policy, Government and
Finance Division.
101 As required by §575 of P.L. 103-325, the 1994 Flood Insurance Program Reform Act.
102 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Washington,
DC, February 2010, p. 564.
103 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.
104 Prepared by Sarah A. Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology, Domestic Social Policy Division.
105 DHS, Office of Health Affairs, http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0880.shtm.
106 OHA, Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Justification, Overview, p. OHA-4.
Congressional Research Service
55
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Senate Reported S. 3607
The committee recommended $155 million for OHA for FY2011, $57 million (27%) less than the
President’s request.107 While the recommendation included a modest increase for the BioWatch
program above the FY2010 level, it still fell $60 million below the FY2011 request. The
recommendation also included requested amounts for NBIC and Salaries and Expenses, and small
increases above requested amounts for the Rapidly Deployable Chemical Detection System and
Planning and Coordination.
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 “Generation 3” (Gen-3) detectors, which are intended to
improve timeliness by automating detection on site, no longer requiring daily collection and off-
site analysis. However, deployments of Gen-3 prototypes raised questions about their
performance. In the past, appropriators have withheld some funding for the transition to next-
generation automated detectors, and/or required notification prior to any such deployments.108 For
FY2011, the Senate committee noted that problems with Gen-3 detector development and
deployment had led to significant carryover of funds in previous years.109
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.110
National Protection and Programs Directorate111
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.
107 S.Rept. 111-222, pp. 106-108.
108 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.
109 S.Rept. 111-222, pp. 106-108.
110 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/.
111 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
56
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
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.
Congressional Research Service
57
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 15. FY2009 Budget Activity for NPPD Management and
Administration Appropriation
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Program
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011 House-
FY2011 Senate-
FY2011
Project Activity
Enacted
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Directorate
Administration
35 36
36
Risk Management and
Analysis 10
10
9
Total 45
46
45
Sources: CRS Analysis of the Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate,
Management and Administration, Fiscal Year 2011, Overview, Budget Justification, and S.Rept. 111-222.
Note: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding.
Senate-Reported S. 3607
Senate-reported S. 3607 included $45 million for Management and Administration. It approved
$1 million less than the request for the Office of Risk Management and Analysis (RMA).
According to report language, the Senate found RMA’s expenditure plan, required by the
Homeland Security Appropriations Act , 2010, did not adequately clarify quantifiable outcomes
that would show how the office is fulfilling its mission. Senate-reported S. 3607 would require
the Under Secretary to report to Congress on which quantifiable priorities will be implemented
with the FY2011 appropriation.
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 US-
CERT 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 Service112
The Federal Protective Service (FPS), now within National Protection and Programs Directorate
(NPPD),113 is responsible for the protection and security of federally owned and leased buildings,
property, and personnel.114 In general, FPS operations focus on security and law enforcement
activities that reduce vulnerability to criminal and terrorist threats.115 FPS protection and security
operations include all-hazards based risk assessments; emplacement of criminal and terrorist
112 Prepared by Lorraine Tong, Analyst in American National Government, and Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency
Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and Finance Division.
113 FPS was transferred to NPPD from ICE following the enactment of the FY2010 DHS appropriations, P.L. 111-83.
114 40 U.S.C. 1315.
115 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.
Congressional Research Service
58
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
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.116 FPS is the lead
“Government Facilities Sector Agency” for the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP).117
Currently, FPS employs approximately 1,225 law enforcement officers, investigators, and
administrative personnel, and administers the services of approximately 15,000 contract security
guards.
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 FY2010.118 FPS estimated a
collection of security leasing fees to provide $220 million for basic security operations,119 $420
million for building specific security operations,120 and $475 million for Security Work
Authorizations.121
Senate-Reported S. 3607
Senate-reported S. 3607 would provide FPS with $1,115 million for salaries and expenses. This is
the same amount requested for FY2011, and enacted in FY2010. This appropriation would be
fully offset by collections of security fees. The total amount would provide $220 million for basic
security operations, $420 million for building specific security operations, and $475 million for
Security Work Authorizations.
In report language (S.Rept. 111-222), the Senate Appropriations Committee expressed its
continued concern about the lack of adequate resources for FPS to address terrorist attacks and
threats against federal employees and facilities. The committee noted that the threats continue
while FPS faces a 2% increase in protected square footage since the last fee increase. The
President’s FY2011 budget did not assume an increase in fee charges, and the committee
encouraged the Office of Management and Budget to adjust fees charged for FY2011. In addition,
the committee provided for an increase in the number of FPS employees to 1,348, including at
least 1,011 police officers, inspectors, area commanders, and special agents.
The committee also directed NPPD to provide to the committee and GAO, within 45 days of the
enactment date of S. 3607, with the new FPS staffing model that has been in development. GAO
116 For information on NSSEs, see CRS Report RS22754, National Special Security Events, by Shawn Reese.
117 Information on the NIPP is available at http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/editorial_0827.shtm.
118 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.
119 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.
120 Building specific security operations include security countermeasure requirements specific to a particular building.
121 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.
Congressional Research Service
59
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
is expected to report to the committee on the model’s validity within 75 days after it receives the
model.
Finally, the committee directed NPPD and ICE to provide without delay a signed copy of the
memorandum of understanding (MOU) between ICE and NPPD regarding the business services
provided to FPS.122
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.123
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 FPS-
protected 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;
• 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.124
122At the time of the FPS transfer from ICE to NPPD, there was an understanding that the core support
given to FPS would be maintained. The MOU, which is needed to determine whether FPS is being
provided adequate resources, has not been completed.
123 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.
124 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.
Congressional Research Service
60
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(US-VISIT)125
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 DHS126 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
FY2006.127 In FY2008, DHS transferred US-VISIT into a new entity, the National Protection
Programs Directorate (NPPD). In its Section 872 letter, DHS stated that it was relocating US-
VISIT to the NPPD “to support coordination for the program’s protection mission and to
strengthen DHS management oversight.”128
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 1.0.129
Senate-Reported S. 3607
Senate-reported S. 3607 would included $335 million for US-VISIT, thereby matching the
Administration’s budget request. Moreover, language in the bill provides that not less than $50
million in prior-year balances shall remain available until expended solely for implementation of
a biometric air exit capability. Also, bill language would prohibit the obligation of $167 million
for US-VISIT until it submits an expenditure plan for use of the FY2011 funds.
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.
125 Prepared by Chad C. Haddal, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
126 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.
127 H.Rept. 109-241.
128 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.
129 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
61
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 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.130 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 Security131
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.
130 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.
131 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
62
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 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 adjustments132 (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.
132 Base adjustments are not reflected in Table 16.
Congressional Research Service
63
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 16. Budget Authority for Infrastructure Protection and Information Security
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
House-
Senate-
FY2011
Program
Enacted
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
IP 348
334
339
Identification and Analysis
91
83
89
Coordination and Information
Sharing 60
53
52
Mitigation Programs
197
198
198
NCSD 397
379
388
US-CERT 324
315
0
Strategic Initiatives
64
57
0
Outreach and Programs
9
7
0
Management and
Administration 0
0
16
Cybersecurity Protection and
Response 0
0
262
Cybersecurity Compliance,
Standards, and Workforce
Development
0 0
46
Critical Infrastructure Cyber
Protection and Awareness
0
0
53
Cybersecurity Coordination
0
0
10
NCS 110
109
109
Priority Telecom Service
57
56
56
Programs to Study and
Enhance Telecom
17 17
17
Critical Infrastructure
Protection 11
15
15
Next Generation Networks
25
21
21
OEC 45
45
45
Total
899
866
881
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief, and
S.Rept. 111-222.
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding.
Senate-Reported S. 3607
The Senate approved $881 million for the IPIS program. It provided more funds than requested
for vulnerability assessments (+$4 million) and the NISAC (+$2 million) in the IP-Identification
and Analysis PPA. It provided more funds than requested for the National Infrastructure
Protection Plan Management program and the Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources Partnership
program ($7 million) in the IP- Coordination and Information Sharing PPA. It did not fund the
Congressional Research Service
64
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
department’s request for data center migration (-$7 million). The Senate provided the requested
funds for the IP- Mitigation Program PPA and required DHS to provide quarterly updates on
progress in hiring personnel to enforce compliance associated with security at chemical facilities
and ammonia nitrate security program. The Senate also encouraged the Secretary to consider the
ability of chemical facilities covered under security regulations to communicate with local law
enforcement and first responders as part of that compliance program.
The Senate adopted a new PPA structure for the National Cyber Security Division, similar to the
one proposed by DHS in its budget justification addendum. The Senate also provided the funds
requested, plus an additional $9 million for the new Cybersecurity Protection and Response PPA.
The additional funds included $5 million for expediting network security deployments. It also
included $4 million associated with not transferring funds to the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center to support the National Computer Forensic Institute.
The Senate provided funds as requested for the Office of Emergency Communications, but
expressed concerns that the potential of emerging commercial broadband services has not been
adequately explored and taken advantage of. The Senate requested a report on plans for
developing and disseminating training and best practices on standard operating procedures,
equipment purchases and other issues associated with broadband technologies.
The Senate provided funds as requested for the National Security/Emergency Preparedness
Telecommunications. However, it continued to express concern about the lack of clarity regarding
the mission of the Next Generation Networks PPA and the difficulty this program has had
obligating funds.
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
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.
Congressional Research Service
65
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
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
66
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 17. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2011 Appropriation
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2011
House-
Senate-
FY2011
Operational Component
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Total available budget authority
2,860
2,860
2,813
2,599
Offsetting Feesa -2,636
-2,636
-2,427
-2,427
Net subtotal (Direct
appropriation)
224
224
386
172
Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center
283
8
291
278
274
Science and Technology
Management and Administration
143
143
152
147
Research, Development, Acquisition,
and Operations
863
863
866
863
Net Subtotal
1,006
1,006
1018
1,010
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
Management and Administration
39
39
37
37
Research, Development, and
Operations 325
325
208
208
Systems Acquisition
20
20
61
78
Net Subtotal
384
384
306
323
Gross budget authority: Title IV
4,533
4,541
4,414
4,206
Offsetting collections: Title IV
-2,636
-2,636
-2,427
-2,427
Net budget authority: Title IV
1,897
1,905
1,988
1,779
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief, and S.Rept. 111-222.
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 Immigration Examination Fund; H-1b Visa Fee; and the Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee.
CRS-67
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services133
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.134 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.135 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.
133 This section was prepared by William Kandel, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
134 §286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1356.
135 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
68
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 18. USCIS Budget Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
House-
Senate-
FY2011
Program/Project Activity
Enacted
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Appropriations 224
386
172
REAL ID Act Implementation
10
0
0
E-Verify (Basic Pilot
103
Program) 137
103
Data Center Development
11
23
7
Immigrant Integration
11
Initiative 11
18
Asylum, Refugees, & Military
50
Naturalizations Processing
55
207
SAVE
34
Fee Collections
2,636
2,427
2,426
Immigration Examination Fee
Account
2,513 2,376
2,375
H-1B Visa
13
13
13
H-1B/L Fraud
110
38
38
Total USCIS Funding
2,860
2,813
2,598
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief, and
S.Rept. 111-222.
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding.
Senate-Reported S. 3607
The Senate-reported S. 3607 proposed the same appropriation of $172 million for USCIS as the
Administration, including $50 million for processing applications for asylees and refugees, and
$103 million for immigration verification programs such as E-Verify. The Senate also proposed
that USCIS may purchase up to five vehicles for replacement of its fleet where leased vehicles are
unavailable, and that employees in such locations may use the vehicles to commute to work. The
Senate proposed restricting funding for the REAL ID program until the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees receive a program spending plan that outlines the program’s strategic
context, its specific goals and milestones, and funds reserved to achieve each goal. Finally, the
Senate proposed that no funds designated for immigrant integration services be used for
immigrants who have not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
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.
Congressional Research Service
69
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
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
of the 2007 fee increases.136 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.137
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 Center138
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
136 For more information, see CRS Report RL34040, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Immigration Fees and
Adjudication Costs: Proposed Adjustments and Historical Context, by William A. Kandel and Chad C. Haddal.
137 Information is based upon CRS discussions with the USCIS Chief Financial Officer in 2009.
138 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and
Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
70
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
• 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.139
Senate-Reported S. 3607
The Senate-reported S. 3607 would provide $274 million to FLETC, or $4 million less than the
administration request and a $9 million decrease from the FY2010-enacted amount.
Science and Technology140
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.141
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.142
139 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Salaries and Expenses: Fiscal
Year 2011 Congressional Justification, Washington, DC, February 2010.
140 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
141 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.
142 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
71
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 19. Directorate of Science and Technology, Accounts and Activities
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
House-
Senate-
FY2011
Enacted
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Directorate of Science and
1,006 1,018
1,010
Technology—Total
Management and Administration
143
152
147
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
863
866
863
Border and Maritime
44
40
40
Chemical and Biological
207
201
201
Command, Control, and Interoperability
82
75
77
Explosives 121
121
121
Human Factors / Behavioral Sciences
16
13
13
Infrastructure and Geophysical
75
36
57
Radiological/Nuclear —
109
109
Innovation 44
44
44
Laboratory Facilities 150
122
122
Test and Evaluation, Standards
29
23
23
Transition
46
42
42
University Programs
49
40
50
Unspecified Reduction
-36
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief, and
S.Rept. 111-222.
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding.
Senate-Reported S. 3607
The Senate-reported bill would provide $8 million less than requested for the S&T Directorate.
Relative to the request, the bill would restore $21 million for local and regional initiatives in the
Infrastructure and Geophysical Division and add $10 million for University Programs. These
increases would be more than offset, however, by an unspecified reduction of $36 million and the
elimination of $5 million requested for data center migration in the Management and
Administration account. The Senate committee “strongly endorsed” the transfer of radiological
and nuclear R&D from DNDO to the S&T Directorate but called for an independent review
before S&T determines the program’s FY2011 research priorities.
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
Congressional Research Service
72
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
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. Similar language
is included in S. 3607 as reported.143
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
(DOT&E).144 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 one-
third 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.
143 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.
144 DHS, Acquisition Management Directive, DHS Directive 102-01, revision 01, authorized by the Under Secretary for
Management on January 20, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
73
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office145
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)
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
House-
Senate-
FY2011
Enacted
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
Total
384 306
323
Management and Administration
39
37
37
Research, Development, and
Operations
324 208
208
Systems Engineering and Architecture
25
39
39
Systems Development
100
69
69
Transformational Research and
Development
109
0
Assessments 32
43
43
Operations Support
38
34
34
National Technical Nuclear Forensics
20
23
23
Systems Acquisition
20
61
78
Radiation Portal Monitoring Program
—
8
20
Securing the Cities
20
—
20
Human Portable Radiation Detection
Systems
—
53
38
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief, and
S.Rept. 111-222.
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding.
145 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
Congressional Research Service
74
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Senate-Reported S. 3607
The Senate-reported bill would provide $17 million more than the request for DNDO. It would
provide the requested amount for Research, Development, and Operations but would rescind $27
million in unobligated prior-year balances. Relative to the request for Systems Acquisition, the
bill would increase funding for radiation portal monitors by $12 million in order to address
coverage gaps, restore funding for the Securing the Cities program, and reduce funding for
human-portable radiation detectors by $15 million because of procurement delays. The Senate
committee encouraged DHS to review whether the acquisition of nuclear detection equipment
should be funded by the operational components rather than by DNDO; in this discussion, the
committee characterized DNDO as primarily an R&D organization.
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.146 Congress included a requirement for
secretarial certification before full-scale ASP procurement in each homeland security
appropriations act from FY2007 through FY2010. Similar language is included in S. 3607 as
reported. 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.147
Global Nuclear Detection Architecture
The global nuclear detection architecture overseen by DNDO remains an issue of congressional
interest.148 According to the FY2011 congressional budget justification, the proposed reduction in
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.
146 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.
147 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-4105-94e6-
bb4a0213f048.
148 For more information, see CRS Report RL34574, The Global Nuclear Detection Architecture: Issues for Congress,
by Dana A. Shea.
Congressional Research Service
75
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
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 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 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.”149 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.
149 Executive Office of the President, FY2010 Budget, Appendix, p. 560.
Congressional Research Service
76
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Appendix A. FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations
On August 13, 2010, the President signed into law P.L. 111-230, making $600 million emergency
supplemental appropriations available for border security, of which $394 million is allocated to
DHS, $196 million to the Department of Justice (DOJ), and $10 million to the Federal Judiciary.
Within DHS, P.L. 111-230 provides CBP with a total of $306 million, including $176 million for
additional Border Patrol agents, $39 million for CBP officers at ports of entry on the Southwest
border, $10 million to support integrity and background investigation programs, $14 million for
tactical communications, $32 million for UAV acquisition and deployment, and $6 million for the
construction of forward-operating bases for the Border Patrol. P.L. 111-230 also includes $80
million for ICE, of which $30 million is directed toward efforts to reduce the threat of violence
along the Southwest border, and $50 million for additional ICE personnel; and $8 million for the
CBP, BP, and ICE basic training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).
Administration Budget Amendment
In a June 22, 2010, budget amendment the Administration requested an additional $600 million
for border security along the Southwest border of the United States, including added funding to
the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP). This funding would be partially offset by rescinding $100 million
in DHS funds for SBInet (commonly known as the “virtual border fence”), which has been
suspended pending the outcome of a technical and cost review. The Administration requested that
the remainder be designated as emergency requirements. Of the total, $399 million would have
been for DHS and $201 million would go to DOJ.
Within the DHS total, $297 million would have been used to hire 1,000 new Border Patrol agents,
$37 million for two new unmanned aerial detection systems, $53 million for 160 new
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, $6.5 million for 30 new Customs and
Border Patrol (CBP) officers, and $6 million for 20 new Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
canine teams to improve border enforcement operations along the Southwest border.
The $201 million that was requested for DOJ would have increased the presence of federal law
enforcement in the Southwest border districts by adding seven Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Gunrunner Teams, five FBI Hybrid Task Forces, additional Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents, equipment, operational support, and additional
attorneys and immigration judges, and supporting additional detention and incarceration costs for
criminal aliens in coordination with DHS enforcement activities. The amendment would also
have provided funding to support Mexican law enforcement operations with ballistic analysis,
DNA analysis, information sharing, technical capabilities, and technical assistance.150
Congressional Action on Border Security
The budget amendment by the Administration was initially included in the House-passed version
of H.R. 4899, but the border security provisions were dropped prior to final passage and the
150 OMB, Estimate No. 8, “FY2010 Emergency Supplemental Proposals in the FY2011 Budget for the Departments of
Homeland Security and Justice to Support Efforts to Secure the Southwest Border and Enhance Federal Border
Protection and Law Enforcement and Counternarcotics Activities,” June 22, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
77
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
identical provisions were re-introduced as a separate bill—the Emergency Border Security
Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010 (H.R. 5875). H.R. 5875 included $701 million for
border security, $100 million more than the Administration’s request. Both the Administration and
the House-amended version included $201 million to DOJ for border security efforts, largely for
more law enforcement personnel, as discussed above. H.R. 5875 was passed in the House on July
28, 2010.
For CBP, House-passed H.R. 5875 would have provided a total of $412 million, $13 million more
than the request, including $208 million for new Border Patrol agents, $32 million for two new
unmanned aerial detection systems, $136 million to hire and retain new CBP officers, and $36
million for tactical communications and infrastructure, as well as for corruption investigations,
and $8 million for training. Additionally, the House-passed version would have provided $30
million for ICE, $23 million less than requested, to reduce narcotics smuggling and border
violence, and it puts $50 million toward supporting state and local law enforcement through
Operation Stonegarden (distributed through FEMA). Also, the Administration’s request would
have provided fewer Border Patrol agents and CBP officers than the House July-amended
version.
On August 5, 2010, the Senate took up S. 3721 as a substitute amendment to House-passed H.R.
5875. The bill was passed by unanimous consent. Senate-passed H.R. 5875 includes $600 million
for border security ($101 million less than House-passed H.R. 5875 would provide), of which
$394 million is allocated to DHS and $196 million to DOJ. In contrast to the House version of the
bill, Senate-passed H.R. 5875 was reportedly completely offset by increases to H1-B and L visa
fees and a rescission.
For CBP, Senate-passed H.R. 5875 would have provided a total of $306 million, including $176
million for additional Border Patrol agents, $39 million for CBP officers at ports of entry on the
Southwest border, $10 million to support integrity and background investigation programs, $14
million for tactical communications, $32 million for UAV acquisition and deployment, and $6
million for the construction of forward-operating bases for the Border Patrol. Senate-passed H.R.
5875 also included $80 million for ICE, of which $30 million was directed toward efforts to
reduce the threat of violence along the Southwest border, and $50 million for additional ICE
personnel; and $8 million for the CBP, BP, and ICE basic training at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).
On August 9, the House introduced a new border security supplemental bill—H.R. 6080—which
was subsequently passed by the House on August 10. H.R. 6080 contained identical language to
Senate-passed H.R. 5875. Reportedly, the House took up the bill with a new number to avoid a
dispute related to its constitutional obligation to originate all revenue measures.151 This dispute
arose with the addition of funding provisions in Senate-passed H.R. 5875 that were not included
in the House-passed version. On August 12, the Senate passed H.R. 6080 without amendment by
unanimous consent.
151 Theo Emery and Edward Epstein, “Border Security Bill Passes in House,” CQ Today, August 10, 2010, online
edition.
Congressional Research Service
78
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Appendix B. 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 B-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 B-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
79
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Table B-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2011
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2011
FY2011 as
Department
FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 Request
% 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%
Other
Agencies
3,613 1,445 1,437 1,910 1,429 1,545 1,751 1,883 1,824
1,533
2%
Total Federal Budget
Authority
43,848 42,447 40,834 54,383 57,118 59,833 65,099 73,996 70,462
72,512
100%
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 re-
estimates 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 non-
homeland security activities with greater specificity.
a. FY2002, FY2003, and FY2004 do not include re-estimates of DOD homeland security funding. For FY2007 DOD changed the manner in which they calculate their
homeland security activities. This new method of estimation has been applied for FY2005 and forward. Re-estimates of FY2002-FY2004 DOD funding using this new
method of calculation were not available for inclusion.
CRS-80
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Author Contact Information
Chad C. Haddal, Coordinator
Francis X. McCarthy
Specialist in Immigration Policy
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
chaddal@crs.loc.gov, 7-3701
fmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-9533
Jennifer E. Lake
Sarah A. Lister
Section Research Manager
Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology
jlake@crs.loc.gov, 7-0620
slister@crs.loc.gov, 7-7320
Barbara L. Schwemle
William A. Kandel
Analyst in American National Government
Analyst in Immigration Policy
bschwemle@crs.loc.gov, 7-8655
wkandel@crs.loc.gov, 7-4703
Mark A. Randol
John D. Moteff
Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counter-
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Terrorism
jmoteff@crs.loc.gov, 7-1435
mrandol@crs.loc.gov, 7-2393
Bart Elias
Daniel Morgan
Specialist in Aviation Policy
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
belias@crs.loc.gov, 7-7771
dmorgan@crs.loc.gov, 7-5849
John Frittelli
Natalie Keegan
Specialist in Transportation Policy
Analyst in American Federalism and Emergency
jfrittelli@crs.loc.gov, 7-7033
Management Policy
nkeegan@crs.loc.gov, 7-9569
Shawn Reese
Lorraine H. Tong
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
Analyst in American National Government
Security Policy
ltong@crs.loc.gov, 7-5846
sreese@crs.loc.gov, 7-0635
Lennard G. Kruger
Frederick M. Kaiser
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Specialist in American National Government
lkruger@crs.loc.gov, 7-7070
fkaiser@crs.loc.gov, 7-8682
Bruce R. Lindsay
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
blindsay@crs.loc.gov, 7-3752
Congressional Research Service
81