.

Homeland Security Department:
FY2012 Appropriations

William L. Painter, Coordinator
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy
Jennifer E. Lake, Coordinator
Section Research Manager
November 2, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41982
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008


.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations

Summary
This report describes the FY2012 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). The Administration requested a total appropriation (mandatory and discretionary) of
$45,015 million in budget authority for FY2012. This amounts to a $1,610 million, or a 3.7%,
increase from the $43,405 million enacted for FY2011 through the continuing resolution (P.L.
112-10). Total budget authority, including appropriations, fee revenues, and trust funds in the
Administration’s budget request for DHS for FY2012 amounts to $57,079 million as compared to
$55,783 million enacted for FY2011.
Net requested appropriations for major agencies within DHS were as follows: Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), $10,372 million; Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), $5,494
million; Transportation Security Administration (TSA), $5,514 million; Coast Guard, $8,677
million; Secret Service, $1,699 million; National Protection & Programs Directorate, $1,268
million; Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), $6,789 million; Science and
Technology, $1,176 million; and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $332 million.
The House Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2012 DHS Appropriations
bill on May 26, 2011, by a vote of 27-20. The House bill as drafted by the subcommittee
recommended a net discretionary appropriation of $40,592 million for DHS for FY2012, not
including $258 million for the global war on terrorism. This amounted to a $2,984 million
decrease compared to the Administration’s request, and $1,072 million less than the $41,664
million provided under P.L. 112-10, the FY2011 concurrent resolution. An amendment in full
committee markup added $1 billion in emergency funding for disaster relief.
On June 2, the House passed H.R. 2017, an amended version of the House bill, by a vote of 231-
188. Increases made to DHS activities include $320 million for grant programs for firefighters
and $10 million for CBP to improve cellular communications along the southern border. Several
amendments used management accounts as offsets, leaving funding for those activities 44%
below the requested level.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2012 DHS Appropriations
bill on September 7, 2011, by a vote of 28-2. The Senate bill as approved by the committee
recommended a net discretionary appropriation of $41,000 million for DHS for FY2012, not
including $258 million for the global war on terrorism, and $4,200 million in funding for FEMA
disaster relief that would be paid for by adjustments to the discretionary cap under the Budget
Control Act. With those exclusions, the Senate-reported bill was $2,533 million below the
Administration’s request, and $667 million below the amount provided under P.L. 112-10.
On September 30, 2011, the President signed into law a short-term continuing resolution (CR) to
continue funding for government operations through October 4, 2011, and then a second CR that
runs through November 18, 2011. Both resolutions funded operations at the FY2011 rate, less
1.503% in order to accommodate the budget caps implemented by the Budget Control Act (P.L.
112-25). The resolutions included $2.65 billion to replenish the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF)
which had been depleted through responding to multiple significant events in FY2011. The short-
term CR was passed as an amendment replacing the text of H.R. 2017, the Homeland Security
Appropriations bill. This procedure interrupted the process for creating a stand-alone Homeland
Security Appropriations bill to send to the President.
Congressional Research Service

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations

Contents
Most Recent Developments ............................................................................................................. 1
Continuing Resolutions and H.R. 2017..................................................................................... 1
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017....................................................................................................... 1
House-Passed H.R. 2017 ........................................................................................................... 1
President’s FY2012 Budget Request Submitted........................................................................ 2
Note on Most Recent Data .................................................................................................. 2
Background...................................................................................................................................... 3
Department of Homeland Security............................................................................................ 3
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays.............................................................................. 3
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending.................................................................................... 4
Offsetting Collections................................................................................................................ 5
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations ................................................................................................... 5
Accounting for Emergency Funding, Overseas Contingency Operations and Disaster
Relief ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security.............................................................. 7
DHS Appropriations Trends ...................................................................................................... 7
Summary of DHS Appropriations ............................................................................................. 7
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations....................................................................... 11
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017..................................................................................................... 12
House-Passed H.R. 2017 ......................................................................................................... 14
House-Reported H.R. 2017 ..................................................................................................... 15
President’s FY2012 Request.................................................................................................... 17
Personnel Issues ................................................................................................................ 18
St. Elizabeths and Headquarters Consolidation....................................................................... 20
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017............................................................................................... 21
House-Passed H.R. 2017................................................................................................... 21
President’s FY2012 Request ............................................................................................. 22
Analysis and Operations.......................................................................................................... 22
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017............................................................................................... 23
House-Passed H.R. 2017................................................................................................... 23
President’s FY2012 Request ............................................................................................. 24
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations ....................................................................... 24
Customs and Border Protection............................................................................................... 28
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017............................................................................................... 28
House-Passed H.R. 2017................................................................................................... 28
President’s FY2012 Request ............................................................................................. 28
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 30
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.................................................................................. 33
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017............................................................................................... 34
House-Passed H.R. 2017................................................................................................... 34
President’s FY2012 Request ............................................................................................. 34
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 35
Transportation Security Administration .................................................................................. 37
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017............................................................................................... 38
House-Passed H.R. 2017................................................................................................... 38
President’s FY2012 Request ............................................................................................. 38
Congressional Research Service

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations

Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 40
United States Coast Guard....................................................................................................... 44
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017............................................................................................... 44
House-Passed H.R. 2017................................................................................................... 44
President’s FY2012 Request ............................................................................................. 44
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 45
Vessels and Aircraft........................................................................................................... 46
Shore Facilities.................................................................................................................. 46
Marine Safety Mission ...................................................................................................... 46
Rescue-21.......................................................................................................................... 47
United States Secret Service.................................................................................................... 47
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017............................................................................................... 48
House-Passed H.R. 2017................................................................................................... 48
President’s FY2012 Request ............................................................................................. 48
Issue for Congress ............................................................................................................. 49
Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ........................................................ 50
National Protection and Programs Directorate........................................................................ 53
Management and Administration ...................................................................................... 53
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017............................................................................................... 53
House-Passed H.R. 2017................................................................................................... 53
President’s FY2012 Request ............................................................................................. 54
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 54
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security................................................................. 55
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017............................................................................................... 55
House-Passed H.R. 2017................................................................................................... 56
President’s FY2012 Request ............................................................................................. 56
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 58
Federal Protective Service....................................................................................................... 59
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017............................................................................................... 59
House-Passed H.R. 2017................................................................................................... 59
President’s FY2012 Request ............................................................................................. 59
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 60
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT).................................... 60
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017............................................................................................... 61
House-Passed H.R. 2017................................................................................................... 61
President’s FY2012 Request ............................................................................................. 62
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 62
Office of Health Affairs........................................................................................................... 62
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017............................................................................................... 63
House-Passed H.R. 2017................................................................................................... 63
President’s FY2012 Request ............................................................................................. 63
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 63
Federal Emergency Management Agency ............................................................................... 64
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017............................................................................................... 65
House-Passed H.R. 2017................................................................................................... 65
President’s FY2012 Request ............................................................................................. 66
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 66
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................................. 73
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services............................................................................. 75
Congressional Research Service

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations

Senate-Reported H.R. 2017............................................................................................... 75
House-Passed H.R. 2017................................................................................................... 76
President’s FY2012 Request ............................................................................................. 76
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 77
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center ............................................................................. 78
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017............................................................................................... 78
House-Passed H.R. 2017................................................................................................... 79
President’s FY2012 Request ............................................................................................. 79
Science and Technology .......................................................................................................... 79
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017............................................................................................... 79
House-Passed H.R. 2017................................................................................................... 79
President’s FY2012 Request ............................................................................................. 80
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 81
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office......................................................................................... 81
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017............................................................................................... 81
House-Passed H.R. 2017................................................................................................... 82
President’s FY2012 Request ............................................................................................. 82
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 83

Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations.................................................. 2
Table 2. FY2012 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS .......................................................... 6
Table 3. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2012 ............................................................................. 7
Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations..................................................................................... 8
Table 5. Title I: Departmental Management and Operations ......................................................... 11
Table 6. Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer Appropriations............................................. 18
Table 7. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations.......................................................... 25
Table 8. Customs and Border Protection Account Detail .............................................................. 29
Table 9. ICE Salaries and Expenses Account Detail...................................................................... 35
Table 10. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity.......................................................... 39
Table 11. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-Account Detail .................... 45
Table 12. FY2010 and FY2011 Enacted and FY2012 Budget Authority for the U.S. Secret
Service ........................................................................................................................................ 49
Table 13. Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ........................................ 51
Table 14. FY2010-FY2012 Budget Activity for NPPD Management and Administration
Appropriation.............................................................................................................................. 54
Table 15. Budget Authority for Infrastructure Protection and Information Security..................... 57
Table 16. Budget Authority for Grants and Training ..................................................................... 68
Table 17. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................. 74
Table 18. USCIS Budget Account Detail....................................................................................... 77
Table 19. Directorate of Science and Technology, Accounts and Activities.................................. 80
Congressional Research Service

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 20. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Accounts and Activities ....................................... 82
Table A-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2012 ............................ 85

Appendixes
Appendix. DHS Appropriations in Context................................................................................... 84

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 87

Congressional Research Service

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations

his report describes the President’s FY2012 request for funding for DHS programs and
activities, as submitted to Congress on February 6, 2011. It compares the enacted FY2011
T amounts to the request, the House-passed and Senate-reported appropriations bills for
FY2012. It tracks legislative action and congressional issues related to the FY2012 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.
Most Recent Developments
Continuing Resolutions and H.R. 2017
On September 30, 2011, the President signed into law a short-term continuing resolution (CR) to
continue funding for government operations through October 4, 2011, and on October 5 a second
CR that runs through November 18, 2011. Both resolutions funded operations at the FY2011 rate,
less 1.503% in order to accommodate the budget caps implemented by the Budget Control Act
(P.L. 112-10). The resolutions included $2.65 billion to replenish the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF)
which had been depleted through responding to multiple significant events in FY2011. The short-
term CR was passed as an amendment replacing the text of H.R. 2017, the Homeland Security
Appropriations bill. This procedure interrupted the process for creating a stand-alone Homeland
Security Appropriations bill to send to the President.
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2012 DHS Appropriations
bill on September 7, 2011, by a vote of 28-2. This report uses Senate-reported H.R. 2017 and the
accompanying report (S.Rept. 112-74) as the source for Senate-reported appropriations numbers,
and for some historical data pertaining to FY2011 appropriations. The Senate bill as approved by
the committee recommended a net discretionary appropriation of $41,000 million for DHS for
FY2012, not including $258 million for the global war on terrorism, and $4,200 million in
funding for FEMA disaster relief that would be paid for by adjustments to the discretionary cap
under the Budget Control Act. With those exclusions, this was $2,533 million below the
Administration’s request, and $667 million below the amount provided under P.L. 112-10.
House-Passed H.R. 2017
On June 2, 2011, the House passed H.R. 2017 with several amendments. This report uses House-
passed H.R. 2017 and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 112-91) as the source for House-passed
appropriations numbers. After floor action, the House bill carries a net discretionary appropriation
of $40,592 million for DHS for FY2012. Several amendments used management accounts as
offsets, leaving funding for those activities 44% below the requested level. Increases made to
DHS activities include $320 million for grant programs for firefighters and $10 million for CBP
to improve cellular communications along the southern border. During markup in the House
Appropriations Committee, an amendment by the subcommittee chairman added $1,000 million
in emergency funding for disaster relief, a move offset by transferring $1,000 million and
Congressional Research Service
1

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


rescinding $500 million in unspent funds from a Department of Energy automotive advanced
technology program.
President’s FY2012 Budget Request Submitted
The Administration requested a net appropriation (mandatory and discretionary) of $45,015
million in budget authority for FY2012. This amounts to a $1,610 million, or a 3.7%, increase
from the $43,405 million enacted for FY2011.1 Total budget authority, including appropriations,
fee revenues, and trust funds in the Administration’s budget request for DHS for FY2012 amounts
to $57,079 million as compared to $55,783 million enacted for FY2011.2
Net requested appropriations for major agencies within DHS were as follows: Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), $10,372 million; Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), $5,494
million; Transportation Security Administration (TSA), $5,514 million; Coast Guard, $8,677
million; Secret Service, $1,699 million; National Protection & Programs Directorate, $1,268
million; Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), $6,789 million; Science and
Technology, $1,176 million; and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $332 million.
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee
House
Conference
Markup
Committee
Report Approval
Report
House
Senate
H.Rept.
Passage
Committee
Senate
House Senate 112-91
H.R. 2017
Report
Passagea House Senate P.L.
5/13
5/26
6/2
9/7
(vv) (27-20)
(231-188)
(28-2)
Note: (VV) = voice vote, (UC) = unanimous consent.
a. The first short-term CR (running through October, 4 2011) was passed as an amendment that replaced the
text of H.R. 2017. This procedure interrupted the process for creating a stand-alone Homeland Security
Appropriations bill to send to the President.
Note on Most Recent Data
Data used in this report for FY2010 revised amounts are from the President’s Budget Documents.
FY2011 enacted amounts are from the DHS Expenditure Plan for Fiscal Year 2011, and in cases
where additional detail was required, S.Rept.112-74. Information on the FY2012 request is from
the President’s Budget Documents, the FY2012 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, and
the FY2012 DHS Budget in Brief. Information on House and Senate bills are drawn from the
appropriate versions of H.R. 2017, H.Rept. 112-91 and S.Rept. 112-74. Data used in the
Appendix are taken from the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2006-FY2012 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.

1 House Appropriations Committee, “Fact Sheet - FY2012 Homeland Security Bill - Summary Table,” press release,
May 12, 2011, http://appropriations.house.gov.
2 Department of Homeland Security, Budget in Brief FY 2012, Washington, DC, February 2011.
Congressional Research Service
2

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Background
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 generally been organized into
five titles:
• Title I contains appropriations for the Office of Management, the Office of the
Secretary, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of the Chief
Information Officer (CIO), Analysis and Operations (A&O), and the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG).
• 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.3
• Title III contains appropriations for the National Protection and Programs
Directorate (NPPD), Office of Health Affairs (OHA) Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).4
• 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).
• Title V contains general provisions providing various types of congressional
direction to the department.
The structure of the bill is not automatically symmetrical between House and Senate versions.
Additional titles are sometimes added to address special issues: For example, the FY2012 House
full committee mark-up added Title VI to carry a $1 billion emergency appropriation for the
Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). The Senate version carries no additional titles beyond what is
described above.
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

3 The U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program was appropriated within Title II
through the FY2007 appropriation. The FY2008 appropriation transferred US-VISIT, as proposed by the
Administration, to the newly created National Protection & Programs Directorate (NPPD) in Title III. Division E of
P.L. 110-161, the DHS Appropriations Act, 2008, enacted this reorganization.
4 Through the FY2007 appropriation, Title III contained appropriations for the Preparedness Directorate, Infrastructure
Protection and Information Security (IPIS) and 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.
Congressional Research Service
3

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 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 Act5
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.6 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 19907 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.

5 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517.
6 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.
7 P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.
Congressional Research Service
4

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Offsetting Collections8
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.
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations
In general practice, 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.
This year, no agreement on the budget was reached between the House and Senate until passage
of the Budget Control Act (BCA)(P.L. 112-25). Although the House passed a budget resolution,
the Senate did not. The BCA set limits on discretionary spending for FY2012-FY2021. Table 2
shows DHS’s 302(b) allocations for FY2011 and the current appropriations cycle.

8 Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff Jr., Analyst in American National Government.
Congressional Research Service
5

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Table 2. FY2012 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2011
FY2012 Request
FY2012 House
FY2012 Senate
FY2012 Enacted
Comparable
Comparable
Allocationa
Allocation
Comparable
41.661 43.356
42.290 41.000b

Source: U.S. Congress, House Appropriations, Homeland Security, FY2012 Homeland Security Bill - Summary
Table
, 112th Cong., 1st sess., May 12, 2011, and U.S. Congress, House Appropriations, Revised Suballocation to
Subcommittees Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Authority and Outlays
, 112th Cong., 1st sess., June 14, 2011, p. 2.
Note: Amounts may not total due to rounding.
a. This represents the revised allocation approved by the Appropriations Committee by voice vote on June
14, 2011. The initial allocation was $40,592 million.
b. The Senate allocation was made with the awareness that funding could be added for disaster relief through
mechanisms in the Budget Control Act without affecting the allocation.
Accounting for Emergency Funding, Overseas Contingency
Operations and Disaster Relief

As noted above, P.L. 112-25, the Budget Control Act (BCA), significantly changed the legislative
environment for the Homeland Security Appropriations bill. It established a series of annual caps
on discretionary spending from FY2012 to FY2021. For the first two years, it established a “sub-
cap” on security spending, including DHS. As Congress moves forward with appropriations
legislation, if the discretionary spending caps were to be exceeded, in most cases, a sequester
would occur – an automatic across-the-board rescission of budget authority to meet the cap.
There are three ways outlined in the BCA to raise the cap to accommodate certain types of
spending traditionally associated with the DHS appropriations bill: It can be done for overseas
contingency operations to fight the war on terror; for emergency situations; and for disaster relief.
Congress can adjust the cap as much as it wants to accommodate the first two. However, disaster
relief is no longer eligible for designation as an emergency under the BCA. The cap can be
adjusted upward to accommodate spending on disaster relief by a limited amount. That limit is
set for each of the fiscal years from FY2012 to FY2021 by the following formula:
Limit on disaster relief cap adjustment for the fiscal year = Rolling average of the disaster
relief spending over the last ten fiscal years (throwing out the high and low years) + the
unused amount of the potential adjustment for disaster relief from the previous fiscal year.
It remains to be seen how these new parameters for appropriations negotiations will impact the
final resolution of the FY2012 appropriations process. If Congress fails to adopt additional
measures recommended by the “supercommittee” set up by the BCA to make further reductions
in the deficit, a sequester could be triggered. The cap adjustment mechanism for disaster relief
was used for the first time in the Senate version of H.R. 2017, where they proposed raising the
discretionary cap by $4,200 million to accommodate additional funding for the DRF. However,
as the Senate version was used as a “vehicle” for passing the CR, deleting all that was in the
original bill, new legislation will need to be drafted to implement this adjustment, as well as to
make appropriations for DHS.
Congressional Research Service
6

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security

DHS Appropriations Trends
Table 3 presents DHS Appropriations, as enacted, for FY2003 through the FY2012 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 and FY2011)—defined as the filing of the first committee
report to accompany a version of a DHS appropriations bill. In cases where a previous year’s
data are not reflected in the report, as was the case for data for FY2011, the alternative source is
noted.
Table 3. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2012
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2012
FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010
FY2011 Request
29,069a 30,175 30,642b 31,679c 35,311d 38,817e 41,205 49,891f 43,405 49,616g
Sources: FY2008 enacted amounts are from Division E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint Explanatory
Statement for Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121
(incorporating amendments to the budget request). FY2009 enacted taken from S.Rept. 111-31. FY2010 enacted
amounts are from S.Rept. 111-222, P.L. 111-212, and P.L. 111-230. FY2011 enacted amounts are from the DHS
Expenditure Plan for Fiscal Year 2011
, and the FY2012 request amount is from H.Rept. 112-91.
Notes: Amounts may not total 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 mil ion. 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.
f.
Includes net $5,754 million in supplemental spending (P.L. 111-212, P.L. 111-230).
g. On September 9, 2011, the Administration requested an additional $4.6 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund
for FY2012. This is reflected in the total.
Summary of DHS Appropriations
Table 4 is a summary table comparing the enacted totals for FY2010 and FY2011 to the request
for, and congressional action on, the FY2012 appropriations. Totals represent net budget
authority, taking into account impacts of rescissions, and are inclusive of emergency spending.
Later tables will reflect fees and mandatory spending.

Congressional Research Service
7

.

Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations
(net budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2011 Appropriation
FY2012 Appropriation
FY2010 Total
FY2012
FY2012
Operational
(Revised +
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
Component
Supplementals)
Enacted
Supplemental Rescission
Total
Request
passed
reported FY2012
Enacted
Title I: Departmental Operations
Departmental
808 839
839 947
342
692

Management
Analysis and
333 334
334 355
344
339

Operations
Office of the
119 114
114 144
124
125

Inspector General
Subtotal: Title I
1,261
1,287


1,287
1,447
811
1,156

Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
Customs and Border
Protection 10,407
9,880


9,880
10,372
10,348
10,242

Immigration and
Customs Enforcement
5,517
5,501


5,501
5,494
5,547
5,535

Transportation
Security
Administration 5,130
5,296


5,296
5,515
5,502
5,305

U.S. Coast Guard
8,900
8,593


8,593
8,677
8,381
8,653

U.S. Secret Service
1,490
1,515


1,515
1,699
1,673
1,676

Subtotal: Title II
31,444
30,785


30,785
31,756
31,452
31,410

Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response and Recovery
National Protection &
Programs Directorate
1,314
1,216


1,216
1,268
1,231
1,254

Office of Health
159
Affairs 137
139


139
161
166
CRS-8

.

FY2011 Appropriation
FY2012 Appropriation
FY2010 Total
FY2012
FY2012
Operational
(Revised +
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
Component
Supplementals)
Enacted
Supplemental Rescission
Total
Request
passed
reported FY2012
Enacted
Federal Emergency
Management
Administration 12,230
7,209


7,209
11,389a 5,682 9,781b

Subtotal: Title III
13,681
8,564


8,564
12,819
7,079
6,994b

Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
Citizenship and
Immigration Services
246
146


146
369
132
121

Federal Law
Enforcement Training
Center 291
271


271
276
274
272

Science and
Technology 1,006
828


828
1,176
539
800

Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office
383
342


342
332
337
268

Net subtotal: Title
IV 1,926

1,589


1,589
2,154
1,283
1,461

Title V: General Provisions
National Special
Security Event
Reimbursement Fund
0
7


7
0
0
10

Data Center

Migration





15
St. Elizabeths / Mission

Support Consolidation





56
Reimbursement for

Spills of National
Significance





1
CG aircraft

replacement
(emergency)





18
CRS-9

.

FY2011 Appropriation
FY2012 Appropriation
FY2010 Total
FY2012
FY2012
Operational
(Revised +
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
Component
Supplementals)
Enacted
Supplemental Rescission
Total
Request
passed
reported FY2012
Enacted
Rescissions -41
-557c

-557
-42d -33 -103

Rescissions

(emergency funding)





-18
Subtotal: Title V
-41
-550


-550
-42
-33
-21

Title VI: Disaster Assistance
Subtotal: Title VI






1,000e 0

Title VII: Spending Reduction Account
Subtotal: Title VII





-1f 0

Net DHS budget
authority 49,523

41,661


41,661
48,356
40,591
41,000
Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS Expenditure Plan for FY 2011, FY2012 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2012 DHS Budget in Brief, P.L. 111-83, P.L. 112-10, and
H.R. 2017, as passed by the House.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding. Funding levels do not reflect transfers between components or from outside the department. The FY2011 supplemental
appropriations column and the FY2011 rescission column are placeholders. Thus, while no such funding proposals have yet been put forth for FY2011, 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. On September 9, 2011, the Administration requested an additional $4.6 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund for FY2012. This is reflected in the total.
b. Includes $4,200 million for the DRF “paid for” by an adjustment to the discretionary cap under the Budget Control Act.
c. This total reflects the rescissions included in P.L. 112-10. An additional $107 million rescission was included in P.L. 112-8.
d. These rescissions are accounted for in other titles, but are shown here for comparison.
e. This is emergency funding, offset with rescissions from other legislation – therefore it does not impact the total net budget authority.
f.
This reflects a reduction on the 302(b) for the bill – therefore it does not impact the total net budget authority.

CRS-10

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Title I: Departmental Management and Operations9
Title I covers the general administrative expenses of DHS. It includes the Office of the Secretary
and Executive Management (OSEM), which is comprised of the immediate Office of the
Secretary and 12 entities that report directly to the Secretary; the Under Secretary for
Management (USM) and its components, such as the offices of the Chief Administrative Officer
(OCAO), Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO), and Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO); 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 Inspector General (OIG);
and DHS Headquarters Consolidation. Table 5, below, shows Title I appropriations for FY2010,
FY2011, the President’s request for FY2012, the House-passed amounts for FY2012, and the
Senate-reported amounts for FY2012.
Table 5. Title I: Departmental Management and Operations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2011 Appropriation
FY2012 Appropriation
FY2010 Total
FY2012
FY2012
Operational
(Revised +
FY2011
FY2011 FY2011 FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
FY2012
Component
Supplementals)
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
passed
reported Enacted
Office of the
148 137

143 62 135

Secretary and
Executive
Management
Office of the
254 239

249 107 237

Under
Secretary for
Management
Office of the
61 53
62 51 51

Chief Financial
Officer
Office of the
345 333

278 122 268

Chief
Information
Officer
Analysis and
333 334

355 344 339

Operations
Office of the
2 0

0 0 0

Federal
Coordinator
for Gulf Coast
Rebuilding
DHS
- 77
215 0 0b

Headquarters
Consolidation

9 Prepared by Barbara L. Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
11

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations



FY2011 Appropriation
FY2012 Appropriation
FY2010 Total
FY2012
FY2012
Operational
(Revised +
FY2011
FY2011 FY2011 FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
FY2012
Component
Supplementals)
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
passed
reported Enacted
Office of the
119a 114a


144
124a 125a

Inspector
General
Net Budget
1,261 1,287


1,447
811 1,156


Authority:
Title I

Sources: CRS Analysis of the DHS Expenditure Plan for FY 2011, FY2012 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications,
the FY2012 DHS Budget in Brief, P.L. 111-83, P.L. 112-10, H.R. 2017, as passed by the House, and S.Rept. 112-74.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding. The FY2011 supplemental appropriations column and the
FY2011 rescission column are placeholders. Thus, while no such funding has yet been put forth for FY2011,
supplemental appropriations and rescissions have occurred on numerous occasions for past DHS appropriations.
The House-passed amounts in the table include reductions agreed to as fol ows:
H.Amdt. 349 to increase funding by $320 million for Firefighters Assistance Grants offset by reductions from the
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, Office of the Under Secretary for Management, and Office of
Chief Information Officer, offered by Representative Steven LaTourette, and agreed to on a 333-87 (Rol No.
384) vote on June 1, 2011.
H.Amdt. 351 to increase funding for Immigration Customs and Enforcement by $1 million offset by reducing
funds for Homeland Security Department Executive Management by a similar amount, offered by Representative
Edward Royce, and agreed to on a 268-151 (Rol No. 386) vote on June 1, 2011.
H.Amdt. 353 to reduce the funding for the Office of the Under Secretary for Management by $600,000 and
applying the savings to the Spending Reduction Account, offered by Representative Paul Broun, and agreed to by
voice vote on June 1, 2011.
H.Amdt. 354 to increases funding for border security fencing and infrastructure by $10 million offset by a
reduction in funding for the Office of the Under Secretary for Management by a similar amount, offered by
Representative Ted Poe, and agreed to on a 327-93 (Rol No. 387) vote on June 1, 2011.
a. Does not include a $16 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Account.
b. The Senate provided $56 million for DHS headquarters consolidation in Title V of their bill.
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017
H.R. 2017, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, would provide these
appropriations, as compared with the President’s request: OSEM, $135 million (a reduction of $7
million or 5.6% less than the President’s request); USM, $237 million ($12 million or 4.8% less);
OCFO, $51 million ($11 million or 17.7% less); OCIO, $268 million ($10 million or 3.6% less);
and AOO, $339 million ($16 million or 4.5% less). The OIG receives $125 million ($19 million
or 13.2% less) in direct appropriations, plus a $16 million transfer from the FEMA Disaster Relief
Fund for its oversight of disaster assistance. No funding is recommended for DHS Headquarters
Consolidation under Title I, although $56 million is provided in Title V. The total funding
provided by the Senate-reported bill for Title I was $1,156 million. This represents a decrease of
$291 million, or 20.1%, from the President’s request.
The Senate-reported bill would provide that $35 million of the appropriation could not be
obligated until DHS submits to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations a
comprehensive plan for implementing a system to track through biometric means foreign visitors
Congressional Research Service
12

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


leaving the country by air in FY2012, or certifies in writing to Congress that the statutory
requirements for such be repealed.10
For the OCPO, funding is provided to enhance the capabilities of the department’s acquisition
workforce and to add cost analysts to each of DHS’ major components to oversee large-scale
procurements. The office is directed to brief the committee within 60 days after the act’s
enactment on the acquisition workforce, including the risks of not filling acquisition positions and
the long-term strategy to fill gaps in competencies.
Under the OCAO, $5 million is provided for continued maintenance and upgrade of the
department’s Nebraska Avenue Complex facilities, which will allow for completion of the project
on the perimeter fence and for other mechanical, electrical, and building improvements. The
Chief Administrative Officer is directed to brief the committee within 90 days after the act’s
enactment on savings to be accrued from the disposal of surplus property.
For the OCFO, the funding does not include the $11 million requested in the budget for the
Transformation and Systems Consolidation (TASC) project since the department canceled its
plans for acquiring TASC. DHS is directed to maintain frequent communications with the
committee on its financial management improvement plans. The balances that remain available
from prior year appropriations for TASC could be obligated in FY2012 with the approval of a
new strategy by the Acquisition Review Board and the department’s independent evaluation to
validate the strategy.
For the OCIO, the appropriation of $268 million includes $106 million for salaries and expenses
and $162 million, to be available until FY2014, for technology investments across the
department. The technology funded is allocated as $39 million for information technology
services, $79 million for infrastructure and security activities, and $44 million for the homeland
security data network. The office is required to submit a multi-year investment plan to the Senate
and House Committees on Appropriations with the FY2013 budget submission.
Under the AOO, the Chief Intelligence Officer is directed to submit an expenditure plan for
FY2012 within 60 days after the act’s enactment. According to the committee report, the plan is
to focus Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) activities on areas where DHS “can provide unique
expertise or serve intelligence customers who are not supported by other components of the
Intelligence Community, consistent with current statute and Executive orders, and in a way that
does not impair intelligence support”11 to the department’s senior leadership.12
Among other directives included in the Senate committee report for the departmental
management and operations accounts are the following:
• The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (OCRCL) and Immigration and
Customs Enforcement are directed to jointly brief the committee on findings and
recommendations within 30 days after the OCRCL completes its review of
immigration enforcement programs.

10 S.Rept. 112-74, p. 12.
11 Ibid., pp. 25-26.
12 Ibid., p. 26.
Congressional Research Service
13

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


• The Office of Policy is directed to submit a report to the committee by April 13,
2012, on the status of each state in implementing REAL ID and strategies related
to compliance. The Assistant Secretary for Policy is directed to brief the
committee within 90 days after the act’s enactment on resources, by DHS
component (including components with no presence), in the U.S. Virgin Islands
and the need for additional resources to be stationed in the Islands permanently.
• The Secretary is directed to submit a revised plan on gaps between actual and
budgeted collections of user fees to the committee within 90 days after the act’s
enactment and updates on a quarterly basis thereafter.
• The Under Secretary for Management and the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology are directed to brief the committee on efforts to leverage the
expertise of the Science and Technology Directorate with regard to test and
evaluation processes within 90 days after the act’s enactment.
• The Deputy Secretary of DHS and the Deputy Secretary of Defense are directed
to submit a joint report to the committee by May 1, 2012, that will evaluate the
costs and benefits of establishing a National Guard cybersecurity team or an
equivalent civilian team. The report is to discuss the recommended command
hierarchy, organizational responsibilities with regard to guidance and training,
and establishment of critical relationships across agencies with responsibilities
for cybersecurity.
House-Passed H.R. 2017
H.R. 2017, as passed by the House, would provide these appropriations, as compared with the
President’s request: OSEM, $62 million (a reduction of $81 million or 56.6% less than the
President’s request); USM, $107 million ($142 million or 57% less); OCFO, $51 million ($11
million or 17.7% less); OCIO, $122 million ($156 million or 56.1% less); AOO, $344 million
($11 million or 3.1% less); and OIG, $124 million ($20 million or 13.9% less). No funding is
recommended for DHS headquarters consolidation. The total funding provided by the House-
passed bill for Title I was $811 million. This represents a decrease of $636 million, or 44%, from
the President’s request.
Under the OSEM appropriation, the Secretary is directed to submit the National Preparedness
Goal and the National Preparedness System to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations no later than October 15, 2011, and January 15, 2012, respectively.13 The House-
passed bill would provide that $63 million of the appropriation could not be obligated until the
committees receive the two submissions and the Secretary’s determination on implementation of
biometric air exit. This is $1 million more than remains in the account in the House-passed
version of the bill as a result of H.Amdt. 349 and H.Amdt. 351, which used the account as an
offset.
Under the USM appropriation, $5 million would be available until September 30, 2016, for the
alteration and improvement of facilities, tenant improvements, and relocation costs to consolidate
the department’s headquarters operations at the Nebraska Avenue Complex and $17 million

13 The National Preparedness Goal was released October 7, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
14

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


would be available until September 30, 2014, for the Human Resources Information Technology
program.
Under the CIO appropriation, $72.3 million would be available until September 30, 2014, for
development and acquisition of information technology equipment, software services, and related
activities. Not later than 60 days after the act’s enactment the CIO would be required to submit an
expenditure plan for all information technology acquisition projects that are funded under the
Office of the CIO or by multiple components of the department to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations. The plan would include, for each project, the project name, key
milestones, funding sources, detailed annual and lifecycle costs, and projected cost savings or
cost avoidance to be achieved.
House-Reported H.R. 2017
Prior to floor action, the management accounts were $330 million larger than after House
passage. The House Appropriations Committee recommended these appropriations for
management accounts, as compared with the President’s request: OSEM, $127 million ($16
million or 11.2% less); USM, $235 million ($14 million or 5.6% less); OCFO, $51 million ($11
million or 17.7% less); and OCIO, $261 million ($17 million or 6.1% less). No funding was
recommended for DHS Headquarters Consolidation. The total funding recommended by the
House committee for Title I was $1,142 million. This represented a decrease of $305 million, or
21.1%, from the President’s request.
For DHS Headquarters Consolidation, no funding was recommended. The House committee
report expressed concern about rising costs in the portion of the project funded through GSA, and
a lack of coordination between the DHS and GSA plans for funding. The report went on to cite
difficulties in funding “minimum elements of the project” due to the budget request’s
underfunding of disaster relief and reliance on unauthorized fee proposals.
For the OCFO, the committee did not include funding of $11 million for Transformation and
Systems Consolidation (TASC) because the department cancelled its solicitation for the project.
DHS is to “keep the Committee informed on its strategy for establishing a core financial system
and any plans for integrating its remaining management systems for acquisitions and assets.”
The House committee report includes two significant directives under the OCFO account. The
first relates to the department’s annual congressional budget justifications. New report language
appears that emphasizes:
The CFO shall also submit, as part of the Department’s 2013 justification materials to
Congress, complete explanations and justifications for all proposed legislative language,
whether it is new or amends existing law. Such information should be provided regardless of
whether the proposed changes are substantive or technical in nature and include an annotated
comparison of proposed versus existing language.
The second directive relates to the process by which the department developed its budget,
expressing the House committee’s view that $645 million in new fee revenue is “hypothetical,” as
the fee increases have not been authorized, and CBO disagrees with the Administration’s
estimates of how much additional revenue would be generated. The committee notes that as a
result, “The Committee is therefore compelled to fill the huge budgetary hole left to it by the
Congressional Research Service
15

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Department, while not cutting funding required for critical homeland security missions, as is
evident in this bill.” The report goes on to note that:
in the future [the Committee] will reject any funding proposals based on such hypothetical
funding scenarios or on proposals for legislation under the jurisdiction of authorizing
committees. While the Committee expects to be kept informed about the status of such
legislative proposals, it will not recognize them as relevant to its appropriations work until
they have been enacted into law.
For the OIG appropriation, the House committee stated that its recommendation for reduced
funding is “in the interest of efficiency, with the expectation that OIG will prioritize funding to
meet its stated needs for enhanced oversight of emergency and Departmental programs, as well as
audits of 9/11 Commission recommendation implementation.” The report also notes that the
committee “will continue the practice of transferring $16,000,000 from the Disaster Relief Fund
to OIG in fiscal year 2012,” but that it “hopes in the future to reach the point where OIG will fund
its disaster-related audits and investigations from its core budget.”
Among other new directives included in the committee report for the departmental management
and operations accounts are the following:
• The Secretary is directed to submit a report by December 1, 2011, that will
include “(1) A prioritized list of efficiencies being implemented as a result of the
Secretary’s Efficiency Review, and an accounting of progress against that list; (2)
A list of positions the Department intends to convert from contractors to Federal
positions, and an accounting of progress against that list; (3) A list of components
and specific procurements where additional oversight personnel are needed
relative to the current personnel and existing capabilities, and where such
personnel are being assigned; and (4) How reforms in the headquarters structure
and function are providing better support and management for Department field
operations.”
• The House committee directs the department to arrange for an independent
evaluation of its efficiency review and provide the results to the committee
within 30 days after the evaluation is completed.
• The OCIO “is directed to brief the Committees on Appropriations—in
coordination with other components as deemed necessary—no later than 60 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act detailing Department-wide efforts to
combat ‘‘insider threats’’ in the cyber domain, including, but not limited to an
overview of: (1) the extent of the Department’s ability to monitor the
unauthorized removal of sensitive unclassified and classified material from DHS
information systems; (2) changes made in the wake of recent information
security breaches, including any new restrictions to DHS information systems
and databases, both internally and to external stakeholders; (3) any recent
restrictions placed on DHS users by external, interagency stakeholders on access
to certain databases and an assessment of the operational impact of such
restrictions; and (4) plans to improve the DHS information security architecture
and policies to preclude similar breaches from happening at DHS.”
• DHS is encouraged “to seek direct hiring authority for intelligence analyst
vacancies, both to speed up the conversion process and to ensure that qualified
Congressional Research Service
16

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


candidates are not recruited elsewhere due to bureaucratic delays in the DHS
hiring process.”
President’s FY2012 Request
FY2012 request compared to the FY2011 enacted appropriations was as follows: OSEM, $143
million, an increase of $6 million (+4.4%); USM, $249 million, an increase of $10 million
(+4.2%); OCFO, $62 million, an increase of $9 million (+17.0%); OCIO, $278 million, a
decrease of $55 million (-16.5%); AOO, $355 million, an increase of $20 million (+6.0%); OIG,
$144 million, an increase of $30 million (+26.3%); and DHS Headquarters Consolidation, $215
million, an increase of $138 million (+179.2%).
The largest increase from FY2011 under the President’s request for FY2012 would occur for DHS
Headquarters Consolidation (requesting $215 million and no full-time equivalent (FTE)
employees, up from $77 million in FY2011). The next-largest increase would occur in the OIG
(requesting $144 million and 676 total FTEs, up from $114 million and an undetermined number
of FTEs in FY2011). The Administration’s request funds the OIG without relying on a transfer
from the Disaster Relief Fund, which has been made since FY2007 specifically to support
oversight of disaster-related activities.14 Among accomplishments that are anticipated during
FY2012, the Office of Emergency Management Oversight, within the OIG, “plans to complete 15
management reviews of FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] programs and
operations and 75 reviews of FEMA grants.”15
The OCIO requested $278 million and 291 total FTEs, including $32.3 million to enhance the
cyber security and information sharing capability throughout the department. Within the OCIO
account, the Office of Accessible Systems and Technology requested $1 million and three FTEs
for, among other reasons, to support technical assistance and accessibility helpdesk services for
DHS employees with disabilities. The justification states that a 75% increase in technical
assistance and a 125% increase in accessibility helpdesk tickets has occurred over the past year
and that the “numbers are expected to increase dramatically by FY2012.” Under the department’s
balanced workforce strategy to ensure “that only federal employees perform work that is
inherently governmental,” contractor positions will continue to be converted to DHS positions.16
The OCFO is requesting $62 million and 232 total FTEs. According to the OCFO justification, a
planned accomplishment in FY2012 is the continuation of improvements to the financial process
at the headquarters “to eliminate overpayments and improper payments.” Within the OCFO
account, the Special Access Program Control Office requested $640,000 and three FTEs to
establish a system for protecting sensitive information throughout the department’s budget and
financial process. The project will include modifications to information technology, secure
telephones, and the use of safes that are approved by the General Services Administration.17

14 U.S. Congress, House Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Explanatory Statement of the
Managers, 110th Cong., 1st sess., January 2008, Book 1 - Division E (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 1124.
15 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Congressional Justification, FY2012, pp. OIG-
5, OIG-7, and OIG-10.
16 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Departmental Management and Operations, Office of the Chief Information
Officer, Congressional Justification, Fiscal Year 2012, pp. OCIO-4, OCIO-10 - OCIO-11, OCIO-28, and OCIO-34.
17 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Departmental Management and Operations, Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, Congressional Justification, Fiscal Year 2012, pp. OCFO-8 and OCFO-11 - OCFO-12.
Congressional Research Service
17

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 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.18 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.19
Table 6, below, shows the funding for the OCHCO for FY2010, the President’s request for
FY2012, the House-passed amounts for FY2012, and the Senate-reported amounts for FY2012.
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)
FY2012
FY2012
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
FY2012
Account
Enacted
Enacted
Request
passed
reported
Enacted
Salaries and Expenses CHCO
25
25
28
26
25

Human Resources Information
17 17 17 16 14
Technology
Total 42
42
45
41
39

Sources:, CRS Analysis of the DHS Expenditure Plan for FY 2011, FY2012 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications,
the FY2012 DHS Budget in Brief, P.L. 111-83, P.L. 112-10, H.R. 2017, as passed by the House, and S.Rept. 112-74.
Notes: Amounts may not add correctly due to rounding.
Personnel and the Senate-Reported Bill
The Senate committee recommended an appropriation of $39 million for the OCHCO, $6 million
or 13.3% less than the President’s request. Of the total, $25 million is allocated for salaries and
expenses and $14 million is allocated to the HRIT Program. The reduction in HRIT program
funding results from prior-year balances remaining available.
The OCHCO is directed to brief the committee within 90 days after the act’s enactment on
progress in implementing training and leadership development programs. The briefing is also to
include information on the ongoing reforms to the hiring process, closing of mission-critical

18 FY2011 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, pp.
USM-4 and USM-49.
19 Ibid., p. USM-15.
Congressional Research Service
18

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


competency gaps, performance metrics, and plans to acquire an automated tool for performance
management and appraisal. In addition, the office and the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center (FLETC) are directed to brief the committee within six months after enactment on the
arrangement under which the entire department’s human resources services will be provided by
FLETC instead of by the OCHCO beginning in FY2012. With regard to the Balanced Workforce
Strategy for converting contract jobs to federal positions, the USM and the CHCO are directed to
brief the committee by November 30, 2011, on the ongoing analysis of the workforce, plans for
implementation, and the calculation of and estimated savings associated with the strategy.
The department is directed to review the current limitations on overtime for its law enforcement
personnel and propose any necessary adjustments in the FY2013 budget.
The Senate-reported bill includes the same general provisions that are related to personnel as the
House bill: the obligation of funds for OSEM is prohibited for new hires unless they are verified
through E-Verify; funds cannot be used to pay for first-class travel; and funds cannot be used 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.
In addition, DHS is prohibited from using funds to carry out reorganization authority (routine or
small reallocations of personnel or functions within components of the department). Another
provision permits administrative law judges to be available on a temporary basis to serve on an
arbitration panel as needed for cases related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Personnel and the House-Passed Bill
The amounts listed in Table 5 and Table 6 are the House-passed amounts for FY2012. According
to staff of the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security Appropriations, because of the
reductions to the Under Secretary for Management account in the House-passed bill (discussed
earlier), the OCHCO amounts may be expected to be reduced by about 50%, but the precise
funding totals are not yet available.20 The House-passed bill narrative for the USM account states
that $17 million would be available until September 30, 2014, for the Human Resources
Information Technology program.
Personnel and the House-Reported Bill
The House committee recommended an appropriation of $41 million for the OCHCO, that is $4
million less than the President’s request. Of the total, $26 million is allocated for salaries and
expenses and $16 million (rounded) is allocated to the HRIT Program. The committee report does
not provide any additional information on the OCHCO appropriation.
Among general provisions that are related to personnel are these: the obligation of funds for
OSEM is prohibited for new hires unless they are verified through E-Verify; funds cannot be used
to pay for first-class travel; and funds cannot be used 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.

20 Telephone conversation with House Subcommittee on Homeland Security Appropriations staff on July 22, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
19

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Personnel and the President’s FY2012 Request
According to the DHS Justifications, the FY2012 budget requested $45 million and 163 full-time
equivalent (FTE) employees for the OCHCO.21 The requested funding for OCHCO salaries and
expenses was $3 million more than the $25 million provided for FY2011. The number of FTEs
would increase by 22, from 108 to 130, for FY2012. The appropriation requested for HRIT for
FY2012 was $17 million, the same amount as the funding authorized for FY2011. The FTEs for
this account would increase by 8, from 25 to 33, for FY2012.22
The OCHCO requested $750,000 and three FTEs to design and implement a comprehensive
leader program for the department, and $2 million and seven FTEs for workforce training
programs. According to the DHS justification, the funds will be used to implement a
comprehensive framework for identifying skill gaps in mission critical occupations and perform
assessments of competency; to deploy career paths for mission critical occupations; to implement
a rotational assignments program; and to deliver new or enhanced training in foreign languages,
labor management, and employee preparedness.23 The justification for the OCHCO stated several
initiatives, including development of “a comprehensive proposal” that will “identify executive
resource requirements for FY2012 and FY2013;” continuation of reforms to the department’s
hiring process in coordination with the Office of Personnel Management and DHS components;
and establishment of a department-wide drug testing program that will test employees in sensitive
positions, in positions requiring commercial driver’s licenses, and in positions requiring firearms
to be carried, and include pre-employment testing.24
St. Elizabeths and Headquarters Consolidation25
The Department of Homeland Security’s headquarters footprint occupies more than 7 million
square feet of office space in about 45 separate locations in the greater Washington, DC, area.
This is largely a legacy of how the department was assembled in a short period of time from 22
separate federal agencies who were themselves spread across the National Capital region. The
fragmentation of headquarters is cited by the Department as a major contributor to inefficiencies,
including time lost shuttling staff between headquarters elements; additional security, real estate,
and administrative costs; and reduced cohesion among the components that make up the
department.
To unify the department’s headquarters functions, in October 2006 the department approved a
$3.4 billion master plan to create a new DHS headquarters on the grounds of St Elizabeths in
Anacostia. According to GSA, this is the largest federal office construction since the Pentagon
was built during World War II. $1.4 billion of this project was to be funded through the DHS

21 FY2012 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, pp.
USM-9 and USM-12.
22 Ibid., pp. USM- 9 and USM-12.
23 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for
Management, Congressional Justification, Fiscal Year 2012, pp. USM-23 and USM -25.
24 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Departmental Management and Operations, Office of the Under Secretary
for Management, Congressional Justification, Fiscal Year 2012, pp. USM-10 - USM-12.
25 Prepared by William L. Painter, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government
and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
20

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


budget, and $2 billion through the GSA.26 Thus far, $375 million has been appropriated to DHS
for the project and $871 million to GSA. Phase 1A of the project – a new Coast Guard
headquarters facility – is nearing completion with the funding already provided by Congress.
Not all DHS functions in the greater Washington, DC, area are slated to move to the new facility.
The space available in a completed St. Elizabeths campus can hold the headquarters functions of
the Department and provide command and control facilities—not house the entire department.
Although not all DHS would move to St. Elizabeths, since the Administration’s FY2010 request,
the Administration has sought funding for consolidation of some of these other offices to fewer
locations to save money on lease costs as well.
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017
The Senate recommended $56 million in Title V of their version of the DHS appropriations bill to
complete the Coast Guard headquarters facility, $159 million (74%) below the President’s
requested funding level.27 The Senate also included in their bill a requirement that DHS provide
within 60 days of enactment an expenditure plan and an initial analysis of the mix of offices to be
housed at the headquarters complex.
House-Passed H.R. 2017
The House recommended no funding for the St. Elizabeths project or headquarters lease
consolidation in their bill. In report language, the Committee stated:
[B]oth costs and schedule of the current project are matters of concern for the Committee. In
hearings the Committee held on the St. Elizabeths project in 2010, it became clear that
adequate cost controls were essential for this project.… Yet costs have grown in a year from
$3,400,000,000 to $3,600,000,000 chiefly due to increases in the General Services
Administration share of the project. The Committee notes that dependence on GSA funding
requires coordination of funding and management, and that the proposed DHS request, even
if resources were available, would likely not coincide with necessary GSA funding.
Furthermore, delays are already being factored into the Department’s planning, as it has
projected it will postpone work on the FEMA section of the facility.28
In minority views included in the report, the ranking members of the subcommittee and full
committee had a different perspective:
Of particular concern is the decision to provide no funding for the new DHS headquarters or
for the consolidation of leased property, a penny-wise and pound-foolish decision. Already,
based on the delay in finalizing the 2011 bill and the reduced resources provided in that bill
for DHS headquarters construction activities, the cost of the headquarters project has grown
by $200 million, from a total cost of $3.4 billion to $3.6 billion. The decision to deny an
additional $159,643,000 in 2012 to finalize construction of the first phase of the new
headquarters project and begin construction on the second phase will result in higher costs in

26 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Homeland Security
Headquarters Facilities
, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., March 25, 2010 (Washington: GPO, 2010), pp. 335-366.
27 As of this writing, the Senate has not filed its version of the Financial Services Appropriations bill, which would
include GSA’s share of the funding.
28 H.Rept. 112-91, p. 16.
Congressional Research Service
21

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


the out years and will delay, by at least one year, when the Coast Guard can move into its
new headquarters facility (phase one), which is already under construction.29
President’s FY2012 Request
The Administration requested $215 million for headquarters consolidation through the DHS
budget, including $160 million for new construction at St. Elizabeths, and $55 million for lease
consolidation. They also requested $217 million in the General Services Administration budget
for the project, including funding for a planned highway alterations to provide better motor
vehicle access to the campus.30
Analysis and Operations31
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

29 Ibid., p. 202.
30 For information on the General Services Administration budget, please consult CRS Report R42008, Financial
Services and General Government: FY2012 Appropriations
, by Garrett Hatch.
31 Prepared by Jerome P. Bjelopera, Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
22

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53), the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 (codified at 6 U.S.C. 201) was amended to codify the Office of Intelligence and Analysis
and the Office of Infrastructure Protection and made the head of the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis an Under Secretary position. It also designated the Under Secretary for Intelligence and
Analysis as the department’s Chief Intelligence Officer with responsibility for managing the
entire DHS Intelligence Enterprise.
In 2008, former Secretary Chertoff established the Office of Operations Coordination and
Planning (OPS), built on the foundation of the former Office of Operations Coordination. OPS
supports departmental and interagency crisis and contingency planning and operations to support
the Secretary of Homeland Security in his/her role as the principal federal official for domestic
incident management.32
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 H.R. 2017
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $339 million for the Analysis and
Operations (AOO) account. This is an increase of $5 million (+1.5%) over the enacted FY2011
amount of $334 million and a decrease of $16 million (-5%) from the budget request. It is a
decrease of $8 million (-2%) below the House-passed version of H.R. 2017. The committee
denied a request for the C2 Gap Filler Technology initiative33 because of an insufficient
justification, the need to support core DHS operations, and the lack of clarity surrounding future
costs and requirements. The committee also required the DHS Chief Intelligence Officer to
submit an expenditure plan for FY2012 no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the
act. It also required quarterly briefings from I&A regarding progress in placing DHS intelligence
professionals in state and local fusion centers.
House-Passed H.R. 2017
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $344 million for the Analysis and
Operations (AOO) account, $11 million (-3%) below the amount in the President’s FY2012
request. The recommendation is $10 million more than the amount enacted in FY2011. The

32 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.”
33 This is a project designed to improve information sharing between U.S. military and Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) elements monitoring air traffic in North America.
Congressional Research Service
23

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


committee denied a request for the C2 Gap Filler Technology initiative because of insufficient
justification and uncertainties regarding scope and total cost. No changes were made to the
committee’s version of the Analysis and Operations section of the bill through floor action.
President’s FY2012 Request
The FY2012 request for the AOO account was $355 million, an increase of $20 million (+6%)
over the enacted FY2011 amount of $334 million. The account request includes funding for 1,103
positions, and 1,017 FTE, an increase of 269 positions and 224 FTE from 2011.
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 and FY2011 enacted, and FY2012 appropriation action for Title II.

Congressional Research Service
24

.

Table 7. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2011 Appropriation
FY2012 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2010 Total
FY2012
FY2012
(Revised +
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-

Supplementals)
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
passed
reported FY2012
Enacted
Customs & Border









Protection
Salaries and expensesa 8,295 8,196
8,196
8,726
8,770
8,762

Automation modernization
422
336
336
364
334
334

Border Security Fencing,
814 573
573
528
510
400

Infrastructure, and Technology
Air and Marine Interdictions
552
515
515
471
500
507

Facilities Management
326 259
259
284
234
239

(Construction)
Fee accountsb (offset)
1,432
1,418
1,418
1,468
1,413
1,413

Gross total
11,845
11,298
11,298
11,840
11,761
11,655

Net total (gross less fees,
10,407 9,880
9,880
10,372
10,348
10,242

trust funds and mandatory)
Immigration & Customs







Enforcement
Salaries and expenses
5,422
5,427
5,427
5,497
5,523
5,513

Automation & infrastructure
90 74
74
14
24
22

modernization
Construction 5
0
0
0
0
0

Rescission



-16



Fee accountsc (offset)
305
305
305
312
312
312

Gross total
5,822
5,805
5,805
5,806
5,859
5,846

Net total (gross less fees,
5,517 5,501
5,501
5,494
5,547
5,535

trust funds and mandatory)
CRS-25

.

FY2011 Appropriation
FY2012 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2010 Total
FY2012
FY2012
(Revised +
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-

Supplementals)
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
passed
reported FY2012
Enacted
Transportation Security







Administration
Aviation security (gross
funding)
5,214 5,213
5,213
5,401
5,225
5,294

Surface Transportation
111 106
106
135
130
135

Security
Transportation Threat
220 204
204
224
224
204

Assessment and Credentialing
Transportation Security
1,002 987
987
1,114
1,033
1,042

Support
Federal Air Marshals
860
928
928
991
961
981

Aviation security capital fund
(mandatory—does not reflect
250 250
250
250
250
250

in net discretionary totals)
Gross total
7,656
7,688
7,688
8,115
7,823
7,906

Offsetting aviation security
-2,229 -2,100
-2,100
-2,310
-2,030
-2,310
col ections
Credentialing/Fee accountsd
-48 -41
-41
-40
-40
-40

(offset to TTAC)
Net total (gross less fees,
5,130e 5,296
5,296
5,515 5,502
5,305
trust funds and mandatory)
U.S. Coast Guard







Operating expenses
6,909
6,894
6,894
6,820f
7,071
7,078

Environmental compliance &
13 13
13
17
10
17

restoration
Reserve training
134
133
133
137
132
134

Acquisition, construction, &
1,552 1,517
1,517
1,422
1,152
1,392

improvements
CRS-26

.

FY2011 Appropriation
FY2012 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2010 Total
FY2012
FY2012
(Revised +
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-

Supplementals)
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
passed
reported FY2012
Enacted
Alteration of bridges
4
0
0
0
0
0

Research, development, tests,
25 25
25
20
13
28

& evaluation
Retired pay (mandatory—
does not reflect in net
1,361 1,401
1,401
1,440
1,440
1,440

discretionary total)
Health care fund contribution
264
265
265
262
262
262

Gross Total
10,262
10,248
10,248
10,117
10,080
10,351

Net Total (gross less fees,
8,900 8,593
8,593
8,677
8,381
8,653

trust funds and mandatory)g
U.S. Secret Service







Salaries and expenses
1,486
1,511
1,511
1,692
1,666
1,670

Acquisition, construction, and
4 4
4
7
7
5

improvements
Total 1,490
1,515
1,515
1,699
1,673
1,675

Net Budget Authority: Title II
31,444
30,785
30,785
31,756
31,452
31,410

Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS Expenditure Plan for FY 2011, FY2012 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2012 DHS Budget in Brief, P.L. 111-83, P.L. 112-10, H.R.
2017, as passed by the House, S.Rept. 112-74, and H.R. 2017, as reported in the Senate.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding. Supplemental appropriations and rescissions have occurred on numerous occasions for past DHS appropriations.
a. Roughly $3 million of this line is offset from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
b. Fees include COBRA, Land Border, Immigration Inspection, Immigration Enforcement, and Puerto Rico.
c. Fees include Exam, Student Exchange and Visitor Fee, Breached Bond, Immigration User, and Land Border.
d. Fees include TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks.
e. Includes a $4 million rescission of prior year unobligated balances.
f.
Does not include $258 million request for overseas contingency operations, which is requested as a transfer from DoD.
g. Does not include mandatory funding or overseas contingency operation funding, which does not count as discretionary budget authority.
CRS-27

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Customs and Border Protection34
CBP is responsible for security at and between ports-of-entry (POE) along the border, with a
priority mission of preventing the entry of terrorists and 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 subaccount-level detail for CBP appropriations
and funding for FY2010-FY2012.
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017
The Senate Appropriations Committee proposed an appropriation of $10,242 million for CBP in
FY2012 and estimated fee collections of $1,413 million (total budget authority of $11,655
million). This recommendation amounted to an increase of $362 million (3.6%) over the FY2011
appropriated level of $9,880 million and a decrease of $106 million (0.9%) below the House-
passed version of H.R. 2017.
House-Passed H.R. 2017
The House Appropriations Committee proposed an appropriation of $10,338 million for CBP in
FY2012 (total funding authority of $11,751), amounting to an increase of $458 million (4.6%)
over the FY2011 appropriated level, and a decrease of $34 million (0.3%) from the
Administration’s requested level. The House approved the committee’s recommendation with
one amendment—adding $10 million to the CBP budget to improve emergency cellular
communications along the southwest border.
President’s FY2012 Request
The Administration requested an appropriation of $11,840 million in gross budget authority for
CBP for FY2012, amounting to a $595 million (5.3%) increase from the enacted FY2011 level of
$11,245 million. The Administration requested $10,372 million in net budget authority for CBP,
representing a $492 million increase (5%) over the FY2011 enacted level. The request includes
the following changes:
• Increase of $229 million to fund the increase in journeyman grade level for
frontline CBP officers, Border Patrol agents, and CBP agricultural specialists
from GS-11 to GS-12;

34 Prepared by Marc R. Rosenblum, Specialist in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
28

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


• Increase of $55 million for Northern Border Projects and Innovative Technology
Pilots.
• Increases of $43 million to add 300 new CBP officers and canine assets to new
and expanded POEs;
• Increase of $40 million for tactical communications;
• Increase of $33 million for Data Center Consolidation for a central DHS
management system;
• Increase of $26 million for CBP integrity programs;
• Increase of $20 million for the National Targeting Center;
• Increase of $20 million to increase functionality in the Automated Commercial
Environment (ACE);
• Increase of $8 million to hire 11 CBP officers and support the expansion of the
Immigration Advisory Program in Paris, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Amman;
• Reduction of $60 million due to cancelled deployments of SBInet Block 1 in
Arizona
• Reduction of $48 million in the air and marine acquisition program;
• Reduction of $30 million in professional service contract spending;
• Reduction of $25 million in facilities management and sustainment activities; and
• Reduction of $20 million in mission support.
Table 8. Customs and Border Protection Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2012
FY2012
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
FY2012
Activity
Total
Enacted
Request
passed
reported
Enacted
Salaries
and
Expenses
8,292 8,193 8,722 8,766 8,762

Headquarters Management
1,643 1,463 1,911 1,874 1,878
and Administration
Border Security Inspections and
2,750 2,894 2,907 2,988 2,977

Trade Facilitation @ POE
Border Security and Control
3,616 3,544 3,620 3,620 3,620

Between POE
Air and Marine Operations—
310 296 288 288 288

Salaries
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
(3) (3) (3) (3) (3)
(offset)
Automation Modernization
422 336 364 334 334

Subtotal
Automated Commercial
228 148 168 140 140

Environment
Current
Operations
Protection 195 188 194 194 194

Congressional Research Service
29

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


FY2012
FY2012
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
FY2012
Activity
Total
Enacted
Request
passed
reported
Enacted
Border Security, Fencing,
Infrastructure and Technology
800 573 528 510 400

(BSFIT)
Development
and
Deployment 508 325 337 312 212

Operations
and
Maintenance
200 172 133 133 133

Program
Management
92 76 57 54 54
Air
and
Marine
520 515 471 500 507

Operations
and
Maintenance
374 371 361 361 365

Procurement
146 144 110 139 141

Construction and Facilities
320 259 284 234 239

Management
Facility Construction and
283 233 227 180 185

Sustainment
Program Oversight and
37 36 57 54 54
Management
CBP
Total
Appropriations
10,127 9,880 10,372 10,348 10,242

Estimated
Fee
Col ections
1,432 1,365 1,468 1,413 1,413

CBP Total Budget Authority
11,559
11,245
11,840
11,761
11,655

Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS Expenditure Plan for FY 2011, FY2012 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the
FY2012 DHS Budget in Brief, P.L. 111-83, P.L. 112-10, H.Rept. 112-91, H.R. 2017, as passed by the House, S.Rept.
112-74, and H.R. 2017, as reported in the Senate.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding. FY2010 amounts include FY2010 supplemental appropriations
and revisions. POE refers to ports of entry; BSFIT refers to Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and
Technology; CBP refers to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Issues for Congress
Issues that Congress could consider during the FY2012 appropriations cycle include CBP
staffing, fencing and tactical infrastructure at the southwest and northern borders, efforts to
combat transnational threats, and cargo security.
Border Patrol and CBP Officer Staffing
In recent years, the number of Border Patrol agents and CBP officers have been a subject of
steady congressional interest as some Members have called for increased staffing, including
during the FY2011 budget cycle.35 The Administration’s FY2012 budget request supports 21,370
Border Patrol agents (an increase of 1,000 from FY 2011) and 21,186 CBP officers at ports of
entry (an increase of 300), representing the highest staffing levels ever in these categories.36 The

35 See CRS Report R41189, Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations, coordinated by Jennifer E. Lake
and William L. Painter.
36 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Budget-in-Brief: Fiscal Year 2012, p. 9.
Congressional Research Service
30

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


request also includes $229 million to fully fund the increase in journeyman grade level for Border
Patrol agents, frontline CBP officers, and CBP agricultural specialists from GS-11 to GS-12.
These numbers include 2,200 Border Patrol agents and almost 3,800 CBP port of entry officers at
the northern border.37 The request also would fund 10 new canine inspection teams, bringing the
total number of such teams to 610, covering 331 ports of entry.38 While the House and Senate
Appropriation Committee reports supported the Administration’s request for additional staffing
levels for the Border Patrol and CBP officers at POE’s, the House committee expressed
skepticism about the Administration’s methodology for calculating CBP officer staffing demands,
and recommended strategies for reducing staffing at POE’s.39 More generally, while some
Members of Congress may see current Border Patrol staffing levels (at the southwest and/or
northern borders) as still being too low to achieve border security goals and to facilitate trade and
legal migration, others may question the cost effectiveness of additional border staffing.
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology
The Administration requested $528 million for the deployment of tactical infrastructure and
surveillance technology, a decrease of $45 million from the FY2011 enacted level of $573
million. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $500 million for tactical
infrastructure and surveillance technology, a decrease of $73 million from the FY2011 enacted
level and $28 million from the Administration’s request. H.Amdt. 354, adopted by a vote of 327-
93 during floor consideration, added $10 million to this amount to improve cell phone
communications along the southern border, bringing the total to $510 million. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $400 million for fencing and surveillance technology,
noting a high unobligated balance in the Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology
account.
Since FY2006, DHS has received about $4.4 billion in appropriations for the Administration’s
border enforcement strategy known as the Secure Borders Initiative, of which it has allocated
about $2.9 billion for fencing and other tactical infrastructure and about $1.5 billion for SBInet,40
a technology program managed under contract by the Boeing Company to provide Border Patrol
command centers with integrated imagery and other data to increase the situational awareness of
unauthorized entries and to enhance operational capabilities—often referred to as a “virtual
fence.” A prototype for SBInet’s primary fixed tower surveillance system was deployed along a
53 mile stretch of the Arizona border beginning in 2008, but the program faced significant delays
and cost overruns;41 and in January 2011 DHS announced plans to end Boeing’s contract and to
develop a new border surveillance plan.

37 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Budget-in-Brief: Fiscal Year 2012, p. 32.
38 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Congressional Budget Justifications FY2012, p. CBP S&E 80-81.
39 U.S. Congress, House Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2012, Report to
accompany H.R. 2017, 112th Cong., 1st sess., May 26, 2011, H.Rept. 112-91 (Washington: GPO, 2011), pp. 27-28.
40 Testimony of GAO Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues Richard M. Stana, in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, Border Security: Preliminary
Observations on the Status of Key Southwest Border Technology Programs,
111th Cong., 1st Sess., March 15, 2011.
41 Statement of Randolph C. Hite, Director, Information Technology Architecture and System Issues, Testimony Before
the Subcommittees on Management, Investigations, and Oversight; and Border, Maritime, and Global
Counterterrorism; Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs
to Follow Through on Plans to Reassess and Better Manage Key Technology Program
, 110th Cong., 2nd Sess.,
Thursday, June 17, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
31

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Under the department’s new Alternative (Southwest) Border Technology program, DHS plans to
deploy a mix of Remote Video Surveillance Systems (RVSS) consisting of fixed daylight and
infrared cameras that transmit images to a central location, Mobile Surveillance Systems (MSS)
mounted on trucks and monitored in the truck’s passenger compartment, hand-held equipment,
and existing SBInet integrated towers.42 The Administration’s budget request includes $244
million for its Alternative (Southwest) Border Technology program to complete the first three
Integrated Fixed Tower (IFT) System deployments to Border Patrol Stations’ areas of
responsibility in Arizona. GAO’s initial review of the Alternative (Southwest) Border Technology
program has identified questions about the cost-effectiveness of some elements of the plan,
including the deployment of SBInet Integrated Fixed Towers in certain parts of Arizona, and
Congress may subject the new southwest border plan to additional oversight.
Congress also has a long-standing interest in the number of miles of fencing and other tactical
infrastructure along the southwest border, which stood at 299 miles of vehicle fencing and 350
miles of pedestrian fencing as of March 2011.43 Some Members of Congress have argued that
fencing should be constructed along longer stretches of the southwest border, and/or that vehicle
barriers and single-layer fences should be upgraded to pedestrian and/or double-layer fences,
while others see additional fencing as not being cost effective. The House Appropriations
committee report notes that existing border infrastructure includes the total miles of pedestrian
and vehicle fencing that had been deemed appropriate and necessary by the Bush Administration.
Some Members of Congress also have raised questions about whether CBP has taken adequate
steps to secure the northern border against the entry of potential terrorists; and concerns have
been raised about wait times for trade and tourism at the northern border.44 The Administration’s
request includes $45 million for investments in technology systems addressing security needs for
the Northern Border maritime and cold weather environment, Northern Border technology pilot
programs, and additional investments in proven stand-alone technology for deployment at the
Northern Border. The House and Senate reports approved the pilot program, and these provisions
of the bill were not amended on the House floor.
Combating Transnational Threats
With the upsurge in violent crime in many parts of Mexico, Congress has grown more interested
in CBP’s efforts to combat criminal organizations; to prevent the illegal movement of money,
arms, and illicit goods; and to guard against the threat of spillover violence in the United States.45
The Border Patrol’s Alliance to Combat Transnational Threats (ACTT) is a collaborative
enforcement approach among DHS agencies in partnership with other federal agencies and state,
local, and tribal governments. The program began in September 2009 along the Arizona/Sonora

42 Ibid.
43 Testimony of U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael J. Fisher, House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee
on Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011, 111th Cong., 2nd Sess.,
February 24, 2010.
44 See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border
Security, Improving Security and Facilitating Commerce at America’s Northern Border and Ports of Entry, 112th
Cong., 1st Sess., May 17, 2011.
45 See for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Oversight,
Investigations, and Management, The U.S. Homeland Security Role in the Mexican War Against Drug Cartels, 112th
Cong., 1st Sess., March 31, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
32

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


border and expanded in July 2010 to the El Paso/Ciudad Juarez border area. ACTT deployments
in FY2010 consisted of temporary (45-day) deployments, with a similar model being employed at
the start of FY2011 to send 500 Border Patrol agents to the Tucson Sector. CBP plans for an
increase of 859 permanent Border Patrol agents in the Tucson Sector during FY2011, allowing for
sustained ACTT operations. CBP also conducts joint enforcement operations with Mexico’s
Customs agency and with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. House and Senate appropriators
both requested that CBP and ICE brief the committee on metrics used to assess the level and
impact of violence in border communities and along the southwest border.
Cargo Security
CBP is responsible for screening cargo passing through U.S. ports of entry for contraband and
dangerous materials. CBP manages cargo security through the Secure Freight Initiative and
Container Security Initiative, two programs that collect data about U.S.-bound cargo to conduct
risk-based targeting and that screen cargo at overseas ports before they are loaded on U.S.-bound
vessels; through a number of programs to facilitate trade by trusted importers; and through other
programs to target terrorist travelers and dangerous cargo. The security benefits of enhanced
imaging screening and radiation scanning of U.S.-bound cargo must be weighed against the direct
costs of such screening efforts as well as the paperwork burden, costs, and longer wait times for
U.S. importers. As a result, the level of funding for the different screening programs, and the
specific screening requirements to be imposed on U.S.-bound cargo, have been subjects of
ongoing discussion.
The Administration has requested reductions to the Container Security Initiative (CSI) in each of
the last two funding cycles, including a 44% reduction for FY2012. The CSI stations CBP
officers in foreign ports to target high-risk containers for inspection before they are loaded on
U.S.-bound ships. CSI was operational in 58 ports for FY2010, and screened over 80% of the
volume of maritime containers destined for the United States.46 The Administration proposes to
remove CBP officers from most of these foreign ports and to rely more heavily on remote risk-
based targeting and reciprocal inspections agreements with foreign governments. The House
Appropriations Committee report objects to these changes, and recommended $79 million for the
CSI, $10 million more than the Administration requested. The House committee also
recommended $46 million for Automated Targeting Systems ($15 million more than the
Administration requested), and directed the Administration to report to the committee within 90
days about how it would use the enhanced funding. The House made no changes to these
provisions. The Senate report also recommended increased spending on Automated Targeting
Systems ($5 million more than the Administration requested), as well as on the National
Targeting Center ($5 million more than the Administration requested).
Immigration and Customs Enforcement47
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

46 Ibid., CBP-S&E–37.
47 Prepared by Marc R. Rosenblum, Specialist in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
33

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


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. 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 appropriations and funding for FY2010, FY2011 and FY2012.
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended that ICE receive $5,535 million in net
budget authority for FY2012 (total funding authority of $5,846 million), a figure which represents
an increase of $34 million over the FY2011 enacted level and an increase of $40 million over the
Administration’s request.
House-Passed H.R. 2017
The House Appropriations Committee recommended that ICE receive $5,546 million in net
budget authority for FY2012 (total funding authority of $5,858 million), a figure which represents
an increase of $45 million over the FY2011 enacted level and an increase of $52 million over the
Administration’s request.48 The House approved this recommendation, with one amendment,
adding $1 million in support of the §287(g) program.
President’s FY2012 Request
The Administration requested $5,494 million in net budget authority and $5,806 million in gross
budget authority for ICE in FY2012. The request represented a decrease of about $7 million
(0.2%) in net budget authority and an increase of $1 million in gross budget authority from the
enacted FY2011 levels of $5,501 million and $5,805 million, respectively. The gross budget
request includes the following changes:
• Increase of $158 million for detention beds;
• Increase of $64 million for Secure Communities interoperability deployment;
• Increase of $11 million for data center migration;
• Increase of $7 million for detention and removal operations;
• Increase of $4 million to the acquisitions workforce;
• Reduction of $27 million through efficiencies in Enforcement and Removal
Operations Fugitive Operations, Criminal Alien, and Transportation and Removal
Programs; and
• Reduction of $15 million for headquarters Atlas infrastructure technology
operations and management.

48 The request appears lower in budget authority than it is due to a proposed $16 million rescission from ICE.
Congressional Research Service
34

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Table 9. ICE Salaries and Expenses Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2012
FY2012
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
FY2012
Activity
Total
Enacted
Request
passed
reported
Enacted
HQ Management HQ &
512 514 433 419 414

Administration
Legal
Proceedings
222 222 216 216 216

Investigations
1,794 1,851 1,858 1,861 1,892

Investigations - Domestic
1,650
1,702
1,714
1,714
1,739

Investigations

International
113 113 115 115 115

Visa Security Program
31
36
29
32
38

Intelligence
70 70 82 82 83
Detention and Removal
2,545 2,571 2,725 2,751 2,724

Operations
Custody
Operations
1,771 1,794 2,024 2,051 2,024

Fugitive
Operations
230 230 155 155 155

Criminal Alien Program
193
193
197
197
197

Alternatives to Detention
70
72
72
72
72

Transportation and Removal
282 282 277 277 277

Program
Comprehensive Identification
and Removal of Criminal Aliens
200 200 184 194 184

(Secure Communities)
Salaries and Expenses Total
5,342
5,427
5,497
5,523
5,513

Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS Expenditure Plan for FY 2011, FY2012 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the
FY2012 DHS Budget in Brief, P.L. 111-83, P.L. 112-10, H.Rept. 112-91, H.R. 2017, as passed by the House, S.Rept.
112-74, and H.R. 2017, as reported in the Senate.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding. FY2010 amounts include revisions and an unspecified $80
million increase from FY2010 supplemental appropriations. FY2012 bottom line includes $1 million from
H.Amdt. 351 to add funds to support the 287(g) program. ICE refers to U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.
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 its jurisdiction. As a result, how ICE resources are allocated in
order to best achieve its mission is a continuously debated issue.49 The FY2012 appropriations
process involves discussions about ICE’s role in detaining and removing (deporting) aliens and
on the role of state and local law enforcement agencies in immigration enforcement.

49 Also see CRS Report R41704, Overview of Immigration Issues in the 112th Congress, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
Congressional Research Service
35

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Enforcement and Removal Operations
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 some contend that the priority should be placed on removing aliens who have
committed crimes in the United States, fewer than one-third of those deported by ICE in FY2008
and in FY2009 had ever been convicted of a criminal offense.50 The proportion increased to 44%
in FY2010.51 Others, however, argue that the prioritization of criminal aliens should not come at
the expense of ICE’s other responsibilities, such as thwarting terrorist travel and conducting
worksite enforcement investigations.52
ICE’s office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) provides custody management of
the aliens who are in removal proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United
States.53 ERO also is responsible for ensuring that aliens ordered removed actually depart from
the United States. Some contend that ERO 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. Some 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.54
ICE maintained 33,400 detention bed spaces in FY2011, and the President’s FY2012 budget
requested an increase of $158 million to maintain the current amount of bed space, accounting for
an increase in the budgeted average daily bed rate from $99 to $122.55 The House Appropriations
Committee proposed to increase ICE’s detention budget by $27 million dollars, and to require
ICE to increase the number of detention beds maintained to 34,000 beds in FY2012. This
proposal was approved by the House, but not included in the Senate Committee report. House and
Senate appropriators both supported the Administration’s proposal to consolidate funding for
detention beds in the Custody Operations sub-account, rather than allocating detention funds
across several different Enforcement and Removal programs as in previous budgets.

50 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; U.S. Department of
Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics, Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2009.
51 U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics, Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2010.
52 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.
53 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. In 2010,
ICE changed the name of DRO to Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). The House and Senate Appropriations
Committees have not adopted the name change in their reports.
54 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).
55 DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses Congressional Budget Justifications
FY2012, p. 57.
Congressional Research Service
36

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Immigration Enforcement in State and Local Jails
The Administration’s request includes $184 million (a $64 million increase over FY2011
following a downward adjustment to that year’s budget) for Secure Communities, an information
sharing program between DHS and the Department of Justice to check the fingerprints of
arrestees against DHS immigration records. With this request, ICE expects to be able to expand
Secure Communities to 96% of all jurisdictions nationally in FY2012, providing ICE with the
resources to confirm the identification of an estimated 282,000 more removable aliens in FY2012
than in FY2010, including an estimated 73,000 Level 1 offenders.56
The enforcement of immigration by state and local law enforcement agents through agreements
pursuant to §287(g) of the INA (the §287(g) program) and through screening for immigration
violations in state and local jails through the §287(g) program and Secure Communities have
sparked debate about the proper role of state and local law enforcement officials in enforcing
federal immigration laws.57 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. House and
Senate appropriators both expressed strong support for the continued expansion of Secure
Communities; and during floor consideration, the House adopted H.Amdt. 351 by a vote of 268-
151, which increased funding for ICE by $1 million to facilitate §287(g) agreements with local
law enforcement.
Transportation Security Administration58
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, TSA was transferred to DHS with the
passage of the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296). 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. 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.

56 Ibid., p. 51. “Level 1” offenders include aliens convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in §101(a)(43) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, or of two or more crimes each punishable by more than one year (i.e., two or more
felonies); see John Morton, Memorandum on Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the Apprehension,
Detention, and Removal of Aliens
, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington, DC, March 2, 2011,
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2011/110302washingtondc.pdf.
57 For a fuller discussion of the §287(g) program see CRS Report R41423, Authority of State and Local Police to
Enforce Federal Immigration Law
, by Michael John Garcia and Kate M. Manuel.
58 Prepared by Bart Elias, Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
Congressional Research Service
37

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Senate-Reported H.R. 2017
The Senate-reported version of H.R. 2017 specified $7,906 billion, $292 million less than
requested but $83 million more than the House-passed amount. For aviation security, the Senate-
reported bill specified $5,294 million, $108 million less than requested. The Senate-reported
amount specified additional 275 whole-body scanners, as requested, but did not include the $39
million requested to purchase 385 additional explosives trace detection units, noting that the
TSA’s full operating capability of 800 units was provided in FY2011 and prior appropriations.
The accompanying committee report directed TSA to submit five-year budget estimates and
strategic plans for passenger screening technologies to be included in future annual congressional
budget justifications. The Senate-reported version also included an additional $23 million for 12
additional multimodal Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams, 6 teams
dedicated to aviation and 6 teams dedicated to surface transportation security; an additional $6
million for 25 new canine teams; and an additional $4 million for international air cargo
initiatives. In addition an additional $6 million was specified for additional international air cargo
inspectors. The bill, however, provided $50 million less than requested for procurement and
installation of explosives detection systems for checked baggage. The Senate-reported bill
concurred with the request of $135 million for surface transportation security.
House-Passed H.R. 2017
The House-passed bill specified $7,823 million, $293 million below the FY2012 request for TSA.
However, in addition to this reduction, H.Amdt. 406, offered by Representative Mica and passed
by the House, limited TSA’s expenditures for screener personnel, compensation, and benefits to
$2,761 million. This amount was $269 million below the House Appropriations Committee-
recommended amount of $3,030 million for this purpose. However, as the amendment was a
limitation, rather than a reduction in budget authority, that $269 million difference is still
available for screening operations.
The bill also included $181 million for checkpoint support, $73 million less than requested, and
$223 million for checked baggage explosives detection systems, $50 million less than requested.
The House also agreed to $961 million for federal air marshals, $30 million less than requested.
The bill specified $1,033 million for Transportation Security Support, $81 million less than the
amount requested. Relying on Congressional Budget Office estimates, the committee projected
only $2,030 million in offsetting aviation security user fees, $682 million less than the estimate
provided in the President’s request. This lower revenue projection reflects an anticipated
continuation of the downward trend in air travel. Also, the committee noted that its estimates do
not reflect proposed increases in passenger security fees that have not yet been authorized. It
sharply criticized inclusion of this “hypothetical revenue” in the President’s request, and noted
that these “unrealistic assumptions” compelled the committee to reduce or restrain spending on
support functions in order to maintain funding for critical homeland security missions.59
President’s FY2012 Request
The President’s request included a gross total of $8,115 million for TSA, roughly a 6% increase
over the FY2011 enacted level. The request specified $5,401 million for aviation security and

59 H.Rept. 112-91, p. 19.
Congressional Research Service
38

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


$991 million for the Federal Air Marshals Service (FAMS). Additionally, $250 million in
mandatory spending is designated for the Aviation Security Capital Fund to finance installation of
checked baggage explosives detection equipment at airports. The request specified $224 million
for Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing (TTAC), a 37% increase over the
FY2011 enacted level of $163 million. The increase reflects additional funding requirements to
support a multi-year project to modernize and integrate transportation threat assessment, vetting,
and credentialing programs and systems. The request included $135 million for Surface
Transportation Security and $1,114 million for Transportation Security Support.
Table 10. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2012
FY2012
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
FY2012
Budget Activity
Total
Enacted
Request
passed
reported
Enacted
Aviation Security
5,214
5,213
5,401
5,225
5,294

Screening Partnership
150 144 144
144
144
Program (SPP)
Passenger & Baggage
2,759 2,921 3,060
2,761a
3,028

Screening (PC&B)
Screener Training & Other
205
243
253
245
251

Checkpoint Support
129
329
254
181
215

EDS/ETD
778 291 273
223
223
Purchase/Instal ation
Screening Technology
317
316
332
332
332

Operation Integration
21
21
0
0
0

Aviation Regulation and
Other Enforcement
254 318 373
354
383
Airport Management, IT, and
454 489 572
568
571
Support
FFDO & Crew Training
25
25
25
25
25

Air Cargo Security
123
115
115
121
121

Federal Air Marshal Service
860
928
991
961
981

Management and
Administration
763 805 860
845
850
Travel and Training
98
123
131
116
131

Threat Assessment and
220 204 224
224
204
Credentialing (TTAC)
Secure Flight
84
84
92
92
92

Other/TTAC Admin. & Ops.
88
78
92
92
72

Credentialing Fees (subtotal)
46
41
40
40
40

TWIC (Fee)
9
9
8
8
8

HAZMAT CDL (Fee)
15
12
12
12
12

Certified Cargo Screening
5 5 5
5
5
Program (Fee)
Congressional Research Service
39

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


FY2012
FY2012
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
FY2012
Budget Activity
Total
Enacted
Request
passed
reported
Enacted
Large Aircraft Security Plan
2 1 1
1
1
(Fee)
Security Identification Display
10 8 8
8
8
Area Checks (Fee)
Indirect Air Cargo (Fee)
3
1
1
1
1

Alien Flight School (Fee –
4 4 4
4
4
Transfer from DoJ)
Surface Transportation
111 106 135
130
135
Security
Operations and Staffing
42
40
39
39
39

Security Inspectors
68
66
96
91
96

Transportation Security
1,002 987
1,114
1,033
1,042
Support
Intelligence 28
33
43
43
43

HQ Administration
249
254
321
290
293

Human Capital Services
226
234
264
250
253

Information Technology
498
466
486
450
453

Aviation Security Capital
Fund (ASCF) (mandatory)
250 250 250
250
250
TSA Gross Total
7,656
7,688
8,115
7,823
7,906

Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS Expenditure Plan for FY 2011, FY2012 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the
FY2012 DHS Budget in Brief, P.L. 111-83, P.L. 112-10, H.Rept. 112-91, H.R. 2017, as passed by the House, S.Rept.
112-74, and H.R. 2017, as reported in the Senate.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding.
a. The Mica amendment restricted the amount that could be spent from the Aviation Security appropriation
on screener PC&B to $2,761 million, but did not actually reduce the actual budget authority for screening
operations.
Issues for Congress
Possible TSA issues may include proposed expansion of the screener workforce; the status of
contract screening operations at airports seeking an alternative to TSA screening operations;
acquisition and sustainment costs of screening technologies; modernization and integration of
TTAC systems; and consideration of the President’s proposal to raise the passenger security fee.
TSA Screener Workforce
The President’s budget included funding to support expansion of the TSA screener workforce to
just under 50,000 full time equivalent (FTE) positions. However, the FY2011 appropriations act
(P.L. 112-10) included language capping the screener workforce at 46,000 FTEs, not including
newly hired part-time screeners. The FY2012 justification specified a proposed increase of more
than 2,000 FTE screeners plus an additional 175 FTEs trained as behavior detection officers. The
GAO previously found that the TSA lacked adequate metrics to assess the effectiveness of the
Congressional Research Service
40

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


behavior detection program, and in FY2011, Senate Appropriations Committee language did not
support proposed expansion of the program without a complete assessment and validation of its
effectiveness.60 In addition to the continued concerns over the behavior detection program, the
proposed expansion of the TSA screener workforce may be an issue of particular interest during
FY2012 appropriations debate given TSA’s considerable investments in technology and
integration of screening equipment. An anticipated benefit of these investments has been a
potential reduction in labor resource requirements and associated costs.
The House-passed bill, like the FY2011 continuing resolution, would limit the screener workforce
to 46,000 FTEs, not including newly hired part-time screeners. The House committee rejected the
request for an additional 510 screeners and supervisors for advanced imaging technology
passenger screening noting that additional systems will not be fielded until automated target
recognition capabilities are incorporated. It further noted that the eventual deployment of
automated target recognition will permit a reduction in passenger screeners. The committee also
rejected the request for additional behavior detection officers.
H.Amdt. 406, offered by Representative Mica, would cap FY2012 spending on screener
personnel, compensation, and benefits at $2,761 million, roughly in line with FY2010 totals, and
$160 million less than FY2011 totals. Opponents of the amendment argued at the amendment
would require TSA to lay off some 5,000 screeners—10% of the total screener workforce. The
amendment passed 219-204.
The Senate-reported bill did not include a cap on the number of TSA screeners. Rather, the
committee report noted concern over the adequacy of screener staffing levels, particularly at large
airports, and most especially at those airports with high numbers of security breaches. Report
language raised questions as to whether existing screener levels at these specific airports are
sufficient to prevent security breaches and keep passenger wait times at screening checkpoints
below 10 minutes.
Contract Screening Operations
The President’s budget specified $144 million for the Screening Partnership Program (SPP),
which funds private screening contractors at the 16 airports that have opted out of TSA screening.
In January 2011, TSA announced that it was halting further expansion of the program, citing a
lack of any clear advantage. The program, which was authorized under ATSA, requires that
private screeners receive wages and benefits that are comparable to those of TSA screeners.
Reviews of the program have not found demonstrable performance or cost differences between
contract screening operations under SPP and TSA screening. However, some Members of
Congress hold the program in high regard and prefer a model in which screening operations are
carried out under contract, with TSA focusing on regulation and oversight of screening and other
aviation security matters.61 Consequently, the future of SPP may be a specific issue of debate in
the FY2012 appropriations process.
The House committee expressed concern over airports whose applications to participate in the
SPP were denied without sufficient guidance or feedback on the criteria for participation or the

60 S.Rept. 111-222.
61 See, e.g., “TSA Halts Private Security Screener Program,” Homeland Security Newswire, February 3, 2011,
available at http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/tsa-halts-private-security-screener-program
Congressional Research Service
41

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


rationale for the TSA decision. The committee recommended that TSA provide these airports with
the reasons behind these decisions and allow airports to reapply. The Senate report language is
silent on the issue. Both the House-passed and Senate-reported funding amounts for privatized
screening specify the requested amount of $144 million which is predicated on continued
operation at the existing 16 participating airports with no expansion of the program. However, as
in the past, privatized screening and TSA passenger and baggage screening appropriations can be
reprogrammed if the SPP expands or contracts during the year.
Technology Acquisition and Sustainment Costs
Besides labor costs for its screening workforce, technology acquisition and sustainment costs to
operate and maintain security technologies make up a considerable portion of TSA’s aviation
security budget. The FY2012 request included a request for 275 additional advanced imaging
technology (AIT) whole-body imagers. With these additional units, TSA intends to have 1,275
fielded AIT units by the end of FY2012, and 1,800 by the end of FY2014. The machines,
however, have generated considerable controversy regarding privacy and health safety. To allay
some privacy concerns, the TSA wants to eventually replace remote viewing of AIT images by
TSA screeners with automated threat recognition capabilities, but retrofitting deployed systems
will likely add to system costs in future years.
Additionally, maintenance of existing screening technologies, including AIT as well as baggage
explosives screening systems, metal detectors, and checkpoint x-ray machines for carry-on bags,
has been a growing expense for TSA as these systems age. A large number of these systems
deployed soon after 9/11 to meet statutory screening requirements are reaching their useful
service limits. The TSA indicated that it will reduce costs for screening technology maintenance
by $18 million in FY2012 through renegotiated contracts. Nonetheless, the request specified $332
million for screening technology maintenance, a $15 million increase compared to the FY2010
amount. The continued escalation of screening technology maintenance and sustainment costs
may be an issue of particular interest to appropriators. The House concurred with the FY2012
request, with the expectation that negotiations for two-year warranty contracts for advanced
imaging technology equipment would yield savings in FY2013. The Senate committee also
concurred with the requested amount.
Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing Modernization
The President’s request included $58 million for continued development of the TTAC
Infrastructure Modernization (TIM) system. The system is considered a significant DHS
information technology initiative with a forecast life cycle cost of $571 million through 2018.
The program represents an initiative to modernize and consolidate TSA’s various vetting and
credentialing functions into a unified system, with a uniform fee structure. While the objectives
are to eliminate redundancies in existing processes, the cost and technical risk associated with
integrating multiple systems may raise questions during the appropriations process. Appropriators
may also examine the extent to which TIM is being coordinated with other similar systems within
DHS, such as customs and immigration systems, and other criminal and terrorist databases, and
how investments in and capabilities of these systems may be leveraged in developing TIM.
The House committee recommended funding the continued development of TIM as requested,
but noted concerns over program delays. It directed the TSA to advise the committees of any
impacts to project schedule or the regulatory process that might significantly delay achieving
Congressional Research Service
42

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


initial operating capacity in 2013, incorporating universal fees, and becoming fully operational by
2015.
The Senate committee recommended $28 million for TIM, $30 million less than requested, noting
that schedule delays have resulted in large unobligated balances for this project carrying over into
FY2012. The committee concluded that with a $28 million appropriation combined with
carryover funding, about $66 million would be available for this effort in FY2012. Report
language would require TSA to brief the committee quarterly on its efforts to develop TIM.
Passenger Security Fees
The President’s budget included a proposal to increase the passenger security fee. The current fee,
established by ATSA, is set at $2.50 per segment with a cap of $5.00 per one-way flight. The
proposal seeks to increase this fee to $4.00 per segment, not to exceed $8.00 per one-way flight or
$16.00 for a round trip ticket. The fee has not been raised since established by ATSA and airlines
have expressed strong opposition to numerous fee increase proposals over the years. In addition
to remitting passenger security fees, airlines pay an Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee (ASIF)
based on the annual costs of pre-9/11 passenger screening and market share. While the GAO
determined the industry-wide annual cost of pre-9/11 passenger screening to be between $425
million and $471 million, airlines won a June 2010 appellate court decision capping the industry
total at $420 million. Current law provides no mechanism to increase either the passenger
security fee or the ASIF for inflation.
The House committee noted that increases to passenger security fees were outside its jurisdiction
and criticized the administration for predicating its budget on the assumption of obtaining
authority for these increased revenues at the outset of FY2012. Furthermore, the House
committee noted that “in the unlikely event such fee increases were enacted this year, the
Congressional Budget Office estimates aviation security user fees would only increase by a net of
$210,000,000—not the $590,000,000 assumed in the Department’s budget submission.”62
Senate-reported H.R. 2017 included a provision (Sec. 558) that would temporarily increase
passenger security fees in FY2012 to $4.00 per enplanement, not to exceed $8.00 per one-way
trip. Report language noted that the appropriations committee did not approve the request to
permanently change the fee structure as requested, but recommended that this be considered by
the appropriate committee of jurisdiction. The bill also included language specifying that
collected fees be made available only for aviation security, with an estimated total appropriation
for aviation security derived from the general fund estimated at no more than $2,984 million.
This corresponds to total estimated fee collections of $2,310 million, including both passenger
fees and airline fees. The Senate bill language specifies that any fees collected in excess of this
amount be made available for funding aviation security functions in FY2013. CBO estimates of
FY2012 fee collections include $2,140 million from passenger fees and $420 million from air
carriers, for a total of $2,560 million.

62 H.Rept. 112-91, p. 19.
Congressional Research Service
43

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


United States Coast Guard63
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 DHS on March 1, 2003.
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a total of $10,351 million for the Coast
Guard, $234 million more than the President requested. This total includes $7,078 million for
operating expenses and $1,392 million for the capital (ACI) account. See Table 11 below for
further detail on these two accounts.
House-Passed H.R. 2017
The House Appropriations Committee recommended a total of $10,080 million for the Coast
Guard, $185 million less than last year and $37 million less than the President requested.64 This
total includes $7,071 million for operating expenses and $1,152 million for the capital (ACI)
account. The House concurred in these recommendations. See Table 11 below for further detail
on these two accounts.
President’s FY2012 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 $6,820 million in operating
expenses (a decrease of about 1% from last year) and $1,422 million for the capital (ACI) account
(a decrease of about 6% from last year). 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), requested $5 million less for research and development,
and $4 million more for environmental compliance and restoration. The other requested
discretionary amounts are nearly the same as last year’s enacted level.

63 Prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division.
64 Both the Administration and the House and Senate committees provided $258 million for the Coast Guard’s overseas
operations related to the global war on terrorism, but the President requested this amount under the Navy’s budget
while the House and Senate committees provided this under the Coast Guard’s budget.
Congressional Research Service
44

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Table 11. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010 Total
FY2012
FY2012
(Revised +
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
FY2012

Supplementals)
Enacted
Request
passed
reported
Enacted
Operating Expenses
6,909
6,894
6,820
7,071
7,078

Military pay and
3,253 3,345
3,448
3,435
3,434

allowances
Civilian pay and benefits
701
738
781
775
784

Training and recruiting
206
204
213
213
213

Operating funds and
1,259 1,138
1,109
1,109
1,109

unit level maintenance
Centrally managed
335 345
351
343
343

accounts
Intermediate and depot
914 869
917
937
936

level maintenance
Global war on terror
242 254

258
258

(Overseas Contingency
Operations)
Acquisition,
1,552 1,517
1,422
1,152
1,392

Construction, and
Improvements

Vessels 851
1,051
642
428
642

Aircraft 285
101
290
329
265

Other Equipment
284
190
166
171
161

Shore Facilities and
27 67
194
116
194

ATON
Military Housing
0
2
20
0
20

Personnel & Related
105 106
110
108
110


Support
Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS Expenditure Plan for FY 2011, FY2012 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the
FY2012 DHS Budget in Brief, P.L. 111-83, P.L. 112-10, H.Rept. 112-91, H.R. 2017, as passed by the House, S.Rept.
112-74, and H.R. 2017, as reported in the Senate.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding. Funding for Coast Guard Overseas Contingency Operations
has traditional y been requested in the budget request Department of Defense, but Congress has funded it
directly in the DHS appropriations bill. In recent years, it has not counted against the discretionary budget cap,
and under the Budget Control Act, the discretionary cap may be adjusted upward to accommodate it.
Issues for Congress
Increased duties in the maritime realm related to maritime 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 the Coast Guard’s plan to replace many of its aging vessels and aircraft and
its ability to perform its non-security related missions. However, the House made no changes to
the committee recommendations described below.
Congressional Research Service
45

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Vessels and Aircraft
The Coast Guard’s effort to replace or modernize its Deepwater fleet of vessels and aircraft has
been a major issue for Congress.65 The President requested $642 million for new vessels and
$290 million for aircraft for FY2012. This includes $358 million to construct six more Fast
Response Cutters and $130 million to construct two more Maritime Patrol Aircraft. The House
committee rejected the amount for a National Security Cutter, and substantially reduced the
amounts for Fast Response Cutters and Medium Response Boasts. The House committee
increased the amount for HH-65 aircraft by $37 million. The Senate committee largely agreed
with the President’s requested amount but reduced the amount for Maritime Patrol Aircraft by $25
million for related electronic equipment.
The budget requested $39 million for polar icebreaker vessels. The Coast Guard put the Polar
Sea
, one of its two remaining heavy icebreakers, in inactive status on October 14, 2011, and plans
to transfer to the Maritime Administration National Defense Reserve Fleet for dismantling. The
budget request included funds to transition that icebreaker’s crew to the icebreaker Polar Star
which will be reactivated.66 The House and Senate Appropriations Committees agreed with the
Administration’s request. A reduction in the extent of sea ice in the Arctic during the summer has
led to increased vessel activity (related to resource exploration and tourism) in the region.
Shore Facilities
The President’s request included a substantial increase (180%) over the FY2011 enacted level for
shore facilities. The $194 million request, among other things, is for replacing a pier at Cape May,
NJ, renovating a barracks at the Coast Guard Academy, replacing a burned down boathouse at
Chilmark, MA, and modifying a maritime patrol aircraft hangar at Corpus Christi, TX. The House
reduced the President’s request by $78 million in the committee report, citing a lack of adequate
justification. The Senate committee agreed with the President’s request but also requested a more
detailed justification.
Marine Safety Mission
The oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010 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 spills. 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 water.67 The Coast Guard’s pace in issuing rulemakings and its overall

65 These issues are discussed in CRS Report RL33753, Coast Guard Deepwater Acquisition Programs: Background,
Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
66 For more on icebreaker vessels, see CRS Report RL34391, Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization:
Background, Issues, and Options for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
67 A Coast Guard internal review that is critical of its response to the Deepwater Horizon spill was released in March
2011, http://www.uscg.mil/foia/docs/DWH/BPDWH.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
46

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


competence in carrying out its marine safety mission was also an issue raised in the aftermath of
the Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco Bay in November 2007.68
New requirements intended to increase the safety of towing and fishing vessels will increase the
demand on the Coast Guard’s safety resources.
The President’s request included $11 million to bolster the Coast Guard’s marine safety mission
by adding 105 personnel, to include safety inspectors, investigators, and fishing vessel safety
examiners. The request also included $12 million and 87 personnel to enhance marine
environmental response by creating a new Incident Management and Assist Team (IMAT). The
House committee agreed with the $11 million request for marine safety but reduced the request
for environmental response by $5 million due to insufficient detail in the request. The Senate
committee concurred with the $11 million requested for marine safety and provided an additional
$4 million for marine environmental response.
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. In FY2012, the Coast Guard
plans to complete deployment of Rescue-21 at sectors Lake Michigan, Los Angeles/Long Beach,
San Juan, Honolulu, Guam, and Buffalo, with a request of $65 million. As of December 2010, the
Coast Guard reports that Rescue-21 is operational on the East Coast, Gulf Coast, and West Coast
except for Los Angeles/Long Beach, covering a total of 36,985 miles of coastline. The House and
Senate committees agreed with the President’s request.
United States Secret Service69
The U.S. Secret Service (USSS)70 has two broad missions, criminal investigations and protection.
Criminal investigation activities encompass financial crimes, identity theft, counterfeiting,
computer fraud, and computer-based attacks on the nation’s financial, banking, and
telecommunications infrastructure, among other areas. The protection mission is the most
prominent, covering the President, Vice President, their families, and candidates for those offices,
along with the White House and Vice President’s residence, through the Service’s Uniformed
Division. Protective duties also extend to foreign missions in the District of Columbia and to
designated individuals, such as the DHS Secretary and visiting foreign dignitaries. Aside from
these specific mandated assignments, USSS is responsible for security activities at National
Special Security Events (NSSE),71 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

68 For an overview of the Coast Guard’s environmental protection mission, see CRS Report RS22145, Environmental
Activities of the U.S. Coast Guard
, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
69 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and
Finance Division.
70 For more information, see CRS Report RL34603, The U.S. Secret Service: An Examination and Analysis of Its
Evolving Missions
, by Shawn Reese.
71 For more information, see CRS Report RS22754, National Special Security Events, by Shawn Reese.
Congressional Research Service
47

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


arrangements involving various law enforcement units from other federal agencies and state and
local governments, as well as from the National Guard.
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017
For FY2012, the Senate-reported version of the DHS appropriations bill recommended an
appropriation of $1,676 million, $23 million less than the President requested, but $3 million
above the House-passed funding level. Although the Senate recommendation includes 87% of the
President’s requested increase for the USSS, the Senate made a $46 million (19%) reduction in
the request for Management and Administration, as well as a $6 million reduction from the
request for White House mail screening. This would reduce both of these accounts below the
FY2010 level. The Senate also cut $16 million (2%) in funding for protection of persons and
facilities from the requested level, but provided $62 million of the requested increase. Overall,
the Senate provided $161 million more than was appropriated for the USSS in FY2011.
House-Passed H.R. 2017
For FY2012, the House-passed version of the DHS appropriations bill recommended an
appropriation of $1,673 million.72 This amount reflects a decrease of $25 million in the
Headquarters Management and Administration activity from the $247 million requested by the
Administration. Even with this reduction, overall, the House-passed versions of the bill provide
$158 million more than was appropriated for the USSS in FY2011.
President’s FY2012 Request
For FY2012, the Administration requested an appropriation of $1,699 million for the USSS.73 The
Administration’s request is $183 million more than was appropriated for the USSS in FY2011.
More than half of this increase is for Secret Service protection for Presidential candidates.

72 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2012
, report to accompany H.R. 2017, 112th Cong., 1st sess., May 26,
2011, H.Rept. 112-91 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 86.
73 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
48

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Table 12. FY2010 and FY2011 Enacted and FY2012 Budget Authority for the U.S.
Secret Service
(Amounts in millions of dollars)
FY2011
FY2012
FY2012
FY2010
FY2011
Budget
House-
Senate-
FY2012
Programs and Activities
Revised Enacted Request
passed
reported
Enacted
Salaries and Expenses

1,511
1,692
1,666
1,670

Protection
879
1,073
1,066
1,051

Protection of persons and facilities
763
770
848
848
832

Protective intelligence activities
68
68
68
68
68

National Special Security Events
1
1
19
12
19

Candidate nominee protection
0
18
113
113
113

White House mail screening
22
22
24
24
18

Investigations
352
316
316
318

Domestic field operations
261
257
224
224
224

International field operations
31
31
31
31
33

Electronic crimes program
57
56
53
53
53

Forensic support to the National
8 8 8 8 8

Center for Missing and Exploited
Children

Management and administration
221
226
247
228
201

Rowley Training Center
54
54
56
56
56

Information integration and

44

technology transformation
Acquisition, construction, and
4 4 7 7 5

improvements
Total 1,490
1,515
1,699
1,673
1,676


Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS Expenditure Plan for FY 2011, FY2012 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the
FY2012 DHS Budget in Brief, P.L. 111-83, P.L. 112-10, H.Rept. 112-91, H.R. 2017, as passed by the House, S.Rept.
112-74, and H.R. 2017, as reported in the Senate.
Notes: Amounts may not add due to rounding.
Issue for Congress
One issue of potential interest to Congress concerning the FY2012 appropriations for the USSS is
the balancing of the investigative and protective missions of the Service.
Protection Mission Funding and Activities
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
Congressional Research Service
49

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


of congressional action concerning USSS has been related to its protection mission.74 While
Congress has maintained the Service’s role in investigating financial crimes, such as combating
counterfeiting, congressional action primarily addressed, and continues to address, the Service’s
protection mission. One could argue that potential terrorist attacks and potential 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.
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.”75
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.


74 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, The
United States Secret Service: Examining Protective and Investigative Missions and Challenges in 2012
, 112th Cong., 1st
sess., August 4, 2011.
75 P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1400.
Congressional Research Service
50

.

Table 13. Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2011 Appropriation
FY2012 Appropriation
FY2010 Total
FY2012
FY2012
Operational
(Revised +
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
Component
Supplementals)
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
passed
reported FY2012
Enacted
National Protection and Programs Directorate
Management and
Administration
41 43
43
55
43
38

Infrastructure Protection
and Information Security
899
839
839
936
891
918

US-VISIT 374
333
333
277a
297
297

Federal Protective
Service (FPS)
1,115
1,115
1,115
1,262
1,262
1,262

Gross Total
2,429
2,331
2,331
2,555
2,493
2,515

Net total (gross less fees,
trust funds and
mandatory) 1,314
1,216
1,216
1,268
1,231
1,253

Office of Health Affairs
Net Total
137
139
139
161
166
159

Federal Emergency Management Agency
Management and
Administration 804
786
786
815
707
905

Grants and Training
4,165b
3,380
3,380
3,845
2,020
2,577

U.S. Fire Administration
46
45
45
43
43
45

Disaster reliefc
6,695d
2,645
2,645
1,800
2,650e
1,800

Disaster relief (BCA cap
adjustment)




[4,200]f

Flood hazard mapping and
risk analysis
220
182
182
103
103
93

National flood insurance
fund (NFIF)g
[146]
[169]
[169]
[171]
[171]
[171]

CRS-51

.

FY2011 Appropriation
FY2012 Appropriation
FY2010 Total
FY2012
FY2012
Operational
(Revised +
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
Component
Supplementals)
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
passed
reported FY2012
Enacted
National flood mitigationh
[3,085]
[3,066]
[3,066]
[3,103]



Pre-disaster mitigation
fund 100
50
50
85
40
43

Emergency food and
shelter 200
120
120
100
120
120

Disaster assistance direct
loan account
0
0
0
0
0
0

Radiological Emergency
Preparednessi 0
0
0
0
0
0

Total (does not include
trust funds)
12,230d
7,209
7,209
6,789
5,682
5,581

Net budget authority:
Title III
13,681
8,564
8,564
8,219
7,079
6,994

Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS Expenditure Plan for FY 2011, FY2012 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2012 DHS Budget in Brief, P.L. 111-83, P.L. 112-10,
H.Rept. 112-91, H.R. 2017, as passed by the House, S.Rept. 112-74, and H.R. 2017, as reported in the Senate.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding. The FY2010 supplemental appropriations column and the FY2010 rescission column are placeholders. Supplemental
appropriations and rescissions have occurred on numerous occasions for past DHS appropriations.
a. Net amount—includes a $26 million rescission.
b. Includes State and Local Grants, Emergency Performance Management Grants (EMPG), and Assistance to Firefighters grants.
c. This amount does not reflect transfers from the DRF made by Congress to support FEMA management and OIG activities.
d. Includes $5,100 million in supplemental disaster funding.
e. $1,000 million in emergency funding was added to this account by an amendment in full committee markup. However, as it is carried in a separate title, it is not
included in this entry or this table.
f.
$4,200 million in additional funding for the Disaster Relief Fund was included in the bill, along with legislative language designating it as disaster relief for the purpose of
a discretionary spending cap adjustment under the BCA. However, as this will not score against the original allocation for the bill, it is not included in the totals for
this table.
g. NFIF funding is derived from premium payments or transfers from the U.S. Treasury, not appropriations. This account is offset.
h. Funds for the National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF) are derived from transfers, not appropriations. This account is mandatory spending.
i.
Radiological Emergency Preparedness funds are provided through reimbursements and are not actual y appropriated funds.
CRS-52

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


National Protection and Programs Directorate76
The National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) was formed by the Secretary for
Homeland Security in response to the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006.
The Directorate includes the Office of the Under Secretary and accompanying administrative
support functions (budget, communications, etc.), the Office of Risk Management and Analysis,
the Office of Infrastructure Protection, the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, the U.S.
Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program (US-VISIT), and the Federal
Protective Service. The activities of the Office of the Under Secretary and the other
administrative functions and the Office of Risk Management and Analysis (RMA) are supported
by the Management and Administration Program. The activities of the Office of Infrastructure
Protection and the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications are supported by the
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security Program (IPIS). 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.
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $38 million for NPPD Management and
Administration, $34 million for Directorate Management and $4 million for the Office of Risk
Management and Assessment (RMA). Citing concerns expressed by the National Research
Council (see below), the committee recommended terminating the RMA anding transferring its
capabilities to other Directorate functions.
House-Passed H.R. 2017
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $43 million for NPPD Management and
Administration for FY2012. This included less than what was requested for data center migration
in the Directorate Management account. RMA was funded at the FY2011 level.

76 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
53

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


The committee also noted that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in a recent report77 cited
several shortcomings in the department’s risk assessment framework developed by RMA. Among
those were the impracticability of aggregating terrorist threats and natural disasters, and that a
wider range of social, health, and economic factors should also be considered when calculating
risk. The Academy report recommended that the DHS framework integrate a more sophisticated
analysis of threat probabilities that take into account an intelligent adversary. The Academy report
also recommended that DHS develop a strategic plan to improve risk analysis skills of its
employees. The committee required DHS to brief it on its plans to implement the Academy’s
recommendations within 90 days of enactment of the DHS appropriation bill.
No changes were made to the NPPD provisions through House floor action.
President’s FY2012 Request
The President’s budget requested $55 million for the NPPD Management and Administration. It
requested $46 million for Directorate Administration and $10 million (rounded) for the Office of
Risk Management and Analysis. The request for Directorate Administration included a $12
million programmatic increase to continue supporting the Directorate’s migration of data bases to
DHS Data Centers. The request for the RMA maintained current level of service.
Table 14. FY2010-FY2012 Budget Activity for NPPD Management and
Administration Appropriation
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Program
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2012 House-
FY2012
FY2012
Project Activity
Revised
Enacted
Request
passed
Senate
Enacted
Directorate
Administration 31
35
46 34 34

Risk Management and
Analysis 10
9
10
9
4

Total 41
43
55
43
38

Sources: CRS Analysis of the DHS Expenditure Plan for FY 2011, FY2012 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications,
the FY2012 DHS Budget in Brief, P.L. 111-83, P.L. 112-10, H.Rept. 112-91, H.R. 2017, as passed by the House,
S.Rept. 112-74, and H.R. 2017, as reported in the Senate.
Note: Amounts may not total due to rounding.
Issues for Congress
RMA is responsible for developing RAPID, Risk Assessment Process for Informed Decision-
making, to support the department’s budget setting process. RAPID is in its third round of
development. Congress might decide to continue its oversight of the development and use of this
methodology and how it has affected and/or changed the budget making process, especially in
light of the recommendations made by the NAS noted above.

77 National Academy of Science, Review the Department of Homeland Security’s Approach to Risk Analysis. 2010.
Congressional Research Service
54

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


The NAS report calls into question the drive over the last few years to address critical
infrastructure in an all-hazard manner. The motivation for considering all-hazards approach was
to ensure that DHS did not focus too exclusively on the terrorist threat. However, the NAS report
suggests that aggregating terrorist threats with natural events to make a single risk determination
is not practical. While not necessarily mutually exclusive, Congress might consider how to
balance these two policy objectives.
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security78
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.
The IPIS budget includes a number of Program/Project Activities (PPAs) under each of the major
organizations or accounts: IP, NCSD, NCS, OEC. The structure of these PPAs and the activities
they support have changed a number of times over the years. The table below represents the PPA
structure proposed by the Administration for FY2012.
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended allocating $918 million for the IPIS
program, $18 million less than requested, but $27 million more than approved by the House. For
the most part, the committee recommended funding levels between the House and the
Administration across the PPAs. The committee’s largest reduction, nearly $6 million less than
the budget request, was in the Federal Network Security PPA. The committee also recommended
reducing the budget request for the Next Generation Networks ($4 million), Sector Management
and Governance ($3 million), and Infrastructure Analysis and Planning ($2 million). The Senate
report contained little discussion of the reasons for these cuts. It did offer explicit support for the
National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC) (which past budgets have tried
to reduce), continued infrastructure vulnerability assessments, and the cyber education initiative.
The committee also expressed its concern that there are not yet enough inspection, enforcement,
and compliance personnel hired to implement the regulation of chemical facilities. The Senate did
approve the $5 million for a stand-alone PPA for the Assistant Secretary of Cybersecurity and

78 Prepared by John Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
55

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Communications. These last items point to possible disagreements between the House and Senate
that may be addressed in conference.
House-Passed H.R. 2017
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $891 million for the IPIS program. This is
$45 million below the President’s request. The committee provided $20 million less for the
Infrastructure Protection (IP) Program/Project Activity (PPA), and $20 million less for the
National Cyber Security Division (NCSD). The reductions mostly reflected the committee’s
concern about the slow rate of obligating funds in these programs. The largest reduction was
made to the Compliance and Assurance effort (a reduction of $12 million) within the NCSD
Federal Network Security PPA. The Compliance and Assurance effort enforces compliance by
federal agencies of Federal Information Security and Management Act (FISMA ) requirements.
The committee also reduced the request for Infrastructure Security Compliance in the IP PPA by
approximately $8 million. This compliance program enforces regulations required of facilities
making, using, or storing certain high risk chemicals and ammonium nitrate. The reduction
apparently reflects the committee’s concern that DHS has not yet finalized the regulations
governing the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate.
In three other actions, the committee denied the department’s request to transfer the National
Computer Forensic Institute to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. The committee
also required a multi-year investment and management plan covering the proposed acquisition,
deployment and operation, and sustainment plans for the EINSTEIN program. The committee
also did not support funding (less than $1 million) for the Acquisition Workforce Initiative, part
of a larger government-wide effort by the Administration to increase acquisition capacity. Nor
does it appear that the House approved the $5 million requested for the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Cybersecurity and Communications as a stand-alone PPA.
The committee provided the requested amounts for the National Communication Systems and the
Office of Emergency Communications.
No changes were made to these provisions through House floor action.
President’s FY2012 Request
The President’s budget request proposed restructuring much of the IPIS program. This included
renaming a number of Program/Project Activities (PPAs) with some restructuring of specific
projects within the renamed PPAs. It also included some reallocation of positions within the
newly named PPAs. Most notably, it included a consolidation of the cybersecurity-related PPAs
into a single PPA called Cybersecurity. It also included a new PPA for the Assistant Secretary for
Cybersecurity and Communications. The funding would transfer support for strategy planning
and policy, external affairs, budgeting, etc. to the Office of the Assistant Secretary and from the
NCSD and NCS.
The President’s total budget request for IPIS for FY2012 was $936 million. This represents a $37
million increase above the FY2010 budget and a $98 million increase above that provided by the
FY2011 continuing resolution (P.L. 112-10).
Congressional Research Service
56

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


The FY2012 budget request for Infrastructure Protection (IP) was slightly less than was
appropriated in FY2011. The FY2012 budget requested new funds to cover moving and build-out
costs associated with consolidating IP personnel and activities in fewer physical locations around
the National Capital Region. It also included increased funding to place additional Protective
Security Advisors (PSAs) in state and local fusion centers, and to add personnel positions that
will support the Interagency Security Committee.79 The increase in funding for the physical
consolidation of facilities was offset by equal reductions in salaries and benefits, based on
historical rates of filling IP positions. The increase in PSAs was offset by an equal reduction in
program funds for Infrastructure Sector Analysis studies.
The FY2012 budget request for the National Cyber Security Division was $97 million more than
what was appropriated in FY2011. The request included additional funding to support analysis of
the increased amount of data being generated by the current EINSTEIN program and to support
continued expansion of that program. The request also included increases to support DHS’s
expanded role in monitoring and enforcing compliance by federal agencies with Federal
Information Security and Management Act (FISMA) requirements. This increase would go
toward increasing the number of validations (blue teaming) and vulnerability and risk
assessments (red teaming) performed on agency networks. The request also included new funding
to support DHS’s role in executing the National Initiative in Cybersecurity Education. As in it
FY2011 request, the Administration again proposed transferring the National Computer Forensic
Institute to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
The funding request for the National Communication System and the Office of Emergency
Communications essentially maintained current operations.
Table 15. Budget Authority for Infrastructure Protection and Information Security
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2012
FY2012
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
FY2012
Program
Reviseda Enacted
Request
passed
reported Enacted
Infrastructure Protection
348
323
322
302
317

Identification Analysis and Planning

73
75
72
73

Sector Management and Governance

84
87
82
84

Regional Field Operations

61
61
57
61

Infrastructure Security Compliance

99
99
92
99

National Cyber Security Division
397
363
459
439
450

Cybersecurity Coordination

5
5
4
5

US-CERT Operations

77
82
79
80

Federal Network Security

20
41
29
35

Network Security Deployment

176
234
229
232

Global Cybersecurity Management

18
25
25
25


79 The Interagency Security Committee was formed by Executive Order 12977 to oversee the protection of civilian
federal facilities in the United States.
Congressional Research Service
57

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


FY2012
FY2012
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
FY2012
Program
Reviseda Enacted
Request
passed
reported Enacted
Critical Infrastructure Cyber Protection and
53 61 61
61

Awareness
Business Operations

15
12
12
12

National Security / Emergency Preparedness
Telecommunications
110 109 107 107
103

Priority Telecom Service
57
56
57
57
57

Programs to Study and Enhance Telecom
17
17
13
13
13

Critical Infrastructure Protection
11
15
11
11
11

Next Generation Networks
25
21
25
26
21

Office of Emergency Communications
45
44
43
43
43

Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and
— — 5 0 5

Communications
Total 899
839
936
891
918


Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS Expenditure Plan for FY 2011, FY2012 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the
FY2012 DHS Budget in Brief, P.L. 111-83, P.L. 112-10, H.Rept. 112-91, H.R. 2017, as passed by the House, S.Rept.
112-74, and H.R. 2017, as reported in the Senate.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding.
a. Some FY2010 numbers are unavailable due to reorganization of accounts.
Issues for Congress
The House and Senate differ by $27 million in regards to funding the IPIS program. Specific
areas of disagreement between the House and the Senate include the House’s reduction in the IP’s
Infrastructure Security Compliance PPA. The reduction reflects the House’s concern that
regulations governing ammonium nitrate are not yet established, while the Senate has expressed
concerns that not enough inspectors have been hired. The House and Senate also disagree on the
NCS’s Next Generation Networks effort. The Senate cut $5 million from the request, while the
House provided the requested amount. The House and Senate also disagree on funding a separate
PPA for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and Communications.
Both the House and Senate reduced by relatively large amounts the Administration’s request to
expand the NCSD’s Federal Network Security PPA which supports efforts to strengthen the
implementation of the Federal Management Information Security Act (FISMA). The federal
government has been criticized for some time by the information security community that its
implementation of FISMA has been little more than a paper exercise.
Another potential issue for Congress is pending legislation (e.g., H.R. 174, S. 413, and proposals
made by the White House) that would expand the role DHS plays in protecting the information
networks within the federal government and the privately owned or operated critical
infrastructure, in supporting the development of skilled cyber security professionals, and other
cyber security areas. Support for these expanded responsibilities may fall within the IPIS budget.
Congress will have to balance these additional responsibilities with its efforts to restrain federal
spending.
Congressional Research Service
58

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Federal Protective Service80
The Federal Protective Service (FPS), within the National Protection and Programs Directorate
(NPPD),81 is responsible for the protection and security of federal property, personnel, and
federally owned and leased buildings.82 In general, FPS operations focus on security and law
enforcement activities that reduce vulnerability to criminal and terrorist threats.83 FPS protection
and security operations include all-hazards based risk assessments; emplacement of criminal and
terrorist countermeasures, such as vehicle barriers and closed-circuit cameras; law enforcement
response; assistance to federal agencies through Facility Security Committees; and emergency
and safety education programs. FPS also assists other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Secret
Service (USSS) at National Special Security Events (NSSE), with additional security.84 FPS is the
lead “Government Facilities Sector Agency” for the National Infrastructure Protection Plan
(NIPP).85 Currently, FPS employs approximately 1,225 law enforcement officers, investigators,
and administrative personnel, and administers the services of approximately 13,000 contract
security guards.
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017
The Senate committee recommended a total of $1,115 million for FPS for FY2012. This is $146
million less than House-passed H.R. 2017 and the President’s FY2012 request. Additionally, the
committee expressed concern over adequate funding for FPS and recommends a 121 FTE
increase in FY2012 – 25 fewer FTE than were requested.
House-Passed H.R. 2017
The House committee approved a total of $1,261 million for FPS for FY2012. This is the same
amount as the President’s FY2012 request. The House made no changes through floor action to
these provisions.
President’s FY2012 Request
The President’s FY2012 request was 1,371 FTEs and $1,261 million for FPS to be collected in
security fees (which is not an appropriation, but an accounting of other agencies’ funding for
security fees). Of the total requested, the estimated collection of security fees would be $247
million for basic security operations,86 $501 million for building specific security operations,87

80 Prepared by Lorraine Tong, Analyst in American National Government, and Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency
Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and Finance Division.
81 FPS was transferred to NPPD from ICE following the enactment of the FY2010 DHS appropriations, P.L. 111-83.
82 40 U.S.C. 1315.
83 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.
84 For information on NSSEs, see CRS Report RS22754, National Special Security Events, by Shawn Reese.
85 For Information on the NIPP, see http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/editorial_0827.shtm.
86 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.
87 Building specific security operations include security countermeasure requirements specific to a particular building.
Congressional Research Service
59

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


and $513 million for Security Work Authorizations.88 The request included a proposal to increase
the basic security fee by $0.08 per square foot (from $0.66 to $0.74 per square foot) to recover
costs associated with the additional 146 FTEs requested for FY2012.89
Issues for Congress
Congress continues to be concerned that FPS may not have the ability and necessary resources to
perform its mission. Improving training of contract guards, federalizing contract guards,
developing standards for checkpoint detection technologies for explosives and other dangerous
items at federal facilities, and coordinating DHS efforts with the Interagency Security Committee
for building security standards are among the issues Congress has been examining.90 As a result,
early in the 112th Congress, legislation was introduced in the House and Senate to improve federal
building security and strengthen the ability of FPS to protect the buildings, the federal employees
who work in them, and the visiting public. On January 5, 2011, H.R. 176, the Federal Protective
Service Improvement and Accountability Act of 2011, was introduced in the House. On April 8,
2011, similar legislation, S. 772, the Supporting Employee Competency and Updating Readiness
Enhancements for Facilities Act of 2011 (SECURE Facilities Act) was introduced in the Senate.91
On May 18, 2011, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs reported
S. 772 favorably, as amended, by voice vote.
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(US-VISIT)92

The US-VISIT program tracks the entry and exit of foreign visitors to and from the United States
by collecting and storing biographic and biometric identification information about them. This
information is shared with a wide range of federal, state and local government agencies to help
them identify people who pose a risk to the United States. US-VISIT stores biographic data from
travelers’ I-94 forms in the Arrival and Departure Information System (ADIS) database; and it
stores biometric data—10-print digital fingerprints and a photograph—collected from
international travelers at U.S. visa-issuing posts and ports of entry and from aliens apprehended
by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the
Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) database. This information helps
immigration officers to apprehend or detain individuals for law enforcement actions as well as to
determine whether individuals are eligible to receive a visa, enter the United States, or receive
immigration benefits.

88 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.
89 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Protection & Programs Directorate, Federal Protective Service:
Fiscal Year 2012, Congressional Justification
, Washington, DC, February 2012, pp. FPS-2-5.
90 For more information about federal building security and role of FPS, see CRS Report R41138, Federal Building,
Courthouse, and Facility Security
, by Lorraine H. Tong and Shawn Reese.
91 Both bills are similar to legislation introduced in September 2010 in the 111th Congress: H.R. 6122, Federal
Protective Service Improvement and Accountability Act of 2010 and S. 3806, the SECURE Facilities Act. A third bill,
H.R. 5053, the Federal Protective Service Reform and Enhancement Act of 2010, was also introduced. No further
action was taken on the three bills before the 111th Congress adjourned. For details about H.R. 176 and S. 772, see CRS
Report R41138, Federal Building, Courthouse, and Facility Security, by Lorraine H. Tong and Shawn Reese.
92 Prepared by Marc R. Rosenblum, Specialist in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
60

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Directorship of US-VISIT has changed several times since it was created. Until FY2006, US-
VISIT was coordinated out of DHS’ Directorate of Border and Transportation Security (BTS). A
second stage review by Former DHS Secretary Chertoff eliminated BTS and proposed placing
US-VISIT within a new Screening Coordination Office (SCO) that would have included several
DHS screening programs93 and reported directly to the Secretary. However, funding for the SCO
was never appropriated, and US-VISIT became a stand-alone office within Title II of the DHS
appropriation in FY2006.94 In FY2008, DHS transferred US-VISIT into its new National
Protection Programs Directorate “to support coordination for the program’s protection mission
and to strengthen DHS management oversight.”95
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017
The Senate Appropriations Committee Report recommended appropriating $297 million for US-
VISIT, $5 million less than the Administration requested (excluding a proposed cancellation of
$26 million which the committee rejected), and $37 million less than was appropriated in
FY2011. In contrast with the House, Senate appropriators fully funded “US-VISIT 1.0” to
improve interoperability among US-VISIT databases. The Senate also provided $20 million to
support a new collaboration between US-VISIT and ICE to identify and initiate removal
proceedings against visa overstayers, with $5 million of the funds to be transferred from ICE to
US-VISIT.
House-Passed H.R. 2017
The House-passed H.R. 2017 proposes appropriating $297 million for US-VISIT, $5 million less
than requested by the Administration and $37 million less than what was appropriated in FY2011.
Included in the $297 million amount is $108 million for Business Support Services; $128 million
for Operations and Maintenance; $33 million for Identity Management and Screening Services;
and $29 million for Unique Identity/Interoperability. The House committee did not support
funding the Acquisition Workforce Initiative or “US-VISIT 1.0.” The committee concurred with
the Administration’s decision to reallocate $25 million, originally designated for a biometric exit
solution that would capture information on persons leaving the United States, to the elimination
of a backlog of ‘‘unvetted’’ overstay records. But the committee urged the department to develop
a plan to collect biometric exit data, and restricted funds within the Office of the Secretary and
Executive Management until the department makes a decision on how to implement biometric
data collection at air exits and briefs the committee on its decision.96
No changes were made to the US-VISIT provisions through House floor action.

93 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/Secure Electronic Network for Travelers
Rapid Inspection (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.
94 H.Rept. 109-241.
95 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.
96 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, H.Rept. 112-91, p. 96.
Congressional Research Service
61

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


President’s FY2012 Request
The Administration requested $302 million for US-VISIT in FY2012, a decrease of $33 million
from the FY2011 appropriated level of $335 million. The Administration’s request only counts as
$277 million in budget authority as it is partially offset by a proposal to re-allocate about $26
million in unobligated balances from the exit component of US-VISIT to eliminate the backlog in
visa overstay data analysis. Other program changes related to US-VISIT include identity
management and screening, data center mirror and migration, unique identity, and US-VISIT 1.0.
Cuts were assumed to derive from general administrative savings and technical adjustments.97
Issues for Congress
The most prominent issue facing Congress for the US-VISIT system is the lack of a system to
capture biometric data (i.e., fingerprints) from foreign visitors to confirm their exit when they
leave the country.
Biometric Exit Component
Deployment of a biometric exit system has been of concern to Congress for several 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 limited ability to
identify individuals who overstay their visas and remain in the country illegally. Currently, DHS
uses biographical information from confirmed arrivals of Traveler Enforcement Compliance
System (TECS) officers, I-94 forms, and other traveler information to conduct biographic
matching of entry data to exit data—a method with inherent inaccuracies. Two pilot projects on
biometric exit systems in 2009 yielded no transition plan to deploy either system.98 The FY2012
budget requests no funding for the implementation of a biometric exit capability, and in
September 2011 DHS officials testified about their plans to implement enhanced collection of
biographic exit data, apparently as an alternative to the collection of biometric exit data.99
Alternatives to the exit system strategy may be an issue for Congress given its intense interest in
the past.
Office of Health Affairs100
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 (NBIC), and

97 US-VISIT 1.0 addresses IDENT systems scalability issues and other re-architecting issues to the current system to
improve efficiency and performance.
98 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.
99 Statement of John Cohen, Principal Deputy Director for Counterterrorism before the Homeland Security Committee,
Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, House of Representatives, Ten Years after 9/11: Can Terrorists Still
Exploit Our Visa System
, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., Sept. 13, 2011.
100 Prepared by Sarah A. Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
62

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


the department’s occupational health and safety programs.101 OHA received $140 million in
FY2011 appropriations.
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $159 million for OHA for FY2012, $20
million (14%) more than for FY2011 and $1 million (1%) less than the President’s request.102 The
committee recommended the amounts requested by the President (below) for the BioWatch
program and for Planning and Coordination. The committee also recommended: half the
requested amount for National Biosurveillance Integration Center (NBIC), citing concerns
discussed below; more than double the requested amount for the Chemical Defense Program, to
support additional pilot programs; and a small decrease from the requested amount for Salaries
and Expenses.
House-Passed H.R. 2017
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $166 million for OHA for FY2012, $26
million (19%) more than for FY2011 and $5 million (3%) more than the President’s request.103
The committee recommended the amounts requested by the President (below) for the BioWatch
program, Planning and Coordination, NBIC, and the Chemical Defense Program. As such, the
additional $5 million above the request would be for Salaries and Expenses. The House made no
changes to these recommendations through floor action.
President’s FY2012 Request
The President requested $161 million for OHA for FY2012, $21 million (15%) more than was
provided for FY2011. The requested funding level would support 118 FTEs, 23 more than in
FY2011, and be allocated as follows: $115 million for the BioWatch program; $30 million for
Salaries and Expenses; $6 million for Planning and Coordination (under which numerous
leadership and coordination activities are implemented); $7 million for NBIC; and $2 million for
the Chemical Defense Program.104
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. Operation of the BioWatch program accounts for the lion’s share
of OHA’s budget. The program has sought for several years to deploy more sophisticated sensors
(so-called “Generation-3” or “Gen-3” sensors) that could detect airborne pathogens in a few
hours, rather than the day or more that is currently required. Some Members of Congress have

101 DHS, Office of Health Affairs, http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0880.shtm.
102 S.Rept. 112-74, pp. 115-117.
103 H.Rept. 112-91, pp. 99-100.
104 OHA, Fiscal Year 2012 Congressional Justification, Overview, p. OHA-1.
Congressional Research Service
63

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


been and remain concerned about the program’s approach to Gen-3 deployment, including
whether the approach has been scientifically rigorous and cost-efficient.105
National Biosurveillance and Integration Center (NBIC): Effectiveness
The National Biosurveillance and Integration Center (NBIC) was established in OHA to
collaborate with federal, state, and local partners to collect, analyze, and share human, animal,
plant, food, and environmental biosurveillance information from a number of monitoring
systems.106 NBIC is intended to provide biosurveillance situational awareness for DHS and its
partners, but its effectiveness in meeting this aim has been questioned by some House and Senate
appropriators, among others.107 The Government Accountability Office (GAO) notes that NBIC
has had difficulty obtaining data from other federal agencies due to “scant availability of such
data throughout the federal government and concerns about trust and control over sensitive
information….”108 In discussing the FY2012 request for OHA, Assistant Secretary Garza
commented that NBIC reporting systems are currently being piloted in four states, and that “there
is still much more work to do in order to achieve a true national capability.”109
Federal Emergency Management Agency110
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.111
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.

105 See “Office of Health Affairs,” CRS Report R41189, Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations,
coordinated by Jennifer E. Lake and William L. Painter; and statement of Rep. Gus Bilirakis, U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response and Communications,
hearing on Ensuring Effective Preparedness, Response, and Recovery for Events Impacting Health Security, 112th
Cong., 1st sess., March 17, 2011.
106 NBIC was established by Section 1101 of P.L. 110-53, the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007, to “detect, as early as possible, a biological event of national concern that presents a risk to
the United States….”
107 H.Rept. 112-91, p. 99; S.Rept. 112-74, p. 116. See also statement of Rep. Gus Bilirakis, per footnote 105.
108 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Biosurveillance: Developing a Collaboration Strategy Is Essential to
Fostering Interagency Data and Resource Sharing
, GAO-10-171, December 18, 2009, p. 10, http://www.gao.gov.
109 Statement of Alexander Garza, Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs and Chief Medical Officer, DHS, U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response and
Communications, hearing on Ensuring Effective Preparedness, Response, and Recovery for Events Impacting Health
Security
, 112th Cong., 1st sess., March 17, 2011.
110 This section was prepared by 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.
111 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.
Congressional Research Service
64

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


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 and FY2011 appropriations
and the FY2012 budget request for all of FEMA’s activities.
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017
The Senate committee recommended $1,038 million in total resources for FEMA’s Management
and Administration account ($905 million through direct appropriations), an increase of 4% ($38
million) above the Administration’s request. In recent years, a significant amount of FEMA’s
management costs have been borne by transfers from programs within FEMA. The Senate
recommends that only $134 million be funded through these types of transfers from other FEMA
accounts, $51 million less than proposed by the Administration, and $146 million less than
recommended by the House. The Senate committee recommended $6,000 million for the DRF,
$4,200 million more than requested, with the increase “paid for” by adjusting the discretionary
spending limit set by the Budget Control Act upward by $4,200 million, as provided for in that
legislation. The bill would transfer $16 million to the Office of the Inspector General for disaster
relief oversight. The Senate committee proposed $1,477 million for State and Local programs, a
reduction of $1,348 million from the Administration’s request, and $756 million from the FY2011
level. The Senate committee recommends level funding for the Emergency Food and Shelter
(EFS) program at $120 million, $20 million above the administration’s request.
House-Passed H.R. 2017
The House committee recommended $983 million for FEMA’s Management and Administration
account, an increase of 21% ($168 million) compared to the Administration’s request of $815
million. The House committee recommended $2,650 million for the DRF, a 47% ($850 million)
increase compared to the Administration’s request of $1,800 million. However, the House
committee recommended two transfers from the DRF to other accounts including $16 million for
the Office of Inspector General, and $105 million to Management and Administration. The House
committee proposed $1,000 million for State and Local Programs, a reduction of $2,845 million
compared to the FY2012 requested funding level of $3,845 million, and a $2,380 million
reduction compared to the FY2011 appropriations of $3,380 million. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended level-funding the EFS program as well.
In full committee markup, Title VI was added to the bill, providing an additional $1,000 million
in emergency funding for the DRF, offset by a rescission of $1,500 from the Department of
Energy. This brings the net total contribution by the House bill to the DRF to $3,528 million, a
96% increase above the President’s request and 40% above the net level set through P.L. 112-10,
the FY2011 concurrent resolution.
H.Amdt. 349, adopted by a vote of 333-78, provided $135 million for assistance to firefighter
grants and $185 million for SAFER grants, offset by cuts to the DHS management accounts.
Furthermore, H.Amdt. 383, which was adopted by a vote of 264-157, broadened the eligibility
for these program by eliminating a requirement that SAFER grants not be used to hire new
personnel, and waives budgetary requirements imposed on fire departments seeking grants.
Congressional Research Service
65

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


H.Amdt. 370, adopted by a vote of 273-150, struck a provision limiting the eligibility for Urban
Area Security Initiative (UASI) grants to the 10 highest-risk urban areas.
President’s FY2012 Request
For FY2012, the Administration proposed an appropriation of $6,789 million for FEMA, which
was a decrease of $504 million compared to the FY2011 request and $403 million less than what
was provided through the FY2011 continuing resolution. The Administration requested $815
million for FEMA’s Management and Administration activities, which was $77 million less than
provided through appropriations and transfers in the FY2011 continuing resolution. The DRF was
proposed an appropriation of $1,800 million, which was a decrease of more than $800 million
compared to the FY2011 gross appropriated amount of $2,645 million.
The Administration proposed $3,845 million for State and Local Programs, which was a $464
million increase from the FY2011 amount; $103 million for the Flood Map Modernization Fund,
which was a $79 million reduction from the FY2011 appropriation; and $100 million for
Emergency Food and Shelter, which was a $20 million reduction from the FY2011 enacted
amount.
Issues for Congress
As noted above, there are several significant issues associated with the Administration’s budget
request. They include Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) appropriations, preparedness measures,
consolidation of selected state and local programs, reduction in funding for the Assistance to
Firefighters Program, and reductions in funding for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program and
for Flood Map Modernization appropriations.
Disaster Relief Fund
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.112 The DRF is funded yearly through regular
appropriations; however, the account often needs supplemental funds for continued disaster
assistance. This is due in part to ongoing recovery efforts from the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005.
Since August 2005, nine emergency supplemental appropriations have been enacted to provide
disaster relief. The most recent supplemental appropriation (P.L. 111-212) in FY2010 provided an
additional $5,100 million of budget authority for the DRF.
In addition, the average monthly expenditures for the DRF are $383 million ($4,600 million
annually). Yet the initial Administration request was $1,800 million for the DRF and the House
committee recommended $2,650 million (with two transfers totaling $121 million). The Senate
recommended an amount of $6,000 million for disaster relief.

112 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
66

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


On September 9, 2011, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) submitted an amendment
to the budget request that called for an additional $500 million in FY2011 and an additional
$4,600 million in FY2012 for disaster relief – thereby increasing the original request of $1,800
million for FY2012 for the DRF to $6,400 million. According to OMB, $3,600 million would be
used for previous incidents including Hurricanes, Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Ike, Gustav, as well as the
2008 Midwest floods and the 2011 spring tornadoes. OMB stated that $1,500 million would be
used on the response to and recovery from Hurricane Irene.113 Some may argue that the amended
request is more realistic than the House proposal given the damages caused by Hurricane Irene,
and Tropical Storm Lee. On the other hand, in light of the national deficit, some may view the
revised request as too large. Thus, they may suggest that an amount closer to the ones proposed
by the House or the Senate might be more appropriate.
On September 30, 2011, the President signed into law a short-term continuing resolution (CR) to
continue funding for government operations through October 4, 2011, and on October 5 a second
CR that runs through November 18, 2011. Both resolutions funded operations at the FY2011
rate, less 1.503% in order to accommodate the budget caps implemented by the Budget Control
Act (P.L. 112-10). These resolutions included $2,650 million to partially replenish the Disaster
Relief Fund (DRF), which had been depleted.
Measuring Preparedness
In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush signed Homeland
Security Presidential Directive-8 (HSPD-8) in 2003 to create a national preparedness goal that
included actions to improve the nation’s preparedness capabilities. Since the terrorist attacks,
nearly $3,800 million has been appropriated to improve the nation’s ability to prevent and prepare
for natural and man-made disasters through preparedness grants. Anecdotal evidence suggests
these grants have improved the nation’s preparedness capabilities; however, the federal
government lacks a standardized system to measure preparedness capabilities and identify areas
of weakness to direct funding. In March President Obama signed Presidential Policy Directive-8
(PPD-8) to replace HSPD-8. PPD-8 also directs the Secretary of DHS to establish a national
preparedness goal that includes actions to improve the nation’s preparedness capabilities, as well
as develop a national preparedness system to measure preparedness capabilities among other
preparedness-related activities. Some are skeptical, however, that the objectives of PPD-8 will be
realized. On the one hand, should DHS fail to create a system for measuring and assessing
preparedness capabilities, Congress may elect to limit or withhold preparedness grants. On the
other hand, such action may put the nation at risk by eliminating funding that is needed to keep
the nation prepared for natural and man-made disasters.
State and Local Programs114
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.

113 Jacob J. Lew, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C., September 9, 2011,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/budget_amendments/supp_amendment_09092011.pdf.
114 Prepared by Natalie Keegan, Analyst in American Federalism and Emergency Management Policy, Government and
Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
67

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Table 16 provides information on the FY2010 and FY2011 appropriations and the
Administration’s FY2012 budget request for all State and Local Programs.
Table 16. Budget Authority for Grants and Training
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2012
FY2012
FY2010
FY2011 FY2012
House-
Senate-
FY2012
Programs
Revised Enacted Request
passed
reported
Enacted
State and Local Programs
State and Local Programs



807a —

State Homeland Security Grant Program
950
724
1,063

430

Operation Stonegardenb 60
55
50
55
50


Citizen Corps Programb
13
10 13 — —


Metropolitan Medical Response Systemc
41
35
0 — —


Driver’s License Security Grants Program (REAL
50
45
0 — —


ID) b
Urban Area Security Initiative
887
724
920

400d

Public Transportation Security Assistance and
300 250e
300 — 200


Railroad Security Assistance
Over-The-Road Bus Security Assistance
12
5e 0 — 0

AMTRAK

20
— — 20

Port Security Grants
300
250
300

200

Buffer Zone Protection Program Grants
50
0
50

0

Emergency Operations Centers
60
15
0
0
15

Training, Exercises, and Technical Assistancef 267
250
192
193
232

National Domestic Preparedness Consortium
103
93
45
45
93

Center for Domestic Preparedness
63
62
63
63
63

Center for Counterterrorism and Cyber Crime
2
0
0
0
0

Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium
3
0
0
0
0

National Exercise Program
40
40
40
40
34

Continuing and Emerging Training Grants
29
29
21
26
26

Technical Assistance Program
13
11
10
10
[10]h

Evaluation and National Assessment Program
16
14
14
10
[10]h

Emergency Management Institute

[9] [9]
[9] 16i

Subtotal, State and Local Programs
2,870
3,380
2,825
1,000
1,477

Regional Catastrophic Security Grants
35
15
0
0
0

Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant
50 0 0 0 0

Program
Firefighter Assistance Grantsg 810
808
670
670
750

Fire Grants
390
404
265
335
375

Congressional Research Service
68

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


FY2012
FY2012
FY2010
FY2011 FY2012
House-
Senate-
FY2012
Programs
Revised Enacted Request
passed
reported
Enacted
SAFER Act grants
420
404
405
335
375

Emergency Management Performance Grants
340
340
350
350
350

Total, Grants and Training
4,165
3,380
3,845
2,020
2,577

Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS Expenditure Plan for FY 2011, FY2012 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the
FY2012 DHS Budget in Brief, P.L. 111-83, P.L. 112-10, H.Rept. 112-91, H.R. 2017, as passed by the House, S.Rept.
112-74, and H.R. 2017, as reported in the Senate.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding.
a. The FY2012 House-reported bill provided $807 million for most of the State and Local Programs account
(National Level / Training, Exercises, and Technical Assistance programs excepted) without making specific
allocations among the programs in the FY2012 request, except for $55 million for Operation Stonegarden.
b. The Administration requests Stonegarden funds as a separate item from SHSGP. The House treats it as a
carveout under SHSGP. The chart reflects the House perspective.
c. These grants were funded under SHSGP beginning with P.L. 112-10, the final FY2011 concurrent resolution.
d. The Senate carved out $10 million for non-profit entities under UASI. While no funds were specifically
designated for non-profit entities under UASI in FY2011 appropriations, Congress appropriated $19 million
in FY2010 for the non-profit UASI program.
e. The FY2011 enacted amount for the Over-the-Road Bus Security Assistance was included in the funding
level for the Public Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad Security Assistance. The FY2010
enacted amount was not included in that overall funding level.
f.
Referred to in H.Rept. 112-91 as National Programs.
g. Although the Administration has requested this as a part of its State and Regional Preparedness Program
request, it is funded as a separate amount in the House-passed bill.
h. The Senate chose to fund this line under FEMA Management and Administration.
i.
The Senate chose to fund this line here rather than under FEMA Management and Administration. House
numbers are non-adds for comparison only. No FY2010 data was available when this report went to press.
For FY2012, the Administration proposed a total appropriation of $3,845 million for State and
Local Programs, which was $465 million more than Congress appropriated in FY2011 and $320
million less than FY2010 appropriations. The largest increase in the proposed FY2012 funding
levels over FY2011 appropriations is for the State Homeland Security Grant Program (increased
by $275 million), and the Urban Area Security Initiative (increased by $195 million). The largest
reduction in the proposed FY2012 funding levels over FY2011 appropriations is a decrease in
funding for the Firefighters Assistance Grants (decreased by $140 million) and the Training,
Exercises, and Technical Assistance programs (decreased by $58 million). The proposed FY2012
funding levels also included elimination of funding for selected programs, such as the
Metropolitan Medical Response System, REAL ID, Regional Catastrophic Security Grants, Over-
the-Road Bus Security Assistance, Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program,
and Emergency Operations Centers grant. The elimination of these programs could potentially
lead to two scenarios:
• Grantees would attempt to continue funding all of their homeland security
projects, including those that are eliminated but eligible under other programs,
which might result in reduced funding for all homeland security projects;
• Grantees would not fund all of their needed homeland security projects.
Congressional Research Service
69

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


The House committee mark for FY2012 seeks to reform the State and Local Programs by
reducing appropriations, reorganizing the State and Local Programs by providing the DHS
Secretary with discretion to prioritize the greatest needs and highest risks and making allocation
decisions for the programs, mandating that the FEMA Administrator submit a plan to drawdown
all unexpended balances by the end of the 2012 fiscal year, and withholding 50% of the funding
for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management until the submission of the National
Preparedness Goal and National Preparedness System. The House concurred with this
recommendation.
As detailed in Table 16, the House proposed $1 billion for state and local programs, of which $55
million was provided for Operation Stonegarden and $192.6 million provided for training,
exercises, and technical assistance. The remaining $807 million was to be distributed among nine
grant programs at the discretion of the DHS Secretary: The State Homeland Security Grant
Program, Urban Area Security Initiative, Metropolitan Medical Response System, Citizen Corps
Program, Public Transportation Security and Railroad Security Assistance, Over-the-Road Bus
Security Assistance, Port Security Grants, Driver’s License Security Grants Program, and
Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program.
The Senate proposed $430 million for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, of which $50
million was designated for Operation Stonegarden. The Senate also authorized the DHS Secretary
to fund activities previously funded under the Metropolitan Medical Response System, Citizen
Corps, Driver’s License Security Grant Program, Buffer Zone Protection Program, and
Interoperable Communications Grant at the Secretary’s discretion. The Senate also proposed
$400 million for the Urban Area Security Initiative, of which $10 million was provided for non-
profit entities, and authorized the DHS Secretary to fund activities previously funded under the
Metropolitan Medical Response System, Citizen Corps, Buffer Zone Protection Program, and
Interoperable Communications Grant at the Secretary’s discretion.
Both the House and the Senate set specific time-frames for the distribution of grant funds. The
House stipulated that the State Homeland Security Grant Program, Urban Area Security Initiative,
Metropolitan Medical Response System, and Citizen Corps Program funds be made available not
later than 25 days after enactment of the bill, that applications must be submitted no later than 90
days after the grant announcement, and that FEMA Administrator must act on the application
within 90 days of receipt. The House also stipulated that funds for Public Transportation Security
Assistance, Railroad Security Assistance, Over-the-Road Bus Security Assistance, Port Security
Grants, Driver’s License Security Grants, and Interoperable Communications Grant Program
must be made available not later than 30 days after enactment of the bill, that applications must
be submitted within 45 days of the grant announcement, and that the FEMA Administrator must
take action on the application with 60 days of receipt. The Senate stipulated that FEMA must
issue grant guidance within 25 days of the enactment of the bill, that applications must be
received within 90 days of the issuance of the guidance, and that FEMA must act on the
applications within 90 days of the application deadline.
Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFS)115
The EFS Program is authorized by Title III of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.
The program enables thousands of social service providers across the nation to provide

115 Prepared by Francis McCarthy, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
70

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


emergency help (preventing evictions, utility cut-offs, supplementing shelters, soup kitchens,
food banks, etc.) to families and individuals in need. FEMA chairs a national board consisting of
representatives from the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities USA, the United Way, the American
Red Cross, the Jewish Federations of North America, and the National Council of Churches. The
unique part of the program is that after allocations are made at the national level, decisions on
funding to specific provider organizations are made at the local level by an EFS Local Board
similar in composition to the EFS National Board. The total administrative budget for the
program is 3.5%, so almost all funds go to direct services.
The Administration’s FY2012 budget suggests cutting the EFS program by $20 million, from its
current $120 million to $100 million. The Administration’s justification notes that the reduction in
EFS funding will permit a “refocus of agency-wide resources on FEMA’s primary mission” of
disaster response and recovery efforts.
While the EFS program is not a disaster program within FEMA’s “primary mission”, it has been
hosted at FEMA for more than 25 years and has a significant role in communities during times of
high unemployment. Also the program’s national board is composed of agencies that are
frequently FEMA’s partner in disaster response and recovery work. The program has frequently
been augmented during economic downturns, but the FY2012 budget request of $100 million,
represents another reduction to the program. However, until FY2011, reductions had previously
been made during steep declines in the national unemployment rate.116 The suggested cut-backs
are significant within the context of current hunger statistics that suggest increased need.117 The
House mark for FY2012 is $120 million. That keeps the program at the FY2011 level and is $20
million above the Administration’s request. The Senate concurred with this recommendation at
the $120 million level.
Pre-Disaster Mitigation118
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.119
Authorization for the PDM program was scheduled to expire on September 30, 2010. In the 111th
Congress, Representative Oberstar and other sponsors introduced the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act
of 2010, which became P.L. 111-351. That act re-authorized the PDM program for an additional
three years at $180 million for FY2011 and $200 million per year for the remaining two years.120
The FY2011 appropriation, P.L. 112-10, provided $50 million for the PDM program, matching
the lowest level of funding for the program since FY2006.

116 For example, EFS program funds were reduced by $30 million from $130 million to $100 million in FY1996.
117 Feeding America, Hunger and Poverty Statistics, http://feedingamerica.org/faces-of-hunger/hunger-101/hunger-and-
poverty-statistics.aspx
118 Prepared by Natalie Keegan, Analyst in American Federalism and Emergency Management Policy, Government and
Finance Division.
119 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.
120 P.L. 111-351, 124 Stat. 3864. This reauthorization also increased the state minimum amount to $575,000.
Congressional Research Service
71

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


The FY2012 budget requests $85 million, which is an increase of $35 million over the FY2011
enacted amount. However, the House has funded the PDM program at $40 million, which would
be its lowest level since the program was authorized. The Senate Committee provides $42.5
million for the program which, though above the House level, would still be the smallest amount
provided for the program.121
Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis (Formerly Map Modernization)
The flood map modernization program includes re-mapping in many areas to update maps to
current conditions but also includes their digitization and that of existing maps for easier access.
Funding in this area has trended down as maps and related work have been completed. But there
is great interest in the accuracy of the maps and the methodology employed by FEMA. For the
program, which received more than $181 million in FY2011, the Administration requested $102
million for FY2012. The House has recommended $103 million while the Senate recommended
$102 million. However, the Senate has requested reports from FEMA, working with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, on the accuracy of the maps and other information on the program and
its work with local communities affected by the maps.
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFG)122
The Administration’s FY2012 budget proposed $670 million for firefighter assistance, a 17% cut
from the FY2011 level. Specifically, the Administration’s FY2012 budget proposed $250 million
for AFG (a 38% decrease from the FY2011 level) and $420 million for the Staffing for Adequate
Fire and Emergency Response Program (SAFER) (a 4% increase).123 The FY2012 request for
AFG alone would be, if enacted, the lowest amount since FY2001, the initial year of the
program. According to the budget proposal, the request would fund 2,200 firefighter positions and
approximately 5,000 AFG grants. The FY2012 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 House mark proposed $350 million for firefighter assistance, including $200 million for AFG
and $150 million for SAFER. These FY2012 levels constitute a 51% cut for AFG and a 63% cut
for SAFER compared to the FY2011 appropriation.
During floor action on June 1, 2011, an amendment was offered by Representative LaTourette to
increase funding for AFG by $135 million and SAFER by $185 million, taking its $320 million
offset from departmental management accounts. The amendment passed by a vote of 333-87,
bringing the combined accounts to the requested level of $670 million, but divided evenly
between AFG and SAFER, as opposed to the roughly 37:63 split proposed by the Administration.

121 The original pilot program, Project Impact, which was funded through Appropriations Acts, was funded for several
years at the $25 million level, prior to authorization. For more information on PDM funding levels, see see CRS Report
RL34537, FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program: Overview and Issues, by Francis X. McCarthy and Natalie
Keegan, p. 4.
122 Prepared by Lennard G. Kruger, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science and Industry
Division.
123 For further information see CRS Report RL32341, Assistance to Firefighters Program: Distribution of Fire Grant
Funding
, by Lennard G. Kruger and CRS Report RL33375, Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response: The
SAFER Grant Program
, by Lennard G. Kruger.
Congressional Research Service
72

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


The Senate mark proposed $750 million for firefighter assistance, which is a 12% increase over
both the House-passed level and the Administration budget proposal. The total includes $375
million for AFG and $375 million for SAFER.
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
73

.

Table 17. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2011 Appropriation
FY2011 Appropriation
FY2010 Total
FY2012
FY2012
(Revised +
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
FY2012
Operational Component
Supplementals)
Enacted
Supp.
Resc.
Total
Request
passed
reported
Enacted
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Gross budget authority

2,882
2,649


2,650
2,907
2,877
2,892
Offsetting
Fees
-2,636
-2,503

-2,503 -2,538 -2,744 -2,771

Net subtotal (gross less fees,
trust funds and mandatory)
246
146


146
369
132
121

Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center
291
271
271 276 274 272

Science and Technology
Management and
Administration
143
141
141 149 141 143

Research, Development,
Acquisition, and Operations
863 687

687
1,027
398
657
Net Subtotal
1,006
828


828
1,176
539
800

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
Management and
Administration
39
37
37 41 40 37

Research, Development, and
Operations
325
275
275 206 245 191

Systems
Acquisition
20
30
30 84 52 40

Net
Subtotal
383
342
342 332 337 268

Gross budget authority: Title
IV
4,562
4,092

4,092 4,691 4,027 4,232

Net budget authority: Title IV
1,926
1,589


1,589
2,154
1,283
1,461

Source: Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS Expenditure Plan for FY 2011, FY2012 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2012 DHS Budget in Brief, P.L. 111-83, P.L. 112-
10, H.Rept. 112-91, H.R. 2017, as passed by the House, S.Rept. 112-74, and H.R. 2017, as reported in the Senate.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding. The FY2011 supplemental appropriations column and the FY2011 rescission column are placeholders. Thus, while no such
funding has yet been put forth for FY2011, 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-74

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services124
Three major activities dominate the work of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS): (1) adjudication of immigration petitions (including nonimmigrant change of status
petitions, relative petitions, employment-based petitions, work authorizations, and travel
documents); (2) adjudication of naturalization petitions for legal permanent residents to become
citizens; and (3) 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.125 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.126 Although the agency has
received annual direct appropriations in the last decade, they have been largely directed towards
specific projects such as backlog reduction initiatives. The agency receives most of its revenue
from adjudication fees of immigration benefit applications and petitions.
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017
The Senate-reported H.R. 2017 proposes appropriating $121 million for USCIS, $267 million less
than the Administration requested and $14 million less than provided in FY2011. This amount is
divided between $102 million provided for E-Verify, $11 million for the Data Development
Center, and $8 million for the Immigrant Integration Initiative. Funding for the latter two
programs was reinstated from the House-passed bill, and funding levels are, respectively, $2
million and $3 million below what was requested in the budget. The Committee directs that no
appropriations be used to operate the Office of Citizenship Services and that its operations
continue to be fee-funded. The total decline of $267 million from the requested amount stems
from the committee’s belief that the cost of processing asylum claims and refugee applications, as
well as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, should be paid for
through fee revenue rather than appropriations. The committee expects USCIS to revise its fee
structure to accommodate the costs of these programs. No funding is provided for military
naturalizations which the Committee notes has been requested in the Department of Defense
budget. The Committee notes that roughly $91 million in the H and L Fund for fraud
investigations was carried over into FY2011 and is available for these and other purposes.

124 This section was prepared by William Kandel, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
125 §286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1356.
126 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
75

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


House-Passed H.R. 2017
The House-reported H.R. 2017 proposes appropriating $132 million for USCIS, $237 million less
than the Administration requested and $14 million less than provided in FY2011. This amount is
divided between $102 million provided for E-Verify and $30 million provided for the Systematic
Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program. The total decline of $237 million from the
requested amount stems from the committee’s belief that the cost of processing asylum claims
and refugee applications should be paid for through fee revenue rather than appropriations. No
funding is provided for military naturalizations which the committee believes should be funded
by the Department of Defense. From its fee revenue, the committee directs USCIS to spend at
least $29 million toward digital conversion of immigration records. It also stipulates that any
grants for immigrant integration be paid from USCIS fee revenue and not from appropriations.
No changes were made to these funding levels through House floor action.
President’s FY2012 Request
Table 18, which presents the budget account detail for USCIS, shows the requested gross budget
authority for FY2012 at approximately $2,907 million. This figure includes $369 million from
congressional appropriations and $2,537 million from fee collections. The requested direct
appropriation of $369 million includes $102 million for the E-Verify program, $13 million for
data center development, and $20 million for the Immigrant Integration Initiative. Moreover, the
agency requested $30 million for the Systematic Alien Verification Entitlements (SAVE) Program
to assist state, local, and federal agencies to determine individuals’ eligibility for public benefits
based on their immigration status. USCIS also proposed to fund asylum and refugee applications
and military naturalizations—all which have no fees attached—with a direct appropriation of
$203 million.
The remaining $2,537 million in gross budget authority requested was expected to be funded by
fee collections. Of this FY2012 amount, $2,103 million would fund the USCIS adjudication
services, $86 million for information and customer services, and $348 million for administration.
Congressional Research Service
76

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Table 18. USCIS Budget Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2012
FY2012
FY2010 FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
FY2012
Program / Project / Activity
Total
Enacted
Request
passed
reported
Enacted
Total USCIS Funding
2,871
2,951
2,907
2,876
2,892

Appropriations 235
146
369
132
121

REAL ID Act Implementation
10
0
0
0
0

E-Verify 137
103
102
102
102

Data Center Development
11
2
13
0
11

Immigrant Integration Initiative
22
11
20
0
8

Asylum, Refugees, & Military
Naturalizations Processing

55
30
203
0
0

SAVE 0
0
30
30
0

Acquisition Workforce
0 0 1 0
0
Fee Col ections (Mandatory)
2,636
2,806
2,537
2,744
2,771

Immigration Examination Fee
Account 2,513

2,754
2,486
2,693
2,693

H-1B Visa
13
13
13
13
13

H-1B/L Fraud
110
39
38
38
38

Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS Expenditure Plan for FY 2011, FY2012 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the
FY2012 DHS Budget in Brief, P.L. 111-83, P.L. 112-10, H.Rept. 112-91, H.R. 2017, as passed by the House, S.Rept.
112-74, and H.R. 2017, as reported in the Senate.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding.
Issues for Congress
For the FY2012 budget cycle, potential issues for Congress continue to include declines in
immigrant and nonimmigrant applications, the use of fee-generated funding, and the USCIS
request for appropriations to process refugee, asylee, and military naturalization applications.
Application Declines and Fee-Generated Funding
Because USCIS supports itself primarily through fee revenue, it must accurately project the
number of anticipated applications to avoid building backlogs or over-budgeting projects. USCIS
was criticized for its alleged unpreparedness in the face of surging applications prior to the 2007
fee increases.127 More recently, the global economic downturn raised concerns about declining
application volume and agency revenue. Such declines would affect future projects and require
additional Congressional appropriations. In response, USCIS has moved to more accurately
project its application volume to better inform the budgeting process.128 Although USCIS most

127 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.
128 Information is based upon CRS discussions with the USCIS Chief Financial Officer in 2009.
Congressional Research Service
77

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


recently altered its fee structure in November 2010, it may need to repeat this process and
increase some fees to accommodate the cost of programs whose budgets have declined, notably
the SAVE program.
Appropriations for Waiver Applications
In its FY2012 presidential budget request, USCIS seeks direct appropriations of $203 million to
fund applications for refugees, asylum-seekers, and military naturalizations. Historically, USCIS
has funded these no-fee applications through its general application fee revenue. Congress has
considered providing USCIS with direct appropriations for such application processing and the
fees. With P.L. 112-10, Congress allocated $25 million for processing applications for refugees,
asylum-seekers, and military naturalizations, a fraction of the president’s original $207 million
request for FY2011. Likewise, the FY2012 presidential budget request also includes a $30 million
appropriation for the SAVE Program, currently funded through “surcharges” on immigration
application fees. The House committee proposed that costs for processing applications for
refugees and asylum seekers be paid through USCIS fee revenue, and that military naturalizations
be paid for by the Department of Defense. The Senate concurred with this view and urged
USCIS to enter into a memorandum of understanding with DOD that all future costs of military
naturalizations will be borne by DOD.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center129
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.
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017
The Senate-reported version of H.R. 2017 included $272 million for FLETC. This is less than $2
million more than was provided for FY2011, and $4 million less than requested by the
Administration. This reduction was taken from the appropriation for acquisitions, construction,
improvements, and related expenses (AC&I). The Senate bill contains a provision as it has in the
past requiring the director of the Center to ensure that all FLETC facilities are “operated at the
highest capacity feasible” over the course of the fiscal year. Report language also expects the
Center’s facilities to be at or near capacity before entering into new leases with additional
contractors or entering into partnership agreements with other organizations.

129 Prepared by Jennifer E. Lake, Section Research Manager, and William L. Painter, Analyst in Emergency
Management and Homeland Security, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
78

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


House-Passed H.R. 2017
House-introduced H.R. 2017 includes $274 million for FLETC. This represents an increase of
nearly $4 million over the final FY2011 enacted amount, and a decrease of $2 million (almost
1%) as compared with the FY2012 request. This cut was taken from the AC&I appropriation as it
was in the Senate version, although the House recommended one of half the depth. No changes
were made to these provisions through House floor action.
President’s FY2012 Request
The Administration requested $276 million for FLETC for FY2012. This represents an increase
of $5 million or nearly 2% over the final FY2011 enacted amount of $271 million.
Science and Technology130
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.131
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017
The Senate-reported bill provided $800 million for the S&T Directorate (see Table 19). For
Research, Development, and Innovation, it provided $440 million, or 33% less than the
Administration’s request. It approved the Administration’s proposal to transfer certain
radiological and nuclear R&D activities to S&T from the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
(DNDO). In Laboratory Facilities, it did not provide the funding the Administration’s requested to
begin construction at the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF). The committee report
described the amount requested for NBAF as “not a useable construction segment” and directed
S&T to provide an updated cost schedule for the project.
House-Passed H.R. 2017
The House-passed bill provided $539 million. For Research, Development, and Innovation, it
provided $106 million, or 84% less than the Administration’s request. In Laboratory Facilities, it
provided $75 million, or half the request, for NBAF construction. It rejected the Administration’s
proposal to transfer radiological and nuclear R&D activities from DNDO. The committee report
stated that “S&T must demonstrate how its R&D efforts are timely, with results relatively well-
defined, and above all, make investment decisions based on clear and sensible priorities.” It stated
the committee’s expectation that “the proposed funding levels will force S&T to make more
focused, high-return investment decisions.”

130 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
131 For more information, see CRS Report RL34356, The DHS Directorate of Science and Technology: Key Issues for
Congress
, by Dana A. Shea and Daniel Morgan.
Congressional Research Service
79

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


President’s FY2012 Request
The Administration requested $1,176 million. This was 42% more than the FY2011 appropriation
of $829 billion. The request included $150 million to support the beginning of construction at
NBAF and about $109 million for nuclear and radiological activities currently conducted in
DNDO.
Table 19. Directorate of Science and Technology, Accounts and Activities
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2012
FY2012
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
FY2012

Total
Enacted
Request
passed
reported
Enacted
Directorate of Science and
1,006 828
1,176 539 800

Technology—Total
Management and
143 141 149 141 143

Administration
R&D, Acquisition, and
863 687
1,027 398 657

Operations
Laboratory
Facilities
150 140 276 202 127

University
Programs
49 40 37 37 37
Border
and
Maritime
44 32 — — —
Chemical
and
Biological 207 167 — — —
Command, Control, and
82 69 — — —
Interoperability
Explosives
121 112 — — —
Human Factors / Behavioral
16 11 — — —
Sciences
Infrastructure and
75 25 — — —
Geophysical
Innovation
44 31 — — —
Test and Evaluation,
29 18 — — —
Standards
Transition
46 42 — — —
Research, Development, and
— — 660 107 440

Innovationa
Acquisition and Operations
— — 54 54 54
Support
Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS Expenditure Plan for FY 2011, FY2012 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the
FY2012 DHS Budget in Brief, P.L. 111-83, P.L. 112-10, H.Rept. 112-91, H.R. 2017 as passed by the House, S.Rept.
112-74, and H.R. 2017 as reported in the Senate.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding.
a. The Administration’s FY2012 request reorganized many of its RDA&O activities from research topics into
“Research, Development and Innovation” and “Acquisition and Operations Support.”
Congressional Research Service
80

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Issues for Congress
In late 2010, the S&T Directorate announced a reorganization and released a new strategic plan.
The reorganization reduced the number of direct reports to the Under Secretary and was
accompanied by a change in budget structure, with most of the previous budget lines combined
into two new categories: Research, Development, and Innovation and Acquisition and Operations
Support. According to DHS, the new strategy and organization will result in more robust
partnerships with other DHS components, a smaller number of larger projects, and more
emphasis on transitioning technology into the field rather than long-term research. The House and
Senate committee reports both objected to the new budget structure. The House report described
the Research, Development, and Innovation budget category as “all-encompassing ... too large
and vague.” The Senate report stated that the new structure “reduces transparency and
accountability.”
The construction of NBAF will likely result in increased congressional oversight over the next
several years. For construction of NBAF and decommissioning of the Plum Island Animal
Disease Center (PIADC), which NBAF is intended to replace, DHS expects to need further
appropriations of $541 million between FY2013 and FY2017, in addition to the $150 million
requested for FY2012. In the appropriations acts for FY2009 through FY2011, Congress
authorized DHS to use receipts from the sale of Plum Island, subject to appropriation, to offset
NBAF construction and PIADC decommissioning costs.132 The House-passed and Senate-
reported bills for FY2012 would continue this authorization. According to DHS, however, the
likely value of such receipts “has been found to be considerably overestimated.”133
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office134
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
FY2012 budget, DNDO’s research role would be transferred to the Directorate of Science and
Technology (S&T).
Senate-Reported H.R. 2017
The Senate-reported bill provided $268 million for DNDO (see Table 20). It approved the
Administration’s proposal to transfer the Transformational R&D program to the S&T Directorate.
It provided $40 million for Systems Acquisition, versus $84 million in the Administration’s
request. Within Systems Acquisition, it provided $22 million for Securing the Cities, including $2
million for expansion to a new city.

132 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 110-329, Div. D, §540) and Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-83, §540). The FY2010 provision was continued for FY2011
under the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10).
133 DHS FY2012 budget justification, p. S&T RDA&O 24. 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.
134 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
Congressional Research Service
81

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


House-Passed H.R. 2017
The House-passed bill provided $337 million. It rejected the transfer of Transformational R&D to
the S&T Directorate, but provided only $45 million for that program, versus $96 million in
FY2011. It provided $52 million for Systems Acquisition. Like the Senate-reported bill, it
provided $22 million for Securing the Cities, including $2 million for expansion to a new city.
President’s FY2012 Request
The Administration requested $332 million. This was a 1% decrease from the FY2011
appropriation of $342 million. The request of $206 million for Research, Development, and
Operations was $69 million less than the FY2011 appropriation, largely because it included no
funds for Transformational R&D. The request for Systems Acquisition was $84 million, versus
$30 million in FY2011. The request included $27 million for the Securing the Cities program,
which was previously funded at congressional direction and limited to the New York region; the
request proposed expanding it to an additional city in FY2012.
Table 20. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Accounts and Activities
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2012
FY2012
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
House-
Senate-
FY2012

Total
Enacted
Request
passed
reported
Enacted
Domestic Nuclear Detection
384 342 332 337 268

Office Total
Management
and
Administration 39 37 41 40 37
Research, Development, and
325 275 206 245 191

Operations
Systems Engineering and
25 33 32 30 31
Architecture
Systems

Development
100 53 70 69 60
Transformational Research and
109 96 — 45 —
Development
Assessments

32 38 43 40 40
Operations
Support
38 33 37 36 35
National Technical Nuclear
20 27 25 25 25
Forensics
Systems
Acquisition
20 30 84 52 40
Radiation Portal Monitoring
— 37 20 8
Program
Securing

the
Cities
20 20 27 22 22
Human Portable Radiation

10 20 10 10
Detection Systems
Source: CRS Analysis of the DHS Expenditure Plan for FY 2011, FY2012 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the
FY2012 DHS Budget in Brief, P.L. 111-83, P.L. 112-10, H.Rept. 112-91, H.R. 2017 as passed by the House, S.Rept.
112-74, and H.R. 2017 as reported in the Senate.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
82

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Issues for Congress
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 (RPM).135 Congress included a
requirement for secretarial certification before full-scale ASP procurement in each homeland
security appropriations act from FY2007 through FY2010.136 The House-passed and Senate-
reported bills for FY2012 included a similar requirement. In February 2010, DHS decided that it
would no longer pursue the use of ASPs for primary screening, although it will continue
developing and testing them for use in secondary screening.137 The FY2012 request included
funds to purchase and deploy 44 ASPs for secondary screening. The House-passed and Senate-
reported bills both provided less than the request for RPMs. The House report expressed an
expectation that DNDO will not deploy ASPs prior to certification, even for secondary screening,
but noted that RPM funding in the House-passed bill “is not restricted” to previous-generation
systems. The Senate report stated that “the request to procure and deploy 44 [ASPs] is denied.”
The global nuclear detection architecture overseen by DNDO remains an issue of congressional
interest. The Systems Engineering and Architecture activity includes a GNDA development
program as well as programs to develop and assess GNDA activities in various mission areas.138
The Senate-reported bill directed DNDO to prepare and submit “a strategic plan of investments
necessary to implement the Department of Homeland Security’s responsibilities under the
domestic component of the global nuclear detection architecture.” It identified specific items that
should be included in the required plan.
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 same act 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. Congress may also choose to
consider the acquisition portion of DNDO’s mission. Most of DNDO’s funding for Systems
Acquisition was eliminated in FY2010, and that year’s budget stated that “funding requests for
radiation detection equipment will now be sought by the end users that will operate them.”139 In
contrast, the FY2012 request for Systems Acquisition included funding for ASPs that would be
operated by Customs and Border Protection, as well as human-portable radiation detectors for the
Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and the Transportation Security Administration.
The reasons for this apparent reversal of policy were not explained in either the FY2011 or the
FY2012 DNDO budget justification.

135 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.
136 P.L. 112-10 continued this requirement for FY2011.
137 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.
138 For more information, see CRS Report RL34574, The Global Nuclear Detection Architecture: Issues for Congress,
by Dana A. Shea.
139 Executive Office of the President, FY2010 Budget, Appendix, p. 560.
Congressional Research Service
83

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations


Appendix. DHS Appropriations in Context
Federal-Wide Homeland Security Funding
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there has been an increasing interest in the
levels of funding available for homeland security efforts. The Office of Management and Budget,
as originally directed by the FY1998 National Defense Authorization Act, has published an
annual report to Congress on combating terrorism. Beginning with the June 24, 2002, edition of
this report, homeland security was included as a part of the analysis. In subsequent years, this
homeland security funding analysis has become more refined, as distinctions (and account lines)
between homeland and non-homeland security activities have become more precise. This means
that while Table A-1 is presented in such a way as to allow year to year comparisons, they may in
fact not be strictly comparable due to the increasing specificity of the analysis, as outlined above.
With regard to DHS funding, it is important to note that DHS funding does not comprise all
federal spending on homeland security efforts. In fact, while the largest component of federal
spending on homeland security is contained within DHS, the DHS homeland security request for
FY2012 accounts for nearly 52% of total federal funding for homeland security. The Department
of Defense comprises the next highest proportion at 25% of all federal spending on homeland
security. The Department of Health and Human Services at 6%, the Department of Justice at
nearly 6% and the Department of Energy at nearly 3% round out the top five agencies in spending
on homeland security. These five agencies collectively account for approximately 92% 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 FY2012
request included total homeland security budget authority of $37.0 billion for DHS, the requested
total budget authority for DHS was $50.3 billion. Moreover, the amounts shown in Table A-1
will not be consistent with total amounts shown elsewhere in the report. This same inconsistency
between homeland security budget authority and requested total budget authority is also true for
the budgets of the other agencies listed in the table.

Congressional Research Service
84

.

Table A-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2012
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2011
CR
FY2012
FY2012 as
Department FY2002
FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 Estimatea
Request
% of Total
Department of Homeland
Security
(DHS)
17,381 23,063 22,923 24,549 26,571 29,554 32,486 38,988 33,236 35,985
37,046
51.7%
Department of Defense (DOD)b 16,126
8,442
7,024
17,188
17,510
16,538
18,032
19,483
19,054
17,626
18,102
25.3%
Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS)
1,913
4,144
4,062
4,229
4,352
4,327
4,301
4,677
7,196
4,227
4,579
6.4%
Department of Justice (DOJ)
2,143
2,349
2,180
2,767
3,026
3,518
3,528
3,715
4,119
4,072
4,068
5.7%
Department of State (DOS)
477
634
696
824
1,108
1,242
1,719
1,809
2,016
2,131
2,327
3.2%
Department of Energy (DOE)
1,220
1,408
1,364
1,562
1,702
1,719
1,827
1,939
1,793
1,969
1,973
2.8%
Department of Agriculture (AG)
553
410
411
596
597
541
575
513
611
604
597
0.8%
General Services Administration
97
67
79
65
99
168
376
528
214
50
427
0.6%
National Science Foundation
(NSF)
260 285 340 342 344 385 365 407 390 390
426
0.6%
Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA)
49 154 271 249 298 260 309 310 427 421
375
0.5%
Other
Agencies
3,769 1,490 1,482 2,011 1,511 1,582 1,582 1,703 1,603 1,594
1,719
2.4%
Total Federal Budget
Authority

43,848 42,447 40,834 54,383 57,118 59,833 65,099 73,996 70,661 69,069
71,639
100%
Sources: CRS analysis of data contained in Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” and Appendix K of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2012
President’s Budget (for FY2010-FY2012), Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” and Appendix K of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2011 President’s
Budget (for FY2009); 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 total 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.
CRS-85

.

a. Amounts for FY2011 are estimates from the FY2012 President’s Budget request based upon the annualized levels contained within the continuing resolution in
operation at the time of publication. At the time of the publication of the President’s Budget request Congress had yet to enact appropriations for FY2011.
b. Amounts for FY2002-FY2004 do not include re-estimates of DOD homeland security funding, for FY2007 DOD changed the manner in which they account for their
homeland security activities. This new method has been applied for forward. Re-estimates of FY2002-FY2004 DOD funding using this new method were not available
for inclusion.

CRS-86

.
Homeland Security Department: FY2012 Appropriations




Author Contact Information

William L. Painter, Coordinator
Sarah A. Lister
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology
Security Policy
slister@crs.loc.gov, 7-7320
wpainter@crs.loc.gov, 7-3335
Jennifer E. Lake, Coordinator
William A. Kandel
Section Research Manager
Analyst in Immigration Policy
jlake@crs.loc.gov, 7-0620
wkandel@crs.loc.gov, 7-4703
Barbara L. Schwemle
John D. Moteff
Analyst in American National Government
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
bschwemle@crs.loc.gov, 7-8655
jmoteff@crs.loc.gov, 7-1435
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
Lennard G. Kruger
Lorraine H. Tong
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Analyst in American National Government
lkruger@crs.loc.gov, 7-7070
ltong@crs.loc.gov, 7-5846
Bruce R. Lindsay
Frederick M. Kaiser
Analyst in American National Goverment
Specialist in American National Government
blindsay@crs.loc.gov, 7-3752
fkaiser@crs.loc.gov, 7-8682
Francis X. McCarthy
Shawn Reese
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
fmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-9533
Security Policy
sreese@crs.loc.gov, 7-0635


Congressional Research Service
87