Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Congressional research reportDec 14, 2009
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Homeland Security Department:
FY2010 Appropriations
(name redacted), Coordinator
Analyst in Domestic Security
December 14, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R40642
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Summary
This report describes the FY2010 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). The Administration requested a net appropriation of $44.1 billion in budget authority for
FY2010. This amounts to a $2.8 billion, or a 6.7% increase over the $41.2 billion enacted for
FY2009 (not including supplemental funding). Total budget authority requested by the
Administration for DHS for FY2010 amounts to $55.1 billion.
Net requested appropriations for major agencies within DHS were as follows: Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), $10,049 million; Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), $5,458
million; Transportation Security Administration (TSA), $5,267 million; Coast Guard, $9,734
million; Secret Service, $1,490 million; National Protection & Programs Directorate, $1,319
million; Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), $7,235 million; Science and
Technology, $968 million; and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $366 million.
This report contains a detailed discussion of the President’s budget request for DHS, but due to
time constraints, the text does not include a detailed discussion of the House- or Senate-reported
versions of the FY2010 bill. The tables reflect the House- and Senate-reported numbers.
The House Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2010 DHS Appropriations
bill on June 12, 2009. On June 24, 2009, the House passed H.R. 2892. This report uses Housepassed H.R. 2892 and the accompanying committee report (H.Rept. 111-157) as the source for the
House-passed numbers. The House-passed H.R. 2892 recommends a net appropriation of $44.0
billion for DHS for FY2010. This amounts to a $205 million decrease as compared to the
Administration’s request, and a nearly $2.8 billion increase as compared to the $41.2 billion
enacted for FY2009 (not including FY2009 supplemental funding).
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2010 DHS Appropriations
bill on June 17, 2009. On July 9, 2009, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 2892, after inserting
the text of S. 1298 as a substitute amendment. This report uses Senate-passed H.R. 2892 and the
committee report (S.Rept. 111-31) accompanying S. 1298 as the source for the Senate-passed
numbers. The Senate-passed H.R. 2892 recommends a net appropriation of $44.3 billion for DHS
for FY2010. This amounts to a $97 million increase as compared to the Administration’s request,
and a nearly $3.1 billion increase as compared to the $41.2 billion enacted for FY2009 (not
including FY2009 supplemental funding).
The President signed the DHS Appropriations Act 2010 (P.L. 111-83) into law on October 28,
2009. The Act provides gross budget authority of $51.9 billion dollars for DHS for FY2010. The
Act provides $44.1 billion in net budget authority for DHS for FY2010. This amounts to a $0.1
billion decrease as compared to the $44.2 billion requested for DHS for FY2010, a $0.1 billion
increase as compared to the $44.0 billion recommended by the House, a $0.2 billion decrease as
compared to the $44.3 billion recommended by the Senate, and a $2.9 billion increase over the
FY2009 enacted amount of $41.2 billion.
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1
P.L. 111-83......................................................................................................................1
Senate-Passed H.R. 2892.................................................................................................1
House-Passed H.R. 2892.................................................................................................1
President’s FY2010 Budget Submitted ............................................................................1
Note on Most Recent Data ..............................................................................................2
Background ................................................................................................................................2
Department of Homeland Security ........................................................................................2
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations ...............................................................................................3
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays...........................................................................4
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending.................................................................................4
Offsetting Collections ...........................................................................................................5
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security ...........................................................7
DHS Appropriations Trends ..................................................................................................7
Summary of DHS Appropriations..........................................................................................7
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations .................................................................... 10
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 11
House-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 11
Senate-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 13
P.L. 111-83.................................................................................................................... 14
Personnel Issues............................................................................................................ 17
Analysis and Operations...................................................................................................... 20
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 21
House-passed H.R. 2892 ............................................................................................... 22
Senate-passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 22
P.L. 111-83.................................................................................................................... 22
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations ...................................................................... 23
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ................................................................................ 27
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 28
House-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 28
Senate-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 28
P.L. 111-83.................................................................................................................... 28
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 29
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ..................................................................... 33
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 34
House-passed H.R. 2892 ............................................................................................... 35
Senate-passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 36
P.L. 111-83.................................................................................................................... 37
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 37
Federal Protective Service................................................................................................... 39
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 39
House-passed H.R. 2892 ............................................................................................... 40
Senate-passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 40
P.L. 111-83.................................................................................................................... 40
Federal Protective Service Issues for Congress .............................................................. 40
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)..................................................................... 42
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 42
House-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 45
Senate-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 46
Enacted P.L. 111-83 ...................................................................................................... 46
TSA Issues for Congress ............................................................................................... 47
United States Coast Guard................................................................................................... 51
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 51
House-passed H.R. 2892 ............................................................................................... 52
Senate-passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 53
P.L. 118-83.................................................................................................................... 53
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 53
U.S. Secret Service ............................................................................................................. 58
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 59
House-passed H.R. 2892 ............................................................................................... 60
Senate-passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 60
P.L. 111-83.................................................................................................................... 60
USSS Issues for Congress ............................................................................................. 60
Title III: Preparedness and Response ......................................................................................... 62
Federal Emergency Management Agency............................................................................ 65
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 65
House-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 66
Senate-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 66
P.L. 111-83.................................................................................................................... 66
FEMA Issues for Congress............................................................................................ 70
Office of Health Affairs....................................................................................................... 76
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 76
House-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 76
Senate-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 77
P.L. 111-83.................................................................................................................... 77
Office of Health Affairs Issues for Congress.................................................................. 77
National Protection and Programs Directorate ..................................................................... 78
Management and Administration................................................................................... 79
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 79
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 80
House Passed H.R. 2892 ............................................................................................... 80
Senate Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 80
P.L. 111-83.................................................................................................................... 80
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) .................................. 81
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 81
House-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 81
Senate-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 82
P.L. 111-83.................................................................................................................... 82
US-VISIT Issues for Congress ...................................................................................... 82
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security .............................................................. 83
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 83
House Passed H.R. 2892 ............................................................................................... 84
Senate Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 85
P.L. 111-83.................................................................................................................... 85
IPIS Issues for Congress ............................................................................................... 85
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................................ 86
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) ........................................................... 88
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 88
House-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 89
Senate-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 90
P.L. 111-83.................................................................................................................... 90
USCIS Issues for Congress ........................................................................................... 90
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center .......................................................................... 91
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 91
House-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 92
Senate-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 92
P.L. 111-83.................................................................................................................... 92
Science and Technology (S&T)........................................................................................... 92
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 93
House-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 93
Senate-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 93
P.L. 111-83.................................................................................................................... 93
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 95
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office ..................................................................................... 96
President’s FY2010 Request.......................................................................................... 96
House-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 96
Senate-Passed H.R. 2892............................................................................................... 96
P.L. 111-83.................................................................................................................... 96
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 97
FY2010-Related Legislation...................................................................................................... 98
Budget Resolution............................................................................................................... 98
Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations ................................................2
Table 2. FY2010 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS ........................................................3
Table 3. FY2010 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to Net Appropriation—
Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust and Public Enterprise Accounts .................................5
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2010 ..........................................................................7
Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations .................................................................................8
Table 6. Title I: Department Management and Operations.......................................................... 10
Table 7. Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer Appropriations ........................................... 17
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations ....................................................... 24
Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail ...................................................................................... 27
Table 10. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail ..................................................................................... 34
Table 11. TSA Gross Budget Authority, by Budget Activity ....................................................... 43
Table 12. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-account Detail..................... 52
Table 13. U.S. Secret Service Appropriations ............................................................................ 59
Table 14. Title III: Preparedness and Response .......................................................................... 63
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Table 15. FY2009 Enacted and FY2010 Requested Budget Authority for State and Local
Programs ............................................................................................................................... 68
Table 16. FY2009 Budget Activity for NPPD Management and Administration
Appropriation ........................................................................................................................ 79
Table 17. FY2009 Budget Activity for the Infrastructure Protection and Information
Security Appropriation ........................................................................................................... 84
Table 18. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................. 87
Table 19. USCIS Budget Account Detail ................................................................................... 89
Table 20. Directorate of Science and Technology Accounts and Activities, FY2009FY2010.................................................................................................................................. 94
Table 21. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Accounts and Activities, FY2009-FY2010 .......... 97
Table C-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2003-FY2010 ......................... 103
Appendixes
Appendix A. DHS Funding in P.L. 111-5................................................................................... 99
Appendix B. FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations ................................................................ 101
Appendix C. DHS Appropriations in Context .......................................................................... 102
Contacts
Author Contact Information .................................................................................................... 104
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
P.L. 111-83
The President signed the DHS Appropriations Act 2010 (P.L. 111-83) into law on October 28,
2009. The Act provides gross budget authority of $51.9 billion dollars for DHS for FY2010. The
Act provides $44.1 billion in net budget authority for DHS for FY2010. This amounts to a $0.1
billion decrease as compared to the $44.2 billion requested for DHS for FY2010, a $0.1 billion
increase as compared to the $44.0 billion recommended by the House, a $0.2 billion decrease as
compared to the $44.3 billion recommended by the Senate, and a $2.9 billion increase over the
FY2009 enacted amount of $41.2 billion.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2892
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2010 DHS Appropriations
bill on June 17, 2009. On July 9, 2009, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 2892, after inserting
the text of S. 1298 as a substitute amendment. This report uses Senate-passed H.R. 2892 and the
committee report (S.Rept. 111-31) accompanying S. 1298 as the source for the Senate-passed
numbers. The Senate-passed H.R. 2892 recommends a net appropriation of $44.3 billion for DHS
for FY2010. This amounts to a $97 million increase as compared to the Administration’s request,
and a nearly $3.1 billion increase as compared to the $41.2 billion enacted for FY2009 (not
including FY2009 supplemental funding).
House-Passed H.R. 2892
The House Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2010 DHS Appropriations
bill on June 12, 2009. On June 24, 2009, the House passed H.R. 2892. This report uses Housepassed H.R. 2892 and the accompanying committee report (H.Rept. 111-157) as the source for the
House-passed numbers. The House-passed H.R. 2892 recommends a net appropriation of $44.0
billion for DHS for FY2010. This amounts to a $205 million decrease as compared to the
Administration’s request, and a nearly $2.8 billion increase as compared to the $41.2 billion
enacted for FY2009 (not including FY2009 supplemental funding).
President’s FY2010 Budget Submitted
The Administration requested a net appropriation of $44.1 billion in budget authority for FY2010.
This amounts to a $2.8 billion, or a 6.7% increase over the $41.2 billion enacted for FY2009 (not
including supplemental funding). Total budget authority requested by the Administration for DHS
for FY2010 amounts to $55.1 billion.
Net requested appropriations for major agencies within DHS were as follows: Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), $10,049 million; Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), $5,458
million; Transportation Security Administration (TSA), $5,267 million; Coast Guard, $9,734
million; Secret Service, $1,490 million; National Protection & Programs Directorate, $1,319
million; Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), $7,235 million; Science and
Technology, $968 million; and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $366 million.
Congressional Research Service
1
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee
Markup
House
6/8 (vv)
Senate
6/17 (vv)
H.Rept.
111-157
6/12 (vv)
House
Passage
6/24 (389-37)
S.Rept.
111-31
6/18
(vv)
Senate
Passage
7/9 (84-6)
Conference Report
Approval (H.Rept.
111-298)
House
Senate
10/15
10/20
(307-114)
(79-19)
P.L. 11183
10/28
Note: (vv) = voice vote, (uc) = unanimous consent.
Note on Most Recent Data
Data used in this report for FY2009 enacted, and FY2009 total amount are from the President’s
Budget Documents, the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, and the FY2010 DHS
Budget in Brief. Data used in this report for the President’s request and the House-passed amounts
are from House-passed H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157; the Senate-passed amounts are from
Senate-passed H.R. 2892 and S.Rept. 111-31, accompanying S. 1298. Final passage amounts are
from P.L. 111-83 and the conference report, H.Rept. 111-298. Data used in Appendix C are taken
from the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2009 President’s Budget. Except when
discussing total amounts for the bill as a whole, all amounts contained in this report are rounded
to the nearest million.
Background
This report describes the President’s FY2010 request for funding for DHS programs and
activities, as submitted to Congress on May 7, 2009. It compares the enacted FY2009 amounts to
the request for FY2010, and tracks legislative action and congressional issues related to the
FY2010 DHS appropriations bills with particular attention paid to discretionary funding amounts.
The report does not follow specific funding issues related to mandatory funding—such as
retirement pay—nor does the report systematically follow any legislation related to the
authorization or amendment of DHS programs.
Department of Homeland Security
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred the functions, relevant funding,
and most of the personnel of 22 agencies and offices to the new Department of Homeland
Security created by the act. Appropriations measures for DHS have been organized into five
titles: Title I Departmental Management and Operations; Title II Security, Enforcement, and
Investigations; Title III Preparedness and Recovery; Title IV Research and Development,
Training, Assessments, and Services; and Title V general provisions.
Title I contains appropriations for the Office of Management, the Office of the Secretary, the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Analysis and Operations (A&O), the Office of the Chief
Information Officer (CIO), the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and the Office of the
Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding.
Congressional Research Service
2
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Title II contains appropriations for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard
(USCG), and the Secret Service. The U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(US-VISIT) program was appropriated within Title II through the FY2007 appropriation. The
FY2008 appropriation transferred US-VISIT, as proposed by the Administration, to the newly
created National Protection & Programs Directorate (NPPD) in Title III. Division E of P.L. 110161, the DHS Appropriations Act, 2008, enacted this reorganization.
Through the FY2007 appropriation, Title III contained appropriations for the Preparedness
Directorate, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS) and the Federal Emergency
Management Administration (FEMA). The President’s FY2008 request included a proposal to
shift a number of programs and offices to eliminate the Preparedness Directorate, create the
NPPD, and move several programs to FEMA. These changes were largely agreed to by Congress
in the FY2008 appropriation, reflected by Title III in Division E of P.L. 110-161.
Title IV contains appropriations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the
Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
(FLETC).
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations
The maximum budget authority for annual appropriations (including DHS) is determined through
a two-stage congressional budget process. In the first stage, Congress sets overall spending totals
in the annual concurrent resolution on the budget. Subsequently, these amounts are allocated
among the appropriations committees, usually through the statement of managers for the
conference report on the budget resolution. These amounts are known as the 302(a) allocations.
They include discretionary totals available to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations for enactment in annual appropriations bills through the subcommittees
responsible for the development of the bills. In the second stage of the process, the appropriations
committees allocate the 302(a) discretionary funds among their subcommittees for each of the
appropriations bills. These amounts are known as the 302(b) allocations. These allocations must
add up to no more than the 302(a) discretionary allocation and form the basis for enforcing
budget discipline, since any bill reported with a total above the ceiling is subject to a point of
order. 302(b) allocations may be adjusted during the year as the various appropriations bills
progress towards final enactment.
The annual concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth the congressional budget. Table 2
shows DHS’s 302(b) allocations for FY2009 and the current appropriations cycle.
Table 2. FY2010 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2009
Comparable
$41.2
FY2010 Request
Comparable
$44.1
FY2010 House
Allocation
FY2010 Senate
Allocation
$42.6
$42.9
FY2010 Enacted
Comparable
$44.1
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications;; H.Rept. 111-238, S.Rept. 111-62, and
H.Rept. 111-298.
Congressional Research Service
3
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays
Federal government spending involves a multi-step process that begins with the enactment of
budget authority by Congress. Federal agencies then obligate funds from the enacted budget
authority to pay for their activities. Finally, payments are made to liquidate those obligations; the
actual payment amounts are reflected in the budget as outlays.
Budget authority is established through appropriations acts or direct spending legislation and
determines the amounts that are available for federal agencies to spend. The Antideficiency Act1
prohibits federal agencies from obligating more funds than the budget authority that was enacted
by Congress. Budget authority may be also be indefinite, as when Congress enacts language
providing “such sums as may be necessary” to complete a project or purpose. Budget authority
may be available on a one-year, multi-year, or no-year basis. One-year budget authority is only
available for obligation during a specific fiscal year; any unobligated funds at the end of that year
are no longer available for spending. Multi-year budget authority specifies a range of time during
which funds can be obligated for spending; no-year budget authority is available for obligation
for an indefinite period of time.
Obligations are incurred when federal agencies employ personnel, enter into contracts, receive
services, and engage in similar transactions in a given fiscal year. Outlays are the funds that are
actually spent during the fiscal year.2 Because multi-year and no-year budget authorities may be
obligated over a number of years, outlays do not always match the budget authority enacted in a
given year. Additionally, budget authority may be obligated in one fiscal year but spent in a future
fiscal year, especially with certain contracts.
In sum, budget authority allows federal agencies to incur obligations and authorizes payments, or
outlays, to be made from the Treasury. Discretionary agencies and programs, and appropriated
entitlement programs, are funded each year in appropriations acts.
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending
Gross budget authority, or the total funds available for spending by a federal agency, may be
composed of discretionary and mandatory spending. Discretionary spending is not mandated by
existing law and is thus appropriated yearly by Congress through appropriations acts. The Budget
Enforcement Act of 19903 defines discretionary appropriations as budget authority provided in
annual appropriation acts and the outlays derived from that authority, but it excludes
appropriations for entitlements. Mandatory spending, also known as direct spending, consists of
budget authority and resulting outlays provided in laws other than appropriation acts and is
typically not appropriated each year. However, some mandatory entitlement programs must be
appropriated each year and are included in the appropriations acts. Within DHS, the Coast Guard
retirement pay is an example of appropriated mandatory spending.
1
U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517.
2
Appropriations, outlays, and account balances for government treasury accounts can be viewed in the end of year
reports published by the U.S. Treasury titled Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United
States Government. The DHS portion of the report can be accessed at http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/cs2005/c18.pdf.
3
P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.
Congressional Research Service
4
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Offsetting Collections4
Offsetting funds are collected by the federal government, either from government accounts or the
public, as part of a business-type transaction such as offsets to outlays or collection of a fee.
These funds are not counted as revenue. Instead, they are counted as negative outlays. DHS net
discretionary budget authority, or the total funds that are appropriated by Congress each year, is
composed of discretionary spending minus any fee or fund collections that offset discretionary
spending.
Some collections offset a portion of an agency’s discretionary budget authority. Other collections
offset an agency’s mandatory spending. They are typically entitlement programs under which
individuals, businesses, or units of government that meet the requirements or qualifications
established by law are entitled to receive certain payments if they establish eligibility. The DHS
budget features two mandatory entitlement programs: the Secret Service and the Coast Guard
retired pay accounts (pensions). Some entitlements are funded by permanent appropriations,
others by annual appropriations. The Secret Service retirement pay is a permanent appropriation
and as such is not annually appropriated, whereas the Coast Guard retirement pay is annually
appropriated. In addition to these entitlements, the DHS budget contains offsetting Trust and
Public Enterprise Funds. These funds are not appropriated by Congress. They are available for
obligation and included in the President’s budget to calculate the gross budget authority.
Table 3 tabulates all of the offsets within the DHS budget as enacted for FY2009 and in the
FY2010 request.
Table 3. FY2010 Request: Moving From Gross Budget Authority to Net
Appropriation—Fee Accounts, Offsetting Fees, and Trust and Public Enterprise
Accounts
(budget authority in millions)
Account/Agency
Account Name
a
DHS gross budget authority (BA)
(gross discretionary + fees+ mandatory + funds)
Discretionary fee funded offsets
ICE
Federal Protective Service
Aviation security fees
TWIC
TSA
Hazmat
Registered Traveler
FEMA/EPR
National Flood Insurance Fund
CBP
Small airports
Subtotal discretionary fee funded offsets
Mandatory fee funded offsets
CBP
Immigration inspection
Immigration enforcement
Land border
4
FY2009
Enacted
FY2010
Request
52,544
55,115
640
2,323
32
15
640
2,249
9
15
157
7
3,173
159
8
3,078
570
3
27
522
2
34
Prepared with assistance from (name redacted), Analyst in American National Government.
Congressional Research Service
5
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Account/Agency
Account Name
COBRA
APHIS
Puerto Rico
ICE
Immigration inspection
SEVIS
Breached bond detention fund
TSA
Aviation security capital fund
Checkpoint screening security fund
Alien flight school background checks
USCIS
Immigration examination fee
H1b, and H1b & L fees
Subtotal mandatory fee funded offsets
Mandatory budget authority
Secret Service
Secret Service retired payb
Coast Guard
Coast Guard retired payc
Subtotal mandatory budget authority
Trust funds and public enterprise funds
CBP
Customs unclaimed goods
FEMA
National Flood Insurance Fundd
Boat safety
Coast Guard
Oil spill recovery
Subtotal trust and public enterprise funds
DHS gross budget authoritya
Total offsets
Rescissions
DHS net appropriated BA (Mandatory + Discretionary)
FY2009
Enacted
411
333
97
119
120
60
250
FY2010
Request
398
325
92
110
120
75
250
4
2,495
44
4,533
4
2,452
51
4,850
225
[1,237]
225
220
[1,361]
220
6
3,037
134
149
3,326
52,544
11,257
-81
41,205
6
3,085
131
91
3,313
55,115
11,048
44,067
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2010 President’s Budget, and the DHS FY2010 Budget in Brief.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Totals do not include FY2009 supplemental funding.
a.
DHS gross budget authority is the total budget authority available to the Department in a given fiscal year.
This amount includes both appropriated and non-appropriated funding.
b.
Secret Service Retired Pay is permanently and indefinitely authorized, and as such is not annually
appropriated. Therefore it is offset in Table 3.
c.
In contrast to Secret Service Retired Pay, Coast Guard Retired pay must be annually appropriated, and
therefore is not offset in Table 3.
d.
This fund is comprised of both discretionary and mandatory appropriations; thus its component parts
appear twice in this table.
Congressional Research Service
6
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security
DHS Appropriations Trends
Table 4 presents DHS Appropriations, as enacted, for FY2003 through the FY2010 request. The
appropriation amounts are presented in current dollars and are not adjusted. The amounts shown
in Table 4 represent enacted amounts at the time of the start of the next fiscal year’s appropriation
cycle (with the exception of FY2009). Thus, the amount shown for FY2003 is the enacted amount
shown in the House committee report attached to the FY2004 DHS Appropriations bill. FY2008
is from the Joint Explanatory Statement for Division E of P.L. 110-161, and FY2009 and the
FY2010 are from the FY2010 DHS Budget Justifications.
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2010
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
29,069a
30,175b
30,554c
31,679
35,311d
38,817e
41,205
FY2010 enacted
44,137
Sources: FY2003 enacted taken from H.Rept. 108-169; FY2004 enacted taken from H.Rept. 108-169; FY2005
enacted taken from H.Rept. 109-79; FY2006 enacted taken from H.Rept. 109-476; FY2007 appropriation
amounts are from the H.Rept. 110-181; and FY2008 enacted amounts are from Division E of P.L. 110-161, and
tables in the Joint Explanatory Statement for Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17,
2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating amendments to the budget request). FY2009 enacted taken from the
DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as submitted in the Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senateenrolled version of H.R. 2638, and FY2010 enacted amounts are from the conference report to H.R. 2892,
H.Rept. 111-298, and P.L. 111-83.
Notes: Amounts do not include supplemental appropriations or rescissions that were enacted subsequent to
the enactment of each appropriations bill.
a.
S.Rept. 108-86 reported the FY2003 enacted amount as $29,287 million. CRS was unable to identify the
reason for this discrepancy. For the purposes of this table the House number was used to maintain
consistency with other fiscal years.
b.
Amount does not include $4,703 million in advance appropriations for Project Bioshield.
c.
Amount does not include $2,508 million in advance appropriations for Project Bioshield
d.
Amount includes $1,829 million in emergency budget authority that was enacted as a part of the FY2007
DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-295).
e.
FY2008 Enacted includes emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
Summary of DHS Appropriations
Table 5 is a summary table comparing the enacted appropriations for FY2009 and the request for
appropriations for FY2010.
Congressional Research Service
7
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Table 5. DHS: Summary of Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2009
Enacted
FY2009
Supplemental
Departmental Operations
645
200
Analysis and Operations
327
Operational Component
FY2009
Rescission
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2009
Total
FY2010
Request
FY2010
HousePassed
FY2010
SenatePassed
FY2010 Enacted
Title I
Office of the Inspector General
845
905
617
861
802
327
357
346
348
335
116a
114
99
5
120
128
112a
1,071
205
1,276
1,390
1,075a
1,325a
1,252a
Customs and Border Protection
9,821
680
10,501
10,049
10,006
10,170
10,127
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
4,989
20
5,009
5,458
5,430
5,445
5,437
Transportation Security Administration
4,367
1,000
5,367
5,396
5,294
5,307
5,258
U.S. Coast Guard
9,361
352
9,713
9,729
9,968
10,239
10,140
U.S. Secret Service
1,413
100
1,513
1,490
1,461
1,487
1,483
Net subtotal: Title II
29,951
2,152
32,103
32,122
32,161
32,648
32,445
Total fee collections
5,004
—
5,004
4,128
5,260
4,114
4,135
Gross subtotal: Title II
34,955
2,152
37,107
36,250
37,421
36,762
36,580
1,158
—
1,158
1,319
1,280
1,324
1,318
157
—
157
138
128
135
139
7,038b
610
7,648b
7,235
7,386
7,100
7,128
8,353b
610
8,963b
8,692
8,794
8,558
8,585
1,115
1,115
Subtotal: Title I
Title II
Title III
National Protection & Programs
Directorate
Office of Health Affairs
Federal Emergency Management
Administration
Net subtotal: Title III
Total fee collections
CRS-8
640
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2009
Enacted
FY2009
Supplemental
8,353b
610
Gross subtotal: Title III
FY2009
Rescission
FY2009
Total
FY2010
Request
FY2010
HousePassed
FY2010
SenatePassed
FY2010 Enacted
8,963b
9,332
8,794
9,673
9,700
Title IV
Citizenship and Immigration Services
102
102
364
298
136
224
Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center
333
333
289
283
288
283
Science and Technology
933
933
968
968
995
1,006
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
514
514
366
416
374
383
Net subtotal: Title IV
1,882
1,882
1,987
1,965
1,792
1,896
Total fee collections
2,539
2,539
2,503
2,503
2,503
2,503
Gross subtotal: Title IV
4,421
4,421
4,490
4,468
4,295
4,399
-28
-28
-14c
-36d
-41e
Rescissions
Gross DHS budget authority
48,748
2,765
51,513
51,268
51,744
52,020
51,890
Total fee collections
-7,543
—
-7,543
-7,077
-7,763
-7,732
-7,753
Net DHS budget authority
41,205
2,765
43,970
44,191
43,981
44,287
44,137
Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief, House-passed H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senatepassed H.R. 2892 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Notes: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a.
Does not include a $16 million transfer from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Account in Title III.
b.
Includes $50 million for Real ID.
c.
Includes rescissions of unobligated balances of: $2 million from AO per Sec. 539; $6 million from IPIS per Sec. 542; and $6 million from FEMA’s Trucking industry
Grants.
d.
Includes rescissions of unobligated balances of : $5 million from AO per Sec. 554; $7 million from ICE Construction per Sec. 555; $8 million from IPIS per Sec. 556; $8
million from S&T RDAO per Sec. 557; and $8 million from DNDO RDO per Sec. 558.
e.
Includes rescissions of unobligated balances of: $6 million from Trucking Industry Security Grants per Sec. 573; $2 million from AO per Sec. 574; $8 million from IPIS
per Sec. 575; $7 million from S&T per Sec. 576; $8 million from DNDO per Sec. 577; $4 million from TSA R&D per Sec. 578; $1 million from Coast Guard ACI per
Sec. 579; and $6 million from the Counterterrorism Fund per Sec. 580.
CRS-9
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations5
Title I covers the general administrative expenses of DHS. It includes the Office of the Secretary
and Executive Management (OS&EM), which is comprised of the immediate Office of the
Secretary and 12 entities that report directly to the Secretary; the Under Secretary for
Management (USM) and its components, such as the offices of the Chief Administrative Officer,
Chief Human Capital Officer, and Chief Procurement Officer; the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO); the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO); Analysis and Operations
Office (AOO); Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding (OFCGCR); and
Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Table 6, below, shows Title I appropriations for FY2009
and congressional action on the request for FY2010.
Table 6.Title I: Department Management and Operations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009 Appropriation
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2009
Total
FY2010
Request
FY2010
HousePassed
FY2010
SenatePassed
FY2010
Enacted
—
123
161
118
149
148
192
200
392
338
154
308
254
Office of the Chief
Financial Officer
55
—
55
66
61
64
61
Office of the Chief
Information Officer
272
—
272
338
282
338
338
Analysis and
Operations
327
—
327
357
346
348
335
Office of the
Federal
Coordinator for
Gulf Coast
Rebuilding
2
—
2
2
2
2
2
5
120
128
112b
116b
114b
205
1,291
1,390
1,075
1,325
1,252
Operational
Component
FY2009
Enacted
FY2009
Supp.
Office of the
Secretary and
Executive
Management
123
Office of the Under
Secretary for
Management
Office of the
Inspector General
Net Budget
Authority: Title I
115a
1,086
FY2009
Resc.
Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief,
House-passed H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-passed H.R. 2892 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
5
a.
Does not include a $16 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.
b.
Does not include a $16 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.
Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
10
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
President’s FY2010 Request
FY2010 requests compared to the FY2009 enacted appropriations were as follow: OS&EM, $161
million, an increase of $38 million (+31%); USM, $338 million, an increase of $146 million
(+43%) when compared to the FY2009 enacted, (or a decrease of $54 million (-14%) as
compared with the total provided for FY2009 including supplemental amounts); OCFO, $66
million, an increase of $11 million (+20%); OCIO, $338 million, an increase of $66 million
(+24%); AOO, $357 million, an increase of $30 million (+9%); OFCGCR, $2 million, the same
amount; and OIG, $128 million, an increase of $8 million (+7%). The total FY2010 request for
Title I was $1,390 million. This represents an increase of $97 million (+8%) over the FY2009
total (enacted and supplemental funding).6
Of the amounts requested, the largest increase would occur in the OS&EM (requesting $161
million and 678 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees). Within OS&EM, program increases are
requested for the Office of Policy (requesting $62 million and 208 FTE) and the Office for Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties (requesting $22 million and 99 FTE). Increased funding for the former
office would be used for continued efforts to “strengthen DHS’s ability to maintain policy and
operational readiness necessary to protect the homeland” and for the latter office would support
staff increases. Other areas of increased OS&EM funding include requests of: $7 million and 36
FTE for the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman to, among other activities,
“establish a Virtual Ombudsman’s Office to provide for online case problem submission,
improved analysis and reporting capabilities, and an electronic interface with customers and
stakeholders as another avenue to share concerns and solutions” and $4 million and 17 FTE for
activities of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement, including “increase[d] involvement in
counterdrug issues related to Afghanistan and Southwest Asia.”7
House-Passed H.R. 2892
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended these appropriations, as compared with
the President’s request: OS&EM, $118 million, ($43 million or 26.7% less); USM, $154 million,
($184 million or 54.4% less); OCFO, $61 million, ($5 million or 7.6% less); OCIO, $282 million
($56 million or 16.6% less); AOO, $346 million ($11 million or 3.1% less); OFCGCR, $2
million, the same amount; and OIG, $128 million (including transferred funds), the same amount.
The total funding recommended by the House committee for Title I was $1,075 million (including
$16 million in transfers from the FEMA Disaster Relief account in Title III). This represents a
decrease of $315 million or 22.7% from the President’s request. Among the directives included in
the committee report are these:
•
In rejecting a proposed transfer of monies from other accounts to pay for travel
by the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary, in advance, the committee directs the
department to continue to manage travel as it has in the past.
•
DHS is urged to adopt practices similar to those of other agencies in interacting
with GAO, including “ensuring that GAO representatives have direct access to
program officials and other relevant DHS employees, including contractors, for
6
DHS, FY2010 Budget Overview, pp. 2-3.
FY2010 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management, pp. OSEM-71 – OSEM-74.
7
Congressional Research Service
11
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
purposes of requesting records and obtaining information; expediting the internal
review process for requested information by eliminating unnecessary or
redundant levels of review; directing program officials and other relevant DHS
employees, including contractors, to provide GAO with immediate access to
agency records upon request when such records are readily available and do not
require further internal review; and providing GAO representatives with access to
draft or other non-final agency records when pertinent to GAO’s review.”8
•
The Secretary is expected to report to the committee by September 30, 2009, and
every six months thereafter, on a detailed inventory of the department’s
greenhouse gas emissions and plans for and progress in reducing such emissions.
•
The Office of the Chief Administrative Officer is directed to provide a detailed
briefing to the committee on the plans to consolidate leases as part of the new
DHS headquarters and provides $10 million for needed improvements and
security enhancements to leased space.
•
The OFCGCR is to work with FEMA, the Department of Health and Human
Services, and the State of Louisiana “to identify and pursue the path forward to
bringing Charity hospital in Southern Louisiana back on-line.”9
•
The OIG is urged to continue oversight of the relief and reconstruction efforts on
the Gulf Coast. The IG is directed to forward copies of audit reports to the
committee as they are issued and to inform the committee about reviews that
recommend cancellation or modification of a major acquisition project or grant
or significant budgetary savings.
The House-passed bill made significant reductions to several of the accounts under Title I and
allocated funding within the accounts as follows (amounts are rounded):
8
9
•
OS&EM—reduced by $30 million ($17 million, $6 million, $5 million, and $2
million). Of the $60,000 appropriated for official reception and representation
expenses, $20,000 would be allocated to the Office of Policy to host Visa Waiver
Program negotiations in Washington, DC.
•
USM—reduced by $115 million ($6 million, $14 million, $45 million, and $50
million). The allocation of the appropriation would include at least $1 million for
logistics training, $6 million for alteration and facilities improvements and
relocation costs to consolidate the DHS headquarters at the Nebraska Avenue
complex, and $17 million for the Human Resources Information Technology
program.
•
OCFO—reduced by $3 million. The appropriation would include $11 million for
financial systems consolidation.
•
OCIO—reduced by $18 million. The appropriation would include $87 million
(rounded) for salaries and expenses and $213 million, reduced by $18 million, for
the development and acquisition of information technology equipment, software,
services, and related activities.
H.Rept. 111-157, p. 19.
H.Rept. 111-157, p. 30.
Congressional Research Service
12
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
•
AOO—The appropriation would include $200 million that would remain
available until September 30, 2011.
•
OIG—The appropriation includes up to $150,000 that could be used for certain
confidential operational expenses, including the payment of informants.
A general provision is continued at Section 516 of the House-passed bill that requires the Chief
Financial Officer to submit reports on budget execution and staffing to the committee within 45
days after the end of each month.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2892
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended these appropriations, as compared with
the President’s request: OS&EM, $149 million, ($12 million or 7.5% less); USM, $308 million,
($30 million or 8.9% less); OCFO, $64 million, ($2 million or 3.0% less); OCIO, $338 million
(the same amount); AOO, $348 million ($9 million or 2.5% less); OFCGCR, $2 million, the same
amount; and OIG, $132 million (including transferred funds), ($4 million or 3.1% more). The
total funding recommended by the Senate committee for Title I was $1,341 million (including
$16 million in transfers from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account in Title III). This represents a
decrease of $49 million or 3.5% from the President’s request. Among the directives included in
the committee report are these:
•
A proposed transfer of monies from other accounts to pay for travel by the
Secretary is approved.
•
The department is directed to report to the committee within 90 days after the
act’s enactment, and quarterly thereafter, on efforts to coordinate chemical
security across the government, including those related to conducting prompt and
comprehensive federal safety investigations of chemical accidents.
•
The department is to continue periodic briefings for the committee on the DHS
headquarters consolidation project for which, the report notes, more than $1
billion has been appropriated.
•
The Secretary is directed to submit an expenditure plan for FY2010 for the Office
of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) under the AOO by February 5, 2010. Data
that must be included in the plan are expenditures and staffing for each program
for 2008 through 2010; both funded and filled positions for full-time equivalent
employees (FTE), contractors, and detailees (both reimbursable and not); an
explanation of the use of contract workers rather than FTE employees and a plan
to reduce the reliance on contractors; funding by object classification for FY2008
through FY2010; and the number of employees funded by I&A who are
supporting other organizations within DHS.
•
The OFCGCR is directed to remain open at least until the end of FY2009, and to
provide an expenditure plan for FY2010, by November 30, 2009. The plan
should discuss the office’s proactive assistance to the Gulf Coast, including
supporting cooperation among federal agencies and promoting solutions for
housing needs. The office is encouraged to consolidate data on funds for recovery
efforts and measure the impact on recovery indicators, including repopulation,
economic and job growth, reestablishment of local and state tax revenues,
Congressional Research Service
13
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
restoration of housing stock, and availability of critical services such as health
care, education, criminal justice, and fire protection. 10
•
The Secretary is directed to maintain and update the direct link to the OIG’s
website on the DHS website. The report reiterates the necessity for agents, and
especially those newly hired, to receive comprehensive training on ethics and
public integrity.
The Senate-passed bill allocates the funding within the accounts under Title I as follows (amounts
are rounded):
•
OS&EM—Of the $60,000 appropriated for official reception and representation
expenses, $20,000 would be allocated to the Office of Policy to host Visa Waiver
Program negotiations in Washington, DC. An appropriation of $20 million would
not be obligated for the Office of Policy until the DHS Secretary submits an
FY2010 expenditure plan for the office.
•
USM—The appropriation includes $5 million for alteration and facilities
improvements and relocation costs to consolidate the DHS headquarters at the
Nebraska Avenue complex, and $17 million (rounded) for the Human Resources
Information Technology program.
•
OCFO—The appropriation includes $11 million for financial systems
consolidation efforts.
•
OCIO—The appropriation includes $87 million for salaries and expenses and
$251 million for the development and acquisition of information technology
equipment, software, services, and related activities, of which $83 million would
be for data center development and $39 million of that would be for upgrades to
power capabilities at the National Center for Critical Information Processing and
Storage.
•
AOO—The appropriation would include $200 million that would remain
available until September 30, 2011.
•
OIG—The appropriation includes up to $150,000 that could be used for certain
confidential operational expenses, including the payment of informants.
A general provision at Section 519 of the Senate-passed bill requires the Chief Financial Officer
to submit reports on budget execution and staffing, including the number of contract employees
by office, to the committee within 45 days after the end of each month.
P.L. 111-83
The law provides these appropriations, as compared with the President’s request: OS&EM, $148
million ($13 million or 8.1% less); USM, $254 million ($84 million or 24.8% less); OCFO, $61
million ($5 million or 7.6% less); OCIO, $338 million (the same amount); AOO, $335 million
($22 million or 6.2% less); OFCGCR, $2 million (the same amount); and OIG, $130 million
(including transferred funds) ($2 million or 1.6% more). The total funding provided by the law
for Title I is $1,268 million (including $16 million in transfers from FEMA’s Disaster Relief
10
S.Rept. 111-31, p. 23.
Congressional Research Service
14
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
account in Title III). This represents a decrease of $122 million or 8.8% from the President’s
request. Among the provisions and directives included in the conference agreement are these:
•
A proposed transfer of monies from other accounts to pay for travel by the
Secretary and the Deputy Secretary is approved to more efficiently disburse
payment for travel costs.
•
The deputy secretary and the department are directed to follow the Senate report
directives on coordinated efforts to secure chemical facilities and provide prompt
and effective accident investigations, and to fulfill the requirements on reports
and briefings.
•
With regard to the development of the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review
(QHSR) and the budget plan to carry out its findings, that plan “should be
derived from a strategic policy review that fully considers threat, risk, and
mission requirements ... [and] any budget projections included in the QHSR
should be based on actual needs to sufficiently carry out the long-term strategy
and priorities for homeland security.”11
•
No funding is provided for the consolidation of headquarters leases because the
justification was inadequate and there are budget constraints. The department is
directed “to provide a more detailed plan and justification for its lease
consolidation initiative, including projected cost savings” with the budget request
for FY2011. The department is also directed “to continue periodic briefings on
the St. Elizabeths headquarters consolidation project, including ... efforts to work
with the local community and the National Capital Planning Commission to
ensure” that parking and traffic management issues are addressed.12
•
The CFO is directed to submit the FY2011 budget justifications concurrently
with the President’s budget and with the level of detail specified in the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations reports. The CFO must ensure that the
enacted FTE numbers for FY2010 stated in the justifications are those funded in
the Act. The CFO shall not permit any component within the department to
change the Programs, Projects, and Activities in the budget submission for
FY2011 into any account structure other than that provided in the detailed
funding tables included in the conference agreement without consulting in
advance with the committees.
•
The Secretary is directed to submit an expenditure plan for FY2010 for the Office
of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) under the AOO not later than 60 days after the
act’s enactment, as discussed in the Senate report, “including balances carried
forward from prior years.” As provided in the House and Senate reports, the
Secretary is also directed to “continue to submit quarterly reports on the SLFC
[State and Local Fusion Center] Program not later than 30 days after the end of
each quarter of the fiscal year.”13
•
The OFCGCR is directed to provide an expenditure plan for FY2010, no later
than 60 days after the act’s enactment, as discussed in the Senate report. The
11
H.Rept. 111-298, pp. 53-54.
Ibid., pp. 57-58.
13
Ibid., pp. 60-61.
12
Congressional Research Service
15
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
office is encouraged to consolidate data on funds for recovery efforts and
measure the impact on recovery indicators, including repopulation, economic and
job growth, reestablishment of local and state tax revenues, restoration of
housing stock, and availability of critical services such as health care, education,
criminal justice, and fire protection. The office is also directed to work with
stakeholders “to identify and pursue a path forward to bring New Orleans Charity
Hospital back on-line.”14
•
The Inspector General is directed to delay, for 15 days, the public release of final
audit or investigation reports requested by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
The law allocates the funding within the accounts under Title I as follows (amounts are rounded):
14
•
OS&EM—Of the $60,000 appropriated for official reception and representation
expenses, $20,000 is allocated to the Office of Policy to host Visa Waiver
Program negotiations in Washington, DC. An appropriation of $15 million shall
not be obligated for the Office of Policy until the DHS Secretary submits an
FY2010 expenditure plan for the office.
•
USM—The appropriation includes at least $1 million for logistics training, more
than $5 million for alteration and facilities improvements and relocation costs to
consolidate the DHS headquarters at the Nebraska Avenue complex, and more
than $17 million for the Human Resources Information Technology program.
•
OCFO—The appropriation includes $11 million for financial systems
consolidation efforts. Of the total amount appropriated, $5 million shall not be
obligated until the CFO, or the individual acting in that capacity, submits to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations an improvement plan, with
yearly milestones, to address the OIG’s recommendations made in report number
OIG-09-72. The plan must be submitted by January 4, 2010.
•
OCIO—The appropriation includes almost $87 million for salaries and expenses
and more than $251 million for the development and acquisition of information
technology equipment, software, services, and related activities, of which almost
$83 million is for data center development, and at least some $38 million of that
is for upgrades to power capabilities at the National Center for Critical
Information Processing and Storage.
•
AOO—The appropriation includes almost $191 million that shall remain
available until September 30, 2011.
•
OIG—The appropriation includes up to $150,000 that may be used for certain
confidential operational expenses, including the payment of informants. The law
authorizes the transfer of $16 million from the Disaster Relief Fund under the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “to continue and expand
audits and investigations related to disasters.” The IG must notify the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations at least 15 days prior to such transfers. The
IG is also to investigate hiring practices at FEMA, evaluate whether a $35
Ibid., p. 61.
Congressional Research Service
16
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
million budget request is sufficient to address “structural pay deficiencies”15 at
that agency, and report to the committees no later than 90 days after the act’s
enactment.
A general provision at Section 515 of the conference agreement requires the CFO to submit
reports on budget execution and staffing, including the number of contract employees by office,
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 45 days after the end of each
month.
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, and its appropriation is included in that
of the Under Secretary. The OHC implements the Human Capital Operational Plan and is
organized around the initiatives of talent management, performance culture, learning and
development, and service excellence. 16
Table 7, below, shows the funding and staff for the OCHCO for FY2009 and congressional action
on the request for FY2010.
Table 7. Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Account
FY2009
Enacted
FY2010
Housepassed
FY2010
Request
FY2010
Senatepassed
FY2010
Enacted
Salaries and Expenses CHCO
$29
$34
34
34
33
Human Resources—Operational
Initiatives and HR Management
Systems
$10
$10
10
10
10
Total
$39
$44
44
44
43
Staffing (full time equivalent, FTE,
positions)
79
89
89
89
Sources: FY2010 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for
Management, p. USM-4, H.R. 2892, as passed by the House and the Senate, H.Rept. 111-157, Senatereported S. 1298, and S.Rept. 111-31.
15
Ibid., p. 62.
16
FY2010 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, p. USM2; and FY2010 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management,
Strategic Context, p. USM-3.
Congressional Research Service
17
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
President’s FY2010 Request
According to the DHS Justifications, the FY2010 budget requested $44 million17 and 89 full-time
equivalent (FTE) employees for the OCHCO.18 The requested funding is $5 million above the
$39 million provided for FY2009. The number of FTEs would increase by 10 over the 79
authorized for FY2009. An appropriation is not requested for the new human resources
management system that was authorized in P.L. 107-296.19
The justification that accompanied the DHS budget request for FY2010 stated that the increased
funding would be used for continued support of learning and development of the department’s
workforce through the Preparedness Center, the Leadership Institute, the Homeland Security
Academy, and the Center for Academic and Interagency Outreach; human capital programs; and
investments in programs to foster diversity, recruitment, and retention. 20 The competencies
required for mission critical occupations within DHS will be reassessed in FY2010 and any gaps
that are revealed will be closed through training and development, such as classroom courses,
details, and rotations through various positions. The skill and proficiency levels of the
department’s human resources staff will be increased through continuing professional
development.
The Human Resources Information Technology (HRIT) program is designed to “merge and
modernize the DHS HRIT infrastructure to provide flexibility and the management information
that will allow DHS to continuously evolve.” In 2010, a new enterprise performance management
system is expected to be implemented under HRIT. Departmental goals to enhance workforce
diversity include the establishment of a Diversity Outreach Advisory Forum and training of
managers and executives on recruiting and supervising a diverse workforce.21
House Action
The House committee recommended and the House passed an appropriation of $44 million
(rounded amount) for the OCHCO, that is $800,000 less than the President’s request. Of the total,
$34 million is for salaries and expenses and $10 million is for enhancements to employee morale
and creation of a more satisfying work environment. The committee report directs the OCHCO to
continue providing monthly reports that summarize vacancies on a timely basis to the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees. These reports should include new hires in each headquarters
office, the ratio of applications received to vacancies closed, new hires pending completion of the
security or suitability clearance, open vacancies, and selection referrals pending with
17
Salaries and benefits ($14 million) and other services ($22 million) account for 82% of the total of $44 million. Other
services include contractual services with non-federal sources.
18
FY2010 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, p. USM7.
19
Title VIII, Subtitle E, Section 841 of P.L. 107-296, enacted on November 25, 2002 (116 Stat. 2135, at 2229-2234),
established a new human resources management system for DHS. P.L. 110-329, enacted on September 30, 2008,
prohibits the use of appropriated funds to implement the new personnel system and its development was halted by DHS
effective on October 1, 2008.
20
DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, Strategic Context,
pp. USM-3-USM-4.
21
DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, pp. USM-9 and
USM-12 - USM-13.
Congressional Research Service
18
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
management. The House-passed bill would continue a general provision, at Section 519, that
would prohibit the obligation of appropriations “for the development, testing, deployment, or
operation of a human resources management [HRM] system authorized by 5 U.S.C. §9701(a) or
implementing regulations. The provision also would mandate that the DHS Secretary collaborate
with employee representatives as authorized by 5 U.S.C. §9701(e) “in the planning, testing, and
development of any portion of [an HRM] system that is developed, tested, or deployed for
persons excluded from the definition of employee.” A new provision at Section 544 would permit
the Secretary to provide allowances and benefits similar to those provided under Title I, chapter 9
of the Foreign Service Act of 1990 to personnel serving abroad.
Senate Action
The Senate committee recommended and the Senate passed an appropriation of $44 million
(rounded amount) for the OCHCO, that is $800,000 less than the President’s request. Of the total,
$34 million is for salaries and expenses and $10 million is for human resources initiatives. The
committee report states that the reduction results from the delay in filling full-time permanent
positions within the OCHCO and notes that, as of April 25, 2009, the office was 44% below the
funded staffing levels. The committee directs that funding for contractors be limited so that the
office can be “right sized” with federal employees and mandates the continuation of a reporting
requirement and the preparation of a new report. Being continued, is the monthly report on
vacancies that is to include information on the time it takes to hire and seat an employee once a
vacancy is announced, the reasons for any hiring delays, steps taken or planned to remedy delays,
and progress in reducing security clearance backlogs and meeting the 15-day standard for
suitability reviews. A new requirement mandates that the OCHCO report on its performance in
2009 in meeting established metrics, including those on meeting a 45-day hiring standard, a
10.5% or lower attrition rate for senior executive personnel, 530 or more civilian employees
serving in the department’s interagency and interdepartmental Rotation Training Program, 51% or
more DHS employees responding favorably to the Federal Human Capital Survey, and 30% or
more of civilian employees in National Security Professional positions. The Senate-passed bill
includes the provisions on the HRM system and allowances and benefits similar to the Foreign
Service at Section 522 and Section 544, respectively, the same as the House-passed bill would
provide.
P.L. 111-83
The law provides an appropriation of $43 million (rounded amount) for the OCHCO, that is more
than $1 million less than the President’s request. Of the total, $33 million is for salaries and
expenses and $10 million is for human resources. The conference agreement states that the
reduction is made because the “office will likely lapse appropriated funds in”22 FY2009, and
encourages the use of the authority at Section 505 of the Act that makes 50% of those balances
available in FY2010. It directs the OCHCO to continue providing monthly reports, on a timely
basis, that summarize vacancies to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. These
reports are to include new hires in each headquarters office, the ratio of applications received to
vacancies closed, new hires pending completion of the security or suitability clearance, open
vacancies, and selection referrals pending with management. The OCHCO is also directed to
22
Ibid., p. 57.
Congressional Research Service
19
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
provide the report on its FY2009 performance in meeting the established metrics, that were
discussed in the Senate report, no later than 60 days after the act’s enactment.
Among the general provisions included in the law are these:
•
Section 518 prohibits the obligation of appropriations “for the development,
testing, deployment, or operation of any portion of a human resources
management [HRM] system authorized by 5 U.S.C. §9701(a)” or implementing
regulations. The provision also mandates that the DHS Secretary collaborate with
employee representatives as authorized by 5 U.S.C. §9701(e) “in the planning,
testing, and development of any portion of [an HRM] system that is developed,
tested, or deployed for persons excluded from the definition of employee, as that
term is defined in 5 U.S.C. §7103(a)(2).”23
•
Section 525 prohibits the use of appropriated funds “to carry out reorganization
authority,” but the provision “is not intended to prevent the Department from
carrying out routine or small reallocations of personnel or functions within
[DHS] components.”24
•
Section 546 permits the Secretary to provide allowances and benefits similar to
those provided under Title I, chapter 9 of the Foreign Service Act of 1990 to
personnel serving abroad.
•
Section 556 prohibits the use of appropriated funds for first-class travel.
•
Section 557 prohibits the use of appropriated funds “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.”25
Section 566 permits “administrative law judges to be available temporarily to serve on an
arbitration panel created under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for FEMA’s Public
Assistance program for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.”26
Analysis and Operations27
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:
23
Ibid., p. 31.
Ibid., pp. 127-128.
25
Ibid., p. 130.
26
Ibid., p. 131.
27
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counterterrorism, Domestic Social Policy
Division.
24
Congressional Research Service
20
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
•
To assess, receive, and analyze law enforcement information, intelligence
information, and other information from federal, state, and local government
agencies, and the private sector to (1) identify and assess the nature and scope of
the terrorist threats to the homeland, (2) detect and identify threats of terrorism
against the United States, and (3) understand such threats in light of actual and
potential vulnerabilities of the homeland;
•
To develop a comprehensive national plan for securing the key resources and
critical infrastructure of the United States;
•
To review, analyze, and make recommendations for improvements in the policies
and procedures governing the sharing of law enforcement information,
intelligence information, and intelligence-related information within the federal
government and between the federal government and state and local government
agencies and authorities.
Former Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review reorganization of the Department in 2005
made several changes to the DHS intelligence structure. IAIP was disbanded and the Office of
Infrastructure Protection was placed within the newly created National Protection and Programs
Directorate. The Office of Information Analysis was renamed the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis and became a stand alone entity. The Assistant Secretary for Intelligence Analysis was
designated the Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer. 31 Pursuant to the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53), the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 (codified at 6 U.S.C. 201) was amended to codify the Office of Intelligence and Analysis
and the Office of Infrastructure Protection and made the head of the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis an Under Secretary position. It also designated the Under Secretary for Intelligence and
Analysis as the Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer with responsibility for managing the
entire DHS Intelligence Enterprise.32
In 2008, former Secretary Chertoff established the Office of Operations Coordination and
Planning (OPS), built on the foundation of the former Office of Operations Coordination. OPS
supports Departmental and interagency crisis and contingency planning and operations to support
the Secretary of Homeland Security in his/her role as the principal Federal official for domestic
28
incident management.
President’s FY2010 Request
The FY2010 request for the Analysis and Operations (AOO) account is $357 million, an increase
of nearly $30 million (+9%) over the enacted FY2009 amount. It should be noted that funds
included in this account support both the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) and the Office
of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS). I&A is responsible for managing the DHS
Intelligence enterprise and for collecting, analyzing, and sharing intelligence information for and
among all components of DHS, and with the State, local, tribal, and private sector homeland
security partners. As a member of the Intelligence Community, I&A’s budget is part of the
National Intelligence Program, a classified program document. OPS develops and coordinates
28
According to Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-5, Management of Domestic Incidents, (2003): “To
prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies, the United
States Government shall establish a single, comprehensive approach to domestic incident management.... The Secretary
of Homeland Security is the principal Federal official for domestic incident management.”
Congressional Research Service
21
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
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.
House-passed H.R. 2892
House-passed H.R. 2892 includes $346 million for AOO, a $12 million decrease (-3.3 %) from
the Administration’s request for FY2010, but $18 million (+5.2 %) more than the FY2009
enacted level of $327 million. House report, H.Rept. 111-157, indicates that the committee has
reduced the funding requested for the National Applications Office (NAO) and the National
Immigration Information Sharing Office (NIISO) below the levels requested. The committee is
concerned that the Department has failed to adequately develop and submit operating documents
and certifications showing that these programs can be conducted within privacy and civil liberties
statutes. The committee also notes in H.Rept. 111-157, that it has provided funding to expand
support to all existing State and Local Fusion Centers, but is concerned that I&A has failed to
submit quarterly reports on this activity as required in the 2009 Appropriations Act. The
committee directs I&A to re-establish this quarterly reporting requirement immediately, and to
include a national review of fusion center distribution.
Senate-passed H.R. 2892
Senate-passed H.R. 2892 includes $348 million for AOO, a $9.5 million decrease (-2.7 %) from
the Administration’s request for FY2010, but $20 million (+6 %) more than the FY2009 enacted
level of $327 million. In S.Rept. 111-31, the committee expresses concern that the Secretary has
failed to submit an expenditure plan for FY2009 mandated in the joint explanatory statement
accompanying P.L. 110-329. The committee requires the Secretary to submit an expenditure plan
for FY2010 no later than February 5, 2010, which includes the following: (1) FY2010
expenditures and staffing allotted for each program as compared to each of years 2008 and 2009;
(2) all funded versus on-board positions, including FTE, contractors, and reimbursable and nonreimbursable detailees; (3) an explanation for maintaining contract staff in lieu of Government
FTE; (4) a plan, including dates or timeframes for achieving key milestones, to reduce the office’s
reliance on contract staff in lieu of Federal FTE; (5) funding, by object classification, including a
comparison to fiscal years 2008 and 2009; and (6) the number of I&A funded employees
supporting organizations outside I&A and within DHS. The committee also directs the
Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer to continue quarterly updates to the Committees on
Appropriations that detail progress in placing DHS intelligence professionals in State and local
fusion centers.
P.L. 111-83
As approved by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, the final bill includes $335
million for AOO, a $22 million decrease (-6.2 %) from the Administration’s request for FY2010,
but $8 million (+2.4 %) more than the FY2009 enacted level of $327 million. The final bill
stipulates that none of the funds shall be available to commence operations of the National
Immigration Information Sharing Office (NIISO) or any follow-on entity until the Secretary
certifies that such program complies with all existing laws, including all privacy and civil
liberties standards, the Comptroller General of the United States notifies the Committees on
Congressional Research Service
22
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives and the Secretary that the Comptroller
has reviewed such certification, and the Secretary notifies the Committees on Appropriations of
the Senate and House of Representatives of all funds to be expended on operations of the NIISO
or any follow-on entity pursuant to section 503 of this Act. The conference report (H.Rept. 111298) states that not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
submit a FY2010 expenditure plan for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis as outlined in the
Senate report (S.Rept. 111-31), including balances carried forward from prior years. In addition,
the conference report requires the Secretary to continue to submit quarterly reports on the State
and Local Fusion Center Program not later than 30 days after the end of each quarter of the fiscal
year as discussed in the Senate and House (H.Rept. 111-157) reports.
Title II: Security Enforcement and Investigations
Title II contains the appropriations for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), the US Coast Guard, and the US Secret Service. Table 8 shows the
FY2009 enacted and FY2010 appropriation action for Title II.
Congressional Research Service
23
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Table 8.Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2009 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2009
Enacted
FY2009
Supp.
FY2009
Resc.
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2009
Total
FY2010
HousePassed
FY2010
Request
FY2010
SenatePassed
FY2010 Enacted
Customs & Border Protection
Salaries and expenses
7,603
160
7,763
7,623
7,616
8,076
8,065
Automation modernization
511
511
462
462
462
422
Air and Marine Interdictions
528
528
506
514
516
520
Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure,
and Technology
775
100
875
779
732
800
800
Facilities Management (Construction)
403
420
823
679
682
316
320
1,448
1,432
1,432
1,432
1,432
11,949
11,481
11,438
11,602
11,559
-1,448
-1,432
-1,432
-1,432
-1,432
10,501
10,049
10,006
10,170
10,127
4,927
4,927
5,348
5,313
5,360
5,342
Federal Protective Services (FPS)
640
640
b
1,115
c
d
Automation & infrastructure
modernization
57
77
110
110
85
90
Construction
5
5
Fee accountse
299
299
318f
318f
305f
305f
5,948
5,776
6,863
5,750
5,742
Fee accountsa
Gross total
Offsetting collections
Net total
1,448
11,268
680
-1,448
9,821
680
Immigration & Customs Enforcement
Salaries and expenses
Gross total
5,928
20
20
7
5
Offsetting FPS fees
-640
-640
Offsetting collections
-299
-299
-318
-318
-305
-305
5,009
5,458
5,430
5,445
5,437
Net total
CRS-24
4,989
20
-1,115
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2009
Enacted
FY2009
Supp.
FY2009
Resc.
FY2009
Total
FY2010
Request
FY2010
HousePassed
FY2010
SenatePassed
FY2010 Enacted
Transportation Security Administration
Aviation security (gross funding)
4,755
Surface Transportation Security
5,755
5,311
5,266
5,233g
5,214
50
50
128
103
143
111
Transportation Threat Assessment and
Credentialing
116
116
192
172
172
172
Credentialing Feesh
40
40
28
45
28
48
Transportation Security Support
948
948
1,005
993
1,000
1,002
Federal Air Marshals
819
819
860
860
860
860
Aviation security capital fundi
250
250
250
250
250
250
7,978
7,774
7,689
7,685
7,656
-2,320
-2,320
-2,100
-2,100
-2,100
-2,100
Credentialing/Fee accounts
-40
-40
-28
-45
-28
-48
Aviation security capital fund (mandatory
spending)
-250
-250
-250
-250
-250
-250
Gross total
Offsetting collections
Net total
6,978
1,000
1,000
4,367
1,000
5,367
5,396
5,294
5,307
5,258
6,195
112j
6,307
6,556k
6,822
6,838l
6,805
U.S. Coast Guard
Operating expenses
Environmental compliance & restoration
13
13
13
13
13
13
Reserve training
131
131
134
134
134
134
1,384
1,347
1,598
1,537
10
4
4
Acquisition, construction, & improvements
1,495
98
1,593
Alteration of bridges
16
142
158
Research, development, tests, & evaluation
18
18
20
20
30
25
1,237
1,237
1,361
1,361
1,361
1,361
257
257
261
261
261
261
9,713
9,729k
9,968
10,239l
10,140
Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement)
Health care fund contribution
Gross total
CRS-25
9,361
352
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2009 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2009
Enacted
FY2009
Supp.
FY2009
Resc.
FY2009
Total
FY2010
HousePassed
FY2010
Request
FY2010
SenatePassed
FY2010 Enacted
U.S. Secret Service
Salaries and expenses
Acquisition, construction, improvements,
and related expenses
1,409
100m
1,509
1,486
1,457
1,483
1,479
4
4
4
4
4
4
Gross total
1,413
100m
1,513
1,490
1,461
1,487
1,483
Gross Budget Authority: Title II
34,955
2,152
37,107
36,250
37,421
36,762
36,580
Offsetting collections:
-5,004
-5,004
-4,128
-5,260
-4,114
-4,135
Net Budget Authority: Title II
29,951
32,103
32,122
32,161
32,648
32,445
2,152
Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief, House-passed H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senatepassed H.R. 2892 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Notes: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a.
Fees include COBRA, Land Border, Immigration Inspection, Immigration Enforcement, and Puerto Rico.
b.
The FY2010 requests proposes to move FPS to the NPPD under Title III, see Table 14.
c.
The Senate-reported version of S. 1298 also moves FPS to the NPPD under Title III, see Table 14.
d.
P.L. 111-83 moves FPS to the NPPD under Title III, see Table 14.
e.
Fees include Exam, Student Exchange and Visitor Fee, Breached Bond, Immigration User, and Land Border.
f.
The Administration’s request, and House-passed H.R. 2892 assume ICE fee receipts totaling $318 million, however, the Senate assumes receipts of $305 million.
g.
Includes a $5 million transfer to FEMA Fire Assistance Grants in Title III , per Section 572 of Senate-passed H.R. 2892.
h.
Fees include TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks.
i.
Aviation Security Capital Fund, used for installation of Explosive Detection Systems at airports.
j.
Transfer of $112 million from the Department of Defense, Navy per P.L. 110-252.
k.
Does not include $242 million for overseas contingency operations.
l.
Includes $242 million for overseas contingency operations.
m.
$100 million for Protection of Persons and Facilities per P.L. 111-8.
CRS-26
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)29
CBP is responsible for security at and between ports-of-entry along the border. Since September
11, 2001, CBP’s primary mission is to prevent the entry of terrorists and the instruments of
terrorism. CBP’s ongoing responsibilities include inspecting people and goods to determine if
they are authorized to enter the United States; interdicting terrorists and instruments of terrorism;
intercepting illegal narcotics, firearms, and other types of contraband; interdicting unauthorized
travelers and immigrants; and enforcing more than 400 laws and regulations at the border on
behalf of more than 60 government agencies. CBP is comprised of the inspection functions of the
legacy Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS); the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction, now known as
CBP Air and Marine (CBPAM); and the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP). See Table 8 for accountlevel detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 9 for sub-account-level detail for CBP
Salaries and Expenses (S&E) for FY2009 and FY2010.
Table 9. CBP S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010
HousePassed
FY2010
SenatePassed
FY2009
Enacted
FY2010
Request
Headquarters Management and
Administration
1,269
1,021
982
1,419
1,418
Border Security Inspections and
Trade Facilitation @ POE
2,561
2,736
2,733
2,770
2,750
Inspections, Trade & Travel
Facilitation @ POE
2,094
2,255
2,255
2,269
2,262
Container Security Initiative (CSI)/
International Cargo Screening (ICS)
149
165
162
165
162
Other International Programs
11
11
11
11
11
C-TPAT
64
63
63
63
63
FAST/NEXUS/SENTRI
11
11
11
11
11
Inspection and Detection Technology
146
144
144
164
154
Systems for Targeting
33
33
33
33
33
National Targeting Center
24
26
26
27
26
Training at POE
25
25
25
25
25
Harbor Maintenance Fee
3
3
3
3
3
Border Security and Control
Between POE
3,501
3,557
3,592
3,577
3,587
Border Security and Control
Between POE
3,426
3,505
3,539
3,525
3,535
Training Between the POE
75
52
52
52
52
Activity
FY2010
Enacted
29
Prepared by (name redacted), Analysts in Domestic Security, and (name redacted), Analyst in Immigration Policy,
Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
27
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
FY2010
HousePassed
FY2010
SenatePassed
FY2009
Enacted
FY2010
Request
272
310
310
310
310
Rescission
—
—
—
—
—
CBP Salaries and Expenses
Total:
7,603a
7,623
7,616
8,076
8,065
Activity
Air and Marine Operations Salaries
FY2010
Enacted
Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief,
House-passed H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-passed H.R. 2892 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding.
a.
This total does not include $160 million in emergency funding appropriated by P.L. 111-5.
President’s FY2010 Request
The Administration requested an appropriation of $11,431 million in gross budget authority for
CBP for FY2010, amounting to a $163 million (or 1%) increase over the enacted FY2009 level of
$11,268 million. The Administration requested $10,049 million in net budget authority for CBP in
FY2010, which amounts to a $228 million increase over the net FY2009 appropriation of $9,821
million.
House-Passed H.R. 2892
House-passed H.R. 2892 would provide $11,438 million in gross budget authority for CBP for
FY2010, amounting to $43 million (or roughly 1%) less than was requested by the
Administration, and a $511 million or 4% decrease over the enacted FY2009 level of $11,949
million. House-passed H.R. 2892 included $10,006 million in net budget authority for CBP for
FY2010, amounting to a $43 million decrease over the Administration’s request, and a $495
million decrease over the FY2009 enacted level of $10,501 million.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2892
Senate-passed H.R. 2892 would provide $11,602 million in gross budget authority for CBP for
FY2010, amounting to $121 million (or 1%) more than was requested by the Administration, and
a $347 million or 3% decrease over the enacted FY2009 level of $11,949 million. Senate-passed
H.R. 2892 included $10,170 million in net budget authority for CBP for FY2010, amounting to a
$121 million increase over the Administration’s request, and a $349 million increase over the
FY2009 enacted level of $9,821 million.
P.L. 111-83
P.L. 111-83 provided $11,559 million in gross budget authority for CBP for FY2010, amounting
to $78 million (or 1%) more than was requested by the Administration, and a $291 million or 3%
increase over the enacted FY2009 level of $11,268 million. P.L. 111-83 included $10,127 million
in net budget authority for CBP for FY2010, amounting to a $78 million increase over the
Administration’s request, and a $349 million increase over the FY2009 enacted level of $9,821
million.
Congressional Research Service
28
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Issues for Congress
Issues that Congress could consider during the FY2010 appropriations cycle include funding for
and deployment of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) technologies known as SBInet; CBP
officers and Border Patrol agents hiring and staffing levels; the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative (WHTI); the designation of CBP Officers as law enforcement officers for retirement
purposes; and the declining request for appropriations for some cargo security initiatives.
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology
The Administration requested $779 million for the deployment of SBInet30 related technologies
and infrastructures in FY2010, a decrease of $4 million over the FY2009 enacted level of $775
million (this total does not include $100 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act31). Within the FY2010 request, the Administration is proposing to allocate $494 million for
developing and deploying additional technology and infrastructure solutions to the southwest
border. An additional $200 million is requested for operations and maintenance of the cameras,
sensors, and tactical infrastructure (TI) fencing. The Administration notes that this will fund the
costs associated with operating and maintaining the technologies that have already been deployed
to the border as part of the SBI program. CBP states that the 670 miles of pedestrian and vehicle
fencing along the southwest border are largely completed, and their attention will now shift
towards other priorities, including the deployment of multiple SBInet projects.32 The management
of SBInet, however, has come under scrutiny. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)
noted that the Border Patrol was not consulted early enough in the process of developing the
technology solutions that would be used by SBInet, and that this fact combined with some
challenges relating to the integration of the technologies deployed by Boeing led to an eight
month delay in the initial pilot program’s deployment in Tucson Sector.33 Oversight of the SBInet
program’s continuing deployment of technology at the border, including whether DHS is on track
to meet its goals, may be an issue of concern to Congress as it considers the FY2010 request.
House-passed H.R. 2892 would have provided $732 million for the fencing, infrastructure and
technology-related account in CBP. Of this funding, $440 million would go towards development
and deployment of technology and TI. The funding would also have included $40 million for
environmental and regulatory assessments and mitigation. Moreover, $150 million of the funding
would remain unavailable until an expenditure plan was submitted. The report language also
called for an “alternative analysis” for operational control at the border, as well as more
consultation between CBP and local communities about border control activities. Senate-passed
H.R. 2892 would have provided $800 million for the fencing, infrastructure and technologyrelated account in CBP, of which $515 million would go towards development and deployment.
P.L. 111-83 provided $800 million for the fencing, infrastructure and technology-related account
30
SBInet is the technological and infrastructure component of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), a multifaceted
approach to securing the border. In its FY2007 budget submission, DHS asserted that it had “developed a three-pillar
approach under the SBI that will focus on controlling the border, building a robust interior enforcement program, and
establishing a Temporary Worker Program.” DHS FY2007 Justification, p. CBP S&E 4.
31
P.L. 111-5.
32
DHS FY2010 Justification, p. CBP BSFIT 2.
33
Testimony of GAO Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues Richard Stana, in U.S. Congress, Committee
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, DHS Has Taken Actions to Strengthen Border Security
Programs and Operations, But Challenges Remain, 110th Cong., 2nd Sess., March 6, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
29
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
in CBP, of which $508 million was for development and deployment and $40 million was for
environmental and regulatory assessments and mitigation.
In addition to requiring the timely submission of an expenditure plan, the Senate report also noted
a general disappointment that the upgrades of ports of entry are backlogged and that no funding
request for new ports of entry were submitted. Also, both the House and Senate Reports voiced
strong support for continuing efforts to secure the northern border, and include full funding for
Border Patrol agents and recruitment. Consequently, P.L. 111-83 included $40 million for
Northern border security technology investment and funding for an additional 100 Border Patrol
Agents.
In 2008, Congress included provisions in P.L. 110-161 requiring DHS to construct reinforced
fencing or other barriers along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border, in locations where
fencing is deemed most practical and effective. In carrying out this requirement, the Secretary is
further directed to identify either 370 miles or “other mileage” along the southwest border where
fencing would be most practical and effective in deterring smugglers and illegal aliens, and to
complete construction of fencing in identified areas. These requirements would have been
modified by S.Amdt. 1399 to Senate-passed H.R. 2892 to require that DHS construct reinforced
fencing to “restrain pedestrian traffic” along the entire 700 miles of border identified by the
Secretary for barrier construction. This language, however, was dropped by the conferees and
excluded from P.L. 111-83.
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)
The Administration requested an increase of $21 million (for a total of $145 million) for WHTI in
FY2010. WHTI requires U.S. citizens, and Canadian, Mexican, and some island nation nationals
to present a passport, or some other document or combination of documents deemed sufficient to
denote identity and citizenship status by the Secretary of Homeland Security, as per P.L. 108-458
§7209. DHS has already required all U.S. citizens entering the country at air and sea POE to
present passports as of January 18, 2007. P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2008, which requires U.S. citizens to provide proof of identity and citizenship at the land border,
took effect June 1, 2009. Moreover, as of January 31, 2008, DHS has ended the practice of
accepting oral declarations of citizenship at the land border and is requiring U.S, citizens to
present a passport, some other accepted biometric document, or the combination of a driver’s
license and a birth certificate, in order to re-enter the country34 (although DHS has made public
assurances that immigration inspectors will be allowed some discretion immediately following
the WHTI requirements taking effect). 35 Issues for Congress include whether dissemination of
WHTI documents is large enough to prevent a detrimental impact on the border regions, whether
the proposed staffing increases and infrastructure modifications are adequate to meet the needs
associated with the WHTI program, and whether the program to develop enhanced state driver’s
licenses that may be used to cross the land-border adequately addresses security concerns.36
34
Department of Homeland Security, Press Release, DHS Ends Oral Declarations at Borders, Reminds Travelers of
New Procedures, on January 31, January 18, 2008.
35
Comments of Colleen Manahaer, Director, WHTI, at New Administration, New Border Policy: International
Conference and Congressional Briefing of the Border Trade Alliance, Washington, DC, April 20, 2009.
36
DHS entered into an agreement to with Washington State to develop driver’s licenses that would be considered
WHTI-compliant. These enhanced driver’s licenses (EDL) have been issued since January 22, 2008 and several other
states have signed agreements with DHS to develop their own EDLs. For additional information and discussion, see
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
30
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
House-passed H.R. 2892 would have included $140 million for WHTI to be used on the
continued costs of infrastructure, technology and operations for WHTI. In addition to general
deployment, the House report noted that some of this funding would have been used for
expanding program support in anticipation of the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver, as well as for
auditing of enhanced drivers licenses and wait time studies. Senate-passed H.R. 2892 would have
fully funded the Obama Administration’s request of $145 million for WHTI. The Senate report
also noted that WHTI implementation activities, including issuance of WHTI compliant tribal
IDs, are eligible for funding under the State Homeland Security Grant Program. P.L. 111-83 fully
funded the Obama Administration’s request of $145 million for WHTI.
Other Travel Programs
The new International Registered Traveler program enacted by the FY2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, and which has been renamed Global Entry by the Administration, is currently
being rolled out. The program gives pre-approved, low-risk travelers (U.S. Citizens and Legal
Permanent Residents) expedited clearance into the United States at seven airports, and the
program will eventually expand to the 20 busiest international airports.37 An agreement with the
Government of the Netherlands will allow qualified U.S. citizens to join Privium, the Dutch
equivalent to Global Entry, and allow Dutch citizens to join Global Entry.38 In addition, pursuant
to requirements under Section 711 of the Implementing the Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007,39 the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) has been
established to screen Visa Waiver Program travelers prior to travel to the United States. As eight
countries were added to the Visa Waiver Program in 2008,40 the ESTA program is projected to
process over 17 million ESTA applications submitted by VWP travelers.41
H.Rept. 111-157 to H.R. 2892 notes that the enrollment in established trusted traveler programs—
SENTRI, FAST, and NEXUS—has been growing, since participation satisfies the requirements of
WHTI. The Global Entry program, however, has seen less growth than expected, according to the
report. Also, H.Rept. 111-157 states that CBP is developing a global enrollment system that will,
when fully operational, serve as the application gateway to a single trusted traveler program. The
report does not provide indications of any timeline for developing such a system.
Secure Freight Initiative (SFI)
The Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) is the next stage in the Department’s effort to secure cargo
containers in-bound to the U.S. from foreign countries. According to DHS, SFI is now being
(...continued)
CRS Report RL32754, Immigration: Analysis of the Major Provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005, by (name redacte
d), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
37
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Global Entry Program Overview, Washington, DC, February 12, 2009,
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/trusted_traveler/global_entry/global_entry_discription.xml.
38
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Global Entry with Expedited Entry into the Netherlands, Washington, DC,
May 5, 2009, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/trusted_traveler/global_entry/global_entry_flux.xml.
39
P.L. 110-53.
40
These eight countries were Estonia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, South Korea, and Malta.
41
DHS FY2010 Budget Justification, p. CBP S&E 15.
Congressional Research Service
31
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
characterized as a “three-pronged approach to enhance supply chain security.”42 The three prongs
of this approach are: the International Container Security project (ICS); the project to acquire data
elements to improve risk-based targeting of containers, known as the Security Filing (SF) or
“10+2”; and the efforts to identify and acquire technology to enhance cargo scanning and risk
assessment capabilities.43 The ICS is the component of the strategy whereby all U.S.-bound
maritime containers are subject to an integrated scan (image and radiation detection) at the
participating overseas port before being loaded on the U.S.-bound vessel. ICS is currently fully
operational and scanning 100% of U.S.-bound containers at the Port of Southampton in the
United Kingdom, the Port of Qasim in Pakistan, and at Puerto Cortes in Honduras.44
The SF initiative, also referred to as “10+2” by CBP, is the latest effort to collect additional data
pertaining to U.S.-bound maritime shipments. The SF initiative will allow CBP to collect
additional data earlier in the supply chain to enhance risk assessment capabilities before cargo is
loaded onto U.S.-bound vessels. CBP issued the final rule setting out the implementation of the
10+2 data requirements November 25, 2008.45 The rule took effect on January 26, 2009, but is
being implemented under a “delayed compliance period” which is currently scheduled to last 12
months.
CBP Congressional Budget Justification materials indicated that the $165 million request for ICS
in FY2010 includes a $16 million increase for Secure Freight, the majority of which is what is
characterized as a “base funding adjustment”.46 According to the budget justification materials,
the goals for FY2010 include expanding SFI “as permitted” to an additional nine locations that
would focus on high-risk trade corridors. An issue for Congress might be whether or not the
requested increase of $16 million is sufficient to support the expansion of SFI, given that the
majority of the requested increase has been characterized as an adjustment to base funding, rather
than as a programmatic increase. Congress may also wish to examine the criteria CBP is using to
select the additional SFI locations, and in particular their designation as high-risk. House-passed
H.R. 2892 provides $162 million for ICS ($3 million below the request for FY2010), while
Senate-passed H.R. 2892 fully funds the President’s request for this activity. P.L. 111-83 provides
$162 million for ICS.
H.Rept. 111-157 contains language expressing the Appropriations Committee’s understanding
that while SFI has produced interesting data and results, it has also revealed “considerable
challenges”. The committee states that:
It has become increasingly clear that, at least for now, a 100 percent scanning goal is not
feasible, and even if it were, would come at an unacceptably high cost monetarily and in the
displacement of other efforts.47
42
DHS, FY2009 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. CBP-SE-26.
DHS FY2010 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. CBP-S&E-23.
44
Ibid. p. CBP-S&E-24.
45
Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, “19 CFR Parts 4, 12, 18, et al.: Importer Security
Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements; Final Rule,” 73 Federal Register 71730-71785, November 25, 2008.
46
DHS, FY2010 Congressional Budget Justification, CBP-S&E-21, accessed at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/
budget_fy2009.pdf.
47
Ibid.
43
Congressional Research Service
32
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
The committee report requires CBP to report, not later than January 15, 2010, on its strategy to
“achieve meaningful cargo and supply chain security” in the absence of the 100% scanning
requirement. The adopted conference report to H.R. 2892 includes language instructing CBP to
report, as described in the House report, no later than February 1, 2010.
It is important to note that CBP is currently describing the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) as the
next phase/iteration or future of the Container Security Initiative (CSI). CSI may also be referred
to as a component of the International Container Security (ICS) project. The ICS, as noted above,
is the new umbrella name for CBP’s international cargo security initiatives, which includes CSI
and SFI.
Container Security Initiative
CSI is a program by which CBP stations CBP officers in foreign ports to target high-risk
containers for inspection before they are loaded on U.S.-bound ships. CSI is currently operational
in 58 ports. This year, the requested $165 million for FY2010 includes funding for CSI/ICS, SFI,
the Security Filing (SF), and technology acquisition efforts. As noted above, the CBP Budget
Justifications indicate a requested increase of nearly $16 million for the CSI/ICS program for
FY2010. However, as noted above, the majority of the requested increase appears targeted to SFI,
and thus the FY2010 budget request does not appear to include any additional funding for CSI.
Congress may wish to explore in more detail the current and potential relationship between the
CSI and SFI programs, and whether or not it would be beneficial to have a separate budgetary
presentation for the CSI and SFI programs. Currently, it is difficult to assess what portion of the
ICS account is dedicated to the CSI program. Neither H.Rept. 111-157, nor S.Rept. 111-31 shed
light on the portion of ICS funding dedicated to the CSI program. P.L. 111-83 also reflects this
lack of clarity.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)48
ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the United States. ICE
develops intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the United States and is responsible for
investigating and enforcing violations of the immigration laws (e.g., alien smuggling, hiring
unauthorized alien workers). ICE is also responsible for locating and removing aliens who have
overstayed their visas, entered illegally, or have become deportable. In addition, ICE develops
intelligence to combat terrorist financing and money laundering, and to enforce export laws
against smuggling, fraud, forced labor, trade agreement noncompliance, and vehicle and cargo
theft. Furthermore, this bureau oversees the building security activities of the Federal Protective
Service (FPS), formerly of the General Services Administration. For FY2010, the Administration
has proposed moving the FPS from ICE to NPPD in Title III. See Table 8 for account-level detail
for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 10 for sub-account-level detail for ICE Salaries and
Expenses (S&E) for FY2009 and FY2010.
48
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
33
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
President’s FY2010 Request
The Administration requested $5,776 in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2010. This
represented a 2.7% decrease over the enacted FY2009 level of $5,928 million (excluding the
supplemental). However, this decrease is misleading, because of the proposed transfer of FPS
from ICE to NPPD. The Administration requested an appropriation of $5,458 million in net
budget authority for ICE in FY2010, representing a 9% increase over the FY2009 enacted level
(including the Supplemental) of $4,989 million. Table 10 provides activity-level detail for the
Salaries and Expenses account. The request includes the following increases:
•
$70 million for the Southwest Border Enforcement Program;
•
$92 million for the co-location of ICE facilities;
•
$39.1 million for Secure Communities;49
•
$12 million for the Detention Facilities Inspection Group;
•
$12 for the Office of State and Local Coordination;
•
$34 million to move data center operations from Department of Justice’s centers
to DHS centers.
Table 10. ICE S&E Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010
HousePassed
FY2010
SenatePassed
Activity
FY2009
Enacteda
FY2010
Requesta
Management (HQ) &
Administration
0
0
486
522
512
Legal Proceeding
240
260
222
222
222
Investigations - Domestic
1,696
1,884
1,643
1,667
1,650
Investigations - International
111
119
113
113
113
Visa Security Programb
FY2010
Enacted
28
32
32
30
31
1,835
2,035
1,788
1,810
1,793
64
80
68
72
70
DRO-Custody Operations
1,830
1,967
1,771
1,771
1,771
DRO-Fugitive Operations
241
251
230
230
230
DRO-Criminal Alien Program
209
222
193
193
193
DRO-Alternatives to Detention
67
69
74
64
70
Total Investigations
Intelligence
DRO Transportation and Removal
Program
281
281
282
282
282
DRO Total
2,628
2,790
2,549
2,539
2,545
Comprehensive Identification
and Removal of Criminal Aliens
161c
212
200
196
200
4,927d
5,348
5,313
5,360
5,342
ICE Salaries and Expenses
49
Secure communities is a program which seeks to remove all criminal aliens convicted of violent felonies and major
drug crimes from the United States.
Congressional Research Service
34
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief,
House-passed H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-passed H.R. 2892 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Note: Tables may not add due to rounding. Although the total funding requests summed to the same amount,
CRS noted a discrepancy in the account requests between the Budget Justifications and the Budget in Brief. As
such, CRS chose to use the numbers presented by ICE in the budget justifications.
a.
In P.L. 110-329, Congress appropriated $372 million for Headquarters and Administration. The
President’s request does not include a specific line item for Headquarters and Administration (now called
Management and Administration (M & A)) and puts funding for M & A within the line item for office that is
related to the purpose of the funds. Amounts shown in Table 10 for the FY2009 enacted and the
President’s request for FY2010 are displayed in this manner. The House-reported and Senate-report
versions of the bill shows the M&A amount as a specific line item extracted from the line item for the office
that is related to the purpose of the funds.
b.
In the FY2009 appropriations, the Visa Security Program was included as part of Office of Investigations
(OI) International Investigations funding
c.
This amount includes funding for the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), Fugitive Operations, Office of
Investigations support to locate criminal aliens, and State and Local Programs including 287(g) agreements.
The INA §287(g) authorizes the Attorney General to enter into a written agreement with a state, or any
political subdivision, to allow state and local law enforcement officers to perform the functions of an
immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States.
d.
Excludes $20 million from the FY2009 supplemental which was appropriated to aid in the transfer of
unaccompanied minors from ICE or CBP custody to the custody of Department of Health and Human
Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
House-passed H.R. 2892
House-passed H.R. 2892 would have appropriated $6,863 million in gross budget authority.
Nonetheless, this amount included money from the FPS fees.50 Removing the FPS fees as was
done in the Administration request, House-passed H.R. 2892 would have appropriated $5,748
million in gross budget authority, $28 million less than the President’s request. House-passed
H.R. 2892 would have appropriated $5,430 in net budget authority for ICE, which would have
represented a decrease of $28 million, under the Administration’s requested amount. Of the
appropriated amount, $2,549 million would have been designated for detention and removal
operations; $1,500 million to identify aliens convicted of a crime who may be deportable and
remove them from the United States once they are judged deportable; nearly $8 million would
have been for special operations under §3131 of the Customs Enforcement Act of 1986; $1
million would have provided compensation awards to informants; $305,000 would have been
used to promote public awareness of the child pornography tipline and anti-child exploitation
activities; $11 million would have been designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for
the cost of care, and repatriation of smuggled aliens; $5 million would have been used to facilitate
agreements under §287(g) of the INA; $16 million would have been targeted for enforcement of
laws against forced child labor; and almost $7 million for the Visa Security Program.
According to H.Rept. 111-157, the appropriated monies would have included the President’s
budget requested increases of $18 million for state and local programs; $50 million for custody
operations; $12 million for the Office of Professional Responsibility. In addition, according to
H.Rept. 111-157, House-passed H.R. 2892 would have appropriated over the President’s
requested budget:
50
As mentioned above for FY2010, the Administration has proposed moving the FPS from ICE to NPPD.
Congressional Research Service
35
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
•
$28 million for OI domestic investigations;
•
$28 million for the Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative;51 and
•
$10 million for alternatives to detention.
In addition, according to H.Rept. 111-157, House-passed H.R. 2892 would not provide
any funds for ICE data center migration activities.
Senate-passed H.R. 2892
Senate-passed H.R. 2892 would have appropriated $5,750 million in gross budget authority, $26
million less than the Administration request. Senate-passed H.R. 2892 would appropriate $5,445
million in net budget authority for ICE in FY2010, $13 million less than the Administration
request. Table 10 provides activity-level detail for the Salaries and Expenses account.
Of the appropriated amount in Senate-passed H.R. 2892, $2,539 million would be designated for
detention and removal operations; $1,000 million to identify aliens convicted of a crime who may
be deportable and remove them from the United States once they are judged deportable; $1
million would provide compensation awards to informants; $.3 million would be used to promote
public awareness of the child pornography tipline and anti-child exploitation activities; $5 million
would be used to facilitate agreements under §287(g) of the INA; $11 million would be
designated to fund or reimburse other federal agencies for the cost of care, and repatriation of
smuggled aliens; $16 million would be targeted for enforcement of laws against forced child
labor; and nearly $7 million would be used to fund the Visa Security Program.
According to S.Rept. 111-31, Senate-passed H.R. 2892 would fully fund the President’s budget
request for increases over the FY2009 appropriate amounts for: the law enforcement support
center ($35 million); 287(g) agreements ($12 million); and Secure Communities ($196 million).
In addition, S.Rept. 111-31 recommended an increase over the President’s budget request of:
•
$45 million for ICE’s role in the Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative;52
•
$2.1 million (4 FTEs) for the Office of Personal Responsibility (total increase of
$15 million); and
•
$10 million (50 FTEs) for worksite enforcement actions.
S.Rept. 111-31 also recommended a decrease over the Administration request of: $35 million for
the co-location of ICE facilities;53 and $10 million for data center migration.
51
This includes $20 million ($10 million each) for investigations of transnational gangs and investigations of crossborder weapons smuggling; $5 million for drug smuggling investigations, and $3 million to expand human smuggling
and trafficking investigations.
52
$20 million for additional Border Enforcement Security Task Forces (BESTs); $20 million for counter-proliferation
and gang investigations; and $5 million to augment bulk cash smuggling investigations.
53
House-passed H.R. 2892 stated that no funds could be used to co-locate offices until the Secretary of DHS submits a
report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on a nationwide plan to implement the Alternatives to
Detention program.
Congressional Research Service
36
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
P.L. 111-83
P.L. 111-83 appropriated $5,742 million in gross budget authority, $34 million less than the
Administration request. P.L. 111-83 appropriated $5,437 million in net budget authority for ICE
in FY2010, $21 million less than the Administration request.
Of the appropriated amount in P.L. 111-83, $2,545 million was designated for detention and
removal operations; $1,500 million to identify aliens convicted of a crime who may be deportable
and remove them from the United States once they are judged deportable; $1 million would
provide compensation awards to informants; $.3 million was to promote public awareness of the
child pornography tipline and anti-child exploitation activities; $5 million was to facilitate
agreements under §287(g) of the INA; $11 million was designated to fund or reimburse other
federal agencies for the cost of care, and repatriation of smuggled aliens; $16 million was targeted
for enforcement of laws against forced child labor; and $7 million was for funding the Visa
Security Program.
Issues for Congress
ICE is responsible for many divergent activities due to the breadth of the civil and criminal
violations of law that fall under ICE’s jurisdiction. As a result, how ICE resources are allocated in
order to best achieve its mission is a continuous issue. In addition, part of ICE’s mission includes
locating and removing deportable aliens, which involves determining the appropriate amount of
detention space as well as which aliens should be detained. Although many content that the
priority should be placed on removing aliens who have committed crimes in the United States, in
FY2008 less than a third of those deported by ICE were convicted of a criminal offense. 54
Furthermore, others argue that the prioritization of criminal aliens should not come at the expense
of the ICE’s other responsibilities, such as terrorist travel and worksite enforcement
investigations.55 Additionally, in recent years there has been debate concerning the extent to
which state and local law enforcement should aid ICE with the identification, detention, and
removal of deportable aliens.
Detention and Removal Operations
Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) in ICE provide custody management of the aliens who
are in removal proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United States.56 DRO is
also responsible for ensuring that aliens ordered removed actually depart from the United States.
Many contend that DRO does not have enough detention space to house all those who should be
detained. A U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General study released in 2003
found that almost 94% of those detained with final orders of removal were deported, whereas
only 11% of those not detained, who were issued final orders of removal, left the country.57
54
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.
55
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.
56
For more information on detention issues see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention:
Current Legislative Issues, by (name redacted). 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.
57
Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, The Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Removal of
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
37
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Concerns have been raised that decisions regarding which aliens to release and when to release
them may be based on the amount of detention space, not on the merits of individual cases, and
that the amount of space may vary by area of the country leading to inequities and disparate
policies in different geographic areas. Furthermore, there have been concerns raised about the
adequacy of medical care received by aliens in detention.58 The Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458, §5204) authorized, subject to appropriations,
an increase in DRO bed space of 8,000 beds for each year, FY2006-FY2010. The total number of
FY2009 detention beds was 33,400, and the President’s FY2010 budget requested an increase of
$36 million to maintain current amount of bed space. S.Rept. 111-31 stated that DHS should
maintain 33,400 beds throughout FY2010.
In addition, as requested by the Administration, Senate-passed H.R. 2892 would give the
Secretary of DHS the authority to dispose of ICE owned detention facilities subject to such
conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet the requirements of the
Detention and Removal program. Funds from the sale of these facilities would be deposited in
offsetting fees account. Nonetheless, House-passed H.R. 2892 does not provide this authority, and
H.Rept. 111-157 states that this proposal is “unwise.”59 In addition, House-passed H.R. 2892
would prohibit funds to be used to contract at any detention facility where the two most recent
overall performance evaluations were less than “adequate.”
P.L. 111-83 directs that ICE shall maintain a level of 33,400 bed spaces throughout FY2010.
Additionally, P.L. 111-83 prohibits the expenditure of funds on contracts with detention centers
that repeatedly fail to comply with ICE detention standards.
State and Local Law Enforcement60
Currently, the INA provides limited avenues for state enforcement of its civil provisions. One of
the broadest grants of authority for state and local immigration enforcement activity stems from
INA §287(g), which authorizes the Attorney General to enter into a written agreement with a
state, or any political subdivision, to allow state and local law enforcement officers to perform the
functions of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of
aliens in the United States. The enforcement of immigration by state and local officials has
sparked debate among many who question what the proper role of state and local law
enforcement officials should be in enforcing federal immigration laws. Many have expressed
concern over proper training, finite resources at the local level, possible civil rights violations,
and the overall impact on communities. Nonetheless, some observers contend that the federal
government has scarce resources to enforce immigration law and that state and local law
enforcement entities should be utilized. Congress appropriated $54 million for the 287(g)
program for FY2009. The President’s FY2010 request for ICE includes $5 million for 287(g)
agreements which is the FY2008 funding level; however, additional funding may be available
(...continued)
Aliens Issued Final Orders, Report I-2003-004, February 2003.
58
For more on the issue of detainee medical care, see CRS Report RL34556, Health Care for Noncitizens in
Immigration Detention, by (name redacted).
59
H.Rept. 111-157 also noted that ICE reported that it would use some of the appropriated funds for Automation
Modernization to initiate the acquisition of an electronic medical records system for detainees.
60
This section adapted from CRS Report RL32270, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law
Enforcement, by Lisa M. Seghetti, (name redacted), and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
38
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
though appropriations to the Office of State and Local Government Coordination. House-passed
H.R. 2892 and Senate-passed H.R. 2892 also would appropriate $5 million for 287(g)
agreements. In addition, both H.Rept. 111-157 and S.Rept. 111-31 state that House and Senate
passed bills would fully fund the President’s FY2010 request for Office of State and Local
Government Coordination.61 P.L. 111-83 fully funds the Administration’s request for State and
Local Programs, and provides $68 million for the 287(g) program within this funding. This
amount is in addition to the $5 million statutorily dictated for the 287(g) program.
Federal Protective Service62
The Federal Protective Service (FPS), now within FEMA’s National Protection and Programs
Directorate (NPPD)63, is responsible for the protection and security of federally owned and leased
buildings, property, and personnel.64 In general, FPS operations focus on security and law
enforcement activities that reduce vulnerability to criminal and terrorist threats.65 FPS protection
and security operations include all-hazards based risk assessments; emplacement of criminal and
terrorist countermeasures, such as vehicle barriers and close-circuit cameras; law enforcement
response; assistance to federal agencies through Facility Security Committees; and emergency
and safety education programs. FPS also assists other federal agencies with additional security
such as the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) at National Special Security Events (NSSE).66 FPS is the
lead Government Facilities Sector Agency for the National Infrastructure Protection Plan
(NIPP).67 Currently, FPS employs approximately 1,225 law enforcement officers, investigators,
and administrative personnel, and administers the services of approximately 15,000 contract
security guards.68
President’s FY2010 Request
The FPS congressional budget justification proposed $640 million for FPS in FY2010 to be
collected in security fees (which is not an appropriation, but an accounting of other agencies’
funding for security fees), the same amount Congress enacted in FY2009. FPS estimated a
collection of security leasing fees69 to provide $420 million for basic security operations and $220
million for building specific security operations. 70 However, the budget appendix displayed an
61
H.Rept. 111-157 stated that within the appropriated amount for State and Local programs, $68 million would be for
287(g) agreements. In addition, House-passed H.R. 2892 would prohibit funds for 287(g) agreement to continue for any
delegation of law enforcement authority if the DHS IG determines that the authority delegated under a 287(g)
agreement has been violated.
62
Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and
Finance Division.
63
FPS was transferred to NPPD from ICE following the enactment of the FY2010 DHS appropriations, P.L. 111-83.
64
40 U.S.C. 1315.
65
For more information on FPS, see CRS Report RS22706, The Federal Protective Service and Contract Security
Guards: A Statutory History and Current Status, by (name redacted).
66
For information on NSSEs, see CRS Report RS22754, National Special Security Events, by (name redacted).
67
Information on the NIPP is available at http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/editorial_0827.shtm.
68
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Federal Protective Service:
Fiscal Year 2010 Congressional Justification, Washington, DC, May 2009, pp. FPS-1.
69
The rate for basic security services is $0.66 per square foot of General Service Administration controlled property.
70
The rate for building specific security operations is based on individual building and agency needs.
Congressional Research Service
39
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
amount of $1,031 million and CRS was unable to determine the difference in the congressional
justification amount of $640 million and the $1,031 million in the budget appendix. Additionally,
the Administration proposed to maintain FPS 1,225 positions, and approximately 15,000 contract
security guards in FY2010.71 Finally, the FY2010 budget request proposed to transfer FPS to the
NPPD of DHS, which the Senate-passed H.R. 2892 also proposed.
House-passed H.R. 2892
The House-passed H.R. 2892 authorized security fees credited to the FPS account in FY2010 that
would have been available until expended for necessary expenses related to the protection of
federally owned and leased facilities. The FPS would have been required to maintain no fewer
than 1,200 FTE staff and 900 FTE law enforcement officers, inspectors, Area Commanders, and
Special Agents.
Senate-passed H.R. 2892
The Senate-passed H.R. 2892 authorized security fees credited to the FPS account in FY2010 that
would have been available until expended for necessary expenses related to the protection of
federally owned and leased facilities. Like the House-passed H.R. 2892, the FPS was required to
maintain no fewer than 1,200 FTE staff and 900 FTE law enforcement officers, inspectors, Area
Commanders, and Special Agents.
P.L. 111-83
Congress determined that FPS is authorized to collect security fees for the necessary expenses
related to the protection of federally owned and leased buildings and for FPS operations.
Additionally, Congress required that the DHS Secretary and the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget certify, in writing to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees,
that FPS operations will be fully funded in FY2010 through the collection of security fees. FPS is
required to maintain no fewer than 1,200 full-time equivalent staff and 900 full-time police
officers, investigators, inspectors, area commanders, and special agents. The conferees supported
the realignment of FPS from ICE to NPPD and “expect” the DHS Secretary and Deputy Secretary
to ensure an “effective” transition. DHS managers overseeing this transition are required to brief
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on the progress of the transition at least semiannually, starting no later than January 15, 2010. Finally, conferees expressed concern about
FPS’s ability to protect federal buildings.
Federal Protective Service Issues for Congress
There are potential issues Congress may wish to consider when conducting oversight of FY2010
FPS activities, including FPS operations and the transfer of FPS from ICE to NPPD.
71
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Federal Protective Service:
Fiscal Year 2010 Congressional Justification, Washington, DC, May 2009, pp. FPS-1 – FPS-2.
Congressional Research Service
40
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
FPS Operations
In July 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) completed and reported a survey that
indicated that 82% of FPS customers do not use the agency as their primary law enforcement
agency in emergency situations. Additionally, the customers informed GAO that they primarily
rely on other entities such as local law enforcement, the U.S. Marshals Service, or the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. GSA also informed GAO that it has not been satisfied with the level of
protection and security provided by FPS since being transferred to DHS. According to GSA
officials, FPS has not been responsive and timely in providing building security assessments for
new leases. GAO, however, stated FPS has taken steps to improve customer service through
education and outreach initiatives. 72
When FPS had reduced its workforce in FY2007 from 1,400 to 1,100 employees, GAO had
issued a report that stated that this reduction in FPS’s staff resulted in the degradation of security
at federal facilities and increased the risk of crime or terrorist attacks. GAO concluded that the
decision by FPS to eliminate proactive security patrols at federal facilities resulted in FPS law
enforcement personnel not being able to conduct security operations.73 Subsequently, the number
of FPS employees increased by 125 to 1,225 in FY2009. In FY2010, FPS does not intend to
decrease the number of employees consistent with the provisions of P.L. 111-83 (FY2010 DHS
appropriations.
FPS Transfer to NPPD
Congress transferred FPS from ICE to NPPD with the enactment of P.L. 111-83. The
Administration stated that this will allow ICE, which previously administered the FPS, to focus
its law enforcement operations on protecting the nation by targeting the people, money, and
materials that support terrorists and criminals relating to the nation’s borders. Also, the
Administration stated that FPS would be better suited in NPPD given the directorate’s
responsibility of implementing the National Infrastructure Protection Program (NIPP). FPS, as
the NIPP’s Government Facilities Sector agency, is an infrastructure protection entity; by the
transfer of FPS to NPPD, the Administration expects to “solidify” NPPD as DHS’s lead for
critical infrastructure.74 The Administration plan is based primarily on (1) allowing ICE to focus
its operations on border security, and (2) reinforcing or solidifying NPPD’s role in infrastructure
protection. Both of these reasons may be considered valid considering the increased
congressional and national interest in ICE and border security, and, to what appears to be, a
logical location for DHS’s infrastructure protection law enforcement agency. Conversely, one
could argue that NPPD does not include any other law enforcement operational entity that has a
similar infrastructure protection responsibility.
72
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: Federal Protective Service Should Improve Human
Capital Planning and Better Communicate with Tenants, GAO-09-749, July 2009, pp. 5-6.
73
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: The Federal Protective Service Faces Several
Challenges That Hamper Its Ability to Protect Federal Facilities, GAO-08-914T, June 2008, p. 12.
74
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Federal Protective Service:
Fiscal Year 2010 Congressional Justification, Washington, DC, May 2009, p. FPS-1.
Congressional Research Service
41
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)75
The TSA was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA, P.L. 107-71), and it
was charged with protecting air, land, and rail transportation systems within the United States to
ensure the freedom of movement for people and commerce. In 2002, the TSA was transferred to
DHS with the passage of the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296). The TSA’s responsibilities
include protecting the aviation system against terrorist threats, sabotage, and other acts of
violence through the deployment of passenger and baggage screeners; detection systems for
explosives, weapons, and other contraband; and other security technologies. The TSA also has
certain responsibilities for marine and land modes of transportation including assessing the risk of
terrorist attacks to all non-aviation transportation assets, including seaports; issuing regulations to
improve security; and enforcing these regulations to ensure the protection of these transportation
systems. TSA is further charged with serving as the primary liaison for transportation security to
the law enforcement and intelligence communities. See Table 8 for account-level detail for all of
the agencies in Title II, and Table 11 for sub-account-level detail for TSA for FY2009 enacted
levels and FY2010 amounts specified in the President’s request, the House-passed and Senatepassed bills, and the enacted amounts in P.L. 111-83.
President’s FY2010 Request
The President’s request seeks total gross funding of $7,774 million in FY2010 for the TSA, a
nearly 12% increase over FY2009 enacted levels. The President requested an increase of 12% for
Aviation Security, and a twofold increase in Surface Transportation Security funding, totaling
$128 million compared to the FY2009 enacted level of $63 million. The additional funding for
Surface Transportation Security would primarily go toward deploying 15 additional Visual
Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams—which consist of TSA inspectors, officers,
and canine teams that patrol surface modes (highway, rail, and transit), screen passengers, and act
as a visible deterrent—at an added cost of $50 million.
The largest increase to Aviation Security funding specified in the President’s Request is a $563
million increase for explosives detection systems (EDS) and explosives trace detection (ETD)
systems purchase and installation to accelerate the implementation of optimal checked baggage
explosives screening configurations. In addition to FY2009 appropriations of $294 million for
this function, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) provided for
$1,000 million for Aviation Security, of which $700 million was designated by the TSA for EDS
and ETD procurement and installation, to be expended over a two-year period. The combination
of these additional funds, along with funding provided through the Aviation Security Capital Fund
(ASCF), addresses concerns over the lengthy and costly process of optimizing checked baggage
screening systems.
In contrast to the increase requested for checked baggage explosives detection system acquisition
and installation, the President’s request calls for a funding reduction of $121 million for
Checkpoint Support compared to the FY2009 enacted level. Checkpoint Support funds are
primarily intended for modernizing checkpoint screening technologies and improving capabilities
to detect explosives on passengers and carry-on items. The proposed reduction is in response to
75
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
Congressional Research Service
42
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
additional funds provided in FY2009 by Congress above the President’s request plus the
designation of an additional $300 million for Checkpoint Support activities specified in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). While the Bush Administration
similarly sought to reduce Checkpoint Support activities in FY2009, Congress increased the
FY2009 funding for checkpoint support to $250 million to match the amount provided in FY2008
through the Airport Checkpoint Screening Fund established by the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53).
The President’s request has proposed establishing a new certified cargo screening program to
fulfill the mandate of screening 100% of cargo placed on passenger airplanes by August 2010. It
also calls for establishing a program to implement and oversee the Large Aircraft Security
Program (LASP) to regulate security of large general aviation (GA) aircraft operations. The
President’s request also seeks $10 million in new funding for aviation security to provide for
security fee collections to carry out security threat assessments of airport and airline workers
requiring Security Identification Display Area (SIDA) credentials for airport access.
The President’s request also seeks a $76 million increase, a 65% increase over FY2009 enacted
levels for Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing. The majority of this increase, $64
million, is slated for the Vetting Infrastructure Modernization initiative, which is designed to
implement a universal fee mechanism and a common vetting infrastructure to reduce duplicative
background checks and fees for transportation workers and bring TSA modal vetting programs in
line with the strategic goals of the DHS Credentialing Framework Initiative (CFI).
Table 11.TSA Gross Budget Authority, by Budget Activity
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010
HousePassed
FY2010
SenatePassed
FY2009
Enacteda
FY2010
Request
4,755
5,310
5,266
5,233
5,214
Screening Partnership Program
(SPP)
151
150
150
150
150
Passenger & Baggage Screening
(PC&B)
2,716
2,789
2,789
2,759
2,759
Screener Training & Other
197
203
204
203
205
Checkpoint Support
250
129
129
129
129
EDS/ETD Purchase/Installation
294
857
800
802
778
Screening Technology
306
327
317
327
317
Operation Integration
21
21
21
21
21
Aviation Regulation and Other
Enforcement
245
254
254
254
254
Airport Management, IT, and
Support
402
448
454
448
454
FFDO & Crew Training
25
25
25
25
25
Air Cargo Security
123
108
123
115
123
4
—
—
—
—
Budget Activity
Aviation Security
Airport Perimeter Security
Congressional Research Service
FY2010
Enacted
43
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
FY2010
HousePassed
FY2010
SenatePassed
FY2009
Enacteda
FY2010
Request
Implementing P.L. 110-53
20
—
—
—
Indirect Air Cargo—Feeb
—
[3] c
—
[3] c
Certified Cargo Screening
Program
—
[5] c
—d
[5] c
Large Aircraft Security Plan
—
[2] c
—d
[2] c
Security Identification Display
Area Checks
—
[10] c
—d
[10] c
Federal Air Marshal Service
819
860
860
860
860
Management and
Administration
725
763
763
763
763
Travel and Training
94
98
98
98
98
Threat Assessment and
Credentialing (TTAC)
116
192
172
172
172
Secure Flight
82
84
84
84
84
Other/ TTAC Admin. & Ops.
34
108
88
88
88
40
28
45
28
48
Registered Traveler Program
10
—
—
—
—
TWIC—Fee
9
9
9
9
9
HAZMAT CDL—Fee
18
15
15
15
15
Certified Cargo Screening
Program—Fee
—
—
5
—
5
Large Aircraft Security Plan—
Fee
—
—
2
—
2
Security Identification Display
Area Checks—Fee
—
—
10
—
10
Indirect Air Cargo—Feeb
—
[3] c
—
[3] c
3
Alien Flight School—Fee
4
4
4
4
4
Surface Transportation
Security
50
128
103
143
111
Operations and Staffing
25
42
42
42
42
Security Inspectors
25
86
61
100
68
Transportation Security
Support
948
1,005
993
1,000
1,002
Intelligence
22
28
28
28
28
Headquarters Administration
235
249
249
249
249
Human Capital Services
218
226
226
226
226
Information Technology
473
501
490
496
498
Sensitive Security
Information—Fee
—
—
—
—
—
Budget Activity
Credentialing Fees
Congressional Research Service
FY2010
Enacted
—
44
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
Budget Activity
FY2010
HousePassed
FY2010
SenatePassed
FY2009
Enacteda
FY2010
Request
250
250
250
250
250
6,978
7,774
7,689
7,685
7,656
Aviation Security Capital
Fund (ASCF)
TSA Gross Total
FY2010
Enacted
Sources: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief,
House-passed H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-passed H.R. 2892 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Notes: Tables may not add due to rounding. Table 11 Includes Alien Flight School funding of $4 million which
is not included in Tables 5 or 8.
a.
FY2009 appropriated amounts specified in this table include TSA distributions of an additional $20 million
designated for implementing various requirements specified in P.L. 110-53. These distributions add roughly
$4 million to Aviation Security under Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement; $14 million to Surface
Transportation Security ($9 million for Operations and Staffing and $5 million for Security Inspectors); and
roughly $3 million to Transportation Security Support for Intelligence activities above levels specified in P.L.
110-329 for these specific activities (See DHS FY2010 Congressional Justification, p. TSA-Aviation-56).
b.
The Indirect Air Cargo Fee, charged for conducting background checks of security workers in the air cargo
supply chain, was authorized under FY2004 DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-90) to fulfill requirements of
the TSA’s Air Cargo Security Final Rule. The FY2009 estimated fee collections for this activity are reflected
in this table and are included in the totals for Aviation Security.
c.
Bracketed amounts indicate activities wholly funding through newly proposed fee collections that are not
included in the subtotal for Aviation Security or in the TSA gross total.
d.
See amounts listed under Credentialing Fees.
House-Passed H.R. 2892
The House-passed bill specified a gross total funding for TSA of $7,689 million, $85 million
below the President’s request. House-passed amounts for aviation security functions are largely in
line with those specified in the President’s request. However, the House-passed bill specifies $800
million for EDS/ETD purchase and installation, $57 million less than the President’s request. The
reduced amount passed by the House reflects anticipated savings of between $50 million and
$150 million through design improvements such as the use of pre-engineered structures for inline EDS solutions.76 The House-passed bill also specifies $11 million less than the President’s
request for screening technology maintenance and utilities reflecting anticipated cost savings
from renegotiating long-term maintenance contracts for screening technologies to address
escalating maintenance costs. The House-passed bill seeks $123 million for air cargo security,
$15 million more that the President’s request. The additional funds are intended for hiring
additional domestic air cargo inspectors, international air cargo inspectors deployed overseas, and
canine teams that will work predominantly in the air cargo arena.
The House-passed bill specifies $103 million for surface transportation security, $54 million
above FY2009 enacted levels, but $25 million less than the President’s request. Of this amount,
$61 million is for rail security inspectors and canine teams, and $42 million is for surface
transportation staffing and operations. The bill supports the continued use of VIPR teams, but
report language (see H.Rept. 111-157) expressed concern over the role of TSA inspectors on
those teams and the effectiveness of VIPR training exercises and the TSA’s failure to report on
76
See H.Rept. 111-157 for further details.
Congressional Research Service
45
Homeland Security Department: FY2010 Appropriations
methods for allocating VIPR team resources and personnel among the various transportation
modes. The committee, therefore, did not fully support the proposed expansion of the VIPR teams
included in the President’s request, instead specifying half of the $50 million requested.
For TTAC, the House-passed bill specifies an amount that is $20 million below the President’s
request, providing $88 million instead of the requested $108 million for crew and other vetting
programs. The House committee however reported that this program fully funds annual increases
for meeting vetting requirements of the 9/11 Act (P.L. 110-53) and provides funding for the 33
new positions requested. With regard to Transportation Security Support, the House-passed bill
provides $12 million less than the President’s request for information technology functions,
which represents the elimination of funding for data center migration in response to concerns
raised by the DHS Office of Inspector General regarding this activity.
Senate-Passed H.R. 2892
The Senate-passed bill specifies a gross total of $7,685 million for the TSA, roughly in line with
the House-passed amount, but $89 million below the President’s request. Like the House, the
Senate-passed bill does not fully fund the requested increase for EDS/ETD purchase and
installation. Instead, it specifies $802 million, $2 million more than the House-passed amount, but
$55 million less than the President’s request, citing lower-than-expected installation costs for inline EDS systems. In line with the House, the Senate bill provides $115 million for air cargo
security. The bill would withhold $20 million in TSA headquarters administration funding until
the FY2010 expenditure plan for air cargo security funds is submitted to the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, citing the TSA’s failure to submit such a plan for FY2009.
Unlike the House, the Senate-passed bill seeks to provide an additional $14 million above the
President’s request for surface transportation security. Whereas the House did not fully support
the requested expansion of VIPR team personnel and resources, the Senate-passed bill fully funds
this request. It also provides an additional $14 million for 100 new surface transportation
inspectors, citing a DHS Office of Inspector General report which concluded that TSA field
offices were thinly staffed with surface transportation security inspectors.
With respect to TTAC, the Senate-passed bill parallels the House-passed bill, specifying $20
million less than the President’s request. The committee explained that this reduction reflects a
decision not to fund TSA efforts to modernize and integrate its vetting and credentialing
infrastructure. While the committee supports the modernization efforts, it concluded that several
key strategic and acquisition decisions remain to be made regarding this project before it can be
funded at the requested level. With respect to transportation security support information
technology spending, the Senate-passed bill partially funds the TSA’s proposed data center
migration, but at a level that is $5 million below the reque
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.