Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Congressional research reportJul 25, 2011
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Homeland Security Department:
FY2011 Appropriations
(name redacted), Coordinator
Section Research Manager
(name redacted), Coordinator
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy
July 25, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R41189
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Summary
This report describes the FY2011 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). The Administration requested a net appropriation of $45.0 billion in budget authority for
FY2011. This amounts to a $1.1 billion, or a 2.4% increase from the $43.9 billion enacted for
FY2010. Total budget authority requested by the Administration for DHS for FY2011 amounts to
$52.6 billion as compared to $51.7 billion enacted for FY2010.
Net requested appropriations for major agencies within DHS were as follows: Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), $9,809 million; Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), $5,524
million; Transportation Security Administration (TSA), $5,729 million; Coast Guard, $9,867
million; Secret Service, $1,570 million; National Protection & Programs Directorate, $2,362
million; Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), $7,294 million; Science and
Technology, $1,018 million; and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $306 million.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2010 DHS Appropriations
bill on July 15, 2010. This report uses Senate-reported S. 3607 and the committee report (S.Rept.
111-222) accompanying S. 3607 as the source for the Senate-reported numbers. The Senatereported S. 3607 recommends a net appropriation of $45.2 billion for DHS for FY2011. This
amounts to a $195 million increase as compared to the Administration’s request, and a nearly $1.3
billion increase as compared to the $43.9 billion enacted for FY2010 (not including FY2010
supplemental funding).
The House did not mark up its bill in the full Appropriations Committee, and therefore did not
make public its official position on funding levels and direction for DHS.
Congress did not enact the 12 regular appropriations bills for FY2011 before the start of the fiscal
year. As a result, seven interim continuing resolutions for FY2011 became law: P.L. 111-242 (124
Stat. 2607), P.L. 111-290 (124 Stat. 3063), P.L. 111-317 (124 Stat. 3454), and P.L. 111-322 (124
Stat. 3518) in the 111th Congress, and P.L. 112-4 (125 Stat. 6), P.L. 112-6 (125 Stat. 23), and P.L.
112-8 (125 Stat. 34). P.L. 112-4 and P.L. 112-6 rescinded unobligated funds from several specific
DHS programs as they continued to fund the department.
On April 15, 2011, the President signed H.R. 1473 into law as P.L. 112-10. This public law
represents the final appropriations act for FY2011. P.L. 112-10 includes roughly $41.6 billion in
non-emergency discretionary spending for the Department of Homeland Security, while
mandating a 0.2% across-the-board rescission for all departmental appropriations except for
narrowly delineated funding for Coast Guard “overseas contingency operations directly related to
the global war on terrorism.” As is often the case with continuing resolutions, P.L. 112-10
provides more limited direction than is given through a traditional bill and conference report as to
how appropriations should be divided among individual programs, projects, and activities, but
instead requires the department to provide spending plans to outline how DHS chooses to allocate
those funds.
This report will not be updated further.
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments ............................................................................................................. 1
P.L. 112-10, 112th Congress ....................................................................................................... 1
Summary of DHS-Related provisions in the Several CRs for FY2011..................................... 1
Committee Action...................................................................................................................... 3
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress, 2nd Session........................................................ 3
House Action, 111th Congress, 2nd Session.......................................................................... 3
President’s FY2011 Budget Request Submitted........................................................................ 3
Note on Most Recent Data .................................................................................................. 4
Background...................................................................................................................................... 4
Department of Homeland Security............................................................................................ 4
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations ................................................................................................... 5
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays.............................................................................. 6
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending .................................................................................... 6
Offsetting Collections................................................................................................................ 7
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security.............................................................. 7
DHS Appropriations Trends ...................................................................................................... 7
Summary of DHS Appropriations ............................................................................................. 8
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations....................................................................... 11
P.L. 112-10 and Title I ............................................................................................................. 12
Rescissions ........................................................................................................................ 13
President’s FY2011 Request.................................................................................................... 13
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress................................................................................ 14
Personnel Issues ................................................................................................................ 16
Analysis and Operations.......................................................................................................... 19
President’s FY2011 Request.............................................................................................. 20
Senate-Reported S. 3607 ................................................................................................... 20
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations ....................................................................... 20
P.L. 112-10 and Title II ............................................................................................................ 24
Rescissions ........................................................................................................................ 25
Customs and Border Protection............................................................................................... 25
President’s FY2011 Request.............................................................................................. 26
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress.......................................................................... 28
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 28
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.................................................................................. 31
President’s FY2011 Request.............................................................................................. 31
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress.......................................................................... 33
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 33
Transportation Security Administration .................................................................................. 34
President’s FY2011 Request.............................................................................................. 35
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress.......................................................................... 37
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 38
United States Coast Guard....................................................................................................... 41
President’s FY2011 Request.............................................................................................. 41
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress.......................................................................... 43
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 43
United States Secret Service.................................................................................................... 45
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
President’s FY2011 Request.............................................................................................. 46
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress.......................................................................... 46
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 47
Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ........................................................ 50
P.L. 112-10 and Title III........................................................................................................... 53
Rescissions ........................................................................................................................ 54
National Protection and Programs Directorate........................................................................ 54
Management and Administration ...................................................................................... 55
President’s FY2011 Request.............................................................................................. 55
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress.......................................................................... 56
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security................................................................. 56
President’s FY2011 Request.............................................................................................. 56
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress.......................................................................... 58
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 59
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT).................................... 60
President’s FY2011 Request.............................................................................................. 61
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress.......................................................................... 61
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 61
Federal Protective Service....................................................................................................... 62
President’s FY2011 Request.............................................................................................. 62
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress.......................................................................... 62
Issue for Congress ............................................................................................................. 63
Office of Health Affairs........................................................................................................... 64
President’s FY2011 Request.............................................................................................. 64
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress.......................................................................... 64
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 65
Federal Emergency Management Agency ............................................................................... 65
President’s FY2011 Request.............................................................................................. 66
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress.......................................................................... 66
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 67
Flood Map Modernization................................................................................................. 71
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................................. 72
P.L. 112-10 and Title IV .......................................................................................................... 73
Rescissions ........................................................................................................................ 74
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services............................................................................. 74
President’s FY2011 Request.............................................................................................. 75
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress.......................................................................... 76
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 76
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center ............................................................................. 77
President’s FY2011 Request.............................................................................................. 77
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress.......................................................................... 77
Science and Technology .......................................................................................................... 77
President’s FY2011 Request.............................................................................................. 77
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress.......................................................................... 79
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 79
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office......................................................................................... 80
President’s FY2011 Request.............................................................................................. 80
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress.......................................................................... 81
Issues for Congress............................................................................................................ 82
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations .................................................. 4
Table 2. FY2011 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS........................................................... 5
Table 3. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2011 ............................................................................. 7
Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations..................................................................................... 9
Table 5. Title I: Departmental Management and Operations ......................................................... 11
Table 6. Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer Appropriations............................................. 17
Table 7. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations.......................................................... 21
Table 8. CBP Salaries and Expenses Account Detail..................................................................... 27
Table 9. ICE Salaries and Expenses Account Detail...................................................................... 32
Table 10. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity.......................................................... 36
Table 11. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-account Detail ..................... 42
Table 12. FY2010 Enacted and FY2011 Budget Authority for the U.S. Secret Service................ 47
Table 13. Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ........................................ 51
Table 14. FY2009 Budget Activity for NPPD Management and Administration
Appropriation.............................................................................................................................. 55
Table 15. Budget Authority for Infrastructure Protection and Information Security..................... 58
Table 16. Budget Authority for State and Local Programs ............................................................ 68
Table 17. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services ................. 72
Table 18. USCIS Budget Account Detail....................................................................................... 75
Table 19. Directorate of Science and Technology, Accounts and Activities.................................. 78
Table 20. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Accounts and Activities ....................................... 81
Table B-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2011 ............................ 88
Appendixes
Appendix A. FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations ..................................................................... 84
Appendix B. DHS Appropriations in Context ............................................................................... 87
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 89
Congressional Research Service
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
P.L. 112-10, 112th Congress
On April 15, 2011, the President signed H.R. 1473 into law as P.L. 112-10. This public law
represents the final appropriations act for FY2011. P.L. 112-10 includes roughly $41.6 billion in
non-emergency discretionary spending for the Department of Homeland Security, while
mandating a 0.2% across-the-board rescission for all departmental appropriations except for
narrowly delineated funding for Coast Guard “overseas contingency operations directly related to
the global war on terrorism.” As is often the case with continuing resolutions, P.L. 112-10
provides more limited direction than is given through a traditional bill and conference report as to
how appropriations should be divided among individual programs, projects and activities, but
instead requires the department to provide spending plans to outline how DHS chooses to allocate
those funds.
Summary of DHS-Related provisions in the Several CRs for
FY20111
Congress did not enact the 12 regular appropriations bills for FY2011 before the end of FY2010.
As a result, until P.L. 112-10 was signed into law, funding levels for government activities were
set by a series of FY2011 interim continuing resolutions:
•
P.L. 111-242 (124 Stat. 2607), covering October 1, 2010—December 3, 2010;
•
P.L. 111-290 (124 Stat. 3063), covering December 4, 2010—December 18, 2010;
•
P.L. 111-317, (124 Stat. 3454), covering December 19, 2010—December 21,
2010;
•
P.L. 111-322 (124 Stat. 3518), covering December 22, 2010—March 4, 2011;
•
P.L. 112-4 (125 Stat. 6), covering March 5, 2011—March 18, 2011;
•
P.L. 112-6 (125 Stat. 23), covering March 19, 2011—April 8, 2011; and
•
P.L. 112-8 (125 Stat. 34), covering April 9, 2011—April 15, 2011.
The initial CR, P.L. 111-242, extended funding for the 12 outstanding regular bills generally at
FY2010-enacted spending levels from October 1, 2010, through December 3, 2010. The second
CR, P.L. 111-290, extended this expiration date through December 18, 2010.
On December 8, 2010, the House passed the FY2011 full-year CR, H.R. 3082 (111th Congress),
covering the 12 regular bills. To provide more time to resolve differences within Congress and
between Congress and the President, the House adopted another interim CR, H.J.Res. 105 (111th
Congress), on December 17, 2010. This measure extended the December 18, 2010, expiration
date three days, through December 21, 2010.
1
For a more detailed discussion of the CRs for the FY2011 appropriations cycle, see CRS Report RL30343,
Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
1
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
On December 21, 2010, the Senate amended House-passed H.R. 3082, to extend funding for the
outstanding appropriations bills at the FY2010-enacted spending level. The House passed the
Senate-amended version of H.R. 3082, which was signed by the President on December 22, 2010.
P.L. 111-322 extended funding through March 4, 2011.
After the new Congress was sworn in, the House adopted the Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011 (H.R. 1, 112th Congress) on February 19, 2011. On February 28, 2011,
Further Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011 (H.J.Res. 44, 112th Congress) was
introduced to continue funding for two weeks, from March 5, 2011, through March 18, 2011.
Both pieces of legislation included provisions that would reduce funding available for specific
DHS accounts and programs.
On March 1, 2011, the House passed H.J.Res. 44. The Senate passed H.J.Res. 44 on March 2,
2011, and the measure was signed by the President on March 3, 2011 (P.L. 112-4). H.J.Res. 44
provided a spending rate for all 12 regular bills at FY2010 levels through March 18, 2011 with
certain reductions in spending compared with P.L. 111-322 (the fourth CR in effect from
December 21), and compared with FY2010 enacted levels. These reductions included the
following for DHS:
•
$1 million from DHS Undersecretary for Management—for logistics training;
•
$1 million from Customs and Border Protection Salaries and Expenses—for a
solar powered batteries program;
•
$43 million from Customs and Border Protection Construction—for facility
construction projects;
•
$1 million from the Transportation Security Administration—for the National
“Safe Skies” Alliance;
•
$4 million from the Coast Guard’s Operations and Expenses account—for the
Operations System Center;
•
$17 million from the Coast Guard’s Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements account—for shore construction accounts;
•
$4 million from the Coast Guard’s Alteration of Bridges account;
•
$20 million from the National Programs and Protection Directorate—for cybersecurity and infrastructure projects;
•
$5 million from the Office of Health Affairs for bio-preparedness;
•
$103 million from FEMA’s State and Local programs account for university and
emergency operations center grants;
•
$25 million from FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation grants; and
•
$41 million from Science and Technology Directorate research projects.2
2
House Appropriations Committee, “Continuing Resolution Unveiled Today Will Continue Government Operations,
Cut Spending,” accessed at http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&
PressRelease_id=266&Month=2&Year=2011.
Congressional Research Service
2
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
On March 15, 2011, the House passed H.J.Res. 48. The Senate passed H.J.Res. 48 on March 17,
2011, and the President signed the measure into law on March 18, 2011 (P.L. 112-6). P.L. 112-6
provided a spending rate for all 12 regular bills through April 8, 2011, at the level of the previous
short-term CR with additional modifications. The only further reduction to the Department of
Homeland Security in P.L. 112-6 was a $106.6 million rescission from Customs and Border
Protection Construction.
On April 7, the House passed H.R. 1363. The Senate passed H.R. 1363 with an amendment on
April 8, 2011. The House passed the amended bill on April 9, 2011, and the President signed the
measure into law the same day (P.L. 112-8). P.L. 112-8 provided a spending rate for all 12 regular
bills through April 15, 2011, at the level of the previous short-term CR with additional
modifications, allowing time for the final year-long CR to be completed. None of those
modifications directly affected the Department of Homeland Security’s budget.
Committee Action
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress, 2nd Session
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2010 DHS Appropriations
bill on July 15, 2010. This report uses Senate-reported S. 3607 and the committee report (S.Rept.
111-222) accompanying S. 3607 as the source for the Senate-reported numbers. The Senatereported S. 3607 recommends a net appropriation of $45.2 billion for DHS for FY2011. This
amounts to a $195 million increase as compared to the Administration’s request, and a nearly $1.3
billion increase as compared to the $43.9 billion enacted for FY2010 (not including FY2010
supplemental funding).
House Action, 111th Congress, 2nd Session
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security marked up its draft bill in
subcommittee on June 24, 2010. However, the day the bill was scheduled for full committee
markup, the bill was withdrawn and the legislation was never brought before the full committee
or made public.
President’s FY2011 Budget Request Submitted
The Administration requested a net appropriation of $45.0 billion in budget authority for FY2011.
This amounts to a $1.1 billion, or a 2.4% increase from the $43.9 billion enacted for FY2010.
Total budget authority requested by the Administration for DHS for FY2011 amounts to $52.6
billion as compared to $51.7 billion enacted for FY2010.
Net requested appropriations for major agencies within DHS were as follows: Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), $9,809 million; Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), $5,524
million; Transportation Security Administration (TSA), $5,729 million; Coast Guard, $9,867
million; Secret Service, $1,570 million; National Protection & Programs Directorate, $2,362
million; Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), $7,294 million; Science and
Technology, $1,018 million; and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $306 million.
Congressional Research Service
3
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 1. Legislative Status of Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee
Markup 111th
Congress
House
Passage
H.R. 1473
112th
Congress
Senate
Passage
H.R.
1473
112th
Congress
House
Senate
Senate
Committee
Report
S.Rept.
111-222
6/24/10
7/14/10
7/15/10
4/14/11
4/14/11
(VV)
(VV)
(17-12)
(260-167)
(81-19)
House
Committee
Report
N/A
Conference
Report
Approval
House
Senate
P.L.
11210
N/A
N/A
4/15/11
Note: (VV) = voice vote, (UC) = unanimous consent.
Note on Most Recent Data
Data used in this report for FY2010 enacted and FY2011 are from the President’s Budget
Documents, the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011 DHS Budget in
Brief, the Senate-reported version of S. 3607, and P.L. 112-10. Data used in Appendix B are
taken from the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2006-FY2011 President’s Budget.
Except when discussing total amounts for the bill as a whole, all amounts contained in this report
are generally rounded to the nearest million.
Background
This report describes the final direction given to the Department of Homeland Security through
P.L. 112-10 by title, then goes into more detail by component, outlining President’s FY2011
request for funding for DHS programs and activities, as submitted to Congress on February 1,
2010. It compares the enacted FY2010 amounts to the request for FY2011, tracks the Senate’s
recommendations as included in Senate’s Committee Report, and notes congressional issues
related to the FY2011 DHS appropriations bills with particular attention paid to discretionary
funding amounts. No House recommendations are available for comparison as no full committee
markup was held for the House draft in the second session of the 111th Congress. 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. This report will not be updated further.
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
4
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 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 FY2010 and the current appropriations cycle.
Table 2. FY2011 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2010
Comparable
FY2011 Request
Comparable
FY2011 House
Allocation
FY2011 Senate
Allocation
42.8
43.6
43.6
43.5
FY2011 Enacted
Comparable
42.6
Sources: CRS analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, S.Rept. 111-222, and DHS
Expenditure Plan for Fiscal Year 2011.
Note: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
5
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 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 Act3
prohibits federal agencies from obligating more funds than the budget authority that was enacted
by Congress. Budget authority may also be indefinite, as when Congress enacts language
providing “such sums as may be necessary” to complete a project or purpose. Budget authority
may be available on a one-year, multi-year, or no-year basis. One-year budget authority is only
available for obligation during a specific fiscal year; any unobligated funds at the end of that year
are no longer available for spending. Multi-year budget authority specifies a range of time during
which funds can be obligated for spending; no-year budget authority is available for obligation
for an indefinite period of time.
Obligations are incurred when federal agencies employ personnel, enter into contracts, receive
services, and engage in similar transactions in a given fiscal year. Outlays are the funds that are
actually spent during the fiscal year.4 Because multi-year and no-year budget authorities may be
obligated over a number of years, outlays do not always match the budget authority enacted in a
given year. Additionally, budget authority may be obligated in one fiscal year but spent in a future
fiscal year, especially with certain contracts.
In sum, budget authority allows federal agencies to incur obligations and authorizes payments, or
outlays, to be made from the Treasury. Discretionary agencies and programs, and appropriated
entitlement programs, are funded each year in appropriations acts.
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending
Gross budget authority, or the total funds available for spending by a federal agency, may be
composed of discretionary and mandatory spending. Discretionary spending is not mandated by
existing law and is thus appropriated yearly by Congress through appropriations acts. The Budget
Enforcement Act of 19905 defines discretionary appropriations as budget authority provided in
annual appropriation acts and the outlays derived from that authority, but it excludes
appropriations for entitlements. Mandatory spending, also known as direct spending, consists of
budget authority and resulting outlays provided in laws other than appropriation acts and is
typically not appropriated each year. However, some mandatory entitlement programs must be
appropriated each year and are included in the appropriations acts. Within DHS, the Coast Guard
retirement pay is an example of appropriated mandatory spending.
3
U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517.
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 through http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/index.
5
P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.
4
Congressional Research Service
6
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Offsetting Collections6
Offsetting funds are collected by the federal government, either from government accounts or the
public, as part of a business-type transaction such as offsets to outlays or collection of a fee.
These funds are not counted as revenue. Instead, they are counted as negative outlays. DHS net
discretionary budget authority, or the total funds that are appropriated by Congress each year, is
composed of discretionary spending minus any fee or fund collections that offset discretionary
spending.
Some collections offset a portion of an agency’s discretionary budget authority. Other collections
offset an agency’s mandatory spending. They are typically entitlement programs under which
individuals, businesses, or units of government that meet the requirements or qualifications
established by law are entitled to receive certain payments if they establish eligibility. The DHS
budget features two mandatory entitlement programs: the Secret Service and the Coast Guard
retired pay accounts (pensions). Some entitlements are funded by permanent appropriations,
others by annual appropriations. The Secret Service retirement pay is a permanent appropriation
and as such is not annually appropriated, whereas the Coast Guard retirement pay is annually
appropriated. In addition to these entitlements, the DHS budget contains offsetting Trust and
Public Enterprise Funds. These funds are not appropriated by Congress. They are available for
obligation and included in the President’s budget to calculate the gross budget authority.
Appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security
DHS Appropriations Trends
Table 3 presents DHS Appropriations, as enacted, for FY2003 through FY2011. The
appropriation amounts are presented in current dollars and are not adjusted. The amounts shown
in Table 3 represent enacted amounts at the time of the start of the next fiscal year’s appropriation
cycle (with the exception of FY2009 and FY2011).
Table 3. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2011
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
29,069a
30,175b
30,554c
31,679
35,311d
38,817e
41,205
42,776
42,477f
Sources: FY2003 and FY2004 enacted taken from H.Rept. 108-169; FY2005 enacted taken from H.Rept. 10979; FY2006 enacted taken from H.Rept. 109-476; FY2007 appropriation amounts are from the H.Rept. 110-181;
and FY2008 enacted amounts are from Division E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint Explanatory Statement
for Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating
amendments to the budget request). FY2009 enacted taken from the DHS Joint Explanatory Statement as
submitted in the Congressional Record, and in the House- and Senate-enrolled version of H.R. 2638; FY2010
enacted amounts is from the S.Rept. 111-222; and FY2011 is from Department of Homeland Security
Expenditure Plan for Fiscal Year 2011.
6
Prepared with assistance from (name redacted), Analyst in American National Government.
Congressional Research Service
7
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. Amounts do not include
supplemental appropriations or rescissions that were enacted subsequent to the enactment of each
appropriations bill.
a.
S.Rept. 108-86 reported the FY2003 enacted amount as $29,287 million. CRS was unable to identify the
reason for this discrepancy. For the purposes of this table the House number was used to maintain
consistency with other fiscal years.
b.
Amount does not include $4,703 million in advance appropriations for Project Bioshield.
c.
Amount does not include $2,508 million in advance appropriations for Project Bioshield.
d.
Amount includes $1,829 million in emergency budget authority that was enacted as a part of the FY2007
DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-295).
e.
Amount includes $2,710 million in emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
f.
Amount includes 0.2% across the board rescission and $254 million in emergency budget authority for
Coast Guard Operating Expenses.
Summary of DHS Appropriations
Table 4 is a summary table comparing the enacted total for FY2010 to the request for, and
congressional action on the FY2011 appropriations. Due to the lack of a comparative statement of
budget authority that encompasses FY2011 accompanying P.L. 112-10 or H.R. 2017, the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2012, FY2011 enacted numbers are drawn
directly from P.L. 112-10 and P.L. 111-83. Gross numbers are estimates due to the resulting lack
of reliable data on fees and mandatory spending.
Congressional Research Service
8
Table 4. DHS: Summary of Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2011 Appropriation
FY2011
Operational
Component
FY2010
Enacted
FY2010
Supplemental
FY2010
Rescission
FY2010
Total
FY2011
Request
FY2011
Housea
SenateReported S.
3607
FY2011 Enacted
P.L. 112-10
Title I: Departmental Operations
Departmental Operations
803
-2
801
1,271
837
840
Analysis and Operations
335
-0
335
348
340
335
Office of the Inspector
General
114
115
130
133
114
-3b
1,249
1,749
1,310
1,290
-100
10,333
9,909
10,016
9,833
5,517
5,524
5,551
5,511
5,259
5,729
5,674
5,259
9,956
9,867
10,401
10,265
1,483
1,570
1,576
1,518
Subtotal: Title I
1,252
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
Customs and Border
Protection
10,127
306
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
5,437
80
Transportation Security
Administration
5,258
U.S. Coast Guard
10,410
U.S. Secret Service
1,483
66
-8
Gross subtotal: Title II
36,339
452
-108
36,691
36,611
37,186
36,521
Net subtotal: Title II
32,445
452
-108
32,789
32,499
33,119
32,116
Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response and Recovery
National Protection &
Programs Directorate
1,318
1,318
2,362
2,375
1,219
Office of Health Affairs
139
139
213
155
140
CRS-9
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2011 Appropriation
FY2011
Operational
Component
FY2010
Enacted
FY2010
Supplemental
FY2010
Rescission
FY2010
Total
FY2011
Request
FY2011
Housea
SenateReported S.
3607
FY2011 Enacted
P.L. 112-10
Federal Emergency
Management
Administration
7,129
5,100
12,229
7,294
7,562
7,215
Gross subtotal: Title III
9,701
5,100
14,801
9,869
10,092
9,689
Net subtotal: Title III
8,586
5,100
13,686
8,754
8,977
8,574
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, Assessments, and Services
Citizenship and
Immigration Services
224
11
235
386
172
147
Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center
283
8
291
278
274
271
Science and Technology
1,006
1,006
1,018
1,010
829
Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office
384
384
306
323
342
Gross subtotal: Title IV
4,400
19
4,419
4,415
4,206
4,093
Net subtotal: Title IV
1,897
19
1,916
1,988
1,779
1,590
41
100
240
-557
Rescissions
41
Gross DHS budget
authority
51,692
5,571
-111
57,163
52,644
52,794
51,661
Net DHS budget
authority
43,939
5,571
-111
49,410
44,990
45,185
43,908
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications; the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief; S.Rept. 111-222 to accompany S. 3607, 111th Congress; FY 2010
Homeland Security Appropriations Act P.L. 111-83; FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations Acts P.L. 111-230 and P.L. 111-242; H.R. 1, 112th Congress, and P.L. 112-10.
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding.
a.
No official numbers are available for the House position as the bill and report were never published by the House Appropriations Committee.
b.
Includes an $800,000 rescission of unexpended funds from the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding, a terminated office no longer reflected in
the table.
CRS-10
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations7
Title I covers the general administrative expenses of DHS. It includes the Office of the Secretary
and Executive Management (OSEM), which is comprised of the immediate Office of the
Secretary and 12 entities that report directly to the Secretary; the Under Secretary for
Management (USM) and its components, such as the offices of the Chief Administrative Officer,
Chief Human Capital Officer, and Chief Procurement Officer; the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO); the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO); the Analysis and
Operations Office (AOO); the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding
(OFCGCR); and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). New Title I accounts proposed for
FY2011 were DHS Headquarters Consolidation and the National Special Security Event (NSSE)
State and Local Reimbursement Fund. Table 5, below, shows Title I appropriations for FY2010,
the President’s request for FY2011, the Senate-reported amounts for FY2011, and the
appropriations for FY2011.
Table 5. Title I: Departmental Management and Operations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010 Appropriation
Operational
Component
FY2010
Enacted
Office of the
Secretary and
Executive
Management
148
Office of the
Under Secretary
for Management
254
Office of the
Chief Financial
Officer
-2
146
157
151
137
-0
254
267
240
240
61
61
66
64
53
Office of the
Chief
Information
Officer
338
338
398
382
333
Analysis and
Operations
335
335
348
340
335
1
0
0
0
7
-1
FY2011
Housea
FY2011
Enacted
P.L.
112-10
FY2011
Request
2
FY2010
Resc.
FY2011
SenateReported
FY2010
Total
Office of the
Federal
Coordinator for
Gulf Coast
Rebuilding
FY2010
Supp.
FY2011 Appropriation
Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
11
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
FY2010 Appropriation
Operational
Component
FY2010
Enacted
DHS
Headquarters
Consolidation
FY2010
Supp.
FY2010
Resc.
FY2011 Appropriation
FY2011
Enacted
P.L.
112-10
FY2010
Total
FY2011
Request
-
-
363
(342)b
77
National Special
Security Event
State an Local
Reimbursement
Fund
-
-
20
(20)b
(8)
Office of the
Inspector
Generalc
114
114
130
133
114
Net Budget
Authority:
Title I
1,252
1,249
1,749
1,310
1,290
-3
FY2011
Housea
FY2011
SenateReported
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications; the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief;
S.Rept. 111-222 to accompany S. 3607, 111th Congress; FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations Acts P.L. 111-230
and P.L. 111-242; H.R. 1, 112th Congress, and P.L. 112-10.
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. The FY2010 supplemental
appropriations column and the FY2010 rescission column are placeholders. Thus, while no such funding has yet
been put forth for FY2010, these columns are included in anticipation that such actions may occur as the bill
moves forward. Supplemental appropriations and rescissions have occurred on numerous occasions for past
DHS appropriations.
a.
No official numbers are available for the House position as the bill and report were never published by the
House Appropriations Committee.
b.
Funding for this initiative was moved to Title V of the bill in the Senate draft and funds provided under P.L.
112-10 are under FEMA’s control, therefore this amount is not reflected in the Senate Title I total.
c.
Does not include a $16 million transfer of funds from FEMA’s Disaster Relief account.
After discussing the impact of P.L. 112-10 on DHS components under this title, this report will
outline the Administration’s request, Senate action on the request in the 2nd session of the 111th
Congress, and possible issues for Congress. As the House position on the Administration’s full
request was never officially ratified by the Appropriations Committee in 2010, there is no data
available from the House for direct comparison.
P.L. 112-10 and Title I
H.R. 1473, the final FY2011 CR (P.L. 112-10), explicitly established funding levels for all
existing Title I accounts, with the exception of the OIG. Funds were provided as follows,
compared to the President’s request: OSEM, $137 million ($20 million or 13% less); USM, $240
million ($27 million, or 10.1% less) plus $77 million for headquarters consolidation ($285
million, or 79% less); CFO, $53 million ($13 million, or 19% less), with $4 million explicitly for
consolidation of the department’s financial systems; and CIO, $333.4 million ($65 million, or
16% less). The OIG would continue to receive $114 million, plus $16 million transferred from
Congressional Research Service
12
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
FEMA’s disaster relief fund, as outlined in P.L. 111-83, providing them with funding roughly
equal to the President’s request.
Under Section 1604 of P.L. 112-10, the $77 million appropriated for DHS Headquarters
Consolidation is to be used to “plan, acquire, construct, renovate, remediate, equip, furnish, and
occupy buildings and facilities for the consolidation.” Section 1605 of the law provides that of the
$53 million appropriated for the OCFO, $4 million is to “remain available until September 30,
2014, for financial systems consolidation efforts.”8
These funding levels overall reflected a $154 million, or 11.3% reduction from the
Administration’s request under Title I, not including the initiatives for headquarters consolidation
activities and NSSE reimbursement. When those are added to the calculation, Title I of the final
legislation is $452 million, or 25.8%, below the President’s request for FY2011.
Rescissions
In addition to the specifically directed reductions in funding levels, all of these accounts are
subject to a 0.2% across-the-board rescission of budget authority for FY2011 in P.L. 112-10,
which amounts to a further $3 million reduction in Title I, to be applied proportionately across the
accounts in the title, and to the subaccounts within those accounts.
Section 1656 of P.L. 112-10 rescinds $3 million in FY2010 unobligated balances from Title I
components. The major elements of those rescissions include $1.4 million from OSEM and $0.8
million from USM.9
President’s FY2011 Request
The total FY2011 request for Title I accounts that were funded in FY2010 was $1,366 million.
This represents an increase of $114 million (+9.1%) over the FY2010 total. FY2011 request
compared to the FY2010 enacted appropriations was as follows: OSEM, $157 million, an
increase of $9 million (+6.1%); USM, $267 million, an increase of $13 million (+5.1%); OCFO,
$66 million, an increase of $5 million (+8.2%); OCIO, $398 million, an increase of $60 million
(+17.7%); AOO, $348 million, an increase of $13 million (+3.9%); OFCGCR, no funding, a
decrease of $2 million; and OIG, $130 million, an increase of $16 million (+14%).
As for the two new accounts for FY2011, the DHS Headquarters Consolidation request was $363
million and the National Special Security Event State and Local Reimbursement Fund request
was $20 million. Therefore, the total FY2011 request for all Title I accounts was $1,749 million.
This represents an increase of $497 million (+39.7%) over the FY2010 total.10
Of the amounts requested for accounts that were funded in FY2010, the largest increase would
occur in the OCIO (requesting $398 million and 309 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees, up
from $338 million and 203 FTEs in FY2010). Within OCIO, program increases are requested for
Information Technology Services (requesting $56 million), Infrastructure and Security Activities
8
Ibid.
P.L. 112-10, April 15, 2011, 125 Stat. 38, at 147.
10
FY2011 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, pp. DMO-2–DMO-3.
9
Congressional Research Service
13
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
(requesting $186 million), and National Security Systems (requesting $74 million).11 The next
largest increase would have occurred in the OIG (requesting $130 million and 665 FTEs, up from
$114 million and 632 FTEs in FY2010). Within OIG, a program increase of $4 million and 9
FTEs was requested for Audit, Inspections, and Investigations to fund planned audits on TSA
international in-bound flight initiatives, best practices with international partners, and the Secure
Flight Program. Reviews and evaluations of TSA’s in-line baggage screening system, the
paperless boarding pass, TSA Worker Identification Credentials, and the procurement and
deployment of new screening technology are also planned.12 An FY2011 funding request for the
OFCGCR was not requested because the office closed on March 31, 2010.
The new DHS Headquarters Consolidation account is expected to provide DHS, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress “with improved visibility of the ongoing efforts
for establishing a central DHS facility” and “facilitate better reporting and overall management of
the program” by DHS. The $363 million requested for FY2011 was to support both the
consolidation of mission support elements that are not relocating to the St. Elizabeths Campus
and the consolidation of the department’s headquarters to that Campus. There are no FTEs
attached to this account.13
Another new account, the NSSE State and Local Reimbursement Fund, would be administered by
the Office of Operations Coordination and Planning. Among events that have been designated as
NSSEs in the past have been presidential inaugurations, presidential nominating conventions,
major sports events, major international meetings, presidential funerals, and world economic
summits. The requested $20 million appropriation for the fund will be used to reimburse state and
local governments for the actual costs associated with increased security measures for unplanned
NSSEs.14 There are no FTEs attached to this account.
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended these appropriations, as compared with
the President’s request: OSEM, $151 million ($6 million or 3.8% less); USM, $240 million ($27
million or 10.1% less); OCFO, $64 million ($2 million or 3% less); OCIO, $382 million ($16
million or 4% less); AOO, $340 million ($8 million or 2.3% less); OFCGCR, $0 (the same as the
budget request); National Security Event, $0 (20 million less); and OIG, $133 million ($3 million
or 2.3% more). The total funding recommended by the Senate committee for Title I was $1,310
million. This represents a decrease of $439 million, or 25.1%, from the President’s request.
A general provision at Section 556 of S. 3607, as reported, included funding of $288 million
(rounded) to continue development of the DHS Consolidated Headquarters at St. Elizabeths and
$54 million (rounded) to consolidate leases across the National Capital Region. The Chief
Administrative Officer is directed to continue regular briefings on the consolidation plan,
11
FY2011 DHS Justifications, Office of the Chief Information Officer, p.OCIO-8.
FY2011 DHS Justifications, Office of Inspector General, pp. OIG-5 and OIG-11.
13
FY2011 DHS Justifications, DHS HQ Consolidation, pp. HQ-3–HQ-4.
14
FY2011 DHS Justifications, National Special Security Event State and Local Reimbursement Fund, pp. NSSE-1NSSE-2.
12
Congressional Research Service
14
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
including the status of National Capital Planning Commission approvals, the project schedule,
and any deviation from the plans described in the FY2011 budget justification.15
For the OSEM appropriation, $50 million would not be obligated until the Secretary submits a
comprehensive risk assessment and national security strategy for the railroad sector, a detailed
timeline for meeting all remaining congressional requirements for the security of surface
transportation, and a comprehensive plan for meeting the recommendations in the Surface
Transportation Security Priority Assessment of the National Security Council. In addition, $25
million would not be obligated until the Secretary submits a comprehensive plan to implement a
biometric air exit capability in FY2011 to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations.
Of the OS&EM total, $20 million would be made available to the Office of Policy to host Visa
Waiver Program negotiations in Washington, DC.
For the USM appropriation, $5 million would fund the alteration and improvement of facilities,
tenant improvements, and relocation costs to consolidate DHS headquarters operations at the
Nebraska Avenue Complex.
Among the directives included in the committee report for the departmental management and
operations accounts are the following:
15
•
The Secretary is strongly encouraged to negotiate with the relevant foreign
governments to permit rapid deployment of Federal Air Marshals to and from
such countries.
•
The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is encouraged to
negotiate with the relevant governments on an expansion of U.S. Customs and
Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel
associated with the Immigration Advisory Program and the Visa Security
Program.
•
The OCFO is directed to ensure that annual appropriations justifications are
prepared for each DHS component in support of the President’s budget and
submitted on the day the budget is delivered to Congress. The OCFO also is
directed to include detailed information by appropriations account, program,
project, and activity on all reimbursable agreements, and significant uses of the
Economy Act for each fiscal year. Additionally, the OCFO must ensure that the
DHS justifications accompanying the President’s FY2012 budget request include
a status report of overdue committee reports, plans, and other directives. One
standard format must be used by all offices and agencies and inserted in the
justifications reflecting the status of congressional directives for each of fiscal
years 2009, 2010, and 2011.
•
The OCIO is required to submit an expenditure plan for certain information
technology acquisition projects to the House and Senate committees on
Appropriations within 60 days after the act’s enactment. Of the OCIO funding,
$75 million would not be obligated until the plan has been submitted.
•
The DHS Chief Intelligence Officer must submit an expenditure plan for FY2011
within 60 days after the act’s enactment. The plan must include the following: (1)
S.Rept. 111-222, p. 148.
Congressional Research Service
15
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
FY2011 expenditures and staffing allotted for each program as compared to fiscal
years 2010 and 2009; (2) all funded versus on-board positions, including federal
FTE, contractors, and reimbursable and nonreimbursable detailees; (3) an
explanation for maintaining contract staff in lieu of federal FTE; (4) a plan,
including dates or timeframes for achieving key milestones, to reduce the office’s
reliance on contract staff in lieu of federal FTE; (5) funding, by object
classification, including a comparison fiscal years 2009 and 2008; and (6) the
number of I&A-funded employees supporting organizations outside I&A and
within DHS. The expenditure plan must focus the activities of the office on areas
where DHS can provide unique expertise or serve intelligence customers who are
not supported by other components of the intelligence community.
•
The committee believes that “to avoid corruption and misconduct it is imperative
that all agents, especially new hires, receive comprehensive training in ethics and
public integrity.” The committee provides the OIG with additional funding of $3
million to conduct integrity investigations and directs the IG to submit a plan,
developed in coordination with CBP and ICE, for the expenditure of these funds
within 90 days after the act’s enactment.16
A general provision at Section 516 of S. 3607, as reported, requires the CFO “to submit monthly
budget execution and staffing reports within 45 days after the close of each month.”17
Personnel Issues
The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) manages and administers human
resources at DHS and includes the Office of Human Capital (OHC). The OCHCO “establishes
policy and procedures” and provides “oversight, guidance, and leadership within the Department”
for the various functions under human capital management. These functions are policy and
programs, learning and development, executive resources, human capital business systems,
headquarters human resources management services, and business support and operations. The
OCHCO reports to the Under Secretary for Management. The OHC implements the Human
Capital Operational Plan and is organized around the initiatives of talent management,
performance culture, learning and development, and service excellence.18 The Human Resources
Information Technology (HRIT) program “is to merge and modernize the DHS HRIT
infrastructure to provide flexibility and the management information that will allow DHS to
continuously evolve in response to changing business, legislative and economic” circumstances.19
Table 6, below, shows the funding for the OCHCO for FY2010 and the President’s request for
FY2011. The OCHCO appropriation is included in the total for the Office of the Under Secretary
of Management, as shown in Table 5.
16
Ibid., pp. 9, 21-22, 24, 26, and 28.
Ibid., p. 145.
18
FY2011 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, pp.
USM-4 and USM-49.
19
Ibid., p. USM-15.
17
Congressional Research Service
16
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 6. Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2011
Request
Salaries and Expenses CHCO
25
25
25
Human Resources Information
Technology
17
17
14
Total
42
42
39
Account
FY2011
Housea
FY2011
SenateReported
FY2010
Enacted
FY2011
Enactedb
17
Source: FY2011 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for
Management, pp. USM-49–USM-53, S.Rept. 111-222, P.L. 111-83 and P.L. 112-10.
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. No report was issued to
accompany P.L. 112-10 and therefore subaccount-level details for FY2011 are not available.
a.
No official numbers are available for the House position as the bill and report were never published by the
House Appropriations Committee.
b.
While specific guidance for most subaccounts is not provided in P.L. 112-10, the CR leaves in place
direction in P.L. 111-83 not explicitly countermanded in the CR. The table reflects that direction.
Personnel and the President’s FY2011 Request
According to the DHS Justifications, the FY2011 budget requested $25 million (rounded)20 and
108 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees for the OCHCO.21 The requested funding is $474,000
less than the $25 million (rounded) provided for FY2010. The number of FTEs would increase by
19, from 89 to 108, for FY2011. The appropriation requested for HRIT for FY2011 was $17
million (rounded), the same amount as the funding authorized for FY2010. The FTEs for this
account for FY2011 would be 25.22
The OCHCO funding for FY2011 would be used for, among other initiatives, continued efforts to
improve diversity across DHS and particularly in the executive ranks, to develop and implement a
comprehensive leader development program across the department, to enhance the Candidate
Development Program for the Senior Executive Service, and to aggressively expand outreach to
former military personnel to meet the Secretary’s goal of having 50,000 veterans employed by
DHS. Human capital policies, programs, practices, and staffing will be consolidated to make
them more efficient.23
For FY2011, the HRIT program was to fund and deploy TALENTLink to the U.S. Coast Guard
and U.S. Customs and Immigration Service. TALENTLink is an automated system for recruiting
20
Salaries and benefits ($18 million, rounded) and purchases from government accounts ($4 million, rounded) make-up
88% of the total of $25 million. Purchases from government accounts include costs for purchases from other federal
government agencies or accounts that are not otherwise classified.
21
FY2011 DHS Justifications, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, p. USM11.
22
Ibid., p. USM-15.
23
Ibid., pp. USM-14-USM-15.
Congressional Research Service
17
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
and staffing across DHS that was intended to streamline the department’s hiring process.24
However, DHS decommissioned TALENTLink effective June 26, 2010.25
Personnel and the Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress
The Senate committee recommended an appropriation of $39 million (rounded amount) for the
OCHCO, that is $3 million less than the President’s request. Of the total, $14 million (rounded) is
allocated to the Human Resources Information Technology Program, and accounts for the
decrease from the President’s request. The OCHCO terminated TALENTLink, a department-wide
automated recruiting and staffing system, because it did not meet federal standards and the
reduction in funding reflects this action. The committee report states that the OCHCO must use
TALENTLink funds appropriated in FY2010 if a follow-on system is developed. According to
the committee report, the OCHCO appropriation will maintain current services; provide for 133
FTEs, as requested; and result in savings of more than $1 million by converting 15 contractor
positions to FTEs, as requested.
The report also states the committee’s expectation that the OCHCO will provide briefings to the
committee on the department’s progress in developing a strategic plan to overhaul the DHS hiring
process and how the plan aligns with the Administration’s plans to overhaul the federal hiring
process. The OCHCO is also required to provide quarterly briefings summarizing vacancy data at
DHS that will include the number of new hires for each headquarters office in the previous
month; the ratio of applications received to positions closed; data from the Office of Security on
progress made to reduce the security clearance backlog, including whether the 15-day standard
for suitability reviews is being met; and an end-of-the-month hiring “snapshot” for each
headquarters office. Included in the “snapshot” will be the number of new hires pending security
or suitability clearance, the number of open vacancies, and the number of selection referral lists
pending with management. The briefings will explain hiring delays, steps being taken or planned
to correct the delays, and Office of Security information on progress made to reduce the security
clearance backlog and compliance with the time requirement for suitability reviews. The results
of the FY2010 performance metrics for the OCHCO will be presented at the first quarterly
meeting.
A general provision at Section 519 of S. 3607, as reported, prohibits “funds for the development,
testing, deployment, or operation of any portion of a human resources management system
authorized by 5 U.S.C. §9701(a), or by regulations prescribed pursuant to” that statute “for an
employee as defined in 5 U.S.C. §7103(a)(2).” In addition, general provisions prohibit the
obligation of funds for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management for new hires not
verified through the E-Verify Program (Section 533) and for adverse personnel actions for
employees who use protective equipment or measures, including surgical masks, N95 respirators,
gloves, or hand-sanitizers, in the conduct of their official duties (Section 547).
24
Ibid., pp. USM-16 and USM-18.
Office of the Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security, Management Oversight and Component
Participation Are Necessary to Complete DHS’ Human Resource Systems Consolidation Effort, OIG 10-99,
Washington, DC, August 2010, p. 27, http://www.dhs.gov.
25
Congressional Research Service
18
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Analysis and Operations26
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:
•
To receive, assess, and analyze law enforcement information, intelligence
information, and other information from federal, state, and local government
agencies, and the private sector to (1) identify and assess the nature and scope of
the terrorist threats to the homeland, (2) detect and identify threats of terrorism
against the United States, and (3) understand such threats in light of actual and
potential vulnerabilities of the homeland;
•
To develop a comprehensive national plan for securing the key resources and
critical infrastructure of the United States;
•
To review, analyze, and make recommendations for improvements in the policies
and procedures governing the sharing of law enforcement information,
intelligence information, and intelligence-related information within the federal
government and between the federal government and state and local government
agencies and authorities.
Former Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review reorganization of the department in 2005 made
several changes to the DHS intelligence structure. IAIP was disbanded and the Office of
Infrastructure Protection was placed within the newly created National Protection and Programs
Directorate. The Office of Information Analysis was renamed the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis and became a stand-alone entity. The Assistant Secretary for Intelligence Analysis was
designated the department’s Chief Intelligence Officer. Pursuant to the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53), the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 (codified at 6 U.S.C. 201) was amended to codify the Office of Intelligence and Analysis
and the Office of Infrastructure Protection and made the head of the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis an Under Secretary position. It also designated the Under Secretary for Intelligence and
Analysis as the department’s Chief Intelligence Officer with responsibility for managing the
entire DHS Intelligence Enterprise.
In 2008, former Secretary Chertoff established the Office of Operations Coordination and
Planning (OPS), built on the foundation of the former Office of Operations Coordination. OPS
supports departmental and interagency crisis and contingency planning and operations to support
the Secretary of Homeland Security in his/her role as the principal Federal official for domestic
incident management.27
26
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism, Domestic Social Policy Division.
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
(continued...)
27
Congressional Research Service
19
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
President’s FY2011 Request
The FY2011 request for the Analysis and Operations (AOO) account was $348 million, an
increase of nearly $13 million (+3.9 %) over the enacted FY2010 amount.
It should be noted that funds included in this account support both the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis (I&A) and the Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS). I&A is
responsible for managing the DHS intelligence enterprise and for collecting, analyzing, and
sharing intelligence information for and among all components of DHS, and with the state, local,
tribal, and private sector homeland security partners. As a member of the intelligence community,
I&A’s budget is part of the National Intelligence Program, a classified program document. OPS
develops and coordinates departmental and interagency operations plans and manages the
National Operations Center, the primary 24/7 national-level hub for domestic incident
management, operations coordination, and situational awareness, fusing law enforcement,
national intelligence, emergency response, and private sector information.
Senate-Reported S. 3607
Prior to the passage of P.L. 112-10, Senate-reported S. 3607 included $340 million for AOO. This
was an increase of nearly $5 million (1.5%) above the FY2010-enacted level but a decrease of
nearly $8 million (2.3%) from the Administration’s request for FY2011. S. 3607 stipulated that
none of the funds provided in this or any other Act shall be available to commence operations of
the National Immigration Information Sharing Operation or any follow-on entity until the
Secretary certifies that such program complies with all existing laws, including all applicable
privacy and civil liberties standards, the Comptroller General of the United States notifies the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the Secretary
that the Comptroller has reviewed such certification, and the Secretary notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives of all funds to be expended on
operations of the National Immigration Information Sharing Operation or any follow-on entity
pursuant to section 503 of this act. In S.Rept. 111-222, the committee required the department’s
Chief Intelligence Officer to submit an expenditure plan for FY2011 no later than 60 days after
the date of enactment of the act and outlined what information should be included in that
expenditure plan. Also in S.Rept. 111-222, the committee directed I&A to brief the committee
quarterly on progress in placing DHS intelligence professionals in state and local fusion centers
(SLFC) and outlined what information should be included in those briefings.
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
Title II contains the appropriations for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Secret Service. Table 7 shows the
FY2010 enacted and FY2011 appropriation action for Title II.
(...continued)
of Homeland Security is the principal Federal official for domestic incident management.”
Congressional Research Service
20
Table 7. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2011 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2010 Enacted
FY2010
Supp.
FY2010
Resc.
FY2010
Total
FY2011 Request
FY2011
Housea
FY2011
SenateReported
S. 3607
FY2011 Enacted
P.L. 112-10b
Customs & Border Protection
Salaries and expenses
8,065
254
Automation modernization
422
Air and Marine Interdictions
520
32
Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure,
and Technology
800
14
Facilities Management (Construction)c
320
6
Fee accountsd
1,432
Gross total
11,559
Offsetting collections
-1,432
Net total
10,127
306
5,342
80
306
-100
-100
-100
8,319
8,208
8,291
8,213
422
348
348
337
552
503
524
516
714
574
574
574
326
176
180
260
1,432
1,365
1,365
1,365
11,765
11,174
11,282
11,265
-1,432
-1,365
-1,365
-1,432
10,333
9,909
10,016
9,833
5,422
5,439
5,466
5,438
Immigration & Customs Enforcement
Salaries and expenses
Automation & infrastructure
modernization
90
90
85
85
74
Construction
5
5
0
0
0
Fee accountse
305
305
311
311
305
Gross total
5,742
5,822
5,835
5,863
5,817
Offsetting collections
-305
-305
-311
-311
-305
Net total
5,437
5,517
5,524
5,551
5,511
5,214
5,560
5,491
5,220
80
80
Transportation Security Administration
Aviation security (gross funding)
CRS-21
5,214
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2011 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2010 Enacted
FY2010
Supp.
FY2010
Resc.
FY2010
Total
FY2011 Request
FY2011
Housea
FY2011
SenateReported
S. 3607
FY2011 Enacted
P.L. 112-10b
Surface Transportation Security
111
111
138
138
106
Transportation Threat Assessment and
Credentialing (gross funding)
220
220
215
188
163
Transportation Security Support
1,002
1,002
1,052
1,048
989
Federal Air Marshals
860
860
950
950
930
Aviation security capital fund
(mandatory)f
250
250
250
250
250
Gross total
7,656
7,656
8,165
8,064
7,657
Offsetting collections
-2,100
-2,100
-2,100
-2,100
-2,100
Credentialing/Fee accountsg
-48
-48
-41
-41
-48
Aviation security capital fund
(mandatory spending)
-250
-250
-250
-250
-250
Net total
5,258
5,258
5,774
5,673
5,259
6,853
6,651
6,971
6,907
U.S. Coast Guard
Operating expensesh
6,805
50
-2
Environmental compliance &
restoration
13
13
13
13
13
Reserve training
134
134
136
136
134
1,553
1,381
1,583
1,520
-2
0
4
0
Acquisition, construction, &
improvements
1,537
16
Alteration of bridges
4
Research, development, tests, &
evaluation
25
25
20
28
25
1,361
1,361
1,401
1,401
1,401
266
266
265
265
265
10,468
9,867
10,400
10,265
Retired pay (mandatory, entitlement)
Health care fund contribution
Gross total
CRS-22
10,410
-6
66
-8
FY2010 Appropriation
FY2011 Appropriation
Operational Component
FY2010 Enacted
FY2010
Supp.
FY2010
Resc.
FY2010
Total
FY2011 Request
FY2011
Housea
FY2011
SenateReported
S. 3607
FY2011 Enacted
P.L. 112-10b
U.S. Secret Service
Salaries and expenses
1,479
1,479
1,568
1,572
1,514
4
4
4
4
4
Gross total
1,483
1,483
1,572
1,576
1,518
Gross Budget Authority: Title II
36,850
452
-108
37,194
36,613
37,283
36,521
Net Budget Authority: Title II
32,445
452
-108
32,789
32,545
33,117
32,116
Acquisition, construction,
improvements, and related expenses
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications; the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief; S.Rept. 111-22 to accompany S. 3607, 111th Congress; FY2010
Supplemental Appropriations Acts P.L. 111-230 and P.L. 111-242; H.R. 1, 112th Congress, and P.L. 112-10.
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding.
a.
No official numbers are available for the House position as the bill and report were never published by the House Appropriations Committee.
b.
Due to the lack of available data on fees, totals in this column including fees should be treated as projections.
c.
For FY2011, the Administration’s request and Senate recommendation in this account included a $99.8 million cancellation. For P.L. 112-10, the cancellation is
recorded with the rescissions outside this title.
d.
Fees include COBRA, Land Border, Immigration Inspection, Immigration Enforcement, and Puerto Rico.
e.
Fees include Exam, Student Exchange and Visitor Fee, Breached Bond, Immigration User, and Land Border.
f.
Aviation Security Capital Fund, used for installation of Explosive Detection Systems at airports.
g.
Fees include TWIC, HAZMAT, Registered Traveler, and Alien Flight School Checks.
h.
Congressional actions include overseas contingency operations funding as a part of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. The Administration requests this as a
transfer from DoD.
CRS-23
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
After discussing the impact of P.L. 112-10 on DHS components under this title, this report will
outline the Administration’s request, Senate action on the request in the 2nd session of the 111th
Congress, and possible issues for Congress. As the House position on the Administration’s full
request was never officially ratified by the Appropriations Committee in 2010, there is no data
available from the House for direct comparison.
P.L. 112-10 and Title II
Sections 1608 through 1625 of H.R. 1473, the final FY 2011 CR (P.L. 112-10; 125 Stat. 140142)), provide explicit direction for funding levels for many Title II components of DHS.
For CBP, funds were provided as follows, compared to the President’s request: Salaries and
Expenses, $8,213 million ($5 million, or 0.1% above); Automation Modernization, $337 million
($11 million, or 3.2% below), with $148 million directed to the Automated Commercial
Environment ($5 million, or 3.3% below); Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and
Technology, $574 million (even); Air and Marine Interdiction, $516 million ($13 million, or 2.6%
above); and Construction and Facilities Management, $260 million ($20 million, or 7% below, as
the $100 million cancellation proposed in this account was taken as a rescission was encompassed
in Sec. 257 of P.L. 112-6, the sixth continuing resolution for FY2011 (125 Stat. 26)).
In addition, under Sec. 1608, the Border Patrol was directed to “achieve an active duty presence
of not less than 21,370 agents protecting the border of the United States by September 30, 2011,”
1,000 more agents than the floor for the entire fiscal year suggested by the Senate bill.
For ICE, P.L. 112-10 expressly provided $5,438 million to ICE for Salaries and Expenses ($0.5
million below) and $74 million for Automation Modernization ($11 million, or 12.6% below).
ICE is directed to maintain at least 33,400 detention beds throughout the fiscal year. No funding
was requested or provided for construction projects.
For TSA, funds were provided as follows, compared to the President’s request: Aviation Security,
$5,220 million ($6 million above), including $4,308 million for screening operations, $629
million for explosives detection systems (9% of which is expressly set aside for medium- and
small-sized airports), and $912 million for aviation security direction and enforcement; $106
million for surface transportation security ($32 million, 23% below); $163 million for
transportation threat assessment and credentialing ($11 million, or 6.1% below); $989 million for
transportation security support ($64 million, or 6.1% below); and $930 million for the Federal Air
Marshal Service ($20 million, or 2.1% below). Overall, TSA got $507 million less than requested,
leaving it with a budget roughly equivalent to the FY2010 amount. The Federal Air Marshal
Service received the largest relative increase, funded at $69 million (8%) above FY2010 levels.
Language in P.L. 112-10 directs that all TSA aviation security spending beyond $3,114 million be
offset by fee collections. Furthermore, the year-ending CR caps TSA screener staffing at a level
of 46,000 full time equivalents (FTEs), but would not require that TSA include newly hired parttime screeners in this count. The act requires DHS to report on: efforts to develop advanced,
integrated passenger and baggage screening technologies; efforts to deploy screeners in a most
cost effective manner; and any improvements in labor savings resulting from these efforts.
For the Coast Guard, funds were provided as follows, compared to the President’s request: $6,907
million for Operating Expenses, of which $254 million is designated as being for global war on
Congressional Research Service
24
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
terror contingency operations, and therefore scored outside the 302(b) ($2 million above the total
request, overall); $1,520 million for Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) ($139
million, or 9.1% above); and $25 million for research and development ($5 million, or 23.5%
above), including $4 million for toxic chemical and oil spill prevention and response technology.
No funding is provided for alteration of bridges that are hazards to navigation.
Of the funding provided for AC&I, $1,267 million is for Deepwater ($154 million, or 13.8%
above the request), which accommodates a $154 million (28.6%) increase above the
Administration’s initial request for the National Security Cutter. $2 million is provided for the
Administration’s new initiative to upgrade Coast Guard housing.
Section 1621 authorizes the Coast Guard to decommission one Medium Endurance Cutter, two
High Endurance Cutters, four HU-25 aircraft and one Maritime Safety and Security Team, as well
as make staffing changes at specific units as specified in the budget justification.
For the Secret Service, $1,514 million is provided for salaries and expenses ($53 million, or 3.4%
below the request), with construction is left at roughly $4 million, the FY2010 level, and equal to
the President’s request. Funding is provided for NSSE reimbursement, but not under Secret
Service control.
Rescissions
In addition to the specifically directed reductions in funding levels, all of the accounts in Title II
are subject to a 0.2% across-the-board rescission of budget authority for FY2011 in P.L. 112-10,
except for the Coast Guard’s funding for overseas contingency operations, which amounts to a
$64 million reduction, to be applied proportionately across the accounts in the title, and to the
subaccounts within those accounts.
Section 1656 of P.L. 112-10 rescinds $51 million in FY2010 unobligated balances from Title II
components, including $13 million from CBP salaries and expenses, $18 million from ICE
salaries and expenses and $14 million from Coast Guard operating expenses.
An additional $15 million rescission is taken from TSA unobligated balances, and although its
target is unspecified, it must not come from explosives detection systems, checkpoint support,
aviation regulation and other enforcement, or air cargo programs. An additional $10 million in
unobligated balances is rescinded from ICE construction.28
Customs and Border Protection29
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
28
29
P.L. 112-10, April 15, 2011, 125 Stat. 38, at 147.
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Im
migration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
25
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
behalf of more than 60 government agencies. CBP is comprised of the inspection functions of the
legacy Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS); the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction, now known as
Office of Air and Marine (OAM); and the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP). See Table 7 for accountlevel detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 8 for sub-account-level detail for CBP
Salaries and Expenses (S&E) for FY2010 and FY2011.
President’s FY2011 Request
The Administration requested $11,174 million in gross budget authority for CBP for FY2011,
amounting to a $384 million (or 3.3%) decrease from the enacted FY2010 level of $11,559
million. The Administration requested $9,809 million in net budget authority for CBP in FY2011,
which amounts to a $318 million decrease from the net FY2010 appropriation of $10,127 million.
The request included the following changes:
•
Increase of $27 million for the Data Center consolidation effort;
•
Increase of $25 million for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) enforcement;
•
Increase of $10 million for 103 Intelligence Analysts;
•
Reduction of $74 million from the Office of Information Technology (OIT);
•
Reduction of $28 million derived from not sustaining certain FY2010 initiatives
including $20 million from Office of Air and Marine (OAM) personnel
enhancements, $5 millions from Cyber Security, and $3 million from the
API/PNR program;
•
Reduction of $15 million from Border Patrol Premium Pay and Agent Staffing;
•
Reduction of $4 million from human resource reductions;
•
Reduction of $24 million from the Office of Training and Development (OTD);
•
Reduction of $17 million from the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI);
•
Reduction of $12 million from the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism
(C-TPAT);
•
Reduction of $4 million from terminating certain United States Postal Service
(USPS) leases;
•
Elimination of the CBP Explosive Detector Dog program ($400,000);
•
Reduction of $51 million from the Container Security Initiative (CSI);
•
Reduction of $25 million from the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative
(WHTI);
•
Reduction of $20 million from the Foreign Language Award Program (FLAP);
•
Reductions of $158 million from the Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure,
and Technology (BSFIT) program, including $135 million from Development
and Deployment, and $23 million from Program Management;
Congressional Research Service
26
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
•
Reduction to base funding for Automation Modernization account of $75 million
in funding to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)/International
Trade Database System (ITDS);
•
Reduction to base funding of $44 million to the Construction and Facilities
Management Account, and a cancellation of nearly $100 million in previously
appropriated non-expended funds;
•
Reduction to base funding for Air and Marine Interdiction funding of $14
million, and programmatic reduction of $3 million for planned logistics and
management systems upgrades.
Table 8. CBP Salaries and Expenses Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010
Enacted
FY2011
Request
Headquarters Management and
Administration
1,418
1,414
1,431
Border Security Inspections and Trade
Facilitation @ POE
2,750
2,913
2,973
Inspections, Trade & Travel
Facilitation @ POE
2,262
2,509
2,544
Container Security Initiative (CSI)/
International Cargo Screening (ICS)
162
83
103
Other International Programs
11
11
11
C-TPAT
63
50
55
FAST/NEXUS/SENTRI
11
11
11
Inspection and Detection Technology
154
155
155
Systems for Targeting
33
32
32
National Targeting Center
26
36
36
Training at POE
25
21
21
Harbor Maintenance Fee
3
3
3
Border Security and Control Between
POE
3,587
3,583
3,573
Border Security and Control Between
POE
3,535
3,547
3,537
Training Between the POE
52
36
36
Air and Marine Operations – Salaries
310
298
314
8,065
8,208
8,291
Activity
CBP Salaries and Expenses Total:
FY2011
House
FY2011
SenateReported
S. 3607
FY2011
Enacted
P.L. 11210
8,213
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications; the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief;
S.Rept. 111-222 to accompany S. 3607, 111th Congress; FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations Acts P.L. 111-230
and P.L. 111-242; H.R. 1, 112th Congress, and P.L. 112-10.
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. FY2010 amounts do not
include FY2010 supplemental appropriations. No official numbers are available for the House position as the bill
Congressional Research Service
27
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
and report were never published by the House Appropriations Committee. No report was issued to accompany
P.L. 112-10 and therefore subaccount-level details for FY2011 are not available.
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress
Senate-reported S. 3607 provided $11,282 million in gross budget authority for CBP for FY2011,
amounting to $108 million (1%) more than was requested by the Administration, and a $277
million, (2.4%), decrease from the enacted FY2010 level of $11,559 million. Senate-reported S.
3607 included $9,916 million in direct appropriations for CBP for FY2010, amounting to a $107
million increase over the Administration’s request and a $211 million decrease from the FY2010enacted level of $10,127 million.
Issues for Congress
Issues that Congress considered during the FY2011 appropriations cycle included funding for
Border Patrol agent hiring and staffing levels; the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) surveillance
technologies, including SBInet; Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), and cargo security.
Border Patrol Staffing Levels
For FY2011, CBP submitted two budget requests: (1) the original budget request, and (2) a
revised budget request that made adjustments to the request for Border Patrol staffing and
premium pay. While the most recent version of the FY2011 budget request only included a
reduction of $15 million to Border Patrol premium pay, the original FY2011 budget request
included a proposed reduction of premium pay of $31 million and a reduction 181 U.S. Border
Patrol (USBP) Agents. This reduction would have reduced the number of USBP Agents from
20,163 in FY2010 to 19,983 in FY2011. Several members of Congress expressed concern over
this reduction and which geographic areas would have had their staffing levels reduced.30 Prior to
the revised budget request, in testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Government
Affairs Committee, DHS Secretary Napolitano stated that there would be no reductions of agent
numbers at the southwest border and the department would continue to meet its staffing
obligations at the northern border.31 Subsequently, CBP revised its premium pay reduction
request, and removed language on Border Patrol Agent reductions altogether.32 In August,
Congress passed an Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Bill for border security, P.L. 111230, that provided $254 million in CBP salaries and expenses, including $176 million to hire
additional Border Patrol agents for deployment to the southwest border. At the same time, the
Administration authorized the deployment of up to 1,200 additional National Guard troops to the
southwest border to provide intelligence surveillance, reconnaissance support, and support to
counternarcotics enforcement until CBP recruits and trains additional Border Patrol agents.
Senate-reported S. 3607 included bill language that would have mandated a floor of not less than
20,370 Border Patrol agents onboard throughout FY2011.
30
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, The Homeland Security
Department’s Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2011, 111th Cong., 1st sess., February 24, 2010.
31
Ibid.
32
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Congressional Budget Justifications (Revised), p. CBP S&E -4.
Congressional Research Service
28
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology
The Administration requested $574 million for the deployment of SBI technology and tactical
infrastructure, including SBInet,33 a decrease of $226 million over the FY2010 enacted level of
$800 million. Within the FY2011 request, the Administration proposed to allocate $336 million
for developing and deploying additional technology and infrastructure solutions to the southwest
border. An additional $169 million was requested for operations and maintenance of the cameras,
sensors, and tactical infrastructure (TI) fencing. Secretary Napolitano stated in February 2010 that
645.2 miles of pedestrian and vehicle fencing were in place along the southwest border and that
DHS/CBP planned to construct an additional 6.4 miles of fencing. Senate-reported S. 3607 and
P.L. 112-10 matched the Administration’s funding request.
The management and deployment of SBInet have been a subject of controversy for several
years.34 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.35 Secretary Napolitano froze spending on the Boeing portion of
SBInet in March 2010 and ordered a department-wide assessment of the SBInet technology
project.36 In January 2011, the Administration announced its intention to end the Boeing SBInet
contract and to develop a new border security technology plan incorporating SBInet technology
along with other surveillance technologies.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
The Administration’s FY2011 budget request included a reduction of $20 million for the Office of
Air and Marine Operations, which the Administration would have accomplished mainly by not
sustaining program enhancements, resulting in the elimination of 120 staffing positions. In
FY2010, Congress fully funded the Administration’s request at the time to hire 144 new OAM
pilots, vessel commanders, and support personnel; but as of July 2010 the Administration had
taken steps to hire only 24 of the 144 funded positions.37 The Emergency Supplemental
Appropriation Bill for Border Security, P.L. 111-230, provided $32 million for the acquisition of
two additional Unmanned Aerial Vehicle systems (UAVs). The Senate-reported S. 3607 would
33
The Secure Border Initiative (SBI) is a multifaceted DHS effort to enhance border security and reduce illegal
migration by improving surveillance technology, increasing staffing levels, strengthening interior immigration
enforcement, and improving physical infrastructure including fencing at the country’s borders. Within SBI, CBP
established the SBInet Technology Program to manage surveillance technology at the border, including video
surveillance systems, infrared cameras, radar, and aircraft. As part of SBInet, DHS awarded a contract to Boeing in
2006 to construct a networked system of fixed sensor towers to feed information to Border Patrol command centers and
provide situational awareness of unauthorized entries and enhanced operational capabilities, a project described as a
“virtual fence.”
34
CRS Memorandum, SBInet: Background, Implementation, and Issues, by (name redacted).
35
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.
36
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, The Homeland Security
Department’s Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2011, 111th Cong., 1st sess., February 24, 2010.
37
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Bill, 2011, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., July 19, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
29
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
have provided $15.9 million above the Administration’s request for OAM personnel and $20.5
million above the Administration’s request for OAM procurement to fund and support two
additional UAVs.38
Cargo Security
The Administration’s FY2011 budget request contained decreases in funding for cargo security
initiatives. The international cargo screening activity in the budget included funding for the
Container Security Initiative (CSI) program and the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI). In FY2010
Congress appropriated $162 million for these two programs. The President’s budget request for
this activity in FY2011 was $84 million, a decrease of $78 million or 48%. The Senate-reported
version of S. 3607 proposed $103 million for these two programs, a decrease of $59 million, or
36%, as compared to the FY2010-enacted level.
The SFI is characterized as a “three-pronged approach to enhance supply chain security.” The
three prongs of this approach are the International Container Security (ICS) program (see below);
an initiative known as Security Filing (10+2) that consists of the development of a regulation to
require additional data elements for improved high-risk targeting; and additional efforts to
identify and acquire technology to enhance cargo scanning and risk assessment capabilities.39
The ICS program is CBP’s effort to subject all U.S.-bound maritime containers to an integrated
scan (image and radiation detection) at participating overseas port before being loaded onto a
U.S.-bound vessel. In FY2010 ICS was operational in six ports (Hong Kong; Busan, South
Korea; Southampton, United Kingdom; Puerto Cortes, Honduras; Qasim, Pakistan; and in a very
limited capacity in Salalah, Oman) and scanning 100% of U.S.-bound containers as mandated by
the SAFE Port Act at Southampton, Puerto Cortes, and Qasim.40 The President’s FY2011 request
proposed a reduction of nearly $17 million for ICS, to be achieved by changing the protocols at
two of these fully operational ICS ports (Honduras and Southampton) and at the port of Busan
from the ICS protocols (100% integrated scanning of cargo) to CSI protocols (integrated scanning
only of high risk containers; see below). The Administration proposed to continue following the
ICS program at Port Qasim in Pakistan and in Salalah, Oman.
The President’s FY2011 budget also proposed a $58 million reduction to the CSI program. CSI is
a program under 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 was operational in 58 ports for
FY2010, and screened over 80 percent of the volume of maritime containers destined for the
U.S.41 According to the FY2011 Congressional Budget Justifications, the proposed $58 million
reduction in CSI funding will be achieved by changing CSI’s operational posture from one in
which CBP Officers are on the ground in foreign ports, to a remote posture whereby the targeting
and selection of high risk containers are done at the National Targeting Center-Cargo (NTC-C).42
For FY2011 CBP plans to phase out physical operations at 54 of the 58 existing CSI ports.
38
For more information on Unmanned Aircraft Systems, see CRS Report RS21698, Homeland Security: Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles and Border Surveillance, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
39
DHS, FY2011 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. CBP-SE-37.
40
Ibid. p. CBP-S&E-38 and CRS communication with CBP.
41
Ibid., CBP-S&E–37.
42
The FY2011 request included nearly $37 million for NTC, a $10 million increase over the FY2010 enacted amount,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
30
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
These reductions were the subject of congressional scrutiny. The Senate Appropriations
Committee noted in S.Rept. 111-222 that it strongly supports programs that effectively support
and promote the strategies of “pushing out the borders” and layered border security, citing the
Container Security Initiative as an example.43 The committee also noted its disappointment in the
proposed cuts to C-TPAT, a voluntary government-business partnership to validate international
supply chains and provide expedited processing for trusted importers; and to the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative, which requires travelers from Mexico and Canada to present a
passport or other secure travel document. The committee further requested a briefing within 90
days of enactment to explain how the additional $29 million provided for these programs will be
used by CBP, and how the agency plans to mitigate the potential effects of the proposed cuts on
security.44
Immigration and Customs Enforcement45
ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the United States. ICE
develops intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the United States and is responsible for
investigating and enforcing violations of the immigration laws (e.g., alien smuggling, hiring
unauthorized alien workers). ICE is also responsible for locating and removing aliens who have
overstayed their visas, entered illegally, or have become deportable. In addition, ICE develops
intelligence to combat terrorist financing and money laundering, and to enforce export laws
against smuggling, fraud, forced labor, trade agreement noncompliance, and vehicle and cargo
theft. This bureau no longer oversees the building security activities of the Federal Protective
Service (FPS), which has been transferred to the National Protection and Programs Directorate
(NPPD). See Table 7 for account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 9 for
sub-account-level detail for ICE Salaries and Expenses (S&E) for FY2010 and FY2011.
President’s FY2011 Request
The Administration requested $5,835 million in gross budget authority for ICE in FY2011. This
represented a 1.6% increase over the enacted FY2010 level of $5,742 million. The Administration
requested an appropriation of $5,524 million in net budget authority for ICE in FY2011,
representing a 1.6% increase over the FY2010 enacted level of $5,437 million. The request
includes the following increases:
•
$20 million to Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) to maintain current bed
space;
•
$20 million for the co-location of ICE facilities;
•
$15 million for Office of Investigations mission support;
(...continued)
but more than $9 million of this increase represented a realignment of 65 positions that were originally appropriated in
the 2007 War Supplemental and had been incorrectly annualized under Inspections, Trade, and Travel Facilitation
rather than under NTC. The increase to NTC thus had no programmatic impact.
43
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2011,
report to accompany S. 3607, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., July 17, 2010, S.Rept. 111-222 (Washington: GPO, 2010), p. 32.
44
Ibid.
45
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Im
migration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
31
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
•
$10 million for data center migration;
•
$10 million for addition Border Enforcement Security Task Forces (BEST);
•
$5 million for intellectual property rights enforcement.
Table 9. ICE Salaries and Expenses Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010
Enacted
FY2011
Request
Management (HQ) &
Administration
512
510
495
Legal Proceeding
222
222
222
Investigations - Domestic
1,650
1,727
1,761
Investigations International
113
114
114
Visa Security Program
31
31
38
Total Investigations
1,794
1,871
1,913
Intelligence
70
71
72
DRO-Custody
Operations
1,771
1,904
1,904
DRO-Fugitive Operations
230
168
168
DRO-Criminal Alien
Program
193
179
179
DRO-Alternatives to
Detention
70
72
72
DRO Transportation and
Removal Program
282
295
295
2,546
2,618
2,618
Comprehensive
Identification and Removal
of Criminal Aliens (Secure
Communities)
200
147
147
ICE Salaries and Expenses
5,342
5,439
5,466
Activity
DRO Total
FY2011
House
FY2011
SenateReported
S. 3607
FY2011
Enacted
P.L.
112-10
5,438
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications; the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief;
S.Rept. 111-222 to accompany S. 3607, 111th Congress; FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations Acts P.L. 111-230
and P.L. 111-242; H.R. 1, 112th Congress, and P.L. 112-10.
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. FY2010 amounts do not
include FY2010 supplemental appropriations. No official numbers are available for the House position as the bill
and report were never published by the House Appropriations Committee. No report was issued to accompany
P.L. 112-10 and therefore subaccount-level details for FY2011 are not available.
Congressional Research Service
32
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress
Senate-reported S. 3607 provided $5,863 million to ICE in gross budget authority for FY2011,
$27 million more than the Administration requested. Senate-reported S. 3607 provided $5,551
million to ICE in net budget authority, $27 million more than the Administration request.
Issues for Congress
ICE is responsible for many divergent activities due to the breadth of the civil and criminal
violations of law that fall under its jurisdiction. As a result, how ICE resources are allocated in
order to best achieve its mission is a continuously contentious issue. Debate during the FY2011
appropriations process included questions about ICE’s role in detaining and removing (deporting)
aliens and on the role of state and local law enforcement agencies in immigration enforcement.
Detention and Removal Operations
Part of ICE’s mission includes locating and removing deportable aliens, which also involves
determining the appropriate amount of detention space as well as which aliens should be
detained. Although many contend that the priority should be placed on removing aliens who have
committed crimes in the United States, less than one-third of those deported by ICE in FY2008
and in FY2009 were convicted of a criminal offense.46 Furthermore, others argue that the
prioritization of criminal aliens should not come at the expense of ICE’s other responsibilities,
such as terrorist travel and worksite enforcement investigations.47
ICE’s office of Detention and Removal Operations provides custody management of the aliens
who are in removal proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United States.48
DRO is also responsible for ensuring that aliens ordered removed actually depart from the United
States. Many contend that DRO does not have enough detention space to house all those who
should be detained. Concerns have been raised that decisions regarding which aliens to release
and when to release them may be based on the amount of detention space, not on the merits of
individual cases, and that detention conditions may vary by area of the country leading to
inequities. A number of policymakers have advocated for the increased use of alternatives to
detention programs for non-criminal alien detainees, citing these programs as a lower cost option
than detention and a more proportional treatment relative to the violation.49 Furthermore, there
46
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2010,
Report to accompany H.R. 2892, 111th Cong., 1st sess., June 16, 2009, H.Rept. 111-157, p. 8; U.S. Department of
Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics, Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2009.
47
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.
48
For more information on detention issues see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention: Current
Legislative Issues, by (name redacted) and (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. In 2010,
ICE changed the name of DRO to Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO).
49
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global
Counterterrorism, Moving Toward More Effective Immigration Detention Management, 111th Cong., 1st sess.,
December 10, 2009 (Washington: GPO, 2009).
Congressional Research Service
33
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
have been concerns raised about the adequacy of medical care received by aliens in detention.50
In 2009, ICE released new detention standards aimed at addressing these criticisms.51
The total number of FY2010 detention beds was 33,400, and the President’s FY2011 budget
requested an increase of $20 million to maintain the current amount of bed space. Senate-reported
S. 3607 matched the Administration’s funding request.
State and Local Law Enforcement52
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides limited avenues for state enforcement of its
civil provisions, including most laws governing the removal of unauthorized immigrants. One of
the broadest grants of authority for state and local immigration enforcement activity stems from
INA §287(g), which authorizes the Attorney General to enter into a written agreement with a
state, or any political subdivision, to allow state and local law enforcement officers to perform the
functions of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of
aliens in the United States. The enforcement of immigration by state and local officials has
sparked debate among many who question what the proper role of state and local law
enforcement officials should be in enforcing federal immigration laws. Many have expressed
concern over proper training, finite resources at the local level, possible civil rights violations,
and the overall impact on communities. Nonetheless, some observers contend that the federal
government has scarce resources to enforce immigration law and that state and local law
enforcement entities should be utilized. The President’s FY2011 request for ICE included $5
million for 287(g) agreements which is the FY2010 ICE funding level for such agreements;
however, state and local entities may apply for additional funding through appropriations to the
Office of State and Local Government Coordination in FEMA. Senate-reported S. 3607 matched
the Administration’s funding request.
Transportation Security Administration53
The TSA, created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA, P.L. 107-71), is
charged with protecting air, land, and rail transportation systems within the United States to
ensure the freedom of movement for people and commerce. In 2002, the TSA was transferred to
DHS with the passage of the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296). The TSA’s responsibilities
include protecting the aviation system against terrorist threats, sabotage, and other acts of
violence through the deployment of passenger and baggage screeners; detection systems for
explosives, weapons, and other contraband; and other security technologies. The TSA also has
certain responsibilities for marine and land modes of transportation including assessing the risk of
terrorist attacks to all non-aviation transportation assets, including seaports; issuing regulations to
improve security; and enforcing these regulations to ensure the protection of these transportation
50
For more on the issue of detainee medical care, see CRS Report RL34556, Health Care for Noncitizens in
Immigration Detention, by (name redacted).
51
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Secretary Napolitano and ICE Assistant Secretary Morton Announce New
Immigration Detention Reform Initiatives,” press release, October 6, 2009.
52
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).
53
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
Congressional Research Service
34
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
systems. TSA is further charged with serving as the primary liaison for transportation security to
the law enforcement and intelligence communities. See Table 7 for account-level detail for all of
the agencies in Title II, and Table 10 for amounts specified for TSA budget activities.
President’s FY2011 Request
The President’s request specified total gross funding of $8,165 million in FY2011 for the TSA, an
increase of about 7% over FY2010 enacted levels. The request for Aviation Security of $5,560
million was also roughly 7% more than FY2010 enacted levels and would comprise 68% of the
total TSA budget. Proposed programmatic increases for aviation security highlight initiatives on
passenger screening and international aviation security, two key areas brought to the forefront of
policy debate following the December 25, 2009, attempted bombing of a trans-Atlantic flight on
approach to Detroit. Proposed increases for passenger screening and security include an increase
of $215 million over FY2010 baseline levels for the purchase and deployment of advanced
imaging technology (AIT), also known as whole body imaging (WBI) systems, at airport
screening checkpoints. The President’s request also specified an additional $219 million for about
3,500 full-time equivalent (FTE) screeners to operate newly deployed AIT systems, as well as
$96 million for airport management and mission support for deploying and operating these
systems. The President’s budget also specified a $60 million increase, within the Checkpoint
Support activity, for purchasing about 800 new portable Explosive Trace Detection (ETD)
machines for deployment to airport screening checkpoints. In contrast to the proposed budget
increases for Checkpoint Support, the President’s request reflected a decrease of $404 million for
checked baggage Explosives Detection Systems (EDS) and ETD purchase and installation, due to
a high level of non-recurring procurement and installation costs for EDS and ETD that were
allocated in the FY2010 budget.
The FY2011 budget request also included $71 million for 275 additional canine explosives
detection teams as part of the proposed increase for Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement
activities, and $20 million for deploying 350 additional behavioral detection officers (BDOs) to
spot suspicious behavior as part of passenger and baggage screening operations. To enhance
international aviation security initiatives, the President’s request included an increase of $85
million for the Federal Air Marshals (FAMS) to increase coverage on international flights, as well
as an additional $39 million for international cooperative programs and rapid response
capabilities to deploy to high risk areas such as the Middle East and Africa, included as part of the
proposed increase for Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement activities.
The President’s request included an increase of roughly $27 million for Surface Transportation
Security, reflecting an increase in rail security inspectors and canine explosives detection teams.
The request also included an increase of about $51 million for Transportation Security Support,
including $10 million to increase Office of Intelligence staffing by 35 FTEs, primarily to expand
the Field Intelligence Officer (FIO) program presence at large airports.
Congressional Research Service
35
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 10. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2011
Enacted
P.L. 112-10
5,220
FY2010
Enacted
FY2011
Request
5,215
5,561
5,490
Screening Partnership Program
(SPP)
150
143
142
Passenger & Baggage Screening
(PC&B)
2,759
2,998
2,961
Screener Training & Other
205
265
258
Checkpoint Support
129
360
360
EDS/ETD Purchase/Installation
778
374
355
Screening Technology
317
333
323
Operation Integration
21
-
0
Aviation Regulation and Other
Enforcement
254
368
368
Airport Management, IT, and
Support
454
577
575
FFDO & Crew Training
25
25
26
Air Cargo Security
123
118
122
Federal Air Marshal Service
861
950
950
Management and Administration
763
823
823
Travel and Training
98
127
127
Threat Assessment and
Credentialing (TTAC)
172
174
148
Secure Flight
84
85
85
Other/ TTAC Admin. & Ops.
88
89
63
Credentialing Fees
48
40
40
TWIC—Fee
9
9
9
HAZMAT CDL—Fee
15
12
12
Certified Cargo Screening
Program—Fee
5
5
5
Large Aircraft Security Plan—Fee
2
1
1
Security Identification Display
Area Checks—Fee
10
8
8
Indirect Air Cargo—Fee
3
1
1
Alien Flight School—Fee
4
4
4
Surface Transportation Security
110
138
138
Operations and Staffing
42
40
40
Security Inspectors
68
98
98
Budget Activity
Aviation Security
Congressional Research Service
FY2011
House
FY2011
SenateReported
S. 3607
930
163
106
36
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
FY2011
House
FY2011
SenateReported
S. 3607
FY2011
Enacted
P.L. 112-10
989
Budget Activity
FY2010
Enacted
FY2011
Request
Transportation Security Support
1,001
1,052
1,049
Intelligence
28
38
38
Headquarters Administration
249
271
270
Human Capital Services
226
263
261
Information Technology
498
480
480
Aviation Security Capital Fund
(ASCF)
250
250
TSA Gross Total
7,657
8,165
250
8,064
250
7,657
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications; the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief;
S.Rept. 111-222 to accompany S. 3607, 111th Congress; FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations Acts P.L. 111-230
and P.L. 111-242; H.R. 1, 112th Congress, and P.L. 112-10.
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. No official numbers are
available for the House position as the bill and report were never published by the House Appropriations
Committee. No report was issued to accompany P.L. 112-10 and therefore subaccount-level details for FY2011
are not available.
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress
Senate-reported S. 3607 specified $8,064 million for the TSA, $100 million less than the
President’s request. Of this amount, $5,491 million (68%) was designated for aviation security
programs. Additionally, $950 million was specified for FAMS, and an additional $250 million
was to be provided as grants to airports derived from the mandatory Aviation Security Capital
Fund (ASCF).
The amount specified in S. 3607 for aviation security is $69 million less than the requested
amount. The Senate-reported amount for passenger and baggage screener personnel,
compensation, and benefits (PC&B) was $37 million less than requested. The Senate committee
denied the TSA’s request for additional BDOs, at an additional cost of roughly $16 million,
expressing concern over further expansion of the program without a complete assessment and
validation of its effectiveness. Additionally, the Senate-reported amount reflected an anticipation
that increased efficiency gains from the expedited deployment of in-line EDS systems will allow
for personnel reductions. The committee also noted that in prior years, the TSA has carried large
unobligated balances for screener PC&B, and included a general provision rescinding $15 million
from prior year balances.
The Senate-reported amount for EDS/ETD purchase and installation is $19 million less than
requested, and the amount specified for Screening Technology Maintenance and Utilities is $9
million below the requested amount. These lower amounts reflect anticipated recovery of
amounts appropriated in prior years but not fully expended for EDS procurement and installation,
as well as reductions in anticipated maintenance costs due to the negotiation of extended vendor
warranties for AIT systems currently being deployed. The Senate-reported bill provides $360
million, the same as requested, for procurement and installation of AIT systems and other
checkpoint technologies under the Checkpoint Support program. The Senate-reported bill
included the requested level of $368 million for Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement,
Congressional Research Service
37
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
supporting the Administration’s request for an increase of $114 million above FY2010 levels to
provide for additional canine teams and strengthening of international aviation security programs
in high risk areas of the world. The Senate committee also recommended $122 million for Air
Cargo Security, $4 million above the request to accelerate inspector needs and canine cooperative
programs with state and local law enforcement to support cargo screening mandates.
The Senate-reported bill included $138 million for Surface Transportation Security, as requested.
It also specified, $1,049 million for Transportation Security Support, roughly in-line with the
requested amount. S. 3607, however, specified $147 million for Transportation Threat
Assessment and Credentialing (TTAC), $25 million less than the requested amount. The lower
amount reflects the TSA’s decision to pursue competitive bidding for its initiative to “modernize”
its vetting and credentialing infrastructure, to reduce duplication and complexity among the
various programs and services for conducting criminal checks, security threat assessments, and
maintaining data on transportation workers and others with access to transportation systems and
facilities. As a result of the shift to a competitive procurement, less development funding was
anticipated in FY2011 for this initiative.
Issues for Congress
The FY2011 DHS appropriations process was conducted amid heightened congressional interest
in aviation security issues following the December 25, 2009, attempted bombing of a Detroitbound international airline flight from Amsterdam. The incident focused particular attention on
the use of terrorist watchlists in aviation security, the screening of passengers and carry-on items
for explosives, and security measures for inbound international flights. Additionally, TSA faced
challenges in meeting the statutory deadline set forth in P.L. 110-53 to screen 100% of all cargo
placed on passenger airliners by August 2010. Challenges in meeting this deadline, particularly
for inbound international flights, raised specific issues regarding cargo screening technologies
and TSA oversight of air carriers, freight forwarders, and cargo consolidation operations. Amid
growing concerns over deficit spending, options for increasing aviation security fees, most
notably the passenger security fee, have been discussed in the context of TSA appropriations.
Checkpoint Explosives Screening
The President’s request included $344 million to test, procure, and deploy a variety of new
checkpoint technologies to improve the detection of explosives and prohibited items, an increase
of $227 million over FY2010 baseline funding levels. The most controversial of these
technologies are whole body imaging systems, that the TSA refers to as advanced imaging
technology (AIT), used to screen passengers for items concealed by clothing. In addition to
raising considerable concerns among privacy advocates, these systems are costly to acquire and
maintain. They are also labor intensive, since current generations require the images to be
analyzed by human operators, although future versions may include automated target recognition
capabilities.
In addition to AIT, advanced technology X-ray systems, bottle liquid scanner, and next generation
explosives trace detection (ETD) equipment are also being procured. By the end of FY2011, the
TSA anticipates that AT X-ray deployment will be at 96% of full operating capacity (FOC) sought
by FY2014, whereas AIT deployments will only be at 56% of FOC. The TSA strategy has been to
focus its AIT deployments at larger airports first, and by end of FY2011, it plans to have deployed
Congressional Research Service
38
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
75% of the FOC at the most critical Category X airports. This strategy may, however, leave
vulnerabilities at smaller airports.
The sustainment costs of checkpoint screening systems has also been a particular concern for
appropriators. For FY2011, the President’s request included $74 million for maintenance of
checkpoint screening equipment, a 45% increase compared to FY2010. Checkpoint screening
maintenance costs will likely increase considerably in future years, to pay for upkeep and extend
the service life of the more complex next generation screening technologies currently being
deployed.54
Another concern is the costs of modifying airport terminals to accommodate next-generation
checkpoint technologies, particularly AIT systems. S.Rept. 111-222 contains language instructing
the TSA to work closely with airport authorities to address space and facility requirements and
constraints before AIT units are deployed, and to provide funding for necessary terminal
modifications. The Senate-reported bill included $65 million within the Checkpoint Support
program, as requested, for anticipated costs to accommodate AIT equipment.
P.L. 112-10 requires DHS to report on efforts to develop advanced, integrated passenger and
baggage screening technologies, efforts to deploy screeners in a most cost effective manner, and
any resulting improvements in labor savings.
Secure Flight, Terrorist Watchlists, and Transportation Security Intelligence
Terrorist watchlisting and the TSA’s efforts to deploy its Secure Flight system to check passenger
names for possible ties to terrorism have been considerable issues in appropriations debate for
several years. Past appropriations measures have included language requiring that adequate steps
be taken to protect data, ensure privacy, and provide avenues for passenger redress before Secure
Flight could be fully deployed. Full implementation of Secure Flight, covering both domestic and
international flights, was completed in December 2010, and the FY2011 request only included
inflationary adjustments to the FY2010 enacted levels for the Secure Flight program.
To a large degree, following the December 25, 2009, incident, the policy emphasis has now
shifted from the procedural, technical, and privacy issues surrounding the Secure Flight system
development and deployment to the intelligence analysis process underlying the no-fly and
selectee lists against which passenger names are checked. While the circumstances of the incident
have focused attention more specifically on intelligence gathering and analysis agencies, the
FY2011 President’s request included a proposed increase of $10 million for the TSA’s Office of
Intelligence (TSA-OI). The increase was intended to provide additional field intelligence
capabilities at large airports and to implement improved secure communications capabilities
between TSA headquarters and large airports to improve the dissemination of intelligence
information to security operations in the field. Another relevant issue has been the adequacy of
TSA-OI resources and capabilities to work with the intelligence community with respect to
making accurate and timely decisions for including terrorist identities on the no-fly and selectee
lists. Lawmakers have also raised questions regarding the scope of those lists compared to the
broader available information contained in government terrorist systems and databases, such as
the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), maintained by the National
54
See CRS Report R40543, Airport Passenger Screening: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
39
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), and the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), maintained by
the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC).55
S. 3607 (111th Congress) included a general provision that would have required the TSA to certify
that no significant security risks are raised if the Secure Flight system checks passengers names
against a subset of the full terrorist watchlist, instead of the full terrorist watchlist.
Air Cargo Screening
The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53, Sec.
1602) required the TSA to establish a system for screening 50% of cargo placed on passenger
airliners by February 2009, and 100% of such cargo by August 2010. The TSA currently requires
100% screening of cargo placed on domestic passenger flights. It relies on a process known as the
Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP) to regulate screening and supply chain security
practices of participating shippers, freight forwarders, and cargo consolidation facilities to carry
out these screening requirements. About 15,000 shipping facilities and 250 freight forwarding and
cargo consolidation facilities participate in the CCSP. However, screening of cargo on inbound
international flights remains a particular challenge for meeting the statutory requirements.
Specific challenges in the international arena include limited control over foreign supply chain
activities, the scale of diversity among various supply chains, and diplomatic considerations that
pose specific challenges to implementing the CCSP model overseas. The TSA indicates that it
will continue to work with international partners through FY2011 to better harmonize air cargo
security standards and advance the supply chain screening approach to move toward achieving
100% screening of cargo on inbound international passenger flights. With respect to domestic air
cargo security, the TSA is anticipated to face continuing resource challenges to adequately
oversee the large number of shipping and freight forwarding entities participating in the CCSP.
The FY2011 request included $28 million for air cargo policy and programs, a reduction of $11
million compared to FY2010 levels reflecting the culmination of the air cargo screening
technology pilot program effective August 2010, and the transition of those technologies and
screening responsibilities to the CCSP participants. The request also includes $74 million for air
cargo inspectors, which reflects inflationary adjustments to the FY2010 baseline of $70 million.
The request also included $15 million for the National Explosive Detection Canine Training
Program (NEDCTP) which provides for the training and certification of local law enforcement
canine teams assigned to air cargo screening duties at airports, as well as partial reimbursement
for the operational and maintenance costs through cooperative agreements with local law
enforcement agencies.56
S. 3607 included a general provision that would have directed the TSA to continue its quarterly
reporting of cargo screening statistics and provide an implementation plan for meeting the 100%
screening mandate for passenger aircraft in the event that the August 2010 statutory deadline was
not met. The Senate committee also issued report language (see S.Rept. 111-222, p. 65)
encouraging the TSA to expedite approval of effective and suitable technologies for screening air
55
For further discussion of this topic see CRS Report RL33645, Terrorist Watchlist Checks and Air Passenger
Prescreening, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
56
See CRS Report RL34390, Aviation Security: Background and Policy Options for Screening and Securing Air
Cargo, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
40
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
cargo commodities with a particular emphasis on continuing its ongoing work with the fresh fruit
industry to identify and certify screening systems.
Passenger Security Fee Collections
ATSA gave the TSA authority to collect passenger security fees totaling $2.50 per leg, not to
exceed $5.00 per one-way trip. The Bush Administration had unsuccessfully attempted to raise
passenger security fees on several occasions, but its proposals failed to gain sufficient support in
Congress. The Obama Administration proposed a phased-in increase beginning in FY2012. Under
this proposal, the base fee would increase by $1 per leg each year in FY2012, FY2013, and
FY2014, until it reaches a level of $5.50 per leg with a cap of $11 per one-way trip. Congress has
also considered options to increase passenger security fee collections. For example, S. 1808 (111th
Congress) and S. 698 (111th Congress), both offered by Senator Feingold, sought a flat fee of
$5.00 per one-way trip.
The airline industry has ardently opposed such fee increases, arguing that aviation security is a
national concern that impacts all citizens, and therefore, like national defense, its costs should be
borne by all and not just aviation system users. The airline industry also argues that the passenger
security fees, along with ticket taxes and other government fees, must be offset to some degree in
the pricing of airline tickets to sustain passenger demand, which impacts airline revenues during
tough economic times.57 Notwithstanding these arguments, Congress may be more willing to
consider a fee increase in the current context given that the fee has remained unchanged and has
not been adjusted for inflation since its initial authorization in 2001, and there is increasing
pressure to identify offsetting revenue sources to reduce federal deficit spending. No changes
were made to passenger security fees during the 111th Congress or in the context of FY2011
appropriations, however this remains an issue of considerable interest to the 112th Congress and
the Obama Administration.
United States Coast Guard58
The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for the maritime component of homeland security. As
such, it is the lead agency responsible for the security of U.S. ports, coastal and inland waterways,
and territorial waters. The Coast Guard also performs missions that are not related to homeland
security, such as maritime search and rescue, marine environmental protection, fisheries
enforcement, and aids to navigation. The Coast Guard was transferred from the Department of
Transportation to the DHS on March 1, 2003.
President’s FY2011 Request
The President’s requested amount for major accounts compared with last year’s enacted level is
shown in Table 7. As the table indicates, the President requested $87 million more in operating
expenses (an increase of 1%) and $155 million less in the capital (ACI) account (a decrease of
10%) compared to last year’s enacted level. These two accounts are shown in further detail in
Table 11, below. The President requested no funds for the Bridge Alteration account (consistent
57
58
Chris Strohm, “Airlines oppose renewed push for higher security fees,” Congress Daily, February 9, 2010.
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Transpor
tation Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
41
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
with prior Administration budget requests) and requested $5 million less for research and
development. The other requested amounts are nearly the same as last year’s enacted level.
Table 11. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2011
House
FY2011
SenateReported S.
3607
FY2010
Enacted
FY2011
Request
Military pay and allowances
3,253
3,358
3,381
Civilian pay and benefits
701
757
757
Training and recruiting
206
204
204
Operating funds and unit
level maintenance
1,155
1,106
1,114
Centrally managed accounts
335
346
347
Intermediate and depot level
maintenance
914
880
893
FY2011
Enacted P.L.
112-10
Operating Expenses
Marine Safety and Response
Personnel
Overseas contingency
operationsa
Total
20
242
0
254
254
6,805
6,651
6,970
6,907
42
62
42
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
Vessels and Critical
Infrastructure
121
Icebreaker Refurbishment
Other Equipment
21
130
36
36
36
1,154
1,113
1,234
1,267
Shore facilities and Aids to
Navigation
27
69
108
69
Personnel and Related
Support
105
108
108
106
Coast Guard Housing
-
14
14
2
1,536
1,381
1,583
1,520
Integrated Deepwater
System
Total
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications; the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief;
S.Rept. 111-222 to accompany S. 3607, 111th Congress; FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations Acts P.L. 111-230
and P.L. 111-242; H.R. 1, 112th Congress, and P.L. 112-10.
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. No official numbers are
available for the House position as the bill and report were never published by the House Appropriations
Committee.. No report was issued to accompany P.L. 112-10 and therefore subaccount-level details for FY2011
are not available.
a.
Congressional actions include overseas contingency operations funding as a part of the Homeland Security
appropriations bill. The Administration requests this as a transfer from DoD.
Congressional Research Service
42
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended about 6% more than the President
requested. However, the Senate committee included $254 million for the Coast Guard’s overseas
activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the President requested these funds under the Navy’s
budget. Other major differences are that the Senate committee provided $41 million more than
requested for vessel acquisition, about $40 million more for shore facilities, $8 million more for
research and development, and $4 million for modifying bridges interfering with navigation.
Other differences are discussed below.
Issues for Congress
Increased duties in the maritime realm related to homeland security have added to the Coast
Guard’s obligations and increased the complexity of the issues it faces. Some members of
Congress have expressed concern with how the agency is operationally responding to these
demands, including Coast Guard plans to replace many of its aging vessels and aircraft. The
President’s FY2011 budget request reflects a trade off of mission hours for capital investment in
order not to further delay the replacement of older vessels and aircraft.
Deepwater
The Deepwater program is a 25-year acquisition program to replace or modernize 91 cutters, 124
small surface craft, and 247 aircraft at an estimated cost of over $25 billion. The Coast Guard’s
management and execution of the program has been strongly criticized and the GAO and DHS IG
have been very active in reviewing Deepwater. In 2007, the Coast Guard decided to phase out an
outside system integrator (a team led by Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman) to execute the
program. Issues for Congress include the Coast Guard’s management of the program, which is the
largest and most complex acquisition effort in Coast Guard history, the overall cost of the
program, and the program’s time line for acquisition.59 For FY2011, the President requested
$1,113 million for Deepwater. This amount includes $538 million for the construction of a fifth
National Security Cutter and $240 million for four Fast Response Cutters.
The Senate Appropriations Committee provided $121 million more than the request for
Deepwater. Most of this difference is for advancing the procurement of a sixth national security
cutter.
Over the last several years, the Coast Guard lost two C-130s and several helicopters in flight
accidents. In 2010, Congress provided through H.R. 4899 (P.L. 111-212) funding to recondition
an existing airframe to replace a crashed HH-65 and direction that the Department of Defense
purchase two C-103Js and transfer them to the Coast Guard.60
P.L. 112-10 provided $1,267 million for Deepwater; $101 million for Deepwater aircraft and
$1,101 million for surface ships.
59
These issues are discussed in CRS Report RL33753, Coast Guard Deepwater Acquisition Programs: Background,
Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress, by (name redacted).
60
P.L. 111-212 (124 Stat. 2315, 2317).
Congressional Research Service
43
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Personnel Strength
The FY2011 budget request would reduce the size of the Coast Guard’s military workforce by
485 FTE (1,112 positions) and increase the size of the civilian workforce by 384 FTE (339
positions) for a net reduction of 773 personnel.61 Some military positions would be re-classified
as civilian positions. Some of the reduction in personnel is due to the planned decommissioning
of older vessels (cutters) that require more crew than the newer vessels replacing them. However,
some of the newer vessels will not be ready for service when the older vessels are taken out of
service, reducing total cutter hours in FY2011 by an estimated 5,000 hours.
The USCG has 12 Maritime Safety and Security Teams (MSSTs), which can be deployed to
respond to a safety or security situation in a port that requires additional personnel. MSSTs escort
vessels, patrol critical infrastructure, perform counter terrorism activities, board high interest
vessels, and respond to unanticipated surge operations (e.g., mass migration, hurricane response,
terrorist attack, etc.). The MSSTs are part of a larger group called the Deployable Operations
Group (DOG), consisting of 3,000 personnel who are ready to provide a “surge capacity” when
needed at a particular port. 62
The President’s budget proposes eliminating five of the 12 MSSTs for a savings of $18.2 million.
Teams would be eliminated in San Francisco, New Orleans, New York, Anchorage, and Kings
Bay, GA. The decision of where to eliminate teams was based, in part, on where the agency
already had a large permanent presence of Coast Guard personnel.
The Senate Appropriations Committee rejected the President’s request to eliminate five MSSTs.
The committee also partially rejected the request for decommissioning certain assets, continuing
the operations of two High Endurance Cutters and five HH-65 helicopters.
P.L. 112-10 (sec. 1621) allowed the Coast Guard to decommission one Medium Endurance
Cutter, two High Endurance Cutters, four HU-25 aircraft, and one MSST.
Marine Safety Mission
The oil spill from the drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico has focused attention on the Coast
Guard’s role in marine safety and environmental protection. The Coast Guard oversees the safety
of the non-drilling aspects of offshore oil platforms, rescues crews when in danger, and is the lead
agency in responding to oil spill clean up. One issue that has been raised with respect to the Coast
Guard’s role in overseeing the safety of oil rigs is its ability to keep pace with changing
technology in the offshore industry. For instance, it has been noted that some areas of the Coast
Guard regulations covering the safety requirements of “Mobile Offshore Drilling Units,” such as
the Deepwater Horizon, date back to 1978 when rigs were much closer to shore and in shallower
water. The Coast Guard’s pace in issuing rulemakings and its overall competence in carrying out
its marine safety mission was the subject of a recent congressional hearing63 as well as an issue
61
FY2011 Budget Justification, pp. CG-OE-6 and 8.
A DHS OIG report provides further information on MSSTs, http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_1089_May10.pdf.
63
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,
Hearing on Challenges Facing the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Program, July 27, 2007. See also an independent
assessment report on the Coast Guard’s marine safety mission available at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg54/docs/
(continued...)
62
Congressional Research Service
44
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
raised in the aftermath of the Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco Bay in November 2007. In
response to these criticisms, the Coast Guard has revamped its marine safety program.64 In
FY2009, the Administration requested and Congress provided funds for about 300 additional
marine safety personnel.
The Senate Appropriations Committee provided $20 million more in the operations account than
the President requested for 176 marine safety positions to improve regulation, enforcement, and
compliance of the maritime industry.
Rescue-21
Congress has been concerned with the Coast Guard’s management of the Rescue 21 program, the
Coast Guard’s new coastal zone communications network that is key to its search and rescue
mission and replaces its National Distress and Response System. A 2006 GAO audit of the
program found a tripling of project cost from the original estimate and likely further delays in
project completion, which was already five years behind schedule.65 The GAO’s FY2008 Coast
Guard budget review noted that while Rescue-21 was originally intended to limit gaps to 2% of
coverage area, that target has now expanded to a less than 10% coverage gap.66 As of December
2009, Rescue-21 was deployed at 24 of 39 planned locations.
For FY2011, the President requested $36 million for Rescue-21, to complete deployment at six
locations and continue deployment at four other locations. The Senate committee agreed with the
President’s request.
United States Secret Service67
The U.S. Secret Service (USSS)68 has two broad missions, criminal investigations and protection.
Criminal investigation activities encompass financial crimes, identity theft, counterfeiting,
computer fraud, and computer-based attacks on the nation’s financial, banking, and
telecommunications infrastructure, among other areas. The protection mission is the most
prominent, covering the President, Vice President, their families, and candidates for those offices,
along with the White House and Vice President’s residence, through the Service’s Uniformed
Division. Protective duties also extend to foreign missions in the District of Columbia and to
designated individuals, such as the DHS Secretary and visiting foreign dignitaries. Aside from
these specific mandated assignments, USSS is responsible for security activities at National
(...continued)
VADM%20Card%20Report.pdf.
64
For a description of its intended changes, see Coast Guard Proceedings, Summer 2008, pp. 20-28, available at
http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings.
65
GAO, United States Coast Guard: Improvements Needed in Management and Oversight of Rescue System
Acquisition, GAO-06-623, May 2006.
66
GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, Performance, Reorganization, and Related
Challenges, April 18, 2007, GAO-07-489T, p. 3.
67
Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and
Finance Division.
68
For more information, see CRS Report RL34603, The U.S. Secret Service: An Examination and Analysis of Its
Evolving Missions, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
45
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Special Security Events (NSSE)69, which include the major party quadrennial national
conventions as well as international conferences and events held in the United States. The NSSE
designation by the President gives the USSS authority to organize and coordinate security
arrangements involving various law enforcement units from other federal agencies and state and
local governments, as well as from the National Guard.
President’s FY2011 Request
For FY2011, the Administration requested an appropriation of $1,570 million. The
Administration’s request reflected an increase of $87 million from FY2010. Within the Protection
of Persons and Facilities account, the Administration protects 34 individuals, of which 24 are
authorized under U.S. Code70 and ten are provisional protectees authorized pursuant to
presidential memoranda.71 Additionally the Secretary of the Treasury receives protection on a
reimbursable basis.72 USSS intends to continue to provide protection for the President and Vice
President, their families, visiting heads-of-state, and the White House and other buildings within
the Washington, DC, area. Finally, USSS plans to continue implementing operational security for
designated NSSEs.73
Senate-Reported S. 3607, 111th Congress
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $1,576 million for the Secret Service for
FY2011, an increase of $93 million over the FY2010 appropriations and $4 million over the
president’s FY2011 budget request.74 In all spending categories (except for one), the
Appropriations Committee recommendations for FY2011 were identical to the president’s budget
request. The single difference was for domestic investigations: the committee recommended $4
million above the president’s request, which accounts for the increase in the total amount between
the committee’s recommendation and the president’s request.
The panel raised concerns—based on a 2010 Government Accountability Office report (GAO-10762)—however, that the Secret Service was in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, by spending
more funds than it had available. The committee directed the Secret Service and the DHS Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) to implement the GAO recommendations related to financial
management and compliance.75 The panel also retained bill language withholding from obligation
$20 million until the DHS Chief Information Officer submits a report to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees certifying that all information security modernization plans are
consistent with DHS data center migration and enterprise architecture requirements.76
69
For more information, see CRS Report RS22754, National Special Security Events, by (name redacted).
18 U.S.C. § 3056.
71
The ten provisional protectees are not identified due to security operations.
72
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service, Salaries & Expenses: Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional
Justification, Washington, DC, February 2010, p. S&E-1.
73
Ibid., p. S&E-10.
74
U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2011, S.Rept.
111-222, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., pp. 89-93.
75
Ibid.
76
Ibid.
70
Congressional Research Service
46
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 12. FY2010 Enacted and FY2011 Budget Authority for the U.S. Secret Service
(Amounts in millions of dollars)
FY2011
SenateReported
S. 3607
FY2010
Enacted
FY2011
Budget
Request
Protection of persons and
facilities
756
792
792
Protective intelligence activities
68
69
69
National Special Security Events
1
1
1
Candidate nominee protection
—
18
18
White House mail screening
22
25
25
Management and administration
221
253
253
Rowley Training Center
54
55
55
Domestic field operations
261
257
261
International field operations
31
31
31
Electronic crimes program
57
57
57
Forensic support to the National
Center for Missing and Exploited
Children
8
8
8
Acquisition, construction, and
improvements
4
4
4
1,483
1,572
1,576
Programs and Activities
Total
FY2011
House
FY2011
Enacted
P.L. 112-10
1,518
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2011 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications; the FY2011 DHS Budget in Brief;
S.Rept. 111-222 to accompany S. 3607, 111th Congress; FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations Acts P.L. 111-230
and P.L. 111-242; H.R. 1, 112th Congress, and P.L. 112-10.
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding. No official numbers are
available for the House position as the bill and report were never published by the House Appropriations
Committee. No report was issued to accompany P.L. 112-10 and therefore subaccount-level details for FY2011
are not available.
Issues for Congress
There are two issues of potential interest to Congress concerning the FY2011 appropriations for
USSS. The two issues include funding for the Service’s protection mission, and NSSE funding.
Protection Mission Funding
USSS’s protection mission, as opposed to its investigative mission, employs the majority of the
Service’s agents and receives a larger share of the agency’s resources. Additionally, the majority
of congressional action concerning USSS has been related to its protection mission, as evidenced
by past appropriations, and their accompanying conference report, for USSS. The priority given
to protection reflects the costs associated with an increase in protecting individuals, events, and
facilities, which the conferees noted in the conference report accompanying P.L. 111-83 (FY2010
DHS appropriations). While Congress has maintained USSS’s role in investigating financial
crimes, such as providing funding for a new international field office in Estonia to combat
Congressional Research Service
47
Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations
electronic crimes in FY2010, congressional action primarily has addressed, and continues to
address, the Service’s protection mission. An example of this is the 110th Congress’ enactment of
P.L. 110-326, the Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008, which requires the Service to
protect former Vice Presidents, their spouses, and minor children for a period of up to six months
after leaving office. Congress has, however, moved to reduce the Service’s protection mission by
specifically stating, in the FY2010 DHS appropriation, that the USSS could not use any funds to
protect any federal department head, except the DHS Secretary, unless the Service is
reimbursed.77
One could argue that potential terrorist attacks and possible threats to the President have resulted
in an increase in the need for the Service’s protection activities. Advocates for expansion of the
investigation mission, however, may contend that protection is enhanced through better threat
investigation efforts.
National Special Security Event Funding
The Administration proposed $20 million for a new initiative, the NSSE State and Local
Reimbursement Fund (NSSE Fund). For FY2011, the Administration proposes housing this
account in Title I, under Analysis and Operations (see Table 5). The NSSE Fund would reimburse
state and local governments for costs incurred when providing security at NSSEs. In the past state
and local governments were reimbursed for NSSE costs through targeted through multiple federal
programs that were not consolidated or coordinated. Eligible costs of the NSSE Fund would be
determined by the DHS Secretary and the fund’s management and administrative costs could not
exceed one percent ($200,000). NSSE Fund allocations would not be available to states and
localities that receive reimbursement from other federal programs, including the Department of
State’s “Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials” account.78
NSSEs are events of national significance79 that may heighten the possibility of terrorist attacks
because of the anticipated attendance by U.S. officials and foreign dignitaries; the size of the
event; and the event’s historical, political, and symbolic significance. Recent NSSEs include the
January 2009 inauguration of President Barack Obama and the 2008 presidential nominating
conventions.
The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) is the lead federal agency for planning, implementing, and
coordinating operational security at NSSEs.80 USSS’s Major Events Division (MED) plans and
coordinates NSSE security operations. Some of the coordination includes advance planning and
liaison
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.