# Homeland Security Department: FY2011 Appropriations > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41189 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** July 25, 2011 - **Citation:** R41189 ## 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41189. Public record. Not legal advice.