Search

The article discusses the issues raised regarding federal building and facility security in the U.S. Topics mentioned include the attributes of each federal facility that show its individual security needs, the federal law enforcement entities responsible for the provision of facility security, such as the Pentagon Force Protection Agency and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the standards for the security of federal facility.

Every four years, on January 20, the President-elect is sworn in as President of the United States. Presidential inauguration ceremonies are unique public events in the District of Columbia. The inauguration ceremonies are public and, like the President's State of the Union address, they are events in which a significant proportion of the American political leadership is in attendance. Consequently, the inauguration is designated as a National Special Security Event (NSSE) by the Department of Homeland Security. NSSEs are events that require significant security, in part because of the attendance of U.S. and foreign dignitaries and the event's public or official nature. Funding for inauguration security operations is provided from the U.S. Secret Service's National Special Security Event general account, though information on the amount provided is not publicly available. In limited circumstances, however, Congress has also provided supplemental appropriations to reimburse local jurisdictions for inauguration-related activities. Other inauguration spending is less easily identifiable because it is indirect and a part of typical annual appropriations to the relevant agencies. Because of the absence of specificity, substantive policy analysis on costs associated with inauguration security may be limited. In addition to Congress's responsibility for funding inauguration security operations, Congress also conducts oversight of the security operations. Criticisms of past inauguration security operations and practices generated congressional concern. An example of this criticism includes reports that some 2009 presidential inauguration ticket holders were unable to reach their designated seating areas due to security checkpoint contestation. Congressional, interest group, and media criticism appears to be specifically focused on 2009 inauguration security operations instead of general observations or criticism. There appears to have been no criticism of the 2013 inauguration's security. This report provides information on inauguration security operations and inauguration security appropriations, and it discusses potential policy issues associated with inauguration security operations. It also identifies some policy issues associated with inauguration security operations, including some past inauguration security operations criticisms and inauguration security operation appropriations. Options are provided for congressional consideration for future inauguration and inauguration security planning. Congressional interest in inauguration security may be based on various factors and determinates, including its roles in appropriating funds for inaugurations, oversight of law enforcement and first responder entities with inauguration security responsibilities, and hosting the swearing-in ceremony, as well as the heightened interest in post-9/11 security operations. Congress may wish to consider past criticisms of both inauguration security operations and appropriations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an overview of the funding of U.S. presidential nominating conventions. Topics covered include the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF), Department of Justice (DOJ) funds, federal convention funding from 2012 to 2015, conditions on PECF funds, and the conditions on security funds.

A report from the U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the funding of presidential nominating conventions is presented. Topics covered include the different kinds of presidential funds such as Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF), Department of Justice (DOJ) funds and federal convention funding, private fundraising for convention committees, and the repeal of PECF convention funding.

The article reports on management issues facing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as of May 2015. Topics include the extensiveness of the involvement of departmental management in the functioning of departmental components, the financial management challenges faced by the DHS since its inception, and DHS personnel issues.

The article discusses disaster preparedness, response and recovery as a component of U.S. homeland security. Topics include the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) which is the source of the disaster assistance provided by the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency to states and localities, the budget authority appropriated by the U.S. Congress to the DRF, and the 11th U.S. Congress' continued oversight of how the National Preparedness System is developing.

The article discusses information about border security and trade as one of the issues facing U.S. homeland security. Topics include the continued domination of Mexican drug trafficking organizations in the U.S. drug market, destabilizing activities funded by proceeds from illegal enterprises including smuggling and terrorist operations, and the reliance of Mexican traffickers on cross-border tunnels to smuggle persons and drugs.

The article discusses counterterrorism and security management as one of the issues facing homeland security in the U.S. Topics include the efforts of the U.S. government as of May 2015 to address treats from terror group Al Qaeda, its affiliated organizations and adherents to its violence-based philosophy and the Islamic State, and the need to understand the continued evolution of Al Qaeda and Islamic State into global entities to formulating policy and overseeing its implementation.

The article discusses the definition of homeland security. Topics include the U.S. Department of Homeland Security which was created by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Also mentioned are the assembly of the new department from components pulled from different government agencies, issues that have implications for homeland security including the role of the military in law enforcement, and missions and strategy of homeland security.

The article discusses issues on homeland and security policy for the 114th U.S. Congress. These issues include counterterrorism and security management, border security and trade, disaster preparedness, response and recovery, and U.S. Department of Homeland Security management issues. Topics include definitions of homeland security, the homeland security budget, and the role of homeland security actors in the intelligence community.

The article provides an overview of the process of convention financing in the U.S. Topics mentioned include sources of federal funds for presidential nominating conventions, namely the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF) and funds appropriated by the U.S. Congress, grants awarded to the Democratic and Republican parties for the 2012 election cycle, and details of federal regulations in place for permissible and prohibited spending of the PECF.

The article presents the "Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: An Overview" report of the Congressional Research Service. Topics mentioned include elimination of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF) funding for convention operations, estimated amount of grants received by the 2012 Democratic and Republican conventions, overview of the function of the PECF convention funding, and differences between presidential public funds and security funds.

The article presents a history of the statutory responsibilities of the U.S. Secret Service (USSS). It discusses the investigation and protection missions of the Secret Service, the enactment of the U.S. Patriot Act, and the authority of the USSS to implement National Special Security Events operations under the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000.

The article provides information on missions of the U.S. Secret Service as of June 2014. It discusses the expansion of its mission from U.S. currency counterfeit investigation, criminal investigation activities of the Secret Service, and protection of federal officials, individuals and sites by the Secret Service.

The article focuses on the evolution of homeland security definitions and missions in the U.S. Following the initial response and investigations into the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City, Pennsylvania and Washington, DC, the need to reorganize the U.S. government to prepare for, mitigate against, respond to and recover from future attacks was recognized. This decision to reorganize the government resulted in various homeland security definitions and missions.

The article discusses the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress on the U.S. Presidential Inauguration ceremonies including the appropriation of funds, oversight of law enforcement agencies, and provision of security measures. The report stipulates the U.S. Congress can amend the National Special Security Event authority to indicate policies related to inaugural security. The sources of funding include the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Secret Service, and the Presidential Inauguration Committee.

The article discusses the missions of the U.S. Secret Service (USSS). The original mission of the USSS was the investigation of counterfeiting of U.S. currency, and through the years with presidential, departmental, and congressional action has expanded to include financial crimes as well. The mission of protection, started on a part-time basis with President Grover Cleveland in 1894 to constant protection of President Barack Obama, has been directed by unofficial and congressional mandate.

The article presents a historical overview of the statutes governing the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) through the identification of congressional actions that addressed its role and responsibility. The Secret Service Division (SSD) was established by the Treasury Secretary in 1865 with the primary responsibility of investigating counterfeiting, forging, and altering of U.S. currency and securities. The 47th Congress appropriated funds for SSD, giving it statutory recognition in 1882.

The article discusses how definitions and missions of homeland security are evolving after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The administration of former president George W. Bush issued the 2003 National Strategy for Homeland Security, revised in 2007 to focus on terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued Strategic Plan--One Team, One Mission, Securing Our Homeland that included references to all-hazards and border security in 2008.

The article examines the policy issues and options regarding funding of presidential nominating convention in the U.S. Public funds are considered as a way to avoid undue individual, corporate or labor influence by individuals who oppose private contributions. It mentions the possible use of some Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants by state and local governments for convention security activities. Among the policy options that could affect the amount of federal funding are changing convention fund prioritization and appropriating funds.

The article provides an overview of presidential nominating convention financing in the U.S. Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF) and security funds appropriated by Congress to the Department of Justice (DOJ) are the two revenue sources supported by taxpayers. The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) is responsible for security at the conventions. A list of permissible PECF convention expenses is presented including security and transportation.

The article presents a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report for the U.S. Congress on the federal funding of presidential nominating conventions. A law that affected convention security funding was enacted by the 110th Congress in fiscal year (FY) 2008. The 2008 conventions received about 133.6 million dollars in federal funds. Also cited are the policy options that could affect the amount of federal security funding provided to conventions, one of which is discontinuing funding to states.

On March 31, 2010, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a proposed policy letter on inherently governmental functions and other “work reserved for performance by federal government employees.” While not final, the policy letter represents the Obama Administration’s proposed guidance for agencies determining (1) whether particular functions are inherently governmental and (2) when functions closely associated with the performance of inherently governmental functions and critical functions should be performed by government personnel. Under existing law, agencies cannot contract out inherently governmental functions, and they must give “special consideration” to using government personnel in performing functions closely associated with the performance of inherently governmental functions. No limitations upon contracting out critical functions currently exist, although legislation introduced in the 111th Congress (S. 924) would, if enacted, require agency heads to ensure that “mission essential functions” are performed by government employees. Some commentators consider mission-essential functions to be critical ones. In keeping with the requirements of Section 321 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009 (P.L. 110-417), which tasked OMB with developing a “single consistent definition” of “inherently governmental function,” the proposed policy letter adopts the definition of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act. The FAIR Act defines an “inherently governmental function” as one that is “so intimately related to the public interest as to require performance by Federal Government employees.” However, neither the proposed policy letter nor the notice from OFPP introducing it indicates whether or how the Obama Administration would amend the definitions of “inherently governmental function” in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, OMB Circular A-76, or other executive branch regulations and policy documents. The proposed policy letter defines a “critical function” as one that is “necessary to the agency being able to effectively perform and maintain control of its mission and operations.” This definition, and the accompanying guidance on when critical functions and functions associated with the performance of inherently governmental functions should be performed in- house, also respond to the requirements of Section 321 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act. Among other things, Section 321 tasked OMB with developing criteria that agencies could use in identifying critical functions and positions that should be performed by government personnel to ensure that agencies develop and maintain “sufficient organic expertise and technical capacity.” President Obama’s March 4, 2009, memorandum on government contracting similarly charged OMB with clarifying when outsourcing is “appropriate.” The proposed policy letter raises several legal and policy issues of potential interest to Congress, given recently enacted and proposed legislation regarding inherently governmental functions and other limitations upon contracting out (e.g., P.L. 111-8, P.L. 111-84, P.L. 111-117, H.R. 1436, H.R. 2142, H.R. 2177, H.R. 2682, H.R. 2736, H.R. 2868, S. 924, S. 3607, S. 3611, S. 3677). Key among these issues are (1) the relationship between the proposed policy letter and other executive branch authorities on inherently governmental and related functions; (2) whether the proposed policy letter would necessarily result in changes in agencies’ use of contractors to perform certain functions that some Members of Congress and commentators claim are inherently governmental (e.g., security services during contingency operations); and (3) the potential demands of any new requirements upon the acquisition workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In light of lessons learned from the September 2001 terrorist attacks and other catastrophes such as Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav, the second session of the 111th Congress is expected to consider questions and issues associated with federal homeland security assistance. Federal homeland security assistance, for the purpose of this report, is defined as U.S. Department of Homeland Security programs that provide funding, training, or technical assistance to states, localities, tribes, and other entities to prepare for, respond to, and recover from man-made and natural disasters. Since the nation is still threatened by terrorist attacks and natural disasters, the 111th Congress may wish to consider questions and challenges about whether, or how, federal homeland security assistance policy should be revisited. Policy solutions could affect, and be constrained by, existing law and regulations, and constitutional considerations. Since FY2002, Congress has appropriated over $34 billion for homeland security assistance to states, specified urban areas and critical infrastructures (such as ports and rail systems), the District of Columbia, and U.S. insular areas. Originally, in FY2002, there were eight programs; in FY2010 there are 15 programs. This expansion and scope of homeland security assistance programs are the result of congressional and executive branch actions. The Grant Programs Directorate, within the Federal Emergency Management Agency, administers these programs for the Department of Homeland Security. Each assistance program has either an all-hazards purpose or a terrorism preparedness purpose. However, in FY2010, 60% of funding has been appropriated for terrorism preparedness programs, a decision that has been criticized by some grant recipients, Members of Congress, and others. Congress appropriated $757 million less for state and local programs than was appropriated in FY2009; however, some programs received increased funding in FY2010, such as the Urban Area Security Initiative. This reduction is primarily the result of Congress not funding the Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program, and the Trucking Security Grant program. According to news reports, a Department of Homeland Security official announced that the overall FY2011 budget request for the department will decline from previous years' levels, and in the FY2011 budget request, the Administration requested approximately $4 billion. The impact of a reduction on grants assistance may be an issue. This report summarizes these programs, and identifies and analyzes potential issues for the 111th Congress. These issues include (1) the purpose and number of assistance programs; (2) the evaluation of the use of grant funding; (3) the determination of eligible grant recipients; (4) the programs' funding amounts; and (5) the programs' funding distribution methodologies. Some of these issues have been debated and legislation passed since FY2002. This report will be updated when congressional or executive branch actions warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The security of federal government buildings and facilities affects not only the daily operations of the federal government but also the health, well-being, and safety of federal employees and the public. Recent congressional action concerning the security of federal buildings includes P.L. 111-83 (FY2010 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security), which addressed the issue of the transfer of the Federal Protective Service from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the National Protection and Programs Directorate. For the purposes of this report, federal facilities include any building leased or owned by the General Services Administration. In FY2007, the federal government's real property portfolio comprised 446,000 buildings with an area of 3.3 billion square feet and a replacement value of $772.8 billion. Federal courthouses and facilities are also discussed in this report. Additionally, it should be noted that many Members of Congress have state and district offices located in multitenant federal buildings. Security of federal facilities includes physical security assets such as closed-circuit television cameras, barrier material, and security guards (both federally employed and contracted). Federal facility security practices have been subject to criticism by government auditors and security experts. Elements that have received criticism include the use of private security guards, the management and security practices of the Federal Protective Service, and the coordination of federal facility security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The President's budget request proposed total appropriations of $4.0 billion in FY2011 for homeland security assistance to states and localities, which is $164 million less than Congress appropriated in FY2010. These assistance programs are used by state and local governments, primarily first responder entities, to meet homeland security needs and enhance capabilities to prepare for, respond to, and recover from both man-made and natural disasters. The Administration's budget request not only proposes to reduce total appropriations for these programs, but also to eliminate some programs, such as the Metropolitan Medical Response System, the Emergency Operations Centers Program, and the Interoperable Communications Program. This report briefly discusses issues of debate associated with the budget request. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses recent legislative activity on the funding of U.S. presidential nominating conventions as of May 2016. Topics covered include the repeal of Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF) convention funding, how P.L. 113-94 (H.R. 2019) eliminated convention funding and mandated that PECF amounts reserved for conventions be allocated to an unrelated health research account called the "10-Year Pediatric Research Initiative Fund."

In light of lessons learned from the September 2001 terrorist attacks and other catastrophes such as Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav, the second session of the 111th Congress is expected to consider questions and issues associated with federal homeland security assistance. Federal homeland security assistance, for the purpose of this report, is defined as U.S. Department of Homeland Security programs that provide funding, training, or technical assistance to states, localities, tribes, and other entities to prepare for, respond to, and recover from man-made and natural disasters. Since the nation is still threatened by terrorist attacks and natural disasters, the 111th Congress may wish to consider questions and challenges about whether, or how, federal homeland security assistance policy should be revisited. Policy solutions could affect, and be constrained by, existing law and regulations, and constitutional considerations. Since FY2002, Congress has appropriated over $34 billion for homeland security assistance to states, specified urban areas and critical infrastructures (such as ports and rail systems), the District of Columbia, and U.S. insular areas. Originally, in FY2002, there were eight programs; in FY2010 there are 15 programs. This expansion and scope of homeland security assistance programs are the result of congressional and executive branch actions. The Grant Programs Directorate, within the Federal Emergency Management Agency, administers these programs for the Department of Homeland Security. Each assistance program has either an all-hazards purpose or a terrorism preparedness purpose. However, in FY2010, 60% of funding has been appropriated for terrorism preparedness programs, a decision that has been criticized by some grant recipients, Members of Congress, and others. Congress appropriated $757 million less for state and local programs than was appropriated in FY2009; however, some programs received increased funding in FY2010, such as the Urban Area Security Initiative. This reduction is primarily the result of Congress not funding the Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program, and the Trucking Security Grant program. According to news reports, a Department of Homeland Security official announced that the overall FY2011 budget request for the department will decline from previous years’ levels. The impact of a reduction on grants assistance may be an issue. This report summarizes these programs, and identifies and analyzes potential issues for the 111th Congress. These issues include (1) the purpose and number of assistance programs; (2) the evaluation of the use of grant funding; (3) the determination of eligible grant recipients; (4) the programs’ funding amounts; (5) the programs’ funding distribution methodologies, and (6) the use of grant funding for sustainment and maintenance costs associated with previous fiscal year homeland security projects. Some of these issues have been debated and legislation passed since FY2002; presently H.R. 3837 addresses the issue of sustainment and maintenance costs. This report will be updated when congressional or executive branch actions warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since FY2002, Congress has appropriated more than $33 billion for homeland security assistance to states, specified urban areas and critical infrastructures (such as ports and rail systems), the District of Columbia, and U.S. insular areas. The Grant Programs Directorate and the National Preparedness Directorate, within the Federal Emergency Management Agency, administer these programs for the Department of Homeland Security. Each assistance program has either an allhazards purpose or a terrorism preparedness purpose. These programs are primarily used by first responders, which include firefighters, emergency medical personnel, emergency managers, and law enforcement officers. Specifically, the appropriations for these programs provide for grants, training, exercises, and other support to states, territories, and tribal and joint jurisdictions to prepare for terrorism and major disasters. This report provides information on enacted FY2009 and FY2010 funding for these grant programs. It also identifies potential issues Congress may wish to address. The report will be updated when congressional or executive branch actions warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The U.S. Secret Service has two missions—criminal investigations and protection. Criminal investigation activities, which have expanded since its inception as a small anti-counterfeiting operation at the end of the Civil War, now encompass financial crimes, identity theft, counterfeiting, computer fraud, and computer-based attacks on the nation's financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure, among other areas. Protection activities, which have expanded and evolved since the 1890s, include the safety and security of the President, Vice President, their families, and other identified individuals and locations. In March 2003, the U.S. Secret Service was transferred from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Homeland Security as a distinct entity. Prior to enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), the U.S. Secret Service had been part of the Treasury Department for over 100 years. During an April 2008 hearing on the FY2009 budget request for the U.S. Secret Service, Members of Congress raised questions related to the missions and organizational location of the Service. Are the two missions of the Service compatible and how should they be prioritized? Is the Department of Homeland Security the most appropriate organizational and administrative location for the Secret Service? These, and other policy questions, have been raised and addressed at different times by Congress and various administrations during the long history of the Service. Additionally, there has been increased interest in the Service due to the recent inaugural security operations and the protection of President Barack Obama. Some may contend that these and other questions call for renewed attention given the recent increase in demand for the Service's protection function (for example, see P.L. 110-326 enacted by the 110th Congress) and the advent of new technology used in financial crimes. This report will be updated when congressional or executive branch actions warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report describes the FY2010 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Administration requested a net appropriation of $44.1 billion in budget authority for FY2010. This amounts to a $2.8 billion, or a 6.7% increase over the $41.2 billion enacted for FY2009 (not including supplemental funding). Total budget authority requested by the Administration for DHS for FY2010 amounts to $55.1 billion. Net requested appropriations for major agencies within DHS were as follows: Customs and Border Protection (CBP), $10,049 million; Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), $5,458 million; Transportation Security Administration (TSA), $5,267 million; Coast Guard, $9,734 million; Secret Service, $1,490 million; National Protection & Programs Directorate, $1,319 million; Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), $7,235 million; Science and Technology, $968 million; and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $366 million. This report contains a detailed discussion of the President’s budget request for DHS, but due to time constraints, the text does not include a detailed discussion of the House- or Senate-reported versions of the FY2010 bill. The tables reflect the House- and Senate-reported numbers. The House Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2010 DHS Appropriations bill on June 12, 2009. On June 24, 2009, the House passed H.R. 2892. This report uses Housepassed H.R. 2892 and the accompanying committee report (H.Rept. 111-157) as the source for the House-passed numbers. The House-passed H.R. 2892 recommends a net appropriation of $44.0 billion for DHS for FY2010. This amounts to a $205 million decrease as compared to the Administration’s request, and a nearly $2.8 billion increase as compared to the $41.2 billion enacted for FY2009 (not including FY2009 supplemental funding). The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2010 DHS Appropriations bill on June 17, 2009. On July 9, 2009 the Senate passed its version of H.R. 2892, after inserting the text of S. 1298 as a substitute amendment. This report uses Senate-passed H.R. 2892 and the committee report (S.Rept. 111-31) accompanying S. 1298 as the source for the Senate-passed numbers. The Senate-passed H.R. 2892 recommends a net appropriation of $44.3 billion for DHS for FY2010. This amounts to a $97 million increase as compared to the Administration’s request, and a nearly $3.1 billion increase as compared to the $41.2 billion enacted for FY2009 (not including FY2009 supplemental funding). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Federal Protective Service (FPS)--within U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)--is responsible for protecting federal government property, personnel, visitors, and customers, including property leased by the General Services Administration (GSA). FPS currently employs over 15,000 contract security guards to protect federal property. DHS continued the use of contract security guards to focus FPS activities on maintaining security policy and standards, conducting building security assessments, and monitoring federal agency compliance with security standards in FY2009. P.L. 110-329 (the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009) included provisions on FPS maintaining a certain number of police officers. The 110th Congress also enacted P.L. 110-356 (the Federal Protective Service Guard Contracting Reform Act of 2008) which addressed the issue of awarding federal contracts to privately owned contract security guard businesses. The 111th Congress has yet to take any legislative action on FPS, however, the Administration's FY2010 budget request proposes to transfer FPS from ICE to the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) within DHS, which the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2892 supports. This report will be updated as developments warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a report of the U.S. Congressional Research Service on the U.S. preparedness to deal with the National Special Security Events (NSSE). Topics discussed include the role of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) and funding for National Special Security Events.

In light of lessons learned from the September 2001, terrorist attacks and other catastrophes such as Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav, the 111th Congress is expected to consider questions and issues associated with federal homeland security assistance. Federal homeland security assistance, for the purpose of this report, is defined as U.S. Department of Homeland Security programs that provide funding, training, or technical assistance to states, localities, tribes, and other entities to prepare for, respond to, and recover from man-made and natural disasters. Since the nation is still threatened by terrorist attacks and natural disasters, the 111th Congress may wish to consider questions and challenges about whether, or how, federal homeland security assistance policy should be revisited. Policy solutions could affect, and be constrained by, existing law and regulations, and constitutional considerations. Since FY2002, Congress has appropriated over $29 billion for homeland security assistance to states, specified urban areas and critical infrastructures (such as ports and rail systems), the District of Columbia, and U.S. insular areas. Originally, in FY2002, there were eight programs; in FY2009 there are 17 programs. This expansion and scope of homeland security assistance programs are the result of congressional and executive branch actions. The Grant Program Directorate, within the Federal Emergency Management Agency, administers these programs for the Department of Homeland Security. Each assistance program has either an all-hazards purpose or a terrorism preparedness purpose. However, in FY2009, 61% of funding has been appropriated for terrorism preparedness programs, a decision which has been criticized by some grant recipients, Members of Congress, and others. This report summarizes these programs, and identifies and analyzes potential issues for the 111th Congress. These issues include 1) the purpose and number of assistance programs; 2) the evaluation of the use of grant funding; 3) the determination of eligible grant recipients; 4) the programs funding amounts; and 5) the programs funding distribution methodologies. Some of these issues have been debated and legislation passed since FY2002. However, some observers, including Members of Congress and President Barack Obamas administration, have raised them as issues. This report will be updated when congressional or executive branch actions warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report describes the FY2009 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Administration requested a net appropriation of $38.9 billion in budget authority for FY2009. The House Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2009 DHS Appropriations bill on June 24, 2008. The bill was filed on September 18, 2008, as H.R. 6947, and the accompanying report has been numbered H.Rept. 110-862. This report has been updated using draft versions of both the reported bill and report, and refers to the bill as draft-H.R. 6947. Draft- H.R. 6947 would provide a net appropriation of $41.1 billion in budget authority for DHS for FY2009. This amounts to an increase of $2.2 billion or nearly 6% increase over the President?s request. The Senate reported its version of the bill on June 19, 2008. S. 3181 would provide $41.3 billion in net budget authority for DHS for FY2009, a $2.4 billion or 6% increase over the President?s request. On September 23, 2008, the House Rules Committee reported H.Res. 1488 for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. H.R. 2638 was originally introduced as the FY2008 DHS Appropriations Act, but has been amended to serve as the legislative vehicle for the proposed Continuing Resolution, a Disaster Relief Emergency Supplemental, the Department of Defense FY2009 Appropriations Act, the FY2009 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, and the FY2009 Military Construction and Veterans Assistance Act.1 On September 24, 2008, the House passed H.R. 2638. The tables in this CRS report have been updated to reflect House action. The far right column in each table in this report reflects amounts contained in the draft- Joint Explanatory Statement posted on the House Rules Committee website on September 24, 2008, and passed by the House on September 25, 2008, by a vote of 370-58-1. The text of this CRS report has not been updated. Divison D of House-passed H.R. 2638 would provide a net appropriation of $41.2 billion for DHS for FY2009. This amounts to nearly $2.4 billion more than the President?s request for FY2009, $88 million more than was reported by the House in H.R. 6947, and $89 million less than was reported by the Senate in S. 3181. Division B of House-passed H.R. 2638 contains the following amounts for DHS agencies: $300 million in emergency FY2008 funding for the Coast Guard, $7.96 billion in emergency FY2008 funding for FEMA?s Disaster Relief Account, and $100 million in emergency FY2008 funding for payments to the American Red Cross. These FY2008 emergency supplemental amounts are not currently reflected in the tables in this report. This report will be updated as legislative action occurs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]