Background Changing Warfare Environment According to the Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy and the Army, the character of warfare is changing. For decades, the United States enjoyed uncontested or dominant superiority in every operating domain—land, air, sea, cyber, and space—but today every domain is likely to be contested by other great-power competitors and potential regional adversaries. Figure 1 below describes these operating domains. Since at least 2012, DOD began shifting its focus from counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to adversaries who possess more sophisticated capabilities. For example: In 2012, DOD issued strategic guidance that cited efforts by Iran and China to pursue cyber and electronic warfare capabilities with the ability to counter U.S. power projection and limit operational access. The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review acknowledged the efforts of China and others to counter U.S. strengths using anti-access and area-denial approaches and using new cyber and space control technologies. The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review also addressed the rapid evolution of modern warfare, including increasingly contested battlespaces in the air, sea, space and cyber domains. In 2016, an Army study of Russia’s operations and doctrine concluded that Russia employs formations, operational concepts, and capabilities that overmatch U.S. capabilities in range and lethality, thus challenging the Army’s ability to conduct operations and win battles. The 2017 National Security Strategy stated that U.S. advantages are shrinking as rival states modernize their forces. The 2017 National Security Strategy identified many of the challenges that China and Russia pose, including Russia’s use of offensive cyber efforts to influence public opinion, and how cyberattacks have become a key feature of modern warfare. A classified National Defense Strategy followed in January 2018, and the unclassified summary cited challenges to the U.S. military advantage as a shift in the global environment. Purpose and Origins of the Multi-Domain Operations Concept The Army’s multi-domain operations concept originates from an Army effort to rethink how it will fight in the new, more complex operating environment. The Army defines multi-domain operations as ways for confronting adversaries in contested environments by presenting them with multiple challenges through the combining of multiple capabilities. This means that ground forces should be able to operate freely in other warfighting domains and, if necessary, be able to overwhelm an adversary’s forces by combining capabilities across different domains, such as land, air, sea, cyber, and space simultaneously. According to Army officials, in 2014 the then-Deputy Secretary of Defense tasked the Army to update its warfighting concept to deal with the threats and challenges posed by great-power competitors in the future operating environment. The Army officials added that around the same time, the Army began developing and running a wargame scenario focused on a threat that employed similar doctrine, tactics, and capabilities as those used by Russia in Ukraine. In 2016, the Army also assessed the increasingly sophisticated Russian military capabilities and identified specific multi-domain challenges that the Army would face if it came into conflict with Russia. Army officials said that its analysis highlighted the urgency of updating how it would fight such an adversary. In beginning to develop this concept, the Army reached out to the Marine Corps, as both services face similar problems in ground-combat operations. Since the Army began developing its concept, the Army established a framework for assessing how the adversary operates and the problems the Army needs to resolve as a ground force. For example, early on the Army developed an expanded battlefield that stretches far beyond the front lines, or “close area”, where ground forces face off against each other. Under this expanded battlefield, adversaries can use more sophisticated weapons and cyber capabilities that are based in distant and protected territories, potentially reaching targets that are located well behind the front lines, even within the continental United States. Figure 2 below depicts the Army’s new expanded battlefield for multi-domain operations, including a description of each area of the battlefield. The Army Is Changing Its Doctrine, Organizations, and Training to Execute Multi-Domain Operations The Army is changing aspects of its doctrine, organizations, and training simultaneously to develop a force that can effectively engage great-power competitors, such as Russia and China, across multiple domains, and expects this process to continue through the 2020s. Army concepts propose new approaches for the Army to develop capabilities against emerging challenges. The new Army Operating Concept built around multi-domain operations is intended to drive capability development, which is addressed through changes to the Army’s doctrine, organizations, and training, among other areas. The Army’s goal is to field a more lethal and capable force by 2028 that is able to dominate adversaries in a multi-domain environment. Figure 3 below summarizes how the Army uses validated concepts to drive changes in capabilities and the force. Doctrine. Given the Army’s attention to multi-domain operations, it has updated or is in the process of updating doctrine that guides how the Army fights. Primary among this effort is updating the Army’s overarching operations field manual, which establishes how the Army conducts large- scale ground combat operations against the threat posed by a great- power competitor, among other things. In its most recent revision to its doctrine, the Army incorporated several aspects of multi-domain operations, such as the expanded battlefield that includes cyber and the electromagnetic spectrum. TRADOC officials stated that they are also in the process of updating doctrine related to cyber operations and field artillery operations in order to build a force that can integrate both cyber capabilities and long-range fires—such as artillery, rockets, and missiles—for multi-domain operations. The officials added that the Army is developing or is planning to develop specific doctrinal guidance for new Army units that will focus on multi-domain operations in the areas of intelligence, cyber, electronic warfare, and space. Organizations. The Army wants to ensure that its warfighting organizations have the engineering, artillery, air defense, and other enabling capabilities needed to conduct multi-domain operations. For example, the Army believes that formations above the brigade level, such as division headquarters and corps headquarters, must have the ability to conduct electronic warfare and cyber operations. To that end, the Army is creating several new organizations focused on cyber and electronic warfare (discussed later in the report). Additionally, the Army is trying to align its multi-domain operations concept with a complementary concept focused on the roles and responsibilities of these organizations above the brigade level. Expanding the roles and responsibilities of formations above the brigade level signifies a departure from the Army’s modular force, which was implemented beginning in 2004. At that time, the Army embedded “key enablers” such as military intelligence, reconnaissance, and logistics functions, as well as other specialized personnel and equipment, into brigade combat teams to provide them independent capabilities. Moving forward, the Army envisions enhancing the capabilities of brigade combat teams for multi-domain operations, as well as providing additional key capabilities to formations above the brigade level. For example: Brigade combat teams. Brigade combat teams are the Army’s primary tactical unit, composed of around 4,400-4,700 soldiers. They are being adjusted to conduct operations in the cyber domain, including new platoons focused on electronic warfare. Army division headquarters. Army divisions command multiple brigade combat teams. The Army expects division headquarters to manage the electromagnetic spectrum and to be the primary echelon for integrating aviation, fires, and electronic warfare into ground maneuver to defeat enemies in a close fight. Army corps headquarters. Army corps command multiple divisions. Under the Army’s concept, the Army corps headquarters will be the primary echelon for defeating mid- and long-range enemy artillery fires. The Army corps will also integrate artillery rockets and missiles, as well as cyber capabilities in support of division or brigade ground operations. Field armies. Field armies, which have the ability to command two or more Army corps, are forward-stationed in regions with capable threats posed by great-power competitors. They will conduct campaigns to compete with adversaries short of armed conflict, and manage the transition to armed conflict should it be needed. The field army will also direct deception operations and provide long-range artillery and fires support. Theater armies. Theater armies are also forward-stationed forces and will be responsible for managing and combining Army capabilities in support of information environment operations and space operations. The theater army must be able to protect joint bases and networks and enable access to the theater. Training. The Army is also updating its training across a broad range of efforts. Army training officials stated that there is a need to train units collectively under multi-domain operations conditions against great-power competitors like Russia and China, per guidance from the Chief of Staff of the Army. The commander of Army Forces Command also issued guidance for fiscal year 2019 to help train and prepare soldiers to conduct multi-domain operations. This guidance included increasing the realism and rigor of every unit rotation to one of the Army’s combat training centers, as well as designing warfighter exercises that focus on units conducting operations in contested electronic warfare, cyber, and space environments. Additionally, the training officials stated that in recent years the Army has updated its decisive-action training scenarios to include regional versions for Europe, the Pacific, and Africa that comply with the multi-domain operations concept. The officials added that, in future years, several Army organizations will be collaborating to modernize the Army’s home-station training and combat training centers in support of fielding a force capable of conducting multi-domain operations. All of this builds upon the Army’s earlier efforts to shift its training focus to large-scale combat after a decade of training for counterinsurgency operations, as we testified to Congress in February 2019. The Army is also taking steps to revise the training for cyber and electronic warfare personnel. These steps include revising the U.S. Army Cyberspace Operations Training Strategy so that it accounts for new equipment and doctrine, but also for the new organizations being created and the tasks those units will be expected to perform, according to Army cyber officials. Additionally, the Army Cyber School is revising its cyber and electronic warfare training so that personnel will be able to conduct multi-domain operations. Furthermore, the Army is working on a joint solution for training cyber personnel on behalf of U.S. Cyber Command, according to Army Cyber Command officials. The Army’s goal is to provide the total cyber force with the ability to conduct joint cyber training, including exercises and mission rehearsals by developing a virtual training environment that simulates realistic cyber threats. This cyber training solution, called the Persistent Cyber Training Environment, will allow for experimentation, unit certification, and assessment and development of the cyber mission force in a virtual training environment. The Army’s goal is that the environment will decrease training time, increase throughput of personnel, and improve training quality. One of the stated operational imperatives of the Persistent Cyber Training Environment is to become integrated with multi-domain exercises. The Army Is Establishing New Cyber and Electronic Warfare Units, but Units Are Facing Staff, Equipment, and Training Shortfalls in Part Due to Incomplete Risk Assessments The Army Is Activating Several New Cyber and Electronic Warfare Units at an Accelerated Pace and Is Facing Challenges The Army is seeking to quickly create or design several new cyber and electronic warfare units in order to execute multi-domain operations; however, Army leadership is activating some units at an accelerated pace due to the sense of urgency imposed by the growing capabilities of potential great-power competitors. Some of these new Army units are more narrowly focused on a particular domain or skill set, such as the recently activated 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion based out of Fort Gordon, Georgia, and new Electronic Warfare Companies and platoons. The 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion will focus on providing offensive cyber capabilities consistent with its authorities to conduct offensive operations. The battalion is designed to fit with various Army formations—such as corps, divisions, or brigade combat teams—as assigned by the Army. The Electronic Warfare Companies, which are scheduled to be fielded during fiscal years 2023 through 2025 according to Army officials, will be attached to an Army corps and will be capable of planning and conducting electronic warfare operations. Electronic Warfare platoons, which Army officials said are scheduled to be fielded during fiscal years 2020 through 2022, will provide similar capabilities to brigade combat teams and other Army tactical-level formations. Other units are being designed to plan and conduct operations in and across multiple domains, with specialists in cyber, electronic warfare, space, and intelligence assigned to the same unit. For example, a recently activated Intelligence, Cyber, Electronic Warfare, and Space (ICEWS) unit will be capable of planning and directing operations in any or all of those areas. The ICEWS unit will function as part of a larger Multi-Domain Task Force, which will be capable of expanding those operations into other domains such as land and air. The Army plans to field at least two of these ICEWS units by the end of fiscal year 2020. Additionally, the Army is restructuring or creating Cyber, Electromagnetic Activities planning sections in the headquarters of more than 125 Army formations, from special forces units up to theater-level Army headquarters. This restructuring effort will take place during fiscal years 2020 through 2022, according to Army officials. Army guidance states that a unit’s activation date should be identified 1 to 2 years in advance, according to Army officials, in order to provide time to build up trained personnel and equipment in the unit before it is activated and available to be deployed. As a result of accelerating the activation of these units, the Army is facing interrelated challenges in terms of staffing, equipping, and training the units, as discussed below. Accelerated pace creates challenges filling positions. The Army has had difficulty filling its ICEWS unit and the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion with personnel to conduct operations. See table 1 below. By accelerating the activation of the ICEWS unit in October 2018 as a pilot, or test, program, the Army activated the unit with only 32 percent of its personnel in place, and Army headquarters officials report that filling the unit with personnel with the right skills has been a slow process. The 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion is facing similar staffing challenges. As of the end of March 2019, the unit was understaffed by more than 80 percent as it filled 30 of 171 authorized positions for fiscal year 2019, according to an Army headquarters official. The official acknowledged that the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion may not meet the authorized staffing levels for fiscal year 2019 if higher priorities arise for the service. Looking ahead, Army officials said that filling all of these new cyber and electronic warfare units could be challenging because cyber personnel are in high demand, with competition for these skilled personnel existing between the Army, other government entities, and the private sector. Army headquarters officials said they are exploring options to address the challenges and have taken steps to retain the personnel that they have, mostly in the form of retention bonuses and incentive pay. Some of those incentives are targeted at the senior enlisted levels, which are some of the personnel that Army officials indicated are in the most demand and of which they have a shortage. Accelerated pace creates equipping challenges. Officials with both Army headquarters and the Army Cyber School cited equipment challenges as one of the key issues that must be addressed when activating a unit on an accelerated basis. For example, in November 2018, an Army headquarters’ official responsible for building the ICEWS unit stated that the Army was having a difficult time identifying where the unit’s equipment would be coming from. By the end of January 2019, the official said the situation was improving and that 55 percent of the equipment had been identified, but the Army was trying to find a source for the remaining 45 percent. However, most of this is common Army equipment, such as firearms, according to an Army official; those percentages do not include the specialized cyber equipment that the unit will need to perform its missions, such as a communications system designed to transfer data beyond the line of sight during air defense operations. An Army headquarters’ official stated that the Army is prototyping different types of specialized equipment in order to expedite the acquisition of such capabilities. Revisions to training not keeping up with activation of units. Army officials acknowledged the need to update its cyber training, in part because the doctrine for new units is still being written. Officials with the Army Cyber School and the Army’s Combined Arms Center stated that the current U.S. Army Cyberspace Operations Training Strategy did not foresee all of the new cyber and electronic warfare organizations the Army now intends to create, including the Cyber Electromagnetic Activities sections attached to various formations. Army headquarters officials stated that they are working on a revision to the U.S. Army Cyberspace Operations Training Strategy to address these issues. However, the first ICEWS unit and the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion were activated without this updated training strategy. With other units scheduled to be activated in fiscal year 2020, it is possible others may be activated without the training strategy as well. Without the updated doctrine and subsequent training strategies that will result from it, TRADOC officials said they would have difficulty designing training for the new units, and soldiers will not have a clear understanding of their tasks and missions. Obtaining equipment also could be a challenge for training servicemembers before they are assigned to cyber or electronic warfare units, according to some Army officials. Officials with the Army Cyber School stated that it could end up growing and producing a workforce that outpaces its ability to procure equipment. However, Army headquarters’ officials stated that equipping operational units is a higher priority than providing equipment to the schools for training, and the Army ensures that those units receiving the equipment get the training they need upon fielding the equipment. If the Army does not acquire new equipment quickly enough, the result could be that soldiers in the Army Cyber School will be trained on outdated equipment, which they will not use when they get to the field. The Army Assessed Staffing, Training, and Equipping Risks for Certain Cyber and Electronic Warfare Units, but Its Assessments for Units Activated at an Accelerated Pace Are Incomplete In the process of creating some new units, the Army assessed the risk of whether it can meet the units’ staffing, equipping, and training requirements before the units’ activation date, but it did not do so for those units activated at an accelerated pace. For example, the Army conducted risk assessments for some new Electronic Warfare platoons and Cyber Electromagnetic Activities sections that it plans to begin activating in fiscal year 2020. Those assessments identified issues and mitigation strategies for the Army to consider when making fielding and resource decisions. For example, the risk of finding a sufficient number of qualified personnel for the Electronic Warfare platoons and Cyber Electromagnetic Activities sections would be mitigated by spreading the activations over a minimum of 3 years. The assessment for the Electronic Warfare platoons also identified some equipping issues that will require either more senior-level input or extending timeframes for completion. In contrast, the Army activated the ICEWS unit and the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion in an accelerated manner because of the urgent need to develop these organizations, given the growing capabilities of potential great-power competitors. However, the Army did so without completely assessing the staffing, equipping, and training risk to those units over the long term. For example: According to Army officials, the Army did not perform a risk assessment for the ICEWS unit currently assigned to and participating in exercises in the Pacific, because the Army initiated the unit as a pilot, or test, program. According to Army officials, a risk assessment was unnecessary prior to activating the unit because the Army expects to refine the unit’s personnel, equipping, and training requirements during the pilot program. However, the ICEWS unit is expected to become part of a larger Multi-Domain Task Force in fiscal year 2020. Until that occurs, the ICEWS unit is attached to another active Army unit and, according to Army officials, eligible to be deployed if needed based on its current capabilities. Unless the Army assesses the staffing, equipping, and training risks of the ICEWS unit, the unit may be unable to provide the expected capabilities, either currently or as part of the larger task force to which it will belong. The Army performed an initial risk assessment for the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion before the unit was activated in December 2018. However, Army officials told us that the Army has plans to grow the unit to as many as 627 personnel by 2024, at which point it would be considered fully operational. Unless the Army performs a more complete risk assessment of the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion’s staffing, equipping, and training requirements prior to achieving full operational capability, the Army may be poorly positioned to make decisions about how to use and support the battalion. Army guidance states that the Army should assess its ability to support a new unit’s staffing, equipping, and training requirements, among other things, so that senior Army leaders can evaluate proposed organizational changes. For example, under a force integration functional area analysis, the Army staff evaluates all proposed organizational changes to ensure that they meet the intent of senior Army leaders, have the resources available to accomplish their mission, and that their projected benefits justify increased resources. These assessments analyze the proposed organization in nine areas, such as staffing, structuring, equipping, and training, and are intended to give senior Army leaders an understanding of whether the organizations are affordable, supportable, and sustainable. According to Army officials, the force integration functional area analysis is similar to a risk assessment. In addition, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that management should identify, analyze, and respond to the risks related to achieving the defined objective—in this case quickly fielding a cyber force to deal with current threats. Because the Army has not completely assessed the risk of organizing the ICEWS unit and the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion, senior Army leaders may be left with an incomplete picture of the challenges in affording, supporting, and sustaining these units over the long term. Moreover, senior Army leaders lacked key information needed to understand the capability and capacity of the units at the time they were activated. For example, these units currently do not have what they need in terms of personnel and equipment to conduct their missions successfully. Further, according to some Army officials, without such an assessment, the Army does not know whether accelerated activation was the best course of action; what challenges they may face in staffing, equipping, and training the units; or how to mitigate challenges that may arise in other areas, such as deploying and sustainment. Army officials stated that there is a lot of informal discussion between relevant Army offices to try to identify and deal with challenges for these units. However, they also acknowledged the problems inherent in activating a unit by accelerating timelines. Such risk assessments also could inform future Army decisions as it activates new units for multi-domain operations. Given the Army’s perception of the threat environment, the Army may decide to activate other multi-domain operations units in an accelerated manner. For example, the Army is exploring ideas for creating several new units in future years to enhance its capability in multi-domain operations, such as a Theater Space Warfare Battalion. The Army also has been running wargames to see how they would operate new types of units at the division, corps, and theater level for commanding and operating long- range missiles and rockets. Army officials stated that as these units grow and evolve, it is uncertain when more comprehensive risk assessments would take place. If the Army does not perform a risk assessment for the activated ICEWS unit before it joins the larger Multi-Domain Task Force, or a more complete risk assessment for the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion as that unit matures, the Army may end up fielding units that are not capable of providing the needed capabilities. Moreover, these risk assessments could provide vital lessons that could inform future Army decisions on the development, activation, and fielding of other units focused on enhancing the Army’s capability to conduct multi-domain operations. The Army Engaged with the Joint Staff and Other Services and Envisions Opportunities for Further Coordination The Army engaged with the Joint Staff and other services to develop its Army Operating Concept and envisions opportunities for further coordination in the future. The Army’s overarching objective is to field a multi-domain-capable force by 2028, and it considers further engagement with the Joint Staff and other services as essential to accomplishing that goal. According to Army plans, the Army needs to finalize the next version of its Army Operating Concept by the fall of 2019 in order to incorporate multi-domain operations into all levels of Army leadership, training, and education by 2020. The Army plans indicate that maintaining this schedule is important to have a ready, lethal, and modern force for multi- domain operations by 2028. From the outset, the Army engaged with the Marine Corps to begin its concept development. Together the Army and Marine Corps published a white paper in January 2017 where they unveiled “Multi-Domain Battle” as a new concept for combat operations against a sophisticated great- power competitor. This white paper highlighted the need for ground forces to focus on all five warfighting domains and was intended as a first step toward further multi-domain concept development, wargaming, experimentation, and capability development. Once the white paper was written, the Army engaged with the Joint Staff and the other services in several ways to refine its concept: Joint Staff collaboration. The Army engaged with the Joint Staff on an Army-led study of recent contingency operations and used the lessons to refine the Army Operating Concept’s description of the emerging operational environment. Based on that study, the Army also refined some solutions for addressing threats posed by great- power competitors. Joint Staff officials reported that the Army engaged with the Joint Staff through other collaborative events as well, including tabletop exercises that tested and refined multi-domain concept ideas. Marine Corps collaboration. As the Army moved forward from the white paper, the Marine Corps’ input informed the concept’s development in various ways. This included changing the concept’s title from multi-domain battle to multi-domain operations in April 2018 to better reflect the scope of competition and conflict, as well as the inherent joint nature of modern warfare. The Marine Corps also hosted a multi-domain symposium in April 2018 that was attended by the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Joint Staff. Air Force collaboration. The Army initially collaborated with the Air Force Air Combat Command to inform concept-development efforts, and more recently began working with the Air Force Warfighting Integration Capability under Air Force headquarters. Also, the Army and Air Force collaborated on tabletop exercises focused on simulating multi-domain operations. Army officials told us that this helped them refine their thinking on how to enhance the maneuverability of its land forces by combining Army and Air Force capabilities across domains. Navy collaboration. The Army and Navy principally collaborated by testing multi-domain capabilities during real-world exercises. For example, the Army joined the Navy’s 2018 Naval Rim of the Pacific exercise to demonstrate capabilities for multi-domain operations in a real world environment. While the Army took steps to engage with the Joint Staff and the other services, it made the decision to move forward with the latest version of its Army Operating Concept in order to meet its overarching objective to develop a multi-domain operations-capable force by 2028. Given this urgency, Army officials told us that they may have missed opportunities to further refine its Army Operating Concept in 2018 with the perspectives of the Joint Staff and other military services. Joint Staff officials told us that by not fully including the Joint Staff in some tabletop exercises, the Army may have missed the Joint Staff’s perspective on key issues related to multi-domain operations, such as joint command and control. As the Army continues to revise its Army Operating Concept, the Army recognizes the need to continue to engage with the Joint Staff and other services. Joint Staff officials told us that the Joint Staff has initiated its own plans to engage with the services to refine key ideas of multi-domain operations in joint concepts, including logistics, intelligence, and command and control. Army officials told us that they recognize the importance of not getting too far ahead of these efforts, or the efforts of other services related to multi-domain operations. Army officials told us that the mechanisms built into the Joint concept-development framework would provide opportunities to engage the services and Joint Staff as the Army revises its own concept. Army officials added that beginning in the fall of 2019 the Army will participate with the Joint Staff in a wargame designed, in part, to analyze how the Army Operating Concept works with the other military service operating concepts. As a result, the current concepts are likely to evolve in the future as the Army synchronizes its efforts with those of the Joint Staff and other services. Conclusions Rising threats posed by great-power competitors, particularly China and Russia, prompted the Army to initiate a profound and fundamental transformation to the way it plans to fight. The refinement of the Army’s Operating Concept is beginning to drive changes across the Army. The Army is making near-term changes by incorporating multi-domain operations into its doctrine, organizations, and training, which includes the accelerated creation of new cyber and electronic warfare units. However, these units are short of both people and equipment. While Army leadership believes that the urgency to confront threats justifies its decision to accelerate the development of those units, the Army did not assess the risks associated with staffing, equipping, and training its existing ICEWS unit prior to activation to determine whether it is affordable, supportable, and sustainable, and officials said it was uncertain when a more comprehensive assessment would take place. The Army plans to incorporate this unit into the first Multi-Domain Task Force by the end of Fiscal Year 2020, but in the meantime the unit could be deployed if needed. The Army did prepare a preliminary risk assessment for the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion prior to activation, but it is unclear whether the Army will perform a more comprehensive risk assessment as the unit matures and nears full operational capability. For the units already activated, a risk assessment could benefit the Army by providing insights about the ability to deploy and sustain the units. It is important for the Army to assess its efforts before committing resources to activate new units. By formally assessing the risk of all new units activated in an accelerated manner, the Army will have the key information its leaders need for making decisions related to the activation of those units and other related units going forward. Recommendations for Executive Action We are making the following three recommendations to the Secretary of the Army. The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7 assess the risk associated with staffing, equipping, and training the existing ICEWS unit prior to its incorporation into the first Multi- Domain Task Force in fiscal year 2020. (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7 conduct a comprehensive risk assessment associated with staffing, equipping, and training the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion prior to approving the expansion of the unit to its full operational capability. (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7 assess the risk associated with staffing, equipping, and training of new units that it plans to activate in an accelerated manner for the purposes of conducting multi-domain operations, taking into consideration the assessments performed on the first activated ICEWS battalion and the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion. (Recommendation 3) Agency Comments and Our Evaluation We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. In its written comments, reproduced in appendix I, the Army partially concurred with the first two recommendations and concurred with the third recommendation. The Army partially concurred with the first recommendation for it to conduct a risk assessment, such as a force integration functional area analysis, for the first activated ICEWS unit. The Army stated in its comments that it does not perform force integration functional area analyses for experimental or pilot organizations, and that because the first ICEWS was activated as a pilot, no such assessment was performed. The Army added that it would conduct a risk assessment at the conclusion of the pilot if and when the Army decides to establish such a unit. We met with Army officials to discuss their comments, during which they provided additional information and clarification regarding how they were assessing risks for the unit. Based on this information, we modified the report to reflect the Army’s position that a risk assessment was unnecessary prior to activating the unit because the Army plans on using the pilot period to determine the staffing, equipping, and training requirements for the unit. We also incorporated additional information on the status of the ICEWS unit. As a result, we clarified our recommendation to state that the Army should assess the risk associated with staffing, equipping, and training the existing ICEWS unit prior to its incorporation into the first Multi-Domain Task Force in fiscal year 2020. Army officials generally agreed with the revised recommendation. Moving forward, it will be important for the Army to implement this recommendation to ensure the ICEWS unit, which is active and eligible to be deployed, will be prepared to carry out its mission effectively. The Army partially concurred with the second recommendation for it to conduct a risk assessment, such as a force integration functional area analysis, for the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion. The Army stated in its comments that it does not perform force integration functional area analyses for force generating units such as the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion. Instead, it develops a concept plan, which applies rigor and analysis to determine the most efficient and effective way of fielding a new unit. We met with Army officials to discuss their comments, during which they provided additional information related to assessing risks for the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion. Specifically, Army officials said that prior to activating the battalion, leadership approved the battalion’s concept plan, which included an initial risk assessment. We reviewed the concept plan for the battalion and found that the assessment only addressed the risk of not having the unit’s capabilities activated and in the field for operations. We incorporated this additional information on this initial risk assessment for the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion into the report. As a result of this additional information, we clarified our recommendation to state that the Army should conduct a comprehensive risk assessment associated with staffing, equipping, and training the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion prior to approving the expansion of the unit to its full operational capability. Army officials generally agreed with this. It will be important for the Army to implement the revised recommendation to ensure the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion, which is active and performing operations, will be prepared to carry out its mission effectively. The Army concurred with the third recommendation for it to ensure that a risk assessment is conducted before activating any new organizations it plans to field in an accelerated manner for the purposes of conducting multi-domain operations. The Army added that any lessons learned from the activation of the first ICEWS unit and the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion will be taken into consideration when assessing the risk before the activation of these new organizations. It will be important for the Army to implement the recommendation to ensure that any new organizations are prepared to carry out their missions, while potentially avoiding some of the challenges that the ICEWS and 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion have experienced. Lastly, the Army also recommended that we change the title of our report; however, we did not accept the title offered by the Army. We believe the title accurately reflects the issues and recommendations highlighted in the report. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and to the Secretary of Defense; the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Acting Secretaries of the Departments of the Air Force and the Army; the Secretary of the Navy; and the Chief of Staff of the Army. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Staff members making key contributions to this report are listed in appendix II. Appendix I: Comments from the Department of the Army Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contact Staff Acknowledgments In addition to the contact named above, Kevin O’Neill (Assistant Director), Matt Spiers (Analyst-in-Charge), Tracy Barnes, Shannon Finnegan, Christopher Gezon, Ruben Gzirian, J. Kristopher Keener, Alberto Leff, Joshua Leiling, Amie Lesser, Jon Ludwigson, Ned Malone, and Clarice Ransom made key contributions to this report.


Introduction The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the third largest agency in the federal government in terms of personnel. The appropriations bill that funds itâproviding $70 billion in FY2020âis the seventh largest of the 12 annual funding measures developed by the appropriations committees, and is the only appropriations bill that funds a single agency in its entirety and nothing else. This report provides an overview of the FY2021 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security. It provides a component-level overview of the appropriations sought in the FY2021 budget request, putting the requested appropriations in the context of the FY2020 requested and enacted level of appropriations, and noting some of the larger changes in this proposal from those baselines. Data Sources and Caveats To ensure consistency of methodology, the analysis in this report is based on Office of Management and Budget (OMB) data as presented in the FY2020 and FY2021 Budget in Brief for DHS, with supporting information from the DHS congressional budget justifications for FY2021, except where noted. Most other CRS reports rely on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data, which was not available at the time of publication at a similar level of granularity. Numbers expressed in billions are rounded to the nearest hundredth ($10 million), while numbers expressed in millions are rounded to the nearest million. None of the FY2020 requested or enacted levels in this bill include supplemental appropriations requested and provided in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, as the intent is to analyze the FY2021 annual appropriations request in comparison to the preceding request and ensuing annual appropriation. Structure of the DHS Budget FY2021 Context The FY2021 budget request represents the fourth detailed budget proposed by the administration of President Donald J. Trump. It is the earliest release of a budget request by the Trump Administration, and comes 52 days after the enactment of the FY2020 consolidated appropriations measuresâthe longest such gap since the release of the FY2017 request (53 days), and the first since then to include prior-year enacted funding levels as a comparative baseline. This allows for easier analysis of the request compared to current funding. The budget for DHS includes a variety of discretionary and mandatory budget authority. Aside from standard discretionary spending, some of the discretionary spending in the bill is offset by collections of fees, reducing the net effect on the general fund of the Treasury. Some discretionary budget authority is specially designated under the Budget Control Act (BCA), adjusting the statutory limits on discretionary spending to accommodate it. DHS also draws resources from fee revenues and other collections included in the mandatory budget, which are not usually referenced in annual appropriations legislation. However, some mandatory spending items still require an appropriation because there is no dedicated source of funding to meet the government's obligations established in lawâe.g., U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) retirement accounts. Figure 1 shows a breakdown of these different categories from the FY2021 budget request. Congress and the Administration may differ on how funding for the department is structured; frequently, administrations of both parties have suggested paying for certain activities with fee increases that would require legislative approval. If fees are not increased, additional discretionary appropriations must be provided to fund the planned activities. Figure 2 compares the structure of the FY2021 budget request to its enacted FY2020 equivalent, as well as the FY2020 request. Significant differences include In budget authority from discretionary appropriations, a $3 billion reduction in border barrier funding through U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) compared to the FY2020 request; and a $2.4 billion reduction from the enacted level of funding due to the proposed move of the U.S. Secret Service to the Department of the Treasury. In fee-funded discretionary budget authority, a $709 million increase in requested Transportation Security Administration (TSA) fee revenues; and In discretionary budget authority covered by adjustments under the BCA, a $9 billion reduction in disaster relief funding through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) compared to the FY2020 request. Appropriations Analysis Comparing the FY2021 Request to Prior-Year Levels Table 1 presents for comparison the requested gross budget authority controlled in appropriations legislation for FY2021 for each DHS component, as well as the level requested and enacted for FY2020. This is essentially composed of the first four elements in Figure 1 and Figure 2 . Four analytical columns on the right side of the table provide comparisons of the FY2021 requested funding levels with the FY2020 requested and enacted levels, indicating dollar and percentage change. Components are listed in order of their total FY2020 enacted gross budget authority. Indented and italicized lines beneath the Coast Guard and Federal Emergency Management Agency entries show the portion of the above amount covered by adjustments for disaster relief and overseas contingency operations, provided for under the BCA. The funding levels in Table 1 include the effects of all elements of the budget tracked in the detail tables accompanying annual appropriations for DHS, except rescissions of prior-year appropriations. While this table compares data developed with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scoring methodology and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) scoring methodology, most of the data compared is identical. Most of the $40 million in scoring differences identified by OMB is the result of $34 million differences in the treatment of fees, transfers and rounding within the CBP budget, with the remainder being the result of differences in rounding across the DHS funding structure. Table 1 illuminates several shifts within the FY2021 DHS budget request that are not apparent in top-line analysis: a $986 million increase from the FY2020 requested level for the U.S. Coast Guard; a $1.1 billion increase from the FY2020 requested level for Immigration and Customs Enforcementâ$2 billion (24%) more than enacted in FY2020; a $456 million increase for the Transportation Security Administration's budget from the FY2020 requested level; and a proposed transfer of the Federal Protective Service from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to the Management Directorate during the FY2020 process, shifting almost $1.6 billion between the components. Table 1 also illuminates budgetary pressure on DHS's smaller headquarters and support components. With one exceptionâAnalysis and Operationsâthe seven smallest components by gross budget authority saw their budget requests reduced by at least 5% from the enacted level, and four of those components saw reductions of more than 10%. Common DHS Appropriation Types Under the Common Appropriations Structure (CAS) first implemented with the FY2017 DHS annual appropriation, most DHS discretionary appropriations were rearranged into four uniform categories: Operations and Supportâgenerally personnel and operational costs (all components have this); Procurement, Construction, and Improvementsâgenerally acquisition and construction (many components have this); Research and Development (TSA, USCG, USSS, CISA, S&T, and CWMD have this in the FY2021 budget request); and Federal Assistance (only FEMA and CWMD have this in the FY2021 budget request). FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund is a unique discretionary appropriation which was preserved separately, in part due to the history of the high level of public and congressional interest in that particular structure. The use of the CAS structure allows a quick survey of the level of departmental investment in these broad categories of spending through the appropriations process. A visual representation of this new structure follows in Figure 3 . On the left are the five appropriations categories of the CAS with a black bar representing the requested FY2021 funding levels requested for DHS for each. A sixth catch-all category is included for budget authority associated with the legislation that does not fit the CAS categories. Colored lines flow to the DHS components listed on the right, showing the amount of funding provided through each category to each component. Staffing The Operations and Support appropriation for each component pays for most DHS staffing. Table 2 analyzes changes to DHS staffing, as illuminated by the request's information on positions and full-time equivalents (FTEs) for each component. Appropriations legislation does not explicitly set these levels, so the information is drawn from budget request documents alone. The first data column indicates the number of positions requested for each component in the FY2021 budget request. The next four columns show the difference between the FY2021 request and the Administration's previous requestâexpressed numerically, then as a percentageâand then shows the same comparison with the FY2020 enacted number of positions as interpreted by the Administration. Another data column shows the number of FTEs, followed by four more analytical columns showing the same comparisons as were run for positions. Overview of Component-Level Changes The following summaries of the budget requests for DHS components are drawn from a survey of the DHS FY2021 B udget in Brief and the budget justifications for each component. Each begins with a graphic outlining the appropriations requested and enacted for the components in FY2020 and FY2021, followed by some observations on the factors that contribute to the illustrated structure. The appropriations request includes all funding provided through the appropriations measure, regardless of how it is scored: it does not include most mandatory spending, such as programs paid for directly by collected fees that have appropriations in permanent law. Each component has an Operations and Support appropriation, which includes discretionary funding for pay. A 3.1% civilian pay increase was adopted for 2020, and a 1.0% civilian pay increase has been proposed by the Administration for 2021. Descriptions of each Operations and Support appropriation note the impact of these pay increases and associated increases to component retirement contributions to better illuminate the changes in the level of other operational funding. Law Enforcement Operational Components (Title II) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) The Administration's $15.60 billion appropriations request for CBP was $724 million (4.9%) above the FY2020 enacted level, and $2.55 billion (14.1%) below the level of appropriations originally requested for FY2020. The request includes $252 million more than enacted for Operations and Support, largely driven by $414 million for pay and retirement cost increases. $161 million was requested for 750 additional border patrol agents and 126 support staff. No additional appropriations were requested for new CBP Officers, who staff ports of entry. $21 million was requested for 300 Border Patrol Processing Coordinators, who are intended to take over non-law enforcement duties currently performed by Border Patrol Agents. The request for Operations and Support includes a new $7 million item for the Southwest Border Wall System Program, intended to maintain newly constructed barriers. $377 million more than enacted for Procurement, Construction, and Improvements. The $2.06 billion request for Border Security Assets and Infrastructure is $552 million more than enacted in annual appropriations for FY2020, and $3.12 billion less than requested in FY2020. The primary driver of this change from the FY2020 request is a reduction of $3.04 billion in construction funding for the border wall system. While the FY2020 Budget-in-Brief cites $182 million for facilities improvements and various investments for technology, aircraft, and vehicles, appropriations not for border barriers were reduced from the FY2020 enacted level of $529 million to $281 million in the request. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) The Administration's $9.93 billion appropriations request for ICE was $1.85 billion (22.9%) above the FY2020 enacted level, and $1.15 billion (13.0%) above the level of appropriations originally requested for FY2020. The request includes $1.79 billion more than enacted for Operations and Support, largely driven by a 4,636 position (22%) increase requested in personnel funded through appropriations. This increase would include 2,844 law enforcement officers and 1,792 support staff. While all of the primary programs under ICE would receive additional staff, Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) would receive 2,792 positions, a 34% increase above the current enacted level (8,201). Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) would receive 1,053 additional personnel, a 12% increase above the current enacted level (8,784). $220 million (12.3%) of the requested increase in Operations and Support appropriations is for pay and retirement increases. $58 million more than enacted for Procurement, Construction, and Improvements. This is $26 million more than the request for FY2020, growth largely driven by a nearly $14 million increase above the FY2020 requested level for Operational Communications and Information Technology. Also included in the Administration's request was $112 million in fee funding from the Immigration Examinations Fee Accountâsimilar to a proposal not approved by Congress for FY2020âwhich would fund 936 current personnel. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) The Administration's $4.09 billion net appropriations request for TSA was $890 million (17.9%) below the FY2020 enacted level, and $175 million (4.5%) above the level of appropriations originally requested for FY2020. With the resources from offsetting fees included, the gross discretionary total is for a request of $7.63 billion, $181 million (2.3%) below the FY2020 enacted level, and $334 million (4.6%) above the FY2020 requested level. The request includes $820 million (16.9%) less than enacted in FY2020 for Operations and Support appropriations, compensated for in large part by $709 million in proposed increases to offsetting collections. Operations and Support cost increases within this amount include $251 million for paying increased pay and retirement costs. $77 million (69.7%) less in discretionary appropriations than enacted in FY2020 for Procurement, Construction, and Improvements; $129 million less in discretionary appropriations than was requested for FY2020. $250 million continues to be provided in mandatory appropriations from the Aviation Security Capital Fund as it has since FY2004. $7 million (28.9%) more than enacted in FY2020 for Research and Development appropriations, on the basis of $8 million for two new projects to improve threat detection at TSA checkpoints. U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) The Administration's $12.11 billion appropriations request for USCG was $139 million (1.2%) above the FY2020 enacted level, and $986 million (8.9%) above the level of appropriations originally requested for FY2020. The request included $196 million (2.4%) more than enacted in FY2020 for Operations and Support, $164 million of which is for pay and retirement increases, and increases to allowances for military personnel. For the first time in many years, the costs of Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) were proposed for inclusion in the base discretionary appropriation for Operations and Support, without designation to adjust the discretionary budget limits to accommodate it. The OCO proposal was for $215 million in FY2021, up $25 million from the FY2020 enacted level. The budget request also included more than $30 million in increases for cyber operations. $135 million (7.6%) less than enacted for Procurement, Construction, and Improvements. Reductions of $130 million (80.7%) for the National Security Cutter program and $240 million (92.3%) for the Fast Response Cutter program were offset by increases of $234 million (75%) for the Offshore Patrol Cutter program and $420 million (311%) for the Polar Security Cutter program, as part of a net increase of $286 million (28.8%) for USCG vessels procurement. $351 million (69.6%) less than enacted was requested for USCG aircraft procurement. $13 million (18.6%) less than enacted was requested for other acquisition programs, and $58 million (28.3%) less than enacted for Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation. Less than $1 million (6.6%) more than enacted was requested for Research and Development. U.S. Secret Service (USSS) The Administration's budget request envisions moving the USSS to the Department of the Treasury. However, the budget is still structured as it would be in DHS, and the numbers are provided here for analytical purposes. The $2.36 billion appropriations request for USSS was $55 million (2.3%) below the FY2020 enacted level, and $52 million (2.2%) above the level of appropriations originally requested for FY2020. The request included $26 million (1.1%) less than enacted for Operations and Support, despite $71 million being added for the costs of pay and retirement increases. The primary driver of the decrease was the anticipated reduction of $86 million in costs from the conclusion of the 2020 presidential election cycle. $20 million for 119 additional personnel and $20 million in transition costs for the proposed transition of the USSS back to Treasury also are included in the request. $29 million (42.8%) less than enacted in FY2020 for Procurement, Construction, and Improvements, and less than $1 million (4.2%) less than enacted for Research and Development. Incident Response and Recovery Operational Components (Title III) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) The Administration's $1.76 billion appropriations request for CISA was $258 million (12.8%) below the FY2020 enacted level, and $150 million (9.3%) above the level of net appropriations originally requested for FY2020. The request included $128 million (8.2%) less than enacted in FY2020 for Operations and Support, despite $28 million being added for the costs of pay and retirement increases. The reduction is largely driven by the proposal to convert the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism and Safety program to a voluntary initiative, reducing program costs by $68 million, and a $34 million reduction in Threat Analysis and Response. $121 million (27.9%) less than enacted in FY2020 for Procurement, Construction, and Improvements, largely driven by a $114 million reduction in Cybersecurity Assets and Infrastructure, $75 million of which is to the National Cybersecurity Protection System. $8 million (55.4%) less than enacted in FY2020 for Research and Development, due to reductions in funding for the Technology Development and Deployment Program and National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) The Administration's $9.36 billion appropriations request for FEMA was $12.92 billion (58.0%) below the FY2020 enacted level, and $8.65 billion (48.0%) below the level of appropriations originally requested for FY2020. The primary driver of this change is a $12.29 billion reduction from the enacted level for the costs of major disasters (a large portion of the resources in the Disaster Relief Fund). If this reduction is set aside, the request is a $628 million reduction from the FY2020 enacted level, and a $364 million increase from the FY2020 request. The request includes $32 million (2.9%) more than enacted for Operations and Support, $32 million of which is for pay and retirement increases (the combination of other increases and decreases in the account has a net zero effect); $47 million (35.1%) less than enacted for Procurement, Construction, and Improvements, largely due to lower requests for grants management modernization, Mount Weather facilities, and the Center for Domestic Preparedness; $696 million (21.9%) less than enacted for Federal Assistance, largely due to reduction in preparedness grants, the Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program, and elimination of the Emergency Food and Shelter Program; and $12.21 billion (68.4%) less than enacted for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). The request for the portion of the DRF that covers major disasters dropped from an enacted level of $17.35 billion to $5.06 billion, a request that is based on the average of the last 10 years obligations for major disasters costing less than $500 million (termed "non-catastrophic disasters"), and spending plans for past disasters costing FEMA more than $500 million (termed "catastrophic disasters"). The portion of the DRF that covers emergencies and other activities increased $82 million (16.1%) to $521 million, largely on the basis of an increase in the 10-year average of those costs, and $15 million for real estate needs associated with FEMA's Recovery Service Centers. Support Components (Title IV) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) The Administration's $119 million appropriations request for USCIS was $14 million (10.4%) below the FY2020 enacted level, and $3 million (2.4%) below the level of appropriations originally requested for FY2020. The request includes $4 million (3.0%) less for Operations and Support than enacted in FY2020, and $3 million (2.4%) less than requestedâ$2 million in increased pay raise and retirement costs were offset by reduced costs for rent and efficiencies through modernization efforts. The request does not include an appropriations request for Federal Assistance, which received $10 million in the FY2020 enacted DHS appropriations bill for Citizenship and Integration Grants, which the Administration proposes funding through Immigration Examinations Fee revenues. Less than 3% of the USCIS budget is appropriated. The budget request projects more than $4.9 billion in mandatory spending for USCISâ97% of its total budgetâwill be supported by fees in FY2021, up $213 million (4.5%) from FY2020 levels. This overall structure is similar to last year's request. Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) The Administration's $331 million appropriations request for FLETC was $20 million (5.6%) below the FY2020 enacted level, and $19 million (5.5%) below the level of appropriations originally requested for FY2020. FLETC also anticipates receiving $211 million (up $25 million, or 13.4%) in reimbursements for training and facilities use from those it serves. The request includes $12 million (4.3%) more than was enacted in FY2020 for Operations and Support, $7 million of which is for increased pay and retirement costs; $32 million (55.3%) less than was enacted in FY2020 for Procurement, Construction, and Improvements, due to completion of funding for projects in the FY2020 enacted appropriation. The FY2021 budget includes $26 million for the purchase of two dorms it currently leases. Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) The Administration's $644 million appropriations request for the S&T Directorate was $94 million (12.7%) below the FY2020 enacted level, and $62 million (10.6%) above the level of appropriations originally requested for FY2020. The request includes $30 million (9.6%) less than the enacted level for the Operations and Support appropriation, largely due to a $35 million (24.6%) reduction in mission support activities; Only $3 million of the Operations and Support request is for pay and retirement cost increases. $19 million in the Procurement, Construction, and Improvements appropriation (which had no funding requested or provided in FY2020) for costs associated with the closure and sale of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center; and $82 million (19.5%) less than enacted for the Research and Development appropriation, due to a $64 million (16.6%) reduction in in-house research activities and a $19 million (46.3%) reduction in university-based research. Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office (CWMD) The Administration's $377 million appropriations request for CWMD was $55 million (12.8%) below the FY2020 enacted level, and $46 million (10.9%) below the level of appropriations originally requested for FY2020. The request includes $7 million (3.7%) less than the enacted level for the Operations and Support appropriation, $40 million (18.7%) less than was requested for FY2020; This reduction is driven by a $5 million (40.7%) reduction in funding for the National Biosurveillance Integration Center's biosurveillance and early warning support on biological attacks and emerging pandemics, and an almost $3 million reduction in technical forensics operational readiness, which the request says is being funded by the National Nuclear Security Administration. $1 million (0.4%) was requested for covering the increased pay and retirement costs. $32 million (26.5%) less than the enacted level for the Procurement, Construction, and Improvements appropriation, largely driven by reductions to the Radiation Portal Monitor Replacement Program ($46 million, 68.1%) and Common Viewer program ($8 million, zeroed out); $11 million (15.9%) less than the enacted level for the Research and Development appropriation, largely driven by a $7 million reduction in Technical Forensics and a $9 million (27.3%) reduction in detection capability activity; and $6 million (9.3%) less than the enacted level for the Federal Assistance appropriation, largely due to an $11 million (44.6%) reduction in funding for the Securing the Cities program. Headquarters Components (Title I) Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM) The Administration's $150 million appropriations request for OSEM was $28 million (15.9%) below the FY2020 enacted level, and $9 million (6.4%) above the level of appropriations originally requested for FY2020. The request includes $18 million (10.9%) less than enacted level for the Operations and Support appropriation, largely driven by a $15 million (25.9%) reduction in operations and engagement activities. The request included $5 million to pay for increased salary and retirement costs. $10 million less than the enacted level for the Federal Assistance program, as the targeted violence grants funded in this component in FY2020 are funded in the FEMA request for FY2021. Departmental Management Directorate (MD) The Administration's $1.76 billion appropriations request for MD was $198 million (12.7%) above the FY2020 enacted level, and $204 million (13.1%) above the level of appropriations originally requested for FY2020. The request includes $220 million (18.6%) more than was enacted in FY2020 for the Operations and Support appropriation, $186 million of which is net transfers as a result of DHS transitioning away from using a working capital fund; Also included in this appropriations request is a $13 million increase to cover increased pay and retirement costs. Of the remaining changes, most of the net increase is due to investments in information technology and cybersecurity. $22 million (5.7%) less than was enacted in FY2020 for the Procurement, Construction, and Improvement appropriation. Of the $359 million requested, over $200 million was for investments in DHS headquarters facilities, including St. Elizabeths; Mount Weather; and consolidation of headquarters leases. Analysis and Operations (A&O) The Administration's $313 million appropriations request for A&O was $28 million (10.0%) above the FY2020 enacted level, and $36 million (13.0%) above the level of appropriations originally requested for FY2020. Most of the details of the A&O budget request are classified. However, the request included a $6 million increase to cover increases in pay and retirement costs. Office of Inspector General (OIG) The Administration's $178 million appropriations request for the OIG was $12 million (6.5%) below the FY2020 enacted level, and $8 million (4.5%) above the level of appropriations originally requested for FY2020. $5 million in additional funding is requested to cover increased pay and retirement costs. The budget request includes a reduction of more than $15 million (16.5%) in OIG audits and investigations. The budget justification notes that the OIG submitted a funding request of $196 million, which the OIG states "is essential to sustain FY 2020 operations into FY 2021 at the FY 2020 appropriated level and maintain oversight capacity commensurate with the Department's growth in several high-risk areas, including frontline security and infrastructure along the southern border, cybersecurity defenses, major acquisitions and investments, and accelerated hiring of law enforcement personnel." Administrative and General Provisions Administrative Provisions Administrative provisions are included at the end of each title of the DHS appropriations bill and generally provide direction to a single component within that title. In the FY2021 budget request, the Administration proposed a number of changes from the FY2020 enacted DHS appropriations measure, including Deleting Â§106, which established the Ombudsman for Immigration Detention. Adding a new section related to the proposed transfer of the Secret Service to the Department of the Treasury, which would allow for funds from the DHS OIG to be transferred to the Treasury OIG. Deleting Â§207-Â§212, which barred any new land border crossing fees; required an expenditure plan be submitted to Congress for the CBP Procurement, Construction, and Improvements appropriation before any of that appropriation could be obligated; constrained the use of the CBP Procurement, Construction, and Improvements appropriation, including limiting the types and locations of border barriers that could be constructed and requiring reporting to the appropriations committees on (1) the plans for barrier construction, (2) changes in barrier construction priorities, and (3) consultation with affected local communities, as well as an annual update to risk-based plan for improving border security; barred construction of barriers in certain locations; required statutory authorization for reducing vetting operations at the CBP's National Targeting Center; and directed certain CBP Operations and Support appropriations to humanitarian needs at the border and addressing health, life, and safety issues at Border Patrol facilities. Deleting Â§216, which barred DHS from detaining or removing a sponsor, potential sponsor or the family member of sponsor or potential sponsor of an unaccompanied alien child on the basis of information from the Department of Health and Human Services, unless a background check reveals certain felony convictions or association with prostitution or child labor violators; Deleting Â§227, which provided flexibility in allocating Coast Guard Overseas Contingency Operations funding; Deleting Â§229, which bars the use of funds to conduct or implement an A-76 competition for privatizing activities at the National Vessel Documentation Center; Deleting Â§231-Â§232, which were changes to permanent law (and thus no longer required inclusion in the bill) that allowed for continued death gratuity payments for the USCG if appropriated funding was unavailable for obligation; and categorized amounts credited to the Coast Guard Housing Fund as offsetting receipts. Deleting Â§233-Â§236, which allowed the Secret Service to obligate funds in advance of reimbursement by other federal agencies for training expenses; barred the Secret Service from protecting agency heads other than the secretary of DHS, unless an agreement is reached with DHS to do so on a reimbursable basis; allowed the Secret Service to reprogram up to $15 million in its Operation and Support appropriation; and allowed flexibility for Secret Service employees on protective missions to pay for travel without regard to limitations on costs, with prior notification to the appropriations committees. Adding Â§308, which requires a 25% nonfederal contribution for projects funded under the State Homeland Security Grant Program, Urban Area Security Initiative, Public Transportation Security Assistance, Railroad Security Assistance, and Over-the-Road Bus Security Assistance programsâcurrently there is no such cost share; and Adding Â§309, which would allow a transfer 1% of funding provided for the State Homeland Security Grant Program and Urban Area Security Initiative to FEMA Operations and Support for evaluations of the effectiveness of those programs. General Provisions General provisions are included in the last title of the DHS appropriations bill and generally provide direction to the entire department. They include rescissions or additional budget authority in some cases. In the FY2021 budget request, the Administration proposed relatively few substantive changes to the general provisions enacted in the FY2020 bill. They sought to: Remove Â§530, which provided $41 million for reimbursement of extraordinary law enforcement costs for protecting the residence of the President; Remove Â§532, which required that DHS allow Members of Congress and their designated staff access to DHS facilities housing aliens for oversight purposes; and Remove Â§537-Â§540, which rescinded prior year appropriations from various accounts. Appendix.