Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

Congressional research reportJun 21, 2013

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Department of Homeland Security:

FY2013 Appropriations

(name redacted), Coordinator

Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy

June 21, 2013

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R42644

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

Summary

This report describes the FY2013 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security

(DHS). The Administration requested $39.510 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget

authority for DHS for FY2013, as part of an overall budget of $59.501 billion (including fees,

trust funds, and other funding that is not appropriated or does not score against the budget caps).

The request amounted to a $90 million, or 0.2%, decrease from the $39.600 billion enacted for

FY2012 through the consolidated appropriations act (P.L. 112-74).

Congress did not enact final FY2013 appropriations legislation prior to the beginning of the new

fiscal year. From October 1, 2012, through March 26, 2013, the federal government (including

DHS) operated under the terms of P.L. 112-175, a part-year continuing resolution. While

operating under this resolution, two major events impacted the DHS budget. First, Hurricane

Sandy struck the east coast of the United States, which started a legislative process that resulted

in enactment of legislation that provided $50.7 billion in disaster relief and emergency

appropriations, including $12.072 billion for DHS, and $9.7 billion in additional borrowing

authority for the National Flood Insurance Program. Weeks later, On March 1, 2013, an acrossthe-board reduction in budget authority, or sequestration, was ordered as required under the terms

of the Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25). The Office of Management and Budget’s sequestration

report indicated that DHS would lose $3.191 billion as a result of sequestration.

On March 26, 2013, the President signed into law P.L. 113-6, the FY2013 Consolidated and

Further Continuing Appropriations Act. Division D of that act is the Department of Homeland

Security Appropriations Act, 2013, which includes $39.646 billion in adjusted net discretionary

budget authority for DHS. Two across-the-board cuts unrelated to the March 1 sequestration that

were included in the final legislation to ensure the bill complies with discretionary budget caps

reduced this by $54 million to $39.592 billion. According to a DHS operating plan for FY2013,

after the impact of sequestration, P.L. 113-6 provided $38.348 billion in adjusted net discretionary

budget authority for DHS.

This report will be updated as events warrant.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

Contents

Most Recent Developments ............................................................................................................. 1

February 13, 2012—President’s FY2013 Budget Request Submitted ...................................... 1

May 22, 2012—Senate Committee Approves S. 3216 .............................................................. 1

June 7, 2012—House Passes H.R. 5855.................................................................................... 2

September 28, 2012—President Signs Six-Month CR .............................................................. 2

March 26, 2013—President Signs the FY2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing

Appropriations Act ................................................................................................................. 2

Note on Most Recent Data ........................................................................................................ 2

Background ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Department of Homeland Security ............................................................................................ 3

302(a) and 302(b) Allocations ................................................................................................... 4

Reductions from the Stated Funding Levels in P.L. 113-6 and the Accompanying

Senate Explanatory Statement ................................................................................................ 4

Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security.............................................................. 7

Summary of DHS Appropriations ............................................................................................. 7

DHS Appropriations: Comparing the Components ................................................................... 9

DHS Appropriations Compared to the Total DHS Budget ...................................................... 12

DHS Appropriations Trends: Size ........................................................................................... 12

DHS Appropriations Trends: Timing....................................................................................... 13

Title I: Departmental Management and Operations ....................................................................... 14

Departmental Management...................................................................................................... 16

DHS Headquarters Consolidation ........................................................................................... 26

Analysis and Operations .......................................................................................................... 29

Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................... 32

Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations ....................................................................... 34

Customs and Border Protection ............................................................................................... 37

Immigration and Customs Enforcement .................................................................................. 48

Transportation Security Administration .................................................................................. 55

U.S. Coast Guard ..................................................................................................................... 62

U.S. Secret Service .................................................................................................................. 66

Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ........................................................ 69

National Protection and Programs Directorate ........................................................................ 71

Federal Protective Service ....................................................................................................... 77

Office of Health Affairs ........................................................................................................... 79

Federal Emergency Management Agency ............................................................................... 82

DHS State and Local Preparedness Grants .............................................................................. 84

Title IV: Research and Development, Training, and Services ....................................................... 92

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services............................................................................. 94

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center ........................................................................... 100

Science and Technology Directorate ..................................................................................... 101

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office....................................................................................... 104

Title V: General Provisions .......................................................................................................... 106

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

Figures

Figure 1. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations by Component, FY2013

(Pre-Sequester) ........................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 2. DHS Gross Budget Breakdown: FY2013 Request v. FY2013 Enacted

(presequester).............................................................................................................................. 12

Figure 3. DHS Appropriations Legislative Timing ........................................................................ 14

Tables

Table 1. Legislative Status of FY2013 Homeland Security Appropriations .................................... 1

Table 2. FY2012 and FY2013 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS...................................... 6

Table 3. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations by Title, FY2012-FY2013 ................. 8

Table 4. DHS Appropriations by Component, FY2012-FY2013..................................................... 9

Table 5. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2013 ........................................................................... 13

Table 6. Title I: Departmental Management and Operations, FY2012-FY2013............................ 15

Table 7. DHS Management Account Appropriations, FY2012-FY2013 ....................................... 22

Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations, FY2012-FY2013 ............................ 35

Table 9. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Account Detail, FY2012-FY2013 ......................... 40

Table 10. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Sub-Account Detail, FY2012FY2013 ....................................................................................................................................... 50

Table 11. TSA Budgetary Resources, FY2013 .............................................................................. 56

Table 12. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity, FY2012-FY2013............................. 58

Table 13. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-Account Detail,

FY2012-FY2013 ......................................................................................................................... 64

Table 14. Budget Authority for the U.S. Secret Service, FY2012-FY2013 ................................... 68

Table 15. Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, FY2012-FY2013 ........... 70

Table 16. Budget Authority for Infrastructure Protection and Information Security ..................... 76

Table 17. Office of Health Affairs, FY2012-FY2013 .................................................................... 81

Table 18. State and Local Grant Programs and Training, FY2013-FY2013 .................................. 87

Table 19. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, and Services, FY2012-FY2013 .......... 93

Table 20. USCIS Budget Account Detail, FY2012-FY2013 ......................................................... 97

Table 21. Directorate of Science and Technology, FY2012-FY2013 .......................................... 103

Table 22. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, FY2012-FY2013................................................ 105

Table B-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2012 .......................... 113

Appendixes

Appendix A. Appropriations Terms and Concepts....................................................................... 110

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

Appendix B. DHS Appropriations in Context ............................................................................. 112

Contacts

Author Contact Information......................................................................................................... 115

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

his report presents an analysis of the discretionary appropriations for the Department of

Homeland Security (DHS) for fiscal year 2013 (FY2013). It compares the President’s

request for FY2013 funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the enacted

FY2012 appropriations for DHS, the House-passed and Senate-reported DHS appropriations

legislation for FY2013, and the final DHS appropriations legislation included in Division D of

P.L. 113-6. It tracks legislative action and congressional issues related to these bills with

particular attention paid to discretionary funding amounts. The report does not provide in-depth

analysis of specific issues related to mandatory funding—such as retirement pay—nor does the

report systematically follow any other legislation related to the authorization or amendment of

DHS programs, activities, or fee revenues.

Most Recent Developments

Table 1. Legislative Status of FY2013 Homeland Security Appropriations

Subcommittee

Markup

House

Senate

H.Rept.

112-469

House

Passage

H.R.

5855

5/9/12

(vv)

5/15/12

(vv)

5/16/12

(28-21)

6/7/12

(234-182)

S.Rept.

112-169

Senate

Passage

5/22/12

(27-3)

—

Senate Amended

H.R. 933

House

Passage

H.R. 933

Senate

House

3/6/13

(267-151)

3/20/13

(73-26)

3/21/13

(318-109)

Public

Law

113-6

3/26/13

Notes: (vv) = voice vote, (uc) = unanimous consent.

February 13, 2012—President’s FY2013 Budget Request Submitted

For FY2013, the Administration requested $39.510 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget

authority for DHS, as part of an overall budget request of $59.032 billion (including fees, trust

funds and other funding that is not appropriated or does not score against the budget caps). This

request amounts to a $90 million (0.2%) decrease below the $39.600 billion enacted for FY2012.

The overall estimated size of the DHS budget for FY2013 is $681 million (1.1%) below the

budget of $59.713 billion estimated for FY2012.1

May 22, 2012—Senate Committee Approves S. 3216

The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2013 DHS Appropriations

bill on May 22, 2012 by a vote of 27-3. This report uses Senate-reported S. 3216 and the

accompanying report (S.Rept. 112-169) as the source for Senate-reported appropriations numbers.

The Senate bill as approved by the committee would have provided a net discretionary

appropriation of $39,514 million for DHS for FY2013, not including $254 million for overseas

contingency operations and $5,481 million for disaster relief that would be paid for by

adjustments to the discretionary spending cap under the BCA. With those exclusions, the Senatereported bill would have provided less than $4 million above the Administration’s request, and

$87 million (0.2%) below the amount provided under P.L. 112-74.

Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justifications, Budget Tables and Explanation of Changes

for General Provisions, FY2013, p. 1.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

June 7, 2012—House Passes H.R. 5855

On June 7, 2012, the House passed H.R. 5855 with several amendments. This report uses Housepassed H.R. 5855 and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 112-492) as the source for House-passed

appropriations numbers. After floor action the House bill carried a net discretionary appropriation

of $39,114 million for DHS for FY2013. Several floor amendments used management accounts

as offsets, leaving funding for those activities 27% below the requested level. Increases proposed

above the committee-recommended level for DHS activities included Customs and Border

Protection’s Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology account, Coast Guard’s

Operating Expenses account, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Urban Search and

Rescue Response activities and grant programs.

September 28, 2012—President Signs Six-Month CR

The President signed H.J.Res. 117 into law as P.L. 112-175 on September 28, 2012. This public

law was a continuing resolution (CR) that allowed for the federal government to continue

operations in absence of regular appropriations through March 27, 2013, at an annualized rate of

$1.047 trillion. It passed the House by a vote of 329-91 on September 13, 2012, and the Senate by

a vote of 62-30 on September 22, 2012.

March 26, 2013—President Signs the FY2013 Consolidated and

Further Continuing Appropriations Act

On March 26, 2013, the President signed H.R. 933 into law as P.L. 113-6, the FY2013

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act. Division D of that act is the

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2013, which includes $39.646 billion in

adjusted net discretionary budget authority for DHS. According to Office of Management and

Budget calculations, two across-the-board cuts unrelated to the March 1 sequestration that were

included in the final legislation to ensure the bill complies with discretionary budget caps reduced

the thet discretionary budget authority by $52.4 million. $38.348 billion in adjusted net

discretionary budget authority from P.L. 113-6 was available for DHS to use after the impact of

sequestration, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2013 PostSequestration Operating Plan.

Note on Most Recent Data

Data used in this report for FY2012 amounts are taken from the President’s Budget Documents,

as well as H.Rept. 112-492 and S.Rept. 112-169 from the 112th Congress. Information on the

FY2013 request is from the President’s Budget Documents, the FY2013 DHS Congressional

Budget Justifications, and the FY2013 DHS Budget in Brief. Information on the House-passed

FY2013 DHS Appropriations bill is from H.R. 5855 and H.Rept. 112-492, while information on

the Senate-reported version of the same is from S. 2316 and S.Rept. 112-169. Information on the

continuing resolution is from H.J.Res. 117. Information on the final resolution of FY2013

appropriations for the department comes from P.L. 113-6 and the accompanying Senate

explanatory statement. Post-sequester funding levels are drawn from the U.S. Department of

Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2013 Post-Sequestration Operating Plan dated April 26, 2013.

Historical funding data used in the appendices are taken from the Analytical Perspectives volume

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

of the FY2006-FY2014 President’s Budget request documents. Except when discussing total

amounts for the bill as a whole, all amounts contained in this report are in budget authority and

rounded to the nearest million.

Background

Department of Homeland Security

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred the functions, relevant funding,

and most of the personnel of 22 agencies and offices to the new Department of Homeland

Security created by the act. Appropriations measures for DHS have generally been organized into

five titles:

•

Title I contains appropriations for the Office of Secretary and Executive

Management (OSEM), the Office of the Under Secretary for Management

(USM), the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of the Chief

Information Officer (CIO), Analysis and Operations (A&O), and the Office of the

Inspector General (OIG).

•

Title II contains appropriations for Customs and Border Protection (CBP),

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security

Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard (USCG), and the Secret Service.2

•

Title III contains appropriations for the National Protection and Programs

Directorate (NPPD), Office of Health Affairs (OHA) Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).3

•

Title IV contains appropriations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

(USCIS), the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), and the Federal Law

Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).

•

Title V contains general provisions providing various types of congressional

direction to the department.

The structure of the bill is not automatically symmetrical between House and Senate versions.

Additional titles are sometimes added to address special issues: For example, the FY2012 House

full committee mark-up added a sixth title to carry a $1 billion emergency appropriation for the

Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). The Senate version carried no additional titles beyond what is

described above. Although the structure of the components in the proposed FY2013

The U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program was appropriated within Title II

through the FY2007 appropriation. The FY2008 appropriation transferred US-VISIT, as proposed by the

Administration, to the newly created National Protection & Programs Directorate (NPPD) in Title III. Division E of

P.L. 110-161, the DHS Appropriations Act, 2008, enacted this reorganization. The FY2013 budget request proposes a

further reorganization, splitting the program between CBP and ICE.

Through the FY2007 appropriation, Title III contained appropriations for the Preparedness Directorate, Infrastructure

Protection and Information Security (IPIS) and FEMA. The President’s FY2008 request included a proposal to shift a

number of programs and offices to eliminate the Preparedness Directorate, create the NPPD, and move several

programs to FEMA. These changes were largely agreed to by Congress in the FY2008 appropriation, reflected by Title

III in Division E of P.L. 110-161.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

appropriations bills were largely parallel, there were some differences in the structure of

subcomponents and accounts which is noted throughout the body of the report.

302(a) and 302(b) Allocations

In general practice, the maximum budget authority for annual appropriations (including DHS) is

determined through a two-stage congressional budget process. In the first stage, Congress sets

overall spending totals in the annual concurrent resolution on the budget. Subsequently, these

amounts are allocated among the appropriations committees, usually through the statement of

managers for the conference report on the budget resolution. These amounts are known as the

302(a) allocations. They include discretionary totals available to the House and Senate

Committees on Appropriations for enactment in annual appropriations bills through the

subcommittees responsible for the development of the bills. In the second stage of the process,

the appropriations committees allocate the 302(a) discretionary funds among their subcommittees

for each of the appropriations bills. These amounts are known as the 302(b) allocations. These

allocations must add up to no more than the 302(a) discretionary allocation and form the basis for

enforcing budget discipline, since any bill reported with a total above the ceiling is subject to a

point of order. 302(b) allocations may be adjusted during the year by the Appropriations

Committee by issuing a report delineating the revised suballocations as the various appropriations

bills progress towards final enactment.

The FY2012 appropriations bills were the first appropriations bills that were affected by the

Budget Control Act (BCA), which established discretionary security and nonsecurity spending

caps for FY2012 and FY2013, and overall caps that will govern the actions of appropriations

committees in both houses. For FY2013, the BCA had set a separate cap of $686 billion for

security spending, defined to include the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, Budget

Function 150 for all international affairs programs, the National Nuclear Security Administration,

and the Intelligence Community Management Account that funds the offices of the Director of

National Intelligence. All other spending was capped at $361 billion out of the total of $1.047

trillion. In addition, the BCA allows for adjustments that would raise the statutory caps to cover

funding for overseas contingency operations/Global War on Terror, emergency spending, and, to a

limited extent, disaster relief and appropriations for continuing disability reviews and for

controlling health care fraud and abuse. In the absence of a budget resolution for FY2013, these

levels became the basis for enforcement in the Senate. In the House, the lower levels agreed to in

the House-passed budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 112) were made effective for purposes of

enforcement in the House by H.Res. 614 and H.Res. 643.

Reductions from the Stated Funding Levels in P.L. 113-6 and the

Accompanying Senate Explanatory Statement

Sequestration

The Budget Control Act (BCA)4 tasked a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to develop

a federal deficit reduction plan for Congress and the President to enact by January 15, 2012.

Because deficit reduction legislation was not enacted by that date, an automatic spending

P.L. 112-25.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

reduction process established by the BCA was triggered; this process consists of a combination of

sequestration and lower discretionary spending caps, initially scheduled to begin on January 2,

2013. The “joint committee” sequestration process for FY2013 required the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) to implement across-the-board spending cuts at the account and

program level to achieve equal budget reductions from both defense and nondefense funding at a

percentage to be determined after enactment, under terms specified in the Balanced Budget and

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA),5 as amended by the BCA. For further

information on the Budget Control Act, see CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011,

by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).

The American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA),6 enacted on January 2, 2013, made a number of

significant changes to the procedures in the BCA that will take place during FY2013. First, the

date for the joint committee sequester to be implemented was delayed for two months, until

March 1, 2013. Second, the dollar amount of the joint committee sequester was reduced by $24

billion. Third, the statutory caps on discretionary spending for FY2013 (and FY2014) were

lowered.7

Pursuant to the BCA, as amended by ATRA, President Obama ordered that the joint committee

sequester be implemented on March 1, 2013.8 The accompanying OMB report indicated a dollar

amount of budget authority to be canceled to each account containing non-exempt funds.9

Sequestration was applied at the program, project, and activity (PPA) level within each account.10

Because sequestration was implemented at the time that a temporary continuing resolution was in

force, the reductions were calculated on an annualized basis and will be apportioned throughout

the remainder of the fiscal year.11 The post-sequestration numbers in this report are derived from

the FY2013 DHS operating plan, which only includes a breakdown of resources provided through

P.L. 113-6. It does not calculate—and this report does not speak to—the sequestration of

resources provided in P.L. 113-2, the FY2013 supplemental appropriation for disaster relief.

Across-the-Board Cuts

Taken together, sections 3001 and 3004 of P.L. 113-6 are intended to eliminate any amount by

which the new budget authority provided in the act exceeds the FY2013 discretionary spending

limits in section 251(c)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as

amended by the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. As

Title II of P.L. 99-177, 2 U.S.C. 900-922.

P.L. 112-240.

For further information on the changes to BCA procedures made by ATRA, see CRS Report R42949, The American

Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012: Modifications to the Budget Enforcement Procedures in the Budget Control Act, by (name

redacted)

White House, President Obama, Sequestration Order for Fiscal Year 2013 Pursuant to Section 251A of the Balanced

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, As Amended, March 1, 2013, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/

sites/default/files/2013sequestration-order-rel.pdf.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint

Committee Sequestration for Fiscal Year 2013, March 1, 2013, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/

files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf.

Ibid., pp. 11, 13.

Ibid, p. 5. For general information on continuing resolutions, see CRS Report R42647, Continuing Resolutions:

Overview of Components and Recent Practices, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

enacted, Section 3001 provides two separate across-the-board rescissions—one for “nonsecurity”

budget authority and one for “security” budget authority12—to be applied at the program, project,

and activity level. DHS falls under the “security” category, and therefore receives a 0.1% acrossthe-board cut. This across-the-board cut was made to bring the bill’s budget authority as

calculated by the Congressional Budget Office in line with the FY2013 discretionary spending

limits.

However, the Office of Management and Budget is the final arbiter of whether those spending

limits have been exceeded. Therefore, Section 3004 provides two other separate across-the-board

rescissions—again, one for nonsecurity budget authority and one for security budget authority—

to be applied at the program, project, and activity level. The section requires the percentages to be

increased if OMB estimates that additional rescissions are needed to avoid exceeding the limits.

Subsequent to the enactment of P.L. 113-6, OMB calculated that additional rescissions of 0.032%

of “security” budget authority (which would apply to DHS) and 0.2% of “nonsecurity” budget

authority would be required.13

Since these cuts were intended to reduce the amount of discretionary budget authority in the bill,

funding that is not included in that total—specifically funding for Overseas Contingency

Operations/Global War on Terror and funding designated as being for disaster relief under the

Budget Control Act—are not subject to the across-the-board cuts. All tables and references to

funding levels in this report include CRS calculations of the effect of both these across-the-board

cuts.

Table 2 shows DHS’s initial 302(b) allocations for FY2013, and comparable figures for FY2012

and the President’s request for FY2013.

Table 2. FY2012 and FY2013 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS

(budget authority in billions of dollars)

FY2012

Comparable

FY2013 Request

Comparable

FY2013 House

Allocation

FY2013 Senate

Allocation

FY2013

Enacted

Comparable

FY2013

Operating

Plan

39.600a

39.485

39.117

39.514

39.592

38.348b

Source: U.S. Congress, House Appropriations, Homeland Security, FY2012 Homeland Security Bill - Summary

Table, 112th Congress, 1st session, May 12, 2011, and U.S. Congress, House Appropriations, Revised Suballocation

to Subcommittees Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Authority and Outlays, 112th Congress, 1st session, June 14, 2011, p. 2,

CBO’s March 21, 2013, summary of total discretionary appropriations for H.R. 933 as cleared by Congress for

the President’s Signature, and OMB’s report of April 25, 2013 pursuant to sections 3001 and 3004 of P.L. 113-6.

Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding. “FY2013 Enacted Comparable” is based on application of

OMB-calculated across-the-board cuts to the adjusted net discretionary budget authority for DHS under

Division D of P.L. 113-6 as reflected in the comparative statement of new budget authority for FY2013 in the

Senate’s explanatory statement accompanying H.R. 933.

As defined in Section 250(c)(4)(A) and (B) for the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 as

amended.

OMB determined that these two additional rescissions would be necessary on April 4, 2013. The OMB Director is

required to submit a report to the appropriations committees specifying the amount of the reduction at the account level

by April 26, 2013. For further information, see OMB, “Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act,

2013,” Budget Enforcement Act (7-Day-After Reports), April 4, 2013, p. 54, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/

sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/7_day_after/bea_report_hr933_04-04-13.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

This authority does not include the $258 million for overseas contingency operations or the separately

passed disaster relief of $6,400 million covered through adjustments to the discretionary spending cap set

by the Budget Control Act.

The Administration’s scoring of one of the general provisions in the bill is $258 million higher than the

Congressional Budget Office’s scoring. The FY2013 Operating Plan column reflects the Administration’s

unadjusted scoring, as do all columns in this report with post-sequestration figures.

Adjustments to the Caps Under BCA

Three of the four justifications outlined in the BCA for adjusting the caps on discretionary budget

authority have played a role in DHS’s appropriations process. Two of these—emergency spending

and overseas contingency operations/Global War on Terror—are not limited. No adjustment was

madefor emergencies for FY2012 for DHS, and $258 million was provided for Coast Guard

overseas contingency operations under P.L. 112-331.

The third justification—disaster relief—is limited. Under the BCA, the allowable adjustment for

disaster relief is determined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), using the

following formula:

Limit on disaster relief cap adjustment for the fiscal year = Rolling average of the disaster

relief spending over the last ten fiscal years (throwing out the high and low years) + the

unused amount of the potential adjustment for disaster relief from the previous fiscal year.

For FY2013, OMB determined the allowable adjustment for disaster relief to be $11,779 million,

which was fully exercised, including $6,400 million in pre-sequestration resources through the

FEMA Disaster Relief Fund in P.L. 113-6.15

Appropriations for the Department of

Homeland Security

Summary of DHS Appropriations

Table 3 includes a summary of funding included in the FY2012 regular DHS appropriations bill,

the Administration’s FY2013 appropriations request, the House-passed and Senate-reported

versions of the FY2013 appropriations bill broken down by title, and the final DHS

appropriations legislation included in Division D of P.L. 113-6, prior to the impact of

sequestration. The final column indicates the post-sequester level reported by DHS.

Office of Management and Budget, OMB Final Sequestration Report to the President and Congress for Fiscal Year

2012, Washington, DC, January 18, 2012, pp. 7-8.

The remainder of the allowable adjustment was used to support the DRF as well in P.L. 113-2. For discussion of that

legislation, see CRS Report R42869, FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief, coordinated by (name redac

ted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

Table 3. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations by Title, FY2012-FY2013

(in millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority, rounded)

FY2012

Enacted

FY2013

Request

Housepassed

H.R.

5855

Title I: Departmental Management

and Operations

1,132

1,279

1,020

1,102

1,086

1,057

Title II: Security, Enforcement and

Investigations

31,527

30,759

30,946

30,975

31,267

30,184

Title III: Protection, Preparedness,

Response, and Recovery

5,680

5,911

5,930

5,971

5,921

5,595

Title IV: Research and Development,

Training, and Services

1,332

1,561

1,510

1,535

1,520

1,457

-71

-292

-68

-203

54b

39,600

39,510

39,114

39,514

39,592

38,348

Title

Title V: General Provisions

Total

Senatereported

S. 3216

P.L. 113-6

(presequester)

DHS Plan

(sequestered)a

Source: H.Rept. 112-331, H.R. 5855, H.Rept. 112-492, S.Rept. 112-169, CRS analysis of P.L. 113-6, the

accompanying Senate explanatory statement, and the DHS FY2013 Post-Sequestration Operating Plan dated

April 26, 2013.

Notes: The standard legislative practice is to group rescissions with the bill’s general provisions, often resulting

in that title scoring as net negative budget authority. The budget request usually includes proposed rescissions in

the budget request for the impacted component. The FY2012 column reflects the impact of $204 million in

rescissions, while the Administration proposed $25 million in rescissions for FY2013. The House Appropriations

Committee recommended $292 million in rescissions, while the Senate Appropriations Committee

recommended $192 million. P.L. 113-6 included $307 million in explicit rescissions in Division D, while the larger

package included two across-the-board rescissions of 0.1% and 0.032% that are reflected in the P.L. 113-6

column. Totals may not add due to rounding.

The FY2013 Operating Plan column reflects the Administration’s unadjusted scoring, as do all columns in

this report with post-sequestration figures.

The Administration’s scoring of one of the general provisions in the bill is $258 million higher than the

Congressional Budget Office’s scoring.

Federal Civilian Employee Pay Raise

The Administration proposed a 0.5% pay increase for all civilian federal employees in its budget

request. Almost all DHS employees are considered civilians, with the significant exception of

Coast Guard military personnel.

The House rejected the proposed civilian pay raise, and that decision is reflected in a slight

reduction in all appropriations that fund civilian salaries. The Senate Appropriations Committee,

recommended funding the pay raise.

Neither the part-year continuing resolution (P.L. 112-175) nor P.L. 113-6 provides the resources

for a civilian pay raise.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

DHS Appropriations: Comparing the Components

Unlike some other appropriations bills, breaking down the DHS bill by title does not provide a

great deal of transparency into where DHS’s appropriated resources are going. The various

components of DHS vary widely in the size of their appropriated budgets. Table 4 and Figure 1

show DHS’s pre-sequester discretionary budget authority for FY 2013 broken down by

component, from largest to smallest.

Table 4 presents the raw numbers, while Figure 1 presents the same data in a graphic format,

with additional information on the disaster relief and overseas contingency operations

adjustments to the allocation allowed under the Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25). While they are

reflected in the second to last line of Table 4, Figure 1 does not include the impact of the bill’s

general provisions. These provisions include rescissions of prior-year budget authority, which

reduced the net budget authority in the act to the totals discussed earlier in this report.

The left column shows discretionary budget authority provided in P.L. 113-6 as scored against the

bill’s budget allocation, while the right column shows that plus resources available under the

adjustments to the discretionary budget cap available under the BCA, including additional

resources for DHS provided in P.L. 113-2, the Supplemental Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,

2013.16 For the purposes of this report, funding provided under these adjustments is not treated as

appropriations.

Table 4. DHS Appropriations by Component, FY2012-FY2013

(in billions of dollars, rounded)

P.L. 113-6

(presequester)

P.L. 113-6

adjustments

(presequester)

P.L. 113-2

adjustments

(presequester)

FY2013 total

(presequester)

Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)

10.36

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

8.72

.25

.27

9.25

Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE)

5.43

Transportation Security

Administration (TSA)

5.15

Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA)0

4.35

6.40

11.78

22.53

U.S. Secret Service (USSS)

1.61

National Protection and Programs

Directorate (NPPD)

1.44

Science & Technology Directorate

(S&T)

0.83

0.84

Departmental Management

0.64

Component

For additional information about the content of P.L. 113-2 see CRS Report R42869, FY2013 Supplemental Funding

for Disaster Relief, coordinated by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

P.L. 113-6

(presequester)

P.L. 113-6

adjustments

(presequester)

P.L. 113-2

adjustments

(presequester)

FY2013 total

(presequester)

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office

(DNDO)

0.32

Analysis & Operations (A&O)

0.32

Federal Law Enforcement Training

Center (FLETC)

0.26

Office of Health Affairs (OHA)

0.13

Office of the Inspector General

(OHA)

0.12

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

Services (USCIS)

0.11

General Provisions (net, not

reflected visually in Figure I)

-0.20

Total

39.59

6.65

12.07

58.31

Component

Source: CRS analysis of P.L. 113-2 and P.L. 113-6.

Notes: Table does not reflect non-appropriated resources available to DHS components.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

Figure 1. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations by Component, FY2013

(Pre-Sequester)

(in millions of dollars, rounded)

Source: H.R. 5855, H.Rept. 112-492, S.Rept. 112-169, and CRS analysis of P.L. 113-6 and accompanying Senate

explanatory statement.

Chart Abbreviations: CBP, Customs and Border Protection; USCG, U.S. Coast Guard; ICE, Immigration and

Customs Enforcement; TSA, Transportation Security Administration; FEMA, Federal Emergency Management

Administration; USSS, U.S. Secret Service; NPPD, National Protection and Programs Directorate; S&T, Science

and Technology Directorate; DNDO, Domestic Nuclear Detection Office; A&O, Analysis and Operations;

FLETC, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; OHA, Office of Health Affairs; OIG, Office of the Inspector

General; USCIS, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; DBA, discretionary budget authority; Adj,

adjustments to the discretionary budget caps established by the Budget Control Act.

Note: Amounts may not total due to rounding. Figure does not display rescissions and other general provisions,

or reflect non-appropriated resources available to DHS components.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

DHS Appropriations Compared to the Total DHS Budget

It is important to note that Figure 1, even with its accounting for discretionary cap adjustments,

does not tell the whole story about the resources available to individual DHS components. Much

of DHS’s budget is not derived from discretionary appropriations. Some components, such as

TSA, rely on fee income or offsetting collections to support a significant amount of their

activities. Less than 4% of the budget for CIS is provided through direct appropriations—the rest

relies on fee income.

Figure 2 highlights how much of the DHS budget is not funded through discretionary

appropriations. It presents a comparison of the Administration’s FY2013 budget request and the

enacted budget for FY2013 prior to the impact of sequestration, showing the discretionary

appropriations, mandatory appropriations, and adjustments under the Budget Control Act, in the

context of the total amount of budgetary resources available to DHS, as well as other nonappropriated resources. The graphic reflecting FY2013 enacted funding includes funding

provided through P.L. 113-2, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013. Some of the amounts

shown in these graphs are derived from the Administration’s budget request documents, and

therefore do not exactly mirror the data presented in congressional documents, which are the

source for the other data presented in the report.

Figure 2. DHS Gross Budget Breakdown: FY2013 Request v. FY2013 Enacted

(presequester)

(millions of dollars in budget authority, rounded)

Source: CRS analysis of DHS FY2013 Budget Request, DHS FY2014 budget request, P.L. 113-2, P.L. 113-6, and

the accompanying Senate explanatory statement.

Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding. Includes rescissions of prior-year budget authority.

DHS Appropriations Trends: Size

Table 5 presents DHS appropriations, as enacted, for FY2003 through FY2013. The

appropriation amounts are presented in current dollars and are not adjusted for inflation or

sequestration. The amounts shown in Table 5 represent enacted amounts at the time of the start of

the next fiscal year’s appropriation cycle (with the exception of FY2009 and FY2011)—defined

as the filing of the first committee report to accompany a version of a DHS appropriations bill. In

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

instances which a previous year’s data are not reflected in the report, as was the case for data for

FY2011, the alternative source is noted.

Table 5. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2013

(in millions of nominal dollars)

Fiscal Year

Budget Authority (pre-sequester)

FY2003

29,069a

FY2004

30,175

FY2005

30,642b

FY2006

31,679c

FY2007

35,311d

FY2008

38,817e

FY2009

41,205

FY2010

49,891f

FY2011

43,405

FY2012

47,698g

FY2013

58,316h

Sources: FY2008 data are from Division E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint Explanatory Statement for

Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating

amendments to the budget request). FY2009 data are taken from S.Rept. 111-31. FY2010 data are from S.Rept.

111-222, P.L. 111-212, and P.L. 111-230. FY2011 data are from the DHS Expenditure Plan for Fiscal Year 2011, and

FY2012 data are from CRS analysis of H.Rept. 112-331 and P.L. 112-77. FY2013 data are from CRS analysis of

P.L. 113-2 and P.L. 113-6 and its accompanying Senate explanatory statement.

Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding. Amounts do not include supplemental appropriations or

rescissions that were enacted subsequent to the enactment of each appropriations bill.

S.Rept. 108-86 reported the FY2003 enacted amount as $29,287 million. CRS was unable to identify the

reason for this discrepancy. For the purposes of this table the House number was used to maintain

consistency with other fiscal years.

Amount does not include $4,703 million in advance appropriations for Project Bioshield.

Amount does not include $2,508 million in advance appropriations for Project Bioshield.

Amount includes $1,829 million in emergency budget authority that was enacted as a part of the FY2007

DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-295).

Amount includes $2,710 million in emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.

Includes net $5,754 million in supplemental spending (P.L. 111-212, P.L. 111-230).

Includes $6,400 million in supplemental disaster relief spending (P.L. 112-77).

Represents presequester resources, and includes supplemental, OCO, and disaster relief spending of

$18,726 million.

DHS Appropriations Trends: Timing

The House Appropriations Committee’s full committee markup of H.R. 5855 on May 16, 2012,

was the second earliest in the history of the DHS appropriations bill. The Senate Appropriations

Committee’s full committee markup of S. 3216 on May 22, 2012 was the earliest the Senate has

ever marked up the DHS appropriations bill. Nevertheless, P.L. 113-6 represented the secondCongressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

latest enactment of finalized annual appropriations for the department. Figure 3 shows the history

of the timing of the DHS appropriations bills as they have moved through various stages of the

legislative process.

Figure 3. DHS Appropriations Legislative Timing

Source: CRS analysis.

Notes: Final action on the FY2011 appropriation for DHS did not occur until April 2011. Final action on the

FY2013 appropriation for DHS did not occur until March 2013.

Title I: Departmental Management and Operations

Title I of the DHS appropriations bill provides funding for the department’s management

activities, Analysis and Operations (A&O) account, and the Office of the Inspector General

(OIG). The Administration requested $1,279 million for these accounts in FY2013, an increase of

$147 million above the enacted level. The House-passed bill would have provided $1,020 million,

a decrease of 20.2% from the requested level and 9.9% below FY2012. The Senate-reported bill

would have provided $1,102 million, 13.8% below the request and 2.7% below FY2012.

After the across-the-board cuts made under Division G of P.L. 113-6, the act provides $1,086

million in appropriations for Title I, a decrease of 15.1% from the requested level and 4.1% below

FY2012. The operating plan for DHS for FY2013 indicates sequestration reduced this to $1,026

million, prior to any transfers or reprogrammings that might mitigate the impact of sequestration

in some areas and exacerbate it in others.

Table 6 lists the enacted amounts for the individual components of Title I for FY2012, the

Administration’s request for these components for FY2013, the House-passed and Senate-

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

reported appropriations for the same, the enacted level in P.L. 113-6 and the post-sequester level

of available resources from P.L. 113-6 reported by DHS.

Table 6. Title I: Departmental Management and Operations, FY2012-FY2013

(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2013 Appropriation

FY2012

Enacted

Request

Housepassed

Senatereported

P.L. 113-6

(presequester)

DHS Plan

(sequestered)

Office of the Secretary

and Executive

Management

133

134

122

133

130

Office of the Under

Secretary for

Management

236

222

180

220

218

Office of the Chief

Financial Officer

Office of the Chief

Information Officer

257

313

242

248

243

238

Analysis and Operations

338

322

317

324

322

306

Office of the Inspector

Generalb

117

144

109

123

121

114

Net Budget

Authority: Title I

1,132

1,279

1,020

1,102

1,086

1,057

Total Gross

Budgetary Resources

for Title I

Components before

Transfers

1,132

1,279

1,020

1,102

1,086

1,057

DHS Headquarters

Consolidationa

Sources: H.Rept. 112-331, H.R. 5855, H.Rept. 112-492, S.Rept. 112-169, CRS analysis of P.L. 113-6, the

accompanying Senate explanatory statement, and the DHS FY2013 Post-Sequestration Operating Plan dated

April 26, 2013.

Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding.

This line only reflects funding for DHS Headquarters Consolidation included in Title I of the DHS

appropriations legislation. $30 million is provided in FY2013 appropriations through the general provisions

of the legislation. Other funding has been provided under Coast Guard accounts in previous years.

The Office of the Inspector General also receives transfers from FEMA to pay for oversight of disasterrelated activities that are not reflected in these tables.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

Departmental Management17

The departmental management accounts cover the general administrative expenses of DHS. They

include the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM), which is comprised of

the Immediate Office of the Secretary and 12 entities that report directly to the Secretary; the

Under Secretary for Management (USM) and its components—the offices of the Chief

Administrative Officer (OCAO), Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO), Chief Procurement

Officer (OCPO), and Chief Security Officer (OCSO); the Office of the Chief Financial Officer

(OCFO); and the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO). The Administration has usually

requested funding for the consolidation of its headquarters here as well.

In this section and in each section hereafter, a graphic follows that provides a numeric and

graphic representation of the discretionary appropriation provided to each element of DHS

described in the report. This graphic provides a quick reference to the relative size of the

component to others in DHS as well as to the previous year’s enacted level, the FY2013 request,

the enacted level in P.L. 113-6, and DHS-reported post-sequester level for FY2013.

FY2013 Request

The FY2013 request compared to the FY2012 enacted appropriations as follows: OSEM, $134

million, an increase of $1 million (0.7%); USM, $222 million, a decrease of $14 million (5.9%);

OCFO, $55 million, an increase of $5 million (9.0%); and OCIO, $313 million, an increase of

$55 million (21.5%). The total request for departmental management activities in Title I for

FY2012 was $724 million, not including the $89 million for the consolidation of DHS

headquarters on the campus of St. Elizabeths, an effort discussed elsewhere in the report. See

Table 7 for additional detail.

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM)

The Administration requested $134 million for OSEM. The Administration’s budget proposed

separate line items for three offices—the Office of International Affairs, the Office of State and

Local Law Enforcement, and the Private Sector Office—that are currently funded under the

Office of Policy.

Two program changes funded through this request were for the Citizenship and Immigration

Services Ombudsman: $135,000 to continue the training program—“Counter Violent Extremism

Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

Through Community Partnerships”—for state, local, and federal law enforcement personnel; and

more than a million dollars to allow the office “to further provide policy advice, investigations,

and training” related to ICE Secure Communities and 287(g) programs.18

Under Secretary for Management (USM)

The Administration requested $222 million for the USM and 902 full-time employee equivalents

(FTEs). Several program changes were proposed under this appropriation:

•

The Immediate Office of the Under Secretary for Management (OUSM) includes

an increase of $441,000 for the transfer of the Directives function from the Office

of the Chief Administrative Officer to the OUSM;

•

The OCHCO includes $26 million for salaries and expenses and $10 million for

Human Resources Information Technology,19 including a requested increase of

almost $2 million to realign the Safety function from the OCAO to the OCHCO;

and

•

The USM includes $5 million for continued improvements to the Nebraska

Avenue Complex.

Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)

The Administration requested $55 million for the OCFO, including $6.7 million for the Financial

Systems Modernization effort. According to the OCFO justification, the money will be used to

complete the implementation of “a new core financial system at the Federal Emergency

Management Agency” in FY2013. The “new financial system is needed ... to accurately account

for, track, and report on FEMA resources, and meet minimum federal financial system processing

requirements.”20

Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)

The Administration requested $313 million for the OCIO. Within the OCIO account,

Infrastructure and Security Activities requested $122 million, including $65 million “to fully

complete the data center migration activities for CBP, TSA, and USCIS.” The justification stated

that “execution of the planned timeline” for the migration “will enable continued closures of the

major Component data centers and achieve the Secretary’s goal of the Department’s consolidation

to two data centers across the enterprise.”21

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Departmental Management and Operations, Office of the Secretary and

Executive Management, Congressional Justification, Fiscal Year 2013, pp. OSEM-28 and OSEM-30.

Human Resources Information Technology (HRIT) “supports the overall Mission of the Human Capital Business

Systems (HCBS) portfolio to implement and manage a consolidated suite of modernized human resource information

technology business solutions by means of leveraging current enterprise solutions, reducing redundancies, and

increasing the functionality of HR systems across the Enterprise.” (U.S. Department of Homeland Security,

Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, Congressional Justification, Fiscal

Year 2013, p. USM-12.)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Departmental Management and Operations, Office of the Chief Financial

Officer, Congressional Justification, Fiscal Year 2013, pp. OCFO-9 – OCFO-10.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Departmental Management and Operations, Office of the Chief Information

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

House-Passed H.R. 5855

H.R. 5855, as reported by the House Committee on Appropriations, would have provided the

following appropriations as compared with the President’s request: OSEM, $122 million ($12

million or 8.5% less); USM, $213 million ($9 million or 4% less); OCFO, $50 million ($5 million

or 9% less); OCIO, $242 million ($71 million or 23% less). The total funding recommended by

the House Appropriations committee for management activities under Title I was $627 million.

This would have represented a decrease of $97 million, or 13.4%, from the President’s request,

not including the handling of the DHS Headquarters project. These reductions were justified by

the committee not only on the basis of the need to cover the lack of revenue from unrealized

funding proposals that were intended to offset the cost of the bill, but also due to failure to

comply with several statutory requirements laid out in previous appropriations bills.

On June 6, 2013, during floor consideration of the bill, a number of amendments were offered

that used departmental management accounts as offsets. In total, the amendments that passed

would have further reduced the budget for management by almost $33 million. The four largest

were:

•

H.Amdt. 1236, to decrease funds for the Office of the Under Secretary for

Management by $7,667,000 and increase funds for the Federal Emergency

Management Agency Urban Search and Rescue Response System by $7,667,000,

agreed to by voice vote;

•

H.Amdt. 1237, to reduce funds for the Office of the Under Secretary for

Management by $10 million and increase funds for the Federal Emergency

Management Agency State and Local Programs by $10 million, agreed to on a

211-202 vote (Roll No. 348);

•

H.Amdt. 1238, to reduce funds for the Office of the Under Secretary for

Management by $10 million and increase funds for U.S. Customs and Border

Protection Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology by $10 million

agreed to on a 302-113 vote (Roll No. 352); and

•

H.Amdt. 1239, to reduce funds for the Office of the Under Secretary for

Management by $5 million and increase funds for Firefighter Assistance Grants

by $5 million, agreed to by voice vote.

These amendments would have left the USM with an appropriation of $180 million, $41 million

(18.6%) less than the requested level. See Table 7 for additional detail.

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM)

Within OSEM, funding of up to $45,000 was recommended for official reception and

representation expenses, of which $17,000 was for international programs within the Office of

Policy and activities related to the visa waiver program. These reception and representation

expenses were the target of an amendment offered by Representative Flake, who proposed using

(...continued)

Officer, Congressional Justification, Fiscal Year 2013, p. OCIO-19.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

the funds to increase U.S. Customs and Border Protection Salaries and Expenses by $43,000. The

amendment was agreed to in the House by a voice vote on June 6, 2012.

OSEM was also the target of significant provisions withholding appropriated funds from use.

Some $71 million would have been withheld from obligation until all reports that were required,

by statute, to be submitted with or in conjunction with the FY2014 budget request were received

by the committee.22 A general provision (Section 549) went further, proposing to bar the use of

Coast Guard-operated fixed wing aircraft by the Secretary of DHS, her deputy, the Commandant

of the Coast Guard, or the Vice Commandant, except in case of emergency, until two key reports

were submitted to the House and Senate appropriations committees.23

In addition, funding of $5 million was proposed to be withheld “from obligation for the Office of

General Counsel until a final overseas aircraft repair station security regulation has been

published.”

Under Secretary for Management (USM)

Under the USM appropriation, more than $124 million would have been withheld from obligation

until the Committee received all reports that were, by statute, required to be submitted with or in

conjunction with the FY2014 budget request. The House Appropriations Committee

recommended a reduction of $7 million (10%) from the requested level for OCPO for “failure to

comply with the statutory requirement to submit on time a comprehensive acquisition report with

quarterly updates.”24

Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)

Under the OCFO account, more than $29 million would have been withheld from obligation until

the Committee received all reports and plans that were, by statute, required to be submitted with

or in conjunction with the FY2014 budget request. The report also expressed the view that the

House Appropriations Committee did not intend for the appropriations liaisons in OCFO—which

were established to ensure the Appropriations Committees have the necessary access to budgetary

information—to serve as intermediaries between the committees and department components.

The report stated that “the Committee expects to hear from relevant components on their areas of

responsibility directly.”25

Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)

The House-recommended appropriation of $242 million for the Office of the Chief Information

Officer would be allocated to two sub-appropriations: $117 million for salaries and expenses and

$125 million for development and acquisition of information technology equipment, software,

services, and related activities. The House-recommended appropriation also included $27 million

for Information Technology Services and $55 million for Security Activities. The House report

stated that the committee supported “the migration of component resources to the Department’s

H.Rept. 112-492, p. 8.

H.R. 5855, pp. 83-85.

Ibid, p. 19.

Ibid., p. 23.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

two consolidated data centers,”26 but would not have provided the proposed $65 million for the

migration because of the significant shortfalls in the President’s budget request mentioned above.

Senate-Reported S. 3216

S. 3216, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, would have provided the

following appropriations, as compared with the President’s request: OSEM, $133 million ($1

million or 0.8% less); USM, $220 million ($2 million or 0.7% less); OCFO, $54 million ($2

million or 3.1% less); and OCIO, $248 million ($65 million or 20.7% less). The total funding

provided by the Senate-reported bill for departmental management in Title I would have been

$655 million. This would have represented a decrease of $69 million, or 9.5%, from the

President’s request, not including the funding for DHS headquarters consolidation at St.

Elizabeths. See Table 7 for additional detail.

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM)

The Senate committee report highlighted a requested programmatic increase for the Office for

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (OCRCL), “including $1,327,000 for OCRCL to ensure that the

Department’s immigration efforts comply with all applicable civil rights statutes and

constitutional requirements.”27 Even with this increase the Senate committee-recommended

budget for OCRCL was down by roughly $1 million (3.5%) from FY2012 levels, although it

would have matched the level requested for the office by the Administration.

The committee report noted that DHS discontinued funding for its historian, who was tasked with

maintaining the historical record of DHS, and encouraged the Secretary to fill the position again

using funds provided in FY2013.28

The committee report also noted that funding for reception and representation expenses was

reduced by 15% for FY2012 and was proposed to be further reduced by 10% for FY2013 “In

recognition of a more constrained budget environment and to limit opportunities for waste and

abuse.”29

Under Secretary for Management (USM)

According to the report, the committee’s recommendation under the USM would have included

“funding for robust oversight of major acquisitions, recruitment and development of a skilled

workforce, and security measures to safeguard DHS personnel, property, facilities, and

information.” The report stated that reductions in funding for individual offices below the request,

unless otherwise specifically addressed, were “due to a constrained budget environment and to

focus limited resources on the Department’s critical operational missions.”30 For the OCHCO, an

Ibid., p. 24.

S.Rept. 112-169, p. 12.

Ibid., pp. 12-13.

Ibid., p. 15.

Ibid., p. 17.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

appropriation of $35 million was recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee, $1

million below the request, with the reduction coming in the Salaries and Expenses account.

Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)

For the OCIO, the Senate Appropriations Committee-recommended appropriation of $248 million

would have included $121 million for salaries and expenses and $127 million to be available

through FY2015 for technology investments across the department that are overseen by the

OCIO, including $57 million for development and acquisition of information technology

equipment, software, services, and related activities. $65 million for data center migration would

have been carried in a general provision in Title V, bringing the total in the bill for the OCIO to

the level of the Administration’s request. The committee report noted that investment in data

center consolidation is expected to result in savings of nearly $3 billion by 2030.31

P.L. 113-6 and the DHS Operating Plan for FY2013

The law provides these appropriations (pre-sequester), as compared with the President’s request:

OSEM, $130 million ($4.3 million or 3.2% less); USM, $218 million ($3.5 million or 1.6% less);

OCFO, $51 million ($4 million or 7.2% less); and OCIO, $243 million ($69 million or 22% less).

The total funding provided by the law for departmental management in Title I is $643 million.

This represents a decrease of $170 million or 21% from the President’s request.

According to the DHS Operating Plan, of the management accounts, only OCIO was subject to a

funding reduction based on sequestration. This is in part because sequestration was calculated

against the part-year appropriation provided under P.L. 112-175. Under that particular

circumstance, 2 USC 903 outlines a crediting mechanism that can be exercised that reduces the

amount of sequestration applied to activities where the final FY2013 appropriation was below a

baseline calculated by OMB. See Table 7 for additional detail on funding.

Among the provisions and directives included in P.L. 113-6 was direction for the DHS CIO to

submit to the appropriations committees, with the President’s budget proposal for FY2014, a

multi-year investment and management plan, to include each of fiscal years 2013 through 2016,

for all information technology acquisition projects funded under the CIO or by multiple

components through reimbursable agreements.

The Senate’s explanatory statement also directs:32

•

The Secretary to provide a report detailing all costs of official and nonofficial

travel for each trip taken by the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary from FY2008

to the present, within all DHS appropriations;

•

The Secretary to submit the contingency plan to address gaps between actual and

budgeted collections of user fees mandated in the FY2010 DHS appropriations

conference report as soon as possible, and a revised plan no later than 90 days

after Act’s enactment date, to the appropriations committees;

Ibid., p. 25.

Congressional Record, vol. 159, March 11, 2013, pp. S1546-S1548, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/

CREC-2013-03-11/pdf/CREC-2013-03-11-pt1-PgS1287.pdf#page=256.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

•

The USM to submit, with the President’s FY2014 budget proposal, a

Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report (CASR) including the information

specified in the FY2012 DHS appropriations joint explanatory statement, and to

provide quarterly updates thereafter, within 45 days after the end of each quarter,

to the appropriations committees.

•

DHS to submit a detailed report on the implementation of the balanced workforce

strategy to the appropriations committees, and to include, with the President’s

annual budget request, a detailed justification of any planned insourcing or

outsourcing initiatives.

•

The CFO to continue providing briefings, at least semiannually, on its financial

systems modernization efforts.

Table 7 outlines the funding levels for existing management accounts. Funding numbers for P.L.

113-6 reflect across-the-board spending cuts relative to FY2012 enacted amounts, but do not

reflect the impact of sequestration. The “DHS Plan” column provides the department’s

assessment of budgetary resources available through P.L. 113-6 after sequestration was applied,

as of April 26, 2013. It does not represent a final funding level as the department is likely to

undertake transfers and reprogramming to mitigate the impact of sequestration in some areas.

Table 7. DHS Management Account Appropriations, FY2012-FY2013

(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2013 Appropriation

FY2012

Enacted

Office of the

Secretary and

Executive

Management

Request

Housepassed

Senatereported

P.L. 113-6

(presequester)

DHS Plan

(sequestered)

133

134

122

133

130

Immediate Office of

the Secretary

Immediate Office of

the Deputy Secretary

Office of the Chief of

Staff

Executive Secretary

Office of Policy

44a

Office of Public

Affairs

Office of Legislative

Affairs

Office of

Intergovernmental

Affairs

Office of General

Counsel

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

FY2013 Appropriation

FY2012

Enacted

Request

Housepassed

Senatereported

P.L. 113-6

(presequester)

DHS Plan

(sequestered)

Office of Civil Rights

and Civil Liberties

Citizenship and

Immigration Services

Ombudsman

Privacy Officer

Office of

Counternarcotics

Enforcement

Floor Amendment

—

Under Secretary

for Management

236

222

180

220

218

Immediate Office of

the Under Secretary

Office of Security

Office of the Chief

Procurement Officer

Office of the Chief

Human Capital

Officer

Office of the Chief

Administrative

Officer

Floor Amendments

—

-33c

—

Office of the Chief

Financial Officer

Office of the Chief

Information

Officer

257

313

242

248

243

238

DHS

Headquarters

Consolidationd

Total,

Departmental

Management

677

813

594

655

643

638

Sources: H.Rept. 112-331, H.R. 5855, H.Rept. 112-492, S.Rept. 112-169, CRS analysis of P.L. 113-6, the

accompanying Senate explanatory statement, and the DHS FY2013 Post-Sequestration Operating Plan dated April

26, 2013.

Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding.

This number for the Office of Policy reflects the existing structure of that office. The Administration

proposed separating the Office of International Affairs, Office of State and Local Law Enforcement and the

Private Sector Office from of the Office of Policy in its FY2013 budget request. The proposal was not

supported in the FY2013 appropriations process.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

H.Amdt. 1232, to reduce funds for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management by $50,000 and

increase funds for Security, Enforcement, and Investigations U.S. Customs and Border Protection Salaries

and Expenses by $43,000, was agreed to by voice vote on June 6, 2012.

Four amendments passed the House that impacted this account by a total of $32.667 million. These are

listed in the text describing the House-passed bill.

This line only reflects funding for DHS Headquarters Consolidation included in Title I of the DHS

appropriations legislation. Other funding has been provided under Coast Guard accounts and in general

provisions in previous years. See the section below for more explicit funding details.

Issues for Congress

The reports of the House and Senate Appropriations committees that accompany H.R. 5855 and

S. 3216 identified several issues before the department, including the Administration’s proposal to

add separate line items under OSEM for three offices, new revenue assumptions underlying the

department’s budget, the department’s chronic lateness in submitting plans and reports required

by statute, and conference spending by the department. Brief discussions of each of these issues

follow.

Proposed Separate Line Items

The Administration’s budget proposed separate line items for three offices—the Office of

International Affairs (OIA), the Office of State and Local Law Enforcement (SLLE), and the

Private Sector Office (PSO)—that are currently funded under the Office of Policy. Under the

proposal, each of the offices would have directly reported to the OSEM. This proposal was

rejected at each stage of the legislative process, including P.L. 113-6. The House committee noted

that none of the offices are headed by individuals who are Senate-confirmed. Stating that the

“proposal is inconsistent with the goal of a more streamlined department and of reducing

administrative overhead” and that “international affairs policy formulation and coordination” is

“an inherently appropriate function of the Office of Policy,” the House committee report “directs

the Department to report ... on the potential of establishing an external affairs office that might

include, consolidate, and streamline the PSO and SLLE functions, and those of other existing

external affairs offices (namely the Offices of Legislative Affairs, Intergovernmental Affairs, and

Public Affairs) that currently report to the Secretary.”33 The Senate committee report noted that

DHS has not provided “a compelling rationale for why these offices need to be stand alone

entities” and that “these functions have been performed adequately within the Office of Policy.”34

Revenue Assumptions

The Administration’s budget included three legislative proposals that would increase the

budgetary resources available to Department: an increase in the aviation security fee,

authorization for the use of customs fee revenues, and authority for the CBP to enter into

reimbursement agreements with outside parties to provide customs services.

The House rejected all three proposals, while the Senate included all three. The House committee

report noted in the Chief Financial Officer’s section that “the President’s budget once again

H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 8-9.

S.Rept. 112-169, p. 12.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

assumes that new revenue will be realized in the coming fiscal year,” and that in the case of the

new aviation security fee increase, the Congressional Budget Office estimates “a shortfall of $115

million” in the DHS budget because the assumptions are dependent “on enactment of new

legislative authority that is outside the jurisdiction of the Committee.”35 According to the report:

As this Committee has underscored repeatedly over the past several Congresses, such an

approach to budgeting is unrealistic and requires this Committee to take drastic measures to

offset the unnecessary gap. The Committee reiterates its message—it rejects such budgetary

legerdemain. The consequences, in terms of additional reductions to Department requests,

are evident throughout this bill. If and when such proposals are enacted into law, the

Committee will take them into account as it drafts legislation, and the Department should

keep the Committee informed of any progress in this regard. However, until that occurs, such

proposals will not be treated as relevant to its appropriations work.36

P.L. 113-6 included a general provision allowing CBP to initiate pilot projects for entering into

reimbursable agreements to provide customs services. It did not include either other revenue

provision.37

Plans and Reports Required by Statute

The House committee report expressed concern about the late submission of plans and reports

and plans that are required by statute to be transmitted to Congress and, therefore, withheld a

portion of funding from departmental management accounts as detailed in the section on FY2013

House-reported actions. According to the report:

The Department has been egregiously late in responding to Congressional direction,

including failing to submit the majority of statutorily required reports on time. This failure to

comply with the law is wholly unacceptable.... The investment plans, expenditure plans,

reports, and justifications outlined by the Committee are essential if it is to help DHS better

protect the American people and live up to exacting standards of fiscal responsibility.

Such plans are vital to the Committee’s oversight work, yet in far too many instances such

plans—which should reflect decisions already made by the Department to align current

program priorities with resources—have been inexcusably late, incomplete, or have not yet

been submitted at all. In some cases, expenditure plans that should have been submitted at

the beginning of a fiscal year to show how the Department planned to expend its funding,

instead have been submitted well after the end of the fiscal year.

The Committee expects the Department to comply with these statutory requirements, with

regard to both content and schedule. The Committee notes that the majority of statutorily

required reports and plans are presently more than three months late.... 38

The Senate-reported bill proposed withholding 59% of the budgets of OSEM, USM and CFO

though a general provision “until all statutorily required expenditure reports are submitted on

time.” This generally would have had the same effect as the House provision (the House

withholdings, proposed as fixed numbers, were roughly 58% of the committee recommended

H.Rept. 112-492, p. 22.

Ibid., p. 22.

P.L. 113-6, Section 560 (127 Stat. 378-380).

Ibid., pp. 6, 10, and 11.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

levels), but House floor action reduced the USM budget to the point that if its provisions were to

become law for FY2013, 70% of the USM budget would have been withheld.

Section 562 of P.L. 113-6 withholds 20% of the budgets of OSEM, USM, and CFO until the all

the reports and plans due by May 1 under the bill have been submitted.

Conference Spending

The House committee report, noting the findings of the General Services Administration (GSA)

inspector general with regard to GSA conference spending and the necessity for better “oversight

of expenditures during the current fiscal climate,” would require the department’s Office of

Inspector General to report on “whether the Department has effective procedures in place to

ensure compliance with all applicable Federal laws and regulations on travel, conferences, and

employee awards programs.”39 The report would be submitted to the Committee within 30 days

after the act’s enactment. New general provisions related to conference spending were also

included in the House and Senate bills.

Both bills included a provision requiring a quarterly report to the DHS OIG on every “conference,

ceremony or similar event” that costs the government more than $20,000. The OIG would then

report to the committee after the end of FY2013 on the department’s spending on these events.

The Senate provision went on to restrict the use of grants or contracts funded by the department

to fund conferences unrelated to the original purpose of the grant or contract award, and bars the

use of funds for travel or conference activities that do not comply with OMB Memorandum M12-12, which provides government-wide direction on spending on travel, conferences, real

property, and fleet management.40 Section 3003 of Division G of P.L. 113-6 requires governmentwide reporting on conference costs to departmental inspectors general or senior ethics officials,

and mirrors the Senate’s additional provisions on the subject.

Both bills also would have limited the number of employees that can attend an overseas

conference. The House would have limited attendance to 50 employees of DHS at any single

conference outside the United States, unless the conference is a training or operation conference

for law enforcement, and the majority of federal attendees are law enforcement officers. The

Senate would have capped attendance at 50 employees per DHS component, unless the Secretary

notified the Appropriations committees in advance that attendance is important to the national

interest.41 Section 569 of P.L. 113-6 mirrors the Senate language.

DHS Headquarters Consolidation42

The Department of Homeland Security’s headquarters footprint occupies more than 7 million

square feet of office space in about 45 separate locations in the greater Washington, DC, area.

This is largely a legacy of how the department was assembled in a short period of time from 22

separate federal agencies that were themselves spread across the National Capital region. The

Ibid., p. 16.

H.R. 5885, Section 557; S. 3216, Section 556; and OMB Memorandum M-12-12, May 11, 2012.

H.R. 5885, Section 556; S. 3216, Section 557.

Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government

and Finance Division.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

fragmentation of headquarters is cited by the department as a major contributor to inefficiencies,

including time lost shuttling staff between headquarters elements; additional security, real estate,

and administrative costs; and reduced cohesion among the components that make up the

department.

To unify the department’s headquarters functions, the department and General Services

Administration (GSA) approved a $3.4 billion master plan to create a new DHS headquarters on

the grounds of St Elizabeths in Anacostia. According to GSA, this would be the largest federal

office construction since the Pentagon was built during World War II. $1.4 billion of this project

was to be funded through the DHS budget, and $2 billion through the GSA.43 According to DHS,

$1,366 million has been invested in the project so far through FY2012—$434 million through

DHS and $933 million through GSA.44 Phase 1A of the project—a new Coast Guard headquarters

facility—is nearing operational status with the funding already provided by Congress.

Not all DHS functions in the greater Washington, DC, area are slated to move to the new facility.

The Administration has sought funding several times in recent years for consolidation of some of

those other offices to fewer locations to save money on lease costs.

FY2013 Request

The Administration requested $89 million for the activities related to the St. Elizabeths DHS

headquarters project as part of the budget for departmental operations. The funding was requested

for a highway interchange that would handle some of the increased traffic generated by the

consolidated headquarters facility.45 This is an element that would support the project, but that has

not traditionally been funded through the Homeland Security appropriations bill. Usually these

types of infrastructure elements would have been funded through the budgets of the General

Services Administration or Department of Transportation. The Administration also requested

$24.5 million under the Coast Guard operating expenses budget for the cost of moving the Coast

Guard into its new facility in the third quarter of FY2013. No other requests for funding for the

DHS consolidated headquarters project were included in the budget submission to Congress.

House-Passed H.R. 5855

The House Appropriations Committee recommended no funding for the highway interchange or

any part of the St. Elizabeths project through the management accounts, noting the irregularity of

funding a highway interchange through the Homeland Security bill. The bill would have provided

the Administration’s requested funding for the Coast Guard to move to the new facility. In

addition, $10 million would have been provided through the Coast Guard’s construction budget to

provide additional support for the project.

In the report accompanying H.R. 5855, the committee noted the following:

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Homeland Security

Headquarters Facilities, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., March 25, 2010 (Washington: GPO, 2010), pp. 335-366.

Some of GSA’s investment in St. Elizabeths would have been required without the DHS headquarters to stabilize and

maintain the structures on the federally owned site.

Department of Homeland Security, Departmental Management and Operations Fiscal Year 2013 Congressional

Justification, DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project, Washington, DC, February 2012, pp. 1-2.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

The Committee recommends no new construction funding in the bill for new Departmental

Headquarters Consolidation expansion. This is $89,000,000 below the request. Funding is

included, as requested, as part of the Coast Guard appropriation to cover the costs associated

with completing the move of the Coast Guard headquarters to St. Elizabeths. Associated with

this, as described below, is additional funding under Coast Guard construction to ensure

completion of the current project, improve site access, and support analysis for follow on

work and any necessary planning adjustments for schedule, scope, and cost.

…

The Committee understands that the Department, through USM, is actively exploring options

to creatively modify or consolidate current leases, in the expectation that a permanent

headquarters construction site will be significantly delayed or amended. The Committee

encourages the Department to continue this effort and to inform the Committee of its

progress in consolidation no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act,

including a revised schedule and cost estimates. Further, as noted above, the Committee

includes $10,000,000 under the Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

account to complete Phase 1 of construction, ensure Coast Guard will be able to move in

2013 and that there will be no obstacles to access and transportation into the site, and to

support orderly planning and analysis for the overall project.46

In the minority views accompanying the report, the ranking members of the subcommittee and

full committee noted the following:

The bill also fails to provide the $89 million for site access, including necessary road and

interchange improvements, for DHS personnel to access the new DHS headquarters. The

new DHS headquarters project has been shortchanged over the past few years, causing

repeated schedule delays and increasing the costs from $3.4 billion to just over $4 billion if

all three phases are constructed. In the interim, the Coast Guard may be the only tenant at

this new facility for the next 3–5 years, as the bill funds only this relocation in 2013. The bill

does not include any funding for Phase 2, which was to begin construction for DHS central

headquarters and FEMA.47

No amendments were considered on the House floor addressing DHS headquarters consolidation.

Senate-Reported S. 3216

The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $89 million for the highway interchange,

although it was funded as a part of the Under Secretary for Management’s office through a

general provision rather than as a stand-alone appropriation in departmental operations as it was

requested. The committee also recommended full funding for the Coast Guard’s move under

Coast Guard operating expenses. No funding was provided for the project through the Coast

Guard construction budget. An attempt was made to use the $89 million for the highway

interchange as an offset for an unrelated amendment in full committee markup of the bill. The

amendment failed, and the funding remained in the reported version of the legislation.

In the report accompanying S. 3216, the committee noted the following:

H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 19-20.

H.Rept. 112-492, p. 204.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

Pursuant to section 549, a total of $89,000,000 is provided for ‘‘Office of the Under

Secretary for Management’’ for costs associated with headquarters consolidation and

mission support consolidation. The Under Secretary shall submit an expenditure plan no later

than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act detailing how these funds will be

allocated, including a revised schedule and cost estimates for headquarters consolidation.

Quarterly briefings are required on headquarters and mission support consolidation activities,

including any deviation from the expenditure plan. According to the Department, an updated

plan is being developed in coordination with the General Services Administration to

complete the headquarters consolidation project in smaller, independent segments that are

more fiscally manageable in the current budget environment. The Department expects this

updated plan to be completed by the end of summer 2012 and it is to be submitted to the

Committee upon its completion. The Committee expects the plan to identify the discrete

construction segments, the associated resource requirements for each segment, and the

proposed timeline for requesting funding to complete each segment.48

P.L. 113-6 and the DHS Operating Plan for FY2013

P.L. 113-6 provided no funding for headquarters consolidation in Title I of the legislation. $29

million is provided in a general provision for “necessary expenses to plan, acquire, design,

construct, renovate, remediate, equip, furnish, improve infrastructure, and occupy buildings and

facilities for the department headquarters project and associated mission support consolidation.”

According to the DHS operating plan, this amount was not reduced through sequestration.

Analysis and Operations49

Funds included in the Analysis and Operations account support both the Office of Intelligence

and Analysis (I&A) and the Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS). I&A is

responsible for managing the DHS intelligence enterprise and for collecting, analyzing, and

sharing intelligence information for and among all components of DHS, and with the state, local,

tribal, and private sector homeland security partners. Because I&A is a member of the intelligence

community,50 its budget comes in part from the classified National Intelligence Program.51 OPS

develops and coordinates departmental and interagency operations plans. It also manages the

National Operations Center, the primary 24/7 national-level hub for domestic incident

management, operations coordination, and situational awareness, fusing law enforcement,

national intelligence, emergency response, and private sector information.

S.Rept. 112-169, p. 20.

Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism, Domestic Social Policy Division.

The intelligence community (IC), as defined in 50 USC 401a(4), includes the Central Intelligence Agency, the

National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Geospatial-Imagery Agency, the Defense

Intelligence Agency, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the State Department, the Office of Intelligence and

Analysis of the Treasury Department, DHS’s I&A as well as intelligence elements within the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Department of Energy, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the

Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard.

The National Intelligence Program “funds Intelligence Community (IC) activities in six Federal departments, the

Central Intelligence Agency, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The IC provides intelligence

collection, the analysis of that intelligence, and the responsive dissemination of intelligence to those who need it—

including the President, the heads of Executive Departments, military forces, and law enforcement agencies.” See

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2013-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2013-BUD-8.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

FY2013 Request

The FY2013 request for the Analysis and Operations account was $322 million, a decrease of $16

million (4.7%) from the enacted FY2012 level of $338 million. The account request included

funding for 849 FTE, a decrease of 2 FTE from 2012.

House-Passed H.R. 5855

H.R. 5855 would have provided $317 million for the Analysis and Operations account, $4.5

million (1.4%) below the amount in the President’s FY2013 request. The recommendation was

$21 million (6.1%) less than the amount enacted in FY2012.

According to H.Rept. 112-492, the House Committee on Appropriations also recommended

denying the proposed:

•

increase in executive service salaries for the Office of Operations Coordination

and Planning;

•

increase in funding associated with the Air Domain Intelligence Integration

Element; and

•

decrease to Cybersecurity Analysis (thus restoring funding for this function).

No changes to those positions were made in House floor action.

Senate-Reported S. 3216

The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $324 million for the Analysis and

Operations account. This would have been a decrease of $14 million (4.1%) below the enacted

FY2012 amount of $338 million and an increase of $2 million (0.6%) from the President’s

FY2013 request. It would have been an increase of $7 million (2.2%) above the amount passed in

the House.

According to S.Rept. 112-169, the Senate Committee on Appropriations required DHS’s Chief

Intelligence Officer to submit an expenditure plan for FY2013 no later than 60 days after the

enactment of the appropriations bill. The Committee directed DHS to focus the plan on I&A’s

functions that provide unique expertise or serve intelligence customers who are not supported by

other components of the intelligence community. The Committee also directed I&A to continue

its semi-annual briefings on the State and Local Fusion Centers program.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

P.L. 113-6 and the DHS Operating Plan for FY2013

P.L. 113-6 (pre-sequester) provides $322 million for the Analysis and Operations account and

falls between the $317 million in H.R. 5855 and the $324 million in S. 3216. The P.L. 113-6

figure is the same as the President’s FY2013 request and 4.7% below FY2012. The explanatory

statement reiterated the House’s rejection of increases for executive service salaries and the Air

Domain Intelligence Integration Element, as well as the Senate’s direction regarding an

expenditure plan and the semi-annual briefing on fusion centers.

The operating plan for DHS for FY2013 indicates sequestration reduced this to $306 million,

prior to any transfers and reprogrammings that might mitigate the impact of sequestration in some

areas and exacerbate it in others.

Issues for Congress

Some Members of Congress have voiced concerns about I&A’s mission. For example, in January

2012, Representative Sue Myrick stated that “I&A historically has suffered from a lack of focus

in its mission. This challenge partially stems from vague or overlapping authorities in some

areas.”52 Representative Myrick made these comments in an opening statement for a House of

Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism,

Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence hearing about DHS’s role in the

intelligence community.53 The hearing centered on a report about DHS’s intelligence mission

issued by the Aspen Institute.54 While not specifically covering I&A, the report suggested that

intelligence activities at DHS should avoid duplication of efforts—such as general analysis of

terrorist activities—performed by other agencies. Rather, according to the Aspen Institute,

DHS’s mandate should allow for collection, dissemination, and analytic work that is focused

on more specific homeward-focused areas. First, the intelligence mission could be directed

toward areas where DHS has inherent strengths and unique value (e.g., where its personnel

and data are centered) that overlap with its legislative mandate. Second, this mission

direction should emphasize areas that are not served by other agencies, particularly

state/local partners whose needs are not a primary focus for any other federal agency.55

The language in S.Rept. 112-169 requiring DHS to provide an expenditure plan centered around

I&A’s functions also highlighted concerns regarding I&A’s mission, particularly its potential

duplication of intelligence efforts by other federal agencies.

U.S. Congress, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human

Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence, The Role of DHS in the IC: A Report by the Aspen Institute, 112th

Cong., 2nd sess., January 18, 2012, Opening Statement (as prepared) by Rep. Sue Myrick, p. 1,

http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/011812MyrickOpeningStatement.pdf.

See U.S. Congress, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human

Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence, The Role of DHS in the IC: A Report by the Aspen Institute, 112th

Cong., 2nd sess., January 18, 2012, http://intelligence.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-terrorism-humint-analysis-andcounterintelligence-role-dhs-ic-report-aspen.

Aspen Institute, Homeland Security and Intelligence: Next Steps in Evolving the Mission, January 18, 2012,

http://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/homeland-security-intelligence-next-steps-evolving-mission.

Ibid., p. 3.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

Office of the Inspector General56

The DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is intended to be an independent, objective body

that conducts audits and investigations of the department’s activities to prevent waste, fraud and

abuse; keeps Congress informed about problems within the department’s programs and

operations; ensures DHS information technology is secure pursuant to the Federal Information

Security Management Act; and reviews and makes recommendations regarding existing and

proposed legislation and regulations to the department. The OIG reports to Congress and the

Secretary of DHS.57

FY2013 Request

The OIG requested $144 million. New funding of $2.6 million was requested to fulfill the

directive of the Implementing the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act (P.L. 110-53)

“that the OIG conduct audits of all states that received FEMA grant funds to prevent, prepare for,

protect against, or respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other disasters.” According

to the DHS justification, the new appropriation “will allow the OIG to conduct most of the

remaining 23 audits in FY2013 and position the OIG to complete all 61 audits by the deadline.”58

House-Passed H.R. 5855

The House-passed bill included $109 million for the DHS OIG. Expressing “dissatisfaction with

the quality of communication with the Committee with regard to border corruption investigations,

and in particular, issues with coordinating these with ICE and CBP,”59 the committee reduced the

OIG appropriation by $10 million specifically for that reason. Furthermore, the Committee chose

to fund $24 million of the OIG’s budget through a transfer from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund—

rather than through direct appropriations from the treasury—specifically to pay for disasterrelated audits and investigations. No changes were made to these provisions on the House floor.

Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division,

and (name redacted), Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and Finance

Division.

H.Rept. 112-469, p. 25.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Audits, Inspections and Investigations,

Congressional Justification, Fiscal Year 2013, p. OIG-9.

Ibid., p. 26.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

Senate-Reported S. 3216

The Senate-reported bill included $123 million ($21 million less than the President’s request) for

the base appropriation for the DHS OIG. Like the House-passed bill, the Senate-reported bill

expected $24 million to come from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), thus providing a net $3

million increase above the request. The Senate committee report indicated that the additional

funding was to be used for investigating corruption and criminal conduct at CBP and ICE, and

that the recommendation included the increase requested to complete all audits mandated under

P.L. 110-53 of the State Homeland Security Program and grants under the Urban Area Security

Initiative grants by the August 20, 2014, deadline.

P.L. 113-6 and the DHS Operating Plan for FY2013

After the across-the-board cuts but prior to applying sequestration, the Consolidated and Further

Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-6) provides $121 million in net budget authority

for the OIG for FY2013, an increase of $4 million (3.4%) from last year’s appropriation and a

decrease of $23 million (15.6%) from the President’s request. However, the legislation also

includes a $24 million transfer from the Disaster Relief Fund, which was not included in the

request and roughly brings the gross budgetary resources available to the OIG in line with the

request.

Sequestration reduced OIG budget authority by roughly $7 million, according to the DHS

FY2013 expenditure plan. The plan projected gross total resources for the OIG in FY2013 to be

$138 million, $3 million less than the FY2012 enacted levels.

Issues for Congress

OIG Mandates

Both House and Senate bills and reports required the OIG to conduct reviews and provide reports,

briefings, or determinations to the Appropriations Committees on a variety of matters including

•

An expenditure plan for its budget, and monthly reports on transfers from the

DRF;

•

Steps taken to ensure the integrity of CBP and ICE officers;

•

DHS expenditures on special events;

•

DHS non-competitive contract awards; and

•

Reviews of the operations of local law enforcement under 287(g) agreements.

In addition the House directed that the OIG:

•

Report on whether DHS has effective procedures in place to ensure compliance

with all applicable federal laws and regulations on travel, conferences, and

employee awards programs;

•

Continue to conduct “red team” inspections of TSA screening;

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

•

Brief the Committee on its assessment of adjudication fraud detection reforms by

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; and

•

Review excessive delays in determinations concerning FEMA’s public assistance

programs.

The Senate did not include those provisions, but instead directed in a general provision that the

OIG provide a review of FEMA’s application of its own rules regarding awarding public

assistance funds for debris removal. This was reiterated in Section 565 of Division D of P.L. 1136.

While not all of these provisions were explicitly reiterated in the explanatory statement

accompanying P.L. 113-6, the explanatory statement notes that the language carried in the House

and Senate reports “should be complied with and carry the same emphasis as the language

included in the explanatory statement,” unless the act or explanatory statement specifically negate

that report language. No such negation was included.

Although in many cases these tasks represent new work for the OIG, with the exception of

integrity investigations of ICE and CBP officers in P.L. 113-6, no additional funding is dedicated

for this work.

OIG Organization

The Senate explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 113-6 expressed a shared concern of the

House and Senate appropriations committees that the current organization of the OIG hinders its

independence and ability to report its results in a timely fashion. The statement directs GAO to

review the organizational structure of the OIG, how it is organized to report the results of its

audits and investigations, and whether its reporting functions are improperly placed in the office

to maintain its compliance with independence standards. The report also notes that the OIG has a

large number of senior positions filled by officials in acting roles, which may hinder its ability to

fulfill its duties.

Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations

Title II of the DHS appropriations bill, which includes over three-quarters of the budget authority

provided in the legislation, contains the appropriations for U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security

Administration (TSA), the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and the U.S. Secret Service (USSS). The

Administration requested $30,759 million for these accounts in FY2013, a decrease of $768

million (2.4%) below the enacted level. The House-passed bill would have provided $30,946

million, an increase of 0.6% from the requested level and 1.8% below FY2012. The Senatereported bill would have provided $30,974 million, 0.7% above the request and 1.8% below

FY2012.

After the across-the-board cuts made under Division G of P.L. 113-6, the act provides $31,267

million in appropriations for Title II, an increase of 1.7% from the requested level and 0.8%

below FY2012. The operating plan for DHS for FY2013 indicates sequestration reduced this to

$30,184 million, prior to any transfers or reprogrammings that might mitigate the impact of

sequestration in some areas and exacerbate it in others.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

Table 8 lists the enacted amounts for the individual components of Title II for FY2012, the

Administration’s request for these components for FY2013, the House-passed and Senatereported appropriations for the same, the enacted level in P.L. 113-6, and the post-sequester level

of available resources from P.L. 113-6 reported by DHS.

Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations, FY2012-FY2013

(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2013 Appropriation

FY2012

Enacted

Request

Housepassed

Senatereported

P.L. 113-6

(presequester)

DHS Plan

(sequestered)

8,680

9,011

8,366

8,770

8,282

7,878

Automation Modernization

334

328

700

328

719

683

Border Security Fencing,

Infrastructure, and Technology

400

327

334

327

324

Air and Marine Interdictions

504

436

519

507

798

758

Facilities Management

237

244

253

244

233

221

279

10,155

10,345

10,172

10,454

10,356

9,864

Fees, Mandatory Spending, and

Trust Funds

1,502

1,626

1,516

1,436

Total Budgetary Resources

11,657

11,971

11,689

11,971

11,873

11,298

5,529

5,297

5,236

5,295

5,387

5,109

Automation & Infrastructure

Modernization

232

Construction

5,551

5,332

5,474

5,330

5,426

5,147

Fees, Mandatory Spending, and

Trust Funds

312

296

Total Budgetary Resources

5,863

5,644

5,786

5,642

5,738

5,442

Customs and Border Protection

Salaries and Expenses

US-VISITa

Appropriation

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation

Transportation Security Administration

Aviation Security (net funding)

3,224

2,914

2,971

2,702

2,976

2,823

Surface Transportation Security

135

124

126

124

122

Transportation Threat

Assessment and Credentialing

(net funding)

164

193

192

193

192

184

Transportation Security

Support

1,032

970

929

970

953

934

Federal Air Marshals

966

930

880

930

907

875

5,521

5,130

5,098

4,919

5,152

4,938

Appropriation

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

FY2013 Appropriation

FY2012

Enacted

Request

Housepassed

Senatereported

P.L. 113-6

(presequester)

DHS Plan

(sequestered)

Fees, Mandatory Spending, and

Trust Funds

2,320

2,515

2,400

2,715

2,399

2,274

Total Budgetary Resources

7,841

7,645

7,498

7,633

7,551

7,212

7,051

6,791

6,765

7,073

7,066

6,871

Environmental Compliance &

Restoration

Reserve Training

134

133

116

133

132

131

Automation Modernization

—

Acquisition, Construction, &

Improvements

1,404

1,217

1,429

1,471

1,543

1,472

Research, Development,

Testing, and Evaluation

Health Care Fund Contributionc

262

203

Discretionary

Appropriation

8,634

8,377

8,589

8,659

8,723

8,709

Fees, Mandatory Spending, and

Trust Funds

1,654

1,640

1,833

1,822

Overseas Contingency

Operations Adjustment

258

254

240

Total Budgetary Resources

10,546

10,017

10,229

10,553

10,800

10,531

1,661

1,544

1,556

1,554

1,472

1,667

1,601

1,613

1,611

1,527

Fees, Mandatory Spending, and

Trust Funds

245

250

245

Total Budgetary Resources

1,912

1,851

1,863

1,861

1,772

Net Discretionary Budget

Authority: Title II

31,527

30,759

30,946

30,974

31,267

30,184

Total Budgetary Resources

for Title II Components

before Transfers

37,813

37,128

37,070

37,662

37,825

36,498

U.S. Coast Guard

Operating Expensesb

U.S. Secret Service

Salaries and Expenses

Acquisition, Construction, and

Improvements

Appropriation

Sources: H.Rept. 112-331, H.R. 5855, H.Rept. 112-492, S.Rept. 112-169, CRS analysis of P.L. 113-6, the

accompanying Senate explanatory statement, and the DHS FY2013 Post-Sequestration Operating Plan dated

April 26, 2013.

Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding. Fee revenues included in the “Fees, Mandatory Spending, and

Trust Funds” lines are projections.

The Administration proposed in the FY2013 budget request moving US-VISIT from NPPD and dividing it

between ICE and CBP. As is reflected here, the Senate proposed moving the resources to CBP, then

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

transferring $18 million to ICE. The House only partially funded the transfer, and did so through the existing

appropriations structure.

Overseas contingency operations funding is displayed in this line, but is not added to the appropriations

total, in accordance with the appropriations committees’ practices for subtotaling this account. This funding

is not reflected in the total appropriation for the Coast Guard.

This is permanent indefinite discretionary spending, and therefore scores as being in the bill, despite not

being explicitly appropriated in the bills’ legislative language.

$254 million was requested as a permissive transfer from the Department of Defense to cover the Coast

Guard’s overseas contingency operations costs. However, these charts do not track activity in other

appropriations bills or transfers.

Customs and Border Protection60

CBP is responsible for security at and between ports of entry (POE) along the border, with a

priority mission of preventing the entry of terrorists and instruments of terrorism. CBP officers

inspect people (immigration enforcement) and goods (customs enforcement) at POEs to

determine if they are authorized to enter the United States. CBP officers and U.S. Border Patrol

(USBP) agents enforce more than 400 laws and regulations at the border to prevent illegal entries.

CBP’s major programs include Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation, which

encompasses risk-based targeting and the inspection of travelers and goods at POEs; Border

Security and Control between Ports of Entry, which includes the Border Patrol; Air and Marine

Interdiction; Automation Modernization, which includes customs and immigration information

technology systems; Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT); Facilities

Management; and a number of immigration and customs user Fee Accounts. See Table 8 for

account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 9 for subaccount-level detail for

CBP appropriations and funding for FY2012-FY2013.

Funding numbers for P.L. 113-6 reflect across-the-board spending cuts relative to FY2012

enacted amounts (i.e., P.L. 112-74 and P.L. 112-77), but they do not reflect additional spending

cuts required by sequestration pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). The

“DHS Plan” column provides the department’s assessment of post-sequester resources provided

by P.L. 113-6 as of April 26, 2013. It does not represent a final funding level as the department is

likely to undertake transfers and reprogramming to mitigate the impact of sequestration in some

areas.

Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Im

Congressional Research Service

migration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

FY2013 Request

The Administration requested an appropriation of $10,345 million in net budget authority for

CBP for FY2013, an increase of $190 million (1.9%) over the enacted FY2012 level of $10,155

million. The Administration’s total request included $1,626 million in fees, mandatory spending,

and trust funds, for a gross budget request of $11,971 million, which is a $320 million (2.8%)

increase from the enacted FY2012 level of $11,651 million.

The request included the following program changes from FY2012:

•

Transfer of most of the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology

(US-VISIT) program from the National Protection Programs Directorate (NPPD)

into CBP, with a $261.5 million increase to CBP;

•

Increase of $31 million for the operation and maintenance of the Automated

Targeting System (ATS), which screens incoming cargo and travelers, and of

$38.7 million for the Office of Intelligence and Investigative Liaison and $8

million for the National Targeting Center, both of which work with the ATS to

improve security-related targeting rules (see “Cargo Security” below);

•

Increase of $13 million for the Container Security Initiative, which scans certain

U.S.-bound cargo in foreign ports (see “Cargo Security” below);

•

Increase of $10 million for intellectual property rights enforcement and of $3

million to expand CBP’s Centers for Excellence and Expertise, which work with

certain industries to facilitate the import process;

•

Decrease of $68.2 million for the Office of Air and Marine Interdictions (OAM)

from acquisition of fewer new aircraft than in the last two fiscal years, and a

decrease of $7.1 million for Air and Marine salaries from fewer air missions;

•

Decrease of $52.3 million in management and administration staffing and

services from savings related to human resources activities and administrative

staff and expenses within the Office of the Commissioner, the Office of

Information Technology, the Office of Administration, and the Office of Public

Affairs;

•

Decrease of $41.2 million in fleet acquisition and management from deferring

acquisition of new non-mission critical vehicles and reducing fuel and

maintenance costs;

•

Decrease of $36.8 million for information technology infrastructure and support

by deferring replacement of equipment and technical upgrades;

•

Decrease of $31 million for nonintrusive inspection (NII) operations and

maintenance by relying exclusively on currently fielded NII equipment;

•

Decrease of $21.1 million in CBP officer overtime expenses, $9.2 million in field

support staff salaries and expenses from reductions in operational support, and $7

million in Air and Marine salaries and expenses from reducing low priority

missions;

•

Decrease of $14.7 million in training expenses by reducing certain specialized

training programs; and

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

•

Decrease of $12.3 million in CBP transportation program from lower workload

requirements (due to fewer apprehensions) and cost reductions from a new

transportation contract.

House-Passed H.R. 5855

The House approved $10,172 in net budget authority for CBP for FY2013, an increase of $17

million (0.2%) from last year’s appropriation and a decrease of $173 million (1.7%) from the

President’s request. Under the House-passed bill, CBP would have received $11,689 in gross

budget authority, which would have been a $37 million (0.3%) increase over last year’s level and

a $283 million (2.4%) decrease from the President’s request.

These numbers included several amendments to the House-reported version of the bill, including

amendments to add $43,000 to CBP salaries and expenses to support completion of a staffing

model; to add $10 million to the BSFIT account to fund communications infrastructure in border

communities; and to cut $3 million from the BSFIT appropriation (a cut targeting environmental

mitigation), with $624,000 added to the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction’s Operations,

Maintenance and Procurement account.61

Senate-Reported S. 3216

The Senate Appropriations Committee proposed $10,454 million in net budget authority for CBP

for FY2013, an increase of $299 million (3.0%) from last year’s appropriation and of $109

million (1.1%) from the President’s request. The Senate-reported bill included $11,971 in gross

budget authority, which would have been a $319 million (2.7%) increase over last year’s

appropriation and a $0.6 million decrease from the President’s request.

P.L. 113-6 and the DHS Operating Plan for FY2013

After the across-the-board cuts but prior to applying sequestration, the Consolidated and Further

Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-6) provides $10,356 million in net budget

authority for CBP for FY2013, an increase of $201 million (0.02%) from last year’s appropriation

and of $12 million (0.001%) from the President’s request. P.L. 113-6 includes $11,872 million in

gross budget authority, which is a $98 million (.01%) decrease below last year’s appropriation

and a $222 million increase (0.02%) over the President’s request.

Sequestration further reduced CBP budget authority by roughly an additional $575 million,

according to the DHS FY2013 expenditure plan. The plan projected gross total spending in

FY2013 for CBP to be $11,298 million, $353 million less than the FY2012 enacted levels.

The rules of the House require that appropriations amendments not increase either budget authority or outlays for the

coming fiscal year. The Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT) account draws down its

resources more slowly than the Office of Air and Marine interdiction, so it takes a $3 million cut in one to offset a

$0.624 million increase in the other. For a more detailed discussion of this matter, see pages 5-8 of CRS Report

RL31055, House Offset Amendments to Appropriations Bills: Procedural Considerations, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

Table 9. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Account Detail, FY2012-FY2013

Budget Authority in Millions of Dollars

FY2013 Appropriation

FY2012

Enacted

Request

Housepassed

Salaries and Expenses

8,680

9,011

Headquarters

Management and

Administration

1,869

Border Security

Inspections and Trade

Facilitation

Senatereported

P.L. 113-6

(presequester)

DHS Plan

(sequestered)

8,366a

8,770

8,282

7,878

1,882

1,431

1,879

1,379

1,312

2,904

2,960

3,044

2,977

3,202

3,046

Border Security and

Control Between POE

3,620

3,626

3,606

3,626

3,701

3,520

Air and Marine

Operations—Salariesb

288

281

285

288

US-VISITc

262

279

Automation

Modernization

334

328

700b

328

719

683

BSFIT

400

327

334

327

324

Air and Marine

Operationsb

504

436

519

507

798

758

Facilities Management

237

244

253

244

233

221

10,155

10,345

10,172

10,454

10,356

9,864

Estimated Fees,

Mandatory Spending and

Trust Fundsd

1,496

1,626

1,516

1,434

Total CBP Budget

Authority

11,651

11,971

11,689

11,971

11,873

11,298

Total Net

Appropriation

Source: H.Rept. 112-331, H.R. 5855, H.Rept. 112-492, S.Rept. 112-169, CRS analysis of P.L. 113-6, the

accompanying Senate explanatory statement, and the DHS FY2013 Post-Sequestration Operating Plan dated

April 26, 2013.

Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding. POE refers to ports of entry. CBP refers to U.S. Customs and

Border Protection. US-VISIT refers to the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program.

BSFIT refers to Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology.

Includes a realignment of $375 million for the Office of Information and Technology from Salaries and

Expenses Account to Automation Modernization.

P.L. 113-6 moves the Air and Marine Operations PPA from the Salaries and Expenses account to a new

“Salaries and Expenses” PPA within what had been the Air and Marine Operations, Maintenance, and

Procurement account.

The Administration proposed transferring US-VISIT into CBP and ICE in its FY2013 budget request. The

House bill would have included $12 million for a portion of US-VISIT’s funding under “Border Security

Inspections and Trade Facilitation.” The Senate bill would have created a new line specifically for funding

US-VISIT distinct from other CBP activities, and would have provided $279 million as a separate

appropriation outside the Salaries and Expenses total, including $18 million to be transferred to U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement. P.L. 113-6 rejected the administration’s proposal to move US-VISIT

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

from the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) to CBP. Instead, the bill realigns the policy

and operational responsibilities of US-VISIT within a new Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM)

in NPPD.

This line includes a decrease of $8 million due to an adjustment to the Small Airport User Fee and an

increase of $6 million in the Customs Unclaimed Goods Trust Fund.

Issues for Congress

A number of policy issues related to CBP came up during the FY2013 appropriations cycle,

including questions about the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (USVISIT) program, CBP staffing, reimbursement authority for CBP services, customs user fees,

border surveillance technology (ground-based and aerial), and cargo security.

U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program

Congress first mandated that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) implement

an automated entry and exit data system that would track the arrival and departure of every alien

in §110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (P.L. 104208). The entry-exit system tracks the entry and exit and verifies the identity of foreign visitors to

and from the United States by collecting and storing biographic (i.e., names, birthdates, and other

identifying information) and biometric (i.e., fingerprints and digital photographs) identification

information about them.62 Biographic entry-exit data are stored in DHS’s Arrival and Departure

Information System (ADIS) database, and biometric data are stored in the Automated Biometric

Identification System (IDENT) database. This information is shared with a wide range of federal,

state and local government agencies to help identify people who may pose a risk to the United

States.63

The entry-exit system has been operational at almost all U.S. ports of entry since December 2006.

DHS regulations issued in January 2009 require most non-citizens entering through air and

seaports and most non-citizens subject to secondary inspection at land ports to provide biometric

data when entering or re-entering the United States.64 The system does not collect biometric data

from non-citizens exiting the United States, however. And while the system collects biographic

data from passengers exiting through air and sea ports, no data are collected from most

passengers exiting through land ports.

The President’s FY2013 budget request did not include funding for a biometric exit system.

Instead, DHS has focused on an enhanced biographic exit program and an integrated U.S.62

For a fuller discussion of the entry-exit system, see CRS Report RL32234, U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status

Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program, by (name redacted) and (name redacted); and CRS Report R42985,

Issues in

Homeland Security Policy for the 113th Congress, coordinated by (name redacted).

Ibid.

73 Federal Register 245, December 19, 2008, p. 77473. Under this rule, all non-U.S. citizens except Canadians

applying for admission to the United States as B-1/B-2 visitors for business or pleasure and those specifically exempted

from the entry-exit system are required to provide biometric data upon entering or re-entering the United States. In

practice, U.S. LPRs returning from cruises that begin and end in the United States or entering at land ports of entry, and

Mexican nationals with border crossing cards also are normally exempted from biometric data collection, at the

discretion of CBP officers at ports of entry. These exemptions meant that about one-third of nonimmigrants entering

the United States in FY2011 were required to participate in US-VISIT; for a fuller discussion see CRS Report R42985,

Issues in Homeland Security Policy for the 113th Congress, coordinated by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

Canadian entry-exit system.65 Under the enhanced biographic exit program, air and sea carriers

provide passenger manifest data to DHS, and the data are checked against entry records and

against immigration, criminal, and national security databases. Overstays are identified, and highpriority overstays (i.e., persons with derogatory information in one of the database checks) are

quickly flagged for follow-up investigations.66 Under the integrated U.S.-Canadian system,

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (the Canadian immigration agency) provides DHS with

biometric records of third country nationals entering Canada through land ports of entry on the

Canadian border; and DHS treats these Canadian entry data as records of U.S. exits for purposes

of the U.S. entry-exit system.67 Some Members of Congress have expressed frustration that a

biometric exit system has not been implemented, and both chambers’ appropriations reports

directed DHS to report on the department’s plans for a more comprehensive exit system.68

The entry-exit system’s place in the DHS organizational structure has changed several times since

it was created. The system was designated the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator

Technology (US-VISIT) Program in 2003 and initially was coordinated out of DHS’ Directorate

of Border and Transportation Security (BTS), the directorate responsible at the time for CBP and

ICE. Under the “second stage review” reorganization by former DHS Secretary Chertoff, DHS

eliminated BTS and proposed placing US-VISIT within a new Screening Coordination Office

(SCO) that would have included several DHS screening programs69 and reported directly to the

Secretary. Funding for the SCO was never appropriated, however, and US-VISIT became a standalone office within Title II of the DHS appropriation in FY2006.70 In FY2008, DHS transferred

US-VISIT into the new National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD).

The FY2013 budget request proposed to move US-VISIT from NPPD and to divide its work

between CBP and ICE in order to “identify potential operational and cost efficiencies” in

“mission support and ‘corporate’ functions such as logistics and human resources.”71 Neither

chamber of Congress fully supported the proposed move, however. The House-passed bill would

have transferred about $73 million to CBP and ICE offices involved with entry-exit policy and

overstay analysis,72 but would have left the bulk of US-VISIT funding, about $191 million, within

a new Office of Biometric Identity Management within NPPD.73 The Senate-reported bill would

DHS Office of Congressional Affairs, April 3, 2013; also see statement of Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Principal Deputy Director for Counterterrorism John Cohen before the U.S. House of Representatives Homeland

Security Committee, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, Ten Years after 9/11: Can Terrorists Still

Exploit Our Visa System, 112th Cong., 1st Sess., September 13, 2011.

DHS Office of Congressional Affairs, April 3, 2013.

Ibid.

H.Rept. 112-492, p. 36; S.Rept. 112-169, p. 48.

Programs proposed for transfer to the Screening Coordination Office included the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status

Indicator Project (US-VISIT); Free and Secure Trade (FAST) and NEXUS/Secure Electronic Network for Travelers

Rapid Inspection (SENTRI), from CBP; and Secure Flight, Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC),

Registered Traveler, Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) background checks, and the Alien Flight School background

checks program from TSA.

H.Rept. 109-241.

CBP, Congressional Budget Justification FY2013, p. CBP S&E 86. Under the proposal, CBP would have assumed

responsibility for most US-VISIT operations, including the management of the ADIS and IDENT databases and

watchlist management services. ICE would have assumed responsibility for US-VISIT’s overstay analysis services,

which were previously divided between ICE and US-VISIT. Thus, the budget request proposes to reallocate $262

million and 351 positions from US-VISIT to CBP, and $18 million and 78 positions from US-VISIT to ICE.

H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 36 and 107.

Entry-exit system IDENT data is shared with certain stakeholders outside of DHS, including agencies within the

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

have transferred US-VISIT to CBP, but the committee recommended that US-VISIT be

transferred as a stand-alone appropriation within CBP, rather than being incorporated within the

existing CBP Salaries and Expenses account as the President had requested.74 Under P.L. 113-6,

the US-VISIT Program was replaced in its entirety by a new Office of Biometric Identity

Management (OBIM) within NPPD.

CBP Staffing

The President’s FY2013 budget requested funding for 21,186 CBP officers and 21,370 U.S.

Border Patrol agents.75 While both chambers’ budget proposals would have supported the

requested staffing levels, they also raised questions about how DHS sets such levels. The Senate

report warned of adverse long-term consequences if DHS preserves high staffing levels during a

period of budget tightening by cutting its investments in infrastructure;76 and also expressed

concern that inspection fees have not increased in about ten years, which limits funds available

for CBP officer salaries.77 The House report encouraged CBP to consider a number of changes to

reduce OFO staffing requirements at POEs, including by reengineering POE processes to make

them more automated, by improving risk-based targeting, by better managing short-term staffing

demand surges, by exploring public-private partnerships, by expanding trusted trade and traveler

programs that facilitate low-risk entries, and by relying on technology to increase officer

efficiency.78 The House report also would have directed CBP to provide a more specific staffing

and deployment plan for border patrol agents;79 and the Senate report would have requested a

plan for OFO staffing at Northern Border ports of entry.80 About 37% of CBP officer salaries are

funded by user fees, and report language accompanying P.L. 113-6 directs CBP to refine its model

for forecasting user fee revenues in order to insure adequate funds are budgeted for such salaries

(also see “Customs User Fees”).81

Some Members may disagree with efforts to reduce CBP staffing (or slow its growth), however.

While border patrol staffing has increased 90% since FY2005 (up from 11,264 agents that year),

OFO staffing at POEs has increased only 18% (up from 17,881 officers in FY2005), even as OFO

responsibilities have expanded to include biometric data collection and enhanced cargo security

requirements.82 Some people argue that increased enforcement between ports of entry has

encouraged illegal migrants and drug smugglers to enter through POEs. Some supporters of

increased OFO staffing argue that officers increase security while also facilitating legal

(...continued)

Departments of State, Justice, Defense, and the Intelligence Community. The House report cited this broader data

management mission as being beyond CBP’s mission and a reason to leave these US-VISIT functions within NPPD.

See H.Rept. 112-492, p. 35.

S.Rept. 112-169, p. 46.

CBP Office of Legislative Affairs, February 13, 2012.

S.Rept. 112-169, p. 30.

S.Rept. 112-169, p. 31.

H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 30-31.

H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 35-56.

S.Rept. 112-169, p. 34.

Senate Explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 113-6, Congressional Record 113th Congress, March 11, 2013, p.

S1549.

CRS analysis of data provided by CBP Office of Legislative Affairs, February 13, 2012.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

admissions, and that officers are more effective at identifying and apprehending bad actors than

are automated targeting systems, trusted trade and travel programs, and other technology.

With the implementation of sequestration on March 1, 2013, DHS officials warned that the

automatic spending cuts could result in furloughs of up to 14 days for frontline CBP personnel;

reduce overtime hours; and decrease hiring to backfill positions, with the lost work hours adding

up to the equivalent of cuts to over 5,000 Border Patrol agents and 2,750 CBP officers.83 DHS

reportedly intends to minimize the impact of the sequester on frontline operations, including by

eliminating employee performance awards and incentive payments, reducing outside contracts,

limiting administrative expenditures, and working with congressional appropriators to reprogram

and transfer certain funds.84 CBP officials also have indicated that the agency intends to rely on

reductions to overtime and hiring freezes in an effort to avoid or minimize employee furloughs.85

Nonetheless, with 72% of CBP’s budget tied to salaries and benefits—and with over 90% of the

Border Security and Control between POEs Account going to salaries and benefits86—it appeared

likely that CBP frontline staffing would be subject to some combination of reduced overtime

hours and furlough days, though specific plans had not been announced at the time of this report.

Reimbursement Authority for CBP Services

One approach the administration has favored for leveraging current resources to provide

enhanced services at ports of entry has been to rely on public-private partnerships as a source of

funding for staffing and infrastructure.87 Yet U.S. customs law generally prohibits CBP from

providing immigration or customs services on a fee-for-service basis, except under certain limited

circumstances.88 Notwithstanding these restrictions, Section 560 of P.L. 113-6 incorporates

language proposed by the administration to permit CBP to enter into up to five public-private

partnerships during FY2013. The partnerships may permit persons to reimburse CBP for the costs

of providing additional services at POEs (including by paying for officer overtime), for the

provision of CBP services at new facilities, and for the expansion of CBP services at land ports of

entry.89

Customs User Fees

CBP collects several different types of user fees, including fees paid by passengers and by cargo

carriers and importers for the provision of customs services. These fees are often referred to as

COBRA fees because they were passed as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1986 (COBRA, P.L. 99-272). Under 19 U.S.C. §§58c(f)(1)-(3), a portion of

Testimony of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano before U.S. Senate, Committee on Appropriations, The Impact of

Sequestration, 113th Cong., 1st Sess., February 14, 2013.

DHS, Fiscal Year 2013 Post-Sequestration Operating Plan, Washington, DC: April 26, 2013, pp. 2-4.

CBP Office of Congressional Affairs, April 11, 2013.

CBP Office of Congressional Affairs, April 11, 2013; CBP Office of Congressional Affairs, April 29, 2013.

According to CBP, for the FY2014 budget request of $3.7 billion for the Border Security and Control between Ports of

Entry PPA, $3.2 billion would be for Border Patrol agent salaries and benefits, $221 million would be for other salaries

and benefits, and $263 million would be for non-personnel costs.

See for example, DHS Homeland Security Advisory Council Border Infrastructure Task Force, Task Force Report

and Recommendations, Washington, DC, November 2012.

19 U.S.C. §58c(e); 19 U.S.C. §58b.

P.L. 113-6, §560.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

these fees directly reimburses CBP (i.e., as mandatory spending not reliant on separate annual

appropriations) for certain customs functions, including overtime compensation and certain

benefits and premium pay for CBP officers, certain preclearance services, foreign language

proficiency awards, and—to the extent funds remain available—certain officer salaries. Another

portion of COBRA fees—merchandise processing fees—is deposited in CBP’s Customs User Fee

Account to pay for additional customs revenue functions but is only available to the extent

provided for in appropriations acts (i.e., as discretionary appropriations).

Certain COBRA passenger fees have been collected and deposited in the Customs User Fee

Account without a corresponding appropriation to pay for customs functions. Two recent

examples of this have drawn Congressional interest. Section 521 of the NAFTA Implementation

Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-182) temporarily increased fees for all passengers entering the United

States, including passengers from Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean islands, who previously

had been exempted from such fees. According to the Government Accountability Office, this

temporary increase resulted in the collection of about $639 million from FY1994-FY1997.90

Section 601 of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act of

2011 (P.L. 112-42) also eliminated a passenger fee exemption for travelers from Mexico, Canada,

and certain other Western Hemisphere states, resulting in an estimated increase in COBRA fees of

$83 million in FY2012 and $110 million in FY2013 and thereafter.91 In both these cases, funds

were directed (and in the case of Section 601, still are being directed) to the Customs User Fee

Account but have not yet been obligated for customs revenue collection, as the provisions that

raised this revenue stated that the funds—in contrast with other COBRA passenger fees—are

available only to the extent provided in appropriations Acts.

Some Members of Congress have raised questions about the disposition of these fees. The House

Appropriations Committee report directed CBP to report to the committee about whether the

Department has access to the $639 million identified by GAO, and how the department will

eliminate those funds from its books.92 With respect to fees collected pursuant to P.L. 112-42,

CBP’s budget justification for FY2013 included these fees in its budget for CBP officer salaries

and expenses, but neither chamber included language in its appropriation bill to make these funds

available to CBP, resulting in a shortfall for the agency. The House would have addressed this

shortfall by shifting $70 million from CBP headquarters to CBP officer salaries, and would have

relied on other increasing fee revenues to fill the remaining gap.93 The Senate report awaited a

resolution to the shortfall to be proposed by the department.94 P.L. 113-6 appropriates an

additional $110 million to make up for the budget shortfall in CBP salaries, and directs CBP and

OMB to include a means of access, with appropriate offsets, to these COBRA fees in future

budget requests.95

See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government

Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP, March 2011, pp. 324-325.

CBP Office of Legislative Affairs, April 27, 2012.

H.Rept. 112-492, p. 31.

H.Rept. 112-492, p. 29.

S.Rept. 112-169, p. 32.

P.L. 113-6, Senate Explanatory Statement, March 11, 2013.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

Southwest Border Surveillance

DHS’ strategy for achieving and maintaining control of the Southwest Border includes the use of

technology to monitor the border, to detect illegal entries, and to support efforts to target and

interdict such entries. Since 1998, under a series of different initiatives, DHS and the former

Immigration and Naturalization Service have attempted to develop a network of border cameras,

radar, and sensors linked into an integrated computer system to provide “situational awareness”

along key stretches of the border.96 To date, initiatives have failed to deliver the desired level of

surveillance, however. The last two major surveillance programs, known as the America’s Shield

Initiative and SBInet (part of the Secure Border Initiative), both faced criticism for noncompetitive contracting practices, inadequate oversight of contractors, and cost overruns.97 The

Obama Administration cancelled SBInet in January 2011 and replaced it with the Arizona Border

Technology Plan. The new plan calls for the rapid deployment of existing technology, including a

mix of fixed and mobile video surveillance systems and existing SBInet integrated towers, and

emphasizes the use of different technologies for different border regions.98

House and Senate appropriations reports expressed frustration with DHS’ implementation of the

new plan. The House report admonished CBP for not having procured and implemented new

surveillance equipment during the first 16 months after announcing the plan.99 The Senate report

described CBP’s April 2012 call for proposals to use SBInet technology along certain stretches of

the Arizona border premature given that existing SBInet towers have not yet proven successful.100

In light of these concerns, while both chambers recommended fully funding the President’s

request for the BSFIT account, indicating their overall support for the border surveillance

mission, they each recommended rescinding unobligated balances from the account, with the

House report calling for $40,412,000 in rescissions101 and the Senate calling for $92,000,000.102

P.L. 113-6 includes $73,232,000 in rescissions of prior year unobligated balances in the BSFIT

account.103

CBP also relies on manned and unmanned aircraft to complement ground-based surveillance. The

President’s FY2013 budget request for the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction (OAM)

supported 277 aircraft,104 which are involved in both drug interdiction and border surveillance

activities, and included $3 million to support the “Big Pipe” project to transmit real time and near

real time video and other data from aerial assets. OAM reported 81,045 flight hours in FY2012

and projected 65,000 hours in FY2013,105 down from 94,968 flight hours in FY2011 and 106,069

For a fuller discussion of border surveillance programs, see CRS Report R42138, Border Security: Immigration

Enforcement Between Ports of Entry, by (name redacted).

Ibid.

Statement of Mark Borkowski, Assistant Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, before the Subcommittees on Border and

Maritime Security, Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, After SBInet: The Future of

Technology on the Border, 112th Cong., 1st Sess., March 15, 2011.

H.Rept. 112-492, 43.

100

S.Rept. 112-169, p. 40.

101

H.Rept. 112-492, p. 45.

102

S.Rept. 112-169, p. 42.

103

P.L. 113-6, §570.

104

CBP, Congressional Budget Justification FY2013, p OAM – 1.

105

H.Rept. 112-492, 46; and CBP Office of Air and Marine, “2011 Air and Marine Milestones and Achievements,”

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/am/operations/2011_achiev.xml.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

in FY2010.106 As of November 2012, CBP operated a total of 10 unmanned aerial systems (UAS),

including two UAS on the Northern border, five on the Southwest border, and three in the Gulf of

Mexico.107 UAS accounted for 5,737 flight hours in FY2012, up from 4,406 hours in FY2011.108

Some Members of Congress support the use of aircraft for border surveillance, including UAS in

particular. On the other hand, the use of UASs in border security remains somewhat controversial

because of concerns that UAS threaten people’s privacy and because of questions about the cost

effectiveness of UAS on the border. A May 2012 DHS Inspector General report also criticized

CBP’s unmanned aircraft systems program on the grounds that its planning process fails to

provide UAS systems with adequate support resources and may result in under-utilization of UAS

assets.109

Both appropriations committees recommended increases to the OAM budget over the President’s

request, with the House recommending an increase of $82,700,000 (partly funded by the BSFIT

rescission)110 and the Senate recommending an increase of $70,997,000.111 Both increases would

have been targeted toward upgrading the OAM fleet, increasing flight hours, and supporting UAS

operations. P.L. 113-6 appropriated a total of about $799 million for Air and Marine Operations,

including a shift of about $284 million from CBP’s Salaries and Expenses account into a new

Salaries and Expenses sub-account within the Air and Marine account. P.L. 113-6 report language

directs CBP to restore overall and UAS flight hours to 2011 levels.112

Cargo Security

CBP is responsible for screening cargo passing through U.S. ports of entry for contraband and

dangerous materials. Under the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE

Port Act, P.L. 109-347), as amended, CBP must ensure that all maritime cargo is scanned through

radiation detection and nonintrusive inspection imaging scanners prior to being loaded on ships

bound for the United States. Section 1701 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11

Commission Act of 2007 (The 9/11 Act, P.L. 110-53) established a deadline of July 1, 2012, for

DHS to begin excluding cargo that has not been scanned, though the law allows DHS to extend

this deadline under certain circumstances; and in May 2012, Homeland Security Secretary

Napolitano notified Congress that she would exercise her authority to extend the 100% scanning

deadline.113

106

CBP Office of Air and Marine, “2011 Air and Marine Milestones and Achievements,” December 6, 2011,

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/am/operations/2011_achiev.xml; CBP Office of Air and Marine, “2010

Air and Marine Milestones and Achievements,” December 6, 2011, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/am/

operations/2010_achiev.xml.

107

CBP Office of Congressional Affairs, March 19, 2013.

108

Ibid.

109

DHS Office of Inspector General, CBP’s Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the Nation’s Border Security, OIG12-85, Washington, DC, May 2012.

110

H.Rept. 112-492, p. 45.

111

S.Rept. 112-169, p. 42.

112

Senate Explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 113-6, Congressional Record 113th Congress, March 11, 2013, p.

S1551.

113

Letter from Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, to Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Senator, May 2, 2012.

For a fuller discussion see CRS Report R43014, U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Trade Facilitation, Enforcement,

and Security, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

The 100% scanning requirement has raised questions about how to balance the security benefits

of scanning more U.S.-bound cargo against the costs of such scans, including increased

paperwork, the costs of maintaining scanning technology and personnel to operate scanners, and

longer wait times for U.S. importers. DHS officials and some others have argued that the

department should focus scanning on high-risk cargo, along with a random sample of lower-risk

cargo, in order to cut costs, facilitate legal trade, and make the best use of existing resources.114

After requesting reductions to international cargo security screening programs in FY2011 and

FY2012—with Congress providing funding levels above the President’s request both years—the

FY2013 budget request included a $13 million increase to the Container Security Initiative (CSI),

CBP’s primary program for customs inspections abroad, along with a total of $78 million in

proposed increases to the Automated Targeting System and related programs used to screen

incoming goods and travelers for security threats. House and Senate Appropriations Committee

reports both supported the President’s request for these programs. The House report and the

explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 113-6 also acknowledge DHS’ concerns about the costs

of implementing a 100% scanning program at foreign ports, and call on DHS to propose an

alternative scanning plan.115

Immigration and Customs Enforcement116

ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the United States. ICE

develops intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the United States and is responsible for

investigating and enforcing violations of the immigration laws (e.g., alien smuggling, hiring

unauthorized alien workers). ICE is also responsible for locating and removing aliens who have

overstayed their visas, entered illegally, or have become deportable. In addition, ICE develops

intelligence to combat terrorist financing and money laundering, and to enforce export laws

against smuggling, fraud, forced labor, trade agreement noncompliance, and vehicle and cargo

theft.

See Table 8 for account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II. For ICE sub-account level

detail, including appropriations and funding for FY2012 and FY2013, see Table 10. Funding

114

See for example, testimony of DHS Assistant Secretary David Heyman before Subcommittee on Borders and

Maritime Security, Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, Balancing Maritime Security and

Trade Facilitation: Protecting Ports, Increasing Commerce and Securing the Supply Chain, Part I, 112th Cong., 2nd

Sess., February 7, 2012. For a fuller discussion, also see CRS Report R43014, U.S. Customs and Border Protection:

Trade Facilitation, Enforcement, and Security, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

115

H.Rept. 112-492, p. 33; Senate Explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 113-6, Congressional Record 113th

Congress, March 11, 2013, p. S1550.

116

Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

numbers for the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6)

reflect across-the-board spending cuts relative to FY2012 enacted amounts (i.e., P.L. 112-74 and

P.L. 112-77), but they do not reflect additional spending cuts required by sequestration pursuant

to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). The tables also include account-level details

from DHS’s post-sequestration expenditure plan.

FY2013 Request

For FY2013 for ICE, the Administration requested $5,332 million in net budget authority, which

represents a decrease of $218 million (3.9%) from the enacted FY2012 level of $5,551 million.

Overall, the Administration requested $5,644 million in gross budget authority for ICE in

FY2013, a decrease of $218 (3.7%) from the FY2012 enacted amount. The budget request

included the following changes:

•

Increase of $40 million to expand the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program;

•

Increase of $6 million for ICE to consolidate personnel and operations (i.e., colocation strategy);

•

Increase of $7 million for video conferencing expansion in detention facilities

and Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) courtrooms and offices;

•

Increase of $18 million to transfer the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status

Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program117 overstay analysis function from

National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) to ICE;

•

Reduction of $17 million for the 287(g) program;

•

Reduction of $5 million for the Office of Principle Legal Advisor (OPLA);

•

Reduction of $53 million for detention beds; and

•

Reduction of $41 million for Secure Communities.

House-Passed H.R. 5855

The House-passed H.R. 5855 would have given $5,474 million in net budget authority for

FY2013, a figure which would have represented a decrease of $77 million (1.4%) from the

FY2012 enacted level and an increase of $142 million (2.7%) over the Administration’s request.

House-passed H.R. 5855 would have provided ICE with total funding authority of $5,786 million,

representing a decrease of $77 million (1.3%) from the FY2012 enacted level and an increase of

$142 million (2.5%) over the Administration’s request.

Senate-Reported S. 3216

The Senate Appropriations Committee would have recommended that ICE receive $5,330

million118 in net budget authority for FY2013, a figure which would have represented a decrease

117

For more on US-VISIT, see the Customs and Border Protection section of this report, or Department of Homeland

Security, US-VISIT Enrollment Requirements, March 4, 2011, http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/editorial_0527.shtm.

118

This excludes an additional $18 million for the transfer of the overstay analysis function of US-VISIT to ICE, and

includes $5 million to be transferred to the Executive Office of Immigration Review in the Department of Justice to

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

of $2 million (less than 0.1%) from the Administration’s request, and a decrease of $220 million

(4.0%) from the FY2012 enacted amount. Senate-reported S. 3216 would have provided ICE with

gross funding authority of $5,642 million, which would have represented a $2 million (less than

0.1%) decrease from the Administration’s request, and a decrease of $220 million (3.8%) from the

FY2012 enacted level.

P.L. 113-6 and the DHS Operating Plan for FY2013

After the across-the-board cuts but prior to applying sequestration, the Consolidated and Further

Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-6) provides $5,426 million in net budget

authority for ICE for FY2013, a decrease of $125 million (2.3%) from last year’s appropriation

and an increase of $94 million (1.8%) from the President’s request. P.L. 113-6 includes $5,738

million in gross budget authority, which is a $125 million (2.1%) decrease below last year’s

appropriation and a $94 million increase (1.5%) over the President’s request.

Sequestration further reduced ICE budget authority by roughly an additional $200 million,

according to the DHS FY2013 expenditure plan. The plan projected gross total spending in

FY2013 for ICE to be $5,442 million, $420 million less than the FY2012 enacted levels.

Table 10. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Sub-Account Detail,

FY2012-FY2013

(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2013 Appropriations

FY2012

Enacted

Request

Housepassed

Senatereported

P.L. 113-6

(presequester)

DHS Plan

(sequestered)

5,529

5,297

5,236a

5,295b

5,387

5,109

HQ Management &

Administration

417

377

226a

371

380

360

Legal Proceedings

216

208

207

208

207

196

Investigations

1,874

1,816

1,837

1,803

1,834

1,739

Investigations—

Domestic

1,725

1,673

1,687

1,654c

1,685

1,598

Investigations—

International

115

110

115

109

Visa Security

Program

Intelligence

Detention and Removal

Operations

2,751

2,679

2,750

2,696

Custody Operations

2,051

1,959

2,026

1,986

Activity

Salaries and

Expenses

2.750

2,022

2,608

1,918

(...continued)

reduce the nondetained docket.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

FY2013 Appropriations

FY2012

Enacted

Request

Housepassed

Senatereported

P.L. 113-6

(presequester)

DHS Plan

(sequestered)

Fugitive Operations

155

133

145

133

145

138

Criminal Alien

Program

197

217

216

205

Alternatives to

Detention

112

97d

Transportation and

Removal Program

277

258

270

263

270

256

Comprehensive

Identification and

Removal of Criminal

Aliens (Secure

Communities)

189

139

138

139

138

131

Automation and

Infrastructure

Modernization

232a

Construction

5,551

5,332

5,474

5,330

5,426

5,147

312

296

5,862

5,644

5,786

5,642

5,738

5,442

Activity

ICE Direct

Appropriations

Fee Accounts

ICE Gross Budget

Authority

Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2013 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, H.Rept. 112-331, H.R. 5855,

H.Rept. 112-492, S.Rept. 112-169, CRS analysis of P.L. 113-6, the accompanying Senate explanatory statement,

and the DHS FY2013 Post-Sequestration Operating Plan dated April 26, 2013.

Notes: ICE refers to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Unlike the Administration’s request and the Senate-reported S. 3216, this amount does not include funds

for Headquarters-Managed IT investments. In H.R. 5855, as passed by the House, the appropriation for this

purpose ($162 million) is included in ICE’s Automation Modernization ac

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.