# Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR42644

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** June 21, 2013
- **Citation:** R42644

## 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

T

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.
1

Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justifications, Budget Tables and Explanation of Changes
for General Provisions, FY2013, p. 1.

Congressional Research Service

1

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

2

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
2
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.
3
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

3

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
4

P.L. 112-25.

Congressional Research Service

4

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
5

Title II of P.L. 99-177, 2 U.S.C. 900-922.
P.L. 112-240.
7
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)
8
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.
9
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.
10
Ibid., pp. 11, 13.
11
Ibid, p. 5. For general information on continuing resolutions, see CRS Report R42647, Continuing Resolutions:
Overview of Components and Recent Practices, by (name redacted).
6

Congressional Research Service

5

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.
12

As defined in Section 250(c)(4)(A) and (B) for the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 as
amended.
13

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

6

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

a.

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.

b.

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

14

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.

14
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.
15
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

7

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

0

-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.
a.

The FY2013 Operating Plan column reflects the Administration’s unadjusted scoring, as do all columns in
this report with post-sequestration figures.

b.

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

8

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

0

*

10.36

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

8.72

.25

.27

9.25

Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE)

5.43

0

*

5.43

Transportation Security
Administration (TSA)

5.15

0

0

5.15

Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA)0

4.35

6.40

11.78

22.53

U.S. Secret Service (USSS)

1.61

0

*

1.61

National Protection and Programs
Directorate (NPPD)

1.44

0

0

1.44

Science & Technology Directorate
(S&T)

0.83

0

*

0.84

Departmental Management

0.64

0

0

0.64

Component

16

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

9

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

0

*

0.32

Analysis & Operations (A&O)

0.32

0

0

0.32

Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center (FLETC)

0.26

0

0

0.26

Office of Health Affairs (OHA)

0.13

0

0

0.13

Office of the Inspector General
(OHA)

0.12

0

0

0.12

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS)

0.11

0

0

0.11

General Provisions (net, not
reflected visually in Figure I)

-0.20

0

0

-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

10

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

11

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

12

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.
a.

S.Rept. 108-86 reported the FY2003 enacted amount as $29,287 million. CRS was unable to identify the
reason for this discrepancy. For the purposes of this table the House number was used to maintain
consistency with other fiscal years.

b.

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

c.

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

d.

Amount includes $1,829 million in emergency budget authority that was enacted as a part of the FY2007
DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-295).

e.

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

f.

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

g.

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

h.

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

13

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

14

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

130

Office of the Under
Secretary for
Management

236

222

180

220

218

218

Office of the Chief
Financial Officer

51

55

50

54

51

51

Office of the Chief
Information Officer

257

313

242

248

243

238

Analysis and Operations

338

322

317

324

322

306

0

89

0

0

0

0

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.
a.

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.

b.

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

15

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
17

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

Congressional Research Service

16

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
18

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.
19
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.)
20
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.
21
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Departmental Management and Operations, Office of the Chief Information
(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

17

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

18

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
22

H.Rept. 112-492, p. 8.
H.R. 5855, pp. 83-85.
24
Ibid, p. 19.
25
Ibid., p. 23.
23

Congressional Research Service

19

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

26

Ibid., p. 24.
S.Rept. 112-169, p. 12.
28
Ibid., pp. 12-13.
29
Ibid., p. 15.
30
Ibid., p. 17.
27

Congressional Research Service

20

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;

31

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.
32

Congressional Research Service

21

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

130

Immediate Office of
the Secretary

5

4

4

4

4

4

Immediate Office of
the Deputy Secretary

2

2

2

2

2

2

Office of the Chief of
Staff

2

2

2

2

2

2

Executive Secretary

8

8

7

8

8

8

Office of Policy

40

44a

41

44

44

44

Office of Public
Affairs

6

6

5

6

5

5

Office of Legislative
Affairs

6

6

5

6

6

6

Office of
Intergovernmental
Affairs

3

3

2

3

2

2

Office of General
Counsel

22

22

20

22

21

21

Congressional Research Service

22

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

23

22

20

22

22

22

Citizenship and
Immigration Services
Ombudsman

6

6

5

6

6

6

Privacy Officer

8

8

8

8

8

8

Office of
Counternarcotics
Enforcement

2

0

0

0

0

0

Floor Amendment

—

—

*b

—

—

—

Under Secretary
for Management

236

222

180

220

218

218

Immediate Office of
the Under Secretary

3

3

3

3

3

3

Office of Security

70

69

69

69

69

69

Office of the Chief
Procurement Officer

78

73

66

73

72

72

Office of the Chief
Human Capital
Officer

39

36

36

35

35

35

Office of the Chief
Administrative
Officer

46

41

40

40

40

40

Floor Amendments

—

—

-33c

—

—

—

Office of the Chief
Financial Officer

51

55

50

54

51

51

Office of the Chief
Information
Officer

257

313

242

248

243

238

DHS
Headquarters
Consolidationd

0

89

0

0

0

0

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.
a.

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

23

Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations

b.

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.

c.

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.

d.

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
33
34

H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 8-9.
S.Rept. 112-169, p. 12.

Congressional Research Service

24

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
35

H.Rept. 112-492, p. 22.
Ibid., p. 22.
37
P.L. 113-6, Section 560 (127 Stat. 378-380).
38
Ibid., pp. 6, 10, and 11.
36

Congressional Research Service

25

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
39

Ibid., p. 16.
H.R. 5885, Section 557; S. 3216, Section 556; and OMB Memorandum M-12-12, May 11, 2012.
41
H.R. 5885, Section 556; S. 3216, Section 557.
42
Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government
and Finance Division.
40

Congressional Research Service

26

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:
43

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.
44
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.
45
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

27

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:

46
47

H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 19-20.
H.Rept. 112-492, p. 204.

Congressional Research Service

28

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.

48

S.Rept. 112-169, p. 20.
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism, Domestic Social Policy Division.
50
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.
51
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.
49

Congressional Research Service

29

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

30

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.

52
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.
53
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.
54
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.
55
Ibid., p. 3.

Congressional Research Service

31

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.

56

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.
57
H.Rept. 112-469, p. 25.
58
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Audits, Inspections and Investigations,
Congressional Justification, Fiscal Year 2013, p. OIG-9.
59
Ibid., p. 26.

Congressional Research Service

32

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

33

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

34

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

324

Air and Marine Interdictions

504

436

519

507

798

758

Facilities Management

237

244

253

244

233

221

0

0

0

279

0

0

10,155

10,345

10,172

10,454

10,356

9,864

Fees, Mandatory Spending, and
Trust Funds

1,502

1,626

1,516

1,516

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

22

31

232

31

33

33

Construction

0

5

5

5

5

5

5,551

5,332

5,474

5,330

5,426

5,147

Fees, Mandatory Spending, and
Trust Funds

312

312

312

312

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

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

35

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

14

13

12

13

13

12

Reserve Training

134

133

116

133

132

131

Automation Modernization

—

—

45

—

—

—

Acquisition, Construction, &
Improvements

1,404

1,217

1,429

1,471

1,543

1,472

Research, Development,
Testing, and Evaluation

28

20

20

20

20

20

Health Care Fund Contributionc

262

203

203

203

203

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

1,640

1,640

1,833

1,822

Overseas Contingency
Operations Adjustment

258

0d

0

254

240

240

Total Budgetary Resources

10,546

10,017

10,229

10,553

10,800

10,531

1,661

1,544

1,556

1,556

1,554

1,472

5

57

57

57

57

54

1,667

1,601

1,613

1,613

1,611

1,527

Fees, Mandatory Spending, and
Trust Funds

245

250

250

250

250

245

Total Budgetary Resources

1,912

1,851

1,863

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.
a.

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

36

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.
b.

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.

c.

This is permanent indefinite discretionary spending, and therefore scores as being in the bill, despite not
being explicitly appropriated in the bills’ legislative language.

d.

$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.

60

Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Im

Congressional Research Service

migration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.

37

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

38

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 mil

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR42644. Public record. Not legal advice.