Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Congressional research reportApr 18, 2014
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Department of Homeland Security:
FY2014 Appropriations
(name redacted), Coordinator
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy
April 18, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R43147
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Summary
This report analyzes the FY2014 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The Administration requested $39.0 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for
DHS for FY2014, as part of an overall budget of $60.0 billion (including fees, trust funds, and
other funding that is not appropriated or does not score against the budget caps).
Net requested appropriations for major agencies within DHS were as follows:
•
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), $10,833 million;
•
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), $4,997 million;
•
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), $4,857 million;
•
Coast Guard, $8,051 million;
•
Secret Service, $1,546 million;
•
National Protection and Programs Directorate, $1,267 million;
•
Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), $3,984 million; and
•
Science and Technology, $1,527 million.
The Administration also requested an additional $5.6 billion for FEMA in disaster relief funding
as defined by the Budget Control Act.
H.R. 2217, the House-passed DHS appropriations bill, would have provided $39.0 billion in
adjusted net discretionary budget authority. The Senate-reported version of the same bill would
have provided $39.1 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority. Both bills also would
have provided the $5.6 billion in disaster relief requested by the Administration.
Congress did not enact annual FY2014 appropriations legislation prior to the beginning of the
new fiscal year. From October 1, 2013, through October 16, 2013, the federal government
(including DHS) operated under an emergency shutdown furlough due to the expiration of annual
appropriations for FY2014. More than 31,000 DHS employees were furloughed. Tens of
thousands of others who were excepted from furlough, and those whose salaries were paid
through annual appropriations, worked without pay until the lapse was resolved by passage of a
short-term continuing resolution. From October 17, 2013, to January 17, 2014, the federal
government operated under the terms of two consecutive continuing resolutions: P.L. 113-46,
which lasted until its successor was enacted on January 15, 2014; and P.L. 113-73, which lasted
until the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), was enacted on January 17, 2014. The
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014, was included as Division F, and provided $39.3
billion in net discretionary budget authority, as well as the requested disaster relief funding.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments ............................................................................................................. 1
April 10, 2013—President’s FY2014 Budget Request Submitted ............................................ 1
June 6, 2013—House Passes H.R. 2217.................................................................................... 2
July 18, 2013—Senate Appropriations Committee Reports H.R. 2217 .................................... 2
October 1, 2013—Lapse in Appropriations ............................................................................... 2
October 17, 2013—P.L. 113-46, Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 Passes and Is
Enacted ................................................................................................................................... 2
Note on Most Recent Data ........................................................................................................ 3
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Department of Homeland Security ............................................................................................ 4
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security.............................................................. 5
Summary of DHS Appropriations ............................................................................................. 5
DHS Appropriations: Comparing the Components ................................................................... 7
DHS Appropriations Compared with the Total DHS Budget .................................................. 10
DHS Appropriations Trends: Size ........................................................................................... 10
DHS Appropriations Trends: Timing....................................................................................... 12
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations ....................................................................... 13
Departmental Management...................................................................................................... 14
DHS Headquarters Consolidation ........................................................................................... 25
Analysis and Operations .......................................................................................................... 27
Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................... 29
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations ....................................................................... 32
Customs and Border Protection ............................................................................................... 35
Immigration and Customs Enforcement .................................................................................. 43
Transportation Security Administration .................................................................................. 49
U.S. Coast Guard ..................................................................................................................... 57
U.S. Secret Service .................................................................................................................. 61
Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ........................................................ 65
National Protection and Programs Directorate ........................................................................ 67
Entry-Exit System ................................................................................................................... 73
Federal Protective Service ....................................................................................................... 74
Office of Health Affairs ........................................................................................................... 76
Federal Emergency Management Agency ............................................................................... 79
DHS State and Local Preparedness Grants .............................................................................. 80
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, and Services ....................................................... 89
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services............................................................................. 91
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center ............................................................................. 97
Directorate of Science and Technology ................................................................................... 98
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office....................................................................................... 101
Title V: General Provisions .......................................................................................................... 104
Congressional Research Service
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Figures
Figure 1. DHS Appropriations by Component, FY2014 ................................................................. 9
Figure 2. DHS Gross Budget Breakdown: FY2014 Request ......................................................... 10
Figure 3. DHS Appropriations Legislative Timing ........................................................................ 12
Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of FY2014 Homeland Security Appropriations .................................... 1
Table 2. DHS Net Discretionary Appropriations by Title, FY2013-FY2014 .................................. 6
Table 3. DHS Discretionary Appropriations by Component, FY2014 ............................................ 7
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2004-FY2014 ........................................................................... 11
Table 5. Title I: Departmental Management and Operations, FY2013-FY2014............................ 13
Table 6. DHS Management Account Appropriations, FY2013-FY2014 ....................................... 21
Table 7. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations, FY2013-FY2014 ............................ 32
Table 8. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Account Detail, FY2013-FY2014 ......................... 39
Table 9. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Sub-Account Detail,
FY2013-FY2014 ......................................................................................................................... 44
Table 10. TSA, Requested Budgetary Resources, FY2014 ........................................................... 50
Table 11. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity, FY2013-FY2014 ............................. 52
Table 12. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-Account Detail,
FY2013-FY2014 ......................................................................................................................... 58
Table 13. Budget Authority for the U.S. Secret Service, FY2013-FY2014 ................................... 63
Table 14. Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, FY2013-FY2014 ........... 65
Table 15. Budget Authority for Infrastructure Protection and Information Security,
FY2013-FY2014 ......................................................................................................................... 70
Table 16. Office of Health Affairs, FY2013-FY2014 .................................................................... 77
Table 17. State and Local Grant Programs and Training, FY2013-FY2014 .................................. 84
Table 18. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, and Services, FY2013-FY2014 .......... 89
Table 19. USCIS Resources and Projections, FY2013-FY2014 .................................................... 93
Table 20. Directorate of Science and Technology, FY2013-FY2014 .......................................... 101
Table 21. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, FY2013-FY2014................................................ 103
Table A-1. DHS FY2013 and FY2014 Comparable and 302(b) Discretionary Allocations ........ 110
Table B-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2012 .......................... 113
Appendixes
Appendix A. Appropriations Terms and Concepts....................................................................... 108
Congressional Research Service
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Appendix B. DHS Appropriations in Context ............................................................................. 112
Contacts
Author Contact Information......................................................................................................... 115
Congressional Research Service
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
T
his report presents an analysis of the discretionary appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) for fiscal year 2014 (FY2014). It compares unsequestered
enacted FY2013 appropriations for DHS, the President’s request for FY2014 funding for
DHS, and the appropriations legislation crafted in response to that request.
The first portion of this report provides an overview and historical context for reviewing DHS
appropriations, highlighting various aspects including the comparative size of DHS components,
the amount of non-appropriated funding the department receives, and trends in the timing and
size of the department’s appropriations legislation. The second portion of the report outlines the
legislative chronology of major events in funding the department for FY2014. The third portion
of the report provides detailed information on DHS appropriations, broken down by component,
with discussing of associated policy issues.
Discussion of appropriations legislation involves a variety of unique budgetary concepts.
Appendix A to this report explains a variety of these concepts, including budget authority,
obligations, outlays, discretionary and mandatory spending, offsetting collections, allocations,
and adjustments to the discretionary spending caps under the Budget Control Act.
This report pays particular attention 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 track any other legislation related to the authorization or
amendment of DHS programs, activities, or fee revenues.
Most Recent Developments
Table 1. Legislative Status of FY2014 Homeland Security Appropriations
(dates of action and votes)
Subcommittee
Markup
House
Senate
H.Rept.
113-91
House
Passage
H.R.
2217
5/16/13
(vv)
7/16/13
(8-1)
5/22/13
(vv)
6/6/13
(245-182)
Omnibus
Appropriations Act
(H.R. 3547)
Approval
S.Rept.
113-77
Senate
Passage
7/18/13
(21-9)
—
House
Senate
1/15/14
(369-67)
1/16/14
(72-26)
P.L. 11376
1/17/2014
Notes: (vv) = voice vote, (uc) = unanimous consent.
April 10, 2013—President’s FY2014 Budget Request Submitted
For FY2014, the Administration requested $39.028 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget
authority for DHS, as part of an overall budget request of $60.0 billion (including fees, trust
funds, and other funding that is not appropriated or does not score against the overall
discretionary spending caps budget allocation for the bill).1
1
Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification, Budget Tables and Explanation of Changes
for General Provisions, FY2014, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
1
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
June 6, 2013—House Passes H.R. 2217
On June 6, 2013, the House passed H.R. 2217 with several amendments by a vote of 245-182.
This report uses House-passed H.R. 2217 and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 113-91) as the
source for House-passed appropriations numbers. After floor action the House bill carried a net
discretionary appropriation of $38.991 billion for DHS for FY2014. Several House-adopted floor
amendments used management accounts as offsets, leaving funding for those activities 40%
below the requested level. Increases approved by the House 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.
July 18, 2013—Senate Appropriations Committee Reports H.R. 2217
On July 17, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported out H.R. 2217 with an amendment by
a vote of 21-9. The Senate-reported bill carried a net discretionary appropriation of $39.100
billion for DHS for FY2014.
October 1, 2013—Lapse in Appropriations
Late on September 30, 2013, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) gave notice to
federal agencies that an emergency shutdown furlough would be put in place as a result of the
failure to enact appropriations legislation for FY2014. On September 27, 2013, DHS released its
“Procedures Relating to a Federal Funding Hiatus,”2 which included details on how DHS planned
to determine who was required to report to work, cease unexempted3 government operations,
recall certain workers in the event of an emergency, and restart operations once an accord was
reached on funding issues. More than 31,000 DHS employees were furloughed, and tens of
thousands of others who were excepted from furlough and whose salaries were paid through
annual appropriations worked without pay.
For a broader discussion of a federal government shutdown, see CRS Report RL34680, Shutdown
of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects, coordinated by (name redacted).
October 17, 2013—P.L. 113-46, Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014
Passes and Is Enacted
On October 17, 2013, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed, and the President
signed into law, a Senate-amended version of H.R. 2775, which carried a short-term continuing
resolution (CR) that funded government operations at a rate generally equivalent to FY2013 postsequestration levels through January 15, 2014. The Senate passed the amended bill by a vote of
2
Available at http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/dhs-lapse-contingency-plan-09-27-2013.pdf, and
hereafter cited as “FY2014 Procedures” in footnotes. The Office of Management and Budget has assembled a complete
list of such plans at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/contingency-plans.
3
Some agencies use the term “excepted” rather than “exempted” to describe activities that would continue – the terms
are interchangeable. This report generally uses “exempted” because DHS uses that term in its plan.
Congressional Research Service
2
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
81-18, while the House passed it 285-144. This act temporarily resolved the lapse in funding,
ending the emergency furlough, returning federal employees to work, and retroactively
authorizing pay for both excepted and unexcepted employees for the duration of the funding
lapse. Although a handful of legislative provisions were included to extend expiring authorities
for the department and provide some flexibility for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in operating under the constraints of the CR, as is
usually the case with this type of legislation, account-level direction for funding was not
provided, and no explanatory statement of congressional intent (such as a committee report)
exists.
January 14-15, 2014 – P.L. 113-76, Short-Term Continuing Resolution
On January 14, 2014, the House passed by voice vote H.J.Res. 106, a short term continuing
resolution, that would allow for three days of continued funding under the same terms as P.L.
113-46. On January 15, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 86-14, and was signed into law that
same day, becoming P.L. 113-73 and preventing an additional lapse in appropriations while a
consolidated appropriations act for FY2014 completed the legislative process.
January 17, 2014 – President Signs the FY2014 Consolidated Appropriations
Act
On January 17, 2014, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014,
which included annual appropriations legislation covering the entire discretionary budget for
FY2014. Division F of P.L. 113-76 is the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014, which
includes $39,270 million in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for DHS. This is $922
million more than DHS reportedly received in its annual appropriation for FY2013 after taking
into account the impact of sequestration. The act also included an additional $5.6 billion
requested by the Administration for FEMA in disaster relief funding as defined by the Budget
Control Act, and an additional $227 million for the Coast Guard to pay the costs of overseas
contingency operations. Those additional costs are compensated for by adjustments in the
discretionary spending limits outlined through the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act as amended.
Note on Most Recent Data
Data used in this report for FY2013 amounts are taken from CRS analysis of H.R. 933 as enacted
as the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6) and the Senate
explanatory statement that accompanied it, plus the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013
(P.L. 113-2). Information on the FY2014 request is from the President’s budget documents, the
FY2014 DHS Congressional Budget Justification, and the FY2014 DHS Budget in Brief.
Information on the House-passed FY2014 DHS appropriations bill is from H.R. 2217 and H.Rept.
113-91, while information on the Senate-reported version is from H.R. 2217 (as amended) and
S.Rept. 113-77. Enacted levels are drawn from Division F of P.L. 113-76 and its accompanying
explanatory statement. Historical funding data used in the appendices are taken from the
Analytical Perspectives volumes of the FY2006-FY2013 budget request documents. Except when
discussing total amounts for the bill as a whole, all amounts contained in this report are rounded
to the nearest million.
Congressional Research Service
3
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Note on FY2013 and Sequestration
Past CRS reports on DHS appropriations have carried detailed comparisons with previous years’
funding levels. However, due to the impact of sequestration on budget authority available to the
federal government under P.L. 113-6 and the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 (P.L.
113-2), official post-sequestration numbers are not available at the program, project, and activity
level. While DHS released an FY2013 Post-Sequestration Operating Plan on April 26, 2013,
which outlined funding provided as a result of P.L. 113-6, press reports have indicated that
reprogramming and transfer activity is underway to address the impact of the nearly across-theboard cut administered through the sequestration process on priority programs.4
Because no detailed comprehensive statement of post-sequestration resources is available with a
parallel methodology to the numbers historically provided in these reports, the charts in this
report contain information on pre-sequester funding levels for FY2013. In all cases, the data from
P.L. 113-6 account for the two across-the-board cuts included in the general provisions of the act.
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); and
•
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;5
•
Title III contains appropriations for the National Protection and Programs
Directorate (NPPD), Office of Health Affairs (OHA), Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA);6
4
See, for example, Josh Hicks, “How Much Money Did Customs and Border Protection Need to Avoid Furloughs,”
Washington Post, Federal Eye blog, June 21, as downloaded from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/
wp/2013/06/20/how-much-money-did-customs-and-border-protection-need-to-avoid-furloughs/, June 21, 2013.
5
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 and 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.
6
Through the FY2007 appropriation, Title III contained appropriations for the Preparedness Directorate, Infrastructure
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
•
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); and
•
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 markup 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 those
described above.
Appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security
Summary of DHS Appropriations
The DHS appropriations bill includes funding for all components and functions of the
department. Table 2 compares the pre-sequester enacted totals for FY2013 with the FY2014
request and congressionally supported levels. The heavy lines in this table and in similar ones
later in the report serve as a reminder that direct comparisons between the pre-sequester FY2013
funding and FY2014 proposals are not comparisons of current levels of actual spending and
proposals for the coming fiscal year, as one would normally see in this type of report.
As shown in Table 2, for FY2013, pre-sequester DHS discretionary appropriations were $46.2
billion, with $12.1 billion in supplemental appropriations. For FY2014, the total request was
$44.7 billion. House-passed and Senate-reported DHS appropriations legislation have similar
total funding levels, $44.6 billion and $44.7 billion, respectively. Under the terms of P.L. 113-76,
DHS received $46.0 billion in discretionary appropriations. Totals represent net discretionary
budget authority, taking into account impacts of rescissions, and include emergency spending and
disaster relief. Analyses that include the impact of fees and mandatory spending are found later in
this report.
(...continued)
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
5
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Table 2. DHS Net Discretionary Appropriations by Title, FY2013-FY2014
(millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority, rounded, including adjustments under the BCA)
FY2013 Enacted
(presequester)
FY2014 Appropriations
HousePassed
H.R.
2217
SenateReported
H.R.
2217
Division F,
P.L. 113-76
Enacted
(P.L. 113-6)
Supplemental
(P.L. 113-2)
Request
Title I: Departmental
Management and
Operations
$1,086
$0
$1,239
$893
$1,053
$1,037
Title II: Security,
Enforcement and
Investigations
31,524a
277
30,241
30,768
30,514b
31,104b
Title III: Protection,
Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery
12,320c
11,788
11,009d
11,544d
11,582d
11,578d
Title IV: Research and
Development, Training,
and Services
1,520
7
2,214
1,890
1,885
1,878
Title V: General
Provisions
-203
0
-50
-475
-83
-474
46,248
12,072
44,654
44,618
44,953
45,123
Title
Total
Source: CRS analysis of P.L. 113-6, its accompanying Senate explanatory statement, P.L. 113-2, the FY2014 DHS
Congressional Budget Justifications, H.R. 2217, H.Rept. 113-91, S.Rept. 113-77, P.L. 113-76 and its accompanying
explanatory statement.
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 executive budget usually includes proposed rescissions
in the affected component’s budget request. The first FY2013 column reflects the effect of $307 million in
rescissions, including two across-the-board cuts in P.L. 113-6, while the Administration proposed $42 million in
rescissions for FY2014. For FY2014, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $460 million in
rescissions; the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $241 million, and Division F of P.L. 113-76
included $693 million. Amounts may not sum to totals due to rounding.
a. Includes $254 million in funding for overseas contingency operations that does not count against the
discretionary budget caps.
b. Includes $227 million in funding for overseas contingency operations that does not count against the
discretionary budget caps.
c. Includes $6,400 million in disaster relief funding that does not count against the discretionary budget caps.
d. Includes $5,626 million in disaster relief funding that does not count against the discretionary budget caps.
Federal Civilian Employee Pay Raise
The Administration proposed a 1% pay increase for all civilian federal employees in its FY2014
budget request. Almost all DHS employees are considered civilians, with the significant
exception of Coast Guard military personnel. On August 30, 2013, the Administration submitted
its pay plan to Congress, which was originally slated to take effect as of January 1, 2014.7
7
Letter from Barack Obama, President of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President of the Senate, August 30, 2013, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/letter-president(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
While the House did not fund the proposed civilian pay raise, it also did not prohibit it, and noted
that if the Administration chose to pursue it, it should do so within the appropriated funds for
DHS.8 The Senate Appropriations Committee included similar language in its report, noting that it
“assumes the cost of living adjustment for civilian employees across the Department will be
absorbed within amounts appropriated in this act.”9 The Administration issued an executive order
implementing the pay increase effective January 1, 2014 on December 20, 2013.10
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. The largest component
is Customs and Border Protection (CBP), with an FY2014 request of $10,833 million and final
appropriation of $10,420 million. Table 3 and Figure 1 show DHS’s discretionary budget
authority broken down by component, from largest to smallest.11
Table 3 presents the raw numbers, while Figure 1 presents the same data in a graphic format,
with additional information on the disaster relief adjustment to the allocation allowed under the
Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25). For each set of appropriations shown in Figure 1, the left
column shows discretionary budget authority provided through the legislation, while the right
column shows that amount plus resources available under the adjustments. For the purposes of
this report, funding provided under these adjustments is not treated as appropriations. This
comparison looks only at the new budget authority requested or provided—not budget authority
rescinded to offset the cost of the bill—so the totals will differ from Table 2, which includes the
impact of prior-year rescissions.
Table 3. DHS Discretionary Appropriations by Component, FY2014
(millions of dollars, rounded)
Component
FY2014
Request
FY2014
HousePassed
FY2014
SenateReported
Div. F,
P.L. 113-76
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
$10,833
$10,567
$10,420
$10,690
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
8,050
8,399
8,385
8,514
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
4,997
5,384
5,054
5,269
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
4,857
4,781
4,908
4,929
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
3,984
4,345
4,353
4,354
U.S. Secret Service (USSS)
1,546
1,586
1,582
1,585
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD)
1,267
1,459
1,474
1,471
Science & Technology Directorate (S&T)
1,527
1,225
1,218
1,220
(...continued)
regarding-alternate-pay-civilian-federal-employees.
8
H.Rept. 113-91, pp. 3-4.
9
S.Rept. 113-77, p. 19.
10
As found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/23/executive-order-adjustments-certain-rates-pay.
11
Components are arranged based on the size of their House-passed funding level.
Congressional Research Service
7
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
FY2014
Request
FY2014
HousePassed
FY2014
SenateReported
Div. F,
P.L. 113-76
Departmental Management
811
509
730
728
Analysis & Operations (A&O)
309
292
304
300
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO)
291
291
289
285
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)
271
259
259
259
Office of Health Affairs (OHA)
132
123
128
127
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
124
114
119
116
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
119
114
117
115
$39,120
$39,450
$39,341
$39,963
Component
Total
Source: H.R. 2217, H.Rept. 113-91, S.Rept. 113-77, P.L. 113-76 and its accompanying explanatory statement.
Notes: Table does not include adjustments for disaster relief or overseas contingency operations under the
Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25), include rescissions of prior-year funding, or reflect non-appropriated
resources available to DHS components.
Congressional Research Service
8
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Figure 1. DHS Appropriations by Component, FY2014
(in millions of dollars, rounded)
Source: H.R. 2217, H.Rept. 113-91, S.Rept. 113-77, P.L. 113-76 and its accompanying explanatory statement.
Notes: Amounts may not sum to totals due to rounding. Figure does not display rescissions and other general
provisions, or reflect non-appropriated resources available to DHS components.
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.
Congressional Research Service
9
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
DHS Appropriations Compared with the Total DHS Budget
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 the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), rely on fee income or offsetting collections to support a substantial portion
of their activities. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), for example, obtains less
than 4% of its funding through direct appropriations—the bulk of the component’s funding is
derived from fee income.
Figure 2 highlights how much of the DHS budget is not funded through discretionary
appropriations. It presents a breakdown of the FY2014 budget request, showing the proposed
discretionary appropriations, mandatory appropriations, and adjustments under the Budget
Control Act, in the context of the total amount of budgetary resources proposed to be made
available to DHS, as well as other non-appropriated resources. For FY2014, 67% of the proposed
DHS gross budget was funded through discretionary appropriations. The remainder of the
proposed budget was funded through fees, mandatory appropriations, BCA adjustments, and other
non-appropriated resources.
The amounts shown in this graph 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, including Table 3 and Figure 1.
Figure 2. DHS Gross Budget Breakdown: FY2014 Request
(millions of dollars in budget authority, rounded)
Source: DHS FY2014 Budget Request.
Notes: Budget numbers provided by OMB differ from congressional budget calculations due to a variety of
factors, including recalculations of fee income, availability of prior-year rescissions, reprogrammings, transfers
and other factors. Amounts may not sum to totals due to rounding.
DHS Appropriations Trends: Size
Table 4 presents DHS discretionary appropriations, as enacted, for FY2004 through FY2014.
Generally speaking, annual appropriations for DHS rose from the establishment of the
department, peaking in FY2010. However, the structural changes effected by the Budget Control
Congressional Research Service
10
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Act that allowed disaster funding to be included in regular appropriations bills without being
scored against the bill’s allocation altered the downward trend as funding that might have been
provided in a supplemental appropriations bill now was provided in the annual process. Without
the impact of disaster relief funding, the nominal level of annual appropriations for the
department declined each year since the FY2010 peak, until increasing in FY2014. Supplemental
funding, which frequently addresses congressional priorities, such as disaster assistance and
border security, varies widely from year to year and as a result distorts year-to-year comparisons
of total appropriations for DHS.
Note that the table includes two lines for FY2013. The first line for FY2013, in italics, describes
pre-sequester resources provided to DHS. The second FY2013 line is derived from the postsequester operating plan for the department, which examined only what was provided through the
annual appropriations bill for DHS included in P.L. 113-6, and data provided by HUD’s Hurricane
Sandy Rebuilding Task Force.
Table 4. DHS Appropriations, FY2004-FY2014
(billions of dollars of budget authority)
Constant Dollar Appropriations (2005)
Nominal Appropriations
Regular
Supplemental
Total
GDP
Price
Index
Regular
Supplemental
Total
FY2004
$29.411
$7.418
$36.829
0.969
$30.368
$7.659
$38.027
FY2005
29.557
67.328
96.885
1.000
29.557
67.328
96.885
FY2006
30.995
8.195
39.190
1.034
29.976
7.926
37.901
FY2007
34.047
4.56
38.607
1.065
31.981
4.283
36.264
FY2008
37.809
0.897
38.706
1.089
34.709
0.823
35.533
FY2009
40.07
3.143
43.213
1.103
36.318
2.849
39.167
FY2010
42.817
5.571
48.388
1.115
38.418
4.999
43.417
FY2011
42.477
0.000
42.477
1.138
37.329
0.000
37.329
FY2012
40.062
6.400
46.462
1.159
34.572
5.523
40.095
FY2013
46.247
12.072
58.319
1.183
39.093
10.205
49.298
FY2013
postsequester
44.971
11.468
56.439
1.183
38.014
9.694
47.708
FY2014
45.123
—
45.123
1.205
37.446
—
37.446
Sources: CRS analysis of Congressional appropriations documents: for FY2004, H.Rept. 108-280 (accompanying
P.L. 108-90), H.Rept. 108-76 (accompanying P.L. 108-11), P.L. 108-69, P.L. 108-106, and P.L. 108-303; for
FY2005, H.Rept. 108-774 (accompanying P.L. 108-334), P.L. 108-324, P.L. 109-13, P.L. 109-61, and P.L. 109-62;
for FY2006, H.Rept. 109-241 (accompanying P.L. 109-90), P.L. 109-148, and P.L. 109-234; for FY2007, H.Rept.
109-699 (accompanying P.L. 109-295) and P.L. 110-28; for FY2008, Division E of the House Appropriations
Committee Print (accompanying P.L. 110-161) and P.L. 110-252; for FY2009, Division D of House
Appropriations Committee Print (accompanying P.L. 110-329), P.L. 111-5, P.L. 111-8, and P.L. 111-32; for
FY2010, H.Rept. 111-298 (accompanying P.L. 111-83), P.L. 111-212, and P.L. 111-230; for FY2011, P.L. 112-10
and H.Rept. 112-331 (accompanying P.L. 112-74); for FY2012, H.Rept. 112-331 (accompanying P.L. 112-74) and
P.L. 112-77; for FY2013, Senate explanatory statement (accompanying P.L. 113-6), P.L. 113-2, the DHS Fiscal
Year 2013 Post-Sequestration Operating Plan dated April 26, 2013, and financial data from the Hurricane Sandy
Rebuilding Task Force Home Page at
Congressional Research Service
11
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/sandyrebuilding/recoveryprogress; and for FY2014, the explanatory
statement accompanying P.L. 113-76.
Notes: Emergency funding, appropriations for overseas contingency operations, and funding for disaster relief
under the Budget Control Act’s allowable adjustment are included based on their legislative vehicle. Transfers
from DOD and advance appropriations are not included. Emergency funding in regular appropriations bills is
treated as regular appropriations. Numbers in italics do not reflect the impact of sequestration.
DHS Appropriations Trends: Timing
Figure 3 shows the history of the timing of the DHS appropriations bills as they have moved
through various stages of the legislative process. Initially, DHS appropriations were enacted
relatively promptly, as stand-alone legislation. However, the bill is no longer an outlier from the
consolidation and delayed timing that has affected other annual appropriations legislation.
Figure 3. DHS Appropriations Legislative Timing
Source: CRS analysis.
Note: Final action on the annual appropriations for DHS for FY2011, FY2013, and FY2014 did not occur until
after the beginning of the new calendar year.
Congressional Research Service
12
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
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 $1,239 million for these accounts in FY2014. The Housepassed bill would have provided $883 million in Title I, a decrease of 28.0% from the requested
level. The Senate-reported bill would have provided $1,054 million in Title I, 14.9% below the
requested level. Division F of P.L. 113-76 included $1,037 million in Title I, 16.3% below the
requested level.12
Table 5 lists the pre-sequester enacted amounts for the individual components of Title I for
FY2013, the Administration’s request for these components for FY2014, the House-passed and
Senate-reported appropriations for the same, and the annual appropriation enacted through
Division F of P.L. 113-76. The heavy lines in this table and in similar ones later in the report serve
as a reminder that direct comparisons between the pre-sequester FY2013 funding and FY2014
proposals are not comparisons of current levels of actual spending and proposals for the coming
fiscal year, as one would normally see in this type of report.
Table 5. Title I: Departmental Management and Operations, FY2013-FY2014
(millions of dollars in budget authority)
FY2013 Enacted
(presequester)
P.L.
113-6
P.L.
113-2
FY2014 Appropriations
Total
Request
Housepassed
H.R.
2217
Senatereported
H.R.
2217
Div. F,
P.L. 11376
Office of the
Secretary and
Executive
Management
$130
$0
$130
$127
$100
$124
$122
Office of the
Under
Secretary for
Management
218
0
218
203
135
198
196
Office of the
Chief Financial
Officer
51
0
51
49
31a
48
46
Office of the
Chief
Information
Officer
243
0
243
327
211
263
257
Analysis and
Operations
322
0
322
309
292
304
300
12
While these accounts presented in Title I do show some reductions, some funding for activities requested in the
accounts presented in Title I of the bill is provided through appropriations for other components, or through general
provisions.
Congressional Research Service
13
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
FY2013 Enacted
(presequester)
FY2014 Appropriations
DHS
Headquarters
Consolidationb
0
0
0
106
0
0c
0d
Office of the
Inspector
Generale
121
0
121
119
114
117
115
Net Budget
Authority:
Title I
1,087
0
1,087
1,239
883
1,054
1,037
Total Gross
Budgetary
Resources for
Title I
Components
before
Transfers
1,087
0
1,087
1,239
883
1,054
1,037
Source: CRS analysis of P.L. 113-6, its accompanying Senate explanatory statement, P.L. 113-2, the FY2014 DHS
Congressional Budget Justifications, H.R. 2217, H.Rept. 113-91, S.Rept. 113-77, P.L. 113-76, and its accompanying
explanatory statement.
Notes: Amounts may not sum to totals due to rounding.
a.
This includes the impact of Sec. 587, a general provision added through a floor amendment that reduced
this line by $10 million.
b.
This line reflects only funding for DHS Headquarters Consolidation included in Title I of the DHS
appropriations bill. Other funding has been provided under Coast Guard accounts and in general provisions
in previous years.
c.
$56 million is provided for this purpose in Coast Guard Operating Expenses and in General Provisions.
d.
$48 million is provided for this purpose in Coast Guard Operating Expenses and in General Provisions in
Division F of P.L. 113-76.
e.
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.
Departmental Management13
The departmental management accounts cover the general administrative expenses of DHS. They
include the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM), which comprises 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 Readiness
Support Officer (formerly, the Office 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 DHS headquarters here as well.
13
Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
14
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
In this section and in each section hereafter, a graphic follows the component or element
description and provides a numeric and graphic representation of the discretionary appropriation
provided to the relevant part of DHS described in the report. This graphic provides a quick
reference to the size of a DHS component’s appropriations relative to those of other DHS
components in DHS as well as a visual comparison of the component’s appropriation under the
FY2014 request, the House-passed and Senate-reported bills for FY2014, and Division F of P.L.
113-76.
FY2014 Request
The Administration requested the following appropriations for these departmental management
accounts: OSEM, $127 million; USM, $203 million; OCFO, $49 million; and OCIO, $327
million.
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM)
The Administration requested $127 million for OSEM and 628 full-time employee equivalents
(FTEs). As in the FY2013 budget, the Administration once again 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 from the FY2012 baseline were included in the request for the Office for
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties: $135,000 to support the department’s role in countering domestic
violence extremism; and more than a million dollars for oversight support of ICE’s Secure
Communities and 287(g) programs. A program change for the Office of Public Affairs included
$3 million to continue and expand the “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign.14
Under Secretary for Management (USM)
The Administration requested $203 million for the USM and 872 FTEs. Several program changes
from the FY2012 baseline were proposed under this appropriation:
•
The Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer included a $1.7 million
reduction for the Asset Management Portfolio Review and a $271,000 reduction
for the Nebraska Avenue Complex Facility Design;
•
Human Resources Information Technology included a $4.5 million reduction in
funding for contract support and systems implementation; and
14
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Departmental Management and Operations, Office of the Secretary and
Executive Management, Congressional Justification, Fiscal Year 2014, pp. OSEM-13 and OSEM-15.
Congressional Research Service
15
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
•
The Office of the Chief Procurement Officer included a $3.8 million reduction
for In-Residence Course Offerings and a $3.4 million reduction for Security
Support Services.15
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
The Administration requested $49 million for the OCFO and 208 FTEs. Program changes from
the FY2012 baseline included a $4 million increase for Financial Systems Modernization and a
$2.7 million reduction in contract support.16
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)
The Administration requested $327 million for the OCIO and 274 FTEs. Program changes
totaling more than $80 million were requested from the FY2012 baseline. These included
increases of $35 million for Sharing and Safeguarding Classified Information, $6 million for
Identity, Credential, and Access Management, and $54 million for Data Center Migration and
reductions of $1.2 million for Enterprise-Wide Human Capital Planning, $1 million for
Geospatial Information Infrastructure, and $10 million in Information Security and Infrastructure
Activities.17
House-Passed H.R. 2217
H.R. 2217, as passed by the House, would have provided the following appropriations as
compared with the President’s request: OSEM, $100 million ($27 million or 21.2% less); USM,
$135 million ($68 million or 33.5% less); OCFO, $31 million ($18 million or 36.7% less); OCIO,
$211 million ($116 million or 35.5% less). The House Committee on Appropriations justified
some of these reductions 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 and because of the department’s
failure to comply with several statutory requirements that were included in previous
appropriations acts.
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM)
Within OSEM, $5 million would be provided for enhancements to the “If You See Something,
Say Something” campaign. The proposed separate line items for the Office of International
Affairs, the Office of State and Local Law Enforcement, and the Private Sector Office would
have been denied under House-passed H.R. 2217. The offices were directed to remain within the
Office of Policy, and a $2 million reduction in the requested aggregate funding for these three
15
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for
Management, Congressional Justification, Fiscal Year 2014, pp. USM-8-9; USM-14; USM-17; and USM-19.
16
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Departmental Management and Operations, Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, Congressional Justification, Fiscal Year 2014, pp. OCFO-11 – OCFO-13.
17
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Departmental Management and Operations, Office of the Chief Information
Officer, Congressional Justification, Fiscal Year 2014, pp. OCIO-9, OCIO-12, OCIO-18, and OCIO-21.
Congressional Research Service
16
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
offices would have been realized proportionally through “reductions in duplicative administrative
functions.”18
A floor amendment to H.R. 2217 was adopted by voice vote on June 5, 2013, which used funding
for the OSEM as an offset, thus reducing the amount available for OSEM by $3 million from the
House Appropriations Committee recommendation of $103 million.19
Under Secretary for Management (USM)
The House-reported bill included $171 million for the USM, $32 million below the requested
level. Under the USM appropriation, funding of $30 million would have been provided for the
Chief Administrative Officer, of which $4 million would have been allocated for improvements,
maintenance, and current operations at the Nebraska Avenue Complex.
Four floor amendments, adopted by voice vote on June 5, 2013, used funding for the USM as an
offset, thus reducing the amount available for the USM by $36 million from the House
Appropriations Committee recommended level of $171 million, including
•
H.Amdt. 100, to increase funds for Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and
Technology by $10 million;
•
H.Amdt. 102, to increase funds for Firefighter Assistance Grants by $5 million;
•
H.Amdt. 103, to increase funds for the Urban Search and Rescue Response
System by $7,667,000; and
•
H.Amdt. 104, to increase funds for Transportation Security Administration
Surface Transportation Security by $15,676,000.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
The House-reported bill included $41 million for the USM, $8 million below the requested level.
Under the OCFO account, 50% of the total appropriation 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 FY2015 budget request. The House report expressed concern with
the significant cost of international rotations of DHS personnel through secondment positions in
foreign countries and the expectation that the CFO would review the costs of all such positions.
Funding for any further secondment positions in FY2014 would have been denied.
The House report continued to provide direction to the department on the contents for its budget
justifications for the coming year through this office, including a Future Years Homeland Security
Plan covering FY2015 through FY2019.20
An adopted floor amendment further reduced the amount that would have been available for
OCFO by $10 million from the House Appropriations Committee recommended level of $41
million.21
18
H.Rept. 113-91, p. 9.
H.Amdt. 98, agreed to by a voice vote on June 5, 2013.
20
H.Rept. 113-91, p. 19.
19
Congressional Research Service
17
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)
The House-passed appropriation of $211 million for the Office of the Chief Information Officer
would have been allocated to two sub-appropriations: $99 million for salaries and expenses and
$111 million for development and acquisition of information technology equipment, software,
services, and related activities through September 30, 2015. Data Center Migration would have
been funded through a general provision under Title V of the bill and would have received an
appropriation of $34 million.
Senate-Reported H.R. 2217
H.R. 2217, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, would have provided the
following appropriations, as compared with the President’s request: OSEM, $124 million ($3
million or 2.3% less); USM, $198 million ($4.5 million or 2.2% less); OCFO, $48 million
($779,000 or 1.6% less); and OCIO, $263 million ($64.2 million or 19.6% less). The total
funding provided by the Senate-reported bill for departmental management in Title I would have
been $633 million. This would have represented a decrease of $72.3 million, or 10.2%, from the
President’s request of $705 million, not including the funding for DHS headquarters
consolidation. See Table 6 for additional detail.
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM)
As in the House-passed version of the legislation, the Senate bill would have rejected the
Administration’s proposal to fund certain offices separately from the Office of Policy. However,
the Senate committee report did not include the House’s $2 million reduction to the Office of
Policy.
Under Secretary for Management (USM)
According to the Senate report, proposed 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.”22
In addition to continuing to produce annual comprehensive and quarterly acquisition status
reports, the Senate Appropriations Committee directed DHS to revise the acquisition instruction
manual by requiring the collection and distribution of information on lessons learned with regard
to canceled acquisition programs, consistent with the recommendations made in a May 2013
GAO report.23
(...continued)
21
H.Amdt. 134, agreed to by a recorded vote of 287-136 (Roll no. 207) on June 6, 2013.
22
Ibid., pp. 15-16.
23
U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Combating Nuclear Smuggling: Lessons Learned from Cancelled
Radiation Portal Monitor Program Could Help Future Acquisitions,” GAO-13-256, May, 2013; and S.Rept. 113-77, pp.
16-17.
Congressional Research Service
18
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
For the OCFO, the Senate Appropriations Committee-recommended appropriation of $48 million
would have included the requested $4 million increase for Financial Systems Modernization,
which would have allowed the OCFO to provide governance and oversight of some components’
migration to a “financial systems solution.” The Coast Guard was expected to undertake the
migration of its financial management system in FY2014—a move anticipated to support
financial management at the Transportation Security Administration and the Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office.24
Like the House report, the Senate report continued to provide direction to the department on the
contents for its budget justifications for the coming year through this office, including a Future
Years Homeland Security Plan covering FY2015 through FY2019. The Senate report also
continued to carry under the OCFO the minimum parameters for the all expenditure plans for
specific DHS programs required by the appropriations committees.
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)
For the OCIO, the Senate Appropriations Committee-recommended appropriation of $263 million
would have included $115 million for salaries and expenses and $148 million to be available
through FY2016 for technology investments across the department that are overseen by the
OCIO, including $45 million for development and acquisition of IT equipment, software,
services, and related activities and $54 million to complete data center migration carried in a
general provision at Section 546. The committee report affirmed that the migration “will lead to
operational efficiencies, reduced geographic footprint, data sharing synergies, reduced energy
consumption, and clarity of mission throughout the Department” and noted that “investment in
data center consolidation of the first 10 data centers is already resulting in annual savings of
$17,000,000 and could result in savings of $3,000,000,000 by 2030.”25
The Senate committee report recommended an increase of almost $30 million in the appropriation
for implementing “information sharing and safeguarding measures to protect classified national
security information” to be compliant with the implementation of Executive Order 13587, as
opposed to the request of $35 million.26
Division F of P.L. 113-76
The act provided the following appropriations, as compared with the President’s request: OSEM,
$122 million ($4.2 million or 3.3% less); USM, $196 million ($6.7 million or 3.3% less); OCFO,
$46 million ($2.8 million or 5.7% less); and OCIO, $257 million ($70 million or 21.4% less). The
total funding provided by Division F of P.L. 113-76 for Departmental Management in Title I was
$622 million. This was a decrease of $97 million, or 13.7%, from the President’s request of $705
million, not including the funding for DHS headquarters consolidation at St. Elizabeths. See
Table 6 for additional detail.
24
S.Rept. 113-77, p. 19.
Ibid., p. 22.
26
Ibid.
25
Congressional Research Service
19
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM)
As in FY2013 and in the House-passed and Senate-reported versions of H.R. 2217, P.L. 113-76
included a $45,000 limit on the use of OSEM appropriations for official reception and
representation expenses, and the explanatory statement directed DHS to continue to submit
quarterly reports on those expenses.
Requirements are included in the OSEM appropriation for expenditure plans for the Offices of
Policy, Intergovernmental Affairs, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and Citizenship and
Immigration Services Ombudsman, and the Privacy Officer, although previous provisions
withholding funds until these plans were delivered were not included. The explanatory statement
noted that “no funds from OSEM are withheld from obligation until these plans are submitted so
as to afford the department’s new leadership an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the
law.”27
Like the House-passed and Senate-reported bills, the act continued to fund the Office of
International Affairs, the Office of State and Local Law Enforcement, and the Private Sector
Office within the appropriation for the Office of Policy and provided additional direction for the
office’s expenditure plan and FY2015 budget justification.
The Office of Public Affairs received an additional $3 million to enhance the “If you See
Something, Say Something” public awareness campaign.
The Deputy Secretary, joined by CBP and ICE, was directed to report within 60 days of
enactment on further efforts to address corruption by DHS employees. DHS was directed to
develop a hiring strategy including background investigations of potential new hires.
Under Secretary for Management (USM)
The law directed the USM to submit a Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations at the same time that the President submits his FY2015
budget and quarterly thereafter, not later than 45 days after the completion of each quarter.
As with OSEM, FY2014 funds were not withheld from obligation by the USM to afford the
department’s new leadership an opportunity to demonstrate its compliance with reporting
requirements carried in statute. According to the explanatory statement, reduced appropriations
for offices within the USM account resulted from disproportionally high lapsed balances at the
end of FY2013 and funding needs across DHS.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
P.L. 113-76 included a directive under the OCFO account that the Secretary of Homeland
Security submit the Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations at the same time as the President’s FY2015 budget is submitted.
27
Division F of “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Chairman of the House Committee on
Appropriations, Regarding the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment on H.R. 3547, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act,” as posted on the Rules Committee website at http://rules.house.gov/bill/113/hr-3547-sa and
downloaded March 27, 2014 (hereafter “Explanatory Statement”), p. 3
Congressional Research Service
20
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
As with other departmental management elements, FY2014 funds were not withheld from
obligation by the OCFO to afford the department’s new leadership an opportunity to demonstrate
its compliance with reporting requirements carried in statute.
The CFO was directed to continue briefings (at least semiannually) on Financial Systems
Modernization for the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and to submit a detailed
expenditure plan on the modernization within 45 days after enactment. A new general provision at
Section 547 provided almost $30 million for financial systems modernization.
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)
Within the OCIO account, $115 million was provided for salaries and expenses and $142
million28 was to remain available until September 30, 2015, for the development and acquisition
of information technology equipment, software, services, and related activities for the
department. An appropriation of $21 million funded information sharing and safeguards to protect
classified national security information.
Section 546 of the law provided $42 million for data center migration. The CIO was required to
submit a detailed expenditure plan for the migration within 45 days after enactment.
Under Section 551, the CIO was required to submit a multi-year investment and management
plan for FY2014 through FY2017 to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations,
concurrent with the submission of the President’s FY2015 budget.
Table 6. DHS Management Account Appropriations, FY2013-FY2014
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013 Enacted
(presequester)
FY2014 Appropriations
P.L.
113-6
P.L.
113-2
Total
Request
Housepassed
H.R.
2217
$130
$0
$130
$127
$100
$124
$122
Immediate Office of the Secretary
4
0
4
4
3
4
4
Immediate Office of the Deputy
Secretary
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
Office of the Chief of Staff
2
0
2
2
1
2
2
Executive Secretary
8
0
8
8
4
8
7
Office of Policya
44
0
44
38
30
37
37
Office of Public Affairs
5
0
5
9
9
9
9
Office of the Secretary and
Executive Management
Senatereported
H.R.
2217
Div. F,
P.L.
113-76
28
This amount was allocated as follows: Information Technology Services ($34 million), Infrastructure and Security
Activities ($45 million), and Homeland Secure Data Network ($63 million).
Congressional Research Service
21
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
FY2013 Enacted
(presequester)
FY2014 Appropriations
P.L.
113-6
P.L.
113-2
Total
Request
Housepassed
H.R.
2217
Senatereported
H.R.
2217
Div. F,
P.L.
113-76
Office of Legislative Affairs
6
0
6
5
5
5
5
Office of Intergovernmental
Affairs
2
0
2
3
2
2
2
Office of General Counsel
21
0
21
21
18
20
20
Office of Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties
22
0
22
22
18
22
22
Citizenship and Immigration
Services Ombudsman
6
0
6
5
5
5
5
Privacy Officer
8
0
8
8
7
8
8
Floor Amendmentb
—
—
—
—
-3
—
—
Under Secretary for
Management c
218
0
218
203
135
198
196
Immediate Office of the Under
Secretary
3
0
3
3
2
3
3
Office of Security
69
0
69
66
56
65
64
Office of the Chief Procurement
Officer
72
0
72
67
56
66
65
Office of the Chief Human
Capital Officer
35
0
35
31
27
30
30
Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer
40
0
40
36
30
35
35
Floor Amendments
—
—
—
—
-36
—
—
Office of the Chief Financial
Officer
51
0
51
49
31
48
46
Office of the Chief
Information Officer
243
0
243
327
211
263
257
DHS Headquarters
Consolidationd
0
0
0
106
0
0
0
Total, Departmental
Management
643
0
643
811
475
633
622
Sources: CRS analysis of P.L. 113-6, its accompanying Senate explanatory statement, P.L. 113-2, the FY2014
DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, H.R. 2217, H.Rept. 113-91, S.Rept. 113-77, and P.L. 113-76 and its
accompanying House explanatory statement.
Notes: Amounts may not sum to totals due to rounding.
a.
This number for the Office of Policy reflects the existing structure of that office. The Administration
proposed in its FY2013 budget request separating the Office of International Affairs, Office of State and
Local Law Enforcement and the Private Sector Office from of the Office of Policy. Congress rejected this
proposal.
b.
A floor amendment in the House reduced this account by $3 million, but its effect across the activities is
not specified.
Congressional Research Service
22
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
c.
Four amendments passed the House that reduced funding for a set of activities account by a total of $36
million, but its impact across the activities is not specified.
d.
This line reflects only funding for DHS Headquarters Consolidation included in Title I of the DHS
appropriations bill. Other funding has been provided under Coast Guard accounts and in general provisions
in previous years. P.L. 113-76 included $48 million through those parts of the FY2014 act.
Issues for Congress
The reports of the House and Senate Appropriations committees that accompanied the House and
Senate versions of H.R. 2217, as well as the explanatory statement accompanying Division F of
P.L. 113-76, identified several issues before the department. Among the issues were those on
vacancies in the department’s political leadership positions, the morale of DHS employees,
bonuses and awards for personnel, measures for determining the department’s performance, and
containing departmental travel costs. Brief discussions of each of these issues follow.
Political Leadership Position Vacancies
Stating that the Office of Personnel Management’s 2012 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
noted a lack of effective leadership at DHS, the House committee report stated that “Innovation
and proactive thinking are often lacking when a government agency or office is under acting
leadership as career leaders seek to reinforce established business processes without disruption.”
The report expressed concern about leadership vacancies in CBP and OIG, stating that, “No
Senate confirmed CBP Commissioner has been in place since the beginning of 2009,” and “[N]o
Senate confirmed Inspector General has been in place since early 2011.”29 On March 6, 2014, R.
Gil Kerlikowske was confirmed as Commissioner of CBP, and John Roth was confirmed as the
DHS Inspector General.
Employee Morale
Concerns about “findings of low morale and a weak environment for innovation across the
Department” were expressed in the House committee report. Specifically, the report noted that
one independent study placed DHS “among the lowest-rated Federal agencies in both employee
morale and innovative workplaces, with eight offices ranked in the bottom 12 percent and the
Office of the Under Secretary for Science and Technology ranking 292nd out of 292 agencies.”
The department was directed, within 60 days after the act’s enactment, to provide “a corrective
action plan” to address the morale and innovation issues to the “relevant Congressional
Committees of jurisdiction.” The “root causes” of the deficiencies and “metrics of success” that
are “clear and measureable” were to be examined in the plan.30
Bonuses and Awards
The House committee report affirmed that bonuses and monetary awards are “important tools in
recognizing and motivating high achieving agency personnel” and could be a means for
encouraging employees to increase their productivity and employ creative ideas. The House
Appropriations Committee was concerned, however, that more than half the employees (and, in
29
30
H.Rept. 113-91, pp. 14-15.
Ibid., p. 14.
Congressional Research Service
23
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
some case, 90% of employees) in a component or office had received awards, including quality
step increases, and that this practice “may cause these awards to lose their value as a form of
recognition or incentive.” The report stated that DHS did not grant performance awards in
FY2013 because of reductions in funding and directed the department to include award amounts,
estimated by component, and the standards and criteria that would be applied in making
determinations of awards, with the FY2015 budget request.31
Performance of the Department
Noting that the department’s annual performance reports “do not satisfactorily tie resources to
results,” the House committee report stated that Congress “is forced to make resource allocation
decisions without sufficient information about the impact of those decisions.” It also stated that
DHS “must make significant additional progress” in defining its missions, strategies, goals, and
priorities, including development of the next Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR),
Future Years Homeland Security Programs (FYHSP), and the annual budget requests. Of
particular interest to the committee was performance-based budgeting that “more systematically
and comprehensively tie[s] long-term strategies and goals to performance measures involving
programs, assets, capabilities, policies, and authorities” and “clearly link[s] prioritized goals to
anticipated resources.” The department was directed to include “in future QHSRs, FYHSPs, and
annual budget proposals, clearly defined and prioritized mission goals and associated, multi-year
plans for providing sufficient resources to realize those goals.” In addition, budget justifications
were to include performance measures that “measure outcome (results/impact), output (volume)
and efficiency.” DHS, working with the Government Accountability Office, was directed to
submit “a comprehensive report that provides updated performance metrics that are measurable,
repeatable, and directly linked to requests for funding.”32
The Senate committee report spoke to the issue of metrics as well, noting that DHS undertook an
efficiency review in March 2009, to reduce overhead and administrative costs, streamline
operations, and establish a culture of efficiency. An independent third-party assessment of this
process in November 2012 resulted in recommendations including those on “emphasizing
consistency in efficiency review investments across all components” and “expanding metrics
reporting.”33 The report directed the department to brief the committee on the implementation of
the recommendations within 60 days of enactment.
Departmental Travel Costs
The act continued a provision first included in the FY2010 appropriation for OSEM directing that
all official costs associated with the use of government aircraft by DHS personnel in support of
the Secretary’s and the Deputy Secretary’s official travel be paid from amounts made available
for their immediate offices. The explanatory statement directed the department to provide further
reporting on travel costs to improve transparency, and directed DHS to “significantly reduce the
number of offline travel bookings in FY2014.” The explanatory statement also directed the Office
31
Ibid., pp. 12-13.
Ibid., pp.13-14.
33
S.Rept. 113-77, p. 13.
32
Congressional Research Service
24
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
of the Inspector General to “examine department-wide travel costs and to identify excessive
expenditures and potential savings.”34
DHS Headquarters Consolidation35
The Department of Homeland Security’s headquarters footprint occupied more than 7.5 million
square feet of office space in more than 40 locations in the greater Washington, DC area, as of the
beginning of FY2014. 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 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 master plan in October 2006 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.
FY2014 Request
The Administration requested $106 million for the activities related to the St. Elizabeths DHS
headquarters project as part of the budget for departmental operations. This included $93 million
for construction and $13 million in costs for campus security.36
House-Passed H.R. 2217
House-passed H.R. 2217 included no funding for construction at St. Elizabeths, and the House
Appropriations Committee did not indicate that the bill included any funding for campus security
costs.
Senate-Reported H.R. 2217
Senate-reported H.R. 2217 included no funding under Title I, but $43 million for costs associated
with headquarters consolidation under the bill’s general provisions, and $13 million in Coast
Guard Operating Expenses for campus security costs.37
34
Explanatory Statement, p 6.
Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government
and Finance Division.
36
Not all DHS headquarters functions in the National Capital Region 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. There was no such request for FY2014, however.
37
S.Rept. 113-77, p. 18.
35
Congressional Research Service
25
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Division F of P.L. 113-76
Division F of P.L. 113-76 included no funding for the headquarters consolidation project under
Title I, but like the Senate-reported bill, included $35 million for costs associated with
headquarters consolidation under the bill’s general provisions, and $13 million in Coast Guard
Operating Expenses for campus security costs.
Issues for Congress
The initial cost estimate for the St. Elizabeths project was $3.4 billion. Of this project, $1.4
billion was to be funded through the DHS budget and $2 billion through the GSA.38 The latest
cost estimates for the project present a phased approach to construction that would require less
yearly funding, but would take longer to complete and be more expensive as a result. If funding is
provided for one segment each year, DHS and GSA indicate the project will cost $4.5 billion to
complete, with the final segment being finished in FY2026.39 Even so, GSA estimates $532
million in savings over 30 years solely comparing construction costs to lease costs.40
According to DHS, $1,368 million has been invested in the project so far through FY2013—$460
million through DHS and $908 million through GSA.41 Phase 1A of the project—a new Coast
Guard headquarters facility—has been completed as is operational. FY2014 funding was below
the requested level for both DHS and GSA elements of the planned construction on the center
building complex. The spending plan envisioned $93 million from DHS for construction, and
$262 million from GSA—which received only $35 million and $155 million, respectively.
Nevertheless FY2014 funding represented the largest tranche of funding provided for the project
since FY2009.
Congress may wish to consider whether to continue with the consolidation effort at St.
Elizabeths—taking into account the existing Coast Guard presence and investment in
infrastructure on the site, the size of the future investment needed to complete the project, and the
potential savings and benefits—and if the decision is made to continue, whether to proceed more
quickly than the latest baseline projects in order to reduce costs and generate the efficiencies of
consolidation more quickly.42
38
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.
39
“St. Elizabeths Development Revised Baseline,” document provided by DHS, June 12, 2013.
40
“Prospectus—Construction: Department of Homeland Security Consolidation at St. Elizabeths, Washington, DC,”
PDC-002-WA14, p. 14, accessed on September 3, 2013 at http://www.gsa.gov/portal/mediaId/170067/fileName/
2014_Washington_DC_Department_of_Homeland_Security_Consolidation_at_St_Elizabeths.
41
Email from DHS Legislative Affairs to author, March 12, 2013. 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.
42
For a more detailed discussion of this project, including appropriations sought in other legislation, see CRS Report
R42753, DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
26
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Analysis and Operations43
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,44 its budget comes in part from the classified National Intelligence Program.45 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.
FY2014 Request
The FY2014 request for the Analysis and Operations account was $309 million. The account
request included funding for 852 FTEs (874 positions).
House-Passed H.R. 2217
House-passed H.R. 2217 would have included $292 million for the Analysis and Operations
account, $17.6 million (5.7%) below the amount requested.
According to H.Rept. 113-91, the House Committee on Appropriations reduced funding for OPS
because of a need to “offset severe flaws within [DHS’s] budget request and due to an inadequate
justification.” The committee also denied the requested decrease to cybersecurity analysis and
counterintelligence, restoring funding for these functions. Details on this were included in the
classified annex accompanying H.Rept. 113-91.
43
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism, Domestic Social Policy Division.
The intelligence community (IC), as defined in 50 U.S.C. 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.
45
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.
44
Congressional Research Service
27
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Senate-Reported H.R. 2217
Senate-reported H.R. 2217 would have included $304 million for the Analysis and Operations
account, $5.5 million (1.8%) below the amount requested.
The Senate committee report required DHS’s Chief Intelligence Officer (the Under Secretary for
I&A) to submit an FY2014 expenditure plan no later than 60 days after the enactment of DHS
appropriations. The committee required the plan to detail areas where the department could
provide unique expertise or serve intelligence customers who are not supported by other
components of the U.S. Intelligence Community, consistent with current statute and executive
orders, and in a way that does not impair intelligence support to the senior DHS leadership. The
committee directed that the plan include the following elements:
•
fiscal year 2014 expenditures and staffing allotted for each program as compared to fiscal
years 2012 and 2013;
•
all funded versus on-board positions, including Federal FTE, contractors, and reimbursable
and nonreimbursable detailees;
•
a plan, including dates or timeframes for achieving key milestones;
•
allocation of funding within each PPA for individual programs;
•
funding, by object classification, including a comparison to fiscal years 2013 and 2012; and
•
the number of I&A-funded employees supporting organizations outside I&A including those
within and outside DHS.
In addition, the committee report directed I&A to continue semi-annual briefings on the State and
Local Fusion Centers program.46
Division F of P.L. 113-76
Division F of P.L. 113-76 (the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014) provided $301
million in funding for Analysis and Operations. This was approximately $9 million more than
House-passed H.R. 2217, $3 million less than Senate-reported H.R. 2217, and $8 million less
than the FY2014 request.
Issues for Congress
In the recent past, some Members of Congress have voiced concerns about I&A’s mission. 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.”47 Representative Myrick made these comments in an opening statement for a House
46
S.Rept. 113-77, p. 23.
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, at
http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/011812MyrickOpeningStatement.pdf.
47
Congressional Research Service
28
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence hearing about DHS’s role in the
intelligence community.48 The hearing centered on a report about DHS’s intelligence mission
issued by the Aspen Institute.49 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.50
The requirement made in the Senate committee’s report accompanying Senate-Reported H.R.
2217 that DHS submit an FY2014 expenditure plan may help clarify some of the issues inherent
in the above critique.
Office of the Inspector General51
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.52
48
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, at http://intelligence.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-terrorism-humint-analysisand-counterintelligence-role-dhs-ic-report-aspen.
49
Aspen Institute, Homeland Security and Intelligence: Next Steps in Evolving the Mission, January 18, 2012, at
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/homeland-security-intelligence-next-steps-evolving-mission.
50
Ibid., p. 3.
51
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.
52
H.Rept. 112-469, p. 25.
Congressional Research Service
29
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
FY2014 Request
The Administration requested $119 million in appropriations for the OIG, plus a transfer of $24
million from the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). New funding of $2.5 million was for executing
audits mandated by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007,
which required audits of DHS-administered preparedness grants to States and territories and highrisk urban areas.53
House-Passed H.R. 2217
The House-passed bill included $114 million for the DHS OIG, plus a transfer of $24 million
from the DRF as requested for disaster-related audits and investigations. The House committee
report stated that this represented the funding required to maintain the current level of services,
and noted with concern the lack of a confirmed head of the OIG since early 2011.54
Senate-Reported H.R. 2217
The Senate-reported bill included $117 million for the DHS OIG, plus a transfer of $24 million
from the DRF as requested and included in the House-passed bill. The Senate committee report
also stated that this was the level required to provide the current level of services, including
completion of audits of the State Homeland Security Program and the Urban Area Security
Initiative grant programs by their legislatively mandated deadline. 55
Division F of P.L. 113-76
Division F of P.L. 113-76 included $115 million for the DHS OIG, as well as the requested $24
million transfer from the DRF.
Issues for Congress
OIG Mandates
Both the House bill and report required the OIG to conduct reviews and provide reports,
briefings, or determinations to the Appropriations Committees on a variety of matters. The
53
P.L. 110-53, Section 101 (6 U.S.C. 612).
H.Rept. 113-91, p. 24 and p. 15.
55
S.Rept. 113-77, p. 24.
54
Congressional Research Service
30
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
FY2014 budget request for the OIG noted 18 separate reports that were required by statute and
four that were required by Executive Order. Four of these predate the establishment of the
department.56 New requirements for oversight of DHS participation in conferences and special
events were not included in the Administration’s analysis, due to the timing of its release.
In addition, the House report directed that the OIG
•
Provide a detailed expenditure plan for the OIG with its annual budget
justification starting in FY2015, as well as an expenditure plan specifically for its
work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border
Protection on integrity investigations of their operations;57
•
Provide a semiannual briefing on fraud and waste at the department;58 and
•
Enhance their “red team” investigations in conjunction with TSA’s Office of
Inspection to ensure TSA screeners are properly trained and equipped to address
the latest evolution of threats and vulnerabilities.59
The Senate report similarly directs that the OIG
•
Provide a detailed expenditure plan for the OIG with its annual budget
justification starting in FY2015, as well as expenditure plans that cover its entire
portfolio, as well as a coordinated plan with ICE and CBP for their integrity
oversight funding;60 and
•
Report with FEMA on improvements in implementing disaster recovery
programs and preventing waste, fraud and abuse.61
Division F of P.L. 113-76 and its accompanying explanatory statement direct the OIG to
•
Examine DHS travel costs and “identify excessive expenditures and potential
savings”;62
•
Review the department’s hiring strategy for CBP and ICE personnel to see if the
background investigations are effective in ensuring the integrity of their
personnel, and provide input to the department on the matter.63
•
Provide the expenditure plan as requested in the House and Senate reports; and
•
Brief the committees quarterly on joint OIG/FEMA work to prevent waste, fraud
and abuse.64
56
“Status of Congressionally Requested Studies, Report, and Evaluations,” Fiscal Year 2014 One-Time Exhibits,
Department of Homeland Security Congressional Justification, OIG-5 through OIG-10.
57
H.Rept. 113-91, p. 24.
58
H.Rept. 113-91, p. 24.
59
H.Rept. 113-91, p. 51.
60
S.Rept. 113-77, p. 24.
61
S.Rept. 113-77, p. 25.
62
Explanatory Statement, p. 4.
63
Ibid., p. 6.
64
Ibid., p. 15.
Congressional Research Service
31
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
Title II of the DHS appropriations bill, which includes more than 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 $30,283 million for these accounts in FY2014. The House-passed bill
would have provided $30,768 million, an increase of 1.60% from the requested level. The Senatereported bill would have included $30,289 million, an increase of less than 0.1% from the
requested level. Division F of P.L. 113-76 included $30,877 million in Title II, 2.1% above the
requested level. Both the Senate-reported bill and the enacted annual appropriations act also
included an additional $227 million in funding for overseas contingency operations of Coast
Guard, compensated for by an adjustment in the discretionary spending limits outlined through
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended. Table 7 lists the enacted
amounts for the individual components of Title II for FY2013, the Administration’s request for
these components for FY2014, the House-passed and Senate-reported appropriations for the
same, and the annual appropriation enacted through Division F of P.L. 113-76.
Table 7. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations, FY2013-FY2014
(millions of dollars of budget authority)
FY2013 Enacted
(pre-sequester)
FY2014 Appropriations
P.L.
113-6
P.L.
113-2
Total
Request
Housepassed
H.R.
2217
$8,282
$2
$8,284
$9,237
$8,276
$7,976
$8,146
Senatereported
H.R. 2217
Div. F,
P.L.
113-76
Customs and
Border Protection
Salaries and Expenses
Small Airport User
Feea
—
—
5
5
5
5
Automation
Modernization
719
719
340
700
800
817
Border Security
Fencing,
Infrastructure, and
Technology
324
324
351
361
351
351
Air and Marine
Interdictions
798
798
428
803
756
805
Facilities Management
233
233
471
471
471
456
10,358
10,833
10,617
10,360
10,580
1,519
2,064
2,064
2,064
1,704
Appropriation
10,356
Fees, Mandatory
Spending, and Trust
Funds
1,519
Congressional Research Service
2
32
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
FY2013 Enacted
(pre-sequester)
Total Budgetary
Resources
FY2014 Appropriations
P.L.
113-6
P.L.
113-2
Total
Request
Housepassed
H.R.
2217
11,873
2
11,874
12,897
12,680
12,424
12,284
5,387
1
5,388
4,957
5,344
5,014
5,229
Senatereported
H.R. 2217
Div. F,
P.L.
113-76
Immigration and
Customs
Enforcement
Salaries and Expenses
Automation &
Infrastructure
Modernization
33
33
35
35
35
35
Construction
5
5
5
5
5
5
5,427
4,997
5,384
5,054
5,269
312
345
345
345
345
5,738
5,342
5,729
5,399
5,614
2,976
2,976
2,743
2,755
2,819
2,863
Surface
Transportation
Security
124
124
109
124
109
109
Transportation Threat
Assessment and
Credentialing (net
funding)
192
192
181
183
180
176
Transportation
Security Support
953
953
998
898
979
962
Federal Air Marshals
907
907
827
821
821
819
Appropriation
5,152
5,152
4,857
4,781
4,907
4,929
Fees, Mandatory
Spending, and Trust
Funds
2,399
2,399
2,541
2,436
2,436
2,436
Total Budgetary
Resources
7,551
7,551
7,398
7,217
7,344
7,365
6,812
6,812
6,755
6,839
6,799
6,785
Appropriation
5,426
Fees, Mandatory
Spending, and Trust
Funds
312
Total Budgetary
Resources
5,738
1
1
Transportation
Security
Administration
Aviation Security (net
funding)
U.S. Coast Guard
Operating Expenses
Congressional Research Service
33
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
FY2013 Enacted
(pre-sequester)
P.L.
113-6
Environmental
Compliance &
Restoration
13
Reserve Training
132
Acquisition,
Construction, &
Improvements
1,543
P.L.
113-2
274b
FY2014 Appropriations
Total
Request
Housepassed
H.R.
2217
13
13
13
13
13
132
110
113
122
120
1,818
951
1,223
1,230
1,376
Senatereported
H.R. 2217
Div. F,
P.L.
113-76
Research,
Development, Testing,
and Evaluation
20
20
20
10
20
19
Health Care Fund
Contributiona
203
203
201
201
201
201
Discretionary
Appropriation
8,723
8,997
8,050
8,399
8,385
8,514
Fees, Mandatory
Spending, and Trust
Funds
1,823
1,823
1,808
1,808
1,808
1,808
Overseas Contingency
Operations
Adjustment
254
254
0
0
227
227
Total Budgetary
Resources
274
10,800
274
11,075
9,858
10,207
10,421
10,549
Salaries and Expenses
1,554
*
1,554
1,495
1,535
1,530
1,533
Acquisition,
Construction, and
Improvements
57
57
52
52
52
52
Appropriation
1,611
1,611
1,546
1,586
1,582
1,585
Fees, Mandatory
Spending, and Trust
Funds
250
250
255
255
255
255
1,861
1,861
1,801
1,841
1,837
1,840
Secret Service
Total Budgetary
Resources
*
Net Discretionary
Budget Authority:
Title IIc
31,267
277
31,544
30,283
30,768
30,289
30,877
Total Budgetary
Resources for Title II
Components before
Transfers
37,824
277
38,102
37,191
37,675
37,424
37,651
Congressional Research Service
34
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Sources: CRS analysis of P.L. 113-6, its accompanying Senate explanatory statement, P.L. 113-2, the FY2014
DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, H.R. 2217, H.Rept. 113-91, S.Rept. 113-77, and P.L. 113-76 and its
accompanying House explanatory statement.
Notes: Amounts may not sum to totals due to rounding. An * indicates a level of funding below $500,000, which
therefore rounds to zero.
a.
In FY2014 these funds are considered permanent indefinite discretionary spending—they count against the
allocation for the bill, and are ready for use without being actually included in the appropriations legislation.
b.
Transfer authority was provided in P.L. 113-2 that would allow a portion of these funds to be shifted to the
Coast Guard operating expenses account.
c.
Includes adjustments under the BCA for emergency spending.
Customs and Border Protection65
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
Operations; Automation Modernization, which includes customs and immigration information
technology systems; Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT); and
Construction and Facilities Management. The agency also manages a number of immigration and
customs user Fee Accounts. See Table 7 for account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II,
and Table 8 for subaccount-level detail for CBP appropriations and funding for FY2013-FY2014.
FY2014 Request
The Administration requested an appropriation of $10,833 million in net budget authority for
CBP for FY2014. The Administration’s total request included $2,064 million in fees, mandatory
spending, and trust funds, for a gross budget request of $12,897 million.
This request included the following program changes from the FY2012 baseline:66
65
Prepared by (name redacted), Section Research Manager, Domestic Social Policy Division.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Congressional Budget
Justification, FY2014, pp. 3-7. Only program changes of $5 million or greater are described in this report; the Budget
Justification also includes several smaller program changes.
66
Congressional Research Service
35
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
•
Transfer of most of the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(US-VISIT) program from the DHS National Protection Programs Directorate
(NPPD) into CBP, with a $253.5 million increase to CBP (also see “Entry-Exit
System”);
•
Increase of $210.1 million to fund approximately 1,600 additional CBP officers,
to include 70 canine teams at Ports of Entry, as well as 245 operational and
mission support personnel (also see “Border Enforcement Personnel”);
•
Increase of $70.5 million to be divided among the Automated Targeting System
(ATS) Operations and Maintenance ($31.1 million), targeting systems ($31.6
million), and CBP’s National Targeting Center (NTC, $7.8 million). These
programs analyze information about goods and travelers passing into and out of
the United States, and check such information against targeting algorithms to
prioritize certain flows for secondary inspections;67
•
Increase of $10.8 million for 1,500 additional mobile devices, handheld license
plate/document readers, and related technology;
•
Increase of $8 million for the acquisition of 60 automated kiosks at airports and
at 8 high-volume pedestrian crossings for participants in CBP’s trusted traveler
programs;68
•
Decrease of $119.2 million as a result of reductions to mission support staffing
($103.7 million) and early retirement incentives ($15.5 million) for a number of
CBP administrative offices;
•
Decrease of $53.9 million from information technology (IT) infrastructure and
systems support;
•
Decrease of $48.4 million as a result of deferring the replacement of certain
vehicles in the CBP fleet;
•
Decrease of $47.9 million as a result of reduced Border Patrol overtime hours;
•
Decrease of $30.9 million as a result of reduced acquisitions of Non-Intrusive
Inspection (NII) equipment;69
•
Decrease of $23.8 million from CBP’s Transportation Program (i.e., for the
transportation of aliens apprehended near the border) due to a reduction of the
transportation workload and through cost savings as a result of a re-competition
of the transportation contract;
67
For a fuller discussion of CBP’s use of the Automated Targeting System with respect to cargo flows, see CRS Report
R43014, U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Trade Facilitation, Enforcement, and Security, by (name redacted) and
(name redacted).
68
CBP’s trusted traveler programs permit pre-approved, low-risk travelers to be eligible for expedited processing at
ports of entry through dedicated lanes and kiosks. See CBP, “Trusted Traveler Programs,” Fact sheet, at
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/trusted_traveler/.
69
Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) equipment includes x-ray and gamma ray imaging systems and related technologies.
NII scanning produces a high-resolution image of container contents that is reviewed by law enforcement officers to
detect hidden cargo and other anomalies that suggest container contents do not match reported manifest data. If an
officer detects an abnormality, containers may be “cracked open” for a physical examination. For a fuller discussion,
see CRS Report R43014, U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Trade Facilitation, Enforcement, and Security, by
(name redacted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
36
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
•
Decrease of $18.9 million as a result of efficiencies in CBP’s training and
development programs;
•
Decrease of $16.0 million from the CBP officer Foreign Language Awards
Program;
•
Decrease of $10 million from programs to combat port running (i.e., persons
fleeing enforcement at a port of entry), reducing such programs at low-risk ports;
•
Decrease of $7.9 million as a result of decreased mission support staffing for the
US-VISIT program resulting from the proposed consolidation of the program
within CBP (see “Entry-Exit System”);
•
Decrease of $7 million from background investigations and periodic
reinvestigations of CBP agents and officers;
•
Decrease of $6.4 million as a result of centralizing ammunition procurement and
distribution for firearms training;
•
Decrease of $6.0 million as a result of reduced procurements for the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative Land Border Integration program, which is
designed to increase the efficiency of flows at land border ports of entry.
•
Decrease of $5.3 million as a result of reducing the number of Tactical Analysis
Units, which provide intelligence to front-line CBP officers;
•
Decrease of $5 million as a result of extending the validation cycle for CustomsTrade Partnership against Terrorism (C-TPAT) members from three to four
years.70
House-Passed H.R. 2217
The House approved $10,617 million in net budget authority for CBP for FY2014, a decrease of
$216 million (2.0%) from the President’s request. Under the House-passed bill, CBP would have
received $12,680 in gross budget authority, a $216 million (1.7%) decrease from the President’s
request.
These numbers include an amendment to add $10 million to the Border Security Fencing,
Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT) account to support emergency communication in rural
areas, with a corresponding reduction to the DHS Office of the Undersecretary of Management.71
The House also passed an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for CBP preclearance
operations at Abu Dhabi International Airport in the United Arab Emirates.72
70
Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism (C-TPAT) is a voluntary program that allows certain trade-related
firms to be certified by CBP as having secured the integrity of their supply chains, and thereby to become eligible for
certain expedited processing during the import process. For a fuller discussion see CRS Report R43014, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection: Trade Facilitation, Enforcement, and Security, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
71
H.Amdt. 100, which passed by voice vote on June 5, 2013.
72
As of May 2013, CBP’s pre-clearance program provides for the inspection and clearance of commercial air
passengers prior to departure from 15 locations in five 5 foreign countries, including Aruba, the Bahamas, Bermuda,
Canada, and Ireland. A preclearance inspection is essentially the same inspection an individual would undergo at a U.S.
port of entry, the difference being that it is conducted outside the United States. Travelers inspected and cleared
overseas do not have to undergo a second CBP inspection upon arrival in the United States. See CBP, Office of Field
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
37
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Senate-Reported H.R. 2217
The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported version of H.R. 2217 included $10,360 million in
net budget authority for CBP for FY2014, a decrease of $473 million (4.4%) from the President’s
request. Under the Senate committee-reported bill, CBP would have received $12,424 million in
gross budget authority, a $472 million (3.7%) decrease from the President’s request.
Division F of P.L. 113-76
Division F of P.L. 113-76 (the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014) provided $12,289
million in gross budget authority for CBP. This was approximately $608 million less than the
FY2014 request, $391 million less than House-passed H.R. 2217, and $135 million less than
Senate-reported H.R. 2217.
In the FY2013 appropriations act,73 the “Air and Marine Operations—Salaries” subaccount was
moved from the Salaries and Expenses account to the Air and Marines Operations account.74
Although the Administration’s FY2014 appropriations request did not reflect this change,
the FY2014 act, similar to the House-passed and Senate-reported bills, kept the account under Air
and Marine Operations.
The FY2014 budget justification recommended that the US-VISIT entry-exit program be
transferred from DHS’s National Protection and Program Directorate (NPPD) to CBP and
recommended $254 million in appropriations for the program. The act, similar to the House- and
Senate-passed bills, kept the program in NPPD.
(...continued)
Operations, “Preclearance Operations,” at http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/toolbox/contacts/preclearance/
preclearance_factsheet.ctt/preclearance_factsheet.pdf. In 2013, DHS announced plans to add a new pre-clearance
location in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emriates.
73
P.L. 113-6.
74
The account was formerly known as Air and Marine Interdictions, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement.
Congressional Research Service
38
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Table 8. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Account Detail, FY2013-FY2014
Budget Authority in Millions of Dollars
FY2013 Enacted
(presequester)
P.L.
113-6
P.L. 1132
$2
FY2014 Appropriations
Total
Request
Housepassed
H.R.
2217
Senatereported
H.R.
2217
Div. F,
P.L. 113-76
$8,284
$9,237
$8,276
$7,976
$8,146
Salaries and
Expenses
$8,282
Headquarters
Management and
Administration
1,379
1,379
1,621
1,110
1,204
1,199
Border Security
Inspections and
Trade Facilitation
3,202
3,202
3,320
3,387
3,043
3,216
Border Security
and Control
Between POE
3,701
3,701
3,756
3,779
3,729
3,731
Air and Marine
Operations—
Salariesa
a
287
a
a
a
US-VISITb
b
254
b
b
b
Small Airport User
Feec
—
—
5
5
5
5
Automation
Modernization
719
719
340
700
800
817
BSFIT
324
324
351
361
351
351
Air and Marine
Operations
798
798
428
803
756
805
Facilities
Management
233
233
471
471
471
456
10,358
10,833
10,617
10,360
10,580
1,519
2,064
2,064
2,064
1,703
11,877
12,897
12,680
12,424
12,283
Total Net
Appropriation
10,356
Estimated Fees,
Mandatory
Spending and
Trust Fundsd
1,519
Total CBP
Budget
Authority
11,875
2
2
Sources: CRS analysis of P.L. 113-6, its accompanying Senate explanatory statement, P.L. 113-2, the FY2014
DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, H.R. 2217, H.Rept. 113-91, S.Rept. 113-77, and P.L. 113-76 and its
explanatory statement.
Notes: Amounts may not sum to totals due to rounding. POE = ports of entry; CBP = U.S. Customs and
Border Protection; BSFIT = Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology.
a.
P.L. 113-6 moved the Air and Marine Operations—Salaries subaccount from the Salaries and Expenses
account to the Air and Marine Operations account—formerly known as Air and Marine Interdictions,
Congressional Research Service
39
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement—in FY2013. The FY2014 Budget Justification included a request
for Air and Marine Operations—Salaries within the Salaries and Expenses account.
b.
The FY2013 Budget Justification requested a transfer of the US-VISIT entry-exit program from the DHS
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) to CBP, but P.L. 113-6 left the entry-exit program
within NPPD, renaming it the Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM). The FY2014 Budget
Justification included a request for US-VISIT funding within the CBP Salaries and Expenses account, but
House-passed H.R. 2217 mainly would have funded the entry-exit program through the OBIM, as in P.L.
113-6. House-passed H.R. 2217 would have included $12.3 million in the Border Security Inspections and
Trade Facilitation sub-account for entry-exit data collection.
c.
In FY2014, these funds are considered permanent indefinite discretionary spending—they count against the
allocation for the bill, and are ready for use without actually being included in the appropriations legislation.
d.
FY2013 data include a decrease of $8 million due to an adjustment to the Small Airport User Fee and an
increase of $6 million in the Customs Unclaimed Goods Trust Fund.
Issues for Congress
For the FY2014 budget cycle, issues for Congress included an ongoing discussion on determining
the proper mix of human resources and technology at and between ports of entry, including
discussions on increasing personnel at the nation’s ports of entry and improving ports of entry
infrastructure through appropriations through reimbursable agreements. There were also
discussions on whether to increase various user fees.
Border Enforcement Personnel
CBP’s front-line enforcement personnel include CBP officers at ports of entry, agriculture
specialists, U.S. Border Patrol agents, air interdiction agents, and marine interdiction agents.
Taken together, these personnel numbers grew from 31,695 in FY2005 to 46,666 in FY2013, an
increase of 14,971 (47%). Border Patrol agents accounted for the greatest share of this growth,
with an increase of 10,106 agents during this period.75
Proportionally among all CBP personnel, the number of CBP officers grew the least during this
period, increasing from 17,881 in FY2005 to 21,775 in FY2013, a 22% increase. The
Administration thus proposes to hire 3,477 additional CBP officers in FY2014, including 1,600
officers through $210 million of additional appropriations, and 1,877 officers through revenues
generated by proposed user fees increases (see “Customs User Fees”). The House Appropriations
Committee report expressed general support for increasing the number of CBP officers, but
recommended just half the requested increase for CBP officers and related expenses (i.e., $105
million) “to allow for a more methodical phase-in of the additional personnel.” The committee
rejected the Administration’s request to designate increased user fees for additional CBP officers
on the grounds that such authority is outside the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee.76
The Senate-reported bill would have provided $96 million to add 876 new CBP officers, and
would have partially supported the Administration’s user fee proposal by adding 974 more CBP
officers though the use of such fees.77
75
The number of Border Patrol agents grew from 11,264 in FY2005 to 21,408 in FY2011, before falling back to 21,388
in FY2012 and 21,370 in FY2013.
76
H.Rept. 113-91, pp. 30-31.
77
S.Rept. 113-77, p. 33.
Congressional Research Service
40
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Division F of P.L. 113-76 included $256 million to increase CBP officers at ports of entry by no
fewer than 2,000 by the end of FY2015 – 1,477 fewer than the Administration’s request, 400
more than what the House recommended and 150 more than what the Senate recommended.
Customs User Fees
CBP collects several different types of user fees, including fees paid by passengers and by cargo
carriers and importers for the provision of customs services. These fees are often referred to as
COBRA fees because they were passed as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1986 (COBRA, P.L. 99-272). Under 19 U.S.C. Sections 58c(f)(1)-(3), a
portion of these fees directly reimburses CBP for certain customs functions, including overtime
compensation and certain benefits and premium pay for CBP officers, certain preclearance
services, foreign language proficiency awards, and—to the extent funds remain available—
certain officer salaries. Another portion of COBRA fees—merchandise processing fees—is
deposited in CBP’s Customs User Fee Account to pay for additional customs revenue functions
but is only available to the extent provided for in appropriations acts.
The collection and disposition of certain COBRA user fees have been subjects of some
controversy in recent appropriations cycles. In FY2012 and FY2013, CBP’s Budget Justification
proposed to use revenue from elimination of a fee exemption enacted through the United StatesColombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-42) to fund CBP
officer salaries and expenses. The use of these additional revenues was not approved by
Congress, requiring additional appropriated funding.78
In its FY2014 request, CBP did not propose to use the revenues generated by P.L. 112-42 for
officer salaries and expenses. Instead, the FY2014 proposal included new fee increases: a $2.00
increase to the Immigration User Fee (IUF) and COBRA air and sea passenger user fees, and
proportional increases in other COBRA fee categories.79 The Administration proposed to use
increased fee revenues to pay for CBP officer salaries and expenses, and proposed to tie these
user fees to the Consumer Price Index in the future. House-passed H.R. 2217 did not include
language to increase these user fees, and H.Rept. 113-91 indicates that the committee did not
have jurisdiction to allocate fee increases for officer salaries and expenses. The Senate-reported
version of H.R. 2217 included language to increase the IUF and COBRA fees. The committee
noted in its report that the services that are performed for which the fees are charged exceeds
what CBP collects. S.Rept. 133-77 further noted that “this gap in cost recovery has a significant
impact since one-third of the OFO’s [Office of Field Operation’s] budget is dependent on user
fees.”80
Senate-reported H.R. 2217 would have made the COBRA fee revenue generated by the
elimination of the fee exemption in P.L. 112-42 available to CBP.81 A provision providing CBP
access to the approximately $110 million in COBRA fee revenue generated pursuant to P.L. 11242 was included as Section 568 of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014.
78
See CRS Report R42644, Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations, coordinated by (name redac
ted).
79
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Congressional Budget
Justification, FY2014, pp. 15-17.
80
S.Rept. 113-77, p. 33.
81
S.Rept. 113-77, p. 147.
Congressional Research Service
41
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
The CBP Budget Justification also proposed to conduct a study assessing the feasibility of
establishing and collecting a land border crossing fee from pedestrians and vehicles entering the
United States through land POEs; but Section 561 of House-passed H.R. 2217—an amendment
adopted during full committee markup of the bill—would have prohibited the collection of such a
fee, along with the use of DHS funds for any study relating to such a fee. Section 567 of the
Senate committee-reported version of H.R. 2217 also would have prohibited the collection or
study of a land border crossing fee. The Senate-reported provision is mirrored in Section 566 of
the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014.
Public-Private Partnerships at POEs
The FY2013 DHS appropriations act (Division D of P.L. 113-6) established a pilot program to
permit CBP to enter into up to five public-private partnerships (PPPs) to support customs and
immigration services at certain ports of entry. In general, PPPs may provide low-cost alternatives
to increase POE personnel and/or to add or improve POE infrastructure. Yet CBP has limited
authority to receive reimbursement for POE services (i.e., to establish a user-fee-funded POE) or
to collect extra fees as compensation for providing services outside normal business hours.82
These restrictions limit CBP’s ability to enter into PPPs.
The Administration’s FY2014 Budget Justification also included language to permit CBP to enter
into up to five PPPs, and the FY2014 justification further proposed to expand CBP’s partnership
authority by permitting DHS to accept donations of real and personal property (including
monetary donations) from private parties and state and local government entities for the purpose
of constructing or expanding POE facilities. The House bill did not include the Administration’s
proposed language with respect to such partnerships and donation authority, however; and the
House report indicated that the committee would not allow additional port of entry partnerships
until DHS briefed the committee on the results of the initial pilot program.83 The Senate
Appropriations Committee report supported the Administration’s PPP language,84 and Section
566 of the Senate committee-reported version of H.R. 2217 included a modified version of the
Administration’s proposal to permit CBP to accept property donations to facilitate port
construction.
Division F of P.L. 113-76 included a provision that establishes a pilot program that enables CBP
to receive reimbursement from outside sources for the costs of certain CBP services. The
provision also allows CBP to accept donations. The provision, however, does not permit CBP to
enter into reimbursable service agreements outside the United States and allows CBP only to
enter into such agreements with no more than five air ports of entry for overtime costs only.85
82
19 U.S.C. §58b restricts CBP’s authority to receive reimbursement to cases in which the volume or value of business
cleared through the port is too low to justify the availability of customs services and in which the governor of the state
where the port is located approves the arrangement; and 19 U.S.C. §1451 restricts CBP’s ability to collect extra fees as
compensation for providing services outside normal business hours.
83
H.Rept. 113-91, p. 31.
84
S.Rept. 113-77, p. 48.
85
Division F, P.L. 113-76, Sec. 562.
Congressional Research Service
42
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Immigration and Customs Enforcement86
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) focuses on enforcement of immigration and
customs laws within the United States. ICE develops intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the
United States and is responsible for investigating and enforcing violations of the immigration
laws (e.g., alien smuggling, hiring unauthorized alien workers). ICE is also responsible for
locating and removing aliens who have overstayed their visas, entered illegally, or have become
deportable. In addition, ICE develops intelligence to combat terrorist financing and money
laundering, and to enforce export laws against smuggling, fraud, forced labor, trade agreement
noncompliance, and vehicle and cargo theft.
For ICE sub-account level detail, including appropriations and funding for FY2013 and FY2014,
see Table 9.
FY2014 Request
For FY2014, the Administration requested $4,997 million in net budget authority, and $5,342
million in gross budget authority for ICE. The budget request included the following changes
from the FY2012 baseline:
•
Increase of $10 million for the Office of Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA);
•
Increase of $6 million for commercial trade investigations;
•
Increase of $9 million for human trafficking investigations;
•
Reduction of $44 million in the 287(g) program;87
•
Reduction of $120 million in detention bed funding (a decrease of 2,200 beds);
and
•
Reduction of $10 million in ICE’s international operations.
The President’s request also included an additional reduction of $482 million to reduce
“inefficiencies.” The largest part of the reduction ($205 million) would have come from reduced
staffing for mission support and frontline positions achieved through attrition.
86
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Under the 287(g) program, state and local law enforcement agencies may enter into agreements with ICE to allow
state and local law enforcement officials to receive ICE training and to perform certain immigration enforcement
activities under ICE supervision. For more on this program, see CRS Report R42057, Interior Immigration
Enforcement: Programs Targeting Criminal Aliens, by (name redacted) and (name redacted); and CRS Report
R41423, Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law, by (name redacted) and (name
redacted).
87
Congressional Research Service
43
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
House-Passed H.R. 2217
House-passed H.R. 2217 would have provided $5,384 million in net budget authority for
FY2014, an increase of $388 million (7.8%) over the Administration’s request. House-passed
H.R. 2217 would have provided ICE with total budget authority of $5,729 million, representing
an increase of $388 million (7.3%) over the Administration’s request.
Senate-Reported H.R. 2217
Senate-reported H.R. 2217 would have provided $5,054 million in net budget authority for
FY2014, an increase of $58 million (1.1%) over the Administration’s request. Senate-reported
H.R. 2217 would have provided ICE with total budget authority of $5,399 million, representing
an increase of $58 million (1.1%) over the Administration’s request.
Division F of P.L. 113-76
Division F of P.L. 113-76 provided $5,269 million in net budget authority for FY2014, an
increase of $272 million (5%) over the Administration’s request. The act provided ICE with total
budget authority of $5,614 million, representing an increase of $282 million (5%) over the
Administration’s request.
Table 9. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Sub-Account Detail,
FY2013-FY2014
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013 Enacted
(presequester)
Salaries and
Expenses
FY2014 Appropriations
P.L.
113-6
P.L.
113-2
Total
Request
Housepassed
H.R.
2217
Senatereported
H.R.
2217
Div. F,
P.L. 113-76
$5,387
$1a
$5,388a
$4,957
$5,344
$5,014
$5,229
HQ Management &
Administration
380
334
361
331
336
Legal Proceedings
207
205
206
203
206
Investigations
1,834
1,733
1,842
1,735
1,804
Investigations—
Domestic
1,685
1,600
1,710
1,604
1,672
Investigations—
International
115
101
100
100
100
Visa Security
Program
35
32
32
32
32
78
75
75
75
74
2,750
2,591
2,836
2,650
2,785
Intelligence
Detention and
Removal Operations
Congressional Research Service
44
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
FY2013 Enacted
(presequester)
FY2014 Appropriations
Request
Housepassed
H.R.
2217
Senatereported
H.R.
2217
Div. F,
P.L. 113-76
2,022
1,845
2,038
1,879
1,994
Fugitive Operations
145
126
135
125
129
Criminal Alien
Program
216
292b
289
294
294
Alternatives to
Detention
96
72
96
96
91
Transportation and
Removal Program
270
256
277
256
277
Comprehensive
Identification and
Removal of Criminal
Aliens (Secure
Communities)
138
20b
25
20
25
Automation and
Infrastructure
Modernization
33
33
35
35
35
35
Construction
5
5
5
5
5
5
5,427
4,997
5,384
5,054
5,269
312
312
345
345
345
345
5,738
5,739
5,342
5,729
5,399
5,614
P.L.
113-6
Custody
Operations
ICE Appropriations
5,426
Fee Accounts
ICE Gross Budget
Authority
P.L.
113-2
1
Total
Sources: CRS analysis of P.L. 113-6, its accompanying Senate explanatory statement, P.L. 113-2, the FY2014
DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, H.R. 2217, H.Rept. 113-91, S.Rept. 113-77 and P.L. 113-76 and its
explanatory statement.
Notes: Amounts may not sum to totals due to rounding. ICE = U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
a.
Due to P.L. 113-2 providing its funding at the account level only, CRS cannot provide a final presequester
total for subaccounts.
b.
Due to the completion of the deployment of Secure Communities, the day-to-day management of Secure
Communities, and corresponding funds and personnel, are transferred to the Criminal Alien Program
(CAP).
Issues for Congress
ICE is responsible for many divergent activities due to the breadth of the civil and criminal
violations of law that fall under its jurisdiction. As a result, how ICE resources can be allocated so
as best to achieve its mission is a continuously debated issue. The FY2014 appropriations process
involved discussions about ICE’s role in detaining and removing (deporting) aliens and on the
role of state and local law enforcement agencies in immigration enforcement.
Congressional Research Service
45
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Enforcement and Removal Operations
Part of ICE’s mission includes locating and removing deportable aliens, which involves
determining the appropriate amount of detention space as well as which aliens should be
detained. In 2012, an estimated 11.7 million unauthorized aliens were in the United States.88 In
addition, ICE reported in February 2012, that an estimated 1.9 million aliens (authorized and
unauthorized) in the United States had been convicted of a crime.89 According to ICE, it has the
capacity to remove 400,000 aliens a year,90 and accordingly, DHS has developed a system to
prioritize certain aliens for removal. In 2011 and 2012, ICE published a number of agency
guidance memoranda concerning the agency’s enforcement priorities and prosecutorial discretion.
In March 2011, John Morton, Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, published
agency guidelines that define a three-tiered priority scheme that applies to all ICE programs and
enforcement activities related to civil immigration enforcement. Under these guidelines, ICE’s
top three civil immigration enforcement priorities are to (1) apprehend and remove aliens who
pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety, (2) apprehend and remove recent
illegal entrants, and (3) apprehend aliens who are fugitives or otherwise obstruct immigration
controls.91 Morton published two memoranda in June 2011 to provide further guidance to ICE
officers, agents, and attorneys to target criminal aliens for enforcement, and to consider
prosecutorial discretion for certain crime victims.92 On August 18, 2011, DHS announced that it
would review all removal cases that were awaiting hearings in the immigration courts to identify
cases that might be amenable to prosecutorial discretion.93 In December 2012, Morton issued a
memorandum providing guidance on the use of detainers94—writs authorizing prison officials to
continue holding prisoners in custody.95
DHS also announced, in June 2012, that the department would exercise prosecutorial discretion
by deferring enforcement action in the case of certain individuals who were brought to the United
88
Jeffrey S. Passel, D'Vera Cohn, and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, Population Decline of Unauthorized Immigrants Stalls,
May Have Reversed, Pew Research Center’s Hispanic Trends Project, Washington, DC, September 23, 2013,
http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2013/09/Unauthorized-Sept-2013-FINAL.pdf.
89
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses
Congressional Budget Justifications FY2013, p. 61.
90
John Morton, Memorandum on Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention, and
Removal of Aliens, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington, DC, March 2, 2011.
91
John Morton, Memorandum on Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention, and
Removal of Aliens, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington, DC, March 2, 2011.
92
John Morton, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of
the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington, DC, June 17, 2011, at http://www.ice.gov/doclib/securecommunities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion-memo.pdf; and John Morton, Prosecutorial Discretion: Certain Victims,
Witnesses, and Plaintiffs, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington,
DC, June 17, 2011, at http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/domestic-violence.pdf. For a more detailed
discussion of these memoranda, see CRS Report R42057, Interior Immigration Enforcement: Programs Targeting
Criminal Aliens, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
93
Letter from Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, to Richard Durbin, Senator, August 18, 2011.
94
John Morton, Memorandum on Civil Immigration Enforcement: Guidance on the Use of Detainers in the Federal,
State, Local, and Tribal Criminal Justice Systems, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington, DC,
December 21, 2012, at https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-reform/pdf/detainer-policy.pdf.
95
Clack’s Law Dictionary (9th edition, 2009).
Congressional Research Service
46
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
States as children and who meet certain other criteria (known as the DACA program).96 As a
result, there has been ongoing debate about how ICE should prioritize the removal of removable
aliens.97
House-passed H.R. 2217 would have prohibited the use of any of the funds provided under the act
to finalize, implement, administer or enforce these agency memoranda and policy guidance
concerning enforcement priorities, including the DACA memorandum. This prohibition was
added by H.Amdt. 136, which passed the House by a recorded vote of 224-201 on June 6, 2013.98
In addition, House-passed H.R. 2217 would have required that $1,600 million of the appropriated
funds shall be available to identify aliens convicted of a crime who may be removable from the
United States and to remove such aliens once ordered removed. House-passed H.R. 2217 would
also have required the Secretary of DHS to prioritize the identification and removal of aliens
convicted of a crime by the severity of the crime. The Senate-reported bill contained a provision
requiring the Secretary of DHS to “ensure enforcement of immigration laws.” Division F of P.L.
113-76 contained the same provisions as House-passed H.R. 2217 regarding criminal aliens, and
the Senate bill regarding the enforcement of immigration laws.
ICE’s Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) provides custody management of
the aliens who are in removal proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United
States.99 ERO also is responsible for ensuring that aliens ordered removed actually depart from
the United States. Some contend that ERO does not have enough detention space to house all
those who should be detained. Concerns have been raised that decisions regarding which aliens to
release and when to release them may be based on the amount of detention space, not on the
merits of individual cases, and that detention conditions may vary by area of the country, leading
to inequities. Some policy makers have advocated for the increased use of alternatives to
detention (ATD) programs for noncriminal alien detainees, citing these programs as a lower-cost
option than detention and a more proportional treatment relative to the violation.100
The number of detention beds maintained by ICE has been an issue. ICE maintained 34,000
detention bed spaces in FY2013. In the beginning of calendar year 2013, ICE released 2,228
detainees, maintaining that the release was necessary due to the fact that ICE was operating under
a continuing resolution (CR) and the upcoming budgetary reductions required by sequestration.
At a hearing on the issue, ICE Director John Morton stated that although the CR had funded
34,000 beds,101 ICE’s average daily detention population exceeded 35,000 individuals, including
96
For more on the DACA program, see CRS Report R42958, Unauthorized Aliens: Policy Options for Providing
Targeted Immigration Relief, by (name redacted).
97
For more on the debate surrounding prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement, see U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, Does Administrative Amnesty
Harm our Efforts to Gain and Maintain Operational Control of the Border?, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., October 4, 2011.
98
Section 588, H.R. 2217(rfs2).
99
For more information on detention issues, see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention, by (name r
edacted). Under the INA aliens can be removed for reasons of health, criminal status, economic well-being, national
security risks, and others that are specifically defined in the act. In 2010, ICE changed the name of DRO to
Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). The House and Senate Appropriations Committees have not adopted the
name change in their reports.
100
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global
Counterterrorism, Moving Toward More Effective Immigration Detention Management, 111th Cong., 1st sess.,
December 10, 2009 (Washington: GPO, 2009).
101
U.S. Congress, House Judiciary Committee, The Release of Criminal Detainees by U.S. Immigration and Customs
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
47
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
many who were not required to be detained under law.102 However, critics responded that the
release was purely political and a way to pressure Congress to make a deal with the President to
avert the sequestration reductions.103 The President’s FY2014 budget requested a reduction in bed
space to 31,800 beds. House-passed H.R. 2217 would have maintained 34,000 detention beds for
FY2014. H.R. 2217, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, would have funded a
minimum of 31,800 beds.104 However, Senate-reported H.R. 2217 would have increased ICE
detention bed space funding by $41 million above the President’s request, because it contended
that the requested amount was insufficient to support the requested bed space.105 Division F of
P.L. 113-76 specified that ICE shall maintain 34,000 beds through the end of FY2014.
Due to the cost of detaining aliens, and the fact that many non-detained aliens with final orders of
removal do not leave the country, there has been interest in developing alternatives to detention
for certain types of aliens who do not require a secure detention setting. ICE’s Alternatives to
Detention (ATD) provides less restrictive alternatives to detention, using such tools as electronic
monitoring devices (e.g., ankle bracelets), home visits, work visits, and reporting by telephone, to
monitor aliens who are out on bond while awaiting hearings during removal proceedings or the
appeals process.91 The Administration requested $72 million for the ATD program. Both Housepassed and Senate-reported H.R. 2217 would have provided $96 million for ATD programs, $24
million above the President’s request.106 In addition, the Senate report stated that ICE has failed to
effectively maximize the use of the ATD program for custody management.107 Division F of P.L.
113-76 provided $91 million for ATD, directing ICE to brief the appropriations committees on the
results of its electronic monitoring pilot, and directing GAO to provide a report evaluating ICE’s
implementation of the ATD program.108
Immigration Enforcement in State and Local Jails
Division F of P.L. 113-76 appropriated $25 million for Secure Communities, an information
sharing program between DHS and the Department of Justice to check the fingerprints of
arrestees against DHS immigration records. In FY2013, ICE completed the nationwide
(...continued)
Enforcement: Policy or Politics? 113th Cong., 1st sess., March 19, 2013.
102
Under statute certain aliens are subject to mandatory detention during their removal process (e.g., criminal aliens,
certain arriving aliens). Aliens not subject to mandatory detention may be released on bond or their own recognizance,
or may continue to be detained. For more information on mandatory detention, see CRS Report RL32369,
Immigration-Related Detention, by (name redacted).
103
Questioning of ICE Director John Morton by Representative Trey Gowdy, U.S. Congress, House Judiciary
Committee, The Release of Criminal Detainees by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Policy or Politics?
113th Cong., 1st sess., March 19, 2013.
104
Senate-reported H.R. 2217 would also have permitted the Secretary to propose reprograming funds to ensure the
detention of aliens prioritized for removal.
105
Both H.R. 2217, as passed by the House and reported by the Senate, would have given ICE the authority to sell any
ICE-owned detention facilities if the facilities no longer met the mission need.
106
Senate-reported H.R. 2217 also stated that ICE failed to effectively maximize the use of the ATD program.
107
S.Rept. 113-77, p. 54.
108
Explanatory Statement, p. 26.
Congressional Research Service
48
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
deployment of Secure Communities, and thus the President’s request included a transfer of
resources from Secure Communities to the Criminal Alien Program (CAP).109
The enforcement of immigration laws by state and local law enforcement agents through
agreements pursuant to Section 287(g) of the INA (the Section 287(g) program)110 and through
screening for immigration violations in state and local jails through the Section 287(g) program
and Secure Communities has sparked debate about the proper role of state and local law
enforcement officials in this area.111 Many have expressed concern over proper training, finite
resources at the local level, possible civil rights violations, and the overall impact on
communities. Nonetheless, some observers contend that the federal government has scarce
resources to enforce immigration law and that state and local law enforcement entities should be
used.
The Administration requested a reduction of $44 million for 287(g) agreements from the FY2012
level of roughly $68 million.112 The Administration contends that the Secure Communities
screening process is more efficient and cost effective than 287(g) agreements in identifying and
removing criminal and other priority aliens. ICE plans to discontinue the least productive 287(g)
task force agreements.113 H.Rept. 113-91 indicated that House-passed H.R. 2217 would have
maintained FY2013 funding for the 287(g) program.114 S.Rept. 113-77 recommended $24 million
for 287(g) agreements. The explanatory statement for Division F of P.L. 113-76 stated that the
appropriated amount “fully funds the current 287(g) program,” and that ICE should consider
whether the program can be expanded or improved to more effectively and efficiently enforce
immigration laws.
Transportation Security Administration115
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), created in 2001 by the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (ATSA, P.L. 107-71), is charged with protecting air, land, and rail
transportation systems within the United States to ensure the freedom of movement for people
and goods. In 2002, TSA was transferred from the Department of Transportation to DHS with the
passage of the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296). TSA’s responsibilities include protecting
the aviation system against terrorist threats, sabotage, and other acts of violence through the
deployment of passenger and baggage screeners; detection systems for explosives, weapons, and
109
DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses Congressional Budget Justifications
FY2014, p. 4.
110
Some 287(g) programs ("jail screening” programs) allow local law enforcement officials to conduct migration
screening as persons are being booked into prisons or jails. Other 287(g) programs ("task force” programs) allow them
to conduct migration screening during the course of their regular police work outside the booking process.
111
For a fuller discussion of Secure Communities and the Section 287(g) program see CRS Report R42057, Interior
Immigration Enforcement: Programs Targeting Criminal Aliens, by (name redacted) and (name redacted); and
CRS Report R41423, Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law, by (name redacte
d) and (name redacted).
112
DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses Congressional Budget Justifications
FY2014, p. 82.
113
DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses Congressional Budget Justifications
FY2014, p. 4.
114
H.Rept. 113-91, p. 40.
115
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Aviation
Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
49
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
other contraband; and other security technologies. TSA also has certain responsibilities for marine
and land modes of transportation, including assessing the risk of terrorist attacks to all nonaviation transportation assets, including seaports; issuing regulations to improve security; and
enforcing these regulations to ensure the protection of these transportation systems. TSA is
further charged with serving as the primary liaison for transportation security to the law
enforcement and intelligence communities.
The TSA budget is one of the most complex components of the DHS appropriations bill. The
graphic above reflects net discretionary appropriations for the TSA, but that represents only a
portion of the budgetary resources it has available. Airline security fee collections offset a portion
of aviation security costs, including $250 million dedicated to capital investments in screening
technology integration. Other fees offset the costs of transportation threat assessment and
credentialing. Since these amounts are not set through traditional appropriations provisions, they
are not reflected in the above graphic. Table 10 presents a breakdown of the total additional
budgetary resources from all non-appropriated sources requested for TSA in the President’s
budget. The amounts shown in this table 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.
Table 10. TSA, Requested Budgetary Resources, FY2014
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
Funding Source
Amount
Total Offsetting Fees
$2,562
Aviation Security Capital Funda
250
Aviation Passenger Security Feeb
1,704
Aviation Passenger Security Fee (Revenue from proposed increase)b
122
Aviation Security Infrastructure Feesb
420
Aviation Flight Student Program Fee (Mandatory)
5
Credentialing Fees (including Alien Flight Student Program)
61
Appropriations
Total Budgetary Resources
4,836
$7,398
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Budget Overview, Fiscal
Year 2014 Congressional Justification.
Notes:
a.
The Aviation Security Capital Fund derives revenue from the first $250 million collected from airline
passenger security fees each fiscal year. This amount is shown separately from the additional aviation
passenger security fee collections in this table.
Congressional Research Service
50
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
b.
Counted as part of Offsetting Collections under TSA in the comparative statement of budget authority in
the back of the Appropriations Committee reports on the DHS appropriations bill.
FY2014 Request
The FY2014 request specified a gross total of $7,398 million for TSA. The budget assumed
$2,562 million in offsets, including an additional $122 million estimated from a proposal to
modify the airline passenger security fee structure, and direct appropriations of $4,836 million.
The Congressional Budget Office differed with the Office of Management and Budget on its
estimate of the fees to be collected under the Administration’s proposal, calculating that $2,541
million in offsets would be available, requiring $4,857 million in appropriations to fund TSA’s
proposed activities. Of the gross amount, $4,968 million was specified for Aviation Security, $827
million for the Federal Air Marshal Service, and $250 million in mandatory appropriations for the
Aviation Security Capital Fund (ASCF), which provides security funding to airports primarily for
integrating baggage screening systems. Additionally, $106 million was specified for Secure
Flight, the system for checking airline passenger names against terrorist watchlists. Together,
these aviation security-related activities made up roughly 83% of the budget request for TSA.
Additionally, the budget requested $165 million for other Transportation Threat Assessment and
Credentialing activities besides Secure Flight, $109 million for Surface Transportation Security,
and $998 million for Transportation Security Support, including $285 million for Headquarters
Administration.
House-Passed H.R. 2217
House-passed H.R. 2217 specified $7,217 million for TSA, $181 million below the request. The
House committee report specified $10 million more than requested for the Screening Partnership
Program to expand private screening to at least one additional airport seeking this option. A floor
amendment further increased Screening Partnership Program funding by $32 million, using
funding taken from aviation security programs unrelated to screening.116 The House-passed bill as
amended would have maintained funding for the Federal Flight Deck Officers (FFDO) program
at historic levels of roughly $25 million.117 The report specified $61 million less than requested
for Screener Personnel Compensation and Benefits and $36 million less than requested for
Airport Management, Information Technology, and Support. Additionally, the bill specified $96
million less than requested for Transportation Security Support, including $19 million less than
requested for Headquarters Administration and $65 million less than requested for Information
Technology, as outlined in the House committee report.
Senate-Reported H.R. 2217
Senate-reported H.R. 2217 specified $7,344 million for TSA, $54 million less than requested but
$130 million more than the House-passed amount. Like the House, the Senate recommended
roughly $25 million in funding for the FFDO program. The Senate report specified $51 million
less than requested for Screener Personnel Compensation and Benefits and $19 million less than
requested for Transportation Security Support, including $9 million less than requested for
116
H.Amdt. 111, offered to H.R. 2217 on June 5, 2013, and agreed to by voice vote.
H.Amdt. 110, offered to H.R. 2217 on June 5, 2013, and agreed to by voice vote, redirected an additional $12.5
million in Aviation Secutrity funding to the program.
117
Congressional Research Service
51
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Headquarters Administration, $5 million less than requested for Information Technology, and $5
million less than requested for Human Capital Services.
Division F of P.L. 113-76
P.L. 113-76 specified roughly $4,983 million for aviation security, $109 million for surface
transportation security, $176 million for transportation threat assessment and credentialing in
addition to an anticipated $66 million in credentialing activities offset by credentialing fees, and
$819 million for the Federal Air Marshals Service. This, in combination with $250 million in
mandatory appropriations toward the Aviation Security Capital Fund, provided a gross total
appropriation of roughly $7,365 million for TSA, $33 million less than requested.
Table 11. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity, FY2013-FY2014
(gross budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013 Enacted
(presequester)
FY2014 Appropriations
Total
Request
Housepassed
H.R.
2217
$5,046
$5,046
$4,968
$4,875
$4,939
$4,983
3,972
3,972
3,900
3,859
3,851
3,894
Screening Partnership
Program (SPP)
147
147
153
195
153
158
Screener Personnel
Compensation &
Benefits
3,074
3,074
3,034
2,973
2,983
3,034
Screener Training &
Other
225
225
227
203
227
227
Checkpoint Support
115
115
103
106
105
103
EDS/ETD
Purchase/Installation
100
100
84
84
84
74
Screening Technology
Maintenance &
Utilities
309
309
299
299
299
299
1,076
1,076
1,069
1,016
1,089
1,088
Aviation Regulation
and Other
Enforcement
368
368
355
358
353
354
Airport Management,
IT, and Support
562
562
591
555
588
587
FFDO & Flight Crew
Training
25
25
0
25
25
25
Air Cargo Security
122
122
123
122
122
122
P.L.
113-6
Aviation Security
Screening operations
Aviation Security
Direction and
Enforcement
Floor Amendments
Congressional Research Service
P.L.
113-2
Senatereported
H.R.
2217
Div. F,
P.L. 113-76
-44
52
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
FY2013 Enacted
(presequester)
FY2014 Appropriations
Total
Request
Housepassed
H.R.
2217
907
907
827
821
821
819
Management and
Administration
793
793
715
709
709
708
Travel and Training
114
114
112
112
112
111
Threat Assessment and
Credentialing (TTAC)
272
272
247
249
246
242
Secure Flight
107
107
106
108
106
93
Other Vetting /
Screening
Administration and
Operations
85
85
74
74
74
83
Credentialing Fees
80
80
66
66
66
66
Surface Transportation
Security
124
124
109
109
109
109
Operations and
Staffing
36
36
35
35
35
35
Security Inspectors
88
88
74
74
73
73
Transportation Security
Support
953
953
998
898
979
962
HQ Administration
276
276
285
266
276
272
Information
Technology
417
417
455
390
450
441
Human Capital
Services
216
216
213
202
208
204
Intelligence
45
45
45
45
45
45
P.L.
113-6
Federal Air Marshal
Service
P.L.
113-2
Floor Amendment
Div. F,
P.L. 113-76
-4
Aviation Security Capital
Fund (ASCF)
(mandatory)
TSA Gross Total
Senatereported
H.R.
2217
250
250
250
250
250
250
$7,551
$7,551
$7,398
$7,217
$7,344
$7,365
Sources: CRS analysis of P.L. 113-6, its accompanying Senate explanatory statement, P.L. 113-2, the FY2014
DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, H.R. 2217, H.Rept. 113-91, S.Rept. 113-77, Division F of P.L. 113-76,
and the accompanying joint explanatory statement
Notes: Amounts may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Issues for Congress
Appropriations issues regarding the TSA include the proposed change to the airline passenger
security fee structure, screener staffing levels, implementation of management efficiencies, and
funding for armed pilots and crew member self-defense training.
Congressional Research Service
53
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
Passenger Security Fees
The FY2014 request included a proposal to change the passenger security fee structure. The fee
structure when the Administration made its request consisted of a charge of $2.50 per passenger
per flight segment, not to exceed $5.00 for a one-way flight. The proposal sought to replace this
scheme with a flat fee of $5.00 per passenger per one-way flight in FY2014. The Administration
also sought to raise the fee $0.50 annually in FY2015 through FY2019, raising the fee to $7.50
incrementally over five years.
The report accompanying the House budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 25) included language
appearing generally to support the proposed change to the fee structure as a potential means to
offset the costs of aviation security.118 However, the House report accompanying H.R. 2217 noted
that the ability to change the statutory fee was outside the jurisdiction of the appropriations
committees. The report went on to note that the request, based on assumptions of additional
revenue from the proposed change in the passenger security fee structure, required the committee
to make cuts to management and administrative offices across DHS functions, since the
additional revenue assumed in the budget request was predicated on changes to existing law
which might or might not occur.119
The Senate Committee on the Budget assumed an increase to aviation security fees consistent
with the President’s request, but asserted that any security fees levied on transportation
passengers should be applied toward TSA transportation security programs (see S.Rept. 113-12).
However, the Senate Appropriations committee report on H.R. 2217 (S.Rept. 113-77) did not
include the fee increases in its estimates, noting that “[w]hile the reasoning behind the proposed
increase has merit and is recommended in both the House and Senate budget resolutions, the
Senate Appropriations Committee believes this proposal should be channeled through the
appropriate authorizing committees.”120
Language in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-67) restructured the passenger security
fee (paid directly by passengers) to a flat fee of $5.60 per one-way trip effective July 1, 2014. In
addition, the act repealed air carrier fees paid directly by the airlines. Until the repeal goes into
effect October 1, 2014, TSA has the authority to collect such fees directly from air carriers to
offset security costs with an overall limit on fee collections of the aggregate amount paid by
airlines in calendar year 2000 for screening passengers and property. Due to its timing, the repeal
has no direct effect on the TSA’s FY2014 budget.
Screener Staffing
The FY2014 request included a proposal to eliminate exit lane staffing positions, transferring this
responsibility to airports, which already have general responsibility for access controls and
physical security measures beyond screening checkpoints. The proposal was expected to save
TSA $88 million in FY2014, but it was strongly opposed by airports that would assume this
responsibility and the associated costs. The House Appropriations Committee raised procedural
questions regarding this proposal. The committee also raised potential security concerns, because
118
H.Rept. 113-17, p. 67.
H.Rept. 113-91, p. 19.
120
S.Rept. 113-77, p. 58.
119
Congressional Research Service
54
Department of Homeland Security: FY2014 Appropriations
TSA exit lane staff at several airports check credentials and clear TSA personnel, law
enforcement officers traveling armed, and in some instances, airline crews participating in the
Known Crew Member program. House report language directed TSA to work in conjunction with
airport operators to assess the impact of the change and consider delaying or phasing in the shift
of exit lane staffing responsibility.121 The Senate committee specified $2 million to carry out tests
to evaluate the use of various te
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.