Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Congressional research reportJun 2, 2015
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Department of Homeland Security:
FY2015 Appropriations
(name redacted), Coordinator
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy
June 2, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R43796
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Summary
This report analyzes the FY2015 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
While this report makes note of many budgetary resources provided to DHS, its primary focus is
on funding approved by Congress through the appropriations process.
The Administration requested $38.332 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for
DHS for FY2015, as part of an overall budget of $60.919 billion (including fees, trust funds, and
other funding that is not appropriated or does not score against the budget caps). The request
amounted to a $0.938 billion, or 2.4%, decrease from the $39.270 billion enacted through the
consolidated appropriations act for FY2014 (P.L. 112-74).
In addition, the Administration requested an additional $6.438 billion not reflected above for
FEMA in disaster relief funding as defined by the Budget Control Act (BCA).
On June 11, 2014, the House Appropriations Committee marked up its draft Homeland Security
Appropriations bill, and voted to report it out of committee. The House committee-reported bill
provided $39.220 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority, as well as the requested
disaster relief funding.
On June 26, 2014, the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up its draft Homeland Security
Appropriations bill, and voted to report it out of committee. The Senate committee-reported bill
provided $39.000 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority, as well as the requested
disaster relief funding, and $213 million for Coast Guard overseas contingency operations.
On September 19, 2014, the President signed H.J.Res. 124, the Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2015, into law as P.L. 113-164. This continuing resolution originally funded the
operations of the federal government at the current annual rate until December 11, 2014, or until
full-year appropriations were passed, whichever came first. It has been extended by three other
short-term continuing resolutions, including Division L of H.R. 83, the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, which extended funding for DHS through February 27,
2015.
With the beginning of the 114th Congress, both House- and Senate-reported FY2015 annual
homeland security appropriations bills were no longer available for action. H.R. 240, a new
FY2015 annual homeland security appropriations bill, was introduced on January 9, 2015, and
considered in the House the following week under a structured rule that allowed five immigration
policy-related amendments. After adopting these five amendments, the bill passed the House on
January 14, 2015. On February 27, the Senate passed an amended H.R. 240 without the
legislative text added by the House amendments.
After the House did not pass a three-week extension of the continuing resolution, the Senate and
House passed a one week extension of the continuing resolution to avoid a lapse in annual
appropriations for DHS. On March 3, 2015, the House voted to approve the Senate version of
H.R. 240. The bill was signed into law on March 4, 2015, as P.L. 114-4.
As enacted, the bill provided $39.670 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority, as
well as the requested $6.438 billion in disaster relief funding and $213 million for Coast Guard
overseas contingency operations, for total adjustments under the BCA of $6.651 billion.
Congressional Research Service
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Contents
Major Legislative Actions................................................................................................................ 1
March 4-11, 2014—President’s FY2015 Budget Request Submitted ....................................... 1
June 11, 2014—House Appropriations Committee Approves H.R. 4903 ................................. 2
June 26, 2014—Senate Appropriations Committee Approves S. 2534 ..................................... 2
September 19, 2014—President Signs H.J.Res. 124 into Law .................................................. 2
December 16, 2014—President Signs H.R. 83 into Law .......................................................... 3
January 14, 2015—House Passes H.R. 240............................................................................... 3
February 27, 2015—H.R. 240 Is Amended and Passes the Senate ........................................... 4
February 27, 2015—Senate and House Extend Continuing Resolution.................................... 4
March 3, 2015—House Agrees to the Senate Amendment ....................................................... 4
March 4, 2015—FY2015 Homeland Security Appropriations Enacted .................................... 4
Note on Data and Citations........................................................................................................ 5
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Department of Homeland Security ............................................................................................ 5
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security.............................................................. 6
Summary of DHS Appropriations ............................................................................................. 6
DHS Appropriations: Comparing the Components ................................................................... 8
DHS Appropriations Compared to the Total DHS Budget ...................................................... 11
DHS Appropriations Trends: Size ........................................................................................... 11
DHS Appropriations Trends: Timing....................................................................................... 13
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations ....................................................................... 15
Departmental Management...................................................................................................... 16
DHS Headquarters Consolidation ........................................................................................... 29
Analysis and Operations .......................................................................................................... 31
Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................... 33
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations ....................................................................... 36
Customs and Border Protection ............................................................................................... 39
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ........................................................................ 44
Transportation Security Administration .................................................................................. 49
U.S. Coast Guard ..................................................................................................................... 59
U.S. Secret Service .................................................................................................................. 64
Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ........................................................ 68
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) .......................................................... 70
Office of Health Affairs ........................................................................................................... 78
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ................................................................ 81
DHS State and Local Preparedness Grants .............................................................................. 82
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, and Services ....................................................... 92
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services............................................................................. 94
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center ............................................................................. 98
Science and Technology Directorate ....................................................................................... 99
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office....................................................................................... 103
Title V: General Provisions .......................................................................................................... 104
Congressional Research Service
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Figures
Figure 1. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations by Component, FY2014FY2015 ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2. DHS Gross Budget Breakdown: FY2015 Request ......................................................... 11
Figure 3. DHS Appropriations, Showing Supplemental Appropriations and the DRF.................. 12
Figure 4. DHS Appropriations Legislative Timing ........................................................................ 14
Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of Annual FY2015 Homeland Security Appropriations ....................... 1
Table 2. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations by Title, FY2014-FY2015 ................. 7
Table 3. DHS Appropriations by Component, FY2014-FY2015..................................................... 8
Table 4. Title I: Departmental Management and Operations, FY2014-FY2015............................ 15
Table 5. DHS Management Account Appropriations, FY2014-FY2015 ....................................... 24
Table 6. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations, FY2014-FY2015 ............................ 37
Table 7. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Account Detail, FY2014-FY2015 ......................... 42
Table 8. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Sub-Account Detail,
FY2014-FY2015 ......................................................................................................................... 46
Table 9. TSA Requested Budgetary Resources, FY2015............................................................... 50
Table 10. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity, FY2014-FY2015............................. 52
Table 11. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-Account Detail,
FY2014-FY2015 ......................................................................................................................... 60
Table 12.Budget Authority for the U.S. Secret Service, FY2013-FY2014 .................................... 66
Table 13. Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, FY2014-FY2015 ........... 68
Table 14. Budget Authority for Infrastructure Protection and Information Security,
FY2014-FY2015 ......................................................................................................................... 73
Table 15. Office of Health Affairs, FY2014-FY2015 .................................................................... 79
Table 16. State and Local Grant Programs and Training, FY2014-FY2015 .................................. 84
Table 17. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, and Services, FY2014-FY2015 .......... 92
Table 18. USCIS Budget Account Detail, FY2014-FY2015 ......................................................... 96
Table 19. Directorate of Science and Technology, FY2014-FY2015 .......................................... 101
Table 20. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, FY2014-FY2015................................................ 104
Table A-1. FY2014 and FY2015 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS.............................. 110
Table B-1. DHS New Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2004-FY2014 .................................. 113
Table B-2. DHS New Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2013 Dollars, FY2004-FY2014....... 113
Congressional Research Service
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Appendixes
Appendix A. Appropriations Terms and Concepts....................................................................... 108
Appendix B. DHS Appropriations in Context ............................................................................. 112
Contacts
Author Contact Information......................................................................................................... 115
Congressional Research Service
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
T
his report describes and analyzes the discretionary appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) for fiscal year 2015 (FY2015). It compares the President’s
request for FY2015 funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the enacted
FY2014 appropriations for DHS, the House- and Senate-reported homeland security
appropriations measures for FY2015, and the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Act, 2015 (P.L. 114-4).
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 FY2015. The third portion
of the report provides detailed information on DHS appropriations, broken down by component,
with discussion of associated policy issues.
The report tracks legislative action and congressional issues related to DHS appropriations with
particular attention paid to discretionary funding amounts. The report does not provide in-depth
analysis of specific issues related to mandatory funding—such as retirement pay—nor does the
report systematically follow any other legislation related to the authorization or amendment of
DHS programs, activities, or fee revenues.
Discussion of appropriations legislation involves a variety of specialized budgetary concepts.
Appendix A to this report explains several 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.
Major Legislative Actions
The following descriptions reflect only the major actions taken on FY2015 homeland security
appropriations. For a more detailed description of the procedural actions taken, see CRS Report
R43776, Congressional Action on FY2015 Appropriations Measures, by (name redacted).
Table 1. Legislative Status of Annual FY2015 Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee
Markup
House
Senate
H.Rept.
113-481
(113th
Cong.)
5/28/14
(vv)
6/24/14
(vv)
6/11/14
(vv)
S.Rept.
113-198
(113th
Cong.)
House
Passes
H.R. 240
(114th
Cong.)
Senate
Passes
H.R. 240
(114th
Cong.)
House Concurs
w/ Senate
Amendments
(114th Cong.)
6/26/14
(vv)
1/14/15
(236-191)
2/27/15
(68-31)
3/3/15
(257-167)
Public
Law
114-4
3/4/2015
Notes: (vv) = voice vote.
March 4-11, 2014—President’s FY2015 Budget Request Submitted
For FY2015, the Administration requested $38.332 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget
authority for DHS, as part of an overall budget request of $60.919 billion (including fees, trust
funds and other funding that is not appropriated or does not score against the budget caps). This
request amounts to a $0.938 billion (2.4%) decrease below the $39.270 billion enacted for
Congressional Research Service
1
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2014 through Division F of P.L. 113-76. The overall estimated size of the DHS budget for
FY2015 is a $264 million (0.4%) increase above the budget of $60.655 billion estimated for
FY2014.1
June 11, 2014—House Appropriations Committee Approves
H.R. 4903
The House Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2015 DHS Appropriations
bill on June 11, 2014, by a voice vote. This report uses House-reported H.R. 4903 and the
accompanying report (H.Rept. 113-481) as the source for House-reported appropriations numbers
and, for comparison, the underlying FY2015 budget request from the Administration. The House
bill as approved by the committee would have provided a net discretionary appropriation of
$39,220 million for DHS for FY2015, not including $6,438 million for disaster relief that would
be paid for by adjustments to the discretionary spending cap under the BCA. With that exclusion,
the House-reported bill provided $888 million (2.3%) above the Administration’s request, and
$50 million (0.1%) below the amount provided under Division F of P.L. 113-76.
June 26, 2014—Senate Appropriations Committee Approves S. 2534
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2015 DHS Appropriations
bill on June 26, 2014, by a voice vote. This report uses Senate-reported S. 2534 and the
accompanying report (S.Rept. 113-198) as the source for Senate-reported appropriations numbers.
The Senate bill as approved by the committee would have provided a net discretionary
appropriation of $39,000 million for DHS for FY2015, not including $6,438 million for disaster
relief and $213 million for Coast Guard overseas contingency operations that would be paid for
by adjustments to the discretionary spending cap under the BCA. With those exclusions, the
Senate-reported bill provided $668 million (1.7%) above the Administration’s request, and $270
million (0.7%) below the amount provided under Division F of P.L. 113-76.
September 19, 2014—President Signs H.J.Res. 124 into Law
H.J.Res. 124, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015, was introduced on September 9,
2014. This continuing resolution funded, with several specific exceptions and limitations, the
operations of the federal government until December 11, 2014, or until full-year appropriations
were passed, whichever was to come first. The joint resolution passed the House on September
17, 2014,2 and the Senate on September 18, 2014.3 On September 19, 2014, the President signed
it into law as P.L. 113-164.
1
Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: Budget Tables and Explanation of
Changes for General Provisions (Washington, DC, 2014), p. 1.
2
Passed the House by a recorded vote, 391-108 (Roll Call Number 509).
3
Passed the Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay vote, 78-22 (Roll Call Number 270).
Congressional Research Service
2
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
December 16, 2014—President Signs H.R. 83 into Law
After enactment of two short-term continuing resolutions, H.R. 83, the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, was signed into law on December 16, 2014. The act
included 11 of the 12 regular appropriations bills. Congress did not include full annual funding
for DHS as part of the package. This was, in large part, due to a lack of consensus on how
Congress would respond to the Obama Administration’s announcement of immigration-related
executive actions that had occurred the previous month. Some Congressional critics of the
Administration’s proposal believed annual appropriations for DHS should be used as the vehicle
to respond to those actions.4 Consequently, Division L of H.R. 83 provided an extension of the
FY2015 funding for DHS provided in P.L. 113-164 through February 27, 2015.
January 14, 2015—House Passes H.R. 240
H.R. 240, an annual appropriations bill that would have provided DHS $39.7 billion in adjusted
net discretionary budget authority was introduced by House Appropriations Committee Chairman
Rogers on January 9, 2015. The bill was not reported out of committee prior to floor
consideration, but an explanatory statement serving the same function as a committee report was
posted on the House Appropriations Committee website the same day the bill was introduced and
printed in the Congressional Record for January 13, 2015.5 The bill was considered under a
structured rule on January 13 and 14, 2015. Under the structured rule, five amendments were
made in order. Two were “Sense of Congress” amendments, expressing views on aspects of the
Administration’s immigration policy. Three would have affected the availability of funds for
certain purposes that were provided by H.R. 240, as well as in any other act in any fiscal year
(these appeared as Sections 579, 580, and 581 in the House-passed bill).6
•
The first of these three was an amendment that added a general provision that
would restrict the use of any federal funds for carrying out the Administration’s
immigration initiative of November 2014, or implementing the direction in
several memoranda on prosecutorial discretion and immigration enforcement
priorities that were issued in 2011 and 2012. This amendment went on to state
that the prohibition would extend to future similar policies, expressed that such
policies would have no legal effect and that no funds may be used to grant any
federal benefit to any alien as a result of those policies.7
•
The second of these three was an amendment to prohibit any federal funds from
being used to consider new, renewal, or previously denied applications for
4
See Emma Dumain and Emily Ethridge, “Price Pushes Plan to Separate Immigration Funding from Omnibus,” CQ
News, November 25, 2014; and David Rogers, “Lawmakers Iron Out Money Details for a Deal,” Politico, December 4,
2014.
5
Rep. Harold Rogers, “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Chairman of the House
Committee on Appropriations, Regarding H.R. 240,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 161, part 6 (January
13, 2015), pp. H275-H322.
6
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that two of the amendments (Sections 579 and 580) would have had
effects on both revenue and direct spending. The other three amendments were estimated to have no significant
budgetary effects. The CBO estimate of these provisions is available at http://www.cbo.gov/publication/49920.
7
H.Amdt. 6, offered by Rep. Aderholt to H.R. 240, and agreed to by a recorded vote of 237-190 (Roll no. 29). For
additional information on the November 2014 executive actions, see CRS Report R43852, The President’s Immigration
Accountability Executive Action of November 20, 2014: Overview and Issues, coordinated by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
3
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
temporary relief for removal under the deferred action for childhood arrivals
(DACA) program.8
•
The third amendment would have required, through a restriction on the use of
funds, that DHS treat aliens convicted of any offense involving domestic
violence, sexual abuse, child molestation, or child molestation as being among
the group of aliens that are the highest priority for deportation.9
After adopting these five amendments, the bill passed the House on January 14, 2015, by a vote
of 236-191.10
February 27, 2015—H.R. 240 Is Amended and Passes the Senate
The Senate proceeded to consider H.R. 240 on February 25, 2015. On February 27, 2015, the
Senate adopted an amendment that was functionally the same as H.R. 240 as introduced—without
the legislative text added by the five House amendments—by a vote of 66-33,11 then passed the
Senate-amended bill by a vote of 68-31.12
February 27, 2015—Senate and House Extend Continuing
Resolution
On February 27, 2015, a three-week extension of the continuing resolution funding DHS
(H.J.Res. 35) did not pass the House by a vote of 203-224.13 Roughly three hours later, the Senate
amended a House bill (H.R. 33) to extend the continuing resolution through March 6, 2015, and
passed the amended version by a voice vote. The House agreed to the Senate amendment by a
vote of 357-60,14 and the President signed the bill into law as P.L. 114-3 that night.
March 3, 2015—House Agrees to the Senate Amendment
On March 3, 2015, the House voted 257-167 to approve the Senate version of H.R. 240.15
March 4, 2015—FY2015 Homeland Security Appropriations Enacted
On March 4, 2015, H.R. 240 was signed into law as P.L. 114-4.
8
H.Amdt. 7, offered by Rep. Blackburn to H.R. 240, and agreed to by a recorded vote of 218-209 (Roll no. 30). For
additional information on DACA, see CRS Report R43747, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA):
Frequently Asked Questions, by (name redacted).
9
H.Amdt. 8, offered by Rep. DeSantis to H.R. 240, and agreed to by a recorded vote of 278-149 (Roll no. 31). For
additional information on immigration enforcement priorities, see CRS Report R43852, The President’s Immigration
Accountability Executive Action of November 20, 2014: Overview and Issues, coordinated by (name redacted).
10
Roll no. 35.
11
Record Vote Number 61.
12
Record Vote Number 62.
13
Roll No. 104.
14
Roll No. 106.
15
Roll No. 109.
Congressional Research Service
4
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Note on Data and Citations
Except in summary discussions and when discussing total amounts for the bill as a whole, all
amounts contained in this report are in budget authority and rounded to the nearest million—
however, for precision in percentages and totals, all calculations were performed using unrounded
data.
Data used in this report for FY2014 amounts are taken from the President’s Budget Documents,
as well as H.Rept. 113-91, S.Rept. 113-77, Division F of P.L. 113-76, and the explanatory
statement that accompanied it through the legislative process. Contextual information on the
FY2015 request is generally from the President’s Budget Documents, the FY2015 DHS
congressional budget justifications, and the FY2015 DHS Budget in Brief. Information on the
House-reported FY2015 DHS Appropriations bill is from H.R. 4903 and H.Rept. 113-481. For
consistency of budgetary comparisons, funding levels requested through the President’s budget
for FY2015 are also drawn from H.Rept. 113-481 unless otherwise noted. Information on the
Senate-reported FY2015 DHS Appropriations bill is from S. 2534 and S.Rept. 113-198. Enacted
levels for FY2015 are derived from P.L. 114-4 and the explanatory statement that accompanied
H.R. 240 as printed in the Congressional Record of January 13, 2015, pp. H275-H322. Historical
funding data used in the appendices are taken from the Analytical Perspectives volumes of the
FY2006-FY2015 President’s Budget request documents.
The Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative
The Obama Administration included with its FY2015 budget request a new government-wide proposal referred to as
the “Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative.” It was a $56 billion fund that would have been divided equally
between defense and non-defense expenditures. The cost of the initiative would have been offset largely with
targeted spending cuts and closed tax loopholes. According to the Administration, this initiative, if passed, would have
provided $710 million beyond the budget request of $38.176 billion for the Department of Homeland Security to
address specific priorities that have been restricted by the impact of sequestration on the discretionary spending caps
outlined in the Budget Control Act as amended. Proposed homeland security funding through the initiative included
the following:
•
$400 million in competitive grants to state, local, and tribal governments through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Program.
•
$300 million in additional funds for the National Preparedness Grant Program, the Administration’s proposed
consolidated grant program to support state, local, and tribal government preparedness, prevention, and
response capability.
•
$10 million for National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) to conduct infrastructure analysis to
identify critical facilities in states and/or sectors and analyze their ability to remain functional after disasters.
As this funding is not included in the formal congressional justifications for the targeted accounts, and would require
the enactment of separate legislation to alter the discretionary budget caps to provide the requested resources,
funding proposed through the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative is not a part of the FY2015 requested
funding levels analyzed in this report. None of the initiative’s content was funded in the FY2015 Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations 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
Congressional Research Service
5
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Security created by the act. Appropriations measures for DHS have generally been organized into
five titles:
•
Title I contains appropriations for the Office of Secretary and Executive
Management (OSEM), the Office of the Under Secretary for Management
(USM), the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of the Chief
Information Officer (CIO), Analysis and Operations (A&O), and the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG).
•
Title II contains appropriations for Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard (USCG), and the Secret Service.
•
Title III contains appropriations for the National Protection and Programs
Directorate (NPPD), Office of Health Affairs (OHA) Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).16
•
Title IV contains appropriations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS), the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), and the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).
•
Title V contains general provisions providing various types of congressional
direction to the department.
Several reorganizations and restructurings over the course of the department’s early years of
appropriations make detailed comparisons of funding levels across the first decade of
departmental appropriations complicated. CRS can assist with developing such comparisons.
Although the House and Senate generally produce symmetrically structured bills, this is not
always the case. 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 what is described above. For FY2015, the House- and Senate-reported versions of the
DHS appropriations bill were generally symmetrical.
Appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security
Summary of DHS Appropriations
Generally, the homeland security appropriations bill includes all annual appropriations provided
for DHS, providing resources to every departmental component. Table 2 includes a summary of
funding included in the FY2014 regular DHS appropriations bill, the Administration’s FY2015
16
Through the FY2007 appropriation, Title III contained appropriations for the Preparedness Directorate, Infrastructure
Protection and Information Security (IPIS) and FEMA. The President’s FY2008 request included a proposal to shift a
number of programs and offices to eliminate the Preparedness Directorate, create the NPPD, and move several
programs to FEMA. These changes were largely agreed to by Congress in the FY2008 appropriation, reflected by Title
III in Division E of P.L. 110-161.
Congressional Research Service
6
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
appropriations request, the House- and Senate-reported FY2015 DHS appropriations bills, and
P.L. 114-4, broken down by title.
Table 2. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations by Title, FY2014-FY2015
(in millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority, rounded)
FY2014
Enacted
FY2015
Request
HouseReported
H.R. 4903
(113th
Cong.)
Title I: Departmental Management
and Operations
$1,037
$1,172
$967
$1,033
$1,035
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and
Investigationsa
30,877
29,828
31,090
30,731
31,536
Title III: Protection, Preparedness,
Response, and Recoveryb
5,952
5,611
5,902
5,980
5,979
Title IV: Research and Development,
Training, and Services
1,878
1,771
1,801
1,761
1,795
Title V: General Provisions
-474
-49
-540
-505
-674
$39,270
$38,332
$39,220
$39,000
$39,670
Title
Total
SenateReported
S. 2534
(113th
Cong.)
P.L. 114-4
Source: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903
(113th Congress), H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534 (113th Congress), S.Rept. 113-198, and P.L. 114-4 and its explanatory
statement as printed in the Congressional Record of January 13, 2015, pp. H275-H322.
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 Administration’s budget request generally includes
rescissions with the impacted component’s request, rather than in a separate title. In addition, some funding for
department-wide initiatives in recent years has been provided through general provisions. The table displays
rounded numbers, but all operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore, amounts may not sum to
totals.
a.
Does not include funding for the U.S. Coast Guard designated for Overseas Contingency Operations/the
Global War on Terror (OCO/GWOT).
b.
Does not include funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency provided under the allowable
adjustment for the costs of major disasters under the Stafford Act (defined under the Budget Control Act
as “disaster relief”).
Federal Civilian Employee Pay Raise
The Administration proposed a 1.0% pay increase for all civilian federal employees in its budget
request. Almost all DHS employees are considered civilians, with the significant exception of
Coast Guard military personnel.
The House Appropriations Committee included language in its report noting that the House bill
did not include money for the pay raise. Neither House- nor Senate-reported bills included a
restriction on a pay raise being given from within appropriated amounts. P.L. 114-4 placed no
such restriction either.
Congressional Research Service
7
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
DHS Appropriations: Comparing the Components
Unlike some other appropriations bills, breaking down the DHS bill by title does not provide a
great deal of transparency into where DHS’s appropriated resources are going. Generally, the
homeland security appropriations bill includes all annual appropriations provided for DHS,
providing resources to every departmental component. Table 3 and Figure 1 show DHS’s new
discretionary budget authority for FY2015 broken down by component, from largest to smallest
appropriations request.
Total discretionary appropriations in Table 3 do not include resources provided through
adjustments under the Budget Control Act (BCA)17 in the individual component lines. These are
accounted for separately from the total discretionary appropriations and are displayed at the
bottom of the table. As the table and figure reflect new discretionary budget authority, neither
appropriated mandatory spending nor rescissions of prior-year budget authority are reflected in
the component totals.
Table 3. DHS Appropriations by Component, FY2014-FY2015
(in millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority, rounded)
FY2015
FY2014
SenateReported
S. 2534
(113th
Cong.)
P.L.
114-4
Component
Enacted
Request
HouseReported
H.R. 4903
(113th
Cong.)
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
$10,690
$10,852
$11,009
$10,822
$10,837
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
8,514a
8,152
8,467
8,425b
8,378
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
5,269
5,014
5,486
5,163
5,959
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
4,929
4,325
4,628
4,824
4,834
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
4,354c
3,970d
4,320d
4,329
4,347
U.S. Secret Service (USSS)
1,585
1,636
1,637
1,635
1,666
National Protection and Programs Directorate
(NPPD)
1,471
1,515
1,454
1,527
1,502
Science & Technology Directorate (S&T)
1,220
1,072
1,107
1,071
1,104
Departmental Management
728
748
602
708
743
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO)
285
304
312
306
308
Analysis & Operations (A&O)
300
302
274
295
256
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
(FLETC)
259
260
258
259
258
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS)
116
135
125
124
124
Office of Health Affairs (OHA)
127
126
128
125
129
17
P.L. 112-25.
Congressional Research Service
8
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2015
FY2014
Enacted
Request
HouseReported
H.R. 4903
(113th
Cong.)
115
121
120
119
119
Total Discretionary Appropriations
without Rescissions
$39,963
$38,532
$39,929
$39,731
$40,565
Adjustments under the Budget Control Act
5,853
6,438
6,438
6,651
6,651
Total New Discretionary Budget Authority
$45,817
$44,970
$46,366
$46,382
$47.215
General Provisions: Rescissions (not reflected above or
visually in figure)
-693
-200
-708
-731
-894
$39,270
$38,332
$39,220
$39,000
$39,670
Component
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
Total Net Discretionary Appropriations
SenateReported
S. 2534
(113th
Cong.)
P.L.
114-4
Source: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2014 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903
(113th Congress), H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534 (113th Congress), S.Rept. 113-198, and P.L. 114-4 and its explanatory
statement as printed in the Congressional Record of January 13, 2015, pp. H275-H322.
Notes: Table does not reflect non-appropriated resources available to DHS components.
a.
$227 million in FY2014 funding for overseas contingency operations for the Coast Guard under an
adjustment to the discretionary spending limits is not shown in this table entry, but is reflected in Figure 1.
b.
$213 million in FY2015 funding for overseas contingency operations for the Coast Guard under an
adjustment to the discretionary spending limits is not shown in this table entry, but is reflected in Figure 1.
c.
$5,626 million in FY2014 funding for disaster relief costs provided through FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund
under an adjustment to the discretionary spending limits is not shown in this table entry, but is reflected in
Figure 1.
d.
$6,438 million in FY2014 funding for disaster relief costs provided through FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund
under an adjustment to the discretionary spending limits is not shown in this table entry, but is reflected in
Figure 1.
In Figure 1, the first column of numbers shows budget authority provided in P.L. 113-76, which
included the FY2014 appropriations for DHS: resources available under the adjustments to the
discretionary spending limits provided pursuant to the BCA are shown in black. The second
column shows a similar breakdown for the FY2015 request, and the third and fourth columns
show a similar breakdown of the FY2015 House- and Senate-reported bills. The fifth column
shows the levels that provided under P.L. 114-4.
Congressional Research Service
9
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Figure 1. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations by Component,
FY2014-FY2015
(in millions of dollars, rounded)
Source: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903
(113th Congress), H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534 (113th Congress), S.Rept. 113-198, and P.L. 114-4 and its explanatory
statement as printed in the Congressional Record of January 13, 2015, pp. H275-H322.
Chart Abbreviations: CBP, Customs and Border Protection; USCG, U.S. Coast Guard; OCO/GWOT,
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terror; 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; USCIS, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services; FLETC, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; OHA, Office of Health
Affairs; OIG, Office of the Inspector General.
Note: Table displays rounded numbers, but all operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals. Items with asterisks are adjustments under P.L. 112-25. Figure does not display
Congressional Research Service
10
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
rescissions and other general provisions, or reflect resources available to DHS components beyond the scope of
the appropriations measure.
DHS Appropriations Compared to the Total DHS Budget
It is important to note that Table 3, even with its accounting for discretionary cap adjustments,
does not tell the whole story about the resources available to individual DHS components. Much
of DHS’s budget is not derived from discretionary appropriations. Some components, such as
TSA, rely on fee income or offsetting collections to support a significant amount of their
activities. Less than 4% of the budget for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is provided
through direct appropriations—the rest relies on fee income.
Figure 2 highlights how much of the DHS budget is not funded through discretionary
appropriations. It presents a comparison of the Administration’s FY2015 budget request, showing
the discretionary appropriations, mandatory appropriations, and adjustments under the Budget
Control Act, in the context of the total amount of budgetary resources available to DHS, as well
as other non-appropriated resources. The amounts shown in this graphic 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 most of the other data presented
in the report.
Figure 2. DHS Gross Budget Breakdown: FY2015 Request
(millions of dollars of budget authority, rounded)
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2015 DHS congressional justifications.
Notes: Amounts may not sum to totals due to rounding. Includes rescissions of prior-year budget authority.
The amounts shown in this graph is 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 most of the
other data presented in the report.
DHS Appropriations Trends: Size
The figure below presents information on DHS discretionary appropriations, as enacted, for
FY2004 through FY2015. The figure shows those appropriations in constant FY2013 dollars. The
effects of supplemental appropriations and appropriations to pay for disasters can mask overall
trends in year-to-year planned investment in homeland security. Both supplemental
Congressional Research Service
11
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
appropriations and disaster relief fluctuate from year to year, and generally respond to
unanticipated urgent needs. Most disaster relief also generally is passed through to aid recipients,
with the exception of a small amount to pay for administrative costs—surges in relief generally
do not imply surges in DHS resources or capacity to carry out homeland security missions.
The figure presents historical DHS appropriations twice to illustrate the impact of these two
factors on the total. The top graph shows the split between annual and supplemental
appropriations for the department, while the second chart breaks out FEMA’s Disaster Relief
Fund (DRF) from the rest of the DHS discretionary appropriations. Appendix B includes the data
behind this table.
Figure 3. DHS Appropriations, Showing Supplemental Appropriations and the DRF
(in billions of constant FY2013 dollars)
Source: 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
Congressional Research Service
12
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Rebuilding Task Force Home Page at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/sandyrebuilding/
recoveryprogress; for FY2014, the explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 113-76; and for FY2015, the
explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 114-4.
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. FY2013 does not reflect the impact of sequestration.
Generally speaking, the highest level of appropriations for the DHS budget in constant dollars
without counting the DRF was FY2010. Annual appropriations funding declined from then
through FY2013. Excluding the DRF, post-sequestration funding levels for the department were
approximately $38.9 billion in FY2013, which was the lowest funding level for the department in
constant dollars since FY2009.
DHS Appropriations Trends: Timing
Figure 4 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.
FY2015 marked the latest enactment of a Homeland Security appropriations act as a stand-alone
piece of legislation.
Congressional Research Service
13
Figure 4. DHS Appropriations Legislative Timing
Source: CRS analysis.
Note: Final action on the annual appropriations for DHS for FY2011, FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015 did not occur until after the beginning of the new calendar year.
CRS-14
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 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 $1,172 million for these accounts in FY2015, an increase of
$134 million (12.9%) above the FY2014 enacted level. The House-reported bill would have
provided $967 million, a decrease of $205 million (17.5%) from the requested level and $70
million (6.8%) below FY2014. The Senate-reported bill would have provided $1,033 million, a
decrease of $138 million (11.8%) from the request and $4 million (0.4%) below FY2014. Title I
of P.L. 114-4 provided $1,035 million, a decrease of $137 million (11.7%) from the requested
level and $3 million (0.3%) below FY2014.
Table 4 lists the enacted amounts for the individual components of Title I for FY2014 and the
amounts requested by the Administration, recommended by the House- and Senate-reported bills,
and provided by the enacted annual appropriation for FY2015 under Title I.
Table 4. Title I: Departmental Management and Operations, FY2014-FY2015
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2014
Enacted
Request
HouseReported
H.R. 4903
Office of the Secretary and
Executive Management
122
129
100
125
133
Office of the Under Secretary for
Management
196
195
175
193
188
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
46
95
39
48
52
Office of the Chief Information
Officer
257
256
257
254
288
Analysis and Operations
Component / Appropriation
SenateReported
S. 2534
P.L. 114-4
300
302
274
295
256
DHS Headquarters Consolidationa
0
73
0
0
0
Office of the Inspector Generalb
115
121
120
119
119
Net Budget Authority: Title I
1,037
1,172
967
1,033
1,035
Total Gross Budgetary
Resources for Title I
Components before Transfers
1,037
1,172
967
1,033
1,035
Sources: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903,
H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534, S.Rept. 113-198, and P.L. 114-4 and its explanatory statement as printed in the
Congressional Record of January 13, 2015, pp. H275-H322.
Notes: Table displays rounded numbers, but all operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals.
a.
This line only reflects funding for DHS Headquarters Consolidation included in Title I of the DHS
appropriations legislation. $35 million is provided in FY2014 appropriations for construction through the
general provisions of the legislation, and $13 million is provided under Coast Guard operations accounts to
Congressional Research Service
15
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
pay for operating costs of the Coast Guard headquarters facility. For FY2015, almost $49 million is
provided for Headquarters Consolidation in general provisions.
b.
The Office of the Inspector General also receives transfers from FEMA to pay for oversight of disasterrelated activities that are not reflected in these tables, including $24 million in FY2014, and $24 million
FY2015.
Departmental Management18
The departmental management accounts cover the general administrative expenses of DHS. They
include the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM), which is comprised of
the Immediate Office of the Secretary and 11 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 its headquarters here as well.
In this section and in each section hereinafter, a graphic follows that provides a numeric and
graphic representation of the discretionary appropriation provided to each element of DHS
described in the report. This graphic provides a quick reference to the relative size of the
component to others in DHS as well as to the FY2015 request.
FY2015 Request
The Administration requested $675 million for departmental management, not including
headquarters consolidation efforts. This included $129 million for OSEM, $129 million ($6
million, or 5.2% above the FY2014 level) and $195 million for USM ($1 million, or 0.4% below
the FY2014 level). The Administration requested $95 million for OCFO and $256 million for
OCIO as well. Like headquarters consolidation, both OCFO and OCIO received funding through
general provisions (Title V) in FY2014 for crosscutting initiatives, so direct comparison of their
Title I appropriations has limited value.
House-Reported H.R. 4903
H.R. 4903, as reported by the House Committee on Appropriations, included $572 million for
departmental management in Title I, $50 million (8.0%) less than FY2014 and $103 million
(15.3%) less than requested by the Administration. As in the FY2014 appropriations report, the
House Committee on Appropriations justified the reductions on the basis of the need to cover the
18
Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
16
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
lack of revenue from unrealized funding proposals that were intended to offset the cost of the bill
and the department’s failure to comply with several statutory requirements for reports and plans
that were included in previous appropriations acts. Additional reductions were taken at the full
committee markup to offset increased appropriations for CBP and ICE efforts to deal with an
increase in the number of unaccompanied alien children taken into custody on the southwest
border.19
Senate-Reported S. 2534
S. 2534, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, included $619 million for
departmental management in Title I, $3 million (0.4%) less than FY2014, and $56 million (8.3%)
less than requested by the administration.
P.L. 114-4
The total funding provided by P.L. 114-4 for Departmental Management in Title I was $660
million. This was a decrease of $87.8 million, or 11.7%, from the President’s request of $748
million, not including the funding for DHS headquarters consolidation at St. Elizabeths. See
Table 2 for additional detail.
Expenditure Plans and Investment Plans
Two documents commonly required by the appropriations committees as part of their oversight functions are
expenditure plans and investment plans. Expenditure plans (also known as obligation, financial, or operating plans) are
a response to the appropriation provided to a particular element of the department: Essentially, they outline what
the element will do with the level of funding Congress has provided for the fiscal year. Investment plans have a
longer-term perspective, and relate how an element plans to fund something (often a major capital investment) over
the course of several years.
The House-reported bill and committee report directed the department to provide 13 “obligation and expenditure
plans” through a single general provision.20 The Senate-reported bill and committee report directed the department
to provide 16 expenditure plans. Parameters for these plans are spelled out in both the House and Senate
Appropriations Committee-reported bills and reports in various places.21
Three investment plans were required in the House-reported bill and committee report, while the Senate-reported
bill and committee report required seven. Like the expenditure plans, parameters for these plans are spelled out in
both the House and Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bills and reports in various places.
P.L. 114-4 and the accompanying explanatory statement called for obligation or expenditure plans for the following
elements of DHS:22
•
Office of Policy
•
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs / Partnership and Engagement
19
H.Rept. 113-481, p. 11.
H.R. 4903, Sec. 514.
21
H.Rept. 113-481, pp. 24-25; S.Rept. 113-198, pp. 16-17, p. 25.
22
TSA is required to submit investment plans for air cargo, checkpoint security, and explosive detection systems
activities under its Aviation Security appropriation, which include elements of (but also go beyond the parameters of)
obligation and expenditure plans.
20
Congressional Research Service
17
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
•
Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
•
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
•
Office of Privacy
•
Headquarters Consolidation
•
Financial Service Modernization
•
Office of the Inspector General
•
Customs and Border Protection, all accounts
•
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Salaries and Expenses
•
U.S. Coast Guard, Military Housing
•
National Protection and Programs Directorate
•
Office of Biometric Identity Management (specified separately from NPPD)
•
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Automation Modernization
•
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Disaster Relief Fund (base)
•
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Salaries and Expenses
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM)
The Administration requested $129 million for OSEM and 583 full-time employee equivalents
(FTEs), $6 million, or 5.2%, more than was provided in FY2014. The House-reported bill
included $100 million for OSEM, $28 million (21.7%) less than requested. The Senate-reported
bill included $125 million, $4 million (3.1%) less than requested. P.L. 114-4 provided $133
million for OSEM, $4 million (3.0%) more than requested.
The House- and Senate- reported bills provided that funds for the Immediate Office of the
Secretary and the Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary pay for costs associated with
government aircraft use in support of official travel by the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary.
The House committee required a quarterly report on the costs of the travel by the two officials,
for both official and nonofficial purposes.
Because of “chronic, unacceptable delays in submitting statutorily required reports and plans,”23
the House Appropriations Committee recommended that none of the department’s requests for the
restoration of prior year funds be granted, no funding be provided for the Office of Legislative
Affairs, and the entire appropriation be constrained to levels below the current funding. Within
OSEM, the committee recommended funding the Office of Policy at an appropriation of less than
$32 million. For the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the committee recommended an
appropriation of $22 million, including almost $2.4 million for oversight of Secure Communities
and the 287(g) program.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended an appropriation of $5.8 million and five
positions for employment-based case inquiries for the Citizenship and Immigration Services
(CIS) Ombudsman and noted that the ombudsman had a 33% increase in employment-based
23
H.Rept. 113-481, p. 8.
Congressional Research Service
18
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
immigration inquiries from April 1, 2013, through March 2014. The committee recommended an
appropriation of more than $37 million for the Office of Policy, of which $715,000 was to ensure
that strategic guidance related to investments by the department translates into results. The
committee explained that it denied the department’s request to restore prior year funding
reductions in OSEM offices because of “an insufficient justification” and “the Committee’s intent
to focus limited resources on the Department’s critical operational missions.”24
Noting that costs associated with DHS international activities increased by almost $62 million
and almost 300 positions since FY2014, the Senate Appropriations Committee also directed the
department to develop a plan to reduce these costs by 10% in FY2015, and provide a briefing on
“efforts to reduce unnecessary overlap and redundancies”25 within 60 days after the act’s
enactment.
A program change included in the request for the CIS Ombudsman requested $1 million and 3
FTEs for Employment-based Case Inquiries to assist employers in resolving problems with CIS.26
The House Appropriations Committee report recommended $2 million less than requested for this
office, and the Senate Appropriations Committee report recommended a reduction of less than $1
million, but nether document spoke explicitly to this particular matter.27
As in FY2014, P.L. 114-4 included a $45,000 limit on the use of OSEM appropriations for
official reception and representation expenses. Within 30 days after the act’s enactment, the
Secretary must submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and the Judiciary,
the House Committee on Homeland Security, and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs, a comprehensive plan to implement the biometric entry and exit data
system, including estimated implementation costs.
The explanatory statement notes that funding has been realigned throughout the bill to support the
initiative on Unity of Effort and directs the department to provide frequent updates on policies,
procedures, and guidelines related to it.
Under Secretary for Management (USM)
The Administration requested $195 million for the USM and 854 FTEs. The House-reported bill
included $175 million for the USM, $20 million (10.3%) less than requested. The Senate-reported
bill included $193 million for the USM, $2 million (1%) less than requested. P.L. 114-4 provided
$188 million for OSEM, $8 million (4.0%) less than requested.
Several program changes were proposed under this appropriation in the Administration’s request:
•
The Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer included a $1 million
reduction for contractor support and expenses;
24
S.Rept. 113-198, p. 11.
S.Rept. 113-198, p. 17.
26
Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: Departmental Management and
Operations, Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (Washington, DC, 2014), p. OSEM-17.
27
H.Rept. 113-481, p. 8; S.Rept. 113-198, p. 12.
25
Congressional Research Service
19
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
•
The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer included a $1 million reduction
for contractor support and non-pay expenses. The Human Resources Information
Technology (HRIT) request included a more than $2 million increase in funding,
divided between the Enterprise-wide Talent Management System (which
automates training management), and HRIT portfolio management
improvements;
•
The Office of the Chief Procurement Officer included a reduction of nearly $1.8
million and 18 FTEs for the Acquisition Professional Career Program, which
helps develop the department’s acquisition workforce.28
Both the House- and Senate-reported bills required the Under Secretary to submit a
Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report at the same time as the President’s budget is submitted
and thereafter, 45 days after the completion of each quarter of the fiscal year.
Within USM, the House committee recommended funding of almost $3 million for the Immediate
Office of the Under Secretary and $63 million for the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer. It
directed the USM “to resume its efforts to compel the Department to adopt a zero-based
budgeting approach to formulate”29 the budget request and justification. The committee also
recommended that the request for just over $1 million to fund the Enterprise-wide Talent
Management System be denied because “essential operations must be sufficiently supported and
prioritized before additional funding can be considered for such administrative initiatives.”30
The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) took a $10 million (34.5%) cut in full
committee markup to offset increased appropriations for CBP and ICE efforts to deal with an
increase in the number of unaccompanied alien children taken into custody on the southwest
border. This included zeroing out funding for the Human Resources Information Technology
program, which the Senate-reported bill funded at $8 million. 31
Stating lengthy delays within the department in hiring new employees, the Senate Appropriations
Committee directed DHS to report on a strategy to expedite the process, within 60 days after the
act’s enactment, and provide quarterly reports “on time to hire statistics by component.”32
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 FY2016
budget and quarterly thereafter, not later than 45 days after the completion of each quarter. The
explanatory statement directed that the report “contain all programs on the major acquisition
oversight list and others of special interest” and display funding amounts by appropriation and
PPA. A version of the report that is not “For Official Use Only” is to be posted on the
department’s website within 180 days after the act’s enactment.33Additional directives included in
28
Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: Departmental Management and
Operations, Under Secretary for Management (Washington, DC, 2014), pp. USM-6, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16-17.
29
H.Rept. 113-481, p. 20.
30
H.Rept. 113-481, p. 21.
31
H.Rept. 113-481, p. 11.
32
S.Rept. 113-198, p. 23. The report noted that it took DHS an average of 146 days to hire an employee in 2013,
including 106 days and 198 days, respectively, on average, to hire non-law enforcement employees and senior
executive employees.
33
“Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Chairman of the House Committee on
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
20
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
the explanatory statement provided that GAO develop a plan to review the department’s major
acquisition projects on an ongoing basis and that DHS report to the Appropriations Committees
within 60 days after the act’s enactment on a strategy to reduce hiring times and provide data on
hiring timelines by component each quarter.34
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
The Administration requested $95 million for the OCFO and 212 FTEs. In FY2014, Title I
included $46 million for the OCFO, but Title V included an additional $30 million for financial
systems modernization efforts that are continued in the FY2015 request in Title I. The FY2015
request therefore represents a $19 million, or 25%, increase above the total provided to the CFO
in FY2014. The House-reported bill included $39 million for OCFO under Title I, and $30
million under Title V for the Financial Systems Modernization Program,35 for a total OCFO
investment of $69 million, $26 million (27.4%) below the amount requested. The Senate
Appropriations Committee-reported bill included $48 million for the OCFO under Title I, and
$40 million under Title V, for a total OCFO investment of $98 million, $2 million (2.1%) more
than requested. P.L. 114-4 provided $52 million for OCFO in Title I, and $34 million in Title V,
for a total OCFO investment of $86 million, $9 million (9.5%) less than requested.
Program changes for FY2015 included an increase of $16 million for Component Financial
Systems Modernization “to support requirements related to Component migrations to new
financial systems,” as well as an increase of $1 million and 4 additional FTEs to undertake a
capabilities and requirements analysis “to implement improved investment lifecycle
management.” 36
The House- and Senate-reported bills both provided that the Secretary must submit the Future
Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) at the same time as the President’s budget is
submitted. The Senate Appropriations Committee report specified that the FYHSP show funding
by appropriation account and subordinate program, project, or activity and be accessible to the
public.
Both House- and Senate-reported bills included a general provision requiring a Monthly Budget
Execution and Staffing report within 30 days after the close of each month, with specifications for
information to be included. The House-reported provision included several additional content
requirements that were not included in the Senate-reported provision.37 The House Appropriations
Committee, in its report, justified its reductions to the OCFO request as being made “to offset the
severe flaws of the budget request, including reliance upon unauthorized fee increases and the
proposed, but unjustified reductions to the Department’s operational components.” It also noted
“the Department’s chronic inability to comply with statutory reporting requirements,” and
(...continued)
Appropriations, Regarding H.R. 240, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2015” (hereinafter
“Explanatory Statement”), p. 8, available on the House Committee on Rules website at http://docs.house.gov/
billsthisweek/20150112/114-HR240-ES.pdf.
34
“Explanatory Statement,” p. 9.
35
H.R. 4903, Sec. 539.
36
Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: Departmental Management and
Operations, Office of the Chief Financial Officer (Washington, DC, 2014), pp. OCFO-7–OCFO-11.
37
H.R. 4903, Sec. 514; S. 2534, Sec. 513.
Congressional Research Service
21
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
specifically reduced the Component Financial Systems Modernization by almost $10 million to
offset increased appropriations for CBP and ICE efforts to deal with an increase in the number of
unaccompanied alien children taken into custody on the southwest border. The Senate
Appropriations Committee explained that the recommendation for funding below the President’s
request was “due to program delays that have occurred since the budget request was
formulated.”38
The Senate Appropriations Committee report stated an expectation that the OCFO will “monitor
the overuse of funding realignments by the Transportation Security Administration and the
National Protection and Programs Directorate.”39
P.L. 114-4 included a directive under the OCFO account that the Secretary of Homeland Security
submit the Future Years Homeland Security Program to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations at the same time as the President’s FY2016 budget is submitted.
The explanatory statement directed the CFO to “maintain frequent communications” with the
committees on Financial Systems Modernization (FSM) and to submit a detailed expenditure plan
on the modernization within 45 days after the act’s enactment.40 A continuing general provision at
Section 513 required the CFO to submit budget and staffing reports within 30 days after the end
of each month.
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)
The Administration requested $256 million for the OCIO and 290 FTEs. In FY2014, Title I
included $257 million for the OCIO, but Title V included an additional $42 million for data center
consolidation which had previously been requested under Title I. The FY2015 request therefore
represents a $41 million decrease from the FY2014 funding level provided to OCIO overall,
largely due to the conclusion of the data center consolidation initiative. The House Appropriations
Committee-reported bill included $257 million for the OCIO, $1 million (0.3%) more than
requested. The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill included $254 million for the
OCIO, $2 million (0.9%) less than requested. P.L. 114-4 provided $288 million for OCIO, $32
million (12.4%) more than requested.
Net program changes totaling nearly $2 million were requested. These included a nearly $7
million increase for the Homeland Secure Data Network to cover rising operations and
maintenance costs, and reductions of $3 million41 for information technology governance and
oversight and nearly $6 million42 for information security and infrastructure activities.43
38
S.Rept. 113-198, p. 24.
S.Rept. 113-198, p. 26.
40
“Explanatory Statement,” p. 10.
41
The congressional justification, at p. OCIO-27 and p. OCIO-30, stated that the $873,000 reduction in the Executive
Correspondence Tracking System “will eliminate planned system upgrades and reduce contract support” and in DHS
Hosting may, among other results, include “delayed responses for SharePoint requests, reduction in timely responses to
customers for hosting requirements, and trouble shooting.” A nearly $2.3 million reduction will reduce program
management support for the Enterprise Architecture Center of Excellence and decrease funding for the Geospatial
Management Office, the Information Sharing Environment Office, and the Office of Accessible Systems and
Technology (p. OCIO-30).
42
The congressional justification, at pp. OCIO-31–OCIO-32, stated that this reduction would impact the capability of
(continued...)
39
Congressional Research Service
22
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
The House-reported bill provided that, within the total amount appropriated, $93 million would
fund salaries and expenses and almost $164 million would support development and acquisition
activities. Specifically, for the latter, the House Appropriations Committee recommended almost
$41 million for information technology activities, including $2 million for the DHS Data
Framework; $53 million for infrastructure and security activities, including $1million for cyber
remediation tools; and $70 million for the Homeland Secure Data Network.
The Senate-reported bill provided that, within the total amount appropriated, $95 million would
fund salaries and expenses and almost $159 million would support development and acquisition
activities. Specifically, for the latter, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
appropriations of almost $39 million for information technology activities; $52 million for
infrastructure and security activities, including $26 million to implement measures to protect
classified information related to national security; and $68 million for the Homeland Secure Data
Network. In a general provision, the Senate-reported bill required the CIO to submit a multiyear
investment plan, for 2015 through 2018, at the same time that the FY2016 budget is submitted to
Congress.44
Within the OCIO account, $99 million was provided for salaries and expenses and $189 million45
was to remain available until September 30, 2016, for the development and acquisition of
information technology equipment, software, services, and related activities for the department.
According to the explanatory statement, an additional $1 million funds the DHS Data Framework
initiative and an additional $500,000 funds cyber remediation tools.46
Almost $33 million and 25 FTE were realigned from Analysis and Operations to the OCIO for the
Homeland Security Information Network Program and the Common Operating Picture in support
of the Unity of Effort initiative.
The explanatory statement directed the CIO to brief the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees on its execution of the “strategy to protect national security information held by
DHS, including the cost and schedule details of the Homeland Secure Data Network, Identity
Credential Access Management programs, and other large or multi-agency projects” within 90
days after the act’s enactment. The details of other efforts to protect classified information were to
be included in the briefing.47
Table 5 outlines the funding levels for existing management accounts requested and provided in
Title I.
(...continued)
the Information Technology Services Office to “perform independent technical analyses and assessments of network
services provided by DHS” and “to evaluate service quality and level of performance ... alignment to customer
requirements ... adherence to performance and security standards and the Enterprise Architecture, and use of best
industry practices and innovation.”
43
Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: Departmental Management and
Operations, Office of the Chief Information Officer (Washington, DC, 2014), pp. OCIO-25–OCIO-32.
44
S.Rept. 113-198, Sec. 545.
45
This amount was allocated as follows: Information Technology Services ($68 million), Infrastructure and Security
Activities (almost $53 million), and Homeland Secure Data Network ($68 million).
46
“Explanatory Statement,” p. 11.
47
“Explanatory Statement,” p. 11.
Congressional Research Service
23
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Table 5. DHS Management Account Appropriations, FY2014-FY2015
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
Enacted
Request
HouseReported
H.R. 4903
Office of the Secretary and
Executive Management
122
129
100
125
133
Immediate Office of the Secretary
4
4
4
4
8
Immediate Office of the Deputy
Secretary
2
2
2
2
2
Office of the Chief of Staff
2
2
2
2
3
Executive Secretary
7
8
7
7
6
Office of Policy
37
38
32
38
38
Office of Public Affairs
9
9
8
9
6
Office of Legislative Affairs
5
5
0
5
5
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
2
2
2
2
10
Office of General Counsel
20
21
18
20
20
Office of Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties
22
22
22
22
22
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Ombudsman
5
6
5
6
6
Privacy Officer
8
8
8
8
8
Appropriation /
Sub-Appropriation
Unspecified Reduction
Under Secretary for
Management
SenateReported
S. 2534
P.L. 114-4
-10a
196
195
175
193
188
Immediate Office of the Under
Secretary
3
4
3
3
3
Office of Security
64
63
63
63
64
Office of the Chief Procurement
Officer
65
64
63
64
60
Office of the Chief Human Capital
Officer
30
31
19
29
27
Office of the Chief Readiness
Support Officer
35
34
27
34
33
Office of the Chief Financial
Officer
46
95
39
48
52
Office of the Chief Information
Officer
257
256
257
254
288
DHS Headquarters
Consolidation
0
73
0
0
0
Total, Departmental
Managementb
622
748
572
619
660
Congressional Research Service
24
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Sources: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903,
H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534, S.Rept. 113-198, and P.L. 114-4 and its explanatory statement as printed in the
Congressional Record of January 13, 2015, pp. H275-H322.
Notes: Table displays rounded numbers, but all operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals.
a.
The House-reported appropriations for the OSEM, the USM, and the OCFO were changed in a Manager’s
Amendment offered by Representative John Carter and agreed to by the House committee during markup
on June 11, 2014. Unlike in the case of the reductions to the USM and the OCFO, the reduction to the
OSEM was not made from a specific subappropriation, so it in unclear which activities would receive
reduced funding.
b.
This line only reflects funding for DHS Headquarters Consolidation included in Title I of the DHS
appropriations legislation. Other funding has been provided under Coast Guard accounts and in general
provisions in previous years. See the section below for more explicit funding details.
Issues for Congress
Several issues related to departmental management and administration have been discussed in
recent hearings. Among the issues were those related to the Senior Executive Service, the use of
Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO), spending on agency-sponsored conferences,
initiatives to enhance the DHS workforce, and delays in submitting reports mandated by the
appropriations committees. Brief discussions for each of these issues follow.
Senior Executive Service (SES)
A March 13, 2014, hearing on the department’s budget request for FY2015 conducted by the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs included discussion of the
SES48 at DHS. Senator Claire McCaskill asked Secretary Jeh Johnson to examine the mobility of
executives within the department, including how many members of the SES have worked for
more than one DHS component during their careers.49 The Office of Personnel Management’s
FedScope database provides information on the number of SES members. As of September 2014
(most current available), there were 598 members of the SES at DHS. Most of the SES members
were at Headquarters (139) and Customs and Border Protection (108).50 This total places the
department second among the fifteen Cabinet Agencies in terms of number of SES employees.
Other departments in a ranking of the top six in this regard were Justice (767), Treasury (464),
Defense (464),51 Energy (462), and Health and Human Services (420).
48
According to the Office of Personnel Management, “The keystone of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the SES
was designed to be a corps of executives selected for their leadership qualifications. Members of the SES serve in the
key positions just below the top Presidential appointees, … are the major link between these appointees and the rest of
the Federal work force, [and] operate and oversee nearly every government activity.” (http://www.opm.gov/policydata-oversight/senior-executive-service/.)
49
CQ Congressional Transcripts, “Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Holds Hearing on
President Obama’s Proposed Fiscal 2015 Budget Request for the Homeland Security Department,” March 13, 2014,
available at http://www.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-4441415?0.
50
U.S. Office of Personnel Management, FedScope database, Employment cubes, Agency Parameter set to Cabinet
Level Agencies and Pay Plan and Grade Parameter set to Senior Executive Service, available at
http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/ibmcognos/cgi-bin/cognosisapi.dll.
51
When the Departments of the Air Force (158), Army (281), and Navy (305) are included, the aggregate total for the
Department of Defense was 1,208 as of September 2014.
Congressional Research Service
25
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
The Senate Committee on Appropriations noted the 198 days, on average, that it takes the
department to hire senior executives and directed DHS to report, within 60 days of enactment, on
the strategy to improve this circumstance.
In a September 22, 2014, news release, Secretary Johnson provided data on senior DHS positions
filled over the last nine months and stated: “there have been 12 presidential appointments to
senior-level positions.... Each of these appointees ha[s] pledged to serve until at least the end of
this Administration. In fact, 90 percent of all positions at the SES level and above across this
240,000-person Department are now filled.”52 The news release listed each position and its
incumbent and was issued in response to a Washington Post article on turnover at DHS.53
Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO)
Another hearing conducted by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, on January 28, 2014, examined the improper use of AUO by employees of Customs and
Border Patrol who were not eligible for those payments.54 In a letter to President Barack Obama
on October 31, 2013, Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner expressed “deep concerns about longstanding abuse of [AUO] overtime payments” by DHS and stated that “there remain serious
questions about the agency’s ability or willingness to adequately address the AUO abuse issue.”55
The department’s Chief Human Capital Officer, Catherine Emerson, told the committee members
that DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson issued a memorandum on January 27, 2014, that “directed the
heads of DHS components to suspend the use of AUO for certain categories of employees.” She
also testified that “a comprehensive review of the use of AUO across the department” was
underway within DHS under the direction of the Office of General Counsel.56 The House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations might be interested in the findings and recommendations
that result from this review as the Special Counsel estimated that, “According to information
provided by the whistleblowers, abuse of AUO” at the department costs “approximately $8.7
million annually.”57
52
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Statement by Secretary Johnson About Today’s Washington Post Story on
DHS,” September 22, 2014, available at http://www.dhs.gov/news/2014/09/22/statement-secretary-johnson-abouttodays-washington-post-story-dhs.
53
Jerry Markon, Ellen Nakashima and Alice Crites, “Top-level turnover makes it harder for DHS to stay on top of
evolving threats,” Washington Post, September 21, 2014, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/toplevel-turnover-makes-it-harder-for-dhs-to-stay-on-top-of-evolving-threats/2014/09/21/ca7919a6-39d7-11e4-9c9febb47272e40e_story.html.
54
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations state that AUO may be paid “to an employee in a position in
which the hours of duty cannot be controlled administratively and which requires substantial amounts of irregular or
occasional overtime work, with the employee generally being responsible for recognizing, without supervision,
circumstances which require the employee to remain on duty.” Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 550.151.
55
Letter to President Barack Obama from Carolyn N. Lerner, Special Counsel, October 31, 2013, available at
http://www.osc.gov/FY2014/14-1%20DI-13-0002/14-1%20DI-13-0002%20%20Letter%20to%20the%20President.pdf.
56
CQ Congressional Transcripts, “Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee on Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal
Programs and the Federal Workforce Holds Hearing on the Homeland Security Department’s Overtime Policy,”
January 28, 2014, available at http://www.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-4416309?29.
57
Letter to President Barack Obama from Carolyn N. Lerner, Special Counsel, October 31, 2013, available at
http://www.osc.gov/FY2014/14-1%20DI-13-0002/14-1%20DI-13-0002%20%20Letter%20to%20the%20President.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
26
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
The House Committee on Appropriations stated that certain accounts under CBP and NPPD were
reduced because of “expected budgetary savings from improvements to AUO oversight and
management.”58 The committee directed the department to submit the results of the OIG’s review
and the Office of Special Counsel’s investigations within 15 days of enactment. Within the same
timeframe, the committee directed DHS to report on the compliance plans and internal controls
developed in response to the Deputy Secretary’s May 23, 2014, memorandum on AUO.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations stated its expectation that it be regularly updated as
DHS works to improve AUO administration.
The explanatory statement notes that the excessive use of AUO overtime by NPPD was
inappropriate, states that the budget request for Infrastructure Security Compliance was reduced,
and directs NPPD to brief the Appropriations Committees on implementation of the new overtime
policies and “overtime year-to-date and anticipated expenditures” by May 1, 2015.59
Spending on Conferences
Since FY2012, executive branch agencies must report annually to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) on agency-sponsored conferences with expenses in excess of $100,000.60 The
DHS annual reports on conference expenditures for FY2012, FY2013, and FY2014 are available
on the department’s website.61
In addition, a general provision carried in the DHS Appropriations Act since FY201362 limits the
use of appropriated funds to pay for DHS employee participation at international conferences.63
Attendance was permitted if the Secretary, or a designee, determined that it was in the national
interest and notified the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within at least 10 days
of that determination and the basis for it. The DHS congressional justification proposed that the
provision be deleted “because it was a onetime directive, restricts the Department’s ability to use
and manage appropriated resources, and infringes upon the Department’s ability to manage
administrative functions.”64
The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, and Section 553 of P.L. 114-4, continued
this prohibition for FY2015. Within 30 days after the end of FY2015, the committees directed the
OIG to report on the department’s expenditures on events. The report must assess DHS’
compliance with laws and regulations and include the total cost of events, the number of
58
H.Rept. 113-481, p. 15.
“Explanatory Statement,” p. 46.
60
U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum to the Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies, Promoting Efficient Spending to Support Agency Operations, May 11, 2012, M-12-12, p.
4, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-12.pdf.
61
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Annual Report on Conferences,” available at https://www.dhs.gov/
publication/annual-report-conferences.
62
Section 569 of Division F of P.L. 113-6.
63
International conference means a conference occurring outside of the United States attended by representatives of the
U.S. government and of foreign governments, international organizations, or nongovernmental organizations.
64
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Title V Fiscal Year 2014 Explanation of Changes—General Provisions, pp.
18-19.
59
Congressional Research Service
27
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
conferences held, the amount of funds obligated, and expenses by appropriation account or
subaccount or other funding source.
Enhancing the DHS Workforce
The department’s strategic plan for FY2012 through FY2016 included a goal related to enhancing
the DHS workforce. The plan stated that, among other initiatives, DHS would develop career
paths for employees to provide mobility within the department; provide opportunities for
rotational assignments throughout the department; increase diversity in the workforce, especially
at senior levels; and sustain a program on employee recruitment to improve the diversity of
applicant pools, especially with regard to women, minorities, and veterans.65 The House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations might include consideration of the department’s progress
in achieving these workforce improvements as part of its oversight of DHS staffing needs.
The House Committee on Appropriations specifically addressed workforce issues related to
employee morale and innovation, and awards. Stating its concern with “persistent findings of low
morale and a weak environment for innovation across the Department,”66 the committee directed
DHS to provide information on its plan to correct these deficiencies, including the underlying
causes and metrics to measure improvements that are clear and measurable. The information must
be provided within 60 days after the act’s enactment. The committee also directed DHS to include
with the President’s budget request estimated amounts for bonuses and performance awards, by
component, for FY2016 and the standards and criteria underlying them.
Congressionally Mandated Reports
The department’s lack of timely compliance with reporting requirements placed on it by Congress
has been an ongoing issue for a number of years. At times, Congress has chosen to withhold
funding for certain activities until requested or required reports are submitted. In the FY2014 act,
no funds were withheld from management accounts, “to afford the new leadership of the
Department an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the law.”67
During the House Committee on Appropriations March 11, 2014, hearing on the Department of
Homeland Security’s FY2015 budget proposal, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland
Security, Representative John Carter, and the chairman of the full committee, Representative Hal
Rogers, noted the department’s delay in providing reports that the committee had mandated.
Chairman Carter stated that the budget proposal “does not comply with the law, as it is missing
some 20 reports and expenditure plans required to be submitted with the budget.” Chairman
Rogers said that “Once again, the department has failed to submit a number of plans and reports
which are essential to help this committee do its work.... These are not merely suggestions or
requests. They're required by law.”68 For FY2015, the House committee stated that it “will not
65
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2012-2016” (Washington: DHS, February
2012), pp. 25-26, available at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs-strategic-plan-fy-2012-2016.pdf.
66
H.Rept. 113-481, p. 18.
67
Explanatory Statement, p. 3.
68
CQ Congressional Transcripts, “House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee Holds Hearing on
Department of Homeland Security Budget for F.Y. 2015,” March 11, 2014, available at http://www.cq.com/doc/
congressionaltranscripts-4437846?34.
Congressional Research Service
28
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
reconsider reductions to OSEM, or a restoration [of] funding to support OLA, until the
Department complies with all statutory requirements and submits a responsible budget proposal
that adequately supports essential mission requirements for frontline operations.”69
Likewise, the Senate committee stated: “Whatever the causes are for the delays in getting
required information to the Committee, the expectation is that the Department’s performance will
improve. In certain circumstances, a significant portion of a component’s appropriation is
withheld from obligation until the required report is submitted.”70
Expressing concern about the increased use of the designation “For Official Use Only” (FOUO)
on reports, briefings, and information, the House committee directed the department to include
the name(s) and title(s) of the person(s) making the designation and the reasons for it, under DHS
Management Directive 11042.1,71 on all responses that are classified as FOUO.72
The Senate-reported bill directed the agencies under DHS to post reports required by the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations on their public websites upon determination by the
agency head that such would serve the national interest and unless such action compromises
homeland or national security or contains proprietary information. The posting would occur only
after a report has been available to the requesting committee(s) for at least 30 days.73 Section 565
of P.L. 114-4 included this provision, but provided that the posting would occur only after a report
has been available to the requesting committee(s) for at least 45 days.
The explanatory statement directed that documents submitted to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations that are classified as FOUO must include specific reasons for the
classification based on the requirements of DHS Management Directive 11042.1 and noted that
the signatories of the documents would be accountable for verifying the classification.74
DHS Headquarters Consolidation75
As of July 2014, the Department of Homeland Security’s headquarters footprint occupies more
than 9 million rentable square feet of office space in 50 separate locations in the greater
Washington, DC, area.76 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.
69
H.Rept. 113-481, p. 8.
S.Rept. 113-198, p. 15.
71
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Safeguarding Sensitive But Unclassified (For Official Use Only)
Information,” January 6, 2005.
72
H.Rept. 113-481, p. 18.
73
S. 2534, Sec. 562.
74
“Explanatory Statement,” p. 5.
75
Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government
and Finance Division.
76
U.S. Government Accountability Office, DHS and GSA Need to Strengthen the Management of DHS Headquarters
Consolidation, GAO-14-648, September 19, 2014, p. p. 4, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-648.
70
Congressional Research Service
29
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
To unify the department’s headquarters functions, the department and General Services
Administration (GSA) approved a $3.4 billion master plan to create a new DHS headquarters on
the grounds of St. Elizabeths in Anacostia. According to GSA, this would be the largest federal
office construction since the Pentagon was built during World War II. Originally, $1.4 billion of
this project was to be funded through the DHS budget, and $2 billion through the GSA.77 Phase
1A of the project—a new Coast Guard headquarters facility—has been completed with the
funding already provided by Congress and is now in use.
Not all DHS functions in the greater Washington, DC, area are slated to move to the new facility.
The Administration has sought funding several times in recent years for consolidation of some of
those other offices to fewer locations to save money on lease costs.
FY2015 Request
The Administration requested a total of $323 million for the consolidation of DHS headquarters at
St. Elizabeths—$250 million of this was requested through GSA, and $73 million through DHS.
$57.7 million of the FY2015 request for DHS is to complete partially-funded work on the center
building, where the Secretary’s office is to be located, and $15.3 million for operational costs
associated with the current campus.
House-Reported H.R. 4903
House-reported H.R. 4903 included no funding for the consolidation of DHS headquarters at St.
Elizabeths. The accompanying report directs the DHS Chief Readiness support officer to provide
an update to the committee on plans for expending the project’s prior-year appropriations, and to
provide an updated alternatives analysis for headquarters consolidation that takes into account the
current constrained budget environment.78
Senate-Reported S. 2534
Senate-reported S. 2534 included no funding for the consolidation of DHS headquarters at St.
Elizabeths in Title I of the bill. However, a general provision provides $49 million to fund
operating support costs and completion of the center building.79
P.L. 114-4
P.L. 114-4 as enacted included almost $49 million for the headquarters consolidation project in
the act’s general provisions. Together with the enacted FY2015 appropriation for GSA, this
brings the total appropriated for the project to more than $1.75 billion—$543 million for DHS
and $1,207 million to GSA through FY2015.
77
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.
78
H.Rept. 113-481, p. 23.
79
Email exchange with Senate Appropriations staff, August 28, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
30
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Issues for Congress
In 2013, DHS released an updated construction schedule for the consolidated headquarters based
on annual construction of 300,000 square foot “useable segments” as opposed to the coordinated
construction plan originally envisioned for the process. Following that schedule, the completion
date of the headquarters would be pushed back to 2026, and the projected cost would rise to $4.5
billion. However, DHS is working on a rebaselining of the requirements that were originally laid
out in its master plan for construction to take into account evolution of the department and of
workplace strategies since the project was first developed.
On September 19, 2014, the Government Accountability Office released a report criticizing DHS
and GSA for not following best practices in developing their cost and schedule estimates. At a
hearing before the House Committee on Homeland Security’s subcommittee on Oversight and
Management Efficiency, DHS agreed with the findings of the GAO report, and indicated that with
the FY2016 appropriations request, DHS would provide an “enhanced project plan,” which would
meet GAO’s concerns. Congress may wish to examine this enhanced plan for the use of the St.
Elizabeths facility to determine if that is the case.
Aside from traditional debate over the amount of discretionary spending for the project, Congress
may also wish to explore alternative means of financing the multi-billion dollar project. However,
any statutory authorization of such financing would typically not be carried in the DHS
appropriations bill.
Analysis and Operations80
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,81 its budget comes in part from the classified National Intelligence Program.82 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.
80
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, and 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.
82
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.
81
Congressional Research Service
31
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2015 Request
The FY2015 request for the Analysis and Operations account was $302.3 million, an increase of
$1.8 million (0.6%) from the enacted FY2014 level of $300.5 million. The account request
included funding for 850 FTE, an increase of 5 FTE from 2014.
House-Reported H.R. 4903
House-reported H.R. 4903 included $274 million in appropriations for the Analysis and
Operations account, $27.9 million (9.2%) below the amount requested. According to H.Rept. 113481, the House Committee on Appropriations reduced funding for OPS because of an inadequate
justification and a lack of clarity regarding the alignment of OPS’s mission (and strategic goals)
to its personnel structure. The committee noted that the reduction helped offset “severe flaws” in
DHS’s request for frontline operations and enforcement. Also, the committee denied the requested
decrease to the Border Intelligence Fusion Section led by I&A and located at the El Paso
Intelligence Center in El Paso, TX. Additionally, the committee required DHS to submit a
comprehensive inventory of all DHS operations centers within 60 days of enactment of the
appropriation.
Senate-Reported S. 2534
Senate-reported S. 2534 included $295 million for the Analysis and Operations Account, $7
million (2.0%) below the amount requested. According to S.Rept. 113-198, the Senate Committee
on Appropriations required DHS’s Chief Intelligence Officer (the Under Secretary for I&A) to
brief the Committee on the I&A expenditure plan for FY2015 no later than 60 days after the
enactment of DHS appropriations. The committee stipulated that the plan should include the
following elements:
•
fiscal year 2015 expenditures and staffing allotted for each program as compared
to fiscal years 2013 and 2014;
•
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 and a description
of the desired outcomes for fiscal year 2015; and
Congressional Research Service
32
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
•
actions taken to address the recommendations in GAO report (GAO–14–397),
‘‘Additional Actions Needed to Address Analytic Priorities and Workforce
Challenges.’’83
The Committee also directed I&A to continue semiannual briefings on the State and Local Fusion
Centers program.
P.L. 114-4
Title I of P.L. 114-4 (the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2015) provided $255.8 million
in appropriations for Analysis and Operations, $46.5 million below the amount requested by the
Administration, $18.2 million less than in House-reported H.R. 4903, and $39.2 million less than
in Senate-reported S. 2534.
Issues for Congress
Several issues have dogged I&A in recent years. Some arose in the 2014 Senate nomination
hearings for Francis X. Taylor to the post of DHS Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis.84
These included whether I&A has a mission that is clearly understood by its employees, to what
extent I&A provides useful intelligence products to its customers, how to improve low employee
morale, and to what degree state and major urban area fusion centers85 (supported by I&A)
enhance federal counterterrorism efforts.86
Office of the Inspector General87
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. The OIG 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
83
U.S. Government Accountability Office, DHS Intelligence Analysis: Additional Actions Needed to Address Analytic
Priorities and Workforce Challenges, GAO-14-397, June 2014.
84
Taylor became Under Secretary on April 14, 2014. See http://www.dhs.gov/person/francis-x-taylor.
85
See http://www.dhs.gov/state-and-major-urban-area-fusion-centers.
86
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, “Open Hearing: Nomination of John P. Carlin to be Assistant Attorney
General for National Security at the Department of Justice, and Nomination of Francis X. Taylor to be the Under
Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security,” February 25, 2014,
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings.cfm?hearingid=f00b2bec76ceca7ac77335d8aa10cf0a&witnessId=
f00b2bec76ceca7ac77335d8aa10cf0a-0-2; Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
“Nominations of L. Reginald Brothers, Jr., to be Under Secretary for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, and Hon. Francis X. Taylor to be Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security,” March 5, 2014, http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/nominations-of-l-reginald-brothers-jr-tobe-under-secretary-for-science-and-technology-us-department-of-homeland-security-and-hon-francis-x-taylor-to-beunder-secretary-for-intelligence-and-analysis-us-department-of-homeland-security.
87
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.
Congressional Research Service
33
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
proposed legislation and regulations related to the department. The OIG reports to Congress and
the Secretary of DHS.88
FY2015 Request
The Administration requested a $121 million appropriation for the OIG, $6 million (5.2%) more
than was appropriated in FY2014.
The Administration also requested a $24 million transfer from the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF)
specifically for oversight of disaster relief activities. Transfers from the DRF are a long-standing
means of supporting the DHS OIG’s annual budget for oversight of disaster relief, first occurring
in FY2004, the first annual appropriations act for the department.89
House-Reported H.R. 4903
House-reported H.R. 4903 included a $120 million appropriation for the OIG, $1 million (0.9%)
below the amount requested, and $5 million ($4.3%) above the amount appropriated in FY2014.
The House-reported bill included the requested transfer from the DRF for disaster relief oversight
activities.
Senate-Reported S. 2534
Senate-reported S. 2534 included a $119 million appropriation for the OIG, $3 million (2.3%)
below the amount requested, and $3 million (2.8%) above the amount appropriated in FY2014.
Like the House-reported bill, the Senate-reported bill included the requested transfer from the
DRF for disaster relief oversight activities.
P.L. 114-4
Like the Senate-reported bill, P.L. 114-4 included a $119 million appropriation for the OIG, $3
million (2.3%) below the amount requested, and $3 million (2.8%) above the amount
appropriated in FY2014. Like both the House- and Senate-reported bills, P.L. 114-4 included the
requested transfer from the DRF for disaster relief oversight activities.
88
89
H.Rept. 112-469, p. 25.
P.L. 108-90.
Congressional Research Service
34
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Issues for Congress
Issues surrounding the DHS OIG are generally issues that impact the broader oversight
community, or are issues that are shared throughout the broader community of inspectors general.
Although two such issues are briefly highlighted below, a much fuller analysis is available in the
discussion of statutory Offices of Inspectors General in CRS Report RL30240, Congressional
Oversight Manual, by (name redacted) et al.
OIG Mandates
It is common practice for authorization and appropriations bills and reports to direct the OIG to
conduct specific work in addition to its ongoing audit and inspection activities. These mandates
are frequently placed on the OIG without providing additional resources to fund the work
required.
According to the DHS OIG, as of the submission of the FY2015 budget request, it will have to
comply with 30 separate mandates from Congress (as well as one under an Executive Order) in
FY2014. Requirements established in executive orders and in law aside from the FY2014
appropriations process will require publication of at least 19 individual reports, audits, or reviews
in FY2014. In addition, through the FY2014 appropriations process, the OIG was mandated to
produce seven reviews, reports, and spend plans, as well as to provide semiannual and quarterly
briefings on two topics.90
The House and Senate reports for FY2015 directed that the OIG:
•
Provide a detailed spending plan for the office, including work on corruption at
the U.S. border;91 and
•
Report to Congress on event-related spending and conferences.92
In addition, the House report directed the OIG to provide a semi-annual briefing to the committee
on its waste and fraud prevention efforts.93 The Senate report directed the OIG work with the
Deputy Secretary to provide a status update on their work with CBP and ICE to “further address
the process for investigating cases of corruption of DHS employees.”94 No additional direction
was provided in the explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 114-4.
OIG Accountability
Recently questions regarding the objectivity and quality of the oversight provided by the DHS
Inspector General (IG) drew public attention. John Roth was confirmed as the DHS IG on March
13, 2014, but from March 1, 2011, until that date, DHS did not have a Senate-confirmed Inspector
90
Department of Homeland Security, “Status of Congressionally Requested Studies, Report, and Evaluations,”
Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: Office of Inspector General, One-Time Exhibits (Washington, DC, 2014),
OIG-5 through OIG-10.
91
H.Rept. 113-481, p. 31, and S.Rept. 113-198, pp. 30-31.
92
H.Rept. 113-481, p. 18, and S.Rept. 113-198, p. 31.
93
H.Rept. 113-481, p. 31.
94
S.Rept. 113-198, p. 17.
Congressional Research Service
35
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
General. Charles Edwards, who served as Acting Inspector General and Deputy Inspector General
during most of this period, came under scrutiny on the basis of whistleblower allegations of
misconduct.95 The Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and
Efficiency, which was created by the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008,96 facilitates the
oversight of these intentionally independent oversight bodies, and is investigating these
allegations.97
In 2013, the Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight of the Senate Homeland
Security and Government Affairs Committee launched its own investigation of these allegations,
and released its report on April 24, 2014. Mr. Edwards had asked for and received a transfer to a
separate component of DHS in December 2013—shortly before he was expected to testify before
the subcommittee. Secretary Jeh Johnson placed Mr. Edwards on administrative leave upon the
release of the subcommittee’s report, pending a review of his employment.98
GAO Report on DHS OIG’s Structure Policies and Procedures
The explanatory statement accompanying the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2013,99
tasked the Government Accountability Office with reviewing the OIG’s organizational structure
to ensure compliance with the independence standards for inspectors general. The report, released
September 26, 2014, found that “The OIG’s organizational structure, roles, and responsibilities
are generally consistent with the Inspector General (IG) Act of 1978, as amended,” but went on to
note several areas for improvement, and indicated that although their policies and procedures
were consistent with independence standards, senior officials did not adequately document their
independence as required by those policies.100
One issue before Congress may be to ensure that the OIG’s planned efforts to remediate the
weaknesses identified by GAO are implemented effectively.
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
Title II of the DHS appropriations bill, which includes over three-quarters of the budget authority
provided in the legislation, contains the appropriations for U.S. Customs and Border Protection
95
Carol D. Leonnig, “Probe: DHS Watchdog Cozy with Officials, Altered Reports as He Sought Top Job,” The
Washington Post, April 24, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/probe-dhs-watchdog-cozy-with-officialsaltered-reports-as-he-sought-top-job/2014/04/23/b46a9366-c6ef-11e3-9f37-7ce307c56815_story.html.
96
P.L. 110-409.
97
Letter from Phyllis K. Fong, Chairperson, Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, to The
Honorable Claire McCaskill, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight, Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, June 11, 2014, http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/letter-fromcigie-regarding-allegations-of-misconduct-by-former-dhs-deputy-inspector-general-charles-edwards&ei=
2IhTVMOeDPTIsATWxILgCQ&usg=AFQjCNH690SLkxwJXwaFqMj0KEO8IrrhQQ&bvm=bv.78677474,d.cWc.
98
Carol D. Leonnig, “Homeland Security Puts Former Inspector General on Administrative Leave,” The Washington
Post, April 24, 2014, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/homeland-security-puts-former-inspector-general-onadministrative-leave/2014/04/24/a3e6e4b6-cbfb-11e3-93eb-6c0037dde2ad_story.html.
99
Division F of P.L. 113-6.
100
U.S. Government Accountability Office, DHS OIG’s Structure, Policies, and Procedures Are Consistent with
Standards, but Areas for Improvement Exist, GAO-14-726, September 24, 2014, Highlights, http://www.gao.gov/
products/GAO-14-726.
Congressional Research Service
36
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
(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 $29,828 million for these accounts in FY2015, a decrease of $1,048
million (3.4%) below the enacted level. The House-reported bill provided $31,090 million, an
increase of 4.2% from the requested level and 0.7% above FY2014. The Senate-reported bill
provided $30,731 million, an increase of 3.0% from the requested level and 0.5% below FY2014.
Title II of P.L. 114-4 included $31,536 million, an increase of 5.5% from the requested level, and
2.1% above FY2014.
Senate-reported S. 2534 and P.L. 114-4 also included $213 million in overseas contingency
operations funding for the Coast Guard. This amount, requested by the administration after the
House Appropriations Committee had marked up H.R. 4903 in full committee, is covered by an
adjustment under the Budget Control Act (BCA), and does not add to the total adjusted net
discretionary budget authority in P.L. 114-4.
Table 6 lists the enacted amounts for the individual components of Title II for FY2014 and the
amounts requested by the Administration, recommended by the House- and Senate-reported bills,
and provided by the enacted annual appropriation for FY2015 under Title II.
Table 6. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations, FY2014-FY2015
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2014
Enacted
Request
HouseReported
H.R. 4903
8,146
8,326
8,367
8,320
8,460
Small Airport User Feea
5
9
9
9
9
Automation Modernization
817
812
810
807
808
Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure,
and Technology
351
362
412
362
382
Air and Marine Operations
805
709
788
707
750
Facilities Management
456
482
484
478
289
COBRA CFTA Funding
0b
[138]c
0c
0c
0c
10,580
10,701
10,871
10,684
10,699
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust
Funds
1,704
1,884
1,884
1,884
1,884
Total Budgetary Resources
12,283
12,585
12,755
12,567
12,582
5,229
4,988
5,455
5,137
5,933
Automation and Infrastructure
Modernization
35
26
31
26
26
Construction
5
0
0
0
0
Component / Appropriation
SenateReported
S. 2534
P.L. 114-4
Customs and Border Protection
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
Salaries and Expenses
Congressional Research Service
37
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2015
FY2014
Enacted
Request
HouseReported
H.R. 4903
5,269
5,014
5,486
5,163
5,959
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust
Funds
345
345
345
345
345
Total Budgetary Resources
5,614
5,359
5,831
5,508
6,304
Aviation Security (net funding)
2,863
3,033
3,382
3,555
3,574
Surface Transportation Security
109
128
121
127
124
Intelligence and Vetting [formerly
Transportation Threat Assessment and
Credentialing] (net funding)
176
233
232
219
219
Transportation Security Support
962
932
893
924
917
819
0d
0
0
0
Appropriation
4,929
4,325
4,628
4,824
4,834
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust
Funds
2,436
2,980
2,410
2,410
2,395
Total Budgetary Resources
7,365
7,305
7,038
7,234
7,229
7,012
6,750
6,864
6,985
7,043
Environmental Compliance and
Restoration
13
13
13
13
13
Reserve Training
120
110
115
115
115
1,376
1,084
1,287
1,330
1,225
Research, Development, Testing, and
Evaluation
19
18
11
18
18
Health Care Fund Contributiona
201
177
177
177
177
Discretionary Appropriation
8,514
8,152
8,467
8,425
8,378
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust
Funds
1,808
1,664
1,664
1,789
1,664
Overseas Contingency Operations
Adjustment
227
0
0
213
213
10,549
9,815
10,131
10,427
10,255
1,533
1,586
1,587
1,585
1,616
52
50
50
50
50
1,585
1,636
1,637
1,635
1,666
Component / Appropriation
Appropriation
SenateReported
S. 2534
P.L. 114-4
Transportation Security
Administration
Federal Air Marshals
U.S. Coast Guard
Operating Expensese
Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements
Total Budgetary Resources
U.S. Secret Service
Salaries and Expenses
Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements
Appropriation
Congressional Research Service
38
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2015
FY2014
Enacted
Request
HouseReported
H.R. 4903
255
260
260
260
260
Total Budgetary Resources
1,840
1,896
1,897
1,895
1,926
Net Discretionary Budget
Authority: Title II
30,877
29,828
31,090
30,731
31,536
Total Budgetary Resources for
Title II Components before
Transfers
37,651
36,390
37,652
37,631
38,296
Component / Appropriation
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust
Funds
SenateReported
S. 2534
P.L. 114-4
Sources: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2014 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903,
H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534, S.Rept. 113-198, and P.L. 114-4 and its explanatory statement as printed in the
Congressional Record of January 13, 2015, pp. H275-H322.
Notes: Table displays rounded numbers, but all operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals. Fee revenues included in the “Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust Funds” lines
are projections.
a.
This is permanent indefinite discretionary spending, and therefore scores as being in the bill, despite not
being explicitly appropriated in the bills’ legislative language.
b.
Legislative language was included under Title V of the bill that provided $110 million in these fees for use by
CBP. As the language was not in this title, the resources are not reflected in this table.
c.
Legislative language was included under Title V of the bill that provided $138 million in these fees for use by
CBP. As the language was not in this title, the resources are not reflected in this table.
d.
In FY2015, the Administration requested funding for Federal Air Marshals under the Aviation Security
appropriation. The appropriations committees accommodated that request.
e.
Overseas contingency operations funding is displayed in this line, but is not added to the discretionary
appropriation subtotal, in accordance with the appropriations committees’ practices for subtotaling this
component. However, this funding is reflected in the total budgetary resources for the Coast Guard.
Customs and Border Protection101
CBP is responsible for security at and between ports of entry (POE) along the border, with a dual
mission of preventing the entry of terrorists and instruments of terrorism, while also facilitating
the flow of legitimate travel and trade into and out of the United States. 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.
101
Prepared by (name redacted), Section Research Manager, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
39
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
CBP’s major programs include Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation, which
encompasses risk-based targeting and the inspection of travelers and goods at POEs; Border
Security and Control between Ports of Entry, which includes the Border Patrol; Air and Marine
Interdiction; Automation Modernization, which includes customs and immigration information
technology systems; Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT); Facilities
Management; and a number of immigration and customs user Fee Accounts. See Table 6 for
account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 7 for subaccount-level detail for
CBP appropriations and funding for FY2014-FY2015.
FY2015 Request
For FY2015, the Administration requested an appropriation of $12,585 million in gross budget
authority for CBP. The bullets below highlight select program changes from the FY2014
baseline.102
•
An increase of $6.8 million to fund training for new and incumbent CBP
Officers, Agriculture Specialists, Import Specialists, and Entry Specialists
assigned to the ports of entry.
•
An increase of $11.7 million to fund the refreshment and refurbishment of NonIntrusive Inspection (NII) technology equipment.103
•
A one-time investment of $10.7 million for a “cross-Component Fuel Sharing
Initiative” that will enable DHS vehicles to obtain fuel from any “CBP-controlled
facility along or near the Southwest border.”
•
An increase of $11 million to fund the development of a National Border GeoIntelligence strategy. CBP would work with the Office of Intelligence and
Investigative Liaison (OIIL) to enhance the Border Patrol’s ability on a range of
geospatial-related tracking activities including identifying traffic patterns of
illegal aliens and informing daily decisions on deployment of personnel and
equipment to improve situational awareness along the Southwest border.
102
Drawn from Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: Customs and Border
Protection (Washington, DC 2014). Only select program changes of $5 million or greater are described in this section.
103
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
40
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
•
An increase of $8.3 million to fund CBP’s mobile program. This program
provides capabilities to CBP officers to enable them to inspect vehicles, vessels,
and cargo on a mobile platform.104
•
An increase of $11.8 million to fund enhancements and improved capability to
the Arrival and Departure Information System (ADIS).105
•
An increase of $45.8 million for enhancements to the Remote Video Surveillance
System (RVSS) in the Rio Grande Valley.
•
An increase of $8.9 million for maintenance of border patrol facilities.
•
An increase of $131.6 million in fees106 to fund an additional 2,000 CBP Officers.
•
A decrease of $7.7 million to the Automated Targeting System (ATS).107
•
A decrease of $5.9 million in recurring funding for personnel associated with the
Import Safety Initiative.
House-Reported H.R. 4903
House-reported H.R. 4903 included $12,755 million in gross budget authority for CBP, $170
million (1.4%) above the Administration’s request and $466 million (3.8%) above the FY2014
enacted level. The committee noted in its report that the Administration’s budget proposal did not
include funding to address the unaccompanied alien children crisis. The committee also noted that
the Office of Management and Budget submitted updated budgetary estimates for FY2015, which
projected UAC costs for FY2015 will escalate to $506 million, of which only $429 million was
included in the budget request. The committee directed CBP to submit estimates of the UAC costs
for FY2015 immediately and to include such costs in subsequent budget requests.
The House-reported bill included an increase of $22 million (0.8%) over the Administration’s
request for Inspections, Trade, and Travel Facilitation at Ports of Entry. The committee, however,
did not adopt the Administration’s request to fund an additional 2,000 CBP Officers.
The House-reported bill included $788 million for CBP’s Office of Air and Marine (OAM), an
increase of $79 million (11.1%) over the Administration’s request. In its report, the committee
104
The mobile platform includes mobile hand-held screening equipment. See Testimony of CBP Commissioner
Secretary R. Gil Kerlikowske, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Budget Hearing—United States
Customs and Border Protection, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., April 2, 2014.
105
ADIS is a system that stores biographic and biometric data on aliens who have applied for entry, entered, or
departed the United States. ADIS consolidates information from various systems in order provide a repository of data
held by DHS for pre-entry, entry, status management, and exit tracking of immigrants and non-immigrants. See
description at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-08-22/html/E7-....3.htm.
106
CBP collects user fees to recover certain costs incurred for processing, among other things, air and sea passengers
and various private and commercial land, sea, air, and rail carriers and shipments. These fees were created by the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) and are deposited into the Customs User Fee
Account. In addition to the COBRA and Immigration User Fees, the Administration has also proposed an increase in
the Express Consignment Carrier Facility (ECCF) fee. Parcels that are cleared through an Express Consignment Carrier
Facility (ECCF) are subjected to a fee, which was established under the Trade Act of 2002.
107
ATS is a CBP program that screens inbound and certain outbound cargo and persons by assigning risk-based scores
for the purpose of targeting, identifying, and preventing potential terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the
United States and identifies other violations of U.S. trade and immigration laws. By doing so, it allows CBP officers to
focus their efforts on instruments and passengers that warrant further attention.
Congressional Research Service
41
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
noted the absence of a valid flying hour program and an effective logistics maintenance system,
which it concluded was the reason for many aspects of OAM’s “operational slide.”108
Senate-Reported S. 2534
Senate-reported S. 2534 included $12,567 million in gross budget authority for CBP, $17 million
(-0.1%) below the Administration’s request and $278 million (2.3%) above the FY2014 enacted
level. The Senate-reported bill included $77 million above the Administration’s request for CBP
to meet the needs of the projected number of UACs in FY2015.
The Senate-reported bill included a decrease of $24 million (-0.9%) over the Administration’s
request for Inspections, Trade, and Travel Facilitation at Ports of Entry. The committee, however,
partially adopted the Administration’s request to fund additional CBP Officers. While the
Administration requested the hiring of an additional 2,000 CBP Officers, the committee
recommended hiring 1,000 CBP Officers through FY2016 at air and sea ports of entry to be paid
for by the increase in the Immigration User Fee (IUF). The Senate-reported bill included a
general provision that increased the IUF by $2.00 for arriving commercial air and sea passengers.
P.L. 114-4
P.L. 114-4 (the Homeland Appropriations Act of 2015) provided $12,582 million in gross budget
authority for CBP, $3 million below the amount requested by the Administration, $173 less than
in House-reported H.R. 4903, and $15 million more than in Senate-reported S. 2534.
Table 7. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Account Detail, FY2014-FY2015
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2014
Request
HouseReported
H.R. 4903
SenateReported
S. 2534
P.L. 114-4
8,146
8,326
8,367
8,320
8,460
Headquarters
Management and
Administration
1,199
1,184
1,161
1,178
1,368
Border Security
Inspections and Trade
Facilitation
3,216
3,204
3,237
3,174
3,187
Border Security and
Control Between POE
3,731
3,939
3,970
3,968
3,904
5
9
Appropriation /
Sub-Appropriation
Enacted
Salaries and Expenses
Small Airport User Feea
108
FY2015
9
9
9
H.Rept. 113-481, p. 45.
Congressional Research Service
42
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2015
FY2014
Enacted
Request
HouseReported
H.R. 4903
Automation
Modernization
817
812
810
807
808
Border Security Fencing,
Infrastructure, and
Technology
351
362
412
362
382
Air and Marine
Operations
805
709
788
707
750
Facilities Management
456
482
484
478
289
10,580
10,701
10,871
10,684
10,699
Estimated Fees,
Mandatory Spending and
Trust Funds
1,704
1,884
1,884
1,884
1,884
Total CBP Budget
Authority
12,289
12,585
12,755
12,567
12,582
Appropriation /
Sub-Appropriation
Total Net
Appropriation
SenateReported
S. 2534
P.L. 114-4
Source: CRS analysis of FY2015 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903,
H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534, S.Rept. 113-198, and P.L. 114-4 and its explanatory statement as printed in the
Congressional Record of January 13, 2015, pp. H275-H322.
Notes: Table displays rounded numbers, but all operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals.
a.
This is permanent indefinite discretionary spending, and therefore scores as being in the bill, despite not
being explicitly appropriated in the bills’ legislative language.
Issues for Congress
For the FY2015 budget cycle, appropriators grappled with the increased number of
unaccompanied children who came across the border illegally and its impact on CBP’s operations
and resources.
Unaccompanied Alien Children
Over the past several years, the number of unaccompanied alien children (UAC, unaccompanied
minors) that were apprehended by the Border Patrol for illegally crossing the Southwest border
has substantially increased. In FY2014, that number reached a peak, with the Border Patrol
apprehending over 68,000 unaccompanied minors along the Southwest border.
In the President’s original FY2015 budget for the various agencies109 directly responsible for the
UAC population, there wasn’t a request for funding increases to help address what was
characterized as a strain on agencies’ resources. However, an amended budget request was
109
In addition to several agencies within DHS (i.e., CBP, ICE and USCIS), the Department of Health and Human
Service’s Office of Refugee Resettlement and the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review
have responsibilities for the handling and care of the population.
Congressional Research Service
43
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
submitted to Congress and for DHS agencies responsible for the population, the Administration’s
amended request included an additional $166 million for “CBP overtime, contract services for
care and support of unaccompanied minors, and transportation costs.”110
P.L. 114-4 provided $3,431 million for ICE enforcement and removal operations, including
transport of unaccompanied minors for CBP.
In the general provisions of the Homeland Appropriations Act of 2015, Section 569 sets forth a
requirement that DHS submits a proposal with the annual budget that estimates the number of
unaccompanied minors the agency anticipates will be apprehended that fiscal year, along with the
number of agent or officer hours and related costs required to manage the workload.
Section 571 of the act permits the Secretary to reprogram within and transfer funds into CBP and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses accounts with regard to the care
and transportation of unaccompanied minors. Section 572 of P.L. 114-4 allows for State
Homeland Security Program and Urban Area Security Initiative grants awarded to states along the
southwest border to be used by recipients for costs or reimbursement of costs related to providing
humanitarian relief to unaccompanied minors.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)111
ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the United States. ICE has
two main components: Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and Enforcement and Removal
Operations (ERO). HSI is responsible for disrupting and dismantling criminal organizations
(many of which are transnational) engaged in activities including terrorist financing and money
laundering, intellectual property theft, human trafficking, cybercrime, child exploitation, and drug
trafficking. HSI enforces export laws and enforces trade agreement noncompliance, and is
responsible for investigating and enforcing violations of the immigration laws (e.g., alien
smuggling, hiring unauthorized alien workers). ERO is the government agency responsible for
locating, detaining if appropriate, and removing foreign nationals who have overstayed their
visas, entered illegally, or have become deportable.
FY2015 Request
For FY2015, the Administration requested $5,014 million in net budget authority and $5,359
million in gross budget authority for ICE, a decrease from the FY2014 enacted amounts of 4.8%
110
Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget memo to Representative Nita Lowey, May 30,
2014.
111
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
44
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
and 4.5%, respectively. The budget request included the following changes from the FY2014
baseline:
•
Increase of $28 million for the Criminal Alien Program (CAP);112
•
Increase of $21 million to modernize the TECS System;113
•
Increase of $9 million for the Office of Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA);
•
Increase of $2 million for Fugitive Operations;114
•
Increase of $3 million for transfers of detained foreign nationals from CBP to
ICE;
•
Increase of $3 million for the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program;
•
Reduction of $202 million in detention bed funding (a decrease of 3,461 beds);
•
Reduction of $48 million in the transportation removal program; and
•
Reduction of $28 million for domestic investigations.115
House-Reported H.R. 4903
House-reported H.R. 4903 included $5,486 million in net budget authority, a 9.4% increase over
the President’s request. The House-reported bill appropriated $5,831 million in gross budget
authority, 8.8% more than the President’s request.
Senate-Reported S. 2534
For FY2015, Senate-reported S. 2534 provided $5,163 million in net budget authority and $5,508
million in gross budget authority for ICE. The Senate bill appropriated 3% more than the
President’s request in net budget authority, and 2.8% more in gross budget authority.
P.L. 114-4
For FY2015, in P.L. 114-4, Congress appropriated $5,959 million in net budget authority for ICE
which represented an increase of 18.8% over the President’s request in net budget authority.
Congress provided $6,304 million in gross budget authority, 17.6% more than the President’s
request in gross budget authority.
112
CAP identifies criminal aliens incarcerated within federal, state, and local correctional facilities to try to assure that
these criminal aliens are removed before they are released into the community. The majority of the increase comes
from transferring money since the deployment of interoperability (Secure Communities) is completed. For information
on CAP, see CRS Report R42057, Interior Immigration Enforcement: Programs Targeting Criminal Aliens, by (name
redacted) and (name redacted).
113
TECS is the case management system used by CBP and ICE.
114
Fugitive Operations locates and apprehends foreign nationals with final orders of removal, and removable criminal
aliens who have been released from jails or prisons.
115
Most of this reduction would come from termination of one-time costs associated with information technology (IT)
enhancements.
Congressional Research Service
45
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Table 8. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Sub-Account Detail,
FY2014-FY2015
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2014
Enacted
Request
HouseReported
H.R. 4903
5,229
4,988
5,455
5,137
5,933
HQ Management and
Administration
336
350
335
347
347
Legal Proceedings
206
215
216
213
217
Investigations
1,804
1,778
1,885
1,775
1,860
Investigations—Domestic
1,672
1,645
1,720
1,643
1,700
Investigations—International
131
133
165
132
160
International Operations
100
101
106
101
111
Visa Security Program
32
32
59
32
50
74
77
76
76
76
Enforcement and Removal
Operations
2,785
2,569
2,942
2,725
3,431
Custody Operations
1,994
1,792
2,006
1,870
2,533
Fugitive Operations
129
132
154
131
143
Criminal Alien Program
294
322
365
327
327
Alternatives to Detention
91
94
94
94
110
Transportation and Removal
Program
277
229
322
303
319
Comprehensive Identification
and Removal of Criminal
Aliens (Secure Communities)
25
0
0
0
0
Automation and
Infrastructure
Modernization
35
26
31
26
26
Construction
5
0
0
0
0
5,269
5,014
5,486
5,163
5,959
345
345
345
345
345
5,614
5,359
5,831
5,508
6,304
Appropriation /
Sub-Appropriation
Salaries and Expenses
Intelligence
ICE Appropriations
Fee Accounts
ICE Gross Budget Authority
SenateReported
S. 2534
P.L. 114-4
Source: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903,
H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534, S.Rept. 113-198, and P.L. 114-4 and its explanatory statement as printed in the
Congressional Record of January 13, 2015, pp. H275-H322.
Notes: Table displays rounded numbers, but all operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals.
Congressional Research Service
46
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
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 continuously debated. Nonetheless, most of the discussion
regarding ICE appropriations focuses on Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and issues
regarding identifying and removing foreign nationals who have violated U.S. immigration law
rather than HSI. The most significant debate surrounding the FY2015 appropriations focused on
the impact on ICE (specifically ERO) resources of the large increase in the number of
unaccompanied alien children116 and family units117 apprehended while attempting to illegally
cross into the United States during FY2014.118
Custody Management
ICE’s Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations provides custody management of the
aliens who are in removal proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United
States.119 ERO also is responsible for ensuring that aliens ordered removed actually depart from
the United States.
The number of foreign nationals detained by ICE has been an area of Congressional attention.
Since FY2007, the appropriations committees have included direction either in report language or
legislative language describing or directing the average number of detention beds to be
maintained by ICE in a given fiscal year. The amount of detention beds set by Congress is seen
by some as a “detention mandate,” i.e., that ICE must, on average, detain daily the same number
of aliens as the bed space specified by Congress.120
P.L. 113-76 specified that ICE shall maintain 34,000 beds through the end of FY2014. ICE has
stated that it needs approximately 27,000 beds to detain all foreign nationals who are mandatory
detainees,121 and that the growth in bed space has led to the increase in detention of lower-risk,
non-mandatory122 detainees who could be placed in lower-cost alternatives to detention
116
UAC are defined in statute as children who lack lawful immigration status in the United States, who are under the
age of 18, and who are without a parent or legal guardian in the United States or no parent or legal guardian in the
United States is available to provide care and physical custody.
117
Although family units can consist of a related adult and child, most of the family units were mothers with their
children. E-mail from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Congressional Relations, March 26, 2015.
118
For more information on the recent surge in unaccompanied minors, see CRS Report R43599, Unaccompanied
Alien Children: An Overview, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
119
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.
120
For example, see Statement of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, U.S. Congress, House Committee
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security FY2015 Budget, 113th
Cong., 2nd sess., March 11, 2014.
121
The Immigration and Nationality Act mandates that certain categories of aliens are subject to mandatory detention
(i.e., the aliens must be detained) during the removal process. Aliens subject to mandatory detention include those
arriving without documentation or with fraudulent documentation, those who are removable on criminal grounds, those
who are removable on national security grounds, those certified as terrorist suspects, and those who have final orders of
deportation. For a discussion of mandatory detention, see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention, by
(name redacted).
122
Examples of non-mandatory detainees include aliens who have overstayed their visas or entered illegally but do not
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
47
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
programs.123 The Administration requested 30,539 beds for FY2015, a decrease of 3,461 beds
from FY2014. The Administration contended this would be enough bed space to accommodate
the mandatory population as well as other priority detainees.124 To correspond to the decrease in
bed space, the President’s request as originally submitted decreased to $229 million (a $48
million reduction) the budget for the Transportation and Removal Program.125
H.R. 4903 directed ICE to maintain no less than 34,000 detention beds. S. 2534 required ICE to
maintain at least 31,039 detention beds, 500 more than the Administration requested. 450 of these
were allocated to detain family units.126 The House and Senate committee reports both
recommended increased funding for the Transportation and Removal Program. The increase is
discussed below in the section entitled, “Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC).”
P.L. 114-4 provided funding for 34,000 detention beds. The act also provided $90 million more
than the President’s budget request for Transportation and Removal Program (for a total
appropriation of $319 million for the program). The increase was to support 34,000 detention
beds rather than the 30,539 beds requested by the Administration, and to support the increased
transportation and removal costs related to the surge in unaccompanied children and families
apprehended while crossing the border in FY2015.
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.127 The Administration requested $94 million for the ATD program, an increase of
$3 million from the FY2014 enacted amount. According to the committee reports, both the
House- and Senate-reported bills would have provided $94 million for the ATD program.
According to the explanatory statement, P.L. 114-4 provided almost $110 million for the ATD
program, including an increase of $16 million to support supervision of family units that were
apprehended trying to illegally cross the Southwest border.128
(...continued)
have a criminal conviction.
123
Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Salaries and Expenses (Washington, DC, 2014), p. 81.
124
Examples of these detainees include criminal aliens whose crimes do not make them mandatory detainees and others
who may pose a risk to public safety or a danger to national security. Ibid.
125
The Transportation and Removal Program (TRP) is responsible for the transportation of those in ICE custody
including the physical removal of aliens from the United States.
126
S.Rept. 113-139, p. 62.
127
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Public Security: ICE Unveils
New Alternative to Detention,” Inside ICE, vol. 1, no. 5, June 21, 2004, available at http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/
newsreleases/insideice/insideice_062104_web3.htm.
128
Congressional Record, January 13, 2015, H279.
Congressional Research Service
48
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC)
ICE is responsible for the transportation of undocumented and unaccompanied alien children
(UAC) arriving in the United States129 and representing the government’s position in removal
proceedings before the Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
ICE is also responsible for the physical removal of all foreign nationals, including UAC, who
have final orders of removal or who have elected voluntary departure while in removal
proceedings.130
In the President’s FY2015 budget request for the various agencies directly responsible for the
unaccompanied child population, there wasn’t a request for funding increases to help address
what has been characterized as a strain on agency resources. In late May 2014, the Administration
projected they would need an additional $166 million for “CBP overtime, contract services for
care and support of UAC, and transportation costs.”131 H.Rept. 113-481 and S.Rept. 113-198
recommended an increase of $67 million over the President’s request for transportation and
removal costs of unaccompanied minors. In addition, both the House and Senate bills required
DHS and OMB to include information related to unaccompanied children and the costs associated
with these children as part of the congressional budget justifications.
P.L. 114-4 contained several funding increases for international investigations to address the UAC
situation. According to the explanatory statement, the act provided an additional $2 million to
increase the number of specialized law enforcement units in Central America that are vetted by
and work with ICE to disrupt the operations of gangs, and human trafficking and smuggling
networks, and $3 million to expand international human smuggling investigations.132 As
discussed above, the act also increased funding for the Transportation and Removal Program in
part to support the increase in transportation and removal costs associated with the rise in UAC
apprehensions.
Transportation Security Administration133
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. 107296). TSA’s responsibilities include protecting the aviation system against terrorist threats,
sabotage, and certain other criminal acts through the deployment of passenger and baggage
screeners; detection systems for explosives, weapons, and other threats; 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 non-aviation transportation assets, including
129
In most cases, ICE is responsible for transporting the unaccompanied minor from the custody of Customs and
Border Protection (CBP)—the agency that apprehended them—to the Department of Health and Human Services,
Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR)—the agency responsible for their care and custody.
130
UAC in standard removal proceedings are eligible to be granted voluntary departure under INA §240B at no cost to
the child.
131
Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget memo to Representative Nita Lowey, May 30,
2014.
132
Congressional Record, January 13, 2015, p. H279.
133
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Aviation
Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
49
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
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 direct discretionary appropriations for TSA, but that represents only a
portion of the budgetary resources it has available. An airline security fee collection offsets a
portion of aviation security costs, including $250 million dedicated to capital investments in
screening technology. Other fees offset the costs of transportation threat assessment and
credentialing. Since the amounts covered by these fees are not set through traditional
appropriations provisions, they are not reflected in the above graphic. Table 9 presents a
breakdown of TSA’s total additional budgetary resources requested from all non-appropriated
sources and those provided through direct appropriations, as accounted for in the DHS budget
justifications. Due to differences between OMB and CBO methodologies and issues related to
authorization of fee increases, these amounts are not completely congruent with other amounts
presented in committee documents or this report.
Table 9. TSA Requested Budgetary Resources, FY2015
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Funding Source
FY2015 Request
Total Offsetting Fees
2,818
Aviation Passenger Security Fee
2,203
Aviation Passenger Security Fee
(Revenue from proposed increase)
195
Aviation Security Infrastructure Fees
420
Aviation Security Capital Fund
250
Credentialing Fees (including Alien
Flight Student Program)
80
Discretionary appropriations
4,157
Total Budgetary Resources
7,305
Sources: CRS analysis of the FY2015 DHS congressional justifications.
Note: These are OMB-developed numbers; due to differences between OMB and CBO methodologies and
issues related to authorization of fee increases, these numbers are not congruent with other CBO-based
numbers presented in this report. The table displays rounded numbers, but all operations were performed with
unrounded data: therefore, amounts may not sum to totals.
Congressional Research Service
50
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2015 Request
The President’s request specified $7,305 million for TSA in FY2015, $60 million less than the
FY2014 enacted amount (see Table 10). The request included a proposal to realign the Federal
Air Marshals Service (FAMS) under the Aviation Security component of the TSA budget, rather
than as a separate account. Combined, the request for Aviation Security and FAMS together
totaled $5,683 million, $29 million less than the FY2014 enacted amount. The request specified
$19 million of that reduction was to come from FAMS.
It also specified a reduction of more than $80 million to Screener Personnel Compensation and
Benefits, largely as a result of reduced headcount due to improved screening efficiency from use
of risk-based approaches. This was partially offset by increased amounts for purchasing
explosives detection equipment and airport management, support, and information technology.
Requested funding for Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing (TTAC) increased by
roughly $70 million, largely the result of a proposed realignment of Intelligence into it and an
increase to Secure Flight funding to encompass forthcoming name checks of passengers on
charter and large general aviation aircraft flights. The request included a proposed increase of
roughly $19 million for Surface Transportation Security, largely reflecting deployment of
additional security inspectors and the realignment of Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response
(VIPR) under it. Requested Transportation Security Support funding was roughly $30 million less
than the FY2014 enacted level, largely the result of the proposed move of Intelligence to TTAC,
which was partially offset by a proposed increase for information technology.
House-Reported H.R. 4903
The House-reported bill specified a gross total of $7,038 million for TSA, $267 million less than
requested. The report accompanying the bill specified $600 million for FAMS, $200 million less
than requested. Other notable amounts lower than requested included screener personnel ($26
million less than requested); airport management and support ($7 million less); surface
transportation security inspectors ($6 million less); headquarters administration ($12 million
less); information technology ($19 million less); and human capital services ($8 million less). The
House-reported bill specified $160 million, $5 million more than requested, for private screening
operations at airports without TSA screeners under the Screening Partnership Program (SPP).
Also, the House committee report specified $25 million for the Federal Flight Deck Officer
(FFDO) program and crew training, $5 million above the request and equal to the FY2014
appropriated amount, and $353 million for aviation regulation and other enforcement, $4 million
more than requested and roughly on par with the FY2014 enacted amount.
Senate-Reported S. 2534
The Senate-reported bill specified a gross total of $7,234 million, $71 million less than requested.
The Senate committee report specified $790 million for the FAMS, $10 million less than
requested and $29 million less than the FY2014 enacted level. It also proposed amounts notably
lower than requested for: screener personnel ($5 million less than requested); checkpoint support
($15 million less); explosives detection equipment purchases and installation ($10 million less);
aviation regulation and other enforcement ($10 million less); Secure Flight passenger vetting ($13
million less); and information technology ($6 million less). Like the House-reported bill, the
Senate reported bill specified $160 million for the SPP, but otherwise did not specify amounts
larger than requested.
Congressional Research Service
51
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
P.L. 114-4
P.L. 114-4 provided $7,229 million for TSA, $136 million less than the FY2014 enacted amount.
The largest reduction compared to FY2014 enacted levels was for screener personnel ($110
million less), where cost savings were
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.