DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
Congressional research reportMay 2, 2016
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security,
Enforcement and Investigations
(name redacted), Coordinator
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy
(name redacted)
Section Research Manager
(name redacted)
Specialist in Immigration Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Aviation Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Transportation Policy
(name redacted)
Analyst in Immigration Policy
May 2, 2016
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R44215
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
Summary
This report is part of a suite of reports that discuss appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) for FY2016. It specifically discusses appropriations for the
components of DHS included in the second title of the homeland security appropriations bill—
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and the U.S. Secret
Service (USSS). Collectively, Congress has labeled these components in recent years as
“Security, Enforcement, and Investigations.”
The report provides an overview of the Administration’s FY2016 request for Security,
Enforcement, and Investigations, the appropriations proposed by the House and Senate
appropriations committees in response, and those enacted thus far. Rather than limiting the scope
of its review to the second title, the report includes information on provisions throughout the bills
and report that directly affect these functions.
Security, Enforcement, and Investigations is the largest of the four titles that carry the bulk of the
funding in the bill. The Administration requested $32,481 million for these components in
FY2016, $807 million more than was provided for FY2015. The amount requested for these
components is 78.5% of the Administration’s $41.4 billion request for DHS in net discretionary
budget authority. The proposed increase in discretionary funding for the components is 46.7% of
the total net increase requested for the department. The largest budget increase proposed in the
request for these five agencies was $806 million (7.4%) for CBP, while the largest budget
decrease proposed was $227 million (2.8%) for the USCG.
Senate-reported S. 1619 would have provided the components included in this title $32,484
million in net discretionary budget authority. This would have been $3 million (0.01%) more than
requested, and $810 million (2.6%) more than was provided in FY2015.
House-reported H.R. 3128 would have provided the components included in this title $32,182
million in net discretionary budget authority. This would have been $299 million (0.9%) less than
requested, and $508 million (1.6%) more than was provided in FY2015.
On December 18, 2015, the President signed into law P.L. 114-113, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2016, Division F of which was the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2016. The act included $33,062 million for these components in FY2016,
$1,388 million (4.4%) more that was provided for FY2015, and $581 million (1.8%) more than
was requested.
Additional information on the broader subject of FY2016 funding for the department can be
found in CRS Report R44053, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations: FY2016, as
well as links to analytical overviews and details regarding appropriations for other components.
This report will be updated if supplemental appropriations are provided for any of these
components through the FY2016 appropriations process.
Congressional Research Service
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
Contents
Summary of DHS Appropriations ................................................................................................... 2
Security, Enforcement, and Investigations ...................................................................................... 3
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)............................................................................................ 6
FY2016 Request ........................................................................................................................ 7
Senate-Reported S. 1619 ........................................................................................................... 8
House-Reported H.R. 3128 ....................................................................................................... 8
Division F of P.L. 114-113 ........................................................................................................ 9
Issues for Congress .................................................................................................................. 11
Unaccompanied Alien Children ......................................................................................... 11
Border Enforcement Personnel ......................................................................................... 12
Public-Private Partnerships at POEs ................................................................................. 13
Preclearance Facilities ...................................................................................................... 13
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) .............................................................................. 14
FY2016 Request ...................................................................................................................... 14
Senate-Reported S. 1619 ......................................................................................................... 14
House-Reported H.R. 3128 ..................................................................................................... 14
Division F of P.L. 114-113 ...................................................................................................... 15
Issues for Congress ................................................................................................................. 16
Custody Management ....................................................................................................... 16
Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) ................................................................. 17
Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) ............................................................................ 17
ICE Public Advocate ......................................................................................................... 18
Transportation Security Administration ........................................................................................ 18
FY2016 Request ...................................................................................................................... 19
Senate-Reported S. 1619 ......................................................................................................... 20
House-Reported H.R. 3128 ..................................................................................................... 20
Division F of P.L. 114-113 ...................................................................................................... 20
Issues for Congress ................................................................................................................. 22
Balancing Risk-Based Screening Efficiencies with Screening Effectiveness................... 22
Airport Worker Vetting and Screening .............................................................................. 24
Deployment and Installation of Checked Baggage Explosives Detection Systems.......... 25
Budgetary Diversions and Oversight ................................................................................ 26
Consolidation of Vetting Functions and Databases........................................................... 26
U.S. Coast Guard ........................................................................................................................... 27
FY2016 Request ...................................................................................................................... 27
Senate-Reported S. 1619 ......................................................................................................... 27
House-Reported H.R. 3128 ..................................................................................................... 27
Division F of P.L. 114-113 ...................................................................................................... 28
Issues for Congress ................................................................................................................. 29
Vessels and Aircraft........................................................................................................... 29
Oil Spill Prevention........................................................................................................... 30
Emission Control Areas (ECAs) ....................................................................................... 30
Electronic Navigation ....................................................................................................... 31
Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) ...................................................................... 32
U.S. Secret Service ........................................................................................................................ 32
Congressional Research Service
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
FY2016 Request ...................................................................................................................... 33
Senate-Reported S. 1619 ......................................................................................................... 33
House-Reported H.R. 3128 ..................................................................................................... 33
Division F of P.L. 114-113 ...................................................................................................... 33
Issues for Congress ................................................................................................................. 35
Protective Mission Panel Recommendations .................................................................... 35
Figures
Figure 1. Proportion of Requested DHS Discretionary Budget Authority by Title ......................... 2
Tables
Table 1. Budgetary Resources for Security, Enforcement, and Investigations,
FY2015 and FY2016 .................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Account Detail, FY2015-FY2016 ........................ 10
Table 3. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Sub-Account Detail,
FY2015-FY2016 ........................................................................................................................ 15
Table 4. TSA Requested Budgetary Resources, FY2016 .............................................................. 19
Table 5. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity, FY2015-FY2016 .............................. 21
Table 6. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-Account Detail,
FY2015-FY2016 ........................................................................................................................ 28
Table 7. Budget Authority for the U.S. Secret Service, FY2015-FY2016 .................................... 34
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 36
Congressional Research Service
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
T
his report is part of a suite of reports that discuss appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) for FY2016. It specifically discusses appropriations for the
components of DHS included in the second title of the homeland security appropriations
bill—Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and the U.S. Secret
Service (USSS). Collectively, Congress has labeled these components in recent years as
“Security, Enforcement, and Investigations.”
The report provides an overview of the Administration’s FY2016 request for Security,
Enforcement, and Investigations, the appropriations proposed by Congress in response, and those
enacted thus far. Rather than limiting the scope of its review to the second title, the report
includes information on provisions throughout the proposed bill and report that directly affect
these functions.
The suite of CRS reports on homeland security appropriations tracks legislative action and
congressional issues related to DHS appropriations, with particular attention paid to discretionary
funding amounts. The reports do not provide in-depth analysis of specific issues related to
mandatory funding—such as retirement pay—nor do they systematically follow other legislation
related to the authorization or amending of DHS programs, activities, or fee revenues.
Discussion of appropriations legislation involves a variety of specialized budgetary concepts. The
Appendix to CRS Report R44053, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations: FY2016
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 (P.L. 112-25). A more complete discussion of those
terms and the appropriations process in general can be found in CRS Report R42388, The
Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, by (name redacted) , and the
Government Accountability Office’s A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process.1
Note on Data and Citations
Except in summary discussions and when discussing total amounts for the bill as a whole, all
amounts contained in the suite of CRS reports on homeland security appropriations represent
budget authority and are 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 FY2015 amounts are derived from the Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act, 2015 (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.
Contextual information on the FY2016 request is generally from the Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 2016, the FY2016 DHS congressional budget justifications, and the
FY2016 DHS Budget in Brief.2 However, most data used in CRS analyses in reports on DHS
appropriations is drawn from congressional documentation to ensure consistent scoring whenever
possible. Information on the FY2016 budget request and Senate-reported recommended funding
levels is from S. 1619 and S.Rept. 114-68. Information on the House-reported recommended
funding levels is from H.R. 3128 and H.Rept. 114-215. Data for FY2016 are derived from P.L.
1
U.S. Government Accountability Office, A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP,
September 1, 2005, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-734SP.
2
On April 14, 2016, the Administration submitted technical amendments to its budget request, but it presented no
adjustments to its totals for the department. Therefore, modifications to authorization for Customs and Border
Protection to use certain fee revenues are not reflected in this report.
Congressional Research Service
1
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
114-113, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2016—Division F of which is the Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2016—and the accompanying explanatory statement published in Books II
and III of the Congressional Record for December 17, 2015.
Summary of DHS Appropriations
Generally, the homeland security appropriations bill includes all annual appropriations provided
for DHS, allocating resources to every departmental component. Discretionary appropriations3
provide roughly two-thirds to three-fourths of the annual funding for DHS operations, depending
how one accounts for disaster relief spending and funding for overseas contingency operations.
The remainder of the budget is a mix of fee revenues, trust funds, and mandatory spending.4
Appropriations measures for DHS typically have been organized into five titles.5 The first four
are thematic groupings of components: Departmental Management and Operations; Security,
Enforcement, and Investigations; Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery; and
Research and Development, Training, and Services. A fifth title contains general provisions, the
impact of which may reach across the entire department, impact multiple components, or focus on
a single activity.
The following pie chart presents a visual comparison of the share of annual appropriations
requested for the components funded in each of the first four titles, highlighting the components
discussed in this report.
Figure 1. Proportion of Requested DHS Discretionary Budget Authority by Title
(funding in general provisions distributed to recipient components)
Source: CRS analysis of data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FY2016 Budget in Brief.
3
Generally speaking, those provided through annual legislation.
A detailed analysis of this breakdown between discretionary appropriations and other funding is available in CRS
Report R44052, DHS Budget v. DHS Appropriations: Fact Sheet, by (name redacted) .
5
Although the House and Senate generally produce symmetrically structured bills, this is not always the case.
Additional titles are sometimes added by one of the chambers 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 the five described above. For FY2015, the Houseand Senate-reported versions of the DHS appropriations bill were generally symmetrical.
4
Congressional Research Service
2
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
Notes: *—The Administration requested $160 million to be transferred to DHS under the Overseas
Contingency Operations/Global War on Terror (OCO/GWOT) allowable adjustment under the Budget Control
Act. This amount rounds to zero for this calculation, and thus does not appear in the chart. Titles in italics and
patterned wedges represent funding covered under adjustments to discretionary spending limits under the
Budget Control Act.
Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
As noted above, the Security, Enforcement, and Investigations title (Title II) of the DHS
appropriations bill includes over three-quarters of the net discretionary budget authority provided
in the legislation, and provides funding for many of DHS’s largest operational components: CBP,
ICE, TSA, USCG, and USSS. Some provisions in Title V, General Provisions, may affect the total
funding provided for some of these components.
The Administration requested $32,481 million in FY2016 net discretionary budget authority for
components included in this title, as part of a total budget for these components of $39,431
million for FY2016.6 The appropriations request was $807 million (2.5%) more than was
provided for FY2015. Senate-reported S. 1619 would have provided the components included in
this title $32,484 million in net discretionary budget authority, $3 million (0.01%) more than
requested, and $810 million (2.6%) more than was provided in FY2015. House-reported H.R.
3128 would have provided the components included in this title $32,182 million in net
discretionary budget authority, $299 million (0.9%) less than requested, and $508 million (1.6%)
more than was provided in FY2015.
Senate-reported S. 1619 also included $160 million in overseas contingency operations funding
for the Coast Guard. This amount, originally requested by the Administration through the
Department of Defense, is covered by an adjustment under the Budget Control Act (BCA), and
does not add to the total adjusted net discretionary budget authority in the bill. House-reported
H.R. 3128 did not include that funding, although House-passed H.R. 2685, the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 2016, did, as well as language to authorize transfer of that funding to
the Coast Guard.
On December 18, 2015, the President signed into law P.L. 114-113, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2016, Division F of which was the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2016. The act included $33,062 million for these components in FY2016,
$1,388 million (4.4%) more that was provided for FY2015, and $581 million (1.8%) more than
was requested. The act included the $160 million in overseas contingency funding for the Coast
Guard as part of an appropriation to DHS, rather than as a transfer from the Department of
Defense.
6
In addition to the appropriations provided in Title II, under the request, U.S. Customs and Border Protection would
receive $180 million in budget authority from a general provision that grants them the authority to expend fees raised
under the Colombia Free Trade Act. Other resources that contribute to the budget for these components include
mandatory spending, fee revenues, and trust funds.
Congressional Research Service
3
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
Not in the Bill, but Still on the Tab
Both CBP and the USCG receive a small fraction of their budget authority through a mechanism known as permanent
indefinite discretionary spending, through which the components receive funding through permanent budget authority
in other laws. However, this spending is considered discretionary rather than mandatory, and counts against any
procedural and statutory limits on discretionary spending—including the 302(b) suballocation to the Homeland
Security Subcommittee. Because of this budgetary treatment, this permanent indefinite discretionary spending is
reflected in the Appropriations Committee reports and scored with the rest of the department’s discretionary
budget, even though it does not actually appear in the appropriations measures themselves. Most discussion in the
public forum of the funding provided through annual DHS appropriations measures does not make a distinction
between permanent indefinite discretionary spending and the spending that is actually included in the bill. For the sake
of clarity of discussion in this report, all discretionary budget authority scored against the bill is considered as being
included in the bill.
Table 1 lists the enacted funding level for the individual components funded under Security,
Enforcement, and Investigations for FY2015, as well as the amounts requested for these accounts
for FY2016 by the Administration, proposed by the Senate and House appropriations committees,
and provided by the enacted annual appropriation for FY2016. The table includes information on
funding under Title II as well as other provisions in the bill.
Table 1. Budgetary Resources for Security, Enforcement, and Investigations,
FY2015 and FY2016
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
Enacted
Request
Senatereported
S. 1619
8,460
9,124
8,779
8,695
8,629
Small Airport User Feea
9
9
9
9
9
Automation Modernization
808
867
854
846
829
Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure,
and Technology
382
373
373
439
447
Air and Marine Operations
750
747
755
785
802
Facilities Management
289
342
314
341
340
[138]
[180]
[220]
[180]
[220]
Title II Appropriation
10,699
11,463
11,084
11,116
11,057
Total Appropriation
10,837
11,643
11,304
11,296
11,277
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust
Funds
1,884
1,977
1,977
1,977
1,977
Total Budgetary Resources (including
Title V)
12,721
13,620
13,281
13,273
13,254
5,933
5,887
5,762
5,736
5,779
Component/Appropriation
Housereported
H.R. 3128
Div. F,
P.L. 114-113
Customs and Border Protection
Salaries and Expenses
COBRA FTA funding (Title V)b
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
Salaries and Expenses
Congressional Research Service
4
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
FY2015
FY2016
Enacted
Request
Senatereported
S. 1619
Automation and Infrastructure
Modernization
26
74
53
74
53
Construction
0
5
0
5
0
5,959
5,965
5,815
5,815
5,832
345
322
322
322
322
6,304
6,287
6,137
6,137
6,154
Aviation Security (net funding)
3,574
3,500
3,453
3,429
3,589
Surface Transportation Security
124
124
123
107
111
Intelligence and Vettingc (net funding)
219
228
225
216
237
Transportation Security Support
917
931
919
901
924
Appropriation
4,834
4,783
4,719
4,653
4,861
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust
Funds
2,395
2,564
2,579
2,579
2,579
Total Budgetary Resources
7,229
7,347
7,299
7,233
7,440
Operating Expensesd
7,043
6,823
6,996
6,899
7,061
Overseas Contingency Operations
Adjustment (included in Operating
Expenses)d
[213]
0
[160]
0
[160]
Environmental Compliance and
Restoration
13
13
13
13
13
Reserve Training
115
111
111
111
111
1,225
1,017
1,573
1,301
1,945
Research, Development, Testing, and
Evaluation
18
18
18
18
18
Health Care Fund Contributiona
177
169
169
169
169
Discretionary Appropriation
8,378
8,151
8,721
8,512
9,158
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust
Funds
1,664
1,822
1,822
1,822
1,822
Total Budgetary Resources
10,255
9,973
10,703
10,334
10,980
1,616
1,867
1,837
1,833
1,855
50
72
87
73
79
1,666
1,939
1,924
1,906
1,934
Component/Appropriation
Appropriation
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust
Funds
Total Budgetary Resources
Housereported
H.R. 3128
Div. F,
P.L. 114-113
Transportation Security
Administration
U.S. Coast Guard
Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements
U.S. Secret Service
Salaries and Expenses
Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements
Appropriation
Congressional Research Service
5
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
FY2015
FY2016
Component/Appropriation
Enacted
Request
Senatereported
S. 1619
Housereported
H.R. 3128
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust
Funds
260
265
265
265
265
Total Budgetary Resources
1,926
2,204
2,189
2,171
2,199
Net Discretionary Budget
Authority: Title II
31,536
32,301
32,264
32,002
32,842
Net Discretionary Budget
Authority: Total for Security,
Enforcement, and Investigations
Components
31,674
32,481
32,484
32,182
33,062
Total Gross Budgetary Resources
for Security, Enforcement, and
Investigations Components
38,434
39,431
39,609
39,147
40,187
Div. F,
P.L. 114-113
Source: CRS analysis of P.L. 114-4 and its explanatory statement as printed in the Congressional Record of
January 13, 2015, pp. H275-H322, the FY2016 DHS Budget-in-Brief, S. 1619, S.Rept. 114-68, H.R. 3128, H.Rept.
114-215, and Division F of P.L. 114-113 and its explanatory statement as printed in the Congressional Record of
December 17, 2015, pp. H10161-H10210.
Notes: Table displays rounded numbers, but all operations were performed with unrounded data. Amounts,
therefore, may not sum to totals. Fee revenues included in the “Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust Funds”
lines are projections, and do not include budget authority provided through general provisions. Bracketed
amounts do not add to discretionary appropriations totals for Title II due to their location in the bill or their
structure.
a. This item is considered permanent indefinite discretionary spending and, therefore, scores as being in the
bill, despite not being explicitly appropriated in the bills’ legislative language.
b. Sec. 556 of the Senate-reported bill, Sec. 551 of the House reported bill, and Sec. 556 of Division F of P.L.
114-113 authorize CBP to expend certain fee revenues collected pursuant to the Colombia Free Trade Act.
These provisions score as discretionary budget authority, and so are reflected separately from other fees.
c. Formerly entitled “Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing.”
d. Overseas contingency operations funding is included in the Operating Expenses appropriation, but is not
added to the appropriations total in accordance with the appropriations committees’ practices for
subtotaling this account. This funding is reflected in the total gross budgetary resources for the Coast
Guard, not the total net discretionary budget authority.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)7
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.
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
7
Prepared by Carla Argueta, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
6
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
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.8 See Table 1 for
account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 2 for subaccount-level detail for
CBP appropriations and funding for FY2015-FY2016.
FY2016 Request
For FY2016, the Administration requested an appropriation of $13,620 million in gross budget
authority for CBP, including $11,643 million in net discretionary budget authority through
appropriations legislation.9
The bullets below highlight select program changes from the FY2015 enacted level.
An increase of $267 million for ports of entry (POE) operations.
An increase of almost $15 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 more than $86 million to fund the refreshment and refurbishment
of Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) technology equipment.10
An increase of more than $153 million for border security and control between
ports of entry.
A decrease of $9.0 million in infrastructure and technology along the borders.
The decrease is in the Development and Deployment account, which funds
activities associated with procuring new technology, among other things.
An increase of almost $53 million for the construction and sustainment of CBP
facilities. The increased funding was requested for a backlog of unmet
maintenance and repair requirements of CBP facilities.
A decrease of $3 million for Air and Marine Operations.
The Administration also requested additional appropriations for an unaccompanied alien children
(UAC) Contingency Fund, to be provided in the event that the number of UAC crossing the
border in FY2016 exceeds the number that crossed in FY2015 (see “Unaccompanied Alien
Children” below for further discussion).
8
For more information see,CRS Report R42138, Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry,
by (name redacted)
, and CRS Report R43356, Border Security: Immigration Inspections at Ports of Entry, by (name
redacted)
.
9
In addition to the appropriations traditionally carried in Title II for CBP, authorization to use fees collected under
Section 601(b) of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (P.L. 112-42) was also
requested, which CBO estimated would provide $180 million in additional budget authority.
10
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
7
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
Senate-Reported S. 1619
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $13,281 million in gross budget authority
for CBP, $339 million (2.5%) below the Administration’s request and $560 million (4.4%) above
the FY2015 enacted level. Senate-reported S. 1619 included $11,304 million in net discretionary
budget authority for CBP.11
The Senate-reported bill recommended a decrease of $137 million (3.4%) below the
Administration’s request for POE operations (i.e., Inspections, Trade, and Travel Facilitation at
Ports of Entry). The committee, however, did not recommend funding the Administration’s
request for additional CBP officers. The committee noted that the number of CBP officers is
below the committee recommended funding level of 23,775 and is unlikely to reach such level
until late FY2016.
The Senate-reported bill recommended funding to support 21,370 Border Patrol agents, which is
the same number that was funded in the FY2015 bill. The committee noted that as with CBP
officers, the number of Border Patrol agents is below the committee recommended funding level
and is unlikely to reach such level until late FY2016. The committee noted the challenges CBP
has faced in hiring and retaining Border Patrol agents. The Senate report recommended increased
funding for one of the issues the Administration cited for the delay in hiring new Border Patrol
agents, a lack of polygraph examiners. Polygraph examiners are necessary to complete the
background investigation of applicants. The committee recommended an increase of more than
$1 million for additional examiners.12
House-Reported H.R. 3128
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $13,273 million in gross budget authority
for CBP, $347 million (2.5%) below the Administration’s request, $553 million (4.3%) over the
FY2015 enacted level, and $8 million less than what the Senate Appropriations Committee
approved. House-reported H.R. 3128 included $11,296 million in net discretionary budget
authority for CBP.13
The House-reported bill included a 50% decrease below the Administration’s request for the CBP
Commissioner’s office.14 The committee noted that CBP failed to provide a timely response to
requests for information about hiring, attrition, and funding for full time equivalent (FTE)
positions.
For POE operations (i.e., Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation), the House-reported
bill included a decrease of $183 million below the Administration’s request, an increase of $191
million over the FY2015 enacted level, and $34 million below the recommended amount in the
11
In addition to the appropriations traditionally carried in Title II for CBP, this total includes authorization provided in
Title V to use fees collected under Section 601(b) of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement
Implementation Act (P.L. 112-42), which, as formulated in the Senate-reported bill, would have provided $220 million
in additional budget authority for CBP, according to CBO.
12
S.Rept. 114-68, p. 33.
13
In addition to the appropriations traditionally carried in Title II for CBP, this total includes authorization provided in
Title V to use fees collected under Section 601(b) of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement
Implementation Act (P.L. 112-42), which, as formulated in the House-reported bill, would have provided $180 million
in additional budget authority for CBP, according to CBO.
14
This subaccount is located in the Headquarters, Management and Administration account and is not reflected in
Table 2.
Congressional Research Service
8
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
Senate-reported bill. The relatively lower amount recommended by the House committee includes
a “projected underexecution of funds for personnel.”15
For operations along the border (i.e., Border Security and Control Between Ports of Entry), the
House-reported bill included a decrease of $199 million (4.9%) below the Administration’s
request, a decrease of $45 million (1.2%) below the FY2015 enacted level, and $61 million
(1.2%) below the Senate Appropriations Committee proposal. The majority of the committee’s
recommended reduction from the Administration’s request is due to the denial of the requested
unaccompanied alien children (UAC) contingency fund (see “Unaccompanied Alien Children”
below). Another portion of the reduction was due to the pay raise that was assumed in the
President’s budget.16 The committee also recommended reducing the level of funding for the
recommended 21,370 Border Patrol agents because, according to the committee, it is probable
that CBP will not reach that number until the end of the fiscal year.17
The House-reported bill recommended $439 million for the Border Security Fencing,
Infrastructure, and Technology account. This amount was an increase of $66 million (17.7%)
more than the Administration’s request, an increase of $57 million (14.9%) over the FY2015
enacted level, and an increase of $66 million (15.3%) over the Senate-reported bill. The
committee noted the Administration’s practice of carrying over unobligated amounts from prior
years while requesting “significant amounts of new funding.” Thus, the committee’s
recommendation included a decrease of the amount that was carried over in the Administration’s
request for FY2016 but recommended a portion of the committee’s amount be carried over into
FY2017 and FY2018.18
While the total appropriation included for BSFIT was higher than requested, the House-reported
bill reduced the amount of multi-year funding provided for BSFIT by $150 million from the
budget request. In a change from FY2015, the House Appropriations Committee provided only a
portion of the BSFIT appropriation as three-year funding, thus reducing the amount that could be
carried over into future fiscal years. In prior years, the entire BSFIT appropriation was provided
as a three-year appropriation. Title V of the bill also included rescissions totaling almost $99
million from appropriations provided in prior years for BSFIT, which would reduce the existing
level of carryover.
The House-reported bill included $785 million for CBP’s Office of Air and Marine Operations
(AMO), an increase of $38 million (5%) over the Administration’s request, an increase of $34
million (4.6%) over the FY2015 enacted level, and $30 million (4.6%) more than what was
recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Division F of P.L. 114-113
Division F of P.L. 114-113 (the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016) projected a budget of
$13,254 million in gross budget authority for CBP. This projection was $533 million (4.2%) more
than the FY2015 enacted level, $366 million (2.7%) below the amount requested by the
Administration, $27 million (0.2%) less than in Senate-reported S. 1619, and $19 million (0.1%)
15
H.Rept. 114-215, p. 28.
Further discussion of pay issues is included in CRS Report R44053, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations: FY2016, coordinated by (name redacted) .
17
H.Rept. 114-215, p. 29.
18
H.Rept. 114-215, p. 31.
16
Congressional Research Service
9
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
less than in House-reported H.R. 3128. Division F of P.L. 114-113 included $11,277 million in
net discretionary budget authority for CBP.19
Border security operations at ports of entry (i.e., Border Security Inspections and Trade
Facilitation) was provided $3,436 million in funding,20 which was approximately $249 million
(7.8%) more than the FY2015 enacted level, $124 million (3.5%) less than the amount requested
by the Administration, $24 million (0.7%) more than in Senate-reported S. 1619, and $58 million
(1.7%) more than in House-reported H.R. 3128. Furthermore, P.L. 114-113’s explanatory
statement recommended $86 million for the recapitalization of Non-Intrusive Inspection
equipment (NII).21
P.L. 114-113’s explanatory statement also recommended $3,751 million to Border Security and
Control Between POEs.22 This level of funding was $153 million (3.9%) less than the FY2015
enacted level, $307 million (7.6%) less than what was requested by the Administration, $170
million (4.3%) less than in Senate-reported S. 1619, and $108 million (2.8%) less than in Housereported H.R. 3128. As you can see in Table 2, below, P.L. 114-113 appropriated funding for
BSFIT and AMO at a level higher than the amount enacted in FY2015 or what was requested by
the Administration or recommended in the House-reported and Senate-reported bills for
FY2016.23
Table 2. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Account Detail, FY2015-FY2016
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
Request
SenateReported
S. 1619
HouseReported
H.R. 3128
Div. F,
P.L. 114-113
8,460
9,124
8,779
8,695
8,629
Headquarters
Management and
Administration
1,368
1,506
1,447
1,458
1,442
Border Security
Inspections and Trade
Facilitation
3,187
3,560
3,412
3,378
3,436
Border Security and
Control Between POE
3,904
4,058
3,921
3,859
3,751
9
9
9
9
9
Appropriation /
Sub-Appropriation
Enacted
Salaries and Expenses
Small Airport User Feea
19
In addition to the appropriations traditionally carried in Title II for CBP, this total includes authorization provided in
Title V to use fees collected under Section 601(b) of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement
Implementation Act (P.L. 112-42), which provided $220 million in additional budget authority.
20
Rep. Harold Rogers, “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Chairman of the House
Committee on Appropriations Regarding House Amendment No. 1 to the Senate Amendment on H.R. 2029—
Continued Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016,” House Debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 161, part
184 (December 17, 2015), p. H10166.
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
23
See P.L. 114-113, Division F, Title II.
Congressional Research Service
10
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
FY2015
FY2016
Enacted
Request
SenateReported
S. 1619
Automation
Modernization
808
867
854
846
829
Border Security Fencing,
Infrastructure, and
Technology
382
373
373
439
447
Air and Marine
Operations
750
747
755
785
802
Facilities Management
289
342
314
341
340
10,699
11,463
11,084
11,116
11,057
[138]
[180]
[220]
[180]
[220]
Total Net Appropriation
CBP
10,837
11,643
11,304
11,296
11,277
Estimated Fees,
Mandatory Spending and
Trust Funds
1,884
1,977
1,977
1,977
1,977
Total CBP Budget
Authority
12,721
13,620
13,281
13,273
13,254
Appropriation /
Sub-Appropriation
Total Net
Appropriation, CBP,
Title II
COBRA FTA funding
(Title V)b
HouseReported
H.R. 3128
Div. F,
P.L. 114-113
Source: CRS analysis of P.L. 114-4 and its explanatory statement as printed in the Congressional Record of
January 13, 2015, pp. H275-H322, the FY2016 DHS Budget-in-Brief, S. 1619, S.Rept. 114-68, H.R. 3128, H.Rept.
114-215, and Division F of P.L. 114-113 and its explanatory statement as printed in the Congressional Record of
December 17, 2015, pp. H10161-H10210.
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.
b. Sec. 556 of the Senate-reported bill, Sec. 551 of the House reported bill, and Sec. 556 of Division F of P.L.
114-113 authorize CBP to expend certain fee revenues collected pursuant to the Colombia Free Trade Act.
These provisions score as discretionary budget authority, and so are reflected separately from other fees.
Issues for Congress
This section does not discuss the full range of CBP-related policy issues; rather it focuses on
selected issues relevant to CBP’s appropriations.
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
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 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. While the
Congressional Research Service
11
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
current number of unaccompanied children coming across the border has dropped compared to
this time last year, the Administration also requested contingent appropriations in the event the
number rose unexpectedly in FY2016. The amount provided would ultimately depend on the
number of apprehended UAC transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services,
ranging from no additional funding for CBP if the number of UAC transferred did not exceed the
number transferred in FY2015, to $117 million if it did, to $134 million if the number of UAC
transferred exceeded 160% of FY2015’s total.24
The budget appendix indicates that the trigger for the contingent appropriation is a determination
that the number of UAC transferred to HHS is higher than the previous fiscal year. However, not
all UACs detained and cared for by DHS are transferred to HHS. For example, of the 15,600
UACs from Mexico that were apprehended in FY2014, only 1,150 were transferred to HHS.
Neither the Senate-reported nor the House-reported bills recommended funding the UAC
Contingency Fund. P.L. 114-113 also did not appropriate funds to the UAC Contingency Fund.
However, P.L. 114-113’s explanatory statement stated that base resources dedicated for the care
and transport of UACs had been increased to meet the needs anticipated in FY2016. Additionally,
in the case of a surge in UACs beyond the numbers assumed in FY2016, CBP was directed to
notify Congress to seek reprogramming or a transfer of funds.25
Border Enforcement Personnel
CBP’s front-line enforcement personnel include CBP officers at ports of entry, agriculture
specialists, U.S. Border Patrol agents, air interdiction agents, and marine interdiction agents.
Taken together, these personnel numbers grew from 31,695 in FY2005 to 46,666 in FY2013, an
increase of 14,971 (47%). Border Patrol agents accounted for the greatest share of this growth,
with an increase of 10,106 agents during this period.26
Proportionally among all CBP personnel, the number of CBP officers grew the least during this
period, increasing from 17,881 in FY2005 to 21,775 in FY2013, a 22% increase. However, in the
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), Congress appropriated $256 million
to increase the number of CBP officers at ports of entry by no fewer than 2,000 by the end of
FY2015.
For FY2016, the Administration proposed, through legislation,27 to hire 2,700 additional CBP
officers, including 1,400 officers through revenues generated by user fee increases. The user fee
increases proposed by the Administration include a $2.00 increase in the Immigration User Fees
24
For budgetary purposes, OMB scored this provision as costing $24 million, while CBO scored it using a different
methodology at $79 million.
25
Rep. Harold Rogers, “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Chairman of the House
Committee on Appropriations Regarding House Amendment No. 1 to the Senate Amendment on H.R. 2029—
Continued Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016,” House Debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 161, part
184 (December 17, 2015), p. H10166.
26
The number of Border Patrol agents grew from 11,264 in FY2005 to 21,408 in FY2011, before falling back to 21,388
in FY2012 and 21,370 in FY2013.
27
The Administration will seek the appropriate authorizing congressional committees to advance its legislative
proposals.
Congressional Research Service
12
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
(IUF).28 Additionally, the Administration proposed to begin charging the IUF fee to every sea
passenger, including individuals whose trip originated from an exempt region.29
With respect to commercial traffic, the Administration, through legislation,30 proposed increasing
the fees associated with the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA
fees)31 and the Express Consignment Clearance Facility (ECCF) fees.32
As previously mentioned, Senate-reported S. 1619 and House-reported H.R. 3128 did not
recommend funding to support the Administration’s request for additional CBP officers. P.L. 114113 did not appropriate funding for additional CBP officers.
Public-Private Partnerships at POEs
The FY2013 DHS appropriations act (Division D of P.L. 113-6) established a pilot program to
permit CBP to enter into up to five public-private partnerships (PPPs) to support customs and
immigration services at certain ports of entry (e.g., air ports of entry). In general, PPPs may
provide low-cost alternatives to increase POE personnel and/or to add or improve port of entry
infrastructure. The provision authorizing CBP to enter into these PPPs was extended in FY2014
and FY2015, although modified to permit CBP to accept donations of real and personal property
(including monetary donations) from private parties and state and local government entities for
the purpose of constructing or expanding POE facilities.
Both Senate-reported S. 1619 and House-reported H.R. 3128 recommended increasing the
number of air POE pilots from 5 to 10.33 P.L. 114-113 adopted the Senate-reported and Housereported recommendation.34
Preclearance Facilities
In April 2013, DHS reached an agreement with the government of the United Arab Emirates
(UAE) to set up a preclearance facility in the Abu Dhabi International Airport. Some Members of
Congress raised objections to the proposed Abu Dhabi program because no U.S. air carriers fly
directly from Abu Dhabi to the United States, arguably giving the UAE-owned Etihad Airlines a
competitive advantage over U.S.-owned carriers, and because UAE is not a signatory to the
United Nations Refugee Convention.35 Since FY2014, appropriators have prohibited funding for
28
IUF collects fees from arriving individuals for the costs of inspections activities at airports and sea ports. 8 U.S.C.
1356(h)
29
Exempt regions include the United States and its territories.
30
The Administration will seek the appropriate authorizing congressional committees to advance its legislative
proposals.
31
CBP collects several different types of customs-related user fees, including fees paid by passengers and by cargo
carriers and importers for the provision of customs services. These fees are often referred to as COBRA fees because
they were passed as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (COBRA, P.L. 99-272).
Under 19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(1)-(3), a portion of these fees directly reimburses CBP for certain customs functions, including
overtime compensation and certain benefits and premium pay for CBP officers, certain preclearance services, foreign
language proficiency awards, and—to the extent funds remain available—certain officer salaries. Another portion of
COBRA fees—merchandise processing fees—is deposited in CBP’s Customs User Fee Account to pay for additional
customs revenue functions but is only available to the extent provided for in appropriations acts.
32
ECCF fees reimburses CBP for the costs associated with express clearance of goods.
33
See S.Rept. 114-68, Section 547 and H.R. 3128, Section 559.
34
See P.L. 114-113, Division F, Title V, Section 550.
35
See for example, Letter from Hon. Michael McCaul, Hon. Bennie Thompson, Hon. Bill Shuster, et al. to Janet
Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, April 18, 2013; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
preclearance operations in new locations unless an economic impact analysis of the new location
on U.S. air carriers has been conducted and provided to the committee, among other conditions.36
Both the Senate- and House-reported bills for the FY2016 DHS appropriations recommended a
similar prohibition.37 P.L. 114-113 similarly prohibited funding for new preclearance facilities
unless certain conditions are met.38
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)39
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.
FY2016 Request
For FY2016, the Administration requested $5,965 million in net budget authority, a 0.1% increase
from the FY2015 enacted amount. The Administration requested $6,287 million in gross budget
authority for ICE, which represented a decrease of 0.3% from the FY2015 enacted amount.
Senate-Reported S. 1619
For FY2016, Senate-reported S. 1619 provided $5,815 million in net budget authority for ICE,
which would have resulted in $6,137 million in gross budget authority for the component. The
Senate-reported bill included 2.5% less than the President’s request in net budget authority, which
would have resulted in the component receiving 2.4% less in gross budget authority.
House-Reported H.R. 3128
House-reported H.R. 3128 also included $5,815 million in net budget authority, which likewise
would have resulted in $6,137 million in gross budget authority for the component—although the
House appropriations committee did recommend a different distribution of resources.
(...continued)
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, The Abu Dhabi Pre-Clearance Facility: Implications for
U.S. Business and National Security, 113th Cong., 1st sess., July 10, 2013.
36
See Section 555 of P.L. 114-4 and Section 564 of P.L. 113-76.
37
See Section 551 of S. 1619 and Section 548 of H.R. 3128.
38
See P.L. 114-113, Division F, Title V, Section 553.
39
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialis
t in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
14
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
Division F of P.L. 114-113
Division F of P.L. 114-113 appropriated $5,832 million in net budget authority, which resulted in
$6,154 gross budget authority for ICE. Division F of P.L. 114-113 included 2.2% less than the
President’s request in net budget authority, which resulted in the component receiving 2.1% less
in gross budget authority.
Table 3. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Sub-Account Detail,
FY2015-FY2016
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
Enacted
Request
Senatereported
S. 1619
5,933
5,887
5,762
5,736
5,779
HQ Management and
Administration
347
342
340
295
340
Office of Principal Legal
Advisor
217
248
243
231
240
1,860
1,905
1,898
1,864
1,902
Investigations—Domestic
1,700
1,767
1,760
1,728
1,762
Investigations—International
160
139
138
136
140
International Operations
111
108
107
104
107
Visa Security Program
50
31
31
33
33
76
80
79
80
80
Enforcement and Removal
Operations
3,431
3,311
3,202
3,267
3,218
Custody Operations
2,533
2,407
2,296
2,389
2,317
Fugitive Operations
143
129
143
128
157
Criminal Alien Program
327
320
317
317
317
Alternatives to Detention
110
122
122
110
114
Transportation and Removal
Program
319
324
324
323
313
Unaccompanied Alien
Children Contingency
Funding
—
8a
—
—
—
Automation and
Infrastructure
Modernization
26
74
53
74
53
Construction
0
5
0
5
0
5,959
5,965
5,815
5,815
5,832
345
322
322
322
322
6,304
6,287
6,137
6,137
6,154
Appropriation /
Sub-Appropriation
Salaries and Expenses
Investigations
Intelligence
ICE Appropriations
Fee Accounts
ICE Gross Budget Authority
Congressional Research Service
Housereported
H.R. 3128
Div. F,
P.L. 114-113
15
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
Source: CRS analysis of P.L. 114-4 and its explanatory statement as printed in the Congressional Record of
January 13, 2015, pp. H275-H322, the FY2016 DHS Budget-in-Brief, S. 1619, S.Rept. 114-68, H.R. 3128, H.Rept.
114-215, and Division F of P.L. 114-113 and its explanatory statement as printed in the Congressional Record of
December 17, 2015, pp. H10161-H10210.
Notes: Table displays rounded numbers, but all operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals.
a. This is the CBO score of a requested appropriation, the final value of which is contingent on factors beyond
the control of Congress. See “Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC)” below for more details.
Issues for Congress
ICE is responsible for many different 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 on HSI and its activities.
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. 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,” that is, ICE must, on average, detain daily the same number of
aliens as the bed space specified by Congress.
The Administration requested funding for 34,040 beds, 31,280 adult beds and 2,760
family beds.40 Both S. 1619 and H.R. 3128 would have provided funding to maintain a
total of 34,000 beds. P.L. 114-113 included “funding necessary to maintain the requested
number of detention beds.”41
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) program 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. The Administration requested $122 million for the ATD
program, an increase of $12 million from the FY2015 enacted amount. While the House-reported
bill would have funded the ATD program at the FY2015 level, the Senate-reported bill would
40
The average daily rate for an adult bed is $123.54, while the average daily rate for a family bed is $342.73. FY2016
DHS Congressional Budget Justifications.
41
Explanatory Statement Division F—Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2016, Congressional
Record, vol. 161 (December 17, 2015), p. H10168.
Congressional Research Service
16
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
have fully funded the President’s request. The explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 114-113
recommended funding the ATD program at $114 million.
Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA)
Among other duties, lawyers in ICE’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) represent the
government’s position in removal proceedings before the Department of Justice, Executive Office
for Immigration Review (EOIR). In FY2015, Congress appropriated additional funds to EOIR to
hire 35 immigration judges and support staff to reduce the backlog of pending removal cases.42
The President’s budget requested $248 million for OPLA, an increase of $31 million over the
FY2015 appropriated amount to increase the number of attorneys. Both the House and Senate
bills would have increased funding for OPLA over the FY2015 appropriated amount; the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $243 million for OPLA while the House Appropriations
Committee recommended $231 million.43 The explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 114-113
recommended $240 million for OPLA.
Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC)
ICE is responsible for the transportation of undocumented and unaccompanied alien children
(UAC) arriving in the United States 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. In FY2014, there was a large increase in the number of UAC apprehensions, which
caused a strain on agency resources. However, UAC apprehensions decreased significantly in
FY2015.44
While the number of unaccompanied children coming across the border dropped, the
Administration requested contingent appropriations for costs associated with transporting UAC in
the event the number rose unexpectedly in FY2016. The amount provided would ultimately
depend on the number of apprehended UAC transferred to the Department of Health and Human
Services, ranging from no additional funding for ICE if the number of UAC transferred did not
exceed the number transferred in FY2015, to almost $7 million if it did, to over $27 million if the
number of UAC transferred exceeds 160% of FY2015’s total.45
Like the House-reported and Senate-reported bills, Division F of P.L. 114-113 did not contain
contingency funding for this purpose.
42
See Explanatory Statement Submitted By Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Chairman of the House Committee on
Appropriations Regarding the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment on H.R. 83, Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 160, part 151 (December 11, 2014), p. H9345.
43
S.Rept. 114-68 reported that the funding increases the number of attorneys by 150, while H.Rept. 114-215 stated that
the amount “funds the agency’s request to hire 311 additional attorneys.... ”
44
For a discussion of the issue of unaccompanied alien children, see CRS Report R43599, Unaccompanied Alien
Children: An Overview, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
45
For budgetary purposes, OMB scored this provision as costing $3 million, while CBO scored it using a different
methodology at $8 million.
Congressional Research Service
17
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
ICE Public Advocate
In 2012, ICE created the Public Advocate Office “to assist individuals and representatives who
have concerns about ICE operations and policies in the field.”46 The office was created in
response to critiques that the agency was unresponsive to the complaints of those who were
detained or investigated. However, some contend that the program is not productive and is not a
proper use of ICE resources.47 The FY2015 DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 114-4) specified that
no funds under the act could be used to fund the position of Public Advocate within ICE. H.R.
3128, S. 1619, and Division F of P.L. 114-113 contained the same limitation. Nonetheless, some
argue that the position of Public Advocate was simply renamed Deputy Assistant Director of
Custody Programs and Community Outreach, and that the functions of the disbanded Public
Advocate Office are currently being performed under the umbrella of “community outreach.”48
Transportation Security Administration49
TSA, created in 2001 by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA, P.L. 107-71), is
charged with protecting air, land, marine, 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
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. Net
direct discretionary appropriations represent 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. Table 4 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.
46
Department of Homeland Security, Teleconference Recap: A Conversation with U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) Public Advocate, Washington, DC, March 28, 2012, http://www.dhs.gov/teleconference-recapconversation-us-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-ice-public-advocate.
47
See, for example, Stephen Dinan, “Senate Democrats Join Push to Cut Obama’s Illegal Immigrant Advocate,” The
Washington Times, March 12, 2013, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/12/senate-spending-billincludes-elimination-of-new-i/?page=all.
48
See U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Enforcing the President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully
Execute the Laws, Testimony Of Representative Diane Black, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., February 26, 2014.
49
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Aviation Policy, Resou
rces, Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
18
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
Table 4. TSA Requested Budgetary Resources, FY2016
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Funding Source
FY2016 Request
Total Offsetting Fees
2,581
Aviation Passenger Security Fee
2,132
Aviation Security Capital Fund
(Mandatory)
250
Credentialing Fees (including
Mandatory Alien Flight Student
Program)
199
Discretionary appropriations
4,766
Total Budgetary Resources
7,347
Sources: CRS analysis of the FY2016 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.
FY2016 Request
The FY2016 President’s request specified a gross total of $7,347 million for TSA, $118 million
above the FY2015 enacted amount (see Table 5). The Administration anticipates that roughly
$2,58150 million will be offset through fee collections, including the aviation passenger security
fee charged on airline ticket purchases and various credentialing fees. The aviation passenger
security fee is set at $5.60 per one way trip. TSA anticipates total aviation passenger security fee
collections of $3,382 million in FY2016, but language in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L.
113-67) requires that $1,250 million of that be deposited in the Treasury general fund for deficit
reduction, while additional amounts are to be treated as offsetting collections for TSA
expenditures.
The request included $5,615 million for Aviation Security, including the Federal Air Marshals
Service, $24 million less than the FY2015 enacted amount. The request identified more than
$110 million in savings, and a decrease of 1,666 screener positions as a result of efficiencies from
risk-based screening practices, as well as a decrease of $14 million for equipment maintenance
savings. These savings more than offset pay inflation and increases to retirement contribution
costs for TSA screeners and air marshals as well as increases in funding for checkpoint
technologies and for airport management, information technology, and support activities. TSA
indicated that a focus of FY2016 activities will be on extending the life of existing screening
technologies through various software patches and upgrades.
The request for Intelligence and Vetting activities ($427 million) includes an increase of $128
million reflecting anticipated increases in the utilization of credentialing programs including the
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC), the Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT)
driver threat assessment program, and the TSA Pre-Check program. These costs are recovered
through fees set to recoup the cost of administering background checks, conducting threat
assessments, and issuing appropriate credentials. In the case of the TWIC and HAZMAT threat
50
CBO estimated offsetting fee collections for TSA as $2,564 million—CBO numbers are used in most other places
throughout the report.
Congressional Research Service
19
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
assessments, the anticipated revenue increases reflect projected increases in enrollment numbers
as well as the additional recovery of fees previously retained by vendors. For Pre-Check, TSA
anticipates more than 900,000 applications in FY2016 resulting in fee collections of $80 million.
The amount requested for Surface Transportation Security activities ($124 million) is in line with
the FY2015 enacted amount, while the request for Transportation Security Support ($931 million)
included a $14 million increase, including $3 million for internal cybersecurity remediation.
Senate-Reported S. 1619
The Senate-reported bill and report specified a gross total of $7,299 million for TSA, $70 million
more than the FY2015 enacted level but $48 million less than requested. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $5,583 million for aviation security, $32 million less
than requested. The committee report specified $2,843 million for screener compensation and
benefits, $29 million less than requested, and $593 million for airport management, information
technology, and support, $3 million less than requested. The report also specified $112 million
for checkpoint support, $15 million more than requested, to provide for procurement and field
testing of carry-on screening technologies, checkpoint reconfiguration, and checkpoint
surveillance technologies. The bill included a cap of 43,000 full-time equivalent screeners.
The committee report specified $23 million for the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program
and crew training, $3 million more than requested. However, it included $790 million for the
Federal Air Marshals Service (FAMS), $27 million less than requested.
The Senate-reported bill specified $123 million for surface transportation security, $1 million less
than requested, and $225 million for intelligence and vetting, $2 million less than requested. The
bill included $919 million for transportation security support, $12 million less than requested.
House-Reported H.R. 3128
The House-reported bill and report specified a gross total of $7,233 million for TSA, $115 million
less than requested. In addition to targeted reductions from the requested amount, the House bill
reduced personnel compensation amounts TSA-wide, undoing the pay raise adjustment assumed
in the request. The House-reported bill retains the existing cap of 45,000 full-time equivalent
screeners.
The House-reported bill recommended $5,559 million for aviation security, $55 million less than
requested. The House Appropriations Committee report specified $29 million less than requested
for screening personnel, $7 million less than requested for airport management and support, and
$12 million less than requested for FAMS. It also recommended $21 million for the FFDO
program and crew training, $1 million more than requested.
The bill specified $107 million for surface transportation security, $17 million less than
requested, based on projected under-execution of funds for surface inspectors and visible
intermodal prevention and response (VIPR) teams, despite a paring down of the VIPR program in
FY2015. Additionally, the bill recommended $415 million for intelligence and vetting, $11
million less than requested, and $901 million for transportation security support, $30 million less
than requested.
Division F of P.L. 114-113
P.L. 114-113 and the accompanying explanatory outlined a total budget of $7,440 million for
TSA, $93 million more than the requested amount.
Congressional Research Service
20
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
The act specified $5,719 million for aviation security, $104 million more than the request. This
included an appropriation of $2,974 million for screener personnel compensation and benefits,
$102 million more than requested and $131 million above both the House and Senate reported
amounts. The act, however, retained language capping screener staffing at 45,000 full-time
equivalents. The act also provided $12 million more than requested for screener training. The act
specified $111 million for checkpoint support, $14 million more than requested. The
appropriation for the FFDO program and crew training was set at $21 million, $1 million more
than requested, while the act specified $805 million for FAMS, $12 million less than requested.
The bill also specified $337 million for aviation regulation and other enforcement, which was
also $12 million less than the requested amount.
The act specified $436 million for intelligence and vetting, $9 million more than requested. The
appropriation for surface transportation security totaled $111 million, $13 million less than
requested and $13 million less than the FY2015 enacted amount. Also, the act appropriated $924
million for transportation security support, $7 million less than requested.
Table 5. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity, FY2015-FY2016
(gross budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2015
Appropriation /
Sub-Appropriation
Aviation Security
FY2016
Enacted
Request
Senatereported
S. 1619
Housereported
H.R. 3128
Div. F,
P.L. 114-113
5,639
5,615
5,583
5,559
5,719
Screening Partnership Program
(SPP)
167
167
167
167
167
Screener Personnel
Compensation and Benefits
2,924
2,872
2,843
2,843
2,974
Screener Training and Other
225
227
239
223
239
Checkpoint Support
88
97
112
96
111
EDS/ETD Purchase/Installation
84
83
83
83
82
Screening Technology
Maintenance and Utilities
295
281
281
281
281
Aviation Regulation and Other
Enforcement
350
349
347
345
337
Airport Management, IT, and
Support
588
596
593
589
598
FFDO and Flight Crew Training
22
20
23
21
21
Air Cargo
106
106
105
105
105
Federal Air Marshals
790
817
790
805
805
299
427
424
415
436
Intelligence
52
52
52
48
52
Secure Flight
100
106
105
101
106
Other Vetting / Screening
Administration and Operations
68
70
68
67
79
Credentialing Fees
80
199
199
199
199
Intelligence and Vetting
(formerly Threat Assessment
and Credentialing (TTAC))
Congressional Research Service
21
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
FY2015
FY2016
Enacted
Request
Senatereported
S. 1619
Surface Transportation
Security
124
124
123
107
111
Operations and Staffing
29
29
28
27
28
Appropriation /
Sub-Appropriation
Housereported
H.R. 3128
Div. F,
P.L. 114-113
Security Inspectors
95
95
94
79
83
Transportation Security
Support
917
931
919
901
924
HQ Administration
269
277
273
257
273
Information Technology
449
452
447
447
449
Human Capital Services
199
202
199
198
202
250
250
250
250
250
7,229
7,347
7,299
7,233
7,440
Aviation Security Capital Fund
(ASCF) (mandatory)
TSA Gross Total
Sources: CRS analysis of P.L. 114-4 and its explanatory statement as printed in the Congressional Record of
January 13, 2015, pp. H275-H322, the FY2016 DHS Budget-in-Brief, S. 1619 and S.Rept. 114-68, and H.R. 3128,
H.Rept. 114-215, and Division F of P.L. 114-113 and its explanatory statement as printed in the Congressional
Record of December 17, 2015, pp. H10161-H10210.
Notes: Table displays rounded numbers, but all operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals.
Issues for Congress
Balancing Risk-Based Screening Efficiencies with Screening Effectiveness
TSA had previously been directed by Congress to develop a strategy to increase the number of
airline passengers eligible for expedited screening to 50% by the end of CY2014.51 As noted
above, these risk-based initiatives to expand expedited screening have resulted in annual savings
of more than $110 million largely from the reduced labor costs of conducting expedited screening
as opposed to standard screening.
However, various reports have raised concerns whether this push for increased efficiency at
airport passenger checkpoints has impacted screening effectiveness. Although the primary means
for being granted expedited screening is by voluntarily submitting detailed biographical
information to TSA to be vetted for acceptance into its Pre-Check program, other passengers may
receive expedited screening based on threat assessments performed by the Secure Flight system,
or based on an initiative known as managed inclusion, which integrates random selection with
behavioral observation and sometimes the use of explosives detection canine teams. Potential
vulnerabilities have been identified in each of these approaches, although generally, policymakers
have pushed for restricting expedited screening to only those passengers vetted under the
voluntary Pre-Check program and refining that program as needed.
A January 2015 DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report had recommended various
undisclosed steps for TSA to improve its process for vetting TSA Pre-Check program applicants
51
See P.L. 113-76.
Congressional Research Service
22
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
and members, as well as program effectiveness, communications, and coordination.52
Additionally, a March 2015 DHS OIG report53 identified potential vulnerabilities in Secure Flight
vetting used as the basis for granting passengers access to Pre-Check expedited screening lanes
and concluded that Secure Flight vetting should not be used as a basis for expedited screening.
The report detailed a case in which a convicted felon linked to a domestic terrorist group was
granted expedited screening, even though a TSA document checker recognized the notorious
individual from media coverage and notified a supervisor that the traveler’s past crimes were
disqualifying for Pre-Check expedited screening.
As a result of its investigation, the DHS OIG recommended TSA limit expedited screening to
passengers that it determines are members of trusted populations. TSA did not concur, and
continues to use Secure Flight risk assessments to select passengers. In addition TSA continues
to use managed inclusion, in which passengers without a Pre-Check indicator on their boarding
pass may be randomly selected for expedited screening if assessed to be low risk by a behavior
detection officer, and/or an explosives detection canine team.
While TSA continues to use these alternative techniques to increase the proportion of passengers
processed through expedited screening, the Senate Appropriations Committee report cautioned
that “[a]s the process expands and TSA seeks to cast a wider net, it’s not clear that additional
populations granted expedited screening meet comparable levels of security.”54 Similarly the
House Appropriations Committee report noted that “TSA’s reliance on Managed Inclusion and
other methods to attain its expedited screening goals introduces a partially-vetted population into
a process intended for travelers who have voluntarily submitted to prior in-depth vetting.”55 It,
however, remained supportive of the Pre-Check program, and urged TSA to seek out partnerships
with airports and private entities to expand Pre-Check enrollment, evaluate the impact of
membership costs on enrollments, and examine other opportunities to strengthen and expand PreCheck. Similarly, the Senate committee expressed its support of TSA efforts to partner with third
party providers to draw upon private industry expertise to increase program awareness and ease
of enrollment.
Appropriations committees have also expressed concern about the effectiveness of TSA’s
behavioral detection techniques. The House committee noted that it remained skeptical of their
value, indicating that $25 million in FY2015 appropriations has been withheld until TSA
completes and reports on ongoing operational tests to provide evidence that behavioral indicators
can be successful utilized in operational settings to identify passengers that may pose a threat to
aviation security.
Moreover, the House committee asserted that recently leaked results of covert testing of screening
effectiveness have renewed serious concerns regarding screening technologies and techniques,
noting that these results raise fundamental questions about TSA’s overall risk mitigation strategy
and layered approach to security. House report language directed TSA to brief the committee on
its aviation security risk mitigation strategy and provide semiannual updates on covert testing
activities, results, and corrective actions to address identified deficiencies. Similarly, the Senate
52
Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Security Enhancements Needed to the Pre-Check
Initative (Unclassified Summary), January 28, 2015.
53
Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Allegation of Granting Expedited ScreeningThrough
TSA Pre-Check Improperly (OSC File No. DI-14-3679) (Redacted), March 16, 2015.
54
S.Rept. 114-68, p. 65.
55
H.Rept. 114-215, p. 49.
Congressional Research Service
23
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
committee requested quarterly briefings on covert testing activities, detailing metrics and
mitigation actions taken in response.
In addition, H.Rept. 114-215 highlighted TSA’s ongoing difficulties in acquiring and deploying
checkpoint screening technologies. It noted that, in FY2015, Congress withheld $25 million in
response to GAO findings regarding TSA’s acquisition and deployment of advanced imaging
technology (AIT) whole-body scanners. The committee reported that it continues to await a
statutorily mandated report from TSA addressing GAO’s findings.
P.L. 114-113 directed TSA to submit a detailed report to the appropriations committees describing
efforts to develop more advanced passenger screening technologies; how it is deploying screeners
in the most cost-effective manner; labor savings realized from improved screening technologies;
and how realized savings are being used to offset security costs or reinvest in additional measures
to address security vulnerabilities.
The joint explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 114-113 expressed concern over TSA’s
reduction of screening staff and its leveraging of expedited screening programs. It provided
direction that additional funding amounts should be used to address security gaps identified by
covert testing results and other assessments, including the retention of 602 full time equivalent
positions for checkpoint staffing, centralized and consistent screener training, expansion of
PreCheck application processing, and the exploration of new screening technologies and
procedures to address vulnerabilities uncovered by covert testing. The explanatory language also
directed TSA to provide quarterly updates of its Tiger Team self-evaluation and actions to address
identified security gaps.
Airport Worker Vetting and Screening
In addition to concerns over the effectiveness of passenger screening, oversight bodies have
focused some attention on lapses in airport worker vetting and screening. In June 2015, DHS OIG
reported that, while TSA vetting processes were generally effective, TSA records for vetting
airport workers with unescorted access to secured areas of airports and aircraft were often
inaccurate or incomplete, and TSA lacked assurance that all credentialed airport workers had been
properly vetted.56 The report noted that TSA failed to identify 73 airport workers with links to
terrorism because policies restricted TSA access to certain categories of watchlist data. It also
concluded that TSA relies on airports to perform criminal history and work authorization checks.
The report noted that TSA has limited oversight of airports and thus lacks the ability to assure that
submitted data is complete and accurate and that all credentialed workers are properly vetted. It
recommended that TSA take corrective actions and work with other federal agencies and airports
to improve initial and recurrent vetting of airport workers.
Additionally, the Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC), an industry body that advises
TSA on policies and regulatory matters, recommended that TSA and airports improve security
audits and internal controls regarding airport-issued identification; consider biometric standards
for identification; expand the use of closed circuit television and other surveillance technologies;
and tighten access controls and reduce access points at airports.57 The group also recommended
that TSA and airports do more to promote employee engagement in security, report concerns
56
Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, TSA Can Improve Aviation Worker Vetting
(Redacted), June 4, 2015.
57
Aviation Security Advisory Committee, Final Report of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee’s Working Group
on Airport Access Control, April 8, 2015, https://www.tsa.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf/Intermodal/
asac_employee_screening_wg_final_report_8apr15.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
24
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
through anonymous tip lines, and adopt other airport security best practices. The group
recommended examination of risk-based screening techniques for certain employee groups serve
as a means to enhance security along with other risk-based measures. The Senate Appropriations
Committee report included language directing TSA to brief the committee on its progress in
implementing these recommendations.
Although the joint explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 114-113 identified “workforce
vetting” as a specific issue of concern called into question by various oversight reports, the
consolidated appropriations act did not include specific provisions addressing this issue.
Deployment and Installation of Checked Baggage Explosives Detection
Systems
The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA, P.L. 107-71) mandated 100% screening of
checked baggage. To meet this mandate, TSA has deployed about 1,800 explosives detection
systems and 2,600 explosives trace detections units to about 450 commercial passenger airports.
Most airports are now equipped and designed to utilize the most efficient technologies and
resources to screen baggage. However, as many of the units deployed to meet the 100% screening
mandate are reaching the end of their useful service life, TSA has shifted its priorities to replacing
aging equipment with new, more capable next generation units and has requested additional
flexibility in appropriations language allowing it to use Aviation Security Capital Fund (ASCF)
monies for this purpose. Prior to FY2012, the ASCF was restricted to funding airport security
improvement projects such as modifications to accommodate screening equipment installations.
The Senate- and House-reported bills both included language that would permit TSA to use ASCF
funds to procure and install explosives detection screening equipment as well. The Senatereported bill also included language requiring TSA to include anticipated labor savings from
deploying next generation high speed explosives detection systems in its report on savings from
various efficiencies. The House committee report encouraged TSA to expeditiously pursue the
development, testing, and deployment of more effective and efficient baggage screening systems.
With regard to ASCF funds, the Senate committee report noted that TSA has not established a
process or program to reimburse certain airports that incurred eligible costs for modifying
baggage handling systems to accommodate in-line baggage screening without having entered into
formal reimbursable agreements with TSA. Senate report language directs TSA to develop a
process to validate the eligibility of submitted claims and establish a plan for reimbursing valid
claims. 58 Similarly, the House committee report noted that at least 16 reimbursement claims
from airports for systems installed prior to 2008 are currently unresolved and directed TSA to
develop a plan to resolve these claims and provide Congress with a reimbursement plan within 60
days of enactment. The House committee report also noted that several growing airports have
requested ASCF funding for new in-line baggage screening projects and instructed TSA to find an
appropriate funding balance for these new projects and for replacement in-line projects at
established airports in a manner that will not deter airport growth.59
P.L. 114-113 authorized use of the Aviation Security Capital Fund for both procurement and
installation of explosives detection equipment as well as for the issuance of other transactional
agreements with airports for grant projects funding in-line baggage screening systems, airport
modifications to accommodate explosives detection systems, or for other airport security capital
58
S.Rept. 114-66 and S.Rept. 114-67.
59
H.Rept. 114-215.
Congressional Research Service
25
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
improvement projects as authorized under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 44923(a). Also, like the House and
Senate report language, the joint explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 114-113 directed TSA
to develop a process to review and validate claims submitted by airports for in-line baggage
screening systems installed prior to 2008 and establish a plan for reimbursing validated claims.
Budgetary Diversions and Oversight
The House committee expressed concern over what it described as historic under-execution of
funds appropriated for staffing across the agency. It noted that TSA’s past inability to maintain
staffing at appropriated levels has resulted in diverting these funds for other purposes, including
unplanned and unbudgeted activities, without congressional oversight. For this reason, the House
report recommended various reductions below the requested amount. In addition, based on
projected under-execution of funds for personnel, the House bill included the following
rescissions of FY2015 appropriated funds: $30 million from aviation security; $22 million from
surface transportation security; $8 million from intelligence and vetting; and $26 million from
transportation security support.
The Senate bill would have rescinded $28 million from FY2015 aviation security funding and $5
million from unobligated prior year balances for surface transportation. Section 567 of Division
F of P.L. 114-113 rescinded $158 million appropriated for aviation security and $14 million
appropriated for surface transportation security in FY2015.
Division F of P.L. 114-113 continued long-standing DHS-wide language in Section 503 that
placed restrictions and conditions on the reprogramming of all funds appropriated to DHS.60 In
the accompanying explanatory statement, all DHS components were directed to submit obligation
plans within 45 days of enactment and quarterly updates detailing reprogrammed funds, transfers,
and allocations of undistributed appropriations and carryover funds. The plans must include
actual employee levels compared to those provided for under-enacted funding levels. Other
mandatory elements include hiring and payroll projections for the fiscal year as well as program
schedules and milestones for all major expenditures.
Consolidation of Vetting Functions and Databases
The budget request specified almost $43 million for funding of Technology Infrastructure
Modernization (TIM), an ongoing multiyear major acquisition project to consolidate the various
vetting systems. TSA reported that TIM achieved initial operating capability in FY2014, initially
integrating almost 2 million TWIC records. Additional integration is planned through FY2018,
resulting in all vetting activities being integrated into TIM, creating a repository of more than 14
million records. The system proposes to incorporate a new standardized vetting, adjudication,
and redress rule that is currently being reviewed by the Administration and will interact with
other DHS and Department of Justice databases to improve access to identification information,
criminal records, and terrorist threat data. While TIM endeavors to improve vetting across a broad
array of transportation credentialing and threat assessment programs, its size and complexity
makes it a challenging and costly undertaking. While TIM development has progressed over the
past four years, it is roughly three years behind schedule based on stated objectives in the FY2012
request to have the system fully functional by FY2015, a milestone that TSA now projects will be
met in FY2018.
60
See H.R. 3128, Section 503 and S. 1619, Section 503.
Congressional Research Service
26
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
The House committee report expressed concern that unanticipated schedule delays and cost
escalation have resulted in TSA scaling back the functionality and capabilities originally
envisioned for TIM. The report asked for a briefing from TSA detailing its revised plans, an
updated schedule, lifecycle cost estimates, and a description of the functionality of the end-state
system envisioned under the TIM program.
The joint explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 114-113 noted that, due to continued delays
in TIM, funding under Other Vetting Programs was reduced by $500,000 dollars. Additionally,
statement language directed TSA to brief the appropriations committees within 15 days after the
DHS acquisition review board completes its review of TIM.
U.S. Coast Guard61
The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for the maritime component of homeland security. As
such, it is the lead agency responsible for the security of U.S. ports, coastal and inland waterways,
and territorial waters. The Coast Guard also performs missions that are not related to homeland
security, such as maritime search and rescue, marine environmental protection, fisheries
enforcement, and aids to navigation.
FY2016 Request
The President requested $8,151 million in discretionary appropriations for the Coast Guard, $227
million (2.7%) less than enacted for FY2015. The request included $6,823 million for operating
expenses ($221 million, or 3.1%, below FY2015)62 and $1,017 million for acquisition,
construction, and improvements ($208 million, or 17.0%, below FY2015).
Senate-Reported S. 1619
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $8,721 million for the Coast Guard, $570
million (7%) more than the President requested. The Senate reported bill includes $6,996 million
for operating expenses ($174 million, or 2.5% above the request)—including $160 million in
overseas contingency operations funding. It also included $1,573 million for acquisition,
construction, and improvements ($556 million, or 54.7%, above the request). This additional
funding is driven by a $640 million recommendation to fund acquiring a ninth national security
cutter.
House-Reported H.R. 3128
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $8,512 million for the Coast Guard, $361
million (4.4%) more than the President requested. The House-reported bill includes $6,899
million for operating expenses, $77 million (1.1%) more than the President requested.63 It also
included $1,301 million for acquisition, construction, and improvements ($284 million, or 27.9%,
more than the request)—including $95 million above the request to acquire an additional long61
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Transportation Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
The Administration did not include overseas contingency operations funding for the Coast Guard in the DHS
appropriations request, instead seeking $160 million by transfer from the Navy, which is not included in this total.
63
Like the request, the House-passed FY2016 appropriations bill for the Department of Defense includes a $160
million transfer of overseas contingency operations funding from the Navy to the Coast Guard.
62
Congressional Research Service
27
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
range surveillance aircraft, $71 million above the request to accelerate acquisition of an offshore
patrol cutter, and $83 million above the request—nearly triple the President’s proposal—to
improve certain Coast Guard facilities, including housing and aids to navigation.
Division F of P.L. 114-113
The omnibus provided $9,158 million in discretionary appropriations for the Coast Guard, $780
million more than enacted for FY2015 and about $1 billion more than the President requested.
This included $7,061 million for operating expenses and $1,945 million for acquisition,
construction, and improvements. As the table below indicates, most of the additional funding that
Congress provided compared to the request is in the acquisition, construction, and improvements
appropriation.
Table 6. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-Account Detail,
FY2015-FY2016
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
Request
Senatereported
S. 1619
Housereported
H.R. 3128
7,043
6,823
6,996
6,899
7,061
Military pay and
allowances
3,450
3,466
3,480
3,487
3,489
Civilian pay and
benefits
782
800
792
792
792
Training and recruiting
198
206
206
206
206
Operating funds and
unit level maintenance
1,009
1,010
1,013
1,019
1,028
Centrally managed
accounts
336
330
330
330
330
Intermediate and
depot level
maintenance
1,057
1,010
1,015
1,065
1,056
OCO / GWOT
213
—a
160
—
160
Tricare (Legislative
Proposal)
—
1
—
—
—
1,225
1,017
1,573
1,301
1,945
Vessels
824
534
1,070
616
1,264
Aircraft
180
200
200
295
295
Other Acquisition
Programs
59
65
65
68
65
Shore Facilities and
Aids to Navigation
41
101
121
184
182
Appropriation /
Sub-Appropriation
Enacted
Operating Expenses
Acquisition,
Construction, and
Improvements
Congressional Research Service
Div. F,
P.L. 114-113
28
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
FY2015
Appropriation /
Sub-Appropriation
Military Housing
Personnel and Related
Support
FY2016
Enacted
Request
Senatereported
S. 1619
Housereported
H.R. 3128
6
—
—
21
21
115
117
117
117
118
Div. F,
P.L. 114-113
Source: CRS analysis of P.L. 114-4 and its explanatory statement as printed in the Congressional Record of
January 13, 2015, pp. H275-H322, the FY2016 DHS Budget-in-Brief, S. 1619, S.Rept. 114-68, H.R. 3128, H.Rept.
114-215, and Division F of P.L. 114-113 and its explanatory statement as printed in the Congressional Record of
December 17, 2015, pp. H10161-H10210.
Notes: Table displays rounded numbers, but all operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals.
a. The Administration requested a transfer of $160 million from Navy Operations and Maintenance for USCG
support of Operation Enduring Freedom.
Issues for Congress
Vessels and Aircraft
As was the case in recent years, there were significant differences among proposed budgets in the
number of new vessels and aircraft that the Coast Guard would procure during the 2016 fiscal
year. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended that the Coast Guard procure a ninth
national security cutter (NSC) and thus recommended several hundred million dollars more than
the President requested for the NSC acquisition program. The original plan was to acquire eight
national security cutters and the House report states that “funding for additional NSCs beyond the
program of record would be neither operationally necessary nor warranted, would create
potentially unsustainable operational funding requirements in the future, and could potentially
threaten funding for other Coast Guard acquisition priorities.”64 There were also significant
differences in recommended funding levels for the Offshore Patrol Cutter and Fast Response
Cutters. For further funding details on the Coast Guard’s cutter acquisition program, see CRS
Report R42567, Coast Guard Cutter Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by
(name redacted) .
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $95 million more than requested to procure
a thirteenth HC-130J long range surveillance aircraft. While the Senate Appropriations
Committee agreed with the President’s requested amount, the omnibus appropriated the additional
$95 million.
Also under the acquisition, construction, and improvements account, the House Appropriations
Committee recommended $83 million more than requested for certain Coast Guard shore
facilities, including construction of a new ship-lift facility, Coast Guard housing, training centers,
and boat piers. The omnibus provided this additional funding.
64
H.Rept. 114-215, p. 59.
Congressional Research Service
29
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
Oil Spill Prevention
As the Commandant noted in his testimony on the FY2016 budget request,65 the production of
shale oil in North Dakota and Texas has significantly changed where and how crude oil is
transported on U.S. waterways. This change could have implications for the risk of oil spills.
Generally, much less crude oil is now being imported by tanker ships while much more is being
transported domestically by barge. For instance, from 2011 to 2014, tons of petroleum transported
on the nation’s inland waterways increased 26%, and for the first five months of 2015, it
increased another 3% compared to the first five months of 2014.66 Petroleum has now surpassed
coal as the leading commodity (measured in tons) transported on U.S. inland waterways.
According to oil spill data compiled by the Coast Guard,67 from 1995 to 2011 (latest year
available), barges spilled about 2.7 times more oil in U.S. waters than did tanker ships. (Over this
timeframe, the number of oil spill incidents and the amount of oil spilled annually have declined
significantly for both barges and tankers.)68
In view of the significant increase in the movement of crude oil by barge, the Coast Guard is in
the process of finalizing a new safety inspection regime for barges that Congress called for in
2004 (the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004, P.L. 108-293, Section 415).
This includes establishing structural standards for vessels as well as standards for the number and
qualifications of crew members. Section 409 of the 2004 act also authorized the Coast Guard to
evaluate an hours-of-service limit for crews on tugs that push barge tows. Congress has been
concerned with the pace at which the Coast Guard is carrying out the directive on towing vessels.
In the Coast Guard authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-281, Section 701), Congress requested
that all rulemakings related to oil pollution prevention, including towing vessel inspection, be
finalized within 18 months of enactment (April 2012), but this deadline was not met and some
final rules have yet to be issued as of February 2016. According to a barge industry newsletter,
the Coast Guard submitted its proposed final rule to DHS for review in April 2015 and the final
rule is expected to be published in the spring of 2016.69
In previous appropriations, the Administration has requested and Congress has appropriated
additional funds for personnel in the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Office for the purpose of
reducing a backlog of rulemakings and strengthening the Coast Guard’s safety inspection
function.
Emission Control Areas (ECAs)
The United States has established a 200-mile perimeter from its coastlines within which vessels
must reduce their emissions. To meet a stricter requirement that was triggered on January 1, 2015,
ships are switching to cleaner-burning (lower-sulfur) fuel when they reach this zone. The Coast
Guard is responsible for enforcing correct fuel use in this zone.
65
Testimony of Paul F. Zukunft, Commandant U.S. Coast Guard, House Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Subcommittee, Coast Guard FY2016 Budget Request, February 25, 2015, p. 2.
66
Army Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center, Internal U.S. Waterway Monthly Indicators;
http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/wcsc/wcsc.htm.
67
U.S. Coast Guard, Polluting Incidents In and Around U.S. Waters, A Spill/Release Compendium: 1969-2011
(Washington, DC: January 2013); http://homeport.uscg.mil/.
68
For further information, see CRS Report R43653, Shipping U.S. Crude Oil by Water: Vessel Flag Requirements and
Safety Issues, by (name redacted)
.
69
See AWO Letter, June 12, 2015, http://www.americanwaterways.com/media.
Congressional Research Service
30
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
The House Committee Report requested that the Coast Guard provide information on ECA
enforcement actions taken since January 1, 2015, as well as the number of reports by vessels that
cleaner burning fuel was not available and hence the number of waivers or exemptions granted to
vessels.
In addition to this information, Congress may also seek information on the number of vessels that
have experienced engine stall-outs when switching to cleaner fuels. Reportedly, ships have
experienced loss of propulsion during the switchover as well as subsequently while operating
with the cleaner fuel. This is said to be due to “thermal shock”—the cleaner fuel is more viscous
than bunker fuel and does not need to be heated before entering the engine.70 The temperature
difference is believed to cause fuel pump seizures and leaks. In September 2014, the Coast Guard
issued a safety alert to vessels off California waters concerning the potential for loss of
propulsion (California regulations for ship emissions predate national requirements).71 The safety
alert states that from June 2013 to June 2014, there were 15 loss of propulsion incidents in
California waters related to fuel switching, potentially creating serious safety and environmental
protection concerns.
The need to reduce emissions in ECAs has also generated interest in using liquefied natural gas
(LNG) as a ship fuel. Some cargo ships serving U.S. non-contiguous trades have converted to
LNG. Ferries, cruise ships, and other vessels that sail entirely or mostly in ECA waters also are
interested in LNG as fuel. For safety and security reasons, LNG-fueled ships present budget
issues for the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has provided guidance on the placement of LNG
fuel tanks on vessels, the protocol for LNG refueling operations in ports, and spill response
requirements.72
Electronic Navigation
A primary and resource-intensive function of the Coast Guard is installing and maintaining aids to
navigation (ATON). This includes buoys, beacons, and other visual aids that mark and guide
vessels through waterway channels. There are about 50,000 federally owned visual aids,
according to the Coast Guard, and an equal number of non-federal visual aids. Because storms or
ice can move buoys out of place and channels can move due to shoaling, the Coast Guard services
about 134 buoys and fixed aids to navigation on an average day.73 Part of the Coast Guard’s fleet
includes 68 “buoy tenders,” which are vessels designed for the proper positioning of channel
markers. Mariners continue to rely on these physical visual aids even though their vessels are
typically equipped with virtual or electronic aids, such as GPS, AIS (automatic identification
system), and electronic charts. These technologies, in essence, allow channel markings to be
made known to a vessel operator by electronic transmission (e-navigation), either enhancing or
potentially replacing a physical aid to navigation. The increase in size of the largest ships
transiting U.S. harbors, as well as a general increase in the number of vessels on many
70
Ship and Bunker, “Fuel Switching-Related Power Losses Persist in ECAs,” March 30, 2015; Bunkerworld, “Surge In
Engine Blackouts Feared at ECA Borders in 2015,” September 22, 2014.
71
U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Safety Information Bulletin 14-01, September 9, 2014;
http://www.mxsocal.org/pdffiles/D11-MSIB-14-01_LossOfPropulsion-FuelSwitchingSafety_9SEP14%20(3).pdf.
72
In February 2015, the Coast Guard issued interim guidelines for LNG bunkering operations;
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCG-2013-1084-0031.
73
Coast Guard 2016 Budget in Brief; http://www.uscg.mil/budget/docs/2016_Budget_in_Brief.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
31
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
waterways, places a premium on the accuracy of aids to navigation. The Coast Guard has begun
testing electronic aids to navigation on the West Coast and the Mississippi River.74
ATON activities consume about 20% of the Coast Guard’s discretionary budget. While enavigation offers the potential of significant savings in maintaining physical aids to navigation,
key questions have yet to be answered. How reliable and resilient is e-navigation? Should enavigation replace physical aids or merely supplement them? Are they as accessible to
recreational craft? Are there cybersecurity concerns associated with e-navigation? The Coast
Guard’s ATON budgetary needs in coming years will depend on the answers to these questions.75
The Senate committee report requests a Coast Guard report on the feasibility and advisability of
using e-navigation in U.S. areas of the Arctic Ocean.76 The explanatory statement accompanying
the omnibus did not block that request.
Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
The Coast Guard’s FY2016 budget justification indicateed that the agency was testing the use of
small unmanned aircraft for search and rescue, patrols, and general maritime surveillance. The
Coast Guard has tested both smaller, hand-held UAS and larger UAS to extend the surveillance
range of its patrol vessels. In April 2015, the Coast Guard announced that it would be testing
UAS in the Arctic for missions such as surveying ice conditions, marine environmental
monitoring, marine safety, and search and rescue.77 The test unmanned aircraft could be launched
from land or a Coast Guard cutter.
The House committee report recommended an additional $12 million above the President’s
request for the use of UAS aboard national security cutters.78 The omnibus incorporated this
recommendation. Like e-navigation, greater use of UAS potentially offers significant efficiencies
in the vessels, aircraft, and crews needed to perform various Coast Guard missions.
U.S. Secret Service
The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) has two concurrent missions—criminal investigations and
protection of certain people, places, and events. Criminal investigation activities encompass
financial crimes, identity theft, counterfeiting, computer fraud, and computer-based attacks on the
nation’s financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure, among other areas. The
protection mission entails protecting current and former Presidents, Vice Presidents, their spouses
and minor children, as well as distinguished foreign visitors to the United States, and certain other
individuals.79 The USSS also secures the White House, Vice President’s residence, and foreign
missions in the District of Columbia, and coordinates security for National Special Security
Events.80
74
Professional Mariner, “U.S. Coast Guard Begins Testing Synthetic Aids, Virtual Buoys,” August 2014.
For further information on developments in navigation technology, see Coast Guard Proceedings, Summer 2015
issue; http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/archive/2015/Vol72_No2_Sum2015.pdf.
76
S.Rept. 114-68, p. 76.
77
80 Federal Register 18431, April 6, 2015.
78
H.Rept. 114-215, p. 59.
79
The scope of Secret Service protectees is defined in 18 U.S.C. 3056.
80
For more information, see CRS Report RL34603, The U.S. Secret Service: History and Missions, by (name redacted)
.
75
Congressional Research Service
32
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
FY2016 Request
The FY2016 appropriations request for the Secret Service was $1,939 million, a net increase of
$273 million (16.4%) above the FY2015 enacted level. This increase was largely driven by a
$300 million increase in funding designated for the USSS protection mission, including $117
million more for protection of persons and facilities, and $178 million more to ramp up
operations in preparation for protection of presidential candidates and nominees.
Part of the basis for this increase was the report of the USSS Protective Mission Panel, which was
established in October 2014 to review the security of the White House complex after several
high-profile incidents. The response to that report’s findings through appropriations legislation is
discussed below.
Senate-Reported S. 1619
Senate-reported S. 1619 included $1,924 million for the USSS, $15 million (0.8%) below the
requested level, but $258 million (15.5%) above the amount appropriated in FY2015. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $37 million (3.6%) less than requested for protection of
persons and facilities, but still proposed funding that was $80 million (8.9%) higher than FY2015.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended fully funding the request for protection of
presidential candidates and nominees.
House-Reported H.R. 3128
House-reported H.R. 3128 included $1,906 million for the USSS, $33 million (1.7%) below the
requested level, but $240 million (14.4%) above the amount appropriated in FY2015. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended $33 million (3.2%) less than requested for protection of
persons and facilities, slightly more than the Senate Appropriations Committee, and $84 million
(9.4%) higher than FY2015. Like the Senate Appropriations Committee, the House
Appropriations Committee recommended fully funding the request for protection of presidential
candidates and nominees.
Division F of P.L. 114-113
The omnibus included almost $1,934 million for the USSS, almost $6 million (0.3%) below the
requested level and $268 million (16.1%) above the FY2015 enacted level. The explanatory
statement notes that as a result of a history of hiring delays and new information provided by
USSS, a $49 million reduction is made in the Salaries and Expanses appropriation “to fund a
realistic and achievable number of FTE.”81
81
Congressional Record, vol. 161, part 184 (December 17, 2015), p. H10172.
Congressional Research Service
33
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
Table 7. Budget Authority for the U.S. Secret Service, FY2015-FY2016
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2016
Enacted
Request
Senatereported
S. 1619
1,616
1,867
1,837
1,833
1,855
990
1,290
1,252
1,248
1,191
Protection of persons
and facilities
893
1,009
972
977
911
Protective intelligence
activities
68
73
72
64
71
National Special
Security Events
5
5
5
5
5
Presidential candidate
nominee protection
26
204
204
204
204
381
325
337
336
377
Domestic field
operations
338
291
295
295
337
International Field
Office Administration,
Operations and
Training
34
34
34
33
31
Forensic Support to the
National Center for
Missing and Exploited
Children
8
—
8
8
8
188
195
192
193
232
Information Integration
and Technology
Transformation
1
1
1
1
1
James J. Rowley Training
Center
55
56
55
54
54
Acquisition,
Construction, and
Improvements
50
72
86
73
79
Facilities
5
26
26
29
24
Next Generation Limo
—
—
—
9
11
Information Integration
and Technology
Transformation
45
45
61
35
44
1,666
1,939
1,924
1,906
1,934
Appropriation /
Sub-Appropriation
Salaries and Expenses
Protection
Investigations
Headquarters,
Management and
Administration
Total
Housereported
H.R. 3128
Div. F,
P.L. 114-113
Sources: CRS analysis of P.L. 114-4 and its explanatory statement as printed in the Congressional Record of
January 13, 2015, pp. H275-H322, the FY2016 DHS Budget-in-Brief, S. 1619, S.Rept. 114-68, H.R. 3128, H.Rept.
Congressional Research Service
34
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
114-215, and Division F of P.L. 114-113 and its explanatory statement as printed in the Congressional Record of
December 17, 2015, pp. H10161-H10210.
Note: Table displays rounded numbers, but all operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals.
Issues for Congress
Protective Mission Panel Recommendations
The USSS Protective Mission Panel was established in October 2014 to make recommendations
on upgrading security at the White House complex. The executive summary to the report,
released in December 2014, included a series of recommendations that fell within three general
areas: training and personnel; perimeter security, technology, and operations; and leadership.
However, not all of the panel’s recommendations were released publicly—several in the
“perimeter security, technology and operations” category were classified.82 An additional $25
million, representing initial funding for some of the panel’s recommendations, was included in
the FY2015 DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 114-4), including funding to upgrade security
infrastructure at the White House complex and Vice President’s Residence.83
$87 million in additional investments were proposed by the Administration for FY2016, including
$66 million in salaries and expenses and $21 million in acquisition funding to support the training
facility of the USSS—the James J. Rowley Training Center. The request for acquisition funds
included $8 million for a scale mock-up of the White House grounds, $8 million to renovate or
replace the existing canine training facility, and $5 million to renovate shooting ranges and
tactical training areas.
While the Senate Appropriations Committee also recommended providing the funding level
requested for Rowley Training Center improvements, in its report it described the cost estimates
for the canine training facility and White House mock-up as “inaccurate,” and recommended $13
million for construction of a new canine training facility, and less than $1 million for a feasibility
study and design plan for the White House mock-up. Full funding was recommended for the
range and tactical area renovations, and the remainder of the funding provided—slightly more
than $2 million—was to be applied to deferred maintenance needs at the training center.84
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $29 million in facilities funding, $3 million
more than requested. Like the Senate Appropriations Committee, it proposed a different
allocation of the budget authority between projects than had been requested. Like the Senate
Appropriations Committee, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $13 million for
the new canine facility construction, full funding for ranges and tactical training area upgrades,
and funding to address backlogged maintenance. Almost $3 million was recommended for the
White House mock-up, but the House-reported bill withholds over $2 million of those funds from
obligation until a feasibility study and design plan are completed and approved by the National
82
Joseph Hagin, Thomas Perrelli, and Danielle Gray, et al., Executive Summary to Report from the from the United
States Secret Service Protective Mission Panel to the Secretary of Homeland Security, Unites States Secret Service
Protective Mission Panel, Washington, DC, December 15, 2014, p. 7, http://www.dhs.gov/publication/executivesummary-report-usss-protective-mission-panel.
83
“Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Chairman of the House Committee on
Appropriations, Regarding H.R. 240,” Congressional Record, January 13, 2015, p. H284.
84
S.Rept. 114-68, pp. 89-90.
Congressional Research Service
35
DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
Capital Planning Commission. The House committee also required a detailed obligation plan for
the facilities funding before it could be used.85
The explanatory statement of the managers accompanying the omnibus noted that the bill
included almost $85 million for enhancements associated with the findings of the Protective
Mission Panel. It included over $24 million for facilities, and $11 million for the next generation
of Presidential limousine. The explanatory statement also noted that $750,000 was provided “to
complete a feasibility study and design plan for the proposed White House Training Facility,” and
indicate that further funding would only be considered after the full cost estimate for the project
was completed by the USSS and reviewed by a third party. No specific direction was provided on
canine training facilities or firing ranges in the explanatory statement.86
Author Contact Information
(name redacted), Coordinator
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
Security Policy
r[ edacted]@crs.loc.gov , 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Aviation Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
, 7-....
(name redacted)
Section Research Manager
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Transportation Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Immigration Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
, 7-....
(name redacted)
Analyst in Immigration Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
85
86
H.Rept. 114-215, pp. 66-67.
Congressional Record, vol. 161, part 184 (December 17, 2015), p. H10172.
Congressional Research Service
36
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
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.