Department of Homeland Security:
FY2013 Appropriations
William L. Painter, Coordinator
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy
October 1, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42644
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Summary
This report describes the FY2013 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). The Administration requested $39.510 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget
authority for DHS for FY2013, as part of an overall budget of $59.501 billion (including fees,
trust funds, and other funding that is not appropriated or does not score against the budget caps).
The request amounts to a $90 million, or a 0.2%, decrease from the $39.600 billion enacted for
FY2012 through the consolidated appropriations act (P.L. 112-174).
Net requested appropriations for major agencies within DHS were as follows: Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), $10,345 million; Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),
$5,332 million; Transportation Security Administration (TSA), $5,130 million; Coast Guard,
$8,352 million; Secret Service, $1,601 million; National Protection and Programs Directorate,
$1,217 million; Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), $4,528 million;
Science and Technology, $831 million; and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $328 million.
Included as part of the President’s overall budget request was a 0.5% pay raise for civilian federal
employees.
The Administration also requested an additional $5.481 billion for FEMA in disaster relief
funding as defined by the Budget Control Act, down $919 million (16.8%) from the amount
provided in the FY2012 disaster relief supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 112-177).
H.R. 5855, the House-passed DHS appropriations bill, would provide $39.114 billion in adjusted
net discretionary budget authority, while S. 3216, its Senate-reported counterpart, would provide
$39.514 billion. While the Senate-reported bill funds the proposed pay raise for civilian federal
employees, the House-passed bill does not. Both bills would provide the $5.481 billion in disaster
relief requested by the Administration.
The 12 regular appropriations bills for FY2013 were not enacted before the start of the fiscal year.
Instead, Congress passed and the President signed a continuing resolution (CR), H.J.Res. 117,
into law as P.L. 112-175 on September 28, 2012. This public law allows for the federal
government to continue operations in the absence of regular appropriations. Funding is provided
through March 27, 2013, at an annualized rate of $1.047 billion.
As is often the case with continuing resolutions, P.L. 112-175 provides more limited direction
than is given through a traditional bill and conference report as to how funds should be divided
among individual programs, projects, and activities. The CR does, however, require the
department to provide an expenditure plan within 30 days of passage to outline how DHS chooses
to allocate those funds. Under the provisions of P.L. 112-175, most federal government activities
would be funded over the course of the CR at the FY2012 rate, plus 0.612%. One significant
difference from this baseline for DHS is a funding increase for its cybersecurity programs.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments ............................................................................................................. 1
February 13, 2012—President’s FY2013 Budget Request Submitted ...................................... 1
May 22, 2012—Senate Committee Approves S. 3216.............................................................. 1
June 7, 2012—House Passes H.R. 5855.................................................................................... 2
September 28, 2012—President Signs Six-Month CR.............................................................. 2
Note on Most Recent Data ........................................................................................................ 2
Background...................................................................................................................................... 2
Department of Homeland Security............................................................................................ 2
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations ................................................................................................... 3
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security.............................................................. 5
Summary of DHS Appropriations ............................................................................................. 5
DHS Appropriations: Comparing the Components ................................................................... 8
DHS Appropriations Compared to the Total DHS Budget ...................................................... 11
DHS Appropriations Trends: Size ........................................................................................... 11
DHS Appropriations Trends: Timing....................................................................................... 12
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations....................................................................... 13
Departmental Management...................................................................................................... 14
DHS Headquarters Consolidation ........................................................................................... 24
Analysis and Operations.......................................................................................................... 26
Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................... 29
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations ....................................................................... 31
Customs and Border Protection............................................................................................... 33
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.................................................................................. 43
Transportation Security Administration .................................................................................. 49
U.S. Coast Guard..................................................................................................................... 55
U.S. Secret Service.................................................................................................................. 57
Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ........................................................ 60
National Protection and Programs Directorate........................................................................ 62
Federal Protective Service....................................................................................................... 66
Office of Health Affairs........................................................................................................... 68
Federal Emergency Management Agency ............................................................................... 70
DHS State and Local Preparedness Grants.............................................................................. 71
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, and Services ....................................................... 79
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services............................................................................. 80
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center ............................................................................. 84
Science and Technology Directorate ....................................................................................... 85
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office......................................................................................... 86
Title V: General Provisions............................................................................................................ 88
Figures
Figure 1. DHS Appropriations by Component, FY2012-FY2013................................................. 10
Figure 2. DHS Gross Budget Breakdown: FY2012 Enacted v. FY2013 Request ......................... 11
Congressional Research Service
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Figure 3. DHS Appropriations Legislative Timing........................................................................ 13
Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of FY2013 Homeland Security Appropriations.................................... 1
Table 2. FY2012 and FY2013 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS...................................... 5
Table 3. DHS Net Discretionary Appropriations by Title, FY2012-FY2013 .................................. 6
Table 4. DHS Appropriations by Component, FY2012-FY2013..................................................... 8
Table 5. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2012 ........................................................................... 12
Table 6. Title I: Departmental Management and Operations, FY2012-FY2013............................ 14
Table 7. DHS Management Account Appropriations, FY2012-FY2013 ....................................... 15
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations, FY2012-FY2013 ............................ 31
Table 9. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Account Detail ...................................................... 35
Table 10. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Sub-Account Detail ............................. 45
Table 11. TSA, Requested Budgetary Resources, FY2013............................................................ 49
Table 12. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity.......................................................... 52
Table 13. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-Account Detail .................... 56
Table 14. FY2012 and FY2013 Budget Authority for the U.S. Secret Service ............................. 59
Table 15. Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, FY2012-FY2013 ........... 61
Table 16. Budget Authority for Infrastructure Protection and Information Security..................... 65
Table 17. Office of Health Affairs ................................................................................................. 69
Table 18. State and Local Grant Programs and Training ............................................................... 74
Table 19. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, and Services, FY2012-FY2013 .......... 79
Table 20. USCIS Budget Account Detail....................................................................................... 81
Table 21. Directorate of Science and Technology ......................................................................... 86
Table 22. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office............................................................................... 88
Table B-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2013 ............................ 94
Appendixes
Appendix A. Appropriations Terms and Concepts......................................................................... 91
Appendix B. DHS Appropriations in Context ............................................................................... 93
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 96
Congressional Research Service
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
his report presents an analysis of the discretionary appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) for fiscal year 2013 (FY2013). It compares the President’s
T request for FY2013 funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the enacted
FY2012 appropriations for DHS, and the House-passed and Senate-reported DHS appropriations
legislation for FY2013. It tracks legislative action and congressional issues related to these bills
with particular attention paid to discretionary funding amounts. The report does not provide in-
depth analysis of specific issues related to mandatory funding—such as retirement pay—nor does
the report systematically follow any other legislation related to the authorization or amendment of
DHS programs, activities, or fee revenues.
Most Recent Developments
Table 1. Legislative Status of FY2013 Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee
House
Conference Report
Markup
Passage
Approval
H.Rept.
H.R.
S.Rept.
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate 112-469
5855
112-169
Passage
Report
House Senate Law
5/9
5/15
5/16
6/7
5/22
— — — — —
(vv)
(vv)
(28-21)
(234-182)
(27-3)
Notes: (vv) = voice vote, (uc) = unanimous consent.
February 13, 2012—President’s FY2013 Budget Request Submitted
For FY2013, the Administration requested $39.510 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget
authority for DHS, as part of an overall budget request of $59.032 billion (including fees, trust
funds and other funding that is not appropriated or does not score against the budget caps). This
request amounts to a $90 million (0.2%) decrease below the $39.600 billion enacted for FY2012.
The overall estimated size of the DHS budget for FY2013 is $681 million (1.1%) below the
budget of $59.713 billion estimated for FY2012.1
May 22, 2012—Senate Committee Approves S. 3216
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2013 DHS Appropriations
bill on May 22, 2012 by a vote of 27-3. This report uses Senate-reported S. 3216 and the
accompanying report (S.Rept. 112-169) as the source for Senate-reported appropriations numbers.
The Senate bill as approved by the committee provides a net discretionary appropriation of
$39,514 million for DHS for FY2013, not including $254 million for overseas contingency
operations and $5,481 million for disaster relief that would be paid for by adjustments to the
discretionary spending cap under the BCA. With those exclusions, the Senate-reported bill would
provide less than $4 million above the Administration’s request, and $87 million (0.2%) below
the amount provided under P.L. 112-74.
1 Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justifications, Budget Tables and Explanation of Changes
for General Provisions, FY2013, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
1
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
June 7, 2012—House Passes H.R. 5855
On June 7, 2012, the House passed H.R. 5855 with several amendments. This report uses House-
passed H.R. 5855 and the accompanying report (H.Rept. 112-492) as the source for House-passed
appropriations numbers. After floor action the House bill carried a net discretionary appropriation
of $39,114 million for DHS for FY2013. Several floor amendments used management accounts
as offsets, leaving funding for those activities 27% below the requested level. Increases proposed
above the committee-recommended level for DHS activities included Customs and Border
Protection’s Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology account, Coast Guard’s
Operating Expenses account, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Urban Search and
Rescue Response activities and grant programs.
September 28, 2012—President Signs Six-Month CR
The President signed H.J.Res. 117 into law as P.L. 112-175 on September 28, 2012. This public
law is a continuing resolution (CR) that allows for the federal government to continue operations
in absence of regular appropriations through March 27, 2013, at an annualized rate of $1.047
trillion. It passed the House by a vote of 329-91 on September 13, 2012, and the Senate by a vote
of 62-30 on September 22, 2012.
As is often the case with continuing resolutions, P.L. 112-175 provides more limited direction
than is given through a traditional bill and conference report as to how funds should be divided
among individual programs, projects, and activities. The CR does, however, require the
department to provide an expenditure plan within 30 days of passage to outline how DHS chooses
to allocate those funds. Under the provisions of P.L. 112-175, most federal government activities
would be funded over the course of the CR at the FY2012 rate, plus 0.612%. One significant
difference from this baseline for DHS under the CR is a $282 million increase for its
cybersecurity programs.
Note on Most Recent Data
Data used in this report for FY2012 amounts are taken from the President’s Budget Documents,
H.Rept. 112-492 and S.Rept. 112-169. Information on the FY2013 request is from the President’s
Budget Documents, the FY2013 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, and the FY2013 DHS
Budget in Brief. Information on the House-passed FY2013 DHS Appropriations bill is from H.R.
5855 and H.Rept. 112-492, while information on the Senate-reported version of the same is from
S. 2316 and S.Rept. 112-169. Information on the continuing resolution is from H.J.Res. 117.
Historical funding data used in the appendices are taken from the Analytical Perspectives volume
of the FY2006-FY2013 President’s Budget. Except when discussing total amounts for the bill as a
whole, all amounts contained in this report are rounded to the nearest million.
Background
Department of Homeland Security
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred the functions, relevant funding,
and most of the personnel of 22 agencies and offices to the new Department of Homeland
Congressional Research Service
2
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Security created by the act. Appropriations measures for DHS have generally been organized into
five titles:
• Title I contains appropriations for the Office of Secretary and Executive
Management (OSEM), the Office of the Under Secretary for Management
(USM), the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of the Chief
Information Officer (CIO), Analysis and Operations (A&O), and the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG).
• Title II contains appropriations for Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard (USCG), and the Secret Service.2
• Title III contains appropriations for the National Protection and Programs
Directorate (NPPD), Office of Health Affairs (OHA) Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).3
• Title IV contains appropriations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS), the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), and the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).
• Title V contains general provisions providing various types of congressional
direction to the department.
The structure of the bill is not automatically symmetrical between House and Senate versions.
Additional titles are sometimes added to address special issues: For example, the FY2012 House
full committee mark-up added a sixth title to carry a $1 billion emergency appropriation for the
Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). The Senate version carried no additional titles beyond what is
described above. Although the structure of the components in the proposed FY2013
appropriations bills is largely parallel, there are some differences in the structure of
subcomponents and accounts which is noted throughout the body of the report.
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations
In general practice, the maximum budget authority for annual appropriations (including DHS) is
determined through a two-stage congressional budget process. In the first stage, Congress sets
overall spending totals in the annual concurrent resolution on the budget. Subsequently, these
amounts are allocated among the appropriations committees, usually through the statement of
managers for the conference report on the budget resolution. These amounts are known as the
302(a) allocations. They include discretionary totals available to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations for enactment in annual appropriations bills through the
2 The U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program was appropriated within Title II
through the FY2007 appropriation. The FY2008 appropriation transferred US-VISIT, as proposed by the
Administration, to the newly created National Protection & Programs Directorate (NPPD) in Title III. Division E of
P.L. 110-161, the DHS Appropriations Act, 2008, enacted this reorganization. The FY2013 budget request proposes a
further reorganization, splitting the program between CBP and ICE.
3 Through the FY2007 appropriation, Title III contained appropriations for the Preparedness Directorate, Infrastructure
Protection and Information Security (IPIS) and FEMA. The President’s FY2008 request included a proposal to shift a
number of programs and offices to eliminate the Preparedness Directorate, create the NPPD, and move several
programs to FEMA. These changes were largely agreed to by Congress in the FY2008 appropriation, reflected by Title
III in Division E of P.L. 110-161.
Congressional Research Service
3
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
subcommittees responsible for the development of the bills. In the second stage of the process,
the appropriations committees allocate the 302(a) discretionary funds among their subcommittees
for each of the appropriations bills. These amounts are known as the 302(b) allocations. These
allocations must add up to no more than the 302(a) discretionary allocation and form the basis for
enforcing budget discipline, since any bill reported with a total above the ceiling is subject to a
point of order. 302(b) allocations may be adjusted during the year by the Appropriations
Committee by issuing a report delineating the revised suballocations as the various appropriations
bills progress towards final enactment.
The FY2012 appropriations bills were the first appropriations bills that were affected by the
Budget Control Act (BCA), which established discretionary security and nonsecurity spending
caps for FY2012 and FY2013, and overall caps that will govern the actions of appropriations
committees in both houses. For FY2013, the BCA had set a separate cap of $686 billion for
security spending, defined to include the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, Budget
Function 150 for all international affairs programs, the National Nuclear Security Administration,
and the Intelligence Community Management Account that funds the offices of the Director of
National Intelligence. All other spending was capped at $361 billion out of the total of $1.047
trillion. In addition, the BCA allows for adjustments that would raise the statutory caps to cover
funding for overseas contingency operations/Global War on Terror, emergency spending, and, to a
limited extent, disaster relief and appropriations for continuing disability reviews and for
controlling health care fraud and abuse. In the absence of a budget resolution for FY2013, these
levels became the basis for enforcement in the Senate. In the House, the lower levels agreed to in
the House-passed budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 112) were made effective for purposes of
enforcement in the House by H.Res. 614 and H.Res. 643.
Because Congress did not enact legislation to produce savings as required under the BCA,
fallback procedures were triggered. These procedures include a revision of the budget categories
and spending limits. The revised security category is renamed defense and includes only
discretionary appropriations under Function 050 of the budget, and nonsecurity spending
encompasses everything else. Security spending would be allocated $546 billion, while
nonsecurity spending (including DHS) would be allocated $501 billion. Under existing law, on
January 2, 2013, if Congress has not passed legislation achieving $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction,
an automatic across-the-board cut in budget authority would be made to effect roughly $109
billion in savings in FY2013, and discretionary budget caps would be reduced through FY2021 to
provide the mandated level of deficit reduction.4
This report does not reflect the scorekeeping adjustments that may bring the total budget authority
provided in the appropriations proposals in line with the BCA caps and the 302(a) and 302(b)
allocations.
Table 2 shows DHS’s initial 302(b) allocations for FY2013, and comparable figures for FY2012
and the President’s request for FY2013.
4 For more information on the Budget Control Act of 2011, see CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011,
by Bill Heniff Jr., Elizabeth Rybicki, and Shannon M. Mahan.
Congressional Research Service
4
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Table 2. FY2012 and FY2013 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2012
FY2013 Request
FY2013 House
FY2013 Senate
FY2013 Enacted
Comparable
Comparable
Allocation
Allocation
Comparable
39.600a 39.485
39.117 39.514 pending
Source: U.S. Congress, House Appropriations, Homeland Security, FY2012 Homeland Security Bill - Summary
Table, 112th Congress, 1st session, May 12, 2011, and U.S. Congress, House Appropriations, Revised Suballocation
to Subcommittees Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Authority and Outlays, 112th Congress, 1st session, June 14, 2011, p. 2.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding.
a. This authority does not include the $258 million for overseas contingency operations or the separately
passed disaster relief of $6,400 million covered through adjustments to the discretionary spending cap set
by the Budget Control Act.
Adjustments to the Caps under BCA
Three of the four justifications outlined in the BCA for adjusting the caps on discretionary budget
authority have played a role in DHS’s appropriations process. Two of these—emergency spending
and overseas contingency operations/Global War on Terror—are not limited. At this printing, no
adjustment has been made for emergencies for FY2012 for DHS, and $258 million was provided
for Coast Guard overseas contingency operations under P.L. 112-331.
The third justification—disaster relief—is limited. Under the BCA, the allowable adjustment for
disaster relief is determined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), using the
following formula:
Limit on disaster relief cap adjustment for the fiscal year = Rolling average of the disaster
relief spending over the last ten fiscal years (throwing out the high and low years) + the
unused amount of the potential adjustment for disaster relief from the previous fiscal year.
For FY2012, OMB determined the allowable adjustment for disaster relief to be $11,252 million,
and appropriations action thus far has exercised $10,453 million of that adjustment, including
$6,400 million through FEMA.5 The remaining $799 million will be available to enlarge the
allowable adjustment for disaster relief for FY2013 through the formula laid out above.
Appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security
Summary of DHS Appropriations
Table 3 compares the enacted totals for FY2012 with the FY2013 request and congressionally
supported levels. Totals represent net discretionary budget authority, taking into account impacts
5 Office of Management and Budget, OMB Final Sequestration Report to the President and Congress for Fiscal Year
2012, Washington, DC, January 18, 2012, pp. 7-8.
Congressional Research Service
5
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
of rescissions, and are inclusive of emergency spending. Later tables will reflect fees and
mandatory spending.
Table 3. DHS Net Discretionary Appropriations by Title, FY2012-FY2013
(in millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority, rounded)
House-
Senate-
FY2012
FY2013
passed
reported
Title
Enacted
Request
H.R. 5855
S. 3216
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations
1,132
1,279
1,020
1,102
Title II: Security, Enforcement and Investigations
31,527
30,759
30,946
30,975
Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
5,680
5,911
5,930
5,971
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, and Services
1,332
1,561
1,510
1,535
Title V: General Provisions
-71
0
-292
-68
Total 39,600
39,510
39,114
39,514
Source: H.R. 5855, H.Rept. 112-492 and S.Rept. 112-169.
Notes: The standard legislative practice is to group rescissions with the bill’s general provisions, often resulting
in that title scoring as net negative budget authority. The executive budget usual y includes proposed rescissions
in the impacted component’s budget request. The FY2012 column reflects the impact of $204 million in
rescissions, while the Administration proposed $25 million in rescissions for FY2013. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended $292 million in rescissions, while the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $192 million. Amounts may not total due to rounding.
Operating Under a Continuing Resolution
A continuing resolution (CR) was signed into law on September 28, 2012, providing stopgap
funding for the federal government through March 27, 2013, or until the general appropriations
bills for FY2013 are enacted. The CR provides for the government to continue its operations in
FY2013 at largely the same rate as it did in FY2012, plus 0.612% for many covered projects and
activities. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provided an estimate on September 11, 2012,
of the appropriations and total spending provided under the CR if its rate were extended for the
full fiscal year. By CBO’s calculations, the CR would result in $1.047 trillion in appropriations
for the federal government.
CBO’s projection included an overall funding estimate of $46,772 million for DHS.6 This
includes $6,400 million for disaster relief and $258 million for overseas contingency operations
that do not count against the budget caps under the BCA. However, the CR anticipates further
action on FY2013 appropriations legislation, as indicated by its mid-year expiration date, and it
does not take account of any future action pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-
25). Therefore, the tables in this report do not reflect projections of FY2013 levels of spending for
DHS or its components.
As is the case with most CRs, it limits the authority of covered government entities to spend
money. These limits include provisions to provide funding “to the extent and in the manner” that
6 http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43581-HJRes117.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
it was provided in the FY2012 appropriations bills,7 to bar funding for activities not funded in
FY2012,8 to stop government agencies from taking actions that would impinge on the final
funding prerogatives of Congress,9 and to constrain funding decisions “so that only the most
limited funding action … shall be taken in order to provide for continuation of projects and
activities.”10 One new requirement, not typically carried in recent CRs, is that the federal
departments and agencies covered by the CR must provide spending plans within 30 days of the
CR’s enactment.11
Included in the CR are four provisions—known as “anomalies”—that apply to DHS. These
provide further direction specifically to the department, alter its authorities, or change the rate of
available funding from the baseline provided in the CR for other components. These are:
Sec. 136 allows DHS to obligate funds from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection—
Salaries and Expenses account at the rate necessary to maintain staffing levels for Border
Patrol agents, Border Protection officers, and Air and Marine interdiction.12
Sec. 137 allows DHS to obligate funds at a rate of operations for the National Protection and
Programs Directorate (NPPD)—Infrastructure Protection and Information Security account at
an annualized rate $282 million dollars higher than in FY2012, including specific funding set
asides for increases in network security deployment and federal network security, and
provides flexibility to allow for those funds to be obligated to “establish and sustain essential
cybersecurity activities, including procurement and operations of continuous monitoring and
diagnostics systems and intrusion detection systems for civilian Federal computer
networks.”13
Sec. 138 extends a provision allowing the Secret Service to use revenues derived from
criminal investigations.
Sec. 139 extends the authority for temporary regulations for chemical facility security.
Federal Civilian Employee Pay Raise
The Administration proposed a 0.5% pay increase for all civilian federal employees in its budget
request. Almost all DHS employees are considered civilians, with the significant exception of
Coast Guard military personnel.
The House rejected the proposed civilian pay raise, and that decision is reflected in a slight
reduction in all appropriations that fund civilian salaries. The Senate Appropriations Committee,
however, has recommended funding the pay raise.
7 H.J.Res. 117, Sec. 103.
8 H.J.Res. 117, Sec. 104.
9 H.J.Res. 117, Sec. 109.
10 H.J.Res. 117, Sec. 110.
11 H.J.Res. 117, Sec. 116(a).
12 H.J.Res. 117, Sec. 136. For further discussion, see “Continuing Resolution” on page 35.
13 H.J.Res. 117, Sec. 137(a).
Congressional Research Service
7
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
The CR does not provide the resources for a civilian pay raise. Section 112 of P.L. 112-175
provides that the amounts made available for civilian personnel compensation and benefits in the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may be apportioned, up to the rate for operations
necessary to avoid furloughs within the department, consistent with Division D of P.L. 112-74.
The authority cannot be used until after DHS has taken all necessary actions to reduce or defer
administrative expenses that are not related to personnel.
In an alternative pay plan, issued on August 21, 2012, President Barack Obama stated that the
base pay adjustment for federal white-collar civilian employees would be 0.5% for 2013.14 The
plan stated that the adjustment would become effective “after the continuing resolution expires.”
Section 114 of H.J.Res. 117 provides that any statutory pay adjustment15 otherwise scheduled to
take effect during FY2013 “may take effect on the first day of the first applicable pay period
beginning after” March 27, 2013.
DHS Appropriations: Comparing the Components
Unlike some other appropriations bills, breaking down the DHS bill by title does not provide a
great deal of transparency into where DHS’s appropriated resources are going. The various
components of DHS vary widely in the size of their appropriated budgets. Table 4 and Figure 1
show DHS’s discretionary budget authority broken down by component, from largest to smallest.
Table 4 presents the raw numbers, while Figure 1 presents the same data in a graphic format,
with additional information on the disaster relief and overseas contingency operations
adjustments to the allocation allowed under the Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25). For each set of
appropriations, the left column shows discretionary budget authority as scored against the bill’s
budget allocation, while the right column shows that plus resources available under the
adjustments. For the purposes of this report, funding provided under these adjustments is not
treated as appropriations.
Table 4. DHS Appropriations by Component, FY2012-FY2013
(in billions of dollars, rounded)
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House-
Senate-
Component
Enacted
Request
passed
reported
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
10.155
10.345
10.172
10.454
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
8.634
8.352
8.589
8.659
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
5.551
5.332
5.474
5.330
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
5.521
5.130
5.098
4.919
14 The President issued the plan under the provisions of the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990, Sec.
529 of P.L. 101-509; 104 Stat. 1389, at 1429-1431; 5 U.S.C. §§5301-5303. The plan is available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/21/letter-president-regarding-alternative-plan-pay-increases-
civilian-feder.
15 Statutory pay adjustment means adjustments to base pay under 5 U.S.C. §5303, to locality-based comparability
payments under 5 U.S.C. §5304 and 5 U.S.C. §5304(a), to Executive Schedule pay under 5 U.S.C. §5318, to Federal
Wage System (blue-collar) pay under 5 U.S.C. §5343(a), and any similar adjustment required by statute.
Congressional Research Service
8
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House-
Senate-
Component
Enacted
Request
passed
reported
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)0 4.267
4.528
4.451
4.582
U.S. Secret Service (USSS)
1.667
1.601
1.613
1.613
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD)
1.246
1.217
1.347
1.220
Science & Technology Directorate (S&T)
0.668
0.831
0.826
0.831
Departmental Management
0.677
0.813
0.594
0.655
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) 0.290
0.328
0.316
0.328
Analysis & Operations (A&O)
0.338
0.322
0.317
0.324
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)
0.271
0.258
0.256
0.258
Office of Health Affairs (OHA)
0.167
0.166
0.132
0.168
Office of the Inspector General (OHA)
0.117
0.144
0.109
0.123
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
0.102
0.143
0.112
0.117
General Provisions (net, not reflected visual y in Figure I)
-0.071
0.000
-0.292
-0.068
Total 39.600
39.510
39.114
39.514
Source: H.R. 5855, H.Rept. 112-492 and S.Rept. 112-169.
Notes: Table does not include adjustments for disaster relief or overseas contingency operations under the
Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25), or reflect non-appropriated resources available to DHS components.
Congressional Research Service
9
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Figure 1. DHS Appropriations by Component, FY2012-FY2013
(in millions of dollars, rounded)
Source: H.Rept. 112-492 and S.Rept. 112-169.
Chart Abbreviations: CBP, Customs and Border Protection; USCG, U.S. Coast Guard; ICE, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; TSA, Transportation Security Administration; FEMA, Federal Emergency Management
Administration; USSS, U.S. Secret Service; NPPD, National Protection and Programs Directorate; S&T, Science
and Technology Directorate; DNDO, Domestic Nuclear Detection Office; A&O, Analysis and Operations;
FLETC, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; OHA, Office of Health Affairs; OIG, Office of the Inspector
General; USCIS, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; DBA, discretionary budget authority; Adj,
adjustments to the discretionary budget caps established by the Budget Control Act.
Note: Amounts may not total due to rounding. Figure does not display rescissions and other general provisions
(although their impact is reflected in totals), or reflect non-appropriated resources available to DHS
components.
Congressional Research Service
10
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
DHS Appropriations Compared to the Total DHS Budget
It is important to note that Figure 1, even with its accounting for discretionary cap adjustments,
does not tell the whole story about the resources available to individual DHS components. Much
of DHS’s budget is not derived from discretionary appropriations. Some components, such as
TSA, rely on fee income or offsetting collections to support a significant amount of their
activities. Less than 4% of the budget for CIS is provided through direct appropriations—the rest
relies on fee income.
Figure 2 highlights how much of the DHS budget is not funded through discretionary
appropriations. It presents a comparison of the enacted FY2012 budget (as of August 1, 2012) and
the Administration’s FY2013 budget request, showing the discretionary appropriations,
mandatory appropriations, and adjustments under the Budget Control Act, in the context of the
total amount of budgetary resources available to DHS, as well as other non-appropriated
resources. The amounts shown in these graphs are derived from the Administration’s budget
request documents, and therefore do not exactly mirror the data presented in congressional
documents, which are the source for the other data presented in the report.
Figure 2. DHS Gross Budget Breakdown: FY2012 Enacted v. FY2013 Request
(millions of dollars in budget authority, rounded)
Source: DHS FY2013 Budget Request.
Notes: Budget numbers provided by OMB differ from congressional budget calculations due to a variety of
factors, including recalculations of fee income, availability of prior-year rescissions, reprogrammings, transfers
and other factors. Amounts may not total due to rounding.
DHS Appropriations Trends: Size
Table 5 presents DHS appropriations, as enacted, for FY2003 through FY2012. The
appropriation amounts are presented in current dollars and are not adjusted. The amounts shown
in Table 5 represent enacted amounts at the time of the start of the next fiscal year’s appropriation
cycle (with the exception of FY2009 and FY2011)—defined as the filing of the first committee
report to accompany a version of a DHS appropriations bill. In instances which a previous year’s
data are not reflected in the report, as was the case for data for FY2011, the alternative source is
noted.
Congressional Research Service
11
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Table 5. DHS Appropriations, FY2003-FY2012
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
29,069a 30,175 30,642b 31,679c 35,311d 38,817e 41,205 49,891f 43,405 47,698g
Sources: FY2008 data are from Division E of P.L. 110-161, and tables in the Joint Explanatory Statement for
Division E, published in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, pp. H16107-H16121 (incorporating
amendments to the budget request). FY2009 data are taken from S.Rept. 111-31. FY2010 data are from S.Rept.
111-222, P.L. 111-212, and P.L. 111-230. FY2011 data are from the DHS Expenditure Plan for Fiscal Year 2011, and
FY2012 data are from CRS analysis of H.Rept. 112-331 and P.L. 112-77.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding. Amounts do not include supplemental appropriations or
rescissions that were enacted subsequent to the enactment of each appropriations bill.
a. S.Rept. 108-86 reported the FY2003 enacted amount as $29,287 mil ion. CRS was unable to identify the
reason for this discrepancy. For the purposes of this table the House number was used to maintain
consistency with other fiscal years.
b. Amount does not include $4,703 million in advance appropriations for Project Bioshield.
c. Amount does not include $2,508 million in advance appropriations for Project Bioshield.
d. Amount includes $1,829 million in emergency budget authority that was enacted as a part of the FY2007
DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-295).
e. Amount includes $2,710 million in emergency funding for DHS enacted by Division E of P.L. 110-161.
f.
Includes net $5,754 million in supplemental spending (P.L. 111-212, P.L. 111-230).
g. Includes $6,400 million in supplemental disaster relief spending (P.L. 112-77).
DHS Appropriations Trends: Timing
The House Appropriations Committee’s full committee markup of H.R. 5855 was the second
earliest in the history of the DHS appropriations bill. The Senate Appropriations Committee’s full
committee markup of S. 3216 was the earliest the Senate has ever marked up the DHS
appropriations bill. Figure 3 shows the history of the timing of the DHS appropriations bills as
they have moved through various stages of the legislative process.
Congressional Research Service
12
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Figure 3. DHS Appropriations Legislative Timing
Source: CRS analysis.
Notes: Final action on the FY2011 appropriation for DHS did not occur until April 2011.
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations
Title I of the DHS appropriations bill provides funding for the department’s management
activities, Analysis and Operations (A&O) account, and the Office of the Inspector General
(OIG). The Administration requested $1,279 million for these accounts in FY2013, an increase of
$147 million above the enacted level. The House-passed bill provides $1,020 million, a decrease
of 20.2% from the requested level and 9.9% below FY2012. The Senate-reported bill provides
$1,102 million, 13.8% below the request and 2.7% below FY2012. Table 6 lists the enacted
amounts for the individual components of Title I for FY2012 (as of August 1, 2012), the
Administration’s request for these components for FY2013, and the House-passed and Senate-
reported appropriations for the same.
Congressional Research Service
13
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Table 6. Title I: Departmental Management and Operations, FY2012-FY2013
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013 Appropriation
FY2012
House-
Senate-
Enacted
Request
passed
reported Enacted
Office of the Secretary and Executive
133 134 122 133
Management
Office of the Under Secretary for Management
236
222
180
220
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
51
55
50
54
Office of the Chief Information Officer
257
313
242
248
Analysis and Operations
338
322
317
324
DHS Headquarters Consolidationa 0
89
0
0
Office of the Inspector Generalb
117 144 109 123
Net Budget Authority: Title I
1,132
1,279
1,020
1,102
Total Gross Budgetary Resources for
1,132 1,279 1,020 1,102
Title I Components before Transfers
Sources: CRS analysis of H.Rept. 112-331 (for FY2012), H.R. 5855, H.Rept. 112-492, and S.Rept. 112-169.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. This line only reflects funding for DHS Headquarters Consolidation included in Title I of the DHS
appropriations bill. Other funding has been provided under Coast Guard accounts and in general provisions
in previous years.
b. The Office of the Inspector General also receives transfers from FEMA to pay for oversight of disaster-
related activities that are not reflected in these tables.
Departmental Management16
The departmental management accounts cover the general administrative expenses of DHS. They
include the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM), which is comprised of
the Immediate Office of the Secretary and 12 entities that report directly to the Secretary; the
Under Secretary for Management (USM) and its components—the offices of the Chief
Administrative Officer (OCAO), Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO), Chief Procurement
Officer (OCPO), and Chief Security Officer (OCSO); the Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO); and the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO). The Administration has usually
requested funding for the consolidation of its headquarters here as well.
In this section and in each section hereafter, a graphic follows that provides a numeric and
graphic representation of the discretionary appropriation provided to each element of DHS
described in the report. This graphic provides a quick reference to the relative size of the
component to others in DHS as well as to the previous year’s enacted level, the FY2012 request,
and the House and Senate variants for FY2013.
16 Prepared by Barbara L. Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
14
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Table 7. DHS Management Account Appropriations, FY2012-FY2013
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013 Appropriation
FY2012
House-
Senate-
Enacted
Request
passed
reported Enacted
Office of the Secretary and Executive
133 134 122 133
Management
Immediate Office of the Secretary
5
4
4
4
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary
2
2
2
2
Office of the Chief of Staff
2
2
2
2
Executive Secretary
8
8
7
8
Office of Policy
40
44a 41 44
Office of Public Affairs
6
6
5
6
Office of Legislative Affairs
6
6
5
6
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
3
3
2
3
Office of General Counsel
22
22
20
22
Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
23
22
20
22
Citizenship and Immigration Services
6 6 5 6
Ombudsman
Privacy Officer
8
8
8
8
Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement
2
0
0
0
Floor Amendment
—
—
*b —
Under Secretary for Management
236 222 180 220
Immediate Office of the Under Secretary
3
3
3
3
Office of Security
70
69
69
69
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer
78
73
66
73
Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer
39
36
36
35
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer
46
41
40
40
Floor Amendments
—
—
-33c —
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
51
55
50
54
Congressional Research Service
15
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Office of the Chief Information Officer
257 313 242 248
DHS Headquarters Consolidationd 0
89e
0f
0g
Total, Departmental Management
677
813
594
655
Sources: CRS analysis of H.Rept. 112-331 (for FY2012), H.R. 5855, H.Rept. 112-492, and S.Rept. 112-169.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding.
a. This number for the Office of Policy reflects the existing structure of that office. The Administration
proposed it its FY2013 budget request separating the Office of International Affairs, Office of State and
Local Law Enforcement and the Private Sector Office from of the Office of Policy. The House and Senate
Appropriations committees rejected this proposal. This number for the Office of Policy reflects the existing
structure of that office.
b. H.Amdt. 1232, to reduce funds for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management by $50,000 and
increase funds for Security, Enforcement, and Investigations U.S. Customs and Border Protection Salaries
and Expenses by $43,000, was offered by Representative Jeff Flake, and agreed to by voice vote on June 6,
2012.
c. Four amendments passed the House that impacted this account by a total of $32.667 million:
H.Amdt. 1236 to decrease funds for the Office of the Under Secretary for Management by $7,667,000 and
increase funds for the Federal Emergency Management Agency Urban Search and Rescue Response System
by $7,667,000, offered by Representative Michael Grimm, and agreed to by voice vote on June 6, 2012.
H.Amdt. 1237 to reduce funds for the Office of the Under Secretary for Management by $10 million and
increase funds for the Federal Emergency Management Agency State and Local Programs by $10 million,
offered by Representative Hansen Clarke, and agreed to on a 211-202 (Rol No. 348) vote on June 6, 2012.
H.Amdt. 1238 to reduce funds for the Office of the Under Secretary for Management by $10 million and
increase funds for U.S. Customs and Border Protection Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology by
$10 million, offered by Representative Ted Poe, and agreed to on a 302-113 (Roll No. 352) vote on June 6,
2012.
H.Amdt. 1239 to reduce funds for the Office of the Under Secretary for Management by $5 million and
increase funds for Firefighter Assistance Grants by $5 million, offered by Representative Jon Runyan, and
agreed to by voice vote on June 6, 2012.
d. This line only reflects funding for DHS Headquarters Consolidation included in Title I of the DHS
appropriations bill. Other funding has been provided under Coast Guard accounts and in general provisions
in previous years.
e. $24.5 million for the Coast Guard’s move to the new headquarters at St. Elizabeths is included under Coast
Guard Operating Expenses in Title II.
f.
$24.5 million for the Coast Guard’s move to the new headquarters at St. Elizabeths is included under Coast
Guard Operating Expenses and $10 million is included under Coast Guard Construction for design work on
the consolidated headquarters in Title II.
g. $24.5 million for the Coast Guard’s move to the new headquarters at St. Elizabeths is included under Coast
Guard Operating Expenses in Title II and $89 million for DHS Headquarters Consolidation is included in
Title V.
FY2013 Request
The FY2013 request compared to the FY2012 enacted appropriations as follows: OSEM, $134
million, an increase of $1 million (0.7%); USM, $222 million, a decrease of $14 million (5.9%);
OCFO, $55 million, an increase of $5 million (9.0%); and OCIO, $313 million, an increase of
$55 million (21.5%). The total request for departmental management activities in Title I for
FY2012 was $724 million, not including the $89 million for the consolidation of DHS
headquarters on the campus of St. Elizabeths, an effort discussed elsewhere in the report.
Congressional Research Service
16
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM)
The Administration requested $134 million for OSEM. The Administration’s budget proposed
separate line items for three offices—the Office of International Affairs, the Office of State and
Local Law Enforcement, and the Private Sector Office—that are currently funded under the
Office of Policy.
Two program changes funded through this request were for the Citizenship and Immigration
Services Ombudsman: $135,000 to continue the training program—“Counter Violent Extremism
Through Community Partnerships”—for state, local, and federal law enforcement personnel; and
more than a million dollars to allow the office “to further provide policy advice, investigations,
and training” related to ICE Secure Communities and 287(g) programs.17
Under Secretary for Management (USM)
The Administration requested $222 million for the USM and 902 full-time employee equivalents
(FTEs). Several program changes were proposed under this appropriation:
• The Immediate Office of the Under Secretary for Management (OUSM) includes
an increase of $441,000 for the transfer of the Directives function from the Office
of the Chief Administrative Officer to the OUSM;
• The OCHCO includes $26 million for salaries and expenses and $10 million for
Human Resources Information Technology,18 including a requested increase of
almost $2 million to realign the Safety function from the OCAO to the OCHCO;
and
• The USM includes $5 million for continued improvements to the Nebraska
Avenue Complex.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
The Administration requested $55 million for the OCFO, including $6.7 million for the Financial
Systems Modernization effort. According to the OCFO justification, the money will be used to
complete the implementation of “a new core financial system at the Federal Emergency
Management Agency” in FY2013. The “new financial system is needed ... to accurately account
for, track, and report on FEMA resources, and meet minimum federal financial system processing
requirements.”19
17 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Departmental Management and Operations, Office of the Secretary and
Executive Management, Congressional Justification, Fiscal Year 2013, pp. OSEM-28 and OSEM-30.
18 Human Resources Information Technology (HRIT) “supports the overall Mission of the Human Capital Business
Systems (HCBS) portfolio to implement and manage a consolidated suite of modernized human resource information
technology business solutions by means of leveraging current enterprise solutions, reducing redundancies, and
increasing the functionality of HR systems across the Enterprise.” (U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Departmental Management and Operations, Under Secretary for Management, Congressional Justification, Fiscal
Year 2013, p. USM-12.)
19 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Departmental Management and Operations, Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, Congressional Justification, Fiscal Year 2013, pp. OCFO-9 – OCFO-10.
Congressional Research Service
17
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)
The Administration requested $313 million for the OCIO. Within the OCIO account,
Infrastructure and Security Activities requested $122 million, including $65 million “to fully
complete the data center migration activities for CBP, TSA, and USCIS.” The justification stated
that “execution of the planned timeline” for the migration “will enable continued closures of the
major Component data centers and achieve the Secretary’s goal of the Department’s consolidation
to two data centers across the enterprise.”20
House-Passed H.R. 5855
H.R. 5855, as reported by the House Committee on Appropriations, would provide the following
appropriations as compared with the President’s request: OSEM, $122 million ($12 million or
8.5% less); USM, $213 million ($9 million or 4% less); OCFO, $50 million ($5 million or 9%
less); OCIO, $242 million ($71 million or 23% less). The total funding recommended by the
House Appropriations committee for management activities under Title I was $627 million. This
represented a decrease of $97 million, or 13.4%, from the President’s request, not including the
handling of the DHS Headquarters project. These reductions were justified by the committee not
only on the basis of the need to cover the lack of revenue from unrealized funding proposals that
were intended to offset the cost of the bill, but also due to failure to comply with several statutory
requirements laid out in previous appropriations bills.
During floor consideration a number of amendments were offered that used departmental
management accounts as offsets. In total, these amendments further reduced the budget for
management by $32 million, mostly taking funds from the budget of the USM, leaving them with
an appropriation of $180 million, which is $41 million (18.6%) less than the requested level.
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM)
Within OSEM, funding of up to $45,000 was recommended for official reception and
representation expenses, of which $17,000 was for international programs within the Office of
Policy and activities related to the visa waiver program. These reception and representation
expenses were the target of an amendment offered by Representative Flake, who used the funds
to increase U.S. Customs and Border Protection Salaries and Expenses by $43,000. The
amendment was agreed to by a voice vote on June 6, 2012.
OSEM was also the target of significant provisions withholding appropriated funds from use.
Some $71 million was withheld from obligation until all reports that are required, by statute, to be
submitted with or in conjunction with the FY2014 budget request are received by the
committee.21 A general provision (Section 549) went further, barring the use of Coast Guard-
operated fixed wing aircraft by the Secretary of DHS, her deputy, the Commandant of the Coast
Guard, or the Vice Commandant, except in case of emergency, until two key reports are submitted
to the House and Senate appropriations committees.22
20 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Departmental Management and Operations, Office of the Chief Information
Officer, Congressional Justification, Fiscal Year 2013, p. OCIO-19.
21 H.Rept. 112-492, p. 8.
22 H.R. 5855, pp. 83-85.
Congressional Research Service
18
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
In addition, funding of $5 million was withheld “from obligation for the Office of General
Counsel until a final overseas aircraft repair station security regulation has been published.”
Under Secretary for Management (USM)
Under the USM appropriation, more than $124 million is withheld from obligation until the
Committee receives all reports that are, by statute, required to be submitted with or in conjunction
with the FY2014 budget request. The House Appropriations Committee recommends a reduction
of $7 million (10%) from the requested level for OCPO for “failure to comply with the statutory
requirement to submit on time a comprehensive acquisition report with quarterly updates.”23
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
Under the OCFO account, more than $29 million is withheld from obligation until the Committee
receives all reports and plans that are, by statute, required to be submitted with or in conjunction
with the FY2014 budget request. The report also expresses the view that the House
Appropriations Committee does not intend for the appropriations liaisons in OCFO—which were
established to ensure the Appropriations Committees have the necessary access to budgetary
information—to serve as intermediaries between the committees and department components.
The report states that “the Committee expects to hear from relevant components on their areas of
responsibility directly.”24
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)
The recommended appropriation of $242 million for the Office of the Chief Information Officer
would be allocated to two sub-appropriations: $117 million for salaries and expenses and $125
million for development and acquisition of information technology equipment, software, services,
and related activities. The recommended appropriation also includes $27 million for Information
Technology Services and $55 million for Security Activities. The House report states that the
committee supports “the migration of component resources to the Department’s two consolidated
data centers,”25 but does not provide the proposed $65 million for the migration because of the
significant shortfalls in the President’s budget request mentioned above.
Senate-Reported S. 3216
S. 3216, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, would provide the following
appropriations, as compared with the President’s request: OSEM, $133 million ($1 million or
0.8% less); USM, $220 million ($2 million or 0.7% less); OCFO, $54 million ($2 million or 3.1%
less); and OCIO, $248 million ($65 million or 20.7% less). The total funding provided by the
Senate-reported bill for departmental management in Title I was $655 million. This would
represent a decrease of $69 million, or 9.5%, from the President’s request, not including the
funding for DHS headquarters consolidation at St. Elizabeths.
23 Ibid, p. 19.
24 Ibid., p. 23.
25 Ibid., p. 24.
Congressional Research Service
19
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM)
The committee report highlights a requested programmatic increase for the Office for Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties (OCRCL), “including $1,327,000 for OCRCL to ensure that the
Department’s immigration efforts comply with all applicable civil rights statutes and
constitutional requirements.”26 Even with this increase the recommended budget for OCRCL is
down by roughly $1 million (3.5%) from FY2012 levels, although it is the level requested for the
office by the Administration.
The committee report notes that DHS discontinued funding for its historian, who was tasked with
maintaining the historical record of DHS, and encourages the Secretary to fill the position again
using funds provided in FY2013.27
The committee report also notes that funding for reception and representation expenses was
reduced by 15% for FY2012 and was further reduced by 10% for FY2013 “In recognition of a
more constrained budget environment and to limit opportunities for waste and abuse.”28
Under Secretary for Management (USM)
According to the report, the Committee’s recommendation under the USM “includes funding for
robust oversight of major acquisitions, recruitment and development of a skilled workforce, and
security measures to safeguard DHS personnel, property, facilities, and information.” The report
stated that reductions in funding for individual offices below the request, unless otherwise
specifically addressed, “are due to a constrained budget environment and to focus limited
resources on the Department’s critical operational missions.”29 For the OCHCO, an appropriation
of $35 million was recommended, $1 million below the request, with the reduction coming in the
Salaries and Expenses account.
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)
For the OCIO, the recommended appropriation of $248 million included $121 million for salaries
and expenses and $127 million to be available through FY2015 for technology investments across
the department that are overseen by the OCIO, including $57 million for development and
acquisition of information technology equipment, software, services, and related activities. $65
million for data center migration is carried in a general provision in Title V, bringing the total in
the bill for the OCIO to the level of the Administration’s request. The committee report noted that
investment in data center consolidation will result in savings of nearly $3 billion by 2030.30
26 S.Rept. 112-169, p. 12.
27 Ibid., pp. 12-13.
28 Ibid., p. 15.
29 Ibid., p. 17.
30 Ibid., p. 25.
Congressional Research Service
20
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Issues for Congress
The reports of the House and Senate Appropriations committees that accompany H.R. 5855 and
S. 3216 identified several issues before the department, including the Administration’s proposal to
add separate line items under OSEM for three offices, new revenue assumptions underlying the
department’s budget, the department’s chronic lateness in submitting plans and reports required
by statute, travel by DHS employees, awards for DHS employees, and conference spending by
the department. Brief discussions of each of these issues follow.
Proposed Separate Line Items
The Administration’s budget proposed separate line items for three offices—the Office of
International Affairs (OIA), the Office of State and Local Law Enforcement (SLLE), and the
Private Sector Office (PSO)—that are currently funded under the Office of Policy. Under the
proposal, each of the offices would have directly reported to the OSEM. Both the House and
Senate Appropriations committees denied the proposal. The House committee noted that none of
the offices are headed by individuals who are Senate-confirmed. Stating that the “proposal is
inconsistent with the goal of a more streamlined department and of reducing administrative
overhead” and that “international affairs policy formulation and coordination” is “an inherently
appropriate function of the Office of Policy,” the House committee report “directs the Department
to report ... on the potential of establishing an external affairs office that might include,
consolidate, and streamline the PSO and SLLE functions, and those of other existing external
affairs offices (namely the Offices of Legislative Affairs, Intergovernmental Affairs, and Public
Affairs) that currently report to the Secretary.” The report is to be submitted within 90 days after
enactment. The House report explained that “The Committee does not suggest any diminution of
stakeholder access or priority of any external affairs office” and would allow “the external affairs
entities to focus on unique constituencies and better coordinate communications with those
constituencies and internally within the Department.”31 The Senate committee report noted that
DHS has not provided “a compelling rationale for why these offices need to be stand alone
entities” and that “these functions have been performed adequately within the Office of Policy.”32
Revenue Assumptions
The Administration’s budget included three legislative proposals that would increase the
budgetary resources available to Department: an increase in the aviation security fee,
authorization for the use of customs fee revenues, and authority for the CBP to enter into
reimbursement agreements with outside parties to provide customs services.
The House rejected all three proposals. The House committee report noted in the Chief Financial
Officer’s section that “the President’s budget once again assumes that new revenue will be
realized in the coming fiscal year,” and that in the case of the new aviation security fee increase,
the Congressional Budget Office estimates “a shortfall of $115 million” in the DHS budget
because the assumptions are dependent “on enactment of new legislative authority that is outside
the jurisdiction of the Committee.”33 According to the report:
31 H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 8-9.
32 S.Rept. 112-169, p. 12.
33 H.Rept. 112-492, p. 22.
Congressional Research Service
21
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
As this Committee has underscored repeatedly over the past several Congresses, such an
approach to budgeting is unrealistic and requires this Committee to take drastic measures to
offset the unnecessary gap. The Committee reiterates its message—it rejects such budgetary
legerdemain. The consequences, in terms of additional reductions to Department requests,
are evident throughout this bill. If and when such proposals are enacted into law, the
Committee will take them into account as it drafts legislation, and the Department should
keep the Committee informed of any progress in this regard. However, until that occurs, such
proposals will not be treated as relevant to its appropriations work.34
The CBP fee issue is addressed in more detail later in the report, and the House was silent on the
proposal to allow CBP to enter into reimbursable agreements to provide customs services.
The Senate Appropriations Committee included all three provisions, but does not address them
under this title in the report. Because the House bill does not include any revenue provisions,
should the Senate language be added to the House bill, constitutional issues may arise with the
Senate-originated revenue provisions. Under Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, legislation
including provisions raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives rather than in
the Senate.35
Plans and Reports Required by Statute
The House committee report expressed concern about the late submission of plans and reports
and plans that are required by statute to be transmitted to Congress and, therefore, withheld a
portion of funding from departmental management accounts as detailed in the section on FY2013
House-reported actions. According to the report:
The Department has been egregiously late in responding to Congressional direction,
including failing to submit the majority of statutorily required reports on time. This failure to
comply with the law is wholly unacceptable.... The investment plans, expenditure plans,
reports, and justifications outlined by the Committee are essential if it is to help DHS better
protect the American people and live up to exacting standards of fiscal responsibility.
Such plans are vital to the Committee’s oversight work, yet in far too many instances such
plans—which should reflect decisions already made by the Department to align current
program priorities with resources—have been inexcusably late, incomplete, or have not yet
been submitted at all. In some cases, expenditure plans that should have been submitted at
the beginning of a fiscal year to show how the Department planned to expend its funding,
instead have been submitted well after the end of the fiscal year.
The Committee expects the Department to comply with these statutory requirements, with
regard to both content and schedule. The Committee notes that the majority of statutorily
required reports and plans are presently more than three months late....36
The Senate-reported bill proposes withholding 59% of the budgets of OSEM, USM and CFO
though a general provision “until all statutorily required expenditure reports are submitted on
time.” This generally has the same effect as the House provision (the House withholdings,
34 Ibid., p. 22.
35 For a more detailed discussion of this issue, please consult CRS Report RL31399, The Origination Clause of the U.S.
Constitution: Interpretation and Enforcement, by James V. Saturno.
36 Ibid., pp. 6, 10, and 11.
Congressional Research Service
22
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
proposed as fixed numbers, were roughly 58% of the committee recommended levels), but House
floor action reduced the USM budget to the point that if its provisions were to become law for
FY2013, 70% of the USM budget would be withheld.
Travel by DHS Employees
The House committee report expressed concern “that travel by some Department officials fails to
meet the test of being both necessary and efficient” and that travel expenditures “are far beyond
what is provided in law.” The concern extended to non-emergency travel using departmental
assets, “such as Coast Guard aircraft, to transport agency officials for non-operational purposes.”
Noting that current law requires the costs of government aircraft used for official travel by the
Secretary and Deputy Secretary to be paid for from amounts made available for their offices, the
report stated that hearing testimony has revealed that the Coast Guard is covering “a significant
amount of travel costs.” The report stated the committee’s expectation that the department will
comply with the law and “directs the Department to provide a semi-annual briefing to the
Committee, with detailed emphasis on foreign travel” and including estimates of the cost and
funding source of such travel, “destinations, and purposes.”37
The Senate committee report briefly mentions cutting travel as a means of reducing overhead, but
it does not require a briefing.38
Awards for DHS Employees
The House committee report noted that “many Department components, offices, and sub-offices”
are giving performance awards and quality step increases “to more than half the employees in an
organization” and “in some cases, reaching 90 percent or higher.” The report expressed the
committee’s view that this practice “gives the appearance that such incentive awards are being
used simply as another form of compensation in lieu of pay increases” and included a directive
requiring the Secretary to submit a report on the standards for performance awards, their use
compared with federal agencies that are similar to the department, and that clarifies use to reward
“extraordinary or sustained high levels of performance.”39 The report would be submitted within
90 days after the act’s enactment.
The Senate report does not comment on this issue.
Conference Spending
The House committee report, noting the findings of the General Services Administration (GSA)
inspector general with regard to GSA conference spending and the necessity for better “oversight
of expenditures during the current fiscal climate,” would require the department’s Office of
Inspector General to report on “whether the Department has effective procedures in place to
ensure compliance with all applicable Federal laws and regulations on travel, conferences, and
employee awards programs.”40 The report would be submitted to the Committee within 30 days
37 Ibid., p. 15.
38 S.Rept. 112-169, pp. 11, 15.
39 H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 15-16.
40 Ibid., p. 16.
Congressional Research Service
23
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
after the act’s enactment. New general provisions related to conference spending are also included
at Sections 556 and 557 of the House and Senate bills.
Both bills include a provision requiring a quarterly report to the DHS OIG on every “conference,
ceremony or similar event” that costs the government more than $20,000. The OIG would then
report to the committee after the end of FY2013 on the department’s spending on these events.
The Senate provision goes on to restrict the use of grants or contracts funded by the department to
fund conferences unrelated to the original purpose of the grant or contract award, and bars the use
of funds for travel or conference activities that do not comply with OMB Memorandum M-12-12,
which provides government-wide direction on spending on travel, conferences, real property, and
fleet management.41
Both bills also limit the number of employees that can attend an overseas conference. The House
limits attendance to 50 employees of DHS at any single conference outside the United States,
unless the conference is a training or operation conference for law enforcement, and the majority
of federal attendees are law enforcement officers. The Senate caps attendance at 50 employees
per DHS component, unless the Secretary notifies the Appropriations committees in advance that
attendance is important to the national interest.42
DHS Headquarters Consolidation43
The Department of Homeland Security’s headquarters footprint occupies more than 7 million
square feet of office space in about 45 separate locations in the greater Washington, DC, area.
This is largely a legacy of how the department was assembled in a short period of time from 22
separate federal agencies who were themselves spread across the National Capital region. The
fragmentation of headquarters is cited by the Department as a major contributor to inefficiencies,
including time lost shuttling staff between headquarters elements; additional security, real estate,
and administrative costs; and reduced cohesion among the components that make up the
department.
To unify the department’s headquarters functions, the department and General Services
Administration (GSA) approved a $3.4 billion master plan to create a new DHS headquarters on
the grounds of St Elizabeths in Anacostia. According to GSA, this would be the largest federal
office construction since the Pentagon was built during World War II. $1.4 billion of this project
was to be funded through the DHS budget, and $2 billion through the GSA.44 Thus far $375
million has been appropriated to DHS for the project and $871 million to GSA. Phase 1A of the
project—a new Coast Guard headquarters facility—is nearing completion with the funding
already provided by Congress.
Not all DHS functions in the greater Washington, DC, area are slated to move to the new facility.
The Administration has sought funding several times in recent years for consolidation of some of
those other offices to fewer locations to save money on lease costs.
41 H.R. 5885, Sec. 557; S. 3216, Sec. 556; and OMB Memorandum M-12-12, May 11, 2012.
42 H.R. 5885, Sec. 556; S. 3216, Sec. 557.
43 Prepared by William L. Painter, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government
and Finance Division.
44 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Homeland Security
Headquarters Facilities, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., March 25, 2010 (Washington: GPO, 2010), pp. 335-366.
Congressional Research Service
24
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
FY2013 Request
The Administration requested $89 million for the activities related to the St. Elizabeths DHS
headquarters project as part of the budget for departmental operations. The funding was requested
for a highway interchange that would handle some of the increased traffic generated by the
consolidated headquarters facility.45 This is an element that would support the project, but that has
not traditionally been funded through the Homeland Security appropriations bill. Usually these
types of infrastructure elements would have been funded through the budgets of the General
Services Administration or Department of Transportation. The Administration also requested
$24.5 million under the Coast Guard operating expenses budget for the cost of moving the Coast
Guard into its new facility in the third quarter of FY2013. No other requests for funding for the
DHS consolidated headquarters project were included in the budget submission to Congress.
House-Passed H.R. 5855
The House Appropriations Committee recommended no funding for the highway interchange or
any part of the St. Elizabeths project through the management accounts, noting the irregularity of
funding a highway interchange through the Homeland Security bill. The bill does provide the
Administration’s requested funding for the Coast Guard to move to the new facility. In addition,
$10 million is provided through the Coast Guard’s construction budget to provide additional
support for the project.
In the report accompanying H.R. 5855, the committee noted the following:
The Committee recommends no new construction funding in the bill for new Departmental
Headquarters Consolidation expansion. This is $89,000,000 below the request. Funding is
included, as requested, as part of the Coast Guard appropriation to cover the costs associated
with completing the move of the Coast Guard headquarters to St. Elizabeths. Associated with
this, as described below, is additional funding under Coast Guard construction to ensure
completion of the current project, improve site access, and support analysis for follow on
work and any necessary planning adjustments for schedule, scope, and cost.
…
The Committee understands that the Department, through USM, is actively exploring options
to creatively modify or consolidate current leases, in the expectation that a permanent
headquarters construction site will be significantly delayed or amended. The Committee
encourages the Department to continue this effort and to inform the Committee of its
progress in consolidation no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
including a revised schedule and cost estimates. Further, as noted above, the Committee
includes $10,000,000 under the Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
account to complete Phase 1 of construction, ensure Coast Guard will be able to move in
2013 and that there will be no obstacles to access and transportation into the site, and to
support orderly planning and analysis for the overall project.46
45 Department of Homeland Security, Departmental Management and Operations Fiscal Year 2013 Congressional
Justification, DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project, Washington, DC, February 2012, pp. 1-2.
46 H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 19-20.
Congressional Research Service
25
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
In the minority views accompanying the report, the ranking members of the subcommittee and
full committee noted the following:
The bill also fails to provide the $89 million for site access, including necessary road and
interchange improvements, for DHS personnel to access the new DHS headquarters. The
new DHS headquarters project has been shortchanged over the past few years, causing
repeated schedule delays and increasing the costs from $3.4 billion to just over $4 billion if
all three phases are constructed. In the interim, the Coast Guard may be the only tenant at
this new facility for the next 3–5 years, as the bill funds only this relocation in 2013. The bill
does not include any funding for Phase 2, which was to begin construction for DHS central
headquarters and FEMA.47
No amendments were considered on the House floor addressing DHS headquarters consolidation.
Senate-Reported S. 3216
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $89 million for the highway interchange,
although it was funded as a part of the Under Secretary for Management’s office through a
general provision rather than as a stand-alone appropriation in departmental operations as it was
requested. The committee also fully funded the Coast Guard’s move under Coast Guard operating
expenses. No funding was provided for the project through the Coast Guard construction budget.
An attempt was made to use the $89 million for the highway interchange as an offset for an
unrelated amendment in full committee markup of the bill. The amendment failed, and the
funding remains in the reported version of the legislation.
In the report accompanying S. 3216, the committee noted the following:
Pursuant to section 549, a total of $89,000,000 is provided for ‘‘Office of the Under
Secretary for Management’’ for costs associated with headquarters consolidation and
mission support consolidation. The Under Secretary shall submit an expenditure plan no later
than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act detailing how these funds will be
allocated, including a revised schedule and cost estimates for headquarters consolidation.
Quarterly briefings are required on headquarters and mission support consolidation activities,
including any deviation from the expenditure plan. According to the Department, an updated
plan is being developed in coordination with the General Services Administration to
complete the headquarters consolidation project in smaller, independent segments that are
more fiscally manageable in the current budget environment. The Department expects this
updated plan to be completed by the end of summer 2012 and it is to be submitted to the
Committee upon its completion. The Committee expects the plan to identify the discrete
construction segments, the associated resource requirements for each segment, and the
proposed timeline for requesting funding to complete each segment.48
Analysis and Operations49
Funds included in the Analysis and Operations account support both the Office of Intelligence
and Analysis (I&A) and the Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS). I&A is
47 H.Rept. 112-492, p. 204.
48 S.Rept. 112-169, p. 20.
49 Prepared by Jerome P. Bjelopera, Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
26
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
responsible for managing the DHS intelligence enterprise and for collecting, analyzing, and
sharing intelligence information for and among all components of DHS, and with the state, local,
tribal, and private sector homeland security partners. Because I&A is a member of the intelligence
community,50 its budget comes in part from the classified National Intelligence Program.51 OPS
develops and coordinates departmental and interagency operations plans and manages the
National Operations Center, the primary 24/7 national-level hub for domestic incident
management, operations coordination, and situational awareness, fusing law enforcement,
national intelligence, emergency response, and private sector information.
FY2013 Request
The FY2013 request for the Analysis and Operations account was $322 million, a decrease of $16
million (4.7%) from the enacted FY2012 level of $338 million. The account request includes
funding for 849 FTE, a decrease of 2 FTE from 2012.
House-Passed H.R. 5855
The House passed $317 million for the Analysis and Operations account, $4.5 million (1.4%)
below the amount in the President’s FY2013 request. The recommendation is $21 million (6.1%)
less than the amount enacted in FY2012.
According to H.Rept. 112-492, the House Committee on Appropriations also recommended
denying the proposed:
• increase in executive service salaries for the Office of Operations Coordination
and Planning;
• increase in funding associated with the Air Domain Intelligence Integration
Element; and
50 The intelligence community (IC), as defined in 50 USC 401a(4), includes the Central Intelligence Agency, the
National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Geospatial-Imagery Agency, the Defense
Intelligence Agency, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the State Department, the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis of the Treasury Department, DHS’s I&A as well as intelligence elements within the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Department of Energy, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the
Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard.
51 The National Intelligence Program “funds Intelligence Community (IC) activities in six Federal departments, the
Central Intelligence Agency, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The IC provides intelligence
collection, the analysis of that intelligence, and the responsive dissemination of intelligence to those who need it—
including the President, the heads of Executive Departments, military forces, and law enforcement agencies.” See
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2013-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2013-BUD-8.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
27
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
• decrease to Cybersecurity Analysis (thus restoring funding for this function).
No changes to those positions were made in House floor action.
Senate-Reported S. 3216
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $324 million for the Analysis and
Operations account. This is an decrease of $14 million (4.1%) below the enacted FY2012 amount
of $338 million and an increase of $2 million (0.6%) from the President’s FY2013 request. It is
an increase of $7 million (2.2%) above the amount passed in the House.
According to S.Rept. 112-169, the Senate Committee on Appropriations required DHS’s Chief
Intelligence Officer to submit an expenditure plan for FY2013 no later than 60 days after the
enactment of the appropriations bill. The Committee directed DHS to focus the plan on I&A’s
functions that provide unique expertise or serve intelligence customers who are not supported by
other components of the intelligence community. The Committee also directed I&A to continue
its semi-annual briefings on the State and Local Fusion Centers program.
Issues for Congress
Some Members of Congress have voiced concerns about I&A’s mission. For example,
Representative Sue Myrick has stated that “I&A historically has suffered from a lack of focus in
its mission. This challenge partially stems from vague or overlapping authorities in some areas.”52
Representative Myrick made these comments in an opening statement for a January 2012 House
of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence hearing about DHS’s role in the
intelligence community.53 The hearing centered on a report about DHS’s intelligence mission
issued by the Aspen Institute.54 While not specifically covering I&A, the report suggested that
intelligence activities at DHS should avoid duplication of efforts—such as general analysis of
terrorist activities—performed by other agencies. Rather, according to the Aspen Institute,
DHS’s mandate should allow for collection, dissemination, and analytic work that is focused
on more specific homeward-focused areas. First, the intelligence mission could be directed
toward areas where DHS has inherent strengths and unique value (e.g., where its personnel
and data are centered) that overlap with its legislative mandate. Second, this mission
direction should emphasize areas that are not served by other agencies, particularly
state/local partners whose needs are not a primary focus for any other federal agency.55
52 U.S. Congress, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human
Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence, The Role of DHS in the IC: A Report by the Aspen Institute, 112th
Cong., 2nd sess., January 18, 2012, Opening Statement (as prepared) by Rep. Sue Myrick, p. 1,
http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/011812MyrickOpeningStatement.pdf.
53 See U.S. Congress, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human
Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence, The Role of DHS in the IC: A Report by the Aspen Institute, 112th
Cong., 2nd sess., January 18, 2012, http://intelligence.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-terrorism-humint-analysis-and-
counterintelligence-role-dhs-ic-report-aspen.
54 Aspen Institute, Homeland Security and Intelligence: Next Steps in Evolving the Mission, January 18, 2012,
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/homeland-security-intelligence-next-steps-evolving-mission?utm_source=
as.pn&utm_medium=urlshortener.
55 Ibid., p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
28
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
The language in S.Rept. 112-169 requiring DHS to provide an expenditure plan centered around
I&A’s functions also highlights concerns regarding I&A’s mission, particularly its potential
duplication of intelligence efforts by other federal agencies.
Office of the Inspector General56
The DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is intended to be an independent, objective body
that conducts audits and investigations of the department’s activities to prevent waste, fraud and
abuse; keeps Congress informed about problems within the department’s programs and
operations; ensures DHS information technology is secure pursuant to the Federal Information
Security Management Act; and reviews and makes recommendations regarding existing and
proposed legislation and regulations to the department. The OIG reports to Congress and the
Secretary of DHS.57
FY2013 Request
The OIG requested $144 million. New funding of $2.6 million was requested to fulfill the
directive of the Implementing the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act (P.L. 110-53)
“that the OIG conduct audits of all states that received FEMA grant funds to prevent, prepare for,
protect against, or respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other disasters.” According
to the DHS justification, the new appropriation “will allow the OIG to conduct most of the
remaining 23 audits in FY2013 and position the OIG to complete all 61 audits by the deadline.”58
House-Passed H.R. 5855
The House-passed bill includes $109 million for the DHS OIG. Expressing “dissatisfaction with
the quality of communication with the Committee with regard to border corruption investigations,
and in particular, issues with coordinating these with ICE and CBP,”59 the committee reduced the
OIG appropriation by $10 million specifically for that reason. Furthermore, the Committee chose
56 Prepared by Barbara L. Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division,
and William L. Painter, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and Finance
Division.
57 H.Rept. 112-469, p. 25.
58 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Audits, Inspections and Investigations,
Congressional Justification, Fiscal Year 2013, p. OIG-9.
59 Ibid., p. 26.
Congressional Research Service
29
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
to fund $24 million of the OIG’s budget through a transfer from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund—
rather than through direct appropriations from the treasury—specifically to pay for disaster-
related audits and investigations. No changes were made to these provisions on the House floor.
Senate-Reported S. 3216
The Senate-reported bill includes $123 million ($21 million less than the President’s request) for
the base appropriation for the DHS OIG. Like the House-passed bill, the Senate-reported bill
expects $24 million to come from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), thus providing a net $3
million increase above the request. The Senate committee report indicates that the additional
funding is to be used for investigating corruption and criminal conduct at CBP and ICE, and that
the recommendation includes the increase requested to complete all audits mandated under P.L.
110-53 of the State Homeland Security Program and grants under the Urban Area Security
Initiative grants by the August 20, 2014, deadline.
Issues for Congress
OIG Mandates
Both House and Senate bills and reports require the OIG to conduct reviews and provide reports,
briefings, or determinations to the Appropriations Committees on a variety of matters including
• An expenditure plan for its budget, and monthly reports on transfers from the
DRF;
• Steps taken to ensure the integrity of CBP and ICE officers;
• DHS expenditures on special events;
• DHS non-competitive contract awards; and
• Reviews of the operations of local law enforcement under 287(g) agreements.
In addition the House directs that the OIG:
• Report on whether DHS has effective procedures in place to ensure compliance
with all applicable federal laws and regulations on travel, conferences, and
employee awards programs;
• Continue to conduct “red team” inspections of TSA screening;
• Brief the Committee on its assessment of adjudication fraud detection reforms by
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; and
• Review excessive delays in determinations concerning FEMA’s public assistance
programs.
The Senate does not include those provisions, but instead directs that the OIG provide a review of
FEMA’s application of its own rules regarding awarding public assistance funds for debris
removal.
Congressional Research Service
30
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Although in many cases these tasks represent new work for the OIG, with the exception of
integrity investigations of ICE and CBP officers in the Senate bill, no additional funding is
dedicated for this work.
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
Title II of the DHS appropriations bill, which includes over three-quarters of the budget authority
provided in the legislation, contains the appropriations for U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and the U.S. Secret Service (USSS). The
Administration requested $30,759 million for these accounts in FY2013, a decrease of $768
million (2.4%) below the enacted level. The House-passed bill provides $30,946 million, an
increase of 0.6% from the requested level and 1.8% below FY2012. The Senate-reported bill
provides $30,974 million, 0.7% above the request and 1.8% below FY2012. Table 8 lists the
enacted amounts for the individual components of Title II for FY2012 (as of August 1, 2012), the
Administration’s request for these components for FY2013, and the House-passed and Senate-
reported appropriations for the same.
Table 8. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations, FY2012-FY2013
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013 Appropriation
FY2012
House-
Senate-
Enacted
Request
passed
reported Enacted
Customs and Border Protection
Salaries and Expenses
8,680
9,011
8,366
8,770
Automation Modernization
334
328
700
328
Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and
400 327 334 327
Technology
Air and Marine Interdictions
504
436
519
507
Facilities Management
237 244 253 244
US-VISITa 0
0
0
279
Appropriation 10,155
10,345
10,172
10,454
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust Funds
1,502
1,626
1,516
1,516
Total Budgetary Resources
11,657
11,971
11,689
11,971
Immigration & Customs Enforcement
Salaries and Expenses
5,529
5,297
5,236
5,295
Automation & Infrastructure Modernization
22
31
232
31
Construction 0
5
5
5
Appropriation 5,551
5,332
5,474
5,330
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust Funds
312
312
312
312
Total Budgetary Resources
5,863
5,644
5,786
5,642
Congressional Research Service
31
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
FY2013 Appropriation
FY2012
House-
Senate-
Enacted
Request
passed
reported Enacted
Transportation Security Administration
Aviation Security (net funding)
3,224
2,914
2,971
2,702
Surface Transportation Security
135
124
126
124
Transportation Threat Assessment and
Credentialing (net funding)
164 193 192 193
Transportation Security Support
1,032
970
929
970
Federal Air Marshals
966
930
880
930
Appropriation 5,521
5,130
5,098
4,919
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust Funds
2,320
2,515
2,400
2,715
Total Budgetary Resources
7,841
7,645
7,498
7,633
U.S. Coast Guard
Operating Expensesb 7,051
6,791
6,765
7,073
Environmental Compliance & Restoration
14
13
12
13
Reserve Training
134
133
116
133
Automation Modernization
—
—
45
—
Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements
1,404
1,217
1,429
1,471
Research, Development, Testing, and
28 20 20 20
Evaluation
Health Care Fund Contributionc 262
203
203
203
Discretionary Appropriation
8,634
8,377
8,589
8,659
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust Funds
1,654
1,640
1,640
1,640
Overseas Contingency Operations
258 0d 0 254
Adjustment
Total Budgetary Resources
10,546
10,017
10,229
10,553
U.S. Secret Service
Salaries and Expenses
1,661
1,544
1,556
1,556
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
5
57
57
57
Appropriation 1,667
1,601
1,613
1,613
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust Funds
245
250
250
250
Total Budgetary Resources
1,912
1,851
1,863
1,863
Net Discretionary Budget Authority:
31,527 30,759 30,946 30,974
Title II
Total Budgetary Resources for Title II
37,813 37,128 37,070 37,662
Components before Transfers
Sources: CRS analysis of the DHS FY2013 Congressional Budget Justification, H.Rept. 112-331 (for FY2012),
H.R. 5855, H.Rept. 112-492, and S.Rept. 112-169.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
32
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
a. The Administration proposed in the FY2013 budget request moving US-VISIT from NPPD and dividing it
between ICE and CBP. As is reflected here, the Senate proposed moving the resources to CBP, then
transferring $18 million to ICE. The House only partially funded the transfer, and did so through the existing
appropriations structure.
b. Overseas contingency operations funding is displayed in this line, but is not added to the appropriations
total, in accordance with the appropriations committees’ practices for subtotaling this account. This funding
is not reflected in the total appropriation for the Coast Guard.
c. This is permanent indefinite discretionary spending, and therefore scores as being in the bill, despite not
being explicitly appropriated in the bills’ legislative language.
d. $254 million was requested as a permissive transfer from the Department of Defense to cover the Coast
Guard’s overseas contingency operations costs. However, these charts do not track activity in other
appropriations bills or transfers.
Customs and Border Protection60
CBP is responsible for security at and between ports of entry (POE) along the border, with a
priority mission of preventing the entry of terrorists and instruments of terrorism. CBP officers
inspect people (immigration enforcement) and goods (customs enforcement) at POEs to
determine if they are authorized to enter the United States. CBP officers and agents enforce more
than 400 laws and regulations at the border to prevent illegal entries.
CBP’s major programs include Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation, which
encompasses risk-based targeting and the inspection of travelers and goods at POEs; Border
Security and Control between Ports of Entry, which includes the U.S. Border Patrol; Air and
Marine Interdiction; Automation Modernization, which includes customs and immigration
information technology systems; Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology
(BSFIT); Facilities Management; and a number of immigration and customs user Fee Accounts.
See Table 8 for account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 9 for subaccount-
level detail for CBP appropriations and funding for FY2012-FY2013.
FY2013 Request
The Administration requested an appropriation of $10,345 million in net budget authority for
CBP for FY2013, an increase of $190 million (1.9%) over the enacted FY2012 level of $10,155
million. The Administration’s total request includes $1,626 million in fees, mandatory spending,
60 Prepared by Marc R. Rosenblum, Specialist in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
33
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
and trust funds, for a gross budget request of $11,971 million, which is a $320 million (2.8%)
increase from the enacted FY2012 level of $11,651 million.
The request included the following program changes from FY2012:
• Transfer of most of the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(US-VISIT) program from the National Protection Programs Directorate (NPPD)
into CBP, with a $261.5 million increase to CBP;
• Increase of $31 million for the operation and maintenance of the Automated
Targeting System (ATS), which screens incoming cargo and travelers, and of
$38.7 million for the Office of Intelligence and Investigative Liaison and $8
million for the National Targeting Center, both of which work with the ATS to
improve security-related targeting rules (see “Cargo Security” below);
• Increase of $13 million for the Container Security Initiative, which scans certain
U.S.-bound cargo in foreign ports (see “Cargo Security” below);
• Increase of $10 million for intellectual property rights enforcement and of $3
million to expand CBP’s Centers for Excellence and Expertise, which work with
certain industries to facilitate the import process;
• Decrease of $68.2 million for the Office of Air and Marine Interdictions (OAM)
from acquisition of fewer new aircraft than in the last two fiscal years, and a
decrease of $7.1 million for Air and Marine salaries from fewer air missions;
• Decrease of $52.3 million in management and administration staffing and
services from savings related to human resources activities and administrative
staff and expenses within the Office of the Commissioner, the Office of
Information Technology, the Office of Administration, and the Office of Public
Affairs;
• Decrease of $41.2 million in fleet acquisition and management from deferring
acquisition of new non-mission critical vehicles and reducing fuel and
maintenance costs;
• Decrease of $36.8 million for information technology infrastructure and support
by deferring replacement of equipment and technical upgrades;
• Decrease of $31 million for nonintrusive inspection (NII) operations and
maintenance by relying exclusively on currently fielded NII equipment;
• Decrease of $21.1 million in CBP officer overtime expenses, $9.2 million in field
support staff salaries and expenses from reductions in operational support, and $7
million in Air and Marine salaries and expenses from reducing low priority
missions;
• Decrease of $14.7 million in training expenses by reducing certain specialized
training programs; and
• Decrease of $12.3 million in CBP transportation program from lower workload
requirements (due to fewer apprehensions) and cost reductions from a new
transportation contract.
Congressional Research Service
34
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
House-Passed H.R. 5855
The House approved $10,172 in net budget authority for CBP for FY2013, an increase of $17
million (0.2%) from last year’s appropriation and a decrease of $173 million (1.7%) from the
President’s request. Under the House-passed bill, CBP would have would receive $11,689 in
gross budget authority, which is a $37 million (0.3%) increase over last year’s level and a $283
million (2.4%) decrease from the President’s request.
These numbers include several amendments to the House-reported version of the bill, including
amendments to add $43,000 to CBP salaries and expenses to support completion of a staffing
model; to add $10 million to the BSFIT account to fund communications infrastructure in border
communities; and to cut $3 million from the BSFIT appropriation (a cut targeting environmental
mitigation), with $624,000 added to the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction’s Operations,
Maintenance and Procurement account.61
Senate-Reported S. 3216
The Senate Appropriations Committee proposed $10,454 in net budget authority for CBP for
FY2013, an increase of $299 million (3.0%) from last year’s appropriation and of $109 million
(1.1%) from the President’s request. The Senate-reported bill includes $11,971 in gross budget
authority, which is a $319 million (2.7%) increase over last year’s appropriation and a $0.6
million decrease from the President’s request.
Table 9. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Account Detail
Budget Authority in Millions of Dollars
FY2013
Appropriation
FY2012
House-
Senate-
Enacted Request
passed
reported
Enacted
Salaries and Expensesa 8,680
9,011
8,366b 8,770
Headquarters Management and Administration
1,869
1,882
1,431
1,879
Border Security Inspections and Trade
2,904 2,960 3,044 2,977
Facilitation
Border Security and Control Between POE
3,620
3,626
3,606
3,626
Air and Marine Operations—Salaries
288
281
285
288
US-VISIT
NA
262
NA
279c
Automation Modernization
334
328
700b 328
BSFIT 400
327
334
327
Air and Marine Interdiction
504
436
519
507
61 The rules of the House require that appropriations amendments not increase either budget authority or outlays for the
coming fiscal year. The BSFIT account draws down its resources more slowly than the Office of Air and Marine
interdiction, so it takes a $3 million cut in one to offset a $0.624 million increase in the other. For a more detailed
discussion of this matter, see pages 5-8 of CRS Report RL31055, House Offset Amendments to Appropriations Bills:
Procedural Considerations, by Jessica Tollestrup.
Congressional Research Service
35
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
FY2013
Appropriation
FY2012
House-
Senate-
Enacted
Request passed
reported Enacted
Facilities Management
237 244 253 244
Total Net Appropriation
10,155
10,345
10,172
10,454
Estimated Fees, Mandatory Spending and Trust
1,496 1,626 1,516 1,516
Fundsd
Total CBP Budget Authority
11,651
11,971
11,689
11,971
Source: H.Rept. 112-492, S.Rept. 112-169.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding. POE refers to ports of entry. CBP refers to U.S. Customs and
Border Protection. BSFIT refers to Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology. US-VISIT refers to
the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program.
a. The Administration proposed transferring US-VISIT into CBP and ICE in its FY2013 budget request. The
House included $12 million for a portion of US-VISIT’s funding under “Border Security Inspectors and
Trade Facilitation.” The Senate created a new line specifically for funding US-VISIT distinct from other CBP
activities.
b. Includes a realignment of $375 mil ion for the Office of Information and Technology from Salaries and
Expenses Account to Automation Modernization.
c. The Senate bill provides this amount as a separate appropriation outside the Salaries and Expenses total,
and it includes $18 million to be transferred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
d. This line includes a decrease of $8 million due to an adjustment to the Small Airport User Fee and an
increase of $6 million in the Customs Unclaimed Goods Trust Fund.
Continuing Resolution
A continuing resolution (CR) (P.L. 112-175) was signed into law on September 28, 2012, to fund
the federal government through March 27, 2013, or until the general appropriations bills for
FY2013 are enacted. The CR provides for DHS, with some limitations, to continue operations in
FY2013 with the same funding it received in FY2012, plus a 0.612% increase (see ““Operating
Under a Continuing Resolution”). In addition to the general limitations discussed above, Section
136 of the CR requires that funds in the CBP Salaries and Expenses Account be obligated to
maintain staffing for border patrol agents, CBP officers, and Office of Air and Marine interdiction
agents at the same levels as those in effect at the end of the fourth quarter of FY2012. In the case
of the border patrol, the CR further requires that staffing levels comply with P.L. 112-74, Division
D, which establishes a minimum of 21,370 full time equivalent agents. The CR directs the
Commissioner of CBP, by October 28, 2012, to provide Congress with a detailed spending plan
that specifies how CBP will adjust the Salaries and Expenses account to maintain these staffing
levels.
Issues for Congress
A number of policy issues related to CBP have come up during the FY2013 appropriations cycle,
including questions about the US-VISIT program, the use of customs user fees, CBP staffing,
cargo security, and border surveillance technology (ground-based and aerial).
Congressional Research Service
36
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program
The US-VISIT program tracks the entry and exit of foreign visitors to and from the United States
by collecting and storing biographic and biometric identification information about them. This
information is shared with a wide range of federal, state and local government agencies to help
identify people who may pose a risk to the United States. US-VISIT stores biographic data (i.e.,
names, birthdates, and certain migration information) in the Arrival and Departure Information
System (ADIS) database, and it stores biometric data (i.e., 10-print digital fingerprints and a
photograph) in the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) database. Biographic
data are collected from travelers’ I-94 forms as they enter the United States; and biometric data
are collected from certain non-citizens when they receive visas at U.S. consulates, enter the
United States at ports of entry, petition for immigration benefits, or are apprehended by CBP or
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). With over 138 million records, IDENT is the
largest biometric database in the world.62
US-VISIT’s place in the DHS organizational structure has changed several times since it was
created. Until FY2006, US-VISIT was coordinated out of DHS’ Directorate of Border and
Transportation Security (BTS), the directorate formerly responsible for CBP and ICE. The
“second stage review” (or “2SR”) reorganization by former DHS Secretary Chertoff eliminated
BTS and proposed placing US-VISIT within a new Screening Coordination Office (SCO) that
would have included several DHS screening programs63 and reported directly to the Secretary.
Funding for the SCO was never appropriated, however, and US-VISIT became a stand-alone
office within Title II of the DHS appropriation in FY2006.64 In FY2008, DHS transferred US-
VISIT into the new National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD).
The FY2013 budget request proposes to move US-VISIT from NPPD, dividing its work between
CBP and ICE. Under the proposal, CBP would assume responsibility for most US-VISIT
operations, including the management of the ADIS and IDENT databases and watchlist
management services. ICE would assume responsibility for US-VISIT’s overstay analysis
services, which are currently divided between ICE and US-VISIT. Thus, the budget request
proposes to reallocate $262 million and 351 positions from US-VISIT to CBP, and $18 million
and 78 positions from US-VISIT to ICE. According to the President’s request, the transfer of US-
VISIT to CBP and ICE will allow DHS to “identify potential operational and cost efficiencies
through the transition” including through efficiencies in “mission support and ‘corporate’
functions such as logistics and human resources.”65
Neither chamber of Congress fully supported the proposal to move US-VISIT to CBP and ICE.
The House-passed bill would transfer about $12 million from US-VISIT to CBP’s Office of Field
Operations (OFO) to cover program management and planning efforts associated with entry-exit
62 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of Legislative Affairs, December 19, 2011. For more information
about US-VISIT see archived CRS Report RL32234, U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-
VISIT) Program, by Lisa M. Seghetti and Stephen R. Vina.
63 Programs proposed for transfer to the Screening Coordination Office included the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status
Indicator Project (US-VISIT); Free and Secure Trade (FAST) and NEXUS/Secure Electronic Network for Travelers
Rapid Inspection (SENTRI), from CBP; and Secure Flight, Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC),
Registered Traveler, Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) background checks, and the Alien Flight School background
checks program from TSA.
64 H.Rept. 109-241.
65 CBP, Congressional Budget Justification FY2013, p. CBP S&E 86.
Congressional Research Service
37
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
policy and operations,66 and would transfer about $61 million to ICE to cover ICE’s activities
related to the analysis of visa overstays;67 but the House would leave the bulk of US-VISIT
funding, about $191 million, within a new Office of Biometric Identity Management within
NPPD.68 The Senate report supports the transfer of US-VISIT to CBP, but expresses concern
about the depth of analysis related to the transfer, and therefore recommends that US-VISIT be
transferred as a stand-alone appropriation within CBP, rather than being incorporated within
existing lines of CBP’s salaries and expenses account as the President requests.69
Questions about US-VISIT management are tied to its ability to meet two distinct missions. First,
US-VISIT has taken the lead in fulfilling DHS’ mandate to develop a comprehensive entry-exit
data system that records the entry and exit and verifies the identity of every alien arriving in and
departing from the United States, as required by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-208, Div. C), as amended.70 The system has been operational
at almost all U.S. ports of entry since December 2006, and since January 2009 US-VISIT has
collected biometric data from most non-citizens entering through air and seaports and most non-
citizens subject to secondary inspection at land ports. But two pilot projects on biometric exit
systems in 2009 yielded no transition plan to deploy either system,71 and the President’s FY2013
budget request does not include funding for a biometric exit system. DHS officials have testified
that the department intends to implement an enhanced system for the collection and analysis of
biographic exit data, apparently as an alternative to the collection of biometric exit data.72 Some
Members of Congress have expressed frustration that a biometric exit system has not been
implemented, and both chambers’ appropriations reports direct DHS to report on the department’s
plans for a more comprehensive exit system.73
Second, as manager of the ADIS and IDENT databases, US-VISIT supports several different
operational components of DHS, whose agents use ADIS and IDENT data to help determine
whether individuals are eligible to receive a visa, enter or remain in the United States, or receive
immigration benefits. US-VISIT also shares IDENT data with certain stakeholders outside of
DHS, including agencies within the Departments of State, Justice, Defense, and the Intelligence
Community. The House report cites this broader data management mission as being beyond
CBP’s mission and a reason to leave these US-VISIT functions within NPPD.74
66 H.Rept. 112-492, p. 36.
67 Ibid., pp. 107.
68 Ibid.
69 S.Rept. 112-169, p. 46.
70 For a more complete discussion of US-VISIT’s entry-exit system requirements see archived CRS Report RL32234,
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program, by Lisa M. Seghetti and Stephen R.
Vina; and CRS Report R42025, Issues in Homeland Security Policy for the 112th Congress, coordinated by William L.
Painter.
71 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: Key US-VISIT Components at Varying Stages of
Completion, but Integrated and Reliable Schedule Needed, GAO-10-13, November 19, 2009.
72 Statement of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Principal Deputy Director for Counterterrorism John Cohen
before the U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime
Security, Ten Years after 9/11: Can Terrorists Still Exploit Our Visa System, 112th Cong., 1st Sess., September 13,
2011.
73 H.Rept. 112-492, p. 36; S.Rept. 112-169, p. 48.
74 H.Rept. 112-492, p. 35.
Congressional Research Service
38
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Customs User Fees
CBP collects several different types of user fees, including fees paid by passengers and by cargo
carriers and importers for the provision of customs services. These fees are often referred to as
COBRA fees because they were passed as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1986 (COBRA, P.L. 99-272). Under 19 U.S.C. §§ 58c(f)(1)-(3), a portion of
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.
Certain COBRA passenger fees have been collected and deposited in the Customs User Fee
Account without a corresponding appropriation to pay for customs functions. Two recent
examples of this have drawn Congressional interest. Section 521 of the NAFTA Implementation
Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-182) temporarily increased fees for all passengers entering the United
States, including passengers from Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean islands, who previously
had been exempted from such fees. According to the Government Accountability Office, this
temporary increase resulted in the collection of about $639 million from FY1994-FY1997.75
Section 601 of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act of
2011 (P.L. 112-42) also eliminated a passenger fee exemption for travelers from Mexico, Canada,
and certain other Western Hemisphere states, resulting in an estimated increase in COBRA fees of
$83 million in FY2012 and $110 million in FY2013 and thereafter.76 In both these cases, funds
were directed (and in the case of Section 601, still are being directed) to the Customs User Fee
Account but have not yet been obligated for customs revenue collection, as the provisions that
raised this revenue stated that the funds are available only to the extent provided in appropriations
Acts.
Some Members of Congress have raised questions about the disposition of these fees. The House
Appropriations Committee directs CBP to report to the committee about whether the Department
has access to the $639 million identified by GAO, and how the department will eliminate those
funds from its books.77 With respect to fees collected pursuant to P.L. 112-42, CBP’s budget
justification for FY2013 included these fees in its budget for CBP officer salaries and expenses,
but neither chamber included language in its appropriation bill to make these funds available to
CBP, resulting in a shortfall for the agency. The House would address this shortfall by shifting
$70 million from CBP headquarters to CBP officer salaries, and would rely on other increasing
fee revenues to fill the remaining gap.78 The Senate report awaits a resolution to the shortfall to be
proposed by the department.79 Given that P.L. 112-42 authorizes the collection of additional
COBRA fees but does not appropriate the fee collections, one challenge to resolving the shortfall
is that any legislative change to move the money into a CBP spending account likely will result in
75 See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP, March 2011, pp. 324-325.
76 CBP Office of Legislative Affairs, April 27, 2012.
77 H.Rept. 112-492, p. 31.
78 H.Rept. 112-492, p. 29.
79 S.Rept. 112-169, p. 32.
Congressional Research Service
39
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
a positive Congressional Budget Office score—and therefore may require offsets elsewhere in the
budget.
CBP Staffing
The President’s FY2013 budget requests funding for 21,186 CBP officers and 21,370 U.S. Border
Patrol agents.80 While both chambers’ budget proposals support the requested staffing levels, they
also raise questions about how DHS sets staffing levels. The Senate report warns of adverse long-
term consequences if DHS preserves high staffing levels during a period of budget tightening by
cutting its investments in infrastructure;81 and also expresses concern that inspection fees have not
increased in about ten years, which limits funds available for CBP officer salaries.82 The House
report encourages CBP to consider a number of changes to reduce OFO staffing requirements at
POEs, including by reengineering POE processes to make them more automated, by improving
risk-based targeting, by better managing short-term staffing demand surges, by exploring public-
private partnerships, by expanding trusted trade and traveler programs that facilitate low-risk
entries, and by relying on technology to increase officer efficiency.83 The House report also
directs CBP to provide a more specific staffing and deployment plan for border patrol agents;84
and the Senate report requests a plan for OFO staffing at Northern Border ports of entry.85
Some Members may disagree with efforts to reduce CBP staffing (or slow its growth), however.
While border patrol staffing has increased 90% since FY2005 (up from 11,264 agents that year),
OFO staffing at POEs has increased only 18% (up from 17,881 officers in FY2005), even as OFO
responsibilities have expanded to include biometric data collection and enhanced cargo security
requirements.86 Some people argue that increased enforcement between ports of entry has
encouraged illegal migrants and drug smugglers to enter through POEs. Some supporters of
increased OFO staffing argue that officers increase security while also facilitating legal
admissions, and that officers are more effective at identifying and apprehending bad actors than
are automated targeting systems, trusted trade and travel programs, and other technology.
Southwest Border Surveillance
DHS’ strategy for achieving and maintaining control of the Southwest Border includes the use of
technology to monitor the border, to detect illegal entries, and to support efforts to target and
interdict such entries. Since 1998, under a series of different initiatives, DHS and the former
Immigration and Naturalization Service have attempted to develop a network of border cameras,
radar, and sensors linked into an integrated computer system to provide “situational awareness”
along key stretches of the border.87 To date, initiatives have failed to deliver the desired level of
surveillance, however. The last two major surveillance programs, known as the America’s Shield
80 CBP Office of Legislative Affairs, February 13, 2012.
81 S.Rept. 112-169, p. 30.
82 S.Rept. 112-169, p. 31.
83 H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 30-31.
84 H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 35-56.
85 S.Rept. 112-169, p. 34.
86 CRS analysis of data provided by CBP Office of Legislative Affairs, February 13, 2012.
87 For a fuller discussion of border surveillance programs, see CRS Report R42138, Border Security: Immigration
Enforcement Between Ports of Entry, by Marc R. Rosenblum.
Congressional Research Service
40
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Initiative and SBInet (part of the Secure Border Initiative), both faced criticism for non-
competitive contracting practices, inadequate oversight of contractors, and cost overruns.88
The Obama Administration cancelled SBInet in January 2011 and replaced it with the Arizona
Border Technology Plan. The new plan calls for the rapid deployment of existing technology,
including a mix of fixed and mobile video surveillance systems and existing SBInet integrated
towers, and emphasizes the use of different technologies for different border regions.89
House and Senate appropriations reports express frustration with DHS’ implementation of the
new plan. The House report admonishes CBP for not having procured and implemented new
surveillance equipment during the first 16 months after announcing the plan.90 The Senate report
describes CBP’s April 2012 call for proposals to use SBInet technology along certain stretches of
the Arizona border premature given that existing SBInet towers have not yet proven successful.91
In light of these concerns, while both chambers recommend fully funding the President’s request
for the BSFIT account, indicating their overall support for the border surveillance mission, they
each recommend rescinding unobligated balances from the account, with the House report calling
for $40,412,000 in rescissions92 and the Senate calling for $92,000,000.93
CBP also relies on manned and unmanned aircraft to complement ground-based surveillance. The
President’s FY2013 budget request for the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction (OAM) would
support 277 aircraft,94 which are involved in both drug interdiction and border surveillance
activities, and includes $3 million to support the “Big Pipe” project to transmit real time and near
real time video and other data from aerial assets. OAM was projected to fly 81,400 hours in
FY2012 and 65,000 hours in FY2013,95 down from 94,968 flight hours in FY2011 and 106,069 in
FY2010.96 In December 2011, DHS announced that the Department of Defense would scale back
existing National Guard troops at the border in 2012 in favor of providing enhanced aerial assets
to augment DHS air surveillance efforts.97 As of May 2012, CBP also operated nine unmanned
aerial systems (UAS), with a tenth system expected to be operational in 2012.98 UAS systems
expand CBP’s air surveillance capacity because UASs can fly longer missions with fewer limits
related to pilot fatigue.
88 Ibid.
89 Statement of Mark Borkowski, Assistant Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, before the Subcommittees on Border and
Maritime Security, Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, After SBInet: The Future of
Technology on the Border, 112th Cong., 1st Sess., March 15, 2011.
90 H.Rept. 112-492, 43.
91 S.Rept. 112-169, p. 40.
92 H.Rept. 112-492, p. 45.
93 S.Rept. 112-169, p. 42.
94 CBP, Congressional Budget Justification FY2013, p OAM – 1.
95 H.Rept. 112-492, 46.
96 CBP Office of Air and Marine, “2011 Air and Marine Milestones and Achievements,” December 6, 2011,
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/am/operations/2011_achiev.xml; CBP Office of Air and Marine, “2010
Air and Marine Milestones and Achievements,” December 6, 2011, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/am/
operations/2010_achiev.xml.
97 DHS, “DHS and DOD Announce Continued Partnership in Strengthening Southwest Border Security,” December
20, 2011, http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/20111220-dhs-dod-partnership-southwest-border-security.shtm.
98 DHS Office of Inspector General, CBP’s Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the Nation’s Border Security, OIG-
12-85, Washington, DC, May 2012.
Congressional Research Service
41
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Some Members of Congress support the use of aircraft for border surveillance, including UASs in
particular. Both Appropriations Committees recommended increases to the OAM budget over the
President’s request, with the House recommending an increase of $82,700,000 (partly funded by
the BSFIT rescission)99 and the Senate recommending an increase of $70,997,000.100 Both
increases would be targeted toward upgrading the OAM fleet, increasing flight hours, and
supporting UAS operations. On the other hand, the use of UASs in border security remains
somewhat controversial because of concerns that UASs threaten people’s privacy. And a May
2012 DHS Inspector General report also criticized CBP’s unmanned aircraft systems program on
the grounds that its planning process fails to provide UAS systems with adequate support
resources and may result in under-utilization of UAS assets.101
Cargo Security
CBP is responsible for screening cargo passing through U.S. ports of entry for contraband and
dangerous materials. Under the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE
Port Act, P.L. 109-347), as amended, CBP must ensure that all maritime cargo is scanned through
radiation detection and nonintrusive inspection imaging scanners prior to being loaded on ships
bound for the United States. Section 1701 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 (The 9/11 Act, P.L. 110-53) established a deadline of July 1, 2012, for
DHS to begin excluding cargo that has not been scanned, though the law allows DHS to extend
this deadline under certain circumstances, and DHS officials have indicated that they intend to
seek such an extension.102
CBP currently operates two programs to scan cargo in foreign ports: the Secure Freight Initiative
(SFI) and Container Security Initiative (CSI). SFI was initiated as a pilot program in 2007 to test
the feasibility of scanning 100% of U.S.-bound cargo at certain foreign ports. After an initial
evaluation identified several obstacles to implementing 100% scanning at all foreign ports,103 SFI
was scaled back and as of May 2012 only operated at Port Qasim in Pakistan. CSI, which was
initiated in 2002, is a partnership program among CBP, ICE, and law enforcement agencies in
CSI countries. Under the program, CBP officers and other federal agents screen cargo manifests
and other data to identify high-risk containers; and 100% of containers identified as high-risk are
scanned in foreign ports. Host state law enforcement agents typically conduct physical scans, and
CBP personnel evaluate the scan results. When the scan detects an abnormality, containers are
subject to additional physical inspection prior to being loaded on a U.S.-bound ship. As of March
2012, the CSI was active in 58 ports in 30 countries; these ports account for about 80% of
incoming cargo flows.104 About 1% of all cargo passing through CSI ports is identified as high-
risk and targeted for scanning and possible inspection.105
99 H.Rept. 112-492, p. 45.
100 S.Rept. 112-169, p. 42.
101 DHS Office of Inspector General, CBP’s Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the Nation’s Border Security, OIG-
12-85, Washington, DC, May 2012.
102 See for example, testimony of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano before Committee on Homeland Security, House of
Representatives, An Examination of the President’s FY2013 Budget Request for the Department of Homeland Security,
112th Cong., 2nd Sess., February 15, 2012.
103 See U.S. CBP, Report to Congress on Integrated Scanning System Pilots (Security and Accountability for Every
Port Act of 2006, Section 231), http://www.apl.com/security/documents/sfi_finalreport.pdf.
104 Data provided by CBP Office of Legislative Affairs, March 19, 2012.
105 Data provided by CBP Office of Legislative Affairs, March 19, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
42
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
The 100% scanning requirement and the operation of SFI and CSI have raised questions about
how to balance the security benefits of scanning more U.S.-bound cargo against the costs of such
scans, including increased paperwork, the costs of maintaining scanning technology and
personnel to operate scanners, and longer wait times for U.S. importers. DHS officials and some
others have argued that the department should focus scanning on high-risk cargo, along with a
random sample of lower-risk cargo, in order to cut costs, facilitate legal trade, and make the best
use of existing resources.106 After requesting reductions to international cargo security screening
programs in FY2011 and FY2012—with Congress providing funding levels above the President’s
request both years—the FY2013 budget request includes a $13 million increase to the CSI, along
with a total of $78 million in proposed increases to the Automated Targeting System and related
programs used to screen incoming goods and travelers for security threats. House and Senate
Appropriations Committee reports both support the President’s request for these programs. The
House report also acknowledges DHS’ concerns about the costs of implementing a 100%
scanning program at foreign ports, and calls on DHS to propose an alternative scanning plan.107
Immigration and Customs Enforcement108
ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the United States. ICE
develops intelligence to reduce illegal entry into the United States and is responsible for
investigating and enforcing violations of the immigration laws (e.g., alien smuggling, hiring
unauthorized alien workers). ICE is also responsible for locating and removing aliens who have
overstayed their visas, entered illegally, or have become deportable. In addition, ICE develops
intelligence to combat terrorist financing and money laundering, and to enforce export laws
against smuggling, fraud, forced labor, trade agreement noncompliance, and vehicle and cargo
theft.
See Table 8 for account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II. For ICE sub-account level
detail, including appropriations and funding for FY2012 and FY2013, see Table 10.
106 See for example, testimony of DHS Assistant Secretary David Heyman before Subcommittee on Borders and
Maritime Security, Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, Balancing Maritime Security and
Trade Facilitation: Protecting Ports, Increasing Commerce and Securing the Supply Chain, Part I, 112th Cong., 2nd
Sess., February 7, 2012.
107 H.Rept. 112-492, p. 33.
108 Prepared by Alison Siskin, Specialist in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
43
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
FY2013 Request
For FY2013 for ICE, the Administration requested $5,332 million in net budget authority, which
represents a decrease of $218 million (3.9%) from the enacted FY2012 level of $5,551 million.
Overall, the Administration requested $5,644 million in gross budget authority for ICE in
FY2013, a decrease of $218 (3.7%) from the FY2012 enacted amount. The budget request
included the following changes:
• Increase of $40 million to expand the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program;
• Increase of $6 million for ICE to consolidate personnel and operations (i.e., co-
location strategy);
• Increase of $7 million for video conferencing expansion in detention facilities
and Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) courtrooms and offices;
• Increase of $18 million to transfer the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status
Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program109 overstay analysis function from
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) to ICE;
• Reduction of $17 million for the 287(g) program;
• Reduction of $5 million for the Office of Principle Legal Advisor (OPLA);
• Reduction of $53 million for detention beds; and
• Reduction of $41 million for Secure Communities.
House-Passed H.R. 5855
The House-passed H.R. 5855 would give $5,474 million in net budget authority for FY2013, a
figure which represents a decrease of $77 million (1.4%) from the FY2012 enacted level and an
increase of $142 million (2.7%) over the Administration’s request. House-passed H.R. 5855
would provide ICE with total funding authority of $5,786 million, representing a decrease of $77
million (1.3%) from the FY2012 enacted level and an increase of $142 million (2.5%) over the
Administration’s request.
Senate-Reported S. 3216
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended that ICE receive $5,330 million110 in net
budget authority for FY2013, a figure which represents a decrease of $2 million (less than 0.1%)
from the Administration’s request, and a decrease of $220 million (4.0%) from the FY2012
enacted amount. Senate-reported S. 3216 would provide ICE with gross funding authority of
$5,642 million, which represents a $2 million (less than 0.1%) decrease from the Administration’s
request, and a decrease of $220 million (3.8%) from the FY2012 enacted level.
109 For more on US-VISIT, see the Customs and Border Protection section of this report, or Department of Homeland
Security, US-VISIT Enrollment Requirements, March 4, 2011, http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/editorial_0527.shtm.
110 This excludes an additional $18 million for the transfer of the overstay analysis function of US-VISIT to ICE, and
includes $5 million to be transferred to the Executive Office of Immigration Review in the Department of Justice to
reduce the nondetained docket.
Congressional Research Service
44
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Table 10. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Sub-Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
Appropriations
FY2012
House-
Senate-
Activity
Enacted
Request passed
reported
Enacted
Salaries and Expenses
5,529
5,297
5,236a 5,295b
HQ Management & Administration
417
377
226a 371
Legal Proceedings
216
208
207
208
Investigations 1,874
1,816
1,837
1,803
Investigations—Domestic 1,725
1,673
1,687
1,654c
Investigations—International 115
110
115
115
Visa Security Program
34
33
35
33
Intelligence 82
79
78
79
Detention and Removal Operations
2,751
2,679
2,750
2,696
Custody Operations
2,051
1,959
2,026
1,986
Fugitive Operations
155
133
145
133
Criminal Alien Program
197
217
217
217
Alternatives to Detention
72
112
91
97d
Transportation and Removal Program
277
258
270
263
Comprehensive Identification and Removal of
189 139 138 139
Criminal Aliens (Secure Communities)
Automation and Infrastructure
22 31 232a 31
Modernization
Construction 0
5
5
5
ICE Direct Appropriations
5,551
5,332
5,474
5,330
Fee Accounts
312
312
312
312
ICE Gross Budget Authority
5,862
5,644
5,786
5,642
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2013 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2013 DHS Budget in Brief, P.L.
112-10, S.Rept. 112-169, S. 3216, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 112-492, H.R.
5855, as passed by the House.
Notes: ICE refers to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
a. Unlike the Administration’s request and the Senate-reported S. 3216, this amount does not include funds
for Headquarters-Managed IT investments. In H.R. 5855, as passed by the House, the appropriation for this
purpose ($162 million) is included in ICE’s Automation Modernization account.
b. This amount does not include the impact of an $18 million transfer to ICE to pay for of the overstay
analysis function of the US-VISIT program or a $5 million transfer from ICE to DOJ’s Executive Office of
Immigration Review.
c. This amount does not include the impact of an $18 million transfer to ICE to pay for of the overstay
analysis function of the US-VISIT program.
d. This amount does not include the impact of a $5 million transfer to the Department of Justice, Executive
Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) to reduce the nondetained docket.
Congressional Research Service
45
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Continuing Resolution
A continuing resolution (CR) was signed into law on September 28, 2012, to fund the federal
government through March 27, 2013, or until the general appropriations bills for FY2013 are
enacted (P.L. 112-175). The CR provides for DHS, with some limitations, to continue operations
in FY2013 with the same funding it received in FY2012, plus a 0.612% increase (see “Operating
Under a Continuing Resolution”). In addition to the general limitations discussed above, Section
136 of the CR requires that funds in the CBP Salaries and Expenses Account be obligated to
maintain staffing for border patrol agents, CBP officers, and Office of Air and Marine interdiction
agents at the same levels as those in effect at the end of the fourth quarter of FY2012. In the case
of the border patrol, the CR further requires that staffing levels comply with P.L. 112-74, Division
D, which establishes a minimum of 21,370 full time equivalent agents. The CR directs the
Commissioner of CBP, by October 28, 2012, to provide Congress with a detailed spending plan
that specifies how CBP will adjust the Salaries and Expenses account to maintain these staffing
levels.
Issues for Congress
ICE is responsible for many divergent activities due to the breadth of the civil and criminal
violations of law that fall under its jurisdiction. As a result, how ICE resources are allocated in
order to best achieve its mission is a continuously debated issue. The FY2013 appropriations
process has involved discussions about ICE’s role in detaining and removing (deporting) aliens
and on the role of state and local law enforcement agencies in immigration enforcement.
Enforcement and Removal Operations
Part of ICE’s mission includes locating and removing deportable aliens, which involves
determining the appropriate amount of detention space as well as which aliens should be
detained. There are an estimated 10.8 million unauthorized aliens in the United States.111 In
addition, there are an estimated 1.9 million aliens in the United States who have committed a
crime.112 According to ICE, they have the capacity to remove 400,000 aliens a year. 113 As a result,
there has been ongoing debate about how ICE should prioritize the removal of removable
111 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant
Population Residing in the United States: January 2011, by Michael Hoefer, Nancy Rytina, and Bryan C. Baker,
March 2012.
112 DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses Congressional Budget Justifications
FY2013, p. 61.
113 John Morton, Memorandum on Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention, and
Removal of Aliens, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington, DC, March 2, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
46
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
aliens.114 During the floor debate of House-passed H.R. 5855, several amendments were accepted
that would attempt to direct the Agency’s immigration enforcement priorities.115
ICE’s Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) provides custody management of
the aliens who are in removal proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United
States.116 ERO also is responsible for ensuring that aliens ordered removed actually depart from
the United States. Some contend that ERO does not have enough detention space to house all
those who should be detained. Concerns have been raised that decisions regarding which aliens to
release and when to release them may be based on the amount of detention space, not on the
merits of individual cases, and that detention conditions may vary by area of the country leading
to inequities. Some policymakers have advocated for the increased use of alternatives to detention
programs for noncriminal alien detainees, citing these programs as a lower cost option than
detention and a more proportional treatment relative to the violation.117
ICE maintained 34,000 detention bed spaces in FY2012, and the President’s FY2013 budget
requested a decrease of $53 million to reduce the current amount of bed space by 1,200 beds, for
a total of 32,800 beds. The Administration has requested the decrease in conjunction with a
request of an additional $40 million to expand the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program. 118
H.R. 5855, as passed by the House, would fund 34,000 detention beds, and increase funding for
the ATD program by $20 million. Senate-reported S. 3216 would fund 33,400 detention beds.119
Senate-reported S. 3216 would also increase funding for the ATD program by $24 million.120
114 In March 2011, John Morton, Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, published agency guidelines that
define a three-tiered priority scheme that applies to all ICE programs and enforcement activities related to civil
immigration enforcement. Under these guidelines, ICE’s top three civil immigration enforcement priorities are to (1)
apprehend and remove aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety, (2) apprehend and
remove recent illegal entrants, and (3) apprehend aliens who are fugitives or otherwise obstruct immigration controls.
For more on the debate surrounding prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement see U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, Does Administrative Amnesty
Harm our Efforts to Gain and Maintain Operational Control of the Border?, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., October 4, 2011.
115 For example, see H.Amdt. 1266 to H.R. 5855, introduced by Representative Steve King. See also, Mickey
McCarter, “Democrats Find Plenty to Dislike in Final House DHS Appropriations Bill for FY 2013,” Homeland
Security Today, June 11, 2012, http://www.hstoday.us/single-article/democrats-find-plenty-to-dislike-in-final-house-
dhs-appropriations-bill-for-fy-2013/5c2b80ad16fbd2361b3d82b0bb8497ed.html.
116 For more information on detention issues see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention: Current
Legislative Issues, by Alison Siskin. Under the INA aliens can be removed for reasons of health, criminal status,
economic well-being, national security risks, and others that are specifically defined in the act. In 2010, ICE changed
the name of DRO to Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). The House and Senate Appropriations Committees
have not adopted the name change in their reports.
117 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global
Counterterrorism, Moving Toward More Effective Immigration Detention Management, 111th Cong., 1st sess.,
December 10, 2009 (Washington: GPO, 2009).
118 DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses Congressional Budget Justifications
FY2013, pp. 3-4.
119 In FY2010 and FY2011, Congress funded 33,400 detention beds.
120 H.R. 5855, as passed by the House, and Senate-reported S. 3216 would give ICE the authority to sell any ICE-
owned detention facilities if the facilities no longer meet the mission need.
Congressional Research Service
47
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Immigration Enforcement in State and Local Jails
The Administration’s request included $139 million (a $50 million decrease from FY2012 since
most of the deployment has been completed) for Secure Communities, an information sharing
program between DHS and the Department of Justice to check the fingerprints of arrestees
against DHS immigration records. ICE has already deployed Secure Communities to 89% of all
jurisdictions nationally, and is requesting the resources needed to finish expanding the system
nationwide by the end of FY2013.121 ICE has the resources to confirm the identification of an
estimated 282,000 more removable aliens in FY2012 than in FY2010, including an estimated
73,000 Level 1 offenders.122 House and Senate appropriators both expressed strong support for
the continued expansion of Secure Communities and would appropriate approximately the same
amount as the Administration requested.
The enforcement of immigration laws by state and local law enforcement agents through
agreements pursuant to §287(g) of the INA (the §287(g) program) and through screening for
immigration violations in state and local jails through the §287(g) program and Secure
Communities has sparked debate about the proper role of state and local law enforcement
officials in this area.123 Many have expressed concern over proper training, finite resources at the
local level, possible civil rights violations, and the overall impact on communities. Nonetheless,
some observers contend that the federal government has scarce resources to enforce immigration
law and that state and local law enforcement entities should be used.
The Administration requested $51 million for 287(g) agreements, a decrease of $17 million from
the FY2012 enacted level. The Administration contends that the Secure Communities screening
process is more efficient and cost effective than 287(g) agreements in identifying and removing
criminal and other priority aliens. ICE plans to discontinue the least productive 287(g) task force
agreements in jurisdictions where Secure Communities is active and will not consider any
requests for new 287(g) task forces.124 Senate-reported S. 3216 would appropriate $51 million for
287(g) agreements while H.R. 5855, as passed by the House, would fund the 287(g) program at
the FY2012 level of $68 million. During floor action, the House adopted an amendment to H.R.
5855 would also prohibit any funds under the act from being used to terminate a 287(g)
agreement that is in existence on the date of enactment of the act.125
121 DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses Congressional Budget Justifications
FY2013, p. 4.
122 Ibid., p. 51. “Level 1” offenders include aliens convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in §101(a)(43) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, or of two or more crimes each punishable by more than one year (i.e., two or more
felonies); see John Morton, Memorandum on Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the Apprehension,
Detention, and Removal of Aliens, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington, DC, March 2, 2011,
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2011/110302washingtondc.pdf.
123 For a fuller discussion of Secure Communities and the §287(g) program see CRS Report R42057, Interior
Immigration Enforcement: Programs Targeting Criminal Aliens, by Marc R. Rosenblum and William A. Kandel; and
CRS Report R41423, Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law, by Michael John
Garcia and Kate M. Manuel.
124 DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses Congressional Budget Justifications
FY2013, p. 4.
125 H.Amdt. 1270 was offered by Rep. John Sullivan on June 7, 2012. It passed by a vote of 250-164 (Roll call vote no.
366).
Congressional Research Service
48
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Transportation Security Administration126
TSA, created in 2001 by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA, P.L. 107-71), is
charged with protecting air, land, and rail transportation systems within the United States to
ensure the freedom of movement for people and goods. In 2002, TSA was transferred from the
Department of Transportation to DHS with the passage of the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-
296). TSA’s responsibilities include protecting the aviation system against terrorist threats,
sabotage, and other acts of violence through the deployment of passenger and baggage screeners;
detection systems for explosives, weapons, and other contraband; and other security technologies.
TSA also has certain responsibilities for marine and land modes of transportation including
assessing the risk of terrorist attacks to all nonaviation transportation assets, including seaports;
issuing regulations to improve security; and enforcing these regulations to ensure the protection
of these transportation systems. TSA is further charged with serving as the primary liaison for
transportation security to the law enforcement and intelligence communities.
The TSA budget is one of the most complex components of the DHS Appropriations bill. The
graphic above reflects net direct discretionary appropriations for the TSA, but that represents only
a portion of the budgetary resources it has available. An airline security fee collection offsets a
portion of aviation security costs, including $250 million dedicated for capital investments in
screening technology. Other fees offset the costs of transportation threat assessment and
credentialing. Since these amounts are not set through traditional appropriations provisions, they
are not reflected in the above graphic. Table 11 presents a breakdown of the total additional
budgetary resources from all non-appropriated sources requested for TSA in the President’s
budget.
Table 11. TSA, Requested Budgetary Resources, FY2013
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
Funding Source
Amount
Total Offsetting Fees
2,515
Aviation Security Capital Fund
250
Aviation Passenger Security Feea 1,650
Aviation Passenger Security Fee (Revenue from proposed increase)a 115
Aviation Security Infrastructure Feesa 420
Credentialing Fees (including Alien Flight Student Program)
80
126 Prepared by Bart Elias, Specialist in Aviation Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
49
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Funding Source
Amount
Direct appropriations
5,130
Total Budgetary Resources
7,645
Source: S.Rept. 112-169, pp. 57-59.
Note:
a. Counted as part of Offsetting Col ections under TSA in the comparative statement of budget authority in
the back of the Appropriations committee reports on the DHS appropriations bill.
FY2013 Request
The President’s request included gross budget authority of $7,645 million for TSA, offset by
$2,515 million in proposed collections and fees, for a net direct discretionary appropriation of
$5,130 million. This represents roughly a 2.5% decrease from the gross funding provided in
FY2012, but a 7.1% drop in net appropriations.
Of this request, $5,099 million in gross budget authority was for aviation security, a decrease of
$155 million (3.0%) compared to FY2012. However, due to proposed increases in offsetting
passenger security fees (discussed in more detail below), only $2,914 million in net
appropriations would have been provided, a decrease of $310 million (9.6%) from FY2012 levels.
The President’s request proposed $124 million for Surface Transportation Security, a decrease of
$10 million (7.8%) from FY2012. Requested decreases in funding amounts reflected planned
reductions in procurement for both checked baggage and passenger checkpoint technologies, a
reduction in screening technology maintenance costs, a 50% reduction in the Federal Flight Deck
Officer (FFDO) program and flight crew training, and miscellaneous improvements in
management efficiencies, such as reduced travel, training, and overtime costs.
Funding for transportation threat assessment and credentialing (TTAC) would increase by $68
million (33%) under the request to $272 million. This includes a one-time increase of $30 million
for TTAC infrastructure modernization (TIM) and adjustments to the fee-based Transportation
Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) based on higher-than-anticipated turnover in the
maritime industry.
The requested funding level for Transportation Security Support was set at $970 million, a
decrease of $62 million (6%) from FY2012 levels, and requested funding for the Federal Air
Marshals Service (FAMS) specified $930 million, a decrease of $36 million (3.8%). See Table 8
for account level detail for all agencies in Title II and Table 12 for amounts specified for TSA
budget activities.
House-Passed H.R. 5855
House-passed H.R. 5855 included gross budget authority of $7,498 million for TSA, offset by
$2,400 million in collections and fees, for a net direct discretionary appropriation of $5,098
million. This represents a $147 million (1.9%) decrease from the gross funding requested by the
administration, and a 0.6% drop in net appropriations from the request.
The House-passed bill specified $5,041 million in gross budget authority for aviation security,
$57 million (1.1%) less than requested. The House rejected the Administration’s proposed
Congressional Research Service
50
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
increases in offsetting passenger security fees. Therefore, with a smaller offset, the appropriations
for aviation security proposed in the bill actually rose $58 million (2.0%) above the
Administration’s request. The House report recommended additional cuts to screening operations
including reductions in screener workforce costs and additional reductions in checked baggage
explosives detection equipment procurement.127
The House-passed bill specified $126 million for surface transportation security, $2 million
(1.7%) above the request, but $8 million (6.2%) less than the FY2012 enacted amount. The bill
specified $193 million in direct appropriations and $80 million in fee collections for TTAC,
roughly in line with the request. The House-passed bill, however, specified $929 million for
transportation security support, $41 million (4.2%) below the request, and $880 million for
FAMS, $50 million (5.4%) below the request. The House committee noted that many of these
reductions to the request were made to offset a budget shortfall created by the administration’s
reliance on passenger security fee increases that have not been enacted.128
Senate-Reported S. 3216
The Senate-reported bill would specify gross budget authority of $7,633 million for TSA, offset
by $2,715 million in collections and fees, for a net discretionary appropriation of $4,919 million.
This represents an $11 million (0.2%) decrease from the gross funding requested by the
Administration, and a $211 million (4%) reduction in net appropriations.
This amount includes $5,087 million in gross budget authority for aviation security, $11 million
(0.2%) less than requested. The Senate accepted the Administration’s proposed increases on
offsetting passenger security fees, incorporating the full $315 million in revenue raised into their
offset. Therefore, with a larger offset, the appropriations proposed in the bill for aviation security
dropped $211 million (7.3%) from the Administration’s request. These cuts reflect a $5 million
(4.2%) reduction to checkpoint equipment procurement, and a $10 million (8.5%) reduction for
explosives detection systems procurement, citing large unobligated prior-year balances for these
activities. The amount also includes a $8 million (0.3%) reduction to screener staffing due to
delayed fielding of checkpoint body scanners. The committee specified $24 million for the FFDO
program, $12 million (92%) above the request.129 The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended funding surface transportation security, TTAC, transportation security support, and
FAMS at requested levels.130
127 H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 65-67.
128 Ibid., pp. 72-78.
129 S.Rept. 112-169, pp. 58-69.
130 Ibid., pp. 69-74.
Congressional Research Service
51
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Table 12. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity
(gross budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
Appropriations
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House-
Senate-
FY2013
Enacted
Request
passed
reported
Enacted
Aviation
Security
5,254 5,099 5,041 5,087
Screening Partnership Program (SPP)
144
143
158
143
Screener Personnel Compensation & Benefits
3,026
3,108
3,052a 3,100
Screener Training & Other
250
225
225
225
Checkpoint
Support
205 120 120 115
EDS/ETD
Purchase/Installation
223 117 100 107
Screening Technology Maintenance & Utilities
320
309
304a 309
Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement
370
372
374
372
Airport Management, IT, and Support
570
570
550
570
FFDO & Flight Crew Training
25
13
35a 24
Air Cargo Security
121
122
122
122
Federal Air Marshal Service
966
930
880
930
Management and Administration
843
816
777
816
Travel and Training
124
114
103
114
Threat Assessment and Credentialing (TTAC)
204
272
272
272
Secure
Flight
92 107 107 107
Other Vetting / Screening Administration and
72 86 85 86
Operations
Credentialing
Fees
40 80 80 80
Surface Transportation Security
135
124
126
124
Operations and Staffing
39
37
36
37
Security
Inspectors
96 88 90 88
Transportation Security Support
1,032
970
929
970
HQ
Administration
292 282 271 282
Information
Technology
447 417 397 417
Human Capital Services
249
226
216
226
Intelligence
43 45 45 45
Aviation Security Capital Fund (ASCF)
(mandatory)
250 250 250 250
TSA Gross Total
7,841
7,645
7,498
7,633
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2013 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2013 DHS Budget in Brief, P.L.
112-10, S.Rept. 112-169, S. 3216, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, H.Rept. 112-492, H.R.
5855, as passed by the House.
Notes Amounts may not total due to rounding.
a. H.Amdt. 1248 redirected $10 million to the FFDO program for a total funding level of $35 million. This is
offset by a $5 million reduction from Screener Personnel Compensation & Benefits and a $5 million
reduction in Screening Technology Maintenance & Utilities.
Congressional Research Service
52
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Issues for Congress
Passenger Security Fees
Under ATSA, passenger security fees have been set at $2.50 per flight segment, not to exceed
$5.00 per one-way trip. The fee has not been increased since 2001, and concerns have been raised
that the per segment application does not accurately reflect passenger usage, since individuals are
typically only screened once at the initial departure airport. Nonetheless, airlines have argued
against fee increases raising concerns over their potential impact on passenger air travel.
In the FY2013 budget submittal, the administration proposed a change in the fee structure by
applying a flat fee of $5.00 per one-way trip. This would, in effect, double the fee on direct
flights, but would not change the fee currently paid by customers taking connecting flights. The
administration estimated that this change would increase revenue collections by $317 million, and
proposed to apply $117 million of this amount as offsetting collections for aviation security costs
and credit the additional $200 million toward deficit reduction.
Both the Bush and Obama administrations have previously submitted proposals to increase
passenger security fees. While these past efforts garnered little congressional support, the current
proposal was supported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, which included a provision to
increase FY2013 fee collections to $5.00 per one-way trip. However, whereas the request sought
to apply a portion of the increased revenue toward deficit reduction, the Senate committee
measure applies all passenger security fees as offsetting collections assigned to aviation security.
While the Senate committee approved the proposal for FY2013, it noted that it lacked jurisdiction
to provide permanent authority for the fee increase. The House Appropriations committee, on the
other hand, did not include the proposal, noting that it lacked jurisdiction with regard to fee
increases. The committee instead commented that it “was forced to find $115,000,000 in offsets
to make up for the budget request’s persistent and flawed assumption of increased aviation
passenger fee collections.”131
Management Efficiencies
TSA congressional justifications identify over $100 million in savings from improved
management efficiencies compared to FY2012. This includes almost $99 million for aviation
security programs, $9 million for surface transportation, more than $2 million for TTAC, and over
$7 million for FAMS. Management efficiencies include reductions in items such as travel,
conferences, miscellaneous purchasing, use of support contracts, and overtime pay. The identified
savings through management efficiencies may raise oversight questions as to why inefficiencies
were not corrected sooner, and additional questions regarding procedures and policies established
to ensure that FY2013 efficiency goals can be met.
Risk-Based Screening Initiatives
TSA has initiated a number of risk-based screening initiatives to focus its resources and apply
directed measures based on intelligence-driven assessments of security risk. Initiatives include a
new trusted traveler trial program called PreCheck, modified screening procedures for children 12
131 H.Rept. 112-492, p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
53
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
and under, and a trial program for screening known flight crew members using modified
procedures. Trial programs are also underway for modified screening of elderly passengers
similar to those procedures put in place for children. These various trial programs may allow for
improved screening efficiencies and potential savings, which TSA indicates will be identified in
future budgets.
A cornerstone of TSA’s risk-based initiatives is the PreCheck program. PreCheck is TSA’s latest
version of a trusted traveler program that has been modeled after similar CBP programs including
Global Entry, SENTRI, and NEXUS. It is currently available on a trial basis to members of those
programs, frequent flyer program members of three major airlines, and, in some cases, to military
service members, at a limited number of airports. The House committee cited the PreCheck
program as an example of a more rational risk-based approach to screening that can help increase
screening efficiency and reduce screener workforce requirements.132 The Senate committee also
expressed support for TSA plans to expand the PreCheck program. It directed TSA to report on its
expansion plans for PreCheck, including statistics on expansion of the eligible population,
success indicators such as passenger satisfaction, efforts to raise public awareness of the program,
time savings derived from PreCheck screening procedures, and security measures to ensure that
PreCheck enrollees are verified to be low-risk. The Senate committee also expressed specific
concern that TSA’s known crew member pilot program is currently limited only to pilots, and
included bill language to require TSA to expand the program to include flight attendants.133
While TSA’s risk-based screening pilot programs have been viewed positively, its efforts to
conduct behavioral-based observation and screening of passengers continue to come under
scrutiny and criticism. While TSA proposed to increase the numbers of Behavior Detection
Officers (BDOs) by 72 to 3,131, the House committee report did not support this increase, citing
TSA’s lack of clear evidence that BDOs provide protection against potential aviation security
threats. The committee called for a formal cost-benefit analysis of the BDO program along with a
robust risk-based strategy for BDO deployment.134
Armed Pilots and Crew Member Self-Defense Training
The budget justification specified a $13 million reduction (roughly a 50% cut) in funds for the
Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program that trains and deploys armed pilots and for the
crew member self-defense training program. Neither the House nor the Senate Appropriations
Committee have adopted this proposal. In addition to the House Appropriations Committee
recommending to keep the FFDO program at FY2012 level, the House passed an amendment
offered by Representative Cravaack to increase FFDO funding by an additional $10 million to
$36 million, $23 million above the request. The additional $10 million for the FFDO program is
offset by reductions of $5 million each for Screener Payroll, Compensation, and Benefits (PC&B)
and Screening Technology Maintenance.135 The House also included report language directing the
TSA to revisit the use of FFDOs and other federal law enforcement assets that fly on commercial
aircraft to serve as a force multiplier to complement the presence of air marshals through better
coordinated scheduling, communications, and training.136 The Senate Appropriations Committee
132 H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 69-70.
133 S.Rept. 112-169, pp. 63-64.
134 H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 65-66.
135 H.Amdt. 1248 to H.R. 5855, 112th Congress, 2nd Session.
136 H.Rept. 112-492, p.77.
Congressional Research Service
54
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
similarly disagreed with the request to reduce FFDO funding. It recommended $24 million for
FFDO and crew member training programs, noting that the slight decrease compared to FY2012
reflects the constrained budget environment.137
U.S. Coast Guard138
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. The Coast Guard was transferred from the Department of
Transportation to the DHS on March 1, 2003.
FY2013 Request
The President requested a total of $8,377 million in discretionary appropriations for the Coast
Guard, $257 million less than FY2012’s enacted amount. This amount includes $6,791 million in
operating expenses and $1,217 million in capital acquisitions.
House-Passed H.R. 5855
The House approved $212 million more than the President requested. Most of the difference is for
the capital account which includes acquisition of vessels, aircraft, and improvements to shore
facilities, as discussed further below.
Senate-Reported S. 3216
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended about $282 million more than the President
requested. Much of the difference is due to the Senate funding overseas contingency operations
directly under the Coast Guard rather than transferring this amount from the DOD budget as the
President requested. The largest differences with the President’s request has to do with vessel
procurement as shown in the following table and discussed further below.
137 S.Rept. 112-169, p.68.
138 Prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
55
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Table 13. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
Appropriations
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House-
Senate-
FY2013
Enacted
Request
passed
reported Enacted
Operating Expenses
7,051
6,791
6,765
7,073
Military pay and allowances
3,413
3,416
3,426
3,429
Civilian pay and benefits
784
790
786
790
Training and recruiting
213
213
213
214
Operating funds and unit
1,110 1,092 1,063
1,098
level maintenance
Central y managed accounts
337
350
301
351
Intermediate and depot level
936 930 970
937
maintenance
Global war on terror
258
[254]
[254]
254
Floor Amendment
5
Acquisition,
1,404 1,217 1,429
1,471
Construction, and
Improvements
Vessels 642
880
938
1,123
Aircraft 290
75
205
75
Other Equipment
161
77
59
77
Shore Facilities and ATON
181 69
110
69
Military Housing
20
-
-
10
Personnel & Related Support
110
117
117
117
Source: H.Rept. 112-492, S.Rept. 112-169.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding. Numbers in brackets are a transfer from the Defense
Department and not included in total.
Issues for Congress
Vessels and Aircraft
The largest differences in FY2013 funding recommendations between the President’s request and
House and Senate bills concerns vessel and aircraft acquisition. The President requested $139
million for two new fast response cutters. The House bill funds four ($224 million), and the
Senate bill funds six ($335 million). The President requested no funds for additional Response
Boat Medium vessels. The House bill also provides no funds for the vessels but the Senate
requested $8 million to build four more. Regarding aircraft, the House provides $90 million for
one long-range fixed wing aircraft, and $28 million for two MH-60 helicopters. The President
requested $64 million for the long-range aircraft, but made this request in the DOD’s budget (to
Congressional Research Service
56
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
be transferred to the Coast Guard) and requested no funds for MH-60 helicopters. The Senate did
not request funds for either of these aircraft under the Coast Guard’s appropriation.
The Coast Guard’s effort to replace or modernize its fleet of vessels and aircraft has been a major
issue for Congress over the last several years.139
Shore Facilities
The House bill provides $56 million for Coast Guard housing and aids to navigation, which is
about $41 million more than the $15 million requested by the President and recommended by the
Senate committee. The $41 million recommended by the House includes $31 million to address a
shore facilities backlog list produced by the Coast Guard (the list was requested by Congress in
FY2012 appropriations) and $10 million for the Coast Guard’s new headquarters building on the
St. Elizabeths campus in Washington, DC.
Maritime Security
The House Appropriations Committee Report calls on the Coast Guard to issue a final rule for
implementing card readers at ports and on vessels for the Transportation Worker Identification
Credential (TWIC), a biometric security card that port and vessel workers must have to access
security sensitive areas.140 The Senate Committee on Appropriations requests a Coast Guard
briefing on actions taken regarding Interagency Operations Centers at ports in light of a GAO
report critical of the agency’s development of these centers.141
U.S. Secret Service142
The U.S. Secret Service (USSS)143 has two broad missions, criminal investigations and
protection. 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 is the most
prominent, covering the President, Vice President, their families, and candidates for those offices,
along with the White House and Vice President’s residence, through the Service’s Uniformed
Division. Protective duties also extend to foreign missions in the District of Columbia and to
designated individuals, such as the DHS Secretary and visiting foreign dignitaries. Aside from
these specific mandated assignments, USSS is responsible for security activities at National
Special Security Events (NSSE),144 which include the major party quadrennial national
conventions as well as international conferences and events held in the United States. The NSSE
designation by the President gives the USSS authority to organize and coordinate security
139 For background on this issue, see archived CRS Report RL33753, Coast Guard Deepwater Acquisition Programs:
Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
140 H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 79-80.
141 S.Rept. 112-169, pp. 89-90.
142 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and
Finance Division.
143 For more information, see CRS Report RL34603, The U.S. Secret Service: An Examination and Analysis of Its
Evolving Missions, by Shawn Reese.
144 For more information, see CRS Report RS22754, National Special Security Events, by Shawn Reese.
Congressional Research Service
57
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
arrangements involving various law enforcement units from other federal agencies and state and
local governments, as well as from the National Guard.
FY2013 Request
For FY2013, the Administration requested an appropriation of $1,601 million for the USSS.145
The Administration’s request is $66 million (4%) less than was appropriated for the USSS in
FY2012. The Administration requested approximately $988 million for its protection mission,
$324 million for its investigation mission, and total of 7,061 FTE to meet its personnel needs.146
House-Passed H.R. 5855
For FY2013, the House-passed version of the DHS appropriations bill recommended an
appropriation of $1,613 million.147 This amount represents a decrease of $54 million (3.2%) from
the FY2012 USSS appropriation. However, it is $12 million (0.8%) more than the
Administration’s FY2013 request.
The decrease compared to FY2012 reflects the anticipated conclusion of the 2012 Presidential
campaign season and the reduced demand for major presidential candidate protection.148 It is
mitigated by restoration of $8 million in specific funding for USSS support for the Center for
Missing and Exploited Children, which had been zeroed out in the Administration’s request, and
an $8 million increase for Electronic Crimes Special Agent Program and Electronic Crimes Task
Forces.
Senate-Reported S. 3216
For FY2013, the Senate-reported version of the DHS appropriations bill recommended an
appropriation of $1,613 million.149 This amount reflects a total decrease of $54 million (3.2%)
145 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service, Fiscal Year 2013 Overview: Congressional
Justification, p. 3.
146 Ibid.
147 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2013,
112th Cong., 2nd sess., May 23, 2012, H.Rept. 112-492, p. 93.
148 Ibid.
149 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2013,
112th Cong., 2nd sess., May 22, 2012, S.Rept. 112-169, p. 91.
Congressional Research Service
58
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
from the FY2012 USSS appropriation. However, it is $12 million (0.8%) above the
Administration’s FY2013 request.
Although the structure is different for two programs, the Senate also restored $8 million in
specific funding for USSS support for the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and
provided $4 million above the request for unspecified priority domestic investigations.
Additionally, the Senate Committee notes and approves the USSS Director’s actions to address
the “improper behavior involving 12 Secret Service agents and officers in Cartagena, Colombia,
on April 12, 2012.”150
Table 14. FY2012 and FY2013 Budget Authority for the U.S. Secret Service
(amounts in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
Budget
House-
Senate-
FY2013
Programs and Activities
Enacted
Request
passed
reported
Enacted
Salaries and Expenses
1,661
1,544
1,556
1,556
Protection 1,052
988
988
988
Protection of persons and facilities
832
838
838
858
Protective intelligence activities
68
68
68
68
National Special Security Events
19
5
5
5
Candidate nominee protection
113
58
58
58
White House mail screening
18
20
20
-a
Investigations 318
324
340
336
Domestic field operations
224
239
239
298
International field operations
33
31
31
31
Electronic crimes program
53
55
62
-b
Forensic support to the National Center
8 -
8
8
for Missing and Exploited Children
Management and Administration
192
175
171
175
Information Integration &Technology
44 53
1
1
Transformation
James J. Rowley Training Center
55
56
56
56
Acquisition, construction, and
5 57
57
57
improvements
Total 1,667
1,601
1,613
1,613
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2013 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2013 DHS Budget in Brief,
S.Rept. 112-169, H.Rept. 112-492 .
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding.
a. Funded under “Protection of Persons and Facilities.”
b. Funded under “Domestic Field Operations.”
150 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
59
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Issue for Congress
One issue of interest to Congress concerning the FY2013 appropriations for the USSS was the
balancing of the investigative and protective missions of the Service, and how serving both
missions may affect USSS overall operations.
Protection and Investigation Missions Funding and Activities
USSS’s protection mission, as opposed to its investigative mission, employs the majority of the
Service’s agents and receives a larger share of the agency’s resources. Additionally, the majority
of congressional action concerning USSS has been related to its protection mission and recent
USSS agent misconduct.151 While Congress has maintained the Service’s role in investigating
financial crimes, such as combating counterfeiting, congressional action has primarily addressed,
and continues to address, the Service’s protection mission. Potential terrorist attacks and potential
threats to the President have resulted in an increase in the need for the Service’s protection
activities. Advocates for expansion of the investigation mission, however, may contend that
protection is enhanced through better threat investigation efforts.152
Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery
Title III of the DHS appropriations bill contains the appropriations for the National Protection and
Programs Directorate (NPPD), the Office of Health Affairs (OHA), and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). The Administration requested $5,911 million for these accounts in
FY2013, an increase of $231 million above the enacted level. The House-passed bill provides
$5,930 million, an increase of 0.3% above the requested level and 4.4% above FY2012. In
addition, both House-passed and Senate-reported versions of this title also include a requested
$5,481 million for disaster relief that is offset by an adjustment under the Budget Control Act.
The adjustment is $919 million smaller than the adjustment provided in the FY2012 Disaster
Relief Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-77). Table 15 lists the enacted amounts for the individual
components of Title III for FY2012 (as of August 1, 2012), the Administration’s request for these
components for FY2013, and the House-passed and Senate-reported appropriations for the same.
151 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Secret Service on the Line:
Restoring Trust and Confidence, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., May 23, 2012.
152 Herrera-Flanigan, Jessica, “Secret Service—Its Mission, Its Future,” Homeland Security Watch, October 20, 2009.
http://www.hlswatch.com/2009/10/20/secret-service-its-mission-its-future/.
Congressional Research Service
60
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Table 15. Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, FY2012-FY2013
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013 Appropriation
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House-
Senate-
FY2013
Enacted
Request
passed
reported
Enacted
National Protection and Programs Directorate
Management and Administration
51 50 45 50
Infrastructure Protection and Information
888 1,167 1,110 1,170
Security
US-VISIT 307
—
—
—
Office of Biometric Identity Managementa — —
191 —
Appropriation 1,246
1,217
1,347
1,220
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust Funds
1,262
1,302
1,302
1,302
Total Budgetary Resources
2,508
2,519
2,649
2,522
Office of Health Affairs
Appropriation 167
166
132
168
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust Funds
0
0
0
0
Total Budgetary Resources
167
166
132
168
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Salaries and Expenses
895
789
720
979
Automation
Modernization
— — 58 —
Grants and Training
2,375
2,900
2,798
2,670
U.S. Fire Administration
44
43
42
44
Disaster Relief Fundb
7,100
6,089
6,089
6,089
Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis
98
89
92
97
Pre-disaster Mitigation Fund
36
0
14
35
Emergency Food and Shelter
120
100
120
150
Radiological Emergency Preparedness
-1
-1
-1
-1
Appropriation 4,267
4,528
4,451
4,582
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust Funds
3,273
3,551
3,551
3,551
Disaster Relief Adjustment
6,400
5,481
5,481
5,481
Total Budgetary Resources
13,940
13,560
13,483
13,614
Net Budget Authority: Title III
5,680
5,911
5,930
5,971
Total Budgetary Resources for Title
16,624 16,245 16,264 16,304
III Components before Transfers
Sources: CRS analysis of the DHS FY2013 Congressional Budget Justification, H.Rept. 112-331 (for FY2012),
H.R. 5855, H.Rept. 112-492, and S.Rept. 112-169.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
61
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
a. The Administration proposed in the FY2013 budget request moving US-VISIT from NPPD and dividing it
between ICE and CBP. The House proposed retaining this portion of US-VISIT in NPPD.
b. Disaster relief funding is displayed in this line, but is not added to the appropriations total, in accordance
with the appropriations committees’ practices for subtotaling this account. This funding is not reflected in
the total appropriation for FEMA.
National Protection and Programs Directorate153
The National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) was formed by the Secretary for
Homeland Security in response to the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006.
The Directorate includes the Office of the Under Secretary for NPPD and accompanying
administrative support functions (budget, communications, etc.), the Office of Infrastructure
Protection and the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, the latter including the National
Cyber Security Division, the National Communications System and the Office of Emergency
Communications. The Administration has proposed moving the activities of the US-VISIT
program from NPPD to other locations within the Department. The House has proposed keeping
some of those functions within the Directorate in a newly established Office of Biometric Identify
Management.
FY2013 Request
The activities of the Office of the Under Secretary are supported by the Management and
Administration Program. The activities of the Office of Infrastructure Protection and the Office of
Cybersecurity and Communications are supported by the Infrastructure Protection and
Information Security Program (IPIS). The IPIS program can be further broken down into projects
related to infrastructure protection, cybersecurity, and communications.
The Administration requested $1,217 million for NPPD activities in FY2013, $29 million (2.3%)
less than what was appropriated for FY2012. The FY2013 Management and Administration
budget request was $50 million (roughly even with the FY2012 level) and represents a current
services154 budget request. It also reflects the transfer of functions previously performed by the
Directorate’s Office of Risk Management and Analysis to the DHS Office of Policy. The FY2013
153 Prepared by John D. Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry
division.
154 A current services budget request takes into account inflation, including proposed salary increases, and any
projected changes in workload without any expansion or reductions in type or quality of services beyond what is
currently provided.
Congressional Research Service
62
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
request for IPIS was $1,167 million, an increase of $278 million (31.3%) above the FY2012
appropriation.
A large share of the increase in the IPIS budget request was directed toward securing the federal
government’s information systems. The request included two major program increases. The first,
a new $202 million initiative within the Federal Network Security project, would directly
facilitate other federal agencies’ compliance with Federal Information Security Management
(FISMA) requirements, including development of continuous monitoring capabilities. The second
is a $116 million (50.7%) increase to expand the Network Security Deployment project. The
Network Security Deployment project supports deployment of the National Cybersecurity
Protection System (NCPS, also known as the EINSTEIN project). The NCPS is an intrusion
detection system that uses digital signatures developed by the National Security Agency. The
extra funding would expand deployment of the 3.0 version of the system (which allows for active
defenses against an intrusion) and development of version 2.2 (which would augment threat
visualization and information sharing capabilities) across federal agencies.
Other programmatic increases of note included $15 million for US-CERT to support analysis of
the additional data being generated by the NCPS and $5 million in additional support for the
Multi-State Information Security and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC) to assist state, local, territorial
and tribal governments in their cybersecurity efforts and to integrate them with NPPD’s national
efforts.
The FY2013 request decreased funding in other areas of the IPIS budget. Infrastructure protection
funding was reduced $40 million (13.7%) below the FY2012 appropriation and activities in
communications were reduced $7 million (4.7%) below FY2012 appropriated levels. Most of the
reduction in infrastructure protection was due to a $19 million (20.1%) reduction in the budget
requested for the Infrastructure Security Compliance project. This project supports activities to
ensure compliance with Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) at covered
facilities. The Administration considered the reduction a baseline adjustment, with $16 million of
the adjustment attributed to the ability of NPPD to obligated funds. Another $8 million in
reductions was associated with elimination of contract support for incident planning exercises.
Incident planning exercise activities would continue as those activities, and the federal personnel
associated with them, were transferred to other infrastructure protection projects.
House-Passed H.R. 5855
The House provided $1,347 million for NPPD: $45 million for Management and Administration,
$1,110 million for IPIS, and $191 million for the Office of Biometric Identity Management
(OBIM is discussed elsewhere in this report). The House provided $5 million (10%) less than
requested for Management and Administration citing the Administration’s use of unauthorized
TSA fee increases, flaws in the treatment of CBP fee revenues, and the department’s poor
compliance with statutory requirements.155 Much of the reduction in the IPIS request was made in
the Security Compliance project. Based on an internal review of the program which revealed
major problems with the program’s implementation, and the existence of unobligated funds, the
House provided $29 million less than requested. The House also reduced by $17 million the
funding requested for deployment of the NCPS, noting concern about NPPD’s ability to obligate
155 H.Rept. 112-492, p. 99.
Congressional Research Service
63
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
the funds.156 The House also directed the NPPD to work with the Coast Guard on program
implementation, personnel management, and inspector training, and to consider the potential for
using alternative security programs developed by the private sector for approving security plans
under CFATS.157
Other reductions made by the House included $3 million in the Global Cybersecurity
Management project (due to lack of sufficient justification) and $7 million in the Programs to
Study and Enhance Telecommunications project.158
The House provided the full $202 million increase for the Federal Network Security project
initiative. However, rather than transferring those funds to other agencies to develop continuous
monitoring capabilities, the House directed NPPD to use the funds to develop security
capabilities, including continuous monitoring, that other agencies could use.159
Senate-Reported S. 3216
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $1,220 million for NPPD. The Committee
recommended the requested amount for Management and Administration, but required an
expenditure plan.160 The Committee recommended $1,170 million for IPIS. This included
amounts above those requested for bombing prevention and vulnerability assessments.161 It also
included $12 million more in funding than requested for the Security Compliance project.
Acknowledging the existence of unobligated funds for the project and the Directorate’s
continuing internal deliberation on planning its way forward, the Committee stated that funds
above those requested would be needed to implement any subsequent implementation plan later
in the fiscal year.162
The Committee provided $18 million less than requested for the initiative within the Federal
Network Security project to support the development of continuing monitoring capability and
other security measures. In addition, the Committee recommended withholding $120 million of
the $184 million proposed by the Senate for this effort until NPPD produces an expenditure plan
for the initiative. Noting that NPPD had originally proposed a federated effort, but had
restructured the project to a more unified project managed by DHS, the Committee also
recommended that the expenditure plan explain how this new centralized structure will work.163
The Committee also recommended funding above that requested for the Global Cybersecurity
Management project (setting aside $17 million for cybersecurity education) and the Critical
Infrastructure Cybersecurity and Awareness project (citing the importance the Committee placed
on improving the cybersecurity posture of state, local, territorial, tribal governments). On a
related topic, the Committee cited the first National Cyber Security Review conducted by NPPD
156 Ibid., p. 100.
157 Ibid., 101-103.
158 Ibid., p. 100.
159 Ibid., p. 104-105.
160 S.Rept. 112-169, pp. 95-96.
161 Ibid., p. 97.
162 Ibid., P. 98.
163 Ibid. p. 99.
Congressional Research Service
64
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
which assessed the cybersecurity capabilities of states, local, territorial, and tribal governments,
and expressed its expectation that the review would be conducted annually to chart progress.164
The Committee also recommended increases for the Office of Emergency Communications and
to other emergency communication-related projects, including the Next Generation
Telecommunications project (which it increased $5 million above the requested level).165
Table 16. Budget Authority for Infrastructure Protection and Information Security
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
Appropriations
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House-
Senate-
FY2013
Program
Enacted Request
passed
passed
Enacted
Infrastructure Protection
295
255
226
270
Identification, Analysis, and Planning
71
57
57
60
Sector Management and Governance
74
67
67
67
Regional Field Operations
57
56
56
56
Infrastructure Security Compliance
93
75
45
86
National Cybersecurity Division
443
769
749
756
Cybersecurity Coordination
5
4
4
4
US-CERT Operations
79
93
93
93
Federal Network Security
35
236
236
218
Network Security Deployment
229
345
328
345
Global Cybersecurity Management
24
22
19
26
Critical Infrastructure Cyber Protection and
60 63 63 64
Awareness
Business Operations
12
6
6
6
Communications 150
143
136
144
Office of Emergency Communications
43
39
39
42
Priority Telecommunications Services
56
53
53
53
Next Generation Networks
25
20
20
25
Programs to Study and Enhance
13 20 13 13
Telecommunications
Critical Infrastructure Protection
11
11
11
11
Total, Infrastructure Protection and
888 1,167 1,110 1,170
Information Security
Source: CRS analysis of the DHS FY2013 Congressional Budget Justification, H.Rept. 112-331 (for FY2012),
H.R. 5855, H.Rept. 112-492, and S.Rept. 112-169.
Note: Amounts may not total due to rounding.
164 Ibid., p. 100.
165 Ibid., p. 101.
Congressional Research Service
65
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Continuing Resolution
A continuing resolution (CR) (P.L. 112-175) was signed into law on September 28, 2012, to fund
the federal government through March 27, 2013, or until the general appropriations bills for
FY2013 are enacted. The CR provides for DHS, with some limitations, to continue operations in
FY2013 with the same funding it received in FY2012, plus a 0.612% increase (see “Operating
Under a Continuing Resolution”). In addition to the general limitations discussed above, Section
137 of the CR allows DHS to expend funds for the IPIS program at a rate of operations of $1.170
billion. This is the amount recommended for IPIS by the Senate Appropriations Committee and is
higher than the FY2012 IPIS appropriation plus 0.612% ($893 million) and higher than that
requested by the Administration for FY2013. Of the $1.170 billion provided for IPIS, the
Resolution provides $328 million for Network Security Deployment (as approved by the House)
and $218 million for Federal Network Security (as recommended in the Senate), both of which
are substantially above the FY2012 plus 0.612% level, but less than that requested by the
Administration for FY2013 for those two programs.
Issues for Congress
CFATS Compliance
An internal review by NPPD at the end of last calendar year identified some major problems with
implementing the CFATS compliance program. The Directorate is continuing to review the
program and to develop ways to mitigate the problems identified. Congress, which has shown a
continued interest in developing and ensuring compliance with CFATS, will likely be interested in
oversight of this issue.
Cybersecurity
Congress has focused a fair amount of attention on cybersecurity during the 112th Congress,
including consideration of a number of bills addressing various aspects of the issue; e.g.,
information sharing, education and workforce development, clarifying roles and responsibilities
in protecting federal information systems, and protecting information systems of critical
infrastructure assets, including those owned and operated by the private sector. These bills and
issues are beyond the scope of this report. However, any legislation expanding DHS’s role in
protecting the information systems of critical infrastructure may require DHS, presumably NPPD,
to assume additional duties, which would likely require additional resources.166
Federal Protective Service167
The Federal Protective Service (FPS), within the National Protection and Programs Directorate
(NPPD),168 is responsible for the protection and security of federal property, personnel, and
166 For the latest CRS analysis on cybersecurity issues, please refer to the “Issues in Focus” page on cybersecurity on
CRS.gov, including CRS Report R42619, Cybersecurity: CRS Experts, by Eric A. Fischer. CRS Report R42507,
Cybersecurity: Authoritative Reports and Resources, by Rita Tehan, provides an excellent index to resources beyond
those found on that page.
167 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and
Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
66
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
federally owned and leased buildings.169 In general, FPS operations focus on security and law
enforcement activities that reduce vulnerability to criminal and terrorist threats.170 FPS protection
and security operations include all-hazards based risk assessments; emplacement of criminal and
terrorist countermeasures, such as vehicle barriers and closed-circuit cameras; law enforcement
response; assistance to federal agencies through Facility Security Committees; and emergency
and safety education programs. FPS also assists other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Secret
Service (USSS) at National Special Security Events (NSSE), with additional security.171 FPS is
the lead “Government Facilities Sector Agency” for the National Infrastructure Protection Plan
(NIPP).172 Currently, FPS employs approximately 1,225 law enforcement officers, investigators,
and administrative personnel, and administers the services of approximately 13,000 contract
security guards.
President’s FY2013 Request
The President’s FY2013 budget request included 1,279 FTEs and $1,302 million for FPS. This is
$40 million (3%) more than FPS received in FY2012. FPS does not receive a typical
appropriation, but instead has a budget wholly offset by security fees charged to GSA building
tenants in FPS-protected buildings and facilities. Of the total funding projected in the request,
$272 million in fees would be collected for basic security operations, $509 million for building-
specific security operations, and $521 million for Security Work Authorizations.173
House-Passed H.R. 5855
For FY2013, House-passed H.R. 5855 projected no specific changes to the FPS budget and
provided no additional direction for the service. As the actual funding for FPS services is included
in other appropriations bills, it is not discussed here.
Senate-Reported S. 3216
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended no specific changes to the FPS budget.
However, the Senate Appropriations Committee report required the Office of Under Secretary for
NPPD, in conjunction with the FPS Director, to brief the committee on FPS management and
budget improvement efforts.174
(...continued)
168 FPS was transferred to NPPD from ICE following the enactment of the FY2010 DHS appropriations, P.L. 111-83.
169 40 U.S.C. 1315.
170 For more information on FPS, see CRS Report RS22706, The Federal Protective Service and Contract Security
Guards: A Statutory History and Current Status, by Shawn Reese.
171 For information on NSSEs, see CRS Report RS22754, National Special Security Events, by Shawn Reese.
172 For Information on the NIPP, see http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/editorial_0827.shtm.
173 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Protection & Programs Directorate, Federal Protective Service:
Fiscal Year 2013 Congressional Justification, February 2012, p. 4.
174 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2013,
112th Cong., 2nd sess., May 22, 2012, S.Rept. 112-169, p. 103.
Congressional Research Service
67
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Issues for Congress
Congress continues to express concern over certain aspects of the FPS mission and how FPS is
funded. Appropriators have expressed an interest in improving training of contract guards,
federalizing contract guards, developing standards for checkpoint detection technologies for
explosives and other dangerous items at federal facilities, and coordinating DHS efforts with the
Interagency Security Committee for building security standards.175 Several pieces of legislation
have been introduced in the House and Senate in the 112th Congress—including H.R. 176, H.R.
2658 and S. 772—to improve federal building security and strengthen the ability of FPS to
protect the buildings, the federal employees who work in them, and the visiting public.
Office of Health Affairs176
The Office of Health Affairs (OHA) has operational responsibility for several programs, including
the BioWatch program, the National Biosurveillance Integration Center (NBIC), and the
department’s occupational health and safety programs.177 OHA also coordinates or consults on
DHS programs that have a public health or medical component; these include several of the
homeland security grant programs, and medical care provided at ICE detention facilities. OHA
received $167 million in FY2012 appropriations.
FY2013 Request
The President requested $166 million for OHA for FY2013, $1 million (0.6%) less than was
appropriated for FY2012. The requested funding level would support 101 FTEs, 2 more than in
FY2012. The proposed allocation is: $125 million for the BioWatch program; $8 million for
NBIC; $1 million for the Chemical Defense Program; $5 million for Planning and Coordination
(under which numerous leadership and coordination activities are implemented); and $28 million
for Salaries and Expenses.178 (See Table 17.)
House-Passed H.R. 5855
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $132 million for OHA for FY2013, $35
million (21.2%) less than for FY2012, and $34 million (20.7%) less than the President’s
175 For more information about federal building security and role of FPS, see CRS Report R41138, Federal Building,
Courthouse, and Facility Security, by Lorraine H. Tong and Shawn Reese.
176 Prepared by Sarah A. Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology, Domestic Social Policy Division.
177 DHS, Office of Health Affairs, http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0880.shtm.
178 OHA, Fiscal Year 2013 Congressional Justification, p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
68
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
request.179 The decrease largely reflects a recommendation of $85 million for the BioWatch
program (discussed further below); $29 million below the FY2012 amount, and $40 million
below the President’s request. The House approved these recommendations. (See Table 17.)
Senate-Reported S. 3216
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $168 million for OHA for FY2013, $1
million (0.5%) more than for FY2012 and $2 million (1.1%) more than the President’s request.180
The committee recommended the amounts requested by the President for the BioWatch program,
NBIC, and salaries and expenses.181 The committee also recommended small increases for
Planning and Coordination and Salaries and Expenses; and $2 million for the Chemical Defense
Program, to support additional pilot programs. (See Table 17.)
Table 17. Office of Health Affairs
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
Appropriations
FY2012
House-
Senate-
Program or Activity
Enacted
Request passed
reported Enacted
BioWatch 114
125
85
125
National Biosurveillance Integration Center
12
8
13
8
Chemical Defense
5
1
1
2
Planning and Coordination
6
5
5
5
Salaries and Expenses
30
28
28
28
Total OHA budget authority
167
166
132
168
Sources: OHA, Fiscal Year 2013 Congressional Justification, H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 110-112, and
S.Rept. 112-169, pp. 102-105.
Issues for Congress
Consolidation of DHS WMD Defense Programs
In its report on FY2013 funding recommendations for DHS, the House Appropriations
Committee commented on the separation of the department’s activities to monitor threats posed
by weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In particular, the committee noted the separation of the
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), responsible for monitoring radiological and nuclear
threats, and OHA, responsible for monitoring chemical and biological threats. The Committee
directed the Secretary to develop, and submit to Congress, a consolidation plan to merge DNDO
179 H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 110-112.
180 S.Rept. 112-169, pp. 102-105.
181 However, the committee recommended withholding from obligation $29 million of the BioWatch amount—a
portion of the $40 million intended for Gen-3 deployment, as discussed below—until the Secretary certifies the
soundness of the technology to the committee. Ibid, p. 103.
Congressional Research Service
69
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
and OHA into an Office of Weapons of Mass Destruction Defense for FY2014, and directed GAO
to review the consolidation plan. 182
The Senate report carries no parallel directive.
BioWatch: Effectiveness and Deployment
The BioWatch program deploys sensors in more than 30 large U.S. cities to detect the possible
aerosol release of a bioterrorism pathogen, in order that medications could be distributed before
exposed individuals became ill. Operation of the BioWatch program accounts for the lion’s share
of OHA’s budget. The program has sought for several years to deploy more sophisticated sensors
(so-called “Generation-3” or “Gen-3” sensors) that could detect airborne pathogens in a few
hours, rather than the day or more that is currently required. Some Members of Congress have
expressed concerns about the Gen-3 development and deployment processes, however, citing
technical and scientific concerns, as well as concerns about cost, deployment delays, and large
carryover balances.183
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for leading and supporting
the nation’s preparedness through a risk-based and comprehensive emergency management
system of preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation. This comprehensive
emergency management system is intended to reduce the loss of life and property, and protect the
nation from all hazards. These hazards include natural and accidental man-made disasters, and
acts of terrorism.184
FEMA executes its mission through a number of activities such as providing assistance through
its administration of the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund.
Additionally, FEMA provides assistance to state, local, and tribal governments, and non-
182 H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 12-14.
183 See for example H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 110-111; Jennifer Scholtes, “Members Wary About Investing More in
BioWatch,” CQ Homeland Security, March 30, 2012, online news; Carol Wolf, “Anthrax Alert System at Risk as Cost
Estimate Hits $5.7 Billion,” Bloomberg Government, June 12, 2002; and GAO, Biosurveillance: DHS Should
Reevaluate Mission Need and Alternatives before Proceeding with BioWatch Generation-3 Acquisition, GAO-12-810,
September 10, 2012, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-810.
184 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, About FEMA: FEMA Mission,
Washington, DC, November 2008, at http://www.fema.gov/about/index.shtm.
Congressional Research Service
70
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
governmental entities through its management and administration of programs such as State and
Local Programs, the Assistance to Firefighters Grants, and the Emergency Food and Shelter
program.
FY2013 Request
The Administration requested a total discretionary appropriation of $4,528 million in net budget
authority for FEMA for FY2013, an increase of $261 million (6.1%) over the enacted FY2012
level of $4,267 million. In addition, the Administration requested an additional $5,481 million for
the DRF, paid for by an adjustment to the discretionary budget cap under a mechanism
established by the Budget Control Act. This adjustment, which is $919 million below the
additional funding provided for the DRF in FY2012, is discussed more in detail below and earlier
in the report.
House-Passed H.R. 5855
House-passed H.R. 5855 provides a total discretionary appropriation of $4,451 million for FEMA
for FY2013, a decrease of $76 million (1.7%) from the President’s request and an increase of 185
million (4.3%) from FY2012. This includes $23 million added to FEMA’s budget through floor
amendments. The House also included the requested additional funding for the DRF, paid for by
the allowable adjustment for disaster relief.
Senate-Reported S. 3216
Senate-reported S. 3216 provides a total discretionary appropriation of $4,582 million for FEMA
for FY2013, an increase of $55 million (1.2%) from the President’s request and an increase of
$316 million (7.4%) from FY2012. The Senate Appropriations Committee also included the
requested additional funding for the DRF, paid for by the allowable adjustment for disaster relief.
DHS State and Local Preparedness Grants185
State and local governments have primary responsibility for most domestic public safety
functions. When facing difficult fiscal conditions, state and local governments may reduce
resources allocated to public safety and, consequently, homeland security preparedness, due to
increasing pressure to address tight budgetary constraints and fund competing priorities. Since
state and local governments fund the largest percentage of public safety expenditures, this may
have a significant impact on the national preparedness level.
Prior to 9/11, there were only three federal grant programs available to state and local
governments to address homeland security: the State Domestic Preparedness Program
administered by the Department of Justice, the Emergency Management Performance Grant
(EMPG) administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the
Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) administered by the Department of Health and
Human Services. Since that time, several additional homeland security grant programs were
185 Prepared by Natalie M. Keegan, Analyst in American Federalism and Emergency Management Policy,
nkeegan@crs.loc.gov, 7-9569.
Congressional Research Service
71
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
added to ensure state and local preparedness, including the State Homeland Security Grant
Program (SHSGP), Citizen Corps Program (CCP), Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI),
Driver’s License Security Grants Program (REAL ID), Operation Stonegarden grant program
(Stonegarden), Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPG), Public
Transportation Security Assistance and Rail Security Assistance grant program (Transit Grants),
Port Security Grants (Port Security), Over-the-Road Bus Security Assistance (Over-the-Road),
Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP), Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant
Program (IECGP), and Emergency Operations Center Grant Program (EOC).
While state and local governments receive federal assistance for preparedness activities, this
federal assistance accounts for only a small percentage of overall state and local spending for
public safety. On average, total expenditures for all state and local governments for public safety
is $218 billion annually.186 Public safety expenditures include costs associated with the functions
of police protection, fire protection, corrections, and protective inspections and regulations.187 By
comparison, in FY2012, Congress appropriated approximately $2,375 million to federal grant
programs for state and local preparedness through DHS.188 This amount accounts for a little more
than 1% of state and local government public safety expenditures.
As has frequently been the case over the recent history of FEMA’s grant and training programs,
the Administration proposed changes to the structure of the accounts, making a direct comparison
to previous years more challenging. Congress has generally funded Emergency Management
Performance Grants (EMPG), Fire Grants, and SAFER Act Grants outside the State and Local
Programs function, and allowed a portion of the funds for these programs to cover administrative
costs by transferring funds to FEMA’s management accounts. For FY2013, the Administration
proposed rolling EMPG, Fire Grants, and SAFER Act Grants into State and Local Programs, and
providing a separate line under the State and Local Programs function for management and
administration. These changes allowed the Administration to present a State and Local Programs
request of $2,900 million for FY2013. However, the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees rejected the structural changes, and an analysis of funding using the enacted structure
indicates a comparable request of roughly $1,880 million for FY2013, $531 million more than
was appropriated for FY2012.189 A detailed breakdown of the proposed structure of that funding
follows in Table 18.
The requested funding level would include funding to support the establishment of a National
Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP), which was proposed as a means to consolidate the
activities previously funded under a number of state and local preparedness grant programs and
186 U.S. Census Bureau, State and Local Government Finance Summary Report, April 2011, p. 7.
187 The definition of state and local public safety expenditures is based on the U.S Census Bureau’s definition of public
safety for the annual surveys of state and local government finances.
188 This amount only includes funds provided to state and local programs, which does not include funding provided for
the Firefighter Assistance Grants, Emergency Management Performance Grants, and the Radiological Emergency
Preparedness Program.
189 The $1.8 billion amount calculated for the President’s request includes $1.5 billion for a consolidated national
preparedness grant program, $279 million for management and administration (including activities traditionally funded
by the National Exercise Program, Center for Domestic Preparedness, and technical assistance, evaluation, and
assessment), and $60 million for a training partnership grant (including activities traditionally funded by the National
Domestic Preparedness Consortium, and Continuing Training Grants program). In an equivalent comparison, Congress
provided $1.4 billion in FY2013 for these activities, of which $1.1 billion was for state and local programs (of which
$50 million was carved out for Operation Stonegarden), and $232 million for training, exercises, and technical
assistance.
Congressional Research Service
72
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
ensure federal grants are better aligned with meeting preparedness policy goals.190 The House
Appropriations Committee denied the consolidation request, noting in the report accompanying
the bill that the proposal had not been authorized by Congress, lacked sufficient details regarding
the implementation of the program, and lacked sufficient stakeholder participation in the
development of the proposal.191 The Senate Appropriations Committee also expressed concern
with the consolidation proposal because it was unclear how risk assessments would be used and
how funding would be allocated.192 The Senate Committee also noted its concern over the
uncertainty surrounding the allocation of funding to individual grant programs.193
National Preparedness Goal
On March 30, 2011, President Obama issued a presidential policy directive that directed the Secretary of DHS to
develop and submit to the President a national preparedness goal. Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8) directed the
Secretary to develop a national preparedness goal in coordination with federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial
governments:
The national preparedness goal shall be informed by the risk of specific threats and
vulnerabilities – taking into account regional variations – and include concrete, measurable,
and prioritized objectives to mitigate that risk. The national preparedness goal shall define
the core capabilities necessary to prepare for the specific types of incidents that pose the
greatest risk to the security of the Nation.194
This presidential policy directive builds on a previous national preparedness homeland security directive (HSPD-8)
issued by President George W. Bush after 9/11, which initiated the following national preparedness goal:
Strengthen the preparedness of the United States to prevent and respond to threatened or
actual domestic terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies by requiring a
national domestic all-hazards preparedness goal.195
On October 7, 2011, The Secretary of DHS released the first National Preparedness Goal (NPG) developed under
the provisions of PPD-8. The NPG identifies the set of nation-wide core capabilities needed to reach the desired end-
state objective in each of the five mission areas of preparedness: prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and
recovery. The NPG also identifies preliminary performance targets for these capabilities.196 Ultimately, the NPG
defines the overall desired end-state as:
A secure and resilient Nation with the capabilities required across the whole community to
prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that
pose the greatest risk.197
190 For more, on the proposal, see Department of Homeland Security, FY2013 National Preparedness Grant Program:
Vision Document, February 2012, http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/
fy2013_npgp_grant_program_overview.pdf.
191 Ibid.
192 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2013,
report to accompany S. 3216, 112th Congress, 2d sess., S.Rept. 112-169, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2012), p. 113.
193 Ibid.
194 Presidential Policy Directive 8, National Preparedness(PPD-8), issued on March 30, 2011. For more on PPD-8, see
CRS Report R42073, Presidential Policy Directive 8 and the National Preparedness System: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Jared T. Brown.
195 Homeland Security Directive 8, National Preparedness (HSPD-8), issued on December 17, 2003.
196 Department of Homeland Security, National Preparedness Goal, First Edition, Washington, DC, September 2011,
p. 1, http://www.fema.gov/pdf/prepared/npg.pdf.
197 Ibid, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
73
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
For FY2013, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $1,763 million for State and
Local Programs, approximately $413 million more than for FY2012, and roughly $117 million
less than the President’s request. As the House Appropriations Committee rejected the proposal
for the NPGP, it recommended that the grant structure enacted in FY2012 for state and local
programs be continued in FY2013. That structure provided a single amount of grant funding to be
distributed at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security under the authorities provided
by the State Homeland Security Grant Program, Urban Area Security Initiative, Metropolitan
Medical Response System, Citizen Corps Program, Public Transportation Security Assistance and
Railroad Security Assistance, Over-the-Road Bus Security Assistance, Port Security Grants,
Driver’s License Security Grants Program, Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant
Program, Emergency Operations Centers, Buffer Zone Protection Program, and high-risk non-
profit organizations described under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
The House approved this recommendation, adding $10 million through a floor amendment
offered by Representative Yvette Clarke. Of the $1,773 billion that would be appropriated for
State and Local Programs under the House-passed bill, $55 million would be directed to
Operation Stonegarden, $150 million would go to areas at the highest threat of a terrorist attack,
and $232 million for training, exercises, technical assistance, and other programs.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $1,645 million for State and Local
Programs FY2013, $295 million more than was appropriated in FY2012, and roughly $125
million less than the President’s request. Of the $1,645 million, the committee recommended
$470 million for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, of which $55 million was
recommended for Operation Stonegarden; $676 million for Urban Area Security Initiative, of
which $13 million was recommended for non-profit security grants; $132 million for Public
Transportation Security/Bus Assistance, of which $13 million was recommended for Amtrak;
$132 million for Port Security Grants; and $234 million for education, training, and exercises.
Table 18. State and Local Grant Programs and Training
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
Appropriations
FY2012
Budget
House-
Senate-
Programs
Enacted
Requesta
passed
reported Enacted
State and Local Programs (grants)
1,118b -
1,531
1,411
State Homeland Security Grant Program
-
-
-
470
Operation Stonegarden
50c
-
55c 55d
Urban Area Security Initiative
-
-
-
677
Non-Profit Security Grants (included in
- - -
13
UASI)
Public Transportation Security Assistance,
- - -
132
Railroad Security Assistance, Over-the-
Road Bus Security Assistance
Amtrak Security (included in above
- - -
13
security assistance programs)
Congressional Research Service
74
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
FY2013
Appropriations
FY2012
Budget
House-
Senate-
Programs
Enacted
Requesta
passed
reported Enacted
Port Security
-
-
-
132
Education, Training, and Exercises
232
-
232
234
Emergency Management Institute
16
-
16
18
Center for Domestic Preparedness
63
-
63
65
National Domestic Preparedness Consortium
93
-
93
93
National Exercise Program
34
-
34
32
Continuing Training
26
-
26
26
National Preparedness Grant Program
-
1,541
-
-
Training Partnership Grant
-
60
-
-
Management and Administration
279
Total, State and Local Programs
1,350
1,880
1,763
1,645
Sources: H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 115-118, and S.Rept. 112-169, pp. 109-115.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding.
a. The Administration’s budget request included a proposal to shift the Emergency Management Performance
Grants, Fire Grants, SAFER Act Grants, and a new series of Training Partnership Grants into a category of
First Responder Assistance Grants under State and Local Programs. This proposal was rejected by the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and therefore is not reflected in this table.
b. P.L. 112-74 included $1,118 million for most of the State and Local Programs account (National
Level/Training, Exercises, and Technical Assistance programs excepted) without making specific allocations
among the programs in the FY2012 request, except for $50 million for Operation Stonegarden.
c. Included in State and Local Programs (grants).
d. Included in the State Homeland Security Grant Program.
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFG)198
The Administration’s FY2013 budget proposed $670 million for firefighter assistance, including
$335 million for AFG and $335 million for SAFER.199 This is a decrease of $5 million from the
FY2012 level. Under the Administration proposal, firefighter assistance grants would be
categorized under First Responder Assistance Programs (FRAP), one of three activities under
FEMA’s State and Local Programs (SLP) appropriation. Historically, DHS has requested that a
percentage of AFG funding (up to 5%) be set aside for management and administration of the
grant program. Starting in FY2013, grant administration would be shifted to the SLP
Management and Administration office. Regarding SAFER grants, the Administration requested
that all previous SAFER waivers again be enacted for FY2013.
198 Prepared by Lennard G. Kruger, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science and Industry
Division.
199 For further information see CRS Report RL32341, Assistance to Firefighters Program: Distribution of Fire Grant
Funding, by Lennard G. Kruger, and CRS Report RL33375, Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response: The
SAFER Grant Program, by Lennard G. Kruger.
Congressional Research Service
75
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
The House-passed bill is identical to the Administration’s requested level of $670 million,
including $335 million for AFG and $335 million for SAFER. The House-passed bill denied the
Administration’s request to shift AFG and SAFER into the State and Local Programs account.
Unlike the Administration request, the House-passed bill would designate up to 4.7% of the
amount appropriated to firefighter assistance for program administration. The Committee also
specified that SAFER restrictions not be applied to the FY2013 SAFER grants.
During floor action on June 6, 2012, an amendment was offered by Representative Runyan to
increase funding for AFG and SAFER by $2.5 million each, taking its $5 million offset from the
Office of the Undersecretary for Management. The amendment passed by voice vote, bringing the
firefighter assistance account to $675 million ($337.5 million AFG, $337.5 million SAFER),
which is identical to the FY2012 level.
The Senate-reported bill proposed $675 million for firefighter assistance, including $337.5
million for AFG and $337.5 million for SAFER. The Senate level is identical to the FY2012
level. Like the House-passed bill, the Senate Committee denied the Administration’s request to
shift AFG and SAFER into the State and Local Programs account. However, the Committee did
include program and administration costs separately under the FEMA Salaries and Expenses
account. The Senate-reported bill also included SAFER waiver authority language, and the
Committee stated its expectation that DHS will take into consideration economic hardship when
exercising the waiver authority.
Disaster Relief Fund200
The DRF is the main account used to fund a wide variety of programs, grants, and other forms of
emergency and disaster assistance to states, local governments, certain nonprofit entities, and
families and individuals affected by disasters.201 The DRF is funded yearly through regular
appropriations; however, the account often is depleted before the end of the fiscal year due to
accumulated need for disaster assistance. This is due in part to ongoing recovery efforts from
major events such as the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005. However, in recent years it has been
argued that the reliance on supplemental funding has primarily been due to underfunding the
DRF. For example, between 2005 and 2011, the average regular appropriation for the DRF has
been $1,749 million. Yet, the average monthly expenditures for the DRF are $383 million (which
would extrapolate to $4,596 million annually).
The Administration has requested $6,088 million for the DRF. This is a decrease of $1,011
million (14.2%) from the $7,100 million enacted for FY2012—however, that total included a
$6,400 million supplemental. The request can be broken out into two categories: $5,481 million
for disaster relief costs for major disasters under the Stafford Act, and $608 million for activities
not tied to major disasters under the Stafford Act (including activities such as assistance provided
to states for emergencies and fires).
200 This section prepared by Bruce R. Lindsay, Analyst, Emergency Management Policy, Government and Finance
Division.
201 In most cases, funding from the DRF is released after the President has issued a declaration pursuant to the Robert
T. Stafford Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.). For further analysis on the DRF, see CRS
Report R40708, Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, by Bruce R. Lindsay and Justin
Murray. For further analysis on declaration process, see CRS Report RL34146, FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process:
A Primer, by Francis X. McCarthy.
Congressional Research Service
76
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
This year’s request is more than three times the size of the request from FY2012. The
Administration requested funding for the DRF based on what FEMA plans to spend on all past
declared catastrophic events, plus the 10-year average for non-catastrophic events,202 and a $500
million reserve to prevent shortfalls. This was adjusted downward by $1,200 million to account
for projected recovery of funds not needed for past disasters.203
Both the House-passed bill and the Senate-reported bills carried the same level of funding for the
DRF as the Administration requested for FY2013. Both pieces of legislation also contained an
unrequested transfer of $24 million out of the DRF to the DHS Office of Inspector General to
conduct audits and investigations on disaster-related spending.
Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) and the Budget Control Act (BCA)
The Budget Control Act (BCA)204 included a series of provisions that directed the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to annually calculate an “allowable adjustment” for disaster
relief to the BCA’s discretionary spending caps. That adjustment, if used, would make additional
budget authority available for disaster relief for major disasters declared under the Stafford Act
beyond what is allowed in the regular discretionary budget allocation. Without the adjustment,
spending over the allocation could trigger a sequestration.205
It is important to note that “disaster relief” funding under the BCA and the Disaster Relief Fund
are not the same. The BCA defines funding for “disaster relief” as funding for activities carried
out pursuant to a major disaster declaration under the Stafford Act. This funding comes not only
from FEMA, but from accounts across the federal government. While a portion of funding for the
DRF is eligible for the allowable adjustment under the BCA, it is not wholly “disaster relief” by
the BCA definition.
The total amount provided for disaster relief in FY2012 thus far is $11,252 million—$799 million
below the allowable adjustment.206 The monthly report issued by FEMA on June 6, 2012,
indicates that there is $2,174 million unallocated funds remaining in the disaster relief account.207
A large disaster or active hurricane season (or both) could deplete the remaining amount,
necessitating a supplemental appropriation for additional funds for disaster relief. The amount
needed for disaster relief could exceed the available allowable adjustment, and might therefore
require additional action to avoid triggering sequestration under the BCA.
202 In previous years, a five-year rolling average of non-catastrophic disaster costs was used.
203 Department of Homeland Security, Fiscal Year 2013 Congressional Justification, Washington DC, 2012, pp. 5-6.
204 For in-depth discussion of the Budget Control Act, see CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011, by
Bill Heniff Jr., Elizabeth Rybicki, and Shannon M. Mahan.
205 For further analysis on disaster relief spending and the Budget Control Act see CRS Report R42352, An
Examination of Federal Disaster Relief Under the Budget Control Act, by Bruce R. Lindsay, William L. Painter, and
Francis X. McCarthy.
206 Office of Management and Budget, OMB Final Sequestration Report to the President and Congress for Fiscal Year
2012, Washington DC, January 18, 2012, p. 8.
207 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Disaster Relief Fund: Monthly Report, Fiscal Year 2012 Report to
Congress, June 6, p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
77
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program208
The Administration’s proposal for the PDM program suggested its eventual elimination.209 No
additional funds were requested and it was suggested that the program duplicated the work of the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) which is Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and other mitigation programs funded by the
National Flood Insurance Program.210 While the HMGP program and the PDM program fund
similar projects, PDM is distinguished from HMGP by uniquely making such awards prior to
disaster events.211 In addition, while programs under NFIP address similar projects, they only
apply to flood hazards. PDM and HMGP on the other hand, apply to all types of hazards.
The Administration noted that there is more that $174 million in unobligated balances that would
permit the PDM program to continue awarding grants for several years as it was phased out.
Neither the House-passed bill nor the Senate-reported bill includes legislative language ending
the program. However, the small amounts proposed to be appropriated, $14.3 million by the
House-passed bill and $35 million by the Senate-reported bill, appear to signal a concern with the
slow pace of awards made by the program and the recognition of the large unobligated balance.
In addition to the reduced awards from the $36 million level of FY2012, each chamber would
also rescind some funding from the unobligated balance, specifically congressionally directed
funding that local communities have not used.
Emergency Food and Shelter (EFS) Program212
For several years the Administration has proposed reduced funding for the EFS program. FY2013
continued that practice by again requesting $100 million for the program, a reduction of $20
million from the appropriated level of funding in FY2012.213 The program has historically
received increased funding during times of high unemployment.214 In FY2012, Congress funded
the program at $120 million, $20 million over the requested level. For FY2013, the House has
placed the funding level again at $120 million while the Senate has suggested raising the amount
to $150 million.
208 This section prepared by Francis X. McCarthy, Analyst, Emergency Management Policy, Government and Finance
Division.
209 FY2013 Budget Justification, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund, IV Program Justification Changes, p. 6.
210 For information regarding flood mitigation programs, see CRS Report R40650, National Flood Insurance Program:
Background, Challenges, and Financial Status, by Rawle O. King.
211 For a discussion of these programs see CRS Report R40471, FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: Overview
and Issues, by Natalie Keegan, and CRS Report RL34537, FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program: Overview and
Issues, by Francis X. McCarthy and Natalie Keegan.
212 This section prepared by Francis X. McCarthy, Analyst, Emergency Management Policy, Government and Finance
Division.
213 FY2013 Budget Justification, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Emergency Food and Shelter, III Current Services Program Discussion by PPA, p. 3.
214 For additional information on the EFS program see CRS Report RL30442, Homelessness: Targeted Federal
Programs and Recent Legislation, coordinated by Libby Perl, pp. 9&10.
Congressional Research Service
78
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Title IV: Research and Development, Training,
and Services
Title IV of the DHS appropriations bill contains the appropriations for U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), the
Science and Technology directorate (S&T), and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. The
Administration requested $1,561 million for these accounts in FY2013, a decrease of $229
million below the enacted level. The House-passed bill provides $1,510 million, an increase of
3.3% above the requested level and 13.4% above FY2012. The Senate-reported bill provides
$1,535 million, 1.7% below the request and 15.2% above FY2012. Table 19 lists the enacted
amounts for the individual components of Title IV for FY2012 (as of August 1, 2012), the
Administration’s request for these components for FY2013, and the House-passed and Senate-
reported appropriations for the same.
Table 19. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, and Services, FY2012-FY2013
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013 Appropriation
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House-
Senate-
FY2013
Enacted
Request
passed
reported Enacted
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Appropriation
102 143 112 117
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust Funds
2,976
2,862
2,882
2,882
Total
Budgetary
Resources
3,078 3,005 2,994 2,999
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
Salaries and Expenses
239 229 228 229
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements
and Related Expenses
32 29 27 29
Appropriation
271 258 256 258
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust Funds
0
0
0
0
Total
Budgetary
Resources
271 258 256 258
Science and Technology
Management and Administration
135
138 130 138
Research, Development, Acquisition, and
533 693 696 693
Operations
Appropriation
668 831 826 831
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust Funds
0
0
0
0
Total
Budgetary
Resources
668 831 826 831
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
Management and Administration
38
40 38 40
Research, Development, and Operations
215
237 227 237
Systems Acquisition
37
51 51 51
Congressional Research Service
79
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
FY2013 Appropriation
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House-
Senate-
FY2013
Enacted
Request
passed
reported Enacted
Appropriation
290 328 316 328
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust Funds
0
0
0
0
Total
Budgetary
Resources
290 328 316 328
Net Budget Authority: Title IV
1,332
1,561
1,510
1,535
Total Budgetary Resources for Title IV
Components before Transfers
4,308
4,423 4,392 4,417
Sources: CRS analysis of the DHS FY2013 Congressional Budget Justification, H.Rept. 112-331 (for FY2012),
H.Rept. 112-492, and S.Rept. 112-169.
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services215
Three major activities dominate the work of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS): (1) adjudication of all immigration petitions, including nonimmigrant change of status
petitions, relative petitions, employment-based petitions, work authorizations, and travel
documents; (2) adjudication of naturalization petitions for legal permanent residents to become
citizens; and (3) consideration of refugee and asylum claims, and related humanitarian and
international concerns.
The above graphic only indicates the amount of direct appropriations for USCIS. This does not
include fee income, which, while referenced in the comparative statement of budget authority
found in the back of the report, is not appropriated by this bill. USCIS funds the processing and
adjudication of immigrant, nonimmigrant, refugee, asylum, and citizenship benefits largely
through revenues generated by the Examinations Fee Account.216 As part of the former
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), USCIS was directed to transform its revenue
structure with the creation of the Examinations Fee Account.217 Although the agency has received
215 This section was prepared by William Kandel, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
216 §286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1356.
217 There are two other fee accounts at USCIS, known as the H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account and the Fraud
Prevention and Detection Account. The revenues in these accounts are drawn from separate fees that are statutorily
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
80
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
annual direct appropriations in the last decade, they have been largely directed towards specific
projects such as backlog reduction and the E-verify programs. The agency receives most of its
revenue from adjudication fees of immigration benefit applications and petitions.
Table 20 below shows the requested USCIS gross budget authority for FY2013 at $3,005 million.
This figure includes $143 million from direct appropriations and $2,862 million from fee
collections. The requested direct appropriation of $143 million includes $112 million for the E-
Verify program and $11 million for the Immigrant Integration Initiative. It also includes $20
million for the Systematic Alien Verification Entitlements (SAVE) Program to assist state, local,
and federal agencies to determine individuals’ eligibility for public benefits based on their
immigration status.
The remaining $2,862 million in gross budget authority in the request was expected to be funded
by fee collections. Of this FY2013 amount, $2,391 million would fund the USCIS adjudication
services, $89 million would fund information and customer services, and $382 million would
fund administrative expenses.
Table 20. USCIS Budget Account Detail
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
Appropriations
FY2012
House-
Senate-
Program/Project Activity
Enacted Request passed
reported Enacted
Appropriations 102
143
112
117
- E-Verify
102
112
112
112
- Immigrant Integration Initiativea
0
11
0
5
- Asylees and Refugeesa
0
0
0
0
- Military Naturalizations Processingb
0
0
0
0
- SAVE
0
20
0
0
Fee Collections (Mandatory)
2,976
2,862
2,882
2,882
- Immigration Examination Fee Account
2,924
2,815
2,835
2,835
- H-1B Visa
13
13
13
13
- H-1B/L Fraud
39
35
35
35
Programs to be paid through Fee
Collections (Recommended)
- SAVE
0
20
20
- Immigrant Integration Initiative
0
9
5
- Digital conversion of immigrant records
0
29
0
Total USCIS Budgetary Resources
3,078
3,005
2,994
2,999
(...continued)
determined (P.L. 106-311 and P.L. 109-13, respectively). USCIS receives 5% of the H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner
Account revenues and 33% of the Fraud Detection and Prevention Account revenues. U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Fiscal Year 2013 Congressional Budget Justifications.
Congressional Research Service
81
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2013 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2013 DHS Budget in Brief, H.R.
Rept. 112-492, and S.Rept. 112-169.
Notes: Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding.
a. Sec. 541 of H.R. 5855 directs USCIS to fund $9 million in costs associated with the Immigrant Integration
Initiative and asylee and refugee processing from fee revenue.
b. H.Rept. 112-492 directs USCIS to establish a memorandum of understanding with DoD to have the latter
fund military naturalizations (p. 126).
House-Passed H.R. 5855
The House-passed H.R. 5855 proposes USCIS gross budget authority for FY2013 at $2,994
million, comprised of $112 million from direct appropriations and $2,882 million from fee
collections. The proposed appropriations would be $31 million less than the requested amount but
$10 million above the amount provided in FY2012.
The House Appropriations Committee continues to direct USCIS to use fee revenues for all its
costs with the exception of E-Verify for which it recommends funding as requested. The
Committee stresses the importance of monitoring USCIS’ fee revenues and obligations against its
fee collections. The Committee recommends that USCIS allocate $20 million of its user fee
revenues for the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program. The Committee
also directs USCIS to allocate at least $29 million of fee revenues toward digital conversion of
immigration records.
The Committee provided no funding for military naturalizations which it contends should be
funded by the Department of Defense (DoD). It directs USCIS to codify this agreement in a
memorandum of understanding with DoD. The Committee continues to direct USCIS to pay for
the cost of immigrant integration programs and processing asylum claims and refugee
applications through fee revenue rather than appropriations.
Senate-Reported S. 3216
Senate-reported S. 3216 proposes USCIS gross budget authority for FY2013 at $2,999 million,
comprised of $117 million from direct appropriations and $2,882 million from fee collections.
The proposed appropriations would be $26 million less than the requested amount but $15 million
above the amount provided in FY2012. The Committee recommends no direct appropriations for
the SAVE program, and instead recommends that USCIS allocate $20 million of its user fee
revenues for the program. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends $112 million for
the E-Verify program, as requested.
The Committee recommends $5 million for Immigrant Integration grants in direct appropriations
and directs that an additional $5 million be made available for these grants via fees. However, the
Committee directs that no appropriations be used to operate the Office of Citizenship Services
and that its operations continue to be fee-funded.218 Additionally, the Committee continues to be
concerned that costs to administer the Immigrant Integration grant program currently may exceed
218 According to USCIS, the mission of the Office of Citizenship is to “engage and support partners to welcome
immigrants, promote English language learning and education on the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, and
encourage U.S. citizenship.”
Congressional Research Service
82
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
11% of the grant award total and directs that no more than 5% of the grant funding level from
either appropriated dollars or fees be used to administer the program in FY2013.
Issues for Congress
For the FY2013 budget cycle, potential issues for Congress continue to include declines in
immigrant and nonimmigrant applications, the use of fee-generated funding, and the USCIS
Transformation program to convert the immigration benefit application and petition process from
a paper-based to a computerized online-based system.
Application Declines and Fee-Generated Funding
Because USCIS supports itself primarily through fee revenue, it must accurately project the
number of anticipated applications to avoid building backlogs or over-budgeting projects. USCIS
was criticized for its alleged unpreparedness in the face of surging applications prior to its 2007
fee increases.219 The global economic downturn of the past several years has raised concerns
about declining application volume and agency revenue. Such declines could affect future
projects and require additional congressional appropriations. In response, USCIS has moved to
more accurately project its application volume to better inform the budgeting process.220
E-Verify, Processing Efficiency, and Other Administrative Concerns
The House bill extends the authorization of E-Verify for one year, as proposed by the President’s
budget request. To ensure no work-authorized individual is falsely identified as ineligible to work,
the Committee directs USCIS to create a review process for E-Verify final non-confirmations.
The Committee directs USCIS to continue making improvements to the Enterprise Document
Management System (EDMS) to address user concerns and make electronic files more
searchable. It directs USCIS and CBP to brief on progress toward eliminating the paper I–94. The
Committee also highlighted concerns over the efficient processing of refugee applications, the
findings of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in its January 2012 report regarding fraud
detection, and discrepancies surrounding USCIS’ EB-5 Immigrant Investor program.
USCIS Transformation
The House Committee continues to express disappointment with the lack of progress on the
USCIS Transformation program that would covert the application and petition process for
immigration benefits from a paper-based system to a computerized online-based system. The
Committee questions whether continued investment in the current contract is justified given that
the obligated $597 million from FY2006 to January 2012 has delivered little capability to USCIS
customers.
219 For more information, see CRS Report RL34040, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Immigration Fees and
Adjudication Costs: Proposed Adjustments and Historical Context, by William A. Kandel.
220 Information is based upon CRS discussions with the USCIS Chief Financial Officer in 2009. The House Committee
report regards as critical that USCIS continue to monitor its fee revenues and obligations against its fee collections.
Congressional Research Service
83
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center221
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) provides basic and advanced law
enforcement instruction to 90 federal entities with law enforcement responsibilities. FLETC also
provides specialized training to state and local law enforcement entities, campus police forces,
law enforcement organizations of Native American tribes and international law enforcement
agencies. By training officers in a multi-agency environment, FLETC intends to promote
consistency and collaboration across its partner organizations. FLETC administers four training
sites throughout the United States, but also uses online training and provides training at other
locations when its specialized facilities are not needed. The Center employs approximately 1,100
personnel.
FY2013 Request
The Administration proposed a budget of $258 million for FLETC, a reduction of $13 million
(4.8%) from FY2012’s appropriation of $271 million. The budget is made up of two
appropriations—Salaries and Expenses (proposed at $229 million, down $10 million from
FY2012), and Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses (proposed at $29
million, down $3 million from FY2012). Most of the reduction in the Salaries and Expenses
appropriation is from efficiencies, along with a $4 million reduction in the budget for basic
training. The reduction in Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses is the
result of deferring construction work.
House-Passed H.R. 5855
House-passed H.R. 5855 included $256 million for FLETC, $16 million (5.7%) below last year’s
level and $2 million (1.0%) below the request. The House-passed bill would cut less than $1
million (0.2%) from Salaries and Expenses and reduce the Acquisition, Construction,
Improvements, and Related Expenses appropriation by $2 million (6.8%). The House
Appropriations Committee report accompanying the bill cites the Administration’s reliance on as-
yet-unauthorized fee increases to fund parts of its budget as the reasoning behind the reductions
to the acquisition budget.
221 Prepared by William L. Painter, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government
and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
84
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Senate-Reported S. 3216
Senate-reported S. 3216 included $258 million for FLETC, the same level and distribution of
funding as requested by the President.
Science and Technology Directorate222
The Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) is the primary DHS organization for research
and development (R&D). Headed by the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, it performs
R&D in several laboratories of its own and funds R&D performed by the DOE national
laboratories, industry, universities, and others. It also conducts testing and other technology-
related activities in support of acquisitions by other DHS components. See Table 21 for a
breakdown of S&T Directorate funding for FY2012 and FY2013.
FY2013 Request
The Administration requested $831 million for the S&T Directorate for FY2013. This was 25%
more than the FY2012 appropriation of $668 million. Funding for Research, Development, and
Innovation (RDI) would increase by $212 million (79.9%) over the FY2012 level. Of the six
thrust areas within RDI, the largest requested increase (from $61 million in FY2012 to $144
million in FY2013) is for disaster resilience R&D. A reduction of $50 million in the request for
Laboratory Facilities was due in part to the lack of a request for construction funding for the
National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), a planned replacement for the current Plum
Island Animal Disease Center. The $50 million appropriated in FY2012 for the start of NBAF
construction was one-third of what the Administration had requested. DHS has announced plans
for an assessment of whether and for what purpose a facility like NBAF should be built. The
assessment will consider current threats and will review cost, safety, and alternatives to the NBAF
plan.
House-Passed H.R. 5855
The House-passed bill would provide $826 million for the S&T Directorate, or $6 million less
than the request. Within this total, it includes $72 million less than the request for RDI. The
House Appropriations Committee directed DHS to determine how to allocate that reduction
across the six thrust areas.223 In Laboratory Facilities, the bill would provide $75 million more
222 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science and Industry
Division.
223 H.Rept. 112-492, pp. 132-133.
Congressional Research Service
85
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
than the request. The committee directed that this increase should be spent on NBAF
construction.224
Senate-Reported S. 3216
The Senate committee recommended S&T funding levels that were the same as the
Administration’s request. Within RDI, however, it specified separate amounts for each of the six
thrust areas, rather than a single total.225 In recommending no funding for NBAF construction, the
committee noted a total cost estimate for the facility of $1.138 billion.226
Table 21. Directorate of Science and Technology
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
Appropriations
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House-
Senate-
FY2013
Enacted Request
passed
reported Enacted
Directorate of Science and Technology
668
831
826
831
Management and Administration
135
138
130
138
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
533
693
696
693
Research, Development, and Innovation
266
478
406
478
Laboratory
Facilities
177 127 202 127
Acquisition and Operations Support
54
48
48
48
University
Programs
37 40 40 40
Sources: FY2012 from P.L. 112-74 and H.Rept. 112-331. FY2013 request from DHS FY2013 congressional
budget justification, http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/budget/dhs-budget.shtm. FY2013 House from H.R. 5855 as
passed by the House and H.Rept. 112-492. FY2013 Senate-reported from S. 3216 as reported and S.Rept. 112-
169.
Note: Amounts may not total due to rounding.
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office227
The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) is the primary DHS organization for combating
the threat of nuclear attack. It is responsible for all DHS nuclear detection research, development,
testing, evaluation, acquisition, and operational support. See Table 22 for a breakdown of DNDO
funding for FY2011 through FY2013.
224 Ibid., p. 134.
225 S.Rept. 112-169, pp. 126-128.
226 Ibid., p. 129.
227 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science and Industry
Division.
Congressional Research Service
86
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
FY2013 Request
The Administration requested $328 million for DNDO for FY2013, an increase of 13% above the
FY2012 appropriation of $290 million. The request included an increase of $44 million (109.7%)
for Transformational R&D. The Administration no longer proposes transferring this program to
S&T. The increase for Transformational R&D was partially offset by a reduction of $23 million
(44.3%) for Systems Development. In the Systems Acquisition account, funding for human-
portable radiation detectors would increase by $20 million (251.3%), while funding for radiation
portal monitors would decrease to $1 million (80.6%) from $7 million in FY2012.
House-Passed H.R. 5855
House-passed H.R. 5855 would provide $316 million for DNDO, or $12 million (3.6%) less than
the request. Most of the reduction would be in the Transformational R&D program. The House-
passed bill directs DHS to provide an updated implementation plan for its responsibilities under
the domestic portion of the global nuclear detection architecture. The House Appropriations
Committee states in its report accompanying the bill that it intends this to be annual
requirement.228 The committee report also advocated consolidation of DNDO with the DHS
Office of Health Affairs (OHA). It stated that consolidation could result in cost savings and
“could provide greater awareness and coordination ... by creating a more visible focal point for ...
coordination and strategic planning” of efforts against weapons of mass destruction. The
committee directed DHS to develop and submit a plan to merge DNDO and OHA into an Office
of Weapons of Mass Destruction Defense for FY2014. 229
Senate-Reported S. 3216
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended DNDO funding levels that were the same as
the Administration’s request. Like the House Appropriations Committee, the Senate committee
directs DHS to provide an updated implementation plan for its responsibilities under the domestic
portion of the global nuclear detection architecture.230
228 H.Rept. 112-492, p. 137.
229 Ibid., pp. 12-14. Note that this language is in the introductory section of the committee report, separate from the
main discussions of OHA and DNDO.
230 S.Rept. 112-169, p. 131.
Congressional Research Service
87
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Table 22. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013
Appropriations
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
House-
Senate-
FY2013
Enacted Request
passed
reported Enacted
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
290 328 316 328
Management and Administration
38
40
38
40
Research, Development, and Operations
215
237
227
237
Systems Engineering and Architecture
30
30
30
30
Systems
Development
51 28 28 28
Transformational
R&D
40 84 75 84
Assessments
38 33 33 33
Operations
Support
33 36 36 36
National Technical Nuclear Forensics
Center 23 26 26 26
Systems
Acquisition
37 51 51 51
Radiation Portal Monitors Program
7
1
1
1
Securing the Cities
22
22
22
22
Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems
8
28
28
28
Sources: FY2012 from P.L. 112-74 and H.Rept. 112-331. FY2013 request from DHS FY2013 congressional
budget justification, http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/budget/dhs-budget.shtm. FY2013 House from H.R. 5855 as
passed by the House and H.Rept. 112-492. FY2013 Senate Committee from S. 3216 as reported and S.Rept. 112-
169.
Note: Amounts may not total due to rounding.
Title V: General Provisions
Title V of the DHS appropriations bill contains the general provisions for the bill. General
provisions typically include rescissions of funding from previous years that partially offset the
score of the bill. Occasionally appropriations for special initiatives are found here as well. This
section of the report limits its discussion to new general provisions not mentioned elsewhere in
the report and those with a direct impact on the budgetary scoring of the bill.
FY2013 Request
The Administration generally requests rescissions in the accounts where they are made, rather
than in this title, and requested no direct funding through general provisions for FY2013.
The Administration proposed not carrying forward 35 of the general provisions from the FY2012
DHS Appropriations bill (Division D of P.L. 112-74).
Three of these were rescissions, which are one-time provisions. Eleven other provisions were
viewed as one-time provisions, including two appropriations and one provision on fees. Five of
Congressional Research Service
88
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
the provisions the Administration suggested not carrying forward were permanent changes in the
U.S. Code—therefore not requiring repetition—and one the Administration said was obsolete.
The other fifteen were deemed by the Administration to be “restrictive” in one form or another
and therefore a hindrance to the ability of the Department to manage its affairs or conduct its
mission.
The Administration also proposed adding five new general provisions:
• To add a new provision extending the termination deadline for E-Verify, which is
still technically a pilot program, until the end of FY2013.
• To add a new provision allowing FEMA to use earmarked Predisaster Hazard
Mitigation grant funds that have not or will not be applied for by their intended
recipient.
• To add a new provision to establish an outreach program connected to FEMA’s
dam safety efforts.
• To add a new provision intended to make certain fees collected under the United
States Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement available for pay for customs
inspectors and equipment.
• To add a new provision that would allow CBP to enter into reimbursable fee
agreements to provide services.
House-Passed H.R. 5855
House-passed H.R. 5855 includes $292 million in rescissions in Title V, all of which reduce the
net scoring of the bill. Those are the only provisions in this title that impact the score of the bill.
The House concurred with the Administration’s request to drop 22 general provisions, although it
did not concur with the Administration’s position that 13 other provisions did not merit repetition
or were no longer necessary. The House Appropriations Committee added one of the five general
provisions requested by the Administration, extending the termination deadline for E-Verify.
The House added 13 general provisions to the bill during floor action. These amendments
prohibited the use of funds made available by the legislation to do the following:
• Contravene several key constitutional and legal protections against racial, ethnic
or religious profiling;
• Finalize or enforce a proposed ICE rule that would allow undocumented aliens
with children eligible for U.S. citizenship to stay in the country while seeking a
waiver of a re-entry ban based on their illegal presence in the United States;
• Pay for the position of Public Advocate within ICE;
• Enforce a section of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L.
110-140) that prohibits the government from contracting for alternative
transportation fuels (other than for research) that do not produce less greenhouse
gases over their lifecycle than the equivalent conventional petroleum fuel;
• Implement, administer or enforce section 1301(a) of title 31, United States Code
(31 U.S.C. 1301(a)) with respect to the use of CBP funds, thereby allowing CBP
Congressional Research Service
89
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
to use its Salaries and Expenses appropriation to pay for CBP operations in
Puerto Rico in the event of a shortfall in the Puerto Rico Trust Fund;
• Restrict a government official from sending or receiving information regarding
an individual’s immigration status to or from the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, in violation of current law;
• Lease or buy new light duty vehicles except in accordance with the May 24,
2011, Presidential Memorandum on alternative-fuel vehicles;
• Contravene Title 8, Chapter 12 of the U.S. Code, and all laws, conventions, and
treaties of the United States relating to the immigration, exclusion, deportation,
expulsion, or removal of aliens;
• Buy, operate, or maintain armed unmanned aerial vehicles;
• Contravene section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1226(c)), which outlines the authority of the Attorney General to detain and
release criminal aliens;
• Enforce an executive order requiring federal agencies to implement a system that
allows people with limited English-language proficiency to meaningfully access
their services without unduly burdening the fundamental mission of the agencies;
• Finalize, implement, administer, or enforce three policy memos issued by the
director of ICE that establish priorities for civil immigration enforcement
activities; and
• Terminate an existing agreement allowing local officials to act as immigration
officers under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1357(g)).
Senate-Reported S. 3216
Senate-reported S. 3216 includes $192 million in rescissions in Title V, as well as several other
provisions that impact the scoring of the bill, including appropriations and changes in fee
programs. Taken together, these Senate bill provisions offset its cost by $68 million.
The Senate concurred with the Administration’s request to drop 15 general provisions, although it
did not agree that 17 other provisions did not merit repetition or were no longer necessary. In
addition, three provisions providing funding to DHS initiatives were essentially modified to apply
to FY2013, rather than being dropped as proposed by the Administration: Reimbursement of
security costs to state and local governments for National Special Security Events ($8 million);
migration and consolidation of DHS data centers ($65 million); and DHS headquarters
consolidation ($89 million) were all funded in the general provisions of the Senate-reported bill.
Like the House, the Senate Appropriations Committee added one of the five general provisions
requested by the Administration, although they chose to add the provision allowing CBP to enter
into reimbursable fee agreements for providing CBP services.
Congressional Research Service
90
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Appendix A. Appropriations Terms and Concepts
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays
Federal government spending involves a multi-step process that begins with the enactment of
budget authority by Congress. Federal agencies then obligate funds from the enacted budget
authority to pay for their activities. Finally, payments are made to liquidate those obligations; the
actual payment amounts are reflected in the budget as outlays.
Budget authority is established through appropriations acts or direct spending legislation and
determines the amounts that are available for federal agencies to spend. The Antideficiency Act231
prohibits federal agencies from obligating more funds than the budget authority that was enacted
by Congress. Budget authority may also be indefinite, as when Congress enacts language
providing “such sums as may be necessary” to complete a project or purpose. Budget authority
may be available on a one-year, multi-year, or no-year basis. One-year budget authority is only
available for obligation during a specific fiscal year; any unobligated funds at the end of that year
are no longer available for spending. Multi-year budget authority specifies a range of time during
which funds can be obligated for spending; no-year budget authority is available for obligation
for an indefinite period of time.
Obligations are incurred when federal agencies employ personnel, enter into contracts, receive
services, and engage in similar transactions in a given fiscal year. Outlays are the funds that are
actually spent during the fiscal year.232 Because multi-year and no-year budget authorities may be
obligated over a number of years, outlays do not always match the budget authority enacted in a
given year. Additionally, budget authority may be obligated in one fiscal year but spent in a future
fiscal year, especially with certain contracts.
In sum, budget authority allows federal agencies to incur obligations and authorizes payments, or
outlays, to be made from the Treasury. Discretionary agencies and programs, and appropriated
entitlement programs, are funded each year in appropriations acts.
Discretionary and Mandatory Spending
Gross budget authority, or the total funds available for spending by a federal agency, may be
composed of discretionary and mandatory spending. Discretionary spending is not mandated by
existing law and is thus appropriated yearly by Congress through appropriations acts. The Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990233 defines discretionary appropriations as budget authority provided in
annual appropriation acts and the outlays derived from that authority, but it excludes
appropriations for entitlements. Mandatory spending, also known as direct spending, consists of
budget authority and resulting outlays provided in laws other than appropriation acts and is
typically not appropriated each year. However, some mandatory entitlement programs must be
231 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517.
232 Appropriations, outlays, and account balances for government treasury accounts can be viewed in the end of year
reports published by the U.S. Treasury titled Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United
States Government. The DHS portion of the report can be accessed at http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/cs2005/c18.pdf.
233 P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.
Congressional Research Service
91
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
appropriated each year and are included in the appropriations acts. Within DHS, the Coast Guard
retirement pay is an example of appropriated mandatory spending.
Offsetting Collections234
Offsetting funds are collected by the federal government, either from government accounts or the
public, as part of a business-type transaction such as offsets to outlays or collection of a fee.
These funds are not counted as revenue. Instead, they are counted as negative outlays. DHS net
discretionary budget authority, or the total funds that are appropriated by Congress each year, is
composed of discretionary spending minus any fee or fund collections that offset discretionary
spending.
Some collections offset a portion of an agency’s discretionary budget authority. Other collections
offset an agency’s mandatory spending. These mandatory spending elements are typically
entitlement programs under which individuals, businesses, or units of government that meet the
requirements or qualifications established by law are entitled to receive certain payments if they
establish eligibility. The DHS budget features two mandatory entitlement programs: the Secret
Service and the Coast Guard retired pay accounts (pensions). Some entitlements are funded by
permanent appropriations, others by annual appropriations. The Secret Service retirement pay is a
permanent appropriation and as such is not annually appropriated, whereas the Coast Guard
retirement pay is annually appropriated. In addition to these entitlements, the DHS budget
contains offsetting Trust and Public Enterprise Funds. These funds are not appropriated by
Congress. They are available for obligation and included in the President’s budget to calculate the
gross budget authority.
234 Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff Jr., Analyst in American National Government.
Congressional Research Service
92
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Appendix B. DHS Appropriations in Context
Federal-Wide Homeland Security Funding
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there has been an increasing interest in the
levels of funding available for homeland security efforts. The Office of Management and Budget,
as originally directed by the FY1998 National Defense Authorization Act, has published an
annual report to Congress on combating terrorism. Beginning with the June 24, 2002, edition of
this report, homeland security was included as a part of the analysis. In subsequent years, this
homeland security funding analysis has become more refined, as distinctions (and account lines)
between homeland and non-homeland security activities have become more precise. This means
that while Table B-1 is presented in such a way as to allow year-to-year comparisons, they may in
fact not be strictly comparable due to the increasing specificity of the analysis, as outlined above.
With regard to DHS funding, it is important to note that DHS funding does not comprise all
federal spending on homeland security efforts. In fact, while the largest component of federal
spending on homeland security is contained within DHS, the DHS homeland security budget for
FY2012 accounts for nearly 52% of total federal funding for homeland security. The Department
of Defense comprises the next highest proportion at nearly 26% of all federal spending on
homeland security. The Department of Health and Human Services at 6%, the Department of
Justice at nearly 6%, and the Department of State at more than 3% round out the top five agencies
in spending on homeland security. These five agencies collectively account for approximately
93% of all federal spending on homeland security. It is also important to note that not all DHS
funding is classified as pertaining to homeland security activities. The legacy agencies that
became a part of DHS also conduct activities that are not homeland security related. Therefore,
while the enacted FY2012 budget bills and existing law included total homeland security budget
authority of $35.1 billion for DHS, the total budget authority for DHS is $52.5 billion as of the
date of publication.235 Moreover, the amounts shown in Table B-1 will not be consistent with
total amounts shown elsewhere in the report. This same inconsistency between homeland security
budget authority and requested total budget authority is also true for the budgets of the other
agencies listed in the table.
235 Includes appropriations, rescissions, fee funded programs, mandatory budget authority, disaster relief, and overseas
contingency operations funding.
Congressional Research Service
93
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Table B-1. Federal Homeland Security Funding by Agency, FY2002-FY2013
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2013 FY2013 as
Department FY2002
FY2003
FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 Request % of Total
Department of Homeland
Security (DHS)
17,381 23,063
22,923
24,549
26,571
29,554
32,486 38,988 33,236
34,901
35,125
35,534
51.6%
Department of Defense
(DOD)a
16,126 8,442
7,024
17,188
17,510
16,538
18,032 19,483 19,054
16,994
17,358
17,995
26.1%
Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS)
1,913 4,144
4,062
4,229
4,352
4,327
4,301 4,677 7,196
4,182
4,147
4,112
6.0%
Department of Justice (DOJ)
2,143 2,349
2,180
2,767
3,026
3,518
3,528 3,715 4,119
3,966
4,055
3,993
5.8%
Department of State (DOS)
477 634
696
824
1,108
1,242
1,719
1,809
2,016
1,949
2,283
2,354
3.4%
Department of Energy (DOE)
1,220 1,408
1,364
1,562
1,702
1,719
1,827 1,939 1,793
1,994
1,923
1,875
2.7%
Department of Agriculture
(AG)
553 410
411
596
597
541
575 513 611
580
570
551
0.8%
National Science Foundation
(NSF)
260 285
340
342
344
385
365 407 390
386
444
426
0.6%
Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA)
49 154
271
249
298
260
309 310 427
413
396
384
0.6%
Department of Commerce
116 112
125
167
181
205
207 271 284
262
290
304
0.4%
Other Agencies
3,750 1,445
1,436
1,909
1,429
1,545
1,751 1,960 1,533
1,351
1,467
1,418
2.1%
Total Federal Budget
Authority
43,848 42,447
40,834
54,383
57,118
59,833
65,099 72,201 70,661
66,983
67,989
68,905
100%
Sources: CRS analysis of data contained in Section 24. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis” of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2013 President’s Budget (for
FY2011-FY2013), Section 24. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis” of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2012 President’s Budget (for FY2010),Section 3.
“Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” and Appendix K of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2011 President’s Budget (for FY2009); Section 3. “Homeland
Security Funding Analysis,” and Appendix K of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2010 President’s Budget (for FY2008); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding
Analysis,” and Appendix K of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2009 President’s Budget (for FY2007); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of
Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2008 President’s Budget (for FY2006); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of Analytical Perspectives volume of the
FY2008 President’s Budget (for FY2005); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2006 President’s Budget (for
FY2004); Section 3. “Homeland Security Funding Analysis,” of Analytical Perspectives volume of the FY2005 President’s Budget (for FY2003) and Office of Management and
Budget, 2003 Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, Sept. 2003, p. 10; CRS analysis of FY2002-2006 re-estimates of DOD homeland security funding provided by OMB,
March 17, 2005.
CRS-94
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Notes: Amounts may not total due to rounding. FY totals shown in this table include enacted supplemental funding. Year to year comparisons using particularly FY2002
may not be directly comparable, because as time has gone on agencies have been able to distinguish homeland security and nonhomeland security activities with greater
specificity.
a. Amounts for FY2011 are estimates from the FY2012 President’s Budget request based upon the annualized levels contained within the continuing resolution in
operation at the time of publication. At the time of the publication of the President’s Budget request Congress had yet to enact appropriations for FY2011.
Amounts for FY2002-FY2004 do not include re-estimates of DOD homeland security funding, for FY2007 DOD changed the manner in which
they account for their homeland security activities. This new method has been applied for forward. Re-estimates of FY2002-FY2004 DOD funding
using this new method were not available for inclusion.
CRS-95
Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations
Author Contact Information
William L. Painter, Coordinator
Sarah A. Lister
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology
Security Policy
slister@crs.loc.gov, 7-7320
wpainter@crs.loc.gov, 7-3335
Barbara L. Schwemle
Natalie Keegan
Analyst in American National Government
Analyst in American Federalism and Emergency
bschwemle@crs.loc.gov, 7-8655
Management Policy
nkeegan@crs.loc.gov, 7-9569
Jerome P. Bjelopera
Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
jbjelopera@crs.loc.gov, 7-0622
lkruger@crs.loc.gov, 7-7070
Marc R. Rosenblum
Bruce R. Lindsay
Specialist in Immigration Policy
Analyst in American National Government
mrosenblum@crs.loc.gov, 7-7360
blindsay@crs.loc.gov, 7-3752
Alison Siskin
Francis X. McCarthy
Specialist in Immigration Policy
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
asiskin@crs.loc.gov, 7-0260
fmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-9533
Bart Elias
William A. Kandel
Specialist in Aviation Policy
Analyst in Immigration Policy
belias@crs.loc.gov, 7-7771
wkandel@crs.loc.gov, 7-4703
John Frittelli
Daniel Morgan
Specialist in Transportation Policy
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
jfrittelli@crs.loc.gov, 7-7033
dmorgan@crs.loc.gov, 7-5849
John D. Moteff
Jennifer E. Lake
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Section Research Manager
jmoteff@crs.loc.gov, 7-1435
jlake@crs.loc.gov, 7-0620
Shawn Reese
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
Security Policy
sreese@crs.loc.gov, 7-0635
Congressional Research Service
96