.
Department of Homeland Security:
FY2015 Appropriations
William L. Painter, Coordinator
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy
December 19, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43796
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Summary
This report analyzes the FY2015 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
While this report makes note of many budgetary resources provided to DHS, its primary focus is
on funding approved by Congress through the appropriations process.
The Administration requested $38.332 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for
DHS for FY2015, as part of an overall budget of $60.919 billion (including fees, trust funds, and
other funding that is not appropriated or does not score against the budget caps). The request
amounted to a $0.938 billion, or 2.4%, decrease from the $39.270 billion enacted for FY2014
through the consolidated appropriations act (P.L. 112-74).
Net requested appropriations for major agencies within DHS were:
• Customs and Border Protection (CBP), $10.701 billion;
• Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), $5.014 billion;
• Transportation Security Administration (TSA), $4.325 billion;
• Coast Guard, $8.152 billion;
• Secret Service, $1.636 billion;
• National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), $1.515 billion;
• Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), $3.970 billion; and
• Science and Technology Directorate, $1.072 billion.
In addition, the Administration requested an additional $6.438 billion not reflected above for
FEMA in disaster relief funding as defined by the Budget Control Act.
On June 11, 2014, the House Appropriations Committee marked up its draft Homeland Security
Appropriations bill, and voted to report it out of committee. The House committee-reported bill
provided $39.220 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority, as well as the requested
disaster relief funding.
On June 26, 2014, the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up its draft Homeland Security
Appropriations bill, and voted to report it out of committee. The Senate committee-reported bill
provided $39.000 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority, as well as the requested
disaster relief funding, and $213 million for Coast Guard overseas contingency operations.
On September 19, 2014, the President signed H.J.Res. 124, the Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2015, into law as P.L. 113-164. This continuing resolution originally funded the
operations of the federal government at the current annual rate until December 11, 2014, or until
full-year appropriations were passed, whichever came first. It has been extended by three other
short-term continuing resolutions, including Division L of H.R. 83, the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act , 2015, which extended funding for DHS through February 27,
2015.
This report will be updated after resolution of annual appropriations for DHS for FY2015.
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments ............................................................................................................. 1
March 4-11, 2014—President’s FY2015 Budget Request Submitted ....................................... 1
June 11, 2014—House Appropriations Committee Approves H.R. 4903 ................................. 2
June 28, 2014—Senate Appropriations Committee Approves S. 2534 ..................................... 2
September 19, 2014—President Signs H.J.Res. 124 into Law .................................................. 2
December 16, 2014—President Signs H.R. 83 into Law .......................................................... 3
Note on Data and Citations ........................................................................................................ 3
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Department of Homeland Security ............................................................................................ 4
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security .............................................................. 5
Summary of DHS Appropriations ............................................................................................. 5
DHS Appropriations: Comparing the Components ................................................................... 6
DHS Appropriations Compared to the Total DHS Budget ........................................................ 9
DHS Appropriations Trends: Size ............................................................................................. 9
DHS Appropriations Trends: Timing ....................................................................................... 11
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations ....................................................................... 13
Departmental Management...................................................................................................... 14
DHS Headquarters Consolidation ........................................................................................... 25
Analysis and Operations .......................................................................................................... 27
Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................... 29
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations ....................................................................... 32
Customs and Border Protection ............................................................................................... 35
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ........................................................................ 39
Transportation Security Administration .................................................................................. 44
U.S. Coast Guard ..................................................................................................................... 52
U.S. Secret Service .................................................................................................................. 57
Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ........................................................ 61
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) .......................................................... 63
Office of Health Affairs ........................................................................................................... 70
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ................................................................ 73
DHS State and Local Preparedness Grants .............................................................................. 74
Title IV: Research and Development, Training, and Services ....................................................... 83
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ............................................................................. 85
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center ............................................................................. 88
Science and Technology Directorate ....................................................................................... 89
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office......................................................................................... 92
Title V: General Provisions ............................................................................................................ 94
Figures
Figure 1. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations by Component, FY2014-
FY2015 ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2. DHS Gross Budget Breakdown: FY2015 Request ........................................................... 9
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Figure 3. DHS Appropriations, Showing Supplemental Appropriations and the DRF .................. 10
Figure 4. DHS Appropriations Legislative Timing ........................................................................ 12
Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of FY2015 Homeland Security Appropriations .................................... 1
Table 2. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations by Title, FY2014-FY2015 ................. 5
Table 3. DHS Appropriations by Component, FY2014-FY2015 ..................................................... 6
Table 4. Title I: Departmental Management and Operations, FY2014-FY2015............................ 13
Table 5. DHS Management Account Appropriations, FY2014-FY2015 ....................................... 20
Table 6. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations, FY2014-FY2015 ............................ 33
Table 7. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Account Detail, FY2014-FY2015 ......................... 37
Table 8. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Sub-Account Detail,
FY2014-FY2015 ......................................................................................................................... 41
Table 9. TSA Requested Budgetary Resources, FY2015 ............................................................... 45
Table 10. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity, FY2014-FY2015 ............................. 46
Table 11. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-Account Detail,
FY2014-FY2015 ......................................................................................................................... 54
Table 12.Budget Authority for the U.S. Secret Service, FY2013-FY2014 .................................... 59
Table 13. Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, FY2014-FY2015 ........... 61
Table 14. Budget Authority for Infrastructure Protection and Information Security,
FY2014-FY2015 ......................................................................................................................... 66
Table 15. Office of Health Affairs, FY2014-FY2015 .................................................................... 71
Table 16. State and Local Grant Programs and Training, FY2014-FY2015 .................................. 75
Table 17. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, and Services, FY2014-FY2015 .......... 83
Table 18. USCIS Budget Account Detail, FY2014-FY2015 ......................................................... 87
Table 19. Directorate of Science and Technology, FY2014-FY2015 ............................................ 91
Table 20. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, FY2014-FY2015.................................................. 93
Table A-1. FY2014 and FY2015 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS ................................ 99
Table B-1. DHS New Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2004-FY2014 .................................. 102
Table B-2. DHS New Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2013 Dollars, FY2004-FY2014 ....... 102
Appendixes
Appendix A. Appropriations Terms and Concepts ......................................................................... 97
Appendix B. DHS Appropriations in Context ............................................................................. 101
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Contacts
Author Contact Information......................................................................................................... 104
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
his report describes and analyzes the discretionary appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) for fiscal year 2015 (FY2015). It compares the President’s
Trequest for FY2015 funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the enacted
FY2014 appropriations for DHS, and the House-reported homeland security appropriations
legislation for FY2015.
The first portion of this report provides an overview and historical context for reviewing DHS
appropriations, highlighting various aspects including the comparative size of DHS components,
the amount of non-appropriated funding the department receives, and trends in the timing and
size of the department’s appropriations legislation. The second portion of the report outlines the
legislative chronology of major events in funding the department for FY2015. The third portion
of the report provides detailed information on DHS appropriations, broken down by component,
with discussion of associated policy issues.
The report tracks legislative action and congressional issues related to DHS appropriations with
particular attention paid to discretionary funding amounts. The report does not provide in-depth
analysis of specific issues related to mandatory funding—such as retirement pay—nor does the
report systematically follow any other legislation related to the authorization or amendment of
DHS programs, activities, or fee revenues.
Discussion of appropriations legislation involves a variety of specialized budgetary concepts.
Appendix A to this report explains several of these concepts, including budget authority,
obligations, outlays, discretionary and mandatory spending, offsetting collections, allocations,
and adjustments to the discretionary spending caps under the Budget Control Act.
Most Recent Developments
Table 1. Legislative Status of FY2015 Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee
House
Conference Report
Markup
Passage
Senate
Consideration
H.Rept.
H.R.
S.Rept.
Passage
House Senate
113-
481
4903
113-198
S. 2534
Senate House
Enact
ment
5/28
6/24
6/11
n/a 6/26 n/a n/a n/a n/a
(vv)
(vv)
(vv)
(vv)
Notes: (vv) = voice vote, (uc) = unanimous consent.
March 4-11, 2014—President’s FY2015 Budget Request Submitted
For FY2015, the Administration requested $38.332 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget
authority for DHS, as part of an overall budget request of $60.919 billion (including fees, trust
funds and other funding that is not appropriated or does not score against the budget caps). This
request amounts to a $0.938 billion (2.4%) decrease below the $39.270 billion enacted for
FY2014 through Division F of P.L. 113-76. The overall estimated size of the DHS budget for
Congressional Research Service
1
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2015 is a $264 million (0.4%) increase above the budget of $60.655 billion estimated for
FY2014.1
June 11, 2014—House Appropriations Committee Approves
H.R. 4903
The House Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2015 DHS Appropriations
bill on June 11, 2014, by a voice vote. This report uses House-reported H.R. 4903 and the
accompanying report (H.Rept. 113-481) as the source for House-reported appropriations numbers
and, for comparison, the underlying FY2015 budget request from the Administration. The House
bill as approved by the committee would have provided a net discretionary appropriation of
$39,220 million for DHS for FY2015, not including $6,438 million for disaster relief that would
be paid for by adjustments to the discretionary spending cap under the BCA. With that exclusion,
the House-reported bill provided $888 million (2.3%) above the Administration’s request, and
$50 million (0.1%) below the amount provided under Division F of P.L. 113-76.
June 28, 2014—Senate Appropriations Committee Approves S. 2534
The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its version of the FY2015 DHS Appropriations
bill on June 26, 2014, by a voice vote. This report uses Senate-reported S. 2534 and the
accompanying report (S.Rept. 113-198) as the source for Senate-reported appropriations numbers.
The Senate bill as approved by the committee would have provided a net discretionary
appropriation of $39,000 million for DHS for FY2015, not including $6,438 million for disaster
relief and $213 million for Coast Guard overseas contingency operations that would be paid for
by adjustments to the discretionary spending cap under the BCA. With those exclusions, the
Senate-reported bill provided $668 million (1.7%) above the Administration’s request, and $270
million (0.7%) below the amount provided under Division F of P.L. 113-76.
September 19, 2014—President Signs H.J.Res. 124 into Law
H.J.Res. 124, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015, was introduced on September 9,
2014. This continuing resolution funds, with several specific exceptions and limitations, the
operations of the federal government at the current annual rate until December 11, 2014, or until
full-year appropriations are passed, whichever comes first. The joint resolution passed the House
on September 17, 2014,2 and the Senate on September 18, 2014.3 On September 19, 2014, the
President signed it into law as P.L. 113-164, as senior appropriators indicated they would pursue
an omnibus appropriations package in the lame duck session of Congress, rather than stand-alone
bills.4
1 Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: Budget Tables and Explanation of
Changes for General Provisions (Washington, DC, 2014), p. 1.
2 Passed the House by a recorded vote, 391-108 (Roll Call Number 509).
3 Passed the Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay vote, 78-22 (Roll Call Number 270).
4 See, for example, George Cahlink, “Budget Tracker Briefing: Looking Toward the Lame Duck,” CQ Budget Tracker
Briefing, September 12, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
2
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
December 16, 2014—President Signs H.R. 83 into Law
After enactment of two short-term continuing resolutions, H.R. 83, the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, was signed into law on December 16, 2014. The Act
included 11 of the 12 regular appropriations bills. Congress did not include full annual funding
for DHS as part of the package. This was, in large part, due to a lack of consensus on how
Congress would respond to the Obama Administration’s announcement of immigration-related
executive action that had occurred the previous month. Some Congressional critics of the
Administration’s proposal believed annual appropriations for DHS should be used as the vehicle
to respond to those actions.5 Consequently, Division L of H.R. 83 provided an extension through
February 27, 2015, of the FY2015 funding provided in the continuing resolutions.
Note on Data and Citations
Except in summary discussions and when discussing total amounts for the bill as a whole, all
amounts contained in this report are in budget authority and rounded to the nearest million—
however, for precision in percentages and totals, all calculations were performed using unrounded
data.
Data used in this report for FY2014 amounts are taken from the President’s Budget Documents,
as well as H.Rept. 113-91, S.Rept. 113-77, Division F of P.L. 113-76, and the explanatory
statement that accompanied it through the legislative process. Contextual information on the
FY2015 request is generally from the President’s Budget Documents, the FY2015 DHS
congressional budget justifications, and the FY2015 DHS Budget in Brief. Information on the
House-reported FY2015 DHS Appropriations bill is from H.R. 4903 and H.Rept. 113-481. For
consistency of budgetary comparisons, funding levels requested through the President’s budget
for FY2015 are also drawn from H.Rept. 113-481 unless otherwise noted. Information on the
Senate-reported FY2015 DHS Appropriations bill is from S. 2534 and S.Rept. 113-198. Historical
funding data used in the appendices are taken from the Analytical Perspectives volumes of the
FY2006-FY2015 President’s Budget request documents.
The Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative
The Obama Administration included with its FY2015 budget request a new government-wide proposal referred to as
the “Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative.” It was a $56 bil ion fund that would be divided equal y between
defense and non-defense expenditures. The cost of the initiative would be offset largely with targeted spending cuts
and closed tax loopholes. According to the Administration, this initiative, if passed, would provide $710 million
beyond the budget request of $38.176 billion for the Department of Homeland Security to address specific priorities
that have been restricted by the impact of sequestration on the discretionary spending caps outlined in the Budget
Control Act as amended. Proposed homeland security funding through the initiative included the following:
• $400 million in competitive grants to state, local, and tribal governments through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Program.
• $300 million in additional funds for the National Preparedness Grant Program, the Administration’s proposed
consolidated grant program to support state, local, and tribal government preparedness, prevention, and
response capability.
5 See Emma Dumain and Emily Ethridge, “Price Pushes Plan to Separate Immigration Funding from Omnibus,” CQ
News, November 25, 2014; and David Rogers, “Lawmakers Iron Out Money Details for a Deal,” Politico, December 4,
2014.
Congressional Research Service
3
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
• $10 million for National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) to conduct infrastructure analysis to
identify critical facilities in states and/or sectors and analyze their ability to remain functional after disasters.
As this funding is not included in the formal congressional justifications for the targeted accounts, and would require
the enactment of separate legislation to alter the discretionary budget caps to provide the requested resources,
funding proposed through the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative is not a part of the FY2015 funding levels
analyzed in this report.
Background
Department of Homeland Security
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred the functions, relevant funding,
and most of the personnel of 22 agencies and offices to the new Department of Homeland
Security created by the act. Appropriations measures for DHS have generally been organized into
five titles:
• Title I contains appropriations for the Office of Secretary and Executive
Management (OSEM), the Office of the Under Secretary for Management
(USM), the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of the Chief
Information Officer (CIO), Analysis and Operations (A&O), and the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG).
• Title II contains appropriations for Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard (USCG), and the Secret Service.
• Title III contains appropriations for the National Protection and Programs
Directorate (NPPD), Office of Health Affairs (OHA) Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).6
• Title IV contains appropriations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS), the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), and the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).
• Title V contains general provisions providing various types of congressional
direction to the department.
Several reorganizations and restructurings over the course of the department’s first 10 years of
appropriations makes detailed comparisons of funding levels across the first decade of
departmental appropriations complicated. CRS can assist with developing such comparisons.
Although the House and Senate generally produce symmetrically structured bills, this is not
always the case. Additional titles are sometimes added to address special issues: For example, the
6 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
4
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2012 House full committee markup added a sixth title to carry a $1 billion emergency
appropriation for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). The Senate version carried no additional titles
beyond what is described above. For FY2015, the House- and Senate-reported versions of the
DHS appropriations bill were generally symmetrical.
Appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security
Summary of DHS Appropriations
Table 2 includes a summary of funding included in the FY2014 regular DHS appropriations bill,
the Administration’s FY2015 appropriations request, and the House- and Senate-reported FY2015
DHS appropriations bills broken down by title.
Table 2. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations by Title, FY2014-FY2015
(in millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority, rounded)
House-
Senate-
FY2014
FY2015
Reported
Reported
Title
Enacted
Request
H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Title I: Departmental Management
$1,037 $1,172 $967 $1,033
and Operations
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and
30,877 29,828
31,090 30,731
Investigations
Title III: Protection, Preparedness,
5,952 5,611
5,902 5,980
Response, and Recovery
Title IV: Research and Development,
1,878 1,771
1,801 1,761
Training, and Services
Title V: General Provisions
-474
-49
-540
-505
Total $39,270
$38,332
$39,220
$39,000
Source: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903,
H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534, and S.Rept. 113-198.
Notes: The standard legislative practice is to group rescissions with the bill’s general provisions, often resulting
in that title scoring as net negative budget authority. The Administration’s budget request general y includes
rescissions with the impacted component’s request, rather than in a separate title, which is the congressional
practice. The FY2014 column reflects the impact of $693 million in rescissions, while the Administration
proposed $200 million in rescissions for FY2015. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $708
million in rescissions, while the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $731 million. In addition, the
Administration requests funding for department-wide initiatives in Title I that in recent years have been funded
through general provisions in Title V. Table displays rounded numbers, but al operations were performed with
unrounded data: therefore, amounts may not sum to totals.
Federal Civilian Employee Pay Raise
The Administration proposed a 1.0% pay increase for all civilian federal employees in its budget
request. Almost all DHS employees are considered civilians, with the significant exception of
Coast Guard military personnel.
Congressional Research Service
5
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
The House Appropriations Committee included language in its report noting that the House bill
did not include money for the pay raise. Neither House- nor Senate-reported bills included a
restriction on a pay raise being given from within appropriated amounts.
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 3 and Figure 1
show DHS’s new discretionary budget authority for FY2015 broken down by component, from
largest to smallest appropriations request.
Table 3 does not include resources provided through adjustments under the Budget Control Act in
the individual component lines. As the table and figure reflect new discretionary budget authority,
neither appropriated mandatory spending nor rescissions of prior-year budget authority are
reflected in the totals.
Table 3. DHS Appropriations by Component, FY2014-FY2015
(in millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority, rounded)
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Reported
Reported
Component Enacted
Request
H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
$10,690
$10,852
$11,009
$10,822
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
8,514a 8,152
8,467 8,425b
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
5,269
5,014
5,486
5,163
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
4,929
4,325
4,628
4,824
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
4,354c 3,970d 4,320d 4,329
U.S. Secret Service (USSS)
1,585
1,636
1,637
1,635
National Protection and Programs Directorate
1,471 1,515
1,454
1,527
(NPPD)
Science & Technology Directorate (S&T)
1,220
1,072
1,107
1,071
Departmental Management
728
748
602
707
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO)
285
304
312
306
Analysis & Operations (A&O)
300
302
274
295
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
259 260
258
259
(FLETC)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
116 135
125
124
(USCIS)
Office of Health Affairs (OHA)
127
126
128
125
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
115
121
120
119
Total without Rescissions
$39,270
$38,332
$39,220
$39,000
Congressional Research Service
6
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Reported
Reported
Component Enacted
Request
H.R. 4903
S. 2534
General Provisions: Rescissions (not reflected visually
-693 -200
-708
-731
in totals or figure)
Total with Rescissions
$39,963
$38,532
$39,928
$39,731
Adjustments under the Budget Control Act
5,853
6,438
6,438
6,651
Total with Adjustments
$45,817
$44,970
$46,366
$46,382
Source: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2014 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903,
H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534, and S.Rept. 113-198.
Notes: Table does not reflect non-appropriated resources available to DHS components.
a. $227 million in FY2014 funding for overseas contingency operations for the Coast Guard under an
adjustment to the discretionary spending limits is not shown in this table entry, but is reflected in Figure 1.
b. $213 million in FY2015 funding for overseas contingency operations for the Coast Guard under an
adjustment to the discretionary spending limits is not shown in this table entry, but is reflected in Figure 1.
c. $5,626 million in FY2014 funding for disaster relief costs provided through FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund
under an adjustment to the discretionary spending limits is not shown in this table entry, but is reflected in
Figure 1.
d. $6,438 million in FY2014 funding for disaster relief costs provided through FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund
under an adjustment to the discretionary spending limits is not shown in this table entry, but is reflected in
Figure 1.
In Figure 1, the first column of numbers shows budget authority provided in P.L. 113-76 for
DHS: resources available under the adjustments to the discretionary budget cap available under
the BCA are shown in black. The second column shows a similar breakdown for the FY2015
request, and the third and fourth columns show a similar breakdown of the FY2015 House- and
Senate-reported bills. For the purposes of this report, funding provided under BCA adjustments is
not treated as appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
7
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Figure 1. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations by Component,
FY2014-FY2015
(in millions of dollars, rounded)
Source: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903,
H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534, and S.Rept. 113-198.
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.
Note: Table displays rounded numbers, but all operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals. Figure does not display rescissions and other general provisions, or reflect non-
appropriated resources available to DHS components.
Congressional Research Service
8
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 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 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is provided
through direct appropriations—the rest relies on fee income.
Figure 2 highlights how much of the DHS budget is not funded through discretionary
appropriations. It presents a comparison of the Administration’s FY2015 budget request, showing
the discretionary appropriations, mandatory appropriations, and adjustments under the Budget
Control Act, in the context of the total amount of budgetary resources available to DHS, as well
as other non-appropriated resources. The amounts shown in this graphic are derived from the
Administration’s budget request documents, and therefore do not exactly mirror the data
presented in congressional documents, which are the source for most of the other data presented
in the report.
Figure 2. DHS Gross Budget Breakdown: FY2015 Request
(millions of dollars of budget authority, rounded)
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2015 DHS congressional justifications.
Notes: Amounts may not sum to totals due to rounding. Includes rescissions of prior-year budget authority.
The amounts shown in this graph is derived from the Administration’s budget request documents, and therefore
do not exactly mirror the data presented in congressional documents, which are the source for most of the
other data presented in the report.
DHS Appropriations Trends: Size
The figure below presents information on DHS discretionary appropriations, as enacted, for
FY2004 through FY2014. The figure shows those appropriations in constant FY2013 dollars. The
totals include both annual appropriations, such as those provided by the bills this report focuses
on, as well as supplemental appropriations. The totals also reflect the billions of dollars of
funding for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), which supports disaster response and recovery
activities. Both supplemental appropriations and appropriations to pay for disasters can mask
overall trends in year-to-year investment in homeland security, so the graphic presents overall
Congressional Research Service
9
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
total twice—the top graph shows the split between annual and supplemental appropriations for
the department, while the second chart breaks out the DRF from the rest of the DHS discretionary
appropriations. Appendix B includes the data behind this table.
Figure 3. DHS Appropriations, Showing Supplemental Appropriations and the DRF
(in billions of constant FY2013 dollars)
Source: CRS analysis of congressional appropriations documents: for FY2004, H.Rept. 108-280 (accompanying
P.L. 108-90), H.Rept. 108-76 (accompanying P.L. 108-11), P.L. 108-69, P.L. 108-106, and P.L. 108-303; for
FY2005, H.Rept. 108-774 (accompanying P.L. 108-334), P.L. 108-324, P.L. 109-13, P.L. 109-61, and P.L. 109-62;
for FY2006, H.Rept. 109-241 (accompanying P.L. 109-90), P.L. 109-148, and P.L. 109-234; for FY2007, H.Rept.
109-699 (accompanying P.L. 109-295) and P.L. 110-28; for FY2008, Division E of the House Appropriations
Committee Print (accompanying P.L. 110-161) and P.L. 110-252; for FY2009, Division D of House
Appropriations Committee Print (accompanying P.L. 110-329), P.L. 111-5, P.L. 111-8, and P.L. 111-32; for
FY2010, H.Rept. 111-298 (accompanying P.L. 111-83), P.L. 111-212, and P.L. 111-230; for FY2011, P.L. 112-10
and H.Rept. 112-331 (accompanying P.L. 112-74); for FY2012, H.Rept. 112-331 (accompanying P.L. 112-74) and
P.L. 112-77; for FY2013, Senate explanatory statement (accompanying P.L. 113-6), P.L. 113-2, the DHS Fiscal
Year 2013 Post-Sequestration Operating Plan dated April 26, 2013, and financial data from the Hurricane Sandy
Rebuilding Task Force Home Page at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/sandyrebuilding/
recoveryprogress; and for FY2014, the explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 113-76.
Notes: Emergency funding, appropriations for overseas contingency operations, and funding for disaster relief
under the Budget Control Act’s allowable adjustment are included based on their legislative vehicle. Transfers
from DOD and advance appropriations are not included. Emergency funding in regular appropriations bills is
treated as regular appropriations. FY2013 does not reflect the impact of sequestration.
Congressional Research Service
10
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Generally speaking, the highest level of appropriations for the DHS budget in constant dollars
without counting the DRF was FY2010. Annual appropriations funding declined from then
through FY2013. Excluding the DRF, post-sequestration funding levels for the department were
approximately $38.9 billion in FY2013, which was the lowest funding level for the department in
constant dollars since FY2009.
DHS Appropriations Trends: Timing
Figure 4 shows the history of the timing of the DHS appropriations bills as they have moved
through various stages of the legislative process. Initially, DHS appropriations were enacted
relatively promptly, as stand-alone legislation. However, the bill is no longer an outlier from the
consolidation and delayed timing that has affected other annual appropriations legislation.
Congressional Research Service
11
c11173008
.
Figure 4. DHS Appropriations Legislative Timing
Source: CRS analysis.
Note: Final action on the annual appropriations for DHS for FY2011, FY2013, and FY2014 did not occur until after the beginning of the new calendar year.
CRS-12
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Title I: Departmental Management and Operations
Title I of the DHS appropriations bill provides funding for the department’s management
activities, Analysis and Operations (A&O) account, and the Office of the Inspector General
(OIG). The Administration requested $1,172 million for these accounts in FY2015, an increase of
$134 million (12.9%) above the enacted level. The House-reported bill provided $967 million, a
decrease of $205 million (17.5%) from the requested level and $70 million (6.8%) below
FY2014. The Senate-reported bill provided $1,033 million, a decrease of $138 million (11.8%)
from the request and $4 million (0.4%) below FY2014.
Table 4 lists the enacted amounts for the individual components of Title I for FY2014, the
Administration’s request for these components for FY2015, and the House-reported and Senate-
reported appropriations for the same.
Table 4. Title I: Departmental Management and Operations, FY2014-FY2015
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Reported
Reported
Component / Appropriation
Enacted Request H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Office of the Secretary and
122
129 100 125
Executive Management
Office of the Under Secretary for
196
195 175 193
Management
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
46
95
39
48
Office of the Chief Information
257
256 257 254
Officer
Analysis and Operations
300
302
274
295
DHS Headquarters Consolidationa 0
73 0 0
Office of the Inspector Generalb
115
121 120 119
Net Budget Authority: Title I
1,037
1,172
967
1,033
Total Gross Budgetary
1,037 1,172
967 1,033
Resources for Title I
Components before Transfers
Sources: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903,
H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534, and S.Rept. 113-198.
Notes: Table displays rounded numbers, but al operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals.
a. This line only reflects funding for DHS Headquarters Consolidation included in Title I of the DHS
appropriations legislation. $35 mil ion is provided in FY2014 appropriations for construction through the
general provisions of the legislation, and $13 million is provided under Coast Guard operations accounts to
pay for operating costs of the Coast Guard headquarters facility.
Congressional Research Service
13
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
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, including $24 million in FY2014, and a $24 million
request for FY2015.
Departmental Management7
The departmental management accounts cover the general administrative expenses of DHS. They
include the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM), which is comprised of
the Immediate Office of the Secretary and 11 entities that report directly to the Secretary; the
Under Secretary for Management (USM) and its components—the offices of the Chief Readiness
Support Officer (formerly, the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (OCAO)), Chief Human
Capital Officer (OCHCO), Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO), and Chief Security Officer
(OCSO); the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO); and the Office of the Chief
Information Officer (OCIO). The Administration has usually requested funding for the
consolidation of its headquarters here as well.
In this section and in each section hereinafter, a graphic follows that provides a numeric and
graphic representation of the discretionary appropriation provided to each element of DHS
described in the report. This graphic provides a quick reference to the relative size of the
component to others in DHS as well as to the previous year’s enacted level and the FY2015
request.
FY2015 Request
The Administration requested $675 million for departmental management, not including
headquarters consolidation efforts. This included $129 million for OSEM, $129 million ($6
million, or 5.2% above the FY2014 level) and $195 million for USM ($1 million, or 0.4% below
the FY2014 level). The Administration requested $95 million for OCFO and $256 million for
OCIO as well. Like headquarters consolidation, both OCFO and OCIO received funding through
general provisions (Title V) in FY2014 for crosscutting initiatives, so direct comparison of their
Title I appropriations has limited value.
House-Reported H.R. 4903
H.R. 4903, as reported by the House Committee on Appropriations, included $572 million for
departmental management in Title I, $50 million (8.0%) less than FY2014 and $103 million
(15.3%) less than requested by the Administration. As in the FY2014 appropriations report, the
House Committee on Appropriations justified the reductions on the basis of the need to cover the
lack of revenue from unrealized funding proposals that were intended to offset the cost of the bill
and the department’s failure to comply with several statutory requirements for reports and plans
7 Prepared by Barbara L. Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
14
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
that were included in previous appropriations acts. Additional reductions were taken at the full
committee markup to offset increased appropriations for CBP and ICE efforts to deal with an
increase in the number of unaccompanied alien children taken into custody on the southwest
border.8
Senate-Reported S. 2534
S. 2534, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, included $619 million for
departmental management in Title I, $3 million (0.4%) less than FY2014, and $56 million (8.3%)
less than requested by the administration.
Expenditure Plans and Investment Plans
Two documents commonly required by the appropriations committees as part of their oversight functions are
expenditure plans and investment plans. Expenditure plans (also known as obligation, financial, or operating plans) are
a response to the appropriation provided to a particular element of the department: Essential y, they outline what
the element will do with the level of funding Congress has provided for the fiscal year. Investment plans have a
longer-term perspective, and relate how an element plans to fund something (often a major capital investment) over
the course of several years.
The House-reported bill and committee report directed the department to provide 13 “obligation and expenditure
plans” through a single general provision.9 The Senate-reported bil and committee report directed the department
to provide 16 expenditure plans. Parameters for these plans are spel ed out in both the House and Senate
Appropriations Committee-reported bills and reports in various places.10
Three investment plans were required in the House-reported bill and committee report, while the Senate-reported
bill and committee report required seven. Like the expenditure plans, parameters for these plans are spelled out in
both the House and Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bills and reports in various places.
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM)
The Administration requested $129 million for OSEM and 583 full-time employee equivalents
(FTEs), $6 million, or 5.2%, more than was provided in FY2014. The House-reported bill
included $100 million for OSEM, $28 million (21.7%) less than requested. The Senate-reported
bill included $125 million, $4 million (3.1%) less than requested.
The House- and Senate- reported bills provided that funds for the Immediate Office of the
Secretary and the Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary pay for costs associated with
government aircraft use in support of official travel by the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary.
The House committee required a quarterly report on the costs of the travel by the two officials,
for both official and nonofficial purposes.
Because of “chronic, unacceptable delays in submitting statutorily required reports and plans,”11
the House Appropriations Committee recommended that none of the department’s requests for the
restoration of prior year funds be granted, no funding be provided for the Office of Legislative
Affairs, and the entire appropriation be constrained to levels below the current funding. Within
OSEM, the committee recommended funding the Office of Policy at an appropriation of less than
8 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 11.
9 H.R. 4903, Sec. 514.
10 H.Rept. 113-481, pp. 24-25; S.Rept. 113-198, pp. 16-17, p. 25.
11 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 8.
Congressional Research Service
15
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
$32 million. For the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the committee recommended an
appropriation of $22 million, including almost $2.4 million for oversight of Secure Communities
and the 287(g) program.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended an appropriation of $5.8 million and five
positions for employment-based case inquiries for the Citizenship and Immigration Services
(CIS) Ombudsman and noted that the ombudsman had a 33% increase in employment-based
immigration inquiries from April 1, 2013, through March 2014. The committee recommended an
appropriation of more than $37 million for the Office of Policy, of which $715,000 was to ensure
that strategic guidance related to investments by the department translates into results. The
committee explained that it denied the department’s request to restore prior year funding
reductions in OSEM offices because of “an insufficient justification” and “the Committee’s intent
to focus limited resources on the Department’s critical operational missions.”12
Noting that costs associated with DHS international activities increased by almost $62 million
and almost 300 positions since FY2014, the Senate Appropriations Committee also directed the
department to develop a plan to reduce these costs by 10% in FY2015, and provide a briefing on
“efforts to reduce unnecessary overlap and redundancies”13 within 60 days after the act’s
enactment.
A program change included in the request for the CIS Ombudsman requested $1 million and 3
FTEs for Employment-based Case Inquiries to assist employers in resolving problems with CIS.14
The House Appropriations Committee report recommended $2 million less than requested for this
office, and the Senate Appropriations Committee report recommended a reduction of less than $1
million, but nether document spoke explicitly to this particular matter.15
Under Secretary for Management (USM)
The Administration requested $195 million for the USM and 854 FTEs. The House-reported bill
included $175 million for the USM, $20 million (10.3%) less than requested. The Senate-reported
bill included $193 million for the USM, $2 million (1%) less than requested.
Several program changes were proposed under this appropriation in the Administration’s request:
• The Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer included a $1 million
reduction for contractor support and expenses;
• The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer included a $1 million reduction
for contractor support and non-pay expenses. The Human Resources Information
Technology (HRIT) request included a more than $2 million increase in funding,
divided between the Enterprise-wide Talent Management System (which
automates training management), and HRIT portfolio management
improvements;
12 S.Rept. 113-198, p. 11.
13 S.Rept. 113-198, p. 17.
14 Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: Departmental Management and
Operations, Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (Washington, DC, 2014), p. OSEM-17.
15 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 8; S.Rept. 113-198, p. 12.
Congressional Research Service
16
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
• The Office of the Chief Procurement Officer included a reduction of nearly $1.8
million and 18 FTEs for the Acquisition Professional Career Program, which
helps develop the department’s acquisition workforce.16
Both the House- and Senate-reported bills required the Under Secretary to submit a
Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report at the same time as the President’s budget is submitted
and thereafter, 45 days after the completion of each quarter of the fiscal year.
Within USM, the House committee recommended funding of almost $3 million for the Immediate
Office of the Under Secretary and $63 million for the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer. It
directed the USM “to resume its efforts to compel the Department to adopt a zero-based
budgeting approach to formulate”17 the budget request and justification. The committee also
recommended that the request for just over $1 million to fund the Enterprise-wide Talent
Management System be denied because “essential operations must be sufficiently supported and
prioritized before additional funding can be considered for such administrative initiatives.”18
The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) took a $10 million (34.5%) cut in full
committee markup to offset increased appropriations for CBP and ICE efforts to deal with an
increase in the number of unaccompanied alien children taken into custody on the southwest
border. This included zeroing out funding for the Human Resources Information Technology
program, which the Senate-reported bill funded at $8 million. 19
Stating lengthy delays within the department in hiring new employees, the Senate Appropriations
Committee directed DHS to report on a strategy to expedite the process, within 60 days after the
act’s enactment, and provide quarterly reports “on time to hire statistics by component.”20
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
The Administration requested $95 million for the OCFO and 212 FTEs. In FY2014, Title I
included $46 million for the OCFO, but Title V included an additional $30 million for financial
systems modernization efforts that are continued in the FY2015 request in Title I. The FY2015
request therefore represents a $19 million, or 25%, increase above the total provided to the CFO
in FY2014. The House-reported bill included $39 million for OCFO under Title I, and $30
million under Title V for the Financial Systems Modernization Program,21 for a total OCFO
investment of $69 million, $26 million (27.4%) below the amount requested. The Senate
Appropriations Committee-reported bill included $48 million for the OCFO under Title I, and
$40 million under Title V, for a total OCFO investment of $98 million, $2 million (2.1%) more
than requested.
16 Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: Departmental Management and
Operations, Under Secretary for Management (Washington, DC, 2014), pp. USM-6, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16-17.
17 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 20.
18 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 21.
19 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 11.
20 S.Rept. 113-198, p. 23. The report noted that it took DHS an average of 146 days to hire an employee in 2013,
including 106 days and 198 days, respectively, on average, to hire non-law enforcement employees and senior
executive employees.
21 H.R. 4903, Sec. 539.
Congressional Research Service
17
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Program changes for FY2015 included an increase of $16 million for Component Financial
Systems Modernization “to support requirements related to Component migrations to new
financial systems,” as well as an increase of $1 million and 4 additional FTEs to undertake a
capabilities and requirements analysis “to implement improved investment lifecycle
management.” 22
The House- and Senate-reported bills both provided that the Secretary must submit the Future
Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) at the same time as the President’s budget is
submitted. The Senate Appropriations Committee report specified that the FYHSP show funding
by appropriation account and subordinate program, project, or activity and be accessible to the
public.
Both House- and Senate-reported bills included a general provision requiring a Monthly Budget
Execution and Staffing report within 30 days after the close of each month, with specifications for
information to be included. The House-reported provision included several additional content
requirements that were not included in the Senate-reported provision.23 The House Appropriations
Committee, in its report, justified its reductions to the OCFO request as being made “to offset the
severe flaws of the budget request, including reliance upon unauthorized fee increases and the
proposed, but unjustified reductions to the Department’s operational components.” It also noted
“the Department’s chronic inability to comply with statutory reporting requirements,” and
specifically reduced the Component Financial Systems Modernization by almost $10 million to
offset increased appropriations for CBP and ICE efforts to deal with an increase in the number of
unaccompanied alien children taken into custody on the southwest border. The Senate
Appropriations Committee explained that the recommendation for funding below the President’s
request was “due to program delays that have occurred since the budget request was
formulated.”24
The Senate Appropriations Committee report stated an expectation that the OCFO will “monitor
the overuse of funding realignments by the Transportation Security Administration and the
National Protection and Programs Directorate.”25
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)
The Administration requested $256 million for the OCIO and 290 FTEs. In FY2014, Title I
included $257 million for the OCIO, but Title V included an additional $42 million for data center
consolidation which had previously been requested under Title I. The FY2015 request therefore
represents a $41 million decrease from the FY2014 funding level provided to OCIO overall,
largely due to the conclusion of the data center consolidation initiative. The House Appropriations
Committee-reported bill included $257 million for the OCIO, $1 million (0.3%) more than
requested. The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill included $254 million for the
OCIO, $2 million (0.9%) less than requested.
22 Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: Departmental Management and
Operations, Office of the Chief Financial Officer (Washington, DC, 2014), pp. OCFO-7–OCFO-11.
23 H.R. 4903, Sec. 514; S. 2534, Sec. 513.
24 S.Rept. 113-198, p. 24.
25 S.Rept. 113-198, p. 26.
Congressional Research Service
18
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Net program changes totaling nearly $2 million were requested. These included a nearly $7
million increase for the Homeland Secure Data Network to cover rising operations and
maintenance costs, and reductions of $3 million26 for information technology governance and
oversight and nearly $6 million27 for information security and infrastructure activities.28
The House-reported bill provided that, within the total amount appropriated, $93 million would
fund salaries and expenses and almost $164 million would support development and acquisition
activities. Specifically, for the latter, the House Appropriations Committee recommended almost
$41 million for information technology activities, including $2 million for the DHS Data
Framework; $53 million for infrastructure and security activities, including $1million for cyber
remediation tools; and $70 million for the Homeland Secure Data Network.
The Senate-reported bill provided that, within the total amount appropriated, $95 million would
fund salaries and expenses and almost $159 million would support development and acquisition
activities. Specifically, for the latter, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
appropriations of almost $39 million for information technology activities; $52 million for
infrastructure and security activities, including $26 million to implement measures to protect
classified information related to national security; and $68 million for the Homeland Secure Data
Network. In a general provision, the Senate-reported bill required the CIO to submit a multiyear
investment plan, for 2015 through 2018, at the same time that the FY2016 budget is submitted to
Congress.29
Table 5 outlines the funding levels for existing management accounts requested and provided in
Title I.
26 The congressional justification, at p. OCIO-27 and p. OCIO-30, stated that the $873,000 reduction in the Executive
Correspondence Tracking System “will eliminate planned system upgrades and reduce contract support” and in DHS
Hosting may, among other results, include “delayed responses for SharePoint requests, reduction in timely responses to
customers for hosting requirements, and trouble shooting.” A nearly $2.3 million reduction will reduce program
management support for the Enterprise Architecture Center of Excellence and decrease funding for the Geospatial
Management Office, the Information Sharing Environment Office, and the Office of Accessible Systems and
Technology (p. OCIO-30).
27 The congressional justification, at pp. OCIO-31–OCIO-32, stated that this reduction would impact the capability of
the Information Technology Services Office to “perform independent technical analyses and assessments of network
services provided by DHS” and “to evaluate service quality and level of performance ... alignment to customer
requirements ... adherence to performance and security standards and the Enterprise Architecture, and use of best
industry practices and innovation.”
28 Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: Departmental Management and
Operations, Office of the Chief Information Officer (Washington, DC, 2014), pp. OCIO-25–OCIO-32.
29 S.Rept. 113-198, Sec. 545.
Congressional Research Service
19
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Table 5. DHS Management Account Appropriations, FY2014-FY2015
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Appropriation /
Reported Reported
Sub-Appropriation
Enacted Request H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Office of the Secretary and
122 129 100 125
Executive Management
Immediate Office of the Secretary
4
4
4
4
Immediate Office of the Deputy
2 2 2 2
Secretary
Office of the Chief of Staff
2
2
2
2
Executive Secretary
7
8
7
7
Office of Policy
37
38
32
38
Office of Public Affairs
9
9
8
9
Office of Legislative Affairs
5
5
0
5
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
2
2
2
2
Office of General Counsel
20
21
18
20
Office of Civil Rights and Civil
22 22 22 22
Liberties
Citizenship and Immigration Services
5 6 5 6
Ombudsman
Privacy Officer
8
8
8
8
Unspecified Reduction
-10a
Under Secretary for
196 195 175 193
Management
Immediate Office of the Under
3 4 3 3
Secretary
Office of Security
64
63
63
63
Office of the Chief Procurement
65 64 63 64
Officer
Office of the Chief Human Capital
30 31 19 29
Officer
Office of the Chief Readiness
35 34 27 34
Support Officer
Office of the Chief Financial
46 95 39 48
Officer
Office of the Chief Information
257 256 257 254
Officer
DHS Headquarters
0 73
0
0
Consolidation
Total, Departmental
622 748 572 619
Managementb
Congressional Research Service
20
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Sources: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903,
H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534, and S.Rept. 113-198.
Notes: Table displays rounded numbers, but al operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals.
a. The House-reported appropriations for the OSEM, the USM, and the OCFO were changed in a Manager’s
Amendment offered by Representative John Carter and agreed to by the House committee during markup
on June 11, 2014. Unlike in the case of the reductions to the USM and the OCFO, the reduction to the
OSEM was not made from a specific subappropriation, so it in unclear which activities would receive
reduced funding.
b. This line only reflects funding for DHS Headquarters Consolidation included in Title I of the DHS
appropriations legislation. Other funding has been provided under Coast Guard accounts and in general
provisions in previous years. See the section below for more explicit funding details.
Issues for Congress
Several issues related to departmental management and administration have been discussed in
recent hearings. Among the issues were those related to the Senior Executive Service, the use of
Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO), spending on agency-sponsored conferences,
initiatives to enhance the DHS workforce, and delays in submitting reports mandated by the
appropriations committees. Brief discussions for each of these issues follow.
Senior Executive Service (SES)
A March 13, 2014, hearing on the department’s budget request for FY2015 conducted by the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs included discussion of the
SES30 at DHS. Senator Claire McCaskill asked Secretary Jeh Johnson to examine the mobility of
executives within the department, including how many members of the SES have worked for
more than one DHS component during their careers.31 The Office of Personnel Management’s
FedScope database provides information on the number of SES members. As of June 2014 (most
current available), there were 600 members of the SES at DHS. Most of the SES members were
at Headquarters (137) and Customs and Border Protection (110).32 This total places the
department second among the fifteen Cabinet Agencies in terms of number of SES employees.
Other departments in a ranking of the top six in this regard were Justice (746), Treasury (471),
Energy (467), Defense (458),33 and Health and Human Services (422).
30 According to the Office of Personnel Management, “The keystone of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the SES
was designed to be a corps of executives selected for their leadership qualifications. Members of the SES serve in the
key positions just below the top Presidential appointees, … are the major link between these appointees and the rest of
the Federal work force, [and] operate and oversee nearly every government activity.” (http://www.opm.gov/policy-
data-oversight/senior-executive-service/.)
31 CQ Congressional Transcripts, “Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Holds Hearing on
President Obama’s Proposed Fiscal 2015 Budget Request for the Homeland Security Department,” March 13, 2014,
available at http://www.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-4441415?0.
32 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, FedScope database, Employment cubes, Agency Parameter set to Cabinet
Level Agencies and Pay Plan and Grade Parameter set to Senior Executive Service, available at
http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/ibmcognos/cgi-bin/cognosisapi.dll.
33 When the Departments of the Air Force (165), Army (280), and Navy (302) are included, the aggregate total for the
Department of Defense was 1,205 as of June 2014.
Congressional Research Service
21
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
The Senate Committee on Appropriations noted the 198 days, on average, that it takes the
department to hire senior executives and directed DHS to report, within 60 days of enactment, on
the strategy to improve this circumstance.
In a September 22, 2014, news release, Secretary Johnson provided data on senior DHS positions
filled over the last nine months and stated: “there have been 12 presidential appointments to
senior-level positions.... Each of these appointees ha[s] pledged to serve until at least the end of
this Administration. In fact, 90 percent of all positions at the SES level and above across this
240,000-person Department are now filled.”34 The news release listed each position and its
incumbent and was issued in response to a Washington Post article on turnover at DHS.35
Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO)
Another hearing conducted by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, on January 28, 2014, examined the improper use of AUO by employees of Customs and
Border Patrol who were not eligible for those payments.36 In a letter to President Barack Obama
on October 31, 2013, Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner expressed “deep concerns about long-
standing abuse of [AUO] overtime payments” by DHS and stated that “there remain serious
questions about the agency’s ability or willingness to adequately address the AUO abuse issue.”37
The department’s Chief Human Capital Officer, Catherine Emerson, told the committee members
that DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson issued a memorandum on January 27, 2014, that “directed the
heads of DHS components to suspend the use of AUO for certain categories of employees.” She
also testified that “a comprehensive review of the use of AUO across the department” was
underway within DHS under the direction of the Office of General Counsel.38 The House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations might be interested in the findings and recommendations
that result from this review as the Special Counsel estimated that, “According to information
provided by the whistleblowers, abuse of AUO” at the department costs “approximately $8.7
million annually.”39
34 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Statement by Secretary Johnson About Today’s Washington Post Story on
DHS,” September 22, 2014, available at http://www.dhs.gov/news/2014/09/22/statement-secretary-johnson-about-
todays-washington-post-story-dhs.
35 Jerry Markon, Ellen Nakashima and Alice Crites, “Top-level turnover makes it harder for DHS to stay on top of
evolving threats,” Washington Post, September 21, 2014, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-
level-turnover-makes-it-harder-for-dhs-to-stay-on-top-of-evolving-threats/2014/09/21/ca7919a6-39d7-11e4-9c9f-
ebb47272e40e_story.html.
36 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations state that AUO may be paid “to an employee in a position in
which the hours of duty cannot be controlled administratively and which requires substantial amounts of irregular or
occasional overtime work, with the employee generally being responsible for recognizing, without supervision,
circumstances which require the employee to remain on duty.” Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 550.151.
37 Letter to President Barack Obama from Carolyn N. Lerner, Special Counsel, October 31, 2013, available at
http://www.osc.gov/FY2014/14-1%20DI-13-0002/14-1%20DI-13-0002%20-
%20Letter%20to%20the%20President.pdf.
38 CQ Congressional Transcripts, “Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee on Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal
Programs and the Federal Workforce Holds Hearing on the Homeland Security Department’s Overtime Policy,”
January 28, 2014, available at http://www.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-4416309?29.
39 Letter to President Barack Obama from Carolyn N. Lerner, Special Counsel, October 31, 2013, available at
http://www.osc.gov/FY2014/14-1%20DI-13-0002/14-1%20DI-13-0002%20-
%20Letter%20to%20the%20President.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
22
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
The House Committee on Appropriations stated that certain accounts under CBP and NPPD were
reduced because of “expected budgetary savings from improvements to AUO oversight and
management.”40 The committee directed the department to submit the results of the OIG’s review
and the Office of Special Counsel’s investigations within 15 days of enactment. Within the same
timeframe, the committee directed DHS to report on the compliance plans and internal controls
developed in response to the Deputy Secretary’s May 23, 2014, memorandum on AUO.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations stated its expectation that it be regularly updated as
DHS works to improve AUO administration.
Spending on Conferences
Since FY2012, executive branch agencies must report annually to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) on agency-sponsored conferences with expenses in excess of $100,000.41 The
DHS “Annual Report on Conferences” was filed for FY2012 and FY2013, and is available on the
department’s website.42 FY2014 data is expected to be reported in January 2015.
In addition, a general provision carried in the DHS Appropriations Act since FY201343 limits the
use of appropriated funds to pay for DHS employee participation at international conferences.44
Attendance was permitted if the Secretary, or a designee, determined that it was in the national
interest and notified the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within at least 10 days
of that determination and the basis for it. The DHS congressional justification proposed that the
provision be deleted “because it was a onetime directive, restricts the Department’s ability to use
and manage appropriated resources, and infringes upon the Department’s ability to manage
administrative functions.”45
The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations continued this prohibition for FY2015.
Within 30 days after the end of FY2015, the committees directed the OIG to report on the
department’s expenditures on events. The report must assess DHS’ compliance with laws and
regulations and include the total cost of events, the number of conferences held, the amount of
funds obligated, and expenses by appropriation account or subaccount or other funding source.
Enhancing the DHS Workforce
The department’s strategic plan for FY2012 through FY2016 included a goal related to enhancing
the DHS workforce. The plan stated that, among other initiatives, DHS would develop career
paths for employees to provide mobility within the department; provide opportunities for
40 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 15.
41 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum to the Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies, Promoting Efficient Spending to Support Agency Operations, May 11, 2012, M-12-12, p.
4, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-12.pdf.
42 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Annual Report on Conferences,” available at https://www.dhs.gov/
publication/annual-report-conferences.
43 Section 569 of Division F of P.L. 113-6.
44 International conference means a conference occurring outside of the United States attended by representatives of the
U.S. government and of foreign governments, international organizations, or nongovernmental organizations.
45 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Title V Fiscal Year 2014 Explanation of Changes—General Provisions, pp.
18-19.
Congressional Research Service
23
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
rotational assignments throughout the department; increase diversity in the workforce, especially
at senior levels; and sustain a program on employee recruitment to improve the diversity of
applicant pools, especially with regard to women, minorities, and veterans.46 The House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations might include consideration of the department’s progress
in achieving these workforce improvements as part of its oversight of DHS staffing needs.
The House Committee on Appropriations specifically addressed workforce issues related to
employee morale and innovation, and awards. Stating its concern with “persistent findings of low
morale and a weak environment for innovation across the Department,”47 the committee directed
DHS to provide information on its plan to correct these deficiencies, including the underlying
causes and metrics to measure improvements that are clear and measurable. The information must
be provided within 60 days after the act’s enactment. The committee also directed DHS to include
with the President’s budget request estimated amounts for bonuses and performance awards, by
component, for FY2016 and the standards and criteria underlying them.
Congressionally Mandated Reports
The department’s lack of timely compliance with reporting requirements placed on it by Congress
has been an ongoing issue for a number of years. At times, Congress has chosen to withhold
funding for certain activities until requested or required reports are submitted. In the FY2014 act,
no funds were withheld from management accounts, “to afford the new leadership of the
Department an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the law.”48
During the House Committee on Appropriations March 11, 2014, hearing on the Department of
Homeland Security’s FY2015 budget proposal, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland
Security, Representative John Carter, and the chairman of the full committee, Representative Hal
Rogers, noted the department’s delay in providing reports that the committee had mandated.
Chairman Carter stated that the budget proposal “does not comply with the law, as it is missing
some 20 reports and expenditure plans required to be submitted with the budget.” Chairman
Rogers said that: “Once again, the department has failed to submit a number of plans and reports
which are essential to help this committee do its work.... These are not merely suggestions or
requests. They're required by law.”49 For FY2015, the House committee stated that it “will not
reconsider reductions to OSEM, or a restoration [of] funding to support OLA, until the
Department complies with all statutory requirements and submits a responsible budget proposal
that adequately supports essential mission requirements for frontline operations.”50
Likewise, the Senate committee stated: “Whatever the causes are for the delays in getting
required information to the Committee, the expectation is that the Department’s performance will
46 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2012-2016” (Washington: DHS, February
2012), pp. 25-26, available at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs-strategic-plan-fy-2012-2016.pdf.
47 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 18.
48 Explanatory Statement, p. 3.
49 CQ Congressional Transcripts, “House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee Holds Hearing on
Department of Homeland Security Budget for F.Y. 2015,” March 11, 2014, available at http://www.cq.com/doc/
congressionaltranscripts-4437846?34.
50 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 8.
Congressional Research Service
24
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
improve. In certain circumstances, a significant portion of a component’s appropriation is
withheld from obligation until the required report is submitted.”51
Expressing concern about the increased use of the designation “For Official Use Only” (FOUO)
on reports, briefings, and information, the House committee directed the department to include
the name(s) and title(s) of the person(s) making the designation and the reasons for it, under DHS
Management Directive 11042.1,52 on all responses that are classified as FOUO.53
The Senate-reported bill directed the agencies under DHS to post reports required by the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations on their public websites upon determination by the
agency head that such would serve the national interest and unless such action compromises
homeland or national security or contains proprietary information. The posting would occur only
after a report has been available to the requesting committee(s) for at least 30 days.54
DHS Headquarters Consolidation55
As of July 2014, the Department of Homeland Security’s headquarters footprint occupies more
than 9 million rentable square feet of office space in 50 separate locations in the greater
Washington, DC, area.56 This is largely a legacy of how the department was assembled in a short
period of time from 22 separate federal agencies that were themselves spread across the National
Capital region. The fragmentation of headquarters is cited by the department as a major
contributor to inefficiencies, including time lost shuttling staff between headquarters elements;
additional security, real estate, and administrative costs; and reduced cohesion among the
components that make up the department.
To unify the department’s headquarters functions, the department and General Services
Administration (GSA) approved a $3.4 billion master plan to create a new DHS headquarters on
the grounds of St. Elizabeths in Anacostia. According to GSA, this would be the largest federal
office construction since the Pentagon was built during World War II. Originally, $1.4 billion of
this project was to be funded through the DHS budget, and $2 billion through the GSA.57
According to DHS, $1,558 million has been invested in the project so far through FY2014—$495
million through DHS and $1,063 million through GSA.58 Phase 1A of the project—a new Coast
Guard headquarters facility—became operational in 2013 with the funding already provided by
Congress.
51 S.Rept. 113-198, p. 15.
52 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Safeguarding Sensitive But Unclassified (For Official Use Only)
Information,” January 6, 2005.
53 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 18.
54 S. 2534, Sec. 562.
55 Prepared by William L. Painter, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government
and Finance Division.
56 U.S. Government Accountability Office, DHS and GSA Need to Strengthen the Management of DHS Headquarters
Consolidation, GAO-14-648, September 19, 2014, p. p. 4, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-648.
57 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.
58 Some of GSA’s investment in St. Elizabeths would have been required without the DHS headquarters to stabilize and
maintain the structures on the federally owned site.
Congressional Research Service
25
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Not all DHS functions in the greater Washington, DC, area are slated to move to the new facility.
The Administration has sought funding several times in recent years for consolidation of some of
those other offices to fewer locations to save money on lease costs.
FY2015 Request
The Administration requested a total of $323 million for the consolidation of DHS headquarters at
St. Elizabeths—$250 million of this was requested through GSA, and $73 million through DHS.
$57.7 million of the FY2015 request for DHS is to complete partially-funded work on the center
building, where the Secretary’s office is to be located, and $15.3 million for operational costs
associated with the current campus.
House-Reported H.R. 4903
House-reported H.R. 4903 included no funding for the consolidation of DHS headquarters at St.
Elizabeths. The accompanying report directs the DHS Chief Readiness support officer to provide
an update to the committee on plans for expending the project’s prior-year appropriations, and to
provide an updated alternatives analysis for headquarters consolidation that takes into account the
current constrained budget environment.59
Senate-Reported S. 2534
Senate-reported S. 2534 included no funding for the consolidation of DHS headquarters at St.
Elizabeths in Title I of the bill. However, a general provision provides $49 million to fund
operating support costs and completion of the center building.60
Issues for Congress
In 2013, DHS released an updated construction schedule for the consolidated headquarters based
on annual construction of 300,000 square foot “useable segments” as opposed to the coordinated
construction plan originally envisioned for the process. Following that schedule, the completion
date of the headquarters would be pushed back to 2026, and the projected cost would rise to $4.5
billion. However, DHS is working on a rebaselining of the requirements that were originally laid
out in its master plan for construction to take into account evolution of the department and of
workplace strategies since the project was first developed.
On September 19, 2014, the Government Accountability Office released a report criticizing DHS
and GSA for not following best practices in developing their cost and schedule estimates. At a
hearing before the House Committee on Homeland Security’s subcommittee on Oversight and
Management Efficiency, DHS agreed with the findings of the GAO report, and indicated that with
the FY2016 request, DHS would provide an “enhanced project plan,” which would meet GAO’s
concerns.
59 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 23.
60 Email exchange with Senate Appropriations staff, August 28, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
26
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Congress may wish to examine this enhanced plan for the use of the St. Elizabeths facility once
they are complete. The usage of the campus may rise from 14,000 to over 20,000 personnel, but
not all DHS headquarters personnel in the greater Washington, DC, area will move to the campus.
Aside from traditional debate over the amount of discretionary spending for the project, Congress
may also wish to explore alternative means of financing the multi-billion dollar project. However,
any statutory authorization of such financing would typically not be carried in the DHS
appropriations bill.
For more information on the history and policy questions surrounding DHS headquarters
consolidation, see CRS Report R42753, DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project: Issues for
Congress, by William L. Painter.
Analysis and Operations61
Funds included in the Analysis and Operations account support both the Office of Intelligence
and Analysis (I&A) and the Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS). I&A is
responsible for managing the DHS intelligence enterprise and for collecting, analyzing, and
sharing intelligence information for and among all components of DHS, and with the state, local,
tribal, and private sector homeland security partners. Because I&A is a member of the intelligence
community,62 its budget comes in part from the classified National Intelligence Program.63 OPS
develops and coordinates departmental and interagency operations plans. It also manages the
National Operations Center, the primary 24/7 national-level hub for domestic incident
management, operations coordination, and situational awareness, fusing law enforcement,
national intelligence, emergency response, and private sector information.
61 Prepared by Jerome P. Bjelopera, Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism, Domestic Social Policy Division.
62 The intelligence community (IC), as defined in 50 U.S.C. 401a(4), includes the Central Intelligence Agency, the
National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Geospatial-Imagery Agency, the Defense
Intelligence Agency, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the State Department, the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis of the Treasury Department, and DHS’s I&A, as well as intelligence elements within the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Department of Energy, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the
Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard.
63 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
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2015 Request
The Administration’s FY2015 request for the Analysis and Operations account was $302 million,
an increase of $2 million (0.6%) from the enacted FY2014 level of $300 million. The account
request included funding for 850 FTE, an increase of 5 FTE from 2014.
House-Reported H.R. 4903
House-reported H.R. 4903 included $274 million in appropriations for the Analysis and
Operations account, $28 million (9.2%) below the amount requested. According to H.Rept. 113-
481, the House Committee on Appropriations reduced funding for OPS because of an inadequate
justification and a lack of clarity regarding the alignment of OPS’s mission (and strategic goals)
to its personnel structure. The committee noted that the reduction helped offset “severe flaws” in
DHS’s request for frontline operations and enforcement. Also, the committee denied the requested
decrease to the Border Intelligence Fusion Section led by I&A and located at the El Paso
Intelligence Center in El Paso, TX. Additionally, the committee required DHS to submit a
comprehensive inventory of all DHS operations centers within 60 days of enactment of the
appropriation.
Senate-Reported S. 2534
Senate-reported S. 2534 included $295 million for the Analysis and Operations Account, $7
million (2.0%) below the amount requested. According to S.Rept. 113-198, the Senate Committee
on Appropriations required DHS’s Chief Intelligence Officer (the Under Secretary for I&A) to
brief the committee on the I&A expenditure plan for FY2015 no later than 60 days after the
enactment of DHS appropriations. The committee stipulated that the plan should include the
following elements:
• fiscal year 2015 expenditures and staffing allotted for each program as compared
to fiscal years 2013 and 2014;
• all funded versus on-board positions, including federal FTE, contractors, and
reimbursable and nonreimbursable detailees;
• a plan, including dates or timeframes for achieving key milestones;
• allocation of funding within each PPA for individual programs and a description
of the desired outcomes for FY2015; and
Congressional Research Service
28
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
• actions taken to address the recommendations in GAO report (GAO-14-397),
‘‘Additional Actions Needed to Address Analytic Priorities and Workforce
Challenges.’’64
The committee also directed I&A to continue semiannual briefings on the State and Local Fusion
Centers program.
Issues for Congress
Several issues have dogged I&A in recent years. Some arose in the 2014 Senate nomination
hearings for Francis X. Taylor to the post of DHS Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis.65
These included whether I&A has a mission that is clearly understood by its employees, to what
extent I&A provides useful intelligence products to its customers, how to improve low employee
morale, and to what degree state and major urban area fusion centers66 (supported by I&A)
enhance federal counterterrorism efforts.67
Office of the Inspector General68
The DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is intended to be an independent, objective body
that conducts audits and investigations of the department’s activities to prevent waste, fraud, and
abuse. The OIG keeps Congress informed about problems within the department’s programs and
operations; ensures DHS information technology is secure pursuant to the Federal Information
Security Management Act; and reviews and makes recommendations regarding existing and
proposed legislation and regulations related to the department. The OIG reports to Congress and
the Secretary of DHS.69
64 U.S. Government Accountability Office, DHS Intelligence Analysis: Additional Actions Needed to Address Analytic
Priorities and Workforce Challenges, GAO-14-397, June 2014.
65 Taylor became Under Secretary on April 14, 2014. See http://www.dhs.gov/person/francis-x-taylor.
66 See http://www.dhs.gov/state-and-major-urban-area-fusion-centers.
67 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, “Open Hearing: Nomination of John P. Carlin to be Assistant Attorney
General for National Security at the Department of Justice, and Nomination of Francis X. Taylor to be the Under
Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security,” February 25, 2014,
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings.cfm?hearingid=f00b2bec76ceca7ac77335d8aa10cf0a&witnessId=
f00b2bec76ceca7ac77335d8aa10cf0a-0-2; Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
“Nominations of L. Reginald Brothers, Jr., to be Under Secretary for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, and Hon. Francis X. Taylor to be Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security,” March 5, 2014, http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/nominations-of-l-reginald-brothers-jr-to-
be-under-secretary-for-science-and-technology-us-department-of-homeland-security-and-hon-francis-x-taylor-to-be-
under-secretary-for-intelligence-and-analysis-us-department-of-homeland-security.
68 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.
69 H.Rept. 112-469, p. 25.
Congressional Research Service
29
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2015 Request
The Administration requested a $121 million appropriation for the OIG, $6 million (5.2%) more
than was appropriated in FY2014.
The Administration also requested a $24 million transfer from the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF)
specifically for oversight of disaster relief activities. Transfers from the DRF are a long-standing
means of supporting the DHS OIG’s annual budget for oversight of disaster relief, first occurring
in FY2004, the first annual appropriations act for the department.70
House-Reported H.R. 4903
House-reported H.R. 4903 included a $120 million appropriation for the OIG, $1 million (0.9%)
below the amount requested, and $5 million ($4.3%) above the amount appropriated in FY2014.
The House-reported bill included the requested transfer from the DRF for disaster relief oversight
activities.
Senate-Reported S. 2534
Senate-reported S. 2534 included a $119 million appropriation for the OIG, $3 million (2.3%)
below the amount requested, and $3 million (2.8%) above the amount appropriated in FY2014.
Like the House-reported bill, the Senate-reported bill included the requested transfer from the
DRF for disaster relief oversight activities.
Issues for Congress
Issues surrounding the DHS OIG are generally issues that impact the broader oversight
community, or are issues that are shared throughout the broader community of inspectors general.
Although two such issues are briefly highlighted below, a much fuller analysis is available in the
discussion of statutory Offices of Inspectors General in CRS Report RL30240, Congressional
Oversight Manual, by Todd Garvey et al.
OIG Mandates
It is common practice for authorization and appropriations bills and reports to direct the OIG to
conduct specific work in addition to its ongoing audit and inspection activities. These mandates
are frequently placed on the OIG without providing additional resources to fund the work
required.
70 P.L. 108-90.
Congressional Research Service
30
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
According to the DHS OIG, as of the submission of the FY2015 budget request, it will have to
comply with 30 separate mandates from Congress (as well as one under an Executive Order) in
FY2014. Requirements established in executive orders and in law aside from the FY2014
appropriations process will require publication of at least 19 individual reports, audits, or reviews
in FY2014. In addition, through the FY2014 appropriations process, the OIG was mandated to
produce seven reviews, reports, and spend plans, as well as to provide semiannual and quarterly
briefings on two topics.71
The House and Senate reports for FY2015 directed that the OIG:
• Provide a detailed spending plan for the office, including work on corruption at
the U.S. border;72 and
• Report to Congress on event-related spending and conferences.73
In addition, the House report directed the OIG to provide a semi-annual briefing to the committee
on its waste and fraud prevention efforts.74 The Senate report directed the OIG work with the
Deputy Secretary to provide a status update on their work with CBP and ICE to “further address
the process for investigating cases of corruption of DHS employees.”75
OIG Accountability
Recently questions the objectivity and quality of the oversight provided by the DHS Inspector
General (IG) drew public attention. John Roth was confirmed as the DHS IG on March 13, 2014,
but from March 1, 2011, until that date, DHS did not have a Senate-confirmed Inspector General.
Charles Edwards, who served as Acting Inspector General and Deputy Inspector General during
most of this period, came under scrutiny on the basis of whistleblower allegations of
misconduct.76 The Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and
Efficiency, which was created by the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008,77 facilitates the
oversight of these intentionally independent oversight bodies, and is investigating these
allegations.78
In 2013, the Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight of the Senate Homeland
Security and Government Affairs Committee launched its own investigation of these allegations,
71 Department of Homeland Security, “Status of Congressionally Requested Studies, Report, and Evaluations,”
Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: Office of Inspector General, One-Time Exhibits (Washington, DC, 2014),
OIG-5 through OIG-10.
72 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 31, and S.Rept. 113-198, pp. 30-31.
73 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 18, and S.Rept. 113-198, p. 31.
74 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 31.
75 S.Rept. 113-198, p. 17.
76 Carol D. Leonnig, “Probe: DHS Watchdog Cozy with Officials, Altered Reports as He Sought Top Job,” The
Washington Post, April 24, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/probe-dhs-watchdog-cozy-with-officials-
altered-reports-as-he-sought-top-job/2014/04/23/b46a9366-c6ef-11e3-9f37-7ce307c56815_story.html.
77 P.L. 110-409.
78 Letter from Phyllis K. Fong, Chairperson, Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, to The
Honorable Claire McCaskill, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight, Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, June 11, 2014, http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/letter-from-
cigie-regarding-allegations-of-misconduct-by-former-dhs-deputy-inspector-general-charles-edwards&ei=
2IhTVMOeDPTIsATWxILgCQ&usg=AFQjCNH690SLkxwJXwaFqMj0KEO8IrrhQQ&bvm=bv.78677474,d.cWc.
Congressional Research Service
31
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
and released its report on April 24, 2014. Mr. Edwards had asked for and received a transfer to a
separate component of DHS in December 2013—shortly before he was expected to testify before
the subcommittee. Secretary Jeh Johnson placed Mr. Edwards on administrative leave upon the
release of the subcommittee’s report, pending a review of his employment.79
GAO Report on DHS OIG’s Structure Policies and Procedures
The explanatory statement accompanying the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2013,80
tasked the Government Accountability Office with reviewing the OIG’s organizational structure
to ensure compliance with the independence standards for inspectors general. The report, released
September 26, 2014, found that “The OIG’s organizational structure, roles, and responsibilities
are generally consistent with the Inspector General (IG) Act of 1978, as amended,” but went on to
note several areas for improvement, and indicated that although their policies and procedures
were consistent with independence standards, senior officials did not adequately document their
independence as required by those policies.81
One issue before Congress may be to ensure that the OIG’s planned efforts to remediate the
weaknesses identified by GAO are implemented effectively.
Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
Title II of the DHS appropriations bill, which includes over three-quarters of the budget authority
provided in the legislation, contains the appropriations for U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and the U.S. Secret Service (USSS). The
Administration requested $29,828 million for these accounts in FY2015, a decrease of $1,048
million (3.4%) below the enacted level. The House-reported bill provided $31,090 million, an
increase of 4.2% from the requested level and 0.7% above FY2014. The Senate-reported bill
provided $30,731 million, an increase of 3.0% from the requested level and 0.5% below FY2014.
Table 6 lists the enacted amounts for the individual components of Title II for FY2014, the
Administration’s request for these components for FY2015, and the House-reported
appropriations for the same.
79 Carol D. Leonnig, “Homeland Security Puts Former Inspector General on Administrative Leave,” The Washington
Post, April 24, 2014, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/homeland-security-puts-former-inspector-general-on-
administrative-leave/2014/04/24/a3e6e4b6-cbfb-11e3-93eb-6c0037dde2ad_story.html.
80 Division F of P.L. 113-6.
81 U.S. Government Accountability Office, DHS OIG’s Structure, Policies, and Procedures Are Consistent with
Standards, but Areas for Improvement Exist, GAO-14-726, September 24, 2014, Highlights, http://www.gao.gov/
products/GAO-14-726.
Congressional Research Service
32
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Table 6. Title II: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations, FY2014-FY2015
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Reported
Reported
Component / Appropriation
Enacted
Request
H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Customs and Border Protection
Salaries and Expenses
8,146
8,326
8,367
8,320
Small Airport User Feea 5
9
9
9
Automation Modernization
817
812
810
807
Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure,
351 362 412 362
and Technology
Air and Marine Operations
805
709
788
707
Facilities Management
456
482
484
478
COBRA CFTA Funding
0b 180
0
0
Appropriation 10,580
10,701
10,871
10,684
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust
1,704 1,884 1,884 1,884
Funds
Total Budgetary Resources
12,283
12,585
12,755
12,567
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
Salaries and Expenses
5,229
4,988
5,455
5,137
Automation and Infrastructure
35 26 31 26
Modernization
Construction 5
0
0
0
Appropriation 5,269
5,014
5,486
5,163
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust
345 345 345 345
Funds
Total Budgetary Resources
5,614
5,359
5,831
5,508
Transportation Security
Administration
Aviation Security (net funding)
2,863
3,033
3,382
3,555
Surface Transportation Security
109
128
121
127
Intelligence and Vetting [formerly
176 233 232 219
Transportation Threat Assessment and
Credentialing] (net funding)
Transportation Security Support
962
932
893
924
Federal Air Marshals
819
0c 0 0
Appropriation 4,929
4,325
4,628
4,824
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust
2,436 2,980 2,410 2,410
Funds
Total Budgetary Resources
7,365
7,305
7,038
7,234
Congressional Research Service
33
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Reported
Reported
Component / Appropriation
Enacted
Request
H.R. 4903
S. 2534
U.S. Coast Guard
Operating Expensesd 6,785
6,750
6,864
6,985
Environmental Compliance and
13 13 13 13
Restoration
Reserve Training
120
110
115
115
Acquisition, Construction, and
1,376 1,084 1,287 1,330
Improvements
Research, Development, Testing, and
19 18 11 18
Evaluation
Health Care Fund Contributiona 201
177
177
177
Discretionary Appropriation
8,514
8,152
8,467
8,425
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust
1,808 1,743 1,743 1,856
Funds
Overseas Contingency Operations
227 0 0 213
Adjustment
Total Budgetary Resources
10,549
9,895
10,211
10,381
U.S. Secret Service
Salaries and Expenses
1,533
1,586
1,587
1,585
Acquisition, Construction, and
52 50 50 50
Improvements
Appropriation 1,585
1,636
1,637
1,635
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust
255 260 260 260
Funds
Total Budgetary Resources
1,840
1,896
1,897 1,895
Net Discretionary Budget
30,877 29,828 31,090 30,731
Authority: Title II
Total Budgetary Resources for
37,651 36,470 37,732 37,711
Title II Components before
Transfers
Sources: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2014 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903,
H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534, and S.Rept. 113-198.
Notes: Table displays rounded numbers, but al operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals. Fee revenues included in the “Fees, Mandatory Spending, and Trust Funds” lines
are projections.
a. This is permanent indefinite discretionary spending, and therefore scores as being in the bill, despite not
being explicitly appropriated in the bills’ legislative language.
b. Legislative language was included under Title V of the bill that provided $110 million in these fees for use by
CBP. As the language was not in this title, the resources are not reflected in this table.
c. In FY2015, the Administration requested funding for Federal Air Marshals under the Aviation Security
appropriation.
Congressional Research Service
34
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
d. 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.
Customs and Border Protection82
CBP is responsible for security at and between ports of entry (POE) along the border, with a dual
mission of preventing the entry of terrorists and instruments of terrorism, while also facilitating
the flow of legitimate travel and trade into and out of the United States. CBP officers inspect
people (immigration enforcement) and goods (customs enforcement) at POEs to determine if they
are authorized to enter the United States. CBP officers and U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) agents
enforce more than 400 laws and regulations at the border to prevent illegal entries.
CBP’s major programs include Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation, which
encompasses risk-based targeting and the inspection of travelers and goods at POEs; Border
Security and Control between Ports of Entry, which includes the Border Patrol; Air and Marine
Interdiction; Automation Modernization, which includes customs and immigration information
technology systems; Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT); Facilities
Management; and a number of immigration and customs user Fee Accounts. See Table 6 for
account-level detail for all of the agencies in Title II, and Table 7 for subaccount-level detail for
CBP appropriations and funding for FY2014-FY2015.
FY2015 Request
For FY2015, the Administration requested an appropriation of $12,585 million in gross budget
authority for CBP. The bullets below highlight select program changes from the FY2014
baseline.83
• An increase of $6.8 million to fund training for new and incumbent CBP
Officers, Agriculture Specialists, Import Specialists, and Entry Specialists
assigned to the ports of entry.
• An increase of $11.7 million to fund the refreshment and refurbishment of Non-
Intrusive Inspection (NII) technology equipment.84
82 Prepared by Lisa Seghetti, Section Research Manager, Domestic Social Policy Division.
83 Drawn from Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: Customs and Border
Protection (Washington, DC 2014). Only select program changes of $5 million or greater are described in this section.
84 NII equipment includes x-ray and gamma ray imaging systems and related technologies. NII scanning produces a
high-resolution image of container contents that is reviewed by law enforcement officers to detect hidden cargo and
other anomalies that suggest container contents do not match reported manifest data. If an officer detects an
abnormality, containers may be “cracked open” for a physical examination. For a fuller discussion, see CRS Report
R43014, U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Trade Facilitation, Enforcement, and Security, by Vivian C. Jones and
Marc R. Rosenblum.
Congressional Research Service
35
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
• A one-time investment of $10.7 million for a “cross-Component Fuel Sharing
Initiative” that will enable DHS vehicles to obtain fuel from any “CBP-controlled
facility along or near the Southwest border.”
• An increase of $11 million to fund the development of a National Border Geo-
Intelligence strategy. CBP would work with the Office of Intelligence and
Investigative Liaison (OIIL) to enhance the Border Patrol’s ability on a range of
geospatial-related tracking activities including identifying traffic patterns of
illegal aliens and informing daily decisions on deployment of personnel and
equipment to improve situational awareness along the Southwest border.
• An increase of $8.3 million to fund CBP’s mobile program. This program
provides capabilities to CBP officers to enable them to inspect vehicles, vessels,
and cargo on a mobile platform.85
• An increase of $11.8 million to fund enhancements and improved capability to
the Arrival and Departure Information System (ADIS).86
• An increase of $45.8 million for enhancements to the Remote Video Surveillance
System (RVSS) in the Rio Grande Valley.
• An increase of $8.9 million for maintenance of border patrol facilities.
• An increase of $131.6 million in fees87 to fund an additional 2,000 CBP Officers.
• A decrease of $7.7 million to the Automated Targeting System (ATS).88
• A decrease of $5.9 million in recurring funding for personnel associated with the
Import Safety Initiative.
House-Reported H.R. 4903
House-reported H.R. 4903 included $12,755 million in gross budget authority for CBP, $170
million (1.4%) above the Administration’s request and $466 million (3.8%) above the FY2014
enacted level. The committee noted in its report that the Administration’s budget proposal did not
include funding to address the unaccompanied alien children (UAC) crisis. The committee also
85 The mobile platform includes mobile hand-held screening equipment. See Testimony of CBP Commissioner
Secretary R. Gil Kerlikowske, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Budget Hearing—United States
Customs and Border Protection, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., April 2, 2014.
86 ADIS is a system that stores biographic and biometric data on aliens who have applied for entry, entered, or departed
the United States. ADIS consolidates information from various systems in order provide a repository of data held by
DHS for pre-entry, entry, status management, and exit tracking of immigrants and non-immigrants.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-08-22/html/E7-16473.htm
87 CBP collects user fees to recover certain costs incurred for processing, among other things, air and sea passengers
and various private and commercial land, sea, air, and rail carriers and shipments. These fees were created by the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) and are deposited into the Customs User Fee
Account. In addition to the COBRA and Immigration User Fees, the Administration has also proposed an increase in
the Express Consignment Carrier Facility (ECCF) fee. Parcels that are cleared through an Express Consignment Carrier
Facility (ECCF) are subjected to a fee, which was established under the Trade Act of 2002.
88 ATS is a CBP program that screens inbound and certain outbound cargo and persons by assigning risk-based scores
for the purpose of targeting, identifying, and preventing potential terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the
United States and identifies other violations of U.S. trade and immigration laws. By doing so, it allows CBP officers to
focus their efforts on instruments and passengers that warrant further attention.
Congressional Research Service
36
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
noted that the Office of Management and Budget submitted updated budgetary estimates for
FY2015, which projected UAC costs for FY2015 will escalate to $506 million, of which only
$429 million was included in the budget request. The committee directed CBP to submit
estimates of the UAC costs for FY2015 immediately and to include such costs in subsequent
budget requests.
The House-reported bill included an increase of $22 million (0.8%) over the Administration’s
request for Inspections, Trade, and Travel Facilitation at Ports of Entry. The committee, however,
did not adopt the Administration’s request to fund an additional 2,000 CBP Officers.
The House-reported bill included $788 million for CBP’s Office of Air and Marine (OAM), an
increase of $79 million (11%) over the Administration’s request. In its report, the committee
noted the absence of a valid flying hour program and an effective logistics maintenance system,
which it concluded was the reason for many aspects of OAM’s “operational slide.”89
Senate-Reported S. 2534
Senate-reported S. 2534 included $12,567 million in gross budget authority for CBP, $17 million
(-0.1%) below the Administration’s request and $278 million (2.3%) above the FY2014 enacted
level. The Senate-reported bill included $77 million above the Administration’s request for CBP
to meet the needs of the projected number of UACs in FY2015.
The Senate-reported bill included a decrease of $24 million (-0.9%) over the Administration’s
request for Inspections, Trade, and Travel Facilitation at Ports of Entry. The committee, however,
partially adopted the Administration’s request to fund additional CBP Officers. While the
Administration requested the hiring of an additional 2,000 CBP Officers, the committee
recommended hiring 1,000 CBP Officers through FY2016 at air and sea ports of entry to be paid
for by the increase in the Immigration User Fee (IUF). The Senate-reported bill included a
general provision that increased the IUF by $2.00 for arriving commercial air and sea passengers
(see “Border Enforcement Personnel/Customs User Fees”).
Table 7. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Account Detail, FY2014-FY2015
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Appropriation /
Reported
Reported
Sub-Appropriation Enacted
Request
H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Salaries and Expenses
8,146
8,326
8,367
8,320
Headquarters
1,199
1,184
1,161 1,178
Management and
Administration
Border Security
3,216
3,204
3,237 3,174
Inspections and Trade
Facilitation
89 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 45.
Congressional Research Service
37
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Appropriation /
Reported
Reported
Sub-Appropriation
Enacted Request H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Border Security and
3,731
3,939
3,970 3,968
Control Between POE
Small Airport User Feea 5
9 9 9
Automation
817
812
810 807
Modernization
Border Security Fencing,
351
362
412 362
Infrastructure, and
Technology
Air and Marine
805
709
788 707
Operations
Facilities Management
456
482
484
478
Total Net
10,580
10,701
10,871 10,684
Appropriation
Estimated Fees,
1,704
1,884
1,884 1,884
Mandatory Spending and
Trust Funds
Total CBP Budget
12,289
12,585
12,755 12,567
Authority
Source: CRS analysis of FY2015 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903,
H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534, and S.Rept. 113-198.
a. This is permanent indefinite discretionary spending, and therefore scores as being in the bill, despite not
being explicitly appropriated in the bills’ legislative language.
Issues for Congress
For the FY2015 budget cycle, potential issues for Congress include the increased number of
unaccompanied alien children illegally crossing the border and its impact on CBP’s operations
and resources; determining the proper mix of human resources and technology at and between
ports of entry, including ongoing discussions about increasing personnel at the nation’s ports of
entry ports of entry; and improving ports of entry infrastructure.
Unaccompanied Alien Children
Over the past several years, the number of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) that were
apprehended by the Border Patrol for illegally crossing the Southwest border has substantially
increased. For example, in FY2013, over 38,000 alien children were apprehended for illegally
crossing the border unaccompanied. That was a 59% increase from the previous fiscal year.90
90There were 24,403 UACs that were apprehended for illegally crossing the border in FY2012, and in FY2011 the
number was 15,949. Data was obtained from the USBP Sector Profile at http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/U.S.%20Border%20Patrol%20Fiscal%20Year%202013%20Profile.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
38
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
There is a concern among policy makers and advocacy groups that some UACs are being
trafficked into the United States and forced into the sex trade or other nefarious activities.
The Border Patrol apprehends and processes UACs at the border and it isn’t clear what the
resource implications of the recent influx of UACs have been on the Border Patrol. In the
FY2015 budget, the Administration has requested an increase in funds to hire additional CBP
officers to staff the ports of entry but it has not requested an increase in Border Patrol agents.
Similarly, the Administration has requested increases in several port-related technologies. In
previous budgets and appropriations, the Border Patrol has enjoyed increases in both of these
areas; however, no funds have been specifically directed at the UAC issue. Congress may choose
to require the Administration to assess the increase in UACs coming across the border and the
impact it has been having on the Border Patrol operations and its resources.
Border Enforcement Personnel/Customs User Fees
CBP collects several different types of user fees, including fees paid by passengers and by cargo
carriers and importers for the provision of customs services. These fees are often referred to as
COBRA fees because they were passed as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1986 (COBRA, P.L. 99-272). Under 19 U.S.C. Sections 58c(f)(1)-(3), a
portion of these fees directly reimburses CBP for certain customs functions, including overtime
compensation and certain benefits and premium pay for CBP officers, certain preclearance
services, foreign language proficiency awards, and—to the extent funds remain available—
certain officer salaries. Another portion of customs fees—merchandise processing fees—is
deposited in CBP’s Customs User Fee Account to pay for additional customs revenue functions
but is only available to the extent provided for in appropriations acts.
The collection and disposition of certain user fees have been subjects of some controversy in
recent appropriations cycles. In FY2012 and FY2013, CBP’s Budget Justification proposed to use
revenue from elimination of a fee exemption enacted through the United States-Colombia Trade
Promotion Agreement Implementation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-42) to fund CBP officer salaries and
expenses. The use of these additional revenues was not approved by Congress, requiring
additional appropriated funding.91
In the FY2015 request, like the previous (FY2014) request, CBP did not propose to use the
revenues generated by P.L. 112-42 for officer salaries and expenses. Instead, the FY2015 proposal
includes new fee increases: a $2.00 fee increase for the Immigration User Fee (IUF) and the
COBRA air and sea passenger user fees.92 The Administration has proposed to use the increased
fee revenues to pay for the hiring of additional CBP officers, among other things.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)93
ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration and customs laws within the United States. ICE has
two main components: Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and Enforcement and Removal
91 See CRS Report R42644, Department of Homeland Security: FY2013 Appropriations, coordinated by William L.
Painter.
92 The Administration has also requested an increase in the Express Consignment Courier Facilities Fee (ECCF).
93 Prepared by Alison Siskin, Specialist in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Congressional Research Service
39
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Operations (ERO). HSI is responsible for disrupting and dismantling criminal organizations
(many of which are transnational) engaged in activities including terrorist financing and money
laundering, intellectual property theft, human trafficking, cybercrime, child exploitation, and drug
trafficking. HSI enforces export laws and enforces trade agreement noncompliance, and is
responsible for investigating and enforcing violations of the immigration laws (e.g., alien
smuggling, hiring unauthorized alien workers). ERO is the government agency responsible for
locating, detaining if appropriate, and removing foreign nationals who have overstayed their
visas, entered illegally, or have become deportable.
FY2015 Request
For FY2015, the Administration requested $5,014 million in net budget authority and $5,359
million in gross budget authority for ICE, a decrease from the FY2014 enacted amounts of 4.8%
and 4.5%, respectively. The budget request included the following changes from the FY2014
baseline:
• Increase of $28 million for the Criminal Alien Program (CAP);94
• Increase of $21 million to modernize the TECS System;95
• Increase of $9 million for the Office of Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA);
• Increase of $2 million for Fugitive Operations;96
• Increase of $3 million for transfers of detained foreign nationals from CBP to
ICE;
• Increase of $3 million for the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program;
• Reduction of $202 million in detention bed funding (a decrease of 3,461 beds);
• Reduction of $48 million in the transportation removal program; and
• Reduction of $28 million for domestic investigations.97
94 CAP identifies criminal aliens incarcerated within federal, state, and local correctional facilities to try to assure that
these criminal aliens are removed before they are released into the community. The majority of the increase comes
from transferring money since the deployment of interoperability (Secure Communities) is completed. For information
on CAP, see CRS Report R42057, Interior Immigration Enforcement: Programs Targeting Criminal Aliens, by Marc
R. Rosenblum and William A. Kandel.
95 TECS is the case management system used by CBP and ICE.
96 Fugitive Operations locates and apprehends foreign nationals with final orders of removal, and removable criminal
aliens who have been released from jails or prisons.
97 Most of this reduction would come from termination of one-time costs associated with information technology (IT)
enhancements.
Congressional Research Service
40
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
House-Reported H.R. 4903
House-reported H.R. 4903 included $5,486 million in net budget authority, a 9.4% increase over
the President’s request. The House-reported bill appropriated $5,831 million in gross budget
authority, 8.8% more than the President’s request.
Senate-Reported S. 2534
For FY2015, Senate-reported S. 2534 provided $5,163 million in net budget authority and $5,508
million in gross budget authority for ICE. The Senate bill appropriated 3% more than the
President’s request in net budget authority, and 2.8% more in gross budget authority.
Table 8. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Sub-Account Detail,
FY2014-FY2015
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Appropriation /
Reported
Reported
Sub-Appropriation Enacted
Request
H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Salaries and Expenses
5,229
4,988
5,455
5,137
HQ Management and
336 350 335 347
Administration
Legal Proceedings
206
215
216
213
Investigations 1,804
1,778
1,885
1,775
Investigations—Domestic 1,672
1,645
1,720
1,643
Investigations—International 131 133 165 132
International Operations
100
101
106
101
Visa Security Program
32
32
59
32
Intelligence 74
77
76
76
Enforcement and Removal
2,785 2,569 2,942 2,725
Operations
Custody Operations
1,994
1,792
2,006
1,870
Fugitive Operations
129
132
154
131
Criminal Alien Program
294
322
365
327
Alternatives to Detention
91
94
94
94
Transportation and Removal
277 229 322 303
Program
Comprehensive Identification
25 0 0 0
and Removal of Criminal
Aliens (Secure Communities)
Automation and
35 26 31 26
Infrastructure
Modernization
Congressional Research Service
41
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Appropriation /
Reported
Reported
Sub-Appropriation
Enacted Request H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Construction 5
0
0
0
ICE Appropriations
5,269
5,014
5,486
5,163
Fee Accounts
345
345
345
345
ICE Gross Budget Authority
5,614
5,359
5,831
5,508
Source: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903,
H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534, and S.Rept 113-198.
Issues for Congress
ICE is responsible for many divergent activities due to the breadth of the civil and criminal
violations of law that fall under its jurisdiction. As a result, how ICE resources can be allocated so
as best to achieve its mission is continuously debated. Nonetheless, most of the discussion
regarding ICE appropriations focuses on Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and issues
regarding identifying and removing foreign nationals who have violated U.S. immigration law
rather than HSI. For example, the most significant debate currently focuses on the large increase
in the number of unaccompanied alien children98 apprehended while attempting to illegal cross
into the United States and how it impacts ICE, specifically ERO, resources.99
Custody Management
ICE’s Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations provides custody management of the
aliens who are in removal proceedings or who have been ordered removed from the United
States.100 ERO also is responsible for ensuring that aliens ordered removed actually depart from
the United States.
The number of foreign nationals detained by ICE has been an area of Congressional attention.
Since FY2007, the appropriations committees have included direction either in report language or
legislative language describing or directing the average number of detention beds to be
maintained by ICE in a given fiscal year. The amount of detention beds set by Congress is seen
by some as a “detention mandate,” i.e., that ICE must, on average, detain daily the same number
of aliens as the bed space specified by Congress.101
98 UAC are defined in statute as children who lack lawful immigration status in the United States, who are under the
age of 18, and who are without a parent or legal guardian in the United States or no parent or legal guardian in the
United States is available to provide care and physical custody.
99 For more information on the recent surge in unaccompanied minors, see CRS Report R43599, Unaccompanied Alien
Children: An Overview, by Lisa Seghetti, Alison Siskin, and Ruth Ellen Wasem.
100 For more information on detention issues, see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention, 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.
101 For example, see Statement of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, U.S. Congress, House Committee
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security FY2015 Budget, 113th
Cong., 2nd sess., March 11, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
42
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
P.L. 113-76 specified that ICE shall maintain 34,000 beds through the end of FY2014. ICE has
stated that it needs approximately 27,000 beds to detain all foreign nationals who are mandatory
detainees,102 and that the growth in bed space has led to the increase in detention of lower-risk,
non-mandatory103 detainees who could be placed in lower-cost alternatives to detention
programs.104 The Administration requested 30,539 beds for FY2015, a decrease of 3,461 beds
from FY2014. The Administration contended this would be enough bed space to accommodate
the mandatory population as well as other priority detainees.105 To correspond to the decrease in
bed space, the President’s request as originally submitted decreased to $229 million (a $48
million reduction) the budget for the Transportation and Removal Program.106
H.R. 4903 directed ICE to maintain no less than 34,000 detention beds. S. 2534 required ICE to
maintain at least 31,039 detention beds, 500 more than the Administration requested. 450 of these
were allocated to detain family units.107 The House and Senate committee reports both
recommended increased funding for the Transportation and Removal Program. The increase is
discussed below in the section entitled, “Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC).”
Due to the cost of detaining aliens, and the fact that many non-detained aliens with final orders of
removal do not leave the country, there has been interest in developing alternatives to detention
for certain types of aliens who do not require a secure detention setting. ICE’s Alternatives to
Detention (ATD) provides less restrictive alternatives to detention, using such tools as electronic
monitoring devices (e.g., ankle bracelets), home visits, work visits, and reporting by telephone, to
monitor aliens who are out on bond while awaiting hearings during removal proceedings or the
appeals process.108 The Administration requested $94 million for the ATD program, an increase of
$3 million from the FY2014 enacted amount. Both the House- and Senate-reported bills provided
$94 million for the ATD program.
Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC)
ICE is responsible for the transportation of undocumented and unaccompanied alien children
(UAC) arriving in the United States109 and representing the government’s position in removal
102 The Immigration and Nationality Act mandates that certain categories of aliens are subject to mandatory detention
(i.e., the aliens must be detained) during the removal process. Aliens subject to mandatory detention include those
arriving without documentation or with fraudulent documentation, those who are removable on criminal grounds, those
who are removable on national security grounds, those certified as terrorist suspects, and those who have final orders of
deportation. For a discussion of mandatory detention, see CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention, by
Alison Siskin.
103 Examples of non-mandatory detainees include aliens who have overstayed their visas or entered illegally but do not
have a criminal conviction.
104 Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Salaries and Expenses (Washington, DC, 2014), p. 81.
105 Examples of these detainees include criminal aliens whose crimes do not make them mandatory detainees and others
who may pose a risk to public safety or a danger to national security. Ibid.
106 The Transportation and Removal Program (TRP) is responsible for the transportation of those in ICE custody
including the physical removal of aliens from the United States.
107 S.Rept. 113-139, p. 62.
108 Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Public Security: ICE Unveils
New Alternative to Detention,” Inside ICE, vol. 1, no. 5, June 21, 2004, available at http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/
newsreleases/insideice/insideice_062104_web3.htm.
109 In most cases, ICE is responsible for transporting the unaccompanied minor from the custody of Customs and
Border Protection (CBP)—the agency that apprehended them—to the Department of Health and Human Services,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
43
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
proceedings before the Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
ICE is also responsible for the physical removal of all foreign nationals, including UAC, who
have final orders of removal or who have elected voluntary departure while in removal
proceedings.110
In the President’s FY2015 budget request for the various agencies directly responsible for the
unaccompanied child population, there wasn’t a request for funding increases to help address
what has been characterized as a strain on agency resources. In late May, the Administration
projected they would need an additional $166 million for “CBP overtime, contract services for
care and support of UAC, and transportation costs.”111 H.Rept. 113-481 and S.Rept. 113-198
recommended an increase of $67 million over the President’s request for transportation and
removal costs of unaccompanied minors. In addition, both the House and Senate bills required
DHS and OMB to include information related to unaccompanied children and the costs associated
with these children as part of the congressional budget justifications.
Transportation Security Administration112
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 certain other criminal acts through the deployment of passenger and baggage
screeners; detection systems for explosives, weapons, and other threats; and other security
technologies. TSA also has certain responsibilities for marine and land modes of transportation
including assessing the risk of terrorist attacks to all non-aviation transportation assets, including
seaports; issuing regulations to improve security; and enforcing these regulations to ensure the
protection of these transportation systems. TSA is further charged with serving as the primary
liaison for transportation security to the law enforcement and intelligence communities.
The TSA budget is one of the most complex components of the DHS Appropriations bill. The
graphic above reflects net direct discretionary appropriations for TSA, but that represents only a
portion of the budgetary resources it has available. An airline security fee collection offsets a
portion of aviation security costs, including $250 million dedicated to capital investments in
(...continued)
Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR)—the agency responsible for their care and custody.
110 UAC in standard removal proceedings are eligible to be granted voluntary departure under INA §240B at no cost to
the child.
111 Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget memo to Representative Nita Lowey, May 30,
2014.
112 Prepared by Bart Elias, Specialist in Aviation Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
44
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
screening technology. Other fees offset the costs of transportation threat assessment and
credentialing. Since the amounts covered by these fees are not set through traditional
appropriations provisions, they are not reflected in the above graphic. Table 9 presents a
breakdown of TSA’s total additional budgetary resources requested from all non-appropriated
sources and those provided through direct appropriations, as accounted for in the DHS budget
justifications. Due to differences between OMB and CBO methodologies and issues related to
authorization of fee increases, these amounts are not completely congruent with other amounts
presented in committee documents or this report.
Table 9. TSA Requested Budgetary Resources, FY2015
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Funding Source
FY2015 Request
Total Offsetting Fees
2,818
Aviation Passenger Security Fee
2,203
Aviation Passenger Security Fee
195
(Revenue from proposed increase)
Aviation Security Infrastructure Fees
420
Aviation Security Capital Fund
250
Credentialing Fees (including Alien
80
Flight Student Program)
Discretionary appropriations
4,157
Total Budgetary Resources
7,305
Sources: CRS analysis of the FY2015 DHS congressional justifications.
Note: These are OMB-developed numbers; due to differences between OMB and CBO methodologies and
issues related to authorization of fee increases, these numbers are not congruent with other CBO-based
numbers presented in this report.
FY2015 Request
The President’s request specified $7,305 million for TSA in FY2015, $60 million less than the
FY2014 enacted amount (see Table 10). The request included a proposal to realign the Federal
Air Marshals Service (FAMS) under the Aviation Security component of the TSA budget, rather
than as a separate account. Combined, the request for Aviation Security and FAMS together
totaled $5,683 million, $29 million less than the FY2014 enacted amount. The request specified
$19 million of that reduction was to come from FAMS.
It also specified a reduction of more than $80 million to Screener Personnel Compensation and
Benefits, largely as a result of reduced headcount due to improved screening efficiency from use
of risk-based approaches. This was partially offset by increased amounts for purchasing
explosives detection equipment and airport management, support, and information technology.
Requested funding for Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing (TTAC) increased by
roughly $70 million, largely the result of a proposed realignment of Intelligence into it and an
increase to Secure Flight funding to encompass forthcoming name checks of passengers on
charter and large general aviation aircraft flights. The request included a proposed increase of
roughly $19 million for Surface Transportation Security, largely reflecting deployment of
additional security inspectors and the realignment of Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response
Congressional Research Service
45
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
(VIPR) under it. Requested Transportation Security Support funding was roughly $30 million less
than the FY2014 enacted level, largely the result of the proposed move of Intelligence to TTAC,
which was partially offset by a proposed increase for information technology.
House-Reported H.R. 4903
The House-reported bill specified a gross total of $7,038 million for TSA, $267 million less than
requested. The report accompanying the bill specified $600 million for FAMS, $200 million less
than requested. Other notable amounts lower than requested included screener personnel ($26
million less than requested); airport management and support ($7 million less); surface
transportation security inspectors ($6 million less); headquarters administration ($12 million
less); information technology ($19 million less); and human capital services ($8 million less). The
House-reported bill specified $160 million, $5 million more than requested, for private screening
operations at airports without TSA screeners under the Screening Partnership Program (SPP).
Also, the House committee report specified $25 million for the Federal Flight Deck Officer
(FFDO) program and crew training, $5 million above the request and equal to the FY2014
appropriated amount, and $353 million for aviation regulation and other enforcement, $4 million
more than requested and roughly on par with the FY2014 enacted amount.
Senate-Reported S. 2534
The Senate-reported bill specified a gross total of $7,236 million, $69 million less than requested.
The Senate committee report specified $790 million for the FAMS, $10 million less than
requested and $29 million less than the FY2014 enacted level. It also proposed amounts notably
lower than requested for: screener personnel ($5 million less than requested); checkpoint support
($15 million less); explosives detection equipment purchases and installation ($10 million less);
aviation regulation and other enforcement ($10 million less); Secure Flight passenger vetting ($13
million less); and information technology ($6 million less). Like the House-reported bill, the
Senate reported bill specified $160 million for the SPP, but otherwise did not specify amounts
larger than requested.
Table 10 outlines the funding levels for existing TSA program functions.
Table 10. TSA Gross Budget Authority by Budget Activity, FY2014-FY2015
(gross budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
Senate-
House-
Reporte
Appropriation /
Reported
d S.
Sub-Appropriation Enacted
Request
H.R. 4903
2534
Aviation Security
4,983
5,683
5,462
5,635
Screening Partnership Program
158
155
160
160
(SPP)
Screener Personnel
3,034
2,953
2,927
2,948
Compensation and Benefits
Screener Training and Other 227
226
225
226
Checkpoint Support 103
103
103
88
Congressional Research Service
46
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2014
FY2015
Senate-
House-
Reporte
Appropriation /
Reported
d S.
Sub-Appropriation Enacted
Request
H.R. 4903
2534
74
84
84
74
EDS/ETD Purchase/Installation
Screening Technology
299
295
295
295
Maintenance and Utilities
Aviation Regulation and Other
354
349
353
339
Enforcement
Airport Management, IT, and
587
592
585
589
Support
FFDO and Flight Crew Training
25
20
25
20
Air Cargo
122
107
106
106
Federal Air Marshals
—
800
600
790
819
—
—
—
Federal Air Marshal Service
Management and
708
—
—
—
Administration
Travel and Training
111
—
—
—
Intelligence and Vetting
242
312
311
300
(formerly Threat Assessment
and Credentialing (TTAC))
Intelligence
52
52
52
Secure Flight
93
113
112
100
Other Vetting / Screening
83
68
68
68
Administration and Operations
Credentialing Fees
66
80
80
80
Surface Transportation
109
128
121
127
Security
Operations and Staffing
35
29
29
29
Security Inspectors
73
98
92
98
Transportation Security
962
932
893
924
Support
HQ Administration
272
276
264
275
Information Technology
441
452
433
446
Human Capital Services
204
204
196
203
Intelligence
45
—
—
—
Aviation Security Capital Fund
250
250
250
250
(ASCF) (mandatory)
TSA Gross Total
7,365
7,305
7,038
7,234
Sources: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903,
H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534, and S. Rept. 113-198.
Congressional Research Service
47
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Issues for Congress
Possible issues for Congress regarding TSA appropriations include offsetting fee collections and
financing of transportation security activities; enhancing airport checkpoint security; funding and
administration of FAMS; name checks of passengers on charter flights and large general aviation
aircraft; and deployment of VIPR teams and surface transportation security inspectors.
Fees and Financing
Language in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P. L. 113-67) restructured the passenger security
fee (paid directly by passengers and collected by the airlines) to a flat fee of $5.60 per one-way
trip effective July 1, 2014. That law mandated that in FY2015, $1,190 million in passenger
security fees is to be applied as offsetting receipts to the Treasury general fund for deficit
reduction.
Previously, the passenger security fee was set at $2.50 per segment with a cap of $5.00 per one-
way trip. All receipts were treated as offsetting collections against TSA spending, with the first
$250 million in collections funding a mandatory deposit into the Aviation Security Capital Fund
(ASCF), which provides for airport security improvements, particularly improvements made to
accommodate and streamline explosives screening of checked baggage. Under the
Administration’s proposal, the first $250 million in passenger security fees would continue to be
deposited into the ASCF, and the next $1,190 million must be used to fulfill the deficit reduction
requirement before additional fee collections can be used to offset costs of TSA programs.
In addition, P. L. 113-67 repealed the Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee (ASIF) fee paid to TSA
directly by the airlines, effective October 1, 2014. The ASIF is based on the costs airlines
collectively paid in CY2000 for security screening of passengers and property.
The FY2015 request included an additional increase to the passenger fee to $6.00 per one-way
trip and a reinstatement of the ASIF. The Administration estimated that in FY2015 the passenger
security fee increase would generate $195 million in additional revenue and the ASIF would net
an estimated $420 million that would be counted as offsetting collections against TSA spending.
TSA estimated that, with these two proposed changes, offsetting collections would total $2,819
million, roughly 39% of total TSA spending. Without the proposed increases, offsetting
collections were estimated at $2,204 million, roughly 30% of the TSA gross total.
Both the House and Senate appropriations committees included report language noting that the
appropriations committees lacked jurisdiction to consider the Administration’s fee proposal.113
Neither the House-reported nor the Senate-reported bill included the fee increases in revenue
assumptions, and the two bills have differing funding levels below requested amounts to reflect
these lower revenue assumptions. The House report noted that future budget requests should not
be constructed with similar assumptions regarding the enactment of proposed revenue increases.
The Senate bill contains a general provision that prohibits FY2015 funds from being used to pay
salaries or expenses associated with developing or submitting budget or appropriations materials
that assume revenues derived from unauthorized user fee proposals.114 This provision applies
unless the submission identifies spending reductions in the event that such fees are not enacted
113 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 8; S.Rept. 113-198, p. 68.
114 S. 2534, Sec. 560.
Congressional Research Service
48
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
into law prior to Congress convening a committee of conference to debate a FY2016 DHS
appropriations act.
Risk-Based Passenger Screening
TSA has established a number of Pre-Check security lanes at major airports. These lanes offer
expedited screening to passengers who either undergo background checks to join the Pre-Check
program or are randomly selected from passengers assessed to be low risk through prescreening
measures or by behavior detection officers and canine explosives detection teams. TSA
incorporates random and unpredictable measures into its risk-based screening methods to prevent
terrorists or criminals from exploiting expedited screening procedures.
TSA has indicated that up to 35% of all airline passengers now undergo expedited screening, and
it has plans to further increase prescreening.115 While travelers benefit from streamlined screening
procedures, such as not having to remove shoes, laptops, and liquids for separate screening, the
program has efficiency benefits for TSA that allow it to better focus resources on passengers of an
unknown or elevated risk.
TSA estimates that efficiencies derived from risk-based screening practices will allow it to
eliminate more than 1,400 full-time equivalent screener positions and consequently reduce costs
by about $100 million in FY2015. Additionally, TSA asserts that as a result of risk-based
screening and the random and unpredictable measures incorporated into it, it will be able to
reduce its Security Playbook operations at selected airports. The Security Playbook consists of a
series of tactics and strategies, the specifics of which are security sensitive, to increase
unpredictability and serve as a deterrent to terrorists attacks and other criminal activities at large
commercial aviation airports. TSA estimates that the proposed reduction to Security Playbook
operations will yield a savings of $20 million through staffing reductions of roughly 300 full-time
equivalents.116
The House committee recommended $26 million less than requested and $107 million below
FY2014 enacted levels for TSA screeners to reflect anticipated cost reductions from efficiencies
associated with risk-based screening. The committee also stipulated a rescission of $20 million
and withholding $76 million for screener personnel, compensation, and benefits in FY2015. The
withholding of funds will last until TSA can provide technical corrections to the FY2015 budget
justification to include more detailed accounting of estimated cost savings from risk-based
security measures and how these will offset these amounts, which are tied to a planned structural
pay reform for screener personnel. The bill included a cap of 45,000 full-time equivalent
screeners. The bill would also withhold $25 million in obligations for headquarters administration
until TSA submits a report providing evidence that behavior detection officers, a key element of
TSA’s risk-based strategy, have been demonstrated to be effective in identifying individuals that
may pose a risk to aviation safety. It also specified that TSA submit a detailed report on integrated
screening technologies, cost-effective deployment of the screener workforce, and labor savings
from the deployment of new technologies, as well as a report detailing a strategy to increase the
number of passengers eligible for expedited screening.
115 Statement of John S. Pistole, Administrator, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland
Security, March 25, 2014, p. 2.
116 Ibid., p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
49
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
S. 2534 requires TSA to submit semiannual reports updating information on a strategy to increase
the number of air passengers eligible for expedited screening, including benchmark and
performance metrics and data regarding use of Pre-Check screening lanes, and details regarding
the impact of using risk-based security methods on TSA resources. Additionally, report language
specified that TSA is to brief the committee regarding its strategic communications campaign for
the Pre-Check program. The Senate bill did not include a statutory cap on TSA screeners, and
report language noted that the expected decrease of screening personnel, totaling more than 3,000
full time equivalent positions, would keep levels well below the cap of 46,000 set in FY2014
appropriations.
Enhancing Airport Checkpoint Security
In response to a November 1, 2013, incident at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) that
resulted in the shooting death of a TSA screener and injuries to two other screeners and a traveler,
TSA identified a number of actions designed to improve the response to potential future security
incidents at airport screening checkpoints. Planned actions include recommended active shooter
training and exercises, evacuation plans, and mandatory evacuation drills. TSA has also issued
recommendations for increased law enforcement presence in airport terminal areas, particularly in
congested areas and at peak travel times.
Law enforcement agencies at about 320 of the approximately 450 commercial service airports
with TSA or TSA-contracted screening checkpoints receive reimbursement from TSA that
partially offsets the cost of positioning law enforcement officers at these airports.117 Under
reimbursement agreements, law enforcement must commit to mandatory response times to
security incidents at checkpoints, or in a few cases must maintain fixed posts near screening
checkpoints.
TSA did not request a funding increase for FY2015 for the Law Enforcement Officer
Reimbursement Program, indicating that improved program efficiencies and reviews of actual
annual expenditures will enable it to maximize the use of available program funds.118 Given the
emphasis on law enforcement presence at airports and airport checkpoints following the LAX
incident, funding for this program may be of particular interest during appropriations debate.
The House report noted that while airport law enforcement staffing levels have remained
relatively constant, TSA reimbursement amounts for law enforcement support have declined. It
specified $71 million for airport law enforcement assets (within Aviation Regulation and Other
Enforcement), $1 million more than the FY2014 level, and directed TSA to maximize the use of
these funds to more fully reimburse participating airports for law enforcement support.119 H.R.
4903 also included a general provision prohibiting the use of funds to require airport operators to
monitor checkpoint exit lanes at locations where TSA screeners currently monitor these lanes.
This provision was accompanied by report language directing TSA to work with airports to
actively examine technologies that may provide lower-cost solutions for exit lane security.
117 Transportation Security Administration, Enhancing TSA Officer Safety and Security: Agency Actions and Path
Forward, March 26, 2014; Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015:
Transportation Security Administration, Aviation Security (Washington, DC, 2014).
118 Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: Transportation Security
Administration, Aviation Security (Washington, DC, 2014).
119 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 66.
Congressional Research Service
50
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
The Senate report directed TSA to brief the appropriations committees on the implementation of
recommendations made following the LAX shooting to increase law enforcement presence at
high traffic locations, such as checkpoints and ticket counters at peak travel times. The Senate
also included funding to continue TSA monitoring of exit lanes where it currently does so. Senate
report language similarly encouraged TSA to evaluate exit lane monitoring costs and develop a
long-term strategy using low-cost technological solutions, law enforcement reimbursements, and
other approaches.120
The Federal Air Marshals Service (FAMS)
While the request specified $800 million for FAMS, $19 million less than the FY2014
appropriation, the House-passed bill specified $600 million, $200 million less than requested.
H.Rept. 113-481 noted that in light of various improvements to other layers of aviation security,
many air marshals have been assigned to management positions at various airports, and others
have been detailed to various other agencies, departments, and liaison roles. The House
committee concurred with the administration’s proposal to align FAMS under Aviation Security
to better reflect TSA’s management and organization structure, and to allow better alignment of
law enforcement assets to address emerging threats. The report encouraged TSA to consider
additional options to leverage other federal assets to supplement FAMS resources, such as armed
pilots in the FFDO program and federal law enforcement officers and agents traveling armed on
commercial passenger aircraft.
The Senate bill recommended $790 million for FAMS, $10 million less than requested, but $190
million more than the House bill. According to S.Rept. 113-198, the Senate amount reflected the
consolidation of Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams in the Surface
Transportation appropriation as well as other administrative cost adjustments. The report also
directed TSA to brief the appropriations committee on its efforts to implement recommendations
pertaining to FAMS operations, training, and risk analysis included in a Homeland Security
Studies and Analysis Institute report, and to continue providing quarterly reports on mission
coverage, staffing levels, and hiring.
Charter Flights and Large General Aviation Aircraft
A provision in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458)
mandated that TSA establish a process to provide watchlist screening for charter and lease
customers of aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds. TSA intends to issue new regulations
within a year to meet this mandate. In addition to charter and lease operations for aircraft greater
than 12,500 pounds, TSA also intends to encompass other general aviation aircraft weighing in
excess of 30,000 pounds within the regulatory regime.121 In total, the proposed regulations would
cover about 2,000 general aviation operators.
TSA requested an increase of roughly $13 million to Secure Flight funding to update software
and hardware and process screening requests from chartered and leased aircraft over 12,500
120 S.Rept. 113-198, pp. 71-72.
121 Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: Transportation Security
Administration, Aviation Security (Washington, DC, 2014), p. 64.
Congressional Research Service
51
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
pounds and large (i.e., over 30,000 pounds) general aviation aircraft operators. TSA estimated
that it will conduct 11 million additional watchlist screenings annually under this initiative.122
The House-reported bill included the increased funding for Secure Flight requested to support
vetting of passengers who fly on large general aviation and air charter flights. The Senate-
reported bill and report language specified $13 million less than requested for Secure Flight
anticipating that the additional funds would not be required in FY2015 due to anticipated delays
in implementing the large aircraft and charter screening program.
Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response Teams and Surface Transportation
Security Inspectors
Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams are made up of transportation security
inspectors, and air marshals. These teams deploy across all modes to detect suspicious activity
and act as a visible deterrent to crime and terrorism.
Historically, VIPR teams have concentrated on surface modes, particularly transit systems and
intercity rail. However, following the November 2013 shooting incident at LAX, TSA has
modified its VIPR deployment strategy to split deployments roughly evenly between surface and
aviation modes.
In the FY2015 request, TSA proposed to reduce the number of VIPR teams from 37 to 33, which
would result in a net reduction of 48 full-time equivalent positions and related costs totaling $11
million. TSA also proposed to transfer 257 full-time equivalent positions from Aviation Security
and the Federal Air Marshals Service to Surface Transportation Security. The move will
consolidate Surface Inspectors and multi-modal VIPR teams under one program.
The House-reported bill and report language concurred with the consolidation of VIPR teams, but
called for a larger reduction, bringing the number of VIPR teams down to 31. This accounted for
$5 million of the $6 million below the requested amount specified in H.R. 4903 for surface
transportation security. The Senate-reported bill and report language also concurred with the
consolidation plan but did not specify any further reduction in the number of VIPR teams.
U.S. Coast Guard123
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.
122 Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: Transportation Security
Administration, Intelligence, and Vetting (Washington, DC, 2014), p. 9.
123 Prepared by John Frittelli, Specialist in Transportation Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
52
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2015 Request
The President requested $8,152 million for the Coast Guard in FY2015. This includes $6,750
million for operating expenses and $1,084 million for acquisition, construction, and
improvements. These two accounts are further detailed in the table below. Note that the operating
expense request did not include funding for overseas contingency operations (such as Iraq and
Afghanistan) which the President requested later in the year as an amendment to the Department
of Defense budget. As the table indicates, the largest differences from last year’s enacted level
concern vessels and aircraft. The Coast Guard’s multiyear effort to replace its aging cutters has
been a major issue for Congress. These issues are discussed in CRS Report R42567, Coast Guard
Cutter Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
House-Reported H.R. 4903
The House-reported bill provided $316 million more than the President requested for the Coast
Guard. The additional funding is mostly for constructing four fast response cutters rather than two
(accounting for an additional $95 million), an additional $95 million to acquire one missionized
long range surveillance aircraft, an additional $81 million for backlogged depot maintenance, and
an additional $36 million for a military pay raise.
Senate-Reported S. 2534
The Senate-reported bill provided $208 million more than requested for the Coast Guard in order
to acquire six fast response cutters instead of two. It agreed with the President’s request
concerning long range surveillance aircraft and provided $6 million to address a construction
backlog for military housing.
Table 11 outlines the enacted funding levels for the USCG operating expenses and acquisition
and construction functions for FY2014 and the proposed funding levels for FY2015.
Congressional Research Service
53
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Table 11. Coast Guard Operating (OE) and Acquisition (ACI) Sub-Account Detail,
FY2014-FY2015
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Appropriation /
Reported
Reported
Sub-Appropriation
Enacted Request H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Operating Expenses
7,012
6,750
6,864
6,985
Military pay and
3,417 3,434 3,469 3,441
allowances
Civilian pay and
783 787 782 782
benefits
Training and recruiting
206
198
198
198
Operating funds and
1,035 992 996 1,004
unit level maintenance
Centrally managed
319 335 336 336
accounts
Intermediate and
1,013 1,004 1,085 1,011
depot level
maintenance
St. Elizabeths Support
13
0
0
0
OCO / GWOTa 227
0
0
213
Acquisition,
951 1,084 1,287 1,330
Construction, and
Improvements
Vessels 743
803
884
1,044
Aircraft 28
68
187
68
Other Acquisition
60 57 60 57
Programs
Shore Facilities and
5 41 41 41
Aids to Navigation
Military Housing
0
0
0
6
Personnel and Related
115 115 115 115
Support
Source: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903,
H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534, and S.Rept. 113-198.
Notes: Table displays rounded numbers, but al operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals.
a. The Administration did not make a specific funding request for Overseas Contingency Operations until June
26, 2014, after the House Appropriations Committee had reported out its bill. The Administration
requested a transfer of $213 million from Navy Operations and Maintenance for USCG support of
Operation Enduring Freedom.
Congressional Research Service
54
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Issues for Congress
Oil Spill Prevention
The Coast Guard’s mission set includes oil spill prevention and response.
New drilling methods for extracting crude oil have led to a domestic oil boom. This has meant
that some North American refineries that formerly processed oil arriving by ship from the Middle
East, Africa, and Latin America now refine large quantities of domestic oil. Pipeline links
between the new domestic oil fields and refineries are limited, so much of the crude oil moves by
rail or on river barges, coastal barges, and tankers. For example, river tank barges are moving
crude oil down the Illinois Waterway, Arkansas River, Ohio River, and Mississippi River to Gulf
Coast refineries; the Columbia River to West Coast refineries; and the Hudson River to East
Coast refineries. River barges are also moving crude oil along the Texas and Louisiana
intracoastal waterway. Seagoing barges and tankers are moving oil from the Gulf Coast to
refineries in the U.S. Northeast and eastern Canada, as well as through Puget Sound. In some
waterways, the nature of petroleum traffic has changed from refined products to crude oil, or from
foreign tankers to domestic barges, while other ports or waterways may be handling crude oil for
the first time or have experienced a dramatic increase in the amount of crude oil they handle. As
the nature and amount of crude oil movement on many U.S. waters has changed significantly in
just the past two years,124 Congress may wish to examine how the Coast Guard is responding.
Potential questions include:
• Is the Coast Guard shifting safety resources to those ports and waterways that
have experienced dramatic increases in crude oil traffic?
• Has the strong demand for U.S.-built tankers and barges called into service older
vessels or more inexperienced crews?
• Has the Coast Guard instituted any new navigation rules to better separate traffic
in harbors with a sudden increase in traffic?
Just as there has been a significant increase in the movement of crude oil by barge, the Coast
Guard is in the process of establishing the new safety inspection regime for barges that Congress
called for in 2004 (the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004, P.L. 108-293,
Section 415). This includes establishing structural standards for the vessel as well as standards for
the number and qualifications of the crew. Section 409 of the 2004 Act also authorized the Coast
Guard to evaluate an hours-of-service limit for crews on tugs that push barge tows. Congress has
been concerned with the pace at which the Coast Guard is carrying out the directive on towing
vessels. In the Coast Guard authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-281, Section 701), Congress
requested that all rulemakings related to oil pollution prevention, including towing vessel
inspection, be finalized within 18 months of enactment (April 2012), but this deadline was not
met and some final rules have yet to be issued as of November 2014.
124 For further information on the Coast Guard’s role in oil spill prevention and response, see CRS Report RL33705,
Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters: Background and Governance, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
Congressional Research Service
55
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Other Energy-Related Marine Hazardous Materials
The drilling boom is raising challenges for the Coast Guard beyond the movement of crude oil.
River barges may be involved in moving wastewater from hydraulic fracturing drilling sites. The
Coast Guard is currently evaluating requirements under which river tows might be permitted to
move this hazardous material.125
Vastly increased natural gas production has led to the desire to export liquefied natural gas (LNG)
by ship.126 This involves converting existing import terminals to export terminals or building
entirely new terminals. The Coast Guard provides a safety review of waterways intended for
LNG transport. The Coast Guard also provides safety and security escorts for LNG tankers in
U.S. harbors, which it describes as one of the most resource-intensive functions the Coast Guard
performs. Vessel operators are examining LNG as a potential fuel source, especially since the
United States established an Emissions Control Area around its coastline, requiring vessels to
burn cleaner fuels. The Coast Guard is involved in establishing regulations specifying where
LNG fuel tanks can most safely be placed aboard vessels as well as regulations for safe LNG
fueling operations in ports.
The boom in domestic energy production is expected to increase domestic chemical production,
as natural gas is the main feedstock for many chemical plants. If this occurs, some of these
chemicals will likely be shipped in tank vessels, posing additional demands on Coast Guard
resources.127
Performance of the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Office
The Coast Guard’s technical expertise in providing effective safety oversight of certain maritime
operations was a concern of Congress several years ago.128 The FY2009 Coast Guard budget
request noted that “the Coast Guard is encountering serious stakeholder concern about our
capacity to conduct marine inspections, investigations, and rulemaking.”129 At that time, Congress
provided funds for additional Coast Guard civilian maritime inspectors. The Coast Guard
acknowledged that its practice of regularly rotating staff geographically or by activity, as military
organizations typically do, may hinder its ability to develop a cadre of staff with sufficient
technical expertise in marine safety.130 The number and quality of the Coast Guard’s
investigations and reports of marine accidents, as well as the lack of a “near-miss” reporting
system, have been noted by the DHS Inspector General and other observers as missed
125 For further information see CRS Report R43148, An Overview of Unconventional Oil and Natural Gas: Resources
and Federal Actions, by Michael Ratner and Mary Tiemann. See also, 78 Federal Register 64905, October 30, 2013,
and docket no. USCG-2013-0915 at http://www.regulations.gov to view comments filed.
126 For further information see CRS Report R42074, U.S. Natural Gas Exports: New Opportunities, Uncertain
Outcomes, by Michael Ratner et al.
127 For a graph illustrating the recent increase in petroleum and chemicals transported on U.S. inland waterways, see
http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/wcsc/wcmpetrolchem.htm.
128 House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation, Hearing on Challenges Facing the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Program, July 27, 2007.
129 Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2009: United States Coast Guard, p. CG-
SC-5.
130 See the 2007 report on the Coast Guard’s marine safety mission by a retired Coast Guard vice admiral at
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg54/docs/VADM%20Card%20Report.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
56
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
opportunities to learn from past incidents.131 In response to these criticisms, the agency revamped
its safety program.132 Among other things, it created additional civilian safety positions, converted
military positions into civilian ones, and developed a long-term career path for civilian safety
inspectors and investigators.
Congress may inquire whether these changes have brought about the desired outcome. At an
October 2011 meeting with the towing industry to discuss the multiyear effort to promulgate
inspection regulations, towing operators complained about having to rehash the same issues with
a “revolving door” of Coast Guard officials in charge of the rulemaking project.133 They also
asserted that the Coast Guard was placing too much emphasis on a one-day-per-year inspection of
vessels and equipment and not enough emphasis on human factors, the leading cause of marine
accidents.
The President’s FY2015 budget request proposed reducing the Coast Guard’s marine safety
mission by 18% or $118 million and the agency’s marine environmental protection mission by
8% or $19 million.134 The House-reported bill included $115 million more than the President
requested for the Coast Guard’s operating expenses, and the Senate-reported bill recommended
$22 million more, but the accompanying reports focused on concerns about the drug interdiction
mission rather than marine safety.135
U.S. Secret Service136
The U.S. Secret Service (USSS)137 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.
131 DHS, Office of Inspector General, Marine Accident Reporting, Investigations, and Enforcement in the U.S. Coast
Gaurd, OIG-13-92, May 2013; http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2013/OIG_13-92_May13.pdf.
132 U.S. Coast Guard, “Enhancing the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Program,” September 25, 2007. See also Coast
Guard Proceedings, Summer 2008, pp. 20-28, available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings.
133 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCG-2006-24412-0095
134 Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, Always Ready: United States Coast Guard, 2013
Performance Highlights, 2015 Budget in Brief (Washington, DC, 2014), Table 2.
135 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 75; S.Rept. 113-198, pp. 82-84.
136 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and
Finance Division.
137 For more information, see CRS Report RL34603, The U.S. Secret Service: History and Missions, by Shawn Reese.
Congressional Research Service
57
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2015 Request
For FY2015, the Administration requested an appropriation of $1,636 million for the USSS. The
Administration requested approximately $913 million for its protection mission, $347 million for
its investigation mission, and total of 6,572 FTE to meet its personnel needs.138
House-Reported H.R. 4903
For FY2015, House-reported H.R. 4903 recommended an appropriation of $1,637 million for the
USSS. This is approximately $52 million more than the USSS’s FY2014 appropriation ($1,585
million) and approximately $1 million more than the Administration requested.139
Senate-Reported S. 2534
For FY2015, Senate-reported S. 2534 recommended an appropriation of $1,635 million for the
USSS. This is $1 million less than the Administration requested and approximately $53 million
more than the USSS’s FY2014 appropriation.140
138 Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: U.S. Secret Service, Salaries and
Expenses (Washington, DC, 2014), p. 3.
139 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 84.
140 S.Rept. 113-198, p. 95.
Congressional Research Service
58
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Table 12.Budget Authority for the U.S. Secret Service, FY2013-FY2014
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Appropriation /
Reported
Reported
Sub-Appropriation Enacted
Request
H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Salaries and Expenses
1,533
1,586
1,587
1,585
Protection 920
973
965
965
Protection of persons
848 875 868 868
and facilities
Protective intelligence
67 68 68 68
activities
National Special
5 5 5 5
Security Events
Presidential candidate
26 26 26
nominee protection
Investigations 368
375
381
376
Domestic field
329 341 338 333
operations
International Field
31 34 34 34
Office Administration,
Operations and
Training
Forensic Support to the
8 0 8 8
National Center for
Missing and Exploited
Children
Headquarters,
189 186 185 188
Management and
Administration
Information Integration
1 1 1 1
and Technology
Transformation
James J. Rowley Training
55 56 55 55
Center
Acquisition,
52 50 50 50
Construction, and
Improvements
Facilities 5
5
5
5
Information Integration
46 45 45 45
and Technology
Transformation
Total 1,585
1,636
1,637
1,635
Sources: CRS analysis of the FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.Rept. 113-481, and S.Rept. 113-198.
Note: Table displays rounded numbers, but all operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals.
Congressional Research Service
59
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Issues for Congress
Allegations of Misconduct and Poor Performance
Two potential ongoing issues for Congress concerning the USSS are the recurring allegations of
misconduct within USSS, and the USSS’s mishandling of its “protection of persons and facilities”
mission.
The House Appropriations Committee stated in the report accompanying the DHS appropriations
bill that it was “deeply disappointed by recurring allegations of misconduct within the Secret
Service,” and withheld $20 million from their management budget until the Service submits a
report providing evidence that the USSS “has sufficiently reviewed its professional standards of
conduct; issued new guidance for the procedures and conduct of employees when engaged in
overseas operations and protective missions; and instituted a zero-tolerance policy consistent with
the agency’s critical missions and unique position of public trust.”141
On September 19, 2014, a person gained unauthorized entrance into the White House after
climbing the fence. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing
entitled “White House Perimeter Breach: New Concerns about the Secret Service,” on September
30, 2014, which addressed this breach and previous incidents.142 The committee inquired whether
deficient procedures, insufficient training, personnel shortages, or low morale contributed to these
security breaches. Later that same day, it became public that earlier in the year a private security
contractor at a federal facility, while armed, was allowed to share an elevator with the President
during a site visit, in violation of USSS security protocols. USSS Director Julia Pierson resigned
the next day.143
National Special Security Events
Aside from its specific mandated protection and investigation 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 arrangements involving various law enforcement units from other federal
agencies and state and local governments, as well as from the National Guard.
Not all major national events with DHS security involvement are NSSEs, or led by the USSS: for
example, for Super Bowl XLVIII, which was not an NSSE, 13 federal offices in addition to at
least four components of DHS assisted with security, with an Immigration and Customs
Enforcement agent serving as the Federal Coordinating Officer.145
141 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 86.
142 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, White House Perimeter Breach: New
Concerns about the Secret Service, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., September 30, 2014.
143 Carol D. Leonnig and David Nakamura, “Julia Pierson Resigns as Secret Service Director After Series of Security
Lapses,” Washington Post, October 1, 2014, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/julia-pierson-resigns-as-secret-
service-director/2014/10/01/ea39a396-499f-11e4-891d-713f052086a0_story.html.
144 For more information, see CRS Report R43522, National Special Security Events: Fact Sheet, by Shawn Reese.
145 McLees, Andrew, “Securing Super Bowl XLVIII,” blog post on the Department of Homeland Security website,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
60
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
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 $5,611 million for these accounts in
FY2015, a decrease of $341 million below the FY2014 enacted level. The House-reported bill
included $5,902 million, an increase of 5.2% above the requested level and 0.8% below FY2014.
The Senate-reported bill included $5,980 million, an increase of 6.6% above the requested level
and 0.5% above FY2014.
In addition, both House- and Senate-reported bills included $6,438 million for disaster relief as
the Administration requested. This amount is offset by an adjustment under the Budget Control
Act (BCA).
Table 15 lists the enacted amounts for the individual components of Title III for FY2014, the
Administration’s request for these components for FY2015, and the House- and Senate-reported
appropriations for the same.
Table 13. Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, FY2014-FY2015
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Reported
Reported
Component / Appropriation
Enacted Request H.R. 4903
S. 2534
National Protection and
Programs Directorate
Management and Administration
56
66
64
65
Infrastructure Protection and
1,187 1,198 1,139 1,213
Information Security
Federal Protective Servicea [1,302]
[1,343]
[1,343]
[1,343]
Office of Biometric Identity
227 252 250 249
Management
Appropriation 1,471
1,515
1,454
1,527
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and
1,302 1,343 1,343 1,343
Trust Funds
Total Budgetary Resources
2,772
2,858
2,797
2,869
(...continued)
January 29, 2014, at https://www.dhs.gov/blog/2014/01/29/securing-super-bowl-xlviii.
Congressional Research Service
61
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Reported
Reported
Component / Appropriation
Enacted Request H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Office of Health Affairs
Appropriation 127
126
128
125
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and
0 0 0 0
Trust Funds
Total Budgetary Resources
127
126
128
124
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
Salaries and Expenses
947
925
913
936
Grants and Training
2,530
2,225
2,530
2,530
Radiological Emergency
-1 -2 -2 -2
Preparedness
U.S. Fire Administration
44
41
44
44
Disaster Relief Fund
595
596
596
596
Total Disaster Relief
[6,221] [7,033] [7,033] [7,033]
Fundingb
Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk
95 84 94 100
Analysis
National Flood Insurance Funda [176]
[179] [179] [179]
Pre-disaster Mitigation Fund
25
0
25
25
Emergency Food and Shelter
120
100
120
100
Appropriation 4,354
3,970
4,320
4,329
Fees, Mandatory Spending, and
3,864 4,538 4,538 4,538
Trust Funds
Disaster Relief Adjustment
5,626
6,438
6,438
6,438
Total Budgetary Resources
13,845
14,946
15,297
15,305
Net Discretionary Budget
5,952 5,611 5,902 5,980
Authority: Title III
Total Budgetary Resources
16,744 17,929 18,221 18,299
for Title III Components
before Transfers
Sources: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903,
H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534, and S.Rept. 113-198.
Notes: Table displays rounded numbers, but al operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals.
a. This line is wholly offset by fees, and therefore does not add to the total appropriation.
b. This line is a subtotal of the “Disaster Relief Fund” line, which is included in the “Appropriation” line, and
the “Disaster Relief Adjustment” line, which is not.
Congressional Research Service
62
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD)146
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.
Information Protection and Infrastructure Security
The programmatic 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
activities related to infrastructure protection, cybersecurity, and communications.
FY2015 Request
The administration requested $1,198 million for IPIS. The request amounted to a net $11 million
increase over the $1,187 million enacted for FY2014, or just below 1%. A review of Table 14
reveals two primary budgetary increases at the program, project, and activity (PPA) level: Next
Generation Networks ($49 million) and Infrastructure Security Compliance ($6 million). The
NPPD planned to use the additional $49 million for Next Generation Networks to maintain the
number of wireless carriers that can provide Priority Telecommunication Services by transitioning
the Wireless Priority Services infrastructure to Internet-based technologies.147 The Infrastructure
Security Compliance PPA supports implementation of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism
Standards (CFATS). NPPD would use the additional $6 million to create ten additional permanent
positions and to develop technologies that would allow for electronic submission of facility data,
control the access and use of that data, record inspection data, and monitor workflow.148
These increases were offset by budgetary decreases in a number of the other PPAs, the largest
decrease being in the Federal Network Security PPA (-$28 million). The Federal Network
Security PPA supports DHS efforts to improve network security across the federal government
and to assure agency compliance with federal standards. Most of the $28 million reduction
146 Prepared by John D. Moteff, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
147 Department of Homeland Security. Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: National Protection and Programs
Directorate, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (Washington, DC, 2014), p. 5.
148 Ibid., pp. 29-31.
Congressional Research Service
63
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
resulted from a drop in funds for continuous diagnostic and monitoring (-$25 million).149
However, this drop in funding reflected a shift from the procurement of continuous diagnostic and
monitoring sensors to operation and maintenance of the technology.150
The budget request also would have reduced the Global Cybersecurity Management PPA by $8
million below the FY2014 enacted amount, primarily through reductions in DHS support of
cybersecurity education (from $16 million to $8 million).151 This included a $5 million reduction
in support for DHS Cyber Innovation Centers and a $3 million decrease in DHS support for the
National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE).152
The PPA structure in Table 14 does not reveal all of the programmatic increases and decreases in
the IPIS request. Of note, the Administration requested an additional $6 million to support the
Cybersecurity Framework developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), in response to Executive Order (EO) 13636, Improving Critical Infrastructure
Cybersecurity.153 The Cybersecurity Framework includes efforts to promote the voluntary
implementation of cybersecurity standards by private-sector owners and operators of critical
infrastructure assets. The Administration also requested an additional $3 million to expand the
Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program.154 Enhanced Cybersecurity Services transfers federal
security technologies to firms that provide commercial Internet service. The request partially
offset these increases with a $2 million reduction in Sector Specific Agency Management (within
the Sector Management and Governance PPA).155
The Administration also requested an increase of $8 million to support other activities called for
in Presidential Policy Directive 21, Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience. Of the $8
million, $5 million would have gone toward additional Regional Risk Assessments with a focus
on identifying cascading risks, $3 million for Infrastructure Design and Support, and $1 million to
maintain current operations of the National Coordination Center (NCC).156 Infrastructure Design
and Support promotes the development and use of construction standards and best practices
aimed at improving the resiliency of critical infrastructure assets. The additional funds for the
NCC, a 24x7 incident response center for the telecommunications sector, covers the loss of
Department of Defense and Defense Intelligence Agency personnel deployed at the NCC.157
These increases would have been partially offset by $3 million reduction in Site Assessment
Visits and a $3 million reduction in DHS support to non-lead agencies that sit on the various
public-private infrastructure protection councils.158
149 Ibid., p. 38.
150 Ibid., p. 44.
151 Ibid., p. 56.
152 Ibid., pp. 100-101.
153 Ibid., p. 91.
154 Ibid., p. 92.
155 Ibid., pp. 5, 92.
156 Ibid., pp. 95-96.
157 Ibid., pp. 95-96.
158 Ibid., p. 96.
Congressional Research Service
64
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
House-Reported H.R. 4903
The House Appropriations Committee approved $1,139 million for the IPIS program, $59 million
below the amount requested. The House Appropriations Committee attributed much of this
reduction to FY2015 spending caps associated with the National Defense Budget Function, of
which the IPIS is a part.159 As a result the committee’s recommendation did not include the
increase sought by the Administration for the Next Generation PPA ($49 million).160 The House
report also recommended reducing support for vulnerability assessments by $3 million (part of
the Infrastructure Analysis PPA), and would have reduced the Regional Field Operations and
Infrastructure Security Compliance PPAs by $4 million each. The latter two reductions reflect, in
part, House concern over the reported misuse of uncontrolled overtime pay for Protective
Security Advisors and Chemical Security Inspectors.161 The House Appropriations Committee,
however, did partially fund the increases sought by the Administration to automate the
compliance process. The House report also included language instructing the Department to work
with its industry partners in developing the CFATS Personnel Surety Program performance-based
requirement, designed to vet personnel at covered chemical facilities and not to mandate a
process if a covered facility meets those requirements with existing vetting processes.
The slight net reduction in Network Security Deployment PPA included an $8 million reduction
to better align with a delayed acquisition schedule for EINSTEIN 3 hardware and software.162
The House report also encouraged the Department to explore new capabilities in detecting
malicious traffic and asked for a report outlining the steps being taken to engage the private sector
and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers to better understand the evolving
cyber-related threats and technical opportunities to counter them, including behavioral analysis
and zero-day threat detection.163
Senate-Reported S. 2534
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a total of $1,213 million for the IPIS
program, $15 million above what the Administration requested.164 The committee recommended
nearly the requested amount for the Next Generation PPA. It also recommended an increase in the
Global Cybersecurity PPA, primarily replacing funding for cybersecurity education efforts that
the Administration reduced.
In regard to Infrastructure Protection, the committee recommended an additional $2 million
above what was requested for the Office of Bombing Prevention.165 It also directed the
department to fully fund training for personnel in charge of public safety at large venue events
and to brief the committee on new sensing technologies to enhance building security and
resilience.166 The committee largely supported the increase in funding sought for CFATS
159 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 88.
160 Ibid., p. 93
161 Ibid., p. 90.
162 Ibid., p. 93.
163 Ibid., p. 93
164 S.Rept. 113-198, p. 98.
165 Ibid., p. 101.
166 Ibid., p. 102.
Congressional Research Service
65
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
implementation. Like the House Appropriations Committee, the Senate Appropriations
Committee expressed concerns about reported misuse of uncontrolled overtime and the potential
for overburdening industry partners as the department develops its Personnel Surety Program.
The committee also encouraged the department to consider the role that chemical neutralization
technologies can play in responding to risks at chemical facilities.167
In regard to cybersecurity, the Senate Appropriations Committee directed the department to
review and report on the availability and benefit of using cybersecurity personnel and facilities
outside the National Capital Region to meet federal and national cybersecurity needs.168 The
committee also encouraged the department to expand the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services effort
to include state and local governments and to report on the current and expected growth of state
and local government need for those services.169 As mentioned above, the committee rejected the
Administration’s request to reduce cybersecurity training funding in the Global Cybersecurity
Management PPA and recommended that no less than $16 million be allocated to support those
activities.170
In regard to communications, the committee provided nearly full funding, as requested, for the
Next Generation Networks PPA.
Table 14 outlines the FY2014 and proposed FY2015 funding levels for each PPA within the IPIS
program.
Table 14. Budget Authority for Infrastructure Protection and Information Security,
FY2014-FY2015
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Appropriation /
reported
reported
Sub-Appropriation Enacted
Request
H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Infrastructure
Protection
263
271 263 275
Infrastructure Analysis and
63
64 61 68
Planning
Sector Management and
63
63 65 63
Governance
Regional Field Operations
57
57
53
57
Infrastructure Security
81
87 83 87
Compliance
Cybersecurity
792
746 746 757
Cybersecurity
Coordination
4
4 4 4
US-CERT
Operations 102
99 99 99
167 Ibid., p.103.
168 Ibid., p. 104.
169 Ibid., p. 105.
170 Ibid., p. 105.
Congressional Research Service
66
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Appropriation /
reported
reported
Sub-Appropriation
Enacted Request H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Federal Network Security
200
172
171
171
Network Security
382
378 378 378
Deployment
Global Cybersecurity
26
18 18 26
Management
Critical Infrastructure
73
71 71 74
Cyber Protection and
Awareness
Business
Operations
5
6 6 6
Communications
131
180 131 181
Office of Emergency
37
36 36 37
Communications
Priority
53
53 53 53
Telecommunications
Services
Next Generation Networks
21
70
21
70
Programs to Study and
10
10 10 10
Enhance
Telecommunications
Critical Infrastructure
9
10 10 10
Protection
Total, Infrastructure
1,187
1,198 1,139 1,213
Protection and
Information Security
Source: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903,
H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534, and S.Rept. 113-198.
Note: Table displays rounded numbers, but all operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals.
Issues for Congress
Congressional interest in the Infrastructure Security Compliance PPA, in particular the
effectiveness of DHS’s efforts to implement the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards
(CFATS) program, is expected to continue. The NPPD budget request included additional funds
for this effort. The Senate supported this request; the House reduced it. Both committees
expressed some concern about reported misuse of uncontrolled overtime for inspectors. For
additional information related to the implementation of the program, see CRS Report R43346,
Implementation of Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS): Issues for Congress, by
Dana A. Shea. Also, DHS’s authority to regulate chemical facilities with the CFATS program was
set to expire in October 2014, but Section 128 of P.L. 113-164, the Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2015, extended the authority through December 11, 2014. For a discussion of the
broader issues associated with renewing this authority, see CRS Report R42918, Chemical
Facility Security: Issues and Options for the 113th Congress, by Dana A. Shea.
Congressional Research Service
67
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Congressional interest in cybersecurity is also expected to continue. A detailed discussion of
cybersecurity-related legislation introduced in the 113th Congress and how those bills might
impact the IPIS program is beyond the scope of this report. For a discussion of some of the bills
introduced, see CRS Report R42114, Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Overview of
Major Issues, Current Laws, and Proposed Legislation, by Eric A. Fischer. Also see CRS Report
R42984, The 2013 Cybersecurity Executive Order: Overview and Considerations for Congress,
by Eric A. Fischer et al., for a discussion of E.O. 13636, the implementation of which is
supported by a number of IPIS programs.
The administration’s request for a reduction in funding for cybersecurity education activities may
also raise issues for Congress. These, along with a reduction in support for the Multi-State
Information Security and Analysis Center, are characterized in the budget justification as
reductions in cybersecurity support for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments.171 The
Senate Appropriations Committee expressly rejected the Administration’s cuts to DHS support for
cybersecurity education efforts.172 The House Appropriations Committee stated that it expected
the department to coordinate its reduction in support for the Multi-State Information Security and
Analysis Center with replacement funding.173
The House and Senate Appropriations Committees will also have to reconcile their differences on
support for Next Generation priority wireless program. The administration requested a $49
million increase for that effort. The Senate committee recommended nearly the requested amount.
The House, citing the need to conform to discretionary spending limits, did not provide the
additional funds.
Federal Protective Service174
The Federal Protective Service (FPS), within the National Protection and Programs Directorate
(NPPD),175 is responsible for the protection and security of federal property, personnel, and
federally owned and leased buildings.176 In general, FPS operations focus on security and law
enforcement activities that reduce vulnerability to criminal and terrorist threats. 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.177 FPS is
the lead “Government Facilities Sector Agency” for the National Infrastructure Protection Plan
171 Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: National Protection and Programs
Directorate, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (Washington, DC, 2014), pp. 100-101.
172 S.Rept. 113-198, p. 105.
173 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 94.
174 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and
Finance Division.
175 FPS was transferred to NPPD from ICE following the enactment of the FY2010 DHS appropriations, P.L. 111-83.
176 40 U.S.C. 1315.
177 For information on NSSEs, see CRS Report R43522, National Special Security Events: Fact Sheet, by Shawn
Reese.
Congressional Research Service
68
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
(NIPP).178 Currently, FPS employs 1,372 FTEs and trains and monitors over 15,000 contract
security guards.179
FY2015 Request
The President’s FY2015 budget request included 1,371 FTEs and $1,343 million for FPS. This
was same amount that FPS received in FY2014. 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, $276 million in
fees would be collected for basic security operations, $601 million for building-specific security
operations, and $466 million for reimbursable agency-specific security.180
House-Reported H.R. 4903 and Senate-Reported S. 2534
Both House and Senate appropriations committee reports included a recommendation for the
requested amount of $1,343 million for FPS. While the House committee report did not include a
specific recommendation for funding levels for basic security, building-specific security, or
reimbursable agency-specific security funding levels, the Senate committee report made
recommendations that mirrored the Administration’s proposal.
Issues for Congress
Congress may wish to continue its oversight of federal facility security generally, and the FPS
specifically. One issue is FPS’s continued challenges in training and monitoring its contract
security guards. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) states that FPS continues to face
challenges ensuring that its contract security guards have been properly trained and certified
before being deployed to federal facilities. In its December 2013 report, GAO found that FPS is
challenged in providing active shooter response and screener training. As a result, GAO found
that FPS has limited assurance that contract security guards at federal facilities are prepared to
respond to active shooter incidents; and that contract security guards may be using screening
equipment without proper training.181
Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM)
The Office of Biometric Identity Management is responsible for collecting, maintaining, and
sharing biometric data with DHS’s partners. As part of this mission, it maintains the Automated
Biometric Identification System (IDENT)—DHS’s central repository for biometric data.
178 For Information on the NIPP, see http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/editorial_0827.shtm.
179 Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: National Protection and Programs
Directorate, Federal Protective Service (Washington, DC, 2014), p. 2.
180 Ibid., p. 3. Reimbursable agency-specific security revenue is funding via a reimbursable agreement between FPS
and another federal agency for the occupants of federally owned or leased facilities requiring the same services
provided as part of building-specific security, but provided to an individual customer.
181 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: Federal Protective Service Continues to Face
Challenges with Contract Guards and Risk Assessments at Federal Facilities, GAO-14-235T, December 17, 2013, p. 2,
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/659744.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
69
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2015 Request
The Administration requested $252 million for OBIM in FY2015, $24 million (10.8%) more than
it received in FY2014.
House-Reported H.R. 4903
The House Appropriations Committee approved $250 million for OBIM, more than $1 million
(0.5%) below the amount requested, but $23 million (10.1%) more than OBIM received in
FY2014. The committee report recommended full funding for IDENT improvements, but noted
“architectural limitations” of the IDENT system, and directed OBIM to submit a plan for its
replacement no later than 120 days after enactment.182 The report further noted that the plan
should include the IDENT requirements for supporting a planned biometric entry-exit system.183
Senate-Reported S. 2534
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved $249 million for OBIM program, more than $2
million (1.0%) below the amount requested, but $22 million (9.7%) more than OBIM received in
FY2014. The report noted the committee’s strong support for IDENT modernization, citing
budget constraints as the cause for the reduction.184
The Senate-reported bill continued to carry a general provision requiring that a management and
investment plan justifying current and future requirements for OBIM be submitted with the
FY2016 budget request.185
Office of Health Affairs186
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.187 OHA also coordinates or consults on
DHS programs that have a public health or medical component; these include FEMA operations,
homeland security grant programs, and medical care provided at ICE detention facilities.
182 H.Rept. 113-481, pp. 95-96.
183 Title I of the House-reported bill provided that, within 30 days of enactment, the Secretary must submit a
comprehensive plan for implementation of the biometric entry and exit data system, including estimated
implementation costs.
184 S.Rept. 113-198, p. 108.
185 S. 2534, pp. 74-74 (Sec. 545).
186 Prepared by Sarah A. Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology, Domestic Social Policy Division.
187 DHS, Office of Health Affairs, http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0880.shtm.
Congressional Research Service
70
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2015 Request
The Administration requested $126 million for OHA for FY2015, about $1 million less than the
amount appropriated for FY2014. The proposed allocation among OHA’s activities was $85
million for the BioWatch program; $8 million for NBIC; almost $1 million for the Chemical
Defense Program; $5 million for Planning and Coordination (under which leadership and
coordination activities are implemented); and $27 million for Salaries and Expenses.188
House-Reported H.R. 4903
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $128 million for OHA for FY2015, $2
million above the amount requested and $1 million above the FY2014 level. The committee
proposed $87 million for the BioWatch program; $9 million for NBIC; almost $1 million for the
Chemical Defense Program; $5 million for Planning and Coordination (under which leadership
and coordination activities are implemented); and $26 million for Salaries and Expenses.189
Senate-Reported S. 2534
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $125 million for OHA for FY2015, $1
million below the amount requested and $2 million below the FY2014 level. The committee
proposed $85 million for the BioWatch Program; $8 million for NBIC; almost $1 million for the
Chemical Defense Program, $5 million for Planning and Coordination, and $26 million for
Salaries and Expenses.190
Table 15 presents the enacted funding amounts for OHA components for FY2014, the
Administration’s request for FY2015, and the House- and Senate-reported numbers for the same.
Table 15. Office of Health Affairs, FY2014-FY2015
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
reported
reported
Sub-Appropriation Enacted
Request
H.R. 4903
S. 2534
BioWatch 85
85
87
85
188 Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: Office of Health Affairs
(Washington, DC, 2014), p. 4.
189 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 96.
190 S.Rept. 113-198, p. 109.
Congressional Research Service
71
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
reported
reported
Sub-Appropriation Enacted
Request
H.R. 4903
S. 2534
National Biosurveillance
10 8 9 8
Integration Center
Chemical Defense
1
1
1
1
Planning and Coordination
5
5
5
5
Salaries and Expenses
26
27
26
26
Total OHA budget
127 126 128 125
authority
Sources: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement; FY2015 DHS congressional
justifications; H.R. 4903 and H.Rept. 113-481; S. 2534, and S.Rept. 113-198.
Issues for Congress
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 BioWatch accounts for most of OHA’s budget. The
program had sought for several years to deploy more sophisticated autonomous 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. However, GAO stated in 2012 that “BioWatch
Gen-3 has a history of technical and management challenges,” and recommended that OHA
evaluate the BioWatch mission need and alternatives for Gen-3 procurements before proceeding
further with Gen-3 deployment.191
Gen-3 development and procurement was the subject of an investigation by the House Committee
on Energy and Commerce in 2013.192 Also in 2013, the House Committee on Appropriations
noted that OHA had paused its Gen-3 procurement activities while conducting an analysis of
alternatives (AoA).193 In the statement accompanying FY2014 appropriations, the Appropriations
Committees directed OHA to brief them by January 31, 2014, on the results of the AoA.194
The budget request for FY2015 would sustain current BioWatch operations, and does not include
funding for Gen-3 system development or procurement.195 In late April 2014, DHS announced the
191 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Biosurveillance: DHS Should Reevaluate Mission Need and Alternatives
before Proceeding with BioWatch Generation-3 Acquisition, GAO-12-810, September 10, 2012, p. 3, at
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-810.
192 See for example U.S. Congress, House Energy and Commerce, Oversight and Investigations, “Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee Continues Investigation of BioWatch and Surveillance of Bioterrorism,” hearing, 113th
Cong., 1st sess., June 18, 2013, at http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/oversight-and-investigations-
subcommittee-continues-investigation-biowatch-and-surveillance-of-bioterrorism.
193 H.Rept. 113-91, p. 91.
194 Explanatory Statement, Congressional Record, vol. 160 (January 15, 2014), p. H935.
195 Department of Homeland Security. Congressional Budget Justification FY2015: Office of Health Affairs
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
72
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
cancellation of its plans for Gen-3 system acquisition, following a review of the AoA and other
studies.196 DHS said, however, that it “continues to actively look for future technologies that will
further enhance our ability to detect biological threats.”197
In light of the Gen-3 cancellation, the House Appropriations Committee recommended a $2
million increase above the FY2014 amount for BioWatch, to be used to replace aging Gen-2
equipment. The Committee urged continued efforts by OHA and the S&T Directorate to enhance
BioWatch capability in the future.198
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the amount requested for BioWatch, and
also urged OHA to continue its efforts to enhance future BioWatch capability.199
Unaccompanied Alien Children
The Senate Appropriations Committee commented in its report that OHA staff have been
involved in providing direct medical care to some of the recent wave of undocumented and
unaccompanied alien children entering the United States. As this is not within OHA’s mission, the
Committee urged OHA to work with CBP and ICE to improve the ability of the latter two
agencies to assure the provision of direct medical care in the future.200
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
The primary mission of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is to reduce the
loss of life and property, and protect the nation from all hazards. It is responsible for leading and
supporting the nation’s preparedness for manmade and natural disasters through a risk-based and
comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness, protection, response, recovery,
and mitigation.201
FEMA executes its mission through a number of activities. It provides incident response,
recovery, and mitigation assistance to state and local governments, primarily appropriated
through the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund. It also supports
disaster preparedness through a series of homeland security and emergency management grant
programs.
(...continued)
(Washington, DC, 2014), p. 7. Funding was also not requested or provided for Gen-3 activities for FY2014.
196 DHS, “Cancellation of the BioWatch Autonomous Detection Technology Acquisition,” spot report, April 24, 2014.
See also David Willman, “Homeland Security Cancels Plans for New BioWatch Technology,” Los Angeles Times,
April 25, 2014.
197 Ibid.
198 H.Rept. 113-481, pp. 96-97.
199 S.Rept. 113-198, pp. 109-110.
200 S.Rept. 113-198, p. 111.
201 For a full description of FEMA’s mission and authorities, see 6 U.S.C. §§314-315, which are Sections 503 and 504
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended. See also the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288, as amended); Title V of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296, 6 U.S.C.
§§311-321, as amended); and the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-295, 6 U.S.C.
§§700-797).
Congressional Research Service
73
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2015 Request
The Administration requested a total discretionary appropriation of $3,970 million in net budget
authority for FEMA for FY2015, a decrease of $385 million (8.8%) from the enacted FY2014
level of $4,354 million. In addition, the Administration requested an additional $6,438 million for
the DRF, paid for by an adjustment to the discretionary spending limit under a mechanism
established by the Budget Control Act. This adjustment, which is $811 million above the
additional funding provided for the DRF pursuant to major disaster declarations in FY2014, is
discussed more in detail below and earlier in the report.
House-Reported H.R. 4903
House-reported H.R. 4903 included a total discretionary appropriation of $4,320 million for
FEMA for FY2015, an increase of $351 million (8.8%) from the President’s request and an
decrease of $35 million (0.8%) from FY2014.
Senate-Reported S. 2534
Senate-reported S. 2534 included a total discretionary appropriation of $4,329 million for FEMA
for FY2015, an increase of $359 million (9.0%) from the President’s request and a decrease of
$26 million (0.6%) from FY2014.
DHS State and Local Preparedness Grants202
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, three federal grant programs were 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 have been added to amplify state and local
preparedness, including the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP), Citizen Corps
202 Prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy.
Congressional Research Service
74
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
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 Security 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).
FY2015 Request
The Administration requested $1,205 million for state and local grant programs and training in
FY2015. This is $295 million less than these grants were appropriated in FY2014 ($1,500
million). Additionally, the Administration proposed a single block grant for preparedness grants—
the National Preparedness Grant Program, a single block grant for training programs—Training
Partnership Grants, and a single block grant for the programs and groups203 that provide
education, training, and exercises.
House-Reported H.R. 4903
House-reported H.R. 4903 included a total of $1,500 million for state and local grant programs
and training for FY2015, the same level as provided in FY2014. The grant programs were
structured as they were in the FY2014 DHS appropriations bill as well, rather than as the
Administration proposed.
Senate-Reported S. 2534
Senate-reported S. 2534 included a total of $1,500 million for state and local grant programs and
training for FY2015, the same level provided in FY2014 and in the House-reported bill. Like the
House-reported bill, the Senate-reported bill and report recommended structuring the grant
programs as they were in the FY2014 DHS appropriations bill.
Table 16 outlines the funding levels for FEMA state and local programs.
Table 16. State and Local Grant Programs and Training, FY2014-FY2015
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Appropriation /
Reported
Reported
Sub-Appropriation Enacted
Request
H.R. 4903
S. 2534
State and Local
1,266
Programs (grants)
State Homeland
466
466
467
Security Grant
Program
203 These groups include the Center for Domestic Preparedness and the Emergency Management Institute.
Congressional Research Service
75
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Appropriation /
Reported
Reported
Sub-Appropriation
Enacted Request H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Operation
55 55 55
Stonegarden
Urban Area Security
600
600
600
Initiative
Non-Profit Security
13 13 13
Grants (included in
UASI)
Public Transportation
100
100
100
Security Assistance,
Railroad Security
Assistance, Over-the-
Road Bus Security
Assistance
Amtrak Security
10 10 10
(included in above
security assistance
programs)
Over-the-Road Bus
5
Security
Port Security
100
100
100
Education, Training,
234
234
233
and Exercises
Emergency
21 21 21
Management Institute
(EMI)
Center for Domestic
65 65 65
Preparedness (CDP)
National Domestic
98 98 98
Preparedness
Consortium
National Exercise
21 21 20
Program (NEP)
Continuing Training
29
29
30
National Preparedness
n/a 1,043
Grant Program
Training Partnership
n/a 60
Grants
Education, Training,
n/a 102
and Exercises
(CDP/EMI/NEP)
Total, State and
1,500 1,205 1,500 1,500
Local Programs
Sources: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications,
H.R. 4903, H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534, and S.Rept. 113-198.
Congressional Research Service
76
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Proposed Consolidation of State and Local Preparedness Grants
The Administration first proposed the National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) in its
FY2013 budget request to Congress, and again in FY2014. Congress denied the request both
times. Congress expressed concern that the NPGP had not been authorized by Congress, lacked
sufficient detail regarding the implementation of the program, and lacked sufficient stakeholder
participation in the development of the proposal.204
The Administration proposed the NPGP once again in FY2015. The Administration indicated that
its latest proposal includes adjustments that responded to congressional concerns. House-reported
H.R. 4903 and Senate-reported S. 2534 did not approve the Administration’s grant reform
proposals, and continued a general provision barring the establishment of the National
Preparedness Grant Program or similar structures without explicit congressional authorization.205
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFG)206
The Administration’s FY2015 budget proposed $670 million for firefighter assistance, including
$335 million for AFG and $335 million for Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response
(SAFER) grants, a 1.5% reduction from the FY2014 level. Funding for management and
administration of these grants would be drawn from a separate FEMA account (Salaries and
Expenses). The 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. The Administration requested that all previous SAFER waivers again be
enacted for FY2015. Also in the budget proposal, FEMA encouraged SAFER applicants to seek,
recruit, and hire post-9/11 veterans in order to take advantage of the provisions of the Veterans
Opportunity to Work (VOW) to Hire Heroes Act of 2011.
The House Appropriations Committee bill provided $680 million in firefighter assistance,
including $340 million for AFG and $340 million for SAFER. This matched the FY2014 level.
The committee continued to fund firefighter assistance under its own account, and declined the
Administration’s request to place firefighter assistance under the State and Local Programs
account. The bill also continued to grant DHS waiver authority from SAFER requirements in
FY2015. In the accompanying report, the committee noted that this annual waiver authority has
been available since FY2009,207 and that the reauthorization of the SAFER program by the 112th
Congress (P.L. 112-239) provided FEMA with permanent authority to waive certain matching and
non-supplantation requirements for grantees based on a determination that a grantee meets
economic hardship criteria. Given that FEMA has been working with stakeholders to develop
these criteria and that the agency hopes to soon be able to implement its new waiver authority, the
committee expected that FY2015 should be the last instance in which annual waiver authority
will be provided, and that any waivers in future fiscal years will be limited to the authorization
provided in P.L. 112-239.
204 P.L. 113-76, Div. F, Sec. 557.
205 H.Rept. 113-481, pp. 173-174; H.R. 4903, Sec. 547; S.Rept. 113-198, pp. 188-189; S. 2534, Sec. 550.
206 Prepared by Lennard G. Kruger, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science and Industry
Division.
207 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 102.
Congressional Research Service
77
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
The Senate Appropriations Committee bill provided $680 million in firefighter assistance,
including $340 million for AFG and $340 million for SAFER. This matched the FY2014 level as
well as the House Appropriations Committee level. As did the House-reported bill, the Senate-
reported bill continued to fund firefighter assistance under its own separate account and granted
DHS waiver authority from SAFER requirements in FY2015. In the accompanying report, the
committee expressed its expectation that funding for rural fire departments should be consistent
with the previous five-year funding history and that FEMA will brief the committee if there is an
anticipated fluctuation.
Disaster Relief Fund (DRF)208
The Disaster Relief Fund (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. The DRF is a no-year
account—unused funds from the previous fiscal year are carried over to the next fiscal year. 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,209 and a $500
million reserve to prevent shortfalls. The Administration’s FY2015 budget proposed $7,033
million for the DRF—an increase of roughly $812 million compared to the Administration’s
request and enacted level from FY2014.
The DRF funding request can be broken out into two categories. First, $596 million for activities
not directly tied to major disasters under the Stafford Act (including activities such as assistance
provided to states for emergencies and fires).210 This is sometimes referred to as the DRF’s “base”
funding. The second (and significantly larger) category is for disaster relief costs for major
disasters under the Stafford Act, for which the Administration requested $6,438 million. This
structure reflects the impact of the Budget Control Act, which allows these costs incurred by
major disasters to be paid through an “allowable adjustment” to the discretionary spending caps,
rather than having them count against the discretionary spending allocation for the bill.
The Disaster Relief Fund, Disaster Relief, and the Budget Control Act (BCA)
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. For more detail on the allowable adjustment, see the end of Appendix
A of this report, or 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.
The House- and Senate-reported bills included the amount requested by the Administration for
the DRF ($7,033 million). Of this amount, $6,438 million was designated as disaster relief for
major disasters under the Stafford Act (the same amount requested for major disasters by the
Administration).211
208 Prepared by Bruce R. Lindsay, Analyst in American National Government, and William L. Painter, Analyst in
Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government and Finance Division.
209 In previous years, a five-year rolling average of non-catastrophic disaster costs was used.
210 This includes a transfer of $24 million to the DHS Office of Inspector General.
211 Including a transfer of $24 million to the DHS Office of Inspector General.
Congressional Research Service
78
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Disaster Declaration Determinations
When a state is overwhelmed by a disaster, the governor may elect to request federal assistance.
FEMA provides a recommendation to the President regarding whether that state should receive
federal disaster assistance by calculating the cost of damage to public facilities and infrastructure
divided by the state’s population—a per capita damage indicator—and comparing it to a per
capita threshold. If the indicator exceeds the threshold FEMA generally makes a recommendation
to the President to issue a major disaster declaration. Currently that threshold is $1.39 (per
capita).
A report issued by GAO in 2012 found that the per capita damage indicator is artificially low
because it has not been fully adjusted for the rise in per capita income or for inflation. 212
According to the GAO analysis, if the per capita indicator had been properly adjusted for
increases in per capita income and inflation, there would have been a reduction in the number of
incidents declared as eligible for disaster assistance. The report also stated that the per capita
damage indicator was a poor metric for establishing a state’s capacity to respond to an incident.
FEMA concurred with the GAO recommendation to develop and implement a methodology that
provides a more comprehensive assessment of a jurisdiction’s need for federal assistance.
The Senate Appropriations Committee expressed similar concerns about the per capita indicator.
The report accompanying the Senate bill stated that it was not evident that the threshold criteria
has been reviewed and updated and that there is a lack of transparency regarding disaster
declaration criteria in general.213 The committee directed FEMA to conduct a comprehensive
review of the methodology used to determine if federal assistance is warranted and brief the
committee, as well as the authorizing committees of jurisdiction, on its findings no later than 120
days after enactment.
The House Appropriations Committee also recommended that FEMA review how it makes
disaster declaration recommendations to the President because, in part, under the current policy, a
small community within a highly populated state may not be eligible for federal assistance even if
local impacts are severe.214
Balances in the DRF
The monthly report issued by FEMA on September 5, 2014, indicated that there was $8,899
million in unobligated funds remaining in the DRF as of the end of August, including $6,866
million in unobligated funds for the costs of major disasters.215 This is a comparatively large
amount compared to years prior to the BCA where a large disaster or active hurricane season (or
both) could have quickly depleted the remaining unobligated amount, necessitating a
supplemental appropriation for additional funds for disaster relief.
212 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Disaster Assistance: Improved Criteria Needed to Assess a
Jurisdiction’s Capability to Respond and Recover on Its Own, GAO, September 12, 2012, p. 23, at
http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/648162.pdf.
213 S.Rept. 113-198, pp. 125-126.
214 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 106.
215 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Disaster Relief Fund: Monthly Report Through August 31, 2014,
September 5, 2014, p. 4. Available at http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/31789.
Congressional Research Service
79
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
These unusual balances are due in large part to the congressional response to recent major
disasters, such as Hurricane Sandy. The DRF does not simply pay immediate costs of relief—it
reimburses state and local governments for costs of disasters for years. Over the first half of
FY2014, the DRF obligated an average of nearly $400 million per month for costs related to
major disasters, almost all from disasters that struck in previous fiscal years. This number is
expected to rise—FEMA has projected spending nearly $3 billion in the state of New York for
recovery from Hurricane Sandy in the last two months of FY2014 alone.216
The House-reported bill rescinded $352 million from the DRF, and the Senate-reported bill
rescinded $310 million because the committees anticipated a significant balance of unallocated
funds in the DRF base to be carried over from FY2014 to FY2015.217 The House Appropriations
Committee report stated that the remaining balances, combined with the amount appropriated,
would fully fund recovery efforts for previous disasters, including Hurricane Sandy, the Colorado
wildfires, and the Oklahoma tornadoes, as well as pay for relief efforts for future disasters.
Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program218
The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program provides federal grants to mitigate property damage
and loss of life due to disasters. Although funding is authorized under Section 203 of the Stafford
Act, eligibility for the PDM program does not require a Stafford Act disaster declaration.219
Authorization for the PDM program expired in 2013.220
Funding for the PDM program has declined in recent years. The FY2011 appropriation, P.L. 112-
10, provided $50 million for the PDM program, matching the lowest level of funding for the
program since FY2006. The FY2012 budget requested $85 million, which was an increase of $35
million over the FY2011 enacted amount. Recent appropriations to the program have been at the
$25 million level. Despite continued congressional funding of the PDM program, the
Administration has, in the last three budget cycles (including FY2015), suggested zeroing out the
PDM program with no additional funding requested.
However, the FY2015 request appears to send mixed signals in this area. Although the line item
for the PDM program is zero, the PDM fund is included in the Administration’s “Opportunity,
Growth and Security Initiative.” That initiative would provide significant funding for the PDM
fund, although not for the PDM program as currently understood. As the budget request notes, the
initiative “would provide $400 million to this fund.”221 At one oversight hearing a FEMA witness
216 Ibid., Appendix B, p. 10.
217 Including funds recovered from previous disasters during project closeouts. At the end of August 2014, there was
$2,033 million in the DRF base, after the Administration used a transfer of $268 million from the DRF to ICE in
August to help pay the cost of dealing with a sharp increase in the number of unaccompanied alien children crossing
the border illegally earlier in the year.
218 This section prepared by Francis X. McCarthy, Analyst, Emergency Management Policy, Government and Finance
Division.
219 42 U.S.C. 5133 §203. For additional information on the PDM program, see CRS Report RL34537, FEMA’s Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Program: Overview and Issues, by Francis X. McCarthy.
220 Although authorization has expired there are signs of ongoing support for the PDM program. On March 28, 2014, a
bipartisan group of 56 House members signed a letter to the DHS Appropriations Subcommittee supporting continuing
funding “at a sufficient level” for the PDM program.
221 DHS/FEMA, National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund, FY2015 Submission, I. Appropriation Summary, C. Budget
Request Summary.
Congressional Research Service
80
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
sought to explain the dissonance in the budget message by framing the initiative as forward-
looking while mitigation was based on past, previous events.222 While mitigation does include
some calculations based on losses from previous events, mitigation is generally considered to be
actions taken to lessen the threat of future hazardous events. Congress may wish to explore this
difference in definitions through its budget discussions.
For FY2015, both House and Senate appropriations committees recommended funding for the
PDM program at the $25 million level but also noted their interest in mitigation and more
explanations from FEMA on how it is emphasizing mitigation concepts.
Also, when considering the status of PDM, Congress may wish to consider the recent
Administration initiative to establish the “National Disaster Resilience Competition” with $1
billion from the Hurricane Sandy supplemental funding bill. Unlike PDM, the funds can only be
expended for projects in states that experienced disasters during 2011, 2012 and 2013. But like
PDM it is an open competition for applicants to increase their resilience against future
disasters.223
Related Mitigation Issues
S. 2534 contains a provision which provides mitigation funding as calculated under Section 404,
the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) of the Stafford Act, for Section 420 of the Stafford
Act, which authorizes Fire Management Assistance Grants (FMAGs).224 This indicates that
during FY2015, FMAGs, in addition to helping states control ongoing fires, will also generate
funds for the states to take mitigation efforts prior to the next fire threat. Unlike PDM, the HMGP
program is funded by the DRF under major disaster declarations.
In addition, the Senate committee report contains a section on wildfire mitigation. The report
notes the large amounts of damage caused by wildfires and the large amounts of funding spent
fighting the fires. It contrasts those significant sums with the much smaller amounts devoted to
any form of mitigation to prevent or lessen the impact of future fires. The report then requests
specific actions from FEMA and its federal partners:
The Committee directs FEMA, in conjunction with the Forest Service and the Department of
Interior, to provide a strategy to better mitigate wildfire impacts on urban and residential areas no
later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this act. The strategy should include ways for
FEMA to partner with the Forest Service and Department of Interior in their wildfire prevention
and mitigation efforts, and also ways for FEMA to partner with State and local governments at
risk for wildfires on cooperative efforts in the coming years.225
222 U.S. House of Representatives, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and
Emergency Management of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, “Disaster Mitigation: Reducing Costs
and Saving Lives,” April 3, 2014.
223 White House, “Fact Sheet: National Disaster Resilience Competition,” June 14, 2014.
224 S. 2534, Section 573, pp 106-107.
225 S.Rept. 113-198, p. 116, to accompany S. 2534, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2015, 113th
Cong., 2nd Sess.
Congressional Research Service
81
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFS)226
The EFS Program is authorized by Title III of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.227
The program enables thousands of social service providers across the nation to provide
emergency help (preventing evictions, utility cut-offs, supplementing shelters, soup kitchens,
food banks, etc.) to families and individuals in need. FEMA chairs a national board that
administers the program consisting of representatives from the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities
USA, the United Way, the American Red Cross, the Jewish Federations of North America, and the
National Council of Churches. The unique part of the program is that after allocations are made at
the national level, decisions on funding to specific provider organizations are made at the local
level by an EFS Local Board similar in composition to the EFS National Board. The total
administrative budget for the program is 3.5%, so almost all funds go to direct services.
The Administration’s FY2015 budget, as with previous submissions, suggested cutting the EFS
program by $20 million, from its current $120 million to $100 million. The Administration’s
justification notes that the reduction in EFS funding will permit a “refocus of agency-wide
resources on FEMA’s primary mission” of disaster response and recovery efforts. In addition, the
FY2015 budget also proposed moving the program from FEMA to the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD). The Senate agreed with the cut to the $100 million level while
the House maintained the program at the previous year’s $120 million.
While the EFS program is not a disaster program within FEMA’s “primary mission,” it has been
hosted at FEMA for more than 30 years and has a significant role in communities during times of
high unemployment. Also, the program’s national board is composed of agencies that are
frequently FEMA’s partners in disaster response and recovery work as well as homeless
assistance. The move to HUD has been proposed by every Administration since the program was
established by Congress in 1983, but Congress has never agreed to the transfer. However,
arguably FEMA’s recent difficulties in administering the program may suggest to Congress that a
review of current administrative practices is warranted, if not moving the program.228
The House-reported bill does not include the requested authority to transfer the EFS program to
HUD. In discussing the move to HUD, the committee suggested that before considering such a
move
the Committee expects FEMA and HUD to jointly brief the Committee on the rationale for
the proposed change; efforts by both agencies to engage stakeholders on the proposal; and a
plan for transitioning the program to HUD, including a strategy for preserving EFSP’s
unique, local decision-making structure and an assessment of how the transition to HUD
would affect the current EFSP funding distribution to local jurisdictions.229
226 Prepared by Francis X. McCarthy, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy, Government and Finance Division.
227 P.L. 100-77.
228 While EFS was known for its rapid distribution of award funds, that has slowed in recent years. For example,
FY2013 funding was not distributed until the beginning of FY2014. For additional information see CRS Report
R42766, The Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program and Homeless Assistance, by Francis X.
McCarthy, pp. 13-16.
229 U.S. House of Representative, H.Rept. 113-481 accompanying H.R. 4903, Department of Homeland Security, 2015,
June 19, 2014, p. 110.
Congressional Research Service
82
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
However, S. 2534 does contain the legislative language to authorize FEMA to transfer the EFS
funds to HUD. In its report the Senate explains:
While the Committee includes the permissive transfer language, it also notes that this
program is not duplicative of other HUD programs and therefore it shall retain its original
purpose and shall not be combined with other HUD programs.230
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 $1,771 million for these accounts in FY2015, a decrease of $108
million below the enacted level. The House-reported bill provided $1,801 million, an increase of
1.7% from the requested level and 4.1% below FY2014. The Senate-reported bill provided
$1,761 million, a decrease of 0.5% from the requested level, and 6.2% below FY2014.
Table 17 lists the enacted amounts for the individual components of Title IV for FY2014, the
Administration’s request for these components for FY2015, and the House- and Senate-reported
appropriations for the same.
Table 17. Title IV: Research and Development, Training, and Services, FY2014-FY2015
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Component /
reported
reported
Appropriation
Enacted Request H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Citizenship and
Immigration Services
Appropriation
114
135 125 124
Fees, Mandatory
3,103
3,125 3,105 3,257
Spending, and Trust
Funds
Total Budgetary
3,217
3,260 3,230 3,382
Resources
Federal Law
Enforcement Training
Center
Salaries and Expenses
228
232
230
231
230 S.Rept. 113-198, p. 129, to accompany S. 2534, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2015, 113th
Cong., 2nd Sess.
Congressional Research Service
83
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
Component /
reported
reported
Appropriation
Enacted Request H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Acquisition,
31
28 28 28
Construction,
Improvements and
Related Expenses
Appropriation
259
260
258 259
Fees, Mandatory
0
0 0 0
Spending, and Trust
Funds
Total Budgetary
259
260 258 259
Resources
Science and
Technology
Management and
129
130
127
130
Administration
Research, Development,
1,091
942 980 942
Acquisition, and
Operations
Appropriation
1,220
1,072 1,107 1,071
Fees, Mandatory
0
0 0 0
Spending, and Trust
Funds
Total Budgetary
1,220
1,072 1,107 1,071
Resources
Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office
Management and
37
37
36
37
Administration
Research, Development,
205
199 201 196
and Operations
Systems
Acquisition 43
68 75 73
Appropriation
285
304 312 306
Fees, Mandatory
0
0 0 0
Spending, and Trust
Funds
Total Budgetary
285
304 312 306
Resources
Net Budget
1,878
1,771 1,801 1,760
Authority: Title IV
Total Budgetary
4,981
4,896 4,906 5,018
Resources for Title IV
Components before
Transfers
Congressional Research Service
84
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Sources: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2014 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903,
H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534, and S.Rept. 113-198.
Notes: Table displays rounded numbers, but al operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services231
Three activities dominate the work of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS):
(1) processing and adjudication of all immigration applications and petitions, including family-
based petitions, employment-based petitions, nonimmigrant change of status 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.
USCIS funds the processing and adjudication of immigrant, nonimmigrant, refugee, asylum, and
citizenship benefits largely through its fee revenues deposited into the Immigration Examinations
Fee Account.232 In the last decade, the agency has received annual appropriations from the
Treasury that have been directed largely towards specific projects such as reducing petition
processing backlogs and operating the E-Verify program.233 The agency receives most of its
revenue from adjudication fees of immigration benefit applications and petitions.234 The graphic
above only shows the annual appropriations for USCIS.
FY2015 Request
The Administration requested $135 million in appropriations for USCIS for FY2015, including
$125 million for the E-Verify program and $10 million for the Immigrant Integration Initiative.
Together with $3,125 million in projected fee collections, the request projected $3,260 million in
new gross budget authority for USCIS (see Table 18). Of this FY2015 amount, $2,654 million
was to fund adjudication services, which included $239 million for asylum, refugee, and
231 This section was prepared by William Kandel, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
232 Section 286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1356. 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 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. Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification
FY2015: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account and Fraud Prevention
and Detection Account (Washington, DC, 2014).
233 E-verify allows employers to electronically confirm that prospective and current employees possess legal
authorization to work in the United States. See CRS Report R40446, Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification, by
Andorra Bruno.
234 For more on USCIS fees, see CRS Report RL34040, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Immigration Fees
and Adjudication Costs: Proposed Adjustments and Historical Context, by William A. Kandel.
Congressional Research Service
85
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
international operations and $185 million for digital conversion of immigrant records (“Business
Transformation”). Apart from adjudication services, $99 million was to fund information and
customer services, $342 million was to fund administration expenses, and $30 million was to
fund the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program.235
House-Reported H.R. 4903
House-reported H.R. 4903 recommended that USCIS receive gross budget authority for FY2015
at $3,230 million, $30 million below the amount requested. Two-thirds of the reduction is a
reduction in service center spending authority, from $571 million to $551 million.236 The bill
included $125 million in appropriations for USCIS’s E-Verify Program, the funding level
requested by the Administration. The House-reported bill did not include the $10 million
appropriation requested for immigrant integration grants, but permits up to $10 million of fee
revenue to be allocated for that purpose. Within the total fees collected, the committee directed
USCIS to provide at least $29 million to continue converting paper immigration records to a
digital format.
The House-reported bill also specifies that USCIS appropriations may not be used by the agency
to grant immigration benefits to an individual unless USCIS has received the results of a criminal
background check and the results do not preclude the granting of the benefit. None of the funds
made available to USCIS for immigrant integration grants may be used to provide services to
aliens who have not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
The House-reported bill does not prohibit USCIS from providing pay raises to its personnel using
fee revenue. If such raises are foregone, however, any potential savings are to be made available
to enhance the E-Verify program. The bill also does not provide authority to use fee revenue to
help establish a Citizenship Foundation noted in the Administration’s request.
Senate-Reported S. 2534
Senate-reported S. 2534 recommended that USCIS receive gross budget authority for FY2015 at
$3,382 million, $122 million above the amount requested to reflect revised fee collections. The
bill included $124 million in appropriations for USCIS’s E-Verify Program, $11 million below
the Administration’s request. The Senate-reported bill permits up to $10 million of fee revenue to
be allocated for immigrant integration grants. Such grants may not be used to provide services to
aliens who have not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The committee specifies
that no funds may be used by USCIS to grant immigration benefits unless the requisite
background checks permit the granting of such benefit, and the results do not preclude the
granting of the benefit. USCIS was also directed to provide an overdue E-B5 visa program
report.237
235 For more information on the SAVE program, see CRS Report R40889, Noncitizen Eligibility and Verification Issues
in the Health Care Reform Legislation, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
236 H.Rept. 113-481 indicates that the $20 million reduction in the USCIS spending authority for its fee collections
resulted from “continued failures by the Office of Congressional Affairs to provide timely and informative assistance to
congressional offices regarding normal case work.”
237 The E-B5 visa program, also known as the Investor Visa Program, was created by Congress in 1990 to stimulate the
U.S. economy through job creation and capital investment by foreign investors. Under a pilot immigration program
first enacted in 1992 and regularly reauthorized since, certain EB-5 visas also are set aside for investors in Regional
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
86
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
In response to two GAO reports238 that assessed USCIS’s process for granting asylum, the Senate
Committee directed GAO to issue a third report that took into account steps to implement GAO’s
previous recommendations, and that incorporated relevant information from any investigative
findings or after-actions reports concerning the Boston Marathon bombing.
Table 18. USCIS Budget Account Detail, FY2014-FY2015
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
2014
2015
House-
Senate-
reported
reported
Program / Project / Activity
Enacted
Request
H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Appropriations 114
135
125
124
E-Verify 114
125
125
124
Immigrant integration grants
—
10
—
—
Fee-funded Activities
3,103
3,125
3,105
3,257
Adjudication Services
2,637
2,654
2,634
2,747
District Operations
1,544
1,566
1,566
1,594
Immigrant integration grantsa [8]
[10] [10]
Service Center Operations
578
571
551
615
Asylum, Refugee and International Operations
237
239
239
232
Records Operations
94
93
93
110
Business Transformation
183
185
185
195
Information and Customer Services: Operating
96 99 99 109
Expenses
Administration: Operating Expenses
339
342
342
377
Systematic Alien Verifications for Entitlements (SAVE)
30
30
30
25
Total USCIS Budgetary Resources
3,217
3,260
3,230
3,382
Fee revenue sources
Immigration Examination Fee Account
3,049
3,071
3,051
NA
H1-B Visa Fee Account
13
14
14
NA
H1-B and L Fraud Prevention Fee Account
41
41
41
NA
Source: CRS analysis of FY2015 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903, H. Rept.
113-481, S. 2534, and S. Rept. 113-198.
(...continued)
Centers designated by USCIS based on proposals for promoting economic growth.
238 See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Agencies Have Taken Actions to Help Ensure Quality in the Asylum
Adjudication Process but Challenges Remain, GAO-08-935, September 25, 2008; and U.S. Government Accountability
Office, Significant Variation Existed in Asylum Outcomes Across Immigration Courts and Judges, GAO-08-940,
September 25, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
87
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Notes: NA=not available—S.Rept. 113-198 did not project fee revenues by account. Figures in italics sum to
Adjudication Services total. Fee revenue source amounts and appropriations total sum to total USCIS budgetary
resources. Amounts may not strictly accord with budgetary documents due to rounding.
a. These are paid by for by fee revenues in general provisions, and do not add to the total appropriation.
Issues for Congress
For FY2015, a potential issue for Congress includes ongoing concerns about E-Verify operability.
E-Verify
E-Verify is a program designed to assist employers in ascertaining whether their employees have
the requisite legal status and work authorization to work lawfully in the United States.239 While
the House committee report acknowledged improvements in the accuracy of E-Verify, Congress
continues to direct USCIS to increase incentives for smaller businesses to use E-Verify.240
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center241
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) provides basic and advanced law
enforcement instruction to 91 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.
FY2015 Request
The Administration proposed a budget of $260 million for FLETC, an increase of $1 million
(0.3%) from FY2014’s appropriation of $259 million. The FLETC budget in recent years has
been made up of two appropriations—Salaries and Expenses (proposed at $232 million, up $4
million from FY2014), and Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses
(proposed at $28 million, down $3 million from FY2014). The increase in the Salaries and
Expenses appropriation is part of a $16 million program increase to train 1,200 additional CBP
239 See CRS Report R40446, Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification, by Andorra Bruno.
240 S.Rept. 113-198.
241 Prepared by William L. Painter, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy, Government
and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
88
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
officers, which is compensated for by $6 million in efficiencies and elimination of $8 million in
non-recurring costs from FY2014. Half the proposed reduction in Acquisition, Construction,
Improvements, and Related Expenses is from deferring construction work.
House-Reported H.R. 4903
House-reported H.R. 4903 included $258 million for FLETC, $2 million (0.8%) below the
request. The entire reduction was taken from the management and administration activity under
the Salaries and Expenses appropriation for FLETC, and was explained in the report as the result
of shortfalls in the DHS budget request not directly related to FLETC.242 The House-reported bill
included the requested $28 million appropriation for Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements,
and Related Expenses.
Senate-Reported S. 2534
Senate-reported S. 2534 included $259 million for FLETC, $1 million (0.4%) below the request.
The reduction was taken from all the activities under the Salaries and Expenses appropriation for
FLETC.243 The Senate-reported bill also included the requested $28 million appropriation for
Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses.
Issues for Congress
Although FLETC itself has not been the focus of congressional debate, both the House and
Senate have raised questions about the training of federal law enforcement officers. Both House
and Senate-reported versions of the bill included the requested funding to train the remaining
1,200 of 2,000 new CBP officers funded in FY2014.244
The Senate-passed version of comprehensive immigration reform (S. 744) calls for 19,200
additional Border Patrol agents.245 Fielding this many additional personnel would require an
increase in the budget for FLETC’s operations.
Science and Technology Directorate246
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 Department of Energy
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 19
for a breakdown of S&T Directorate funding for FY2014 and FY2015.
242 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 113.
243 S.Rept. 113-198, p. 133.
244 H.Rept. 113-481, p. 113, and S.Rept. 113-198, p. 133.
245 S. 744(eas), Section 6(a)(3)(A)(i), p. 51.
246 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science and Industry
Division.
Congressional Research Service
89
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2015 Request
The Administration’s request of $1,072 million for the S&T Directorate in FY2015 was 12.2%
less than the FY2014 appropriation of $1,220 million. The decrease resulted largely from the
request in Laboratory Facilities for $300 million, versus $404 million in FY2014, for construction
of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF). Within the request for Research,
Development, and Innovation, border security R&D would increase by $7 million; Apex projects
would receive the same funding as in FY2014; and the other four thrust areas would all decrease.
The proposed reduction of $9 million for University Programs would decrease the annual funding
rate for existing university centers of excellence and might also reduce the number of centers
supported.
House-Reported H.R. 4903
The House-reported bill provided $1,107 million for the S&T Directorate in FY2015.247 In
previous years, the committee had criticized the Research, Development, and Innovation (RD&I)
budget item for being too all-encompassing and not specifying funding levels for specific thrust
areas. For FY2015, the House report recommended $28 million more than the request for RD&I
and stated that “to provide the new Under Secretary for S&T flexibility to shift resources ... the
Committee provides the funds for RD&I without breakouts for specific thrust areas.” The report
stated that the committee was pleased with the results of Apex projects (one of the RD&I thrust
areas) and urged the S&T Directorate to expand the Apex concept into other areas of its work. In
Laboratory Facilities, the report recommended the requested $300 million for NBAF
construction. The recommended funding for University Programs was $10 million more than
requested. The report stated that this level of support would allow the continuation of all existing
university centers of excellence as well as a new center that is expected to be awarded in FY2015.
It directed DHS to define and report on key metrics used to make center awards.
Senate-Reported S. 2534
The Senate-reported bill provided $1,071 million for the S&T Directorate in FY2015.248 As in the
House, the Senate committee in previous years had criticized the consolidation of RD&I into a
single budget item. For FY2015, the Senate report stated that “in order to provide additional
flexibility ... the Committee does not break out the RD&I budget in thrust areas.” Within RD&I,
the report expressed support for the Apex concept and encouraged the S&T Directorate to invest
more of its resources in that effort. In Laboratory Facilities, the recommended amount for NBAF
247 Not including a rescission of $14 million from prior-year balances in the R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
account.
248 Not including a rescission of $14 million from prior-year balances in the R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
account.
Congressional Research Service
90
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
construction was $300 million, as requested. In University Programs, the report recommended
$9 million more than the Administration’s request and explained that the increase was for
university centers of excellence, including support for the existing centers and a new center to be
awarded in FY2015.
Table 19. Directorate of Science and Technology, FY2014-FY2015
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
reported
reported
Appropriation / Sub-Appropriation
Enacted
Request
H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Directorate of Science and Technology
1,220
1,072
1,107
1,071
Management and Administration
129
130
127
130
R&D, Acquisition, and Operations
1,091
942
980a 942a
Research, Development, and Innovation
462
434
462
426
Laboratory
Facilities
548
435 435 435
Acquisition and Operations Support
42
42
42
42
University
Programs
40
31 41 40
Sources: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903 as
reported, H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534 as reported, and S.Rept. 113-198.
Note: Table displays rounded numbers, but all operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals.
a. Does not reflect a rescission of $14 million from prior-year balances.
Issues for Congress
National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF)
The NBAF is a planned replacement for the current Plum Island Animal Disease Center. Site
preparation has been completed, and construction of a central utility plant is under way. DHS
expects to award a contract for construction of the main laboratory in FY2015. According to
DHS, the FY2015 budget request, together with previously appropriated federal and state funds
and additional anticipated funds from the state of Kansas, would fully fund the NBAF
construction contract. Despite receiving $404 million for NBAF construction in FY2014, DHS
does not intend to begin construction until full funding for the project is appropriated. The
estimated total project cost for NBAF is $1.250 billion, up from $1.230 billion in the FY2014
budget. DHS expects NBAF construction and commissioning to be completed in Q3 FY2021, one
year later than the estimate of Q3 FY2020 provided in the FY2014 budget. The previous estimate
for NBAF, given in the FY2012 budget, was a total project cost of $725 million with a
completion date of Q1 FY2016.
Congressional Research Service
91
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Coordination of Research & Development Activities
In September 2012, GAO reported that although the S&T Directorate, the Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office (DNDO), and the Coast Guard are the only DHS components that report R&D
activities to the Office of Management and Budget, several other DHS components also fund
R&D and activities related to R&D.249 The GAO report found that DHS lacks department-wide
policies to define R&D and guide reporting of R&D activities, and, as a result, DHS does not
know the total amount its components invest in R&D. The report recommended that DHS
develop policies and guidance for defining, reporting, and coordinating R&D activities across the
department, and that DHS establish a mechanism to track R&D projects. In March 2013, the
explanatory statement for the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013
(P.L. 113-6) directed the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, to establish a review process for all R&D and related work within
DHS.250 In April 2013, citing its September 2012 report, GAO listed DHS R&D as an area of
concern in its annual report on fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative federal programs.251 In
January 2014, the joint explanatory statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L.
113-76) directed DHS to implement and report on new policies for R&D prioritization and review
and, in accordance with GAO’s recommendations, to implement policies and guidance for
defining and overseeing R&D department-wide.252 In July 2014, GAO reported that DHS had
updated its guidance to include a definition of R&D and was conducting R&D portfolio reviews
across the department but had not yet developed policy guidance for DHS-wide R&D oversight,
coordination, and tracking.253
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office254
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 20 for a breakdown of DNDO
funding for FY2014 and FY2015.
249 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Department of Homeland Security: Oversight and Coordination of
Research and Development Should Be Strengthened, GAO-12-837, September 12, 2012.
250 Congressional Record, March 11, 2013, p. S1547.
251 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap,
and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, GAO-13-279SP, April 2013.
252 Congressional Record, January 15, 2014, p. H927.
253 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Department of Homeland Security: Continued Actions Needed to
Strengthen Oversight and Coordination of Research and Development, GAO-14-813T, July 31, 2014.
254 Prepared by Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Science and Industry
Division.
Congressional Research Service
92
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2015 Request
The Administration requested $304 million for DNDO in FY2015, an increase of 6.7% from the
FY2014 appropriation of $285 million. In the Systems Acquisition account, funding for the
Securing the Cities program would decrease by $10 million, while funding for Human Portable
Radiation Detection Systems would increase by $37 million to support the procurement of
handheld radioisotope identification devices (RIIDs) for Customs and Border Protection.
House-Reported H.R. 4903
The House-reported bill provided $312 million for DNDO. The report recommended $7 million
more than the request for Securing the Cities and stated that this would “support ongoing efforts
in current ... cities and the risk-based expansion to new cities.” The report recommended the
requested increase for Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems.
Senate-Reported S. 2534
The Senate-reported bill provided $306 million for DNDO. As in the House, the Senate report
recommended $7 million more than the Administration’s request for the Securing the Cities
program. The report recommended $2 million less than the request for Human Portable Radiation
Detection Systems (HPRDS), and it directed DNDO to provide a multiyear procurement forecast
and deployment schedule for these funds.
Table 20. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, FY2014-FY2015
(budget authority in rounded millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
reported
reported
Appropriation / Sub-Appropriation
Enacted
Request
H.R. 4903
S. 2534
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
285
304
312
306
Management and Administration
37
37
36
37
Research, Development, and Operations
205
199
201
196
Systems Engineering and Architecture
21
18
18
17
Systems Development
21
22
22
21
Transformational R&D
71
70
70
69
Assessments 39
38
38
38
Operations Support
30
32
32
31
Congressional Research Service
93
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
FY2014
FY2015
House-
Senate-
reported
reported
Appropriation / Sub-Appropriation
Enacted
Request
H.R. 4903
S. 2534
National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center
23
20
22
20
Systems Acquisition
43
68
75
73
Radiation Portal Monitors Program
7
5
5
5
Securing the Cities
22
12
19
19
Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems
14
51
51
49
Sources: CRS analysis of FY2014 explanatory statement, FY2015 DHS congressional justifications, H.R. 4903 as
reported, H.Rept. 113-481, S. 2534 as reported, and S.Rept. 113-198.
Note: Table displays rounded numbers, but all operations were performed with unrounded data: therefore,
amounts may not sum to totals.
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 generally 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.
FY2015 Request
The Administration generally requests rescissions in the accounts where they are made, rather
than in this title. However, this year, the Administration proposed a rescission from the Disaster
Relief Fund in the general provisions of the bill. The Administration requested no appropriations
through general provisions for FY2015.
The Administration proposed retaining 41 of the 78 general provisions from the FY2014 DHS
Appropriations act (Division F of P.L. 113-76) in the FY2015 appropriations act. Fifteen were
proposed to be amended to one degree or another, and 26 remained without proposed changes.
These provisions may be modified to simply change their effective date, make adjustments for
clarity of purpose, or provide or restore flexibility to certain aspects of departmental operations.
The Administration therefore proposed eliminating 37 general provisions. Some general
provisions, like those rescinding funds, have a one-time effect, and so are proposed for
elimination the following years. Some are provisos proposed elsewhere in the bill, such as
waivers on restrictions of the use of certain grant funds, or are consolidated, and therefore a
separate general provision would be redundant. Others become overtaken by events or changes in
permanent law, while others the Administration proposes for elimination as they are, in their
view, unduly restrictive on the department’s operations or use and management of resources.
The Administration also proposed adding six new general provisions aside from the
aforementioned rescission. These included the following:
Congressional Research Service
94
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
• a new provision allowing obligation of $104 million in previously collected fees;
• a provision authorizing aviation security fees and increasing aviation passenger
fees for FY2015 (this is in part similar to previously proposed provisions);
• a new provision increasing the statutory cap on visas for crime victims;
• a new provision authorizing USCIS to use up to $3 million in fee revenues to
start up the proposed U.S. Citizenship Foundation;
• a previously proposed provision authorizing a public awareness and outreach
campaign on dam safety; and
• a provision increasing CBP fees and authorizing the use of other fee revenues
collected pursuant to the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement
Implementation Act (this is in part similar to previously proposed provisions, and
a provision carried in the FY2014 act).
House-Reported H.R. 4903
House-reported H.R. 4903 included $708 million in rescissions in Title V. In addition, under this
title $30 million was included for DHS financial systems modernization efforts. These were the
only provisions in this title that affected the score of the bill, providing a reduction in the net
budget authority provided in the bill of -$540 million.
The House Appropriations Committee concurred with the Administration’s request to drop 11
general provisions that had been included in the FY2014 Homeland Security Appropriations act.
The House Appropriations Committee did not add any of the general provisions requested by the
Administration, with the exception of a rescission that it deepened.
The House added nine new general provisions, three of which had identical counterparts in the
Senate-reported bill:
• A provision requiring budget justification for structural pay reform affecting
more than 100 FTE or costing more than $5 million;255
• A provision making public safety officer survivor benefits available to the
widow and children of a Transportation Security Officer killed in the line of
duty in 2013;256 and
• A provision requiring the Administration provide estimates of the number of
unaccompanied alien children anticipated to be apprehended in the coming
budget year and the projected impact of those detentions and transfers on the
budget of each component in the Administration’s budget request.257
In total, House-reported H.R. 4903 included 74 general provisions.
255 H.R. 4903, Sec. 563; and S. 2534, Sec. 561.
256 H.R. 4903, Sec. 565; and S. 2534, Sec. 567.
257 H.R. 4903, Sec. 569; and S. 2534, Sec. 566.
Congressional Research Service
95
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Senate-Reported S. 2534
Senate-reported S. 2534 included $731 million in rescissions in Title V. In addition, under this
title $49 million was included for DHS headquarters consolidation, and $40 million for DHS
financial systems modernization. Taken together, these provisions provide a reduction in the net
budget authority provided in the bill of $505 million.
The Senate Appropriations Committee concurred with the Administration’s request to drop 10
general provisions that had been included in the FY2014 Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
The Senate Appropriations Committee did not add any of the general provisions requested by the
Administration, with the exception of a rescission that it deepened, and a portion of the fee
proposal solely for hiring and retaining CBP officers at air and sea points of entry.258
Aside from the three new provisions noted above that were carried in both the House-and Senate-
reported bills, the Senate Appropriations also added seven of its own new general provisions. In
total Senate-reported S. 2534 contains 73 general provisions.
258 S. 2534, Sec. 559.
Congressional Research Service
96
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Appendix A. Appropriations Terms and Concepts
Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays
Federal government spending involves a multistep 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 Act259
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.260 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 1990261 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
259 31 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1344, 1511-1517.
260 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.
261 P.L. 101-508, Title XIII.
Congressional Research Service
97
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 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 Collections262
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.
302(a) and 302(b) Allocations
In general practice, the maximum budget authority for annual appropriations (including DHS) is
determined through a two-stage congressional budget process. In the first stage, Congress sets
overall spending totals in the annual concurrent resolution on the budget. Subsequently, these
amounts are allocated among the appropriations committees, usually through the statement of
managers for the conference report on the budget resolution. These amounts are known as the
302(a) allocations. They include discretionary totals available to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations for enactment in annual appropriations bills through the
subcommittees responsible for the development of the bills. In the second stage of the process,
the appropriations committees allocate the 302(a) discretionary funds among their subcommittees
for each of the appropriations bills. These amounts are known as the 302(b) allocations. These
allocations must add up to no more than the 302(a) discretionary allocation and form the basis for
enforcing budget discipline, since any bill reported with a total above the ceiling is subject to a
point of order. 302(b) allocations may be adjusted during the year by the Appropriations
Committee by issuing a report delineating the revised suballocations as the various appropriations
bills progress towards final enactment.
Table A-1 shows DHS’s initial 302(b) allocations for FY2015, and comparable figures for
FY2014 and the President’s request for FY2015.
262 Prepared with assistance from Bill Heniff Jr., Analyst in American National Government.
Congressional Research Service
98
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Table A-1. FY2014 and FY2015 302(b) Discretionary Allocations for DHS
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY2015
FY2014
FY2015 Request
FY2015 House
FY2015 Senate
Enacted
Comparable
Comparable
Allocation
Allocation
Comparable
39.270a 38.332b 39.220b 39.000c
Source: CRS analysis of the P.L. 113-76 explanatory statement, DHS FY2015 congressional justifications,
H.Rept. 113-481, and S.Rept. 113-198.
a. This authority does not include the $227 million for overseas contingency operations or disaster relief of
$5,626 million covered by adjustments to the discretionary spending caps set by the Budget Control Act.
b. This authority does not include $6,438 million requested for disaster relief covered by adjustments to the
discretionary spending caps set by the Budget Control Act.
c. This authority does not include the $213 million for overseas contingency operations or disaster relief of
$6,438 million covered by adjustments to the discretionary spending caps set by the Budget Control Act.
The Budget Control Act, Discretionary Spending Caps, and Adjustments
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. Subsequent legislation, including the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2013,263 has amended those caps. For FY2015, the overall cap on discretionary spending is
$1,014 billion. Separate limitations are made for defense and non-defense spending—roughly
$521 billion and $492 billion, respectively. Most of the budget for the Department of Homeland
Security is considered non-defense spending.
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.
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.
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 FY2014, OMB determined the allowable adjustment for disaster relief to be $12,143
million,264 of which only $5,626 million was exercised as of the date of publication. In August,
263 P.L. 113-67.
264 Office of Management and Budget, OMB Sequestration Preview Report to the President and Congress for Fiscal
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
99
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
2014, OMB projected the FY2015 allowable adjustment for disaster assistance would be $18,430
million: $11,913 million from the rolling average and $6,517 million in carryover from
FY2014.265 FY2015 is the first year under which there is more than $1 billion in carryover from
the previous fiscal year.
(...continued)
Year 2015, Washington, DC, March 10, 2014, p. 9.
265 Office of Management and Budget, OMB Sequestration Update Report to the President and Congress for Fiscal
Year 2015, Washington, DC, August 20, 2014, p. 13.
Congressional Research Service
100
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Appendix B. DHS Appropriations in Context
DHS Appropriations History
As established earlier in the report, the department was first established by the Homeland
Security Act, P.L. 107-296. It became operational on January 24, 2003, in the middle of the fiscal
year. Its initial partial year of operation was funded by transfers and supplemental appropriations.
FY2004 was the first year the department requested and received an annual appropriations bill.
The tables below present information on DHS discretionary appropriations, as enacted, for
FY2004 through FY2014. To allow for comparisons over time, Table B-1 provides data in
nominal dollars, while Table B-2 provides data in constant FY2013 dollars. Making meaningful
comparisons over time for the department’s appropriations as a whole is complicated by a variety
of factors, the two most significant of which are the frequency of supplemental appropriations for
the department, and the impact of disaster assistance funding.
Supplemental funding, which frequently addresses congressional priorities, such as disaster
assistance and border security, varies widely from year to year and as a result distorts year-to-year
comparisons of total appropriations for DHS. In the department’s initial fiscal year of operations,
it received over $5 billion in supplemental funding during that fiscal year in addition to all the
resources transferred with the department’s components. Twenty separate supplemental
appropriations acts have provided appropriations to the department since it was established. Gross
supplemental appropriations provided to the department in those acts exceed $115 billion. Table
B-1 and Table B-2, in their second and third columns, provide amounts of new discretionary
budget authority provided to DHS from FY2004 through FY2014, and a total for each fiscal year
in the fourth column.
One of DHS’s larger component budgets is that of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). That budget includes the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), which funds a large portion of the
costs incurred by the federal government in the wake of disasters. Of the billions of dollars
provided to the DRF each year, only a single-digit percentage of this funding goes to pay for
FEMA personnel and administrative costs tied to disasters; the remainder is provided as
assistance to states, communities, and individuals. The gross level of funding provided to the
DRF has varied widely since the establishment of DHS depending on the occurrence and size of
disasters, from less than $3 billion in FY2008 to more than $60 billion in FY2005. Table B-1 and
Table B-2, in their fifth column, provide the amount of new budget authority provided to the
DRF, and in the sixth column, show the total new budget authority provided to DHS without
counting the DRF.
A visual representation of this data is available in Figure 3.
Congressional Research Service
101
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Table B-1. DHS New Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2004-FY2014
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
Total Less
Annual
Supplemental
DRF
Fiscal Year
Appropriations
Appropriations Total DRF
Funding Resources
FY2004 $29,809
$2,523
$32,333
$4,300
$28,033
FY2005
29,557
67,330
96,887
68,542
28,345
FY2006
30,995
8,217
39,212
7,770
31,442
FY2007
34,047
5,161
39,208
5,610
33,598
FY2008
37,809
897
38,706
2,297
36,409
FY2009
40,070
3,243
43,312
9,360
33,952
FY2010
42,817
5,570
48,387
6,700
41,687
FY2011
42,477
-
42,477
2,650
39,827
FY2012
40,062
6,400
46,462
7,100
39,362
FY2013
46,555
12,072
58,627
18,495
40,132
FY2013 post-sequester
44,971
11,468
56,439
17,566
38,873
FY2014
45,817
-
6,221
39,596
Table B-2. DHS New Discretionary Budget Authority, FY2013 Dollars,
FY2004-FY2014
(billions of dollars of budget authority)
Total Less
DRF
Regular
Supplemental
Total
DRF
Funding
Resources
FY2004
$35,762
$3,027
$38,789
$5,159
$33,630
FY2005
34,379
78,316
112,695
79,725
32,969
FY2006
34,916
9,257
44,173
8,753
35,420
FY2007
37,345
5,661
43,006
6,153
36,852
FY2008
40,632
964
41,596
2,469
39,128
FY2009
42,562
3,444
46,006
9,942
36,064
FY2010
45,088
5,866
50,954
7,055
43,898
FY2011
43,874
-
43,874
2,737
41,136
FY2012
40,667
6,497
47,164
7,207
39,957
FY2013
46,555
12,072
58,627
18,495
40,132
FY2013 post-
44,971
11,468
56,439
17,566
38,873
sequester
FY2014
45,141
-
45,141
6,129
39,012
Congressional Research Service
102
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 Appropriations
Sources: CRS analysis of congressional appropriations documents: for FY2004, H.Rept. 108-280 (accompanying
P.L. 108-90), H.Rept. 108-76 (accompanying P.L. 108-11), P.L. 108-69, P.L. 108-106, and P.L. 108-303; for
FY2005, H.Rept. 108-774 (accompanying P.L. 108-334), P.L. 108-324, P.L. 109-13, P.L. 109-61, and P.L. 109-62;
for FY2006, H.Rept. 109-241 (accompanying P.L. 109-90), P.L. 109-148, and P.L. 109-234; for FY2007, H.Rept.
109-699 (accompanying P.L. 109-295) and P.L. 110-28; for FY2008, Division E of the House Appropriations
Committee Print (accompanying P.L. 110-161) and P.L. 110-252; for FY2009, Division D of House
Appropriations Committee Print (accompanying P.L. 110-329), P.L. 111-5, P.L. 111-8, and P.L. 111-32; for
FY2010, H.Rept. 111-298 (accompanying P.L. 111-83), P.L. 111-212, and P.L. 111-230; for FY2011, P.L. 112-10
and H.Rept. 112-331 (accompanying P.L. 112-74); for FY2012, H.Rept. 112-331 (accompanying P.L. 112-74) and
P.L. 112-77; for FY2013, Senate explanatory statement (accompanying P.L. 113-6), P.L. 113-2, the DHS Fiscal
Year 2013 Post-Sequestration Operating Plan dated April 26, 2013, and financial data from the Hurricane Sandy
Rebuilding Task Force Home Page at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/sandyrebuilding/
recoveryprogress; and for FY2014, the explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 113-76.
Notes: Emergency funding, appropriations for overseas contingency operations, and funding for disaster relief
under the Budget Control Act’s allowable adjustment are included based on their legislative vehicle. Transfers
from DOD and advance appropriations are not included. Emergency funding in regular appropriations bills is
treated as regular appropriations. Numbers in italics do not reflect the impact of sequestration.
Congressional Research Service
103
c11173008
.
Department of Homeland Security: FY2015 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
Lennard G. Kruger
Analyst in American National Government
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
bschwemle@crs.loc.gov, 7-8655
lkruger@crs.loc.gov, 7-7070
Jerome P. Bjelopera
Bruce R. Lindsay
Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism
Analyst in American National Government
jbjelopera@crs.loc.gov, 7-0622
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
Lisa Seghetti
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Section Research Manager
jmoteff@crs.loc.gov, 7-1435
lseghetti@crs.loc.gov, 7-4669
Shawn Reese
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
Security Policy
sreese@crs.loc.gov, 7-0635
Congressional Research Service
104
c11173008