document: This report describes and analyzes annual appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for FY2017. It compares the enacted FY2016 appropriations for DHS, the Barack Obama Administration's FY2017 budget request, the Donald J. Trump Administration's requests for additional funding, and the appropriations measures developed in response. This report identifies additional informational resources, reports, and products on DHS appropriations that provide additional context for the discussion, and it provides a list of Congressional Research Service (CRS) policy experts whom clients may consult with inquiries on specific topics. The suite of CRS reports on homeland security appropriations tracks legislative action and congressional issues related to DHS appropriations, with particular attention paid to discretionary funding amounts. The reports do not provide in-depth analysis of specific issues related to mandatory funding—such as retirement pay—nor do they systematically follow other legislation related to the authorization or amending of DHS programs, activities, or fee revenues. Discussion of appropriations legislation involves a variety of specialized budgetary concepts. The Appendix to 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 ( P.L. 112-25 ). A more complete discussion of those terms and the appropriations process in general can be found in CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction , coordinated by [author name scrubbed], and the Government Accountability Office's A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process . Generally, the homeland security appropriations bill includes all annual appropriations provided for DHS, allocating resources to every departmental component. Discretionary appropriations provide roughly two-thirds to three-fourths of the annual funding for DHS operations, depending on how one accounts for disaster relief spending and funding for overseas contingency operations. The remainder of the budget is a mix of fee revenues, trust funds, and mandatory spending. Except in summary discussions and when discussing total amounts for the bill as a whole, all amounts contained in the suite of CRS reports on homeland security appropriations represent budget authority and are rounded to the nearest million. However, for precision in percentages and totals, all calculations were performed using unrounded data. Data used in this report for FY2016 and FY2017 amounts are derived from a single source. Normally, this report would rely on previous fiscal year enacted legislation and reports, as well as House and Senate legislative efforts in response to the Administration's budget request. However, due to the implementation of the Common Appropriations Structure for DHS (see below), this report relies on the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ) and the accompanying explanatory statement, which was printed in the May 3, 2017, Congressional Record . Division F of this act is the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017. Information on the second supplemental appropriation for DHS components is drawn from P.L. 115-56 . On February 9, 2016, the Obama Administration released its budget request for FY2017. The Administration requested $40.62 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for DHS for FY2017, as part of an overall budget that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated at the time to be $66.2 billion (including fees, trust funds, and other funding that is not annually appropriated or does not score against discretionary budget limits). The request amounted to a $332 million, or 0.8%, decrease from the $40.96 billion enacted for FY2016 through the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 , Division F). The Obama Administration also requested discretionary funding for DHS components that does not count against discretionary spending limits set by the Budget Control Act (BCA; P.L. 112-25 ) and is not reflected in the above totals. The Administration requested an additional $6.7 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in disaster relief funding, as defined by the BCA, and in the budget request for the Department of Defense, a transfer of $163 million in Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terror (OCO) designated funding to the U.S. Coast Guard. On May 26, 2016, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out S. 3001 , accompanied by S.Rept. 114-264 . According to the committee report, S. 3001 included $41.2 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for FY2017. This was $578 million (1.4%) above the level requested by the Administration, but $246 million (0.6%) above the enacted level for FY2016. The Senate committee-reported bill included the Administration-requested levels for disaster relief funding and OCO funding covered by BCA adjustments—the latter as an appropriation in the DHS appropriations bill rather than the requested transfer. On June 22, the House Committee on Appropriations reported out H.R. 5634 , accompanied by H.Rept. 114-668 . H.R. 5634 included $41.04 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for FY2017. This was $426 million (1.0%) above the level requested by the Administration, and $95 million (0.2%) above the enacted level for FY2016. The bill reported by the House committee included the Administration-requested levels for disaster relief funding. The House Appropriations Committee chose to provide the OCO funding as a transfer from the Department of Defense budget as requested. No further action was taken on these measures in 2016, and they expired at the end of the 114 th Congress on January 3, 2017. On September 29, 2016, President Obama signed into law P.L. 114-223 , which contained a continuing resolution that funded the government through December 9, 2016, at the same rate of operations as FY2016, minus 0.496%. The continuing resolution contained three sections providing specific authority to DHS to carry out key functions. All of these authorities had been requested by the Administration: Section 130:  As described above, this was a new provision allowing DHS to obligate funds in the account and budget structure of the CAS as laid out in a report submitted to the appropriations committees prior to the start of FY2017. Authorization to implement the CAS structure as outlined in the FY2017 request was originally laid out in the FY2016 Department of Homeland Security Act; Section 130 allowed modifications to the structure developed since that time. Section 131: This was a new provision similar to ones provided in past years to allow DHS to maintain the staffing levels of certain components. Section 131 allowed resources provided under the CR to be apportioned at the rate needed to maintain the staffing levels of TSA screeners and CBP personnel attained at the end of FY2016. The Obama Administration, in their request for anomalies in the CR, indicated that TSA required an anomaly because TSA repurposed funding provided for FY2016 to allow for hiring of additional screeners and converting a number of part-time screeners to full-time screeners. The Administration indicated that it would not be able to sustain that level of effort operating under a CR without the anomaly. Section 132: This was a provision extending special procurement authorities for research and development activities at DHS, known as "other transaction authority." This provision has been carried in many CRs covering DHS, including most recently as Section 129 of the FY2016 CR, P.L. 114-53 . A second continuing resolution was signed into law on December 10, 2016 ( P.L. 114-254 ), funding the government through April 28, 2017, at the same rate of operations as FY2016, minus 0.1901%. The second continuing resolution amended the first, leaving the three DHS-specific provisions above in effect, while adding a fourth. The new DHS-specific provision, Section 163, was similar to Section 131, but was broader in both the components of DHS it applied to and the flexibility it provided. The Obama Administration requested flexibility not only to maintain staffing levels of CBP and ICE, but also to maintain border security and fulfill immigration enforcement priorities. In their request, they specifically noted this flexibility was for both salaries and non-pay expenses, and was needed to "respond to unpredictable surges in migration." Congress chose to broaden the requested flexibility, extending it to the TSA and U.S. Secret Service, "to ensure border security, fulfill immigration enforcement priorities, maintain aviation security activities, and carry out the mission associated with the protection of the President-elect." A third short-term continuing resolution ( P.L. 115-30 ) was signed into law on April 28, 2017, which extended the second continuing resolution through May 5, 2017, and provided a temporary extension of health benefits for miners. No other provisions affected DHS, and the continuing resolutions and the flexibilities they provided were superseded by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017. On March 16, 2017, the Trump Administration submitted an amendment to the FY2017 budget request, which included a request for $3 billion in additional funding for DHS. Congress addressed this request at the same time as it resolved annual appropriations for the federal government, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (signed into law as P.L. 115-31 on May 5, 2017). The act included both annual and supplemental appropriations for DHS as Division F, which is titled the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017. The first five titles of Division F provided annual appropriations for DHS in response to the Obama Administration's request as submitted. The bill included $41.3 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority in annual appropriations, as well as $6.7 billion in funding for the costs of major disasters under the Stafford Act and $163 million in funding for overseas contingency operations. A sixth title responded to the Trump Administration's request for $3 billion in additional funding for DHS. Title VI included over $1.1 billion in supplemental appropriations for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the U.S. Secret Service. The explanatory statement accompanying the act noted that "the language and allocations contained in the House and Senate reports [ H.Rept. 114-668 and S.Rept. 114-264 ] carry the same weight as language included in this explanatory statement unless specifically addressed to the contrary" in the act or the statement. Such language is common in appropriations conference reports, but it is especially important in cases like this one where there is no direct procedural link between the House and Senate committee-reported bills from a previous Congress and the consolidated appropriations act. On September 1, 2017, the Trump Administration requested $7.85 billion in supplemental funding for FY2017, including $7.4 billion for the DRF. On September 6, the House passed the relief package requested by the Administration as an amendment to H.R. 601 . On September 7, the Senate passed an amended version, which included the House-passed funding as well as an additional $7.4 billion for disaster relief through another department, a short-term increase to the debt limit, and a short-term continuing resolution that would fund government operations into FY2018. The House passed the Senate amended version of the bill on September 8, 2017, which became P.L. 115-56 . When DHS was established in 2003, components of other agencies were brought together over a matter of months, in the midst of ongoing budget cycles. Rather than developing a new structure of appropriations for the entire department, Congress and the Administration continued to provide resources through existing account structures when possible. In H.Rept. 113-481 , accompanying the House version of the FY2015 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, the House Appropriations Committee wrote, "In order to provide the Department and the Committees increased visibility, comparability, and information on which to base resource allocation decisions, particularly in the current fiscal climate, the Committee believes DHS would benefit from the implementation of a common appropriation structure across the Department." It went on to direct the DHS Office of the Chief Financial Officer "to work with the components, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Committee to develop a common appropriation structure for the President's fiscal year 2017 budget request." In an interim report in 2015, DHS noted that operating with "over 70 different appropriations and over 100 Programs, Projects, and Activities ... has contributed to a lack of transparency, inhibited comparisons between programs, and complicated spending decisions and other managerial decision-making." Section 563 of Division F of P.L. 114-113 (the FY2016 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act) provided authority for DHS to submit its FY2017 appropriations request under the new common appropriations structure (or CAS), and implement it in FY2017. Under the act, the new structure was to have four categories of appropriations: Operations and Support; Procurement, Construction and Improvement; Research and Development; and Federal Assistance. Most of the FY2017 DHS appropriations request categorized its appropriations in this fashion. The exception was the Coast Guard, which was in the process of migrating its financial information to a new system. The Senate Appropriations Committee did not use the new structure, instead drafting its annual DHS appropriations bill and report using the same structure as was used in FY2016. In explaining its actions, the committee wrote the following: As proposed, the new structure would reduce controls and congressional oversight to a degree that is unacceptable to this Committee. It is disappointing that the Department failed to address the Committee's concerns before transmitting the budget request in this structure. At the same time, the Committee continues to believe that the goal of following funds from planning through execution is critical to departmental oversight of the components as well as establishing a capability to make tradeoffs in resource allocation and budget development decisions. As such, the Committee is willing to undertake the effort necessary, working with the Department and the House Committee on Appropriations, to transition from the current structure to a more common appropriations structure, specifically in common accounts, consistent with the guidance provided in fiscal year 2016. Under the account level, a structure closer to the current PPAs would maintain controls and transparency regarding congressional priorities and the offices and officials responsible for execution of funds. The House Appropriations Committee used the new structure, and noted the following in its report: Pursuant to P.L. 114-113 , the fiscal year 2017 budget was presented in a new structure that included four common appropriations accounts for every DHS component. Establishing and implementing this structure required significant time and effort by the entire financial management staff of DHS and its components, for which they are to be commended. As the use of this new structure matures and becomes more disciplined, the Committee believes the agency's leadership, as well as congressional stakeholders, will be better positioned to: 1) conduct more effective oversight of DHS components; 2) better track the life cycle costs of DHS acquisition programs; and, 3) recommend more informed trade-offs among programs when faced with limited resources. No authoritative crosswalk between the House Appropriations Committee proposal in the CAS structure and Senate Appropriations Committee proposal in the legacy structure is publicly available. Section 130 of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 114-223 ) included specific authority for DHS to obligate resources provided under the continuing resolution in a revised structure, reflected in a table provided to the appropriations committees by the DHS CFO prior to the end of the fiscal year. The explanatory statement for the Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, included a "detail table," outlining the new structure of DHS appropriations, as well as Programs, Projects, and Activities (PPAs)—the next level of funding detail below the appropriation level. The Administration requested FY2018 funding for DHS in essentially the same structure. If historical trends continue, it is likely that within this general structure, small changes at the PPA level will continue to occur from year to year. A visual representation of this new structure follows in Figure 1 , which illuminates the proportion of these funding categories for each component, as well as the department as a whole. On the left are the five appropriations categories of the revised CAS with a black bar representing the total FY2017 funding levels enacted for DHS for each. A sixth catch-all category is included for budget authority associated with the legislation that does not fit the CAS categories, and a seventh category is included for appropriations for the U.S. Coast Guard, which has not transitioned its accounting system to the CAS format. Colored lines flow to the DHS components listed on the right, showing the amount of funding provided through each category to each component. Appropriations measures for DHS typically have been organized into five titles. The first four are thematic groupings of components, while the fifth provides general direction to the department, and sometimes includes provisions providing additional budget authority. The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 not only introduced a restructuring of appropriations, it also provided direction to the department and its components differently than in previous years. In previous years, the legislative language of many appropriations included directions to components or specific conditions on how the budget priority it provided could be used. Similarly, general provisions provided directions or conditions to one or more components. In the FY2017 act, a number of these provisions within appropriations and component-specific general provisions were grouped at the ends of the titles where their targeted components are funded, and identified as "administrative provisions." Other general provisions, including those affecting multiple components, restrictions on uses of funds in the act, and rescissions of previously appropriated funds, remain in Title V. As noted above, for FY2017 a sixth title provided additional appropriations for several components, in response to evolving situations. It also addressed a March 16, 2017, amendment of the FY2017 budget request by the Trump Administration, seeking additional budget authority for various appropriations. The following sections present textual and tabular comparisons of FY2016 enacted and FY2017 requested and enacted appropriations for the department. The structure of the appropriations and programs, projects, and activities (PPAs) reflects the organization outlined in the explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017. As the House and Senate appropriations committees did not release the recommendations for funding included in S. 3001 or H.R. 5634 realigned to this structure, authoritative comparisons below the component level of those bills is not possible. The tables summarize the appropriations provided for each component, subtotaling the resources provided through the appropriations legislation and recommended in the accompanying explanatory statement. The "FY2017 Request" column reflects the FY2017 budget request by the Obama Administration for annual appropriations, and the Trump Administration's requests for supplemental FY2017 funding from its letters of March 16, 2017, and September 1, 2017. Where supplemental appropriations were requested or provided for a given component, those are displayed after discussion of annual appropriations, and separate totals are provided for each. Following the methodology used by the appropriations committees, totals of "appropriations" do not include resources provided by transfer or under adjustments to discretionary spending limits (i.e., for overseas contingency operations for the Coast Guard or the cost of major disasters under the Stafford Act for the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Those amounts are included in the budget authority totals. A subtotal for each component of total estimated resources that would be available under the legislation and from other sources (such as fees, mandatory spending, and trust funds) for the given fiscal year is also provided. At the bottom of each table, totals indicate the total for the title on its own, funding through general provisions and supplemental appropriations (when such were requested or provided), the total for the title's components in the entire bill, and the projected total FY2017 funding for the title's components from all sources (such as fees not governed by the bill, trust funds, etc.). Departmental Management and Operations, the smallest of the first four titles, contains appropriations for the departmental management accounts, Analysis and Operations (A&O), and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). For FY2016, these components received almost $1.50 billion in net discretionary budget authority through the appropriations process. The Obama Administration requested $1.46 billion in FY2017 net discretionary budget authority for components included in this title. The appropriations request was $37 million (2.5%) less than was provided for FY2016. The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 provided the components included in this title $1.25 billion in net discretionary budget authority. This was $209 million (14.3%) less than requested by the Obama Administration and $246 million (16.5%) less than was provided in FY2016. Table 1 shows these comparisons in greater detail. As the management directorate and Office of the Inspector General are funded in part with resources from outside Title I, a separate line is included for those components showing a total for exclusively what is provided within Title I, above the line providing the total annual appropriation. Security, Enforcement, and Investigations, comprising roughly three-quarters of the funding appropriated for the department, contains appropriations for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard (USCG), and the U.S. Secret Service (USSS). In FY2016, these components received $33.22 billion in net discretionary budget authority through the appropriations process. The Obama Administration requested $32.26 billion in FY2017 net discretionary budget authority for components included in this title, as part of a total budget for these components of $40.04 billion for FY2017. The appropriations request was $957 million (2.9%) less than was provided for FY2016. The first five titles of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 provided the components included in this title $33.50 billion in net discretionary budget authority. This was $1.24 billion (3.8%) more than requested by the Obama Administration and $280 million (0.8%) more than was provided in FY2016. The components included in this title received $1.14 billion in additional net discretionary budget authority in Title VI of the act. This was $1.76 billion (60.7%) less than requested by the Trump Administration. Table 2 shows these comparisons in greater detail. Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, the second largest of the first four titles, contains appropriations for the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), the Office of Health Affairs (OHA), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In FY2016, these components received $6.38 billion in net discretionary budget authority and $6.71 billion in specially designated funding for disaster relief through the appropriations process. The Obama Administration requested $5.71 billion in FY2017 net discretionary budget authority for components included in this title, and $6.71 billion in specially designated funding for disaster relief as part of a total budget for these components of $19.82 billion for FY2017. The appropriations request was $718 million (11.2%) less than was provided for FY2016 in net discretionary budget authority. The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 provided the components included in this title $6.67 billion in net discretionary budget authority. This was $957 million (16.8%) more than requested, and $239 million (4.2%) more than was provided in FY2016. The act also included the requested disaster relief funding. In addition, the Trump Administration requested $7.4 billion in supplemental appropriations for FEMA for FY2017, which was enacted as a part of P.L. 115-56 . Table 3 shows these comparisons in greater detail. As some annually appropriated resources are provided for FEMA from outside Title III, a separate line is included showing a total for exclusively what is provided within Title III, above the line providing the total annual appropriation. Title IV, Research and Development, Training, and Services, the second smallest of the first four titles, contains appropriations for the 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 (DNDO). In FY2016, these components received $1.50 billion in net discretionary budget authority. The Obama Administration requested $1.63 billion in FY2017 net discretionary budget authority for components included in this title, as part of a total budget for these components of $5.52 billion for FY2017. The appropriations request was $134 million (8.9%) more than was provided for FY2016. The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 provided the components included in this title $1.50 billion in net discretionary budget authority. This was $137 million (8.4%) less than requested, and $3 million (0.2%) less than was provided in FY2016. Table 4 shows these comparisons in greater detail. As noted above, the fifth title of the act contains general provisions, the impact of which may reach across the entire department, impact multiple components, or focus on a single activity. Rescissions of prior-year appropriations—cancellations of budget authority that reduce the net funding level in the bill—are found here. For FY2016, Division F of P.L. 114-113 included $1.51 billion in rescissions. For FY2017, the Administration proposed rescinding $420 million in prior-year funding. Senate Appropriations Committee-reported S. 3001 included $1.23 billion in rescissions, while House Appropriations Committee-reported H.R. 5634 included $1.20 billion. Division F of P.L. 115-31 included $1.48 billion in rescissions. Most of the DHS budget is outside of the defense budget function (050). As a result, most of the department competes with the rest of the federal nondefense budget for nondefense discretionary spending allocations under the budget controls imposed by the Budget Control Act. However, more than $2.0 billion of the FY2017 budget authority enacted for the department is classified as defense discretionary spending—roughly $1.5 billion of which is for the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). In noting the minority party's concern over the level of funding in the House version of the bill to support government-wide cybersecurity funding, House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Nita Lowey and Homeland Security Subcommittee Ranking Member Lucille Roybal-Allard wrote in their additional views that the subcommittee's limited defense allocation resulted in underfunding of such activities, and that "to ensure that upgrades to federal cyber networks are deployed on time," the subcommittee's allocation of defense discretionary spending would need to be increased so that additional funding could be provided in the final enacted annual appropriations vehicle. The Obama Administration proposed a 1.6% pay increase for all civilian federal employees and members of the military in its FY2017 budget request. Almost all DHS employees are considered civilians, with the significant exception of Coast Guard military personnel. Executive Order 13756 issued by President Barack Obama on December 27, 2016, provided a pay adjustment of 2.1% for civilian federal employees, allocated as 1.0% base pay and an average 1.1% locality pay. The pay increase became effective on January 8, 2017. Section 601 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 also provided a 2.1% pay increase, which covers Coast Guard military personnel. The FY2016 Homeland Security Appropriations Act included a new general provision that had been carried in both House- and Senate-reported bills. The provision temporarily prohibited the obligation of appropriated funds for any structural pay reform that affects more than 100 full-time positions or costs more than $5 million in a single year. This prohibition would last until the end of the 30-day period that begins when the Secretary notifies Congress about (1) the number of FTE positions affected by the change, (2) funding required for the change for the current year and through the Future Years Homeland Security Program, (3) the justification for the change, and (4) an analysis of the compensation alternatives to the change that the department considered. This provision was repeated in the House and Senate committee-reported bills for FY2017 and in P.L. 115-31 . Stating that hiring remains the department's "most daunting management challenge," resulting in "a vicious cycle of bloated and unrealistic budget requests, unfilled mission needs, poor morale, and higher attrition," the Senate report expressed the committee's belief that hiring process steps need to be regularly monitored to ensure transparency and the accountability of DHS officials. The Senate committee noted Customs and Border Protection's approach as a model for streamlining the hiring process and directed DHS to continue developing metrics on hiring, attrition, and the overall process that are consistent and repeatable. The report directed DHS to provide a briefing on the strategy to reduce hiring times, provide quarterly metrics by component, and progress toward eventual monthly reporting of metrics within 60 days after the act's enactment. The House committee report directed the Office of the Under Secretary for Management (USM) to continue to provide updates to the committee on a corrective action plan on hiring and hiring metrics. Reiterating the Senate committee's concerns, the report stated that "most components are still unable to meet their hiring goals, particularly when faced with continued high attrition levels." According to the report, the lengthy hiring process continues to prevent DHS from signing the most capable applicants and discourages potential recruits from applying. The committee directed the USM to brief the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, within 90 days after the act's enactment, on progress in taking the following actions and any others needed to reform the hiring process: Conduct any necessary polygraph examinations as early as possible in the personnel security process in order to avoid unnecessary background investigation, medical clearance, and other hiring-related expenses; Reevaluate current polygraph disqualifiers; Maximize the use of existing background investigations for applicants who are current federal employees or members of the U.S. Military unless specific fitness factors precluded the acceptance of a previous suitability/fitness determination; Reevaluate fitness factors to improve consistency across the Department, as appropriate, and better promote current reciprocity in acceptance of existing security clearances. The explanatory statement that accompanied P.L. 115-31 reiterated the instructions included in the Senate and House committee reports by directing DHS "to continue working with every component to develop metrics on hiring, attrition, the processes used to bring staff on board, and a hiring corrective action plan." The department is to brief the committees within 90 days after the act's enactment on the "strategy to decrease the number of days it takes to hire new employees." Among the information to be provided in the briefing are "quarterly hiring metrics by component," "progress toward monthly metrics reporting," and "progress made to establish reciprocity with other agencies on polygraph examinations and security clearances." CBP is to "continue monthly reporting of hiring gains and attrition losses." Stating that skills in cost analysis, modeling, and statistics are "in small supply" within the DHS workforce, the House committee report advised the department that it should consider conducting an analysis of skills and capabilities across the department to determine whether adequate resources are dedicated to its budget and acquisition and management functions. The report also noted that DHS must "recognize that the private sector is a critical partner in filling capability gaps." The Senate committee report continued to require DHS to provide monthly data, by component, on the use of paid administrative leave that extends beyond a one-month period. To better understand the assignment of employees to details in other departments, agencies, and entities, for periods longer than three years, the Senate committee directed the department to provide data on such long-term assignments, by home office or component, the receiving office or component, employee grade levels, and underlying authority. The information must also include data on details which are reimbursable and be submitted within 120 days after the act's enactment date. P.L. 115-31 and the explanatory statement that accompanied it did not address this matter, and therefore, the direction stands. The Senate committee report directed DHS, including components, to include a statement within text, audio, or video advertisements (including Internet advertisements) that such advertisements are printed, published, or produced and disseminated at taxpayer expense. An advertisement would be exempt from this requirement if it would adversely impact safety or security or impede an agency from carrying out its statutory authority. P.L. 115-31 and the explanatory statement that accompanied it did not address this matter, and therefore, the direction stands. Several DHS components have specific limitations placed on their funding for "reception and representation expenses." These limits range from $2,000 for the Office of the Under Secretary for Management in Senate-reported S. 3001 to $34,425 for Customs and Border Protection in both Senate and House committee-reported bills. Thirteen such limitations, totaling $169,655, appear in Senate committee-reported S. 3001 and 12 such limitations, totaling $154,655, appear in House committee-reported H.R. 5634 . The House committee report indicated that this $15,000 reduction was made in the amount allowed for reception and representation expenses for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management "because of DHS's continued failure to fill the position of Assistant Secretary for Policy despite repeated congressional directives, and because the budget request assumed the enactment of new TSA fees totaling $880,000,000 that will almost certainly be unavailable as offsetting collections." The Senate Appropriations Committee report continued to require quarterly reports on obligations for all reception and representation expenses and stated that the funds should not be used "to purchase unnecessary collectibles or memorabilia." In the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017, 13 such limitations appear, totaling $164,655. The explanatory statement restates the House position thusly: A decrease of $5,000 is assessed to the Secretary's ORR funds due to the assumption of $880,000,000 in unauthorized fee revenue in the fiscal year 2017 budget request that artificially reduced the amount of net discretionary appropriations required to fully fund the Transportation Security Administration. DHS should be prepared for additional decrements to ORR funds and other headquarters activities in the future should future requests include similar proposals. For additional perspectives on FY2017 DHS appropriations, see the following: CRS Report R44604, Trends in the Timing and Size of DHS Appropriations: In Brief ; CRS Report R44611, Comparing DHS Component Funding, FY2017: Fact Sheet ; CRS Report R44052, DHS Budget v. DHS Appropriations: Fact Sheet ; CRS Report R44661, DHS Appropriations FY2017: Departmental Management and Operations ; CRS Report R44666, DHS Appropriations FY2017: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations ; CRS Report R44660, DHS Appropriations FY2017: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ; and CRS Report R44658, DHS Appropriations FY2017: Research and Development, Training, and Services . Readers also may wish to consult CRS's experts directly. The following table lists names and contact information for the CRS analysts and specialists who contribute to CRS DHS appropriations reports. 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 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 Act prohibits federal agencies from obligating more funds than the budget authority enacted by Congress. Budget authority also may 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, multiyear, or no-year basis. One-year budget authority is available for obligation only during a specific fiscal year; any unobligated funds at the end of that year are no longer available for spending. Multiyear budget authority specifies a range of time during which funds may be obligated for spending, and 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. Because multiyear 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 funded 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 1990 defines discretionary appropriations as budget authority provided in annual appropriations 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 appropriations acts and is typically not appropriated each year. Some mandatory entitlement programs, however, must be appropriated each year and are included in appropriations acts. Within DHS, Coast Guard retirement pay is an example of appropriated mandatory spending. Offsetting Collections Offsetting funds are collected by the federal government, either from government accounts or the public, as part of a business-type transaction such as collection of a fee. These funds are not considered federal 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, and others are funded by annual appropriations. Secret Service retirement pay is a permanent appropriation and, as such, is not annually appropriated. In contrast, 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 totals 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. The 302(b) allocations may be adjusted during the year by the respective Appropriations Committee issuing a report delineating the revised suballocations as the various appropriations bills progress toward final enactment. No subcommittee allocations are developed for conference reports or enacted appropriations bills. Table A-1 shows comparable figures for the 302(b) allocation for FY2016, based on the adjusted net discretionary budget authority included in Division F of P.L. 114-113 , the Obama Administration's request for FY2017, and the House and Senate subcommittee allocations for the Homeland Security appropriations bills for FY2017. The Budget Control Act, Discretionary Spending Caps, and Adjustments The FY2012 appropriations bills were the first appropriations bills governed by the Budget Control Act, which established discretionary security and non-security spending caps for FY2012 and FY2013. The bill also established overall caps that govern the actions of appropriations committees in both chambers. Subsequent legislation, including the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, amended those caps. Most of the budget for DHS is considered nondefense spending. In addition, the Budget Control Act 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 control of health care fraud and abuse. Three of the four justifications outlined in the Budget Control Act 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 Budget Control Act, 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 rolling average from the previous fiscal year. The disaster relief allowable adjustment for FY2017 was $8.129 billion, and was used to provide $6.713 billion for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund and $1.416 billion for the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) Community Development Fund. With the disaster relief allowable adjustment exhausted for the fiscal year, the emergency designation was exercised in P.L. 115-56 to provide $7.4 billion for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, $450 million for Small Business Administration disaster loans, and $7.4 billion to HUD's Community Development Fund in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. The adjustment for overseas contingency operations was exercised in P.L. 115-31 , Division F, to provide $163 million to the U.S. Coast Guard. 
summary: This report discusses the FY2017 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Its primary focus is on funding approved by Congress through the appropriations process. It includes an Appendix with definitions of key budget terms used throughout the suite of Congressional Research Service reports on homeland security appropriations. It also directs the reader to other reports providing context for and additional details regarding specific component appropriations and issues engaged through the FY2016 appropriations process. The Obama Administration requested $40.62 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for DHS for FY2017. The request amounted to a $332 million, or 0.8%, decrease from the $40.96 billion enacted for FY2016 through the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113, Division F). On May 26, 2016, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out S. 3001, accompanied by S.Rept. 114-264. S. 3001 included $41.2 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for FY2017. This was $578 million (1.4%) above the level requested by the Obama Administration, but $246 million (0.6%) above the enacted level for FY2016. On June 22, the House Committee on Appropriations reported out H.R. 5634, accompanied by H.Rept. 114-668. H.R. 5634 included $41.04 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for FY2017. This was $426 million (1.0%) above the level requested by the Administration, and $95 million (0.2%) above the enacted level for FY2016. Direct comparisons of certain aspects of the funding provided by the committee legislation have been complicated by a congressionally mandated restructuring of the department's appropriations. On September 29, 2016, President Obama signed P.L. 114-223 into law, which contained a continuing resolution that funded the government at the same rate of operations as FY2016, minus 0.496%, through December 9, 2016. A second continuing resolution was signed into law on December 10, 2016 (P.L. 114-254), funding the government at the same rate of operations as FY2016, minus 0.1901%, through April 28, 2017. This report discusses anomalies in the continuing resolution that specifically addressed DHS. On March 16, 2017, the Trump Administration submitted an amendment to the FY2017 budget request, which included a request for $3 billion in additional funding for DHS. Congress chose to address this request in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (signed into law as P.L. 115-31 on May 5, 2017), which would include both annual and supplemental appropriations for DHS as Division F. The bill included $41.3 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority in annual appropriations, as well as $6.7 billion in funding for the costs of major disasters under the Stafford Act and $163 million in funding for overseas contingency operations. Title VI included over $1.1 billion in supplemental appropriations for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the U.S. Secret Service. On September 1, 2017, the Trump Administration requested $7.85 billion in supplemental funding for FY2017, including $7.4 billion for the DRF. On September 6, the House passed the relief package requested by the Administration as an amendment to H.R. 601. On September 7, the Senate passed an amended version as part of a broader relief package. The House passed the Senate amended version of the bill on September 8, which was signed into law as P.L. 115-56.