Department of Homeland Security Appropriations: FY2016
Released: 2016-01-14T00:00:00

Summary:
This report discusses the FY2016 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and provides an overview of the Administration's FY2016 request. The report makes note of many budgetary resources provided to DHS, but its primary focus is on funding approved by Congress through the appropriations process. It also 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 Administration requested $41.4 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for DHS for FY2016, as part of an overall budget that the Office of Management and Budget estimates to be $64.8 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 $1.7 billion, or 4.4%, increase from the $39.7 billion enacted for FY2015 through the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 114-4).
The Administration also requested an additional $6.7 billion not reflected above for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in disaster relief funding, as defined by the Budget Control Act (BCA, P.L. 112-25), and a $160 million transfer from the Navy to the Coast Guard for overseas contingency operations (OCO) funding. Neither the disaster relief funding nor the OCO funding is considered when calculating the total amount of adjusted net discretionary budget authority, as neither count against the discretionary spending limit.
On June 18, 2015, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out S. 1619, accompanied by S.Rept. 114-68. S. 1619 included $40.2 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for FY2016. This was $1.2 billion (2.9%) below the level requested by the Administration, but over $0.5 billion (1.4%) above the enacted level for FY2015. 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 July 14, 2015, the House Committee on Appropriations reported out H.R. 3128, accompanied by H.Rept. 114-215. H.R. 3128 included $39.3 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for FY2016. This was almost $2.1 billion (5.0%) below the level requested by the Administration, and $337 million (0.8%) below the FY2015 enacted level. While the House-reported bill included the Administration-requested level for disaster relief funding, overseas contingency operations funding for the Coast Guard covered by BCA adjustments was provided in the House-passed Department of Defense appropriations act as a transfer from the Navy—therefore it is not included in the total funding in this bill for DHS.
On December 18, 2015, the President signed into law P.L. 114-113, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Division F of which was the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2016. The act included almost $41.0 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for DHS for FY2016, almost $1.3 billion more than was provided for FY2015, and $443 million less than was requested. The enacted bill included the requested overseas contingency operations and disaster relief funding as well.
This report will be updated in the event a supplemental appropriation is provided for DHS for FY2016.

subsections: section_title: Introduction
paragraphs: This report describes and analyzes annual appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for FY2016. It compares the enacted FY2015 appropriations for DHS, the Administration's FY2016 budget request, the appropriations proposed by Congress in response, and those enacted thus far. 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 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 , by [author name scrubbed], and the Government Accountability Office's A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process .
subsections: section_title: Note on Data and Citations
paragraphs: Except in summary discussions and when discussing total amounts for the bill as a whole, all amounts contained in the suite of CRS reports on homeland security appropriations represent budget authority and are rounded to the nearest million. However, for precision in percentages and totals, all calculations were performed using unrounded data.
Data used in this report for FY2015 amounts are derived from the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2015 P.L. 114-4 ) and the explanatory statement that accompanied H.R. 240 as printed in the Congressional Record of January 13, 2015, pages H275-H322. Contextual information on the FY2016 request is generally from the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2016 , the FY2016 DHS congressional budget justifications, and the FY2016 DHS Budget in Brief . However, most data used in CRS analyses in reports on DHS appropriations is drawn from congressional documentation to ensure consistent scoring whenever possible. Data on the FY2016 budget request and Senate-reported recommended funding levels are from S. 1619 and S.Rept. 114-68 . Information on the House-reported recommended funding levels is from H.R. 3128 and H.Rept. 114-215 . Data for FY2016 are derived from P.L. 114-113 , the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2016—Division F of which is the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2016—and the accompanying explanatory statement published in Books II and III of the Congressional Record for December 17, 2015.
section_title: Summary of DHS Appropriations
paragraphs: 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 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.
Appropriations measures for DHS typically have been organized into five titles. The first four are thematic groupings of components: 
Title I, Departmental Management and Operations, the smallest of the first four titles, contains appropriations for the Office of the 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). The Administration requested $1,396 million in FY2016 net discretionary budget authority for components included in this title. The appropriations request was $255 million (22.3%) more than was provided for FY2015. Senate-reported S. 1619 envisioned the components included in this title receiving $1,346 million in net discretionary budget authority. This would have been $50 million (3.6%) less than requested, but $205 million (18.0%) more than was provided in FY2015. House-reported H.R. 3128 envisioned the components included in this title receiving $1,217 million in net discretionary budget authority, a $179 million (12.8%) decrease from the request and $76 million (6.7%) above FY2015. Division F of P.L. 114-113 included $1,546 million in net discretionary budget authority for the components in this title, a $150 million (10.7%) increase from the request and $405 million (35.5%) above FY2015. Title II, Security, Enforcement, and Investigations, comprising roughly three-quarters of the funding appropriated for the department, 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. The Administration requested $32,481 million in FY2016 net discretionary budget authority for components included in this title, as part of a total budget for these components of $39,431 million for FY2016. The appropriations request was $807 million (2.5%) more than was provided for FY2015. Senate-reported S. 1619 envisioned the components included in this title receiving $32,484 million in net discretionary budget authority. This would have been $3 million (0.01%) more than requested, and $810 million (2.6%) more than was provided in FY2015. House-reported H.R. 3128 envisioned the components included in this title receiving $32,182 million in net discretionary budget authority. This would have been $299 million (0.9%) less than requested, and $508 million (1.6%) more than was provided in FY2015. Division F of P.L. 114-113 included $33,062 million in net discretionary budget authority for the components in this title, a $581 million (1.8%) increase from the request and $1,388 million (4.4%) above FY2015.
Title III, 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). The Administration requested $6,222 million in FY2016 net discretionary budget authority for components included in this title, as part of a total budget for these components of $19,020 million for FY2016. The appropriations request was $267 million (4.5%) more than was provided for FY2015. Senate-reported S. 1619 envisioned the components included in this title receiving $6,291 million in net discretionary budget authority. This would have been $69 million (1.1%) more than requested, and $336 million (5.6%) more than was provided in FY2015. House-reported H.R. 3128 envisioned the components included in this title receiving $6,122 million in net discretionary budget authority. This would have been $100 million (1.6%) less than requested, and $167 million (2.8%) more than was provided in FY2015. Division F of P.L. 114-113 included $6,353 in net discretionary budget authority for the components in this title, a $131 million (2.1%) increase from the request and $398 million (6.7%) above FY2015.
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). The Administration requested $1,554 million in FY2016 net discretionary budget authority for components included in this title, as part of a total budget for these components of $5,427 million for FY2016. The appropriations request was $251 million (13.9%) less than was provided for FY2015. Senate-reported S. 1619 envisioned the components included in this title receiving $1,451 million in net discretionary budget authority. This would have been $103 million (6.6%) less than requested, and $344 million (19.2%) less than was provided in FY2015. House-reported H.R. 3128 envisioned the components included in this title receiving $1,503 million in net discretionary budget authority. This would have been $51 million (3.3%) less than requested, and $302 million (16.3%) less than was provided in FY2015. Division F of P.L. 114-113 included $1,499 in net discretionary budget authority for the components in this title, a $55 million (2.2%) decrease from the request and $296 million (16.5%) below FY2015.
A fifth title contains general provisions, the impact of which may reach across the entire department, impact multiple components, or focus on a single activity. Rescissions of prior-year appropriations—cancellations of budget authority that reduce the net funding level in the bill—are found here. The Administration proposed rescinding $255 million in prior-year appropriations as part of its FY2016 budget request. Senate-reported S. 1619 included $1,359 million in rescissions, while House-reported H.R. 3128 included $1,692 million. Division F of P.L. 114-113 included $1,506 million in rescissions.
section_title: Homeland Security Appropriations
paragraphs: The following tables present comparisons of FY2015 enacted and FY2016 requested, House and Senate appropriations committee-reported, and enacted appropriations for the department by thematic grouping. References to titles refer to the organization of the funding in the FY2016 appropriations cycle, not the Administration's budget request.
The tables summarize the appropriations provided for each component, subtotaling the resources provided through the appropriations legislation. Indented text and bracketed numbers indicate resources either provided through provisions separate from the base appropriations for the component, or that do not count as net discretionary budget authority (see below). 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, three totals indicate the total for the title on its own, the total for title's components in the entire bill, and the projected total FY2016 funding for the title's components from all sources (such as fees not governed by the bill, trust funds, etc.).
subsections: section_title: Departmental Management and Operations
section_title: Security, Enforcement, and Investigations
section_title: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
section_title: Research and Development, Training, and Services
section_title: Crosscutting Issues for the Department of Homeland Security12
subsections: section_title: Discretionary Spending Limits
paragraphs: Most of the DHS budget is outside of the defense budget function (050). As a result, the department competes with the rest of the federal nondefense budget for discretionary spending allocations under the budget controls imposed by the Budget Control Act. The funding to be allocated among the appropriations subcommittees is not anticipated to rise at the same rate as envisioned in the Administration's budget request. House Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman John Carter described the tension this creates at a subcommittee hearing on the request:
To begin, the $1.5 billion increase [proposed for DHS] absorbs almost 75% of non-defense, discretionary spending available under the limits of the Budget Control Act of 2013. Mr. Secretary … the Congress intends to live within the confines of the law even if the Administration does not. As a result, I doubt DHS's budget will rise as steeply as the request proposes.
section_title: Federal Pay Issues
subsections: section_title: Pay Increase
paragraphs: The Administration proposed a 1.3% pay increase for all civilian federal employees and members of the military in its FY2016 budget request. Almost all DHS employees are considered civilians, with the significant exception of Coast Guard military personnel. 
The Senate Appropriations Committee report stated that "the committee assumes the COLA for civilian employees across the Department will be absorbed within amounts appropriated in this act." Likewise, the House Appropriations committee report indicated that funding was not provided for the civilian pay increase, but that if the Administration provides a civilian pay increase that it would "be absorbed within other amounts appropriated for FY2016." The House Appropriations Committee report indicated that the military pay raise was fully funded.
The explanatory statement accompanying the omnibus did not provide further guidance or contradict any of the above directions. Executive Order 13715 issued by President Barack Obama on December 18, 2015, authorized a 1.3% pay adjustment for almost all federal civilian employees effective in January 2016. 
section_title: Structural Pay Reform Restriction
paragraphs: The FY2016 Homeland Security Appropriations Act included a general provision that had been carried in both House- and Senate-reported bills that 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 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. 
section_title: Execution of Personnel Funding
subsections: section_title: Hiring Process Delays
paragraphs: The Senate Appropriations Committee report stated that although Congress has provided for the increased personnel that the department has consistently requested, "DHS has failed to bring those funded positions on board for a myriad of reasons including delays in obtaining suitability determinations and a backlog in polygraphs." According to the committee, hiring difficulties are exacerbated by qualified applicants who have withdrawn from the process or accepted other positions by the time an offer of employment is made. Hiring times have increased department-wide (from 146 days in 2013 to 163 days in 2014) and at CBP (from 278 days in 2013 to 308 days in 2014). While noting that the U.S. Secret Service improved its hiring times (from 327 days in 2013 to 295 days in 2014), the committee report stated that the hiring process "still takes an inordinately long time." 
The Senate report directed the department to report on its strategy to reduce hiring times and time to hire statistics within 60 days after the act's enactment. In addition, DHS and its major components were directed to develop metrics to track the status of hiring actions, including measuring the time spent on actions within each step of the process. The USM was directed to provide a briefing on the development of the metrics within 90 days after the act's enactment.
According to the House Appropriations Committee report, "Chronic and systemic personnel shortfalls and lengthy hiring times jeopardize DHS's homeland security mission" and attrition rates are outpacing hiring in several components of the department. The report stated that DHS expects to end FY2015 "more than 6,000 FTEs below the number for which funds were provided" and would have to hire more than 7,000 FTEs between July 2015 and September 30, 2015, to reach the FTE level requested for FY2016. Given these circumstances, the report states that, for FY2016, "the Committee is unconvinced DHS will be able to spend the funds requested in the budget" and therefore, "reduce[d] funding in various agencies to reflect a more realistic and achievable number of FTEs." 
Going forward, the House report mandated two actions. First, the USM was directed to prepare "a root cause analysis" of the attrition and hiring shortfalls, "develop a corrective action plan" that will include metrics to measure the outcomes of initiatives, and provide monthly updates, beginning on January 15, 2016, to the committee on the results of the initiatives. Second, the department was again directed to provide a report, on a strategy for reducing hiring times and provide data on those hiring times by component, by quarter, within 30 days after the act's enactment and thereafter, each quarter. The committee required that the report include additional content on hiring times and metrics. 
The explanatory statement accompanying the omnibus repeated the direction for DHS to produce a root cause analysis for the delays in hiring and a corrective action plan, and mandated that reporting on the corrective action plan and hiring metrics begin on January 15, 2016, and that monthly reports on the metrics continue until further notice.
Outside the appropriations process, in September 2015, the Office of Personnel Management granted DHS special "Schedule A" authority to expedite the hiring of up to 1,000 cybersecurity professionals until June 30, 2016, or new streamlined regulations are implemented. Schedule A allows for streamlined and tailored recruiting and expedited hiring in cases where it is not practicable to apply competitive service qualification standards and requirements.
section_title: Determining Personnel Requirements
paragraphs: The Senate Appropriations Committee report stated that the committee seeks "to understand how the Department proposes to balance real technology needs against manpower costs" and has requested "reports and briefings on the right balance of people, technology, and infrastructure" to support DHS operations. 
The House Appropriations Committee report asserts that "the lack of a rigorous and consistent methodology to determine" the department's personnel requirements and costs is a "strategic problem." To address this matter, the committee directed USM to require the OCFO "to conduct an analysis of force structure that identifies the operations in which DHS personnel are expected to perform, the effects they must achieve, the attributes the forces must possess, and what kind and size of force is needed to execute the operations successfully." The committee also directed that the OCFO provide quarterly briefings on the progress of the study and apply recommendations from its analysis to the FY2018 budget request, with personnel funding shortfalls noted.
The explanatory statement accompanying the consolidated appropriations act directed the CFO to "conduct a department-wide force structure analysis to inform component-level staffing and budget requirements not later than the fiscal year 2019 budget request." 
section_title: Reception and Representation Expenses
paragraphs: 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 House-reported H.R. 3128 to $34,425 for Customs and Border protection in both Senate and House-reported bills. Thirteen such limitations, totaling $177,505, appear in Senate-reported S. 1619 , and 14 such limitations, totaling $166,955, appear in House-reported H.R. 3128 . Aside from the specific direction provided in the Senate- and House-reported legislation, both committee reports provided additional direction. 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." The House committee report directed the department to review representation allowances for all DHS agencies to ensure the equitable alignment of funds with responsibilities, and submit any proposed changes with the FY2017 budget request. 
The Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2016, included thirteen specific allocations of official reception and representation expenses, totaling $169,655. No additional direction was provided in the explanatory statement.
section_title: For Further Information
paragraphs: For additional perspectives on FY2016 DHS appropriations, see the following:
CRS Report R44186, DHS Appropriations FY2016: Departmental Management and Operations ; CRS Report R44215, DHS Appropriations FY2016: Security, Enforcement and Investigations ; CRS Report R44182, DHS Appropriations FY2016: Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ; CRS Report R44183, DHS Appropriations FY2016: Research and Development, Training, and Services ; CRS Report R44048, Trends in the Timing and Size of DHS Appropriations: In Brief ; CRS Report R44051, Comparing DHS Appropriations by Component, FY2016: Fact Sheet ; and CRS Report R44052, DHS Budget v. DHS Appropriations: Fact Sheet .
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:
subsections: section_title: Appendix. Appropriations Terms and Concepts
paragraphs: 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 only available for obligation 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 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 FY2015, based on P.L. 114-4 , the President's request for FY2016, House and Senate subcommittee allocations for the Homeland Security appropriations bills for FY2016, and the allocation that would have been needed to accommodate the FY2016 enacted Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2016.
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 nonsecurity 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. For FY2015, the overall cap on discretionary spending is $1,014 billion. Separate limitations are made for defense and nondefense spending—roughly $521 billion and $492 billion, respectively. 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 potential adjustment for disaster relief from the previous fiscal year.
For FY2014, OMB determined the allowable adjustment for disaster relief was $12,143 million, of which only $5,717 million was exercised. In February 2015, OMB noted the FY2015 allowable adjustment for disaster assistance was $18,430 million: $11,913 million from the rolling average and $6,517 million in carryover from FY2014. FY2015 was the first year in which more than $1 billion of allowable adjustment for disaster relief carried over from the previous fiscal year. The disaster relief allowable adjustment for FY2016 was $14,125 million.