This report describes and analyzes annual appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for FY2019. It compares the enacted FY2018 appropriations for DHS, the Donald J. Trump Administration's FY2019 budget request, and the appropriations measures developed and considered by Congress in response to it. This report identifies additional informational resources, reports, and products on DHS appropriations that provide context for the discussion, and it provides a list of Congressional Research Service (CRS) policy experts with whom clients may consult 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. These 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 authorizing 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 (BCA; 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 James V. Saturno, and the Government Accountability Office's A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process . All amounts contained in the suite of CRS reports on homeland security appropriations represent budget authority. For precision in percentages and totals, all calculations in these reports used unrounded data, which are presented in each report's tables. However, amounts in narrative discussions are rounded to the nearest million (or 10 million, in the case of numbers larger than 1 billion), unless noted otherwise. Data used in this report for FY2018 amounts are derived from the explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 115-141 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017—Division F of which is the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2018. The explanatory statement also includes data on FY2018 supplemental appropriations for DHS enacted prior to the development of the consolidated appropriations act for FY2018. Data for the FY2019 requested levels and enacted levels are drawn from H.Rept. 116-9 , the explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 116-6 . Data on the Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation are drawn from S.Rept. 115-283 , and data for the House Appropriations Committee recommendation are drawn from H.Rept. 115-948 . Scoring methodology is consistent across this report, relying on data provided by the Appropriations Committees that has been developed with Congressional Budget Office (CBO) methodology. CRS does not attempt to compare this data with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) data because technical scoring differences do not allow precise comparisons. This section provides an overview of the process of enactment of appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for FY2019, from the Administration's initial request, through committee action in the House and Senate, continuing appropriations (and their lapse), and enactment of the consolidated appropriations bill that contained DHS annual appropriation. On February 12, 2018, the Trump Administration released its budget request for FY2019. The enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-123 ) three days before had established discretionary spending limits for FY2018 and FY2019, replacing the limits prescribed by the Budget Control Act of 2011 ( P.L. 112-25 ). The Administration chose to submit an addendum to their request in a letter accompanying the formal request documentation, which included additional requests for resources for DHS and several other departments and agencies. The Trump Administration requested $47.43 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for DHS for FY2019, as part of an overall budget that the Office of Management and Budget estimated to be $74.88 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 $0.29 billion (0.6%) decrease from the $47.72 billion in annual appropriations enacted for FY2018 through the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2018 ( P.L. 115-141 , Division F). The Trump 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 $6.65 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, $165 million in Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terror designated funding (OCO), to be transferred to the Coast Guard. On June 21, 2018, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported out S. 3109 , the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2019, accompanied by S.Rept. 115-283 . Committee-reported S. 3109 included $48.33 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for FY2019. This was $901 million (1.9%) above the level requested by the Administration, and $611 million (1.3%) above the enacted level for FY2018. The Senate committee-reported bill also included the Administration-requested levels for disaster relief funding, and $163 million in OCO-designated funding directly for the Coast Guard, as had been done in FY2018, rather than as a transfer, as had been requested by the Administration. This bill was never taken up for action on the Senate floor. On July 26, 2018, the House Appropriations Committee marked up H.R. 6776 , its version of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2019. H.Rept. 115-948 was filed September 12, 2018. Committee-reported H.R. 6776 included $51.44 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority. The House committee-reported bill included the Administration-requested levels for disaster relief funding, but unlike S. 3109 , did not include the OCO funding for the Coast Guard. This bill did not see action on the House floor. As some of the annual appropriations for FY2019 remained unfinished, a consolidated appropriations bill that included a continuing resolution was passed by Congress and signed into law on September 28, 2018, as P.L. 115-245 . The continuing resolution (Division C) continued funding for DHS at a rate of operations equal to that of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2018, with some exceptions. The continuing resolution was extended through December 21, 2018, at which point it expired, and annual appropriations for DHS lapsed, resulting in a partial shutdown of DHS for 35 days. Continuing appropriations were restored at the FY2018 rate of operations with the enactment of P.L. 116-4 on January 25, 2019. On February 14, 2019, the House took up H.J.Res. 31 , a consolidated appropriations bill that included eight annual appropriations bills. Division A, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2019, included $49.41 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority, $1.69 billion (3.5%) more than had been provided for FY2018, and $2.04 billion more than had been requested by the Administration in February 2018. In addition to that total, the bill included $12 billion designated for the costs of major disasters—$5.35 billion (80.4%) more than had been requested, and the requested $165 million in OCO funding appropriated for the Coast Guard operating budget, rather than a transfer from the Navy. The bill passed the House by a vote of 300-128, and the Senate that same day by a vote of 83-16. The President signed it into law the next day. 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, while the fifth provides general direction to the department, and sometimes includes provisions providing additional budget authority. Prior to the FY2017 act, the legislative language of many appropriations included directions to components or specific conditions on how the budget authority 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." This practice has continued in subsequent years. 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. At the direction of Congress, in 2014 DHS began to work on a new Common Appropriations Structure (CAS), which would standardize the format of DHS appropriations across components. 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." After several years of work and negotiations with Congress, DHS made its first budget request in the CAS for FY2017, and implemented it while operating under the continuing resolutions funding the department in October 2016. For FY2017 and FY2018, all DHS components requested appropriations under the CAS except for the Coast Guard, due to constraints of its financial management system. For FY2019, all the components' requests generally conformed to the CAS. A visual representation of the FY2019 requested funding in this new structure follows in Figure 1 . On the left, CAS appropriations categories are listed next to a black bar representing the total FY2018 funding levels requested for DHS for each category. A catch-all "other" category is included for budget authority associated with the legislation that does not fit the CAS categories. Colored lines flow to the DHS components listed on the right, showing how the amount of funding for each appropriations category is distributed across DHS components. Wider lines indicate greater funding levels, so it is possible to understand how components may be funded differently. For example, while Customs and Border Protection (CBP) gets most of its funding from Operations and Support appropriations, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives most of its discretionary funding from the Disaster Relief Fund appropriation. The following sections present textual and tabular comparisons among FY2018 enacted appropriations, FY2019 requested appropriations, the FY2019 appropriations bills developed by the appropriations committees, and the final enacted annual appropriation in Division A of the FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 116-6 ). The structure of the appropriations reflects the organization outlined in the detail table of the explanatory statement accompanying the act ( H.Rept. 116-9 ). The tables summarize enacted appropriations for FY2018, and those requested by the Administration, and proposed in appropriations committee-developed legislation under development for FY2019. Only the formal request for FY2019 annual appropriations is reflected in the "Request" column. The tables include data on enacted annual and supplemental appropriations. Instances where appropriations are provided for a title's components in other parts of the bill (such as in general provisions or by transfer) are shown separately. Supplemental appropriations provided with an emergency designation for a given component in FY2018 are displayed after the subtotal of annual appropriations. 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 emergency requirements, overseas contingency operations for the Coast Guard or the cost of major disasters under the Stafford Act for the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Amounts covered by adjustments are included with discretionary appropriations in a separate total for "discretionary funding." A subtotal for each component of total estimated budgetary 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 end of each component section. Totals at the bottom of each table indicate the total net discretionary appropriation for the title on its own, the total net discretionary funding from the annual appropriations bill and any supplemental appropriations (when such were provided), and the projected total estimated budgetary resources for each phase in the appropriations process shown in the table. Title I, Departmental Management and Operations, the smallest of the component-specific titles, contains appropriations for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, the Management Directorate, Analysis and Operations (A&O), and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). For FY2018, these components received $1.36 billion in net discretionary funding through the appropriations process, including $25 million in FY2018 supplemental appropriations. The Trump Administration requested $1.60 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for components included in this title. In addition, $24 million was requested as a transfer from the FY2019 appropriation for the Disaster Relief Fund to the OIG. Not including the transfer, the appropriations request was $241 million (17.7%) more than the amount provided for FY2018. Senate Appropriations Committee-reported S. 3109 included $1.47 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title. This was $137 million (8.6%) less than requested by the Trump Administration and $103 million (7.6%) more than the amount provided for FY2018. S. 3109 included $72 million in discretionary budget authority drawn from unobligated prior-year balances from the DRF, but did not include the proposed transfer of FY2019 DRF resources to the OIG. As a result, the gross budgetary resources provided to components funded in Title I was $89 million (5.5%) less than the request, and $176 million (12.9%) more than provided in FY2018. House Appropriations Committee-reported H.R. 6776 included $1.48 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title. This was $119 million (7.4%) less than requested by the Trump Administration and $122 million (8.9%) more than the amount provided for FY2018. H.R. 6776 , like the Senate committee-reported bill, did not include the proposed transfer of FY2019 DRF resources to the OIG. As a result, the gross budgetary resources provided to components funded in Title I were $143 million (8.8%) less than the request, and $122 million (8.9%) more than provided in FY2018. P.L. 116-6 included a total of $1.88 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title. This included $51 million in a general provision for financial systems modernization, controlled by the management directorate. The total was $513 million (37.7%) more than was provided in FY2018, and $248 million (15.2%) more than was requested by the Administration, if one included the Administration's proposed transfer of $24 million from the Disaster Relief Fund to the Office of the Inspector General. Table 1 shows these comparisons in greater detail. As resources were requested or provided for the Management Directorate and Office of the Inspector General in some cases from outside Title I, separate lines are included for each of those components showing a total for what is provided solely within Title I, then the individual items funded outside the title, followed by the total annual appropriation for the components. Title II, Security, Enforcement, and Investigations, 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). Title II funding represents the majority of DHS's budget, comprising roughly three-quarters of the funding appropriated annually for the department. For FY2018, these components received $39.52 billion in net discretionary funding, as part of $47.13 billion in projected total budget authority. This included $1.06 billion in supplemental appropriations. The Trump Administration formally requested $38.41 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for components included in this title, as part of a total budget request for these components of $47.08 billion for FY2019. The funding request was $45 million (0.1%) less than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside FY2018 supplemental appropriations. Again setting aside FY2018 supplemental appropriations, the total resources proposed for FY2019 was $1.01 billion (2.2%) more than projected for FY2018. The Administration reportedly sought additional funding in this title for construction of border barriers, above the formally requested level. In January 2019, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget sent a letter to congressional leaders officially seeking an additional $4.1 billion. Those amounts are not included in these comparative calculations or in the table below. Senate Appropriations Committee-reported S. 3109 included $38.68 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title. This was $271 million (0.7%) more than formally requested by the Trump Administration and $227 million (0.6%) more than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside FY2018 supplemental appropriations. The total budgetary resources projected under S. 3109 were $614 million (1.3%) less than the Administration's request (largely due to rejection of a proposed TSA fee increase), but $391 million (0.8%) more than projected for FY2018, again setting aside FY2018 supplemental appropriations. House Appropriations Committee-reported H.R. 6776 included $41.28 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title. This was $2.87 billion (7.5%) more than formally requested by the Trump Administration and $2.82 billion (7.3%) more than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside FY2018 supplemental appropriations. The total budgetary resources projected under H.R. 6776 were $2.08 billion (4.4%) more than formally requested by the Administration and $3.12 billion (6.8%) more than projected for FY2018, again setting aside FY2018 supplemental appropriations. H.R. 6776 would have provided $2.59 billion (6.7%) more than S. 3019 , largely due to the House Appropriations Committee recommending $3.35 billion more than its Senate counterpart for CBP's Border Security Assets and Infrastructure activity. P.L. 116-6 included $40.00 billion in net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title. The enacted annual appropriations were $1.59 billion (4.1%) more than requested, and $486 million (1.2%) more than the amount provided in FY2018. Setting aside FY2018 supplemental funding, FY2019 enacted net discretionary funding exceeded FY2018 levels by $1.55 billion (4.0%). The total budgetary resources projected for components funded in this title were $47.82 billion, $704 million (1.5%) more than was formally requested by the Administration, and $1.75 billion (3.8%) more than was provided in FY2018, setting aside the FY2018 supplemental funding. Table 2 shows these comparisons in greater detail. Title III, Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, contains appropriations for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Office of Health Affairs (OHA), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It is the second largest of the component-specific titles. For FY2018, these components received $7.22 billion in net discretionary appropriations and $7.37 billion in specially designated funding for disaster relief through the annual appropriations process. In addition to that annual funding, $58.23 billion was provided for FEMA in emergency supplemental appropriations in FY2018. Incorporating all these elements, the total net discretionary funding level for all Title III components was $72.61 billion for FY2018. The Trump Administration requested $6.19 billion in FY2019 net discretionary appropriations for components included in this title, and $6.65 billion in specially designated funding for disaster relief as part of a total net discretionary funding level for these components of $12.84 billion for FY2019. Setting aside the $58.23 billion in FY2018 supplemental appropriations, the appropriations request was $1.54 billion (10.7%) less than the amount provided for FY2018 in net discretionary funding. Senate Appropriations Committee-reported S. 3109 included $13.54 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title. This was $694 million (5.4%) more than requested by the Trump Administration and $847 million (5.9%) less than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding. The total budgetary resources projected would be $718 million (3.8%) more than the Administration's request, but $1.29 billion (6.2%) less than projected for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding. The Senate committee-reported bill included within these totals the requested disaster relief funding of $6.65 billion, and offset $228 million in its Federal Assistance appropriation from unobligated DRF balances. House Appropriations Committee-reported H.R. 6776 included $13.70 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title. This was $861 million (6.7%) more than requested by the Trump Administration and $681 million (4.7%) less than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding. The total budgetary resources projected would be $885 million (4.7%) more than the Administration's request, but $1.13 billion (5.4%) less than projected for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding. The House committee-reported bill included within these totals the requested disaster relief funding of $6.65 billion. P.L. 116-6 included $18.27 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title. The enacted discretionary funding level was $5.43 billion (42.3%) more than requested, and $3.89 billion (27.1%) more than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside the historically high level of supplemental appropriations. The total budgetary resources projected for FY2019 was $5.46 billion (29.0%) more than was requested, and $3.44 billion (16.5%) more than was projected for FY2018, setting aside FY2018 supplemental funding. Table 3 shows these comparisons in greater detail. As some annually appropriated resources were provided for FEMA from outside Title III in FY2018, a separate line is included for FEMA showing a total for what is provided solely within Title III, then the non-Title III appropriation, followed by the total annual appropriation for FEMA. Title IV, Research and Development, Training, and Services, the second smallest of the component-specific 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 FY2018, these components received $1.57 billion in net discretionary funding, as part of a projected total budget of $5.92 billion. This included $10 million in supplemental appropriations for FLETC. The Trump Administration requested $1.53 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for components included in this title, as part of a total budget for these components of $6.11 billion for FY2018. The funding request was $36 million (2.3%) less than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside supplemental appropriations, although the overall budget request was $201 million (3.3%) higher than the annual budget projected for FY2018 (again, setting aside supplemental funding). This is due to changes in anticipated fee collections for USCIS and reorganization of most of the Office of Health Affairs and DNDO into the new CWMD component reflected in the request. Senate Appropriations Committee-reported S. 3109 included $1.53 billion in net discretionary funding for components included in this title, as part of a projected total budget of $6.23 billion. This was $115 million (7.5%) more than requested, and $79 million (5.0%) less than the amount provided for FY2018, not including supplemental funding. The total budgetary resources projected under S. 3109 would have been $115 million (1.9%) more than the Administration's request, and $316 million (5.3%) more than projected for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding. House Appropriations Committee-reported H.R. 6776 included $1.64 billion in net discretionary funding for components included in this title, as part of a projected total budget of $6.21 billion. This was $97 million (6.3%) more than requested, and $60 million (3.9%) more than the amount provided for FY2018, not including supplemental funding. The total budgetary resources projected under H.R. 6776 would have been $97 million (1.6%) more than the Administration's request, and $297 million (5.0%) more than projected for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding. P.L. 116-6 included $1.62 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title. Enacted FY2019 appropriations were $199 million (3.3%) more than was requested by the Administration, and $163 million (10.4%) more than was provided in FY2018, setting aside FY2018 supplemental funding. Total budgetary resources projected for FY2019 are $199 million (3.3%) more than were requested by the Administration, and $400 million (6.8%) more than was projected for FY2018, setting aside FY2018 supplemental funding. Table 4 shows these comparisons in greater detail. As noted above, the fifth title of the FY2019 DHS appropriations act contains general provisions, the impact of which may reach across the entire department, affect 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 in this title. For FY2018, Division F of P.L. 115-141 included $489 million in rescissions. For FY2019, the Administration proposed rescinding $300 million in prior-year funding from the DRF. S. 3109 included $137 million in rescissions from other appropriations, but specifically directed the $300 million the Administration had proposed rescinding from the DRF to other activities within DHS. H.R. 6776 did not include any rescissions, although an amendment from Representative Palazzo was passed in full committee markup on a voice vote redirecting unobligated balances from the Science and Technology Directorate to the Coast Guard. Division A of P.L. 116-6 included $303 million in rescissions, and a provision directing that $300 million of DRF unobligated balances be used to offset new DRF appropriations. In FY2018, funding was also included in Title V for the Financial Systems Modernization initiative and a grant program for Presidential Residence Protection costs, which are reflected in the tables for Title I and Title III, respectively, as those titles fund the components that manage these resources. For FY2019, Title V of S. 3109 only funded the Financial Systems Modernization initiative, and Title V of H.R. 6776 only funded Presidential Residence Protection costs. Title V of P.L. 116-6 , Division A, included funding for both the Financial Systems Modernization initiative and Presidential Residence Protection costs. The detail table in the back of H.Rept. 115-948 also notes the discretionary cost of several policy changes in H.R. 6776 . Four amendments adopted in House Appropriations Committee markup resulted in a net $13 million increase in the score of the bill, which is reflected in the detail table, but not in the tables of this report. No such costs are reflected in the detail table of H.Rept. 116-9 . For additional perspectives on FY2019 DHS appropriations, see the following: CRS Report R44604, Trends in the Timing and Size of DHS Appropriations: In Brief ; CRS Report R44052, DHS Budget v. DHS Appropriations: Fact Sheet ; and CRS Report R45262, Comparing DHS Component Funding, FY2019: In Brief . Congressional clients also may wish to consult CRS's experts directly. The following table lists CRS analysts and specialists who have expertise in policy areas linked to DHS appropriations. 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 in amount, 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—which create a legal requirement for the government to pay. 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 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 FY2018, based on the adjusted net discretionary budget authority included in Division F of P.L. 115-141 , the President's request for FY2019, and the House and Senate subcommittee allocations for the Homeland Security appropriations bills for FY2019. The Budget Control Act, Discretionary Spending Caps, and Adjustments The Budget Control Act established enforceable discretionary limits, or caps, for defense and nondefense spending for each fiscal year from FY2012 through FY2021. 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 was determined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), using the following formula until FY2019: 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. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 amended the above formula, increasing the allowable size of the adjustment by adding 5% of the amount of emergency-designated funding for major disasters under the Stafford Act, calculated by OMB as $6.296 billion. The act also extended the availability of unused adjustment capacity. In August 2018, OMB released a sequestration update report for FY2019 that provided a preview estimate of the allowable adjustment for FY2019 of $14.965 billion —the second-largest allowable adjustment for disaster relief in the history of the mechanism. $12 billion of that adjustment was exercised in P.L. 116-6 , Division A, in appropriations for the Disaster Relief Fund. No other annual appropriations used the disaster relief adjustment for FY2019. 

Summary: This report provides an overview and analysis of FY2019 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The primary focus of this report is on congressional direction and funding provided to DHS 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 specific component appropriations. As part of an overall DHS budget that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated to be $74.88 billion, the Trump Administration requested $47.43 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority through the appropriations process for DHS for FY2018. The request amounted to a $0.29 billion (0.6%) decrease from the $47.72 billion in annual appropriations enacted for FY2018 through the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141, Division F). The Administration also requested discretionary funding for DHS components that does not count against discretionary spending limits and is not reflected in the adjusted net discretionary budget authority total. The Administration requested an additional $6.65 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in disaster relief funding, as defined by the Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25; BCA), and in the budget request for the Department of Defense (DOD), $165 million in Overseas Contingency Operations designated funding (OCO) from the Operations and Maintenance budget of the U.S. Navy. On June 21, 2018, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out S. 3109, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2019, accompanied by S.Rept. 115-283. Committee-reported S. 3109 included $48.33 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for FY2019. This was $901 million (1.9%) above the level requested by the Administration, and $611 million (1.3%) above the enacted level for FY2018. The Senate committee-reported bill included the Administration-requested levels for disaster relief funding, and included the OCO funding in an appropriation to the Coast Guard, rather than as a transfer from the U.S. Navy. On July 26, 2018, the House Appropriations Committee marked up H.R. 6776, its version of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2019. H.Rept. 115-948 was filed September 12, 2018. Committee-reported H.R. 6776 included $51.44 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority. The House committee-reported bill included the Administration-requested levels for disaster relief funding, but unlike S. 3109, did not include the OCO funding for the Coast Guard. As some of the annual appropriations for FY2019 remained unfinished, a consolidated appropriations bill that included a continuing resolution was passed by Congress and signed into law on September 28, 2018. The resolution, which covered DHS along with several other departments and agencies, continued funding at a rate of operations equal to FY2018 with some exceptions. This continuing resolution was extended through December 21, 2018, after which point annual appropriations lapsed. A partial government shutdown ensued for 35 days until continuing appropriations were resumed January 25, 2019, by P.L. 116-5. P.L. 116-6, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, was passed by Congress on February 14, 2019, and signed into law the following day. Division A of the act included the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2019, which included $49.41 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority, $12 billion designated for the costs of major disasters, and $165 million in OCO funding for the Coast Guard. This report will be updated in the event of FY2019 supplemental appropriations actions.