The bill amends the Homeland Security Act to create a new Section 437 that automatically provides continuing appropriations for pay and specified benefits to certain employees and contractors of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during a lapse in appropriations. It lists the covered components (Air and Marine Operations; Office of Field Operations; U.S. Border Patrol; Homeland Security Investigations; Enforcement and Removal Operations), defines covered contractors by Secretary determination, and authorizes Treasury to provide whatever sums are necessary to maintain pay and certain post-injury and survivor benefits.
The measure matters because it eliminates immediate payroll pauses for frontline border law enforcement in a shutdown, but it also moves fiscal exposure from annual appropriations to an automatic Treasury obligation and creates administrative questions about which contractors qualify, how costs are apportioned and later charged back, and how this precedent interacts with the Antideficiency Act and Congress’s power of the purse.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds Section 437 to the Homeland Security Act to require continued payment of wages and specified benefits to excepted employees and selected contractors of five CBP and ICE components during an appropriations lapse, with funds drawn from Treasury as needed. It also sets termination triggers tied to enactment of appropriations or a full-year continuing resolution and includes rules for charging expenditures to the applicable appropriation once congressional action occurs.
Who It Affects
Directly affects five DHS components that run border law enforcement operations and contractors whom the Secretary designates as providing support to excepted employees or required to work during a lapse. It also imposes accounting and reconciliation duties on Treasury, OMB, and DHS payroll and contracting offices.
Why It Matters
By guaranteeing pay during shutdowns for specific border functions, the bill preserves operational continuity at ports of entry, patrol and removals, but it reduces the immediacy of budget leverage during funding disputes and establishes a statutory precedent for targeted continuing appropriations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a narrow statutory backstop for pay and selected benefits when Congress fails to pass appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security. It does not make an across-the-board exception; instead it names five operational components within CBP and ICE and then authorizes Treasury to cover pay and benefits for excepted employees in those components and for contractors the Secretary determines either support those excepted employees or must work during a lapse.
That Secretary-level discretion over contractor inclusion is the operational switch that will determine how widely the protection reaches beyond direct federal employees.
Covered benefits explicitly reference chapters 55 and 81 of title 5, United States Code, which encompass workers’ compensation, death and disability compensation, and funeral/transportation expenses — not only wages. The bill therefore contemplates both routine payroll and event-driven payouts (for example, compensation for injury in the line of duty or survivor payments) during a shutdown period.Operationally, the statute instructs Treasury to advance “such sums as are necessary” and then requires that those outlays be charged back to the relevant appropriation, fund, or authorization when Congress later enacts a regular appropriation or a continuing resolution that includes the covered purposes.
The law also carves a termination rule: the automatic authority ends once Congress enacts the appropriate funding via a regular appropriations act or a continuing resolution that covers the same purposes. That creates a retroactive accounting and reconciliation task for DHS, Treasury, and OMB once appropriations resume.Finally, the text contains a limited apportionment accommodation: DHS may use the funds without waiting for the usual apportionment timing under 31 U.S.C. §1513, but the provision explicitly avoids waiving other apportionment rules.
The bill also inserts a clerical table-of-contents amendment to add the new section to the Homeland Security Act.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts Section 437 into the Homeland Security Act to create a statutory continuing-appropriations authority for certain CBP and ICE personnel and contractors during funding lapses.
It names five covered components: Air and Marine Operations, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Border Patrol, Homeland Security Investigations, and Enforcement and Removal Operations.
A ‘covered contractor’ is anyone performing work for a covered component whom the Secretary determines either supports excepted employees or is required to perform work during a lapse — the Secretary’s determination controls eligibility.
The authority covers pay to excepted employees and provides benefits under chapters 55 and 81 of title 5 (workers’ compensation, disability/death compensation, funeral and transportation of remains), not just base salary.
Outlays are charged to the applicable appropriation once Congress enacts a regular appropriations act or a continuing resolution that includes the relevant funding; an apportionment timing waiver lets DHS use funds before normal apportionment under 31 U.S.C. §1513 is completed.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the act the official name 'Keep Our Border Agents Paid Act.' This is purely nominative but signals the bill’s narrow policy focus on border enforcement payroll continuity.
Creates Section 437 (scope and definitions)
Adds a new statutory section that defines the operational scope: it lists the five covered components within CBP and ICE and defines two key terms — 'covered contractor' (subject to Secretary determination) and 'excepted employee' by reference to the Antideficiency Act definition. The provision’s reliance on a Secretary determination for contractors is the operative gatekeeper for extending pay protections beyond federal staff.
Automatic Treasury funding for pay and certain benefits
Requires Treasury to make 'such sums as are necessary' available to pay excepted employees and covered contractors during a lapse, and to pay benefits under title 5 chapters 55 and 81. In practice this directs immediate cash flow to payroll and workers’ compensation/survivor obligations for covered operations, bypassing a shut-off of payments that would otherwise occur under a funding lapse.
When the authority ends
The continuing-appropriations authority automatically terminates on the earlier of: enactment of a law making an appropriation for those purposes, or enactment of a regular appropriations act or a continuing resolution that does not include the specific funding. That framing creates a clear stop condition tied to Congress’s subsequent appropriations action and sets up the need for post-shutdown reconciliation.
Retroactive charging to applicable appropriations
Mandates that expenditures made under this authority be charged to the relevant appropriation, fund, or authorization once Congress enacts appropriations. Mechanically, this requires DHS and Treasury to track payments made during the lapse and apply them against future appropriations, raising practical billing and bookkeeping tasks for payroll and budget offices.
Limited apportionment timing relief
Permits use of the appropriations without regard to the usual timing rules for submission and approval of apportionments under 31 U.S.C. §1513, but expressly declines to waive other apportionment law. This provides short-term flexibility to obligate and disburse funds while preserving other statutory controls on apportionment and fund management.
Table of contents update
Amends the Homeland Security Act table of contents to add the new Section 437. This is a non-substantive drafting change that places the new authority into the statute’s organization.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Excepted CBP and ICE employees in the five named components — they keep receiving wages and certain post-injury and survivor benefits during a shutdown, avoiding immediate financial disruption that a lapse could cause.
- Contractors who the Secretary designates as supporting excepted employees or required to work during a lapse — they become eligible for pay continuity (subject to the Secretary’s discretionary determination), reducing operational interruption for mission-critical contractors.
- Families of front-line personnel — because the statute explicitly covers death, disability, and funeral-related benefits under title 5, survivors and injured employees receive statutory benefits even in a lapse.
- DHS operational commanders and port directors — guaranteed cash flow for staff and essential contracts preserves continuity of border security missions and reduces emergency staffing churn during funding gaps.
Who Bears the Cost
- The Treasury — the bill directs Treasury to advance 'such sums as are necessary,' shifting immediate cash outflow to the federal Treasury and increasing short-term federal liabilities during shutdowns.
- Congressional appropriators — future appropriations must absorb and reconcile payments made during the lapse, eroding annual appropriations flexibility and potentially complicating budget enforcement and oversight.
- Non-covered federal components and federal employees — entities and staff not named in the statute will still face standard lapse rules, creating asymmetries in who continues to be paid and potential operational inequalities inside DHS.
- DHS payroll, contracting, and budget offices — these units must implement Secretary determinations, track disbursements, charge expenditures to later appropriations, and reconcile accounts, increasing administrative workload and audit exposure.
- Small contractors not captured by Secretary determinations — firms that support border operations but do not meet the Secretary’s criteria may suffer cash-flow harm if excluded and yet continue to provide services under other constraints.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between preserving uninterrupted border operations and upholding Congress’s power of the purse: guaranteeing pay and benefits protects mission-critical functions and personnel during shutdowns, but it also removes a lever that forces negotiated appropriations outcomes and shifts fiscal costs onto the Treasury and future appropriations, creating budgetary and legal trade-offs with no clean resolution.
The bill resolves the immediate operational problem (pay and certain benefits during a lapse) but raises several unresolved implementation issues. First, the Secretary’s discretion to label contractors 'covered' is broad and undefined in the text; absent further guidance, DHS will need internal policy criteria or face litigation from firms asserting entitlement.
Second, the 'such sums as are necessary' phrasing creates open-ended fiscal exposure for the Treasury during prolonged lapses and complicates fiscal forecasting and cash management. Third, the retroactive charging mechanism puts the burden on future appropriations to absorb prior emergency outlays, potentially reducing the apparent availability of funds for other priorities and provoking disputes between DHS and appropriators over accounting treatment.
There is also legal friction with the Antideficiency Act and separation-of-powers norms. While the statute attempts to carve out targeted payment authority, it does not eliminate the political leverage that appropriations lapses create; instead it reallocates that leverage from immediate stoppage to out-year budget pressure.
Finally, the apportionment time-relief provision eases short-term administrative constraints but leaves open what internal controls will ensure funds are not misapportioned or misused, and whether auditors will view the mechanism as consistent with existing apportionment law.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.