H. Rept. 112-91 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2012112th Congress (2011-2012)
Committee Report
| Report Type: | House Report |
|---|---|
| Accompanies: | H.R.2017 |
| Committees: |
Reports for H.R.2017
H. Rept. 112-91 - 112th Congress (2011-2012)
Report text available as:
- TXT
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
House Report 112-91 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2012
[House Report 112-91]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress } { Report
1st Session } HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES { 112-91
=======================================================================
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2012
_______
May 26, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Aderholt of Alabama, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2017]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012.
INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT
Page number
Bill Report
TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management... 2
9
Office of the Under Secretary for Management....... 3
14
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.............. 4
17
Office of the Chief Information Officer............ 4
19
Analysis and Operations............................ 6
21
Office of Inspector General........................ 6
22
TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS
U.S. Customs and Border Protection................. 7
23
Salaries and Expenses...................... 7
23
Automation Modernization................... 10
39
Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure,
and Technology......................... 12
41
Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations,
Maintenance, and Procurement........... 14
45
Construction and Facilities Management..... 15
47
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement........... 16
48
Salaries and Expenses...................... 16
48
Automation Modernization................... 20
56
Transportation Security Administration............. 21
57
Aviation Security.......................... 21
57
Surface Transportation Security............ 25
66
Transportation Threat Assessment and
Credentialing.......................... 25
66
Transportation Security Support............ 25
68
Federal Air Marshals....................... 26
70
Coast Guard........................................ 26
71
Operating Expenses......................... 26
71
Environmental Compliance and Restoration... 28
77
Reserve Training........................... 28
77
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements 28
78
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation 33
84
Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund
Contribution........................... 34
85
Retired Pay................................ 34
86
United States Secret Service....................... 34
86
Salaries and Expenses...................... 34
86
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements,
and Related Expenses................... 37
89
TITLE III--PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY
National Protection and Programs Directorate....... 38
89
Management and Administration.............. 38
89
Infrastructure Protection and Information
Security............................... 38
90
Federal Protective Service................. 40
94
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status
Indicator Technology................... 41
95
Office of Health Affairs........................... 43
99
Federal Emergency Management Agency................ 44
100
Management and Administration.............. 44
100
State and Local Programs................... 46
103
Firefighter Assistance Grants.............. 50
110
Emergency Management Performance Grants.... 51
111
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program 52
112
United States Fire Administration.......... 53
112
Disaster Relief............................ 53
113
Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program
Account................................ 57
115
Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis..... 57
116
National Flood Insurance Fund.............. 57
117
National Predisaster Mitigation Fund....... 59
118
Emergency Food and Shelter................. 60
118
TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. 60
119
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center............ 61
124
Salaries and Expenses...................... 61
124
Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements,
and Related Expenses................... 63
124
Science and Technology............................. 63
125
Management and Administration.............. 63
125
Research, Development, Acquisition, and
Operations............................. 64
125
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.................. 64
131
Management and Administration.............. 64
131
Research, Development, and Operations...... 64
132
Systems Acquisition........................ 65
134
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Act........................................... 66
136
Compliance with House Rules........................
146
Detail Table.......................................
166
The accompanying bill contains recommendations for new
budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2012 for the
Department of Homeland Security. The following table summarizes
these recommendations and reflects comparisons with the budget,
as amended, and with amounts appropriated to date for fiscal
year 2011:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget House compared with
New budget estimates of -------------------------------
(obligational) new
Bureau/Agency authority (obligational) Recommended by New budget Budget
fiscal year authority, the House authority estimate,
2011 enacted fiscal year fiscal year fiscal year
to date 2012 2011 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Departmental Management and 1,289,878 1,446,917 1,142,168 -147,710 -304,749
Operations.....................
Security, Enforcement and 32,501,342 33,196,186 33,139,360 638,018 -56,826
Investigtations................
Protection, Preparedness, 8,573,886 8,218,567 6,759,053 -1,814,833 -1,459,514
Response and Recovery..........
Research, Development, Training, 1,589,633 2,154,060 1,282,746 -306,887 -871,314
and Services...................
General Purpose Appropriations.. -549,406 .............. -32,892 516,514 -32,892
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total................. 43,405,333 45,015,730 42,290,435 -1,114,898 -2,725,295
===============================================================================
Total Discretionary 41,664,000 43,575,573 40,592,000 -1,072,000 -2,983,573
(excluding GWOT)...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Major Recommendations in the Bill
The Committee recommends $40,592,000,000 in discretionary
resources for the Department of Homeland Security,
$2,983,573,000, or 6.9 percent, below the amount requested and
$1,069,000,000, or 2.6 percent, below fiscal year 2011 enacted
levels (excluding funding for the global war on terrorism). The
Committee includes $258,278,000 for the Coast Guard's support
of the global war on terrorism as part of the recommended level
instead of assuming a transfer, as was requested, from the
Department of Defense. This action is consistent with similar
actions taken by the Committee in fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
Funding Comparisons
Public Law 112-10 (signed into law on April 15, 2011)
required the Department to submit a detailed fiscal year 2011
expenditure plan by program, project, and activity no later
than May 9, 2011. Because the submitted expenditure plan was
incomplete and labeled as only a ``preliminary'' report by the
Department; included no updates to the fiscal year 2012 budget
submission; and was received by the Committee only days before
the Subcommittee markup of this bill, subsequent technical
adjustments to funding comparisons between the recommended and
enacted funding levels may be required.
The fiscal year 2012 Congressional budget justifications
were based upon a short-term continuing resolution rate of
spending and not the funding levels enacted for fiscal year
2011. Therefore, the Committee notes that many of the requested
funding levels for fiscal year 2012 are not only unrealistic,
but based on flawed assumptions. The Committee attempted to
work through these technical challenges with the Department but
did not receive clear and timely input on the impacts of the
fiscal year 2011 enacted appropriations prior to the
Subcommittee markup.
Priorities in the Bill
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) serves a vital
role in countering the persistent threat from terrorism.
However, the United States now faces an equally significant and
perhaps broader threat from an unprecedented fiscal crisis--a
dire budgetary situation which has the potential to undermine
the Nation's economy as well as its security. The unquestioned
need for fiscal restraint; the lessons learned from recent
terrorist attacks; the near-constant occurrence of natural
disasters across the country; and the heightened state of
threats confronting our Nation serve as the basis for the
Committee's fiscal year 2012 funding priorities for DHS.
Over the past ten years, Congress has provided robust
funding to bring the Nation's security posture to an improved
state of strength, preparedness, and resiliency. Since its
establishment, the Department's budget has grown by more than
$12,260,000,000, or 42 percent, as it took on new
responsibilities. Over this period, the Department's workforce
has grown by more than 20 percent, approximately 50,000
positions, with notable increases in the number of Border
Patrol agents, ICE agents, CBP officers, Coast Guard military
personnel, Secret Service agents, and intelligence analysts.
While the Nation is undeniably more secure as a result of these
investments, the current fiscal climate necessitates a
transition to actually measuring the level of security
achieved, improving the application of the resources that are
currently available, determining how much additional security
is required, and delineating how much those additional security
requirements will cost. All of this information forms the basis
for greater justification that the Committee now demands prior
to the appropriation of additional funds.
In this bill for fiscal year 2012, the Committee recommends
funding to address the significant challenges facing the
Department, while also instituting renewed fiscal discipline
and requirements for aligning funding to results. DHS, with all
its critical functions, is not absolved from fiscal
responsibility, particularly given the budget crisis currently
gripping the Federal Government. Therefore, this bill reflects
the Committee's best effort to target limited resources across
the Department's multiple security priorities and the Nation's
numerous vulnerabilities. By insisting upon spending restraint,
the Committee is not choosing between homeland security and
fiscal discipline--both are serious national security
priorities. Instead, the Committee conducted a thorough
analysis of the Department's functions and prioritized funding
for essential, frontline operations and critical programs that
are demonstrating tangible results. By contrast, programs and
activities that have underperformed or have not measurably
furthered the homeland security mission have received
substantial reductions in their annual appropriations.
SPENDING REDUCTIONS
Since the Department was created, Congress has provided it
with robust financial and legislative support based on the
importance of the homeland security mission. However, the
Department continues to struggle with the submittal of adequate
justifications for its funding requests and is often unable to
demonstrate a clear link between investments to performance
goals with measured security benefits. This Committee will not
recommend appropriating limited taxpayer dollars to support
underperforming and ill-managed programs; nor can the Committee
simply backfill the massive funding shortfalls for disaster
relief and aviation security requirements that were unfunded by
the inadequate budget submission. As a result, several programs
have been significantly reduced in this bill. Notable
reductions in the bill, as compared to the fiscal year 2012
budget request, include:
DHS--Headquarters consolidation......................... -$215,273,000
DHS--Departmental Management and Operations............. -$69,158,000
DHS--Data center migration (Department-wide)............ -$131,600,000
CBP--Automation Modernization........................... -$29,755,000
CBP--Construction and Facilities Management............. -$49,726,000
TSA--Select unfunded initiatives........................ -$181,609,000
TSA--Transportation Security Support.................... -$80,907,000
Coast Guard--Operating Expenses (technical adjustment).. -$10,000,000
Coast Guard--Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements -$270,251,000
National Protection and Programs Directorate--IPIS...... -$45,242,000
FEMA--First Responder Grants............................ -$2,144,663,000
USCIS--Direct appropriations............................ -$237,116,000
Science and Technology--Research, Development,
Acquisition, and Operations......................... -$628,854,000
OVERSIGHT--ADDRESSING THE INADEQUACIES OF THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
SUBMISSION
The Department's fiscal year 2012 budget submission
ostensibly accommodates the Nation's fiscal constraints by
including spending reduction and efficiency proposals. However,
these proposals are overshadowed by the budget submission's
grossly underfunded request for the costs of disaster relief;
its reliance on unrealized offsets from increases to fee
revenue that had yet to be enacted; and its undefined
reductions to operational budgets. In total, the Department's
fiscal year 2012 budget request ignored an estimated
$4,900,000,000 in known disaster relief costs; claimed nearly
$650,000,000 in offsets from aviation security and customs fee
revenue that had not yet been authorized; and proposed more
than $615,000,000 in reductions from the Department's
operational components through ``administrative savings'' and
``efficiencies'' that were neither specified nor clearly tied
to current spending levels within the Department's budget
justifications. At a time of record deficits and mounting debt,
the Committee believes the Department should submit a
straightforward budget without such misleading and inadequate
proposals.
In an effort to address the inadequacies of the President's
budget submission for fiscal year 2012, reduce costs, limit
administrative overhead, promote efficiency, counter known
threats, and prioritize frontline operations across the
Department's essential security functions, the bill carefully
targets funding and bolsters oversight. In addition, the
Committee has substantially curtailed multi-year availability
of funds across the Department's components, including:
limiting availability of appropriations for personnel,
compensation, and benefits across all Departmental components
to one year; reducing periods of availability for selected
acquisition and information technology programs; and strictly
limiting the use of funds that are available until expended.
Furthermore, many of the expenditure plans that have been
historically required for submittal after the enactment of the
annual appropriations Act are revised and directed to be
included within the Congressional budget justifications
accompanying the annual budget submission. These expenditure
plans are required to align funding to mission requirements, as
applicable, and demonstrate results for each and every dollar
that is appropriated. Major oversight efforts in the bill
include the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alteration to
Account Requirement Availability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBP Automated Commercial Expenditure Plan.. Limit to 3-year
Environment.................... funds
CBP Automation Modernization.... Investment and Limit to 3-year
Management Plan. funds
CBP Border Security Fencing, Investment and Limit to 3-year
Infrastructure, and Technology. Management Plan.. funds
CBP Air and Marine Interdiction, Strategic Plan, Limit to 3-year
Operations, Maintenance, and including funds
Procurement.................... recapitalization
and modernization
CBP Construction................ Real Property Limit to 5-year
Inventory and funds
Expenditure plan.
ICE Automation Modernization Investment and Limit to 5-year
account. Management Plan. funds
TSA Aviation Security........... Detailed report on Limit to 2-year
better integrated funds for non-
passenger personnel
screening compensation and
technology and benefit funding
screener only
deployment.......
TSA Transportation Security Expenditure plans N/A
Support. for air cargo,
checkpoint
support, and
explosives
detection systems
Coast Guard Acquisition, Capital Investment Limit to 3-year
Construction, and Improvements. Plan............. funds for small
boats and
aircraft
NPPD Infrastructure Protection Expenditure Plan Limit to 1 year
and Information Security....... and Investment funds
and Management
Plan.............
US-VISIT........................ Investment and Limit to 3-year
Management Plan. funds
Office of Health Affairs........ Expenditure Plan.. N/A
FEMA Management and Expenditure Plan.. Limit to 1-year
Administration. funds
FEMA State and Local Programs... Prioritization of N/A
funding across
merged grant
activities.......
FLETC Acquisition, Construction, N/A............... Limit to 5-year
and Improvements............... funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to concerns over the absence of expenditure
plans, the quality of the Congressional Budget Justification
material provided by the Department continues to be of concern.
Even after thoroughly reviewing the fiscal year 2012 materials,
the Committee finds its ability to conduct the in-depth
oversight required in these fiscally challenging times to be
hindered by the failure of the Department to provide
consistently clear, detailed and comprehensive budget
justifications for the programs, projects, and activities
requested.
With the delivery of the fiscal year 2013 budget request,
the Committee directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to
submit a budget that fully justifies changes from the prior
year, current year, and any changes for new initiatives in
order to describe the programs in question and justify the
estimates. All information shall cover the prior year, current
year, and budget year by program, project, and activity and by
objective. Programs shall list increases and decreases
necessary to reconcile the obligations incurred in each year
and the related increases and decreases between each year.
These increases and decreases shall provide programmatic reason
for the changes and explain why they are necessary, thereby
supplying a rational continuum for tracking changes.
The requirement for better justification at the time of
request not only instills more discipline in planning processes
and enables more effective oversight, but also eliminates the
need for expenditure plans and withholding of funds well into
the fiscal year of budget execution. To transition to
expenditure plans submitted at the time of request, the
Committee has retained provisos associated with plans for
fiscal year 2012 after enactment. In the future, the Department
shall submit a fully justified budget request that articulates
how it intends to spend taxpayer funds in order for Congress to
consider providing the full request. The inability of the
Department to provide these plans is concerning. Detailed spend
plans should be a part of any basic budget formulation. As
such, this requirement should not be overly burdensome.
FIRST RESPONDER GRANT REFORM
The Committee recommends long-overdue reform of FEMA's
administration of its State and Local Programs. For far too
long, FEMA has failed to measure the return on investment for
the billions of dollars awarded through its first responder
grant programs. Furthermore, billions of dollars appropriated
in prior years for first responder grants remain unspent due to
a variety of reasons, some of which are entirely inexcusable.
The Committee believes the Nation's fiscal crisis and the
importance of preparedness and the work of State, local, and
tribal first responders to the homeland security mission
necessitate bold reform. Therefore, the Committee recommends
the following: (1) a substantial reduction in annual
appropriations for FEMA's State and Local Programs; (2) a
reorganization of FEMA's State and Local Programs with funding
administered at the discretion of the Secretary and prioritized
to the greatest needs and highest risks; (3) a mandate for the
FEMA Administrator to submit a plan to drawdown all unexpended
balances by the end of fiscal year 2012 from funds appropriated
prior to fiscal year 2008 under the heading ``State and Local
Programs''; and (4) a withholding of fifty percent of the
funding for the Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management until the submission of the National Preparedness
Goal and National Preparedness System, consistent with the
directions within the recently signed Presidential Policy
Directive-8. The latter requirement is designed to compel the
Department to begin taking steps to measure the effectiveness
and future requirements of these programs.
OPERATIONAL INVESTMENTS
As noted previously, the Committee recognizes the need for
investing in the Department's ability to counter known threats
and address our Nation's numerous vulnerabilities. Therefore,
throughout the bill, the Committee prioritizes funding for
frontline personnel, operations, enforcement, intelligence
activities, disaster response and recovery functions, and
selected acquisition of tactical assets. The Committee's
recommended funding levels will ensure all frontline staffing
levels are either sustained or increased, including the
staffing levels of Border Patrol agents, CBP officers, ICE
agents, Coast Guard military personnel, Secret Service agents,
disaster response specialists, intelligence analysts, and
selected TSA personnel. Also, the Committee fully funds all
requested increases for the Department's intelligence,
watchlisting, and threat identification functions, including
the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, CBP's National
Targeting Center, CBP's Immigration Advisory Program, ICE's
Office of Intelligence, TSA's Office of Intelligence, TSA's
Secure Flight program, Coast Guard Intelligence, and several
vital functions of the National Protection and Programs
Directorate. Funding enhancements above the amounts requested
for the Department's most vital operational and analytical
activities are detailed under the relevant agencies throughout
the report. Notable recommended increases to operational
programs above the amounts requested by the President in the
bill include:
CBP--Automated Targeting Systems........................ +$15,000,000
CBP--Air & Marine operations and procurement............ +$29,400,000
ICE--Visa Security program.............................. +$3,000,000
ICE--Secure Communities (digitized fingerprinting)...... +$10,000,000
ICE--Detention and Removal Operations................... +$26,718,000
TSA--Air Cargo Security................................. +$10,000,000
Coast Guard--Legacy Cutters, Maintenance and
Communication Upgrades.............................. +$30,300,000
Coast Guard--Replacement HH-65 Helicopters.............. +$37,000,000
Coast Guard--Small Boat Procurement..................... +$6,000,000
Coast Guard--Tactical Law Enforcement Training.......... +$4,000,000
Coast Guard--Unmanned Aircraft Systems.................. +$2,000,000
FUNDING KNOWN COSTS OF DISASTER RELIEF
As noted, the President's budget submission for fiscal year
2012 failed to address the known and expected costs of disaster
relief. Therefore, the Committee recommends an increase of
$850,000,000 above the amount requested for FEMA's Disaster
Relief Fund (DRF). The Administration and the Department have
acknowledged the budget is relying upon emergency supplemental
funding to support known costs for fiscal year 2012--costs the
Committee asserts should have been addressed in the annual
budget. Therefore, in addition to the recommended increase in
funding to address known DRF shortfalls, the Committee includes
several new requirements regarding the costs of disaster
recovery and relief operations. First, FEMA is required to
submit quarterly reports that provide estimates for funding
requirements for the current fiscal year and the succeeding
three fiscal years that include the cost of future disasters
and the cost of catastrophic events. Second, the Committee
directs FEMA to develop a policy that defines the five-year
average that is used to develop the budget estimates for
disaster relief. Third, the Committee directs FEMA to include
in the fiscal year 2013 budget submission a clear statement of
the five-year average to include the fiscal years included in
that calculated average. Lastly, the Committee directs the
President to submit a budget amendment from within
discretionary funds to fully fund all known costs for disaster
relief for fiscal year 2012.
In conclusion, the Committee's intent is to prioritize
funding for frontline security operations; push the Department
to set clear and well-reasoned priorities that align to stated
mission requirements; require the Department to practice sound
financial and program management that disciplines funding and
aligns resources to results in terms of improved security;
require the Department to budget adequately for known and
expected costs of operations, including disaster relief;
strengthen vital partnerships between Federal, State, local,
tribal, and private sector entities; and move the Department
toward the lean and responsive organization it was envisioned
to be when it was established in 2003. The Committee is
dedicated to ensuring our homeland security professionals have
the tools they need to carry out their vital mission to keep
our Nation safe and secure.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $136,818,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2012...................... 142,533,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 126,700,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -10,118,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2012.................. -15,833,000
MISSION
The mission of the Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management is to provide efficient services to the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) and to support the Department's
efforts to achieve its strategic goals: preventing terrorist
attacks within the United States; reducing America's
vulnerabilities to terrorism and natural disasters; minimizing
the damage from attacks and disasters that may occur;
responding to attacks and disasters, in cooperation with States
and local governments; and assisting in recovery following
disasters and attacks.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $126,700,000 for the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM), $15,833,000 below
the amount requested and $10,118,000 below the amount provided
in fiscal year 2011. Except as noted below, reductions from the
requested level are made due to shortfalls in the President's
budget request for DHS, including the President's assumption of
increases in aviation security fee collections and customs user
fees that have yet to be authorized and that are not in the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations, as well as an
inadequate request for the known obligations of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).
Moreover, the Committee recommends that $63,350,000 of the
appropriated OSEM funds be withheld until the Department
submits the National Preparedness Goal (NPG) and the National
Preparedness System (NPS) to the Committees on Appropriations
as well as the Secretary's determination on implementation of
biometric air exit. The Committee has asked the Department for
years to provide proper metrics to demonstrate whether billions
of taxpayer dollars spent on DHS grant programs have made our
Nation safer, but the Department has continually failed to
deliver a quantifiable answer. A system is needed to outline
our Nation's vulnerabilities and threats--taking into account
regional differences--followed by clear objectives to mitigate
those risks. Only then can the Department fully justify its
requests year in and year out for billions of dollars in grant
funding. The Committee commends the President for directing the
Department to do precisely that with Presidential Policy
Directive-8, which calls for the NPG and NPS. With respect to
biometric exit, Congress has long sought the Secretary's
determination on a path forward. The Committee believes the
Secretary could provide such a determination publicly, and
immediately, and notes that such a determination could
significantly affect priorities and appropriations for the
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(US-VISIT) program.
To adequately oversee expenditures and personnel changes
within each office of the Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management, the Committee has provided separate funding
recommendations as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary. $5,164,000 $4,641,000
Immediate Office of the Deputy 1,918,000 1,918,000
Secretary........................
Chief of Staff.................... 2,802,000 2,000,000
Office of Counternarcotics 3,814,000 3,200,000
Enforcement......................
Executive Secretariat............. 8,402,000 8,200,000
Office of Policy.................. 42,423,000 34,000,000
Office of Public Affairs.......... 6,419,000 5,800,000
Office of Legislative Affairs..... 6,341,000 6,000,000
Office of Intergovernmental 2,908,000 2,750,000
Affairs..........................
Office of General Counsel......... 22,422,000 22,400,000
Office of Civil Rights and 24,613,000 21,100,000
Liberties........................
Citizenship and Immigration 6,336,000 6,200,000
Services Ombudsman...............
Privacy Officer................... 8,971,000 8,491,000
-------------------------------------
Total, Office of the Secretary $142,533,000 $126,700,000
and Executive Management.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
The Committee recommends $4,641,000 for the Immediate
Office of the Secretary, $523,000 below the amount requested.
The Committee is interested in helping the Department improve
its oversight and efficiency in its operations, and so directs
that the Secretary submit a report not later than December 1,
2011, including the following information:
1. A prioritized list of efficiencies being
implemented as a result of the Secretary's Efficiency
Review, and an accounting of progress against that
list;
2. A list of positions the Department intends to
convert from contractors to Federal positions, and an
accounting of progress against that list;
3. A list of components and specific procurements
where additional oversight personnel are needed
relative to the current personnel and existing
capabilities, and where such personnel are being
assigned; and
4. How reforms in the headquarters structure and
function are providing better support and management
for Department field operations.
OFFICE OF COUNTERNARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT
The Committee recommends $3,200,000 for the Office of
Counternarcotics Enforcement (CNE), $614,000 below the amount
requested. CNE supports Departmental and national drug control
programs by coordinating policy and operations with the
Department and between DHS and other Federal, State, and local
agencies. Yet it has faced challenges since its inception in
defining exactly how this work is carried out. It is unclear
whether or not CNE's policy development, liaison, and
coordination functions do not replicate work done by other
agencies or offices.
CNE reported, in its 2011 DHS Counternarcotics Review, that
it is working to fully integrate budget evaluation and
performance evaluation into DHS counternarcotics planning
efforts and to establish a formal budget guidance process. The
Committee also notes that the Office of Inspector General
proposed (in OIG-10-80, ``The Responsibilities of the Office of
Counternarcotics Enforcement'') that CNE should make greater
efforts to help coordinate budgetary aspects of the
Government's counternarcotics efforts rather than the
operational aspects. The Committee generally agrees with the
OIG recommendation. If CNE is to fulfill a more substantive
function of focusing counternarcotics efforts through the
resource planning process, it must help coordinate and
harmonize the many acquisition and operational funding
initiatives of DHS components and non-DHS partners with
counternarcotics missions. The Committee encourages CNE to work
closely with the Office of Policy to establish appropriate
coordination mechanisms with Department component agencies. For
example, it may make sense to utilize already-designated policy
liaisons to serve as the CNE liaisons; and Office of Policy
engagement in budget development and acquisition could serve as
a vehicle for CNE.
The Committee therefore directs the Department to brief the
Committee on CNE organizational and staffing plans, with
reference to the aforementioned OIG recommendations, not later
than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. This
briefing shall describe: (1) plans for appointing senior
officials in component agencies to serve as CNE liaison
officers, as well as position descriptions and job duties for
such officers; (2) how CNE will fulfill its statutory
responsibility to coordinate counternarcotics policy among
components; and (3) how the liaison officers will enhance CNE
ability to coordinate budget development and acquisitions in
the Department.
GAO shall review CNE staffing and activities in the first
half of fiscal year 2012 and submit to Congress an assessment
of progress in implementing OIG recommendations no later than
nine months after the date of enactment of this Act.
Additionally, GAO shall assess the extent of counternarcotics
policy coordination among DHS and other Federal agencies, with
particular emphasis on the contributions made by CNE.
OFFICE OF POLICY
The Committee recommends $34,000,000 for the Office of
Policy (Policy), $8,423,000 below the amount requested. The
Committee recognizes that the Office of Policy has been
evolving, along with the growth of the Department, but it is
not yet clear that Policy is properly positioned or structured
to meet DHS needs. While acknowledging that there are a number
of sub-offices within Policy with their own particular
responsibilities and missions, the Committee feels the
Department has not presented a coherent mission for the Office
of Policy that is reflected in its budget and activities. The
Committee recognizes the need for strong, cross-Departmental
strategic planning and policy guidance in key mission areas,
such as counterterrorism activities, border security,
immigration, and protection of critical infrastructure,
transportation, and cyberspace. However, the Committee is
concerned that Policy has not matured to a level where it can
provide authoritative, cohesive policy support to Department
components or cross-component coordination on major areas of
the DHS mission. Instead, Policy too often provides
duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting guidance.
Furthermore, Policy must improve its responsiveness to the
Committee. The Office stands among the most difficult
components from which to get answers. This has a directly
negative impact on the Committee's oversight efforts on behalf
of the taxpayer and makes it difficult for the Committee to
justify providing the Office with its full budget request.
In light of these concerns, the Committee directs the
Department to include in its justification materials
accompanying its fiscal year 2013 budget request a detailed
spending plan for the Office of Policy that lists planned
projects for each sub-office within the Office of Policy, with
their associated funding and staffing requirements. In
addition, to help it conduct better oversight of operations and
priorities of the Office, the Committee directs the Department
to report not later than December 1, 2011, on fiscal year 2011
travel by political employees of the Office of Policy, listing
dates, destinations, purposes, number of official travelers,
and costs by trip.
The Committee also wants to ensure that Policy engages
fully in interagency discussions on visa policy matters,
consistent with DHS authorities.
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
The Committee recommends $21,100,000 for the Office of
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, $3,513,000 below the amount
requested. Within the amount recommended for this office, the
Committee includes $694,000, as requested, for five new
positions to provide advice, investigations, and training in
connection with oversight and management of the ICE 287(g) and
Secure Communities programs, including participating in the ICE
advisory committee.
USER FEES
The conference report accompanying P.L. 111-83 directed the
Department to submit a contingency plan to address gaps between
actual and budgeted collections. The Committee directs the
Secretary to submit a revised plan not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act and to update that plan
quarterly.
BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS
For fiscal year 2013, the Committee directs that the
Congressional Budget Justifications for the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management include the same level of
detail as the table contained in the back of the Committee
report. All funding and staffing changes for each individual
office must be highlighted and explained. The Committee expects
this level of detail to include separate discussions for
personnel, compensation, and benefits; travel; training; and
other services.
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
The Committee, as in prior years, directs the Department to
include a separate justification for the Working Capital Fund
(WCF) in the fiscal year 2013 budget request. This should
include a description of each activity funded by the WCF; the
basis for the pricing; the number of full-time Federal
employees funded in each activity; a list of each departmental
organization that is allocating funds to the activity; and the
funding each organization is providing in fiscal years 2011 and
2012, and projects in 2013. If a project contained in the WCF
is a multi-year activity with a defined cost, scope, and
schedule, the estimated costs and schedule shall be clearly
delineated.
The Committee expects all initiatives funded by multiple
DHS organizations to be included in the WCF. The Committee does
not support taxing departmental organizations for cross-cutting
initiatives outside the WCF. As such, the justification should
identify any cross-cutting initiatives or activities that
benefit more than one organization that are not included in the
WCF and should explain the omission.
The Committee directs the Department to notify it promptly
of any additions, deletions, or changes that are made to the
WCF during the fiscal year. Furthermore, the Department should
not fund any activities within the WCF that the House or Senate
Committees on Appropriations have disapproved either in report
language or in their responses to reprogramming requests.
RECEPTION AND REPRESENTATION
Within the Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management, the Committee provides $60,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, as requested, and the
same level provided in fiscal year 2011. Within this total,
$20,000 shall be for international programs within the Office
of Policy and activities related to the Visa Waiver Program.
The Department is directed to track its reception and
representation expenses in enough detail to explain how these
funds were used as the Committee conducts its oversight efforts
next year.
Representation allowances for DHS agencies are largely
unchanged since the creation of the Department even though
their missions and responsibilities have grown or been
refocused. The Committee directs the Department to review
representation allowances for all DHS agencies for equitable
alignment of funds with responsibilities and submit any
proposed changes as part of the fiscal year 2013 budget
request.
NATIONAL SECURITY ENTRY-EXIT REGISTRATION SYSTEM
In recent testimony to the Committee, CBP and ICE officials
indicated that the National Security Entry-Exit Registration
System (NSEERS), also known as ``Special Registration,'' is no
longer necessary in light of significant enhancements made to
other visa and traveler screening processes since NSEERS was
instituted immediately following the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. The Committee has also become aware of the
negative diplomatic implications that NSEERS has had in some
countries due to the lengthy wait times to which NSEERS
selectees are subjected at U.S. ports of entry, the uncertainty
surrounding the criteria used to flag NSEERS selectees, and the
occasional subjection of foreign leaders invited to the United
States through U.S. government-sponsored programs to these
onerous ``Special Registration'' requirements. For the above
reasons, the Committee welcomes the Secretary's announcement of
the end of the program.
SOUTHWEST BORDER COOPERATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY
The Committee supports efforts to enhance public safety
along our Southwest border and urges the Department to build
and improve relationships; coordinate activities; and provide
support to State, local, tribal and foreign law enforcement
agencies; including, as appropriate, the development of State
and local law enforcement training programs designed to
educate, promote, and provide the tools necessary to
effectively counter evolving threats, including crimes
committed by cross-border criminal organizations.
Office of the Under Secretary for Management
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011\1\.................... $317,333,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2012...................... 249,058,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 234,940,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -4,993,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2012.................. -14,118,000\1\Includes $77,400,000 for headquarters consolidation and St.
Elizabeths construction.
MISSION
The Office of the Under Secretary for Management's primary
mission is to deliver quality administrative support services
for human resources and personnel; manage facilities, property,
equipment, and other material resources; ensure safety, health
and environmental protection; and identify and track
performance measurements relating to the responsibilities of
the Department. This office is also in charge of implementing a
mission support structure for DHS to deliver administrative
services while eliminating redundancies and reducing support
costs.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $234,940,000 for the Office of the
Under Secretary for Management, $14,118,000 below the amount
requested (excluding $77,400,000 provided for headquarters
consolidation) and $4,993,000 below the amount provided in
fiscal year 2011. Except as specified below, reductions were
made to compensate for budgetary shortfalls created by the
budget's reliance on unauthorized fee proposals and the need to
provide disaster relief funding. The Committee has provided
separate funding recommendations in order to adequately oversee
expenditures for each office, as detailed in the following
table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Secretary for Management.... $7,558,000 $2,550,000
Office of Security................ 71,236,000 70,200,000
Office of the Chief Procurement 78,771,000 75,150,000
Officer..........................
Office of the Chief Human Capital 44,847,000 41,340,000
Officer..........................
Office of the Chief Administrative 46,646,000 45,700,000
Officer..........................
-------------------------------------
Total, Office of the Under $249,058,000 $234,940,000
Secretary for Management.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT
The Committee recommends $2,550,000 for the Immediate
Office of the Under Secretary for Management, $5,008,000 below
the amount requested. None of the requested funding is provided
for analysis of icebreaking requirements in the polar region.
The Committee finds this study to be unnecessary, given the
extensive analysis that has already been done on the subject.
In the Department's own budget justification, there is mention
of the ``numerous existing and ongoing studies'' on the issue.
ACQUISITION WORKFORCE INITIATIVE
The Department needs the right number and mix of
acquisition professionals in its workforce to manage its
increasingly large and complex procurements. However, the
Committee has been frustrated by the Department's lack of
responsiveness to basic questions with regard to the
Department's proposed Acquisition Workforce Initiative, which
consists of $24,200,000 for purposes of hiring 150 new core
component and program management office staff, training them,
and investing in systems that track and identify that
workforce. While the Department completed a major assessment of
86 major program offices and its component acquisition
executive organizations, it only provided a list of new
positions and summary information to the Committee, reiterating
that the proposed funding will mitigate workforce gaps and
address deficiencies highlighted by the GAO and OIG.
This is necessary information but insufficient to enable
the Committee to understand the basis for the proposed
increase, including the impact of additional funding provided
in recent years to build up acquisition capacity in several
major DHS agencies. The Committee directs the Department to
provide it with the following information from its assessment:
(1) its baseline analysis for the current, ``as-is''
acquisition workforce; (2) its current capacity and skillsets;
(3) gaps, in particular with reference to specific skills and
capacity that are required to achieve the level of acquisition
capability desired, specifically taking into account and
identifying the impact of additional funding for workforce
improvement that was appropriated in fiscal years 2008-2010;
and, based on the foregoing information, (4) the specific
positions/skillsets that need to be expanded or added to fill
the gaps.
In the absence of this information, the Committee cannot
recommend funding a number of the proposed acquisition
workforce increases, particularly for those components or
programs that have received additional funding for such staff
in recent years. The Committee will revisit the issue of
expanding and enhancing the acquisition workforce when it
receives more complete justification information.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
The Committee recommends $45,700,000 for the Office of the
Chief Administrative Officer, $946,000 below the amount
requested. Within this total, the Committee includes
$5,000,000, $398,000 below the request, for improvements and
maintenance of the Nebraska Avenue Complex, including perimeter
fencing and sustainment of current operations at the site. This
is particularly important, given that funding will be
unavailable in fiscal year 2012, as noted below, for additional
consolidation of Departmental management and components.
DHS HEADQUARTERS CONSOLIDATION
The Committee recommends no funding in the bill for
Departmental Headquarters Consolidation, including continued
construction of the new headquarters site at St. Elizabeths.
This is $215,273,000 below the request, which included
$159,643,000 for new St. Elizabeths construction.
The Committee recognizes the clear requirement to
rationalize the housing and operations of Department agencies
and components in the capital region, with roughly 70 offices
spread in 46 locations across the area. The Committee notes
that the $77,400,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2011 will
enable the completion of the Coast Guard headquarters and
adjacent construction at St. Elizabeths, allowing the
Department to complete excavation work in a logical sequence
and avoid some unnecessary costs. Furthermore, the funding,
which became available for obligation later in fiscal year
2011, will likely be obligated only late in 2011 or in 2012.
In addition, both costs and schedule of the current project
are matters of concern for the Committee. In hearings the
Committee held on the St. Elizabeths project in 2010, it became
clear that adequate cost controls were essential for this
project, the largest Federal building project in the greater
Washington, D.C. area since the Pentagon. Yet costs have grown
in a year from $3,400,000,000 to $3,600,000,000 chiefly due to
increases in the General Services Administration share of the
project. The Committee notes that dependence on GSA funding
requires coordination of funding and management, and that the
proposed DHS request, even if resources were available, would
likely not coincide with necessary GSA funding. Furthermore,
delays are already being factored into the Department's
planning, as it has projected it will postpone work on the FEMA
section of the facility.
Finally, the significant cost associated with minimum
elements of the project makes it impossible to adequately fund
those elements, given the need to compensate for budgetary
shortfalls created by the budget's reliance on unauthorized fee
proposals and the need to provide disaster relief funding.
The Committee expects that the Department will revise its
plans in a way to maximize its current project funding and get
a better understanding of all cost issues surrounding upcoming
construction phases. The Committee therefore directs the
Department to provide an update on the progress of the
initiative no later than four months after the date of
enactment of this Act, including a revised schedule and cost
estimates.
OVERCLASSIFICATION
The Committee is aware of clauses contained in contract or
grant agreements between DHS and universities that preemptively
restrict publication of research results or which provide DHS
the right to restrict publication at any time, due to the
possibility that controlled unclassified information (formally
referred to as ``sensitive but unclassified'') will be involved
in the work. Some agreements also prohibit individuals from
participating in research if they are neither U.S. citizens nor
legal permanent residents. When applied unnecessarily, such
clauses can discourage talented researchers and research
assistants from participating in DHS-sponsored initiatives. The
Department has an obligation to protect controlled unclassified
information but is discouraged from placing unreasonable
burdens on researchers partnering with DHS components,
especially when the research does not require access to
controlled information. The Department should consider placing
such restrictions on research only on the basis of the actual
inclusion of controlled information in that research, rather
than the potential that such information might be involved.
DEFENSE PROCUREMENT ACT
The Committee is aware that the Department of Homeland
Security is a key player in the Federal interagency community
in the implementation of the Defense Procurement Act, in
particular with regard to working with the Departments of
Defense and Commerce to ensure the availability of industrial
capability to meet current emergency preparedness requirements
without disrupting commercial activities. One aspect of this is
supporting the requirement for the President to maintain a
Defense Industrial Base Information System that identifies
domestic manufacturing capabilities that are essential to
national defense and homeland security. The Committee directs
the Department to fully fund its statutorily required
activities in support of the Defense Production Act and to
report on its funding required for such efforts in its fiscal
year 2013 budget submission.
PERFORMANCE PLANS
The Committee urges the Department to expedite development
of the agency's annual performance plans and reports, including
the agency's high-priority goals integrating specific customer
service standards. Frequent evaluations ensure agency
efficiency and accountability through performance measurements
that are reported quarterly to Congress and the public in
accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993.
DEPARTMENTAL EFFICIENCY REVIEW
The Committee strongly approves the Department's efforts to
streamline its operations and reduce areas of overlapping
responsibility as part of a major efficiency review, and
directs the Department to arrange for an independent evaluation
of that review, and to provide the results of that evaluation
to the Committee not later than 30 days after its completion.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $53,430,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2012...................... 62,395,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 50,860,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -2,570,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2012.................. -11,535,000
MISSION
The primary responsibilities and functions of the Office of
the Chief Financial Officer include budget execution and
oversight; performance analysis and evaluation; oversight of
the Department's financial management system; oversight of the
Department's business and financial management systems across
all agencies and directorates; and oversight of credit card
programs and audit liaisons.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $50,860,000 for the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer (CFO), $11,535,000 below the amount
requested and $2,570,000 below the amount provided in fiscal
year 2011. Because the Department has decided to cancel its
solicitation for the Transformation and Systems Consolidation
(TASC) project and is undertaking a review of its strategy to
meet current DHS requirements, the Committee does not include
the $11,000,000 programmatic request for TASC.
TRANSFORMATION AND SYSTEMS CONSOLIDATION
The Department continues to have a critical need to produce
reliable, timely, and useful financial management information.
In light of its decision to cancel its TASC solicitation, the
Department shall keep the Committee informed on its strategy
for establishing a core financial system and any plans for
integrating its remaining management systems for acquisitions
and assets.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS
The Committee directs the Department to submit all of its
fiscal year 2013 budget justifications on the first Monday in
February, 2012, concurrent with the official submission of the
President's budget to Congress. This should include all
classified budgets as well as non-classified budgets. These
justifications should have the customary level of detailed data
and explanatory statements to support the appropriations
requests, including tables that detail each agency's programs,
projects, and activities for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. The
Committee directs the CFO to ensure that adequate justification
is given to each increase, decrease, transfer, and staffing
change proposed in fiscal year 2013. The CFO should also ensure
that each item directed by the Committee to be provided as part
of the fiscal year 2013 budget justification is delivered as
mandated.
The CFO shall submit, as part of the 2013 budget
justifications, a detailed table identifying the last year that
authorizing legislation was provided by Congress for each
program, project, or activity; the amount of the authorization;
and the appropriation in the last year of the authorization.
The CFO shall also submit, as part of the Department's 2013
justification materials to Congress, complete explanations and
justifications for all proposed legislative language, whether
it is new or amends existing law. Such information should be
provided regardless of whether the proposed changes are
substantive or technical in nature and include an annotated
comparison of proposed versus existing language. The Committee
notes that, this year, comprehensive explanations were not
provided in every instance, making it more difficult to
consider the Department's legislative language requests.
DISINGENUOUS BUDGETING AND HYPOTHETICAL USER FEE INCREASES
The budget request was built upon assumptions that
$645,000,000 in new revenue would be realized in fiscal year
2012, $590,000,000 in increased aviation security user fees and
$55,000,000 in increased customs fees. However, both increases
require new legislative authority which is outside the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations. Furthermore,
in the unlikely event such fee increases were enacted this
year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates aviation
security user fees would only increase by a net of
$210,000,000--not the $590,000,000 assumed in the Department's
budget submission. Clearly, by submitting a budget predicated
on hypothetical revenue, the Administration has placed the
Committee in an untenable position. The Committee is therefore
compelled to fill the huge budgetary hole left to it by the
Department, while not cutting funding required for critical
homeland security missions, as is evident in this bill. The
Committee has been forced to reduce or restrain funding in many
support areas in order to fill this hole. This is not an
isolated instance; the Department has repeatedly submitted
budgets over the past several years with similarly unrealistic
assumptions and which have also required the Committee to go to
great lengths to make up the difference.
Such submissions demonstrate either a frivolous approach to
budgeting or else a disregard for the seriousness with which
the Committee takes its responsibilities, and it will not be
tolerated. The Committee advises the Department that in the
future it will reject any funding proposals based on such
hypothetical funding scenarios or on proposals for legislation
under the jurisdiction of authorizing committees. While the
Committee expects to be kept informed about the status of such
legislative proposals, it will not recognize them as relevant
to its appropriations work until they have been enacted into
law.
MONTHLY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The Committee continues bill language requiring monthly
budget and staffing reports within 45 days after the close of
each month.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $333,393,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2012\1\................... 277,972,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 261,300,000
Bill compared with:...................................
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -72,093,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2012.................. -16,672,000\1\Does not factor in the $131,590,000 requested for Data Center
Migration.
MISSION
The Chief Information Office (CIO) has oversight of
information technology projects in the Department. The CIO
reviews and approves all DHS information technology
acquisitions estimated to cost over $2,500,000 and also
approves the hiring and oversees the performance of all DHS
component CIOs.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $261,300,000 for the Office of the
CIO, $16,672,000 below the amount requested and $72,093,000
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011.
A comparison of the budget request to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Expenses............. $105,578,000 $105,500,000
Information Technology Activities. 38,800,000 38,800,000
Security Activities............... 89,525,000 73,000,000
National Security Systems......... 44,069,000 44,000,000
-------------------------------------
Total, Chief Information $277,972,000 $261,300,000
Officer......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES
The Committee recommends $38,800,000 for Information
Technology Activities, the same as the amount requested.
SECURITY ACTIVITIES
The Committee recommends $73,000,000 for Security
Activities, $16,525,000 below the request. While the Committee
supports these activities, the President's budget assumes an
increase in aviation security user fees, which has not been
authorized, and which limits the Committee's ability to meet
the request level for this account.
The Committee is increasingly concerned by information
security vulnerabilities within the Federal Government as they
relate to insiders removing sensitive or classified information
without authorization. The CIO's office is directed to brief
the Committees on Appropriations--in coordination with other
components as deemed necessary--no later than 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act detailing Department-wide
efforts to combat ``insider threats'' in the cyber domain,
including, but not limited to an overview of: (1) the extent of
the Department's ability to monitor the unauthorized removal of
sensitive unclassified and classified material from DHS
information systems; (2) changes made in the wake of recent
information security breaches, including any new restrictions
to DHS information systems and databases, both internally and
to external stakeholders; (3) any recent restrictions placed on
DHS users by external, interagency stakeholders on access to
certain databases and an assessment of the operational impact
of such restrictions; and (4) plans to improve the DHS
information security architecture and policies to preclude
similar breaches from happening at DHS.
DATA CENTER MIGRATION
This year, the Administration requested a total of
$131,590,000 throughout DHS to pay for the migration of
component resources to the Department's two consolidated data
centers. The purpose of operating two data centers is to help
manage the significant risk associated with locating all of the
Department's data at a single site. However, due to the need to
offset budgetary gaps created by the request's assumption of
revenue from as yet unauthorized aviation security fees and
customs user fees, as well as the need to fund disaster relief,
the Committee declines to fund this initiative in fiscal year
2012 and directs the Department to develop a plan to implement
the migration instead in fiscal year 2013.
NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEMS
The Committee provides $44,000,000 for National Security
Systems, $69,000 below the amount requested, which reflects
management efficiencies. This funding includes work to develop
the Homeland Security Data Network, which allows DHS to
communicate at a SECRET-classified level among Federal and
State government agencies and supporting entities, as well as
the communications security modernization program.
Analysis and Operations
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $335,030,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2012...................... 355,368,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 344,368,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +9,338,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2012.................. -11,000,000
MISSION
Analysis and Operations houses the Office of Intelligence
and Analysis (I&A) and the Directorate of Operations
Coordination, which together collect, evaluate, and disseminate
intelligence information, as well as provide incident
management and operational coordination.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $344,368,000 for Analysis and
Operations, $11,000,000 below the amount requested and
$9,338,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011.
STATE AND LOCAL FUSION CENTERS
The Committee provides the funding requested to expand DHS
support to State and Local Fusion Centers. While the Committee
is generally supportive of the State and Local Fusion Center
program, I&A needs to better identify and, if possible,
quantify the Federal benefit and return on investment generated
by this spending. The Committee directs I&A to develop such
robust programmatic justification and submit it with the fiscal
year 2013 budget request. The Committee also directs I&A to
continue its quarterly reporting on the fusion center program.
BORDER INTELLIGENCE FUSION SECTION
The Committee commends I&A for establishing the Border
Intelligence Fusion Section (BIFS). The Committee has long
believed that robust intelligence capabilities are essential to
the execution of the Department's border security mission. The
Committee further believes this multi-agency section--
consisting of personnel from CBP, ICE, Coast Guard, and I&A and
working collaboratively with staff from the Departments of
Defense and Justice--will improve intelligence collection and
dissemination and enhance the use of existing DHS resources
deployed along the Southwest border. The Committee directs I&A
to provide regular updates on the development of BIFS and the
metrics it is applying to measure this new section's
effectiveness as part of I&A's existing quarterly threat
briefings.
INTELLIGENCE ANALYST CONTRACTOR CONVERSIONS
The Committee supports the conversion of a largely
contractor-based intelligence analyst workforce to Federal
employees, as appropriate. Given the difficulty identifying and
hiring qualified analysts with appropriate security clearances,
however, the Committee believes I&A must have all necessary
human resources tools to implement this conversion as rapidly
as possible. The Committee therefore encourages the Department
to seek direct hiring authority for intelligence analyst
vacancies, both to speed up the conversion process and to
ensure that qualified candidates are not recruited elsewhere
due to bureaucratic delays in the DHS hiring process.
DIRECTORATE OF OPERATIONS COORDINATION
The Committee denies the request for the C2 Gap Filler
Technology initiative at this time due to an insufficient
justification and uncertainties regarding scope and total cost.
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
Recommended adjustments to classified programs and more
detailed oversight of funding for I&A are addressed in a
classified annex accompanying this report.
Office of Inspector General
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011\1\.................... $113,874,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2012...................... 144,318,000
Recommended in the bill\1\............................ 124,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +10,126,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2012.................. -20,318,000\1\Excludes a $16,000,000 transfer from the Disaster Relief Fund.
MISSION
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established an Office of
Inspector General (OIG) in DHS by amendment to the Inspector
General Act of 1978. This office was established to provide an
objective and independent organization that would be effective
in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in
departmental programs and operations; (2) providing a means for
keeping the Secretary and the Congress fully and currently
informed of problems and deficiencies in the administration of
programs and operations; (3) fulfilling statutory
responsibilities for the annual audit of the Department's
financial statements; (4) ensuring the security of DHS
information technology pursuant to the Federal Information
Security Management Act; and (5) reviewing and making
recommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation and
regulations to the Department's programs and operational
components. According to the authorizing legislation, the
Inspector General is to report dually to the Secretary of
Homeland Security and to the Congress.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $124,000,000 for the Office of
Inspector General, $20,318,000 below the budget request and
$10,126,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The
Committee reduces funding by an additional $4,318,000 from the
request in the interest of efficiency, with the expectation
that OIG will prioritize funding to meet its stated needs for
enhanced oversight of emergency and Departmental programs, as
well as audits of 9/11 Commission recommendation
implementation. In addition, the Committee will continue the
practice of transferring $16,000,000 from the Disaster Relief
Fund to OIG in fiscal year 2012. However, the Committee hopes
in the future to reach the point where OIG will fund its
disaster-related audits and investigations from its core
budget.
TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $8,212,626,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 8,725,555,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 8,769,518,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +556,892,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. +43,963,000
MISSION
The mission of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is
to protect the borders of the United States by preventing,
preempting, and deterring threats against the Homeland through
ports of entry and by interdicting illegal crossing between
ports of entry. CBP's mission integrates homeland security,
safety, and border management to ensure that goods and persons
cross U.S. borders in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations, and pose no threat to the country. The priority of
CBP is to prevent terrorists and their weapons from entering
the United States, and to support related homeland security
missions affecting border and airspace security. CBP is also
responsible for apprehending individuals attempting to enter
the U.S. illegally; stemming the flow of illegal drugs and
other contraband, including weapons and bulk cash into and out
of the country; protecting U.S. agricultural and economic
interests from harmful pests and diseases; protecting American
businesses from theft of their intellectual property;
regulating and facilitating international trade; collecting
import duties; and enforcing U.S. trade laws. By the end of
fiscal year 2011, CBP will have a workforce of more than
60,000, including CBP officers, Air Interdiction agents, Marine
Interdiction agents, canine enforcement officers, Border Patrol
agents, Agriculture Specialists, trade specialists,
intelligence analysts, and mission support staff.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $8,769,518,000 for Salaries and
Expenses, $43,963,000 above the amount requested and
$556,892,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The
significant increase in funding from 2011 is chiefly due to the
journeyman pay raise and annualization of significant staffing
increases provided to both the CBP officer and Border Patrol
workforces in recent years. Supporting operations and
maintaining staffing levels is the Committee's top priority.
The Committee recommendation includes additional resources to
restore proposed reductions in international cargo screening
operations (Container Security Initiative) and provide critical
enhancements to cargo and passenger targeting and screening
programs.
This recommendation provides $1,874,252,000 for
Headquarters Management and Administration, with the following
differences from the request: the Committee reduces funding by
$3,452,000 for the Acquisition Workforce Initiative and
$33,385,000 for data center migration. While the Committee has
supported substantial increases similar to the Acquisition
Workforce Initiative in the past and supports the Department's
data center consolidation efforts, the President's budget
request assumed an increase in fees collected pursuant to the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA)
in order to fund these programs at the requested levels. This
fee is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Appropriations, and the Committee has adjusted its fiscal year
2012 recommendation for this account accordingly. Additionally,
CBP has existing authority and funds to hire appropriately
qualified program management and acquisition staff as needed to
effectively manage its programs. The funding level includes a
$25,939,000 increase for conduct and integrity programs, the
requested transfer of multiple mission support functions into
this program, project, and activities (PPA), and increased rent
requirements.
Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation is
funded at $2,987,761,000, including $55,000,000 to fill the
shortfall created by the President's budget request assuming an
increase in COBRA fees not yet authorized; $44,407,000 for the
adjustment for law enforcement journeyman pay costs;
$86,109,000 for prior year annualization of 963 CBP officers;
$20,692,000 for an additional 300 CBP officers at new and
expanded ports of entry; $2,212,000 for additional canine units
at ports of entry; $7,499,000 to expand the Immigration
Advisory Program to four additional locations; $79,557,000 for
International Cargo Screening, including $3,287,000 for the
Secure Freight Initiative and $76,270,000 for the Container
Security Initiative, $18,300,000 above the requested level;
$46,400,000 for Automated Targeting Systems, reflecting an
increase of $15,000,000 over the request, for enhancing one of
the Department's most effective counterterrorism and security
capabilities; $46,950,000 for the National Targeting Center,
including the requested increase of $16,400,000 for 45 new CBP
officers and 20 new analysts; and $37,834,000 for Training at
Ports of Entry. The fiscal year 2012 request, including
anticipated fee collections, claims to support a total of
21,186 CBP officers.
Border Security and Control between Ports of Entry is
funded at $3,619,604,000, which reflects an increase of
$191,459,000 for prior year annualization of 1,000 additional
agents along with support personnel funded in the fiscal year
2010 Border Security Supplemental as well as $184,717,000 for
the adjustment for law enforcement journeyman pay costs. This
overall level will support a Border Patrol agent force of
21,370 (compared to 12,349 in fiscal year 2006), including
2,212 deployed to the Northern Border and 18,415 deployed to
the Southwest Border.
Air and Marine Operations are funded at $287,901,000, as
requested. Within the overall funding level for Salaries and
Expenses, $72,646,000 in ambiguous Administrative Savings and
Professional Services reductions have been proposed in the
budget request. The Committee's recommended funding level
includes those so-called savings, given the need to fill the
operational shortfall created by the budget request's
assumption of an increase in aviation passenger and COBRA fees
that have not been enacted.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters, Management, and
Administration:
Management and Administration, $688,878,000 $670,494,000
Border Security Inspections
and Trade Facilitation.......
Management and Administration, 738,462,000 720,009,000
Border Security and Control
between Ports of Entry.......
Management and Administration, 483,749,000 483,749,000
Rent.........................
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Headquarters 1,911,089,000 1,874,252,000
Management and
Administration...........
Border Security Inspections and
Trade Facilitation:
Inspections, Trade, and Travel 2,507,235,000 2,562,235,000
Facilitation at Ports of
Entry........................
Harbor Maintenance Fee 3,274,000 3,274,000
Collection (Trust Fund)......
International Cargo Screening. 68,757,000 79,557,000
Other international programs.. 10,684,000 10,684,000
Customs-Trade Partnership 44,979,000 44,979,000
Against Terrorism............
Trusted Traveler Programs..... 6,311,000 6,311,000
Inspection and Detection 149,537,000 149,537,000
Technology Investments.......
Automated Targeting Systems... 31,400,000 46,400,000
National Targeting Center..... 46,950,000 46,950,000
Training...................... 37,834,000 37,834,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Border Security 2,906,961,000 2,987,761,000
Inspections and Trade
Facilitation.............
Border Security and Control
between Ports of Entry:
Border Security and Control... 3,530,994,000 3,530,994,000
Training...................... 88,610,000 88,610,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Border Security 3,619,604,000 3,619,604,000
and Control between POEs.
Air and Marine Operations......... 287,901,000 287,901,000
-------------------------------------
Total, CBP Salaries and $8,725,555,000 $8,769,518,000
Expenses.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION
The quality of the Congressional Budget Justification
material provided by the Department for CBP accounts continues
to be of concern. Even after a thorough review of the fiscal
year 2012 materials, the Committee is unable to accomplish the
basic in-depth oversight required in these fiscally constrained
times due to the inability of the Department to provide quality
justification materials that articulate detailed budgets for
programs, projects, and activities requested. The Committee is
dissatisfied with the lack of consistency and transparency in
the ``adjustments to base'' across the Department's budget
justification materials, whether in the presentations on PPAs
or in Exhibit B, the table that displays current to budget year
changes. These presentations are particularly troublesome in
their use of the label ``technical adjustment'' to describe
multiple, unspecified increases and decreases. It appears that
this term obscures, rather than clarifies the reasons for
changes. For example, CBP Salaries and Expenses includes a
decrease that appears to reflect a policy decision not to use
$11,477,000 appropriated for Air and Marine Operations, and an
increase of $246,922,000 that appears to represent costs to
annualize staffing increases. The Committee directs the
Department to avoid the use of the term ``technical
adjustment'' for any but the most narrow, clearly specified
reasons, and affirms that it will not recognize any ``technical
adjustments'' that are not clearly and explicitly identified
throughout the justification materials.
CBP, in conjunction with the Chief Financial officer, is
encouraged to work with the Committee in developing new
materials for the Congressional Budget Justifications.
REVISED BUDGET STRUCTURE
The Committee directs the Commissioner of CBP to propose a
subdivision of the Inspections, Trade, and Travel Facilitation
at Ports of Entry PPA and the Border Security and Control PPA
within the Salaries and Expenses account in conjunction with
the budget submission for fiscal year 2013. At funding levels
of $2,562,235,000 and $3,530,994,000 respectively, the PPAs,
and the accompanying budget justifications, have not provided
adequate detail for appropriate oversight of these funds. Funds
could be subdivided in the following budget activities: officer
or agent pay, civilian pay, equipment, operations and
maintenance, and procurement of items over $100,000. CBP is
directed to work with the Committee in developing the revised
PPA structure.
FEE FUNDS SUPPORTING CBP PORT OF ENTRY OPERATIONS
Approximately 37 percent of CBP officers are funded by user
fees. Fee collections have been below estimates in recent
years, given the global economic crisis and the decline in
international travel. Furthermore, CBP has not been able to
manage fluctuations in fee funding levels through officer
attrition due to the low attrition rate also related to the
prevailing economic conditions. In fiscal years 2008 through
2010, CBP experienced a decrease in the Immigration User Fee of
nine percent, in COBRA of six percent, and in the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Inspection Fee of three
percent. While CBP has considered submitting legislative
proposals for changes to their fee collections, a thoughtful,
thorough approach has not been proposed with a concerted effort
to implement changes. Rather, the President's budget request
assumes funds that have not been authorized, leaving the
Committee with a shortfall to address or the consequences of
cutting CBP's port of entry operations.
In fact, the fiscal year 2012 request assumes an increase
of $55,000,000 in COBRA fee collections that has not yet been
enacted. The proposal suggests removing an exemption to the
COBRA fee for individuals entering by commercial air or sea
vessels from Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean, resulting in a
net increase of $110,000,000 in anticipated annual fee
collections and assuming that in fiscal year 2012 CBP would
begin collections in the third quarter. Again, this fee is not
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations.
Therefore, the Committee has reduced the anticipated level of
COBRA fee collections by $55,000,000 and increased the
appropriated funds provided in the Border Security Inspections
Program PPA to fill the Administration-created shortfall. As a
result, the Committee recommends reductions to other accounts
in this bill as an offset for this unjustified assumption.
In addition, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has
identified $639,400,000 in unobligated balances in CBP's
Customs User Fee Account as a result of excess collections from
a temporary fee increase and elimination of North American Free
Trade Agreement country exemptions from January 1, 1994, to
September 30, 1997 (GAO-11-318SP). The Committee is aware that
the CFO and CBP have been discussing these funds with the
Office of Management and Budget, but there has been no
resolution regarding the appropriate application. These funds
should either be applied to CBP operations or rescinded to
clear up the question of their availability. The Committee
directs the CFO and CBP to brief the Committee no later than 30
days after the date of enactment of this Act regarding the
decision on this matter.
In addition, the Committee directs the Department to
continue its quarterly reports from the Secretary on user fees
to the Committees on Appropriations in fiscal year 2012
beginning not later than December 1, 2011, and to include in
the briefings the status of collections and steps taken to
mitigate shortfalls in expected collections.
PORT OF ENTRY OPERATIONS--MANPOWER AND INNOVATION
With the fluctuation of fee funding, which constitutes 37
percent of resources available for CBP officers, and current
budget pressures, CBP faces significant challenges in managing
both staffing levels and wait times at our Nation's ports of
entry. Further, while the Committee supports targeted staffing
increases where a clearly demonstrated need exists--for new and
expanded ports of entry as well as for the National Targeting
Center-Passenger (NTC-P), overseas programs, and, more
recently, outbound operations--the Committee does not believe
that CBP has demonstrated that it has fully explored all
practicable options for reducing staffing growth in other
environments.
To date, CBP has conducted several assessments of its CBP
officer needs to adequately staff frontline passenger and cargo
operations at our Nation's ports of entry. The fiscal year 2012
request, including anticipated fee collections, claims to
support 21,186 CBP officers. While more modest CBP proposals
assert an unfunded need of approximately 1,300 CBP officers,
others call for an additional 10,000. Although the Committee is
prepared to consider well-documented operational staffing
increase proposals in the future, the methodology supporting
such proposals, including how the required positions are
calculated, must produce more precise requests and must take
into consideration potential staffing level reductions or
offsets that could be achieved by initiatives such as: (1) re-
engineering port of entry processes to automate more
administrative tasks and focus staff on core operational
activities, such as fully implementing the Land Border
Initiative (LBI) and new automated pedestrian processing
procedures; (2) further segmenting travelers and cargo by risk
and facilitating the entry of lower risk traffic by expanding
and improving the targeting capabilities in ATS for
pedestrians, passenger vehicles, trucks, and air and sea
passengers; (3) facilitating the entry of lower risk traffic by
strengthening and expanding registered traveler programs,
including the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-
TPAT)/Free and Secure Trade (FAST) programs; and (4)
identifying areas where technology investments could increase
CBP officer efficiency or better utilize available staffing.
Therefore, to assist the Committee in its oversight of CBP
staffing and planning, the Committee directs CBP to report to
the Committee not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act on its allocation of CBP officers,
including how CBP can more effectively manage staffing
resources across ports of entry to meet rising and falling
staffing requirements more efficiently. Furthermore, the
Committee recommends in this bill a substantial investment in
strategic enhancements to targeting capabilities in part to
automate functions that currently require significant manpower.
CBP shall also detail to the Committee, in the same report
requested above, the manpower savings generated with the plan
for use of these funds and how those resources will be applied
to other analytical activities going forward.
CUSTOMS CHECK OF INTERNATIONAL PASSENGERS AND BAGGAGE
The Committee is aware that CBP has considered ways to
eliminate the separate customs check for arriving passengers at
international airports, while still meeting the requirements of
customs law. While the Committee would not support any change
that would denigrate customs law enforcement or CBP's
capabilities to detect and interdict illicit goods,
agricultural threats, or drugs, the Committee urges CBP to
continue looking at options to streamline operations for
international air passenger processing.
From the perspective of travelers, elimination of the two-
step check for immigration and customs would mean avoiding the
second bottleneck to turn in their customs declarations. More
importantly, it could also mean that passengers with connecting
flights could continue through to Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) screening rather than waiting for checked
baggage to come into the customs hall and waiting for the
airlines to re-check those bags. Ensuring that security needs
as well as efficiency gains are met, the Committee encourages
CBP, in consultation with TSA, to look at piloting different
concepts of operations.
WAIT TIMES
The Committee continues to be interested in monitoring CBP
processing times. Beginning no later than January 30, 2012, and
on a quarterly basis thereafter, CBP is directed to brief the
Committee on the number of passenger arrivals at air and sea
ports of entry for which the immigration and customs processing
time exceeds 60 minutes. The Committee also requests that CBP
include on its website wait time information for seaports,
similar to the information already posted for air and land
ports of entry.
OUTBOUND INSPECTIONS
CBP has devoted substantial resources from its base, as
well as supplemental funds provided by Congress for the effort
to dismantle the Mexican drug cartels, to conduct outbound
inspections along the Southwest border. The Committee
encourages CBP to assess the effectiveness of outbound
operations considering the costs dedicated to these activities.
The current concept of operations is temporary in nature,
despite the fact that the operations have been underway for two
years. The Committee directs CBP to brief the Committee no
later than November 1, 2011, on its plans for outbound
operations, addressing officer safety issues associated with
the concept of operations and manpower allocation to these
operations, including temporary duty staff.
AVAILABILITY OF AUTOMATED SYSTEMS
CBP's operations, particularly passenger operations at
ports of entry, are highly dependent on information technology
systems. In 2007, CBP experienced a total network failure at
Los Angeles International Airport that created a significant
disruption to CBP operations, the aviation system, and
passengers traveling at the time. Despite CBP's efforts to
address significant system availability challenges, the Office
of the Inspector General (OIG) outlined a number of outstanding
concerns in a report issued on February 4, 2011 (OIG-11-42).
The Committee directs CBP and OIG to separately brief the
Committee on progress in addressing issues raised in the report
not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Further, for both the security of the United States and the
movement of passengers and goods through the international
aviation system, the availability and reliability of TSA's
Secure Flight and CBP's advance passenger information systems
are critical. The Committee directs CBP, in conjunction with
TSA, to conduct an end-to-end assessment of their collective
system availability and reliability issues, develop service-
level agreements associated with system performance
expectations, and monitor and respond to any performance issues
expeditiously. Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, CBP and TSA shall provide a briefing to
the Committee on the results of these activities.
CONTAINER SECURITY INITIATIVE AND INSPECTING HIGH RISK CARGO OVERSEAS
The budget request for fiscal year 2012, similar to the
request for fiscal year 2011, proposes to significantly reduce
International Cargo Screening operations. The Committee does
not support the 44 percent reduction in the Container Security
Initiative (CSI). Through CSI, CBP deploys officers to foreign
ports, in partnership with host nation authorities, to identify
high risk cargo to be screened and cleared before being loaded
on U.S. bound ships. The budget request would seek to convert
the program from one with an overseas presence in 58 seaports
to one that is primarily U.S.-based, maintaining operations in
a select number of yet-to-be named ports of strategic
importance. Where CSI operations are closed, CBP would instead
rely on a ``virtual'' approach, using remote targeting, and
possibly reciprocal inspection agreements with foreign
governments. While such a model may work where the host
government is a close, trustworthy, and fully capable partner,
the Committee observes that such relationships are not the
norm.
Furthermore, the Committee believes there is value in
meeting face-to-face and establishing genuine relationships
with partners in foreign customs organizations and port
operations that goes beyond simply coordinating the screening,
targeting, and inspection of cargo. Such relationships have
resulted in valuable exchanges of information about trade and
supply chain security that cannot be captured through virtual
channels. Where those relationships are not being forged, the
Committee encourages CBP to ensure that staff deployed for CSI
have the proper skills and training for this type of work.
The budget request also proposes to dedicate $7,500,000 to
inadequately justified pilot projects to assess alternatives
for implementing the requirement to scan overseas 100 percent
of maritime cargo containers bound for the United States. In
its budget submission, the Department proposed using these
funds for travel to assess foreign seaports of interest and
engage foreign government officials. The Committee does not
recommend funds for this activity until the Department comes
forward with a substantive approach to meeting or adapting the
100 percent scanning requirement, instead applying these
resources to partially restore the cut to CSI.
The Committee, therefore, recommends $79,557,000 for
International Cargo Screening, including $76,270,000 for the
CSI program and $3,287,000 for the Secure Freight Initiative,
to continue operations in Qasim, Pakistan; limited operations
in Salalah, Oman; and expand operations to Karachi, Pakistan,
if possible with funds provided.
TRADE FACILITATION AND INTERAGENCY COOPERATION
CBP's creation of the C-TPAT program in 2002 was forward-
leaning, and the trade community is commended for its continued
participation and support. The concept was extended to importer
safety compliance issues through the Importer Self Assessment.
However, the Committee continues to hear concerns that the
promise of expediting lower-risk cargo through the programs has
not been fully realized. This seems to most affect cargo
subject to safety inspections specifically directed or
generally required by other agencies, rather than as a result
of security concerns. CBP is directed to continue its work with
other agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
and the Consumer Products Safety Commission, to provide the
trade community with clear guidelines for what constitutes low-
risk shippers and shipments. This could include the concept of
a certified importer program. In no way, however, does this
suggest that CBP or other agencies eliminate random inspections
or reduce inspection of goods due to targeting activities. Any
new pilot project or program to promote efficient movement of
trade must include a rigorous compliance review component,
including regular audits. CBP is required to brief the
Committee on its efforts no later than December 1, 2011.
INSPECTION AND DETECTION TECHNOLOGY
The Committee includes $149,537,000 for Inspection and
Detection Technology, as requested. The Committee understands
that, in addition to ongoing operations and maintenance of
CBP's inventory of technology systems, this funding will
support acquisition of replacement or upgraded systems, to
include six large-scale Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) systems,
four large-scale NII systems for new and enhanced ports, and
the purchase, testing, and deployment of small-scale NII. The
Committee expects CBP to award procurement for these items on a
fully competitive basis, with the focus for award being on
attaining the performance goals for which technology is to be
used.
Finally, the Committee notes that it has provided
approximately $1,000,000,000 over the past six fiscal years for
CBP inspection technology, including NII equipment. The
Committee continues to support the procurement and deployment
of new and replacement NII systems and is convinced of the
continuing need to integrate such technology into CBP
operations. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that CBP
has not had a robust, steady plan for managing this technology
through its lifecycle. The devices that were rapidly deployed
in the wake of the 9/11 attacks will soon need to be replaced.
As the Advanced Spectroscopic Portals have not met
expectations, it is unclear how CBP, with the input of the
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, intends to maintain, if not
improve, fielded radiation detection capabilities. Therefore,
this bill includes a requirement for a multi-year investment
and management plan to be provided at the time of budget
submission and updated on an annual basis to fully justify
requested funds for this activity as well as project future
year requirements and funding levels.
AUTOMATED TARGETING SYSTEMS
The Committee includes $46,400,000 for Automated Targeting
Systems, $15,000,000 above the amount requested, to enhance
passenger and cargo targeting efforts. In the aftermath of
recent events involving terrorist travel, and continued
concerns about cargo security, it is critical that the
targeting systems on which CBP and other Federal agencies rely
for counterterrorism and other enforcement efforts be robust
and effective. The Committee is aware that CBP has substantial
requirements for such enhancements and supports CBP's
priorities of: developing capable visualization tools for
analysts to enable faster and better quality presentation of
data; implementing entity resolution enhancements to test and
incorporate a better combination of name matching algorithms,
facilitate data augmentation for certain traveler records, and
utilize all data elements in identifying travelers of known
risk; and employing predictive modeling and machine learning
capabilities.
These strategic enhancements to one of our Nation's most
effective tools to counter terrorist travel and identify risky,
illicit activity in the global trade and travel systems will
provide security results. The Committee directs CBP to report
to the Committees on Appropriations not later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of this Act on its planned
application of this enhanced funding. In addition, the
Committee is concerned that the increase provided under this
heading may result in funds generally provided to the Targeting
Analysis Systems Project Office (TASPO) from other accounts
being directed to other purposes. Such actions would undermine
this investment intended for strategic enhancements. As a
result, the Committee directs CBP to identify and itemize the
consolidated elements of funds provided to TASPO, broken out by
the programs, projects, and activities under which they fall,
including a comparison to prior year funds for the same
programs, projects, and activities, in a briefing to the
Committee not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act.
NATIONAL TARGETING CENTER
The Committee includes $46,950,000 for the National
Targeting Center (NTC), as requested, including an increase of
$16,400,000 for 45 additional CBP officers and 20 mission
support personnel. Both before and after the attempted
terrorist attack on Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day,
2009, the NTC has played a central role in providing tactical
targeting information aimed at interdicting terrorists,
criminals, and prohibited items. As with Automated Targeting
Systems, it is critical that the NTC has the staffing and
capacity required to support its critical information sharing
and analysis mission, and work cooperatively with the Federal
security and law enforcement community.
The Committee is concerned that, despite recent attempted
attacks in international air cargo, CBP did not request funds
to further secure the international cargo supply chain.
Furthermore, despite the fact that CBP's targeting initiatives
started in the cargo arena, CBP has not developed the strategic
vision for the NTC-Cargo (NTC-C) that it has for the NTC-
Passenger. As a result, CBP is directed to provide a briefing
to the Committee on its initiatives to advance the
effectiveness of cargo targeting capabilities as well as its
vision for the NTC-C not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
BORDER PATROL AND BORDER SECURITY BETWEEN PORTS OF ENTRY
The Committee fully funds Border Security and Control
between Ports of Entry at $3,619,604,000, granting the request,
including $88,610,000 for training. This recommendation will
support an overall staffing level of 21,370 Border Patrol
agents, to include 2,212 Border Patrol agents on the Northern
border and over 18,415 on the Southwest border.
Securing the border is a national priority. Doing it right
requires the right mix of personnel, technology, and
infrastructure. The Committee has provided substantial spending
increases to hire and deploy more Border Patrol agents in
recent years. From the fiscal year 2008 Act to this, the fiscal
year 2012 bill, the Committee has provided $17,762,768,000 to
the Border Patrol for agents and equipment. The number of
Border Patrol agents has grown accordingly, from 12,350 in
fiscal year 2006 to the target of 21,370 by September 30, 2011,
a 73 percent increase. During the same period the number of
agents deployed to the Southwest border will grow from 11,032
to 18,415, a 67 percent increase, while the number on the
Northern border will rise from 919 to 2,212, up 141 percent.
The Committee also provided a corresponding increase in mission
support staff needed to enable Border Patrol agents to
concentrate on their enforcement mission in the field.
The Committee staunchly supports the increases that have
been made for Border Patrol operations. At the same time,
sustaining the significant costs of these enhancements in our
current fiscal environment will be a challenge. For that
reason, the Committee directs CBP to measure the return on this
investment. The American people need to see performance metrics
reflecting what level of security gains have resulted from the
investment, as well as the effectiveness of that security level
when compared to the mission. The Commissioner of CBP testified
to the Committee, during the fiscal year 2012 Budget hearing,
that, ``the border is actually more secure than it has ever
been in terms of the ability to detect and apprehend those who
come into the country illegally,'' reporting that nearly 10
times as many Border Patrol agents are in place and over 6,000
more other CBP personnel are in the field than in 1993. These
assertions of a more secure border must be validated with
performance measures that address the effectiveness of
personnel, technology, and infrastructure investments. A
reporting of data points does not supplant indicators of
effectiveness. Rather CBP must develop statistically validated
measures including better quantification of the denominators--
the number of illegal crossers and volume of contraband coming
across the border.
It is essential that CBP's strategies be informed by
credible performance measures with clear end goals for border
security. To articulate those clear end goals, the Committee
encourages the Border Patrol to continue developing its new
strategy and doctrine. The measures of success must stem from a
coherent strategy and clear doctrine.
In light of the significant growth in workforce, and in
order to attain an optimal and sustainable staffing level, the
Committee directs CBP to submit a report not later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of this Act on its five-year
staffing and deployment plan for the Border Patrol. CBP should
take serious consideration of illegal crossings, apprehension
rates, and apprehensions per agent in developing this plan.
The Committee also directs CBP to brief the Committee no
later than November 1, 2011, on funds allocated to support the
health, welfare, and safety of Border Patrol agents in this
budget.
ACCESS TO FEDERAL LANDS
The Committee is concerned about Border Patrol access to
Federal lands to address known border security threats. Delays
in access to Federal lands limit the ability of agents to
detect and interdict drug smugglers and undocumented aliens in
border areas by reducing flexibility in conducting patrols and
positioning surveillance equipment. A March 2006 Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) among the Secretaries of Homeland Security,
Agriculture, and Interior set forth the policy of cooperation
that should have resulted in expeditious determinations on
access to Federal lands. However, according to testimony before
Congress by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), while
the MOU requires the agencies to ``cooperate and complete, in
an expedited manner, all compliance required by applicable
Federal laws,'' such cooperation has not always occurred. In
one example, ``when Border Patrol requested permission to move
surveillance equipment, it took the land manager more than four
months to conduct the required historic property assessment and
grant permission, but by then illegal traffic had shifted to
other areas.'' The Committee directs the Departments of
Homeland Security, Agriculture and Interior to brief the
Committee not later than October 1, 2011, on their plan to
address the Border Patrol's access to Federal lands, as
appropriate and necessary to ensure the border security of the
United States. Further, the Committee directs DHS to brief the
Committee not later than October 1, 2011, on its implementation
of GAO's recommendations for border security coordination on
Southwest Federal lands in GAO-11-38 and GAO-11-177.
JOINT FIELD COMMAND STRUCTURE
The Committee is aware that CBP recently established the
Joint Field Command (JFC) in Arizona. The CBP press release
states the following purpose for the JFC: ``to integrate the
combined assets of the Tucson and Yuma Border Patrol Sectors,
the Office of Field Operations Tucson Field Office, and the
Office of Air and Marine's Tucson and Yuma Air Branches,
enabling CBP leadership in the Arizona area of operations to
direct an integrated approach to our mission of border
security, commercial enforcement and trade facilitation.'' The
Committee strongly supports joint analysis and reporting
efforts, such as those envisioned through the Border
Intelligence Fusion Section, that are designed to leverage
resources across organizations to provide actionable
information for frontline border security operations also
across organizations. Similarly, developing a common operating
picture to provide situational awareness of particular areas
and share threat and risk information may be valuable.
Alternatively, a joint command makes sense where there are
truly joint operations. Given that Border Patrol already has
the authority to direct air and marine assets and Field
Operations operates within the ports of entry, it is unclear
what mission benefits come from a Border Patrol agent
commanding Field Operations at the ports or a CBP Director of
Field Operations commanding Border Patrol operations in the
desert. The Committee is interested in understanding the cost
and benefit of establishing the JFC and whether CBP intends to
establish this concept in other areas along the border.
Further, CBP is directed to provide the funding levels and
sources associated with the establishment and operations of the
JFC no later than July 1, 2011. The Committee is also
interested in the rationale for Border Patrol's sector lines,
particularly between Yuma and Tucson, and requests a briefing
on this topic.
OFFICE OF AIR AND MARINE STAFFING
The Committee includes $287,901,000, as requested, for Air
and Marine Compensation and Benefits for the annualization of
prior-year funds, on-going support of CBPs use of air and
marine forces to secure the border, and consolidation of
mission support funding across all CBP programs, projects, and
activities (PPAs) into Management and Administration and
training PPAs. The Committee supports CBPs internal re-
allocation of positions to manage program needs including the
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) program.
SOUTHWEST BORDER VIOLENCE
The Committee has invested billions of dollars in Southwest
border security efforts over the past eight years. While
significant resources have been invested and progress made,
conditions in Mexico remain dire. Drug production is up and
drug related violence in Mexican border communities continues
to result in the tragic deaths of innocent people. The level of
violence directed at U.S. law enforcement agents and officers
working on the border and in Mexico remains a concern--
particularly with the deaths of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry
and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agent Jaime
Zapata.
It is clear an effective strategy to curb Southwest border
violence is multi-faceted. Part of this strategy must be
comprehensive performance metrics that can demonstrate
progress, the effectiveness of technology, infrastructure and
workforce investments, and remaining capability gaps. The
Committee directs CBP and ICE to brief the Committee on
existing metrics used to assess the level and impact of
violence in border communities and along the Southwest border,
to include violence experienced by CBP and ICE personnel in
their border enforcement efforts no later than August 1, 2011.
As part of this briefing, the Committee directs CBP and ICE to
assess existing performance measures and whether they provide a
useful basis for analysis of the effectiveness of strategies
and investments to counter border violence.
INTEGRITY PROGRAMS
The Committee remains concerned with reports from CBP's
Office of Internal Affairs that drug trafficking organizations
(DTOs) have been seeking to infiltrate CBP, compromise CBP
employees, and corrupt the agency. The Committee strongly
supports CBP's initiative to mitigate these challenges through
polygraph examination and periodic background re-investigation,
as well as the provision of workforce safeguards to reduce and
prevent corruption. CBP should ensure that its ethics,
integrity, and conduct programs include training at the time of
recruitment, hiring, basic academy, in-service, and advanced
stages of an agent or officer's career.
The Committee includes a requested increase of $25,939,000
to support polygraph examinations and to reduce the backlog in
background investigations and periodic re-investigations.
However, the Committee is concerned that this ``increase'' does
not represent a real increase over funding the Committee
previously provided for this purpose specifically to support
the Office of Internal Affairs. The Committee directs CBP to
brief the Committee not later than December 1, 2011, on the
funds available for and progress regarding polygraph
examinations, background investigations, and periodic re-
investigations. The Committee is also interested in the status
of periodic CBP's efforts to prevent infiltration of DTOs into
the CBP organization, including ensuring completion of
polygraph examinations of all new hires at the appropriate
point prior to field deployment. The briefing should provide
the budget, staffing, and effectiveness for these integrity
efforts.
TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS AND BORDER CONTROL
The Committee observes that a critical element of gaining
``effective control'' of the border is to ensure seamless
communication between Federal agencies and their State and
local counterparts. The Committee supports CBP's efforts to
minimally upgrade its tactical communications infrastructure in
order to meet operational needs on the border, while CBP works
within DHS and with interagency Federal partners on a more
comprehensive solution to broadband infrastructure and
communications needs. The Committee directs the Chief
Information Officer of CBP, the National Protection and
Programs Directorate's Office of Emergency Communications, and
the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide a briefing
to the Committee not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act on Department and interagency efforts.
DETENTION STATISTICS
The Committee directs the Department to issue statistics on
the number of individuals held in custody by CBP, including all
Border Patrol stations, checkpoints, and short-term custody
facilities (defined as facilities used to hold individuals for
72 hours or less). These statistics shall include a list of all
the facilities used for short-term custody, the country of
origin of those in CBP custody, age, sex, duration of detention
for those individuals in CBP custody, and the circumstances of
their release (repatriation, referral to ICE, referral to DOJ,
etc.). The Committee directs the Department to publish annually
these statistics in the Department's annual statistical
yearbook. The Department shall further explain how and why
these facilities are used, what standards govern the conditions
of custody, and what oversight mechanisms the Department
employs to monitor short-term detention conditions and lengths
of time of detention.
BORDER COMMUNITY RELATIONS OFFICERS
The Committee is aware that where they have been used,
border community relations officers have improved collaboration
with local border communities and helped the Border Patrol and
Office of Field Operations more effectively carry out their
enforcement missions. The Committee, therefore, encourages CBP
to deploy more such officers to areas that could benefit from
their presence, and directs CBP to brief the Committees not
later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act on
the role such officers play and the status of service-oriented
training for CBP officers and Border Patrol agents.
BORDER SEARCH, TRAUMA AND RESCUE
The Committee encourages CBP to maintain and, if possible,
expand its efforts to provide medical aid and Border Search,
Trauma and Rescue personnel in the Southwest to reduce the
incidence of deaths in the desert. The Committee recommends
that CBP work with civil society organizations in the region to
conduct rescue operations and to construct and maintain rescue
beacons to identify and locate persons in remote areas.
PREVENTING CHILD TRAFFICKING
The Committee emphasizes that unaccompanied children must
be treated with special concern while in CBP custody. The
Committee directs DHS to uphold its responsibility under the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act to pay costs
of transportation for unaccompanied children who choose
voluntary departure as their form of immigration relief. The
Committee finds that it is inappropriate to repatriate
unaccompanied alien children with adult aliens or on flights
administered or contracted by DHS or other agencies of the
Federal government. The Committee directs DHS to utilize, as
appropriate, regularly scheduled commercial flights to return
unaccompanied alien children to their country of origin. DHS
should review any post-18 care plans that have been developed
by the Department of Health and Human Services for
unaccompanied children. Furthermore, the Committee directs CBP
to comply with current law, including the William Wilberforce
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. CBP should
ensure that unaccompanied children are properly screened for
sexual assault, trafficking, exploitation or other
mistreatment. The Committee encourages CBP to work with local
child welfare organizations or other appropriate organizations
to assist in screening and to ensure appropriate training of
CBP personnel.
GLOBAL ENTRY
The Committee is pleased that CBP continues to expand its
Global Entry program and is introducing additional reciprocity
agreements with allies and partner countries. The Committee is
also pleased to see the consolidation of trusted traveler
programs under the Global Entry umbrella. The Committee
includes $6,311,000 for Trusted Traveler Programs, as
requested. The Committee encourages CBP to continue looking at
ways to expand the program without denigrating enrollment
requirements, including the potential for enrolling certain
groups of foreign nationals.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE AWARD PROGRAM
The Foreign Language Award Program (FLAP) was established
in 1985 to provide incentives to CBP officers and Agriculture
Specialists to learn foreign languages. CBP has proposed
suspending the program in the past two years but has
subsequently reversed that position in both instances. As CBP
continues the policy of pushing out the border, linguistic
skills are particularly valuable to CBP in effectively carrying
out its missions, both through its overseas programs and in its
port of entry and targeting operations. The Committee supports
the use of pay incentives and other approaches to improve the
language skills of the CBP workforce.
TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT
The Committee includes $4,750,000, as in previous years, to
continue textile transshipment enforcement. The Committee
directs CBP to ensure that the activities of the Textile and
Apparel Policies and Programs Office, specifically seizures,
detention, and special operations, are maintained at least at
the level of those activities in prior years. The Committee
directs CBP to submit a report with the fiscal year 2013 budget
on execution of its five-year strategic plan. The report should
include information covering enforcement activities; textile
production verification team exercises and special operations;
numbers of seizures; penalties imposed; and the numbers and
types of personnel responsible for enforcing textile laws
(including headquarters staff in the Textile Enforcement
Operations Division).
CIRCUMVENTION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES--IMPORTS FROM CHINA
The Committee directs CBP to submit a report on the extent
and frequency of customs fraud, including circumvention of
duties and misclassification on entries of imports of goods
from China. This report should include information covering
enforcement activities, numbers of seizures, penalties imposed,
the numbers and types of personnel responsible (including
interagency collaboration for enforcing laws), and estimated
costs to reduce substantially the incidence of illegal
transshipments. The Committee directs CBP to submit a report
with the data for fiscal year 2011 not later than February 1,
2012.
ADDITIONAL TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES
The Committee supports CBP's efforts to ensure Border
Patrol agents and CBP officers get the training they need to
meet the mission on the front lines and to build leaders for
the organization's future. Therefore, the Committee urges CBP
and FLETC to collaborate with regionally accredited
institutions of higher education to develop standardized
curriculum, course requirements, and a program accreditation
system that will lead to efficiencies in time and money in the
deployment of additional Border Patrol agents and CBP officers
and that will provide opportunities for existing agents and
officers to advance professionally through undergraduate and
graduate programs in operationally related fields. Not later
than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, CBP and
FLETC shall brief the Committee detailing their collaboration
with regionally accredited institutions of higher education,
including any additional curriculum, course requirements, or
program accreditation system that should be developed.
BORDER ROADS
The Committee is concerned about reports that border access
roads may be in poor condition, such that they impede the
patrol ability of the Border Patrol, sheriff's departments, and
State law enforcement agencies. Recognizing that the condition
of border roads provides not only better access for law
enforcement but potentially influences migration patterns, the
Committee directs CBP to brief the Committee within 120 days of
the enactment of this Act on the quality of border access
roads, the need for repairs, and when CBP expects to undertake
such repairs.
PATROLLING WATERWAYS ALONG THE SOUTHWEST BORDER
Increased violence on the waters of the Rio Grande has
resulted in the armed robbery through piracy and murder of U.S.
citizens. The Committee recognizes the Border Patrol and Coast
Guard are laudably working to prevent these incidents and
ensure the integrity of the U.S. border with Mexico in
cooperation with State and local law enforcement. However, the
Committee also notes the all too frequent occurrence of our
Federal law enforcement professionals encountering boats used
by drug smugglers and other armed criminals with far greater
capabilities. The Committee directs the Border Patrol, working
with the Coast Guard, to report within 90 days of the date of
enactment of this Act on efforts to address these security
issues.
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND RECIDIVISM
The Committee believes that criminal prosecution for
illegal entry into the United States is a key tool in
countering recidivism. Through Operation Streamline, border
communities are seeing real results. The Committee therefore
encourages Border Patrol Sector Chiefs to work closely with
U.S. Attorneys' offices, particularly on the Southwest border.
They should regularly share information regarding: the threat
of violence posed by the arrested individual; the threat to
communities in the United States posed by the arrested
individual; the threat of future illegal re-entry into the
United States posed by the arrested individual; the overall
safety of the United States-Mexico border; any humanitarian
concerns that could mitigate against prosecution; and any other
issues related to the arrested individual that any party to the
meeting deems relevant. Additionally, the Committee directs CBP
to continue its initiative to detail CBP attorneys to U.S.
Attorney Offices as Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
Since 2001, the U.S. Government has utilized a number of
tools to attempt to reduce the incidence of recidivism when it
comes to illegal border crossing between the ports of entry.
The committee directs CBP and ICE to provide a briefing on all
the tools that have been utilized, such as lateral
repatriation, interior repatriation, criminal prosecution;
their findings regarding the effectiveness of these measures in
reducing recidivism; and their plans for expansion of any of
these activities as result of their findings.
HIRING AND STAFFING REPORTS
The Committee is keenly interested in seeing that CBP
achieves its planned hiring targets and therefore directs CBP
to continue submitting monthly staffing and hiring reports, as
well as quarterly briefings on its hiring progress, including
the status of hiring for the Northern and Southwest borders.
UNOBLIGATED BALANCES
The Committee directs CBP to report to the Committees on
Appropriations quarterly on the results of its own quarterly
reviews of obligations in carryover accounts that should be de-
obligated through its validation and verification process,
pursuant to CBP Directive 1220-011C.
Automation Modernization
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $336,575,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 364,030,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 334,275,000
Bill compared with:...................................
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -2,300,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -29,755,000
MISSION
Automation Modernization includes funding for major
information technology modernization and development projects
for CBP, including the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)
system and the multi-agency International Trade Data System
(ITDS); support and transition of the legacy Automated
Commercial System (ACS); the integration and connectivity of
information technology infrastructure within CBP and DHS as
part of Current Operations Protection and Processing Support
(COPPS); modernization of the TECS enforcement and compliance
system; and the Terrorism Prevention Systems Enhancements
(TPSE) initiative aimed at enhancing system infrastructure to
ensure continuity of operations in critical passenger programs.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $334,275,000 for Automation
Modernization, $29,755,000 below the request and $2,300,000
below fiscal year 2011. While the Committee recognizes the
reliance of CBP operations on its information technology
capabilities, the President's budget request assumed an
increase in COBRA fees in order to fund this program at the
requested levels. This fee is not within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted
its fiscal year 2012 recommendation for this account
accordingly. Of the total amount provided, not less than
$140,000,000 is for ACE. CBP is directed to provide an
expenditure plan detailing how it will distribute this year's
appropriations to ACE/ITDS, COPPS, TECS, and TPSE. In addition,
the bill includes a requirement for submission of a multi-year
investment and management plan to be provided at the time of
budget submission and updated on an annual basis to fully
justify requested funds for this account as well as project
future-year requirements and funding levels.
ACE PROGRAM DELAYS
More than $3,000,000,000 has been appropriated since 2002
for the development of ACE and the dream of a ``single trade
window'' through which the trade community would meet the U.S.
Government's consolidated requirements and expedite goods
through the borders. While the 9/11 attacks significantly
changed the focus of legacy Customs and later CBP, the
Committee is not sympathetic to such excuses for delays in ACE
implementation.
The Committee is aware that ACE governance has changed and
that a thorough review of ACE priorities and future investment
is being completed. The Committee urges the Department to get
ACE on track to complete its major capability drops and provide
the necessary features critical to facilitating trade and
supporting security requirements for cargo screening and
inspection. To ensure the Committee has the information it
needs to assess the effectiveness of the ACE effort, the
Committee requires an expenditure plan for fiscal year 2012.
Further, the bill requires this information for fiscal year
2013 and thereafter at the time of submission of the
President's budget request, including a current acquisition
project baseline for ACE and TECS Modernization.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE DATA SYSTEM
The International Trade Data System (ITDS) is the multi-
agency initiative to establish the single window for the
collection and sharing of data and statistics on trade, to be
developed along with ACE. The Committee is pleased to see
progress on the uniform data set; however, the list of
participating government agencies remains incomplete, as many
agencies with relevant interests and responsibilities for trade
data have not yet engaged in ITDS. The Committee directs CBP to
continue to include in its ACE plan a report on progress in
implementing ITDS, with regard to the technical features of
ITDS as well as the recruitment of all participating government
agencies needed for ITDS to achieve the benefits of the
aforementioned ``single trade window''.
TECS
Funding for TECS Modernization of $50,000,000 is again
included within the COPPS program, project, and activity line,
to replace existing, antiquated mainframe elements of TECS with
a sustainable, modern architecture and graphical user
interfaces. More importantly, the new flexible architecture for
TECS provides new capabilities to users, like the Consolidated
Secondary Inspection System already being rolled out to ports
of entry. A joint effort between CBP and U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), TECS modernization is to be
completed in the next four years. The Committee is concerned
that ICE is not on track with CBP's timeline for retirement of
the TECS mainframe that will result in a significant resource
burden for ICE in future years. The Committee directs CBP and
ICE to brief the Committee not later than December 1, 2011, on
the status of modernization efforts, progress in fiscal year
2011, and plans for fiscal year 2012.
Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $574,173,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 527,623,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 500,000,000
Bill compared with:...................................
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -74,173,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -27,623,000
MISSION
The Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology
(BSFIT) account funds the technology and tactical
infrastructure solutions to achieve effective control of the
U.S. borders.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $500,000,000 for Border Security
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT), $27,623,000
below the amount requested and $74,173,000 below the amount
provided in fiscal year 2011. The Committee recommends
$312,377,000 for development and deployment, which will fund
technology and tactical infrastructure investment, including
$45,000,000 for Northern Border technology and $40,000,000 for
tactical communications; $133,248,000 for operations and
maintenance, as requested; and $54,375,000 for program
management, including $3,000,000 for environmental assessment
and mitigation as requested.
While it is clear that the Border Patrol requires
additional tools and technology to execute its critical
mission, the Committee remains concerned about the proposed
Arizona Border Technology Plan. As a result, the Committee
limits the availability of funding for obligation of
$150,000,000 from this account until a detailed expenditure
plan is provided to the Committee, not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development and Deployment:
Alternative (Southwest) Border $242,000,000 $222,246,000
Technology...................
Other BSFIT Technology........ 55,000,000 50,000,000
Tactical Communications....... 40,000,000 40,000,000
Subtotal, Development and 337,000,000 312,377,000
Deployment...............
Operation and Maintenance......... 133,248,000 133,248,000
Program Management................ 57,375,000 54,375,000
-------------------------------------
Total, Border Security $527,623,000 $500,000,000
Fencing, Infrastructure,
and Technology...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURE BORDER TACTICAL AND TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT TO DATE
From the fiscal year 2007 Act (Public Law 109-295) to this,
the fiscal year 2012 bill, the Committee has provided a total
of $5,500,853,000 for tactical infrastructure, technology, and
tactical communications through the BSFIT account. There is no
doubt of the Committee's staunch support for border security
enhancements, given the enormity of this investment.
The largest investment has been in an expansive deployment
of vehicle and pedestrian fencing. Maintaining this tactical
infrastructure is an ongoing operations and maintenance
responsibility that is fully funded in this account. While the
Committee will continue looking to the Border Patrol to assess
its tactical, physical infrastructure needs, the miles already
constructed provide the total miles of pedestrian and vehicle
fencing deemed appropriate and necessary by the previous
Administration.
The second major investment in this account has been in the
``virtual fence'' concept through Secure Border Initiative Net
(SBInet). Over $800,000,000 was devoted to the SBInet program
through fiscal year 2010, resulting in a system of fixed towers
for cameras and sensors across 53 miles of the Arizona desert,
as well as an initial ``common operating picture'' to provide
the information from those towers to the Border Patrol. The
lack of progress on SBInet led the Secretary to freeze its
system development funding in 2010. On January 14, 2011, the
Department announced no further development work would be
carried out under the existing contract, citing problems with
SBInet since its inception in terms of cost overruns, technical
problems, and scheduling delays. The Department announced that
it would instead pursue a strategy of acquiring ``off-the-
shelf'' technology on a competitive basis and more effectively
deploying it across the border given the diverse terrain and
conditions. The Department is calling the new effort the
Arizona Border Technology Plan. The Committee notes, however,
that the Department requests funds to continue operations and
maintenance of SBInet.
ALTERNATIVE (SOUTHWEST) BORDER TECHNOLOGIES
In fiscal year 2011, the Committee provided funds to begin
the implementation of the Arizona Border Technology Plan. It is
likely that the Department will not be able to fully execute
the $185,000,000 requested and provided in fiscal year 2011 for
this purpose. As noted above, the Department provided a
specific procurement plan for off-the-shelf technology for
fiscal year 2011 that includes additional remote video
surveillance systems, mobile video surveillance systems,
unattended ground sensors, and other portable, mobile
technologies that can potentially be procured relatively
quickly, deployed, and utilized immediately given the
familiarity of Border Patrol agents with this equipment.
The Arizona Border Technology Plan for fiscal year 2012, as
requested by the Department, proposes procurement of three
integrated fixed tower systems. The procurement should take
place through a full and open competition, which the Department
asserts will result in swift deployment of additional
integrated fixed tower systems. The facts are contrary to this
assertion. It took four years of painstaking work with the
SBInet system for the Border Patrol to state that the system is
working and has borne successes. Further, the Department
acknowledges that integrated fixed tower systems are not a
commoditized asset. Additionally, the requirements for an
integrated fixed tower system include integration of assets
into a ``common operating picture,'' something that CBP will
now have to undertake itself.
It is unclear how the Department's acquisition approach for
additional integrated fixed tower systems fits with the premise
of the Arizona Border Technology Plan, namely to procure and
deploy off-the-shelf technology for an intended immediate
benefit. As a result of this concern, as well as anticipation
of procurement delays, the Committee has reduced the funds
available for this activity. Further, the Committee directs CBP
to include in its detailed expenditure plan for fiscal year
2012 as well as its multi-year investment and management plan
for fiscal years 2013-2016 and thereafter, the rationale for
its approach.
Additionally, the Committee has consistently directed that
CBP employ a comprehensive strategy for achieving operational
control of the border, including identifying and utilizing the
right mix of people, infrastructure, and technology. The
Committee directs CBP to continue its quarterly briefings
associated with its strategy for BSFIT funds in the context of
its overall border security mission and assets.
NORTHERN BORDER TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT
The Committee is encouraged with the positive impact of the
technology investments on the Northern border that it has
included in BSFIT appropriations in recent years. As the
Department has reported, this increased focus on the Northern
border has resulted in the deployment of proven surveillance
systems that have received favorable reviews from the Border
Patrol and are now supporting enforcement operations
particularly in the Great Lakes region and specifically in the
Detroit, Swanton, and Buffalo Sectors, and at the Champlain
Port of Entry, with efforts underway to initiate a multi-agency
Operational Integration Center at Selfridge Air Force Base. The
Committee includes $45,000,000, as requested, for continued
technology investments to address Northern Border security
needs.
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PILOT PROGRAM
The budget request included $10,000,000 for an Innovative
Technology Pilot Program to look at emergent technology and
assess commercial and military capabilities. For these
purposes, the Committee provides $5,000,000, half of the
requested funding. Research and development efforts are
scalable activities. Given the Department's focus for BSFIT on
deploying commercial, off-the-shelf technologies that can be
applied to enhance border security immediately, this activity
has been reduced.
OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND SUPPORT
The Committee includes $133,248,000, as requested, for the
operation and maintenance of systems and infrastructure
deployed with BSFIT funding. The Committee directs CBP to
provide a detailed breakdown of the application of this funding
per tactical infrastructure and technology type in the
expenditure plan required for BSFIT, including the operations
and maintenance associated with SBInet and with pedestrian and
vehicle fencing (even if funds associated with fencing are
moved to the CBP Construction and Facilities Management
account).
Within Operations and Maintenance, the Committee also
includes $3,000,000, as requested, for environmental mitigation
deemed necessary as a direct result of construction,
operations, and maintenance activities for border security. In
order for DHS to execute interagency agreements with the U.S.
Department of the Interior to complete environmental mitigation
activities, the Committee includes a General Provision, Section
547, in the bill permitting the transfer of previously
appropriated environmental mitigation funds under BSFIT to the
U.S. Department of Interior. The authority is narrowly tailored
and controlled to ensure that funds will only be transferred:
in accordance with a written agreement between the Secretaries
of Homeland Security and the Interior; where the Secretary of
the Interior has submitted an expenditure plan 15 days in
advance of the proposed transfer detailing the actions proposed
to be taken with amounts transferred; where the Secretary of
Homeland Security has certified that the actions outlined in
the expenditure plan cannot be legally executed under the
authorities of CBP or any other component of the Department of
Homeland Security; and where the actions are determined to be
necessary for mitigation of construction, operations, and
maintenance activities related to border security.
QUARTERLY REPORTS AND BRIEFINGS
The Committee directs the Department to continue its
quarterly Secure Border Initiative status reports. The reports
should include an update on Northern border and tactical
communication investments. The Committee also directs CBP to
continue to brief the Committees on Appropriations on a
quarterly basis on the status of BSFIT programs and
investments.
MULTI-YEAR INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
The bill includes a new multi-year investment and
management plan for BSFIT funds to be submitted by the
Secretary simultaneously with the fiscal year 2013 budget
request. As stated earlier in the report, the Committee is
dissatisfied with the Congressional Budget Justifications
submitted by the Department. Furthermore, incremental
investments made in a particular fiscal year need to be
understood in the context of total investment--both in terms of
the cost commitment and the progress toward meeting the total
mission requirements. While the Committee would prefer to see
this plan in fiscal year 2012, the Committee recognized the
burden on the Department would be significant. As a result, the
Committee directs the submittal of only a detailed expenditure
plan for fiscal year 2012 funds. To the extent possible, the
Committee encourages CBP to incorporate requirements from the
multi-year investment and management plan into the fiscal year
2012 plan. The Committee intends, subject to the Department's
submission of a substantive multi-year investment and
management plan in fiscal year 2013, to eliminate the practice
of funding restriction and expenditure plan after enactment.
OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ACQUISITION
The Committee has encouraged CBP to continually seek ways
to innovate and more effectively manage its operations,
particularly in procuring and incorporating technology. While
the Commissioner's creation of the Office of Technology
Innovation and Acquisition (OTIA) could become an inefficient,
additional layer of bureaucracy, the Committee is hopeful that
OTIA can utilize the expertise within its organization to
support more efficient, effective program management across
CBP--keeping the focus on delivering for the mission. The
Committee will be closely monitoring the role OTIA plays in
CBP's major programs and directs CBP to provide a briefing to
the Committee no later than October 1, 2011, on OTIA's
activities.
Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $516,326,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 470,566,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 499,966,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -16,360,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. +29,400,000
MISSION
CBP Air and Marine provides integrated and coordinated
border interdiction and law enforcement support for homeland
security missions; provides airspace security for high-risk
areas or National Special Security Events upon request; and
combats efforts to smuggle narcotics and other contraband into
the United States. CBP Air and Marine also supports
counterterrorism efforts of many other law enforcement
agencies.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $499,906,000 for Air and Marine
Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement,
$29,400,000 above the amount requested and $16,360,000 below
the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The funding includes
$361,087,000 for operations and maintenance, and $138,879,000
for procurement. The procurement funds include an additional
$8,400,000 for the UH-60 Black Hawk conversions to ensure
completion of two conversions, as the budget request asserted
it intended. The remaining $21,000,000 increase is recommended
for purchase of an additional multi-enforcement aircraft, a
high priority for CBP, particularly important given the
increasing aircraft retirements CBP expects.
UPDATED STRATEGIC PLAN
In this bill, the Committee directs CBP to update its five-
year strategic plan, submitting it not later than the date on
which the President's budget request is submitted for fiscal
year 2013, to enable appropriate oversight of CBP's plans for
this important component of border security operations and
mission.
AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS CENTER
The Committee is aware that CBP's Air and Marine Operations
Center (AMOC), located in Riverside, California, and
established in 1988, serves a critical role in providing
targeting, launching, and tracking control for the CBP Office
of Air and Marine, and is critical to deploying more UAS and
operating them at a higher tempo. AMOC was a crucial resource
in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,
coordinating and monitoring all law enforcement flights
nationwide while most commercial flights were grounded. It has
also played a key role in emergency responses such as for
hurricanes and in security coordination for national events
such as Super Bowls and the Olympics. A plan to expand and
upgrade the systems and facilities at AMOC has been initiated
by the Department and initial funding was provided by Congress
in fiscal year 2010, but funding has not been included in
subsequent requests. The Committee encourages CBP to assess its
needs for the AMOC and brief the Committee on its plans no
later than December 1, 2011.
CIVIL AIR PATROL
In testimony before this Committee, the Commissioner of CBP
expressed support for exploring the use of Civil Air Patrol
assets for aerial surveillance on United States' borders. As
such, the Committee directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to study and report on the functions and
capabilities of the Civil Air Patrol to support the homeland
security missions, including aerial reconnaissance or
communications capabilities for border security; and
capabilities to conduct search and rescue operations and
respond to a natural disaster or act of terrorism. The final
report shall detail the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of
using Civil Air Patrol assets for homeland security missions in
partnership with the Department and be submitted no later than
February 1, 2012.
AIRCRAFT UPGRADES
The Committee strongly supports CBP's efforts to upgrade
its aircraft fleet. Specifically, the Committee recommends
funding for CBP's acquisition of two additional wing sets to
continue its service life extension program (SLEP) for the P-3
fleet. The P-3 has been a reliable asset for many years. For
that reason, the Committee understands that CBP is considering
finishing the program by adding the last two P-3's to the SLEP
rather than retiring those aircraft. The Committee encourages
CBP's review of this matter and directs CBP to brief the
Committee on its decision no later than the submission of the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget request.
The Committee also notes that previous Appropriations
included, as requested, upgrades for the C-550 jet interceptor
sensors. The Committee encourages CBP to outline its plans for
these upgrades in the updated strategic plan to be submitted
with the fiscal year 2013 budget submission.
UNMANNED AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
The Committee is aware of assertions that frequently
changing weather conditions and strict air regulations affect
CBP's unmanned aircraft operations on the Southwest border. The
Committee urges the Department to thoroughly investigate the
impact that weather has on providing the constant surveillance
necessary for protecting the Homeland at our international
borders and to strongly consider establishing an alternate base
of operations as well as additional landing and support
services at an additional Southwest border location as a
solution.
CARIBBEAN OPERATIONS
The Committee strongly supports the use of air surveillance
capabilities to support interdiction of drugs, illegal
migrants, and other contraband en route to the United States
through maritime transit zones in the Caribbean. Concerns have
been raised regarding the appropriate base of operations for
these assets. The Committee expects CBP to appropriately
position assets and manage their resources to meet mission
needs.
Construction and Facilities Management
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $260,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 283,822,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 234,096,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -25,904,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -49,726,000
MISSION
The Construction and Facilities Management account was
established in fiscal year 2010 to fund all CBP real estate and
facilities, with the exception of rental payments, which are
funded in the Salaries and Expenses appropriation. This
includes consolidating all funding for construction, leasing
acquisition, facility program support, operations, management,
headquarters support, and tunnel remediation activities. This
includes the planning, design, and assembly of Border Patrol
infrastructure, including Border Patrol stations, checkpoints,
temporary detention facilities, mission support facilities,
training facilities, and CBP-owned ports of entry. Construction
of tactical infrastructure (fencing, barriers, lighting, and
road improvements at the border) is funded through the Border
Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology account.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $234,096,000 for Construction and
Facilities Management, $49,726,000 below the request and
$25,904,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The
funding includes $180,000,000 for Facilities Construction and
Sustainment and $54,096,000 for Program Oversight and
Management. While the Committee understands CBP has facility
needs, the President's budget request assumed an increase in
aviation security and COBRA fees in order to fund this program
at the requested levels. This fee is not within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations and the
Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 2012 recommendation for
this account accordingly.
INVENTORY AND PLAN
Largely due to port of entry infrastructure investment
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, CBP has
made progress on its construction and facility needs. At the
same time, CBP's Construction and Facility Management plans are
still maturing. With the submission of the President's budget
request, the bill requires the real property inventory and a
plan that includes the full costs of each activity and project
proposed and underway in fiscal year 2013 by fiscal year.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $5,437,643,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 5,496,847,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 5,522,474,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +84,831,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. +25,627,000
MISSION
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the lead
agency responsible for enforcement of immigration and customs
laws. ICE protects the United States by investigating,
deterring, and detecting threats arising from the movement of
people and goods into and out of the country. ICE consists of
approximately 20,500 employees within three major program
areas: Office of Investigations; Office of Intelligence; and
Detention and Removal Operations.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $5,522,474,000 for Salaries and
Expenses, $25,627,000 above the amount requested and
$84,831,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011 to
ensure robust enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws.
Within this amount, the Committee allocates no less than
$1,600,000,000 to finance ICE's various efforts to identify
aliens with criminal records who are incarcerated, at-large, or
are determined to pose a serious risk to public safety or
national security, and to remove those who are deportable. Of
this amount, $194,064,000 is provided for continued expansion
of the Secure Communities program, $10,000,000 above the
President's budget request to digitize paper fingerprint cards
and enroll them into DHS's automated Biometric Identification
System (IDENT). An additional $3,000,000 is provided for the
Visa Security Program above the request to support expansion.
Within the overall funding level for Salaries and Expenses,
$110,332,000 in undefined administrative savings and
professional services reductions have been included in the
budget request. The Committee's recommended funding level
includes those so-called savings, given the need to fill the
operational shortfall created by the budget request's
assumption of an increase in aviation security and COBRA fees
that have not been enacted.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters Management and
Administration:
Personnel, Services and $237,842,000 $234,251,000
Other Costs............
Headquarters-Managed IT 194,727,000 184,227,000
Investments............
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 432,569,000 418,748,000
Headquarters
Management and
Administration.....
Legal Proceedings........... 215,935,000 215,935,000
Domestic Investigations..... 1,714,234,000 1,714,234,000
International
Investigations:
International Operations 114,928,000 114,928,000
Visa Security Program... 29,489,000 32,489,000
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 144,417,000 147,417,000
International
Investigations.....
Intelligence................ 81,503,000 81,503,000
Detention and Removal
Operations:
Custody Operations...... 2,023,827,000 2,050,545,000
Fugitive Operations..... 154,597,000 154,597,000
Criminal Alien Program.. 196,696,000 196,696,000
Alternatives to 72,373,000 72,373,000
Detention..............
Transportation and 276,632,000 276,632,000
Removal Program........
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Detention 2,724,125,000 2,750,843,000
and Removal
Operations.........
Secure Communities.......... 184,064,000 194,064,000
-------------------------------------------
Total, ICE $5,496,847,000 $5,522,474,000
Salaries and
Expenses.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICE HEADQUARTERS MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
The Committee provides $418,478,000 for ICE Headquarters
Management and Administration, $14,091,000 below the requested
level due to the following reductions: $3,591,000 for the
Acquisition Workforce Initiative and $10,500,000 for data
center migration. The Acquisition Workforce Initiative is not
funded due to poor justification. ICE has existing authority
and funds to hire appropriately qualified program management
and acquisition staff as needed to manage its programs. While
the Committee supports the Department's data center
consolidation efforts, the President's budget request assumed
an increase in aviation security fees in order to fund this
program at the requested levels. This fee is not within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations and the
Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 2012 recommendation for
this account accordingly.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION
The quality of the Congressional Budget Justification
material provided by the Department for ICE continues to be of
concern. Even after a thorough review of the fiscal year 2012
materials, the Committee is unable to accomplish the basic in-
depth oversight required in these fiscally constrained times
due to the inability of the Department to provide quality
justification materials that articulate detailed budgets for
programs, projects, and activities requested.
ICE, in conjunction with the Chief Financial Officer, is
encouraged to work with the Committee in developing new
materials for the Congressional Budget Justifications.
ICE DOMESTIC INVESTIGATIONS
The Committee provides $1,714,234,000 for ICE domestic
investigatory programs, as requested. The Committee directs ICE
to continue to provide quarterly data on investigative
activities and expenditures on a timely basis. The Committee
also supports ICE efforts to measure the impacts of its
investigative activities toward dismantling transnational
criminal enterprises.
The Committee commends ICE efforts to increase its
operations along the Southwest border, especially the agency's
participation in the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) and
joint investigations with partner DHS and Department of Justice
law enforcement agencies. ICE investigations have successfully
disrupted major drug smuggling networks and stopped dangerous
alien smuggling and transport networks in Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona, and California. Given the extreme and on-going
violence in and around the Mexican city of Ciudad Juarez, the
Committee encourages ICE to continue to build its programs that
investigate border violence and organized crime in the El Paso-
Juarez corridor.
The recent death of Special Agent Jaime Zapata and injury
of Special Agent Victor Avila served as reminders of the risks
faced by law enforcement officers in the line of duty. While
authorities and responsibilities differ for U.S. law
enforcement officers on duty in Mexico, the risks remain. The
Committee is concerned that the U.S. Government has not
resolved certain officer safety issues for our officers on duty
in Mexico, such as whether they can be armed. The Committee
directs ICE to provide a briefing to the Committee on these
issues no later than July 1, 2011.
The value of sharing ballistics information to discover
links between crimes is outlined in the National Southwest
Border Counternarcotics Strategy. The Committee encourages DHS
to continue to work closely with the Department of Justice to
ensure appropriate protocols are in place between the two
agencies and with Mexican law enforcement partners to further
collective investigative efforts through this means.
VISA SECURITY PROGRAM
The Committee provides $32,489,000 for the ICE Visa
Security Program, an increase of $3,000,000 above the amount
requested. This program places ICE investigators overseas to
review visa applications from high-risk countries and
populations and to uncover ties to extremist or criminal
groups. Recent attempted terrorist attacks on the United States
have highlighted the ongoing efforts by extremists to
infiltrate our country through the exploitation of legitimate
travel and immigration processes. The Committee believes that
expanding the program to additional countries will reduce fraud
and security risks in the issuance of visas and thereby reduce
terrorist travel to the United States and international
criminal activity. The Committee directs ICE to provide a
classified briefing no later than November 1, 2011, on how it
will utilize these additional funds to expand the program.
VETTED UNITS
Vetted units enable ICE to dismantle, disrupt, and
prosecute transnational criminal organizations with the support
of foreign partners. To expand ICE's transnational criminal
investigative unit program, the Committee supports ICE's
efforts to establish and maintain vetted units; provide
equipment and support to augment the units; and train and work
with newly emerging vetted units.
TRAFFICKING
The Office of Investigations (OI) plays a critical role in
investigating criminal organizations trafficking individuals
into and within the United States. The Committee encourages OI
to work with appropriate non-profit organizations and victim
service providers to ensure appropriate training of ICE
investigators in the field to assist in the identification of
human trafficking victims and provide appropriate referrals to
victim service providers.
TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT
Section 352 of the Trade Act of 2002 authorizes funding for
Customs Service textile transshipment enforcement, and
specifies how the funds must be spent. The Committee includes
$4,750,000, as requested, to continue these activities. The
Committee directs ICE to provide a report with its fiscal year
2013 budget request on its actual and projected obligations of
this funding, covering fiscal years 2007 to 2012. The report
should include staffing levels by fiscal year since 2007 and a
five-year enforcement plan for transshipment violations.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT
The Committee believes that Intellectual Property Rights
(IPR) enforcement is an important part of ICE's investigative
missions. ICE is directed to report to the Committee on the
budget for the National IPR Coordination Center for fiscal year
2012, the number of Agents in the U.S. and abroad dedicated to
IPR investigations, and the number of hours spent by Agents in
fiscal year 2011 on IPR investigations.
INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCES
The Committee observes that, because of its location in the
Caribbean basin and its 360-degree maritime border, Puerto Rico
has become a key entry and transshipment point for the
trafficking of illegal drugs into the United States that are
produced in South and Central America. The Committee further
observes that such trafficking is connected with other threats
and crimes, particularly the increased incidence of homicide in
Puerto Rico. ICE is directed to brief the Committee no later
than December 1, 2011, on its efforts to counter the illicit
trafficking of drugs and other related threats and crime
throughout the Caribbean basin and how it is resourced to
satisfy its mission requirements in this region.
INTELLIGENCE
For the Office of Intelligence, the Committee recommends
$81,503,000, as requested, an increase of $11,661,000 over
fiscal years 2010 and 2011. While ICE eventually provided the
details associated with this increase--that it provides for the
operation of the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center as well
as the annualization of intelligence analysts provided in the
fiscal year 2010 Border Security Supplemental--the Committee
notes that the Congressional Budget Justifications failed to
reference this increase in any way. The Committee reiterates
its direction to ICE to provide detailed justifications in the
Congressional Budget Justification submitted with the
President's budget request.
In addition, the Committee supports the Department's
establishment of the Border Intelligence Fusion Section (BIFS)
at EPIC, utilizing resources from the Office of Intelligence
and Analysis, CBP, and ICE in conjunction with the Departments
of Justice and Defense. Through BIFS, the interagency partners
should be able to better leverage the substantial, existing
resources to further improve our Nation's border security and
enforcement efforts. The Department is directed to regularly
update the Committee on the development and performance of
BIFS.
The Committee also supports ICE's Operation Angel Watch
program, which dedicates intelligence analysts to tracking the
international travel patterns of convicted sex offenders, and
ICE efforts to curb exploitation of children in international
trafficking.
ICE DETENTION AND REMOVAL
The Committee recommends $2,750,843,000 for ICE Detention
and Removal, $26,718,000 more than the request, to raise the
minimum number of detention bed spaces that ICE must maintain
on a daily basis to 34,000. The Committee appreciates the
$157,700,000 increase ICE requested in this budget to fully
fund the existing 33,400 minimum level of detention bed spaces.
The Committee was disappointed by public statements last year
that ICE was struggling to sustain a 33,400 bed level and
accusing Congress of providing inadequate funding to support
this activity. However, public reports appropriately noted that
the Administration failed to make sufficient budget requests to
resource this requirement and that the Congress had provided
funding for every request made for detention bed space since
ICE was established. In addition, ICE has acknowledged mission
and workload requirements for detention space beyond the
existing 33,400 bed level. Therefore, the Committee has
prioritized limited resources in this bill to not only fully
fund the complete costs of existing bed space but also to
augment this capacity by 600 additional detention beds for
fiscal year 2012.
As a result of funds provided in fiscal year 2011 and the
increase recommended for fiscal year 2012, ICE has the
resources necessary to manage detention bed needs. Therefore,
the Committee directs ICE to intensify its enforcement efforts
and fully utilize these resources. The Committee understands
that detention bed space is readily available in many locations
where ICE most needs it, including in public and private
facilities at potentially lower costs.
In addition, the Committee encourages ICE to continue to
refine its logistics management and cost modeling efforts to
achieve the best value in procuring detention capacity. The
Committee directs ICE to manage detention and removal costs as
efficiently as possible, continuing to examine all cost drivers
and take steps to reduce the overall cost of detention per
detainee, including speeding the removal process for individual
detainees as consistent with due process. ICE is directed to
provide comprehensive, regular briefings to the Committee on
all steps being taken to reduce the costs of detention and
removal, including strategies to minimize transportation costs
and house detainees at the lowest cost facilities, working with
the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) to speed
processing as consistent with due process, continuing to review
contracts to ensure maximum flexibility and lowest cost to ICE,
and considering the costs and benefits of public and private
providers for all services, including food and medical
services. ICE is directed to provide the Committee with
information not only on its bed space costs across the country
but also on the components of those costs, including food,
medical, mental health, dental, pharmacy, and electronic health
record services by location, and whether these components are
provided by public agencies or private contract services. Such
services must be aligned to humanitarian needs and should be
provided in a cost-effective manner. The first comprehensive
briefing will take place no later than 30 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
The Committee supports consolidation of bed space funds in
the Custody Operations program, project, and activity.
ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION
The Committee provides $72,373,000 for ICE Alternatives to
Detention programs, as requested. The Committee continues to
support this program and the enrollment of immigration
detainees in the program who pose neither a flight risk nor a
risk to public safety or national security, pursuant to meeting
ICE enrollment criteria for the program. In testimony before
the Committee, the ICE Assistant Secretary noted that the cost
of ATD per individual is higher than detention per detainee,
asserting that this is largely because the individuals enrolled
in ATD remain in the system significantly longer than those in
detention. Further, the ICE Assistant Secretary agreed that the
promise of ATD has not been fully realized since the non-
detained docket has a low priority in many immigration courts.
The Committee is aware that, as a contravening fact, many of
the individuals enrolled in ATD are from special populations,
such as those with pending asylum claims.
The Committee is also aware of pilots being conducted in
Baltimore and Miami where the ATD docket is going to be
expedited, similar to the detained docket. The Committee
supports this cooperative effort and wants to see ATD used
efficiently to lower the cost of detention for the population
eligible for ATD.
SECURE COMMUNITIES
The Committee provides $194,064,000, to continue
implementation of the Secure Communities program. As in past
years, the Committee requires ICE to continue quarterly
reporting on the Secure Communities program and to submit those
reports within 45 days of the close of the quarter. While ICE
has improved the quality of its submitted reports over the past
year, the Committee would like a better understanding of the
effect Secure Communities is having on ICE detention
facilities, the docket for EOIR, and the speed with which ICE
is able to remove criminal aliens and high-risk detainees from
the country once they are judged deportable. The Committee
directs ICE to develop such analyses for inclusion in the 2012
Secure Communities reports and to provide briefings on progress
in conjunction with its 2011 report submissions.
Given the expansion of Secure Communities, the Committee
directs ICE to include information in its quarterly briefings
on any resource constraints in fully enforcing current Federal
immigration law based on the information it receives through
the program. Additionally, the Committee directs ICE to include
in its quarterly reports more detailed statistics on the
results of the Secure Communities program, including the number
of individuals administratively arrested by ICE in each
jurisdiction by the crime for which they are charged and the
crime for which they have been convicted (if applicable), as
well as identifying those who are determined by the Secretary
to pose a serious risk to public safety or national security.
The reports should also account for individuals whom ICE
identifies each quarter and intends to administratively arrest
but must await the adjudication of the individual's criminal
charges and/or the completion of a sentence, and identify the
crimes for which they are charged and crimes for which they
have been convicted (if applicable).
The increase of $10,000,000 above the request is to
undertake digitization of paper fingerprint cards from legacy
immigration files. The Committee directs ICE, in conjunction
with the US-VISIT program and United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services, to report to the Committee not later than
120 days of the date of enactment of this Act on the
methodology of prioritizing files for the digitization effort
as well as the overall projected cost of the project to ensure
electronic availability of appropriate biometrics in IDENT.
Recent incidents have demonstrated the vulnerabilities and
risks to public safety in Secure Communities and our Nation's
law enforcement processes where biometrics are not
electronically available.
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND COOPERATION WITH U.S. ATTORNEYS
The Committee commends ICE for the successes in its program
to detail attorneys from ICE's Office of the Principal Legal
Advisor (OPLA) to U.S. Attorney Offices (USAO) as Special
Assistant U.S. Attorneys (SAUSA). In fiscal year 2010, ICE
increased the number of attorneys who are detailed as SAUSAs
nationwide from 21 to 47, leading to 721 criminal prosecutions
in Federal court. On the Southwest border, 13 SAUSAs are
detailed to specifically work on immigration-related
prosecutions. Further, the percentage of ICE-initiated
prosecutions accepted by the USAOs along the Southwest border
increased from 69 percent in fiscal year 2009 to 84 percent in
fiscal year 2010. The Committee directs ICE to continue this
initiative and provide a briefing on the number of attorneys
detailed currently to USAOs by location, the increase in ICE-
initiated prosecutions as a result, and any plans to expand
this effort no later than 60 days after the date of enactment
of this Act. The Committee understands that Federally-
developed, case-management tools have been used with great
success to more efficiently manage the case load of
immigration-related prosecutions along the Southwest border.
The Committee encourages the SAUSAs detailed from ICE and CBP,
working with the USAOs, to look at these tools and consider
adopting their use.
ICE SUPPORT TO STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
The Committee supports 287(g), through which ICE delegates
Federal immigration enforcement authority to local law
enforcement officers, as a key program to assist the Federal
government in effective enforcement of immigration laws. At the
same time, ICE must ensure proper oversight of activities
carried out under this program. A March 2010 OIG review of the
287(g) program found multiple incidents where ICE field
officers did not provide adequate oversight of how this
authority was exercised. For example, the report indicated that
ICE did not provide required training on 287(g) community
outreach or complaint procedures, failed to establish 287(g)
steering committees, and provided inconsistent supervision over
immigration enforcement activities performed by 287(g)
jurisdictions. The OIG report made 33 recommendations for ICE
to improve the program and followed with an update adding 16
new recommendations in September 2010. The Committee directs
ICE to report no later than July 1, 2011, on its plans to
implement the OIG recommendations and the steps it has taken to
date to address the deficiencies identified in the report.
The Committee continues a provision first enacted in the
fiscal year 2009 Appropriations Act that requires ICE to cancel
any 287(g) agreements where the Inspector General has
determined the terms of the agreement have been violated.
DETENTION STANDARDS
The Committee commends the Department's ongoing efforts to
ensure appropriate detention conditions and facilities to meet
the needs of ICE and immigrant detainees with maximum
efficiency. The Committee wants to ensure that the Department
addresses medical staffing vacancies identified by the OIG and
the need to provide consistent medical care throughout the
detention system.
In 2003, Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act
(PREA) into law. The Committee understands that ICE has revised
its Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS),
including the standard concerning the prevention of sexual
assault. The revised PBNDS, still under review within ICE,
explicitly incorporate provisions from the standards
recommended by the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission.
The Committee urges ICE to comply with PREA standards and
expeditiously approve and implement their standards related to
PREA.
HIRING AND STAFFING REPORTS
The Committee directs ICE to begin submitting monthly
staffing and hiring reports, as well as quarterly briefings on
its hiring progress. Further, the Committee is concerned that
the target staffing levels should be lower than authorized
full-time equivalent levels. The Committee directs ICE to brief
the Committee within 60 days of the date of enactment of this
Act on appropriate staffing levels for their operations
including steps ICE will take to appropriately adjust its
expectations and budget.
UNOBLIGATED BALANCES
The Committee directs ICE to report to the Committees on
Appropriations quarterly on the results of its own quarterly
reviews of obligations in carryover accounts that should be de-
obligated through its validation and verification process.
Automation Modernization
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $74,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 13,860,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 23,860,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -50,140,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. +10,000,000
MISSION
The Automation Modernization account funds major
information technology projects for U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $23,860,000 for Automation
Modernization, an increase of $10,000,000 above the request to
mitigate the $50,140,000 proposed decrease and provide funds
for TECS Modernization, a critical project to provide more
functional case management and operational reporting
capabilities for agency operations. The following table
illustrates funding by specific investment project:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TECS Modernization................ $9,000,000 $19,000,000
Detention and Removals 4,860,000 4,860,000
Modernization....................
-------------------------------------
Total, Automation $13,860,000 $23,860,000
Modernization................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TECS MODERNIZATION
The increase in funds for TECS Modernization is targeted to
provide not only greater capabilities for ICE operations but
also to stave off significant future-year costs to ICE of
maintaining the TECS mainframe after CBP is entirely off the
legacy system. The Committee directs CBP and ICE to brief the
Committee not later than December 1, 2011, on the status of
modernization efforts. In addition, the bill includes a
requirement for a multi-year investment and management plan to
be provided at the time of the President's budget submission
and updated on an annual basis to fully justify requested funds
for this activity and other activities under this account, as
well as project future-year requirements and funding levels.
OTHER MODERNIZATION EFFORTS
The Committee is aware that, due to fiscal constraints, ICE
is re-evaluating some of its information technology
modernization efforts, including electronic detainee health
records. The Committee encourages ICE to look for creative ways
within funds available to more efficiently and effectively
manage this type of information.
Transportation Security Administration
Aviation Security
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $5,219,546,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 5,401,165,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 5,224,556,000
Bill compared with:...................................
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +5,010,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -176,609,000
MISSION
Aviation security is focused on protecting the air
transportation system against terrorist threats, sabotage, and
other acts of violence through deployment of passenger and
baggage screeners; detection systems for explosives, weapons,
and other contraband; and other, effective security
technologies.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $5,224,556,000 for Aviation
Security, $176,609,000 below the amount requested and
$5,010,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. Funds
within this account are partially offset through the collection
of security user fees paid by aviation travelers and airlines.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screening Operations.............. $4,316,308,000 $4,155,813,000
Aviation Security Direction and 1,084,857,000 1,068,743,000
Enforcement......................
[Mandatory Aviation Security [250,000,000] [250,000,000]
Capital Fund\1\].................
-------------------------------------
Total, Aviation Security...... $5,401,165,000 $5,224,556,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Aviation Security Capital Fund is not included in the Subtotal
for aviation security because it is not directly appropriated and is
paid for entirely from user fees.
AVIATION SECURITY FEES
In total, the Committee applies the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) estimate for the collection of $2,030,000,000 in
aviation security user fees, $681,500,000 less than the budget
claims. This level is based on a re-estimate of fees by the
CBO, $70,000,000 below the fiscal year 2011 collection
estimate, reflecting the continued downward trend in air
travel. These fees will be collected from both aviation
passengers and the airlines and will partially offset the
Federal appropriation for aviation security. It is important to
note that the Committee estimate does not reflect
implementation of the Administration's proposed increase in
aviation security fees, as necessary new authorization
legislation has not been enacted--legislation which is not
under the jurisdiction of this Committee.
SCREENING OPERATIONS
The Committee recommends $4,155,813,000 for passenger and
baggage screening operations, $151,980,000 below the amount
requested and $160,495,000 below the amount provided in fiscal
year 2011. This recommendation would support current operations
and all currently programmed acquisitions, including 1,000
Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) systems for passenger
screening. However, it includes no funding for the proposed
increase of 350 Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs); no funding
for the requested addition of 275 AIT systems and 510
screeners; and reflects only $140,000,000 for additional
explosives detection systems (EDS), rather than the
$190,500,000 requested.
The principal reason for these reductions is the need to
compensate for the lack of aviation security fee revenue that
was built into the Administration's budget. In the case of the
AIT program, there have been delays in the certification of
vendors, and in particular with the incorporation of automated
target recognition capability. In light of these delays, and
the unrealized potential for greater technology integration,
the Committee takes a prudent step in waiting for the
conclusion of current pilot efforts before committing scarce
resources to additional systems and expanded screener hiring.
Should the ATR pilot efforts prove successful, the Committee
expects TSA to advise on its plans to advance the AIT program
in fiscal year 2012. For the BDO program, the Committee notes
that the scientific validation of the methodology used by BDOs
to detect suspicious behavior has not been completed. The
Committee recommends deferring any expansion of this program
beyond the current 3,000-BDO workforce until such validation
has been completed. The Committee expects TSA to prioritize its
funding for proven explosive detection systems (EDS) for
installation at airports where facilities are completed and to
locations where the legacy systems are most in need of
replacement.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screener Workforce:
Privatized Screening.......... $144,193,000 $144,193,000
Screener Personnel, 3,060,493,000 3,030,167,000
Compensation and Benefits....
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Screener 3,204,686,000 3,174,360,000
Workforce................ Screener Training and Other...... 252,526,000 245,165,000
Checkpoint Support................ 254,093,000 181,285,000
EDS/ETD Systems:
EDS Procurement and 272,738,000 222,738,000
Installation.................
Screening Technology 332,265,000 332,265,000
Maintenance and Utilities....
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, EDS/ETD Systems. 605,003,000 555,003,000
-------------------------------------
Total, Screening Operations....... $4,316,308,000 $4,155,913,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVATIZED SCREENING
The Committee recommends $144,193,000 for privatized
screening, the same as the amount requested. Sixteen airports
participate in the Screening Partnership Program (SPP). While
the Committee understands TSA is likely to renew those
contracts that expire in 2012, the Committee is also aware that
TSA has rejected applications from a number of additional
airports to ``opt-out'' of federalized screener operations.
Should TSA seek to modify an airport's security apparatus, the
Committee expects all stakeholders at such airport to be fully
informed and consulted prior to implementation of such status
changes. The Committee expects TSA to approve applications of
airports seeking to participate in the screening partnership
program that meet all TSA criteria, including the determination
that contract screening can be provided at that location in a
cost-effective manner. In addition, the Committee directs TSA
to report not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act on its actions in response to the review by the
Government Accountability Office of the SPP and how TSA is
implementing GAO recommendations to address the current
limitations in methodology for comparing cost and performance
of SPP and non-SPP airports.
Consistent with prior years, TSA shall notify the
Committees on Appropriations if it expects to spend less than
the appropriated amount for privatized screening due to
instances in which no additional privatized screening airports
are added or airports currently using privatized screening
convert to Federal screeners. TSA shall adjust its PPAs within
10 days of any changes to personnel, compensation, or benefit
levels resulting from the award of SPP contracts, a change in
such contracts, or conversion of airports from SPP to
federalized screening, and notify the Committees on
Appropriations on such changes.
The Committee is concerned that airports whose applications
for participation in the Screening Partnership Program (SPP)
have been denied did not receive adequate guidance on criteria
for SPP participation, nor any feedback on why their
applications were rejected. The Committee therefore recommends
that TSA (1): provide airports that were denied participation
in SPP, within 60 days of the date of enactment of this Act,
the reasons such applications were rejected; (2) allow such
airports the opportunity to re-apply to the SPP within one year
of the date of enactment of this Act; (3) issue a decision on
such re-applications within 90 days of their receipt; and (4)
should such re-applications be denied, provide the applicants
which a detailed explanation at the time a decision is issued.
SCREENER PERSONNEL, COMPENSATION, AND BENEFITS
The Committee recommends $3,030,167,000 for screener
personnel, compensation, and benefits, $30,326,000 below the
budget request. This funds the current services costs for all
current screeners, including those needed for the 1,000 new AIT
systems funded to date but does not include funding to expand
the AIT inventory as requested nor the additional BDOs. The
Committee recommends using the approach proposed by TSA to fund
bomb appraisal officers (BAOs) from airport management and
support funding, rather than from that for screener personnel,
compensation and benefits, as had been past practice. TSA has
advised that BAOs are not included in the same functional
category as passenger and cargo screeners, as a BAO receives
explosive ordinance disposal or civilian-equivalent training,
which is not required for screeners. The Committee includes
language that makes this funding available for one fiscal year.
In addition, the Committee includes language that restricts
funding from being used to hire additional full-time screeners
if the result would be to exceed a total number of 46,000 full-
time equivalent screeners. The Committee strongly supports the
work of dedicated TSA screener personnel, who are striving to
ensure the safety of the traveling public and our civil
aviation system; however, the rapid growth in staffing for
checkpoint and related security operations needs to be tempered
by balance with technology, and this limitation is intended to
encourage TSA and the Department to work toward establishing an
optimal balance between technology and screener personnel.
ADVANCED IMAGING TECHNOLOGY SCREENERS
AITs currently require more screeners than conventional
magnetometers used to detect metal objects at airport
checkpoints. The 1,000 AIT units funded in fiscal years 2009-
11, however, are behind schedule in their deployment. In
addition, TSA has made it clear that it will not acquire
additional AITs until new advanced target recognition (ATR)
capability is incorporated, and there remains uncertainty about
when this ATR technology will be fielded from more vendors than
the current, single provider of the ATR system. Given this
uncertainty, the Committee recommends including the funding for
the currently planned screener workforce to operate AIT systems
funded to date but denies the request for $16,100,000 for an
additional 510 screeners and supervisors. Furthermore, the
Committee expects that the eventual deployment of ATR-equipped
AIT systems will permit, as expected, a reduction in the number
of screeners required to operate them.
BEHAVIOR DETECTION OFFICERS
The Committee denies the request of $14,224,000 to hire 350
additional BDOs under screener personnel, compensation, and
benefits, although it is generally supportive of screening of
passengers by observation techniques (SPOT). TSA deployed SPOT
before scientific validation of the program was complete, and
the Committee supports the efforts under way to develop such
validation. The Committee expects TSA will follow on the
recommendations of the Government Accountability Office that
were outlined in its recent testimony (GAO-11-461T) and its
2010 report (GAO-10-157), which recommended adopting a risk-
based strategy for selectively assigning BDOs and for a cost-
benefit analysis. The Committee expects TSA to conduct a risk
assessment that incorporates a comprehensive deployment
strategy for the SPOT program for TSA-regulated airports and
identifies and communicates the risks to aviation security if
SPOT were not deployed at TSA-regulated airports. The Committee
also recommends conducting a cost-benefit analysis before
adding additional personnel to identify the best way to achieve
goals at the lowest costs among potential alternatives.
Currently, TSA has 3,000 BDOs deployed at 161 airports and
funding for these officers is continued within the screener
personnel, compensation, and benefits PPA.
Within the funding provided for BDOs, the Committee
recommends that TSA conduct more frequent standardization
testing at airports using the SPOT program than the current
practice, which is every other year, to ensure program
consistency and train BDOs on new practices.
SCREENER TRAINING AND OTHER
The Committee recommends $245,165,000 for screener training
and other, $7,361,000 below the budget request. The Committee
denies $7,361,000 proposed for training additional AIT
operators and BDOs.
TSA's Office of Inspection and the Inspector General
conduct periodic red team investigations to assess how well
screeners are performing and if they are able to detect threat
objects. Over the years, these tests have become increasingly
difficult, as befits an effort to anticipate the adaptive
nature of terrorist ingenuity. TSA must ensure screener
training addresses current threats, is refreshed as frequently
as possible within a screener's work schedule, and measurably
reduces operational and technological vulnerabilities
identified by red teams.
CHECKPOINT SUPPORT
The Committee recommends $181,285,000 for checkpoint
support, $72,808,000 below the amount requested. The Committee
denies $53,808,000 requested for 275 additional AIT systems, as
well as $19,000,000 requested for portable explosives trace
detector (ETD) systems that were funded in fiscal year 2011.
While the need remains for expansion of AIT systems to address
evolving threats to civil aviation, the shortfall created by
the budgetary reliance on an unauthorized user fee increase, as
well as the importance of ensuring that the new automated
target recognition systems work with the AIT systems before
their acquisition, compels the Committee to forgo funding this
year. The Committee notes that when currently funded AIT
systems are fully deployed (deployment which has been delayed),
they will be at 75 percent of the country's largest airports
and cover approximately 55 percent of all aviation passengers.
PASSENGER SCREENING WAIT TIMES
TSA established an objective to keep average passenger wait
times to 10 minutes or less following its establishment in
2002, which served as an important management tool, informing
the Staffing Allocation Model and other agency personnel and
technology decisions. While TSA continues to have passenger
processing goals, it no longer measures wait times at
individual airport facilities, making it difficult to determine
whether or not those goals are being met.
To address concerns with increased wait times related to
the deployment of advanced technology at screening checkpoints
and to ensure that the agency maximizes its utilization of
screening resources, the Committee directs TSA to measure and
report to the Committees on Appropriations, on a quarterly
basis, passenger screening wait times at all screening
checkpoints at which advanced passenger and/or carry-on baggage
screening technology is deployed. TSA is further directed to
brief the Committees within 90 days after the date of enactment
of this Act on how the agency intends to meet a 10-minute
passenger screening goal at screening checkpoints, including
those where advanced technology is deployed. The Committee
supports TSA efforts to develop innovative methods for
measuring and displaying wait times in real time for the
traveling public, which can also support more efficient
allocation of staffing and other checkpoint resources.
EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION
The Committee recommends $222,738,000 for EDS procurement
and installation, $50,000,000 below the budget request.
Including the existing mandatory Aviation Security Capital Fund
of $250,000,000, the total appropriation (both mandatory and
discretionary) for EDS procurement and installations is
$472,738,000 for fiscal year 2012. Within this total,
$308,700,000 is for installation of electronic baggage
screening equipment (including the mandatory funding);
$140,500,000 is to procure EDS for deployment to support
projects where facility modifications are completed from prior
year funds and to recapitalize existing equipment; $5,000,000
is to install advanced surveillance systems; and $18,500,000 is
for payroll.
The Committee acknowledges the progress of TSA in
installing EDS systems. The recommended funding level reflects
the reality that the Committee must find offsets for the
unrealized aviation security fee increase that was built into
the budget request. The Committee is also aware that TSA is
studying the potential of maximizing its limited resources and
consolidating checkpoint and baggage screening at such
airports. TSA should move forward in such consolidation of
efforts at Category 3 and 4 airports and brief the Committee no
later than December 15, 2011 on its progress.
The Committee includes new language to permit funds in the
Aviation Security Capital Fund to be used for acquisition of
new and replacement EDS systems. Without this authority,
limitations on the use of such funding would result in most of
the funding going unused and airports remaining reliant on
aging EDS systems.
SCREENING TECHNOLOGY MAINTENANCE AND UTILITIES
The Committee recommends $332,265,000 for screening
technology maintenance and utilities, the same as the amount
requested. The Committee expects that two-year warranty
contracts that TSA is negotiating for its new AIT machines will
generate savings in fiscal year 2013 for new systems deployed
in fiscal years 2011-12.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
The Committee directs TSA and the Department to comply
fully with their obligations under the Freedom of Information
Act and to provide requested materials, as required, without
undue delay.
AVIATION SECURITY DIRECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
The Committee recommends $1,068,743,000 for aviation
security direction and enforcement, $16,114,000 below the
budget request and $156,990,000 above the amount provided in
fiscal year 2011. The following table highlights funding levels
by program, project, and activity:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation, Regulation and Other $373,239,000 $354,294,000
Enforcement......................
Airport Management and Support.... 571,503,000 568,334,000
Federal Flight Deck Officer and 25,461,000 25,461,000
Flight Crew Training.............
Air Cargo......................... 114,654,000 120,654,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Aviation Security $1,084,857,000 $1,068,743,000
Direction and Enforcement....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVIATION REGULATION AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT
The Committee recommends $354,294,000 for aviation
regulation and other enforcement, $18,945,000 below the budget
request. This does not include funding for the requested
addition of twelve Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response
(VIPR) teams, to be added to the 25 teams currently deployed
around the country. It includes $4,000,000 in new funding to
accelerate air cargo security efforts in response to the
vulnerabilities exposed by the Yemen cargo attack, with
additional inspection, regulation, and security specialists to
ensure compliance with screening requirements, improve risk
assessment, and strengthen air cargo operations overseas.
This recommendation not to fund the VIPR increase is made
without prejudice to the potential benefits of additional VIPR
units, which the Committee is prepared to consider in future
years, but is unavoidable due to the budgetary shortfall
created by the proposal to offset this and other initiatives
with a proposed, but not enacted, aviation security fee
increase. Any future expansion of VIPR units should be
accompanied by a clear strategic plan for how such teams will
be introduced, with respect to the responsibilities of State
and local law enforcement and transportation authorities, in
order to ensure VIPR units are coordinated with and do not
duplicate such activities.
AIRPORT MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT
The Committee recommends $568,334,000 for airport
management and support, $3,169,000 below the budget request.
This level fully funds the transition of bomb appraisal
officers from screener personnel, compensation, and benefits to
this PPA and the move of explosive security specialists from
the Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) to this PPA, as originally
proposed in fiscal year 2011. The Committee believes this is an
appropriate action since BAOs are trained in recognition and
disposal of explosive ordinance, and thus not categorized as
screeners. BAOs report to Federal Security Directors, not
screening managers, and provide rapid response and resolution
when a screener finds an item of concern at major airports.
Explosive security specialists, unlike FAMs, are responsible
for the conduct of regional vulnerability assessments in all
modes of transportation.
AIR CARGO
The Committee recommends $120,654,000 for air cargo,
$6,000,000 above the budget request. This increase, in
combination with additional funding under Aviation Regulation
and Other Enforcement described above, is for accelerated
security efforts in the wake of recent threats in the air cargo
environment and will support enhanced air cargo inspection and
other security oversight and improvements. While TSA has met
its goal of 100 percent of domestic air cargo screening, this
increase is recommended to ensure TSA achieves its stated
target of 100 percent system-wide screening of air cargo on
passenger aircraft, including those originating from last point
of departure airports overseas. It may also be used to enhance
inspection, investigation, and monitoring efforts, including on
all-cargo airlines. The Committee includes a requirement for an
expenditure plan for air cargo investments.
TSA is working with foreign governments and air carriers to
comply with the 9/11 Act requirement to screen all air cargo
bound for the United States, striving to align their cargo
screening methods to meet TSA standards. The Committee wishes
to monitor progress in achieving the 9/11 Act requirements and
has included statutory language requiring TSA to report on its
progress in meeting the screening deadline for air cargo coming
from overseas. This first report is due 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act and biannually thereafter until the
deadline is met.
A significant obstacle to meeting the 9/11 Act mandate is
that no current system can screen palletized or oversized air
cargo. Despite years of study, TSA and S&T do not expect this
capability will be developed for several more years--well past
the statutory deadline. Thus, these forms of air cargo will
continue to require human and canine screeners. The Committee
encourages TSA, in coordination with S&T, to maintain efforts
at developing, approving, and thereafter adding to the
qualified products list large aperture and mobile screening
devices that could be brought to the cargo instead of requiring
the cargo to be run through a fixed system. To help meet the
100 percent screening deadline, the Committee expects TSA will
consider scheduling explosives detection canine teams with U.S.
passenger airlines to be deployed to screen cargo at peak times
before it is consolidated into Unit Load Devices too large for
canine teams to screen.
CALL CENTERS
The Committee is concerned that West Coast passengers have
limited access to the Transportation Security Administration
Contact Center (TCC), which provides support to all TSA
offices, programs, and airports by responding to inquiries and
handling complaints during standard business hours in Eastern
Standard Time. The Committee requests that the TSA examine the
feasibility or desirability of expanding TCC operating hours to
accommodate additional contacts and inquiries from the West
Coast. The Committee directs the Administrator to provide a
report on the capacity and volume history of the TCC, focusing
on the difference between East and West Coast inquiries, not
later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
RISK-BASED APPROACHES TO PASSENGER SCREENING
The Committee was encouraged this year to hear TSA testify
on its plans to enhance aviation security and streamlining
airport screening operations by using a more risk-based
approach to screening aviation passengers and reinventing the
checkpoint process. The Committee is aware that TSA is looking
at a ``trusted travelers'' program that might allow certain
passengers found to be ``low-risk'' expedited clearance at
security checkpoints, possibly using information known about
such travelers--such as data from frequent-flier programs--to
be used to help identify candidates for such a program. The
Committee also understands that TSA will be initially looking
at modified screening procedures for pilots and flight
attendants as it determines where and when it might test such
an approach with the traveling public.
The Committee recommends TSA use its existing statutory
authority, under the Aviation Transportation Security Act, to
develop and test a possible trusted traveler program for U.S.
citizens who voluntarily submit to a security threat assessment
and criminal history background check, including possibly a
review of biometric data. Such threat assessments and
background checks could be conducted by TSA as part of a
trusted traveler enrollment process, utilize publicly-available
commercial data, and include constitutional privacy and civil
liberties protections. The Committee would encourage TSA to
examine ways to provide participants in such a program with a
streamlined and distinct checkpoint screening process. The
Committee also recommends that TSA look at the potential of
enrolling likely low-risk populations, such as U.S. citizens
possessing current Top Secret Security clearances, in such a
trusted traveler program and encourages DHS to coordinate
development of the program with trusted traveler programs
operated by CBP. The Committee directs TSA to provide a report
as to its progress in developing such a trusted traveler
program and any legal or budgetary impediments to its
development no later than 90 days after the date of enactment
of this Act.
STREAMLINING PROCESSING FOR INBOUND INTERNATIONAL TRAVELERS
The Committee is aware that current security regulations
require air passengers traveling on an inbound commercial
flight originating outside the U.S. to have their baggage and
person screened by TSA prior to being allowed to board onward
domestic flights. This is true even if the passengers arrive
from countries whose passenger and baggage screening standards
are certified as comparable to those used by TSA. The Committee
recognizes that this apparent redundancy is complicated by the
need to implement customs, immigration, and aviation security
law at the point where travelers enter the U.S. for customs and
immigration processing but would be interested to see TSA, in
cooperation with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, explore
ways to streamline the process at arrival airports to eliminate
or greatly shorten the process of rescreening those onward
traveling passengers who, with their baggage, had been screened
previously at a location that meets TSA standards. The
Committee therefore directs TSA, in consultation with CBP, to
study the potential for eliminating some of this duplication of
effort with regard to aviation security screening and report to
the Committees not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act on the feasibility of testing such an
approach through a pilot effort at a Category X airport,
including funding required and any legal issues or limitations.
CANINE TEAMS
The Committee is aware of the important role canine teams
play in assisting in the screening of air cargo and in
supporting efforts to prevent explosives from being introduced
into mass transit and other transportation systems. TSA has
funded 518 local law enforcement officer-led units at 78
airports nationwide, where they divide their efforts between
cargo screening and associated facilities. There are also 170
proprietary (federally handled) canine teams that focus on the
top 20 domestic airports with the greatest passenger air cargo,
and 117 teams dedicated to mass transit security. The Committee
encourages TSA to sustain its current level of deployment and
training to ensure the proficiency of these critical screening
assets.
Surface Transportation Security
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $105,961,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 134,748,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 129,748,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +23,787,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -5,000,000
MISSION
Surface Transportation Security is responsible for
assessing the risk of terrorist attacks for all non-aviation
transportation modes, issuing regulations to improve the
security of those modes, and enforcing regulations to ensure
the protection of the transportation system.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $129,748,000 for Surface
Transportation Security, $5,000,000 below the amount requested
and $23,787,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011.
Within this total, $38,514,000 is for staffing and operations
and $91,234,000 is for surface transportation security
inspectors and canines. This effectively funds the increase in
inspectors and mass transit canine teams originally provided in
fiscal year 2010 and reflects a reduced fiscal year 2011
baseline for these programs. The Committee recognizes that TSA
intends to increase its annual stipend for participants in
TSA's National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program and
will consider a reprogramming request should TSA find it
necessary in order to meet commitments to local law enforcement
agencies that deploy canine teams in partnership with TSA.
Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $162,999,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 183,954,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 183,954,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... 20,955,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2012................. ---
MISSION
The mission of Transportation Threat Assessment and
Credentialing (TTAC) is to reduce the probability of a
successful attack on the transportation system through the
application of threat assessment methodologies to identify
known or suspected terrorist threats working in or seeking
access to the Nation's transportation system. This
appropriation consolidates management of all TSA vetting and
credentialing programs, including Secure Flight, Crew Vetting,
Transportation Worker Identification Credential, Registered
Traveler, Hazardous Materials, and Alien Flight School.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a direct appropriation of
$183,954,000 for Transportation Threat Assessment and
Credentialing, the same as the budget request and $20,955,000
above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. In addition, the
Committee anticipates TSA will collect $40,320,000 in fees. A
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee's
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Appropriation:
Secure flight................. $92,414,000 $92,414,000
Crew and other vetting 91,540,000 91,540,000
programs.....................
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, direct 183,954,000 183,954,000
appropriations...........
Fee Collections:
Transportation worker 8,300,000 8,300,000
identification credential....
Hazardous materials........... 12,000,000 12,000,000
Alien flight school (transfer 4,000,000 4,000,000
from DOJ)....................
General aviation.............. 100,000 100,000
Indirect air cargo............ 1,400,000 1,400,000
Certified cargo screening 5,200,000 5,200,000
program......................
Large aircraft security 1,200,000 1,200,000
program......................
Secure identification display 8,000,000 8,000,000
area checks..................
Other security threat 100,000 100,000
assessments..................
Sensitive security information 20,000 20,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, fee collections. $40,320,000 $40,320,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURE FLIGHT
The Committee recommends $92,414,000 for Secure Flight, the
same as requested and $8,051,000 above the amount provided in
fiscal year 2011. Within this funding is $8,764,000 for
expanded watch list vetting to ensure uniform watch list
matching as requested.
Since fiscal year 2004, GAO has reported to the Committees
on Appropriations on numerous challenges the Secure Flight
program has faced in its development and implementation,
including protecting passenger privacy, completing performance
testing, defining and testing security requirements, and
establishing reliable cost and schedule estimates. GAO has
recommended that TSA monitor the performance of Secure Flight
system's name matching process, improve the system's ability to
pre-clear individuals misidentified as being on the No Fly or
Selectee lists, update the Secure Flight program's schedule and
expected costs before TSA can take over the watch list matching
function, and reduce the risk that a traveler could submit
fraudulent information to avoid detection when making airline
reservations.
The Committee recognizes Secure Flight as a key tool in
protecting civil aviation from acts of terrorism and so directs
TSA to brief the Committee on the status of its efforts to
address the aforementioned GAO recommendations not later than
90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. The briefing
should describe how the Secure Flight name matching system has
performed, including its accuracy in identifying passengers on
the terrorist watch list while minimizing the number of
passengers misidentified as being on the list, and how TSA
would use this performance information to improve Secure
Flight. TSA should also brief on the extent to which Secure
Flight uses redress data to pre-clear passengers misidentified
as being on the terrorist watch list and how it will ensure
passengers cannot manipulate airline reservation information
submissions to avoid detection.
TTAC INFRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION
The largest component of the crew and other vetting
appropriation consists of $57,800,000 requested for TTAC
infrastructure modernization (TIM), an effort to consolidate
and streamline duplicative vetting and credentialing services
to current and future TSA screening populations and to
eliminate redundant background checks. Those systems have
vetted over 96,000,000 names, and TSA plans to initiate
transition of those legacy TTAC systems to the TIM system in
fiscal year 2012. The Committee recommends funding the request
but notes its concerns with delays, including in completing a
formal analysis of alternatives, gaining acquisition review
board approval, and awarding its TIM development contract. The
Committee directs TSA to brief the Committees on Appropriations
on the status of TIM not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act and to advise the Committees about any
adverse developments in its project schedule or in the
regulatory process for developing a Universal Rule that might
significantly delay its plans to achieve its initial operating
capacity in 2013, to align with the implementation of a
Universal Fee Rule, and be fully operational in 2015.
SECURITY IDENTIFICATION DISPLAY AREA (SIDA) ACCESS APPEALS PROCESS
The Committee directs TSA to submit a report to the
Committee not later than December 1, 2011, on the number of
instances in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 when individuals were
denied unescorted access to the security identification display
area (SIDA) of an airport based on their criminal history. The
report should describe current options available to
individuals, who have been disqualified from SIDA access based
on non-security related offenses, to waive or appeal such
denials. If no such appeal or waiver option is now available,
the report should provide the Department position with regard
to whether such an appeal process should be established.
Transportation Security Support
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $988,638,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 1,113,697,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,032,790,000
Bill compared with:...................................
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +44,152,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -80,907,000
MISSION
The Transportation Security Support account includes
financial and human resources support; the Transportation
Security Intelligence Service; information technology support;
policy development and oversight; performance management and e-
government; communications; public information and legislative
affairs; training and quality performance; internal conduct and
audit; legal advice; and overall headquarters administration.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,032,790,000 for Transportation
Security Support, $80,907,000 below the amount requested and
$44,152,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. A
comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended
level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters administration....... $320,794,000 $289,798,000
Human capital services............ 264,299,000 250,000,000
Information technology............ 485,612,000 450,000,000
Intelligence...................... 42,992,000 42,992,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Transportation $1,113,697,000 $1,032,790,000
Security Support.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEADQUARTERS ADMINISTRATION
The Committee recommends $289,798,000 for headquarters
administration, $30,996,000 below the budget request. The
Committee has not included new administrative funding proposed
to support requested increases in VIPR teams, BDO hires, and
additional AIT acquisition and staffing, since those
initiatives are not funded in the bill. The Committee includes
half the proposed increase ($1,000,000) for enhanced
acquisition management.
HUMAN CAPITAL SERVICES
The Committee recommends $250,000,000 for human capital
services, $14,299,000 below the budget request. The Committee
has not included approximately $10,000,000 in new funding
proposed to support requested increases in VIPR teams, BDO
hires, and additional AIT acquisition and staffing, since those
initiatives are not funded in the bill. It further reduces
funding as partial offset for the budget gap due to request's
reliance on unauthorized fees.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
The Committee recommends $450,000,000 for information
technology, $35,612,000 below the budget request. This reflects
a reduction of $1,000,000 from the request corresponding to the
elimination of a proposed expansion of VIPR teams, BDOs, and
AIT screeners; a reduction of $21,200,000 proposed for data
center migration, which is being deferred this year due to
budgetary constraints; and additional reductions to compensate
for unrealistic revenue projections based on unauthorized
aviation security fee increases.
COVERT TESTING
The Committee supports the continued use of covert testing
to help identify vulnerabilities in critical systems and
directs TSA to aggressively pursue innovative ways to probe and
improve transportation security systems. As in past years, the
Committee expects TSA to continue to brief the Committees
semiannually on its red teaming and covert testing activities,
including testing results at airport checkpoints, in secure
areas of airports, at air cargo facilities, and in other
transportation modes, and should also report on trends in
operational errors and equipment failures.
EXPENDITURE PLANS FOR PURCHASE AND DEPLOYMENT OF AIR CARGO, CHECKPOINT
SUPPORT, AND EXPLOSIVE DETECTION EQUIPMENT
The Committee includes bill language similar to that used
in previous appropriations requiring TSA to provide a detailed
spending and deployment plan for air cargo, checkpoint support,
and explosive detection equipment. This plan shall be submitted
no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act
and shall include: expenditures on an airport-by-airport basis
for fiscal year 2012, including details on technologies
purchased; project timelines; obligation schedules; and a table
displaying actual versus anticipated unobligated balances at
the close of the fiscal year, with an explanation for any
deviation from original plans. The Committee recognizes TSA may
need to revise its plan and so directs TSA to notify the
Committees on Appropriations prior to amending its expenditure
plan and reallocating such funds, and to update the Committees
quarterly on these expenditures.
Federal Air Marshals
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $920,802,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 991,375,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 961,375,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +40,573,000
Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -30,000,000
MISSION
The Federal Air Marshals provide security for the Nation's
civil aviation system through the effective deployment of armed
Federal agents to detect, deter, and defeat hostile acts
targeting U.S. air carriers, airports, passengers, and crews.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $961,375,000 for the Federal Air
Marshals (FAMs), $30,000,000 below the amount requested and
$40,573,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2011. Of
the total funding provided, $845,260,000 is for management and
administration and $116,115,000 is for travel and training.
This funding increase, with the funding provided in the fiscal
year 2011 appropriation, should enable FAMs to sustain domestic
flight coverage and enhanced international flight coverage
initiated in 2010 after the Christmas Day bombing attempt. This
reduction from the request reflects realignment of the
explosive operations division to aviation security as well as
delays in bringing new FAMs on board.
The Committee expects FAMs staffing levels and deployment
patterns to optimize coverage of flights so as to address known
threats, minimize risk, and complement the full range of
security resources available to TSA. It is therefore critical
that TSA provide the Committee information about the analysis
it uses to set its staffing, scheduling, and resource
requirements, particularly in light of the sustained, enhanced
levels of coverage that have become the norm since the 2009
Christmas Day attempt. The Committee directs TSA to brief the
Committees on Appropriations not later than November 1, 2011,
on its optimal mix of staff, the types and frequency of flights
for which FAMs coverage should be provided, and any legislative
or regulatory changes that might be required to improve FAMs
operations and overall aviation security. The Committee directs
TSA to submit quarterly reports on mission coverage, staffing
levels, and hiring rates as in past years.
Coast Guard
Operating Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011\1\.................... $6,907,338,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012\2\.................. 6,819,505,000
Recommended in the bill\3\............................ 7,071,061,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +163,723,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. +251,556,000
\1\Includes $254,000,000 for the global war on terrorism.
\2\Does not include funds for global war on terrorism requested under
Navy, Operations and Maintenance.
\3\Includes $258,278,000 for the global war on terrorism.
MISSION
The Coast Guard is the principal Federal agency charged
with maritime safety, security, and stewardship. The Operating
Expenses appropriation provides funding for the operation and
maintenance of multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units
strategically located along the coasts and inland waterways of
the United States and in selected areas overseas. This is the
primary appropriation financing operational activities of the
Coast Guard.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$7,071,061,000 for Operating Expenses. The recommended funding
level is $251,556,000 above the amount requested and
$163,723,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The
Committee's recommendation is $17,722,000 below the net request
for Coast Guard Operating Expenses when excluding funds
requested for support of the global war on terrorism.
The fiscal year 2012 budget request, as submitted by the
President, was based upon the fiscal year 2011 rate under a
continuing resolution rather than the enacted year-long
appropriation for fiscal year 2011. Because the Coast Guard did
not submit an updated estimate for fiscal year 2012 relative to
enacted appropriations for the current year sufficiently prior
to Subcommittee markup, the comparisons between the amounts
estimated and those recommended in the bill may require
subsequent refinement. Funding for the Coast Guard operations
in support of the global war on terrorism was included in this
appropriation in fiscal year 2011 and is included in the amount
recommended for Operating Expenses in fiscal year 2012.
However, the budget request for the Coast Guard's support of
the global war on terrorism was included within the Department
of Defense under the appropriation for Operations and
Maintenance, Navy.
The Committee recommends funding for the following
initiatives requested for fiscal year 2012: $10,666,000 for
enhancements to marine safety; $9,300,000 for military family
child care; $39,000,000 in restoration of polar operations
funding; $8,600,000 for network security upgrades; and
$6,300,000 for the Distress Alerting Satellite System (DASS).
Furthermore, the Committee concurs with the proposed
decommissioning of three PC-179 patrol boats and one High
Endurance Cutter.
The Committee recommends the following reductions from the
budget request: a reduction of $10,000,000 in technical
adjustments to pay, allowances, and operating expenses due to
increases provided in the fiscal year 2011 enacted
appropriation that were unaccounted for in the fiscal year 2012
budget submission; a reduction of $5,000,000 from the request
for enhancements to marine environmental response due to an
insufficient justification; a reduction of $5,000,000 in
civilian pay due to a projected lapse in expected civilian
hiring in fiscal year 2011; and reductions of $8,000,000 in
data migration funding and $7,000,000 from Headquarters
Directorates due to inadequate budget justification and the
Department's decision to claim $645,000,000 in unrealized
offsets from increase fee revenue that had not yet been
authorized.
The Committee recommends the following increases above the
budget request: an additional $20,300,000 to partially address
the backlog in critical depot level vessel maintenance; an
additional $6,000,000 for the purchase of replacement small
boats for legacy cutters; and $4,000,000 for enhancements to
boat crew pursuit and tactical training.
Of the funds recommended for the Coast Guard's Headquarters
Directorates, $75,000,000 is withheld from obligation until the
Commandant of the Coast Guard submits the following to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives: (1) a revised future-years Capital Investment
Plan for fiscal years 2012 through 2016 that has been reviewed
by GAO, as specified under the ``Coast Guard Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements'' heading in this Act; (2) the
fiscal year 2012 second quarter quarterly acquisition report;
and (3) the polar operations high latitude study.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Pay and Allowances....... $3,447,753,000 $3,434,872,000
Civilian Pay and Benefits......... 780,556,000 775,063,000
Training and Recruiting........... 213,282,000 213,282,000
Operating Funds and Unit Level 1,109,323,000 1,109,450,000
Maintenance......................
Centrally Managed Accounts........ 351,478,000 343,348,000
Depot Level Maintenance........... 917,113,000 936,768,000
Global war on terrorism........... -- 258,278,000
-------------------------------------
Total, Operating Expenses. $6,819,505,000 $7,071,061,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MISSION REQUIREMENTS
The Coast Guard has not formally updated its mission
requirements to the Committee since the 2004 Mission Needs
Study. The Coast Guard informed the Committee that it uses an
annual Standard Operational Planning Process (SOPP) to update
current requirements; however, a SOPP finding has never been
submitted to the Committee nor has a change in an acquisition
program baseline or an operational requirement been justified
before the Committee as a result of a SOPP finding.
Furthermore, the Coast Guard has stated that it has been
conducting a Fleet Mix Analysis since 2004 and the results of
this analysis will inform the fiscal year 2013 budget
submission and fiscal years 2013 through 2017 Capital
Investment Plan. The Committee finds this protracted delay in
updating mission requirements for the Coast Guard's post-
Deepwater era to be a major impediment to effective budget
planning. The Coast Guard is directed to submit the most
current Fleet Mix Analysis to the Committees on Appropriations
of the Senate and House of Representatives and to brief the
Committees on its process for formulating updated mission
requirements no later than 30 days after the date of enactment
of this Act.
MARITIME SURVEILLANCE
The Coast Guard shall include with its fiscal year 2013
budget submission a report to the Committees on Appropriations
of the Senate and House of Representatives on how the existing
gaps in required maritime surveillance hours and the
operational hours requested by Joint Interagency Task Force-
South (JIATF-South) are being addressed. This report shall
include quantitative data on current maritime surveillance
mission hours compared to the number of hours required under
the 2004 Mission Needs Statement and the number of operational
hours requested by JIATF-South over the past three fiscal
years.
The Committee observes that Puerto Rico, because of its
location in the Caribbean basin and its 360-degree maritime
border, has become a key entry and transshipment point for the
trafficking of illegal drugs into the United States that are
produced in South and Central America. The Committee further
observes that such trafficking is connected with other threats
and crimes, particularly the increased incidence of homicide in
Puerto Rico. The Coast Guard is directed to report to the
Committee no later than November 1, 2011, on the number of
maritime surveillance hours and assets that the Coast Guard has
dedicated to countering the illicit trafficking of drugs and
other related threats and crime throughout the Caribbean basin
and how those resources satisfy the stated mission requirements
of this region.
ADMINISTRATIVE SAVINGS AND REDUCTIONS TO PROGRAM SUPPORT
The Committee commends the Coast Guard's willingness to
seek internal administrative savings and managerial
efficiencies. In total, the Coast Guard claims more than
$140,000,000 in reductions to program support and
administrative functions within the fiscal year 2012 budget
submission. However, the fiscal year 2012 budget justification
included insufficient detail on these ambiguous reductions and
failed to compare these reductions to current expenditures. The
Committee directs the Coast Guard to include the following
details with any such proposal for reductions in administrative
functions or support services in future budget submissions,
beginning with the fiscal year 2013 budget justification
materials: (1) a detailed, itemized listing of all proposed
reductions relative to current expenditures and (2) a detailed
explanation of the potential impacts of these reductions upon
operations and personnel.
PROPOSED REDUCTIONS TO OPERATING EXPENSES
Throughout this bill, the Committee has prioritized funding
to frontline security operations and essential personnel across
DHS. In fiscal year 2011, the Department requested a
substantial reduction to the Coast Guard's operational
capabilities and military workforce without a corresponding
proposal to backfill depleted capacity through investments in
recapitalized assets. This proposal had obvious, adverse
implications upon the Coast Guard's ability to carry out its
critical missions of maritime safety, coastal security, and
drug interdiction which ignored current threat activity and the
ramifications upon the Department's broader border security
efforts. As evidenced by the enacted appropriations, the flawed
request for fiscal year 2011 was resoundingly rejected by
Congress. Within the fiscal year 2012 budget request, the
Department has proposed a far more balanced approach to
reducing the Coast Guard's operational costs in conjunction
with investments in both targeted capabilities and new
acquisitions and asset refurbishments. The Committee directs
the Coast Guard to clearly present any known or expected
adverse impacts to operational proficiency and Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals created by proposed
decreases in its Operating Expenses in future budget
submissions, beginning with the fiscal year 2013 budget
justification materials.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
The Committee remains concerned with the Coast Guard's
persistent challenges with its internal financial controls. The
Committee notes the Coast Guard lags behind all other
Departmental components in terms of addressing material
weaknesses in its financial management systems. It is the
single largest holder of unauditable balances in the
Department, according to the OIG.
At the Committee's direction, in December 2008 the Coast
Guard produced an extensive financial management improvement
plan for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The Committee believes the
Financial Strategy for Transformation and Audit Readiness
(FSTAR) plan should address the Coast Guard's financial
management challenges and directs the Coast Guard to provide a
briefing on the progress of this initiative no later than three
months after the date of enactment of this Act, and every
quarter thereafter. This briefing should focus on the progress
achieved relative to the milestones outlined in the FSTAR plan;
identification of remaining major roadblocks to achieving a
clean audit; an explanation of the Coast Guard's efforts to
examine and review the shortcomings of its current financial
management system; and proposals on how to overcome identified
challenges.
POLAR OPERATIONS
The Committee appreciates the restoration of $39,000,000 in
operating expenses for polar operations within the Coast
Guard's budget. However, the restoration of these operational
costs to the operator of the Nation's polar icebreaker fleet
does little to assure the Committee that national interests in
the polar regions can be effectively served in coming years.
The current Administration has failed to execute the existing
National Arctic Policy, as stated in National Security
Presidential Directive-66 and Homeland Security Presidential
Directive-25 (NSPD-66 / HSPD-25) released on January 9, 2009,
and appears to be permitting the atrophy of national polar
capabilities. As the sustainable service lives of the Coast
Guard's heavy icebreakers rapidly approach their expiration,
the need for polar capabilities is intensifying due to the
presence of increased vessel traffic and energy exploration
resources in the Arctic. Rather than address these issues with
a cogent implementation plan, the Administration and Department
are delaying the submittal of the Coast Guard's High Latitude
Study and are requesting an additional $5,000,000 for further
study of polar needs. As noted previously in this report, the
Committee denies the request for the additional $5,000,000
under the Under Secretary for Management since the needs are
well known and sufficiently documented. The Coast Guard is
directed to submit the High Latitude Study and brief the
Committee on the resources required to meet polar mission
requirements and fulfill the policy directives set forth in
NSPD-66 / HSPD-25 no later than 45 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
RESOURCES FOR THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM
The Committee includes $258,278,000 under this heading for
the costs of the Coast Guard's support for the global war on
terrorism. These funds in the past had been carried in
supplemental appropriations bills under the Department of
Defense and then transferred to the Coast Guard. Beginning with
Public Law 111-32l, these funds were provided as a direct
appropriation to the Coast Guard. For fiscal year 2012, the
Administration has again requested these funds as a transfer
from the Navy's Operations and Maintenance account. The
Committee provides these funds to the Coast Guard directly
rather than as a transfer to provide for better accountability
and oversight of the Coast Guard's entire Operating Expenses.
Consistent with the conference report accompanying the Homeland
Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010 and the
enacted appropriations for fiscal year 2011, the Coast Guard
may allocate these funds across its PPAs in the Operating
Expenses account, as necessary and without regard to section
503 of this Act. The Coast Guard is directed to provide a plan
no later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act
on the distribution of these funds by PPA. For fiscal year
2013, the Committee strongly encourages these funds to be
included as part of the Coast Guard's budget request, which
should also include a detailed justification of the continued
need for these funds and how they are allocated across PPAs.
THREATS ALONG THE SOUTHWEST BORDER
Increased violence on the waters of the Rio Grande has
resulted in the armed robbery through piracy and murder of U.S.
citizens. The Committee recognizes the Border Patrol and Coast
Guard are laudably working to prevent these incidents and
ensure the integrity of the U.S. border with Mexico. However,
the Committee also notes the all too frequent occurrence of our
Federal law enforcement professionals encountering boats used
by drug smugglers and other armed criminals with far greater
capabilities.
The Commandant of the Coast Guard testified before the
Committee that ``. . . some level of persistent presence is
required on Falcon Lake, [Texas].'' Given similar challenges
present on Lake Amistad, the Committee also recommends an
enhanced Coast Guard presence, as necessary, to counter
persistent border incursion threats in this area. In light of
recent events on Falcon Lake, the Committee recommends that the
Coast Guard adhere to the Commandant's testimony and report
within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act on the
efforts to comply with this security commitment and as to
whether additional resources or authorities are needed to
assist in achieving compliance.
ENHANCEMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITIES
The Committee recommends an additional total of $4,000,000
above the amount requested for boat crew pursuit and tactical
training. Additional funding for boat crew training will enable
the Coast Guard to conduct tactical training for 24 shore-
based, designated maritime law enforcement units.
The Committee also recommends an additional $6,000,000
above the amount requested for the purchase of replacement
small boats for the Coast Guard's legacy cutters. Additional
funds are intended to procure up to six small boats used in the
major cutter fleet and increase the Coast Guard's interdiction
capacity.
ENHANCEMENTS TO MARINE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE CAPABILITIES
The Deepwater Horizon catastrophe highlighted the need for
a more robust marine safety capability and for dedicated
personnel that have incident response as their primary focus so
that the Coast Guard does not have to sacrifice mission
performance in other areas when a crisis occurs. The Committee
therefore recommends $10,666,000, as requested, for 105 marine
safety positions including inspectors, investigators, and
safety examiners. In addition, the Committee recommends
$6,485,000 for marine environmental response enhancements,
$5,000,000 below the amount requested. The request for marine
environmental response (MER) is reduced due to an inadequate
justification that lacked specific details on proposed
resources and capabilities relative to current gaps in MER
capacity. The Coast Guard is directed to brief the Committee no
later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act on
its expenditure plan for these increases in marine safety and
environmental response. Furthermore, the Coast Guard is
directed to provide an updated MER Mission Performance Plan no
later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act to
address the five-year strategy for providing personnel with the
necessary skills to perform MER functions and enhance
environmental response competencies. This plan should address
resource enhancements necessary to meet mission requirements
and be informed by lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill response.
ENHANCEMENTS TO DEPOT LEVEL MAINTENANCE
The Committee recommends an additional $20,300,000 above
the amount requested for critical depot level maintenance.
Additional funds are intended to replenish repair parts and
execute backlogged and deferred critical depot level
maintenance for vessels, including: $9,500,000 for 270-foot
Medium Endurance Cutter maintenance and $10,800,000 for High
Endurance Cutter maintenance. Funds shall be prioritized for
critical operational repairs and unfunded crew habitability and
welfare needs.
Environmental Compliance and Restoration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $13,198,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 16,699,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 10,198,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -3,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -6,501,000
MISSION
The Environmental Compliance and Restoration appropriation
assists in bringing Coast Guard facilities into compliance with
applicable Federal, State, and environmental regulations;
preparing and testing facilities response plans; developing
pollution and hazardous waste minimization strategies;
conducting environmental assessments; and furnishing necessary
program support. These funds permit the continuation of a
service-wide program to correct environmental problems, such as
through major improvements of storage tanks containing
petroleum and regulated substances. The program focuses mainly
on Coast Guard facilities, but also includes third-party sites
where Coast Guard activities have contributed to environmental
problems.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $10,198,000 for Environmental
Compliance and Restoration, $6,501,000 below the amount
requested and $3,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal
year 2011. A reduction is made to the budget request for this
account due to operational priorities, the Department's flawed
decision to claim offsets from unauthorized fee collections,
and the lack of funding details included in the Coast Guard's
Environmental Compliance and Restoration backlog report dated
April 11, 2011. The Coast Guard is directed to submit an
itemized expenditure plan for each project listed in the
backlog report to the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and House of Representatives with its annual budget
submission.
Reserve Training
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $133,632,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 136,778,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 131,778,000
Bill compared with:...................................
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +3,146,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -5,000,000
MISSION
This appropriation provides for the training of qualified
individuals who are available for active duty in time of war or
national emergency or to augment regular Coast Guard forces in
the performance of peacetime missions. Program activities fall
into the following categories:
Initial training.--The direct costs of initial training for
three categories of non-prior service trainees;
Continued training.--The training of officer and enlisted
personnel;
Operation and maintenance of training facilities.--The day-
to-day operation and maintenance of reserve training
facilities; and
Administration.--All administrative costs of the reserve
forces program.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $131,778,000 for Reserve Training,
$5,000,000 below the amount requested and $3,146,000 above the
amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The Committee recommends a
reduction to this program's persistent lapse of annual
appropriations.
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011...................... $1,519,783,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012.................... 1,421,924,000
Recommended in the bill.............................. 1,151,673,000
Bill compared with:..................................
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011.................. -368,110,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................ -270,251,000
MISSION
The Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
appropriation finances the acquisition of new capital assets,
construction of new facilities, and physical improvements to
existing facilities and assets. The appropriation covers Coast
Guard-owned and operated vessels, aircraft, shore facilities,
and other equipment such as computer systems, as well as the
personnel needed to manage acquisition activities.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,151,673,000 for Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements, $270,251,000 below the amount
requested and $368,110,000 below the amount provided in fiscal
year 2011.
The Committee recommends the following reductions from the
amounts requested: a reduction of $77,000,000 requested for the
National Security Cutter; a reduction of $118,000,000 from the
amount requested for the Fast Response Cutter; a reduction of
$19,309,000 from the amount requested for the Response Boat-
Medium; a reduction of $97,692,000 from the amount requested
for shore facilities, aids to navigation, housing, and
infrastructure projects; a reduction of $5,000,000 from the
amount requested for government program management; and a
denial of the request for $2,250,000 for additional acquisition
personnel.
The Committee recommends the following increases above the
amount requested: an additional $37,000,000 for the replacement
costs of two, HH-65 helicopters; an additional $10,000,000 for
communication upgrades to legacy cutters; and an additional
$2,000,000 for pre-acquisition activities of cutter-based
unmanned aircraft systems.
The Committee removes the annual requirement for a Revised
Deepwater Implementation Plan due to the dissolution of the
Deepwater initiative and directorate. The Committee modifies
and strengthens the requirements for the annual capital
investment plan (CIP) and requires the submittal of the CIP, as
specified in the bill, in conjunction with the annual budget
submission.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels:
Cutter Small Boats............ $5,000,000 $5,000,000
Fast Response Cutter (FRC).... 358,000,000 240,000,000
In-Service Cutters Sustainment 14,000,000 14,000,000
Medium Endurance Cutter (MEC) 47,000,000 47,000,000
Sustainment..................
National Security Cutter (NSC) 77,000,000 ---
Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC).. 25,000,000 25,000,000
Response Boat-Medium.......... 110,000,000 90,691,000
Survey and Design-Vessels and 6,000,000 6,000,000
Boats........................
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Vessels..... 642,000,000 427,691,000
=====================================
Aircraft:
Long Range Surveillance 62,000,000 62,000,000
Aircraft.....................
HH-60 Acquisition/Conversion/ 74,400,000 74,400,000
Sustainment..................
HH-65 Acquisition/Conversion/ 24,000,000 61,000,000
Sustainment..................
Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) 129,500,000 129,500,000
Unmanned Aircraft Systems --- 2,000,000
(UAS)........................
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Aircraft.... 289,900,000 328,900,000
=====================================
Other Equipment:
C4ISR......................... 34,500,000 44,500,000
Government Program Management. 35,000,000 30,000,000
Interagency Operational 3,000,000 3,000,000
Centers......................
Nationwide Automatic 5,000,000 5,000,000
Identification System........
CG-LIMS....................... 6,500,000 6,500,000
Rescue 21..................... 65,000,000 65,000,000
System Engineering and 17,140,000 17,140,000
Integration..................
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Other 166,140,000 171,140,000
Equipment............
=====================================
Shore Facilities and Aids to
Navigation:
Major/Minor construction; 99,192,000 50,000,000
Housing; ATON; and survey &
design.......................
Major Acquisition Systems 94,500,000 66,000,000
Infrastructure...............
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Shore 193,692,000 116,000,000
Facilities and Aids
to Navigation........
=====================================
Military Housing.................. 20,000,000 ---
Personnel and Related Support
Direct Personnel Costs........ 109,592,000 107,342,000
AC&I Core..................... 600,000 600,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Personnel 110,192,000 107,942,000
and Related Support..
=====================================
Total, $1,421,924,000 $1,151,673,000
Acquisition,
Construction, and
Improvements.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUARTERLY REPORTS ON ACQUISITION PROJECTS AND MISSION EMPHASIS
The Commandant is directed to continue to submit to the
Committee quarterly acquisition and mission emphasis reports
consistent with deadlines articulated under section 360 of
division I of Public Law 108-7. The Coast Guard shall continue
submitting these reports in the same format as required in
fiscal year 2010. In addition, for each asset covered, the
reports should present the objective for operational hours the
Coast Guard expects to achieve, the gap between that objective,
current capabilities, and stated mission requirements, and how
the acquisition of the specific asset closes the gap. The
information shall also include a discussion of how the Coast
Guard calculated the operational hours, an explanation on risks
to mission performance associated with the current shortfall,
and the operational strategy to mitigate such risks.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN
The Committee directs the Commandant of the Coast Guard to
revise and resubmit the fiscal years 2012-2016 Capital
Investment Plan as specified in the bill. The CIP submitted
with the fiscal year 2012 budget request fails to align capital
investments to mission requirements; does not include current
acquisition program baselines for each capital asset; does not
include the associated infrastructure costs essential to the
operation of each capital asset; and contains no background
information or justification regarding the future-years funding
assumptions. The Coast Guard is further directed to submit a
CIP in accordance with the specified requirements listed in the
bill in conjunction with the budget submission for fiscal year
2013 and thereafter. The Committee believes the CIP serves as
the primary means of oversight for tracking the Coast Guard's
recapitalization efforts and therefore must be substantially
improved.
REVISED BUDGET STRUCTURE
The Committee has revised the Coast Guard's budget
structure for the Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
account due to the dissolution of the Deepwater initiative and
directorate. The Committee appreciates the Coast Guard's
cooperation in aligning previously appropriated funds with this
new PPA structure and directs the Coast Guard to submit both
its fiscal year 2013 budget submission and revised and future
CIPs in accordance with this new budgetary display. The
Committee's standing reprogramming and transfer guidelines
contained in section 503 of this Act shall be applied to these
new PPAs.
NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER
The Committee denies the request for $77,000,000 for the
close-out costs of the fifth National Security Cutter (NSC)
because these funds were provided in fiscal year 2011 along
with funding for the full production costs of the fifth NSC.
The Coast Guard has not submitted a budget amendment proposing
to re-purpose these requested funds towards the pre-acquisition
and long-long material costs of the sixth NSC; has currently
budgeted for the full cost of the sixth NSC in fiscal year
2013, as per the capital investment plan submitted with the
fiscal year 2012 budget submission; and has not informed the
Committee on whether the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
would grant an exception from the full funding policy contained
in OMB Circular A-11 and allow for the application of
incremental funding (as has been done for the previous five
NSCs).
Due to OMB's application of this Circular A-11 full funding
policy upon the acquisition of NSCs five through eight, the
entire NSC acquisition program baseline will be extended by
several years and the unit cost for NSCs six through eight will
increase by an estimated $45,000,000 to $60,000,000 per cutter
(an estimated increase of six to eight percent to total
acquisition cost per cutter). The Committee believes the
application of a policy that results in higher costs and in the
undue delay of critical operational capabilities to be
illogical and counterproductive to our Nation's security needs
as well as current budgetary realities. Furthermore, delays in
the acquisition of the NSC will exacerbate the already
escalating operating and maintenance costs of the Coast Guard's
aging High Endurance Cutter fleet. Due to these undisputed
adverse impacts, the Committee believes the Administration's
management of the NSC acquisition program baseline to be
failing in its responsibility to deliver a cost-effective
capability for maritime safety and security. The Committee
directs the Department's Office of the Chief Financial Officer
and the Coast Guard to brief the Committee within 30 days of
the date of enactment of this Act on a revised NSC acquisition
strategy that addresses all known adverse impacts resulting
from the application of OMB's full funding requirements for the
NSC pursuant to OMB Circular A-11.
FAST RESPONSE CUTTER
The Committee recommends $240,000,000 for the acquisition
of four Fast Response Cutters (FRCs), $118,000,000 below the
amount requested and the same as the amount provided in fiscal
year 2011. Funding for two, additional FRCs is denied due to
concerns regarding structural deficiencies found during the
production of the first FRC and the resulting delay in delivery
of the first FRC due to the required structural modifications.
The Committee is also very concerned that the Coast Guard is
applying funds reserved for FRC antecedent liabilities to
address the costs of these structural modifications and that
this decision will likely result in future, unfunded
liabilities. Because the Coast Guard has yet to conduct its
operational test and evaluation (OT&E) of the first FRC, the
Committee believes it is prudent to examine the empirical OT&E
results before accelerating the acquisition of FRCs from four
to six per year. The Committee also denies the request for the
re-procurement package and data rights (RDLP) at this time
because, according to the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2012 budget
submission, the RDLP option of the contract is not scheduled to
be executed until fiscal year 2013 and the current contract for
FRC production does not expire until the end of fiscal year
2014. The Committee remains committed to the FRC acquisition,
and believes replacement of the Coast Guard's aging, 110-foot
Island Class patrol boat fleet to be among the Department's
highest acquisition priorities. The Committee will re-consider
the request for funding to support an increase in the annual
production rate of FRCs and the purchase of the RDLP once
outstanding issues have been fully resolved.
RESPONSE BOAT--MEDIUM
The Committee recommends $90,691,000 for the Response
Boat--Medium (RB-M), $19,309,000 below the amount the requested
and $48,691,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011.
Due to the need to address other, unfunded acquisition
priorities for the Coast Guard, the Committee recommendation
funds only the cost of annual full rate production of 30 RB-Ms
for fiscal year 2012, rather than the requested 40 RB-Ms. The
Committee's recommendation for fiscal year 2012 triples the
production of 10 RB-Ms funded in fiscal year 2011.
ACQUISITION PERSONNEL
The Committee recommends $107,942,000 for direct costs of
acquisition personnel, $2,250,000 below the amount requested
and $1,769,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011.
The Committee denies the requested increase in support of the
Administration's Acquisition Workforce Initiative because of an
inadequate justification. The Acquisition Workforce Initiative
and the requested increase for this activity does not
sufficiently demonstrate the fulfillment of a needed capability
the Coast Guard does not currently possess within its
acquisition workforce of approximately 750 FTE. The Committee
has been a consistently strong proponent of building a robust
acquisition management capacity within the Coast Guard. In
fact, since fiscal year 2006, funding for the Coast Guard's
acquisition workforce has increased by nearly 50 percent. The
Coast Guard's portion of the Acquisition Workforce Initiative
neither acknowledges previously funded capacity enhancements
nor identifies an unfunded capability.
MAJOR/MINOR SHORE CONSTRUCTION, HOUSING, AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION
The Committee recommends a total of $50,000,000 for shore
facilities, military housing, and aids to navigation,
$69,192,000 below the amount requested and $19,200,000 below
the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The recommended
reduction is due to inadequate justifications and the fact that
many of the requested projects require only funding for design
in fiscal year 2012. The Committee has combined the funding for
military housing with major and minor shore construction
projects as it did in the fiscal year 2011 enacted
appropriation and directs the Coast Guard to prioritize the
recommended funds toward immediate operational requirements and
the most pressing needs of enlisted personnel and their
families. The Coast Guard is directed to submit an expenditure
plan for these funds to the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and House of Representatives no later than 30 days after
the date of enactment of this Act. This expenditure plan shall
also include an exhaustive list of all military housing needs,
listed in priority order with associated costs for completion.
MAJOR ACQUISITION SYSTEMS INFRASTRUCTURE
The Committee recommends $66,000,000 for major acquisition
systems infrastructure, $28,500,000 below the amount requested
and $10,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011.
The Committee denies the request for two of the FRC port
upgrades due to an insufficient budget justification; projected
delays in FRC deliveries; the protracted delay in the Coast
Guard's delivery of a revised FRC master schedule to the
Committee; and due to serious concerns regarding the
significant cost per port upgrade that amount to nearly a 24
percent increase in the cost of each FRC. As previously stated
and directed, the Coast Guard shall include the associated
costs of major acquisition systems infrastructure with each
capital asset, as applicable, in the CIP. Furthermore, the
Coast Guard is directed to brief the Committee no later than 45
days after the date of enactment of this Act on the cost
control and estimation tools it is employing to contain the
costs of infrastructure modifications needed to accommodate re-
capitalized and new assets.
GOVERNMENT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for government program
management, $5,000,000 below the amount requested and
$15,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The
Committee recommends this reduction due to the complete lack of
detail provided by the Coast Guard in their fiscal year 2012
Congressional budget justification for this function. While
Committee strongly supports the activities carried out within
this function, the lack of detail provided in the budget
request is inadequate to warrant a recommendation for funding
the amount requested. The Coast Guard is directed to provide a
detailed subdivision of funding requested for government
program management in its justification materials accompanying
the fiscal year 2013 budget submission.
COMMUNICATION UPGRADES OF LEGACY CUTTERS
The Committee recommends an additional $10,000,000 above
the amount requested to support the costs of installation of
communications systems on legacy cutters. These enhancements
will improve surveillance, secure networking, and operational
coordination among Coast Guard and other blue force assets.
Furthermore, this increase in funding is consistent with recent
DHS OIG recommendations to upgrade current maritime satellite
communication equipment to provide high-speed transmission
capabilities to enable cutters that interdict migrants to
collect and screen certain biometric data.
HH-65 HELICOPTER RESET
The Committee recommends an additional $37,000,000 above
the amount requested for the acquisition of two, replacement
HH-65 helicopters that were lost in the line of duty over the
past two years. The Coast Guard is directed to brief the
Committee within 60 days of the date of enactment of this Act
on its reset plans for irrecoverable assets lost in the line of
duty.
CUTTER-BASED UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
The Committee recommends an additional $2,000,000 above the
amount requested for the pre-acquisition activities for cutter-
based unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). The Committee supports
the use of cutter-based UAS to maximize the surveillance and
interdiction capabilities of the Coast Guard's cutters, but is
concerned that the fiscal years 2012 through 2016 CIP submitted
with the fiscal year 2012 budget request contains no funding
for UAS. In the justification materials accompanying the fiscal
year 2013 budget submission, the Coast Guard shall clearly
outline its plans for further investment in the acquisition and
deployment of a cutter-based UAS, to include estimated
acquisition costs and delivery schedule. The Committee advises
that any such plan should align with the Coast Guard's CIP and
should clearly identify the costs of acquisition, cutter
integration, and missionization per asset, as well as a
delivery and activation schedule of UAS capability per cutter.
The Coast Guard shall also include with its fiscal year 2013
budget submission a report to the Committee on the impact of
the absence of deployed UAS upon NSC capability and mission
performance.
LAND-BASED MARITIME UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
The Committee commends CBP and the Coast Guard for its
collaboration on the development and deployment of a land-
based, maritime unmanned aircraft system. However, the
Committee notes with concern the lack of progress on this
interagency coordination or subsequent acquisition of
additional land-based, maritime UAS. In fact, the Coast Guard's
fiscal years 2012 through 2016 Capital Investment Plan
submitted with the fiscal year 2012 budget request includes no
funding for land-based UAS. The Committee believes there is
considerable potential in the use of persistent surveillance
tools in the maritime approaches to the continental United
States, namely in the Eastern Pacific and Caribbean basin. In
the justification materials accompanying the fiscal year 2013
budget submission, the Coast Guard shall clearly outline its
plans for further investment in the acquisition and deployment
of a land-based UAS in collaboration with CBP, to include
estimated acquisition costs and delivery schedule. The
Committee advises that any such plan should align with the
Coast Guard's CIP and should clearly identify the costs of
acquisition, integration, and missionization per asset, as well
as a delivery and activation schedule of UAS capability.
LONG-RANGE SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT
The Committee has renamed and combined the PPAs for HC-130J
introduction and HC-130H refurbishment in order to allow the
Coast Guard to leverage its limited funding for these
activities for the most cost-effective budgeting for Long Range
Surveillance (LRS) Aircraft. The Coast Guard is directed to
brief the Committee no later than 45 days after the date of
enactment of this Act on its evaluation of options presented in
the recently completed Naval Air Systems Command business case
analysis of the optimal mix of refurbished HC-130Hs and new HC-
130Js.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $24,745,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 19,779,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 12,779,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -11,966,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -7,000,000
MISSION
The purpose of Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
is to allow Coast Guard to maintain its non-homeland security
research and development capability, while also partnering with
DHS and the Department of Defense to leverage beneficial
initiatives.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $12,779,000 for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), $7,000,000 below the
amount requested and $11,966,000 below the amount provided in
fiscal year 2011. The recommended reduction is due to an
unacceptable lack of detail provided by the Coast Guard in the
fiscal year 2012 Congressional budget justification for this
program. While the Committee strongly supports the activities
carried out within this function, the detail provided in the
budget request is insufficient to warrant a recommendation for
fully funding the amount requested. The Coast Guard is directed
to provide a detailed subdivision of funding requested for
RDT&E, to include a prioritized listing of planned activities
relative to stated mission requirements, in its justification
materials accompanying the fiscal year 2013 budget submission.
PACE OF RESEARCH
The Committee notes with concern the slow pace of several
research and development efforts highlighted in previous
reports, including development of technology to control the
spread of invasive species through ballast water and
development of a cutter-based UAS.
Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund Contribution\1\
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $265,321,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 261,871,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 261,871,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -3,450,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. ---\1\This account is a permanent indefinite discretionary budgetary
activity and is not carried in the bill.
MISSION
The Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund contribution
provides funding to the Department of Defense Medicare-eligible
health care fund for the health benefits of future Medicare-
eligible retirees currently serving active duty in Coast Guard,
retiree dependents, and their potential survivors. The
authority for Coast Guard to make this payment on an annual
basis was provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2005.
RECOMMENDATION
While this account requires no annual action by Congress,
the Committee provides $261,871,000 to fund the Medicare-
eligible retiree health care fund contribution, the same amount
included in the budget submission and $3,450,000 below the
amount provided in fiscal year 2011.
Retired Pay
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $1,400,700,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 1,440,157,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,440,157,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +39,457,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. ---
MISSION
This appropriation provides for the retired pay of Coast
Guard military personnel and Coast Guard Reserve personnel, as
well as career status bonuses for active duty personnel. In
addition, it provides payments to members of the former
Lighthouse Service and beneficiaries pursuant to the retired
serviceman's family protection plan and survivor benefit plan,
as well as payments for medical care of retired personnel and
their dependents under the Dependents' Medical Care Act.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,440,157,000 for Retired Pay,
the same as the amount requested and $39,457,000 above the
amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The Committee includes
bill language allowing funds to remain available until
expended. The Coast Guard's Retired Pay appropriation is a
mandatory budgetary activity.
United States Secret Service
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $1,514,361,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 1,691,751,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,666,451,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +152,090,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -25,300,000
MISSION
The United States Secret Service has statutory authority to
carry out two primary missions: protection of the Nation's
leaders and investigation of financial and electronic crimes.
The Secret Service protects and investigates threats against
the President and Vice President, their families, visiting
heads of state, and other designated individuals; protects the
White House, Vice President's Residence, foreign missions, and
other buildings within Washington, D.C.; and manages the
security at National Special Security Events. The Secret
Service also investigates violations of laws relating to
counterfeiting of obligations and securities of the United
States; financial crimes that include, but are not limited to,
access device fraud, financial institution fraud, identity
theft, and computer fraud; and computer-based attacks on
financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure. The
agency also provides support for investigations related to
missing and exploited children.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,666,451,000 for Secret Service
Salaries and Expenses, $25,300,000 below the amount requested
and $152,090,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011.
This includes substantial increases for the 2012 Presidential
campaign season, including a $72,800,000 increase for costs
associated with the core protective missions and $123,500,000
to support candidate and nominee protection (the latter number
is offset by shifting, as requested, $39,000,000 from core
investigative and field operations in 2012). It includes
$11,307,000 for planning and advance costs associated with an
unusual combination of National Special Security Events that
will take place in fiscal year 2012, with the exception that it
does not include $7,300,000 for the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation summit, for which funding is expected to be
provided in fiscal year 2011. It also includes $371,000 for
enhanced acquisition management support, as requested.
The Committee recommendation includes the requested
$43,843,000 for Information Integration and Transformation
(IIT), including $9,883,000 requested to begin IIT design and
development to replace dated information technology
infrastructure, provide new cyber security tools, acquire
mission critical communications and classified messaging
systems, and deploy the Protective Threat Management System to
centralize protective intelligence and threat assessment
activities, and requires the CIO to certify that the funding
for IIT is consistent with DHS enterprise architecture. The
recommendation does not include $18,000,000 requested for data
center migration, which is not funded this year due to the need
to offset the budget shortfall created by the Department's
reliance on increased aviation security fees and customs fees
that are yet to be authorized.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended levels, by budget activity, is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters Management and $246,602,000 $228,302,000
Administration...................
Protection:
Protection of persons and 847,693,000 847,693,000
facilities...................
Protective intelligence 68,125,000 68,125,000
activities...................
Presidential candidate nominee 113,462,000 113,462,000
protection...................
National Special Security 19,307,000 12,307,000
Event fund...................
White House mail screening.... 24,315,000 24,315,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Protection...... 1,073,172,000 1,066,172,000
=====================================
Investigations:
Domestic field operations..... 223,991,000 223,991,000
International field office 30,971,000 30,971,000
administration, operations,
and training.................
Electronic Crimes Special 53,051,000 53,051,000
Agent Program and Electronic
Crimes Task Forces...........
Support for missing and 8,366,000 8,366,000
exploited children...........
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, Investigations.. 316,379,000 316,379,000
=====================================
Training:
Rowley training center........ 55,598,000 55,598,000
=====================================
Total, Salaries and $1,691,751,000 $1,666,451,000
Expenses.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
The bill includes $113,462,000, as requested, to prepare
for and support protection of presidential candidates in the
2012 campaign. If recent history is a guide, the campaign will
draw an extraordinary level of national attention, involve
extensive travel by the candidates and their Secret Service
details, and demand significant manpower and financial
resources to ensure the Presidential election is not disrupted
by those who would seek to harm our country or its leaders. The
Committee supports funding this critical program but expects
the Secret Service to execute its spending of these enhanced
resources in a disciplined and transparent manner, and to avoid
problems seen in past years. The Committee therefore directs
the Secret Service, in consultation with the DHS CFO, to submit
its financial control plan for 2012 campaign costs and spending
not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act
and to provide regular updates on its implementation of such
plan.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND CRITICAL PROTECTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE
The Committee supports the efforts underway in 2011 and
proposed in 2012 to invest in upgrading the information and
communication infrastructure and technology systems on which
the Secret Service depends to enable it to combat sophisticated
criminals and increasingly sophisticated security threats. The
Committee would also like better insight into Secret Service
requirements to upgrade and improve its critical protective
infrastructure. To those ends, the Committee directs the Secret
Service to develop a revised account structure to include two
new PPA categories, technology investments and base
infrastructure, associated with its dual, core missions. The
Committee would expect to see this new breakout reflected in
the Secret Service fiscal year 2013 budget submission. The
Committee encourages the Secret Service to make a clear
distinction between unit cost elements associated with staffing
or equipment for officers and agents (weapons, communications,
transportation), which should be built into the budgets for
field office and protective operations, as opposed to site-
specific infrastructure.
INTERNATIONAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
The Secret Service has experienced significant success in
its efforts at combating counterfeiting of U.S. currency, in
concert with those of its counterparts in the Government of
Colombia. To build on this success, the Secret Service is
seeking to establish a permanent presence in neighboring Peru,
where identification and seizure of high-quality counterfeit
U.S. currency rose 26 percent in 2010, and where the Peruvian
National Police rely heavily on the Secret Service for support.
The Committee also understands that the Secret Service is
considering intensified efforts in Eastern Europe. The
Committee directs the Secret Service, in conjunction with the
DHS Office of International Affairs, to keep it informed of
plans to establish new field operations in Lima, Peru and in
other locations, particularly in light of the competing demands
of the protective mission in 2012.
STAFFING AND RETENTION
Given its unique dual-mission model, the Secret Service has
a critical need to sustain the right numbers and mix of skills
and experience in its Agent and Officer ranks, particularly
given the intense scheduling demands and the influx of younger
personnel into the workforce over the past decade. The upcoming
2012 Presidential campaign will place additional demands on the
Secret Service workforce. The Committee therefore directs the
Secret Service to provide a briefing to the Committee no later
than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act on steps
it is taking to ensure that it is meeting all the human capital
challenges affecting its ability to retain key personnel,
including any issues concerning compensation or retirement
benefits.
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $3,975,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 6,780,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 6,780,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... 2,805,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. ---
MISSION
This account supports the acquisition, construction,
improvement, equipment, furnishing, and related cost for
maintenance and support of Secret Service facilities, including
the Secret Service Memorial Headquarters Building and the James
J. Rowley Training Center (JJRTC).
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $6,780,000, the same level as
requested in the budget and $2,805,000 above the amount
provided in fiscal year 2011. This increase will go to
infrastructure improvements at the JJRTC, including repairs for
driving courses.
TITLE III--PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY
National Protection and Programs Directorate
Management and Administration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $43,577,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 55,156,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 42,511,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -1,066,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -12,645,000
MISSION
The National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD)
includes programs focused on the security of the country's
physical and cyber infrastructure and interoperable
communications systems. NPPD also supports biometric identity
services through the US-VISIT program. The Management and
Administration account funds the immediate office of the
Undersecretary for National Protection and Programs; provides
for administrative overhead costs such as IT support and shared
services; includes a national planning office for development
of standard doctrine and policy for infrastructure protection
and cyber security; and includes a Risk Management and Analysis
office (RMA), which develops standard doctrine and policy for
DHS risk analyses.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $42,511,000 for the Office of the
Under Secretary for NPPD, $12,645,000 below the amount
requested and $1,066,000 below the amount provided in fiscal
year 2011. This includes a reduction for data center migration
and maintains the RMA at the fiscal year 2011 level.
RISK MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
A recent study of RMA by the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) highlighted several shortcomings in this program, the
success of which is critical not only to the NPPD mission but
to the proper operation of the entire Department. While the NAS
study concluded that the basic risk framework used by the
Department is a sound approach to assess risk, other
significant deficiencies mean that DHS risk analyses can only
be used with a low level of confidence. Because the validity
and reliability of DHS risk models are untested, NAS found that
the Department's risk analysis capabilities and methods are
inadequate to support DHS decision making. The NAS panel also
concluded that the risks presented by terrorist attacks and
natural disasters cannot be combined in one meaningful
indicator of risk, and so an all-hazards risk assessment is not
practical. The panel recommended major reforms to the DHS
approach to risk modeling, including expert, external peer
review of risk models, integration of more sophisticated threat
probabilities that simulate intelligent adversaries, and
incorporation of a wider range of social, health, and economic
variables into existing risk models. The panel also recommended
DHS develop a strategic plan to improve employees' risk
analysis skills across the Departmental components most
affected by such products. The Committee directs NPPD to brief
the Committee within 90 days of the date of enactment of this
Act on its work to implement the results of the NAS study.
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $840,444,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 936,485,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 891,243,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +50,799,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -45,242,000
MISSION
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS)
works to reduce the vulnerability of the nation's critical
infrastructure, key resources, information technology networks,
and telecommunications systems to terrorist attacks and natural
disasters. IPIS is also responsible for maintaining effective
telecommunications for government users in national emergencies
and for establishing policies and promoting solutions for
interoperable communications at the Federal, State, and local
level.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $891,243,000 for IPIS, $45,242,000
below the amount requested and $50,799,000 above the amount
provided in fiscal year 2011. The Committee does not support
funding for the Acquisition Workforce Initiative. Additionally,
the Committee recommends making these funds available for one
year due to the lack of justification for two-year
availability. After repeated inquiries by the Committee for
justification of the requested two-year funds, the Department
failed to provide adequate justification for the continued
practice for even a portion of the funds. Based on a review of
the proposed budget, it is apparent that a significant portion
of the funding requested supports operation- and sustainment-
type activities that do not warrant two-year obligation
availabilities. Further reductions are included due to low
execution and lack of justification for the proposed increases.
At the request of the Directorate, the Committee has
reorganized the budget display for the Cyber Security and
Communications and the Office of Infrastructure Protection
programs to reflect more appropriate programmatic groupings of
the activities funded in those areas. The Committee recommends
further subdivision of each of these categories into additional
PPA's based on details provided in the budget addendum in order
to provide an additional level of oversight. The Committee
contends that this level of oversight is required for programs
of such national importance.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level, organized in the new budget activity
structure, is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended
Request request Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security:
Infrastructure Protection:
Identification and Analysis............................. $83,948,000 .............. ..............
Coordination and Information Sharing.................... 48,354,000 .............. ..............
Mitigation Programs..................................... 189,977,000 .............. ..............
Infrastructure Analysis & Planning:
Vulnerability Assessments............................... .............. .............. $21,268,000
Infrastructure Sector Analysis.......................... .............. .............. 26,693,000
Bombing Prevention...................................... .............. .............. 13,551,000
Incident Planning and Exercises......................... .............. .............. 10,006,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Infrastructure Analysis & Planning........ .............. 74,518,000 71,518,000
===============================================
Sector Management & Governance:
NIPP Management......................................... .............. .............. 10,334,000
SSA Management.......................................... .............. .............. 22,732,000
Management, Planning & Administration................... .............. .............. 7,326,000
MPA Facilities.......................................... .............. .............. 10,666,000
Critical Infrastructure Technology & Architecture....... .............. .............. 30,487,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Sector Management & Governance............ .............. 87,045,000 81,545,000
===============================================
Regional Field Operations:
National Infrastructure Coordinating Center (NICC)...... .............. .............. 13,341,000
Protective Security Advisors............................ .............. .............. 25,499,000
Partnerships and Information Sharing.................... .............. .............. 18,527,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Regional Field Operations................. .............. 61,367,000 57,367,000
===============================================
Infrastructure Security Compliance.......................... .............. 99,348,000 91,848,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Infrastructure Protection........................ 322,279,000 322,279,000 302,278,000
===============================================
National Computer Security Division:
US Computer Incident Response Team (US-CERT)................ 391,406,000 .............. ..............
Strategic Initiatives....................................... 65,339,000 .............. ..............
Outreach and Programs....................................... 7,096,000 .............. ..............
Cybersecurity Coordination.................................. .............. 5,000,000 4,000,000
US-CERT Operations
Mission Management...................................... .............. .............. 23,612,000
Business, Performance & Planning........................ .............. .............. 3,980,000
Analysis................................................ .............. .............. 27,175,000
Cyber Mission Integration............................... .............. .............. 1,253,000
Detection............................................... .............. .............. 23,096,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, US-CERT Operations........................ .............. 81,114,000 79,116,000
===============================================
Federal Network Security:
Requirement and Acquisition Support..................... .............. .............. 3,021,000
Network & Infrastructure Security (TIC)................. .............. .............. 6,036,000
Compliance & Assurance.................................. .............. .............. 14,668,000
Security Management..................................... .............. .............. 1,542,000
FISMA Enterprise Performance............................ .............. .............. 3,657,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Federal Network Security.................. .............. 35,050,000 28,924,000
===============================================
Network Security Deployment:
Systems Engineering & Integration....................... .............. .............. 24,932,000
Deployment, Logistics, & Sustainment.................... .............. .............. 138,677,000
Program Management & Acquisition........................ .............. .............. 37,792,000
Business, Investment & Budget........................... .............. .............. 27,700,000
Data Center Migration................................... .............. .............. 0
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Network Security Deployment............... .............. 233,602,000 229,101,000
===============================================
Global Cyber Security Management:
Cyber Education......................................... .............. .............. 14,876,000
Software Assurance...................................... .............. .............. 2,147,000
Research & Standards Integration........................ .............. .............. 2,225,000
Supply Chain Risk Management............................ .............. .............. 5,279,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Global Cyber Security Management.......... .............. 24,527,000 24,527,000
===============================================
Critical Infrastructure Cyber Protection & Awareness:
Control Systems Security................................ .............. .............. 28,927,000
CIP-Cyber Security...................................... .............. .............. 12,901,000
Outreach & Awareness.................................... .............. .............. 8,012,000
Cyber Exercises......................................... .............. .............. 11,524,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Critical Infrastructure Cyber Protection & .............. 61,364,000 61,364,000
Awareness..........................................
===============================================
Business Operations:
Business Operations..................................... .............. .............. 5,467,000
Facilities.............................................. .............. .............. 6,101,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Business Operations....................... .............. 11,500,000 11,568,000
===============================================
Subtotal, NCSD.............................................. 463,841,000 463,841,000 438,600,000
===============================================
Office of Emergency Communications.......................... 43,495,000 43,495,000 43,495,000 National Security/Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications:
Priority Telecommunications............................. 56,824,000 .............. 56,824,000
Next Generation Networks................................ 25,253,000 .............. 25,253,000
Programs to Study and Enhance Telecommunications........ 13,441,000 .............. 13,441,000
Critical Infrastructure Protection...................... 11,352,000 .............. 11,352,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, NS/EP..................................... 106,870,000 106,870,000 106,870,000
===============================================
Total, Infrastructure Protection and Information $936,485,000 $936,485,000 $891,243,000
Security.......................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
The Committee provides $302,278,000 for Infrastructure
Protection, $20,001,000 below the request for fiscal year 2012
and $20,819,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011.
These decreases are due to significant unobligated balances
within Infrastructure Protection programs. In addition to
failing to obligate $27,959,664 of the funds provided in fiscal
year 2010, Infrastructure Protection had only obligated
$36,417,826 of the $323,037,000 available for obligation in
fiscal year 2011 as of the end of March, 2011, or only 11
percent of their funds through the first half of the fiscal
year. This low execution rate for such a critical mission is
unacceptable.
INHERENTLY SAFER TECHNOLOGY (IST)
The Committee directs the Department of Homeland Security
to study and report the findings of the impact of inherently
safer technology (IST) requirements on chemical facilities
under the purview of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism
Standards (CFATS) program. The report shall detail the
Department's definition of IST; the cost to the Department to
implement and oversee statutory or regulatory requirements; and
the financial and economic cost to facilities required to
implement such requirements. Finally, the report shall include
findings detailing unintended consequences of implementing IST
related to security and effects on other Federal agencies.
CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM STANDARDS AND AMMONIUM NITRATE
Public Law 109-295 authorized DHS to regulate security at
high-risk chemical plants and other locations that maintain
large quantities of potentially dangerous chemicals. Further
authority to regulate the sale or transfer of ammonium nitrate
fertilizer was granted to DHS in the Public Law 109-329. Since
that time, DHS has established a robust screening and
inspection program for facilities covered under the 2007 law,
but the Department has made less progress carrying out its
regulatory responsibilities for ammonium nitrate products. The
Committee directs NPPD to expedite publication of its Final
Rule for ammonium nitrate regulations and provide an immediate
briefing on the anticipated timeline for full implementation of
the program.
CYBER SECURITY
The Committee provides $438,600,000 for the National Cyber
Security Division (NCSD), $25,241,000 below the amount
requested and $75,547,000 above the amount provided in fiscal
year 2011, based on the reconfigured Cyber Security budget
structure recommended by the Committee. The Committee denies
the requested technical adjustment to transfer the National
Computer Forensic Institute to the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center and directs NPPD to sustain the current program
within NCSD. Reductions to the DHS cyber security program are
attributable to the continued inability of the NCSD to obligate
fully the funds provided by Congress and the failure to fully
justify the requested funds. In fiscal year 2010, NCSD carried
over $129,592,000 of the funds, or 32.6 percent, provided for
fiscal year 2010. Further, as of the end of March, the program
has only obligated slightly more than $59,000,000 of the over
$350,000,000 available for obligation in fiscal year 2011. This
continual history of failing to fully obligate funds in the
year they are provided is concerning, particularly for such a
critical mission.
Additionally, a proviso has been included directing the
Secretary to develop a multi-year investment and management
plan for the National Cybersecurity Protection System also
known as EINSTEIN that provides the current and proposed
acquisition, deployment and operation, and sustainment plans
for the system. EINSTEIN is the Department's integrated
intrusion detection and prevention system that supports the
Department's responsibilities under the Comprehensive National
Cybersecurity Initiative. With the threat to our Nation's cyber
infrastructure growing every day, the acquisition and
deployment of EINSTEIN cannot fail. The development of a
thorough investment and management plan allows the Committee
the level of detail required to ensure that the Department has
adequately planned, programmed, and budgeted for such a
significant and vital acquisition.
CONTROL SYSTEMS SECURITY
The Committee provides $28,927,000 for the Control Systems
Security Program, as requested. The Committee is aware of
promising efforts to develop manufacturing standards,
guidelines, and compliance procedures for industrial automation
and control systems. Integrating agreed-upon industry standards
into industrial automation and control systems promises a much
higher likelihood of successfully countering cyber
vulnerabilities. Since the development of these standards is
projected to take up to 10 years, the Committee encourages DHS,
in conjunction with industry partners, to accelerate the
development timeline for control system security standards and
to brief the Committee within 60 days of the date of enactment
of this Act on its plans to meet this directive.
Federal Protective Service
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $1,115,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 1,261,537,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,261,537,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +146,537,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. ---
MISSION
The Federal Protective Service (FPS) is responsible for the
protection of federally owned and leased buildings and
properties, particularly those under the charge and control of
the General Services Administration (GSA). Funding for FPS is
provided through a security fee charged to all GSA building
tenants in FPS-protected buildings. FPS has three major law
enforcement initiatives: Protection Services to all Federal
facilities throughout the United States and its territories;
expanded intelligence and anti-terrorism capabilities; and
Special Programs, including weapons of mass destruction
detection, hazardous material detection and response, and
canine programs.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,261,537,000 for FPS, the same
as the amount requested and $146,537,000 above the amount
provided in fiscal year 2011. All of these expenditures will be
paid by fees collected from FPS customer agencies.
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $334,613,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 302,271,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 297,402,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -37,211,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -4,869,000
MISSION
The mission of the United States Visitor and Immigrant
Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program is to enhance
the security of U.S. citizens and visitors; facilitate
legitimate travel and trade; ensure the integrity of the
immigration system; and improve and standardize the processes,
policies, and systems utilized to collect information on
foreign nationals who apply for visas at an embassy or
consulate overseas, attempt to enter the country at established
ports of entry, request benefits such as change of status or
adjustment of status, or depart the United States. US-VISIT
provides biometric services across the Department and more
broadly to law enforcement, other agencies, and foreign
partners through the automated Biometric Identification System.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $297,402,000 for US-VISIT, as
requested, though the Committee does not support funding for
the Acquisition Workforce Initiative or ``US-VISIT 1.0''. The
Committee includes: $107,976,000 for Business Support Services;
$128,126,000 for Operations and Maintenance; $32,600,000 for
Identity Management and Screening Services; and $28,700,000 for
Unique Identity/Interoperability. The Committee is concerned
that the request for US-VISIT 1.0 is duplicative of system
engineering activities under Business Support Services and
other efforts US-VISIT has undertaken in recent years. While
the Committee supports IDENT modernization activities, the
request for US-VISIT 1.0 is further study rather than actual
enhancements.
Additionally, the Committee notes that the President's
budget request assumed administrative savings and technical
adjustments of $29,139,000. While these proposed cuts are not
well-defined, the Committee believes the funding level is
appropriate for US-VISIT's operational budget. Any further cuts
without detailed explanation would cause concerns about US-
VISIT's ability to provide critical biometric support services
to its stakeholders in essential operations.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION
In fiscal year 2012, the Committee continues the
requirement for an expenditure plan consistent with prior
years. With the delivery of the fiscal year 2013 budget
request, the Committee directs the Secretary to submit a budget
that fully justifies changes from the prior year, current year,
and any changes for new initiatives in order to describe and
fully justify the request for US-VISIT.
In addition, the bill includes a requirement for a multi-
year investment and management plan to be provided at the time
of the President's budget submission and updated on an annual
basis to fully justify requested funds for US-VISIT as well as
project future year requirements and funding levels for
projects that cross multiple years. The requirement for better
justification at time of request not only instills more
discipline in planning processes and enables more effective
oversight but also eliminates the need for expenditure plans
and withholding of funds well into the fiscal year of budget
execution. US-VISIT, in conjunction with the Chief Financial
Officer, is encouraged to work with the Committee in developing
new materials for the Congressional Budget Justifications.
COMPREHENSIVE BIOMETRIC EXIT SOLUTION
Since 2007, this Committee has asked the Department to take
a realistic approach to implementing an exit solution, and, if
a decision is made to proceed, to provide a strategy and five-
year implementation plan. At this time, US-VISIT has a balance
of approximately $25,000,000 in prior year funding to devote to
planning, designing, and implementing an exit solution.
However, no plan has been submitted, and while two relatively
brief and narrowly structured pilot programs for air exit were
conducted in 2009 with results provided to the Committees, no
action has been taken to modify or implement the proposed rule
for air exit. Furthermore, the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2012 proposed to allocate $24,358,000 to eliminate
the overstay data analysis backlog rather than hold funds for
biometric air exit.
The Committee understands that the obstacles to consensus
on an exit solution are not primarily technical, though cost
and design are major factors. The greatest hindrance to
progress on an exit solution is the lack of a coherent,
comprehensive policy on the issue, which has been languishing
within the Department. It is not for lack of ideas by US-VISIT,
which continues to work on options to compensate for the lack
of a biometric exit. It is also not for lack of legislative
direction, which is provided by the 9/11 Act mandate for a
biometric system to be implemented before visa requirements can
be waived for additional countries. It is due to a lack of
leadership by the Department to either provide a plan or
propose statutory changes. Therefore, the Committee has
restricted funds within Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management until the Secretary has made a decision on the path
for biometric air exit and the Department has briefed the
Committee on this decision.
As noted in previous reports, the Committee recognizes the
actions being taken by CBP and others that could facilitate
exit solutions, such as the extension of Electronic System for
Travel Authorization information as a substitute for the paper-
based I-94 entry form; major renovations underway at ports of
entry, to include expanded outbound inspection infrastructure
and processes; proposals to incorporate trusted traveler
concepts and biometrics into aviation screening by the
Transportation Security Administration; and activities by
airlines to incorporate personal electronic devices and
biometrics into the check-in and boarding process. Each of
these presents opportunities for incorporating exit data
collection--including biometric data--into the outbound and
departure processes.
The Committee directs US-VISIT to continue providing
quarterly briefings on its biometric exit planning, to include
data sharing with Canada and Mexico, as well as any plans for
incorporating exit considerations in the redesign of ports of
entry and outbound inspection operations now underway. However,
without a plan for action on exit, and given that the remaining
balances are too low to actually implement an exit solution,
the Committee finds it difficult to support maintenance of a
balance that could be applied to eliminate the backlog of
potential overstays, thereby enhancing biographic exit data.
The Committee therefore concurs with the proposal in the
President's budget request to apply the remaining balance of
funds for biometric air exit to eliminating the overstay
analysis backlog. The Committee directs US-VISIT to brief the
Committee not later than October 1, 2011, on its plan to
eliminate the backlog of ``unvetted'' overstay records.
Through the Arrival and Departure Information System
(ADIS), US-VISIT matches traveler departures with arrivals to
ascertain compliance. The records within ADIS that do not
include a departure form the basis for US-VISIT's analysis of
potential overstays and eventual referral to ICE for further
analysis and investigation. Optimizing ADIS for overstay
identification should be the primary focus for investments into
ADIS. The Committee directs US-VISIT to maintain its focus for
the use of ADIS on overstay identification and reporting,
particularly while a backlog of overstay analysis exists.
BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES
The budget request includes $107,976,000 for Business
Support Services. The budget assumes a savings of $10,179,000
as a result of converting 200 contractor positions to full-time
Federal employees by the end of fiscal year 2011. The Committee
directs US-VISIT to continue its quarterly briefings on its
hiring and staffing progress to ensure that the conversions
stay on track.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
The Committee includes $128,126,000 for Operations and
Maintenance. IDENT supports absolutely essential services to
the immigration and border management enterprise, managing the
needs of partner agencies across the Department, other Federal
agencies, State and local law enforcement, and international
partners. The Committee encourages US-VISIT to continue efforts
to reduce operating costs of the IDENT infrastructure, while
ensuring that operations are supported. However, the Committee
cannot support the $4,869,000 increase requested, as it seems
to support further study rather than actual enhancements. The
Committee expects that the US-VISIT multi-year investment and
management plan will outline the projected funds needed for
system modernization.
IDENTITY MANAGEMENT AND SCREENING SERVICES
The Committee includes $32,600,000 for Identity Management
and Screening Services, as requested, including a $1,600,000
increase to ensure that the Data Integrity Group (DIG) is able
to manage the current workload of overstay records. This
funding supports the Biometric Support Center, DIG,
intelligence and law enforcement analysis support, and
information and technical support for biometric cooperation
with partner countries. The workload continues to increase for
these operations, while requested funding levels have seen only
slight increases. However, as the budget request states that
US-VISIT will maintain current service levels to stakeholders,
the Committee expects US-VISIT to sustain that service level.
The Committee therefore directs US-VISIT to provide quarterly
briefings on its workload and service levels, including any
backlogs that may result from an influx of transactions or new
users.
UNIQUE IDENTITY
The Unique Identity program was established to collect 10-
print biometric information from travelers to the United
States; share and compare biometric information collected and
held by the Department of Justice in the Integrated Automated
Fingerprint Identification System, as well as other law
enforcement agencies; and enhance multi-modal capabilities in
IDENT for all users. In the past three years, the Department of
Defense has become an increasingly significant partner in this
effort. The Department of State continues to support the
interagency effort as well.
The Committee is pleased with the excellent coordination
and cooperation among Federal agencies in enhancing
interoperability, accelerating the response times, and sharing
biometric information for national security and law enforcement
purposes.
The Committee therefore includes $28,700,000 for Unique
Identity. The Committee directs US-VISIT and its counterparts
at the Justice, State, and Defense Departments to continue
providing quarterly briefings on the progress in implementing
system interoperability, operational impacts resulting from
remaining gaps, and steps being taken to close such gaps.
FACIAL RECOGNITION CAPABILITY
In US-VISIT's efforts to incorporate multi-modal biometrics
into IDENT, the Committee encourages continued review of
operational applications for the millions of facial images in
IDENT. As part of US-VISIT's next quarterly briefing, US-VISIT
is directed to brief the Committee on the number of records
within IDENT that do not include fingerprint data and the uses
of facial images in stakeholder operations.
Office of Health Affairs
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $139,734,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 160,949,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 165,949,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +26,215,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. +5,000,000
MISSION
The Office of Health Affairs (OHA) serves as the Department
of Homeland Security's principal agent for all medical and
public health matters. Working across Federal, State, local,
tribal, and territorial governments and with the private
sector, OHA has the lead DHS role in the establishment of a
scientifically rigorous, intelligence-based, medical and
biodefense architecture that ensures the health and medical
security of our Nation.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $165,949,000 for OHA, $5,000,000
above the amount requested. The Committee commends OHA for
requesting a significant portion of their funding as one-year
funds with only $45,615,000 requested as two-year funds but
notes that the request for two-year availability should contain
detailed justification for the two-year requirement.
BIOSURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES
The Committee recommends $115,164,000 for the BioWatch
program, the same as the amount requested. The Committee
continues to require OHA to notify the Committee 15 days prior
to deploying any BioWatch device to a new location.
In the National Academies of Sciences' recent evaluation of
BioWatch and the public health surveillance systems, the NAS
found that a network of sensors in strategic locations offered
potential advantages in terms of the early detection of
airborne agents, but BioWatch's current methods of testing and
evaluation needed improvement. Moreover, a system of this sort
has inherent limitations, both in geographical reach and the
range of agents it might be programmed to detect. The Committee
recognizes that OHA has responded to some of the
recommendations of the NAS report as they pertain to the
development of the Generation 3 technology. The NAS report also
stated that BioWatch would need to be complemented by improved
intake and analysis of data through the public health system,
which is inherently broader and more flexible than BioWatch's
system of detection. Therefore, the Committee has included an
increase to OHA's National Biosurveillance Integration System
to diversify DHS's biosurveillance capabilities and to provide
BioWatch with contextual data and signals to better understand
its alerts. Moreover, OHA should continue to invest in robust
biosurveillance systems which incorporate Federal, State, and
local partners and integrate data from a variety of health,
food, social, environmental, and animal sources to provide
early outbreak detection and improved situational awareness of
health events.
NATIONAL BIOSURVEILLANCE INTEGRATION CENTER
The Committee recommends $7,024,000 for the National
BioSurveillance Integration Center (NBIC), the same as the
amount requested. The Committee remains concerned with the
progress of the NBIC in defining its goals and objectives,
implementing its mission, and demonstrating its value to the
wider biosurveillance community of Federal partners. While the
Committee believes a central location for the integration of
biosurveillance information and analysis is important, the
Department has not proven its ability to carry out this
objective. The Committee understands that OHA plans to move
forward with a new vision for the NBIC but remains concerned
that this vision is vague and undefined. The Committee expects
that OHA will either communicate a well-formulated strategic
plan--complete with milestones--for attaining a fully
functional integration center not later than the date on which
the fiscal year 2013 budget request is submitted to Congress,
or that the Department will no longer request funding for this
activity.
CHEMICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM
The Committee recommends $2,439,000 for the Chemical
Defense Program, the same as the amount requested.
PLANNING AND COORDINATION
The Committee recommends $6,162,000 for planning and
coordination activities, the same as the amount requested and
$2,436,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. From
within these funds, the Committee recommends $2,200,000 for
programs that address the wellness and resiliency of the DHS
workforce. These funds will allow for the planning, production,
and distribution of training and information focused on
workforce health and medical support throughout the Department.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Management and Administration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011\1\\2\................. $1,070,311,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012\3\.................. 1,000,099,000
Recommended in the bill\1\\4\......................... 982,898,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -87,413,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -17,201,000\1\The fiscal year 2011 bill and the fiscal year 2012 recommendation
include an additional $105,600,000 through a transfer from the
Disaster Relief Fund.
\2\The fiscal year 2011 bill includes $176,311,000 through a transfer
from State and Local Programs.
\3\The fiscal year 2012 request includes $185,000,000 through a transfer
from State and Local Programs and Assistance to Firefighter programs.
\4\The fiscal year 2012 recommendation includes $170,000,000 through a
transfer from State and Local Programs, Assistance to Firefighters and
Emergency Management Performance Grants.
MISSION
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages and
coordinates the Federal response to major domestic disasters
and emergencies of all types in accordance with the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. It
supports the effectiveness of emergency response providers at
all levels of government in responding to terrorist attacks,
major disasters, and other emergencies. FEMA also administers
public assistance and hazard mitigation programs to prevent or
reduce the risk to life and property from floods and other
hazards. Finally, FEMA leads all Federal incident management
preparedness and response planning through a comprehensive
National Incident Management System that involves Federal,
State, tribal, and local government personnel, agencies, and
regional authorities.
FEMA provides for the development and maintenance of an
integrated, nationwide capability to prepare for, mitigate
against, respond to, and recover from the consequences of major
disasters and emergencies of all types in partnership with
other Federal agencies, State, local and tribal governments,
volunteer organizations, and the private sector. Management and
Administration supports all of FEMA's programs by coordinating
all policy, managerial, resource, and administrative actions
between headquarters and regional offices.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $982,898,000 for Management and
Administration, $17,201,000 below the amount requested and
$87,413,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011, of
which $3,000,000 is for unfunded maintenance and capital
improvements at national training centers. The recommendation
includes a decrease of $7,200,000 for data migration and a
direct appropriation increase of $5,000,000 to offset
reductions in the requested amount transferred from grant
programs. This recommendation includes a transfer of
$105,600,000 from the Disaster Relief Fund, consistent with
previous years. In addition, the bill transfers 10 percent of
the funding provided to State and Local Grants, Firefighter
Assistance Grants, and Emergency Management Performance Grants
to this account for the administrative functions related to
these programs. Similar transfers have occurred in previous
years.
The Committee takes seriously its responsibility to provide
FEMA with the support the agency needs to fulfill its mission.
This commitment to a strong FEMA is evident in part through the
appropriations provided over the last few fiscal years. In
fact, funding for management and administrative functions has
more than doubled since fiscal year 2006. The Committee
believes, however, that with this growth in funding,
transparency into the workings of the agency has diminished. It
is for this reason that the Committee directs FEMA to provide
an expenditure plan for fiscal year 2012, by office and
including staffing data, for the Management and Administration
account within 60 days of the date of enactment of this Act.
FEMA shall provide a quarterly report detailing obligations
against the expenditure plan and a justification for any
changes in spending. Furthermore, language has been included
that directs FEMA to include the same plan for fiscal year 2013
with the delivery of the budget.
The Committee is aware that there are limitations after
major disasters when reaching out to rural areas. The Committee
strongly encourages FEMA to work with rural communities and
have plans for timely outreach to rural communities after
disasters.
CONGRESSIONAL JUSTIFICATION
The Committee continues bill language requiring FEMA to
submit its fiscal year 2013 budget request by office. The
Committee is pleased that this year's budget submission
provided fiscal year 2012 budget request levels for many
priority programs. For the fiscal year 2013 budget submission,
the Committee directs FEMA to continue to provide the same
level of budget information for programs and activities
identified in the fiscal year 2012 budget request.
FEMA CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICE
The Committee recommends $96,274,000 for the office of the
Chief Information Officer, the same as the amount requested.
While the Committee commends the CIO for the gains they have
made in the transformation of information technology (IT)
programs at FEMA, concern remains about the amount of work yet
to be accomplished. In a recent audit by the Department's
Office of Inspector General, the Chief Information Officer for
FEMA was cited for lacking control over the agency's IT
structure and modernization of programs. Included in the audit
were the following recommendations:
1. Develop a comprehensive IT strategic plan with clearly
defined goals and objectives to support program IT initiatives.
2. Complete and implement a FEMA-enterprise architecture to
establish technical standards and guidelines for systems
acquisitions and investment decisions.
3. Establish and maintain a complete, comprehensive
enterprise IT systems inventory.
4. Establish an agency-wide IT budget planning process to
include all FEMA program technology initiatives and
requirements.
5. Obtain agency-wide IT investment review authority to
ensure that all IT initiatives and systems development efforts
align with FEMA's mission.
6. Establish a consolidated modernization approach for
FEMA's mission-critical IT systems, to include DHS plans for
integrated asset management, financial, and acquisition
solutions.
The Committee directs the Administrator to provide a
briefing to the Committee within 30 days of the date of
enactment of this Act on the corrective procedures underway to
address the Inspector General's recommendations.
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
The Committee provides $5,493,000 for the Office of
National Capital Region Coordination, the same amount as
requested and $1,502,000 below the amount provided in fiscal
year 2011.
MOUNT WEATHER EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER
The Committee recommends $5,863,000 for the Mount Weather
Emergency Operations Center facility, $6,137,000 below the
amount requested. The Committee recommends a reduction from the
request due to concerns over the lack of execution of funds.
The funds available for obligation in fiscal year 2011 include
$91,669,816 from prior year appropriations after only
obligating $9,116,445 in fiscal year 2010. The Committee
understands that managerial changes have been made and that
FEMA plans to execute funds more rapidly in fiscal year 2011,
but based on the current execution reports, this has yet to
occur. The Committee requests FEMA keep it apprised of any
changes to the plan and progress in its implementation.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE
The Committee recommends $9,000,000 for the Emergency
Management Institute (EMI), the same as the amount requested
and the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. EMI provides
training to Federal, State, local, tribal, public, and private
sector officials to strengthen emergency management core
competencies. The Committee again requires FEMA to clearly show
the amount requested for EMI in the budget justification in
future years.
URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE
The Committee recommends $35,250,000 for Urban Search and
Rescue (US&R) from within the amount requested for Management
and Administration, $6,137,000 above the amount requested and
the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The
Committee remains concerned with the readiness level of US&R
teams and, therefore, recommends additional funding to ensure
the teams are properly trained and equipped to respond to
future disasters.
State and Local Programs
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $2,229,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012\1\.................. 3,844,663,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,000,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -1,229,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -2,844,663,000\1\The Administration proposed moving Emergency Management Performance
Grants and Firefighter Assistance Grants under State and Local
Programs.
MISSION
State and Local Programs help build and sustain the
preparedness and response capabilities of the first responder
community. These programs include support for various grant
programs, training programs, planning activities, and technical
assistance.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,000,000,000 for State and Local
Programs, $2,844,663,000 below the amount requested and
$1,229,500,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011.
These reductions are due to the persistent lack of quantifiable
metrics that measure the additional capability that our Nation
has gained for the billions that have been invested and the
inability of programs to expend their funds in a timely manner.
These concerns, combined with the inadequacy of the
Department's request for a number of other programs, such as
ignoring $4,900,000,000 in known disaster costs and
$650,000,000 in offsets from aviation security and customs fee
revenue that has not yet been authorized, force the Committee
to make tough decision on all programs.
Due to a historical pattern of poor execution and
management, the Committee is recommending significant reform to
the DHS grants process. For years, the Committee has asked
question after question of the Department regarding grants and
the returns the taxpayers are getting for the funds invested.
Today, these questions remain largely unanswered. Therefore,
the Committee is making three significant recommendations on
first responder grants.
First, the Committee recommends reorganizing the grant
program to allow funds to be directed towards the highest need.
In the wake of recent terrorist activity, this reorganization
will allow the Secretary the discretion to apply limited funds
to the programs that have the highest need based on the threat
and risk. To address urban areas with the highest threat, the
Committee has included language specifically limiting Urban
Area Security Initiative funds to the top 10 highest risk urban
areas.
Second, the Committee has addressed the massive amounts of
unexpended balances in programs. Based on the latest estimates,
the Department currently has almost $13,000,000,000 in
previously appropriated funds that remain unspent dating back
to fiscal year 2005. This level of unexpended balances is
unacceptable. To encourage a sense of urgency, the Committee
includes a proviso directing the Administrator of the FEMA to
submit within 60 days of the date enactment of this Act, a plan
to expend all unexpended balances by the end of fiscal year
2012 from funds appropriated prior to fiscal year 2008 under
the heading ``State and Local Programs''.
Third, the Committee has included language directing the
submission of the National Preparedness Goal and National
Preparedness System consistent with the directions within the
recently signed Presidential Policy Directive--8. Funds have
been fenced within the funding provided for the Office of the
Secretary until information on these programs are provided to
the Committee.
As part of the budget request, the Administration proposed
including the Firefighter Assistance Grants and Emergency
Management Performance Grants under this program. The Committee
has again denied this proposal and provides funding for both of
these grant programs as separate appropriations, consistent
with prior years. A comparison of the budget estimate to the
Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and Local Programs.......... ................. $807,337,000
Basic State Formula Grants........ $1,050,000,000
Operation Stonegarden......... [50,000,000] [55,0000,000]
REAL ID/Drivers' License ................. .................
Security Grants..............
Citizen Corps................. ................. .................
Metropolitan Medical Response ................. .................
System.......................
Citizen Corps..................... 13,000,000 .................
Emergency Management Performance 350,000,000 .................
Grants\1\........................
Firefighter Assistance Grants\1\.. 670,000,000 .................
Fire Grants................... [265,000,000] .................
Staffing for Adequate Fire and [405,000,000] .................
Emergency Response (SAFER)
Grants.......................
Urban Area Security Initiative.... 920,000,000 .................
Public Transportation Security 300,000,000 .................
Assistance and Railroad Security
Assistance.......................
Intercity (Over the Road) Bus [20,000,000] .................
Security Grants Amtrak.......
Port Security Grants.............. 300,000,000 .................
Buffer Zone Protection Plan Grants 50,000,000 .................
National Programs:
Center for Domestic 62,500,000 62,500,000
Preparedness.................
National Domestic Preparedness 44,500,000 44,500,000
Consortium...................
Continuing Training Grants.... 20,663,000 25,663,000
Technical Assistance.......... 10,000,000 10,000,000
Evaluations and Assessments... 14,000,000 10,000,000
National Exercise Program..... 40,000,000 40,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, National 191,663,000 192,663,000
Programs.................
=====================================
Total, State and Local $3,844,663,000 $1,000,000,000
Programs.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Funded in a separate account.
In accordance with the 9/11 Act, at least 25 percent of
SHSGP and Urban Area Security Initiative funds shall be used
for Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention activities. Each State
and Puerto Rico shall pass on no less than 80 percent of their
grant funding to local units of government within 45 days of
receiving the funds.
Within the funds available, the Committee recommends
$55,000,000 for Operation Stonegarden. All awards under
Operation Stonegarden shall be made on a competitive basis to
tribal governments and units of local government, including
towns, cities, and counties along borders of the United States
to enhance the coordination between local and Federal law
enforcement agencies. Operation Stonegarden's eligible costs
include, but shall not necessarily be limited to: overtime;
vehicle maintenance; vehicle and equipment rental costs;
reimbursement for mileage; fuel costs; equipment replacement
costs; and travel costs for law enforcement entities assisting
other local jurisdictions in law enforcement activities. The
Committee directs that only CBP and FEMA make award decisions.
No administrative costs shall be deducted from Operation
Stonegarden award totals by States.
Operation Stonegarden has been a successful program aimed
at targeting resources to local law enforcement supporting
Federal operations along the border. In order to continue to
monitor the program's efficiency and ensure funding is being
allocated to areas of greatest need and risk, the Committee
requires FEMA and CBP undertake a thorough analysis using the
most current data and brief the Committee on the information it
will use to assess which areas are in greatest need of funding.
The Committee includes bill language allowing the transfer
of up to 10 percent of State and Local program dollars to
FEMA's Management and Administration account for costs
associated with administering grants and training programs.
FEMA is required to submit an expenditure plan not later than
60 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the use of
the administrative funds. In the judgment of the Committee, the
fiscal year 2010 expenditure plan included items that may not
be directly associated with the management and administration
of these programs. The Committee strongly cautions FEMA to
adhere to the intent of this funding.
The Committee is aware that previous grant guidance
conflicts with the 9/11 Act by further limiting the amount of
funds that can be used to pay the salaries and expenses for
intelligence analysts. The Committee directs FEMA to fully
comply with the 9/11 Act.
The Committee continues bill language mandating timeframes
for the application process of certain grants to ensure that
funds do not languish at DHS.
For the purposes of determining eligibility for funds, any
county, city, village, town, district, borough, parish, port
authority, transit authority, intercity rail provider, commuter
rail system, freight rail provider, water district, regional
planning commission, council of government, Indian tribe with
jurisdiction over Indian country, authorized tribal
organization, Alaskan Native village, independent authority,
special district, or other political subdivision of any State
shall constitute a ``local unit of government''.
The Committee includes a general provision requiring FEMA
to brief the Committee five days prior to any announcement of
State and local grants awards. Such briefings shall include
detailed information on the risk analysis employed, the process
for determining effectiveness, the process or formula used for
selecting grantees, and any changes to methodologies used in
the previous fiscal year.
The Committee is aware of the changes that DHS and FEMA
have implemented in fiscal year 2011 with regards to the risk
formulas for the State Homeland Security Program and Urban Area
Security Initiative. The new formulas introduce new criteria
that has significantly impacted risk scoring of numerous State
and urban areas. The Department is encouraged to consider prior
acts of terrorism such as the attack on the Alfred P. Murrah
Building Federal Building and recent domestic plots and
homegrown threats when refining the risk formulas. Further, the
Committee directs the Department to brief the Committee on the
method use to develop the current formula within 30 days of the
date of enactment of this Act.
Lastly, The Committee directs the Administrator of the FEMA
to publish on the Agency's website, on a biannual basis, a
summary of the quarterly financial status reports that grantees
are required to submit to the Agency. The summary shall, at a
minimum, include for each grant the name of the grantee; a
brief description of the project carried out with the grant;
the percentage of such project that is completed; and other
relevant information at the discretion of the Director.
MEASURING CAPABILITY
A continuing concern of this Committee has been the
Department's failure to assess capabilities and identify gaps
within the Nation's preparedness systems. These concerns are
not new and are shared by others, including the Department's
own Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office.
Since 9/11, Congress has appropriated almost $38,000,000,000
for grants to enhance the capability of State, territory, local
and tribal governments to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and
recover from disasters. However, there is currently no
comprehensive, objective assessment of national capability
developed with this funding or the gaps that remain between
current capability and documented requirements.
Dating back to the 2003 signing of Homeland Security
Presidential Directive-8, DHS and FEMA have been directed to
establish a national, all-hazard preparedness goal to include
action to strengthen preparedness capabilities. Later, in the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007,
Congress included further reform directing DHS and FEMA to
develop a national preparedness goal and a national
preparedness system with clear and quantifiable performance
metrics, measures, and outcomes. These were to include
capability levels at the time of assessment against target
capability levels and the resource needs to meet the desired
levels. Three years later, Congress again addressed national
preparedness in the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2010, directing the creation of a Local,
State, Tribal and Federal Preparedness Task Force and specified
that the Task Force expressly address the most appropriate way
to collectively assess our capabilities and our capability
gaps. More recently on March 31, 2011, the President issued a
new Presidential Policy Directive addressing National
Preparedness.
However, even with all these efforts, the Department and
FEMA have failed to develop a valid system to measure national
preparedness. Even though the taxpayers have invested almost
$38,000,000,000 in a multitude of grant programs, the
Department is unable to assess to what degree the Nation's
preparedness has been improved. When pressured by Congress, the
Department replies with excuses and plans for new studies that
thus far have failed to measure any level of preparedness.
Today, our Nation's fiscal crisis compels the Committee to
discontinue robust funding for programs that do not have
quantifiable metrics.
In a recent report, GAO raised concerns over grants and the
lack of assessment capabilities. GAO suggested that Congress
consider limiting funding until FEMA completes an assessment of
capability gaps, which should identify the potential cost for
establishing and maintaining those capabilities. The report
further notes that Congress could limit the use of Federal
preparedness grant programs to fund only projects that support
the development of identified, validated, and documented
capability gaps.
The Committee concurs with the findings of the GAO and is
recommending substantially reduced levels for the various grant
programs due to continued concerns with the lack of metrics.
The Committee can no longer fund these programs at such high
levels without knowing the results in improved preparedness.
As noted in March, the President signed Presidential Policy
Directive-8 (PDD-8), which includes many of the same directives
previously issued. The Committee hopes this will place renewed
focus on national preparedness. Similar to the Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act, the new PDD-8 directs the
Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a National
Preparedness Goal and a National Preparedness System. The PDD
also directs the Department to have a comprehensive approach to
measuring capabilities to include clear, objective, and
quantifiable performance measures against the target capability
levels indentified by the national preparedness goals. PDD-8
directs the Department to submit to the President the National
Preparedness Goal within 180 days and National Preparedness
System within 240 days of the President signing the directive.
The Committee commends the President for directing DHS and
FEMA to measure capabilities with quantifiable metrics. The
Committee directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to brief
the Committee within 15 days after the Department's submission
to the President of the National Preparedness Goal and the
National Preparedness System to include information on
timelines and budgetary impacts.
As outlined in PDD-8, the brief on the National
Preparedness Goal shall include the risks of specific threats
and the associated vulnerabilities--taking into account
regional variations--and include concrete, measurable, and
prioritized objectives to mitigate risk. It shall define the
core capabilities necessary to prepare for the specific types
of incidents that pose the greatest risk to the security of the
Nation and shall emphasize actions aimed at achieving an
integrated and layered approach.
Consistent with PDD-8, the brief on the National
Preparedness System shall include the guidance for planning,
organization, equipment, training, and exercises to build and
maintain domestic capabilities; the corresponding resource and
equipment guidance; and the methodology used to develop the
target capability levels and comprehensive approach to assess
national preparedness that uses consistent methodology to
measure the operational readiness of national capabilities at
the time of assessment, with clear quantifiable performance
measures, against the target capability levels identified in
the National Preparedness Goal.
To further emphasize the importance of these requirements,
funds within the Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management have been restricted until the Committee has been
fully briefed on both the National Preparedness Goal and the
National Preparedness System.
NATIONAL PROGRAMS
The Committee recommends $192,663,000 for National
Programs, $1,000,000 above the amount requested and $56,837,000
below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The Committee is
aware of the unique capabilities of regional training centers
that provide training for first responders where they can
receive initial training and additional training related to new
techniques and technologies. The Committee encourages the
Department to continue to work with regional training centers
in future funding requests. Further, the Committee encourages
the Department to review the need for additional university-
based centers that could provide medical readiness training and
research, and community resiliency for public health and
healthcare critical infrastructure.
NATIONAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM
Included within the amount provided for National Programs,
the Committee recommends $44,500,000 for the National Domestic
Preparedness Consortium, NDPC, the same as the amount requested
and $48,500,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011.
The Department's National Training Program targets the
essential elements needed for the protection of our Nation, our
emergency response providers and their leadership. The
Committee encourages the Department to continue to build on
past successes with NDPC by continuing to support the program.
CENTER FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS
Included within the amount provided for National Programs,
the Committee recommends $62,500,000 for the Center for
Domestic Preparedness, the same as the amount requested and the
same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2011.
NATIONAL EXERCISE PROGRAM
Included within the amount provided for National Programs,
the Committee recommends $40,000,000 for the National Exercise
Program, the same as the amount requested and $2,000,000 above
the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. This program provides
the opportunity for key leaders at the Federal, State, local,
territory, and tribal levels, along with representatives of
nongovernmental organizations and the private sector, to gauge
the effectiveness of plans, policies, and procedures for
responding to natural disasters and terrorist attacks.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Included within the amount provided for National Programs,
the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for technical assistance,
the same as the amount requested and $3,000,000 below the
amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The Committee recognizes
that State and local officials require technical assistance to
ensure that equipment is used properly and to support effective
planning.
CONTINUING TRAINING GRANTS
Included within the amount provided for National Programs,
the Committee recommends $25,663,000, $5,000,000 above the
amount requested and $3,337,000 less than the amount provided
in fiscal year 2011. The budget request was a significant
decrease to the continuing training programs from prior years.
The Committee partially restores the funding for this vital
program. As stated earlier, the Committee is concerned with
FEMA's interaction with rural and hard to reach areas and
encourages FEMA to work with these populations to enhance
training for first responders in rural, tribal, and small
communities.
EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS
Included within the amount provided for National Programs,
the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for evaluations and
assessments, $4,000,000 below the amount requested and
$4,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011 due to
the lack of progress in the assessments of the grant programs.
The Committee continues to be concerned with an apparent
lack of ability to develop and implement a framework to assess
national preparedness capabilities. The GAO reports that
between fiscal years 2008 and 2010, FEMA spent approximately
$58,000,000 to develop and implement seven evaluation efforts.
Still, the Committee is unable to extract information regarding
the Nation's state of preparedness, the ability to measure
increases in preparedness, or any assessment of the impact of
the tens of billions of dollars that have been appropriated in
preparedness grants since fiscal year 2003.
GAO shall continue to monitor the development of any DHS
system to measure the effectiveness of grant programs and
report quarterly to the Committee with updates.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COMPACT
The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Emergency
Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), the same as the amount
requested. These funds shall have a one-year period of
performance. EMAC is a mutual aid system that provides a
critical contribution to the Nation's disaster response
capacity, allowing a State to quickly and efficiently request
and receive assistance from other States when disaster strikes.
Firefighter Assistance Grants
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $810,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012\1\..................
Recommended in the bill............................... 350,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -460,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. +350,000,000\1\The budget request includes $670,000,000 for Firefighter Assistance
Grants within State and Local Programs.
MISSION
Firefighter Assistance Grants are provided to local fire
departments for the purpose of protecting the health and safety
of the public and protecting fire fighting personnel, including
volunteers and emergency medical service personnel, against
fire and fire-related hazards.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $350,000,000 for Firefighter
Assistance Grants, $350,000,000 above the amount requested and
$460,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The
budget request did not include a separate appropriation for
Firefighter Assistance Grants but instead proposed $670,000,000
for this activity within State and Local Programs. Within this
level, the Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the Assistance
to Firefighters Grant program (AFG), which provides firefighter
equipment, training, vehicles, and other resources. The
Committee also recommends $150,000,000 for firefighter jobs
under the Staffing for Adequate Emergency Response (SAFER)
program.
The Committee notes that the cost per fighter is extremely
high. In fiscal year 2012, the budget requests $405,000,000 to
enable the hiring of more than 2,200 firefighter positions, or
$184,000 per firefighter. The Committee urges the Department to
review the costs associated with this program.
FEMA is directed to continue granting funds directly to
local fire departments and to include the United States Fire
Administration during the grant decision process. FEMA is also
directed to maintain an all-hazards focus and is prohibited
from limiting beyond current law the list of eligible
activities, including those related to wellness. Funds are
available until September 30, 2013, and no more than 10 percent
may be used for administrative expenses. FEMA is required to
submit an expenditure plan not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act on the use of the administrative
funds.
The Committee continues the requirement for FEMA to peer
review AFG and SAFER grant applications that meet criteria
established by FEMA and the Fire Service to clearly define the
criteria for peer review in the grant application package; to
rank order applications according to peer-review; and to fund
applications according to their rank order. For those
applicants whose grant applications are not reviewed, FEMA must
provide an official notification detailing why the application
did not meet the criteria for review.
Emergency Management Performance Grants
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $340,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012\1\.................. ---
Recommended in the bill............................... 350,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +10,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. +350,000,000\1\The budget request includes $350,000,000 for Emergency Management
Performance Grants within State and Local Programs.
MISSION
Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) funds are
used to support comprehensive emergency management at the State
and local levels and to encourage the improvement of
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities
for all hazards.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $350,000,000 for EMPG,
$350,000,000 above the amount requested and $10,000,000 above
the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The request did not
include a separate appropriation for EMPG, but instead proposed
$350,000,000 for this activity within State and Local Programs.
Consistent with past years, the Committee again does not agree
to transfer EMPG to State and Local Programs, continuing
instead to fund the EMPG program as a separate appropriation.
EMPG is the one true source of funding for emergency managers
that is focused on preparing for all hazards. EMPG is the only
grant program within FEMA that requires a 50/50 match at the
State and local level, which is evidence of the commitment by
State and local governments to make emergency management a top
priority, especially while most are experiencing financial
crisis. Many of the EMPG funds help pay for the personnel to
run key programs, and funds for this program must remain
flexible to ensure they support the full gamut of
responsibilities required of emergency managers.
The Committee directs FEMA to continue EMPG grant practices
used in fiscal year 2007, including a continued emphasis on
all-hazards activities and the inclusion of personnel expenses
and Emergency Operations Centers as eligible uses of funding.
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... -$265,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... -896,000
Recommended in the bill............................... -896,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -631,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. ---
MISSION
The Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program (REPP)
ensures that the public health and safety of citizens living
near commercial nuclear power plants will be adequately
protected in the event of a nuclear power station incident. In
addition, the program informs and educates the public about
radiological emergency preparedness. REPP provides funding only
for emergency preparedness activities of State and local
governments that take place beyond nuclear power plant
boundaries.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides for the receipt and expenditure of
REPP fees, which are collected as authorized by Public Law 105-
276. The request estimates that fee collections will exceed
expenditures by $361,000 in fiscal year 2011.
United States Fire Administration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $45,588,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 42,538,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 42,538,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -3,050
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. ---
MISSION
The mission of the United States Fire Administration (USFA)
is to reduce economic losses and loss of life due to fire and
related emergencies through leadership, coordination, and
support. USFA trains the Nation's first responder and health
care leaders to evaluate and minimize community risk, enhance
the security of critical infrastructure, and better prepare
communities to react to emergencies of all kinds.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $42,538,000 for USFA, the same as
the amount requested and $3,050,000 below the amount provided
in fiscal year 2011. The Committee requests that future budget
justifications identify funding levels for the National Fire
Incident Reporting System and National Fire Academy, as well as
any other initiatives.
Disaster Relief
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $2,650,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 1,800,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 2,650,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... ---
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. +850,000,000
MISSION
FEMA is responsible for administering disaster assistance
programs and coordinating the Federal response following
presidential disaster declarations. Major activities under the
Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) include: providing aid to families
and individuals; supporting the efforts of State and local
governments to take emergency protective measures, clear
debris, and repair infrastructure damage; mitigating the
effects of future disasters; and helping States and local
communities manage disaster response, including the assistance
of disaster field office staff and automated data processing
support.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $2,650,000,000 for Disaster
Relief, $850,000,000 above the amount requested and the same as
the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The recommendation
continues to include a transfer of $16,000,000 from Disaster
Relief to the Office of Inspector General and a transfer of
$105,600,000 to FEMA Management and Administration for program
costs.
The Committee strongly urges FEMA to work with rural, hard-
to-reach populations when responding to disasters. In many
cases, rural areas with the least infrastructure and access to
communications are the forgotten populations due to the
inaccessibility of the locations. The Committee commends FEMA
on its efforts in responding to disasters but recommends they
work to provide additional outreach to rural areas.
FEMA spends approximately $300,000,000 annually on disaster
readiness and support costs from the DRF. FEMA shall submit an
expenditure plan to the Committees detailing the use of funds
for disaster readiness and support costs not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act. FEMA shall provide a
quarterly report detailing obligations against the expenditure
plan and a justification for any changes in spending.
The Committee directs FEMA to continue to submit a monthly
report detailing allocations, obligations, and undistributed
amounts related to all disasters, including Hurricanes Katrina,
Rita, and Wilma that shall maintain the same level of data as
currently presented to the Committees on Appropriations.
The Committee includes a proviso which directs the
submission of a quarterly report providing estimates of funding
requirements for disaster relief for the current fiscal year
and the succeeding three fiscal years which shall include: (a)
an estimate, by quarter, for the costs of all previously
designated disasters; (b) an estimate, by quarter, for the cost
of future disasters based on a five-year average, excluding
catastrophic disasters; (c) an estimate, by quarter, for the
costs of catastrophic disasters, subdivided by disaster and
including the amount already obligated and the remaining cost;
and (d) an estimate of the date on which the ``Disaster
Relief'' balance will reach $800,000,000.
To enable improved validity of requests for disaster relief
in the future budget submissions, the Administrator of FEMA
shall develop a policy that defines the five-year average used
to develop the budget estimates for the DRF not later than 60
days after the date of enactment of this Act. The policy shall
include a clear definition of the five-year average used as a
basis for the request, the responsible official who develops
the average, and the data source(s) used. In addition, the
policy should note any permitted adjustments made to each
year's gross obligation totals such as which ``catastrophic''
disasters are excluded from obligation totals; inflation
adjustments; and the source of recoveries applied against the
obligation total. The Administrator of FEMA shall brief the
Committee within 90 days of date of enactment of this Act on
the policy and its guidelines.
The Committee further directs that FEMA include in its
fiscal year 2013 budget submission for disaster relief a clear
statement of the five-year average used as a basis for the
request, the fiscal years included in the average, and a list
of the obligations for each of the five fiscal years. In
addition, FEMA should note all adjustments made to each year's
gross obligation total, including a record of which
``catastrophic'' disasters are excluded from each year's
obligation total and the amount excluded; inflation
adjustments; and the amount and source of recoveries applied
against the obligation total.
FISCAL YEAR 2012 DISASTER RELIEF FUNDING
The fiscal year 2012 request includes $1,800,000,000 for
Disaster Relief. FEMA based this request upon a rolling, five-
year average of obligations for non-catastrophic disaster
activities which are disaster activities that are in excess of
$500,000,000. DHS claims a funding level made up of the five-
year average--combined with prior year recoveries and carryover
funds--will support the obligation level for non-catastrophic
disaster activity in fiscal year 2012 (this excludes funding
for extraordinary events, such as the series of 2004 hurricanes
in Florida, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, and the
California Wildfires in 2007). Even though FEMA is aware of
additional funding requirements for prior year events, they did
not request discretionary funding for them, and based on
testimony by the Secretary, FEMA plans to rely upon emergency
supplemental appropriations later in the year to pay for the
known but unfunded costs.
The $1,800,000,000 request significantly underfunds known
requirements for current and past events. FEMA states that it
uses a rolling five-year average; however, the current monthly
average is $383,000,000 per month, or $4,600,000,000 per year
for non-catastrophic disasters. The budget assumes $900,000,000
in recovered, unobligated balances from prior year disasters.
However, this $900,000,000 in estimated recoveries does not
offset the amount required--it still leaves $1,900,000,000
unfunded for new disasters in fiscal year 2011. FEMA has stated
in testimony that efforts are underway to fund portions of this
through additional recovered, unobligated balances but thus far
have not been able to detail how much may be recovered.
Additionally, as noted above, FEMA has only requested
funding for non-catastrophic disaster activity, even though
there are known requirements for prior year events in excess of
$3,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2012. Combined with the
requirement for non-catastrophic activity, the Disaster Relief
requirement for fiscal year 2012 exceeds $7,500,000,000.
When faced with a similar situation in fiscal year 2011,
Congress reallocated funds from within other Homeland Security
programs to fund Disaster Relief. However, due to the
significant amount unfunded in fiscal year 2012 and the
assumption of increases in aviation passenger fee collections
and customs user fees that have yet to be authorized and that
are not in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations,
the Committee is unable to do the same in fiscal year 2012.
Instead, the Committee recommends $2,650,000,000, $850,000,000
above the request to cover the cost of expected non-
catastrophic events and assumes the Department's estimates for
additional recoveries of unobligated balances to fund the
remaining portion of the non-catastrophic requirements.
To address the known catastrophic requirement that may
exceed $3,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2012 for which the
Department failed to request funding, the Committee includes a
new proviso. Under the heading for Disaster Relief, the
Committee directs that the President shall submit a budget
amendment, offset from within discretionary funds, not later
than three months prior to the date that the Administrator of
the FEMA estimates that the total amount remaining unallocated
in Disaster Relief will reach $800,000,000, and that the
request shall account for all estimated funding requirements
for that fiscal year.
Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account Subsidy
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $295,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 295,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 296,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +1,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. ---
Limitation on Direct Loans:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... $25,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. 25,000,000
Recommended in the bill........................... 25,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... ---
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. ---
MISSION
Beginning in 1992, loans made to States under the cost-
sharing provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act were funded in accordance with the
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. The Disaster Assistance
Direct Loan Program Account, which was established as a result
of the Federal Credit Reform Act, records the subsidy costs
associated with the direct loans obligated beginning in 1992 to
the present.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $25,000,000 as requested for the
limitation on direct loans from the Disaster Assistance Direct
Loan Program, pursuant to Section 319 of the Stafford Act, and
a subsidy of $296,000 to cover the cost of loans.
Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $182,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 102,712,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 102,712,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -79,288,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. ---
MISSION
The mission of the Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis
fund is to modernize, maintain, and digitize the inventory of
maps and develop a more integrated process of identifying,
assessing, communicating, and mitigating flood related risks.
This information is used to determine appropriate risk-based
premium rates for the National Flood Insurance Program,
complete hazard determinations required for the Nation's
lending institutions, and develop appropriate mitigation and
disaster response plans for Federal, State, and local emergency
management personnel.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $102,712,000 for Flood Hazard
Mapping and Risk Analysis, the same as the amount requested and
$79,288,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2011. The
Committee notes that an additional $107,320,000 is available
for flood plain management and mapping activities within the
National Flood Insurance Fund. While the Committee commends the
Department for requesting a fiscally austere budget, there is
concern that the Department has forsaken its legislative
requirement for flood mapping. This decrease will significantly
delay the mandated flood mapping process to 2020.
The Committee endorses FEMA's Risk Mapping, Assessment, and
Planning (Risk MAP) vision to develop a more integrated process
of identifying, assessing, communicating, and mitigating flood
related risks. To support this goal, FEMA is directed to
provide no less than 20 percent of the funds provided under
this heading be made available for development of flood hazard
and risk related data and risk communication products conducted
by Cooperating Technical Partners that provide a 25 percent
cash match and have a strong record of working effectively with
FEMA on floodplain mapping activities. With the fiscal year
2013 budget request, FEMA shall submit to the Committee a
status report on the progress made towards the five-year Risk
MAP strategy.
When allocating map modernization funds, the Committee
encourages FEMA to prioritize as criteria the number of stream
and coastal miles within the State and the participation of the
State in leveraging non-Federal contributions.
The Committee lauds FEMA's progress in transitioning the
flood mapping program to a digital environment. The Committee
believes significant savings can be achieved through further
reduction or elimination of costly cartographic map making.
Therefore, FEMA is directed to report within six months after
the date of enactment of this Act on its timetable and efforts
to transition from cartographic Flood Insurance Rate Map panel
grids to a database-generated digital display environment. In
transitioning from a cartographic to digital display
environment, FEMA shall collaborate with key Federal, State,
private, and association stakeholders.
The Committee believes that ongoing stakeholder engagement
is critical to successful implementation of FEMA's Risk MAP
vision. Therefore, the Committee directs FEMA to establish a
Risk Map Advisory Committee to provide FEMA with sustained,
ongoing advisory input and feedback on Risk Map implementation
including, but not limited to: flood risk assessment and
communication; national digital elevation data acquisition;
database-generated, paperless map display; data standards,
models, and methodologies; and cooperative funding strategies.
The Risk MAP Advisory Committee shall include representation
from Federal, State, and local governments; national non-
government organizations; and private sector lending,
insurance, and service providers that are considered direct
stakeholders and/or contributors to the Risk MAP vision. The
Committee strongly encourages FEMA to include State and local
Cooperating Technical Partners on the Advisory Committee.
Members of the Advisory Committee shall be selected by the FEMA
Administrator, or his designee, based on their demonstrated
knowledge and competence regarding surveying, remote sensing,
geographic information systems, or the technical aspects of
preparing, using, and communicating flood hazard and risk data.
FEMA should submit an annual report to the Committee
documenting the activities and recommendations of the Advisory
Committee and actions taken by FEMA.
National Flood Insurance Fund
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $169,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 171,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 171,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +2,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. ---
MISSION
The National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF), which was
established in the Treasury by the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968, is a fee-generated fund that supports the National
Flood Insurance Program. The Act, as amended, authorizes the
Federal Government to provide flood insurance on a national
basis.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee includes bill language providing up to
$22,000,000 for salaries and expenses to administer the NFIF,
the same as the amount requested and $145,000 below the amount
provided in fiscal year 2011. Consistent with the budget
request, the Committee provides no funding for the severe
repetitive loss property mitigation pilot program under section
1361A of the National Flood Insurance Act; $10,000,000 for the
repetitive insurance claims properties under section 1323 of
the National Flood Insurance Act; and $60,000,000 for Flood
Mitigation Assistance under section 1366 of the National Flood
Insurance Act. No less than $149,000,000 is available for flood
plain management and flood mapping. Flood mitigation funds are
available until September 30, 2012, and funding is offset by
premium collections. The Committee also includes a general
provision to authorize the program through fiscal year 2012.
National Predisaster Mitigation Fund
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $50,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 84,937,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 40,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -10,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -44,937,000
MISSION
The National Predisaster Mitigation Fund provides technical
assistance and grants to State, local, and tribal governments,
and to universities to reduce the risks associated with
disasters. Resources support the development and enhancement of
hazard mitigation plans, as well as the implementation of
disaster mitigation projects.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for the National
Predisaster Mitigation Fund, $44,937,000 below the amount
requested and $10,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal
year 2011. The Committee recommends a reduction due to a
continued practice of carrying over significant funds. In
fiscal year 2012, the program plans to carry over $105,967,000
from funds previously appropriated. Even with the proposed
reduction, there are sufficient funds to continue the program
due to the amounts still unobligated from previous years.
Emergency Food and Shelter
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $120,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 100,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 120,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... ---
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. +20,000,000
MISSION
The Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program was
created in 1983 to supplement the work of local social service
organizations within the United States, both private and
governmental, to help people in need of emergency assistance.
The program provides funds to local communities for homeless
programs, including soup kitchens, food banks, shelters, and
homeless prevention services.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $120,000,000 for the Emergency
Food and Shelter Program, $20,000,000 above the amount
requested and the same as the amount provided in fiscal year
2011.
TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $146,593,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 369,477,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 132,361,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -14,232,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -237,116,000
MISSION
The mission of the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) is to process all immigrant and
non-immigrant benefits provided to visitors to the United
States; adjudicate naturalization requests; promote national
security as it relates to immigration issues; eliminate
immigration adjudication backlogs; and implement solutions to
improve immigration customer services. USCIS also maintains
substantial records and data related to the individuals who
have applied for immigration benefits.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $132,361,000 in discretionary
appropriations for USCIS, $237,116,000 below the requested
level and $14,232,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year
2011. The decrease is largely due to the Committee's belief
that the costs for processing asylum claims and refugee
applications, as well as providing immigrant integration
grants, should be supported through fee revenues. Further, the
Committee does not include funds for data center migration
activities. While the Committee supports these activities, the
President's budget request assumed an increase in aviation
security fees in order to fund this program at the requested
levels. This fee is not within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Appropriations, and the Committee has adjusted its
fiscal year 2012 recommendation for this account accordingly.
No funding is provided for the cost of military
naturalizations, which the Committee believes should be paid by
the Department of Defense (DoD), as proposed in the budget. The
Committee strongly encourages USCIS and DoD to negotiate a
memorandum of understanding for reimbursement of naturalization
costs as soon as possible to ensure that military
naturalizations are not interrupted due to delays in payments
from DoD.
USER FEE FUNDED PROGRAMS
The budget estimates that USCIS will utilize $2,537,389,000
in fee-funded expenditures in fiscal year 2012. The Committee
recommendation adds an additional $207,000,000 to that amount
for asylum and refugee processing, for a total of $2,744,389.
Revenues from fees paid by persons applying for immigration
benefits constitute the majority of USCIS's resources, and
support adjudication of applications for immigration benefits
as well as government investigations aimed at preventing fraud
within the immigration system.
In the current fiscal crisis, the Committee cannot ignore
significant cash balances as potential offsets for other USCIS
needs. While fee revenues have been lower in recent years, this
year's projected fees are higher. It is critical that USCIS
continue to monitor its fee revenues and obligations against
those fee collections. The Committee directs USCIS to continue
to brief the Committee quarterly on fee revenues and
obligations.
USCIS TRANSFORMATION
The Committee is disappointed with the lack of progress on
the USCIS Transformation program to date. USCIS has assured the
Committee that the first application type will be online by the
end of calendar year 2011. The Committee directs USCIS to
provide quarterly briefings to the Committee on progress
related to USCIS Transformation, including tracking cost and
schedule for all milestones and noting any performance issues.
VALIDATION INSTRUMENT FOR BUSINESS ENTERPRISES
Within 60 days of the date of enactment of this Act, USCIS
shall report to the Committee on a plan to appropriately and
timely check on the eligibility of agricultural employers to
participate in the H2A visa program, recognizing the
difficulties these particular employers have faced under the
current system. It is the Committee's intention to ensure that
participating agricultural employers can be verified through
the Validation Instrument for Business Enterprises program
prior to actual submission of the I-129 to the USCIS. In the
past, agricultural employers' workers have been delayed for
multiple weeks while these employers jumped through seemingly
unnecessary, bureaucratic hoops, so they can participate in the
H2A visa program.
ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO IMMIGRATION INFORMATION
Within the total fees collected, the Committee directs
USCIS to provide no less than $29,000,000 to continue
conversion of immigration records to digital format. The
efficiencies and cost savings associated with electronically
maintaining this information for immediate access for
appropriate users across the immigration continuum, rather than
shipping A-Files across the country, as needed, and retaining
millions of pages of paper files, should be realized. The
occurrence of losing an applicant's personal history and
information through a shipping error--or waiting for the file
in the mail to document a simple decision and move a case
forward--must be eliminated. That is the rationale for
directing USCIS to provide A-Files in a digital format to those
who need to access them, particularly within USCIS, for ICE,
and for immigration law proceedings.
The Committee has become aware that ICE and the Executive
Office for Immigration Review have requested paper files
despite access to digital records. Two reasons cited are the
preference for original documents and the difficulty of
accessing files through the Enterprise Document Management
System (EDMS). While the Committee examines the question of
original documents--whether that is a mere preference due to
antiquated rules or a true need, the Committee directs USCIS to
document the concerns its users have with EDMS. Further, the
Committee notes that ICE is formalizing its internal policy to
utilize digital records. The Committee encourages ICE to
expedite issuance of such a policy and work with EOIR to
address their concerns or barriers to the use of digital
records in proceedings. The Committee directs USCIS, in
conjunction with ICE and EOIR, to brief the Committee on their
progress and concerns no later than October 1, 2011.
REFUGEE APPLICATIONS AND ASYLUM CLAIMS
The Committee cannot recommend appropriated funds to offset
the cost of processing refugee applications and asylum claims.
As in prior fiscal years, the Committee directs USCIS to
continue utilizing fee revenue to cover the cost of these
activities. While USCIS does not charge applicants directly to
process refugee or asylum claims, the cost has traditionally
been supported through USCIS fee collections for other
immigration applications. Although the current fee rule, issued
in December 2010, does not include this cost, the Committee
directs USCIS to include the cost of processing refugee and
asylum applications in its current study to develop the next
fee rule. Given the current fiscal crisis and the operational
costs borne by taxpayers across the Department, the Committee
expects USCIS to include the cost of processing refugee
applications and asylum claims into the new fee rule, as has
traditionally been the practice.
E-VERIFY
The Committee provides $102,424,000 for the E-Verify
system, as requested. The Committee commends USCIS on its
progress in incorporating additional data sets and capability
to improve the rate of employees automatically, and accurately,
confirmed as work authorized. That includes the addition of
photo verification for passports and the upcoming availability
of certain driver's license photos for photo verification. The
Committee encourages USCIS to continue introducing additional
data sets for document verification to ensure the accuracy,
efficiency, and fraud prevention capabilities of E-Verify. It
is also important for USCIS to continue its outreach to
increase the number of employers participating in E-Verify. For
that purpose, the Committee encourages USCIS to promote E-
Verify participation, including publishing on its website the
names of participating employers for access by employees,
patrons, and the public. The Committee acknowledges privacy
considerations associated with small business participants that
may operate out of personal residences; information regarding
such businesses can be withheld from publication.
USCIS must also ensure that there are appropriate controls
and analytical systems in place to identify inappropriate use
of the E-Verify system by employers. As a result, the Committee
directs USCIS to provide regular briefings on its progress
implementing a robust compliance review program for E-Verify,
including any instances of misuse of the system and actions
taken to address those instances. The Committee also directs
USCIS to report on any case of an authorized worker being fired
erroneously as a result of misuse or system error, as well as
what USCIS is doing to ensure such incidents do not occur. The
Committee also requests information on how many individuals
placed calls to the national toll-free number and how the
issues raised on those calls were resolved.
SYSTEMATIC ALIEN VERIFICATION FOR ENTITLEMENTS
As requested in the budget, the Committee provides
$29,937,000 in appropriated funds for the Systematic Alien
Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program. SAVE is an
electronic system to provide Federal, State, and local agencies
that award various public benefits such as driver's licenses,
public housing subsidies, and Federal education grants with
eligibility verification. Although SAVE has previously been
financed by collections from the public benefits agencies that
use the system, the revenue from these fees has not been
adequate to offset the full operating costs of the program.
Furthermore, the Department makes a compelling argument that by
eliminating user fees levied on Federal, State, and local
agencies, more agencies will be able to enroll in the program
and thus ensure that the benefits they are providing are only
made available to individuals who qualify for them.
The Committee remains concerned, however, that adequate
protections must be put in place to ensure the SAVE system is
used as designed and intended, namely as a means to certify
eligibility for public benefits. In light of these concerns,
the Committee directs OIG to review the systems and processes
the SAVE program has in place to monitor compliance by users
with the program's rules, what enforcement actions have been
undertaken in cases where noncompliance has been determined,
the processes USCIS and user agencies have in place to enable
applicants for benefits to request correction of records where
they believe they have been subject to any erroneous SAVE
determination, and the average length of time taken to
adjudicate such requests. The OIG report should be completed no
later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
REAL ID
The Department has consistently put forward unobligated
balances from the USCIS REAL ID funds for rescission, refusing
to identify appropriate purposes for these funds. The Committee
strongly supports the goals of securing identification
documents, particularly driver's licenses. There are unfunded
needs for enhancing the security of driver's licenses, and the
Department has significant flexibility in applying the funds to
the best possible purposes toward this end. The Committee
directs the Screening Coordination Office, in conjunction with
USCIS, to brief the Committee no later than July 1, 2011, on
its intentions for obligating the $10,000,000 remaining in
unobligated balances for REAL ID. Further, the Committee is
disappointed at the failure of the States to draw down the
Driver's License Security Grant funds provided in recent years.
The Department is directed to brief the Committee, before
October 1, 2011, on the steps being taken to encourage the
States to draw down these funds, the progress on draw down, and
the specific reasons by jurisdiction for the delay in draw
down.
The Committee also notes that the security of breeder
documents used to obtain a driver's license remains an
important issue. The 9/11 Commission recommended that the
Federal Government set standards for the issuance of sources of
identification, specifically calling out birth certificates and
driver's licenses. While the government has failed to issue
standards for birth certificates, this is an eligible use of
certain DHS grant funds, and REAL ID funds appropriated to
USCIS have been used for enhancements to the Electronic
Verification of Vital Events (EVVE) system. The Committee
supports the use and further development of EVVE.
IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION PROGRAMS
The Department requested appropriated funds to fully
support the Office of Citizenship and grants to organizations
that provide citizenship preparation services. While the
Committee supports the efforts of the Office of Citizenship to
promote civic education through the naturalization process, the
Committee recommends the use of fee funds for this purpose.
Active civic participation is critical to continuing the
American way of life, which is why individuals seeking
citizenship must take the naturalization test to assess their
knowledge of these topics. The legal permanent residents who
are seeking citizenship preparation services are the direct
beneficiaries of this funding. USCIS has sufficient cash
balances in its fee accounts to support these grants, if it
chooses to prioritize its use of fee funds for this purpose.
Due to concerns about whether the immigrant integration grants
could be funded through fee collections, the bill includes a
general provision clarifying the availability of fee funds for
that purpose. At the same time, the Committee notes that
private, non-profit organizations across the country have been
performing these services without support from USCIS grants for
many years.
NATURALIZATION CEREMONIES
The Committee directs USCIS to identify, in the 2013 budget
submission, all funds allocated to naturalization and oath of
allegiance ceremonies. In addition, the Committee directs USCIS
to work with local public and private groups to hold
naturalization and oath of allegiance ceremonies as part of
community Independence Day celebrations. The Committee also
encourages USCIS to review internal policies that limit its
ability to use fee revenues to make small grants and to provide
agency employee support to local community groups that would
otherwise be financially unable to host such ceremonies.
STATELESS PERSONS
The Committee has become aware of the tragedy of
approximately 4,000 individuals in the United States who may be
classified as ``stateless'' because they have no legal claim to
U.S. residency but are unable to return to their country of
origin. This situation can arise because of changes in
political structures such as the collapse of the Soviet Union,
destruction of citizenship records due to revolution or civil
unrest, and other geopolitical changes outside of their
control. In such cases, there is no legal pathway for stateless
persons in the United States to gain lawful status, and
therefore they remain unable to participate fully in society.
The Committee encourages USCIS to work with CBP, ICE, and the
Office of Immigration Statistics to review DHS records and
attempt to quantify the number of stateless persons in the
country. The Committee also encourages USCIS to provide
recommendations to the relevant Congressional committees of
jurisdiction that are developing immigration reform legislation
so that USCIS has legal methods to address statelessness in the
future.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $235,919,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 238,957,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 238,957,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +3,038,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. ---
MISSION
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)
provides the necessary facilities, equipment, and support
services to conduct advanced, specialized, and refresher
training for Federal law enforcement personnel. Specifically,
FLETC serves as an interagency law enforcement training
organization for over 80 Federal agencies with personnel
located throughout the United States and its territories. FLETC
also provides services to State, local, and international law
enforcement agencies, and on a space available basis, to other
Federal agencies with related law enforcement missions.
FLETC is headquartered in Glynco, GA and has facilities in
Artesia, NM and Charleston, SC. Each of these facilities is
designed primarily for residential training operations. A
fourth training facility is located in Cheltenham, MD, and
provides in-service and re-qualification training for officers
and agents in the Washington, D.C. area.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $238,957,000 for FLETC, as
requested. Within the funds provided is $29,716,000 for
Management and Administration and $1,304,000 for the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Accreditation Board.
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $35,456,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 37,456,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 35,456,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... ---
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -2,000,000
MISSION
This account provides for the acquisition, construction,
improvements, equipment, furnishings, and related costs for
expansion and maintenance of facilities of the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $35,456,000 for Acquisition,
Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses, $2,000,000
below the amount requested and the same as the amount provided
in fiscal year 2011. While the Committee understands FLETC has
facility needs to support their customers, the President's
budget request assumed an increase in aviation security and
COBRA fees in order to fund this program at the requested
levels. This fee is not within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee has adjusted its
fiscal year 2012 recommendation for this account accordingly.
Science and Technology
Management and Administration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $141,200,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 149,365,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 140,565,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -635,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -8,800,000
MISSION
The Management and Administration appropriation provides
for the salaries and expenses of the Science and Technology
Directorate (S&T).
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $140,565,000 for Science and
Technology Management and Administration, $8,800,000 below the
amount as requested, and $635,000 below the amount provided in
fiscal year 2011. Within this total, the Committee provides
$10,000 for reception and representation costs. The Committee
does not include $3,800,000 requested for data center
migration. In addition, the Committee does not include the
proposed $3,000,000 increase to support moving the staff for
the transformational research and development for radiological
and nuclear technology from the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (DNDO), although it expects S&T to work collaboratively
with DNDO and share its particular R&D capacity with DNDO, as
discussed below. Finally, an additional $2,000,000 decrease is
recommended in light of the contraction of the research
portfolio recommended in the bill and described below.
Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $688,036,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 1,027,067,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 398,213,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -289,823,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -628,854,000
MISSION
The mission of the Science and Technology Directorate is to
develop and deploy technologies and capabilities to secure our
Homeland. This Directorate conducts, stimulates, and enables
research, development, testing, evaluation, and the timely
transition of homeland security capabilities to Federal, State,
and local operational end users. This activity includes
investments in both evolutionary and revolutionary capabilities
with high-payoff potential; early deployment of off-the-shelf,
proven technologies to provide for initial defense capability;
near-term utilization of emerging technologies to counter
current terrorist threats; and development of new capabilities
to thwart future and emerging threats.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $398,213,000 for Research,
Development, Acquisition and Operations (RDA&O), $628,854,000
below the amount requested and $289,823,000 below the amount
provided in fiscal year 2011.
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research, Development, and $659,900,000 $106,500,000
Innovation.......................
RD&I: APEX.................... [17,900,000] .................
RD&I: Border Security......... [43,000,000] .................
RD&I: Chem/Bio/Radiological/ [342,500,000] .................
Nuclear/Explosives Defense...
RD&I: Disaster Resilience..... [165,700,000] .................
RD&I: Cyber Security.......... [64,100,000] .................
RD&I: Counter Terrorist [26,700,000] .................
Research and Development.....
Acquisition and Operations Support 54,154,000 53,650,000
Laboratory Facilities............. 276,500,000 201,500,000
University Programs............... 36,563,000 36,563,000
-------------------------------------
Total, Research, $1,027,067,000 $398,213,000
Development, Acquisition,
and Operations...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUDGET ACCOUNT REORGANIZATION
This bill marks a turning point for Science and Technology
and for its core research activity, with the Committee
recommending a reduction for RDA&O that is 57 percent below the
request and 42 percent below the fiscal year 2011 levels (after
excluding transformational research and development on
radiological and nuclear threats, which the Committee
recommends funding through the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office appropriation).
The Committee believes that S&T must more clearly
demonstrate significant contributions to the homeland security
mission and should prioritize the development of near-term,
operational projects that promise substantive gains to our
Nation's security. S&T will be required to do this under the
funding levels proposed above. The Committee believes that S&T
has a meaningful role to play within DHS and affirms that this
reduction will change the nature and scope of S&T's research.
Nevertheless, the Committee was forced to find offsets to make
up for a budget gap created by the budget request's reliance on
unauthorized and unrealized aviation security and customs fees,
as well as inadequate disaster funding. When faced with such
difficult choices, the Committee chose to keep DHS frontline
missions and capabilities robust while taking a harder look at
components that have had difficulty demonstrating their
immediate contributions to the homeland security enterprise.
S&T has not fully justified the billions of taxpayer dollars
that it has spent on R&D, and the Committee believes these
revised funding levels will force the Directorate to
concentrate its efforts on its highest priority projects.
The Committee rejects the Directorate's proposal to
reorganize its R&D funding into a single Research, Development
and Innovation (RD&I) PPA. Such an all-encompassing category is
too large and vague, even at the level recommended in this
bill, to permit meaningful oversight. This lack of transparency
would outweigh the benefits to S&T of flexibility in
administering such funds. The justification provided for
granting such discretion is inadequate. The Committee does,
however, agree that existing PPAs could be adjusted to more
accurately reflect S&T's current structure and research
priorities.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends a revised PPA
structure within the RD&I construct that aligns the PPAs with
the RD&I thrust categories displayed in the table above. The
Committee does not recommend specific funding levels for these
PPA categories but instead directs S&T to re-estimate how it
would spread the RD&I funding across those categories, given
significant funding changes and a need to prioritize the
Directorate's most promising investments. The Committee directs
S&T to submit its funding plan for these PPAs not later than 30
days after the date of enactment of this Act and strongly
encourages S&T to set funding for the APEX program at or near
the requested level, since it is directly linked to accelerated
development of near-term, operational technology improvements.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CONTRIBUTIONS TO HOMELAND SECURITY
The Directorate is in the midst of a watershed period.
RDA&O funding grew steadily until 2010, going to a wide variety
of research areas and resulting in multiple studies and interim
work products. Yet for the billions of dollars spent, the
impact of S&T investment and research has not been sufficiently
demonstrated, as many projects remain in the development stage.
Thus, it is timely that the Under Secretary has made it her
priority to streamline the model of S&T to shorten the time to
delivery of its R&D efforts. This is critical, since there is
very limited awareness throughout Congress, the interagency
community, and among the general public that the work S&T has
done--and is doing--has demonstrated value or tangible products
and outputs that improve the homeland security mission.
The Committee supports the mission of S&T and believes in
the need to leverage R&D throughout government, academia, and
the private sector to strengthen and support homeland security
missions. But S&T must demonstrate how its R&D efforts are
timely, with results relatively well-defined, and above all,
make investment decisions based on clear and sensible
priorities. Focusing on innovation, putting cutting-edge
research to work, and communicating its successes more
effectively should be top priorities, and the Committee fully
expects the proposed funding levels will force S&T to make more
focused, high-return investment decisions.
PORTFOLIO REVIEWS
The Committee applauds S&T's initiation of annual portfolio
reviews to measure the performance and potential of its R&D
programs to produce results. While some risk is inherent in
R&D, timely reviews of project effectiveness can help make such
risk manageable. The Committee directs S&T to brief it on the
conclusion of the annual portfolio reviews including, but not
limited to, an assessment of S&T's most promising projects, an
appraisal of those that scored poorly, and any plans to modify
or reallocate funding from underperforming initiatives.
IN-Q-TEL PARTNERSHIP
The Committee understands that S&T has entered into an
$11,000,000 partnership on homeland security challenges with
In-Q-Tel, a nonprofit organization that has demonstrated
success in helping the intelligence community identify
technology solutions to meet national security needs. Other
U.S. Government agencies have found partnering with In-Q-Tel to
be of high value, and the Committee is eager to determine
whether DHS can achieve similar gains. Because the Committee
seeks to ensure that projects funded under this effort are not
duplicative or conflict with existing S&T research, it directs
S&T to provide a briefing not later than 60 days after the date
of enactment of this Act detailing the terms of its engagement
with In-Q-Tel and the research areas in which they are
collaborating.
AVOIDING DUPLICATIVE RESEARCH
The Federal Government spends billions of dollars each year
on R&D and faces a responsibility to taxpayers to be certain
that those funds are not wasted on programs that duplicate
similar efforts being conducted elsewhere, either in a
different agency or in the private sector. The Committee
understands that S&T currently lacks the ability to certify--
before embarking on a new research initiative--that technology
solutions or similar R&D programs in a given subject area do
not already exist elsewhere. This is unacceptable and leaves
open the possibility that research programs could be
duplicative or wasteful. However, the Committee notes that S&T
leadership plans to close this gap by improving its ``tech
foraging'' capability to assess the state-of-play in its
research areas--both inside and outside of government--before
initiating new projects. The Committee directs S&T to provide a
briefing no later than 120 days after the date of enactment of
this Act on its tech foraging efforts and their impact on the
R&D process at S&T.
APEX PROJECTS
The Committee, as noted above, is looking to the Department
to re-estimate how it would apply its RD&I funding. However,
the Committee strongly supports funding S&T's APEX projects as
close as possible to the requested level of $17,900,000, which
is $10,400,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011.
The APEX initiative gives special attention to high-priority,
high-value projects expected to quickly produce results to
solve a homeland security challenge. It is not yet clear that
elevating these projects to a higher status produces better or
more rapid results, but the Committee is interested in
following the program's progress. S&T has so far initiated only
one APEX project, which focuses on helping the U.S. Secret
Service better integrate technology into its protective
mission. The Committee recommends fully funding this effort,
given its relevance to current operational needs and its role
as a pilot effort for the APEX approach.
Given the flexibility associated with APEX funds, the
Committee intends to exercise special oversight over the use of
the mechanism, and directs S&T to: (1) brief the Committee
before initiating any new APEX project to include, but not be
limited to, information on the goals and costs of the proposed
effort; and (2) provide quarterly updates on existing APEX
projects to include, but not be limited to, the status of the
initiative, project costs, and approximate project completion
date.
LABORATORY FACILITIES
The Committee recommends $201,500,000 for laboratory
facilities, $75,000,000 below the amount requested. This
includes $75,000,000 (instead of $150,000,000) to fund initial
construction efforts at the National Bio- and Agro-defense
Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas. While the recommended
funding is below the request due to the need to find offsets
for unauthorized aviation security fees and customs user fees,
the Committee believes it will enable S&T to initiate
meaningful segments of the NBAF project, for which only partial
funding was included in the request. The Committee directs S&T
to submit a detailed update of its fiscal year 2012 NBAF
construction plan and schedule not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
The Committee expects to receive the National Academy of
Sciences assessment of the Department's revised, site-specific
biosafety and biosecurity mitigation risk evaluation required
in the fiscal year 2011 Appropriations Act and will use its
observations and recommendations to help inform the Committee's
continued oversight of this important project.
RADIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR RESEARCH
The Committee recommends no funding for radiological and
nuclear research, instead of the $98,700,000 requested. The
Committee instead recommends that this research remain within
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. While the Committee
recognizes that S&T is the lead agency for homeland security
research, and that it has established a network of diverse
research communities, it is not yet clear that the
transformational and basic research related to nuclear
detection is better removed from the agency with primary
responsibility for nuclear detection policies and investments.
In fact, the Committee is concerned that DNDO may find
significantly reduced support for its research mission, given
the shift in S&T to quicker payoff investments. Therefore, the
Committee is not persuaded that the proposed realignment is
optimal and finds the Department's justification for the shift
to have been insufficient. At the same time, the Department
expects S&T to work closely with DNDO and bring to bear its
unique research and development expertise and resources on the
specific challenges of radiation and nuclear detection.
CRITICAL NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
The Committee is encouraged by recent advances in new,
miniaturized protective technology, such as nanotechnology or
microelectromechanical systems, that could reduce risk for
major national infrastructure systems, such as energy
distribution, industrial control systems, communication
networks, power pumping stations, and similar critical
infrastructure. The Committee encourages Science and Technology
to investigate the development and testing of such technologies
for disaster mitigation.
The Committee is also aware of the potential of technology
used in defense applications to provide anomaly detection,
which can provide early prediction and prevention of natural
and manmade threats to physical infrastructure components such
as roadways, dams, waterways, and power plants. The Committee
encourages the Department to explore the potential of such
technology to collect and analyze resonant, surface, and
temperature data; permit remote assessment of infrastructure;
and identify priority inspection points.
RURAL RESILIENCY
It is a matter of national importance that rural
communities recover quickly after both manmade and natural
disasters, be able to restore their commerce and re-establish
the quality of life. That such capacity is critical is evident
in the terrible storm and flood damage that struck rural
America this year. The Committee strongly encourages S&T to
ensure that its Disaster Resilience projects address the
requirements of rural communities and include research and
outreach efforts on rural resiliency. Such efforts should
include identifying resilience capacity and the development of
education and resilience mitigation measures that could be
standardized and used as a model for communities across the
country.
FIRST RESPONDER COMMON OPERATING PICTURE
Given the wide variety of threats that face the Nation's
critical infrastructure and population, and the need to share
information rapidly across all levels of government, there
would be value in having a real-time, common operating picture
for first responders that could facilitate information
dissemination and sharing. The Science and Technology
Directorate is conducting research related to chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive defense for
first responders, and is also developing improved information
sharing systems for first responders through its disaster
resilience research portfolio efforts. The Committee encourages
the Directorate to build on these research activities and
explore ways to convey information through a common operating
picture that could include mobile capability for first
responder command, control, communications, computer,
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability.
FIRST RESPONDER TECHNOLOGY
The ability of first responders to provide emergency
medical care to casualties with acute lung injury and acute
respiratory distress syndrome is vital to casualty
survivability. However, existing technology is too complicated
or large to use at disaster sites. In keeping with Department
efforts to identify and support technology to improve the
capacity and equipment of first responders, the Committee
encourages the Department to explore the potential of
developing rugged, portable, and minimally invasive technology
that can be administered by first responders in disaster
incidents.
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL AGENT DETECTION
The Committee encourages the Department of Homeland
Security to develop powerful, lightweight, and cost-effective
surveillance capabilities for detection and identification of
concealed chemical and biological agents.
FIRST RESPONDER COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT STANDARDS
When applicable, Federal funding for first responder
communications equipment should be compliant with common system
standards for digital public safety radio communications
(Project 25 standards) to ensure interoperability. S&T, in
conjunction with the Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, shall continue assessing the
compliance of first responder communications equipment with
Project 25 standards.
WIDE AREA AERIAL SURVEILLANCE
The Committee is aware that the Science and Technology
Directorate issued a request for information to demonstrate
wide area aerial surveillance systems in an operational
environment along the Southwest border. It is also aware that
the Department of Defense has been supporting the development
and deployment of similar technology. The Committee therefore
urges S&T to work with the Department of Defense as it moves
ahead with its project to demonstrate and evaluate this
technology, including its potential for use in near-border
urban areas.
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
Management and Administration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $36,992,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 41,120,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 40,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +3,008,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -1,120,000
MISSION
The Management and Administration appropriation provides
for the salaries and expenses of Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (DNDO) employees. This is a jointly-staffed office that
consists of both Federal employees and interagency detailees.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for Management and
Administration, $1,120,000 below the amount requested and
$3,008,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011.
STRATEGIC POSTURE
The Committee intends to exercise robust oversight of
DNDO's plans to move towards a more threat-driven strategic
posture. The organization has emphasized that this approach
will include ``surge'' capabilities and other ``diverse
solutions'' to respond quickly to short-notice threats and
situations where there may be limited or imperfect intelligence
information. DNDO will not live up to its mission by focusing
only on the scanning of containerized cargo, and the Committee
applauds the organization for this broader focus on tackling
nuclear threats, particularly through its ongoing work to
analyze and strengthen the Global Nuclear Detection
Architecture (GNDA). The Committee directs DNDO to provide
timely updates on changes to its programs and operations aimed
at developing a more threat-driven posture, including but not
limited to, providing the Committee with significant
architectural studies and analysis that DNDO produces in
support of the GNDA.
Research, Development, and Operations
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $275,437,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 206,257,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 245,194,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... -30,243,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. +38,937,000
MISSION
The Research, Development, and Operations appropriation
funds all DHS nuclear detection research, development, test,
evaluation, and operational support activities. DNDO is
responsible for overseeing the GNDA, a worldwide network of
systems used to detect and report attempts to import or
transport a nuclear device or fissile or radiological material
intended for illicit use. DNDO is continuing to improve the
domestic portion of this architecture through an integrated
research, development, test, and evaluation program, while
providing support to current operations.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $245,194,000 for Research,
Development, and Operations, $38,937,000 above the amount
requested, and $30,243,000 below the amount provided in fiscal
year 2011. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems Engineering and $31,857,000 $30,000,000
Architecture.....................
Systems Development............... 69,689,000 69,000,000
Transformational Research and --- 45,000,000
Development......................
Assessments....................... 43,104,000 40,000,000
Operations Support................ 36,837,000 36,424,000
National Technical Nuclear 24,770,000 24,770,000
Forensics Center.................
-------------------------------------
Total, Research, Development, $206,258,000 $245,194,000
and Operations...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSFORMATIONAL AND APPLIED RESEARCH PROGRAM
The Committee recommends denial of the Department's request
to move the Transformational and Applied Research (TAR) program
out of DNDO and into S&T. The Department has provided
insufficient justification for the move, and the Committee will
take a closer look at the proposal over the coming year.
Moreover, the Committee notes with concern the possibility that
radiological and nuclear research could be de-emphasized in S&T
when placed among many other, competing research priorities.
The Committee recommends that the funding for TAR be
$45,000,000. While it understands that this is more than 50
percent below the level requested, the Congressional
justification did not provide the Committee sufficient detail
on how much funding would be required for its efforts,
including details of work included in the Science and
Technology Directorate justification materials for basic
research (formerly the academic research initiative),
exploratory research, near-term research, and algorithm
development. The Committee therefore directs DNDO to provide,
not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, a detailed breakout of how it intends to fund these
activities at the reduced appropriation level.
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE
As it explores a broad range of potential threat pathways,
DNDO has instituted a matrix approach to the architecture
development, between cross-cutting functions (systems
engineering and standards, information technology, and
architecture) and geographic pathways (land borders, aviation,
maritime, and interior). The Committee supports additional
research on these pathways and includes $30,000,000 for Systems
Engineering and Architecture, $1,857,000 below the amount
requested. The Committee directs DNDO to continue its quarterly
program and threat briefings and, as part of them, provide
details on proposed additional engineering and architectural
studies to include any potential implications for new
technology deployments.
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND ON-DOCK RAIL
The Committee recommends $69,000,000 for Systems
Development, $689,000 below the amount requested. The Committee
is aware that DNDO is looking at solutions to the problems of
on-dock rail and transshipment port environments and has
focused on testing straddle portal prototypes and mobile
radiation detection systems. While the Committee understands
these configurations are nearing readiness for operational
testing, it is also aware that the GNDA has significant
problems at other ports, where the challenges include the risk
of transshipment or ship-to-rail ports being used to smuggle
materials, including possibly the components of radioactive or
nuclear devices. The Committee urges DNDO to look at all
options to address these GNDA gaps, including some that may not
be the exclusive or ideal solution, but which may help close
significant vulnerabilities in the near term.
ASSESSMENTS AND RED TEAMING
The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for assessments,
$3,104,000 below the amount requested. Within the assessments
category, the Committee believes that work by DNDO on red
teaming and net assessments (RTNA), through the use of
modeling, open source and covert testing, cooperative
assessments, and adversarial red teaming, helps States and
localities gain better awareness of their capabilities to
detect and respond to radiological and nuclear sources and
further informs their decisions for improving their systems and
procedures. DNDO should continue to report on its RTNA efforts
in its periodic briefings to the Committees on Appropriations,
including vulnerabilities identified and recommendations for
addressing such vulnerabilities.
NATIONAL TECHNICAL NUCLEAR FORENSICS
The Committee recommends $24,770,000 for the National
Technical Nuclear Forensics Center, the same as the amount
requested. The Committee strongly supports efforts to build up
the capacity of government agencies--individually, jointly, and
internationally--to be able to render accurate attribution
should any nuclear or radiological incident ever occur, and
thus help buttress deterrence against such a threat.
RADIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR CHALLENGE
DNDO has proposed to launch a new initiative in fiscal year
2012, the ``Rad/Nuc Challenge'' to expose industry to DNDO's
needs, enhance State and local coordination on radiological and
nuclear detection issues, and advance industry efforts in the
field through competition. The Committee strongly supports
DNDO's efforts to reach out to the broader detection community
and improve cooperation. However, limited detail was provided
on DNDO's plans for the Challenge in the fiscal year 2012
budget submission. The Committee approves funding for this, but
it directs DNDO to provide a detailed spend plan and program
development plans for the Rad/Nuc Challenge no later than 60
days after the date of enactment of this Act, as well as
updates on the effort during its quarterly briefings to the
Committees on Appropriations.
MISSION CRITICAL MESSAGING
The Committee recommends full funding within the Systems
Engineering and Architecture PPA for a new initiative, the
Mission Critical Messaging (MCM) program, to enhance
situational awareness of the GNDA by filling in connectivity
gaps between thousands of nuclear detection assets nationwide.
This will assist DNDO in achieving real-time access to
information when radiological and nuclear alarms are triggered,
allowing for more rapid Federal assistance, if needed. The
Committee strongly supports improving connectivity of the GNDA
to DNDO's Joint Analysis Center. If DNDO is to lead the charge
in protecting the United States from radiological and nuclear
threats, it must know promptly when detection assets pick up
suspicious substances. The Committee directs DNDO to provide an
on-site briefing at the Joint Analysis Center focused on the
current situational awareness gaps in the GNDA and how the MCM
will address those gaps no later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, and the Committee further directs DNDO
to provide a spend plan for the MCM program no later than 90
days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Systems Acquisition
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011....................... $30,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012..................... 84,361,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 52,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011................... +22,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2012................. -32,361,000
MISSION
The Systems Acquisition appropriation provides for
acquisition and deployment of radiation detection technologies
for other components of the Department, in particular the Coast
Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the
Transportation Security Administration. It also supports DNDO
provision of systems engineering and test and evaluation
programs in support of fielded systems, and prior to
acquisition and ensures acquisition includes appropriate
training, exercise, and alarm response protocols. To carry out
this mission, DNDO acquires a range of radiation detection
technologies, including fixed, mobile, and relocatable
radiation portal monitors and a range of human portable
radiation detection systems.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $52,000,000 for Systems
Acquisition, $32,361,000 below the amount requested and
$22,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiation Portal Monitor Program.. $37,361,000 $20,000,000
Securing the Cities............... 27,000,000 22,000,000
Human Portable Radiation Detection 20,000,000 10,000,000
Systems..........................
-------------------------------------
Total, Systems Acquisition.... $84,361,000 $52,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RADIATION PORTAL MONITOR PROGRAM
The Committee includes $20,000,000 for the Radiation Portal
Monitor Program, $17,361,000 below the amount requested, to
enable additional purchases and deployment of radiation portal
monitors at ports of entry modernized pursuant to P.L. 111-5,
or for use in other pathways, such as air cargo terminals.
Although the funding is not restricted here to polyvinyl
toluene portal monitors, the Committee does not expect DNDO to
deploy the advanced spectroscopic portal (ASP), even for the
currently proposed secondary inspection use, until such systems
have been certified by the Secretary. The Committee reduces the
level of funding for procurement of replacement systems, given
this uncertainty.
SECURING THE CITIES
The threat of a radiological or nuclear attack on the
United States persists, with terrorist organizations like al
Qaeda continuing their quests to attack the U.S. Homeland in
dramatic fashion. DNDO is charged with protecting the United
States from such an attack by deterring adversaries and
detecting illicit movements of nuclear and radiological
material. The Securing the Cities (STC) program aims to add a
critical detection layer to the GNDA within America's most
populated areas. The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for the
STC program, $5,000,000 below the amount requested, of which
$20,000,000 is to be provided for continuing STC efforts in the
New York City region, including supporting a transition to a
model for sustaining the program past the initial, pilot phase;
and $2,000,000 to begin establishment of an STC program in a
new U.S. city.
The STC program has improved radiological and nuclear
detection capabilities and preparedness in the New York
metropolitan area. However, the Committee has reviewed the
recent external assessment of the program and understands that
several key elements of the program still need to be addressed
before it can be fully evaluated. For example, the governing
concept of operations remains in draft and has yet to be signed
by participating State and local government agencies. Further
still, DNDO has not yet established effective metrics and a
more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis by which STC can be
evaluated. Thus, work remains to be done on developing the
``interior architecture'' for such programs and assessing
overall effectiveness, long-term costs, and the Federal
Government's funding relationship with host cities. The
Committee strongly urges DNDO to develop comprehensive metrics
to determine STC effectiveness in the New York City region and
conduct an assessment of program life-cycle costs.
Before DNDO commits funding to a new STC location, the
Committee directs it to provide a report that: (1) details its
progress on assessing lifecycle costs; (2) provides a more
complete evaluation of the New York STC project, with
information on conclusions and corrective actions taken
following recent exercises; and (3) delineates the metrics by
which the proposed STC expansion site or sites will be
evaluated. The Committee also directs DNDO to provide updates
thereafter during its quarterly briefings. Finally, in light of
the need for sustainment but also transition, DNDO is urged to
work with the New York City region, the Committees on
Appropriations, and the appropriate authorizing committees to
determine a way forward for sustaining STC projects, to include
establishing a funding mechanism through the normal FEMA grant
making process beyond the current dependence on DNDO. Because
of the uncertainty about the STC model (with respect to metrics
and cost estimates), lingering technology questions, and long-
term costs involved in committing to a second location, the
Committee reduces funding by $5,000,000. The Committee leaves
$2,000,000 for initial steps towards developing a new STC
location but hopes to work with DNDO to ensure that a full
commitment to a new site is only undertaken with a robust plan
for implementation and better means to assess STC
effectiveness.
HUMAN PORTABLE RADIATION DETECTION SYSTEMS
The Committee includes $10,000,000 for Human Portable
Radiation Detection Systems, $10,000,000 below the amount
requested, because the Committee was forced to find offsets for
unauthorized aviation security fees and customs user fees
assumed by the Administration in the 2012 request.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT
(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)
Section 501. The Committee continues a provision providing
that no part of any appropriation shall remain available for
obligation beyond the current year unless expressly provided.
Section 502. The Committee continues a provision providing
that unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged
with new appropriation accounts and used for the same purpose,
subject to reprogramming guidelines.
Section 503. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision providing reprogramming authority for funds within an
account and not to exceed five percent transfer authority
between appropriations accounts with the requirement for a 15-
day advance Congressional notification. A detailed funding
table identifying each Congressional control level for
reprogramming purposes is included at the end of this Report.
These reprogramming guidelines shall be complied with by all
agencies funded by the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2012.
The Department shall submit reprogramming requests on a
timely basis and provide complete explanations of the
reallocations proposed, including detailed justifications of
the increases and offsets, and any specific impact the proposed
changes will have on the budget request for the following
fiscal year and future-year appropriations requirements. Each
request submitted to the Committees on Appropriations should
include a detailed table showing the proposed revisions at the
account, program, project, and activity level to the funding
and staffing (full-time equivalent position) levels for the
current fiscal year and to the levels requested in the
President's budget for the following fiscal year.
The Department shall manage its programs and activities
within the levels appropriated. The Department should only
submit reprogramming or transfer requests in the case of an
unforeseeable emergency or situation that could not have been
predicted when formulating the budget request for the current
fiscal year. When the Department submits a reprogramming or
transfer request to the Committees on Appropriations and does
not receive identical responses from the House and Senate, it
is the responsibility of the Department to reconcile the House
and Senate differences before proceeding, and if reconciliation
is not possible, to consider the reprogramming or transfer
request not approved.
The Department is not to submit a reprogramming or transfer
of funds after June 30 except in extraordinary circumstances,
which imminently threaten the safety of human life or the
protection of property. If a reprogramming or transfer is
needed after June 30, the notice should contain sufficient
documentation as to why it meets this statutory exception.
A new subsection (e), added in the fiscal year 2011 year-
long continuing resolution, is also added to ensure funds that
are deobligated by the Department are also subject to the
reprogramming and transfer guidelines and requirements set
forth in this section.
Section 504. The Committee continues a provision that
prohibits funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the
Department to make payment to the Department's Working Capital
Fund, except for activities and amounts allowed in the
President's fiscal year 2012 request. Funds provided to the WCF
are available until expended. The Department can only charge
components for direct usage of the WCF and these funds may be
used only for the purposes consistent with the contributing
component. Any funds paid in advance or reimbursed must reflect
the full cost of each service. The WCF shall be subject to the
requirements of section 503 of this Act.
Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing
that not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining
at the end of fiscal year 2012 from appropriations made for
salaries and expenses shall remain available through fiscal
year 2013 subject to section 503 reprogramming guidelines.
Section 506. The Committee continues a provision providing
that funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be
specifically authorized during fiscal year 2012 until the
enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for
fiscal year 2012.
Section 507. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision requiring notification of the Committees on
Appropriations three days before grant allocations, grant
awards, contract awards, other transactional agreements,
letters of intent, or task or delivery orders on a multiple
contract award totaling $1,000,000 or more, or a task order
greater than $25,000,000 from multi-year funds, are announced
by the Department, including contracts covered by the Federal
Acquisition Regulation. The Department is required to brief the
Committees on Appropriations five full business days prior to
announcing the intention to make a grant under State and Local
Programs. Notification shall include a description of the
project or projects to be funded, including city, county, and
State.
Section 508. The Committee continues a provision providing
that no agency shall purchase, construct, or lease additional
facilities for Federal law enforcement training without advance
approval of the Committees on Appropriations.
Section 509. The Committee continues a provision providing
that none of the funds may be used for any construction,
repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a
prospectus, if required under chapter 33 of title 40, United
States Code, has not been approved.
Section 510. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision that consolidates by reference prior year statutory
bill language into one provision. These provisions relate to
contracting officer's technical representative training;
sensitive security information; and the use of funds in
conformance with section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Section 511. The Committee continues a provision that none
of the funds may be used in contravention of the Buy American
Act.
Section 512. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision on reporting requirements of the Privacy Officer.
Section 513. The Committee continues a provision regarding
the oath of allegiance required by section 337 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act.
Section 514. The Committee continues a provision regarding
the USCIS workforce.
Section 515. The Committee continues a provision requiring
the Chief Financial Officer to submit monthly budget execution
and staffing reports within 45 days after the close of each
month.
Section 516. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision that directs that any funds appropriated or
transferred to TSA ``Aviation Security'', ``Administration'',
and ``Transportation Security Support'' in fiscal years 2004,
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, which are recovered or
deobligated, shall be available only for procurement and
installation of explosive detection systems for air cargo,
baggage, and checkpoint screening systems, subject to
notification. The Committee also requires quarterly reports on
recovered or deobligated funds.
Section 517. The Committee continues a provision requiring
any funds appropriated to the Coast Guard's 110-123 foot patrol
boat conversion that are recovered, collected, or otherwise
received as a result of negotiation, mediation, or litigation,
shall be available until expended for the Fast Response Cutter
program.
Section 518. The Committee continues a provision relating
to undercover investigative operations authority of the United
States Secret Service for fiscal year 2012.
Section 519. The Committee continues a provision
classifying the functions of the instructor staff at the FLETC
as inherently governmental for purposes of the Federal
Activities Inventory Reform Act.
Section 520. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the obligation of funds to the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management, the Office of the Under
Secretary for Management, and the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer for grants or contracts awarded by any means other than
full and open competition. Certain exceptions apply, and this
provision does not require new competitions of existing
contracts during their current terms. The bill also requires
the Inspector General to review Departmental contracts awarded
noncompetitively and report on the results to the Committees.
Section 521. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision that prohibits funding for any position designated as
a Principal Federal Official during a Stafford Act declared
disaster or emergency.
Section 522. The Committee continues a provision regarding
the enforcement of Section 4025(1) of Public Law 108-458.
Section 523. The Committee continues a provision that
precludes DHS from using funds in this Act to carry out
reorganization authority. This prohibition is not intended to
prevent the Department from carrying out routine or small
reallocations of personnel or functions within components,
subject to Section 503 of this Act. This language prevents
large scale reorganization of the Department, which the
Committee believes should be acted on statutorily by the
relevant Congressional committees of jurisdiction.
Section 524. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting funding to grant an immigration benefit to any
individual unless the results of background checks required in
statute, to be completed prior to the grant of the benefit,
have been received by DHS.
Section 525. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting use of funds to destroy or put out to pasture any
horse or other equine belonging to the Federal government
unless adoption has been offered first.
Section 526. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision relating to other transactional authority of the DHS
through fiscal year 2012.
Section 527. The Committee continues a provision that
requires the Secretary to link all contracts that provide award
fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
Section 528. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the obligation of funds for the Office of Secretary
and Executive Management for any new hires at DHS if they are
not verified through the E-Verify program.
Section 529. The Committee continues a provision related to
prescription drugs.
Section 530. The Committee continues a provision requiring
the Secretary, in conjunction with the Secretary of Treasury,
to notify the Committees of any proposed transfers from the
Department of Treasury Forfeiture Fund to any agency within
DHS. No funds may be obligated until the Subcommittees approve
the proposed transfers.
Section 531. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting funds for planning, testing, piloting, or
developing a national identification card.
Section 532. The Committee continues a provision requiring
the Assistant Secretary of TSA to certify that no security
risks will result if an airport does not participate in the E-
Verify program.
Section 533. The Committee continues a provision that
requires a report summarizing damage assessment information
used to determine whether to declare a major disaster.
Section 534. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision relating to the liquidation of Plum Island assets and
how the proceeds from this sale may be applied to construction
costs of the new National Bio and Agro-defense Facility.
Section 535. The Committee continues a provision directing
that any official required by this Act to report or certify to
the Committees on Appropriations may not delegate any authority
unless expressly authorized to do so in this Act.
Section 536. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision that extends the date of the chemical security
program.
Section 537. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision prohibiting the use of funds for the transfer or
release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Section 538. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting funds in this Act to be used for first-class
travel.
Section 539. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting funds in this Act to be used for adverse personnel
actions for employees who use protective equipment or measures,
including surgical masks, N95 respirators, gloves, or hand-
sanitizers in the conduct of their official duties.
Section 540. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting funds to be used to employ illegal workers as
described in Section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act.
Section 541. The Committee continues and modifies a
provision on the proper disposal of personal information
collected through the Registered Traveler program. A report on
procedures and status is required to be submitted 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 542. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made available by
this Act to pay for award or incentive fees for contractors
with below satisfactory performance or performance that fails
to meet the basic requirements of the contract.
Section 543. The Committee includes a new provision that
requires the Assistant Secretary of TSA to submit biannual
reports on how the agency will meet the requirement to screen
100 percent of air cargo transportation on passenger aircraft
arriving in the United States. TSA has indicated they will not
be able to meet the 9/11 Act deadline for this subset of air
cargo.
Section 544. The Committee includes a new provision that
requires any new processes developed to screen aviation
passengers and crews for transportation or national security to
consider privacy and civil liberties, consistent with
applicable laws, regulations, and guidance.
Section 545. The Committee includes a new provision that
extends the National Flood Insurance program until September
30, 2012.
Section 546. The Committee includes a new provision that
makes deposits into the Immigration Examinations Fee Account
available to USCIS for the purposes of immigrant integration
grants, not to exceed $8,500,000, in fiscal year 2012.
Section 547. The Committee includes a new provision that
provides guidelines, including controls and reporting
requirements, for any transfer of funds from appropriations for
fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 to CBP, Border Security
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology account for the
purposes of environmental mitigation to the Department of
Interior.
Section 548. The Committee includes a new provision that
rescinds funds from ICE, Salaries and Expenses from Violent
Crime Reduction Programs.
Section 549. The Committee includes a new provision that
rescinds unobligated balances from ICE, Construction.
TITLE VI--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR DISASTER RELIEF
(INCLUDING RESCISSION AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Section 601. The Committee includes a new provision
providing supplemental funding for disaster relief upon
enactment of this Act and rescinding and transferring funds to
offset the supplemental funding.
TITLE VII--SPENDING REDUCTION ACCOUNT
Section 701. The Committee includes a new provision that
prohibits new budget authority from exceeding budget allocation
in fiscal year 2012.
APPROPRIATIONS CAN BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH MADE
Title 31 of the United States Code makes clear that
appropriations can be used only for the purposes for which they
were appropriated as follows:
Section 1301. Application.
(a) Appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for
which the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided
by law.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS
The following items are included in accordance with various
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure
authorizes funding:
The Committee on Appropriations considers program
performance, including a program's success in developing and
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing
funding recommendations.
RESCISSION OF FUNDS
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying
bill:
Account/Activity Rescissions
ICE--Salaries and Expenses.............................. $20,997,000
Violent Crime Reduction Programs........................ $595,000
ICE--Construction....................................... $11,300,000
Department of Energy, Section 129 of Public Law 110-329. $500,000,000
TRANSFER OF FUNDS
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2), rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is submitted describing
the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
The table shows, by title, department, and agency, the
appropriations affected by such transfers:
Appropriation Transfers Recommended in the Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account from which transfer
Account to which transfer is to be made Amount is to be made Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Inspector General................ $16,000,000 FEMA--Disaster Relief Fund... $16,000,000
FEMA--Management and Administration........ $100,000,000 FEMA--State and Local $100,000,000
Programs.
FEMA--Management and Administration........ $105,600,000 FEMA--Disaster Relief Fund... $105,600,000
FEMA--Disaster Relief...................... $1,000,000,000 Department of Energy, Section $1,000,000,000
129 of Public Law 110-329.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS
Neither the bill nor the report contains any Congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as
defined in clause 9 of rule XXI.
Compliance With Rule XIII, Cl. 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 1202 OF THE 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FURTHER
RECOVERY FROM AND RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES
(Public Law 107-206)
Sec. 1202. (a) The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
may, for a period ending not later than December 31, [2012]
2014, appoint and maintain a cadre of up to 350 Federal
annuitants: (1) without regard to any provision of title 5,
United States Code, which might otherwise require the
application of competitive hiring procedures; and (2) who shall
not be subject to any reduction in pay (for annuity allocable
to the period of actual employment) under the provisions of
section 8344 or 8468 of such title 5 or similar provision of
any other retirement system for employees. A reemployed Federal
annuitant as to whom a waiver of reduction under paragraph (2)
applies shall not, for any period during which such waiver is
in effect, be considered an employee for purposes of subchapter
III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code,
or such other retirement system (referred to in paragraph (2))
as may apply.
* * * * * * *
----------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007
(Public Law 109-295)
* * * * * * *
TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 532. (a) United States Secret Service Use of Proceeds
Derived From Criminal Investigations.--During fiscal year
[2010] 2012, with respect to any undercover investigative
operation of the United States Secret Service (hereafter
referred to in this section as the ``Secret Service'') that is
necessary for the detection and prosecution of crimes against
the United States--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 550. (a) * * *
(b) Interim regulations issued under this section shall apply
until the effective date of interim or final regulations
promulgated under other laws that establish requirements and
standards referred to in subsection (a) and expressly supersede
this section: Provided, That the authority provided by this
section shall terminate on October 4, [2011] 2012.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 831 OF THE HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002
SEC. 831. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
(a) Authority.--Until September 30, [2011] 2012, and subject
to subsection (d), the Secretary may carry out a pilot program
under which the Secretary may exercise the following
authorities:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Additional Requirements.--
(1) In general.--The authority of the Secretary under
this section shall terminate September 30, [2011] 2012,
unless before that date the Secretary--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE ACT OF 1968
TITLE XIII--NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
SHORT TITLE
Sec. 1301. This title may be cited as the ``National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968''.
* * * * * * *
FINANCING
Sec. 1309. (a) All authority which was vested in the Housing
and Home Finance Administrator by virtue of section 15(e) of
the Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 1084)
(pertaining to the issue of notes or other obligations or the
Secretary of the Treasury), as amended by subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1303 of this Act, shall be available to the
Director for the purpose of carrying out the flood insurance
program under this title; except that the total amount of notes
and obligations which may be issued by the Director pursuant to
such authority (1) without the approval of the President, may
not exceed $500,000,000, and (2) with the approval of the
President, may not exceed $1,500,000,000 through the date
specified in section 1319, and $1,000,000,000 thereafter;
except that, through September 30, [2011] 2012, clause (2) of
this sentence shall be applied by substituting
``$20,725,000,000'' for ``$1,500,000,000''. The Director shall
report to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate at any time when he
requests the approval of the President in accordance with the
preceding sentence.
* * * * * * *
PROGRAM EXPIRATION
Sec. 1319. No new contract for flood insurance under this
title shall be entered into after September 30, [2011] 2012.
* * * * * * *
COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(F)(1)(A)
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee has inserted at the
appropriate place in the report a description of the effects of
provisions proposed in the accompanying bill which may be
considered, under certain circumstances, to change the
application of existing law, either directly or indirectly.
The bill provides, in some instances, funding of agencies
and activities where legislation has not yet been finalized. In
addition, the bill carries language, in some instances,
permitting activities not authorized by law. Additionally, the
Committee includes a number of general provisions.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management offices,
including funds for official reception and representation
expenses. The Committee also limits the funds available until
certain actions have been taken.
Office of the Under Secretary for Management
The Committee includes language providing funds for
reception and representation expenses; for costs necessary to
consolidate headquarters operations, including tenant
improvements and relocation costs; and for the human resources
information technology program.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Chief Financial Officer.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Chief Information Officer and for the development and
acquisition of information technology equipment, software,
services, and related activities. The Committee also requires
submission of an expenditure plan as well as a multi-year
investment and management plan for projects and activities
funded in this account.
Analysis and Operations
The Committee includes language providing funds for
information analysis and operations coordination activities,
including funding for official representation expenses.
Office of Inspector General
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Office of Inspector General as well as certain confidential
operational expenses, including the payment of informants.
TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The Committee includes language making funds available for
border security, immigration, customs, and agricultural
inspections and regulatory activities; purchase or lease of
vehicles; contracting with individuals for personal services;
Harbor Maintenance Fee collections; official reception and
representation expenses; Customs User Fee collections; payment
of rental space in connection with pre-clearance operations;
and compensation of informants. The Committee includes language
regarding overtime compensation. The Committee also requires
submission of a multi-year investment and management plan for
Inspection and Detection Technology.
AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION
The Committee includes language making funds available for
automated systems. The Committee requires submission of an
expenditure plan for the Automated Commercial Environment and a
multi-year investment and management plan for projects and
activities funded in this account.
BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY
The Committee includes language making funds available for
border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology and
includes language limiting the funds available until a detailed
expenditure plan is submitted. In addition, the Committee
requires submission of a multi-year investment and management
plan for funds provided in this account.
AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND PROCUREMENT
The Committee includes language making funds available for
the operations, maintenance, and procurement of marine vessels,
aircraft, unmanned aircraft systems, and other equipment;
travel; and assistance to other law enforcement agencies and
humanitarian efforts. The Committee includes language
prohibiting the transfer of aircraft and related equipment out
of Customs and Border Protection unless certain conditions are
met. In addition, the Committee requires submission of an
updated five-year strategic plan for air and marine operations.
CONSTRUCTION AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The Committee includes language making funds available for
the planning, acquisition, construction, renovating, equipping,
and maintaining of buildings and facilities. In addition,
language is included requiring an expenditure plan, as well as
a real property inventory and construction plan.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The Committee includes language making funds available to
conduct investigations of criminal violations of Federal law
relating to border security, customs and trade, immigration and
naturalization, and travel and transportation; and for the
civil enforcement of the immigration and customs laws,
including the detention and removal of immigration status
violators; special operations; official reception and
representation expenses; compensation to informants; and
reimbursement of other Federal agencies for certain costs. The
Committee includes language regarding overtime compensation and
forced child labor laws, as well as a minimum number of
detention bed spaces that must be maintained. The Committee
also includes language that requires the Secretary to identify
illegal aliens who have been convicted of a crime or who pose a
serious risk to public safety or national security who are
eligible for removal. The Committee prohibits the delegation of
law enforcement authority for the 287(g) program if terms of
the agreement have been violated. The Committee prohibits funds
to continue any contract for detention services if two recent
evaluations are less than adequate.
AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION
The Committee includes language making funds available for
automated systems. The Committee requires submission of a
multi-year investment and management plan for projects and
activities funded in this account.
Transportation Security Administration
AVIATION SECURITY
The Committee includes language making funds available for
civil aviation security and establishes conditions under which
security fees are collected and credited. The Committee also
includes language providing funds for reception and
representation expenses. The Committee limits staffing to
46,000 full-time equivalent screeners, not including part-time
hires, and requires a report on advanced technology and
staffing deployment. Finally, the bill includes language
clarifying a variety of people are not exempt from screening.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
The Committee includes language providing funds for surface
transportation security programs of the Transportation Security
Administration.
TRANSPORTATION THREAT ASSESSMENT AND CREDENTIALING
The Committee includes language providing funds for
screening programs.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT
The Committee includes language providing funds for TSA's
transportation security support and intelligence programs. The
Committee includes language requiring the submission of
detailed expenditure plans for air cargo, checkpoint support
systems, and explosive detection systems refurbishment,
procurement, and installation.
FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Federal Air Marshals.
Coast Guard
OPERATING EXPENSES
The Committee includes a provision regarding passenger
motor vehicles, small boats, repairs and service life-
replacements, minor shore construction projects, recreation and
welfare, and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The Committee
also includes language on reception and representation expenses
and on reporting sexual assaults. The Committee withholds
funding for the Headquarters Directorate until certain
conditions have been met.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION
The Committee includes language providing funds for
environmental compliance and restoration of the Coast Guard and
directs the inclusion of costs associated with backlogged
projects be included in the annual budget submission.
RESERVE TRAINING
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Coast Guard reserve, including maintenance and operation of the
reserve program, personnel and training costs, and equipment
and services.
ACQUISITIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS
The Committee includes language providing for funds for the
Coast Guard acquisition, construction, renovation, and
improvement of aids to navigation, shore facilities, housing,
vessels, and aircraft as well as for maintenance,
rehabilitation, lease, and operations of facilities and
equipment. The Committee includes a provision requiring a
capital investment plan for future appropriations years with
certain conditions.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
The Committee includes language providing funds for applied
scientific research, development, test, and evaluation; and for
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of facilities
and equipment. The Committee includes language allowing funds
to remain available until expended; authorizing funds to be
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; and
authorizing funds received from State and local governments,
other public authorities, private sources, and foreign
countries to be credited to this account and used for certain
purposes. The Committee includes a provision requiring a
detailed spend plan be submitted with the annual budget
submission.
RETIRED PAY
The Committee includes language providing funds for retired
pay and medical care for the Coast Guard's retired personnel
and their dependents and makes these funds available until
expended.
United States Secret Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The Committee includes language that provides funds for the
purchase and replacement of vehicles; the hire of aircraft;
purchase of motorcycles; services of expert witnesses as may be
necessary; rental of certain buildings; improvements to
buildings as may be necessary for protective missions; per diem
and subsistence allowances; firearms matches; presentation of
awards; protective travel; research and development; grants for
behavioral research; official reception and representation
expenses; technical assistance and equipment to foreign law
enforcement organizations; advance payment for commercial
accommodations; and uniforms. The Committee provides for two-
year availability of funds for protective travel. The Committee
authorizes the obligation of funds in anticipation of
reimbursements for training, under certain conditions. The
Committee also restricts the obligation of funds to compensate
employees for overtime in an annual amount in excess of $35,000
except under certain conditions. Finally the Committee
prohibits funds to be available for the protection of the head
of a Federal agency other than the Secretary of Homeland
Security unless the Secret Service has entered into a
reimbursable agreement.
Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
acquisition, construction, improvement, and related expenses of
Secret Service facilities.
TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY
National Protection and Programs Directorate
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
The Committee includes language providing funds for the
Office of the Under Secretary for National Protection and
Programs Directorate as well as to support business operations,
information technology, and risk management. The Committee also
includes language providing funds for official reception and
representation expenses.
INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY
The Committee includes language making funds available
until September 30, 2012. The Committee limits the amount of
funds available for obligation for cyber security activities
and infrastructure protection until an expenditure plan is
provided. In addition, the Committee includes language
requiring a multi-year investment and management plan.
FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE
The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended for the operations of the Federal Protective
Service.
UNITED STATES VISITOR AND IMMIGRANT STATUS INDICATOR TECHNOLOGY
The Committee includes language making funds available for
the US-VISIT program and includes language requiring the
submission of an expenditure plan as well as a multi-year
investment and management plan.
Office of Health Affairs
The Committee includes language making funds available for
health affairs, biosurveillance, BioWatch, medical readiness
planning, and chemical response. The Committee also includes
language providing funds for official reception and
representation expenses. In addition, the Committee includes
language requiring the submission of an expenditure plan.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
The Committee includes language that provides funds for
management and administration. The Committee also includes a
provision providing funds for reception and representation
expenses, a provision limiting administrative costs for Urban
Search and Rescue Teams, funding for the Office of the National
Capital Region Coordinator and Mount Weather, a provision
directing the budget be detailed by office, a provision that
the Governors of the State of West Virginia and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania be incorporated into the efforts
to integrate the activities within the National Capital Region,
and a provision that requires an expenditure plan be submitted.
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS
The Committee includes language that provides funds for
grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, other activities,
including grants to State and local governments for terrorism
prevention. The Committee also includes a provision identifying
the amount of funds available for Operation Stonegarden and for
National Programs. The Committee includes language specifying
the conditions under which both applications and grants are
made to certain grants made in the Act. The Committee also
includes language specifying the conditions for distribution of
certain grants. The Committee includes a provision that limits
the distribution of urban area grants to the top 10, highest-
risk urban areas, a provision allowing for a transfer to FEMA
Management and Administration, a provision providing for the
submission of an expenditure plan, and a provision directing
the submission of a plan to expend all unexpended balances.
FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS
The Committee includes language that not to exceed 10
percent of the total is available for program administration
and requires an expenditure plan for program administration.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS
The Committee includes language providing that 10 percent
of the total appropriation is available for program
administration.
RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM
The Committee includes a provision regarding charges
assessed for the radiological emergency preparedness program,
including conditions and methodology for the assessment and
collection of fees.
UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION
The Committee includes language that provides funds for
expenses of the U.S. Fire Administration.
DISASTER RELIEF
The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended and requires a variety of reporting
requirements.
DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The Committee includes a provision limiting gross
obligations for direct loans; includes a provision regarding
the cost of modifying loans; and provides for administrative
expenses of the direct loan program.
FLOOD HAZARD MAPPING AND RISK ANALYSIS
The Committee includes provisions regarding non-Federal
sums for cost-shared mapping activities and limiting total
administrative costs to three percent of the total
appropriation. The Committee also includes language making
funds available until expended.
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND
The Committee includes language limiting funds available
for salaries and expenses and language making funds available
for flood hazard mitigation floodplain management available
until September 30, 2012. The Committee includes provisions
limiting operating expenses; for interest on Treasury
borrowings; for agents' commissions and taxes; for fees
collected and available for floodplain management; and for
flood mitigation activities associated with sections of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The Committee includes
language permitting additional fees collected be credited as an
offsetting collection and available for floodplain management.
The Committee includes language providing that not to exceed
four percent of the total appropriation is available for
administrative costs.
NATIONAL PREDISASTER MITIGATION FUND
The Committee includes language authorizing grant awards to
be available until expended. The Committee includes a provision
limiting total administrative costs to three percent of the
total appropriation.
EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER
The Committee includes language making funds available
until expended and limiting total administrative costs to 3.5
percent of the total appropriation.
TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
The Committee includes language making funds available for
citizenship and immigration services, specifically for the E-
Verify program and Systematic Alien Verification for
Entitlements, as well as permitting replacement of vehicles.
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The Committee includes language making funds available for
official representation expenses; purchase of police-type
pursuit vehicles; student athletic and related recreational
activities; conducting and participating in firearms matches;
public awareness and community support; marketing; room and
board; services; services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; law
enforcement accreditation; and reimbursements for certain
mobile phone expenses. The Committee includes language
authorizing the training of certain law enforcement personnel,
authorizing the use of appropriations and reimbursements for
such training, and establishing a cap on total obligations. The
Committee also includes language authorizing funds for the
compensation of accreditation costs for participating agencies,
authorizing the hiring of retired Federal employees until 2012,
and on the scheduling of basic or advanced law enforcement
training.
ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED EXPENSES
The Committee includes language making funds available for
real property and facilities and authorizes reimbursement from
government agencies requesting construction of special use
facilities.
Science and Technology
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
The Committee includes language providing funds for
management and administration as well as official reception and
representation expenses.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION AND OPERATIONS
The Committee includes language making funds available for
research, development, test and evaluation; acquisition;
operations, and for the purchase or lease of vehicles.
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
The Committee includes language that provides funds for
management and administration. The Committee also includes a
provision providing funds for reception and representation
expenses.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS
The Committee includes language making funds available for
nuclear detection research, development, testing, and
evaluation.
SYSTEMS ACQUISITION
The Committee includes language making funds available for
the purchase and deployment of radiation detection equipment.
The Committee limits the full-scale procurement of certain
types of these systems until the Secretary certifies a
significant increase in operational effectiveness among other
requirements.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Language limiting the availability of any appropriation for
obligation beyond the current year unless expressly provided.
Language permitting unexpended balances of prior
appropriations to be merged with new appropriation accounts and
used for the same purpose, subject to reprogramming guidelines.
Language providing reprogramming authority for funds within
an account and limiting the percent that can be transferred
between appropriations accounts with the requirement for a 15-
day advance Congressional notification. A detailed funding
table identifying each Congressional control level for
reprogramming purposes is included at the end of this Report.
These reprogramming guidelines shall be complied with by all
agencies funded by the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2012, for obligation and deobligation of
funds.
Language prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department to make payment to the Working
Capital Fund (WCF), except for activities and amounts allowed
in the President's fiscal year 2012 request. Funds provided to
the WCF are available until expended. The Department can only
charge components for direct usage of the WCF and these funds
may be used only for the purposes consistent with the
contributing component. Any funds paid in advance or reimbursed
must reflect the full cost of each service. The WCF shall be
subject to the requirements of section 503 of this Act.
Language providing that not to exceed 50 percent of
unobligated balances remaining at the end of fiscal year 2011
from appropriations made for salaries and expenses remain
available through fiscal year 2012 subject to reprogramming
guidelines.
Language providing that funds for intelligence activities
are deemed to be specifically authorized during fiscal year
2012 until the enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence
activities for fiscal year 2012.
Language requiring notification of the Committees on
Appropriations three days before grant allocations, grant
awards, contract awards, other transactional agreements, letter
of intents, or task or delivery order on a multiple contract
award totaling $1,000,000 or more, or a task order greater than
$25,000,000 from multi-year funds, is announced by the
Department, including contracts covered by the Federal
Acquisition Regulation. The Department is required to brief the
Committees on Appropriations five full day business days prior
to announcing the intention to make a grant under State and
Local Programs. Notification shall include a description of the
project or projects to be funded, including city, county, and
State.
Language prohibiting any agency from purchasing,
constructing, or leasing additional facilities for Federal law
enforcement training without advance approval of the Committees
on Appropriations.
Language prohibiting funds to be used for any construction,
repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a
prospectus, if required under chapter 33 of title 40, United
States Code, has not been approved.
Language consolidating, by reference, prior year statutory
bill language into one provision. These provisions relate to
contracting officer's technical representative training;
sensitive security information; and the use of funds in
conformance with Section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Language prohibiting funds being used in contravention of
the Buy American Act.
Language on reporting requirements for the DHS Privacy
Officer.
Language maintaining the use of the current oath of
allegiance required by Section 337 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act.
Language addressing the USCIS workforce.
Language directing TSA to work with air carriers and
airports to ensure the screening of cargo carried on passenger
aircraft, as required by the 9/11 Act, increases incrementally
each quarter, and the submission of an air cargo inspection
statistics report detailing how incremental progress is being
made to the Committees within 45 days of the end of each
quarter of the fiscal year.
Language requiring the Chief Financial Officer to submit
monthly budget execution and staffing reports within 45 days
after the close of each month.
Language directing that any funds appropriated or
transferred to TSA ``Aviation Security'', ``Administration'',
and ``Transportation Security Support'' in fiscal years 2004,
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, which are recovered or
deobligated, shall be available only for procurement and
installation of explosive detection systems for air cargo,
baggage, and checkpoint screening systems, subject to
notification. The Committee also requires quarterly reports on
recovered or deobligated funds.
Language requiring any funds appropriated to the Coast
Guard's 110-123 foot patrol boat conversion that are recovered,
collected, or otherwise received as a result of negotiation,
mediation, or litigation, be available until expended for the
Fast Response Cutter program.
Language relating to undercover investigative operations
authority of the Secret Service for fiscal year 2012.
Language classifying the functions of the instructor staff
at FLETC as inherently governmental for purposes of the Federal
Activities Inventory Reform Act.
Language prohibiting the obligation of funds to the Office
of the Secretary and Executive Management, the Office of the
Under Secretary for Management, and the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer for grants or contracts awarded by any means
other than full and open competition. Certain exceptions apply.
This provision does not require new competitions of existing
contracts during their current terms. The bill also requires
the Inspector General to review Departmental contracts awarded
noncompetitively and report on the results to the Committees.
Language prohibiting funding for any position designated as
a Principal Federal Official during a Stafford Act declared
disaster or emergency.
Language regarding the enforcement of Section 4025(1) of
Public Law 108-458 pertaining to butane lighters.
Language precluding DHS from using funds in this Act to
carry out reorganization authority.
Language prohibiting funding to grant an immigration
benefit to any individual unless the results of background
checks required in statute be completed prior to the grant of
the benefit have been received by DHS.
Language prohibiting use of funds to destroy or put out to
pasture any horse or other equine belonging to the Federal
government unless adoption has been offered first.
Language relating the use of other transactional authority
by DHS through fiscal year 2012.
Language requiring the Secretary to link all contracts that
provide award fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
Language prohibiting the obligation of funds for the Office
of Secretary and Executive Management for any new hires at DHS
if they are not verified through E-Verify.
Language related to prescription drugs.
Language requiring the Secretary, in conjunction with the
Secretary of Treasury, to notify the Committees of any proposed
transfers from the Department of Treasury Forfeiture Fund to
any agency within DHS. No funds may be obligated until the
Subcommittees approve the proposed transfers.
Language prohibiting funds for the planning, testing,
piloting, or developing a national identification card.
Language requiring the Assistant Secretary of TSA to
certify that no security risks will result if an airport does
not participate in the E-Verify program.
Language requiring a report summarizing damage assessment
information used to determine whether to declare a major
disaster.
Language relating to the liquidation of Plum Island assets
and how the proceeds from this sale may be applied to
construction costs of the new National Bio and Agro-defense
Facility.
Language directing that any official required by this Act
to report or certify to the Committees on Appropriations may
not delegate any authority unless expressly authorized to do so
in this Act.
Language extending the date of the chemical security
program.
Language prohibiting the use of funds for the transfer or
release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Language prohibiting funds in this Act to be used for
first-class travel.
Language prohibiting funds in this Act to be used for
adverse personnel actions for employees who use protective
equipment or measures, including surgical masks, N95
respirators, gloves, or hand-sanitizers in the conduct of their
official duties.
Language prohibiting funds to be used to employ illegal
workers as described in Section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act.
Language on the proper disposal of personal information
collected through the Registered Traveler program. A report on
procedures and status is required to be submitted 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.
Language prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act to pay for award or incentive fees for
contractors with below satisfactory performance or performance
that fails to meet the basic requirements of the contract.
Language requiring the Assistant Secretary of TSA to submit
biannual reports on how the agency will meet the requirement to
screen 100 percent of air cargo transportation on passenger
aircraft arriving in the United States since TSA has indicated
that they will not be able to meet the 9/11 Act deadline for
this subset of air cargo.
Language requiring any new processes developed to screen
aviation passengers and crews for transportation or national
security to consider privacy and civil liberties, consistent
with applicable laws, regulations, and guidance.
Language extending the National Flood Insurance program
until September 30, 2012.
Language making immigration examination fee collections
explicitly available for immigrant integration grants, not to
exceed $8,500,000, in fiscal year 2012.
Language permitting funds in the Border Security Fencing,
Infrastructure, and Technology account to be transferred for
the purposes of environmental mitigation to the Department of
the Interior, under strict controls and with reporting
requirements.
Language rescinding unobligated balances from ICE Salaries
and Expenses and from Violent Crime Reduction programs.
Language rescinding unobligated balances from ICE
Construction.
TITLE VI--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR DISASTER RELIEF
(INCLUDING RESCISSION AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Language providing supplemental funding for disaster relief
upon enactment of this Act and rescinding and transferring
funds to offset the supplemental funding.
TITLE VII--SPENDING REDUCTION ACCOUNT
Language prohibiting new budget authority from exceeding
the budget allocation in fiscal year 2012.
APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations
in the accompanying bill that are not authorized by law:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION
Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act
requires the report accompanying a bill providing new budget
authority to contain a statement comparing the levels in the
bill to the suballocations submitted under section 302(b) of
the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution
on the budget for the applicable fiscal year. That information
is provided in the table headed ``Comparison of Reported Bill
to Section 302(b) Suballocation.''
BUDGETARY IMPACT
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) allocation This bill\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Buget
authority Outlays authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
allocations to its subcommittees of amounts in
the First Concurrent Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act, 2012
General purpose discretionary................... 40,592 45,107 40,592 \1\45,107
Global war on terrorism......................... 258 206 258 206
Mandatory....................................... 1,440 1,402 1,440 1,402
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior year budget authority
FIVE YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS
In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, the following table contains five-year projections
associated with the budget authority provided in the
accompanying bill:
[In millions of dollars]
Projection of outlays associated with the
recommendation:
2012................................................ \2\26,896
2013................................................ 7,648
2014................................................ 3,717
2015................................................ 1,263
2016 and future years............................... 1,256
\2\Excludes outlays from prior year budget authority.
ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, the financial assistance to state and local
governments is as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Budget Authority........................................ 2,593
Outlays................................................. \3\197
\3\Excludes outlays from prior year budget authority.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
Pursuant to section 6(e) of the rules of the Committee on
Appropriations, the following statement is submitted regarding
the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to
enact the accompanying bill.
The principal constitutional authority for this
legislation is clause 7 of section 9 of article I of
the Constitution of the United States (the
appropriation power), which states: ``No Money shall be
drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law . . .'' In addition, clause
1 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution (the
spending power) provides: ``The Congress shall have the
Power . . . . to pay the Debts and provide for the
common Defence and general welfare of the United States
. . .'' Together, these specific constitutional
provisions establish the congressional power of the
purse, granting Congress the authority to appropriate
funds, to determine their purpose, amount, and period
of availability and to set forth terms and conditions
governing their use.
DETAILED EXPLANATIONS IN REPORT
The following table contains detailed funding
recommendations at the program, project, and activity (PPA)
level. Public Law 112-10 (signed into law on April 15, 2011)
required the Department to submit a detailed fiscal year 2011
expenditure plan by program, project, and activity no later
than May 9, 2011. Because the Department and the Committee
continued to reconcile discrepancies on this expenditure plan
days before both the Subcommittee and Full Committee markups of
this fiscal year 2012 bill, the following table does not
include fiscal year 2011 enacted funding per PPA. Subsequent
technical adjustments to funding comparisons between the
recommended and enacted funding levels may be required.
Furthermore, it should be emphasized again that a more detailed
statement describing the effect of the above provisions
inserted by the Committee that directly or indirectly change
the application of existing law may be found at the appropriate
place in this report.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
MINORITY VIEWS
As we approach the ten-year anniversary of the September
11th terrorist attack, there is no doubt that America is better
prepared than before to counter and respond to a terrorist
attack. Yet, it is equally clear that this threat has not
diminished. Over the past 18 months, we have seen numerous
attempts to attack our homeland, including efforts from
homegrown terrorists as well as from persons who would not have
been flagged for further scrutiny before being permitted to
come to the United States. The Christmas Day, 2009, bombing
attempt of a Northwest Airlines flight over Detroit, the Times
Square bombing attempt in May 2010, and the Yemen air cargo
plot are notable examples of this persistent threat.
Additionally, after the death of Osama bin Laden, media sources
reported that Al Qaeda may have been attempting a major attack
on U.S. rail systems. Each of these threats must be dealt with
by the programs and activities funded in this bill.
Unfortunately, the funding levels contained herein do not
adequately address these threats.
Concerns with the Bill: Budget Allocation
For the second year in a row, overall funding for the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will drop. With a 302(b)
allocation for DHS in FY 2012 of $40.592 billion, the
Republican majority is essentially returning DHS discretionary
funding to the 2009 level.
The bill adopted by the Full Committee is 2.6 percent, or
$1.071 billion, below the 2011 enacted level of $41.661
billion, which is already below the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level. And the bill is 6.8 percent, or $1.984 billion, below
the President's budget request of $43.576 billion. While this
bill provides adequate funding for the front line employees of
the Department of Homeland Security to continue to conduct
critical operations along our borders, protect our nation's
airports and seaports, and respond to the spate of natural
disasters our country has experienced this spring, it severely
shortchanges our State and local partners who will be the first
responders to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other
major emergencies. It also decimates the Department's research
efforts on cyber security and other developing threats.
Beginning with the 2011 Appropriation, which included
reduced funding levels to many key State and Local programs,
and now continuing with this 2012 bill, which cuts funding for
State and Local grants and Firefighter Assistance grants by
more than half from 2011, this compounded reduction in funding
breaks faith with our responder community. These reductions
come for two reasons: a paltry 302(b) allocation for the
homeland security bill resulting from an entirely inadequate
discretionary spending cap established in the Republican Budget
Resolution, and the decision to increase funding for the
Disaster Relief Fund by $850 million without emergency
designation, which was not requested, even though the
Administration is well aware of at least $6 billion in disaster
commitments it must pay out shortly. (These Disaster Relief
commitments do not reflect the new disaster costs incurred with
the tornados and flooding this spring.) Traditionally, a
Disaster Relief shortfall has been met through emergency
supplemental appropriations, as shown when the Full Committee
adopted a $1 billion dollar emergency supplemental for disaster
costs anticipated for the remainder of 2011. Chairman Rogers
has indicated that he expects to pass another supplemental
later this year to deal with the costs that will be incurred in
2012 from these same disasters. Yet even with a $1 billion
increase for 2011 needs and an impending supplemental disaster
appropriation for 2012, this bill still includes funding for
Disaster Relief at a higher than requested level. This requires
deeper cuts to critical programs than would be required by the
paltry allocation itself. Unfortunately, state and local first
responder grants received the brunt of this blow, taking a
fifty percent reduction overall. Not only does this adversely
impact efforts at the state and local level to improve
preparedness for natural disasters and terrorist attacks, but
it does so at a time when state and local budgets are already
contracting, making this funding all the more vital.
Breaking Faith with the First Responders
The bill adopted by the Full Committee cuts FEMA State and
Local programs by a staggering 55 percent below the enacted
level and 70 percent below fiscal year 2010. Similarly, the
bill cuts 57 percent from Firefighter Assistance as grants
compared to 2010 and 2011. With the threat of terrorism still
looming large and with the seemingly incessant onslaught of
natural disasters across the country, these cuts break faith
with the states and localities that depend on us as partners to
secure our communities. Similarly, the cuts to firefighters
ignore key investments needed to maintain the basic response
capacity in our communities. According to the International
Association of Firefighters, 1,600 firefighters will lose their
jobs if the cuts in this bill are enacted. These cuts will be
doubly disruptive as many of our states and municipalities are
being forced to slash their own budgets as the effects of the
recession linger.
Further the bill provides a total of $1 billion for all
State and Local Grants, making all-hazard, formula-based State
Homeland Security grants compete against terrorism-based
security grants for high threat, high-risk urban areas, ports,
and transit. But this $1 billion allocation is misleading.
After excluding the statutory set-asides for Operation
Stonegarden of $55,000,000 and for National Programs of
$192,663,000 as well as the 10 percent for administrative
costs, the actual funding that the Secretary can allocate is
$677,103,300. This figure is below what the urban area security
grant program alone received in fiscal year 2011. At this
level, if the Secretary were to provide funding for State
Homeland Security grants, which requires each state and
territory to receive a minimum amount of funding (defined in
statute) as well as a 25 percent requirement for law
enforcement terrorism prevention grants, DHS estimates that
states and territories would receive at least 53.2 percent less
than they will receive in fiscal year 2011. Some states, such
as California and New York, could receive over a 90 percent
reduction if the Secretary did not increase state funding above
the minimums for risk, vulnerability, and consequence.
Plainly put, these decisions are shortsighted, and we
cannot conceive of any defensible argument for cuts of this
magnitude. Chairmen Rogers and Aderholt explained at the Full
Committee markup of this bill that one of the main reasons for
the cut to State and Local grant programs is because the agency
has allowed large pots of money to remain ``unspent.'' While we
concur that the Department has struggled to get those entities
who receive grants to expend the dollars quickly, many of these
funds are tied to longer term construction and acquisition
projects that require multiple stages of review before
construction can begin or reimbursement can occur. We should
also be clear that, by and large, these funds are already
obligated for specific and approved projects, but the money has
not left the Treasury because final receipts for completed work
have not been turned in by the states and localities. Again,
this is largely due to the fact that these efforts to build
local preparedness capacity are long term endeavors and that
the various financial accountability and legal requirements on
the grantees extend the reimbursement schedule longer than
would be ideal. But it is not the case that States and
localities are inundated with federal preparedness funding and
that continued funding is unnecessary, as has been suggested.
On the contrary, vital preparedness efforts will be delayed,
stalled or abandoned in the absence of sufficient follow-on
grant funding combined with shrinking state and local budgets.
Since the Subcommittee markup of this bill, we have heard
repeatedly from numerous entities about the damaging nature of
this decision to only provide $1 billion, in one lump sum, for
all State and Local grants. For example,
Transit agencies will not have funding to hire
additional law enforcement officers, acquire bomb sniffing
dogs, or install explosive screening devices at a time when
open source media reports indicate that Al Qaeda may be
attempting a major attack on the U.S. rail system.
State and localities will receive greatly reduced
funding (or be denied funding entirely) to harden tunnels and
bridges or install surveillance systems at high-risk areas.
Ports will not have funds for vessels to protect
Harbor waterways from a terrorist threat or for maritime
training of law enforcement personnel at the ports.
According to the National Association of Counties,
a reduction in grant programs and the combining of funding will
result in communities of all sizes not being able to enhance
their level of preparedness to deal with all hazards, including
potential nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks.
Cuts of this magnitude will cost jobs and harm the
economy.
We cannot support this diminution in preparedness and so
offered three amendments to restore funding for these critical
grant programs, which were defeated almost exclusively along
party lines. We maintain that more can and should be done to
support our first responders, and we will continue to voice our
support for funding enhancements as the bill progresses to the
floor and in conference with the Senate.
Disaster Relief Reporting Requirements
We expressed strong concerns in Full Committee over a
disturbing, precedent-setting provision in this bill. It would
require the President to submit a budget amendment for
additional disaster relief funding three months before the
balance of available funds reaches $800 million. And it would
require those additional funds to be fully offset from
discretionary budget accounts. Certainly, Democrats as well as
Republicans would like to see less reliance on supplemental
appropriations to fund disaster relief. But when disasters
strike, victims need help, and they need help quickly. We
should not risk delaying disaster relief because of partisan
battles over proposed offsets. Nor should we create a mechanism
that could tie up the relief process because a disaster did not
do us the courtesy of providing three months notice.
Extreme Funding Reductions to Research and Development Activities
Another highly troubling decision is this bill is reducing
the level of funding for research and development activities
within the Science and Technology Directorate by more than
half. The bill approved by the Full Committee provides $398.2
million for Science and Technology's Research, Development,
Acquisition and Operations, 61 percent below the request and 42
percent below 2011. And to complicate matters further, over
half of the appropriated funding is to maintain or construct
laboratory facilities, not even for research activities.
At this level for 2012, S&T would first fund programs at
centers that require an extended time to shutdown, programs
required by law, and work conducted for other Federal agencies.
After meeting these mandatory obligations, the Directorate
would only have $110.4 million remaining for high-priority
Research and Development activities. S&T has informed us that
it would concentrate its remaining resources on aviation
security and explosives detection technologies and on two Apex
projects that S&T has committed to deliver to DHS components in
signed charters. This means that funding for many other
critical research efforts under way on cyber security, disaster
resiliency, and detection of chemical and biological threats,
could not be funded in 2012.
Immigration
While we appreciate the willingness of the Chairman to
continue statutory language on the deportation of criminal
aliens, continued oversight of 287(g) agreements, and funding
increases for both the Secure Communities and Alternatives to
Detention programs, we have serious reservations about other
immigration provisions included in this bill or the
accompanying report.
We strongly oppose inclusion of statutory language
mandating ICE maintain a level of not less than 34,000
detention beds through September 30, 2012, which is 600 more
beds than the budget request included. This language may
obstruct ICE' s ability to satisfy its stated enforcement
priorities and accomplish detention reform. ICE Assistant
Secretary John Morton has stated that he interprets this
language as mandating not only that he maintain 34,000 beds but
that he also fill those beds with detainees on a daily basis.
We have no problem funding the capacity for 33,400 beds, as
requested in the budget ($2,023,827,000); but the use of those
beds should be determined by the enforcement actions of ICE and
the judgment of ICE on whether detention is required for
particular detainees based upon flight risk and danger posed to
the public. Mandating government spending on a pre-set number
of detention spaces is contrary to the government's interest in
reforming the detention system and targeting its use for only
those individuals who require it. And in an environment of
fiscal restraint, Congress should not be telling a federal
agency that it is not permitted to spend less than a certain
amount if the same objective can be achieved at a savings to
the taxpayer. For example, ICE could make greater use of
Alternatives to Detention, where warranted by the circumstances
of the detainee, resulting in significant daily cost savings.
Finally, we are unaware of any other law enforcement agency
that has a requirement to detain no less than a certain number
of individuals in its custody on a daily basis. Normally,
detention level is a consequence of enforcement activity.
We also oppose report language that supports the argument
that Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program costs more than
detention per individual. As ICE's own data shows, ATD is a
very economical alternative to holding a low-risk individual in
detention. Estimates of ATD enrollment have been as low as $7
per day while detention costs on average $122 per day. Also,
ATD has proven to be an effective and low-cost way of ensuring
attendance at immigration hearings without the high cost of
detention. While we are pleased that the bill supports the
requested increase for the ATD program, allowing for 2,500 new
participants, the bill continues to favor the expansion of
penal detention, for which funding has increased by 140
percent, from $842.3 million since 2006, to $2.24 billion in
this bill, thereby reducing the likelihood that ICE will take
full advantage of the cost-saving potential of prison
alternatives.
Citizenship
The bill provides no funding for asylum and refugee
processing and immigrant integration grants, two areas that had
received appropriated funds in the past. This reverses course
on a 2010 decision to fund the processing of asylum seekers and
refuges out of general funds, rather than asking other
immigrant petitioners to pay for a service that they do not
receive through fees. This bill also reverses a policy in
recent years of appropriating funds for immigrant integration
grants. Now, if the Secretary decides to continue this
worthwhile program to promote the integration of new citizens
into the American social fabric, these funds must now be carved
out of the fees paid by persons and businesses applying for
immigration benefits. These grants are used to support
citizenship preparation services for permanent residents;
strengthen citizenship preparation programs that provide direct
services in communities across the country; and increase the
capacity of members or affiliates of national, regional, or
statewide organizations to offer citizenship services in
underserved communities.
Other Reductions to Construction, Information Technology and Automation
Projects
In total, the bill reduces $504,036,000 from the budget
request for construction, information technology, and
automation programs throughout the Department. This includes no
funding to migrate all DHS component resources to two
consolidated data centers, a project that has been under way
for a few years and will reduce the risk of locating all of the
Department's data at one facility or at aging, non-DHS
facilities that are already overloaded. The bill also makes
significant reductions in CBP and Coast Guard facilities
construction, CBP automation and DHS headquarters. These are
shortsighted reductions that eventually could weaken frontline
operations and will cost taxpayers more money in the future.
Of particular concern is the decision to provide no funding
for the new DHS headquarters or for the consolidation of leased
property, a penny-wise and pound-foolish decision. Already,
based on the delay in finalizing the 2011 bill and the reduced
resources provided in that bill for DHS headquarters
construction activities, the cost of the headquarters project
has grown by $200 million, from a total cost of $3.4 billion to
$3.6 billion. The decision to deny an additional $159,643,000
in 2012 to finalize construction of the first phase of the new
headquarters project and begin construction on the second phase
will result in higher costs in the out years and will delay, by
at least one year, when the Coast Guard can move into its new
headquarters facility (phase one), which is already under
construction.
Similarly, the bill does not provide the $55,630,000
requested for lease consolidation activities. Last year, this
Subcommittee held a very informative hearing with DHS and the
General Services Administration on this activity and heard
testimony about the significant financial benefits of reducing
the number of leases DHS has from 70 buildings across 46
locations in the greater Washington DC area to 6-8 buildings.
Witnesses testified that the massive footprint disrupts the
effectiveness and cohesiveness of Departmental operations and
adds needless layers of cost and complexity to facilities
management. Additionally, the leases will consume an
increasingly larger share of the Department's budget through
overhead costs in the coming years. In a time of fiscal
constraint, the Department will not have extra dollars to pay
for all of these lease increases without shortchanging front
line and mission essential programs. At a time when real estate
prices continue to be low in the greater Washington, DC area
and construction and materials costs are relative low as well,
this is the time to make this type of investment. Funding this
activity would save taxpayers money for years to come.
The country deserves better than this bill. For the
aforementioned reasons, we oppose this bill and urge our
colleagues to do likewise.
Norman D. Dicks.
David E. Price.