68–133 PDF 

Calendar No. 156 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 112–74 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2012 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2011.—Ordered to be printed 

Ms. LANDRIEU, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 2017] 

The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the bill 

(H.R. 2017) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and 

for other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. 
2 

Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2012 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate 1236 .......... $46,898,157,000 

Amount of 2011 appropriations 4 ............................. 43,321,245,000 

Amount of 2012 budget estimate 125 ..................... 45,015,556,000 

Amount of House allowance .................................... 41,789,835,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2011 appropriations .......................................... ∂3,576,912,000 

2012 budget estimate ........................................ ∂1,882,601,000 

House allowance ................................................ ∂5,108,322,000 1 Includes $103,387,000 in rescissions, compared to $41,942,000 of proposed cancellations. 2 Includes a permanent indefinite appropriation of $261,871,000 for the Coast 

Guard healthcare fund contribution. 3 Includes $258,000,000 for the Coast Guard for the costs of overseas contingency 

operations. 4 Includes rescissions totaling $556,907,000 pursuant to Public Law 112–10. Includes permanent indefinite appropriation of $265,321,000 for the Coast Guard 

healthcare fund contribution. Includes $254,000,000 for the Coast Guard for the 

costs of overseas deployments and other activities. 5 Excludes up to $258,278,000 for Coast Guard overseas contingency operations requested in Department of Defense ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Navy’’. 6 Includes $4,200,000,000 for the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund designated by Congress as disaster relief pursuant to Public Law 112–25. 
(3) 

C O N T E N T S 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

Overview and Summary of the Bill ........................................................................ 5 

Title I: 

Departmental Management and Operations: 

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management .............................. 10 

Office of the Under Secretary for Management ...................................... 15 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer ........................................................ 20 

Office of the Chief Information Officer .................................................... 23 

Analysis and Operations ........................................................................... 25 

Office of Inspector General ....................................................................... 26 

Title II: 

Security, Enforcement, and Investigations: 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection: 

Salaries and Expenses ....................................................................... 29 

Automation Modernization ................................................................ 43 

Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology ............. 43 

Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement .......................................................................................... 45 

Construction and Facilities Management ........................................ 48 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

Salaries and Expenses ....................................................................... 51 

Automation Modernization ................................................................ 62 

Construction ....................................................................................... 63 

Transportation Security Administration: 

Aviation Security ................................................................................ 64 

Surface Transportation Security ....................................................... 74 

Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing ................... 76 

Transportation Security Support ...................................................... 78 

Federal Air Marshals ......................................................................... 81 

Coast Guard: 

Operating Expenses ........................................................................... 82 

Environmental Compliance and Restoration ................................... 91 

Reserve Training ................................................................................ 92 

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements ................................. 92 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ................................ 100 

Retired Pay ......................................................................................... 101 

United States Secret Service: 

Salaries and Expenses ....................................................................... 101 

Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses .................................................................................................... 104 

Title III: 

Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery: 

National Protection and Programs Directorate: 

Management and Administration ..................................................... 105 

Infrastructure Protection and Information Security ....................... 107 

Federal Protective Service ................................................................. 112 

United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology ............................................................................................... 113 

Office of Health Affairs ............................................................................. 115 

Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

Operating Expenses ........................................................................... 118 

State and Local Programs ................................................................. 129 

Firefighter Assistance Grants ........................................................... 134 
Page

4 

Title III—Continued 

Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery—Continued 

Federal Emergency Management Agency—Continued 

Emergency Management Performance Grants ................................ 135 

Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program ............................. 135 

United States Fire Administration ................................................... 136 

Disaster Relief Fund .......................................................................... 136 

Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account ......................... 138 

Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis ....................................... 138 

National Flood Insurance Fund ........................................................ 139 

National Predisaster Mitigation Fund ............................................. 140 

Emergency Food and Shelter ............................................................ 141 

Title IV: 

Research and Development, Training, and Services: 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ............................ 142 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: 

Salaries and Expenses ....................................................................... 145 

Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses .............................................................................................. 146 

Science and Technology: 

Management and Administration ..................................................... 146 

Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations .................... 147 

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office: 

Management and Administration ..................................................... 151 

Research, Development, and Operations ......................................... 152 

Systems Acquisition ........................................................................... 154 

Title V: General Provisions ..................................................................................... 156 

Program, Project, and Activity ............................................................................... 163 

Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate .......................................................................................................................... 164 

Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 164 

Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 165 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 171 

Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority ............................................... 172 
(5) 

OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL 

Fiscal year 2012 124

request 

Fiscal year 

2012 1235

Committee 

recommendation 

Title I—Departmental Management and Operations ................................................. $1,231,644,000 $1,155,904,000 

Title II—Security, Enforcement, and Investigations .................................................. 33,196,186,000 33,108,434,000 

Title III—Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery ................................... 8,218,392,000 11,193,890,000 

Title IV—Research and Development, Training, and Services .................................. 2,154,061,000 1,461,337,000 

Title V—General Provisions ........................................................................................ 215,273,000 ¥21,408,000 

Total, new budget (obligational authority) ................................................... 45,015,556,000 46,898,157,000 

1 Includes $103,387,000 in rescissions, compared to $41,942,000 of proposed cancellations. 

2 Includes permanent indefinite appropriation of $261,871,000 for the Coast Guard healthcare fund contribution. 

3 Includes $258,000,000 for the Coast Guard for the costs of overseas contingency operations. 

4 Excludes up to $258,278,000 for Coast Guard overseas contingency operations requested in Department of Defense ‘‘Operation and Main- tenance, Navy’’. 5 Includes $4,200,000,000 for the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund designated by Congress as disaster relief pursuant to Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends total appropriations of 

$46,898,157,000 for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal 

year 2012, $1,882,601,000 more than the budget request. Of this 

amount, $45,458,000,000, including $258,000,000 for Coast Guard 

overseas contingency operations and $4,200,000,000 for the FEMA 

Disaster Relief Fund designated by Congress as disaster relief pursuant to Public Law 112–25, is for discretionary programs. 

The Committee recommends discretionary appropriations, excluding Coast Guard overseas contingency operations and the 

FEMA Disaster Relief Fund adjustment, of $41,000,000,000, 

$666,545,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $2,533,457,000 below the 

President’s request. 

OVERVIEW

Recent events have served to highlight the significant and evolving threats to America’s homeland. The death of Osama bin Laden, 

a historic accomplishment, could inspire new attacks, including 

acts by homegrown terrorists. The Fort Hood shooting was committed by a United States citizen. The New York City subway 

bomb plot was organized by a legal resident alien. The Times 

Square bombing attempt was precipitated by a naturalized citizen. 

In the 2011 State of the Union Address, the President stated 

that al Qaeda and its affiliates continue to plan attacks against us. 

He stressed that extremists are trying to inspire acts of violence by 

those within our borders. According to the Attorney General, in the 

last 2 years, 126 individuals have been indicted for terrorist-related 

activities, including 50 United States citizens. 

In addition, threats from abroad continue to be a serious concern, 

as evidenced by the 2009 Christmas Day bomb plot and the October 2010 air cargo bombing attempt. The Homeland Security Secretary has testified that the threat of a terrorist attack is as high 

as it has been since September 11, 2001. 
6 

We face persistent cybersecurity threats from individuals, sophisticated criminal organizations, and nation states, that desire to do 

us harm. Violence in Mexico is at unprecedented levels and many 

are concerned that the violence will cross the border. In addition 

to these threats, natural disasters continue to have a significant 

impact on cities and rural communities. The Department of Homeland Security must prepare for and respond to such natural disasters. Since January 1, 2011, the President has issued disaster declarations in 47 States. 

The Department of Homeland Security seeks to mature and 

strengthen homeland security at all levels of government, the private sector, and our citizenry. As we approach the 10th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11, the 9th anniversary of the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, and the recent 6th 

anniversary of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it is critical that the 

Nation develop and maintain a constant, capable, and vigilant posture to protect ourselves against existing and evolving threats. The 

Department must also ensure that all levels of government and the 

private sector effectively prepare for and respond to natural disasters. 

In addition, the Department must effectively carry out its many 

statutory responsibilities, including securing our borders, enforcing 

our immigration laws, facilitating trade, protecting our currency, 

securing cyber systems, combating drug trafficking, securing the 

aviation sector and other modes of transportation, and promoting 

the safety of life and property at sea. In carrying out such missions 

in fiscal year 2010, the Department of Homeland Security: 

COAST GUARD

—Responded to 22,220 search and rescue incidents, saving 4,329 lives and protecting $87,000,000 in property; 

—Interdicted 2,088 undocumented migrants attempting to illegally enter the United States; 

—Removed 202,439 pounds of cocaine and 36,739 pounds of 

marijuana bound for the United States; seized 56 vessels, and 

detained 229 suspected drug smugglers; 

—Conducted 1,300 escorts of naval vessels to ensure their safe 

transit through U.S. waterways; 

—Conducted 52,018 waterborne patrols to protect Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources; and 

—Performed over 14,800 inspections at facilities to ensure compliance, identifying over 5,400 deficiencies of safety, security, 

and environmental protection regulations. 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION [CBP]

—CBP officers at more than 330 ports of entry inspected 352 million travelers and more than 105.8 million cars, trucks, buses, 

trains, vessels and aircraft; 

—Nationwide, Border Patrol apprehensions of illegal aliens decreased from nearly 724,000 in fiscal year 2008 to approximately 463,382 in fiscal year 2010, a 36 percent reduction, indicating that, as a result of increased enforcement and restrained economic conditions, fewer people are attempting to illegally cross the border; 
7 

—CBP Agriculture Specialists seized more than 1.7 million prohibited plant materials, meat, and animal byproducts in fiscal 

year 2010, a 9.5 percent increase in seizures compared to fiscal 

year 2009; and —CBP seized $147,000,000 in currency (inbound and outbound) 

at and between U.S. ports of entry—a more than 30 percent increase from last fiscal year; 

—CBP seized a total of 4,147,008 pounds of narcotics; 

—CBP deployed 17 new Mobile Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems and 22 additional large-scale Non-Intrusive Inspection 

[NII] technology imaging systems. The large-scale systems 

were used to conduct over 7.3 million examinations at ports of 

entry that resulted in over 1,300 seizures, including 288,000 

pounds of narcotics. 

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT [ICE]: 

—Initiated 126,425 new investigations; 

—Made over 25,141 criminal arrests; 

—Removed approximately 400,000 illegal aliens; 

—Seized $422,600,000 in currency and monetary instruments; 

—Seized nearly 1.9 million pounds of narcotics and other dangerous drugs; —Seized $126,100,000 of contraband and other illegal merchandise; and 

—Responded to 1,133,130 inquiries and calls for assistance from 

other Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies 

through ICE’s Law Enforcement Support Center. 

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

—Secret Service protective details and field agents ensured 100 

percent incident-free protection for 5,906 domestic travel stops 

and 515 international travel stops. 

—Foreign dignitary protection reached a record 2,495 travel 

stops, including visits by 236 heads of state and government, 

and 107 spouses from over 147 countries. 

—Dignitary protection also included security operations for the 

Nuclear Security Summit in April 2010 and the 65th anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly in September 

2010. 

—Additionally, the protective mission was supported through the 

completion of 7,726 protective surveys. 

—In the area of criminal investigations, Secret Service field offices closed a total of 9,137 cases in fiscal year 2010, an increase of 7.8 percent over fiscal year 2009. These cases led to 

a reported 8,930 arrests. 

—Additionally, the Secret Service continued to strengthen its 

partnerships with U.S. Attorney offices, sustaining a high conviction rate of 94.7 percent for all referred cases. 

—The Secret Service’s longstanding investigative priority of combating financial crime led to an estimated $13,500,000,000 in 

potential losses prevented, of which $6,950,000,000 involved 

cyber crimes. 

—Building on these successes, the number of financial crime 

cases closed increased 7.1 percent from fiscal year 2009 levels, 
8 

and resulted in 5,589 arrests, reflecting of the Secret Service’s 

ability to adapt to emerging financial and cyber crime threats. 

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES [USCIS]: 

—Completed more than 677,000 naturalization applications; 

—Processed more than 16.4 million employment verification queries through E-Verify; 

—Naturalized more than 11,000 military service members and 

qualified family members; 

—Interviewed more than 95,000 refugee applicants; 

—Processed more than 28,000 asylum applications; and 

—Maintained an average processing time for naturalization applications of approximately 4.5 months. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION [TSA]

—Screened more than 628 million people and more than 425 million checked bags; 

—Prevented passengers from bringing more than 863 firearms 

onto planes; 

—Conducted 7,679 Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response 

[VIPR] operations at increased-risk locations nationwide: 3,895 

in surface modes and 3,784 in aviation modes; and 

—Deployed 617 canine teams to 78 airports to screen air cargo. 

NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE [NPPD]

—Handled more than 107,000 cyber security incidents through 

the U.S.-Computer Emergency Readiness Team and 4 million 

cybersecurity incidents in the Federal Government. This generated 5,000 security products for the general public and 500 

for Federal departments and agencies. The US-CERT provides 

in-depth detection, tracking, and mitigation of cybersecurity 

threats 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; 

—Responded to more than 135 requests for technical assistance 

which is provided to all 56 States and U.S. territories to align 

State and national communications systems for use during disasters; 

—Conducted six region-wide assessments to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities to interdependent critical infrastructure in 

major metropolitan areas; 

—Provided security at more than 9,000 Federal facilities, including conducting 1,000 facility security assessments. 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY [FEMA]

—Supported disaster response and recovery for major disasters, 

including 81 presidentially declared disasters in assisting 41 

States; 

—Managed deployment of the 28 National Urban Search and 

Rescue Teams. All 28 teams were deployed during Hurricane 

Katrina, and all, or portions, of the USAR teams were deployed 

16 times in 2010. 
9 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL [OIG]

—The OIG issued approximately 125 management audit reports, 

including 50 financial assistance grant reports. The audits 

identified over $100,000,000 of questioned costs, of which nearly $30,000,000 was determined to be unsupported. The OIG recovered $15,000,000 as a result of identifying disallowed costs 

in prior audit reports and investigations. In addition, the OIG 

identified over $65,000,000 in funds put to better use; 

—OIG investigations resulted in approximately 350 arrests, 275 

indictments, 270 convictions and 125 personnel actions. In addition the Office of Investigations closed 1,150 investigations 

and 13,000 complaints and initiated 1,400 new investigations 

and 915 reports; and 

—Investigative recoveries, fines, restitutions and cost savings to- taled $124,300,000. 

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER [FLETC]

—FLETC facilities provided basic and some advanced training to 

approximately 65,000 law enforcement agents from 90 Federal 

agencies; and 

—The Rural Policing Institute trained over 5,000 State, local, 

campus and tribal law enforcement officers in locations 

throughout the United States and Indian Country through distance learning, with plans to increase each year. 

REFERENCES

This report refers to several Public Laws by short title as follows: 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 

111–5, is referenced as ARRA; Implementing Recommendations of 

the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Public Law 110–53, is referenced 

as the 9/11 Act; Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 

2006, Public Law 109–347, is referenced as the SAFE Port Act; 

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 

Public Law 93–288, is referenced as the Stafford Act; and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Public Law 

108–458, is referenced as the Intelligence Reform Act. 

Any reference in this report to the Secretary shall be interpreted 

to mean the Secretary of Homeland Security. 

Any reference to the Department or DHS shall be interpreted to 

mean the Department of Homeland Security. 

Any reference in this report to a departmental component shall 

be interpreted to mean directorates, components, agencies, offices, 

or other organizations in the Department. 

Any reference to ‘‘full-time equivalents’’ shall be referred to as 

FTE. 

Any reference to ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ shall be referred 

to as PPA. 

Any reference to a ‘‘Homeland Security Presidential Directive’’ 

shall be referred to as HSPD. 

Any reference to ‘‘Government Accountability Office’’ shall be referred to as GAO. 

Any reference to the ‘‘Office of Inspector General’’ of the Department of Homeland Security shall be referenced to as OIG. 
(10) 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $136,544,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 142,533,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 62,350,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 135,433,000 

The Office of the Secretary and Executive Management supports 

the Department by providing direction, management, and policy 

guidance to operating components. The specific activities funded by 

this account include: the Immediate Office of the Secretary; the Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary; the Office of the Chief of 

Staff; the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement; the Office of the 

Executive Secretary; the Office of Policy; the Office of Public Affairs; the Office of Legislative Affairs; the Office of the General 

Counsel; the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties; the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman; the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs; and the Privacy Office. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $135,433,000 for the Office of the 

Secretary and Executive Management, $1,111,000 below the fiscal 

year 2011 level and $7,100,000 below the request level. This reduction is necessary to sustain critical activities within the Department’s operating components and make necessary investments to 

address known gaps and vulnerabilities. The recommendation includes requested reductions for efficiencies, contract support, and 

administrative savings. The Committee includes a program increase for the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties [OCRCL] 

to improve oversight of immigration enforcement programs. The 

Committee directs that a briefing be provided not later than 30 

days after the OCRCL completes the initial review of these programs, including its findings and recommendations. This briefing 

should be conducted jointly by OCRCL and ICE officials. 

The specific levels recommended by the Committee as compared 

to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels are as follows: 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Immediate Office of the Secretary ...................................................... 4,641 5,164 5,000 

Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary .......................................... 2,674 1,918 1,918 
11 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 enacted Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee recommendations 

Office of the Chief of Staff ................................................................. 2,572 2,802 2,600 

Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement .............................................. 2,997 3,814 2,130 

Office of the Executive Secretary ........................................................ 8,104 8,402 8,100 

Office of Policy ..................................................................................... 41,133 42,423 40,000 

Office of Public Affairs ........................................................................ 6,368 6,419 6,370 

Office of Legislative Affairs ................................................................. 6,698 6,341 6,340 

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs ..................................................... 2,632 2,908 2,650 

Office of General Counsel .................................................................... 23,762 22,422 22,422 

Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties ........................................... 20,367 24,613 23,000 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman ........................... 6,188 6,336 6,300 

Privacy Officer ...................................................................................... 8,408 8,971 8,603 

Total, Office of the Secretary and Executive Management ... 136,544 142,533 135,433 

COORDINATION OF FEDERAL CHEMICAL SECURITY EFFORTS

The Committee understands that the National Protection and 

Program’s Directorate’s [NPPD’s] Office of Infrastructure Protection [IP] and the Coast Guard continue to work toward harmonization of chemical security responsibilities established by Chemical 

Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards [CFATS] regulations and Maritime Transportation Security Act [MTSA] regulatory programs. A 

comprehensive regulatory review of the respective security regimes 

has been completed and both components are working toward a 

Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] to enable sharing of data 

and sharing of risk methodologies between NPPD’s Infrastructure 

Security Compliance Division’s Chemical Security Assessment Tool 

and the Coast Guard’s Maritime Security Risk Analysis Model. The 

Committee expects the execution of this MOU will be completed in 

the fall of 2011. The Deputy Secretary is directed to continue quarterly reporting to the Committee on these matters. The reports 

shall include an update on: the development of a more comprehensive picture of security issues at the Nation’s chemical facilities; 

whether regulatory gaps exist that may pose an unacceptable security risk; and the identification and elimination of redundancies between current regulatory regimes. In addition, the quarterly updates shall include information on the Department’s continuing efforts to determine whether and how to require MTSA-covered facilities that possess CFATS chemicals of interest to complete and 

submit CFATS Top-Screens. Finally, the report shall provide updates regarding the efforts with other Federal entities, such as the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Transportation Security 

Administration, including specific milestones and agreements that 

will be reached to further coordinate chemical security efforts. 

REAL ID

The Committee directs the Office of Policy to report on the status 

of each State in implementing each REAL ID element required for 

material compliance, a plan to increase compliance of each element 

required for material compliance by January 2013, and strategies 

related to compliance with the requirements of REAL ID. This report shall be submitted to the Committee by April 13, 2012. 
12 

EXPENDITURE PLANS

The Committee directs the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement, the Office of Policy, the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, 

the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, and the Privacy Officer each to submit an expenditure plan for fiscal year 2012 no later 

than 60 days after the date of enactment of this act. Each plan 

shall include details on: staffing, expenses, contracts, obligations, 

funds by sub-offices (if appropriate), and how resources are aligned 

to specific activities and initiatives in fiscal year 2012. The Office 

of Counternarcotics Enforcement expenditure plan shall include efforts to address the recommendations made in OIG–10–80. 

USER FEES

The conference report accompanying Public Law 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 no later than 90 days after the 

date of enactment of this act and to update that plan quarterly. 

BIOMETRIC AIR EXIT IMPLEMENTATION

The Committee includes language in the bill withholding $35,000,000 from obligation until the Department of Homeland Security submits to the Committees a comprehensive plan to initiate 

implementation of a biometric air exit capability in fiscal year 

2012, or a written certification to the Congress that it is the position of the administration that the statutory requirements for biometric air exit be repealed. 

COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION

In 1986, the United States entered into a Compact of Free Association [COFA] with the Federated States of Micronesia [FSM] and 

the Republic of the Marshall Islands [RMI]. In 1994, the United 

States entered into a similar relationship with the Republic of 

Palau. The Compacts set forth the bilateral terms for government, 

economic, and security relations between the United States and the 

Freely Associated States [FAS] and the laws approving the Compacts set forth the U.S. policy context and interpretation for Compacts. Section 141 of the Compacts provides that certain FAS citizens ‘‘may be admitted to, lawfully engage in occupations, and establish residence as a nonimmigrant in the United States and its 

territories.’’ However, the Congress also stated, in section 104(e)(1), 

that ‘‘it is not the intent of Congress to cause any adverse consequences for an affected jurisdiction.’’ 

At present, it is estimated that affected areas of the United 

States are spending upwards of $200,000,000 annually for education, healthcare, and other services for FAS migrants, including 

high-cost treatments such as dialysis and chemotherapy. These impact costs are increasing annually. Public health officials are particularly concerned about the rate of certain diseases such as tuberculosis and Hanson’s Disease which have a high incidence in Micronesia and among recent Compact migrants. There is also concern 

regarding growing social tensions in affected communities as local 
13 

government agencies are forced to reduce the level of services to 

U.S.-citizen residents to offset the costs associated with the FAS 

migrants. 

The Committee recognizes that the scope of these impacts will 

have to be addressed by multiple Federal agencies and believes 

that the administration must develop a comprehensive, interagency 

approach to reduce the financial burden placed on affected jurisdictions. Therefore, the Committee directs the President to convene, 

within 45 days after the date of enactment of this act, a National 

Security Council Interagency Policy Committee on Freely Associated State Affairs, with representation from the relevant departments and agencies including the Departments of State, the Interior, Defense, Education, Homeland Security, and Health and 

Human Services, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, to develop an action plan to reduce the impact of FAS migration on Federal, State, local, and territorial governments, particularly those in affected jurisdictions. The Committee directs the 

President to submit the action plan to the Committee not later 

than 180 days after enactment of this act. 

The Committee notes that persons admitted to the United States 

as nonimmigrants pursuant to the Compact of Free Association 

Amendments Act of 2003 (Public Law 108–188) are subject to most, 

but not all, inadmissibility provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Committee is concerned regarding the lack of enforcement of certain grounds of inadmissibility under the Compact 

such as the health-related and public charge grounds of inadmissibility and deportability. The Committee also is concerned about 

the growing negative budgetary impacts that the admission as nonimmigrants of nationals of the FAS is having on State, local, and 

Federal governments. The Committee directs DHS to report, within 

90 days after the date of enactment of this act, on the Secretary’s 

plan to issue regulations to implement all legally allowable grounds 

of inadmissibility under the Compact which apply to nationals from 

the FAS including, but not limited to, a feasibility and cost analysis 

of establishing a pre-screening process and promulgating regulations pursuant to the appropriate sections of Public Law 108–188 

to establish a process, based on the existing Advance Permission to 

Enter process (I–192), to provide advanced permission for prospective travelers from the FAS to enter the United States. As part of 

this report, the Committee urges DHS to consider including modifications to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization to address the unique requirements of the population of individuals covered by Public Law 108–188. 

RECEPTION AND REPRESENTATION EXPENSES

Within the total amount recommended for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, up to $51,000 is included for reception and representation expenses. The Department is to continue to submit quarterly reports to the Committee detailing the 

obligation of all DHS Reception and Representation Expenses by 

purpose and dollar amount. 
14 

DETAILEE REPORT

The Committee requires the Department to continue to report on 

detailees, but changes this from a quarterly to an annual requirement to be submitted with the budget request for fiscal year 2013. 

The format of this submission shall be drafted in accordance with 

the revised guidance set forth in Senate Report 110–84. 

FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

The Department is directed to report semi-annually to the Committee on the current projects tasked to Federally Funded Research 

and Development Centers [FFRDCs], the funding obligated by component, including the purposes for the funds, and any projects completed in the prior 6-month period, with the first report due February 15, 2012. The Committee has yet to receive a report for fiscal 

years 2010 or 2011 pursuant to the requirement in conference report [111–298]. These reports are to be submitted expeditiously. 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE CAPABILITIES

Significant progress has been made in the last 2 years by the 

Science and Technology [S&T] Directorate in unifying the Department’s test and evaluation [T&E] processes, particularly for large 

acquisition programs. The Committee encourages the Secretary to 

continue to improve the Department’s T&E capabilities, policies, 

and procedures. The Department’s acquisition process would also 

benefit from the early involvement of the S&T Directorate and the 

Department’s FFRDCs in assisting departmental entities to better 

identify mission needs, conduct analysis of alternatives that could 

result in a material solution determination, and develop operational requirements including concepts of operations. The Under 

Secretary for Management and the Under Secretary for Science 

and Technology shall brief the Committee on efforts to leverage 

S&T’s expertise in this area no later than 90 days after the date 

of enactment of this act. 

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

The Assistant Secretary for Policy shall brief the Committee no 

later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act on the 

current level of DHS resources, by component, in the U.S. Virgin 

Islands [USVI] and an assessment of the need for additional resources, by component, to be stationed there permanently based on 

threat and workload requirements. This assessment should include 

a review of DHS components with no presence currently in the 

USVI. 

OVERTIME LIMITATION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL

The Committee encourages the Department to review the existing overtime caps in place for agency law enforcement personnel to 

determine if they reflect the actual requirement for overtime funding and, if necessary, propose an adjustment to the cap as part of 

the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget. 
15 

COMBATING BORDER VIOLENCE

The Committee urges CBP and ICE to increase its ongoing cooperation with the Federal Bureau of Investigations [FBI] to combat and address any signs of increased drug trafficking organization violence which may be occurring in U.S. border and other communities. While the FBI’s May 23, 2011, preliminary report on annual crime statistics for 2010 indicates that reports of violent crime 

and property crime appear to be down in California and Arizona 

border towns, reports of violent crime have ticked upwards slightly 

in Texas. It is important that Federal law enforcement maintain a 

strong presence on the border in support of State and local law enforcement to immediately respond to any changes in the levels of 

violence. The Committee directs CBP and ICE, jointly with the 

FBI, to brief the Appropriations Subcommittees on Homeland Security and Commerce, Justice, Science at least semiannually on the 

situation on the border and its impact on border communities. 

CYBERSECURITY

In an effort to improve coordination between the Federal Government and the private sector and to exploit and enhance the capabilities of both sectors, the Committee directs the Deputy Secretary, jointly with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, to submit a 

report to the Appropriations Committee no later than May 1, 2012, 

evaluating the costs and benefits of establishing a National Guard 

cybersecurity team and/or an equivalent civilian team that could be 

deployed to help prevent or recover from a cybersecurity attack. 

The report should include an outline of the recommended command 

hierarchy, including responsibility for deploying teams; describe organizational responsibilities for providing guidance and training; 

and discuss how critical relationships will be established across the 

various agencies with cybersecurity responsibilities. 

PORT SECURITY TRAINING PROGRAM

The Committee is concerned that the Department has not yet 

taken any steps to implement section 821 of Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–281) to enhance and upgrade 

Federal waterfront facility security officer [FSO] training, and lead 

to the Federal certification of FSOs. Implementation will help harmonize security training at marine terminals. The Committee encourages the Department to help develop the national training program. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $239,453,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 249,058,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 106,870,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 237,131,000 

The Under Secretary for Management oversees management and 

operations of the Department, including procurement and acquisition, human capital, and property management. The specific activities funded by this account include the Immediate Office of the 

Under Secretary for Management, the Office of the Chief Security 

Officer, the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, the Office of 
16 

the Chief Human Capital Officer, and the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $237,131,000 for the Office of the 

Under Secretary for Management, $11,927,000 below the amount 

requested and $2,322,000 below the amount enacted in fiscal year 

2011. The Committee’s recommendation includes funding for robust 

oversight of major acquisitions, recruitment and development of a 

skilled workforce, and security measures to safeguard DHS personnel, property, facilities, and information. The Committee supports the one-DHS concept, which can only be executed when such 

missions are appropriately funded and effective government is not 

accomplished by excessive funding cuts for these essential capabilities. Unless specifically addressed in this report, reductions taken 

to individual offices below the request are due to a constrained 

budget environment and to focus limited resources on the Department’s critical operational missions. 

The specific levels recommended by the Committee, as compared 

to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels, are as follows: 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 enacted Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee recommendations 

Immediate Office of the Under Secretary for Management .......... 2,733 7,558 2,558 

Office of the Chief Security Officer ............................................... 71,760 71,236 71,236 

Office of the Chief Procurement Officer ........................................ 74,597 78,771 78,000 

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer: 

Salaries and Expenses .......................................................... 24,477 28,161 25,165 

Human Resources Information Technology Program ............ 17,097 16,686 14,172 

Office of the Chief Administrative Officer: 

Salaries and expenses .......................................................... 43,300 41,248 41,000 

Nebraska Avenue Complex .................................................... 5,489 5,398 5,000 

Total, Office of the Under Secretary for Management .... 239,453 249,058 237,131 

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $2,558,000 for the Immediate Office 

of the Under Secretary, $175,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 

level and $5,000,000 below the budget request. The recommendation includes a reduction of $175,000 below fiscal year 2011 for administrative savings, professional services, and operational support, as requested. 

The Committee denies the request for $5,000,000 for another 

study of the need for Coast Guard icebreakers in the Arctic region. 

As the ice recedes in the Arctic region, commerce and natural resource exploration is expected to increase significantly. It is critical 

that the Coast Guard be given the tools to operate effectively in 

this remote area of the world, a region that is rich with potential 

natural resources. Yet, the Coast Guard has no operating polar 

class heavy icebreakers and virtually no infrastructure in the region. The Polar Star, first deployed in 1976, is being repaired, but 

only because Congress took the initiative to fund the repair. When 

the repair is complete in 2013, the Polar Star is expected to have 
17 

a useful life of only 7–10 years. It takes approximately 8–10 years 

to build a polar class icebreaker, yet the administration has no 

plans for new assets. Russia, on the other hand, currently has six 

operational icebreakers, including nuclear-powered vessels and is 

preparing to aggressively pursue the estimated 22 percent of the 

world’s undiscovered natural resources in the Arctic. 

Since fiscal year 2005, the Committee has urged the Office of 

Management and Budget and the Department of Homeland Security to address this issue. In fiscal year 2005, the Committee required the National Academy of Sciences [NAS] to conduct a comprehensive study of the role of Coast Guard icebreakers in supporting United States operations in the Antarctic and the Arctic. 

The NAS report concluded that the Nation ‘‘should immediately 

begin to program, design, and construct two new polar icebreakers 

to replace the Polar Star and Polar Sea.’’ 

The Committee funded a Presidentially requested study of Coast 

Guard requirements for assets in the Arctic region in fiscal year 

2009. The report, completed in July 2010, wasn’t submitted to the 

Committee until July 2011. The report concluded that the Coast 

Guard requires ‘‘three heavy and three medium icebreakers to fulfill its statutory missions’’ and ‘‘six heavy and four medium icebreakers to fulfill its statutory missions and maintain the continuous presence requirements of the Naval Operations Concept.’’ 

Current and past Coast Guard Commandants have testified to 

this need and the United States Transportation Command concluded that the United States has national, strategic, and economic 

interests in the Arctic which requires construction of new polar icebreakers. Yet two successive administrations have failed to seek 

funding for these assets. 

Given the extensive consensus that has been built over the past 

5 years, the Committee does not believe yet another icebreaker 

study is necessary and instead urges the Department to move forward on fulfilling the Nation’s icebreaking requirements for the 

polar regions by developing a concept of operations and a resource 

plan. This process can be achieved by leveraging existing resources 

and expertise from the Coast Guard and the Science and Technology Directorate. As a result of the current fiscal climate and 

need to provide the best value to the taxpayer, the development of 

a concept of operations shall include consideration of using Government-owned vessels as well as non Government-owned vessels to 

achieve the Nation’s icebreaking needs. The Committee is to be 

briefed on the development of this plan no later than 90 days after 

the date of enactment of this act. 

OFFICE OF SECURITY

The Committee recommends $71,236,000 for the Office of Security, a decrease of $524,000 from the fiscal year 2011 level and the 

same as the budget request. This amount includes decreases for administrative savings, professional services, and operational support, and the transfer of $1,050,000 and six positions to the Office 

of Intelligence and Analysis for counterintelligence activities. The 

recommendation includes a program increase, as requested, of 

$2,000,000 for the Classified National Security Information Program for State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities. In ac-
18 

cordance with Executive Order 12549, this program will ensure 

that classified information shared with these entities meets Federal security standards for sharing classified information. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER

The Committee recommends $78,000,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Procurement Officer [OCPO], an increase of $3,403,000 above 

the fiscal year 2011 level and $771,000 below the budget request. 

This recommendation includes requested decreases for adjustments-to-base that include reductions for administrative savings, 

professional services, and operational support. The increase of 

$3,403,000 above fiscal year 2011 is provided to enhance the Department’s acquisition workforce capabilities and to strengthen cost 

estimating by adding cost analysts to each of the eight major components for oversight of large-scale procurements. The total amount 

for these initiatives is below the request due to a constrained budget environment. 

FEDERAL ACQUISITION WORKFORCE INITIATIVE

Within the budgets of selected components, the Committee provides funding to increase the Department’s acquisition workforce 

capacity and capabilities. The Department, like many other Federal 

agencies, is plagued by a lack of qualified acquisition professionals 

to develop, manage, and oversee acquisition programs appropriately. The Committee has been highly critical of the performance of many DHS acquisition programs and has aggressively funded additional FTE to bolster procurement oversight within the 

OCPO and in the components. In cases where the component requests were not funded at the requested amount, the Committee 

expects those components to use existing appropriations and fee 

authority [where appropriate] to hire and train highly qualified acquisition personnel. 

The Committee is disappointed in the initial assessment of Department-wide gaps in key acquisition disciplines. What the Committee received was simply a table with core acquisition needs by 

component. The Committee is looking for the analysis behind the 

numbers, the risks of not filling the positions, and the long-term 

strategy to fill competency gaps. The OCPO is to brief the Committee on these matters no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this act. 

ACQUISITION PROFESSIONAL CAREER INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

The Committee directs the OCPO to submit to the Committee, in 

conjunction with the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request, a 

report on the Acquisition Professional Internship Program as detailed in House Report 111–157. 

ACQUISITION REVIEW PROCESS

The Committee directs the OCPO to continue reporting quarterly 

on major acquisitions as outlined in Senate Report 111–31. The 

Committee expects these reports to cover all major acquisition programs as required in Senate Report 111–31. The Department is to 

ensure that each acquisition covered in the report includes: 
19 

—A discussion of current gaps and shortfalls, the capabilities to 

be fielded, and the number of planned increments; 

—Acquisition review board status of each acquisition, including 

the current acquisition phase and date of the last Acquisition 

Decision Event approval; 

—Whether or not an Independent Verification and Validation 

has been implemented, with an explanation for the decision; 

—A rating of the cost risk, schedule risk, and technical risk associated with each acquisition project; 

—A table detailing unobligated balances to date and anticipated 

unobligated balances at the close of the fiscal year for each acquisition addressed in the report; and 

—The date and cause of program breaches. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER

The Committee recommends $39,337,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Human Capital Officer [OCHCO], $2,237,000 below the fiscal 

year 2011 level and $5,510,000 below the request. This recommendation includes requested reductions for administrative savings, professional services, and operational support. The increase of 

$688,000 in salaries and expenses is to enhance the Balanced 

Workforce Program Office, workforce training programs, and leadership development programs. The OCHCO shall brief the Committee no later than 90 days after the enactment of this act on its 

progress in implementing these programs in addition to its ongoing 

hiring reform initiatives, efforts to close mission-critical competency gaps, performance metrics, and an acquisition plan for an 

automated employee performance management and appraisal tool. The recommendation provides a total of $14,172,000 for Human Resources Information Technology, $2,514,000 below the request. 

The reduction is due to carryover balances available for this program. 

OVER-RELIANCE ON CONTRACTORS

The estimated number of contractors providing services in support of various DHS programs is 110,000 compared to approximately 221,000 Federal employees. According to the Department’s 

congressional justification, ‘‘The Quadrennial Homeland Security 

Review and the Bottom-Up Review have both confirmed a critical 

need to balance the DHS workforce by ensuring strong Federal control of all DHS work and reducing reliance on contractors.’’ Initially, the Department identified 3,500 contractor positions that 

should be eliminated or converted to Federal employee positions. 

As of April 2011, the Department has eliminated nearly 3,200 positions, of which 2,400 were converted into new Federal jobs. The estimated savings associated with this effort is $28,000,000. The Department’s fiscal year 2012 budget proposes to convert another 

1,881 additional contract positions to Federal positions, anticipated 

as a result of the Balanced Workforce Strategy analysis. The Committee supports the Department’s continued efforts to convert contractor positions to Federal jobs through its Balanced Workforce 

Initiative and the OCHCO-managed program office leading the Department’s efforts to examine the appropriate workforce best suited 

to meet mission needs. The Committee directs the Undersecretary 
20 

for Management and Chief Human Capital Officer to brief the 

Committee no later than November 30, 2011, on its ongoing review, 

implementation plans, and the estimated savings associated with 

this effort and how those savings were calculated. 

HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICING

The Department has informed the Committee that beginning in 

fiscal year 2012, it plans to obtain human resources services from 

the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center [FLETC] instead of 

OCHCO’s Human Resources Management Services [HRMS] division. There are multiple reasons for this functional transfer; however the primary factor is due to HRMS’s difficulty complying with 

regulatory requirements in its recruitment and staffing missions. 

According to the Department, based on concerns raised by the Office of Personnel Management, the HRMS Delegated Examining 

Authority has been withdrawn from the Department’s HRMS division, effective October 1, 2011. As a result, DHS has decided to 

partner with FLETC through an Interagency Agreement to fulfill 

its human resource service requirements, with FLETC being fully 

reimbursed through the Working Capital Fund for its services. The 

Department has assured the Committee this partnership will result in reduced costs for human resources service needs for headquarters components and will deliver these services in a more efficient manner. The Committee does not object to this arrangement 

as long as it does not adversely impact FLETC’s mission requirements. The OCHCO and FLETC are to brief the Committee no 

later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this act on the 

execution of this plan. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

The Committee recommends $41,000,000 for Salaries and Expenses, a decrease of $2,300,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level 

and $248,000 below the level requested in the budget. 

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for continued facilities 

maintenance and upgrades at the Nebraska Avenue Complex 

[NAC], $489,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level and $398,000 

below the request. This funding allows for the completion of the perimeter fence improvement project, the site utility upgrade project, 

and for other mechanical, electrical and building upgrades. 

The Chief Administrative Officer is to brief the Committee no 

later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act on recommendations for savings from the identification of excess surplus 

property as described in the June 10, 2010, Presidential memorandum entitled ‘‘Disposing of Unneeded Federal Real Estate.’’ 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $53,323,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 62,395,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 50,860,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 51,000,000 

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is responsible for the fiscal management and financial accountability of the Department of 

Homeland Security. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer pro-
21 

vides guidance and oversight of the Department’s budget execution 

while ensuring that funds are allocated and expended in accordance with relevant laws and policies. This account funds the Budget Division, Office of Financial Operations, Office of Performance 

Analysis and Evaluation, Office of Financial Management, Resource Management Transition Office, and the Office of the Government Accountability Office/Office of Inspector General Audit Liaison. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $51,000,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer [OCFO], a decrease of $2,323,000 below the 

fiscal year 2011 level and $11,395,000 less than the budget request. 

As a result of the Department’s decision to cancel acquisition plans 

for the Transformation and Systems Consolidation [TASC] project 

and subsequent re-evaluation of its approach to improve DHS financial management systems, the recommendation does not include the $11,000,000 program request for TASC. The Committee 

recognizes the Department’s need to improve the reliability and 

transparency of its financial data, and directs DHS to maintain frequent communications with the Committee on financial management improvement plans necessary to support the Department’s 

missions. The Committee notes that balances remain available for 

TASC from prior year appropriations and this amount can be obligated in fiscal year 2012 if a new strategy is approved by the DHS 

Acquisition Review Board; however, the Department must complete 

an independent evaluation to validate the strategy prior to obligating any of these funds. 

ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS JUSTIFICATIONS

The Committee directs the CFO to ensure annual appropriations 

justifications are prepared for each component within the Department in support of the President’s budget, as required under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code and submitted on the 

day the President’s budget is delivered to Congress. The CFO shall 

submit as part of the fiscal year 2013 budget justification the following: detailed information by appropriations account and PPA on 

all reimbursable agreements and significant uses of the Economy 

Act for each fiscal year; a detailed table identifying the last year 

that authorizing legislation was provided by Congress for each 

PPA; the amount of the authorization and the appropriation in the 

last year of authorization; and a report on the status of overdue 

Committee reports, plans, and briefings for fiscal years 2011 and 

2012. In addition, with the Department’s Explanation of Changes 

to General Provisions, to be included in the Department’s annual 

congressional budget justification to the Committee, the CFO shall 

provide the text and citation of all Department appropriations provisions enacted to date that are permanent law. 

The CFO shall ensure that adequate justification is given to each 

increase, decrease, transfer, and staffing change proposed in the 

fiscal year 2013 budget justification, and that each item directed by 

the Committees to be provided as part of the fiscal year 2013 budget justification is delivered as mandated. 
22 

Consistent with section 874 of Public Law 107–296, the Department shall submit a Future Years Homeland Security Program 

[FYSP] budget as part of the fiscal year 2013 budget justification. 

Having a forward-looking budget forecast provides a reasonable understanding of future program and acquisition needs and the proportionate resources needed to execute the Department’s mission of 

protection and defense of the homeland, as well as emergency planning and response. The submission for fiscal years 2012–2016 was 

designated as ‘‘For Official Use Only’’. The Committee sees no reason why this designation is necessary and expects the submission 

for fiscal years 2013–2017 to be accessible to the public. 

BUDGET EXECUTION AND STAFFING REPORT

The Committee includes bill language requiring the Department 

to continue to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a monthly budget execution report showing the status 

of obligations and costs for all components of the Department and 

on-board staffing levels (Federal employees and contractors). The 

report shall include the total obligational authority appropriated 

(new budget authority plus unobligated carryover), undistributed 

obligational authority, amount allotted, current year obligations, 

unobligated authority (the difference between total obligational authority and current year obligations), beginning unexpended obligations, year-to-date costs, and ending unexpended obligations. This 

budget execution information is to be provided at the level of detail 

shown in the tables displayed at the end of this report for each departmental component and the Working Capital Fund. This report 

shall be submitted no later than 45 days after the close of each 

month. 

EXPENDITURE PLANS

The Committee continues requiring expenditure plans for specific 

DHS programs. These plans are intended to provide Congress with 

information to effectively oversee a particular program and hold 

the Department accountable for program results. Expenditure 

plans required by the Committee shall include, at a minimum: a 

description of how the plan satisfies any relevant legislative conditions for the expenditure plan; planned capabilities and benefits; 

cost and schedule commitments; measures of progress against commitments made in previous plans; how the program is being managed to provide reasonable assurance that the promised program 

capabilities, benefits, and cost and schedule commitments will be 

achieved; historical funding for the program, if applicable; and an 

obligation and outlay schedule. 

OVERDUE QUARTERLY SBI REPORTS

In addition to delayed expenditure plans, there are a number of 

regular reports that the Committees have required be submitted, 

in some cases for many years. For instance, the Committees have 

required quarterly submission of a report which in essence is a 

compilation of border security-related facts—such as apprehensions 

at the border, number of illegal aliens removed, and miles of the 

border under effective control. The report is a snapshot of what the 
23 

Department and its component agencies have accomplished during 

the previous quarter and the past years. The report is not supposed 

to be a press document requiring extensive narrative and/or ‘‘spin’’. 

Yet the reports continue to be delayed—in one case almost 6 

months after the end of the fiscal year. This is unacceptable. The 

Committee directs the Department to submit these reports no later 

than 30 days after the end of each quarter. 

Currently, the SBI quarterly reports are limited to statistics covering actions taken but lack any measurement of effectiveness or 

consequences. All future SBI quarterly reports, beginning with the 

first quarter of fiscal year 2012, shall include: (a) estimates of the 

impact of consequence programs (such as Operation Streamline) on 

the rate of recidivism of illegal border crossers; and, (b) for ports 

of entry, the maritime domain, and between the ports of entry, (1) 

estimates of total attempted border crossings, (2) the rate of apprehension of attempted border crossings, and (3) the inflow into the 

United States of illegal entrants that evade apprehension. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $332,726,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 277,972,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 122,120,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 267,972,000 

The Office of the Chief Information Officer is responsible for 

oversight of information technology [IT] development, oversight of 

IT acquisition, alignment of IT systems and infrastructure to the 

enterprise architecture to support the missions and activities of the 

Department. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $267,972,000, of which $105,578,000 

is for salaries and expenses, and $162,394,000 is to be available 

until fiscal year 2014 for Department-wide technology investments 

overseen by the Office of the Chief Information Officer [OCIO]. The 

recommendation is a decrease of $64,754,000 from the fiscal year 

2011 level and $10,000,000 below the level proposed in the budget 

request. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................... 86,738 105,578 105,578 

Information technology services ................................................................ 51,314 38,800 38,800 

Infrastructure and security activities ........................................................ 147,108 89,525 79,525 

Homeland security data network ............................................................... 47,566 44,069 44,069 

Total, Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................. 332,726 277,972 267,972 
24 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommendation includes $105,578,000, as requested, to provide oversight of technology management, shared 

services, and acquisition strategy for the Department. Funding is 

included, as requested, to support the Office of Accessible Systems 

and Technology. The Committee supports the realignment of $20,713,000 and 147 

FTE from the CIO’s Department-wide IT projects to the Salaries 

and Expenses PPA. The Committee also supports the no-cost 

annualization of 70 FTE that were formerly contract positions. Finally, the Committee includes $253,000, as requested, to strengthen acquisition workforce capabilities. 

MULTI-YEAR INVESTMENT PLAN

The Committee includes bill language requiring a multi-year investment plan be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations 

with the fiscal year 2013 budget submission to Congress. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES

The Committee recommendation includes $38,800,000 for Information Technology Services, as requested in the budget. Consistent 

with the request, the recommended amount includes: a $2,700,000 

increase for the implementation of DHS-wide standards for the 

sharing of common services, establishment of interoperable systems, and other systems integration priorities; and a $7,600,000 increase for enterprise data management to establish procedures and 

practices across the components to lower development costs and decrease operations and maintenance costs. 

INFRASTRUCTURE AND SECURITY ACTIVITIES

The Committee recommendation includes $79,525,000 for Infrastructure and Security Activities, $10,000,000 below the amount requested in the budget. The recommended amount includes: a 

$12,268,000 increase, as requested, to continue development of a 

single sign-on capability; and a $10,000,000 increase, $10,000,000 

below the request, to consolidate component messaging systems 

into the two DHS data centers and transition to an ‘‘everything as 

a service’’ model. The Committee believes these are vital investments necessary to ensure that a mature infrastructure is in place 

that meets the Department’s needs. The Department is directed to 

continue to provide quarterly briefings to the Committee on the 

progress on implementing OneNet and migration to Networx. The 

reduction below the request reflects amounts to consolidate component messaging systems that will not be obligated in fiscal year 

2012. The reduction below fiscal year 2011 reflects requested savings in administrative services, realignment of personnel to the salaries and expenses PPA, and nonrecurring funds for Data Center 

migration for DHS headquarters offices. 

DATA CENTER MIGRATION

The Committee provides $76,390,000 specifically to various Departmental components for data center migration. The CIO shall 

continue to provide quarterly briefings to the Committees on the 
25 

progress of data center development and migration. The Committee 

is aware that component data center migration schedules may shift 

during the course of the fiscal year based on changing circumstances and priorities. As a result, the bill includes a general 

provision allowing the Secretary to transfer funds made available 

for data center migration, as necessary, among components based 

on revised schedules and priorities with 15 days prior notice to the 

Committees. The OCIO is also directed to include information on 

revised schedules in the quarterly briefings. 

Consistent with section 888 of Public Law 107–296, the Committee instructs the Department to implement the consolidation 

plan in a manner that shall not result in a reduction to the Coast 

Guard’s Operations Systems Center mission or its Government-employed or contract staff levels. A general provision is included for 

this purpose. 

ANALYSIS AND OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $334,360,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 355,368,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 344,368,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 339,368,000 

The account supports activities to improve the analysis and sharing of threat information, including activities of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis [I&A] and the Office of Operations Coordination. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $339,368,000 for Analysis and Operations. This is an increase of $5,008,000 above the fiscal year 2011 

level and a decrease of $16,000,000 from the budget request. The 

details of these recommendations are included in a classified annex 

accompanying this report. 

DHS INTELLIGENCE EXPENDITURE PLAN

The Committee requires the Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer to submit an expenditure plan for fiscal year 2012 no later 

than 60 days after the date of enactment of this act. 

The plan shall include the following: 

—fiscal year 2012 expenditures and staffing allotted for each program as compared to fiscal years 2011 and 2010; 

—all funded versus on-board positions, including Federal FTE, 

contractors, and reimbursable and nonreimbursable detailees; 

—an explanation for maintaining contract staff in lieu of Federal 

FTE; 

—a plan, including dates or timeframes for achieving key milestones, to reduce the office’s reliance on contract staff in lieu 

of Federal FTE; 

—funding, by object classification, including a comparison to fiscal years 2011 and 2010; and 

—the number of I&A-funded employees supporting organizations 

outside I&A and within DHS. 

The expenditure plan shall focus the activities of the Office on 

areas where the Department can provide unique expertise or serve 
26 

intelligence customers who are not supported by other components 

of the Intelligence Community, consistent with current statute and 

Executive orders, and in a way that does not impair intelligence 

support to the senior leadership of the Department of Homeland 

Security. 

FEDERAL WORKFORCE

The Committee supports the Department’s plans to more appropriately balance the I&A workforce with Federal employees as compared to a reliance on contract employees. To help meet this objective, the Committee encourages the Department to seek hiring authority on par with other Intelligence Community agencies. 

C2 GAP FILLER

The Committee denies funding for the C2 Gap Filler project due 

to an insufficient justification, the need to support core DHS operations, and the lack of clarity surrounding future costs and requirements. 

STATE AND LOCAL FUSION CENTERS

The Committee directs I&A to brief the Committee quarterly on 

progress in placing DHS intelligence professionals in State and 

local fusion centers [SLFC]. These briefings shall include: the qualification criteria used by DHS to decide where and how to place 

DHS intelligence analysts and related technology; total Federal expenditures to support each center to date and during the most recent quarter of the current fiscal year, in the same categorization 

as materials submitted to the Committees on Appropriations on 

March 23, 2007; the location of each fusion center, including identification of those with DHS personnel, both operational and 

planned; the schedule for operational stand-up of planned fusion 

centers and their locations; the number of DHS-funded employees 

located at each fusion center, including details on whether the employees are contract or Government staff; the privacy protection 

policies of each center, including the number of facility personnel 

trained in Federal privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties laws and 

standards; and the number of local law enforcement agents at each 

center approved or pending approval to receive and review classified intelligence information. The Committee also expects that performance metrics will be developed to judge the success of I&A’s 

SLFC program. These metrics shall be presented at the first quarterly briefing. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2011 1 ........................................................................... $113,646,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 144,318,000 

House allowance 1 .................................................................................. 124,000,000 

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 125,000,000 

1 Excludes $16,000,000 made available from the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund. 

This account finances the Office of Inspector General’s activities, 

including audits, inspections, investigations, and other reviews of 

programs and operations of the Department of Homeland Security 
27 

to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness and to prevent 

and detect fraud, waste, and abuse. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $125,000,000 for the Office of Inspector General [OIG] for fiscal year 2012, $11,354,000 above the 

fiscal year 2011 level and $3,318,000 below the comparable budget 

request. In addition, the Committee includes bill language transferring $16,000,000 needed by the OIG for audits and investigations 

related to natural disasters from the Disaster Relief Fund [DRF]. 

The OIG is required to notify the Committee no less than 15 days 

prior to all transfers from the DRF. Included in the recommendation are increased resources for integrity oversight and investigations. The Committee directs the Inspector General to submit a 

plan for expenditure of all funds no later than 90 days after the 

date of enactment of this act. 

The Committee is pleased that the Secretary, pursuant to Public 

Law 110–161, established a direct link to the DHS OIG on the 

DHS Web site. The Committee directs the Secretary to update and 

maintain the Web link. 

INTEGRITY OVERSIGHT

Since fiscal year 2006, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has 

hired more than 19,176 new employees, a 46 percent increase, and 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has hired over 4,747 

new personnel, a 31 percent increase. The Committee is concerned 

due to the rapid hiring in CBP and ICE, that there is the potential 

for increased corruption. To avoid corruption and misconduct, it is 

imperative that all agents, especially new hires, receive comprehensive training in ethics and public integrity. The OIG provides ethics 

training to all agencies and is in charge of investigating all allegations of criminal misconduct throughout the Department. It is essential that the OIG, CBP, and ICE work jointly and cooperatively 

to combat corruption. Within the total funding recommended, the 

Committee provides the OIG an increase of no less than $4,000,000 

for integrity investigations. The Inspector General shall submit a 

plan to the Committee on Appropriations no later than 45 days 

after the date of enactment of this act for the expenditure of integrity oversight funds in coordination with CBP and ICE. 
(28) 

TITLE II 

SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

SUMMARY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is responsible for enforcing 

laws regarding admission of foreign-born persons into the United 

States, and ensuring that all goods and persons entering and 

exiting the United States do so legally. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends total resources of $11,655,225,000, 

including direct appropriations of $10,242,040,000 and estimated 

fee collections of $1,413,185,000. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION—FUNDING SUMMARY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 enacted Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee recommendations 

Appropriations: 

Salaries and expenses .......................................................... 8,196,198 8,725,555 8,762,103 

Automation modernization .................................................... 335,902 364,030 334,275 

Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology 

[BSFIT] .............................................................................. 573,024 527,623 400,000 

Air and Marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and 

procurement ...................................................................... 515,294 470,566 506,566 

Construction and facilities management ............................. 259,480 283,822 239,096 

Total, Appropriations ........................................................ 9,879,898 10,371,596 10,242,040 

Estimated fee collections: 

Immigration inspection user fee .......................................... 525,443 527,629 527,629 

Immigration enforcement fines ............................................ 1,037 1,041 1,041 

ESTA ...................................................................................... ............................ 44,524 44,524 

Land border inspection fee ................................................... 28,598 28,909 28,909 

COBRA fee ............................................................................. 390,974 440,521 385,521 

APHIS inspection fee ............................................................. 318,472 323,000 323,000 

Global entry user fee ............................................................ 2,500 2,615 2,615 

Puerto Rico Trust Fund ......................................................... 89,980 91,779 91,779 

Small airport user fee .......................................................... 8,164 8,167 8,167 

Total, Estimated fee collections ....................................... 1,365,168 1,468,185 1,413,185 

Total, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, available 

funding ......................................................................... 11,245,066 11,839,781 11,655,225 
29 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $8,196,198,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 8,725,555,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 8,769,518,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,762,103,000 

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CBP] Salaries and Expenses appropriation provides funds for border security, immigration, customs, agricultural inspections, regulating and facilitating 

international trade, collecting import duties, and enforcing U.S. 

trade laws. In addition to directly appropriated resources, fee collections are available for the operations of CBP from the following 

sources: 

Immigration Inspection User Fee.—CBP collects user fees to fund 

the costs of international inspections activities at airports and seaports, as authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

U.S.C. 1356). 

Electronic System for Travel Authorization Fee.—CBP collects 

fees to cover the cost of operating and implementing a system to 

pre-screen visitors from countries participating in the Visa Waiver 

Program prior to their arrival in the United States to avoid security risks, as authorized by section 711(h)(3)(B) of the 9/11 Act 

(Public Law 110–53). 

Immigration Enforcement Fine.—CBP collects fines from owners 

of transportation lines and persons for unauthorized landing of 

aliens, as authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

U.S.C. 1356). 

Land Border Inspection Fee.—CBP collects fees for processing applications for the Dedicated Commuter Lanes program, the Automated Permit Ports program, the Canadian Border Boat Landing 

program, and both Canadian and Mexican Non-Resident Alien Border Crossing Cards, as authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356). 

Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act [COBRA] Fee.— 

CBP collects fees for inspection services involving customs-related 

functions. The COBRA user fee statutory authority (19 U.S.C. 58c) 

specifies the types of expenses to be reimbursed and the order for 

the reimbursement of these types of expenses. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Inspection Fee.— 

CBP receives as a transfer a distribution of agriculture inspection 

fees collected by the United States Department of Agriculture. The 

user fees, as authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 

and Trade Act of 1990 (21 U.S.C. 136), are charged to offset costs 

for the services related to the importation, entry, or exportation of 

animals and animal products. 

Global Entry User Fee.—CBP collects fees to cover the cost of a 

registered traveler program to expedite screening and processing of 

international passengers as authorized under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, section 565(3)(B). 

Puerto Rico Trust Fund.—Customs duties, taxes, and fees collected in Puerto Rico by CBP are deposited in the Puerto Rico 

Trust Fund. After providing for the expenses of administering CBP 

activities in Puerto Rico, the remaining amounts are transferred to 
30 

the Treasurer of Puerto Rico pursuant to 48 U.S.C. sections 740 

and 795. 

Small Airport User Fee.—The User Fee Airports Program authorized under 19 U.S.C. 58b and administered under 19 U.S.C. 

58c(b)(9)(A)(i), authorizes inspection services to be provided to participating small airports on a fully reimbursable basis. The fees 

charged under this program are set forth in a memorandum of 

agreement between the small airport facility and the agency, and 

may be adjusted annually as costs and requirements change. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $8,762,103,000 for salaries and expenses of U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CBP] for fiscal year 

2012, including $3,274,000 from the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund. The Committee includes bill language making available up 

to $150,000 for payment for rental space for preclearance operations and $1,000,000 for payments to informants. The Committee 

also includes bill language placing a $35,000 annual limit on overtime paid to any employee. 

Included in the Committee’s recommendation is full funding requested in the budget for the law enforcement journeyman pay adjustment for CBP officers and Border Patrol agents and full 

annualization of officers and agents initially funded in prior year 

appropriations acts (including the 1,000 new Border Patrol agents 

funded in the Emergency Supplemental Border Security Appropriations Act, 2010). The Committee notes that the journeyman pay 

grade increase will affect 24,371 CBP employees in fiscal year 

2012. 

The Committee recommends $20,692,000 for an additional 300 

CBP officers at new and expanded ports of entry; $2,212,000 for additional canine units; $7,499,000 to expand the Immigration Advisory Program to four additional overseas locations; and $7,500,000 

for cargo container scanning pilot projects, all as requested in the 

budget. The Committee does not approve funds requested specifically for the acquisition workforce initiative but encourages CBP to 

use existing appropriations and fees to hire and train highly qualified procurement personnel. 

The Committee does not approve the Presidents’ budget proposal 

to adjust the fees collected pursuant to the Consolidated Omnibus 

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 [COBRA], and instead recommends an additional $55,000,000 to support the funding requirements for CBP staffing of 21,186 officers. 

Increases above the request for officer integrity, screening and 

targeting, and antidumping and trade enforcement are discussed 

later in this report. 

REVISED BUDGET PRESENTATION

The Committee has been concerned about the lack of detail provided in the CBP ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ budget for two large categories—the Inspections, Trade, and Travel Facilitation at Ports of 

Entry PPA and the Border Security and Control PPA. The President’s fiscal year 2012 requests of $2,507,235,000 and 

$3,530,994,000, respectively, for these PPAs provide insufficient detail for the Committee to make fiscally responsible budget rec-
31 

ommendations. The Committee directs the CBP Chief Financial Officer to work with the Committee on a revised budget presentation 

for the fiscal year 2013 request. 

FINANCIAL PLAN BY OFFICE REQUIREMENTS

To help facilitate oversight by the Committee, CBP is directed to 

submit to the Committee within 90 days of the date of enactment 

of this act, a financial plan reflecting a detailed breakout of funding by office for each of the major PPAs in the Salaries and Expenses appropriation. This financial plan shall include the prior 

year’s plan, actual expenditures for the prior year, as well as the 

planned expenditures for fiscal year 2012. 

PORT OF ENTRY STAFFING AND RELIANCE ON FEES

The Committee notes that more than one-third of CBP officers 

are funded by inspection and immigration-related fees collected on 

passengers and goods entering the United States. Due to the global 

recession and decrease in travelers to the United States in the past 

few years, anticipated fee revenue has fallen short of its estimates. 

This has resulted in reallocations of increasingly scarce appropriated funds to meet the shortfalls and maintain adequate staffing 

at the ports of entry [POEs]. As discussed above, the Committee 

was required to find $55,000,000 in appropriations in this bill to 

meet the funding shortfall necessitated by the budget’s reliance on 

a proposed increase in fees. If the intention is to continue to rely 

on fee revenue to pay for a significant portion of CBP personnel, 

the Department must work with CBP, the Office of Management 

and Budget, and the appropriate congressional authorizing committees to adjust fee levels to meet the growing staffing requirements. 

At the same time, the Committee urges CBP to provide transparency on its staffing requirements at the POEs with local officials, including owners and operators of the port authorities. While 

mindful of law enforcement and security sensitivities, the Committee believes it is important that the Federal Government be a 

good partner with local officials who need to make their own decisions regarding port expansion and investment of local resources. 

The Committee directs CBP to update the POE staffing model, 

with a particular emphasis on staffing requirements reflecting both 

the new and renovated POEs which have been brought online as 

well as the increase in cross-border commercial and passenger traffic as the economy improves, and submit it to the Committee not 

later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this act. 

IMPROVING THE ENTRY PROCESS FOR VISITORS TO THE UNITED STATES

In prepared testimony for the March 2, 2011, hearing before the 

Committee, the Secretary stated the second Homeland Security 

mission is to secure the Nation’s borders ‘‘to prevent illegal activity 

while facilitating lawful travel and trade.’’ The Committee welcomes visitors to the United States, but remains concerned about 

frequent comments from constituents who travel internationally 

that the entry process coming into this country is lengthy and 

daunting. It often takes hours for passengers to be processed once 

arriving at an airport. There are long lines, not all arrival lanes are 
32 

open and staffed, and the information provided to arriving passengers is often confusing. Additionally, travelers have expressed 

concerns, especially in the air environment, about the way they are 

treated by CBP officers upon their arrival at the airport. The visitors are often tired and there may be language barriers, but unfortunately what makes the media reports is that CBP officers are 

brusque and treat the visitor as if he or she is guilty while performing required entry inspections. The Committee understands 

the CBP officers’ primary duty is security and ensuring that the individual before them is eligible for entry into the country, however, 

the officer is also the first impression the traveler has of America 

and Americans. 

The Committee is aware that the Department has initiated programs to try and address some of these issues, such as the Model 

Ports of Entry program and the Global Entry Program. The Committee directs the Commissioner to submit a report to the Committee not later than December 1, 2011, on the actions it has taken 

and programs it has implemented to improve the entry process experience for travelers, including customer service. The report 

should include how CBP and the Department have implemented 

the recommendations proposed by the Secure Borders and Open 

Doors Advisory Committee such as the International Registered 

Traveler program and those programs listed above. The report 

should also describe the training CBP officers are provided regarding ‘‘welcoming’’ visitors as they are being processed, including aspects of courtesy and customer service, as well as any reasons why 

officers should not be provided such instruction. Finally, the report 

should explain in detail how these existing programs, and others, 

have reduced wait times, how much money has been directed to 

these improved entry programs for each of fiscal years 2008–2011, 

and how funds provided in the fiscal year 2012 act will be used to 

continue and expand these and other programs. The Committee 

urges the report to discuss and explore how CBP can expand its 

work with private entities, including the tourist industry, to assist 

in this effort. 

The Committee notes that the Department operates a disparate 

number of trusted traveler programs including, but not limited to, 

Global Entry, FAST, Nexus, and SENTRI. The Committee directs 

DHS to provide a briefing to the Committee not later than November 1, 2011, on the scope of all DHS trusted traveler programs, 

their commonalities and differences, their financing mechanisms, 

and possibilities for consolidation. This review should be led by the 

Office of Policy. 

SOUTHWEST BORDER SECURITY

The Committee continues its multi-faceted initiative, begun in 

2005, to improve security on the border by increasing personnel, 

technology, training, and infrastructure. Over the 6-year period 

ending in fiscal year 2010, Border Patrol apprehensions along the 

Southwest Border decreased by 61 percent, from 1,189,075 to 

463,382. This reduction is an indication that the combined effect of 

the recession and our bipartisan efforts to secure the border are resulting in fewer people attempting to illegally cross the border. 

Similarly, between fiscal years 2008–2010, illegal bulk cash sei-
33 

zures rose 36 percent; illegal weapons seizures rose 7 percent; and 

illegal drug seizures rose 40 percent. 

The Committee notes there has been an increased level of violence being directed at our Border Patrol agents and CBP officers 

stationed at and between our ports of entry. Between fiscal years 

2008–2010, there has been an average of 1,077 assaults on agents 

and officers. These assaults range from ‘‘rockings’’—in which large 

rocks or hunks of concrete are thrown down on agents from on top 

of border fences—to physical and vehicle assaults, shootings, and 

other attempts to impede law enforcement operations. Additionally, 

in the past 3 years we have experienced the tragic killings of a Border Patrol Agent deliberately run down in January 2008, in the 

Yuma Sector by drug traffickers attempting to flee south into Mexico, an Agent shot multiple times in July 2009, while on night patrol near Campo Station as he followed a suspicious group of individuals, and an Agent shot in the mountains of the Tucson Sector 

in December, 2010, during a night patrol when he and fellow 

agents responded to reports of individuals preying on a group of illegal aliens. As of April 30, 2011, there have been 413 assaults on 

agents and officers this fiscal year. As we have moved to further 

secure the Southwest Border, we have increased the cost of doing 

business for the smugglers while also increasing their levels of 

frustration. The Committee supports CBP’s efforts to protect the 

women and men working on our frontlines and requests semiannual briefings on assaults on its personnel, as part of the briefings discussed below, with the first briefing no later than November 1, 2011. 

In March 2009, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced 

a major initiative to assist the Mexican Government in combating 

drug cartel violence by deploying additional CBP and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] personnel and resources to 

the Southwest Border. With funds provided to CBP and ICE in the 

Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111–32), the 

Emergency Supplemental Border Security Appropriations Act, 

2010, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 

2010, and the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2011, more than $500,000,000 has been added 

above the President’s requests for Southwest Border security, including outbound inspections to combat smuggling of guns and 

bulk cash which support the drug cartels. With the funds provided 

in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 for CBP’s air and marine operations 

account, 3 additional unmanned aircraft systems [UAS] have been 

funded and, once brought online, will bring CBP’s inventory of 

UASs to 10 patrolling our borders. 

MONITORING PROGRESS ON THE SOUTHWEST BORDER

As noted above, the Congress has provided significant resources 

to address border security and respond to the violence in Mexico. 

It is important, however, to know how these resources have been 

deployed and the impact they are having on addressing current 

and potential threats. The Committee directs the Department to 

provide to the Committees semiannual briefings on the status of 

threats to the border and the progress being made on addressing 

this threat. The Department is directed to coordinate these brief-
34 

ings and include representatives of CBP and ICE and other DHS 

agencies and entities as appropriate. 

The Committee directs CBP to submit a report not later than December 1, 2011, on the costs associated with the establishment and 

operation of the Joint Field Command in the Tucson Sector. The 

report should include the purpose for its establishment, the analysis associated with creating this specific function for this Sector, 

the annual costs to operate since its creation, the level of staffing— 

both permanent and temporary duty—by quarter (including the 

sectors from which the staff have been detailed), and the length of 

the temporary duty. 

CROSS-BORDER TUNNELS

According to recent DHS reports, tunnels along the United 

States-Mexico border will remain an attractive alternative to overland drug smuggling because of increased security measures and 

aggressive enforcement activity on traditional cross-border routes. 

More than 13 cross-border tunnels have been found along the 

United States-Mexico border in fiscal year 2011, surpassing the 12 

discovered in all of fiscal year 2010. Of these tunnels, more than 

nine have been found in Nogales. The Committee supports the ongoing efforts of the DHS Tunnel Task Force to detect and respond 

to new tunnels and directs continued submission of the required 

tunnel report and directs CBP to dedicate sufficient resources to 

continue detecting, responding to, and remediating tunnels as they 

are encountered. The report shall detail the level of support provided to this activity by other Federal Government agencies, including equipment used. 

DRUG TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATION ‘‘SPOTTERS’’ 

The Committee is concerned that reports of activities by drug 

cartel ‘‘spotters’’—individuals stationed in key locations in the 

United States along drug and alien smuggling routes on the Southwest Border—are increasing. The Committee directs the Secretary 

to submit a report detailing the extent and scope of this activity, 

its impact on Federal border law enforcement activities, methods it 

uses—or is considering using—to stop or limit this activity, and 

specific Federal, State, or local laws violated by these individuals 

and their activities. The report should also note, if applicable, 

whether this activity is illegal and/or preventable. A classified 

version of the report should be submitted if necessary. 

BORDER COMMUNITY LIAISON OFFICERS

The Committee is aware that where they have been used, border 

community relations nonuniformed officers have improved collaboration with local border communities and helped the Border Patrol 

and Office of Field Operations more effectively carry out their 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 

enactment of this act on the role such officers play, and the status 

of service-oriented training for CBP Officers and Border Patrol 

agents. 
35 

CONDUCT AND INTEGRITY OVERSIGHT

Since Congress initiated the significant increase in CBP staffing 

in 2005, the Committee has been concerned about the potential for 

increased corruption by CBP personnel. Since 2007, the Congress 

has provided over $11,000,000 more than the Presidents have requested for program integrity efforts. Since fiscal year 2005, the 

number of CBP personnel arrested or indicted for acts of corruption 

has grown from 27 to 128. The Committee remains committed to 

addressing this problem. The Committee expects the administration to join in the effort to get ahead of this problem in the fiscal 

year 2013 budget. 

The Committee recommends a total of $170,681,000, $5,000,000 

above the request for CBP to expand integrity training for its officers, conduct investigations, reduce the backlog of reviews and 

polygraphs, and meet the requirements of the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2011 (Public Law 111–338). CBP has hired more than 

19,176 new personnel, a 46 percent increase since fiscal year 2006. 

BORDER PATROL AGENTS

Since Congress began increasing the size of the Border Patrol by 

funding the hiring of 500 new agents in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, 

and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109–13), a total of 10,106 

new Border Patrol agents, and attendant support positions, will 

have been funded and hired through the end of fiscal year 2011. 

The Congress strongly supports the Border Patrol mission of securing our borders and fully funds the fiscal year 2012 request. 

Included in the amount recommended by the Committee for ‘‘Border Security and Control’’ is a total of $3,619,604,000, as requested. 

With the 1,000 new Border Patrol agents funded as part of the 

Emergency Supplemental Border Security Act, 2010, combined 

with the funds in this act, there will be 21,370 Border Patrol 

agents on duty, more than double the 9,951 agents on board at the 

end of fiscal year 2002. 

Bill language is included mandating a floor of not less than 

21,370 Border Patrol agents on-board throughout fiscal year 2012. 

The Committee is impressed by the work performed by the National Guard on the Southwest Border assisting the Border Patrol 

in monitoring the border and reporting any incursions. The Committee notes that while the President announced on June 17, 2011, 

an extension of the Guard on the border through the end of fiscal 

year 2011, no decision has yet been made to further extend its deployment into fiscal year 2012 and no funds have been requested 

in the budget for this purpose. The Committee urges the administration to make a determination on the presence of the Guard into 

the next fiscal year at the earliest practicable point and to request 

the appropriate level of funding for the National Guard to support 

this important mission. 

OPERATION STREAMLINE

The Committee supports Operation Streamline, a program in 

which individuals apprehended crossing the Southwest border are 

sentenced by a judge to serve a period of time in jail. In Border Pa-
36 

trol sectors where Operation Streamline is robustly in effect, there 

has been a noticeable reduction in attempted illegal crossings. The 

Committee encourages the Department to work with the appropriate Department of Justice agencies and the Judiciary to expand 

Operation Streamline to additional Border Patrol sectors. 

NORTHERN BORDER PORT STAFFING

The Committee commends CBP for achieving its goal of stationing 2,212 Border Patrol agents on the Northern Border by the 

end of calendar year 2010. The Committee remains concerned, however, about CBP officer staffing levels for Northern Border ports of 

entry. The Committee believes that many of the concerns about 

Northern Border staffing could be allayed by more complete reporting to Congress about CBP’s Northern Border staffing plans. The 

Committee directs CBP to submit a plan with the fiscal year 2013 

budget detailing specific staffing and funding for, and implementation of, planned Northern Border enforcement initiatives. The Committee also directs CBP to provide a briefing to the Committee not 

later than December 1, 2011, on the CBP officer staffing requirements on the Northern Border based on increased trade flows and 

the current threat environment. 

TRADE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE

The Committee is concerned that CBP may not be providing sufficient resources and personnel to the Office of Trade. The volume 

of trade continues to expand and as the economy improves the 

country will experience an even greater volume of trade. The Committee recommends $151,298,000, $5,000,000 above the request, for 

trade enforcement and compliance activities in the Office of Trade. 

The funds above the request are directed for the hiring of additional trade enforcement and compliance personnel to enhance targeted abilities to collect duties and develop the enforcement and 

compliance strategy discussed below. Additional funds are provided 

for the Automated Targeting System and the National Targeting 

Center to enhance trade targeting systems. 

The Committee remains focused on the need for all Federal Government agencies involved in international trade to aggressively 

enforce existing trade laws. During a hearing before the subcommittee on May 25, 2011, it became clear that there are specific 

actions that CBP and ICE, together with the Departments of Commerce and State and the United States Trade Representative, can 

take without the need for additional legislation. According to CBP’s 

own statistics, more than $1,000,000,000 in duties related to antidumping from 2001 to 2010 have yet to be collected. 

The Committee directs the Department to submit a 3-year strategy to develop a robust and forward-leaning trade compliance enforcement framework. The strategy shall include a detailed hiring 

and staffing plan for the Office of Trade to fill critical trade enforcement and administrative positions, including those dedicated 

to trade targeting and analysis of trade trends, such as CBP officers; trade specialists; Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures officers; 

and auditors. The plan shall also address issues related to training 

requirements and the development of an antidumping/countervailing duty [AD/CVD] risk model. 
37 

As part of the plan, the Committee encourages CBP to look at 

focused use of single transaction bonds to target higher-risk importers as well as ‘‘new shipper’’ rules. Use of such bonds should 

be strategically based on risk-adjusted modeling. This strategy is 

to be submitted to the Committee not later than 180 days after the 

date of enactment of this act. 

Additionally, the Committee directs CBP to submit the updated 

resource optimization model required to be prepared under section 

403 of the SAFE Port Act. 

TRADE COMPLIANCE—PRODUCT VERIFICATION TEAMS

Due to their success in the area of textiles, the Committee directs 

CBP and ICE to work with the U.S. Trade Representative and the 

State Department to review the possible uses of product 

verification teams to combat transshipment violations for products 

subject to antidumping/countervailing duties. Further, the report 

should make recommendations to the Committee on how to make 

better use of and expand product verification teams not later than 

180 days after the date of enactment of this act. 

TRADE COMPLIANCE—BROKER COMMUNITY

The Committee urges CBP to investigate ways to work with the 

broker community to encourage or require brokers to develop 

‘‘know your customer’’ programs to promote integrity within the importer community. It is important that customs brokers know the 

foreign entity with which they have agreed to do business. The 

Committee directs CBP to work with the Department of Commerce 

on the feasibility and impacts of requiring foreign importers of 

record to have a U.S. agent that is financially liable, and report the 

results to the Committee by April 13, 2012. 

TRADE COMPLIANCE—INFORMATION SHARING

The Committee understands that current law may unintentionally prohibit the Department of Commerce from sharing proprietary information with CBP vital to determining violations or 

claims with respect to any provision of the Tariff Act of 1930. The 

Committee urges the Department to coordinate jointly with the Department of Commerce on a legislative proposal to amend the appropriate section of the United States Code to remove any legal 

barriers to sharing of appropriate and necessary information between these prime federal trade compliance and enforcement agencies. 

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ENFORCEMENT REPORTS

The Committee has ensured that, within the amounts provided 

for in this account, there will be sufficient funds to administer the 

ongoing requirements of section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

U.S.C. 1675c), referenced in subtitle F of title VII of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–171; 120 Stat. 154). 

The Committee directs CBP to continue to work with the Departments of Commerce and the Treasury, and the Office of the United 

States Trade Representative (and all other relevant agencies) to increase collections, and provide a public report on an annual basis, 
38 

within 30 days of each year’s distributions under the law. The report should summarize CBP’s efforts to collect past due amounts 

and increase current collections, particularly with respect to cases 

involving unfairly traded United States imports from China. The 

report shall provide the amount of uncollected duties for each antidumping and countervailing duty order, and indicate the amount 

of open, unpaid bills for each such order. In that report, the Secretary, in consultation with other relevant agencies, including the 

Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce, should also advise as 

to whether CBP can adjust its bonding requirements to further protect revenue without violating U.S. law or international obligations, 

and without imposing unreasonable costs upon importers. 

The Committee further directs the Secretary to work with the 

Secretary of Commerce to identify opportunities for the Commerce 

Department to improve the timeliness, accuracy, and clarity of liquidation instructions sent to CBP. Increased attention and interagency coordination in these areas could help ensure that steps in 

the collection of duties are completed in a more expeditious manner. 

Consistent with section 691a of Public Law 103–182, the North 

American Free Trade Agreement Implementing Act of 1993, the 

Committee directs the Commissioner of Customs to submit to Congress before the 60th day of each fiscal year a report regarding the 

collection during the preceding fiscal year of duties imposed under 

the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. The Committee directs CBP to work with the Departments of Commerce and the 

Treasury, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative 

(and all other relevant agencies) to increase collections, and provide 

a public report on an annual basis. 

The report should summarize CBP’s efforts to collect past due 

amounts and increase overall current collections, particularly with 

respect to cases involving unfairly traded United States imports 

from China. The report shall provide the amount of uncollected duties for each antidumping and countervailing duty order, and indicate the amount of open, unpaid bills for each such order. In that 

report, the Secretary, in consultation with other relevant agencies, 

including the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce, should 

also advise as to whether CBP can adjust its bonding requirements 

to further protect revenue without violating U.S. law or international obligations, and without imposing unreasonable costs 

upon importers. 

Separately, CBP is directed to report to the Committee on collec- tion of the outstanding $1,000,000,000 in antidumping/countervailing duties, including the number of claims, the value of each 

claim, the stage of collection for each claim, and the date on which 

the claim was referred for further action to either the CBP Chief 

Counsel or U.S. Department of Justice. This report shall be submitted to the Committee not later than 180 days after the date of 

enactment of this act. 

JONES ACT

CBP is charged with enforcement of U.S. cabotage laws. The 

Jones Act provides for the national and economic security of the 

United States by supporting a strong U.S. merchant marine. By 
39 

virtue of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended by 

Public Law 106–580, the coastwise laws apply to marine transportation between points and places in the United States, including 

the Outer Continental Shelf. U.S. vessels, mariners, and shipyards 

have been negatively impacted and underutilized as a result of lax 

enforcement of prior rulings inconsistent with congressional intent. 

The Committee urges the Department to levy penalties for previously documented violations, continue working with the Offshore 

Marine Service Association in order to investigate future potential 

violations, and dedicate adequate resources to vigorously enforce 

the Jones Act on the Outer Continental Shelf. 

The Committee is very concerned that more than 45 waivers of 

the Jones Act have been issued enabling foreign-flagged vessels to 

transport oil released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in response to extreme fluctuations in the price of gas. The Committee 

is also concerned about the lack of transparency in conducting 

these waivers. A general provision is included prohibiting funds 

from being used to issue future waivers until the Secretary has 

consulted with the Departments of Energy and Transportation and 

representatives of the United States flag maritime industry and 

taken adequate steps to ensure the use of United States flag vessels. The Secretary shall notify the Congress within 48 hours of 

any request for a waiver. 

IMPROVING TRADE PROCESSING AND COORDINATION

The Committee has strongly supported efforts to enhance the 

processing of safe and legitimate trade while ensuring that all 

proper duties and tariffs are collected and unsafe or contraband 

products do not enter the national stream of commerce. The Committee provided funds for innovative programs such as the Container Security Initiative and the Customs-Trade Partnership 

Against Terrorism [C–TPAT] prior to their authorization because 

these programs were intended to meet both trade and security requirements. However, recent activities, including the Importer Self 

Assessment, may not be implemented as effectively as they could 

be. It is important that CBP work with the importing community, 

as well as coordinate with other government agencies such as the 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission to communicate guidelines defining what constitutes low-risk cargo and what additional steps importers can 

take to meet them and be considered a certified importer. The 

Committee recognizes the potential impediments to separating and 

clearing low risk cargo from cargo requiring greater inspection at 

individual ports given their different configurations and inspection 

processes. However, industry can provide valuable information and 

fresh ideas on this process and the Committee urges CBP to engage 

more regularly with industry on these issues. The Committee directs CBP to brief the Committee on its efforts not later than December 1, 2011. 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

CBP is directed to brief the Committee by April 13, 2012, on 

progress in implementing the 5-year Intellectual Property Rights 

Enforcement Strategy submitted on July 14, 2010, to include 
40 

progress made in implementing the items to improve enforcement 

at pre-entry, entry, and post-entry. 

TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE OUTBOUND LAND INSPECTIONS

CBP is directed to submit to the Committee within 90 days of the 

date of enactment of this act, a 3-year strategy to improve the technology available to conduct outbound inspections along the land 

border and deploy such technology. Significant improvements could 

be seen in the ability of CBPOs to conduct outbound inspections by 

careful deployment of technology, like those technologies being tested and developed at the Stafford test bed by CBP. 

FORENSIC EVIDENCE PROTOCOLS

The Committee directs CBP and ICE to jointly brief the Committee not later than April 13, 2012, on what standardized policies 

for treatment of forensic evidence from crime scenes against Federal officials or others when local agencies are involved are currently in use, whether or not separate memoranda of understanding are necessary with local jurisdictions, and if all guns, bullet casings, shells, etc. are put through Federal systems such as Etrace and the National Integrated Ballistics Imaging Network. 

CARGO INSPECTION AND PASSENGER AND TRADE FACILITATION

The Committee recommends $36,400,000, $5,000,000 above the 

request, for Automated Targeting Systems [ATS] and $51,950,000, 

$5,000,000 above the request, for the National Targeting Center 

[NTC]. Due to the changing threat, the Committee notes that CBP 

targeting priorities and methodologies have been re-engineered to 

address interdiction of possible terrorists before they board a flight 

destined for the United States. While these new targeting programs are effective, the restructuring has caused a dramatic increase in the NTC-Passenger [NTC–P] workload leading to significantly increased costs in both overtime and temporary duty augmentation of staff. The budget request funds permanent staffing relocations. Both the NTC–P and NTC-Cargo programs are being enhanced to provide around-the-clock tactical targeting support for 

CBP antiterrorism efforts. The funds above the request are intended to ensure that both of these targeting activities are appropriately staffed around-the-clock, as well as to enhance the targeting systems to provide better discrimination of potential threats 

entering the country while furthering the ability to accelerate the 

processing of passengers and cargo which pose little or no threat. 

The Committee also recommends the $7,500,000, as requested, 

for pilots designed to improve cargo inspections. The Committee directs CBP to provide a detailed briefing to the Committee on the 

plans for use of the additional NTC and ATS funds as well as the 

proposed pilots by November 1, 2011. 

The Committee is concerned that DHS does not have the capacity to fully screen rail cars entering the United States for radiation. 

The Committee directs CBP, in conjunction with the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, to brief the Committee on the status of existing technologies and on how it intends to develop a strategy to 

work with the private sector on ways to perform such scanning. 
41 

TRACKING STOLEN AND LOST TRAVEL DOCUMENTS

The Committee is pleased that CBP has been working aggressively with INTERPOL to link TECS with INTERPOL’s Stolen and 

Lost Travel Document [SLTD] database. Given the ability of terrorists and others attempting to enter this country to do us harm 

using these stolen and lost documents, it is critical that all DHS 

officials, and especially those at our ports of entry and at the overseas immigration advisory program [IAP] airports, have timely access to this information. The Committee directs DHS and CBP to 

brief the Committee on the progress made to enhance the linkage 

between the SLTD database and TECS, how this is used at our domestic and IAP ports, the extent to which information on revoked 

or suspended visas and other travel documents is included in these 

databases, and other steps that have been taken or are planned to 

be taken to enhance this capability, the resources expended to date 

on these efforts, and the requirement for additional resources to ensure the most robust and timely system. The Committee directs the 

briefing to occur not later than December 1, 2011. 

DATA CENTER MIGRATION

The Committee recommends a total of $28,385,000 for activities 

related to data center migration, $10,000,000 below the amount requested in the budget. 

INVASIVE SPECIES

The Committee directs CBP to fund activities associated with the 

control of invasive species, such as carrizo cane, and any mitigation 

efforts from within the ‘‘Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, 

and Technology’’ account. 

ADVANCED TRAINING CENTER

Included in the amount recommended by the Committee is 

$39,083,836, as proposed in the budget, for programmatic expenses 

(including salaries and benefits) and the National Training Plan, at 

the Advanced Training Center. For fiscal year 2012, the ATC staffing target is 235 employees. 

Pursuant to Public Law 106–246, the training to be conducted at 

the Center shall be configured in a manner so as to not duplicate 

or displace any Federal law enforcement program of the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Center [FLETC]. Training currently 

being conducted at a FLETC facility shall not be moved to the Center. 

TRAINING REGARDING HUMAN TRAFFICKING

CBP plays a critical role in identifying potential human trafficking victims as they enter the United States. The Committee encourages CBP to work with appropriate nonprofit organizations 

and victim service providers to improve the training of CBP officers 

in the field to assist in the identification of human trafficking victims and provide appropriate referrals to victim service organizations. 
42 

FOREIGN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

The Committee recognizes that trucks carrying foreign municipal 

solid waste entering the United States from Canada represent potential homeland security and environmental threats to our Nation. 

The Committee is also aware of successful efforts to address this 

threat, which have resulted in a 37 percent reduction in municipally managed waste shipments to the United States. However, 

nearly 350 trash trucks still cross U.S. borders every day. The 

Committee urges DHS, in conjunction with CBP, to consider proposing to raise the current Customs User Fee for trucks carrying 

foreign municipal solid waste into the United States and include 

any such proposal in the fiscal year 2013 budget through the appropriate authorizing mechanism. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION—SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Salaries and expenses: 

Headquarters, management, and administration: 

Management and administration, border security inspections 

and trade facilitation .......................................................... 516,102 688,878 672,152 

Management and administration, border security and control 

between ports of entry ........................................................ 495,862 738,462 721,736 

Rent .......................................................................................... 450,812 483,749 483,749 

Subtotal, Headquarters, management, and administration .................................................................................. 1,462,776 1,911,089 1,877,637 

Border security inspections and trade facilitation: 

Inspections, trade, and travel facilitation at ports of entry .. 2,474,344 2,507,235 2,567,235 

Harbor maintenance fee collection (Trust Fund) .................... 3,274 3,274 3,274 

International cargo screening .................................................. 103,945 68,757 68,757 

Other international programs .................................................. 11,119 10,684 10,684 

Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism [C–TPAT] ....... 45,454 44,979 44,979 

Trusted Traveler Programs ....................................................... 10,751 6,311 6,311 

Inspection and detection technology investments .................. 144,162 149,537 149,537 

Automated targeting systems .................................................. 32,389 31,400 36,400 

National Targeting Center ....................................................... 47,347 46,950 51,950 

Training .................................................................................... 20,778 37,834 37,834 

Subtotal, Border security inspections and trade facilitation .................................................................................. 2,893,563 2,906,961 2,976,961 

Border security and control between ports of entry: 

Border security and control .............................................................. 3,508,244 3,530,994 3,530,994 

Training ............................................................................................. 36,094 88,610 88,610 

Subtotal, Border security and control between ports of entry .... 3,544,338 3,619,604 3,619,604 

Air and Marine operations ......................................................................... 295,521 287,901 287,901 

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses .................................................. 8,196,198 8,725,555 8,762,103 
43 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $335,902,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 364,030,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 334,275,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 334,275,000 

The automation modernization account includes funds for major 

information technology systems and services for U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection [CBP], including the Automated Commercial Environment [ACE] and the International Trade and Data System 

projects, and connectivity of and integration of existing systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $334,275,000, to be available until 

September 30, 2014, for automation modernization. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE DATA SYSTEM

Included in the amount recommended is $16,000,000, as requested, for the International Trade Data System. 

EXPENDITURE PLAN

The Committee includes bill language limiting the availability of 

$50,000,000 for development of ACE upon the submission of a comprehensive expenditure plan for the program. The Committee also 

expects to continue receiving the ACE quarterly reports. CBP is directed to brief the Committees on Appropriations immediately on 

the plan to decommission the Automated Commercial System 

[ACS], the updated program plan for ACE, how the ACS decommission plan is integrated into the program plan, and the updated 

master schedule for ACE development. 

TECS MODERNIZATION

The Committee directs CBP and ICE to continue to conduct the 

semiannual joint briefings for the Committee. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data 

System [ITDS] ............................................................................ 147,794 169,755 140,000 

Current operations protection and processing support ................ 188,108 194,275 194,275 

Subtotal, Automation modernization ................................ 335,902 364,030 334,275 

BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $573,024,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 527,623,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 510,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 400,000,000 
44 

The Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology account funds the capital procurement and total operations and 

maintenance costs associated with fencing, infrastructure, sensors, 

surveillance, and other border security technology. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

BORDER TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT DELAYS

The Committee recommends $400,000,000 for Border Security 

Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology, $127,623,000 below the 

request. 

Since fiscal year 2006, the Committee has been a strong and active supporter of the efforts to secure our Southwest Border 

through a strategic combination of fencing, tactical infrastructure, 

and technology, combined with a doubling of the size of the Border 

Patrol. In fact, at the initiation of this Committee, the Congress 

has appropriated $1,909,500,000 in regular, supplemental, and 

emergency funding above the amounts requested by this and the 

previous President for this account. These funds have been used to 

construct the 650 miles of fencing and border infrastructure mandated by the Secure Fence Act, as amended, and they have been 

used to bring more technology and security to Border Patrol agents 

than has ever been available. 

The Committee is extremely disappointed that the administration has on two occasions delayed deployment and expansion of security technology along the Southwest Border. As a result of these 

reviews, more than a year of technology deployment activity has 

been lost to numerous reconsiderations and reviews. This has resulted in the funds provided by Congress for deployment of border 

security technologies—including existing systems which have been 

proven to work along portions of the border for years—sitting in accounts in Washington until a grand solution was determined. 

These delays and reviews have resulted in the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan announced by the Secretary in January, 

2011. Deploying, in many cases, the types of existing and basic 

technologies called for by the Congress over the past 3 years, this 

solution will cover the Arizona border—by 2015. This is 4 years 

later than the estimated deployment of technology along the entire 

Southwest Border as originally envisioned by the now cancelled 

SBInet. The reduction is based on high levels of unobligated balances. As of July 31, 2011, the program had more than 

$440,000,000 available in unobligated balances. 

NORTHERN BORDER SECURITY

The Committee has strongly supported an enhanced focus on securing the Northern Border in addition to the Southwest and coastal borders. In fact, it was at the direction of this Committee that 

$20,000,000 in funding provided in this account in fiscal year 2007 

were re-directed to begin addressing Northern Border requirements. Included in the amount recommended for this account for 

fiscal year 2012 is $45,000,000, as requested, for ongoing Northern 

Border security activities. 

The Committee is concerned about reports of increased drug 

smuggling across the Northern Border via small aircraft. This is a 
45 

known vulnerability which began to be addressed by the creation 

and staffing of the Northern Border airwings. However, incidences 

of low-flying, radar evading aircraft across this border have increased. In testimony during a Senate subcommittee hearing in 

May, the Commissioner indicated that ‘‘22 Canadian (military) 

radar feeds will be sent to the Air and Marine Operations Center 

by the third quarter, November 2011.’’ The Committee appreciates 

this response and directs CBP to brief the Committees on its 

progress in this effort not later than December 1, 2011. 

The Committee also encourages Northern Border sector chiefs to 

work with State and local officials, including Canadian officials, on 

identifying any locations which might be conducive for limited construction of tactical infrastructure to address issues, such as vehicle drive-thrus, in remote or residential areas where towns and 

houses meet along the border. The Committee requests a briefing 

on these discussions, by Border Patrol sector, during the second 

quarter of fiscal year 2012. 

INVASIVE SPECIES

The Committee directs CBP to fund activities associated with the 

control of invasive species, such as carrizo cane, and any mitigation 

efforts from within the ‘‘Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, 

and Technology’’ account. 

EXPENDITURE PLAN

The Committee expects a timely submission of the plan mandated in this bill. It is the responsibility of CBP, the Department, 

and the Office of Management and Budget to ensure expenditure 

plans, when submitted, comply with the law. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Development and deployment ........................................................ 324,620 337,000 212,377 

Operations and maintenance ........................................................ 172,019 133,248 133,248 

Program management ................................................................... 76,385 57,375 54,375 

Subtotal, Border security fencing, infrastructure, and 

technology .................................................................... 573,024 527,623 400,000 

AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND

PROCUREMENT

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $515,294,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 470,566,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 499,966,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 506,566,000 

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CBP] Air and Marine 

Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement [AMO] account funds the capital procurement and total operations and 

maintenance costs of the CBP air and marine program and provides support to other Federal, State, and local agencies. 
46 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $506,566,000, an increase of 

$36,000,000 above the request, to remain available until September 

30, 2014, for air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, 

and procurement. 

The Committee strongly supports CBP’s continued efforts to recapitalize its air and marine assets. Since fiscal year 2005, the 

Congress has appropriated more than $3,340,000,000 to this account, of which $654,985,000 has been above the amounts requested by the President. Working with the Office of Air and Marine, the Committee has provided resources to meet the Department’s border security requirements in the air, coastal, and 

riverine environments as delineated by the CBP Air and Marine 

Recapitalization Plan. Resources to address some of these requirements are provided in this bill. The Committee notes the lengthy 

period of time it takes in procuring certain types of aircraft and 

other air systems because of the need to compete with the Department of Defense for these systems in a time of war, but AMO is 

to be commended for the creative use of multi-purchase awards. 

AGING AVIATION ASSETS AND STRATEGIC RECAPITALIZATION

REQUIREMENTS

The Committee continues its strong support of CBP’s multi-year 

effort to upgrade its fleet of aircraft. The Committee is troubled 

that approximately 45 percent of CBP’s aircraft are on average 34 

years old. The P–3 and Huey helicopters are an average of 42 years 

old and the medium-lift Black Hawk helicopters—used extensively 

on the borders—are on average 32 years old. 

During fiscal years 2011 and 2012, CBP will retire up to 12 twin 

engine patrol aircraft employed over both land and maritime borders, while gaining delivery of only 5 replacement aircraft with no 

additional aircraft funded. Without sufficient funding to maintain 

production, up to 6 more aircraft could be retired without replacements, resulting in a reduction of 13 aircraft over the next 2 years. 

Without sustained and robust funding for a recapitalization effort at fiscal year 2009 levels, CBPs Office of Air and Marine could 

be required to ground 15 percent of its existing fleet over the next 

3 years. Understandably, unsafe or unsupportable aircraft that 

cannot meet current or future CBP and DHS mission needs should 

be retired. However, the loss of critical aviation assets, such as 

Black Hawk and Huey helicopters, and multi-mission patrol aircraft, would be devastating. CBP would not be able to meet shifts 

in land border threats from the low desert to the higher terrain, 

or support the planned rapid reaction ground force without Black 

Hawks to transport, protect, and recover special tactical teams, and 

Hueys to provide rapid air mobility for large numbers of Border Patrol agents. Without replacement multi-mission patrol aircraft, 

CBP would be limited in its ability to provide essential ground and 

coastal surveillance, air interdiction, and direct support for ground 

interdiction operations. The P–3 long range patrol aircraft is undergoing the last phase of its service life extension program, and 12 

aircraft temporarily returned to flight have scored considerable successes disrupting bulk drug shipments to Mexico and the United 
47 

States, including up to 250,000 pounds of hard drugs and the capture of several self-propelled semi-submersible vessels, in a single 

year. The program must be completed as planned to ensure that 

this vital capability can serve the Nation for the next 18–20 years. 

And the Committee notes the progress made on increasing Unmanned Aircraft Systems [UAS] operations along the land and 

maritime borders, including joint operations with the Coast Guard, 

with CBP accumulating 10,000 operational hours for homeland security. 

For these reasons, the Committee recommends: 

—$42,000,000 for two additional P–3 wing sets to continue the 

service life extension program [SLEP] of the P–3 fleet, as requested. This workhorse of the fleet is critical in detecting and 

tracking the movement of contraband in the transit zone headed toward the United States. It plays a key role in detecting 

new threats such as submersible and semi-submersible platforms in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean; —$36,800,000 for new AS–350 light enforcement helicopters, as 

requested; —$22,000,000 for conversion of two UH–60 helicopters from the 

A to L configuration, as requested; 

—$4,000,000 for hardware to support previously funded unmanned aircraft systems, as requested; and 

—$4,700,000 for marine vessels, as requested. 

In recognition of the inadequate resources in this request for recapitalization, the Committee includes $36,000,000, above the request for the following: 

—$21,000,000 for procurement of one additional multi-role enforcement aircraft under the competitively awarded, multi-year 

contract; 

—$9,000,000 for conversion of one additional UH–60 helicopter 

from the A to L configuration; —$2,000,000 for procurement of additional radar and sensors; 

and 

—$4,000,000 for operations and maintenance directed toward increased operations of CBP’s unmanned aircraft systems. 

The Committee directs CBP to submit not later than December 

1, 2011, an updated recapitalization plan to include details on efforts to address and/or replace aging, unsupportable aircraft, projections of aircraft retirements by type, along with impacts on border and maritime operations if they are retired without replacement. The updated plan shall also include requirements to complete the P–3 SLEP as originally scheduled, along with an estimate 

of the effort and resources needed to ensure all 16 existing aircraft 

are included in the SLEP rather than retiring the last 2 at the end 

of their original service lives. The update shall include details on 

any changes to the UAS Program since the submission of the last 

strategic plan update to the Committee, as well as a report of 

progress on the acquisition of needed marine vessels. 

ULTRA LIGHT AIRCRAFT ON THE SOUTHWEST BORDER

The Committee is concerned about increased reports of low-flying, ultra light aircraft being used to smuggle illegal drugs across 

the Southwest Border. It appears these aircraft are used to fly 
48 

across the border, drop the drug loads by air at pre-set locations, 

and return across the border into Mexico. There were 228 reports 

of these incursions in fiscal year 2010, nearly double the previous 

year’s total. While use of this inefficient method by drug trafficking 

organizations is yet another indicator of the success that has resulted from increased border security efforts since fiscal year 2005, 

these aircraft pose a risk to other aircraft as they are flying without filing a flight plan nor with required lights and beacons. The 

Committee directs CBP to provide a briefing not later than December 1, 2011, on the scope of this problem and the specific steps it 

is taking to counter this threat. 

The Committee notes that the lack of operation of the air traffic 

control tower in Sierra Vista, Arizona, at certain periods may result in the UASs stationed there not being used to their utmost potential. The Committee directs the Department to work with the 

Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Authority to explore ways to increase effective use of CBP air assets. 

NORTHERN BORDER

The Committee discusses Northern Border security issues, including airspace security, in greater detail in the ‘‘Border Security 

Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology’’ section above. The Committee also directs CBP to maintain the current number of unmanned aircraft systems on the Northern Border. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND PROCUREMENT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Operations and maintenance ........................................................ 370,899 361,087 365,087 

Procurement ................................................................................... 144,395 109,479 141,479 

Subtotal, Air and Marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement ........................................... 515,294 470,566 506,566 

CONSTRUCTION AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $259,480,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 283,822,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 234,096,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 239,096,000 

This appropriation provides funding to plan, construct, renovate, 

equip, and maintain buildings and facilities necessary for the administration and enforcement of the laws relating to immigration, 

customs, and alien registration. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $239,096,000, $44,726,000 below the 

requested amount and $20,384,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level, 

for construction and facilities management activities of U.S. Cus-
49 

toms and Border Protection [CBP], to be available until September 

30, 2016. 

ADDITIONAL LAND BORDER PORT REQUIREMENTS

The Committee notes that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, (Public Law 111–5) provided $420,000,000 for 

construction, repairs, maintenance, and security upgrades to CBPowned ports of entry [POEs]. Of the 167 land border ports of entry, 

CBP owns 41. The rest are owned and administered by the General 

Services Administration [GSA] or are privately owned and leased, 

and one is owned by the National Park Service. The Committee is 

pleased that through good stewardship and creative contract management, CBP was able to reconstruct or renovate 31 CBP-owned 

ports of entry, 28 of which were on the Northern Border. 

The Committee notes, however, that the largest land ports of 

entry, by both trade volume and staffing, are GSA-owned. It is important that the administration request sufficient resources for the 

GSA to rebuild and expand these large POEs to meet growing 

cargo and passenger traffic, as well as significant security requirements. While this administration, as well as last one, significantly 

enhanced physical security and staffing between the ports of the 

entry—especially on the Southwest Border—similar construction 

and staffing increases for the POEs proportional to the requirements have not been requested or funded. As security between the 

ports has increased, attempts by organizations to smuggle aliens 

and contraband through the ports have increased substantially. 

This growing threat needs to be addressed via a comprehensive, 

multi-Departmental strategy—with significant involvement by 

State, tribal, and local officials. 

For instance, there have been major efforts to increase outbound 

inspections for bulk cash, guns, and other contraband which supports the drug trafficking organizations’ violence in Mexico. However, the existing outbound physical infrastructure at the POEs can 

in no way accommodate the ability to replicate the inbound inspection process. At a minimum, an additional $2,600,000,000 would be 

required on an annual basis to procure the equipment and hire the 

necessary staff to perform the same level of outbound inspection activity as currently is provided for inbound inspections. And this 

funding requirement does not account for land purchases and construction of additional port capacity, traffic lanes, and security. The 

Committee directs DHS, GSA, and the Office of Management and 

Budget to develop a multi-year strategy to address this growing 

trade and security problem. This effort should include recommending alternative options for funding POE construction and improvements, such as expanded use of public-private partnerships, 

as well as any necessary legislative solutions. The Committee encourages this group to explore creative solutions currently under 

evaluation for existing projects, as well as successful, alternativelyfunded public works projects in other countries. The Committee directs DHS to convene the first strategy session to begin to address 

this issue during the first quarter of fiscal year 2012 and to brief 

the Committee on the initial results of that session not later than 

January 20, 2012. 
50 

The Committee notes CBP and GSA have entered into a memorandum of understanding [MOU] defining and establishing a joint 

management framework for the planning, management, and execution of land border port of entry projects [POEs]. The MOU outlines 

the fundamental tenets that will govern the management of these 

projects. Given the importance of international trade to the Nation’s economic vitality, it is critical that sufficient funding be provided to ensure our land ports of entry are designed and modernized to best accommodate the flow of commercial and passenger 

traffic. The Committee directs CBP and GSA to jointly brief the 

Committee on Appropriations semiannually on the implementation 

of the MOU and the status of POE construction. 

The Committee notes that secondary inspection operations at certain POEs on the Southwest border are vulnerable to observation 

by smuggling organizations south of the border. The Committee encourages CBP to maximize the use of existing resources to provide 

cover from exposure at these POEs and, if necessary, request appropriate resources to do so as part of the fiscal year 2013 budget 

request. 

FIVE-YEAR CONSTRUCTION PLAN

The Committee again has included bill language requiring CBP, 

in consultation with GSA, to include the 5-year construction plan 

with the fiscal year 2013 request. The plan shall include a yearly 

update of total projected future funding needs. 

The Committee directs the Department to continue to work with 

the GSA on its nationwide strategy to prioritize and address the infrastructure needs at land border POEs and to comply with the requirements of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40 U.S.C. 3301) 

and seek necessary funding. 

The Committee further directs the Department to encourage the 

use of small businesses in all phases of the contracting process for 

construction and renovation of POEs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

CONSTRUCTION AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Facility construction and sustainment ............................................ 223,170 226,726 185,000 

Program oversight and management .............................................. 36,310 57,096 54,096 

Subtotal, Construction and facilities management ........... 259,480 283,822 239,096 

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

SUMMARY

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] is responsible 

for enforcing immigration and customs laws and detaining and removing deportable or inadmissible aliens. 
51 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends total resources of $5,846,435,000, 

including direct appropriations of $5,534,566,000, and estimated 

fee collections of $311,869,000. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT—FUNDING SUMMARY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 enactedFiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee recommendations 

Appropriations: 

Salaries and expenses .......................................................... 5,426,768 5,496,847 5,512,856 

Automation modernization .................................................... 73,852 13,860 21,710 

Construction .......................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................

Total, Appropriations ........................................................ 5,500,620 5,494,407 5,534,566 

Estimated Fee Collections: 

Immigration inspection user fee .......................................... 116,387 116,869 116,869 

Student exchange and visitor fee ........................................ 120,000 120,000 120,000 

Breached bond/detention fund ............................................. 75,000 75,000 75,000 

Total, Estimated fee collections ....................................... 311,387 311,869 311,869 

Total, Available funding ................................................... 5,812,007 5,806,276 5,846,435 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $5,426,768,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 5,496,847,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 5,523,474,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,512,856,000 

The ICE Salaries and Expenses account provides funds for the 

enforcement of immigration and customs laws, intelligence, and detention and removals. In addition to directly appropriated resources, funding is derived from the following offsetting collections: 

Immigration Inspection User Fee.—ICE derives funds from user 

fees to support the costs of detention and removals in connection 

with international inspections activities at airports and seaports, 

as authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

1356). 

Student Exchange Visitor Program Fee.—ICE collects fees from 

foreign students, exchange visitors, and schools and universities to 

certify and monitor participating schools, and to conduct compliance audits. 

Immigration Breached Bond/Detention Fund.—ICE derives 

funds from the recovery of breached cash and surety bonds in excess of $8,000,000 as authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356); and from a portion of fees charged under 

section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to support 

the cost of the detention of aliens. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $5,512,856,000, for salaries and expenses of ICE for fiscal year 2012. The Committee includes bill lan-
52 

guage placing a $35,000 limit on overtime paid to any employee; 

making up to $10,000,000 available for special operations; making 

up to $2,000,000 available for the payment of informants; making 

up to $11,216,000 available to reimburse other Federal agencies for 

the costs associated with the care, maintenance, and repatriation 

of smuggled illegal aliens; making not less than $305,000 available 

for promotion of public awareness of the child pornography tipline 

and anti-child exploitation activities; making not less than 

$5,400,000 available to facilitate agreements consistent with section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; limiting the use 

of funds for facilitating agreements consistent with section 287(g) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act to the same activities funded in fiscal year 2005; making $15,770,000 available for activities 

to enforce laws against forced child labor, of which $6,000,000 shall 

remain available until expended; making up to $12,750 available 

for official reception and representation expenses; making 

$7,300,000 available until September 30, 2013, for the Visa Security Program, and adding bill language allowing support for overseas vetted units. 

SOUTHWEST BORDER ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE

In March 2009, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced 

a major initiative to assist the Mexican Government in combating 

drug cartel violence by deploying additional ICE and U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection [CBP] personnel and resources to the Southwest Border. With funds provided in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111–32), the Department of Homeland 

Security Appropriations Act, 2010, the fiscal year 2010 Emergency 

Border Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, and the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2011, more than $135,000,000 has been added above the President’s requests for ICE for Southwest Border security, including investigations into outbound smuggling activities of guns and bulk 

cash which support the drug cartels, expanding the number of Border Enforcement Security Task Forces [BESTs], as well as increasing the number of agents, intelligence analysts, and support personnel along the Southwest Border. 

Since the Mexican Government began its offensive on drug trafficking organizations in 2007, more than 34,000 people have been 

killed; over 15,000 in 2010 alone. While the violence has not spilled 

over the border into the United States, the level of violence has increased the fears of many living in the Southwest. As the drug cartels become more violent and fight each other for access to smuggling routes, often robbing each other of humans, drugs, or other 

contraband they are attempting to smuggle into the United States, 

the costs of these efforts escalate in both financial and human 

terms. These cartels are increasing their presence in the United 

States. 

ICE is uniquely situated to address this threat. It is the only 

agency whose criminal mission revolves entirely around cross-border crime, namely the smuggling of aliens, narcotics, firearms, and 

bulk cash. ICE has a role in every form of smuggling and is not 

limited to one type of contraband (such as firearms or drugs). ICE 

also is unique in terms of the breadth of its statutory authority 
53 

under titles 8, 18, 19, 21, 22, 31, and 50 of the United States Code. 

ICE also has unmatched immigration authority among criminal investigative agencies. Rather than addressing domestic drug dealing 

or firearms violations, ICE is focused on cross-border narcotics and 

firearms trafficking—offenses that are driving crime on the Southwest Border. Thus, additional resources to ICE will bolster the attack on every form of border crime. 

The Committee encourages ICE to expand the use of ballistics 

imaging technology and other methods, including the capture and 

transfer of all ballistics images from guns seized through southbound inspections or by Mexican authorities, to trace weapons used 

in criminal acts in Mexico. 

DOMESTIC INVESTIGATIONS

The Committee recommends $1,739,234,000, $25,000,000 above 

the request, for domestic investigations. The Committee also recommends $82,503,000, $1,000,000 above the request, for intelligence. 

TRADE COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT AND TRAFFICKING

INVESTIGATIONS

Of the funds above the request, $5,000,000 is for enhancing investigations of antidumping/countervailing duty [AD/CVD] violations, intellectual property rights [IPR] investigations, and severe 

forms of human trafficking and smuggling activities. Additionally, 

$1,000,000 is to enhance and expand intelligence activities to support these investigations. The Committee encourages ICE to consider whether additional commercial fraud investigators in the field 

offices would be a helpful resource addition to address the AD/CVD 

problem. The Committee directs ICE to submit to the Committee 

a plan for expenditure of these additional, targeted resources within 90 days after the date of enactment of this act. The Committee 

also directs ICE to submit by February 13, 2012, a 3-year strategy 

to improve AD/CVD enforcement. 

The Committee notes that IPR violations, including seemingly innocuous (to the average person, but extremely detrimental to the 

industry) piracy of not-yet-released movies, is a significant revenue 

source for transnational criminal organizations including Mexican 

drug cartels. According to officials at the IPR Coordination Center, 

these violations are a low-risk/high-profit type of crime. The Center 

sees more organized crime groups move into it because of the highdollar value to it. One of the Mexican gangs actually puts a stamp 

on the counterfeit pirated DVDs that it sells, indicating the disc is 

distributed by the cartel. 

IMPROVING IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates approximately 4 million to 

5.5 million of the estimated 11 million illegal aliens (approximately 

45 percent) in the United States are here as a result of overstaying 

their legal visas (as opposed to crossing our borders). This represents a growing illegal immigration problem and security threat. 

While all of the 9/11 hijackers entered the United States on legally 

valid visas, at least three of them had overstayed or were otherwise 
54 

in violation of their status. An April 2011, Government Accountability Office report, GAO–11–441, concludes that of the roughly 

400 people who have been convicted of any terrorism-related crimes 

since September 11, 2001, 36 had overstayed their visas. In other 

words, almost 10 percent of the people who have been convicted of 

terrorism-related activities in the decade since 9/11 were legal visitors who overstayed their visas and became illegal. 

Additionally, DHS officials have reported to the Congress that 

US-VISIT processes fewer than one-half of all potential overstays 

identified by automated matching of entry and exit records, and 

the GAO, in its report, found that the program has an overall backlog of 1.6 million potential overstay records that have not yet been 

processed. 

The Committee notes that neither this administration nor previous administrations have requested the necessary funds or made 

addressing overstays a priority. Nor does ICE have the systems to 

better coordinate overstay information with the US-VISIT program. The Committee provides an additional $20,000,000 above the request for an immigration enforcement initiative with a primary 

focus on addressing the issue of identifying and prioritizing the removal of visa overstays. The Committee directs ICE to coordinate 

with US-VISIT and develop a comprehensive strategy to address 

the visa overstay problem. The strategy should consider the suggestions offered by the GAO. Funds are provided to continue modernizing the Alien Criminal Response Information Management System [ACRIMe] to support the identification of criminal aliens and 

individuals attempting to overstay a visa, processing old fingerprint records, and hiring additional personnel to search old records 

and databases and eliminate the known, paper-based overstay 

records backlog. The Committee directs submission of the strategy 

not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this act. 

The Committee understands that US-VIST has already begun to address its overstay backlog and provides up to $5,000,000 of the 

funds recommended in this initiative, via transfer, to US-VISIT to 

continue this activity, and requests a joint briefing with US-VISIT 

and ICE officials on this effort not later than 60 days after the date 

of enactment of this act. 

Additionally, $5,000,000 of the funds recommended for this initiative are provided for the hiring of authorized professional staff 

at the Law Enforcement Support Center in response to the increased workload for responses to immigration-related inquiries by 

law enforcement. 

OFFICE OF STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL COORDINATION

The Committee recommends $68,321,000 and 155 positions and 

FTE, as requested, for the Office of State, Local, and Tribal Government Coordination. Included in this amount is funding for 

training and information technology assistance for participants in 

the 287(g) program as well as for the Office of State, Local, and 

Tribal Coordination to support communication and outreach efforts. 

IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

The 287(g) program is a voluntary program that allows ICE to 

train local law enforcement agents to enforce Federal immigration 
55 

laws. After training, local law enforcement personnel can determine an individual’s immigration status and file requests to ICE 

for the removal of individuals they believe are illegal immigrants. 

Pursuant to its internal policies, ICE is supposed to provide robust 

oversight of the local officers enrolled in the 287(g) program to ensure participants comply with all applicable Federal law enforcement policies and procedures. A September 2010, OIG review of the 

287(g) program [OIG–10–124] noted a number of shortcomings in 

ICE’s 287(g) training and program oversight. The OIG made 33 

recommendations for ICE to improve the program. To maintain the 

integrity of the 287(g) program, ICE is to implement the OIG recommendations as expeditiously as possible, and is to be commended for having already started this process. This includes appropriate accountability and training standards and instruction on 

multicultural communication and the avoidance of racial profiling. 

The Secure Communities program also requires careful oversight 

and monitoring, but the approach has several advantages to 287(g): 

it requires minimal training by ICE for local employees, it is integrated into existing booking procedures at prisons and jails, and it 

imposes no additional workload on local employees. Further, Secure 

Communities reduces the risk of potentially bias-driven status 

checks by local officials since the backgrounds of all individuals in 

local custody are checked in an identical manner. Most importantly, Secure Communities also clearly delineates the respective 

roles of Federal and local authorities in immigration enforcement. 

In light of these advantages, ICE is to be commended for its efforts 

in expanding the Secure Communities program. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT CENTER

The Committee recommends a total of $39,990,000, 346 positions 

and FTE, $5,000,000 above the amount requested in the budget, to 

assist in responding to requests for assistance from State and local 

law enforcement officers. 

FORENSICS DOCUMENT LAB

The Committee recommends $14,357,000, 74 positions and FTE, 

as requested, for the Forensics Document Lab [FDL]. The FDL provides forensic document analysis and operations support services to 

combat travel and identity document fraud. 

DATA CENTER MIGRATION

As part of the Department-wide effort to assign data center migration funding to the component agencies which will be migrating, 

the Committee recommends $5,300,000 in new funding, $5,200,000 

below the level requested in the budget, to support ICE’s portion 

of this activity in fiscal year 2012. 

INVESTIGATIONS—WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT

The Committee notes that Executive Order 12989—as amended, 

June 6, 2008—remains in effect. The Executive order states, in 

part: 

‘‘It is the policy of the executive branch to enforce fully the immigration laws of the United States, including the detection and re-
56 

moval of illegal aliens and the imposition of legal sanctions against 

employers that hire illegal aliens. Because of the worksite enforcement policy of the United States and the underlying obligation of 

the executive branch to enforce the immigration laws, contractors 

that employ illegal aliens cannot rely on the continuing availability 

and service of those illegal workers, and such contractors inevitably 

will have a less stable and less dependable workforce than contractors that do not employ such persons.’’ 

The Committee recommends $134,626,000 for the overall level of 

effort for worksite enforcement activities, as requested. The Committee notes that the number of criminal and administrative arrests has dropped since the new worksite enforcement strategy was 

announced on April 30, 2009. Criminal arrests related to worksite 

enforcement investigations dropped from 1,103 in fiscal year 2008 

to only 440 in fiscal year 2010. Similarly, administrative arrests 

dropped from 5,184 in fiscal year 2008 to 1,224 in fiscal year 2010. 

While the Committee applauds the renewed vigor with which 

ICE is performing I–9 (workplace authorization) audits in an effort 

to target employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens, which is 

something the Committee called for in Senate Report 110–396, it 

is not a complete solution. 

The Committee directs ICE to provide quarterly briefings on how 

it is meeting this level of effort no later than 30 days after the end 

of each quarter. 

The Committee directs ICE to provide an annual report on the 

number of worksite enforcement investigations opened and closed, 

employee and employer arrests—both criminal and administrative, 

and the fines assessed and collected each fiscal year. This report 

shall be submitted to the Committee within 45 days after the end 

of each fiscal year. The Committee also directs that the report for 

fiscal year 2011 should include the same statistics for fiscal years 

2007–2010. 

IMAGE PROGRAM

ICE is directed to brief the Committees by April 13, 2012, on its 

progress in implementing the ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers [IMAGE] program, and the strategies 

being used to encourage more participation in the program. 

VISA SECURITY PROGRAM

The Visa Security Program, mandated in section 428 of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pubic Law 107–296), extends the 

border overseas to prevent terrorists and other criminals from receiving U.S. visas. The Office of International Affairs has developed 

a multi-year expansion plan which includes a prioritized expansion 

to the 32 highest-risk visa issuing posts. According to the plan, the 

program will cover approximately 75 percent of the highest risk 

visa activity posts by 2013. The Committee recommends 

$38,289,000, $8,800,000 above the request, to fully fund planned 

visa security programs and expand the units to four additional consular posts. 
57 

ICE INTELLIGENCE

The Committee recommends $82,503,000, an increase of 

$1,000,000 above the request, for ICE intelligence activities. The 

$1,000,000 above the request is discussed under investigations. 

DETENTION AND REMOVAL—CUSTODY OPERATIONS (BEDS)

The Committee recommends a total of $2,023,827,000, an increase of $229,421,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2011, as requested in the budget. The Committee notes that what 

appears to be a significant increase between fiscal years 2011 and 

2012 actually reflects the administration’s proposal to fund all detention beds within ‘‘Custody Operations’’ as opposed to spreading 

the detention bed funding between that activity, ‘‘Fugitive Operations’’, ‘‘Criminal Alien Program’’, and ‘‘Secure Communities’’. The 

Committee strongly supports this proposal to streamline the process to provide proper accounting for bed funding. After all, a bed 

is a bed. This framework provides better transparency into the actual costs of each of these programs while ensuring that beds are 

available for individuals who need to be detained. 

The Committee encourages ICE to continue working to ensure 

that its detention bedspace funding model is accurate and reflects 

the actual cost of a bed as it develops the fiscal year 2013 budget 

request. The Committee also requests that it be briefed on the development of this bedspace cost model no later than 90 days after 

the date of enactment of this act. 

Maintaining an adequate number of detention beds is critical to 

ensuring the integrity of our detention and removal system while 

at the same time preventing a return to the ill-advised ‘‘catch and 

release’’ policy. The Committee notes that in fiscal year 2010, ICE 

removed a total of 392,625 illegal aliens compared with 240,665 in 

fiscal year 2004. This clearly demonstrates that the additional resources the Congress has provided above the President’s requests 

the past 6 fiscal years for securing our borders continues to have 

an impact. 

The bill continues current law directing that a detention bed 

level of 33,400 beds shall be maintained throughout fiscal year 

2012. 

The Committee encourages ICE’s efforts to streamline and make 

more efficient the removal process once individuals are determined 

to be removable and urges ICE to look at ways to increase the 

short-term detention capacity in certain locations such as the 

southeastern region of the United States while minimizing the loss 

of existing detention capacity, personnel, and contracts at the other 

facilities. 

DETENTION CARE AND STANDARDS

The Committee strongly supports ICE’s recent efforts to review 

and improve upon its detention care and standards. It is imperative that individuals detained in ICE-owned or -contracted facilities 

be provided the highest levels of care, including medical care, and 

treatment. The Committee is encouraged that ICE has begun this 

effort by reviewing its detention standards and placing an ICE officer in the 50 largest contract detention facilities. This was one of 
58 

the recommendations in the October 6, 2009, Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations report. The Committee notes 

that no funds were requested in the budget to implement these recommendations and the Committee encourages that, to the extent 

ICE intends to act on these recommendations, sufficient funds be 

included in the fiscal year 2013 request to do so. The Committee 

also encourages ICE to consider creating an ombudsman to independently investigate complaints about detainee treatment in detention facilities and report not later than 180 days after the date 

of enactment of this act on its decision in this regard. 

The Committee notes that a recent DHS Office of the Inspector 

General report (‘‘Management of Mental Health Cases in Immigration Detention’’—OIG–11–62), has identified significant medical 

staffing vacancies at ICE detention facilities. Clinical staffing levels 

have not been, but must be, aligned with projected healthcare 

needs at the various detention facilities, so that ratios of health 

professionals to detainees with medical and mental healthcare 

needs are adequate and consistent throughout the detention system. The Committee directs ICE to submit a report not later than 

December 1, 2011, detailing the specific steps it has taken since 

submission of the October 6, 2009, Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations report to improve and reform the detention process and meet the goals outlined in that report, as well 

as what steps have been taken to rectify the issues identified in 

OIG–11–62. 

In 2003, Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act into 

law. The Committee understands that ICE has revised its Performance Based National Detention Standards, including the standard 

concerning the prevention of sexual assault, and urges ICE to expeditiously approve and implement the revised standards. 

DETENTION AND REMOVAL—FUGITIVE OPERATIONS

Included in the amount recommended by the Committee is $154,597,000, 667 positions and FTE, as requested in the budget. 

The National Fugitive Operations Program is responsible for reducing the fugitive alien population in the United States. As of May 

31, 2011, ICE estimates that there are approximately 489,018 immigration fugitives in the United States, a decrease of more than 

143,708 since October 2006. ICE works to reduce the population of 

these fugitives from the law through the use of Fugitive Operations 

teams. All 104 Fugitive Operations teams are operational and conducting enforcement operations. Funds associated with detention 

beds are provided in the ‘‘Custody Operations’’ account. 

DETENTION AND REMOVAL—ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

The Committee recommends a total of $72,373,000, 182 positions 

and FTE, as requested in the budget. The Committee encourages 

ICE to prioritize enrollment of families with children in this program, to continue to use intensive supervision, and directs ICE to 

brief the Committee semiannually on the program beginning no 

later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act. 

The Committee directs ICE to continue to submit the report on 

collection of data on deportation of parents of U.S.-born children, 

as mandated in the joint explanatory statement accompanying Pub-
59 

lic Law 111–83, to the Senate Committee on Appropriations and 

the Committee on the Judiciary. 

DETENTION AND REMOVAL—TRANSPORTATION AND REMOVAL

Included in the amount recommended by the Committee is 

$276,632,000, as requested in the budget, for all ICE-related transportation and removal activities. 

DETENTION AND REMOVAL—CRIMINAL ALIEN PROGRAM

Included in the amount recommended by the Committee is 

$196,696,000, 1,211 positions and FTE, as requested in the budget. 

ICE is funded for 126 Criminal Alien Program teams and in fiscal 

year 2009 it charged over 217,000 aliens in jails. Funds associated 

with detention beds are provided in the ‘‘Custody Operations’’ account. 

SECURE COMMUNITIES

The Committee recommends $184,064,000, 782 positions, and 

667 FTE, as requested. Congress initiated this program in fiscal 

year 2008 and has provided total new funding of $749,600,000 over 

the past 4 years. Secure Communities focuses on interoperability, 

using biometrics to ensure that any individual booked into a jail or 

other facility is indeed who he or she claims to be and also is able 

to determine, by running fingerprints against the IDENT and 

IAFIS databases, the immigration status of the individual. It is important to remember that Secure Communities is applied to everyone booked into a jail. All individuals are treated the same and no 

profiling occurs. Through the use of biometrics, ICE is able to determine not only immigration status, but also if the individual has 

committed more serious crimes in the past (so while they are 

booked on what appears to be a lower level crime, Secure Communities is able to determine the entirety of an alien’s criminal history). 

The Committee is pleased that the administration has embraced 

this program as one of many tools at its disposal to identify and 

remove illegal aliens, particularly criminal aliens, and otherwise 

enforce our Nation’s existing immigration laws. In fiscal year 2010, 

Secure Communities expanded coverage to establish biometric 

identification of arrested criminal aliens in more than 180 counties. 

Secure Communities’ threat-based deployment schedule prioritizes 

those counties with the highest threat criminal alien populations 

first, consisting primarily of counties in major metropolitan areas 

throughout the country as well as all counties along the Southwest 

Border. From fiscal years 2008 through 2010, 447,115 criminal 

aliens were removed. Between October 2008 and October 2010, the 

number of convicted criminals that ICE removed from the United 

States increased 71 percent, while the number of non-criminals removed dropped by 23 percent. Secure Communities estimates that 

after deploying to the additional counties funded in this request, 

ICE will cover more than 84 percent of the Nation’s criminal alien 

population. The Department anticipates that, with continued funding, including redeployment of existing resources, it will establish 

biometric identification of arrested criminal aliens in all counties 
60 

that are able to participate by calendar year 2013. The Committee 

notes that on August 5, 2011, ICE wrote the Governors of the 

States currently participating in Secure Communities clarifying the 

parameters under which the program will operate as the program 

moves toward national deployment by the end of 2013. 

The Committee has included bill language, as requested, ensuring that all illegal aliens encountered when enforcing our immigration laws are apprehended. The Committee also directs ICE to continue to provide quarterly briefings on progress being made in implementing the Secure Communities program. The briefings shall 

include Secure Communities’ impact on removals reporting at the 

level of detail of the quarterly detention and removals report. Additionally, the briefings shall include quarterly data on the number 

of instances in which Secure Communities identifies when someone 

who is arrested is in this country illegally, the number of times 

ICE issues a detainer on such individuals, the major categories for 

the reasons why a decision is made to issue or not issue a detainer, 

and the number deported. The first briefing should occur no later 

than 45 days after the date of enactment of this act. 

According to an April 22, 2011, Congressional Research Service 

memorandum regarding quantifying the criminal alien population, 

in fiscal year 2008 non-U.S. citizens comprised 7.1 percent of the 

U.S. population while comprising 23.1 percent of the Federal prison 

population. Clearly there are significant numbers of criminal aliens 

who should be identified and removed upon the completion of the 

prison sentences. 

In anticipation of Secure Communities’ full deployment in 2013, 

the Committee encourages ICE to consider centralizing management of Secure Communities under the direction of the Criminal 

Alien Program. It is incumbent upon ICE to continue to ensure 

that all efforts are made to arrest and remove criminal aliens from 

the community by ensuring an expeditious order of removal and securing a final order of removal prior to the termination of an incarcerated alien’s period of imprisonment. ICE is directed to brief the 

Committee no later than November 1, 2011 on any plan to realign 

the Secure Communities program under the Criminal Alien Program and, if appropriate, include such a centralization in the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request. 

DETENTION AND REMOVAL REPORTING

The Committee continues to request ICE to submit a quarterly 

report to the Committee which compares the number of deportation, exclusion, and removal orders sought and obtained by ICE. 

Currently, the report is broken down: by district in which the removal order was issued; by type of order (deportation, exclusion, removal, expedited removal, and others); by agency issuing the order; 

by the number of cases in each category in which ICE has successfully removed the alien; and by the number of cases in each category in which ICE has not removed the alien. The Committee welcomes suggestions from ICE on ways to provide more appropriate 

data in this report and urges ICE to provide suggestions to the 

Committee on revisions to the details of this report by November 

1, 2011. The first fiscal year 2012 quarterly report is to be submitted no later than January 15, 2013. 
61 

PERSONNEL RECOVERY UNITS

The recent death and injury of Special Agents in Mexico are reminders of the dangers law enforcement agents face in the line of 

duty. The Committee supports ICE’s efforts to establish and maintain a personnel recovery program to ensure security of ICE agents 

and support staff overseas. The Committee directs ICE to establish 

a trained unit that will be capable of deploying and managing an 

abduction or evacuation of ICE personnel overseas and identifying 

necessary equipment and training for deployed agents and their direct family members and report back on its efforts in this regard. 

OVERSEAS VETTED UNITS OPERATIONS

ICE works closely with its partners in law enforcement in many 

countries around the world. One tool that has proven especially important has been the use of vetted units. The Committee has included bill language clarifying that ICE may use appropriated 

funds to continue supporting overseas vetted units operations. 

FORENSIC EVIDENCE PROTOCOLS

The Committee directs CBP and ICE to brief jointly the Committee not later than April 13, 2012, on what standardized policies 

for treatment of forensic evidence from crime scenes against Federal officials or others when local agencies are involved are currently in use, whether or not separate memoranda of understanding are necessary with local jurisdictions, and if all guns, bullet casings, and shells are put through Federal systems such as Etrace and the National Integrated Ballistics Imaging Network 

[NIBN]. 

SECURITY FOR THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF IMMIGRATION AND

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

Like other senior Federal law enforcement officials, the Assistant 

Secretary for ICE could be targeted by the criminal organizations 

that are under ICE investigation. Although there is no current evidence of specific threats against the Assistant Secretary for ICE, 

the Committee has no objection to on-going security evaluations 

and the provision of any protective security measures determined 

necessary. 

TRAINING REGARDING HUMAN TRAFFICKING

ICE plays a critical role in investigating criminal organizations 

trafficking individuals into the United States. The Committee encourages ICE to work with appropriate nonprofit organizations and 

victim service providers to improve the training of ICE officers in 

the field to assist in the identification of human trafficking victims 

and provide appropriate referrals to victim service organizations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 
62 

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT—SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 enacted Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee recommendations 

Headquarters, management, and administration: 

Personnel compensation and benefits, services, and other 

costs ................................................................................... 295,121 237,842 227,251 

Headquarters-managed IT investment ............................................ 219,363 194,727 186,527 

Subtotal, Headquarters, management, and administration ................................................................................. 514,484 432,569 413,778 

Legal proceedings ............................................................................ 221,666 215,935 215,935 

Investigations: 

Domestic ................................................................................. 1,702,038 1,714,234 1,739,234 

International operations .......................................................... 112,872 114,928 114,928 

Visa Security Program ............................................................ 35,686 29,489 38,289 

Subtotal, Investigations ................................................. 1,850,596 1,858,651 1,892,451 

Intelligence ....................................................................................... 69,842 81,503 82,503 

Detention and removal operations: 

Custody operations ................................................................. 1,794,406 2,023,827 2,023,827 

Fugitive operations ................................................................. 229,682 154,597 154,597 

Criminal Alien Program .......................................................... 192,539 196,696 196,696 

Alternatives to detention ........................................................ 72,075 72,373 72,373 

Transportation and Removal Program .................................... 281,878 276,632 276,632 

Subtotal, Detention and removal operations ..................... 2,570,580 2,724,125 2,724,125 

Identification and removal of criminal aliens (Secure Communities) .......................................................................................... 199,600 184,064 184,064 

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ........................................ 5,426,768 5,496,847 5,512,856 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $73,852,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 13,860,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 23,860,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 21,710,000 

The Automation Modernization account provides funds for major 

information technology [IT] projects for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE], including the Atlas Program, modernization of TECS (formerly known as the Traveler Enforcement and 

Compliance System), modernization of Detention and Removal Operations’ IT systems for tracking detainees (DRO Modernization), 

and other systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a total of $21,710,000, $7,850,000 

above the request. These funds are to remain available until expended. 

The Committee directs that, of the funds made available to this 

account, priority shall be given to TECS modernization. 

ICE must make more progress implementing its electronic health 

records (eHR) program. Given that ICE detainees are often transferred between several detention facilities before their immigration 
63 

cases are decided, portable medical records are an important part 

of ensuring the health of all those held in the agency’s custody. The 

ICE Chief Information Officer is directed to update the Committees 

on the status of the eHR initiative and the anticipated timeline for 

a fully implemented system. 

The Committee also continues the requirement for semiannual 

briefings on this activity. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2012 1 ......................................................................... ........................... House allowance 2 .................................................................................. ........................... Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

1 Excludes a proposed cancellation of $16,300,000. 

2 House rescission of $11,300,000 contained in title V. 

This appropriation provides funding to plan, construct, renovate, 

equip, and maintain buildings and facilities necessary for the administration and enforcement of the laws relating to immigration, 

detention, and alien registration. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee notes that the President requests no funds for ICE Construction and proposes to cancel $16,300,000 in unobligated Construction balances. The Committee rejects this cancellation and notes that ICE is reviewing the possible privatization of 

the Service Processing Centers which it owns. The Department intends that carryover funds within the no-year Construction account 

will be used for emergency repairs and alterations, especially those 

focused on life and safety. The Committee also notes that not funding this account will have no impact on the ability of ICE to continue to detain illegal aliens at other locations around the country. 

The Committee encourages the use of public-private partnerships 

wherever possible. As it considers future use and possible disposal 

of ICE-owned Service Processing Centers, the Committee urges 

ICE to develop a comprehensive plan for conversion of these facilities and provide recommended options within the framework of a 

public-private partnership. 

The bill includes a general provision, requested in the budget, 

providing ICE with the authority to dispose of ICE-owned facilities 

and retain the receipts to provide repairs and alterations to other 

facilities. Bill language is also included mandating that any sale or 

collocation of ICE-owned facilities will not result in a reduction of 

detention bedspace below 33,400 beds and requiring 15-day notification to the Committees. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

The Transportation Security Administration [TSA] is charged 

with ensuring security across U.S. transportation systems, including aviation, railways, highways, pipelines, and waterways, and 

safeguarding the freedom of movement of people and commerce. 

Separate appropriations are provided for the following activities 

within TSA: aviation security; surface transportation security; 

transportation threat assessment and credentialing; transportation 

security support; and Federal Air Marshals. 
64 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a total program level of 

$7,905,769,000 and a net of $5,305,449,000 for the activities of TSA 

for fiscal year 2012. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Aviation Security ...................................................................... 5,213,307 5,401,165 5,293,566 

Aviation Security Capital Fund (mandatory) ........................... 250,000 250,000 250,000 

Surface Transportation Security .............................................. 105,749 134,748 134,748 

Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing (direct 

appropriations) .................................................................... 162,673 183,954 163,954 

Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing (feefunded programs) ................................................................ 41,220 40,320 40,320 

Transportation Security Support .............................................. 986,661 1,113,697 1,042,066 

Federal Air Marshals ................................................................ 927,942 991,375 981,115 

Total, Transportation Security Administration 

(gross) .................................................................... 7,687,552 8,115,259 7,905,769 

Offsetting Fee Collections—current law ................................. ¥2,100,000 ¥2,030,000 ¥2,030,000 

Offsetting Fee Collections—proposed increase ...................... .............................. ¥280,000 ¥280,000 

Aviation Security Capital Fund (mandatory) ........................... ¥250,000 ¥250,000 ¥250,000 

Fee Accounts [TTAC] ................................................................ ¥41,220 ¥40,320 ¥40,320 

Total, Transportation Security Administration (net) .. 5,296,332 5,514,939 5,305,449 

AVIATION SECURITY

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $5,213,307,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 5,401,165,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 5,224,556,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,293,566,000 

The Transportation Security Administration [TSA] aviation security account provides for Federal aviation security, including 

screening of all passengers and baggage, deployment of on-site law 

enforcement, continuation of a uniform set of background requirements for airport and airline personnel, and deployment of explosives detection technology. 

The aviation security activities include funding for: Federal 

transportation security officers [TSOs] and private contract screeners; air cargo security; procurement, installation, and maintenance 

of explosives detection systems; checkpoint support; and other aviation regulation and enforcement activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $5,293,566,000 for aviation security, 

$107,599,000 below the amount requested and $80,259,000 above 

the fiscal year 2011 level. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 
65 

AVIATION SECURITY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Screening Operations ............................................................... 4,266,073 4,316,308 4,193,246 

Aviation Security Direction and Enforcement .......................... 947,234 1,084,857 1,100,320 

Aviation Security Capital Fund (mandatory) ........................... [250,000 ] [250,000 ] [250,000 ] 

Total, Aviation Security .............................................. 5,213,307 5,401,165 5,293,566 

AVIATION SECURITY FEES

The President’s budget assumes fiscal year 2012 aviation security fee collections of $2,961,500,000, including a proposal to collect 

an additional $589,940,000 through an increase in the fee passengers pay. The Congressional Budget Office, in its analysis of the 

President’s budget, has re-estimated collections from aviation security fees to be $2,560,000,000. According to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, this amount is made up of $2,140,000,000 

from passengers and $420,000,000 from air carriers. The amount 

estimated to come from passengers includes the administration’s 

proposal to increase aviation passenger fees by $1.50 in fiscal year 

2012, generating an additional $280,000,000 in offsetting collections. 

The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107– 

71) mandated that TSA impose a flat fee of $2.50 per segment and 

no more than $5 per one-way trip on passengers to pay for the 

costs of providing specified civil aviation security services. Security 

costs covered by offsetting fee collections represented 32 percent of 

aviation security costs in fiscal year 2002 as compared to 26 percent in fiscal year 2011. The Committee recommendation includes 

bill language to increase the fee for fiscal year 2012, which will ensure that aviation customers, not general taxpayers, pay for a portion of the growth in aviation security costs. The Committee has 

not approved the President’s proposal to provide the Secretary with 

permanent authority to increase aviation security fees, a proposal 

that should be considered by the Committee of jurisdiction. 

The Committee is also concerned about the impact airline 

checked baggage fees are having on security at airport checkpoints. 

According to TSA, there has been a notable change in carry-on baggage volume that directly correlates to the imposition of these fees. 

This has increased checkpoint security requirements and processing times. According to DHS, in 2000, it cost less than a $1 to 

screen each passenger and accompanying baggage. In fiscal year 

2010, the average cost for TSA to screen a passenger and accompanying baggage has increased to nearly $9, due in part to airline 

imposed checked baggage fees that have resulted in TSA screening 

56 million additional carry-on bags at airport checkpoints annually. 

As a result of additional carry-on luggage at airport security checkpoints, TSA estimates it is spending an additional $260,000,000 to 

support passenger throughput rates, which is detracting from other 

security programs. The Committee encourages the Department to 

seek legislation authorizing TSA to recoup these costs from the airlines. 
66 

SCREENING OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $4,193,246,000 for TSA screening 

operations, $123,062,000 below the amount requested and 

$72,827,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level. The recommendation 

maintains operational levels funded in fiscal year 2011, including 

the realignment of Bomb Appraisal Officers from the ‘‘Passenger 

and baggage screener personnel, compensation, and benefits’’ PPA 

to the ‘‘Airport management and support’’ PPA under ‘‘Aviation Security Direction and Enforcement’’. 

The recommendation includes the annualization of screeners to 

staff 1,000 Advanced Imaging Technology [AIT] units funded in 

prior fiscal years and the requested procurement of an additional 

275 AIT machines and the personnel to staff them. TSA has indicated that the last 250 AIT machines funded in fiscal year 2011 

and the additional 275 machines requested for fiscal year 2012 will 

be fielded later than originally anticipated in the budget request. 

Therefore, the recommendation includes the requested number of 

positions for AIT staffing, but the amount funded is $25,000,000 

below the request because hires will be made later in the fiscal 

year. 

The recommendation includes an increase of $10,950,000 and 175 

FTE for TSA’s behavior detection officer [BDO] program. Of this 

amount, $8,862,000 is included in ‘‘Screening Operations’’. As discussed later in this report, TSA is to continue evaluating this program as recommended in a recent independent study. 

The recommendation does not include $39,200,000 for portable 

explosives trace detection [ETD] units requested in the ‘‘Checkpoint 

support’’ PPA. All 800 ETD units TSA requires were already funded in fiscal year 2011. 

A total of $222,738,000 is provided for procurement and installation of explosives detection systems [EDS], $50,000,000 below the 

request. Between ARRA and funding in fiscal years 2010 and 2011, 

over $1,810,000,000 has been appropriated for EDS airport improvement projects. The Committee recommendation includes bill 

language providing TSA with more flexibility in allocating EDS 

funding for procurement and installation in the Aviation Security 

Capital Fund. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

SCREENING OPERATIONS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 enacted Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee recommendations 

Screener Workforce: 

Privatized Screening Airports ................................................ 144,470 144,193 144,193 

Passenger and baggage screener personnel, compensation 

and benefits ..................................................................... 2,920,813 3,060,493 3,028,381 

Subtotal, Screener Workforce ....................................... 3,065,283 3,204,686 3,172,574 

Screener Training and Other ......................................................... 243,402 252,526 250,776 

Checkpoint Support ........................................................................ 328,843 254,093 214,893 
67 

SCREENING OPERATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Explosives Detection Systems/Explosives Trace Detection [EDS/ 

ETD]: 

EDS/ETD purchase and installation ..................................... 290,843 272,738 222,738 

Screening technology maintenance and utilities ................. 316,247 332,265 332,265 

Operation Integration ............................................................ 21,455 ............................ ............................

Subtotal, EDS/ETD Systems .............................................. 628,545 605,003 555,003 

Total, Screening Operations ............................................. 4,266,073 4,316,308 4,193,246 

PRIVATIZED SCREENING AIRPORTS

The Committee recommends $144,193,000 for privatized screening airports, the same amount as requested in the budget and 

$277,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level. The budget request supports funding requirements for the 16 airports that participate in 

the program. 

TSA shall notify the Committee if the agency expects to spend 

less than the appropriated amount due to situations where no additional airports express interest in converting, either fully or partially, to privatized screening, or where airports currently using 

privatized screening convert to using Federal screeners. TSA shall 

adjust its PPA line items, and notify the Committee within 10 

days, to account for any changes in private screening contracts, including new awards under the SPP, or the movement from 

privatized screening into Federal screening. The Committee also 

expects to be briefed on any proposed changes being considered for 

the SPP program. 

PASSENGER AND BAGGAGE SCREENER PERSONNEL, COMPENSATION

AND BENEFITS

The Committee recommends $3,028,381,000 for passenger and 

baggage screener personnel, compensation, and benefits, 

$32,112,000 below the amount requested and $107,568,000 above 

the fiscal year 2011 level. The recommendation includes the proposed realignment of $44,100,000 and 406 FTE to the airport management PPA. The recommendation also includes necessary resources for TSA to appropriately staff 1,000 Advanced Imaging 

Technology units funded in prior years and 275 additional units 

recommended for fiscal year 2012. 

The Committee does not include a statutory cap on TSA screening personnel. Consistent with the 9/11 Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall recruit and hire screeners as may be necessary 

to provide appropriate levels of aviation security and to ensure that 

average passenger wait times do not exceed 10 minutes. 

The Committee is concerned about TSA staffing levels at the Nation’s largest airports, especially those with a high number of security breaches, and whether these staffing levels are sufficient to 

prevent security breaches and keep passengers screening wait 

times less than 10 minutes. 
68 

BEHAVIOR DETECTION

The Committee recommends $215,587,000 and 3,161 FTE for 

TSA’s behavior detection program known as SPOT or ‘‘Screening 

Passengers by Observation Techniques’’, $7,112,000 and 175 FTE 

above the amount enacted in fiscal year 2011 and one-half of the 

requested increase. An additional $3,838,000 is included in other 

TSA appropriations to support this initiative. The SPOT program 

employs TSOs using behavior observation and analysis techniques 

to identify and screen travelers of interest. The Department recently completed a Science and Technology [S&T] sponsored study 

examining whether SPOT techniques result in correct screening decisions at airport checkpoints when compared to random screening. 

While the study found evidence positively connecting SPOT procedures over random screening to the identity of travelers purposefully trying to defeat TSA security, the study also concluded that 

additional research is necessary to validate the program’s effectiveness. Equally important to the Committee is the report’s strong 

recommendation for the Department to conduct ‘‘a comprehensive 

program evaluation that includes an examination of procedures for 

employee selection, training, and performance management; consideration of resource management; cost-benefit analysis; and other 

such tasks that might influence the outcomes that result from the 

use of SPOT.’’ TSA is to brief the Committee no later than 90 days 

after the date of enactment of this act on the actions taken to address these and other recommendations made in the S&T sponsored report, as well as steps it has taken to address the validation, 

management, and information sharing issues identified in GAO’s 

May 2010 review of SPOT (GAO–10–763). 

SCREENER TRAINING AND OTHER

The Committee recommends $250,776,000 for screener training 

and other, $1,750,000 below the amount requested in the budget 

and $7,374,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level. Funds are provided 

to support training of Transportation Security Officers [TSOs] and 

other direct costs associated with TSO operations, such as: 

consumable supplies, checkpoint janitorial services, travel for the 

National Deployment Force, uniform allowances, hazardous materials disposal, and a model workforce program. The recommendation includes an additional $3,861,000, as requested, for training, 

uniforms, and consumables needed to support the additional AIT 

machines and associated staffing and $1,750,000, as requested, for 

training and uniforms for new behavior detection officers. 

SCREENING OF SPECIAL POPULATIONS

The Committee is aware that security screening in the airport 

environment may be particularly challenging for passengers with 

physical or mental disabilities, like autism. The introduction of Advanced Imaging Technology [AIT] and new pat-down procedures 

has magnified the challenge of airport screening for many of these 

individuals. TSA shall continue to refine its training programs and 

standardize its screening process to ensure that the TSA workforce 

is more attuned to assisting disabled populations move through the 

aviation security process. The Committee supports ongoing efforts 
69 

TSA is undertaking to revamp its training to include up-to-date 

disability-related information as well as planned training courses 

focusing on communications skills to provide better customer service to all travelers, including passengers with disabilities. TSA is 

to work in coordination with airlines, airports, and cross-disability/ 

medical organizations to design education and outreach programs 

that will ensure access to the Nation’s aviation system is available 

to everyone. TSA shall also work with airports to expand mock 

boarding events, such as those held for families with autistic children. Events like these provide TSOs with training on how to appropriately interact with and be sensitive to persons with special 

needs. TSA is to brief the Committee no later than 90 days after 

the date of enactment of this act on its efforts in this area. 

TSA shall also continue to streamline and improve the screening 

experience for young passengers and train officers to work with 

parents to ensure a secure and respectful checkpoint screening 

process. 

CHECKPOINT SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $214,893,000 for checkpoint sup- port, $39,200,000 below the amount requested in the budget and 

$113,950,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level. Funds are provided 

to field test and deploy equipment for passenger screening, carryon baggage screening, checkpoint reconfiguration, electronic surveillance of checkpoints, and operational integration of systems. The recommendation includes $76,983,000, as requested, to procure an additional 275 AIT units in fiscal year 2012, bringing the 

total number of AIT units funded to 1,275. AIT screens passengers 

for concealed weapons (metal and nonmetal), explosives, and other 

prohibited items, and is the most effective passenger screening 

technology currently available. TSA estimates that approximately 

80 percent of the traveling public will be screened by AIT if the request is approved compared to only 60 percent if denied. This percentage difference equates to approximately 350,000 passengers a 

day that would otherwise use the walk-through metal detector, 

which cannot detect nonmetal weapons and explosives. 

The Committee is encouraged by TSA efforts to deploy automated target recognition [ATR] capability with AIT millimeter 

wave units. ATR displays a generic outline of a person on a monitor attached to an AIT unit, which significantly improves privacy 

protections through the elimination of private rooms where human 

operators view AIT images. Testing results have shown that an 

AIT with ATR technology outperforms an AIT with an image operator and has increased the speed at security lanes where it has 

been deployed. TSA is to brief the Committee not later than 30 

days after the date of enactment of this act on AIT. The briefing 

is to include: procurement details; cost; schedule; associated staffing requirements; utilization rates; deployments; and progress on 

ATR development for AIT backscatter units and ATR deployment. 

The recommendation does not include $39,200,000, as requested, 

to purchase 385 portable ETD units to detect residue from explosives material on passengers at lanes not covered by an AIT. All 

800 ETD units necessary to reach TSA’s full operating capability 

were already funded in fiscal year 2011. 
70 

Funds are also included, as requested, to purchase other checkpoint security systems, including: next generation explosives trace 

detectors; automated wait time technology; shoe scanning devices; 

advanced technology; and advanced surveillance camera systems 

for airports. 

EXIT LANE SECURITY

No later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this act, 

the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) shall submit a report that makes recommendations for improving the security of each location at an airport where passengers exit the sterile area. The report shall include: 

—an assessment of the differences in configurations of such locations; and 

—an evaluation of options for improving security at such locations, such as increasing personnel assigned to exit lanes and 

the use of technology to improve security. 

The report shall be submitted to the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

A general provision is included providing for increased penalties 

for violating security regulations at airports. 

EXPLOSIVES DETECTION SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends $222,738,000 in discretionary appropriations for explosives detection systems [EDS] procurement and 

installation, $50,000,000 below the amount requested in the budget 

and $68,105,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level. An additional 

$250,000,000 in mandatory spending will be available from Aviation Security Capital Fund [ASCF] fee collections. The total discretionary and mandatory funding will allow TSA to fund recapitalization and in-line projects at over 20 airports. Current law requires that the $250,000,000 in annual mandatory 

funding deposited into the ASCF is to be available for airport security improvement projects, such as facility modifications. However, 

procurement and installation of EDS equipment associated with 

these projects is not permitted. With a diminishing base of airport 

applications seeking large improvement projects and the need to replace aging EDS machines currently deployed at airports, the recommendation includes bill language, as requested, to permit ASCF 

funding to be used to procure and install EDS equipment during 

fiscal year 2012. This change will allow TSA to more effectively, 

economically, and expeditiously plan and implement the acquisition 

and replacement of existing EDS units. TSA is to work with the appropriate Committees of jurisdiction if it desires a permanent solution to this problem. 

The Committee supports TSA’s efforts to complete a competitive 

procurement process for all three classes of EDS machines, including more rigid requirements for detection, lower false alarm rates, 

and screening. TSA shall regularly brief the Committee on its 

progress to meet this goal, including results from certification testing at the Transportation Security Laboratory and operational test 

and evaluation at selected airports. The Committee is aware of 
71 

schedule delays that have occurred in the acquisition process. The 

briefings shall also include updates on TSA’s strategy to avoid such 

delays. TSA shall also update the Committee on its implementation 

of recommendations made by GAO to ensure that TSA’s plans to 

enhance detection requirements are met (GAO–11–327SU). 

EXPENDITURE PLANS FOR EDS/CHECKPOINT TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee includes statutory language under the ‘‘Transportation Security Support’’ appropriation withholding the obligation 

of $25,000,000 for headquarters administration until TSA submits 

to the Committee, no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this act, detailed expenditure plans for fiscal year 2012 for 

checkpoint security and EDS refurbishment, procurement, and installations on an airport-by-airport basis. The withholding is included to encourage timely submissions of materials necessary for 

robust and informed oversight. The plans shall include specific 

technologies for purchase, program schedules and major milestones, a schedule for obligation of the funds, and a table detailing 

actual versus anticipated unobligated balances at the close of the 

fiscal year. TSA shall brief the Committee at the end of the second, 

third, and fourth quarters with an update on EDS and checkpoint 

expenditures, including an explanation of any deviation from the 

original plan. 

FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN OF INVESTMENTS

TSA’s budget submission, as it is currently structured, provides 

limited understanding of TSA’s total acquisition costs for passenger 

screening technologies and how these technologies link to TSA’s 

near-term and long-term vision for its screening responsibilities. It 

is important for the Committee to have a better understanding of 

future acquisition needs and the resources necessary to execute 

them. While the budget justification includes the total number of 

assets necessary to meet full operating capability, it does not include a future-years financial plan to achieve the desired end state. 

Therefore, the Committee directs TSA to include a 5-year budget 

estimate within the annual congressional budget justification, beginning with fiscal year 2013, that includes projected funding levels 

for the next 5 fiscal years individually for all passenger screening 

technology acquisitions. The plan shall also indicate the total cost 

and estimated completion date for each technology. 

INSTALLATION OF OPTIMAL BAGGAGE SCREENING SYSTEMS AND FTE

SAVINGS

With the large influx of funding provided in this act and in prior 

appropriations acts for EDS procurement and installation, TSA is 

able to greatly expedite the deployment of in-line checked baggage 

screening systems, thereby permitting a reduction in personnel. 

For instance, by the end of fiscal year 2011, TSA estimates that 

187 airports will have optimal checked baggage screening solutions. 

TSA shall report to the Committees, in tandem with the annual 

budget request, on the savings achieved and anticipated by fiscal 

year from the installation of new in-line systems. 
72 

AIRPORTS THAT HAVE INCURRED ELIGIBLE COSTS FOR IN-LINE

BAGGAGE SYSTEM DEPLOYMENT

As required by the 9/11 Act, TSA is to give funding consideration 

to airports that incurred eligible costs for EDS and that were not 

recipients of funding agreements. The fiscal year 2012 EDS expenditure plan shall identify airports eligible for funding pursuant 

to section 1604(b)(2) of Public Law 110–53 and funding, if any, allocated to reimburse those airports. 

SCREENING TECHNOLOGY MAINTENANCE AND UTILITIES

The Committee recommends $332,265,000 for screening technology maintenance and utilities, the same level as requested in 

the budget and $16,018,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level. 

OPERATION INTEGRATION

Funding for operation integration is included within the ‘‘checkpoint support’’ and ‘‘EDS procurement and installation’’ PPA’s as 

requested. Funds are provided to test, evaluate, and analyze preproduction or production representative systems under realistic 

conditions, including operation by those who will use the equipment in the field in a variety of environmental conditions. 

AVIATION SECURITY DIRECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

The Committee recommends $1,100,320,000 for aviation security 

direction and enforcement, $15,463,000 above the amount requested in the budget and $153,086,000 above the fiscal year 2011 

level. The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

AVIATION SECURITY DIRECTION AND ENFORCEMENT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Aviation regulation and other enforcement ................................... 318,285 373,239 382,989 

Airport management and support ................................................. 489,142 571,503 571,216 

Federal flight deck officer and flight crew support ..................... 25,118 25,461 25,461 

Air cargo ........................................................................................ 114,689 114,654 120,654 

Total, Aviation Security Direction and Enforcement ........ 947,234 1,084,857 1,100,320 

AVIATION REGULATION AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT

The Committee recommends $382,989,000 for aviation regulation 

and other enforcement, $9,750,000 above the amount requested in 

the budget and $64,704,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level. The 

recommended amount provides for law enforcement and regulatory 

activities at airports to: ensure compliance with required security 

measures, respond to security incidents, and provide international 

support for worldwide security requirements. The recommendation 

includes amounts requested to annualize efforts initiated in fiscal 

year 2011 to strengthen international programs in high-risk areas 

around the world and other targeted security enhancements. 
73 

The recommendation includes a program increase of $22,945,000, 

as requested, for 12 additional multi-modal Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response [VIPR] teams with 6 teams dedicated to 

aviation and 6 teams dedicated to surface transportation security. 

This amount brings the total number of VIPR teams to 37. VIPR 

teams were authorized by the 9/11 Act to augment the security of 

any mode of transportation at any location within the United 

States. These teams, made up of TSA employees, including Federal 

Air Marshals, Transportation Security Officers, surface transportation inspectors, and canine teams, are deployed to airports, rail 

stations, and other venues in response to intelligence-driven 

threats, or for deterrence through risk-based deployments. TSA 

shall provide an expenditure plan detailing how and where these 

new VIPR teams will be deployed no later than 60 days after the 

date of enactment of this act. 

The recommendation also includes $6,250,000 above the request 

for 25 new canine teams in addition to the 100 canine teams being 

acquired in fiscal year 2011. The Committee continues to believe 

that the most effective explosives-screening process relies on multiple capabilities, including screeners, technology, and canines. 

Finally, the recommendation includes an increase of $3,500,000 

for international security enhancements. This initiative is further 

described under the ‘‘Air cargo’’ PPA. 

AIRPORT MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $571,216,000 for airport management and support, $287,000 below the amount requested in the 

budget and $82,074,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level. Funds are 

provided for: the workforce to support TSA Federal security directors; Bomb Appraisal Officers; Explosives Security Specialists; the 

Transportation Security Operations Center; airport rent and furniture; a vehicle fleet; airport parking; and employee transit benefits. The recommended amount includes the transfer of funding for 

Bomb Appraisal Officers from the ‘‘Passenger and baggage screener 

personnel, compensation, and benefits’’ PPA and Explosives Security Specialists from the Federal Air Marshals ‘‘Management and 

administration’’ PPA. This shift is appropriate as these employees 

report directly to Federal Security Directors. 

The recommendation also includes $2,882,000 to support new 

personnel associated with the AIT, BDO, and VIPR initiatives. 

FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICER AND FLIGHT CREW TRAINING

PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends $25,461,000 for Federal flight deck 

officer and flight crew training programs, the same amount as requested in the budget and $343,000 above the fiscal year 2011 

level. Funds are provided to deputize qualified airline pilots who 

volunteer to be Federal law enforcement officers. This program provides initial and recurrent law enforcement training. Funds are 

also provided for the Crew Member Self-Defense Training program 

for the purpose of teaching crew members basic self defense concepts and techniques. 
74 

AIR CARGO

The Committee recommends $120,654,000 for air cargo security 

activities, an increase of $6,000,000 above the amount requested in 

the budget and $5,965,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level. Funds 

are provided to secure the air cargo supply chain, conveyances, and 

people. 

By August 2010, TSA achieved 100 percent screening of air cargo 

that is placed on passenger aircraft for domestic flights, but 100 

percent screening of air cargo loaded onto inbound international 

passenger flights has yet to be achieved. Given recent aviation 

based terrorist plots, including the October 2010 plot to blow up air 

cargo aircraft destined for the United States, the Committee was 

encouraged when the Secretary directed TSA to expedite the 

achievement of 100 percent screening of inbound cargo from 2013 

to the end of 2011. The Department has also placed a stronger emphasis on all-cargo flights to the United States through airport vulnerability assessments and the air cargo advance screening project, 

which targets high risk cargo before boarding. To strengthen efforts 

for air cargo screening and security on inbound passenger and allcargo aircraft, $6,000,000 is recommended above the request under 

this PPA and an additional $3,500,000 is recommended under the 

‘‘Aviation regulation and other enforcement’’ PPA. These amounts 

will enable TSA to hire an additional 29 international air cargo inspectors and 24 transportation security specialists to conduct assessments of all-cargo airports from which flights depart to the 

United States or from which U.S. all-cargo carriers fly to any location, and to increase the frequency of visits to verify protective 

measures at higher-risk airports. As part of the fiscal year 2012 air 

cargo expenditure plan, TSA shall describe its investment areas 

and activities associated with this initiative. 

TSA is directed to brief the Committee no later than 45 days 

after the date of enactment of this act, in a classified session if appropriate, on its progress in implementing the recommendations 

contained in OIG–10–119, ‘‘Evaluation of Screening of Air Cargo 

Transported on Passenger Aircraft.’’ 

The Committee includes statutory language under ‘‘Transportation Security Support’’ restricting $25,000,000 from being obligated for headquarters administration until TSA submits to the 

Committee, no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 

this act, an expenditure plan on the allocation of air cargo funds, 

including carryover balances. Due to delays in receiving the air 

cargo expenditure plan in prior years, the withholding is included 

to encourage timely submissions of materials necessary for robust 

and informed oversight. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $105,749,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 134,748,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 129,748,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 134,748,000 

Surface transportation security provides funding for personnel 

and operational resources to assess the risk of a terrorist attack on 

nonaviation modes, standards and procedures to address those 
75 

risks, and to ensure compliance with established regulations and 

policies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $134,748,000 for surface transportation security, the same amount as requested in the budget and 

$28,999,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level. Funds are available 

to assess the risk of terrorist attacks for all nonaviation transportation modes, issue regulations to improve the security of those 

modes, and enforce regulations to ensure the protection of the 

transportation system. The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and 

budget request levels: 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Staffing and operations ................................................................. 39,712 38,514 38,514 

Surface transportation security inspectors and canines .............. 66,037 96,234 96,234 

Total, Surface Transportation Security ............................. 105,749 134,748 134,748 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY STAFFING AND OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $38,514,000 for surface transportation security staffing and operations, the same amount as requested in the budget and $1,198,000 below the fiscal year 2011 

level. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY INSPECTORS AND CANINES

The Committee recommends $96,234,000 for surface transportation security inspectors and canines, the same amount as requested in the budget and $30,197,000 above the fiscal year 2011 

level. 

Since 2004, there have been 1,300 terrorist attacks worldwide 

against mass transit, buses and passenger rail, resulting in more 

than 4,000 deaths and 14,000 injuries. It is now more important 

than ever to increase our defenses against similar attacks here in 

the United States. Recent intelligence gathered from Osama bin 

Laden’s compound revealed evidence that al Qaeda considered rail 

lines high value targets. The recommendation provides a 46 percent increase over fiscal year 2011, and includes the request of 

$24,049,000 to annualize the 15 ‘‘surface’’ focused Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response [VIPR] teams funded in fiscal year 

2010. As discussed under ‘‘Aviation Security Direction and Enforcement’’, the recommendation includes funding for 12 new multimodal VIPR teams, which will expand deployments in the surface 

sector. In total, TSA anticipates 7,700 VIPR operations in surface 

modes, a 26 percent increase over fiscal year 2011. 

In addition, $5,660,000 is provided, as requested, to annualize 

100 additional surface transportation security inspectors funded in 

fiscal year 2010; and $1,280,000 is provided, as requested, for cooperative agreement stipends with State and local canine teams. 
76 

RAIL TUNNELS

Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this 

act, TSA shall submit a report that: 

—makes recommendations for improving the security of passenger and mass transit of rail tunnels; 

—identifies the frequency of passenger rail and mass transit tunnel security breaches; and 

—assesses differences in configurations of such locations; and options for improving security at such locations, such as increasing personnel assigned to such locations and the use of technology to improve security. 

The report shall be submitted to the following Senate committees: 

—the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; 

—the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and 

—the Committee on Appropriations. 

TRANSPORTATION THREAT ASSESSMENT AND CREDENTIALING

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $162,673,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 183,954,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 183,954,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 163,954,000 

Transportation threat assessment and credentialing includes several TSA credentialing programs: Secure Flight, Crew Vetting, 

Screening Administration and Operations, Registered Traveler, 

Transportation Worker Identification Credential, Hazardous Materials Commercial Drivers License Endorsement Program, and Alien 

Flight School. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a direct appropriation of 

$163,954,000 for transportation threat assessment and 

credentialing, $20,000,000 below the amount requested in the 

budget and $1,281,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level. In addition, 

an estimated $40,320,000 in fee collections is available for these activities in fiscal year 2012, as proposed in the budget. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

TRANSPORTATION THREAT ASSESSMENT AND CREDENTIALING 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Direct Appropriations: 

Secure Flight ......................................................................... 84,194 92,414 92,414 

Crew and other vetting programs ........................................ 78,479 91,540 71,540 

Subtotal, direct appropriations ........................................ 162,673 183,954 163,954 

Fee Collections: 

Transportation worker identification credential ................... 9,200 8,300 8,300 

Hazardous materials ............................................................. 12,000 12,000 12,000 

Alien flight school (transfer from DOJ) ................................ 4,000 4,000 4,000 

Certified cargo screening program ....................................... 5,200 5,200 5,200 
77 

TRANSPORTATION THREAT ASSESSMENT AND CREDENTIALING—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 enacted Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee recommendations 

Large aircraft security program ........................................... 1,200 1,200 1,200 

Secure identification display area checks ........................... 8,000 8,000 8,000 

Other security threat assessments ....................................... 100 100 100 

General aviation at DCA ....................................................... 100 100 100 

Indirect air cargo .................................................................. 1,400 1,400 1,400 

Sensitive security information .............................................. 20 20 20 

Subtotal, fee collections ................................................... 41,220 40,320 40,320 

SECURE FLIGHT

The Committee recommends $92,414,000 for Secure Flight, the same amount as requested in the budget and $8,220,000 above the 

fiscal year 2011 level. As recommended by the 9/11 Commission 

and mandated by the Intelligence Reform Act, this program assumed the responsibility of airline passenger watch list matching 

from the air carriers to the Federal Government. 

The Committee recommendation includes a total of $12,371,000 

as requested for expanded watchlist matching, of which $8,764,000 

is included under the ‘‘Secure Flight’’ PPA. This increase is to accommodate an expanded population of names screened from the 

Terrorist Screening Database following the December 25, 2009, 

bomb plot to blow up Northwest Airlines flight 253. 

CREW AND OTHER VETTING PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends $71,540,000 for Crew and Other 

Vetting Programs, $20,000,000 below the amount requested in the 

budget and $6,939,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level. 

The Committee recommendation includes funds to annualize personnel provided in fiscal year 2011 to support vetting infrastructure improvements and pay related adjustments. 

The Committee supports TSA’s efforts to modernize its vetting 

and credentialing infrastructure, which is currently made up of disconnected and duplicative systems. This has resulted in high system complexity and lengthy adjudication processes due to manual 

reviews. TSA intends to modernize its system to address these 

issues and improve vetting and credentialing services. However, 

due to schedule delays associated with the award of the modernization contract, significant balances of funds available in fiscal year 

2011 will now carry over into fiscal year 2012. Therefore, the Committee provides $27,800,000 instead of $57,800,000 requested in 

the budget. With carryover funding, approximately $65,500,000 is 

estimated to be available for this effort in fiscal year 2012. TSA is 

to brief the Committee quarterly on its efforts to develop this system. 

EXPEDITED PASSENGER SCREENING FOR KNOWN TRAVELERS

Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, TSA has made 

significant modifications to security procedures and introduced new 

technology with the aim of securing the flying public. However, the 

screening process for passengers remains a ‘‘one-size fits all’’ ap-
78 

proach, resulting in the common complaint that flight crews, children, and the elderly are being screened at the same level as others 

with potentially higher-risk profiles. The Committee is aware that 

TSA is examining implementation of a risk-based security approach that would more appropriately redirect resources from those 

passengers comprising a lower security risk to those with unknown 

or higher-risk information. The Committee supports TSA’s exploration of procedures aligned more closely with threat and risk, as 

well as its plans to conduct proof of concept (pilot) projects to test 

these processes. 

Recognizing aviation passenger vetting infrastructure will need 

additional capability to assist with identifying low-risk travelers, 

the Committee provides $10,000,000 above the request for TSA to 

develop a systems architecture, procure hardware and software to 

handle expanded processing requirements to support proof of concepts and incremental capabilities to expand the known traveler 

populations. Furthermore, the Committee directs TSA to provide a 

briefing on risk-based security no later than 90 days after the date 

of enactment of this act. The briefing shall include, as appropriate, 

information and interim results of any pilots and associated 

timelines, implementation of risk-based screening procedures on a 

larger scale, or the conclusion that implementation of such processes is not feasible and the reasons for that conclusion. 

TRANSPORTATION WORKER IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIAL

The Committee is concerned that Transportation Worker Identification Credential [TWIC] applicants are required to make multiple trips to TWIC enrollment centers, which are occasionally at 

some distance from the applicants’ homes or places of work. The 

Committee directs TSA to expand Universal Enrollment Centers, 

which will result in no less than a 50 percent expansion in the 

number of available TWIC enrollment sites. Furthermore, TSA is 

to brief the Committee no later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this act on the projected resource requirements, security 

impacts, and a potential timeline to effect changes in the TWIC enrollment system to permit cards to be shipped directly to the recipient. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $986,661,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,113,697,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,032,790,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,042,066,000 

The transportation security support account supports the operational needs of TSA’s extensive airport/field personnel and infrastructure. Transportation security support includes: headquarters’ 

personnel, pay, benefits and support; intelligence; mission support 

centers; human capital services; and information technology support. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $1,042,066,000 for transportation 

security support activities, $71,631,000 below the amount re-
79 

quested in the budget and $55,405,000 above the fiscal year 2011 

level. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Headquarters administration ..................................................................... 254,000 320,794 293,474 

Information technology .............................................................................. 466,092 485,612 453,100 

Human capital services ............................................................................. 233,658 264,299 252,500 

Intelligence ................................................................................................. 32,911 42,992 42,992 

Total, Transportation Security Support ........................................ 986,661 1,113,697 1,042,066 

HEADQUARTERS ADMINISTRATION

The Committee recommends $293,474,000 for headquarters administration, $27,320,000 below the amount requested in the budget and $39,474,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level. 

The recommended amount includes funding to support increases 

for AIT staffing, VIPR teams, expanded watchlist vetting, and additional BDO hires. Because the recommendation includes half of the 

increase requested for BDO staffing, the support amount is reduced 

accordingly. 

The recommendation includes the requested TSA-wide reduction 

of $114,009,000 for management efficiencies, administrative savings, and operational support. TSA is to brief the Committee with 

a full accounting of how these reductions will be achieved no later 

than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act. 

The recommended amount also includes $1,998,000, as requested, to hire 15 additional personnel to increase TSA’s acquisition workforce capacity and capabilities. Recent findings by the 

DHS Inspector General in report OIG–10–72 found that TSA ‘‘did 

not have an adequate number of properly trained core acquisition 

staff to administer contracts and oversee support services contractors’ performance.’’ Further, the report concluded that TSA ‘‘did not 

have reasonable assurance that contractors were performing as required, that it contracted for the services it needed, that it received 

the services it paid for, or that taxpayers were receiving the best 

value.’’ The Committee agrees with TSA’s assessment that additional resources are necessary for disciplined oversight processes 

and robust acquisition program management. The recommended amount includes $2,000,000 above the request 

for TSA’s Office of Professional Responsibility. TSA recently established this Office to ensure that allegations of misconduct are thoroughly investigated and that discipline is appropriate and fair 

across the agency. This Office is currently being funded within existing resources, including detailees. The Committee believes the 

importance of this program warrants dedicated funding. 

TSA shall continue semi-annual briefings on covert testing activities to include the latest metrics gathered from recent tests and resulting mitigating factors. 
80 

TSA shall brief the Committee no later than September 23, 2011, 

on a proposed budget account structure that allows for a 1-year appropriation for salaries and expenses. 

The Committee includes bill language withholding the obligation 

of $25,000,000 for headquarters administration until: fiscal year 

2012 expenditure plans for air cargo security, explosives detection 

systems procurement and installation, and checkpoint support are 

provided to the Committee. The expenditure plans are due no later 

than 60 days after the date of enactment of this act. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The Committee recommends $453,100,000 for information technology, $32,512,000 below the amount requested in the budget and 

$12,992,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level. 

The recommended amount includes IT funding to support increases for AIT staffing, VIPR teams, expanded watchlist vetting, 

and additional BDO hires. Because the recommendation includes 

half of the increase requested for BDO staffing, the support amount 

is reduced accordingly. 

The recommendation does not include $20,300,000 proposed for 

data center consolidation in order to fund critical operational priorities. This decrease is without prejudice to the merits of the data 

consolidation initiative. 

HUMAN CAPITAL SERVICES

The Committee recommends $252,500,000 for human capital 

services, $11,799,000 below the amount requested in the budget 

and $18,842,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level. 

The recommended amount includes human capital funding to 

support increases for AIT staffing, VIPR teams, expanded watchlist 

vetting, and additional BDO hires. Because the recommendation 

includes half of the increase requested for BDO staffing, the support amount is reduced accordingly. The recommendation also includes funding requested for recruitment costs and drug testing to 

support new screener hires. 

INTELLIGENCE

The Committee recommends $42,992,000 for the Office of Intelligence, the same amount as requested in the budget and 

$10,081,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level. The recommendation 

includes $6,793,000 to annualize Field Intelligence Officers added 

in fiscal year 2010 and expand the number of officers by an additional 21 positions in fiscal year 2012. 

PASSENGER COMPLAINTS

The Committee directs TSA to make every effort possible to ensure that the traveling public is aware of the process in which complaints about the screening experience can be made. The Committee is aware that TSA operates multiple channels by which individuals can contact the agency. The primary portal is the TSA Contact Center for passengers to transmit questions, complaints and 

concerns about aviation travel, the screening process, or other TSArelated issues. The Committee directs GAO to conduct a review of 
81 

TSA’s policies and procedures for resolving passenger complaints, 

including an examination of the organizational independence of the 

office. GAO’s review is to be completed no later than 9 months 

after the date of enactment of this act. 

RISK-BASED DECISIONMAKING AND BUDGETING

The Committee directs TSA to submit, concurrent with the fiscal 

year 2013 budget request, supporting documentation that explicitly 

explains how TSA’s comprehensive risk assessments for all transportation modes were used to allocate resources across and within 

each mode. This documentation should also identify the corresponding allocation of resources being proposed in the budget request (by appropriations account, program, project, and activity) 

that address these priorities. This annual submission shall be 

made in classified or unclassified formats, as appropriate. 

FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $927,942,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 991,375,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 961,375,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 981,115,000 

The Federal Air Marshals [FAMs] protect the air transportation 

system against terrorist threats, sabotage, and other acts of violence. The FAMs account provides funds for the salaries, benefits, 

travel, training, and other expenses of the program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $981,115,000 for the Federal Air 

Marshals, $10,260,000 below the amount requested in the budget 

and $53,173,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level. To help inform 

the long-term staffing needs of the Federal Air Marshals, the Committee directs FAMS to conduct an independent review of the definition of flights presenting ‘‘high-security risks’’. This recommendation was part of a recent TSA report on FAMS long-term staffing 

levels. FAMS is to brief the Committee on the results of the review 

no later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this act. The 

briefing shall include an analysis of whether the current risk assessment model was validated by the review and if changes are 

necessary that would warrant upward or downward adjustments to 

current staffing levels. 

The Committee directs TSA to submit quarterly reports on mission coverage, staffing levels, and hiring rates as in prior years. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Management and administration .................................................. 805,275 860,260 850,000 

Travel and training ........................................................................ 122,667 131,115 131,115 

Total, Federal Air Marshals .............................................. 927,942 991,375 981,115 
82 

COAST GUARD

SUMMARY

The Coast Guard’s primary responsibilities are the enforcement 

of all applicable Federal laws on the high seas and waters subject 

to the jurisdiction of the United States; promotion of safety of life 

and property at sea; assistance to navigation; protection of the marine environment; and maintenance of a state of readiness to function as a specialized service in the Navy in time of war, as authorized by sections 1 and 2 of title 14, United States Code. 

The Commandant of the Coast Guard reports directly to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a total program level of 

$10,350,762,000 for the activities of the Coast Guard for fiscal year 

2012. The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

COAST GUARD—FUNDING SUMMARY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 enacted 1Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 2

Committee recommendations 3

Operating Expenses ....................................................................... 6,894,031 6,819,505 7,078,054 

Environmental Compliance and Restoration ................................. 13,172 16,699 16,699 

Reserve Training ............................................................................ 133,365 136,778 134,278 

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements ............................... 1,516,744 1,421,924 1,391,924 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation .............................. 24,696 19,779 27,779 

Health Care Fund Contribution (Permanent Indefinite Appropriations) ......................................................................................... 265,321 261,871 261,871 

Retired Pay ..................................................................................... 1,400,700 1,440,157 1,440,157 

Total, Coast Guard ........................................................... 10,248,029 10,116,713 10,350,762 

1 Includes $254,000,000 for overseas contingency operations. 

2 Excludes a proposed transfer of up to $258,278,000 from Navy ‘‘Operation and Maintenance’’ for overseas contingency operations.

3 Includes $258,000,000 for overseas contingency operations. 

The Coast Guard will pay an estimated $261,871,000 in fiscal 

year 2012 to the Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund for 

the costs of military Medicare-eligible health benefits earned by its 

uniformed service members. The contribution is funded by permanent indefinite discretionary authority pursuant to the National 

Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005 (Public Law 108– 

375). 

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 1 ........................................................................... $6,894,031,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 2 ......................................................................... 6,819,505,000 

House allowance 3 .................................................................................. 7,071,061,000 

Committee recommendation 3 ............................................................... 7,078,054,000 

1 Includes $254,000,000 for overseas contingency operations. 

2 Excludes a proposed transfer of up to $258,278,000 from Navy ‘‘Operation and Maintenance’’ 

for overseas contingency operations. 3 Includes $258,000,000 (Senate) and $258,278,000 (House) for overseas contingency operations. 
83 

The Operating Expenses appropriation provides funds 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. The program activities of this appropriation fall into the following categories: 

Search and Rescue.—As one of its earliest and most traditional 

missions, the Coast Guard maintains a nationwide system of boats, 

aircraft, cutters, and rescue coordination centers on 24-hour alert. 

Aids to Navigation.—To help mariners determine their location 

and avoid accidents, the Coast Guard maintains a network of 

manned and unmanned aids to navigation along the Nation’s 

coasts and on its inland waterways. In addition, the Coast Guard 

operates radio stations in the United States and abroad to serve 

the needs of the armed services and marine and air commerce. 

Marine Safety.—The Coast Guard ensures compliance with Federal statutes and regulations designed to improve safety in the 

merchant marine industry and operates a recreational boating safety program. 

Marine Environmental Protection.—The primary objectives of the 

marine environmental protection program are to minimize the dangers of marine pollution and to assure the safety of ports and waterways. 

Enforcement of Laws and Treaties.—The Coast Guard is the principal maritime enforcement agency with regard to Federal laws on 

the navigable waters of the United States and the high seas, including fisheries, drug smuggling, illegal immigration, and hijacking of vessels. 

Ice Operations.—In the Arctic and Antarctic, Coast Guard icebreakers escort supply ships, support research activities and Department of Defense operations, survey uncharted waters, and collect scientific data. The Coast Guard also assists commercial vessels through ice-covered waters. 

Defense Readiness.—During peacetime, the Coast Guard maintains an effective state of military preparedness to operate as a 

service in the Navy in time of war or national emergency at the 

direction of the President. As such, the Coast Guard has primary 

responsibility for the security of ports, waterways, and navigable 

waters up to 200 miles offshore. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $7,078,054,000 for Coast Guard Operating Expenses, including $24,500,000 from the Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund and $598,000,000 for Coast Guard defense-related activities. Of this amount, the Committee recommends not to exceed 

$17,000 for official reception and representation expenses. 

The recommended funding level is $258,549,000 above the request and $184,023,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level. The Committee’s recommendation is $549,000 above the net request for 

Coast Guard Operating Expenses when excluding funds requested 

for overseas contingency operations. 

The recommendation includes necessary adjustments to base, 

such as increases in mandatory pay allowances, military personnel 

entitlements, asset sustainment, and operating and maintenance 
84 

funds for new assets. These increases are partially offset by onetime cost reductions, terminations, decommissioning of aging assets, efficiencies, and administrative savings, as requested. In addition, the Committee’s recommendation includes the following program initiatives requested for fiscal year 2012: $10,666,000 for enhancements to marine safety; $11,485,000 for an expansion of marine environmental response capabilities; $9,300,000 for military 

family child care; $39,000,000 for restoration of polar operations 

funding; $8,600,000 for network security upgrades; and $6,300,000 

for the Distress Alerting Satellite System. 

The Committee recommends the following increases above the 

President’s request to address several unfunded priorities in the 

fiscal year 2012 budget request: $3,700,000 to annualize positions 

funded in fiscal year 2011 to enhance marine environmental response capabilities such as oil spills; $20,300,000 for critical depot 

level maintenance for aging high-endurance and medium-endurance cutters to address a backlog of over $341,000,000; and 

$4,000,000 for boat pursuit and tactical training of maritime law 

enforcement units. 

The Committee recommends the following reductions from the President’s request: a reduction of $12,000,000 in technical adjustments for pay, allowances, and operating expenses due to a current 

trend of lower than anticipated military healthcare expenditures; a 

reduction of $5,571,000 for surface and air asset follow-on operational costs due to delays in the delivery of new assets to operating units; a reduction of $1,880,000 for operations and maintenance of the Manned Covert Surveillance Aircraft due to delays in 

the delivery of the aircraft and lack of test and evaluation results; 

and a reduction of $8,000,000 for data center migration. The reduction to data center migration is without prejudice, but is necessary 

to meet higher priority operational demands within a constrained 

budget environment. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

OPERATING EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Military pay and allowances .......................................................... 3,345,303 3,447,753 3,434,061 

Civilian pay and benefits .............................................................. 737,702 780,556 784,256 

Training and recruiting .................................................................. 204,087 213,282 213,321 

Operating funds and unit level maintenance ............................... 1,138,474 1,109,323 1,109,623 

Centrally managed accounts ......................................................... 345,174 351,478 342,653 

Intermediate and depot level maintenance .................................. 869,291 917,113 936,140 

Overseas contingency operations .................................................. 254,000 ( 1 ) 258,000 

Total, Operating Expenses ................................................ 6,894,031 6,819,505 7,078,054 

1 Excludes a proposed transfer of up to $258,278,000 from Navy ‘‘Operation and Maintenance’’ for overseas contingency operations.

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

The Committee provides $258,000,000 for Coast Guard operations in support of overseas contingency operations. While funding 

for these activities was requested in the Department of Defense 

budget for the Navy, the Committee adopted a practice beginning 
85 

in the fiscal year 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act to appropriate these amounts directly to the Coast Guard. The Committee 

continues this practice and urges the administration to budget for 

Coast Guard overseas contingency operations under the Department of Homeland Security in future budget requests. The Coast 

Guard shall brief the Committee no later than 30 days after the 

date of enactment of this act on any changes expected during fiscal 

year 2012 or projected transition costs expected in fiscal year 2013 

on its mission in Iraq. 

MARINE SAFETY

The Committee provides $10,666,000, as requested, for 105 personnel the Coast Guard has identified as necessary to effectively 

regulate the growing maritime industry. Personnel to be hired include Marine Safety Inspectors, Investigators, and Fishing Vessel 

Safety Examiners at Coast Guard Sectors. As the Coast Guard updates its Marine Safety Performance Plan, it shall include recommendations made in OIG report [OIG–11–22], which are to 

produce a resource baseline, performance targets, performance 

milestones and completion dates, and total resources needed to 

achieve goals and objectives. The Coast Guard shall brief the Committee no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act 

on the data resulting from these efforts. 

MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE

The Committee provides $15,185,000, $3,700,000 above the request to enhance marine environmental response activities. The 

amount provided above the request is to annualize additional positions funded in fiscal year 2011. This funding addresses critical resource and capability gaps by funding 87 new billets to enhance 

marine environmental response functions and environmental response competencies and annualizes positions added in fiscal year 

2011. Within the 87 billets, 33 are for a new National Incident 

Management and Assist Team, which will provide dedicated, 

trained, and experienced personnel to directly support Coast Guard 

Incident Commanders and their units during response to releases 

of oil and hazardous materials. While the fiscal year 2012 request 

addresses immediate resource and capability needs, it is necessary 

for the Coast Guard to conduct a long-term mission requirements 

analysis to fully understand its future needs for this mission. 

Therefore, no later than 120 days after the date of enactment of 

this act, the Coast Guard shall submit to the Committee a plan to 

quantify the resource, training, and experience gaps within the marine environmental protection mission and develop a 5-year strategic plan to implement necessary capability and capacity enhancements to improve mission performance. This plan is to include 

funding estimates for each year of the plan. 

SUPPORT OF MILITARY FAMILIES

The Committee strongly supports the requested initiatives to improve the quality of life for military members and their families. 

The recommendation includes a total of $9,300,000 in ‘‘Operating 

Expenses’’, as requested, to improve access to affordable, quality 
86 

childcare and put the Coast Guard closer to being on par with 

other military branches in this area. The recommendation also includes $20,000,000, as requested, to address critical housing shortfalls in areas where there is a lack of affordable accommodations. 

In some locations, existing housing does not comply with life-safety 

codes and funds are needed to meet current construction code and 

habitability standards. In other areas, the limited availability of 

year-round rental housing in remote locations has forced some 

Coast Guard members to commute long distances between their 

home and duty station, and many are paying out of pocket expenses well beyond their basic allowance for housing [BAH] for 

adequate housing closer to their duty station. A Coast Guard analysis has shown that continuing BAH for military members in these 

areas is more expensive than housing acquisition and maintenance 

costs over a 30-year period of time. 

Because the amount for military housing construction in fiscal 

year 2011 was not determined until after the release of the President’s budget, the Coast Guard may choose to re-prioritize its most 

pressing housing needs for fiscal year 2012 and should submit an 

expenditure plan to the Committee reflecting those priorities no 

later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this act. 

CRITICAL DEPOT LEVEL MAINTENANCE

The Committee recommends $20,300,000 above the request to 

address the Coast Guard’s critical depot level maintenance backlog 

for its aging assets. Increasing equipment failures and rising maintenance costs have outpaced current funding levels. Between fiscal 

year 2008 and fiscal year 2010, the Coast Guard deferred over 

$341,000,000 in maintenance requirements for aviation and cutter 

assets due to fiscal constraints and competing mission requirements. The age and condition of legacy assets has decreased their 

reliability and increased the cost to maintain them. The percent of 

operational time Coast Guard cutters are free of major equipment 

failures continues to decline. In fiscal year 2010, the 378-foot High 

Endurance Cutter fleet, which is over 43 years old on average, was 

free of major equipment failures just 41 percent of the time compared to 58 percent in fiscal year 2008. The 270-foot medium Endurance Cutter fleet, which is over 34 years old on average, was 

free of major equipment failures just 49 percent of the time in fiscal year 2010 compared to 81 percent in fiscal year 2008. Until legacy fleets are replaced with new assets, the Coast Guard needs to 

be properly resourced to operate what it has so it can perform its 

many missions, including drug and migrant interdiction, port security, search and rescue, and oil spill response. 

POLAR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING

The Committee fully funds the request of $39,000,000 for the 

Coast Guard’s polar icebreaking program. Reclaiming budget authority for this program will enable the Coast Guard to make critical decisions with respect to operations and maintenance of its 

polar icebreakers. Many unanswered questions remain relating to 

the Coast Guard’s long-term ability to maintain a presence in the 

polar regions. In a report issued last September, the Government 

Accountability Office said the Coast Guard lacks adequate infra-
87 

structure or equipment in the Arctic. This has been a growing concern due to the melting ice in the Arctic region. In a separate report, the DHS–OIG recommended that the Coast Guard work with 

the administration to clarify its Arctic and Antarctic mission requirements, something this Committee has been urging for years. 

The Coast Guard’s high latitude study, which was completed in 

2010, concluded that additional icebreaking assets are necessary in 

the polar regions. This followed a National Academy of Sciences 

study that made similar conclusions. Given the extensive consensus 

that has been built in recent years, the Committee denies the request for the DHS Under Secretary for Management to conduct redundant assessment of capabilities necessary to operate in the 

polar regions. The Committee instead urges the Department to 

move forward on fulfilling the Nation’s icebreaking requirements 

for the polar regions by developing a concept of operations and a 

resource plan. 

The Coast Guard is required to submit to the Committee the results of its business case analysis for replacing or performing service life extensions on the Coast Guard’s two heavy polar icebreakers. This effort was required in Senate Report 111–31 relating to appropriations for fiscal year 2010 and the Coast Guard Authorization Act, 2010 (Public Law 111–281). 

LAW ENFORCEMENT ENHANCEMENTS

The Committee recommends $4,000,000 above the request for 

small boat pursuit and tactical training to ensure Coast Guard boat 

crews are properly trained in pursuit tactics and interdiction of 

non-compliant vessels, like drug running go-fast boats and semisubmersibles. This initiative is consistent with the Commandant’s 

testimony before the subcommittee where he expressed a desire for 

improved proficiency in such high risk operations. 

GULF OF MEXICO OIL SPILL RESPONSE

In 2010, the Coast Guard led the response to the fire and subsequent sinking of the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Deepwater Horizon. The Coast Guard recently issued the Incident Specific Preparedness Review [ISPR], which addresses specific areas of the response to the spill. According to the report, ‘‘this incident exposed 

deficiencies in planning and preparedness for an uncontrolled release of oil from an offshore drilling operation.’’ It notes that the 

Coast Guard’s marine environmental response programs ‘‘have atrophied over the past decade.’’ The report identifies a number of 

areas for improvement, including: Area Contingency Plans for 

Spills of National Significance; development of a national planning 

process that identifies environmentally sensitive areas and the 

means to protect them; and engagement with key stakeholders. 

The ISPR also noted that many lessons learned from previous 

spills, the Cosco Busan and Cape Mohican, ‘‘are not addressed programmatically or implemented effectively and, as such, had little 

role in enhancing the Coast Guard’s planning, preparedness, and 

response programs.’’ As such, the ISPR report recommends that the 

Coast Guard ‘‘draw from lessons learned in this report, and institute an autonomous program, not unlike a private sector quality 

control program to select, implement, and assess the outcome of 
88 

lessons learned.’’ As a result of the ISPR’s recommendations, the 

Coast Guard shall submit to the Committee an action plan on how 

the recommendations will be addressed no later than 90 days after 

the date of enactment of this act. The Committee expects the Coast 

Guard to allocate some of the $15,185,000 provided in this act for 

marine environmental response activities to conduct testing of Area 

Contingency Plans. 

COAST GUARD REIMBURSEMENT FOR SPILLS OF NATIONAL

SIGNIFICANCE

The catastrophic blowout, fire, and subsequent sinking of the 

Deepwater Horizon Offshore Drilling Unit is the Nation’s first declared Spill of National Significance and is considered by the Coast 

Guard to be the most challenging and complex oil spill response 

ever conducted. The Coast Guard mobilized over 47,000 people to 

remove and mitigate damages attributed to the estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil discharged into the Gulf of Mexico and amassed 

a fleet of more than 6,400 vessels including skimmers, vessels of 

opportunity, research vessels, Coast Guard cutters, and other specialized vessels to handle the myriad of individual activities that 

supported the response. At the height of the response, the Coast 

Guard itself deployed over 7,000 Coast Guard personnel, 60 Coast 

Guard vessels, and 22 Coast Guard aircraft. Due to the magnitude 

of the response, the Coast Guard expended resources far in excess 

of funds ‘‘normally available’’ for its statutory marine environmental protection mission. The Coast Guard’s latest estimate of the 

cost is over $252,000,000. The unprecedented scope and duration of 

the response detracted from and deferred performance in other 

mission activities, and accelerated the planned depreciation of capital assets. 

While the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 suggests a broad reimbursement policy for Federal agencies engaged in removal activities, certain Coast Guard activities such as the salaries of active duty and 

civilian personnel diverted from regular operations to the oil spill 

response and significant costs of the operation of vessels, equipment, and aircraft diverted from other duties to respond to the oil 

spill are not subject to reimbursement to the Coast Guard. The 

Coast Guard pays these costs out of its base operating funds. As 

a result, the Coast Guard is unable to reclaim funds to restore 

operational capacity and reconstitute readiness following an unprecedented surge event even though a Spill of National Significance is of such magnitude that the Coast Guard costs for removal 

activities will far exceed Coast Guard resources and personnel normally available for oil spill response. For future Spills of National 

Significance, the Coast Guard should be fully compensated for its 

costs. The Committee has included a general provision permitting 

the Coast Guard to claim recoverable costs. This language expressly authorizes the Secretary to accept reimbursements for 

Coast Guard removal costs, treat such reimbursements as credits 

to Coast Guard accounts that bore the expense at the time of reimbursement, and make such reimbursements available, without further appropriations, for the operation, maintenance, and replacement of Coast Guard vessels, aircraft, and equipment. 
89 

MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES AND OFFSETS

The Committee recommendation includes $140,040,000, as proposed in the budget, for various reductions from efficiencies and 

offsets. No later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 

act, the Coast Guard is directed to brief the Committee on how 

such efficiencies and other reductions will be achieved. The briefing 

shall include a detailed listing of the specific efficiencies and offsets 

taken to achieve the targeted reductions. The briefing shall also address any shortfalls related to rising energy prices and what activities are being diverted to address them. 

STEM-TO-STERN REVIEW OF DEPLOYABLE FORCES

As the Commandant discussed in his 2011 State of the Coast 

Guard address, he has ordered a ‘‘stem-to-stern’’ review of Coast 

Guard Deployable Specialized Forces and their concept of operations. The purpose of the review is to look at required capabilities, 

training, tactics, equipment, procedures, and resources. The Coast 

Guard is to brief the Committee no later than 60 days after the 

date of enactment of this act on the review’s outcomes, including, 

but not limited to, any changes to current concept of operations, 

training standards, and regionalization requirements. 

HIGH-ENDURANCE CUTTERS

In fiscal year 2010, the Committee appropriated $4,000,000 for 

the Coast Guard to assess the High Endurance Cutter fleet to determine the most effective use of funds to operate the vessels until 

replaced by National Security Cutters [NSC]. Unfortunately, minimal work has been put into this effort with less than $500,000 of 

this funding being obligated since October 2009. Given the additional delays in delivering the final NSC, as noted in the fiscal year 

2012 budget request (final NSC delivery in 2018 versus 2016), the 

Coast Guard is urged to accelerate its work in this area. As part 

of its periodic acquisitions briefings to the Committee, the Coast 

Guard is to provide an update on the progress made on this effort. 

The Coast Guard’s update shall include a discussion of the potential need for a future sustainment project to bridge operational 

gaps between full operating condition of the NSC fleet and the decommissioning sequence for remaining HECs. 

SMALL VESSEL SECURITY

In January 2011, the Department released its Small Vessel Security Implementation Report to the public, which focused on the 

mitigation of risks associated with the millions of commercial and 

small vessels that use our ports and waterways. The Coast Guard 

and its DHS partner components shall periodically brief the Committee on the short-term and long-term actions being taken to 

carry out the DHS National Small Vessel Security Strategy, including a discussion of resources, technology, and statutory requirements. 

One of the Strategy’s four primary goals is to ‘‘exploit technology 

to enhance our ability to detect, determine the intent of, and, 

where necessary, interdict small vessels.’’ The Committee is aware 

of efforts by the Department’s Science and Technology [S&T] Direc-
90 

torate, in partnership with the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], to use currently deployed coastal NOAA weather radar systems to identify and track 

small vessels. This capability may prove to be highly beneficial to 

the Coast Guard’s efforts to track ‘‘dark boats’’, such as drug runners and other craft engaged in illicit activities. In fiscal year 2012, 

S&T funding will be used to develop, test, evaluate and, if successful, transition this system to the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard 

and S&T shall keep the Committee updated on its efforts in this 

area. 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT

The Coast Guard shall continue to periodically brief the Committee on its efforts to address material weaknesses in its financial 

management enterprise that prevent accurate, complete, and timely financial information. These weaknesses have contributed to the 

inability of financial auditors to provide an unqualified opinion on 

the Department’s balance sheets. The Coast Guard is to continue 

working with the Department’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

on these efforts. 

COAST GUARD YARD

The Committee recognizes the Coast Guard Yard at Curtis Bay, 

Maryland, is a critical component of the Coast Guard’s core logistics capability which directly supports fleet readiness. The Committee further recognizes the Yard has been a vital part of the 

Coast Guard’s readiness and infrastructure for more than 100 

years and believes that sufficient industrial work should be assigned to the Yard to maintain this capability. 

ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS

The Committee understands that the Department of State has 

not forwarded ratification documents to the International Maritime 

Organization for the International Convention on the Control of 

Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems [AFS] on Ships. Ratification of the 

treaty is vital to the Coast Guard’s mission of marine environmental protection. Therefore, the Committee urges the Coast 

Guard to provide a plan no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act for completing delegation of authority requirements so that the Coast Guard may initiate implementation of the 

AFS Convention to minimize the dangers of marine pollution and 

to assure the safety of ports and waterways. 

TRANSPORTATION WORKER IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIAL

The Coast Guard, in coordination with the Transportation Security Administration, shall brief the Committee no later than 120 

days after the date of enactment of this act on the progress being 

made to implement the recommendations made by the Government 

Accountability Office [GAO] in report (GAO–11–657) relating to internal control weaknesses of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential program. 
91 

VESSEL CONVEYANCE

The Committee does not include requested bill language related 

to the scrapping of decommissioned vessels. The requested language, which would authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security 

to transfer all right, title, and interest in decommissioned vessels 

of the Coast Guard to the Secretary of Transportation for disposal 

is an authorizing matter and not under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee. The Coast Guard is encouraged to work 

with the appropriate authorizing committees to achieve its intended goal. 

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WITHOLDING

In an effort to encourage timely submissions to the Committees 

of materials necessary for robust and informed oversight, the Committee withholds $75,000,000 from obligation from the Coast 

Guard’s ‘‘Headquarters Directorates’’ until the Quarterly Acquisition Report for the second quarter of fiscal year 2012 and a comprehensive 5-year Capital Investment Plan for fiscal years 2013– 

2017 have been submitted to the Committee. 

EXECUTIVE TRANSPORTATION AIRCRAFT

The Coast Guard shall include in its annual justification any 

plans to alter the executive transportation aircraft program. 

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $13,172,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 16,699,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 10,198,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,699,000 

The Environmental Compliance and Restoration account provides 

funds to address environmental problems at former and current 

Coast Guard units as required by applicable Federal, State, and 

local environmental laws and regulations. Planned expenditures for 

these funds include major upgrades to petroleum and regulated 

substance storage tanks, restoration of contaminated ground water 

and soils, remediation efforts at hazardous substance disposal sites, 

and initial site surveys and actions necessary to bring Coast Guard 

shore facilities and vessels into compliance with environmental 

laws and regulations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $16,699,000 for environmental compliance and restoration, $3,527,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level 

and the same as the budget request. The Committee is concerned 

that since the Department made the decision to terminate LORAN 

on January 8, 2010, little effort has been made by the Coast Guard 

to begin the environmental assessment and remediation efforts to 

prepare for divestiture of LORAN properties and start taking advantage of the ability to recoup property sales from the more valuable sites. The Coast Guard reported in April 2010 that, depending 

on the results of the environmental due diligence assessments, remediation costs could range from $58,000,000, for a best-case scenario, to $242,000,000 for a worst-case scenario. Within the amount 
92 

provided for this account, $2,640,000 is provided, as requested, for 

the Coast Guard to begin these assessments so it can remove these 

assets from its inventory and eliminate environmental liability and 

caretaker costs. No later than 60 days after the date of enactment 

of this act, the Coast Guard shall brief the Committee on its plan 

of action to complete these assessments, including a schedule for 

property divestiture. 

PROPERTY CONVEYANCE

The Committee is aware of Coast Guard land set to be conveyed 

to the City of Marquette, Michigan, as authorized in Public Law 

111–281, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010. Since 2005, 

both the Coast Guard and the City of Marquette have worked amicably to facilitate the construction of a new Coast Guard station in 

the region, yet the conveyance of the former Coast Guard station 

to the city cannot commence without the necessary environmental 

assessment. No later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 

this act, the Coast Guard is directed to provide a report describing 

its plans for the conveyance of the Marquette land to the local governmental authority. 

RESERVE TRAINING

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $133,365,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 136,778,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 131,778,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 134,278,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $134,278,000 for Reserve Training, $913,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level and $2,500,000 below 

budget request. The reduction is due to a trend in lapsed balances. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $1,516,744,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,421,924,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,151,673,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,391,924,000 

Funding in this account supports the acquisition, construction, 

and improvement [AC&I] of vessels, aircraft, information management resources, shore facilities, aids to navigation, and military 

housing required to execute the Coast Guard’s missions and 

achieve its performance goals. 

Vessels.—The vessel program provides funding to recapitalize 

and/or improve the Coast Guard’s fleet of aging boats and cutters. 

Aircraft.—The aircraft program is the primary recapitalization 

and sustainment effort for the Coast Guard’s aging aircraft. 

Other Equipment.—The Coast Guard invests in numerous management information and decision support systems that will result 

in increased efficiencies, including Rescue 21 (formerly the National Distress and Response System Modernization Project), and 

the Nationwide Automatic Identification System. 

Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation.—The Coast Guard invests in the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and improvement 

of shore facilities, aids to navigation, and related equipment. 
93 

Military Housing.—The Coast Guard invests in Military Housing 

facilities to ensure military members have access to housing in 

areas where there is a lack of affordable accommodations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $1,391,924,000 for acquisitions, construction, and improvements, including $20,000,000 from the Oil 

Spill Liability Trust Fund. The recommended amount is 

$30,000,000 below the request and $124,820,000 below the fiscal 

year 2011 level. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 enacted Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee recommendations 

Vessels: 

Survey and Design—Vessel and Boats ............................... ............................ 6,000 6,000 

Response Boat Medium ........................................................ 41,916 110,000 110,000 

In-Service Cutter Sustainment ............................................. ............................ 14,000 14,000 

National Security Cutter ....................................................... 690,616 77,000 77,000 

Offshore Patrol Cutter ........................................................... 44,910 25,000 25,000 

Fast Response Cutter ........................................................... 239,520 358,000 358,000 

Cutter Boats .......................................................................... 2,994 5,000 5,000 

Medium Endurance Cutter Sustainment .............................. 29,940 47,000 47,000 

Subtotal, Vessels and Critical Infrastructure .................. 1,049,896 642,000 642,000 

Aircraft: 

CGNR 6017 Airframe Replacement ...................................... ............................ 18,300 18,300 

Maritime Patrol Aircraft ........................................................ 39,920 129,500 104,500 

HH–60 Conversion Projects .................................................. 31,936 56,100 56,100 

HC–130H Conversions/Sustainment Projects ....................... 24,950 62,000 62,000 

HH–65 Conversion/Sustainment Projects ............................. ............................ 24,000 24,000 

HC–130J Fleet Introduction .................................................. 3,992 ............................ ............................

Subtotal, Aircraft .............................................................. 100,798 289,900 264,900 

Other: 

Government Program Management ...................................... 44,910 35,000 30,000 

Systems Engineering and Management ............................... 28,942 17,140 17,140 

C4ISR .................................................................................... 30,439 34,500 34,500 

Technology Obsolescence Prevention .................................... 998 ............................ ............................

CG–Logistics Information Management System 

[CG–LIMS] ......................................................................... ............................ 6,500 6,500 

National Automatic Identification System ............................ ............................ 5,000 5,000 

Rescue 21 ............................................................................. 35,928 65,000 65,000 

Interagency Operation Centers ............................................. ............................ 3,000 3,000 

Deepwater Logistics .............................................................. 49,900 ............................ ............................

Subtotal, Other ................................................................. 191,117 166,400 161,140 

Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation: 

Major Shore, ATON, and Survey and Design ........................ 63,867 92,900 92,900 

Major Acquisition Systems Infrastructure ............................ ............................ 94,500 94,500 

Minor Shore ........................................................................... 3,199 6,292 6,292 

Military Housing .................................................................... 1,996 ............................ ............................

Subtotal, Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation .......... 69,062 193,692 193,692 

Military Housing ............................................................................. ............................ 20,000 20,000 
94 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Personnel and Related Support: 

Core Acquisition Costs .......................................................... 509 600 600 

Direct Personnel Costs .......................................................... 105,362 109,592 109,592 

Subtotal, Personnel and Related Support ........................ 105,871 110,192 110,192 

Total, Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements ....... 1,516,744 1,421,924 1,391,924 

RESPONSE BOAT-MEDIUM

The Committee recommends $110,000,000 for the Response BoatMedium [RB–M] acquisition, as requested. These funds will allow 

the Coast Guard to purchase 40 RB–Ms in fiscal year 2012, bringing the total funded to 155 of 180 boats. The RB–M is a critical 

asset for the Coast Guard to replace aging 41-foot Utility Boats 

that are less able to handle Coast Guard mission requirements, 

particularly maritime security requirements that have changed significantly since September 11, 2001, and serve as a platform for 

boardings, search and rescues, and port security. Recent studies 

have identified the lack of response boats as an impediment to fully 

implementing the Coast Guard’s mission requirements. The recommended amount optimizes production, reduces project management costs, and generates savings of approximately $362,000 per 

RB–M. 

IN-SERVICE CUTTER SUSTAINMENT

The Committee recommends $14,000,000, as requested, to begin 

service life extensions for the Coast Guard’s aging fleet of nine 140- 

foot icebreaking tugs, which are critical to operations on the Great 

Lakes and Northeast coast. These tugs help clear shipping channels in the winter, and support law enforcement operations and enforce environmental regulations in all seasons. However, most of 

these vessels have been operating year round under taxing conditions for more than 30 years and are now in need of refurbishment 

to be able to sustain their high-operational tempo. 

While the Committee is pleased sustainment requirements for 

the non-Deepwater fleet are beginning to be addressed, the Coast 

Guard has not developed a long-term fiscal plan to deal with other 

assets such as the 225-foot seagoing buoy tenders, 175-foot coastal 

buoy tenders, 87-foot patrol boats, and 47-foot motor life boats. The 

Coast Guard is to develop a long-term plan of investments to address the in-service cutter sustainment requirements, which shall 

be submitted to the Committee no later than 180 days after the 

date of enactment of this act. The plan shall identify how the Coast 

Guard Yard, which has proven to be an ideal facility for conducting 

life cycle event ship repairs, will be utilized for these mid-life availabilities. 
95 

NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER

The Coast Guard operates a fleet of 378-foot high endurance cutters [HECs] that are over 43 years old on average, and are increasingly unreliable and expensive to maintain. By comparison, the average Navy ship is 14 years old. The Coast Guard’s current plan 

is to acquire eight National Security Cutters [NSCs] to replace 12 

HECs (of which two have been decommissioned with the arrival of 

the first two NSCs). To date, over $3,100,000,000 has been appropriated for five NSCs, of which two have been delivered to the 

Coast Guard and the third will be delivered by the end of fiscal 

year 2011. NSC–4 is under contract and is expected to be delivered 

in 2014. 

The request in fiscal year 2012 of $77,000,000 for NSC–5 has 

been superseded by the fact that full funding was appropriated for 

the cutter in fiscal year 2011. Therefore, the Committee redirects 

these funds to acquire long lead time materials necessary for production of NSC–6. According to the Department, this will accelerate the production schedule for the cutter and result in direct 

savings of $45,000,000 to $60,000,000 compared to delaying the request for long lead acquisition to the fiscal year 2013 budget. 

As noted in prior years, the Committee strongly supports the procurement of one National Security Cutter per year until all eight 

planned ships are procured. The continuation of production without 

a break will ensure that these ships, which are vital to the Coast 

Guard’s mission, are procured at the lowest cost, and that they 

enter the Coast Guard fleet as soon as possible. The Committee is 

concerned that the administration’s current acquisition policy requires the Coast Guard to attain total acquisition cost for a vessel, 

including long lead time materials, production costs, and post production costs, before a production contract can be awarded. This 

has the potential to create shipbuilding inefficiencies, forces delayed obligation of production funds, and requires post production 

funds far in advance of when they will be used. As the Secretary 

noted in her testimony before the Committee, ‘‘we fully expect to 

build out the eight cutters.’’ The Department should therefore be 

in a position to acquire NSCs in the most efficient manner within 

the guidelines of strict governance measures. Therefore, the Committee includes language in the bill specifying that funds made 

available by this act shall be available to contract for long lead 

time materials for Coast Guard vessels, notwithstanding the availability of funds for production costs or post-production costs. 

FAST RESPONSE CUTTER

The Committee recommends $358,000,000 for the Coast Guard’s 

Fast Response Cutter [FRC], as requested. This funding will allow 

the Coast Guard to acquire six FRC hulls (13–18). Procuring six 

Fast Response Cutters in fiscal year 2012 will maximize the production line and generate cost savings of $5,000,000 per hull for a 

total savings to the taxpayers of $30,000,000. Funding six boats instead of four will also allow the Coast Guard to decommission two 

additional aging 110-foot Island Class Patrol Boats already beyond 

the end of their projected service life and expensive to maintain. 

Each FRC will provide 2,500 annual operating hours and an im-
96 

proved sea keeping ability, resulting in better habitability and full 

mission capability in higher sea states. 

The Committee commends the Coast Guard’s due diligence in 

working with the Naval Engineering Technical Authority to improve the structural design for the FRC hull to prevent the potential need for any structural repairs prior to the end of the cutter’s 

20-year service life. Based on the continued involvement of the 

Coast Guard’s technical authorities and consultation with third 

party independent classification societies, the identification and improvement of the structural design prior to launching the first FRC 

prevented required changes that would have been far more costly 

and impactful to operations than if they were identified later in the 

lifecycle of the cutter class. 

The recommendation also includes funding for Re-procurement 

Package and Data Rights, as requested, which is necessary to support the planned re-competition of the next Fast Response Cutter 

procurement. Not funding this effort in fiscal year 2012 would result in an FRC production gap, driving up procurement costs and 

out-year operating and maintenance costs of legacy assets well beyond their service life. 

MEDIUM ENDURANCE CUTTER SUSTAINMENT

The recommendation includes $47,000,000 for the Medium Endurance Cutter Sustainment Project, as requested. Funding will 

complete sustainment work on five 270-foot cutters. This funding 

is intended to improve mission effectiveness of these vessels to 

allow them to meet their goals for program availability through the 

remainder of their service lives. This program has been successful 

in significantly reducing the number of major equipment failures 

on these vessels resulting in a much higher percentage of time they 

are fully mission capable. 

OFFSHORE PATROL CUTTER

The recommendation includes $25,000,000 for the Offshore Patrol Cutter, as requested. Funding is provided for pre-acquisition 

activities. The Committee expects the Coast Guard to provide quarterly briefings to the Committee on the status of this procurement, 

including critical decision points and dates. 

ROTARY WING REPLACEMENT AIRCRAFT

Since September 2008, the Coast Guard has lost four helicopters 

in accidents. To date, funding has been appropriated to replace 

only one of those assets. The recommendation includes $36,600,000, 

$18,300,000 above the request to replace two additional helicopters. 

Funds for the second aircraft are provided in title V of the bill. The 

Coast Guard is to brief the Committee no later than 60 days after 

the date of enactment of this act on its plans for replacing lost rotary wing operational assets. 

MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT

The Committee recommends $104,500,00 for the Maritime Patrol 

Aircraft [MPA], $25,000,000 below the budget request. Funds are 

recommended for the acquisition of two aircraft (MPAs–16 & 17), 
97 

which will provide an additional 2,400 hours to address the Coast 

Guard’s MPA flight-hour gap. The Committee recognizes the importance of the mission system pallet, which is the electronic equipment to collect, compile, interpret, and disseminate data from the 

MPA’s sensors. However, the Coast Guard is no longer purchasing 

these pallets from the original systems integrator and has not identified a new acquisition strategy to purchase them, making it unlikely that any funding for pallets would be obligated in fiscal year 

2012. Therefore, the recommendation does not include funding for 

this purpose. 

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

The Committee is aware of efforts by the Coast Guard to evaluate both ship-based and land-based Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

[UAS] for mission requirements. Both platforms have the potential 

to enhance the Coast Guard’s capability to execute statutory requirements in the maritime domain. A recent Coast Guard report 

concluded that upgraded sensors and greater persistence could effectively extend a cutter’s immediate surveillance horizon by as 

much as 35 percent. This is why the Committee is concerned with 

the absence of funding in the budget request and the long-term 

Capital Investment Plan for the acquisition of UAS. Prior to the establishment of a UAS acquisition program, additional testing is 

necessary to determine the viability of ship-based UAS systems on 

major Coast Guard cutters. Therefore, the Committee includes 

$8,000,000 under ‘‘Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation’’ 

for the shipboard ground control equipment necessary for ship-aircraft interface activities. The Committee is also aware of 

$3,200,000 that remains available from Coast Guard prior year appropriations for this purpose. 

RESCUE 21

The Committee provides $65,000,000 for Rescue 21, as requested. 

Rescue 21 is the Coast Guard’s command, control, and communications system to improve the ability to assist mariners in distress 

and save lives and property at sea. Rescue 21 is replacing the legacy National Distress and Response System [NDRS] and is being 

deployed in stages. As requested, funds will complete deployment 

in the Great Lakes and the OCONUS Islands (San Juan, Puerto 

Rico; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Guam). The funding will also recapitalize the legacy NDRS in the Western Rivers (Sectors Ohio Valley, 

Upper Mississippi River, and Lower Mississippi River); continue 

deployment to Alaska; and continue installation of Rescue 21 communications equipment on vessels. The Coast Guard is directed to 

continue quarterly briefings to the Committee on the status of the 

program, including any changes to the schedule outlined in the request. 

NATIONWIDE AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $5,000,000, as requested, for the 

Nationwide Automatic Identification System [NAIS], which is the 

Coast Guard’s system to identify, track, and exchange information 

with vessels operating in or approaching U.S. waters. The funding 
98 

is to continue the recapitalization and permanent replacement of 

the temporary NAIS infrastructure located in 58 ports. As requested, the fiscal year 2012 funding will be used to deploy equipment for a permanent system to Sectors New Orleans and Galveston. The Coast Guard also plans additional site surveys that are 

necessary prior to the deployment of the permanent NAIS solution. 

The Coast Guard is to brief the Committee no later than 60 days 

after the date of enactment of this act on its revised acquisition 

program baseline and plans to complete sector deployment, including resource estimates. 

SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION

The Committee recommends $193,692,000 for shore facilities and 

aids to navigation, as requested. The Coast Guard has estimated 

its shore facilities construction backlog to be over $500,000,000. 

The Coast Guard shall provide the Committee with a prioritized 

list of projects (including the estimated cost for each) in the backlog 

and the Coast Guard’s plans to address them by January 15, 2012. 

COAST GUARD TRAINING CENTER BARRACKS

Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this 

act, the Coast Guard is to submit to the Committee a report that 

outlines its plan for upgrading the barracks at the Coast Guard’s 

Training Center, including sprinkler systems and gender equal facilities. 

MAJOR ACQUISITION SYSTEMS INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recognizes the importance of shore facility infrastructure modifications, upgrades, and new construction associated 

with homeporting new or modified cutters, boats, and aircraft. Facility upgrades are necessary to maximize the operational effectiveness of new assets being delivered. Unfortunately, the Coast 

Guard’s congressional justification for this program includes limited information associated with homeport infrastructure costs for 

Fast Response Cutters, National Security Cutters, and other infrastructure needs necessary to support new assets. In several cases, 

the request includes funding for facility construction or upgrades 

for homeports that have yet to be identified by the Coast Guard. 

The Committee is left to wonder whether the amounts requested 

are truly reliable. The Committee expects the Coast Guard to improve its internal planning for placement of new assets and associated facility improvements necessary to accommodate them. No 

later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this act, the Coast 

Guard is to provide the Committee a detailed expenditure plan 

briefing on the selected homeports requiring appropriations in fiscal year 2012. 

COAST GUARD MILITARY HOUSING

The Committee provides $20,000,000, as requested, for the recapitalization, improvement, and acquisition of housing to support 

military families. As discussed under the ‘‘Operating Expenses’’ 

section of this report, the Coast Guard shall provide an expenditure 
99 

plan to the Committee if a reprioritization of military housing 

needs is required. 

AC&I PERSONNEL

The Committee provides $110,192,000 for personnel and related 

support, as requested. The Committee is concerned with the Coast 

Guard’s ability to track these costs. In fiscal year 2011, the Coast 

Guard required a reprogramming to cover an increase in personnel 

hired that exceeded amounts appropriated. If the Coast Guard had 

proper internal controls in place to verify actual costs, this issue 

could have been prevented. The Coast Guard is to brief the Committee no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act 

on acquisition personnel management, vacancy rates, how billets 

are assigned to acquisition programs, and oversight of contract support. 

According to a recent report by GAO, the Coast Guard has leveraged expertise from other agencies to support various acquisition 

programs. However, according to GAO, Coast Guard program staff 

has access to just 5 of 81 agreements. GAO has recommended improvement in this area in order for Coast Guard acquisition program managers to have better insight into the work DOD and 

other agencies are performing. Therefore, the 90-day briefing requirement shall also include a discussion of efforts to catalogue all 

interagency agreements with the DOD. 

QUARTERLY ACQUISITION REPORTS

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, 

with the following modifications: 

—For small boat purchases and leases from the ‘‘Operating Expenses’’ appropriation, the reports shall include the quantity, 

planned obligations for the fiscal year, obligations to date, and 

expenditures to date. The report shall also include an investment description for each purchase or lease planned for the fiscal year, including a description of the capability gap being addressed or enhancement to Coast Guard mission performance; 

—The project risk sections shall include the top 5 risks for each 

Coast Guard acquisition identified in the report, consistent 

with those on the risk watch list in quarterly program manager reports. The risks should include those that may have future budget implications, such as spare parts. If the project has 

no risks, that should be clearly stated in the report; 

—The Coast Guard is to submit the quarterly acquisition reports 

by the 15th day of each fiscal quarter in order to be of timely 

use to the Committee. 

FLEET MIX ANALYSIS

In July 2010, the Government Accountability Office [GAO] recommended that the Coast Guard review the cost and mix of its assets and identify trade-offs given fiscal constraints. According to 
100 

GAO testimony in April 2011, ‘‘The Department of Homeland Security agreed with the recommendation; however, the Coast Guard 

has not yet implemented it.’’ Since 2008, the Coast Guard has been 

conducting a study called the ‘‘Fleet Mix Analysis’’ to analyze asset 

requirements and to validate and recommend fleet mix options to 

best execute operational missions. Phase 1 of the analysis has been 

completed, but it was unconstrained by cost considerations and led 

to unrealistic conclusions considering the current fiscal environment. Phase 2 of the Fleet Mix Analysis is underway, which is examining performance of alternative fleet mixes while applying fiscal constraints. The Coast Guard expects to complete this study in 

fiscal year 2011. The Committee is also aware of a separate Departmental study that is in the final stages of Departmental review 

called the ‘‘Cutter Fleet Mix Analysis’’. The Coast Guard shall submit both the ‘‘Fleet Mix Analysis’’ (Phases 1 and 2) and the ‘‘Cutter 

Fleet Mix Analysis’’ to the Committee and GAO once they are completed, but no later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 

act. GAO shall provide an assessment of the results no later than 

120 days following the submission of the report to the Committee. 

UNFUNDED PRIORITIES

The Committee directs the Commandant to provide to the Congress, at the time of the President’s budget submission, a list of approved but unfunded Coast Guard priorities and the funds needed 

for each. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $24,696,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 19,779,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 12,779,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 27,779,000 

The Coast Guard’s Research and Development program develops 

techniques, methods, hardware, and systems that directly contribute to increasing the productivity and effectiveness of the Coast 

Guard’s operating missions. This account provides funds to operate 

and maintain the Coast Guard Research and Development Center. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $27,779,000 for the Coast Guard’s 

research, development, test, and evaluation activities, $8,000,000 

above the budget request and $3,083,000 above the fiscal year 2011 

level. 

Included in the amount recommended by the Committee is 

$8,000,000 for ship-based unmanned aircraft systems [UAS]. This 

funding, in addition to amounts previously appropriated, is required to purchase the necessary shipboard integration equipment 

and support an advanced concept technology demonstration. 

The Committee encourages the Coast Guard to research and develop a composite or hybrid-composite year-round ice buoy that will 

perform the same functions as legacy buoys. 
101 

RETIRED PAY

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $1,400,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,440,157,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,440,157,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,440,157,000 

This account provides for the retired pay of military personnel of 

the Coast Guard and Coast Guard Reserve, members of the former 

Lighthouse Service, and for annuities payable to beneficiaries of retired military personnel under the retired serviceman’s family protection plan (10 U.S.C. 1431–1446) and survivor benefit plan (10 

U.S.C. 1447–1455); payments for career status bonuses under the 

National Defense Authorization Act; and payments for medical care 

of retired personnel and their dependents under the Dependents 

Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C., ch. 55). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $1,440,157,000, as proposed in the 

budget, for retired pay. This amount is $39,457,000 more than the 

fiscal year 2011 level. 

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $1,511,332,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,691,751,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,666,451,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,670,237,000 

The United States Secret Service’s [USSS], salaries and expenses 

appropriation provides funds for the security of the President, the 

Vice President, and other dignitaries and designated individuals; 

for enforcement of laws relating to obligations and securities of the 

United States and laws relating to financial crimes; and for protection of the White House and other buildings within the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $1,670,237,000 for Salaries and Expenses. This is an increase of $158,905,000 from the fiscal year 

2011 level and $21,514,000 below the amount proposed in the 

budget. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE—SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 enacted Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee recommendations 

Headquarters, management, and administration ..................................... 226,284 246,602 201,088 

Information Integration and Technology Transformation .......................... ........................ ........................ 43,843 

Protection: 

Protection of persons and facilities ................................................. 769,978 847,963 831,963 

Protective intelligence activities ....................................................... 67,688 68,125 68,125 

National Special Security Event Fund .............................................. 998 19,307 19,307 

Presidential candidate nominee protection ...................................... 17,831 113,462 113,462 
102 

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE—SALARIES AND EXPENSES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 enacted Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee recommendations 

White House mail screening ............................................................. 22,370 24,315 18,472 

Subtotal, Protection ...................................................................... 878,865 1,073,172 1,051,329 

Investigations: 

Domestic field operations ................................................................. 256,897 223,991 223,991 

International field office administration, operations, and training ................................................................................................ 30,644 30,971 32,971 

Electronic crimes special agent program and electronic crimes 

task forces .................................................................................... 56,042 53,051 53,051 

Support for missing and exploited children ..................................... 8,349 8,366 8,366 

Subtotal, Investigations ............................................................... 351,932 316,379 318,379 

Training: Rowley Training Center .............................................................. 54,251 55,598 55,598 

Total, Salaries and expenses ....................................................... 1,511,332 1,691,751 1,670,237 

SECRET SERVICE ACTIVITIES

The Committee fully funds the request for the 2012 Presidential 

campaign, protective intelligence, domestic investigations, Electronic Crimes Task Forces, support for missing and exploited children, and training. The Committee includes $10,000,000, 

$8,000,000 below the request, for data center migration activities. 

The Committee notes that priority for Operational Mission Support funding is given to White House Communication Agency interoperability and cyber security improvements. The Committee directs the Secret Service to provide a report not later than 90 days 

after the date of enactment of this act on how it plans to obligate 

the Operational Mission Support and data center migration activities, the level of funding directed to these activities in this act, the 

anticipated funding requirements in the out-years to complete each 

activity, and the prioritization given to each activity. 

The Committee is aware that due to various efficiencies found by 

the Secret Service and its decision not to open the ‘‘third mail processing lane’’, the actual requirements to operate the White House 

mail screening facility is $18,472,000, $5,843,000 below the request. The Committee recommends $18,472,000. 

NATIONAL SPECIAL SECURITY EVENTS

The Committee recommends $19,307,000, as requested, for support to currently planned and unanticipated National Special Security Events [NSSEs] for fiscal year 2012. As the Secret Service 

knows in advance of a number of NSSEs scheduled to occur during 

the fiscal year, it has been able to plan its budget accordingly. The 

Committee directs the USSS to provide quarterly briefings on the 

use of these funds, with the first briefing to occur not later than 

30 days after the end of the first quarter. 

INFORMATION INTEGRATION AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFORMATION

The Committee recommends $43,843,000 for Information Integration and Technology Transformation [IITT], the level requested. 
103 

In order to provide the appropriate level of visibility to this critical 

activity, the Committee has created a new program, project, and 

activity line for Information Integration and Technology Transformation programs. This includes the movement of $7,000,000 requested for IITT activities in the ‘‘Protection of persons and facilities’’ PPA and $36,843,000 in the ‘‘Headquarters, management, and 

administration’’ PPA. 

The Committee has been concerned that the Secret Service has 

not had a complete understanding of its information technology requirements, the scope of the problem, and how to develop a multiyear plan to address it. In the fiscal year 2010 DHS Appropriations 

Act, the Committee directed the USSS to work with the DHS Chief 

Information Officer [CIO] to develop an information technology 

modernization plan that is consistent with DHS guidance on data 

center migration and enterprise architecture requirements. This requirement has assisted the USSS in focusing on the need to better 

address this critical requirement. The Committee includes statutory language withholding $20,000,000 of these funds from obligation until the DHS CIO certifies to the Committee not later than 

December 1, 2011, that Secret Service modernization activities are 

consistent with the Department’s guidance. 

The Committee also directs the USSS to provide greater detail 

in the justifications accompanying the fiscal year 2013 budget request on all USSS information technology activities. 

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND OFFICES

The Secret Service’s efforts to combat U.S. currency counterfeiting in Colombia have proven effective. In anticipation of counterfeiting activities growing in neighboring Peru, the USSS has 

sought and received approval from the State Department and the 

Peruvian government for authority to have a permanent presence 

in Peru. Previously, USSS support to Peruvian law enforcement 

has been conducted on a rotating, temporary basis. The Committee 

encourages execution of the permanent presence. 

Additionally, financial crimes continue to emerge in eastern Asia 

as a threat to the economic stability of the United States. Given 

the growing Chinese economy and the fact that Beijing is the most 

visited Asian destination of Secret Service protectees, the Committee understands that the USSS also has requested and recently 

received final approval by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the 

People’s Republic of China for the establishment of a permanent 

Secret Service office in Beijing. The Committee supports the establishment of a Resident office in Lima, Peru, and recommends 

$2,000,000 to open and staff the office. The Committee understands 

that the Secret Service has sufficient base investigative funding to 

open the Beijing office, but requests a briefing on the future funding requirements no later than November 4, 2011. Additionally, the 

Committee directs the USSS to provide a briefing on the establishment of both offices not later than February 17, 2012. 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

On April 27, 2010, GAO advised the Congress that it had confirmed an Antideficiency Act violation by the United States Secret 

Service for Presidential candidate protection activities during the 
104 

2008 election. On August 8, 2011, DHS sent to the President and 

Congress the Antideficiency Act report mandated by law confirming 

the January 2009, violations and identifying corrective actions. The 

Committee is disappointed that it was more than 15 months between Congress being advised by GAO of the violation and Congress’ receipt of the formal report. The Committee directs the Department to adhere to the corrective actions it has established to 

prevent future violations by improving policies and procedures to 

ensure that information related to potential future shortfalls are 

identified for appropriate action so as to avoid a violation of the 

law. The Committee also directs the Secret Service to develop written procedures for preparing and reviewing budget execution reports as specified in the Secretary’s August 8, 2011, letter. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED

EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $3,967,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 6,780,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 6,780,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,380,000 

This appropriation provides funding for security upgrades of existing facilities; to continue development of the current master 

plan; to maintain and renovate existing facilities, including the 

James J. Rowley Training Center (Center); and to ensure efficient 

and full utilization of the Center. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $5,380,000, $1,400,000 below the request and $1,413,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level, for infrastructure improvements and other activities at the James J. 

Rowley Training Center due to higher funding priorities within a 

constrained allocation. 
(105) 

TITLE III 

PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY 

NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE

The National Protection and Programs Directorate aims to foster 

better integration of national approaches between strategic homeland security programs, facilitate infrastructure protection, ensure 

broad emergency communications capabilities, integrate risk management, provide identity safeguards for visitors to this country, 

and ensure the protection of Federal buildings and facilities. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Management and administration ...................................................... 43,490 55,156 37,875 

Infrastructure protection and information security: 

Infrastructure protection ........................................................... 323,036 322,278 317,415 

Cybersecurity ............................................................................. 363,054 459,098 449,959 

Telecommunications .................................................................. 152,673 150,365 146,165 

Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and Communications ... .......................... 4,744 4,744 

Federal Protective Service .................................................................. 1,115,000 1,261,537 1,261,537 

United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology ................................................................................................... 333,944 302,271 297,402 

Cancellation ....................................................................................... .......................... (¥25,642 ) ..........................

Subtotal, US-VISIT ................................................................ 333,944 276,629 297,402 

Total, National Protection and Programs Directorate 

(gross) .............................................................................. 2,331,197 2,529,807 2,515,097 

Offsetting fee collections ................................................................... ¥1,115,000 ¥1,261,537 ¥1,261,537 

Total, National Protection and Programs Directorate 

(net) ................................................................................. 1,216,197 1,268,270 1,253,560 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $43,490,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 55,156,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 42,511,000 

Committee Recommendation ................................................................ 37,875,000 

This account funds salaries and expenses for the Office of the 

Under Secretary, which oversees all activities of the National Protection and Programs Directorate [NPPD]. This account also funds 

business operations, information technology support services, and 

the Office of Risk Management and Analysis. 
106 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $37,875,000, for Management and 

Administration, of which $33,634,000 is for Directorate Administration and $4,241,000 is for the Office of Risk Management and Analysis. In total, this is $5,615,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level, 

and $17,281,000 below the budget request. 

The total amount includes no funding, instead of $12,000,000 as 

requested in the budget, for data center migration. NPPD is encouraged to submit a budget request for the costs associated with 

data center migration in fiscal year 2013. 

BUDGET EXECUTION

To date, most National Protection and Programs Directorate programs have had appropriated funding available for execution over 

a 2-year period. This was important when new missions were being 

developed and programs were in their infancy. For the most complex programs, or programs sensitive to procurement changes, it is 

still important to have some portion of funding available beyond 

the fiscal year in which it is appropriated in order to responsibly 

operate programs. However, many NPPD programs have reached a 

point where the majority of funds can be executed in the year the 

funds are appropriated. Unfortunately, NPPD has not prioritized 

aligning budget execution with the fiscal year, which in turn causes 

high carryover balances. This continued practice puts important 

programs at risk of reductions. The Committee directs the NPPD, 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer, to provide a strategic plan, 

within 30 days after the date of enactment of this act, regarding 

how it will align budget execution with the fiscal year including 

specific detail about realigning obligation timeframes. Further, the 

plan shall identify the rare instances where execution of funds 

must occur beyond the fiscal year of the appropriation and provide 

a justification for why this is necessary. Finally, NPPD is directed 

to provide specific detail and a justification in the fiscal year 2013 

budget submission for any funding request that includes availability for longer than the fiscal year in which the funds are requested. 

OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

The Committee recommends $4,241,000 for the Office of Risk 

Management and Analysis [RMA], a reduction of $5,281,000 from 

the budget request and $4,636,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level. 

The Committee has repeatedly expressed concern about the ability of RMA to provide applicable risk management and analysis 

products for practical use by departmental components. The National Academy of Sciences [NAS] found in a recent report that the 

Department’s risk analysis capabilities and methods are inadequate to support decisionmaking because validity and reliability 

was untested. The NAS study recommended major reforms to the 

RMA approach to risk modeling and strategic planning, yet no reform or strategic plan has been proposed. Expenditure plans and 

official responses to questions for the record that have been required by the Committees on Appropriations have not aided in a 

better understanding of the strategic direction of RMA. The Under 
107 

Secretary is directed to provide a strategic plan for the orderly termination of the Office during fiscal year 2012, including transfers 

of existing capabilities that are valuable for other DHS offices such 

as NPPD, FEMA, and the Office of Policy. Should the Under Secretary determine that a substantially reorganized office can more 

effectively accomplish risk management goals for the Department 

with the resources provided, the Committee will entertain a reprogramming request. 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $838,763,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 936,485,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 891,243,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 918,283,000 

Infrastructure Protection and Information Security [IPIS] assists 

the entities and people responsible for securing the Nation’s critical 

infrastructure assets. In addition, IPIS works collaboratively with 

public, private, and international entities to secure cyberspace and 

U.S. cyber assets, and reduce the vulnerability of the Nation’s telecommunications and information technology infrastructures. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends total appropriations of $918,283,000 

for Infrastructure Protection and Information Security [IPIS] programs. The Committee rejects the proposal to move funding for the 

National Computer Forensic Institute to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and directs NPPD to maintain the current 

program in fiscal year 2012. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 enacted Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee recommendations 

Infrastructure protection and information security: 

Infrastructure protection: 

Infrastructure and analysis and planning ............................ 80,170 74,518 72,700 

Sector management and governance .................................... 82,194 87,045 84,000 

Regional field operations ....................................................... 64,742 61,367 61,367 

Infrastructure security compliance ........................................ 95,930 99,348 99,348 

Subtotal, Infrastructure protection .................................... 323,036 322,278 317,415 

Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and Communications .................. ........................ 4,744 4,744 

Information security: 

Cybersecurity: 

Cybersecurity coordination ..................................................... 4,990 5,000 5,000 

US–Computer Incident Response Team [US–CERT] Operations ................................................................................. 77,432 82,114 80,000 

Federal network security ........................................................ 19,651 40,923 35,000 

Network security deployment ................................................. 176,017 233,602 232,500 

Global cybersecurity management ......................................... 17,506 24,527 24,527 

Critical infrastructure cyber protection and awareness ....... 52,637 61,364 61,364 

Business operations ............................................................... 14,821 11,568 11,568 
108 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Subtotal, Cybersecurity ...................................................... 363,054 459,098 449,959 

Telecommunications: 

Priority telecommunications services ............................................. 56,170 56,824 56,824 

Programs to study and enhance telecommunications ................... 16,624 13,441 13,441 

Critical infrastructure protection programs ................................... 14,854 11,352 11,352 

Next generation networks ............................................................... 21,053 25,253 21,053 

Office of emergency communications ............................................ 43,972 43,495 43,495 

Subtotal, Telecommunications ................................................... 152,673 150,365 146,165 

Subtotal, Information security .................................................... 515,727 609,463 596,124 

Subtotal, Infrastructure protection and information security .... 838,763 936,485 918,283 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

The Committee recommends $317,415,000 for Infrastructure Protection, $4,863,000 below the request and $5,621,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level. 

The Committee includes no less than $15,968,000, for the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center [NISAC] and 

$22,268,000 for vulnerability assessments, the same amounts as requested in the budget. 

The Government Accountability Office [GAO] found in a recent 

report (GAO–10–722) that the Department’s efforts to assess and 

promote resiliency, as called for in Homeland Security Presidential 

Directive-7, related to Critical Infrastructure Identification, 

Prioritization, and Protection, are evolving but that program management could be strengthened. Recommendations were specifically 

made by GAO for the Department to develop resiliency performance measures, update guidelines, and develop a feasible approach 

to disseminate resiliency information. Further, a June 2011 report 

by the Office of Inspector General (OIG–11–89) found that planning, management, and systems issues hinder DHS’ efforts to protect the Nation’s cyber infrastructure. NPPD is directed to provide 

a briefing to the Committee on the resolution of the recommendations from both reports within 30 days after the date of enactment 

of this act. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of continued publicprivate partnership activities between industry, which is the predominate owner of the Nation’s infrastructure, and the Government as it relates to security of critical infrastructure. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 2012 budget request indicates that 

NPPD will streamline various methods and processes for coordination and information sharing with industry partners through National Infrastructure Protection Plan management, Critical Infrastructure Key Resources coordination, and Sector-Specific Agency 

management. The Committee directs NPPD to provide a report to 

the Committee no later than 60 days after the date of enactment 

of this act on the results from a thorough review of all efforts related to coordinating and executing plans; implementing perform-
109 

ance metrics; sustaining systemic communication; executing SectorSpecific Agency functions; and providing education, training and 

outreach. Further, the Committee directs GAO to review the results of the NPPD report and related efforts of the streamlining 

process no later than 60 days after receiving the report to determine the extent to which they were designed to ensure mission 

clarity; useful and actionable work products; efficacy of planning 

and information sharing; and that cost savings are achieved where 

possible. 

The Committee encourages NISAC to continue to work with the 

National Incident Management Systems and Advanced Technologies Institute at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. 

NPPD is encouraged to review products that have been cleared 

by the Food and Drug Administration, have received Designation 

and Certification under the SAFETY Act, and are on the Department of Defense list of approved treatments for decontamination 

and neutralization for possible use at covered facilities for post-attack readiness. 

The Committee is concerned that there are not enough inspection, enforcement, and compliance personnel to effectively implement the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards. NPPD is directed to provide quarterly updates to the Committee on the number of: inspections completed; inspections pending; inspection, enforcement, and compliance personnel on-board, and position vacancies. The Committee encourages the Department to explore possible 

internal collaborations among DHS agencies, including the Coast 

Guard, on inspections. 

CYBERSECURITY

The Committee recommends $449,959,000 for Cybersecurity, 

$9,139,000 below the request and $86,905,000 above the fiscal year 

2011 level. 

When launching the Cyberspace Policy Review, the President declared that, ‘‘the cyber threat is one of the most serious economic 

and national security challenges we face as a nation’’ and that 

‘‘America’s economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on 

cybersecurity.’’ A June 2011 report by the Office of Inspector General (OIG–11–89) found that progress has been made in some areas 

but that planning, management, and systems issues hinder DHS’ 

efforts to protect cyber space. NPPD is directed to brief the Committee on its progress to address and implement the OIG findings 

no later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this act. 

Of the amount provided, $14,876,000 is for cyber education and 

$8,012,000 is for outreach and awareness, as requested. The Committee urges NPPD to continue to work with partners in ensuring 

a focus on professional development and building a knowledgebased workforce on cybersecurity. 

The Committee directs the Secretary, in conjunction with the Department of Education, Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, and the National Science Foundation to provide a report on program investments to date for promoting cybersecurity education and digital literacy. Further, the 

Committee urges the departments and agencies to coordinate efforts and develop a robust program for promoting cybersecurity 
110 

education and digital literacy. The Department of Homeland Security shall brief the Committee by March 1, 2012, on its plans to 

educate 1,700,000 students over the next 10 years. 

The Committee understands that NPPD is coordinating with the 

Department of Defense regarding pilot programs that will illustrate 

how innovative technologies can be deployed across Government 

agencies and key elements of the private sector consistent with an 

executable operational concept. Further, the Committee is aware 

that NPPD engages directly with industry to better understand existing and developing cybersecurity technologies in the private sector. These efforts contribute to the President’s Cyberspace Policy 

Review and the Comprehensive National Cyber Security Initiative. 

NPPD is directed to brief the Committee, no later than 45 days 

after the date of enactment of this act, on the status of this work 

to evaluate cybersecurity technologies, including: the number of pilots being conducted; the cost, purpose, and timeframe for each; 

and how the findings of each will be implemented. 

In the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, the Committee directed NPPD, in conjunction with the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency [FEMA], to develop the necessary tools for all 

levels of governments to complete a cyber network security assessment. NPPD, in conjunction with FEMA, is directed to provide a 

briefing to the Committee on the specific timeframe in which the 

effort will be completed and implemented no later than 45 days 

after the date of enactment of this act. Further, the briefing shall 

provide an update on how this effort and other on-going efforts by 

both components contribute to completion of the recommendation 

in the September 2010 Report to Congress of the Local, State, Tribal, and Federal Preparedness Task Force to ‘‘ensure national cybersecurity efforts address local, State, Tribal, and Territorial preparedness implications’’. 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

The Committee recommends $146,165,000 for Telecommunications, $4,200,000 below the request and $6,508,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level. Of the total amount, the Committee includes 

$43,495,000 for the Office of Emergency Communications [OEC], 

the same amount as the budget request, and $477,000 below the 

fiscal year 2011 level. 

It has been 10 years since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 

2001. The failure of communications during that incident has been 

cited in the 9/11 Commission report and has been the subject of 

many recommendations for resolution. When Hurricane Katrina 

struck, another call to resolve communications issues was made. 

Since that time, the Federal Government and the Department of 

Homeland Security have devoted significant resources to solving 

the interoperable communications problem—over $4,500,000,000 in 

Federal homeland security grants alone. The Committee notes that 

the initial goal established in the National Emergency Communication Plan—that 90 percent of high-risk urban areas be able to demonstrate response level communications within an hour of routine 

events with multi-jurisdictions—has been successfully completed 

within the required timeframe of calendar year 2010. 
111 

While progress has been made, there is much more to do. The 

emergence of commercial broadband services provide emergency responders with new opportunities to improve communications. Despite this potential, public safety faces several challenges in integrating new technologies and proving their reliability. The Committee directs OEC to report to the Committee no later than 180 

days after the date of enactment of this act on the progress since 

September 2001 to improve emergency communications and what 

challenges lie ahead. Particular focus should be placed on the adoption of broadband technologies and the key issues and barriers still 

facing the emergency response agencies on this issue. The report 

is to include any needed update to the National Emergency Communications Plan to reflect the emergence of broadband technologies for public safety and this update shall be developed in cooperation with State, local, and tribal governments, relevant Federal agencies, emergency response providers, and the private sector. Further, the report shall include a plan to develop and disseminate training and best practices on governance, standard operating 

procedures, equipment purchases, and related issues for broadband 

technologies; and to deliver technical assistance to public safety 

agencies on broadband technologies. 

The Committee also directs OEC, in conjunction with the Federal 

Communications Commission [FCC], to brief the Committee on 

planning, analysis, and coordination efforts with the FCC and 

other Federal agencies for deployment and operation of the Public 

Safety Broadband Network no later than 45 days after the date of 

enactment of this act. 

Through the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center, 

the OEC leads an interagency body that serves as the focal point 

and clearinghouse for intergovernmental emergency communications information sharing, and for strategic assessment on Federal 

coordination to advance emergency communications. OEC is directed to provide the annual report required in the 21st Century 

Emergency Communication Act of 2006 (6 U.S.C. 576) regarding a 

strategic assessment, and coordination efforts, of Federal agencies 

to advance the ability to have interoperable communications during 

a disaster without delay. 

The Next Generation Network Priority Services program was established to address the ramifications of continuously evolving communications technology on the Government’s ability to deliver national security and emergency preparedness voice communications. 

The Committee recognizes that while improvements to program 

management have been made, NPPD still has much work to do in 

fiscal year 2012 with industry before this program can be fully implemented. NPPD is directed to provide a report to the Committee 

no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this act on the 

milestones reached to date and the timeframe for execution of this 

program. 
112 

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

Appropriations, 2012 1 ........................................................................... $1,115,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 1 ......................................................................... 1,261,537,000 

House allowance 1 .................................................................................. 1,261,537,000 

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 1,261,537,000 

1Fully funded by offsetting collections paid by General Services Administration tenants and 

credited directly to this appropriation. 

The Federal Protective Service [FPS] is responsible for the security and protection of Federal property under the control of the 

General Services Administration [GSA]; and for the enforcement of 

laws for the protection of persons and property, the prevention of 

breaches of peace, and enforcement of any rules and regulations 

made and promulgated by the GSA Administrator and/or the Secretary. The FPS authority can also be extended by agreement to 

any area with a significant Federal interest. The FPS account provides funds for the salaries, benefits, travel, training, and other expenses of the program, offset by collections paid by GSA tenants 

and credited to the account. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $1,261,537,000, as requested, for 

salaries and expenses of the Federal Protective Service for fiscal 

year 2012; this amount is fully offset by collections of security fees. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 enacted Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee recommendations 

Basic security ................................................................................ 220,000 247,478 247,478 

Building specific security .............................................................. 420,000 501,039 501,039 

Reimbursable security fees (contract guard services) ................. 475,000 513,020 513,020 

Total, Federal Protective Service ...................................... 1,115,000 1,261,537 1,261,537 

Offsetting fee collections ............................................................... ¥1,115,000 ¥1,261,537 ¥1,261,537 

ADEQUATE RESOURCING

Since fiscal year 2007, the Committee has expressed concern over 

the apparent lack of adequate resourcing for FPS. The attacks on 

the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001, the Oklahoma City 

bombing, the attacks and shootings at the Pentagon and Fort Hood, 

and the plane attack on the Internal Revenue Service building in 

Texas are indicative of the threat to the Federal workforce. In fact, 

according to the Social Security Administration [SSA] Inspector 

General, threats against SSA employees have risen from 897 in 

2007 to 2,336 in 2010. Therefore, the Committee is pleased to see 

an increase of 121 FTE is included in the budget request. However, 

concerns remain that FPS is still not properly resourced to complete its mission. Despite a known need for a workforce analysis 

study and strategic human capital plan, neither has been finalized. 

FPS is currently funded through fees assessed to participating 

agencies by the Office of Management and Budget [OMB]. A provi-
113 

sion is included requiring the Secretary and the Director of OMB 

to certify that FPS is sufficiently funded to support a staff of 1,371 

FTE staff, including at least 1,007 FTE Police Officers, Inspectors, 

Area Commanders, and Special Agents, the same amount as included in the request, by December 31, 2011. Further, a new provision is included requiring that FPS submit a strategic human capital plan that aligns fee collections to personnel requirements based 

on a current threat assessment with the fiscal year 2013 budget 

submission. In addition, the Committee directs GAO to report to 

the Committee within 60 days after the receipt of the plan on its 

validity. 

The Committee notes that GAO recommended in a recent report 

(GAO–11–492) that FPS conduct regular fee reviews and make the 

findings of the reviews available to customers. Further, GAO recommended that FPS evaluate its fee structure and the timing of 

budgetary decisions. FPS is directed to brief the Committee quarterly on the progress of fulfilling such recommendations. 

The Committee is aware that the Department has decided to assume full security and protection responsibilities for agencies that 

have previously carried this function out through a delegation of 

authority from the Secretary of Homeland Security. The Committee 

understands the Department’s desire to have better insight into the 

security operations at all Federal facilities, but the Committee cautions that a ‘‘one size fits all,’’ solution could have negative budgetary consequences for the agencies that lose this delegated authority, while at the same time potentially not improving security performance beyond currently provided levels. FPS is directed to submit to the Committees and to GAO, within 60 days of the date of 

enactment of this act, the proposed plan to assume security and 

protection responsibilities from agencies that currently hold delegated authority. The plan shall include a cost/benefit analysis of 

the various models, including the costs associated with FPS carrying out the function compared to the current costs of those services as provided by the agencies receiving the delegation. The Committee directs GAO to review this issue and develop a set of recommendations for consideration by the Congress on security and 

protection models that could be implemented at the affected agencies. GAO shall report to the Committees with its findings within 

180 days of the date of enactment of this act. 

UNITED STATES VISITOR AND IMMIGRANT STATUS INDICATOR

TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $333,944,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 1 ......................................................................... 276,629,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 297,402,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 297,402,000 

1 Includes a proposed cancellation of $25,642,000. 

The United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology [US-VISIT] account funds the development of a system to 

collect, maintain, and share appropriate information through an integrated information technology system, which determines the eligibility of aliens for admissions and benefits. 

The US-VISIT program office has lead responsibility within the 

Department of Homeland Security to work with the Federal Bu-
114 

reau of Investigation [FBI] on the further integration of the Automated Biometric Identification System [IDENT] and the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System [IAFIS]. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $297,402,000, $4,869,000 below the 

budget request excluding the proposed cancellation of $25,642,000 

which the Committee rejects, to remain available until September 

30, 2014, for the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology [US-VISIT]. 

VISA OVERSTAY BACKLOG

If the Government has records of individuals entering the United 

States who are supposed to depart by a date certain, it is irresponsible to ignore these out-of-status individuals. This represents both 

a potential national security threat while further undermining our 

immigration system. In this regard, the Committee is pleased that 

US-VISIT is beginning to address its backlog of visa overstay 

records. The Committee directs US-VISIT, jointly with ICE, to submit a report to the Committee on how it will complete this activity 

no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act. The 

Committee provides up to $5,000,000, available by transfer from 

ICE, Salaries and Expenses, to assist in this effort. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF BIOMETRIC AIR EXIT

The Committee strongly supports the full implementation of a biometric air exit capability at the earliest practicable time. 

The Committee is concerned that the Department of Homeland 

Security has failed to implement a comprehensive biometric air exit 

program. The Committee strongly believes it is the responsibility 

of the Department to ensure that the visa waiver program works 

efficiently without compromising our national security and reminds 

the Department that expansion of the visa waiver program is prohibited by law until a biometric air exit system is in place. 

The Committee includes language in the bill providing that not 

less than $18,000,000 in prior-year balances shall remain available 

until expended solely for implementation of a biometric air exit capability. 

BRIEFINGS

All current quarterly briefings on US-VISIT programs shall be 

provided on a semiannual basis. 

UNIQUE IDENTITY/IAFIS INTEGRATION AND 10-PRINT TRANSITION

Since the creation of the Department, this Committee has strongly supported and encouraged real-time interoperability between the 

IDENT and IAFIS biometric databases and the transition to capturing 10 fingerprints of all visitors to the United States. The Committee notes that the interoperability effort from September 2006 

through April 30, 2010, has identified more than 55,900 individuals 

with wants and warrants or who are known or suspected terrorists 

and has prevented their entry into the United States. The Committee recognizes that the FBI’s transition to the Next Generation 
115 

Identification of fingerprinting technology is an ongoing, multi-year 

process, and the Committee fully funds the $32,600,000 request for 

Unique Identity as US-VISIT continues its portion of the interoperability effort with the FBI. The Committee directs the US-VISIT 

program office to continue aggressively pursuing this issue and to 

continue providing semiannual briefings on progress being made on 

Unique Identity. 

US-VISIT’S KEY ROLE IN IDENTITY MANAGEMENT AND NATIONAL

BIOMETRIC ACTIVITIES

Due to its cross-cutting nature, US-VISIT not only offers highquality identity management services to all DHS operational components, but also provides a unique opportunity for sharing information and collaborative planning and problem solving among biometric stakeholders at the Departments of State, Justice, Defense, 

and the Intelligence Community. In short, US-VISIT continues to 

grow and develop as a resource that benefits not only DHS but 

other national and international efforts. 

It is vital that the Department recognize the importance and impact of biometrics in safeguarding the security of the United 

States, and as such, should take a leadership role in biometric 

identification in the U.S. Government. The Department needs to 

formally designate US-VISIT as the biometric service provider for 

the entire Department. 

The Committee is encouraged by the progress US-VISIT has 

made in working closely with an increasing number of foreign governments as they seek to implement biometrics into their immigration and border management processes, exploring more and more 

opportunities for gaining global cooperation and collaboration to 

combat terrorism and international crime. The Committee urges 

greater coordination with the Department of Defense on biometrics 

use and sharing. The Committee directs US-VISIT to provide a report to the Committee not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this act detailing interagency cooperation on biometrics 

and US-VISIT’s role in developing partnerships to strengthen global security. 

The Committee notes that US-VISIT 1.0 may enable the USVISIT program to fulfill its mission and requirements for effectiveness and suitability going forward. The Committee directs USVISIT to include in the first quarterly briefing update on how USVISIT 1.0 would ensure that US-VISIT can continue to meet growing and evolving biometric and biographic identity services for its 

customers. 

OFFICE OF HEALTH AFFAIRS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $139,455,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 160,949,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 165,949,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 159,450,000 

SUMMARY

The Office of Health Affairs [OHA], headed by the Chief Medical 

Officer who also serves as the Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, leads the Department on medical issues related to natural 
116 

and man-made disasters; serves as the principal advisor to the Secretary on medical and public health issues; coordinates biodefense 

activities within the Department; and serves as the Department’s 

primary contact with other Departments and State, local, and tribal governments on medical and public health issues. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

OFFICE OF HEALTH AFFAIRS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

BioWatch .................................................................................................... 100,780 115,164 115,164 

National Biosurveillance Integration Center .............................................. 7,000 7,014 3,514 

Rapidly Deployable Chemical Detection System ....................................... 2,400 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) 

Chemical Defense Program ....................................................................... ........................ 2,439 5,439 

Planning and coordination ........................................................................ 2,276 6,162 6,162 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................... 26,999 30,170 29,171 

Total, Office of Health Affairs ...................................................... 139,455 160,949 159,450 

1 Similar activities funded under Chemical Defense Program. 

BIOWATCH

The Committee recommends $115,164,000 for the BioWatch program, $14,384,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level and the same 

amount as the budget request. From its inception, the Committee 

has expressed great concern about the troubled implementation 

and slow progress of the BioWatch program. While concerns remain, the Committee recognizes that progress is being made with 

the development and maturity of the BioWatch program, including 

an effort to work more cooperatively with Federal, State, and local 

partners. The Committee remains committed to ensuring the Nation has an early warning network to detect a biological agent to 

speed response and recovery from a terrorist event. The Committee 

encourages OHA to pursue a vigorous schedule and to rectify 

emerging problems as soon as possible to ensure that important advancements in this critical program can be deployed. 

NATIONAL BIOSURVEILLANCE INTEGRATION CENTER

The Committee is supportive of the mission to identify, track, 

and provide alerts for a biological event of national concern. However, the Committee remains concerned about the lack of a strategic approach to the mission by the National Biosurveillance Integration Center. To date, an adequate plan has not been forthcoming. Therefore, funding for the Center is reduced by $3,486,000 

from the fiscal year 2011 level. The remaining amount is provided 

for the orderly transition of the Center’s most necessary and mission critical functions to another coordination or operations center. 

OHA is directed to provide the Committee a report, no later than 

45 days after the date of enactment of this act, regarding the best 

options for collocation of the necessary functions of the Center with 

another coordination or operations center, and a timeframe to complete a relocation. 
117 

CHEMICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM

Pursuant to the President’s budget request, the Rapidly 

Deployable Chemical Defense System PPA has been renamed to 

better reflect the growth of the program from a singular focus on 

a deployable system to a focus that also includes planning, preparedness, response, and strategic communication. 

The Committee recommends $5,439,000 for the Chemical Defense Program, which is $3,039,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level 

for similar activities and $3,000,000 above the budget request. The 

increase is provided to complete at least two additional demonstration projects in OHA’s ongoing effort to build an end-to-end chemical defense architecture. The site shall be competitively selected 

through the current process based on requirements, priorities, and 

specifications of the overarching chemical detection architecture. 

The Committee expects that OHA will prioritize demonstration 

projects based on risk, and understands that new demonstrations 

are being considered at airports, outdoor stadiums, and ports. The 

Committee is concerned that current demonstration projects do not 

address the threat of terrorist attacks, vessel collisions, or accidental releases at shoreline or riverine chemical facilities and refineries in population centers within the United States and urges the 

development of a new demonstration project to address the threat 

to this critical infrastructure sector within 1 year. 

PLANNING AND COORDINATION

The Committee recommends $6,162,000, which is $3,886,000 

above the fiscal year 2011 level and the same amount as the budget request. As requested, the increase reflects a realignment of 

funding from the BioWatch PPA. The Committee notes the important role the Food, Agriculture, and Veterinary Defense Division 

related to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-9 plays in advising Departmental leadership on security issues regarding food, 

water, agro-defense, veterinary, and zoonotic diseases and directs 

OHA to adequately support this important activity. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $29,171,000 for salaries and expenses, $999,000 below the budget request and $2,172,000 above 

the fiscal year 2011 level. 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

MISSION

The primary mission of the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency [FEMA] is to reduce the loss of life and property and protect the Nation from all hazards, including natural disasters, acts 

of terrorism, and other manmade disasters, by leading and supporting the Nation in a risk-based, comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness, protection, response, recovery, 

and mitigation. 
118 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a total program level of 

$9,780,880,000 for activities of FEMA for fiscal year 2012. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Operating Expenses 1 ............................................................... 2 786,824 814,924 3 904,550 

State and local programs ........................................................ 2,225,041 3,844,663 3 1,476,681 

Firefighter Assistance Grants .................................................. 808,380 ( 4 ) 750,000 

Emergency Management Performance Grants ......................... 339,320 ( 4 ) 350,000 

Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program ..................... ¥265 ¥896 ¥896 

United States Fire Administration ........................................... 45,497 42,538 45,038 

Disaster Relief Fund ................................................................ 2,644,700 1,800,000 5 6,000,000 

Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account ................. 294 295 295 

Flood hazard mapping and risk analysis ................................ 181,636 102,712 92,712 

National Flood Insurance Fund ................................................ (169,000 ) (171,000 ) (171,000 ) 

National Predisaster Mitigation Fund ...................................... 49,900 84,937 42,500 

Emergency food and shelter .................................................... 119,760 100,000 120,000 

Total, Federal Emergency Management Agency ......... 7,201,087 6,789,173 9,780,880 

1 Formerly Management and Administration. 

2 Excludes a transfer of $105,600,000 from Disaster Relief Fund. 

3 Funding levels reflect a change in PPA structure and a realignment of programs. 

4 Funding proposed under State and local programs. 

5 Includes $4,200,000,000 designated by Congress as disaster relief pursuant to Public Law 112–25. 

OPERATING EXPENSES 1

Appropriations, 2011 2 ........................................................................... $786,824,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 814,924,000 

House allowance 2 .................................................................................. 707,298,000 

Committee recommendation 3 ............................................................... 904,550,000 

1Formerly Management and Administration. 

2 Excludes a transfer of $105,600,000 from Disaster Relief Fund. 

3Funding levels reflect a change in PPA structure and a realignment of programs. 

Funding for FEMA’s Operating Expenses [OE] 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, regardless of 

cause, in partnership with Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal 

governments, volunteer organizations, and the private sector. OE 

supports FEMA’s programs by coordinating between Headquarters 

and Regional Offices the policy, managerial, resource, and administrative actions. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

FEMA has experienced significant growth over the last decade, 

and especially since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Since 2005, 

FEMA’s base has increased by 104 percent to support preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation activities Nationwide. 

FEMA’s permanent workforce has grown by 75 percent. During 

this period of growth, FEMA has also received new authorities and 

reorganized many times. To effectively manage and sustain such 

change, discipline is required and transparency is needed. There-
119 

fore, the Committee includes a new program, project, and activity 

[PPA] structure, an account name change, and a realignment of 

certain programs into existing accounts. The funding for the ‘‘Management and Administration’’ account is now provided under ‘‘Operating Expenses’’. Further, the funding in the ‘‘Operating Expenses’’ account is divided into PPAs that more clearly identify 

FEMA operations. Finally, funding for Technical Assistance and 

Evaluations and Assessments is provided under ‘‘Operating Expenses’’ instead of under ‘‘State and Local Programs’’; and funding 

for the Emergency Management Institute is provided under ‘‘State 

and Local Programs’’ instead of under ‘‘Operating Expenses’’ to better align similar programs. 

Activities, as outlined the President’s budget and the accompanying congressional justification materials, are funded in the following PPAs. The Administrative and Regional Offices PPA includes the Office of the Administrator, Office of Policy and Program 

Analysis, Office of External Affairs, Disability Integration and Coordination, Office of Equal Rights, Office of Chief Counsel, Office 

of Chief Financial Officer, Office of National Capital Region Coordination, Regional Operations, Federal Coordinating Officers, and 

Evaluations and Assessments. The Preparedness and Protection 

PPA includes the Office of Preparedness and National Protection, 

National Continuity, National Preparedness Directorate, Grants 

Programs Directorate, and Technical Assistance. The Response 

PPA includes the Office of Response and Recovery, Response Programs, and Logistics Programs. The Recovery PPA includes Recovery Programs. The Mitigation PPA includes Mitigation Programs. 

The Mission Support PPA includes Office of the Associate Administrator, Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Security Officer, Chief 

Information Officer, Chief Human Capital Officer, Chief Procurement Officer, and Regional Support. The Centrally Managed Accounts PPA includes Centrally Managed Functions in the Office of 

the Chief Financial Officer; and Enterprise Operations in the Office 

of the Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Information Officer, and 

Chief Security Officer. The Emergency Management Institute is 

funded under the ‘‘State and Local Programs’’ account. 

FEMA shall submit the fiscal year 2013 budget in an account 

and PPA structure identical to the structure enacted in this act 

and presented in this report. Furthermore, any report, briefing, or 

explanatory materials submitted to the Committee in fiscal year 

2013 should be presented in this same structure. 

Bill language is included providing temporary authority to FEMA 

to transfer funding among PPAs in the ‘‘Operating Expenses’’ account. FEMA shall notify the Committees if this authority is exercised. The notification shall include a specific and clear justification 

for the reason the authority was exercised. This provision is for fiscal year 2012 only and shall only be exercised in cases when critical funding decisions did not anticipate the PPA limitations. None 

of the funds shall be used to create a new PPA, eliminate a PPA, 

increase funds for a PPA which has been denied or restricted, use 

funds otherwise directed by Congress or the Committee, or to contract out any functions in accordance with section 503 of this act. 

The specific levels recommended by the Committee, as compared 

to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels, are as follows: 
120 

OPERATING EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 1 3

Operations activities ............................................................................ 2 3 744,663 3 780,492 ..............................

Office of National Capital Region Coordination .................................. 6,981 5,319 ..............................

Urban search and rescue .................................................................... 35,180 29,113 ..............................

Administrative and Regional Offices ................................................... ........................ ........................ 112,157 

Office of National Capital Region Coordination .................................. ........................ ........................ (6,981 ) 

Preparedness and Protection ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 3 117,373 

Response .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 226,228 

Urban Search and Rescue Response Systems .................................... ........................ ........................ (41,250 ) 

Recovery ............................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 80,373 

Mitigation ............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 43,675 

Mission support ................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 210,271 

Centrally managed accounts ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 114,473 

Total, Operating expenses ...................................................... 786,824 814,924 904,550 

1 Reflects a change in PPA structure and a realignment of programs. 

2 Excludes a transfer of $105,600,000 from Disaster Relief Fund. 

3 Excludes a transfer from State and local programs. 

PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

Of the amounts provided, not less than: $2,000,000 is for the 

Emergency Management Assistance Compact under the Preparedness and Protection PPA; $2,589,000 is for the National Hurricane 

Program under the Response PPA; $8,798,000 is for the National 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and $9,360,000 is for the 

National Dam Safety Program under the Mitigation PPA; and 

$7,200,000 is for data center migration under the Centrally Managed Accounts PPA. FEMA is directed to provide full funding to operate and maintain the 11 sites of the Pre-Positioned Equipment 

Program to ensure the Nation has full coverage with minimal response time provided by this important program. 

FISCAL MANAGEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY IN SPENDING

The Committee includes a provision directing FEMA to submit 

its fiscal year 2013 budget request, including justification materials, by office within the newly established PPA structure. Each 

office and FEMA region shall include: (1) budget detail by object 

classification; (2) the number of FTE on-board; (3) the number of 

FTE vacancies; and (4) the appropriation account(s) used to support the office and the programs managed by the office. This level 

of detail provides improved transparency and refined tracking of 

actual spending which is imperative given FEMA’s growth in size 

and mission. The documents transmitting this information should 

be updated to reflect the new PPA structure. 

CORE MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

The Committee is pleased to note that that the Administrator’s 

fiscal year 2012–2016 Future Year Homeland Security Program 

emphasizes establishing priorities, defining outcomes, developing 

strategies, and budgeting for activities. The Administrator directed 

FEMA leaders to develop performance plans and budgets that will 

achieve results and force an open dialogue regarding priorities and 

available resources. 
121 

Because of investments made to rebuild FEMA over the last decade, and especially since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, catastrophic 

planning is more integrated among the levels of government; shelter facility data is better managed between the public and private 

sectors; and the disaster contract acquisition process is now 

proactive, not reactive. Progress has been made, but improvements 

must be maintained and there is still much to do. For example, the 

National Disaster Recovery Framework has not been completed; an 

effective risk and preparedness assessment system is not in place; 

FEMA information systems are not sufficient; and the human resources study is not complete. Each of these efforts, while not costly, require FEMA to have a strong base and the necessary resources to finish initiatives that are not final. For this reason, the 

Committee is deeply concerned about the proposed cuts to FEMA’s 

base. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget proposes $999,468,000 in total for 

FEMA Management and Administration—once all the transfers are 

accounted for—which is $78,863,000 below the fiscal year 2011 

level. No other component in the Department was subjected to such 

a significant cut to its base operations. Some proposed reductions 

are a result of onetime costs such as $23,300,000 for proposed 

FEMA facility upgrades. Other proposed reductions are a result of 

cost savings to travel, printing, and supplies, which appear prudent 

in challenging fiscal times. However, the Committee rejects proposed reductions to FEMA’s business and information technology 

systems. This proposal looks like the beginning of a trend observed 

in previous cycles that FEMA has been through. In tough budget 

times, readiness efforts are trimmed. This did not serve the Nation 

well in the response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, or Andrew, 

or Hugo. For this reason, the Committee has rejected the proposed 

cuts that are not related to onetime costs or reasonable savings. 

Further, the Committee recognizes that without a focused effort 

to institutionalize change to FEMA’s core functions, achievements 

gained to date, and those still needed, will give way to the crisis 

of the day. Therefore, the Deputy Administrator is directed to provide quarterly briefings to the Committee on the specific progress 

made to stabilize the core administrative functions, sound budget 

practices, strategic human capital planning, and modernization of 

information systems. Briefings shall include an update on the ongoing process to complete a fiscal review of each of FEMA’s contracts and programs and implementation of the new PPA structure 

established in fiscal year 2012 by this Committee. Briefings shall 

provide an update on the execution of the Integrated Strategic 

Workforce Planning Initiative to determine the required mission 

capabilities, identify manpower requirements to achieve the capabilities, and the development and execution of workforce strategies. 

Finally, FEMA shall provide detailed information regarding the 

status of fulfilling the OIG recommendations in two recent reports: 

April 2011 FEMA Faces Challenges in Modernizing Information 

Technology (OIG–11–69) and May 2011 Information Technology 

Management Letter (OIG–11–79). 
122 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MODERNIZATION

The Committee notes with great concern the OIG findings about 

the challenges FEMA faces in modernizing information technology 

(OIG–11–69). The OIG states that Information Technology [IT] systems play a critical role in supporting FEMA’s response and recovery efforts. However, the OIG found that systems have not fully 

supported the agency’s needs during major disasters and efforts to 

modernize systems have been hindered by staffing and funding 

shortages. While FEMA has a number of IT infrastructure modernization initiatives underway, the OIG also found that FEMA 

does not have a comprehensive strategic information modernization 

plan; an adequate understanding of existing technology resources; 

or needed integration with stakeholders. FEMA generally concurred with the findings. This failure inhibits both FEMA internal 

functions and its ability to coordinate with homeland security and 

emergency management partners. 

For example, there are four systems that handle 80 percent of 

processing disaster assistance requests, and each operates on a different technical platform. As a result, data is not synchronized and 

personnel have to manually reconcile information to process the requests. Further, FEMA does not have an electronic capability for 

States to use when requesting assistance during a disaster. States 

must fax an assistance request form to FEMA personnel who then 

enter the information into a tracking system. The problem is further highlighted with mitigation grants. An average of 100 to 200 

applications are received during each disaster for mitigation funding. Each application must be submitted on paper and then manually entered into a system for processing. FEMA officials cite that 

most States are themselves using Web-enabled systems that provide capability for automated requests and real time information 

sharing on assistance needs during a disaster. Yet, FEMA’s antiquated systems prevent it from using this more efficient and cost 

effective process. 

The OIG found that efforts to modernize some of FEMA’s critical 

systems have been put on hold due to DHS consolidation plans. As 

a result, ‘‘legacy systems do not provide the functionality needed to 

support FEMA’s disaster response mission operation in a timely 

and effective manner.’’ This is a serious impediment to modernization. 

The majority of the OIG investigation covered FEMA’s disaster 

response and recovery systems. The Committee notes that planning 

and preparedness IT systems were not a focal point—mostly because these systems do not exist. State and local governments are 

making significant use of scalable, virtual workspaces on a platform that leverages existing social networks, especially in regional 

collaboration efforts. Such a platform supports the type of collaboration required by the March 30, 2011, Presidential Policy Directive—8 [PPD–8], related to National Preparedness, as well as other 

homeland security policies and goals. Yet, FEMA is in great jeopardy of being left out of the needed collaboration with its partners, 

as required by the Directive, due to a lack of modern systems. 

For these reasons, the Committee rejects the short-sighted budget proposal to reduce FEMA’s information technology resources and 
123 

restores funding to invest in IT modernization for preparedness, response, recovery, mitigation, and mission support. As a part of the 

modernization effort, the Committee provides $5,500,000 specifically to expand and fully implement a preparedness, coordination, 

and planning platform in support of PPD–8. The Deputy Administrator is directed to brief the Committee within 30 days after the 

date of enactment of this act on the implementation of the OIG 

findings and a plan to implement a FEMA IT modernization effort. 

Further, FEMA is directed to provide the Committee an expenditure plan within 90 days after the date of enactment of this act for 

all IT modernization efforts. The plan shall include a clear description of approaches to meet long-term needs, including at least a ten 

year timeframe, in an efficient and innovative way. Finally, FEMA 

is directed to provide a complete long-term strategic plan, in conjunction with the fiscal year 2013 budget submission, to the Committee. The long-term strategic plan shall clearly identify the way 

in which IT efforts support the agency’s mission and drive investments; clear and complete enterprise architecture; and prioritized 

needs. 

Finally, requirements for automation of virtual sharing of information are highlighted in other sections of this report. Making use 

of technology is a low cost way to improve effectiveness and should 

be maximized. 

PREPAREDNESS

The Committee is pleased that FEMA has initiated a Strategic 

Foresight Initiative to ensure emergency management officials at 

all levels are anticipating future issues associated with evolving 

natural and man-made events. The Committee encourages FEMA 

to sustain this activity, which will identify dynamics likely to affect 

emergency management such as the evolving terrorist threat, critical infrastructure and global interdependencies, technological innovation, environmental issues, and shifts in demographics. 

The Committee is concerned a large electromagnetic flux could 

affect the operations of the Nation’s infrastructure and safety on a 

national scale and affect the assets needed to respond to problems 

associated with such an event, such as communications systems. 

FEMA is directed to brief the Committee within 30 days after the 

date of enactment of this act, on the potential impacts to emergency response and recovery related to such an event. The briefing 

should also include what preparedness measures have been completed and are still needed to mitigate the effects of such an event. 

The Committee recognizes that many Federal agencies have a role 

in studying the issue and encourages FEMA to coordinate with 

those agencies to garner the best information available on this 

issue for the emergency management community. 

The Office of Individual and Community Preparedness shall brief 

the Committee within 60 days of the date of enactment of this act 

regarding the specific actions that will be taken to further individual and community preparedness and the associated resource 

requirements. The briefing shall include a discussion on how resiliency is increased through citizen preparedness, and how childhood 

education regarding preparedness can facilitate community readiness. Further, FEMA is directed to create an easily assessable in-
124 

ventory of shareable products that have been developed through 

the Citizens Corps Program to further individual and community 

preparedness. The Committee understands the products range from 

school curricula to emergency information which is translated into 

foreign languages. Sharing this information will maximize the investments made to date. 

Additionally, the Committee is pleased with the progress of efforts of the Children’s Working Group which was created to coordinate Federal agency efforts to accommodate the unique needs of 

children in disasters. Accomplishments include guidance which was 

issued to ensure disaster plans are in place at juvenile justice centers, and the pre-staging of commodities such as infant formula, 

baby food, and diapers for disaster response. The Committee notes 

that FEMA was required to establish the National Emergency 

Family Registry and Locator System in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. The Committee remains concerned 

that the system for reconnecting children after they are separated 

from their families during a disaster is still reliant on a non-automated paper system that unnecessarily adds to the time it takes 

to reunify families. Therefore, the Committee provides no less than 

$500,000 for FEMA to automate the unaccompanied minors’ registry and call center. 

ASSESSING READINESS AND FEDERAL GRANT CONTRIBUTIONS

Congress called for an assessment of the Nation’s emergency response capabilities in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management 

Reform Act in October of 2006. Homeland Security Appropriations 

Acts have stressed the need for progress on this front since fiscal 

year 2008, and have committed resources to it, especially related 

to the effectiveness of grants. Because of a lack of transparency 

and no clear progress on assessments, GAO was directed to provide 

a quarterly review of FEMA’s efforts to complete evaluations and 

assessments of preparedness and the effectiveness of grants to the 

Committee. GAO found that between fiscal years 2008 and 2010, 

FEMA budgeted over $58,000,000 for no less than seven evaluation 

efforts. Further, GAO found that as of March 2010, FEMA had initiated yet another new framework to assess national preparedness 

capabilities after evaluating the limitations and lack of usefulness 

of each of the previous efforts. Still today, there is no metric in 

place that describes the Nation’s preparedness and how grant programs contribute to that effort. 

On March 30, 2011, President Obama signed Presidential Policy 

Directive-8 on National Preparedness. It also calls for a National 

Preparedness System, which includes a comprehensive approach to 

assess national preparedness that uses a consistent methodology to 

measure readiness for all levels of government to prevent, protect 

against, mitigate against, respond to, and recover from disasters. 

The Secretary of Homeland Security is directed to submit a description of the system no later than November 24, 2011. FEMA 

has been assigned as the lead component on this effort. Bill language has been included requiring the Secretary to submit the description of the system to the Congress. 

The Committee notes that investments funded with State and 

local first responder grants have significantly improved disaster re-
125 

sponse capabilities. During the recent tornadoes in Arkansas, the 

State used its wireless network, largely funded with homeland security grant funding, which enabled an efficient response by first 

responders to the impacted areas, including enabling the National 

Guard to communicate on the same system. In Alabama, rescue response units that were purchased with State Homeland Security 

Grant Program funding, were deployed during recent unprecedented tornadoes. In Missouri, investments in personal protective 

gear, night vision goggles, medical equipment, generators, search 

and rescue tools, and communications assets—all supported with 

grant funding—were used to respond to the devastating tornadoes. 

The first responder capacity built in the Nation with grant funds 

is undeniable. Unfortunately, there is no assessment in place that 

clearly demonstrates the Nation’s readiness posture and what gaps 

in capability remain. A lack of a demonstrable measure of effectiveness has made funding to build readiness capability susceptible to 

reductions. Budget pressures at all levels of government require a 

focus on sustaining capability. Therefore, FEMA is directed to develop guidance for grantees on best practices to manage current 

funding to ensure the most necessary capabilities are sustained. 

FEMA is encouraged to provide flexibility in grant expenditures to 

ensure the least amount of degradation to current capabilities occurs. FEMA is directed to brief the Committee quarterly on the 

specific processes being put in place to manage the grant programs 

in a way that promotes sustainability of current capacity. 

A provision is included requiring the Administrator to submit the 

National Preparedness Report and a comprehensive plan to implement a system to measure the effectiveness of grants to State and 

local communities to the Committee in fiscal year 2012. Further, 

$1,400,000, 25 percent of the funds for the Office of the Administrator, is withheld from obligation until the Report and a plan are 

submitted. The report shall include options for revising the programs to make them more effective and more easily administered. 

The Committee encourages FEMA to use a truly innovative approach to the grant programs and cautions that simply submitting 

the same proposal to combine several of the programs is not advancing discussion. To that end, the report shall also address the 

status of implementation of each of the seven recommendations 

made in the September 2010, Report to Congress of the Local, 

State, Tribal, and Federal Preparedness Task Force regarding 

grant administration which included topics for further study, reform, and linkage to capability assessments. 

PREPAREDNESS TASKFORCE

The Committee appreciates the effort of the Local, State, Tribal, 

and Federal Preparedness Task Force and the timely report transmitted to the Congress in September, 2010, which includes recommendations related to the homeland security and emergency 

management policies, grant administration, and assessments. 

FEMA, in cooperation with the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, 

is directed to continue regular briefings to the Committee regarding the progress of and timeline for implementation of the findings 

of the Task Force. The Committee expects the initial briefing will 

include additional information about incentives for communities to 
126 

take pre-event steps to reduce the length and magnitude of recovery; revitalizing Regional Advisory Councils; conducting threat and 

hazard identification risk assessments; linking grant programs to 

capability assessments; and the use of the Emergency Management 

Accreditation Program nationwide. Additionally, all briefings required of FEMA in this report that address a topic for which a recommendation was made shall address that recommendation in the 

briefing. 

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Disaster preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery are efforts that particularly lend themselves to public and private partnerships. In order to effectively respond and recover from an event, 

the two sectors must work together to protect citizens during a disaster, and help communities rebuild. FEMA is directed to provide 

a report to the Committee no later than 60 days after the date of 

enactment of this act on options to better use public and private 

partnerships to maximize cooperation and accomplish projects that 

neither sector can complete on their own. 

PLANNING

The need for planning related to natural-, technological-, or 

human-caused emergencies or disasters has been met with varying 

degrees of acceptance and resistance among the many disciplines 

and levels of government that must participate to make any disaster planning effort successful. The most recent version of the 

FEMA Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 (CPG 101), released in November 2010, states that planning provides a methodical way to engage the whole community in thinking through the 

life cycle of a potential crisis, determining required capabilities, 

and establishing a framework for roles and responsibilities. The 

goal of CPG 101 is to assist in making the planning process routine 

across all phases of emergency management and for all homeland 

security mission areas. The Committee applauds the effort to better 

clarify and unify planning efforts. However, it remains unclear how 

committed the emergency management community, as a whole, is 

to completing comprehensive planning, at all levels of government, 

to ensure that trained and skilled planners are dedicated to the effort. The Committee directs FEMA, in conjunction with the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute or another appropriate federally funded research and development center, to review 

and report to the Committees on Appropriations no later than 180 

days after the date of the enactment of this act regarding the status of planning nationwide, including catastrophic planning, as 

well as the need to complete exercises to test the plans. The review 

shall include the extent to which CPG–101 has been implemented 

in communities across the Nation and its effectiveness in standardizing the planning process across all phases of emergency management and homeland security mission areas. 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for technical assistance, 

the same amount as the budget request, and $978,000 below fiscal 
127 

year 2011. The Committee recognizes the importance of the technical assistance program, which delivers quick and effective problem solving tools for homeland security partners and supports the 

delivery of technical assistance for three major areas, as outlined 

in the budget request: grants management; planning; and prevention and protection activities. In administering grants management 

technical assistance, FEMA should focus on assistance related to 

expediting the drawdown of Federal funds. 

EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for evaluations and assessments, $3,972,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level and 

$4,000,000 below the request. The Committee views the responsibilities encompassed by evaluations and assessments as crucial to 

policy development, grant funding determinations, and measuring 

the outcomes of the Nation’s preparedness efforts. 

NATIONAL DISASTER RECOVERY FRAMEWORK

The Committee is pleased that FEMA has undertaken the development of a National Disaster Recovery Framework to identify the 

roles and responsibilities of all levels of government, individuals, 

and the nonprofit and private sectors during each phase of the recovery process. The Committee also recognizes that the Presidential Policy Directive-8, related to National Preparedness, which 

was issued by the President on March 30, 2011, calls for a Recovery Framework. Additional efforts are required to clarify leadership 

and coordination issues in the draft framework released in February 2010, and FEMA is directed to remain focused on this effort 

and provide the necessary resources to improve, finalize, 

operationalize, and implement the framework. 

REGIONAL OFFICES

The Committee understands that FEMA is delegating certain authorities from headquarters to the offices of the Regional Administrators. FEMA is directed to brief the Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of the date of enactment of this act regarding 

this effort. The briefing shall include a list of authorities that have 

been or will be delegated; a timeframe for implementation; and 

what procedures will be instituted to ensure consistent application 

of FEMA policies across the Nation. 

NATIONWIDE CYBER SECURITY REVIEW

In the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, the Committee directed NPPD, in conjunction with FEMA, to develop the 

necessary tools for all levels of governments to complete a cyber 

network security assessment. NPPD, in conjunction with FEMA, is 

directed to provide a briefing to the Committee on the specific timeframe in which the effort will be completed and implemented. Further, the briefing shall provide an update on how this effort and 

other on-going efforts by both components contribute to completion 

of the recommendation in the September 2010, Report to Congress 

of the Local, State, Tribal, and Federal Preparedness Task Force 
128 

to ‘‘ensure national cybersecurity efforts address local, State, tribal, 

and territorial preparedness implications’’. 

OFFICE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION COORDINATION

The Committee recommends $6,981,000 for the Office of National 

Capital Region Coordination [ONCRC], $1,662,000 above the budget request and the same amount as the fiscal year 2011 level. Congress established the ONCRC to enhance domestic preparedness 

through cooperation of the Federal, State, and local governments in 

the unique environment of the National Capital Region. 

The Committee is concerned that events of low significance such 

as a single crime scene investigation, and well known and predictable events such as a snowstorm, let alone no-notice events such 

as the August 24, 2011, earthquake still often bring the National 

Capital Region traffic patterns to a standstill. This does not bode 

well for an unexpected man-made event. While there are very real 

infrastructure challenges in the metropolitan area, in many cases 

severe impacts could be mitigated through coordinated information 

and decision-making. The Committee further notes that the 

ONCRC is charged with several key responsibilities prescribed in 

the Homeland Security Act of 2002, including developing a process 

for receiving meaningful input from entities; and ensuring adequate planning, information sharing, and execution of preparedness 

activities in the National Capital Region. The Committee is concerned that National Capital Region partners have not employed a 

more fulsome use of technology tools for planning and information 

sharing to fulfill these requirements. Planning and sharing information is especially complex in the National Capital Region because of the multiple local and State jurisdictions, the District of 

Columbia, and large presence of Federal Government agencies. 

The Committee notes that several urban areas and regional planning partners have successfully implemented Web-based virtual 

preparedness, coordination, and planning, software platforms for 

improved coordination involving many communities. Therefore, 

ONCRC is directed to employ a similar technology solution within 

the funds provided. ONCRC is directed to brief the Committee on 

the implementation timeframe for this effort within 30 days of the 

date of enactment of this act. 

The Committee remains concerned that planning for evacuation 

of the National Capital Region during a disaster has not incorporated all of the pertinent officials from the appropriate local communities and States in the decision-making process. Therefore, the 

Committee includes bill language requiring inclusion of the Governors of the State of West Virginia and the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania in the National Capital Region decision-making and 

planning process for mass evacuations. The Committee again directs the Department to include officials from the counties and municipalities that contain the evacuation routes and their tributaries 

in the planning process. 

URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE RESPONSE SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $41,250,000 for the Urban Search 

and Rescue System, $12,137,000 above the request and $6,070,000 

above the fiscal year 2011 level. The Committee is concerned that 
129 

the current geographic distribution of Urban Search and Rescue 

Teams is not adequate to meet the Nation’s disaster response 

needs, and that the 28 existing teams do not have adequate equipment to respond to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive [CBRNE] events. The Committee therefore provides 

$12,137,000 above the President’s request for additional CBRNE 

equipment and to establish at least one additional team in underrepresented regions at substantial risk of a natural or man-made 

disaster, by working with the States to identify existing capabilities 

that can be incorporated into the Urban Search and Rescue Response System Task Force network. Further, the Committee directs 

FEMA to establish the additional Team within one year. Finally, 

FEMA is directed to provide an expenditure plan for the Urban 

Search and Rescue Response System no later than 60 days after 

the date of enactment of this act. 

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $2,225,041,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 1 ......................................................................... 3,844,663,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,000,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,476,681,000 

1 Includes $670,000,000 proposed for Firefighter Assistance Grants and $350,000,000 proposed 

for Emergency Management Performance Grants, which continue to be funded in separate accounts. 

State and local programs provide grants for training, equipment 

(including interoperable communications equipment), exercises, and 

technical assistance to improve readiness for potential disasters. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Grants: 

State Homeland Security Grants .......................................... 633,730 1,050,000 430,000 

Operation Stonegarden ................................................ (54,890 ) (50,000 ) (50,000 ) 

Urban Area Security Initiative .............................................. 723,550 920,000 400,000 

Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grants ........................ 14,970 ............................ ............................

Metropolitan Medical Response System ............................... 34,930 ............................ ............................

Citizens Corps ....................................................................... 9,980 13,000 ............................

Public Transportation Security Assistance/Railroad Security 

Assistance/Over-the-Road Bus Security Assistance ........ 249,500 300,000 200,000 

Port Security Grants .............................................................. 249,500 300,000 200,000 

Buffer Zone Protection Program ........................................... ............................ 50,000 ............................

Driver’s License Security Grants ........................................... 44,910 ............................ ............................

Emergency Operations Centers ............................................. 14,970 ............................ 15,000 

Firefighter Assistance Grants ............................................... ( 1 ) 670,000 ( 1 ) 

Emergency Management Performance Grants ...................... ( 1 ) 350,000 ( 1 ) 

Subtotal, Grants ............................................................... 1,976,040 3,653,000 1,245,000 

Education, Training, and Exercises: 

Emergency Management Institute ........................................ ( 1 ) ( 1 ) 16,181 

Center for Domestic Preparedness ....................................... 62,375 62,500 62,500 

National Domestic Preparedness Consortium ...................... 92,814 44,500 93,000 

National Exercise Program .................................................... 39,920 40,000 34,000 
130 

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Continuing training ............................................................... 28,942 20,663 26,000 

Technical Assistance ............................................................ 10,978 10,000 ( 1 ) 

Evaluations and Assessments .............................................. 13,972 14,000 ( 1 ) 

Subtotal, Education, Training, and Exercises .................. 249,001 191,663 231,681 

Total, State and Local Programs ..................................... 2,225,041 3,844,663 1,476,681 

1 Funds appropriated/requested under a separate account. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $1,476,681,000 for State and local 

programs. The Committee does not approve the budget request to 

fund Firefighter Assistance Grants and Emergency Management 

Performance Grants under this heading. Each program is funded 

in a separate account, consistent with previous years. The Committee includes a provision providing 5.8 percent of the total 

amount appropriated for State and local programs for transfer to 

FEMA ‘‘Operating Expenses’’ for the Preparedness and Protection 

PPA. This is consistent with the structure of previous years. The 

Committee also includes a provision allowing grantees to use no 

more than 5 percent of grant funding for management and administrative costs. 

The Committee includes specific timeframes for grant dollar distribution and expects FEMA and the Department to comply with 

the law to ensure homeland security funds are distributed in a 

timely manner. For each of the grant programs, grant guidance 

shall be issued in 25 days, applicants shall apply within 90 days 

after guidance is issued, and FEMA shall act on the application 

within 90 days after applications are due. 

The funds provided for State and local grants are to be used for 

purposes consistent with each program as authorized and may not, 

with certain exceptions, be used for construction activities. 

For purposes of eligibility for funds under this heading, 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, Alaska Native village, independent authority, special district, or other political subdivision of 

any State shall constitute a ‘‘local unit of government.’’ 

The Department is encouraged to consider the need for mass 

evacuation planning and pre-positioning of equipment for areas potentially impacted by mass evacuations in allocating first responder 

funds. The Committee notes the Department’s efforts to support 

the homeland security needs of federally recognized tribes and encourages FEMA to continue its efforts in ensuring federally recognized tribes are included in homeland security efforts through 

State and local planning efforts. The Department is encouraged to 

require State and local governments to address child care services 

and facilities in response and recovery plans, exercises, and train-
131 

ing. Additionally, the Committee is concerned that State and local 

cyber security issues are not receiving the required resources and 

attention and the Department is encouraged to require State and 

local governments to include Chief Information Officers in planning 

efforts. FEMA is encouraged to require States to use grant funding 

for training against cyber attacks on critical State and local infrastructure. The Committee directs FEMA to issue guidance to 

States, no later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 

act, regarding the funding available from all grant programs to retrofit facilities for the purposes of sheltering during the response 

phase of a disaster. Further, FEMA shall provide technical assistance to any State seeking support regarding a plan for such sheltering. The Committee is concerned that drinking water and sanitation security needs, especially related to emergency response initiatives, are not adequately addressed and the Department is encouraged to require State and local governments to include rural 

water associations in planning efforts as well. 

The Committee is supportive of the Department’s efforts to 

evaluate applications based on risk and effectiveness. The Department should continue its efforts to evaluate State Homeland Security Grant Program [SHSGP] and Urban Area Security Initiative 

[UASI] applications based on how effectively these grants will address identified homeland security needs. The Department shall 

work aggressively to ensure grant applicants have the same information that is available to the Department with regard to threat, 

vulnerability, and consequence to ensure applications reflect true 

risk. 

The Committee expects FEMA to continue to fully engage subject 

matter experts within the Department when appropriate in the development of grant guidance and the determination of awards. 

STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $430,000,000 for the State Homeland Security Grant Program [SHSGP], of which $50,000,000 shall 

be for Operation Stonegarden Grants, $203,730,000 and $4,890,000 

below the fiscal year 2011 level respectively. Activities previously 

funded under Metropolitan Medical Response System, Citizens 

Corps, Driver’s License Security Program, Buffer Zone Protection 

Program and the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant 

Program in fiscal year 2011 are eligible for funding under SHSGP. 

Operation Stonegarden grants shall continue to be competitively 

awarded and shall not be restricted to any particular border. As in 

previous years, FEMA is directed to ensure all border States shall 

be eligible to apply in fiscal year 2012. 

URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE GRANT PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $400,000,000 for the Urban Area 

Security Initiative [UASI] Grant Program, $323,550,000 below the 

fiscal year 2011 level. Of this amount, the recommendation includes $10,000,000 for nonprofit entities determined to be at risk 

by the Secretary. Eligibility for nonprofit entities shall not be limited to UASI communities. Activities previously funded under Metropolitan Medical Response System, Citizens Corps, Buffer Zone 
132 

Protection Program, and the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program are eligible for funding under UASI. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT TERRORISM PREVENTION PROGRAM

In accordance with section 2006 of the Homeland Security Act of 

2002, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program 

[LETPP] is funded through a required set aside of 25 percent of the 

funds appropriated through the SHSGP and UASI programs. The 

Committee directs FEMA to provide clear guidance to States and 

urban areas to ensure that the intent of LETPP is fully realized. 

Further, FEMA is directed to provide a report no later than 120 

days after the date of enactment of this act, in conjunction with the 

DHS Office for State and Local Law Enforcement, on the expenditures in this program to date and their specific applicability to prevention. 

REGIONAL CATASTROPHIC PREPAREDNESS GRANT PROGRAM

The Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program was established in fiscal year 2007 in order to provide incentives to State 

and local governments to develop coordinated regional plans for responding to a catastrophic event. Absent such incentives in large 

metropolitan areas, governors often did not coordinate effectively 

with mayors, mayors did not coordinate effectively with neighboring mayors or with county officials. Since the program was established, $155,000,000 has been spent developing coordinated 

plans in areas that DHS determined were at the highest risk for 

a catastrophic event. The Committee recognizes that the grant recipients, having completed a majority of the planning effort, are entering the next phase of testing the plans through exercises. Having finalized plans, no funding is provided for the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program in fiscal year 2012. The 

Committee expects that FEMA will continue to assist grantees with 

program implementation and FEMA is directed to continue its support and assistance to grantees through the remaining performance 

period of the grants. FEMA is directed to provide a report no later 

than 180 days after the date of enactment of this act on the accomplishments of this program. The report shall include a discussion 

of how successes can be transitioned into future catastrophic planning efforts and how on-going planning needs can be sustained and 

regularly exercised in the long term. 

CHILDREN’S NEEDS DURING A DISASTER

On June 8, 2011, Administrator Fugate testified to the progress 

that has been made in incorporating the recommendations of the 

FEMA Children’s Working Group into Federal agency efforts to ensure that children have their unique needs met during a disaster. 

Since children compromise approximately 25 percent of the United 

States population, it is imperative that State and local governments pre-plan for the needs of children. The Committee directs 

FEMA to provide a report, no later than 120 days after the date 

of enactment of this act, on the expenditures in all the grant programs that specifically lend to ensuring the needs of children are 
133 

taken into account during a disaster and to establish measurable 

benchmarks for meeting those needs. 

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND RAILROAD

SECURITY ASSISTANCE

The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for Public Transportation Security Assistance [PTSA], Railroad Security Assistance 

[RSA], and Over-The-Road Bus Security Assistance. Of the recommended amount, no less than $20,000,000 is provided for Amtrak security needs. Since 2004, there have been 1,300 terrorist attacks worldwide against mass transit, buses and passenger rail, resulting in more than 4,000 deaths and 14,000 injuries. It is essential that FEMA continue to work with grantees to ensure that 

funds are used rapidly and effectively. The Committee remains concerned about the slow pace of spending these funds and directs 

FEMA to brief the Committees on Appropriations no later than 90 

days after the date of enactment of this act on efforts to expedite 

the effective expenditure of these funds. 

PORT SECURITY GRANTS

The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the Port Security 

Grant Program. The Committee notes that physical security, preparedness and planning for response to a disaster, and training of 

port facility officials at the Nation’s ports is imperative to economic 

security. 

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTERS

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for Emergency Operations Centers, $30,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level. 

CENTER FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS

The Committee recommends $62,500,000 for the Center for Domestic Preparedness, $125,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level and 

the same amount as the request level. Included in this amount is 

funding for the Noble Training Center. 

NATIONAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM

The Committee recommends $93,000,000 for the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, instead of $44,500,000, as proposed in the budget. The Consortium, authorized by the 9/11 Act 

(Public Law 110–53), has conducted training in all 50 States and 

each U.S. territory. Over 1.6 million first responders have been 

trained. The existing Consortium members have proven to be an effective delivery system for this important training. 

CONTINUING TRAINING GRANTS

The Committee provides $26,000,000 for continuing training 

grants, $5,337,000 above the request and $2,942,000 below fiscal 

year 2011, of which State and local government intelligence awareness training shall be no less than $1,000,000 above the level funded in fiscal year 2011. The Committee supports full funding of programs that deliver homeland security curricula in the form of executive education programs and accredited master’s degree education. 
134 

The Committee also notes the importance of the Mobile Education 

Team providing half-day, graduate-level seminars on homeland security challenges for Governors, mayors, and senior staff being conducted prior to any emergency their community may experience. 

NATIONAL EXERCISE PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $34,000,000 for the National Exercise Program, $5,920,000 below fiscal year 2011, and $6,000,000 

below the budget request. 

The Committee understands the national exercise program is 

under review, by the Department and FEMA, to ensure exercises 

validate response capabilities and provide assessments of plans, organization, training, and equipment needs which are relevant to realistic scenarios. FEMA is directed to brief the Committee no later 

than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act on any planned 

and needed program reforms. The briefing shall include a discussion on how exercises can produce specific and measurable accomplishments such as effective regional response protocol, information 

sharing, and citizen preparedness. Further, the briefing shall provide information regarding an effective way to use reconstruction 

of actual events that have already occurred as opportunities to validate response capabilities and assess plans, organization, training, 

and equipment needs. 

TRAINING AND EDUCATION

The Committee recognizes that training and education for first 

responders, emergency managers, and those who participate in disaster management is critical. 

The Committee understands that FEMA is reviewing its training 

and education programs to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. 

FEMA is directed to report to the Committees on Appropriations no 

later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this act regarding a comprehensive approach to training and education and identifying any gaps, including a plan to address those gaps. 

The report shall include a review of the need for additional capacity for current and emerging training needs such as those for 

planning, cybersecurity, intelligence, and catastrophic planning, response, and recovery. Additionally, FEMA should consider the need 

for education programs that develop critical leadership skills, enabling managers to operate in a complex, dynamic disaster environment. 

FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $808,380,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 1 ......................................................................... ........................... House allowance .................................................................................... 670,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 750,000,000 

1 Budget proposes $670,000,000 under State and Local Programs. 

Firefighter assistance grants, as authorized by section 33 of the 

Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229), 

assist local firefighting departments for the purpose of protecting 

the health and safety of the public and fire fighting personnel, including volunteers and emergency medical service personnel, 

against fire and fire-related hazards. 
135 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $750,000,000 for firefighter assistance grants, including $375,000,000 for firefighter assistance 

grants, and $375,000,000 for firefighter staffing grants, to remain 

available until September 30, 2013. This is $58,380,000 below the 

fiscal year 2011 level and $80,000,000 above the level requested in 

‘‘State and Local Programs’’. 

The Committee directs the Department to continue the present 

practice of funding applications according to local priorities and 

those established by the United States Fire Administration, and to 

continue direct funding to fire departments and the peer review 

process. Up to 5 percent of grant funds shall be for program administration. 

The Committee notes that the U.S. Fire Service Needs Assessment, which was required in the explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 

2010, to be submitted no later than April 9, 2010, has not been received by the Committee. In the event that the Office of Management and Budget review process results in further delay, the Committee expects the Department to submit the assessment forthwith. 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $339,320,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 1 ......................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... 350,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 350,000,000 

1 Budget proposes $350,000,000 under State and Local Programs. 

Funding requested in this account provides support to the Nation’s all-hazards emergency management system and helps to 

build State and local emergency management capability. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $350,000,000 for emergency management performance grants [EMPG], the same level as the 

amount requested in the budget within the ‘‘State and Local Programs’’ account and $10,680,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level. 

EMPG is an essential source of funding for State and local emergency management. 

The Committee directs FEMA to retain EMPG as a separate 

grant program, and not to combine its funding with any other 

grant allocation or application process. Not to exceed 3 percent of 

grant funds shall be for administrative expenses. 

RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2011 1 ........................................................................... ($265,000) 

Budget estimate, 2012 1 ......................................................................... (896,000) 

House allowance 1 .................................................................................. (896,000) 

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... (896,000) 

1Fee collections are estimated to exceed costs. 

The Radiological Emergency Preparedness [REP] program assists 

State and local governments in the development of off-site radiological emergency preparedness plans within the emergency planning zones of commercial nuclear power facilities licensed by the 
136 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC]. The fund is financed from 

fees assessed and collected from the NRC licensees to recover the 

amounts anticipated to be obligated in the next fiscal year for expenses related to REP program activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee provides for the receipt and expenditure of fees 

collected, as authorized by Public Law 105–276. The budget estimates fee collections to exceed expenditures by $896,000 in fiscal 

year 2012. 

The Committee notes that the events surrounding the Great East 

Japan Earthquake in March 2011, especially with regard to the effect on the nuclear power plant, serve as a reminder that scenarios 

should be regularly reviewed and exercises should comport with 

the most up-to-date information about potential impacts. FEMA is 

directed to brief the Committees, no later than 30 days after the 

date of enactment of this act, on the process it undertakes to ensure information about the impact of a disaster is regularly reviewed and exercises are updated to account for possible consequences. 

UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $45,497,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 42,538,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 42,538,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 45,038,000 

The mission of the United States Fire Administration [USFA] is 

to reduce losses, both economic and human, due to fire and other 

emergencies through training, research, coordination and support. 

USFA also prepares the Nation’s first responder and healthcare 

leaders through ongoing, and when necessary, expedited training 

regarding how to evaluate and minimize community risk, improve 

protection to critical infrastructure, and be better prepared to react 

to all hazard and terrorism emergencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $45,038,000 for the USFA, which is 

$459,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level and $2,500,000 above the 

request. 

DISASTER RELIEF FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $2,644,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,800,000,000 

House allowance 1 .................................................................................. 2,650,000,000 

Committee recommendation 2 ............................................................... 6,000,000,000 

1 In addition, $1,000,000,000 of emergency spending is included for Disaster Relief in title VI. 

2 Includes $4,200,000,000 designated by Congress as disaster relief pursuant to Public Law 

112–25. 

Through the Disaster Relief Fund [DRF], the Department provides a significant portion of the total Federal response to victims 

in presidentially declared major disasters and emergencies. Major 

disasters are declared when a State requests Federal assistance 
137 

and proves that a given disaster is beyond the local and State capacity to respond. Under the DRF, FEMA will continue to operate 

the primary assistance programs, including Federal assistance to 

individuals and households; and public assistance, which includes 

the repair and reconstruction of State, local, and nonprofit infrastructure. The post-disaster hazard mitigation set-aside to States, 

as part of the DRF, works as a companion piece to the National 

Predisaster Mitigation Fund. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $1,800,000,000 for disaster relief, 

the same amount as the budget request. The Committee remains 

frustrated that the Office of Management and Budget refuses to be 

forthcoming and transparent regarding estimates for the Disaster 

Relief Fund. Lack of information and a clear strategy to pay for 

disasters has forced the Disaster Relief Fund to a level of funding 

so low that new recovery projects were put on hold for 6 months 

in 2010 and have been put on hold again in August of 2011. In an 

attempt to avoid stopping recovery projects in fiscal year 2011, the 

Department of Homeland Security base budget was cut to pay for 

a predicted shortfall in the Disaster Relief Fund. This funding shift 

came at the expense of State and local preparedness grants. It 

makes no sense to cut funding for programs that prepare for future 

events to fund past disasters. The Committee also includes bill language requiring an expenditure plan and quarterly reports for disaster readiness and support costs; and a monthly report and a 

quarterly report on the disaster relief expenditures. Additionally, 

the Committee recommends bill language transferring $16,000,000 

to the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General for audits and investigations. 

In addition, pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced 

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99– 

177), as amended, $4,200,000,000 is designated as disaster relief. 

This additional funding will begin to address the shortfall in fiscal 

year 2012 for natural disasters in all 50 States. The Committee expects FEMA to regularly update its estimates of the shortfall. Most 

of this funding is for catastrophic disasters such as Hurricanes 

Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike, the Mississippi River floods of 2008 

and 2011, the Tennessee flood of 2010, the recent tornadoes, flooding in the Upper Midwest, and Hurricane Irene. 

The Committee is concerned that the slow and cumbersome pace 

of public assistance project awards is delaying recovery in areas 

that need it most. FEMA is directed to expedite public assistance 

projects for past disasters, especially those related to catastrophic 

events. 

The Administrator of FEMA shall respond to the State of Louisiana’s request of April 29, 2011, for recalculation of assistance available under section 404 of the Stafford Act within 30 days of the 

date of enactment of this act. 

The Committee recognizes that mitigation projects, particularly 

those related to home buyouts, are often complex and involve many 

layers of government and their governing laws and practices. Nonetheless, the Committee is frustrated with the extraordinary length 

of time it sometimes takes to make a final decision on allowable 
138 

mitigation projects, which causes a delay in important mitigation 

work. This is particularly egregious in regard to homeowners who 

may find themselves without a decision on the purchase of a flooded home under the program even 3 years or more after a flood. 

FEMA is directed to report to the Committee no later than 60 days 

after the date of enactment of this act on methods to expedite decisionmaking regarding mitigation projects among all levels of government, including revisions to FEMA practices and guidance that 

may be issued to State and local governments. 

The Committee urges the Administrator to reimburse verifiable 

costs incurred for mitigation work performed by homeowners under 

section 404 of the Stafford Act, including costs incurred by homeowners that did not receive timely and accurate information regarding reasonable cost guidelines for otherwise eligible mitigation 

work that exceeds amounts specified in the prevailing Unit Cost 

Guidance. 

DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $294,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 295,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 296,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 295,000 

Disaster assistance loans authorized by the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5162) are 

loans to States for the non-Federal portion of cost sharing funds, 

and community disaster loans to local governments incurring a 

substantial loss of tax and other revenues as a result of a major 

disaster. The funds requested for this program include direct loans 

and a subsidy based on criteria including loan amount and interest 

charged. As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 

U.S.C. 661 et seq.), this account records, for this program, the subsidy costs associated with the direct loans obligated in 1992 and beyond (including modifications of direct loans), as well as administrative expenses of the program. The subsidy amounts are estimated on a present value basis; the administrative expenses are estimated on a cash basis. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $295,000, as proposed in the budget, 

in subsidy costs for disaster assistance direct loans. 

Bill language is included directing the gross obligations for the 

principal amount of direct loans to not exceed $25,000,000. 

FLOOD HAZARD MAPPING AND RISK ANALYSIS 1

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $181,636,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 102,712,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 102,712,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 92,712,000 

1Formerly called the Flood Map Modernization Fund. 

This appropriation supports the functions necessary to develop, 

and keep current, flood risk information and flood maps. The flood 

maps are used to determine appropriate risk-based premium rates 

for the National Flood Insurance Program, to complete flood hazard 

determinations required of the Nation’s lending institutions, and to 
139 

develop appropriate disaster response plans for Federal, State, and 

local emergency management personnel. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $92,712,000 for Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis, $10,000,000 below the budget request and 

$88,924,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level. 

Updating our Nation’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps and certifying 

the safety of our levees is an important task, and the Committee 

supports efforts to provide better information to residents about 

flood risk in their communities. The Committee urges FEMA to 

continue to work with the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

[USACE] to ensure the accuracy of the maps, coordinate outreach 

to local stakeholders throughout this process, and better coordinate 

answers to questions about flood mapping, flood insurance, and 

flood control infrastructure projects. In a recent report (GAO–11– 

689R) GAO found that FEMA and USACE have indicated that they 

do not have the information system capability to fully complete the 

reporting requirements included in Senate Report 111–118 accompanying the fiscal year 2010 Supplemental Disaster Relief and 

Summer Jobs Act, including providing GAO with the relevant information needed to review the agencies timely response to communities involving water control infrastructure. In the report, GAO 

recommends alternatives to ensure FEMA fulfills the reporting requirement without incurring the purported expenses claimed by 

the agencies. FEMA, in conjunction with the Corps, is directed to 

brief the Committee within 30 days of the date of enactment of this 

act on the alternatives that are most feasible to ensure completion 

of the report and to provide the report to the Committee and to the 

GAO within 90 days. 

The Committee is pleased that FEMA has offered communities 

the option to request review of pending flood maps by Scientific 

Resolution Panels comprised of independent experts and encourages the continuation of this adjudicative option. The Committee 

also commends FEMA for improving the accuracy of its flood risk 

analysis by modifying mapping procedures to account for all levees 

within a community, including those which offer varying degrees of 

protection, on newly developed Flood Insurance Risk Maps. 

FEMA is directed to convene a joint task force with USACE to 

better align NFIP levee accreditation requirements with levee inspections performed by or for USACE such that information and 

data collected for either purpose can be used interchangeably to the 

maximum extent practicable toward satisfying levee accreditation 

requirements. FEMA shall provide a report to the Committee on 

the progress of this task force within 6 months after the date of enactment of this act. 

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

Appropriations, 2011 1 ........................................................................... ($169,000,000) 

Budget estimate, 2012 1 ......................................................................... (171,000,000) 

House allowance 1 .................................................................................. (171,000,000) 

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... (171,000,000) 

1Fully offset by fee collections. 
140 

The National Flood Insurance Fund is a fee-generated fund 

which provides funding for the National Flood Insurance Program. 

This program enables property owners to purchase flood insurance 

otherwise unavailable in the commercial market. The National 

Flood Insurance Act of 1968 authorizes the Federal Government to 

provide flood insurance on a national basis. This insurance is available to communities which enact and enforce appropriate floodplain 

management measures and covers virtually all types of buildings 

and their contents up to $350,000 for residential types and 

$1,000,000 for all other types. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $171,000,000, as proposed in the 

budget, for the National Flood Insurance Fund, of which 

$40,000,000 is for expenses under section 1366 of the National 

Flood Insurance Act (42 U.S.C. 4104c) to provide assistance planning to States and communities for implementing floodplain management measures to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of 

flood damage to buildings and other structures eligible for insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program. 

The Committee does not recommend elimination of funding for 

the Severe Repetitive Loss Program, as proposed in the budget. Instead, FEMA is directed to streamline the process and eligibility 

requirements for the program to ensure its most effective use to 

prevent loss of property and save disaster relief resources. FEMA 

is directed to brief the Committee on the implementation of the improved process within 60 days after the date of enactment of this 

act. 

NATIONAL PREDISASTER MITIGATION FUND

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $49,900,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 84,937,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 40,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 42,500,000 

The National Predisaster Mitigation [PDM] Fund provides grants 

to States, communities, territories, and Indian tribal governments 

for hazard mitigation planning and implementing mitigation 

projects prior to a disaster event. PDM grants are awarded on a 

competitive basis. This program operates independent of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, funded through the Disaster Relief 

Fund, which provides grants to a State in which a disaster has 

been declared. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $42,500,000 for PDM, $42,437,000 

below the request and $7,400,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level. 

The Committee continues to support predisaster mitigation, and 

recognizes the importance of coordinating predisaster mitigation 

projects with projects being completed through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. 

The Committee recommendation includes language in the bill 

that provides that up to $3,000,000 of the funds may be made 

available for administrative purposes. 
141 

EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $119,760,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 100,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 120,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 120,000,000 

This appropriation funds grants to nonprofit and faith-based organizations at the local level to supplement their programs for 

emergency food and shelter to provide for the immediate needs of 

the homeless. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $120,000,000 for Emergency Food 

and Shelter, which is $20,000,000 above the budget request level 

and $240,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level. The Committee continues to support the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, and 

recognizes it as one program, in conjunction with other Federal 

programs, that serves those in immediate need of food and shelter 

assistance. 
(142) 

TITLE IV 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES 

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $146,300,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 369,477,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 132,361,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 120,924,000 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS] 

funds expenses necessary for the administration of laws and the 

provision of services related to people seeking to enter, reside, 

work, and naturalize in the United States. In addition to directly 

appropriated resources, fee collections are available for the operations of USCIS. 

Immigration Examinations Fees.—USCIS collects fees from persons applying for immigration benefits to support the adjudication 

of applications, as authorized by the Immigration and Nationality 

Act (8 U.S.C. 1356). 

H1–B and L Fraud Prevention and Detection Fees.—USCIS collects fees from petitioners seeking a beneficiary’s initial grant of 

H1–B or L nonimmigrant classification or those petitioners seeking 

to change a beneficiary’s employer within those classifications 

(Public Law 108–447). 

H1–B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Fees.—USCIS collects fees from 

petitioners using the H1–B program (Public Law 108–447). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends total resources of $2,891,650,000, 

including direct appropriations of $120,924,000 and estimated fee 

collections of $2,770,726,000. 

The Committee recommends no funding for the acquisition workforce initiative, instead of $1,467,000 as requested in the budget. 

However, the Committee encourages USCIS to use existing appropriations and fee authority to hire and train qualified procurement 

personnel. 

E-VERIFY

The Committee recommends $102,424,000 for the E-verify program, as requested. The Committee supports E-Verify and the effort the Department is performing to improve E-Verify’s ability to 

automatically verify those who are work authorized, detect identity 

fraud, and detect system misuse and discrimination. E-Verify is 

both a tool for employers committed to maintaining a legal workforce and a deterrent to illegal immigration. The Committee notes 

progress continues to be made on reducing the mismatch rate. 
143 

The growth in E-Verify use by employers has significantly increased from fewer than 25,000 employers in fiscal year 2007 to 

more than 250,000 employers in fiscal year 2011. The May 26, 

2011, Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of 

States’ mandating use of E-Verify likely will result in continued 

use of this system in maintaining a legal workforce. The Committee directs the Director of USCIS to provide a report not later 

than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act identifying the 

costs of expanding the use of E-Verify. 

The Committee urges USCIS to continue to work to enhance the 

system to further improve performance, to continue its public outreach and education campaign, and to perform a new, independent 

evaluation of the system during the first quarter of fiscal year 

2012. The Committee further expects USCIS to commit additional 

resources to compliance enforcement. 

ASYLUM AND REFUGEE FEES

The budget proposes $203,400,000 in direct appropriations to 

cover the costs associated with processing asylum and refugee applications. The Committee notes that section 286(m) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(m)) provides the Department with broad discretion on how fees collected may be used. 

Specifically, it states that immigration examination fees ‘‘may be 

set at a level that will ensure recovery of the full costs of providing 

all such services, including the costs of similar services provided 

without charge to asylum applicants or other immigrants. Such 

fees may also be set at a level that will recover any additional costs 

associated with the administration of the fees collected.’’ 

The Committee recommends no appropriated funds for asylum 

and refugee services or the systematic alien verification for entitlements program. The Committee notes that Congress is unable to 

use appropriated dollars to fund these programs in this time of reduced appropriations and a need to prioritize limited discretionary 

dollars. The Committee expects USCIS to immediately revise its 

fee schedule to accommodate the costs of these programs—as was 

done for approximately 20 years until November 23, 2010. The 

Committee urges USCIS to further revise its fees in recognition of 

the reality that no additional appropriations will be available to 

cover the costs of these activities. The Committee further directs 

the Department to submit a reprogramming within 30 days after 

the date of enactment of this act, to reflect the continuation of 

these activities as fee-funded. The Committee notes that funding 

for military naturalization activities has been requested in the Department of Defense [DOD] budget and expects that any issues related to Department of Defense authority to pay for such activities 

will be resolved in the authorization process. No funding is provided to USCIS for this purpose. The Committee also notes that approximately $91,000,000 in the H and L Fund for fraud investigations was carried over into fiscal year 2011 and are available to be 

used for these and other purposes. 

To the extent required, the Committee urges USCIS and DOD to 

enter into a memorandum of understanding that all future costs of 

military naturalizations will be borne by DOD. 
144 

IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION

The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for immigrant integration grants, $3,000,000 below the level provided in fiscal year 2011 

and $11,749,000 below the level requested in the budget. The Committee believes it is important to assist individuals following the 

law and working to become citizens. However, the Committee directs that no appropriations be used to operate the Office of Citizenship Services and that its operation continue to be fee-funded. 

Additionally, the Committee is concerned that costs to administer 

the grant program currently may exceed 11 percent of the grant 

award total and directs that no more than 5 percent of the appropriated grant funds be used to administer the program in fiscal 

year 2012. 

DATA CENTER MIGRATION

The Committee recommends $10,500,000, for data center migration activities, a reduction of $2,000,000 below the request. 

NATURALIZATION CEREMONIES

The Committee encourages USCIS to work with local public and 

private groups to schedule naturalization and oath of allegiance 

ceremonies as part of Flag Day, Independence Day, and Constitution Day celebrations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table, which includes appropriations and estimated 

fee collections, summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as 

compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES—PROGRAM SUMMARY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Appropriations: 

E-Verify .................................................................................. 103,193 102,424 102,424 

Data Center consolidation .................................................... 2,157 12,500 10,500 

Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements [SAVE] ......... ............................ 29,937 ............................

Immigrant Integration Programs .......................................... 11,000 19,749 8,000 

REAL ID Act implementation ................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Asylum and refugee services ................................................ 29,950 203,400 ............................

Acquisition workforce ............................................................ ............................ 1,467 ............................

Total, Appropriations ........................................................ 146,300 369,477 120,924 

Fee collections: 

Adjudication services (fee account): 

District operations ....................................................... 1,169,135 1,157,137 1,157,137 

Service Center operations ............................................ 508,281 519,518 519,518 

Asylum, Refugee and international operations ........... 62,630 88,364 291,764 

Records operations ...................................................... 102,471 103,902 103,902 

Business transformation .............................................. 164,025 234,400 234,400 

Subtotal, Adjudication services ............................... 2,006,542 2,103,321 2,306,721 

Information and customer services (fee account): Information and customer services .............................................. 83,501 85,773 85,773 
145 

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES—PROGRAM SUMMARY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Administration (fee account): 

Administration .............................................................. 336,514 348,295 348,295 

SAVE, (fee account) .............................................................. ............................ ............................ 29,937 

Total, fee collections ........................................................ 2,426,557 2,537,389 2,770,726 

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 1 ........................................................................... $235,447,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 2 ......................................................................... 238,957,000 

House allowance 2 .................................................................................. 238,957,000 

Committee recommendation 2 ............................................................... 238,957,000 

1 Includes $1,306,000 for Federal Law Enforcement Accreditation. 

2 Includes $1,304,000 for Federal Law Enforcement Accreditation. 

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Salaries and Expenses appropriation provides funds for basic and some advanced 

training to Federal law enforcement personnel from more than 80 

agencies. This account also allows for research of new training 

methodologies; provides for training to certain State, local, and foreign law enforcement personnel on a space-available basis; and accreditation of Federal law enforcement training programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $238,957,000 for salaries and expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center [FLETC] 

for fiscal year 2012. Within the funds provided is $29,716,000 for 

Management and Administration and $1,304,000 for the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Accreditation Board. 

The Committee includes bill language requiring the Director of 

FLETC to ensure all training centers are operated at the highest 

capacity feasible throughout the fiscal year. The Committee also 

expects the Director to maintain training at or near capacity before 

entering into new leases with private contractors or establishing 

new partner organizations. 

INTEGRITY TRAINING

The Federal Government has experienced a significant increase 

in law enforcement officer hiring in the years since the tragic attacks on September 11, 2001. The Committee believes it is critical 

that all Federal law enforcement personnel, especially new hires, 

receive comprehensive training in ethics and public integrity. The 

Committee notes that Federal law enforcement personnel receive 

ethics training as part of their basic training at FLETC and expects that all newly hired Federal law enforcement officers will receive such training wherever they are trained. 
146 

ACCREDITATION

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation [FLETA] 

process sets the standards for Federal law enforcement training. 

The accreditation of a Federal law enforcement academy or program provides assurance that the academy voluntarily submitted 

to a process of self-regulation; and, that they have successfully 

achieved compliance with a set of standards that have been collectively established by their peers within their professional community that demonstrate adherence to quality, effectiveness, and integrity. The focus of the effort is to accredit Federal academies; 

entry-level and advanced or specialized training programs; instructor training; and other programs that affect multiple Federal, 

State, and local law enforcement officers. The Committee recommends $1,304,000 for the FLETA Board. FLETA should lead the 

Federal law enforcement training accreditation process to continue 

the implementation of measuring and assessing the quality and effectiveness of Federal law enforcement training programs, facilities, and instructors. 

ACQUISITIONS, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED

EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $35,385,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 37,456,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 35,456,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 33,456,000 

This account provides for the acquisition and related costs for expansion and maintenance of facilities of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center [FLETC]. This includes construction and 

maintenance of facilities and environmental compliance. The environmental compliance funds ensure compliance with Environmental Protection Agency and State environmental laws and regulations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $33,456,000, $4,000,000 below the 

President’s request and $1,929,000 below the fiscal year 2011 

amount, for acquisition, construction, improvements, and related 

expenses for expansion and maintenance of FLETC facilities requested in the budget. 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

SUMMARY

The mission of Science and Technology [S&T] is to conduct, stimulate, and enable homeland security research, development, testing, and to facilitate the timely transition of capabilities to Federal, 

State, local, and tribal end-users. 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $140,918,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 149,365,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 140,565,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 143,000,000 
147 

The Management and Administration account funds salaries and 

expenses related to the Office of the Under Secretary for Science 

and Technology, and headquarters. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $143,000,000 for management and 

administration of programs and activities carried out by S&T. Of 

this amount, the Committee recommends not to exceed $10,000 for 

official reception and representation expenses. 

The recommended amount is $6,365,000 below the budget request and $2,082,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level. The recommendation does not include funding for data center migration, 

however the Department is encouraged to resubmit the request 

with the fiscal year 2013 budget. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $686,659,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,027,067,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 398,213,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 657,000,000 

Science and Technology [S&T] supports the mission of DHS 

through basic and applied research, fabrication of prototypes, research and development to mitigate the effects of weapons of mass 

destruction, as well as acquiring and field testing equipment. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $657,000,000, for research, development, acquisition, and operations of S&T. The recommended 

amount is $370,067,000 below the request and $29,659,000 below 

the fiscal year 2011 level. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 enacted Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee recommendations 

Borders and Maritime Security .................................................... 32,167 .............................. ............................

Chemical and Biological .............................................................. 166,577 .............................. ............................

Command, Control, and Interoperability ..................................... 68,593 .............................. ............................

Explosives ..................................................................................... 111,813 .............................. ............................

Human Factors ............................................................................. 11,458 .............................. ............................

Infrastructure and Geophysical ................................................... 25,056 .............................. ............................

Innovation .................................................................................... 31,330 .............................. ............................

Test and Evaluation, Standards .................................................. 18,130 .............................. ............................

Transition ..................................................................................... 41,645 .............................. ............................

Research, Development, and Innovation ..................................... ............................ 659,850 439,783 

RD&I: Apex R&D ........................................................................... ............................ [17,900 ] ............................

RD&I: Border Security .................................................................. ............................ [42,965 ] ............................

RD&I: Chem/Bio/Radiological/Nuclear/Explosives Defense .......... ............................ [342,462 ] ............................

RD&I: Counter Terrorist R&D ....................................................... ............................ [26,707 ] ............................

RD&I: Cyber Security .................................................................... ............................ [64,102 ] ............................

RD&I: Disaster Resilience ............................................................ ............................ [165,714 ] ............................

Acquisition and Operations Support ............................................ ............................ 54,154 54,154 

Laboratory Facilities (operations and construction) .................... 140,000 276,500 126,500 

University Programs ..................................................................... 39,890 36,563 36,563 
148 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS— 

Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Total, Research, Development, Acquisition and Operations ......................................................................... 686,659 1,027,067 657,000 

BUDGET STRUCTURE

The President’s request includes a new budget account structure 

for the Research, Development, Acquisition and Operations appropriation. This new structure proposes to reorganize 12 PPAs focused on various research areas into four new PPAs and moves the 

vast majority of S&T’s research programs into one PPA called ‘‘Research, Development, and Innovation [RD&I]’’. The Committee does 

not support the consolidation of all research areas into one account, 

as it reduces transparency and accountability of S&T’s primary research funding. Therefore, the Committee slightly modifies the requested budget structure by including the six research areas identified in the budget request as PPAs under RD&I: Apex Research 

and Development [R&D]; Border Security; Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives Defense; Counter Terrorist 

R&D; Cyber Security; and Disaster Resilience. Due to the reduction 

below the request, the recommendation does not allocate resources 

between the RD&I PPAs. However, S&T is to provide a PPA distribution to the Committee for RD&I no later than 30 days after 

the date of enactment of this act. 

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

S&T is directed to continue to provide the following: 

—quarterly briefings to the Committee on the test and evaluation status of all level 1 acquisitions; 

—a report on results of its research and development for the 

prior fiscal year; and 

—a report on the amounts de-obligated from projects during the 

prior fiscal year and what projects those funds were subsequently obligated to. 

The reports listed above are to be submitted in conjunction with 

the fiscal year 2013 President’s budget request. Further, the report 

on the results of research and development should detail all technologies, technology improvements, or capabilities delivered to 

front line users, and if the technology or capability was the result 

of a project reviewed and prioritized by the Integrated Product 

Team process. 

The Committee is aware of several S&T efforts underway to ensure that technology solutions being developed have realistic objectives, support the Department’s missions, and can be transitioned 

to the end user for operational use. No later than 120 days after 

the enactment of this act, S&T is to brief the Committee on its 

progress in implementing its new strategic initiatives, including: 

—transition to use (moving new technologies from concept to 

practical application); 

—improving private sector partnerships; 
149 

—technology foraging; 

—acquisition support for DHS components; 

—support of the First Responder Community; and 

—addressing high-priority ‘‘urgent’’ problems identified by component heads—known as Apex R&D Projects. 

APEX R&D

The Committee notes that S&T is embarking on a new program 

called Apex, which is focused on high-priority and high-value 

projects needed in a short turn-around for DHS components. Unlike other S&T research initiatives, Apex projects are collaborative 

efforts between DHS component heads and the Under Secretary of 

S&T. In fiscal year 2012, S&T plans to focus its Apex funding on 

the Secret Service to provide technology solutions for its protective 

mission. S&T began an operational analysis of the Service’s protective mission technology in fiscal year 2011, which will form the 

basis of the Apex program’s focus in fiscal year 2012. The Committee is supportive of the Apex concept, especially since it is focused on expediting technology solutions to the field. S&T and the 

Secret Service are to brief the Committee no later than 60 days 

after the date of enactment of this act and periodically thereafter 

on progress made to field improved technologies for the Service’s 

protective mission, including a schedule for evaluation and testing 

of technical solutions in relevant operational environments. 

DISASTER RESILIENCE

The Committee notes that, within the last decade, record-breaking hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods have devastated the Southeast Region of the United States. These events have cost our Nation thousands of lives and billions of dollars. This region also has 

the potential for a significant earthquake. Therefore, the Committee encourages S&T to continue competitively awarded work 

with appropriate universities and existing Federal research centers 

to address these unique challenges. 

CYBERSECURITY

The Committee believes that sophisticated cyber attacks, such as 

those launched against Estonia, Georgia, and elsewhere around the 

world, could have devastating consequences if such attacks targeted America’s economic power. Disrupting U.S. financial services 

could result in a renewed global economic downturn based on perceived insecurities in the electronic infrastructure relied upon for 

market transactions. Within the amount provided for RD&I, the 

Committee encourages S&T to robustly fund cyber security research and development, including programs that will assist the 

U.S. financial industry in preparing for and defending against 

cyber attacks. 

FIRST RESPONDER COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT STANDARDS

S&T, in conjunction with the Director of the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology, shall continue assessing the compliance of first responder communication equipment with common 
150 

standards for digital public safety radio communications (Project 25 

standards). 

TEST AND EVALUATION [T&E]

Within the amount provided for ‘‘Acquisition, Operations and 

Support’’, no less than $6,641,000 shall be for S&T to establish 

policies and procedures for and coordinate and monitor the T&E activities across the DHS acquisition framework. Testing and evaluation of new technologies prior to their acquisition and deployment 

will, in the long-run, save money through the prevention of wasteful spending. 

LABORATORY FACILITIES

The Committee recommendation includes $126,500,000 for Laboratory Facilities, $150,000,000 below the amount requested and 

$13,500,000 below fiscal year 2011. The recommendation includes 

$108,300,000 for laboratory operations and $18,200,000 for infrastructure improvements at the Transportation Security Laboratory, 

as requested. 

The recommendation does not include $150,000,000 in construction costs for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility [NBAF]. 

The Committee recognizes the need for a next-generation biological 

and agricultural defense facility to protect the country’s agriculture 

and public health. As mandated by Public Law 112–10, the Department is in the process of updating its Site Specific Risk Assessment 

[SSRA] for the NBAF site, which will be reviewed by NAS. The Department estimates completion of the SSRA by January 2012 and 

completion of the NAS evaluation by June 2012. Until these important assessments are completed, it is pre-mature to recommend 

construction funding for this project. The Committee is also concerned that the $150,000,000 is not a useable construction segment 

for the NBAF project. The Committee directs S&T to provide an 

updated cost schedule coupled with useable and realistic funding 

segments no later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 

act. 

RADIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR

The Committee recommendation approves the transfer of the Radiological and Nuclear research program from the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. The amount dedicated to this program shall 

be determined by S&T and submitted with it’s RD&I PPA allocation to the Committee. The Committee strongly endorses the consolidation of this research into S&T, and directs S&T to conduct an 

independent review of all of the current research projects within 

this area and the state of technology development across the private sector before determining the research priorities for fiscal year 

2012. 

UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS

The Committee recommendation includes $36,563,000 for University Programs, as requested. 
151 

DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE

SUMMARY

The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office [DNDO] is responsible for 

development of technologies to detect and report attempts to import, possess, store, develop, or transport nuclear and radiological 

material. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $268,000,000 for activities of DNDO 

for fiscal year 2012. The recommendation is a decrease of 

$73,744,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level and a decrease of 

$63,739,000 below the level proposed in the budget request. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 enacted Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee recommendations 

Management and Administration .................................................. 36,918 41,120 37,000 

Research, Development, and Operations ....................................... 274,886 206,258 191,000 

Systems Acquisition ....................................................................... 29,940 84,361 40,000 

Total, Domestic Nuclear Detection Office ........................ 341,744 331,739 268,000 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $36,918,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 41,120,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 40,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 37,000,000 

The Management and Administration account funds salaries, 

benefits, and expenses for DNDO. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommendation includes $37,000,000 for Management and Administration. The recommendation is an increase 

of $82,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level and $4,120,000 below 

the level proposed in the budget request. Of this amount the Committee recommends not to exceed $3,000 for official reception and 

representation expenses. 

STRATEGIC PLAN OF INVESTMENTS

The Committee includes bill language requiring DNDO to establish a strategic plan of investments necessary to implement the Department’s responsibilities under the domestic component of the 

global nuclear detection architecture. The plan is to: 

—identify the various elements of the domestic architecture, the 

roles and responsibilities of each Departmental entity; 

—investments being made in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 to secure pathways into the United States (sea, land, and air); 
152 

—investments necessary to close known vulnerabilities and gaps, 

including associated costs and timeframes, and estimates of 

feasibility and cost effectiveness; and 

— how R&D funding is furthering the implementation of the domestic architecture. 

While the strategic plan of investments is to cover the Department’s implementation responsibilities, it shall include a section on 

DNDO’s focus on surge capabilities and the ability of Federal, 

State, and local level assets to be mobilized together to respond to 

suspected radiological threats. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $274,886,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 206,258,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 245,194,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 191,000,000 

The Research, Development and Operations account funds the 

development of nuclear detection systems and the integration and 

advancement of national nuclear forensics capabilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommendation includes $191,000,000 for Research, Development and Operations. The recommendation is a decrease of $83,866,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level and 

$15,258,000 below the level proposed in the budget request. The 

recommendation includes the transfer of the transformational research and development program to the Science and Technology Directorate. 

Even with the transfer of long-term Radiological and Nuclear 

R&D to the Science and Technology Directorate, the Committee 

notes that the request for DNDO includes $104,256,000 in other 

R&D activities in fiscal year 2012. Given the constrained fiscal environment, the Committee directs the Department to evaluate 

whether it would be appropriate to consolidate DNDO’s ‘‘Systems 

Development’’ and ‘‘Test and Evaluation Infrastructure and Operations’’ activities within the Science and Technology Directorate, 

the primary DHS research component. The Committee sees potential savings and efficiencies through the elimination of unnecessary 

overhead and consolidation of redundant programs that may exist 

between the two organizations. In addition, the evaluation should 

consider providing the acquisition dollars both for radiation portal 

monitors and human portable radiation detection systems directly 

to the operational components that operate them. DNDO’s primary 

DHS customers (U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Coast Guard, 

and Transportation Security Administration) have well established 

and mature acquisition programs. It makes little sense to have another acquisition structure requiring administrative overhead simply to segregate the procurement of radiation detection equipment 

from all other acquisitions. The results of this evaluation shall be 

provided to the Committee no later than 120 days after the date 

of enactment of this act. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 
153 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND OPERATIONS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Systems Engineering and Architecture .......................................... 33,195 31,858 31,230 

Systems Development .................................................................... 52,851 69,689 60,000 

Transformational Research and Development ............................... 96,326 ............................ ............................

Assessments .................................................................................. 38,139 43,104 40,000 

Operations Support ........................................................................ 32,756 36,837 35,000 

National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center ................................ 21,619 24,770 24,770 

Total, Research, Development, and Operations ............... 274,886 206,258 191,000 

QUARTERLY BRIEFINGS

The Committee believes DNDO must aggressively pursue its preventive radiation/nuclear detection mission, and go beyond addressing the potential threat posed by the use of cargo containers to 

transport nuclear or radioactive materials or weapons. It is critical 

that DNDO prioritize its efforts based on risk and with attention 

to pathways such as general aviation, the maritime domain, land 

border threats, including rail, and in areas between ports of entry, 

and in urban areas and critical locations in the Nation’s interior. 

The Committee is aware of several ongoing DNDO studies to determine vulnerabilities and mitigation solutions in these areas and 

therefore directs DNDO to continue quarterly briefings on progress 

in developing technological solutions; the status of such technologies, including their strengths and weaknesses; and timetables 

to develop and deploy them. Specific programs to be covered include the State and Local Rad/Nuc challenge, human portable tripwire program, cargo imaging for shielded nuclear threats, longrange radiation detection, rail cargo scanning for international rail, 

small vessel standoff detection program, and air cargo scanning. 

The briefings shall include results from test and evaluation assessments, where applicable. 

The Committee also directs DNDO to continue quarterly briefings on developments of red team exercises and assessments and 

progress in developing alternatives to existing detection materials 

and systems, in particular progress in finding alternatives to neutron detectors based on Helium-3. 

TEST AND EVALUATION

The Committee applauds DNDO’s objective to minimize internal 

‘‘end-to-end’’ development efforts and rely more heavily on the private sector to develop new technologies and improve existing systems. However, to successfully carry out this new focus, a strong 

test and evaluation process is necessary to ensure external solutions meet Federal standards. Thorough testing and evaluation of 

new technologies prior to their acquisition and deployment is also 

essential to prevent wasteful and unnecessary spending. Therefore, 

the Committee fully funds the request for Test and Evaluation Infrastructure and Operations. 

The Committee encourages DNDO to test new radiation detection technologies that the commercial sector may offer, such as 
154 

those that have the potential to detect shielded and unshielded nuclear materials like advanced radiography and muon tomography. 

SYSTEMS ACQUISITION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $29,940,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 84,361,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 52,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,000,000 

The Systems Acquisition account funds the acquisition of equipment for front line users across the Department. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommendation includes $40,000,000 for Systems Acquisition. The recommendation is an increase of 

$10,060,000 above the fiscal year 2011 level and a decrease of 

$44,361,000 below the level proposed in the budget request. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations as compared to the fiscal year 2011 and budget request levels: 

SYSTEMS ACQUISITION 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2011 enacted Fiscal year 2012 

budget request 

Committee recommendations 

Radiation Portal Monitor Program ................................................. ............................ 37,361 8,000 

Securing the Cities ........................................................................ 19,940 27,000 22,000 

Human Portable Radiation Detection Devices ............................... 10,000 20,000 10,000 

Total, Systems Acquisition ............................................... 29,940 84,361 40,000 

RADIATION PORTAL MONITORS

The Committee recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the Radiation Portal Monitor [RPM] program instead of the $37,361,000 

requested. The request to procure and deploy 44 Advanced 

Spectroscopic Portal [ASP] monitors is denied given that the Secretary has suspended all further development on ASP. The 

$8,000,000 is for DNDO to purchase and deploy legacy RPMs to address gaps in coverage at our seaports, land ports, airports, and 

rail entrances. 

SECURING THE CITIES

The Committee recommendation includes $22,000,000 for Securing the Cities [STC] instead of $27,000,000, as requested. Of this 

amount, $20,000,000 is to continue efforts in New York City, as requested and $2,000,000 to initiate the establishment of a STC program in another major U.S. city. Prior to obligating funds for a new 

STC and no later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 

act, the Committee directs DNDO to report on its efforts to implement the recommendations made in the ‘‘External Strategic Assessment’’ of the STC program. This report shall specify DNDO’s efforts 

to: establish a detailed cost analysis to understand life cycle costs; 

a Federal exit strategy and transition plan; and performance measures to judge the success of the program. 
155 

HUMAN PORTABLE RADIATION DETECTION SYSTEMS

The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for the 

Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems program, the same 

level funded in fiscal year 2011. 

ADVANCED SPECTROSCOPIC PORTAL MONITORS CERTIFICATION

Bill language is included prohibiting the Department from fullscale procurement of ASP monitors until the Secretary submits a 

report to the Committees on Appropriations certifying that a significant increase in operational effectiveness will be achieved. In 

addition, separate and distinct certifications shall be submitted by 

the Secretary prior to the procurement of ASPs for primary and 

secondary deployment that address the requirements for operational effectiveness of each type of deployment. Finally, DNDO is 

prohibited from engaging in high-risk concurrent development and 

production of mutually dependent software and hardware components of detection systems. 
(156) 

TITLE V 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)

Section 501. The bill includes a provision that no part of any appropriation shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 

fiscal year unless expressly provided. 

Section 502. The bill includes a provision that unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged with new appropriations accounts and used for the same purpose, subject to reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 503. The bill includes a provision that provides authority 

to reprogram appropriations within an account and to transfer up 

to 5 percent between appropriations accounts with 15-day advance 

notification of the Committees on Appropriations. A detailed funding table identifying each congressional control level for reprogramming purposes is included at the end of this statement. These reprogramming guidelines shall be complied with by all departmental 

components funded by this act. 

The Committee expects the Department to submit reprogramming requests on a timely basis, and to 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 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) levels 

for the current fiscal year and to the levels required for the following fiscal year. The Committee continues to be disappointed by 

the quality, level of detail, and timeliness of the Department’s proposed reprogrammings. 

The Committee expects the Department to manage its programs 

and activities within the levels appropriated. The Committee reminds the Department that reprogramming or transfer requests 

should be submitted only 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 unapproved. 

The Department shall not propose a reprogramming or transfer 

of funds after June 30 unless there are extraordinary cir-
157 

cumstances, which place human lives or property in imminent danger. 

Section 504. The bill includes a provision relating to the Department’s Working Capital Fund [WCF] that: extends the authority of 

the Department’s WCF in fiscal year 2012; prohibits funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department from being 

used to make payments to the WCF, except for the activities and 

amounts allowed in the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget; makes 

funds available for the WCF available until expended; ensures departmental components are only charged for direct usage of each 

WCF service; makes funds provided to the WCF available only for 

purposes consistent with the contributing component; requires the 

WCF to be paid in advance or reimbursed at rates which will return the full cost of each service; and subjects the WCF to the requirements of section 503 of this act. The WCF table included in 

the Department’s congressional justification accompanying the 

President’s fiscal year 2012 budget shall serve as the control level 

for reprogramming and transfer purposes in compliance with section 503 of this act. 

Section 505. The bill includes a provision 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 reprogramming. 

Section 506. The bill includes a provision providing that funds for 

intelligence activities are specifically authorized during fiscal year 

2012 until the enactment of an act authorizing intelligence activities for fiscal year 2012. 

Section 507. The bill includes a provision requiring notification 

of the Committees 3 business days before any grant allocation, 

grant award, contract award (including Federal Acquisition Regulation-covered contracts), other transaction agreement, a task or delivery order on a DHS multiple award contract, letter of intent, or 

public announcement of the intention to make such an award totaling in excess of $1,000,000. If the Secretary determines that compliance would pose substantial risk to health, human life, or safety, 

an award may be made without prior notification but the Committees shall be notified within 5 full business days after such award 

or letter is issued. Additionally, FEMA is required to brief the 

Committees 5 full business days prior to announcing publicly the 

intention to make an award under State and Local Programs. 

Section 508. The bill includes a provision that no agency shall 

purchase, construct, or lease additional facilities for Federal law 

enforcement training without the advance approval of the Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 509. The bill includes a provision that none of the funds 

may be used for any construction, repair, alteration, or acquisition 

project for which a prospectus, if required under chapter 33 of title 

40, United States Code, has not been approved. The bill excludes 

funds that may be required for development of a proposed prospectus. 

Section 510. The bill includes a provision that consolidates, continues, and modifies by reference prior-year statutory bill language 

into one provision. These provisions concern contracting officers’ 
158 

training, Federal building energy performance, fleet and transportation efficiency, and sensitive security information protocols. 

Section 511. The bill includes a provision that none of the funds 

may be used in contravention of the Buy American Act. 

Section 512. The bill includes a provision prohibiting any person 

other than the privacy officer appointed under subsection (a) of section 222 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to alter, direct that 

changes may be made, delay, or prohibit the transmission to Congress of any report prepared under paragraph (6) of such subsection. 

Section 513. The bill includes a provision prohibiting funds to be 

used to amend the oath of allegiance required by section 337 of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1448). 

Section 514. The bill includes a provision regarding competitive 

sourcing for United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

Section 515. The bill includes 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 bill includes a provision directing that any 

funds appropriated or transferred to TSA ‘‘Aviation Security’’, ‘‘Administration’’, and ‘‘Transportation Security Support’’ in fiscal 

years 2004 and 2005, that are recovered or deobligated shall be 

available only for procurement and installation of explosives detection systems, air cargo, baggage, and checkpoint screening systems, 

subject to notification. Quarterly reports must be submitted identifying any funds that are recovered or deobligated. 

Section 517. The bill includes a provision requiring any funds appropriated to Coast Guard for 110–123 foot patrol boat conversions 

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 bill includes a provision relating to undercover 

investigative operations authority of the Secret Service. 

Section 519. The bill includes a provision classifying the functions of instructor staff at FLETC as inherently governmental for 

purposes of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998. 

Section 520. The bill includes a provision prohibiting the obligation of funds appropriated to the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, or 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 IG 

is required to review Departmental contracts awarded noncompetitively and report on the results to the Committees. 

Section 521. The bill includes a provision regarding the enforcement of section 4025(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 

Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–458; 118 Stat. 3724) regarding butane lighters. This provision is made permanent in fiscal 

year 2012. 

Section 522. The bill includes a provision prohibiting the Secretary of Homeland Security from reducing operations within the 

Coast Guard’s Civil Engineering Program except as specifically au-
159 

thorized by a statute enacted after the date of enactment of this 

act. 

Section 523. The bill includes 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 of the Department, subject to section 503 of this 

act. 

Section 524. The bill includes a provision prohibiting funding to 

grant an immigration benefit to any individual unless the results 

of background checks required by statute to be completed prior to 

the grant of benefit have been received by DHS. 

Section 525. The bill includes a provision prohibiting the 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 bill includes a provision regarding waivers of 

the Jones Act. 

Section 527. The bill includes a provision prohibiting funds from 

being used to reduce the Coast Guard’s Operations Systems Center 

mission or its Government-employed or contract staff. 

Section 528. The bill includes a provision prohibiting funds to be 

used to conduct or implement the results of a competition under 

Office of Management and Budget Circular A–76 with respect to 

the Coast Guard National Vessel Documentation Center. 

Section 529. The bill includes a provision extending other transactional authority for DHS through fiscal year 2012 and eliminates 

a GAO reporting requirement that is no longer necessary. 

Section 530. The bill includes a provision requiring the Secretary 

to link all contracts that provide award fees to successful acquisition outcomes. 

Section 531. The bill includes a provision prohibiting the obligation of funds for the Office of Secretary and Executive Management 

for any new hires that are not verified through the E-Verify Program. 

Section 532. The bill includes a provision contained in Public 

Laws 109–295, 110–161, 110–329, 111–83, and 112–10 related to 

prescription drugs. 

Section 533. The bill includes a provision requiring the Secretary 

of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of the 

Treasury, to notify the Committees on proposed transfers of surplus balances from the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture 

Fund to any agency within the Department of Homeland Security. 

The Committee notes that the Fund is comprised of assets forfeited to the Federal Government as the result of law enforcement 

investigations and operations conducted primarily by agencies of 

the Department of the Treasury and DHS. The President’s budget 

proposes to rescind/transfer $630,000,000 of the Fund and gives the 

credit to agencies under the jurisdiction of the Financial Services 

and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee. Approximately one-third of the Forfeiture Fund balance proposed for rescission is the result of DHS law enforcement activities. The Committee directs the President, if he proposes to rescind Treasury 

Forfeiture Funds in his fiscal year 2013 budget, to divide the funds 
160 

equitably between the two Departments based upon their contributions to the Fund. 

Section 534. The bill includes a provision prohibiting funds from 

being used to plan, test, pilot, or develop a national identification 

card. 

Section 535. The bill includes a provision requiring a report summarizing damage assessment information used to determine 

whether to declare a major disaster. 

Section 536. The bill includes a provision relating to the liquidation of Plum Island assets and how the proceeds from this sale may 

be applied. 

Section 537. The bill includes a provision directing that any official required by this act to report or certify to the Committees on 

Appropriations may not delegate such authority unless expressly 

authorized to do so in this act. 

Section 538. The bill includes a provision extending the riskbased security standards for chemical facilities cited in section 550 

of Public Law 109–295, as amended, for 1 year. 

Section 539. The bill includes a provision extending current law 

concerning individuals detained at the Naval Station, Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba. 

Section 540. The bill includes a permanent FLETC provision regarding the definition of the term ‘‘rural’’. 

Section 541. The bill includes a provision prohibiting funds in 

this act to be used for first-class travel. 

Section 542. The bill includes a provision prohibiting funds 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 543. The bill includes a provision prohibiting funds to be 

used to employ workers in contravention of section 274A(h)(3) of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Section 544. The bill includes language pertaining to the construction of the National Bio- and Agro-defense facility in Manhattan, Kansas. 

Section 545. A provision is included that provides an additional 

amount of $10,000,000 for the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency ‘‘State and Local Programs’’ to reimburse costs incurred by 

State and local governments affected by National Special Security 

Events, including use of services, personnel, equipment, and facilities. The Federal Emergency Management Agency shall brief the 

Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of the date of enactment of this act regarding the process to distribute this funding, 

including the application process and eligible costs. Funds shall remain available until September 30, 2013 and are not subject to any 

legislated timeframes required under ‘‘State and Local Programs’’. 

Section 546. The bill includes a provision providing some flexibility to the Department for financing a response to an immigration 

emergency. 

Section 547. The bill includes a provision permitting administrative law judges to be available temporarily to serve on an arbitration panel as needed for cases related to Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita. 
161 

Section 548. The bill includes a provision on the proper disposal 

of personal information collected through the Registered Traveler 

program. 

Section 549. The bill includes 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 550. The bill includes language that requires certification 

that the 100 percent screening of air cargo carried on passenger 

aircraft mandate contained in the 9/11 Act has been met and biannual reports on the strategy to meet this mandate if certification 

does not occur 180 days after the date of enactment of this act. 

Section 551. The bill includes language that requires the Secretary to ensure screening of passengers and crews for transportation and national security purposes are consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and guidance on privacy and civil liberties. 

Section 552. The bill includes a provision prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this act for DHS to enter 

into a Federal contract unless the contract meets requirements of 

the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 or 

Chapter 137 of title 10 U.S.C., and the Federal Acquisition Regulation, unless the contract is otherwise authorized by statute without 

regard to this section. 

Section 553. The bill includes a provision allowing the Secretary 

to transfer data center migration funds made available by this act 

between appropriations for the same purpose after notifying the 

Committees 15 days in advance. The bill provides an additional 

$15,000,000 for data center migration activities to be allocated by 

the Secretary pursuant to this section. 

Section 554. The bill includes a provision allowing the Advanced 

Training Center to charge fees in fiscal year 2012 and thereafter 

for any service or thing of value it provides to the Federal Government or non-government entities or individuals, so long as the fee 

does not exceed the full costs associated with the service or thing 

of value. Any fees that are collected are to be deposited in a separate account and used without further appropriation for necessary 

expenses of the Advanced Training Center program. 

Section 555. The bill includes a provision related to the sale of 

LORAN properties. 

Section 556. The bill includes a provision permitting the Department to sell ICE-owned detention facilities and use the proceeds 

from any sale for improvement to other facilities provided that any 

such sale will not result in the maintenance of less than 33,400 detention beds. ICE is required to notify the Committees on Appropriations 15 days prior to announcing any sale. 

Section 557. The bill includes language that provides a total of 

$55,979,000 for consolidation of the new DHS headquarters at St. 

Elizabeths and consolidation of mission support activities. Within 

60 days after the date of enactment of this act, the Secretary shall 

submit an expenditure plan to the Committee highlighting how 

these funds will be allocated. The Committee is concerned that current and projected future year funding limitations will result in the 

Coast Guard being the only departmental entity located at the con-
162 

solidated headquarters site. The Committee directs the Department 

to reexamine the planned mix of DHS offices that are to be located 

at the St. Elizabeths campus. Initial results of this analysis shall 

be presented to the Committee with the expenditure plan. Quarterly briefings on the consolidation plans, including any deviation 

from the expenditure plan, status of approvals, and project schedule should occur thereafter. 

Section 558. The bill includes language authorizing an increase 

to aviation security passenger fees for fiscal year 2012. 

Section 559. The Committee, in recognition of on-going fiscal distress in local communities, includes a provision which requires that 

Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grants shall 

be used to retain firefighters, instead of only for increasing the 

number of firefighters. The provision also prohibits funds to be 

used to enforce certain requirements of the Federal Fire Prevention 

and Control Act of 1974 related to the program. The Committee expects this provision to be applied in the same manner as similar 

provisions in Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, and the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for the fiscal 

year 2009 and 2010 program. 

Section 560. The bill includes language pertaining to spills of national significance and reimbursement for the Coast Guard. 

Section 561. The bill includes a provision to impose increased 

penalties on individuals who circumvent security screening at airports. 

Section 562. A provision is included related to recoupment of 

debts in cases where funds were distributed based on an error 

made by FEMA. 

Section 563. A provision is included regarding reimbursement by 

FEMA of Small Business Administration Loans for eligible hazard 

mitigation activity. Execution of this authority shall not result in 

an individual being reimbursed more than once for the same mitigation activity. 

Section 564. The bill includes language waiving certain requirements for the fiscal year 2011 SAFER grant program. 

Section 565. The bill includes language that makes available an 

additional $18,300,000 for Coast Guard to replace a rotary wing 

airframe. The Coast Guard has lost four helicopters to accidents 

over the past few years. This provision is designated as an emergency and is offset with unobligated emergency balances. 

Section 566. The bill includes language rescinding unobligated 

balances made available to the Department when it was created in 

2003. 

Section 567. The bill includes a $7,000,000 rescission of the unobligated, prior year balances available for U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’. 

Section 568. The bill includes a $10,000,000 rescission of the unobligated, prior year balances available for U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, ‘‘Automation Modernization’’. 

Section 569. The bill includes a provision rescinding $48,503,000 

in unobligated prior-year balances from TSA. 

Section 570. The bill includes a provision rescinding $20,000,000 

in unobligated prior-year balances available for Science and Technology, ‘‘Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations’’. 
(163) 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY 

In fiscal year 2012, for purposes of the Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177), as 

amended, the following information provides the definition of the 

term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ for the components of the Department of Homeland Security under the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. 

The term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ shall include the most 

specific level of budget items identified in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012, the House and Senate 

Committee reports, and the conference report and accompanying 

joint explanatory statement of the managers of the committee of 

conference. 

If a percentage reduction is necessary, in implementing that reduction, components of the Department of Homeland Security shall 

apply any percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2012 to all 

items specified in the justifications submitted to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives in 

support of the fiscal year 2012 budget estimates, as amended, for 

such components, as modified by congressional action. 
(164) 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports accompanying general appropriations bills identify each recommended 

amendment which proposes an item of appropriation which is not 

made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during that session. 

The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 

or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2012: 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Salaries and Expenses; Automation Modernization; Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, 

and Technology; Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement; and Construction and Facilities Management; 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Salaries and Expenses; and Automation Modernization; 

Transportation Security Administration: Aviation Security; Surface Transportation Security; Transportation Threat Assessment 

and Credentialing; Transportation Security Support; and Federal 

Air Marshals; 

Coast Guard: Operating Expenses; Environmental Compliance 

and Restoration; Reserve Training; Acquisition, Construction, and 

Improvements; Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation; and 

Retired Pay; 

United States Secret Service: Salaries and Expenses; and Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses; 

National Protection and Programs Directorate: Management and 

Administration; and U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator 

Technology; 

Office of Health Affairs; 

Federal Emergency Management Agency: Operating Expenses; 

State and Local Programs; Disaster Relief; Flood Hazard Mapping 

and Risk Analysis; Firefighter Assistance Grants; National Flood 

Insurance Fund; and Emergency Food and Shelter; 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on September 7, 2011, 

the Committee ordered reported H.R. 2017, making appropriations 

for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 2012 and for other purposes, with an amendment in 

the nature of a substitute, by a recorded vote of 00–00, a quorum 

being present. The vote was as follows: 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on September 7, 2011, 

the Committee ordered favorably reported en bloc the fiscal year 
165 

1 By unanimous consent, the Committee permitted Senator Hutchison to change her vote to 

‘‘nay’’. 

2012 budget allocation a proposed by the Chairman, and a bill 

(H.R. 2112) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other 

purposes, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute; a bill 

(H.R. 2354) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

2012, and for other purposes, with an amendment in the nature of 

a substitute; and a bill (H.R. 2017) making appropriations for the 

Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, with an amendment in 

the nature of a substitute; provided, that each bill be subject to further amendment and that each bill be consistent with its spending 

allocations, by a recorded vote of 28–2, a quorum being present. 

The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Inouye Mrs. Hutchison 1

Mr. Leahy Mr. Johnson (WI) 

Mr. Harkin 

Ms. Mikulski 

Mr. Kohl 

Mrs. Murray 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Johnson (SD) 

Ms. Landrieu 

Mr. Reed 

Mr. Lautenberg 

Mr. Nelson 

Mr. Pryor 

Mr. Tester 

Mr. Brown 

Mr. Cochran 

Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Alexander 

Ms. Collins 

Ms. Murkowski 

Mr. Graham 

Mr. Kirk 

Mr. Coats 

Mr. Blunt 

Mr. Moran 

Mr. Hoeven 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on 

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part 

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof 
166 

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of 

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and 

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by 

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which 

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form 

recommended by the committee.’’ 

In compliance with this rule, the following changes in existing 

law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing 

law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is 

printed in italics; and existing law in which no change is proposed 

is shown in roman. 

TITLE 6—DOMESTIC SECURITY 

CHAPTER 1—HOMELAND SECURITY ORGANIZATION

SUBCHAPTER VIII—COORDINATION WITH NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES; 

INSPECTOR GENERAL; UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; COAST

GUARD; GENERAL PROVISIONS

PART D—ACQUISITIONS

§ 391. Research and development projects 

(a) Authority 

øUntil September 30, 2011¿ Until September 30, 2012, and 

subject to subsection (d), the Secretary may carry out a pilot program under which the Secretary may exercise the following authorities: 

* * * * * * * 

ø(b) Report 

øNot later than 2 years after the effective date of this chapter, 

and annually thereafter, the Comptroller General shall report to 

the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate 

on— 

ø(1) whether use of the authorities described in subsection 

(a) of this section attracts nontraditional Government contractors and results in the acquisition of needed technologies; and 

ø(2) if such authorities were to be made permanent, 

whether additional safeguards are needed with respect to the 

use of such authorities.¿ 

ø(c)¿ (b) Procurement of temporary and intermittent services 

The Secretary may— 

(1) procure the temporary or intermittent services of experts or consultants (or organizations thereof) in accordance 

with section 3109(b) of title 5; and 

(2) whenever necessary due to an urgent homeland security need, procure temporary (not to exceed 1 year) or intermittent personal services, including the services of experts or con-
167 

sultants (or organizations thereof), without regard to the pay 

limitations of such section 3109. 

ø(d)¿ (c) Additional requirements 

(1) In general

The authority of the Secretary under this section shall terminate øSeptember 30, 2011,¿ September 30, 2012, unless before that date the Secretary— 

(A) issues policy guidance detailing the appropriate 

use of that authority; and 

(B) provides training to each employee that is authorized to exercise that authority. 

(2) Report 

The Secretary shall provide an annual report to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives detailing the 

projects for which the authority granted by subsection (a) was 

used, the rationale for its use, the funds spent using that authority, the outcome of each project for which that authority 

was used, and the results of any audits of such projects. 

ø(e)¿ (d) Definition of nontraditional Government contractor 

In this section, the term ‘‘nontraditional Government contractor’’ has the same meaning as the term ‘‘nontraditional defense contractor’’ as defined in section 845(e) of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 

103–160; 10 U.S.C. 2371 note). 

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 

CHAPTER 46—JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT

SUBCHAPTER VII—FBI TRAINING OF STATE AND LOCAL CRIMINAL

JUSTICE PERSONNEL

§ 3771. Training and manpower development 

(a) Functions, powers, and duties of Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation 

The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to— 

* * * * * * * 

PRIOR PROVISIONS

* * * * * * * 
168 

EMPLOYMENT OF ANNUITANTS BY FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

TRAINING CENTER

Pub. L. 107–206, title I, § 1202, Aug. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 887, as 

amended by Pub. L. 109–295, title IV, Oct. 4, 2006, 120 Stat. 1374; 

Pub. L. 110–161, div. E, title IV, Dec. 26, 2007, 121 Stat. 2068; 

Pub. L. 110–329, div. D, title IV, Sept. 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 3677, 

provided that: 

‘‘(a) The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center may, for a 

period ending not later than øDecember 31, 2012¿ December 31, 

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. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION 

SUBTITLE VII—AVIATION PROGRAMS 

CHAPTER 463—PENALTIES

PART A—AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY

SUBPART IV—ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES

§ 46301. Civil penalties 

(a) GENERAL PENALTY.—(1) A person is liable to the United 

States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 (or 

$1,100 if the person is an individual or small business concern) for 

violating— 

* * * * * * * 

(5) PENALTIES APPLICABLE TO INDIVIDUALS AND SMALL BUSINESS

CONCERNS.— 

(A) An individual (except an airman serving as an airman) 

or small business concern is liable to the Government for a 

civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for violating— 

(i) chapter 401 (except sections 40103(a) and (d), 

40105, 40106(b), 40116, and 40117), section 44502 (b) or 

(c), chapter 447 (except sections 44717–44723), øor chapter 

449¿ chapter 449 (except sections 44902, 44903(d), 44904, 

and 44907–44909), or section 46314(a) of this title; or 

* * * * * * * 
169 

§ 46314. Entering aircraft or airport area in violation of security requirements 

(a) PROHIBITION.— * * * 

ø(b) CRIMINAL PENALTY.—(1) A person violating subsection (a) 

of this section shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more 

than one year, or both. 

ø(2) A person violating subsection (a) of this section with intent 

to commit, in the aircraft or airport area, a felony under a law of 

the United States or a State shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.¿ 

(b) CRIMINAL PENALTY.—A person violating subsection (a) of 

this section shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more 

than 10 years, or both. 

(c) NOTICE OF PENALTIES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Each operator of an airport in the United 

States that is required to establish an air transportation security program pursuant to section 44903(c) shall ensure that 

signs that meet such requirements as the Secretary of Homeland Security may prescribe providing notice of the penalties 

imposed under sections 46301(a)(5)(A)(i) and subsection (b) of 

this section, are displayed near all screening locations, all locations where passengers exit the sterile area, and such other locations at the airport as the Secretary of Homeland Security determines appropriate. 

(2) EFFECT OF SIGNS ON PENALTIES.—An individual shall 

be subject to the penalty provided for under section 

46301(a)(5)(A)(i) and subsection (b) of this section without regard to whether signs are displayed at an airport as required 

by paragraph (1). 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007, PUBLIC LAW 109–295 

TITLE V 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

SEC. 501. * * * 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 532. (a) UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE USE OF PROCEEDS DERIVED FROM CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.—During fiscal 

year ø2011¿ 2012 and thereafter, 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— 

* * * * * * * 

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 re-
170 

ferred to in subsection (a) and expressly supersede this section: 

Provided, That the authority provided by this section shall terminate øon October 4, 2011¿ on October 4, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010, PUBLIC LAW 111–83 

TITLE V 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS

SEC. 559. (a) Subject to subsection (b), none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be available 

to operate the Loran-C signal after January 4, 2010. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) If the certifications described in subsection (b) are made, 

the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Commandant of the Coast Guard, may, notwithstanding any other provision of ølaw, sell¿ law, hereafter sell any real and personal property under the administrative control of the Coast Guard and used 

for the Loran-C system, by directing the Administrator of General 

Services to sell such real and personal property, subject to such 

terms and conditions that the Secretary believes to be necessary to 

protect government interests and program requirements of the 

Coast Guard: Provided, That the proceeds, less the costs of sale incurred by the General Services Administration, øshall be deposited¿ shall hereafter be deposited as offsetting collections into the 

Coast Guard ‘‘Environmental Compliance and Restoration’’ account 

and, øsubject to appropriation,¿ without further appropriations, 

shall be available until expended for environmental compliance and 

restoration purposes associated with the Loran-C system, for the 

costs of securing and maintaining equipment that may be used as 

a backup to the Global Positioning System or to meet any other 

Federal navigation requirement, for the demolition of improvements on such real property, and for the costs associated with the 

sale of such real and personal property, including due diligence requirements, necessary environmental remediation, and reimbursement of expenses incurred by the General Services Administration: 

Provided further, That after the completion of such activities, the 

unexpended balances shall be available for any other environmental compliance and restoration activities of the Coast Guard. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011, PUBLIC LAW 

112–10 

DIVISION B—FULL-YEAR CONTINUING 

APPROPRIATIONS, 2011 

TITLE VI—HOMELAND SECURITY 

SEC. 1647. (a) * * * 
171 

(b) No funding øprovided in this division¿ made available in 

this or any other Act shall be used for construction of the National 

Bio- and Agro-defense Facility until the Department of Homeland 

Security has, pursuant to the schedule submitted by the Department of Homeland Security on March 31, 2011, to the Committees 

on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives— 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

in bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

in bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees of amounts in the budget resolution 

for 2012: Subcommittee on Homeland Security: 

Mandatory ............................................................................ 1,440 1,440 1,402 1 1,402 

Discretionary ........................................................................ 41,000 45,458 44,985 1 45,275 

Security ....................................................................... 41,000 45,458 NA NA 

Nonsecurity ................................................................. .................... .................... .................... ....................

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2012 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2 26,858 

2013 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 9,102 

2014 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 5,590 

2015 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2,496 

2016 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 2,307 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2012 ......................................................................................... NA 5,257 NA 251 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 

Consistent with the funding recommended in the bill for disaster funding and overseas contingency operations and in accordance with section 251(b)(2)(D) of the BBEDCA and section 106 of the Deficit Control Act of 2011, the Committee anticipates that the Budget Committee 

will file a revised section 302(a) allocation for the Committee on Appropriations reflecting an upward adjustment of $4,458,000,000 in budget 

authority plus associated outlays. 
172 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2010 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 

Departmental Operations 

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management: 

Immediate Office of the Secretary .................................................. 4,641 5,164 4,641 5,000 ∂359 ¥164 ∂359 Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary ..................................... 2,674 1,918 1,918 1,918 ¥756 ............................ ............................Office of the Chief of Staff ............................................................ 2,572 2,802 2,000 2,600 ∂28 ¥202 ∂600 Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement ......................................... 2,997 3,814 3,200 2,130 ¥867 ¥1,684 ¥1,070 Executive Secretary ......................................................................... 8,104 8,402 8,200 8,100 ¥4 ¥302 ¥100 Office of Policy ................................................................................ 41,133 42,423 34,000 40,000 ¥1,133 ¥2,423 ∂6,000 Office of Public Affairs ................................................................... 6,368 6,419 5,800 6,370 ∂2 ¥49 ∂570 Office of Legislative Affairs ............................................................ 6,698 6,341 6,000 6,340 ¥358 ¥1 ∂340 Office of Intergovernmental Affairs ................................................ 2,632 2,908 2,750 2,650 ∂18 ¥258 ¥100 Office of General Counsel ............................................................... 23,762 22,422 22,400 22,422 ¥1,340 ............................ ∂22 Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties ...................................... 20,367 24,613 21,100 23,000 ∂2,633 ¥1,613 ∂1,900 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman ...................... 6,188 6,336 6,200 6,300 ∂112 ¥36 ∂100 Privacy Officer ................................................................................. 8,408 8,971 8,491 8,603 ∂195 ¥368 ∂112 House floor amendment .................................................................. ............................ ............................ ¥64,350 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂64,350 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 136,544 142,533 62,350 135,433 ¥1,111 ¥7,100 ∂73,083 

Office of the Under Secretary for Management: 

Immediate Office of the Under Secretary for Management ........... 2,733 7,558 2,550 2,558 ¥175 ¥5,000 ∂8 Office of Security ............................................................................ 71,760 71,236 70,200 71,236 ¥524 ............................ ∂1,036 Office of the Chief Procurement Officer ......................................... 74,597 78,771 75,150 78,000 ∂3,403 ¥771 ∂2,850 Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer: 

Salaries and expenses ........................................................... 24,477 28,161 25,660 25,165 ∂688 ¥2,996 ¥495 Human resources ................................................................... 17,097 16,686 15,680 14,172 ¥2,925 ¥2,514 ¥1,508 

Subtotal ............................................................................. 41,574 44,847 41,340 39,337 ¥2,237 ¥5,510 ¥2,003 
173 

Office of the Chief Administrative Officer: 

Salaries and expenses ........................................................... 43,300 41,248 40,700 41,000 ¥2,300 ¥248 ∂300 Nebraska Avenue Complex (NAC) .......................................... 5,489 5,398 5,000 5,000 ¥489 ¥398 ............................

Subtotal ............................................................................. 48,789 46,646 45,700 46,000 ¥2,789 ¥646 ∂300 

House floor amendment ......................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥128,070 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂128,070 

Subtotal, Office of the Under Secretary for Management .............................................................................. 239,453 249,058 106,870 237,131 ¥2,322 ¥11,927 ∂130,261 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer ....................................................... 53,323 62,395 50,860 51,000 ¥2,323 ¥11,395 ∂140 Office of the Chief Information Officer: 

Salaries and expenses .................................................................... 86,738 105,578 105,500 105,578 ∂18,840 ............................ ∂78 Information technology services ..................................................... 51,314 38,800 38,800 38,800 ¥12,514 ............................ ............................Infrastructure and security activities ............................................. 147,108 89,525 73,000 79,525 ¥67,583 ¥10,000 ∂6,525 Homeland Security Data Network ................................................... 47,566 44,069 44,000 44,069 ¥3,497 ............................ ∂69 House floor amendment .................................................................. ............................ ............................ ¥139,180 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂139,180 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 332,726 277,972 122,120 267,972 ¥64,754 ¥10,000 ∂145,852 

Analysis and Operations .......................................................................... 334,360 355,368 344,368 339,368 ∂5,008 ¥16,000 ¥5,000 

Total, Departmental Operations ................................................. 1,096,406 1,087,326 686,568 1,030,904 ¥65,502 ¥56,422 ∂344,336 

Office of Inspector General 

Operating expenses .................................................................................. 113,646 144,318 124,000 125,000 ∂11,354 ¥19,318 ∂1,000 

Transfer from Disaster relief fund .................................................. (15,968 ) ............................ (16,000 ) (16,000 ) (∂32 ) (∂16,000 ) ............................

Total, Office of Inspector General .............................................. 129,614 144,318 140,000 141,000 ∂11,386 ¥3,318 ∂1,000 Total, title I, Departmental Management and Operations ......... 1,210,052 1,231,644 810,568 1,155,904 ¥54,148 ¥75,740 ∂345,336 (by transfer) ................................................................................ (15,968 ) ............................ (16,000 ) (16,000 ) (∂32 ) (∂16,000 ) ............................
174 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2010 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

TITLE II—SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Salaries and expenses: 

Headquarters, Management, and Administration: 

Management and administration, border security inspections and trade facilitation ............................................... 516,102 688,878 670,494 672,152 ∂156,050 ¥16,726 ∂1,658 Management and administration, border security and control between ports of entry ................................................ 495,862 738,462 720,009 721,736 ∂225,874 ¥16,726 ∂1,727 Rent ........................................................................................ 450,812 483,749 483,749 483,749 ∂32,937 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ............................................................................. 1,462,776 1,911,089 1,874,252 1,877,637 ∂414,861 ¥33,452 ∂3,385 

Border security inspections and trade facilitation: 

Inspections, trade, and travel facilitation at ports of 

entry ................................................................................... 2,474,344 2,507,235 2,562,235 2,567,235 ∂92,891 ∂60,000 ∂5,000 

Harbor maintenance fee collection (trust fund) .................... 3,274 3,274 3,274 3,274 ............................ ............................ ............................International cargo screening ................................................ 103,945 68,757 79,557 68,757 ¥35,188 ............................ ¥10,800 Other international programs ................................................ 11,119 10,684 10,684 10,684 ¥435 ............................ ............................Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C–TPAT) ...... 45,454 44,979 44,979 44,979 ¥475 ............................ ............................Trusted Traveler programs ..................................................... 10,751 6,311 6,311 6,311 ¥4,440 ............................ ............................Inspection and detection technology investments ................ 144,162 149,537 149,537 149,537 ∂5,375 ............................ ............................Automated targeting systems ................................................ 32,389 31,400 46,400 36,400 ∂4,011 ∂5,000 ¥10,000 National Targeting Center ...................................................... 47,347 46,950 46,950 51,950 ∂4,603 ∂5,000 ∂5,000 Training .................................................................................. 20,778 37,834 37,834 37,834 ∂17,056 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ............................................................................. 2,893,563 2,906,961 2,987,761 2,976,961 ∂83,398 ∂70,000 ¥10,800 

Border security and control between ports of entry: 

Border security and control ................................................... 3,508,244 3,530,994 3,530,994 3,530,994 ∂22,750 ............................ ............................Training .................................................................................. 36,094 88,610 88,610 88,610 ∂52,516 ............................ ............................
175 

Subtotal ............................................................................. 3,544,338 3,619,604 3,619,604 3,619,604 ∂75,266 ............................ ............................

Air and Marine Operations .............................................................. 295,521 287,901 287,901 287,901 ¥7,620 ............................ ............................

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ................................................ 8,196,198 8,725,555 8,769,518 8,762,103 ∂565,905 ∂36,548 ¥7,415 

Appropriations .................................................................... (8,192,924 ) (8,722,281 ) (8,766,244 ) (8,758,829 ) (∂565,905 ) (∂36,548 ) (¥7,415 ) Harbor maintenance trust fund ........................................ (3,274 ) (3,274 ) (3,274 ) (3,274 ) ............................ ............................ ............................

Automation modernization: 

Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data 

System ........................................................................................ 147,794 169,755 140,000 140,000 ¥7,794 ¥29,755 ............................

Current operations protection and processing support (COPPS) ... 188,108 194,275 194,275 194,275 ∂6,167 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 335,902 364,030 334,275 334,275 ¥1,627 ¥29,755 ............................

Border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology (BSFIT): 

Development and deployment ......................................................... 324,620 337,000 312,377 212,377 ¥112,243 ¥124,623 ¥100,000 Operations and maintenance .......................................................... 172,019 133,248 133,248 133,248 ¥38,771 ............................ ............................Program management ..................................................................... 76,385 57,375 54,375 54,375 ¥22,010 ¥3,000 ............................House floor amendment .................................................................. ............................ ............................ 10,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥10,000 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 573,024 527,623 510,000 400,000 ¥173,024 ¥127,623 ¥110,000 

Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement: 

Operations and maintenance .......................................................... 370,899 361,087 361,087 365,087 ¥5,812 ∂4,000 ∂4,000 Procurement .................................................................................... 144,395 109,479 138,879 141,479 ¥2,916 ∂32,000 ∂2,600 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 515,294 470,566 499,966 506,566 ¥8,728 ∂36,000 ∂6,600 

Construction and facilities management: 

Facility construction and sustainment ........................................... 223,170 226,726 180,000 185,000 ¥38,170 ¥41,726 ∂5,000 Program oversight and management ............................................. 36,310 57,096 54,096 54,096 ∂17,786 ¥3,000 ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 259,480 283,822 234,096 239,096 ¥20,384 ¥44,726 ∂5,000 Total, U.S. Customs and Border Protection direct appropriations ....................................................................................... 9,879,898 10,371,596 10,347,855 10,242,040 ∂362,142 ¥129,556 ¥105,815 

Fee accounts: 

Immigration inspection user fee ..................................................... (525,443 ) (527,629 ) (527,629 ) (527,629 ) (∂2,186 ) ............................ ............................Immigration enforcement fines ....................................................... (1,037 ) (1,041 ) (1,041 ) (1,041 ) (∂4 ) ............................ ............................ESTA ................................................................................................ ............................ (44,524 ) (44,524 ) (44,524 ) (∂44,524 ) ............................ ............................
176 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2010 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Land border inspection fee ............................................................. (28,598 ) (28,909 ) (28,909 ) (28,909 ) (∂311 ) ............................ ............................COBRA passenger inspection fee ................................................... (390,974 ) (440,521 ) (385,521 ) (385,521 ) (¥5,453 ) (¥55,000 ) ............................APHIS inspection fee ....................................................................... (318,472 ) (323,000 ) (323,000 ) (323,000 ) (∂4,528 ) ............................ ............................Global Entry user fee ...................................................................... (2,500 ) (2,615 ) (2,615 ) (2,615 ) (∂115 ) ............................ ............................Puerto Rico collections .................................................................... (89,980 ) (91,779 ) (91,779 ) (91,779 ) (∂1,799 ) ............................ ............................Small airport user fee ..................................................................... (8,164 ) (8,167 ) (8,167 ) (8,167 ) (∂3 ) ............................ ............................

Subtotal, fee accounts ............................................................... (1,365,168 ) (1,468,185 ) (1,413,185 ) (1,413,185 ) (∂48,017 ) (¥55,000 ) ............................Total, U.S. Customs and Border Protection ............................... 11,245,066 11,839,781 11,761,040 11,655,225 ∂410,159 ¥184,556 ¥105,815 

Appropriations .................................................................... (9,879,898 ) (10,371,596 ) (10,347,855 ) (10,242,040 ) (∂362,142 ) (¥129,556 ) (¥105,815 ) Fee accounts ...................................................................... (1,365,168 ) (1,468,185 ) (1,413,185 ) (1,413,185 ) (∂48,017 ) (¥55,000 ) ............................

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Salaries and expenses: 

Headquarters management and administration (non-detention 

and removal operations): 

Personnel compensation and benefits, services and other 

costs .................................................................................. 295,121 237,842 234,251 227,251 ¥67,870 ¥10,591 ¥7,000 

Headquarters managed IT investment .................................. 219,363 194,727 184,227 186,527 ¥32,836 ¥8,200 ∂2,300 

Subtotal ............................................................................. 514,484 432,569 418,478 413,778 ¥100,706 ¥18,791 ¥4,700 

Legal proceedings ........................................................................... 221,666 215,935 215,935 215,935 ¥5,731 ............................ ............................Investigations: 

Domestic ................................................................................. 1,702,038 1,714,234 1,714,234 1,739,234 ∂37,196 ∂25,000 ∂25,000 International investigations: 

International operations ................................................ 112,872 114,928 114,928 114,928 ∂2,056 ............................ ............................Visa Security Program ................................................... 35,686 29,489 32,489 38,289 ∂2,603 ∂8,800 ∂5,800 
177 

Subtotal .................................................................... 148,558 144,417 147,417 153,217 ∂4,659 ∂8,800 ∂5,800 Subtotal, Investigations ............................................ 1,850,596 1,858,651 1,861,651 1,892,451 ∂41,855 ∂33,800 ∂30,800 

Intelligence ...................................................................................... 69,842 81,503 81,503 82,503 ∂12,661 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 Detention and removal operations: 

Custody operations ................................................................. 1,794,406 2,023,827 2,050,545 2,023,827 ∂229,421 ............................ ¥26,718 Fugitive operations ................................................................. 229,682 154,597 154,597 154,597 ¥75,085 ............................ ............................Criminal alien program .......................................................... 192,539 196,696 196,696 196,696 ∂4,157 ............................ ............................Alternatives to detention ........................................................ 72,075 72,373 72,373 72,373 ∂298 ............................ ............................Transportation and removal program .................................... 281,878 276,632 276,632 276,632 ¥5,246 ............................ ............................House floor amendment ......................................................... ............................ ............................ 1,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥1,000 

Subtotal ............................................................................. 2,570,580 2,724,125 2,751,843 2,724,125 ∂153,545 ............................ ¥27,718 

Comprehensive identification and removal of criminal aliens ...... 199,600 184,064 194,064 184,064 ¥15,536 ............................ ¥10,000 

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ................................................ 5,426,768 5,496,847 5,523,474 5,512,856 ∂86,088 ∂16,009 ¥10,618 

Automation modernization ....................................................................... 73,852 13,860 23,860 21,710 ¥52,142 ∂7,850 ¥2,150 Construction ............................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Cancellation of unobligated balances ............................................ ............................ ¥16,300 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂16,300 ............................

Total, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement direct appropriations ............................................................................ 5,500,620 5,494,407 5,547,334 5,534,566 ∂33,946 ∂40,159 ¥12,768 

Fee accounts: 

Immigration inspection user fee ..................................................... (116,387 ) (116,869 ) (116,869 ) (116,869 ) (∂482 ) ............................ ............................Breached bond/detention fund ....................................................... (75,000 ) (75,000 ) (75,000 ) (75,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Student exchange and visitor fee ................................................... (120,000 ) (120,000 ) (120,000 ) (120,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... (311,387 ) (311,869 ) (311,869 ) (311,869 ) (∂482 ) ............................ ............................Total, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ................. (5,812,007 ) (5,806,276 ) (5,859,203 ) (5,846,435 ) (∂34,428 ) (∂40,159 ) (¥12,768 ) 

Appropriations .................................................................... (5,500,620 ) (5,510,707 ) (5,547,334 ) (5,534,566 ) (∂33,946 ) (∂23,859 ) (¥12,768 ) Fee accounts ...................................................................... (311,387 ) (311,869 ) (311,869 ) (311,869 ) (∂482 ) ............................ ............................
178 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2010 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Transportation Security Administration 

Aviation security: 

Screening operations: 

Screener workforce: 

Privatized screening ...................................................... 144,470 144,193 144,193 144,193 ¥277 ............................ ............................Screener personnel, compensation, and benefits ......... 2,920,813 3,060,493 3,030,167 3,028,381 ∂107,568 ¥32,112 ¥1,786 

Subtotal .................................................................... 3,065,283 3,204,686 3,174,360 3,172,574 ∂107,291 ¥32,112 ¥1,786 

Screener training and other ................................................... 243,402 252,526 245,165 250,776 ∂7,374 ¥1,750 ∂5,611 Checkpoint support ................................................................ 328,843 254,093 181,285 214,893 ¥113,950 ¥39,200 ∂33,608 EDS/ETD Systems: 

EDS procurement and installation ................................ 290,843 272,738 222,738 222,738 ¥68,105 ¥50,000 ............................Screening technology maintenance & utilities ............. 316,247 332,265 332,265 332,265 ∂16,018 ............................ ............................Operations integration .................................................. 21,455 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥21,455 ............................ ............................

Subtotal .................................................................... 628,545 605,003 555,003 555,003 ¥73,542 ¥50,000 ............................Subtotal, Screening operations ................................ 4,266,073 4,316,308 4,155,813 4,193,246 ¥72,827 ¥123,062 ∂37,433 

Aviation security direction and enforcement: 

Aviation regulation and other enforcement ........................... 318,285 373,239 354,294 382,989 ∂64,704 ∂9,750 ∂28,695 Airport management and support ......................................... 489,142 571,503 568,334 571,216 ∂82,074 ¥287 ∂2,882 FFDO and flight crew training ............................................... 25,118 25,461 25,461 25,461 ∂343 ............................ ............................Air cargo ................................................................................. 114,689 114,654 120,654 120,654 ∂5,965 ∂6,000 ............................

Subtotal ............................................................................. 947,234 1,084,857 1,068,743 1,100,320 ∂153,086 ∂15,463 ∂31,577 

Aviation security capital fund (mandatory) .................................... (250,000 ) (250,000 ) (250,000 ) (250,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................

Total, Aviation security (gross) .................................................. 5,213,307 5,401,165 5,224,556 5,293,566 ∂80,259 ¥107,599 ∂69,010 

Offsetting fee collections (current law) ................................................... ¥2,100,000 ¥2,030,000 ¥2,030,000 ¥2,030,000 ∂70,000 ............................ ............................
179 

Aviation passenger security fee(proposed fee increase) ......................... ............................ ¥280,000 ............................ ¥280,000 ¥280,000 ............................ ¥280,000 

Total, Aviation security (net, discretionary) ............................... 3,113,307 3,091,165 3,194,556 2,983,566 ¥129,741 ¥107,599 ¥210,990 

Surface transportation security: 

Staffing and operations .................................................................. 39,712 38,514 38,514 38,514 ¥1,198 ............................ ............................Surface transportation security inspectors and canines ............... 66,037 96,234 91,234 96,234 ∂30,197 ............................ ∂5,000 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 105,749 134,748 129,748 134,748 ∂28,999 ............................ ∂5,000 

Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing: 

Secure Flight ................................................................................... 84,194 92,414 92,414 92,414 ∂8,220 ............................ ............................Crew and other vetting programs .................................................. 78,479 91,540 91,540 71,540 ¥6,939 ¥20,000 ¥20,000 TWIC fees ........................................................................................ (9,200 ) (8,300 ) (8,300 ) (8,300 ) (¥900 ) ............................ ............................Hazardous materials fees ............................................................... (12,000 ) (12,000 ) (12,000 ) (12,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Alien Flight School fees (by transfer from DOJ) ............................. (4,000 ) (4,000 ) (4,000 ) (4,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Certified cargo screening program ................................................. (5,200 ) (5,200 ) (5,200 ) (5,200 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Large aircraft security program ...................................................... (1,200 ) (1,200 ) (1,200 ) (1,200 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Secure identification display area checks ...................................... (8,000 ) (8,000 ) (8,000 ) (8,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Other security threat assessments ................................................. (100 ) (100 ) (100 ) (100 ) ............................ ............................ ............................General aviation at DCA ................................................................. (100 ) (100 ) (100 ) (100 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Indirect air cargo ............................................................................ (1,400 ) (1,400 ) (1,400 ) (1,400 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Sensitive security information (SSI) fees ....................................... (20 ) (20 ) (20 ) (20 ) ............................ ............................ ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 203,893 224,274 224,274 204,274 ∂381 ¥20,000 ¥20,000 

Direct appropriations ......................................................... (162,673 ) (183,954 ) (183,954 ) (163,954 ) (∂1,281 ) (¥20,000 ) (¥20,000 ) Fee funded programs ........................................................ (41,220 ) (40,320 ) (40,320 ) (40,320 ) (¥900 ) ............................ ............................

Transportation security support: 

Headquarters administration .......................................................... 254,000 320,794 289,798 293,474 ∂39,474 ¥27,320 ∂3,676 Information technology .................................................................... 466,092 485,612 450,000 453,100 ¥12,992 ¥32,512 ∂3,100 Human capital services .................................................................. 233,658 264,299 250,000 252,500 ∂18,842 ¥11,799 ∂2,500 Intelligence ...................................................................................... 32,911 42,992 42,992 42,992 ∂10,081 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 986,661 1,113,697 1,032,790 1,042,066 ∂55,405 ¥71,631 ∂9,276 

Federal Air Marshals: 

Management and administration ................................................... 805,275 860,260 845,260 850,000 ∂44,725 ¥10,260 ∂4,740 Travel and training ......................................................................... 122,667 131,115 116,115 131,115 ∂8,448 ............................ ∂15,000 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 927,942 991,375 961,375 981,115 ∂53,173 ¥10,260 ∂19,740 
180 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2010 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Total, Transportation Security Administration ............................ 7,687,552 8,115,259 7,822,743 7,905,769 ∂218,217 ¥209,490 ∂83,026 

Offsetting fee collections ......................................................................... (¥2,100,000 ) (¥2,310,000 ) (¥2,030,000 ) (¥2,310,000 ) (¥210,000 ) ............................ (¥280,000 ) Aviation security capital fund ................................................................. (250,000 ) (250,000 ) (250,000 ) (250,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Fee funded programs ............................................................................... (41,220 ) (40,320 ) (40,320 ) (40,320 ) (¥900 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Transportation Security Administration (net) ................... 5,296,332 5,514,939 5,502,423 5,305,449 ∂9,117 ¥209,490 ¥196,974 

Coast Guard 

Operating expenses: 

Military pay and allowances ........................................................... 3,345,303 3,447,753 3,434,872 3,434,061 ∂88,758 ¥13,692 ¥811 Civilian pay and benefits ............................................................... 737,702 780,556 775,063 784,256 ∂46,554 ∂3,700 ∂9,193 Training and recruiting ................................................................... 204,087 213,282 213,282 213,321 ∂9,234 ∂39 ∂39 Operating funds and unit level maintenance ................................ 1,138,474 1,109,323 1,109,450 1,109,623 ¥28,851 ∂300 ∂173 Centrally managed accounts .......................................................... 345,174 351,478 343,348 342,653 ¥2,521 ¥8,825 ¥695 Intermediate and depot level maintenance .................................... 869,291 917,113 936,768 936,140 ∂66,849 ∂19,027 ¥628 

(Defense function) .................................................................. (594,000 ) (598,278 ) (598,278 ) (598,000 ) (∂4,000 ) (¥278 ) (¥278 ) 

Overseas contingency operations (defense function) ..................... 254,000 ............................ 258,278 258,000 ∂4,000 ∂258,000 ¥278 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 6,894,031 6,819,505 7,071,061 7,078,054 ∂184,023 ∂258,549 ∂6,993 

Appropriations .................................................................... (6,640,031 ) (6,819,505 ) (6,812,783 ) (6,820,054 ) (∂180,023 ) (∂549 ) (∂7,271 ) Overseas contingency operations (Defense function) ....... (254,000 ) ............................ (258,278 ) (258,000 ) (∂4,000 ) (∂258,000 ) (¥278 ) 

Environmental compliance and restoration ............................................. 13,172 16,699 10,198 16,699 ∂3,527 ............................ ∂6,501 Reserve training ....................................................................................... 133,365 136,778 131,778 134,278 ∂913 ¥2,500 ∂2,500 Acquisition, construction, and improvements: 

Vessels: 

Survey and design-vessels and boats ................................... ............................ 6,000 6,000 6,000 ∂6,000 ............................ ............................Response boat-medium ......................................................... 41,916 110,000 90,691 110,000 ∂68,084 ............................ ∂19,309 In-service cutters sustainment .............................................. ............................ 14,000 14,000 14,000 ∂14,000 ............................ ............................National security cutter ......................................................... 690,616 77,000 ............................ 77,000 ¥613,616 ............................ ∂77,000 
181 

Offshore patrol cutter ............................................................ 44,910 25,000 25,000 25,000 ¥19,910 ............................ ............................Fast response cutter .............................................................. 239,520 358,000 240,000 358,000 ∂118,480 ............................ ∂118,000 Cutter boats ........................................................................... 2,994 5,000 5,000 5,000 ∂2,006 ............................ ............................Medium endurance cutter sustainment ................................. 29,940 47,000 47,000 47,000 ∂17,060 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ............................................................................. 1,049,896 642,000 427,691 642,000 ¥407,896 ............................ ∂214,309 

Aircraft: 

Airframe replacement (CGNR 6017) ...................................... ............................ 18,300 ............................ 18,300 ∂18,300 ............................ ∂18,300 Maritime patrol aircraft ......................................................... 39,920 129,500 129,500 104,500 ∂64,580 ¥25,000 ¥25,000 HH-60 conversion projects ..................................................... 31,936 56,100 ............................ 56,100 ∂24,164 ............................ ∂56,100 HH–60 acquisition/conversion/sustainment .......................... ............................ ............................ 74,400 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥74,400 HC–130H conversion/sustainment projects ........................... 24,950 62,000 ............................ 62,000 ∂37,050 ............................ ∂62,000 Long range surveillance aircraft ........................................... ............................ ............................ 62,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥62,000 HH–65 acquisition/conversion/sustainment .......................... ............................ ............................ 61,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥61,000 HH–65 conversion/sustainment projects ............................... ............................ 24,000 ............................ 24,000 ∂24,000 ............................ ∂24,000 HC–130J Fleet introduction .................................................... 3,992 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥3,992 ............................ ............................Unmanned aircraft systems ................................................... ............................ ............................ 2,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥2,000 

Subtotal ............................................................................. 100,798 289,900 328,900 264,900 ∂164,102 ¥25,000 ¥64,000 

Other: 

Government program management ....................................... 44,910 35,000 30,000 30,000 ¥14,910 ¥5,000 ............................Systems engineering and integration .................................... 28,942 17,140 17,140 17,140 ¥11,802 ............................ ............................C4ISR ...................................................................................... 30,439 34,500 44,500 34,500 ∂4,061 ............................ ¥10,000 Technology obsolesce prevention ........................................... 998 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥998 ............................ ............................CG–LIMS ................................................................................. ............................ 6,500 6,500 6,500 ∂6,500 ............................ ............................Nationwide automatic identification system (NAIS) .............. ............................ 5,000 5,000 5,000 ∂5,000 ............................ ............................National distress and response system Rescue 21 .............. 35,928 65,000 65,000 65,000 ∂29,072 ............................ ............................Interagency operational centers ............................................. ............................ 3,000 3,000 3,000 ∂3,000 ............................ ............................Deepwater Logistics ............................................................... 49,900 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥49,900 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ............................................................................. 191,117 166,140 171,140 161,140 ¥29,977 ¥5,000 ¥10,000 

Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation: 

Major Shore, ATON and Survey and design ........................... 63,867 92,900 50,000 92,900 ∂29,033 ............................ ∂42,900 Major acquisition systems infrastructure .............................. ............................ 94,500 66,000 94,500 ∂94,500 ............................ ∂28,500 Minor shore ............................................................................ 3,199 6,292 ............................ 6,292 ∂3,093 ............................ ∂6,292 Military housing ..................................................................... 1,996 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥1,996 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ............................................................................. 69,062 193,692 116,000 193,692 ∂124,630 ............................ ∂77,692 
182 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2010 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Military housing .............................................................................. ............................ 20,000 ............................ 20,000 ∂20,000 ............................ ∂20,000 Personnel and related support: 

Core acquisition costs ........................................................... 509 600 600 600 ∂91 ............................ ............................Direct personnel costs ........................................................... 105,362 109,592 107,342 109,592 ∂4,230 ............................ ∂2,250 

Subtotal ............................................................................. 105,871 110,192 107,942 110,192 ∂4,321 ............................ ∂2,250 Subtotal, Acquisition, construction, and improvements ... 1,516,744 1,421,924 1,151,673 1,391,924 ¥124,820 ¥30,000 ∂240,251 

Research, development, test, and evaluation ......................................... 24,696 19,779 12,779 27,779 ∂3,083 ∂8,000 ∂15,000 Health care fund contribution (permanent indefinite discretionary) ...... 265,321 261,871 261,871 261,871 ¥3,450 ............................ ............................Retired pay (mandatory) .......................................................................... 1,400,700 1,440,157 1,440,157 1,440,157 ∂39,457 ............................ ............................

Total, Coast Guard ..................................................................... 10,248,029 10,116,713 10,079,517 10,350,762 ∂102,733 ∂234,049 ∂271,245 

Appropriations .................................................................... (9,994,029 ) (10,116,713 ) (9,821,239 ) (10,092,762 ) (∂98,733 ) (¥23,951 ) (∂271,523 ) Overseas contingency operations ...................................... (254,000 ) ............................ (258,278 ) (258,000 ) (∂4,000 ) (∂258,000 ) (¥278 ) 

(Mandatory) ................................................................................. (1,400,700 ) (1,440,157 ) (1,440,157 ) (1,440,157 ) (∂39,457 ) ............................ ............................(Discretionary) ............................................................................. (8,847,329 ) (8,676,556 ) (8,639,360 ) (8,910,605 ) (∂63,276 ) (∂234,049 ) (∂271,245 ) 

United States Secret Service 

Salaries and expenses: 

Protection: 

Protection of persons and facilities ...................................... 769,978 847,963 847,963 831,963 ∂61,985 ¥16,000 ¥16,000 Protective intelligence activities ............................................ 67,688 68,125 68,125 68,125 ∂437 ............................ ............................National special security event fund ..................................... 998 19,307 12,307 19,307 ∂18,309 ............................ ∂7,000 Presidential candidate nominee protection ........................... 17,831 113,462 113,462 113,462 ∂95,631 ............................ ............................White House mail screening .................................................. 22,370 24,315 24,315 18,472 ¥3,898 ¥5,843 ¥5,843 

Subtotal ............................................................................. 878,865 1,073,172 1,066,172 1,051,329 ∂172,464 ¥21,843 ¥14,843 

Investigations: 

Domestic field operations ...................................................... 256,897 223,991 223,991 223,991 ¥32,906 ............................ ............................
183 

International field office administration, operations, and 

training .............................................................................. 30,644 30,971 30,971 32,971 ∂2,327 ∂2,000 ∂2,000 

Electronic crimes special agent program and electronic 

crimes task forces ............................................................. 56,042 53,051 53,051 53,051 ¥2,991 ............................ ............................

Support for missing and exploited children .......................... 8,349 8,366 8,366 8,366 ∂17 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ............................................................................. 351,932 316,379 316,379 318,379 ¥33,553 ∂2,000 ∂2,000 

Headquarters, management and administration ........................... 226,284 246,602 228,302 201,088 ¥25,196 ¥45,514 ¥27,214 Rowley training center .................................................................... 54,251 55,598 55,598 55,598 ∂1,347 ............................ ............................Information integration & technology transformation .................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 43,843 ∂43,843 ∂43,843 ∂43,843 

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ................................................ 1,511,332 1,691,751 1,666,451 1,670,237 ∂158,905 ¥21,514 ∂3,786 

Acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses ............ 3,967 6,780 6,780 5,380 ∂1,413 ¥1,400 ¥1,400 

Total, United States Secret Service ............................................ 1,515,299 1,698,531 1,673,231 1,675,617 ∂160,318 ¥22,914 ∂2,386 Total, title II, Security, Enforcement, and Investigations .......... 32,440,178 33,196,186 33,150,360 33,108,434 ∂668,256 ¥87,752 ¥41,926 

Appropriations ........................................................... (32,186,178 ) (33,212,486 ) (32,892,082 ) (32,850,434 ) (∂664,256 ) (¥362,052 ) (¥41,648 ) Overseas deployments and other activities ............. (254,000 ) ............................ (258,278 ) (258,000 ) (∂4,000 ) (∂258,000 ) (¥278 ) Rescissions/cancellations ......................................... ............................ (¥16,300 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (∂16,300 ) ............................

(Fee Accounts) ................................................................... (1,717,775 ) (1,820,374 ) (1,765,374 ) (1,765,374 ) (∂47,599 ) (¥55,000 ) ............................

TITLE III—PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY 

National Protection and Programs Directorate 

Management and administration: 

Administrative activities ................................................................. 34,613 45,634 33,634 33,634 ¥979 ¥12,000 ............................Risk management and analysis ..................................................... 8,877 9,522 8,877 4,241 ¥4,636 ¥5,281 ¥4,636 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 43,490 55,156 42,511 37,875 ¥5,615 ¥17,281 ¥4,636 

Infrastructure Protection and Information Security: 

Infrastructure protection: 

Infrastructure analysis and planning .................................... 80,170 74,518 71,518 72,700 ¥7,470 ¥1,818 ∂1,182 Sector management and governance .................................... 82,194 87,045 81,545 84,000 ∂1,806 ¥3,045 ∂2,455 Regional field operations ....................................................... 64,742 61,367 57,367 61,367 ¥3,375 ............................ ∂4,000 Infrastructure security compliance ........................................ 95,930 99,348 91,848 99,348 ∂3,418 ............................ ∂7,500 

Subtotal, Infrastructure protection .................................... 323,036 322,278 302,278 317,415 ¥5,621 ¥4,863 ∂15,137 
184 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2010 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity/Communication ................... ............................ 4,744 ............................ 4,744 ∂4,744 ............................ ∂4,744 Information Security: 

Cybersecurity: 

Cybersecurity Coordination ............................................ 4,990 5,000 4,000 5,000 ∂10 ............................ ∂1,000 U.S. Computer Response Team (US–CERT) Operations .......................................................................... 77,432 82,114 79,116 80,000 ∂2,568 ¥2,114 ∂884 Federal Network Security ............................................... 19,651 40,923 28,924 35,000 ∂15,349 ¥5,923 ∂6,076 Network Security Deployment ........................................ 176,017 233,602 229,101 232,500 ∂56,483 ¥1,102 ∂3,399 Global Cyber Security Management .............................. 17,506 24,527 24,527 24,527 ∂7,021 ............................ ............................Critical Infrastructure/Cyber Protect/Awareness ........... 52,637 61,364 61,364 61,364 ∂8,727 ............................ ............................Business Operations ..................................................... 14,821 11,568 11,568 11,568 ¥3,253 ............................ ............................

Subtotal, Cybersecurity ............................................. 363,054 459,098 438,600 449,959 ∂86,905 ¥9,139 ∂11,359 

Telecommunications: 

Priority telecommunications services ..................................... 56,170 56,824 56,824 56,824 ∂654 ............................ ............................Programs to study and enhance telecommunications .......... 16,624 13,441 13,441 13,441 ¥3,183 ............................ ............................Critical infrastructure protection programs ........................... 14,854 11,352 11,352 11,352 ¥3,502 ............................ ............................Next generation networks ....................................................... 21,053 25,253 25,253 21,053 ............................ ¥4,200 ¥4,200 Office of emergency communications .................................... 43,972 43,495 43,495 43,495 ¥477 ............................ ............................

Subtotal, Telecommunications ........................................... 152,673 150,365 150,365 146,165 ¥6,508 ¥4,200 ¥4,200 Subtotal, Information Security ........................................... 515,727 609,463 588,965 596,124 ∂80,397 ¥13,339 ∂7,159 Subtotal, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security ................................................................................. 838,763 936,485 891,243 918,283 ∂79,520 ¥18,202 ∂27,040 

Federal Protective Service: 

Basic security .................................................................................. 220,000 247,478 247,478 247,478 ∂27,478 ............................ ............................Building-specific security ............................................................... 420,000 501,039 501,039 501,039 ∂81,039 ............................ ............................
185 

Reimbursable Security Fees (contract guard services) .................. 475,000 513,020 513,020 513,020 ∂38,020 ............................ ............................

Subtotal, Federal Protective Service ........................................... 1,115,000 1,261,537 1,261,537 1,261,537 ∂146,537 ............................ ............................Offsetting collections .................................................................. ¥1,115,000 ¥1,261,537 ¥1,261,537 ¥1,261,537 ¥146,537 ............................ ............................

U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology ........................ 333,944 302,271 297,402 297,402 ¥36,542 ¥4,869 ............................

Rescission ....................................................................................... ............................ ¥25,642 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂25,642 ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 333,944 276,629 297,402 297,402 ¥36,542 ∂20,773 ............................Total, National Protection and Programs Directorate ................ 1,216,197 1,268,270 1,231,156 1,253,560 ∂37,363 ¥14,710 ∂22,404 

Appropriations .................................................................... (2,331,197 ) (2,555,449 ) (2,492,693 ) (2,515,097 ) (∂183,900 ) (¥40,352 ) (∂22,404 ) Rescissions/cancellations .................................................. ............................ (¥25,642 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (∂25,642 ) ............................Offsetting collections ......................................................... (¥1,115,000 ) (¥1,261,537 ) (¥1,261,537 ) (¥1,261,537 ) (¥146,537 ) ............................ ............................

Office of Health Affairs 

BioWatch .................................................................................................. 100,780 115,164 115,164 115,164 ∂14,384 ............................ ............................National biosurveillance integration center ............................................. 7,000 7,014 12,013 3,514 ¥3,486 ¥3,500 ¥8,499 Rapidly deployable chemical detection system ....................................... 2,400 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥2,400 ............................ ............................Chemical defense program ...................................................................... ............................ 2,439 2,439 5,439 ∂5,439 ∂3,000 ∂3,000 Planning and coordination ....................................................................... 2,276 6,162 6,162 6,162 ∂3,886 ............................ ............................Salaries and expenses ............................................................................. 26,999 30,170 30,171 29,171 ∂2,172 ¥999 ¥1,000 

Total, Office of Health Affairs .................................................... 139,455 160,949 165,949 159,450 ∂19,995 ¥1,499 ¥6,499 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Management and administration: 

Operating activities ......................................................................... 744,663 780,492 666,555 ............................ ¥744,663 ¥780,492 ¥666,555 

Defense function .................................................................... (74,551 ) (99,099 ) (99,099 ) ............................ (¥74,551 ) (¥99,099 ) (¥99,099 ) 

Urban search and rescue response system ................................... 35,180 29,113 35,250 ............................ ¥35,180 ¥29,113 ¥35,250 Office of National Capital Region Coordination ............................. 6,981 5,319 5,493 ............................ ¥6,981 ¥5,319 ¥5,493 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 786,824 814,924 707,298 ............................ ¥786,824 ¥814,924 ¥707,298 

(Defense) ............................................................................ (74,551 ) (99,099 ) (99,099 ) ............................ (¥74,551 ) (¥99,099 ) (¥99,099 ) (Nondefense) ...................................................................... (712,273 ) (715,825 ) (608,199 ) ............................ (¥712,273 ) (¥715,825 ) (¥608,199 ) 

(Transfer from Disaster relief fund) ............................................... (105,389 ) ............................ (105,600 ) ............................ (¥105,389 ) ............................ (¥105,600 ) (Transfer from state and local programs) ..................................... (129,052 ) (184,544 ) (100,000 ) ............................ (¥129,052 ) (¥184,544 ) (¥100,000 ) (Available from firefighter assistance grants) ............................... (46,886 ) ............................ (67,000 ) ............................ (¥46,886 ) ............................ (¥67,000 ) 
186 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2010 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

(Available from emergency mgnt performance grants) ................. (10,180 ) ............................ (35,000 ) ............................ (¥10,180 ) ............................ (¥35,000 ) 

Subtotal, Management and administration ............................... 1,078,331 999,468 1,014,898 ............................ ¥1,078,331 ¥999,468 ¥1,014,898 

Operating expenses: 

Administrative and regional offices ............................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 112,157 ∂112,157 ∂112,157 ∂112,157 

Office of National Capital Region Coordination .................... ............................ ............................ ............................ (6,981 ) (∂6,981 ) (∂6,981 ) (∂6,981 ) 

Preparedness and protection .......................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 117,373 ∂117,373 ∂117,373 ∂117,373 Response ......................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 226,228 ∂226,228 ∂226,228 ∂226,228 

Urban search and rescue response system .......................... ............................ ............................ ............................ (41,250 ) (∂41,250 ) (∂41,250 ) (∂41,250 ) 

Recovery .......................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 80,373 ∂80,373 ∂80,373 ∂80,373 Mitigation ........................................................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ 43,675 ∂43,675 ∂43,675 ∂43,675 Mission support ............................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 210,271 ∂210,271 ∂210,271 ∂210,271 Centrally managed accounts .......................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 114,473 ∂114,473 ∂114,473 ∂114,473 

Defense function .................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ (99,099 ) (∂99,099 ) (∂99,099 ) (∂99,099 ) 

Subtotal ............................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ 904,550 ∂904,550 ∂904,550 ∂904,550 

(Defense) ................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ (99,099 ) (∂99,099 ) (∂99,099 ) (∂99,099 ) (Nondefense) ............................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ (805,451 ) (∂805,451 ) (∂805,451 ) (∂805,451 ) 

(Transfer from state and local programs) ..................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ (85,647 ) (∂85,647 ) (∂85,647 ) (∂85,647 ) (Available from firefighter assistance grants) ............................... ............................ ............................ ............................ (37,500 ) (∂37,500 ) (∂37,500 ) (∂37,500 ) (Available from emergency mgmt performance grants) ................ ............................ ............................ ............................ (10,500 ) (∂10,500 ) (∂10,500 ) (∂10,500 ) 

Subtotal, Operating expenses ..................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 1,038,197 ∂1,038,197 ∂1,038,197 ∂1,038,197 Subtotal, Management & admin/Operating expenses ............... 1,078,331 999,468 1,014,898 1,038,197 ¥40,134 ∂38,729 ∂23,299 

Grants and Training: 

State and local programs: 

Homeland security .................................................................. ............................ ............................ 752,337 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥752,337 State Homeland Security Grant Program ............................... 578,840 ............................ ............................ 380,000 ¥198,840 ∂380,000 ∂380,000 

Operation Stonegarden .................................................. 54,890 ............................ 55,000 50,000 ¥4,890 ∂50,000 ¥5,000 
187 

Driver’s license security grants .................................... 44,910 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥44,910 ............................ ............................Citizen Corps ................................................................. 9,980 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥9,980 ............................ ............................Metropolitan medical response ..................................... 34,930 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥34,930 ............................ ............................

Urban area security initiative ................................................ 723,550 ............................ ............................ 400,000 ¥323,550 ∂400,000 ∂400,000 

Nonprofit security grants .............................................. (19,000 ) ............................ ............................ (10,000 ) (¥9,000 ) (∂10,000 ) (∂10,000 ) 

Regional catastrophic preparedness grants .......................... 14,970 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥14,970 ............................ ............................Public transportation security assistance and railroad security assistance ............................................................... 249,500 ............................ ............................ 200,000 ¥49,500 ∂200,000 ∂200,000 

Amtrak security ............................................................. (19,960 ) ............................ ............................ (20,000 ) (∂40 ) (∂20,000 ) (∂20,000 ) Over-the-road bus security assistance ......................... (4,990 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥4,990 ) ............................ ............................

Port security grants ............................................................... 249,500 ............................ ............................ 200,000 ¥49,500 ∂200,000 ∂200,000 Buffer Zone Protection Program grants ................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Emergency Operations Centers .............................................. 14,970 ............................ ............................ 15,000 ∂30 ∂15,000 ∂15,000 National Programs: 

National Domestic Preparedness Consortium ............... 92,814 ............................ 44,500 ............................ ¥92,814 ............................ ¥44,500 Center for Domestic Preparedness ............................... 62,375 ............................ 62,500 ............................ ¥62,375 ............................ ¥62,500 National exercise program ............................................ 39,920 ............................ 40,000 ............................ ¥39,920 ............................ ¥40,000 Technical assistance ..................................................... 10,978 ............................ 10,000 ............................ ¥10,978 ............................ ¥10,000 Continuing training grants ........................................... 28,942 ............................ 25,663 ............................ ¥28,942 ............................ ¥25,663 Evaluations and assessments ...................................... 13,972 ............................ 10,000 ............................ ¥13,972 ............................ ¥10,000 

Subtotal .................................................................... 249,001 ............................ 192,663 ............................ ¥249,001 ............................ ¥192,663 

Education, Training, and Exercises: 

Emergency Management Institute ................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ 16,181 ∂16,181 ∂16,181 ∂16,181 Center for Domestic Preparedness ............................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 62,500 ∂62,500 ∂62,500 ∂62,500 National Domestic Preparedness Consortium ............... ............................ ............................ ............................ 93,000 ∂93,000 ∂93,000 ∂93,000 National Exercise Program ............................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ 34,000 ∂34,000 ∂34,000 ∂34,000 Continuing training ....................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 26,000 ∂26,000 ∂26,000 ∂26,000 

Subtotal, Education, Training & Exercises ............... ............................ ............................ ............................ 231,681 ∂231,681 ∂231,681 ∂231,681 

State and Regional Preparedness Program: 

State Homeland Security Grant Program ...................... ............................ 1,050,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥1,050,000 ............................Operation Stonegarden .................................................. ............................ (50,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥50,000 ) ............................Citizen Corps Grants ..................................................... ............................ 13,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥13,000 ............................Assistance to Firefighters Grants ................................. ............................ 670,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥670,000 ............................Emergency Management Performance Grants .............. ............................ 350,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥350,000 ............................
188 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2010 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Subtotal, State and Regional Preparedness Program ..................................................................... ............................ 2,083,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥2,083,000 ............................

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Preparedness Program: 

Urban Area Security Initiative ....................................... ............................ 920,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥920,000 ............................Port Security Grants ...................................................... ............................ 300,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥300,000 ............................Rail/Public Transportation Security Grants .................. ............................ 300,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥300,000 ............................Amtrak ........................................................................... ............................ (20,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥20,000 ) ............................Buffer Zone Protection Program ................................... ............................ 50,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥50,000 ............................

Subtotal, MSA Preparedness Program ...................... ............................ 1,570,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥1,570,000 ............................

Training, Measurement and Exercise Program: 

National Exercise Program ............................................ ............................ 40,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥40,000 ............................Continuing training Grants ........................................... ............................ 20,663 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥20,663 ............................Center for Domestic Preparedness ............................... ............................ 62,500 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥62,500 ............................National Domestic Preparedness Consortium ............... ............................ 44,500 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥44,500 ............................Technical assistance and evaluation ........................... ............................ 24,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥24,000 ............................

Subtotal, Training, Measurement and Exercise Program ..................................................................... ............................ 191,663 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥191,663 ............................

(Defense function) .................................................................. ............................ (50,000 ) (50,000 ) (50,000 ) (∂50,000 ) ............................ ............................

Subtotal, State and Local Programs ................................. 2,225,041 3,844,663 1,000,000 1,476,681 ¥748,360 ¥2,367,982 ∂476,681 

(Defense) ................................................................... ............................ (50,000 ) (50,000 ) (50,000 ) (∂50,000 ) ............................ ............................(Nondefense) ............................................................. (2,225,041 ) (3,794,663 ) (950,000 ) (1,426,681 ) (¥798,360 ) (¥2,367,982 ) (∂476,681 ) 

(transfer to Operating expenses) ........................................... (¥129,052 ) (¥184,544 ) (¥100,000 ) (¥85,647 ) (∂43,405 ) (∂98,897 ) (∂14,353 ) 

Subtotal, State and Local Programs (net) ........................ 2,095,989 3,660,119 900,000 1,391,034 ¥704,955 ¥2,269,085 ∂491,034 

Firefighter assistance grants: 

Fire grants .............................................................................. 404,190 ............................ 335,000 375,000 ¥29,190 ∂375,000 ∂40,000 
189 

Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response 

(SAFER) Act grants ............................................................ 404,190 ............................ 335,000 375,000 ¥29,190 ∂375,000 ∂40,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................... 808,380 ............................ 670,000 750,000 ¥58,380 ∂750,000 ∂80,000 

(available to Operating expenses) ......................................... (¥46,886 ) ............................ (¥35,000 ) (¥37,500 ) (∂9,386 ) (¥37,500 ) (¥2,500 ) 

Subtotal, Firefighter assistance grants ............................ 761,494 ............................ 635,000 712,500 ¥48,994 ∂712,500 ∂77,500 

Emergency management performance grants ................................ 339,320 ............................ 350,000 350,000 ∂10,680 ∂350,000 ............................

(available to Operating expenses) ......................................... (¥10,180 ) ............................ (¥35,000 ) (¥10,500 ) (¥320 ) (¥10,500 ) (∂24,500 ) 

Subtotal ............................................................................. 329,140 ............................ 315,000 339,500 ∂10,360 ∂339,500 ∂24,500 Subtotal, Grants and training ........................................... 3,372,741 3,844,663 2,020,000 2,576,681 ¥796,060 ¥1,267,982 ∂556,681 

Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program ...................................... ¥265 ¥896 ¥896 ¥896 ¥631 ............................ ............................United States Fire Administration ........................................................... 45,497 42,538 42,538 45,038 ¥459 ∂2,500 ∂2,500 Disaster Relief Fund ................................................................................ 2,644,700 1,800,000 2,650,000 1,800,000 ¥844,700 ............................ ¥850,000 

(Disaster relief category) ................................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ 4,200,000 ∂4,200,000 ∂4,200,000 ∂4,200,000 

Subtotal, Disaster Relief Fund ................................................... 2,644,700 1,800,000 2,650,000 6,000,000 ∂3,355,300 ∂4,200,000 ∂3,350,000 

(transfer to Operating expenses) .................................................... (¥105,389 ) ............................ (¥105,600 ) ............................ (∂105,389 ) ............................ (∂105,600 ) (transfer to Inspector General) ....................................................... (¥15,968 ) ............................ (¥16,000 ) (¥16,000 ) (¥32 ) (¥16,000 ) ............................

Subtotal, net of transfers ........................................................... 2,523,343 1,800,000 2,528,400 5,984,000 ∂3,460,657 ∂4,184,000 ∂3,455,600 

Disaster assistance direct loan program account: 

(Limitation on direct loans) ............................................................ (25,000 ) (25,000 ) (25,000 ) (25,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Direct loan subsidy ......................................................................... 294 295 296 295 ∂1 ............................ ¥1 

Flood hazard mapping and risk analysis ................................................ 181,636 102,712 102,712 92,712 ¥88,924 ¥10,000 ¥10,000 National flood insurance fund: 

Salaries and expenses .................................................................... 22,145 22,000 22,000 22,000 ¥145 ............................ ............................Flood plain management and mapping ......................................... 146,855 149,000 149,000 149,000 ∂2,145 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 169,000 171,000 171,000 171,000 ∂2,000 ............................ ............................

Offsetting fee collections ................................................................ ¥169,000 ¥171,000 ¥171,000 ¥171,000 ¥2,000 ............................ ............................

National predisaster mitigation fund ...................................................... 49,900 84,937 40,000 42,500 ¥7,400 ¥42,437 ∂2,500 Emergency food and shelter .................................................................... 119,760 100,000 120,000 120,000 ∂240 ∂20,000 ............................
190 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2010 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Total, Federal Emergency Management Agency ......................... 7,201,087 6,789,173 5,681,948 9,780,880 ∂2,579,793 ∂2,991,707 ∂4,098,932 (by transfer) ................................................................................ (291,507 ) (184,544 ) (307,600 ) (133,647 ) (¥157,860 ) (¥50,897 ) (¥173,953 ) (transfer out) .............................................................................. (¥307,475 ) (¥184,544 ) (¥291,600 ) (¥149,647 ) (∂157,828 ) (∂34,897 ) (∂141,953 ) (Limitation on direct loans) ....................................................... (25,000 ) (25,000 ) (25,000 ) (25,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................Total, title III, Protection, Preparedness, Response and Recovery Directorate ........................................................................ 8,556,739 8,218,392 7,079,053 11,193,890 ∂2,637,151 ∂2,975,498 ∂4,114,837 

Appropriations .................................................................... (8,556,739 ) (8,244,034 ) (7,079,053 ) (6,993,890 ) (¥1,562,849 ) (¥1,250,144 ) (¥85,163 ) Rescissions ........................................................................ ............................ (¥25,642 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (∂25,642 ) ............................Disaster relief category ..................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ (4,200,000 ) (∂4,200,000 ) (∂4,200,000 ) (∂4,200,000 ) 

By transfer .................................................................................. (291,507 ) (184,544 ) (307,600 ) (133,647 ) (¥157,860 ) (¥50,897 ) (¥173,953 ) Transfer out ................................................................................ (¥307,475 ) (¥184,544 ) (¥291,600 ) (¥149,647 ) (∂157,828 ) (∂34,897 ) (∂141,953 ) (Limitation on direct loans) ....................................................... (25,000 ) (25,000 ) (25,000 ) (25,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................

TITLE IV—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Appropriations: 

Acquisition workforce ...................................................................... ............................ 1,467 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥1,467 ............................Data center consolidation ............................................................... 2,157 12,500 ............................ 10,500 ∂8,343 ¥2,000 ∂10,500 Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements ............................... ............................ 29,937 29,937 ............................ ............................ ¥29,937 ¥29,937 E-Verify program ............................................................................. 103,193 102,424 102,424 102,424 ¥769 ............................ ............................Immigrant integration programs .................................................... 11,000 19,749 ............................ 8,000 ¥3,000 ¥11,749 ∂8,000 Asylum and refugee services .......................................................... 29,950 203,400 ............................ ............................ ¥29,950 ¥203,400 ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 146,300 369,477 132,361 120,924 ¥25,376 ¥248,553 ¥11,437 

Adjudication services (fee account): 

District operations ........................................................................... (1,169,135 ) (1,157,137 ) ............................ (1,157,137 ) (¥11,998 ) ............................ (∂1,157,137 ) Service center operations ................................................................ (508,281 ) (519,518 ) ............................ (519,518 ) (∂11,237 ) ............................ (∂519,518 ) Asylum, Refugee and International Operations .............................. (62,630 ) (88,364 ) ............................ (291,764 ) (∂229,134 ) (∂203,400 ) (∂291,764 ) Records operations .......................................................................... (102,471 ) (103,902 ) ............................ (103,902 ) (∂1,431 ) ............................ (∂103,902 ) 
191 

Business transformation ................................................................. (164,025 ) (234,400 ) ............................ (234,400 ) (∂70,375 ) ............................ (∂234,400 ) 

Subtotal, Adjudication services .................................................. 2,006,542 2,103,321 ............................ 2,306,721 ∂300,179 ∂203,400 ∂2,306,721 

Information and customer services (fee account): 

Information and customer services ................................................ (83,501 ) (85,773 ) ............................ (85,773 ) (∂2,272 ) ............................ (∂85,773 ) 

Administration (fee account): 

Administration ................................................................................. (336,514 ) (348,295 ) ............................ (348,295 ) (∂11,781 ) ............................ (∂348,295 ) 

Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) (fee account) ..... ............................ ............................ ............................ (29,937 ) (∂29,937 ) (∂29,937 ) (∂29,937 ) Immigration Examinations Fee Account: 

Adjudication services: 

District operations .................................................................. ............................ ............................ (1,132,630 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥1,132,630 ) Service center operations ....................................................... ............................ ............................ (494,333 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥494,333 ) Asylum, refugee and international operations ...................... ............................ ............................ (293,978 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥293,978 ) International operations ......................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Records operations ................................................................. ............................ ............................ (103,902 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥103,902 ) Business transformation ........................................................ ............................ ............................ (234,400 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥234,400 ) 

(Digitization program) display only non-add ................ ............................ ............................ (29,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥29,000 ) 

Subtotal .................................................................... ............................ ............................ 2,259,243 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥2,259,243 

Information and customer services: 

Operating expenses ................................................................ ............................ ............................ (85,773 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥85,773 ) 

Administration: 

Operating expenses ................................................................ ............................ ............................ (348,295 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥348,295 ) 

Subtotal, Immigration Examinations Fee Acct .................. ............................ ............................ 2,693,311 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥2,693,311 

H1–B Visa Fee Account: 

Adjudication services: 

Service center operations ....................................................... ............................ ............................ (13,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥13,000 ) 

H1–B and L Fraud Prevention Fee Account: 

Adjudication services: 

District operations .................................................................. ............................ ............................ (24,507 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥24,507 ) Asylum and refugee operating expenses ............................... ............................ ............................ (1,386 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥1,386 ) Service center operations ....................................................... ............................ ............................ (12,185 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥12,185 ) 

Subtotal ............................................................................. ............................ ............................ 38,078 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥38,078 
192 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2010 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Total, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ................................................................................ (2,572,857 ) (2,906,866 ) (2,876,750 ) (2,891,650 ) (∂318,793 ) (¥15,216 ) (∂14,900 ) 

Appropriations ........................................................... (146,300 ) (369,477 ) (132,361 ) (120,924 ) (¥25,376 ) (¥248,553 ) (¥11,437 ) Fee accounts ............................................................. (2,426,557 ) (2,537,389 ) (2,744,389 ) (2,770,726 ) (∂344,169 ) (∂233,337 ) (∂26,337 ) 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

Salaries and expenses: 

Law enforcement training ............................................................... 234,141 207,937 207,937 207,937 ¥26,204 ............................ ............................Management and administration ................................................... ............................ 29,716 29,716 29,716 ∂29,716 ............................ ............................Accreditation ................................................................................... 1,306 1,304 1,304 1,304 ¥2 ............................ ............................

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ................................................ 235,447 238,957 238,957 238,957 ∂3,510 ............................ ............................

Acquisitions, construction, improvements, and related expenses: direct 

appropriation ....................................................................................... 35,385 37,456 35,456 33,456 ¥1,929 ¥4,000 ¥2,000 

Total, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center ....................... 270,832 276,413 274,413 272,413 ∂1,581 ¥4,000 ¥2,000 

Science and Technology 

Management and administration ............................................................ 140,918 149,365 140,565 143,000 ∂2,082 ¥6,365 ∂2,435 Research, development, acquisition, and operations: 

Border and maritime security ......................................................... 32,167 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥32,167 ............................ ............................Chemical and biological ................................................................. 166,577 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥166,577 ............................ ............................Command, control, and interoperability ......................................... 68,593 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥68,593 ............................ ............................Explosives ........................................................................................ 111,813 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥111,813 ............................ ............................Human factors ................................................................................ 11,458 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥11,458 ............................ ............................Infrastructure and geophysical ....................................................... 25,056 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥25,056 ............................ ............................Innovation ........................................................................................ 31,330 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥31,330 ............................ ............................Test and evaluations/standards ..................................................... 18,130 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥18,130 ............................ ............................Transition ........................................................................................ 41,645 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥41,645 ............................ ............................
193 

Research, development, and innovation ......................................... ............................ 659,850 106,500 439,783 ∂439,783 ¥220,067 ∂333,283 

Apex R&D ............................................................................... ............................ (17,900 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥17,900 ) ............................Border Security ....................................................................... ............................ (42,965 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥42,965 ) ............................Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and ................. ............................ (342,462 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥342,462 ) ............................Counter Terrorism Defense ..................................................... ............................ (26,707 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥26,707 ) ............................Cyber Security ........................................................................ ............................ (64,102 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥64,102 ) ............................Disaster Resilience ................................................................. ............................ (165,714 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥165,714 ) ............................

Acquisition and operations support ................................................ ............................ 54,154 53,650 54,154 ∂54,154 ............................ ∂504 Laboratory facilities(operations and construction) ......................... 140,000 276,500 201,500 126,500 ¥13,500 ¥150,000 ¥75,000 University programs ........................................................................ 39,890 36,563 36,563 36,563 ¥3,327 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 686,659 1,027,067 398,213 657,000 ¥29,659 ¥370,067 ∂258,787 Total, Science and Technology ................................................... 827,577 1,176,432 538,778 800,000 ¥27,577 ¥376,432 ∂261,222 

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 

Management and administration ............................................................ 36,918 41,120 40,000 37,000 ∂82 ¥4,120 ¥3,000 Research, development, and operations: 

Systems engineering and architecture ........................................... 33,195 31,858 30,000 31,230 ¥1,965 ¥628 ∂1,230 Systems development ...................................................................... 52,851 69,689 69,000 60,000 ∂7,149 ¥9,689 ¥9,000 Transformational research and development ................................. 96,326 ............................ 45,000 ............................ ¥96,326 ............................ ¥45,000 Assessments .................................................................................... 38,139 43,104 40,000 40,000 ∂1,861 ¥3,104 ............................Operations support .......................................................................... 32,756 36,837 36,424 35,000 ∂2,244 ¥1,837 ¥1,424 National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center ................................. 21,619 24,770 24,770 24,770 ∂3,151 ............................ ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 274,886 206,258 245,194 191,000 ¥83,886 ¥15,258 ¥54,194 

Systems acquisition: 

RPM/ASP program ........................................................................... ............................ 37,361 20,000 8,000 ∂8,000 ¥29,361 ¥12,000 Securing the Cities ......................................................................... 19,940 27,000 22,000 22,000 ∂2,060 ¥5,000 ............................HPRDS program ............................................................................... 10,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 ............................ ¥10,000 ............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 29,940 84,361 52,000 40,000 ∂10,060 ¥44,361 ¥12,000 Total, Domestic Nuclear Detection Office .................................. 341,744 331,739 337,194 268,000 ¥73,744 ¥63,739 ¥69,194 Total, title IV, Research and Development, Training, and Services ......................................................................................... 1,586,453 2,154,061 1,282,746 1,461,337 ¥125,116 ¥692,724 ∂178,591 (Fee Accounts) ............................................................................ (2,426,557 ) (2,537,389 ) (2,744,389 ) (2,770,726 ) (∂344,169 ) (∂233,337 ) (∂26,337 ) 
194 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 2010 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Rescissions ............................................................................................... ¥556,907 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂556,907 ............................ ............................NSSE reimbursement fund ....................................................................... 7,485 ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥7,485 ............................ ............................ICE Salaries and expenses (rescission) ................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥20,997 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂20,997 Violent crime reduction programs (rescission) ........................................ ............................ ............................ ¥595 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂595 ICE construction (rescission) ................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥11,300 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂11,300 NSSE Reimbursement funds .................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 10,000 ∂10,000 ∂10,000 ∂10,000 Data center migration .............................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ 15,000 ∂15,000 ∂15,000 ∂15,000 St. Elizabeths/Mission support ................................................................ 77,245 215,273 ............................ 55,979 ¥21,266 ¥159,294 ∂55,979 Reimbursement for Spills of National Significance (Sec. 560) .............. ............................ ............................ ............................ 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 CG AC&I aircraft replacement (emergency) ............................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ 18,300 ∂18,300 ∂18,300 ∂18,300 CG AC&I (rescission, emergency) ............................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥7,300 ¥7,300 ¥7,300 ¥7,300 USCIS (rescission, emergency) ................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥7,000 ¥7,000 ¥7,000 ¥7,000 TSA Aviation Security (rescission, emergency) ........................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥4,000 ¥4,000 ¥4,000 ¥4,000 CG AC&I (rescission) (legacy) .................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥2,577 ¥2,577 ¥2,577 ¥2,577 ICE S&E (rescission) (legacy) .................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥4,000 ¥4,000 ¥4,000 ¥4,000 Violent Crime (rescission) (legacy) .......................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥407 ¥407 ¥407 ¥407 DHS Office for Domestic Preparedness (rescission) ................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥3,121 ¥3,121 ¥3,121 ¥3,121 FEMA National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund (legacy) (rescission) ........ ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥678 ¥678 ¥678 ¥678 CBP S&E (rescission) (legacy) ................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥7,101 ¥7,101 ¥7,101 ¥7,101 ICE S&E (rescission) ................................................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥7,000 ¥7,000 ¥7,000 ¥7,000 ICE Auto Mod (rescission) ........................................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥10,000 ¥10,000 ¥10,000 ¥10,000 TSA (rescission) ........................................................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥48,503 ¥48,503 ¥48,503 ¥48,503 S&T RDA&O (rescission) .......................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ¥20,000 ¥20,000 ¥20,000 ¥20,000 

Total, title V, General Provisions ................................................ ¥472,177 215,273 ¥32,892 ¥21,408 ∂450,769 ¥236,681 ∂11,484 

Appropriations .................................................................... (84,730 ) (215,273 ) ............................ (81,979 ) (¥2,751 ) (¥133,294 ) (∂81,979 ) Emergency appropriations ................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ (18,300 ) (∂18,300 ) (∂18,300 ) (∂18,300 ) Rescissions ........................................................................ (¥556,907 ) ............................ (¥32,892 ) (¥103,387 ) (∂453,520 ) (¥103,387 ) (¥70,495 ) Rescission of emergency appropriations ........................... ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥18,300 ) (¥18,300 ) (¥18,300 ) (¥18,300 ) 
195 

TITLE VI—EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR DISASTER 

RELIEF 

Section 601: 

Public Law 110–329, Div. A Sec. 129 DOE loan program (rescission of emergency funding) ....................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥500,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂500,000 Transfer from DOE to Disaster Relief (emergency) ........................ ............................ ............................ (1,000,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................ (¥1,000,000 ) 

Total, title VI, Emergency Supplemental Funding for Disaster 

Relief ...................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥500,000 ............................ ............................ ............................ ∂500,000 

Grand total ................................................................................. 43,321,245 45,015,556 41,789,835 46,898,157 ∂3,576,912 ∂1,882,601 ∂5,108,322 

Mandatory .......................................................................... (1,400,700 ) (1,440,157 ) (1,440,157 ) (1,440,157 ) (∂39,457 ) ............................ ............................General purpose discretionary ........................................... (41,920,545 ) (43,575,399 ) (40,349,678 ) (45,458,000 ) (∂3,537,455 ) (∂1,882,601 ) (∂5,108,322 ) 

Appropriations ........................................................... (42,223,452 ) (43,617,341 ) (40,624,292 ) (41,103,387 ) (¥1,120,065 ) (¥2,513,954 ) (∂479,095 ) Emergency appropriations ........................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ (18,300 ) (∂18,300 ) (∂18,300 ) (∂18,300 ) Overseas contingency operations ............................. (254,000 ) ............................ (258,278 ) (258,000 ) (∂4,000 ) (∂258,000 ) (¥278 ) Disaster relief category ............................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ (4,200,000 ) (∂4,200,000 ) (∂4,200,000 ) (∂4,200,000 ) Rescission/cancellation ............................................ (¥556,907 ) (¥41,942 ) (¥32,892 ) (¥103,387 ) (∂453,520 ) (¥61,445 ) (¥70,495 ) Rescission of emergency appropriations .................. ............................ ............................ (¥500,000 ) (¥18,300 ) (¥18,300 ) (¥18,300 ) (∂481,700 ) 

(Fee funded programs) ............................................................................ (4,144,332 ) (4,357,763 ) (4,509,763 ) (4,536,100 ) (∂391,768 ) (∂178,337 ) (∂26,337 ) (Limitation on direct loans) ..................................................................... (25,000 ) (25,000 ) (25,000 ) (25,000 ) ............................ ............................ ............................(by transfer) ............................................................................................. (307,475 ) (184,544 ) (323,600 ) (149,647 ) (¥157,828 ) (¥34,897 ) (¥173,953 ) (transfer out) ............................................................................................ (¥307,475 ) (¥184,544 ) (¥291,600 ) (¥149,647 ) (∂157,828 ) (∂34,897 ) (∂141,953 ) 

Æ