95–508 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 114–215 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2016 

JULY 21, 2015.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. CARTER of Texas, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 3128] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the 

Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page number 

Bill Report 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management ........................ 2 5 

Office of the Under Secretary for Management ............................... 3 10 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer .................................................. 4 16 

Office of the Chief Information Officer .............................................. 4 18 

Analysis and Operations .................................................................... 5 19 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 5 21 

TITLE II—SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection ................................................. 6 22 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 6 23 

Automation Modernization ......................................................... 7 31 

Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology ....... 8 32 

Air and Marine Operations ......................................................... 8 33 

Construction and Facilities Management .................................. 9 36 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ................................... 10 37 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 10 37 

Automation Modernization ......................................................... 14 45 

Construction ................................................................................. 14 46 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Transportation Security Administration ........................................... 14 46 

Aviation Security ......................................................................... 14 47 

Surface Transportation Security ................................................ 17 54 

Intelligence and Vetting .............................................................. 17 54 

Transportation Security Support ................................................ 17 56 

Coast Guard ......................................................................................... 17 56 

Operating Expenses ..................................................................... 17 56 

Environmental Compliance and Restoration ............................. 19 59 

Reserve Training .......................................................................... 19 59 

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements .......................... 19 60 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation .......................... 21 63 

Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund Contribution ..... ........ 64 

Retired Pay ................................................................................... 21 64 

United States Secret Service .............................................................. 22 65 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 22 65 

Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses ........................................................................................ 25 68 

TITLE III—PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND 

RECOVERY 

National Protection and Programs Directorate ................................ 25 70 

Management and Administration ............................................... 25 71 

Infrastructure Protection and Information Security ................. 25 71 

Federal Protective Service .......................................................... 26 77 

Office of Biometric Identity Management .................................. 26 78 

Office of Health Affairs ....................................................................... 26 78 

Federal Emergency Management Agency ......................................... 27 80 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 27 80 

State and Local Programs ........................................................... 28 84 

Firefighter Assistance Grants ..................................................... 31 87 

Emergency Management Performance Grants .......................... 31 87 

Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program ....................... 31 88 

United States Fire Administration ............................................. 32 88 

Disaster Relief Fund .................................................................... 32 89 

Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis ................................ 33 90 

National Flood Insurance Fund .................................................. 34 91 

National Predisaster Mitigation Fund ....................................... 36 92 

Emergency Food and Shelter ...................................................... 36 92 

TITLE IV—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ...................... 36 93 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center ...................................... 37 96 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 37 96 

Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses ........................................................................................ 39 97 

Science and Technology ...................................................................... 40 97 

Management and Administration ............................................... 40 97 

Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations .............. 40 97 

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office .................................................... 40 100 

Management and Administration ............................................... 40 100 

Research, Development, and Operations ................................... 41 101 

Systems Acquisition ..................................................................... 41 101 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

This Act ................................................................................................ ........ 102 

Compliance with House Rules ........................................................... ........ 113 

Tables ................................................................................................... ........ 162 

MINORITY VIEWS .................................................................................... ........ 194 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

Overview and Summary of the Bill 

The accompanying bill contains recommendations for new budget 

(obligational) authority for fiscal year 2016 for the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). The following table summarizes these 

recommendations and reflects comparisons with the budget, as 

amended, and with amounts appropriated to date for fiscal year 

2015: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Title 

New Budget 

(obligational) authority Fiscal 

Year 2015 

Budget Estimates of new 

(obligational) authority, Fiscal 

Year 2016 

Recommended by 

the House 

House Compared With 

New budget authority, Fiscal 

Year 2015 

Budget estimate, 

Fiscal Year 2016 

Title I, Departmental Management 

and Operations ............................. $1,034,639 $1,329,024 $1,096,499 $61,860 ($232,525) 

Tide II: Security, Enforcement, and 

Investigations ............................... 32,986,167 33,905,143 33,598,590 612,423 (306,553) 

Tide III: Protection, Preparedness, 

Response, and Recovery ............... 12,416,790 12,958,798 12,859,167 442,377 (99,631) 

Tide IV: Research, Development, 

Training, and Services .................. 1,794,523 1,532,680 1,502,784 (291,739) (29,896) 

Tide V: General Provisions ................ (673,700) (11,023) (1,407,087) (733,387) (1,396,064) 

Grand Total .............................. 47,558,419 49,714,622 47,649,953 91,534 (2,054,669) 

Total, Net Discretionary ............ $39,670,000 $41,397,669 $39,333,000 ($337,000) ($2,064,669) 

The Committee recommends total obligational authority of 

$47,649,953,000 for DHS in fiscal year 2016, including 

$6,712,953,000 for the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) which is designated by Congress as disaster relief pursuant to Public Law 112–25. Discretionary appropriations of $39,333,000,000 are recommended, of 

which $37,674,000,000 is for non-defense programs and 

$1,659,000,000 is for defense programs. The Committee does not 

include requested funding for increases to civilian pay; should the 

President provide a civilian pay increase for 2016, it is assumed 

that the cost of such a pay increase will be absorbed within other 

amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2016. 

OVERVIEW

Because threats and challenges to the homeland can come in 

many forms—through computer networks, natural disasters, crossborder smuggling and trafficking in people and drugs, home-grown 

terrorists, violent extremism, and illegal migration—DHS’s missions are more critical now than ever. Mission success depends on 

well-trained personnel, effective equipment and systems, coordinated operations, the ability to deliver actionable intelligence, and 

the flexibility to adapt quickly to emerging threats. 

Though committed to ensuring National security and public safety, DHS continues to operate as a loose confederation of its components rather than as a cohesive organization. Roles and responsibilities of headquarters and components are not clearly defined. 

Policies are too often developed reactively rather than strategically. 

Multiple systems exist where one would suffice. Administrative 

functions and operations are duplicative or differ unnecessarily. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

To overcome these challenges, the Secretary initiated a ‘‘Unity of 

Effort’’ campaign in 2014 designed to mature the Department into 

an organization that functions in a more integrated fashion. The 

initiative’s efforts are beginning to pay off. DHS is starting to review and refine acquisition processes. Joint task forces are changing the way DHS operates to secure the border and fight terrorism. 

New management processes are improving the way requirements 

are identified, prioritized, and resourced. 

Additional tasks remain, as they would in any relatively new organization. The Department needs a strategic planning process to 

focus research and development and future investments. Common, 

outcome-based metrics must be developed to measure whether the 

Department is effectively preventing the illegal entry of goods and 

people across U.S. borders, and to support decisions about border 

security operations. Likewise, the quality and transparency of decisions about detention and removal operations must be enhanced to 

promote public confidence in the Department’s ability to enforce 

immigration laws and remove dangerous criminal aliens who pose 

a threat to local communities. 

Most importantly, DHS must improve its ability to anticipate, 

mitigate, and quickly correct internal problems that increase risk 

and distract from its operational mission. For the last few years, 

DHS has suffered from the inability to hire people in a timely manner. Compounding this problem are attrition rates that outpace hiring in several DHS components. According to DHS documents, the 

Department expects to end fiscal year 2015 more than 6,000 FTEs 

below the number for which funds were provided. To achieve the 

requested fiscal year 2016 FTE level, more than 7,000 FTEs would 

have to be hired between July 2015 and September 30, 2015. Given 

its attrition rate and the length of time it takes to vet new staff, 

the Committee is unconvinced DHS will be able to spend the funds 

requested in the budget. Consequently, the Committee supports the 

requested number of mission critical positions in CBP and USSS, 

but reduces funding in various agencies to reflect a more realistic 

and achievable number of FTEs that will be onboard during the 

2016 fiscal year. Likewise, large carryover balances in acquisition 

accounts delay needed capabilities in the field. Moreover, the Department’s reputation is tarnished when Secret Service agents or 

other law enforcement personnel on duty act irresponsibly, or when 

the Transportation Security Administration or other components do 

not respond seriously to Inspector General reports and recommendations until public outcry reaches monumental proportion. 

The funding recommendations in this bill and the directives in 

the accompanying report are aimed at these challenges. Title I includes directives to institutionalize the Secretary’s Unity of Effort 

initiative and to better manage the Department’s human capital, 

resources, and information technology. Title II ensures the Department’s frontline operational components have adequate resources 

to carry out effectively their security, enforcement, and investigative missions. Title III includes funds necessary to prepare for, respond to, and recover from any natural disaster or chemical, biological, or cyber-attack on the population or the Nation’s critical infrastructure. Title IV finances law enforcement training, citizenship services, nuclear and radiological detection, and research and 

development functions. Title V includes basic general provisions for 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

oversight, reprogramming guidance, reports, and funding limitations. 

Let there be no mistake—this Committee believes DHS is crucial 

to national security, public safety, and a strong U.S. economy, and 

appreciates the hard work and dedication of the thousands of 

agents, officers, Coast Guard military personnel, watchstanders, 

and mission support staff who make it their business every day to 

keep the Nation safe. 

REFERENCES

The Committee report refers to the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Public Law 110–53, as 

the 9/11 Act. References to ‘‘the Committees’’ means to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 

Senate, unless otherwise noted. The Committee also refers to ‘‘fulltime equivalent’’ positions as ‘‘FTE’’; ‘‘Program, Project, Activity’’ 

line items as ‘‘PPA’’; the ‘‘Office of Management and Budget’’ as 

‘‘OMB’’; and the ‘‘Government Accountability Office’’ as ‘‘GAO’’. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $132,573,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 134,247,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 131,859,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. ¥714,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥2,388,000 

Mission 

The mission of the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM) is to provide efficient leadership and services to DHS 

and to support the Department’s efforts to achieve its strategic 

goals, as outlined in the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $131,859,000 for OSEM, $2,388,000 

below the amount requested and $714,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

Within OSEM, the Committee recommends not more than 

$40,000 for official reception and representation expenses, of which 

not more than $15,000 shall be for Office of Policy activities related 

to the Visa Waiver Program. To ensure the Committee can conduct 

appropriate oversight, the Department is directed to track these expenses in enough detail to explain how the funds are used. The 

Committee expects the Department to review representation allowances for all DHS agencies to ensure the equitable alignment of 

funds with responsibilities, and to submit any proposed changes as 

part of the fiscal year 2017 budget request. 

The Department is directed to include within the President’s 

budget request for fiscal year 2017 the amounts estimated, by component, for bonuses and performance awards, and the standards 

and criteria for such awards and bonuses. 

The Committee recommends the following funding levels for each 

sub-office as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

Budget Estimate Recommended 

Immediate Office of the Secretary .............................................................................. $8,932,000 $8,923,000 

Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary .................................................................. 1,758,000 1,748,000 

Office of the Chief of Staff ......................................................................................... 2,716,000 2,696,000 

Executive Secretary ...................................................................................................... 5,640,000 5,601,000 

Office of Policy ............................................................................................................ 39,339,000 36,577,000 

Office of Public Affairs ................................................................................................ 5,510,000 5,472,000 

Office of Legislative Affairs ........................................................................................ 5,405,000 5,363,000 

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs ............................................................................. 10,025,000 9,966,000 

Office of General Counsel ........................................................................................... 19,625,000 19,472,000 

Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties .................................................................. 20,954,000 21,800,000 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman ................................................... 6,312,000 6,272,000 

Privacy Officer ............................................................................................................. 8,031,000 7,969,000 

Total .................................................................................................................... $134,247,000 $131,859,000 

Immediate Office of the Secretary 

The Committee recommends $8,923,000 for the Immediate Office 

of the Secretary, $9,000 below the amount requested and $984,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The reduction to the 

request corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise 

assumed in the President’s budget. As requested, the recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the 

Joint Requirements Council (JRC). The Committee is aware of efforts by the Departmental leadership to examine and reform joint 

operations within DHS to better leverage security and enforcement 

capabilities as well as reduce costs. The Committee strongly supports such efforts and believes the JRC’s mission to be one of the 

fundamental pillars of the Unity of Effort initiative. The Department is directed to keep the Committee informed on the Council’s 

efforts and to clearly display efficiencies and budgetary savings 

achieved from JRC operations within its obligation and budget execution plans and budget justification materials. 

The Department shall provide a quarterly travel report to the 

Committee not later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter, beginning with the end of the first quarter after the date of enactment of this Act. The report shall detail all direct and indirect 

costs of official and nonofficial travel by the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary, delineated by trip for that quarter, within all DHS 

appropriations. 

The Committee continues to be concerned about the illegal trade 

in rhinoceros horns, elephant ivory from Africa, and illegally harvested timber, and understands its connection to trafficking in narcotics, arms, and human beings, as well as to the financing of 

groups that pose a threat to the United States. The Committee directs the Secretary to submit a report, not later than 120 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act, on the Department’s activities to address wildlife trafficking and the illegal natural resources 

trade; its continued engagement as a member of the Presidential 

Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking; efforts to improve DHS coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement; steps taken by DHS to implement the National Strategy 

on Wildlife Trafficking; and the alignment of resources to activities 

and initiatives that address wildlife and natural resources trafficking. 

Many Americans worry that unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) 

can be used inappropriately to monitor, track, or surveil their 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

movements or without the benefit of a warrant. The Committee 

notes that DHS has an oversight framework and procedures that 

ensure compliance with privacy and civil liberty laws and standards. Furthermore, DHS UAS operations are limited by FAA requirements and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) policies 

and procedures. To monitor compliance with these laws, the Committee expects DHS to track the number of times these systems are 

used along the border, in a maritime environment, or in support of 

State, local, and/or tribal law enforcement entities. 

House Report 113–481 directed the Secretary, in conjunction 

with CBP, the Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC), U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Coast Guard, 

and the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) to carry out a 

review of how current border situational awareness can be enhanced; technical capabilities planned for acquisition by CBP, 

AMOC, ICE, or the Coast Guard; and other technologies, resources, 

and capabilities that will be needed in the future for attaining and 

maintaining comprehensive and persistent situational awareness. 

The Committee looks forward to receiving that review and draft 

plan for developing situational awareness using a common operating picture by the required deadline. 

In addition, House Report 113–481 directed DHS to assess the 

feasibility, cost, and benefits of implementing a universal complaint 

system to operate across the Department to ensure all complaints 

are addressed, receive a prompt response, and inform future training and policy. The Committee looks forward to receiving that report by the required deadline. Finally, House Report 113–481 directed the Department to provide an update on its corrective action 

plan to address low employee morale and the poor climate for 

workplace innovation. The Committee looks forward to receiving 

that report by the required deadline. 

Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary 

The Committee recommends $1,748,000 for the Immediate Office 

of the Deputy Secretary, $10,000 below the amount requested and 

$8,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The reduction to the request corresponds to the amount associated with the 

pay raise assumed in the President’s budget. 

Office of the Chief of Staff 

The Committee recommends $2,696,000 for the Office of the 

Chief of Staff, $20,000 below the amount requested and $86,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The reduction to the 

request corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise 

assumed in the President’s budget. 

Executive Secretary 

The Committee recommends $5,601,000 for the Executive Secretary, $39,000 below the amount requested and $12,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The reduction to the request 

corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise assumed 

in the President’s budget. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

Office of Policy 

The Committee recommends $36,577,000 for the Office of Policy, 

$2,762,000 below the amount requested and $1,496,000 below the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes 

a reduction of $2,500,000 due to projected underexecution of funds 

for personnel and a reduction of $262,000 that corresponds to the 

amount associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s 

budget. The reduction from underexecution shall be applied proportionally to the Threat Prevention and Security Policy, the Border, 

Immigration, and Trade Policy, and the Cyber, Infrastructure, and 

Resilience Policy divisions. 

The Committee expects the Office of Policy to serve as the Department’s central location for establishing, tracking progress of, 

and implementing DHS strategic planning and policy guidance 

across the entire spectrum of homeland security missions. 

The Committee is concerned that the position of Assistant Secretary for Policy has been vacant for over one year. It is unacceptable that this strategic leadership role has yet to be permanently 

filled. The Administration is strongly urged to present a qualified 

candidate to the Senate for confirmation as quickly as possible. 

To improve oversight of operations and priorities of the Office of 

Policy, the Committee directs the Department to report not later 

than December 1, 2015, on fiscal year 2015 travel by political employees of the Office of Policy, listing the following information per 

trip: dates, destinations, purpose, costs, mode of travel, and total 

number of government personnel accompanying the political appointees. 

The Committee continues to believe that a more formal engagement between the Department and appropriate Mexican authorities could help facilitate the development of common or complementary approaches in areas of mutual interest, including border infrastructure; immigration enforcement; facilitating the flow of low-risk 

cargo and passengers; and cross-border violence and criminal networks. The Committee again encourages the Department, in cooperation with the Department of State, to explore new opportunities for cooperation with Mexican authorities, such as a cross-border working group. 

To assess performance and help inform future policy, the Office 

of Immigration Statistics, within the Office of Policy, is directed to 

develop and implement a plan to collect, analyze, and report appropriate data on the Department’s immigration enforcement activities, including data on the use of prosecutorial discretion. The plan 

should include steps to ensure the completeness and accuracy of 

data on the full scope of immigration enforcement activities, from 

encounter to final disposition. Not later than 60 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act, the Office of Policy is directed to brief the 

Committee on this plan. 

To ensure the United States is positioned to counter homegrown 

violent extremism and prevent domestic radicalization, the Committee directs the Office of Policy to provide a detailed description 

of all DHS countering violent extremism (CVE) programs and initiatives, including associated personnel and funding levels, not 

later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

The Committee directs the Office of Policy to continue developing 

border security metrics to inform its internal decision-making and 

enable DHS to report on measurable border security outcomes. 

Such metrics shall be focused on reducing illegal import and entry 

and include measuring inflow rates, apprehension rates, and consequences for DHS’s jurisdiction over the Southwest Border. DHS 

is directed to brief the Committee on this initiative not later than 

30 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

The Committee directs the Department to ensure that the Office 

of Policy is a full participant in interagency discussions on visa policy matters, consistent with DHS authorities. 

Office of Public Affairs 

The Committee recommends $5,472,000 for the Office of Public 

Affairs, $38,000 below the amount requested and $119,000 below 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The reduction to the request corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s budget. 

Office of Legislative Affairs 

The Committee recommends $5,363,000 for the Office of Legislative Affairs, $42,000 below the amount requested and $40,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The reduction to the 

request corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise 

assumed in the President’s budget. 

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs 

The Committee recommends $9,966,000 for the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, $59,000 below the amount requested and 

$118,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The reduction to the request corresponds to the amount associated with the 

pay raise assumed in the President’s budget. 

Office of General Counsel 

The Committee recommends $19,472,000 for the Office of General Counsel, $153,000 below the amount requested and $478,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The reduction to the 

request corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise 

assumed in the President’s budget. 

Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 

The Committee recommends $21,800,000 for the Office for Civil 

Rights and Civil Liberties (OCRCL), $846,000 above the amount 

requested and equal to the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

The recommendation does not assume the amount associated 

with the pay raise in the President’s budget; instead, the funding 

level is intended to enable OCRCL to maintain the pace of activity 

funded for fiscal year 2015. 

The Committee expects OCRCL to continue appropriate oversight 

of programs, partnerships, and other cooperative efforts involving 

DHS components and State and local law enforcement agencies, 

and to submit a plan for obligation and expenditure in the fiscal 

year 2017 budget justification material that documents its planned 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

expenses related to such oversight. Upon request, OCRCL shall 

provide to the Committee copies of memoranda or other reports 

making recommendations to DHS components. In addition, OCRCL 

shall ensure that all individuals whose complaints are investigated 

by OCRCL receive information, within 30 days of the completion of 

an investigation, regarding the outcome of their complaints, as appropriate, including findings of fact, findings of law, and available 

remedies. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman 

The Committee recommends $6,272,000 for the Citizenship and 

Immigration Services Ombudsman (CISOMB), $40,000 below the 

amount requested and $447,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The reduction to the request corresponds to the 

amount associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s 

budget. 

The Committee commends the Department for establishing and 

maintaining the Blue Campaign, currently coordinated through 

CISOMB, which has unified the efforts of its component agencies 

to combat human trafficking. As part of the budget justification 

material for fiscal year 2017, DHS should detail the amounts obligated for Blue Campaign activities in the prior year, along with estimates of its anticipated obligations in the current year and the 

budget year. Given the diverse language backgrounds of many 

human trafficking victims, the Committee encourages the Department to make Blue Campaign outreach materials available in multiple languages. 

Privacy Officer 

The Committee recommends $7,969,000 for the Privacy Officer, 

$62,000 below the amount requested and $64,000 below the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The reduction to the request 

corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise assumed 

in the President’s budget. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $187,503,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 193,187,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 193,646,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +6,143,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ +459,000 

Mission 

The primary mission of the Office of the Under Secretary for 

Management (USM) is to deliver quality administrative support 

services for human resources; manage facilities, property, equipment, and other material resources; ensure safety, health, and environmental protection; and identify and track performance measurements relating to the responsibilities of the Department. The 

Directorate also provides policy guidance and directives to DHS 

components. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $193,646,000 for the USM, $459,000 

above the amount requested and $6,143,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. Not more than $2,000 is for official reception and representation expenses. 

The Committee recommends the following funding levels for individual offices within USM: 

Budget Estimate Recommended 

Immediate Office of the Under Secretary for Management ........................................ $3,411,000 $3,393,000 

Office of the Chief Security Officer ............................................................................. 66,538,000 68,200,000 

Office of the Chief Procurement Officer ..................................................................... 58,989,000 60,630,000 

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer: 

Salaries and Expenses ....................................................................................... 24,390,000 21,698,000 

Human Resources Information Technology ........................................................ 9,578,000 9,559,000 

Subtotal ..................................................................................................... 33,968,000 31,257,000 

Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer: 

Salaries and Expenses ....................................................................................... 27,350,000 27,235,000 

Nebraska Avenue Complex ................................................................................. 2,931,000 2,931,000 

Subtotal ..................................................................................................... 30,281,000 30,166,000 

Total .................................................................................................. $193,187,000 $193,646,000 

Immediate Office of the Under Secretary for Management 

The Committee recommends $3,393,000 for the Immediate Office 

of the Under Secretary for Management, $18,000 below the amount 

requested and $653,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2015. 

The USM acts as the Department’s Chief Acquisition Officer and 

Chief Performance Improvement Officer. More broadly, the Management Directorate integrates common operating standards; manages Departmental delegations and directives; leads enterprise investment and portfolio management; and directs policy regarding 

back office functions such as human resources, information technology, financial management, budget formulation, logistics and 

building maintenance, and security. 

These complex management functions must be exercised in a balanced but authoritative manner if the Department is to respond effectively and jointly to crises in the homeland. Therefore, the Committee includes several directives designed to build on the momentum of the Unity of Effort initiative, as described below. 

For acquisitions and investments, the Committee directs the 

USM to develop written guidance by April 1, 2016, that: • clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management (PARM) and the 

Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) for overseeing 

program management of major IT acquisition programs; 

• requires components to provide operations and maintenance cost estimates for programs in sustainment; 

• establishes responsibility at the component level for tracking the adherence of sustainment programs to existing cost estimates; and 

• requires components to enter data into the next generation 

Period Reporting System (nPRS) on a quarterly basis consistVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

ently and accurately, and holds Component Acquisition Executives (CAEs) accountable for validating the information. 

As noted by GAO and in prior appropriations reports, proper 

oversight of DHS’s investment portfolio is essential to ensure that 

components are accountable for cost, schedule, and performance, 

and that Congress and DHS decision makers receive useful, accurate, up-to-date information. For that reason, the Committee retains statutory language requiring DHS to submit the Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report (CASR) with the budget request, 

provide quarterly updates to Congress, and post an unclassified 

version of the CASR on the DHS public-facing website. All programs shall be displayed by appropriation and PPA. Within 30 

days of delivery of the CASR, the DHS Chief Acquisition Officer 

and each CAE shall provide acquisition briefings on all level 1, 2, 

and 3 acquisition projects. 

In addition, by not later than April 15, 2016, the Executive Director of PARM shall update Congress on each component’s major 

acquisition program data for each month of the prior fiscal year, including an assessment of the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of the data. 

The USM is directed to review the current structure of the Office 

of the Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO), consider whether the office’s name accurately reflects its function, which is overseeing contracts, and determine whether PARM should report to a more appropriate supervisor. 

The DHS acquisition policy, set forth in Acquisition Management 

Directive 102–01 and DHS Instruction Manual 102–01–001, reflects key program management practices. Among other things, the 

policy establishes specific documentation requirements for predetermined acquisition decision events to help assess whether a 

major acquisition program is ready to proceed to each of the five 

phases of the acquisition lifecycle. Because the Committee is concerned that DHS has not executed its policy consistently, a general 

provision is included in title V of the bill that requires all CAEs 

to comply with DHS-established acquisition milestones. 

The Committee is deeply troubled by the fact that DHS operational components remain unable to communicate with each other 

a decade after the 9/11 Commission highlighted the problem and 

after expending $430,000,000 to address the problem. The inability 

to communicate effectively during an emergency presents serious 

risks to the safety and security of the Nation. Failure to convene 

an effective governing entity with the responsibility and authority 

to achieve Department-wide, interoperable communications two 

years after the OIG recommended establishing such an entity is inexcusable. Consequently, the USM is directed to brief the Committee within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act on the 

Department’s plan to achieve and maintain interoperable communications among the components of DHS. The plan shall include: 

• the timetable for establishing a governing entity; 

• an assessment of interoperability gaps in communications 

among DHS components; 

• information on efforts, including current and planned policies, directives, and training, to achieve and maintain interoperable communications; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

• an assessment of obstacles and challenges to achieving and 

maintaining interoperable communications among components; 

• information on, and an assessment of, the adequacy of 

mechanisms available to the USM to enforce and compel compliance with interoperable communications policies and directives; 

• guidance provided to implement interoperable communications policies and directives; 

• projected future expenditures to achieve interoperable 

communications in the form of equipment, infrastructure, and 

maintenance; and 

• the date by which interoperability is projected to be 

achieved, along with dates for interim milestones. 

Chronic and systemic personnel shortfalls and lengthy hiring 

times jeopardize DHS’s homeland security mission. To stem skyrocketing attrition and hiring shortfalls, the Committee directs the 

USM to complete a root cause analysis, and develop a corrective action plan based on its findings, to include outcome based metrics 

for measuring the success of the plan’s initiatives. The USM shall 

update the Committee on the results of these initiatives on a 

monthly basis beginning January 15, 2016. 

The Committee notes that the statement accompanying Public 

Law 114–4 specifically directed a report on a strategy for reducing 

the time required for hiring personnel and quarterly data on hiring 

timelines by component. The report that was received by the Committee on June 22, 2015, failed to fully comply with the requirement. A hiring timeline is more than a single number for the total 

days to hire; it should also include the number of days associated 

with each step in the hiring process, to include announcements in 

progress, announcements posted, interviews pending, offers pending, individuals selected, security approvals, and entering on duty. 

While the report did provide some ideas to improve the pace and 

process for hiring, it tied none to specific categories in the hiring 

timeframe and proposed no metrics, such as the number of days reduced by implementing an initiative. Further, the report should include the numbers of onboard personnel at the beginning and end 

of the reporting period, along with the number of separations for 

the reporting period. The Committee directs the Department to 

fully comply with this reporting requirement and to include the additional information noted above, with quarterly reports due not 

later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter. 

A more strategic problem is the lack of a rigorous and consistent 

methodology to determine personnel requirements across the Department, and their associated costs. For this reason, the Committee directs the USM to require the Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer (OCFO) to conduct an analysis of force structure that identifies the operations in which DHS personnel are expected to perform, the effects they must achieve, the attributes the forces must 

possess, and what kind and size of force is needed to execute the 

operations successfully. The OCFO is directed to brief the Committees on the study’s progress on a quarterly basis. Recommendations 

from the analysis should directly inform the fiscal year 2018 budget request, with shortfalls in needed personnel funding clearly 

noted. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

As in prior years, the Committee directs the Department to include a separate justification for the Working Capital Fund (WCF) 

in the fiscal year 2017 budget request as described in Public Law 

113–76. To enhance Committee oversight, section 504 in title V of 

the bill is amended to require notifications to include the source appropriation and PPA for new activities. 

The Committee is concerned that there are inconsistencies in 

how DHS distributes WCF costs across DHS organizational components due to various methods by which components report FTEs. 

For example, FEMA includes both the temporary and intermittent 

workforce in its FTE count provided to DHS Headquarters, whereas the Coast Guard does not include its temporary workforce (reservists) in its reported FTE count. As a consequence, FEMA is 

overcharged for activities and the Coast Guard is undercharged. 

The Committee directs DHS headquarters to create and implement 

a departmental policy for how component FTEs should be reported 

for WCF purposes. 

To manage the Department’s IT enterprise architecture, the 

Committee directs the USM to develop written guidance by April 

1, 2016, that: • institutionalizes a consumption-based IT business model 

across DHS based on the acquisition of IT services rather than 

IT assets when appropriate and cost-effective; and 

• defines and distinguishes IT sustainment costs versus new 

development and investment. 

Office of the Chief Security Officer 

The Committee recommends $68,200,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Security Officer, $1,662,000 above the amount requested and 

$3,892,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. Within 

the total, a reduction of $338,000 corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s budget, while 

an increase to the request of $2,000,000 is included for Continuous 

Evaluation, a technique used to investigate an individual’s continued eligibility to access classified information or to hold a sensitive 

position. 

Office of the Chief Procurement Officer 

The Committee recommends $60,630,000 for the OCPO, 

$1,641,000 above the amount requested and $523,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2015. Within the total, a reduction 

of $359,000 corresponds to the amount associated with the pay 

raise assumed in the President’s budget and an increase of 

$2,000,000 is for critical personnel needed by PARM to oversee 

major acquisition programs. As requested, the recommendation includes funds to comply with provisions in the DATA Act, which requires unique identification numbers for procurements. 

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer 

The Committee recommends $31,257,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO): $21,698,000 is for Salaries 

and Expenses, $2,692,000 below the amount requested and 

$754,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015; and 

$9,559,000 is for Human Resources Information Technology, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

$19,000 below the amount requested and $3,559,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2015. Reductions to the request in 

each PPA of $136,000 and $19,000, respectively, correspond to the 

amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s 

budget. The $5,056,000 request for an OMB-directed CyberSkills 

initiative is denied; however $2,500,000 may be used to hire additional staff to assist DHS components to better manage their hiring 

needs and processes. In addition, OCHCO is directed to establish 

standard performance metrics for onboarding the backlog of open 

positions across DHS, monitor said metrics, and provide a monthly 

update on them to Congress. 

Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer 

The Committee recommends $30,166,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Readiness Support Officer (OCRSO), $115,000 below the 

amount requested and $3,238,000 below the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2015. Of the total amount, $27,235,000 is for Salaries 

and Expenses, and $2,931,000 is for repairs to the Nebraska Avenue Complex. The reduction to the request corresponds to the 

amount associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s 

budget. 

DHS has worked hard and made substantial progress towards 

developing a common flying hour program. To maintain momentum, quarterly updates to the Committee shall continue. 

The Field Efficiencies pilot streamlined and integrated regional 

services and common management functions in Boston and Seattle, 

resulting in cost avoidance. For that reason, the Committee directs 

the OCRSO to expand the program to not less than ten additional 

cities by the end of fiscal year 2016. 

DHS HEADQUARTERS CONSOLIDATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 * ....................................................... – – –

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... $215,822,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – –

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. – – –

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥215,822,000 

* Provided in sec. 540 of the bill 

Recommendation 

The Committee appreciates changes to the DHS Consolidation 

Plan that have reduced requirements and costs. Acting on congressional concerns, overall project costs under the budget request have 

been cut by more than $800,000,000, the size of the campus has 

been reduced by 900,000 square feet, and the delivery timeline has 

been accelerated by five years. Importantly, the new plan would 

save DHS $1,200,000,000 over 30 years compared to the costs of 

continuing to rely on multiple rented facilities across the Washington, DC region over the same time period. Given the constraints 

of the current budget environment, however, the recommendation 

provides only that portion of the request related to existing operations at the consolidated headquarters location, which is included 

in title V of the bill. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $52,020,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 53,798,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 56,420,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +4,400,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ +2,622,000 

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) is responsible 

for budget policy; program analysis and evaluation; development of 

Departmental financial management policies; operations and systems, including consolidated financial statements; oversight of matters related to GAO and the OIG; management of Department internal controls; and Department-wide oversight of grants and resource management systems. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $56,420,000 for OCFO, $2,622,000 

above the amount requested and $4,400,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. Within the total, a reduction of $378,000 

corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise assumed 

in the President’s budget. Funding for the Financial Systems Modernization (FSM) program is not recommended under this heading; 

instead, funds are provided in title V of the bill. 

A key element of the Secretary’s Unity of Effort initiative is to 

strengthen DHS budget processes. Integral to the effort is an appropriations framework that supports and standardizes budgeting 

and programming across the homeland security enterprise. With 

over 70 different appropriations and over 100 PPAs, DHS has functioned for over a decade with significant budget disparities and inconsistencies in component’s appropriations accounts and PPAs. 

Without question, the current budget structure is a contributing 

factor to the failure to recognize how poorly components have been 

underexecuting personnel costs. More frustrating is that neither 

DHS nor the components can provide details on how the funds 

were spent. From the perspective of leaders making judgments 

about programs, the lack of uniformity and transparency makes it 

impossible to compare costs. 

Pursuant to Committee direction, DHS presented a notional common appropriations structure shortly after the President’s fiscal 

year 2016 budget was submitted. The structure included four 

standard types of appropriations (Operations and Support; Procurement, Construction, and Improvements; Research and Development; and Federal Assistance) and specific periods of availability 

for each. This structure makes sense. It enables cost comparisons 

between components and simplifies the transition from legacy financial management systems to modernized systems. Implementing this methodology is a strategic imperative and must move 

forward with haste. To that end, a general provision is included in 

title V of the bill mandating that the fiscal year 2017 budget request be presented to the Congress in this format and be fully implemented upon the enactment of full year appropriations for fiscal 

year 2017. 

Likewise, the Committee directs the Department to begin developing a standard template for budget justification material based 

on the proposed common appropriations structure, to be incorVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

porated into the fiscal year 2018 budget request. For each appropriation, the justification shall start from a zero base and build to 

the requested level. For justification materials that accompany the 

fiscal year 2017 appropriation request and thereafter, the Committee directs the Department to include tables that compare prior 

year actual appropriations and obligations, estimates of current 

year appropriations and obligations, and the projected budget year 

appropriations and obligations for all PPAs, programs, subprograms, and FTE. 

For investment end items with severable unit costs in excess of 

$250,000 or a lifecycle cost in excess of $300,000,000, the Committee directs the justification materials to include: • the project description, justification, total cost, and scope; • key acquisition milestones from the prior year, the year of 

execution, and the budget year; • the funding history by fiscal year, to include prior enacted 

appropriations, obligations, and expenditures; • contract information to include contract number, contractor, type, award date, start date, end date, earned value 

management potential in the contract, and total contract value; • significant changes to the prior year enacted budget; and • project schedule and estimated time to completion. 

For severable end items, the Committee directs the justification 

materials to include: • the quantity of each item by prior years, current year, 

budget year, and out-year; • the quantity of units delivered on contract, funded but not 

yet on contract, and planned but unfunded; and • the delivery schedule by quarter for the end item, delineated by fiscal year funding. 

Finally, to improve oversight of all DHS financial management 

activities relating to programs and operations, OCFO is directed to 

develop a financial management regulation that: • establishes financial management policies; 

• ensures compliance with applicable accounting policy, 

standards, and principals; 

• establishes, reviews, and enforces internal control policies, 

standards, and compliance guidelines for financial management; 

• ensures that complete, reliable, consistent, timely, and accurate information on disbursements is available in financial 

management systems; and 

• provides oversight of financial management activities and 

operations including developing budget requests and preparing 

for audits. 

To assist with this project and the implementation of a common 

appropriations structure, $3,000,000 is provided above the request 

for appropriate subject matter expertise and supporting staff. 

Understanding how components intend to spend appropriated 

funding during the year of execution is critical to the subcommittee’s oversight. For fiscal year 2015, several components provided 

obligation and expenditure plans for their fiscal year 2015 appropriations. For fiscal year 2016, the Committee directs the Management Directorate and each component to provide a briefing to the 

Committee, within 45 days of enactment of this Act, on its planned 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

obligations and budget execution. To facilitate this effort and to enable budget comparisons, OCFO is directed to develop the template 

for tables detailing these annual obligation and budget execution 

plans. At a minimum, the template shall include for the prior year, 

current year, and budget year: • comparisons of actual and estimated obligations and expenditures; • designations of funding by PPA and cost code by quarter; • transfers, reprogrammings, and the allocation of undistributed appropriations; 

• amounts of actual or planned carryover into the next fiscal 

year; and 

• details on the status of multiyear appropriations by source 

year. 

The Department’s current financial system modernization efforts 

are based on an OMB directive to transition to a Federal shared 

services provider. Improving financial accountability and financial 

reporting is essential, but questions persist about the costs of the 

current approach and the capacity of Federal shared service providers to manage the transition. Therefore, the Committee directs 

GAO to assess the risks of utilizing the Department of Interior’s 

Business Center (IBC), whether the IBC is capable of expanding its 

services to additional Federal agencies, and a comparison of the 

services and capabilities of Federal and commercial shared service 

providers. In addition, the Committee directs OCFO to update the 

lifecycle cost estimate to reflect all contract awards and projected 

overall costs, including those for every component that plans to migrate to a Federal shared service provider. 

Bill language is retained requiring Monthly Budget Execution 

and Staffing reports within 30 days after the close of each month. 

These reports shall include the same level of detail required in section 513 of Public Law 114–4, with one exception: staffing levels for 

each account should be based on the most recent pay period. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $288,122,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 320,596,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 308,488,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +20,366,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥12,108,000 

Mission 

The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) manages Department-wide investments in information technology (IT) and operating expenses. Funding is used for systems to modernize business processes and increase efficiency. In addition, OCIO is responsible for developing, implementing, and over-seeing the enterprise 

architecture for the entire Department, including at the component 

level. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $308,488,000 for OCIO, $12,108,000 

below the amount requested and $20,366,000 above the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2015. A comparison of the budget request 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................................................ $105,307,000 $104,957,000 

Information Technology Activities ................................................................................ 106,270,000 94,512,000 

Infrastructure and Security Activities ......................................................................... 54,087,000 54,087,000 

Homeland Secure Data Network .................................................................................. 54,932,000 54,932,000 

Total, Chief Information Officer ......................................................................... $320,596,000 $308,488,000 

The recommendation includes a reduction of $4,833,000 due to 

projected underexecution of funds for personnel and a reduction of 

$517,000 that corresponds to the amount associated with the pay 

raise assumed in the President’s budget. As requested, the recommendation includes funding for the following initiatives: DHS 

Data Framework, Single Sign-on, several security initiatives, the 

Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program, and the Infrastructure Transformation Program. The recommendation includes $5,000,000 for Digital Services, instead of $10,000,000 as requested, and does not include $1,758,000, as requested, to expand 

the Trusted Tester program at DHS expense to other Federal agencies. The Administration request for two-year funds to hire employees to be part of the DHS Digital Services teams is denied. DHS 

must improve the time it takes to hire new staff. Providing twoyear funds for Digital Service teams undermines that objective. 

The Committee applauds the strategic objectives outlined in the 

DHS Information Technology Strategic Plan (FY2015–2018), including acquisition strategies that support rapid deployment, agile 

development, shared technologies, and the adoption of a consumption-based business model. To monitor progress in achieving these 

objectives, the Committee directs OCIO to provide a baseline briefing followed by quarterly updates on the enterprise architecture 

that supports DHS’s strategic plan. The briefing shall include component-level details on savings achieved through data center consolidation and reducing commodity IT spending. 

Preventing the compromise or unauthorized disclosure of sensitive digital content or other personally identifiable information 

inside and outside the Department is important to national security. The Committee directs OCIO to continue providing data loss 

prevention at the enterprise level through the use of technology at 

the Department’s Trusted Internet Connection. 

The Chief Information Officer, in coordination with the Chief Financial Officer and the Chief Procurement Officer, is directed to 

certify that an independent verification and validation agent is currently under contract for major IT investments. 

ANALYSIS AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $255,804,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 269,090,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 264,898,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +9,094,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥4,192,000 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

Mission 

The Analysis and Operations appropriation supports the Office of 

Intelligence and Analysis and the Office of Operations Coordination, which together collect, evaluate, and disseminate intelligence 

information, as well as provide incident management and operational coordination. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $264,898,000 for Analysis and Oper- ations, $4,192,000 below the amount requested and $9,094,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes a reduction of $1,123,000 that corresponds to the 

amount associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s 

budget. 

State and major urban area fusion centers serve as focal points 

within the State and local environment for the receipt, analysis, 

gathering, and sharing of threat-related information between the 

Federal government and State, local, tribal, territorial, and private 

sector partners. Fusion centers are owned and operated by State 

and local entities with support from Federal partners in the form 

of deployed personnel, training, technical assistance, exercise support, security clearances, connectivity to Federal systems, technology, and grant funding. The Committee is pleased with the success of the National Network of Fusion Centers and encourages the 

DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis to continue to provide support, including the deployment of personnel, the provision of training, technical assistance, and clearances, and the management of 

annual capability and performance assessment processes, to ensure 

that fusion centers remain a vital link to the Information Sharing 

Environment, including their ability to address criminal and homeland security-related threats. 

Terrorist groups are increasingly involved in a wide range of illegal activities involving the jurisdictions of multiple Federal, State, 

and local law enforcement agencies. Criminal activities, such as tobacco smuggling, are used to expand this activity and to create 

linkages to funding for terrorist activity. Therefore, the Committee 

encourages DHS to work with its Federal partners, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, as well as State 

and local partners, to leverage the domestic information sharing architecture, which includes fusion centers, the Regional Information 

Sharing System, and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, to enhance bilateral and multilateral information sharing. 

The Committee supports the Criminal Intelligence Enterprise 

(CIE), which is a national initiative designed to identify, prioritize, 

and catalog the criminal and terrorist threat groups that present 

the greatest concern to each major city and county. This vital link 

between State and local law enforcement and the National Network of Fusion Centers focuses on the implementation of a threat 

identification process that helps agencies evaluate their threats, 

while simultaneously providing them with a much broader understanding of the threats that exist in other parts of the country. The 

Committee commends Office of Intelligence and Analysis for their 

CIE efforts to date, but recognizes the system can better serve the 

law enforcement community if the process is made more userVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

friendly. Therefore, the Committee directs that not less than 

$300,000 be made available for purposes of automating the CIE 

template and collection process. In addition, not less than $125,000 

shall be made available for purposes of providing technical assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies to assist in the 

CIE process. The Committee recognizes that additional technical 

assistance will lead to increased participation in the CIE process, 

and greater success of the program. 

Classified Programs 

Recommended adjustments to classified programs and more detailed oversight of funding for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis are addressed in the classified annex accompanying this report. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 * ....................................................... $142,617,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 * ..................................................... 166,284,000 

Recommended in the bill * ................................................................. 165,188,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +22,571,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥1,096,000 

* Includes a directed transfer of $24,000,000 to the OIG from the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund. 

Mission 

The DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducts and supervises independent audits, investigations, and inspections of the programs and operations of DHS, and recommends ways for DHS to 

carry out its responsibilities in the most effective, efficient, and economical manner possible. The OIG also seeks to deter, identify, and 

address fraud, abuse, mismanagement, and waste of taxpayer 

funds invested in Homeland Security. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends a total of $165,188,000 for the OIG, 

$1,096,000 below the budget request and $22,571,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The reduction below the request corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s budget. The Committee continues the 

prior year practice of transferring $24,000,000 from the FEMA 

DRF to the OIG for disaster-related audits and investigations. As 

requested, the recommendation includes $7,603,000 for acquisition 

management oversight, $6,110,000 for fraud and computer 

forensics, $2,810,000 for inspections and special reviews, and 

$275,000 for whistleblower protection. The Committee also supports the request to raise FTEs by 71 for increased oversight capability. 

Since 2012, DHS has grown by over 5,000 FTEs while the OIG 

staff has decreased by over 100. This trend cannot continue if the 

Department is to effectively safeguard tax dollars by preventing 

and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse. The Committee is pleased 

that, unlike previous years, the fiscal year 2016 request proposed 

an increase for the OIG to assure robust oversight capacity within 

the Department. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

The Committee directs the OIG to provide quarterly briefings on 

the status of filling OIG vacancies, procurements related to the 

lifecycle auditing program, and programmatic successes and challenges. 

The Committee directs the OIG to assess and report on CBP ethics and integrity training for agents and officers, as well as CBP 

mechanisms for operational oversight related to ethics and integrity. The OIG shall include an explicit plan for ethics and integrity 

oversight in its fiscal year 2016 obligation and execution plan. 

TITLE II—SECURITY ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

Mission 

The mission of U.S. Customs and Border Protection is to enforce 

laws regarding the admission of foreign-born persons into the 

United States, to facilitate the flow of legitimate trade and travel, 

and to ensure all persons and cargo enter the U.S. legally and safely through official checkpoints at ports of entry 

Recommendation 

CBP’s ability to hire and retain its workforce is an ongoing challenge. In fiscal year 2014, only 45,629 FTEs were on-board, which 

was 1,071 FTEs below the level funded. For fiscal year 2015, CBP 

projects its on-board strength will be 1,820 FTEs below the level 

provided in fiscal year 2015, translating into at least $263,606,000 

being used for other, unbudgeted activities. The fiscal year 2016 request compounds the problem by proposing 47,874 FTEs. To reach 

the requested level of FTEs and cover attrition, CBP would have 

to hire over 5,500 new employees in less than 12 months, something the Committee doubts is possible. 

In fiscal year 2014, Congress provided funding for 2,000 additional CBP Officers (CBPO). Unfortunately, CBP still needs to hire 

a net gain of almost 1,100 CBPOs to reach the desired strength of 

23,775 FTEs. Simultaneously, attrition in the Border Patrol has 

skyrocketed, leading to a net loss of nearly 1,000 agents over the 

last 12 months even though the Congress has consistently mandated and funded 21,370 agents. 

From the beginning of the fiscal year through May 2015, CBP 

hired only 257 Border Patrol agents while 632 agents left the agency, a rate of attrition that is untenable. To address personnel shortfalls and hiring times, the Committee directs CBP to work with the 

Department to comply with direction in title I of this report to complete a root cause analysis and develop a corrective action plan 

based on its findings. Until CBP clearly understands the reasons 

for increased attrition, it will be impossible to develop and execute 

initiatives to reduce it. For instance, if the analysis indicates that 

retention issues are primarily a result of hardship assignments, 

CBP could propose additional compensation for such assignments. 

The Committee stands by its recommendation to provide funds 

for 23,775 CBPOs and 21,370 Border Patrol agents; however, it is 

extremely skeptical that CBP can vet and hire sufficient people to 

meet that goal by the beginning of fiscal year 2016. Accordingly, 

the Committee’s funding recommendation proposes an incremental 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

hiring schedule over the course of the fiscal year that will result 

in CBP reaching its mandated end strength by September 30, 2016. 

This hiring ramp reduces the required funding by a total of 

$254,192,000 over all personnel accounts within CBP. 

In order to provide oversight, the Committee directs CBP to submit a report not later than five days after the end of each fiscal 

quarter on staffing numbers, to include gains and losses by pay period during the quarter. Additionally, the report shall include the 

total number of CBPOs and Border Patrol agents on-board. 

In title I, under OCFO, the Committee directs briefings on obligation and budget execution plans. Further, the Committee directs 

that CBP’s plan include obligations and budget execution by PPA, 

project, and subproject or severable end item for multiyear funding 

appropriated in prior years, anticipated carryover, and the planned 

obligation of the carryover in future years until all funds are obligated. 

The Committee is concerned that current CBP metrics do not 

provide a sufficiently accurate and complete picture of border security, and directs CBP to continue working with the Office of Policy 

to develop more definitive metrics. Until CBP can more accurately 

measure inflow rates of illicit border crossers and contraband between ports of entry, at ports of entry, and in the maritime domain, 

Congress and the public will continue to be wary about claims of 

progress in the border security mission. Further, more accurate 

metrics are needed to inform the allocation of scarce resources to 

where they can be most effectively used at the border. 

In April 2010, CBP established the Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition (OTIA) to oversee the agency’s program management and acquisition efforts for mission technology across the 

agency. The concept for this type of coordination at the component 

level is similar to the Department-wide Unity of Effort initiative 

that the Secretary commenced in 2014. Unfortunately, the beneficial impact of OTIA has not been fully realized because many of 

CBP’s technology acquisition programs have never migrated into 

OTIA’s centralized framework and continue to be managed in 

stovepipes. The Committee strongly encourages CBP to expand 

OTIA’s technology acquisition oversight and coordination role by 

identifying business drivers and potential risks, pursuing requirements integration, avoiding overlap and redundancy, and strengthening analytical capabilities. With constant need for experienced 

acquisition personnel and the limited number of procurements 

across the agency, CBP cannot afford to spread and stovepipe personnel and funding. In addition, the Committee directs CBP and 

the USM to conduct a review of the CBP acquisition process, procedures, and organizational structure and report its findings to the 

Committees on Appropriations and Homeland Security not later 

than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $8,459,657,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 9,124,270,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 8,695,238,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +235,581,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥429,032,000 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

The Salaries and Expenses appropriation provides funds for border security, immigration enforcement, customs and agriculture inspections, regulating and facilitating international trade, collecting 

import duties, and enforcing U.S. trade laws. In addition to appropriations, fee collections are authorized to cover CBP operations. 

Recommendation 

For fiscal year 2016, the Committee recommends $8,695,238,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $429,032,000 below the amount requested and $235,581,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2015. Included in the total is $3,274,000 derived from the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund. The recommendation promotes strong 

border security, expands efforts to facilitate trade and travel, and 

builds CBP’s targeting capabilities. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Headquarters, Management, and Administration: 

Commissioner ..................................................................................................... $30,950,000 $12,301,000 

Chief Counsel ..................................................................................................... 49,786,000 48,792,000 

Congressional Affairs ......................................................................................... 2,978,000 2,880,000 

Internal Affairs ................................................................................................... 170,024,000 166,121,000 

Public Affairs ...................................................................................................... 14,464,000 14,350,000 

Training and Development ................................................................................. 80,466,000 79,965,000 

Technology, Innovation and Acquisition ............................................................. 29,658,000 27,359,000 

Intelligence/Investigative Liaison ....................................................................... 78,402,000 73,482,000 

Administration .................................................................................................... 420,238,000 404,041,000 

Rent .................................................................................................................... 629,046,000 629,046,000 

Subtotal, Headquarters, Management, and Administration ..................... 1,506,012,000 1,458,337,000 

Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation: 

Inspections, Trade, and Travel Facilitation at Ports of Entry ........................... 3,077,568,000 2,898,419,000 

Harbor Maintenance Fee Collection (Trust Fund) .............................................. 3,274,000 3,274,000 

International Cargo Screening ............................................................................ 69,851,000 68,148,000 

Other international programs ............................................................................. 24,935,000 24,713,000 

Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism .................................................. 41,420,000 41,121,000 

Trusted Traveler Programs ................................................................................. 5,811,000 5,811,000 

Inspection and Detection Technology Investments ............................................ 209,273,000 209,199,000 

National Targeting Center .................................................................................. 79,514,000 78,880,000 

Training ............................................................................................................... 48,714,000 48,052,000 

Subtotal, Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation .................. 3,560,360,000 3,377,617,000 

Border Security and Control between Ports of Entry: 

Border Security and Control ............................................................................... 3,921,393,000 3,806,101,000 

Border Security and Control—UC Contingency Funding ................................... 79,000,000 ––– 

Training ............................................................................................................... 57,505,000 53,183,000 

Subtotal, Border Security and Control between POEs .............................. 4,057,898,000 3,859,284,000 

Total, Salaries and Expenses ........................................................... $9,124,270,000 $8,695,238,000 

Headquarters, Management, and Administration 

The Headquarters, Management, and Administration (HMA) 

PPA funds the development of critical policy and operational guidance, and provides mission support to CBP’s operational components, among other activities. To support these requirements, the 

Committee recommends $1,458,337,000 for HMA, $47,675,000 

below the amount requested and $90,137,000 above the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes a reduction of $27,171,000 due to projected underexecution of funds for 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

personnel and a reduction of $5,029,000 that corresponds to the 

amount associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s 

budget. 

CBP has failed to respond in a timely and complete fashion to 

repeated Committee requests for information about new hiring, attrition, and amounts of FTE funding expended—budget execution 

data that should be at any senior leader’s fingertips. The cause of 

the delay appears to be either an unwillingness to inform the Committee about the number of personnel actually on CBP’s payroll or 

simply a lack of respect for the role of the Congress in overseeing 

CBP funding and operations. When the Committee’s oversight activity is stymied repeatedly, it has no recourse but to act punitively. Accordingly, the Committee reduces funding for the Commissioner’s Office by 50 percent, and encourages CBP to respond 

to future Committee requests with more alacrity. 

Within 60 days of the date of enactment of this Act, CBP is directed to brief the Committee on its use of criminal misconduct investigative authority, which was delegated to CBP by the Secretary 

in 2014, and to continue providing regular updates thereafter. 

The Committee is concerned that technology currently used to 

analyze vehicular traffic crossing our borders has become outdated 

and should be improved. As part of the overall effort to improve situational awareness, the Committee expects the Department to continue to improve land border integration by procuring and implementing the latest, most effective technologies available to monitor 

vehicles crossing our borders. 

When fully implemented in 2016, ACE will serve as the ‘‘single 

window’’ system for the private sector to report import and export 

data for automated processing. It will also allow CBP to more rapidly share data with its federal agency partners, such as the Food 

Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Committee is concerned that, prior to full ACE implementation, FSIS personnel are required to manually review 

CBP import data to identify importers who fail to present meat and 

poultry imports for FSIS inspection. Such ‘‘failures to present’’ can 

lead to the introduction into commerce of uninspected meat and 

poultry products. A May 2015 OIG report (OIG–15–91) found that, 

while CBP is making progress in the development and deployment 

of ACE, it has insufficient internal controls in place to ensure that 

the deployment schedule remains on track. As part of the semi-annual ACE briefings, CBP shall identify any risks that could result 

in a delay in fully implementing ACE, including an assessment of 

the adequacy of internal controls to mitigate risk and the status of 

responding to the recommendations of OIG–15–91. 

The Committee continues to be concerned about the impact of 

carrizo cane and other invasive plant species on the activities of 

the Border Patrol along the Rio Grande, and is aware that the 

State of Texas recently established a Carrizo Cane Eradication Program to be administered by the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB). The Committee expects CBP to work 

with the TSSWCB and other Federal, state, and local stakeholders 

on efforts to control carrizo cane, and directs CBP to update the 

Committee, within 30 days of the date of enactment of this act, on 

its efforts. The update shall address progress made; a plan for 

working with stakeholders to make future progress; strategies 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

under consideration by other Federal agencies, as well as State and 

local stakeholders; and efforts to work with the Government of 

Mexico to eradicate or control carrizo cane on the Mexican side of 

the river. The update should also identify CBP resources expended 

during fiscal year 2015 for this effort, along with resources required for it during fiscal year 2016 and future years. 

With CBP’s recent release of its risk-based Agriculture Resource 

Allocation Model (AgRAM), the Committee is concerned about how 

CBP plans to carry out its agriculture quarantine inspection (AQI) 

mission with current staffing levels. CBP is directed to brief the 

Committee within 90 days of enactment of this Act on a plan to address these staffing needs to meet its AQI mission to protect U.S. 

food, agriculture, and natural resources. 

Under CBP’s Outlying Area Reporting Station (OARS) program, 

CBP officers can conduct inspections of Canadian citizens and residents arriving to the United States by private boat at some public 

marinas through videophone technology. The program has helped 

improve border security while facilitating the flow of international 

tourism and commerce. The Committee is concerned by reports 

that the current videophone technology is old, and urges CBP to review upgrading the technology with more reliable, modern devices, 

including mobile technology. 

The Committee is aware of concerns that CBP may not be consistently applying its rules for classifying textile costumes and related items as festive articles. In particular, some importers believe 

that CBP’s current standard for categorizing an item as a festive 

article under heading 9505 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States—that it is a textile costume of a flimsy nature 

and construction, lacking in durability, and generally recognized as 

not being normal articles of apparel—is too subjective and leads to 

disparate treatment of similar imported items for tariff purposes. 

The Committee urges CBP to work with private sector stakeholders 

to ensure that the agency’s classification approach is both fair and 

objective. 

The Committee is concerned about CBP’s resource allocation at 

airports actively expanding services, including the threshold of passengers and primary processing times as specified under the workload staffing model. CBP is directed to brief the Committee on how 

CBP addresses staffing shortfalls and screening times at expanding 

airports not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 

Act. Further, the briefing shall include the feasibility of reimbursement for the salaries of CBP officer included public-private partnerships. 

The Committee expects CBP to adhere to the requirements of the 

Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), Public Law 110–457, related to the treatment of unaccompanied children, including those that apply to children from contiguous countries. Within 120 days of the date of enactment of this Act, CBP 

is directed to provide a briefing on its policies related to compliance 

with such requirements, guidance to officers and agents related to 

TVPRA, and mechanisms for ensuring compliance with such policies, guidance, and applicable laws. The briefing should also address CBP’s Juvenile Referral Process (JRP), including a description of the program, its purpose, the policy or guidance for selecting 

children for the program, and CBP’s policies for communicating 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

with foreign governments pertaining to the repatriations related to 

the program. In addition, the briefing should include JRP data regarding the number, ages, and gender of children selected; the average and median length of stay in CBP custody; referrals by DHS 

to the Department of Justice for prosecution; transfers of children 

to other Federal agencies; placements into removal proceedings; repatriations; and grants of relief from removal, including asylum, 

Special Immigrant Juvenile status, a U Visa, a T Visa, or an S 

Visa. 

In addition, the Committee expects CBP to ensure that ports of 

entry and short-term custody facilities holding unaccompanied children have staff who have been appropriately trained to screen children for signs of trafficking or abuse, as well as staff trained to 

manage their care, including necessary medical and mental health 

care; climate appropriate clothing; basic personal hygiene; a pillow, 

linens, and sufficient blankets to rest at a comfortable temperature; 

adequate nutrition; a safe and sanitary living environment; access 

to daily recreation; access to legal services and consular officials; 

and access to supervised phone calls. CBP is expected to follow all 

legal requirements and policy directives for conveying information 

to unaccompanied children regarding their legal rights in a language they can understand, including mechanisms to report abuse 

or misconduct they may have experienced. 

The Committee notes the success of the Global Entry program in 

reducing wait times for pre-approved, low-risk travelers and encourages CBP to consider ways to expand the program. In addition, 

the Committee encourages the Department to work with the Department of State to explore the feasibility of developing a joint 

process for visa applications and Global Entry enrollment. 

The Committee commends CBP for the implementation and 

rapid expansion of Automated Passport Control (APC), along with 

the successful piloting of Mobile Passport Control (MPC), and encourages the expanded use of these and other technologies that 

help CBP carry out its important mission while also improving the 

traveler experience. As CBP increasingly relies on such technologies for efficient operation, it will be important to ensure they 

are appropriately maintained to avoid outages and resulting increases in passenger wait times. As part of its budget justification 

for fiscal year 2017, CBP shall describe its plan to work with its 

airline and airport authority partners to ensure the efficient operation of automated passenger processing technologies. 

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 CBP officer and agent 

training on identifying human trafficking victims and providing appropriate referrals to victim service organizations. Given the diverse backgrounds of human trafficking victims, the Committee 

strongly urges CBP to incorporate culturally sensitive training and 

language-accessible translated materials. The Committee directs 

the Commissioner to post the National Human Trafficking Resource Center hotline, email address, text messaging number, and 

website information in all U.S. ports of entry. 

The Committee directs the Commissioner to brief the Committee 

not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act on 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

continued dialogue with the Department of Defense on geo-intelligence activities, to include potential future efforts. 

In November 2012, the GAO issued a report (GAO–13–56) concerning the Department of Homeland Security’s ability to more effectively integrate the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) into its mission objectives, particularly regarding border security. The Committee encourages CBP to continue assessing specific areas and missions in 

which collaboration with the CAP can be achieved and successfully 

integrated during fiscal year 2016. 

The Department has failed to implement a biometric entry/exit 

solution as recommended by the 9/11 Commission, and the system 

it is currently developing will likely fall short of the biometric exit 

capability required by law. The Committee directs the Commissioner to brief the Committees on Appropriations and Homeland 

Security not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 

Act on the Air Entry/Exit Re-engineering study and an expected 

timeline for implementation of a biometric entry/exit system. 

Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation 

For the Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation ac- count, the Committee recommends $3,377,617,000, $182,743,000 

below the amount requested and $190,625,000 above the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes a reduction of $113,766,000 due to projected underexecution of funds for 

personnel and a reduction of $28,755,000 that corresponds to the 

amount associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s 

budget. As proposed by the President, the recommendation includes 

funds sufficient to support a base of 23,775 CBPOs, which includes 

the costs associated with the 2,000 CBPOs funded through the fiscal year 2014 appropriation. The recommendation provides $19,445,000 for the Electronic Visa Information Update System, $10,000,000 below the request, due to 

the planned acceleration of the program utilizing fiscal year 2015 

funding. 

Based on the success of the existing public-private partnerships, 

the Committee includes language increasing from five to ten the 

number of air ports of entry pilots allowed. 

While CBP’s resource allocation model has greatly improved its 

ability to make informed staffing decisions, the Committee understands that CBP will need to routinely update the model to account 

for new trade and travel data and to address any newly identified 

gaps to include expanding airports. Any modifications to the model 

shall be described in the fiscal year 2017 budget. To avoid law enforcement and security sensitivities, CBP is encouraged to provide 

staffing requirements at the Field Office level. 

The statement accompanying Public Law 114–4 provided extensive direction to CBP on means to reduce wait times at ports of 

entry. The Committee directs CBP to continue to provide updates 

on progress towards reducing wait times and implementing section 

571 of Public Law 113–76, which requires the development of performance metrics and operational work plans to reduce passenger 

wait times at ports of entry with the highest passenger volume and 

wait times. 

In 2014, the Secretary extended, by two years, a waiver on implementing the 9/11 Act requirement to scan 100 percent of mariVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

time cargo originating in foreign ports prior to lading. That extension reflected the continued technological, financial, and operational challenges involved in achieving this important homeland 

security capability and the related difficulty in balancing security 

with the facilitation of commerce. Unfortunately, it continues to appear unlikely that the 100 percent scanning requirement will be 

met within the timeframe of the current waiver and, potentially, 

not even during subsequent waiver iterations. In House Report 

113–481, the Committee established an expectation that the Department should propose to Congress aggressive, alternative requirements that build on the layered security capabilities achieved 

to date and that could be realistically achieved within the next two 

years. The Committee directs CBP to provide a briefing, within 45 

days of enactment of this Act, on its near term and longer term 

plans for the improvement of maritime cargo scanning at foreign 

ports. 

As requested by the President, the recommendation includes 

funds sufficient to recapitalize aging large and small scale Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) systems and to maintain the existing assets deployed in the field. The Committee expects CBP to use contracts negotiated by the General Services Administration (GSA), 

when possible, to speed up procurement. 

Border Security and Control Between Ports of Entry 

The Committee recommends $3,859,284,000 for Border Security and Control between Ports of Entry, $198,614,000 below the 

amount requested and $45,181,000 below the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes a reduction of 

$36,182,000 which corresponds to the amount associated with the 

pay raise assumed in the President’s budget, and a reduction of 

$79,000,000 requested as a contingency fund. In addition, while the 

recommendation supports a Border Patrol force of 21,370 agents 

and enablers, a reduction of $83,429,000 is imposed due to the 

probability that the end strength will not be reached until the end 

of the fiscal year. 

The Committee directs the Department to continue issuing statistics on the number of individuals held in custody by CBP, including all Border Patrol stations, checkpoints, and short-term custody 

facilities (defined as facilities used to hold individuals for 72 hours 

or less). For all individuals detained at any of the facilities used 

for short-term custody, these statistics shall consist of country of 

origin, age, gender, detention duration, and the circumstances of 

release or transfer from custody, including whether a detainee died 

in CBP custody. The Committee directs the Department to publish 

these statistics in its annual statistical yearbook. Additionally, the 

Committee directs CBP to work with ICE to establish efficient procedures for processing and transferring individuals from short-term 

custody to ICE detention. 

The Committee expects CBP to ensure that its holding facilities 

are in full compliance with the Department’s Standards to Prevent, 

Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault in Confinement 

Facilities, which were finalized on March 7, 2014, in response to a 

Presidential Memorandum directing certain Federal agencies to 

promulgate rules consistent with the requirements of the Prison 

Rape Elimination Act. As part of its budget justification for fiscal 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

year 2017, CBP shall provide funding estimates for compliance activities, including in-person staff training, external audits, infrastructure changes, and other activities related to adherence to the 

standards. 

The Committee directs CBP to report to the Committee within 24 

hours of the death of any individual in CBP custody or the death 

of any individual subsequent to the use of force by CBP personnel, 

including relevant details regarding the circumstances of the fatality. In addition, CBP shall report annually on the status or results 

of ongoing investigations related to such deaths, with the first report due not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

Recognizing that repatriation agreements are bilateral in nature, 

the Committee expects DHS to repatriate removable individuals in 

a manner that ensures their safety. For instance, CBP and ICE 

should repatriate incapacitated persons, unaccompanied minors, 

pregnant women, and other vulnerable individuals only during daylight hours, make reasonable efforts to inform Mexican authorities 

in advance of repatriating vulnerable individuals, avoid removing 

individuals via entry/exit points on the U.S.-Mexico border where 

their safety could be threatened, and, to the extent practicable, 

avoid separating family members during the deportation process. 

The Committee notes that House Report 113–481 directed the Department to review its current repatriation practices and policies 

and brief the Committee not later than 180 days after the date of 

enactment of the fiscal year 2015 Act on the results of that review, 

including the need for any additional measures to ensure that deportations are conducted safely. 

The Committee also directs CBP to work with ICE, the Office of 

Refugee Resettlement (ORR), and the U.S. Marshals Service 

(USMS) to ensure that individuals held in CBP short-term custody 

are processed and transferred to ICE, ORR, or USMS custody in 

a humane and timely manner, and that their nonperishable belongings are returned to them when they are removed or released. In 

addition, CBP is encouraged to explore the feasibility of developing 

and deploying an online detainee locator system. 

The Committee commends CBP’s search and rescue efforts, in 

particular the Border Patrol Search, Trauma, and Rescue 

(BORSTAR) Unit, and encourages CBP to expand its engagement 

with State and local counterparts and nongovernmental organizations in providing necessary medical aid and reducing deaths. 

Within 60 days of the date enactment of this Act, CBP shall provide a report to the Committee on its search and rescue efforts during the prior fiscal year, including the number of deaths by sector 

and a description of the methodology for counting such deaths; the 

number of rescue beacons by sector; the frequency of rescue beacon 

activation; and the number of individuals rescued by the Border 

Patrol as a result of rescue beacons. In addition, the briefing 

should address procedures for the identification of deceased individuals, cooperative activities with State and local governments and 

nonprofit organizations, procedures for responding to rescue beacons, distress calls, and missing persons reports, and plans for reducing border crossings and deaths in remote areas along and near 

the border. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

The Committee directs CBP to provide a briefing, within 30 days 

of the date of enactment of this Act, on the use of roving patrol 

stops and tactical and permanent checkpoints for immigration enforcement near the border. The briefing should address the legal 

authorities, policies, enforcement statistics, and oversight mechanisms associated with these activities. 

The Committee is aware that the Border Patrol has been evaluating Rapid DNA technology as a potential tool to confirm claimed 

relationships of juveniles in custody, identify victims of human 

trafficking, and match latent DNA from unsolved crimes against 

the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System. The Committee encourages the evaluation of new technologies that have the potential to 

enhance CBP’s border security, travel, and trade missions, and expects CBP to provide regular updates on its assessments of such 

technologies. 

The Committee is aware that CBP has begun the second phase 

of a pilot program to evaluate the feasibility of incorporating bodyworn camera technology into the agency’s law enforcement operations. CBP conducted the first phase of the pilot, which involved 

the evaluation of body-worn cameras at CBP training academies, 

between October and December 2014. The second phase, which includes the evaluation of the cameras in a number of varied operational environments, is scheduled for completion in mid-2015. The 

Committee looks forward to a briefing on the results of the pilot 

program, as required by House Report 113–481. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $808,169,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 867,311,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 846,245,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +38,076,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥21,066,000 

Mission 

The Automation Modernization appropriation provides funds for 

information technology and targeting systems critical to CBP frontline personnel and to protect the Nation’s borders and facilitate 

trade. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $846,245,000 for Automation Modernization, $21,066,000 below the amount requested and 

$38,076,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 

recommendation includes a reduction of $18,773,000 due to projected underexecution of funds for personnel and a reduction of 

$2,293,000 that corresponds to the amount associated with the pay 

raise assumed in the President’s budget. The Committee directs 

CBP to provide semiannual briefings on the modernization of the 

TECS system, which is used for primary and secondary inspection 

processing, and the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) 

system. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Information Technology ................................................................................................ $399,027,000 $378,134,000 

Automated Targeting Systems ..................................................................................... 122,669,000 122,640,000 

Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)/International Trade Data System (ITDS) 153,736,000 153,614,000 

Current Operations Protection and Processing Support (COPPS) ............................... 191,879,000 191,857,000 

Total .................................................................................................................... $867,311,000 $846,245,000 

BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $382,466,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 373,461,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 439,430,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +56,964,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ +65,969,000 

Mission 

The Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology 

(BSFIT) account funds technology and tactical infrastructure solutions to enhance CBP’s situational awareness at the borders and its 

ability to respond to and resolve illegal activity. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $439,430,000 for BSFIT, 

$65,969,000 above the amount requested and $56,964,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. This recommendation continues the Committee’s strong support of deploying border security 

technology that is operationally appropriate, agile, and cost-effective. Of the total, only funds in the Development and Deployment 

PPA are provided as multiyear. 

Based on CBP’s obligation and budget execution plans, CBP has 

engaged in a practice of carrying over significant amounts of unobligated funds from prior years while simultaneously requesting significant amounts of new funding. For example, of the funds requested for fiscal year 2016, $96,400,000 will be carried over into 

fiscal years 2017 and 2018. In addition, CBP projects to start fiscal 

year 2016 with $360,230,000 carried over from prior year appropriations, of which $164,070,000 was provided in fiscal year 2015, 

$58,000,000 was provided in fiscal year 2014, and $138,160,000 

was provided in fiscal year 2011 or earlier. 

Sometimes contractual requirements dictate the need for forward 

funding, defined as appropriations that are not expected to be obligated during the budget year. However, when carryover becomes 

excessive and spans many years, it suggests that improvements are 

needed in planning and execution. This is particularly true of funds 

requested for operations and maintenance activities. 

The Committee cannot allow appropriations to remain unused for 

multiple fiscal years. Therefore, the recommendation includes a reduction of $96,040,000, which corresponds to the amount planned 

for carryover in the fiscal year 2016 request. Additionally, 

$98,550,000 is rescinded from prior year appropriations that will 

not be obligated in fiscal year 2016 and is re-appropriated for nearterm execution priorities. 

In future budgets, CBP is directed to request funding for programs and end items that can be obligated in the budget request 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

year. Specifically, the budgeting of acquisition items shall be on a 

time-phased ‘‘lead-time away’’ or ‘‘need to commit’’ basis in order to 

avoid accumulation of excessive carryover. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Operations and Maintenance ...................................................................................... $273,931,000 $247,891,000 

Development and Deployment ..................................................................................... 99,530,000 191,539,000 

Total .................................................................................................................... $373,461,000 $439,430,000 

Operations and Maintenance 

For Operations and Maintenance, the Committee recommends 

$247,891,000 in one year funds, $26,040,000 below the request and 

$8,981,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. Included 

in the recommendation are funds sufficient to maintain tethered 

aerostats. The recommendation also includes $25,000,000 to continue existing aerostat coverage in the Rio Grande Valley and to 

provide coverage in areas of Arizona. Further, the recommendation 

includes $10,000,000 from funds previously appropriated and a decrease to the request of $61,040,000 of funding that will not execute until fiscal years 2017 and 2018. 

CBP is directed to ensure that any data gathered by the aerostat 

fleet is transmitted to the AMOC so it can be used to provide situational awareness and to support the timely interdiction of illegal 

crossings. 

Development and Deployment 

The recommendation includes $191,539,000 for Development and 

Deployment, $92,009,000 above the amount requested and 

$65,945,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 

recommendation includes an additional $38,459,000 for integrated 

fixed towers and $88,550,000 from funds previously appropriated. 

However, the Committee denies $35,000,000 of requested funding 

because it will not execute until fiscal years 2017 or 2018. 

CBP is directed to continue providing weekly notifications on procurement actions related to technology investments until all initial 

contract awards have been made. 

The Committee urges the Department to obligate funds provided 

in the Fiscal Year 2015 Homeland Security Appropriations Act to 

resolve outstanding technological issues and move expeditiously to 

the procurement and deployment phase of next generation unattended ground sensor technology, which will make the Southwest 

and Northern Borders more secure while reducing agent risks and 

improving response efficiency. 

AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $750,469,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 747,422,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 784,934,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +34,465,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ +37,512,000 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

Mission 

CBP’s Office of Air and Marine (OAM) provides integrated air 

and marine forces for air and marine interdiction, law enforcement, 

and National border domain security. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $784,934,000 for Air and Marine 

Operations, $37,512,000 above the amount requested and 

$34,465,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 

recommendation includes a reduction of $11,680,000 due to projected underexecution of funds for personnel and a reduction of 

$2,808,000 that corresponds to the amount associated with the pay 

raise assumed in the President’s budget. 

Based on direction in House Report 113–481, the OSEM began 

working with OAM and the Coast Guard to establish a common flying hour program. While some progress has been made through 

this effort, specifically progress in developing a common lexicon, 

business processes, data elements, and reports, the Committee 

looks forward to implementation of the plan and expects the common program to inform the fiscal year 2017 budget request. 

OAM must also take the next step and leverage the new program 

to improve the rigor of its operational requirements process. The 

current process relies heavily on qualitative descriptions of need 

and lacks consistency among sectors. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................................................ $306,253,000 $291,765,000 

Operations and Maintenance ...................................................................................... 395,169,000 409,969,000 

Procurement ................................................................................................................. 46,000,000 83,200,000 

Total .................................................................................................................... $747,422,000 $784,934,000 

Salaries and Expenses 

The Committee recommends $291,765,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $14,488,000 below the amount requested and $8,035,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

Operations and Maintenance 

The Committee recommends $409,969,000 for Operations and Maintenance, $14,800,000 above the amount requested and 

$12,300,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 

recommendation includes $14,800,000 to address unmet operational needs, to include increases for the AMOC, maintenance on 

aircraft and ground stations, and sensor operations. 

The Committee directs OAM to review the feasibility and cost effectiveness of using commercially available services, including airships and fixed-wing or rotary aircraft, to complement OAM border 

surveillance activities and brief the Committee on its assessment 

not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

The Committee is concerned about the impact of adverse weather 

on the flight hours of CBP’s UAS, which support situational awareness along the Southwest Border. In collaboration with the Federal 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

Aviation Administration, CBP should explore the feasibility of developing an alternative Certificate of Waiver or Authorization that 

might mitigate the impact of such weather. In addition, CBP shall 

brief the Committee, within 90 days of the date of enactment of 

this Act, on the number of UAS flights canceled due to weather at 

each UAS base, along with an assessment of other actions that 

could help mitigate weather impacts on UAS flight hours, such as 

the establishment of an additional or alternate UAS base with 

more landing and support capacity. 

CBP is directed to study and brief the Committee not later than 

90 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the feasibility 

and cost effectiveness of using National Guard UAS along the 

Southwest Border for the purpose of border security. 

Procurement 

The Committee recommends $83,200,000 for Procurement, 

$37,200,000 above the request and $30,200,000 above the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes 

$37,200,000 above the budget request for added investments in 

sensors, communications equipment, and facility upgrades at the 

AMOC. 

The Committee includes $44,000,000 for two multi-role enforcement aircraft, and expects CBP to conduct a full and open competition for the next procurement of the aircraft. While continuing to 

acquire the existing airframe would ensure commonality, the Committee believes OAM should consider open architecture, modular, 

and reconfigurable systems in the upcoming required competition. 

This will permit OAM to have a fleet of aircraft that can easily be 

optimized for a wide variety of maritime and land border missions. 

CONSTRUCTION AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $288,821,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 341,543,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 341,356,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +52,535,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥187,000 

Mission 

The Construction and Facilities Management account provides 

resources for critical facilities associated with infrastructure and 

personnel, including Border Patrol stations, checkpoints, temporary 

detention facilities, mission support facilities, training facilities, 

and CBP-owned ports of entry. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $341,356,000 for Construction and 

Facilities Management, $187,000 below the amount requested and 

$52,535,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 

recommendation includes an increase of $15,475,000 for deferred 

maintenance, a reduction of $2,808,000 that corresponds to the 

amount associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s 

budget, and a reduction of $15,000,000 for unexplained cost growth 

in environmental and energy initiatives and operational requirements and services. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

On an annual basis, CBP is directed to submit an inventory of 

real property describing the physical condition of each facility and 

its recapitalization plan. As a component of the budget justification, 

CBP is directed to provide a description of each actual or planned 

construction and major renovation project, a cost estimate of each 

initiative, a description of existing conditions and how the project 

will eliminate or ameliorate them, and the estimated costs of routine maintenance. To the extent practicable, CBP is urged to consider recommendations about construction design from existing, 

border-proximate businesses. Finally, CBP is directed to work with 

GSA to prioritize funds for projects critical to improving border security and facilitating trade and travel into and out of the United 

States. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Facilities Construction and Sustainment .................................................................... $255,378,000 $270,853,000 

Program Oversight and Management ......................................................................... 86,165,000 70,503,000 

Total .................................................................................................................... $341,543,000 $341,356,000 

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

Mission 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforces Federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety. 

Recommendation 

The Committee’s recommendation promotes the goals of: enforcing immigration and customs laws; investigating and dismantling 

transnational criminal organizations, including those that traffic 

and smuggle people—and especially children—as well as narcotics, 

weapons, and other contraband into the United States; ascertaining 

facts about the composition of the detained and non-detained alien 

population in removal proceedings and their legal claims; screening 

100 percent of visa applications; right-sizing the investigative and 

enforcement workforces; and encouraging the development of an effective deterrence program. 

In title I, under OCFO, the Committee directs briefings on obligation and budget execution plans. Further, the Committee directs 

that ICE’s plans include obligations and budget execution by PPA, 

project and subproject, as well as the amounts planned to be carried over into the next fiscal year. Within these briefings, ICE shall 

address specific technologies and support services intended for procurement, program schedules, and major milestones. For multiyear 

appropriations, the briefings shall detail the status of each appropriation by source year. In addition, the briefings shall identify the 

numbers of personnel newly hired or lost to attrition since the beginning of the fiscal year or since the most recent report, as appropriate. These briefings shall be provided not later than 45 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act and on a quarterly basis 

thereafter. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $5,932,756,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 5,886,549,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 5,736,286,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. ¥196,470,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥150,263,000 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $5,736,286,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $150,263,000 below the amount requested and 

$196,470,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 

recommendation includes a reduction of $101,519,000 due to projected underexecution of funds for personnel and a reduction of 

$38,110,000 that corresponds to the amount associated with the 

pay raise assumed in the President’s budget. Like other DHS components, ICE has historically failed to achieve hiring goals across 

the agency based on enacted appropriations, resulting in tens of 

millions of dollars appropriated for payroll, compensation, and benefits being diverted to unbudgeted activities without congressional 

oversight of those expenditures. Therefore, the recommendation includes funding for 19,065 FTEs, an increase of 604 FTEs over the 

projected fiscal year 2015 FTE level. The Committee supports the 

agency’s efforts to improve hiring and retention, but remains dubious it will be able to achieve its hiring goals for fiscal year 2015, 

much less those for fiscal year 2016. Therefore, the Committee 

withholds $100,000,000 from Salaries and Expenses for Personnel 

and Compensation Benefits pending a mid-year review of the agency’s hiring progress. 

In 2014, ICE released 12,757 aliens from its custody after determining that they were not enforcement priorities. However, according to DHS OIG Report 15–85, this data may not be accurate and 

the number could be much higher because officers do not always 

record their use of prosecutorial discretion. The report also noted 

that ICE field office personnel do not always have access to an individual’s criminal history in his or her country of origin, information 

that could be directly relevant to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by ICE. A directive is included under the Office of Policy 

heading in title I of this report requiring the Office of Immigration 

Statistics to develop and implement a plan that results in the complete and accurate collection and reporting of immigration enforcement data, from encounter through final disposition and including 

data on the use of prosecutorial discretion. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Final bill 

Headquarters Management and Administration 

Personnel Compensation and Benefits, Services, and Other Costs .................. $195,950,000 $148,738,000 

Headquarters Managed IT Investment ............................................................... 146,046,000 145,957,000 

Subtotal, Headquarters Management and Administration ....................... 341,996,000 294,695,000 

Legal Proceedings 248,096,000 231,214,000 

Investigations 

Domestic Investigations ..................................................................................... 1,766,654,000 1,727,716,000 

International Investigations.

International Operations ............................................................................ 107,931,000 103,566,000 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

Budget estimate Final bill 

Visa Security Program ............................................................................... 30,749,000 32,561,000 

Subtotal, International Investigations .............................................. 138,680,000 136,127,000 

Subtotal, Investigations ............................................................................. 1,905,334,000 1,863,843,000 

Intelligence 80,041,000 79,768,000 

Enforcement and Removal Operations 

Custody Operations ............................................................................................. 2,406,744,000 2,388,603,000 

Fugitive Operations ............................................................................................. 129,438,000 128,072,000 

Criminal Alien Program ...................................................................................... 320,267,000 317,177,000 

Alternatives to Detention .................................................................................... 122,481,000 109,740,000 

Transportation and Removal Program ............................................................... 324,152,000 323,174,000 

Transportation and Removal Program—UC Contingency .................................. 8,000,000 – – – 

Subtotal, Enforcement and Removal Operations ...................................... 3,311,082,000 3,266,766,000 

Total, Salaries and Expenses ........................................................... $5,886,549,000 $5,736,286,000 

Headquarters Management and Administration 

The Committee recommends $294,695,000 for ICE Headquarters 

Management and Administration, $47,301,000 below the amount 

requested and $52,726,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 

year 2015. The recommendation includes reductions to the request 

corresponding to the amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s budget, as well as reductions due to projected underexecution of funds for personnel. 

ICE’s reticence in responding to the Congressional requests for 

information, especially when it relates to the agency’s policies regarding the disciplining of agents who fail to follow the President’s 

directives on immigration, demonstrates a lack of respect for the 

role of Congress in overseeing ICE operations and ensuring the enforcement of the immigration laws of the nation. Therefore, 

$5,000,000 of funding for Headquarters Management and Administration is withheld to motivate the Director of ICE to be more responsive to Congress in a timely way. The funds will be released 

if the Director briefs the Committee on the Priority Enforcement 

Program as directed later in this report. 

Legal Proceedings 

The Committee recommends $231,214,000 for Legal Proceedings, 

$16,882,000 below the amount requested and $13,821,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation 

funds the agency’s request to hire 311 additional attorneys to reduce the backlog on the detained and non-detained dockets. 

Investigations 

The Committee recommends $1,863,843,000 for Investigations, 

$41,491,000 below the request and $3,824,000 above the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding to the amounts associated with 

the pay raise assumed in the President’s budget, as well as reductions due to projected underexecution of funds for personnel. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

Domestic Investigations 

Domestic Investigations supports the enforcement of trade and 

immigration laws through the investigation of activities, persons, 

and events that may pose a threat to the safety or security of the 

United States and its people. The program also supports the investigations of illegal trafficking in weapons (including weapons of 

mass destruction), the smuggling of narcotics and other contraband, human smuggling and trafficking, money laundering and 

other financial crimes, fraudulent trade practices, identity and benefit fraud, child exploitation, and health and public safety dangers. 

The Committee recommends $1,727,716,000 for Domestic Investigations, $38,938,000 below the request and $27,905,000 above fiscal year 2015. The bill provides funds for an increase of 135 agents 

and mission support staff to enhance ICE’s ability to conduct investigations in high-priority mission areas, such as human smuggling 

and trafficking; child exploitation, including through the Child Exploitation Unit at the Cyber Crime Center and Operation Angel 

Watch; and intellectual property rights enforcement, including 

through the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination 

Center (NIPRCC). 

An increase of 1 FTE and $1,000,000 is provided for the Human 

Exploitation Rescue Operative (HERO) Child-Rescue Corps to support child exploitation investigations. The Committee strongly supports this initiative and directs ICE to continue to train at least 

two classes of veterans annually through the program. The Committee expects ICE to continue its efforts to employ HERO graduates at ICE or place them with other Federal, State, or local agencies with related missions. 

ICE plays a critical role in investigating criminal organizations 

trafficking individuals into and within 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 identify human trafficking victims and provide appropriate referrals to victim service organizations. The Committee also encourages ICE to develop, in consultation with the Department of Labor or nongovernmental organizations, enhanced 

training for ICE officers and agents on labor exploitation, smuggling, and trafficking, along with appropriate referral processes for 

identified victims. The Committee notes that ICE can request Continued Presence for victims of trafficking who are potential witnesses in trafficking investigations, and encourages the agency to 

make appropriate use of such requests. Given the diverse backgrounds of human trafficking victims, the Committee urges ICE to 

incorporate culturally sensitive training and language-accessible 

translated materials. 

The Committee notes and commends the enforcement work by 

ICE and the NIPRCC to crack down on the illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit goods and unauthorized copyrighted content 

on the internet. The Committee expects ICE to ensure that the 

NIPRCC is appropriately staffed to expand enforcement actions related to the theft of U.S. intellectual property, particularly in the 

online space. 

The Committee directs the ICE Director to work jointly with the 

Attorney General to assess cross-border violence and performance 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

measures collected by inter-agency task forces, particularly along 

the Southwest Border. Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, ICE is directed to brief the Committee on the 

findings of this assessment and provide recommendations for additional resources needed to track and investigate cross-border violence. 

International Investigations 

The Office of International Affairs (OIA) represents the Department’s largest investigative law enforcement presence abroad and 

helps protect the Nation beyond its borders with 75 offices in 48 

countries. Through International Investigations and the Visa Security Program (VSP), OIA works with foreign counterparts to identify and combat criminal organizations before they can adversely 

impact the United States. 

The Committee recommends $136,127,000 for International Investigations, $2,553,000 below the request and $24,081,000 below 

fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding to the amounts associated with the pay raise 

assumed in the President’s budget, as well as reductions due to 

projected underexecution of funds for personnel. Within the PPA, 

$103,566,000 is for International Operations and $32,561,000 is for 

VSP. 

The VSP protects the U.S. against terrorists and criminal organizations by preventing foreign nationals who pose a threat to National security from entering or residing within the United States. 

The agency received an increase of $19,113,000 for fiscal year 2015 

to cover a shortfall caused by an increase in State Department 

service fees and to expand the VSP to 12 high threat countries. Unfortunately, due in part to the late enactment of fiscal year 2015 

appropriations, the fiscal year 2016 budget request did not include 

funding required to sustain operations at the new locations. Therefore, the Committee recommends an increase of $2,000,000 and directs ICE to annualize these costs in its budget submission for fiscal year 2017. Further, ICE is directed to program and budget for 

continued expansion of the VSP in at least two locations per year. 

Intelligence 

The Office of Intelligence develops, analyzes, and disseminates 

relevant information and intelligence to support ICE leadership, 

operations, and investigations, and allows ICE to prioritize its resources in combating public and National security risks. This information supports law enforcement efforts and investigations across 

ICE, DHS, and many levels of government. The Committee recommends $79,768,000 for the Office of Intelligence, $273,000 below 

the amount requested and $3,289,000 above the amount provided 

in fiscal year 2015. The recommended amount includes $5,000,000 

to enhance human smuggling and trafficking investigations. 

Enforcement and Removal Operations 

Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) is responsible for 

enforcing our Nation’s immigration laws by identifying, apprehending, detaining, and removing aliens who have been adjuVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

dicated or otherwise determined to be removable from the United 

States. 

The Committee recommends $3,266,766,000 for ERO, 

$44,316,000 below the amount requested and $164,678,000 below 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding to the amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s budget, as 

well as reductions due to projected underexecution of personnel 

funds. Additionally, the recommendation does not include the proposed $8,000,000 in contingency funding for the transportation and 

removal of unaccompanied children in numbers that significantly 

exceed the Department’s current estimate. 

Over the last few years, there has been a growing trend of jurisdiction and Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA) around the country 

deciding not to honor ICE detainers issued under the Secure Communities program. The Committee acknowledges the complexities 

of the Secure Communities program that motivated such policies 

and recognizes the legal right of state and local LEA to refuse to 

cooperate with ICE by choosing not to honor detainer requests; 

however, it remains gravely concerned with the tragic consequences that can occur if dangerous illegal aliens, eligible for removal from the United States, are released into our communities. 

This not only endangers our citizens, it also makes the job of finding and removing that alien substantially more difficult and dangerous for our immigration officers. Furthermore, it places a significant burden on ICE, which must now expend considerable resources and effort in locating individuals who are enforcement priorities after they have been released from LEA custody. 

The Department has replaced Secure Communities with the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP). PEP is designed to alleviate 

many of the previous concerns and enable DHS to better work with 

state and local law enforcement to take custody of criminal aliens 

who pose a danger to public safety before they are released into our 

communities. 

The Committee is encouraged by this effort and fully funds the 

request for the Criminal Alien Program and Fugitive Operations. 

The Committee directs the Director of ICE to prioritize hiring efforts to fill the ranks of enforcement officers to the enacted level 

most expeditiously and to implement an in-depth outreach program 

to engage communities on the new Priority Enforcement Program 

and seek their cooperation. The Director of ICE will brief the Committee on the results of this outreach within 120 days after the enactment of this Act. The briefing will include details as to the LEA 

approached and the level of participation on a by-community basis. 

A 2014 GAO report (GAO–15–153) found that detention facility 

inspection reports conducted by ERO varied in most cases from 

those carried out by the Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) in fiscal year 2013, and recommended that ICE assess the reasons why 

inspection results differ to ensure that inspection mechanisms are 

working as intended. GAO also found that, while privately owned 

contract detention facilities (CDF) were subject to ERO inspections, 

no CDFs were inspected by ODO. Within 90 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act, ICE is directed to brief the Committee on 

its policies and procedures for inspecting detention facilities, inVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

cluding the status of responding to recommendations made in 

GAO–15–153. 

Custody Operations 

Custody Operations provides safe, secure, and humane detention 

of removable aliens who are held in government custody because 

they present a risk of flight, a risk to public safety, or are subject 

to mandatory detention. The Committee recommends $2,388,603,000 for Custody Oper- ations, $18,141,000 below the request and $143,990,000 below fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding to the amounts associated with the pay raise 

assumed in the President’s budget, as well as reductions due to 

projected underexecution of personnel funds. Within the total, $1,694,000,000 is included to maintain an average of 34,040 daily detention beds: 31,280 adult beds at an estimated daily cost of $123.54 per bed and 2,760 family beds at an 

estimated daily cost of $342.73. ICE is encouraged to utilize facilities in locations that have a cost per detainee that is below the average of the previous fiscal year and that have made modifications 

and improvements based on ICE guidance. ICE is directed to notify 

the Committee prior to releasing any illegal immigrants in custody 

due to budgetary reasons, including an explanation of the rationale 

for such release. 

Immigration detention is intended to help facilitate the removal 

from the United States of aliens deemed inadmissible or removable 

under immigration law or by an immigration judge. Detention is 

initially mandatory for certain categories of aliens who have recently crossed U.S. borders illegally or sought admission at ports 

of entry without valid travel documents. Such aliens can be subject 

to expedited removal (ER), which does not require a hearing or review before an immigration judge, if they do not have an active 

claim for relief from removal. In its Enforcement and Removal Operations Report for Fiscal Year 2014, ICE reported that ER for 

family units apprehended at the border was constrained by the 

lack of sufficient family detention space. Congress responded by 

providing funding for a significant number of new family detention 

beds for fiscal year 2015. 

Because ICE now has an increased capacity to detain family 

units, the Committee expects ICE to prioritize the use of family detention beds for family units in ER proceedings to the maximum 

extent possible. This will ensure that the detention of family units 

is short-term and results in more efficient removals from the 

United States of family units who do not have an active claim for 

relief from removal that requires a future hearing before an immigration judge. 

With regard to those family units who are detained, the Committee is concerned by reports that ICE has not provided appropriate food, water, and medical care to families, as well as reports 

about inappropriate and demeaning treatment of detainees by contract guards at such facilities. Within 15 days of enactment, and 

monthly thereafter, ICE is directed to update the Committee on 

family detention oversight activities of the ICE coordinator for family detention policy and the Office of Detention Oversight, including 

oversight of mechanisms for receiving and resolving complaints and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

responding to requests for medical care; providing all relevant and 

required information to detainees related to the removal process 

and their rights in detention; and for providing appropriate training and oversight for contract detention staff, including oversight 

related to staff qualifications. These updates shall also include data 

regarding family units in detention who are removed from the 

United States directly from detention; detained for longer than 30 

days and longer than 60 days; issued a bond that has not been 

posted; and released on bond, recognizance, and parole, including 

data on compliance of those released with requirements for immigration court appearances. In addition, the updates should include 

descriptions and data on requests for medical care and response 

times; the average and median lengths of stay in family detention; 

the average, median and range for bond amounts, and improvements made as a result of recommendations by the family detention Advisory Committee or as a result of stakeholder outreach. 

The recommendation supports on-going training and stakeholder 

outreach related to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) and 

implementation of the 2011 Performance Based National Detention 

Standards (PBNDS). Within 45 days after the date of enactment of 

this Act, ICE shall report on its progress in implementing the 2011 

PBNDS and requirements related to PREA, including a list of facilities that are not yet in compliance; a schedule for bringing facilities into compliance; and current year and estimated future year 

costs associated with compliance. The Committee expects ICE to refrain from entering into new contracts or intergovernmental service 

agreements that do not require adherence to the PREA and 2011 

PBNDS standards. In addition, the Committee encourages ICE to 

consider collaborating with the National PREA Resource Center, 

which is supported by the Department of Justice, to help facilitate 

PREA compliance. 

ICE is directed to brief the Committee, within 90 days of the 

date of enactment of this Act, on its policies and practices for ensuring the safety of vulnerable populations in immigration detention facilities. The briefing should include information for the three 

most recent fiscal years, including data on assaults and injuries; 

complaints; mental health referrals; and other information related 

to the safety and security of such individuals, along with recommendations for further improvements to better protect vulnerable detainees. 

Fugitive Operations 

The Committee recommends $128,072,000 for Fugitive Operations, $1,366,000 below the request and $14,543,000 below fiscal 

year 2015. The recommendation includes reductions to the request 

corresponding to the amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s budget. 

In 2012, DHS began calculating visa overstay rates by country, 

matching biographic data from flight manifests to corresponding 

data received upon entry through a CBP primary inspection. More 

than two years have passed, and the Department has failed to 

make a report on this information available to Congress, despite 

public promises. In the absence of this report, Congress is forced 

to rely on non-official, outdated estimates. Given the importance of 

visa overstay rates to the expansion of the Visa Waiver Program, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

visa security policy, and the development of a biometric entry/exit 

program, the Committee directs ICE to submit this report to the 

Committees on Appropriations and Homeland Security not later 

than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Criminal Alien Program 

The Committee recommends $317,177,000 for the Criminal Alien 

Program (CAP), $3,090,000 below the amount requested and 

$10,046,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 

recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding 

to the amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s budget. The recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding to the amounts associated with the pay raise 

assumed in the President’s budget, as well as reductions due to 

projected underexecution of personnel costs. This amount includes 

the proposed enhancements for improving the process for datasharing between the U.S. and international law enforcement partners through the Criminal History Information Sharing program. 

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act authorizes ICE to enter into memoranda of understanding with State and 

local law enforcement entities, through which ICE delegates limited authority to enforce Federal immigration laws within their jurisdictions under ICE’s direct supervision. These agreements serve 

as an extension of CAP by directly supporting ICE’s efforts to determine the immigration status of individuals taken into custody 

by local law enforcement in the course of their normal law enforcement duties. The Committee acknowledges the success and importance of 287(g) partnerships with local law enforcement agencies in 

identifying criminal aliens and recommends the requested level of 

$24,300,000 to support the program. The Committee encourages 

ICE to consider opportunities for expanding 287(g), while also continuing efforts to improve the program through additional training, 

legal guidance, and oversight. 

Alternatives to Detention 

The Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program places low-risk 

aliens under various forms of intensive supervision or electronic 

monitoring, in lieu of detention, to ensure their appearance for immigration hearings and for removal. ICE operates two forms of 

ATD: an intensive case management program and an electronic 

monitoring program. The Committee recommends $109,740,000 for 

ATD, $12,741,000 below the amount requested and equal to the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

The Committee supports the use of effective alternatives to detention for appropriate detainee populations, which was reflected in 

an $18,296,000 increase for the program for fiscal year 2015 to significantly expand ATD for family units. A reduction to the request 

is recommended, however, because ICE does not appear to be fully 

using the fiscal year 2015 increase, with an average daily ATD participation rate for the current year of 25,700, including only approximately 7,200 family units. This rate is based on a downward 

trend since the beginning of the fiscal year, perhaps reflecting the 

significant reduction in the number of families crossing the border 

compared to fiscal year 2014. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

The Committee is aware that ICE is planning to implement a 

family case management component within the ATD program. This 

new initiative will ‘‘promote compliance with participants’ release 

conditions, including any required reporting to ICE ERO, immigration court hearings, and final orders of removal, while allowing 

them to remain in the community and maintain access to community services for the duration of the removal process.’’ ICE should 

prioritize the implementation of the pilot within the funds provided. 

In general, the Committee encourages ICE to give priority to participation by unaccompanied minors who have turned 18, families, 

and other vulnerable populations for whom ICE determines that 

ATD could mitigate risk more effectively than less restrictive forms 

of release. The Committee also encourages ICE to continue exploring ways to improve the effectiveness of ATD, such as working with 

community-based organizations. 

Transportation and Removal Program 

The Transportation and Removal Program (TRP) provides for 

safe, secure transportation of aliens in ICE custody and removal of 

aliens from the United States. 

The Committee recommends $323,174,000 for TRP, $978,000 

below the amount requested and $3,901,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes reductions 

to the request corresponding to the amounts associated with the 

pay raise assumed in the President’s budget, as well as reductions 

due to projected underexecution of personnel costs. The request included $8,000,000 of contingency funds for the transportation and 

removal of unaccompanied children. This request is unnecessary 

and no funding is included in the recommendation. 

The Committee expects DHS to repatriate removable individuals 

in a manner that ensures their safety. CBP and ICE should make 

every effort to repatriate incapacitated persons, unaccompanied minors, pregnant women, and other vulnerable individuals during 

daylight hours, make reasonable efforts to inform Mexican authorities in advance of repatriating vulnerable individuals, avoid removing individuals via entry/exit points on the U.S.-Mexico border 

where their safety could be threatened, and, to the extent practicable, avoid separating family members during the removal process. The Committee notes that House Report 113–481 directed the 

Department to review its current repatriation practices and policies, and brief the Committee not later than 180 days after the 

date of enactment of the fiscal year 2015 Act on the results of that 

review, including the need for any additional measures to ensure 

that deportations are conducted safely. 

The Committee directs ICE to continue to submit the semiannual 

report on removals of the parents of U.S. citizen minors. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

The Automation Modernization account funds major information 

technology projects and operations for ICE. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $26,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 73,500,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 73,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +47,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ – – – 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $73,500,000 for Automation Modernization, the same as the amount requested and $47,500,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. As noted in title I 

of this report, the Committee is very concerned about the lack of 

reliable, interoperable tactical communications. The Committee includes the requested $18,500,000 for tactical communications and 

directs the agency to brief the Committee within 120 days of the 

date of enactment of this Act on plans to address the concerns enumerated in DHS OIG Report OIG–15–97–VR. 

TECS Modernization 

The Committee directs CBP and ICE to continue semiannual 

briefings on efforts to modernize the TECS system, which is used 

for immigration enforcement case management and for screening 

and determinations related to admissibility to the United States. 

CONSTRUCTION

The Construction account supports maintenance of ICE’s owned 

and directly leased facilities. 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... $5,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 5,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +5,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ – – – 

Recommendation 

As requested, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 for Construction to perform critical repairs and alterations to maintain 

ICE-owned facilities. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Mission 

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is charged 

with protecting U.S. transportation systems, while ensuring the 

freedom of movement of people and commerce. 

Recommendation 

TSA has achieved considerable cost savings and reduced its 

screener workforce over the past several years as a result of expanded risk-based security measures and more efficient baggage 

screening systems. However, in addition to the planned staffing reductions in screening personnel, TSA has underexecuted funding 

for staffing across the agency. TSA’s inability to hire and maintain 

its workforce at funded levels has resulted in hundreds of millions 

of dollars appropriated for salaries and benefits being diverted to 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

unplanned and unbudgeted activities without congressional oversight. For example, in fiscal year 2014, TSA received 

$4,806,905,000 for 55,602 FTEs, but ended the year at only 52,227 

FTEs, leaving $274,084,000 in unexecuted salaries and benefits 

that was used for other purposes. For fiscal year 2015, TSA is projected to end the year with 50,043 of the appropriated 52,467 FTEs, 

resulting in almost $108,000,000 of salary and benefit funding 

being diverted to other, unplanned requirements. In light of the 

systemic practice of underexecuting staffing levels, the recommendation funds only a fractional increase in the number of 

FTEs requested for fiscal year 2016 as compared with staffing levels anticipated for the end of fiscal year 2015. 

In addition to the reductions below the request due to projected 

underexecution of funds for personnel, the following rescissions 

from funds provided in fiscal year 2015 are included in title V of 

the bill: $30,000,000 from Aviation Security; $22,000,000 from Surface Transportation Security; $8,000,000 from Intelligence and Vetting; and $26,000,000 from Transportation Security Support. 

In title I, under OCFO, the Committee directs briefings on each 

component’s obligation and budget execution plans. Within these 

briefings, TSA shall address specific passenger and baggage screening technologies intended for purchase, the status of operational 

testing for each technology under development, and program schedules and major milestones. The Committee further directs that TSA 

include details on current unobligated balances, anticipated unobligated balances at the close of the fiscal year, and the planned obligation of the carryover in future years until all funds are obligated. 

AVIATION SECURITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $5,639,095,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 5,614,767,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 5,558,923,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. ¥80,172,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥55,844,000 

Mission 

Aviation Security provides funds for the protection of the air 

transportation system against terrorist threats, sabotage, and other 

acts of violence through deployment of passenger and baggage 

screeners; detection systems for explosives, weapons, and other contraband; and aviation regulation and enforcement activities. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $5,558,923,000 for Aviation Security, $55,844,000 below the amount requested and $80,172,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. Funds within the 

Aviation Security account are partially offset through the collection 

of aviation security fees. 

The recommendation includes a reduction of $41,979,000 that 

corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise assumed 

in the President’s budget, in addition to the following reductions 

due to projected underexecution of funds for personnel: $3,844,000 

from Screener Training and Other; $838,000 from Checkpoint Support; $5,095,000 from Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

$3,603,000 from Airport Management and Support; and $285,000 

from Federal Flight Deck Officer and Flight Crew Training. 

The recently-leaked results of covert testing of TSA passenger 

screening operations by OIG personnel renew serious concerns regarding TSA’s screening procedures and equipment. Although similar results were obtained in testing by the OIG, GAO, and even 

TSA in the past, the most recent testing makes clear that TSA 

leadership failed to address the identified vulnerabilities with the 

seriousness and alacrity they deserve. The Committee is pleased 

that DHS and TSA now appear to be proceeding with haste to address the vulnerabilities identified in the report, but is troubled by 

the lack of transparency in its reporting to Congress on these efforts. The Committee therefore directs frequent updates on TSA’s 

implementation of the directives issued by the Secretary in response to the covert testing, including specific actions taken related 

to screening equipment, training, and processes. 

The covert testing results also raise questions about the overall 

risk mitigation represented by TSA’s multi-layered, risk-based security approach. TSA has often suggested that known 

vulnerabilities in some aspects of its risk-mitigation strategy are 

adequately addressed by other layers of security. Without a clear, 

comprehensive, and specific description of the risk mitigation 

complementarity of all layers of aviation security, it is difficult for 

the Committee to properly evaluate TSA’s overall approach. The 

Committee directs TSA to provide a briefing, not later than 60 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act, on its aviation security risk 

mitigation strategy. The briefing should cover the underlying methodologies used to assess aviation security risk and the basis for any 

assumptions regarding threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences 

made in assessing and prioritizing such risk. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget Estimate Recommended 

Aviation Security: 

Screening Partnership Program .......................................................................... $166,928,000 $166,928,000 

Screener Personnel, Compensation and Benefits .............................................. 2,872,070,000 2,843,305,000 

Screener Training and Other .............................................................................. 226,551,000 222,539,000 

Checkpoint Support ............................................................................................ 97,265,000 96,339,000 

EDS Procurement and Installation ..................................................................... 83,380,000 83,196,000 

Screening Technology Maintenance .................................................................... 280,509,000 280,509,000 

Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement ...................................................... 349,013,000 345,083,000 

Airport Management and Support ...................................................................... 596,233,000 589,278,000 

Federal Flight Deck Officer & Flight Crew Training .......................................... 20,095,000 21,456,000 

Air Cargo ............................................................................................................. 105,978,000 105,214,000 

Federal Air Marshals .......................................................................................... 816,745,000 805,076,000 

[Mandatory aviation security capital fund 1] ..................................................... [250,000,000] [250,000,000] 

Subtotal, Aviation Security ........................................................................ $5,614,767,000 $5,558,923,000 

1 The Aviation Security Capital Fund is not included in the Subtotal for Aviation Security because its resources come entirely from user fees, 

the budget authority for which is not provided through annual appropriations. 

Privatized Screening 

The Committee recommends $166,928,000 for privatized screen- ing, the same as the amount requested and $262,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation provides 

funding for private security screening services at the 21 airports 

currently participating in the Screening Partnership Program 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

(SPP). A general provision is included in title V of the bill allowing 

for the reprogramming or transfer of funds for obligations associated with contract awards made by SPP. 

The Committee believes that private contract screeners play an 

important role in TSA’s mission, providing an efficient, effective alternative to Federal screeners. However, SPP remains underutilized and TSA must take a more proactive approach in order to expand this valuable program. In addition to increasing outreach to 

promote interest from new airports, TSA must improve its administration of the program to encourage, rather than discourage, participation. 

For example, TSA does not adequately include airport operators 

in the source selection process for SPP contracts. TSA should consult with airport directors to ensure they are afforded the opportunity to offer input in the selection of vendors who will provide 

screening services at their facilities. Additionally, the Committee is 

worried that the draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for a new Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for SPP was 

developed without thoroughly considering the concerns of airport 

operators, and in doing so further discourages prospective airports 

from choosing privatized screening services. TSA should conduct 

further outreach to ensure the processes and requirements are fully 

understood before finalizing its acquisition strategy. 

The Committee continues to be concerned by TSA’s omission of 

significant costs to the Federal government in its calculation of a 

Federal Cost Estimate (FCE) and its effect on stifling the growth 

of the program. The Committee is aware of an ongoing GAO audit 

on this subject, and expects TSA will modify the FCE as necessary 

in response to any recommendations included in the final report. 

Screener Personnel, Compensation, and Benefits 

The Committee recommends $2,843,305,000 for Screener Personnel, Compensation, and Benefits, $28,765,000 below the amount 

requested and $80,585,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 

year 2015. The reduction below fiscal year 2015 is primarily a result of efficiencies associated with risk-based security measures 

and new in-line baggage screening systems. 

The Committee directs TSA to explore methods of data collection 

and analysis related to the referral of individuals for secondary 

screening as a way to ensure that its screening practices guard 

against profiling based on race, national origin, or religion. 

Risk-Based Security Initiatives 

One of TSA’s most visible risk-based security initiatives is the 

PreCheck program, which was established to increase efficiency 

and security by allowing expedited screening for lower-risk travelers. However, TSA’s reliance on Managed Inclusion and other 

methods to attain its expedited screening goals introduces a partially-vetted population into a process intended for travelers who 

have voluntarily submitted to prior in-depth vetting. It is critical 

that TSA expand participation in PreCheck and increase the population of known, fully-vetted travelers in order to reduce this vulnerability. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

The Committee has long advocated for TSA to leverage airport 

operators and the private sector to increase enrollment in 

PreCheck, and is encouraged by TSA’s plans to leverage public-private partnerships in order to expand PreCheck enrollment. The 

Committee also encourages TSA to consider whether the cost of applying for PreCheck deters some travelers from the program, particularly low income travelers or those who may travel infrequently, and whether a reduced application cost could contribute to 

significant increases in enrollment. TSA should also look for additional ways to strengthen and expand PreCheck and other riskbased security initiatives to achieve further screening efficiencies 

and enable TSA to focus its resources on unknown or high-risk 

travelers and baggage. 

The Committee does not include a statutory requirement for a 

semiannual report on expedited passenger screening efforts. However, TSA is directed to provide semiannual updates on the total 

number and percentage of passengers using PreCheck lanes, segmented by eligibility or method of identification for expedited 

screening. 

Behavioral Detection 

The Committee remains skeptical of the value of the Behavioral 

Detection and Analysis program. In fiscal year 2015, Congress 

withheld $25,000,000 pending TSA’s submission of a report providing evidence that behavioral indicators can be successfully used 

to identify passengers who may pose a threat to aviation security, 

a report the Committee has yet to receive. The Committee is aware 

that TSA is currently conducting tests in an operational environment to collect additional data on behavior detection and expects 

TSA will submit the results for independent review and validation. 

Screener Training and Other 

The Committee recommends $222,539,000 for Screener Training 

and Other, $4,012,000 below the amount requested and $2,903,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. As the Committee 

has noted in the past, TSA screeners must be trained against current threats, and training should be developed giving specific consideration to vulnerabilities identified through covert testing activities. The Committee is aware that TSA is providing additional 

training for all screening personnel, as well as more intensive 

training in resolution procedures for a portion of the workforce, in 

response to the recent OIG findings. The Committee supports these 

training initiatives and expects regular updates from TSA on these 

efforts and any additional costs associated with the training. 

Checkpoint Support 

The Committee recommends $96,339,000 for Checkpoint Support, $926,000 below the amount requested and $7,870,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2015. No funds are included in the 

recommendation for the procurement of new Advanced Imaging 

Technology (AIT) systems. 

The Committee has previously noted TSA’s struggles to acquire 

and deploy effective technologies at passenger screening checkpoints. In fiscal year 2015, Congress withheld $25,000,000 from 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

TSA due to the alarming flaws identified by GAO with respect to 

TSA’s next-generation AIT acquisition, including questions regarding TSA’s testing and evaluation of system capabilities, performance, and effectiveness. The Committee continues to await the submission of the statutorily-mandated report addressing GAO’s findings. In light of the OIG testing, DHS is directed to submit this report without further delay or to report to the Committee on the status. 

The Committee understands that TSA is planning to complete 

testing and begin procurement of the new Credential Authentication Technology in fiscal year 2016. These systems will enable TSA 

to digitally validate passenger credentials against the Secure Flight 

database in near-real time at the checkpoint and are necessary to 

close a known security vulnerability. 

Explosives Detection Systems Procurement and Installation 

The Committee recommends $83,196,000 for Explosives Detection Systems (EDS) Procurement and Installation, $184,000 below 

the amount requested and $737,000 below the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2015. Including the existing mandatory Aviation Security Capital Fund of $250,000,000, the total amount available for 

the procurement and installation of EDS is $333,196,000 for fiscal 

year 2016. 

The Committee is aware of the enhanced security capabilities, 

improved performance, and long-term cost-savings afforded by next 

generation EDS. TSA is encouraged to expeditiously pursue the development, testing, and deployment of more effective and efficient 

baggage screening technologies. 

The Committee is aware of funding requests for new in-line EDS 

at growing airports, and encourages TSA to find a balance between 

funding new and replacement in-line systems so as not to deter the 

growth of airports. 

The Committee understands that, consistent with the 9/11 Act, 

TSA must prioritize EDS funding based on risk reduction. TSA is 

also required under section 1604(b)(2) of the 9/11 Act to give funding consideration to airports that incurred eligible costs for in-line 

baggage screening systems but were not recipients for funding 

agreements. However, there remain claims from at least 16 airports for reimbursement of costs incurred for in-line baggage systems installed prior to 2008. In House Report 113–481, TSA was 

directed to establish a process to resolve these outstanding claims. 

However, TSA has not established a process or plan that has resulted in the reimbursement of eligible costs to those affected airports. The Committee directs TSA to develop such a plan and to 

propose sufficient funding to begin implementing this plan as part 

of the fiscal year 2017 budget request. In addition, TSA is urged 

to explore how reimbursements could be initiated during fiscal year 

2016 through the Aviation Security Capital Fund or using other 

TSA resources through a mid-year reprogramming. TSA is directed 

to provide a reimbursement plan to Congress not later than 60 

days after the date of enactment of this Act. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

Technology Acquisitions 

The Committee remains concerned with TSA’s ability to manage 

complex technology acquisitions and create a strategic vision for 

long-term security needs. Further, the Committee is frustrated by 

the gated nature of the acquisition process and its effect on discouraging private sector investment in the development of new and innovative technologies. The Committee is supportive of the new requirements implemented by the Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act (Public Law 113–245) to improve transparency 

with respect to TSA technology acquisition programs, and looks forward to TSA’s imminent submission of a five-year strategic technology investment plan. 

TSA and CBP Baggage Rescreening 

Currently, checked-baggage screening technologies and operations at most international preclearance airports do not meet U.S. 

aviation security standards, requiring checked baggage on international flights to be rescreened prior to loading on connecting domestic flights at U.S. airports. Within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act, DHS shall brief the Committee on the status of 

its discussions with established preclearance airports to implement 

checked baggage screening procedures and technologies that meet 

the checked baggage screening requirements of the No Hassle Flying Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–218). 

Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement 

The Committee recommends $345,083,000 for Aviation Regula- tion and Other Enforcement, $3,930,000 below the amount requested and $4,738,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 

2015. The recommendation includes an increase of $3,300,000 

above the request for the National Explosives Detection Canine 

Team Program to sustain the 12 additional canine teams funded in 

fiscal year 2015, maximizing TSA’s canine capacity through fiscal 

year 2016. 

The Committee supports the use of explosives detection canine 

teams and has consistently provided funding to grow TSA’s canine 

program and leverage these effective assets, but is concerned that 

TSA has not adequately developed program requirements. For example, the Committee is aware of efforts by TSA to increase the 

number of canines that can be trained annually, but is concerned 

these efforts are being undertaken without an understanding of the 

associated training requirements. Further, while the Committee 

supports TSA’s concept of training and deploying multi-modal explosives detection canine teams, it is concerned that TSA does not 

have a plan to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach, a necessary step for determining whether additional canine teams or 

other resources will be needed in the future. 

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

TSA is directed to submit a report on the National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program that details TSA’s requirements for 

explosives detection canine teams, specifying the current and 

planned numbers of passenger, cargo, and multi-modal teams; a 

training and deployment strategy; and metrics for assessing the effectiveness of the program. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

TSA is directed to review the feasibility and costs of conducting 

a pilot to assess the use of private sector canine teams in TSA passenger screening operations. TSA shall brief the Committee not 

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

results of this assessment and a plan for executing a pilot, including costs, schedule, and metrics for determining success. If deemed 

viable, the Committee directs TSA to conduct a pilot using funds 

provided in the Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement PPA. 

The pilot should ensure private sector participants are provided 

with the necessary TSA certification standards, policies, and procedures for explosives detection canines. 

Federal Flight Deck Officers 

The Committee recommends $21,456,000 for the Federal Flight 

Deck Officer and Flight Crew Training (FFDO) program, 

$1,361,000 above the amount requested and $909,000 below the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

The FFDO program serves as a valuable layer of defense in the 

aviation security domain. The Committee is aware of TSA’s efforts 

to improve its communication with current and prospective FFDO 

pilots through stakeholder meetings and other outreach activities. 

To support the anticipated increase in demand for FFDO certification resulting from these outreach efforts, the recommendation 

includes $1,700,000 above the request to expand FLETC training 

capacity for FFDO pilots. The Committee directs TSA to provide a 

briefing not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this 

Act on FFDO enrollment, training, and recertification. 

Air Cargo 

The Committee recommends $105,214,000 for Air Cargo, 

$764,000 below the request and $1,129,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

Federal Air Marshal Service 

The Committee recommends $805,076,000 for the Federal Air 

Marshal Service (FAMS), $11,669,000 below the amount requested 

and $15,076,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

The Committee expects FAMS resources to be deployed in a manner that optimizes coverage of flights to minimize risk, and is 

aware that FAMS is currently assessing its staffing requirements 

to determine the ideal workforce size to fulfill this mission. In the 

absence of this data, the Committee denies the requested increase 

of $5,200,000 to hire additional Federal Air Marshals. 

It is critical that FAMS continue to improve the quality of information and analysis underpinning its staffing needs, resource requirements, and deployment methodology, including improving the 

linkage between the budget request and risk mitigation. TSA is directed to include in the fiscal year 2017 budget submission details 

tying the requested resources for FAMS to risk mitigation, including a methodology for estimating risk and factoring in the full 

range of resources deployed by TSA in support of aviation security. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $123,749,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 123,828,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 106,894,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. ¥16,855,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥16,934,000 

Mission 

Surface Transportation Security supports assessments of the risk 

of terrorist attacks for all non-aviation transportation modes, the 

issuance of regulations to improve the security of those modes, and 

the enforcement of regulations to ensure the protection of the 

transportation system. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $106,894,000 for Surface Transportation Security, $16,934,000 below the amount requested and 

$16,855,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 

recommendation includes a reduction of $15,834,000 due to projected underexecution of funds for Surface Inspectors and Visible 

Intermodal Prevention and Response teams, and a reduction of 

$1,100,000 that corresponds to the amount associated with the pay 

raise assumed in the President’s budget. 

Transport of Security-Sensitive Materials 

The Committee has repeatedly urged TSA to implement programs required by and authorized pursuant to section 1554 of the 

9/11 Act to improve tracking of Tier 1 highway security-sensitive 

materials (HSSM) in order to enhance security of surface transportation modes. The Committee is pleased that TSA is proceeding 

with development of an interim emergency-ready system to provide 

basic tracking and chain of custody information for Tier 1 HSSM, 

and anticipates Phase II of this effort will be completed by the end 

of 2015. 

These steps will, however, provide TSA with only a ‘‘stop gap’’ 

shipment tracking and chain-of-custody system. The Committee 

urges TSA to consider the implementation of a full Tier 1 HSSM 

security and safety program in conjunction with the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) and to coordinate development of telematics 

requirements for Tier 1 HSSM carriers with DOT. Upon completion 

of Phase II, TSA is directed to provide a briefing on the results and 

next steps for implementation of the program, including any resource needs or legislative requirements. 

INTELLIGENCE AND VETTING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $219,166,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 227,698,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 216,203,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. ¥2,963,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥11,495,000 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

Mission 

The Intelligence and Vetting appropriation supports efforts to reduce the probability of a successful terrorist or other criminal attack on the transportation system through the application of intelligence and threat assessment methodologies intended to identify 

known or suspected terrorist threats working in or seeking access 

to the Nation’s transportation system. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $216,203,000 for Intelligence and 

Vetting, $11,495,000 below the budget request and $2,963,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes a reduction of $883,000 that corresponds to the 

amount associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s 

budget, in addition to the following reductions below the request 

due to projected underexecution of funds for personnel: $3,430,000 

from Intelligence; $4,204,000 from Secure Flight; and $2,978,000 

from Other Vetting Programs. 

In addition to direct appropriations, an estimated $199,153,000 

in fee collections is available for intelligence and vetting activities. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee’s recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Direct Appropriations: 

Intelligence ......................................................................................................... $51,977,000 $48,205,000 

Secure Flight ....................................................................................................... 105,637,000 101,072,000 

Other Vetting Programs ...................................................................................... 70,084,000 66,926,000 

Subtotal, direct appropriations .......................................................................... 227,698,000 216,203,000 

Fee Collections: 

Transportation Worker Identification Credential Fee .......................................... 82,267,000 82,267,000 

Hazardous Material Fee ...................................................................................... 21,083,000 21,083,000 

General Aviation at DCA Fee .............................................................................. 400,000 400,000 

Commercial Aviation and Airport Fee ................................................................ 6,500,000 6,500,000 

Other Security Threat Assessments Fee ............................................................. 50,000 50,000 

Air Cargo/Certified Cargo Screening Program Fee ............................................. 3,500,000 3,500,000 

TSA PreCheck Application Program Fee ............................................................. 80,153,000 80,153,000 

Alien Flight School Fee ....................................................................................... 5,200,000 5,200,000 

Subtotal, fee collections ............................................................................ $199,153,000 $199,153,000 

Technology Infrastructure Modernization 

The Committee supports TSA’s efforts to integrate and modernize its vetting and credentialing systems and practices, but is 

concerned that unanticipated schedule delays and escalating costs 

have led TSA to scale back the capabilities originally envisioned for 

the Technology Infrastructure Modernization (TIM) system. TSA is 

directed to brief the Committee not later than July 31, 2015, on the 

path forward for the TIM program, including an updated schedule, 

lifecycle cost estimate, and a description of the anticipated 

functionality of the end-state system. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $917,226,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 931,479,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 901,442,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. ¥15,784,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥30,037,000 

Mission 

The Transportation Security Support account provides funds for 

financial and human resources support; information technology 

support; policy development and oversight; performance management and e-government; communications; public information and 

legislative affairs; training and quality performance; internal conduct and audit; legal advice; and overall headquarters administration. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $901,442,000 for Transportation Security Support, $30,037,000 below the amount requested and 

$15,784,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 

recommendation includes a reduction of $2,612,000 that corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise assumed in 

the President’s budget, in addition to the following reductions due 

to projected underexecution of funds for personnel: $18,298,000 

from Headquarters Administration; $4,156,000 from Human Capital Services; and $4,971,000 from Information Technology. 

TSA is directed to provide the Committee with semiannual updates on covert testing activities, including results of recent tests 

and actions taken to address any identified deficiencies. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Headquarters Administration ....................................................................................... $276,930,000 $256,953,000 

Human Capital Services .............................................................................................. 202,164,000 197,539,000 

Information Technology ................................................................................................ 452,385,000 446,950,000 

Subtotal, Transportation Security Support ......................................................... $931,479,000 $901,442,000 

COAST GUARD

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 1 ....................................................... $7,043,318,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2016 2 ................................................... 6,822,503,000 

Recommended in the bill 3 ................................................................. 6,899,288,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. ¥144,030,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2016 .............................................. +76,785,000 1 Includes funding for the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)/Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). 

2Funding for the Coast Guard related to GWOT/OCO is requested under Navy, Operations and Maintenance. 3Does not include funding for GWOT/OCO. 

Mission 

The Coast Guard is the principal Federal agency charged with 

maritime safety, security, and stewardship. The Operating ExVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
57 

penses appropriation supports the operation and maintenance of 

multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units strategically located 

along the coasts and inland waterways of the United States and in 

selected areas overseas. This is the primary appropriation financing the operational activities of the Coast Guard. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 

$6,899,288,000 for Operating Expenses, $76,785,000 above the 

amount requested and $144,030,000 below the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2015. 

The Committee is troubled that the Coast Guard’s request once 

again fails to include enlistment and extension bonuses for critical 

personnel. This is unacceptable. Failing to pay extension and/or enlistment bonuses negatively impacts the retention and morale of 

enlisted personnel operating in high risk areas, as well as their 

families. It is a shortsighted way to balance the budget with long 

term consequences to personnel. The Committee recommends 

$14,000,000 for these bonuses, and expects future Coast Guard 

budget submissions to include the necessary funding for this activity. 

The recommendation fully funds the military pay raise, but includes a reduction of $7,600,000 that corresponds to the amount associated with the civilian pay raise proposed in the budget. 

The recommendation also includes $55,091,000 above the amount 

requested for enhancements to critical depot level maintenance programs. These additional funds are intended to replenish parts and 

execute deferred depot level maintenance for assets and shore facilities to reduce the backlog in critical depot level maintenance. 

The Committee recommends $899,000 to ensure proper personnel 

levels at Aids to Navigation sites. In addition, the recommendation 

includes $12,172,000 to enable Coast Guard Office of Aviation 

Forces to continue full operations. The Commandant of the Coast 

Guard shall brief the Committees on the plan for each of these 

items not later than five days prior to obligation. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Military Pay and Allowances ....................................................................................... $3,467,088,000 $3,486,751,000 

Civilian Pay and Benefits ............................................................................................ 799,816,000 792,229,000 

Training and Recruiting .............................................................................................. 205,825,000 206,332,000 

Operating Funds and Unit Level Maintenance ........................................................... 1,010,317,000 1,019,263,000 

Centrally Managed Accounts ....................................................................................... 329,684,000 329,849,000 

Depot Level Maintenance ............................................................................................ 1,009,773,000 1,064,864,000 

Total, Operating Expenses .................................................................................. $6,822,503,000 $6,899,288,000 

Sexual Assault 

The Committee directs the Coast Guard to continue to provide an 

annual report, due within 90 days after the date of enactment of 

this Act, on the number of expedited requests for transfer made by 

victims of sexual assault during the prior fiscal year, including the 

number of applications denied and a description of the rationale for 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
58 

each denied request. The report shall also include the number of 

service members served by the Special Victim Counsel program. 

Fishing Safety Training 

Section 309 of the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2014 

(Public Law 113–281) authorizes competitive grant funding for 

Fishing Safety Training and Fishing Safety Research grants programs that support collaborative training and research into emerging and useful technologies to enhance safety on fishing vessels. 

The Committee directs the Coast Guard to provide, within 90 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act, a plan for carrying out a 

pilot for a training program, potentially involving an expansion of 

the Coast Guard’s current collaboration with the National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health related to data on commercial 

fishing safety. Although no specific funding is provided for implementing a pilot training program, the Coast Guard is encouraged 

to use funds recovered from prior obligations for this purpose. 

MARITIME POLLUTION CONTROL

The Coast Guard, jointly and cooperatively with the EPA, is 

charged with enforcing U.S. laws, international conventions, and 

regulations of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The 

IMO’s Marine Pollution (MARPOL) convention focuses on preventing different forms of marine pollution, including oil, noxious 

liquid substances, harmful substances, waste water, garbage, and 

emissions of sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide at sea. In accordance 

with MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 13, all vessels entering the 

North American and Caribbean Emission Control Areas (ECA) as 

of January 1, 2015, are required to use Ultra-low (0.1%) Sulfur Intermediate Fuel Oil (IFO). In response to concerns that the availability of this type of fuel in U.S. ports is limited, the Committee 

directs the Coast Guard to provide a briefing, not later than 90 

days after the enactment of this Act, on the following: 

a) the number of ECA-related enforcement actions taken since 

January 1, 2015; 

b) the number of fuel non-availability reports received since January 1, 2015; and 

c) the number of vessels that received waivers, exemptions, or 

other special consideration for ECA compliance, including application and expiration dates. 

Coast Guard Auxiliary Uniforms 

The Committee is aware that members of the U.S. Coast Guard 

Auxiliary are not eligible for reimbursement for the cost of uniforms they are required to wear while performing official duties. 

The Committee encourages the Coast Guard to examine the feasibility, rationale, and cost to the Coast Guard of providing such reimbursements and to report to the Committee on the results. 

Small Response Boats 

The Coast Guard has a long-standing requirement to replace 

aging and obsolete small response boats and awarded a competitive 

contract to replace these important watercraft. The Committee 

notes, however, that the Coast Guard is not procuring enough 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

boats annually to meet the 370 boat acquisition objective within 

the length of the contract. Therefore, the Committee provides 

$7,100,000 above the request for the Coast Guard to procure additional small response boats during fiscal year 2016 to keep pace 

with its acquisition objective and operational requirements. 

The bill also includes long-standing language to allow funding 

from the Operating Expenses appropriation to be used for the purchase or lease of small boats. 

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $13,197,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 13,269,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 13,269,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +72,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ – – – 

Mission 

The Environmental Compliance and Restoration appropriation 

assists in bringing Coast Guard facilities into compliance with applicable Federal and State environmental regulations, preparing 

and testing facility response plans, developing pollution and hazardous waste minimization strategies, conducting environmental 

assessments, and furnishing necessary program support. These 

funds permit the continuation of a service-wide program to correct 

environmental problems, such as major improvements of storage 

tanks containing petroleum and regulated substances. The program 

focuses mainly on Coast Guard facilities, but also includes third 

party sites where Coast Guard activities have contributed to environmental problems. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $13,269,000 for Environmental 

Compliance and Restoration, the same as the amount requested 

and $72,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

RESERVE TRAINING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $114,572,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 110,614,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 110,614,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. ¥3,958,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ – – – 

Mission 

This appropriation provides for the training of qualified individuals who are available for active duty in time of war or National 

emergency, or for the augmentation of regular Coast Guard forces 

in the performance of peacetime missions. Program activities fall 

into the following categories: 

Initial training: the direct costs of initial training for three 

categories of non-prior service trainees; 

Continued training: the training of officers and enlisted personnel; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 

Operation and maintenance of training facilities: the day-today operation and maintenance of reserve training facilities; 

and 

Administration: all administrative costs of the reserve forces 

program. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $110,614,000 for Reserve Training, 

the same as the amount requested and $3,958,000 below the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $1,225,223,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 1,017,269,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,301,289,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +76,066,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ +284,020,000 

Mission 

The Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements appropriation 

finances the acquisition of new capital assets, construction of new 

facilities, and physical improvements to existing facilities and assets. The appropriation covers Coast Guard-owned and operated 

vessels, aircraft, shore facilities, and other equipment such as computer systems, as well as the personnel needed to manage acquisition activities. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $1,301,289,000 for Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I), $284,020,000 above the 

amount requested and $76,066,000 above the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2015. 

The Committee is alarmed by the significant decrease in the 

President’s budget request for AC&I. The Coast Guard continues to 

communicate publicly that its fleets of aircraft and vessels are in 

desperate need of recapitalization. Many vessels are decades beyond their useful life. Though the need for recapitalization programs is apparent, the budget request fails to meet the requirement. The Committee recommends a significant increase to the 

AC&I request and expects the Department and the Administration 

to provide a more realistic AC&I budget request in the future. 

The Committee recommends the following increases above the 

budget request: $31,000,000 for aviation facilities; $20,000,000 for 

construction of a ship lift facility to provide docking capacity to execute the In-Service Vessel Sustainment project and other 

sustainment requirements; $21,000,000 for construction, renovation, and/or improvement of Coast Guard housing; and $31,700,000 

for construction and renovation of training centers and boat piers. 

The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall brief the Committees 

on the execution plan for each of these items not later than five 

days prior to obligating funds. 

The Committee recommends the following rescissions in title V 

of this bill from prior year accounts: $4,742,000 from funds proVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
61 

vided in fiscal year 2013; $12,542,000 from funds provided in fiscal 

year 2014; and $2,305,000 from funds provided in fiscal year 2015. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Vessels 

In-service Vessel Sustainment ........................................................................... $68,000,000 $68,000,000

Cutter Small Boats ............................................................................................. 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Fast Response Cutter (FRC) ............................................................................... 340,000,000 340,000,000 

National Security Cutter (NSC) ........................................................................... 91,400,000 103,400,000

Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) .............................................................................. 18,500,000 89,000,000

Polar Ice Breaking Vessel ................................................................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000

Survey and Design-Vessels and Boats .............................................................. 9,000,000 9,000,000 

Subtotal, Vessels ....................................................................................... 533,900,000 616,400,000

Aircraft 

HC–144 Conversion/Sustainment ....................................................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 

HC–27J Conversion/Sustainment ........................................................................ 102,000,000 102,000,000 

HC–130J Acquisition/Conversion/Sustainment ................................................... 55,000,000 150,000,000 

HH–65 Acquisition/Conversion/Sustainment ...................................................... 40,000,000 40,000,000 

Subtotal, Aircraft ....................................................................................... 200,000,000 295,000,000 

Other Equipment 

Program Oversight and Management ................................................................ 20,000,000 20,000,000 

C4ISR .................................................................................................................. 36,600,000 36,600,000 

CG–LIMS ............................................................................................................. 8,500,000 11,320,000 

Subtotal, Other Equipment ........................................................................ 65,100,000 67,920,000 

Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation 

Major/Minor construction; Housing; ATON; and Survey & Design ..................... 41,900,000 124,600,000 

Major Acquisition Systems Infrastructure .......................................................... 54,500,000 54,500,000 

Minor Shore ......................................................................................................... 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Subtotal, Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation .................................... 101,400,000 184,100,000 

Military Housing .................................................................................................. – – – 21,000,000 

Personnel and Related Support 

Direct Personnel Costs ....................................................................................... 116,869,000 116,869,000 

Subtotal, Personnel and Related Support ................................................. 116,869,000 116,869,000 

Total, Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements ....................... $1,017,269,000 $1,301,289,000 

Quarterly Reports on Acquisition Projects and Mission Emphasis 

The Commandant is directed to continue to brief the Committee 

quarterly on all major acquisitions, consistent with the direction in 

the explanatory statement accompanying Public Law 114–4. 

Capital Investment Plan 

Consistent with prior years, the Coast Guard is directed to submit a five-year Capital Investment Plan (CIP), in accordance with 

the requirements listed in the bill, in conjunction with the budget 

submission for fiscal year 2017. The CIP serves as the primary 

means for overseeing and tracking the Coast Guard’s recapitalization efforts and, therefore, must be submitted in accordance with 

mandated timelines. Unfortunately, the Coast Guard has repeatedly failed to comply with this legally-mandated direction in the 

past. Failing to submit the required information in a timely manner hinders the Committee’s oversight efforts and results in budgetary decisions based on limited program information. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 

National Security Cutter 

The Committee recommends $103,400,000 for the National Security Cutter (NSC) program, $12,000,000 above the amount requested and $529,447,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 

2015. The increase above the request will support the top-side engineering design work required for the permanent installation of 

small UAS, along with associated testing activities and critical 

spares. The fiscal year 2015 appropriation provided sufficient funding to acquire the eighth NSC, which is the final NSC of record. 

The Committee notes that funding for additional NSCs beyond the 

program of record would be neither operationally necessary nor 

warranted, would create potentially unsustainable operational 

funding requirements in the future, and could potentially threaten 

funding for other Coast Guard acquisition priorities. 

Fast Response Cutter 

The Committee recommends $340,000,000 to acquire six additional Fast Response Cutters (FRCs), as requested, and 

$230,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

Offshore Patrol Cutter 

The Committee recommends $89,000,000 for the Offshore Patrol 

Cutter (OPC) program, $70,500,000 above the request and 

$69,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

The fiscal year 2016 budget request did not include funding for 

the detailed design and construction of the high priority OPC, even 

though the Coast Guard’s acquisition schedule includes a projected 

contract award date during fiscal year 2016. Instead, the budget 

proposed open-ended transfer authority without clear direction as 

to the source of funding when the award is made in fiscal year 

2016. The Coast Guard has repeatedly communicated that the OPC 

is its highest acquisition priority, yet this is not reflected in the 

budget request. The Committee recommends the appropriate level 

of funding to ensure the OPC contract can be awarded, and the 

Coast Guard can begin the process of recapitalizing its aging fleet 

of medium endurance vessels. The planned OPC program will be 

the Department’s largest acquisition program ever, and the Administration should make this a top priority by requesting the appropriate level of future funding to ensure success. 

Polar Ice Breaking Vessel 

The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for the polar ice breaking program, the same amount included in the request and 

$4,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

This Administration has failed repeatedly to present a viable acquisition program for a new, heavy icebreaker. Previous CIPs have 

alluded to an incrementally funded acquisition within the existing 

Coast Guard AC&I topline funding level—a topline that has apparently been set arbitrarily with no relation to Coast Guard requirements. These proposals only partially fund a new icebreaker while 

jeopardizing existing, validated Coast Guard recapitalization programs. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

Further, it is unreasonable for the Administration to impose the 

entire cost of an icebreaker on the Coast Guard because this vessel’s capability supports the missions and requirements of multiple 

executive branch agencies and these requirements will significantly 

increase the total cost of the asset. The Committee believes that 

shared funding among stakeholder agencies is a more appropriate 

method of funding, as it allows for continued recapitalization of the 

Coast Guard while simultaneously acquiring a critically needed ice 

breaking capability. 

HC–130J Aircraft 

The Committee recommends $150,000,000 for the HC–130J aircraft program, $95,000,000 above the request and $47,000,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The additional 

$95,000,000 will be used to procure the thirteenth HC–130J, which 

will recapitalize the Coast Guard’s Long Range Surveillance Aircraft Fleet. These aviation assets provide critical support to the 

Coast Guard’s primary missions, including search and rescue, enforcement of laws and treaties, illegal drug interdiction, marine environmental protection, military readiness, international ice patrol 

missions, as well as cargo and personnel transport. 

Program Oversight and Management 

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for Program Oversight 

and Management, the same as the amount requested and 

$2,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. Of the 

amount provided, not more than $1,500,000 is for the management 

of Coast Guard’s advanced command, control, and direction-finding 

communications system, known as Rescue 21. The Coast Guard is 

directed to provide quarterly reports to the Committee on the anticipated management actions to be undertaken, as well as 

amounts obligated and expended for such actions. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $17,892,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 18,135,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 18,135,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +243,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ – – – 

Mission 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation allows the Coast 

Guard to maintain its non-homeland security research and development capability, while also partnering with DHS and DoD to leverage beneficial initiatives. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $18,135,000 for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, equal to the amount requested and 

$243,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

MEDICARE ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH CARE FUND CONTRIBUTION:1

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $176,970,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 169,306,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 169,306,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. ¥7,664,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ – – – 1This is a permanent indefinite discretionary appropriation. 

Mission 

The Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund contribution provides funding for the DoD Medicare-eligible health care fund for 

the health benefits of future Medicare-eligible retirees currently 

serving on active duty in the Coast Guard, retiree dependents, and 

their potential survivors. The authority for the Coast Guard to 

make this payment on an annual basis was provided in the Fiscal 

Year 2005 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. 

Recommendation 

While this account requires no annual action by Congress, the 

Committee affirms the expenditure of $169,306,000 for the Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund contribution, the same as the 

amount requested and $7,664,000 below the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2015. 

RETIRED PAY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $1,450,626,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 1,604,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,604,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +153,374,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ – – – 

Mission 

This appropriation provides for the retired pay of Coast Guard 

military personnel and Coast Guard Reserve personnel, as well as 

career status bonuses for active duty personnel. Additionally, it 

provides payments to members of the former Lighthouse Service 

and beneficiaries pursuant to the retired serviceman’s family protection plan and survivor benefit plan, as well as payments for 

medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under the 

Dependents’ Medical Care Act. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $1,604,000,000 for Retired Pay, the 

same as the amount requested and $153,374,000 above the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2015. Bill language is included that allows 

funds to remain available until expended. The Coast Guard’s Retired Pay appropriation is a mandatory budgetary activity. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $1,615,860,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 1,867,453,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,832,813,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +216,953,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥34,640,000 

Mission 

The United States Secret Service (USSS) has statutory authority 

to carry out two primary missions: protection of the Nation’s leaders and investigation of financial and electronic crimes. The Secret 

Service protects and investigates threats against the President and 

Vice President, their families, visiting heads of State, and other 

designated individuals; protects the White House, Vice President’s 

Residence, foreign missions, and other buildings within Washington, D.C.; and manages the security at National Special Security Events (NSSEs). The Secret Service also investigates violations 

of laws relating to counterfeiting of obligations and securities of the 

United States; financial crimes that include, but are not limited to, 

access device fraud, financial institution fraud, identity theft, and 

computer fraud; and computer-based attacks on financial, banking, 

and telecommunications infrastructure. In addition, the agency provides support for investigations related to missing and exploited 

children. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $1,832,813,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $34,640,000 below the amount requested and $216,953,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes $12,000,000 to support electronic crimes investigations and training at the National Computer Forensics Institute 

(NCFI) and $8,366,000 for grant assistance and investigations related to missing and exploited children. The recommendation also 

includes $4,500,000, as requested, for contingencies associated with 

NSSEs in fiscal year 2016 and $16,805,613 only for radio upgrades. 

For the past several years, the USSS’s inability to hire and maintain personnel at funded levels has resulted in tens of millions of 

dollars appropriated for salaries and benefits being diverted to unplanned and unbudgeted activities without congressional oversight. 

For example, in fiscal year 2014, the USSS requested and received 

$1,028,064,000 for 6,572 FTEs but ended the year at only 6,376 

FTEs, leaving $25,708,000 in unexecuted salary and benefits funding that was used for other expenses. In fiscal year 2015, the USSS 

is projected to end the year having obligated funding for only 6,367 

of the appropriated 6,572 FTEs, resulting in almost $32,000,000 of 

salary and benefits funding being diverted for other, unplanned 

and unbudgeted requirements. In fiscal year 2016, the USSS is requesting 6,647 FTEs—an increase of 280 FTEs. While the Committee supports the growth in urgently needed personnel, it is uncertain if the number of FTEs requested by the USSS can be 

achieved. As a result, the recommendation provides funding to support the requested number of positions, but reduces funding by 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
66 

$23,456,000 for FTEs based on an assumption that, as in past 

years, hiring during the course of the year will not occur as quickly 

as planned. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended levels, by budget activity, is as follows under the current PPA structure: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Protection 

Protection of Persons and Facilities .................................................................. $1,009,246,000 $976,655,000 

Protective Intelligence Activities ........................................................................ 72,806,000 63,614,000

National Special Security Event fund ................................................................ 4,500,000 4,500,000 

Presidential Candidate Nominee Protection ....................................................... 203,687,000 203,687,000 

Subtotal, Protection ................................................................................... 1,290,239,000 1,248,456,000 

Investigations 

Domestic Field Operations .................................................................................. 291,139,000 294,523,000 

International Field Office Administration, Operations, and Training ................ 34,168,000 33,008,000 

Support for Missing and Exploited Children ...................................................... .............................. 8,366,000 

Subtotal, Investigations ............................................................................. 325,307,000 335,897,000 

Headquarters, Management and Administration ........................................................ 194,680,000 193,199,000 

Rowley Training Center ................................................................................................ 56,170,000 54,204,000 

Information Integration and Technology Transformation ............................................ 1,057,000 1,057,000 

Total, Salaries and Expenses .................................................................... $1,867,453,000 $1,832,813,000 

White House Complex Security 

On September 19, 2014, an individual climbed the fence at the 

White House Complex (WHC) and was able to enter the residence 

before being apprehended by Secret Service agents and officers. 

Following this unprecedented breach of security, two separate reviews were conducted, including the Protective Mission Panel 

(PMP) review which focused recommendations on how to improve 

the security of the White House. Included in the recommendation 

for fiscal year 2016 is $86,695,000, as requested, for enhancements 

recommended by the PMP. One of the primary recommendations 

was to increase the size of the USSS, in terms of both special 

agents and Uniformed Division officers, and to address significant 

training deficiencies. This bill supports both—fully funding the 

numbers of additional personnel and training enhancements. Further, the recommendation includes funding for a new White House 

perimeter fence that will be much more difficult and time-consuming to scale, giving USSS personnel a significant tactical advantage in protecting the WHC. 

Additional requirements to classified programs and more detailed 

oversight of funding for the Secret Service are addressed in the 

classified annex accompanying this report. 

Workforce Staffing Model 

While there is no doubt that the USSS desperately needs additional personnel, unfortunately the USSS is unable to calculate 

how many personnel are needed in specific job types and at what 

cost. This inability to develop workforce requirements and cost has 

repeatedly jeopardized needed increases in the number of personnel. The Committee understands that the USSS is reforming its 

budget to include zero-based budgeting. This reform must include 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
67 

workforce modeling similar to how other DHS components already 

model staffing requirements, such as CBP’s workforce staffing 

model and, additionally, include a third party validation of the 

methodology. The USSS is strongly encouraged to work with other 

components within DHS to develop a model. The Committee directs 

the USSS to provide a briefing to the Committee not later than 30 

days after the date of enactment of this Act on the current efforts 

to build a workforce staffing model, to include lessons learned from 

other DHS components. 

Domestic Field Operations, Electronic Crimes Investigations, and 

State and Local Cybercrime Training 

The USSS Electronic Crimes Special Agent Program (ECSAP), 

and its network of Electronic Crimes Task Forces (ECTFs) comprised of Federal, State, and local law enforcement partners, financial and information technology industries, and academic and research communities, have proven highly productive and deserve 

strong support. Recognizing that the USSS is a ‘‘frontline’’ operational agency, the Committee’s focus is on integrating new technology into the agency’s operations. The Committee supports the 

investigative efforts of the Secret Service and the investigation of 

cyber crimes, which requires highly technical training in computer 

forensics. Therefore, the recommendation includes $12,000,000 to 

enhance current USSS investigative initiatives, ECSAP and ECTF 

missions, and basic and advanced computer forensics training, 

$8,000,000 above the amount requested and the same as the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

While ECSAP/ECTF no longer has a separate reporting and reprogramming line, the Committee expects: (1) to receive periodic 

briefings on the status of investigations; (2) the funding and programmatic efforts to be sustained; and (3) the associated funding 

and personnel resources to continue to be identified in future budgets. 

Missing and Exploited Children 

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 

(NCMEC) was created in 1984 to serve as the Nation’s resource on 

the issues of missing and sexually exploited children. The organization provides information and resources to law enforcement, parents, and children, including child victims, as well as other professionals. Under the provisions of the Violent Crime Control Act of 

1994, Congress directed the Secret Service to provide forensic and 

technical assistance to NCMEC and other Federal, State, and local 

law enforcement agencies in matters involving missing and exploited children. NCMEC has been the historical recipient of grant 

funding related to missing and exploited children, and the Secret 

Service currently provides investigative assistance and liaison to 

NCMEC headquarters through the Secret Service Forensic Services 

Division. The Committee supports continuing efforts in this area 

and, therefore, recommends sustaining the fiscal year 2015 funding 

level of $2,366,000 for forensic and investigative support related to 

missing and exploited children and $6,000,000 for grants related to 

investigations of missing and exploited children. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 

National Special Security Events 

The Committee recommends $4,500,000, as requested, to defray 

costs specific to Secret Service execution of its statutory responsibilities to direct the planning and coordination of NSSEs. The 

Committee continues a general provision in the Act prohibiting the 

use of funds to reimburse any Federal Department or agency for 

its participation in an NSSE. 

The Committee directs the Secret Service to provide periodic updates on NSSEs planned for fiscal year 2016 prior to and following 

each event. 

International Field Investigations 

The Secret Service continues to show significant results from its 

efforts to stop the counterfeiting of U.S. currency and is building 

on this effort in its field offices. The Committee directs the Secret 

Service, in conjunction with the DHS Office of Policy, to keep it informed of developments in international investigative missions. 

Technology Activities 

The Committee recommends $1,057,000 for Information Integration and Technology Transformation activities of the Secret Service, and directs the agency to brief the Committee not later of than 

90 days after the date of enactment of this Act on all Secret Service 

information technology activities. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED

EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $49,935,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 71,669,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 72,819,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +22,884,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ +1,150,000 

Mission 

This account supports the acquisition, construction, improvement, equipment, furnishing, and related costs for maintenance 

and support of Secret Service facilities, including the Secret Service 

Memorial Headquarters Building and the James J. Rowley Training Center (JJRTC). It also provides for ongoing costs and investment for critical Information Integration and Technology Transformation (IITT), a program to sustain the information technology 

capabilities needed to support the Secret Service protective and investigative missions. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $72,819,000, $1,150,000 above the 

request and $22,884,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2015. 

Next Generation Limousine 

The Committee recommends $8,500,000 for the next generation 

limousine. The budget request included the funding under the SalVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
69 

aries and Expenses appropriation; however, the program is a 

multiyear development and acquisition program and is more appropriately funded in a multiyear acquisition account. 

Information Integration and Technology Transformation 

The Committee recommends $34,887,000 for IITT, $10,350,000 

below the request and $9,668,000 below fiscal year 2015. While the 

Committee fully supports the IITT program, the Committee cannot 

allow appropriated funds to remain unobligated for multiple fiscal 

years. To address this issue, the recommendation includes a reduction of $8,000,000 due to planned carryover of prior year funds into 

fiscal year 2016. Further, the recommendation includes rescissions 

to prior year appropriations as a result of such carryover. In future 

budgets, the USSS shall only request funding for programs, assets, 

and facilities that it plans to execute in the budget request year. 

Facilities 

The Committee recommends $29,432,000 for facilities, $3,000,000 

above the amount requested and $24,052,000 above fiscal year 

2015. The increase above the request is for addressing critical deferred maintenance at the JJRTC. The Committee is concerned 

with changing requirements for the requested funds. To address 

these concerns, none of the funds provided for facilities may be obligated until five days after the USSS provides detailed obligation 

plan for facilities funding. Further, not later than 60 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act, the USSS shall provide a capital infrastructure investment plan for fiscal year 2016 through fiscal 

year 2020 that also reports capital infrastructure investment funding obligated beginning in fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 

2015. At a minimum, the plan must include: a schedule of resource 

needs by year; an alternatives analysis that includes a review of 

renovation as compared to new construction options; a timeline 

that includes major milestones; and a projection of annual maintenance costs. 

The Committee recommends $2,900,000 for site development and 

excavation costs to begin building a WHC training facility, of which 

$2,186,000 shall not be obligated until the Committee is notified 

that a feasibility study and the design plan are completed and such 

plans have been submitted and approved by the National Capital 

Planning Commission. 

This new training facility will allow USSS personnel to train in 

a significantly more realistic environment than that which is currently available. Agents and officers need to train with the full 

complement of forces, structures, and topography involved in real 

life operations to ensure that all teams at the WHC know and can 

fully execute their roles in responding to various threats. Because 

of the potential danger to the public and the disruptive impact it 

would have on WHC activities, the real WHC is not available for 

routine training of agents and officers. Moreover, training at the 

WHC would present a potential avenue for individuals to gather 

exploitable intelligence on USSS tactics in response to a critical incident. The Committee notes that the Federal government routinely invests in specialized training facilities for military and law 

enforcement personnel, ranging from the Special Forces to the CapVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
70 

itol Police, to ensure they can perform in realistic environments; it 

is entirely appropriate, therefore, to invest in a WHC training facility to ensure that the President and the WHC receive the best possible protection. The Committee recommends $13,100,000 for demolition of the existing Canine Training Facility and construction of a new expanded 

Canine Training Facility. The existing facility was not built to handle the current level of canines being used by the USSS and has 

other operational deficiencies associated with its age. Canines provide valuable services for the USSS, such as explosives detection 

support and added protection against intrusions. The new facility 

will allow for more canines and therefore more training throughput 

that will more effectively satisfy current and future mission requirements. The Committee recommends $4,950,000 for renovations of the 

Basic Judgmental Range (an outdoor dynamic training area), indoor/outdoor rifle and pistol ranges, and the Magaw Shoot House. 

Compared to similar ranges used by other Federal law enforcement 

agencies, the current USSS facilities are outdated and inadequate. 

In order to provide a safe and effective training environment for 

USSS personnel, the ranges and shoot house must be upgraded. 

TITLE III—PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND 

RECOVERY 

NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE

Mission 

The National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) is focused on the security of the Nation’s physical and cyber infrastructure and interoperable communications systems. 

Recommendation 

The Committee’s recommendation supports the directorate’s missions of preventing terrorism and enhancing security; safeguarding 

and securing cyberspace; and, strengthening National preparedness 

and resilience. The recommendation also addresses the systemic 

problem of underexecuting funding for personnel. 

For the past several years, Congress has fully resourced NPPD’s 

requested Federal workforce levels to accommodate its expanding 

operational mission. However, NPPD’s inability to hire and maintain that workforce at funded levels has resulted in tens of millions 

of dollars appropriated for salaries and benefits being diverted to 

unbudgeted operational requirements without congressional oversight. For example, in fiscal year 2014, NPPD requested and received $259,641,000 for 1,885 FTEs but ended the year at 1,570 

FTEs, leaving $29,573,000 in unexecuted salary and benefits funding that was used for other purposes. Likewise, in fiscal year 2015, 

NPPD is projected to end the year with only 1,709 of the appropriated 2,092 FTEs, resulting in almost $40,000,000 of salary and 

benefits being diverted to other, unbudgeted activities. 

Though the agency is committing significant resources and effort 

to improve its hiring and retention, NPPD has made little progress 

filling vacancies, achieving a net increase of approximately only 

100 FTEs annually for the last several fiscal years after factoring 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
71 

in attrition. The historical data does not inspire confidence that the 

agency will overcome the inherent difficulties of attracting and 

keeping a workforce with the requisite skills to achieve its request 

for an additional 432 FTEs. Therefore, the recommendation includes reductions to the request due to projected underexecution of 

personnel costs, as well as reductions to the request corresponding 

to the amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s budget. 

In title I, under OCFO, the Committee directs briefings on obligation and budget execution plans. Further, the Committee directs 

that NPPD’s plans include obligations and budget execution by 

PPA, project and subproject, as well as the amounts planned to be 

carried over into the next fiscal year. Within these briefings, NPPD 

shall address specific technologies and support services intended 

for procurement, program schedules, and major milestones. For 

multiyear appropriations, the briefings shall detail the status of 

each appropriation by source year. In addition, the briefings shall 

identify the numbers of personnel newly hired or lost to attrition 

since the beginning of the fiscal year or since the most recent report, as appropriate. These briefings shall be provided not later 

than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act and on a quarterly basis thereafter. 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $61,651,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 64,191,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 56,127,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. ¥5,524,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥8,064,000 

Mission 

The Management and Administration account funds the Immediate Office of the Under Secretary for National Protection and 

Programs; provides for administrative overhead costs such as IT 

support and shared services; and includes a National planning office which develops standard doctrine and policy for infrastructure 

protection and cybersecurity. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $56,127,000 for Management and 

Administration, $8,064,000 below the amount requested and 

$5,524,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes a reduction of $7,519,000 due to projected 

underexecution of funds for personnel and a reduction of $545,000 

that corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s budget. 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $1,188,679,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 1,311,689,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,245,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +56,321,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥66,689,000 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
72 

Mission 

Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS) supports efforts to reduce the vulnerability of the Nation’s critical infrastructure, key resources, information technology networks, and 

telecommunications systems to terrorist attacks and natural disasters. IPIS also supports efforts to maintain effective telecommunications for government users in National emergencies and establish 

policies and promote solutions for interoperable communications at 

the Federal, State, and local level. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $1,245,000,000 for IPIS, 

$66,689,000 below the amount requested and $56,321,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes a reduction of $42,814,000 due to projected underexecution 

of funds for personnel and a reduction of $2,083,000 that corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise assumed in 

the President’s budget. 

Within the total, the Committee recommends $252,057,000 for 

Infrastructure Protection, $42,855,000 below the amount requested 

and $18,975,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015; 

$798,041,000 for Cybersecurity, $20,302,000 below the amount requested and $44,841,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2015; and, $194,902,000 for Communications, $3,532,000 below the 

amount requested and $30,455,000 above the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2015. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level is as follows: 

Budget Request Recommendation 

Infrastructure Protection: 

Infrastructure Analysis & Planning .................................................................... $75,969,000 $63,872,000 

Sector Management & Governance .................................................................... 71,311,000 62,312,000 

Regional Field Operations .................................................................................. 52,755,000 50,740,000 

Infrastructure Security Compliance .................................................................... 94,877,000 75,133,000 

Subtotal, Infrastructure Protection ............................................................ 294,912,000 252,057,000 

Cybersecurity and Communications: 

Cybersecurity: 

Cybersecurity Coordination ........................................................................ 4,318,000 4,294,000 

US–Computer Emergency Readiness Team Operations ............................ 98,642,000 92,186,000 

Federal Network Security ........................................................................... 131,202,000 127,547,000 

Network Security Deployment .................................................................... 479,760,000 474,073,000 

Global Cybersecurity Management ............................................................ 20,321,000 19,304,000 

Critical Infrastructure Cyber Protection & Awareness .............................. 77,584,000 74,381,000 

Business Operations .................................................................................. 6,516,000 6,256,000 

Subtotal, Cybersecurity .............................................................................. 818,343,000 798,041,000 

Communications: 

Office of Emergency Communications ...................................................... 33,025,000 32,105,000 

Priority Telecommunications Services ....................................................... 63,649,000 62,505,000 

Next Generation Networks .......................................................................... 80,102,000 79,981,000 

Programs to Study and Enhance Telecommunications ............................. 10,418,000 10,276,000 

Critical Infrastructure Protection Programs .............................................. 11,240,000 10,035,000 

Subtotal, Communications ........................................................................ 198,434,000 194,902,000 

Subtotal, Cybersecurity and Communications .......................................... 1,016,777,000 992,943,000 

Total, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security ............... $1,311,689,000 $1,245,000,000 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
73 

Infrastructure Analysis and Planning 

The Committee recommends $63,872,000 for Infrastructure Analysis and Planning, $12,097,000 below the amount requested and 

$622,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding to 

the amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s budget, as well as reductions due to projected underexecution of personnel costs. The recommendation does not provide the 

requested $6,000,000 for an assessment of climate change on critical infrastructure. 

The Committee recognizes that the Nation’s highly integrated 

electrical grid is vulnerable to cyber-attacks and natural disasters. 

It is imperative to fully understand the interdependencies among 

information technology, operational technology, and physical security. In this environment, NPPD’s programs to strengthen the security and resilience of the Nation’s critical infrastructure against 

cyber, physical, and human risks must be closely coordinated, and 

the agency must work with critical infrastructure owners and operators to holistically address these risks and develop comprehensive 

mitigation strategies. The Committee directs NPPD to provide a 

semiannual briefing outlining NPPD’s plans to engage private sector owners and operators of such infrastructure in order to better 

understand and respond to the full range of critical risks. The 

briefing shall include details on current and planned actions to prepare for and protect against cyber and physical risks to electrical 

grids and other critical infrastructure. 

The Committee is concerned that the Office of Cyber and Infrastructure Analysis has not properly assessed and weighed current 

threats to develop a risk-based funding model for its activities. The 

Committee directs NPPD to brief the Committees on Appropriations and Homeland Security not later than 60 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act on plans to develop such a model. 

House Report 113–481 included a directive to NPPD to provide 

a report on its engagement with private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as well as its collaboration with universities, industry, and government labs on efforts to improve critical infrastructure readiness and response capabilities related to 

cyber, physical, and human risks. The Committee looks forward to 

receiving that report, which is now past due, as soon as possible. 

Sector Management and Governance 

The Committee recommends $62,312,000 for Sector Management and Governance, $8,999,000 below the amount requested and 

$2,649,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding to 

the amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s budget, as well as reductions due to projected underexecution of personnel costs. The Committee supports NPPD’s efforts to 

help strengthen the ability of all levels of government and private 

sector critical infrastructure partners to assess risks, coordinate 

programs and processes, and execute risk management programs 

and activities. Accordingly, of the amount provided, $2,000,000 is 

designated to define agency needs, identify requirements for community level critical infrastructure protection and resilience, and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
74 

rapidly develop, test, and transition to use technologies that address these needs and requirements. The recommendation does not 

include the proposed $4,000,000 for assessments of the effects of 

climate change on critical infrastructure. 

Regional Field Operations 

The Committee recommends $50,740,000 for Regional Field Operations, $2,015,000 below the amount requested and $5,810,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding to the 

amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s 

budget, as well as reductions due to projected underexecution of 

personnel costs. The recommendation fully funds the National Infrastructure Coordinating Center (NICC) at $7,850,000. 

Infrastructure Security Compliance 

The Committee recommends $75,133,000 for Infrastructure Security Compliance (ISC), $19,744,000 below the amount requested 

and $9,894,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 

recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding 

to the amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s budget, as well as reductions due to projected underexecution of personnel costs. 

The Committee supports the implementation of an Ammonium 

Nitrate (AN) Security Program, as required by Public Law 110– 

161, but is aware of concerns about whether the ongoing rulemaking process can effectively balance costs and benefits. In particular, the Committee understands that, since the AN rule was 

first proposed in 2011, changes in the manufacture, sale, and 

transport of AN significantly impact the cost-benefit calculation 

that must be taken into consideration. As a result, the recommendation does not include funding for the implementation of a 

final rule on the AN Security Program in fiscal year 2016. Instead, 

the Committee urges DHS to continue working with stakeholders, 

such as through a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, to 

reduce the cost burden while preserving strong security benefits, 

and directs DHS to resubmit the funding request for implementation of the Ammonium Nitrate rule in the fiscal year 2017 budget. 

US–Computer Emergency Readiness Team Operations 

The Committee recommends $92,186,000 for US–Computer 

Emergency Readiness Team (US–CERT) Operations, $6,456,000 

below the amount requested and $6,387,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes reductions 

to the request corresponding to the amounts associated with the 

pay raise assumed in the President’s budget, as well as reductions 

due to projected underexecution of personnel costs. Within the PPA 

total, the recommendation funds US–CERT programs at the requested level of $60,409,000. 

Federal Network Security 

The Committee recommends $127,547,000 for Federal Network 

Security (FNS), $3,655,000 below the amount requested and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
75 

$43,453,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 

recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding 

to the amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s budget, as well as reductions due to projected underexecution of personnel costs. 

Cyberattacks on government and private networks, which are increasing at an alarming rate, threaten and endanger National security. The Committee has consistently recognized this threat and 

fully funds FNS operations at the requested level of $114,985,000 

to protect U.S. government departments and agencies from cyber 

intrusions. FNS supports activities designed to enable civilian departments and agencies to secure their systems and networks, including the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) program, and provides a single, accountable focal point for achieving 

cyber infrastructure security and compliance throughout the Federal enterprise. 

Diagnostic software procured with these funds shall operate in 

accordance with all applicable privacy laws and related agency restrictions regarding personally identifiable information and sensitive data or content. 

Network Security Deployment 

The Committee recommends $474,073,000 for Network Security Deployment (NSD), $5,687,000 below the amount requested and 

$97,073,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 

recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding 

to the amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s budget, as well as reductions due to projected underexecution of personnel costs. 

NSD manages the National Cybersecurity Protection System 

(NCPS), operationally known as EINSTEIN, which is an integrated 

intrusion detection, analytics, information sharing, and intrusion 

prevention system utilizing hardware, software, and other components to support DHS cybersecurity responsibilities. Funds are included to continue the planned procurement of the third generation 

of the NCPS (also known as EINSTEIN 3 or E3A), which will expand current capabilities and enable DHS to assume a more active 

role in securing civilian .gov network traffic and reducing the 

threat vectors available to malicious actors seeking to harm Federal networks. Once fully deployed, E3A will apply in-line protection measures to a wide set of Federal network traffic protocols; 

alert on a cyber-threat; and act on that threat to stop malicious 

traffic. 

The Committee remains concerned with both the planned acquisition schedule for NCPS, which has experienced delays, and the 

overall efficacy of signature-based systems for the protection of networks. DHS’s strategy relies on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) 

to deliver this capability and currently has agreements in place 

with three major (Tier 1) ISPs. The Committee urges NPPD to expeditiously establish effective working relationships with the remaining Tier 1 ISPs to further expand intrusion detection and prevention capabilities. Given its prominent role, as delegated by 

OMB, in securing .gov network traffic, NPPD must continue improving its relationships with the Departments and agencies participating in this program to better prepare those customers for the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

deployment of E3A. NPPD must also continue exploring new capabilities for the detection of malicious traffic, such as behavioral 

analysis and technologies for the identification of zero-day threats. 

Global Cybersecurity Management 

The Committee recommends $19,304,000 for Global Cybersecurity Management, $1,017,000 below the amount requested and 

$6,569,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding to 

the amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s budget, as well as reductions due to projected underexecution of personnel costs. The Committee directs the agency to provide a briefing, within 120 days of the date of enactment of this 

Act, on the current or potential level of cooperation between DHS 

and the Department of Defense on the development of new and innovative software to improve National capabilities to counter cybersecurity threats. 

SLTT Cybersecurity Support 

The fiscal year 2016 request once again proposes to reduce support for the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center, 

which provides critical cybersecurity services to State, local, tribal, 

and territorial governments (SLTTs), and aggregates and analyzes 

cyber threat and vulnerability information from SLTTs to help 

NPPD protect our collective cyberspace. Unfortunately, NPPD has 

provided no supporting justification for the reduction in funding 

and no analysis of the impact of the cut on SLLT cybersecurity activity and information sharing between SLLT and the Federal government. Absent such justification, the Committee directs NPPD to 

continue the current level of support for SLLT cybersecurity activities. 

Cybersecurity Best Practices 

In recent hearing testimony (GAO–15–758T), GAO identified the 

oversight of contractors providing IT services as a government-wide 

cybersecurity challenge. GAO reviewed six federal agencies, including DHS, and determined that only DHS had adequate processes 

in place to provide consistent oversight of contractor implementation of security controls. The DHS CIO is directed to work through 

the CIO Council to share DHS best practices for enhancing oversight of contractors providing IT services, and to update the Committee within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act on 

these activities. 

Communications 

The Committee recommends $194,902,000 for Communications 

programs, $3,532,000 below the amount requested and $30,455,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes reductions to the request corresponding to the 

amounts associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s 

budget, as well as reductions due to projected underexecution of 

personnel costs. Of the total amount recommended, $32,105,000 is 

for the Office of Emergency Communications; $62,505,000 is for 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 

Priority Telecommunications Services; $10,276,000 is for Programs 

to Study and Enhance Telecommunications; $10,035,000 is for Critical Infrastructure Protection Programs; and $79,981,000 is for 

Next Generation Networks, which includes the $26,668,000 requested to implement priority wireless access Voice over Internet 

Protocol (VoIP) communication capability. 

National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center 

The recommendation fully supports the efforts of the National 

Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), 

which is a focal point within the Federal government for cybersecurity. NCCIC’s responsibilities include the protection of Federal systems and nonfederal critical information systems, as well as the coordination of National incident response. As such, the NCCIC 

serves as a centralized location where operational elements involved in cybersecurity and communications reliance are coordinated and integrated. The NCCIC effectively partners with all Federal Departments and agencies; State, local, tribal, and territorial 

governments; the private sector; and international entities. Funds 

are provided to continue the NCCIC’s efforts to apply unique analytic perspectives, ensure shared situational awareness, and synchronize response efforts while protecting the privacy rights of 

Americans in both the cybersecurity and communications domains. 

The U.S. continues to be the target of massive cyber attacks which 

threaten the country’s economic competitiveness and the security of 

our Nation. DHS and NPPD lead the effort to protect the Nation’s 

critical infrastructure, to protect our civilian government networks, 

and to collaborate with the private sector to enhance cybersecurity. 

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $1,342,606,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 1,443,449,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,443,449,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +100,843,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ – – – 

Mission 

The Federal Protective Service (FPS) is responsible for the protection of Federally owned and leased buildings and properties, 

particularly those under the control of GSA. Funding for FPS is 

provided through a security fee charged to all GSA building tenants in FPS-protected buildings. FPS has three major law enforcement initiatives: protection services to all Federal facilities 

throughout the United States and its territories; expanded intelligence and anti-terrorism capabilities; and Special Programs, including weapons of mass destruction detection, hazardous material 

detection and response, and canine programs. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $1,443,449,000 for FPS, the same as 

the amount requested and $100,843,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. This amount is fully offset by fees collected from FPS customer agencies. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
78 

The Secretary and the Director of OMB shall certify in writing 

to the Committees, not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, that the operations of the Federal Protective Service will be fully funded in fiscal year 2016 through revenues and 

collection of security fees. Should sufficient revenue not be collected 

to fully fund operations, an expenditure plan is required describing 

how security risks will be adequately addressed. Within this recommended funding level, FPS shall align staffing resources with 

mission requirements. 

OFFICE OF BIOMETRIC IDENTITY MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $252,056,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 283,533,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 283,473,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +31,417,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥60,000 

Mission 

The Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM) is the lead 

entity within DHS for biometric identity management services. 

OBIM utilizes the Automated Biometric Identification System 

(IDENT) to match, store, share, and analyze biometric identity information for Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement, the 

Intelligence Community, and strategic foreign partners. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $283,473,000 for OBIM, $60,000 below the amount requested and 

$31,417,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

Automated Biometric Identification System 

The recommendation includes the amount requested for IDENT 

system improvements and sustainment, building on the investments funded in fiscal year 2015. These improvements will enable 

the system to meet current requirements and provide capability enhancements which can be leveraged and incorporated into the 

planned Replacement Biometric System (RBS). The recommendation includes requested funding of $65,800,000 for Increment 1 of 

the RBS. 

Unique Identity 

OBIM is directed to continue semiannual briefings on interagency coordination among the Departments of Homeland Security, 

Justice, State, and Defense, and progress towards integrating the 

various biometric systems, including Unique Identity. 

OFFICE OF HEALTH AFFAIRS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $129,358,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 124,069,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 125,216,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. ¥4,142,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ +1,147,000 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 

Mission 

The Office of Health Affairs (OHA) serves as the Department of 

Homeland Security’s principal agent for all medical and public 

health matters, and has the lead DHS role in chemical and biological defense activities to ensure the health and medical security of 

the Nation. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $125,216,000 for OHA, $1,147,000 

above the amount requested and $4,142,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes a reduction 

of $153,000 that corresponds to the amount associated with the pay 

raise assumed in the President’s budget. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget Estimate Recommended 

BioWatch ...................................................................................................................... $83,278,000 $82,078,000 

National Biosurveillence Integration System ............................................................... 8,000,000 10,500,000 

Chemical Defense Program ......................................................................................... 824,000 824,000 

Planning and Coordination .......................................................................................... 4,957,000 4,957,000 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................................................ 27,010,000 26,857,000 

Total, Office of Health Affairs ............................................................................ $124,069,000 $125,216,000 

Biosurveillance Activities 

The Committee recommends $82,078,000 for the BioWatch program, $1,200,000 below the amount requested and $4,813,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

In fiscal year 2015, OHA was appropriated an increase of 

$2,240,000 above the request to begin replacement of aging 

BioWatch equipment in order to maintain current biodetection capabilities and prevent system failures. The additional amount provided in fiscal year 2015 funded the first-year costs of the refresh 

plan and reduced the funding requirement for fiscal year 2016. As 

such, the recommendation includes $1,000,000 to enable the Department to continue the replacement and recapitalization of current generation BioWatch equipment, which is the amount necessary to fund fiscal year 2016 activities. 

The Committee continues to support efforts to explore cost-effective advances in biodetection capabilities, with the goal of increasing coverage and reducing the time to detection and response. As 

DHS seeks further enhancements in biodetection, it is critical that 

OHA ensure close coordination with interagency partners and 

stakeholders. Additionally, to the extent practicable, DHS should 

leverage the extensive research and development conducted by DoD 

and collaborate with DoD in further demonstrations and technology 

development activities. 

National Biosurveillance Integration Center 

The Committee recommends $10,500,000 for NBIC, $2,500,000 

above the amount requested and the same as the amount provided 

in fiscal year 2015 to fund the operationalization of successful pilot 

programs. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

Anthrax Vaccinations for First Responders 

The Committee has long supported the development of an anthrax vaccination program for first responders using vaccines from 

the Strategic National Stockpile, and is encouraged by OHA’s actions to move forward with a pilot to evaluate the feasibility of implementing such a program. OHA is directed to provide regular updates on the planning efforts, including a timeline for implementation of the pilot and the feasibility and costs of expanding the pilot 

to a full-scale program. 

Salaries and Expenses 

The Committee recommends $26,857,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $153,000 below the amount requested and $709,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $934,396,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 949,296,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 955,963,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +21,567,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ +6,667,000 

Mission 

FEMA manages and coordinates the Federal response to major 

domestic disasters and emergencies of all types in accordance with 

the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

Act. It supports the effectiveness of emergency response providers 

at all levels of government in responding to terrorist attacks, major 

disasters, and other emergencies. FEMA also administers public 

assistance and hazard mitigation programs to prevent or reduce 

the risk to life and property from floods and other hazards. Finally, 

FEMA leads all Federal incident management preparedness and 

response planning through a comprehensive National Incident 

Management System that involves Federal, State, tribal, and local 

government personnel, agencies, and regional authorities. 

FEMA provides for the development and maintenance of an integrated, Nationwide capability to prepare for, mitigate against, respond to, and recover from the consequences of major disasters and 

emergencies of all types in partnership with other Federal agencies, State, local and tribal governments, volunteer organizations, 

and the private sector. Salaries and Expenses support all of 

FEMA’s programs by coordinating all policy, managerial, resource, 

and administrative actions between headquarters and regional offices. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $955,963,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $6,667,000 above the amount requested and $21,567,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes an additional $4,000,000 to accelerate the transition 

to a new financial management system. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation: 

Budget Request Recommended 

Administrative and regional offices ............................................................................ $243,323,000 $243,323,000 

Preparedness and protection ....................................................................................... 190,928,000 190,928,000 

Response ...................................................................................................................... 168,466,000 176,133,000 

Recovery ....................................................................................................................... 51,472,000 51,472,000 

Mitigation ..................................................................................................................... 25,753,000 25,753,000 

Mission Support ........................................................................................................... 168,437,000 172,437,000 

Centrally managed accounts ....................................................................................... 100,917,000 95,917,000 

Total, Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................. $949,296,000 $955,963,000 

FEMA is authorized to expend funds from both the Salaries and 

Expenses (S&E) account and the DRF for necessary expenses in 

carrying out the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.). In the past, FEMA has 

used the election doctrine to determine which account should be 

charged for certain disaster-related expenses. The Committee is 

concerned, however, that FEMA may not apply the election doctrine consistently, given a lack of documented policies, procedures, 

and training. 

Specifically, the Committee is also concerned that some management and administration expenses routinely charged to the DRF 

for Disaster Readiness and Support (DRS) are more appropriately 

charged to S&E. To address these concerns, the Committee directs 

FEMA to utilize the following guidance in determining whether to 

charge an expense to S&E or the DRF: 

• FEMA’s S&E account should be utilized for the permanent 

workforce, programs, and permanent infrastructure required to 

execute FEMA’s core mission. This includes permanent fulltime and temporary full-time employees, including Federal Coordinating Officers and Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinators hired under title V excepted service authority; headquarters and regional management and administration programs; mission support activities (except for variable costs directly associated with disaster employees), including costs associated with the development, acquisition, and maintenance of 

all corporate level IT systems; and FEMA-owned facilities and 

other facilities or space required on a permanent basis. • The DRF should only be charged for DRS activities and 

programs that ensure that a well-equipped and trained disaster workforce is in place and prepared to respond to disasters 

and emergencies in a timely, effective, and cost efficient manner. Appropriate obligations include salaries and expenses for 

all disaster employees hired under the authority of the Stafford 

Act that are not assigned to a declared disaster; qualification 

and related training for disaster employees; equipping of disaster employees; stockpiling and maintenance of prepositioned 

stock; readiness support contracts and other costs required for 

quick mobilization; non-enterprise IT systems that directly 

support disaster response and recovery activities; and temporary facilities, structures, or space required to respond to 

disasters that are not charged directly to a declared disaster. 

The Committee expects the changes outlined above to be implemented beginning in fiscal year 2017. FEMA is directed to submit 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
82 

a detailed plan and proposed timeline for transferring funds for activities that do not meet the criteria for DRF to S&E within 90 

days of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

The Committee is also aware of FEMA’s distribution of mission 

support costs, such as those for enterprise information technology, 

across multiple appropriations. Mission support costs are more appropriately funded in the S&E appropriation. Therefore, the Committee expects these costs to be presented and justified as a part 

of the S&E appropriation in future budget requests, beginning with 

the fiscal year 2017 budget. 

The Committee notes the improvements in budget presentation 

materials for DRS activities in the fiscal year 2016 congressional 

justification, but believes further work is needed to achieve desired 

levels of oversight, transparency, and accountability. For example, 

the fiscal year 2016 congressional justification presented funding 

for DRS activities in a structure aimed at supporting the Cadre 

Operational Readiness and Deployability Status (CORDS) initiative 

and future efforts to maximize cadre readiness, but continued to 

present all DRF funding under a single PPA and did not adequately justify requested funding. 

To properly execute its oversight function, the Committee believes more granularity is needed in budgeting documents to ensure funds are used consistent with the activities proposed in annual budget submissions. In consideration of how DRS costs were 

presented in the fiscal year 2016 budget, as well as subsequent discussions with FEMA officials, the Committee has developed the following PPA and sub-activity structure for the DRS in future budget 

submissions, spend plans, and expenditure reports: 

PPA: Cadre Operational Readiness and Deployability 

—Disaster Employee Staffing 

—Cadre Qualification Training 

—Disaster Employee Professional Development and Direct 

Support 

—Disaster Employee Equipping 

—FEMA All Hazards Exercise program 

PPA: Readiness Support Contracts and Supplies 

—Readiness Support Contracts and Interagency Agreements 

—Stockpiling (supplies, commodities and temporary housing 

units) 

PPA: Facilities Support (non-permanent structures required for 

mobilization) 

PPA: Information Technology Support (non-enterprise disaster IT 

systems) 

PPA: Working Capital Fund (activities directly related to declared disasters) 

The Committee believes improvements are needed to adequately 

justify the amounts requested and annual changes in the DRF. 

While general descriptions are included for select programs, all proposed changes from the current year to the budget year are not 

identified and sufficient information is not included to allow the 

Committee to fully understand the level of funds needed. For disaster employee staffing, for example, the budget should identify the 

number and type of staff supported and the cost assumptions used 

to determine the budget request. It should also identify any increases or decreases in disaster employee staffing and the reason 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
83 

for the change. The Committee expects FEMA to improve its justification materials in the fiscal year 2017 budget and to present 

the budget in the PPA structure outlined above. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of maintaining permanently owned and operated FEMA facilities in a fully functional 

and ready state. Beginning with the fiscal year 2017 budget, the 

Committee expects FEMA to specifically budget for and justify 

these costs in annual budget submissions under the following PPA 

and subactivity structure within the Salaries and Expenses appropriation: 

PPA: Facilities Maintenance, Repair and Rehabilitation 

—Facilities maintenance 

—Facilities repair and rehabilitation 

The Committee is aware that FEMA spreads its WCF allocation 

across all of its appropriations using a straight-line cost allocation 

methodology based on FTEs and an estimate of the temporary 

workforce. The Committee is concerned that appropriations and underlying PPAs may be charged for services from which they may 

not benefit. For example, the DRF appropriation is charged for 

Sedan Services and Financial Statement Audit and Mail Services, 

WCF activities that may not be necessary expenses in carrying out 

the Stafford Act. The Committee is also concerned that FEMA uses 

a cost allocation methodology based solely on FTEs. This is inconsistent with the methodologies used by DHS when distributing 

WCF costs across all DHS organizational components; the DHS 

WCF cost allocation methodologies vary depending on the WCF activity, and are not solely based on FTEs. The Committee directs 

FEMA to revise the WCF methodology used to distribute the 

FEMA portion of the DHS WCF bill, ensuring that WCF charges 

applied to an appropriation or PPA correspond directly to services 

provided. 

The Committee recommends $27,500,000 for the Mount Weather 

Emergency Operations Center facility, the same as the amount requested and $2,500,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 

2015. The Committee is concerned with the lack of justification provided for the MWEOC request. To address these concerns, none of 

the funds provided for MWEOC may be obligated until five days 

after the Administrator provides a detailed obligation plan for capital improvements, to include all sources of funding for the proposed activities. Further, not later than 60 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act, FEMA shall provide a capital infrastructure 

investment plan for fiscal year 2016 through fiscal year 2020 that 

also reports capital investment funding previously obligated beginning in fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2015. At a minimum, 

the plan must include: a schedule of resource needs by year; an alternatives analysis that includes a review of renovation as compared to new construction options; a timeline that includes major 

milestones; and a projection of annual maintenance costs. 

The Committee recommends $35,180,000 for Urban Search and 

Rescue (USAR), the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 

2015 and $7,667,000 above the request. The Committee directs 

FEMA to consider the requirements for the number of USAR teams 

as part of the ongoing review of the agency’s existing response force 

structure and its planning for disaster requirements. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
84 

In March 2015, FEMA released a State Mitigation Plan Review 

Guide that is scheduled to become effective in early 2016. State 

mitigation plans are one of the conditions of eligibility for certain 

FEMA assistance, such as Public Assistance Categories C–G and 

Hazard Mitigation Assistance, and must be updated every five 

years. The Committee notes that while FEMA approval is required 

for mitigation plans, States maintain discretion for prioritizing how 

the risk and vulnerability associated with hazard events will be 

identified and addressed. 

Within 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

FEMA shall work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s newly established National Water Center, which is 

focused on water prediction and forecasting, to evaluate the latest 

available research, laws, regulations, policies, best practices, procedures, and institutional knowledge regarding urban flooding. This 

review should include the prevalence and costs associated with 

urban flooding, with a focus on the largest metropolitan areas and 

any clear trends in frequency and severity over the past two decades. In addition, it should address cost-effective strategies to reduce the impacts of urban flooding and the most sustainable and 

effective methods for funding flood risk assessments and flood damage reduction efforts at all levels of government. 

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 1 ....................................................... $1,500,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2016 1 ................................................... 2,231,424,000 

Recommended in the bill 2 ................................................................. 1,500,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. – – – 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2016 .............................................. ¥731,424,000 1The budget request proposed moving Emergency Management Performance Grants and Firefighter Assistance Grants to State and Local Programs. In fiscal year 2015, these grant programs had separate appropriations totaling $1,030,000,000. 2The bill funds Emergency Management Performance Grants and Firefighter Assistance Grants under sep- arate appropriations totaling $1,030,000,000. 

Mission 

State and Local Programs help build and sustain the preparedness and response capabilities of the first responder community. 

These programs include support for various grant and training programs. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $1,500,000,000 for State and Local 

Programs, $731,424,000 below the amount requested and the same 

as the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. As part of the budget 

request, the Administration proposed including Firefighter Assistance Grants and Emergency Management Performance Grants 

under this account. The Committee denies this proposal and provides funding for both of these grant programs as separate appropriations, consistent with prior years. 

For the fourth year in a row, FEMA proposed a new National 

Preparedness Grant Program under State and Local Programs, 

which the Committee denies due to the lack of Congressional authorization. 

A comparison of the President’s budget proposal to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

Budget estimate Recommended 

State Homeland Security Grant Program .................................................................... – – – $467,000,000 

Operation Stonegarden ....................................................................................... – – – (55,000,000) 

Urban Area Security Initiative ..................................................................................... – – – 600,000,000 

Nonprofit Security Grants ................................................................................... – – – (13,000,000) 

Public Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad Security Assistance ........... – – – 100,000,000 

Amtrak Security .................................................................................................. – – – (10,000,000) 

Over-Road-Bus Security ...................................................................................... – – – (3,000,000) 

Port Security Grants .................................................................................................... – – – 100,000,000 

Education, Training, and Exercises ............................................................................. $168,224,000 233,000,000 

Emergency Management Institute ...................................................................... 19,523,000 20,569,000 

Center for Domestic Preparedness ..................................................................... 62,860,000 64,991,000 

National Domestic Preparedness Consortium .................................................... 42,000,000 98,000,000 

National Exercise Program ................................................................................. 25,841,000 19,919,000

Continuing Training ............................................................................................ 18,000,000 29,521,000 

National Preparedness Grant Program ........................................................................ 1,043,200,000 – – – 

First Responder Assistance Program 

Emergency Management Performance Grants1 .................................................. 350,000,000 – – – 

Fire Grants1 ........................................................................................................ 335,000,000 – – – 

Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Act Grants1 ..... 335,000,000 – – – 

Total, State and Local Programs .............................................................. $2,231,424,000 $1,500,000,000 

1 The budget recommends funding Emergency Management Performance Grants and Firefighter Assistance Grants under separate appropriations totaling $1,030,000,000. 

Within the funds available for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Committee recommends $55,000,000 for Operation Stonegarden. All awards under Operation Stonegarden shall 

be made on a competitive basis to tribal governments and units of 

local government, including towns, cities, and counties along the 

borders of the United States, to enhance the coordination of border 

security between local and Federal law enforcement agencies. Eligible program costs include, but shall not be limited to: overtime; vehicle maintenance; vehicle and equipment rental costs; reimbursement for mileage; fuel costs; equipment replacement costs; and 

travel costs for law enforcement entities assisting other local jurisdictions in law enforcement activities. The Committee directs that 

only CBP and FEMA shall make award decisions and that administrative costs shall not be deducted by States from Operation 

Stonegarden awards. 

As part of the fiscal year 2017 budget request, FEMA shall include performance measures for Operation Stonegarden that clearly demonstrate the extent to which funding for the program can be 

tied to progress in achieving program goals, along with estimates 

for how proposed funding would contribute to additional progress. 

These performance measures should be consistent with 31 U.S.C. 

1116, and should include outcome measures, as defined by 31 

U.S.C. 1115(h). 

The Committee recommends $233,000,000 to sustain Education, 

Training, and Exercises at the same funding levels and for the 

same purposes as provided in fiscal year 2015. The Committee is 

aware of the unique capabilities of regional training centers, which 

provide initial training to first responders and additional training 

related to new techniques and technologies, and encourages the Department to include continued support for regional training centers 

in future funding requests. 

Within the funds recommended for National Programs, the Com- mittee includes $29,521,000 for Continuing Training. This funding 

should support training related to: crisis management for schoolbased incidents; mass fatality planning and response; the developVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

ment of emergency operation plans; rail car safety, particularly for 

the transportation of crude oil and other hazardous materials; 

media engagement strategies for first responders; agro-terrorism; 

food and animal safety; and hazardous materials. Within the total, 

FEMA shall prioritize funding of not less than $5,000,000, to be 

competitively awarded, for FEMA-certified rural training. Special 

emphasis should be given to filling rural training gaps identified in 

the National Needs Assessment currently being conducted. 

Bill language is included mandating timeframes for the application process for certain grants to ensure that funds do not languish 

at DHS, and limiting not more than five percent to the amount a 

grantee may allocate for expenses directly related to administering 

a grant. In addition, bill language is retained authorizing the use 

of funds for constructing communication towers and requiring 

grantees to provide reports on their use of funds. 

Consistent with fiscal year 2015, the Department shall limit 

Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) funding to urban areas representing up to 85 percent of the National urban area risk. 

In accordance with the 9/11 Act, at least 25 percent of funds allocated to the State Homeland Security Grant Program and UASI 

shall be used for Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention activities. 

In addition, each State and Puerto Rico shall pass on not less than 

80 percent of their grant funding to local units of government within 45 days of receiving the funds. 

The Committee notes that the construction and establishment of 

Emergency Operations Centers is an eligible expense under State 

and Local Programs. 

The Committee recognizes the important role of the Center for 

Domestic Preparedness in training medical response personnel to 

respond to mass casualty events involving an active shooter, and 

encourages the Department to better utilize this important resource. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary of Homeland Security, 

in conducting vulnerability and threat assessments of metropolitan 

statistical areas, to take into consideration increases in average 

daily population resulting from high levels of tourism. 

The Committee is aware of concerns that FEMA’s evaluation 

methodology for Transit Security grant applications effectively disqualifies Priority D projects, including multi-user high-density key 

infrastructure protection projects, and encourages FEMA to review 

its methodology to ensure that meritorious Category D projects are 

fully considered for funding awards. 

The Committee notes the Emergency Management Institute’s 

(EMI) requirement to deliver training for a wide variety of homeland security response scenarios, and understands that external 

technical assistance partners, including academic institutions, have 

historically been used to fill gaps in expertise more efficiently than 

maintaining such expertise in-house. The Committee encourages 

EMI to continue working with external partners, as appropriate, to 

provide the full range of training required by emergency management officials at all levels of government. 

The Committee notes that, beginning with the fiscal year 2015 

grant cycle, FEMA extended the period of performance for preparedness grants from 24 months to 36 months to ensure that 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

grantees have sufficient time to expend their funding and to reduce 

the administrative burden associated with waiver requests. 

FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $680,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 680,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ +680,000,000 

Mission 

Firefighter Assistance Grants are provided to local fire departments for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of the 

public and protecting firefighting personnel, including volunteers 

and emergency medical service personnel, against fire and fire-related hazards, and to support the initial hiring of firefighting personnel. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $680,000,000 for Firefighter Assistance Grants, $680,000,000 above the amount requested and the 

same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The budget request proposed $670,000,000 for this activity within State and 

Local Programs. Within the total, the Committee recommends 

$340,000,000 for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program, 

which provides grants for firefighter equipment, training, vehicles, 

and other resources. The Committee also recommends $340,000,000 

for firefighter jobs under the Staffing for Adequate Emergency Response program. FEMA shall continue to administer the Fire Grant 

programs as directed in prior year Committee reports. The Committee encourages FEMA to ensure that the formulas used for 

equipment accurately reflect current costs. 

The Surface Transportation Board reports that crude-by-rail 

shipments increased from 21,000 barrels/day in 2009 to 1.1 million/ 

day in 2014; the Department of Transportation projects that over 

the next two decades, an average of ten crude-by-rail derailments 

will occur each year. Furthermore, accidents and explosions in 

West Virginia, Illinois, North Dakota, Canada, and elsewhere have 

underscored the need for local first responders to be adequately 

prepared for crude- and ethanol-by-rail incidents. Today, crude-byrail communities and their first responders lack the equipment, 

training, and operational support they need to meet the public safety challenges posed by derailments. FEMA is encouraged to categorize AFG hazmat and other applications related to crude- and 

ethanol-by-rail preparation and response as ‘‘high priority’’ so the 

Agency can better meet the needs of our most vulnerable communities and first responders. 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $350,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 350,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ +350,000,000 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 

Mission 

Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) funds are 

used to support comprehensive emergency management at the 

State and local levels and to encourage the improvement of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities for all hazards. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $350,000,000 for EMPG, 

$350,000,000 above the amount requested and the same as the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The request proposed 

$350,000,000 for this activity within State and Local Programs. 

The Committee encourages FEMA to work with grantees to post 

on the Agency’s website the specific amount for EMPG funding 

awarded to each grantee and subgrantee, identified by jurisdiction 

or organization. Further, FEMA and the States are encouraged to 

work together to ensure States are not overly burdened with administrative requirements. 

RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... ¥$1,815,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... ¥305,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ¥305,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +1,510,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ – – – 

Mission 

The Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program (REPP) ensures that the health and safety of citizens living near commercial 

nuclear power plants will be adequately protected in the event of 

a nuclear power station incident. In addition, the program informs 

and educates the public about radiological emergency preparedness. REPP provides funding only for emergency preparedness activities of State and local governments that take place beyond nuclear power plant boundaries. 

UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $44,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 41,582,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 44,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ +2,418,000 

Mission 

The mission of the United States Fire Administration (USFA) is 

to reduce economic losses and loss of life due to fire and related 

emergencies through leadership, coordination, and support. USFA 

trains the Nation’s first responder and health care leaders to evaluate and minimize community risk, enhance the security of critical 

infrastructure, and better prepare communities to react to emergencies of all kinds. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
89 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $44,000,000 for USFA, $2,418,000 

above the amount requested and the same as the amount provided 

in fiscal year 2015. 

DISASTER RELIEF FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 1 ....................................................... $7,033,465,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 2 ..................................................... 7,374,693,000 

Recommended in the bill 2 ................................................................. 7,374,693,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +341,228,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ – – – 1 Includes $6,437,793,000 that was provided in Public Law 114–4 and is designated for major disasters 

pursuant to 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. 2 Includes $6,712,953,000 designated for major disasters pursuant to 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget 

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. 

Mission 

FEMA is responsible for administering disaster assistance programs and coordinating the Federal response following presidential 

disaster declarations. Major activities under the DRF include: providing aid to families and individuals; supporting the efforts of 

State and local governments to take emergency protective measures, clear debris, and repair infrastructure; mitigating the effects 

of future disasters; and helping States and local communities manage disaster response, including through the assistance of disaster 

field office staff and automated data processing support. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends a total of $7,374,693,000 for the 

DRF. Of the funds provided, $6,712,953,000 is designated by the 

Congress as being for disaster relief pursuant to section 

251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 

Act of 1985. Of the funding not so designated, the bill transfers 

$24,000,000 to the DHS OIG for audits and investigations related 

to disasters. 

A general provision is included in title V of this Act that rescinds 

$1,265,864,000 from amounts provided for non-major disaster programs in prior years due to the significant balances anticipated to 

be carried over from fiscal year 2015 into fiscal year 2016 and 

amounts recovered from previous disasters during project closeouts. 

The Committee continues statutory requirements for annual and 

monthly DRF reporting as originally directed in Public Law 112– 

74 and Public Law 113–2. While prior year statutory requirements 

directing the posting of public assistance grants and mission assignments are not continued, the Committee expects FEMA to continue the practice of posting such information to the Agency’s 

website in the same manner as directed in Public Law 114–4. 

House Report 113-91 directed FEMA to submit a report describing options for making housing cooperative and condominium associations eligible for Federal disaster assistance, including statutory 

recommendations for making such entities directly eligible for assistance based on disaster-related damages to common areas. In its 

May 2014 report, FEMA stated that it was ‘‘exploring the program 

implications surrounding Stafford Act changes that would authorize FEMA to provide federal assistance directly to housing cooperaVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
90 

tives and condominium associations.’’ The Committee directs 

FEMA to provide an updated report to Congress on the status of 

its exploration, including options for statutory changes to the Stafford Act and associated changes to regulations or guidance that 

would be required to make housing cooperatives, condominium associations, and community associations eligible for disaster assistance. 

The Committee notes that FEMA’s budget request omits estimated carryover funding that will be available in fiscal year 2016, 

leading to a funding request that exceeds FEMA’s estimated resource requirement. Related to that omission, FEMA proposes 

$1,000,000,000 in new funding for a reserve in fiscal year 2016, 

even though the agency currently plans to carry the same amount 

forward into fiscal year 2016. In order to avoid an excess accumulation of carryover funding, FEMA should consider only the categories directed for the annual report in Public Law 114–4, including anticipated prior year carryover, in developing the requirement 

for the DRF budget request for fiscal year 2017 and future years. 

As required by the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, FEMA has 

begun a formal rulemaking process to revise the evaluation criteria 

for making the Individual Assistance Program available following 

an emergency or major disaster declaration. FEMA is directed to 

provide regular updates to the Committee on the rule’s progress 

and timeline. 

House Report 113–481 directed FEMA to review its disaster declaration recommendation process, including a review of how to 

more deliberately incorporate the ‘‘localized impacts’’ factor outlined under Title 44, Part 206.48 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Committee is aware that FEMA has begun a formal 

process for such a review, based in part on recommendations made 

by GAO (12–838) and the OIG (12–79), and directs the agency to 

provide regular updates on its progress and timeline. 

The Committee encourages FEMA to thoroughly review the eligibility of hazard mitigation projects that are partially on Federal 

land to ensure appropriate use of Hazard Mitigation Assistance 

funds consistent with FEMA’s regulations and policies. 

FLOOD HAZARD MAPPING AND RISK ANALYSIS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $100,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 278,625,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 100,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥178,625,000 

Mission 

The mission of the Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis 

fund is to modernize, maintain, and digitize the inventory of maps 

and develop a more integrated process of identifying, assessing, 

communicating, and mitigating flood related risks. This information is used to determine appropriate risk-based premium rates for 

the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), complete hazard determinations required for the Nation’s lending institutions, and develop appropriate mitigation and disaster response plans for Federal, State, and local emergency management personnel. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
91 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis, $178,625,000 below the amount requested 

and the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The 

Committee notes that an additional $155,899,000 is available for 

flood plain management and mapping activities within the National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF). 

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $179,294,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 181,198,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 181,198,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +1,904,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ – – – 

Mission 

The NFIF, which was established in the Treasury by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, is a fee-generated fund that 

supports the NFIP. The Act authorizes the Federal government to 

provide flood insurance on a National basis. 

Recommendation 

The Committee includes bill language providing up to $25,299,000 for salaries and expenses to administer the NFIF, the 

same as the amount requested and $1,540,000 above the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2015. Consistent with the budget request, 

the Committee provides $175,000,000 for flood-related grants. In 

addition, not less than $155,899,000 is available for flood plain 

management and flood mapping. Flood mitigation funds are available until September 30, 2017, and funds are offset by premium 

collections 

The Committee is concerned that flood insurance policy holders 

may not always be aware of documentation, such as elevation certificates, that could make them eligible for lower insurance rates. 

The Committee urges FEMA to work with ‘‘Write Your Own’’ insurance companies to ensure that such information reaches the end 

user, to include requiring agents to disclose to the applicant when 

an insurance rate is based on the elevation optional rating, which 

may be more expensive. 

The Committee continues to support the Flood Insurance Advocate position, and directs FEMA to allocate necessary funds under 

this heading to enable the advocate to carry out his or her statutory responsibilities. The Committee also encourages the advocate 

to assist policy holders in accessing resources to validate applicable 

premium rates as FEMA establishes the rating criteria for all 

NFIP policies. The advocate is also encouraged to aid potential policy holders under the NFIP in obtaining and verifying accurate and 

reliable flood insurance rate information when purchasing or renewing a flood insurance policy as directed in the Homeowner 

Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 (42 U.S.C. § 4033(b)(5)). 

The Committee believes that FEMA should continue to provide 

resources for a more robust and timely Community Rating System 

(CRS) Nationwide program. Therefore, the Committee directs 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
92 

FEMA to support institutions of higher education, not-for-profit organizations, and other entities with expertise in floodplain management and disaster risk management that can provide direct technical assistance to communities to develop and prepare CRS applications. 

NATIONAL PREDISASTER MITIGATION FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $25,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 200,001,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 25,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥175,001,000 

Mission 

The National Predisaster Mitigation (PDM) Fund provides technical assistance and grants to State, local, and tribal governments, 

and to universities to reduce the risks associated with disasters. 

Resources support the development and enhancement of hazard 

mitigation plans, as well as the implementation of disaster mitigation projects. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for PDM, $175,001,000 

below the amount requested and the same as the amount provided 

in fiscal year 2015. PDM grants are one of the only sources of Federal mitigation funding for communities prior to a disaster. It has 

been repeatedly demonstrated that these types of investments lead 

to significant savings by mitigating risks and reducing damage 

from future disasters. 

The Committee notes that PDM funds may be used to improve 

coastal resilience by mitigating the impacts of coastal storms and 

tsunamis. Projects must demonstrate cost-effectiveness, technical 

feasibility, and meet environmental planning and historic preservation requirements. FEMA is encouraged to assess and strengthen 

ways PDM can be applied to increase resiliency, to include coastal 

resiliency. 

EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $120,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 100,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 120,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ +20,000,000 

Mission 

The Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program 

(EFSP) was created in 1983 to supplement the work of local social 

service organizations within the United States, both private and 

governmental, to help people in need of emergency assistance. The 

program provides funds to local communities for homeless programs, including soup kitchens, food banks, shelters, and homeless 

prevention services. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
93 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $120,000,000 for EFSP, $20,000,000 

above the amount requested and the same as the amount provided 

in fiscal year 2015. The explanatory statement accompanying the 

fiscal year 2015 Appropriations Act directed FEMA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to develop a comprehensive strategy for outreach to stakeholders and a full transition plan as part of any future proposal to transfer EFSP to HUD. 

Pending the receipt of such a transition plan based on stakeholder 

outreach, the Committee does not recommend the transfer of funding and administrative authority for EFSP to HUD, which the Department again proposed as part of its fiscal year 2016 request. 

TITLE IV—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND 

SERVICES 

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $124,435,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 129,671,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 119,671,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. ¥4,764,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥10,000,000 

Mission 

The mission of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is to adjudicate and grant immigration and citizenship benefits, provide accurate and useful information to customers, and promote an awareness and understanding of citizenship in support of immigrant integration, while protecting the integrity of the Nation’s immigration system. Funded primarily 

through fees, the only discretionary spending is for the E–Verify 

program, an information technology system that enables employers 

to determine the eligibility to work in the United States of an employee or job applicant. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $119,671,000 in discretionary funding for USCIS, $10,000,000 below the amount requested for discretionary activities at USCIS and $4,764,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation fully funds the request for E–Verify. Although the proposed $10,000,000 in discretionary funds for Immigrant Integration Grants is not provided, a 

general provision is included in title V of the bill to permit USCIS 

to spend not more than $10,000,000 from user fee revenue to support such grants to benefit individuals who are lawfully admitted 

into the United States. Further, the recommendation allows for 

$10,000 for official reception and representation activities and provides spending authority levels that are adjusted based on revised 

fiscal year 2016 estimates. 

While the accuracy of database records has improved as E– 

Verify’s functionality has evolved, additional improvements are 

needed to reduce the number of erroneous determinations of ineligibility to work. The Committee notes that USCIS is working to fiVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
94 

nalize a formal review process for E–Verify final non-confirmations 

for implementation in early fiscal year 2016, and directs the agency 

to promptly notify the Committee about any expected delays. The 

Committee strongly supports the efforts of the Monitoring and 

Compliance Division to ensure the appropriate use of E–Verify, and 

directs USCIS to include in its budget request for fiscal year 2017 

the amount obligated for the Monitoring and Compliance Division 

during the prior year, the amount estimated for the current year, 

and the amount proposed for the budget year. Finally, the Committee notes the agency’s continuing Verification Modernization efforts, which will facilitate future growth and accuracy in E–Verify 

use, and directs USCIS to keep the Committee apprised of its plans 

and timelines for system improvements. 

The Committee urges USCIS to consider adding a question related to the National Park System to the civics test administered 

during the naturalization process during the next regularly scheduled review of the examination. 

A general provision is included directing that none of the fees 

collected, to include any deposits into the Immigration Examinations Fee Account, may be obligated to expand the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program or the newly 

proposed Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program (DAPA), as outlined in a memorandum 

signed November 20, 2014, by the Secretary of Homeland Security, 

while the preliminary injunctive order of the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Texas entered February 16, 

2015, in the matter of the State of Texas v. United States of America remains in effect. 

The President’s budget request assumed higher revenue in Adjudication services attributable to fees associated with processing additional DACA and DAPA programs created by the President’s executive action. Because the implementation of the actions is enjoined, the fee accounts can be lowered. 

Additionally, a general provision is included allowing for returning workers to be exempt from the H–2B numerical limitation for 

fiscal year 2016 only. 

From within the total fee revenue collected, the Committee directs USCIS to provide not less than $29,000,000 to continue conversion of immigration records to digital format. 

Pay raises for USCIS employees are not supported with discretionary appropriations, but rather through fee revenue. The bill 

does not prohibit the use of fee revenue to support the proposed 

pay raise for USCIS but, for purposes of consistency with the treatment of other DHS components, makes potential savings derived 

from foregoing the pay raise available for E–Verify program enhancements. 

Security checks are an integral part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for applicants of all nationalities. It is essential that 

the Federal government performs adequate and appropriate security reviews before allowing any refugee to come to the United 

States. Therefore, the Committee directs USCIS to ensure that all 

refugees, including those from Syria, are vetted through an extensive security review process, including but not limited to biographic 

and biometric security checks, review of terrorist screening databases, and extensive interviews with applicants. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
95 

The Committee is aware of concerns that some O–1B and O–2 

non-immigrant visas may have been granted to petitioners who do 

not meet appropriate eligibility criteria. Eligibility for O–1B visas 

is limited to individuals who can demonstrate extraordinary ability 

in the arts or achievement in the motion picture or television industry. Eligibility for O–2 visas is limited to support personnel for 

O–1B visa holders. Within 90 days of the date of enactment of this 

Act, USCIS shall update the Committee on its processes for identifying fraudulent O–1B and O–2 petitions, including data on the 

number of fraudulent petitions identified during the past three fiscal years and an assessment of whether additional fraud identification and prevention measures are needed. 

The Committee directs GAO to assess the effectiveness of the 

Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system, including an analysis of: (1) the overall accuracy and timeliness of 

SAVE responses; (2) the extent to which naturalized citizens and 

lawfully present immigrants experience delays or denials in obtaining determinations of their eligibility for benefits due to SAVE errors or delays; (3) the processes for remedying erroneous determinations, including protocols for notifying individuals of the opportunity to correct records; (4) the process for determining whether an agency seeking to enter into a MOU to use SAVE has legal 

authority to use the system for the specified purpose; (5) monitoring and compliance reviews; and (6) safeguards to protect privacy and prevent misuse of the SAVE system. GAO should report 

to the Committee regarding the preliminary results of its analysis 

within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act. 

The Committee directs USCIS to examine the feasibility of soliciting and accepting donations from the private sector to enhance 

the capacity of the Office of Citizenship and the Citizenship and Integration Grants program. 

It is in our country’s best interest to encourage and assist individuals who are eligible and eager to become citizens to apply for 

citizenship and to understand the rights and responsibilities of 

American citizenship. The Committee urges USCIS to recognize the 

important benefit that naturalization confers on our Nation by 

maintaining naturalization fees at an affordable level. Such affordability may become increasingly difficult due, in part, to the rapid 

increase in recent years of Credible Fear claims and affirmative 

asylum applications. It is appropriate that processing fees are not 

imposed on those seeking asylum, but the increase in these claims 

has begun to tax USCIS’s resources, which come almost entirely 

from fee revenue associated with processing applications for immigrant and nonimmigrant benefits. As USCIS prepares to initiate a 

new fee rule, the Committee urges it to keep in mind the balance 

between providing asylum adjudication at no cost to the applicant 

and fee increases potentially imposed on individuals seeking naturalization. 

The Committee is aware of the differences in the authorization 

requirements for wage determination and wage surveys for the H– 

2A and H–2B visa programs under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Committee directs USCIS to brief the Committee not 

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

requirements for wage determination and surveys as required 

under the law for the two programs and how the rule dealing with 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
96 

temporary labor certifications from the Department of Labor in 

March 2015 takes these differences into account. The Committee 

encourages USCIS to utilize State provided or third party wage 

surveys, when applicable, in addition to government provided data 

for the purposes of H–2B Temporary Non-Agricultural Employment. 

The Committee directs USCIS to continue to work with local 

public and private groups to hold naturalization and oath of allegiance ceremonies as part of community Independence Day celebrations. The Committee also encourages USCIS to review internal 

policies that limit its ability to use fee revenue to make small 

grants and to provide agency employee support to local community 

groups that would otherwise be financially unable to host such 

ceremonies. 

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $230,497,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 239,141,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 211,502,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. ¥18,995,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥27,639,000 

Mission 

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) serves 

as an interagency law enforcement training organization for over 

90 Federal agencies and numerous State, local, tribal, and international law enforcement agencies. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $211,502,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $27,639,000 below the amount requested and $18,995,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. A reduction of 

$1,233,000 to the request corresponds to the amount associated 

with the pay raise assumed in the President’s budget. In addition, 

because the fiscal year 2015 DHS Appropriations Act did not fund 

a proposed 2,000 new CBP officers, the recommendation includes 

a reduction to the fiscal year 2016 request of $26,406,000 associated with the training of those officers. 

FLETC delivers training to personnel across all levels of law enforcement in a collaborative environment, ensuring consistent instruction and uniform understanding of tactics, techniques, and 

procedures. This consolidated approach also offers fiscal advantages, leveraging economies of scale and shared resources. The 

Committee supports continued and expanded training efforts at 

FLETC to leverage the center’s unique capabilities, as appropriate 

for the mission of its law enforcement training participants, instead 

of less cost-effective alternatives. 

FLETC is directed to conduct a review of the classification, pay, 

and fringe benefits of its workforce and recommend to the Committee on Appropriations and Committee on Oversight and Government Reform any legislative changes, including changes to the compensation of FLETC personnel, deemed necessary to recruit and reVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
97 

tain workers with the skills and experience required to effectively 

support FLETC’s mission. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED

EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $27,841,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 27,553,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 27,553,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. ¥288,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ – – – 

Mission 

This account provides for the acquisition, construction, improvements, equipment, furnishings, and related costs for expansion and 

maintenance of FLETC facilities. 

Recommendation 

As requested, the Committee recommends $27,553,000 for Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses, 

$288,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

The mission of the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) is 

to develop and deploy technologies and capabilities to secure the 

United States homeland. 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $129,993,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 132,115,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 131,531,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +1,538,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥584,000 

Mission 

The Management and Administration appropriation provides for 

the salaries and expenses of S&T. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $131,531,000 for Management and Administration, $584,000 below the amount requested, and 

$1,538,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes $2,400,000, as requested, to provide acquisition lifecycle support to DHS and components. The reduction to the 

request corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise 

assumed in the President’s budget. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $973,915,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 646,873,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 655,407,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. ¥318,508,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ +8,534,000 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
98 

Mission 

S&T conducts and supports research, development, testing, evaluation, and the timely transition of homeland security capabilities 

to Federal, State, and local operational end users. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $655,407,000 for Research, Develop- ment, Acquisition, and Operations (RDA&O), $8,534,000 above the 

amount requested and $318,508,000 below the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2015. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Research, Development, and Innovation ..................................................................... $434,850,000 $434,850,000 

Acquisition and Operations Support ........................................................................... 47,102,000 47,102,000 

Laboratory Facilities .................................................................................................... 133,921,000 133,731,000 

University Programs ..................................................................................................... 31,000,000 39,724,000 

Total, RDA&O ...................................................................................................... $646,873,000 $655,407,000 

Research, Development, and Innovation 

The Committee recommends $434,850,000 for Research, Development, and Innovation (RD&I), the same as the amount requested 

and $22,649,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

S&T is directed to brief the Committee not later than 30 days after 

the date of enactment of this Act on the proposed allocation of 

RD&I funds by project and thrust area, and to provide quarterly 

status briefings on the plan and any changes from the original allocation. 

The Committee continues to support S&T’s Apex concept, which 

is focused on delivering near-term solutions to address high-priority, cross-cutting issues and capability gaps. S&T is directed to 

brief the Committee not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the progress made to field improved technologies based on this approach. 

The Committee is pleased that S&T is proceeding with the development of a project tracking system, as directed in House Report 

113–481, and plans to have a partial solution in place by the end 

of fiscal year 2015. A tracking system is necessary to provide visibility into all S&T-funded projects and activities, including how 

each project addresses a specific priority or capability gap. However, it is critical that S&T develop the capability to fully track the 

transition success of each project in order to understand the return 

on investment and improve future investment decisions. S&T is directed to brief the Committee, not later than 30 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act, on the progress made in tracking projects 

and activities across S&T and, as appropriate, through their transition to components. As this capability is continuing to be developed 

and improved, the Committee directs S&T to continue to submit 

quarterly reports on newly funded projects, including documentation of how each project meets prioritization and funding criteria, 

and to brief the Committee on the results of any portfolio reviews 

not later than 30 days after completion of the review. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
99 

Other Transaction Authority and Prize Authority 

The Committee supports S&T’s plans to expand its use of prize 

authority to develop and acquire innovative homeland security solutions, and encourages S&T to ensure plans are in place to transition prize winners to other contract vehicles if further development 

is warranted. Additionally, the Committee expects that S&T will 

continue to use its Other Transaction Authority to leverage nontraditional partners for research and development efforts addressing critical homeland security needs. 

Cybersecurity Research and Development 

The Committee recognizes the importance of the resilience and 

security of the Nation’s critical infrastructure—both physical and 

cyber—to National security and economic vitality. S&T is encouraged to support R&D and education initiatives to strengthen these 

efforts in a collaborative, interdisciplinary manner that leverages 

the private sector, academic institutions, and other Federal government organizations, including the National Science Foundation’s 

Cyber Scholars program. 

Coastal Surveillance System 

The Committee continues to support the development of a Coastal Surveillance System to integrate information from existing and 

new data sources and sensors to improve maritime domain awareness, including the tracking of vessels in real time to facilitate the 

interdiction of vessels based on anomalous or suspicious behavior. 

Modeling and Simulation 

The Committee encourages DHS to further explore the use of 

modeling and simulation to provide cost-effective tools for training, 

planning, and other homeland security missions. 

Non-Intrusive Inspection 

S&T and CBP are directed to brief the Committee not later than 

90 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the feasibility 

and cost of operational testing of an automated non-intrusive inspection system to inspect vehicles more quickly in CBP primary 

and secondary inspection lanes, including the associated training 

for operators and image analysts, maintenance, and other support 

required. Should S&T and CBP determine that conducting such a 

pilot would be useful, the Committee directs S&T and CBP to implement it using funds provided in CBP Salaries and Expenses for 

non-intrusive inspection systems. 

Public Access to Federally Funded Research 

The Committee is aware that S&T submitted a draft plan to enable public access to its Federally funded research to the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in May 2014, in accordance 

with the guidance issued by OSTP in February 2013. S&T is exploring two implementation options, including hosting the research 

on the DHS website or potentially joining a repository hosted by 

the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health, or 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
100 

the Department of Education. The Committee expects S&T to expeditiously finalize and implement its plan. 

Acquisition and Operations Support 

The Committee recommends $47,102,000 for Acquisition and Operations Support, the same as the amount requested and 

$5,399,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The recommendation includes the funds requested for S&T to provide capabilities and requirements analysis in support of the DHS Joint 

Requirements Council, and to oversee Test and Evaluation across 

the DHS acquisition enterprise, consistent with Committee’s direction in fiscal year 2015. 

Laboratory Facilities 

The Committee recommends $133,731,000 for Laboratory Facilities, $190,000 below the amount requested and $301,258,000 below 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The reduction to the request corresponds to the amount associated with the pay raise assumed in the President’s budget. As a result of the funding provided by Congress in fiscal year 2015 and prior years for the completion of the National Bio- and Agro-defense Facility, the recommendation includes a decrease of $300,000,000 below the fiscal 

year 2015 level as requested. 

University Programs and Centers of Excellence 

The Committee recommends $39,724,000 for University Programs and Centers of Excellence (COE), $8,724,000 above the request and the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

The recommendation restores the proposed cuts to University Programs to support all existing COEs, including the new Critical Infrastructure Resilience COE. The Critical Infrastructure Resilience 

COE will focus on disaster planning and resiliency of critical infrastructure, a component of which will involve cybersecurity and the 

importance of cyber health to disaster recovery. 

DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $37,339,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 38,316,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 38,109,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +770,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ ¥207,000 

Mission 

The Management and Administration appropriation provides for 

the salaries and expenses of Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 

(DNDO) employees. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $38,109,000 for Management and 

Administration, $207,000 below the amount requested and 

$770,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. The reducVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
101 

tion to the request corresponds to the amount associated with the 

pay raise assumed in the President’s budget. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $197,900,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 196,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 196,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. ¥1,900,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ – – – 

Mission 

The Research, Development, and Operations appropriation funds 

all DHS nuclear detection research, development, test, evaluation, 

and operational support activities, and the integration and advancement of U.S. nuclear forensics capabilities. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $196,000,000 for Research, Development, and Operations, the same as the amount requested and 

$1,900,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Systems Engineering and Architecture ....................................................................... $17,000,000 $17,000,000 

Systems Development .................................................................................................. 22,000,000 22,000,000 

Transformational Research and Development ............................................................ 68,000,000 68,000,000 

Assessments ................................................................................................................ 38,000,000 38,000,000 

Operations Support ...................................................................................................... 31,000,000 31,000,000 

National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center ............................................................. 20,000,000 20,000,000 

Total .................................................................................................................... $196,000,000 $196,000,000 

SYSTEMS ACQUISITION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 ......................................................... $72,603,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ....................................................... 123,011,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 123,011,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2015 .................................................. +50,408,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2016 ................................................ – – – 

Mission 

The Systems Acquisition appropriation provides for acquisition of 

radiation and nuclear detection equipment for DHS components 

and supports State, local, and tribal authorities in the development 

of nuclear detection capabilities for high-threat, high-density urban 

areas. 

Recommendation 

The Committee recommends $123,011,000 for Systems Acquisi- tion, the same as the amount requested and $50,408,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2015. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
102 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Radiological and Nuclear Detection Equipment (RDE) Acquisition ............................ $101,011,000 $101,011,000 

Securing the Cities ...................................................................................................... 22,000,000 22,000,000 

Total .................................................................................................................... $123,011,000 $123,011,000 

Radiological and Nuclear Detection Equipment Acquisition 

The Committee recommends $101,011,000 for Radiological and 

Nuclear Detection Equipment (RDE) Acquisition, as requested. The 

Committee accepts the proposal to merge the Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems (HPRDS) PPA and Radiation Portal 

Monitor (RPM) Program PPA into a single PPA to enable DNDO 

to manage the acquisition of all detection equipment more holistically and to be more responsive to emerging operational requirements. The recommendation for RDE Acquisition, which is 

$47,408,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015 for 

HPRDS and RPMs, will fund the replacement or recapitalization of 

aging RPMs at CBP ports of entry and Border Patrol checkpoints 

and the purchase of HPRDS for CBP, the Coast Guard, and TSA. 

The Committee directs DNDO to include a multiyear procurement forecast and deployment schedule for RDE Acquisition within 

the fiscal year 2017 budget submission and expects DNDO to continue to provide the same level of detail on planned acquisitions as 

in prior reports. 

The Committee directs DNDO to provide a briefing on the results 

of the analysis of alternatives and the path forward for the replacement of aging RPMs. 

Securing the Cities 

The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for the Securing the 

Cities (STC) Program, the same as the amount requested and 

$3,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2015, to support ongoing efforts in current STC cities and the two additional 

regions to be awarded in fiscal years 2015 and 2016. DNDO shall 

continue to update the Committee on the status of existing STC 

implementations, the transition of mature STC programs to a 

sustainment phase, and the schedule for deployments to additional 

regions. 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS—THIS ACT 

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS AND RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)

Section 501. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

no part of any appropriation shall remain available for obligation 

beyond the current year unless expressly provided. 

Section 502. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged with 

new appropriation accounts and used for the same purpose, subject 

to reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 503. The Committee continues a provision providing reprogramming authority for funds within an account and not to exceed five percent transfer authority between appropriations accounts with the requirement for a 15-day advance Congressional 

notification. A detailed funding table identifying each CongresVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
103 

sional control level for reprogramming purposes is included at the 

end of this Report. These reprogramming guidelines shall be complied with by all agencies funded by the Department of Homeland 

Security Appropriations Act, 2016. 

The Department shall submit reprogramming requests on a timely basis and provide complete explanations of the reallocations proposed, including detailed justifications of the increases and offsets, 

and any specific impact the proposed changes will have on the 

budget request for the following fiscal year and future-year appropriations requirements. Each request submitted to the Committees 

on Appropriations should include a detailed table showing the proposed revisions at the account, program, project, and activity level 

to the funding and staffing (full-time equivalent position) levels for 

the current fiscal year and to the levels requested in the President’s budget for the following fiscal year. 

The Department shall manage its programs and activities within 

the levels appropriated. The Department should only submit reprogramming or transfer requests in the case of an unforeseeable 

emergency or situation that could not have been predicted when 

formulating the budget request for the current fiscal year. When 

the Department submits a reprogramming or transfer request to 

the Committees on Appropriations and does not receive identical 

responses from the House and the Senate, it is the responsibility 

of the Department to reconcile the House and the Senate differences before proceeding, and if reconciliation is not possible, to 

consider the reprogramming or transfer request not approved. 

The Department is not to submit a reprogramming or transfer of 

funds after June 30 except in extraordinary circumstances which 

imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of 

property. If a reprogramming or transfer is needed after June 30, 

the notice should contain sufficient documentation as to why it 

meets this statutory exception. 

Deobligated funds are also subject to the reprogramming and 

transfer guidelines and requirements set forth in this section. 

Section 504. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

that prohibits funds appropriated or otherwise made available to 

the Department to make payment to the Department’s Working 

Capital Fund, except for activities and amounts allowed in the 

President’s fiscal year 2016 request. Funds provided to the WCF 

are available until expended. The Department can only charge components for direct usage of the WCF, and these funds may be used 

only for the purposes consistent with the contributing component. 

Any funds paid in advance or reimbursed must reflect the full cost 

of each service. The WCF shall be subject to the requirements of 

section 503 of this Act. 

Section 505. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining at the 

end of fiscal year 2016 from appropriations made for salaries and 

expenses shall remain available through fiscal year 2017 subject to 

section 503 reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 506. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically authorized during fiscal year 2016 until the enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for fiscal year 2016. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
104 

Section 507. The Committee continues a provision requiring notification of the Committees on Appropriations three days before 

grant allocations, grant awards, contract awards, other transactional agreements, letter of intents, or task or delivery order on 

a multiple contract award totaling $1,000,000 or more, or a task 

order greater than $10,000,000 from multiyear funds, is announced 

by the Department, including contracts covered by the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The Department is required to brief the Committees on Appropriations five full business days prior to announcing the intention to make a grant under State and Local Programs. 

Notification shall include a description of the project or projects to 

be funded, including city, county and State. 

Section 508. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

no agency shall purchase, construct, or lease additional facilities for 

Federal law enforcement training without advance approval of the 

Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 509. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

none of the funds may be used for any construction, repair, alteration, or acquisition project for which a prospectus, if required 

under chapter 33 of Title 40, United States Code, has not been approved. 

Section 510. The Committee continues a provision that consolidates by reference prior year statutory bill language into one provision. These provisions relate to contracting officer’s technical representative training; sensitive security information, as modified; 

and the use of funds in conformance with section 303 of the Energy 

Policy Act of 1992. 

Section 511. The Committee continues a provision that none of 

the funds may be used in contravention of the Buy American Act. 

Section 512. The Committee continues a provision regarding the 

oath of allegiance required by section 337 of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act. 

Section 513. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

Chief Financial Officer to submit monthly budget execution and 

staffing reports within 30 days after the close of each month. 

Section 514. The Committee continues a provision that directs 

that any funds appropriated or transferred to TSA ‘‘Aviation Security’’, ‘‘Administration’’, and ‘‘Transportation Security Support’’ in 

fiscal years 2004 and 2005, which are recovered or deobligated, 

shall be available only for procurement and installation of explosive 

detection systems for air cargo, baggage, and checkpoint screening 

systems, subject to notification. The Committee also requires semiannual reports on recovered or deobligated funds. 

Section 515. The Committee continues a provision limiting the 

use of A–76 competitions by USCIS. 

Section 516. The Committee continues a provision requiring any 

funds appropriated to the Coast Guard’s 110–123 foot patrol boat 

conversion that are recovered, collected, or otherwise received as a 

result of negotiation, mediation, or litigation, shall be available 

until expended for the Fast Response Cutter program. 

Section 517. The Committee continues a provision classifying the 

functions of the instructor staff at the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center as inherently governmental for purposes of the 

Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
105 

Section 518. The Committee continues a provision regarding 

grants or contracts awarded by any means other than full and open 

competition. The Inspector General is required to review Departmental contracts awarded noncompetitively and report on the results to the Committees. 

Section 519. The Committee continues a provision that prohibits 

funding for any position designated as a Principal Federal Official 

during a Stafford Act declared disaster or emergency. 

Section 520. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

that precludes DHS from using funds in this Act to carry out reorganization authority unless otherwise authorized by law. This prohibition is not intended to prevent the Department from carrying 

out routine or small reallocations of personnel or functions within 

components, subject to section 503 of this Act. This language prevents large scale reorganization of the Department, which the Committee believes should be acted on statutorily by the relevant Congressional committees of jurisdiction. 

Section 521. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funding to grant an immigration benefit to any individual unless 

the results of background checks required in statute, to be completed prior to the grant of the benefit, have been received by DHS. 

Section 522. The Committee continues a provision relating to 

other transactional authority of the DHS through fiscal year 2016. 

Section 523. The Committee continues a provision that requires 

the Secretary to link all contracts that provide award fees to successful acquisition outcomes. 

Section 524. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

that requires the Secretary to notify the Congress within 2 business days of any request for a waiver for the transport of oil from 

and to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

Section 525. The Committee continues a provision related to prescription drugs. 

Section 526. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary 

of Treasury, to notify the Committees of any proposed transfers 

from the Department of Treasury Forfeiture Fund to any agency 

within the Department of Homeland Security. No funds may be obligated until the Subcommittees approve the proposed transfers. 

Section 527. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds for planning, testing, piloting or developing a National identification card. 

Section 528. The Committee continues a provision directing that 

any official required by this Act to report or certify to the Committees on Appropriations may not delegate any authority unless expressly authorized to do so in this Act. 

Section 529. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting the 

use of funds for the transfer or release of individuals detained at 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

Section 530. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds in this Act to be used for first-class travel. 

Section 531. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds to be used to employ illegal workers as described in Section 

274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Section 532. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act to pay 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
106 

for award or incentive fees for contractors with below satisfactory 

performance or performance that fails to meet the basic requirements of the contract. 

Section 533. The Committee continues a provision that requires 

any new processes developed to screen aviation passengers and 

crews for transportation or National security to consider privacy 

and civil liberties, consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and 

guidance. 

Section 534. The Committee continues a provision that makes deposits into the Immigration Examinations Fee Account available to 

USCIS for the purposes of immigrant integration grants, not to exceed $10,000,000, in fiscal year 2016. Grants may not be used to 

provide services to aliens who have not been lawfully admitted for 

permanent residence. 

Section 535. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

providing funding for the Department headquarters consolidation 

project. 

Section 536. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act from 

being used to enter into Federal contracts unless in accordance 

with the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act or the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation, unless otherwise authorized by 

statute. 

Section 537. The Committee continues and modifies a provision providing $52,977,000 for Financial Systems Modernization efforts 

across the Department. 

Section 538. The Committee continues a provision permitting the Secretary to transfer up to $20,000,000 to address immigration 

emergencies notwithstanding section 503 of this Act. 

Section 539. The Committee continues a provision regarding disposal of Service Processing Centers or other ICE owned detention 

facilities. 

Section 540. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

Secretary to enforce existing immigration laws. 

Section 541. The Committee continues provision regarding restrictions on electronic access to pornography, except for necessary 

law enforcement purposes. 

Section 542. The Committee continues a provision regarding the 

transfer of firearms by Federal law enforcement personnel. 

Section 543. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds from being obligated to implement the National Preparedness Grant Program or any other successor grant program unless 

specifically authorized by Congress. 

Section 544. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds for the position of Public Advocate or a successor position 

within ICE. 

Section 545. The Committee includes a new provision permitting 

CBP to conduct a ten airport of entry pilot program in accordance 

with section 559 of division F of Public Law 113–76. 

Section 546. The Committee continues a provision regarding 

funding restrictions and reporting requirements regarding conferences occurring outside of the United States. 

Section 547. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting the 

reimbursement of funds to any Federal Department or agency for 

its participation in a NSSE. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
107 

Section 548. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

new preclearance locations unless specified conditions are met. 

Section 549. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

any funds from this or any other Act to be used to require airport 

operators to provide airport-financed staffing to monitor exit points 

from the sterile area of airports at which TSA provided such monitoring as of December 1, 2013. 

Section 550. The Committee continues a provision pertaining to 

the temporary reemployment of administrative law judges for arbitration dispute resolution. 

Section 551. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

regarding the availability of COBRA fee revenue. 

Section 552. The Committee continues a provision directing the 

inclusion of budget justification for any structural pay reform that 

affects more than 100 FTE employee positions or costs more than 

$5,000,000. 

Section 553. The Committee continues a provision requiring DHS 

to post Committee-required reports on a DHS public website under 

certain circumstances. 

Section 554. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

allowing the costs of providing humanitarian relief to unaccompanied alien children and to alien adults and their minor children 

to be an eligible use for certain Homeland Security grants. 

Section 555. The Committee includes a new provision providing 

TSA additional authority to reprogram funds within the Aviation 

Security appropriation or transfer funds from the Transportation 

Security Support appropriation to the Screening Partnership Program PPA. 

Section 556. The Committee includes a new provision directing 

that all DHS acquisition programs meet established acquisition 

documentation requirements. 

Section 557. The Committee includes a new provision withholding acquisition funds from particular accounts in CBP, Coast 

Guard, and FEMA until these components meet specified acquisition requirements. 

Section 558. The Committee continues a new provision directing 

DHS fiscal year 2017 budget request and accompanying justification material be reorganized to follow a common appropriation 

structure, as specified. 

Section 559. The Committee includes a new provision prohibiting 

funds from being used by DHS to approve, license, facilitate, authorize, or allow the trafficking or import of property confiscated by 

the Cuban Government. 

Section 560. The Committee includes a new provision prohibiting 

funds to expand or implement certain immigration programs while 

the injunctive order of Civ. No. B–14–254 remains in effect. 

Section 561. The Committee includes a new provision that 

amends 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(9)(A). 

Section 562. The Committee includes language prohibiting funds 

for the creation or continued use of metal badges resembling those 

used by law enforcement personnel by the Transportation Security 

Administration. 

Section 563. The Committee includes language prohibiting ICE 

from paying for abortions except in certain circumstances. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
108 

Section 564. The Committee includes language prohibiting ICE 

from requiring any person to perform an abortion. 

Section 565. The Committee includes language authorizing ICE 

to escort female detainees outside the detention facilities. 

Section 566. The Committee includes language prohibiting the 

release from custody any alien described in the Priority 1 or Priority 2 category in the memorandum from the Secretary of Homeland Security dated November 20, 2014. 

Section 567. The Committee includes language making States or 

political subdivisions ineligible to receive any Department of Homeland Security ′′State and Local Programs′′ grants if the Secretary 

of Homeland Security determines they are a location with a statute, policy, or practice that prohibits local law enforcement officers 

from assisting or cooperating with Federal immigration law enforcement. 

Section 568. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

rescinding unobligated balances from specified programs. 

Section 569. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

rescinding specified funds from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. 

Section 570. The Committee continues and modifies language rescinding unobligated balances from the FEMA DRF. 

Section 571. The Committee includes language specifying the 

amount by which new budget authority in the bill is less than the 

fiscal year 2016 budget allocation. 

APPROPRIATIONS CAN BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH

MADE

Title 31 of the United States Code makes clear that appropriations can be used only for the purposes for which they were appropriated as follows: 

Section 1301. Application. 

(a) Appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which 

the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules 

of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote 

on an amendment of on the motion to report, together with the 

names of those voting for and those voting against, are printed 

below: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
109 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here HR215.001
110 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here HR215.002
111 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here HR215.003
112 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here HR215.004
113 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

RESCISSION OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the 

rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: 

Account / Activity Rescissions 

Public Law 109–88 ..........................................................................................$27,338,000 

CBP, BSFIT (70x0553) .................................................................................... 66,600,000 

Public Law 114–4, CBP, BSFIT ..................................................................... 31,950,000 

Public Law 114–4, TSA, Aviation Security ................................................... 30,000,000 

Public Law 114–4, TSA, Surface Transportation Security ........................... 22,000,000 

Public Law 114–4, TSA, Intelligence and Vetting ........................................ 8,000,000 

Public Law 114–4, TSA, Transportation Security Support .......................... 26,000,000 

Public Law 113–6, Coast Guard, AC&I ......................................................... 4,741,699 

Public Law 113–76, Coast Guard, AC&I ....................................................... 12,542,022 

Public Law 114–4, Coast Guard, AC&I ......................................................... 2,305,000 

Public Law 114–4, USSS, Acquisition, Construction, Improvements & Related Expenses ............................................................................................. 9,100,000 

Public Law 113–6, S&T, RDA&O ................................................................... 393,178 

Public Law 113–76, S&T, RDA&O ................................................................. 8,500,000 

Public Law 114–4, S&T, RDA&O ................................................................... 1,106,822 

Treasury Asset Forfeiture Fund .....................................................................176,000,000 

FEMA Disaster Relief Fund (70–X–0702) ..................................................... 1,265,864,000 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2), rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer 

of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

The table shows, by title, department and agency, the appropriations affected by such transfers: 

Appropriation Transfers Recommended in the Bill 

Account to which transfer is to be made Amount Account from which transfer is to be made Amount 

Office of Inspector General .......................... $24,000,000 FEMA—Disaster Relief Fund ....................... $24,000,000 

DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTED SPENDING

ITEMS

Neither the bill nor the report contains any Congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9 of rule XXI. 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
114 

2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FURTHER RECOVERY FROM AND RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES 

(Public Law 107-206) 

AN ACT Making supplemental appropriations for further recovery from and response to terrorist attacks on the United States for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I 

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 12—DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

* * * * * * * 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—THIS CHAPTER 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1202. (a) The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

may, for a period ending not later than øDecember 31, 2017¿ December 31, 2018, 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. 

(b) No appointment under this section may be made which would 

result in the displacement of any employee. 

(c) For purposes of this section— 

(1) the term ‘‘Federal annuitant’’ means an employee who 

has retired under the Civil Service Retirement System, the 

Federal Employees’ Retirement System, or any other retirement system for employees; 

(2) the term ‘‘employee’’ has the meaning given such term by 

section 2105 of such title 5; and 

(3) the counting of Federal annuitants shall be done on a full 

time equivalent basis. 

* * * * * * * 

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002 

* * * * * * * 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
115 

TITLE VIII—COORDINATION WITH NONFEDERAL ENTITIES; INSPECTOR GENERAL; UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; COAST GUARD; GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle D—Acquisitions 

SEC. 831. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. 

(a) AUTHORITY.—øUntil September 30, 2015,¿ Until September 

30, 2016, and subject to subsection (d), the Secretary may carry out 

a pilot program under which the Secretary may exercise the following authorities: 

(1) IN GENERAL.—When the Secretary carries out basic, applied, and advanced research and development projects, including the expenditure of funds for such projects, the Secretary 

may exercise the same authority (subject to the same limitations and conditions) with respect to such research and projects 

as the Secretary of Defense may exercise under section 2371 of 

title 10, United States Code (except for subsections (b) and (f)), 

after making a determination that the use of a contract, grant, 

or cooperative agreement for such project is not feasible or appropriate. The annual report required under subsection (b) of 

this section, as applied to the Secretary by this paragraph, 

shall be submitted to the President of the Senate and the 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

(2) PROTOTYPE PROJECTS.—The Secretary may, under the authority of paragraph (1), carry out prototype projects in accordance with the requirements and conditions provided for carrying out prototype projects under section 845 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 

103–160). In applying the authorities of that section 845, subsection (c) of that section shall apply with respect to prototype 

projects under this paragraph, and the Secretary shall perform 

the functions of the Secretary of Defense under subsection (d) 

thereof. 

(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, United States Code; 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 consultants (or organizations thereof), without regard to the pay limitations of such section 3109. 

(c) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The authority of the Secretary under this 

section shall terminate øSeptember 30, 2015,¿ September 30, 

2016, unless before that date the Secretary— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
116 

(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. 

(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). 

* * * * * * * 

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014 

(Public Law 113-76) 

AN ACT Making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 2014, and for other purposes. 

* * * * * * * 

DIVISION F—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE V 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 559. (a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to existing authorities, 

the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in collaboration with the Administrator of General Services, is authorized to conduct a pilot program in accordance with this section to 

permit U.S. Customs and Border Protection to enter into partnerships with private sector and government entities at ports of entry 

for certain services and to accept certain donations. 

(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Except as otherwise provided in 

this section, nothing in this section may be construed as affecting 

in any manner the responsibilities, duties, or authorities of U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection or the General Services Administration. 

(c) DURATION.—The pilot program described in subsection (a) 

shall be for five years. A partnership entered into during such pilot 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
117 

program may last as long as required to meet the terms of such 

partnership. At the end of such five year period, the Commissioner 

may request that such pilot program be made permanent. 

(d) COORDINATION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner, in consultation with 

participating private sector and government entities in a partnership under subsection (a), shall provide the Administrator 

with information relating to U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s requirements for new facilities or upgrades to existing facilities at land ports of entry. 

(2) CRITERIA.—The Commissioner and the Administrator 

shall establish criteria for entering into a partnership under 

subsection (a) that include the following: 

(A) Selection and evaluation of potential partners. 

(B) Identification and documentation of roles and responsibilities between U.S. Customs and Border Protection, General Services Administration, and private and 

government partners. 

(C) Identification, allocation, and management of explicit 

and implicit risks of partnering between U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, General Services Administration, and 

private and government partners. 

(D) Decision-making and dispute resolution processes in 

partnering arrangements. 

(E) Criteria and processes for U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection and General Services Administration to terminate agreements if private or government partners are not 

meeting the terms of such a partnership, including the security standards established by U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection. 

(3) EVALUATION PLAN.—The Commissioner, in collaboration 

with the Administrator, shall submit to the Committee on 

Homeland Security, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 

House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the Committee on Appropriations 

of the Senate, an evaluation plan for the pilot program described in subsection (a) that includes the following: 

(A) Well-defined, clear, and measurable objectives. 

(B) Performance criteria or standards for determining 

the performance of such pilot program. 

(C) Clearly articulated evaluation methodology, including— 

(i) sound sampling methods; 

(ii) a determination of appropriate sample size for 

the evaluation design; 

(iii) a strategy for tracking such pilot program’s performance; and 

(iv) an evaluation of the final results. 

(D) A plan detailing the type and source of data necessary to evaluate such pilot program, methods for data 

collection, and the timing and frequency of data collection. 

(e) AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS FOR THE PROVISION

OF CERTAIN SERVICES AT PORTS OF ENTRY.— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
118 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 13031(e) of the 

Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 

U.S.C. 58c(e)) and section 451 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

U.S.C. 1451), the Commissioner may, during the pilot program 

described in subsection (a) and upon the request of a private 

sector or government entity with which U.S. Customs and Border Protection has entered into a partnership, enter into a reimbursable fee agreement with such entity under which— 

(A) U.S. Customs and Border Protection will provide 

services described in paragraph (2) at a port of entry; 

(B) such entity will pay a fee imposed under paragraph 

(4) to reimburse U.S. Customs and Border Protection for 

the costs incurred in providing such services; and 

(C) each facility at which U.S. Customs and Border Protection services are performed shall be provided, maintained, and equipped by such entity, without cost to the 

Federal Government, in accordance with U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection specifications. 

(2) SERVICES DESCRIBED.—Services described in this paragraph are any activities of any employee or contractor of U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection pertaining to customs, agricultural processing, border security, and immigration inspectionrelated matters at ports of entry. 

(3) LIMITATIONS.— (A) IMPACTS OF SERVICES.—The Commissioner may not 

enter into a reimbursable fee agreement under this subsection if such agreement would unduly and permanently 

impact services funded in this or any other appropriations 

Act, or provided from any account in the Treasury of the 

United States derived by the collection of fees. 

(B) FOR CERTAIN COSTS.—The authority found in this 

subsection may not be used at U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection-serviced air ports of entry to enter into reimbursable fee agreements for costs other than payment of 

overtime and the salaries, trainingand benefits of individuals employed by U.S. Customs andBorder Protection to 

support U.S. Customs and Border Protectionofficers in performing law enforcement functions at portsof entry, including primary and secondary processing of passengers. 

(C) The authority found in this subsection may not be 

used to enter into new preclearance agreements or begin 

to provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection services 

outside of the United States. 

(D) The authority found in this subsection shall be limited with respect to U.S. Customs and Border Protectionserviced air ports of entry to øfive¿ ten pilots per year. 

(4) FEE.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The amount of the fee to be charged 

pursuant to an agreement authorized under paragraph (1) 

shall be paid by each private sector and government entity 

requesting U.S. Customs and Border Protection services, 

and shall include the salaries and expenses of individuals 

employed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to provide such services and other costs incurred by U.S. Customs and Border Protection relating to such services, such 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
119 

as temporary placement or permanent relocation of such 

individuals. 

(B) OVERSIGHT OF FEES.—The Commissioner shall develop a process to oversee the activities reimbursed by the 

fees charged pursuant to an agreement authorized under 

paragraph (1) that includes the following: 

(i) A determination and report on the full costs of 

providing services, including direct and indirect costs, 

including a process for increasing such fees as necessary. 

(ii) Establishment of a monthly remittance schedule 

to reimburse appropriations. 

(iii) Identification of overtime costs to be reimbursed 

by such fees. 

(5) DEPOSIT OF FUNDS.—Funds collected pursuant to any 

agreement entered into under paragraph (1) shall be deposited 

as offsetting collections and remain available until expended, 

without fiscal year limitation, and shall directly reimburse 

each appropriation for the amount paid out of that appropriation for any expenses incurred by U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection in providing U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

services and any other costs incurred by U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection relating to such services. 

(6) TERMINATION.—The Commissioner shall terminate the 

provision of services pursuant to an agreement entered into 

under paragraph (1) with a private sector or government entity 

that, after receiving notice from the Commissioner that a fee 

imposed under paragraph (4) is due, fails to pay such fee in a 

timely manner. In the event of such termination, all costs incurred by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which have not 

been reimbursed, will become immediately due and payable. 

Interest on unpaid fees will accrue based on current Treasury 

borrowing rates. Additionally, any private sector or government entity that, after notice and demand for payment of any 

fee charged under paragraph (4), fails to pay such fee in a 

timely manner shall be liable for a penalty or liquidated damage equal to two times the amount of such fee. Any amount 

collected pursuant to any agreement entered into under paragraph (1) shall be deposited into the account specified under 

paragraph (5) and shall be available as described therein. 

(7) NOTIFICATION.—The Commissioner shall notify the Congress 15 days prior to entering into any agreement under paragraph (1) and shall provide a copy of such agreement. 

(f) DONATIONS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the Commissioner 

and the Administrator may, during the pilot program described 

in subsection (a), accept a donation of real or personal property 

(including monetary donations) or nonpersonal services from 

any private sector or government entity with which U.S. Customs and Border Protection has entered into a partnership. 

(2) ALLOWABLE USES OF DONATIONS.—The Commissioner and 

the Administrator, with respect to any donation provided pursuant to paragraph (1), may— 

(A) use such donation for necessary activities related to 

the construction, alteration, operation, or maintenance of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
120 

an existing port of entry facility under the jurisdiction, 

custody, and control of the Commissioner, including expenses related to— 

(i) land acquisition, design, construction, repair and 

alteration; 

(ii) furniture, fixtures, and equipment; 

(iii) the deployment of technology and equipment; 

and 

(iv) operations and maintenance; or 

(B) transfer such property or services to the Administrator for necessary activities described in subparagraph 

(A) related to a new or existing port of entry under the jurisdiction, custody, and control of the Administrator, subject to chapter 33 of title 40, United States Code. Such 

transfer shall not be required for personal property, including furniture, fixtures, and equipment. 

(3) CONSULTATION AND BUDGET.— 

(A) WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR OR GOVERNMENT ENTITY.—To accept a donation described in paragraph (1), the 

Commissioner and the Administrator shall— 

(i) consult with the appropriate stakeholders and the 

private sector or government entity that is providing 

the donation and provide such entity with a description of the intended use of such donation; and 

(ii) submit to the Committee on Appropriations, the 

Committee on Homeland Security, and the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report not 

later than one year after the date of enactment of this 

Act, and annually thereafter, that describes— 

(I) the accepted donations received under this 

subsection; 

(II) the ports of entry that received such donations; and 

(III) how each donation helped facilitate the 

construction, alternation, operation, or maintenance of a new or existing land port of entry. 

(B) SAVINGS PROVISION.—Nothing in this paragraph may 

be construed to— 

(i) create any right or liability of the parties referred 

to in subparagraph (A); or 

(ii) affect any consultation requirement under any 

other law. 

(4) EVALUATION PROCEDURES.—Not later than 180 days after 

the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner, in 

consultation with the Administrator, shall establish procedures 

for evaluating a proposal submitted by a private sector or government entity to make a donation of real or personal property 

(including monetary donations) or nonpersonal services under 

paragraph (1) relating to a port of entry under the jurisdiction, 

custody and control of the Commissioner or the Administrator 

and make any such evaluation criteria publicly available. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
121 

(5) CONSIDERATIONS.—In determining whether or not to approve a proposal referred to in paragraph (4), the Commissioner or the Administrator shall consider— 

(A) the impact of such proposal on the port of entry at 

issue and other ports of entry on the same border; 

(B) the potential of such proposal to increase trade and 

travel efficiency through added capacity; 

(C) the potential of such proposal to enhance the security of the port of entry at issue; 

(D) the funding available to complete the intended use 

of a donation under this subsection, if such donation is 

real property; 

(E) the costs of maintaining and operating such donation; 

(F) whether such donation, if real property, satisfies the 

requirements of such proposal, or whether additional real 

property would be required; 

(G) an explanation of how such donation, if real property, was secured, including if eminent domain was used; 

(H) the impact of such proposal on staffing requirements; and 

(I) other factors that the Commissioner or Administrator 

determines to be relevant. 

(6) UNCONDITIONAL MONETARY DONATIONS.—A monetary donation shall be made unconditionally, although the donor may 

specify— 

(A) the port of entry facility or facilities to be benefitted 

from such donation; and 

(B) the timeframe during which such donation shall be 

used. 

(7) SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING.—Real or personal property (including monetary donations) or nonpersonal services donated 

pursuant to paragraph (1) may be used in addition to any 

other funding (including appropriated funds), property, or services made available for the same purpose. 

(8) RETURN OF DONATIONS.—If the Commissioner or the Administrator does not use the real property or monetary donation donated pursuant to paragraph (1) for the specific port of 

entry facility or facilities designated by the donor or within the 

timeframe specified by the donor, such donated real property 

or money may be returned to the donor. No interest shall be 

owed to the donor with respect to any donation of funding provided under such paragraph (1) that is returned pursuant to 

this paragraph. 

(9) SAVINGS PROVISION.—Nothing in this subsection may be 

construed to affect or alter the existing authority of the Commissioner or the Administrator to construct, alter, operate, and 

maintain port of entry facilities. 

(g) ANNUAL REPORTS.—The Commissioner, in collaboration with 

the Administrator, shall annually submit to the Committee on 

Homeland Security and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Committee 

on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
122 

pilot program and activities undertaken pursuant thereto in accordance with this Act. 

(h) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

(1) the term ‘‘private sector entity’’ means any corporation, 

partnership, trust, association, or any other private entity, or 

any officer, employee, or agent thereof; 

(2) the term ‘‘Commissioner’’ means the Commissioner of 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection; and 

(3) the term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Administrator of 

General Services. 

(i) ROLE OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.—Under this 

section, collaboration with the Administrator of General Services is 

required only with respect to partnerships at land ports of entry. 

* * * * * * * 

IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—IMMIGRATION 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 2—QUALIFICATIONS FOR ADMISSION OF ALIENS; TRAVEL

CONTROL OF CITIZENS AND ALIENS

* * * * * * * 

ADMISSION OF NONIMMIGRANTS

SEC. 214. (a)(1) The admission to the United States of any alien 

as a nonimmigrant shall be for such time and under such conditions as the Attorney General may by regulations prescribe, including when he deems necessary the giving of a bond with sufficient 

surety in such sum and containing such conditions as the Attorney 

General shall prescribe, to insure that at the expiration of such 

time or upon failure to maintain the status under which he was admitted, or to maintain any status subsequently acquired under section 248, such alien will depart from the United States. No alien 

admitted to Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands without a visa pursuant to section 212(l) may be authorized 

to enter or stay in the United States other than in Guam or the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands or to remain in 

Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands for 

a period exceeding 45 days from date of admission to Guam or the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. No alien admitted to the United States without a visa pursuant to section 217 

may be authorized to remain in the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor for a period exceeding 90 days from the date of 

admission. 

(2)(A) The period of authorized status as a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(O) shall be for such period as the Attorney General may specify in order to provide for the event (or 

events) for which the nonimmigrant is admitted. 

(B) The period of authorized status as a nonimmigrant described 

in section 101(a)(15)(P) shall be for such period as the Attorney 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
123 

General may specify in order to provide for the competition, event, 

or performance for which the nonimmigrant is admitted. In the 

case of nonimmigrants admitted as individual athletes under section 101(a)(15)(P), the period of authorized status may be for an 

initial period (not to exceed 5 years) during which the nonimmigrant will perform as an athlete and such period may be extended by the Attorney General for an additional period of up to 

5 years. 

(b) Every alien (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of such section) shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to 

a nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15). An alien who is an 

officer or employee of any foreign government or of any international organization entitled to enjoy privileges, exemptions, and 

immunities under the International Organizations Immunities Act, 

or an alien who is the attendant, servant, employee, or member of 

the immediate family of any such alien shall not be entitled to 

apply for or receive an immigrant visa, or to enter the United 

States as an immigrant unless he executes a written waiver in the 

same form and substance as is prescribed by section 247(b). 

(c)(1) The question of importing any alien as a nonimmigrant 

under subparagraph (H), (L), (O), or (P)(i) of section 101(a)(15) (excluding nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1)) in any 

specific case or specific cases shall be determined by the Attorney 

General, after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government, upon petition of the importing employer. Such petition 

shall be made and approved before the visa is granted. The petition 

shall be in such form and contain such information as the Attorney 

General shall prescribe. The approval of such a petition shall not, 

of itself, be construed as establishing that the alien is a nonimmigrant. For purposes of this subsection with respect to nonimmigrants described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), the term ‘‘appropriate agencies of Government’’ means the Department of Labor 

and includes the Department of Agriculture. The provisions of section 218 shall apply to the question of importing any alien as a 

nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a). 

(2)(A) The Attorney General shall provide for a procedure under 

which an importing employer which meets requirements established by the Attorney General may file a blanket petition to import aliens as nonimmigrants described in section 101(a)(15)(L) instead of filing individual petitions under paragraph (1) to import 

such aliens. Such procedure shall permit the expedited processing 

of visas for admission of aliens covered under such a petition. 

(B) For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(L), an alien is considered 

to be serving in a capacity involving specialized knowledge with respect to a company if the alien has a special knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets or has an 

advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the 

company. 

(C) The Attorney General shall provide a process for reviewing 

and acting upon petitions under this subsection with respect to 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
124 

nonimmigrants described in section 101(a)(15)(L) within 30 days 

after the date a completed petition has been filed. 

(D) The period of authorized admission for— 

(i) a nonimmigrant admitted to render services in a managerial or executive capacity under section 101(a)(15)(L) shall not 

exceed 7 years, or 

(ii) a nonimmigrant admitted to render services in a capacity 

that involves specialized knowledge under section 101(a)(15)(L) 

shall not exceed 5 years. 

(E) In the case of an alien spouse admitted under section 

101(a)(15)(L), who is accompanying or following to join a principal 

alien admitted under such section, the Attorney General shall authorize the alien spouse to engage in employment in the United 

States and provide the spouse with an ‘‘employment authorized’’ 

endorsement or other appropriate work permit. 

(F) An alien who will serve in a capacity involving specialized 

knowledge with respect to an employer for purposes of section 

101(a)(15)(L) and will be stationed primarily at the worksite of an 

employer other than the petitioning employer or its affiliate, subsidiary, or parent shall not be eligible for classification under section 101(a)(15)(L) if— 

(i) the alien will be controlled and supervised principally by 

such unaffiliated employer; or 

(ii) the placement of the alien at the worksite of the unaffiliated employer is essentially an arrangement to provide labor 

for hire for the unaffiliated employer, rather than a placement 

in connection with the provision of a product or service for 

which specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning employer is necessary. 

(3) The Attorney General shall approve a petition— 

(A) with respect to a nonimmigrant described in section 

101(a)(15)(O)(i) only after consultation in accordance with 

paragraph (6) or, with respect to aliens seeking entry for a motion picture or television production, after consultation with 

the appropriate union representing the alien’s occupational 

peers and a management organization in the area of the alien’s 

ability, or 

(B) with respect to a nonimmigrant described in section 

101(a)(15)(O)(ii) after consultation in accordance with paragraph (6) or, in the case of such an alien seeking entry for a 

motion picture or television production, after consultation with 

such a labor organization and a management organization in 

the area of the alien’s ability. 

In the case of an alien seeking entry for a motion picture or television production, (i) any opinion under the previous sentence shall 

only be advisory, (ii) any such opinion that recommends denial 

must be in writing, (iii) in making the decision the Attorney General shall consider the exigencies and scheduling of the production, 

and (iv) the Attorney General shall append to the decision any such 

opinion. The Attorney General shall provide by regulation for the 

waiver of the consultation requirement under subparagraph (A) in 

the case of aliens who have been admitted as nonimmigrants under 

section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) because of extraordinary ability in the arts 

and who seek readmission to perform similar services within 2 

years after the date of a consultation under such subparagraph. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
125 

Not later than 5 days after the date such a waiver is provided, the 

Attorney General shall forward a copy of the petition and all supporting documentation to the national office of an appropriate labor 

organization. 

(4)(A) For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(P)(i)(a), an alien is described in this subparagraph if the alien— 

(i)(I) performs as an athlete, individually or as part of a 

group or team, at an internationally recognized level of performance; 

(II) is a professional athlete, as defined in section 204(i)(2); 

(III) performs as an athlete, or as a coach, as part of a team 

or franchise that is located in the United States and a member 

of a foreign league or association of 15 or more amateur sports 

teams, if— 

(aa) the foreign league or association is the highest level 

of amateur performance of that sport in the relevant foreign country; 

(bb) participation in such league or association renders 

players ineligible, whether on a temporary or permanent 

basis, to earn a scholarship in, or participate in, that sport 

at a college or university in the United States under the 

rules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association; and 

(cc) a significant number of the individuals who play in 

such league or association are drafted by a major sports 

league or a minor league affiliate of such a sports league; 

or 

(IV) is a professional athlete or amateur athlete who performs individually or as part of a group in a theatrical ice skating production; and 

(ii) seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely 

for the purpose of performing— 

(I) as such an athlete with respect to a specific athletic 

competition; or 

(II) in the case of an individual described in clause 

(i)(IV), in a specific theatrical ice skating production or 

tour. 

(B)(i) For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(P)(i)(b), an alien is described in this subparagraph if the alien— 

(I) performs with or is an integral and essential part of the 

performance of an entertainment group that has (except as 

provided in clause (ii)) been recognized internationally as being 

outstanding in the discipline for a sustained and substantial 

period of time, 

(II) in the case of a performer or entertainer, except as provided in clause (iii), has had a sustained and substantial relationship with that group (ordinarily for at least one year) and 

provides functions integral to the performance of the group, 

and 

(III) seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely 

for the purpose of performing as such a performer or entertainer or as an integral and essential part of a performance. 

(ii) In the case of an entertainment group that is recognized nationally as being outstanding in its discipline for a sustained and 

substantial period of time, the Attorney General may, in considerVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
126 

ation of special circumstances, waive the international recognition 

requirement of clause (i)(I). 

(iii)(I) The one-year relationship requirement of clause (i)(II) 

shall not apply to 25 percent of the performers and entertainers in 

a group. 

(II) The Attorney General may waive such one-year relationship 

requirement for an alien who because of illness or unanticipated 

and exigent circumstances replaces an essential member of the 

group and for an alien who augments the group by performing a 

critical role. 

(iv) The requirements of subclauses (I) and (II) of clause (i) shall 

not apply to alien circus personnel who perform as part of a circus 

or circus group or who constitute an integral and essential part of 

the performance of such circus or circus group, but only if such personnel are entering the United States to join a circus that has been 

recognized nationally as outstanding for a sustained and substantial period of time or as part of such a circus. 

(C) A person may petition the Attorney General for classification 

of an alien as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(P). 

(D) The Attorney General shall approve petitions under this subsection with respect to nonimmigrants described in clause (i) or (iii) 

of section 101(a)(15)(P) only after consultation in accordance with 

paragraph (6). 

(E) The Attorney General shall approve petitions under this subsection for nonimmigrants described in section 101(a)(15)(P)(ii) only 

after consultation with labor organizations representing artists and 

entertainers in the United States. 

(F)(i) No nonimmigrant visa under section 101(a)(15)(P)(i)(a) 

shall be issued to any alien who is a national of a country that is 

a state sponsor of international terrorism unless the Secretary of 

State determines, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland 

Security and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that such alien does not pose a threat to the safety, national 

security, or national interest of the United States. In making a determination under this subparagraph, the Secretary of State shall 

apply standards developed by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the heads of 

other appropriate United States agencies, that are applicable to the 

nationals of such states. 

(ii) In this subparagraph, the term ‘‘state sponsor of international 

terrorism’’ means any country the government of which has been 

determined by the Secretary of State under any of the laws specified in clause (iii) to have repeatedly provided support for acts of 

international terrorism. 

(iii) The laws specified in this clause are the following: 

(I) Section 6(j)(1)(A) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 

(50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)(A)) (or successor statute). 

(II) Section 40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 

2780(d)). 

(III) Section 620A(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 

(22 U.S.C. 2371(a)). 

(G) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall permit a petition 

under this subsection to seek classification of more than 1 alien as 

a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(P)(i)(a). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
127 

(H) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall permit an athlete, 

or the employer of an athlete, to seek admission to the United 

States for such athlete under a provision of this Act other than section 101(a)(15)(P)(i) if the athlete is eligible under such other provision. 

(5)(A) In the case of an alien who is provided nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) or 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) and who 

is dismissed from employment by the employer before the end of 

the period of authorized admission, the employer shall be liable for 

the reasonable costs of return transportation of the alien abroad. 

(B) In the case of an alien who is admitted to the United States 

in nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(O) or 101(a)(15)(P) 

and whose employment terminates for reasons other than voluntary resignation, the employer whose offer of employment 

formed the basis of such nonimmigrant status and the petitioner 

are jointly and severally liable for the reasonable cost of return 

transportation of the alien abroad. The petitioner shall provide assurance satisfactory to the Attorney General that the reasonable 

cost of that transportation will be provided. 

(6)(A)(i) To meet the consultation requirement of paragraph 

(3)(A) in the case of a petition for a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) (other than with respect to aliens seeking 

entry for a motion picture or television production), the petitioner 

shall submit with the petition an advisory opinion from a peer 

group (or other person or persons of its choosing, which may include a labor organization) with expertise in the specific field involved. 

(ii) To meet the consultation requirement of paragraph (3)(B) in 

the case of a petition for a nonimmigrant described in section 

101(a)(15)(O)(ii) (other than with respect to aliens seeking entry for 

a motion picture or television production), the petitioner shall submit with the petition an advisory opinion from a labor organization 

with expertise in the skill area involved. 

(iii) To meet the consultation requirement of paragraph (4)(D) in 

the case of a petition for a nonimmigrant described in section 

101(a)(15)(P)(i) or 101(a)(15)(P)(iii), the petitioner shall submit with 

the petition an advisory opinion from a labor organization with expertise in the specific field of athletics or entertainment involved. 

(B) To meet the consultation requirements of subparagraph (A), 

unless the petitioner submits with the petition an advisory opinion 

from an appropriate labor organization, the Attorney General shall 

forward a copy of the petition and all supporting documentation to 

the national office of an appropriate labor organization within 5 

days of the date of receipt of the petition. If there is a collective 

bargaining representative of an employer’s employees in the occupational classification for which the alien is being sought, that representative shall be the appropriate labor organization. 

(C) In those cases in which a petitioner described in subparagraph (A) establishes that an appropriate peer group (including a 

labor organization) does not exist, the Attorney General shall adjudicate the petition without requiring an advisory opinion. 

(D) Any person or organization receiving a copy of a petition described in subparagraph (A) and supporting documents shall have 

no more than 15 days following the date of receipt of such documents within which to submit a written advisory opinion or comVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
128 

ment or to provide a letter of no objection. Once the 15-day period 

has expired and the petitioner has had an opportunity, where appropriate, to supply rebuttal evidence, the Attorney General shall 

adjudicate such petition in no more than 14 days. The Attorney 

General may shorten any specified time period for emergency reasons if no unreasonable burden would be thus imposed on any participant in the process. 

(E)(i) The Attorney General shall establish by regulation expedited consultation procedures in the case of nonimmigrant artists 

or entertainers described in section 101(a)(15)(O) or 101(a)(15)(P) to 

accommodate the exigencies and scheduling of a given production 

or event. 

(ii) The Attorney General shall establish by regulation expedited 

consultation procedures in the case of nonimmigrant athletes described in section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) or 101(a)(15)(P)(i) in the case of 

emergency circumstances (including trades during a season). 

(F) No consultation required under this subsection by the Attorney General with a nongovernmental entity shall be construed as 

permitting the Attorney General to delegate any authority under 

this subsection to such an entity. The Attorney General shall give 

such weight to advisory opinions provided under this section as the 

Attorney General determines, in his sole discretion, to be appropriate. 

(7) If a petition is filed and denied under this subsection, the Attorney General shall notify the petitioner of the determination and 

the reasons for the denial and of the process by which the petitioner may appeal the determination. 

(8) The Attorney General shall submit annually to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the 

Senate a report describing, with respect to petitions under each 

subcategory of subparagraphs (H), (O), (P), and (Q) of section 

101(a)(15) the following: 

(A) The number of such petitions which have been filed. 

(B) The number of such petitions which have been approved 

and the number of workers (by occupation) included in such 

approved petitions. 

(C) The number of such petitions which have been denied 

and the number of workers (by occupation) requested in such 

denied petitions. 

(D) The number of such petitions which have been withdrawn. 

(E) The number of such petitions which are awaiting final 

action. 

(9)(A) The Attorney General shall impose a fee on an employer 

(excluding any employer that is a primary or secondary education 

institution, an institution of higher education, as defined in section 

101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a), a 

nonprofit entity related to or affiliated with any such institution, 

a nonprofit entity which engages in established curriculum-related 

clinical training of students registered at any such institution, a 

nonprofit research organization, or a governmental research organization) filing before a petition under paragraph (1)— 

(i) initially to grant an alien nonimmigrant status described 

in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b); 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
129 

(ii) to extend the stay of an alien having such status (unless 

the employer previously has obtained an extension for such 

alien); or 

(iii) to obtain authorization for an alien having such status 

to change employers. 

(B) The amount of the fee shall be $1,500 for each such petition 

except that the fee shall be half the amount for each such petition 

by any employer with not more than 25 full-time equivalent employees who are employed in the United States (determined by including any affiliate or subsidiary of such employer). 

(C) Fees collected under this paragraph shall be deposited in the 

Treasury in accordance with section 286(s). 

(10) An amended H–1B petition shall not be required where 

the petitioning employer is involved in a corporate restructuring, including but not limited to a merger, acquisition, or 

consolidation, where a new corporate entity succeeds to the interests and obligations of the original petitioning employer and 

where the terms and conditions of employment remain the 

same but for the identity of the petitioner. 

(11)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary of Homeland 

Security or the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall impose a 

fee on an employer who has filed an attestation described in section 

212(t)— 

(i) in order that an alien may be initially granted nonimmigrant status described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1); or 

(ii) in order to satisfy the requirement of the second sentence 

of subsection (g)(8)(C) for an alien having such status to obtain 

certain extensions of stay. 

(B) The amount of the fee shall be the same as the amount imposed by the Secretary of Homeland Security under paragraph (9), 

except that if such paragraph does not authorize such Secretary to 

impose any fee, no fee shall be imposed under this paragraph. 

(C) Fees collected under this paragraph shall be deposited in the 

Treasury in accordance with section 286(s). 

(12)(A) In addition to any other fees authorized by law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud prevention and 

detection fee on an employer filing a petition under paragraph (1)— 

(i) initially to grant an alien nonimmigrant status described 

in subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (L) of section 101(a)(15); or 

(ii) to obtain authorization for an alien having such status to 

change employers. 

(B) In addition to any other fees authorized by law, the Secretary 

of State shall impose a fraud prevention and detection fee on an 

alien filing an application abroad for a visa authorizing admission 

to the United States as a nonimmigrant described in section 

101(a)(15)(L), if the alien is covered under a blanket petition described in paragraph (2)(A). 

(C) The amount of the fee imposed under subparagraph (A) or (B) 

shall be $500. 

(D) The fee imposed under subparagraph (A) or (B) shall only 

apply to principal aliens and not to the spouses or children who are 

accompanying or following to join such principal aliens. 

(E) Fees collected under this paragraph shall be deposited in the 

Treasury in accordance with section 286(v). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
130 

(13)(A) In addition to any other fees authorized by law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud prevention and 

detection fee on an employer filing a petition under paragraph (1) 

for nonimmigrant workers described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). 

(B) The amount of the fee imposed under subparagraph (A) shall 

be $150. 

(14)(A) If the Secretary of Homeland Security finds, after notice 

and an opportunity for a hearing, a substantial failure to meet any 

of the conditions of the petition to admit or otherwise provide status to a nonimmigrant worker under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) or 

a willful misrepresentation of a material fact in such petition— 

(i) the Secretary of Homeland Security may, in addition to 

any other remedy authorized by law, impose such administrative remedies (including civil monetary penalties in an amount 

not to exceed $10,000 per violation) as the Secretary of Homeland Security determines to be appropriate; and 

(ii) the Secretary of Homeland Security may deny petitions 

filed with respect to that employer under section 204 or paragraph (1) of this subsection during a period of at least 1 year 

but not more than 5 years for aliens to be employed by the employer. 

(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security may delegate to the Secretary of Labor, with the agreement of the Secretary of Labor, any 

of the authority given to the Secretary of Homeland Security under 

subparagraph (A)(i). 

(C) In determining the level of penalties to be assessed under 

subparagraph (A), the highest penalties shall be reserved for willful failures to meet any of the conditions of the petition that involve harm to United States workers. 

(D) In this paragraph, the term ‘‘substantial failure’’ means the 

willful failure to comply with the requirements of this section that 

constitutes a significant deviation from the terms and conditions of 

a petition. 

(d)(1) A visa shall not be issued under the provisions of section 

101(a)(15)(K)(i) until the consular officer has received a petition 

filed in the United States by the fiance ́e or fiance ́ of the applying 

alien and approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security. The petition shall be in such form and contain such information as the 

Secretary of Homeland Security shall, by regulation, prescribe. 

Such information shall include information on any criminal convictions of the petitioner for any specified crime described in paragraph (3)(B) and information on any permanent protection or restraining order issued against the petitioner related to any specified crime described in paragraph (3)(B)(i). It shall be approved 

only after satisfactory evidence is submitted by the petitioner to establish that the parties have previously met in person within 2 

years before the date of filing the petition, have a bona fide intention to marry, and are legally able and actually willing to conclude 

a valid marriage in the United States within a period of ninety 

days after the alien’s arrival, except that the Secretary of Homeland Security in his discretion may waive the requirement that the 

parties have previously met in person. In the event the marriage 

with the petitioner does not occur within three months after the 

admission of the said alien and minor children, they shall be reVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
131 

quired to depart from the United States and upon failure to do so 

shall be removed in accordance with sections 240 and 241. 

(2)(A) Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), the Secretary of 

Homeland Security may not approve a petition under paragraph (1) 

unless the Secretary has verified that— 

(i) the petitioner has not, previous to the pending petition, 

petitioned under paragraph (1) with respect to two or more applying aliens; and 

(ii) if the petitioner has had such a petition previously approved, 2 years have elapsed since the filing of such previously 

approved petition. 

(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security may, in the Secretary’s 

discretion, waive the limitations in subparagraph (A) if justification 

exists for such a waiver. Except in extraordinary circumstances 

and subject to subparagraph (C), such a waiver shall not be granted if the petitioner has a record of violent criminal offenses against 

a person or persons. 

(C)(i) The Secretary of Homeland Security is not limited by the 

criminal court record and shall grant a waiver of the condition described in the second sentence of subparagraph (B) in the case of 

a petitioner described in clause (ii). 

(ii) A petitioner described in this clause is a petitioner who has 

been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty and who is or was 

not the primary perpetrator of violence in the relationship upon a 

determination that— 

(I) the petitioner was acting in self-defense; 

(II) the petitioner was found to have violated a protection 

order intended to protect the petitioner; or 

(III) the petitioner committed, was arrested for, was convicted of, or pled guilty to committing a crime that did not result in serious bodily injury and where there was a connection 

between the crime and the petitioner’s having been battered or 

subjected to extreme cruelty. 

(iii) In acting on applications under this subparagraph, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consider any credible evidence 

relevant to the application. The determination of what evidence is 

credible and the weight to be given that evidence shall be within 

the sole discretion of the Secretary. 

(3) In this subsection: 

(A) The terms ‘‘domestic violence’’, ‘‘sexual assault’’, ‘‘child 

abuse and neglect’’, ‘‘dating violence’’, ‘‘elder abuse’’, and ‘‘stalking’’ have the meaning given such terms in section 3 of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. 

(B) The term ‘‘specified crime’’ means the following: 

(i) Domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse and neglect, dating violence, elder abuse, stalking, or an attempt 

to commit any such crime. 

(ii) Homicide, murder, manslaughter, rape, abusive sexual contact, sexual exploitation, incest, torture, trafficking, 

peonage, holding hostage, involuntary servitude, slave 

trade, kidnapping, abduction, unlawful criminal restraint, 

false imprisonment, or an attempt to commit any of the 

crimes described in this clause. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
132 

(iii) At least three convictions for crimes relating to a 

controlled substance or alcohol not arising from a single 

act. 

(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an alien 

who is a citizen of Canada and seeks to enter the United States 

under and pursuant to the provisions of Annex 1502.1 (United 

States of America), Part C—Professionals, of the United States– 

Canada Free–Trade Agreement to engage in business activities at 

a professional level as provided for therein may be admitted for 

such purpose under regulations of the Attorney General promulgated after consultation with the Secretaries of State and Labor. 

(2) An alien who is a citizen of Canada or Mexico, and the spouse 

and children of any such alien if accompanying or following to join 

such alien, who seeks to enter the United States under and pursuant to the provisions of Section D of Annex 1603 of the North 

American Free Trade Agreement (in this subsection referred to as 

‘‘NAFTA’’) to engage in business activities at a professional level as 

provided for in such Annex, may be admitted for such purpose 

under regulations of the Attorney General promulgated after consultation with the Secretaries of State and Labor. For purposes of 

this Act, including the issuance of entry documents and the application of subsection (b), such alien shall be treated as if seeking 

classification, or classifiable, as a nonimmigrant under section 

101(a)(15). The admission of an alien who is a citizen of Mexico 

shall be subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5). For purposes of this 

paragraph and paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the term ‘‘citizen of 

Mexico’’ means ‘‘citizen’’ as defined in Annex 1608 of NAFTA. 

(3) The Attorney General shall establish an annual numerical 

limit on admissions under paragraph (2) of aliens who are citizens 

of Mexico, as set forth in Appendix 1603.D.4 of Annex 1603 of the 

NAFTA. Subject to paragraph (4), the annual numerical limit— 

(A) beginning with the second year that NAFTA is in force, 

may be increased in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5(a) of Section D of such Annex, and 

(B) shall cease to apply as provided for in paragraph 3 of 

such Appendix. 

(4) The annual numerical limit referred to in paragraph (3) may 

be increased or shall cease to apply (other than by operation of 

paragraph 3 of such Appendix) only if— 

(A) the President has obtained advice regarding the proposed 

action from the appropriate advisory committees established 

under section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155); 

(B) the President has submitted a report to the Committee 

on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives that sets forth— 

(i) the action proposed to be taken and the reasons 

therefor, and 

(ii) the advice obtained under subparagraph (A); 

(C) a period of at least 60 calendar days that begins on the 

first day on which the President has met the requirements of 

subparagraphs (A) and (B) with respect to such action has expired; and 

(D) the President has consulted with such committees regarding the proposed action during the period referred to in 

subparagraph (C). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
133 

(5) During the period that the provisions of Appendix 1603.D.4 

of Annex 1603 of the NAFTA apply, the entry of an alien who is 

a citizen of Mexico under and pursuant to the provisions of Section 

D of Annex 1603 of NAFTA shall be subject to the attestation requirement of section 212(m), in the case of a registered nurse, or 

the application requirement of section 212(n), in the case of all 

other professions set out in Appendix 1603.D.1 of Annex 1603 of 

NAFTA, and the petition requirement of subsection (c), to the extent and in the manner prescribed in regulations promulgated by 

the Secretary of Labor, with respect to sections 212(m) and 212(n), 

and the Attorney General, with respect to subsection (c). 

(6) In the case of an alien spouse admitted under section 

101(a)(15)(E), who is accompanying or following to join a principal 

alien admitted under such section, the Attorney General shall authorize the alien spouse to engage in employment in the United 

States and provide the spouse with an ‘‘employment authorized’’ 

endorsement or other appropriate work permit. 

(f)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), no alien shall be entitled to nonimmigrant status described in section 101(a)(15)(D) if 

the alien intends to land for the purpose of performing service on 

board a vessel of the United States (as defined in section 2101(46) 

of title 46, United States Code) or on an aircraft of an air carrier 

(as defined in section 40102(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code) 

during a labor dispute where there is a strike or lockout in the bargaining unit of the employer in which the alien intends to perform 

such service. 

(2) An alien described in paragraph (1)— 

(A) may not be paroled into the United States pursuant to 

section 212(d)(5) unless the Attorney General determines that 

the parole of such alien is necessary to protect the national security of the United States; and 

(B) shall be considered not to be a bona fide crewman for 

purposes of section 252(b). 

(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the air carrier or 

owner or operator of such vessel that employs the alien provides 

documentation that satisfies the Attorney General that the alien— 

(A) has been an employee of such employer for a period of 

not less than 1 year preceding the date that a strike or lawful 

lockout commenced; 

(B) has served as a qualified crewman for such employer at 

least once in each of 3 months during the 12-month period preceding such date; and 

(C) shall continue to provide the same services that such 

alien provided as such a crewman. 

(g)(1) The total number of aliens who may be issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status during any fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 1992)— 

(A) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), may not exceed— 

(i) 65,000 in each fiscal year before fiscal year 1999; 

(ii) 115,000 in fiscal year 1999; 

(iii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2000; 

(iv) 195,000 in fiscal year 2001; 

(v) 195,000 in fiscal year 2002; 

(vi) 195,000 in fiscal year 2003; and 

(vii) 65,000 in each succeeding fiscal year; or 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
134 

(B) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) may not exceed 66,000. 

(2) The numerical limitations of paragraph (1) shall only apply 

to principal aliens and not to the spouses or children of such aliens. 

(3) Aliens who are subject to the numerical limitations of paragraph (1) shall be issued visas (or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status) in the order in which petitions are filed for such 

visas or status. If an alien who was issued a visa or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status and counted against the numerical limitations of paragraph (1) is found to have been issued such visa or 

otherwise provided such status by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact and such visa or nonimmigrant status is revoked, then one number shall be restored to the total number of 

aliens who may be issued visas or otherwise provided such status 

under the numerical limitations of paragraph (1) in the fiscal year 

in which the petition is revoked, regardless of the fiscal year in 

which the petition was approved. 

(4) In the case of a nonimmigrant described in section 

101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), the period of authorized admission as such a 

nonimmigrant may not exceed 6 years. 

(5) The numerical limitations contained in paragraph (1)(A) shall 

not apply to any nonimmigrant alien issued a visa or otherwise 

provided status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) who— 

(A) is employed (or has received an offer of employment) at 

an institution of higher education (as defined in section 101(a) 

of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))), or a 

related or affiliated nonprofit entity; 

(B) is employed (or has received an offer of employment) at 

a nonprofit research organization or a governmental research 

organization; or 

(C) has earned a master’s or higher degree from a United 

States institution of higher education (as defined in section 

101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)), 

until the number of aliens who are exempted from such numerical limitation during such year exceeds 20,000. 

(6) Any alien who ceases to be employed by an employer described in paragraph (5)(A) shall, if employed as a nonimmigrant 

alien described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), who has not previously been counted toward the numerical limitations contained in 

paragraph (1)(A), be counted toward those limitations the first time 

the alien is employed by an employer other than one described in 

paragraph (5). 

(7) Any alien who has already been counted, within the 6 years 

prior to the approval of a petition described in subsection (c), toward the numerical limitations of paragraph (1)(A) shall not again 

be counted toward those limitations unless the alien would be eligible for a full 6 years of authorized admission at the time the petition is filed. Where multiple petitions are approved for 1 alien, that 

alien shall be counted only once. 

(8)(A) The agreements referred to in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1) 

are— 

(i) the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement; and 

(ii) the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. 

(B)(i) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish annual 

numerical limitations on approvals of initial applications by aliens 

for admission under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
135 

(ii) The annual numerical limitations described in clause (i) shall 

not exceed— 

(I) 1,400 for nationals of Chile (as defined in article 14.9 of 

the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement) for any fiscal 

year; and 

(II) 5,400 for nationals of Singapore (as defined in Annex 1A 

of the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement) for any 

fiscal year. 

(iii) The annual numerical limitations described in clause (i) shall 

only apply to principal aliens and not to the spouses or children of 

such aliens. 

(iv) The annual numerical limitation described in paragraph 

(1)(A) is reduced by the amount of the annual numerical limitations established under clause (i). However, if a numerical limitation established under clause (i) has not been exhausted at the end 

of a given fiscal year, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall adjust upwards the numerical limitation in paragraph (1)(A) for that 

fiscal year by the amount remaining in the numerical limitation 

under clause (i). Visas under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) may be 

issued pursuant to such adjustment within the first 45 days of the 

next fiscal year to aliens who had applied for such visas during the 

fiscal year for which the adjustment was made. 

(C) The period of authorized admission as a nonimmigrant under 

section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1) shall be 1 year, and may be extended, 

but only in 1-year increments. After every second extension, the 

next following extension shall not be granted unless the Secretary 

of Labor had determined and certified to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State that the intending employer has filed with the Secretary of Labor an attestation under 

section 212(t)(1) for the purpose of permitting the nonimmigrant to 

obtain such extension. 

(D) The numerical limitation described in paragraph (1)(A) for a 

fiscal year shall be reduced by one for each alien granted an extension under subparagraph (C) during such year who has obtained 5 

or more consecutive prior extensions. 

(9)(A) Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), an alien who has already been counted toward the numerical limitation of paragraph 

(1)(B) during fiscal year ø2004, 2005, or 2006 shall not again be 

counted toward such limitation during fiscal year 2007.¿ 2013, 

2014, or 2015 shall not again be counted toward such limitation 

during fiscal year 2016. Such an alien shall be considered a returning worker. 

(B) A petition to admit or otherwise provide status under section 

101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) shall include, with respect to a returning worker— 

(i) all information and evidence that the Secretary of Homeland Security determines is required to support a petition for 

status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b); 

(ii) the full name of the alien; and 

(iii) a certification to the Department of Homeland Security 

that the alien is a returning worker. 

(C) An H–2B visa or grant of nonimmigrant status for a returning worker shall be approved only if the alien is confirmed to be 

a returning worker by— 

(i) the Department of State; or 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
136 

(ii) if the alien is visa exempt or seeking to change to status 

under section 101 (a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), the Department of Homeland Security. 

(10) The numerical limitations of paragraph (1)(B) shall be allocated for a fiscal year so that the total number of aliens subject to 

such numerical limits who enter the United States pursuant to a 

visa or are accorded nonimmigrant status under section 

101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) during the first 6 months of such fiscal year is 

not more than 33,000. 

(11)(A) The Secretary of State may not approve a number of initial applications submitted for aliens described in section 

101(a)(15)(E)(iii) that is more than the applicable numerical limitation set out in this paragraph. 

(B) The applicable numerical limitation referred to in subparagraph (A) is 10,500 for each fiscal year. 

(C) The applicable numerical limitation referred to in subparagraph (A) shall only apply to principal aliens and not to the 

spouses or children of such aliens. 

(h) The fact that an alien is the beneficiary of an application for 

a preference status filed under section 204 or has otherwise sought 

permanent residence in the United States shall not constitute evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence for purposes 

of obtaining a visa as a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph 

(H)(i)(b) or (c), (L), or (V) of section 101(a)(15) or otherwise obtaining or maintaining the status of a nonimmigrant described in such 

subparagraph, if the alien had obtained a change of status under 

section 248 to a classification as such a nonimmigrant before the 

alien’s most recent departure from the United States. 

(i)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), for purposes of section 

101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii), and paragraph (2), the 

term ‘‘specialty occupation’’ means an occupation that requires— 

(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly 

specialized knowledge, and 

(B) attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree in the specific 

specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the 

occupation in the United States. 

(2) For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), the requirements 

of this paragraph, with respect to a specialty occupation, are— 

(A) full state licensure to practice in the occupation, if such 

licensure is required to practice in the occupation, 

(B) completion of the degree described in paragraph (1)(B) 

for the occupation, or 

(C)(i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion 

of such degree, and (ii) recognition of expertise in the specialty 

through progressively responsible positions relating to the specialty. 

(3) For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1), the term ‘‘specialty occupation’’ means an occupation that requires— 

(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of specialized knowledge; and 

(B) attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree in the specific 

specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the 

occupation in the United States. 

(j)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an alien 

who is a citizen of Canada or Mexico who seeks to enter the United 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
137 

States under and pursuant to the provisions of Section B, Section 

C, or Section D of Annex 1603 of the North American Free Trade 

Agreement, shall not be classified as a nonimmigrant under such 

provisions if there is in progress a strike or lockout in the course 

of a labor dispute in the occupational classification at the place or 

intended place of employment, unless such alien establishes, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Attorney General, that the 

alien’s entry will not affect adversely the settlement of the strike 

or lockout or the employment of any person who is involved in the 

strike or lockout. Notice of a determination under this paragraph 

shall be given as may be required by paragraph 3 of article 1603 

of such Agreement. For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘‘citizen of Mexico’’ means ‘‘citizen’’ as defined in Annex 1608 of such 

Agreement. 

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act except section 

212(t)(1), and subject to regulations promulgated by the Secretary 

of Homeland Security, an alien who seeks to enter the United 

States under and pursuant to the provisions of an agreement listed 

in subsection (g)(8)(A), and the spouse and children of such an 

alien if accompanying or following to join the alien, may be denied 

admission as a nonimmigrant under subparagraph (E), (L), or 

(H)(i)(b1) of section 101(a)(15) if there is in progress a labor dispute 

in the occupational classification at the place or intended place of 

employment, unless such alien establishes, pursuant to regulations 

promulgated by the Secretary of Homeland Security after consultation with the Secretary of Labor, that the alien’s entry will not affect adversely the settlement of the labor dispute or the employment of any person who is involved in the labor dispute. Notice of 

a determination under this paragraph shall be given as may be required by such agreement. 

(k)(1) The number of aliens who may be provided a visa as nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15)(S)(i) in any fiscal year may 

not exceed 200. The number of aliens who may be provided a visa 

as nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15)(S)(ii) in any fiscal year 

may not exceed 50. 

(2) The period of admission of an alien as such a nonimmigrant 

may not exceed 3 years. Such period may not be extended by the 

Attorney General. 

(3) As a condition for the admission, and continued stay in lawful 

status, of such a nonimmigrant, the nonimmigrant— 

(A) shall report not less often than quarterly to the Attorney 

General such information concerning the alien’s whereabouts 

and activities as the Attorney General may require; 

(B) may not be convicted of any criminal offense punishable 

by a term of imprisonment of 1 year or more after the date of 

such admission; 

(C) must have executed a form that waives the nonimmigrant’s right to contest, other than on the basis of an application for withholding of removal, any action for removal of 

the alien instituted before the alien obtains lawful permanent 

resident status; and 

(D) shall abide by any other condition, limitation, or restriction imposed by the Attorney General. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
138 

(4) The Attorney General shall submit a report annually to the 

Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and 

the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate concerning— 

(A) the number of such nonimmigrants admitted; 

(B) the number of successful criminal prosecutions or investigations resulting from cooperation of such aliens; 

(C) the number of terrorist acts prevented or frustrated resulting from cooperation of such aliens; 

(D) the number of such nonimmigrants whose admission or 

cooperation has not resulted in successful criminal prosecution 

or investigation or the prevention or frustration of a terrorist 

act; and 

(E) the number of such nonimmigrants who have failed to report quarterly (as required under paragraph (3)) or who have 

been convicted of crimes in the United States after the date of 

their admission as such a nonimmigrant. 

(l)(1) In the case of a request by an interested State agency, or 

by an interested Federal agency, for a waiver of the 2-year foreign 

residence requirement under section 212(e) on behalf of an alien 

described in clause (iii) of such section, the Attorney General shall 

not grant such waiver unless— 

(A) in the case of an alien who is otherwise contractually obligated to return to a foreign country, the government of such 

country furnishes the Director of the United States Information Agency with a statement in writing that it has no objection to such waiver; 

(B) in the case of a request by an interested State agency, 

the grant of such waiver would not cause the number of waivers allotted for that State for that fiscal year to exceed 30; 

(C) in the case of a request by an interested Federal agency 

or by an interested State agency— 

(i) the alien demonstrates a bona fide offer of full-time 

employment at a health facility or health care organization, which employment has been determined by the Attorney General to be in the public interest; and 

(ii) the alien agrees to begin employment with the health 

facility or health care organization within 90 days of receiving such waiver, and agrees to continue to work for a 

total of not less than 3 years (unless the Attorney General 

determines that extenuating circumstances exist, such as 

closure of the facility or hardship to the alien, which would 

justify a lesser period of employment at such health facility or health care organization, in which case the alien 

must demonstrate another bona fide offer of employment 

at a health facility or health care organization for the remainder of such 3-year period); and 

(D) in the case of a request by an interested Federal agency 

(other than a request by an interested Federal agency to employ the alien full-time in medical research or training) or by 

an interested State agency, the alien agrees to practice primary care or specialty medicine in accordance with paragraph 

(2) for a total of not less than 3 years only in the geographic 

area or areas which are designated by the Secretary of Health 

and Human Services as having a shortage of health care professionals, except that— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
139 

(i) in the case of a request by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the alien shall not be required to practice 

medicine in a geographic area designated by the Secretary; 

(ii) in the case of a request by an interested State agency, the head of such State agency determines that the 

alien is to practice medicine under such agreement in a facility that serves patients who reside in one or more geographic areas so designated by the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services (without regard to whether such facility 

is located within such a designated geographic area), and 

the grant of such waiver would not cause the number of 

the waivers granted on behalf of aliens for such State for 

a fiscal year (within the limitation in subparagraph (B)) in 

accordance with the conditions of this clause to exceed 10; 

and 

(iii) in the case of a request by an interested Federal 

agency or by an interested State agency for a waiver for 

an alien who agrees to practice specialty medicine in a facility located in a geographic area so designated by the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services, the request shall 

demonstrate, based on criteria established by such agency, 

that there is a shortage of health care professionals able 

to provide services in the appropriate medical specialty to 

the patients who will be served by the alien. 

(2)(A) Notwithstanding section 248(a)(2), the Attorney General may change the status of an alien who qualifies under this 

subsection and section 212(e) to that of an alien described in 

section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The numerical limitations contained 

in subsection (g)(1)(A) shall not apply to any alien whose status is changed under the preceding sentence, if the alien obtained a waiver of the 2-year foreign residence requirement 

upon a request by an interested Federal agency or an interested State agency. 

(B) No person who has obtained a change of status under 

subparagraph (A) and who has failed to fulfill the terms of the 

contract with the health facility or health care organization 

named in the waiver application shall be eligible to apply for 

an immigrant visa, for permanent residence, or for any other 

change of nonimmigrant status, until it is established that 

such person has resided and been physically present in the 

country of his nationality or his last residence for an aggregate 

of at least 2 years following departure from the United States. 

(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, 

the 2-year foreign residence requirement under section 212(e) 

shall apply with respect to an alien described in clause (iii) of 

such section, who has not otherwise been accorded status 

under section 101(a)(27)(H), if— 

(A) at any time the alien ceases to comply with any 

agreement entered into under subparagraph (C) or (D) of 

paragraph (1); or 

(B) the alien’s employment ceases to benefit the public 

interest at any time during the 3-year period described in 

paragraph (1)(C). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
140 

(m)(1) An alien may not be accorded status as a nonimmigrant 

under clause (i) or (iii) of section 101(a)(15)(F) in order to pursue 

a course of study— 

(A) at a public elementary school or in a publicly funded 

adult education program; or 

(B) at a public secondary school unless— 

(i) the aggregate period of such status at such a school 

does not exceed 12 months with respect to any alien, and 

(ii) the alien demonstrates that the alien has reimbursed 

the local educational agency that administers the school 

for the full, unsubsidized per capita cost of providing education at such school for the period of the alien’s attendance. 

(2) An alien who obtains the status of a nonimmigrant under 

clause (i) or (iii) of section 101(a)(15)(F) in order to pursue a course 

of study at a private elementary or secondary school or in a language training program that is not publicly funded shall be considered to have violated such status, and the alien’s visa under section 

101(a)(15)(F) shall be void, if the alien terminates or abandons 

such course of study at such a school and undertakes a course of 

study at a public elementary school, in a publicly funded adult education program, in a publicly funded adult education language 

training program, or at a public secondary school (unless the requirements of paragraph (1)(B) are met). 

(n)(1) A nonimmigrant alien described in paragraph (2) who was 

previously issued a visa or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status 

under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) is authorized to accept new employment upon the filing by the prospective employer of a new petition on behalf of such nonimmigrant as provided under subsection 

(a). Employment authorization shall continue for such alien until 

the new petition is adjudicated. If the new petition is denied, such 

authorization shall cease. 

(2) A nonimmigrant alien described in this paragraph is a nonimmigrant alien— 

(A) who has been lawfully admitted into the United States; 

(B) on whose behalf an employer has filed a nonfrivolous petition for new employment before the date of expiration of the 

period of stay authorized by the Attorney General; and 

(C) who, subsequent to such lawful admission, has not been 

employed without authorization in the United States before the 

filing of such petition. 

(o)(1) No alien shall be eligible for admission to the United States 

under section 101(a)(15)(T) if there is substantial reason to believe 

that the alien has committed an act of a severe form of trafficking 

in persons (as defined in section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000). 

(2) The total number of aliens who may be issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status during any fiscal year under 

section 101(a)(15)(T) may not exceed 5,000. 

(3) The numerical limitation of paragraph (2) shall only apply to 

principal aliens and not to the spouses, sons, daughters, siblings, 

or parents of such aliens. 

(4) An unmarried alien who seeks to accompany, or follow to join, 

a parent granted status under section 101(a)(15)(T)(i), and who was 

under 21 years of age on the date on which such parent applied 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
141 

for such status, shall continue to be classified as a child for purposes of section 101(a)(15)(T)(ii), if the alien attains 21 years of age 

after such parent’s application was filed but while it was pending. 

(5) An alien described in clause (i) of section 101(a)(15)(T) shall 

continue to be treated as an alien described in clause (ii)(I) of such 

section if the alien attains 21 years of age after the alien’s application for status under such clause (i) is filed but while it is pending. 

(6) In making a determination under section 

101(a)(15)(T)(i)(III)(aa) with respect to an alien, statements from 

State and local law enforcement officials that the alien has complied with any reasonable request for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of crimes such as kidnapping, rape, slavery, or 

other forced labor offenses, where severe forms of trafficking in persons (as defined in section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection 

Act of 2000) appear to have been involved, shall be considered. 

(7)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an alien who is 

issued a visa or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(T) may be granted such status for a period of not 

more than 4 years. 

(B) An alien who is issued a visa or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(T) may extend the period of such status beyond the period described in subparagraph 

(A) if— 

(i) a Federal, State, or local law enforcement official, prosecutor, judge, or other authority investigating or prosecuting 

activity relating to human trafficking or certifies that the presence of the alien in the United States is necessary to assist in 

the investigation or prosecution of such activity; 

(ii) the alien is eligible for relief under section 245(l) and is 

unable to obtain such relief because regulations have not been 

issued to implement such section; or 

(iii) the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that an 

extension of the period of such nonimmigrant status is warranted due to exceptional circumstances. 

(C) Nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(T) shall be extended during the pendency of an application for adjustment of status under section 245(l). 

(p) REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO SECTION 101(a)(15)(U) 

VISAS.— 

(1) PETITIONING PROCEDURES FOR SECTION 101(a)(15)(U)

VISAS.—The petition filed by an alien under section 

101(a)(15)(U)(i) shall contain a certification from a Federal, 

State, or local law enforcement official, prosecutor, judge, or 

other Federal, State, or local authority investigating criminal 

activity described in section 101(a)(15)(U)(iii). This certification 

may also be provided by an official of the Service whose ability 

to provide such certification is not limited to information concerning immigration violations. This certification shall state 

that the alien ‘‘has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely 

to be helpful’’ in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity described in section 101(a)(15)(U)(iii). 

(2) NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS.— (A) The number of aliens who may be issued visas or 

otherwise provided status as nonimmigrants under section 

101(a)(15)(U) in any fiscal year shall not exceed 10,000. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
142 

(B) The numerical limitations in subparagraph (A) shall 

only apply to principal aliens described in section 

101(a)(15)(U)(i), and not to spouses, children, or, in the 

case of alien children, the alien parents of such children. 

(3) DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH RESPECT TO ‘‘U’’ 

VISA NONIMMIGRANTS.—With respect to nonimmigrant aliens 

described in subsection (a)(15)(U)— 

(A) the Attorney General and other government officials, 

where appropriate, shall provide those aliens with referrals to nongovernmental organizations to advise the aliens 

regarding their options while in the United States and the 

resources available to them; and 

(B) the Attorney General shall, during the period those 

aliens are in lawful temporary resident status under that 

subsection, provide the aliens with employment authorization. 

(4) CREDIBLE EVIDENCE CONSIDERED.—In acting on any petition filed under this subsection, the consular officer or the Attorney General, as appropriate, shall consider any credible evidence relevant to the petition. 

(5) NONEXCLUSIVE RELIEF.—Nothing in this subsection limits 

the ability of aliens who qualify for status under section 

101(a)(15)(U) to seek any other immigration benefit or status 

for which the alien may be eligible. 

(6) DURATION OF STATUS.—The authorized period of status of 

an alien as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(U) shall 

be for a period of not more than 4 years, but shall be extended 

upon certification from a Federal, State, or local law enforcement official, prosecutor, judge, or other Federal, State, or local 

authority investigating or prosecuting criminal activity described in section 101(a)(15)(U)(iii) that the alien’s presence in 

the United States is required to assist in the investigation or 

prosecution of such criminal activity. The Secretary of Homeland Security may extend, beyond the 4-year period authorized 

under this section, the authorized period of status of an alien 

as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(U) if the Secretary 

determines that an extension of such period is warranted due 

to exceptional circumstances. Such alien’s nonimmigrant status 

shall be extended beyond the 4-year period authorized under 

this section if the alien is eligible for relief under section 

245(m) and is unable to obtain such relief because regulations 

have not been issued to implement such section and shall be 

extended during the pendency of an application for adjustment 

of status under section 245(m). The Secretary may grant work 

authorization to any alien who has a pending, bona fide application for nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(U). 

(7) AGE DETERMINATIONS.— 

(A) CHILDREN.—An unmarried alien who seeks to accompany, or follow to join, a parent granted status under section 101(a)(15)(U)(i), and who was under 21 years of age 

on the date on which such parent petitioned for such status, shall continue to be classified as a child for purposes 

of section 101(a)(15)(U)(ii), if the alien attains 21 years of 

age after such parent’s petition was filed but while it was 

pending. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
143 

(B) PRINCIPAL ALIENS.—An alien described in clause (i) 

of section 101(a)(15)(U) shall continue to be treated as an 

alien described in clause (ii)(I) of such section if the alien 

attains 21 years of age after the alien’s application for status under such clause (i) is filed but while it is pending. 

(q)(1) In the case of a nonimmigrant described in section 

101(a)(15)(V)— 

(A) the Attorney General shall authorize the alien to engage 

in employment in the United States during the period of authorized admission and shall provide the alien with an ‘‘employment authorized’’ endorsement or other appropriate document signifying authorization of employment; and 

(B) the period of authorized admission as such a nonimmigrant shall terminate 30 days after the date on which any 

of the following is denied: 

(i) The petition filed under section 204 to accord the 

alien a status under section 203(a)(2)(A) (or, in the case of 

a child granted nonimmigrant status based on eligibility to 

receive a visa under section 203(d), the petition filed to accord the child’s parent a status under section 203(a)(2)(A)). 

(ii) The alien’s application for an immigrant visa pursuant to the approval of such petition. 

(iii) The alien’s application for adjustment of status 

under section 245 pursuant to the approval of such petition. 

(2) In determining whether an alien is eligible to be admitted to 

the United States as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(V), 

the grounds for inadmissibility specified in section 212(a)(9)(B) 

shall not apply. 

(3) The status of an alien physically present in the United States 

may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in the discretion of the 

Attorney General and under such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to that of a nonimmigrant under section 

101(a)(15)(V), if the alien— 

(A) applies for such adjustment; 

(B) satisfies the requirements of such section; and 

(C) is eligible to be admitted to the United States, except in 

determining such admissibility, the grounds for inadmissibility 

specified in paragraphs (6)(A), (7), and (9)(B) of section 212(a) 

shall not apply. 

(r)(1) A visa shall not be issued under the provisions of section 

101(a)(15)(K)(ii) until the consular officer has received a petition 

filed in the United States by the spouse of the applying alien and 

approved by the Attorney General. The petition shall be in such 

form and contain such information as the Attorney General shall, 

by regulation, prescribe. Such information shall include information on any criminal convictions of the petitioner for any specified 

crime described in paragraph (5)(B) and information on any permanent protection or restraining order issued against the petitioner 

related to any specified crime described in subsection (5)(B)(i). 

(2) In the case of an alien seeking admission under section 

101(a)(15)(K)(ii) who concluded a marriage with a citizen of the 

United States outside the United States, the alien shall be considered inadmissible under section 212(a)(7)(B) if the alien is not at 

the time of application for admission in possession of a valid nonVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
144 

immigrant visa issued by a consular officer in the foreign state in 

which the marriage was concluded. 

(3) In the case of a nonimmigrant described in section 

101(a)(15)(K)(ii), and any child of such a nonimmigrant who was 

admitted as accompanying, or following to join, such a nonimmigrant, the period of authorized admission shall terminate 30 

days after the date on which any of the following is denied: 

(A) The petition filed under section 204 to accord the principal alien status under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i). 

(B) The principal alien’s application for an immigrant visa 

pursuant to the approval of such petition. 

(C) The principal alien’s application for adjustment of status 

under section 245 pursuant to the approval of such petition. 

(4)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall create a database for the purpose of tracking multiple visa petitions filed for 

fiance ́(e)s and spouses under clauses (i) and (ii) of section 

101(a)(15)(K). Upon approval of a second visa petition under section 101(a)(15)(K) for a fiance ́(e) or spouse filed by the same United 

States citizen petitioner, the petitioner shall be notified by the Secretary that information concerning the petitioner has been entered 

into the multiple visa petition tracking database. All subsequent 

fiance ́(e) or spouse nonimmigrant visa petitions filed by that petitioner under such section shall be entered in the database. 

(B)(i) Once a petitioner has had two fiance ́(e) or spousal petitions 

approved under clause (i) or (ii) of section 101(a)(15)(K), if a subsequent petition is filed under such section less than 10 years after 

the date the first visa petition was filed under such section, the 

Secretary of Homeland Security shall notify both the petitioner and 

beneficiary of any such subsequent petition about the number of 

previously approved fiance ́(e) or spousal petitions listed in the 

database. 

(ii) To notify the beneficiary as required by clause (i), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide such notice to the Secretary of State for inclusion in the mailing to the beneficiary described in section 833(a)(5)(A)(i) of the International Marriage 

Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (8 U.S.C. 1375a(a)(5)(A)(i)). 

(5) In this subsection: 

(A) The terms ‘‘domestic violence’’, ‘‘sexual assault’’, ‘‘child 

abuse and neglect’’, ‘‘dating violence’’, ‘‘elder abuse’’, and ‘‘stalking’’ have the meaning given such terms in section 3 of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. 

(B) The term ‘‘specified crime’’ means the following: 

(i) Domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse and neglect, dating violence, elder abuse, stalking, or an attempt 

to commit any such crime. 

(ii) Homicide, murder, manslaughter, rape, abusive sexual contact, sexual exploitation, incest, torture, trafficking, 

peonage, holding hostage, involuntary servitude, slave 

trade, kidnapping, abduction, unlawful criminal restraint, 

false imprisonment, or an attempt to commit any of the 

crimes described in this clause. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
145 

(iii) At least three convictions for crimes relating to a 

controlled substance or alcohol not arising from a single 

act. 

* * * * * * * 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(f)(1)(A) 

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee has inserted at the appropriate 

place in the report a description of the effects of provisions proposed in the accompanying bill which may be considered, under 

certain circumstances, to change the application of existing law, either directly or indirectly. 

The bill provides, in some instances, funding of agencies and activities where legislation has not yet been finalized. In addition, the 

bill carries language, in some instances, permitting activities not 

authorized by law. Additionally, the Committee includes a number 

of general provisions. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

Language providing funds for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM) offices, including funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT

Language providing funds for reception and representation expenses; for costs necessary to consolidate headquarters operations, 

including tenant improvements and relocation costs; and for the 

human resources information technology program. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Language providing funds for the Chief Financial Officer requires submission of a Future Years Homeland Security Program 

concurrent with the budget request. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

Language providing funds for the Chief Information Officer and 

for the development and acquisition of information technology 

equipment, software, services, and related activities. 

ANALYSIS AND OPERATIONS

Language providing funds for information analysis and operations coordination activities, including funding for official representation expenses. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Language providing funds for the Office of Inspector General as 

well as certain confidential operational expenses, including the 

payment of informants. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
146 

TITLE II—SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Language making funds available for border security, immigration, customs, and agricultural inspections and regulatory activities; purchase or lease of vehicles; contracting with individuals for 

personal services; Harbor Maintenance Fee collections; official reception and representation expenses; Customs User Fee collections; 

payment of rental space in connection with preclearance operations; and compensation of informants. 

Language regarding overtime compensation and requires Border 

Patrol to maintain an active duty force of 21,370 agents. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

Language making funds available for automated systems. 

BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY

Language making funds available for border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology. 

AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND

PROCUREMENT

Language making funds available for the operations, maintenance, and procurement of marine vessels, aircraft, unmanned aircraft systems, the Air and Marine Operations Center, and other 

equipment; travel; and assistance to other law enforcement agencies and humanitarian efforts. 

Language prohibiting the transfer of aircraft and related equipment out of CBP unless certain conditions are met. 

Language is included allowing CBP to increase operations in 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

CONSTRUCTION AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

Language making funds available for the planning, acquisition, 

construction, renovating, equipping, and maintaining of buildings 

and facilities. 

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Language making funds available to conduct investigations of 

criminal violations of Federal law relating to border security, customs and trade, immigration and naturalization, and travel and 

transportation; for the civil enforcement of the immigration and 

customs laws, including the detention and removal of immigration 

status violators; special operations; official reception and representation expenses; for compensation to informants; promotion of public awareness to counter child exploitation; for enforcement of law 

against forced child labor; for the facilitation of section 287(g); and 

for the reimbursement of other Federal agencies for certain costs. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
147 

Language withholding funds from Salaries and Expenses, limiting overtime compensation, a minimum number of detention bed 

spaces, the Visa Security Program, the operations of the National 

Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, for transportation of unaccompanied alien children, and for Custody Operations. 

Language that requires the Secretary to identify illegal aliens 

who have been convicted of a crime or who pose a serious risk to 

public safety or National security who are eligible for removal. 

The delegation of law enforcement authority for the 287(g) program if terms of the agreement have been materially violated. 

Language prohibiting funds to continue any contract for detention services if two recent evaluations are less than adequate and 

authorizes the Secretary to reprogram and transfer funds within 

and into this appropriation for the purposes of detaining aliens 

prioritized for removal. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

Language making funds available for automated systems. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

AVIATION SECURITY

Language making funds available for civil aviation security and 

establishes conditions under which security fees are collected and 

credited. 

Language providing funds for reception and representation expenses. 

Language limiting staffing to 45,000 full-time equivalent screeners, not including part-time hires, and requires a report on passenger and baggage screening technology. 

Language clarifying a variety of people are not exempt from 

screening. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Language providing funds for TSA’s surface transportation security activities. 

INTELLIGENCE AND VETTING PROGRAMS

Language providing funds for intelligence and vetting activities. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT

Language providing funds for TSA’s transportation security support programs. 

COAST GUARD

OPERATING EXPENSES

Language regarding passenger motor vehicles, small boats, repairs and service life-replacements, minor shore construction 

projects, recreation and welfare, and the Oil Spill Liability Trust 

Fund. 

Language on reception and representation expenses and 

reprogrammings. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
148 

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

Language providing funds for environmental compliance and restoration of the Coast Guard. 

RESERVE TRAINING

Language providing funds for the Coast Guard reserve, including 

maintenance and operation of the reserve program, personnel and 

training costs, equipment and services. 

ACQUISITIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS

Language providing for funds for the Coast Guard acquisition, 

construction, renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, 

shore facilities, housing, vessels, and aircraft as well as for maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and operations of facilities and equipment. 

Language requiring a capital investment plan for future appropriations years with certain conditions. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Language providing funds for applied scientific research, development, test, and evaluation; and for maintenance, rehabilitation, 

lease and operation of facilities and equipment. 

Language allowing funds to remain available until September 30, 

2018; authorizing funds to be derived from the Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund; and authorizing funds received from State and local 

governments, other public authorities, private sources, and foreign 

countries to be credited to this account and used for certain purposes. 

RETIRED PAY

Language providing funds for retired pay and medical care for 

the Coast Guard’s retired personnel and their dependents and 

makes these funds available until expended. 

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

OPERATING EXPENSES

Language providing funds for the purchase and replacement of 

vehicles; the hire of aircraft; purchase of motorcycles; services of 

expert witnesses as may be necessary; rental of certain buildings; 

improvements to buildings as may be necessary for protective missions; per diem and subsistence allowances; firearms matches; 

presentation of awards; protective travel; research and development; grants for behavioral research; official reception and representation expenses; technical assistance and equipment to foreign 

law enforcement organizations; advance payment for commercial 

accommodations; and uniforms. 

Language providing for two-year availability of funds for protective travel. 

Language authorizing the obligation of funds in anticipation of 

reimbursements for training, under certain conditions. 

Language restricting the obligation of funds to compensate employees for overtime in an annual amount in excess of $35,000 except under certain conditions. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
149 

Language permitting some funds may be transferred between 

PPAs. 

Language prohibiting funds to be available for the protection of 

the head of a Federal agency other than the Secretary of Homeland 

Security unless the Secret Service has entered into a reimbursable 

agreement. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

Language providing funds for the acquisition, construction, improvement, and related expenses of Secret Service facilities. 

TITLE III—PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY 

NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Language providing funds for the Office of the Under Secretary 

for National Protection and Programs Directorate as well as to support business operations and information technology. 

Language providing funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY

Language making funds available for cybersecurity activities and 

infrastructure protection, of which certain funds are available until 

September 30, 2017. 

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

Language making funds available until expended for the operations of the Federal Protective Service 

OFFICE OF BIOMETRIC IDENTITY MANAGEMENT

Language making funds available for the Office of Biometric 

Identity Management. 

OFFICE OF HEALTH AFFAIRS

Language making funds available for health affairs, biosurveillance, BioWatch, medical readiness planning, and chemical defense. 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Language that provides funds for salaries and expenses. 

Language providing funds for reception and representation expenses, Urban Search and Rescue Response System, Mount Weather Emergency Operations Center. 

Language limiting administrative costs for Urban Search and 

Rescue Teams. 

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

Language providing funds for grants, contracts, cooperative 

agreements, other activities, including grants to State and local 

governments for terrorism prevention. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
150 

Language identifying the amount of funds available for Operation Stonegarden and for National Programs. 

Language specifying the conditions under which both applications and grants are made to certain grants made in the Act. 

Language specifying the conditions for distribution of certain 

grants and provides authority for the procurement of land. 

FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Language providing funds for grants. 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS

Language providing funds for grants. 

RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

Language regarding charges assessed for the radiological emergency preparedness program, including conditions and methodology 

for the assessment and collection of fees. 

UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION

Language that provides funds for expenses of the U.S. Fire Administration. 

DISASTER RELIEF

Language making funds available until expended and requires a 

variety of reporting requirements. 

FLOOD HAZARD MAPPING AND RISK ANALYSIS

Language making funds available for flood hazard mapping, including administrative costs. 

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

Language limiting funds available for salaries and expenses and 

language making funds available for flood hazard mitigation floodplain management available until September 30, 2015. The Committee includes provisions limiting operating expenses; for interest 

on Treasury borrowings; for agents’ commissions and taxes; for fees 

collected and available for floodplain management; and for flood 

mitigation activities associated with sections of the National Flood 

Insurance Act of 1968. 

Language permitting additional fees collected be credited as an 

offsetting collection and available for floodplain management and 

language providing that not to exceed four percent of the total appropriation is available for administrative costs and that funds are 

available for the Flood Advocate. 

NATIONAL PREDISASTER MITIGATION FUND

Language authorizing grant awards to be available until expended. 

EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER

Language making funds available until expended and limiting 

total administrative costs to 3.5 percent of the total appropriation. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
151 

TITLE IV—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND 

SERVICES 

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

Language making funds available for the E–Verify program, permitting replacement of vehicles and official reception and representation. 

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Language making funds available for official representation expenses; purchase of police type pursuit vehicles; student athletic 

and related recreational activities; conducting and participating in 

firearms matches; public awareness and community support; room 

and board; services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; law enforcement 

accreditation; reimbursements for certain mobile phone expenses. 

Language authorizing the training of certain law enforcement 

personnel; authorizes the use of appropriations and reimbursements for such training and establishes a cap on total obligations. 

Language authorizing funds for the compensation of accreditation costs for participating agencies; and on the scheduling of basic 

or advanced law enforcement training. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED

EXPENSES

Language making funds available for real property and facilities 

and authorizes reimbursement from government agencies requesting construction of special use facilities. 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Language providing funds for management and administration, 

including funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION AND OPERATIONS

Language making funds available for science and technology research, development, test and evaluation, acquisition, and operations. 

Language providing funds for operation and construction of laboratory facilities. 

DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Language that provides funds for management and administration, including funds for reception and representation expenses. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS

Language making funds available for radiological and nuclear research, development, testing, evaluation, and operations. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
152 

SYSTEMS ACQUISITION

Language making funds available for the purchase and deployment of radiation detection equipment. 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Language limiting the availability of any appropriation for obligation beyond the current year unless expressly provided. 

Language permitting unexpended balances of prior appropriations to be merged with new appropriation accounts and used for 

the same purpose, subject to reprogramming guidelines. 

Language providing reprogramming authority for funds within 

an account and limiting the percent that can be transferred between appropriations accounts with the requirement for a 15-day 

advance Congressional notification. A detailed funding table identifying each Congressional control level for reprogramming purposes 

is included at the end of this Report. These reprogramming guidelines shall be complied with by all agencies funded by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2016, for obligation 

and deobligation of funds. 

Language prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made 

available to the Department to make payment to the WCF, except 

for activities and amounts allowed in the President’s fiscal year 

2016 request. Funds provided to the WCF are available until expended. The Department can only charge components for direct 

usage of the WCF and these funds may be used only for the purposes consistent with the contributing component. Any funds paid 

in advance or reimbursed must reflect the full cost of each service. 

The WCF shall be subject to the requirements of section 503 of this 

Act. 

Language providing that not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated 

balances remaining at the end of fiscal year 2016 from appropriations made for salaries and expenses remain available through fiscal year 2017 subject to reprogramming guidelines. 

Language providing that funds for intelligence activities are 

deemed to be specifically authorized during fiscal year 2016 until 

the enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for fiscal 

year 2016. 

Language requiring notification of the Committees on Appropriations three days before grant allocations, grant awards, contract 

awards, other transactional agreements, letter of intents, or task or 

delivery order on a multiple contract award totaling $1,000,000 or 

more, or a task order greater than $10,000,000 from multiyear 

funds, is announced by the Department, including contracts covered by the Federal Acquisition Regulation or sole source grant 

award. The Department is required to brief the Committees on Appropriations five full business days prior to announcing the intention to make a grant under State and Local Programs. 

Language prohibiting any agency from purchasing, constructing, 

or leasing additional facilities for Federal law enforcement training 

without advance approval of the Committees on Appropriations. 

Language prohibiting funds to be used for any construction, repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a prospectus, if 

required under chapter 33 of title 40, United States Code, has not 

been approved. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
153 

Language consolidating, by reference, prior year statutory bill 

language into one provision. These provisions relate to contracting 

officer’s technical representative training; sensitive security information; and the use of funds in conformance with Section 303 of 

the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The language eliminates statutory 

reporting requirements for SSI. 

Language prohibiting funds being used in contravention of the 

Buy American Act. 

Language maintaining the use of the oath of allegiance required 

by Section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Language requiring the Chief Financial Officer to submit monthly budget execution and staffing reports within 45 days after the 

close of each month. The Committee also directs the submission of 

obligation and expenditure plans annually and quarterly for specified programs. 

Language directing that any funds appropriated or transferred to 

TSA ‘‘Aviation Security’’, ‘‘Administration’’, and ‘‘Transportation Security Support’’ in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, which are recovered 

or deobligated, shall be available only for procurement and installation of explosive detection systems for air cargo, baggage, and 

checkpoint screening systems. The Committee also requires quarterly reports on recovered or deobligated funds. 

Language limiting the use of A–76 competitions by USCIS. 

Language requiring any funds appropriated to the Coast Guard’s 

110–123 foot patrol boat conversion that are recovered, collected, or 

otherwise received as a result of negotiation, mediation, or litigation, be available until expended for the Fast Response Cutter program. 

Language classifying the functions of the instructor staff at 

FLETC as inherently governmental for purposes of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act. 

Language requires the Inspector General to review Departmental 

contracts awarded noncompetitively and report on the results to 

the Committees. 

Language prohibiting funding for any position designated as a 

Principal Federal Official during a Stafford Act declared disaster or 

emergency. 

Language precluding DHS from using funds in this Act to carry 

out reorganization authority unless authorized by Congress. 

Language prohibiting funding to grant an immigration benefit to 

any individual unless the results of background checks required in 

statute be completed prior to the grant of the benefit have been received by DHS. 

Language relating to the use of transactional authority by DHS 

through fiscal year 2016. 

Language requiring the Secretary to link all contracts that provide award fees to successful acquisition outcomes. 

Language requiring notification of any request for waivers of 

navigation and vessel-inspection laws pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 501(b). 

Language regarding prescription drugs. 

Language requiring the Secretary, in conjunction with the Secretary of Treasury, to notify the Committees of any proposed transfers from the Department of Treasury Forfeiture Fund to any agency within DHS. No funds may be obligated until the Subcommittees approve the proposed transfers. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
154 

Language prohibiting funds for the planning, testing, piloting or 

developing a National identification card. 

Language directing that any official required by this Act to report or certify to the Committees on Appropriations may not delegate any authority unless expressly authorized to do so in this Act. 

Language prohibiting the use of funds for the transfer or release 

of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

Language prohibiting funds in this Act to be used for first-class 

travel. 

Language prohibiting funds to be used to employ illegal workers 

as described in Section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Language prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made 

available by this Act to pay for award or incentive fees for contractors with below satisfactory performance or performance that fails 

to meet the basic requirements of the contract. 

Language requiring any new processes developed to screen aviation passengers and crews for transportation or National security 

to consider privacy and civil liberties, consistent with applicable 

laws, regulations, and guidance. 

Language making immigration examination fee collections explicitly available for immigrant integration grants, not to exceed 

$10,000,000, in fiscal year 2016. 

Language providing funding for the Department headquarters 

consolidation project. 

Language prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made 

available by this Act from being used to enter into Federal contracts unless in accordance with the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act or the Federal Acquisition Regulation, unless 

otherwise authorized by statute. 

Language providing funds for Financial Systems Modernization 

efforts across the Department. Language permitting the Secretary to transfer up to $20,000,000 

to address immigration emergencies notwithstanding section 503 of 

this Act. 

Language regarding disposal of Service Processing Centers or 

other ICE owned detention facilities. 

Language requiring the Secretary to enforce existing immigration laws. 

Language prohibiting funds made available in this Act from 

being used to establish or maintain computer networks unless such 

networks block pornography. 

Language regarding the transfer of firearms by Federal law enforcement personnel. 

Language prohibiting funds for the implementation of the National Preparedness Grant Program or any successor grant program. 

Language prohibiting funds for the position of Public Advocate or 

successor position within ICE. 

Language increasing public private partnership initiatives from 

five to ten. 

Language regarding funding restrictions and reporting requirements regarding conferences occurring outside of the United 

States. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
155 

Language prohibiting the reimbursement of funds to any Federal 

Department or agency for its participation in a NSSE 

Language prohibiting pre-clearance locations unless CBP meets 

certain conditions and conducts the necessary analysis and reporting. 

Language prohibiting funds from being used to require airport 

operators to provide airport-financed staffing to monitor exit points 

at which TSA provided such monitoring as of December 1, 2013. 

Language pertaining to the temporary reemployment of administrative law judges for arbitration dispute resolution. 

Language regarding the availability of COBRA fee revenue. 

Language directing the inclusion of budget justification for any 

structural pay reform that affects more than 100 FTE employee positions or costs more than $5,000,000. 

Language requiring DHS to post Committee-required reports on 

a DHS public website under certain circumstances. 

Language allowing the costs of providing humanitarian relief to 

unaccompanied alien children and to alien adults and their minor 

children to be an eligible use for certain Homeland Security grants. 

Language providing TSA additional authority to reprogram or 

transfer funds within particular PPAs. 

Language directing that all DHS acquisition programs meet established acquisition documentation requirements. 

Language withholding acquisition funds from particular accounts 

in CBP, Coast Guard, and FEMA until these components meet 

specified acquisition requirements. 

Language directing DHS fiscal year 2017 budget request and accompanying justification material be reorganized to follow a common appropriation structure, as specified. 

Language prohibiting funds from being used by DHS to approve, 

license, facilitate, authorize, or allow the trafficking or import of 

property confiscated by the Cuban Government. 

Language prohibiting funds to expand or implement certain immigration programs while the injunctive order of Civ. No. B–14– 

254 remains in effect. 

Language amending 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(9)(A). 

Language prohibiting funds for the creation or continued use of 

badges resembling law enforcement badges by the Transportation 

Security Administration. 

Language prohibiting ICE from paying for abortions except in 

certain circumstances. 

Language prohibiting ICE from requiring any person to perform 

an abortion. 

Language authorizing ICE to escort female detainees outside the 

detention facilities. 

Language prohibiting the release of particularly categorized 

aliens as defined in the Secretary of Homeland Security’s memorandum dated November 20, 2014. 

Language prohibiting the granting of certain FEMA funds to 

state or political subdivisions if they inhibit Federal immigration 

law enforcement efforts, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. 

Language rescinding unobligated balances from specified programs. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
156 

Language rescinding specified funds from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. 

Language rescinding unobligated balances from the FEMA DRF. 

Language prohibiting new budget authority from exceeding the 

budget allocation in fiscal year 2016. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in 

the accompanying bill that are not authorized by law: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
157 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here HR215.005
158 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here HR215.006
159 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here HR215.007
160 

COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION

Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act requires the 

report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority to contain a statement comparing the levels in the bill to the suballocations submitted under section 302(b) of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the applicable fiscal year. That information is provided in the table headed 

‘‘Comparison of Reported Bill to Section 302(b) Suballocation.’’ 

[in millions of dollars] 

302(b) allocation This bill 

Budget 

Authority Outlays Budget Authority Outlays 

General purpose discretionary ....................................................... 39,333 49,169 39,333 1 44,561 

Disaster-designated 2 ............................................................ .................... .................... 6,713 336 

Mandatory ...................................................................................... 1,604 1,583 1,604 1,583 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year authority. 

2 The amounts in this bill are technically in excess of the subcommittee section 302(b) suballocation as a result of including $6,713 million for the Disaster Relief Fund and designated for disaster relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 

Deficit Control Act of 1985. However, because such adjustments are authorized for this funding, the Committee on Appropriations expects the 

Chairman of the Committee on the Budget to provide the Committee on Appropriations an increase of $6,713 million to its section 302(a) 

general purpose discretionary allocation, and the Committee on Appropriations would report appropriately revised 302(b)s that reflects the suballocation of this funding, prior to any floor consideration. These actions will eliminate the technical difference. 

FIVE YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, the following 

table contains five-year projections associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying bill: 

Millions 

Outlays: 

2016 ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 27,283 

2017 ................................................................................................................................................................ 9,461 

2018 ................................................................................................................................................................ 5,788 

2019 ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,796 

2020 and future years .................................................................................................................................... 2,199 

1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, the financial 

assistance to State and local governments is as follows: 

Millions 

Budget Authority ....................................................................................................................................................... 6,020 

Fiscal Year 2016 outlays resulting therefrom ......................................................................................................... 1 359 

1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

PROGRAM DUPLICATION

No provision of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of 

the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
161 

DIRECTED RULE MAKING

The bill does not contain any provision that specifically directs 

the promulgation or completion of a rule. 

DETAILED EXPLANATIONS IN REPORT

The following table contains detailed funding recommendations 

at the program, project, and activity (PPA) level. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
162 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here HR215.008
163 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here HR215.009
164 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here HR215.010
165 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here HR215.011
166 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here HR215.012
167 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here HR215.013
168 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here HR215.014
169 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here HR215.015
170 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here HR215.016
171 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here HR215.017
172 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here HR215.018
173 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here HR215.019
174 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here HR215.020
175 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here HR215.021
176 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here HR215.022
177 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here HR215.023
178 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here HR215.024
179 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here HR215.025
180 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here HR215.026
181 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here HR215.027
182 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here HR215.028
183 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here HR215.029
184 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here HR215.030
185 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here HR215.031
186 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here HR215.032
187 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here HR215.033
188 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here HR215.034
189 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here HR215.035
190 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here HR215.036
191 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here HR215.037
192 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here HR215.038
193 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here HR215.039
(194) 

MINORITY VIEWS OF NITA LOWEY 

AND LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD 

We want to commend the Subcommittee Chairman for the extent 

to which he considered our comments, suggestions, and proposals 

in the development of his mark, for accommodating us when he 

could, and for reaching compromises whenever possible. 

The chairman’s mark reflected his serious approach in supporting the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) important 

security mission while also holding it accountable. It is unfortunate 

that the subcommittee’s bipartisan work was ultimately tainted by 

two partisan, poison pill amendments related to immigration policy 

that were offered and adopted by the Committee Majority. 

302(b) Allocation 

At $2,064,669,000 below the budget request and $337,000,000 

below the fiscal year 2015 level, the bill’s allocation is significantly 

below the amount required to address the country’s most critical 

homeland security priorities. For instance, with a higher allocation, 

the bill could provide $200,000,000, the frill request level, for PreDisaster Mitigation (PDM) grants, instead of only $25 million. The 

Committee report makes clear the importance of PDM grants to 

the resiliency of communities across the country: 

PDM grants are one of the only sources of Federal mitigation funding for communities prior to a disaster. It has 

been repeatedly demonstrated that these types of investments lead to significant savings by mitigating risks and 

reducing damage from future disasters. 

The PDM program has bipartisan support because not only does 

it work, it prevents costly and potentially deadly damages when 

disasters strike. The program supports a broad range of projects 

meant to mitigate disasters, including flood risk reduction; retrofitting of existing buildings to withstand earthquakes and hurricanes; safe room construction to protect from tornadoes and hurricanes; soil stabilization to protect from landslides; and wildfire 

mitigation. For every dollar the Federal government invests in 

PDM, the Nation avoids $3 in losses. So for an investment of $200 

million, we could avoid $600 million in future losses, including 

losses to the flood insurance program and the Disaster Relief Fund, 

without counting the number of lives saved and injuries avoided. 

Another prime example of the overall inadequacy of the allocation is that the bill provides only $100,000,000 for Flood Hazard 

Mapping and Risk Analysis, which is $178,600,000 below the 

amount requested. By failing to recommend the requested funding 

level for this program, the Committee would prevent the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from reaching its goal of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
195 

having flood maps based on valid or current data for 80 percent of 

stream miles by 2019. Currently, FEMA has ‘‘technically credible 

data’’ for only 53 percent of its flood map inventory, which means 

that 47 percent of flood maps may be inaccurate and unreliable as 

a basis for setting flood insurance premiums, predicting damage 

from flooding events, or informing private sector investments. 

Terrain and weather patterns change, and our toleration for and 

understanding of risk have also certainly changed since Hurricane 

Katrina. We are failing to prepare the country for major disasters 

if we do not properly update flood maps. The funding requested for 

flood mapping in fiscal year 2016 would provide the benefit of current flood maps to an additional 9.4 million Americans. Without 

this investment, those Americans will make decisions about home 

ownership and insurance purchases based on outdated and unreliable information that could unfairly increase their flood insurance 

premiums or leave them with a false sense of security. 

A higher allocation would also allow the Committee to recommend the requested finding level for the DHS headquarters consolidation project, which is already under construction on the St. 

Elizabeths campus in Southeast Washington, DC. The Coast Guard 

fully occupied its new facility there in late 2013. Restoration work 

for the Center Building, which will house the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, began in early 2015, with an 

expected move-in date in 2017. 

Earlier this year, the Department revised its plan for St. Elizabeths to consolidate the footprint, reduce costs, and accelerate the 

construction schedule. It makes no sense to build half of a headquarters. Further delays will only cost the taxpayers more in the 

long run as the Department is forced to extend costly leases in 

more than 50 locations scattered across the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. On both fiscal grounds and to improve the cohesiveness of DHS operations, we must continue to make timely progress 

on the headquarters project. 

Bipartisan Funding Priorities 

Despite an inadequate allocation, the bill does address a number 

of bipartisan priorities, including maintaining the current funding 

levels for all first responder and antiterrorism grants. It is our 

hope that these programs will be increased under a better allocation. It also maintains level funding for the Office for Civil Rights 

and Civil Liberties, including support for continued oversight of 

DHS partnerships with state and local law enforcement entities. In 

addition, the bill increases support for critical Coast Guard acquisitions; fully funds the proposed increase for the Secret Service to 

begin addressing Protective Mission Panel recommendations; provides additional funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigations into child exploitation, human trafficking, financial crimes, and drug smuggling; and restores funding 

for University Centers of Excellence. 

While providing level funding of $120,000,000 for the Emergency 

Food and Shelter Program (EFSP), the bill again omits the proposed authority to transfer EFSP to the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD). Instead, the Committee continues 

to make clear, on a bipartisan basis, that any future potential 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
196 

transfer must be premised on consultation with program stakeholders, appropriate justification, and a fully developed plan for 

transition. 

Departmental Management 

We continue to fully endorse the Chairman’s efforts to push the 

Department to develop and institutionalize more rigorous, consistent, and comprehensive processes for planning, budgeting, acquisition, evaluation, joint requirements, hiring, and operational 

coordination. While this kind of oversight and support does not 

often generate the biggest headlines, it is critically important and 

is the foundation of the Committee’s most basic responsibility. 

Immigration Detention and Enforcement 

Immigration detention is civil detention. It is not intended to be 

a punishment and should only be used when required by law, or 

for those determined to be a significant flight risk or a danger to 

public safety. It is inappropriate that the bill continues a provision 

setting an arbitrary minimum of 34,000 available ICE detention 

beds, which limits ICE’s flexibility to use cheaper, alternative 

forms of supervision when appropriate. We should not eliminate 

the discretion of ICE law enforcement personnel to make custody 

determinations that are consistent with legal requirements, and 

should not foreclose the use of less expensive, non-custody forms of 

supervision when appropriate. 

Perhaps the most significant area of disagreement on funding in 

the bill is its support for the continued use of family detention. 

Members of the House who have visited ICE’s two largest family 

detention facilities, including Ranking Member Roybal-Allard, report that facilities like Karnes and Dilley are clearly not appropriate places for families. The women and children incarcerated are 

not flight risks or dangers to our communities. Most have come to 

the United States fleeing violence or persecution to intentionally 

submit an application for asylum for themselves and their children, 

in accordance with our immigration laws. Some will qualify for asylum and some will not, but detaining them for the duration of the 

adjudication process is unnecessary and inappropriate. 

Instead of detention, we should utilize less costly, non-detention 

forms of supervision, such as the Alternatives to Detention program or release on bond or parole. We are encouraged by the Department’s recent decision to adopt a general policy of releasing 

families from detention if they are seeking asylum. 

The bill also includes a new general provision that we believe to 

be unhelpful and unnecessary. It would prohibit U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services (USCIS) from implementing the Deferred 

Action for Parents of Americans program and the expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program while a related federal court injunction remains in place. Since USCIS has no intention of violating that injunction, the need for this provision is unclear. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
197 

Cuba 

It is disappointing that the Committee rejected the Farr Amendment, which would have stricken a provision in the bill (Sec. 559) 

intended to reverse the President’s modest loosening of the trade 

embargo with Cuba. Congress, of course, has a role to play with regard to Cuba policy, but the executive branch takes the lead on 

diplomatic relations with other countries, and President Obama 

should have the chance to try a more productive approach that better serves our country and the interests of the Cuban people. 

Section 559 is tied to claims of property confiscated by the Cuban 

government, which are important and must be fairly resolved. But 

change does not happen all at once, and those claims will certainly 

never be resolved without further improvements in the bilateral relationship. 

While it is unclear whether the language of Sec. 559 would actually have the intended impact, we should not prohibit individuals 

returning to the United States from Cuba from bringing back up 

to $400 worth of merchandise, as current policy allows. In fact, we 

believe that the more interaction Cubans have with the United 

States, the more they will come to appreciate the benefits of a more 

open economy. 

Availability of Reproductive Health Services for Women 

Over strong Democratic objections, the Full Committee once 

again adopted an unnecessary amendment related to the availability of reproductive health services for women detained by ICE. 

Restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion procedures are 

already applicable to ICE and the Department of Homeland Security by President Obama’s Executive Order 13535, issued on March 

24, 2010, and are specifically formalized in Part 4.4 of ICE’s 2011 

Performance Based National Detention Standards. While many of 

us believe that those restrictions are excessive, they are a settled 

matter, and so we again fail to see the point of interjecting this divisive issue into a Homeland Security finding bill. 

Before a similar amendment was offered three years ago, this bill 

had never touched on the topic of abortion because it is not relevant to DES and falls far outside the lines of jurisdiction of the 

Committee. We will continue to work to remove the amendment’s 

unnecessary provisions from the bill. 

Poison Pill Immigration Riders 

In recent years, there has been an expectation that some member 

of the majority would offer an extreme immigration amendment on 

the House floor that, if passed, would disrupt the otherwise broad 

bipartisan support for the DHS funding bill. The conventional wisdom was that most members, including most members of the majority, would prefer to avoid consideration of, and votes on, such 

riders on the floor, but the amendments were ultimately offered 

and approved on almost entirely partisan votes. 

Now such immigration riders are being offered by members of 

the majority on this very Committee—and approved on a purely 

partisan basis—during Committee consideration of the bill. Given 

that there is perhaps no more controversial issue facing our counVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00197 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
198 

try than immigration policy, it is disappointing, to say the least, 

that members of the Committee would jeopardize the bipartisan 

work of the Subcommittee and potentially jeopardize enactment of 

the finding bill for the Department. Have members already forgotten the disgraceful process that delayed enactment of the Department’s annual funding bill for fiscal year 2015 until nearly half the 

year had already elapsed, or that the delay was caused by the majority’s unrealistic insistence on including extreme immigration 

provisions? 

One amendment adopted by the Committee would categorically 

prohibit the release from custody of any individual meeting the definition of a level 1 or 2 enforcement priority. Unfortunately, there 

is a broad misconception that level 1 and 2 priorities are defined 

exclusively as individuals with serious criminal records. In reality, 

level 1 and 2 priorities include individuals recently apprehended at 

or near the border who were not legally admitted; anyone without 

documentation who cannot demonstrate that they have been in the 

country since January 1, 2014; and individuals who have records 

of at least three prior misdemeanor convictions. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides a number of avenues for such individuals to seek relief from removal, including 

processes for seeking defensive asylum. But under the amendment 

adopted by the Committee, even asylum seekers would be precluded from the possibility of parole, release on bond, or alternatives to detention. Such a requirement would also clog up expensive detention facilities with individuals who pose no threat to our 

communities and whose flight risk—if any—could be easily managed with non-detention forms of supervision. 

Further, the amendment’s restriction violates the Zadvydas v. 

Davis decision of the Supreme Court, which held that the indefinite 

detention of immigrants is unconstitutional, and therefore removable immigrants whose home country refuses to accept their return 

cannot continue to be detained. 

There is no disagreement that those who pose a danger to the 

community should remain in custody, and that is clearly ICE’s current policy and practice. But individuals and families who come to 

the United States fleeing violence and persecution should have the 

opportunity to seek asylum without being further traumatized by 

unnecessary incarceration. 

Perhaps even more egregious was an amendment offered to prohibit the award of anti-terrorism and preparedness grants to states 

and local communities who have policies that limit their interactions with ICE for purposes of enforcing federal immigration 

laws. These policies can be based on disagreements with federal 

immigration policy; concerns about liability if someone is held in 

custody without legal authority to facilitate a detainer-based transfer to ICE; or the chilling effect on a local law enforcement agency’s 

relationships in a community if people are afraid to work with 

them. 

In an attempt to resolve the growing impasse between ICE and 

many jurisdictions regarding the use of detainers, Secretary Johnson announced last November the establishment of the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP). Instead of the routine issuance of detainers, PEP will normally involve ICE asking local law enforceVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:36 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 095508 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR215.XXX HR215

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
199 

ment agencies to voluntarily notify them about the planned release 

of individuals whom ICE has clearly identified as enforcement priorities, based on a conviction for specific types of crimes, participation in criminal gang activity, or being a danger to national security. 

Resolving state and local concerns about cooperation with ICE 

does not have to be an all or nothing proposition. We think there 

is room for agreement on making sure that local law enforcement 

agencies can work cooperatively with ICE to transfer custody of serious criminals who are immigration enforcement priorities. We 

should give the Department’s PEP program a chance to work before punishing state and local jurisdictions for establishing policies 

that reflect the concerns of the citizens of their own communities 

and that are their legal right to determine. 

We should also think more than twice about injecting politics 

into how the Department allocates anti-terrorism grant dollars, 

which now are based primarily on assessments of threats, 

vulnerabilities, and consequences. These homeland security grants 

are not boondoggles for states and local communities; they are vital 

resources that help communities prepare for, respond to, and recover from the most serious threats we face. 

Conclusion 

In closing, we want to underscore our appreciation for the efforts 

of the Chairman and his staff to work with the minority throughout the development of this bill to responsibly sustain our frontline 

homeland security operations while holding the Department accountable for its performance. As the appropriations process continues, we look forward to working with the majority to develop 

final legislation that is both free of controversial, extraneous policy 

riders and based on an adequate finding allocation. 

NITA M. LOWEY. LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING