74–222 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 112–492 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2013 

MAY 23, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. ADERHOLT of Alabama, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5855] 

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, 2013. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page number 

Bill Report 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 2 7 

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management ........................ 2 7 

Office of the Under Secretary for Management ............................... 3 17 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer .................................................. 5 21 

Office of the Chief Information Officer .............................................. 5 23 

Analysis and Operations .................................................................... 6 24 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 6 25 

TITLE II—SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS 7 27 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection ................................................. 7 27 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 7 27 

Automation Modernization ......................................................... 9 42 

Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology ....... 9 43 

Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and 

Procurement ............................................................................. 9 46 

Construction and Facilities Management .................................. 10 49 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ................................... 11 50 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 11 50 

Automation Modernization ......................................................... 15 60 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Construction ................................................................................. 15 62 

Transportation Security Administration ........................................... 15 62 

Aviation Security ......................................................................... 15 62 

Surface Transportation Security ................................................ 19 72 

Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing ............ 19 73 

Transportation Security Support ................................................ 19 75 

Federal Air Marshals .................................................................. 20 77 

Coast Guard ......................................................................................... 20 78 

Operating Expenses ..................................................................... 20 78 

Environmental Compliance and Restoration ............................. 22 81 

Reserve Training .......................................................................... 22 82 

Automation Modernization ......................................................... 22 82 

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements .......................... 22 83 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation .......................... 27 92 

Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund Contribution ..... ...... 92 

Retired Pay ................................................................................... 28 93 

United States Secret Service .............................................................. 28 93 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 28 93 

Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses ........................................................................................ 31 98 

TITLE III—PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND 

RECOVERY 

32 99 

National Protection and Programs Directorate ................................ 32 99 

Management and Administration ............................................... 32 99 

Infrastructure Protection and Information Security ................. 32 99 

Federal Protective Service .......................................................... 32 106 

Office of Biometric Identity Management .................................. 33 107 

Office of Health Affairs ....................................................................... 35 110 

Federal Emergency Management Agency ......................................... 36 112 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 36 112 

Automation Modernization ......................................................... 37 114 

State and Local Programs ........................................................... 37 115 

Firefighter Assistance Grants ..................................................... 41 118 

Emergency Management Performance Grants .......................... 42 119 

Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program ....................... 42 120 

United States Fire Administration ............................................. 43 120 

Disaster Relief .............................................................................. 43 121 

Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account .................. 47 122 

Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis ................................ 47 123 

National Flood Insurance Fund .................................................. 48 124 

National Predisaster Mitigation Fund ....................................... 50 124 

Emergency Food and Shelter ...................................................... 50 125 

TITLE IV—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND 

SERVICES 

51 125 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ...................... 51 125 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center ...................................... 51 129 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................. 51 129 

Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses ........................................................................................ 53 130 

Science and Technology ...................................................................... 54 131 

Management and Administration ............................................... 54 131 

Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations .............. 54 131 

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office .................................................... 55 137 

Management and Administration ............................................... 55 137 

Research, Development, and Operations ................................... 56 137 

Systems Acquisition ..................................................................... 56 140 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 57 141 

This Act ................................................................................................ ...... 141 

Compliance with House Rules ........................................................... ...... 147 

Tables ................................................................................................... ...... 168 

Summary of the Total Bill .................................................................. ...... ...... 

The accompanying bill contains recommendations for new budget 

(obligational) authority for fiscal year 2013 for the Department of 

Homeland Security. The following table summarizes these recommendations and reflects comparisons with the budget, as 

amended, and with amounts appropriated to date for fiscal year 

2012: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Title 

New budget 

(obligational) 

authority 

fiscal year 

2012 

Budget 

estimates 

of new (obligational) 

authority, fiscal year 2013 

Recommended by 

the House 

House compared with 

New budget 

authority 

fiscal year 

2012 

Budget 

estimate, 

fiscal year 

2013 

Title I: Departmental Management and Operations ............................................................ $1,131,974 $1,278,624 $1,052,928 ¥$79,046 ¥$225,696 

Title II: Security, Enforcement and Investigations .............................................................. 33,225,418 32,182,492 32,360,917 ¥864,501 178,425 

Title III: Protection, Preparedness, Response 

and Recovery ................................................ 12,079,869 11,392,128 11,388,755 ¥691,114 ¥3,373 

Title IV: Research, Development, Training and 

Services ......................................................... 1,331,837 1,560,747 1,510,032 178,195 ¥50,715 

Title V: General Provisions ................................ ¥70,713 – – – ¥292,159 ¥221,446 ¥292,159 

Grand total .......................................... 47,698,385 46,413,991 46,020,473 ¥1,677,912 ¥393,518 

Total ..................................................... $39,600,228 $39,509,991 $39,116,473 ¥$483,755 ¥$393,518 

Note: The above amounts are regular discretionary only. 

SUMMARY OF MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE BILL

The Committee recommends $39,116,473,000 in discretionary resources for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 

2013, $393,518,000, or 1 percent, below the amount requested and 

$483,755,000, or 1.2 percent, below fiscal year 2012 enacted levels 

(excluding emergency funding and disaster relief adjustments). Unlike previous years, funding for the Coast Guard’s support of the 

Global War on Terror / Overseas Contingency Operations are not 

included in the bill and are instead provided via permissive transfer of $254,461,000 from Department of Defense, Navy, Operations 

& Maintenance. 

The Committee report refers to the following laws as follows: Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, 

Public Law 110–53, is referenced as the 9/11 Act; Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, Public Law 109–347, is referenced as the SAFE Port Act; and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111–5, is referenced as ARRA. 

PRIORITIES IN THE BILL

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is entering a new 

era. Evolving threats and urgent budget realities demand that 

DHS be more agile in executing its key missions, including its 

paramount goal of protecting the Nation from acts of terrorism. In 

fiscal year 2013, DHS will observe its tenth anniversary, marking 

the end of a decade in which the young Department, created in the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

wake of the 9/11 attacks, faced extraordinary operational and organizational challenges. In addition to the charge of safeguarding 

America against diverse and relentless adversaries, the Department found itself saddled with inefficiencies, misaligned functions, 

bureaucratic tendencies, and uneven capabilities to meet its vital 

mission. While changes have been made to strengthen and streamline DHS, much work remains to be done. 

The Committee’s fiscal year 2013 bill aims to build on progress 

last year to develop a more effective and efficient Department by 

emphasizing fiscal discipline, reducing overall discretionary spending from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level, sustaining essential 

DHS frontline operations, strengthening oversight and accountability, and increasing support for grants and research programs. 

The Committee seeks to position DHS to combat the threats of the 

21st Century while also ensuring that the Department is especially 

diligent in its use of limited taxpayer dollars. The bill supports 

these goals by reducing unnecessary overhead, directing more effective alignment of key Departmental functions, and improving DHS 

capabilities through smarter, risk-based investments. 

The Committee faced significant hurdles in crafting its recommendations due to glaring shortfalls in the President’s fiscal 

year 2013 budget request. First, the Committee was forced to find 

$115,000,000 in offsets to make up for the budget request’s persistent and flawed assumption of increased aviation passenger fee 

collections, since such fees have not been authorized by Congress 

and are not in the jurisdiction of the Committee, as the Committee 

informed DHS when it proposed a similar increase in fiscal year 

2012. Furthermore, the request created a hole of $110,000,000 

through a flaw related to U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s 

(CBP) access to fee collections. The Committee notes where it was 

forced to offset these budget gimmicks and inadequacies throughout this report. Finally, the Department has failed to comply with 

nearly all of the statutory reporting requirements contained in 

Public Law 112–74 and forced the Committee to make many funding determinations with insufficient information on program projections, planned expenditures, execution, and alignment to stated 

goals and mission requirements. The Department’s inexcusable 

failures to comply with the law are addressed assertively throughout the bill. 

FISCAL DISCIPLINE

While the Department is charged with countering serious threats 

to our security, the Nation faces another, perhaps even greater 

threat. This threat lies not in foreign countries or from unseen enemies, but here at home, where America’s fiscal situation remains 

unsustainable. In light of this enormous challenge, the Committee 

recommends reducing overall spending nearly $500,000,000 below 

fiscal year 2012; marking the third straight fiscal year where discretionary spending for DHS has been reduced from the previous 

fiscal year’s enacted level. These reductions are made not only to 

help restore America’s fiscal health, but also to compel the Department to address inefficiencies in a bureaucracy that has seen substantial and greater-than-inflationary growth since its creation. 

The vital importance of the Department’s mission does not make 

it immune from fiscal discipline. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

The Committee categorically rejects the false ‘‘tradeoff’’ between 

security and spending restraint. The Committee’s recommendations 

are intended to force the Department to make wiser investment decisions with limited resources that will ultimately deliver better capabilities and result in improving the Nation’s security posture. 

The Committee will not tolerate programs that are underperforming or failing to achieve desired outcomes, which is why the 

bill makes responsible and targeted reductions where taxpayers are 

not seeing results. 

Moreover, the Committee makes recommendations to instill fiscal 

discipline at DHS over the long term by reducing bureaucratic 

overhead and forcing the Department to revisit costly acquisitions 

that may need to be modified to provide better value to taxpayers. 

The bill also compels the Department to more clearly link funding 

requests to mission requirements and to provide a better accounting of results before seeking additional funding for programs with 

a questionable or mixed track record. Finally, the Committee recommends denying DHS requests to expand its bureaucracy through 

new stand-alone offices and instead forces the Department to look 

at consolidations across a number of overlapping and duplicative 

programs. 

SUSTAINING FRONTLINE AND HIGH-RISK OPERATIONS

The bill prioritizes sustainment of vital frontline operations and 

personnel across the Department and provides targeted funding enhancements above the President’s budget request for certain activities, as noted in relevant sections throughout the report. The Committee recommends funding levels to support and sustain ample 

staffing levels of Border Patrol agents, CBP officers, Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, active duty Coast Guard 

military personnel, Secret Service agents, disaster response specialists, and intelligence analysts. 

Specifically, the bill continues the Committee’s unwavering commitment to providing necessary resources to secure our Nation’s 

borders and enforce our customs and immigration laws. Increases 

are provided to bolster operations and investigative capability for 

countering human trafficking, protecting intellectual property 

rights, and combatting electronic crimes. A total of $11,683,317,000 

is recommended for CBP, an increase of $76,999,000 above the 

President’s budget request, when adjusted for proposed transfers 

and realignments. This funding sustains the highest level of Border 

Patrol agents and CBP officers in history and includes: 

$327,099,000 for border fencing, infrastructure, and technology; 

$518,469,000 for air and marine interdiction; and $252,567,000 for 

the maintenance of CBP facilities. The Committee also recommends $5,785,656,000 for ICE, an increase of $141,595,000 

above the request, and sustains 34,000 detention beds—the greatest detention capacity in ICE’s history—as well as funding for the 

287(g) program, denying the President’s requests for a reduction in 

these crucial enforcement areas. 

The Committee also seeks to bolster the frontlines of America’s 

security across cyber, air, and maritime domains. For example, the 

bill includes $564,038,000, an increase of $300,038,000 above fiscal 

year 2012, for cyber diagnostics and intrusion detection capabilities 

that will allow DHS to better protect Federal networks from forVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:25 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

eign espionage and cyber-attacks. Additionally, the bill increases 

funds for investigation of electronic crimes. The bill also supports 

efforts to move toward more targeted, risk-based screening in the 

aviation sector, retains a cap on Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screener personnel, and shifts more resources towards privatized screening. In the Coast Guard, the Committee 

recommends robust funding for critical acquisitions such as additional rotary wing and fixed wing aircraft and initial procurement 

of a seventh National Security Cutter to recapitalize the Coast 

Guard’s aging assets by using funds more effectively while at the 

same time providing greater capability. 

ACCOUNTABILITY, OVERSIGHT, AND REFORM

The Committee recommends decisive action to improve accountability in fiscal year 2013, including withholding funds from Departmental management offices until the Secretary submits to the 

Committee statutorily required reports and plans that are due at 

the time of the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget submission. The 

Department has been egregiously late in responding to Congressional direction, including failing to submit the majority of statutorily required reports on time. This failure to comply with the law 

is wholly unacceptable. The Committee represents the American 

people and serves as a steward to conduct oversight of U.S. Government agencies. The investment plans, expenditure plans, reports, and justifications outlined by the Committee are essential if 

it is to help DHS better protect the American people and live up 

to exacting standards of fiscal responsibility. By flouting Congressional requirements, the Department is effectively disregarding the 

taxpayers’ right to see whether or not their scarce dollars are spent 

wisely. Additional reductions are taken throughout the Department 

to demonstrate the seriousness of compliance and to compel DHS 

leadership to develop greater responsiveness to statutory requirements and Congressional requests. 

In fiscal year 2013, the Committee recommends continuing major 

reforms put in place in fiscal year 2012 and recommends new actions to streamline and strengthen the Department. The bill rejects 

the unauthorized grant proposal submitted in the budget, and, instead, the Committee recommends continuing last year’s reform 

that consolidates FEMA grant programs and emphasizes that limited Federal dollars must be applied to areas of highest risk. The 

Committee further strengthens its stringent oversight of the Disaster Relief Fund by continuing annual and monthly reporting requirements and instituting significant reform for debris removal to 

enable and empower local communities’ efforts to respond to disasters at substantially lower costs to the taxpayer. The Committee 

rejects and reforms inefficient budgeting for Coast Guard acquisitions by aligning funding to requirements based on the fiscal year 

of need. Specifically, the bill includes language defining ‘‘full funding’’ so that funds do not remain unused and languish for years. 

The Committee also rejects the Department’s request to remove 

functions from the Office of Policy to create three additional, standalone offices. This request for additional, direct reports is inconsistent with the goal of a more consolidated Department with lower 

bureaucratic overhead and is, therefore, not approved. Furthermore, the Committee recommends better alignment of specific funcVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:25 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

tions within the Department and the budget, such as biometric 

identity management and automation modernization, and requires 

DHS to examine opportunities to better organize its efforts to 

counter weapons of mass destruction. 

In conclusion, the Committee’s intent is to prioritize funding for 

frontline security operations; enable the Department to rapidly and 

responsibly acquire much needed operational capabilities; equip the 

Department to address long-standing Federal network security 

vulnerabilities; push the Department to set clear and well-reasoned 

priorities that align to stated mission requirements; and require 

the Department to practice sound financial and program management that disciplines funding and aligns resources to results in 

terms of improved security. Moreover, the bill mandates that the 

Department budget adequately for known and expected costs of operations, including disaster relief; strengthens vital preparedness 

and response partnerships between Federal, State, local, tribal, and 

private sector entities; and moves the Department toward the lean 

and responsive organization it was envisioned to be when it was established in 2003. The Committee remains deeply committed to 

helping the Department confront emergent homeland security 

threats, and, looking forward, cites the strength of America’s resolve as evidence that this Nation will be undaunted in tackling 

the unforeseen challenges of the future. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $133,159,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 134,150,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 121,850,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥11,309,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥12,300,000 

MISSION

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

the Department’s efforts to achieve its strategic goals: preventing 

terrorist attacks within the United States; reducing America’s 

vulnerabilities to terrorism and natural disasters; minimizing the 

damage from attacks and disasters that may occur; responding to 

attacks and disasters, in cooperation with States and local governments; and assisting in recovery following disasters and attacks. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $121,850,000 for OSEM, 

$12,300,000 below the amount requested and $11,309,000 below 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. No funding is included for 

a proposed civilian 2013 pay raise. This includes $45,000 for official 

representation and reception allowances, $6,000 below the request. 

Unless otherwise noted below, the recommendation reflects reductions in funding needed to offset significant shortfalls in the 

President’s budget request for DHS due to (1) assumed increases 

in aviation passenger fee collections that have yet to be authorized 

and that are not in the jurisdiction of the Committee on AppropriaVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:25 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

tions, (2) a flawed budget request regarding CBP’s access to fee collections, and (3) failure to comply with statutory requirements. In 

addition, the reductions reflect Committee dissatisfaction with inconsistent or incomplete responses by the Department to Committee requests for information. The bill also withholds $5,000,000 

from obligation for the Office of General Counsel until a final overseas aircraft repair station security regulation has been published, 

as discussed in the section of this report dealing with TSA. 

In addition, in light of the Department’s chronic delays in submitting statutorily required reports and plans, the bill withholds 

$71,079,000 from obligation until the Committee receives all reports that are, by statute, required to be submitted with or in conjunction with the fiscal year 2014 budget request. 

To enable better oversight of expenditures and personnel changes 

within OSEM, the Committee has provided separate funding recommendations for each program, project, and activity (PPA) as follows: 

Budget Estimate Recommended 

Immediate Office of the Secretary .............................................................................. $4,295,000 $3,850,000 

Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary .................................................................. 2,387,000 2,140,000 

Office of the Chief of Staff ......................................................................................... 2,498,000 2,250,000 

Executive Secretary ...................................................................................................... 7,993,000 7,190,000 

Office of Policy ............................................................................................................ 33,678,000 41,240,000 

Office of Public Affairs ................................................................................................ 5,966,000 5,300,000 

Office of Legislative Affairs ........................................................................................ 6,041,000 5,400,000 

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs ............................................................................. 2,648,000 2,380,000 

Office of General Counsel ........................................................................................... 21,947,000 19,750,000 

Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties .................................................................. 21,716,000 19,500,000 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman ................................................... 5,950,000 5,350,000 

Privacy Officer ............................................................................................................. 8,387,000 7,500,000 

Office of International Affairs ..................................................................................... 8,001,000 – – – 

Office of State and Local Law Enforcement ............................................................... 892,000 – – – 

Private Sector Office .................................................................................................... 1,751,000 – – – 

Total, OSEM ........................................................................................................ $134,150,000 $121,850,000 

The Committee disagrees with the proposed addition of three 

new, direct-reporting entities within OSEM, including the Office of 

International Affairs (OIA), the Office of State and Local Law Enforcement (SLLE), and the Private Sector Office (PSO). This proposal is inconsistent with the goal of a more streamlined department and of reducing administrative overhead. Additionally, the 

Committee views international affairs policy formulation and coordination as an inherently appropriate function of the Office of 

Policy and directs that it should remain as such. The Committee, 

therefore, denies the proposed breakout of these three offices and 

directs that they remain elements of the Office of Policy. 

However, the Committee notes that SLLE and PSO have a different character than the Office of Policy and OIA, as they are primarily liaison and outreach offices. The Committee, therefore, directs the Department to report no later than 90 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act on the potential of establishing an external 

affairs office that might include, consolidate, and streamline the 

PSO and SLLE functions, and those of other existing external affairs offices (namely the Offices of Legislative Affairs, Intergovernmental Affairs, and Public Affairs) that currently report to the Secretary. Establishment of such an umbrella organization would 

streamline administrative functions while allowing the external afVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:25 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

fairs entities to focus on unique constituencies and better coordinate communications with those constituencies and internally within the Department. The Committee does not suggest any diminution of stakeholder access or priority of any external affairs office 

through this proposal. It is notable that none of the offices suggested are headed by Senate-confirmed positions. 

OFFICE OF POLICY

The Committee recommends $41,240,000 for the Office of Policy, $7,562,000 above the amount requested and $1,240,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2012. Funding for this office includes OIA, SLLE, and PSO as noted in the previous paragraph. 

The Committee expects the Office of Policy to engage with components and offices in setting, tracking progress of, and implementing 

DHS strategic planning and policy guidance across the entire spectrum of homeland security activities, in particular to support Department components in their own and in cross-component efforts. 

The Committee directs the Department to provide, with the submission of its fiscal year 2014 budget request, a detailed expenditure plan for the Office of Policy that lists planned projects for each 

sub-office within the Office of Policy with their associated funding 

and staffing requirements. In addition, to improve oversight of operations and priorities of the Office, the Committee directs the Department to report no later than December 1, 2012 on fiscal year 

2012 travel by political employees of the Office of Policy, listing 

dates, destinations, purposes, and costs by trip. 

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 FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

The Committee recommends $19,500,000 for the Office for Civil 

Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), $2,216,000 below the amount 

requested and $3,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 

2012. Part of this reduction reflects, as noted above, the need to offset significant budget shortfalls created by assumptions of unauthorized and inaccessible fee revenue. In addition, the Committee 

expects the Department to ensure that CRCL efforts complement, 

but do not duplicate, those of the Office of Inspector General or 

watchdog elements of components, such as the Office of Professional Responsibility in ICE. It has come to the attention of the 

Committee that there is significant overlap in the oversight efforts 

of these different organizations that results in duplicative demands 

on ICE resources, potentially at the expense of operations. 

The Committee is aware that CRCL submits annual reports to 

Congress, but it is dissatisfied with their lateness. The most recent 

report, for fiscal year 2010, was received in September 2011. In 

order to afford the Committee current understanding of the work, 

priorities, and funding requirements of the Office, the Committee 

directs CRCL to provide a briefing no later than 60 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act on CRCL operations in fiscal year 

2012 and planned for fiscal year 2013. The briefing should cover 

workload, and staffing associated with different core functions and 

missions; travel; publications; and measures of performance associated with execution of CRCL statutory responsibilities. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

USER FEES

The Committee remains concerned about the management of 

user fee revenue, with concomitant impacts on components that depend on them to fund positions and operations. The Department’s 

limited ability to anticipate or compensate for uncertainty in fee 

revenue or its application has been a continuing complication for 

budgetary and program planning. The conference report accompanying Public Law 111–83 directed the Department to submit a 

contingency plan, which has yet to be submitted, to address gaps 

between actual and budgeted collections. The Committee directs 

the Secretary to submit that plan as soon as possible and to provide the Committee a revised plan no later than 90 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act and on an annual basis thereafter. 

The Department shall continue to provide information on fee collections and balances on a quarterly basis with the first fiscal year 

2013 report due no later than January 30, 2013. Additional concerns regarding user fee revenues specific to CBP and USCIS are 

addressed later in the report. 

EXPENDITURE PLANS

Throughout this bill and report, the Committee has included language requiring the Department and components to submit expenditure and obligation plans for significant investment programs or 

programs for which there is a need for sustained visibility into 

planning and execution of important milestones. Such plans are 

vital to the Committee’s oversight work, yet in far too many instances such plans—which should reflect decisions already made by 

the Department to align current program priorities with resources—have been inexcusably late, incomplete, or have not yet 

been submitted at all. In some cases, expenditure plans that should 

have been submitted at the beginning of a fiscal year to show how 

the Department planned to expend its funding, instead have been 

submitted well after the end of the fiscal year. Such poor responsiveness and compliance is intolerable and reflects poorly on the 

Department. Throughout the bill, considerable reductions from the 

request are recommended because of the Department’s lack of responsiveness toward Congressional requirements like these. Moreover, the Committee withholds funds to compel the Department to 

ensure plans are submitted timely to the Committees on Appropriations. 

QUARTERLY REPORTS AND OTHER INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

The Department is directed to continue to send quarterly reports 

as specified under this heading in the Joint Explanatory Statement 

accompanying Public Law 112–74, in particular the Border Security Status Reports, the Secure Communities Quarterly Reports, 

and the Detention and Removal Operations Quarterly. The Committee directs DHS to include in the Border Security Status Reports unique apprehensions by Border Patrol and enforcement actions associated with ICE apprehensions. Further, as CBP refines 

its statistics associated with the impact of the consequence delivery 

programs on recidivism rates, CBP must report that information in 

the Border Security Status Reports by Border Patrol sector. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

Since 2001, the U.S. Government has utilized a number of tools 

to attempt to reduce the incidence of recidivism when it comes to 

illegal border crossing between the ports of entry. The Committee 

directs CBP and ICE to provide a briefing on all the tools that have 

been utilized, such as lateral repatriation, interior repatriation, 

and criminal prosecution; their findings regarding the effectiveness 

of these measures in reducing recidivism; and their plans for expansion of any of these activities as a result of their findings. 

The Committee notes with concern that the recently released 

2012–2016 Border Patrol Strategic Plan makes no reference to 

operational control or other specific metrics to evaluate border security other than the so-called ‘‘border condition index’’ that has yet 

to be deployed. This is unacceptable. The Department is directed 

to resume utilizing the number of border miles under operational 

control—also referred to as effective control—as a performance 

measure in the Department’s Annual Performance Plan as required 

by the Government Performance and Results Act and resume reporting the progress and status of achieving operational control 

using the definitions included in the 2004 Border Patrol Strategic 

Plan and in a manner and under methodology utilized in the inclusion of the measure in the Fiscal Years 2008–2010 Department of 

Homeland Security Annual Performance Report and as calculated 

by the Department through the end of fiscal year 2010. This performance measure remains in place until other measures are either 

set by law or agreed upon with the Committee. 

STATUTORILY REQUIRED REPORTS

The Committee’s recommendations throughout this bill reflect reductions in funding due to the Department’s failure to comply with 

statutory reporting requirements. These reductions reflect the 

Committee’s dissatisfaction with late, inconsistent, or incomplete 

responses by the Department of statutorily required information 

for fiscal years 2012 and beyond. The Committee expects the Department to comply with these statutory requirements, with regard 

to both content and schedule. The Committee notes that the majority of statutorily required reports and plans are presently more 

than three months late and the failure of the Department to provide these plans on time is concerning. In too many instances such 

reports have been incomplete, or submitted either late or not at all. 

The Committee finds this failure to comply with the law unacceptable and it will not tolerate such disregard by the Department for 

statutory reporting requirements. Accordingly, the Committee has 

included bill language making a total of $224,421,000 unavailable 

for obligation by OSEM, the Office of the Under Secretary for Management (USM), and the Office of Chief Financial Officer (CFO) 

until the Secretary of Homeland Security submits to the Committees all statutorily required reports and plans that are due with 

the submission of the President’s budget for fiscal year 2014. 

Furthermore, the Committee strongly encourages the Department to undertake a review of its processes to ensure that the 

proper protocols are in place within OSEM, USM, and CFO to prevent future delays and to hold the Department accountable for the 

content in statutorily required reports. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION STATISTICS

The Committee understands the Office of Policy plans to broaden 

the responsibilities of the Office of Immigration Statistics to include oversight of statistical and data issues across the Department’s area of responsibility, including data related to the secure 

movement of goods and conveyances as well as other facets of the 

movement of people. While the Committee believes this could prove 

a valuable undertaking, the Committee expects to continue to see 

immigration statistics and their collection remain the core office 

mission. The Committee has long sought complete, accurate, and 

reliable reporting of immigration enforcement data—an effort that 

continues this year. The Office of Immigration Statistics is taking 

the lead in coordinating the Department’s data collection and reporting challenges related to immigration enforcement as well as 

developing the plan to address those issues. The Committee directs 

the Office of Immigration Statistics, in conjunction with all the relevant DHS components, to brief the Committee no later than October 1, 2012 on progress regarding collection and reporting of complete immigration enforcement statistics. 

CONSOLIDATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFENSE

PROGRAMS

Across the U.S. Government, departments and agencies have 

combined their programs which deal with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats into more centralized offices, 

providing clearer focal points for policy and programs to counter 

weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The Committee finds, however, that DHS WMD programs are not similarly aligned, possibly 

impairing the Department’s strategic direction on the issue. Unlike 

others in the interagency community, DHS WMD programs continue to be spread across many offices with duplicative and overlapping functions. There is confusion, for example, over which components are the ‘‘lead’’ in certain incidents involving CBRN agents 

and also over which are responsible for research and development 

to detect those agents. As a result, DHS programs have failed to 

satisfactorily fulfill Congressional and Presidential mandates to develop robust capabilities to detect WMD threats aimed against U.S. 

interests. 

The Committee is also concerned that the current alignment of 

WMD programs causes policy coordination problems within DHS 

and in the interagency community. Inside the Department, coordination is ad hoc and intermittent, with limited cooperation between 

certain offices and limited awareness of what each is doing in the 

WMD defense mission space. Because DHS’s mission space is not 

consolidated, DHS views on CBRN issues are presented in divergent and sometimes conflicting ways in interagency meetings, impairing the Department’s cooperation with key partners. Moreover, 

outsiders often find themselves engaging with the wrong components because of unclear lanes of responsibility. 

Particularly noteworthy is the separation of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), responsible for monitoring radiological and nuclear threats, and the Office of Health Affairs (OHA), 

responsible for monitoring chemical and biological threats. Together, these components are charged with developing the core of 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

the Department’s WMD detection capabilities and, in coordination 

with operating agencies, monitoring the threat landscape to detect 

potential attacks. Both organizations have related missions and 

have faced similar dilemmas in developing better situational 

awareness of CBRN detection assets. Yet the two offices remain 

separate. 

The success of DHS WMD defense activities is critical to our Nation’s ability to detect CBRN threats and protect Americans from 

them. In light of historic budget cuts designed to restore America’s 

fiscal health, DHS must make use of limited resources as efficiently 

as possible to protect the Homeland. Responsible consolidations 

that make sense programmatically could improve DHS WMD defense programs and save taxpayer dollars. The Committee believes 

that the Department’s WMD programs could be better aligned 

through consolidation, both to improve the Nation’s defense against 

WMD threats and for the sake of fiscal responsibility. 

The Committee contends that consolidation of the WMD defense 

activities at DNDO and OHA could be an important step forward 

in realigning the Department’s WMD defense programs to improve 

homeland security. Specifically, consolidation could provide greater 

awareness and coordination within DHS and the interagency by 

creating a more visible focal point for counter-WMD coordination 

and strategic planning. The Committee notes further that merging 

these two offices could provide cost savings through programmatic 

synergies and administrative efficiencies. A combined office could 

align key CBRN detection functions in the same place, including: 

requirements generation, acquisitions, global detection architecture 

planning, and detection monitoring. Moreover, there may be efficiencies from reconciling overlapping functions performed by each 

office, such as administration, budgeting, intelligence, international 

engagement, operations support, policy formulation, risk assessments, training of first responders, and State and local outreach. 

The Committee, therefore, directs the Secretary to develop a consolidation plan no later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

of this Act to merge DNDO and OHA into an Office of Weapons of 

Mass Destruction Defense for fiscal year 2014 and to submit this 

plan to the Committee, the House Committee on Homeland Security, and appropriate authorizing committees of jurisdiction. This 

plan shall include a transition process, organizational structure, 

budget structure, and spend plan needed to establish the Office 

and should detail all operational and administrative synergies and 

efficiencies expected to be gained from consolidation. Moreover, the 

Committee directs that the proposed budget for the Office identify 

meaningful cost savings over the amounts recommended for fiscal 

year 2013 by the Committee for the WMD defense operations of 

DNDO and OHA. 

The Secretary shall also take a more holistic approach toward realignment by considering and describing any functions proposed to 

be transferred into the new Office from elsewhere in the Department to better align the WMD portfolio. The Committee further directs that the Secretary’s plan consider and detail the impacts of 

realigning certain functions outside of the new Office, such as 

DNDO’s research and development activities; DNDO’s Standards, 

Testing, and Evaluation functions; the National Technical Nuclear 

Forensics Center; OHA’s Workforce Health and Medical Support 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

Division; OHA’s Food, Agriculture, and Veterinary Branch; OHA’s 

Planning and Exercise Support Branch; and OHA’s State and Local 

Initiatives Branch. In considering the impact of realigning certain 

functions outside the new Office, the Secretary shall evaluate 

whether functions are duplicative of activities carried out within 

the Department or other Federal agencies. 

Additionally, the Secretary shall provide a qualitative assessment of the consolidation proposal, including whether and how it 

satisfies the goals of improving WMD defense strategy, coordination, and execution within DHS. If the Secretary certifies that it 

does not meet these goals, the Secretary shall also provide a detailed, alternative proposal to improve WMD defense strategy, coordination, and execution across the Department at the time the 

consolidation plan is submitted. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is directed to review the Department’s submission and provide an assessment of 

whether and how proposed changes would improve DHS coordination with the interagency on WMD defense issues. GAO shall work 

with the Committee, the House Committee on Homeland Security, 

and appropriate authorizing committees of jurisdiction to determine an appropriate scope and timeframe for completing this assessment. 

FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

The Committee is aware that the Department has a number of 

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) 

that it uses for assistance in procurement, research, and analytic 

support. In order to better understand the value that FFRDCs 

bring to the Department’s operations and management, the Committee directs the Department to submit, at the time it presents its 

fiscal year 2014 budget, a report describing the FFRDCs that the 

Department used in fiscal year 2012 and proposes to use in fiscal 

year 2013, including a detailed discussion of the nature of the 

FFRDC assistance and associated funding for each of those fiscal 

years. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

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

in the fiscal year 2014 budget request. This should include a description of each activity funded by the WCF; the basis for the pricing; the number of full-time Federal employees funded in each activity; a list of each departmental organization that is allocating 

funds to the activity; and the funding each organization is providing in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, and projects to spend in 2014. 

If a project contained in the WCF is a multi-year activity with a 

defined cost, scope, and schedule, estimated costs and schedule 

shall be clearly delineated. 

The Committee expects all initiatives funded by multiple DHS 

organizations to be included in the WCF. The Committee does not 

support taxing departmental organizations for cross-cutting initiatives outside the WCF. As such, the justification should identify 

any cross-cutting initiatives or activities that benefit more than one 

organization that are not included in the WCF and should explain 

the omission. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

The Committee directs the Department to notify it promptly of 

any additions, deletions, or changes made to the WCF during the 

fiscal year. Furthermore, the Department should not fund any activities through the WCF that the House or Senate Committees on 

Appropriations have disapproved either in report language or in 

their responses to reprogramming requests. 

TRAVEL

Travel by Department leadership and senior staff is necessary 

when it supports critical Department missions, advances national 

policy interests, or is for fundamental oversight and management 

purposes. However, the Committee is concerned that travel by 

some Department officials fails to meet the test of being both necessary and efficient. This includes the use for non-emergency travel 

of Departmental assets, such as Coast Guard aircraft, to transport 

agency officials for non-operational purposes. Indeed, the Committee is concerned that expenditures on travel are far beyond 

what is provided in law, which requires costs for use of government 

aircraft for official travel by the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to 

be paid from amounts made available for the Immediate Offices of 

the Secretary and Deputy Secretary. However, based on information provided by the Department in hearing testimony, a significant amount of travel costs are borne by the Coast Guard. The 

Committee expects the Department to comply with the letter of the 

law; official travel funding may not be augmented at the expense 

of operations. 

The Committee, in order to gain better insight into the appropriateness of DHS use of travel funding, therefore directs the Department to provide a semi-annual briefing to the Committee, with 

detailed emphasis on foreign travel and to include in that briefing 

estimates of the cost of such travel (to include the source of funding), destinations, and purposes. 

BONUSES AND PERFORMANCE AWARDS

The Committee recognizes bonuses and other forms of monetary 

awards for exemplary performance serve as important tools in recognizing and motivating high-achieving agency personnel. These 

bonuses can be a useful means to provide positive feedback to 

agency personnel and to encourage all employees to help the Department better execute its missions by increasing productivity and 

employing creative ideas. However, the Committee notes that for 

many Department components, offices, and sub-offices, such 

awards, along with quality step increases, are given to more than 

half the employees in an organization—in some cases, reaching 90 

percent or higher. This gives the appearance that such incentive 

awards are being used simply as another form of compensation in 

lieu of pay increases, rather than as the intended award. Such 

broad use may cause these awards to lose their value as a form of 

recognition or incentive. The Committee, therefore, directs the Secretary to submit a report no later than 90 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act that: sets forth the standards for such performance awards; shows how their use compares, in terms of best 

personnel practices, with similar Federal agencies; and clarifies 

that such awards have not become a routine element of compensaVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:25 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

tion, rather than something used in cases of extraordinary or sustained high levels of performance. 

RECEPTION AND REPRESENTATION ALLOWANCES

Within OSEM, the Committee recommends $45,000 for official 

reception and representation expenses, $6,000 below the level provided in fiscal year 2012. Within this total, $17,000 shall be for 

international programs within the Office of Policy and activities related to the visa waiver program. The Department is directed to 

track its reception and representation expenses in enough detail to 

explain how these funds were used as the Committee conducts its 

oversight efforts next year. The Committee expects the Department 

to review representation allowances for all DHS agencies for equitable alignment of funds with responsibilities and submit any proposed changes as part of the fiscal year 2014 budget request. 

CONFERENCES AND SPECIAL EVENTS

In light of recent actions exposed by the Inspector General of the 

General Services Administration (GSA), and to enable better oversight of expenditures during the current fiscal climate, the Committee directs the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to report to the 

Committee no later than 30 days after the date of enactment of 

this Act as to whether the Department has effective procedures in 

place to ensure compliance with all applicable Federal laws and 

regulations on travel, conferences, and employee awards programs. 

In this budget environment there is an unquestioned need for fiscal 

restraint, and the Government must move responsibly to reduce 

wasteful spending and restore the faith of the American taxpayer. 

The Committee includes a new general provision which directs 

the head of each DHS agency, component, or office to submit quarterly reports to OIG, outlining the full costs to the Government of 

each event for which the Department expends more than $20,000. 

Such events shall include: conferences; ceremonies, including but 

not limited to those for commissioning, de-commissioning, change 

of command, awards, and recognition; and similar events held by 

the Department or attended by Department personnel. 

Each report submitted shall include, for every event described 

above and held during the applicable quarter: (1) a description of 

the subject of and number of participants attending the event; (2) 

a detailed statement of the costs to the Government relating to the 

event; (3) a description of the contracting procedures relating to the 

event; (4) the appropriation or other source of funding including 

name and number of the budget accounts, and Programs, Projects 

and Activities (PPAs), used to pay for the event; and (5) the cumulative total of event spending for the fiscal year. 

Furthermore, no later than 30 days after the end of fiscal year 

2013, OIG shall report to the Committee on the Department’s 

event-related spending, which shall substantiate DHS compliance 

with all applicable laws and regulations and describe in detail the 

total costs to the Government associated with events. The report 

shall include the number of conferences held, the amount of funds 

obligated, and expenses by appropriation or other source of funding, including budget accounts and PPAs used to pay for events. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY

The Committee understands that no funds are requested in fiscal 

year 2013 for the implementation of the National Ocean Policy. The 

Committee recommendation includes no funding for this purpose. 

The Committee further notes that any funds obligated in support 

of this policy are subject to the notification requirements contained 

in this Act. 

TWIC READER RULE

The Committee notes that no final rule on transportation worker 

identification credential (TWIC) reader has yet been issued, although such a rule was mandated under the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA), as amended by the SAFE Port 

Act of 2006, and a demonstration pilot of readers was completed in 

May 2011. The Committee, as discussed in more detail in the TSA 

and Coast Guard sections of this report, is committed to seeing 

TWIC readers deployed so that the millions of credentials now in 

use will no longer merely serve as a ‘‘flash pass’’ for visual inspection. The Committee directs the Department, with Coast Guard 

and TSA, to take all necessary action to expedite the completion 

and publication of a final rule. 

INTERAGENCY AND INTRA-AGENCY COMMUNICATION AND

COORDINATION

The Committee notes the persistent scrutiny of the Phoenix, Arizona-based operation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives known as Fast and Furious that began in the fall 

of 2009. The operation allowed thousands of firearms to be purchased by suspected straw purchasers, purportedly to link the purchases to drug trafficking organizations. Among other consequences, firearms associated with this operation have been found 

at crime scenes in the U.S. and Mexico, including at the scene of 

the December, 2010 murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian 

Terry, bringing the operation to a halt. It has been indicated that 

ICE personnel were associated with Operation Fast and Furious. 

Yet, the Secretary has testified that, prior to the death of Agent 

Terry, she was unaware of the operation. These facts raise concerns with both intra-agency and inter-agency communication and 

coordination when it comes to law enforcement activities on the 

border. The Committee directs the Department to brief the Committee no later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act 

on actions or corrective measures the Department has taken to ensure, in light of Operation Fast and Furious, that it remains informed of Federal law enforcement operations that could impact 

law enforcement and the public in border regions. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $235,587,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 221,771,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 213,128,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥22,459,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥8,643,000 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

MISSION

The Office of the Under Secretary for Management’s primary 

mission is to deliver quality administrative support services for 

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

is also charged with implementing a mission support structure for 

DHS administrative services, while eliminating redundancies and 

reducing support costs. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $213,128,000 for USM, $8,643,000 

below the amount requested and $22,459,000 below the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2012. No funding is included for the proposed fiscal year 2013 pay raise. Except as specified below, other 

reductions were made to offset significant shortfalls in the President’s budget request for DHS due to (1) assumed increases in 

aviation passenger fee collections that have yet to be authorized 

and that are not in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations, (2) a flawed budget request regarding CBP’s access to fee collections, and (3) failure to comply with statutory requirements. In 

addition, the reductions reflect Committee dissatisfaction with inconsistent or incomplete responses by the Department to Committee requests for information. In light of the Department’s chronic delays in submitting statutorily required reports and plans, the 

bill withholds $124,325,000 from obligation until the Committee receives all reports that are, by statute, required to be submitted 

with or in conjunction with the fiscal year 2014 budget request. 

The Committee has provided separate funding recommendations 

in order to adequately track expenditures for each PPA, as detailed 

in the following table: 

Budget Estimate Recommended 

Under Secretary for Management ................................................................................ $3,112,000 $3,112,000 

Office of the Chief Security Officer ............................................................................. 69,258,000 69,000,000 

Office of the Chief Procurement Officer ..................................................................... 73,176,000 65,700,000 

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer ................................................................. 35,660,000 35,556,000

Office of the Chief Administrative Officer .................................................................. 40,565,000 39,760,000 

Total, USM .......................................................................................................... $221,771,000 $213,128,000 

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $3,112,000 for the Immediate Office 

of the Under Secretary for Management, as requested. The Committee is pleased with initiatives being pursued by the Department 

to find ways in which components and administrative elements can 

share assets and adopt best practices, including acquisition of technology, procurement of services, and collaboration on human resource management. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER

The Committee recommends $65,700,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Procurement Officer, $7,476,000 below the amount requested 

and $12,300,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

This reflects a reduction of 10 percent in light of the Department’s 

failure to comply with the statutory requirement to submit on time 

a comprehensive acquisition report with quarterly updates. The 

Committee continues statutory language in this section requiring 

such reports and expects the Department will comply with those 

requirements, both in meeting the content and the schedule requirements. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

The Committee recommends $39,760,000 for the Office of the 

Chief Administrative Officer, $805,000 below the amount requested 

and $5,940,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. 

Within this total, the Committee includes $5,448,000, as requested, 

for improvements and maintenance of the Nebraska Avenue Complex, including perimeter fencing, and to sustain current operations 

at the site. This remains essential, given that there will be substantially less funding available in fiscal year 2013, as noted below, 

for additional consolidation of Departmental management and components. 

DEPARTMENTAL HEADQUARTERS CONSOLIDATION

The Committee recommends no new construction funding in the 

bill for new Departmental Headquarters Consolidation expansion. 

This is $89,000,000 below the request. Funding is included, as requested, as part of the Coast Guard appropriation to cover the 

costs associated with completing the move of the Coast Guard 

headquarters to St. Elizabeths. Associated with this, as described 

below, is additional funding under Coast Guard construction to ensure completion of the current project, improve site access, and 

support analysis for follow on work and any necessary planning adjustments for schedule, scope, and cost. 

The Committee supports efforts to optimize the housing and operations of Department agencies and components in the capital region, with between 14,000 and perhaps as many as 16,000 DHS 

employees eventually to be located at the St. Elizabeths complex in 

Washington, D.C., and a continuing requirement to consolidate the 

70 offices spread in 46 locations across the region. The Committee 

acknowledges that the request was for completion of transportation 

routes adjacent to and connecting to the St. Elizabeths site; deferred funding for the phases two and three of the current plan; 

and was intended to complete necessary preparatory construction 

for later phases of construction. Furthermore, the Committee also 

recognizes that delays in this project have already led to significant 

cost and schedule changes to the original plan. At this point, the 

Committee understands that completion of the original plan could 

cost as much as $4,000,000,000, over 15 percent higher than the 

$3,400,000,000 estimated in fiscal year 2010. However, given that 

this project has been funded through both DHS and General Services Administration (GSA) appropriations—and GSA does not request any funding in fiscal year 2013 for this project—it has been 

difficult to project anything more than a notional timeline for the 

project as a whole. 

Nonetheless, notwithstanding the impact on current schedule 

and cost estimates, the Committee finds it cannot fund the requested construction costs proposed in fiscal year 2013, given the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

need to compensate for shortfalls created by the budget’s reliance 

on unauthorized or inaccessible fee proposals and costs not formally notified to the Committee through a budget amendment. 

The Committee understands that the Department, through USM, 

is actively exploring options to creatively modify or consolidate current leases, in the expectation that a permanent headquarters construction site will be significantly delayed or amended. The Committee encourages the Department to continue this effort and to inform the Committee of its progress in consolidation no later than 

90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, including a revised 

schedule and cost estimates. Further, as noted above, the Committee includes $10,000,000 under the Coast Guard Acquisition, 

Construction, and Improvements account to complete Phase 1 of 

construction, ensure Coast Guard will be able to move in 2013 and 

that there will be no obstacles to access and transportation into the 

site, and to support orderly planning and analysis for the overall 

project. 

INSOURCING

The Committee is concerned with the Department’s use of 

insourcing as a cost savings and mission effectiveness tool. The Department is directed to include within the President’s annual budget proposal a thorough justification of any insourcing initiatives, to 

include a net present value comparison of the life-cycle cost of a 

contracted position or task to the cost of a Federalized FTE. The 

Department is also directed to report no later than April 1, 2013, 

on the impacts of the insourcing initiatives begun in fiscal years 

2010 and 2011 in terms of cost savings and mission effectiveness, 

with details on the data and methodology and metrics it used for 

the analysis. The report shall also include an explanation of how 

the Department will track the long-term impacts of its insourcing 

initiatives. 

BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENTS

The Committee remains concerned about the Department’s interpretation and implementation of statutorily mandated Buy American requirements. As part of the fiscal year 2014 budget request, 

the Secretary shall submit a detailed analysis on how the Department could comply with Title VI of Section 604 of Public Law 111– 

5, as well as identify technical and statutory challenges pertaining 

to compliance. In addition, the Secretary shall ensure that the annual report to Congress required in accordance with 41 U.S.C. 10b 

is submitted to the Committees on Appropriations. This report details the amount of acquisitions DHS makes from entities that 

manufacture articles, materials, and supplies outside the U.S. and 

includes an itemized list of the waivers granted with respect to articles, materials, and supplies acquired under the Buy American 

Act. 

ELECTRONIC FINGERPRINT COLLECTION

The Committee understands that ICE still utilizes paper fingerprint cards rather than electronic capture for new employees and 

contractors. It is unclear why such a requirement would continue 

in light of Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 (HSPD–12) 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

implementation. The Committee directs the Chief Security Officer 

to brief the Committee no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the use of paper rather than electronic fingerprint collection by all DHS components and to update the Committee on HSPD-12 implementation. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $50,860,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 55,414,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 49,743,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥1,117,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥5,671,000 

MISSION

The primary responsibilities and functions of the Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer (CFO) include budget execution and oversight; performance analysis and evaluation; oversight of the Department’s financial management system; oversight of the Department’s business and financial management systems across all 

agencies and directorates; and oversight of credit card programs 

and audit liaisons. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $49,743,000 for the CFO, $5,671,000 

below the amount requested and $1,117,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. As noted above, such reductions are made 

to offset budget shortfalls created by unauthorized user fee revenue 

assumptions, additional costs not reflected in budget amendments, 

and in light of inconsistent responses to the Committee’s requests 

for information. In addition, in light of the Department’s chronic 

delays in submitting statutorily required reports and plans, the bill 

withholds $29,017,000 from obligation until the Committee receives 

all reports and plans that are, by statute, required to be submitted 

with or in conjunction with the fiscal year 2014 budget request. 

FINANCIAL SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION

The Committee recognizes the importance of modernizing the financial systems on which the Department and its components rely 

and supports the efforts being led by the CFO to leverage existing 

systems and prioritize efforts. The Committee, therefore, directs 

the CFO to continue providing briefings to the Committees on Appropriations on, at a minimum, a semi-annual basis on its modernization efforts and highlight any funding, schedule, or implementation issues that are relevant to continued progress. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

The Committee directs the Department to submit all of its fiscal 

year 2014 budget justifications on the first Monday in February, 

2013, concurrent with the official submission of the President’s 

budget to Congress. The detail should reflect the requirements set 

forth under this heading in the statement of managers accompanying Public Law 112–54, with the exception that the references 

to prior-year funding information should relate to fiscal years 2012 

and 2013. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

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

budget as part for the fiscal year 2014 budget justification, reflecting anticipated spending for fiscal years 2014–2018. It shall be in 

unclassified form so as to be accessible to the public. 

The Committee also directs that the Department ensure, for all 

appropriations requested in fiscal year 2014, and for which a proposal is made to increase or decrease funding for an activity within 

a PPA category, that it informs the Committee of the base funding 

level for such activity—and not simply the total PPA funding. 

UNREALISTIC BUDGETING PRACTICES

As in prior years, the President’s budget once again assumes that 

new revenue will be realized in the coming fiscal year—in this 

case, the budget request was built upon assumptions that 

$317,000,000 in new aviation security fee revenue would be realized in fiscal year 2013, of which $200,000,000 would go to general 

deficit reduction and with the expectation that such collections 

would generate $25,500,000,000 in new revenue in the next decade. 

However, as in the past, the proposal depends on enactment of new 

legislative authority that is outside the jurisdiction of the Committee. The direct impact on the Department’s budget in fiscal year 

2013, by Congressional Budget Office estimates, is a shortfall of 

$115,000,000. As this Committee has underscored repeatedly over 

the past several Congresses, such an approach to budgeting is unrealistic and requires this Committee to take drastic measures to 

offset the unnecessary gap. The Committee reiterates its message— 

it rejects such budgetary legerdemain. The consequences, in terms 

of additional reductions to Department requests, are evident 

throughout this bill. 

If and when such proposals are enacted into law, the Committee 

will take them into account as it drafts legislation, and the Department should keep the Committee informed of any progress in this 

regard. However, until that occurs, such proposals will not be treated as relevant to its appropriations work. 

MONTHLY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The Committee continues bill language requiring monthly budget 

and staffing reports within 45 days after the close of each month. 

APPROPRIATIONS LIAISONS

The Committee established two liaison positions within the CFO 

in the early years of the Department, based on the need to ensure 

that it had clear and direct access to budgetary information and 

could see that requests from the many components and offices of 

the new Department were coordinated at the departmental level. 

Initially, two positions were designated, but in the intervening 

years the number of liaisons has increased significantly. However, 

the Committee has found the role of liaisons, and their value in 

supporting Committee oversight and ensuring clear communications with the Department and its components, to be uneven at 

best and frequently counterproductive—either not facilitating information sharing or, in some cases, creating another layer of review 

and delay. The Committee notes that such positions are not forVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

mally classified as such within the CFO organization. Therefore, 

the Committee advises that it does not regard such formal positions as necessary and does not require CFO to operate as an intermediary between the Committee and other DHS entities. The CFO 

shall, as appropriate, fulfill its role in ensuring the integrity of the 

Department’s financial execution, reporting, and budget formulation, but the Committee expects to hear from relevant components 

on their areas of responsibility directly. 

The DHS Budget Officer shall serve as the Committee’s primary 

point of contact for Departmental and cross-cutting interagency 

issues related to budget formulation and execution. Agency and 

component Chief Financial Officers and Budget Officers shall serve 

as the Committee’s primary points of contact for those agencies and 

components. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $257,300,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 312,643,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 241,543,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥15,757,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥71,100,000 

MISSION

The Chief Information Officer (CIO) has oversight of information 

technology (IT) projects in the Department. The CIO reviews and 

approves all DHS IT acquisitions estimated to cost over $2,500,000 

and also approves the hiring and oversees the performance of all 

DHS component CIOs. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $241,543,000 for the Office of the 

CIO, $71,100,000 below the amount requested and $15,757,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. 

The bill continues a requirement for a multi-year investment 

plan for the Department’s information technology funding within a 

separate general provision. 

A comparison of the budget request to the Committee recommended level by PPA is as follows: 

Budget Estimate Recommended 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................................................ $120,670,000 $116,870,000 

Information Technology Services ................................................................................. 28,002,000 27,202,000 

Infrastructure and Security Activities ......................................................................... 121,839,000 55,339,000 

Homeland Security Data Network ................................................................................ 42,132,000 42,132,000 

Total, Chief Information Officer ......................................................................... $312,643,000 $241,543,000 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $116,870,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $3,800,000 below the amount requested and $11,370,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2012, reflecting no funding for a 2013 pay raise and additional reductions to offset significant shortfalls in the President’s budget request for DHS due to (1) 

assumed increases in aviation passenger fee collections that have 

yet to be authorized and that are not in the jurisdiction of the ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

mittee on Appropriations, (2) a flawed budget request regarding 

CBP’s access to fee collections, and (3) a failure to comply with 

statutory requirements. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES

The Committee recommends $27,202,000 for Information Technology Services, $800,000 below the request and $11,598,000 below 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2012, reflecting offsets for significant shortfalls in the President’s budget request for DHS due to 

(1) assumed increases in aviation passenger fee collections that 

have yet to be authorized and that are not in the jurisdiction of the 

Committee on Appropriations, (2) a flawed budget request regarding CBP’s access to fee collections, and (3) a failure to comply with 

statutory requirements. 

INFRASTRUCTURE AND SECURITY ACTIVITIES

The Committee recommends $55,339,000 for Security Activities, 

$66,500,000 below the request and $13,661,000 below the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2012, reflecting no funding for data center 

migration and offsets for significant shortfalls in the President’s 

budget request for DHS due to (1) assumed increases in aviation 

passenger fee collections that have yet to be authorized and that 

are not in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations, (2) 

a flawed budget request regarding CBP’s access to fee collection, 

and (3) failure to comply with statutory requirements. 

The Committee remains concerned about the security 

vulnerabilities posed by ‘‘insider threats’’ and last year directed the 

Department to provide a detailed, cross-component briefing on the 

matter. The CIO shall keep the Committee informed of any new developments in its efforts to mitigate the likelihood and danger of 

such threats. 

DATA CENTER MIGRATION

This year, the Administration requested a total of $64,797,000 to 

pay for the migration of component resources to the Department’s 

two consolidated data centers. While the Committee supports such 

migration as necessary to reduce IT costs, risk, and to rationalize 

the operations of the Department, this additional investment has 

been forgone due to the need to offset significant shortfalls in the 

President’s budget request for DHS due to (1) assumed increases 

in aviation passenger fee collections that have yet to be authorized 

and that are not in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations, (2) a flawed budget request regarding CBP’s access to fee collections, and (3) failure to comply with statutory requirements. The 

Committee directs the Department to continue to brief the Committees quarterly on the status of data center migration and to develop 

a plan to implement continued migration in fiscal year 2014. 

ANALYSIS AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $338,068,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 321,982,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 317,400,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥20,668,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥4,582,000 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

MISSION

Analysis and Operations (A&O) houses the Office of Intelligence 

and Analysis and the Directorate of Operations Coordination, 

which together collect, evaluate, and disseminate intelligence information, as well as provide incident management and operational 

coordination. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $317,400,000 for A&O, $4,582,000 

below the amount requested and $20,668,000 below the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2012. The Committee denies the requested 

pay raise for civilian government employees, denies the requested 

increase in executive service salaries for the Office of Operations 

Coordination and Planning, and denies the requested increase in 

funding associated with the Air Domain Intelligence Integration 

Element. The Committee also denies the requested decrease to Cybersecurity Analysis and restores funding for this function. Additional direction on funding for this appropriation is included within 

the classified annex accompanying this report. 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS

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

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 1 ....................................................... $117,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... 143,664,000 

Recommended in the bill 1 ................................................................. 109,264,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥$7,736,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥34,400,000 1 Excludes a $24,000,000 transfer from the Disaster Relief Fund. 

MISSION

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established an Office of Inspector General (OIG) in DHS by amendment to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This office was established to provide an objective 

and independent organization that would be effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in departmental programs and operations; (2) providing a means for keeping the Secretary and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems 

and deficiencies in the administration of programs and operations; 

(3) fulfilling statutory responsibilities for the annual audit of the 

Department’s financial statements; (4) ensuring the security of 

DHS information technology pursuant to the Federal Information 

Security Management Act; and (5) reviewing and making recommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation and regulations to the Department’s programs and operational components. According to the authorizing legislation, the Inspector General is to report dually to the Secretary of Homeland Security and 

to the Congress. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $109,264,000 for OIG, $34,400,000 

below the budget request and $7,736,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The Committee will continue the practice 

of transferring $24,000,000 from the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) to 

OIG in fiscal year 2013 in light of OIG’s work to conduct disasterrelated audits and investigations. The OIG shall submit a plan for 

expenditure of all funds no later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act and to include DRF transfers in the CFO’s 

monthly budget execution reports submitted to the Committees, 

which shall satisfy the requirements for notification of DRF transfers under section 503 of this bill. 

The reduction in funding from the OIG core budget request in- cludes a reduction of $400,000, reflecting no additional funding for 

a fiscal year 2013 pay raise. In addition, the Committee reduces 

funding by $10,000,000 to reflect dissatisfaction with the quality of 

communication with the Committee with regard to border corruption investigations, and in particular, issues with coordinating 

these with ICE and CBP. The Committee directs OIG to submit, 

no later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a 

plan for expenditure of integrity oversight funds in coordination 

with CBP and ICE, which shall be submitted along with its overall 

expenditure plan. The Committee also directs OIG to provide semiannual briefings on the status of efforts to improve its own investigative operations. 

MANAGEMENT AND EFFICIENCY OVERSIGHT

The Committee strongly supports efforts by OIG to identify and 

correct instances of fraud and waste affecting Departmental activities, and therefore directs OIG to provide a semiannual briefing to 

the Committees on Appropriations updating them on such efforts, 

with particular focus on procurement, grant administration, and 

travel. 

CONFERENCES AND SPECIAL EVENTS

As noted above in the OSEM section of this report, the Committee has included a new general provision that requires OIG to 

report to the Committees no later than 30 days after the end of fiscal year 2013 on DHS spending on conferences, ceremonies, and 

similar events, based on quarterly reporting to OIG. The report 

shall substantiate DHS compliance with all applicable laws and 

regulations and describe in detail the total costs to the Government 

associated with events. It shall include the number of conferences 

held, the amount of funds obligated, and expenses by appropriation 

or other source of funding, including budget accounts and subaccounts used to pay for events. 

OIG REVIEW AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The Committee has identified other OIG review and reporting requirements in other sections of the report and bill, including: review of 287(g) agreements; inspections of TSA screening; an assessment of adjudication by United States Citizenship and Immigration 

Services; and a general provision for OIG to audit contracts DHS 

awards on a noncompetitive basis. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

TITLE II—SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $8,680,118,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 9,010,581,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 8,366,024,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥314,094,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. ¥644,557,000 

MISSION

The mission of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is to 

protect the borders of the United States by preventing, preempting, 

and deterring threats against the Homeland through ports of entry 

and by interdicting illegal crossings between ports of entry. CBP’s 

mission integrates homeland security, safety, and border management to ensure that goods and persons cross U.S. borders in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and pose no threat 

to the country. The priority of CBP is to prevent terrorists and 

their weapons from entering the United States, and to support related homeland security missions affecting border and airspace security. CBP is also responsible for apprehending individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally; stemming the flow of 

illegal drugs and other contraband, including weapons and bulk 

cash into and out of the country; protecting U.S. agricultural and 

economic interests from harmful pests and diseases; protecting 

American businesses from theft of their intellectual property; regulating and facilitating international trade; collecting import duties; 

and enforcing U.S. trade laws. CBP maintains a workforce of more 

than 60,000, including CBP officers, Air Interdiction agents, Marine Interdiction agents, canine enforcement officers, Border Patrol 

agents, Agriculture Specialists, trade specialists, intelligence analysts, and mission support staff. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $8,366,024,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $644,557,000 below the amount requested and 

$314,094,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The 

reduction to the request reflects: (1) the Committee’s denial of the 

full transfer of US-VISIT to CBP for a total reduction related to the 

request of $249,239,000; (2) the realignment of $374,716,000 for the 

Office of Information and Technology (OIT) from Salaries and Expenses to Automation Modernization; and (3) the realignment of 

$8,000,000 from Salaries and Expenses to ICE for detainee medical 

costs. The rationale for these adjustments is explained further 

below. Supporting frontline operations and maintaining staffing 

levels is the Committee’s top priority. Additionally, the recommendation includes a number of targeted increases to CBP operations. 

This recommendation denies the proposed pay raise for a reduction across the account of $25,572,000. The Committee also includes cuts to the Offices of the Commissioner, Chief Counsel, Congressional Affairs, and Administration for failure to submit statuVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

torily required reports and to be responsive to the Committee’s repeated requests for information necessary to ensure appropriate 

oversight. For example, CBP failed to provide any questions for the 

record more than six weeks after receipt of the questions. Additionally, the bill withholds funds from Salaries and Expenses until the 

Commissioner submits the multi-year investment and management 

plans required with the fiscal year 2014 budget request. 

The recommendation also restructures the Headquarters Management and Administration PPAs to provide greater visibility into 

and accountability for CBP’s expenditures. The new PPA structure 

is provided below in the table. The Offices of the Commissioner, 

Chief Counsel, Congressional Affairs, Internal Affairs, Public Affairs, and Administration are funded in their respective PPAs. The 

Administration PPA also includes the Office of Human Resource 

Management and Working Capital Fund. In the fiscal year 2014 request, CBP shall distribute the Working Capital Fund expenditures 

among the PPAs as appropriate to reflect the actual costs to each 

CBP office. 

The Offices of Trade and International Affairs do not appear in 

the new PPAs, as they are funded within the Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation PPAs with the Office of Field Operations (OFO). Specifically, the Office of Trade shall be funded 

from the Inspections, Trade, and Travel Facilitation at Ports of 

Entry PPA; and the Office of International Affairs shall be funded 

primarily from the Other International Programs PPA with some 

funds remaining in the International Cargo Screening PPA. In addition to funding included within its PPA, the Office of Intelligence/ 

Investigative Liaison is partially funded out of the Automated Targeting Systems PPA. OIT is funded for its activities in the Automated Targeting Systems and Inspection and Detection Technology 

Investments PPAs, in addition to the funds in the Automation 

Modernization account. The Office of Training and Development is 

funded in its PPA as well as the Training PPAs under Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation and Border Security and 

Control between the POEs. 

The Office of Border Patrol and the Joint Field Command are 

fully funded within the Border Security and Control PPA. No funds 

are included for the Joint Operations Division created by CBP last 

year. 

Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation is funded at 

$3,044,490,000, including $70,000,000 largely to fill the shortfall 

created by the flawed budget request regarding CBP access to fee 

revenues (discussed further below); $5,747,000 for prior year 

annualization of CBP officer staffing enhancements; $14,076,000 

for annualization of CBP officer staff for new ports of entry and enhanced operations; $10,000,000 as requested for enhancing intellectual property rights enforcement efforts; $13,032,000 to re-baseline 

the Container Security Initiative; realignment of funds to the Other 

International Programs PPA from International Cargo Screening; 

and consolidation of funds into the Automated Targeting Systems 

and National Targeting Center PPAs to more fully display the costs 

of those activities. The Committee expects CBP to maintain no less 

than 21,186 CBP officers. 

Border Security and Control between Ports of Entry is funded at 

$3,605,732,000, which reflects an $8,000,000 decrease to move reVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

sponsibility for detainee medical costs to ICE. This level continues 

to support a Border Patrol agent force of 21,370 (compared to 

12,349 in fiscal year 2006), including 2,212 deployed to the Northern border and 18,415 deployed to the Southwest border. Air and Marine Operations are funded at $284,530,000, which in- cludes an increase of $5,940,000 to restore pilots and other operational personnel cut in the budget request; a reduction of $805,000 

denied for the Joint Operations Division; and a reduction of 

$368,000 to consolidate support for the Joint Field Command in the 

Border Security and Control PPA. 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by program, project, and activity (PPA) is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Headquarters, Management, and Administration: 

Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation ........................................... $601,414,000 – – – 

Border Security and Control between Ports of Entry ......................................... 665,646,000 – – – 

Commissioner ..................................................................................................... – – – $16,442,000 

Chief Counsel ..................................................................................................... – – – 39,414,000 

Congressional Affairs ......................................................................................... – – – 2,060,000 

Internal Affairs ................................................................................................... – – – 154,108,000 

Public Affairs ...................................................................................................... – – – 12,563,000 

Training and Development ................................................................................. – – – 78,721,000 

Tech, Innovation, Acquisition ............................................................................. – – – 25,704,000 

Intelligence/Investigative Liaison ....................................................................... – – – 69,426,000 

Administration .................................................................................................... – – – 417,963,000 

Rent .................................................................................................................... 614,871,000 614,871,000 

Subtotal, Headquarters Management and Administration ....................... 1,881,931,000 1,431,272,000 

Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation: 

Inspections, Trade, and Travel Facilitation at Ports of Entry ........................... 2,480,674,000 2,554,326,000 

Harbor Maintenance Fee Collection (Trust Fund) .............................................. 3,285,000 3,274,000 

International Cargo Screening ............................................................................ 71,534,000 71,396,000 

Other international programs ............................................................................. 27,084,000 27,017,000 

Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism .................................................. 40,082,000 43,979,000 

Trusted Traveler Programs ................................................................................. 6,311,000 10,311,000 

Inspection and Detection Technology Investments ............................................ 117,575,000 117,565,000 

Automated Targeting Systems ............................................................................ 113,826,000 113,820,000 

National Targeting Center .................................................................................. 65,127,000 67,956,000 

Training ............................................................................................................... 34,860,000 34,846,000 

Subtotal, Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation .................. 2,960,358,000 3,044,490,000 

Border Security and Control between Ports of Entry: 

Border Security and Control ............................................................................... 3,551,840,000 3,531,793,000 

Training ............................................................................................................... 74,110,000 73,939,000 

Subtotal, Border Security and Control between POEs .............................. 3,625,950,000 3,605,732,000 

Air and Marine Operations .......................................................................................... 280,819,000 284,530,000 

US–VISIT ...................................................................................................................... 261,523,000 – – – 

Total, CBP Salaries and Expenses ................................................... $9,010,581,000 $8,366,024,000 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

The quality of the Congressional Budget Justification material 

provided by the Department for CBP accounts continues to be of 

concern, despite some minor improvements in the fiscal year 2013 

materials. CBP, in conjunction with the Chief Financial officer, is 

encouraged to work with the Committee in ensuring the Congressional Budget Justification materials provide accurate, detailed information upon which to assess the request. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

FEE SHORTFALLS AND BUDGET GIMMICKS

Despite knowledge to the contrary, the President’s budget request assumes that CBP has access to $110,000,000 in fee revenues 

pursuant to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement’s elimination of 

certain exemptions to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) fees. However, the fees are not accessible to CBP; therefore, the budget request again relies upon a 

budget gimmick, leaving the Committee with a critical operational 

shortfall of $110,000,000. Further, the shortfall persists annually 

until fiscal year 2022. As a result, the bill includes a general provision directing the Department, in coordination with the Office of 

Management and Budget, to include access to these fees in the fiscal year 2014 budget request and beyond, with appropriate offsets. 

The Committee expects DHS to submit an appropriate and adequate reprogramming request to address the $83,000,000 shortfall 

in the current fiscal year as a result of the same failure by the Administration to realize the funds are inaccessible. The Committee 

also expects the Administration to provide a budget amendment to 

address the shortfall in its fiscal year 2013 request of $110,000,000. 

As the Committee has not yet received that budget amendment, 

the Committee includes an increase in appropriated funds for OFO 

of $70,000,000, offset by reductions to CBP headquarters offices, to 

largely address the shortfall. To fill the remaining $40,000,000 gap, 

the Committee relies upon CBP’s increasing fee revenues. It is unacceptable that the Administration continues to put the Committee 

in the position of having to make up fee shortfalls by providing appropriations—further squeezing the Department’s allocation. The 

Committee will not likely be able to do so beyond fiscal year 2013. 

Compounding the issues outlined above, CBP has not demonstrated the ability to manage fluctuations in fee funding levels. 

Given that approximately 37 percent of CBP officers are funded by 

user fees, the failure to properly project and manage these fees has 

a significant operational impact—not only on CBP but on the traveling public and on our national security posture. While CBP has 

considered submitting legislative proposals for changes to their fee 

collections, a thoughtful, thorough approach has not been proposed 

with a concerted effort to implement changes. Given these issues, 

the Committee is concerned that CBP has failed to manage and 

forecast these funds effectively despite current budget pressures, 

thereby increasing the operational challenges CBP faces in an already constrained environment. 

To address these failures and to assist the Committee in its oversight, the Committee directs the Commissioner of CBP to refine 

and independently validate the assumptions used to forecast the 

user fee revenue in order to more accurately project such revenue; 

to reassess the appropriate carryover for each user fee account and 

independently validate the rationale for required carryover and the 

parameters for accessing carryover funds; and to establish policies 

for how fee funds are budgeted and executed in relation to appropriated funds requested for OFO activities. The OFO shall participate in all aspects of this effort. The COBRA and Immigration Inspection User Fees should be prioritized in this effort. 

CBP shall brief the Committee no later than 60 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act on its project plan and milestones for 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
31 

this effort. CBP shall report to the Committee no later than 270 

days after the date of enactment of this Act on its findings and 

policies related to projecting fee collections; determining and maintaining carryover balances; budgeting for fee collections; and establishing the relationship of fee funds to appropriated funds. The report shall delineate any changes made to prior policies as a result 

of this review. Additionally, the Committee directs CBP to provide 

in the budget request its forecast of fee revenues for four fiscal 

years rather than merely three. For example, the fiscal year 2014 

request shall include actuals for fiscal year 2012, estimates for fiscal year 2013, and projections for fiscal years 2014 and 2015. 

Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that CBP’s user fee 

management and projections are not available to CBP’s stakeholders both internally and externally. To improve transparency 

and credibility, the Committee directs CBP to make available on its 

website, and in the Federal Register, information on its fee projections, the cost of inspections, and its use of fee funds to offset the 

cost of inspections by mode and by other appropriate break outs. 

The Committee urges CBP to reconstitute its Airport and Seaport 

User Fee Advisory Committee to collaborate and discuss with 

stakeholders, on at least a semi-annual basis, the processes for setting, collecting, managing, and forecasting CBP user fees. 

FEE BALANCES

In a report (GAO–11–318SP), the Government Accountability Of- fice (GAO) identified what appeared to be $639,400,000 in unobligated fee balances that could potentially be used by CBP to address 

operational shortfalls. Unfortunately, it does not appear that these 

funds are accessible to CBP. No later than January 30, 2013 the 

Committee directs CBP to report on the final determination regarding the availability of these funds and the path for eliminating 

them from CBP’s books. 

PORT OF ENTRY OPERATIONS—MANPOWER AND INNOVATION

As the Committee has not yet received the CBP workload staffing allocation model, the Committee cannot assess CBP’s identified 

needs. While the Committee is prepared to consider well-documented operational staffing increase proposals, the Committee continues to press CBP to innovate and move its operations in a less 

manpower-intensive direction. The Committee recommends that 

CBP continue to consider the following: (1) re-engineering port of 

entry processes to automate more administrative tasks and focus 

staff on core operational activities, such as fully implementing the 

Land Border Initiative (LBI) and new automated pedestrian processing procedures; (2) further segmenting travelers and cargo by 

risk and facilitating the entry of lower risk traffic by expanding 

and improving the targeting capabilities in ATS for pedestrians, 

passenger vehicles, trucks, and air and sea passengers; (3) expanding the use of staffing workload alignment tool to additional airports in order to better anticipate short-term staffing demands and 

reduce wait times at primary inspection areas; (4) exploring publicprivate partnerships to facilitate trade and travel; (5) facilitating 

the entry of lower risk traffic by strengthening and expanding registered traveler programs, including the Global Entry and Free and 

Secure Trade (FAST) programs; and (6) identifying areas where 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
32 

technology investments could increase CBP officer efficiency or better utilize available staffing. 

Further, the Committee notes that trade and travel patterns 

change over time and that may mean increased volume through 

particular ports of entry with seasonal or limited traffic today. As 

such, the Committee directs CBP to work closely with the fullrange of stakeholders at each port of entry to anticipate such 

changes and ensure appropriate staffing is available as traffic 

changes. The Committee notes that the workload staffing allocation 

model should have inputs to take this into account. Since CBP has 

not yet submitted the model, the Committee directs CBP to brief 

the Committee no later than 90 days after the date of enactment 

of this Act on anticipated traffic flows at land ports of entry and 

how staffing will be reallocated to accommodate those changes. 

GLOBAL ENTRY

The Committee is pleased to see the Global Entry program transition from a successful pilot to a permanent trusted traveler program. The Committee encourages CBP to continue to increase individual enrollment as well as the number of nations eligible to participate in the program. This will allow greater numbers of very 

low-risk travelers to efficiently move through security screening 

and give CBP personnel the ability to put greater focus on higherrisk travelers. The Committee encourages DHS to integrate trusted 

traveler programs to the extent practicable by moving to a standardized, single application for personal information. To increase 

participation, CBP should partner with the Department of State so 

that passport applicants also receive a trusted traveler application 

form, and continually update the trusted traveler application form 

to make it user-friendly. In order to facilitate expansion of Global 

Entry, the Committee recommends an additional $4,000,000 above 

the request to purchase, deploy, and manage approximately 100 additional kiosks and commence a targeted marketing campaign to 

boost enrollment. CBP shall also ensure that enrollment locations 

have adequate staffing to facilitate timely in-person biometric collection and interviews. 

WAIT TIMES

The Committee continues to be interested in monitoring CBP 

processing times. Beginning no later than January 30, 2013 and on 

a quarterly basis thereafter, CBP is directed to brief the Committee 

on the number of passenger arrivals at air and sea ports of entry 

for which the immigration and customs processing time exceeds 60 

minutes. The Committee also directs CBP to include on its website 

wait time information for air, land, and sea ports of entry. 

Additionally, the Committee directs CBP to work with appropriate stakeholders at each port to share methodology for wait time 

data. The Committee believes CBP has made significant progress 

in collecting and reporting wait time information, but CBP should 

be more open in sharing data and methodology with stakeholders 

to improve processes collaboratively and reduce wait times. This is 

particularly critical at major airports experiencing challenges, including Newark Liberty, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta, Los Angeles, 

and John F. Kennedy International Airports. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
33 

CARGO SECURITY STRATEGY AND INSPECTING HIGH RISK CARGO

OVERSEAS

In 2002, CBP launched several bold initiatives as part of a comprehensive, layered approach to securing the international supply 

chain, particularly for containerized cargo bound for the United 

States. While the vision has not been fully realized, it remains a 

solid approach upon which CBP can continue to build. The approach starts with advance information about the cargo and the entities and individuals involved in moving that cargo as early in the 

supply chain as possible. A series of regulations and voluntary efforts have resulted in continued enhancement to the quality and 

timeliness of the data. CBP then screens 100 percent of the cargo 

through advanced targeting techniques to assess risk. In order to 

scan, examine, or otherwise inspect high-risk cargo before it arrives 

in a U.S. port, CBP deployed officers to more than 58 foreign ports 

through the Container Security Initiative (CSI). In some cases, CSI 

has enabled CBP to deepen its relationships with foreign partners, 

going beyond merely a promise to inspect high-risk cargo, to create 

joint targeting regimes and share valuable information to which 

the U.S. Government does not have access. Once cargo reaches the 

United States, it passes through radiation detection technology and 

may be subject to scanning by non-intrusive inspection equipment 

or more rigorous inspection. 

Through C–TPAT, CBP works with industry to reach into the 

supply chain from the point of origin and institute tighter security 

measures throughout the international supply chain. CBP conducts 

audits of participating companies to ensure they meet the rigorous 

standards instituted. Further, CBP has encouraged foreign partners to institute similar programs and to establish mutual recognition of the programs to provide participants with more tangible 

benefits. The U.S. Government also worked extensively with international organizations, particularly the International Maritime Organization and the World Customs Organization, to significantly 

raise international standards for security. 

The Committee supports this approach and appreciates that the 

fiscal year 2013 budget requests adequate funds for the CSI program for the first time in several years. The Committee remains 

concerned about whether the personnel deployed through CSI have 

the right skills and training to most effectively represent U.S. interests. Therefore, the Committee directs CBP to brief the Committee on its plan for ensuring that CSI staff have suitable diplomatic, cultural, and language skills, as well as the appropriate 

knowledge and training to meet program goals. 

The request proposes a cut to C–TPAT that will reduce the number of audits CBP conducts causing a potentially significant denigration in security at a time when CBP and industry are attempting to bolster the program’s benefits and participation. For that 

reason, the Committee recommends an additional $4,000,000 to address that shortfall. Further, the Committee directs CBP to expand 

C–TPAT participation, continue working with participants to find 

ways to provide real benefits, and continue efforts with interagency 

partners to streamline entry and inspection processes. In no way, 

however, does this suggest that CBP or other agencies eliminate 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
34 

random inspections or reduce inspection of goods due to targeting 

activities. 

The Committee has strongly supported CBP’s advance information collection and targeting efforts. However, the Committee notes 

that CBP’s data collection and targeting efforts have not been as 

robust in export enforcement and encourages more activity in this 

area. Such activity would enhance counter proliferation capabilities 

and would bolster opportunities for partnership with foreign governments on supply chain security. Further, the Committee encourages CBP to ensure a strong U.S. presence at the World Customs 

Organization. 

The Committee notes that the request does not include funds for 

implementation of 100 percent scanning and that the Secretary has 

already announced a two-year extension of the implementation 

deadline of July 1, 2012 pursuant to the 9/11 Act. The cost implications, according to the Department, are substantial. DHS equipment costs alone would be about $8,000,000 for every one of the 

2,100 shipping lanes at the more than 700 ports that ship to the 

United States. Further, the Secretary has consistently and repeatedly asserted the challenges with the 100 percent scanning mandate, and has even called for statutory changes. On February 25, 

2012 before the House Committee on Homeland Security, the Secretary stated: 

. . . the goal, of course, is to prevent harmful material 

from entering the United States. What we don’t have is 

agreement as to whether 100 percent scanning is the best 

way to achieve that, or whether [it] is even feasible from 

a diplomatic and logistics point of view. It’s my conclusion 

that it is not currently feasible, but there are other ways 

that get us to the same place . . . we’d be happy to work 

with the Committee on some of this. My current intent will 

be to extend the deadline that presently is in statute. 

Based on the Secretary’s statements that current law is costprohibitive, the Committee looks forward to seeing the Secretary 

develop and propose a meaningful alternative to 100 percent scanning. 

TRADE FACILITATION AND INTERAGENCY COOPERATION

The Committee appreciates CBP’s continued efforts to work with 

the trade community in facilitating the secure movement of cargo 

and encourages CBP’s cooperative efforts with other agencies toward that same end. In particular, the Committee directs CBP to 

continue to work with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and 

the Consumer Products Safety Commission to provide the trade 

with clear guidelines of what constitutes low-risk shipments. This 

could include the concept of a certified importer program. In no 

way, however, does this suggest that CBP or other agencies eliminate random inspections or reduce inspection of goods due to targeting activities. Any new pilot project or program to promote efficient movement of trade must include a rigorous compliance review 

component, including audits. CBP is required to brief the Committee no later than December 1, 2012 on its efforts. 

In a related initiative, CBP launched two Centers of Excellence 

and Expertise (CEE) in fiscal year 2012 to focus its expertise, trade 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
35 

enforcement, and trade facilitation efforts on particular commodities and industries. These were in the Information Technology & 

Consumer Electronics and Pharmaceuticals, Health & Chemicals 

industries. The fiscal year 2013 request proposes a $3,000,000 increase to expand this concept to additional industries. While the 

Committee supports that request, the Committee is interested in 

seeing the results associated with CBP’s deployment of these CEEs 

and directs CBP to brief the Committee no later than December 1, 

2012. 

OUTBOUND INSPECTIONS

As the Committee noted last year, CBP has devoted substantial 

resources from its base, as well as supplemental funds provided by 

Congress, to conduct outbound inspections along the Southwest 

border. The Committee directs CBP to assess the effectiveness of 

outbound operations considering the costs dedicated to these activities, develop a workforce staffing model for outbound operations, 

and brief the Committee no later than September 1, 2012 on the 

new normal for outbound operations. 

INSPECTION AND DETECTION TECHNOLOGY

The Committee includes $117,565,000 for Inspection and Detection Technology, as requested, except for a reduction associated 

with the pay raise. The Committee is concerned that CBP has not 

yet submitted the multi-year investment and management plan required by law for investments and operations of radiation detection 

equipment and non-intrusive inspection systems. Further, the request does not reflect any plan to address replacement of assets approaching the end of their lifecycles. While this is not necessarily 

a fiscal year 2013 issue, it is definitely an issue in the out-years. 

CBP operations have come to rely upon these technologies in its 

layered approach to effective cargo security and to scan containers 

entering the United States for radiation. The bill withholds funds 

from Salaries and Expenses until the Commissioner submits an updated multi-year investment and management plan required with 

the fiscal year 2014 budget request. 

AUTOMATED TARGETING SYSTEMS

The Committee includes $113,820,000 for ATS, as requested, except for a reduction associated with the pay raise. It is critical that 

CBP continue its enhancements to ATS, one of our Nation’s most 

effective tools to counter terrorist travel and identify risky, illicit 

activity in the global trade and travel systems. The Committee directs CBP to brief the Committee on a quarterly basis regarding 

its progress on enhancements and resulting operational successes. 

As directed, CBP fully funded the request for ATS in this PPA. 

However, CBP still has not submitted plans required to provide 

visibility into CBP’s information technology investments and operations. CBP is again required to provide a detailed accounting of 

funds executed by the Targeting Analysis Systems Project Office 

within OIT from all accounts in fiscal year 2011, estimated for fiscal year 2012, and proposed for fiscal year 2013 broken out by the 

programs, projects, and activities under which they fall, in a briefing to the Committee no later than October 1, 2012. CBP shall inVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
36 

clude an annual update of this information with the President’s 

budget request. 

NATIONAL TARGETING CENTER

The Committee recommends $67,956,000 for the National Targeting Center (NTC), an amount that reflects a reduction associated with the pay raise and includes an increase of $3,000,000 for 

CBP’s role in pre-adjudication vetting of visa applicants. The Committee has a long history of supporting efforts to enhance the security of the visa process and urges the Department to request adequate funds for CBP and ICE to screen visa applicants at the NTC 

with the assistance and participation of the Department of State. 

Further, the Committee encourages these interagency partners to 

assess the screening systems used in the vetting of visa applicants 

and holders to eliminate duplication of effort while ensuring thorough vetting, facilitating legitimate travel, and safeguarding U.S. 

national security interests. 

US–VISIT

The Committee denies the proposed transfer of US–VISIT for a 

total of $261,523,000. However, the Committee recommends a 

transfer of $12,284,000 from US–VISIT to OFO in the Inspections, 

Trade, and Travel Facilitation at POEs PPA. This amount represents US–VISIT program management and planning efforts associated with entry-exit policy and operations. 

OFO is the mission owner for the policy and operations associated with processing legitimate travelers into and out of the country. As such, OFO is responsible for collection of information, including biometrics, from appropriate individuals as part of its processing. While that information resides in the Automated Biometric 

Identification System (IDENT) managed by US–VISIT, CBP owns 

the business process, requirements, and staff necessary for these 

operations. US–VISIT now acts as a service provider and supports 

multiple agencies and operations across Federal, State, and local 

government as well as internationally. The responsibility for 

uniquely identifying individuals in screening processes with biometrics, maintaining those identities, continually enhancing this 

core capability for national security, the integrity of the immigration system, and public safety is well-beyond CBP’s mission. For 

that reason, the Committee recommends that the Office of Biometric Identity Management remain in the National Protection and 

Programs Directorate to manage IDENT and these associated responsibilities. 

Pursuant to the fiscal year 2012 DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 

112–74), $30,000,000 remains withheld from the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management account in fiscal year 2012 until 

the Secretary submits a comprehensive plan for implementation of 

the biometric air exit system, including the estimated cost of implementation. The Committee believes the Secretary has sufficient incentive to complete the plan and expects to see it shortly. 

BORDER PATROL AND BORDER SECURITY BETWEEN PORTS OF ENTRY

The Committee fully funds Border Security and Control between 

POEs at $3,605,732,000, including $73,939,000 for training, less a 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
37 

reduction for the pay raise. This recommendation continues to support an overall staffing level of 21,370 Border Patrol agents. 

Pursuant to House Report 112–91 and the Joint Explanatory 

Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2012 DHS Appropriations 

Act (P.L. 112–74), CBP was directed to submit a five-year staffing 

and deployment plan for the Border Patrol. The Committee sought 

CBP’s assessment of the ‘‘optimal and sustainable staffing level’’ 

necessary to perform its critical border security mission between 

the POEs, taking into consideration ‘‘the significant growth in the 

Border Patrol workforce (from 12,350 in fiscal year 2006 to 21,370 

in fiscal year 2012),’’ as well as the rate ‘‘of illegal crossings, apprehension rates, and apprehensions per agent.’’ The Committee emphasized that ‘‘securing the border is a national priority. Doing it 

right requires the right mix of personnel, technology, and infrastructure.’’ The Committee noted its staunch support for ‘‘the increases that have been made for Border Patrol operations’’ while 

asserting that ‘‘sustaining the significant costs of these enhancements in our current fiscal environment will be a challenge.’’ 

Rather than assess any requirements or criteria for distribution 

of resources, CBP’s report stated that 21,370 agents were funded 

in fiscal year 2012 and they would be deployed as stated years earlier—with 2,212 agents on the Northern border and 18,415 on the 

Southwest border. The report failed to address any goals for border 

security that would shape staffing and resource deployment or note 

any factors that affect deployment. No later than December 1, 2012 

CBP is directed to provide to the Committee a five-year staffing 

and deployment plan that justifies the funded staffing level in detail, including the tasks performed by agents; outlines the factors 

related to deployment by sector; and provides criteria for redistribution of resources to address threats. 

MEDICAL COSTS FOR DETAINEES

The President’s budget request included $8,000,000 in Border Patrol for transfer to ICE for medical costs associated with CBP detainees. The Committee understands that CBP and ICE came to 

agreement in late fiscal year 2011 that CBP should transfer funds 

to ICE to support detainees who required medical care while in 

CBP custody through a reimbursable arrangement. Under the 

agreement, ICE has authority for detainee medical services and it 

sponsors, sets policy, and manages the development, implementation, operation, and maintenance of related business processes. 

It is clear that CBP does not have the expertise to provide the 

medical services for individuals in CBP custody. Further, ICE is 

performing this function for CBP, as it always has, including funding the care until the reimbursable agreement was signed. ICE is 

best positioned to budget for medical costs for all detainees and to 

ensure the quality of detainee care. Therefore, the Committee 

moves the funds budgeted by CBP for medical care of its detainees 

to ICE. In future years, ICE should include this estimate in its 

budget. CBP should support ICE in its request. 

VEHICLE FLEET MANAGEMENT

In the fiscal year 2013 request, CBP changed its assumptions regarding vehicle fleet maintenance costs and extended the lifecycle 

of its fleet. While this does not have immediate implications, the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
38 

Committee questions the assumptions underlying the lifecycle extension, particularly for Border Patrol operational vehicles. Despite 

investments in border access roads, the operating environment and 

usage takes a toll on Border Patrol vehicles. The Committee directs 

CBP to revise its lifecycles for operational vehicles with the fiscal 

year 2014 request. 

JOINT OPERATIONS EFFORTS

The Committee remains concerned that CBP’s joint operations efforts at the field level and headquarters largely amount to additional layers of bureaucracy. While the personnel deployed to the 

Joint Field Command (JFC) in Arizona are using the opportunity 

to identify operational challenges and seek to address them, Border 

Patrol, Air and Marine, and OFO could improve the integration of 

their efforts with stronger leadership at both the field and headquarters levels. 

As one example, Border Patrol already has the authority to direct air and marine assets. However, the assets are finite and deployed from fixed locations that often cover multiple sectors. Better 

communication between Air and Marine and Border Patrol leaders 

in the field is necessary in all areas of operation—not just Arizona; 

counterparts must work together and personalities cannot be allowed to get in the way of delivering for the mission. Further, Air 

and Marine assets appropriately serve other law enforcement and 

homeland security needs. Air and Marine headquarters, in conjunction with Border Patrol and other customers, should reassess the 

optimal deployment of its air assets as part of its capitalization 

plan update. 

CBP is directed to brief the Committee on all plans, milestones, 

and costs for establishing and operating joint field efforts no later 

than July 1, 2012. 

BORDER SEARCH, TRAUMA, AND RESCUE

The Committee encourages CBP to maintain and, if possible, expand its efforts to provide medical aid and Border Search, Trauma, 

and Rescue personnel in the Southwest to reduce the incidence of 

deaths in the desert. The Committee recommends that CBP work 

with civil society organizations in the region to conduct rescue operations and to construct and maintain rescue beacons to identify 

and locate persons in remote areas. 

OFFICE OF AIR AND MARINE STAFFING

The Committee recommends $284,530,000 for Air and Marine 

Operations, including a reduction for the proposed pay raise, a reduction for funds allotted to the Joint Operations Division, and an 

increase of $5,940,000 to restore the cut to operational staff. 

INTEGRITY PROGRAMS

The Committee remains concerned with reports from CBP’s Office of Internal Affairs that drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) 

have been seeking to infiltrate CBP, compromise CBP employees, 

and corrupt the agency. The Committee strongly supports CBP’s 

initiative to mitigate these challenges through polygraph examination and periodic background re-investigation, as well as the proviVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
39 

sion of workforce safeguards to reduce and prevent corruption. CBP 

should ensure that its ethics, integrity, and conduct programs include training at the time of recruitment, hiring, basic academy, inservice, and advanced stages of an agent or officer’s career. 

The Committee directs CBP to continue briefing the Committee 

on a semi-annual basis on the funds available for and progress regarding polygraph examinations, background investigations, and 

periodic re-investigations as well as the budget, staffing, and effectiveness of its integrity efforts. 

Given the gravity of CBP’s responsibilities, the growth in CBP 

staffing over recent years, and the significant harm that would be 

caused by infiltration by DTOs, the Committee directs GAO to report to the Committee on CBP’s integrity program no later than 

120 days after the date of enactment of this Act. The report should 

assess CBP’s ethics, conduct, and integrity training programs to ensure that they are: (1) standardized, systematic, integrated, and 

regularized as part of an officer’s and agent’s career; and (2) part 

of a formalized strategy for misconduct and corruption prevention. 

The report should also consider whether additional enhancements 

or resources are necessary. 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PLANS

In a report released April 17, 2012 (OIG–12–63), OIG reviewed 

CBP’s management of its Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 

program and found that CBP has not effectively managed its program to control costs. Further, OIG recommended that CBP review 

all workers’ compensation cases to ensure that employees who have 

been medically cleared to return to work have actually been returned to work. The Committee believes this recommendation is 

particularly important and encourages CBP to take every possible 

step to achieve that end, including collaborating with delegated supervisors or managers to establish productive and suitable lightduty job assignments for employees who can return to work. The 

Committee directs CBP to brief the Committee on its progress in 

implementing the OIG recommendations, the nature of its workers’ 

compensation claims, and trends associated with claims over the 

past 10 years. The briefing shall take place no later than October 

1, 2012. 

TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS AND BORDER CONTROL

The Committee supports the Department’s efforts to develop a 

next generation plan for tactical communications needs across DHS 

called TacNet. However, the Committee is concerned that this 

longer-term effort has the potential to sideline CBP’s progress in 

closing its own already-identified tactical communication gaps. The 

Committee directs the Department Joint Program Management Office and the appropriate DHS participants to continue briefing the 

Committee on a semi-annual basis on its planning efforts, including progress to date, future milestones, and costs. In conjunction 

with that briefing, CBP shall provide a description of its identified 

communication gaps and its schedule to close those gaps, including 

any operational changes the Border Patrol has made to address 

them. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
40 

DETENTION STATISTICS

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). These statistics shall include a list of all the facilities used 

for short-term custody; the country of origin of those in CBP custody; age, sex, duration of detention for those individuals in CBP 

custody; and the circumstances of their release (repatriation, referral to ICE, referral to Department of Justice, etc.). The Committee 

directs the Department to publish annually these statistics in its 

annual statistical yearbook. Additionally, the Committee directs 

CBP to report to the Committee no later than 60 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act on the standards governing the conditions of custody and what oversight mechanisms CBP employs to 

monitor short-term detention conditions and lengths of time of detention. 

PREVENTING HUMAN TRAFFICKING

The Committee strongly supports DHS efforts to broaden human 

trafficking awareness and counter the evils of this modern form of 

slavery. CBP plays a critical role in identifying potential human 

trafficking victims as they attempt to enter the United States. 

Through its Blue Lightning Initiative, CBP provides U.S. commercial airlines and their employees with training on how to identify 

potential human trafficking victims and a voluntary reporting 

mechanism to notify Federal authorities through an in-flight reporting protocol. CBP also launched the No Te Engan ̃ es campaign 

to raise awareness in the international community as well. In conjunction with the Blue Campaign, the Committee recommends that 

information and resources regarding human trafficking, including 

but not limited to the Department of Health and Human Service’s 

National Human Trafficking Resource Center hotline and website, 

be posted at all U.S. ports of entry. No less than $20,000,000 shall be spent on CBP’s Blue Campaign 

activities in fiscal year 2013. The Committee directs CBP to brief 

on its efforts no later than 120 days after the date of enactment 

of this Act. 

CBP should continue to ensure that unaccompanied children are 

properly screened for sexual assault, trafficking, exploitation or 

other mistreatment. The Committee encourages CBP to work with 

local child welfare organizations or other appropriate organizations 

to assist in screening and to ensure appropriate training of CBP 

personnel. 

TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

The Committee includes $4,750,000, as in previous years, to continue textile transshipment enforcement. The Committee directs 

CBP to ensure that the activities of the Textile and Apparel Policies and Programs Office, specifically seizures, detention, and special operations, are maintained at least at the level of those activities in prior years. The Committee directs CBP to update annually 

and submit a report with the budget request on execution of its 

five-year strategic plan. The report should include information covVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
41 

ering enforcement activities; textile production verification team 

exercises and special operations; numbers of seizures; penalties imposed; and the numbers and types of personnel responsible for enforcing textile laws (including headquarters staff in the Textile Enforcement Operations Division). 

CIRCUMVENTION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES-IMPORTS FROM CHINA

The Committee directs CBP to submit a report on the extent and 

frequency of customs fraud, including circumvention of duties and 

misclassification on entries of imports of goods from China. This report should include information covering enforcement activities, 

numbers of seizures, estimated value of seizures by category, penalties imposed, the numbers and types of personnel responsible (including interagency collaboration for enforcing laws), and estimated 

costs to reduce substantially the incidence of illegal transshipments. The Committee directs CBP to submit a report with the 

data for fiscal year 2012 no later than February 1, 2013. 

EFFORTS TO COUNTER ABUSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

The Committee has strongly supported efforts to combat smuggling and abuse of prescription drugs. CBP and ICE are directed 

to submit a comprehensive report on their activities, resources, and 

challenges to address this important issue. The report shall be submitted no later than February 15, 2013. 

TRAINING

In December 2011, GAO issued a report entitled ‘‘Border Security: Additional Steps Needed to Ensure That Officers Are Fully 

Trained’’ (GAO–12–269). The Committee directs CBP to brief the 

Committee on its corrective action plan and the status of implementation of GAO recommendations no later than September 1, 

2012. GAO found that CBP does not have reliable training completion records to ensure officers received required training and that 

over 4,000 officers had not completed courses in immigration fundamentals, immigration, law and agriculture fundamentals. In addition, the Committee directs GAO to follow up on the findings of 

this report one year after its release to identify progress that has 

been made and any remaining deficiencies. 

To ensure Border Patrol agents and CBP officers get the training 

they need to meet the mission and to build leaders for the organization’s future, the Committee urges CBP and FLETC to collaborate with regionally accredited institutions of higher education to 

develop standardized curriculum, course requirements, and a program accreditation system that will lead to efficiencies in time and 

money in the deployment of additional Border Patrol agents and 

CBP officers and that will provide opportunities for existing agents 

and officers to advance professionally through undergraduate and 

graduate programs in operationally related fields. Further, the 

Committee notes that House Report 112–91 requires CBP and 

FLETC to brief the Committee on these issues later this calendar 

year. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
42 

HIRING AND STAFFING REPORTS

The Committee directs CBP to continue submitting monthly 

staffing and hiring reports in the format that was used in fiscal 

year 2011. Further, the Committee expects CBP to correctly provide the fiscal year 2012 reports in that same format. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $334,275,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 327,526,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 700,242,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +365,967,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. +372,716,000 

MISSION

Automation Modernization historically has included funding for 

major information technology modernization and development 

projects for CBP, including the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system and the multi-agency International Trade Data 

System (ITDS); support and transition of the legacy Automated 

Commercial System (ACS); the integration and connectivity of information technology infrastructure within CBP and DHS as part 

of Current Operations Protection and Processing Support (COPPS); 

modernization of the TECS enforcement and compliance system; 

and the Terrorism Prevention Systems Enhancements (TPSE) initiative aimed at enhancing system infrastructure to ensure continuity of operations in critical passenger programs. The account is 

now expanded to include all of the funds executed by OIT, with the 

exception of ATS and Inspection and Detection Technology Investments. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $700,242,000 for Automation Modernization, $372,716,000 above the request and $365,967,000 above 

fiscal year 2012. The significant increase is due to the Committee’s 

recommendation to provide greater visibility into the Salaries and 

Expenses account and realign IT funds from that account into Automation Modernization. 

CBP’s IT capabilities are essential to its operations. However, 

CBP has not provided visibility into its management of this significant investment, including its failure to submit a statutorily required multi-year investment and management plan for IT. In addition, the flawed budget request regarding CBP’s access to fee collections created $110,000,000 shortfall in OFO. Therefore, the Committee has reduced OIT by $24,000,000, which includes a denial of 

the proposed pay increase, and cut ACE by $2,000,000. 

The bill withholds funds from Salaries and Expenses until the 

Commissioner submits an updated multi-year investment and management plan required with the fiscal year 2014 budget request. 

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

Budget estimate Recommended 

Information Technology ................................................................................................ – – – * $374,716,000 

Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data System (ITDS) .......... $140,794,000 138,794,000 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
43 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Current Operations Protection and Processing Support (COPPS) ............................... 186,732,000 186,732,000 

Total, Automation Modernization ........................................................................ $327,526,000 $700,242,000 

* Request in Salaries and Expenses for corresponding activity is $399,058,000. 

ACE AND ITDS REPORTING

The Committee continues to be disappointed with the information CBP can provide on the cost and schedule for Cargo Release, 

among other ACE capabilities that the trade community has long 

sought. The Committee directs CBP to continue its quarterly briefings on ACE/ITDS progress. The next quarterly briefing shall include CBP’s estimate of the full cost and schedule for Cargo Release. 

TECS

Funding for TECS Modernization of $55,000,000 is included 

within the COPPS PPA, as requested, to replace existing, antiquated mainframe elements of TECS with a sustainable, modern 

architecture and graphical user interfaces. More importantly, the 

new flexible architecture for TECS provides new capabilities to 

users that are already bearing results, such as the Consolidated 

Secondary Inspection System to give CBP officers more information 

at ports of entry. A joint effort between CBP and ICE, TECS modernization is to be completed in the next three years. The Committee is concerned that ICE is not on track with CBP’s timeline 

for retirement of the TECS mainframe that will result in a significant resource burden for ICE in future years. The Committee directs CBP and ICE to brief the Committee no later than December 

1, 2012, on the status of modernization efforts, progress in fiscal 

year 2012 and plans for fiscal year 2013. 

AVAILABILITY OF AUTOMATED SYSTEMS

The Committee continues to be concerned about CBP’s ability to 

maintain availability of its IT systems that are so critical to its operations. Upgrades are being continually deferred in a manner that 

reduces availability and compounds the cost of operating old infrastructure. The Committee directs CBP to brief on its progress implementing the recommendations in OIG report OIG–11–42 no 

later than September 1, 2012 as well as the unfunded costs of upgrades to ensure system reliability and availability. 

BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $400,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 327,099,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 327,099,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥72,901,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

The Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology 

(BSFIT) account funds the technology and tactical infrastructure 

solutions to achieve effective control of the U.S. borders. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
44 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $327,099,000 for Border Security 

Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT), as requested and 

$72,901,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The 

Committee recommends $188,816,000 for development and deployment, which will fund technology and tactical infrastructure investment, including $10,000,000 for Northern border technology and 

$40,000,000 for tactical communications; and $138,283,000 for operations and maintenance, as requested. The Committee appreciates movement of OTIA personnel to Salaries and Expenses. The 

bill withholds funds from Salaries and Expenses until the Commissioner submits the updated multi-year investment and management plan required with the fiscal year 2014 budget request. 

While it is clear that the Border Patrol requires additional tools 

and technology to execute its critical mission, the Committee remains concerned about CBP’s execution of BSFIT funds consistent 

with the Administration’s assertion that the Arizona Border Technology Plan funds commercial off-the-shelf technologies that can be 

rapidly deployed. In January 2011, the effort was officially 

launched though planning had been ongoing. More than 16 months 

later, BSFIT funds for the Arizona Plan remain largely unobligated, and many major procurement actions have not yet been 

awarded, including the Remote Video Surveillance Systems 

(RVSS). 

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

Budget estimate Recommended 

Development and Deployment: 

Southwest Border Technology ............................................................................. $138,816,000 $138,816,000 

Northern Border Technology ................................................................................ 10,000,000 10,000,000

Tactical Communications ................................................................................... 40,000,000 40,000,000

Subtotal, Development and Deployment ........................................................ 188,816,000 188,816,000 

Operations and Maintenance ...................................................................................... 138,283,000 138,283,000 

Total, BSFIT ................................................................................................ $327,099,000 $327,099,000 

SOUTHWEST BORDER TECHNOLOGY

The Committee admonishes CBP for the significant and unacceptable delays in procurement actions associated with the Arizona 

Border Technology Plan. By the Department’s own statements, the 

procurement schedule was devised to purchase and rapidly deploy 

off-the-shelf technology to meet the Border Patrol’s necessary mission requirements. Yet, 16 months after the announcement of such 

plan, none of the procurements has been timely awarded and all 

the deployments have been delayed. CBP’s procurement schedule 

will be published in the Committee’s hearing volume for fiscal year 

2013, comparing the original and updated target dates. While CBP 

has issued two requests for proposals covering RVSS replacement, 

new RVSS, and Integrated Fixed Towers (IFT) in the past two 

months, the deployment of these capabilities is not realistically 

completed before fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Compounding CBP’s 

failures and delays, many of the technologies have not met CBP exVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
45 

pectations in terms of being adequately ruggedized for the Border 

Patrol environment and functioning as promised from the start. 

The Committee notes that, as of January 31, 2012, CBP has $732,797,651 in unobligated balances in BSFIT, including 

$353,403,657 from fiscal year 2011 and prior years. For IFT, CBP 

has $117,000,000 in unobligated funds plus the request of 

$92,000,000 for fiscal year 2013. However, according to CBP’s procurement schedule, only one of the systems should be completed before fiscal year 2014, and two systems will not start deployment 

until fiscal year 2014. Recognizing the long-lead time for deployment of these capabilities, the Committee recommends rescission of 

$40,412,000 from prior appropriations for IFT to apply those funds 

to CBP Air and Marine operations, supporting a significant increase in the proposed flight hours. These funds will provide immediate border security operational benefit while enabling CBP to 

maintain its IFT investments and deployments as currently 

planned. 

The Committee directs CBP to move expeditiously and appropriately to award and deploy these capabilities no later than its 

current schedule. Since 2005, the Committee has aggressively supported the significant increase and sustainment in agents, the deployment and maintenance of fencing and other tactical infrastructure, and the continued investment in air assets. Given these investments, fixed surveillance technology stands as the last remaining major investment needed to adequately equip the Border Patrol 

with the tools to fulfill its vital mission. The Committee will not 

tolerate additional delays attributed to mere bureaucratic causes. 

Congress has provided strong support year after year to ensure 

Border Patrol agents have the tools they need to perform their critical mission. Further bureaucratic delays fail those agents and risk 

border security—outcomes the Committee will not abide. 

In developing the multi-year investment and management plan 

for BSFIT funds, the Committee directs CBP to assess the deployment of fixed versus mobile capabilities for border security surveillance, including the short and long-term costs and benefits of different assets. Such an assessment is valuable given the flexibility 

associated with mobile assets, including airborne assets; the continual improvements in available technologies; the long lead time 

for deploying fixed capabilities; and intelligence associated with 

how adversaries adapt to avoid fixed assets. 

OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND SUPPORT

The Committee includes $138,283,000, as requested, for the operation and maintenance of systems and infrastructure deployed with 

BSFIT funding, including $3,000,000 requested for environmental 

mitigation deemed necessary as a direct result of construction, operations, and maintenance activities for border security. 

REPORTING AND BRIEFING REQUIREMENTS

The bill continues the requirement for a multi-year investment 

and management plan for BSFIT funds to be submitted simultaneously with the fiscal year 2014 budget request. The Committee 

also directs CBP to continue to brief the Committee on a quarterly 

basis on the status of BSFIT programs and investments. As a new 

requirement, given the significant delays in procurements related 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
46 

to the Arizona Border Technology Plan, the Committee directs CBP 

to provide weekly notification on procurement actions on each technology investment until all initial contract awards have been made. 

OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ACQUISITION

The Committee has encouraged CBP to innovate and improve 

management of its operations on a continuous basis, particularly in 

procuring and incorporating technology. At the same time, the 

Committee is concerned about the internal upheaval associated 

with the establishment of OTIA. The Committee encourages CBP 

to limit reorganization of programs under OTIA and instead utilize 

the expertise within OTIA to support more efficient, effective program management across CBP—keeping the focus on delivering for 

the mission. The Committee will continue to monitor the role OTIA 

plays in CBP’s major programs. 

COOPERATION WITH DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

The Committee continues to encourage CBP to work with the Department of Defense (DOD) to adapt and leverage proven DOD 

technologies for CBP’s border security mission. Cooperative efforts 

with DOD have resulted in deployment of promising capabilities at 

a lower cost. The Committee is aware that CBP has begun discussions with DOD on a formal Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) to outline their cooperative efforts and ensure that all appropriate DOD entities are included. Therefore, the Committee directs CBP to ensure negotiations do not hamper ongoing cooperative efforts and to finalize the MOU no later than December 1, 

2012 to facilitate better coordination and rapid deployment of proven technologies. 

AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND

PROCUREMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $503,966,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 435,769,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 518,469,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +14,503,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. +82,700,000 

MISSION

CBP Air and Marine provides integrated and coordinated border 

interdiction and law enforcement support for homeland security 

missions; provides airspace security for high-risk areas or National 

Special Security Events upon request; and combats efforts to smuggle narcotics and other contraband into the United States. CBP Air 

and Marine also supports counterterrorism efforts of other law enforcement agencies. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $518,469,000 for Air and Marine 

Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement, 

$82,700,000 above the amount requested and $14,503,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The funding includes 

$400,399,000 for operations and maintenance, and $118,070,000 for 

procurement. The procurement funds include increases as follows: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
47 

$21,500,000 for purchase of an additional multi-enforcement aircraft, a high priority for CBP, particularly important given the increasing aircraft retirements CBP expects; $11,000,000 to continue 

the P–3 SLEP of 14 aircraft; and $18,600,000 to purchase and deploy proven, advanced airborne surveillance capabilities. 

INADEQUATE BUDGET REQUESTS

For many years, it has been apparent that the Administration’s 

budget requests shortchange Air and Marine operations and procurement expecting Congress to provide the funds necessary to 

maintain critical air assets and upgrade and standardize the fleet 

to meet CBP’s mission needs as well as CBP’s growing support of 

other agencies. As an example, the operational flight hours have 

shrunk dramatically in recent years. The flight hours estimated for 

the fiscal year 2013 budget request are the lowest in CBP history 

at 65,000. In fiscal year 2006, Air and Marine flew 87,000 hours; 

in fiscal year 2010, flight hours peaked at 107,000; and in fiscal 

year 2012, CBP projects only 81,400 hours. The Committee finds 

these reductions unacceptable, particularly recognizing the impact 

of the proposed cuts on CBP’s operational effectiveness along and 

beyond our immediate borders. CBP’s air assets are critical to intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance; mobility of agents; and 

agent safety. 

CBP must continually invest in its aircraft to maintain and upgrade its fleet. Just under half of the aircraft are over 33 years old 

and showing signs of operational stress. That is why the Committee has strongly supported CBP’s recapitalization plan, and 

Congress has repeatedly provided funding over the request. However, the plan was completed in 2006, and needs and technologies 

have changed since that time. The Committee is still awaiting submission of the new five-year recapitalization plan required in Public Law 112–74. In this bill, the Committee directs CBP to provide 

any updates necessary to the recapitalization plan with the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget request to enable appropriate oversight of CBP’s plans for this important component of border security operations and mission. 

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends an increase above the request of 

$18,600,000 for purchase, deployment, and operations of proven, 

advanced airborne surveillance capabilities, including, but not limited to, sensors and associated software, to be used on CBP’s existing unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). The Committee understands 

that CBP has conducted operational tests with DOD on promising 

technologies that provide long-overdue surveillance capabilities, a 

good example of the results the Committee anticipates as CBP and 

DOD collaborate on on border security capabilities. The Committee 

encourages CBP to incorporate such capabilities into its detection, 

identification, and interdiction strategies and tactics. 

ASSETS IN THE SOURCE AND TRANSIT ZONES

The value of the P–3 fleet in supporting U.S. counter-narcotics 

efforts in the source and transit zone is incontrovertible. From fiscal years 2007 through 2011, the P–3 fleet was directly engaged in 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
48 

the seizure or disruption of 863,092 pounds of narcotics valued at 

more than $9,700,000,000. For every hour flown, that amounts to 

27.9 pounds seized. For that reason, the Committee strongly supports CBP’s efforts to continue its service life extension program 

(SLEP) for the P–3 fleet. The Committee recommends an increase 

of $11,000,000 over the request toward completion of the SLEP for 

the 14 aircraft currently in the program. 

COOPERATION WITH DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

As with the BSFIT account, there are opportunities for CBP to 

partner with DOD in developing, deploying, and maintaining air 

and marine surveillance and interdiction capabilities. The Committee directs CBP to include air and marine capabilities in its 

MOU with DOD. 

Further, the Committee is aware that interagency discussions 

are again underway related to the administration of the Tethered 

Aerostat Radar System (TARS) program. TARS surveillance data is 

used by CBP and by the Joint Interagency Task Force-South in 

support of border security and counter-drug operations. The 

aerostats, which are owned and operated by the Air Force, have not 

been maintained for a number of reasons. However, the Committee 

does not believe that an alternative means of supporting operational needs for surveillance data has been deployed. For that reason, the Committee is concerned about the reduced capability, particularly in the Caribbean, and encourages CBP to work with DOD 

and other interagency partners to develop a short term solution to 

address reduced capability as well as the right long term solution— 

whether that is transfer of the assets, DOD repair of current assets, replacement with other technology or capability, or other solutions. 

U.S. SECURITY INTERESTS IN THE CARIBBEAN

The Committee is deeply concerned about the level of violent 

crime in the two U.S. jurisdictions in the Caribbean, Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which are home to over 3.8 million 

residents. In particular, the Committee notes that the homicide 

rate in each jurisdiction is about six times the national average 

and about three times higher than any other U.S. jurisdiction; 

some estimates indicate that most of these homicides are associated with illegal narcotics trafficking. The public safety and security issues of the U.S. territories in the Caribbean must be a priority. The Committee expects that the Secretary will allocate the 

resources, assets, and personnel to these jurisdictions in a manner 

and to a degree consistent with that principle. 

PUERTO RICO TRUST FUND

The deployment of marine assets in Puerto Rico has been funded 

by the collections of duties and taxes that are deposited in the 

Puerto Rico Trust Fund. The Committee understands that, because 

collections have decreased in certain years, CBP has terminated 

certain operations in the Caribbean Air & Marine Branch (CAMB). 

The Committee directs CBP to brief the Committee no later than 

180 days after the date of enactment of this Act detailing its operations in Puerto Rico and its budgetary decisions affecting those 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
49 

operations, including the funding available in the Puerto Rico 

Trust Fund. 

AIR AND MARINE OPERATIONS CENTER

The Committee encourages CBP to move forward with its analysis of alternatives for expansion of facilities at the Air and Marine 

Operations Center (AMOC) and modernization of AMOC systems. 

The AMOC is a critical national asset that continues to play a key 

role in border security, airspace security, and emergency response 

efforts, as appropriate. The Committee directs CBP to brief on its 

assessment of AMOC needs as well as the schedule and cost associated with any modernization plans no later than December 1, 2012. 

AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS

Recognizing that a portion of the funds in this account are operations and maintenance while the larger portion is procurement, 

the Committee directs CBP to consider proposing one-year availability for the operations and maintenance funds in the fiscal year 

2014 request. Should CBP determine that one-year availability is 

not sufficient, the Committee directs CBP to note the rationale in 

the fiscal year 2014 request for not requesting one-year availability. 

CONSTRUCTION AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $236,596,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 243,666,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 252,567,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +15,971,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. +8,901,000 

MISSION

The Construction and Facilities Management account funds all 

CBP real estate and facilities, with the exception of rental payments, which are funded in the Salaries and Expenses appropriation. This includes consolidating all funding for construction, leasing acquisition, facility program support, operations, management, 

headquarters support, and tunnel remediation activities. This includes the planning, design, and assembly of Border Patrol infrastructure, including Border Patrol stations, checkpoints, temporary 

detention facilities, mission support facilities, training facilities, 

and CBP-owned ports of entry. Construction of tactical infrastructure (fencing, barriers, lighting, and road improvements at the border) is funded through the Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology account. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $252,567,000 for Construction and 

Facilities Management, $8,901,000 above the request and 

$15,971,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The 

funding includes $195,218,000 for Facilities Construction and 

Sustainment and $57,349,000 for Program Oversight and Management, reduced by the amount for the proposed pay raise. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
50 

INVENTORY AND PLAN

The Committee recently received CBP’s real property inventory 

required by law, though it was submitted late. The inventory, however, did not delineate any plans for activities or projects or their 

associated costs. The information necessary for accountability to 

the American taxpayer and for this Committee’s oversight is entirely lacking. The requirement for submission of the real property 

inventory on an annual basis is continued, to include cost information. Reductions were made to the request for the Office of Administration as a result. 

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT COSTS

The program management costs in this appropriation remain 

high, despite the reduced activity since ARRA funds have been executed. The Committee directs CBP to report to the Committee no 

later than July 1, 2012 regarding the need for 24 percent of the 

funds to go to program management rather than facilities projects. 

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $5,528,874,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 5,296,692,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 5,236,331,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥292,543,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. ¥60,361,000 

MISSION

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the lead 

agency responsible for enforcement of immigration and customs 

laws. ICE protects the United States by investigating, deterring, 

and detecting threats arising from the movement of people and 

goods into and out of the country. ICE consists of approximately 

20,500 employees within two major divisions: Office of Investigations and Enforcement and Removal Operations. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee’s direction to ICE has been consistent and clear: 

enforce the law. The bill continues a provision directing the Secretary to enforce the immigration laws of the United States. Robust 

resources are provided to ICE to that end. The Committee recommends $5,236,331,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $60,361,000 

below the amount requested and $292,543,000 below the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2012—the reduction largely reflects the realignment of $161,564,000 from Salaries and Expenses to Automation Modernization to provide visibility into ICE’s Information 

Technology expenditures. After allowing for this adjustment and 

other recommended funding realignments, the Committee’s recommendation reflects an increase of $90,896,000 above the request 

to ensure robust enforcement of our Nation’s immigration laws. 

Within this amount, the Committee supports maintenance of no 

fewer than 34,000 detention beds and funds the 287(g) program to 

the fiscal year 2012 level. Additionally, $138,249,000 is provided to 

complete nationwide deployment of the Secure Communities proVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
51 

gram. The Committee denies the proposed pay raise across PPAs, 

for an overall reduction of $14,083,000. The Committee approves 

the transfer of overstay analysis from US-VISIT to ICE and increases the amount proposed for transfer to Domestic Investigations by $2,307,000. 

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

Budget estimate Recommended 

Headquarters Management and Administration 

Personnel, Services and Other Costs .......................................................................... $220,122,000 $226,207,000 

Headquarters-Managed Information Technology Investments .................................... 157,188,000 – – – 

Subtotal, Headquarters Management and Administration ................................ 377,310,000 226,207,000 

Legal Proceedings ........................................................................................................ 207,580,000 207,041,000 

Domestic Investigations .............................................................................................. 1, 672,526,000 1,686,859,000 

International Investigations 

International Operations .............................................................................................. 110,370,000 115,122,000 

Visa Security Program ................................................................................................. 32,616,000 34,561,000 

Subtotal, International Investigations ................................................................ 142,986,000 149,683,000 

Intelligence .................................................................................................................. 78,748,000 78,452,000 

Detention and Removal Operations 

Custody Operations ...................................................................................................... 1,959,363,000 2,026,343,000 

Fugitive Operations ...................................................................................................... 132,925,000 145,325,000 

Criminal Alien Program ............................................................................................... 216,724,000 216,510,000 

Alternatives to Detention ............................................................................................. 111,590,000 91,460,000 

Transportation and Removal Program ........................................................................ 258,227,000 270,202,000 

Subtotal, Detention and Removal Operations .................................................... 2,678,829,000 2,749,840,000 

Secure Communities .................................................................................................... 138,713,000 138,249,000 

Total, ICE Salaries and Expenses .................................................................. $5,296,692,000 $5,236,331,000

ICE HEADQUARTERS MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

The Committee recommends $226,207,000 for ICE Headquarters 

Management and Administration, $151,103,000 below the requested level, due largely to the realignment of headquarters-managed IT investment to Automation Modernization. The pay raise 

funds are not included; 287(g) funding is restored; and $2,000,000 

in additional efficiencies is taken to support ICE’s critical international investigative efforts through its vetted units. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

The quality of the Congressional Budget Justification material 

provided by the Department for ICE improved in fiscal year 2013. 

However, ICE provided significant information at its budget briefing that could be included in the official justification for greater accountability to the American taxpayer. ICE, in conjunction with the 

Chief Financial Officer, is encouraged to work with the Committee 

to further improve the Congressional Budget Justifications materials for fiscal year 2014 and beyond. 

IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS

The Committee does not support the proposed transfer authority 

for $5,000,000 from ICE to the Executive Office for Immigration 

Review (EOIR) to bolster the Legal Orientation Program. However, 

given the extensive caseload pending before immigration law 

judges and the Committee’s interest in continued, strong immigraVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
52 

tion enforcement efforts, the Committee, through the proper Subcommittee of jurisdiction for the Department of Justice, recommended an increase for EOIR above the fiscal year 2012 level 

and consideration of lifting EOIR’s current hiring freeze. 

While the Committee commends ICE for identifying extensive administrative savings and efficiencies, the Committee wants to ensure that such reductions do not adversely impact ICE operations. 

The Committee directs the ICE CFO to provide additional detail regarding proposed savings and efficiencies no later than September 

1, 2012. 

Further, the Committee is disappointed in the lack of information ICE has provided regarding the embezzlement and kick-back 

scheme uncovered last year in the Office of Intelligence. While the 

investigation continues to result in additional indictments and actions released by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Committee has not 

been briefed on continuing issues, actions, or corrective measures 

by ICE. Therefore, the Committee directs ICE to report no later 

than September 1, 2012 on all corrective actions and controls instituted to prevent recurrence of such behavior. 

ICE DOMESTIC INVESTIGATIONS

The Committee recommends $1,686,859,000 for ICE domestic investigatory programs, including the following changes to the request: a reduction reflecting the denied pay raise; an increase restoring 287(g) funding; a total of $19,917,000 transferred from US– 

VISIT for overstay analysis; a $10,000,000 reduction realigning responsibility for illegal aliens on parole/probation to ERO; a realignment of $3,000,000 to International Operations for ICE vetted 

units overseas; an increase of $11,000,000 for human trafficking investigations and an awareness campaign. The Committee directs 

ICE to continue to provide quarterly data on investigative activities 

and expenditures on a timely basis. The Committee also supports 

ICE efforts to measure the impacts of its investigative activities toward dismantling transnational criminal enterprises. 

Of the amount dedicated for the Southwest Border Initiative, 

particularly Border Enforcement Security Task Forces, no less than 

$5,000,000 is directed to ICE intelligence and investigative programs to combat border violence and organized crime, particularly 

along the El Paso-Juarez corridor in view of recent acts of violence 

against U.S. citizens. 

The value of sharing ballistics information to discover links between crimes is outlined in the National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy. The Committee encourages DHS to continue 

working closely with the Department of Justice and with Mexican 

law enforcement partners to further collective investigative efforts 

through this means. 

VETTED UNITS

The Committee strongly supports ICE’s transnational criminal 

investigative unit program, through which ICE has established vetted units of select foreign partner agency personnel in their countries. As the budget request did not specify funds for this program 

and ICE’s access to other sources of funds continues to diminish, 

the Committee increased the request for International Operations 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
53 

by $5,000,000. Of the total amount provided for International Operations, no less than $8,000,000 shall be for ICE’s vetted units. 

VISA SECURITY PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $34,561,000 for the ICE Visa Security Program (VSP), an increase of $2,000,000 above the request to 

support pre-adjudication vetting of visa applicants. In fiscal year 

2012, funds were provided to expand the program. The Committee 

directs ICE to provide a classified briefing no later than November 

1, 2012 on the VSP and progress to deploy to expanded locations. 

OVERSTAY ANALYSIS

The Committee recommends a total of $19,917,000, $2,307,000 

above the request, in Domestic Investigations for overstay analysis 

activities previously performed by US-VISIT. ICE is the mission 

owner for visa-overstay investigations and operations. As such, the 

Committee believes that consolidation of the overstay analysis activities with operations will provide efficiencies and ensure clear 

accountability. 

The Committee continues to be concerned about the identification, resolution, and enforcement of visa overstays. ICE is in a better position to enforce overstay violations now that it is directly responsible for this analysis. Additionally, the Committee recommends transferring ADIS to ICE, so that ICE has management 

of the system and complete accountability. The Committee, therefore, directs ICE to provide semi-annual briefings on the overstay 

backlog elimination effort; to ensure that similar backlogs do not 

arise again in the future; and to update the Committee on its overstay enforcement strategy. Further, the Committee directs ICE to 

brief the Committee no later than December 1, 2012 on the number 

of visa overstays in the United States by nationality and actionable 

measures ICE will take to reduce the overstay population. 

COMBATTING HUMAN TRAFFICKING

The Office of Investigations (OI) plays a critical role in combating 

severe forms of trafficking, investigating criminal organizations 

trafficking individuals into and within the United States, and in 

stopping this heinous crime. The Committee encourages ICE to 

work with appropriate non-profit organizations and victim service 

providers to ensure appropriate training of ICE investigators in the 

field to assist in the identification of human trafficking victims and 

provide appropriate referrals to victim service providers. In addition, the Committee directs ICE to identify potential victims of 

human trafficking and slavery early in any ICE or ICE-led investigations and provide informational materials and referrals for victim assistance as quickly as possible. 

Congress has strongly supported ICE’s efforts in countering 

human trafficking, including the efforts of the Human Smuggling 

and Trafficking Center. For fiscal year 2013, the Committee recommends an increase of $11,000,000 above the request for ICE’s 

human trafficking and smuggling investigations, including no less 

than $1,200,000 to further the Hidden in Plain Sight public outreach campaign under the Blue Campaign umbrella. The ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
54 

mittee directs ICE to brief the Committee no later than 60 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act on its plans for these funds. 

The Committee applauds DHS for its efforts to bolster human 

trafficking training and awareness through its Blue Campaign. For 

that reason, the Committee directs DHS to highlight funds related 

to the Blue Campaign in the congressional budget justification materials accompanying the fiscal year 2014 budget request. 

The Committee continues to support ICE’s Operation Angel 

Watch program, which dedicates intelligence analysts to tracking 

the international travel patterns of convicted sex offenders, and 

ICE efforts to curb exploitation of children in international trafficking. 

WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT

The Committee recommends $134,626,000 for worksite enforcement activities, as requested. While enforcement actions associated 

with worksite enforcement dropped significantly in 2009 after the 

Administration announced its worksite enforcement strategy, the 

Committee notes that the number of such actions rose in fiscal year 

2011. Criminal arrests related to worksite enforcement investigations increased for the first time since fiscal year 2008, for a total 

of 713, from 393 in fiscal year 2010. Similarly, administrative arrests also increased to 1,471 in fiscal year 2011 from 1,224 in fiscal 

year 2010. 

The Administration has emphasized I–9 inspections as part of its 

worksite enforcement strategy, but the Committee has not yet seen 

strong enforcement results based upon these inspections. The Committee directs ICE to focus on producing enforcement results based 

on the I–9 inspections. 

The Committee directs ICE to continue its quarterly briefings on 

worksite enforcement efforts no later than 30 days after the end of 

each quarter. The Committee directs ICE to provide an annual report on the number of worksite enforcement investigations opened 

and closed, employee and employer arrests—both criminal and administrative, and the fines assessed and collected each fiscal year. 

This report shall be submitted to the Committee within 45 days 

after the end of each fiscal year. The Committee also directs that 

the report for fiscal year 2011 should include the same statistics for 

fiscal years 2007–2010. 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT

The Committee believes that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) 

enforcement is an important part of ICE’s investigative missions. 

The Committee supports the efforts of the National IPR Coordination Center, which stands at the forefront of the U.S. Government’s 

response to global intellectual property theft. The Center provides 

an invaluable forum to access expertise of member agencies, share 

information, develop initiatives, coordinate enforcement actions, 

and conduct investigations. The Committee recommends no less 

than $10,187,000 for the Center, as requested. ICE is directed to 

report to the Committee on the number of agents in the United 

States and abroad dedicated to IPR investigations and the number 

of hours spent by agents in fiscal year 2012 on IPR investigations. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
55 

TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT

Section 352 of the Trade Act of 2002 authorizes funding for Customs Service textile transshipment enforcement, and specifies how 

the funds must be spent. The Committee includes $4,750,000, as 

requested, to continue these activities. The Committee directs ICE 

to provide a report with its fiscal year 2014 budget request on its 

actual and projected obligations of this funding, covering any updates from last year’s reports and including fiscal year 2012 

actuals, fiscal year 2013 projections, and fiscal year 2014 proposed. 

The report should include staffing levels by fiscal year and a fiveyear enforcement plan for transshipment violations. 

CYBERCRIMES

ICE’s Cyber Crime Center (C3) delivers computer-based technical 

services to ICE components to support domestic and international 

investigations into cross-border crime, particularly such crimes conducted on or facilitated by the internet. C3 includes a fully 

equipped computer forensics laboratory, which specializes in digital 

evidence recovery, and supports the computer forensics agents located at ICE field offices domestically and abroad. To facilitate the 

important work of these agents and to ensure C3 is aware of the 

latest technological innovations, as technology continually changes, 

the Committee encourages ICE to undertake a requirements process for modernizing its computer forensics capabilities and managing the data it examines as part of its investigations. 

INTELLIGENCE

For the Office of Intelligence, the Committee recommends 

$78,452,000, $296,000 below the request. The Committee notes 

that while ICE has aligned the Office of Intelligence in the Office 

of Investigations, the Committee continues to show the funding as 

a separate line. The Committee expects the Office of Intelligence to 

support all of ICE’s operations, including providing robust information to ERO and coordinating with CBP on its assessments of illicit 

cross-border activities and criminal organizations. 

ICE DETENTION AND REMOVAL

The Committee recommends $2,749,840,000 for ICE Detention 

and Removal, $71,011,000 more than the request, to include: retaining 34,000 as the minimum number of detention bed spaces 

that ICE must maintain on a daily basis; restoring proposed cuts 

to the 287(g) program; and moving the budget and responsibility 

for CBP detainee medical costs to ICE. 

The Committee notes that the budget request includes a performance measure, provided pursuant to the Government Performance 

and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, on its use of detention beds. The 

metric provides ICE’s detention bed rate under the ‘‘midnight man 

count,’’ meaning the number of ICE detainees in a detention bed 

as of midnight on a given day. Recognizing that a single metric 

cannot fully convey a true picture of complex operations, the Committee encourages ICE to include not only the midnight man count 

but to include another metric that more closely relates to the number of detainees for whom ICE incurs costs on a daily basis. The 

latter metric provides a different vantage point and more closely 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
56 

aligns to the cost considerations that are of central importance to 

the Committee. Further, the Committee does not recognize the 

midnight man count as equivalent to the statutory mandate for 

34,000 detention beds. 

As a result of funds provided in fiscal year 2011 and the increase 

enacted in fiscal year 2012, ICE has the resources necessary to 

manage detention bed needs. Therefore, the Committee directs ICE 

to intensify its enforcement efforts and fully utilize these resources. 

The Committee understands that detention bed space is readily 

available in many locations where ICE most needs it, including in 

public and private facilities at potentially lower costs. 

In addition, the Committee commends ICE for its efforts to improve its management of detention resources and encourages ICE 

to continue to refine its logistics management and cost modeling efforts to achieve the best value in procuring detention capacity. The 

Committee directs ICE to manage detention and removal costs as 

efficiently as possible, continuing to examine all cost drivers and 

take steps to reduce the overall cost of detention per detainee, including speeding the removal process for individual detainees as 

consistent with due process. ICE is directed to provide quarterly 

briefings to the Committee on all steps being taken to reduce the 

costs of detention and removal, including strategies to minimize 

transportation costs and house detainees at the lowest cost facilities, working with EOIR to speed processing as consistent with due 

process, continuing to review contracts to ensure maximum flexibility and lowest cost to ICE, and considering the costs and benefits 

of public and private providers for all services, including medical 

services. The first comprehensive briefing will take place no later 

than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

DETENTION AND REMOVAL REPORTING

The bill continues language, as requested, ensuring that all illegally present or otherwise removable aliens encountered when enforcing our immigration laws are apprehended. However, the Department does not collect or report comprehensive statistics on all 

of its encounters with inadmissible and deportable aliens by source 

as well as the disposition of all such encounters. The Committee 

continues to direct ICE, in conjunction with CBP and USCIS, to 

improve its capabilities to provide comprehensive reporting on enforcement actions. Funds are targeted to that effort in the ICE Automation Modernization account. ICE shall provide additional data 

as it is available in the Border Security Status and Detention and 

Removal Operations reports. 

For fiscal year 2013, ICE is directed to continue reporting quarterly on detention and removal, including the number of deportation, exclusion, and removal orders sought and obtained by ICE. 

The first fiscal year 2013 quarterly report is to be submitted no 

later than February 15, 2013. 

COOPERATION FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES ON REPATRIATION

To successfully remove aliens from the United States, ICE requires cooperation from foreign governments on obtaining travel 

documents and permitting return. ICE incurs significant costs and 

administrative burdens pursuing removal of aliens with final orders of removal where countries do not cooperate in this effort. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
57 

Even more concerning, however, is the impact of the decision in 

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S. Ct. 2491 (2001). Under 

Zadvydas, ICE cannot detain such aliens beyond a six month period if there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. While there are rare exceptions, such as for 

aliens with highly contagious diseases, aliens who pose serious adverse foreign policy consequences of release, security or terrorism 

concerns, and aliens found after a hearing to be ‘‘specially dangerous’’ criminal aliens, the Zadvydas decision requires ICE to release nearly all such aliens while ICE continues working to effectuate their removal. 

From October 2009 through March 2011, ICE released 12,567 individual aliens, including both criminal and noncriminal aliens, 

under the terms of the Zadvydas settlement. Of this amount, only 

7 percent or 868 individuals were re-booked into ICE custody for 

meeting exceptions. Media reports have noted the number of criminal aliens who have used this opportunity to again commit grievous 

crimes in communities across the United States. 

In April 2011, ICE signed a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) with the Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs 

(DOS/CA) in an effort to decrease delays in the removal process 

and increase compliance among countries that systematically 

refuse or delay repatriation of their nationals. The MOU outlined 

a number of steps that the U.S. Government would take, including 

more severe actions such as considering visa sanctions. The Committee directs ICE to provide a detailed report on this issue providing data for fiscal years 2011 and 2012, including: a list of countries that are routinely recalcitrant in providing travel documents 

or accepting return of their nationals; the average number of days 

that issuance takes for each country; and the number of aliens by 

country of origin released from ICE custody due to Zadvydas. Further, ICE shall outline the steps that it has taken, in conjunction 

with DOS/CA, to facilitate better cooperation with these nations 

since April 2011, highlighting any progress that has been made as 

a result. ICE shall submit this report no later than December 1, 

2012. 

The Committee is gravely concerned about the already realized 

impacts on public safety of release of criminal aliens due to the impact of Zadvydas. The Committee encourages ICE and DOS/CA to 

take more dramatic steps, where warranted, to move countries into 

compliance with their responsibilities under international law. 

FUGITIVE OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $145,325,000 for fugitive operation, 

including increases over the request to restore 287(g); restores mission support cuts; and realigns $10,000,000 from OI for enforcement related to criminal aliens on probation and parole. The recommendation also includes an increase of $2,000,000 for procurement and operation of mobile, biometric readers for use by Fugitive 

Operations Team (FOT) to identify all illegal aliens encountered in 

their operations. 

The Committee strongly supports the efforts of the FOTs to locate, arrest, and remove fugitive aliens from the United States. Fugitive aliens include those who have failed to leave the United 

States based upon a final order of removal, deportation or excluVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
58 

sion, or who have failed to report to ICE after receiving notice to 

do so. The FOTs are also responsible for locating and arresting atlarge convicted criminal aliens. For that reason, the Committee recommends realigning responsibility for prioritizing, locating, and arresting criminal aliens on parole and probation from Domestic Investigations to Fugitive Operations. 

CRIMINAL ALIEN PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $216,510,000 for the Criminal Alien 

Program (CAP), an amount that includes an increase of $656,000 

for additional biometric readers for CAP teams. 

ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

The Committee recommends $91,460,000 for ICE Alternatives to 

Detention (ATD) programs, including the requested reductions and 

denying the proposed pay increase. Of the total, $19,903,000 is recommended for expansion, half the proposed increase. The Committee continues to support this program and the enrollment of immigration detainees in the program who pose neither a flight risk 

nor a risk to public safety or national security, pursuant to meeting 

ICE enrollment criteria for the program. 

While ATD can be highly effective for the appropriate population, 

the Committee remains concerned that program goals are hampered by two factors: (1) the Government’s ability to move ATD 

cases through the non-detained docket in a timely manner; and (2) 

appropriate decisions regarding the type of ATD to apply, specifically the amount of supervision involved. Therefore, the Committee 

directs ICE to address both of these issues in its utilization of program funds. First, the Committee directs ICE, in partnership with 

EOIR, to expand the Fast Track pilot programs conducted in Baltimore and Miami through which ATD cases were prioritized in the 

non-detained docket. As a result of the existing and expanded pilots, ICE shall identify and implement actionable best practices for 

non-detained docket processing to reduce the cycle time on ATD 

and associated costs. ICE shall brief the Committee quarterly on 

the Fast Track pilots and the progress being made towards these 

goals. 

Second, with respect to the appropriate supervision level, the 

Committee expects ICE to utilize the appropriate level of supervision warranted by the individual enrolled in ATD. The Committee has become aware that, in the past two years, ICE has increased the use of ‘‘telephonic reporting only’’ where the participant 

is called once a month (from 3,092 to 10,346, an increase of 234 

percent), which is the least restrictive and lowest cost option. However, unfortunately, it is also the least effective means of successful 

removal—at 47 percent. The Committee emphasizes that effective 

ATD should result in timely, final disposition by the immigration 

court and, in most cases, successful removal. 

SECURE COMMUNITIES

The Committee continues its strong support of the Secure Communities program and recommends $138,249,000, to complete its 

deployment nationwide. Despite the Administration’s delay of deploying Secure Communities fully in Alabama, the program conVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
59 

tinues to deploy apace. The Committee expects and encourages full 

deployment as early as March 2013. In fiscal year 2014, the Committee expects Secure Communities to become part of ICE’s steadystate operations. As such, continuing a separate funding line 

should no longer be necessary. However, the Committee expects to 

continue receiving enforcement data pertaining to Secure Communities. 

The Committee remains gravely concerned about State and local 

jurisdictions flouting ICE detainers and releasing aliens who clearly pose a risk to public safety. Further, the Committee can imagine 

a scenario by which an alien who poses a national security risk 

slips through law enforcement fingers as a result of such a release. 

The Committee directs the Department to update the Committee 

no later than September 1, 2012 on the number of jurisdictions failing to honor ICE detainers, the number of individuals released as 

a result, and the number of those individuals remaining at large 

as a result. 

As in past years, the Committee requires ICE to continue quarterly reporting on the Secure Communities program, including requirements outlined in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2012 DHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 112–74) 

and to submit those reports within 45 days of the close of the quarter. Further, funds were provided in fiscal year 2012 to undertake 

digitization of paper fingerprint cards from legacy immigration 

files. The Committee directs ICE to provide an update on this effort 

no later than July 1, 2012. 

ICE SUPPORT TO STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

The Committee’s recommendation restores funding for the 287(g) 

program across PPAs as the cuts were proposed, ensuring that no 

less than $68,321,000 is applied to this program. The Committee 

continues to support 287(g) as a key program to assist the Federal 

Government in effective enforcement of immigration laws. ICE’s 

cross-designation of more than 1,500 State and local patrol officers, 

detectives, investigators and correctional officers allows them to 

pursue a wide range of investigations, such as human smuggling, 

gang/organized crime activity, and money laundering. In addition, 

participating entities are eligible for increased resources and support in more remote geographical locations. 

Every law enforcement organization has a strong interest in upholding the highest standards of conduct and avoiding the unlawful 

use of race, ethnicity, and national origin in law enforcement activities. Until the Department releases its Secure Communities 

training module on this topic, the Committee directs ICE to immediately make available, to all law enforcement entities, the 287(g) 

training materials associated with avoiding racial and ethnic 

profiling. If ICE determines that such materials are not adequate, 

ICE shall immediately notify the Committee as to why and then 

work with the Department of Justice to ensure immediate access 

to appropriate materials. ICE shall notify the Committee no later 

than 15 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the specific 

steps taken to comply with this direction as well as the expected 

date of release of the Secure Communities training module. The 

Committee continues a provision first enacted in the fiscal year 

2009 DHS Appropriations Act that requires ICE to cancel any 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
60 

287(g) agreements where the Inspector General has determined the 

terms of the agreement have been violated. 

DETENTION STANDARDS

The Committee continues to be interested in ensuring that ICE 

maintains appropriate detention standards and notes that tremendous progress has been made in the past six years toward that end, 

including necessary reforms initiated by the prior Administration 

and continued under the current Administration. However, the 

Committee questions whether the recently-issued 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) require services beyond what is appropriate or necessary. Further, it is evident 

that ICE did not consider cost in assessing these requirements. In 

developing future iterations of the PBNDS and in contracting for 

detention services, ICE shall consider the cost implications of its 

requirements and budget accordingly. 

Further, in ensuring that ERO operations and detention facilities 

meet the standards, the Department and ICE have instituted duplicative layers of oversight and bureaucracy that may actually 

hamper effective operations. The Committee encourages ICE leadership to consider streamlining the many ICE offices and complaint 

processes that are in place today. Further, before creating any new 

positions or offices responsible for overseeing or engaging in issues 

related to detention and removal operations, ICE is directed to document why the new position or office is necessary, how much the 

position or office will cost, and how such a position or office does 

not duplicate responsibilities and functions already instituted in 

another position or organization. 

The Committee has encouraged ICE to consider compliance with 

the requirements of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) in its 

detention operations. On March 8, 2012, in testimony before the 

Committee, the ICE Assistant Secretary stated that ICE will comply with the PREA and, in fact, may be the first major detention 

system to be fully compliant. The Committee applauds ICE’s efforts 

in this area. 

HIRING AND STAFFING REPORTS

The Committee directs ICE to continue submitting staffing and 

hiring reports but on a quarterly basis. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $21,710,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 30,500,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 232,006,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ..................................................... +210,296,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ................................................. +201,506,000 

MISSION

The Automation Modernization account funds major information 

technology projects and operations for ICE. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $232,006,000 for Automation Modernization, an increase of $201,506,000 above the request. The sigVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
61 

nificant increase above the request and prior years reflects two significant realignments of funding: (1) $161,564,000 from Salaries 

and Expenses to consolidate funds for Information Technology in 

one account; and (2) $41,042,000 from US–VISIT for the management of the Arrival Departure Information System (ADIS) that is 

essential to overstay analysis operations transferred to ICE’s Office 

of Investigations. The recommendation for IT investment denies 

the proposed pay raise and restores $4,505,000 associated with the 

budget request proposal to reduce the 287(g) program, which the 

Committee rejects. The funding level is reduced by $1,100,000 due 

to ICE’s failure to provide statutorily required reports and due to 

the flawed budget request regarding CBP’s access to fee collections. 

The following table illustrates funding by PPA: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

IT Investment ............................................................................................................... – – –* $201,506,000 

TECS Modernization ..................................................................................................... $23,000,000 23,000,000 

Detention and Removals Modernization ...................................................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 

Electronic Health Records ........................................................................................... 3,500,000 3,500,000 

Total, Automation Modernization ........................................................................ $30,500,000 $232,006,000

* Request in Salaries and Expenses is $157,188,000. 

TECS MODERNIZATION

The Committee directs CBP and ICE to brief the Committee no 

later than September 1, 2012 on the status of modernization efforts. In addition, the bill continues a requirement for a multi-year 

investment and management plan to be provided at the time of the 

President’s budget submission and updated on an annual basis to 

fully justify requested funds for this activity and other activities 

under this account, as well as project future-year requirements and 

funding levels. This plan is necessary for the Committee’s oversight 

activities. 

OTHER MODERNIZATION EFFORTS

The Committee strongly supports the eHR (electronic health 

records) initiative for detainees, though funding required to support 

frontline operations must be the priority. The Committee encourages ICE to look for creative ways within funds available to more 

efficiently and effectively manage detainee health records while it 

is working towards eHR. 

The Committee also notes that the limitations of ICE’s IT systems are severely hampering ICE’s ability to quickly and accurately report operations and enforcement data, particularly to the 

Congress. As a result, the Committee directs ICE to dedicate no 

less than $2,000,000 from IT investment funds in fiscal year 2013 

to begin improving these capabilities, starting with enhancements 

to the Crime Entry Screen and the Automated Threat 

Prioritization system to facilitate unique identification of criminal 

aliens encountered and processed. 

ADIS

The Committee recommends transfer of full responsibility for 

overstay analysis from US–VISIT to ICE, which includes the manVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
62 

agement of ADIS. A total of $41,042,000 is included in Automation 

Modernization as a result. 

IMPROVING TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE DUPLICATION OF EFFORT

Since fiscal year 2008, ICE has spent approximately $12,000,000 

for a contractor to upgrade the Alien Criminal Response Information Management System (ACRIMe) to allow ICE’s field personnel 

to review the Law Enforcement Support Center’s research on immigration status inquiries of individuals arrested or encountered by 

local law enforcement agencies. In an April 2012 report (OIG–12– 

64), the OIG noted that the initial attempt to modernize ACRIMe 

did not function as intended. For that reason, ICE hired a new contractor in October 2011, but it does not have a new timeline for 

ACRIMe improvements. The Committee directs ICE to brief the 

Committee no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 

this Act on its milestones and costs for ACRIMe modernization to 

address this operational problem. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... $5,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 5,450,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ..................................................... +5,450,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ................................................. +450,000 

MISSION

The Construction account supports maintenance of ICE’s owned 

and directly leased facilities. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,450,000 for Construction, an increase of $450,000 above the request. ICE is commended for delineating the projects and funding levels requested for this account. 

As the Committee is aware of additional facility and maintenance 

needs, additional funds are included. The Committee directs ICE to 

provide updated costs and project information in periodic briefings. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

AVIATION SECURITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $5,253,956,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 5,098,639,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 5,041,230,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ..................................................... ¥212,726,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2013 ................................................ ¥57,409,000 

MISSION

Aviation security is focused on protecting the air transportation 

system against terrorist threats, sabotage and other acts of violence 

through deployment of passenger and baggage screeners; detection 

systems for explosives, weapons, and other contraband; and other, 

effective security technologies. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
63 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,041,230,000 for Aviation Security, $57,409,000 below the amount requested and $212,726,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. Funds within this 

account are partially offset through the collection of security user 

fees paid by aviation travelers and airlines. A comparison of the 

budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by PPA is as 

follows: 

Budget Estimate Recommended 

Screening Operations ................................................................................................... $4,022,439,000 $3,969,569,000 

Aviation Security Direction and Enforcement .............................................................. 1,076,200,000 1,071,661,000 

[Mandatory Aviation Security Capital Fund 1] ............................................................. [250,000,000] [250,000,000] 

Subtotal, Aviation Security ................................................................................. $5,098,639,000 $5,041,230,000 

1 The Aviation Security Capital Fund is not included in the Subtotal for aviation security because it is not directly appropriated and is paid 

for entirely from user fees. 

AVIATION SECURITY FEES

In total, the Committee applies the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate for the collection of $2,070,000,000 in current aviation security user fees, the same amount the budget claims, and 

$40,000,000 above the fiscal year 2012 collection estimate. These 

fees will be collected from both aviation passengers and the airlines 

and will partially offset the Federal appropriation for aviation security. However, it is important to note that the Committee estimate 

does not reflect implementation of the Administration’s proposed 

increase in aviation security fees, which resulted in nearly 

$115,000,000 in chimerical offsets, because necessary new authorization legislation has not been enacted—legislation that is not 

under the jurisdiction of this Committee. Because of the Administration’s continued reliance upon the unauthorized, fictitious offset 

of increased aviation security fees, the Committee has been forced 

to reduce the funding for every management and administrative office across the Department. 

SCREENING OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $3,969,569,000 for passenger and 

baggage screening operations, $52,870,000 below the amount requested and $198,062,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 

2012. This recommendation would support current operations and 

all currently programmed acquisitions, including 1,250 Advanced 

Imaging Technology (AIT) systems for passenger screening and Advanced Technology x-ray systems. However, the recommendation 

does not fund the proposed fiscal year 2013 pay raise and reflects 

a reduction of 75 Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs), returning to 

the fiscal year 2012 level of full time equivalent officers. It also reflects a funding level of $100,000,000 for Explosive Detection System (EDS) procurement and installation, rather than the 

$117,349,000 requested. An increase of $15,000,000 above the level 

provided in fiscal year 2012 is provided for the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) to support expansion to at least one additional 

airport and accommodate other applicants. The Committee emphasizes that the cuts to Personnel, Compensation, and Benefits and 

to the BDO program are in part offset by increases to the SPP proVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
64 

gram, and reflect the Committee’s intention that TSA move aggressively toward a leaner organizational and mission approach to its 

screening and security missions. The Committee believes there 

must be a better balance between personnel and technology, public 

and private capabilities, and increased use of risk-based strategies 

in organization, operations, staffing, and acquisitions. 

As in fiscal year 2012, the Committee for fiscal year 2013 has 

chosen to make these reductions primarily to compensate for the 

lack of aviation security fee revenue built into the Administration’s 

budget. The Committee recognizes the need to recapitalize the EDS 

technology currently in place throughout the Nation and expects 

that TSA will ensure that funding provided is targeted at those 

systems most in need of replacement or upgrades. The reduction in 

BDOs is taken in part because the positions are not directly tied 

to passenger processing and because, notwithstanding the fact that 

BDO’s afford another ‘‘layer’’ of security, TSA has yet to demonstrate clear evidence that deployment of BDOs provides protection against potential aviation security threats. 

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

Budget Estimate Recommended 

Screener Workforce: 

Privatized Screening ........................................................................................... $143,190,000 $158,190,000 

Screener Personnel, Compensation and Benefits .............................................. 3,107,649,000 3,057,128,000 

Subtotal, Screener Workforce .............................................................................. 3,250,839,000 3,215,318,000 

Screener Training and Other ....................................................................................... 225,012,000 225,012,000 

Checkpoint Support ..................................................................................................... 120,239,000 120,239,000 

EDS/ETD Systems: 

EDS Procurement and Installation ..................................................................... 117,349,000 100,000,000 

Screening Technology Maintenance and Utilities .............................................. 309,000,000 309,000,000 

Subtotal, EDS/ETD Systems ................................................................................ 426,349,000 409,000,000 

Total, Screening Operations ...................................................................... $4,022,439,000 $3,969,569,000 

PRIVATIZED SCREENING

The Committee recommends $158,190,000 for privatized screening, $15,000,000 above the amount requested and $13,997,000 

above fiscal year 2012. Sixteen airports currently participate in the 

Screening Partnership Program (SPP). The Committee notes that 

TSA has changed its disposition toward considering new applicants 

to the program, prompted in part by Congressional action, and has 

recently approved the application of a seventeenth candidate airport. The Committee has, therefore, increased funding above the 

fiscal year 2012 level to ensure adequate resources to support potential new SPP participants and to encourage TSA to make greater use of the valuable program. In addition, the Committee expects 

TSA, as it assesses those airports that seek to renew their contracts or those that are new applicants, will keep stakeholders at 

such airports fully informed and consulted prior to implementation 

of any status changes. The Committee expects TSA to approve applications of airports seeking to participate in the SPP that meet 

legislatively mandated criteria. The Committee notes that the recently enacted Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization Act (Public Law 112–95) shifts consideration of new SPP airVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
65 

ports into a ‘‘default position of being approved,’’ requiring TSA to 

accept the airport unless it is demonstrably detrimental to cost-efficiency or security. The Committee, therefore, directs TSA to report 

no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act on 

how it is complying with the FAA reauthorization act provisions 

and the extent to which it is implementing GAO recommendations 

to compare cost and performance of SPP and non-SPP airports. The 

report should also address how TSA is addressing court rulings related to its administration of the SPP program. 

TSA shall provide the Committees on Appropriations quarterly 

reporting on its execution of the SPP program and processing of applications for participation, including the status of applications by 

date of application and date of decision. 

SCREENER PERSONNEL, COMPENSATION, AND BENEFITS

The Committee recommends $3,057,128,000 for Screener Personnel, Compensation, and Benefits, $50,521,000 below the budget 

request, and $31,357,000 above fiscal year 2012. This funds the 

current services costs for current screeners, including those needed 

for the 1,250 new AIT systems funded to date but does not include 

funding for a fiscal year 2013 pay raise, and it reduces funding for 

BDOs, as noted above. The Committee continues language that restricts funding from being used to hire additional full-time screeners if the result would be to exceed a total number of 46,000 fulltime equivalent screeners. The Committee notes with approval that 

TSA has shown great progress in reducing injuries amongst its 

screener corps, thereby improving their availability and productivity and lowering attrition. While the Committee continues to 

support dedicated TSA screener personnel as they strive to ensure 

the safety of the traveling public and our civil aviation system, it 

remains a matter of concern that the growth in staffing for checkpoint and related security operations, temporarily increased due to 

the staffing needs of current AIT and checkpoint configurations, 

needs to be re-engineered to reflect the impact of technology and 

more rational risk-based approaches. The latter includes the 

PreCheck pilots being introduced at airports nationwide. The Committee, therefore, retains the limitation of full-time screener staffing to compel TSA and the Department to optimize the balance between technology and screener personnel. 

BEHAVIOR DETECTION OFFICERS

The Committee reduces funding by $7,700,000 for BDOs under 

Screener Personnel, Compensation, and Benefits. As noted above, 

the Committee has been forced to fill a TSA budget shortfall due 

to unauthorized fee revenue that the President’s budget request assumed would be enacted. Moreover, the Committee believes that 

outstanding questions remain over the value of the BDO program, 

which has not been sufficiently validated and for which few measures have been developed to prove its intrinsic value to the aviation 

security environment. Essentially, the Committee remains unconvinced that the BDO has established its effectiveness against this 

core standard. Therefore, as the Committee has noted before, TSA 

should apply a formal cost-benefit analysis to the BDO/SPOT program to establish the impact the program has on aviation security 

per se, as recommended by the Government Accountability Office, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
66 

and develop a robust risk-based strategy for deploying BDOs. The 

Committee also continues to recommend that TSA implement 

standardization testing on an annual basis at those airports where 

SPOT is established. 

SCREENER TRAINING AND OTHER

The Committee recommends $225,012,000 for Screener Training 

and Other, the same as requested and $24,784,000 below fiscal 

year 2012. Given the known threats to aviation security, the Committee expects TSA’s Office of Inspection and OIG to enhance their 

periodic red team investigations to better emulate the latest 

threats and identify vulnerabilities that can be used to improve 

screener training and the use of screening technology. TSA must 

ensure its screeners are trained against the most current threats 

and receive such training as frequently as feasible within the constraints of meeting their work schedule. Such training should be 

calibrated to measurably reduce operational and technological 

vulnerabilities identified by red teams and improve the productivity of screener operations overall. 

CHECKPOINT SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $120,239,000 for Checkpoint Support, the same as requested and $84,529,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The Committee is aware that while this 

funding will not be used for additional AIT systems, it will go to 

support enhanced baggage screening technology and that work continues on next generation AITs. The Committee is keenly aware 

that the checkpoint continues to be a major challenge both for security and for the efficiency of passenger processing, and expects to 

see improvements going forward both in terms of the application of 

risk-based analysis (e.g., the PreCheck approach to identifying 

lower risk travelers) as well as new configurations of technology to 

reduce the number of screener personnel required. 

PASSENGER SCREENING WAIT TIMES

The Committee notes that TSA is deploying new technology at its 

checkpoints to help reduce passenger wait times, including innovative approaches to measuring wait times (therefore providing TSA 

managers with information that could be used to adjust screener 

assignments to reduce delays), automated document readers, and 

similar technology. The Committee directs TSA to provide a briefing no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act 

on progress in meeting the objective of keeping average passenger 

wait times to ten minutes or less. TSA is also directed to brief the 

Committee at that time on the wait times at screening checkpoints 

where automated wait time measurement technology has been deployed. 

EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION

The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for EDS Procurement 

and Installation, $17,349,000 below the budget request and 

$122,738,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. Including the existing mandatory Aviation Security Capital Fund of 

$250,000,000, the total appropriation (both mandatory and discreVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
67 

tionary) for EDS procurement and installations is $350,000,000 for 

fiscal year 2013. Within this total, $160,600,000 is for installation 

of electronic baggage screening equipment; $166,600,000 is to procure EDS for deployment to support projects where facility modifications are completed from prior year funds and to recapitalize 

existing equipment; $4,000,000 is to install advanced surveillance 

systems; and $18,800,000 is for payroll. 

Although the Committee acknowledges the progress of TSA in installing EDS systems, and the need to recapitalize its aging inventory, the recommended funding level reflects the reality that the 

Committee is forced to offset the as yet unauthorized aviation security fee increase built into the budget request. The Committee continues to follow with interest TSA’s study of the possibility of consolidating checkpoint and baggage screening at certain smaller airports (Category 3 and 4 airports) and asks TSA to advise the Committee of progress being made in this effort. 

The Committee retains language added in fiscal year 2012 to permit funds in the Aviation Security Capital Fund to be used for acquisition of new and replacement EDS systems. The Committee expects TSA will ensure that there are sufficient balances in the Capital Fund to support currently known and validated needs for facility build out. 

In addition, the Committee is aware that, while TSA must 

prioritize its EDS funding for installation and recapitalization, 

there remain claims from airports for reimbursement for costs previously incurred for eligible costs associated with construction and 

deployment of in-line baggage screening systems. As a result of not 

receiving reimbursement, the Committee understands some local 

airports have delayed further security and capital investments, 

which could be a source of risk in the aviation security environment. The Committee, therefore, recommends TSA establish a 

process to resolve such claims expeditiously, particularly from airports that have been awaiting reimbursement the longest. 

SCREENING TECHNOLOGY MAINTENANCE AND UTILITIES

The Committee recommends $309,000,000 for Screening Technology Maintenance and Utilities, the same as the amount requested and $11,365,000 below fiscal year 2012. The Committee expects that two year warranty contracts that TSA is negotiating for 

its new AIT machines will continue to generate savings for new 

systems deployed in fiscal years 2013–14. 

AVIATION SECURITY DIRECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

The Committee recommends $1,071,661,000 for Aviation Security 

Direction and Enforcement, $4,539,000 below the budget request 

and $14,664,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. 

The following table highlights funding levels by PPA: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Aviation, Regulation and Other Enforcement .............................................................. $371,989,000 $374,489,000 

Airport Management and Support ............................................................................... 569,615,000 549,615,000 

Federal Flight Deck Officer and Flight Crew Training ................................................ 12,500,000 25,461,000 

Air Cargo ...................................................................................................................... 122,096,000 122,096,000 

Subtotal, Aviation Security Direction and Enforcement ..................................... $1,076,200,000 $1,071,661,000 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
68 

AVIATION REGULATION AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT

The Committee recommends $374,489,000 for Aviation Regula- tion and Other Enforcement, $2,500,000 above the budget request 

and $4,505,000 above fiscal year 2012. This includes an increase of 

$4,000,000 to support an increase of 24 canine teams for domestic 

inspections in the air cargo and aviation regulation environments 

in recognition of the effectiveness of canine operations in the detection of materials and explosives that threaten aviation security. 

The recommendation also reflects a reduction of $1,500,000 for visible intermodal protection and response (VIPR) teams, which have 

experienced significant delays in hiring. 

The Committee notes that this funding level sustains the initiative for Air Cargo Aviation Security enhancements, consisting of 

$3,500,000 and 14 positions supporting improvements to international air cargo security. 

AIRPORT MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $549,615,000 for Airport Manage- ment and Support, $20,000,000 below the budget request and 

$20,611,000 below fiscal year 2012. This reduction is intended to 

partially offset the shortfall created by the inclusion of unauthorized aviation security fees in the budget. 

FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICERS

The Committee supports sustaining the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program, which the President’s budget proposes cutting 

in half, and believes that the presence of armed and trained pilots 

and flight crew complement all the other security measures in the 

aviation security domain and represent a true last-line-of-defense 

aboard an aircraft. The Committee, therefore, restores the funding 

to the fiscal year 2012 level, or $25,461,000. 

Additionally, the Committee directs TSA to provide a briefing no 

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

the recertification process for FFDOs, including the number of 

FFDOs enrolled, the latest data on recertification, an assessment 

of how well the program is meeting demand for participation, and 

an overview of how TSA is ensuring that training is available in 

a sufficient number of locations. 

FOREIGN REPAIR STATION SECURITY REGULATIONS

The Committee is concerned about the lack of progress made regarding an important security rule that impacts our Nation’s aviation industry. Congress directed TSA to promulgate aircraft repair 

station security regulation in the 2003 Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, and the 9/11 Act. In 2009, TSA finally 

issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for public comment on repair station security regulations. The Committee understands TSA 

sent a final rule to the Department of Homeland Security for review in spring of 2011. Unfortunately, that rule has not moved forward, and this failure to act has inhibited the ability of industry 

to compete in the global market place. 

The Committee is extremely concerned that a rule directed by 

Congress to raise security standards has languished for years, and 

believes it should move forward expeditiously. In a December 2011 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
69 

letter to stakeholders, TSA stated that it anticipated a final rule 

would be finished by the fourth quarter of 2012. Based on past performance, the Committee has little confidence that TSA and DHS 

will meet this deadline. Therefore, the Committee has included a 

provision that will limit funding for the Department’s Office of 

General Counsel until the final rule is published. The Committee 

does not take this step lightly, but lack of progress on an important 

security rule warrants this action. 

AIR CARGO

The Committee recommends $122,096,000 for air cargo, the same as requested and $1,442,000 above fiscal year 2012. This sustains 

the $6,000,000 for cargo security initiatives provided in fiscal year 

2012, along with corresponding funding described above under 

Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement, for initiatives to enhance air cargo inspection and other security oversight and improvements. While TSA has met its goal of 100 percent of domestic 

air cargo screening, the Committee continues to support TSA efforts to achieve 100 percent system-wide screening of air cargo on 

passenger aircraft, to include originating from last point of departure airports overseas. The initiative funding may be used to enhance inspection, investigation, and monitoring efforts, including 

on all-cargo airlines. The Committee continues a requirement for 

an expenditure plan for air cargo investments. 

The Committee notes that TSA continues to collaborate with foreign governments and air carriers to meet the 9/11 Act requirement to screen all air cargo bound for the United States, helping 

such governments align cargo screening methods to TSA standards. 

The Committee continues to include statutory language requiring 

TSA to report quarterly on its progress in meeting the 9/11 Act 

screening deadline for air cargo coming from overseas until the 

deadline is met. 

RISK-BASED APPROACHES TO PASSENGER SCREENING

The Committee has been encouraged to hear, both in testimony 

this year as well as in reporting related to pilot efforts now being 

field tested, that TSA is actively pursuing ways to apply a more 

risk-based approach to its screening and security systems and procedures. PreCheck, a limited scope ‘‘trusted traveler’’ program, is 

currently being tested at a number of airports where participants, 

who volunteer information about themselves for additional government review prior to flying, are eligible for expedited screening at 

those airports. In its pilot phase, certain frequent fliers with particular air carriers, and participants in the CBP Global Entry program flying on participating carriers, are eligible. PreCheck is currently being piloted with three airlines and at 28 U.S. airports. In 

2012, TSA plans to expand the program to four airlines and a total 

of 50 airports. Along other lines, TSA is implementing adjustments 

in its protocols for generally lower-risk populations (children, elderly, or military personnel on official travel). 

The Committee would note that the data TSA has available on 

PreCheck participants varies significantly, with much more personal and biographic information supplied by those in existing 

trusted traveler programs such as Global Entry than is supplied to 

TSA for those selected by virtue of their membership in frequent 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
70 

flyer programs. The Committee, therefore, encourages TSA to use 

its existing statutory authority, under the Aviation Transportation 

Security Act, to continue to develop, test, and expand the PreCheck 

program for U.S. citizens who voluntarily submit to a security 

threat assessment and criminal history background check, including possibly a review of biometric data, and in accordance with applicable privacy laws and standards. Such threat assessments and 

background checks could be conducted by TSA as part of a trusted 

traveler enrollment process, utilize publicly-available commercial 

data, and should include appropriate constitutional privacy and 

civil liberties protections. The Committee encourages TSA to examine ways to provide participants in such a program with a streamlined and distinct checkpoint screening process. The Committee 

also encourages TSA to move forward in considering the potential 

of enrolling likely low-risk populations, such as U.S. citizens possessing current Top Secret security clearances, in such a trusted 

traveler program, and encourages DHS to coordinate development 

of the program with trusted traveler programs operated by CBP. 

The Committee directs TSA to brief the Committees on a biannual 

basis beginning no later than 90 days after the date of enactment 

of this Act on progress in developing and applying trusted traveler 

approaches and any legal or budgetary impediments to their implementation. The briefing should also identify savings and efficiencies generated by these efforts. 

Additional discussion of this issue is included in the classified 

annex to this report. 

PERSONAL SEARCHES OF FAMILIES TRAVELING WITH CHILDREN

The Committee is aware that parents and guardians traveling 

with young children present a unique challenge to TSA, when a 

personal search is required of either adults or their minor children. 

It is particularly important that TSA, while carrying out any preboarding inspections of passengers, not separate children from 

their parents or guardians. The Committee directs TSA, in processing such travelers, to comply with the requirements set forth in 

section 540 in the bill, requiring that TSA respect the civil rights 

and privacy of individuals, with particular sensitivity to children 

traveling with their parents and guardians, and exercise sensitivity 

in handling such travelers so as to minimize any distress or discomfort. 

SECURITY DIRECTIVES

The Committee understands that the aviation community and 

Congress have expressed concerns in recent years over the apparent overuse by the TSA Administrator of authority to issue security 

regulations and directives using emergency procedures, rather than 

follow established regulatory processes. As a result, the issuance of 

such rulings has not been limited to any period of duration, causing 

economic difficulties for the pilots and aviation industry operators 

with no clear link to a specific threat situation. While the Committee recognizes that such emergency authority was established to 

allow TSA to put in place rapidly countermeasures needed to address emerging threats, there should be a distinction between those 

of limited duration or scope, and those that require a permanent 

or long-term change in security measures and practices. The ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
71 

mittee, therefore, urges TSA to work with the industry on a way 

forward to normalize its approach to the set of security procedures 

required and utilize regulatory action in lieu of the current overreliance on emergency authority. 

CANINE TEAMS

The Committee is aware of the important role canine teams play 

in assisting in the screening of air cargo and in supporting efforts 

to prevent explosives from being introduced into mass transit and 

other transportation systems. TSA has funded 518 local law enforcement officer-led units at 78 airports nationwide, where they 

divide their efforts between cargo screening and associated facilities and are joined by 120 proprietary (federally handled) passenger screening teams that focus on 30 high-volume airports. 

There are also 23 multi-modal Federal canine teams and 120 proprietary canine teams that focus on the top 20 domestic airports 

with the greatest passenger air cargo, as well as 117 teams dedicated to mass transit security at 18 locations. The Committee, as 

noted above, has included funding for an additional 24 teams for 

the aviation environment, as well as an additional 26 teams in the 

surface environment (see below). It is the Committee’s expectation 

that this enhancement of a total of 50 new canine teams will permit TSA to build up its current rate of deployment and training 

and move closer to higher screening percentages and more effective 

screening operations. 

To better understand how the National Explosives Detection Canine Training Program can contribute more broadly to national requirements for canine detection capability, the Committee directs 

TSA to brief the Committees no later than 90 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act on current and potential ways in which 

TSA can help meet such needs. 

FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN OF INVESTMENTS

In the statement of managers accompanying the fiscal year 2012 

DHS Appropriation Act, TSA was directed to submit, at the time 

the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget was submitted, a five-year 

strategic plan for each of its passenger screening technology acquisitions. The report was to include projected spending for fiscal 

years 2013–2017, to provide an estimate for total cost for each acquisition, and to provide an estimated completion date for each 

technology. The Committee is displeased that the report has not 

been submitted, over three months after the budget has been submitted—for a program that has no significant acquisitions planned 

in fiscal year 2013. It is essential that TSA provide this level of detail to the Committees on Appropriations to enable them to better 

understand future acquisition and resource needs. The Committee 

directs TSA to submit the required report as soon as possible, and 

to provide the next five-year plan promptly with the submission of 

the fiscal year 2014 budget request. 

DISPOSITION OF UNCLAIMED MONEY AND ASSISTANCE TO MILITARY

PERSONNEL AND THEIR DEPENDENTS

The Committee includes a general provision that would repeal 

section 44945 of title 49, United States Code. This provision, origiVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
72 

nally adopted as section 515 of the fiscal year 2005 Department of 

Homeland Security Appropriations Act (Public Law 108–334), specifically authorized and directed unclaimed money that is collected 

at airport security checkpoints to be used for civil aviation security. 

However, in practice the funds have been little used, and as a result the Committee has rescinded large unobligated balances of 

such funds. 

The Committee is aware members of the armed services and 

their families have an ongoing and substantial need for support as 

they travel domestically. The Committee therefore directs TSA to 

continue to retain unclaimed money currently recovered at airport 

security checkpoints. The Committee further directs TSA, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to transfer current and future balances of unclaimed money to nonprofit organizations that 

are selected on a competitive basis to operate airport centers in 

multiple locations throughout the United States to provide a place 

of rest and recuperation for members of the armed forces and their 

families. In implementing this action, TSA shall ensure that small 

airports have a mechanism for transferring unclaimed money to 

TSA headquarters, which shall consolidate the collections. 

The Committee directs the Administrator of TSA to submit not 

later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, to the House Committees on Appropriations, 

Armed Services, and Homeland Security, a report that contains a 

detailed description of the amount of unclaimed money recovered 

in total and at each individual airport, and the amount of unclaimed money transferred to the aforementioned nonprofit organizations and the dates of such transfers. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $134,748,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 124,276,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 126,418,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥8,330,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2013 ............................................. +2,142,000 

MISSION

Surface Transportation Security is responsible for assessing the 

risk of terrorist attacks for all non-aviation transportation modes, 

issuing regulations to improve the security of those modes, and enforcing regulations to ensure the protection of the transportation 

system. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $126,418,000 for Surface Transportation Security, $2,142,000 above the amount requested and 

$8,330,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. Within 

this total, $36,353,000 is for staffing and operations and 

$90,065,000 is for surface transportation security inspectors and 

canines. This reflects no funding for a requested fiscal year 2013 

pay raise, and reflects an increase of $4,500,000 for an additional 

26 surface canine teams for passenger and cargo screening in the 

mass transit and maritime domain. It also reflects a reduction of 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
73 

$2,000,000 from VIPR teams, which have experienced significant 

delays in hiring. 

TRANSPORT OF SECURITY-SENSITIVE MATERIALS

The Committee encourages TSA to diligently pursue implementation of programs required by and authorized pursuant to Section 

1554 of the 9/11 Act as part of their mission to improve security 

of surface transportation modes and to develop risk management 

systems for shipments of security-sensitive materials. 

TRANSPORTATION THREAT ASSESSMENT AND CREDENTIALING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $163,954,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 192,631,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 192,424,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +28,470,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2013 ............................................. ¥207,000 

MISSION

The mission of Transportation Threat Assessment and 

Credentialing (TTAC) is to reduce the probability of a successful attack on the transportation system through the application of threat 

assessment methodologies to identify known or suspected terrorist 

threats working in or seeking access to the Nation’s transportation 

system. This appropriation consolidates management of all TSA 

vetting and credentialing programs, including Secure Flight, Crew 

Vetting, Transportation Worker Identification Credential, Registered Traveler, Hazardous Materials, and Alien Flight School. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a direct appropriation of 

$192,424,000 for Transportation Threat Assessment and 

Credentialing (TTAC), $207,000 below the budget request and 

$28,470,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. In addition, the Committee anticipates TSA will collect $79,720,000 in 

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

Budget Estimate Recommended 

Direct Appropriation: 

Secure Flight ....................................................................................................... $107,074,000 $106,935,000 

Crew and Other Vetting Programs ..................................................................... 85,557,000 85,489,000 

Subtotal, Direct Appropriations ................................................................. 192,631,000 192,424,000 

Fee Collections: 

Transportation Worker Identification Credential ................................................ 47,300,000 47,300,000 

Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................... 12,000,000 12,000,000 

Alien Flight School (transfer from DOJ) ............................................................. 5,000,000 5,000,000 

General Aviation ................................................................................................. 100,000 100,000 

Air Cargo ............................................................................................................. 7,200,000 7,200,000 

Commercial Aviation and Airport ....................................................................... 8,000,000 8,000,000 

Other Security Threat Assessments .................................................................... 120,000 120,000 

Sensitive Security Information Fees ................................................................... – – – – – – 

Subtotal, Fee Collections ........................................................................... $79,720,000 $79,720,000 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
74 

SECURE FLIGHT

The Committee recommends $106,935,000 for Secure Flight, $139,000 below the amount requested and $14,521,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2012. Within this funding is 

$12,717,000 for expanded watch list vetting to support the General 

Aviation Security Rule, thus covering an anticipated 11 million additional passengers per year who fly on large aircraft and charters. 

No funding is included for the requested fiscal year 2013 pay raise. 

CREW AND OTHER VETTING

The Committee recommends $85,489,000 for Crew and other Vetting Programs, $68,000 below the request and $13,949,000 above 

fiscal year 2012, reflecting no funding for the requested fiscal year 

2013 pay raise. 

TTAC INFRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION

The largest component of the crew and other vetting appropria- tion consists of $57,700,000 requested for TTAC infrastructure 

modernization (TIM), which includes a $30,000,000 base restoration to complete the system before implementation of a universal 

fee rule, which will apply to vetting and other credentialing processes to provide access in the maritime environment, for hazardous 

materials, and eventually for aviation workers. This effort will consolidate and streamline duplicative vetting and credentialing services to current and future TSA screening populations and eliminate 

redundant background checks. The Committee notes that TSA has 

awarded a contract for TIM development with a planned implementation in fiscal year 2013, to enable functionality by 2014. 

The Committee recommends funding the request but expects the 

project to remain on schedule and be under budget. To facilitate its 

oversight, the Committee directs TSA to brief the Committees on 

Appropriations on the status of TIM no later than 30 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act and to advise the Committees of any 

developments that might delay plans to achieve initial operating 

capacity in 2014 or to publish a Universal Fee Rule. 

BIOMETRIC ACCESS CONTROL

Implementation of stronger credential and access controls at airports using biometric features has been supported by Congress, the 

Department, and many airport and airline officials. The Committee 

in recent years has included appropriations funding for TSA pilot 

efforts at airports to test the use of such technology and its integration into overall airport access systems. The Committee strongly 

urges TSA to continue working with the airport and airline community to implement biometric access and credential use and to ensure such systems are compatible with the Transportation Worker 

Identification Credential (TWIC), as well as those credentials developed in compliance with Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 requirements. 

TWIC READERS

The mandate to establish a TWIC credential and reader were 

carried in the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 

(MTSA), as amended by the SAFE Port Act of 2006. That legislaVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
75 

tion requires that final regulations for the card reader, which are 

led by the Coast Guard, be consistent with findings of the TWIC 

reader pilot program. That pilot was completed in May 2011, and 

a final report on the pilot issued in February 2012. At present 

there are over 30 readers that have been evaluated by TSA as capable of reading TWICs, and all are available by commercial 

sources. However, without a final reader rule, their adoption by 

ports and maritime facilities remains voluntary. As a result, 

TWICs are generally only used for visual inspection, making them 

essentially a ‘‘flash pass,’’ which significantly reduces their value as 

a security measure, and adds to the cost and time required to inspect them. 

The Committee is pleased that readers are now validated and 

ready for use, but it is ridiculous that a final rule has not been 

issued, particularly as there are over 1.9 million individuals currently enrolled in the TWIC program, many of whom will need to 

re-enroll this year. The Committee asserts that ten years is more 

than enough time for this action to occur and, therefore, directs the 

Coast Guard, the Department, and TSA to take all necessary action 

to expedite the completion and publication of a final rule. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $1,031,926,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 969,709,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 928,663,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥103,263,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2013 ............................................. ¥41,046,000 

MISSION

The Transportation Security Support account includes financial 

and human resources support; the Transportation Security Intelligence Service; information technology support; policy development 

and oversight; performance management and e-government; communications; public information and legislative affairs; training 

and quality performance; internal conduct and audit; legal advice; 

and overall headquarters administration. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $928,663,000 for Transportation Security Support, $41,046,000 below the amount requested and 

$103,263,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. A 

comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended 

level by PPA is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Headquarters Administration ....................................................................................... $281,554,000 $270,508,000 

Human Capital Services .............................................................................................. 225,829,000 215,829,000 

Information Technology ................................................................................................ 417,196,000 397,196,000 

Intelligence .................................................................................................................. 45,130,000 45,130,000 

Subtotal, Transportation Security Support ......................................................... $969,709,000 $928,663,000 

HEADQUARTERS ADMINISTRATION

The Committee recommends $270,508,000 for Headquarters Ad- ministration, $11,046,000 below the budget request, and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
76 

$21,826,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The 

Committee does not include $1,046,000 requested for a fiscal year 

2013 pay raise and has reduced funding an additional $10,000,000 

as an offset for the budget shortfall created by its reliance on unauthorized passenger security fees. 

HUMAN CAPITAL SERVICES

The Committee recommends $215,829,000 for Human Capital 

Services, $10,000,000 below the budget request, and $33,571,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The reduction, necessary to help offset the budgetary shortfall due to reliance on unauthorized aviation security fees, among other reasons, may come 

from advisory and assistance services. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The Committee recommends $397,196,000 for Information Technology, $20,000,000 below the budget request and $50,004,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The reduction, necessary to help offset the budgetary shortfall due to reliance on unauthorized aviation security fees, among other reasons, may come 

from advisory and assistance services. 

ACCOUNT STRUCTURE AND AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATIONS

TSA was directed in the fiscal year 2012 conference report statement of managers to brief the Committees on a proposed PPA 

structure reflecting one-year availability of appropriations for salaries and operations, with a longer availability for investment expenditures. However, the briefing and associated details were provided too late to be incorporated into this bill. The Committee intends the availability of appropriations for TSA to parallel that applying to other agencies funded in this bill, and so directs TSA to 

include a proposal for account restructuring with the fiscal year 

2014 budget request. The proposal should reflect, to the greatest 

degree possible, PPAs that align with existing major program categories, to include checkpoint and checked baggage screening operations; air cargo; law enforcement operations; surface transportation security; inspections; intelligence; and credentialing activities. 

COVERT TESTING

The Committee supports continued use of covert testing to help 

identify vulnerabilities in critical systems and directs TSA to aggressively and creatively, probe, challenge, and improve transportation security systems. As in previous years, the Committee directs TSA to brief the Committees semiannually on its red teaming 

and covert testing activities, including testing results at airport 

checkpoints, in secure areas of airports, at air cargo facilities, and 

in other transportation modes. TSA should also report on critical 

operational errors and equipment failures. 

EXPENDITURE PLANS FOR PURCHASE AND DEPLOYMENT OF AIR CARGO, 

CHECKPOINT SUPPORT, AND EXPLOSIVE DETECTION EQUIPMENT

The Committee continues bill language requiring TSA to provide 

a detailed spending and deployment plan for air cargo, checkpoint 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
77 

support, and explosive detection equipment. This plan shall be submitted no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this 

Act, and shall include: expenditures on an airport-by-airport basis 

for fiscal year 2013, including details on technologies purchased; 

project timelines; obligation schedules; and a table displaying actual versus anticipated unobligated balances at the close of the fiscal year, with an explanation for any deviation from original plans. 

The Committee recognizes TSA may need to revise its plan and so 

directs TSA to notify the Committees on Appropriations prior to 

amending its expenditure plan and reallocating such funds and update the Committees quarterly on these expenditures. 

FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $966,115,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 929,610,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 879,600,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥86,515,000 

Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2013 ............................................. ¥50,010,000 

MISSION

The Federal Air Marshals provide security for the Nation’s civil 

aviation system through the effective deployment of armed Federal 

agents to detect, deter, and defeat hostile acts targeting U.S. air 

carriers, airports, passengers, and crews. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $879,600,000 for the Federal Air 

Marshals (FAMs), $50,010,000 below the amount requested and 

$86,515,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. Of the 

total funding provided, $776,550,000 is for Management and Administration and $103,050,000 is for Travel and Training. 

This funding decrease reflects no funding for the proposed pay 

raise. It also reflects a readjustment in light of the multiple security enhancements in aviation security put in place since the 

Christmas Day 2009 bombing attempt. The Committee does, however, believe that this funding will provide adequate resources to 

ensure coverage of all high-risk international and domestic flights. 

Additional detail is included in the classified annex to this report. 

The Committee would note that there are additional law enforcement resources to complement the presence of Federal Air Marshals. These include FFDOs, which the Committee recommends 

funding at the fiscal year 2012 level (as opposed to the 50 percent 

reduction proposed in the President’s request). In addition, the 

large numbers of Federal law enforcement officers and agents who 

fly offer a significant potential to leverage the FAMs operation. The 

Committee notes that there have been several attempts to leverage 

this population, which could serve as a force multiplier, or possibly 

a ‘‘surge’’ capability in response to increased threat environments, 

but none were adopted. The Committee strongly encourages TSA 

and DHS to revisit the potential for such an approach, including 

development of a concept of operations and mechanisms for coordinating scheduling, communications, and training. The Committee 

directs TSA to submit a report no later than 120 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act outlining the best options for 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
78 

leveraging the Federal law enforcement population to supplement 

FAMS resources, including a detailed description of what the Department is doing to develop such options beyond a notional phase. 

The Committee expects TSA to set its FAMs staffing levels and 

deployment patterns to optimize coverage of flights so as to address 

known threats, minimize risk, and complement the full range of security resources available to TSA. It remains essential that TSA 

provide the Committee information about the analysis underpinning its staffing, scheduling and resource requirements, particularly given the high sustained levels of coverage since the 2009 

Christmas Day bombing attempt. The Committee, therefore, directs 

TSA to brief the Committees on Appropriations no later than 60 

days after the date of enactment of this Act on its optimal mix of 

staff; the types and frequency of flights for which FAMs coverage 

should be provided; and any legislative or regulatory changes that 

might be required to improve FAMs operations and overall aviation 

security. The Committee directs TSA to continue to submit quarterly reports on mission coverage, staffing levels, and hiring rates 

as in past years. 

COAST GUARD

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 1 ....................................................... $6,793,054,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 2 ................................................... 6,791,178,000 

Recommended in the bill 2 ................................................................. 6,759,627,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥33,427,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. ¥31,551,000 1Does not include $258,000,000 for the global war on terrorism. 

2Does not include funds for global war on terrorism/overseas contingency operations requested under Navy, 

Operations and Maintenance. 

MISSION

The Coast Guard is the principal Federal agency charged with 

maritime safety, security and stewardship. The Operating Expenses appropriation provides funding for the operation and maintenance of multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units strategically located along the coasts and inland waterways of the United 

States and in selected areas overseas. This is the primary appropriation financing operational activities of the Coast Guard. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $6,759,627,000 for Operating Expenses. The recommended funding 

level is $31,551,000 below the amount requested and $33,427,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The Committee’s 

recommendation for Coast Guard Operating Expenses excludes 

funds requested to support the global war on terrorism/overseas 

contingency operations. The Committee recommends a reduction of $35,000,000 for the 

Headquarters Directorate due to the DHS budget request’s reliance 

upon unauthorized fee collections, a flawed CBP request based on 

inaccessible fee collections, and poor record of compliance with statutory requirements, notably the Coast Guard’s failure to submit an 

adequate Capital Investment Plan. The Committee also includes a 

reduction of $2,947,000 for the denial of the civilian pay raise that 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
79 

was included in the budget request. The Committee recommends 

full funding for the military pay raise included in the fiscal year 

2013 request. 

The Committee recommends the following increases above the budget request: $35,000,000 to reduce the backlog in critical depot 

level maintenance; $1,977,000 to prevent the proposed decommissioning of three 110-foot Patrol boats, which will restore approximately 3,100 Patrol Boat operating hours; $10,000,000 to reduce 

the operational gap created by the disestablishment of the HighTempo-High-Maintenance program; and $8,416,000 to restore one 

of the two High Endurance Cutters proposed for decommissioning, 

which will restore approximately 1,665 cutter hours to support 

counter-drug operations in source and transit zones. While the recommendation does not restore funding for Air Facilities in Muskegon, Michigan and Waukegan, Wisconsin, funds are provided in 

the Acquisition, Construction, and Improvement (AC&I) appropriation to recapitalize two operational losses helicopters. 

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

Budget Estimate Recommended 

Military Pay and Allowances ....................................................................................... $3,415,595,000 $3,425,878,000 

Civilian Pay and Benefits ............................................................................................ 790,130,000 786,322,000 

Training and Recruiting .............................................................................................. 212,761,000 213,402,000 

Operating Funds and Unit Level Maintenance ........................................................... 1,092,419,000 1,063,346,000 

Centrally Managed Accounts ....................................................................................... 350,178,000 300,883,000 

Depot Level Maintenance ............................................................................................ 930,095,000 969,796,000 

Total, Operating Expenses .................................................................................. $6,791,178,000 $6,759,627,000 

REDUCTIONS TO OPERATING EXPENSES

Throughout this bill, the Committee has prioritized funding to 

frontline security operations and essential personnel across DHS. 

In fiscal year 2012, the Department requested a substantial reduction in funding that would have degraded the Coast Guard’s operational capabilities and military workforce without a compensating 

proposal to rebuild depleted capacity for the long term by investing 

in recapitalized assets. That proposal had obvious, adverse implications for the Coast Guard’s critical missions of maritime safety, 

coastal security, and drug interdiction; ignored current threat activity and the ramifications for the Department’s broader security 

efforts; and was resoundingly rejected by Congress. In contrast, in 

the fiscal year 2013 budget request the Department has proposed 

a far more balanced approach to reducing the Coast Guard’s operational costs while sustaining needed investments in both targeted 

capabilities and new acquisitions and asset refurbishments. The 

Committee directs the Coast Guard to present clearly any known 

or expected adverse impacts to operational proficiency and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals created by proposed decreases in its Operating Expenses in future budget submissions, beginning with the fiscal year 2014 budget justification materials. 

TWIC READERS

As discussed earlier in this report, the final report on the TWIC 

reader pilot was finally issued in February 2012. At present there 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
80 

are over 30 readers that have been evaluated by TSA as capable 

of reading TWICs. However, a final reader rule has not been 

issued. The Committee asserts that ten years is more than enough 

time for this action to occur and, therefore, directs the Coast 

Guard, the Department, and TSA to take all necessary action to expedite the completion and publication of a final rule. 

RESOURCES FOR THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM

The Committee does not recommend funding under this heading 

for the costs of the Coast Guard’s support for the global war on terrorism and overseas contingency operations. The fiscal year 2013 

budget request instead includes these funds via a permissive transfer from Operations and Maintenance, Navy. The Committee concurs with this decision, since the funds requested are based on the 

needs of the Combatant Commander, which will not be fully defined until the year of execution. As future plans evolve, the Navy 

may transfer the amounts as needed to the Coast Guard for the expenses incurred based on requests for forces from the Combatant 

Commander. 

In the future, if these types of overseas operations become part 

of the normal operational mission, funds should be included within 

the existing funding for Coast Guard’s defense function. 

The Coast Guard is directed to notify the Committees of Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives within five 

days of a transfer of the funds from Operations and Maintenance, 

Navy to Coast Guard, Operating Expenses. The notification shall 

include a detailed justification for the funds and how the funds are 

allocated across PPAs. 

HIGH TEMPO-HIGH MAINTENANCE PROGRAM TERMINATION

As noted above, the Committee recommends an additional 

$11,977,000 to increase planned patrol boat hours and to restore 

three 110 foot Patrol Boats. Together, these initiatives will provide 

sufficient hours to maintain the same number of patrol boat hours 

as provided in fiscal year 2012. 

These increases are required due to the termination of the high 

tempo-high maintenance (HTHM) program. The Committee was 

dismayed at the decision by the Coast Guard to presuppose the termination of this program prior to submitting the termination plan 

to Congress with the submission of the fiscal year 2013 budget. By 

the time the program termination was briefed to the Committee, 

the only alternative to maintain sufficient patrol boat hours was to 

defer the proposed patrol boat decommissionings and provide funding to increase the programmed operating hours of remaining inservice patrol boats. 

The HTHM program was created by Congress to address the critical need to perform counter-drug operations in the Caribbean 

source and transit zones. In the future, the Coast Guard shall brief 

the Committee prior to starting the process of terminating such a 

high profile and successful program. 

ENHANCEMENTS TO DEPOT LEVEL MAINTENANCE

The Committee recommends an additional $39,701,000 above the 

amount requested for enhancements to critical depot level mainteVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
81 

nance programs. Additional funds are intended to replenish repair 

parts and execute backlogged and deferred critical depot level 

maintenance for assets, including: $17,000,000 for cutters to address maintenance requirements for aging cutters; and help the 

210-foot, and the 270-foot medium endurance cutter fleets to help 

these cutters improve their availability performance; $13,000,000 

for aircraft to address a recurring parts shortfall that is reducing 

aircraft availability and surge capacity, including funds for the critical purchase of H–60 Tail Rotor Blades (life-limiting components) 

to preserve H–60 fleet readiness; and $5,000,000 to address critical 

shore facility maintenance needs, including waterfront and airfield 

repairs, dredging projects, and life safety (barracks sprinkler/fire 

suppression) systems. None of these additional funds may be obligated until five days after the Coast Guard briefs the Committee 

on the expenditure plan for these funds. 

SMALL BOATS

The Committee directs the Coast Guard to brief the Committee 

no later than October 1, 2012 on the current status of the small 

boat program to include operation and maintenance costs and future recapitalization plans. 

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $13,500,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 13,162,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 12,151,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥1,349,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. ¥1,011,000 

MISSION

The Environmental Compliance and Restoration appropriation 

assists in bringing Coast Guard facilities into compliance with applicable Federal, State and environmental regulations; preparing 

and testing facilities response plans; developing pollution and hazardous waste minimization strategies; conducting environmental 

assessments; and furnishing necessary program support. These 

funds permit the continuation of a service-wide program to correct 

environmental problems, such as through major improvements of 

storage tanks containing petroleum and regulated substances. The 

program focuses mainly on Coast Guard facilities, but also includes 

third party sites where Coast Guard activities have contributed to 

environmental problems. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $12,151,000 for Environmental 

Compliance and Restoration, $1,011,000 below the amount requested and $1,349,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 

2012. A reduction is made to the budget request for this account 

due to operational priorities. 

The Coast Guard is directed to submit an itemized expenditure 

plan for each project listed in the backlog report to the Committees 

on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives with 

its annual budget submission. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
82 

RESERVE TRAINING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $134,278,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 132,554,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 115,528,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥18,750,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. ¥17,026,000 

MISSION

This appropriation provides for the training of qualified individuals who are available for active duty in time of war or national 

emergency or to augment regular Coast Guard forces in the performance of peacetime missions. Program activities fall into the following categories: 

Initial training.—The direct costs of initial training for three 

categories of non-prior service trainees; 

Continued training.—The training of officer and enlisted personnel; 

Operation and maintenance of training facilities.—The dayto-day operation and maintenance of reserve training facilities; 

and 

Administration.—All administrative costs of the reserve 

forces program. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $115,528,000 for Reserve Training, 

$17,026,000 below the amount requested and $18,750,000 below 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. This reduction is based on 

the lack of budget justification for this program, budgeting constraints, and the failure to comply with statutory requirements. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... $50,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +50,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. +50,000,000 

MISSION

The Automation Modernization account funds major information 

technology projects for the Coast Guard. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for automation modernization. OMB’s IT Dashboard indicates that the Coast Guard 

has $643,500,000 in fiscal year 2012 for information technology 

programs, of which $461,500,000 is for major investments; however, the budget request for Coast Guard does not account for these 

funds. As with other ‘‘Automation Modernization’’ accounts within 

the DHS budget, the Committee recommends consolidating funding 

for Coast Guard information technology programs in a single account to provide greater visibility into Coast Guard’s management 

of this significant investment. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
83 

The Coast Guard is encouraged to work with the Committee 

prior to the submission of the fiscal year 2014 budget request to 

delineate the specific programs and types of activities to include in 

this account. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $1,403,924,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 1,192,309,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,428,593,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +24,669,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. +236,284,000 

MISSION

The Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) 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 $1,428,593,000 for AC&I, 

$236,284,000 above the amount requested and $24,669,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. 

The Committee recommends significant restructuring of numerous programs to align funding with the requirements in the fiscal 

year of need. Further, the recommendation provides funding for 

programs that have a proven track record, are low risk, have 

known costs, and provide increased capability. 

The Committee recommends the following reductions from the 

amounts requested: a net reduction of $26,500,000 requested for 

the National Security Cutter; a reduction of $5,000,000 from the 

amount requested for the Offshore Patrol Cutter; a reduction of 

$15,000,000 from the amount requested for Program Oversight and 

Management; a reduction of $2,500,000 for Systems Engineering 

and Integration; and a reduction of $216,000 from Personnel and 

Related Support. 

The Committee recommends the following rescissions in title V 

of this bill from prior year accounts: from funds provided in fiscal 

year 2010, $37,500,000 for post-delivery activities for fourth National Security Cutter (NSC) and $5,000,000 from funds for the Patrol Boat Sustainment program; from funds provided in fiscal year 

2011, $54,100,000 for post-delivery activities for the fifth NSC, 

$23,000,000 from funds for the Offshore Patrol Cutter, and 

$10,000,000 for funds for Systems Integration and Engineering; 

and from funds provided in fiscal year 2012, $27,000,000 from 

funds for the Offshore Patrol Cutter, $5,000,000 from funds for the 

MH–60 program, $10,000,000 from funds for the MH–65 program, 

and $10,000,000 for funds for Systems Engineering and Integration. 

The Committee recommends the following increases above the 

amount requested: an increase of $85,000,000 above the amount requested for the Fast Response Cutter; an increase of $5,000,000 for 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
84 

Medium Endurance Cutter Sustainment; an additional $28,000,000 

for the replacement costs of two MH–60 helicopters; an additional 

$12,000,000 for a mission pallet for the Maritime Patrol Aircraft; 

an additional $90,000,000 for one Long Range Surveillance Aircraft; and an increase of $40,500,000 for shore facilities, aids to 

navigation, housing, and infrastructure projects. 

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

Budget Estimate Recommended 

Vessels 

Cutter Small Boats ............................................................................................. $4,000,000 $4,000,000 

Fast Response Cutter (FRC) ............................................................................... 139,000,000 224,000,000 

Medium Endurance Cutter (MEC) Sustainment ................................................. 13,000,000 18,000,000 

National Security Cutter (NSC) ........................................................................... 683,000,000 656,500,000 

Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) .............................................................................. 30,000,000 25,000,000

Polar Ice Breaking Vessel ................................................................................... 8,000,000 8,000,000

Survey and Design-Vessels and Boats .............................................................. 2,500,000 2,500,000 

Subtotal, Vessels .............................................................................. 879,500,000 938,000,000 

Aircraft 

Long Range Surveillance Aircraft ....................................................................... – – – 90,000,000 

HH–60 Acquisition/Conversion/Sustainment ...................................................... – – – 28,000,000 

HH–65 Acquisition/Conversion/Sustainment ...................................................... 31,500,000 31,500,000 

Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) ........................................................................... 43,000,000 55,000,000 

Subtotal, Aircraft .............................................................................. 74,500,000 204,500,000 

Other Acquisition Programs 

C4ISR .................................................................................................................. 40,500,000 40,500,000 

Government Program Management .................................................................... 25,000,000 10,000,000 

Nationwide Automatic Identification System ..................................................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 

CG–LIMS ............................................................................................................. 2,500,000 2,500,000 

System Engineering and Integration .................................................................. 2,500,000 – – – 

Subtotal, Other Equipment ............................................................... 76,500,000 59,000,000 

Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation 

Major/Minor construction; Housing; ATON; and survey & design ...................... 15,000,000 55,500,000 

Major Acquisition Systems Infrastructure .......................................................... 49,411,000 49,411,000 

Minor Shore ......................................................................................................... 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Subtotal, Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation ........................... 69,411,000 109,911,000 

Personnel and Related Support 

AC&I Core ........................................................................................................... 600,000 600,000 

Direct Personnel Costs ....................................................................................... 116,798,000 116,582,000 

Subtotal, Personnel and Related Support ........................................ 117,398,000 117,182,000 

Total, Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements .............. $1,192,309,000 $1,428,593,000 

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 conference report accompanying Public Law 112–74. 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN

The Committee is concerned by Coast Guard’s noncompliance 

with the requirement in Public Law 112–74 to submit a Capital 

Investment Plan (CIP) to Congress with the submission of the 

budget. To address these concerns, the Committee has withheld 

significant funds from various Headquarters’ offices to include 

$75,000,000 from the Coast Guard Headquarters’ Directorate and, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
85 

additionally, reduces funding for Coast Guard Headquarters Directorate by $35,000,000. Further, a general provision is included that 

restricts usage by specific leaders within the Department from 

using fix-wing aircraft, except for specific emergent reasons, until 

the CIP and the Comprehensive Acquisition Strategy Plan, as required in title I of this bill, are submitted. 

The Coast Guard is directed to submit a CIP in accordance with 

the specified requirements listed in the bill in conjunction with the 

budget submission for fiscal year 2014. The Committee continues 

to believe the CIP serves as the primary means of oversight for 

tracking the Coast Guard’s recapitalization efforts and therefore 

must be submitted in accordance with mandated timelines. The 

failure of the Coast Guard to submit the required information in 

a timely manner hinders the Committees oversight responsibility 

and forces budgetary decisions to be made with limited program information. Continued failures will not be tolerated by the Committee. 

NEW STARTS

Public Law 112–74 provided $37,713,000, as requested, for a new 

radar sensor system for the MH–60 helicopter program. However, 

subsequent to enactment of the fiscal year 2012 appropriation, the 

Coast Guard terminated the radar sensor system and repurposed 

the funds for a new component replacement program. While acknowledging the need for component replacement, the Committee 

is dismayed that the Coast Guard failed to inform the Committee 

of this program change. Once a program has been specifically requested in budget justification and funded by Congress, the Coast 

Guard is duty-bound to inform Congress when it creates a new program, project, or activity or eliminates a program, project, or activity. 

The use of budget justification material as a baseline aligns with 

Department of Defense (DoD) reprogramming rules. The DoD Financial Management Regulations (Volume 3, Chapter 6) states new 

starts are new procurement line items or major components thereof, not previously justified by the Department and funded by the 

Congress through the normal budget as determined by specific supporting information provided in the budget materials. 

The Committee directs the Coast Guard to comply with the intent of section 503 of this bill with respect to the creation of a program that has not previously been specifically requested and justified by Congress in budget justification and also to the termination 

of a program that has previously been specifically requested and 

justified by Congress in budget justification. 

REVISED BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

The Coast Guard shall include a detailed budget justification for 

each PPA in AC&I for which funding is requested, or funding available from prior years. In the fiscal year 2013 budget request, the 

Coast Guard failed to provide program justification for numerous 

programs that have outstanding balances of funds previously appropriated but unobligated. This practice of not including sufficiently detailed justification needlessly hinders oversight by this 

Committee into how taxpayer funds are being executed. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
86 

Further, the budget justification aircraft and vessels for fiscal 

year 2014 shall include detailed cost information consistent with 

the appropriate work breakdown structure elements for the program and standardized for similar type systems such as aircraft 

and vessels. The breakdown shall include the following: per unit 

cost and associated quantity; antecedent liability; long lead-time 

material; warranty; supply support; training; economic price adjustment; survey, design and engineering; project management; 

post-delivery activities, spares and other categories, as needed. The 

information shall include all fiscal years from prior years through 

to complete years for relevant categories. 

The budget justification for programs that are conversions or 

sustainment shall provide similar data. Additionally, the justification shall include types of modifications, quantity of kits and 

planned installation schedule of modification kits. 

The budget justification for Program Oversight and Management, 

System Engineering and Integration and C4ISR shall provide a 

breakout of funding by asset. 

Additionally, the budget justification shall provide procurement 

history and planning for the prior year, current year and budget 

year to include quantity and unit cost, contracting office location, 

contractor, contract method/type, award date, date of first delivery, 

and the availability of technical date package. 

The Coast Guard is strongly encouraged to work with the Committee prior to the submission of the fiscal year 2014 budget request to clarify the types of information required in Congressional 

budget justification materials. 

FULL FUNDING

The Committee includes a new general provision to address the 

lack of clarity in certain programs with respect to budgeting for 

long lead-time materials, end items, outfitting, post-delivery activities, spares, program management, and contract closeout. Acquisition programs within the AC&I appropriation have previously been 

required to comply with an interpretation of OMB Circular A–11 

that forces the Coast Guard to request funding for activities that 

will not occur until years in the future. A current example of this 

issue is the Coast Guard’s request for fiscal year 2013 that includes 

funding for post-delivery activities of the sixth National Security 

Cutter that will not occur until fiscal year 2019. This creates significant backlog, prevents acquisition of other capabilities, and is 

an ineffective use of taxpayer funds. 

While the Committee agrees that items should be fully funded, 

the requirement to fully fund an end item to include outfitting, 

post-delivery activities, spares, and program management in the 

same fiscal year as the initial procurement creates a carry-over of 

funds from one fiscal year to another for items that are actually 

severable from the initial end item. Further, the denial of the ability to budget for long lead-time material for large, complex end 

items such as the National Security Cutter (NSC) creates further 

budget pressures in a significantly constrained fiscal environment. 

The requirement to ‘‘fully fund’’ the sixth NSC consumes over fifty 

percent of the Coast Guards fiscal year 2013 AC&I request. 

It is disconcerting that DHS follows this overly conservative and 

costly requirement, unlike other Federal Departments. For examVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
87 

ple, the Department of Defense is allowed to budget for advance 

procurement of items prior to procurement, and then budgets for 

outfitting, post-delivery activities, and spares at the time of need 

or a lead-time away from need (i.e., the appropriate fiscal year) as 

stipulated in the DoD Financial Management Regulation (Volume 

2A, Chapter 1). Further evidence of this disparity is how the Department of the Navy requests funds for the CVN 79 within the 

Carrier Replacement Program. The program initiated advance procurement for CVN 79 in fiscal year 2008 and continued advance 

procurement funding through fiscal year 2012. The Navy’s request 

for fiscal year 2013 initiates the actual procurement with plans to 

spread the procurement over six years. Only after delivery will the 

Navy request funds for post-delivery activities and initial spares. 

However, the Coast Guard is not permitted to budget in this manner. 

The Committee includes a general provision that specifically addresses these issues by defining long lead-time material, outfitting, 

post-delivery activities, spares, and program management. Further, 

the provision explicitly states that these activities shall be funded 

in the fiscal year that corresponds to the time of need or a leadtime away from need. 

Future budget submissions for the AC&I appropriations shall include funding for end items that correspond to the need to contract 

for the item, to include the budgeting for long lead-time materials, 

as required. Further, the Committee directs that the Coast Guard 

comply with this new general provision of this Act with respect to 

budgeting for post-delivery, outfitting, spares, and program management. 

CARRY OVER

The Coast Guard has numerous examples within the history of 

the AC&I appropriation of requests for funding for assets or programs that will not obligate until future fiscal years. While there 

are some cases where such forward funding may be required to 

meet antecedent liabilities or other contractual requirements that 

mandate funding be available even though it will not immediately 

obligate, in many cases, it is the result of insufficient planning resulting in poor budgeting. 

As budgets continue to tighten, the Committee cannot allow 

funds to sit idly for multiple fiscal years. To address this issue, the 

recommendation includes reductions due to carry over from the National Security Cutter program, the Fast Response Cutter program, 

Program Management, and Systems Engineering and Integration. 

Further, the recommendation includes rescissions to prior year appropriations of languishing carry-over. 

In future budgets, the Coast Guard shall request funding programs, assets, modifications, and installs that it will execute in the 

budget request 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 carry-over. This 

includes the purchase of modification kits prior to the input of aircraft into a depot or the funding of an installation prior to the fiscal year of such install. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
88 

NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER

The Committee recommends $656,500,000 for the National Security Cutter program, a decrease of $26,500,000 from the request 

and $579,500,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. 

The recommendation includes a decrease of $17,000,000 for contract savings associated with the long lead-time material contract 

for sixth NSC. The recommendation complies with the new general 

provision in title V of this bill with respect to full funding and, accordingly, reduces funding for post-delivery activities and program 

management that are requested ahead of need. The recommendation also rescinds funds in title V of this bill for post-delivery activities for the fourth and fifth NSC for the same reasons. 

The Committee recommends $66,000,000 for long lead-time material for the seventh NSC. Initiating procurement of the seventh 

NSC is a low-risk option with known, fixed costs that provides a 

greater capability today instead of waiting years for a future program to evolve. The arguments proffered by the Administration to 

explain their failure to request this needed funding are without 

merit. This cavalier approach will result in higher costs and an 

undue delay of critical operational capabilities. 

FAST RESPONSE CUTTER

The Committee recommends $224,000,000 for the acquisition of 

four Fast Response Cutters (FRCs), $85,000,000 above the amount 

requested and $134,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal 

year 2012. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request included only two FRCs and 

proposed a restructure of the funds provided in fiscal year 2012. In 

the Public Law 112–74, Congress provided funding for six FRCs, 

the contract’s maximum sustaining rate, in order to accrue 

$30,000,000 in savings due to economy of scale. The Coast Guard 

has now proposed in its fiscal year 2013 request to only contract 

for four cutters in fiscal year 2012 and then place the remaining 

two fiscal year 2012 cutters on contract in fiscal year 2013 to have 

a combined buy of four FRCs in fiscal year 2013, as four cutters 

is the minimum contract. 

This proposal by the Coast Guard not only squanders the savings 

from fiscal year 2012 but also fiscal year 2013. This represents almost $60,000,000 in savings that will not be realized while delaying the delivery of much needed capability. 

The recommendation addresses these concerns by providing $95,000,000 above the budget proposal for two additional FRCs. 

The recommendation also includes a reduction of $10,000,000 for 

carry over. The Committee will continue to work with the Coast 

Guard to ensure that the FRC program is properly funded in order 

to place all six FRC’s funded by Congress in fiscal year 2012 on 

contract in that fiscal year. 

OFFSHORE PATROL CUTTER

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Offshore Patrol 

Cutter (OPC), $5,000,000 below the request and the same as the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The recommendation also includes a rescission of $50,000,000 from funds previously provided 

in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
89 

In fiscal year 2011, the Coast Guard requested and was appropriated $45,000,000 to support the award and evaluation of a Preliminary and Contract Design (P&CD) contract. Again, in fiscal 

year 2012, the Coast Guard requested and was appropriated an additional $25,000,000 to support the award and evaluation of a 

P&CD contact. In the fiscal year 2013, the Coast Guard has again 

requested funding to support the award and evaluation of a P&CD 

contract. To date, none of the funds appropriated for a P&CD contract have been obligated, creating carry over in excess of 

$60,000,000. 

The Coast Guard has stated that its plans to obligate significant 

funds on up to three P&CD contracts to include the contract design 

option in fiscal year 2013. However, the Committee is concerned 

that these actions are contrary to the Project Life Cycle Cost Estimate (PLCCE) that was signed on March 1, 2012 and the draft 

Phase I Statement of Work (SOW) released on March 14, 2012 and 

may result in a rush to judgment. The PLCCE explicitly states that 

the acquisition strategy for OPC includes awarding multiple P&CD 

contracts, with preliminary design efforts awarded in fiscal year 

2013 and an option for contract design efforts in fiscal year 2014. 

The draft Phase I SOW notes that Preliminary Design and Contract Design are distinct efforts with Preliminary Design culminating with a Preliminary Design Review (PDR). The Committee 

concurs with this strategy to obligate funds only for the Preliminary Design option and only after review of the work that is required under that portion of the contract and PDR is completed, to 

execute an option for the Contract Design. This provides the Coast 

Guard the opportunity to down select after completion of Preliminary Design, if needed. This type of strategy is similar to the competitive prototyping that is statutorily required for all Department 

of Defense acquisitions as a part of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–23). 

Accordingly, the Committee denies part of the request in fiscal 

year 2013 and rescinds $50,000,000 from prior years based on significant carry over and the inability of the Coast Guard to fully articulate an acquisition strategy that aligns with the PLCCE. 

The critical need for a replacement of the legacy Medium Endurance Cutters cannot be denied and that need grows more each 

year. However, a cautious acquisition strategy is also needed so 

that the acquisition failures, as seen in other programs, do not 

delay even further a new and much needed capability. 

MEDIUM ENDURANCE CUTTER SUSTAINMENT

The Committee recommends $18,000,000 for Medium Endurance 

Cutter (WMEC) Sustainment, $5,000,000 above the request and 

$29,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The 

Committee remains concerned with the sustainability of the 

WMEC fleet as programs such as the Offshore Patrol Cutter continue to be delayed. As the WMEC’s continue to age, the Coast 

Guard cannot delay a review of the current condition to set a baseline for future sustainment efforts. The additional funding shall be 

used to conduct a WMEC condition survey to address potential 

service life extension requirements. The Commandant of the Coast 

Guard shall provide Congress with a plan and timeline for the reVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
90 

view 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act and quarterly 

thereafter until the study is complete. 

POLAR ICE BREAKER VESSEL

The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the new polar icebreaker program, the same as the request and $8,000,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. 

MH–60 HELICOPTER

The Committee recommends $28,000,000 for the aircraft replacement of two MH–60 helicopters, an increase of $28,000,000 above 

the request and $9,700,000 above the amount provided in fiscal 

year 2012. The Coast Guard continues to successfully modify 

former Navy Seahawk helicopters—providing greater capability at 

a lower cost. This funding will allow for the conversion of two additional helicopters and assist in replacement of assets lost in the 

line of duty. 

HC–130J AIRCRAFT

The Committee recommends $90,000,000 for one HC–130J aircraft, an increase of $90,000,000 above the request and $28,000,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The current fleet 

of HC–130H aircraft are expensive to maintain and lack the updated technology in the newer J-model aircraft. However, to date, 

the Coast Guard has not fully developed a program of record for 

the HC–130J even though funding has been appropriated for nine 

aircraft and the Coast Guard has stated that the full requirement 

is for 22 J-model aircraft. This lack of program clarity is concerning 

when costs associated with existing H-model aircraft continue to increase while mission capable rates diminish. 

The Committee directs the Coast Guard to develop a program of 

record for long range surveillance that addresses current and future requirements and capability. 

Further, the Committee directs that funds provided in Public 

Law 112–74 for long range surveillance be used to fully missionize 

the ninth HC–130J aircraft. 

C–27J AIRCRAFT

In January 2012, the United States Air Force announced the 

planned retirement of 21, C–27J aircraft. These aircraft were 

planned to be assigned to the National Guard to address direct 

mission support needs of forward deployed units. Instead, the Air 

Force now plans to utilize C–130 aircraft for these missions. As a 

result of the planned retirements, the Committee understands that 

the Coast Guard is working with the Air Force on a business case 

analysis to support the possibility of transferring the 21 aircraft to 

the Coast Guard to address surveillance gaps. The Committee encourages these discussions and is supportive of such a plan if the 

Coast Guard can detail how the transfer will provide greater capability at lower total costs. 

The Committee directs the Coast Guard to provide the business 

case analysis as soon as it is completed. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
91 

MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT

The Committee recommends $55,000,000 for the Maritime Patrol 

Aircraft (MPA), an increase of $12,000,000 above the request and 

$74,500,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. This 

fully funds one MPA, including funding to acquire a Mission System Pallet and spares, which were not included in the fiscal year 

2013 request. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Program Oversight 

and Management (PO&M), $15,000,000 below the request and 

$16,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. Over 

the last eighteen months, the program has obligated $25,000,000 of 

the almost $71,000,000 that has been appropriated for this effort. 

This level of activity does not support the requested funding and 

the program has failed to fully justify additional funds. To address 

continued deficiencies in the budget justification, the Coast Guard 

is again directed to provide a detailed subdivision of funding requested for government program management in its justification 

materials accompanying the fiscal year 2014 budget submission. 

This includes providing funding associated with each subdivision. 

SYSTEM ENGINEERING AND INTEGRATION

The Committee denies all funding for System Engineering and 

Integration (SEI), a decrease of $2,500,000 from the request and 

$17,140,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. Additionally, the recommendation includes a rescission of $20,000,000 

from funds previously appropriated. The program currently has 

over $47,000,000 in funds from prior years that have not been utilized. This type of carry over and poor execution is unacceptable in 

today’s fiscal environment. The remaining funds provide sufficient 

funding for SEI activities in fiscal year 2013 based on prior year 

obligation history. 

MAJOR SHORE CONSTRUCTION, HOUSING, AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION

The Committee recommends $55,500,000 for shore facilities, military housing, and aids to navigation, $40,500,000 above the 

amount requested and $37,400,000 below the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2012. Of the funds provided, $30,500,000 is for renovation and improvement of shore facilities based on the Coast 

Guard’s prioritized backlog list. 

Additionally, $10,000,000 is included for infrastructure construction, to include design, engineering, and oversight required to support the continued development of the DHS consolidated headquarters at St. Elizabeth’s. 

The Coast Guard is directed to submit an expenditure plan for 

these funds to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and 

House of Representatives no later than 30 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act. Further, none of the funds included above 

the request may be obligated until five days after the Coast Guard 

briefs the Committee on the expenditure plan for the funds. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
92 

MAJOR ACQUISITION SYSTEMS INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $49,411,000 for major acquisition 

systems infrastructure, the same as the amount requested and 

$32,089,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. 

As previously stated and directed, the Coast Guard shall include 

the associated costs of major acquisition systems infrastructure 

with each capital asset, as applicable, in the CIP. 

ACQUISITION PERSONNEL

The Committee recommends $117,182,000 for direct costs of acquisition personnel, $216,000 below the amount requested due to 

denial of the civilian pay raise and $6,990,000 above the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2012. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $27,779,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 19,728,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 19,690,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥8,098,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. ¥38,000 

MISSION

The purpose of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation is 

to allow Coast Guard to maintain its non-homeland security research and development capability, while also partnering with DHS 

and the Department of Defense to leverage beneficial initiatives. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $19,690,000 for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), $38,000 below the amount 

requested and $8,098,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 

2012. The Committee is dismayed with the unacceptable lack of detail provided by the Coast Guard in the fiscal year 2013 Congressional budget justification for this program. The Committee strongly supports the activities carried out within this function. However, 

as noted in prior years, the level of detail provided in the budget 

request is insufficient. The Coast Guard is directed to provide a detailed subdivision of funding requested for RDT&E, to include a 

prioritized listing of planned activities relative to stated mission requirements, in its justification materials accompanying the fiscal 

year 2014 budget submission. 

The Coast Guard is strongly encouraged to work with the Committee prior to the submission of the fiscal year 2014 budget request to clarify the types of information required in Congressional 

budget justification materials. 

MEDICARE ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH CARE FUND CONTRIBUTION 1

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $261,871,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 203,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 203,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥58,871,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. – – – 1This account is a permanent indefinite discretionary budgetary activity and is not carried in the bill. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
93 

MISSION

The Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund contribution provides funding to the Department of Defense Medicare-eligible 

health care fund for the health benefits of future Medicare-eligible 

retirees currently serving active duty in Coast Guard, retiree dependents, and their potential survivors. The authority for Coast 

Guard to make this payment on an annual basis was provided in 

the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 

2005. 

RECOMMENDATION

While this account requires no annual action by Congress, the 

Committee recommends $203,000,000 to fund the Medicare-eligible 

retiree health care fund contribution, the same amount included in 

the budget submission and $58,871,000 below the amount provided 

in fiscal year 2012. 

RETIRED PAY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $1,440,157,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 1,423,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,423,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥17,157,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

This appropriation provides for the retired pay of Coast Guard 

military personnel and Coast Guard Reserve personnel, as well as 

career status bonuses for active duty personnel. In addition, it provides payments to members of the former Lighthouse Service and 

beneficiaries pursuant to the retired serviceman’s family protection 

plan and survivor benefit plan, as well as payments for medical 

care of retired personnel and their dependents under the Dependents’ Medical Care Act. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,423,000,000 for Retired Pay, the 

same as the amount requested and $17,157,000 below the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2012. The Committee includes bill language 

allowing funds to remain available until expended. The Coast 

Guard’s Retired Pay appropriation is a mandatory budgetary activity. 

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $1,661,237,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 1,544,113,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,556,055,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥105,182,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. +11,942,000 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
94 

MISSION

The United States Secret Service has statutory authority to carry 

out two primary missions: protection of the Nation’s leaders and investigation of financial and electronic crimes. The Secret Service 

protects and investigates threats against the President and Vice 

President, their families, visiting heads of state, and other designated individuals; protects the White House, Vice President’s 

Residence, foreign missions, and other buildings within Washington, D.C.; and manages the security at National Special Security Events (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. The agency also provides 

support for investigations related to missing and exploited children. 

RECOMMENDATION AND ACCOUNT RESTRUCTURING

The Committee recommends $1,556,055,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $11,942,000 above the amount requested and $105,182,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012 under the Salaries 

and Expenses appropriation. This includes a significant decrease 

for the 2012 Presidential campaign season, reflecting the winding 

down of the campaign: a $55,502,000 decrease for costs associated 

with candidate nominee protection, totaling $988,334,000 for costs 

associated with the core protective missions, $65,995,000 below the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2012. It does not include $4,058,000 

proposed for a fiscal year 2013 pay raise. The recommendation includes $340,224,000 for investigations, $16,000,000 above the request, to reflect sustaining forensic support and grant assistance for investigations on missing and exploited children, increasing support for electronic crimes investigations, and realigning support for operations of the National Computer Forensics Institute (NCFI) to the Secret Service, all described 

in more detail below. 

The recommendation includes $4,500,000, as requested, for contingencies associated with NSSEs in fiscal year 2013. Base adjustments reflect a transfer out, as requested, of $42,824,000 for Information Integration and Technology Transformation (IITT) from the 

Headquarters, Management and Administration PPA (Salaries and 

Expenses) to the Acquisition, Construction and Improvements 

(ACI) appropriation account. 

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 

Headquarters Management and Administration ......................................................... $174,669,000 $170,611,000 

Protection 

Protection of Persons and Facilities .................................................................. 837,646,000 837,646,000 

Protective Intelligence Activities ........................................................................ 68,373,000 68,373,000

Presidential Candidate Nominee Protection ....................................................... 57,960,000 57,960,000 

National Special Security Event Fund ................................................................ 4,500,000 4,500,000 

White House Mail Screening ............................................................................... 19,855,000 19,855,000 

Subtotal, Protection ................................................................................... 988,334,000 988,334,000 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
95 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Investigations 

Domestic Field Operations .................................................................................. 238,553,000 238,553,000 

International Field Office Administration, Operations, and Training ................ 31,016,000 31,016,000 

Electronic Crimes Special Agent Program and Electronic Crimes Task Forces 54,655,000 62,289,000 

Support for Missing and Exploited Children ...................................................... – – – 8,366,000 

Subtotal, Investigations ............................................................................. 324,224,000 340,224,000 

Information Integration and Technology Transformation ............................................ 1,137,000 1,137,000 

Training 

Rowley Training Center ....................................................................................... 55,749,000 55,749,000 

Total, Salaries and Expenses ........................................................... $1,544,113,000 $1,556,055,000 

The budget request proposed a reorganization of the Salaries and 

Expenses appropriation into an Operating Expenses appropriation, 

regrouping PPA categories to align with mission requirements, consolidate personnel costs and facilitate financial execution and reporting. The Committee acknowledges there is some merit in separating out personnel costs and operations costs, given the need to 

adjust spending between protection, investigations and other activities throughout the year, and the need to seek reprogramming approval can result in making staffing adjustments in a more efficient way. In addition, the Committee agrees that certain PPA categories no longer need to be maintained as separate reporting 

lines, as they are relatively stable activities that no longer need to 

be tracked as unique PPAs. 

The Committee, therefore, recommends a modified revision of account structure, aligning pay and benefits into two PPAs (protection and headquarters/investigations/other activities), while consolidating the remaining funding into four main categories: protective 

operations; presidential campaigns and events of national significance, including NSSEs; investigative operations; and a PPA for 

headquarters, training, and enterprise mission support. With this 

change, pay and benefits costs are now fully visible, whereas they 

had previously been distributed across a number of program areas. 

Existing PPAs are revised as follows: existing Headquarters, 

Management and Administration is split, with personnel costs 

going to Pay and Benefits—Headquarters PPA and the remaining 

funding going to the Headquarters, Training, and Enterprise Mission Support, which will also include the existing Rowley Training 

PPA. All PPAs currently listed under ‘‘Protection’’ are split, with 

personnel costs going to the Pay and Benefits—Protection PPA, and 

with the operational costs for the Protection of Persons, Intelligence, and White House Mail Screening going to the Protective 

Activities PPA, with the costs for Presidential Candidate—Nominee 

Protection and NSSE PPAs going to the Presidential Campaigns 

and Events of National Significance PPA. The personnel costs for 

investigative activities are included in the Pay and Benefits— 

Headquarters, Investigations, and Other Activities PPA, while investigative operating costs remain as separate PPAs in existing 

categories (Domestic Field Office Operations, International Field 

Office Operations, Electronic Crimes Special Agent Program/Electronic Crimes Task Forces). Finally, support for and grants for investigations of missing and exploited children funding is split between personnel costs (most of the investigative support) being 

funded from the Pay and Benefits—Headquarters, Investigations, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
96 

and Other Activities PPA, and grants and a small amount of support funding is included under Domestic Field Office Investigative 

Operations. 

The funding recommendation is displayed in the new PPA structure as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Pay and Benefits 

Pay and Benefits—Protection ............................................................................ [$770,190,000] $767,677,000 

Pay and Benefits—Headquarters, Investigations, and Other Activities ........... [334,893,000] 335,425,000 

Subtotal, Pay and Benefits ....................................................................... 1,105,083,000 1,103,102,000 

Protective Operations ................................................................................................... 190,362,000 190,362,000 

Presidential Campaigns and Events of National Significance ................................... 27,783,000 27,783,000 

Investigative Operations.

Domestic Field Office Operations ....................................................................... [54,295,000] 60,585,000 

International Field Office Operations ................................................................. [17,463,000] 17,463,000 

Electronic Crimes Special Agent Program/Electronic Crimes Task Forces ........ [13,533,000] 21,166,000 

Subtotal, Investigative Operations ............................................................ 85,291,000 99,214,000 

Headquarters, Training, and Enterprise Mission Support ........................................... 135,594,000 135,594,000 

Total, Salaries and Expenses ........................................................... $1,544,113,000 $1,556,055,000 

2012 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

The bill includes $985,821,000 for protection, including $57,960,000, as requested, for protection of presidential candidates 

during the last quarter of the 2012 campaign, and $63,495,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012, as requested, reflecting the winding down of the 2012 Presidential campaign. This 

level reflects the funding under the proposed new structure from 

the following three PPAs: Pay and Benefits—Protection 

($767,677,000), Protective Operations ($190,362,000) and Presidential Campaigns and Events of National Significance 

($27,783,000). The Committee directs the Secret Service, in consultation with the DHS Chief Financial Officer (CFO), to update its 

2012 campaign financial plan to reflect associated fiscal year 2013 

costs and spending, and provide a briefing to the Committees no 

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

INTERNATIONAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

The Secret Service continues to show significant results from its 

efforts to stop the counterfeiting of U.S. currency, in concert with 

those of its counterparts in the Government of Colombia, 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. 

ELECTRONIC CRIMES SPECIAL AGENT PROGRAM AND ELECTRONIC

CRIMES TASK FORCE

Recognizing Secret Service is a ‘‘frontline’’ operational agency, 

and ramping down from a Presidential campaign, the Committee’s 

focus is on supporting the integration of new technology and funding operational mission support. Through its Electronic Crime Special Agent Program (ECSAP), and its leadership of a network of 

Electronic Crimes Task Forces (ECTF) that comprise Federal, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
97 

State, and local law enforcement partners, the financial and information technology industries, and academic and research communities, the Secret Service is able to maintain a highly effective presence in this rapidly evolving area. Key to this is the subject matter 

expertise related to cyber forensics and cyber crime that the 

ECSAP program offers. 

ECSAP was established to provide special agents with basic and 

advanced computer forensics training, in order to conduct investigative examinations on electronic evidence obtained from computers, personal data assistants, and other forms of electronic 

media. As a result, the Secret Service is continually recognized as 

one of the most effective U.S. Government agencies in combating 

cyber crime. For the Secret Service to continue providing training 

and education for State and local law enforcement through the National Computer Forensics Institute (NCFI), and to enhance the capacity to undertake more electronic crimes investigative efforts, the 

Committee recommends $62,289,000 for ECSAP/ECTF, $9,238,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2012, and $7,634,000 

above the amount requested. Under the new account structure, this 

includes $21,166,000 from the ECSAP/ECTF Investigative Operations PPA and $41,123,000 included under Pay and Benefits— 

Headquarters, Investigations, and Other Activities. This reflects 

the realignment of $4,000,000 from NPPD to continue current Secret Service training at the NCFI, and enhancement of the overall 

effort to address the challenge of growing financial and cyber 

crime. 

STATE AND LOCAL CYBERCRIME TRAINING

The Committee is aware that an increasing amount of criminal 

activity involves digital evidence or originates on a computer or 

cellphone. These criminal acts include drug deals made by text 

message, financial fraud, child predation, and phishing schemes 

run through websites and emails. The investigation of these crimes 

requires highly technical training in computer forensics. The Committee supports and encourages the efforts of the United States Secret Service to train State and local law enforcement, prosecutors, 

and judges with regard to the investigation of digital evidence and 

prosecution of cybercrimes. 

NATIONAL CENTER FOR 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 in matters involving missing and exploited 

children to NCMEC and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. Additionally, The PROTECT ACT of 2003, 

known as the ‘‘Amber Alert Bill,’’ amended 18 U.S.C. § 3056 to authorize the Secret Service to provide forensic and investigative assistance to any investigation involving missing or exploited children. The historical recipient of grant funding related to missing 

and exploited children has been NCMEC, and the Secret Service 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
98 

currently provides investigative assistance and liaison to NCMEC 

headquarters by facilitating services available through the Secret 

Service Forensic Services Division. The Committee supports continuing this effort and therefore recommends sustaining the current 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 or exploited children. 

STANDARDS AND CONDUCT FOR SECRET SERVICE PERSONNEL

The Committee understands that the Secret Service is reviewing 

its professional standards of conduct, in conjunction with the investigation into allegations of improper actions by Secret Service 

agents and officers in Colombia, and has issued new guidance for 

procedures and conduct of employees when engaged in overseas operations and protective missions. The Committee expects the Secret 

Service to take all steps necessary to ensure that it has in place 

the proper training and protocols to prevent similar incidents in 

the future and to hold violators accountable for improper actions. 

Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secret Service’s Office of 

Professional Responsibility to provide a briefing, no later than 30 

days after the date of enactment of this Act, on measures taken 

and under consideration to reinforce, amend, or supplement existing codes of conduct or other policies to prevent future incidents 

and to ensure that the Secret Service maintains the highest standards of integrity, consistent with its critical missions and unique 

position of public trust. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $5,380,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 56,750,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 56,750,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. 51,370,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

This account supports the acquisition, construction, improvement, equipment, furnishing and related cost for maintenance and 

support of Secret Service facilities, including the Secret Service Memorial Headquarters Building and the James J. Rowley Training 

Center (JJRTC). It also provides for ongoing costs and investment 

for critical Information Integration and Technology Transformation, a program to sustain the information technology capabilities needed to support the Secret Service protective and investigative missions. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $56,750,000, the same level as requested in the budget and $51,370,000 above the amount provided 

in fiscal year 2012. The increase to support the Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (ACI) account that supports Secret 

Service facilities, including the Secret Service Memorial Headquarters Building and the JJRTC, includes the requested realignment of $42,824,000 for Information Integration and Technology 

Transformation (IITT) from the Headquarters, Management and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
99 

Administration PPA (Salaries and Expenses) for non-personnel 

costs associated with the project, and a program increase of 

$9,496,000 requested to redesign and deploy a new Secret Service 

database infrastructure, upgrade IT and communication systems, 

and improve Secret Service cyber security. Adjustments to the base 

also reflect a non-recurring, one-time funding of $950,000 provided 

in fiscal year 2012 for deferred maintenance at the JJRTC. 

TITLE III—PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND 

RECOVERY 

NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $50,695,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 50,321,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 45,321,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥5,374,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. ¥5,000,000 

MISSION

The National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) includes programs focused on the security of the Nation’s physical 

and cyber infrastructure and interoperable communications systems. 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 for development of standard doctrine and policy for infrastructure protection and cyber security. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $45,321,000 for the Office of the 

Under Secretary for NPPD, $5,000,000 below the amount requested 

and $5,374,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The 

recommendation includes a decrease of $5,000,000 as a result of 

DHS budget request’s reliance upon unauthorized fee collections, a 

flawed request regarding CBP’s access to fee collections, and poor 

compliance with statutory requirements. Further, the recommended level does not include funding for the civilian pay raise. 

The Committee is dismayed that NPPD failed to provide an edited transcript or questions for the record with respect to its fiscal 

year 2013 budget hearing in a timely manner. The blatant dismissal of deadlines is disturbing and significantly hinders the Committee’s ability to perform oversight of these vital programs. 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $888,243,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 1,166,633,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,110,430,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +222,187,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. ¥56,203,000 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
100 

MISSION

Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS) works 

to reduce the vulnerability of the Nation’s critical infrastructure, 

key resources, information technology networks, and telecommunications systems to terrorist attacks and natural disasters. IPIS is 

also responsible for maintaining effective telecommunications for 

government users in national emergencies, and for establishing 

policies and promoting solutions for interoperable communications 

at the Federal, State, and local level. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,110,430,000 for Infrastructure 

Protection and Information Security, $56,203,000 below the amount 

requested for fiscal year 2013 and $222,187,000 above the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2012. 

The Committee recommends $225,765,000 for Infrastructure Protection, $29,317,000 below the amount requested for fiscal year 

2013 and $69,687,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 

2012. This decrease is due to significant unobligated balances within Infrastructure Security Compliance programs and continued 

delays with the implementation of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program. 

The Committee recommends $884,665,000 for the National Cyber 

Security Division (NCSD), $26,886,000 below the amount requested 

and $291,874,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. 

The Committee realigns $4,000,000 for the National Computer Forensic Institute to the United States Secret Service. Reductions to 

the Network Security Deployment PPA are attributable to the continued concern with the ability of the NCSD to fully obligate the 

funds provided by Congress. The Committee recommends 

$18,947,000, a decrease of $3,010,000 below the request and 

$5,045,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012 for Global Cyber Security Management, as a result of the failure to fully 

justify the requested funds. The recommendation includes 

$12,930,000 for the Programs to Study and Enhance Telecommunications, a decrease of $6,664,000 from the request and $511,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012 due to the termination of the Critical Infrastructure Warning Information Network. 

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

Budget Request Recommendation 

Infrastructure Protection: 

Infrastructure Analysis & Planning .................................................................... $56,909,000 $56,866,000 

Sector Management & Governance .................................................................... 67,132,000 67,061,000 

Regional Field Operations .................................................................................. 56,497,000 56,418,000 

Infrastructure Security Compliance .................................................................... 74,544,000 45,420,000 

Subtotal, Infrastructure Protection ............................................................ 255,082,000 225,765,000 

Cybersecurity and Communications: 

Cybersecurity: 

Cybersecurity Coordination ................................................................................. 3,995,000 3,986,000 

US-Computer Emergency Readiness Team Operations ...................................... 93,002,000 92,927,000 

Federal Network Security .................................................................................... 236,014,000 235,992,000 

Network Security Deployment ............................................................................. 345,046,000 328,046,000

Global Cyber Security Management ................................................................... 21,957,000 18,947,000 

Critical Infrastructure Cyber Protection & Awareness ....................................... 62,763,000 62,748,000 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
101 

Budget Request Recommendation 

Business Operations ........................................................................................... 6,227,000 6,211,000 

Subtotal, Cybersecurity .............................................................................. 769,004,000 748,857,000 

Communications: 

Office of Emergency Communications ............................................................... 38,689,000 38,654,000 

Priority Telecommunications Services ................................................................ 53,286,000 53,265,000 

Next Generation Networks ................................................................................... 20,000,000 19,999,000 

Programs to Study and Enhance Telecommunications ...................................... 19,594,000 12,930,000 

Critical Infrastructure Protection Programs ....................................................... 10,978,000 10,960,000 

Subtotal, Communications ........................................................................ 142,547,000 135,808,000 

Subtotal, Cybersecurity and Communications ................................. 911,551,000 884,665,000 

Total, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security ............... $1,166,663,000 $1,110,430,000 

CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM STANDARDS AND AMMONIUM

NITRATE

Section 550 of Public Law 109–295 authorized DHS to regulate 

security at high-risk chemical plants and other locations that maintain large quantities of potentially dangerous chemicals. Further 

authority to regulate the sale or transfer of ammonium nitrate fertilizer was granted to DHS in Public Law 109–329. Since that time 

and in spite of ample appropriations provided by Congress, the Department has made little progress carrying out its regulatory responsibilities for either the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 

Standards (CFATS) program or Ammonium Nitrate. 

In December 2011, an internal memorandum disclosed numerous 

problems with the CFATS program. To address these issues, an action plan was developed by NPPD leadership with tasks and duties 

assigned throughout the organization. While the Committee commends NPPD for undertaking the review and developing a subsequent action plan, the Committee remains concerned with the troubling findings of the internal review and the future implementation 

of the program that was originally authorized over five years ago. 

It is the Committee’s understanding that even with the changes 

that are currently being implemented, it will still be more than a 

year before the CFATS regulatory process authorizes, approves, 

and inspects even a single facility of the over 4,500 facilities that 

are part of the program. Furthermore, based on information received by the Committee, it may be almost seven years before all 

facilities will be fully authorized, approved, and inspected. This 

type of timeline and lack of progress is unacceptable. 

In contrast to the CFATS implementation, the Committee notes 

the urgency and competence the Coast Guard demonstrated in successfully implementing MTSA, a far more extensive regulatory regime. In comparison to the CFATS program, the Coast Guard successfully implemented a regulatory review and compliance program 

for all port facilities, including chemical facilities, as required by 

the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. In less than two 

years after enactment of that Act, vessels and port facilities had 

conducted vulnerability assessments and developed security plans 

to include: passenger, vehicle, and baggage screening procedures; 

security patrols; restricted areas; personnel identification procedures; access control measures; and/or installation of surveillance 

equipment. The Coast Guard had reviewed and approved these 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
102 

plans and, to this day, continues to regularly inspect the facilities 

and vessels for compliance to ensure there is a consistent, riskbased security program for all the Nation’s ports to better identify 

and deter threats. 

While statutory requirements for standards associated with section 550 and MTSA are not the same, the Committee expects the 

Department to effectively manage serious programs to mitigate 

real risks. Because the Coast Guard was able to meet its statutory 

requirements, whereas NPPD has challenged to meet the statutory 

requirements of the CFATS program, the Committee directs the 

Under Secretary for NPPD, in conjunction with the Commandant 

of the Coast Guard, to undertake a critical review of the Department’s implementation of the CFATS program. The review is to 

focus on program implementation, personnel management, inspector training, review and enforcement of site security plans, and collaboration and communication within the Infrastructure Security 

Compliance Division (ISCD) and the CFATS regulated community. 

Specifically, the review shall address the following questions: 

1. Is the ISCD organized to efficiently, effectively, and faithfully carry out the requirements detailed in Section 550 of Public Law 109–295? If not, what are the organizational gaps? 

How should it be structured and manned to ensure faithful 

execution of Section 550 of Public Law 109–295? 

2. Is the Site Security Plan program sufficient and justified 

to accomplish the goals of the CFATS program? Can the program authorize, approve, and inspect facilities in a timely 

manner, and what constitutes ‘‘timely’’? Are there alternatives 

that are less onerous than the requirements currently required 

under CFATS? 

3. Should the facility inspection process be streamlined and 

if so, what is the most efficient mechanism to do so, particularly for low-threat facilities? 

4. Are the requirements for ISCD personnel for the inspection process—to include manning, training, site visits, and enforcement—being met? If not, how would they be satisfied? 

5. Have clear training and guidance materials been provided 

to the inspectors so that they can review security plans and 

conduct inspections consistently, regardless of the type of facility visited? 

6. Has ICSD developed adequate plans for follow up inspections for entities whose Site Security Plans have been approved? For example, should the facility be audited on an annual basis if there has been a modification to the structure or 

infrastructure support at the facility, if there has been a modification in security measures, or if there has been a modification to operations that impacts security processes or procedures? 

7. Does the CFATS program include the appropriate level of 

stakeholder outreach to address valid industry concerns? What 

mechanisms are in place to ensure not only consistent outreach, but also inclusion and use of valid tools and services 

that stakeholders could offer? 

8. Are the requirements outlined in the Information Collection Request Reference Number 201105–1670–002 duplicative 

of other programs? Are there more efficient and effective methVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
103 

ods to ensure that a risk-based performance standard for personnel surety programs is not overly prescriptive and costly? 

Also, the report shall include a detailed blueprint to include 

timelines and cost for how the Department shall correct deficiencies identified in the review and action plan. The Committee directs the Under Secretary and the Commandant to submit the report to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the 

House and the relevant authorizing committees of jurisdiction, including the House Committees on Energy and Commerce and on 

Homeland Security, no later than April 1, 2013. 

ALTERNATIVE SECURITY SITE PLANS

The Committee directs the Under Secretary of NPPD to provide 

a report to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and 

the House and the relevant authorizing committees of jurisdiction, 

to include the House Committees on Energy and Commerce and on 

Homeland Security, no later than April 1, 2013 on how the CFATS 

program is addressing the use of alternative security programs established by private sector entities in the implementation of the 

CFATS program as authorized in Section 550, Public Law 109–295. 

In light of estimates that it may be seven years before all facilities 

have an approved Site Security Plan and are inspected, NPPD 

must look at alternative methods to address the massive backlog 

of unapproved site security plans. While alternative site security 

programs may not be advisable for high-risk facilities, the Committee believes that in many cases the use of alternative programs 

may be an efficient and effective method to reduce the backlog currently in existence. 

PERSONNEL SURETY PROGRAM

As noted above, section 550 of the fiscal year 2007 DHS Appropriation Act required DHS to establish risk-based performance 

standards for chemical facilities. In 2009, DHS promulgated an interim rule outlining 18 Risk-Based Performance Standards (RBPS) 

with which covered chemical facilities must comply. Included in the 

regulations was a performance standard for personnel surety (6 

CFR 27.230(a)(12)) that requires covered chemical facilities to 

verify and validate identity, check criminal history, verify and validate legal authorization to work, and identify individuals with terrorist ties. In order to comply with the latter, DHS has proposed 

creating a program that is a biographic information-based screening program that will require industry to submit names of individuals to DHS to be screened against the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB). 

The Committee has several concerns with this proposal for personnel surety. First, industry has asserted that many individuals 

requiring access to chemical facilities have TWICs; and, therefore, 

the new screening program would be redundant. The effort associated with implementing a new, redundant screening program may 

force facilities to divert precious resources from other more vulnerable areas. Second, as the new screening program is currently designed, a facility will not necessarily be notified if a person has 

been identified in the TSDB. While the Committee understands the 

need to protect ongoing investigations, the liability concerns of alVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
104 

lowing a person in the TSDB into a chemical facility is distressing 

to the Committee and to industry stakeholders. 

The Committee directs the Under Secretary of NPPD to address 

these concerns prior to moving forward with the currently proposed 

personnel surety program. Further, the Under Secretary shall provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 

and the House and the relevant authorizing committees of jurisdiction, including the House Committees on Energy and Commerce 

and on Homeland Security, no later than April 1, 2013 on steps 

NPPD is taking: (1) to leverage the existing infrastructure within 

DHS and industry to avoid costly duplication of programs; and (2) 

to ensure safety of facilities is not compromised inadvertently due 

to protection of criminal investigations. The report shall also include an assessment of how many chemical workers are already 

covered by other DHS screening programs, notably TWIC. While 

the Department has resisted making such an assessment, the Committee contends it is necessary information in determining the appropriate screening mechanism for CFATS compliance. 

AUTOMATED AND CONTINUOUS MONITORING

The Federal government has a duty to the taxpayer and American citizens to secure Federal information systems. While progress 

has been made in this regard, there is significant room for improvement. Many of these improvements do not require legislative relief 

or substantial increases in Federal agency discretionary spending, 

but instead require higher prioritization by the Administration and 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to ensure agencies 

and Departments secure their networks. The failure by OMB to 

compel Departments and agencies to secure their networks by requiring them to properly resource needed reforms is distressing 

and it can no longer continue. These failures are highlighted in the 

recently released annual Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) report to Congress. Significant areas of concern 

include uneven efforts for continuous monitoring and traffic consolidation to Trusted Internet Connections. 

To provide a cost effective and immediate option to address the 

need for automated and continuous monitoring on Federal (‘‘.gov’’) 

networks, the Committee recommends $202,000,000 for a new 

automated and continuous monitoring program as specified in title 

V of this bill. The budget request included funds for a cyber-capability improvement program that required the transfer of funds to 

other departments notwithstanding section 503 of this bill. The 

Committee specifically denies this request. 

The funds recommended shall be used to implement OMB Memorandum 10–28 by providing oversight, support and assistance to 

Federal agency efforts to help secure government networks. Specifically, the funds shall be used to provide adequate, risk-based, and 

cost-effective cybersecurity to address escalating and rapidly evolving threats to information security, to include the acquisition of an 

automated and continuous monitoring program. Software procured 

by these funds, however, shall not collect or store personally identifiable information nor monitor the content of network traffic. This 

program shall also be installed, maintained, and operated in accordance with all applicable privacy laws and related agency restrictions regarding personally identifiable information and senVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
105 

sitive data or content. This diagnostic program must therefore ensure both the security and network integrity of Federal government 

systems as neither can be compromised. 

The Committee provides this funding in a similar structure as it 

has previously provided funds for National Cyber Security Protection program, also known as Einstein. However, the Committee 

notes that there is no statutory requirement for agencies to use the 

DHS-funded systems and they could use their own funding, if OMB 

approves it, to procure such systems. The Committee further notes 

that departments and agencies may, with OMB concurrence, fund 

other programs based on agency specific mission requirements. The 

Committee includes language that specifically states that funds 

may not be used to supplant agency budgets. The tools DHS will 

procure through this funding will be more cost effective since it is 

one, relatively large and scalable program instead of multiple disparate programs. The Committee believes that these funds used for 

these purposes provide a strong option for agencies to obtain and 

install automated and continuous monitoring on their networks by 

the end of fiscal year 2013. 

The Committee directs that the required expenditure plans be 

provided to the appropriate subcommittee of jurisdiction on the 

Committees on Appropriation. 

The Committee directs the Under Secretary for NPPD to submit 

a report detailing the obligation and expenditure of funds no later 

than January 1, 2013 and quarterly thereafter to the Committees 

on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 

NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY PROTECTION SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $328,046,000 for the National Security Deployment and the National Cyber security Protection System (NCPS). NCPS, also known as Einstein, is an integrated system of intrusion detection, analytics, intrusion prevention, and information sharing capabilities that are used to defend Federal civilian department and agency information technology infrastructure 

from cyber threats. 

The deployment of the intrusion detection capabilities of Einstein 

1 and 2 has been hindered and significantly slowed by lack of 

prioritization within other Federal civilian departments and agencies to include non-compliance with the requirement to consolidate 

traffic through Trusted Internet Connections. This apathetic attitude towards improving cyber security continues today in various 

departments and agencies. The absence of emphasis on protecting 

networks puts our Nation at risk and can no longer be tolerated. 

The deployment of capability to prevent intrusions with Einstein 

3 will alleviate some of these obstacles but still requires the departments and agencies to cooperate with DHS. As with other cyber 

programs, a legislative remedy is not necessarily required. Instead, 

OMB shall ensure that each agency participates in this government-wide program by resourcing internal network security programs properly and by fully cooperating with DHS as DHS works 

to segregate all government traffic within various internet service 

providers. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
106 

OUTREACH TO VETERANS

The Committee is aware of the growing need for well-trained 

cyber security, computer forensics, and information assurance professionals at every level of government and throughout the private 

sector. The Committee is also aware of the alarming unemployment 

rate among post 9/11 era veterans, especially younger veterans. Attempts have been made to address these concerns, but challenges 

remain. By effectively training veterans in these critical areas of 

need, the government can enable employment and address the 

growing threat of cyber-attacks. The Committee directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Departments 

of Veterans Affairs, Defense, and Labor to develop a plan for a veteran’s cybersecurity workforce that will leverage training capabilities across government, academia, and the private sector to put 

veterans to work securing our Nation’s cyber infrastructure. 

CYBERSECURITY PARTNERSHIPS

The Committee directs the Under Secretary for NPPD to review 

existing government cyber organizations to leverage the vast capability that already exists in organizations outside of NPPD. There 

are numerous organizations throughout the Nation that work every 

day in the cybersecurity environment. Their experience should be 

sought and used. 

GRANT PROGRAMS

The Committee directs the Under Secretary for NPPD to provide 

a report detailing all NPPD grant programs, the justification for 

the program, the strategy for how the programs align with the 

NPPD mission, and future funding requirements. In addition to the 

requirements in Section 507 of this bill, the Under Secretary of 

NPPD shall include a summary of the market research that was 

conducted to justify the award of a sole-source grant. 

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $1,261,537,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 1,301,824,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,301,824,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +40,287,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

The Federal Protective Service (FPS) is responsible for the protection of federally owned and leased buildings and properties, particularly those under the charge and control of the General Services Administration (GSA). Funding for FPS is provided through a 

security fee charged to all GSA building tenants in FPS-protected 

buildings. FPS has three major law enforcement initiatives: Protection Services to all Federal facilities throughout the United States 

and its territories; expanded intelligence and anti-terrorism capabilities; and Special Programs, including weapons of mass destruction detection, hazardous material detection and response, and canine programs. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
107 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,301,824,000 for FPS, the same as 

the amount requested and $40,287,000 above the amount provided 

in fiscal year 2012. All of these expenditures will be paid by fees 

collected from FPS customer agencies. 

OFFICE OF BIOMETRIC IDENTITY MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... $191,380,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +191,380,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. +191,380,000 

MISSION

The new Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM) is the 

lead entity within DHS responsible for biometric identity management services through its management of the Automated Biometric 

Identification System, or IDENT. OBIM takes the most significant 

and cross-cutting responsibility from what was known as the 

United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology 

(US–VISIT) program—namely to serve customers across DHS, at 

other Federal agencies, more broadly to State and local law enforcement, and foreign partners through storage of biometric identities, recurrent matching against derogatory information, and other 

biometric expertise and services. As the steward of IDENT and a 

center of expertise related to biometrics, OBIM provides an invaluable capability to bolster our national security and public safety, as 

well as the integrity of our immigration system. OBIM is responsible for furthering full interoperability and real-time data sharing 

among the Homeland Security, Justice, and Defense Departments’ 

biometric identity management systems. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $191,380,000 for OBIM. This level 

includes: $34,894,000 for Salaries and Expenses; $15,980,000 for 

Systems Engineering; $120,450,000 for Operations and Maintenance, to include $65,500,000 for IDENT; and $20,056,000 for Identity Management and Screening Services. Funding is not provided 

for OBIM to continue US–VISIT’s staff rotations to international 

partner agencies. However, the Committee strongly supports continuation of core international activities that result in or further 

actual data sharing arrangements including OBIM’s support of the 

Five Country Conference biometric sharing and Visa Waiver Program data sharing. OBIM is strongly encouraged to identify other 

efficiencies through reassessing its staffing, travel, and contractor 

support requirements through this transition. The budget request proposed $261,523,000 in CBP and $17,610,000 in ICE for a total request of $279,133,000 for US– 

VISIT activities. The Committee recommends $60,959,000 to ICE 

in order to fully fund overstay analysis previously performed by 

US–VISIT, to include the Data Integrity Group (DIG), the Arrival 

and Departure Information System (ADIS), and overstay analysis 

services. The Committee also recommends $12,284,000 to CBP related to entry/exit policy and operations. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
108 

The Committee directs OBIM to work with ICE in developing a 

transition plan to appropriately split contractor support for ADIS 

and IDENT. The bill provides language allowing OBIM and ICE to 

transfer up to $5,000,000 to each other to support the transition 

plan and facilitate smooth operation of ADIS in the interim period. 

As a result of the redistribution of US–VISIT responsibilities to 

the appropriate mission owners, the Committee has identified 

$14,510,000 in savings in this bill. The funding recommended in 

this bill supports current service levels, maintains staffing, and realizes additional efficiencies when compared with the budget request. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

OBIM is directed to provide an expenditure plan detailing all 

fund allocations and staff realignments for the fiscal year, including other efficiencies. The bill also includes a requirement for a 

multi-year investment and management plan to be provided at the 

time of the President’s budget submission and updated on an annual basis to fully justify requested funds for OBIM as well as 

project future year requirements and funding levels for projects 

that cross multiple fiscal years. The requirement for better justification at the time of the request not only instills more discipline 

in planning processes enabling more effective oversight, but also 

eliminates the need for expenditure plans and withholding of funds 

well into the fiscal year of budget execution. A total of $25,000,000 

will be withheld until the multi-year investment and management 

plan is received. OBIM, in conjunction with the Chief Financial Officer, is encouraged to continue working with the Committee in developing new materials for the Congressional Budget Justifications 

as was recommended in last year’s report. 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

The Committee includes $120,450,000 for Operations and Maintenance. IDENT will continue to provide essential services to the 

immigration and border management enterprise and support the 

needs of the Department and other Federal, State, local law enforcement and international partners. The Committee also encourages OBIM to continue its efforts to reduce IDENT infrastructure 

operating costs while ensuring that current level of services are 

maintained. Additionally, many contractors have overlapping responsibilities, especially in supporting both ADIS and IDENT functions; fingerprint analysis; data center mirroring and migration efforts; and overstay analysis. Additional efficiencies should be realized through rebaselining the contractor levels required to support 

core IDENT functionalities. The Committee directs OBIM to include these efficiencies in its expenditure plan. 

IDENTITY MANAGEMENT AND SCREENING SERVICES

The Committee includes $20,056,000 for Identity Management 

and Screening Services, to include funding for biometric and identity analysis services. This funding also allows for continued technical and analysis support to key domestic and international partners. The Committee especially recommends that OBIM continue 

its data sharing and connectivity improvement efforts with the InVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
109 

telligence Community as biometric analysis is an important element to the identification of suspected terrorists and other highrisk persons. OBIM should also continue its IDENT modernization 

efforts beyond steady state operations. As such, the Committee directs OBIM to provide quarterly briefings on its workload and service levels, including any backlogs that may result from an influx 

of transactions of new users. These IDENT modernization activities 

should be outlined in OBIM’s investment and management plan. 

Additionally, OBIM is directed to meet the retention periods associated with TSA programs and to enroll the biometrics of TSA’s special vetted populations within 60 days after the date of enactment 

of this Act. The Committee is disappointed at the lack of progress 

made towards this initiative, despite its repeated recommendations 

for US-VISIT to complete this process. 

UNIQUE IDENTITY

The Unique Identity program was established to collect 10-print 

biometric information from travelers to the United States; share 

and compare biometric information collected and held by the Department of Justice in the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), as well as other law enforcement agencies; and enhance multi-modal capabilities in IDENT for all users. 

The Defense and State Departments are integral partners to this 

initiative. The Committee continues to be pleased with the excellent coordination and cooperation among Federal agencies in enhancing interoperability, accelerating the response times, and sharing biometric information, and strongly encourages OBIM to reallocate funding previously used for US-VISIT contractor services in 

order to continue the Unique Identity program. This decision 

should be made as part of its contractor review and explained in 

the expenditure plan. The Committee also directs OBIM and its 

counterparts at the Justice, State, and Defense Departments to 

continue providing semi-annual briefings on the progress in implementing system interoperability, operational impacts resulting 

from remaining gaps, and steps being taken to close these gaps. 

ENTRY EXIT POLICY AND OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends transfer of entry-exit policy and operations to CBP. Within CBP the Office of Field Operations (OFO) 

is the mission owner for the policy and operations associated with 

processing legitimate travelers into and out of the country. As such, 

OFO is responsible for collection of information, including biometrics, from appropriate individuals as part of its processing. 

While that information resides in IDENT, CBP owns the business 

process, requirements, and staff necessary for these operations. Responsibility for implementing a biometric exit program lies with 

CBP. 

OVERSTAY BACKLOG ELIMINATION

The Committee continues to be concerned about the identification and resolution of visa overstays, which was a critical function 

performed by the DIG. ICE is in a better position to enforce overstay violations now that it is performing core DIG roles and assuming operations and maintenance of ADIS. The Committee, thereVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
110 

fore, directs ICE to provide semi-annual briefings on the overstay 

backlog elimination effort; to ensure that similar backlogs do not 

arise again in the future; and to update the Committee on its overstay enforcement strategy. 

OFFICE OF HEALTH AFFAIRS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $167,449,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 166,458,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 132,003,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥35,446,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. ¥34,455,000 

MISSION

The Office of Health Affairs (OHA) serves as the Department of 

Homeland Security’s principal agent for all medical and public 

health matters. Working across Federal, State, local, tribal, and 

territorial governments and with the private sector, OHA has the 

lead DHS role in the establishment of a scientifically rigorous, intelligence-based, medical and biodefense architecture that ensures 

the health and medical security of our nation. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $132,003,000 for OHA, $34,455,000 

below the requested amount and $35,446,000 below the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2012. A comparison of the budget estimate 

to the Committee recommended level by PPA is as follows: 

Budget Estimate Recommended 

BioWatch ...................................................................................................................... $125,294,000 $85,394,000 

National Biosurveillance Integration System .............................................................. 8,000,000 13,000,000 

Chemical Defense Program ......................................................................................... 500,000 500,000 

Planning and Coordination .......................................................................................... 4,907,000 5,407,000 

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................................................ 27,757,000 27,702,000 

Total, Office of Health Affairs ............................................................................ $166,458,000 $132,003,000 

BIOSURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

The Committee recommends $85,394,000 for the BioWatch program, $39,900,000 below the requested amount and $28,770,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. This funding sustains Generations 1 and 2 operations but does not support the requested Generation 3 increase of $39,904,000. The Committee likewise continues its requirement for OHA to notify the Committee 15 

days prior to deploying any BioWatch device to a new location. 

While the Committee supports OHA’s ongoing efforts to improve 

our Nation’s biological detection capabilities, it has serious concerns about BioWatch Generation 3 program delays and inexplicably large carryover balances. The Gen 3 program is designed 

to enhance current detection capabilities which require labor-intensive manual collection and testing of samples with a fully automated, networked system that will greatly improve the response 

time to a potential bio-terror attack. 

The Investment Review Board (IRB) assessment of Gen 3 continues to be postponed, while OHA cannot adequately explain how 

it plans to spend funds in the meantime that were previously apVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
111 

propriated for this initiative. Furthermore, the Department has not 

decided to move forward with plans to procure production-ready 

systems yet requests funding anyway that will not be used for this 

purpose until at least fiscal year 2015. If through the course of its 

program reviews the Department decides to procure systems, the 

Committee recommends that OHA use its unexpended funds for 

this purpose in fiscal year 2013. Additionally, OHA should review, 

and revise if necessary, its acquisition strategies to ensure that all 

available technologies are considered through open-market competition and full vendor consideration. The Committee directs the 

Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs to brief the Committee no 

later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the 

status of the ongoing reviews of BioWatch. Further, the briefing 

shall include an expenditure plan for the languishing fiscal year 

2012 funds. The Committee also requires OHA to provide an expenditure plan within 45 days of the enactment of this Act, while 

noting that it has not yet received the expenditure plan required 

in fiscal year 2012. This lateness is unacceptable and significantly 

impedes the Committee’s ability to conduct its core oversight responsibilities. 

NATIONAL BIOSURVEILLANCE INTEGRATION SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for the National BioSurveillance Integration System (NBIS), $5,000,000 above the 

amount requested and $987,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. Funds provided for this function shall be used to 

sustain existing biosurveillance capabilities and activities. In 2012, 

NBIS planned to develop several pilot projects with other Federal, 

State, private sector, and non-governmental entities in the following areas: food; agriculture; emerging diseases and human health; 

social media; and State and local biosurveillance data sharing. The 

increase of $5,000,000 above the request is to sustain existing biosurveillance activities and to expand the diversification of biosurveillance capabilities through new pilots that shall be awarded 

on a competitive basis. 

The Committee also remains concerned with the progress of the 

National Biosurveillance Integration Center (NBIC) in defining its 

goals and objectives, implementing its mission, and demonstrating 

its value to the wider biosurveillance community. The Committee 

has clearly described these concerns in detail since at least fiscal 

year 2011 and recommended last year that OHA submit a strategic 

plan with its fiscal year 2013 request. While OHA states that it recently completed a strategic plan in collaboration with NBIS Member Agencies, this plan has not yet been provided to Congress. 

These concerns are especially valid given that OHA plans to relocate NBIC in the near future without explaining the benefits of 

this move. The Committee, therefore, directs OHA to submit a 

NBIC strategic plan within 90 days after the date of enactment of 

this Act, to include details of all data-sharing partnerships, obstacles that impede these relationships, and plans to mitigate such 

challenges. 

PLANNING AND COORDINATION

The Committee recommends $5,407,000 for Planning and Coordination activities, $500,000 above the requested amount and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
112 

$755,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The Committee recommends this increase for programs that address the 

wellness and resiliency of the DHS workforce. These funds will 

allow for the planning, production and distribution of training and 

information focused on workforce health and medical support 

throughout the Department. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $27,702,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $55,000 below the requested amount and $1,969,000 below 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. This reduction is for the 

denial of the proposed pay raise that was included in the budget 

request. 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $895,350,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 789,172,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 712,565,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥182,785,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. ¥76,607,000 

MISSION

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages 

and coordinates the Federal response to major domestic disasters 

and emergencies of all types in accordance with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. It supports the 

effectiveness of emergency response providers at all levels of government in responding to terrorist attacks, major disasters, and 

other emergencies. FEMA also administers public assistance and 

hazard mitigation programs to prevent or reduce the risk to life 

and property from floods and other hazards. Finally, FEMA leads 

all Federal incident management preparedness and response planning through a comprehensive National Incident Management System that involves Federal, State, tribal, and local government personnel, agencies, and regional authorities. 

FEMA provides for the development and maintenance of an integrated, nationwide capability to prepare for, mitigate against, respond to, and recover from the consequences of major disasters and 

emergencies of all types in partnership with other Federal agencies, State, local and tribal governments, volunteer organizations, 

and the private sector. 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 $712,565,000 for Salaries and Expenses, $76,607,000 below the amount requested and $182,785,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. Within this amount 

is $5,000,000 for unfunded maintenance and capital improvements 

at national training centers. The recommendation includes a decrease of $22,839,000 to the ‘‘Administrative and Regional Offices’’ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
113 

PPA due to the DHS budget request’s reliance upon unauthorized 

fee collections, a flawed request regarding CBP’s access to fee collections, and poor compliance with statutory requirements. Further, it includes a decrease of $3,084,000 for denial of pay raise and 

$2,364,000 for the realignment of the functions associated with the 

Office of National Capital Region Coordination. The recommendation also includes a transfer of all funds for the Chief Information 

Office from this account into a new account specifically for automation modernization. In addition, the bill transfers funding provided 

to State and Local Grants, Firefighter Assistance Grants, and 

Emergency Management Performance Grants to this account for 

the administrative functions related to these programs. Similar 

transfers have occurred in previous years. 

FEMA shall provide an expenditure plan no later than 90 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act. The plan shall be detailed 

by the PPA structure as detailed in this report and by office. It 

shall include actual funding from the prior year, the current fiscal 

year, and deviations between the two years. Each year shall include the number of positions, the number of FTE, the amount for 

salaries and benefits, and the amount for the program, showing all 

sources of funding. Specific information regarding the transfer of 

funding from other appropriations should be included, with the 

same level of detail currently provided to the Committee. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation by PPA: 

Budget request Recommended 

Administrative and Regional Offices .......................................................................... $214,603,000 $191,764,000 

Preparedness and Protection ....................................................................................... 73,153,000 73,105,000 

Response ...................................................................................................................... 171,897,000 171,644,000 

Urban Search and Rescue Response System .................................................... (27,513,000 ) (27,513,000 ) 

Recovery ....................................................................................................................... 55,423,000 55,299,000 

Mitigation ..................................................................................................................... 27,110,000 27,087,000 

Mission Support ........................................................................................................... 152,806,000 94,486,000 

Centrally Managed Accounts ....................................................................................... 94,180,000 99,180,000 

Total, Salaries and Expenses ......................................................................... $789,172,000 $712,565,000 

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 above the requested to 

address unfunded repairs and capital improvement for unfunded 

projects at national training centers. None of these funds may be 

obligated until five days after the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of 

FEMA briefs the Committee on an execution plan for these funds. 

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION COORDINATION

The Committee recommends $2,493,000 for activities required by 

Section 882 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, a reduction of 

$2,364,000 from the amount requested and $3,129,000 below the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The functions and personnel 

shall be transferred to the Office of the Administrator to allow for 

a more efficient and effective use of taxpayer funds. 

MOUNT WEATHER EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER

The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for the Mount Weather 

Emergency Operations Center facility, the same as the amount reVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
114 

quested and $10,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2012. 

URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE RESPONSE SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $27,513,000 for Urban Search and 

Rescue Response System from within the amount requested for 

Salaries and Expenses, the same as the amount requested and 

$13,737,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. 

CONGRESSIONAL JUSTIFICATION

The Committee continues bill language requiring FEMA to submit its fiscal year 2014 budget request by office. The Committee is 

pleased that this year’s budget submission provided fiscal year 

2013 budget request levels for many priority programs. For the fiscal year 2014 budget submission, the Committee directs FEMA to 

continue to provide the same level of budget information for programs and activities identified in the fiscal year 2013 budget request. 

SOCIAL MEDIA

Real-time information gathering is critical in the wake of a natural disaster. Enabling first responders to utilize the most recent, 

up-to-date data is a key component to ensuring emergency response 

efforts. One way to collect real-time data is through the emergence 

of publicly available, social network messaging to provide insight 

into the aftermath of natural disasters. The Committee understands FEMA is examining ways in which to expand the application of this type of real-time data collection through social media 

as well as other uses of social media during disasters. As social 

media continues to become an even more powerful tool, the Committee directs DHS and FEMA to harness and apply these capabilities in support of its emergency management mission. The Committee directs the Administrator of FEMA to provide a report to 

the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House detailing efforts to use social media in disaster response activities no 

later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2013 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... $58,048,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +58,048,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. +58,048,000 

MISSION

The Automation Modernization account funds major information 

technology projects for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $58,048,000 for automation modernization, the amount requested under ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ 

for the Office of the Chief Information Officer. Public Law 112–74 

requires FEMA to submit to Congress a strategy for a comprehenVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
115 

sive plan to automate and modernize their information systems. 

Using this plan and the information FEMA incorporated into the 

Office of Management and Budget’s ‘‘IT Dashboard,’’ the Committee directs FEMA to fund all automation modernization programs from within this new appropriation. This new appropriation 

will facilitate better oversight of automation programs. According to the ‘‘IT Dashboard’’, FEMA has $271,700,000 in fiscal year 2013 for information technology, to include three programs 

classified as ‘‘major investment.’’ However, the Committee is unable to identify how these programs are funded in the fiscal year 

2013 budget. This new account will therefore provide the visibility 

needed in this area of investment. FEMA is encouraged to work 

with the Committee prior to the submission of the fiscal year 2014 

budget request to delineate the specific programs and types of activities to include in this account. 

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $1,349,681,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 1 ................................................... 2,900,212,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,762,589,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +412,908,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. ¥1,137,623,000 1The Administration proposed moving Emergency Management Performance Grants and Firefighter Assistance Grants under State and Local Programs. 

MISSION

State and Local Programs help build and sustain the preparedness and response capabilities of the first responder community. 

These programs include support for various grant programs and 

training programs. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,762,589,000 for State and Local 

Programs, $1,137,623,000 below the amount requested and 

$412,908,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. 

As part of the budget request, the Administration proposed including the Firefighter Assistance Grants and Emergency Management Performance Grants under this program. The Committee 

again denies this proposal and recommends funding for both of 

these grant programs as separate appropriations, consistent with 

prior years. 

In fiscal year 2013, FEMA proposed a new grant program called 

the National Preparedness Grant Program under State and Local 

Programs. This proposal is denied due to the lack of Congressional 

authorization and the lack of the necessary details that are required for the initiation of a new program to include grant guidance and implementation plans. The Department should work with 

the appropriate committees of jurisdiction to obtain the necessary 

authorizing legislation and to clearly define the Federal role and 

reassess the most effective delivery of support and resources to sustain and improve homeland security capabilities prior to submitting a budget request for such a program. Additionally, the Committee met with and heard testimony from numerous stakeholders 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
116 

that expressed concern not just with the grant proposal but also 

with the lack of stakeholder outreach prior to the program’s introduction. The Committee considers this lack of outreach concerning 

and it should be addressed. 

Due to these concerns, the Committee continues the grant structure as enacted in fiscal year 2012. The funds provided for State 

and Local Program grants are to be allocated by the Secretary of 

Homeland Security according to threat, vulnerability, and consequence to assist high-risk urban areas, States, local and Tribal 

governments, and other homeland security partners in preventing, 

preparing for, protecting against, and responding to acts of terrorism. 

Within the funds available, the Committee recommends 

$55,000,000 for Operation Stonegarden. All awards under Operation Stonegarden shall be made on a competitive basis to tribal 

governments and units of local government, including towns, cities, 

and counties along borders of the United States to enhance the 

coordination between local and Federal law enforcement agencies 

in the furtherance of the Nation’s border security. Operation 

Stonegarden’s eligible costs include, but shall not necessarily be 

limited to, include: overtime; vehicle maintenance; vehicle and 

equipment rental costs; reimbursement for mileage; fuel costs; 

equipment replacement costs; and travel costs for law enforcement 

entities assisting other local jurisdictions in law enforcement activities. The Committee directs that only CBP and FEMA make award 

decisions. No administrative costs shall be deducted from Operation Stonegarden award totals by States. 

Further, within the funds made available under this heading, no less than $150,000,000 is for areas at the highest threat of a terrorist attack, $50,000,000 above the minimum amount required in 

fiscal year 2012. The Committee recommends $231,681,000 for National Programs, the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2012, to sustain these programs at the same funding levels and for the same 

purposes as provided in fiscal year 2012. The Committee is aware 

of the unique capabilities of regional training centers that provide 

training for first responders where they can receive initial training 

and additional training related to new techniques and technologies. 

The Committee encourages the Department to continue to work 

with regional training centers in future funding requests. Further, 

the Committee encourages the Department to review the need for 

additional university-based centers that could provide medical 

readiness training and research and community resiliency for public health and healthcare critical infrastructure and report back to 

the Committee within 180 days after the date of enactment of this 

Act on the progress of this review. 

The Committee continues bill language mandating timeframes 

for the application process of certain grants to ensure that funds 

do not languish at DHS and limits to not more than five percent 

the amount a grantee may allocate for expenses directly related to 

administration of the grant. 

The Committee includes bill language allowing the transfer of up 

to seven percent of State and Local program dollars to FEMA’s Salaries and Expenses account for costs associated with administering 

grants and training programs. FEMA is required to submit an exVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
117 

penditure plan no later than 60 days after the date of enactment 

of this Act on the use of the administrative funds. 

The Committee continues bill language allowing for the construction of communication towers and requiring that grantees shall 

provide reports on their use of funds. 

A provision is continued allowing the Center for Domestic Preparedness to train certain emergency personnel provided it does 

not interfere with the primary mission to train State and local 

emergency response providers. 

In accordance with the 9/11 Act, at least 25 percent of funds allocated to the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) and 

Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) shall be used for Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention activities. Each State and Puerto 

Rico shall pass on no less than 80 percent of their grant funding 

to local units of government within 45 days of receiving the funds. 

The Committee encourages FEMA to include mitigating the 

threat of cyber attacks as an eligible grant expense. FEMA shall 

work in conjunction with the National Cybersecurity Directorate 

(NCSD) to address methods to leverage Federal cybersecurity programs for use by State and local governments. 

The Committee is pleased that in fiscal year 2012, the Department began restoring the original intent of the UASI program by 

limiting funding to 31 regions. The Committee believes the UASI 

program should be further focused on the areas under the greatest 

threat and at the greatest risk, providing funding to a maximum 

of 25 regions. This will ensure that only those regions at highestrisk of terrorist attack receive funding under UASI in the current 

fiscal environment. 

The Committee is aware that previous grant guidance conflicts 

with the 9/11 Act by further limiting the amount of funds that can 

be used to pay the salaries and expenses for intelligence analysts. 

The Committee directs FEMA to fully comply with the 9/11 Act. 

The Committee directs the Secretary to review the threat to 

motor coaches and consider the fact that many regions rely solely 

on motor coaches as a major means of transportation when determining funding levels for the various grant programs. The Secretary is encouraged to consider providing funds through the Overthe-Road Bus Security Assistance Program, as authorized, to address such needs. 

For the purposes of determining eligibility for funds, any county, 

city, village, town, district, borough, parish, port authority, transit 

authority, intercity rail provider, commuter rail system, freight rail 

provider, water district, regional planning commission, council of 

government, Indian tribe with jurisdiction over Indian country, authorized tribal organization, Alaskan Native village, independent 

authority, special district, or other political subdivision of any State 

shall constitute a ‘‘local unit of government.’’ 

The Committee is concerned with the newly introduced 24-month 

funding period that was proposed by the Administration in the fiscal year 2012 Funding Opportunity Announcement. Funding periods that are arbitrarily limited to less than 24-months have the potential to lead, by default, to operating subsidies. FEMA’s fiscal 

year 2012 grant guidance seems to invite just such an outcome by 

expanding the scope of maintenance and sustainment. The purpose 

of FEMA’s grants, as authorized, are not to serve as operating subVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
118 

sidies for States and local governments; rather, grant funds are intended to improve preparedness capabilities. The Committee directs FEMA to be cognizant of the extended timelines associated 

with necessary, well-justified capital improvements and ensure the 

guidance for the various grants allow for capital improvements, as 

appropriate. Further, FEMA should review the use of one-year extensions, if needed. 

The Committee encourages FEMA to review the extension of port 

security grant program funds specifically awarded for the purchase 

of TWIC readers until September 30, 2014 so that communities can 

use these funds to purchase readers once a rule has been finalized. 

The Committee includes a general provision requiring FEMA to 

brief the Committee five days prior to any announcement of State 

and local grant awards. Such briefings shall include detailed information on the risk analysis employed, the process for determining 

effectiveness, the process or formula used for selecting grantees, 

and any changes to methodologies used in the previous fiscal year. 

The Committee is aware of ongoing appeals within the public assistance program dating back to Hurricane Gustav. The Committee 

encourages FEMA to consider arbitration, as applicable or other 

means to address continuing concerns over disputed public assistance reimbursements. Further, the Committee directs the OIG review excessive delays in determinations concerning public assistance programs. 

FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $675,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 1 ................................................... – – – Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 670,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥5,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. +670,000,000 1The budget request includes $670,000,000 for Firefighter Assistance Grants within State and Local Pro- grams. 

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. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $670,000,000 for Firefighter Assistance Grants, $670,000,000 above the amount requested and 

$5,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The 

budget request did not include a separate appropriation for Firefighter Assistance Grants, but instead proposed $670,000,000 for 

this activity within State and Local Programs. Within this level, 

the Committee recommends $335,000,000 for the Assistance to 

Firefighters Grant program (AFG), which provides firefighter 

equipment, training, vehicles, and other resources. The Committee 

also recommends $335,000,000 for firefighter jobs under the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) program. 

FEMA is directed to continue granting funds directly to local fire 

departments and to include the United States Fire Administration 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
119 

during the grant decision process. FEMA is also directed to maintain an all-hazards focus and is prohibited from limiting beyond 

current law the list of eligible activities, including those related to 

wellness. Funds are available until September 30, 2014 and no 

more than 4.7 percent may be used for administrative expenses. 

FEMA is required to submit an expenditure plan no later than 60 

days after the date of enactment of this Act on the use of the administrative funds. 

The Committee continues the requirement for FEMA to peer review AFG and SAFER grant applications that meet criteria established by FEMA and the Fire Service to clearly define the criteria 

for peer review in the grant application package; to rank order applications according to peer-review; and to fund applications according to their rank order. For those applicants whose grant applications are not reviewed, FEMA must provide an official notification 

detailing why the application did not meet the criteria for review. 

The budget request included a reference to hiring post-9/11 veterans with these funds. The Committee is perplexed as to why the 

Administration has not included this requirement in existing guidance—guidance with respect to unobligated fiscal years 2011 and 

2012 funds, totaling more than $700,000,000. The Committee 

strongly encourages FEMA to include in all current and future 

grant guidance the need to give hiring preference to post-9/11 veterans. The Committee directs FEMA to report to the Committee 

quarterly, beginning in the first fiscal quarter after the date of enactment of this Act, on implementation efforts encouraging the hiring of veterans, to include the number of hirings. 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $350,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 1 ................................................... – – – Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 350,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. +350,000,000 1The budget request includes $350,000,000 for Emergency Management Performance Grants within State 

and Local Programs. 

MISSION

Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) funds are 

used to support comprehensive emergency management at the 

State and local levels and to encourage the improvement of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities for all hazards. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $350,000,000 for EMPG, 

$350,000,000 above the amount requested and the same as the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The request did not include 

a separate appropriation for EMPG but instead proposed 

$350,000,000 for this activity within State and Local Programs. 

Consistent with past years, the Committee again does not agree to 

transfer EMPG to State and Local Programs, continuing instead to 

fund the EMPG program as a separate appropriation. The recommendation limits to no more than 2.7 percent the amount that 

may be used for administrative expenses. EMPG is the one source 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
120 

of funding for emergency managers that is specifically focused on 

preparing for all hazards. EMPG is the only grant program within 

FEMA that requires a 50/50 match at the State and local level, 

which is evidence of the commitment by State and local governments to make emergency management a top priority, especially 

while most are experiencing financial crisis. Many of the EMPG 

funds help pay for the personnel to run key programs, and funds 

for this program must remain flexible to ensure they support the 

full gamut of responsibilities required of emergency managers. 

The Committee directs FEMA to continue EMPG grant practices 

used in fiscal year 2007, including a continued emphasis on all-hazards activities and the inclusion of personnel expenses and Emergency Operations Centers as eligible uses of funding. 

RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... ¥$896,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... ¥1,443,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ¥1,443,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +547,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

The Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program (REPP) ensures that the public health and safety of citizens living near commercial nuclear power plants will be adequately protected in the 

event of a nuclear power station incident. In addition, the program 

informs and educates the public about radiological emergency preparedness. REPP provides funding only for emergency preparedness activities of State and local governments that take place beyond nuclear power plant boundaries. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends for the receipt and expenditure of 

REPP fees, which are collected as authorized by Public Law 105– 

276. The request estimates that fee collections will exceed expenditures by $547,000 in fiscal year 2013. 

UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $44,038,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 42,520,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 42,460,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥1,578,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. ¥60,000 

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. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
121 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $42,460,000 for USFA, $60,000 

below the request and $1,578,000 below the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2012. The Committee requests that future budget justifications identify funding levels for the National Fire Incident 

Reporting System and National Fire Academy, as well as any other 

initiatives. 

DISASTER RELIEF FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 1 ....................................................... $7,100,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 2 ................................................... 6,088,926,000 

Recommended in the bill 2 ................................................................. 6,088,926,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥1,011,074,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. – – – 1 Includes $6,400,000,000 that was provided in Public Law 112–77 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 $5,481,000,000 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 Disaster Relief 

Fund (DRF) include: providing aid to families and individuals; supporting the efforts of State and local governments to take emergency protective measures, clear debris, and repair infrastructure 

damage; mitigating the effects of future disasters; and helping 

States and local communities manage disaster response, including 

the assistance of disaster field office staff and automated data processing support. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $6,088,926,000 for the 

Disaster Relief Fund. Of the funds provided, $5,481,000,000 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 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, 

$24,000,000 shall be transferred to the DHS OIG for audits and investigations related to disasters. 

A provision is continued stating the timeframes and information 

which FEMA must report to the Committees on the Disaster Relief 

Fund. A report on the expenditure of funds for disaster readiness 

and support, including quarterly updates, is required, as in previous years. 

The Committee continues language requiring annual and monthly DRF reporting as originally directed in Public Law 112–74. 

DEBRIS REMOVAL

The Committee remains concerned with the cost of debris removal and the lack of affordable alternatives for communities. As 

required by the conference report for fiscal year 2012, FEMA provided a report addressing these concerns. Within the report, FEMA 

indicated that there are numerous initiatives they are reviewing to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
122 

address the debris removal cost and would also empower local communities to be better prepared for debris removal after a disaster. 

Many of the initiatives are the result of lessons learned from the 

debris pilot program that was authorized in fiscal year 2007. 

To address these lessons, the Committee recommends a new general provision directing FEMA to implement many of the initiatives 

from the debris pilot program. Specifically, the language will provide the authority to make grants based on estimates, provide Federal share incentives, reimburse force account labor, and encourage 

recycling. 

Further, the Committee directs FEMA to work with communities 

to incentivize them to develop debris management plans and have 

contracts in place prior to a disaster. Communities that take such 

actions will be better prepared to respond quickly, and not depend 

on more costly options such as contractors provided by the U. S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. 

The Administrator of FEMA shall provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House and the 

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on the implementation plan for this program no later than 90 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act. 

DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $295,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... – – – 

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

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥295,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. – – – 

Limitation on Direct Loans 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $25,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... – – – 

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

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. 25,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

Beginning in 1992, loans made to States under the cost sharing 

provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act were funded in accordance with the Federal Credit 

Reform Act of 1990. The Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program 

Account, which was established as a result of the Federal Credit 

Reform Act, records the subsidy costs associated with the direct 

loans obligated beginning in 1992 to the present. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 as requested for the 

limitation on direct loans from the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan 

Program, pursuant to Section 319 of the Stafford Act. As requested, 

no subsidy to cover the costs of these loans is provided because 

loans have not been made since 1996. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
123 

FLOOD HAZARD MAPPING AND RISK ANALYSIS PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $97,712,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 89,329,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 92,145,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥5,567,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. +2,816,000 

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, complete hazard determinations required for the nation’s lending institutions, and develop appropriate mitigation and disaster response plans for Federal, State, and local emergency management personnel. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $92,145,000 for Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis, $2,816,000 above the amount requested 

and $5,567,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The 

Committee notes that an additional $149,000,000 is available for 

flood plain management and mapping activities within the National Flood Insurance Fund. The Committee encourages FEMA to 

prioritize as criteria the number of streams, rivers and coastal 

miles within a State and the participation of the State in 

leveraging non-federal contributions. The Committee notes that 

there are thousands of miles of streams, rivers, and coastal lines, 

including non-levee areas, that still need detailed studies and remapping 

The Committee is concerned with the dramatic reductions to 

flood mapping proposed by the Administration over the past two 

years. FEMA shall review the impact of the fiscal year 2012 funding reduction on FEMA’s statutorily mandated work; discuss effects 

of decreased funding on the flood mapping program, including the 

identification of what work had to be delayed or canceled and at 

what cost; and develop recommendations on ways to improve the 

solvency of the program in the long run. FEMA shall report its 

findings and recommendations within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

The Committee is concerned with the implementation of the 

FEMA flood mapping program and its potential effect on communities who are newly designated in flood hazard zones. The Committee is concerned communities which are designated in a new 

flood hazard zone for purposes of Flood Insurance Rate Maps have 

not been granted adequate time to review the new maps before 

having to make the determination whether or not to adopt the new 

map or fall out of compliance with the national flood insurance program. The Committee encourages FEMA to grant flexibility to communities upon their request for additional time to review the information by FEMA and consult with their citizens on how to best 

proceed while maintaining participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
124 

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $171,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 171,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 171,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

The National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF), which was established in the Treasury by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 

is a fee-generated fund that supports the National Flood Insurance 

Program (NFIP). The Act, as amended, authorizes the Federal Government to provide flood insurance on a national basis. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes bill language providing up to 

$22,000,000 for salaries and expenses to administer the NFIF, the 

same as the amount requested and the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. Consistent with the budget request, the 

Committee recommends $120,000,000 for flood-related grants. No 

less than $149,000,000 is available for flood plain management and 

flood mapping. Flood mitigation funds are available until September 30, 2014 and funding is offset by premium collections. 

NATIONAL PREDISASTER MITIGATION FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $35,500,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 14,331,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥21,169,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. +14,331,000 

MISSION

The National Predisaster Mitigation Fund provides technical assistance and grants to State, local, and tribal governments, and to 

universities to reduce the risks associated with disasters. Resources 

support the development and enhancement of hazard mitigation 

plans, as well as the implementation of disaster mitigation 

projects. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $14,331,000 for the National Predisaster Mitigation (PDM) Fund, $14,331,000 above the amount requested and $21,169,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 

2012. The Committee rejects the proposed termination of this program. PDM grants are one of the only programs that provide funding to communities prior to a disaster. It has been repeatedly demonstrated during disasters that these types of investments lead to 

significant savings by significantly mitigating risks and damage. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
125 

EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $120,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 100,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 120,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. +20,000,000 

MISSION

The Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program was 

created in 1983 to supplement the work of local social service organizations within the United States, both private and governmental, 

to help people in need of emergency assistance. The program provides funds to local communities for homeless programs, including 

soup kitchens, food banks, shelters, and homeless prevention services. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $120,000,000 for the Emergency 

Food and Shelter Program, $20,000,000 above the amount requested and the same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. 

TITLE IV—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND 

SERVICES 

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $102,424,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 142,974,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 111,924,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +9,500,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. ¥31,050,000 

MISSION

The mission of the United States Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS) is to process all immigrant and non-immigrant 

benefits provided to visitors to the United States; adjudicate naturalization requests; promote national security as it relates to immigration issues; eliminate immigration adjudication backlogs; and 

implement solutions to improve immigration customer services. 

USCIS also maintains substantial records and data related to the 

individuals who have applied for immigration benefits. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $111,924,000 in discretionary appropriations for USCIS, $31,050,000 below the requested level and 

$9,500,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The recommended level does not include funds for the requested pay increase. 

USER FEE FUNDED PROGRAMS

The budget estimates that USCIS will utilize $2,862,409,000 in 

fee-funded expenditures in fiscal year 2013. The Committee recommendation adds an additional $20,048,000 to that amount for 

the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) proVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
126 

gram, for a total of $2,882,457,000. Revenues from fees paid by persons applying for immigration benefits constitute the majority of 

USCIS’s resources, and support adjudication of applications for immigration benefits as well as government investigations aimed at 

preventing fraud within the immigration system. 

With carryover funds and projected revenues, USCIS has sufficient resources available to continue supporting its operations with 

fee funding, as has traditionally been the practice. In the current 

fiscal crisis, the Committee cannot ignore this fact; and therefore, 

continues to direct USCIS to use fee revenues for all its costs with 

the exception of E-Verify. It is critical that USCIS continue to monitor its fee revenues and obligations against its fee collections. The 

Committee directs USCIS to continue to brief the Committee quarterly on fee revenues and obligations. 

USCIS is finalizing its latest fee study to assess issuance of an 

updated fee schedule. The Committee directs USCIS to include the 

costs of operations, such as asylum and refugee processing, in its 

fee study. Given our nation’s strong interests in supporting a path 

for legal immigrants to become citizens, USCIS is encouraged to be 

cognizant of the affordability of the naturalization application fee. 

MILITARY NATURALIZATIONS

Last year, the Committee made clear that the cost of military 

naturalizations should be paid by the Department of Defense 

(DoD). The Committee directs USCIS to ensure that such agreement is codified in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) and to 

provide a copy of the MOU to the Committee. 

USCIS TRANSFORMATION

The Committee remains disappointed with the lack of progress 

on the USCIS Transformation program and now questions whether 

continued investment in the current contract is justified. USCIS 

has obligated $597,100,000 from fiscal year 2006 to January 2012, 

and not a single capability has been delivered to USCIS customers. 

Despite the importance of Transformation to USCIS operations, 

USCIS has repeatedly missed milestones to deliver the first application form type much less additional application forms. The Committee directs USCIS to provide weekly updates on its efforts to deliver the first release, which under its re-baselined program has already been delayed six months. If the first release is not delivered 

or is not successfully deployed, the Committee directs the Undersecretary for Management to provide a decision to the Committee 

no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act regarding termination of the contract and other remediation actions 

the Department will take on Transformation. 

ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO IMMIGRATION INFORMATION

Within the total fees collected, the Committee directs USCIS to 

provide no less than $29,000,000 to continue conversion of immigration records to digital format. The Committee continues its support for these efforts to increase efficiency; realize cost savings; ensure immediate access for appropriate users across the immigration 

continuum, rather than shipping A-Files across the country; and 

reduce the need to retain millions of pages of paper files. The ocVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
127 

currence of losing an applicant’s personal history and information 

through a shipping error—or waiting for the file in the mail to document a simple decision and move a case forward—must be eliminated. USCIS shall brief the Committee no later than July 1, 2012 

on updates related to this effort. Furthermore, should Transformation be abandoned, the Committee directs USCIS to develop 

a plan for achieving electronic access to all records and submit that 

plan to the Committee no later than 90 days after such a decision. 

The Committee directs USCIS to continue making improvements 

to the Enterprise Document Management System (EDMS) to address user concerns and make electronic files more searchable. The 

Committee directs ICE to formalize its internal policy to utilize digital records and provide a copy of the policy to the Committee no 

later than July 1, 2012. Further, the Committee directs ICE and 

USCIS to continue working with EOIR to address their concerns or 

barriers to the use of digital records in proceedings. 

ELECTRONIC I–94

The Committee directs USCIS and CBP to brief quarterly on its 

progress toward elimination of the paper I–94, including USCIS 

progress in making necessary system changes. During the transition period, while CBP and USCIS are pursuing changes through 

rulemaking, the Department shall ensure that affected aliens, employers and others who must utilize the I–94 number, particularly 

for verification of status, clearly understand the interim process for 

obtaining the valid I–94 number. The Department should undertake extensive outreach, including publication of a detailed notice 

on its website and in the Federal Register, before it implements interim changes. 

E-VERIFY

The Committee recommends $111,924,000 for the E-Verify system, as requested; however, the Committee denies the requested 

pay raise. The Committee strongly supports continued expansion of 

E-Verify usage and commends USCIS on its progress in incorporating additional data sets and capability to improve the rate of 

employees automatically, and accurately, confirmed as work authorized. That includes continued expansion of photo verification. 

The Committee looks forward to receiving USCIS plan for expanding the use of E-Verify, required in the joint explanatory statement 

accompanying Public Law 112–74. In addition, the bill extends the 

authorization of E-Verify for one year, as proposed by the President’s budget request. 

While USCIS has dramatically improved the accuracy of the system, the Committee shares USCIS’ interest in ensuring no workauthorized individual is falsely identified as ineligible to work. To 

that end, the Committee directs USCIS to create a review process 

for E-Verify final non-confirmations by June 1, 2013 and brief the 

Committee quarterly on steps taken to meet this deadline. 

USCIS must continue to ensure that there are appropriate controls and analytical systems in place to identify inappropriate use 

of the E-Verify system by employers. As a result, the Committee 

strongly urges USCIS to update and publish regular E-Verify accuracy and performance audits. The Committee directs USCIS to continue regular briefings on its progress implementing a robust comVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
128 

pliance review program for E-Verify, including any instances of 

misuse of the system and actions taken to address those instances. 

SYSTEMATIC ALIEN VERIFICATION FOR ENTITLEMENTS

Due to current budgetary constraints, the Systematic Alien 

Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program must continue to be 

funded through user fees and other USCIS fee revenues. USCIS 

shall continue to explore all opportunities to reduce the burden on 

state and local benefits agencies that serve as a disincentive to participation. Additionally, USCIS shall ensure that improvements to 

the Verification Information System benefit both E-Verify and 

SAVE users. 

The Committee remains concerned, however, that adequate protections must be put in place to ensure the SAVE system is used 

as designed and intended, namely as a means to certify eligibility 

for public benefits. In light of these concerns, the Committee directed, in the joint explanatory statement accompanying Public 

Law 112–74, that OIG review the SAVE program. The Committee 

looks forward to the recommendations in that report and will take 

appropriate actions as a result. 

EFFICIENT PROCESSING OF REFUGEE APPLICATIONS

The Committee is concerned about the detrimental impact that 

the failure to properly coordinate security and non-security clearance procedures has had on the processing of vulnerable individuals who are in need of and eligible for resettlement to the United 

States. The Committee urges the Department to work with other 

relevant Federal agencies, including but not limited to the Department of State, to conduct a review of refugee processing, including 

security clearances, with the goal of streamlining processing, consistent with maintaining thorough security vetting. The Committee 

further directs the Department to brief the Committee on the results of its review, no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act. Such report shall include a description of recommended changes to streamline processing and the costs associated with any unfunded needs. 

USCIS ADJUDICATION REVIEW

In January 2012, OIG issued a report entitled ‘‘The Effects of 

USCIS Adjudication Procedures and Policies on Fraud Detection by 

Immigration Service Officers’’, OIG–12–24. The Committee is concerned about the report’s findings and directs USCIS to provide a 

progress report on its corrective action plan no later than October 

1, 2012. The Committee also directs OIG to brief on its assessment 

of USCIS actions no later than November 1, 2012. 

EB–5 IMMIGRANT INVESTOR PROGRAM

In January 2012, USCIS briefed the Committee on inconsistencies and vulnerabilities in the EB–5 Immigrant Investor program 

that USCIS was beginning to address. The Committee directs 

USCIS to brief on its progress no later than October 1, 2012. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
129 

IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION PROGRAMS

The Department requested appropriated funds to fully support 

the Office of Citizenship and grants to organizations that provide 

citizenship preparation services. While the Committee supports the 

efforts of the Office of Citizenship to promote civic education 

through the naturalization process, the Committee recommends the 

use of fee funds for this purpose. Active civic participation is critical to continuing the American way of life, which is why individuals seeking citizenship must take the naturalization test to assess 

their knowledge of these topics. The legal permanent residents who 

are seeking citizenship preparation services are the direct beneficiaries of this funding. USCIS has sufficient cash balances in its 

fee accounts to support these grants, if it chooses to prioritize its 

use of fee funds for this purpose. The bill continues a general provision clarifying the availability of fee funds for these grants. At the 

same time, the Committee notes that private, non-profit organizations across the country have been performing these services without support from USCIS grants for many years. 

NATURALIZATION CEREMONIES

The Committee directs USCIS to identify, in the fiscal year 2014 

budget submission, all funds allocated to naturalization and oath 

of allegiance ceremonies. In addition, the Committee directs USCIS 

to work with local public and private groups to hold naturalization 

and oath of allegiance ceremonies as part of community Independence Day celebrations. The Committee also encourages USCIS to 

review internal policies that limit its ability to use fee revenues to 

make small grants and to provide agency employee support to local 

community groups that would otherwise be financially unable to 

host such ceremonies. 

STATELESS PERSONS

The Committee directs USCIS, with other DHS components as 

appropriate, to brief the Committee on its efforts to quantify the 

number of stateless persons in the country. The Committee also encourages USCIS to provide recommendations to the relevant Congressional committees of jurisdiction so that USCIS has legal methods to address statelessness in the future. 

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $238,957,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 228,939,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 228,467,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥10,490,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. ¥472,000 

MISSION

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) provides the necessary facilities, equipment, and support services to 

conduct advanced, specialized, and refresher training for Federal 

law enforcement personnel. Specifically, FLETC serves as an interagency law enforcement training organization for 90 Federal agenVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
130 

cies having law enforcement responsibilities. FLETC also provides 

services to State, local, and international law enforcement agencies, 

and on a space available basis, to other Federal agencies with related law enforcement missions. 

FLETC is headquartered in Glynco, GA and has facilities in 

Artesia, NM and Charleston, SC. Each of these facilities is designed primarily for residential training operations. A fourth training facility is located in Cheltenham, MD, and provides in-service 

and re-qualification training for officers and agents in the Washington, D.C. area. In cooperation with the State Department, 

FLETC also manages an International Law Enforcement Academy 

in Gaborone, Botswana, and serves as Deputy Director at the International Law Enforcement Academy in Bangkok, Thailand. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $228,467,000 for FLETC, $472,000 

below the amount requested and $10,490,000 below the amount 

provided in fiscal year 2012. The Committee denies the funds requested for a pay raise. Within the funds provided is $29,163,000 

for Management and Administration and $1,300,000 for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation Board. 

FLETC was created with the intention of providing high-quality, 

standard-based training in an efficient and cost-effective manner. 

The Committee continues to support this concept, particularly during times of fiscal constraint. 

RETIRED ANNUITANTS

The budget request proposed to extend, until 2015, a bill proviso 

related to retired annuitants, yet does not explain why this extension is needed, since Public Law 112–74 provided a two-year extension already. Therefore, the Committee does not support this request. If FLETC believes that the additional time period is necessary, the Committee encourages FLETC to provide clear rationale. 

SUPPORT OF THE DHS CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICE

In fiscal year 2012, the Committee supported a proposal made by 

the Department’s Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) to co-locate 

CHCO support of DHS headquarters with FLETC human resource 

staff at Glynco. The co-location was intended to reduce costs and 

improve service level and efficiency, while ensuring that appropriated funds for FLETC activities were not augmented and were 

not augmenting CHCO funds. The Committee directs FLETC and 

CHCO to brief the Committee on savings and operational effectiveness of this move no later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, AND RELATED

EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $32,456,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 29,385,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 27,385,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥5,071,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. ¥2,000,000 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
131 

MISSION

This account provides for the acquisition, construction, improvements, equipment, furnishings, and related costs for expansion and 

maintenance of facilities of the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $27,385,000 for Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses, $2,000,000 below 

the amount requested and $5,071,000 below the level provided in 

fiscal year 2012. While the Committee understands FLETC has facility needs to support their customers, the President’s budget request assumed an increase in aviation security and COBRA fees in 

order to fund this program at the requested levels. These fees are 

not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations and 

the Committee has adjusted its fiscal year 2013 recommendation 

for this account accordingly. 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $135,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 138,008,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 130,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. ¥5,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. ¥8,008,000 

MISSION

The Management and Administration appropriation provides for 

the salaries and expenses of the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T). 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $130,000,000 for S&T Management 

and Administration, $8,008,000 below the amount requested, and 

$5,000,000 below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. Within 

this total, the Committee recommends $10,000 for reception and 

representation costs. An $8,008,000 decrease below the request is 

recommended due to the shortfall created by the President’s budget 

request, which assumes an unauthorized increase in aviation security fees as well as additional budget costs not documented through 

a budget amendment. In addition, the recommendation does not include funding for a fiscal year 2013 pay raise. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $533,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 693,464,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 695,971,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +162,971,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. +2,507,000 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
132 

MISSION

The mission of the Science and Technology Directorate is to develop and deploy technologies and capabilities to secure the U.S. 

Homeland. The Directorate conducts, stimulates, and enables research, development, testing, evaluation, and the timely transition 

of homeland security capabilities to Federal, State, and local operational end users. This activity includes investments in both evolutionary and revolutionary capabilities with high-payoff potential; 

early deployment of off-the-shelf, proven technologies to provide for 

initial defense capability; near-term utilization of emerging technologies to counter current terrorist threats; and development of 

new capabilities to thwart future and emerging threats. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $695,971,000 for Research, Development, Acquisition and Operations (RDA&O), $2,507,000 above the 

amount requested and $162,971,000 above the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2012. 

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

Budget Estimate Recommended 

Research, Development and Innovation ...................................................................... $478,048,000 $405,555,000 

RD&I: Apex .......................................................................................................... [15,000,000] – – – 

RD&I: Border Security ......................................................................................... [31,651,883] – – – 

RD&I: Chem/Bio/Radiological/Nuclear/Explosives Defense ................................ [197,688,117] – – – 

RD&I: Disaster Resilience ................................................................................... [143,738,000] – – –

RD&I: Cyber Security .......................................................................................... [64,477,000] – – – 

RD&I: Counter Terrorist ...................................................................................... [25,493,000] – – –

Acquisition and Operations Support ........................................................................... 47,984,000 47,984,000 

Laboratory Facilities .................................................................................................... 127,432,000 202,432,000 

University Programs ..................................................................................................... 40,000,000 40,000,000 

TOTAL, RDA&O ........................................................................................... $693,464,000 $695,971,000 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND INNOVATION

In fiscal year 2012, the President’s Budget requested, and the 

conferees approved, a proposal to combine individual research accounts into a single Research, Development, and Innovation 

(RD&I) PPA. Because RD&I was funded at a level well below the 

previous fiscal year and the request, the conferees approved the 

single PPA, rather than constrain the Directorate from finding an 

optimal mix of projects, and dividing it into small PPA categories, 

which would have been administratively burdensome to reprogram. 

This enabled S&T to prioritize its research, focusing on projects 

with the highest potential to advance homeland security missions. 

To facilitate the Committees’ oversight responsibilities in the current fiscal year, S&T was directed to provide a detailed breakout 

to the Committee of subsequent funding levels for each of its research thrust areas within the RD&I PPA. 

For fiscal year 2013, the Committee recommends $405,555,000 for RD&I. This is $72,493,000 below the request and $139,772,000 

above fiscal year 2012. The Committee cannot recommend the full 

request—in part due to shortfalls created by unauthorized aviation 

security fees and undocumented budget costs, as noted above. However, this level of funding is nearly 40 percent above the fiscal year 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
133 

2012 level and will permit S&T to return to a higher level of effort 

on its most critical research efforts, which include biological defense, cyber security, border security, and first responder technology. Indeed, this level would allow S&T to fully fund all projects 

that were at a reduced level in fiscal year 2012, restart half of its 

requested projects currently on ‘‘hold,’’ and consider new R&D 

projects that offer the potential of novel and more cost effective solutions to DHS challenges. 

Accordingly, at this substantially increased level of funding, the 

Committee enhances oversight of S&T’s RD&I projects by requiring 

its research ‘‘thrust’’ areas to be broken out into corresponding 

PPAs that sum to $405,555,000, using the categories displayed in 

the table above. The Committee understands that the funding levels for RD&I listed under the ‘‘Budget Estimate’’ in the same table 

are S&T’s spending priorities, if the President’s full request were 

to be appropriated. However, as the full request has not been approved or recommended, the Committee directs S&T to re-estimate 

how it would distribute funding across these PPAs and to submit 

its funding plan no later than 15 days after the date of enactment 

of this Act. The Committee intends that the revised allocations, by 

thrust area, will serve as PPAs and control levels for fiscal year 

2013 for purposes of reprogramming notification and approval, governed by the requirements of section 503 in the bill. This funding 

plan shall also include project-level detail on how S&T intends to 

fund individual research initiatives within each ‘‘thrust’’ area PPA. 

PORTFOLIO REVIEWS

The Committee recognizes the Directorate is establishing a more 

visible and accountable project selection process, to include annual 

portfolio reviews. These reviews have helped S&T identify underperforming projects, necessary under a constrained budget, and the 

Committee continues to support them as an effective way to help 

DHS determine how best to invest finite research dollars. The 

Committee directs S&T to provide a briefing on results of any portfolio reviews no later than 30 days after the results have been compiled. The briefing shall include an assessment of the most promising projects, an appraisal of those that scored poorly, and any 

plans to modify or reallocate funding from underperforming initiatives. This briefing should also include a detailed overview of how 

S&T measures and scrutinizes the cost and schedule of its research 

projects. 

CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT

Over the years, S&T has changed its process for engaging DHS 

customers to determine the top science and technology requirements of the Department’s components. This information is critical 

to the Directorate’s mission, as S&T must develop the technologies 

that our frontline operators need most to secure the Homeland. If 

S&T’s top priorities are not driven by its customers, then the Directorate has manifestly failed in its mission; as a result, the Committee intends to monitor S&T’s process for customer engagement. 

Accordingly, the Committee directs S&T to provide a report no 

later than 60 days after the date of enactment detailing its process 

for determining each customer’s S&T needs, prioritizing those 

needs, and assessing customer satisfaction with S&T’s work. This 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
134 

should also include a description of the extent to which S&T customers are involved in the Directorate’s portfolio reviews. 

APEX PROJECTS

The Committee applauds S&T’s continued focus on ‘‘Apex’’ 

projects, which aim to deliver quickly solutions to address critical 

needs of select DHS customers, and recommends funding this activity at the requested level of $15,000,000. These projects have greater visibility in the Directorate and are more likely than longerrange research projects to demonstrate a measurable return on the 

taxpayer’s dollar. Given the importance of Apex projects, the Committee will continue to exercise special oversight of them and directs S&T to: (1) brief the Committee no later than 14 days before 

signing any agreement to initiate a new Apex project to include, 

but not be limited to, information on the goals and full cost of the 

proposed effort; and (2) provide quarterly updates on existing Apex 

projects to include, but not be limited to, the status of the initiative, project costs, and approximate project completion date. 

LABORATORY FACILITIES

The Committee recommends $202,432,000 for laboratory facili- ties, $75,000,000 above the amount requested. This includes 

$75,000,000 to fund construction efforts at the National Bio- and 

Agro-defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas. The Committee expects the Department to use $40,000,000 appropriated in 

fiscal year 2011 to construct the Central Utility Plant, contingent 

upon the National Academy of Sciences’ approval of the revised 

site-specific risk assessment. 

The Committee believes that the additional funding for fiscal year 2013, combined with the $50,000,000 appropriated in fiscal 

year 2012, will enable S&T to initiate meaningful segments of the 

NBAF project. The Committee directs S&T to submit a detailed update of its fiscal year 2013 NBAF construction plan and schedule, 

to include an updated plan for the expenditure of funds, no later 

than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act; of the funds 

provided to S&T for RDA&O, $20,000,000 is withheld from obligation until the aforementioned plan is received by the Committee. 

However, the Committee understands that, in the interim, the 

Nation will continue to rely on Plum Island Animal Disease Center 

in New York to provide research on biological threats that may impact America’s food and livestock industries. The Committee directs 

S&T to provide a report no later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act detailing projected costs for any necessary upgrades to Plum Island facilities to keep the Center minimally sustainable until the NBAF begins to operate at full capacity. 

The Committee underscores the importance of making progress 

in protecting the Nation’s food supply and agricultural economy. 

The potential impact of an intentional or even natural disease outbreak on the Nation’s agricultural industry and food supply could 

be enormous and sudden. One recent example of this was the 

decision by some foreign food retailers to cut off sales of U.S. beef 

following the news that a U.S. Department of Agriculture inspection had discovered a cow infected with bovine spongiform 

encephalopathy, otherwise known as ‘‘mad cow disease,’’ for the 

first time since 2006. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
135 

UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS AND CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE

The Centers of Excellence (COE) at U.S. colleges and universities 

provide critical homeland security-related research and education 

to address high-priority domestic security-related issues and to enhance homeland security capabilities over the long term. COEs 

focus on building homeland security expertise in the academic community, creating strategic partnerships among universities and 

public agencies, and developing a new scientific workforce of homeland security experts. 

The Committee believes that it would help maximize the Centers’ 

return on investment, and be consistent with previous suggestions 

by the Administration, if the competitive awards made to the Centers each year were based on performance reviews, conducted as 

part of the University Programs’ internal review process. The Committee requests S&T provide a briefing no later than 90 days after 

the date of enactment of this Act on how such performance criteria 

is used in the annual allocation process for COE selection and 

awards. 

In addition, the Committee recognizes the need to address current gaps in forensic science application and to increase the pipeline of forensics-trained workers to improve homeland security operations related to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and 

explosives threats. The Committee is aware that the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) performs this function for nuclear 

and radiological threats through its National Nuclear Forensics Expertise Development Program, which provides an academic pathway from undergraduate to post-doctorate study in nuclear and 

geochemical science specialties directly relevant to technical nuclear forensics. S&T is encouraged to use funding under this heading to complement DNDO efforts and help expand the use and 

training in other areas of forensic science. 

The Committee is aware of other approaches to research and development through the national academic and research communities, including the broad-based approach initiated by the National Science Foundation, its Experimental Program to Stimulate 

Competitive Research (EPSCoR), which has been emulated by 

other Federal departments and agencies. The Committee directs 

S&T to evaluate, in consulation with the NSF, how an EPSCoR 

program could benefit DHS and the homeland security mission and 

advise the Committee how such a program could be established at 

DHS. 

CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee directs that not less than $10,000,000 of the 

funds provided for cyber security research and development be allocated, on a competitive basis, to research and development projects 

that leverage the expertise of existing governmental organizations 

to improve the intrusion detection, cyber forensic, and software assurance capabilities of DHS. 

FIRST RESPONDER COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT STANDARDS

When applicable, Federal funding for first responder communications equipment should support acquisition of technology that 

meets common system standards (Project 25 standards) for digital 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
136 

public safety radio communications, in order to ensure interoperability of such systems. S&T should continue to collaborate with 

the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

in assessing compliance of first responder communication equipment with Project 25 standards. 

COLLABORATION WITH THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT

The Committee directs the Under Secretary for S&T to collaborate with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to identify equipment and technology used by the Department of Defense that could be used by TSA for passenger screening 

to detect explosive material at security checkpoints. 

GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM SECURITY

Accurate, available and safe global positioning system (GPS)-derived information has become an essential part of the national communications and technology infrastructure upon which a wide 

range of services depend, including law enforcement and first responder communications, border security, and power grid synchronization. The Committee is concerned about the threat that interference, jamming or spoofing of GPS could have upon these services, and understands that DHS is looking at approaches to detect, 

locate and analyze the nature of interruptions in access to accurate 

GPS information. The Committee urges DHS and S&T to look to 

ways to establish such a capacity on a nationwide basis in the near 

term, to include the development of pilot projects. 

DISASTER COMMUNICATIONS

The Committee is concerned with the availability and sustained 

operability of communications during emergencies, natural disasters or times of crisis. The Committee encourages the Department 

of Homeland Security, the Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) to explore existing methods and technologies to sustain 

communications during disasters, including the potential benefits 

of using broadcast radio chips in mobile devices, and report back 

to the Committee on their findings within six months of the date 

of enactment of this Act. 

EXPLOSIVE DETECTION CANINES

The Committee recognizes the critical importance of explosive detection canines to homeland security, and strongly supports S&T 

ongoing collaborative research to increase the capabilities and quality of detection canines available to the government. The Committee also encourages the Department to strongly consider the development of standards, protocols and certifications for the breeding, training, and deployment of explosive-detection canines. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
137 

DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $38,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 39,692,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 38,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. – – – 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. ¥1,692,000 

MISSION

The Management and Administration appropriation provides for 

the salaries and expenses of Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 

(DNDO) employees. This is a jointly-staffed office that consists of 

both Federal employees and interagency detailees. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $38,000,000 for Management and 

Administration, $1,692,000 below the amount requested due to the 

need to offset shortfalls created by the budget request’s reliance on 

unauthorized fees, and the Department’s lack of responsiveness to 

Congressional requirements. 

STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

In the fiscal year 2012 Statement of Managers, the conferees directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a strategic 

plan of investments necessary to implement the Department’s responsibilities under the domestic component of the Global Nuclear 

Detection Architecture. The bill includes language to continue this 

requirement in fiscal year 2013, due at the time the President’s 

budget request is submitted for fiscal year 2014. The Committee intends for this to be an annual report. The Committee further directs that DNDO include in this report metrics and goals for situational awareness of other programs, as stipulated in the Research, 

Development, and Operations section of this report. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $215,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 236,830,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 226,830,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +11,830,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. ¥10,000,000 

MISSION

The Research, Development, and Operations (RD&O) appropriation funds all DHS nuclear detection research, development, test, 

evaluation, and operational support activities. DNDO is responsible 

for overseeing the Global Nuclear Detection Architecture (GNDA), 

a worldwide network of systems used to detect and report attempts 

to import or transport a nuclear device or fissile or radiological material intended for illicit use. DNDO is continuing to improve the 

domestic portion of this architecture through an integrated research, development, test, and evaluation program, while providing 

support to current operations. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
138 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $226,830,000 for RD&O, 

$10,000,000 below the amount requested, and $11,830,000 above 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity 

is as follows: 

Budget Estimate Recommended 

Systems Engineering and Architecture ....................................................................... $30,091,000 $30,000,000 

Systems Development .................................................................................................. 28,401,000 28,000,000 

Transformational Research and Development ............................................................ 83,897,000 74,766,000 

Assessments ................................................................................................................ 33,198,000 33,000,000 

Operations Support ...................................................................................................... 35,679,000 35,500,000 

National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center ............................................................. 25,564,000 25,564,000 

Total, RD&O ........................................................................................................ $236,830,000 $226,830,000 

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

DNDO continuously monitors and assesses the GNDA to identify 

gaps in the Architecture that pose the greatest risk of being exploited for the illicit transport of radiological and nuclear threats. 

The Office then must use its resources, or work with partners in 

the interagency and intergovernmental community, to mitigate 

gaps by adjusting operations and making informed investments in 

new technology that help reduce the risk and support a systemwide approach to nuclear and radiological detection. 

This process requires a thorough understanding and continuous 

awareness of the GNDA, its components, and its operations—supported by comprehensive and rigorous risk models. Systems Engineering and Architecture focuses on identifying and validating the 

GNDA as a necessary prerequisite for a unified approach to this 

mission. The Committee directs DNDO to provide semi-annual 

briefings, beginning 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

on its core programs and initiatives by means of a pathway-bypathway assessment for radiological and nuclear threats, beginning 

with areas of greatest risk. These updates should focus on those 

vulnerabilities DNDO seeks to address through research, development, acquisitions, partnerships, and other efforts, as well as longterm projections for closing GNDA gaps. 

SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $28,000,000 for Systems Development, $401,000 below the amount requested, and $23,000,000 

below the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. This is a nearly 50 

percent reduction over fiscal year 2012, which the President’s budget requests in order to shift DNDO to a ‘‘Commercial First’’ approach. The Committee encourages DNDO and DHS to take advantage of experience and capacity of private industry to help develop 

new technologies and systems, and expects to see DNDO leverage 

private sector solutions wherever appropriate. The Systems Development activity of DNDO provides rigorous testing and feedback on 

commercial-off-the-shelf or other relatively mature systems and 

technology that can be used to mitigate GNDA vulnerabilities, as 

an alternative to relying on long-term, large scale technology development efforts. The Committee directs DNDO to provide, at the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
139 

time it submits its fiscal year 2014 budget request, a formal review 

of its Commercial First approach, including any resulting successful partnerships with industry. 

TRANSFORMATIONAL AND APPLIED RESEARCH PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $74,766,000 for Transformational 

and Applied Research, $9,131,000 below the amount requested, and 

$34,766,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The reduction to the request is due to the need to offset shortfalls created 

by the budget request’s reliance on unauthorized fees and the Department’s lack of responsiveness to Congressional requirements. 

However, the considerable increase over fiscal year 2012 will allow 

DNDO to bolster its R&D in areas not being pursued by larger 

partner agencies, such as the Departments of Defense and Energy, 

or in the private sector. Such challenges include detection of shielded nuclear material; fielding affordable detection equipment that 

can be widely and easily deployed; enhancing the ability to conduct 

wide-area and standoff searches for material; and other essential 

monitoring of GNDA pathways. These efforts are undertaken 

through the exploratory research program, with proof-of-concept 

demonstrations; the Academic Research Initiative; Advanced Technology Demonstrations; and Small Business Innovative Research. 

The Committee directs DNDO to provide a briefing on the status 

of major initiatives no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and semiannually thereafter. 

ASSESSMENTS

The Committee recommends $33,000,000 for Assessments, 

$198,000 below the amount requested, and $5,000,000 below the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2012. The Committee directs DNDO 

to continue to provide semiannual updates on its red teaming efforts. 

OPERATIONS SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $35,500,000 for Operations Support, 

$179,000 below the amount requested, and $2,500,000 above the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2012. Within the amount provided, 

$3,111,000 is provided for program increases associated with 

DNDO’s Information Sharing Program (ISP), Mission Critical Messaging Program (MCM), and Maritime Capability Development 

Program (MCD). The ISP and MCM programs will provide DNDO 

with situational awareness of detection systems within the GNDA. 

By enhancing the systems within the Joint Analysis Center, this 

will permit DNDO to more quickly adjudicate nuclear alarms nationwide and, in emergencies or high threat situations, more efficiently and effectively coordinate deployment of ‘‘surge’’ assets. 

The Committee directs DNDO to report no later than 60 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act on the specific metrics by 

which to measure how ISP and MCM programs are improving 

DNDO’s situational awareness of the GNDA, and include a five 

year plan, and associated funding needed to reach those goals. 

DNDO is further directed to include these goals and metrics in the 

annual strategic investment plan required for the GNDA to allow 

the Committee to better measure the progress for those efforts. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
140 

NATIONAL TECHNICAL NUCLEAR FORENSICS

The Committee recommends $25,564,000 for the National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center (NTNFC), the same as the amount 

requested, and $2,564,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 

2012. The Committee strongly supports capacity-building efforts for 

nuclear forensics. 

SYSTEMS ACQUISITION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 ......................................................... $37,000,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 ..................................................... 51,455,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 51,455,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2012 .................................................. +14,455,000 

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2013 .............................................. – – – 

MISSION

The Systems Acquisition appropriation provides for acquisition 

and deployment of radiation detection technologies for other components of the Department, in particular the Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the Transportation Security Administration. It also supports DNDO provision of systems engineering and test and evaluation programs, both in support of fielded 

systems and prior to acquisition, and includes funding for the development of appropriate training, exercise, and alarm response 

protocols. To carry out this mission, DNDO acquires a range of radiation detection technologies, including fixed, mobile, and 

relocatable radiation portal monitors and a range of human portable radiation detection systems. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $51,455,000 for Systems Acquisition, as requested, and $14,455,000 above the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2012. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by PPA is as follows: 

Budget estimate Recommended 

Radiation Portal Monitor Program ............................................................................... $1,355,000 $1,355,000 

Securing the Cities ...................................................................................................... 22,000,000 22,000,000 

Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems ........................................................... 28,100,000 28,100,000 

Total, Systems Acquisitions ................................................................................ $51,455,000 $51,455,000 

RADIATION PORTAL MONITOR PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $1,355,000 for the Radiation Portal 

Monitor (RPM) Program, as requested, and $5,645,000 below the 

amount provided in fiscal year 2012. While the RPM program was 

historically focused on improving fixed radiological and nuclear detection capabilities at sea and land ports of entry, hundreds of millions of dollars have already been invested in this layer of the 

GNDA. To address a different GNDA gap, funding in fiscal year 

2013 is included for the Domestic Airport Deployment Project, as 

requested, to reduce risk in international aviation, through monitoring arrivals of international air cargo. The Committee expects 

DNDO to continue to make risk-based decisions such as these in 

a constrained budget environment and to keep the Committee inVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
141 

formed of developments in deploying and improving radiation monitoring capabilities. 

SECURING THE CITIES

The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for the Securing the 

Cities (STC) Program, as requested, to fund efforts in New York 

City and a second urban location. In fiscal year 2012, the conferees 

directed DNDO to provide a comprehensive STC report before committing funds to a new location, which required that DNDO establish ‘‘performance measures that will be used to evaluate STC 

sites.’’ In this regard, the Committee also expects DNDO to develop 

and apply clear program standards, consistent with optimizing the 

taxpayer investment in this program, for the initiation, development, and completion of the investments in technology, systems, 

training, and governance for participating cities. This should also 

include an explicit schedule for the transition from the end of the 

development stage to the point where a city can sustain the effort 

using State, local, or Federal grant funding. The Committee, therefore, directs DNDO to provide performance updates based on preestablished measures for each STC location during semi-annual 

briefings and to include the STC program in its annual strategic 

investment plan. 

HUMAN PORTABLE RADIATION DETECTION SYSTEMS

The Committee includes $28,100,000 for Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems (HPRDS), as requested, and $20,100,000 

above the amount provided in fiscal year 2012. These funds will 

support the acquisition of next-generation handheld detectors for 

DHS frontline operators, as well as radiological and nuclear detection capabilities for scanning small maritime vessels. The Committee supports this acquisition as a cost effective, scalable approach to filling a GNDA pathway—rather than costly, fixed systems—and directs DNDO to provide periodic updates on efforts to 

better leverage certain HPRDS investments with new technology to 

virtually connect individual detectors in order to create more powerful ‘‘mesh’’ networks. 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS—THIS ACT 

(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)

Section 501. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

no part of any appropriation shall remain available for obligation 

beyond the current year unless expressly provided. 

Section 502. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be merged with 

new appropriation accounts and used for the same purpose, subject 

to reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 503. The Committee continues a provision providing reprogramming authority for funds within an account and not to exceed five percent transfer authority between appropriations accounts with the requirement for a 15-day advance Congressional 

notification. A detailed funding table identifying each Congressional control level for reprogramming purposes is included at the 

end of this Report. These reprogramming guidelines shall be comVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
142 

plied with by all agencies funded by the Department of Homeland 

Security Appropriations Act, 2013. 

The Department shall submit reprogramming requests on a timely basis and provide complete explanations of the reallocations proposed, including detailed justifications of the increases and offsets, 

and any specific impact the proposed changes will have on the 

budget request for the following fiscal year and future-year appropriations requirements. Each request submitted to the Committees 

on Appropriations should include a detailed table showing the proposed revisions at the account, program, project, and activity level 

to the funding and staffing (full-time equivalent position) levels for 

the current fiscal year and to the levels requested in the President’s budget for the following fiscal year. 

The Department shall manage its programs and activities within 

the levels appropriated. The Department should only submit reprogramming or transfer requests in the case of an unforeseeable 

emergency or situation that could not have been predicted when 

formulating the budget request for the current fiscal year. When 

the Department submits a reprogramming or transfer request to 

the Committees on Appropriations and does not receive identical 

responses from the House and Senate, it is the responsibility of the 

Department to reconcile the House and Senate differences before 

proceeding, and if reconciliation is not possible, to consider the reprogramming or transfer request not approved. 

The Department is not to submit a reprogramming or transfer of 

funds after June 30 except in extraordinary circumstances, which 

imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of 

property. If a reprogramming or transfer is needed after June 30, 

the notice should contain sufficient documentation as to why it 

meets this statutory exception. 

Deobligated funds are also subject to the reprogramming and 

transfer guidelines and requirements set forth in this section. 

Section 504. The Committee continues a provision that prohibits 

funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department 

to make payment to the Department’s Working Capital Fund, except for activities and amounts allowed in the President’s fiscal 

year 2013 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 2013 from appropriations made for salaries and 

expenses shall remain available through fiscal year 2014 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 2013 until the enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for fiscal year 2013. 

Section 507. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

requiring notification of the Committees on Appropriations three 

days before grant allocations, grant awards, contract awards, other 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
143 

transactional agreements, letter of intents, or task or delivery order 

on a multiple contract award totaling $1,000,000 or more, or a task 

order greater than $25,000,000 from multi-year funds, is announced by the Department, including contracts covered by the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation. This provision is modified from 

previous fiscal years to also include all sole source grant awards. 

The Department is required to brief the Committees on Appropriations five full business days prior to announcing the intention to 

make a grant under State and Local Programs. Notification shall 

include a description of the project or projects to be funded, including city, county and state. 

Section 508. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

no agency shall purchase, construct, or lease additional facilities for 

Federal law enforcement training without advance approval of the 

Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 509. The Committee continues a provision providing that 

none of the funds may be used for any construction, repair, alteration, and acquisition project for which a prospectus, if required 

under chapter 33 of title 40, United States Code, has not been approved. 

Section 510. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

that consolidates by reference prior year statutory bill language 

into one provision. These provisions relate to contracting officer’s 

technical representative training; sensitive security information, 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 on reporting 

requirements of the privacy officer. 

Section 513. The Committee continues a provision regarding the 

oath of allegiance required by section 337 of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act. 

Section 514. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

Chief Financial Officer to submit monthly budget execution and 

staffing reports within 45 days after the close of each month. 

Section 515. 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 quarterly reports on recovered or deobligated funds. 

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 relating to undercover investigative operations authority of the United States Secret Service for fiscal year 2013. 

Section 518. The Committee continues a provision classifying the 

functions of the instructor staff at the Federal Law Enforcement 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
144 

Training Center as inherently governmental for purposes of the 

Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act. 

Section 519. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting the 

obligation of funds to the Office of the Secretary and Executive 

Management, the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, 

and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer for grants or contracts 

awarded by any means other than full and open competition. Certain exceptions apply, and this provision does not require new competitions of existing contracts during their current terms. The bill 

also requires the Inspector General to review Departmental contracts awarded noncompetitively and report on the results to the 

Committees. 

Section 520. 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 521. The Committee continues a provision that precludes 

DHS from using funds in this Act to carry out reorganization authority. This prohibition is not intended to prevent the Department 

from carrying out routine or small reallocations of personnel or 

functions within components, subject to Section 503 of this Act. 

This language prevents large scale reorganization of the Department, which the Committee believes should be acted on statutorily 

by the relevant Congressional committees of jurisdiction. 

Section 522. 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 523. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

relating to other transactional authority of the DHS through fiscal 

year 2013. 

Section 524. The Committee continues a provision that requires 

the Secretary to link all contracts that provide award fees to successful acquisition outcomes. 

Section 525. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting the 

obligation of funds for the Office of Secretary and Executive Management for any new hires at DHS if they are not verified through 

the E-Verify program. 

Section 526. The Committee continues a provision related to prescription drugs. 

Section 527. 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 528. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds for planning, testing, piloting or developing a national identification card. 

Section 529. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

Administrator of TSA to certify that no security risks will result if 

an airport does not participate in the E-Verify program. 

Section 530. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

relating to the liquidation of Plum Island assets and how the proceeds from this sale may be applied to construction costs of the new 

National Bio and Agro-defense Facility. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
145 

Section 531. 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 532. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

that extends the date of the chemical facilities security program. 

Section 533. 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 534. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds in this Act to be used for first-class travel. 

Section 535. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds in this Act to be used for adverse personnel actions for employees who use protective equipment or measures, including surgical masks, N95 respirators, gloves, or hand-sanitizers in the conduct of their official duties. 

Section 536. 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 537. The Committee continues a provision on the proper 

disposal of personal information collected through the Registered 

Traveler program. A report on procedures and status is required to 

be submitted 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Section 538. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act to pay 

for award or incentive fees for contractors with below satisfactory 

performance or performance that fails to meet the basic requirements of the contract. 

Section 539. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

that requires the Administrator of TSA to report on how the agency 

will meet the requirement to screen 100 percent of air cargo transportation on passenger aircraft arriving in the United States. 

Section 540. 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 541. The Committee continues and modifies a provision 

that makes deposits into the Immigration Examinations Fee Account available to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for 

the purposes of immigrant integration grants, not to exceed 

$9,200,000, in fiscal year 2013. 

Section 542. 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 543. The Committee continues a provision regarding disposal of Service Processing Centers or other ICE-owned detention 

facilities. 

Section 544. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds made available under this Act or any prior appropriations 

Act from being provided to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
146 

Section 545. The Committee includes a new provision regarding 

multi-year investment and management plans for the DHS CIO, 

CBP, and ICE. 

Section 546. The Committee continues a provision requiring the 

Secretary to enforce existing immigration laws. 

Section 547. The Committee includes a new provision requiring 

the Secretary to ensure that the fees collected as described in the 

United States—Columbia Free Trade Promotion Agreement Act of 

2011 be available to CBP in fiscal year 2014 and subsequent fiscal 

years and that the fiscal year 2014 budget request include any necessary offsets. 

Section 548. The Committee includes a new provision extending 

the authorization of E-Verify through the end of fiscal year 2013. 

Section 549. The Committee includes a new provision restricting 

travel aboard Coast Guard owned or operated fixed-wing aircraft 

after the date of submission of the President’s budget request for 

fiscal year 2014 if the Secretary has not provided the Committee 

with the required Comprehensive Acquisition Strategy Report and 

the Commandant has not provided the required Capital Investment 

Plan; provided certain exceptions may be made for national emergencies. 

Section 550. The Committee includes a new provision reforming 

Coast Guard acquisition processes and definitions, and directing 

the Coast Guard to follow specific guidelines when submitting costs 

related to the construction or conversion of a cutter. 

Section 551. The Committee includes a new provision regarding 

debris removal. 

Section 552. The Committee includes a new provision regarding 

Federal network security. 

Section 553. The Committee includes a new provision regarding 

restrictions on electronic access to pornography, except for law enforcement purposes. 

Section 554. The Committee includes a new provision regarding 

the transfer of firearms by Federal law enforcement personnel. 

Section 555. The Committee includes a new provision directing 

OMB to instruct any department, agency, or instrument of the 

Government receiving funds appropriated in this Act, to track 

undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts and include in its 

annual performance plan, and performance and accountability reports, additional details, as outlined. 

Section 556. The Committee includes a new provision regarding 

funding restrictions and reporting requirements regarding conferences occurring outside of the United States. 

Section 557. The Committee includes a new provision regarding 

funding restrictions and reporting requirements regarding conferences, ceremonies, commissionings, and de-commissionings costing more than $20,000. 

Section 558. The Committee includes a new provision restricting 

funds from corporate felons. 

Section 559. The Committee includes a new provision restricting 

funds from any corporation with unpaid Federal tax liabilities. 

Section 560. The Committee includes a new provision rescinding 

unobligated balances from FEMA’s Predisaster Mitigation program. 

Section 561. The Committee includes a new provision rescinding 

unobligated balances from Coast Guard—Acquisition, Construction, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
147 

and Improvements, and CBP—Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology. 

Section 562. The Committee includes a new provision permanently rescinding $60,000,000 from the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. 

Section 563. The Committee includes a new provision rescinding 

unobligated balances made available to the Department when it 

was created in 2003. 

Section 564. The Committee includes a new provision that prohibits new budget authority from exceeding budget allocation in 

Fiscal Year 2013. 

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 or on the motion to report, together with the 

names of those voting for and those voting against, are printed 

below: 

ROLLCALL NO. 1

Date: May 16, 2012 

Measure: Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, FY 2013 

Motion by: Mr. Aderholt 

Description of Motion: An amendment that (1) prohibits federal 

funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to provide for abortions, except in where the life of the mother would be 

endangered, or in the case of rape or incest; (2) prohibits federal 

funding to be used to require a person to perform or facilitate the 

performance of an abortion; and (3) permits ICE to provide escort 

services for a female detainee to receive abortion services outside 

the detention facility, with an exception for philosophical beliefs. 

Results: Adopted 28 yeas to 21 nays. 

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay 

Mr. Aderholt Mr. Bishop 

Mr. Alexander Ms. DeLauro 

Mr. Austria Mr. Dicks 

Mr. Bonner Mr. Farr 

Mr. Calvert Mr. Fattah 

Mr. Carter Mr. Hinchey 

Mr. Cole Mr. Honda 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
148 

Mr. Crenshaw Mr. Jackson 

Mr. Culberson Ms. Kaptur 

Mr. Dent Ms. Lee 

Mr. Diaz-Balart Mrs. Lowey 

Mrs. Emerson Ms. McCollum 

Mr. Flake Mr. Moran 

Mr. Frelinghuysen Mr. Olver 

Ms. Granger Mr. Pastor 

Mr. Graves Mr. Price 

Mr. Kingston Mr. Rothman 

Mr. Latham Ms. Roybal-Allard 

Mr. LaTourette Mr. Schiff 

Mr. Lewis Mr. Serrano 

Mrs. Lummis Mr. Visclosky 

Mr. Nunnelee 

Mr. Rehberg 

Mr. Rogers 

Mr. Simpson 

Mr. Womack 

Mr. Yoder 

Mr. Young 

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 

Coast Guard, AC&I—Reduction for PDA for NSC #4 (FY10) ......................$37,500,000 

Coast Guard, AC&I—Patrol Boats (FY10) .................................................... 5,000,000 

Coast Guard, AC&I—Reduction for PDA for NSC #5 (FY11) ...................... 54,100,000 

Coast Guard, AC&I—Offshore Patrol Cutter (FY11) ................................... 27,000,000 

CBP, BSFIT ..................................................................................................... 40,412,000 

Coast Guard, AC&I—System Engineering and Integration (FY11) ............ 10,000,000 

Coast Guard, AC&I—Offshore Patrol Cutter (FY12) ................................... 23,000,000 

Coast Guard, AC&I—H–60 (FY12) ................................................................ 5,000,000 

Coast Guard, AC&I—H–65 (FY12) ................................................................ 10,000,000 

Coast Guard, AC&I—System Engineering and Integration (FY12) ............ 10,000,000 

FEMA, Predisaster Mitigation ....................................................................... 6,000,000 

Office of Domestic Preparedness .................................................................... 1,316,000 

National Predisaster Mitigation Fund ........................................................... 2,831,000 

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: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
149 

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 

FEMA—Salaries and Expenses .............................. 123,696,000 FEMA—State and Local Programs 123,696,000 

FEMA—Salaries and Expenses .............................. 31,195,000 FEMA—Firefighter Assistance Grants 31,195,000 

FEMA—Salaries and Expenses .............................. 9,239,000 FEMA—EMPG 9,239,000 

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 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 

(Public Law 109–295) 

AN ACT Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the 

fiscalyear ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

SEC. 532. (a) UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE USE OF PROCEEDS

DERIVED FROM CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.—During fiscal year 

ø2012¿ 2013, with respect to any undercover investigative operation of the United States Secret Service (hereafter referred to in 

this section as the ‘‘Secret Service’’) that is necessary for the detection and prosecution of crimes against the United States— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VIII—COORDINATION WITH NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES; INSPECTOR GENERAL; 

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; COAST 

GUARD; GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
150 

Subtitle D—Acquisitions 

SEC. 831. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. 

(a) AUTHORITY.—Until øSeptember 30, 2012,¿ September 30, 

2013, and subject to subsection (d), the Secretary may carry out a 

pilot program under which the Secretary may exercise the following authorities: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The authority of the Secretary under this 

section shall terminate øSeptember 30, 2012,¿ September 30, 

2013, unless before that date the Secretary— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 550. (a) * * * 

(b) Interim regulations issued under this section shall apply until 

the effective date of interim or final regulations promulgated under 

other laws that establish requirements and standards referred to 

in subsection (a) and expressly supersede this section: Provided, 

That the authority provided by this section shall terminate øon October 4, 2012¿ on October 4, 2013. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 401 OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM 

AND IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996 

SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAMS. 

(a) * * * 

(b) IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINE; TERMINATION.—The Secretary of 

Homeland Security shall implement the pilot programs in a manner that permits persons and other entities to have elections under 

section 402 of this division made and in effect no later than 1 year 

after the date of the enactment of this Act. Unless the Congress 

otherwise provides, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall terminate a pilot program on September 30, ø2012¿ 2013. 

* * * * * * * 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
151 

CHAPTER 449 OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE 

CHAPTER 449—SECURITY 

SUBCHAPTER I—REQUIREMENTS 

Sec. 

44901. Screening passengers and property. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER II—ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL 

* * * * * * * 

ø44945. Disposition of unclaimed money.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER II—ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL 

* * * * * * * 

ø§ 44945. Disposition of unclaimed money 

øNotwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, unclaimed money recovered at any airport security checkpoint shall be retained by the 

Transportation Security Administration and shall remain available 

until expended for the purpose of providing civil aviation security 

as required in this chapter.¿ 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(f)(1)(A) 

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee has inserted at the appropriate 

place in the report a description of the effects of provisions proposed in the accompanying bill which may be considered, under 

certain circumstances, to change the application of existing law, either directly or indirectly. 

The bill provides, in some instances, funding of agencies and activities where legislation has not yet been finalized. In addition, the 

bill carries language, in some instances, permitting activities not 

authorized by law. Additionally, the Committee includes a number 

of general provisions. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Office 

of the Secretary and Executive Management offices, including 

funds for official reception and representation expenses. The Committee also limits the funds available until certain actions have 

been taken. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT

The Committee includes language providing funds for reception 

and representation expenses; for costs necessary to consolidate 

headquarters operations, including tenant improvements and relocation costs; and for the human resources information technology 

program. The Committee also limits the funds available until certain actions have been taken. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
152 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Chief 

Financial Officer. The Committee also limits the funds available 

until certain actions have been taken. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Chief 

Information Officer and for the development and acquisition of information technology equipment, software, services, and related activities. 

ANALYSIS AND OPERATIONS

The Committee includes language providing funds for information analysis and operations coordination activities, including funding for official representation expenses. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Office 

of Inspector General as well as certain confidential operational expenses, including the payment of informants. 

TITLE II—SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language making funds available for 

border security, immigration, customs, and agricultural inspections 

and regulatory activities; purchase or lease of vehicles; contracting 

with individuals for personal services; Harbor Maintenance Fee collections; official reception and representation expenses; Customs 

User Fee collections; payment of rental space in connection with 

pre-clearance operations; and compensation of informants. The 

Committee includes language regarding overtime compensation. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

The Committee includes language making funds available for 

automated systems. 

BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY

The Committee includes language making funds available for 

border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology. 

AIR AND MARINE INTERDICTION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND

PROCUREMENT

The Committee includes language making funds available for the 

operations, maintenance, and procurement of marine vessels, aircraft, unmanned aircraft systems, and other equipment; travel; and 

assistance to other law enforcement agencies and humanitarian efforts. The Committee includes language prohibiting the transfer of 

aircraft and related equipment out of Customs and Border ProtecVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
153 

tion unless certain conditions are met. In addition, the Committee 

requires submission of an updated five-year strategic plan for air 

and marine operations. 

CONSTRUCTION AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee includes language making funds available for the 

planning, acquisition, construction, renovating, equipping, and 

maintaining of buildings and facilities. In addition, language is included requiring a real property inventory and construction plan. 

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language making funds available to conduct investigations of criminal violations of Federal law relating to 

border security, customs and trade, immigration and naturalization, and travel and transportation; and for the civil enforcement 

of the immigration and customs laws, including the detention and 

removal of immigration status violators; special operations; official 

reception and representation expenses; compensation to informants; and reimbursement of other Federal agencies for certain 

costs. The Committee includes language regarding overtime compensation and forced child labor laws, as well as a minimum number of detention bed spaces that must be maintained. The Committee also includes language that requires the Secretary to identify illegal aliens who have been convicted of a crime who are eligible for removal. The Committee prohibits the delegation of law enforcement authority for the 287(g) program if terms of the agreement have been violated. The Committee prohibits funds to continue any contract for detention services if two recent evaluations 

are less than adequate. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

The Committee includes language making funds available for 

automated systems. 

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee includes language making funds available to 

plan, construct, renovate, equip, and maintain buildings and facilities. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

AVIATION SECURITY

The Committee includes language making funds available for 

civil aviation security; and establishing conditions under which security fees are collected and credited. The Committee also includes 

language providing funds for reception and representation expenses. The Committee limits staffing to 46,000 full-time equivalent screeners, not including part-time hires, and requires a report 

on advanced technology and staffing deployment. Finally, the bill 

includes language clarifying a variety of people are not exempt 

from screening. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
154 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

The Committee includes language providing funds for surface 

transportation security programs of the Transportation Security 

Administration, including additional surface canine teams for the 

mass transit and maritime domain. 

TRANSPORTATION THREAT ASSESSMENT AND CREDENTIALING

The Committee includes language providing funds for screening 

programs. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY SUPPORT

The Committee includes language providing funds for TSA’s 

transportation security support and intelligence programs. The 

Committee includes language requiring the submission of detailed 

expenditure plans for air cargo, checkpoint support systems, and 

explosive detection systems refurbishment, procurement, and installation. 

FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Federal Air Marshals, and requires an expenditure and staffing plan. 

COAST GUARD

OPERATING EXPENSES

The Committee includes a provision regarding passenger motor 

vehicles, small boats, repairs and service life-replacements, minor 

shore construction projects, recreation and welfare, and the Oil 

Spill Liability Trust Fund. The Committee also includes language 

on reception and representation expenses and on reporting sexual 

assaults. The Committee withholds funding for the Headquarters 

Directorate until certain conditions have been met. 

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

The Committee includes language providing funds for environmental compliance and restoration of the Coast Guard and directs 

the inclusion of costs associated with backlogged projects be included in the annual budget submission. 

RESERVE TRAINING

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Coast 

Guard reserve, including maintenance and operation of the reserve 

program, personnel and training costs, equipment and services. 

AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION

The Committee includes language providing funds for automation systems. 

ACQUISITIONS, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

The Committee includes language providing for funds for the 

Coast Guard acquisition, construction, renovation, and improveVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:29 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
155 

ment of aids to navigation, shore facilities, housing, vessels, and 

aircraft as well as for maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and operations of facilities and equipment. The Committee includes provisions clarifying contracting for long lead time materials, availability of funds for production and post-production costs, and requiring a capital investment plan for future appropriations years 

with certain conditions. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

The Committee includes language providing funds for applied scientific research, development, test, and evaluation; and for maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and operation of facilities and equipment. The Committee includes language available 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

The Committee includes language providing funds for retired pay 

and medical care for the Coast Guard’s retired personnel and their 

dependents and makes these funds available until expended. 

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language that provides funds for the 

purchase and replacement of vehicles; the hire of aircraft; purchase 

of motorcycles; services of expert witnesses as may be necessary; 

rental of certain buildings; improvements to buildings as may be 

necessary for protective missions; per diem and subsistence allowances; firearms matches; presentation of awards; protective travel; 

research and development; grants for behavioral research; official 

reception and representation expenses; technical assistance and 

equipment to foreign law enforcement organizations; advance payment for commercial accommodations; and uniforms. The Committee provides for two-year availability of funds for protective 

travel. The Committee authorizes the obligation of funds in anticipation of reimbursements for training, under certain conditions. 

The Committee also restricts the obligation of funds to compensate 

employees for overtime in an annual amount in excess of $35,000 

except under certain conditions. Finally the Committee prohibits 

funds to be available for the protection of the head of a Federal 

agency other than the Secretary of Homeland Security unless the 

Secret Service has entered into a reimbursable agreement. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

The Committee includes language providing funds for the acquisition, construction, improvement, and related expenses of Secret 

Service facilities. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
156 

TITLE III—PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY 

NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

The Committee includes language providing funds for the Office 

of the Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs Directorate as well as to support business operations and information 

technology. The Committee also includes language providing funds 

for official reception and representation expenses. 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND INFORMATION SECURITY

The Committee includes language making funds available for 

cyber security activities and infrastructure protection, of which certain funds are available until September 30, 2014. 

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended for the operations of the Federal Protective Service. 

OFFICE OF BIOMETRIC IDENTITY MANAGEMENT

The Committee includes language making funds available for the 

Office of Biometric Identity Management. In addition, the Committee requires submission of an expenditure plan as well as a 

multi-year investment and management plan. 

OFFICE OF HEALTH AFFAIRS

The Committee includes language making funds available for 

health affairs, biosurveillance, BioWatch, medical readiness planning, and chemical response. The Committee also includes language providing funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language that provides funds for salaries and expenses. The Committee also includes a provision providing funds for reception and representation expenses, a provision 

limiting administrative costs for Urban Search and Rescue Teams, 

and funding for Mount Weather, and a provision that the Governors of the State of West Virginia and the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania be incorporated into the efforts to integrate the activities within the National Capital Region. 

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

The Committee includes language that provides funds for grants, 

contracts, cooperative agreements, other activities, including grants 

to State and local governments for terrorism prevention. The Committee also includes a provision identifying the amount of funds 

available for Operation Stonegarden and for National Programs. 

The Committee includes language specifying the conditions under 

which both applications and grants are made to certain grants 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
157 

made in the Act. The Committee also includes language specifying 

the conditions for distribution of certain grants. The Committee includes a provision allowing for a transfer to FEMA Salaries and 

Expenses. The Committee includes a provision on training reimbursement for the Center for Domestic Preparedness 

FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

The Committee includes language that not to exceed 4.7 percent 

of the total is available for program administration and requires an 

expenditure plan for program administration. 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS

The Committee includes language providing that 2.7 percent of 

the total appropriation is available for program administration. 

RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

The Committee includes a provision regarding charges assessed 

for the radiological emergency preparedness program, including 

conditions and methodology for the assessment and collection of 

fees. 

UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION

The Committee includes language that provides funds for expenses of the U.S. Fire Administration. 

DISASTER RELIEF

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended and requires a variety of reporting requirements. 

DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

The Committee includes a provision limiting gross obligations for 

direct loans. 

FLOOD HAZARD MAPPING AND RISK ANALYSIS

The Committee includes language making funds available for 

flood hazard mapping, including administrative costs. 

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

The Committee includes language limiting funds available for 

salaries and expenses and language making funds available for 

flood hazard mitigation floodplain management available until September 30, 2014. The Committee includes provisions limiting operating expenses; for interest on Treasury borrowings; for agents’ 

commissions and taxes; for fees collected and available for floodplain management; and for flood mitigation activities associated 

with sections of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The 

Committee includes language permitting additional fees collected 

be credited as an offsetting collection and available for floodplain 

management, The Committee includes language providing that not 

to exceed four percent of the total appropriation is available for administrative costs. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
158 

NATIONAL PREDISASTER MITIGATION FUND

The Committee includes language authorizing grant awards to be 

available until expended. The Committee includes a provision limiting total administrative costs to three percent of the total appropriation. 

EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER

The Committee includes language making funds available until 

expended and limiting total administrative costs to 3.5 percent of 

the total appropriation. 

TITLE IV—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND 

SERVICES 

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

The Committee includes language making funds available for the 

E-Verify program, as well as permitting replacement of vehicles. 

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee includes language making funds available for official representation expenses; purchase of police type pursuit vehicles; student athletic and related recreational activities; conducting 

and participating in firearms matches; public awareness and community support; room and board; services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 

3109; law enforcement accreditation; reimbursements for certain 

mobile phone expenses. The Committee includes 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. The Committee also includes 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

The Committee includes language making funds available for 

real property and facilities and authorizes reimbursement from 

government agencies requesting construction of special use facilities. 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

The Committee includes language providing funds for management and administration as well as official reception and representation expenses. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS

The Committee includes language making funds available for research, development, test and evaluation; acquisition; and operations. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
159 

DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

The Committee includes language that provides funds for management and administration. The Committee also includes a provision providing funds for reception and representation expenses, and 

requires a strategic investment plan for implementation of Department of Homeland Security responsibilities under the domestic 

component of the global nuclear detection architecture. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ACQUISITION, AND OPERATIONS

The Committee includes language making funds available for nuclear detection research, development, testing and evaluation. 

SYSTEMS ACQUISITION

The Committee includes language making funds available for the 

purchase and deployment of radiation detection equipment. 

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, 2013, for obligation 

and deobligation of funds. 

Language prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made 

available to the Department to make payment to the Working Capital Fund (WCF), except for activities and amounts allowed in the 

President’s fiscal year 2013 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 2013 from appropriations made for salaries and expenses remain available through fiscal year 2014 subject to reprogramming guidelines. 

Language providing that funds for intelligence activities are 

deemed to be specifically authorized during fiscal year 2013 until 

the enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for fiscal 

year 2013. 

Language requiring notification of the Committees on Appropriations three days before grant allocations, grant awards, contract 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
160 

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 multi-year 

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 day 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. 

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 on reporting requirements for the DHS Privacy Officer. 

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. 

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 requiring any funds appropriated to the Coast Guard’s 

110–123 foot patrol boat conversion that are recovered, collected, or 

otherwise received as a result of negotiation, mediation, or litigation, be available until expended for the Fast Response Cutter program. 

Language relating to undercover investigative operations authority of the Secret Service for fiscal year 2013. 

Language classifying the functions of the instructor staff at 

FLETC as inherently governmental for purposes of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act. 

Language prohibiting the obligation of funds to the Office of the 

Secretary and Executive Management, the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer for grants or contracts awarded by any means other than full 

and open competition. Certain exceptions apply, and this provision 

does not require new competitions of existing contracts during their 

current terms. The bill also requires the Inspector General to review Departmental contracts awarded noncompetitively and report 

on the results to the Committees. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
161 

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. 

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 2013. 

Language requiring the Secretary to link all contracts that provide award fees to successful acquisition outcomes. 

Language prohibiting the obligation of funds for the Office of Secretary and Executive Management for any new hires at DHS if 

they are not verified through E-Verify. 

Language 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. 

Language prohibiting funds for the planning, testing, piloting, or 

developing a national identification card. 

Language requiring the Administrator of TSA to certify that no 

security risks will result if an airport does not participate in the 

E-Verify program. 

Language relating to the liquidation of Plum Island assets and 

how the proceeds from this sale may be applied to construction 

costs of the new National Bio and Agro-defense Facility. 

Language directing that any official required by this Act to report or certify to the Committees on Appropriations may not delegate any authority unless expressly authorized to do so in this Act. 

Language extending the date of the chemical security program. 

Language prohibiting the use of funds for the transfer or release 

of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

Language prohibiting funds in this Act to be used for first-class 

travel. 

Language prohibiting funds in this Act to be used for adverse 

personnel actions for employees who use protective equipment or 

measures, including surgical masks, N95 respirators, gloves, or 

hand-sanitizers in the conduct of their official duties. 

Language prohibiting funds to be used to employ illegal workers 

as described in Section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Language on the proper disposal of personal information collected through the Registered Traveler program. A report on procedures and status is required to be submitted 30 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act. 

Language prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made 

available by this Act to pay for award or incentive fees for contractors with below satisfactory performance or performance that fails 

to meet the basic requirements of the contract. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
162 

Language requiring the Administrator of TSA to submit quarterly reports on how the agency will meet the requirement to 

screen 100 percent of air cargo transportation on passenger aircraft 

arriving in the United States. 

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 

$9,200,000, in fiscal year 2013. 

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 permitting the Secretary to dispose of Service Processing Centers or other ICE-owned detention facilities by directing 

GSA to sell all real and related property subject to such terms and 

conditions as necessary to protect Government interests and meet 

program requirements, provided that the proceeds of the sale shall 

be deposited as offsetting collections and shall be available and 

subject to appropriation. 

Language prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made 

available by this Act from being provided to the Association of 

Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). 

Language directing the DHS CIO, CBP, and ICE to submit to the 

Committees at the time of the budget proposal for fiscal year 2014, 

updated multi-year investment and management plans. 

Language requiring the Secretary to enforce existing immigration laws. 

Language requiring the Secretary to ensure that the fees collected as described in the United States-Columbia Free Trade Promotion Agreement Act of 2011 be available to CBP in fiscal year 

2014 and subsequent fiscal years. 

Language extending the authorization of E-Verify through the 

end of fiscal year 2013. 

Language restricting travel aboard Coast Guard owned or operated fixed-wing aircraft after the date of submission of the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2014 if the Secretary has not 

provided the Committee with the required Comprehensive Acquisition Strategy Report and the Commandant has not provided the required Capital Investment Plan; provided certain exceptions may 

be made for national emergencies. 

Language regarding the Coast Guard acquisition processes and 

definitions, and directing the Coast Guard to follow specific guidelines when submitting costs related to the construction or conversion of a cutter. 

Language directing the President, through FEMA, to establish 

new procedures to administer assistance for debris and wreckage 

removal provided under certain sections of the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. 

Language regarding the allotment and use of funds for DHS— 

NPPD Infrastructure Protection and Information Security, and requiring quarterly reports from the Undersecretary of NPPD on the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
163 

obligation and expenditure of funds made available under this section. 

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 directing OMB to instruct any department, agency, or 

instrument of the Government receiving funds appropriated in this 

Act, to track undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts and 

include in its annual performance plan, and performance and accountability reports, additional details, as outlined. 

Language including a new provision regarding funding restrictions and reporting requirements regarding conferences occurring 

outside of the United States. 

Language regarding funding restrictions and reporting requirements for conferences, ceremonies, commissionings, and de-commissionings for which the cost to the Government was more than 

$20,000. 

Language prohibiting funds made available by this act from 

being used to enter into a contract or agreement with, or provide 

a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation that was convicted of 

a felony criminal violation within the last 24 months. 

Language prohibiting funds made from being used to enter into 

a contract or agreement with any corporation that has any unpaid 

Federal tax liabilities. 

Language rescinding unobligated balances from FEMA’s 

Predisaster Mitigation Fund. 

Language rescinding unobligated balances from Coast Guard— 

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements and CBP—Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology. 

Language permanently rescinding funds from the Department of 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund. 

Language rescinding unobligated balances made available to the 

Department when it was created in 2003. 

Language prohibiting new budget authority from exceeding the 

budget allocation in fiscal year 2013. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill that are not authorized by law: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
164 

FY 2013 SCHEDULE OF UNAUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Agency/program Last year of authorization Authorized level Appropriation in last year of authorization Appropriations in this bill 

Customs and Border Protection, Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................. 2004 1 $3,083,259 2 $4,396,350 $8,366,024 

Customs and Border Protection, Automation Modernization ........................................................................ N/A N/A N/A $700,242 Customs and Border Protection, Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology, Tactical Communications 3 ............................................................................................................................................ N/A N/A N/A $327,099 

Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement ......................................................................................................................................................... N/A N/A N/A $518,469 Customs and Border Protection, Construction and Facilities Management ................................................ N/A N/A N/A $252,567 Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Salaries and Expenses ................................................................ 4 2003/6 2004 4 N/A/$1,399,592.43 5 $3,032,094; 7 N/A $5,236,331 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Automation Modernization ........................................................... 4 2003 N/A $380,000 $232,006 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Construction ................................................................................ 4 2003 N/A 4 $258,637 $5,450 

Transportation Security Administration, Aviation Security ........................................................................... 2011 N/A $5,219,546 $5,041,230 Transportation Security Administration, Surface Transportation Security ................................................... 2011 N/A $105,961 $126,418 Transportation Security Administration, Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing ................ 2005 Such sums $54,919 $192,424 Transportation Security Administration, Transportation Security Support ................................................... N/A N/A N/A $928,663 Transportation Security Administration, Federal Air Marshall Service ........................................................ 2011 Such sums $929,802 $879,600 United States Coast Guard, Operating Expenses ......................................................................................... 2011 $6,970,681 10 $6,907,388 $6,759,627 

United States Coast Guard, Environmental Compliance and Restoration .................................................. 2011 $13,329 $13,198 $12,151 United States Coast Guard, Reserve Training ............................................................................................. 2011 $135,675 $133,632 $115,528 United States Coast Guard, Acquisition Construction, and Improvements ................................................. 2011 $1,640,000 $1,519,783 $1,428,593 United States Coast Guard, Research Development Test and Evaluation .................................................. 2011 $28,034 $24,745 $19,690 United States Coast Guard, Retired Pay ...................................................................................................... 2011 $1,400,700 $1,400,700 $1,423,000 United States Secret Service, Salaries and Expenses 8 ............................................................................... 2010 N/A N/A $1,556,055 

United States Secret Service, Acquisition, Construction, Improvements and Related Expenses ................ N/A N/A N/A $56,750 Office of Health Affairs 9 .............................................................................................................................. N/A N/A N/A $132,003 

FEMA Management and Administration: Urban Search and Rescue Response System ............................. 2008 $45,000 $32,500 $27,513 FEMA, State and Local Programs: Operation Stonegarden .......................................................................... N/A N/A N/A $55,000,000 FEMA, State and Local Programs: Citizen Corps Program .......................................................................... N/A N/A N/A N/A FEMA, State and Local Programs: Metropolitan Medical Response System ................................................ 2008 $63,885 $41,000 N/A FEMA, State and Local Programs: Driver’s License Security Program ........................................................ 2009 Such sums $50,000 N/A FEMA, State and Local Programs: Buffer Zone Protection Program Grants ................................................ N/A N/A N/A N/A Assistance for Firefighters grants (equipment) ........................................................................................... 2009 $1,000,000 $565,000 $335,000 Assistance for Firefighters grants ................................................................................................................ 2010 $1,194,000 $420,000 $335,000 FEMA, State and Local Programs: Public Transportation Security Assistance ............................................ 2011 $1,100,000 $300,000 N/A FEMA, State and Local Programs: Over-the-Road Bus Security Assistance ............................................... 2011 $25,000 N/A N/A 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
165 

FEMA, State and Local Programs: Port Security Grants .............................................................................. 2011 $400,000 $300,000 N/A FEMA, Flood Map Modernization Fund (Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis) ................................... 2011 N/A $182,000 $89,329 FEMA, National Predisaster Mitigation Fund ................................................................................................ 2011 $180,000 $50,000 $10,000 FEMA, Emergency Food and Shelter ............................................................................................................. 1994 $187,560 $130,000 $120,000 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services .................................................................................. 2002 $631,745 $707,392 $111,924 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Salaries & Expenses ................................................................ N/A N/A N/A $228,467 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Acquisition Construction and Improvements Related Expenses ...................................................................................................................................................... N/A N/A N/A $27,385 

1 For FY 2004, P.L. 107–210, section 311(b)(1) authorized $1,683,667,050 for Commercial Activities and section 311(a)(2) authorized $1,399,592,400 for non-Commercial Activities; in FY 2002 ‘‘Such Sums’’ were authorized for Agriculture, 

Plant and Health Inspection Service, which received $730,710,000 in appropriations; and in FY 2003 $2,739,695,000 was authorized for Immigration and Naturalization Service—inspection, investigations, Border Patrol, detention and deportation only, and $3,195,094 was appropriated as follows: $2,862,094,000 for FY 2003 INS Salaries and Expenses appropriation, and $333,000,000 for FY 2003 Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, P.L. 108–11. P.L. 109–347, for FY 2010: section 203(g)(3) $37,485,000 for ‘‘Automated Targeting System’’, and section 205(m) (3) $153,300,000 for the Container Security Initiative. P.L. 109–347, for FY 2011, section 223(b)(5) $20,000,000 for Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism; and 19 U.S.C. 2075, as amended, section 301(h)(3)(D) for up to 1000 additional Customs and Border Protection Officers, $165,000,000. 2 Total for Salaries and Expenses, including for unauthorized activities such as immigration inspection and enforcement, Border Patrol, air and marine enforcement operations, and agriculture inspections. 3 CBP/BSFIT only authorized for ‘‘improvement of barriers at the border.’’ 

4 Immigration and Naturalization Service—inspection, investigations, Border Patrol, detention and deportation only (8 U.S.C. 1101, note; Immigration and Nationality Act, section 404(a)). 5 Includes $2,862,094,000 from the FY 2003 INS Salaries and Expenses appropriations, and $170,000,000 included in the FY 2003 Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, P.L. 108–11. 6 Customs Service, including the investigations function (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)). 7 No 2004 appropriation for the U.S. Customs Service. 8 2010 law authorizes appropriations for Uniformed Division. 9 The Chief Medical Officer is authorized in P.L. 109–295 and the National Biosurveillance Integration Center is authorized in P.L. 110–053, Section 1101. 10 Includes $254,000,000 appropriated for OCO directly to DHS/CG. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
166 

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 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees: Subcommittee on Homeland Security 

General Purpose Discretionary .............................................. 44,598 45,194 44,598 1 45,194 

Mandatory ............................................................................. 1,423 1,431 1,423 1,431 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

FIVE YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, the following 

table contains five-year projections associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying bill: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2013 ........................................................................................................... 2 26,230 

2014 ........................................................................................................... 8,988 

2015 ........................................................................................................... 5,601 

2016 ........................................................................................................... 2,715 

2017 and future years .............................................................................. 2,169 2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, the financial 

assistance to state and local governments is as follows: 

Millions 

Budget Authority ....................................................................................................................................................... 5,449 

Outlays ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 343 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Pursuant to section 6(e) of the rules of the Committee on Appropriations, the following statement is submitted regarding the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the 

accompanying bill. 

The principal constitutional authority for this legislation 

is clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution of 

the United States (the appropriation power), which states: 

‘‘No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . .’’ In addition, 

clause 1 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution (the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
167 

spending power) provides: ‘‘The Congress shall have the 

Power . . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common 

Defence and general welfare of the United States . . .’’ Together, these specific constitutional provisions establish 

the congressional power of the purse, granting Congress 

the authority to appropriate funds, to determine their purpose, amount, and period of availability and to set forth 

terms and conditions governing their use. 

DETAILED EXPLANATIONS IN REPORT

The following table contains detailed funding recommendations 

at the program, project, and activity (PPA) level. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
168 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 002 here 73885.001
169 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 003 here 73885.002
170 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 004 here 73885.003
171 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 005 here 73885.004
172 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 006 here 73885.005
173 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 007 here 73885.006
174 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 008 here 73885.007
175 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 009 here 73885.008
176 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 0010 here 73885.009
177 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 0011 here 73885.010
178 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 0012 here 73885.011
179 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 0013 here 73885.012
180 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 0014 here 73885.013
181 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 0015 here 73885.014
182 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 0016 here 73885.015
183 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 0017 here 73885.016
184 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 0018 here 73885.017
185 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 0019 here 73885.018
186 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 0020 here 73885.019
187 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 0021 here 73885.020
188 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 0022 here 73885.021
189 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 0023 here 73885.022
190 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 0024 here 73885.023
191 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 0025 here 73885.024
192 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 0026 here 73885.025
193 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 0027 here 73885.026
194 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 5 here 73885.027
195 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 6 here 73885.028
196 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 7 here 73885.029
197 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 8 here 73885.030
198 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 9 here 73885.031
199 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 10 here 73885.032
(200) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

This bill largely continues the Subcommittee’s bipartisan tradition of cooperation and we sincerely appreciate the open and collaborative process undertaken by the majority, culminating with 

the fiscal year 2013 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill. We are supportive of the funding levels provided in the 

bill, with certain exceptions; we object however, to a number of unnecessary policy provisions. 

The bill provides adequate funding for the front line employees 

of the Department of Homeland Security, so that they can continue 

to conduct critical operations along our borders, protect our nation’s 

airports and seaports, and respond to the spate of natural disasters 

our country experiences. The bill substantially increases funding 

for critical grant programs while rejecting the Administration’s 

poorly articulated changes to the grant structure-—changes that 

have not been authorized. Specifically, we are pleased that funding 

for FEMA State and Local grants was increased by $413 million 

over fiscal year 2012, and that both fire grants and emergency performance grants are funded at the requested levels. Equally important, the bill provides ample funding for research and development 

efforts in the Department, most notably at the Science and Technology Directorate, allowing work on all high priority research efforts to continue as well as new projects to begin. The bill also increases funding for critical Coast Guard, as well as Air and Marine, 

acquisitions, to recapitalize aging assets while bringing the latest 

aviation and vessel technologies on line to ensure these personnel 

can operate more effectively. The bill keeps intact the agreement 

Congress enacted last year as part of the Budget Control Act but 

only as it relates to disaster spending. And finally the bill includes 

a substantial increase for cyber security protective efforts to continuously monitor and detect intrusions to our Federal networks 

from foreign espionage and cyber attacks. 

CONCERNS WITH THE BILL: OVERALL FUNDING LEVEL

We are disappointed that House Republicans unilaterally walked away from the bipartisan agreement to establish $1.047 trillion as 

the Committee’s overall allocation. A majority of their conference 

voted for the Budget Control Act agreement less than nine months 

ago. By reneging on the agreement, and disregarding the law, the 

Committee has been forced to absorb $19 billion in reductions 

below the Budget Control Act levels, mainly to finance tax reductions for the wealthiest Americans. This puts House Republicans at 

odds with House Democrats, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans, and the White House. Senate Minority Leader McConnell 

recently voted for allocations at $1.047 trillion, and Ranking Member Cochran stated that it is appropriate ‘‘for the Committee to proceed on the basis of the discretionary caps enacted into law.’’ House 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
201 

Republicans have thus introduced uncertainty about the overall 

discretionary allocation and raised questions about the intent of 

the House majority to keep the government running. This uncertainty will slow down the appropriations process, and the austere 

House allocation, if it stands, could stall economic growth and impede job creation. 

BURDENSOME IMMIGRATION PROVISIONS

While we appreciate the willingness of the Chairman to continue 

statutory language on the deportation of criminal aliens, continued 

oversight of 287(g) agreements, and funding increases for the Alternatives to Detention program, we have serious reservations about 

expanded immigration provisions included in this bill, which constitute an unwise use of taxpayer resources. 

We strongly oppose inclusion of statutory language mandating 

that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) maintain a level 

of not less than 34,000 detention beds through September 30, 2013, 

which is 1,200 more beds than the budget request. This language 

may compromise ICE’s ability to satisfy its stated enforcement priorities and accomplish detention reform. As ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton has stated, not only does this language mandate that he maintain 34,000 detention beds, but that he fill those 

beds with detainees on a daily basis. 

While we have no problem funding the capacity for 32,800 beds, 

as requested, the use of those beds should be determined by the enforcement actions and judgment of ICE on whether detention is required for particular detainees based upon flight risk and danger 

posed to the public. Mandating government spending on a pre-set 

number of detention spaces is contrary to the government’s priorities to reform the detention system and target its use for only 

those individuals who require it. Further, in an environment of fiscal restraint, telling a federal agency that they’re not permitted to 

spend less than a certain amount limits the ability of ICE to 

achieve its objectives with a savings to the taxpayer. For example, 

this bill could provide ICE the flexibility, as requested, to transfer 

funds between immigration detention and the Alternatives to Detention program, commensurate with the level of risk a detainee 

present, yet it does not. This flexibility could result in significant 

daily cost savings. Furthermore, we are unaware of any other law 

enforcement agency with a statutory requirement to detain no less 

than a certain number of individuals on a daily basis. 

In addition to a set figure for detention beds, the bill includes 

new statutory spending floors for both worksite enforcement and 

the 287(g) program. In regards to worksite enforcement, the bill 

has never included a statutory minimum funding level. Similar to 

our concern about detention beds, we should not be telling a federal 

agency that they are not able to spend less than $134.6 million on 

worksite enforcement efforts. This language reduces Assistant Secretary Morton’s flexibility to respond to current immigration concerns or changing conditions. 

The bill raises the minimum amount ICE must spend on the 

287(g) program from $5.4 million to $68.3 million. We are concerned about a twelve-fold increase to the statutory minimum for 

a program that nine years after it was first initiated has had reVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:07 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
202 

peated documentation of abuses and poor management. Three audits by the DHS Inspector General have found serious concerns 

about the 287(g) program, and ICE has had to terminate some 

287(g) Taskforces, notably in Maricopa County, Arizona, after the 

Justice Department clearly documented racial profiling and other 

programmatic abuses. The Administration’s FY 2013 budget sought 

to reduce funding for the 287(g) program by $17 million, and ICE 

has notified communities that they will no longer consider any 

287(g) taskforce model requests from states and local jurisdictions. 

Instead these funds were to be devoted to the expansion of other 

ICE programs and the continued deployment of Secure Communities, a program to check immigration status that is more cost-effective than 287(g) and that distinguishes federal and local authority more precisely. Yet, the bill both rejects the requested decrease 

and raises the statutory floor that must be spent on this flawed 

program, reducing the Administration’s ability to fund more effective immigration initiatives. As the Secure Communities program 

reaches nationwide operability in FY 2013, the 287(g) program 

should be reduced, not continued at this arbitrarily high level. 

REDUCTIONS TO FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY

Recognizing that the majority had to make cuts to meet the Ryan 

budget figures, it is nonetheless disappointing that the bill fails to 

provide funding for construction activities at the new DHS headquarters and to consolidate data center activities. Both of these decisions are penny-wise and pound foolish. Specifically, the bill does not fund the request of $64.8 million in 

fiscal year 2013 that would have permitted DHS to migrate component resources to two consolidated data centers, a project that is 

already under way and will reduce the risk of locating all of the 

Department’s data at one facility or at aging, non-DHS facilities 

that are already overloaded. The bill also fails to provide the $89 

million for site access, including necessary road and interchange 

improvements, for DHS personnel to access the new DHS headquarters. The new DHS headquarters project has been shortchanged over the past few years, causing repeated schedule delays 

and increasing the costs from $3.4 billion to just over $4 billion if 

all three phases are constructed. In the interim, the Coast Guard 

may be the only tenant at this new facility for the next 3–5 years, 

as the bill funds only this relocation in 2013. The bill does not include any funding for Phase 2, which was to begin construction for 

DHS central headquarters and FEMA. We would hope to increase 

this level of funding as the bill progresses towards enactment because, in the long run, this would save taxpayer funds and improve 

agency performance. 

At the same time that this bill eliminates funding for vital initia- tives, it includes $75 million that was not requested for the National Bio and Agro-defense Facility in Manhattan, Kansas. While 

we have supported the construction of this facility, our support has 

been contingent upon completion of a site security risk assessment 

to ensure that this facility does not release harmful pathogens, 

such as the foot-and-mouth virus, into America’s heartland. The 

first review indicated a 70 percent risk over a 50 year period. EarVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:07 May 24, 2012 Jkt 074222 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
203 

lier this year, the Department indicated this risk has been greatly 

mitigated with additional design features. However, the National 

Academy of Science is reviewing the revised site security risk assessment now, and until the results are published we believe it is 

premature to appropriate additional funds for NBAF construction. 

This is especially true when funding from fiscal years 2011 and 

2012 remains unobligated. DHS tells us that these previous appropriations will support all construction activities through fiscal year 

2013. We believe the $75 million included in this bill should be reallocated to critical research projects within the Science and Technology Directorate or to other critical construction activities, such 

as the new DHS headquarters, instead of being provided to NBAF. 

OVERLY BURDENSOME OVERSIGHT PROVISIONS IMPACT PEOPLE’S

ABILITY TO DO THEIR JOBS

While we are pleased by the bill’s commitment to oversight—a 

theme this Subcommittee has held constant since the Department 

was formed in 2003—we are concerned that the bill applies overly 

punitive withholdings and burdensome restrictions on the Secretary, Under Secretary for Management, Chief Financial Officer, 

Commandant and Vice Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the 

Customs and Border Protection. 

It is interesting to recall that when the Democrats were in the 

majority, additional views submitted by the Full Committee and 

Subcommittee Chairmen on our bills noted vehement opposition to 

withholdings of funds and additional restrictions because it delayed 

essential security resources. Yet, three years later, this bill withholds 60 percent of all funding appropriated for the Secretary, 

Under Secretary, and CFO offices until receipt of all statutorily reports and plans required at the time the budget is submitted; 10 

percent (or $836.6 million) from CBP Salaries and Expenses; and 

37 percent (or $75 million) from Coast Guard Headquarters due to 

failures to submit statutorily required plans. While we agree that 

the Department has been unacceptably delinquent in providing 

statutorily required reports that are critical to our decision making, 

the withholdings in the bill are particularly excessive this year. 

These withholdings enter the realm of parody with the addition 

of a new General Provision that prohibits the Secretary, Deputy 

Secretary, Commandant or Vice Commandant of the Coast Guard 

to use their aircraft, except in limited emergency situations, until 

receipt of the comprehensive acquisition review plan and the Coast 

Guard’s Capital Investment Plan. We were disappointed that an 

amendment we offered striking these excessive and redundant restrictions on the use of Coast Guard aircraft was not accepted in 

Full Committee. 

Both of these provisions are extreme, and the withholdings will 

compromise the ability of DHS leaders to do their jobs. We will continue to voice our concerns about these issues and attempt to work 

with the Majority in an effort to further improve the bill as it 

moves toward enactment. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
204 

ABORTION AMENDMENT ADOPTED IN FULL COMMITTEE

Over Democratic objections, the Full Committee adopted three 

General Provisions on abortion. These amendments: (1) prohibit 

federal funds to be used to pay for abortions except which the life 

of the mother would be endangered or in the case of rape; (2) prohibit funds for a person to perform or facilitate the performance of 

an abortion; and (3) permit Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

to provide escort services for a female detainee to receive abortion 

services outside the detention facility (if she pays), with an exception for philosophical beliefs. While these provisions have been in 

the Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations bill intermittently 

since at least 1987, they have NEVER been carried on the DHS appropriations bill. And the provisions offered did not even include an 

exception for incest, which we modified by amendment. 

However, even with the additional exception for incest, there is 

no reason that this language should be on the Department of 

Homeland Security bill, other than for political gamesmanship. 

This Department was formed in 2003. Since that time, neither the 

first nor the second Chairman of the Subcommittee felt the need 

to add these three abortion amendments to the bill, because they 

are unnecessary. ICE already follows the procedures laid out for 

the Bureau of Prisons, prohibiting the use of federal funds to provide abortions. In fact, ICE has not paid for an abortion procedure 

throughout the entire course of the Obama Administration, and 

any services provided by ICE in the last decade have been solely 

for post-miscarriage care. 

Numerous restrictions in law have already conditioned and qualified reproductive choice in practice. Among those are prohibitions 

on the use of federal funds for abortion procedures in President 

Obama’s Executive Order 13535, issued on March 24, 2010, which 

we believe specifically applies to ICE and the Department of Homeland Security. 

Having met with numerous ICE agents and the Director, not 

once has anyone mentioned to this Committee that women’s reproductive health makes their job more difficult. The focus of this bill 

should be equipping our Homeland Security professionals with the 

tools they need to keep us safe. Weighing down this bill with divisive, ideological riders is a disservice to our entire first responder 

community. 

It is a shame that we have had to cast aside the bipartisan and 

cooperative effort we have shared in crafting this bill for a politically charged amendment that accomplishes nothing and makes no 

change whatsoever in current law or procedures. We will continue 

to oppose these redundant, unnecessary, and provocative provisions. 

NORMAN D. DICKS. 

DAVID E. PRICE. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS